ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity Kavita Chauhan et...
Transcript of ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity Kavita Chauhan et...
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research
© Copyright by the authors - Licensee IPA- Under Creative Commons license 3.0
Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 187
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan1, Deepti Prakash2, Shilpa Jain3
1-Centre of Management Studies, Jamia Milia Islamia
2- University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
3- University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
ABSTRACT
In today’s global economy, which is based on knowledge and the ability to adjust quickly to
new conditions, countries with a young workforce will enjoy a significant competitive
advantage against their older counterparts. Entrepreneurship brings vibrancy in terms of
innovation, freedom, creation of new jobs, technology, money, etc. Introducing
entrepreneurship to tomorrow’s workforce is an important task for universities in developing
economies. An educated entrepreneur will find more opportunities to explore and introduce
change. Education shall play the role of a catalyst to proliferate the process called
“Entrepreneurship”. The present research attempts to create a model of Entrepreneurial
Intensity in Indian Context based on the factors identified from the literature. These factors
were then tested in Indian Context on 144 entrepreneurs with a full time post graduation to
create a measurement model of Entrepreneurial Intensity. The finally developed
questionnaire can be applied on students to measure their level of Entrepreneurial Intensity
and educational institutes then can apply interventions to develop the students for the same.
Keywords: Entrepreneurial intensity, Frequency of Entrepreneurship, Degree of
Entrepreneurship, Social capital, Affective States of Learning
1. Introduction
Employability is the new buzzword in the Universities. Given that new types of job are
emerging all the time, students need access to industry-specific advice and guidance; apart
from career advice. Students are much more aware these days and are not very keen on
accepting the same advice as given to any other student. In fact, they look for tailored for me
career advice. Employability essentially involves how well matched the skills and knowledge
assets, of potential employees are to the jobs available in the market (Hegarty and Johnston,
2008). What is missing in the understanding of employability are the enterprising skill sets.
The enterprising graduate would be valued in any organization, either profit-making, non-
profit making, large or small. A student with enterprising education will have more urge for
tailor-for-me career and thus will seek opportunities to build his own enterprise.
Entrepreneurial Intensity will affect the employability of a student and thus nurturing a
sustainable employability. The Universities need to be proactive in designing the curriculum
which will help students to develop the skill employers’ value. Today’s small businesses,
particularly the new ones, are the main vehicle for entrepreneurship, contributing not just to
employment, social and political stability, but also to innovative and competitive power
(Thurik and Wennekers, 2004). As governments all over the world create new methods of
incentivizing businesses – whether through the availability of capital or through positive tax
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
188
benefits and structures – entrepreneurial education needs to be accessible for those
individuals interested in outlining their own career paths.
The word entrepreneur is derived from the French ‘entreprendre’, meaning to undertake.
Thus we may say that the entrepreneur is one who undertakes to organize, manage and
assume the risks of a business. Professor Howard Stevenson of Harvard Business School
believes that Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources
currently controlled. Also, Entrepreneurship is more of an attitude than a skill or a profession.
Some of us may prefer a public service or a corporate career, but many would choose an
entrepreneurial opportunity that "feels just right." Functionally, all entrepreneurs are self-
employed and income generating persons, but the reverse is not true- all self-employed and
income generating persons cannot be seen as entrepreneurs. If counted on a continuum,
income generation, self-employment and entrepreneurship can be considered as the initial,
middle and final stages of the growth process of entrepreneurship.
Fundamental to student’s career-related decisions, attitudes, motivations and perceptions of
new venture creations as a graduate pathway are higher education institutes (ISBA
Consortium, 2004; Pittaway and Cope, 2007). Research evidence shows that entrepreneurial
skills can be learned and the attitudes of students towards entrepreneurship can be influenced
through entrepreneurship education (Gorman et al., 1997; Mitra and Matlay, 2004; Kuratko,
2005; Florin et al., 2007).When students individually make sense of situations they develop
entrepreneurial capabilities over time by practicing and thus developing their personal
cognitive resources (Rae, 2000). Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences has created an
entrepreneurial learning environment for turning the hobbies of their students into new
business ventures, and then conducted research into its impacts (Ro¨mer-Paakkanen and
Pekkala, 2008). The researchers concluded that university students’ must have a high level of
personal interest in the subject of their business in order to create a successful new venture.
And this interest can be generated through education. This paper is an attempt to create an apt
model for measuring the entrepreneurial intensity of students in Indian Context.
2. Review of literature
In economies that are slightly behind their modern industrial counterparts, entrepreneurship is
often viewed as an important component in stimulating economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and even alleviating poverty in such countries. According to Porter et al.
(2002) three main phases of economic development based on a country’s gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita and the share of primary goods relative to its total exports are
available: factor-driven, efficiency-driven, and innovation-driven. The developing countries
are all efficiency-driven economies, while the developed countries are all innovation-driven
economies. Inefficiency-driven economies, institutions support industrialization in pursuit of
higher productivity and economies of scale. As the economy matures further, the emphasis on
industrial activity gradually moves towards expanding the service sector. This evolution is
typically associated with increasing intensity in research and development as well as
knowledge, and it leads to the emergence of innovative, opportunity-seeking entrepreneurial
activities.
Morris et al. (1994) established a framework describing the intensity of entrepreneurship at
the individual and the organizational level. Frequency (the number of entrepreneurial events)
and degree (the extent to which events are innovative, risky and proactive) constitute the
variables of entrepreneurial intensity (Heilbrunn, 2005). Proactive behavior suggests that the
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
189
individual knows where to acquire knowledge critical for success and actively seeks
assistance from the known source in the environment. Proactive personalities scan for
opportunities, show initiative, take action, and continue until they reach closure by bringing
about change (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Empirical research found that proactive help-
seeking behavior contributes substantially to internal organizational success through the
acquisition of new knowledge, enhanced job satisfaction, increased organizational
commitment and improvements in employees’ work performance (Lee, 2002). Risk taking
has abundant contexts in the field of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship focuses on
recognizing and capturing opportunities in ways that create an advantage. Pursuing such
opportunities is often risky because the duration and the payoff from the pursuit are unknown
(Zahra, 2005). A number of variables that may influence entrepreneurial risk taking are-
entrepreneur-related parameters, such as owner-manager’s educational background, industrial
tenure and age, and family-related factors, such as family ownership stakes and the
controlling generation in the family.
