Jukka
Vesalainen, University of Vaasa
Timo Pihkala, University of
Vaasa
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
DETERMINANTS
OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
APPLYING EXPECTANCY THEORY TO ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, OPERATIONALIZATION AND THE DATA
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
DISCUSSION AND
IMPLICATIONS
FIGURE 1
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
TABLE 7
TABLE 8
TABLE 9
CONTACT
REFERENCES
In this study we focus on the relationship between a person’s motivation structure and entrepreneurial intention. The data covers survey answers by 2899 people representing the normal population. The factor analyses identified the main factors behind the respondents’ motivational structure and the respondents’ subjective preferences for the work challenges. The analyses revealed four distinct dimensions for structure: growth/creativity; security; status, power, and money; and independence. The analysis for self-efficacy also produced four factors: vision/creativity; routine work; managerial generalism; and many-sided work. The results from a regression analysis show a clear relationship between motivation and entrepreneurial intentionality, with the growth/creativity-dimension showing a strong positive relationship with intentionality. The effect of self-efficacy on intentionality was not as strong as expected.
Researching entrepreneurship could be seen as studying of a special species of people that make unusual decisions about their occupational careers. In this field of research a central question is, what are the reasons for these people to choose an entrepreneurial career, instead of becoming hired professionals, administrators, teachers, or something else? Most of the research has been studying the motivational base of the entrepreneur as a stable characteristic, suggesting that the reason for the person to become an entrepreneur is in his personality. In this study we focus on the subjective and situational motivation structure as an explanation for entrepreneurial intention. Our point of departure in this research is that each person has his/her own subjectively perceived motivational structure and also a subjectively perceived picture of entrepreneurship as a tool for fulfilling one’s needs. Thus, the entrepreneurial intentions may depend not only of personality but also of people’s life situations, changing goals, or contingent preferences, to name but a few factors.
DETERMINANTS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
This study focuses on the process of entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurial processhas usually been modelled to include the stages of pre-start-up, start-up, growth and maturation (e.g., Churchill, 1983). The pre-start-up models usually begin with “perception of market opportunities” (Kilby, 1971), and thus Cooper (1982) defines the pre-start-up stage as follows: “The pre-start-up stage includes those events which lead a specific entrepreneur to a specific venture opportunity. It can involve varying degrees of deliberate planning, development of contacts and resources, and systematic search for entrepreneurial opportunities.” Common to all definitions of the pre-start-up stage is the focus on business related facts, which together form a straightforward pathway to business start-up. Moore’s (1986) model of entrepreneurial process, (innovation Ž triggering event Ž implementation Ž growth) with its various interrelated (explanatory) factors seems to reflect the state-of-the-art of the prevailing understanding of the entrepreneurial process.
The people school of entrepreneurship stresses the importance of the“right stuff” (see e.g., Ronstadt, 1984). In its utmost meaning the point is that an individual having “entrepreneurial characteristics” always finds the path to entrepreneurship regardless of the environmental conditions. The mainstream of “people school” research uses the so-called “trait approach” in explaining both entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial success. Perhaps the most widely used traits are need for achievement (McClelland, 1961) and locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Also tolerance of ambiguity and creativity have often been linked to entrepreneurship. Bateman and Crant (1993) defined a measure for proactive personality. This “new trait” seems to be rather promising a determinant of entrepreneurial behaviour. The trait approach has found various linkages between personal characteristics and entrepreneurship. Also these relationships are usually quite weak, but it can be argued that traits in general possess at least some explanatory power on entrepreneurship. The critique towards the trait approach has focused, for example, on the fact that it has not succeeded in defining a unique entrepreneurial stereotype with a certain pattern of characteristics, and that the relationship between a trait and actual behaviour is weak (see e.g., Chell, 1985)
It is true that traits alone have a limited explanatory power on entrepreneurship. As a solution to this problem an interactive approach (interactionism) tries to explain entrepreneurial behaviour as a function of the person and environmental conditions (Chell, 1985: 48). Huuskonen (1992) has also discussed the co-effect of personal characteristics and the reality individuals live in. In his approach the person’s subjective interpretation of the objective reality functions as a triggering element toward an entrepreneurial career. Values and attitudes in general and especially those linked closely with entrepreneurship are connected with entrepreneurial career development. Environmental observations shape people’s attitudes and beliefs. Attitudes and beliefs influence the potential entrepreneur’s view when he or she compares entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial career alternatives (c.f. Huuskonen 1992: 81–82). Ideological values have been regarded as important determinants of entrepreneurial behaviour by classical writers such as Weber and McClelland. Weber relates ideological values directly with entrepreneurial behaviour, whereas McClelland uses the need for achievement as an intermediating psychological variable between values and behaviour. (Kilby, 1971: 7–8).
