gatton.uky.edu · web viewin other word it means continuous “search for new markets, products or...

A STUDY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS THAT INFLENCE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROPENSITY:

COMPERISION BETWEEN THE BUSINESS STUDENTS OF GATTON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY-USA AND KOHAT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECNOLOGY, KOHAT-PAKISTAN

HAFIZULLAH

(Scholar)

Assistant Professor, Kohat University of Science& Technology, Kohat- PK, Pakistan.

WALTER FERRIER

(Supervisor)

Gatton Endowed Associate Professor of Strategic Management, Gatton Business School, University of Kentucky,USA

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND:

Entrepreneurship has become a word of the day. Researchers, policy makers, economist, academics and even graduates are discussing about it. Workshops, various programs and conferences across the world are being organized every year which emphasized the significance of entrepreneurship to the economy of a country, society and for individual as well. (Bechard & Toulouse, 1998; Schaper & Volery, 2004 and Matlay & Westhead, 2005).

Research related to entrepreneurship and its education have been rising from the last many years (Hatten and Ruhland, 1995; Green et al., 1996; Outcalt, 2000; Alstete, 2002; Morrison, 2000; Rohaizat and Fauziah, 2002; Klapper, 2004; Frank et al., 2005; Gurol and Atsan, 2006). Reason behind this is its played vital role for economic growth and development. This helped to cope issues of unemployment, potential catalyst and incubator for technological development, market and product related innovation and social adjustment.

Many researches in the USA (e.g. Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Lüthje and Franke, 2003; Van Auken et al., 2006) and in Europe (e.g. Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Gürul and Atson, 2006) have reported indication of people’s inclination to establish their own business or self-employment.

As unemployment rate has been mounting due to global financial crisis, nowadays graduates have more probability than before to create their own business as a viable choice compare to become job seeker (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997).

Similarly, in Pakistan and particularly in KP province, terrorism law and order situation has devastated economic activities at a gross root level. This developed unemployment rate which further increase problems both for public and government e.g. law and order situation, raised crimes ratio and various social issues. Among various option, best solution recommended by the economists is self-employment or entrepreneurship which can contribute a lot in all over the world and especially with reference to Pakistan.

Since, the issue of graduate unemployment has become a major problem and mostly they depend on public and private sector. Therefore, self-employment and entrepreneurship is consider as recommended solution for young unemployed force. Hence, the aim of this research is to survey that whether existing business students of Gatton college of Business & economics, University of Kentucky, USA and Kohat University of science & technology, Pakistan have entrepreneurial propensity. In other words are they inclined towards entrepreneurship?

This research will helped to create a clear picture for the development of entrepreneurship at gross root level in general for our future generations and particularly for current graduating students so that they become able to move to a new level by becoming entrepreneurs.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION:

This research will primarily address the following main question:

· How the different personality traits make influence on entrepreneurial propensity among business students of the above stated universities?

1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES:

The primary objectives of this research are as follows:

1. To measure the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial propensity among the business students of both universities as mentioned above.

2. To find relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial propensity

3. To also evaluate demographic impacts of both universities business students on entrepreneurial propensity

4. To give suggestions of the most influencing personality traits which measure entrepreneurial propensity.

CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW

Attention in entrepreneurship is extremely generated through the globe due to many reasons. For example in developed world “entrepreneurial activity (new venture formation) is a means of revitalizing economy” and help to reduce unemployment. Further, this consider “as a potential catalyst and incubator for technological progress, product and market innovation” (Mueller and Thomas, 2000; Jack and Anderson, 1999). But, its role for developing economies is realized as an “engine of economic progress, job creation and social adjustment”. Therefore, new business creation is extensively motivated and stimulated by economic policies to expedite economic growth and wealth creation.

But according to Mitton (1989), “research in entrepreneurship has been criticized due to lack of consensus about the definition of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship”. However, Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) classified entrepreneurship into six different schools of thought as shown in the following table:

· Approaches to entrepreneurship

Great person school

Psychological Characteristics

Classical school

Management school

leadership school

Intrapreneurship

School

Behavior & Skills

Intuition, vigor, energy, persistence and self-esteem

Personal values, risk taking, need for achievement, locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity

Innovation, creativity

,discovery, ability to see opportunity

Expertise, technical

Knowledge,

technical planning,

people organizing,

capitalization budgeting

Motivating,

directing,

leading,

personal style,

attitudes

Alertness to opportunities

Maximizing Decisions

· Source: Cunnihgham,J.B & Lischeron,J. (1991), “Defining Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business management, 29 (1) :45-61

This research adopts “psychological characteristics school of thought” which consider that entrepreneurs possessed unique personal characteristics. These entrepreneurial characteristics are narrated in the literature by the various scholers (Koh,1996, Begley and Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus, Sr. and Horwitz, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934; Korunka et al., 2003; Bygrave ,1989; Shaver and Scott, 1991& Robinson et al.,1991). Connie et al. (2005) said that research related to personality have an important role in examining “the entrepreneurial personality” and has re-emerged as a burning issue (Rauch and Frese, 2000) “with the individual as the unit of analysis” (Korunka et al., 2003).

Following is the detail of different personality traits as discussed in literature by various scholars like (Chell, Haworth, and Brearly, 1991, p.317; Cooper and Gimeno, 1992 and Furnham, 1992) that influence the entrepreneurial propensity of individual. Moreover, these traits facilitate the decision of entrepreneurs to not only exploit opportunities and to increase entrepreneurial propensity but also have strong relationship.

2.1 Innovativeness:

Innovation is a process of creating, changing, experimenting, transforming and revolutionizing (Mary, 2005,p.11). In other word it means continuous “search for new markets, products or ideas” (Utsch & Rauch,2000). According to Schumpeter (1934) and Mitton (1989), innovativeness is an important element of entrepreneurship and a necessary entrepreneurial characteristic. Literature reported that entrepreneurs are significantly more innovative than non-entrepreneurs (Ho and Koh, 1992, Koh,1996;Gurol & Astan,2006;Stewart et al.,1998;Robinson et al., 1991a, Robinson et al., 1991b., Cromie, 2000). Hence, higher tendency towards innovativeness lead greater entrepreneurial propensity.

2.2 Risk taking:

It is the propensity to take risk or to avoid when confronted by risky situation. Risk taking is consider major entrepreneurial characteristic as well as widely discussed in literature and differentiate an entrepreneur from non-entrepreneur. Thus, risk taking is associated with a willingness to take courageous actions like entering into unknown new markets, to invest large amounts having more chances of failure or uncertain outcomes (Miller and Friesen, 1982).

It is considered that entrepreneurs desire to take moderate risks in circumstances having “some degree of control or skill in realizing a profit”. Therefore, risk taking propensity have positive influence on entrepreneurial propensity.

2.3 Achievement Motivation:

People those possessed achievement motivation have ability to resolve issues, having ambitious in life and want to achieve it by showing greatest performance and also to see in a new angle in order to get better one (Littunen, 2000; Utsch et al., 2000).

