DO UNDERGRADUATES HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE
ENTREPRENEURS AND MANAGER OF SMALL BUSINESS?
A STUDY OF VALUES AND PERSONALITY.
BY
DR. (MRS.) S. L. ADEYEMI
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, ILORIN
ABSTRACT
What are the key personality dimensions which are important to entrepreneurship and small
business management? This study draws on data from twenty seven managers of small business
who are engaged in the sale of computers and related software and forty-two undergraduates who
are taking a Bachelor of Business degree at the University of Ilorin. The analysis shows that the
entrepreneurs/managers of small businesses exhibit many different characteristics than those
shown by a sample of undergraduates taking a business degree. Entrepreneurs have an internal
locus of controls, are more innovative and are higher risk takers (but not significantly higher).
They perceive that conceptual skills are the most important skills and tend to exhibit a higher
need for organization.
Undergraduates tend to have an external locus of control and are more risk averse. They are
found to have a high propensity for organisation and are lower on tolerance. While the
educational experience may be extremely important in moulding the personality of
undergraduates, the findings of this study conclude that it may not foster some of the values and
personality characteristics that many entrepreneurs and business managers might consider
important.
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
There is an ongoing debate concerning the importance of personality and psychological
characteristics in relation to the successful entrepreneur. A person’s uniqueness, it is argued,
might separate the entrepreneur from the non- entrepreneur and it might indicate the reasons why
some entrepreneurs are more successful than others.
Traditionally, researchers have focused on how entrepreneurs differ from non- entrepreneurs
(Gartner 1984: Greenberger and Sexton 1988). There has also been a growing awareness of the
personality traits (such as innovation, risk taking and locus of control) which are needed for
starting a new venture and making is successful (Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986; Begley and Boyd
1987). According to Schumpeter (1943), the key ingredient of entrepreneurship lies in the
innovativeness of the individual. Innovation, creativity and discovery are the key factors
underlying the classical body of thought and research
Certain personality characteristics, values and skills seem to be key ingredients which contribute
to an entrepreneur’s success. Selection of the appropriate basis for defining and improving the
personal qualities and skills of entrepreneurs and managers of small business creates a
challenging problem for university teachers and government leaders who wish to encourage the
process. The field of research has been described as young, at a formative stage and still in its
infancy (Pauline et al. 1982, Perryman 1982, Peterson and Horvath 1982, Sexton 1985). There
are several people who have suggested that there is nothing which can act as a substitute for real
world experience and educational courses, which have any input on entrepreneurship, should be
designed to allow for such experience to be gained.
In recognition of the above suggestion concerning ‘real world experience’, the present study
sought to understand and compare the personality characteristics and values of undergraduates
(who could become entrepreneurs) with a group of people who have experience of
entrepreneurship. The purpose is not to define what universities should do to prepare
entrepreneurs who are undergraduates but to simply offer a comparison of two groups of people.
The specific purpose is to illustrate that experiences gained as an undergraduate may foster
different values and beliefs than those of an entrepreneur/manager of a small business. This
2
paper, in the section below, briefly reviews how behaviour and personality characteristics have
been studied in past research.
1.1
FOCUS
It is widely thought that a person’s psychological values are primary drives of behaviours (i.e.
what a person does). People behave in accordance with their values far more often than not.
Similarly, a person’s behaviours result from attempts to satisfy needs be they for power,
recognition, achievement or acceptance. Entrepreneurs might be differentiated from
undergraduates by personality characteristics. “People who posses the same characteristics as
entrepreneurs do, will have a higher tendency (or potential) to perform more entrepreneurial acts,
than do people who do not posses such characteristics” (Lumpkin, G. T. 1998).
Various personality characteristics and skills have received considerable attention in academic
literature. Those upon which most research have been carried out are: (1) locus of control, (2)
risk taking (and innovation and other psychological characteristics), (3) entrepreneurial skills.
1.1.1 Locus of Control
Locus control refers to the perceived control over the events in ones life. (Rotter, 1966) people
with internal locus of control believe that they are able to control what happens in their lives i.e.,
they believe they are in control and are master of their own destiny. On the other hand, people
with external locus of control tend to believe that most of the events in their lives result by the
randomness of external events, believing that what happens in life is due to chance i.e. being
lucky, being at the right place at the right time, and the behaviours of powerful individuals.
