• No results found

Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivational orientations for entrepreneurs : results and motivations : the effect of intrinsic motivation on entrepreneurial results

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivational orientations for entrepreneurs : results and motivations : the effect of intrinsic motivation on entrepreneurial results"

Copied!
43
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

2014

Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivational orientations for

entrepreneurs; results and motivations

(2)

Word of Thanks

Hereby I present my thesis with the focus on motivations for entrepreneurs. With this thesis my bachelor Economics & Organization comes to an end. I have mastered the basics of economics during my Bachelor and next to these building blocks I have developed myself as a young professional.

I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Hsieh for his professional opinion, direct comments and his guidance on my thesis. Without dr. Hsieh my thesis would not be the same as it is today. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Boumans for his quick responses to my questions and for his clear guidance.

(3)

Index

1. Introduction 2 2. Theoretical Review 3 3. Research Methodology 10 3.1 Research Model 10 3.2 Servey Design 12

4. Operationalisering and definitions 14

4.1 Respondents 14

4.2 Results 15

4.3 Financial and motivational results of entrepreneurs 16

4.4 Assumptions 17

4.5 Analyses and hypothesis 17

5. Discussion and recommendations 19

6. Conclusion 20 7. Literature 21 Appendix A 25 Appendix B 25 Appendix C 26 Appendix D 31 Appendix E 32 Appendix F 37

(4)

1. Introduction

“The happier an employee is, the happier the employer” is the message of the article ´Everybody happy´ by Tomesen (2014). Employees who feel happy perform better, desire to stay longer and are less sick. Creating a ‘happy’ environment for the employee helps the organization to increase customer loyalty, employee retention and the financials (Harter et al, 2010). This principle works also the other way around; the type of work

determines (partly) the happiness of the employee. Employees who are completely absorbed by doing interesting, challenging work are happier and they receive the most significant reward from doing the work.

This claim of a virtuous circle of happiness is a common point of discussion in HR-literature and certainly not new. Huselid (1995) and Koys (2001), for example, indicate the strategic advantage of a happy employee. A motivated agent is an asset of strategic value for organizations and obtains better results than an unmotivated one. To be able to create the right environment for employees an employer, also called principal, needs to take into account the significance of the job, the degree of challenge of the job and the relationship with colleagues (Tomesen, 2014). These aspects combined in the right way provide a motivation for an employee that exceeds the financial or extrinsic rewards; intrinsic motivation. Mostly all the HR-literature that discusses job

appreciation and job satisfaction is founded on a principal-agent relationship. The principal is represented by the management or by the owner of the organization and the employee is the agent. For entrepreneurs this relationship does not exist because the agent and the principal are internalized in the same person. So, an entrepreneur is responsible for creating his own stimulating environment in which he feels appreciated, challenged and socially accepted. If this entrepreneur manages to provide the right combination of

appreciation, challenge and challenge, he will obtain better results than other entrepreneurs? In other words: How important is intrinsic motivation for entrepreneurial results?

In this study the effect on performance of doing an activity pure out of interest, passion or just for the fun of it is investigated in an entrepreneurial setting. Due to the entrepreneur being more curious, less independent or a higher achiever it is the expectation that an intrinsically motivated entrepreneur obtains better results than his extrinsically motivated counterpart. Earlier research on entrepreneurial success can be roughly split into two directions, at first the search for a unique profile of an entrepreneur, by linking personal characteristics to the success of the organization. The second direction is based on the intention-action relation; the intensity of the intention determines the probability of success of becoming and maintaining an entrepreneur. This study measures intrinsic and extrinsic motivation out of three types of preferences: curiosity, need for achievement and degree of dependence and links these to organizational performance. The measurement of the types of motivation is adopted from a study of Lepper et al. (1997), which was completed in a primary-school environment, and carried out in an entrepreneurial environment. Entrepreneurs are the stimulators of economic growth by providing jobs, bearing risks, making innovations and increasing competitiveness (Cuervo, 2005). By knowing the type and intensity of motivation an entrepreneur is better able to provide the fitting circumstances to perform better. This in turn contributes to a more competitive, stronger economy. Out of

(5)

mostly psychological theories of motivation, a quantitative survey and a data investigation an economic analysis is provided to form conclusions about entrepreneurial motivations and factors of success.

This study is divided into five parts. At first an overview of motivational theories is given, divided into general theories of motivations, the application of entrepreneurial motivations and completed by a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic theories and applications. Then, the research methodology is discussed, which consists of an explanation of the research model, the operationalisation and definitions, followed by the survey design and ended by a description of the respondents. In the third part the results are given accompanied with an

illustration of the construction method of the results. The fourth parts sums up and discuss the findings and the limitations of this research, where the final part concludes and provides recommendations for future research.

2. Theoretical Review

An economy is in it its least interesting state when it is in equilibrium because only a static economy can exists without entrepreneurs (Cuervo, 2005). Cuervo states that an entrepreneur is an individual who restores the inequality of the economy, caused by technological changes or by changes in the political, economic or socio-demographic environment. By overcoming obstacles, such as improving the current (production) processes, implement (technological) innovations or by bearing a more than on average risk an entrepreneur is able to restore the balance. Busenitz and Barney (1997) emphasize this theory and indicate that this market

imperfection provide opportunities for entrepreneurs to earn an above average wealth. Entrepreneurs are key players in providing economic growth and boosting an economy (Bhola, Rheela et al., 2006). In his work ‘Job creation in America: How Our Smallest Companies Put the Most People to Work’ Birch (1987) claims that entrepreneurial companies are the engines of economies. However, what motivates an entrepreneur to bear the extra risk? Is it exclusively to earn an above average income? Or do there exist other motivations than these discussed?

According to Ryan & Deci (2000) motivation is the energy, the degree of perseverance and the direction of the intention as well as activation. So goals and motives play a role in the prediction of human behavior and there is a link between behavior, intention and motivation. Edelman (2010) defines motivation as the missing spark

between intentions and action. More or less,

motivational theories can be categorized into two types: push- and pull theories (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). Push–theories based on the presence of an internal incentive, drive, motive or stimulus. The individual concerned has a motivation to reduce this internal incentive and will act to reduce the pressing feeling, for example a hungry individual feels the need to eat. His

(6)

state that creates a state of tension within the individual. This can be pain or displeasure and the process of tension reduction can be associated with positive reinforcement or pleasure (Pervin, 2003). Pull theories, on the other hand, are based on a purpose, value or need and are assuming that there is an end goal which is pulling individuals towards it. A motivational pull of end goals, is pulling the individual towards something (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). The more concrete a goal is the more likely it will be enacted upon. An abstract end goal can be classified into many different intermediate goals to eventually obtain the desired result, i.e. to graduate at a university, several courses needs to be passed and books needs to be bought at a bookstore (Lawson, 1997)(Bay and Daniel, 2003). Maslow’s pyramid point out needs in an hierarchical manner. According to Maslow, people are motivated by their lowest unsatisfied need and move up the pyramid when a lower need is satisfied. Drive theories correspond with the two bottom parts of the pyramid of Maslow; basic needs and safety needs, whereas the incentive-theories approximately correspond with the upper parts of the same pyramid; social needs, esteem needs and self-actualization (Maslow, 1946).

