International Entrepreneurship Educators Programme

A REVIEW OF METHODS OF MEASURING

ENTERPRISE ATTRIBUTES

This paper was written as background to the development of the General Enterprising Tendency (GET) test. The development of the Test was part of the work of the Enterprise Education Unit, a unit of the Small Business Centre (SBC) at Durham University Business School. The paper was authored by Sally Caird, research assistant to the Unit and edited by Clifford Johnson then Director of the Unit and Allan Gibb Director of the SBC. August 1988 Small Business Centre Durham University Business School

2

A REVIEW OF METHODS OF MEASURING ENTERPRISE ATTRIBUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 1. WHAT ARE ENTERPRISE ATTRIBUTES? 4

1.1 Approaches to a study of enterprise 4 1.2 Motivation for enterprise and related competencies 5

1.2.1 Motivation for enterprise 5 1.2.2 Motivation for enterprise and the self concept 6 1.2.3 Links between enterprising motivation, self concept and skills 7 1.2.4 Critical enterprise attributes 8

2. A REVIEW OF MEASURES OF ENTERPRISE TO IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL

FEATURES OF “GOOD” MEASURES 9 2.1 How valid and reliable are methods of measuring enterprise attributes? 9

2.1.1 Measures of enterprising motivational patterns 9 2.1.1.1 Projective measures 10 2.1.1.2 Directive measures 10

2.1.2 Measures of inner control 13 2.1.2.1 Projective measures 13 2.1.2.2 Directive measures 13

2.1.3 Measures of creativity 14 2.1.4 Measures of risk-taking 15 2.1.5 Measures of general enterprising tendency 17

2.2 How suitable are scoring formats used in the measurement of enterprise attributes? 17 2.2.1 Scoring systems and formats used in the measurement of enterprise

attributes 17 2.2.1.1 Likert scales 17 2.2.1.2 True/false formats 18 2.2.1.3 Multiple choice formats 18

3. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEST DEVELOPMENT 19

3.1 What are critical enterprise attributes? 19 3.2 Implications drawn from methods of measuring enterprise attributes for the

development of a measure of enterprising tendency 20 3.2.1 Enterprising motivational patterns 20 3.2.2 Locus of control 20 3.2.3 Creativity 21 3.2.4 Calculated risk-taking 21 3.2.5 General measures of enterprising tendency 21

3.3 What scoring formats are suitable for the measurement of enterprise attributes? 21 3.4 The development of a measure of enterprise tendency 22 3.5 Recommendations 23

3.5.1 The potential for using this test 23 3.5.2 Validity and Reliability 23 3.5.3 Alternative methods of measuring enterprise attributes 24

APPENDIX I Summary analysis of tests referred to in this paper 25 APPENDIX II The Measure of General Enterprising Tendency

3

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

A REVIEW OF METHODS OF MEASURING ENTERPRISE ATTRIBUTES

INTRODUCTION This paper aims to examine existing measures of enterprise attributes and potential with a view to determining their usefulness for the identification of enterprise tendencies. The current vogue of the concept ‘Enterprise Culture’ has brought the concepts into common usage. Attempts to consider and establish the relationship between these concepts result in the claim that linguistically and philosophically the essence of the entrepreneur is enterprise, but that enterprise is not restricted to entrepreneurs (Johnson, 1983). In other words, any activity may be performed in an enterprising manner but the occupation of entrepreneurship demands an enterprising approach. The aims of the paper can be tackled in two ways - examining the psychology of the nature of enterprise attributes and evaluating methods of measuring these attributes. The first by examining what the research literature on enterprise attributes/skills and motivations offers to an understanding of enterprise. This requires the identification of significant/critical characteristics that can be extricated from the literature on the psychological characteristics of samples of enterprising people known as entrepreneurs (i.e. those who set up and run a business). Section 1 attempts to select these critical enterprise attributes which, when measured, serve to identify enterprising people. Three basic criteria can be adopted to select for these critical attributes (a) continual, consistent association with the entrepreneur i.e. attributes and determinants of enterprising behaviour; (b) measured attributes for the purpose of identifying and facilitating enterprising activity; (c) attributes that are empirically linked with other personality characteristics of the entrepreneur so that when measured these attributes may suggest the presence of an enterprising tendency. This paper argues that enterprising behaviour is a function of the presence of the critical attributes of motivation for achievement and autonomy, a creative tendency, calculated risk-taking and a self concept governed by an internal locus of control. Enterprising behaviour is expressed as a function of the individual’s interaction with the environment. Each of these attributes is explored to provide an academic justification for their selection as keys to identifying enterprising tendencies and consequently behaviours. Admittedly the justification for selecting these attributes depends on assumptions drawn from a literature that is not based on a rigorous, scientific exploration of enterprise attributes. These assumptions include the belief that enterprise can be identified and measured through the assessment of assumed critical enterprise attributes that are linked with enterprising behaviour. Given that this paper represents the aim to evaluate measures of enterprise attributes, with a view to developing a reliable, valid, sensitive and practical measure of enterprise attributes, the ultimate justification for the approach taken will be the validation of the instrument. The second way is by evaluating the usefulness of instruments that have been used to measure enterprising attributes. Section 2 examines the psychometric instruments that have been developed to measure the critical attributes that Section 1 identifies. Great variety exists between these instruments in terms of their quality. Some have been validated, well used and standardised whereas others are little known or used. Measures of general entrepreneurial tendency, need for achievement, need for autonomy and calculated risk-taking have been developed with the purpose of measuring and identifying enterprising individuals. However, not all of the instruments discussed in this section have been used for this purpose, e.g. Torrances measure of creativity (Torrance,1972). Such instruments may either have potential for use in this area or offer suggestions for measuring enterprise attributes. A review of methods also reveals that some attributes have been measured in different ways (e.g. need for achievement or NACH) while others have rarely been measured at all (e.g. risk-taking). This rather scattered literature has made it somewhat difficult to approach this review in a way that looks systematic. Furthermore, this paper is limited to the extent that time or utility did not permit an exhaustive review of the instruments utilised in this area.

4

However, as the main reason for this literature and psychometric review was to identify the best approach to developing a “good” measure of enterprising potential, it is hoped that this paper will provide a foundation for the development of a reliable, valid, sensitive and practical measure of enterprise attributes. The need for such a measure is obvious given the proliferation of enterprise courses set up, with the attitude that enterprise attributes are economically and socially desirable, to help promote an enterprise culture. There is a requirement for systematic evaluation and assessment of enterprise courses that are currently being run in secondary schools, further educational colleges and business schools. 1. WHAT ARE ENTERPRISE ATTRIBUTES? This section aims to examine the nature and structure of enterprise with a view to determining what should be measured in order to identify an enterprising tendency. Accepting entrepreneurs as one obvious sample of enterprising people, this section will attempt to extricate psychological factors from the economic and sociological factors that are determinants and characterise enterprising activity. 1 .1 Approaches to the Study of Enterprise The entrepreneur has been defined in terms of either the functions associated with the economic impact of entrepreneurship or the attributes of the individual who has attained the occupational status of the entrepreneur in society. The first type of definition specifies a certain function related to setting up and running a business e.g. innovation (Schumpeter, 1959), risk bearing (Cantillon, 1755; Knight, 1921), profit making (Cole, 1965) and claims that anyone who performs this function is an entrepreneur. This approach emphasises that economic impact is attributed to the innovative, creative role played by the entrepreneur as founder, owner and manager (Sweeney, 1981). Functional approaches to defining entrepreneurship emphasise roles like innovation or risk-taking which are not restricted to entrepreneurs - thereby supporting Johnson’s view that enterprise is not restricted to entrepreneurs. However, apart from Young’s studies of enterprising behaviour in the non-profit making sector, all major studies focus on entrepreneurs as individuals who set up and run businesses for profit (Young, 1983). The second type of approach identifies the attributes of the legally and socially defined entrepreneur (McClelland, 1968, p.209). Studies of individuals who fulfill these criteria highlight a number of characteristics including dedication (Hollingsworth and Hand, 1976), creativity (Hull et al, 1986), decision making (Scanlan, 1984), confidence (Levitt and Albertine 1983), goal setting (McConnell, 1971), innovation (Schumpeter, 1965), problem solving (McConnell, 1971), planning (McClelland, 1971), risk taking (McClelland, 1968), responsibility acceptance (Deeks, 1972), inner locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and insight (Less, 1983). Links between functional and attributional approaches to enterprise need to be established as small firm owners may be more or less enterprising depending on the complexity of the firm and the uncertainty under which it operates (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). It is not sufficient to consider the attributes of small and large firm owners. The interaction between the individual and the environment/task structure elucidates the nature of enterprising activity and the enterprise attributes that are selected for (See Gibb,1987). The economic and social desirability of entrepreneurial attributes is well supported. Aitken claims that entrepreneurship must be present in all developing economies irrespective of ideologies on which economies are based (Aitken, 1965, p.25). Casson suggests that an entrepreneur might be known as a planner in a socialist economy or a priest/king in traditional societies (Casson, 1982, p.25). Though Casson focuses on societal position/occupation, he appears to be saying that an enterprising person may not be called an entrepreneur and that enterprising behaviour has a high profile in any economy. The social desirability is attested to by Young who documents instances of social entrepreneurship in the non-profit oriented sectors (Young, 1983, p.21). Enterprising behaviour is not confined to activities in

