1
How do Strategic alliances and Affordable
loss relate to Student entrepreneur
actions?
With the use a personality scale
Aletta Gijzenberg UvA id: 10548513 VU id: 2536865
Joint master program UvA/VU: Entrepreneurship First reader: Mr. G T Vinig
Second reader: Mr. R C W Van der Voort Supervisor: Mr. R C W Van der Voort Submission date: June 30th 2018
2 Preface
The copyright rests with the author. The author is solely responsible for the content of the thesis, including mistakes. The university cannot be held liable for the content of the author’s thesis.
Abstract
This research is based upon the link between of two personality traits and Student entrepreneur actions. The two personality traits are Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. These traits are said to have a positive significant influence upon Student entrepreneurs actions. Two moderating variables are added to the relationships. These are Affordable loss and Strategic alliances. Both variables come from the effectuation theory, which argues that entrepreneurs should start with their means available and work their way up from there. More specifically, Affordable loss focusses on trying many business ideas within the limited means. And Strategic alliances focusses on acquiring the right strategic partners and stakeholders, which should limit uncertainty for the entrepreneur. These two moderators are linked with both independent variables. The research will determine if the moderators influence the already existing relationships. To do this, 67 student entrepreneur are asked to fill in a questionnaire. This questionnaire takes about 10 minutes and includes multiple areas. For example the personality of the respondents, the respondents entrepreneurial actions, whether the respondent values strategic partners and affordable loss, and their personal perception of these things. The results show that there is in fact no moderating effect visible. The two effectuation principle do show a positive significant effect upon Student entrepreneur actions, just not in relation with the personality traits. This means the effectuation principles are still of importance to the literature. But they were previously used as a type of “framework”, where variables behave differently inside the framework than outside. This seems to be false, and should be further researched.
3
Table of content
Preface ... 2 Abstract ... 2 1. Introduction ... 5 1.1 Choice of topic ... 51.2 Theoretical and practical relevance ... 6
1.3 Research questions ... 6
1.4 Thesis structure ... 6
2. Conceptual framework ... 8
2.1 Explanation of variables ... 8
2.1.1. The Big Five Personality traits ... 8
2.1.2. Student entrepreneur actions ... 12
2.1.3. Effectuation theory ... 12
2.2 Explanation of relationships between variables ... 14
2.2.1 Conscientiousness upon Student entrepreneur actions ... 15
2.2.2 Openness to experience upon Student entrepreneur actions ... 16
2.2.3 Personality change of student entrepreneurs ... 18
2.3 Proposed model ... 18
3. Method... 19
3.1 Research design ... 19
3.2 Research context ... 19
3.3 Number of respondents aim... 19
3.4 Data collection ... 20
3.5 Measures and definitions ... 21
3.5.1 Independent variables ... 21 3.5.2 Moderating variables ... 21 3.5.3 Dependent variable ... 22 3.5.4 Perceptions of respondents ... 22 3.5.5 Control variables ... 23 4. Data analyses ... 24
4.1 Summary of the collected data ... 24
4.1.1 Characteristics of the respondents ... 24
4.1.2 Cronbach’s Alpha ... 25
4.1.3 Normal distribution ... 26
4.2 In-depth analyses ... 27
4
4.2.2 Linear regression model ... 28
4.2.3 Checking assumptions ... 30
4.2.4 A second correlation test ... 30
4.2.5 Personal growth of respondents ... 31
4.2.5 The new model ... 31
5. Discussion and conclusion ... 33
5.1 Findings ... 33
5.2 Theoretical and practical relevance ... 33
5.3 Limitations and future research ... 34
6. References ... 35
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Choice of topic
Entrepreneurs are likely to have a certain set of personality traits. The authors Zhao and Seibert (2006) explain this by using and adapting the ASA (attraction – selection – attraction) model by Schneider (1987). They first argue that individuals with certain personality traits could be more interested in entrepreneurship than others. Secondly, people outside the firm could be more attracted to certain people (with certain personality traits), thus these people could then more easily acquire necessities such as capital, partners or employees. And finally, these people could also think of entrepreneurial activities as more satisfying and thus are more motivated to pursue an entrepreneurial career. The author Karp (2006) even argues that the basis of entrepreneurship lies within the individual entrepreneur, which means within his or her ideas and identity, and thus also within his or her personality.
Apart from Zhao and Seibert (2006) and Karp (2006), the relationship between personality and entrepreneurship has also been researched by many other authors, but the link with student entrepreneurs in particular has not fully been made yet (Nabi, 2010). Merchand and Hermens (2015) describe that student entrepreneurs can be considered an emerging phenomenon and point future research in its direction. Another reason to focus on student entrepreneurs, is that students are still in a personal development phase while starting their firm (Nielsen and Lassen, 2012), this makes it especially interesting to look at their personality in combination with their actions. The two personality traits that are used for the current research are Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. These two are selected from the five basic personality traits (as described by Zhao and Seibert, 2006) because they are already proven to have a positive relationship with entrepreneurship but not with Student entrepreneur actions specifically.
Effectuation theory (working with the means available) is chosen as a moderating variable between the two personality traits and Student entrepreneur actions. The two principles from effectuation theory that are selected are Affordable loss and Strategic alliances. These two are believed to be most suitable for student entrepreneurs, because students are at the beginning of their careers and are likely to lack resources and knowledge. Both Affordable loss and Strategic alliances could be of great importance here.
6 1.2 Theoretical and practical relevance
As described above, the relationship between personal characteristics and entrepreneurship is already widely researched. But the combination of the specific personal characteristics and student entrepreneur actions with effectuation theory has not been made. This research aims to fill that research gap and to make suggestions for further research in this area.
The practical relevance for student entrepreneurs is how the students will gain insights into their own personality and its strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the effectuation theory, and thus when it comes to starting their own firm.
1.3 Research questions
The research question is: How do Conscientiousness and Openness to experience relate to Student entrepreneur actions, when placed in an effectuation theory framework?
This research question is divided in the following sub questions. First the relationship between the personality trait and Student entrepreneur actions is looked into. Then the moderating variables are added, this way a change in the relationship can be investigated.
How does Conscientiousness relate to Student entrepreneur actions?
How does Conscientiousness influence Student entrepreneur actions, when moderating for Strategic alliances and Affordable loss?
How does Openness toe experience relate to Student entrepreneur actions?
How does Openness to experience influence Student entrepreneur actions, when moderating for Strategic alliances and Affordable loss?
