“What, exactly, is Entrepreneurial Commitment?

Modelling the Commitment of Successful Entrepreneurs

Rahayu Tasnim

Netherlands Maritime Institute of Technology

EduCity, Iskandar@Nusajaya, Malaysia
+6016-7024622

rahayu@nmit.edu.my or rahayu.tasnim@gmail.com

Journal of Applied Management & Entrepreneurship (in publication), 2016

1
 “What, exactly, is Entrepreneurial Commitment?”
Modelling the Commitment of Successful Entrepreneurs

Abstract

This paper puts ‘commitment’ under the microscope, and intends to address the questions

concerning entrepreneurial behavior, leading to entrepreneurial success; “What is

entrepreneurial commitment and how is it developed?” An ‘Entrepreneurial Commitment

Metrics’ was constructed and distributed to 600 successful entrepreneurs throughout

Malaysia and data was analysed using the Component-Based Structural Equation

Modeling (CB-SEM). In doing so, the Partial Least Squares (PLS) methodology was

applied. This study holds that entrepreneurial commitment is shaped by the

entrepreneur’s affective, normative and continuous components and is the force that

binds and directs the entrepreneur to perform entrepreneurially. More paramount is the

discovery of seven antecedents of the three components of commitment, and on the

distinctiveness behavioral aspects of both commitment and motivation, untying the

intellectual complexity and meaning of commitment in the entrepreneurial process. The

Entrepreneurial Commitment Model is later presented.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial psychology, entrepreneurial commitment, entrepreneurial

success, entrepreneurial behavior, CB-SEM, PLS.

2
 INTRODUCTION

“If you deny yourself commitment, what can you do with your life?”

- Harvey Fierstein

Entrepreneurship is risky. It is analogous to being a lone captain of a boat, in the open

and violent seas, on a seemingly endless journey to a land unknown and perhaps,

unimaginable of. Before take-off, this journey is often envisaged by the captain to be a

smooth sailing endeavor, with failures predictably ‘manageable’ along the way. More

often, though, it is not. The real test kicks off when the boat begins to leak, while the

journey is yet thousands of miles away. Self-assured, the entrepreneur plasters the leak,

and his journey recommences. But who would guarantee that his boat will never, again

leak? Or, that a bad storm would never take place? No one. It may leak more frequently

than expected, and storms may recur each day. Often the entrepreneur faces extreme

hardships along the way, frustratingly making him slow down. In reality, many of them

decide to abandon ship. They quit.

What, exactly, makes a successful entrepreneur? What psychological mindset is

demanded for one to survive through the turbulent, dark seas, particularly in the first few

years of venture seafaring? How then does this mind-set influence entrepreneurial

behavior in the ensuing entrepreneurial phases? Does this psychological mindset impact

entrepreneurial performance? And, more importantly, if it does, what can be done to

nurture and develop the psychological mindset?

3
 We hear, quite often, people talking about ‘commitment’. It is a custom to hear,

for instance, people around us promoting commitment in the workplace, to students

preparing for the exams, to a marriage or relationship, and the list goes on. In other words,

commitment seems to be a prerequisite to realize positive behaviors and valuable outputs

in our daily activities, signifying that it is one of the most dominant psychological factors

in shaping behavior and how an individual acts. The psychological mindset of

commitment is, to this day, still debated across a myriad of research domains, including

entrepreneurship. Many have argued its significance in the entrepreneurial process and

that commitment is said to directly impact entrepreneurial performance. In short, the role

commitment plays in entrepreneurship is widely supported.

Nonetheless, although commitment is germane to the entrepreneurship literature,

a handful of singularities still remain to be demystified. For instance, what, exactly,

shapes entrepreneurial commitment? How does the ‘committed-mindset’ influence

entrepreneurial behavior and more precisely, entrepreneurial performance? And more

importantly, since commitment plays a key role in the entrepreneurship process, how

then is it possible for us to cultivate a committed-mindset amongst prospective

entrepreneurs? These are among the questions we responded to the quest to contribute to

the wealth of academic literature and practical managerial implications throughout this

research.

4
 In the following sections, we illumine the state of Malaysian entrepreneurial

activity and performance, and on how truly understanding the committed mindset would

immensely assist in the making of successful entrepreneurs.

LITERATURE REVIEW

From the Lens of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Reports

According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports, Malaysian

entrepreneurs perceive entrepreneurial conditions as “favorable”, particularly when

referring to physical infrastructure, internal market dynamics, i.e. entry regulations, and

financial support (GEM, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2014). Interestingly, Malaysian

entrepreneurs rank themselves as “high” in motivational levels (Chelliah, Sulaiman, &

Yusoff, 2010; Deraman, Zainuddin, & Hamdan, 2005; GEM 2014, 2010a, 2012; Yusof,

2001) much explained by the government’s assistance in terms of infrastructure and

funding to develop more young entrepreneurs (GEM 2014, 2010a; Ortmans, 2013) and

the motivation from other external drivers (GEM 2014; Omar & Sapuan, 2010). GEM’s

findings are supported by the World Bank which reported that in 2015, Malaysia ranked

17th out of 189 economies in “ease of doing business”, a 2-rank leap from 19th placing

in 2013 ("The Ease of Doing Business 2014: World Bank Data," 2013). In short,

entrepreneurial spirits have successfully been elevated following the continuous efforts

5
by policy makers and non-governmental institutions. As aimed, more and more young

people willingly jump into the entrepreneurship bandwagon.

On the other side of the coin, however, when it comes to genuine entrepreneurial

performance, Malaysia is still far left behind particularly in international market

orientation compared to other developing countries sharing the same political and

economic dynamics (GEM 2014, 2011, 2012) and that Malaysia’s overall entrepreneurial

impact has yet to be maximized (GEM 2014; GEM, 2010a; MIER, 2012; Ortmans, 2013).