5

the economy. As Johnson states “... it is possible to be entrepreneurial without being an entrepreneur” (Johnson, 1983, p.16). With theorists like Cole, Schumpeter, Weber and McClelland attributing the critical role in economic expansion to the entrepreneur the importance of studies that try to identify the following is underlined: who the entrepreneur is; what entrepreneurial function/s are responsible for economic expansion; what can be done to develop these economically and socially desirable qualities; and how to assess the effectiveness of all initiatives that aim to develop these characteristics. The elusive nature of the entrepreneur is a problem constantly addressed by theorists and researchers in the area. The causal factors responsible for the incidence of entrepreneurship, which draw on the disciplines of economics, psychology and sociology (Kilby, 1971), suggest that a distinction should be made between factors that predispose an individual to be enterprising and precipitating factors which trigger off the entrepreneurial process of venture initiation. This contingency approach to entrepreneurship suggests that entrepreneurship occurs as a function of a combination of personal identity and environmental opportunities (Kets De Vries, 1977; Watkins 1976; Powell and Bimmerle, 1980; Gibb and Ritchie, 1982). Precipitating factors are more likely to include negative forces than positive (Shapero, 1971) such as frustration, marginality, formlessness and role deterioration as a function of unemployment or redundancy (Bruce, 1979). The factors which predispose the individual to express entrepreneurial characteristics are of greater concern to those interested in facilitating the development of socially and economically desirable enterprising attributes. These include a high need for achievement (McClelland, 1953; Weber, 1930; Young, 1983; Cromie and Johns, 1984; etc); a high need for autonomy (Watkins, 1976, p.6; Collins et al 1964, p.58; Scanlan, 1979) and possibly a need for power (Watkins, 1976). 1.2 Motivation for Enterprising Behaviour and Related Competencies This section examines the motivational pattern underlying enterprising behaviour as well as studies that link these motivations with various attributes. Strong drive coloured by a high need for achievement and autonomy has been attributed to enterprising people. A high need for achievement is defined as the positive/negative affect aroused in situations that involve competition with a standard of excellence. A high need for autonomy refers to: the need to be free to do and say what one likes; a dislike for taking orders or implementing other people’s ideas; an independence of others in decision making. 1.2.1 Motivation for Enterprise McClelland maintained that the high need for achievement is associated with certain attributes which include calculated risk taking (as a function of skill not chance), responsibility, decision making and a desire for concrete feedback (McClelland and Steele, 1972; McClelland 1961, 1968; Deeks, 1976). However, Atkinson’s exploration of the relationship of motivation to risk taking reveals that moderate risk taking is a multiplicative function of the strength of the motive to achieve or avoid failure, the expectancy of success/failure and the incentive value of success or failure avoidance (Atkinson, 1957). If the entrepreneur is a calculated risk taker, which is a function of both the motive to achieve and to avoid failure then contrary to McClelland’s claim, other factors in the entrepreneur’s motivational patterning should be considered. The desire/need for autonomy was offered as the strongest reason for Watkin’s sample to enter entrepreneurship (Watkins, 1976, p.6). The need for autonomy as a critical predictor of entrepreneurship has been supported by other researchers (Collins et al, 1964; Johnson, 1983). The complicated nature of motivation for enterprising behaviour is attested to by Watkins findings. Using the Edward’s Personal Preference Schedule, he found that the motivational patterns of

6

entrepreneurs were characterised by high needs for achievement, autonomy, dominance and change with low needs for deference, order, affiliation and abasement (Watkins, 1976). Research tends to support the view that the entrepreneur has low affiliation needs (McClelland, 1962). Though the need to affiliate may be counterproductive for entrepreneurship - according to McClelland, because it is conducive to approval seeking which is not strongly linked with risk-taking and creativity - entrepreneurs tend to have the interpersonal and leadership skills that enable the efficient management and influencing of others (Jacobowitz and Vidler, 1982). Despite McClelland and Watkins’ claim, that the need for power/dominance strongly characterises enterprising drive, some controversy exists over whether entrepreneurs have low or high need for power. Schrage found that R and D entrepreneurs have a low need for power (Schrage, 1965, p.56; Warner and Rubin, 1969). The relationship between enterprising drive and the need to dominate remains indeterminate. Nevertheless, the need to dominate, defined as the motivation to lead and influence group decisions and activities (Watkins, 1976), may explain the interpersonal and leadership skills attributed to the entrepreneur. 1.2.2 Motivation for Enterprise and the Self Concept The characteristic enterprising high needs for achievement and autonomy have been empirically linked with Rotter’s concept of an inner locus of control (Rotter, 1966; McClelland, 1957; Joe 1971; Scanlan, 1984; Collins et al., 1964). Based on social learning theory Rotter developed the concept of internal/external control of reinforcement, which describes the degree to which an individual believes that reinforcements are dependent upon their own behaviour (Rotter, 1966). A condition of entrepreneurship and enterprising activity is a self concept governed by an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966 etc). An internal locus of control suggests attributes of self determination, the attribution of responsibility for successes and failures to ability and effort rather than task difficulty, luck, fates, powerful others or being in the right place at the right time (Weinstein, 1969). An internal locus of control is associated with the attribution of performance to inner causal factors, intrinsic motivation and feelings of personal competency (Arnold, 1985). Joe finds that attributes of insight, initiative, tolerance, dominance, achievement, well-being, assertion, independence, effectiveness, industriousness, sociability and intellectual efficiency are correlated with internal control (Joe, 1971). On the other hand, individuals with an external locus of control exhibit more neurotic symptoms, debilitating anxiety, death anxiety, aggression, hostility, dogmatism and mistrust (Joe, 1971). Fig 1 LOCUS OF CONTROL AND ASSOCIATED ATTRIBUTES External Locus of Control Belief: that others control environmental reinforcements Causal Attributions of Success and Failure: luck (good or bad) powerful people ease or difficulty of task being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time fate Personality Attributes associated with External Locus of Control anxiety dogmatism

7

aggression and hostility mistrust INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL Belief: that self controls environmental reinforcements Causal Attributions of Success and Failure: ability effort Personality Attributes associated with Internal Locus of Control: insight personal competency and well-being effectiveness and industriousness assertion and dominance intellectual efficiency and achievement independence tolerance intrinsic motivation sociability In some situations behaviours of individuals exhibiting a high need to either achieve or avoid failure may appear similar. McClelland finds that a high fear of failure may be associated with moderate achievement (McClelland, 1953). The construct of locus of control may help identify enterprising people given a suggested association between a high need for achievement and internal locus of control. Rotter asserts that a high need for achievement seems to be a logical extension of inner locus of control as it is expected that internals exhibit greater striving for achievement than externals (Rotter, 1966). 1.2.3 Links between Enterprising Motivation, Self Concept and Attributes The significance of measuring self concept based on an inner locus of control is evident from research relating this with many attributes associated with the entrepreneur e.g. insight, initiative, dominance, achievement, assertion, independence, effectiveness, industriousness and intellectual efficiency (Joe, 1977). These results suggest that these attributes may be implicitly measured by measures of locus of control such as Rotter’s measure. Similarly, research findings associating attributes with enterprising motivational patterns suggest that high scores on measures of need for achievement and autonomy may implicitly measure attributes associated with these needs. Johnson et al identify enterprising skills which are linked to the enterprising motivational pattern, coloured by the need to achieve and for autonomy (Johnson et al, 1987). The need for autonomy is associated with independence and self confidence. Additional attributes could include determination, self reliance (Collins et al, 1964), inner control, calculated risk-taking, innovation and decision making (Scanlan, 1984). Furthermore, a high need for achievement is associated with self awareness, planning, decision making, initiative, problem solving, risk judging, seeking feedback, energy/determination/motivation (McClelland, 1953). Added attributes could include superego strength (Lynn, 1969); innovation and responsibility (McClelland, 1953).

8

Fig. 2 Enterprise Motivational Patterns and Associated Personality Attributes MOTIVATION ATTRIBUTES self reliance independence determination (Collins et al., 1964) NAUT internal control risk-taking innovation decision making (Scanlon, 1984) better performance faster learning risk-judging innovation responsibility planning seeking feedback problem solving initiative self awareness (McClelland, 1953) NACH superego strength sobriety (Lynn, 1969) 1.2.4 Critical Enterprise Attributes An examination of research on the psychological nature of the entrepreneur and enterprising behaviour suggests that measurement of a need for achievement and autonomy and the self concept, in terms of locus of control, may adequately measure enterprise because of the enterprise attributes that have been linked with each of these constructs. This view is supported by the observation that some of the attributes associated with internal locus of control overlap with those associated with motivational patterns for enterprise. However, care must be taken not to infer a causal link between enterprising motivational patterns and self concept with the attributes empirically correlated with them. For example, while McClelland asserts that calculated risk taking and creativity (innovation) are associated with a need for achievement there is evidence to suggest that this relationship is not linear, therefore implying the importance of measuring these attributes separately (McClelland, 1953). Moderate risk-taking has been associated with a high need to achieve (Atkinson, 1957). Hull found that risk or creativity scales

9

are better indicators of venture initiation within three years than achievement motivation scales (Hull et al, 1980). Though venture initiation is only one manifestation of enterprising behaviour, difficulties in maintaining this distinction in a literature review, suggest that a reductionistic approach to the psychology of enterprise may be premature. In summary, it appears that a general measure of enterprising tendency is required with an emphasis on the attributes of motivation for achievement and autonomy, internal locus of control, calculated risk taking and creative tendency. The evidence discussed above suggests that these attributes are highly positively correlated. 2. A REVIEW OF MEASURES OF ENTERPRISE TO IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL FEATURES OF “GOOD”