1.4 Thesis structure
Chapter 2.1 of the current research first provides clarity into the basic theories and concepts used. It is explained why certain variables are used and why others are left out. In chapter 2.2, the relationships between the variables are explained. This is done according to previous research. At the end of chapter 2, a model is proposed which is tested in the further research.
7 The methods used are explained in chapter 3, and chapter 4 provides the analyses of the data collected. This chapter ends with the revised model, and is followed by the final chapter discussion and conclusion.
8
2. Conceptual framework
In this chapter, the used theories are explained and certain variables are selected for the further research. Chapter 2.1 provides the basic explanation of the variables (and the theories they are selected from). And chapter 2.2 provides the relationships between the chosen variables.
2.1 Explanation of variables
This chapter provides the basic explanation of the variables and the theories they are selected from. First, the personality traits are explained. Then the Student entrepreneur actions. And lastly, the effectuation theory principles are looked into.
2.1.1. The Big Five Personality traits
The big five personality model includes five basic dimensions that underlie most of the significant variation in human behaviour. It is supported by a good amount of research (Robinns and Judge, 2013) and is used as a basis for the personality differences of respondents in this research. Recent authors that used the big five personality traits are Lautner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar and Chamarro-Premuzic (2014). Their research focused on the personality of 670 entrepreneurial respondents. To measure the respondent score on the five scales, the authors used the scale designed by Goldberg already in 1992. Because this measurement is quite old, it will not be used in the further research. However, it does give insight into the five personality traits, as the scale has been used recently as well (by the mentioned authors). The five dimensions are explained below and are based upon the work of Zhao and Seibert (2006).
Extraversion: people who score high on this scale are assertive, dominant, energetic and enthusiastic. They prefer large groups, while people who score low are more reserved and independent. According to Zhao and Seibert (2006), extraversion is likely to be a useful trait for entrepreneurs, as they have to deal with many different people (employees, customers, partners, etc.). Two examples of how Goldberg (1992) measured this trait are ‘I am the life of the party’ and ‘I start conversations’.
Agreeableness: people who score high on this scale value cooperation and avoid conflict. People who score low are more self-centred and manipulative. According to Zhao and Seibert (2006), agreeableness is not a favourable trait for entrepreneurs. They argue that entrepreneurs often have limited legal and financial protection and thus always should obtain the best deals
9 as possible. However, one could also argue that a more friendly way of doing business is also effective. Having a good and long term relationship with clients could be of more value in the long run than getting the best deals right now. Goldberg (1992) measured this trait with the following items: ‘I am interested in other people’ and ‘I have a soft heart’.
Conscientiousness: this is defined as the degree of motivation, reliability and dependability of a person. According to Zhao and Seibert (2006), entrepreneurs should score high on Conscientiousness. They work in a self-guided environment and should make sure they remain professional and well organized (thus being reliable for customers and keeping this standard). Two examples of how Goldberg (1992) measured this trait are ‘I am always prepared’ and ‘I pay attention to detail’.
Emotional stability: people who score high on this standard are calm, self-confident and can withstand stress. Those who score low are more nervous and insecure. According to Zhao and Seibert (2006), entrepreneurs are responsible for many aspects of their venture and are financially dependent of it. This means they should have a high emotional stability to withstand stress. Goldberg (1992) measured this trait with the following two examples: ‘I am relaxed most of the time’ and ‘I seldom feel blue’.
Openness to experience: this refers to being curious and exploring new experiences or ideas. People who score high on this dimension are creative and innovative, while people who score low are more comfortable in familiar settings. Zhao and Seibert (2006) argue that entrepreneurs often do not follow a set path and have to be open to new ideas and use their creativity. This means Openness to experience could be a useful trait for entrepreneurs. Two examples of how Goldberg (1992) measured this trait are ‘I have excellent ideas’ and ‘I am quick to understand things’.
Focussing on personality traits
In order to have a focussed study, it was felt that not all five personality traits could be included. Two out of the five traits are selected. These are considered to be most important for entrepreneur actions. The three meta-analytical studies described below form the base for this decision.
10 Zhao and Seibert (2006) believe that entrepreneurs are different from managers when it comes to the basic personality traits. The authors compare personality traits of entrepreneurs with managers. Entrepreneurs are defined as founder, owner and manager of a small business and whose principal purpose is growth. The study excludes subgroup of entrepreneurs such as women, and students, as these might influence the results. Managers are broadly defined, the study includes managers of all ranks and functions. The study consists of 23 non-overlapping articles, which are analysed. These articles are drawn from multiple sources.
Zhao and Seibert (2006) find that entrepreneurs score lower on agreeableness and neuroticism than managers. And higher on Openness to experience and Conscientiousness (of which the second gave the highest effect). Only extraversion shows no significant difference. These results are all according to the hypothesis expected, apart from the personality traits extraversion, which was expected to be higher for entrepreneurs than for managers. Still, one has to keep in mind that this study is focused on entrepreneurship in general (not student entrepreneurs) and that managers could also have certain personality traits different from the average person.
Article 2: Rauch and Frese (2007)
Rauch and Frese (2007) look into personality traits and their influence upon business creation and success. The authors do not test the big five personality traits, but look into a long list of specific personality characteristics which they found in other articles. A reason why the authors focus on separate personality traits is because those can be matched with tasks of entrepreneurship, but it is also argued that specific traits are more subjective and thus more reliable. Tasks of entrepreneurship include two categories, which are business creation and business success. Entrepreneurs are defined as independent business owners with active management (or the intention to do so). The study uses 116 unique independent samples from 104 articles. these independent samples provided enough information necessary for coding. Examples of traits are ‘need for achievement’, ‘stress tolerance’ and ‘discipline’. 11 traits were coded as being entrepreneurship task related, while 12 traits were coded as not.
The results show that traits matched to entrepreneurship are significantly better predictors of entrepreneurial behaviour that trades that are not matched. Most important were: innovativeness, proactive personality, generalized self-efficacy, stress tolerance, need for autonomy, and internal locus of control.
11 These traits are now matched to the big five personality traits. This way they give insight into which personality traits are important according to Rauch and Frese (2007) and can then be used for the current research. Having a proactive personality can be linked to extraversion. Self-efficacy and a passion for work can be linked to conscientiousness. Stress tolerance, risk taking and need for autonomy can all be linked to emotional stability. Need for achievement and innovativeness can be linked to openness to experience. Following this logic, only agreeableness doesn’t seem to be of importance for business creation and business success.