Among other related factors related to marital status is the presence of the children.
Individuals with younger children are generally less likely to take the risk associated with the
self-employment (Brown et al., 2003). Aidis and Estrin (2006) support the idea that
individuals who have higher household incomes are more likely to be entrepreneurs which is
considered to be the way of overcoming financial constraints. Innovativeness is defined as
“seeking creative, unusual, or novel solutions to problems and needs by way of products,
services or processes. According to Sternberg and Lubart (1999) entrepreneurship is a form
of creativity and can be labeled as a business or entrepreneurial activity because often new
business is original, useful and turn opportunities into ideas as a creation of viable growth-
oriented business (Lee et al., 2004; Nystro¨m, 1993). Innovativeness is considered as the
backbone of the entrepreneurial activity, fueling the ventures’ competitive advantage
(Branzei and Vertinsky, 2006) and generating numerous business opportunities and changes
in its competitive environment (Park and Bae, 2004). Frequency refers to the number of times
entrepreneurial act or event is repeated (e.g. develop new products). The event refers to the
conceptualization and implementation of a new venture. The agent is an individual (or group)
that presumes personal responsibility for bringing the event to realization. The
entrepreneurial process has attitudinal and behavioral constituents. Attitudinally, it refers to
the willingness of an individual or organization to embrace new opportunities and take
responsibility for effecting creative change. This willingness is sometimes referred to as an
“entrepreneurial orientation”. In behavioral terms, it includes the set of activities required to
evaluate an opportunity, define a business concept, assess and acquire the necessary resources
and then to operate and harvest a venture.
Based on the results of a study (Davey, Plewa and Struwig, 2011), a number of globally
relevant activities and methods emerged that universities could use to stimulate an
entrepreneurial spirit considering both the demand (creating demand for entrepreneurial
education) and supply side (creating student-oriented entrepreneurship education) of
entrepreneurship education-service provision (Teixeira and Davey, 2009). There is rising
interest in endeavoring to teach not only “about entrepreneurship”, nor even “for
entrepreneurship”, but also “through entrepreneurship”: using the new venture creation
practice to help students acquire a range of both business understanding and transferable
skills and competencies” (Kirby, 2006). Honig (2004) cites a few studies showing that
programs providing real-world experience seem especially useful in enhancing
entrepreneurial intentionality. Herrmann et al. (2008, p. 21) have argued that in
entrepreneurial education there should be “a shift from transmission models of teaching to
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
190
experiential learning so that “students may be offered techniques that can be applied in the
real world”. So, for example, entrepreneurial education may affect students’ entrepreneurial
behavior positively (Hynes and Richardson, 2007). When students perceive the environment
– including a university environment – as entrepreneurship-supportive, they can be more
likely to create a new venture. In the short term, teaching interventions may appear separate
and erratic, but in the longer term they form more holistic and sequential learning circles in
which new knowledge and activity continuously produce new experiences through individual
reflection in a social context. (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006). By allowing students with
real business ideas to actually be entrepreneurs, rather than pretending to be, a large part of
the entrepreneurial life is experienced directly. Formal business plans are not permitted to
compromise the experience, but a high level of association with outside stakeholders
guarantees proper evaluation of ideas (Vincett and Farlow 2008).
An affective state in learning has a role to play in entrepreneurial skill development.
Affective states are mobilized in an interactive learning process and play a role in learning,
promoting or hindering the achievement of the instructional goals. Emotions can be
conceived as a wider process that includes physiological (body reactions and
neurophysiologic path), behavioral (action tendencies and emotional, facial and gestural
emotional expressions), cognitive (subjective experience of perception and evaluation), social
and interpersonal aspects (learned by social and cultural norms). Based on the distinction
proposed by Gray and Watson (2001), the affections are a broad category that includes
emotion and humor. According to them, the factors that differentiate emotion, mood and
temperament are: length, object and state. With regard to emotion, it is a state of short
duration, only a few seconds, and focuses on a specific object and its status is short. On the
other hand, humor is considered something that can last from minutes to days, it is not
directed at a specific object, and its condition is considered long term. Temperament’s
duration takes months to years; it depends on personal characteristics that manifest
themselves in different contexts and is therefore considered lasting. Variations in affective
states depending on the characteristics of the teaching activities (level of simulation and level
of required interaction) are expected.
Direct learning activities increase emotional intensity, suggesting that the more closely the
experience approximates the more concrete situation, the greater the emotional impact on the
learner. Another thing to note is that affective states indicating anxiety are associated with
indirect and team learning activities. Another aspect of learning was given by Rotter (1966).
According to him, control expectation is connected to learning, so that an internal control
expectation motive and supports active striving. An external control expectation, on the other
hand, hampers learning and encourages passivity.
Social capital refers to the resources, contacts possess and the structure of contacts in a
network (Burt, 1992). In the entrepreneurial context, social capital differential refers to the
uneven endowment of entrepreneurs with social resources in terms of network structure
(Burt, 1997; Stam and Elfring, 2008), relations and contact resources (Batjargal, 2003; Lin,
2001). The evidence has shown that innovation processes benefit from engagement with a
diverse range of partners (Rodan and Galunic, 2004). This engagement allows for the
integration of different information, knowledge bases, behaviors, and ways of thinking.
