*Corresponding Author 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERACTION EFFECTS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL 
CURIOSITY AND CREATIVITY OF THE 
ENTREPRENEUR ON COMPANY GROWTH 
 
Žiga Peljko* 
GEA College – Faculty of 
Entrepreneurship, 
 Slovenia 
ziga.peljko@gmail.com 
Jasna Auer Antončič 
University of Primorska,  
Slovenia 
jasna.auer@fm-kp.si 
 
Abstract 
 
In this research, a model including relationships between entrepreneurial 
curiosity, the creativity of the entrepreneur, the curiosity-creativity interaction 
term and company growth was conceptually proposed and empirically tested 
on data from entrepreneurs in three European countries. The purpose of the 
research was to investigate the connections between the psychological 
constructs of the entrepreneur and growth of the company. The authors' 
intention with the research  was to ascertain how entrepreneurial openness 
and creativity of the entrepreneur are connected either individually or 
together with growth of the company. The aim was to determine whether 
entrepreneurial curiosity interacts with creativity to positively influence 
business growth. The models and hypotheses were tested with structural 
equation modelling. The interaction effects in the structural model were 
examined in two ways (with both an interaction construct and a new 
interaction variable). This study adds to what is known about 
entrepreneurship by providing supporting empirical evidence concerning the 
relationship between the creativity of the entrepreneur and company growth, 
and some empirical evidence on the non-existence of relationships between 
entrepreneurial curiosity and growth and between the curiosity-creativity 
interaction term and growth. The growth of a company can in some countries 
be developed based on the creativity of the entrepreneur. Interaction effects 
may need to be given more emphasis in future research. 
 
Key Words 
Entrepreneurial curiosity; creativity; interaction effects; entrepreneur; 
growth. 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
38 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Entrepreneurship makes an important contribution to economic development 
and growth (Carree and Thurik, 2010; Carland et al., 2015; Rietveld et al. 
2016), which means job creation, unemployment reduction, and economic 
development (Audretsch et al., 2001; Thurik, 2003; Audretsch et al., 2006; 
Georgiou, 2006; Buddelmeyer et al., 2009; Roig-Tierno et al., 2015). Growth 
in entrepreneurship is studied as an element of company performance 
(Kiviluoto, 2013). 
It makes sense to study entrepreneurs as the main engine of 
development and growth (e.g., Carland et al., 2002; Jayawarna et al., 2013; 
Amit et al. 2015). Entrepreneurs have distinct personality traits (Cooper and 
Dunkelberg, 1987). Still, the authors’ literature review showed that 
researchers have studied certain determinants with an influence on 
entrepreneurial behaviour, for instance: 
 innovativeness (Mueller and Thomas, 2001; Marcati et al., 2008; 
Tikkamäki et al., 2015); 
 creativity (Shalley, 1991; Ward, 2004; DiLiello and Houghton, 2006); 
 the Big Five personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, 
conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience) (Zhao et 
al., 2010; Ciavarella et al., 2004; Antončič et al., 2015); 
 entrepreneurial curiosity (Jeraj and Antončič, 2013; Jeraj and Marič, 
2013; Jeraj 2014a, 2014b); 
 entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger et al., 2000; Boyd and Vozikis 
1994; Crant 1996); 
 optimism (Fraser and Greene 2006; Dushnitsky 2010; Liang and 
Dunn, 2008); and 
 stress (Cardon and Patel, 2015; Jensen, 2012; Baron et al., 2013). 
Entrepreneurial success is typically revealed in company growth (Gupta 
et al., 2013), which may be regarded as a crucial concept in 
entrepreneurship or even as a synonym for entrepreneurship (Davidsson et 
al., 2006) and a key element of company performance (Antončič and Hisrich, 
2001). Entrepreneurship studies focus on entrepreneurial success as well as 
the entrepreneur’s behavioural patterns or personality traits (Antončič et al., 
2015; Duman, 2015; Lussier and Corman, 2015). The personality 
determinants of firm growth have been studied separately or together in 
models, while the interactions have mostly been ignored. This research fills 
this gap by addressing the effect of the interaction of two personality 
determinants (entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity) on company growth. 
The purpose of this research was to investigate the links between the 
psychological constructs of the entrepreneur and growth of the company. 
The authors’ intention with the research was to establish how entrepreneurial 
openness and creativity of the entrepreneur are connected individually or 
together with growth of the company. The aim was to determine whether 
entrepreneurial curiosity interacts with creativity to positively influence 
business growth. The primary goal was to fill a gap in the literature 
concerning the connection of the studied constructs of the entrepreneur with 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
39 
growth of the company; the aim was to obtain data for a sample of 
entrepreneurs, analyze it with statistical methods and interpret the results in 
a relevant way. 
 