Gibb et al. (1981) have proposed an alternative “social development model” to explain and understand entrepreneurial start-up decisions. They suggest that “entrepreneurship can be wholly understood in terms of the types of situations encountered, and the social groups to which individuals relate” (1981: 183). Also Stanworth et al.’s (1976) definition of entrepreneurial identities refers to certain reference groups. That is, persons can identify themselves as certain types of entrepreneurs (artisans, classical entrepreneurs or managers). Entrepreneurial identity may be a new promising link in the discussion of entrepreneurial potential as it can be used to distinguish between various would-be entrepreneurs. In order to measure entrepreneurial potential it is very important and interesting to find out how people define themselves as entrepreneurs, and what are the links between identity, attitudes, traits and intentions (cf. Vesalainen et al., 1997).
Intentionality is a state of mind directing a person’s attention (and therefore experience and action) towards a specific object (goal) or a path in order to achieve something (means) (Bird, 1988: 442). Intentionality is, thus, grounded on cognitive psychology that attempts to explain or predict human behaviour. It is seen that behavioural intention results from attitudes and becomes an immediate determinant of behaviour. Fishbein et al. (1975) have illustrated this relationship as follows: Beliefs Ž Attitudes Ž Intentions Ž Behaviour. Entrepreneurial intentions are aimed at either creating a new venture or creating new values in existing ventures. Intentionality includes both rational/analytic thinking (goal directed behaviour) and intuitive/holistic thinking (vision) (Bird, 1988). Motivational factors, such as the need for achievement (McClelland, 1961) and the need for control (Brockhaus, 1982) predispose individuals to entrepreneurial intentions. Boyd et al. (1994) introduced self-efficacy as an important triggering or inhibiting factor for intentionality. Self-efficacy is originally derived from Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and it refers to a person’s belief in his or her capability to perform a given task. Self-efficacy also affects person’s beliefs regarding whether or not certain goals may be attained. (Boyd et al., 1994: 66). Thus, it follows that if a person has positive attitudes on entrepreneurship and his/her intentionality has arisen, and if the triggers (suddenly changing personal or environment-based conditions) are bigger than the barriers to start-up, the decision to found an enterprise occurs (Volery et al., 1997). Our aim here is to look at the motivational factors for entrepreneurship. Thus, our point of departure is that a person with certain motivational structure is more capable in perceiving opportunities and creating new business than a person with another type of motivational structure.
APPLYING EXPECTANCY THEORY TO ENTREPRENEURIAL BEHAVIOUR
As can be seen in the reviewed literature, most research does not take the situational motivation factors explicitly into account. In general, entrepreneurial motivation has previously been studied from the point of view of personal needs. This approach has its roots in McClelland’s (1961) research, where the point is that entrepreneurial motivation is grounded in one’s personality, in the form of high need for achievement. Also studies focusing on immediate reasons for starting up as an entrepreneur have been quite numerous. These, usually retrospective studies have revealed such motivations as need for independence, need for money or need to improve one’s economic welfare, and need to use one’s own ideas or creativity (see e.g., Golby et al., 1971). As recent developments in entrepreneurship theorising stress, due to the process and interactive nature of the phenomenon, the person oriented approach, especially the trait–type–approach, has been considered inadequate to grasp the reality. Perhaps motivation is considered to stem solely from the individual, thus it is also inadequate to add to our understanding of the entrepreneurial action. However, looking back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is evident that motivation theories offer a very rich and interactive picture of the human motivation process. Especially the expectancy theory seems to be interesting for our purpose of understanding entrepreneurship. As far as we know no straight application of expectancy theory to entrepreneurship exists, or they are very few.
