Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

S A Vasantha Kumara* and C Sahasranam**

For decades, researchers have been interested in the question why some college educated people become entrepreneurs. Specific objectives of this case study are to determine entrepreneurial characteristics among business students and examine the influence of demographic factors on the entrepreneurial characteristics of the students. A quiz for testing entrepreneurial characteristics, consisting of 25 statements with true/false answers, was administered to a convenience sample of 51 students belonging to second module postgraduate diploma in management (All India Management Association) program at Dayananda Sagar Institutions (DSI) campus, Bangalore. This study indicates that the students academic marks and father/ guardians occupation have little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics. This study is limited to DSI campus. Large sample tests for students belonging to different disciplines and colleges can help confirm these findings. This study can enable soft skills trainers to identify the training needs and design competency-based curriculum for entrepreneurship education. It is important to continuously inventory the students attitudes, skills and competencies for an entrepreneurial career and build a database of prospective entrepreneurs. Continuous student research and well-planned training program, along with conducive creativity and innovation can help in creating a rich entrepreneurial culture among students.

Introduction
There are over 500 million Indians below 15 years of age today. This number is expected to phenomenally increase in the foreseeable future, as the global population surges to eight billion perhaps by 2030. The good news is that young population provides India with abundant human capital. The bad news is that the massive size of Indias young population confronts her with the challenge of providing jobs at a scale unprecedented in human history.
* Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bangalore, India. E-mail: vasantha_k@yahoo.com ** Deceased. He was then working as a Professor with Industrial Engineering and Management and Director with G-MEDIC, SSIT-STEP, SSIT, Bangalore, India.
2009 The Icfai University Press. All Business Rights Reserved. Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Management Students: An Empirical Study 7

Entrepreneurs

of

large

multinational

corporations

have had

distinctly

important role in shaping todays process of globalization. Unfortunately, too many people have been deprived of the benefits of economic globalization. The global economy is not generating enough decent work for all, nor is anyone predicting a scenario where such growth will occur in the foreseeable future. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates that 160 million women and men are officially counted as unemployed, and another billion or more people are underemployed or working poor. Moreover, 500 million new entrants, mostly women and youth, to the labor force are expected over the next 10 years. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs have been a rich source of job creation. Historically, individual initiatives and social inheritances have played a dominant role in the creation of Indian startups. Can individual initiatives and social inheritances create massive number of jobs that India needs? What else can India do to scale up the number of successful entrepreneurs that she produces every year? How can India help her entrepreneurial ventures to survive, grow and thrive? These are the issues that gain importance, given Indias requirement for new jobs in the foreseeable future (Davis, 2002). Small businesses make an important contribution to the success of a countrys economy. They are the major creators of jobs, they innovate, and they spot and exploit new opportunities. Soft skills are the keystones to success. Soft skills such as leadership, decision-making, conflict resolution, negotiation, communication, creativity and presentation skills, are essential for entrepreneurial success and for maximizing the human capital in any enterprise (Prasad et al., 2005).

Research Background
Entrepreneurship is important because it leads to increased economic efficiencies, brings innovation to the market, creates new jobs, and sustains employment levels (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). However, despite decades of research, scholars currently have only a limited understanding of the factors and decision processes that lead an individual to become an entrepreneur (Markman et al., 2002). Researchers have begun to critically address the processes surrounding venture creation, small business development, innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship within large organizations. Of particular interest to practitioners has been the means through which entrepreneurship is cultivated and its historically uneven distribution throughout demographic segments of society. Specifically, questions as to why some college-educated business professionals choose entrepreneurial careers and others do not remain unanswered. Venture capitalists have traditionally placed more emphasis on the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs than on other factors in assessing new ventures (Shepherd, 1999). Moreover, recent research has confirmed that, in the business startup
8 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

process, human resources are more important than environmental factors (Rotefoss and Kolvereid, 2005). It is well-established that young people whose families have their own businesses are more likely to intend to start their own ventures (Krueger, 1993). An understanding of the factors that influence and shape individuals intentions to start a business is important if the governments are to successfully develop policies and programs to encourage entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial culture. A vast body of literature studying the entrepreneurial personality has found that certain traits seem to be dominant in case of entrepreneurs. They are action oriented and highly motivated individuals who take risks to achieve goals. Such a capability is the outcome of certain personality traits in an individual, which can be acquired by training and practice. An entrepreneur possesses distinct qualities like risk dealing, goal setting, decision making, information seeking, problem solving, time planning and maintaining good interpersonal relations in addition to other set of special characteristics, such as innovativeness, creativity, communication skills, high-level of confidence, perception, team building, trustworthiness, hard work, consistency and analytical strengths (Motilal and Umesh, 2005). These soft skills are smart skills a person should acquire in order to be successful.