“Need for achievement theory” was developed by McClelland in 1961. For every human action this achievement motivation is an essential psychological driving force which influence entrepreneurial behavior. It is described as “behavior towards competition with a standard of excellence” (McClelland, 1953). Nor, Ezlika and Ong(2004) said that “individuals with high need for achievement have strong desire to be successful and are consequently more likely to behave entrepreneurially”. It is also stated that entrepreneurs possessed higher need for achievement as compared to non-entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991) and have strong relation with entrepreneurial propensity.

2.4 Locus of Control:

Researches connected this trait with entrepreneurial propensity. It is related with the individual’s perception having abilities “to control the events in life” (Leone et al., 2000). Personal spirits “about the rewards and punishments in his/her life are called by Locus of control” (Pervin, 1980). People having “internal locus of control” feel that they have ability to control life events, While people having with an “external locus of control believe that life events are affected by external elements, such as chance, luck or fate and other individual affect their performance across range of activities” (Koh, 1996; Riipinen, 1994; Hansemark, 1998 and Barney,1986). Entrepreneurs think that they have ability to accomplish goals and make impact on environment (Shane, 2003, p. 327) and to resolve issues (Busenitz and Barney, 1997).

Mitton(1989), said that “entrepreneurs prefer to take and hold distinctive command instead of leaving things to external factors”. Entrepreneurs are always in searching of opportunities and due to their innovative attitude have confidence “to control the events in their lives or in other words, have locus of inner control” (Mueller et al., 2000; Hansemark, 1998; Koh, 1996; Utsch et al., 2000).

Similarly Mueller and Thomas (2000) concluded that “entrepreneurs have relatively more locus of inner control as compare to the non-entrepreneurs”. Experiential findings about this trait had been talk about by many scholors (Ho and Koh, 1992, Robinson, et al., 1991 and Cromie, 2000). In a student sample, positive association of this trait was determined with the aspiration to become an entrepreneur (Bonnett and Furnham, 1991). Hence, “greater the internal locus of control” higher is the probability to have entrepreneurial propensity.

2.5 Tolerance for Ambiguity:

When insufficient or too complex or contradictory information is available about an activity is referred to as ambiguous one. Tolerance for ambiguity referred to as the tendency to perceive ambiguity situation as desirable whereas “intolerance for ambiguity” is tendency to receive ambiguous situation as threat.

Koh (1996) reported that “person who has high tolerance of ambiguity is one who finds ambiguous situations challenging and who strives to overcome unstable and unpredictable situations in order to perform well”. Entrepreneurs have more ability to tolerate ambiguity (Koh (1996) and Teoh and Foo (1997). Thus entrepreneur respond positively to ambiguous situations and willingly seeks out and manages uncertainty Mitten (1989), while others who feel uncomfortable in uncertain situation and hence avoid ambiguous stimuli (Busenitz et al.,1997) . Thus, it can be said that this is an entrepreneurial characteristic (Ho and Koh, 1992; Sarachek, 1978; Schere, 1982; Sexton, and Bowman, 1985) and have a strong relation with entrepreneurial tendency .Therefore, the entrepreneurial inclines individual are consider to show more tolerance for ambiguity as compare to others.

2.6 Demographics:

There are various demographic factors such as “age, gender, educational and family backgrounds, motivation and prior business experiences” affecting student’s propensity/inclination towards entrepreneurial activities as documented by various researchers (Kristiansen & Nurul Indarti, 2004; Shane 2000; Lee and Tsang, 2001 and Shay & Terjensen, 2005).

Kristiansen and Nurul Indarti (2004) in research about “entrepreneurial intention” among Indonesian and Norwegian graduates determined that “age, gender and educational background” had no major influence on “entrepreneurial intention”. Shinnar et al.,(2009) said that there were no significant differences between male and female graduates with respect to attention in entrepreneurship. But Shay and Terjensen (2005) establish that males had higher tendency than females to create their own enterprise.

Ooi (2008) research about Northern Peninsular Malaysian students discover that gender, along with other factors e.g “programs of study, previous working experience and mother’s occupation” had significant differences about their liking to become entrepreneurs. Similarly study by Barcelona & Valida (1992) on 800 business graduates in Malaysia found association between demographics and entrepreneurial attitude. Hence, there are mixed results with respect to gender about entrepreneurial proclivity.

Mohd Nizam et al.,(2009) examined that female and Chinese indicated more proclivity to become entrepreneurs as compared to male and non-Chinese. Yar et al., (2008) and Basu & Virick(2008) in research measured that “entrepreneurship education and prior entrepreneurial experience has greater positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions. Similarly, Henning's and jar dim (1977,p.221) as well as Helfat et al., (2002) found that “entrepreneurs tend to be the first born”.

A study analysis directed by Mazzarol, Thein and Doss (1999) on the sample of (93) respondents in Western Australia, establish factors such as “background of the respondents” and individual character determined to found self-owned businesses

Previous study had exposed attention of numerous demographics like ethnicity, “personality, human capital, marital status, family size”, experience, work status and educational level, age, gender, religion, socio-economics position and religion contribute in starting a business (Mazzarol, Thein and Doss, 1999).

Bruch (1992) found that men are more inclined towards entrepreneurial business than women. Zaidatol et al., (2008a) found that there was higher mean difference between students regarding entrepreneurship experience with respect to entrepreneurial spirit. Similarly Zaidatol et al.,(2009a) examined that male university students possessed more entrepreneurial intention compared to their female counterparts.

Research done by Crant (1996) first year undergraduates (91) and degree owners (90) found significant relationship between entrepreneurship attitude and demographics like education, family with business interest and gender.

The research on (89) ex-business management students established that families and gender affected entrepreneurial attitudes among the respondents (Matthews and Moser,1996).

Various studies like Hatten & Ruhland(1995) on 220 college students in USA sponsored by Small Business Institute, and Louis et al.1989 at various universities in USA found that age as well as gender could be linked to become entrepreneur. The study was directed by Crant (1996) in an institution of higher education in the USA found that educational level ,gender and parents having business contribute towards entrepreneurial behavior.

Since, there are mix results about demographics around the globe, hence this becomes debatable and it need further research in order to achieve some substantial results with respect to both different cultures.

2.1 Theoretical Frame Work

Innovativeness

Risk taking attitude

Achievement motivation

Internal locus of control

Tolerance for ambiguity

Entrepreneurial Propensity

Demographic Variables

Personality Traits

Figure 2.1 Personality traits that influence Entrepreneurial Propensity

2.7 Research Hypotheses:

To analyze the theoretical frame work given in Figure 2.1, the following hypotheses are developed and tested to draw conclusion regarding the influence of different factors as stated above on entrepreneurial propensity among the business students of both Universities.

Hypothesis (H1): Students with the difference of education level (BBA/MBA) changes their entrepreneurial propensity

Hypothesis (H2): Non local students have higher entrepreneurial propensity than local one

Hypothesis (H3): Male students have more level of entrepreneurial propensity than female students

Hypothesis (H4): Students having different age groups possessed different entrepreneurial propensity

Hypothesis (H5): Students with first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than others

Hypothesis (H6): Students having self-employed parents influenced greater entrepreneurial propensity than job oriented parents.

