Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions:
A comparison between the Netherlands and Turkey
BSc Erdi Demir
Student: 10212817
⸗
Dr Joeri Sol
Supervisor
⸗
Faculty of Economics and Business
⸗
MSc Business Economics
Programme
⸗
Organisation Economics
Track
ABSTRACT
This study replicates Van Auken, Stephens, Fry, and Silva (2006b), exploring role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions. A comparison of the influence of business owner role models between two countries is relatively unique in entrepreneurship research. The original study compared USA and Mexico, this study will focus on The Netherlands and Turkey. The role model process is explored by looking at activities that role models might engage in. The dataset consists of a survey of 93 respondents. In line with Van Auken et al. (2006b) this thesis finds that role models did not have a greater influence on career intentions of Turkish students compared to Dutch; business ownership of role models seems to have no significantly greater impact than role models who do not, on the career intentions of Turkish students; and Turkish students will have a greater interest in owning a business within 10 years of graduation compared to Dutch students. While in contrast, role models who own a business did not seem to have a greater impact on career intentions for Dutch students than role models who don’t. The results of this study may be relevant and interesting for those teaching and doing research in entrepreneurship studies.
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review & Hypotheses
2.1 Entrepreneurial intentions
2.2 Role models
2.3 Research hypotheses
3. Data & Methodology
3.1 Data collection
3.2 Measures
3.3 Methodology
4. Results
4.1 Respondent characteristics
4.2 Most significant role model
4.3 Role model’s influence on career thinking
4.4 Interest in starting own business
4.5 Mean rating of influence variables
5. Discussion & Concluding Remarks
6. References
7. Appendices
A. The questionnaire in English
B. Tables and Figures
3
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurs are important for employment creation, productivity growth and the production and commercialization of high-quality innovations (Van Praag & Versloot, 2007). As a consequence many studies examined the choice to become self-employed, such as demographics (Hatten & Ruhland, 1995), risk propensity (Zhao et al., 2010), individual personality (Gartner, 1988; Low & MacMillan, 1988); and recently, an emerging literature explores the contribution of role models to the choice of career in entrepreneurship.
Lindquist et al. (2013) show that the transmission of entrepreneurship from mothers to daughters is significantly stronger than that from fathers to daughters, and similarly fathers have a stronger influence on their sons. Based on role model identification theory this suggests the presence of role modelling. Bosma et al. (2012) summarize the conclusions of previous work on role models and entrepreneurship and categorize them in three strands of literature. The first states that parental entrepreneurship is positively correlated with an individual’s decision to become an entrepreneur; the second establishes that networks as well as peer groups influence the decision to become an entrepreneur; while the third tries to explain the uneven levels of entrepreneurship between clusters, regions and countries. Most research on the determinants of entrepreneurship include background or antecedent factors underlying the entrepreneurial decision. One of these antecedent factors is the influence of role models on the potential entrepreneur’s decision making and thought process. Various theories on role model influence look at socialization, identification and ‘active involvement’ in order the understand its effect on entrepreneurial intentions1.
Van Auken et al. (2006a & 2006b) explored the influence of role model effects on entrepreneurial intentions through a comparison of a student sample in the United States of America and Mexico. They used questionnaires to study various indicators of role model influence, such as, the influence of role model activities on career intentions; the influence of relatives on career intentions; influence of role model ownership of business; interest in owning a business after 10 years. By looking at the significance of difference in means, some of the results found indicated the lower importance of passive activities of role models on career intentions; greater influence of relatives on career intentions in Mexican rather than American samples; role models owning a business having a bigger influence on US rather than Mexican samples; and greater willingness to own a business 10 years after graduation among Mexican students.
4
This thesis contributes to the literature by replicating the study of Van Auken et al. (2006b) and will use samples from the Netherlands and Turkey. The Netherlands is comparable to the USA while Turkey is comparable to Mexico. This will therefore enable the comparison of the results of the aforementioned study, and allows for an assessment of the external validity of Van Auken et al. (2006b). In contrast to Van Auken et al. (2006b), I do not find a greater influence of role models on career intentions of Turkish compared to Dutch samples; role models owning a business having a bigger influence on Turkish rather than Dutch samples; and greater willingness to own a business 10 years after graduation among Turkish students.
The motivation for the choice of these two countries is due to the similarity of macro-economic circumstances. First, GDP per capita and the annual growth of GDP of The Netherlands seems comparable to USA, while Turkey resembles Mexico (Worldbank, 2014).2 Further, the levels of entrepreneurship divides these two countries. In 2011, Mexico had a self-employment rate of 33% of civilian self-employment and Turkey 38%. These rates are relatively high compared to the rates of USA (7%) and The Netherlands (11%) (OECD, 2014).3 Using the cultural index based on Hofstede’s model, the cultural differences between the Netherlands and Turkey can be compared. For instance, Turkey scores very high (85) on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Mexico (82) is around the same range as Turkey, whereas the Netherlands (53) and the United States (46) have a lower preference for avoiding uncertainty.4
The thesis proceeds as follows: I will present an overview of the literature review and the hypotheses in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains the data description and methodology. In Chapter 4 the analyses and results of the collected data will be discussed. Leading finally to the discussion, conclusion and recommendations for further research in Chapter 5.