Article 3: Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010)
Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) look at the importance of the personality traits in entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial performance. The entrepreneur is defined as the founder, owner and manager of a small business. Entrepreneurial intention is defined as the expressed behavioural intention to become an entrepreneur. And firm performance is defined as firm survival, growth and profitability. The research includes 60 studies with 66 independent samples. The total sample size consists of a little more than 15.000 individuals. The expected hypotheses suggest a negative effect of agreeableness upon entrepreneurial intentions and upon firm performance. And a positive effect of the other four personality traits upon entrepreneurial intentions and upon firm performance. Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) find that only agreeableness has no significant effect upon entrepreneurial intention or entrepreneurial performance. Still, the regression results do show a small (but significant) negative relationship. All four other personality traits are positively linked with both entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial performance. The strongest links were found in Openness to experience and Conscientiousness.
Conclusion: which personality traits are included in the current research?
Two out of the three studies described above found that agreeableness has so significant influence upon entrepreneurship (Rauch and Frese, 2007; Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin, 2010). Agreeableness and neuroticism were found to be negatively associated with entrepreneurship by Zhao and Seibert (2006) (in comparison with managers), while Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) found a positive association. Only openness to experience and conscientiousness show a constant positive effect for all three studies. This is why these two personality traits are selected as most important for entrepreneurship, and they will be used for the remainder of the
12 current research. This does not imply that the other three personality traits are not of importance, but they can be argued to give unclear results, which is why they are not included.
2.1.2. Student entrepreneur actions
In the current research, student entrepreneurs are defined as students who started a business or are in the process of starting a business while still attending classes. These classes can be followed at university or higher education level (HBO). The business does not have to be innovative and can also be started as a school project with or without fellow students. The actions taken are what make the student an entrepreneur, thus their actions shall be the focus of the current research. Think for example of how much time is spend managing the firm, or how much time is spend doing market research.
Student entrepreneurs are a more homogeneous group that the complete group of entrepreneurs, as they willingly pursue an entrepreneurial career so early in their life. This means research done about them produces more generalizable results. Still, the group contains many differences as well. The authors Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014) look into active student entrepreneurs in multiple countries around the world (including The Netherlands). Student entrepreneurs are defined as students who run their own business (who are self-employed). Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014) find that of the total student population, 7,9% of the male population is active as entrepreneur, against only 3,8% of the female population. The growth intentions of active student entrepreneurs are also different. 21,7% does not intend to grow at all, while 39,5% intends to grow in tenfold or more. Other differences described by Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014) are more related to the actual firms than to the student entrepreneurs, these differences are: number of employees, number of cofounders, founding year and industry type. Performance of the firm is also of importance. The respondents are asked to rate their performance in comparison with competitors on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from ‘much worse’ to ‘much better’. The same Likert scale is used to measure innovativeness.
2.1.3. Effectuation theory
For the current research, the effectuation theory (by Sarasvathy, 2001) will be used as a moderator. The theory is the opposite of causation (where an entrepreneur works towards a specific goal) and refers to a situation where an entrepreneur starts with the means available to
13 him or her. The entrepreneur then chooses among alternatives that can be achieved with these means. When new means become available, or the entrepreneur comes up with a new business idea, the business will be changed. This theory is well applicable to student entrepreneurs, as they are likely to lack resources and knowledge. This means the student entrepreneur has to take full advantage of any means that are available or become available. One could say effectuation means that opportunities exist because of a creative process by the entrepreneur (Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri and Venkataraman, 2003). This is also clearly illustrated in the following citation from Sarasvathy (2001):
Entrepreneurs begin with three categories of “means”: they know who they are, what they know, and whom they know—their own traits, tastes, and abilities; the knowledge corridor
they are in; and the social networks they are a part of.
Effectuation theory starts with the same idea as a big five personality traits, which is the traits within the entrepreneur. For this reason, the theories are well suited to be used together. Sarasvathy (2001) also argues that effectuation is most effective in uncertain environments. This matches the student entrepreneurs, as they are still in an uncertain phase of their life (unsure about a future job, or what type of business to start). According to Sarasvathy (2001), the following four principles are most important for effectuation theory.
Affordable loss: the entrepreneur looks at how much loss is affordable and tries out as many business ideas as possible with these limited means.
Strategic alliances: the entrepreneur values strategic partners or stakeholders, this limits uncertainty.
Exploitation of contingencies: the entrepreneur looks at surprises as new opportunities that should be exploited.
Control an unpredictable future: the entrepreneur is active in an unpredictable future and should focus on the controllable aspects of it.
A clear example of someone who follows an entrepreneurial path based on effectuation is the following: a restaurant owner notices customers mostly come for his stories (he is very extrovert
14 and tells them in a lively manner), thus he changes his restaurant to a stand-up comedy club with himself as the main act.
Focussing on principles
As student entrepreneurs are in an uncertain phase of their life, with a lack of resources and knowledge, all four principles could be used for further research. However, two of the four principles do stand out. These two variables keep in mind the limited risk a student is capable of bearing (in comparison with more experienced entrepreneurs). These two principles are Affordable loss and Strategic alliances. Students will probably not have a lot of financial capital to spend on their venture, and lending money from a bank of from parents might also be available within limits. This makes the Affordable loss principle of great importance, as it gives student entrepreneurs the opportunity to try multiple business ideas within the boundaries of their means. As stated before, students do not only lack financial strength, but also have limited knowledge/experience. Strategic alliances can prove to be useful in both of these areas. The alliances will limit uncertainties and send the venture in the right direction with the capital needed.
The other two effectuation principles are exploitation of contingencies and controlling an unpredictable future. These can also be applied to student entrepreneurs, but it was decided to leave them out because they are not so differently applicable to students as to more experienced entrepreneurs (they are not related to the risk bearing capacity of the entrepreneur).
Conclusion: which principles are included in the current research?
The two principles of effectuation theory that are used for the current research are the Affordable loss principle and the Strategic alliances principle.
2.2 Explanation of relationships between variables
To test the model, both moderating variables are linked with both independent variables. The explanation behind this and the discovered theoretical insights are all explained in the following two chapters.