Hypothesis (H7): Students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity than others who have not attended business seminar

Hypothesis (H8): Innovativeness, risk taking, achievement motivation, inter locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity and entrepreneurial propensity are correlated.

Hypothesis (H9): Innovativeness has an influence on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H10): Risk taking has an impact on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H11): Achievement motivation has an effect on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H12): Internal locus of control predicts the variance in entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H13): Tolerance for ambiguity determines entrepreneurial propensity.

CHAPTER 3RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Survey Approach and Data Collection:

Survey approach have excessive applied in social sciences for data collection (Babbie, 1993, p.256), to define phenomena by testing hypotheses through responses to different questions Baker(1994, p.8). The instrument used in survey research is questionnaire. In social sciences researchers use survey approach because it can also be “an excellent vehicles for measuring attitudes and orientation in a population” (Babbie, 1993, p.257). Hence, survey methodology to measure the “entrepreneurial propensity, innovativeness, risk taking, achievement motivation, locus of internal control & tolerance for ambiguity” is applied to collect data through questionnaire from business students registered with Gatton College of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky-USA and Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat-Pakistan. Survey instrument is on paper. This preserves anonymity

3.2 Questionnaire development:

To establish content validity of the scales used in the present study, researcher discussed questionnaire with experts in their respective fields. Also questionnaire was discussed with supervisors and faculty members. Final questionnaire consist of two parts and forty seven questions.

The first part included demographic as well as general information. Ten questions about gender, age groups, domicile, number of siblings & birth order, education level(graduate & under graduate), family occupation (self-employed vs job oriented) and planning about future courses, entrepreneurship related seminars / workshops participation and their future intention regarding to start own business are asked in questionnaire. These entire questions are measured on nominal scale except question regarding age group which is measure on ordinal scale.

Second part consists of research variables. Q11 to Q16 are about entrepreneurial propensity, Q17 to Q24 are about “innovativeness”, Q25 to Q31 are concerning “risk taking”, Q32 to Q37 are regarding “achievement motivation” while Q38 to Q41 are about “Internal locus of control” and Q42 to Q47 are about “tolerance for ambiguity” measurement. These entire questions are measured on interval scale. Respondents are asked to give their response on a five-point Likert scale.

3.3 Population of the Study:

Total population consist of MBA(graduate) & Senior Under graduate students of Gatton college of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky-USA & Final semesters students of BBA & MBA of Kohat University of Science & technology, Kohat-Pakistan. Voluntarily participation & non participation is unrelated with the class room activities and responsibilities as well as unrelated to students Grades. Since, total population is taken therefore, neither taken sample nor used sampling techniques.

Table 3.1Population of the Study

S#

Universities

BBA

BMA

TOTAL

1

Gatton College of Business &Econ-Kentucky, USA

70

72

142

2

Kohat university of Science & Tech(KP)-Pakistan

120

46

166

Note: Out of 142 questionnaires, nine questionnaires were incomplete while in 166 questioners only 152 questionnaires were filled completely. Hence incomplete questionnaires were ignored.

3.4 Statistical Methods

According to the nature of the research study, both descriptive and inferential statistics are used.Various tools are applied by the researcher for data analysis due the dependent and independent variables of data. Statistical tools descriptive (frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviations) and Inferential (correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis, T-Test, and ANOVA etc) are applied for data analysis and hypotheses testing. Particularly Pearson’s correlation is used to determine association among variables measured on interval scale. Multiple regressions determined whether independent variables are significantly influencing the dependent variable entrepreneurial propensity. To determine significant mean difference, tests of significance (T-test, and ANOVA) are used for hypotheses testing. For checking the reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient is calculated for each variable construct by Using SPSS.

CHAPTER 4DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

After collection of data from target population of research study, then subsequent stage is to examine it by testing research hypotheses. Data is analyzed to create respondents’ profile through frequency distributions. Various types of analyses like “reliability analysis, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis” are applied by using SPSS.

Program (BBA/MBA)

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA

Program

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

BBA

70

52.6

52.6

MBA

63

47.4

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Program

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

BBA

110

72.4

72.4

MBA

42

27.6

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Home Town


Hometown

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Kentucky(local)

109

82.0

82.0

Others(Non Local)

24

18.0

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Hometown

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

KP(local)

150

98.7

98.7

Others(Non Local)

2

1.3

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Gender


Gender

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Male

90

67.7

67.7

Female

43

32.3

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Gender

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Male

135

88.8

88.8

Female

17

11.2

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Age


Age

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Bellow or equal to 25

115

86.5

86.5

Between 26-35

16

12.0

98.5

Above 35

2

1.5

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Age

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Bellow or equal to 25

112

73.7

73.7

Between 26-35

40

26.3

100.0

Above 35

Total

152

100.0

100.0

Siblings


Siblings

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

0-2 Siblings

111

83.5

83.5

3 or more siblings

22

16.5

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Siblings

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

0-2 Siblings

10

6.6

6.6

3 or more siblings

142

93.4

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Birth Order


“Birth Order”

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

First Born

50

37.6

37.6

Others

83

62.4

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Birth Order

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

First Born

66

43.4

43.4

Others

86

56.6

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Family Own Business


Family Own Business

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Yes

72

54.1

54.1

No

61

45.9

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Family Own Business

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Yes

50

32.9

32.9

No

102

67.1

100.0

Total

152

100.0

Workshop or Seminar Attended


Workshop or Seminar Attend

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Yes

14

10.5

10.5

No

119

89.5

100.0

Total

133

100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan

Workshop or Seminar Attend

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative %

Yes

45

29.6

29.6

No

107

70.4

100.0

Total

152

100.0

4.2 Reliability Analysis

A Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha was used to test the “reliability of all its item variables” in order to find the “internal consistency”. Sekaran (1999, p.311) said that “Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are correlated to one another and closer the Cronbach’s alpha is to 1, higher the internal consistency reliability”. Moreover, Sekaran (1999, p.311) stated that in general “the reliabilities less than 0.60 are considered to be poor, those in 0.70 range, acceptable, and those over 0.80 good”. As Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.60 hence, internal reliability having range from poor to good. The results are represented in Table 4.1 & 4.2

4.4Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics for example means as well as std. deviation for research variables calculated on five-point scale are displayed in Table 4.3 & 4.4

From table 4.3 & 4.4 among different factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity, the mean value more than three on 5-point scale indicates that respondents have above average response than indifferent/neutral about these variables or it can be stated that respondents from both universities are optimistic about role of different independent variable’s impact on entrepreneurial propensity as indicated in above mention tables 4.3 & 4.4.

4.5Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis is calculated to find out any association among the variables. To test Hypothesis H9, Pearson’s correlation matrix obtained from both universities business students among variables measured on five point interval scale is showed in Table 4.5 and 4.6

From the result in Table 4.5, it is concluded that entrepreneurial propensity is positively correlated with all independent variables, i.e. correlation is significant at the 0.01& 0.05 level which recommend that if entrepreneurial propensity is to be boosted, then it is essential to enhance level of “innovation; risk taking, need for achievement motivation; locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity”. Similarly in Table 4.6 correlation is significant at the 0.01 which mean that to augment the entrepreneurial propensity, there is need to raise the level of above mentioned factors among business students of both universities. Hence, correlations values computed among the variables are positively correlated to entrepreneurial propensity in both cases. Hence, Hypothesis H8 was accepted.