The roots of various expectancy theories of motivation are in Lewin’s Field Theory. The so-called Lewinian formula (B = f (P, E)) considers behaviour as a function of a person and his environment. A person and his environment are seen as a system, “psychological life space.” In this life space there are various fields, which offer different kinds of elements to the person. Each person sees the environment subjectively, thus reality is different for different people. One of the main explanatory concepts of behaviour is valence. Valence can be seen as a vector of power, which has the strength and the direction (Vroom, 1964). It is determined by a person’s internal value for a thing (e.g., money), and the attractiveness of a certain field (e.g., entrepreneurship) to fulfill the need. Vroom (1964), Porter and Lawler (1968) and Staw (1977) have followed Lewin’s theory in their attempts to formulate expectancy–based motivation theories. Vroom (1964) defines motivation (the force to perform an act) as a function of valence and expectancy. Furthernore, valence is a function of perceived value and perceived instrumentality:
Motivation to perform a behavior is an algebraic sum of the products of the values of the possible outcomes of the behavior times the beliefs regarding the likelihood that the behavior will lead to these outcomes . . . the valence of an outcome is seen to be determined by the values of the ultimate results that can come from the outcome times the perceived likelihood that the outcome will lead to the results. (Organ and Bateman, 1986: 118)
Applying this reasoning to an entrepreneurial decision, the motivation to start-up is stronger the more a person (1) perceives that the rewards from entrepreneurship (instrumentality) can satisfy the needs which are important for him (value), and (2) the more probable he sees that he is going to succeed in the tasks related to entrepreneurship. All these considerations are subjective perceptions, which means that entrepreneurial motivation can be very different between different individuals due to their different perceptions of entrepreneurship. For example, even a person who values safety and social contacts high in his motivation structure can have entrepreneurial motivation, so long as he perceives that entrepreneurship can fulfill those needs, and that he can cope with the tasks involved in entrepreneurship.
To further explore the expectancy theory’s applicability to entrepreneurship we will turn to Staw’s (1977) useful scheme for grasping the essential notions of the expectancy model. Although Staw’s original model was used in relation to job motivation, here we apply the model to discuss the various aspects of entrepreneurial motivation. Staw’s original model is shown in Figure 1. The principal elements in the scheme are the classes of rewards and the subjective probabilities (P’s) of obtaining those rewards.
Entrepreneurial behaviour can be seen as a corresponding concept for “effort” in the model. Then P1 is the perceived probability for a person to succeed in the tasks of entrepreneurship. It is important to notice here that entrepreneurship is also seen subjectively, and different persons may have very different view of entrepreneurship in their minds. Thus subjectivity is related both in the way a person judges his/her possibilities to succeed and in the way entrepreneurship is defined by him/herself. As a concept P1 comes very close to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which has been recently related to the entrepreneurial process (Boyd et al., 1994). P2 represents the subjective probability of a person to achieve extrinsic rewards through successful entrepreneurship. P3 is a typical motivational expectancy for hired employees indicating that just mere effort would lead to extrinsic rewards. This type of expectancy does not belong to pure entrepreneurship. However, when governmental subsidies are given to start-up entrepreneurs they lead to P3–type of motivational expectancies among the would-be entrepreneurs. P4–type of expectancies are a person’s subjective probabilities for achieving intrinsic rewards through entrepreneurial action. Typically, such motivational factors as need for independence and the need to realize one’s own ideas belong to this category. P5 –type of expectancies represent those intrinsic rewards that are related to entrepreneurial success, e.g., “to see one’s ideas to become true.”