15
2.2.1 Conscientiousness upon Student entrepreneur actions
As explained in chapter 2.1.1, Conscientiousness refers to how motivated, reliable and dependable a person is. This is likely to be important for entrepreneurial students, because by starting a venture they position themselves in the professional world. In this world, firms have to follow up on their promises and thus have to be reliable. If a student lacks this in his actions, his firm is not likely to succeed. Motivation is needed to start the firm, and to manage it.
Lüthje and Franke (2003) describe how having an internal locus of control has a significant positive influence upon the attitude towards entrepreneurship, which then has a positive significant influence upon entrepreneurial intent. Internal locus of control is described as perceiving control over the events in your life. A person who scores high on locus of control is also likely to score high on Conscientiousness, as this means a person is self-disciplined and believes this will help him in achieving certain goals. If a person scores low on Conscientiousness, he would be more disorganized and careless (Gosling, Rentfrow and Swann Jr, 2003). Other examples of the importance of Conscientiousness can be found when looking at motivation. Motivation is classified under Conscientiousness, and having a vision, goals, and self-efficacy are in turn classified under motivation. These factors are found to be of positive importance for business success by various authors (Bandura, 1997; House and Shamir, 1993; Locke and Latham, 1990) and can thus be argued to be of importance for entrepreneurs. And, like discussed in chapter 2.1.1, Zhao and Seibert (2006) found that the biggest difference between entrepreneurs and managers was the fact that entrepreneurs score much higher on Conscientiousness. Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010) also found Conscientiousness to have a positive effect upon entrepreneurial intention and performance. Thus, it can be said that Conscientiousness has a positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. But what happens when the Strategic alliances principle and the Affordable loss principle are used as moderating variables?
Possible influence of the moderator: Strategic Alliances
As explained in chapter 2.1.3, the Strategic alliances principle refers to the limiting of uncertainty by acquiring the right strategic partners. One could argue this is especially important for students, as they often lack experience in the professional world. This means they might not be as reliable and professional in the perception of possible customers. Partnerships that students entrepreneurs could form are for example with mentors from the university, or with fellow students. The importance of a mentor for a new entrepreneur was described by St-Jeans
16 and Audet (2012). These authors argue that the entrepreneur will gain knowledge and skills, a vision, but also a greater self-efficacy and a validation of the entrepreneurial self-image. Still, St-Jeans and Audet (2012) also emphasize that every person is different, and that a mentor should take this into account.
Possible influence of the moderator: Affordable loss
Chapter 2.1.3 also explained how the Affordable loss principle refers to entrepreneurs limiting their losses for every business idea they test. This might go hand in hand with a student entrepreneur having a high Conscientiousness. A student who is very reliable and dependable as a person, might keep a closer eye on his financial situation than a student who does not score high on this scale. This means this reliable student will make sure he does not lose too much money when a plan fails. This will in turn show that the right business decisions are taken.
Hypotheses 1 and 2
This brings us to the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The degree of Conscientiousness shows a significant positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions when focussing on the Strategic alliances principle.
Hypothesis 2: The degree of Conscientiousness shows a significant positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions when focussing on the Affordable loss principle.
2.2.2 Openness to experience upon Student entrepreneur actions
As explained in chapter 2.1.1, Openness to experience refers to being curious about new experiences and ideas. This is likely to be of importance for student entrepreneurs, as they will enter a world which they did not know before, and where they will have to handle many new experiences.
The importance of Openness to experience for entrepreneurship was proven by many different authors (as described in chapter 2.1.1). For example Zhao and Seibert (2006), who discussed that entrepreneurs score higher on this scale than mangers. Rauch and Frese (2007) found a positive correlation between Openness to experience and business creation and success. And
17 Zhao, Seibert and Lumpkin (2010), who found a correlation between Openness to experience and intention and performance.
Thus, it can be said that Openness to experience has a positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. But what happens when the Affordable loss principle and the Strategic alliances principle are used as moderating variables?
Possible influence of the moderator: Affordable loss
As explained in chapter 2.1.3, the Affordable loss principle refers to entrepreneurs limiting their losses for every business idea they test. This logically means that every entrepreneur tries out multiple different business ideas. For this to be desirable for student entrepreneurs, they should have an open mind-set about these different new experiences. Some ideas might work out, and other might not. Student entrepreneurs should be aware of this from the start, and not retreat from entrepreneurship completely when the first idea does not go as planned.
Possible influence of the moderator: Strategic alliances
Chapter 2.1.3 also explained that the Strategic alliances principle refers to entrepreneurs valuing strategic partners or stakeholders. This will limit uncertainty for them. Strategic alliances might help student entrepreneurs have better company results by performing the right actions. It could also influence the relationship between Openness to experience and Student entrepreneur actions. Student who are open to new ideas will not shy away when help is offered. This means they will accept help from other (more superior) entrepreneurs and maybe also search for a mentor. The mentor (or other advisor) will then guide the entrepreneur into taking the right business decisions.
Hypotheses 3 and 4
This brings us to the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: The degree of Openness to experience shows a significant positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions when focussing on the Affordable loss principle.
Hypothesis 4: The degree of Openness to experience shows a significant positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions when focussing on the Strategic alliances principle.
18
2.2.3 Personality change of student entrepreneurs
According to the authors Nielsen and Lassen (2012), identity is not a stable concept but changes during entrepreneurial actions. Thus, students learn about themselves while participating in entrepreneurship and their personality will also somehow change. This means the degree of Conscientiousness and Openness to experience of a student might be different after the process of starting (and running) a firm. The Conscientiousness might raise because a student learns how important it is to be reliable and dependable in business and will put more effort into showing this in his personality. The student might also be somewhat shy for new experiences at the beginning of starting a firm, but develop more confidence further in the process.
As the questionnaire used for this research is cross sectional (only send out at one point in time), it is not possible to determine any real change in personality of the respondents. Still, the respondents are asked about the personal perception of the growth they have experienced. This gives insight into how the respondents look at their personality change. Have they grown as a person? Or do they feel like they are still exactly the same as before starting their firm? The questions asked do not lead to any real conclusion, but can be used to point future research in a certain direction.
2.3 Proposed model
In chapters 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the four hypotheses have been discussed. These hypotheses are presented together in the figure below.
19
3. Method
3.1 Research design
As the base of the model is already clear (the two independent variables and their influence upon the dependent), it was chosen to perform a quantitative study. This will test the influence of the two added moderators variables upon the already existing connections. The new variables and their influence will be measured using a Likert scale. The fact that these variables are important for entrepreneurship is already clear, due to the research of Sarasvathy (2001). Doing another qualitative study about the variables would be simply reinventing the wheel, while a quantitative study will give insight into the degree of importance of the variables.