Next to the two main categories of push- and pull theories Pervin (2003) enlarge the range with two other motivational perspectives: cognitive and growth/self-actualization theories. Cognitive theories focus on the way an individual views himself and the world around him (Pervin, 2003). According to Kelly, humans constantly process the information and impressions at which they are exposed to and subsequently form interpretations with their limited data processing capabilities. Humans construct mental maps to understand the impressions of the world around us (Kelly, 1963). The attribution theory of Weiner (1985) concentrates on the causal explanations individuals make for events. Are the events caused by an internal reason, like skills or hard work, or by an external cause, like luck, or maybe even both? In sum, cognitive theories focus on cognitive considerations, the processing of information, because it is the way one functions, in other words the nature of the beast. The pleasure experienced while reducing a tension is rather a by-product, but the search for

consistency or discovery is the motivation (Pervin, 2003).

The remaining direction of motivational theories is the one of self-actualization, the realization of growth of the individual, in other words the process of optimizing the human potential. The self-actualization theories match the upper level of Maslow’s pyramid, just like the cognitive theories. Harlow (1953) observed that the monkeys wanted to explore just for the exploration even in the absence of a reward. White (1959) suggested that the basic human motive are competence-related motivations, the motives to master the environment by exploring, manipulating objects, encountering challenges and developing skills to develop the human potential rather than pressing needs. A result of this line of thinking is intrinsic motivation, the tendency that humans have a natural impulse to explore, engage their interest and develop skills without getting a reward for doing so (Pervin, 2003). Historically, intrinsic motivation is a rather new concept in motivational and learning concepts. In previous research on learning, mid 50-s, the focus was on conditioning occurring under two different paradigms. The first, Pavlov’s learning of involuntary associations, and the other, Skinner’s and Watson’s instrumental/operant conditioning (Lepper et al. 1997). Both paradigms were based upon conclusions based on artificial, simplified and highly restricted learning environments. Even more important, both paradigms were

(7)

based upon the assumption that a person needs some sort of trigger or incentives to perform a certain response. This basic assumption is based on the extrinsic forms of motivation, in the form of a certain reward, punishment or external stimuli. Whenever the limitations of this perspective became clear the focus changed to a more natural, less restricted environment without rewards, goals or pressing needs (Lepper et al. 1997).

The new focus was build up out of mainly three variables: challenge, curiosity and control (Hunt, 1961). White contributed the competence motivation, earlier mentioned above, which is translated in the degree of

challenge accepted by that individual with the motive to master the environment. Likewise, Berlyne (1966) and Hunt (1961) contributed the variable curiosity, based on the occurrence of events which contain an

intermediate level of surprise, discrepancy of incongruity. They noticed that individuals are motivated by a need to know or a need for consistency. DeCharms (1968) added a third, the motive for control or self-determination. Comparable to the theory of Kelly and the theory of attribution, persons feel a need to control their environment. People strive to determine their own faith, and are able to do this by controlling outcomes and by preferring activities that provides them choices, in other words they desire a high degree of

dependence (Lepper et al. 1997).

Ryan and Deci (2000), provide in their article ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being’ a review of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation is defined as ‘the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence’. When a person is intrinsically motivated he will act out of pleasure, interest or challenge, regardless of the reward. This is a critical element in the development of cognitive, social and physical skills. Intrinsically motivated individuals must, next to feel competent to execute a certain activity, experience a high level of autonomy when doing this task. So, feeling competent and autonomous is crucial for intrinsically motivated persons. For example, when doing homework a student needs to possess the skills to complete it, but as well have the feeling of autonomy over the task. The latter is in conflict with the perceived control over the task. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to activities done to attain a certain outcome. Ryan & Deci use the definition; ‘’Extrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome’’. This outcome can be anything of instrumental value to the individual as well tangible as intangible e.g. wealth, status or power. The degree of autonomy and control varies with the different stages in extrinsic motivations, defined by Ryan & Deci (2000), from external regulation (external demand or imposed reward, low autonomy) to integrated regulation (high autonomy, high self-determination). Compared to intrinsic motivation the latter is equal in many characteristics, being autonomous and without conflict, however the instrumental value is still of more value than the activity itself.

The mutual relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is interactive and situational, although several other assumptions are made. For example, Harter (1978) assumed that types of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic, interact perfectly negative. He measured the concept of intrinsic motivation on school children and

(8)

of self determination as independent variables of intrinsic motivation. The main result of this study was a significant decline of intrinsic motivation and at the same time a significant increase of the extrinsic motivation over the full length of the school period. Studies of Tzuriel (1989) and Newman (1990) affirm this conclusion. Another assumption for the mutual relation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is made by Porter & Lawler (1968) who suggested an additive relationship, in which the sum of extrinsic and intrinsic formed the total motivation. An increase of total motivation is accomplished when one of both type of motivation is stimulated.

Figure 2 Mutually exclusive/ Additive/Interactive/ Relationship

However, both theories leave the effect of undermining or reinforcing out of account. By eliminating the assumption of a perfect negatively relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Lepper et al. (1997) created an elaborated version of the model of Harter (1978). The result of this new study was the same as in the study of Harter (1978) in the case of declining intrinsic motivation, only the extrinsic motivation was now more precisely assessed and remained equal during the period of the study instead of rising continuously. Another clarification of the research of Lepper et al. (1997) is that he was able to distinguish between the types of preferences. Hence, total motivation is the sum of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, however the exact relationship of the two types of motivations is uncertain, interactive and situational, as shown in figure 2. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interact both ways and are not mutually exclusive. Incentives can both reinforce and undermine intrinsic motivation. Undermining happens when threats, deadlines, directives, competition pressure and in some cases even a certain reward undermine the intrinsic motivation. The effect of undermining is shown in a study of Deci (1971) when undergraduates were examined during three periods of solving three-dimensional puzzles. In the first stage, there were no rewards given for solving puzzles. In the second stage a certain reward was given for solving the puzzles. In the third stage the rewards were no longer provided and the motivation to solve puzzles, just for the fun of it, was lower than the one in the first stage. Hence, the reward system caused an inclination of the intrinsic motivation in the experimental group, whereas the control group maintained the same intrinsic motivation.

On the other hand, it is possible for an extrinsic incentive to reinforce the intrinsic motivation. More autonomy or control and more choices provides an individual more freedom, by which the feeling of competence and autonomy are increased. A condition for providing these instruments is that the individual is interested in, curious for, challenged by the task in question or that it has aesthetic value (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

(9)

An incentive, for example task engagement, can increase the intrinsic motivation and eventually result in the acquisition of new skills. Next to task engagement extrinsic incentives can inform the individual about his competence of the activity because he is now able to compare himself to others.