2 Table 7 shows the average GDP growth rate between 1961-2012 and GDP per capita in 2012. 3 See Table 8 for the development of the self-employment % of civilian employment from 2001-2011. 4 See Figure 1 for the cultural index based on Hofstede’s model.
5
2. Literature Review & Hypotheses
The literature review below provides empirical and theoretical background to the concepts discussed in this paper. The review consists of three parts. The first part will review literature on entrepreneurial intentions. The second part on role models. The third subsection puts forth the hypotheses along with a discussion of the results by Van Auken et al. (2006b).
2.1 Entrepreneurial intentions
A number of past studies have pointed at entrepreneurial intentions being one of the best predictors of entrepreneurial behaviour (Van Auken et al., 2006b). Using both, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Shapero’s model of the Entrepreneurial Event (SEE), Krueger et al. (2000) found that individual (e.g. personality) and situational (e.g. employment status) variables affect entrepreneurial attitudes and motivations. Figure 2 shows a model of TPB in which intentions are affected by attitudes and beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). By changing the attitudes and beliefs about a person’s perceived ability to be successful in a new venture, a role model could affect the entrepreneurial intention (Krueger et al., 2000). Shapero (1982) argues that entrepreneurial intentions depend on the following factors: perceptions of personal desirability, propensity to act and feasibility. Along similar lines Ajzen (1991) argues that intentions in general depend on perceptions of personal attractiveness, social norms, and feasibility.
Krueger et al. (2000) asserted that intentions predict entrepreneurial behaviour better than personality traits and situations. Figure 3 presents the Shapero-Krueger Model and shows that intentions are a function of perceived desirability and feasibility of an act. Krueger et al. (2000) asserted that perceptions of desirability are learned. The intention to start a business are higher for students that follow entrepreneurship courses, compared to students who don’t. Noel (1998) tested whether entrepreneurship graduates will have stronger intentions of opening a business than non-entrepreneurship graduates and found that entrepreneurship students have higher intentions to start a business.
Douglas and Shepherd (2002) found that income is not a significant determinant of entrepreneurial intention. They also found that the tolerance for risk, and need for independence, are positively correlated with the intention to be an entrepreneur. Goals, motivations, and intentions are intertwined in predicting the decision to become an entrepreneur. Kuratko (1997) found that extrinsic goals like wealth and intrinsic goals like recognition, challenge, autonomy, family security, and excitement were important for sustaining entrepreneurship.
6
This research is strongly related to Scott and Twomey’s (1988) paper titled ‘The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students’ career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship’, in which they proposed that parental role models and experience lead to the perception of oneself as an entrepreneur. Using samples from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Ireland 436 responses were analysed and compared by country. The main factors influencing the career aspirations were divided into three groups: predisposing factors (background/personality perception factors that develop over several years or more), triggering factors (situational and short-term factors such as career advice received, prospect of unemployment and whether the subject is seeking work), and the factor of possessing a business idea. The survey included questions about personal background and work-related experience, whether either parent owned a business; type of past employment and type of organization; and spare-time activities. The entrepreneurial self-perception was measured by asking the students to rate themselves on a seven-point scale for ten different characteristics. To determine career/organization preference, students were asked to choose one from the following: self-employed/running own business, working in small business, working in large business, or working in a large public organization. The main finding of Scott and Twomey (1988) was that students whose parents owned their own business, were more likely to prefer self-employment.
2.2 Role models
This section examines the literature on role models. As stated by Bosma (2012, p.410) “A role model is a common reference to individuals who set examples to be emulated by others and who may stimulate or inspire other individuals to make certain (career) decisions and achieve certain goals.”
The key element of role behaviour is socialization (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). The sociological concept of socialization refers to a lifelong process in which behaviour is learned throughout the life cycle (Clausen ed., 1968). Basow and Howe (1980) describe the process of role behaviour in which a role model is someone whose life and activities influence the respondent in specific life decisions. The role model influence could be both positive and negative. Positive or negative influence indicates whether the subject actively wants to be like the role model or not. The role model could influence the individual in two ways; observational learning experience (Scott & Twomey, 1988; Scherer, Adams, Carley & Wiebe, 1989; Lent, Brown & Hackett, 1994) and by actively participating in the learning experience (Krueger, 2007).The active participation may involve advice and counsel, but may also involve working together with the individual and share experiences. According to Gibson (2004, p.149), the
7
importance of role models lies in three interrelated functions: “to provide learning, to provide motivation and inspiration and to help individual define their self-concept”. To get a better understanding of how the functions of role models were established, I will discuss the theories from which these functions were drawn from.
One phenomenon that role models are explained through is the theory of role identification. Bosma et al. (2012, p. 412) states that “role identification can be seen as a cognitive response to an individual’s belief that the characteristics of another person (the model) are close to his/her own motives and character and that this model plays a desirable – often central- social role or occupies an attractive position.” The identification process may result in the formation or adaptation of an individual’s preferences (Witt, 1991) or behaviour in which the subject is trying to imitate the role model because it is expected to be rewarding (Kagan, 1958). In addition to role identification theory explaining the function of role models as agents of inspiration, it could also explain increasing efficacy. By increasing the self-efficacy, the role model makes the subject confident that he/she can achieve a certain goal (Bosma et al., 2012).