Applying Staw’s model to entrepreneurial action gives us a subjectivist framework with rich description of various motivational aspects. Looking at Porter and Lawler’s (1968) contribution, which brings dynamics to the expectancy type of reasoning, it is possible to further develop theoretical understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour. In their model action, performance and the level of satisfaction are linked back to perceived values and perceived effort-reward probabilities. This learning effect indicates the processual and interactive nature of motivation (c.f. Bandura’s social learning in relation to self-efficacy).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, OPERATIONALIZATION AND THE DATA
In applying the general framework of expectancy theory, we will ask the following research questions:
We have operationalised the concepts as follows. The dependent variable (intentionality) is measured in three ways. First, there is a straight question: What is the probability that you will start a new venture within a year [START]? As many as 80,7 % of the respondents are sure or quite sure that they will not start-up next year and only 6% have a clear entrepreneurial intention. In our data that makes 174 respondents. Second, we asked whether the respondent will involve in various pre-start-up actions such as actively look for business ideas, make experiments to produce a product, develop a new product or service, look for business partners, or apply for a patent for a product. These actions were then summed up as a sum-variable [PREP] (co-efficient alpha .88). Third, we asked whether the respondent will partake in various way of educating himself for an entrepreneurial career. The types of education included commercial studies, long-lasting studying for entrepreneurship, coursing for start-up and studying entrepreneurship through indentures, and work practising or other such agreements [EDUC] (co-efficient alpha .87).
The independent variables of value, instrumentality, valence and self-efficacy were measured by different patterns of questions. The value pattern consists of 10 descriptions of different extrinsic and intrinsic rewards and the respondents were asked to choose three most motivating and three least motivating factors. Thus we have 10 different “value” variables, which may have 3 different values (3 = one of the most motivating, 2 = neither choosed to most nor least motivating, 1 = one of the least motivating). The instrumentality pattern consists also of 10 descriptions of extrinsic and intrinsic values (corresponding with the value pattern), and the respondents were asked to evaluate whether entrepreneurship fulfills these rewards more or less when compared to working as a hired employee. Again, we have 10 different “instrumentality” variables ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = “working as a hired employee fulfills the need better than entrepreneurship” and 5 = vice versa). Valence, then, is an interaction of value and instrumentality (value x instrumentality) for each corresponding variable. There is, then, 10 “valence” variables each ranging from 1 (1 x 1) to 15 (3 x 5). Self-efficacy was measured by a pattern of 10 statements describing various general challences of working-life. The respondents were asked to choose three challenges which are the most suitable for them, and three challenges which they feel are the most difficult for them. There are 10 “self-efficacy” variables each ranging from 1 to 3 (similar to the “value” variables).
As control variables we used gender, occupational experience, level of education and age (see Table 1). Our sample is intended to correspond the normal work age population. The base population we used comes from three counties consisting of 16 different municipalities, having a total population of appr. 50,000 inhabitants. We excluded all inhabitants under 16 and over 65 years, and from the remaining population of about 30.000 inhabitants we took a randomly selected sample of 6,000 names. After one reminder with a questionnaire we got a response rate of 48,3 % and thus our data consists of 2899 accepted questionnaires. The gender distribution corresponds very well to the general Finnish population, while the young (16–30 years) and the age class 31–46 years are slightly overrepresented in the sample. Correspondingly, the age class 46–65 is somewhat underrepresented. One characteristic of Western Finland is the low percentage of academically educated people, and the sample reflects this quality well. Considering the whole Finnish population, some bias may exist due to the fact that the data was gathered from small country municipalities and small towns, where the amount of clerical workers and various professionals is lower than those in bigger cities. However, we see that the sample corresponds quite well with the population living in smaller country regions in Finland.