Why is it so important to know in which stage of motivation for example a student is? For challenging and interesting tasks it is good to know for a teacher that these tasks have these qualifications so he can adjust his ways of teaching (degree of autonomy and degree of control) to it. The same reasoning works the other way around for uninteresting and maybe even boring tasks, where the teacher needs to raise his level of control and restrict the degree of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

According to Deci (1975) the most-effective type of motivation depends on the activity. If the activity involved is a one shot activity, the most-effective incentive is an extrinsic incentive, perceived as valuable for the individual. When the objective is a longer term activities or a range of activities, such as a children learning curve, it is better to enhance the intrinsic motivation by providing the right incentives. Another consideration in stimulating the right type of motivation is whether the individual would undertake the activity even if no reward is provided. If so, the intrinsic incentives suit better and if not, the extrinsic incentives are better indicators of future success. So, to get an individual performing an activity, which he is not willing to perform voluntarily, primarily extrinsic incentives are demanded. But do these incentives eventually provide better results? Going by the theory of Maslow (see figure 1) which indicates that the strongest motivator is the lowest unsatisfied need, extrinsic incentives are indeed the most appropriate to satisfy the lowest need, only after these are provided he is not performing better or worse. The only exception is in some cases the system of pay contingent upon performance, which is applicable on lower-level, production work (Lazear, 2000). If money or other external rewards are used as a control system or an administrator it undermines intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975). Hence, when the lower ‘extrinsic’ need is satisfied an individual can be motivated further by intrinsic incentives by extending the autonomy and the possibilities to develop skills. In this way an individual is motivated to perform better. For an employee, after the right salary and other comforts are provided, this can mean more participation, job enlargement, providing new challenges and giving more responsibility. In sum, using the right mix of incentives can produce the optimal results (Deci, 1975).

Implicated in the construction of the optimal environment is a principal-agent relationship, like the several studies discussed did in a school environment for a teacher-student relationship. The former provides the right environment and the latter performs within that environment. Only what happens for entrepreneurs, where this relationship is absent or internalized into one person. Is their motivation different? Do they perform a rather extrinsic-oriented activity or not? What is the right incentive mix of incentives for entrepreneurial activities and how are the results measured?

In a premature stage of research on this subject, mid-1950s, researchers tried to explain entrepreneurial motivation and performance. The results were insufficient and the field of entrepreneurial motivation was

(10)

distinction between motivations and personality traits of entrepreneurs caused partially the quick

abandonment on the topic. The lack of appreciation for the function and role of entrepreneurs in the society at that time accelerated the withdrawal from this topic (Cuervo, 2005). This all changed when Sexton and Smilor (1986) and Smilor and Kuhn (1986) wrote articles about entrepreneurial motivations , followed by Bird (1987) that claimed the growth of an economy is defined by the entrepreneur. This created a growing interest towards the understanding of the entrepreneurial process. During that period, end-1980s, the research direction was primarily searching for a link between (personal) characteristics of the entrepreneur and the performance of the organization (Herron & Robinson, 1993). With the renewed interest and the notion of the importance of the subject the investigations were still not unambiguous or correctly executed. The absence of clear and consistent research caused a lack of results in this research direction and the general conclusion was that there exists no unique profile to explain the performance of an organization (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011).

So, when the results of a unique entrepreneurial solution failed to materialize certain researchers assumed a broader view and adapts generally accepted theories of the subject of motivations. The focus shifted towards understanding the link between intention and action or behavior (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). With this new perspective, intentions became the best predictor of future action. Noteworthy is when two activities are compared, the one with the most motivational intensity will be enacted upon by the individual. The activity with the strongest motivational intensity will be executed before the other. So, when the motivational intensity is weak, the activity will not be performed, especially in the case when the task is perceived as difficult. The underlying assumption is that behavior is a choice between different alternatives, skills and environment ceteris paribus Atkinson (1964) and McClelland & Winter (1969).

Intentions can be divided into phases of intensity, like Gollwitzer and Brändstatter did (see figure 4). The first phase, defines the awakening desires and wishes, called the predecisional phase. An intention needs to be formed, for example ´I intend to be an entrepreneur´. However, an intention does not always lead to action. If there are impediments or other alternatives, the intention is present, but the desired action will not be performed. The preactional phase encloses the initiation of the goal directed behavior. An implementation intention can shift the intention one step further towards the goal. Its function is to translate the state of the goal state from a more abstract level into a more concrete goal, according to the theories of Lawson (1997) and Bay & Daniels (2003), by combining the situational factors and the goal into a more concrete intention, like ´I intend to create my own organization when the bank provides me a starters loan´. If the loan is given the individual commits himself to start and to perform the action. In addition, a goal is more like to be achieved with an implementation intention. A condition of this model to work is the possession of the cognitive structures to recognize and seize the opportunities in the market. The preactional phase is succeeded by the actional phase, in which the action is brought successfully to an end. In the last phase, the postactional phase, the comparison of the achievement and the desired goal is made and evaluated (Gollwitzer and Brändstatter, 1997).

(11)

Figure 3 Action phases model

In brief, there is no ideal model of entrepreneur or an ideal mix of characteristics and entrepreneurs behave just like normal people that are non-entrepreneurs in case of motivations. The main difference is the way how they organize their organizations. Instead of working in an organization, they create an organization. The way that the entrepreneurial motivations differs is neither much different, they only use it in a different way (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011).

An important distinction intra-entrepreneurial is determined by their possibilities at the current labor market. There is a group which is pushed in to the entrepreneurship, where others get pulled to this (Storey, 1991). An individual can have no other alternative at the labor market than to become an entrepreneur or he can see an entrepreneurial opportunity to seize. Reynolds et al. (2002) interprets this theory as ‘necessity-based’ vs. ‘opportunity-based’. According to Bholan & Verheul (2005) the two theories, the ‘push/pull’ and ‘necessity vs. opportunity’, are about the same. Viewed from a pull-perspective, an entrepreneur notices a certain possibility and tries to seize it. So, something is pulling them towards a certain goal or vision. Goals, intermediate and final, are in this perspective very important and motivating. The more concrete a goal is, the higher the possibility it will be enacted upon. The other perspective, the motivational push, occurs when an individual is pushed into entrepreneurship. There is certain pressing need, like no other possibilities in the labor market.

The way that an entrepreneur is pulled towards or pushed into the entrepreneurial activity is an indication for the appropriate type of motivation. A necessity entrepreneur is rather motivated to survive and is clearly motivated by money and other extrinsic rewards. The opportunity-based seizes an commercial opportunity and may be at first motivated by extrinsic rewards or profit, but may be later motivated by a rather intrinsic motivation, for example a need to achieve or a need for success. In other words he wants to create an environment where an increase in his degree of curiosity, independence and achievement is accomplished. Looking again at the pyramid, the lower needs are satisfied and other needs higher up in the pyramid of Maslow are now the lowest unsatisfied ones.

In this article, the same method as Lepper et al. (1997) computed will be applied in an entrepreneurial setting. Three types of preferences are measured to compute the motivational type of the entrepreneurs.