MEASURES Tuckman suggests that two criteria for a good test are: (1) that it measures outcomes consistent with its objectives, (2) that it corresponds to intended behaviour (Tuckman, 1975). These criteria relate to the issues of test validity and reliability which asks whether a test measures what we intend it to measure, plus whether changes in scores from tests, sampled on the same population, refer to individual development and not poor reliability. Not only is the justifiability of research conclusions dependent on this issue but also the future utilisation of tests. This section examines how appropriately measures of enterprising motivational patterns, self concept, skills and attitudes fulfill their claims. 2.1 How Valid and Reliable are Methods of Measuring Enterprise Attributes? The question pertinent to validity asks if a test measures what we intend it to measure and reliability asks whether a test measures consistently the attribute under investigation. A summary comment on the tests utilised to measure enterprise attributes might be that they tend to measure dispositions to respond as opposed to ability/competency. Tests of typical behaviour (i.e. tests of personality, habits, interests and characteristics) aim to measure what a person does do, not what a person can do. However, the predictive validity of tests hinges on the test’s ability to reflect an assumed relationship between attitudes and behaviour. Measures of motivation for achievement and autonomy, inner control, creative tendency and risk-taking are considered in this section. 2.1.1 Measures of Enterprising Motivational Patterns With the claim that need for achievement (NACH) is the psychological factor that is associated with entrepreneurship and responsible for economic growth, McClelland suggested that measurement of need for achievement alone sufficiently determines an individual’s entrepreneurial potential (McClelland, 1961). Further suggestions associate NACH with skills of calculated risk taking, responsibility, innovation and a desire for concrete feedback. McClelland suggests that these skills are implicitly measured by an instrument measuring the motivation to achieve. Nevertheless, some confusion with this construct exists. Erwee and Pottas mention that often the construct of achievement motivation is confused and identified with ordinary motivation to reach any goal (Erwee and Pottas, 1982). The construct of achievement motivation was originally coined to describe the striving for specifically difficult and challenging goals supported by high personal standards of excellence. Section 1.2 has discussed research that suggests the necessity of considering the need for autonomy that shapes enterprising drive. Section 2.1.3 examines general measures of motivation for enterprise with particular focus on the needs for achievement and autonomy.

10

2.1.1.1 Projective Measures Projective measures adhere to the criteria suggested by the impressionistic school of testing (see Cronbach, 1964). This school is interested in how a people express themselves and approves the use of tasks being less definite and structured for respondents to interpret. To measure the motivation to achieve McClelland adopted the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), a projective device that usefully taps fantasy by requesting a story to be woven about pictures shown, to measure NACH. Though the TAT is best known as a measure of the need for achievement it has also been adapted for use in the measurement of locus of control (Dies, 1968) and need for autonomy (Collins et al.,1964). In McClelland’s work, the pictures presented suggest stories about problems to be solved (NACH), boss - subordinate relationships (power) or family and friendship (affiliation). The main advantage of the TAT is that it is open ended. Respondents are required to create a response in their own style. Nevertheless, the assumption underlying the use of the TAT is that fantasy and overt behaviour are related. The predictive validity of the instrument depends on the view that fantasy represents behaviour or provides a preview of behaviour. The possibility that fantasy is a substitute for behaviour is not entertained. Furthermore the examiner cannot assume that the individual will actually project him/herself onto the story. Eron suggests that reasonable interjudge reliability exists in the scoring of the TAT (Eron, 1972). This may relate to the specificity of scoring criteria, outlined by McClelland, to measure the need to achieve as expressed in stories created (McClelland, 1962). These include: (1) definition of a problem, (2) expression of the desire to solve it, (3) anticipation of difficulties, (4) anticipation of human sources of help, (5) thinking of the consequences of success or failure. Though the scoring criteria show how the need to achieve is associated with the skills of problem solving, planning, calculated risk taking, innovation, ability to make decisions and utilise concrete feedback, the subjective nature of the technique renders its value dubious as a test per se. The laboriousness of applying scoring criteria adds to the disadvantages of this technique. While it may be quite a sensitive measure it fails to adequately fulfill the requisites for practicality, reliability and validity. 2.1.1.2 Directive Measures of Motivation More directive pencil and paper tests, which ask the respondent to rate predetermined scales of test items in terms of attitudes, preferences or habitual responses have been developed to overcome the disadvantages the TAT. The limited reliability, and validity of the TAT suggest the need for more structure both in the representation of test items and format. This section is sub-categorised to examine how valid, reliable, sensitive and practical directive measures of enterprise attributes are. Directive measures are developed using values/criteria identified by a psychometric tradition in measurement. This approach is encapsulated in a famous quote by Thorndike, a pioneer of this approach. “If a thing exists it exists in some amount. If it exists in some amount it can be measured” (Thorndike,1955). Directive instruments present a definite, structured task and concentrate on the product i.e. the response to the test, trying to analyse it (see Cronbach, 1964). The realisation that the majority of the directive measures of motivation use attitudinal items to measure motivation begs the question of whether what can be measured as opposed to what should be measured is achieved. However, if as Johnson suggests - “Motivations are seen as action tendencies prompted by felt needs and given direction, meaning, intention arid affective tone by the individuals’ set of attitudes” - then the measurement of attitudes may suggest the strength of motivation (Johnson, 1983). Within the area of the measurement of motivation for enterprise more effort has been expended to develop a measure of the need for achievement than other enterprise attributes (See Kahl, 1965; Lynn, 1969; Smith, 1973; Mehrabian and Bank, 1975). This emphasis is due to McClelland’s conviction

11

that this is the key enterprise attribute which when measured includes all other critical ones (McClelland and Steele, 1972). Weinstein maintains that the proliferation of measures of the need for achievement presents problems by showing that many of these measures tend to be unrelated to each other (Weinstein, 1969). The question of what ingredients constitute a high need for achievement guides attempts to judge the appropriateness of test items as an operational definition, representing the concept. Lynn’s eight item scale, which utilises a yes/no response format, provides a crude measure of need for achievement with results that suggest that the need for achievement characterises the performance of successful professionals, academics, managers etc (Lynn, 1969). The face validity of Lynn’s questionnaire appears satisfactory given that it suggests that the high achiever has: a difficulty in relaxing on holiday; irritation with a lack of punctuality or efficiency; a dislike of things being wasted; difficulty forgetting about work; preference for competent if incongenial partners; and a propensity to work hard to be the best (Lynn,1969). Lynn’s scale includes items which do not directly relate to McClelland’s conceptualisation of NACH (McClelland, 1961; 1986). It can be criticised by pointing to the transparency of some items (e.g. have you always worked hard in order to be among the best in your own line?) and the influence of social desirability in response to other items (e.g. do you like to get drunk?). Furthermore, it limits responses to a simple yes/no format. This format limits the variation of scores within the constructs measured by the test. However, this test presents a useful and additional perspective and has been validated by showing that recognised high achievers score highly on it (Lynn, 1969). Furthermore, problems posed by transparency and social desirability are only issues when tests are used in threatening circumstances e.g. recruitment. For Mehrabian’s directive measure of achieving tendency both McClelland and Atkinson’s theories on motivation have been utilised to operationalise the concept into a usable test form (Mehrabian, 1975). While McClelland focuses on distinctions between the need to achieve, for power and for affiliation (McClelland, 1968; 1971 etc), Atkinson contributes to a theoretical understanding of achieving tendency by distinguishing between individuals motivated by a high need to achieve and a high need to avoid failure on the basis of their risk-taking behaviour (Atkinson, 1957). Items suggesting a need for autonomy, challenge and achievement are positively scored while items suggesting a need to avoid failure, superiority, security and affiliation are negatively scored (Mehrabian, 1975). This scale suggests that the achieving tendency is characterised by the priority given by respondents to various (sometimes competing) needs (e.g. items on the scale force choice for the need to achieve vs affiliation; the need to achieve vs failure avoidance; the need for challenge vs superiority; need for challenge vs security). The sophistication of this method as a valid measure of achieving tendency is further supported by the existence of items that measure the skills that McClelland originally linked with the need for achievement (McClelland, 1968; 1971; Mehrabian, 1975). So this measure of achieving tendency seems to represent a category of needs and related skills that are characteristic of enterprising motivational patterns. The virtues of this attitudinal measure of preferences/disposition to respond include both its discriminant and convergent validity (Mehrabian, 1978). The former was verified with its low correlation of .02 with the social desirability measure of Crowne and Marlowe (1960). Convergent validity, which identifies the extent to which scores are reflected on tests of the “same” characteristic, was established in high correlations with Jackson’s achievement scale (1967). While this instrument may be a valid measure of what a person is motivated to do it may be less discriminating in revealing what priority is given to the satisfaction of various needs. In other words, there is a need to identify the individual’s rank ordering of needs which will govern what need the individual will try to satisfy when needs are competing for fulfillment. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (E.P.P.S) is an instrument which aims to rank the priority given to needs fulfillment by an individual through a format which systematically rotates preferences to fulfill needs. The E.P.P.S provides a useful measure of fifteen relatively independent needs, including: achievement, deference, order, exhibition, autonomy, affiliation,- intraception, succorance, dominance, abasement, nurturance, change, endurance, heterosexuality and aggression (Edwards,