At any national level, entrepreneurship success is measured by among others, the high

birth rate of start-ups and firms, high self-employment, as well as an increase in the

number of exports by new local firms (GEM, 2010a, 2011, 2014) and that “the true

measure of success of Malaysian entrepreneurs is the degree to which their products can

successfully compete in the global marketplace” (Annual Report, MECD, 2005; Ariff &

Abubakar, 2003; Chelliah, et al., 2010; Contractor, Kundu, & Chin, 2003). In an all-

inclusive National Expert Survey conducted by the GEM Malaysia team (GEM, 2010a),

Malaysia has only succeeded in capturing a mere 5% of international customers, and is

behind as much by 20% as compared to countries that hold the highest percentage of

entrepreneurial activities involving international orientation in the first 4 years of

business. Also reported was that “growth expectation is relatively low, with less than 7%

of new businesses expecting to hire more than 20 workers…with close to 84% seeing

themselves creating less than 5 jobs (GEM Malaysia, 2013).

6
 One central measure introduced by the GEM is the Total Early-Stage

Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rate, which consists of the percentage of individuals aged

18 – 64 years in an economy who are in the process of starting or are already running

new businesses (GEM, 2012). In 2014, 73 nations participated in GEM’s study,

collectively representing all regions of the world within a broad spectrum of economic

development levels. Based on the survey, the GEM project “covered an estimated 72.4%

of the world’s population and 90% of the world’s total GDP” (GEM, 2012, p. 13),

providing a comprehensive view of entrepreneurship across the globe by measuring the

attitudes of a population, and the activities and characteristics of individuals involved in

various phases and types of entrepreneurial activity (GEM, 2014). Hence, GEM’s unique

ability to provide information on the entrepreneurial landscape of countries in a global

context makes its data a necessary resource for any serious attempt to study and track

entrepreneurial behavior worldwide” (GEM 2014, 2010b).

GEM’s data pinpoints to a daunting fact; that in regards to TEA, Malaysia (5.9%)

locates herself at the bottom five in its group (efficient-driven economies), faintly

overtaking Russia and Kosovo (GEM, 2015). Even Thailand, Malaysia’s modest

counterpart, secures an impressive 23.3% of TEA, Indonesia 14.2% and the Philippines

18.4%. Although not in the same economic grouping, Singapore, Malaysia’s dynamic

neighbor, scored an extraordinary 11% rate. Back in 2010, Malaysia stood as the third

lowest in TEA rate (4.96%) in its group, sharing the spot with Romania. Romania,

7
however, gained notable momentum in 2014, securing an 11.4%. GEM (2012) illustrates

that 67% of Malaysians fail to realize their planned start-up, while more than half (50%)

of businesses fail in their first 4 years of operations. Thailand, on the other hand, only

records a 33% rate of business founding failure and a significant smaller rate (27%) of

venture discontinuance in the first 4 years of operations. Singapore records a 38% and

33% rate respectively. In another outlook, GEM reports that only 10% of Malaysian-

made produce are categorized as ‘innovative’, while Thailand records 24%, Romania

26%, China and Singapore both 18%. All in all, GEM’s data supports a few striking

realities: that albeit favorable entrepreneurial framework conditions, easiness in doing

business, and elevated motivational levels, Malaysian entrepreneurs are still left behind

in terms of international business orientation, caused by among others, a high business

failure rate, and the incapability to compete with innovative products and services (Ariff

& Abubakar, 2003; GEM, 2010a; MIER, 2012; Ong, Ismail, & Yeap, 2010). In other

words, Malaysia is still short of successful entrepreneurs, and that there exists an “urgent

need to exploit opportunity and efficiency-based entrepreneurship through knowledge-

intensive and innovation-led initiatives/ventures/enterprises” (GEM, 2010a).

Commitment and Entrepreneurial Performance

But how are successful entrepreneurs developed in the first place? Entrepreneurial

success is synonym to entrepreneurial performance; contributed by efficiency and firm

8
growth (Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001; Low & McMillan, 1988; Murphy, Trailer, & Hill,

1996), and is a vital issue in entrepreneurship because it distinguishes an entrepreneurial

venture from a small one (Nieman & Bennett, 2002). Performance is often measured

through the growth of sales and profit for the past five years and through employee

turnover rates (Beal, 2000). At a national level, entrepreneurial performance is measured

by among others, the high birth rate of start-ups and firms, high self-employment, as well

as an increase in the number of exports by new local firms (GEM, 2010b, 2011, 2012;

MIER, 2012) Nonetheless, in the entrepreneur’s journey, the road towards growth and

performance is not always a smooth ride. Growth more often leads to the “growing pains”

(Flamholtz & Randle, 1990) caused by unwelcomed effects, challenges, and multiple

predicaments faced by the entrepreneur, in particular for small and medium sized

businesses that visualize positive performance to survive and grow in their early years

(Churchill & Lewis, 1983).

Back to the question; “What, exactly, makes a successful entrepreneur?” Clearly,

the answer to this question is complex and involves interrelations of numerous variables.

To understand the phenomenon linking to positive entrepreneurial performance,

researchers have relied on Organizational Behavior (OB) theories - the branch of

management science that focuses on human behavior in business contexts- supporting

the argument on how OB is able “to answer questions long addressed by entrepreneurship

researchers such as why do some persons but not others choose to become entrepreneurs,

9
what factors influence entrepreneurs' success, and why do some persons, but not others,

recognize economically advantageous opportunities?” (see (Baron, 2002)). In short, OB

places the entrepreneur directly as the heart of the entire entrepreneurial process.

Commitment in Organisational Behavior Studies

The notion of ‘commitment’ has received noteworthy attention in the OB literature owing

to the eminent works originated from Festinger (1957) and Kiesler (1971), followed by

the widely applied works of Mowday et al. and Meyer et al. (1991, 1997; 1979) in

defining Organizational Commitment (OC) as the extent to which an employee identifies

with, and is involved in an organization. Mowday et al.’s theory of OC (1979) proposed

three dimensions of commitment, i) a strong belief in an organization’s goals and values,

ii) a willingness to disburse significant efforts for the organization, and iii) a powerful

intent or desire to remain employed by the organization. Soon after, this theory was

expanded to a generalization of a Three-Component Model (TCM) to conceptualize the

meaning of commitment to multiple foci, and in the context of the organization in

particular (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). The TCM, widely used

by researchers up to today, argues that the ‘psychological state’ need not be limited to

value and goal congruence as explained by Mowday et al. (1982). Rather, Meyer and

Allen (1991) argue that it reflects a desire, a need, and / or an obligation to maintain

membership in the organization. They suggest that commitment is conceptualized as the

10
components of affective, continuance and normative commitment, in view of

commitment being a psychological state of mind that i) describes the relationship of an

employee with the organization, and ii) has implications for the decision to stay employed

(or not) with the organization. ‘Affective commitment’ refers to the emotional

attachment, identification with, and involvement in the organization. An employee with

a high affective commitment will continue with employment because he/she wants to.