Literature Review
Early research into the factors that influence individuals entrepreneurial activities focused on personality traits, such as the need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), locus of control, risk-taking propensity (Brockhaus, 1980) and tolerance of ambiguity (Schere, 1982). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) defines entrepreneur activity under an extremely broad canvas. However, there is no clear, consistent use of the term entrepreneur in the research. At least two scales, the Entrepreneurial Quotient (EQ) and the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) (Huefner et al., 1996) have been developed to identify potential entrepreneurs. While the GEM studies operate at the global level, there have been several studies that deal with entrepreneurship at a more narrow level of analysis. Some studies looked at the impact of entrepreneurial education in Ireland over a fouryear span. Characteristics, such as attitudes towards entrepreneurship and personal and family background, were evaluated. The results found that the students survey moved slightly towards a more entrepreneurial attitude and the levels of self-employment increased. Abbeys (2002) cross-cultural study on motivation for entrepreneurship found significant differences between two culturesone defined as individualist and the other collectiviston the desire for independence and need for economic security.
Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study 9

Herron and Sapienza (1992, p. 49) stated, Because motivation plays an important part in the creation of new organizations, theories of organizational creation that fail to address this notion are incomplete. Kuratko et al. (1997) reported that the lack of empirical research into entrepreneurial motivation was still evident. McClelland (1961) argued that a high need for achievement was a personality trait common to entrepreneurs. A great deal of research has focused on the characteristics of entrepreneurs (Churchill and Lewis, 1986; and Shaver and Scott, 1991). In spite of the large number of studies examining personality traits of entrepreneurs (Churchill and Lewis, 1986; and Timmons, 1999), the results are still mixed and inconclusive (Shaver and Scott, 1991; and Herron and Sapienza, 1992). Douglas and Shepherd (1999, p. 231), using anticipated risk as a predictor, stated, The more tolerant one is of risk bearing, the greater is the incentive to be self-employed. Earlier studies focusing on entrepreneurship have been devoted to evaluating the extent to which a persons traits and personality characteristics (for example, internal vs. external locus of control, extraversion vs. introversion, achievement motivation, affiliation needs) lead to entrepreneurial actions (Ahmed, 1985; Begley and Boyd, 1987; Miner et al., 1989; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; and Lumpkin and Erdogan, 1999). Using a sample of students and small business executives, Chen et al. (1998) controlled for variables, such as age, gender, educational level, the number of entrepreneurial friends and relatives, and the number of entrepreneurial courses that they had taken. On similar lines, Chandler and Jensen (1992) completed a study in which individuals were queried about their competence in executing skills necessary for effectiveness in not only entrepreneurial, but also managerial, and technicalfunctional roles. It is felt that individuals might be more inclined to pursue entrepreneurship if they believe that they possess the necessary skills to function in such an environment (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Chen et al., 1998; and Golden and Cooke, 1998). An overview of research literature on student research for entrepreneurial career, intentions, motivations, competencies, soft skills and related areas have been listed below: Entrepreneurial Intentions: Dunn and Wharton (2004) worked on the decision making process of students entering higher national diploma. Segal et al. (2005) studied the motivation to become an entrepreneur. Jean and Alain (2008) debated and discussed on, Is entrepreneurial intention stable through time? Keith and
10 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

Corbett (2006) examined entrepreneurial intentions.

proclivity

for

improvisation

as

predictor

of

Influence of Demographics: Shuman et al. (1987) studied the effect of educational background on entrepreneurial activity. Peter and Jean (1989) made a comparative study on entrepreneurial attitudes of graduates from small business background and those from employee background. Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) made a comparative study on entrepreneurial intention among the Indonesian and Norwegian students. Hinz and JungbauerGans (1999) made a study on starting a business after unemployment, their characteristics and chances of success (This is an empirical evidence from a regional German labor market). Louw et al. (2003) studied entrepreneurial traits of undergraduate students at selected South African Tertiary Institutions. Wilson et al. (2007) studied gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions and its implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Education: Scott (1988) made a study on the UK experience of encouraging graduate enterprise and some aspects of long-term supply of entrepreneurs. Kirby and Mullen (1990) presented the results of an experiment on developing enterprise in graduates. Lee and Wong (2003) made a study on attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new venture creation. Laukkanen (2000) discussed exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education for creating micro mechanisms for endogenous regional growth. Creed et al. (2002) worked on engineering entrepreneurship, and discussed an example of a paradigm shift in engineering education. Adcroft et al. (2006) questioned, Is there really a value in entrepreneurship education? Brennan and McGowan (2006) discussed academic entrepreneurship through an exploratory case study. Eyal and Inbar (2003) examined developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory, through theoretical conceptualization and empirical examination. Richard and Schwartz (2003) studied university student e-tailing through a marketing study at the entrepreneurship interface. Leitch and Harrison (1999) worked on a process model for entrepreneurship education and development. Hansemark (1998) studied the effects of an entrepreneurship program on the need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. Carrier (2008) given a prospective map, a new method for helping future entrepreneurs in expanding their initial business ideas. Moro et al. (2004) discussed on training the future entrepreneur. Peterman and Kennedy (2003) studied enterprise education and its role in influencing students perceptions of entrepreneurship. Indian Context: Sridhar (2003) conducted a study on entrepreneurship awareness among student and non-student youth of Bangalore and Dharwad districts of Karnataka. Narendra (2006) worked on the intention for entrepreneurship among students in India. Krishnaveni (2007) analyzed self-efficacy and professional
Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study 11

competencies among management students. Balaji (2007) studied perception of students towards group work and group management projects. Dhrupad (2004) developed a technical and entrepreneurial research information system. He suggested an applied e-model for sustainable entrepreneurship development. Nagayya (2005) studied perspectives of entrepreneurship development, innovation and business incubators. Naresh and Ashish (2007) studied career aspirations of management students with special reference to entrepreneurship as career.