Another school of thought, social learning theory, alternatively known as social cognitive theory, states that individuals are most likely to learn a behaviour by observing family and close friends (Bandura, 1977; 1986). This is because individuals are attracted to role models in close proximity who can help to further develop themselves by learning new tasks and skills (Gibson, 2004). Fornahl (2003) also discusses the importance of the role of positive entrepreneurial examples when it comes to enhancing entrepreneurial activity.
From social learning theory it can further be infered that people learn by support (Bosma et al., 2012). Learning by support involves practical support and advice from the role model (Nauta & Kokaly, 2001). By actively participating, the role models could provide a potential entrepreneur with information on markets, industries, administrative regulations, and potential pitfalls (Ozgen & Baron, 2007; Schutjens & Stam, 2003).
Dyer (1994) created a model to explain the choice for a career in entrepreneurship. This model includes antecedents such as: individual entrepreneurial traits, family relationships and role models, and economic factors; claiming that these antecedents influence the career choice, career socialization, career orientation, and career progression. Within entrepreneurship literature, parental entrepreneurship is found to be one of the strongest determinants of own entrepreneurship. Empirical research shows that an individual with at least one entrepreneurial parent increases the probability of becoming an entrepreneur by a factor of at least 1.3 up to 3.0 (see Lindquist et al. 2013 and references therein).
8
2.3 Research hypotheses
The hypotheses below follow Van Auken et al. (2006b) closely; except for the replacement of the United States with the Netherlands and Mexico with Turkey the hypotheses are identical. Van Auken, in turn largely based on the literature reviewed above. Each of the hypotheses is followed by a brief discussion of the findings by Van Auken et al. Taking into consideration the cultural differences of the countries, I provide some additional background information on Turkey and The Netherlands. The following three hypotheses concern the impact of role models on career intentions:
Hypotheses 1: Role models in Turkey will have a greater influence on career intentions of Turkish students than role models in the Netherlands on Dutch students.
Note 1: Van Auken et al. (2006b) did not find evidence to support this hypothesis, as the influence of role on career intentions did not differ between USA and Mexico.
Hypotheses 2: Role models in the Netherlands who own a business will have a greater impact on career intentions than role models who don’t own a business.
Note 2: Van Auken et al. (2006b) found evidence to support this hypothesis by showing that role model business ownership resulted in a statistically greater positive influence on respondents’ career thinking in the US
Hypotheses 3: Business ownership will have no significant impact on the career intentions of Turkish students.
Note 3: Van Auken et al. (2006b) found evidence to support this hypothesis. There was no statistical difference found between the mean rankings of the Mexican students.
As elaborated above Turkey is one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world.5
According to Scott and Twomey (1988), parental business ownership provides important role modelling behaviour that leads to preference for self-employment. According to a project conducted on behalf of the European Commission (2008) 90% of enterprises in Turkey are family firms. Family owned firms play a dominant role in the private sector in Turkey. Dyer (1994) stated that children of entrepreneurs believe that business ownership is the best career option. The dominant role of family owned business and the influence of family (including parental role modelling) in Turkey suggests that Turkish students may be more interested in business ownership than Dutch students.
5 This thesis follows the mainstream literature on entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurship and self-employment
are often treated as synonymous. However, some authors argue that self-employment is rather distinct from Shumpeterian entrepreneurship, see Shane (2009) and Henrekson & Sanandaji (2013).
9 Hypothesis 4: Turkish students will have a greater interest in owning a business within
10 years of graduation than Dutch students.
Note 4: Van Auken et al. (2006b) found evidence to support this hypothesis. The Mexican students were found to be significantly more interested in starting their own business than American students.
Traditionally, the family has been a very strong social unit in Turkey. Combined with the relatively low score on the IDV dimension of the cultural theory of Geert Hofstede (2013), the specific influences on career intentions are expected to be more important in Turkey than in the Netherlands. However, specifically for this study I only look at general occurrence of influence variables and not their impact on career intentions.
Hypothesis 5: Specific influence variables will have a greater occurrence for Turkish students than Dutch students.
Note 5: With regards to this hypothesis Van Auken et al. (2006b) looked at the influence of specific actions of role models on career intentions of students, which led to the following hypothesis, ‘Specific influences on career intentions will have a greater impact on Mexican students than US students’. They found general support for this hypothesis. This paper only looks at the general occurrence of these student-role model actions and not its direct influence on future career intentions of students (see 3.2 Measures for further details).
10
3. Data & Methodology
The questionnaire developed by Van Auken et al. (2006b) was translated into Dutch and Turkish and conducted both in the Netherlands and Turkey. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. This study will follow an almost identical methodology regarding data collection and measures as the research undertaken by Van Auken et al. (2006b).
3.1 Data collection
This research is based on a sample of 48 students enrolled in a Dutch university (Utrecht University) and 45 Turkish university (Yildiz Technical University in Istanbul) students. Most of the data was gathered using the online survey software ‘Qualtrics’. Half of the Turkish surveys were administered to students during a class session. To incentivise the respondents to answer the survey, a EUR 15 prize was awarded to one of 15 randomly selected participants. The detailed sample characteristics are presented in Appendix B. The answers of 9 of the 102 original 102 respondents were omitted from the sample. This was due to response error to the question ‘Who do you consider your most significant role model in influencing your career decisions?’, whereby these respondents answered ‘myself’ in the 7th option (Other).