12

1959). This instrument suggests that needs are ranked - not in an absolute hierarchical Maslowian form, but uniquely by individuals. So that when needs are competing for fulfillment the individual will satisfy the need highest on the individualised hierarchy. In the light of this perspective the tests of Lynn and Smith look very crude because only one need is being measured i.e. the need for achievement (Lynn, 1969; Smith, 1973). High scorers may still have needs that are stronger than the need to achieve. For example, on Smith’s scale, with its true/false response format, a respondent may feel that it is more true than false “that the feeling of a job well done is a great satisfaction” but may still have a stronger need for change or order etc. However, in this case, one could argue that this individual is strongly motivated to fulfill the need to achieve as well as any other that might be given a higher priority. Concurrent and construct validity have been established for both Smith’s scale (see Apolot, 1977) and Lynn’s measure (Lynn, 1969), these instruments may not be as discriminant in identifying the priority given to the fulfillment of various needs by an individual. As well as being widely used, the E.P.P.S has been used in research on entrepreneurs to identify the key characteristics of enterprising motivational patterns as high needs for achievement, autonomy, dominance and change (Watkins, 1976). Validity of the E.P.P.S. has been established on the basis that a sufficient number of representative test items were included and systematically rotated within the forced choice format used and a consistency scale is included and measured by checking that identical statements are responded to identically; and that social desirability is controlled for (Edwards, 1959). On the basis of Watkin’s findings on the characteristics of enterprise motivation, subsequent researchers have reduced the size of the E.P.P.S to include only the items representative of entrepreneurial needs (Watkins, 1976). See Hornaday and Aboud who used the scales of autonomy, achievement and dominance to examine differences between black and white entrepreneurs, finding none (Hornaday and Aboud, 1971). See also Johnson who used the E.P.P.S. scales to measure achievement, deference, autonomy, dominance and change with a consistency check (Johnson, 1983). It might be argued that the reduction in the number of scales used affects the instruments ability to discriminate or identify the primary motivators of respondents. Yet Johnson has found correlation coefficients in excess of .95 (i.e. highly positive) between the scale that he used and the original E.P.P.S scales of 15 needs (Johnson, 1983). The establishment of a tests validity is useful for diagnosis or prediction in so far as a test can be relied on to produce valid responses. Test-retest reliability has been established for the E.P.P.S (correlation coefficient exceeds .74 for all scales) (Edwards, 1959) and Mehrabian’s measure of achieving tendency (correlation coefficient exceeds .64) (Mehrabian, 1985). For other measures of motivation mentioned in this section a lack of information on reliability coefficients exists. At this stage it is possible to say that a valid measure of enterprise motivation should both try to determine (a) what needs a person has, (b) what the relative strength of the drive to fulfill each need is, (what rank order is imposed on needs to determine the relative strength of motives). Much empirical work would be required to fulfill these requirements. Preliminary measures should attempt to identify and measure the needs that motivate enterprising behaviour, especially the needs for achievement and autonomy. Measures of these attributes usefully contribute to operationally defining these constructs and developing a bank of representative items.

13

2.1.2 Measures of Inner Control Rotter’s internal-external locus of control scale is the most widely used measure of whether an individual perceives reinforcement to be contingent on behaviour or external factors. When reinforcement is perceived as a function of personal factors the individual is said to have an internal locus of control and when reinforcement is considered to be a function of external forces (fate, luck, powerful others etc) the individual is said to have an external locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Subsections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of this paper have already highlighted the significance of the construct of internal locus of control, in terms of (a) its logical link with the motivation for high achievement and autonomy and (b) its association with feelings of competency and intrinsic motivation, (d) its links with many enterprising attributes e.g. insight, initiative, tolerance, dominance, achievement, well-being, assertion, independence, effectiveness, industriousness, sociability and intellectual efficiency (Joe, 1971). Given that most research on locus of control has been carried out with Rotter’s measure most attention is paid to this instrument. Section 2.1.3 examines projective and directive measures of locus of control. 2.1.2.1 Projective Measures of Internal Locus of Control Dies has developed a projective measure from TAT stories for the evaluation of locus of control (Dies, 1968). Dies mentions that internally oriented subjects developed stories suggesting a belief in internal control and subjects with an external orientation told stories that exhibited a belief in external control (Dies, 1968). This finding appears to be tautological and suggests that assessment criteria are so loose that they depend on the examiners viewpoint. Criticisms of the validity and reliability of the TAT (a projective measure of construct interpretation) made in subsection 2.1.3.1 apply equally here suggest the inappropriateness of this rather subjective approach. 2.1.2.2 Directive Measures of Locus of Control Directive measures of locus of control represent a more structured approach which facilitates administration, scoring and interpretation of responses. A comprehensive review of the work on the construction, reliability and validity of Rotter’s attitudinal forced choice measure of internal-external control has been reported (Rotter, 1966). Other instruments have been developed to both measure this construct alone (see Levenson’ a “Measure of Inner Control”) or within a measure of general entrepreneurial potential (see King’s “Behaviour Check Questionnaire”,1985). While items in all tests pertain to whether a person feels that skill, luck, fate, powerful others or organisation are most significant in determining reinforcement there is a lack of information on validity or reliability for the instruments mentioned other than Rotter’s. Discussion of these other instruments will therefore be confined to Section 2.2 which explores how practical and sensitive the measures of attributes are in terms of their scoring system and format. Over fifty per cent of investigations into internal-external locus of control have used Rotter’s scale. Rotter reported good discriminant validity for the I-B scale as indicated by low correlations with variables of intelligence, social desirability and political affiliation (Rotter, 1966). However, Joe finds contradictory research findings on the relation between internal control and social desirability (Joe, 1971). Furthermore, studies have shown that females score more highly as externals than males (Feather, 1967, 1968). Rotter has suggested that sex differences may be related to sex-role identification as well as geographical differences (Rotter, 1966). This instrument is limited as it contains items more related to social and political events than personal habits, goals etc. For example, item 3 requests the individual to choose which of the following two beliefs is stronger: (a) one of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take enough interest in politics, (b) there will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.

14

Gurin et al’s factor analysis of responses to the scale found several factors which contribute to the theoretical understanding of this construct with implications for measurement. Four independent factors within this construct were found in this study of negro students (Gurin et al, 1969). The first was control ideology, which refers to how much control one believes most people in society possess. The second was personal control, which refers to how much control one believes one personally possesses. A third factor, called system modifiability relates to the degree to which an individual believes political and social problems can be modified. Finally, a fourth factor called race ideology relates to a concept called individual system blame, which suggests whether blame is attributed to oneself or a faulty social system. Research supports the view that the locus of control should be studied at a multi-dimensional level rather than a uni-dimensional level (Gurin et al.,1969, Mirel, 1970). It appears that for this scale to be valid it should differentiate between a person’s perception of control over their own lives and political or societal control. Again, since that reliability and validity information is only available for Rotter’s measure this section confines itself to those. Reliability coefficients reported for this scale have been consistent. The test-retest reliability measures for varying samples, for time periods ranging from one to two months between tests, lie between .49 and .83 where 1.00 is a perfect positive correlation (Rotter, 1966). Further research has supported that this instrument is highly reliable (Harrow and Ferrante, 1969; and Hersch and Sheibe, 1967). Internal consistency estimates of reliability have ranged from .65-.79 with a mode of .70 (Rotter, 1966). 2.1.3 Measures of Creativity With the emphasis attributed to the innovative function (Schumpeter, 1965 etc) within enterprising behaviour measures of this important attribute should be considered. It is striking that there is a scarcity of validated measures of these attributes used on populations of enterprising people. While the entrepreneur has been considered a creative individual in economic terms (see Schumpeter, 1957) there remains a lack of research using standardised measures of creativity to confirm this view. Rather than vainly attempt to examine the large number of measures of creativity this section will concentrate on the attributes of the well known and used Torrance measure and its implications for measuring the creative attribute of enterprise. Other measures of creativity used on samples of enterprising people will also be considered. Torrance claims that there are four main components of creativity i.e. (i) fluency, defined as the ability to produce a large number of ideas i.e. quantity; (ii) originality, defined as the ability to produce uncommon new/imaginative/unusual ideas; (iii) flexibility, defined as the ability to shift from one approach to another and (iv) innovation, defined as the ability to define/perceive in a way that is different to the usual/established obvious way i.e. ideas are independent but based on what exists (see Torrance et al., 1967). In other words the creativity of an individual may be determined by the quality, quantity, synthesis or relatedness of ideas. Potential exists for using Torrance’s measure of creative ability on samples of enterprising people. Verbal and figural tests have been used to measure each of the components of creativity (Torrance, 1974). While the manual presents information from 50 studies verifying the validity of the test the majority present information on extreme scorers with little information on the middle range. Furthermore, test-retest reliabilities have a wide range over two weekly periods with range increasing over three year periods (see Baird, 1972 ). However, it seems important to use a projective method of measuring creativity given that the structure inherent in directive methods may constrain original, flexible, fluent and innovative responses. Baird criticises the Torrance test of creative thinking: firstly because there is a lack of information on the predictive validity of the test and; secondly because it fails to predict socially valuable creative behaviour (Baird, 1972). Both criticisms overlap and suggest that reality testing of creative ideas, which should partially constitute enterprising innovative behaviour, is not measured. While test use should be