On the other hand, ‘continuance commitment’ refers to consciousness of the costs

involved with leaving the organization. An employee whose primary link to the

organization is based on continuance commitment remain employed because there is a

need to do so. Lastly, ‘normative commitment’ refers to a feeling of obligation to

continue employment; an employee with a strong normative commitment will stay

employed because he/she feels ought to do so.

While existing studies have tried to define ‘commitment’ in a

business/entrepreneurial milieu, the term itself is seen to be muddled by an array of

behavioral concepts such as, among others, ‘endurance’ ‘perseverance’, ‘passion’ and

‘self-determination’ (Breugst, Domurath, Patzelt, & Klaukien, 2011; Gelderen, 2012;

Kauanui, Thomas, Sherman, Waters, & Gilea, 2010; Sørensen & Phillips, 2011). Among

the approaches applied, the OB domain is, however, frequently revisited as the main

foundation for empirical testing in studies linking commitment to the entrepreneur. It is

found that commitment positively impacts start-up and venture performance (e.g. (Abdul

11
Halim, Wan Ab Aziz, & Zakaria, 2010; Basu, Osland, & Solt, 2009; Cohen, 2006; De

Clercq, Menzies, Diochon, & Gasse, 2009; Littunen, 2000; Muda, Halim, & Amin, 2011;

Simon, Elango, Houghton, & Savelli, 2002)), new venture establishments (Fayolle,

2007), entrepreneurial munificence (Tang, 2008), new product development (Chiang,

Shih, & Hsu, 2013; Schmidt & Calantone, 2002), and internalization (Sleuwaegen &

Onkelinx, 2013). An earlier study on the factors associated with entrepreneurial success

revealed that high-growth-oriented entrepreneurs labeled as “ambitious” possess strong

commitment to the success of their businesses (Gundry & Welsch, 2001) while the

importance of commitment is also acknowledged as a contributor to alliance performance

and firm performance (Fang Wua & Cavusgil, 2006). More recently, a local study

illustrates that the normative commitment influences entrepreneurial performance

(Tasnim, Yahya, & Zainuddin, 2013) and that affective commitment plays a vital role

towards nurturing entrepreneurial passion and overall business performance (Tasnim,

Salleh, & Zainuddin, 2014). More researches are being conducted to elaborate on the

commitment – performance link, with exploratory and investigative studies already

paving ways to decipher the distinctiveness of, and how both commitment and motivation

impact entrepreneurial behavior (Tasnim, Yahya, Mohd Nor, Said, & Zainuddin, 2013;

Tasnim, 2015). Overall, the emergent trend of studies linking commitment to

entrepreneurship authenticates the significant role commitment formulates in elevating

business performance and efficiency.

12
 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In retrospect, the recent GEM reports identify an eminent issue grappling the attention of

policy-makers seeking to develop Malaysian entrepreneurship to higher levels; “Why is

it that, although having very encouraging entrepreneurship framework conditions,

perceived high motivational levels and perceived easiness in doing business, Malaysian

entrepreneurs are still lagging behind their neighboring counterparts in terms of genuine

entrepreneurial performance?” If Malaysia is seen as having constructive

entrepreneurship framework conditions resulting in the ease of doing business, and that

entrepreneurs are highly motivated, could it be that there exist other behavioral dynamics

that we may have undervalued all this while? In other words, could it be that the powers

of motivation plus other related external factors are still inadequate to manipulate

entrepreneurial performance? If motivation is still insufficient to empower successful

entrepreneurship, perhaps heightening the entrepreneur’s commitment may be a wiser

alternative. But what is commitment, exactly, to the entrepreneur? And how is it

nurtured? Wouldn’t it be better if entrepreneurial commitment is understood? In the case

illustrated, it seems critical for us to firstly understand how entrepreneurial commitment

is developed. Given this rationale, our study therefore aims to answer the following

research problem statement; “What is ‘commitment’, and how is it developed in an

entrepreneurial context?” Our study centralizes on one of the main issues surrounding

13
Malaysian entrepreneurship: that commitment is an important mind-set that has to be

nurtured in our entrepreneurs, yet very little is discussed on how it is developed.

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

The Entrepreneurial Commitment Model

The main aim of this study is to investigate what commitment means in an entrepreneurial

perspective. In doing so, the researcher seeks to find out what shapes commitment in an

entrepreneurial context. The theoretical underpinning of this study is based on the

conceptualized ‘Entrepreneurial Commitment Model’ in Figure 1, developed using a

robust phenomenology technique, i.e. the Interpretative Phenomenology Analysis by

Tasnim (2015), following the recent calls for more person-oriented and

phenomenological methods of analysis to study commitment in workplace settings

(Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012; Meyer & Morin, 2016).

Antecedents
Components of
Entrepreneurial
Entrepreneurial
Passion
Commitment

Values Affective
Commitment

Personality

Internalized Norms Behavioral Outcomes

Normative Entrepreneurial Motivation Entrepreneurial
Commitment Commitment Performance
Responsibility and
Righteousness

Investments

Continuance
Commitment
Lack of Alternatives

Figure 1: The Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurial Commitment (Tasnim 2014, 2013)

14
This study primarily aims to validate the antecedents and components of entrepreneurial

commitment. According to Tasnim et al (2015), there exists seven separate constructs

shaping the three components of commitment; passion, values and personality each

shapes affective commitment, internalized norms plus responsibility and righteousness

shape normative commitment, while investments and lack of alternatives shape

continuous commitment. A full detail of each construct is detailed in Tasnim (2015). This

study picks up from where Tasnim (2015) left, by empirically authenticating the

constructs shaping commitment in an entrepreneurial context.