The questionnaire is only send out at one point in time, meaning the research is cross sectional of nature. The respondents are found using non probability sampling. First the snowball method is used. Here the respondents are contacted within the network of the researcher. Then, the self-selection method is used. The researcher askes possible respondents to fill in the questionnaire if they fit the criteria.
3.2 Research context
The research project is mostly situated in The Netherlands. The city of Amsterdam is home to multiple schooling institutions, of which the universities are used. Other student entrepreneurs were contacted via LinkedIn. These respondents were not necessarily located in Amsterdam, but in other cities in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was also posted on forums on the internet, which means students from other places around the world also had access to it (although the amount of responds seemed very low).
3.3 Number of respondents aim
To get an idea of how many respondents were necessary for the study, the population size had to be calculated. As most respondents were located within Amsterdam, it was decided to focus on this city when establishing the population size. Universities and the Hogeschool of Amsterdam (HvA) are located in Amsterdam, but as the response rate from the HvA was very low, it is not used in the following calculation.
20 The University of Amsterdam (UvA) is home to 32.000 students, the VU University (VU) to 23.000 and the Conservatorium of Amsterdam (CvA) to 1.100 students. This gives a total number of students within Amsterdam of 56.100. According to Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014), the total percentage of students who want to become an entrepreneur directly after their studies have finished is 6.6%. However, the current research is focussed on students who are already an entrepreneur while still in their study time. This would be a smaller number than the amount of students who want to start their venture after their studies. Although the exact percentage is unclear, it was decided to go with a 3% chance that a student is an entrepreneur during the study time. This gives a population of 56.100 x 0.03 = 1683 students.
Using the population size of 1683, a confidence interval of 90 and a margin of error of 5%, this gives a respondents aim of 65. Still, this is not completely correct. As the questionnaire was also posted internationally (although with little to no response) and send to some students outside of Amsterdam. Thus, the aim is to find 65 respondents or more.
3.4 Data collection
Multiple steps were taken in collecting data. First, the researcher looked at her own network. As she is part of a entrepreneurship study at the UvA and VU, she had some suitable respondents within her network. These were all approached personally or via WhatsApp and asked to fill in the questionnaire. The respondents were also asked to send the questionnaire to other suitable candidates within their network.
The second step was to approach the HvA to find more respondents. This did not seem successful at first, until the researcher went to a fair organized by the Entrepreneurship study at the HvA. Here, some respondents were contacted directly and asked to fill in in the questionnaire on the spot.
Thirdly, the researcher started contacting suitable respondents on LinkedIn. Each profile that was registered as both ‘student’ and ‘entrepreneur’ and located in The Netherlands was send a private message and a connection request. This message explained that the connection request was send to find respondents for the questionnaire. Naturally, not all profiles accepted the connection request, but those that did were generally willing to fill in the questionnaire. The
21 researcher send them another message explaining the precise nature of the questionnaire and the link to fill it in.
The fourth step was to use entrepreneurship forums placed on the website Reddit. Some examples of the names of the forums on Reddit were University, Students, Start-up and Entrepreneurs. In each of these forums, a post was made explaining the nature of the questionnaire and the request to fill it in when the respondent would match the criteria. Unfortunately, little response came from this effort.
3.5 Measures and definitions
In the following chapter, the various variables are explained together with examples of how they were measured. Each item used was rated on a five point Likert scale. Ranging from extremely untrue to extremely true.
3.5.1 Independent variables
The two independent variables used for this research are Conscientiousness and Openness to experience. These are personality traits, meaning respondents can be rated high or low on these scales. As the measurement scale of Goldberg (1992) was used in the study by Lautner, Ahmetoglu, Akhtar and Chamarro-Premuzic (2014), it was first thought to be used in the current research as well. However, this scale is quite old and consists of 20 items per personality trait. This was found to be too many items for the already large questionnaire. For these two reason, the measurement scale of DeYoung, Quilty and Peterson (2007) was used. These authors provide a highly similar measurement, but with only 10 items per personality trait. Examples of items rating Conscientiousness were ‘I am always prepared’ and ‘I pay attention to detail’. Examples for Openness to experience were ‘I am quick to understand things’ and ‘I am full of ideas’. If the respondents rated these questions as positively matching their personality, they automatically score high on the personality trait.
3.5.2 Moderating variables
The two moderating variables are Strategic alliances and Affordable loss. The researcher could not find previous research rating these variables, and thus used the definitions (see chapter 2.1.3) of these variables to come up with new items. 8 items per variable were designed. Examples of items for Strategic alliances were ‘I have a mentor who advices me on business
22 decisions’ and ‘I discuss business ideas with other students’. Examples of items for Affordable loss were ‘I often switch from one business idea to the next’ and ‘I do not mind losing money on a failed business idea’.
3.5.3 Dependent variable
The dependent variable used for this research is Student entrepreneur actions. As this is a very specific variable, the researcher could not find previous research items rating it. The definition of this variable (see chapter 2.1.2) is used to come up with 8 new items. Examples of these items are ‘I spend time/effort making my business financially healthy and successful’ and ‘I spend time/effort managing my business’.
3.5.4 Perceptions of respondents
To obtain a completer image of the respondents, they were also asked to give their personal perception of certain variables. These are divided into five extra variables. All items are based upon the definition of the variable (as described in chapter 2).
The respondents perceived importance of the moderators
The first two variables look into the perceived importance of the moderators. The first one is Perception of the effect of strategic alliances. Examples of items used for this variable are ‘Advice from people around me has helped me making better business decisions’ and Advice from people around me has helped me focussing on the right business aspects’. The second variable is Perception of the effect of affordable loss. Examples of items used here are ‘Limiting my efforts per business idea has helped me in developing my business’ and ‘Looking into multiple business ideas has helped me taking the right actions’. The variables were measured using the same 5 point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest score.