(12)

Figure 4 Research model

3. Research Methodology

In this part of the article the research methodology will be discussed. In the first section the construction of the research model is explained and subsequently the hypotheses are discussed. In the second section, the survey design is given and correspondingly the definitions of the variables and their operational form are presented. Finally, the group of respondents is introduced and the characteristics of this group are given.

3.1 Research model

The research design comprehends three classes of preferences, two types of motivation and three types of measures of prosperity. The classes of preferences and types of motivation are derived from the study of Lepper et al. (1997). Lepper eliminated Harter´s (1978) the assumption of two constructs, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, that are necessarily reverse opposites. This assumption forced students to choose between a rather intrinsic and a rather extrinsic motivated type. The elimination made it possible to compute two

independent types of motivations. To be able to construct an intrinsic or an extrinsic motivation with the use of this model, preferences in work situations are needed as building blocks. Demonstrated in studies of Harter and Lepper et al., but also by others, these independent variables are preferences internally present by the individual. Build-up out of the theories of White, Berlyne, Hunt and deCharms and translated into a

contemporary form three types of preferences are constructed. These 3 preferences; challenge, curiosity and control explain for a significant part, in a learning environment, the perseverance and effectiveness of learning. All the studies mentioned above are performed in an environment of primary or secondary schools, strongly reflected in the accompanied survey of for example Lepper et al (1997). For example, the teacher is chosen as the only peer in the preference for independence.

Hence, in contrast to the study of Harter, Lepper et al. were able to compute two types of motivations instead of one measurement with a perfectly negative relationship. Consequently, the survey is split into two parts as well, the one to compute the intrinsic motivation and the other to compute the extrinsic motivation. So, the

(13)

three types of preference explain intrinsic as much as extrinsic motivation. The intrinsic motivation is build up out of the degree of curiosity, challenge and independence and the extrinsic motivations comprises the degree of dependence, pleasing peers and the desire for easy work. In this research the preferences and types of motivations are adopted from the study of Lepper et al. (1997) and the environment of primary school is replaced by an entrepreneurial climate. Furthermore, the questions and methodology of the survey used in this study is based on the questions that Lepper et al. used but transformed into appropriate questions for

entrepreneurs.

In many HR-literature, for example Huselid (1995), Denison (1990) and Koys (2001), is the importance of a motivated staff indicated. For an organization this is a strategic asset; a motivated staff increases the organizational performance and is able to provide a strategic advantage for the organization. A result of this line of thinking is the extensiveness of different management styles all designed to increase the motivation of staff. For the most part, these styles are designed based on a principal-agent relationship, where the agent is mostly the employer and the agent the employee. In an entrepreneurial setting, this relationship is absent or not this clearly apparent, especially in smaller enterprises. The entrepreneur is the principal and agent internalized in one person. When the principal-agent relationship is absent it becomes harder to make statements about the motivation of the staff or the motivation of the firm. There is no point of reference and no different management style. So how it is possible to compare the motivation of different entrepreneurs? In this research is chosen for financial measures as well as growth measures. The latter occurs in two types, extent of staff and growth rate of staff. It is assumed that when an organization needs demand staff members it is experiencing a positive period and vice versa. So growth of staff is in line with positive results and having a large extent of staff is an indication of success. Obviously, the second types of measure are financially-based. Financials are unambiguous and easy to compute. In this article the used financials are profit (growth) and revenue (growth), based on a similar relation as the growth measures; if growth is positive it is a positive indicator for success. There is explicitly chosen for not only financial measures, because the growth of staff creates employment, which is a result of entrepreneurship. In this research model it is clear that the

preferences will create a value of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The following hypotheses are derived based on the research model:

1) Intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs make more profit

Entrepreneurs who desire a bigger challenge, are more curious for or are more independent will set higher goals, obtain more information and follow their own course. On average the results will be higher and the financial results as well. Profit is a direct financial measure. They perform their activities compassionate and are able to generate a strategic advantage.

(14)

For growth of profit the same logic applies, the profit of an entrepreneur who seeks on average a bigger challenge, is more curious and desires more independence will grow faster. Growth of profit is a indirect financial measure due to multiple time lags.

3) Extrinsically motivated entrepreneurs achieve more growth of staff

Due to less desire for control or independence entrepreneurs are able to delegate tasks more easier. They have a clear focus, rely on their co-workers and just do what they have to do. They underline specialist instead of generalists.

4) Intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs obtain better results

By setting higher goals and a desire for high achievement intrinsically motivated entrepreneur generate more profit and revenue and a higher growth of staff.

5) Extrinsically motivated entrepreneurs perform better

A clear focus on performance incentives provides a clear focus and eventually better results.

3.2 Survey Design

The hypotheses will be empirically tested using an electronic survey, which is created in Thesis Tools, a software program which is build for designing surveys. The survey comprehends three parts. The first part is where all the questions asked relate to personal details of the respondent. The type of question is in general open or multiple-choice. The respondent is asked for his age, gender and highest graduated education. Another question in the first part is what the respondent values the most in his work, a question where multiple

answers were possible. As a control question for an unbiased group of respondents, the respondents are asked whether he is an entrepreneur or not.

The second part consists of questions trying to discover the preferences of the respondents to measure the value of each type of motivation. The preferences, by means of 35 positions, are measured in a 5 point Likert ordinal scale, arranged from 1 to 5, indicating a 1 as really not appropriate and 5 most appropriated. For example in the category Curiosity a position is “I want to learn everything” and a respondent can fill in a 5 if it is totally applicable on his type of person or a 1 if it is certainly not. If the questions in this part are in another way defined or another interpretation is possible it is mentioned in the results.

The preference to achieve is given in extreme forms; ‘does the entrepreneurs like hard, challenging work’ or ‘does the entrepreneur like the easier assignments’. The preference for challenge is part of the intrinsic motivation and measured by means of 5 positions. The counterpart is the desire for easy work, which determines partly extrinsic motivation and is measured by 7 positions. For the preference of curiosity the entrepreneur either ‘performs the entrepreneur his activities to satisfy his interest and curiosity’ or ‘performs

(15)

the entrepreneur his activities in order to merely satisfy his environment and obtain the desired results’. The former intrinsic variable is curiosity, measured with 7 positions and the latter is Pleasing Peers, measured with 3 positions, part of the extrinsic motivations. Originally, this variable consisted of 4 positions, but one of them is eliminated due to a decrease of reliability in a Cronnbach Alpha test. The last type of preferences is defined as ‘does the entrepreneur figure out problems or difficult tasks on his own’ or ‘does the entrepreneur rely on his environment for advice and guidance’. The intrinsically part occurs in the variable Independent Mastery, which is formed by 6 positions, and the other is Dependence, formed out of originally 6 positions, but again due to a decrease of reduction 1 position was eliminated, so 5 remained.