The analysis of the data will be presented in three phases. First, we will give some descriptive statistics in order to see how the dependent and independent variables are distributed at the variable level. Second, we rise the aggregate level of variables by running factor analyses for valence and self-efficacy. This analysis tries to find out more general patterns of attitude from the data. In the third phase we use the computed factor scores in order to link the named independent variables to entrepreneurial intentionality. The multiple regression analysis is employed in this phase.
Table 2 displays the levels of self-efficacy. The skills-profile does not match well with tasks associated with highly entrepreneurial career, organisation building and firm growth. The majority of the respondents considered many-sided and challenging work, demanding self-discipline and personal development as manageable challenges. On the other hand, people in general seem to regard risk-taking, management and visions as difficult challenges for them. It seems that the challenges related to personal achievement fit people better than those involving managerial functions. This is not necessarily an unsuitable profile for an entrepreneurial career, but it does suggest a specific type of entrepreneurship, such as craftsman work and non-growth ventures. The challenges earning high ratings are also those closer to “normal” salaried work, and thus it is easier for people to identify their personal abilities with these factors.
Table 3 shows the respondents’ perceptions on the value of different rewards. Money in the form of guaranteed earnings and high payment seems to be the most motivating factors for people in general. As many as 61% of all respondents chose secure earnings as one of the most motivating factor for them. It seems that direct rewards have a better ability to motivate than intrinsic, processual and abstract rewards. The opportunities for personal growth and other intrinsic rewards are valued as “second order rewards.” On the other hand, status and power, occupation’s social value and, quite surprisingly, free time are considered the least motivating factors. Only 4% of the respondents chose “enough free-time” as one of the most important motivators. It is important to notice that the result indicates the general opinion and the picture varies between different subgroups.
The respondents seem to have a fairly realistic view of entrepreneurship. It is not a surprise that people consider the instrumentality of entrepreneurship to be highest in intrinsic rewards such as creativity, innovativeness and independence (see Table 4). In other words, they see that through an entrepreneurial career choice they could, for example, better use their creativity, compared with when working as an employee. On the other hand, entrepreneurship is seen to sacrifice the social relationships, economic security and leisure time. What is interesting, and also important in relation to the expectancy theory, is that people in general have different motivational structure (perceived value) in comparison with the expected rewards of entrepreneurship (perceived instrumentality). The most striking difference concerns secure earnings. As a motivational factor people value it highest (Table 3), but its instrumental value is ranked as second lowest of all (Table 4).
Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of valence. Using Lewin’s terminology these figures represent individuals’ vectors of motivational power, which have both direction and strength. The fact that people in general value independence quite high and at the same time see that entrepreneurship may fulfill that particular need makes the entrepreneurship/ independence combination become the most powerful potential motivational factor of entrepreneurship. The valence of entrepreneurship in regard to innovativeness and personal growth are also very highly recognised, while the valence of entrepreneurship and status is considered as the lowest of all.
Also the valence structure has individual differences. For example, the women’s score of valence for entrepreneurship/high payment is 6.61, whereas the corresponding value for men is 7.84. In the group of academics the valence of entrepreneurship/secure earnings is as low as 5.67, while the non-academics get a value 7.02. Next, we continue the analysis by running factor analyses for valence and self-efficacy measures.
Table 6 shows the results of the factor analysis for valence. The first factor consists of personal growth, creativity and independence. It can be named as the growth/creativity-factor. As such this represents a typical entrepreneurial motivation factor. In the second factor “membership of a group,” “secure earnings,” and “enough free-time” score highest. All these variables loading high in this factor represent some kind of security, thus this factor can be labelled the social security-factor. We expect that this factor is either not associated with entrepreneurial intention or functions as a negative motivator. The third factor clearly indicates valence related to status, power and money. As discussed earlier, these extrinsic rewards may be associated with the intentions of some specific groups of people. The fourth factor has a very high loading of “possibility to plan and decide on one’s own working hours,” which suggests the appreciation of personal freedom in work. This loading is accompanied by a loading on independence and we label this factor as independence.