4.6Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses have been developed and tested through the application of T-test, ANOVA and Multiple Regression. Results are significant if “probability of occurrence (P-value) is equal to or less than 0.05 levels” of significance.

Hypothesis (H1): Students with the difference of education level (BBA/MBA) changes their entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis H1 used of independent sample T-test because there are two groups and the dependent variable, entrepreneurial propensity, is measured on five point Likert interval scale. The result of T-tests are shown in Table 4.7(A) &4(B) and its interpretation is given below:

From result in Table 4.7(A) , difference in the means of 3.285 and 3.365 with standard deviation of 0.886 and 0.839 for the undergrad and BMA students of Gatton, Kentucky-USA about their entrepreneurial propensity is not significant as p>0.05 at 131 df. Hence H1 is rejected

While H1 is accepted for students of KUST,KP-Pakistan as given in Table 4.7(B) i.e. P<0.05,at 150 df means that there is a significant difference about entrepreneurial propensity with respect to BBA & BMA graduates. .

Hypothesis (H2): Non local students have higher entrepreneurial propensity than local one

Hypothesis (H2) was tested using independent samples t-test, its result are displayed in Table 4.8(A) & 4.8(B). In both cases as seen in table 4.6(A) and table 4.6(B), H2 was rejected as P>0.05 which means that there was no significant difference between local and non-local students about their entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H3): Male students have more level of entrepreneurial propensity than female students.

From results in Table 4.9(A), H3 was accepted as P<0.05 which determines that there is significant difference among male and female students regarding their perception about entrepreneurial propensity while in Table 4.8(B), H3 was rejected as P>0.05 which determines that there is no statistical difference among students with respect to their gender about entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, H3 has mixed results.

Hypothesis (H4): Students having different age groups possessed different entrepreneurial propensity

Likewise Hypothesis (H4) was tested using ANOVA and its results are shown in Table 4.10 (A) & (B) and interpretation is given bellow:

Degrees of freedom (df) between groups variance, df= (K-1) i.e. 3-1 is 2 while with in groups df= (N-K) i.e.133-3 is 130 While in Table 4.10 (B) df with in groups is 149. F value is calculated as

F= MS explained/MS residual

In first case of Gatton (USA) as in Table 4.10(A), F=0.012(0.009/0.755) value is not Significant at P>0.05 and H4 rejected while in second case of Kohat (Pakistan) F=11.306 (4.534/0.401) is significant at p<0.05. Hence H4 accepted which means that difference was significant differences among different age groups about their entrepreneurial propensity. Therefore, H4 have a mixed results

Hypothesis (H5): Students with first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than others.

Hypothesis (H5) again call for the use of t-test and reported in Tables 4.11(A) and 4.11(B). H5 was accepted in case of Gatton (USA) as P<0.05 while Rejected in case of Kohat (Pakistan) as P>0.05. Therefore, H5 have mixed results

Hypothesis (H6): Students having self-employed parents influenced greater entrepreneurial propensity than job oriented parents.

Hypothesis (H6) results are reported in Table 4.12(A) & 4.12(B). In Both cases, H6 was rejected because P>0.05 which means that there was no significant difference between groups about their perception regarding entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H7): Students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity than others who have not attended business seminar

Hypothesis (H7) was tested using independent samples t-test and results displayed in the Tables 4.13(A) & 4.13(B). In both cases H7 was accepted as P<0.05 which mean that there was a significant difference about entrepreneurial propensity between groups with respect to attending workshops/seminar. In other words students those who attended training workshops/seminar possessed higher entrepreneurial propensity than others which means training workshops/seminar plays an important role to promote entrepreneurial propensity among students.

To test H9, H10, H11, H12, H13 following hypothesis is tested:

Hypothesis: Students’ innovativeness, risk taking attitude, need for achievement motivation, and internal locus of control and tolerance of ambiguity level significantly explains the variance in entrepreneurial propensity.

To test above hypothesis, multiple regression analysis is used. Multiple regression analysis results of five independent variables against one dependent variable displayed in Table 4.14(A) & Table 4.14(B).

R (0. 452) value in model summary Table 4.14(A), is correlation of the above five independent variables with the dependent variable. Likewise, R Square (0.205) means that 20.5% of the variance (R-Square) in the entrepreneurial propensity has been significantly explained by five independent variables.

Table ANOVA, shows that F value of 6.538 is significant at the .0001 levels(p<0.05). Hence, hypothesis was accepted which means that “risk taking, innovativeness, need for achievement motivation, locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity level” of students of Gatton college collectively predicts entrepreneurial propensity.

Table Coefficients explains that which variables has most significant impact on entrepreneurial propensity. Highest value of beta is 0.408 for the “risk taking attitude” and significant at 0.000 levels while beta is 0.086 for “tolerance of ambiguity” and 0.052 “for achievement motivation” but not significant at 0.005 respectively. While beta is negative for “innovativeness and internal locus of control”.

O‟Brien & Robert (2007) reported that “tolerance value less than 0.20 or 0.10 indicates a multi collinearity problem”. In the above table the tolerance values of all (I.V‟s) are in range of 0.644 to 0.791 which show that “tolerance level is moderate and good”.

Value measures the magnitude of multi collinearity problem and if then multi collinearity is high (Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, 2004). Since In above table titled Coefficients, VIF values are in range of 1.264 to 1.552 which shows that there is no multi collinearity issue in above mentioned variables.

Similarly in table 4.14(B), R Square (0.724) means that 72.4% of the variance (R-Square) in the entrepreneurial propensity has been significantly described by the five independent variables as stated above.

Table 4.14 of ANOVA, displays that F value of 76.648 is significant at the .0001 levels. Hence, hypothesis has been accepted. In Table Coefficients 4.14(B) shows beta is 0.682 for the “achievement motivation” and 0.266 for “risk taking attitude” significant at 0.000 levels and 0.116 for innovations, significant at 0.043 levels respectively. The positive beta weight specifies that if entrepreneurial propensity is to be enhance then it is necessary to increase the “achievement motivation, risk taking and innovative behavior level” of business students. While “locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity” has negative beta value of 0.110 & 0.024 respectively. Hence, it is stated that three independent variables stated above has positive and significant influence on entrepreneurial propensity. Therefore, hypothesis was accepted.

Similarly the above table titled Coefficients also demonstrates that tolerance values of all (I.V‟s) are in range of 0.280 to 0.589 which show that the tolerance level is moderate and good. In the same way VIF values are in range of 1.00 to 5.0 which indicates there is no multi collinearity problem in above mentioned variables.

CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

As date was collected from two different universities of USA and Pakistan, therefore, analysis and its interpretation “opens-up new levels of understanding about various factors” influencing entrepreneurial propensity among business students.