The last part of the survey measures the results and growth rates of the organization. The questions in this part are formulated to form a picture of the financial and growth prosperity of the organization. First of all, the respondent is asked for the age of the organization, if it is his only organization and if it is his first organization. Secondly, the size of staff is questioned in open questions going back 5 years in time, to form a continuous variable. For the financial categories revenue and profit multiple-choice, ordinal questions account for a picture of financial prosperity. The choice of ordinal classes for an continuous scale variable is made due to the

expectation that respondents fear to reveal their figures or do not know instantly the correct figures. For profit the divisions are divided into classes of €20.000, starting with the option of no profit, then €0-20.000, and so on until more than €100.000. For revenue the classes comprise steps of €40.000, starting at less than €40.000, then €40.000-€80.000, so on until more than €200.000. Revenue and profit go back 5 years in time.

After the survey is send, all the data is collected in ThesisTools and transferred to Excell. In this program the data is adjusted to the right size and the data is merged into 1 file, due to the two types of entrepreneurs. Moreover, in Excell the 2 growth-variables are created, growth of staff and growth of profit. Both are

computed by the difference of the size of staff/profit in a current year and a previous year. If the difference is negative, the growth rate is negative (-1), in case of no difference (0) and when there is a positive difference the growth rate is +1. The difference for the growth rate of profit arises from an ordinal variable and for the growth rate of staff from a continuous variable. Thereafter the data is copied to SPSS and the 6 different variables, that form intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation, are composed by summing up the positions and taking the average. Next the reliability is tested using the boundaries of a Cronnback Aplha test (see Appendix A) and 0-values are tracked down and eliminated. In addition, a filter to select only entrepreneurs is executed and the remaining number of respondents is 89. When ready for operation statistical assumptions for an ordinal variables regression are made and eventually proven, the research design is tested and the

(16)

4. Operationalisering and definitions

Now the survey design is explained, the next step is to present all the building block of the research design in their operational form. The preferences are based on the definitions of Lepper et al. (1997), the types of motivations on Ryan & Deci (2000) and the measures of prosperity are adopted from the Business Dictionary.

Intrinsic motivation is ‘the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence’ and extrinsic motivation is‘ a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome’. Intrinsic motivation is build-up out of the created variables: Challenge, Curiosity and Independent Mastery. For extrinsic motivations these are: Easy Work, Pleasing Peers en Dependence. The definitions of the measures of prosperity consist of:

- Profit ‘The surplus remaining after total costs are deducted from total revenue, and the basis on which tax is computed and dividend is paid’

- Revenue ’The income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted’.

- Staff ‘The entire group of employees who work at a company

’.

4.1 Respondents

In this research there are two types of respondents; Dutch importers of wine and Dutch traders in sand and gravel. To contact the entrepreneurs an email is send to them with the request to participate in this survey. This email started with a short explanation of the purpose of this research, an introduction of the research and a friendly request to participate. Furthermore, the method of obtaining their personal details (emails and names) is explained and a promise is made by the author to handle this information confidentially. Finally, the opportunity is given to receive a digital copy of this research, when completed, by sending an email to the author and announce this interest. After three and six working days a reminder is send to all entrepreneurs.

The group of wine importers is selected because of the assumption that they are relatively intrinsically motivated. They work in a branch where a high-quality of service is demanded and they work with a rather heterogeneous product. The expectation is that this group will have the largest intrinsic motivation. Importers of wine in the Netherlands have the obligation to register the quantity imported, mainly because of type of good they import. The branch organization’ Productschap Wijn main goal is to keep track of the excise products imported. But next to administrating the quantity of liter imported, this organization registers the type of wine, land of origin and the database contains all the contact details of the importers. At the moment this research was performed the database contained 700 importers of wine. All these entrepreneurs are selected as the research population. However, the branch organization complies with the Dutch Data Protection Act, so it is not possible to receive a ready to use list of addresses. This process is done by selecting each entrepreneur’s

(17)

email individually and put it in an excel record. Some of the emails were not available in the database; these are found with the help of the internet. Eventually the survey is send to 600 wine-entrepreneurs but due to technical failure (68), unwillingness to participate (22) and dissolvence (10), only of 635 entrepreneurs can a response be expected. Finally, 105 entrepreneurs completed the survey, a response ratio of 15%. After inspection 37 of the surveys were biased or missing essential values. In addition, 4 surveys were filled in by non-entrepreneurs. So, in total 63 surveys were correct, unbiased and approved for analyses. A response ratio of 11%.

To balance the former assumption ‘wine-importer are more intrinsically motivated’, a search for a group of entrepreneurs who are rather extrinsically motivated is started. An eligible group is found in Dutch traders of sand. Due to the homogenous product they trade and fierce price competition market they operate in they are selected. Fortunately, the Dutch Chamber of Commerce keeps tracks of all operating entrepreneurs in the Netherlands and each individual has the option to compose a address list according to the preferences. The selected group of entrepreneurs was available in the database of the Chamber of Commerce. The whole population consists of 487 entrepreneurs the moment this research was executed. For this group it was much harder to collect all the emails, due to absence of a website (99) or only the possibility to contact them through an application form (22). After sending the survey 3 entrepreneurs in sand did not wish to participate and 41 technical failures occurred. Eventually, 41 entrepreneurs completed the survey, but here as well 11 were deleted due to biased scores or missing values and 5 were eliminated because of they were not entrepreneurs. In conclusion, 25 surveys were approved and analyzed, a respondent ratio of 5%.

In total 89 respondents completed a qualified survey. Of these 89 entrepreneurs proved 74.2% to be Male and 25.8% Female. Notable is that the entrepreneurs are rather highly educated, 28.1% qualified for a University-degree, a Higher Education (31.5%) or an Intermediate Education (18%). The remaining part qualified for secondary school (20.2%) or has no education (2,2%). The youngest respondent is 22 years old and the oldest 80, the average age is 48,04 years old. For 62 of the 89 entrepreneurs the current organization is their first and for 64 entrepreneurs this is their only organization (appendix B).

4.2 Results

A thorough analysis is build up out of different parts that complete each other. This result section starts with the descriptions and figures of the independent and dependent variables. Next, the reliability of the newly constructed variables is measured and discussed. To be able to execute an ordinal regression several

assumptions are based on different characteristics of the data, which is illustrated in the third section. Build up out of all the previous parts the analysis of the model finishes this section, starting with a discussion of the hypotheses and ending with partial conclusions.

(18)

4.3 Financial and motivational results of entrepreneurs

The respondents all reported a revenue in 2013 and in 2012, except one missing value in 2013. Earlier years reported more missing values, due to non-existence or unknown figures. So, for the sake of recency the dependent variables are reported for the 2 most recent years. The distribution of the revenue is striking, more than 57% is found in the highest and the lowest category in 2013 and almost 54% in 2012, resulting in an U-shaped distribution. Dividing the 89 respondents in 2 types of entrepreneurs brings clarification, mostly sand-entrepreneurs obtain a high revenue and mostly wine-sand-entrepreneurs operate in the lower classes. Although wine-entrepreneurs reveal a strong outlier in the highest category in 2013 and a less strong one in 2012. Sand-entrepreneurs, however, operate exclusively in the highest categories what result in a higher mean 5.29 in 2013 and 5.08 in 2012. For wine-entrepreneurs the means are 2.97 for 2013 and 2.92 in 2012. For all the results see Appendix C.