 
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES 
 
Curiosity is represented by the cyclical acquisition of ever more information 
due to the emergence of ever more knowledge gaps (Harvey et al., 2007) 
and motivates research behavior with the desire for new information, as 
aroused by new, complex or ambiguous stimuli (Litman et al., 2005). 
Entrepreneurial curiosity is a positive emotional-motivational system 
considered in research into the entrepreneurial framework, learning tasks 
related to entrepreneurship, and incorporating new experiences in the 
direction of improving business (Jeraj, 2014b). Entrepreneurial curiosity is 
stimulated when an entrepreneur is confronted by various stimuli in the 
environment related to entrepreneurship (Jeraj and Antončič, 2013). 
Ulhøi (2005) states that to be successful an entrepreneur must develop a 
special understanding or possess special information that enables them to 
discover and develop entrepreneurial opportunities. Peljko et al. (2016) 
found that entrepreneurial curiosity positively influences innovativeness. 
Jeraj and Antončič (2013) note that entrepreneurial curiosity impacts the 
entrepreneur’s search for new opportunities and the expansion of the 
company's business. 
On the other side, Ardichvili et al. (2003) contend that developing 
opportunities requires the entrepreneur to engage in creative work. From this 
viewpoint, it seems reasonable to assume that both entrepreneurial curiosity 
and entrepreneurial creativity are necessary for the development of 
entrepreneurial opportunities, which are a condition for a company’s growth. 
Raine and Pandya (2019) argued that curiosity, creativity and commitment 
are the key drivers of entrepreneurship success. In a survey of 
entrepreneurial curiosity, Jeraj et al. (2015) found that entrepreneurial 
curiosity directly affects a company’s growth because entrepreneurial 
curiosity (and entrepreneurial openness) can affect entrepreneurs in their 
everyday jobs as well as their company's growth. This leads to the following 
hypothesis: 
 
H1: Entrepreneurial curiosity has a positive effect on company growth. 
 
Creativity means establishing new ideas and commercializing new ideas 
in terms of innovation (Basadur, 2004). Creativity is an indicator of genius 
(Perry-Smith and Mannucci, 2015) and an incentive for an entrepreneurial 
culture (Edwards-Schachter et al., 2015). Originality, usefulness, flexibility 
and mobility can be the main criteria for creativity (Štemberger, 2013). The 
imaginative recombination of elements from the past into new configurations 
needed in the present means creativity (Torrance, 1988). Activities (mental 
and physical) that lead to original tangible or intangible useful and desirable 
outcomes determine creativity (Kampylis et al., 2009). Creativity arises from 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
40 
the basis of the mutual relationship between the individual and society 
(Trstenjak, 1981). Creativity is what separates humans from other species 
(Ko and Butler, 2007). Creativity and entrepreneurship tend to be closely 
related (Tiwari and Verma, 2020). The focus in this study is on creativity on 
the individual/entrepreneurial level. Entrepreneurs tend to be creative 
because creativity is related to the nature of their work (Antonio et al., 2014). 
The entrepreneurial role demands individual creativity and imagination that 
lead to the creation of business concepts and products/services and seizing 
of opportunities (Amabile, 1997; Zhou, 2008; Nisula and Olander, 2020). 
Entrepreneurial creativity and opportunity recognition tend to be positively 
linked to entrepreneurs' career success (Chang and Chen, 2020). Peljko et 
al. (2017) found a positive relationship between the entrepreneur’s creative 
abilities and growth of the company in a combined sample from Slovenia and 
the United States of America but not in a sample from Serbia, possibly 
making it important to re-examine this relationship. Entrepreneurs are 
constantly faced with uncertainty and encounter questions for which they 
have no clear answer. New ideas lead to the identification of new and better 
ways and bring the planned positive results (Zhou and George 2001). A 
creative entrepreneur thinks of something else despite seeing the same 
things as everyone else (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). The authors 
operationalise the above in the hypothesis: 
 
H2: Entrepreneurial creativity has a positive effect on company growth. 
 
Steinmetz et al. (2011) emphasize that the effects of the interaction 
between explanatory constructs are an important part of many theories in 
the social sciences. Studying the interaction effects can shed considerable 
additional light on the impact of different elements on a company’s growth 
(Antončič, 2002). Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2015) found that great 
curiosity is the reason for studying different creative individuals and 
discovering why they have become so successful. Curiosity is important for 
explaining the connection between personality traits, life experiences and 
the development of creative abilities, and the results that flow from creativity 
(Kashdan and Fincham, 2002). 
Entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of the entrepreneur can influence 
the company’s growth, as stated while developing H1 (Entrepreneurial 
curiosity has a positive effect on company growth) and H2 (Entrepreneurial 
creativity has a positive effect on company growth). Curiosity may be seen 
as the guiding vision in the process of creativity (Pusca and Northwood, 
2018). If curiosity exists alone without creativity, then no creative process is 
started or taking place and outcomes do not follow. Curiosity is a self-
regulatory mechanism that facilitates intrinsic goal efforts, persistence, 
personal growth, and creativity in the right circumstances (Kashdan and 
Fincham, 2002). If creativity is present without curiosity, success might not 
follow because creativity alone cannot be enough to motivate a person to 
consistently put in long workdays at the expense of developing work-life 
balance (Kashdan and Fincham, 2002). The authors expect the two studied 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
41 
constructs to have a positive impact in their interaction on growth of the 
company ((++) -> company growth): 
 