The respondents perceived change of personality
The following variables look into the perceived change of personality of the student entrepreneurs. Three types of questions were asked. First looking into their general change in personality, then into their change of conscientiousness and lastly into their change in openness to experience. It should be noted that these variables do not measure the factual score on these personality scales, but only the perceived change in these scales. The variables were measured using the same 5 point Likert scale, with 5 being the highest score. The first variable is referred
23 to as Perceived change in general personality. Items used are ‘I have changed as a person after becoming an entrepreneur’ and ‘I have grown as a person after becoming an entrepreneur’. The second variable is Perceived change in Conscientiousness. Examples of items are ‘My strategic partners have made me more professional in business’ and ‘I have grown as a person due to the input from my strategic partners’. The last variable is Perceived change in Openness to experience. Examples of the items used here are ‘Limiting my efforts per business idea has made me more creative in business’ and ‘I have grown as a person after having looked into multiple business ideas’.
3.5.5 Control variables
The control variables used are based upon the work of Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014) (as explained in chapter 2.1.2). The respondents were asked to provide their: gender, age, study level, firm industry, number of employees, number of co-founders, age of firm, growth intentions, degree of performance and degree of innovation. These last two variables were measured on a seven point Likert scale by Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014). But the current research will only use a five point Likert scale, this way it is more compatible with the other items measured. The respondents will be asked to rate their innovation and performance from low to high. The growth intention is also rated on a five point Likert scale, but this ranges from ‘I do not want to grow’ to ‘I want to grow tenfold or more’.
24
4. Data analyses
In this chapter, the analyses of the data is explained. First, an insight into the respondents is given. Following by some quality tests, and finally the model is tested.
4.1 Summary of the collected data
4.1.1 Characteristics of the respondents
Of the 67 responds collected, three are incomplete. Some more respondents had handed in an incomplete questionnaire, but these were missing too many answers to be used in the further process. The first step is to look at the summary of the respondents. This gives clarity in who these people are, and how they represent the population. Table 1 below gives an extra overview of the respondents (see also appendix 1 to 6). By looking at the summary it becomes clear that male respondents are overrepresented in the sample (62.7%). HBO students are underrepresented, as only 16.4% of the total respondents is studying at HBO level. The growth intentions and innovativeness of the firms seem to be more evenly distributed. The students rate the performances of their firms mostly medium (46.3%) or between medium and high (25.4%). Appendix 1 also shows that the mean age of the respondents is 23.6 years. The mean number of employees is 1.97 and that of co-founders (excluding the student) is 0.97. The mean company age is 1.64, showing that most firms are start-ups. Lastly, it turned out too difficult to make sense of the variable Industry, as so many different types were found. This made it impossible to divide them into a few types and check their influence upon the model. This variable is not used in the remained of this study.
Table 1: Summary of the respondents
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 42 62.7
Female 22 32.8
Study level HBO bachelor 8 11.9
HBO master 3 4.5 University bachelor 21 31.3 University master 32 47.8 Growth intentions of firm No growth 19 28.4
25
Doubling in size 13 19.4
Tripling in size 7 10.4
Quadrupling in size 7 10.4
Tenfold or more 18 26.9
Performance of firm Low 6 9.0
Between low and medium 5 7.5
Medium 31 46.3
Between medium and high 17 25.4
High 5 7.5
Innovativeness of firm Low 11 16.4
Between low and medium 11 16.4
Medium 15 22.4
Between medium and high 18 26.9
High 9 13.4
4.1.2 Cronbach’s Alpha
As explained in chapter 3.5, all variables were tested with 3 to 10 items. To know if these items show enough internal consistency to represent the variables, the Cronbach’s Alpha is used to test them (see table 2 below). When the Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.7, this means the variable is well represented and the research is reliable.
Table 2: The Cronbach’s Alpha per variable
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items
Conscientiousness 0.852 10
Openness to experience 0.797 10
Entrepreneurial actions 0.813 8
Strategic alliances 0.743 8
Affordable loss 0.781 8
Respondents perception of Strategic
alliances
0.797 8
Respondents perception of Affordable loss 0.832 8
Respondents perception in change of general personality
26 Respondents perception in change of
Conscientiousness
0.806 5
Respondents perception in change of Openness to experience
0.830 5
All Cronbach’s Alpha are above 0.7, which means the variables are reliable and can be used in the further research. It was also checked if the Cronbach’s Alpha would rise when certain items are removed. This turned out not to be the case (or there would be only a minor improvement), thus all items are left as they were.
Another point of attention is the fact that no Factor Analyses could be done. This analyses requires a large amount of respondents, which was simply not available. This means the validity of the research remains uncertain.
4.1.3 Normal distribution
The next step is to check the normal distribution of each variable. If the variables are not normally distributed, this means certain SPSS tests should not be performed. A normal distribution should have a skewness between -1 and 1, and a kurtosis between -2 and 2. An overview is given in the following table (table 3).
Table 3: Summary of normality test
Variable Mean Skewness Kurtosis Sig
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov) Sig (Shapiro-Wilk) Conscientiousness 3.7209 -0.302 -0.320 0.184 0.371 Openness to experience 4.0881 0.333 -0.875 0.023* 0.011* Entrepreneurial actions 4.1437 -0.467 -0.449 0.035* 0.032* Strategic alliances 3.4640 -0.300 -0.451 0.200 0.313 Affordable loss 3.3693 -0.228 -0.511 0.200 0.247 Respondents perception of strategic alliances 3.9110 -1.104 3.585 0.000* 0.001*
27 Respondents perception of affordable loss 3.6136 0.181 0.191 0.200 0.561 Respondents perception in change of general personality 4.2020 -0.660 0.306 0.001* 0.000* Respondents perception in change of conscientiousness 3.7939 -0.013 -0.017 0.097 0.026* Respondents perception in change of openness to experience 3.4585 -0.121 -0.492 0.007* 0.055
* p < 0.05 Thus showing a significant difference with the normal distribution.
Some variables above have a significance below 0.05, showing there might be a problem with the normal distribution. The variable Respondents perception of Strategic alliances also shows a problem in the skewness and kurtosis. The skewness is below -1 and the kurtosis is above 2.
To decide if actions should be taken, histograms are created for each variable. These histograms clearly show if a normal distribution is visible. A boxplot is also created, which is placed in appendix 7. The histograms all point towards a normal distribution (sometimes with gaps, but this can be argued to be caused by the low respondents rate). The boxplot also points to a normal distribution, as it contains only four outliers (of which three for Respondents perception of strategic alliances).
Thus, it can be concluded that all variables are normally distributed. Some do show minor problems, but one might argue these problems will disappear when more respondents are added.