In regard to self-efficacy the factor analysis produced four factors (See Table 7). The first consists of high loadings on “vision and intuition” and on “creativity and innovativeness,” thus it can be labelled as the vision/creativity-dimension. In a number of earlier studies visionary thinking has been associated with entrepreneurship, thus we expect that this factor is an important explanator for entrepreneurial intentions. The second factor has a high negative loading on “high self-discipline and initiativeness.” The factor has also a high positive loading on “international communication skills,” and a weaker negative loading on “high commitment and endurance.” This suggests that this dimension would describe a passive stance towards one’s work, a lack of abilities for self-direction, and that the work could be characterised as routine requiring no high personal stakes. Thus this self-efficacy factor can be called routine/international work. The third factor has a high negative loading on “high expertise,” and highly positive loadings on “management skills” and “risk-taking.” This pattern could reflect a dimension in which specialist expertise are sacrificed in favor of managerial generalism. The negative loading on “continued learning and personal development” strengthens this interpretation. Thus, the dimension can be labelled as managerial generalism. The fourth factor has high positive loadings on “varied and rich work” and “continued learning,” and a negative loading on “high commitment.” Thus this dimension could be called the many-sided work-dimension.
In Table 8 the regression analysis shows the differences in explaining different levels of intentionality. In general the analysis shows that, as expected, the valences of personal growth and independence emerged as imporant factors explaining intention, while the valence of societal security does not reach significant betas in any of the equations. Intentionality seems also to be closely related to male gender.
It seems that the motivation structure varies in relation to different measures of intentionality. The intention to seek education for entrepreneurship is associated with young age, a relatively high occupational position, high valence of growth/creativity, status/power and money, as well as high beliefs in performing well in managerial and routine work tasks. On the other hand, the intention for preparation for business start-up is based on a different motivational structure. Compared with the educational intentions, young age receives a lower loading as the valence of independence rises, while the effect of status vanishes. Thus the valence consists of only intrinsic reward factors. At the same time the self-efficacy regarding visionary and creative abilities receive a significant beta, and interestingly, the ability to perform many-sided work receive a significant negative loading. Thus it seems that the intention for preparing the start-up is effected by the intrinsic rewards of the process as well as the perceived abilities for visionary thinking and hard routine work. On the other hand, many-sided work seems to function as a demotivator.
The intention to start a business shows a different profile. For this intention the effect of age vanishes and the importance of male gender strengthens further. While the values of intrinsic processual rewards (growth, creativity and independence) are still high, the self-efficacy for visions as well as abilities to perform in routine work tasks are not seen as important anymore. Instead, the perceived skills for managerial generalism emerge as significant factors in the equation. This could be interpreted such that when the real intentions are explicated, the “hard” capabilities such as managerial skills and risk-taking are regarded as the only relevant factors for success in the start-up process.
In Table 9 the intention to start a business is analysed in the light of prior occupational experience. In general it can be seen that neither education nor status, power or money, seem to be associated with the intention to start-up. Growth /creativity as a dimension of valence, and the male gender are the main common explicators in the start-up equations. However, we can also note people with different occupational backgrounds have seemingly different motivational profiles to start-up.