Formal and informal communication between people with differing information, skills, and
values enhances the possibility of novel combinations of knowledge (Conway, 1995).
Entrepreneurial networks can be categorized into two types derived from differential sources:
informal and formal networks (Birley and Johannisson, 1985). Informal entrepreneurial
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
191
networks consist of personal relationships, families and business contacts. A formal network
consists of venture capitalists, banks, creditors (Das and Teng, 1997). An open and diverse
social environment shapes individuals’ mind and breeds the “creative class” (Florida, 2005).
Entrepreneurs proactively build a diverse social network at the startup stage. A study by
Yang Xu (2011) suggests that a diverse social network will positively affect the
entrepreneur’s internal cognitive model of innovation. As an important arbiter between the
entrepreneur’s external social network and his/her strategic actions, this cognitive model of
innovation ultimately affects the creativity of new ventures. In the realm of public policy,
initiatives such as encouragement of professional, regional, and international networks
targeted to early-stage entrepreneurs may help them build a diverse social network. Ventures
starting with networks centered around strong identity ties tend to reproduce already existing
business models (Sequeira and Rasheed, 2006; Zcan, 1995), while diverse ties (weak or
strong) will lead to innovation (Julien et al., 2004).
3. Development of the entrepreneurial intensity model
3.1 Method and procedure
To develop the entrepreneurial intensity model a three point likert scale was developed with
130 items measuring Innovativeness (20 items), Risk Taking (20 items), Frequency of
entrepreneurial activities (20 items), Proactive Behavior (20 items), Social Capital (25 items),
and Affective state of learning (25 items). The constructs in the questionnaire are defined in
Table 1
Table 1: Definition of constructs taken for the study
S.No Construct Definition Supportive Studies
1.
Innovativeness
Includes
Exploring
Ideas,
Generating
Ideas, Abstract
reasoning, and
Lateral
Thinking
Innovation –is a new or improved
product, process or practice. Business
ideas emerge in an iterative process of
shaping and development. Action is a
distinguishing step for entrepreneurs in
their dealing with uncertainty.
Perception reflects consistency in
perceiving the world in concrete vs.
abstract terms. Notion is that analytic
and intuitive thought are two ends of one
continuum. Intuitive thinkers produce
potentially creative, situation-sensitive
solutions to plans and problems. Lateral
thinking is required for venture creation.
McMullen and
Shepherd (2006),
Dutta and Crossan
(2005), Gartner,
Carter, and Hills,
(2003), Davidsson
(2003), Littunen
(2000), Le Blond
(1997), Allinson and
Hayes (1996),
Epstein et al.
(1996), Acs and
Audretsch, (1990),
Bartlett (1958),
Knight (1921)
2.
Pro-activeness
includes
Responsibility,
Values,
Vision and
Resourceful
Propensity to identify opportunities for
improvement is a defining characteristic
of the proactive personality. Individuals
place intrinsic value on autonomy,
challenge, and competence in their
careers. Pro-activity in Entrepreneurial
Alertness is the ability to “see,” to
discover and exploit opportunities that
others miss. Resourcefulness represents
Fuller and Marler
(2009), Tang
(2008), Thompson
(2005), Forret and
Dougherty (2004, p.
420), Kickul and
Gundry (2002),
Seibert et al. (2001),
Cawley et al (2000),
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
192
the proactive, diligent aspect of an
individual. proactive personality is ‘‘a
stable disposition to take personal
initiative in a broad range of activities
and situations” and are into networking.
Busenitz (1996),
Feldman and Bolino
(1996), Johnson and
Ostendorf, (1993),
Bateman and Crant
(1993), Schein
(1990), Kirzner
(1973, p. 847)
3.
Risk taking
includes Risk
friendliness,
Ready for
failure,
Achievement
motivation and
Prudent
Planning
A good nose for business, the desire to
take risks, the ability to identify business
opportunities, and the ability to grasp
profitable opportunities are traits of an
entrepreneur. High-nAch people are
more likely than low-nAch people to
engage in energetic and innovative
activities that require planning for the
future and entail an individual’s
responsibility for task outcomes.
intelligence gathering and planning help
reduce conceptual risk.
Collins et al (2004),
McCarthy (2000),
Gibbons and Hong
Chung (1995),
Hunter and Schmidt
(1990), Johnson
(1990), Bird (1989),
Caird (1988),
Holland (1985),
Casson (1982),
4.
Frequency
includes
Entrepreneuria
l idea
implementatio
n and
Entrepreneuria
l idea
generation
Products, service, processes in which a
firm/ individual becomes involved is
entrepreneurial frequency. Accordingly,
entrepreneurship is not an either/or
determination, but a question of "how
often" and "how much."
Dimov (2007),
Thompson (2002),
Morris and Sexton
(1996), Covin and
Slevin (1991),
Schaefer (1990),
Jennings and
Seaman (1990),
Keats and Bracket
(1988), Gartner,
(1985)
5.
Social Capital
includes Social
Aspiration,
Social
Inclusion,
Social
Network,
Diverse Social
Network and
Social Trust
In the entrepreneurial context, social
capital differential refers to the uneven
endowment of entrepreneurs with social
resources in terms of network structure,
relations and contact resources. Formal
and informal communication between
people with differing information, skills,
and values enhances the possibility of
novel combinations of knowledge.
Yang Xu (2011), De
Carolis and Saparito
(2006), Sequeira
and Rasheed (2006),
Julien et al. (2004),
Jack and Anderson
(2002), Lee and
Tsang (2001),
Nahapiet and
Ghoshal (1998), Das
and Teng (1997),
Conway (1995),
Birley and
Johannisson (1985)
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
193
6.