People’s belief in personal control over their lives influences their perception of important
events, their attitude towards life, and their work behaviours. In a student sample, internal locus
of control was associated with a desire to become an entrepreneur. (Bonnett & Furnham, 1991).
Internal locus of control of the founders is associated with company performance (Boone,
DeBrabander and Van Witteloostujin, 1996; Nwachukwu, 1995). The impact of locus of control
on company performance may stem from a relationship between locus of control and
entrepreneurial orientation.
3
Locus of control may be related to pro-activeness. When the individuals believe that they can
make a difference in their lives by performing certain actions, they may be more willing to think
about the future and act proactively. Research indicates that people with higher degrees of
internal locus of control tend to monitor the environment to obtain information (Van Zuuren &
Wolfs, 1991). This tendency may be result of a desire to act on the environment.
Internal locus of control may also be related to risk-taking orientation. Research shows that
internals tend to estimate probability of failure as lower and decide in favour of risky options
(Hendrickx, Vlek & Calje, 1992). As an example of this tendency, internals are found to plan for
expansion of their businesses even when unemployment rates are high (Ward, 1993). These
results show that firms in which founders have higher internal locus of control may be risk
taking.
There is also reason to expect a positive relationship between locus of control, innovativeness
and competitive aggressiveness. To the extent that individuals feel that being competitive or
being innovative are ways of exerting control over the environment, we can expect a positive
relationship between these variables.
In such situations, they are more likely to persist in carrying out their work even though; they are
highly dissatisfied and stressed, just because they feel they cannot do much about it. Externals
are more likely to feel that they can always take control of the situation.
1.1.2. Risk-Taking Propensity
Risk-taking propensity is defined as “the perceived probability of receiving rewards associated
with the success of a situation that is required by the individual before he will subject himself to
the consequences associated with failure, the alternative situation providing less reward as well
as less severe consequences than the proposed situation” (Brockhaus, 1980). Risk taking is
identified as a trait that distinguishes entrepreneurs from non- entrepreneurs and managers
(Shame, 1996; Miner et al., 1989). The level of risk-taking propensity of the owners may lead to
certain entrepreneurial orientations.
4
Risk-taking propensity of the individual founder is expected to be related to the risk-taking level
of the entrepreneurial firm. When entrepreneurs have the ability to influence the actions of the
organisation with their personal decision, their personal characteristics may be reflected in the
actions of the organisation and as a result the organisation may be more risk taking.
Risk-taking
propensity
may
positively
influence
innovativeness,
especially
product
innovativeness. Product innovativeness requires a certain degree of tolerance for taking risks,
because innovativeness benefits from a willingness to take risks and tolerate failures. The risktaking propensity of the founders and owners will positively influence innovative attempts of the
employees and as a result the organisation may adopt an innovative orientation to face the
competition.
1.1.3 Affiliation Need
Affiliation need refers to a desire to be close to other people in order to feel reassured that the
self is acceptable (McClelland, 1953). People with higher levels of affiliation need tend to send a
significant amount of time socializing with other people. These people try to maintain
harmonious relationships with others and may sometimes sacrifice work success to protect these
relationships. People with high levels of affiliation need have a strong desire to be liked by their
co-workers and subordinates, and this may influence their performance in a negative manner.
Based on this definition, it is possible to draw links between entrepreneurial styles and affiliation
need. For example, we may expect a negative relationship between affiliation need and proactiveness. Pro-activeness requires a certain level of future orientation, whereas people with
affiliation need may be more concerned with protecting the status quo in order to protect their
relationships with others. In addition, it may be possible to observe lower levels of competitive
aggressiveness, because people with high levels of affiliation need want to like by people around
them and they may avoid thinking in competitive terms. Being aggressive towards the
competition may lead some people to have a negative attitude towards them and they may prefer
to avoid these negative feelings.
5
1.1.4. Entrepreneurial Skills
Some of the skills necessary to run a successful small business will be planning skills, enterpersonal communication skills, managerial and leadership skills. Planning, especially in a
competitive market place is an essential skill if a business is to not just survive but to succeed,
enter-personal communication skill, relating to dealing with people in a variety of situation, are
of considerable importance. Managerial skills are more technical and, among other things refer
to been able to draw up and used number of staff they required, their respective skills, and if new
skills are needed, how these should be obtained. Leadership skills are important in establishing a
direction for a business and ensuring that the business gets there.