Research Objectives
A review of the literature above suggests that researchers have for long been interested in kmowing why some college educated people become entrepreneurs. Sociological studies focus primarily on background influences, such as gender, ethnic origin, and education, and study the extent to which entrepreneurs or persons with entrepreneurial intentions share these variables (Motilal and Umesh, 2005). Growth of institutions in India is exponential. Owing to population explosion, universities are bringing out a large number of graduates in all faculties. It is the social responsibility of universities to provide alternate career opportunities for their graduates. It is necessary to continuously inventory students attitudes, intentions, skills and competencies for an entrepreneurial career and build up a database of prospective entrepreneurs. This helps in designing competency-based curriculum for entrepreneurship education. In the Indian context, little research has been carried out in establishing relationship between demographic details of prospective entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial characteristics. There are indications of non-influence of demographic details on soft skills among students (Vasantha Kumara and Sahasranam, 2008). To further investigate these observations, this case study was undertaken. The main objectives of this study are: To inventory entrepreneurial characteristics among business management students; and To examine the influence of demographic details of the students on their entrepreneurial characteristics.

Research Methodology
A quiz for testing entrepreneurial characteristics consisting of 25 statements with true/false answers is administered to a convenience sample of 51 students belonging to second module postgraduate diploma in management (All India Management (Bansal, 1993).
12 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

Association)

program at DSI campus, Bangalore

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Constructs

A quiz for testing entrepreneurial characteristics (Bansal, 1993) consisting of 25 statements with true/false answers, measures the following constructs (Table 1): Table 1: Research Instrument
Construct CGS Item No. CGS-Q5 CGS-Q9 CGS-Q16 CGS-Q17 CGS-Q22 PPS PPS-Q7 PPS-Q8 PPS-Q13 PPS-Q20 PPS-Q23 TOU TOU-Q2 TOU-Q6 TOU-Q10 TOU-Q12 TOU-Q19 DFI DFI-Q3 DFI-Q14 DFI-Q18 DFI-Q24 DFI-25 INN INN-Q1 Statements of Indicators

I have a plan of where I want to be financially sound 10 years from now. I revise my goals from time to time in the light of changing situations. Once I have a challenge, I am usually satisfied, and do not need to look for other projects. I normally start off my day with a list of things to do. I usually have a plan of action before starting a project. I see potential problems as challenges. Constantly having to deal with challenges wears me down. I thrive on the challenge of solving different problems. I am not good at dealing with a multitude of problems at the same time. I am good at finding creative ways for solving problems. When a decision has to be made, I can make it easily even though I am not sure of the outcome. When I am placed in a new situation at work, I quickly sort out what needs to be done. It is important for me to know that I have a dependable income. If I were laid off, I know I could find some other source of income. The fear of losing my job causes me great apprehension. I have a strong need for social interaction. I dont enjoy being directed by others. I dont enjoy working alone. The idea of being my own boss appeals to me. At times I dont feel completely comfortable with myself. When faced with a problem, I always find a new way of overcoming it.
(Cont.)

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

13

Table 1: Research Instrument

Construct Item No. INN-Q4 INN-Q11 INN-Q15 INN-Q21 Statements of Indicators After learning how to do something right the first time, I dont change my approach. When I am dealing with a problem, I tend to get stuck up easily. I take courses on how to improve what I do. I consider myself to be very resourceful in tight situations.

Research Propositions
Test scores on entrepreneurial characteristics are independent of the demographic details of the students (10th class marks, 12th class marks, degree marks and father/guardians occupation). The correlation coefficients between academic marks and their test scores on entrepreneurial characteristics are poor.

Validity and Reliability Analysis

Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition with the same subjects. In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A measure is considered reliable if a persons score on the same test given twice is similar. It is important to remember that reliability is not measured, it is estimated. Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping questions in a questionnaire that measure the same concept. For example, you could write two sets of three questions that measure the same concept and after collecting the responses, run a correlation between those two groups of three questions to determine if your instrument is reliably measuring that concept. One common way of computing correlation values among the questions on your instruments is by using Cronbachs alpha. In short, Cronbachs alpha splits all the questions on your instrument IN every possible way and computes correlation values for them all. In the end, your computer output generates one number for Cronbachs alpha and just like a correlation coefficient, the closer it is to one, the higher the reliability estimate of your instrument. Cronbachs alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single one-dimensional latent construct. When data have a multidimensional structure, Cronbachs alpha will usually be low. Technically speaking, Cronbachs alpha is not a statistical testit is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Cronbachs alpha can be written as a function of the number of test items and the average inter-correlation among the items. Validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions. More formally, Cook and Campbell (1979) define it as the best available approximation to the truth or falsity of a given inference, proposition or conclusion. In short, were we right?
14 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

Factor analysis (Kothari, 2006) is by far the most often used multivariate technique of research studies, specially pertaining to social and behavioral sciences. It is a technique applicable when there is a systematic interdependence among a set of observed or manifest variables and the researcher is interested in finding out something more fundamental or latent which creates this commonality. Factor analysis, thus, seeks to resolve a large set of measured variables in terms of relatively few categories, known as factors. This technique allows one to group variables into factors (based on correlation between variables) and the factors so derived may be treated as new variables (often termed as latent variables) and their value derived by summing the values of the original, which have been grouped into the factor. The researcher subjectively determines the meaning and name of such new variables. Since the factors happen to be linear combinations of data, the coordinates of each observation or variable is measured to obtain what are called factor loadings. Such factor loadings represent the correlation between the particular variable and the factor, and are usually placed in the matrix of correlations between the variable and the factors.