Affective
Learning
Includes
Affect towards
course (content
+ teachers),
Learning
related
emotions of
students,
Emotional
intelligence,
and Humour
orientation
The affections are a broad category that
includes emotion and humor. The factors
that differentiate emotion, mood and
temperament are: length, object and
state.
Variations in affective states depend on
the characteristics of the teaching
activities (level of simulation and level
of required interaction).
Packham et al
(2010), Kort, Reilly,
and Picard (2001),
Gray and Watson
(2001), Jones and
Martinez (2001),
Rotter (1966)
The scale was then administered on 144 entrepreneurs (entrepreneurs who are post graduates
who passed out through public/ private institutions/universities) and all the individual
constructs were validated using LISREL 9.1. Finally the Entrepreneurial Intensity model was
validated on these six constructs using LISREL 9.1. To attain the overall model of
entrepreneurial intensity, the measurement models for Innovativeness, Risk taking,
Frequency of entrepreneurial activities, Proactive behavior, Social capital and Affective state
of learning were obtained using LISREL 9.1. Twenty items of Innovativeness were subjected
to structure equation modeling and only thirteen items were retained. The goodness of fit
indices for Innovativeness is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Showing the Model fit statistics of each construct
χ2
CFI
(Comparat
ive Fit
Index)
GFI
(Goodness
of Fit
Index)
SRMR
(Standardize
d Root Mean
Residual)
RMSEA (Root
Mean Square
Error of
Approximation)
Acceptable
Levels
Non
Significa
nt
≥ .92 ≥ .90 ≤ .08 ≤ .07
Innovation 75.28 p
= 0.179 0.967 .92 .08 .047
Proactive
Behavior
95.01 p
= 0.33 .981 .90 .07 .028
Risk Taking 34.32 p
= 0.50 0.98 .91 .07 0.00
Frequency of
Entrepreneuria
l Activities
97.27 p
= 0.059 0.97 .93 .08 .06
Social Capital 29.05 p
= 0.358 1.00 .92 .06 .032
Affective State
of Learning
59 p =
0.297 0.98 .92 .08 .036
Entrepreneuria
l Intensity
1.29 p =
0.935 1.00 .99 .03 0.00
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
194
Table 3: Shows the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their individual
contribution to the factor of Innovativeness.
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q1.Unanswered questions make me restless
.11
2 Q2. I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking and behavior.
.21
3 Q3. I will be keen on taking ambiguous job assignment
.13
4 Q5. I prefer multitasking over one project at a time
.18
5 Q6. Imagine you are a musician. What you most enjoy about it is .09
6 Q7. If I were stranded in the desert, the question I'd be most likely to
ask myself is: .15
7 Q10. Have you made something up in response to a question you
didn’t know the answer to: .09
8 Q11. Choose the word which best expresses the meaning of the given
word: BRIEF .32
9 Q13. “She was white as a ghost”, means that
.14
10 Q15. A woman introduces a man as the son of the brother of her
mother. How is the man related to the woman? .09
11 Q16. What are the next two letters in the following sequence? O, T, T,
F, F, S. .09
12 Q19. A doctor gives you 3 pills and tells you to take one every half
and hour. How long will the pills last? .04
13 Q20. A girl who was just learning to drive went down a one‐way
street in the wrong direction, but didn't break the law. How come? .21
Table 3 shows the retained items on Innovativeness and their individual contribution to the
factor of Innovativeness. Twenty items of Proactive Behavior were subjected to structure
equation modeling and only fifteen items were retained. The goodness of fit indices for
Innovativeness is shown in Table 2.
Table 4: Showing the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their
individual contribution to the factor of proactive behavior
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q21.When you receive a project, when do you start working on
it? .18
2
Q23. You go to a mall with your friends and find something that
you really want to have. It’s expensive and you don’t have
money. What will you do?
.05
3 Q24. In a group assignment; when others are not working, what
do you do? .12
4 Q25.Do you keep your commitments? .02
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
195
5 Q26. After shopping in a supermarket, you realize they have not
charged you for a chocolate of Rs.15. What will you do? .38
6
Q27. Assume you are a manager in a company. One day it
requires you to sign off on the tax filings for your department.
You are not good in “numbers”. What do you do?
0.09
7 Q28. Your friend left his/her email up on his/her computer screen
and went to lunch. You: 0.17
8 Q29. When corporations believe they have a social responsibility
to the larger society, they are reflecting: 0.06
9 Q32. Do you want to live to be 100? 0.12
10 Q34. When it comes to life coaching, I am: 0.21
11 Q35.If you knew that tomorrow you were going to die, how
would you spend the last day of your life? 0.02
12 Q36. If something is not working in life, what will you do? 0.02
13 Q37. Can you always find what you need? 0.04
14 Q39. You land up in a “casual” organization for your summer
training with no hope to learn anything. You: 0.24
15
Q40. You gain a competitive internship with your dream
company. Then they write you that they can only accommodate
you for two weeks instead of four.
0.04
Table 4 shows the retained items on Proactive Behaviors and their individual contribution to
the factor of Proactive Behavior. Twenty items of Risk Taking were subjected to structure
equation modeling and only ten items were retained. The goodness of fit indices for Risk
Takings is shown in Table 2.
Table 5: Showing the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their
individual contribution to the factor of risk taking
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q41. I would not hesitate in moving to a completely new country
for a job that pays twice of my expectations…… .22
2 Q42. In your academic activities …….. .22
3 Q43. In a discussion if majority of your class disagrees with you.
You …. .35
4
Q45. Your train is on the platform and you’re running through the
station to catch it, but you haven’t got a ticket. There’s a queue at
the ticket office. You……….