As this study “adopts the psychological characteristics school of thought” which describe entrepreneurs as individuals having “unique values, attitudes and needs” which drive them. These personality traits/characteristics are included in this research as these frequently described in the literature and indicated strong association with entrepreneurship (Koh, 1996; Begley and Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus, Sr. and Horwitz, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934; Korunka et al., 2003; Bygrave ,1989; Shaver and Scott, 1991& Robinson et al.,1991). Connie et al. (2005) said, personality research plays a significant role in investigating the entrepreneurial personality and has a burning and interesting issue (Rauch and Frese, 2000) with the “individual as unit of analysis” (Korunka et al., 2003).

For this purpose existing literature was investigated with an intention to learn about the current scholarly position on the topic selected. The literature provided the variable and relationship in the form of theoretical frame work. The literature review given in chapter 2 was used as guide line to collect primary data for conducting survey through questionnaire from business students of Gatton Business School, USA and business students of KUST, KP-Pakistan. From empirical study close association among entrepreneurial propensity and personal psychological traits is found.

Apart from research variables, there are demographics that make impacts on individual entrepreneurial propensity. Among these demographics, gender, age, domicile, education level, birth order, family occupation, business related training workshops etc. are mostly documented in literature.

Students with the difference of education level i.e. BBA & MBA changes their entrepreneurial propensity was the hypothsisH1 and having mixed results. This means that H1was accepted for Kohat Students, Pakistan which means that MBA’s students are more mature, having more knowledge and are more oriented towards entrepreneurial activities. But H1 was rejected in Gatton (USA) means that there was no significant difference between BBA & MBA graduates regarding entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, study have mixed results.

Similarly, students other than home town have greater entrepreneurial propensity was hypothesis H2 and rejected in both cases. In Kohat University, Pakistan proportion of non-local students was too much low as compare to Gatton, USA because in Kohat, Pakistan mostly students are from KP Province and very limited students come from other province due to limited seats for other province. While in Gatton, portion other than Kentucky was high because students come from other states and countries as well. This study rejected the previous studies as mentioned in literature that non local are prominent in business activities but the results of this study depicts that now local are also entering entrepreneurial activities and have entrepreneurial propensity as well.

Likewise, gender have different level of entrepreneurial propensity was hypothesis H3. This H3 has also mixed results. H3 was accepted for Gatton students and supported previous studies. But rejected in Kohat students which means that trend is changing among Kohat female students and reasons may be that if female students are given education about business creation then this create motivation towards entrepreneurial propensity. Although in general, Pakistani society is male dominated and male are responsible for bread and butter but through awareness programs, role models and successful stories, workshops and seminars this trend can be changed. Further, the result of this study cannot be generalized because the portion of female students was very low and they are business graduates.

In the same way, students with different age groups have different entrepreneurial propensity was hypothesis H4 and having mixed results. As H4 was accepted for Business students of Gatton, USA but rejected for business students of KUST, Pakistan. In Gatton- USA, all students with respect to their age are involved in entrepreneurial activities but in KUST mostly young students have more entrepreneurial propensity as compare to old one because old are risk avoider.

Further, students having first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than other was hypothesis H5 produced mixed results. H5 was again accepted for Business students of Gatton, USA and supported the previous study which described that elder son /daughter takes the responsibility of his/her parents and having more entrepreneurial propensity as compare to younger. Further, elder child personality is impressed by his/her parents more as compare to others. But H5 was rejected for business students of Kust, Pakistan. Generally in Pakistani society all children are involved in business activities as compare to elder one because of poverty and more unemployment.

Moreover, Students having self-employed parents have greater entrepreneurial propensity than others was hypothesis H6 and rejected in both cases. It means that there is no significant difference in family own business and job oriented family with respect to students entrepreneurial propensity. This further, elaborate that now job oriented families are also motivating their children to become successful entrepreneurs i.e. to have more entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, society as a whole have more tendency towards business activities. Further, in some cases students of Kust-Pakistan their parents are taking golden hand shake or retirement before time and motivating children to become self-employed which is good trend.

Similarly, students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity than others who have not attended business seminar was Hypothesis H7 and accepted in both cases. This hypothesis come up with statistically significant results. It means that there was significant difference among students those attending seminar and others with respect to their entrepreneurial propensity perception. Further, this supported that training workshops/seminars play important role to flourish entrepreneurial propensity among business students of Gatton, USA as well as Kust, Pakistan.

Further, hypothesis H8 was accepted in both cases .This means that research variables are interrelated with each other as shown in Pearson correlation matrix Table 4.5 and Table4.6

Finally, to check hypotheses H9, H10, H11, H12 and H13 multiple regression analysis was used and supported the previous researches that five independent variables collectively predict entrepreneurial propensity. In case of students of Gatton Business school, USA beta is 0.408 for risk taking attitude which is significant at 0.000 levels and is the most influencing variable in entrepreneurial propensity measurement. While in case of business students of KUST, KP-Pakistan, beta is 0.682 for the achievement motivation, significant at 0.000 levels. Next beta is 0.266 for risk taking attitude, significant at 0.000 levels and 0.116 for innovations, significant at 0.043 levels respectively. This indicate that achievement motivation, risk taking and innovation have most impact and influence on entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, if entrepreneurial propensity is to rise then it is compulsory to enhance the individual’s achievement motivation, risk taking and innovative behavior level of business students.

CHAPTER 6RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of literature review and findings of present study, researcher has suggested the following recommendations to flourish entrepreneurial propensity among students:

There is need to create more awareness among business about the importance of entrepreneurial activates for country, society as well as for individual. For this purpose more training workshops and seminar should be conducted at various levels. This can be done through public and private collaboration.

Further, it is also required that entrepreneurial skills particularly personal traits that promote entrepreneurial propensity should be developed among students through training and education before starting business or entering into market. Further, fairs and exhibitions should be arranged with mutual collaboration at various level in order to enhance entrepreneurial culture among students. Similarly, different Business plan competition should be organized regularly in the university level as well as among different universities.

Pakistan and particularly in KP province of Pakistan, women face gender base discrimination. Women which are more than 50% of population should be motivated to come forward in business related activities. Female should be respected and be considered trustworthy. Further, business environments are not friendly for female in male dominated society. Thus, women entrepreneur of KP should know about their rights and privileges. This is important to change the perception of men towards women entrepreneur.

Media can play important role by publishing/broadcasting their success stories and presenting them as positive role models specifically in KP province of Pakistan. This will help to create not only positive image for women on rest of community regarding their choice about career decision but also for their role in economic development of a country. This will be helpful for family members to give permission to their female to come/enter into business related activities.

Networking is another important tool to promote entrepreneurial culture in our society. For achieving this one, local media for example cables networks, print media etc. can perform an effective role for excellent networking among entrepreneurs. Further, in this regard there is need to develop networking of associations at national and global level to support entrepreneurial endeavors in economy. Hence, chambers and various associations can play effective role.

Further, due to significant role of entrepreneurship in the development of a country, researcher proposed that entrepreneurship education is very important and more universities and colleges should offer courses about entrepreneurship because it has been observed that there is no offering of specialization courses in entrepreneurship field on university level as well as at batcher level in different universities of KP which is the need of time.