15

cautious, closer scrutiny of this projective technique may provide helpful hints in developing an instrument appropriate for the measure of the creative attribute of enterprise. The Torrance test of creativity is activity based in both testing verbal and figural dimensions of creativity (Torrance, 1972). Verbal activities include the request to (1) ask questions and make hypothesis about what is going on in a picture, (2) consider ways of improving a product, (3) consider unusual uses for a cardboard box and (4) consider unusual questions that could be asked about a cardboard box. Figural activities include the request to: (1) construct a picture, (2) complete a picture based on a variety of lines offered, (3) draw as many different objects as possible with presented vertical, parallel lines. All activities can be scored across the dimensions of the creativity construct (Torrance, 1972). All activities have potential for adaptation to more appropriately measure innovation. However, the most apparently relevant activities are those which consider both product improvement and unusual uses of an object. Scoring criteria for the former include whether: something could be added or subtracted to the product; whether it could be altered to be more efficient, used in new ways, put to other uses and altered to fit a new requirement etc. These appear most relevant to a measure of innovation. The use of psychometric measures of creative ability on samples of enterprising people has not been applied to determine whether the creative tendency can be measured by standardised existing measures. Kirton’s adaption-innovation inventory has looked at creative style rather than creative ability. He suggests that creative style may be characterised by an adaptive or innovative mode of problem solving (Kirton, 1987). The creative style of the adapter is to improve within existing structures while the creative style of the innovator is to change the structures themselves leading from risk-taking to uncertainty (Kirton, 1984). The implication that, irrespective of creative ability, individual differences in creative style have a different impact suggests that measures of creative style and ability should be developed and validated on enterprising people. 2.1.4 Measures of Risk-taking As with the measurement of creativity, few measures of risk taking behaviour have been developed and applied to determine the nature of the risk taking dimension of enterprise. This is mainly due to McClelland’s claim that moderate risk taking is a component of the high need to achieve so is therefore assessed by a measure of the need to achieve (McClelland, 1961). For example, Mehrabian’ s measure of risk taking contains items which appear to represent risk-taking orientation i.e. "I more often attempt difficult tasks that I am not sure I can do than easier tasks I believe I can do” (Mehrabian, 1975). Both McClelland and Atkinson suggest that the entrepreneur is a moderate risk taker in order to achieve (McClelland, 1961; Atkinson, 1957). In the “Achieving Society” McClelland used a ring throwing game with children and found that those with a high need to achieve are attracted to moderate uncertainty where success can be influenced by skill (McClelland, 1961). There is a need to establish the nature of the relation between moderate risk taking and the high need to achieve. For example, should moderate risk-taking be measured as a component or subset of NACH or as a separate attribute of enterprising behaviour? The individual with a high need to achieve takes moderate risks to satisfy this need but is the moderate risk taker necessarily motivated to achieve? Given that calculated risk taking behaviour is associated with a high need to achieve, scales like King’s measure which isolate risk taking behaviour from the need to achieve may not be theoretically sound (King, 1985). For example, on King’s measure, the moderate risk taker in a novel situation is likely to “... carefully assess the situation and seek reasonable responses” rather than either seek the aid of others who are better equipped to handle the situation or remove his or herself from the situation. Apart from the questionability of items representativeness of the construct of risk-taking the link with the achievement motive is not established.

16

However, enough is not known about the psychological nature of the relation of calculated risk-taking behaviour to need for achievement to justify any sweeping reductionism. Calculated risk-taking is considered a significant attribute of enterprising behaviour (Knight, 1921). A question that could be posed is whether risk-judging is an attribute of enterprising tendency or merely a subset of the need to achieve. In the latter case measurement of the need to achievement is sufficient. Some support of the view that risk-taking is an attribute of enterprising tendency arrives with an analysis of Kogan and Wallach’s measure of risk taking behaviour (Kogan and Wallach, 1964). This presents eleven areas of uncertainty where probability estimates for consequences for risks taken depend on respondents perception of the situation. Subjects are asked to take risky decisions in the areas of work, marriage, health, money, sport, education etc and indicate how low a success probability they would accept in taking the risky decision. The counselling uses of this tool are evident given that it suggests that more risk may be taken in different areas of life as a function of variation in the serious nature of consequences. The perception of the serious nature of consequences may be a function of needs and values and related to needs to achieve, affiliate, power etc. This instrument suggests that risk taking may characterise all areas of life and may be linked with all needs. Risk taking behaviour patterns vary as a function of needs which determine the values attached to success probabilities. However, the psychometric value of this instrument is verified only by moderate reliabilities established for the Kogan-Wallach choice dilemma instrument (Brochhaus, 1980). It may be the case that a measure of risk taking should be specific to leisure or business activities. Kogan and Wallach’s focus on the respondents’ attitude to risk-taking in areas like marriage or health may not be relevant to the risk-taking attribute of enterprising behaviour. Magdalena’s three item multiple choice measure of risk taking has the attribute of being a standardised business oriented instrument which measures risk taking behaviour as a balance between security and economic returns (Magdalena, 1977). A focus on risk taking instruments to measure the risk taking attribute of enterprise creates some problems that are difficult to address 1) a moderate risk may not depend on skill, 2) a moderate risk may not provide conditions for the need to achieve (a large risk may be required), 3) a risk taken may represent different motives with different estimations of success probabilities. Assigning a numerical value to moderate risk taking (i.e. probability of 50-50) seems to ironically dispel the uncertainty attached to this concept. Enough is not known about the psychological process of calculating odds of 50-50 for successful consequences of a decision. A good measure of risk taking behaviour should be associated with the areas of life where the need to achieve is most likely to dominate. The odds for taking a risk should be specified with the reasons why they are accepted. Atkinson’s model of risk-taking as a multiplicative function of motivation in a situation success probabilities and incentive value of risk taking should be built into this instrument. In summary, a good measure should assess: the primary motives in a situation where a risk is required; the availability of options; the reasons for odds accepted; the value attached to the chosen risky path and the consequences as perceived by the individual. Such a measure would approach the simulation of risk judging - the activity essential for calculated risk-taking. Limited knowledge and understanding of how a risk is judged and calculated temporarily confines the measurement of calculated risk-taking to crude attitudinal indicators of risky situations. Indeed, a measure capable of simulating the process of risk-judging and measuring the individual’s approach to judging a risk would constitute a remarkable product.

17

2.1.5 Measures of General Enterprising Tendency Several measures of general enterprising tendency have been developed and utilised (see King, 1985; Freeley, 1986; Vicars et al., 1980; Centre for Developing Business, 1987). A lack of validity and reliability data for all these measures, except for Vicar’s measure of “General Entrepreneurial Tendency”, limits the evaluation of these instruments. The need for a rationalised conceptual structure within the measurement of enterprise attributes is suggested by the variety in the number of attributes measured by general instruments (See appendix 1). The literature evaluated in this paper aims to cope, albeit in a limited fashion, with the problems posed by a lack of information and understanding of the psychology of enterprising behaviour and attributes. For measurement of enterprise attributes, difficulties arise from the variety of attributes comprising the psychological structure of enterprise - where some are motivations, attitudes, skills or abilities. Measures of general entrepreneurial potential require respondents to assess themselves. Objectivity cannot be claimed given that responses may depend on respondents’ confidence, self awareness and perception of variation within the construct measured. This is especially true of measures that evaluate respondents’ attitudes to how strongly (frequently) an enterprise characteristic relates to them (see Johnson et al., 1987). Nevertheless, measures requiring self assessment can provide a good general indicator of respondents’ attitude and experience. Self assessment instruments are useful in that they provide a framework for self awareness, which can be used for counselling purposes to facilitate self exploration and directionalise drive. However, given the transparency of items, which may encourage socially desirable responses, such instruments may depend on the honesty of the respondents for validity and reliability. Such measures require administration in non-threatening help-oriented situations. Hence, Freeley’s claim that the “Entrepreneurial Style Profile”, as a rather transparent self assessment device, predicts the success of those who plan to start up their own business may depend on the honesty of the respondents (Freeley, 1986). 2.2 How Suitable are Scoring Formats Used in the Measurement of Enterprise Attributes? The significance of format in measurement pertains to the issue of an instruments’ sensitivity i.e. whether the scoring system and format utilised allows for the accurate reflection of respondents’ performance. A test should offer a framework that validly discriminates behaviours between and within individuals. As the open ended scoring format and criterion-referenced scoring system of projective techniques have already been discussed in the light of their limitations, the formats and scoring systems of directive techniques will be examined in this section. 2.2.1 Scoring Systems and Formats Used in the Measurement of Enterprise Directive instruments require that the subject reacts to a structured test item with a response from a predetermined scale. Common formats utilised are the Likert scale, multiple choice and yes/no response categories to closed questions. In general, these instruments utilise an interval scale of measurement where the properties of magnitude (i.e. an instance of the attribute can be judged greater, less than or equal to another instance of the attribute) and equal intervals (i.e. magnitude separating each unit of measurement is equal) are assumed. 2.2.1.1 Likert Scales Likert scales, which ask respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement/disagreement with an attitudinal test item have been utilised in many of the measures discussed (Mehrabian, 1975; Freeley, 1986; Vicars et al, 1980; Johnson et al, 1987). This format is very suitable for measuring something spe-cific i.e. a construct (or constructs separate from each other). Great flexibility is offered by the wide number of response categories offered, along a continuum of agreement-disagreement through