1.2
PROPOSITIONS TO BE TESTED
1.
Local entrepreneurs have a higher internal locus of control (i.e. exhibit internality)
compared with undergraduates
2.
Local entrepreneurs are higher risk takers and are more innovative than
undergraduates
3.
Local entrepreneurs have a stronger desire to be held in high regard compared to
undergraduates and more concerned about personal relationship.
4.
Local entrepreneurs are more materialistic, have a higher need for organization and
are more tolerant than undergraduates.
5.
Local entrepreneurs have different personal values compared with undergraduates
6.
Local entrepreneurs and undergraduates will rank different the skills that are needed
by an entrepreneurs.
1.2.1 Method
This section describes the sample and its characteristics and the development and content of the
questionnaire that was used.
1.2.2 The Sample and Its Characteristics
The intention of this research was to compare local entrepreneurs with undergraduates. To enable
this comparison to be made, stratified samples of both groups were taken.
6
a.
Entrepreneurs. As regards the entrepreneurs, those engaged in the sale of computers
and related software and equipment were chosen. The majority of these entrepreneurs
have located their businesses in two large shopping complexes. This meant that it was
relatively easy to contact them to conduct personal interviews. The technique of result
in a personal interview was chosen because it had one main advantage – it would
result in a much higher response rate compared to a mail survey of the sample. A
random sample of ninety-one computer businesses, which had outlets in the two
shopping complexes, was identified. All ninety one business outlets were visited.
Sixty-four of the entrepreneurs at those outlets declined to participate, but twentyseven acceded to the request and completed the questio9nnaires. This resulted in a
responses rate of 29.7%.
b.
Undergraduates: The student sample included university undergraduates chosen from
one of Nigerian’s two universities. In Nigeria, it is easy to identify a suitable stratified
sample. Rather than pick, say, undergraduates on a scientific, engineering or arts
programme (who, it could be agued, would have little business flair), it was decided
to focus on undergraduates who had registered on a Bachelor of Business programme
and who were majoring in Business Administration or Management science. There
were one hundred and sixty-seven such undergraduates of their names was obtained
and every fourth student on the list was selected. All the undergraduates, who were
requested to complete the questionnaire, did so. As a result, forty-two responses were
received.
The general characteristics of the samples have major variations. The undergraduates are in a
very focused age group, all of them being 30 or below. Of the entrepreneurs, 48% are aged
30 or below, with 37% being aged between 31 and 40 and the remaining 15% being aged
above 40.
It is not surprising to see that highest level of education completed by the undergraduates
was, as it is the junior colleges which act as the prime source of university students. Of the
entrepreneurs, 30% completed studies at a secondary school before commencing work, with
7
18% ceasing their education below that level and 40% indicating they had obtained a degree
or diploma from a tertiary institution.
The gender make up of the groups also differed. While females made up 71% of the student
sample, they only made up 22% of the entrepreneurs sample.
1.2.3 Survey Design
A number of pilot tests were carried out and, at each stage, the content of the questionnaires was
modified. As soon as it had been decided that the questionnaires (and the accompanying
covering letter) was sufficiently well refined, personal visits were made to the entrepreneurs at
their place of business. The targeted undergraduates were contacted at the end of a lecture
session.
The questionnaire itself primarily contained closed ended questions. However, some open-ended
questions were included, thereby enabling respondents to make personal comments.
The questionnaire contained five sections, the final section requesting background information
about the respondents. The four ‘technical’ section sought responses, for example, about the
respondent’s locus of control, their personal characteristics, factors which influenced/would
influence their career choice and skills which they believed were required by entrepreneurs.
The assessment of the locus of control of the samples arises through the responses that were
given in section 1 of the questionnaire. This contained ten dual choice questions. The assessment
of the qualities of risk taking, organizations and tolerance of the samples arises through the
responses to section 2 of the questionnaire. This contained ten scrambled questions on each of
the three ‘qualities’.
The assessment of ‘innovativeness’, ‘recognition’, ‘relationship’ and ‘materialism’ came from
the responses to twelve motivational influences that were listed in section 3 of the questionnaire.