4.2 In-depth analyses
4.2.1 Correlation between variables
The next step is to look at the correlation between variables. As explained previously (chapter 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), the variables Conscientiousness and Openness to experience should both have a positive significant effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. However, according to the
28 correlation table in appendix 8, Openness to experience does not significantly correlate with Student entrepreneur actions. The correlation is too weak (as the sig should be 0.05 or smaller). Still, measuring the correlation is not enough to answer any hypothesis, it merely gives an idea.
Now, the significance of the control variables is tested. According to Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger (2014), some control variables might disturb the current research. If these variables do not have any influence, they will not be used in the remainder of this research. The factors are: gender, age, level of education, number of employees, number of co-founders, company age, company growth, company performance and level of innovation (as shown in the Pearson correlation in appendix 8). Only the variable Gender shows a significant effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. This means this variable is the only control variable used in the further research, to compensate for any unwanted effects on the model.
4.2.2 Linear regression model
The next step is to perform a linear regression with the variables. To do this, the variables are first centred. This means every variable gets a middle point (0) and all data is then done minus this middle point. Now the moderators are computed. This is done by multiplying both independent variables with both moderators. This gives four new interaction variables, which are Conscientiousness x Strategic alliances (CONSxSTRA), Conscientiousness x Affordable loss (CONSxAFLO), Openness to experience x Affordable loss (OPENxAFLO) and Openness to experience x Strategic alliances (OPENxSTRA).
Now, the linear regression is performed. To create a clear overview of the model, it is divided into four parts (see table 4 below). Each new part contains the variables of the previous model, plus new variables. It can then be seen if the new model is an improvement upon the old (or the added variables do not add any extra value).
Table 4: Linear regression model 1 to 4
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Main effects
Female -0.335* -0.310* -0.257* -0.267*
(0.129) (0.125) (0.124) (0.125)
29 (0.092) (0.085) (0.086) Openness to experience 0.120 -0.147 -0.187 (0.127) (0.136) (0.137) Strategic alliances 0.228* 0.258* (0.089) (0.089) Affordable loss 0.215* 0.217* (0.091) (0.092) Interaction effects CONSxSTRA -0.161 (0.153) CONSxAFLO 0.149 (0.121) OPENxAFLO 0.098 (0.174) OPENxSTRA 0.255 (0.176) R2 0.099* 0.214* 0.366* 0.432* Adjusted R2 0.084 0.174 0.311 0.337 F for change in R2 0.115* 0.152* 0.066
Dependent variable: Student entrepreneur actions * significant effect upon st, thus p < 0.05
() standard error
All models are significant, and the R2 rises for each new model. Even when only the control
variable Gender (female) is used, this already has a significant negative effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. Conscientiousness has (as proven by previous literature) a significant positive effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. Surprisingly, Openness to experience does not have this positive significant effect. In model 3 and 4, the effect is even negative, however not significant. Strategic alliances and Affordable loss are measured as direct variables in model 3 (thus being independent variables, not moderators), and they both show a positive significant effect.
30 However, the tested model was to proof their influence upon the relationship between Conscientiousness and Openness to experience upon Student entrepreneur actions. When looking at model 4, none of these interaction effects show to be significant. This means the moderators do not strengthen the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Still, model 4 is an improvement upon model 3 (as the R2 is higher), but not due to significant effects of the moderators.
This is a surprising conclusion which is not in accordance with the tested model. Still, the test proves that four independent variables have a significant effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. These variables are: Gender, Conscientiousness, Strategic alliances and Affordable loss. The effect of these variables is constant, it does not significantly change when a moderator is added. Only Conscientiousness shows no effect, which is in contradiction with previous literature.
4.2.3 Checking assumptions
As a last check, a few assumptions are looked into. First, there should be no collinearity in the model. This can be checked by looking at the VIF value in appendix 9. All VIF values are very low, due to the fact that the variables were centred before starting the model. The second check is to look at any strange outliers. These are also not present in the model and can be viewed in appendix 10. The histogram shows a more or less normal distribution. The last check is making sure the model is homoscedastic. The model also passes this test, as can be seen in the scatterplots in appendix 11.
4.2.4 A second correlation test
As the linear regression did not produce the desired results, a second correlation test is performed. Here, other variables are used. Namely the variables that show the perception of the respondents about the researched variables. These are also explained in chapter 3.5.4. The tested variables are Perception of Strategic alliances and Perception of Affordable loss. The correlation test is visible in appendix 12. It shows that the respondents valued the Strategic alliances and the Affordable loss principle while being an entrepreneur. Both correlations are significant and thus in agreement with the linear regression performed in previously. The significance is not of such a different amount that new conclusions can be drawn from performing a second linear regression with these variables.
31
4.2.5 Personal growth of respondents
This last chapter looks into the respondents vision of the personal changed they made during their time as an entrepreneur. As the questionnaire was cross sectional of nature (meaning the respondents were only asked to participate at one point in time), it is impossible to establish any real conclusions about their change in personality. However, as the respondents were asked to fill in a questionnaire anyway, it was found to be interesting to also ask them about their perceived change in personality.
The General growth perception has a mean of 4.20, and all but one participant scored 3 or more. The Conscientiousness growth perception has a mean of 3.79, here all participant scored 2 or more. The last variable Openness to experience growth perception has a mean of 3.46, here the scores range on all five points of the scale. When all three variables are put together (total growth), this leaves a mean of 3.81. The variable shows a clear normal distribution. An overview of the scores is given in appendix 13. As all four scores mentioned are above the neutral score 3, meaning the respondents have experiences a change in their personality.
4.2.5 The new model
Figure 2: new model
The figure above shows the model as it has been proven. All numbers given represent the effect from the concerning variable upon Student entrepreneur actions.
The highest arrow represent the relationship between Gender and Student entrepreneur actions. It shows that being a woman has a negative significant effect. Obviously, the model does not give a backward effect here, as gender cannot be influenced.
32 The second highest arrow represent the relationship between Conscientiousness and Student entrepreneur actions. The relationship from Conscientiousness to Student entrepreneur actions has proven to be positively significant. The relationship the other way around has not yet been proven significant, as the current research did not have the means to do some. But further research can be advised.
The middle arrow represents the relationship between Openness to experience and Student entrepreneur actions. This arrow is only one sided, as the influence of Openness to experience could not be found significant. The other way around could also not be proven significant by the questionnaire, thus should be further researched.
The fourth arrow (from the top) represents the relationship between Affordable loss and Student entrepreneur actions. This arrow is also one sided. Affordable loss was originally expected to behave as a moderator, but as this turned out not to be the case, the variable has been made into an independent one.