The second research aim is to investigate the behavioral outcomes of

entrepreneurial commitment. Based on Tasnim’s (2015) exploratory findings, the

components of commitment are said to shape entrepreneurial commitment, hence

affecting entrepreneurial performance. More interesting is her finding on how

‘motivation’ seems to mediate the role of commitment towards entrepreneurial

performance (see also Tasnim, Yahya, Mohd Nor, et al., 2013). In short, the most recent

work on entrepreneurial commitment (EC) in a Malaysian setting concludes the

following; “That commitment exists and somehow impacts business start-up and

entrepreneurial performance, and that it is embedded in the forms of affective

commitment, normative commitment and continuous commitment. Commitment and

motivation are in some way associated with entrepreneurial performance”. It is with this

notion that our study is grounded.

15
Hypothesis Statements

Our study theorizes 12 hypothetical paths associating the antecedents to the components

of EC, and linking EC to performance (see Figure 2 and Table 1).

Antecedents
Components
Entrepreneurial of
Passion Entrepreneurial
Commitment

Values Affective
Commitment

Personality H1 – H3
H8

Internalized Norms
H9
Behavioral Outcomes
Normative Entrepreneurial Motivation Entrepreneurial
Commitment Commitment Performance
Responsibility and
Righteousness H4 – H5 H11 H12

Investments H10

Continuance
Commitment
Lack of Alternatives
H6 – H7

Figure 2: Hypothesis Statements

16
Table 1: Research Objectives and Hypothesis Statements

Research Question: How is commitment developed in the entrepreneurship process?

Research Objective Hypotheses

H1 1 Entrepreneurial Passion is the consciously accessible intense positive feeling experienced by engagement in
RO1: entrepreneurial activities. This feeling is positively related to Affective Commitment.
To find out what shapes
commitment in an
entrepreneurial context. Personal Values are the learned beliefs that serve as guiding principles about how an entrepreneur ought to
H1 2
behave. These beliefs positively develop the entrepreneur’s Affective Commitment.
H1 3 Personality is defined as the enduring dispositions that cause characteristic patterns of interaction with one’s
environment. These enduring dispositions positively shape the entrepreneur’s Affective Commitment.
H1 4 Internalized norms are the moral obligations which are important contributors to the entrepreneur’s behavior.
These norms positively shape the entrepreneur’s Normative Commitment.
H1 5 Responsibility and Righteousness infuses a sense of obligation to reciprocate (give back in return). Responsibility
and righteousness positively shape the entrepreneur’s Normative Commitment.
H1 6 The magnitude and number of investments (and side bets) made by the entrepreneur positively shape Continuous
Commitment.
H1 7 The perceived lack of alternatives faced by the entrepreneur positively affects Continuous Commitment.
H1 8 The mind-set of ‘desire’ (affective commitment) develops when an entrepreneur becomes involved in, recognizes
the value-relevance of, and/or derives his identity from his association with entrepreneurship, and during his
pursuit to perform entrepreneurially. This mind set positively affects entrepreneurial commitment.
H1 9 The mind-set of ‘obligation’ (normative commitment) develops as a result of the internalization of norms, the
receipt of benefits that induces a need to reciprocate, and/or stimulates the acceptance of responsibilities in the
entrepreneur. This mind-set positively affects entrepreneurial commitment.
H110 The mind-set of perceived cost (continuance commitment) develops when an entrepreneur recognizes that he/she
stands to lose investments, and/or perceives that there are no alternatives other than to pursue the course of action
relevance to a particular target (carrying on with his business). This mind set negatively affects entrepreneurial
commitment.

RO2:
To investigate the behavioral
outcomes of entrepreneurial
commitment
H111 Entrepreneurial Commitment is a force that binds the entrepreneur to a course of actions relevant to his
entrepreneurial performance. Entrepreneurial commitment impacts the motivation to perform.
H112 The mindset reflecting the entrepreneur’s determination to reach a goal and perform entrepreneurially is reflected
by the entrepreneur’s motivation. Motivation mediates the entrepreneur’s commitment towards entrepreneurial
performance

Along these paths, the hypotheses statements of H1 to H10 were tested according to the

‘repeated use of manifest variables’ approach (Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, & Oppen,

2009) given that the antecedents and components linking to EC stand as a singular

hierarchical block of first to third-order constructs. This hierarchical block represents the

hierarchical model of entrepreneurial commitment, which was later embedded with

motivation and performance, and tested via H11 and H12. In doing so, a mediation

analysis was performed, depicting the direct, indirect and a no-mediation effect of

motivation in the Entrepreneurial CommitmentEntrepreneurial Performance link.

17
 METHODOLOGY

The Entrepreneurial Commitment Metrics

Based on previous works synthesizing commitment, motivation and entrepreneurial

success theories (Battistelli, Galletta, Portoghese, & Vandenberghe, 2013; Gellatly,

Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004;

Tasnim, 2014; Tasnim, et al., 2013), a survey was designed and forenamed the

*Entrepreneurial Commitment Metrics (ECM). Details on how each variable is measured

in the ECM follows;

*available upon request from authors

1) Measuring Entrepreneurial Passion

Entrepreneurial passion (EP) is defined as the “consciously accessible intense positive

feelings experienced by engagement in entrepreneurial activities associated with roles

that are meaningful and salient to the self-identity of the entrepreneur” (Cardon, Wincent,

Singh, & Drnovesk, 2009). The measurements used for EP were adapted from the

validated instrument for measuring EP across the domains of inventing, founding and

developing in the venture life cycle (Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, & Patel, 2012). Alpha

reliabilities for the scales range from 0.72 to 0.85.

2) Measuring Values

Values (VAL) is defined as the “enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (or

behavior) or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable than an opposite

18
or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” (Rokeach, 1973) and are the

“learned beliefs that serve as guiding principles about how individuals ought to behave”

(Parks & Guay, 2009). Items from the Schwartz Value Scale, which is the most widely-

used and most well-developed value theory were adopted (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).

3) Measuring Personality

Personality (PER) is defined as the enduring dispositions that cause characteristic

patterns of interaction with one’s environment (Goldberg, 1993; Olver & Mooradian,

2003). The widely applied Five Factor Model of Personality, often referred as the Big

Five, characterizes personality traits into five broad dimensions (Goldberg, 1992; Mount

& Barrick, 2002), and these dimensions were used to construct items. Each dimension

(in brackets) is represented by two separate items, with average mean alpha for the scale

at α=0.66 (Goldberg, 1990).