Validity and Reliability Analysis for all the Indicators of the Constructs
Using visual PLS software, all the above items and constructs were factor analyzed. Composite reliability, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Cronbach alpha were determined for each construct (Table 2). Table 2: Composite Reliability, AVE and Cronbach Alpha
Construct CGS PPS TOU DFI INN Composite Reliability Ave 0.277973 0.278158 0.314414 0.348543 0.278645 Cronbach Alpha

0.373765 0.632940 0.662396 0.209138 0.532092

0.195237 0.311793 0.392186 0.018180 0.115242

Cronbachs alpha is commonly used to establish internal consistency construct validity. AVE displays convergent validity. Composite reliability is a measure of reliability of measuring the construct. The whole instrument measured composite reliability of 0.6 and Cronbach alpha of 0.5. Factor loadings have been above 0.6 for selected indicators of the constructs (Table 3). Cronbach alpha coefficient, a measure of construct reliability improves for selected indicators of the construct. Table 4 indicates the acceptable composite reliability (above 0.7) and AVE (above 0.4). Cronbach alpha has been found to be around 0.4. Table 5 establishes the construct validity.

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

15

Table 3: Factor Analysis for Selected Indicators of the Construct

Construct CGS Indicator CGS-Q5 CGS-Q17 CGS-Q22 PPS PPS-Q7 PPS-Q13 PPS-Q23 TOU TOU-Q6 TOU-Q10 TOU-Q19 DFI DFI-Q3 DFI-Q18 INN INN-Q1 INN-Q21 Mean 0.627451 0.313725 0.823529 0.803922 0.588235 0.843137 0.784314 0.215686 0.529412 0.313725 0.352941 0.862745 0.764706 Std. Dev. 0.488294 0.468623 0.385013 0.400979 0.497050 0.367290 0.415390 0.415390 0.504101 0.468623 0.482640 0.347540 0.428403 Loading 0.6501 0.6846 0.6890 0.6019 0.7598 0.5976 0.6579 0.7722 0.6902 0.8583 0.8583 0.8112 0.8112 Residual 0.5773 0.5313 0.5252 0.6378 0.4227 0.6429 0.5671 0.4037 0.5237 0.2633 0.2633 0.3420 0.3420 Weight 0.4759 0.5011 0.5044 0.4642 0.5860 0.4609 0.4370 0.5129 0.4584 0.5825 0.5825 0.6164 0.6164

Table 4: Reliability Analysis for Selected Indicators of the Construct

Construct CGS PPS TOU DFI INN CGS-Q5, Selected Indicators CGS-Q17, CGS-Q22 Composite Reliability 0.714827 0.692652 0.750508 0.848387 0.793739 Ave 0.455369 0.432220 0.501834 0.736694 0.658016 Cronbach Alpha 0.395714 0.342809 0.494737 0.642353 0.472441

PPS-Q7, PPS-Q13, PPS-Q23 TOU-Q6, TOU-Q10, TOU-Q19 DFI-Q3, DFI-Q18 INN-Q1, INN-Q21

Table 5: Correlation of Latent Variables for Selected Indicators of the Construct

Construct CGS PPS TOU DFI INN CGS 1.0 0.21 0.38 0.009 0.351 1.0 0.204 0.084 0.396 1.0 0.118 0.285 1.0 0.115 1.0 PPS TOU DFI INN

16

The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

Parametric and Non-Parametric Tests

Parametric tests assume that the population is normal. Non-parametric tests are distribution free tests. The p-value, which directly depends on a given sample, attempts to provide a measure of the strength of the results of a test, in contrast to a simple reject or do not reject. If the null hypothesis is true and the chance of random variation is the only reason for sample differences, the p-value is a quantitative measure to feed into the decision making process as evidence. A p-value is a measure of how much evidence you have against the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence you have.

Tests on Correlation Coefficients Between Academic Marks and Test Scores

H0: Correlation coefficient between 10th class marks and their scores on Entrepreneurial characteristics is zero. Table 6: Sample Size = 41 Students
Construct Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0 CGS 0.14061 0.38100 Little PPS 0.072768 0.651000 Little TOU 0.37251 0.01600 Moderate DFI 0.02689 0.86700 Little INN 0.140133 0.382000 Little

Table 6 indicates that there are no strong evidences against the stated null hypothesis. H0: Correlation coefficient between 12th class marks and their scores on entrepreneurial characteristics is zero. Table 7: Sample Size = 41 Students
Construct Correlation p-Value Evidence Against H0 CGS 0.041484 0.797000 Little PPS 0.061857 0.701000 Little TOU 0.22254 0.16200 Little DFI 0.078251 0.627000 Little INN 0.183383 0.251000 Little

Table 7 indicates that there are no strong evidences against the stated null hypothesis. H0: Correlation coefficient between degree marks and their scores on entrepreneurial characteristics is zero. TABLE 8: Sample Size = 35 Students
Constructs Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0 CGS 0.02028 0.908 Little PPS 0.239273 0.166 Little TOU 0.111936 0.522 Little DFI 0.190313 0.273 Little INN 0.330137 0.053 Moderate
17

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

Excepting one case, from Table 8, it is indicated that there are no strong evidences against the stated null hypothesis.