H3: Entrepreneurial curiosity in interaction with the entrepreneur’s creativity 
has a positive effect on growth of the company. 
 
The structural model dealt with partially and tested in this study, along 
with the scope of hypotheses H1, H2 and H3 presented above, are shown in 
Figure 1. 
 
Figure 1: Model of the interaction curiosity-creativity of the entrepreneur and 
growth of the company 
 
Source: Own survey. 
 
 
RESEARCH METHODS 
 
The survey instrument contained the following measures: (1) entrepreneurial 
curiosity (Jeraj and Antončič, 2013; 16 questions); (2) creativity on the level 
of an entrepreneur (Puhakka, 2005; 5 questions); (3) growth of the company 
(Antončič and Hisrich, 2001; Auer Antončič and Antončič, 2011; 3 items on 
the company level: growth in the number of employees, sales growth, and 
market share growth). The survey was conducted before the COVID-19 
pandemic in the winter and spring months of 2019. The items for company 
growth referred to the last 3 years (2016-2018). 
The sample included usable responses from entrepreneurs of SMEs with 
up to 250 employees and had 3 samples based on countries (Slovenia, 
n=359; Serbia, n=154; Latvia, n=338). The authors selected a group of three 
European post-transition countries because of their relative comparability 
(similar in transitions from a planned to a market economy and similar in size 
– smaller countries): (1) Slovenia is the first in this group to have adopted 
the euro as its payment currency and have held the presidency of the Council 
of the European Union; Slovenia has a relatively solid economy and well-
developed entrepreneurship; (2) Serbia is economically different or less 
developed than Slovenia yet shares cultural similarities with Slovenia since 
for decades they were both part of the same country; Serbia suffered a war 
after its transition to a market economy, the economy has poorer credit 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
42 
ratings and a higher unemployment rate. (3) Latvia has a greater cultural 
distance to the first two countries and underwent a peaceful transition to a 
market economy. 
The survey questionnaire was sent to companies (SMEs) with up to 250 
employees with a request they be filled out by entrepreneurs (owners and/or 
founders). The on-line survey of SMEs was found to be sufficiently 
representative after comparing the size structure of the companies with up 
to 250 employees in each country between the total population and the 
sample. The sample companies were generally small (up to 50 employees, 
up to EUR 4 million in annual sales) and middle-aged (operating in business 
for between 11 and 50 years in Slovenia and Serbia and between 6 and 20 
years in Latvia) from various industries (with services prevailing). The 
sample entrepreneurs were well represented in terms of gender and age (a 
slight majority of females in Slovenia and Latvia and males in Serbia; the 
majority over 40 years of age, younger also well represented). The first 
sample (Slovenia) was used to develop the model while the second and third 
samples (Serbia and Latvia) were used to validate the models. 
The constructs were analyzed for internal consistency and validity 
(Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory 
factor analysis). SPSS and EQS were used to assess the constructs, which 
showed adequate results. The constructs were first tested using exploratory 
factor analysis (method: ML, rotation: Oblimin) on the three samples 
(Slovenia, Serbia, Latvia). Second, the constructs were tested using 
confirmatory factor analysis (method: ERLS) on the three samples. The 
confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the results of the exploratory factor 
analysis. All items had high, positive and significant coefficients. The 
constructs showed good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha reliability) 
and good convergence (model goodness-of-fit indices: NFI, RMSEA, CFI). 
Four items were retained in the analysis for the entrepreneurial curiosity 
construct (based on the size of the communalities and factor loadings): (1) I 
am interested in other entrepreneurs’ interests. (2) In my business, I must 
have information about marketing that is as complete as possible. (3) I simply 
must know how a certain business system works. (4) I continuously delve 
into entrepreneurship matters. Four items were retained in the analysis for 
the creativity of the entrepreneur construct: (1) I am good at modifying 
normally used ways of doing things. (2) New solutions come to my mind even 
if they are not especially needed. (3) I invent exceptional and surprising 
solutions for problems. (4) I have plenty of ideas. All four items were retained 
for the company growth construct. 
The models and hypotheses were tested with structural equation 
modelling (EQS, method: ERLS). Structural equation modelling was 
selected as an appropriate analysis method because it has many strengths 
(Tomarken and Waler, 2005: 34-35): (1) the ability to specify latent variable 
models that provide separate estimates of the relationships among latent 
constructs and their manifest indicators (the measurement model) and of the 
relationships among constructs (the structural model); (2) the availability of 
measures of global fit that can provide a summary evaluation of even 
complex models that involve a large number of linear equations; (3) it allows 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
43 
researchers to directly test the model of interest rather than a straw-man 
alternative; and (4) an exceedingly broad data-analytic framework that is 
associated with unique capabilities relative to the statistical procedures 
traditionally used by clinical scientists. In addition, structural equation 
modelling is able to develop interaction terms and include them in models 
(Ping, 1995). The structural equation model included latent constructs of 
entrepreneurial curiosity, creativity of the entrepreneur and growth of the 
company, and the curiosity-creativity interaction. 
The interaction effects in the structural model were examined in two 
ways. First, by making an interaction construct determined by the 
interactions of the combinations of individual elements of both constructs in 
interaction, in a similar way as Antončič (2002) did, and connecting this 
interaction construct with the company growth construct. Second, the 
authors calculated a new interaction variable based on both interacting 
constructs (++, + - or - +, and --) and related it in the model with the company 
growth construct. 
 