3.2 Measures
The measures developed were taken from the survey developed by Van Auken et al. (2006a & 2006b), and obtained through personal correspondence. The questionnaire used in this thesis differed from the original in one respect. One question in the questionnaire provided through correspondence was worded as, ‘Using the scale below, please rate how frequently each of the following actions occurred while you were growing up.’; while Van Auken et al. (2006b, p. 329) asked to rate, “the influence of 18 student-role model interactions on career intentions”.6 Due to changes in the question item, this research only that looked at the occurrence of specific actions of role models, and not its effect on career intention. Furthermore, the scales used differed in that Van Auken (2006b) used a Likert-scale ranging from ‘strong negative influence’ (1) to ‘strong positive influence’ (5); while this research used a Likert-scale ranging from ‘never happened’ (1) to ‘occurred often’ (7).
6 To be precise, Van Auken et al. (2006b) did not include the exact wording of questionnaire in the publication,
11
3.3 Methodology
To provide a better understanding of the respondents and characteristics of the data, I will use univariate statistics to calculate means and frequencies of the demographic information and the mean ratings of the relevant variables.
The hypotheses will be tested using ANOVA, a statistical method for determining the existence of differences among several population means using the F-statistic (Amir & Sonderpandian, 2002). All independent variables used for the testing of the hypotheses are ordinal. Furthermore, the required assumptions of ANOVA are not violated; the expected values of the errors are zero, the variances of all errors are equal to each other, the errors are independent and normally distributed. Barlett’s test for equal variances will be used to test whether the variance of the different samples are equal7. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether the mean of a dependent variable is the same in two or more unrelated, independent groups.
7 None of the results of the Barlett’s tests give cause for concern. The Barlett’s tests can be made available upon
12
4. Results
4.1 Respondent characteristics
Dutch respondents consisted of 39,6% females and 60,42% male students. The Turkish sample consisted of 33,3% females and 66,7% males. The majority of the Dutch respondents (83,3%) were Economics students. The area of study for the Turkish respondents was more scattered around, with only 17,78% Economics students and 35,56% Engineering. Most of the Dutch students (70,9%) were between 20-25 years old (20,8% - Less than 20 years old and 8,32% - More than 25 years old). Just over half of the Turkish students (55,6%) had an age less than 20 years old (28,9% - Between 20 and 25, and 15,5% - More than 25 years old). There was some variation in most demographic characteristics of respondents between the countries; Van Auken et al. (2006b) encountered similar outcomes with their samples, and its impact will be discussed in the concluding section.
4.2 Most significant role model
Table 1 shows the percentage of Dutch and Turkish respondents indicating their most significant role model. There are some differences in the significant role model between the respondents from the two countries. More than half (54,2%) of the Dutch respondents indicated that their father was the most significant role model, in Turkey this percentage was significantly lower (40%).
Table 1: Most significant role model of respondents
Role model Dutch sample (n=48) Turkish sample (n=45)
Mother 16,7 13,3 Father 54,2 40,0 Sibling 4,2 13,3 Other relative - 2,2 Friend 14,6 2,2 Teacher 2,1 20,0 Other non-relative 8,3 8,9
Note: all numbers are in percentages
The next most significant group of role models in the Netherlands sample was mother (16,7%), the Turkish respondents indicated teacher (20%) as their second largest most significant group of role models. The ranking of a sibling (4,2%) or teacher (2,1%) in the Netherlands is much larger for Turkish students (13,3% and 20% respectively). None of the Dutch students chose other relatives to be their most significant role model, while almost similarly in Turkey, only one person indicated other relative (2,2%). Compared to the
13
Netherlands (14,6%), a very low percentage (2,2%) of Turkish respondents indicated a friend to be the most significant role model.8
4.3 Role model’s influence on career thinking
Table 2 shows the mean ratings of the extent to which Dutch and Turkish role models influenced the respondents’ career thinking. The mean rating among Dutch students (4,25) is almost the same as the mean rating (4,24) among Turkish students. There was no statistical significant difference between the two means.
Table 2: Extent of role model on influence on career thinking
Sample Number of respondents Mean
Combined 93 4,25
The Netherlands 48 4,25
Turkey 45 4,24a
Note: 1 = no influence and 7 = to a great extent
aNot significant (F-statistic = 0,00)
The influence of role models in the Turkey is not significantly greater than in the Netherlands. This finding is inconsistent with hypothesis 1. This result may be indicative of a sample that differs from the predictions of Hofstede’s cultural index model. Contrary to expectations, the Dutch sample of students actually cites close family members (75,1%; mother-father-siblings) more highly as the most significant role model compared to Turkey (66,6%). Extending the reasoning further, Gibson (2004) states that individuals are more attracted to role models in close proximity to help them garnish greater skills, which seems to be lower in Turkey’s case, and thus not supportive of the hypothesis.