Sample Size: 10th Class Marks Below 60% = 14, Above 60% = 27, Total = 41 Students
H0: There are no significant differences between the mean scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students whose 10th class marks are below or above 60%. Table 9: t-Test, F-Test and 95% Confidence Intervals
Factor 10th class Marks<60 10th class Marks>60 Diff. in Means Stats Mean Var. Mean Var. p -value t-stat Evidence Against H0 Ratio of Variances p -value F-stat CGS 3.357143 1.324176 2.962963 1.113960 0.295000 1.070000 Little 0.680000 1.190000 Little 0.366500 1.154000 PPS 3.142857 2.285714 3.518519 1.182336 0.419000 0.830000 Little 0.148000 1.930000 Little 1.324000 0.573000 TOU 3.500000 1.807692 2.629630 0.626781 0.040000 2.230000 Moderate 0.021000 2.880000 Moderate 0.046900 1.693000 DFI 2.071429 1.763736 2.333333 1.000000 0.524000 0.650000 Little 0.212000 1.760000 Little 1.104000 0.580000 INN 3.142857 1.208791 3.629630 1.088319 0.184000 1.370000 Little 0.787000 1.110000 Little 1.219000 0.246000

Evidence Against H0 95% CI for (LL) Diff. in Means (UL)

H0:

There is equality in variances of scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students irrespective of whether the 10th class marks are below or above 60% Table 10: Chi-Square Tests of Relationship

Construct Test Scores 10th Marks Less Than 60% More Than 60% Chi-Square Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0
18

CGS 0-2 4 3-5 10

PPS 0-2 5 3-5 9

TOU 0-2 3 3-5 11

DFI 0-2 10 3-5 4 0-2 4

INN 3-5 10

19

23

11

16

14

13

23

0.004980 0.011028 0.944000 Little

2.35046 0.23280 0.12500 Little

1.529130 0.189618 0.216000 Little

1.45577 0.18517 0.22800 Little

1.11095 0.16242 0.29200 Little

The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

H0: 10th class marks have little influence on entrepreneurial characteristics. Table 11: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests of Independence
Construct 10th Class Marks/ Scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test Statistic-D Evidence Against H0 0 0 4 4 3 3 0 3 5 10 8 1 0 3 2 2 4 3 0 1 3 10 7 6 0 1 2 5 1 5 0 2 9 13 3 0 1 4 5 2 1 1 0 7 7 10 3 0 0 1 3 4 5 1 0 1 3 6 12 5 CGS <60 >60 PPS <60 >60 TOU <60 >60 DFI <60 >60 INN <60 >60

0.1772487 No Real

0.2089947 No Real

0.3571429 No Real

0.1957672 No Real

0.2010582 No Real

Excepting one case, from Tables 9, 10 and 11, both parametric and nonparametric tests show that the students 10th class marks have little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics.

Sample Size: 12th Class Marks Below 60% =17, Above 60%=24, Total = 41 Students
H0: There are no significant differences between the mean scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students whose 12th class marks are below or above 60%. Table 12: t-Test, F-Test and 95% Confidence Intervals
Factor 12th Class Marks<60 12th Class Marks>60 Diff. in Means Stats. Mean Var Mean Var p -Value t-Stat. Evidence Against H0 Ratio of Variances p -Value FStat. CGS 2.882353 1.235294 3.250000 1.152174 0.298000 1.060000 Little 0.890000 1.070000 Little 1.074300 (UL) 0.339000 PPS 3.117647 2.110294 3.583333 1.123188 0.270000 1.130000 Little 0.163000 1.880000 Little TOU 3.058824 1.683824 2.833333 0.840580 0.543000 0.620000 Little 0.125000 2.000000 Little DFI 2.117647 1.735294 2.333333 0.927536 0.570000 0.570000 Little 0.166000 1.870000 Little 0.985300 0.554000 INN 3.000000 1.375000 3.791667 0.780797 0.045000 2.110000 Little 0.204000 1.790000 Little 1.441000 0.016300
19

Evidence Against H0 95% CI for Diff. in Means (LL)

1.314000 0.527100 0.382600 0.978100

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

H0:

There is equality in variances of scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students whose 12th class marks are below or above 60%. Table 13: Chi-Square Test of Relationship

Constructs Test Scores 12th Marks Less Than 60% More Than 60% Chi-Square Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0 5

CGS 0-2 7 3-5 10

PPS 0-2 7 3-5 10

TOU 0-2 5 3-5 12

DFI 0-2 12 3-5 5 0-2 6

INN 3-5 11

19

22

15

12

12

22

1.9893 0.21511 0.15800 Little

6.26528 0.36408 0.01200 Moderate

0.28950 0.08373 0.59100 Little

1.73788 0.20165 0.18700 Little

4.60580 0.31770 0.03200 Moderate

H0: 12th class marks have little influence on entrepreneurial characteristics. Table 14: Kolmogorov- Smirnov Tests of Independence
Constructs 12th Class Marks/ Scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test Statistic-D Evidence Against H0 0 1 6 6 2 2 0 2 3 8 9 2 0 3 4 1 6 3 0 1 1 11 5 6 0 2 3 8 0 4 0 1 8 10 4 1 1 5 6 2 2 1 0 6 6 10 2 0 0 2 4 4 6 1 0 0 2 6 11 5 CGS <60 >60 PPS <60 >60 TOU <60 >60 DFI <60 >60 INN <60 >60

0.2230392 No Real

0.3284314 No Real

0.1936275 No Real

0.2058824 No Real

0.2696078 No Real

Excepting two cases, from Tables 12, 13 and 14, both parametric and non-parametric tests show that the students 12th class marks have little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics.
20 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