4) Measuring Internalised Norms

Internalized norms (NM) is hypothesized as the moral obligations which are important

contributors to the entrepreneur’s behavior. All items were constructed based on the

previous work by Tasnim (2014).

5) Measuring Righteousness and Responsibility

Responsibility and righteousness (RR) infuses a sense of obligation to reciprocate, i.e.

give back in return. All items were constructed based on the IPA finding in (Rahayu

Tasnim, 2014).

19
6) Measuring Investments

Investment (INV) is measured by considering the entrepreneurs’ magnitude of expenses

incurred inclusive of the side-bets and personal sacrifices. All items were adapted from

the Continuous Commitment Scale (J.P Meyer & Allen, 1997), with an average alpha of

0.73.

7) Measuring Lack of Alternatives

Like investment, the lack of alternatives (LA) also increases the perceived costs

associated with aborting/discontinuing entrepreneurship. Here, the entrepreneur would

still consider pursuing his/her entrepreneurial goals if he/she perceives that, for instance,

employment would be a riskier alternative, or that his/her skills are no longer

‘marketable’ in the industry. Items were constructed based from previous findings

(Tasnim, et al., 2014, 2013) and from the Continuous Commitment Scale (Meyer &

Allen, 1997).

8) Measuring Motivation

Motivation (MOT) was hypothesized as the mindset reflecting the entrepreneur’s

determination to reach a goal and perform entrepreneurially. Items were adapted from

the HWK Scale of Goal Commitment (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon,

2001) and on the findings in (Tasnim, 2014).

20
9) Measuring Entrepreneurial Performance

Entrepreneurial Performance (EPR) was measured by a single sales-metrics.

Respondents were straightforwardly asked to state their present sales turnover.

10) Measuring Entrepreneurial Commitment

EC is hypothesized as a force that binds the entrepreneur to a course of actions relevant

to his entrepreneurial performance. EC stands as a third order, reflective latent construct,

conceptualized based on the repeated use of manifest variables (indicators) of its lower-

order latent variables. As such, EC is represented by its components (AC, NC and CC)

as well as its antecedents (EP, VAL, PER, NM, RR, INV and LA). The reflective nature

of all constructs in the hierarchical block of EC is illustrated as inverted arrows in Figure

3.

EP
EP: Entrepreneurial Passion
VAL: Values
PER: Personality
VAL AC NM: Internalized Norms
RR: Righteousness & Responsibility
INV: Investment
LA: Lack of Alternatives
PER AC: Affective Commitment
NC: Normative Commitment
CC: Continuous Commitment
EC: Entrepreneurial Commitment

NM

NC EC

RR

INV
CC

LA

Figure 3. The hierarchical reflective block of Entrepreneurial Commitment

21
 RESULTS

Pilot Study Results

The ECM was firstly tested in context of its overall reliability, i.e. to ensure that all

“measures are free from the error and therefore yields consistent results” (Peter, 1979).

The ECM was personally distributed to 70 entrepreneurs with 45 completed sets returned

within three weeks. The Cronbach’s α test was applied to all the eight first-order

constructs. The ECM looked substantially reliable, with α = 0.9085, above the

recommended threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The α values of the

individual first-order constructs ranges from 0.831 to 0.97, all above the cut-off value of

0.6 to 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951). As such, all items were retained for the main study analysis.

Table 2: Retained items for each first-order construct

Items for Entrepreneurial Passion Code Items for Internalized Norms
Code As an entrepreneur… Over the years…
EP1 Searching for new ideas for products/services to offer is fun. NM1 Working hard to achieve my dreams is a matter of my moral obligations.
EP2 Running my own company energizes me. NM2 My parents have always been my best mentors.
EP3 Inventing new solutions to problems is an important part of who I am. NM3 I've learnt so much from the entrepreneurs around me.
EP4 I really like finding the right people to market my products/services to. NM4 My family’s support has been very valuable to me.
EP5 Assembling the right people to work for my business is exciting. NM5 My overall social experience has been very influential to my entrepreneurial performance.
EP6 Pushing my employees and myself to make our company better excites me. NM6 The most valuable lessons in my life came from my entrepreneurial experiences.
EP7 Nurturing and growing new companies is an important part of who I am. Items for Responsibility & Righteousness
EP8 I like to learn from others as much as I can. Code All these years…
EP9 On the whole, my business has been my greatest passion. RR1 I have always been responsible to perform my best for my family
Items for Values RR2 I’ve always been responsible to perform my best because of the people’s trust in me
Code Being entrepreneurial provides me with… RR3 I always believed that what I was doing was the right thing to do.
VAL1 Authority, wealth and social recognition. RR4 It always feels good to ‘give back’ especially to the people who have helped me.
VAL2 A sense of achievement. RR5 I’ve always taken efforts to nurture an entrepreneurial culture around me.
VAL3 Great pleasure in doing what I like. RR6 The market and industry expects my entrepreneurial loyalty and skills.
VAL4 High levels of excitement. RR7 I think that people should aim to become successful entrepreneurs because it’s the best career for self development.
VAL5 The independence to be creative in my daily tasks. Items for Investment
VAL6 The opportunity to solve social issues and concerns. Code During the hardest times, I still carried on because…
VAL7 The responsibility to become honest and helpful. INV1 It was hard for me to abort my business goals even if I wanted to.
VAL8 The responsibility to be self disciplined. INV2 My whole life would be disrupted if I were to quit my entrepreneurial dreams.
VAL9 A chance to honor my traditional values and status quo. INV3 It would be too costly for me to give up.
VAL10 An opportunity to make the world a better place to live in. INV4 I’ve sacrificed so much of myself that I couldn’t afford to quit.
VAL11 An opportunity to inculcate and promote my personal values. Items for Lack of Alternative
Items for Personality Code Back then, what made you remain an entrepreneur?
Code As an entrepreneur, I am… LA1 There weren’t any suitable jobs for my skills and abilities.
PER1 Self efficient and productive LA2 The market value of my skills has eroded so I had to remain self employed.
PER2 Highly organized LA3 I tried looking for jobs but I didn’t secure any.
PER3 Resilient and well-adjusted LA4 I was bonded with agencies, so I had to remain in business.
PER4 Highly confident of myself LA5 Staying as an entrepreneur is more of a necessity than a desire.
PER5 Assertive Items for Motivation
PER6 Very ambitious Code Answer the following.
PER7 Friendly MOT1 I've always felt that my dream to become a successful entrepreneur is the most realistic vision that I have.
PER8 Cooperative MOT2 Becoming a successful entrepreneur is the best personal goal to aim for.
PER9 Very curious and open minded MOT3 Proper planning results in me performing better.
PER10 Very imaginative MOT4 I am always willing to put forth a great deal of effort beyond what I normally do to achieve my personal goals.
PER11 Known as having an excellent entrepreneurial personality. MOT5 There’s so much to be gained by pursuing my personal goals.
MOT6 I've always chosen to go for more challenging goals to make me perform better.
MOT7 My personal goals positively impact how I perform entrepreneurially.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then conducted to verify whether data fits the