In the teachers’ group, male gender, valence of growth/creativity, independence and self-efficacy of vision/creativity have significant loadings. The significant negative loading of vision/creativity is, however, interesting. It seems that in the group of teachers, the perceived ability of visionary thinking is not leading towards entrepreneurial action, rather vice versa. This may indicate teachers’ beliefs in the importance of “hard facts,” rather than imagination in the business world. The model of entrepreneurial intention among the group of operative workers is similar to the general model. The reason for this is obviously the fact that the data is strongly biased by this group. On the other hand, the group with management level experience are the most straightforward in their intentions. Intention is clearly a male phenomenon, with a high valence for personal growth, creativity and independence. Quite surprisingly, none of the self-efficacy measures reached significant levels in this group. This finding may be associated with Brockhaus’ (1982) results, according to which entrepreneurs do not score higher in personal motivational characteristics, but instead the managers’ group have a similar psychological profile to entrepreneurs. In the group where the respondents’ major work-experience is marketing, the regression model of entrepreneurial intention seems to be somewhat different in comparison to the other models. The main difference stems from the high negative loading on social security as a dimension of valence. This result indicates that people with marketing background, who have entrepreneurial intention, do not consider social security as an important motivational value for themselves and/or they do not believe that entrepreneurship would serve as a tool for achieving this kind of reward. It is also interesting to notice that independence as such is not related to intentionality, while its position was strong in other similar models. The regression model for people having most of their work-experience in administrative jobs is almost the same as in the case of marketing people. The only difference is that in the group of administrative workers the social security as a dimension of valence does not get as high loading than in the case of marketing people.
As could be seen, motivation structures did not provide a strong explanation in the regression equations for entrepreneurial intentions. This can partly be understood from the point of view that our approach to motivation is emphasising decision rationality, and thus may leave important aspects of entrepreneurial motivation with very little consideration. That is, the expectancy theory takes the formation of entrepreneurial intentions as an individual conscious evaluation of personal goals, the personal desirability of different outcomes and personal capabilities in different tasks. However, we only included motivation structures and three background variables in the regressions, while various factors of personality, identity, environmental triggering incidents and emergence of opportunities are likely to play important roles in the entrepreneurial process, too.
Nevertheless, our results show the differencies in both valence and self-efficacy with regard to entrepreneurial intention. Valence as a combination of value and instrumentality appeared to be a slightly better determinant of intention than the mere motivational structure of perceived value. Valence alone explained 10,1 % and perceived value 9,4% of the total variance of intentionality. Thus it seems that the “booster” effect of instrumentality increases the explanatory power of perceived value. Here we have a possibility to observe the importance of perceptions on personal skills: just mere favourable attitudes towards entrepreneurship are not enough, the person has to be capable to act accordingly, otherwise the attitudes do not lead to entrepreneurial intentions. For an entrepreneurial career choice the person needs to see both that the choice brings him the rewards he values, and that the choice would be feasible for him.
What seems to be interesting in the light of our results, is the finding that the motivational background varies according to the measure of intentionality: motivation structure explained 16% of the intentions to start, while it counted only for 8% of the intentions of getting entrepreneurial education. Furthermore, the motivational factors for the different “targets” of intention vary substantially. This may indicate that motivational structure changes along with the entrepreneurial process. In other words, people may educate themselves for an entrepreneurial career for reasons which are different from these motivational factors which are “active” in the phase of starting-up the firm. According to our results, the intentions to get entrepreneurial education may in fact be based on expectations of direct financial rewards, while the start-up intentions are initiated by the personal needs for growth and development. This finding suggest that the closer to an entrepreneurial career the decision making takes place, the more personal intrinsic motivational factors are involved in the evaluation.
Regarding entrepreneurial motivation, the growth/creativity -dimension of valence appeared to function as the most powerful ingredient of intentionality. Furthermore, independence as a dimension of valence was also closely connected with intentionality. While we expected that important personal values, such as growth and independence, would be associated with entrepreneurial intentions, the question remains why did independence emerge as a separate factor in the analysis? From earlier research (e.g., Stanworth et al., 1976) we know that some groups of “socially marginal” people seek independence through entrepreneurship. However, the analysis revealed groups where independence did not reach significant loadings, whereas growth/creativity received even higher loadings than other groups. It seems that while possibilities for personal growth and development and possibilities for independence are associated with entrepreneurial intentions, independence is a free-standing value that does not represent entrepreneurship equally for all occupational groups. Further research focusing on this matter could bring more information about the motivating effect of independence.