Sample Size: Degree Marks Upto 60% = 13, More Than 60% = 22, Total = 35 Students
H0: There are no significant differences between the mean scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students degree marks less than or greater than 60%. Table 15: t-Test, F-Test and 95% Confidence Intervals
Factor Degree <60 Degree >60 Diff. in Means Marks Marks Stats. Mean Var. Mean Var. p-Value t-Stat. Evidence Against H0 Ratio of Variances p -Value F-Stat. CGS 2.923077 1.076923 3.272727 1.350649 0.365000 0.920000 Little 0.701000 0.800000 Little 1.128000 0.429500 PPS 3.076923 1.743590 3.545455 1.212121 0.294000 TOU 2.461538 1.102564 3.090909 1.229437 0.105000 DFI 2.076923 1.910256 2.454545 0.926407 0.397000 0.870000 Little 0.141000 2.060000 Little 1.291000 0.535000 INN 2.923077 1.576923 3.681818 0.703463 0.068000 1.940000 Suggestive 0.102000 2.240000 Little 1.581000 0.063000

1.080000 1.680000 Little 0.450000 1.440000 Little Little 0.872000 0.900000 Little

Evidence Against H0 95% CI for (LL)

1.373000 1.400000 0.436000 0.141600

Diff. in Means (UL)

H0:

There is equality in variances of scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students degree marks less than or more than 60%. Table 16: Chi-Square Test of Relationship

Constructs Test Scores Degree Marks

CGS 0-2 4 3-5 9

PPS 0-2 5 3-5 8

TOU 0-2 7 3-5 6

DFI 0-2 9 3-5 4 0-2 5

INN 3-5 8

Less Than 60% More Than 60% Chi-Square Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0 5 17 3 19 7 15 11 1.2339 0.1845 0.2670 Little 11 2 20

0.27665 0.08855 0.59900 Little

2.85600 0.27467 0.09100 Suggestive

1.65209 0.21230 0.19900 Little

4.4055 0.3343 0.0360 Moderate

H0: Degree marks have little influence on entrepreneurial characteristics.

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study 21

Table 17: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests of Independence

Constructs Degree 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test Statistic-D Evidence Against H0 CGS >60 0 2 3 7 7 3 PPS <60 0 1 4 4 1 3 >60 0 1 2 8 6 5 TOU <60 0 2 5 5 0 1 >60 0 1 6 8 4 3 DFI <60 1 4 4 2 1 1 >60 0 4 7 8 3 0 INN <60 0 2 3 3 4 1 >60 0 0 2 6 11 3

Marks/Scores <60 0 1 3 6 2 1

0.2237762 No Real

0.2482517 No Real

0.2412587 No Real

0.2027972 No Real

0.2937063 No Real

Excepting two cases, from Tables 15, 16 and 17, both parametric and non-parametric tests show that the students degree marks have little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics.

Sample Size: Father/Guardians Occupation in Business = 15, In Service = 28, Total = 43 Students
H0: There are no significant differences between the mean scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students whether the father/guardians occupation is business or service. Table 18: t-Test, F-Test and 95% Confidence Intervals
Factor Father in Business Stats. Mean Var. CGS 3.333333 1.095238 2.892857 1.432540 0.220000 1.250000 Little 0.609000 0.760000 Little 0.277000 1.158000 PPS 3.400000 1.685714 3.392857 1.432540 0.986000 0.020000 Little 0.691000 1.180000 Little TOU 3.133333 1.12381 2.785714 1.285714 0.325000 1.000000 Little 0.815000 0.870000 Little DFI 2.200000 1.171429 2.357143 1.201058 0.655000 0.450000 Little 0.997000 0.980000 Little INN 3.666667 0.666667 3.285714 1.322751 0.216000 1.260000 Little 0.180000 0.500000 Little

Father in Service Mean Var. Diff. in Means p -Value t-Stat Evidence Against H0 Ratio of Variances p -Value F-Stat.

Evidence Against H0 95% CI for (LL)

0.824100 0.362300 0.838400 1.057000

0.868000 0.232500 0.554200 0.994400

Diff. in Means (UL)

22

The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

H0: There is equality in variances of scores on entrepreneurial characteristics of students whether the father/guardians occupation is business or service. Table 19: Chi-Square Test of Relationship
Constructs Test Scores Father in Business Father in Service Chi-Square Correlation p -Value Evidence Against H0 CGS 0-2 4 10 3-5 11 18 PPS 0-2 4 5 3-5 11 23 TOU 0-2 3 12 3-5 12 16 DFI 0-2 8 16 3-5 7 12 0-2 2 7 INN 3-5 13 21

0.3641332 0.0916300 0.5460000 Little

0.45803 0.10266 0.49900 Little

2.246530 0.222820 0.134000 Little

0.05747 0.03653 0.81100 Little

0.803322 0.135422 0.370000 Little

H0: Father/guardians occupation has little influence on entrepreneurial characteristics. Table 20: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Tests of Independence
Constructs Father/Guardians 0 1 2 3 4 5 Test Statistic-D Evidence Against H0 Occup. B 0 0 4 4 5 2 CGS S 0 4 6 10 5 3 B 0 1 3 4 3 4 PPS S 0 3 2 9 9 5 TOU B 0 1 2 8 2 2 S 0 3 9 10 3 3 B 1 3 4 6 1 0 DFI S 0 7 9 8 3 1 B 0 0 2 2 10 1 INN S 0 2 5 8 9 4

0.1809524 No Real

0.0880952 No Real

0.2285714 No Real

0.0761905 No Real

0.2690476 No Real

From Tables 18, 19 and 20, both parametric and non-parametric tests show that the students father/guardians occupation has little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics.