.18
5 Q47. Once in job which type of investment will you prefer? .32
6 Q48. When starting a new project, you .26
7 Q50. When the teacher, asks a question in the class .32
8 Q52. In my work I don’t set small goals which can be achieved
without difficulty………….. .17
9 Q55. I feel “emotionally attached” to any work that I do….. .29
10 Q57.I will never invest lot of my own capital to take a business
opportunity .14
Table 5 shows the retained items on Risk taking and their individual contribution to the factor
of Risk Taking. Twenty items of Frequency of entrepreneurial activities were subjected to
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
196
structure equation modeling and only fourteen items were retained. The goodness of fit
indices for Frequency of Entrepreneurial Activities is shown in Table 2.
Table 6: Shows the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their individual
contribution to the factor of Frequency of entrepreneurial activities.
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q61. Have you ever organized an event or programme in your
college/ institute? .46
2 Q62. Have you raised funds for any organization/ event? Or bought a
sponsorship? .26
3 Q63. Have you ever installed a stall in your school/college fest and
made money? .30
4 Q64. Have you ever given tuitions/ prepared assignments for anybody
in return of money? .23
5 Q65. Have you bought shares/ or you’re involved in trading? .08
6 Q66. Have you ever worked as a freelancer? .09
7 Q68. How often have you spent your money on managing events
without the surety of return back? .13
8 Q69. Have you ever been involved with a NGO/ any agency and
worked for a social cause? .23
9 Q71. How often you search for participating in business plan
competition? .14
10 Q72. How regularly have you initiated in the activities of the
department? .49
11 Q73. I like to challenge the status quo .25
12 Q74. Have you ever thought that you along with your friends can start
a new business? .22
13 Q76. What do you most often do on your friend’s birthday .03
14 Q77. How do you mostly connect with the practical implementation
of a concept taught in the class? 0.16
Table 6 shows the retained items on Frequency of Entrepreneurial Activities and their
individual contribution to the factor of Frequency of Entrepreneurial Activities. Twenty Five
items of Social Capital were subjected to structure equation modeling and only nine items
were retained. The goodness of fit indices for Social Capital is shown in Table 2.
Table 7: Shows the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their individual
contribution to the factor of social capital.
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q88. I enjoy organizing things and directing others. .14
2 Q89.I am comfortable expressing personal feelings and I try to be
supportive of others. .17
3 Q90.I make an effort to get close to people. .30
4 Q96. There are several different people I enjoy spending time with. .21
5 Q97. If I needed help fixing an appliance or repairing my car, there
is someone who would help me. .19
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
197
6
Q98. If I were sick and needed someone (friend, family member, or
acquaintance) to take me to the doctor, I would not have trouble
finding someone.
.34
7 Q99. There is someone I can turn to for advice about handling
problems with my family. .34
8 Q100. It would not be a problem to find someone who would lend
me their car for a few hours. .49
9 Q104.I can represent my community and raise voice against some
problem that my people are facing .19
Table 7 shows the retained items on Social Capital and their individual contribution to the
factor of Social Capital. Twenty Five items of Affective State of Learning were subjected to
structure equation modeling and only thirteen items were retained. The goodness of fit
indices for Affective State of Learning is shown in Table 2.
Table 8: Shows the items retained after fitting the measurement model with their individual
contribution to the factor of affective state of learning
Sr.
No. Statements R2
1 Q106. I feel that my course work’s content is: .40
2 Q108. Overall, the faculty (s) I have in the class is: .47
3 Q109. If I have the opportunity, my likelihood of taking future courses
with these teachers would be: .28
4 Q110. My teachers are able to engage students through practical/
innovative teaching methods .36
5 Q113. I'm aware of my capacity .06
6 Q114. Studying seldom makes me irritated .01
7 Q116. I can’t make quick and positive impact on others when meeting
them initially .09
8 Q120. I am unwilling to modify my behavior in the light of other’s
reactions .03
9 Q121. You are a customer service representative and have just gotten
an extremely angry client on the phone. What do you do? .06
10
Q122. You had hoped to get an A in a course that was important for
your future career aspirations. You have just found out you got a C-
on the midterm. What do you do?
.15
11
Q123. A discussion between you and your best friend has escalated
into a shouting match. In the heat of the argument, both of you start
making personal attacks. What is the best thing to do?
.04
12 Q126. I can usually find something comical, witty, or humorous in
most situations. .01
Table 8 shows the retained items on Affective state of learning and their individual
contribution to the factor of Affective state of learning. The measured factors of
Innovativeness, Proactive Behavior, Risk Taking, Frequency of Entrepreneurial Activities,
Social Capital and Affective State of Learning were then subjected to structure equation
modeling to develop the model of Entrepreneurial Intensity. The factor of Social Capital was
dropped in the process as it was not fitting in to the model. The goodness of fit indices for
Entrepreneurial Intensity is shown in Table 2.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
198
Table 9: Showing the individual contribution of various factors to the model of
entrepreneurial intensity
Sr.
No. Factors R2
1 Innovativeness .42
2 Proactive Behavior .23
3 Risk Taking .05
4 Frequency of Entrepreneurial
Activities .21
5 Affective State of Learning .22
Note: Factor 6 here is Affective State of Learning
Figure 1: Showing the model of Entrepreneurial Intensity
Multiple measures assessed overall model fit to the observed pattern of correlation in the data
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black 1995). The χ2 statistic was 1.29 (df = 5; p = .935) for the
model of entrepreneurial intensity, demonstrating the model did not differ significantly from
the data. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) assesses fit between the observed covariance matrix
and the one forecasted by the model. The GFI statistic was .99, exceeding the generally
acceptable value of .90, showing that there is good fit between the data and the model. The
adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), which assesses model parsimony by evaluating model
fit in terms of the number of estimated parameters required to achieve the level of fit was .98,
greater than the recommended level of .90. The root mean square residual (RMSR) is the
average of the residuals between observed and estimated input covariance matrices. RMSR
statistic was .002, much better than the recommended value of .06. The measurement fit
indices show that the model is representative of the observed data. The construct convergent
validity was applied on the model. Convergent validity can be tested by examining the
significance of the path coefficient on its posited latent variables. As represented by the path
coefficients in Figure 1, all the path coefficients are statistically significant (p < .05), giving
confirmation of convergent validity.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
199
Composite Reliability of the model was calculated by the measure suggested by Hair et al.