Profit is a rare phenomenon according to the financial results of the respondents. They reveal that more than 56% in 2013 and even more than 65% in 2012 make no profit or a small profit up to €20.000. The distribution of both years is one with a fat tail in the lower classes and a small tail in the higher classes. Again, wine-entrepreneurs occur frequently in the lower classes and sand-wine-entrepreneurs are located in the middle classes in 2013. For 2012 the sand entrepreneur are present most in category 4 and the lower classes, the wine-entrepreneurs maintain their position in the lower classes. The averages of wine-wine-entrepreneurs are 2.26 for 2013 and 2.02 for 2012. For sand-entrepreneurs these are 3.92 for 2013 and 3.17 for 2012. In addition, the growth of profit over the years 2012-2013 is 0.2 growth, mainly created by sand-entrepreneurs through an average growth of 0.29 versus 0.16 by wine-entrepreneurs.

Hence, in the financial variables is reflected that sand-entrepreneurs achieve as well higher revenues as profit figures, although the differences between revenue are relatively higher than the differences in profit. Is this in line with the size of staff? The average staff is 3.77 in 2013 and 3.73 in 2012. Zooming in on the types of entrepreneurs provides a completely different picture, where the sand-entrepreneurs have a staff of 8.88 in 2013 and 9.08 in 2012, the wine-entrepreneurs provide jobs for on average 1.8 employees in 2013 and 1.66 in 2012. In addition the growth of staff with a mean of 0.05 (positive growth) is caused only by

wine-entrepreneurs. In summary, it is clear that sand-entrepreneurs operate in larger organizations, expressed in higher revenue and larger size of staff. The profit and the growth of staff, however, do not differ much.

After the design of the 6 variables that eventually form intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, they need to be tested for their reliability. To test if the new composed scale is consistent with the construct the Cronnbach Alpa test is conducted. In general, a test is accepted if its value is higher than 0.7. For all the newly created variables the test was accepted, except for Dependence which scored slightly lower, but was still used as construct of extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, the two variables Dependence and Pleasing Peers eliminated 1 position to improve their reliability (see Appendix A).

(19)

The values of the independent variables are rather different, Challenge and Curiosity achieve a high average score and Pleasing Peers a rather low average score. When both types of entrepreneurs are compared, the most notable differences are in the classes: Easywork, Pleasingpeers and Extrinsic. The correlation of intrinsic and extrinsic is -0.32, which indicates a negative relationship (see Appendix D).

4.4 Assumptions

To be able to construct an ordinal regression several assumptions have to be made and respected. First of all, the dependent variables should be measured at ordinal level. This assumption is valid and respected to the Likert-scale of all the constructed variables of Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations. Secondly, ordinal independent variables must be treated as being either continuous or categorical. Due to the fact that the financial, growth and staff variables are all continuous, this assumption is valid and respected. A third assumption is the rejection of multicollinearity, the undesired situations where the independent variables correlate strongly with each other. This check is done in appendix D and no multicollinearity appeared. The fourth assumption is the case of proportionate odds, which will be discussed after the analysis of the ordinal regressions. In additions to the assumptions, the data is checked upon outliers. After a test for Z-values no outliers were detected for all the independent, ordinal variables. The criteria for outliers are checked with a p value probability of 0.001 and the critical interval was outside of -3.29 and +3.29.

4.5 Analyses and Hypothesis

In the 5 hypothesis a causal relation is expected between the different variables, dependent and independent. To test this relation two regressions are performed for each dependent variable. The first is the dependent variable against the 6 constructed variables and the second against Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations. For both types of regression the control variables are Age, Sex, First Organization and Only Organization. The analysis takes off with testing the hypotheses. The first ´intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs make more profit´ is for both regressions in 2013 a good fit, but for 2012 the variables added do not offer an improved fit. All the p-values of the goodness of fit are insignificant (p>0.05), meaning that the observed data does fit the data well. The matching pseudo R² figures of the regressions of 2013 are given in the tables and explain the variance of the dependent variable. So for the model fit the Nagelkerke R² explains 24.9% of the variance of profit 2013. Zooming in on the individual variables only Age is significant for p < 0.001 and First Organization for p < 0.05 in the analyses of 2013. In 2012 no individual variables are significant p < 0.05. Zooming further in on Age and First organization for 2013, this gives a picture that there is a positive relationship of 0.948 between age and profit, indicating a change of age with 1 unit causes an increase of 0.948 units of profit. The relationship between First Organization and Profit is as well a positive one of 0.39; if the entrepreneur operates in his first operation the profit is 0.39 units higher than if otherwise. Referring back to the last, still incomplete,

assumption of proportional odds is violated for the regressions of 2013 (p <0.05), meaning that the general model gives a better fit to the data than the ordinal model. For both regressions of 2012 this assumption is not

(20)

violated. In this manner the conclusion is that according to this model the effect of intrinsic motivation is uncertain.

The second hypothesis is ´intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs achieve more growth of profit´. Again two regressions are executed, the one of extrinsic and intrinsic as independent variables and the other with constructed partial variables that form intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The former is significant (p < 0.05) in the model fit and the latter is not (p = 0.06). The fit of the data is significant for both regressions is significant, indicating that the model does not fit the data well. The corresponding pseudo R² in the former case explains 28% of the variance of the Growth of Profit. Zooming in provides a picture that in the first regression Age, Independent Mastery and Only organization are significant as individual variable. For the second regression Age and Only Organization are significant.

Regression Variable Exp. B Estimate Std. Error Sig Constructed variables Age 0,938 -0,064 0,022 0,004 Constructed variables Indep. Mastery 2,57 0,944 0,431 0,028 Constructed variables Only Org. 3,593 1,375 0,596 0,021 Intrinsic/Extrinsic Age 0,939 1,457 0,581 0,012 Intrinsic/Extrinsic Only Org. 4,291 -0,063 0,022 0,004 Table 1 Data Growth of profit

The test of parallel lines indicates that the ordinal model offers a better fit; the assumption of proportional odds is not violated for both regressions. Hence, this model provides in both cases no proof that intrinsic motivation results in an increasing growth of profit, except for the partial, constructed variable Independent Mastery. At the same time, there is no proof that extrinsic motivation results in a higher profit.

The next hypothesis is ‘extrinsically motivated entrepreneurs achieve more growth of staff’. Again two regressions are used and the model fit is insignificant for both, so there is no improvement while adding dependent variables. However, the goodness of fit of the data to the model is not significant for both regressions and the according R² is 0.297 in the first and 0.231 in the second. The individual variables Dependence, Education (class 2) and First Organization are significant in the first regression and First Organization in the second.

Regression Variable Exp. B Estimate Std. Error Sig Constructed variables Dependence 2,942 1,079 0,484 0,026 Constructed variables Education class2 0,156 -1,859 0,909 0,041 Constructed

variables First Org. 0,21 -1,562 0,705 0,027 Intrinsic/Extrinsic First Org. 0,264 -1,333 0,67 0,046 Table 2 Data Growth of staff

For the first regression the assumption of parallel lines is eliminated, due to the significance of the test. In the second regression the general model is not better and the test of parallel lines is not significant. The

(21)

assumptions proportional odds remains for this model. Although in both models, the variables intrinsic and extrinsic motivations do not contribute to the model the partial variable Dependence is significant and contributes to the first model. So, Dependence provides growth of staff. .