The bottom arrow represents the relationship between Strategic alliances and Student entrepreneur actions. Strategic alliances was also expected to behave as a moderator. But has proven to be independent as well.
33
5. Discussion and conclusion
5.1 Findings
It was found that neither Strategic alliances nor Affordable loss has a moderating effect upon the two personality traits and Student entrepreneur actions. However, these two variables do have a direct effect upon Student entrepreneur actions. And these effects are positively significant. Conscientiousness was also found to have a positive significant effect. Surprisingly, Openness to experience showed no significant effect. This is in contradiction with previous research.
Strategic alliances and Affordable loss were chosen as moderators, because they come from the effectuation theory. This theory implies that entrepreneurs have a certain mind-set and live within this framework. However, it now seems like effectuation theory is not a framework of itself. It if were, it would be seen as an overarching idea, which means variables behave differently inside than outside of the framework. It now seems like the effectuation principles are more like individual ideas, which influence Student entrepreneur actions separately from each other, and separately from other variables (such as personality).
5.2 Theoretical and practical relevance
The theoretical relevance of this study concerns the two effectuation principles. These were shown to be completely independent of personality, and work as separate (significant) variables of their own. This might imply the principles are not part of an overarching framework. As variables within such a framework would behave differently than outside of the framework. Still, no real conclusions can be drawn about this framework and further research is necessary.
The main practical relevance for student entrepreneurs is the fact that the two effectuation principles are not active as moderators. This shows that the personality of the students is of no importance, and all students can benefit from using the Affordable loss principle and the Strategic alliance principle in their work. The study has also shown that openness to experience might not be as important for student entrepreneurs as was previously believed. Although this is debatable, due to the limited number of respondents in this study.
34 5.3 Limitations and future research
The first clear limitation of this study is the number of respondents. Only 67 successfully filled in the questionnaire. Although this was conform the aim of 64 respondents, this amount was still the minimum. The research would have been of better quality if more respondents could have been reached.
Another limitation is that no factor analyses could be done. This type of analyses requires a large number of respondents, which was not available. This means the validity of the results remains unclear.
The last limitation concerns the personality change of the respondents. The data implied that the respondents felt like they had grown as a person after their entrepreneurial experience, but no tests could be performed with this obtained data. This means that no real conclusions can be drawn from the data. Future research could measure the personalities of entrepreneurs at multiple points in time, and find out the truth in this matter.
Other future research should focus on the principles from the effectuation theory. Both Affordable loss and Strategic alliances behaved very differently than was assumed. This shows how research about this theory is far from ready. Future research should provide clarity about the principles in cohesion with the personality traits, and should also rethink the idea of effectuation as a “framework”.
35
6. References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93(5), 880.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological assessment, 4(1), 26.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in personality, 37(6), 504-528.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic and visionary theories of leadership. Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Karp, T. (2006). The inner entrepreneur: A constructivistic view of entrepreneurial reality construction. Journal of Change Management, 6(3), 291-304.
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014). The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personality and individual differences, 63, 58-63.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lüthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2), 135-147. Marchand, J., & Hermens, A. (2015). Student entrepreneurship: A research agenda. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 8(2), 266.
Nabi, G., Holden, R., & Walmsley, A. (2010). From student to entrepreneur: towards a model of graduate entrepreneurial career‐making. Journal of Education and Work, 23(5), 389-415. Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let's put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners' personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 16(4), 353-385. Robbins, S., Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behaviour. Essex, UK: Pearson.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of management Review, 26(2), 243-263. Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurial opportunity. Handbook of entrepreneurship research (pp. 141-160). Springer, Boston, MA.
36 Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437– 453.
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U. & Zellweger, T. (2014). Student Entrepreneurship Across the Globe: A Look at Intentions and Activities. Retrieved from https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 119-140.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of applied psychology, 91(2), 259.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of management, 36(2), 381-404.
37
7. Appendices
Appendix 1: frequency table of respondents (age, employees, cofounders, company age)
Statistics
Write down your age
How many employees does
your firm have? (exluding yourself)
How many co-founders does your firm have?
(excluding yourself) COMP_AGE N Valid 64 64 64 64 Missing 3 3 3 3 Mean 23,61 1,97 ,97 1,64 Median 24,00 ,00 1,00 1,00 Mode 24a 0 0 1 Std. Deviation 2,580 3,285 1,208 1,350 Range 14 15 7 7 Minimum 18 0 0 0 Maximum 32 15 7 7
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Appendix 2: Gender frequency table of respondents
Select your gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent Valid Male 42 62,7 65,6 65,6 Female 22 32,8 34,4 100,0 Total 64 95,5 100,0 Missing System 3 4,5 Total 67 100,0
38 Appendix 3: Study level frequency table of respondents
Which study level do you follow?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid HBO bachelor 8 11,9 12,5 12,5
HBO master 3 4,5 4,7 17,2 University bachelor 21 31,3 32,8 50,0 University master 32 47,8 50,0 100,0 Total 64 95,5 100,0 Missing System 3 4,5 Total 67 100,0
Appendix 4: Firm growth intention frequency table of respondents
What are the growth intentions of your firm?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid I do not want my firm to grow 19 28,4 29,7 29,7
I want my firm to double in size
13 19,4 20,3 50,0
I want my firm to triple in size 7 10,4 10,9 60,9
I want my firm to quadruple in size
7 10,4 10,9 71,9
I want my firm to grow tenfold or more
18 26,9 28,1 100,0
Total 64 95,5 100,0
Missing System 3 4,5
39 Appendix 5: Firm performance frequency table of respondents
How do you perceive the current performance of your firm?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Low 6 9,0 9,4 9,4
Between low and medium 5 7,5 7,8 17,2
Medium 31 46,3 48,4 65,6
Between medium and high 17 25,4 26,6 92,2
High 5 7,5 7,8 100,0
Total 64 95,5 100,0
Missing System 3 4,5
Total 67 100,0
Appendix 6: Firm innovativeness frequency table of respondents
How do you perceive the innovativeness of your firm?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Low 11 16,4 17,2 17,2
Between low and medium 11 16,4 17,2 34,4
Medium 15 22,4 23,4 57,8
Between medium and high 18 26,9 28,1 85,9
High 9 13,4 14,1 100,0
Total 64 95,5 100,0
Missing System 3 4,5
40 Appendix 7: Boxplot of variables