 
EMPIRICAL RESULTS 
 
The hypothesized relationships were first tested in models with the 
interaction construct with structural equation modelling on the three samples 
(results shown in Tables 1 and 2). The models were found appropriate in all 
three countries (model goodness-of-fit indices: NFI: Slovenia 0.83, Serbia 
0.67, Latvia 0.99; RMSEA: Slovenia 0.08, Serbia 0.09, Latvia 0.10; CFI: 
Slovenia 0.87, Serbia 0.78, Latvia 0.99; internal consistency: Cronbach 
alpha reliability: Slovenia 0.80, Serbia 0.75, Latvia 0.78). 
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between entrepreneurial 
curiosity and company growth. The coefficients were close to zero in all three 
countries and the results are not in support of H1. 
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between the creativity of 
the entrepreneur and company growth. Coefficients were found positive and 
significant (at the 0.10 level) in two countries (standardized coefficients: 
Slovenia 0.23, Serbia 0.31) and close to zero in the third country (Latvia). 
The results mostly act in support H2, except for Latvia. 
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between the interaction 
(entrepreneurial curiosity x creativity of the entrepreneur) and company 
growth. Coefficients were found to be non-significant in all three countries 
(standardized coefficients: Slovenia -0.01, Serbia 0.17, Latvia 0.07). The 
results do not support H3. Variance explained (R-squared) of growth was 
found moderate in Slovenia (5%) and in Serbia (9%), and low in Latvia (1%). 
 
Second, the hypothesized relationships were tested in models with the 
interaction variable with structural equation modelling on the three samples 
(results shown in Tables 3 and 4). The models were found appropriate in all 
three countries (model goodness-of-fit indices: NFI: Slovenia 0.97, Serbia 
0.92, Latvia 1.00; RMSEA: Slovenia 0.05, Serbia 0.06, Latvia 0.04; CFI: 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
44 
Slovenia 0.98, Serbia 0.97, Latvia 1.00; internal consistency: Cronbach 
alpha reliability: Slovenia 0.84, Serbia 0.79, Latvia 0.73). 
 
Table 1: Structural equation modelling results (interaction construct 
included, standardized coefficients and variance explained) 
Sample (n) EC-GR CE-GR ECxCE-GR EC-ECxCE CE-ECxCE R2GR 
Slovenia (359) -0.02 0.23· -0.01 -0.16· -0.38* 0.05 
Serbia (154) -0.05 0.31· 0.17 -0.29* -0.32* 0.09 
Latvia (338) 0.07 -0.03 0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.01 
EC-GR: the entrepreneurial curiosity-growth relationship coefficient 
CE-GR: the creativity of the entrepreneur-growth relationship coefficient 
ECxCE-GR: the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of the entrepreneur interaction-growth 
relationship coefficient 
EC-ECxCE: the entrepreneurial curiosity-the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of the 
entrepreneur interaction correlation 
CE-ECxCE: the creativity of the entrepreneur-the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of 
the entrepreneur interaction correlation 
R2GR: the variance explained (R-squared) of firm growth 
* sig.<0.05 (two-sided), · sig.<0.10 (two-sided) 
Source: Own survey. 
 
Table 2: Structural equation modelling results (interaction construct 
included, goodness-of-fit and reliability) 
Sample (n) Chi df Sig. NFI RMSEA CFI Cronbach alpha 
Slovenia (359) 1,083.45 321 0.000 0.83 0.08 0.87 0.80 
Serbia (154) 744.85 321 0.000 0.67 0.09 0.78 0.75 
Latvia (338) 1,358.84 322 0.000 0.99 0.10 0.99 0.78 
Source: Own survey. 
 
Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between entrepreneurial 
curiosity and company growth. Coefficients were found non-significant in all 
three countries. The results thus do not support H1. 
Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between the creativity of 
the entrepreneur and company growth. Coefficients were found positive and 
significant in Slovenia (standardized coefficient 0.33) and close to zero in 
Serbia and Latvia. The results provide mixed support for H2 (only supported 
in Slovenia and not in the validation samples). 
Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between the interaction 
(entrepreneurial curiosity x creativity of the entrepreneur) and company 
growth. Coefficients were found non-significant in all three countries 
(standardized coefficients: Slovenia -0.19, Serbia 0.41, Latvia -0.10). The 
results do not support H3. Variance explained (R-squared) of growth was 
found moderate in Slovenia (6%) and in Serbia (10%), and low in Latvia 
(1%). 
Correlations between the independent variables and the interaction term 
were calculated in the models. In the models with the interaction construct, 
the correlations were low to moderate (Table 1), while the correlations were 
high in the models with the interaction variable (Table 3). These results 
indicate that the interaction construct may be more appropriate than the 
interaction variable because the interaction construct may be more 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
45 
independent of the interaction defining variables than the interaction 
variable. 
 
Table 3: Structural equation modelling results (interaction variable included, 
standardized coefficients and variance explained) 
Sample (n) EC-GR CE-GR ECxCE-GR EC-ECxCE CE-ECxCE R2GR 
Slovenia (359) 0.07 0.33* -0.19 0.75* 0.74* 0.06 
Serbia (154) -0.35 0.06 0.41 0.76* 0.73* 0.10 
Latvia (338) 0.13 0.02 -0.10 0.65* 0.62* 0.01 
EC-GR: the entrepreneurial curiosity-growth relationship coefficient 
CE-GR: the creativity of the entrepreneur-growth relationship coefficient 
ECxCE-GR: the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of the entrepreneur interaction-growth 
relationship coefficient 
EC-ECxCE: the entrepreneurial curiosity-the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of the 
entrepreneur interaction correlation 
CE-ECxCE: the creativity of the entrepreneur-the entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity of 
the entrepreneur interaction correlation 
R2GR: the variance explained (R-squared) of firm growth 
* sig.<0.05 (two-sided), · sig.<0.10 (two-sided) 
Source: Own survey. 
 
Table 4: Structural equation modelling results (interaction variable included, 
goodness-of-fit and reliability) 
Sample (n) Chi df Sig. NFI RMSEA CFI Cronbach alpha 
Slovenia (359) 96.17 51 0.000 0.97 0.05 0.98 0.84 
Serbia (154) 79.38 51 0.007 0.92 0.06 0.97 0.79 
Latvia (338) 80.79 52 0.006 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.73 
Source: Own survey. 
 