scaling throughout the ECM. Based on the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) (Kaiser, 1974).

22
statistics, EFA results indicate that the sampling accuracy was higher than the minimum

set value of 0.6 for all first order constructs, except INV. To add, the significance of

Bartlett’s test of sphericity in all constructs indicate that the correlation among the

measurement items was higher than 0.3 and were fit for EFA (Hair, Black, Babin,

Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Total variance extracted by the items in each construct was

above 60%, as recommended by Hair et al. (2006).

At times, the length of a questionnaire causes respondents to pay lesser attention

in answering questions towards the end of the survey. At this point, the effect of

questionnaire’s length on one’s attention and interest was taken into serious

consideration. In this light, the Mann-Whitney-U Test was applied to observe the

difference between first four and last four Likert-scale and interval questions in the ECM

(Pallant, 2007). Based on gender differences, no significant difference in answers were

detected (p > .05) indicating that respondents did not feel the increase / decrease in level

of difficulty, in interest / attention, and on the duration taken to answer questions to the

end of the ECM.

Table 3: Measurement of sampling adequacy and total variance for first level constructs

Factor Number of Cronbach’s EFA Number KMO Test Bartlett’s Variance

Items Alpha, α of Factors Sphericity Test Explained
EP 9 0.92 1 0.722 .000 62.87%
VAL 11 0.942 1 0.83 .000 65.91%
PER 11 0.94 1 0.702 .000 64.61%
NM 6 0.876 1 0.722 .000 63.24%
RR 7 0.877 1 0.746 .000 60.05%
INV 4 0.831 1 0.51 .000 68.63%
LA 5 0.911 1 0.795 .000 75.2%
MOT 7 0.971 1 0.857 .000 86.87%

2
Table 4: Mann-Whitney-U test to observe the difference between first-four and final-four questions in the ECM.

EP1 EP2 EP3 EP4

Mann- 101.000 122.000 129.000 137.000
Whitney U
Z -2.275 -1.751 -1.464 -1.260
Asymp. Sig 0.23 0.08 0.143 0.208
(2-tailed)

MOT7 EPR_SALES EPR_SUC EPR_TOT

Mann- 16.000 33.500 142.000 165.500
Whitney U
Z -4.637 -4.311 -1.128 -4.86
Asymp. Sig 0.23 0.82 0.259 0.627
(2-tailed)

Main Study Results

The ECM was then distributed to 600 successful entrepreneurs throughout Malaysia.

Names and contact details were obtained from various data sets provided by established

bodies responsible for nationwide entrepreneurship development, namely, the Majlis

Amanah Rakyat (MARA), SME Corp., Perbadanan Usahawan Nasional Berhad

(PUNB), Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), Multimedia Development Corporation

(MDEC), Melaka Halal-Hub, and the Companies Commission of Malaysia, with 402

complete sets returned. Data analysis applied the Component-Based Structural Equation

Modeling technique (CB-SEM), i.e. the Partial Least Squares (PLS) methodology (Hair,

Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).

Investigations initiated with analysis on missing data, examination of outliers,

and homoscedasticity, evaluation on reliability and validity, and factor analysis. The

overall preliminary main study results confirmed that items loaded well onto their

hypothesized respective latent constructs and that all first-order constructs demonstrated

substantial reliability for further analysis. The measurement model evaluation was then

3
performed. Based on the EFA results, a CFA was conducted to affirm the validation of

the entire model at the item-construct and construct-construct level. The respective item

loadings and cross-loadings were carefully inspected and reported. Over all, items

indicated substantial internal consistency as well as good convergent and discriminant

validity.

The structural model assessment followed with the evaluation of the coefficient

of determination, R2 and all estimates of path coefficients onto, first, the hierarchical

block of EC, and subsequently to the entire model, embedding both the MOT and EPR

constructs into the initial hierarchical block of EC. The bootstrap technique was applied,

and as hypothesized, all paths including its algebraic signs accorded to the theorized

assumptions. With the exception of INV  CC, the R2 values of all paths were reported

as substantial, i.e. above 0.67. INV CC on the other hand is considered a weak path,

yet is still significant at p<0.05. In regards to the mediating analysis, the model was

compared to two other competing models to investigate the direct, indirect and no-

mediation effects of MOT. It was confirmed that MOT acts as a direct mediator in the

ECEPR link, therefore affirming the hypothesized model of EC. The model was further

supported by predictive relevance tests’ results, which concludes the GoF value as at

0.70414, and that Q2 values gave evidence that all observed values were well

reconstructed. In other words, it was concluded that the EC model has a substantial and

significant predictive relevance.

4
 Table 5: Summary of results

Pilot Study

Analysis Results

Coding and editing Variables and labels were defined accordingly.

Reliability Measures are free from errors, α for all items >0.8.

Validity/ All scales supported by data;

Factor Analysis i) KMO test; >0.6, except INV
(EFA) ii) Bartlett test; all items correlate >0.3
iii) Loading >0.6 (except INV), variance extracted by items >60%.

Questionnaire length bias ECM did not affect respondents’ attention to answer till the end of the survey; p>0.05 for male vs.
female.

Main study

Missing data analysis EM Little’s MCAR test; insignificant at each item (p-value 0.13) and construct level (p-value 0.32);
data is missing completely at random.

Outliers Z-scores; 39 mild outliers (random), all items retained.