(1995), where:
Construct Reliability = (∑ standardized loading)2
(∑ standardized loading)2 + (∑measurement error)
Construct reliability for the model was found to be 0.69, exceeding the recommended value
of 0.50 for this statistic.
4. Discussion and conclusion
Entrepreneurship brings vibrancy in terms of innovation, freedom, creation of newer jobs,
technology, money etc. Introducing entrepreneurship to tomorrow’s workforce is an
important task for universities in developing economies such as India. A construct of
Entrepreneurial Intensity is vital and central to the entrepreneurial process in context of every
country separately as the factors of entrepreneurial intensity would differ with respect to the
PESTEL fabric of a country. As shown by the results of the research conducted above in
framing a model of entrepreneurial intensity in Indian context the constructs contributing to
the measurement of Entrepreneurial Intensity were found to be Innovativeness, Risk Taking,
Frequency of entrepreneurial activities, Proactiveness and Affective states in Learning.
However despite the researches showing importance of Social Capital also as an important
ingredient of Entrepreneurial Intensity, it is not found to be so in Indian Context. This
indicates that Indian entrepreneurs feels that having a strong network structure, relations and
contact resources is not a prime factor to be an entrepreneur. Even if you do not have strong
network you can be an entrepreneur and frame your business network. But to be an
entrepreneur in India, an individual should possess Innovativeness (the capacity to explore
and generate ideas, think out of the box and believe in one’s intuitive thought), Pro-activeness
(propensity to identify opportunities for improvement, taking challenges and prudent
planning), Risk Taking (Desire to take risks, ability to identify business opportunities, and
high need achievement), Frequency of entrepreneurial activities (idea generation and most
importantly idea implementation), and Affective states of learning (Connect with the course
they pursue, learning related emotions, emotional intelligence and humor orientation).
5. References
1. Acs Z, (2004), Overview of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2004, executive
report.
2. Ajzen, I, 1987, Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in
personality and social psychology, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20,
pp 1-63.
3. Allinson C.W., and Hayes, J, (1996), the cognitive style index: A measure of
intuition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33, pp
119-135.
4. Alvarez C., Urbano, D., Coduras A., and Navarro J R, (2011), Environmental
conditions and entrepreneurial activity: a regional comparison in Spain, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(1), pp 120-140.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
200
5. Anderson A. R., and McAuley A., (1999), Marketing landscapes: the social context,
Qualitative Market Research, An International Journal 2(3), pp 176-188.
6. Arthur S.J. and Hisrich R.D, (2012), The importance of education in the
entrepreneurial process: a world view, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 19(3), pp 500-514.
7. Autio E., Keeley R., Klofsten, M., Parker, G., and Hay M, (2001), Entrepreneurial
attitude among students in Scandinavia and in the USA, Enterprise and Innovation
Management Studies, 2(2), pp 145-60.
8. Bartlett F. (1958), Thinking. London: George Allen and Unwin. Bateman T.S., and
Crant J. M, (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, pp 103-118.
9. Bateman T.S., and Organ D.W, (1983), Job satisfaction and the good soldier, The
relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management
Journal, 24.
10. Bird B, (1988), Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention,
Academy of Management Review 13, pp 442–453.
11. Bridge S., Hegarty, C., and Porter S, (2010), Rediscovering enterprise: developing
appropriate university entrepreneurship education, Education + Training, 52 (8/9), pp
722-734.
12. Busenitz L.W, (1996), Research on entrepreneurial alertness, Journal of Small
Business Management, 34 (4), pp 35-44.
13. Busenitz L.W, (1999), Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making: it’s a
matter of perspective, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), pp 325-40.
14. Carter N.M., Gartner W.B., Shaver, K.G., and Gatewood, E.J, (2003), The career
reasons of nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, pp 13–39.
15. Casson M. (1982), The entrepreneur: An economic theory. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and
Noble Books.
16. Cawley III, M. J., Martin, J. E., and Johnson J. A, (2000), A virtues approach to
personality, Personality and Individual Differences, 28, pp 997-1013.
17. Collins C. J., Hanges P.J., and Locke E. A, (2004), The Relationship of Achievement
Motivation to Entrepreneurial Behavior: A Meta- Analysis, Human Performance,
17(1), pp 95-117.
18. Covin J.G., and Slevin D.P, (1991), A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), pp 7-25.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
201
19. Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., and Heeley, M.B, 2000, Pioneers and followers:
competitive tactics, environment, and firm growth, Journal of Business Venturing,
15(2), pp 175-210.
20. Crant J.M., Bateman T.S, (2000), Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The
impact of proactive personality, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp 63-75.
21. Crant J.M, (1995), The proactive personality scale and objective job performance
among real estate agents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, pp 532-537.
22. Crant, J.M, 2000, Proactive behavior in organizations, Journal of Management, 26, pp
435- 462.
23. Crant, M.J, 1996, The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions, Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), pp 42-49.
24. Cronbach L., and Snow R. (1977), Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook
for Research on Interactions. New York.
25. Crossan M.M., Lane H.W., and White R.E, (199), n organizational learning
framework: From intuition to institution, Academy of Management Review, 24(3), pp
522–537.
26. Das T.K., and Teng, B.S, (997) Time and Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 22(2), pp 69–88.
27. Davidsson P, (2003), The domain of entrepreneurship research: Some suggestions.
28. J Katz and D.A. Shepherd (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and
growth 6, pp 315–372. Oxford, UK: Elsevier/JAI Press.