The data was also evaluated regarding a role models influence on students career thinking relative to whether the role model owned a business. Table 3 shows that such a phenomenon does not have a significant influence on either country’s sample. In both cases business ownership resulted in no statistical difference between the mean rankings of either samples career thinking. Thereby, hypotheses 2 that role models in NL who own a business will have a greater impact on career intentions than role models who don’t, is rejected; while the observation that business ownership has no significant impact on the career intentions of Turkish students, gives support for hypothesis 3. The most obvious conjecture is that there are influences other than role models business ownership in influencing career thinking.
In Turkey’s case, close to 2/5th of the population engages in entrepreneurial activities;
thus, it could be that the general culture of entrepreneurship has a greater influence rather than specific influential individuals in one’s decision to engage in this activity. Further, Basow and
14
Howe (1980) mention the potential of both positive and negative influence in role model thinking. In the case of Netherlands and Turkey, both potentials may be exerting a relatively similar effect, and thus an overall neutral outcome.
Table 3: Role model influence on career thinking relative to whether role model owned business
Sample Role model owned business Mean Dutch students Yes (n=14)
No (n=34)
4,36 4,21b
Turkish students Yes (n=9) No (n=36)
5,00 4,06c
Note: 1 = no influence and 7 = to a great extent
bNot significant (F-statistic = 0,10) cNot significant (F-statistic = 1,92)
4.4 Interest in starting own business
Table 4 contrasts the level of interest in starting a business within 10 years of graduation between Dutch and Turkish students. The table indicates that Turkish students are significantly more desirous (at the 1% level) in starting their own business (mean = 5,64) compared to Dutch students (mean = 4,73). This result is in line with hypothesis 4. Extending this, the surveyed degree of interest in beginning a business within 10 years of graduation was also measured, relative to whether role models themselves were owners of a business.
Table 4: Rating of interest in business ownership within 10 years after graduation
Overall (n=93) Dutch (n=48) Turkish (n=45)
Mean 5,17 4,73 5,64d
Note: 1 = no interest and 7 = to a great extent
dSignificantly different at 1% (F-statistic = 7,03)
Table 5 demonstrates that such a situation does not increase the students ranking of interest in wishing to start a business following graduation.
Table 5: Interest in business ownership within 10 years after graduation relative to whether role model owned business
Sample Role model owned business Mean Dutch students Yes (n=14)
No (n=34)
5,21 4,53e
Turkish students Yes (n=9) No (n=36)
5,78 5,61f
Note: 1= no interest and 7= to a great extent
eNot significant (F-statistic = 2,04) fNot significant (F-statistic = 0,06)
4.5 Mean rating of influence variables
Table 6 displays Dutch and Turkish respondents mean rating of model influence variable. Dutch students mean ratings range between 4,85 (worked long hours) and 1,94 (paid you for a minor task at work when you were 10-15 years). The 3 next three highest rated influence variables are
15
‘had a comfortable lifestyle as a result of their career/business’ (mean = 4,75), ‘included you in business discussion’ (mean = 4,19) and ‘discussed their job with you’ (mean = 4,02). The three lowest rated influence variables are ‘paid you for minor tasks at work when you were 10-15 years’ (mean = 1,94), ‘hired you in business when you were in high school/college’ (mean = 2,13) and ‘encouraged you to work in another job before joining business’ (mean = 2,13).
Turkish students mean ratings were between 4,84 (had a comfortable lifestyle as a result of their career/business) and 1,78 (hired you in business when you were in high school/college). The next 3 highest rated influence were ‘discussed advantages/disadvantages of joining business in which they work’ (mean = 4,60), ‘worked long hours’ (mean = 4,36) and ‘included you in business discussion’ (mean = 3,96). The three lower rated influence variables are ‘took you to professional meetings’ (mean = 2,18), ‘paid you for minor tasks at work when you were 10-15 years’ (mean = 2,31) and ‘took you to work with them when you were ten or younger’ (mean = 2,38).
A comparison of the mean ratings in both countries reveals the following: While the highest rated model influence of both countries were different, the second highest model influence of the NL sample and the highest in the Turkish sample were similar (had a comfortable lifestyle as a results of their career/business); while the third highest influence among Dutch students and fourth highest among Turkish samples were also the same (included you in a business discussion).
Conversely, the lowest mean rating among the Turkish sample and second lowest in the Dutch sample were similar (hired you in business when you were in high school), while the third lowest in Turkey and lowest in the Netherlands were also the same (worked long hours). Turkish students surveyed rated 8 or the 19 variables as having more occurrence compared to Dutch students, which the rest of 11 variables were rated by Dutch respondents to be higher.
The ANOVA examined dissimilarities between Dutch and Turkish samples’ mean rating of variables. Four of the differences in mean ratings are different at a 1% level of significance, and two of these were rated higher by the Turkish sample, therefore no inferences can be made with regards to hypothesis 5.
16
Table 6: Mean rankings of influence activities while growing up
Variable Country N Mean F Sig.