The remaining part of the analysis is the regression of the revenues of 2012 and 2013. This is as well as the missing part of the puzzle in the analyses to conclude overall results compared to motivations. The final conclusions are discussed later. First, the analysis of revenue is discussed, this analysis is started based on the remaining two hypotheses ‘intrinsically motivated entrepreneurs obtain better results’ and ‘extrinsically motivated entrepreneurs perform better’.

For both years and both regression of revenue, the fit of the model is not significant, so the addition of variables results in no better fit. On regards of the goodness of fit both regressions of each year are not significant either, meaning that the data fits the data well. The pseudo R² are given appendix E, indicating the degree of explanation of the variance of the dependent variable, in this case revenue. Differing from the analysis above is that in the case of revenue for all the regressions, no individual variables are significant. The assumption of parallel lines in in 2 regressions rejected (the general model is better in the regressions with intrinsic and extrinsic of 2013 and in the regression of 2012 for the 6 constructed variables). In the other 2 cases the assumption of proportional odds is not violated. To sum up, there is no proof that intrinsic motivated entrepreneurs obtain a higher revenue nor that extrinsic motivated entrepreneurs achieve a higher revenue.

Accordingly, in no regressions performed the effect of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is proven directly. In 2 regressions of growth there is an effect measured that a constructed variable causes an effect on a measure of growth, Dependence for Growth of Staff and Independent Mastery for Growth of Profit

5. Discussion & Recommendations

In the discussion of the different types of entrepreneurs two matching profiles emerged. Entrepreneurs organize their organization completely different as entrepreneurs in sand, which is clearly visible in the division of revenue and the differences in size of staff (Appendix C), although the differences in profit do not show the same trends. A possible explanation is a lower profit margin for sand-entrepreneurs. In line with this is the type of product they trade. Wine is a heterogeneous product what is distinguished by quality and service, whereas sand is a homogenous product which is sold in mass. Another possible explanation is the profile of the entrepreneurs, for example the years of education he completed, his working experience or the way his organization is organized. The latter refers to the distinction between amateurs and professional

entrepreneurs. One can be passionate about the product and perform an organization in part-time. Altogether, each type of entrepreneurs differs much. They even differ so much that they are located each on one side of the spectrum in the entrepreneurial climate. To improve the results a recommendation is to complete both

(22)

A second recommendation is another measure of the classes for the financial variables; the best would be to measure these variables in a continuous variable. To be able to do this, entrepreneurs need to have an

incentive to reveal their figures. A second-best solution is to construct again an ordinal variables, only now with more classes. Both solutions will provide a better fitting data. A third recommendation is to construct an index for the growth rate of profit and staff. This will create reliable and additional data of the growth rates. The only problem is to overcome when the growth rate of staff is zero in the current year and positive figures in the next year, this will cause an infinite growth.

One of the main results of this study is the situational character of motivation. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic is strongly dependent on the concerning activity. The situational circumstances of the

respondents in this study are all differently, so is their type of motivation. In future research the performed activity needs to be controlled and be approximately the same. Future research can resume as well the results of this study and pick up the proven results. The age of a respondents relates to his results, just like

Independent Mastery in Growth of Profit and Dependence in Growth of Staff. Future research can set these group of variables as main claim and research the causes of the relationship further.

6. Conclusion

People with a passion can maintain an activity longer because of their curiosity and their willingness to learn, aim for higher goals for the sake of achievement and desire a high degree of independency. Although it is acceptable to assume that entrepreneurs or employees with an intrinsic motivation obtain better results than agents with rather extrinsic motivations this claim is not proven. However, two partial variables, variables that form eventually intrinsic or extrinsic motivations, results an effect on a measure of prosperity. The first, Independent Mastery, results in a positive effect on Profit Growth. A possible explanation of this effect can be that having a high degree of Independence gives entrepreneurs the freedom to operate in the way that is best for the organization. The second measured effect is a that a high degree of Dependence results in a positive effect on Growth of Staff. A possible clarification can be that less demand of control offers space for delegating tasks.

Since the effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is unknown and not proven, a logical explanation of this phenomenon is the situational factors that determine the right motivational type. Every situation is different, therefore no effect is noticed. As mentioned in the theory and again applicable, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can exclude each other but reinforce each other even so. In this research their correlation is negative (-0,32).

(23)

7. Literature

Ajzen, I. (1991). “Theory of Planned Behavior: Some Unresolved Issues,” Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 50(2), 179–211.

Ajzen, I., & M. Fishbein (1977). “Attitude–Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research,” Psychological Bulletin 84, 888–918.

Ajzen, I., & T. J. Madden (1986). “Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22(5), 453–474.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). “Motivational Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior,” Psychological Review 64, 359– 372.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). “An Introduction to Motivation,” New York: Van Nostrand.

Bagozzi, R. (1992). “The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior,” Social Psychology Quarterly 55(2), 178–204.

Bagozzi, R., & P. Warshaw (1990). “Trying to Consume,” Journal of Consumer Research 17(2), 127–140.

Bay, D., & Daniel, H. (2003). “The theory of trying and goal‐directed behavior: The effect of moving up the hierarchy of goals,” Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 669-684.

Berlyne, D. E. (1966). Curiosity and exploration. Science, 153(3731), 25-33.

Bhola, R., Verheul, I., Thurik, A. R., & Grilo, I. (2006). “Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs”

Busenitz, L. W., and J. B. Barney. (1997) "Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making." Journal of business venturing 12.1: 9-30. Carsrud, A., & Brännback. "Entrepreneurial motivations: what do we still need to know?." Journal of Small

Business Management 49.1 (2011): 9-26.

Cuervo, A. (2005) "Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship."The International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1.3: 293-311.

Dweck, C. S. (1986)”Motivational processes affecting learning.” American psychologist, 41(10), 1040. De Charms, R. (2013). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. Routledge.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons. Edelman, L. F., C. G. Brush, T. S.

Manolova, and P. G. Greene (2010). “Start-up Motivations and Growth

Intentions of Minority Nascent Entrepreneurs,”

(24)

Elfving, J. (2008). Contextualizing Entrepreneurial

Intentions: A Multiple Case

Study on Entrepreneurial Cognitions and Perceptions. Turku: Åbo Akademi

Förlag.

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press. Freud S (1924) A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York: Permabooks

Harlow, H. F. (1953). Mice, monkeys, men, and motives. Psychological review,60(1), 23.

Harter, S. (1978). Pleasure derived from challenge and the effects of receiving grades on children's difficulty level choices. Child

Development, 788-799.

Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal, 38(3), 635-672.

Gollwitzer, P., and V. Brandstätter (1997). “Implementation Intentions and Effective Goal Pursuit,” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 73,

186–199.

Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (2005). Entrepreneurial engagement levels in the European Union (No. 2905). Papers on entrepreneurship, growth and public policy.