29. Davidsson P., and Honig B, (2003), The role of social and human capital among
nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), pp 301-31.
30. Davidsson P., and Wiklund J, (2000), Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research:
current research practice and suggestions for the future, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 25(4), pp 81-100.
31. Davis M.H, (1983), measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach, Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 44, pp 113-
126.
32. De Carolis D.M. and Saparito P, (2006), Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial
opportunities: A theoretical framework, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, pp
41–56.
33. Dickson P. H., Solomon, G. T., and Weaver K. M, (2008), Entrepreneurial selection
and success: does education matter?, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15( 2), pp 239-258.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
202
34. Dimov D. (2007), Beyond the Single-Person, Single-Insight Attribution in
Understanding Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Wiley Online Library.
35. Dutta D.K. and Crossan M.M, (2005), the nature of entrepreneurial opportunities:
Understanding the process using the 4I organizational learning framework,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), pp 425–449.
36. Epstein S., Pacini R., Denes-Raj, V., and Heier H, (1996), Individual differences in
intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, pp 390-405.
37. Ertuna Z.I., and Gurel, E, (2011), The moderating role of higher education on
entrepreneurship, Education and Training, 53 (5), pp 387-402.
38. Fayolle A., Gailly, B., and Lassas- Clerc N, (2006), assessing the impact of
entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology, Journal of European
Industrial Training, 30(9), pp 701-720.
39. Feldman D.C. and Bolino M.C. (1996), Human Resource Management Reviao, 6, pp
89-112.
40. Fuller Jr. B. and Marler L. E, (2009), Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic
review of the proactive personality literature, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, pp
329–345.
41. Gartner W, (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new
venture creation Academy of Management Review, 10(4), pp 696-706.
42. Gartner W.B, (1989), Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(4), pp 47- 68.
43. Gartner W.B., Bird, B.J., and Starr J.A, (1992), Acting as if: Differentiating
entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
17(3), pp 13–31.
44. Gartner W.B., Carter N.M., and Hills G.E. (2003), The language of opportunity. In
Corporation.
45. Steyaert and D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship, pp 103–124,
London:
46. Edward Elgar. Gibb, A, (2011), Concepts into practice: meeting the challenge of
development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm The case
of the International Entrepreneurship Educators’ Programme (IEEP), International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(2), pp 146-165.
47. Gibbons P. and Hong Chung L, (1995), Defining uncertainty: the implications for
strategic management, IBAR, 16, pp 17-31.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
203
48. Gilbert D. H, (2012), From chalk and talk to walking the walk Facilitating dynamic
learning contexts for entrepreneurship students in fast-tracking innovations, Education
and Training 54 (2/3), pp 152-166.
49. Gondim S. M. G., and Mutti C, (2011), Affections in learning situations: a study of an
entrepreneurship skills development course, Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(3), pp
196-208.
50. Heinonen J, (2007), An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate
entrepreneurship at university level, Education and Training, 49(4), pp 310-324.
51. Heinonen J. and Poikkijoki Sari-Anne, (2006), An entrepreneurial-directed approach
to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?, Journal of Management
Development, 25 (1), pp 80-94.
52. Higgins D. and Elliott C, (2010), Learning to make sense: what works in
entrepreneurial education?, Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), pp 345-
367.
53. Hills G.E., and Shrader R.C, (1998), Successful entrepreneurs’ insights into
opportunity recognition, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp 30-43.
54. Hills G.E., Shrader R.C., and Lumpkin G.T, (1999), Opportunity recognition as a
creative process. In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, pp 216–227.
55. Wellesley MA: Babson College. Holland, J.L. (1985), Making vocational choices
(2nd ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
56. Hunter J. E., and Schmidt F. L. (1990), Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
57. Iakovleva T., Kolvereid L., and Stephan U, (2011), Entrepreneurial intentions in
developing and developed countries, Education and Training 53(5), pp 353-370.
58. Jack, S., and Anderson, A, (1999), Entrepreneurial education within the enterprise
culture, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3), pp
110-25.
59. Jennings D. F., and Seaman S. L, (1991), Aggressiveness of Response to New
Business Opportunities Following Deregulation: An Empirical Study of Established
Financial Firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 5, pp 177-189.
60. Johannisson B, (1998), Personal networks in emerging knowledge-based firms:
spatial and functional patterns, Entrepreneurship and regional development, 10(4), pp
297- 312.
61. Johnson B. R, (1990), toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case
of achievement motivation and the entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 14, pp 39–54.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
204
62. Jones, C, (2010), Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4), pp 500-513.
63. Keats B. W., and Bracker J. S, (1988), Toward a Theory of Small Firm Performance:
A Conceptual Model, American Journal of Small Business, 13.
64. Kickul J., and Gundry L. K, (2002), Prospecting for Strategic Advantage: The
Proactive Entrepreneurial Personality and Small Firm Innovation, Journal of Small
Business Management , 40(2), pp 85–97
65. Kickul J., and Walters J, 2002, Recognizing new opportunities and innovations- the
role of strategic orientation and proactivity in Internet firms, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 8(6), pp 292-308.
66. Kirzner I.M., (1973), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. IL.
67. Kirzner I.M. (1979), Perception, Opportunity, and Profit, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
68. Kort B., Reilly R., and Picard R. W, (2001), An Affective Model of Interplay
Between Emotions and Learning: Reengineering Educational Pedagogy-Building a
Learning Companion, Advanced Learning Technologies, Proceedings.
69. Le Blond R, 1997, Three priorities for S’pore’s education system. Straits Times, 31
January.
70. Lee D. Y., and Tsang W. K, (2001), The effects of Entrepreneurial Personality,
background and network activities on Venture growth, Journal of Management
Studies, 38(4).
71. Liao J., Murphy P. J., and Welsch H, (2005), Developing and Validating a Construct
of Entrepreneurial Intensity, New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 8 (2), pp 31-
38.