Since, access to resources especial to financial resources is key element to promote entrepreneurial culture. Hence, there should be flexible banking policies to provide loan at low interest rate through one window operation with easy repayment options by considering the unavailability of collateral and inability of entrepreneurs to develop feasible business plans. Luckily, nowadays in Pakistan discount rate is lowest i.e.7 % over the last forty years as announced by State Bank Of Pakistan with effect from May25, 2015(http://tribune.com.pk/story/891149/sbp-cuts-discount-rate-to-7%/express tribune) which can create opportunities for them to make investment at low interest rate and will reduce cost of doing business.

Due to lack of data regarding local markets, there may be limited support to forecast market trends. Business support institutions should develop a mechanism for the selection of potential entrepreneurs to tap international markets.

As in Kp province of Pakistan, there are mostly family businesses and start-up capital supplied by their family and friends. Hence, parent/family members’ role is very significant to promote entrepreneurial culture, change mindset and should motivate their young generation “to become jobs creators not the jobs seeker “

As non-locals are too much involved in the entrepreneurial business activities because due to socially marginalize and migrated people their survival is a big challenge. Further, the proportion of local members is comparatively low, so it is necessary that local community be encouraged to come forward and participate further in the entrepreneurial activities.

It is also recommended that education and training regarding improving psychological factors in the business community as well as among the potential entrepreneurs should be introduced. In this context, workshops and seminars can play a significant role for promoting entrepreneurial culture with public private collaboration in this province of Pakistan.

Finally, eminent researchers suggest that environment has significant role to boom entrepreneurial culture. But in KP province of Pakistan necessity-based entrepreneurship is more dominant as compare to opportunity - based entrepreneurship because mostly people established enterprises to meet their personal needs of bread and butter. Moreover at present in Pakistan and particularly in KP province, environment is not favorable due to adverse law-and-order situation, electricity shortages, increasing electricity charges, war against terror may affect negatively the present and potential entrepreneurs to become job seeker rather than to become job creators. Hence, maximum incentives towards entrepreneurship development and business friendly environment can be helpful to flourish entrepreneurial vision of persons as well as to provide opportunities for an entrepreneurial class to come forward.

6.1FUTURE DIRECTION

Following are some important points for future research:

Future researches can be done on different samples and should include other states or provinces of both countries in order to make it more generalize.

Similarly, researchers should design longitudinal study in order to analyze the responses continuity and changes with passage of time. Thus, researchers should test hypotheses on longitudinal data which would increase the reliability of these results.

Likewise, future research may include different angles due to cross cultural situation and national setting that may provide more valid, exhaustive and useful insights.

Moreover, future research could develop more complex way of studying the relationships i.e.to find out further moderating variables which may affect entrepreneurial propensity among students.

References:

· Alstete, J.W. (2002), "On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 8 No.4, pp.222-34.

· Babbie, E. (1993). The practice of social research.7th ed. Wardsworth publishing company.

· Baker , Therese L.(1994).Doing social rsearch.Singapore:Mcgraw Hill

· Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factors markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.

· Barcelona, A.C., & Valida, A.C. (1992). Interrelationship between personal variables and entrepreneurial potentials of senior students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. Malaysian Management Review, 29(4), 15-28.

· Basu, A., & Virick, M. (2008). Assessing Entrepreneurial Intentions Amongst Students: A Comparative Study. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance Web site: http://nciia.org/conf08/assets/pub/basu2.pdf

· Bonnett, C., & Furnham, A. (1991). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of adolescents interested in a young enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(3): 465-478.

· Busenitz, L.W. & Barney, J.B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9–30.

· Béchard, J. P. and J. M. Toulouse (1998). "Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship." Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317-332.

· Begley, M.W., Boyd, D.P. (1987), “Psychological Characteristics Associated with Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms and Small Businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.

· Brockhaus, R.H., Sr., Horwitz, P.S. (1986), “The Psychology of the Entrepreneur”, in The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, ed. D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, Cambridge: Ballinger, pp. 25-48.

· Bruch C.,(1992) Research on women Business owner:Past Trends, a new perspective & future direction”. Entrepreneurship theory & practice,16(4)5-30

· Bygrave, W.D. (1989). “The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its research methodologies”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 7-26.

· Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991). “Defining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29, pp. 45-61.

· Connie, R., James, W.K., John, E.F., Susan, M.F., Steven, S.W. and Daniel, W.W. (2005). “A Framework for the Entrepreneurial Learner of the 21st Century”, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol. 8 No. 3.

· Chell, E., Haworth, J., & Brearley, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality: concepts, cases, and categories. London, New York: Routledge.

· Cooper, A. C. & Gimeno-Gascon, F. J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, process of founding,and new-firm performance. In d. L. Sexton & j. D. Kasarda (eds.). The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship, 301-340.

· Crant, J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurship intention.Journal of Small Business Management , 34(3), 42-49

· Cromie, S. (2000), “Assessing entrepreneurial inclination: Some approaches and empirical evidence”.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 7-30.

· Frank, H., Korunka, C., Lueger, M., Mugler, J. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and education in Austrian secondary schools”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 259-273.

· Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and productivity. London: Routledge.

· Green, R., David, J., Dent, M., Tyshkovsky, A. (1996), "The Russian entrepreneur: a study of psychological characteristics", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.49-58.

· Gurol, Y., Atsan, N. (2006), “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey”, Education and Training, Vol. 48 Issue 1, pp. 25-38.

· Hansemark, O.C. (1998).The effects of an entrepreneurship programmes on need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4, (1), 28-50

· Henning And Jardim.(1977).The managerial women. Anchor press garden city New York

· Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of the pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 725–760.

· Hatten T.S. and Ruhland, S.K.(1995), “Student Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship As Affected by Participation in an SBI Program, Journal of Education For Business, Vol. 70

No. 4, pp 224-227.

· Ho, T.S. & Koh, H.C.,(1992).Differences in psychological characteristics between entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in singapore.Entrepreneurship, innovation and change: An International Journal, Vol. 1,243-54.

· Jack, S.L., Anderson, A.R. (1999), "Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5 No.3, pp.110-25.

· Koh, H.C. (1996). “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1225.

· Klapper, R. (2004), “Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an investigation at Grande Ecole in France”, Education and Training, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 127-137.

· Koh, H.C. (1996). “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1225.

· Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 77-88.

· Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21 (4): 154.

· Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter.(2004).Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th edition, McGraw-HillIrwin.Downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki _inflation_factor, dated -4-9-2010.

· Korunka,C., Frank, H., Luegler, M. and Mugler, J. (2003). “The entrepreneurial personality in the context of resources, environment and the start-up process: A configurational approach”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, pp. 23-42.

· Kristiansen, S., & Nurul Indarti. (2004). Entrepreneurial Intention Among Indonesian and Norwegian Students.Journal of Enterprising Culture,12(1), 55–78

· Lee, D.Y. & Tsang, E.W.K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality. Background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 583–602.

· Leone, C. & Burns, J. (2000).The measurement of locus of control: assessing more than meetsthe eye? The Journal Of Psychology, 134(1),63-76.

· Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality. International Journal Of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,6(6),295-309.

· Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003). The ‘Making’ of an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering Students at MIT. R&D Management, 33: 2.

· Mathews, C.H., & Moser, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of Small Business Management , 34(2), 29-43

· Mazzarol, T., Doss, N., & Thein, V. (1999). Factors influencing small business start-up. International Journal of Entrepreneur Behaviour and Research, 5(2), 48 – 63.

· McClelland, D.C. (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

· McClelland, D.C.(1961).The achieving society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ :New York.

· Mary Coulter.(2005).Eentrepreneurship in action. 2nd ed.Prentice Hall of India private limited,New Delhi.

· Matlay, H. and P. Westhead (2005). "Virtual teams and the rise of entrepreneurship in Europe." International Small Business Journal 12(3): 353-365.

· Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H.,(1982). Strategy making and environment: The third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4,221-35.

· Mitton, D.G. (1989). “The complete entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 13, pp. 9-19.

· Morrison, A. (2000). “Entrepreneurship: what triggers it?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behavior & Research, Vol 6, No 2, pp. 59-71.

· Mohd Nizam, A.R., Norhamidi, M., Dzuraidah A.W., Jaharah, A.G., Nishata Royan, R.R., & Shahida Azura, M.A. (2009). Engineering Students towards Entrepreneurship Awareness. Seminar Pendidikan Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina (PeKA’09). [Online] Available: http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~upak/pdffile/PeKA09/P4/33.pdf(June10, 2010)

· Mueller, S.L., Thomas, A.S. (2000), "Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness", Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 pp.51-75.

· Nor, M., Ezlika, G. and Ong, C. C. (2004). Demographics and personal characteristics of urban Malaysian entrepreneurs: an ethnic comparison. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on SMEs in a Global Economy,University Teknologi Mara,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-7th July, 2004.

· O’Brien, RobertM.(2007). “A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors”, quality and quantity41 (5), 673-690.Peninsula Malaysia. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

· Ooi, Y.K., (2008). Inclination towards entrepreneurship among Malaysian university students in Northern Peninsula Malaysia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Swinburne University of Technology, elbourne,Australia.

· Outcalt, C. (2000), “ The Notion of Entrepreneurship: Historical and Emerging Issues”, Kaufman Center for Entrepreneural Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education. Kansas City, United States of America.

· Pervin, L.A.(1980). Personality: Theory, assessment and research.3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

· Riipinen, M. (1994). Extrinsic occupational needs and the relationship between need for achievement and locus of control. The Journal of Psychology, 128( 5),577-88.

· Rohaizat, B. and Fauziah, S.A. (2002), “Access to Human Capital in Entrepreneurship Education: A Comparison of Male and Female Students in Technical Disciplines”, Akauntan Nasional, September, pp. 30-33.

· Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K. (1991a), "An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No.4, pp.13-32.

· Robinson, P.B., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K. (1991b), “Entrepreneurial research on student subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29, pp. 42-50.

· Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2000).”Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings”, In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp.101-142.

· Sarachek, B.,(1978). American entrepreneurs and the Horatio Alger Myth. Journal of Economic History, 38, 439-56.

· Schaper, M. and T. Volery (2004). „Entrepreneurship and small business: A Pacific Rim perspective“. Milton, Queensland, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd.

· Schere, J.(1982). Tolerance of ambiguity as a discriminating variable between entrepreneurs and managers.The Academy Of Management, 42,404-8.

· Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A.

· Sekaran Uma.(1999).Research methods for business:A skill building approach. 4th ed. Southern Ill notes University of Carbondale.

· Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N.,(1985).The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. Journal of Business Venturing, 1,129-40.

· Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and discover of entrepreneurial activities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.

· Shane, S.(2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

· Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L.R. (1991). “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 23-45.

· Shay, J., & Terjensen, S. (2005). Entrepreneurial aspirations and intentions of business students: A gendered perspective. [Online] Available: http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/2005FER/chapter_ii/summary_ii7.html(June 20,2010)

· Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes across campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159

· Stewart, W. H., & P. L. Roth (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1), 145–153.

· Teoh, H.Y. & Foo, S.L. (1997). Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risk taking propensity on the role conflict-perceived performance relationship: evidence from Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,12, 67-81

· Utsch, A. & Rauch, A. (2000).Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement orientation and venture performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.

· Van Auken, H.; Stephens, P.; Fry F. and Silva J. (2006). Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico. Entrepreneurship Management, 2: 325-336.

· Yar Hamidi, D., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 15(2), 304–320.

· Zaidatol Akmaliah, L.P., & Abdullah Salleh, A.S. (2008a). Development of Entrepreneurial Spirit among Students: A Case Study. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(3), 213–220.

· Zaidatol Akmaliah, L.P & Afsaneh, B. (2009a). Entrepreneurial Intention of University Students: An Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Groups. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 9(4), 49–60.

APPENDIX A

Table 4.1: Reliability Statistics Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Gatton College of Business &Econ-Kentucky, USA

Variables

Cronbach Alpha


0.902

Innovation

0.791

Risk Taking

0.604

Achievement Motivation

0.778

Internal locus of Control

0.682

Tolerance for Ambiguity

0.709

Table 4.2: Reliability Statistics Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Kohat university of Science & Tech(KP)-Pakistan

Variables

Cronbach Alpha


0.836

Innovation

0.767

Risk Taking

0.794


0.849


0.838


0.726

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Variables

Sample Size(n)

Mean

Std. Deviation

Entrepreneurial Tendency

133

3.3233

.86231

Innovation

133

3.7406

.51782

Risk Taking

133

3.3298

.50757


133

4.3759

.46269


133

4.0019

.54832


133

3.7356

.51865

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Entrepreneurial Tendency

152

3.9178

.52367

Innovation

152

3.8562

.60798

Risk Taking

152

4.3300

.64292


152

4.1168

.88256


152

3.9715

.50047


152

4.0625

.67512

Table4.5 Correlations Analysis Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Innovation

Risk Taking

“Achievement Motivation”

“ locus of Control”

“Tolerance for Ambiguity”


Innovation

“Pearson Correlation

1

.449**

.226**

.148

.510**

.192*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.009

.090

.000

.027

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133

Risk Taking


.449**

1

.080

-.158

.409**

.441**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.363

.070

.000

.000

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133



.226**

.080

1

.380**

.336**

.080

Sig. (2-tailed)

.009

.363

.000

.000

.362

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133



.148

-.158

.380**

1

.139

-.104

Sig. (2-tailed)

.090

.070

.000

.110

.233

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133



.510**

.409**

.336**

.139

1

.242**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.110

.005

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133



.192*

.441**

.080

-.104

.242**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.027

.000

.362

.233

.005

N”

133

133

133

133

133

133

**. “Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)”.

*. “Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)”.