Kelly, G.A. (1963). A Theory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. W.W. Norton and Company. pp. 190

Kim, M., and J. Hunter (1993). “Relationships among Attitudes, Intention and

Behaviour,” Communications

Research 20(3), 331–364.

Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit‐level, longitudinal study. Personnel psychology, 54(1), 101-114.

Lawson, R. (1997). “Consumer Decision Making within a Goal-Driven Framework,” Psychology and Marketing 14(5), 427–449.

Lepper, M. R., Sethi, S., Dialdin, D., & Drake, M. (1997). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A developmental perspective. Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder, 23-50. Liska, Allen E. 1984. "A Critical Examination of the

Causal Structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen Attitude-

Behavior Model." Social Psychology Quarterly 47:

(25)

Maslow, A. H. (1946). “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review 50, 370–396.

McClelland, D. C., and D. G. Winter (1969). Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: Free Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality.

Nuttin, J. (1984). Motivation, Planning, and Action. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pervin, L. A. (2003). The science of personality . Oxford university press. Reynolds, P. D., W. D. Bygrave, E. Autio, L. Cox, and M. Hay (2002). Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2002, Executive Report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial

Leadership.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary

educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci (2000). “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well- Being,” American Psychologist 55, 68–78.

Sarasvathy, S. D. Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Sexton, D., and R. Smilor, Eds. (1986).

The Art and Science in Entrepreneurship.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Smilor, R. W., and R. L. Kuhn. (1986).

Managing Take-off in Fast Growth Firms. Westport CT: Greenwood

Press.

Storey, David J. (1991) 'The Birth of New Firms - Does Unemployment Matter? A Review of the Evidence', Small Business Economics, 3, 167-178

Tomesen, R. (2014) Everybody happy!? Intermediar Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation).

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological review, 92(4), 548.

(26)

Definitions

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/staff.html#ixzz31bwV2BE0

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/revenue.html http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/profit.html

(27)

Appendix A Reliability Constructed variables

Statistics Reliability Variable Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Challenge ,790 5 Curiosity ,775 7 Independent Mastery ,741 6 Easy Work ,708 7 Pleasing Peers ,739 3 Dependence ,672 5

Appendix B Descriptives Respondents

Descriptives Independent Variables

Variable

Freque ncy Percent Gender Male 66 74,2 Female 23 25,8 Total 89 100,0 First Enterprise Yes 62 69,7 No 27 30,3 Total 89 100,0 Only Enterprise Yes 64 71,9 No 25 28,1 Total 89 100,0 Education No Education 2 2,2 High School 18 20,2 MBO 16 18,0 HBO 28 31,5 University 25 28,1 Total 89 100,0

(28)

Appendix C Descriptives of Dependent Variables

a) Descriptives of Financial variables

Variable € Frequency Percent

Revenue 2013 0 1 1,1 less than 40000 21 23,6 40000-80000 13 14,6 80000-120000 9 10,1 120000-160000 9 10,1 160000-200000 6 6,7 more than 200000 30 33,7 Total 89 100,0 Revenue 2012 less than 40000 21 23,6 40000-80000 15 16,9 80000-120000 10 11,2 120000-160000 10 11,2 160000-200000 6 6,7 more than 200000 27 30,3 Total 89 100,0 Profit 2013 no profit 22 24,7 0-20000 29 32,6 20000-40000 15 16,9 40000-60000 13 14,6 60000-80000 2 2,2 80000-100000 2 2,2 more than 200000 6 6,7 Total 89 100,0 Profit 2012 0 1 1,1 no profit 31 34,8 0-20000 28 31,5 20000-40000 10 11,2 40000-60000 13 14,6 60000-80000 3 3,4 80000-100000 1 1,1 more than 200000 2 2,2 Total 89 100,0

(29)

b) Descriptives of indepent variables

Descriptive Statistics

Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Std.

Age 89 22 80 48,04 11,957 Challenge 89 1,80 5,00 38,427 ,70998 Curiosity 89 1,86 5,00 38,604 ,65002 IndependentMastery 89 1,33 5,00 34,944 ,69379 Easywork 89 1,14 3,86 25,377 ,59646 Pleasingpeers 89 ,67 4,33 23,745 ,86430 Dependence 89 1,20 5,00 31,258 ,70928 Intrinsic 89 2,46 4,94 37,325 ,49149 Extrinsic 89 1,28 4,02 26,794 ,53999 Staff2013 89 0 80 3.73 9.52 Staff2012 88 0 85 3.68 10.08 Growth of staff 12-13 89 -1 1 0.0562 0.46121 Growth of profit 12-13 89 -1 1 0.2022 0.56769

(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)

Appendix D Correlations

Correlations

Challenge Curiosity Independent

Mastery Easywork

Pleasing

peers Dependence Intrinsic Extrinsic

Challenge Pearson Correlation 1 ,513** 0,186 -,500** -0,184 -,232* ,795** -,384** Sig.*** 0 0,081 0 0,084 0,029 0 0 N 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Curiosity Pearson Correlation 1 0,121 -,301** -0,026 0,011 ,745** -0,12 Sig. *** 0,258 0,004 0,807 0,918 0 0,263 N 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Independent Mastery Pearson Correlation 1 0,147 -0,128 -,384** ,613** -0,183 Sig. *** 0,17 0,232 0 0 0,087 N 89 89 89 89 89 89 Easywork Pearson Correlation 1 ,399** ,251* -,304** ,691** Sig. *** 0 0,018 0,004 0 N 89 89 89 89 89 Pleasing peers Pearson Correlation 1 ,321** -0,161 ,821** Sig. *** 0,002 0,133 0 N 89 89 89 89 Dependence Pearson Correlation 1 -,288** ,702** Sig. *** 0,006 0 N 89 89 89 Intrinsic Pearson Correlation 1 -,324** Sig. *** 0,002 N 89 89 Extrinsic Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. *** N 89

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** 2-tailed

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

I n dit verslag van de conferentie beschrijven we verschillende bijdragen aan de conferentie en reconstrueren we welke ontwikkeling ze zichtbaar maken op het terrein van wiskundig

It turns out that a machine learning       model can predict the literary judgments based on the texts to a substantial extent; based on word       frequencies and syntactic

Findings – Based on the classification framework a number of key findings emerged: studies on monetary incentives primarily applied an economical theory; the large majority of

In addition, literature (Urista &amp; Day, 2008) confirms that users satisfy their need for personal and interpersonal desires with online activities. Hypothesis 2,3 and 4 state

Through mass spectrometry analysis of peroxisomal fractions isolated from Hansenula polymorpha cells exposed to ethanol stress, we identified six putative peroxisomal

By using WTC as the focus of this research, the famous Big Five personality traits and the Management Communication style (MCS) were incorporated in order to investigate on

Noticeably more globally oriented than other members of society, patrons of specialty coffee bars as a fraction within the new middle classes enjoy the

variability of consumption, production, trade and climate on crop-related green and blue water footprints and inter-regional virtual water trade: A study for China (1978-2008),