 
DISCUSSION, CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 
 
In this study, the authors found mixed or limited support for the proposed 
hypotheses. The authors had predicted a positive relationship between 
entrepreneurial curiosity and company growth and found no significant 
effects. 
First, this finding contradicts Jeraj and Antončič (2013: 432) when stating 
that »motivated individuals with a relatively high level of entrepreneurial 
curiosity could be involved in the entrepreneurial process and contribute to 
the innovativeness and growth of the company«. Perhaps motivation would 
have to be assessed in order to show the effects on company growth. 
Second, in some respects this finding is different and yet similar to the 
empirical findings of Jeraj et al. 2015, who established that entrepreneurial 
curiosity was positively related to growth of the company for a sample from 
the USA and Slovenia, with a low and a statistically significant influence, 
while the entrepreneurial curiosity-growth relationship was very low and not 
significant on a sample from Serbia. 
Jeraj et al. (2015: 383) offered a rationale for this finding: “Serbia is going 
through transition and high levels of corruption and monopoly are detected, 
which are the legacy of the previous period of drastic economic instability. 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
46 
The Serbian economy has been affected by embargos and wars, and is not 
as developed as markets in Slovenia and the USA. For this reason, other 
factors, like political connections, access to sources of capital, social status 
or social power of an entrepreneur, may influence the growth of the 
companies in such an environment more than openness and entrepreneurial 
curiosity”. Therefore, certain other factors, like environmental ones, might be 
more important, or entrepreneurial curiosity might be indirectly related to 
growth via particular other elements, for example innovativeness. 
The authors had predicted a positive relationship between the creativity 
of the entrepreneur and company growth and found mixed evidence: a 
positive and significant (0.10 level) relationship in two countries (Slovenia 
and Serbia) and close to zero in Latvia in the model with the interaction term 
construct, and a positive and significant (0.05 level) only in Slovenia and not 
in the validation samples of Serbia and Latvia in the model with the 
interaction term variable. This result is somewhat similar to the findings of 
Peljko et al. (2017): the entrepreneur’s creative abilities and growth of the 
company being related in the sample from Slovenia and the USA and not in 
the sample from Serbia. However, the authors wish to emphasize that in their 
study the results based on the interaction term construct could prove more 
relevant than the results based on the interaction term variable because 
multicollinearity effects might exist while using the interaction term variable 
since high correlations of the interaction variable with the creativity of the 
entrepreneur were detected. This allows the authors to conclude that 
company growth (in Slovenia and Serbia) can benefit from the creativity of 
the entrepreneur, who possesses plenty of ideas and new solutions and is 
good at modifying ways of doing things. 
The authors had predicted a positive relationship between the interaction 
term (entrepreneurial curiosity x creativity of the entrepreneur) and company 
growth and found no significant evidence in support. It may be that the 
examined interaction term does not matter for company growth, or that some 
other intermediary variables may need to be included (such as innovation), 
through which the examined interaction could affect the growth. 
The contribution to science made by this study is the conceptually 
developed and empirically tested model of entrepreneurial curiosity, the 
creativity of the entrepreneur, with their interaction and the relationships to 
company growth. This study makes a theoretical contribution by developing 
the model hypotheses and by indicating through the empirical analysis that 
the creativity of the entrepreneur may be important for company growth (in 
two countries) and that entrepreneurial curiosity and the interaction term may 
be less important. The study empirically contributes by using two variants of 
the entrepreneurial curiosity-creativity of the entrepreneur interaction terms 
in models based on data drawn from three countries. 
This study holds implications for research and practice. Researchers can 
to a larger extent use the creativity of the entrepreneur while composing 
models of company growth. Although this study did not show significant 
effects of the interaction on company performance, it revealed that the 
interaction construct may be more appropriate than the interaction variable 
and thus researchers may like to consider using interaction constructs 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
47 
instead of interaction variables. Practitioners and policymakers must take 
into account that the entrepreneur’s creativity can be important for company 
growth. Therefore, education, personal development, and training need to 
focus more on developing the entrepreneur’s creativity through general and 
specific (entrepreneurship targeted) creativity trainings. 
 