Normality Skewness & kurtosis; data follows a non-normal distribution

Homoscedasticity Only NM violated Levene’s test of equal variances; p-value 0.299.All other constructs did not
violate the assumption of homogeneity of variances.

Non-response biasness P-value of early vs. late respondents show no bias in non-response.

Factor analysis
Measurement model evaluation
EFA; all items loaded well onto their latent constructs, except for EP8 and RR1
After elimination of 14 items, all items show; α >0.8, composite reliability >0.8, AVE >0.5 &
loading >0.7.
Fornell-Larcker criterion; AVE of latent constructs higher than the latent construct’s R2 with any
other construct.
Cross-loadings; none

Structural model evaluation Hierarchical block of EC;

All R2 >0.7, except INV, all paths loaded >0.6, except INV.

Mediation analysis & structural evaluation of entire model

Baseline model accepted with f2 values for MOT and EPR large; >0.35.
Q2 = F2 >0; predictive relevance supported.
GoF = 0.70414, high predictive relevance.
H1 to H12 supported.

Hypotheses Results

PLS algorithms show that the AVE and composite reliability (CR) of each higher-order

latent construct (AC, NC, CC and EC) are above the cut off values of 0.5 and 0.7

respectively, indicating sufficient reliability and variance explained for each higher-level

construct. Nonparametric bootstrap of 500 re-samplings reveal that the first-order

constructs of EP, VAL, PER, NM and RR loaded well (at p<0.01) with their respective

second-order constructs of AC and NC, with the first-order constructs explaining a

5
variance, R2, no less than 90% (at p<0.01). For the first-order constructs INV and LA,

INV explains only a small variance, R2, of its second-order construct, CC, i.e. 5.4%, with

a loading, ß, of 0.272 (at p<0.05), while LA explains a variance of 99.2% of CC, with a

loading of 0.995 (at p<0.01). The assessment of the second-order constructs of AC, NC

and CC on EC followed with an AVE value of 0.6305 and CR of 0.93, also indicating

substantial reliability and variance explained for EC, the third-order construct of the

hierarchical block. AC loaded well, and the highest on EC, with a ß of 0.991 and an

explainable variance of 98% (at p<0.01). NC followed with a loading value of 0.98 and

an explainable variance of 96% (at p<0.01), while CC is loaded at a negative value of -

0.893, 79.7% explaining the variance of EC (at p<0.01). Overall, all paths were

significant at p<0.01, except for the INVCC path which was at p<0.05. As

hypothesized, all paths including its algebraic signs accorded to the theorized

assumptions. With the exception of INV CC, the R2 values of all paths were recorded

as substantial, i.e. above 0.67. However, INV CC appeared as a “borderline significant

path” (ß = 0.054), being still significant at p<0.05. The significant loading of lower-order

constructs onto its relevant higher-order construct verifies the reliability and validity of

the hierarchical block of EC (Table 6).

6
 Table 6: Results of the hierarchical block assessment and baseline structural model

At this juncture, a valid and empirically tested structural model of EC was established

following the evaluations on the hierarchical block of EC, and the link between

ECMOTEPR. Seven antecedents are known to shape the three components of EC,

which then influence MOT and EPR. The mediation test performed on the construct

MOT results in sufficient empirical evidence showing that motivation mediates

commitment to performance (Figure 4).

7
 Antecedents Components of Behavioral Outcomes
Entrepreneurial Commitment
R2=0.91
EP

R2=0.969 0.959, t=7.512 R2=0.981

VAL AC
0.984, t=3.734

R2=0.946
0.972, t=9.182
0.991, t=4.159
PER

R2=0.931
31
NM R2=0.961 0.946, t=2.634 R2=0.895 R2=0.828
0.969, t=8.736
0.98, t=3.552
NC EC MOT EPR
R2=0.955
RR 0.977, t=3.658 0.686, t=2.064

R2=0.054
-0.893, t=6.703

INV R2=0.797
0.272, t=2.078
Model Fit Statistics
R2=0.992 CC H2 and F2 > 0
0.995, t=4.967 GoF: 0.70417
*significance at 0.01 level
LA **significance at 0.05 level

Figure 4. The Entrepreneurial Commitment Model

Table 7: Hypothesis results

Hypotheses Results
H1 1 Entrepreneurial Passion is the consciously accessible intense positive feeling experienced by engagement
in entrepreneurial activities. This feeling is positively related to Affective Commitment. Supported*
H1 2 Personal Values are the learned beliefs that serve as guiding principles about how an entrepreneur ought to Supported*
behave. These beliefs positively develop the entrepreneur’s Affective Commitment.
H1 3 Personality is defined as the enduring dispositions that cause characteristic patterns of interaction with an Supported*
entrepreneurial environment. These enduring dispositions positively shape the entrepreneur’s Affective
Commitment.
H1 4 Internalized norms are the moral obligations which are important contributors to the entrepreneur’s Supported*
behavior. These norms positively shape the entrepreneur’s Normative Commitment.
H1 5 Responsibility and Righteousness infuses a sense of obligation to reciprocate (give back in return). Supported*
Responsibility and righteousness positively shape the entrepreneur’s Normative Commitment.
H1 6 The magnitude and number of investments (and side bets) made by the entrepreneur positively shape Supported*
Continuous Commitment.
H1 7 The perceived lack of alternatives faced by the entrepreneur positively affects Continuous Commitment. Supported**

H1 8 The mind-set of ‘desire’ (affective commitment) develops when an entrepreneur becomes involved in, Supported*
recognizes the value-relevance of, and/or derives his identity from his association with entrepreneurship,
and during his pursuit to perform entrepreneurially. This mind set positively affects entrepreneurial
commitment.
H1 9 The mind-set of ‘obligation’ (normative commitment) develops as a result of the internalization of norms, Supported*
the receipt of benefits that induces a need to reciprocate, and/or stimulates the acceptance of responsibilities
in the entrepreneur. This mind-set positively affects entrepreneurial commitment.
H110 The mind-set of perceived cost (continuance commitment) develops when an entrepreneur recognizes that Supported*
he/she stands to lose investments, and/or perceives that there are no alternatives other than to pursue the
course of action relevance to a particular target (carrying on with his business). This mind set positively
affects entrepreneurial commitment.
H111a Entrepreneurial Commitment is a force that binds the entrepreneur to a course of actions relevant to his Supported*
entrepreneurial performance. Entrepreneurial commitment impacts the motivation to perform.
a
H112 The mindset reflecting the entrepreneur’s determination to reach a goal and perform entrepreneurially is Supported**
reflected by the entrepreneur’s motivation. Motivation mediates the entrepreneur’s commitment towards
entrepreneurial performance