72. Littunen H, (2000), Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial
personality, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 6(6), pp
295-309.
73. Lourenco F., Jayawarna D, (2010), Enterprise education,the effect of creativity on
training outcomes, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research,
17 (3), pp 224-244.
74. MacMillan I., and Day D, (1987), Corporate ventures into industrial markets:
dynamics of aggressive entry, Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), pp 29-39.
75. Martinez M. A., and Aldrich H. E, 2011, Networking strategies for entrepreneurs:
balancing cohesion and diversity, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research 17(1), pp 7-38.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
205
76. Martinez M., and Bunderson C. V, (2000), Foundations for Personalized Web
Learning Environments, ALN Magazine, 4(2).
77. McCarthy B. (2000), The cult of risk taking and social learning: a study of Irish
entrepreneurs, Management Decision 38(8), pp 563-574.
78. McMullen, J.S., and Shepherd, D.A, 2006, Entrepreneurial action and the role of
uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur, Academy of Management Review, 31,
pp 132–152.
79. Morris M. H., and Sexton D. L, (1996), The Concept of Entrepreneurial Intensity:
Implications for Company Performance, Journal of Business Research 36, pp 5-13.
80. Morris M. H., and Lewis P. S, (1991), Entrepreneurship as a Significant Factor in
Societal Quality of Life. Journal of Business Research, 13 (1), pp 21-36.
81. Morris M. H., Sexton, D., and Lewis P, (1994), Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurship:
An Input-Output Perspective, SAM Advanced Management Journal, pp 21-31.
82. Morri M. H., and Paul, G. W, (1987), The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and
Marketing in Established Firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, pp 247-259.
83. Nederström M. and Niitamo P, (2010), Construction and validation of a work
personality inventory, Helsinki University of Technology , Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management , Report 2010/1.
84. H., Shaw, E., and Carter, S. (2005), The impact of gender, social capital and networks
on business ownership: a research agenda, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 11(5), pp 338-57.
85. Packham,G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D. and Thomas, B, 2010, Attitudes
towards entrepreneurship education: a comparative analysis, Education and Training,
52 (8/9), pp 568-586.
86. Pennisi, E, 2013, Understanding Entrepreneurship in Developing countries.
87. Pickernell D., Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller C., and Thomas B (2011), Graduate
entrepreneurs are different: they access more resources?, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 17(2), pp 183-202.
88. Piperopoulos P, (2012), Could higher education programmes, culture and structure
stifle the entrepreneurial intentions of students?, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 19 (3), pp 461-483.
89. Pool L.D., and Sewell P, (2007), The key to employability: developing a practical
model of graduate employability, Education and Training, 49(4), pp 277-289.
90. Sandhu M.S., Sidique S.F., and Riaz S, (2011), Entrepreneurship barriers and
entrepreneurial inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour andResearch, 17(4), pp 428-449.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
206
91. Sarri K. K., Bakouros I. L., and Petridou E, (2010), Perspective on practice:
Entrepreneur training for and innovation, Journal of European Industrial Training, 34
(3), pp 270-288.
92. Schafer D. S, (1990), Level of Entrepreneurship and Scanning Source Usage in Very
Small Businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(1), pp 19-31.
93. Scheepers M. J, (2007), Entrepreneurial Intensity: The influence of Antecedents to
corporate entrepreneurship in firms operating in South Africa, PhD thesis.
94. Schein E.H. (1990), Career anchors: Discoveringyour real values. San Diego, CA
Pfeiffer.
95. Seibert S. E., Kraimer M. L., and Crant J. M, (2001), What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success, Personnel
Psychology, 54.
96. Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., and Kraimer, M.L, (1999), Proactive personality and career
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, pp 416-427.
97. Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Liden, R.C, (2001), A social capital theory of career
success, Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), pp 219-237.
98. Seibert, S.E, (1999), The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: A longitudinal quasi
experiment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, pp 483-502.
99. Shukla P.K, (2009), How Entrepreneurial Firms Prosper while Larger Firms Crumble,
International Journal of Business and Management, 4 (3), pp 461-483.
100. Taatila V. P. (2010), Learning entrepreneurship in higher education, Education
and Training, 52 (1), pp 48-61.
101. Tang J, (2008), Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial
alertness and commitment, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, 14 (3), pp 128-151
102. Thompson J. L, (2002), The world of the social entrepreneur, The
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15 (5), pp 412-431.
103. Thompson J. A, (2002), Proactive personality and job performance: A social
capital perspective on mediating behaviors, Paper presented at Academy of
Management meeting, Seattle, WA.
104. Thompson J. A, (2005), Proactive Personality and job performance: A social
capital perspective on mediating behaviors, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp
1011–1017.
105. Tickle L, Universities failing on 'Employability', students say.
Creating a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity
Kavita Chauhan et al.,
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 6 Issue 1, 2015
207
106. Wang Y., Poutziouris P, (2010), Entrepreneurial risk taking: empirical
evidence from UK family firms, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 16 (5), pp 370-388.
107. Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S. and Wilson, N, 1998, Small business start-ups:
success factors and support implications, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, 4 (3), pp 217-38.
108. Watson W., Stewart W.H., and BarNir A, (2003), The effects of human capital,
organizational demography, and interpersonal processes on venture partner
perceptions of firm profit and growth, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), pp 145-
64.
109. Wu S., and Wu L, (2008), The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial
intentions of university students in China, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 15 (4), pp 752-774.
110. Xu Y, (2011), Entrepreneurial social capital and cognitive model of innovation,
Management Research Review, 34 (8), pp 910-926.
111. Yordanova D.I., and Boshnacova M.I.A, (2011), Gender effects on risk-taking
of entrepreneurs: evidence from Bulgaria, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour and Research, 17 (3), pp 272-29.