Worked long hours NL
TR 48 45 4,85 4,36 2,22 0,139 Frequently gone on business NL
TR 48 45 3,92 3,89 0,01 0,938
Brought work home NL
TR 48 45 3,96 2,96 7,65 0,007 Discussed work with family NL
TR 48 45 3,94 2,93 9,88 0,002 Included you in business discussion NL
TR 48 45 4,19 3,96 0,43 0,513 Encouraged you to read about their career or business NL
TR 48 45 3,52 3,38 0,15 0,706 Took you to work with them when you were ten or younger NL
TR 48 45 3,02 2,38 2,67 0,106 Paid you for minor tasks at work when you were 10-15 years NL
TR 48 45 1,94 2,31 1,21 0,275 Hired you in business when you were in high school/college NL
TR 48 45 2,13 1,78 1,10 0,296 Encouraged you to know their colleagues NL
TR 48 45 3,67 3,56 0,10 0,754 Took you to professional meetings NL
TR 48 45 2,46 2,18 0,65 0,421 Had a comfortable lifestyle as a result of their career/business NL
TR 48 45 4,75 4,84 0,08 0,781 Discussed their job with you NL
TR 48 45 4,02 3,73 0,76 0,386 Discussed advantages/disadvantages of joining business in which
they work NL TR 48 45 3,15 4,60 16,03 0,000 Assumed you would follow their career NL
TR 48 45 2,15 2,40 0,53 0,470 Taught you about managing a business NL
TR 48 45 2,52 3,18 3,14 0,080 Encouraged you to join their business NL
TR 48 45 2,19 2,76 2,69 0,105 Encouraged you to work in another job before joining business NL
TR 48 45 2,13 3,09 7,41 0,008 Encouraged you to select an area of study in college that is
compatible with their own career
NL TR 48 45 2,60 3,04 1,30 0,257 Note: 1 = never happened and 7 = occurred often
17
5. Discussion & Concluding Remarks
This study looked at differences in the influence of role models among a sample of 48 Dutch and 45 Turkish students. These respondents were asked about the influence of their most influential role model from an overall perspective as well as specific role model actions. ANOVA was used to test whether there were differences in the influence of role models between the Netherlands and Turkey.
A number of previous studies have demonstrated how role models have influenced career intentions (Shapero, 1982; Krueger et al., 2000) including Van Auken et al. (2006b) who demonstrated this by comparing US and Mexican respondents. While Van Auken and colleagues’ study indicated the general importance of explicit types of interaction between both samples, this thesis was not able to replicate most of their findings. This section goes over each in turn.
First, the results demonstrate the overwhelming significance of fathers as role models for both Dutch and Turkish samples. This was quite similar to Van Auken’s et al. (2006b) sample. On first glance the collated influence of relatives, especially parents and siblings on career intentions, is greater in the Netherlands compared to Turkey. This is contrary to expectations based on the cultural index of Hofstede’s model. When explored further, there was no significant difference in the means, which seems to be inconsistent with the largely held beliefs that the composition and role of families is greater in Turkey than in the Netherlands; and that Dutch children tend to be more independent of the influence of parents compared to Turkish children.
Second, both this paper and Van Auken’s et al. (2006b) did not find a statistically greater influence of role models on career intentions in any of the countries, even though it was expected to be higher for Turkey and Mexico than the Netherlands and the United States respectively. Third, role model business ownership was not found to have a significantly greater impact on the career intentions of Dutch students, while it was found to be so in the US. The hypothesis that business ownership will have no significant impact on the career intentions of Turkish students found support in both papers; whereby business ownership of role models was found to have a significantly greater impact among Turkish students, just as within Mexican students in the paper of Van Auken et al. (2006b). This finding may be explained by the observation that 90% of enterprises in Turkey are family owned and may exert a powerful influence in future decision making of these students.
Fourth, Turkish students were found to have a statistically greater interest in owning a business within 10 years post-graduation compared to the Dutch students, which was similar to
18
the Mexican sample when compared to the American's. As mentioned earlier, in Turkey close to 2/5th of the population engages in entrepreneurial activities; thus, it could be that the general
culture of entrepreneurship has a greater influence than in the Netherlands, where this figure hovers around 15%.
Fifth, with regards to the occurrence of activities of role models for Dutch and Turkish students, mixed results were found: it suggested that activities were of a passive versus active nature (see table 6). Thus in the case of Dutch students, working long hours and having a comfortable lifestyle for instance occurred more often than more active activities such as, being paid for minor tasks or being hired in business when the respondents were young. These were generally similar for Turkish students too. Two differences were found to be statistically significantly greater for Turkey (discussed advantages/disadvantages of joining business in which they work, encouraged you to work in another job before joining a business), while two were found to be for statistically significantly higher for the Netherlands (brought work home, discussed work with family). This paper does not compare this finding with Van Auken’s et al. (2006b) since they formulated their hypothesis differently (see section 3.2). I merely looked at the frequency of activity occurring, rather than comparing how these influenced entrepreneurial intentions.
These results are most interesting for those teaching and doing research in entrepreneurship studies. For instance, this research did not find results that suggest a greater influence of role models who own a business over those who don’t on students in either countries. This could mean that entrepreneurship courses could be advised to invite guest lecturers beyond a community of role models that own businesses. Furthermore, the results from Turkey indicate that there was a far lower influence of friends (2,2%) and more of teachers (20%) in the sampled population, in comparison to the Netherlands (14,6% and 2,1% respectively). Future research in entrepreneurship should therefore not only look at the influence of peer groups upon the decision to become an entrepreneur, but also the types. In the Netherlands, informal relations, as among friends, seems to exert a greater influence; whereas in Turkey, this comes in the form of more authoritative figures.