Summary of Findings
Validity and Reliability Analysis: The whole instrument measured composite reliability of 0.6 and Cronbach alpha of 0.5. There has been an acceptable composite reliability (above 0.7) and AVE (above 0.4) for the selected indicators of the constructs. Cronbach alpha has been around 0.4 for the constructs. Parametric Methods: Excepting a few cases, correlation coefficients, t-test for significant difference in means, F-test for variances and their p-values
23

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

indicate that demographic details have little influence on entrepreneurial characteristics. This has been confirmed by 95% Confidence intervals for difference in means. Non-Parametric Methods: The results from parametric tests have been verified using chi-square tests of relationships and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of independence.

Conclusion
This paper first demonstrates the validity and reliability analysis of the research instrument (questionnaire) with the help of visual PLS software. Further, the influence of demographic details on entrepreneurial characteristics has been studied by hypotheses testing. Parametric methods have been presented and the results have been verified by non-parametric tests which indicate that demographic details have little influence on their entrepreneurial characteristics of the students. This study is limited to DSI campus. Large sample tests for students belonging to different disciplines and colleges confirm these findings. The findings of this study prove that it is possible to tune and shape students entrepreneurial attitude and skills with well-planned training programs. It is important to continuously inventory students entrepreneurial skills and competencies to design a database of prospective entrepreneurs. This study helps soft skills trainers to design competency-based curriculum for entrepreneurship education. Continuous student research and well-planned training program, along with conducive creativity and innovation can help in creating a rich entrepreneurial culture among students.

References
1. Abbey A (2002), Cross Cultural Comparison of Motivation for Entrepreneurship, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14, No. 1, March. 2. Adcroft Andy, Dhaliwal Spinder and Willis Robert (2006), Is There Really a Value in Entrepreneurship Education?, The Icfai Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 37-49. 3. Ahmed S U (1985), nAch, Risk Taking Propensity, Locus of Control and Entrepreneurship, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 781-782. 4. Balaji M S (2007), Perception of Students Towards Group Work and Group Management Projects, The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 43-56. 5. Bansal C L (1993) , Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, Haranand
24

Publications.
The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

6. Begley T M and Boyd D P (1987), Psychological Characteristics Associated with Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms and Smaller Businesses, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 79-93. 7. Boyd N G and Vozikis G S (1994), The Influences of Self-Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions, Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 63-90. 8. Brennan Michael C and McGowan Pauric (2006), Academic Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Case Study, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 12, No. 3. 9. Brockhaus R H (1980), Risk-Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 509-520. 10. Carrier Camille (2008), The Prospective Map: A New Method for Helping Future Entrepreneurs in Expanding Their Initial Business Ideas, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 28-44. 11. Chandler G and Jensen E (1992), The Founder's Self-Assessed Competence and Venture Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 223-236. 12. Chen C C, Greene P G and Crick A (1998), Does Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 295-316. 13. Churchill N C and Lewis V L (Eds.) (1986), Entrepreneurship Research, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, MA. 14. Cook T D and Campbell D (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago. 15. Creed Christopher J, Suuberg Eric M and Crawford Gregory P (2002), Engineering Entrepreneurship: An Example of a Paradigm Shift in Engineering Education, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 91, No. 2. 16. Davis Susan (2002), Social Entrepreneurship: Towards an Entrepreneurial Culture for Social and Economic Development, International Board Selection Committee, Ashoka: Innovators for the Public Prepared by Request for the Youth Employment Summit, September 7-11. 17. Dhrupad Mathur (2004), Technical and Entrepreneurial Research Information System: An Applied E-Model for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development, The Icfai Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 1, No. 4. 18. Douglas E J and Shepherd D A (1999), Entrepreneurship as a Utility Maximizing Response, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 231-251.
Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study 25

19. Dunn C and Wharton H (2004), The Decision Making Process of Students Entering Higher National Diploma, The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 3, No. 10. 20. Eyal Ori and Inbar Dan E (2003), Developing a Public School Entrepreneurship Inventory: Theoretical Conceptualization and Empirical Examination, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 9, No. 6. 21. Golden P A and Cooke D K (1998), Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Some Antecedents and Outcomes, Paper Presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, San Diego, CA. 22. Hansemark Ove C (1998), The Effects of an Entrepreneurship Programme on Need for Achievement and Locus of Control of Reinforcement, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 4, No. 1. 23. Herron L and Sapienza H J (1992), The Entrepreneur and the Initiation of New Venture Launch Activities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 49-55. 24. Hinz T and Jungbauer-Gans M (1999), Starting a Business after Unemployment: Characteristics and Chances of Success (Empirical Evidence from a Regional German Labour Market, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 317-333. 25. Huefner J C, Hunt H K and Robinson P B (1996), A Comparison of Four Scales Predicting Entrepreneurship, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol. 1, No. 2. 26. Jean Michel Degeorge and Alain Fayolle (2008), Is Entrepreneurial Intention Stable Through Time? First Insights from a Sample of French Students, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7-27. 27. Jen-Ruie Fu, Visual PLS Software, Version 1.04b1 Developed by Department of Information Management, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences. 28. Keith M Hmieleski and Corbett Andrew C (2006), Proclivity for Improvisation as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial Intentions, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 45-63. 29. Kirby D A and Mullen D C (1990), Developing Enterprise in Graduates: The Results of an Experiment, FER Babson College, pp. 601-602, Wellesley, MA. 30. Kothari C R (2006), Research Methodology; Methods and Techniques, New Age International Publishers. 31. Krishnaveni R (2007), Self-Efficacy of Professional Competencies among Management Students: An Analysis, The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 57-61.
26 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