18

intervals of extreme, moderate and slight responses to indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement. Item representativeness of constructs measured is very important when this format is used given the respondents’ requirement to react to individual statements. Likert type scales are at risk from transparency in test items and subsequent social desirability in responses. Alternation of the response format, where items are alternatively scored in a positive and negative direction can help to alleviate this problem (see Mehrabian, 1975 and Vicar et al, 1980). Given the simplicity of this scoring format, items may be loaded for socially desirable responses to transparent test items. For example, on the “Entrepreneurial Style Profile” subjects are required to respond with the extent of their agreement to the statement “I regularly read a business magazine”. Given that Freeley used this instrument with business people, the social desirability of extreme positive agreement is apparent. Furthermore, it is transparent that extreme positive agreement with the statement “I like to initiate a new project” should emerge in a sample of potential and actual entrepreneurs (Freeley, 1986). Having admitted to such limitations it cannot be assumed that respondents are dishonest or victims of social desirability. To reiterate an earlier recommendation, measures should be administered in non-threatening helpful conditions. In these conditions a respondent to Freeley’s measure could identify areas of confidence and limitation in his/her business behaviour. A consideration of other formats may suggest alternative routes to the objective, valid measurement of enterprise attributes. 2.2.1.2 True/False Formats Scales with a true/false format for responses represent a cruder form of the Likert scale. Both Lynn and Smith’s measures of achievement motivation utilise this type of format to identify those with a high motivation to achieve (Lynn, 1969; Smith, 1973). This format appears to be reductionistic and simplistic for the measurement of attitude or motivation. Apart from the unrealistic nature of a format which confines itself to absolute response categories for attitudinal statements or questions, it is unlikely that this format could hope to psychologically reflect variation and psychological complexity in the construct it measures. However, the simplicity of these instruments’ scoring systems recommends itself. For example, for Lynn’s measure of achievement motivation eight items are scored against a maximum score of eight with response direction controlled by scoring four items positively and four negatively for yes responses. Furthermore, such a format has potential for prediction since it forces the respondent to choose the direction of their attitude. It is a useful format for preliminary research into differences between and within groups for measured constructs. As it cuts out variation in responses to individual test items it may both usefully identify behavioural tendencies and categories of extremely high and low scorers on the attributes measured by the instrument. Coupled with an implied ease for scoring and coding results it provides a useful, albeit crude, introductory format for measuring and researching a construct. 2.2.1.3 Multiple-Choice Formats The flexibility of the multiple choice format is suggested by its ability to either weight every response selected or only the alternative item representing the “correct” response (i.e. the response alternative that reflects the construct investigated). In other words, it may have the Likertian attribute of looking specifically at construct/s which are measured by only one alternative in a multiple selection or all alternatives chosen may be weighted and used to score the construct measured. An example of the use of multiple choice format to measure one construct per test item without weighting “incorrect” selected alternatives is given in King’s Behavioural Checklist. This is scored by summating one point for every “correct” answer to items that represent a particular construct.

19

Because this scale is structured so that an individual may score no points on the dimensions investigated, it seems unlikely that the continua - of achievement motivation, I-E Locus of Control etc., representing the dimensions of enterprise are accurate. There is a possibility of getting no score on all constructs but this would not necessarily suggest that a subject has no need to achieve, cannot problem solve etc. The numerical dimensions of psychometrics generally present the problem of how to attribute numerical properties to psychological attributes. Accepting this general problem the criticism of King’s behavioural checklist, for the improbability of its capability to validly reflect the attributes it purports to measure, appears severe. However, criticism can be addressed to the lack of meaningful interpretation of scores. Multiple choice as a format for measurement is less efficient and accurate when no score is given to inappropriate alternatives. Magdalena’s measure of risk-taking scores fails to fall into this trap. Each item is weighted, on the basis of factor loadings, and scores are standardised to place respondents onto a three point continuum categories of high, low and moderate achievers (Magdalena, 1997). The Kogan-Wallach Choice Dilemma Instrument similarly grades risk-taking behaviour along a multiple choice of six probability levels of success and summates scores which relate to estimates for success accepted for risk-taking. Other examples of the multiple choice framework, utilised to weight each choice from the alternatives offered, include the E.P.P.S and Rotter’s measure of locus of control (Edwards, 1954; Rotter, 1966). Both instruments utilise a forced-choice format. For each item, on Rotter’s measure, one statement corresponds with an internal and another with an external response (except for not scoring the first and last item). The E.P.P.S represents a sophisticated forced choice rotation of preferences, with 225 items to measure 15 scales. One possible problem with this approach is that preferences for the alternatives offered may be measured as opposed to genuine dispositions to respond -the former may be specific to the test while the latter relates to behaviour. However, this multiple choice format has the advantage of sensitively scoring all responses elicited. Multiple choice formats have more potential for representing the psychological complexity of a construct. Despite the fact that this format is suitable for utilising theoretical and empirical knowledge, to represent different levels within a construct or different relationships between constructs, its usage is less appropriate in fuzzy areas of limited knowledge e.g. the psychology of enterprising tendency and attributes. 3 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEST DEVELOPMENT Section 3 considers the implications of the above evaluation for the development of a measure of enterprising tendency. 3.1 What are Critical Enterprise Attributes? This paper recognises that enterprise attributes fall into a category of a network of motivations, skills and attitudes. Critical attributes were defined as those enterprising attributes which were consistently associated with and measured for on enterprising sample populations. These attributes also appear to be key identifiers of enterprising people because of their empirical association with many of the numerous characteristics attributed to enterprising people. An examination of research on the psychological nature of enterprise suggests the need for valid, reliable, measurement of enterprise, in terms of the key attributes of motivation for achievement, autonomy, calculated risk-taking, creative tendency and the self concept in terms of locus of control. Such a measure may adequately identify

20

an enterprising tendency. The ultimate justification for the approach taken is the development of a reliably validated instrument that measures these constructs - enterprise attributes. 3.2 Implications Drawn from Methods of Measuring Enterprise Attributes for the Development of a

Measure of Enterprising Tendency?

The reliability and validity of directive approaches to measurement, in terms of facilitating the scoring, interpretation and validation of developed tests, is preferred to projective approaches. Though an increase in structure, which characterises directive measures, may decrease an instrument’s sensitivity, directive instruments are more amenable to validation procedures.

The majority of the tests of enterprising attributes measure disposition to respond as

opposed to ability. This depends on an assumed relationship between a psychological disposition to respond and current/subsequent behaviour.

The justification for a measure of dispositions to respond rests on the theoretical perspective

that attitudes directionalise motivations which may be defined as action tendencies.

In general, a good test should be based on a well researched theoretical foundation from which an operational definition should be developed to guide the collection of a representative category of test items. Available information on enterprising behaviour is scanty. This means that the development of a measure of enterprising tendency and attributes is limited to what is theoretically known about the attributes and behaviour of the entrepreneur. Existing measures of enterprise attributes facilitate the identification of the category of test items that represent the attributes under investigation.

Specific recommendations for a valid measurement of critical enterprise, attributes, using

items representative of the attributes investigated, can be summarised as follows: 3.2.1 Motivational Patterns for Enterprise

A valid measure should try to identify what is the relative strength of the drive to fulfill needs to achieve and for autonomy. An enterprising person may have many needs but should give priority to fulfilling the need for achievement and autonomy. In terms of fulfilling these requisites Edward’s E.P.P.S. measure of preferences and Mehrabian’s measure of achieving tendency usefully suggest operational definitions and items representative of the need to achieve. Some research is required to demonstrate that the need to achieve as measured by this instrument is identical to McClelland’s need to achieve which is associated with moderate risk taking, responsibility, decision making and the desire for concrete feedback (McClelland, 1961; 1966).

3.2.2 Locus of Control

The measurement of locus of control should examine the individual’s attitude to personal control in terms of the attribution of responsibility for experiences to external or internal factors. A valid measure should try to distinguish between individuals who perceive reinforcement, to be dependent on internal (personal) or external factors. Rotter’s well validated measure of locus of control requires some modifications to accurately reflect the construct’s dimensions. These include a distinction between how much control one believes one personally possesses and the extent to which one believes an ordinary person can exert control over political and world affairs. An emphasis on the latter may be class related but not necessarily so.

3.2.3 Creativity

21

The appropriateness of projective techniques to measure this attribute relates to the possibility that the structure inherent in directive methods may constrain original, flexible, fluent and innovative responses. Kirton’s distinction between creative style and creative ability should be considered so that the way creative ability is used is considered i.e. creative style/tendency (Kirton, 1987).

3.2.4 Risk-taking

A valid measure of risk-taking should: be focused on business, social or leisure activities; ascertain the strength of the motive to achieve in this area (value); evaluate the availability of risk taking options; and examine perceived success probabilities. A measure of this kind would represent both a complicated piece of artificial intelligence and simulation. Magdalena’s simple measure of risk taking behaviour fulfills these requisites in a crude general sense, requiring the calculation of success on the basis of economic returns and security.

3.2.5 General Measures of Enterprising Tendency

A general measure of enterprising tendency developed with the rationale of a conceptual structure would be the most practical way of measuring enterprise attributes. Existing instruments are limited because (1) they mainly require the subject to self assess (2) test items have a tendency to be transparently stated thereby encouraging socially desirable responses (which affect test validity) (3) test items are slotted into test formats which either do not (e.g. King’s multiple choice “Behavioural checklist”, 1985) or cannot (e.g. Presley’s Measure of Entrepreneurial Style Profile which uses a Likert format, 1986) reflect the theoretical sophistication underlying enterprising attributes.

Self assessment, transparency and social desirability are not important issues when instruments are used in non-threatening situations when the emphasis is on helping respondents (not selection or recruitment). Furthermore, for general measures it may be practically not feasible to attempt to reflect the theoretical complexity of attributes, without producing a labourious and time-consuming instrument (if indeed then it is possible). Reflecting the theoretical sophistication of a construct is not necessarily of primary importance. Instead establishing links between test scores and variety in different group behaviours may prove more useful for assessment and prediction. 3.3 What Scoring Formats are Suitable for the Measurement of Enterprise?

Both the test format and test items should be sensitive enough to distinguish between unreliability and change, yet reliable enough to facilitate interpretation of responses.