Table4.6 Correlations Analysis Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Innovation

Risk Taking

“Achievement Motivation”

“Internal locus of Control”

“Tolerance for Ambiguity”


Innovation


1

.514**

.527**

.573**

.537**

.536**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152

Risk Taking


.514**

1

.681**

.683**

.607**

.700**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152



.527**

.681**

1

.813**

.451**

.824**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152



.573**

.683**

.813**

1

.550**

.679**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152



.537**

.607**

.451**

.550**

1

.446**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152



.536**

.700**

.824**

.679**

.446**

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

N”

152

152

152

152

152

152

**. “Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)”.

Table 4.7 (A) Group Statistics- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Program

“N”

“Mean”

“Std. Deviation”

“Std. Error Mean”


BBA

70

3.2857

.88654

.10596

MBA

63

3.3651

.83968

.10579

“Independent Samples Test”

“Levene's Test for Equality of Variances”

“t-test for Equality of Means”

“F”

“Sig.”

“T”

“Df”

“Sig. (2-tailed)”

“Mean Difference”

“Std. Error Difference”

“95% Confidence Interval of the Difference”

“Lower”

“Upper”


“Equal variances assumed”

.994

.321

-.529

131

.598

-.07937

.15016

-.37642

.21769

Equal variances not assumed

-.530

130.648

.597

-.07937

.14973

-.37558

.21685

Table 4.7 (B) Group Statistics - Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Program

“N”

“Mean”




BBA

110

4.1727

.50327

.04798

MBA

42

3.7738

.94196

.14535

“Independent Samples Test”

“Levene's Test for Equality of Variances”

“t-test for Equality of Means”

“F”

“Sig.”

“t”

“Df”

“Sig. (2-tailed)”

“Mean Difference”

“Std. Error Difference”

“95% Confidence Interval of the Difference”

“Lower”

“Upper”

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances assumed

10.741

.001

3.367

150

.001

.39892

.11847

.16484

.63300


2.606

50.200

.012

.39892

.15306

.09151

.70632

Table 4.8(A) Group Statistics- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Hometown

“N”

“Mean”




Kentucky(local)

109

3.3257

.86317

.08268

Others(Non Local)

24

3.3125

.87685

.17899

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity


.366

.546

.068

131

.946

.01319

.19517

-.37291

.39928


.067

33.537

.947

.01319

.19716

-.38769

.41407

Table 4.8(B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Hometown

“N”

“Mean”




KP(local)

150

4.0678

.67806

.05536

Others(Non Local)

2

3.6667

.00000

.00000




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



2.146

.145

.834

150

.406

.40111

.48104

-.54937

1.35159


7.245

149.000

.000

.40111

.05536

.29171

.51051


Gender

“N”

“Mean”




Male

90

3.4556

.87367

.09209

Female

43

3.0465

.77692

.11848




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



1.287

.259

2.615

131

.010

.40904

.15644

.09957

.71851


2.726

92.200

.008

.40904

.15006

.11102

.70707


Gender

“N”

“Mean”



Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Male

135

4.0753

.71403

.06145

Female

17

3.9608

.13856

.03361




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



12.288

.001

.658

150

.512

.11452

.17407

-.22942

.45847


1.635

129.292

.104

.11452

.07004

-.02405

.25310

ANOVA

Table 4.10(A)

Entrepreneurial Propensity(University Of Kentucky)

Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

.018

2

.009

.012

.988

Within Groups

98.136

130

.755

Total

98.153

132

ANOVA

Table 4.10(B) Entrepreneurial Propensity(Kohat University)

Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

9.068

2

4.534

11.306

.000

Within Groups

59.755

149

.401

Total

68.823

151


Birth Order

“N”

“Mean”




First Born

50

3.5200

.79085

.11184

Others

83

3.2048

.88626

.09728




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity


2.855

.093

2.067

131

.041

.31518

.15249

.01351

.61685


2.126

112.655

.036

.31518

.14823

.02150

.60886


Birth Order

“N”

“Mean”




First Born

66

4.0682

.50972

.06274

Others

86

4.0581

.78164

.08429




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



1.539

.217

.091

150

.928

.01004

.11084

-.20897

.22906


.096

146.483

.924

.01004

.10507

-.19762

.21770


Family Own Business

“N”

“Mean”




Yes

72

3.3981

.83477

.09838

No

61

3.2350

.89255

.11428




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity


.016

.901

1.088

131

.279

.16318

.14995

-.13347

.45982


1.082

124.226

.281

.16318

.15079

-.13528

.46163

Table 4.12 (B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Family Own Business

“N”

“Mean”




Yes

50

4.1333

.46899

.06633

No

102

4.0278

.75565

.07482




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



1.580

.211

.905

150

.367

.10556

.11662

-.12488

.33599


1.056

141.719

.293

.10556

.09999

-.09210

.30321


Workshop or seminar

“N”

“Mean”




Yes

14

4.0476

.57150

.15274

No

119

3.2381

.85221

.07812




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



4.134

.044

3.458

131

.001

.80952

.23412

.34638

1.27267


4.719

20.536

.000

.80952

.17156

.45225

1.16679

Table 4.13 (B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Workshop or seminar

“N”

“Mean”




Yes

45

4.3704

.43358

.06463

No

107

3.9330

.71699

.06931




F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference



Lower

Upper



3.193

.076

3.805

150

.000

.43735

.11493

.21026

.66444


4.615

131.310

.000

.43735

.09477

.24987

.62483

Table 4.14 (A) Model Summary- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.452a

.205

.173

.78400

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Internal locus of Control, Risk Taking, Achievement Motivation, Innovation

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

20.092

5

4.018

6.538

.000a

Residual

78.061

127

.615

Total

98.153

132

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Internal locus of Control, Risk Taking, Achievement Motivation, Innovation

b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity.

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

T

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval for B

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

.704

.856

.823

.412

-.989

2.398

Innovation

-.062

.164

-.037

-.378

.706

-.386

.262

.649

1.542

Risk Taking

.694

.161

.408

4.302

.000

.375

1.013

.695

1.438

Achievement

Motivation

.097

.168

.052

.576

.565

-.235

.429

.773

1.294


-.104

.140

-.066

-.741

.460

-.381

.173

.791

1.264

Tolerance

For Ambiguity

.142

.164

.086

.869

.386

-.182

.467

.644

1.552

a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

Table 4.14 (B) Model Summary- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.851a

.724

.715

.36061

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Achievement Motivation, Innovation, Risk Taking, locus of Control

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of Squares

Df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

49.837

5

9.967

76.648

.000a

Residual

18.986

146

.130

Total

68.823

151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Achievement Motivation, Innovation, Risk Taking, locus of Control

b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

Collinearity Statistics

B

Std. Error

Beta

Tolerance

VIF

1

(Constant)

-.285

.294

-.969

.334

Innovation

.149

.073

.116

2.043

.043

.589

1.699

Risk Taking

.295

.075

.266

3.915

.000

.409

2.443

Achievement

Motivation

.716

.083

.682

8.605

.000

.301

3.323


-.084

.063

-.110

-1.343

.181

.280

3.573


-.032

.080

-.024

-.408

.684

.541

1.847

a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

APPENDIX B

A study of personality traits that influence entrepreneurial propensity

1. Program (BBA / MBA) 2.Hometown (city, state or country) or Local/Nonlocal

3. Gender (Male / Female)4. Age (Be

gatton.uky.edu · web viewin other word it means continuous “search for new markets, products or...

Documents