 
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES 
 
The main limitations are: (1) A partial model was developed in this study, 
only two individual-level constructs of the entrepreneur were considered. (2) 
The use of perceptual measures in the questionnaire. (3) Inferences about 
causality in the hypotheses were developed based on the literature and not 
directly verified (cross-sectional data and not longitudinal data). (4) The data 
were collected in three countries and the results may prove to be more 
relevant for these countries. 
The authors propose some future research avenues: (1) The interaction 
construct employed in this study could be upgraded and various interaction 
constructs (based on constructs other than those used in this study) could 
also be used in future research. (2) The relationships between the constructs 
entrepreneurial curiosity, creativity of the entrepreneur on the individual 
level, as well as their interaction construct, and the growth construct (firm 
level) might be further examined in other countries. (3) In-depth interviews 
or learned experiences-based research may yield additional insights into 
relationships between entrepreneurial curiosity and creativity, and their 
interaction, and their role in company growth. 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
This study has expanded what is known about entrepreneurship by providing 
supporting empirical evidence on the relationship between the creativity of 
the entrepreneur and company growth, and some empirical evidence on the 
non-existence of relationships between entrepreneurial curiosity and growth 
and between the curiosity-creativity interaction term and growth. The growth 
of the company in some countries can be developed on the basis of the 
entrepreneur’s creativity. Interaction effects may warrant greater emphasis 
in future research. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial creativity through motivational synergy. The Journal 
of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26.   
Amit, R., Ding, Y., Villalonga, B., Zhang, H. (2015). The role of institutional development in 
the prevalence and performance of entrepreneur and family-controlled firms. Journal of 
Corporate Finance, 31, 284–305. 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
48 
Antončič, B. (2002). Notranje podjetništvo: prenova konstrukta in razvoj integrativnega 
modela [Intrapreneurship: construct refinement and an integrative model development, s 
slovenskim predgovorom]. Koper: Društvo za akademske in aplikativne raziskave. 
Antončič, B., Bratkovič Kregar, T., Singh, G., DeNoble, A. F. (2015). The big five personality–
entrepreneurship relationship: Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Small Business 
Management, 53(3), 819–841. 
Antončič, B., Hisrich, R. D. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural 
validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527. 
Antonio, T., Lanawati, S., Wiriana, T. A., Christina, L. (2014). Correlations creativity, 
intelligence, personality, and entrepreneurship achievement. Procedia - Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 115, 251–257.  
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity 
identification and development. Journal of Business venturing, 18(1), 105–123. 
Audretsch, D. B., Carree, M. A., Thurik, A. R. (2001). Does entrepreneurship reduce 
unemployment? (No. 01-074/3). Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. (No. 01-074/3). 
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. Amsterdam: Tinbergen Institute. 
Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic 
growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Auer Antončič, J., Antončič, B. (2011). Employee loyalty and its impact on firm growth. 
International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 15(1), 81–87. 
Baron, R. A., Franklin, R. J., Hmieleski, K. M. (2013). Why Entrepreneurs Often Experience 
Low, Not High, Levels of Stress The Joint Effects of Selection and Psychological 
Capital. Journal of Management, 42(3), 742–768. 
Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The 
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 103–121.  
Boyd, N. G., Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of 
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18(4), 63–63. 
Buddelmeyer, H., Jensen, P. H., Webster, E. (2009). Innovation and the determinants of 
company survival. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Cardon, M. S., Patel, P. C. (2015). Is stress worth it? Stress related health and wealth trade-
offs for entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 379–420. 
Carland, H., Carland, J. W., Hoy, F. (2002). Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth 
asking. Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 2, 178–185. 
Carland, J. C., Carland, J. W., Stewart, W. H. (2015). Seeing what's not there: The enigma of 
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(1), 1–20. 
Carree, M. A., Thurik, A. R. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic growth. In 
Audretsch, D. B., Acs, Z. J. (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. Berlin, 
Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 557–594. 
Chang, Y. Y., Chen, M. H. (2020). Creative entrepreneurs’ creativity, opportunity recognition, 
and career success: Is resource availability a double-edged sword? European Management 
Journal, 38(5), 750–762. 
Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., Stokes, G. S. (2004). 
The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 
465–483. 
Cooper, A. C., Dunkelberg, W. C. (1987). Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new 
answers and methodological issues. West Lafayette: Purdue University, Krannert Graduate 
School of Management. 
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial 
intentions. Journal of small business management, 34(3), 42. 
Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., Wiklund, J. (2006). Entrepreneurship as growth; growth as 
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and the Growth of Firms, 1(2), 21–38. 
DiLiello, T. C., Houghton, J. D. (2006). Maximizing organizational leadership capacity for the 
future: Toward a model of self-leadership, innovation and creativity. Journal of Managerial 
Psychology, 21(4), 319–337. 
Duman, L., Bedük, A., Köylüoğlu, A. S., Ay, K. (2015). Entrepreneurship culture at SMEs: A 
case study in Konya. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 492–501. 
Dushnitsky, G. (2010). Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technological 
inventions. Organization Science, 21(1), 150–167. 
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
49 
Edwards-Schachter, M., García-Granero, A., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Quesada-Pineda, 
H., Amara, N. (2015). Disentangling competences: Interrelationships on creativity, 
innovation and entrepreneurship. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 27–39. 
Fraser, S., & Greene, F. J. (2006). The effects of experience on entrepreneurial optimism and 
uncertainty. Economica, 73(290), 169–192. 
Georgiou, M. N. (2006). Does entrepreneurship create enough jobs in Europe? A note (No. 
0806). Papers on entrepreneurship, growth and public policy. Jena: Max-Planck-Institut für 
Ökonomik. 
Gupta, P. D., Guha, S., Krishnaswami, S. S. (2013). Firm growth and its determinants. Journal 
of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 1–14. 
Harvey, M., Novicevic, M., Leonard, N., Payne, D. (2007). The role of curiosity in global 
managers' decision-making. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(3), 43–
58. 
Jayawarna, D., Rouse, J., Kitching, J. (2013). Entrepreneur motivations and life 
course. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 34–56. 
Jensen, S. M. (2012). Psychological Capital: Key to understanding entrepreneurial stress? 
Economics & Business Journal: Inquiries & Perspectives, 4(1), 44–55. 
Jeraj, M. (2014a). Podjetniška radovednost: razvoj konstrukta, determinante in izidi. 
[Entrepreneurial Curiosity: Construct Development, Determinants and 
Outcomes]. Doktorska Disertacija. [Doctoral Thesis]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, 
Faculty of Economics. 
Jeraj, M. (2014b). The relationship between optimism, pre-entrepreneurial curiosity and 
entrepreneurial curiosity. Organizacija, 47(3), 199–209. 
Jeraj, M., Antončič, B. (2013). A Conceptualization of Entrepreneurial Curiosity and Construct 
Development: a Multi-Country Empirical Validation. Creativity Research Journal, 25(4), 
426–435. 
Jeraj, M., Marič, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial curiosity–the new construct. In High potentials, 
lean organization, internet of things: proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on 
Organizational Science Development, 289–298. 
Jeraj, M., Maric, M., Todorovic, I., Cudanov, M., Komazec, S. (2015). The Role of Openness 
and Entrepreneurial Curiosity in Company's Growth. Amfiteatru Economic, 17(38), 371. 
Kampylis, P., Berki, E., Saariluomaa, P. (2009). In-service and prospective teachers' 
conceptions of creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 15–29. 
Kashdan, T. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2002). Facilitating creativity by regulating curiosity. 
Comment. American Psychologist, 57(5), 373–374. 
Kiviluoto, N. (2013). Growth as evidence of firm success: myth or reality? Entrepreneurship 
& Regional Development, 25(7-8), 569-586. 
Ko, S., Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business 
Horizons 50(5): 365–372. 
Krueger, N. F., Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. 
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 18(3): 91–104. 
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial 
intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5), 411–432. 
Liang, C. L. K., Dunn, P. (2008). Exploring the myths of optimism and realism in 
entrepreneurship related to expectations and outcomes. Journal of Business and 
Entrepreneurship, 20(1), 1. 
Litman, J. A., Collins, R. P., Spielberger, C. D. (2005). The nature and measurement of 
sensory curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1123–1133. 
Lussier, R. N., Corman, J. (2015). A business success versus failure prediction model for 
entrepreneurs with 0-10 employees. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(1), 21–36. 
Marcati, A., Guido, G., Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness 
and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579–1590. 
Mueller, S. L., Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country 
study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75. 
Nisula, A.-M., Olander, H. (2020). The role of motivations and self- concepts in university 
graduate entrepreneurs’ creativity and resilience. Journal of Small Business Management, 
Forthcoming.  
Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, Volume 13, No. 1, 2022 
 