The twelve influences are to be found in table 1. These influences were grouped together as a
result of the factor analysis (see table 1) to produ8ce the four ‘qualities’, in the following way:
8
Innovativeness:
This came from a combination of the ability to ‘develop new ideas,
contribute to the success of my/employer’s business and continue to learn.
Recognition:
This came from a combination of ability to be respected by my friends, be
accepted by others, and be secure
Relationship:
This came from a combination of ability to develop a close relationship at
work and enjoy openness and honesty with my co-workers
Materialistic:
This came from the combination of ability to enjoy high earnings and
enjoy regular pay rises.
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS
Orthogonal Factor Loading
Dimensions
Factor 1
Factor 2
Ability to:
Develop new ideas
Contribute to the success of my/my employer’s
business
Continue to learn
Be respect6ed by friends
Be accepted by others
Be secure
Develop close relationships at work
Enjoy openness and honesty with my co-workers
Enjoy high earnings
Enjoy regular pay rises
Eigenvalue
Percentage of variance explained
Cumulative percentage
2.0
Factor 3
Factor 4
0.851
0.778
0.103
-0.055
-0.061
0.171
0.088
0.016
0.698
0.107
-0.145
0.303
-0.031
0.170
0.041
-0.099
2.244
22.400
22.400
0.149
0.708
0.771
0.733
-0.725
0.022
-0.124
0.277
1.861
18.600
41.00
0.042
0.012
-0.061
-0.011
0.857
0.820
-0.234
0.138
1.368
13.700
54.700
-0.173
0.066
0.039
0.005
0.042
-0.130
0.893
0.807
1.310
13.100
67.800
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among the variables. Table 2
indicates that none of the variables are highly correlated with each other. In fact, only three of
the correlations were significant at the 0.1 level. Externality was negatively correlated with
recognition. In addition, externality was negatively correlated with innovativeness. Finally,
materialism was positively correlated with risk taking.
9
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Individual Level (a)
S/N
Variables
Means
S.D.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Innovativeness 4.07
0.74
2
Recognition
3.66
0.81
0.19
3
Organization
6.17
2.12
0.10
0.15
4
Risk-taking
4.71
1.96
0.12
0.05
-0.19
5
Tolerance
4.77
1.64
0.18
0.08
0.09
0.01
6
Relationship
3.77
0.76
0.12
-0.04
0.08
0.09
0.01
7
Materialistic
3.60
0.91
-0.05
0.11
-0.03
0.27-
-0.09
-0.12
8
Externality
4.65
1.86
-0.28-
-0.22-
0.04
-0.18
-0.14
-0.22
(a) n = 69
* p< 0.10
7
-0.08
** p < 0.05
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FOR PROPOSITIONS 1 TO 5
In table 3, the responses from the entrepreneurs and the undergraduates show two significant
differences. The most significant difference was under the heading of ability to contribute to the
success of my/my employer’s business. This was the highest mean for the entrepreneurs. This is
believed to be because entrepreneurs thrive on success and know that ability from an
undergraduate’ viewpoint, although of importance to them, was not as important as to the
entrepreneur. This is possibly because undergraduates have little work experience, having only
done limited amounts of vacation work and attended a ten-week business attachment
programme. Thus, making a contribution to a business’s success has never been a real feature of
an undergraduate’s life.
The other significant difference was under the heading ability to enjoy openness and honesty
with my co-worker. From experience, entrepreneurs may have found that, by being open and
honest with their fellow workers, this creates a better working environment and leads to much
more trust. Undergraduates rate this ability as the third lowest factor and possibly have no feel
for it being important in a real working environment.
10
Table 3 also exhibited three other abilities for which there was high divergence. The mean for
the ability to develop new ideas was higher for entrepreneurs compared with undergraduates.