Our results did not gain strong support for any dimension of self-efficacy as a determinant of entrepreneurial intentionality. Only the dimension of managerial generalism with risk-taking was related to intentionality. The most striking surprise was the low and even negative coefficients of vision/creativity -dimension of self-efficacy, which indicates that perceived abilities of visionary thinking do not lead to entrepreneurial intention. It seems that visionary people have other routes to use their skills than entrepreneurship, and that for some people intending to start-up, other factors of self-efficacy are more important than visionary thinking. Those who really intend to start a business seem to differ from the rest of people in their skills of management and risk-taking. This profile of self-efficacy differs somewhat from the stereotypical picture of visionary and creative entrepreneuers. In contrast with our findings, some pieces of earlier research, e.g., by Bird (1988), stress the role of visions in entrepreneurial intention, and therefore we encourage further research on this theme.
CONTACT: Jukka Vesalainen, University of Vaasa, P.O. Box 700, 65101 Vaasa, Finland; (T) +358 6 3248 244; (F) +358 6 3248 195; jukka.fesalainen@uwasa.fi
Bateman, T. S. & J. M. Crant (1993). The Proactive Component of Organizational Behaviour: A Measure and Correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior 14: 103–118.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review 84: 191–215.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Academy of Management Review 13 (3): 442–453.
Boyd, N. G. & G. S. Vozikis (1994). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19 (Spring): 63–77.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The Psychology of the Entrepreneur. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ed. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper. 288–307.
Chell, E. (1985). The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Few Ghosts Laid to Rest? International Small Business Journal 3 (3): 43–54.
Churchill, N. C. (1983). Entrepreneurs and Their Enterprises: A Stage Model. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Cooper, A. C. (1982). The Entrepreneurship - Small Business Interface. In Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ed. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper. 193–208.
Fishbein, M. & I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introductory to Theory and Research. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Gibb, A. & J. Ritchie (1981). Influences on Entrepreneurship: A study over time. In Bolton Ten Years On. Proceedings of the UK Small Business Research Conference, Nov. 20-21. Polytechnic of Central London.
Golby, C.W. & G. Johns (1971). Attitude and Motivation. Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms, Research Report 7. London: H.M.S.O.
Huuskonen, V. (1992). Yrittäjäksi ryhtyminen. Turun kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja A-2. Doct. diss. Turku. In Finnish.
Kilby, P. (1971). Hunting the Heffalump. In Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Ed. P. Kilby. New York: Free Press.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ.: van Nostrand.
Moore, C. F. (1986). Understanding Entrepreneurial Behavior. In Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings. Forty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
Organ, D & T. Bateman (1986). Organizational Behavior – An Applied Psychological Approach. Homewood, Ill.: BPI Irwin.
Porter, L & E. Lawler (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin.
Ronstadt, R. C. (1984). Entrepreneurship. Text, cases and notes. Dover, MA: Lord Publishing.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalised Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement, Psychological Monographs Whole No. 609, 80.
Schöllhammer, H. & A. H. Kuriloff (1979). Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stanworth, M.J.K. & J. Curran (1976). Growth and the Small Firm—An Alternative View. Journal of Management Studies, May: 95–110.
Staw, B.M. (1977). Motivation in Organizations: Toward Synthesis and Redirection. In New Directions in Organizational Behavior, ed. B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik. Chicago: St Clair Press.
Vesalainen, J. & T. Pihkala (1997). Entrepreneurial Identity, Intentions and the Effect of the Push-factor. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, June.
Volery, T., N. Doss, T. Mazzaroll & V. Thein (1997). Triggers and Barriers Affecting Entrepreneurial Intentionality: The Case of Western Autralian Nascent Entrepreneurs. 42nd ICSB World Conference, Journal of Best Papers. June 21–24, San Francisco.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
© 1999 by Babson College. All rights reserved. Last updated March 2000.