The limitations of this paper provide exciting possibilities for future research. This thesis and Van Auken’s et al. (2006b) research is constrained because of the differences in the characteristics of the samples between the two countries. Drawing conclusions from these data compromises internal validity and could cast doubts over the findings that role model impact differ between countries. Thus, future research should pay more attention to the internal validity and try to obtain samples that are more comparable in their characteristics (e.g. gender, age,
19
area of study). Other ways to improve our understanding of role model influence on career intentions include: studies on longitudinal effects, increasing sample sizes, adding other countries, comparing entrepreneurs to other occupations, as well as cultural background and religion.
20
6. References
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179-211.
Amir, A. D. and J. Sonderpandian (2002), Complete Business Statistics, 5th edition, New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. and D.C. McClelland (1977), Social learning theory, New York: General Learning Press.
Basow, S.A. and K.G. Howe (1980), Role-Model Influence: Effects of Sex and Sex-Role Attitude in College Students, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 558.
Bosma, N., Hessels, J., Schutjens, Van Praag, M. and I. Verheul (2012), Entrepreneurship and role models, Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 410-424.
Clausen, J.A. (Ed.) (1968), Socialization and society, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Douglas, E.J. and D.A. Shepherd (2002), Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 81-90.
Dyer, W. (1994), Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 7.
Fornahl, D. (2003), Entrepreneurial activities in a regional context, in D. Fornahl and T. Brenner (eds), Cooperation, Networks and Institutions in Regional Innovation Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 38-57.
Gartner, W.B. (1988), Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question, American journal of small business, 12, 11-32.
Gibson, D.E. (2004), Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research, Journal of vocational behavior, 65, 134-156.
Hatten, T.S. and S.K. Ruhland (1995), Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program, Journal of Education for Business, 70, 224-227.
Henrekson, M. and T. Sanandaji (2013), Billionaire entrepreneurs: A systematic analysis, IFN Working Papers 959.
Kagan, J. (1958), The concept of identification, Psychological review, 65, 296.
Krueger, N.F. Jr. (2007), The Cognitive Infrastructure of Opportunity Emergence, in Entrepreneurship, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 185-206.
21 Krueger, N.F. Jr., Reilly, M.D. and A.L. Carsrud (2000), Competing models of
entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of business venturing, 15, 411-432.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and D.W. Naffziger (1997), An examination of owner's goals in sustaining entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, 35, 24.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S.D. and G. Hackett (1994), Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance, Journal of vocational behavior, 45, 79-122.
Lindquist, M.J., Sol, J. and M. Van Praag (2013), Why Do Entrepreneurial Parents Have Entrepreneurial Children?, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 12-062/3.
Low, M.B. and I.C. MacMillan (1988), Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges, Journal of management, 14, 139-161.
Nauta, M.M. and M.L Kokaly (2001), Assessing role model influences on students' academic and vocational decisions, Journal of Career Assessment, 9, 81-99.
Noel, T. (1998), Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business: An exploratory study, Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 5, 3-13.
Ozgen, E. and R.A. Baron (2007), Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums, Journal of business venturing, 22, 174-192.
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S. and F.A. Wiebe (1989), Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13, 53-71.
Schutjens, V. and E. Stam (2003), The evolution and nature of young firm networks: a longitudinal perspective, Small Business Economics, 21, 115-134.
Scott, M.G. and D.F. Twomey (1988), The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students' career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, 26, 5.
Shane, S. (2009), Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy, Small business economics, 33, 141-149.
Shapero, A. and L. Sokol (1982), The social dimensions of entrepreneurship, Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, 72-90.
Thomas, E.J. and B.J. Biddle (1966), Role theory: Concepts and research, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22 Van Auken, H., Fry, F.L. and P. Stephens (2006a), The influence of role models on
entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11, 157-167.
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F.L. and J. Silva (2006b), Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2, 325-336.
Van Praag, C.M. and P.H. Versloot (2007), What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research, Small Business Economics, 29, 351-382.
Witt, U. (1991), Economics, sociobiology and behavioral psychology on preferences, Journal of Economic Psychology, 12, 557-573.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and G.T. Lumpkin (2010), The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review, Journal of Management, 36, 381-404.
Other references:
European Commission (2008), Overview of Family Business Relevant Issues Country, Austrian Institue for SME Research:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/craft/family_business/doc/familybusines_ country_fiche_turkey_en.pdf
OECD Self-employment rates (2014):
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/employment/self-employment-rates/indicator/english_fb58715e-en?isPartOf=/content/indicatorgroup/a452d2eb-en
Average GDP growth rate (2014):
http://data.worldbank.org/
Hofstede’s cultural index model (2014):
23
7. Appendices
Appendix A. The questionnaire in English
These questions were translated to Dutch and Turkish. The translated surveys can be provided upon request and also be found here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BwzYvtre237dZWl3UzM3aloxMkk&usp=sharing
The Influence of Career Role Models on Career Decisions
The following survey is being given to university students in the Netherlands and Turkey. In the survey, the phrase “career role model” is used broadly to mean parents, step-parents, other close relatives, neighbours or others who may have had a significant impact on your career thinking. The questions relate to the one role model who most influenced your thinking about potential careers.
Q1: Who do you consider to be the most significant role model in influencing your career decisions?