May be, with entrepreneurs, they know that if they do not develop new ideas, their business will
not do as well as their competitors. Undergraduates, within their degree programme, are given
little opportunity to develop new ideas.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF ENTREPRENEURS WITH UNDERGRADUATES FOR VARIOUS ABILITIES
Entrepreneurs
Undergraduates
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
F
Sig
Develop new ideas
4.19
1.11
3.81
0.94
2.27
0.14
Contribute to the success of my/my employer’s
4.37
0.69
3.88
0.80
6.82
0.01
Continue to learn
4.33
1.04
4.07
0.92
1.20
0.28
Be respected by friends
3.78
1.25
3.64
1.12
0.22
0.64
Be accepted by others
3.59
1.25
3.69
0.87
0.15
0.70
Be secure
3.74
1.32
3.57
0.83
0.43
0.51
Develop close relationships at work
3.56
1.05
3.90
0.79
2.47
0.12
Enjoy openness and honesty with my co-
4.04
0.90
3.60
0.83
4.38
0.04
Enjoy high earnings
4.00
1.21
3.88
0.99
0.20
0.66
Enjoy regular pay rises
3.04
1.13
3.43
0.97
2.37
0.13
Ability To:
business
workers
It was noted that there were two abilities for which undergraduates gave a higher rating than the
entrepreneurs. The first of these was the ability to develop close relationships at work. A possible
explanation for this is that from the limited experience that the undergraduates have had, they
found the need for them at the bottom end of the ladder to develop such relationships – otherwise
it would be difficult for them to carry out their basic duties. However, entrepreneurs, especially
as they will have the role of boss, saw no need to develop a close relationship with their
employees.
11
The other factor for which the undergraduates’ mean was higher was the ability to enjoy regular
pay rises’. From the entrepreneurs’ viewpoint, they will not be salaried persons who are on a pay
scale. Sp, to them, regular pay rises are not something which are a norm. This no doubt is the
reason why this had the lowest mean for all the abilities, as looked at from the entrepreneurs’
viewpoint. Undergraduates, most of whom will move in to salaried employment upon
completing their degree course, would look to regular pay increases as the technique for
increasing their income and, hence, would naturally rate this ability highly.
Table 4 illustrates the comparison of personality characteristics of entrepreneurs. With all the
personal characteristics except materialistic and externality the entrepreneurs exhibited higher
means than undergraduates. Four of the personal characteristic showed significant difference,
these being: tolerance, externality, organisation and innovativeness. While tolerance scored very
highly with the entrepreneurs, it was less highly rated than undergraduates.
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF
ENTREPRENEURS WITH UNDERGRADUATES
Personality
Entrepreneurs
Undergraduates
Mean
S. D.
Mean
S. D.
F
Sig
Innovativeness
4.30
0.81
3.92
0.65
4.51
0.04
Recognition
3.70
0.94
3.63
0.74
0.12
0.73
Organization
6.89
1.53
5.71
2.33
5.36
0.02
Risk-taking
4.89
2.17
4.60
1.84
0.36
0.55
Tolerance
5.41
1.53
4.36
1.59
7.40
0.01
Relationship
3.80
0.89
3.75
0.67
0.06
0.81
Materialistic
3.52
1.02
3.65
0.84
0.36
0.55
Externality
3.93
1.62
5.12
1.88
7.39
0.01
Characteristics
12
TABLE 5
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE WHO ARE MORE
MATERIALISTIC
LEVEL OF MATERIALISM
Personality
Low
High
F
Sig
Characteristics
n=36
n=33
Risk-taking
3.94
5.55
13.56
0.00
Innovativeness
4.01
4.13
1.47
0.50
Organization
6.36
5.97
0.58
0.45
Tolerance
4.81
4.73
0.04
0.84
Externality
5.00
4.27
2.69
0.11
Recognition
3.53
3.81
2.07
0.15
Relationship
3.79
3.74
0.07
0.79
This may be because of their working environment being different. For, if entrepreneurs wish to
complete a sale, especially of a computer, they may be faced with a barrage of questions about
the features of the hardware and/or software that they are trying to sell. To lose patience with a
potential buyer would almost certainly lose the sale. Furthermore, the potential buyer would not
come back again and that person may tell those who comes into contact with of his/her
experience. Thus, not only would one sale definitely be lost, but others may also be lost. In
contrast, undergraduates while on their degree course, rarely have to be tolerant of others as, in
the main, they are looking to pass their examinations through their personal efforts.
Externality was seen to have a higher mean for undergraduates compared with entrepreneurs.