A test’s scoring format should be simple and logical without leaving the implications

(scoring direction) of test items transparent to the respondent.

Transparency of items should be guarded against so that what the test is measuring is not obvious, socially desirable or unsocially desirable. In non-threatening situations where the emphasis is on helping respondents assess themselves the transparency of test items is less important. However, the less transparent the test items (in terms of their scoring direction) and the psychological constructs that they represent the more interesting and constructive the psychometric measure is likely to be.

Section 2.2 suggests that the different scoring formats are all useful. The reasons for

choosing a particular scoring format should be based on several issues: the knowledge offered by psychological theory on the constructs to be measured - the format should be capable of reflecting this; the intended uses of the test should be considered because issues of social desirability and item transparency are important concerns when selection or

22

recruitment represent the intended use of the test; the facilitation of scoring, coding and analysing responses.

3.4 The Development of a Measure of Enterprise Tendency The implementation of suggested modifications to measures of enterprising motivational patterns, locus of control, risk taking and creativity should precede and facilitate the development of a valid, reliable, sensitive and practical general measure of enterprising disposition. Instruments utilised should critically differentiate between people who have a disposition to behave differently in terms of the constructs measured. It is recognised that it would be difficult to succeed in developing an instrument that both represents the real psychological complexity of any attribute including enterprise attributes. It would also be difficult to develop a measure that is not subject to any of the criticisms or limitations recognised in other measures of enterprise attributes. The developed measure of enterprising tendency (See Appendix 11) was developed as a result of: Section 1: the identification of the critical enterprise attributes which when measured may identify enterprise attributes. Section 2: a consideration of both the methods of measuring enterprise attributes and specific measures of these attributes with a view to identifying the ‘best’ and most appropriate attributes of a ‘good’ measure. A directive approach to measurement was favored because it lends itself to objective scoring, statistical analysis and interpretation. This involved identifying the best approaches to measuring enterprise attributes and selecting and editing the category of test items that best represent the selected attributes (Section 2.1). Appendix II reveals that the measure of general enterprising tendency is comprised of 12 test items representing the need for achievement, locus of control, creative tendency and calculated risk-taking with 6 test items representing the need for autonomy. Response direction was controlled for with half of the test items for each attribute representing low scores on the scale measuring the attribute. Section 2.2’s discussion of formats resulted with the decision to apply the test format that appropriately reflects the current (virtual lack of) theoretical and empirical understanding of enterprising behaviour. The application of the crude forced choice agree/disagree format reflects the scarcity of information available on enterprising behaviour. It is recognised that this format reduces variability of individual response which may serve to dramatise differences between individuals and groups. This very point underlines the value of this format for identifying potential or tendency. The usefulness of this format as a measure of tendency is also backed by the fact that half of the test items represent low scores for the attributes that they measure and are scored when disagreed with. The forced choice agree/disagree format may obscure variation within groups but may be the best method to adopt to use to gauge both differences between groups and dramatic changes occuring over the duration of participation in a course. This format facilitates the administration, response and scoring of the instrument. It has then the potential for being used as an educational tool to facilitate self analysis and exploration on enterprise courses. The attitudinal measure of general enterprising tendency is presented in Appendix II with information on administrating, scoring and interpreting it. It takes 10-15 minutes to administer and requires another 30 minutes to score and interpret to groups. The interpretation offered matches the operationally defined attributes measured by the test.

23

3.5 Recommendations The recommendations to be discussed in this section can be dealt with in three categories - the potential for using this test, validation and reliability studies, alternative methods that could be considered for measuring enterprise attributes and further studies. 3.5.1 The Potential for Using this Test This measure of general enterprising tendency has potential for use as both a counselling and educational tool to facilitate self analysis and exploration in courses interested in facilitating enterprise or the development of enterprise attributes. It could also be used to assess the effectiveness of courses that aim to facilitate the development of enterprise attributes by administrating it pre and post course participation (without giving feedback before the second administration). The instrument could be used to establish different enterprise profiles for a variety of occupations to both describe and prescribe occupationally desirable behaviour. The instrument as it stands has little potential for use in selection or recruitment given the requirement for honesty in response to the test. Nevertheless, when administered in non-threatening situations it could provide information on observable and desirable occupational behaviour. 3.5.2 Validity and Reliability Studies To establish validity this test should be administered to a criterion group of enterprising people (namely entrepreneurs as their occupation requires enterprising behaviour) and compared with other occupational groups e.g. teachers, nurses, clerical workers, civil servants and lecturers and trainers. One could hypothesise that entrepreneurs should score significantly higher on a measure of general enterprising tendency than other occupational groups (not individuals) given that their occupation requires them to be enterprising i.e. set up and run projects. One would expect that scores would be more normally distributed in other occupational groups because, though enterprising behaviour may be beneficial or desirable, it is not intrinsically necessary. This is called establishing criterion validity. Categories of high and low scorers across occupational groups should be identified and observed in experimental situations to ascertain differences in their psychological make-up and manifest behaviours. To provide more data other tests could be applied (concurrent validity). To establish predictive validity for this measure of enterprising behaviour, for enterprising people irrespective of occupational group, longitudinal studies could be set up. When reliability studies show that this measure is not a fickle indicator of attributes, that have nothing to do with the individual or his/her experiences, it is possible to attribute changes over experimental interventions/course participations to the individual’s interaction with the experience. This can contribute to an assessment of the course and contribute to an evaluation of the course in terms of the fulfillment of its objectives. An experimental group, participating in an enterprise course should be compared for pre and post scores with a control group who are effectively experiencing no environmental changes. The examination of each groups pre and post score would provide information on this instrument’s potential as a reliable, sensitive measure of change. One would hypothesise that there would be differences in the experimental group’s pre and post scores but not the control group. Internal validity for the general measure of enterprising tendency could be established by testing hypothesis that scores on attributes within the measure would be positively correlated with each other. There is a need to carry out work to establish criterion, internal, discriminant and predictive validity for this measure. Validity and reliability studies point to the real application value and potential of this measure.

24

3.5.3 Alternative Methods of Measuring Enterprise Attributes The author regards the developed measure of enterprising tendency as a preliminary attempt to measure enterprising tendency and attributes. While one can aspire to developing the perfect instrument, the real value of a measure of enterprise attributes lies in validating it across groups and pre and post experiences. Validity and reliability studies may suggest ways to update this measure which necessarily reflects the scarcity of information on the identification and measurement of enterprise attributes. It is quite important to consider some qualitative research, with either individuals identified as highly and lowly enterprising by the measure of general enterprising tendency or other indexes of enterprise, to produce a data base (which could be factor analysed) of self descriptions and critical indicators of enterprising people and behaviours. This is necessary given the arbitrary nature for the selection of critical enterprise attributes considered to represent an enterprising tendency. Though the selected attributes can be academically rationalised their selection must be treated given the scarcity of information on enterprising behaviour. However, this measure could be used to identify broad categories of high and low scorers on a measure of enterprise tendency. Follow up, longitudinal, experimental and/or case studies of such individuals could help to relate individual scores to behaviours. This information could contribute to the development of a more discriminating measure of enterprising tendency and an understanding of enterprising behaviour.

25

Appendix 1. Summary Analysis of Measures Referred to in the Paper

DEVISOR NAME OF TEST QUALITY FORMAT

Lynn, 1969 Lynn’s Achievement Motivation Questionnaire

Need for Achievement Force choice – with yes/no response format.

Smith, 1973 A Quick Measure of Achievement Motivation

Need for Achievement Forced choice – directive – with yes/no response format.

Mehrabian and Bank, 1975 Measurers of Achieving Tendency Need for Achievement Likert Scale

McClelland, 1961 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Need for Achievement Open ended – projective – with criteria based scoring and interpretation.

Collins et al, 1964 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Need for Autonomy Open ended – projective – with criteria based scoring and interpretation.

Rotter, 1966 Internal

Locus of Control

Locus of Control Forced choice – directive – with yes/no response format.

Levenson Levenson’s Measure of Inner Control Locus of Control Likert Scale

Dies, 1968 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Locus of Control Open ended – projective – with criteria based scoring and interpretation.

Torrance, 1967 Torrance Test of Creative Thinking Creative Ability Open ended – projective – with criteria based scoring and interpretation.

Kirton, 1987 Kirton Adaption – Innovation Inventory Creative Style Likert type format.

Kogan and Wallach, 1964 Kogan-Wallach Choice Dilemma Instrument

Risk Taking Multiple Choice

26

DEVISOR NAME OF TEST QUALITY FORMAT

Magdalene, 1977 Risk Taking Scale Risk Taking Open ended and multiple choice.

Edwards, 1959 Edwards Personal preference Schedule (EPPS)

15 Needs – Achievement Deference, Order, Exhibition, Autonomy Affiliation, Intraception Succorance, Dominance Abasement, Nurturance Change, Endurance Heterosexuality and Agression.

Force multiple choice with systematic rotation of items corresponding to each need consistency check.

King, 1985 King’s Behavioural Checklist Achievment, Motivation Internal Locus of Control, Risk Taking Propensity, Problem Solving Ability and Manipulative Skills.

Multiple choice.

Vicars et al, 1980 General Entrepreneurial Tendency Specific Attributes Not Identified. Likert Scale.

Freeley, 1986 Entrepreneurial Style Profile Motivation, Problem Solving, Knowledge, Persistence, Human Relations, Active Involvement, Variety, Communications, Responsibility, Background Independence, Risk Taking.

Likert Scale.