A1: (1) Mother, (2) Father, (3) Sibling, (4) Other relative, (5) Friend, (6) Teacher, (7) Other (please list______)
Q2: To what extent has your most significant role model personally influenced your career thinking?
|---|---|---|---|---|---| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A2: (1) Minor Influence, (4) Moderate Influence, (7) Very Strong Influence
Q3: Using the scale below, please rate how frequently each of the following actions occurred while you were growing up.
|---|---|---|---|---|---| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A3: (1) Never happened, (4) Occasionally occurred, (7) Occurred often
My most significant role model: I) Worked long hours
II) Frequently gone on business III) Brought work home
IV) Discussed work with family
V) Included you in business discussion
VI) Encouraged you to read about their career or business VII) Took you to work with them when you were ten or younger VIII) Paid you for minor tasks at work when you were 10-15 years IX) Hired you in business when you were in high school/college X) Encouraged you to know their colleagues
XI) Took you to professional meetings
XII) Had a comfortable lifestyle as result of their career / business XIII) Discussed their job with you
XIV) Discussed advantages/disadvantages of joining business in which they work XV) Assumed you would follow their career
XVI) Taught you about managing a business XVII) Encouraged you to join their business
24
XVIII) Encouraged you to work in another job before joining business
XIX) Encouraged you to select an area of study in college that is compatible with their own career
Q4: To what extent do you want to own a business within ten years after you graduate? |---|---|---|---|---|---| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A4: (1) Strongly do NOT want to have my own business, (4) Neutral, (7) Strongly want to have my own business
Q5: How confident are you that you will have the skills necessary to own a business within ten years after you graduate?
|---|---|---|---|---|---| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A5: (1) Little or no confidence, (4) Somewhat confident, (7) Highly confident
Q6: Did your most significant role model own a business while you were growing up? A6: (1) Yes, (2) No
Q7: If you answered NO to question 6, what was their primary occupation? A7: (please list______)
Q8: What is your gender? A8: (1) Female, (2) Male
Q9: Primary or intended area of study in college:
A9: (1) Economics, (2) Engineering, (3) Science, (4) Education, (5) Undecided, (6) Other (please list______)
Q10: What is your age? A10: __
25
Appendix B. Tables and Figures
Table 7: Average GDP growth rate 1961-2012 & GDP per capita in US dollar
Country Annual % growth GDP GDP per capita 1960-2012 GDP per capita 2012
Mexico 4,1 3.408 9.747
Turkey 4,5 2.972 10.666
United States 3,1 21.001 49.965
Netherlands 2,9 18.125 46.054
Source: data.worldbank.org (2014)
Table 8: Self-employment % of civilian employment
Country / Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Mexico 36,4 36,8 36,6 36,5 35,5 34,4 34,3 33,9 33,7 34,6 33,7 Turkey 52,8 50,2 49,3 45,5 43,0 41,1 39,5 38,9 39,9 39,0 38,3 United States 7,3 7,2 7,5 7,5 7,4 7,4 7,2 7,0 7,0 7,0 6,8 Netherlands 11,5 11,6 11,4 12,1 12,3 12,7 13,1 13,1 13,5 15,0 14,9 Source: OECD.stat (2014)
Table 9: Characteristics of The Netherlands and Turkey Sample
Source: STATA-output (2014)
Netherlands (%) Turkey (%) Combined (%) Age
Less than 20 years old 20,83 55,56 37,64 Between 20 and 25 70,85 28,9 50,54 More than 25 years old 8,32 15,54 11,82 Gender Female 39,58 33,33 36,56 Male 60,42 66,67 63,44 Area of study Economics 83,33 17,78 51,61 Engineering 4,17 35,56 19,35 Science 4,17 6,67 5,38 Education - 11,11 5,38 Other 8,33 28,89 18,28
Most significant role model
Mother 16,7 13,3 15,05 Father 54,2 40,0 47,31 Sibling 4,2 13,3 8,6 Other relative - 2,2 1,08 Friend 14,6 2,2 8,60 Teacher 2,1 20,0 10,75 Other non-relative 8,3 8,9 8,6 Role model business owner
Affirmative 29,17 20 24,73
26
Figure 1: Cultural index based on Hofstede’s model
Source: geert-hofstede.com/countries (2014)
Note: Power distance: the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
Individualism: the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members.
Masculinity: the dimension indicating whether the society is driven by competition, achievement and success. Uncertainty avoidance: the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these.
Pragmatism: To explain this dimension I’ll quote the website and use the Netherlands as an example:The Netherlands receives a high score of 67 in this dimension, which means that it has a pragmatic nature. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context and time. They show an ability to easily adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness and perseverance in achieving results.
Indulgence: the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses. Relatively weak control is called “indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “restraint”.
Figure 2: Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour
Source: Krueger et al., 2000
Figure 3: Shapero-Krueger Model
Source: Krueger et al., 2000
81 30 69 82 24 97 66 37 45 85 46 49 38 80 14 53 67 68 40 91 62 46 26 68 P O W E R D I S T A N C E I N D I V I D U A L I S M M A S C U L I N I T Y U N C E R T A I N T Y A V O I D A N C E P R A G M A T I S M I N D U L G E N C E