This is to be expected. For, entrepreneurs from past research are known to blame themselves
when things go wrong and this finding has been confirmed by this study. In contrast,
undergraduates appear to want to put the blame on others when things go wrong. While
organization shows the highest mean for both groups, for entrepreneurs it is given a much higher
rating. This is because organization in a business can lead to operational efficiency thereby
resulting in a higher profits and profitability. Innovativeness showed a higher mean for
entrepreneurs compared with undergraduates. As mentioned perniciously, undergraduates have
13
no major need to be innovative in their degree programmes. In the main, they have information
delivered to them and have to learn it. Entrepreneurs in a competitive environment have to be
innovative; otherwise their business may deteriorate.
In creating table 5, it is first necessary to appreciate the distinction between a respondent who
has a low level of materialism and a respondent who has a high level of materialism. The
distinction arises in the averaging of the scores given for the combination of responses to the
questions about ‘enjoying high earnings’ and ‘enjoying regular pay rises’. Where the average
score for a respondent was 4.00 and above, they were classified as having a high level of
materialism. Respondents scoring 3.5 or less were classified as having a low level of
materialism. Table 5 indicates that the more materialistic, as would be expected, are risk takers
and internals.
2.1
ANALYSIS OF RESULT FOR PROPOSITIONS 6
In table 6, there is a great deal of consistency concerning the responses the entrepreneurs and
undergraduates gave about the relative importance of skills needed by an entrepreneurs. Both
groups placed substantial emphasis on the planning skills, leadership and managerial skills, and
problem sensing and solving skills. This is perhaps an indicator of what the entrepreneurs has
gained from his personal business experience as an entrepreneur. From the undergraduates’
viewpoint, it may indicate that through the business element of their marketing degree
programme, they have been made aware of and fully appreciate those skills which are of major
importance to an entrepreneur. Of the factors with the lowest mean scores, there was again
general agreement between the two groups. Skills in ‘statistics and mathematics’ being
considered of very low importance, together with ‘general writing’ skills, conflict management’
skills and computer skills. From the entrepreneurs’ viewpoint, they may again be responding
based on personal experiences. As someone involved in setting up and managing a computer
shop, the need to be skilful in statistics and mathematics, the ability to write well and to know
how to use a computer are not considered to be of major importance. Nor is the need to be skilful
in conflict management. With a small business (all of those in the sample were small) conflict
between management would infrequently, if ever, arise. From an undergraduates’ viewpoint,
14
they cannot speak from personal experience. However, they appear to have interpreted the
position just as the entrepreneurs did.
In the responses, there were just two skills for which there was a significant divergence of
opinion. Computer skills were ranked higher by the entrepreneurs compared with the
undergraduate. With this sample, this may be because the targeted entrepreneurial group were
selling computers – so, they could not give the skill too low a rating – otherwise, how do they
justify their existence? The other point relates to ‘flexibility and creativity’ skills. Possibly, here,
undergraduates rate this very highly because the need to be flexible and creative is frequently
broadcast in the local media. May be, with manufacturing businesses, the need to be flexible and
creative are essential for survival. With other types of business (i.e. non-manufacturing ones,
such as in the computer selling trade), it is not up to the business manager to be all that creative.
However, some flexibility and creativity is still required-especially if many of an entrepreneur’
competitions are operating from the same shopping complex (as they were in this study).
The responses shown in table 6 identify those skills which are considered vital by an
entrepreneur and, thus, these are the ones that should be emphasised by an educational
programme which is designed to create entrepreneurs.
15
TABLE 6
RANKING BY ENTREPRENEURS AND UNDERGRADUATES OF SKILLS
NEEDED BY AN ENTREPRENEURS
Entrepreneurs
Mean
Types of skills
Undergraduates
Mean
Score
Ranking
Score
Ranking
Planning
4.22
1
4.55
3
Leadership and managerial
4.33
2
4.14
1
Problem sensing and solving
4.48
3
4.62
4
Interpersonal communication
5.19
4
4.82
5
Flexibility and creativity
5.26
5
4.50
2
Financial Management
5.26
5
7.24
8
Motivational
5.67
7
5.65
7
Organisational and priority setting
6.00
8
5.19
6
Computer
8.81
9
10.33
12
Conflict management
8.81
9
7.69
9
General Writing
9.59
11
9.49
10
Statistics and mathematics
10.37
12
9.77
11
W Score
0.385
3.0
0.409
CONCLUSION
The study has established that there are a number of significant differences relating to the
characteristics, qualities and skills of local entrepreneurs compared with undergraduates and
explanations have been offered as to why these differences exist.