32. Kristiansen S and Indarti N (2004), Entrepreneurial Intention among Indonesian and Norwegian Students, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 55-78. 33. Krueger N (1993), The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 31, pp. 5-21. 34. Krueger N F and Brazeal D (1994), Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, pp. 91-104. 35. Kuratko D F, Hornsby J S and Naffziger D W (1997), An Examination of Owner's Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 24-33. 36. Laukkanen M (2000), Exploring Alternative Approaches in High-Level Entrepreneurship Education: Creating Micro Mechanisms for Endogenous Regional Growth, Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 25-47. 37. Lee L and Wong P K (2003), Attitude Towards Entrepreneurship Education and New Venture Creation, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 339-357. 38. Leitch Claire M and Harrison Richard T (1999), A Process Model for Entrepreneurship Education and Development, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 5, No. 3. 39. Louw L, van Eeden S M, Bosch J K and Venter D J L (2003), Entrepreneurial traits of Undergraduate Students at Selected South African Tertiary Institutions, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 9, No. 1. 40. Lumpkin G T and Dess G G (1996), Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 135-172. 41. Lumpkin G T and Erdogan B (1999), If not Entrepreneurship, Can Psychological Characteristics Predict Entrepreneurial Orientation? A Pilot Study, Working Paper, University of Illinios at Chicago, Chicago, IL. 42. Markman G D, Balkin D B and Baron R A (2002), Inventors and New Venture Formation: The Effects of General Self-Efficacy and Regretful Thinking, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 149-166. 43. McClelland D C (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, New York. 44. Moro Davide, Alberto Poli and Bernard Chiara (2004), Training the Future Entrepreneur, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp. 192-205.

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

27

45. Motilal Dash and Umesh Dhyani (2005), Entrepreneurship Culture, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 46. Nagayya D (2005), Has Studied Perspectives of Entrepreneurship

Development: Role of STEPs, Innovation and Business Incubators, The Icfai Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 2, No. 2. 47. Narendra C Bhandari (2006), Intention for Entrepreneurship Among

Students in India, Journal of Entrepreneurship, February. 48. Naresh Singh and Ashish Mitra (2007), Career Aspirations of Management Students with Special Reference to Entrepreneurship as Career, The Icfai Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, Vol. 4, No. 1. 49. Peterman Nicole E and Kennedy Jessica (2003), Enterprise Education: Influencing Students' Perceptions of Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 129-144. 50. Peter Rosa and Jean-Charles Cachon (1989), Do Graduates from Small Business Backgrounds have more Entrepreneurial Attitudes than those from Employee Backgrounds?: Career Aspirations and Attitudes: An Investigation into the Impact of an Enterprise Initiative on the Career Aspirations of Graduates, Scottish Enterprise Foundation, Stirling. 51. Prasad Kaipa, Thomas Milus, Subash Chowdary and Jagadeesh B V (2005), Soft Skills are Smart Skills, Kaipa Group, available at ww.kaipagroup.com/ articles/softskills.php 52. Richard D Teach and Schwartz Robert G (2003), University Student E-Tailing: A Marketing Study at the Entrepreneurship Interface, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 133-145. 53. Rotefoss B and Kolvereid An L (2005), of Aspiring, the Nascent and Fledging Process, Entrepreneurs: Investigation Business Startup

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 109-127. 54. Schere J L (1982), Tolerance of Ambiguity as a Discriminating Variable Between Entrepreneurs and Managers, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, pp. 404-408. 55. Scott M G (1988), Aspects of the Long Term Supply of Entrepreneurs: The UK Experience of Encouraging Graduate Enterprise, SEF Conference Paper Series No. 16/88, University of Stirling. 56. Segal Gerry, Borgia Dan and Schoenfeld Jerry (2005), The Motivation to Become an Entrepreneur, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 42-57.
28 The Icfaian Journal of Management Research, Vol. VIII, No. 6, 2009

57. Shane S and Venkataraman S (2000), The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 217-226. 58. Shaver K G and Scott L R (1991), Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of New Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 23-45. 59. Shepherd D A (1999), Venture Capitalists Assessment of New Venture Growth, Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 621-632. Shuman J C, Seeger J A and Teebagy N C (1987), Entrepreneurial Activity and Educational Background, Babson Research Conference, pp. 590-599. 60. Sridhar M K (2003), UGC Research Report on Entrepreneurial Awareness Among Student and Non-Student Youth of Bangalore and Dharwad Districts of Karnataka, Bangalore University. 61. Timmons J A (1999), New Venture Creation, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL. 62. Vasantha kumara S A and Sahasranam C (2008), An Empirical Study on Students' Soft Skills Inventory Test: Reliability and Non-Parametric Analysis, The Icfai University Journal of Soft Skills, Vol. 2, No. 3. 63. Wilson Fiona, Kickul Jill and Marlino Deborah (2007), Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 387-406.

Reference # 02J-2009-06-01-01

Entrepreneurial Characteristics Among Business Management Students: An Empirical Study

29