Centre for Developing Business, 1987

Self Assessment Scale Risk Taking, Hope of Success, Persistence, hard Work, Energy and Mobility, Use of Feedback, Personal Responsibility, Self Confidence and Reliance, Knowledgeability, Persuasive Ability, Managerial Scale, Innovativeness, Achievement Orientation.

Likert Type Scale.

27

REFERENCES Aitken, H. G. “The Future of Entrepreneurial Research” In Explorations in Enterprise Edited by H.J. Aitken, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1965. Atkinson, J. “Motivational Determinants of Risk Taking Behaviour”. Psychological Review. Vol. 64, No. 6,1957, pp.359-372. Arnold, H. “Task performance perceived competence and attributed causes of performance as determinants of Intrinsic Motivation”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 28 No. 4, 1985, pp. 876-888. Baird, L. “The Torrance Tests of Creativity Thinking”. In The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by O. Boros, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972. Baumol, W.J. “Towards Operational Models of Entrepreneurship” In Entrepreneurship. Edited by J. Ronen, Lexington Mass. In Lexington Books, 1983. Binks, M. and Coyne, J. The Birth of Enterprise: An Analytical and Empirical Study of the Growth of Small Firms. London. Institute of Economic Affairs, 1983. Brockhaus, R.H. “Risk taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs”. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 23 No. 3, 1986. Bruce, R. The Entrepreneurs: Strategies, Motivation, Successes and Failures. G.B. Liberation Books, Bedford, 1976. Caird, S. A Review of Methods of Measuring Enterprise Attributes. Unpublished paper, D.U.B.S. 1988. Cantillon, R. Essai star la Nature du Commerce en General. London: F. Gyles, 1955. Casson, M. The Entrepreneur. Oxford: - Martin Robertson and Co. Ltd., 1982. Centre for Developing Business. Business Creation Programme. University of Witwatersrand, 1987. Cole, A.H. “An Approach to the Study of Entrepreneurship”. In Explorations in Enterprise. Edited by H. G. Aitken. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965. Collins, 0; Moore, D; and Unwalla, D. The Enterprising Man University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1964. Connellan, L. et al. “The Identification and Development of Entrepreneurs”. Journal of Business Policy 2(3), 1972. Cromie, S and Johns, S. “Irish Entrepreneurs – some personal characteristics”. Journal of Occupational Behaviour. 4 (1984). Cronbach, L. Essentials of Psychological Testing. London: Harper & Row, 1964. Crowne, D.P. and Marlowe, 0. “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology.” Journal of Consulting Psychology. No. 24, 1960. pp.349-354. Deeks, J. The Small Firm Owner Manager: Management Practice. U.S. Praeger, 1976. Dies, R.R. “Development of a Projective Measure of Perceived Locus of Control”. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment. No. 32, 1968. pp.487-490. Easterbrook, W.T. “The Climate of Enterprise”. In Explorations in Enterprise. Edited by H.J. Aitken. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965. Edwards, A. Manual for the Edwards Personal Reference Schedule New York. The Psychological Corporation, 1959.

28

Eron, L. “Thematic Apperception Test Review.” In The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Edited by O. Boros. New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1972. Erwee, R. & Pottas, C.D., “Locus of Control and Achievement Motivation of Managers” Psychologia Africano Vol. 21, 1982. Feather, N.T. “Change in Confidence Following Success or Failure as a Predictor of Subsequent Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. No.9, 1986. pp.38-46. French, E. “Development of a Measure of Complex Motivation”. In Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. Edited by J. Aitkenson. New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1966. Gibb, A. A. “Enterprise culture - its meaning and implications for education and training”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1987. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R., and Beattie, M. “Internal - External Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth”. Youth of Social Issues. No.25, 1969. pp.29-53. Harrow, M and Ferrante, A. “Locus of Control in Psychiatric Patients.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol.33, 1969. Hersch, P and Scheibe, K. “On the Reliability and Validity of Internal -External Control as a Personality Dimension.” Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol.31, 1967. Hollingsworth, T.A. and Hand, H.H. A Guide to Small Business Management: Test and Cases. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1976. Hornaday, J. A. and Aboud, J. “Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs”. Personnel Psychology, 23 1970, pp. 47-54. Hull, D.L. Bosley, J and Udel, G.G. “Reviewing the Hunt for the Heffalump: Identifying Potential Entrepreneurs by Personality Characteristics”. Journal of Small Business Management, Jan, 1980. Jackson, D. Personality Research Form Manual. New York: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. Joe, V.C. “Review of the Internal - External Control Construct as a Personality Variable”. Psychological Reports 28, 1971, pp. 619-640. Johnson, C. “Entrepreneurs and the Start Up Process”. MSc. Dissertation, Durham University Business School, 1983. Johnson, C. Marks, S. Matthews M and Pike, J. Key Skills: Enterprise Skills Through Active Learning 16-19. GB: Hodder and Stoughton Educational, 1987. Kahl, J. “Some Measurements of Achievement Orientation.” The American Journal of Sociology. Vol.70, 1965. Kets De Vries, M.F.R. “The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the Crossroads”. Journal of Management Studies, 1977, Vol. 14(1), pp. 34-57. Kilby, P. “Hunting the Heffalump”. In Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Edited by P. Kilby. New York: Free Press; London: Collier-MacMillan, 1971. King, A. “Self Analysis and Assessment of Entrepreneurial Potential.” Simulation and Games. Vol.16, No.4, 1985. Kirton, M. “Adaptors & Innovators - Why New Initiatives Get Blocked” Long Range Planning Vol. 17, 1984.

29

Kirton, M. Kirton Adaption Innovation Inventory. England: Occupational Research Centre, 1987. Knight, F.H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston. Houghton Mufflin, 1921. Kogan, N. and Wallach, M. Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964. Lawrence, P. and Lorsch, J. Organisation and Environments: Managing Differentiaton and Integration. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 1967. Lessem, R. “The Art of Entrepreneurship”. Journal of General Management. Spring, 1983. Levitt, A and Albertive, J. “The Successful Entrepreneur: A Personality Profile”. The Wall Street Journal. August, 1983. Lynn, R. “An Achievement Motivation Questionnaire”. British Journal of Psychology. Vol. 60 (4), 1969. Mehrabian, A. “Measures of Achieving Tendency”. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 1969, pp. 445-451. Mehrabian, A and Bank, L. A Manual for the Mehrabian Measures of Achieving Tendency. Los Angeles: University of California, 1975. “A Questionnaire Measure of Individual Differences in Achieving Tendency.” Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol.38, 1978. Mirels, H.L. “Dimensions of Internal Versus External Control”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol.34, 1970. pp.226-228. McClelland, D.C; Atkinson, J.W.; Clark, R.A. and Lovell, E.L. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. McClelland, D.C. The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961. McClelland, D.C. “Business Drive and National Achievement”. Harvard Business Review. July-August, 1962. McClelland, D. and Winter, D. Motivating Economic Achievement. U. S: The Free Press, 1969. McConnell, D. “Entrepreneurial Planning”. Management Decision. Vol. 9, No. 1 (1971). Powell, J. D. and Bimmerle, C.F. “A Model of Entrepreneurship”. Journal of Small Business Management. Jan, 1980. Opolot, J. “Reliability and Validity of Smith’s Quick Measure of Achievement Motivation Scale.” British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol.16, 1977. Ronen, J. ed. Entrepreneurship: Price Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1983. Rotter, J.B. “Generalised Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement”. Psychological Monographs, 1966. Scanlan, T.J. “Self Employment as a Career Option: An Investigation of Entrepreneurs from the Perspective of Hollard’s Theory of Career Development and Levenson’s Measure of Locus of Control”. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1979. Schrage, H. “The R & D Entrepreneur: Profile of Success”. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 43, Nov-Dec, 1965.

30

Schumpeter, J. A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper, 1950. “Economic Theory and Entrepreneurial History”. In Explorations in Enterprise. Edited by H.G.J. Aitken. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965. Shapero, A. An Action Programme for Entrepreneurship. Texas, Austin. Multi Disciplinary Research Inc., 1971. Smith, J.M. “A Quick Measure of Achievement Motivation”. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. Vol.12, 1973. Sweeney, G.P. New Entrepreneurship and the Smaller Firm. Dublin: Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, 1981. Torrance, E.P. “Non Test Ways of Identifying the Creatively Gifted.” In Creativity: Its Educational Implications. Edited by J. Gowan et al. John Wiley & Sons, 1967. Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Scholastic Testing Service, 1974. Tuckman, B. Measuring Educational Outcomes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., 1975. Vicars, W., Jauch, L., and Wilson, H. “A Scale to Measure General Entrepreneurial Tendency.” Academy of Management, 40th Annual Conference Paper, Detroit: Southern Illinois University, 1980. Vidler and Jacobowitz, A. “Characteristics of Entrepreneurs: Implications for Vocational Guidance”. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 3, 1982. Warner, H.A. and Rubin, I.M. “Motivations of Research and Development Entrepreneurs”. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1967, pp 178-184. Watkins, D.S. Entry into Independent Entrepreneurship - Toward a Model of the Business Initiation Process. Paper presented at E.I.A.S.M. Joint Seminar on “Entrepreneurship arid Institution Building”, Dansk Management Centre, Copenhagen, May 1976. Weber, M. The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin, 1930. Weinstein, M.S., “Achievement Motivation and Risk Preference” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 13, 1969. Young, D. R. If Not For Profit, For What? A Behavioural Theory of the Non-Profit Sector Based On Entrepreneurship. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books, 1983.