ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH a model to measure entrepreneurial intensity Kavita Chauhan et...

21
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 Chauhan 1 , Deepti Prakash 2 , Shilpa Jain 3 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 [email protected] 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

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

[email protected]

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.