It has been seen that entrepreneurs are more internal, more tolerant and have a strong desire for
organization. Entrepreneurs are also more innovative. There is no evidence here to show that
entrepreneurs are much more materialistic, based on this study’s definition of materialism, than
undergraduates – nor was there any significant difference between the two samples regarding
16
risk taking. The latter is believed to merely reflect what previous studies have found (Viz.
entrepreneurs are moderate risk takers and the undergraduates who took part in this research
were not that different from entrepreneurs as risk takers). Even though there is evidence to show
that entrepreneurs seek a high income, they also place a high value on the relationship they have
with their work force.
Finally, in the ranking of skills needed by entrepreneurs, there was very little difference in the
ratings given by the entrepreneurs and the undergraduates. This, it has been argued, reflects the
actual experience of the entrepreneurs – and these experiences appear to coincide with what
undergraduates would expect entrepreneurs to possess. Whether the highly ranked skills are
being nurtured in undergraduates’ courses is another matter. The results do give an indication of
what should be emphasised in a business degree programme which wants to have some focus on
entrepreneurship.
17
REFERENCES
Begley, T. & Boyd D. (1987). Psychological Characteristics Associated with performance in
entrepreneurship firms and smaller business. Journal of Business Venturing 2, 79-93.
Bonne, C., De Brabander, B. & Van Witteloostujin, A. 1996: CEO locus of control and small
firm performance: An integrative framework and empirical test. Journal of Management
Studies, 33, 667-699.
Bonnett, C. & Furnham A. (1991). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of aelolescents
interested in a young enterprise scheme: Journal of Economic Psychology, 12, 464-478.
Brockhaus, R. H. and Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. L. Sexton
& R. W. Smilor (Hrsg.) the art and science of entrepreneurship (S. 125-148).
Brochhaus, R. (1980) Risk Taking Propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management
Journal 23 (3) 509-520.
Gartner, W. (1988) who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), p696-706
Hendrickx, L. Vlek, C. & Calje, H. 1992. Effects of frequency and scenario information on the
evaluation of large-scale risks. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,
52, 256-275.
Lumpkin, G. T. 1998. Do new entrant firms have an entrepreneurial orientation? Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management San Diego, CA.
McClelland, D. C. (1966) Die Leistungsgesellschatt (The Achieving society). Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
18
McClelland, D. C. & Koestner, R. 1992. The achievement motive. In Charles P. Smith (ed)
Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic contest analysis: 143-152. New
York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press
Minner, J. B. (2000). Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business
founders. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36, 43-69.
Minner, J. B., Smith, N. R. & Braclver, J. S. 1989. Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the
growth of technologically innovative firms. Journal of Applied psychological, 74(4): 554560.
Nwachukwu, O. C. 1995. CEO locus of control, strategic planning, differentiation, and small
business performance.
The role of CEO in the implementation of strategic management in Nigeria banks.
The CEO’s role in Strategic ********* of Nigerian Banks.
Palmer, M. 1971. The Application of psychological testing of entrepreneurial potential, Califonia
Management Review, 13(4), 32-38.
Perry, C. MacArthurs, R. and Cunnington, B. (1986) “Need for achievement and locus of control
of Australian Small Business owner-managers and Super-entrepreneurs. International
Small Business Journal 4, pp. 55-64.
Rotter, J. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80 (serial no. 609).
Schumpenter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and elemocracy-6th ed. Counterpoint edition
unwin paper backs, London 1987.
Sexton, D. L. & Bowman, N. 1985. “The entrepreneur – A capable executive and more” Journal
of Business Venturing, 1(1): 129-140
19
Shane, S. 1996. Explaining variation in rates of entrepreneurship in the United States: 1899 –
1988. Journal of Management, 22(5): 747-781.
Van Zuuren, F. J. & Wolfs, H. M. 1991. Styles of information se********** under threat:
personal and situational aspects of monitoring and blunting. Personality and individual
differences, 12(2) 141-149.
Ward, E. A. 1993. Motivation of expansion plans of entrepreneurs and small business managers
(measuring locus of control). Journal of small business management, 31: 32-38.
20