50 
Peljko, Ž., Jeraj, M., Săvoiu, G., Marič, M. (2016). An empirical study of the relationship 
between entrepreneurial curiosity and innovativeness. Organizacija, 49(3), 172–182. 
Peljko, Ž., Jordan, G., Jeraj, M., Todorović, I., Marič, M. (2017). Do entrepreneurʼs creative 
abilities influence companyʼs growth? Management, 22(1), 25–35.  
Perry-Smith, J., Mannucci, P. V. (2015). Chapter 12. In Social networks, Creativity, and 
Entrepreneurship. The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, 
205. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Ping, R. A. Jr. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent 
variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(August), 336–347. 
Puhakka, V. (2005). The Role of Intellectual Capital in Opportunity Recognition of 
Entrepreneurs. Oulu: University of Oulu, Department of Information Processing Science. 
Pusca, D., Northwood, D. O. (2018). Curiosity, creativity and engineering education. Global 
Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 152–158. 
Raine, A. L., Pandya, M. (2019). Three keys to entrepreneurial success: curiosity, creativity, 
and commitment. Entrepreneurship Education, 2(3-4), 189–198. 
Rietveld, C. A., Bailey, H., Hessels, J., Zwan, P. (2016). Health and entrepreneurship in four 
Caribbean Basin countries. Economics and Human Biology, 21, 84–89. 
Roig-Tierno, N., Alcázar, J., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2015). Use of infrastructures to support 
innovative entrepreneurship and business growth. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 
2290–2294. 
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion 
on individual creativity. Journal of Applied psychology, 76(2), 179–185. 
Steinmetz, H., Davidov, E., Schmidt, P. (2011). Three approaches to estimate latent 
interaction effects: Intention and perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned 
behavior. Methodological Innovations, 6(1), 95–110. 
Štemberger, T. (2013). Stališča bodočih vzgojiteljic do ustvarjalnosti [Views of future 
preschool teachers on creativity]. Revija za elementarno izobraževanje, 6(2/3), 101–113. 
Thurik, R. (2003). Entrepreneurship and Unemployment in the UK. Scottish Journal of 
Political Economy, 50(3), 264–290. 
Tikkamäki, K., Heikkilä, P., Ainasoja, M. (2015). Positive Stress and Reflective Practice 
Enhancing Innovativeness Among Entrepreneurs. 10th European Conference on 
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. ECIE 2015 – Genoa, 17.9.-18.9.2015, 699. Genoa: 
Academic Conferences International Limited. 
Tiwari, P. N., Verma, N. (2020). Creativity and entrepreneurship: Complementing each other 
to create success stories. International Journal of Trade & Commerce-IIARTC, 9(1), 111–
120.  
Tomarken, A. J., Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, 
and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 31–65. 
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In Sternberg, R. J. 
(Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives, 43–75. New 
York: Cambridge University Press. 
Trstenjak, A. (1981). Psihologija ustvarjalnosti [Psychology of Creativity]. Ljubljana: 
Slovenska matica. 
Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Technovation, 25(8), 939–
946. 
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business 
Venturing, 19(2), 173–188. 
Zhou, J. (2008). New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process. Strategic 
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 1–5.  
Zhou, J. George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the 
expression of voice. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4): 682–696. 
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to 
entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of 
Management, 36(2), 381–404.