*significant at p<0.01, **significant at p<0.05, a = further analysis required

8
 DISCUSSION

The Entrepreneurial Commitment Model

This study is about commitment in an entrepreneurial setting and is intended to address the

questions concerning entrepreneurs’ psychological relationships with their ventures and how

these relationships affect entrepreneurial performance. The main emphasis here is to explore

the antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial commitment. This study holds that an

entrepreneur’s commitment profile can be described in terms of affective, normative and

continuous commitments that he/she feels, and that commitment is the magnetic force that

binds and drives the entrepreneur to perform.

In this case, it is seen that entrepreneurs possessing a strong ‘emotional

attachment’ and ‘desire’ to his/her venture will commit at much higher levels than those who

are not ‘emotionally attached’, or do not have the ‘desire’ to commit. In the same vein, it is

seen that AC is the most prominent factor contributing to commitment per se, and this may

be explained because the entrepreneur feels contented, comfortable, and most importantly,

happy to commit to his/her venture. As such, it is not hard to understand why many

entrepreneurs are willingly committed, in spite of the unpredictable journey ahead of them,

and after taking into consideration the high risks and sacrifices required to succeed. Their

willingness acts as the force that binds them to remain entrepreneurial, no matter what. In

short, these entrepreneurs will say “I want to” because they are emotionally attached to their

businesses. This is also in line with studies on the well-being of employees; that when AC is

9
dominant in employees, this makes them experience less job stress and perceive a better well-

being (Meyer & Maltin, 2010; Wasti, 2005). As such, the following deduction was affirmed;

“H8: The mind-set of ‘desire’ (affective commitment) develops when an entrepreneur

becomes involved in, recognizes the value-relevance of, and/or derives his identity from his

association with entrepreneurship, and during his pursuit to perform entrepreneurially. This

mind set positively affects entrepreneurial commitment”.

Also in consistent with the TCM, NC loaded positively onto EC (ß = 0.98), with a

substantial explainable variance of 96%, slightly lower than AC, which recorded a variance

of 98%. In the literature, as with AC, NC is also expected to relate positively to in-role and

discretionary performance, but at a slightly lower impact (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer &

Herscovitch, 2001). NC is also said to have a synergistic effect; it is said to have a positive

correlation with discretionary behavior when combined with a strong AC (Gellatly et al.,

2006). It is also said that organizational citizenship behavior was greatest in employees with

a fully committed profile, followed by those with AC-dominant and AC/NC-dominant

profiles (Wasti, 2005) and that job turnover rates are lower in employees with full

commitment, and AC/NC-dominant profiles (Somers, 2009). In this case, entrepreneurs

showed a strong AC/NC profile, where according to Gellatly et al. (2006), in an organizational

context, demonstrates a strong “moral imperative”, i.e. a desire to do the right thing. In this

light, the finding suggests that in an entrepreneurial perspective, commitment is highly

associated to (and reflected in) AC and NC, and both combined, infuses a powerful force that

10
ignites, inspires and binds the entrepreneur to persevere. As such, in the context of normative

commitment, the following deduction was supported; “H9: The mind-set of ‘obligation’

(normative commitment) develops as a result of the internalization of norms, the receipt of

benefits that induces a need to reciprocate, and/or stimulates the acceptance of

responsibilities in the entrepreneur. This mind-set positively affects entrepreneurial

commitment”.

Compared to NC and AC, CC, on the other hand, has been largely related to constraints

on behavior; that in the context of organizational behavior, it is found that a person with CC-

dominance is “expected to have a greater likelihood to remain with the organization, but are

not expected to do more than is required of them in terms of performance” (Meyer et al, 2012,

p.2). As such, CC is associated with a negative impact onto discretionary performance (Meyer

et al., 2004; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). In other words, although an employee feels

compelled to comply with a particular course of action, e.g. remaining with the organization,

they are usually portrayed as less willing to perform in discretionary actions than those with

strong AC or NC. Non-discretionary behaviors are behaviors specified or implied by the goal

itself (Meyer et al, 1997, 2001) e.g. make 10% more sales this week, conduct 20 phone calls

per hour, etc., while discretionary behaviors are behaviors that are unspecified, and may take

up various forms, e.g. voluntarily sharing knowledge and information with staffs to help them

achieve their goals, putting extraordinary effort into ensuring that the well-being of staffs are

taken care of, promoting corporate social responsibility. In the context of commitment per se,

11
it is thus the discretionary behaviors that counts, because these behaviors demonstrate the

extra effort and the willingness to perform, of which both criteria are the prerequisites for

entrepreneurial success in the long run. In this case, the path ECCC exhibited a substantial

negative correlation (-0.893), suggesting that entrepreneurs are less likely to commit to

discretionary behavior if CC is high. For instance, when an entrepreneur feels “burdened”

with financial problems, e.g. large debts, especially in the his/her first few years in business,

this force which binds him/her to fully commit may decrease in magnitude when an

opportunity for other alternatives surfaces, e.g. returning to employment, etc. In this case,

he/she may still perform the entrepreneurial tasks required (e.g. the non-discretionary

actions), but is less likely willing to perform in discretionary actions. In other words, a strong

CC exhibits that the costs inducements of entrepreneurship is perceived by the entrepreneur

as at high levels, but given a “better” alternative, he/she would strongly consider leaving

entrepreneurship altogether. However, researchers argue that the role of CC must be viewed

in light of the strengths of AC and NC and the nature of the costs that is perceived to follow

from the discontinuance of a course of action (Gellatly et al., 2006; Meyer et al., 2012). In an

entrepreneurial context, this may also hold true as the nature of the costs associated with

leaving entrepreneurship varies, and is not only limited to financial terms per se since aborting

entrepreneurship involves among others, the perception of family/people’s trust, self-dignity,

self-esteem, etc. This finding thus supports the following hypothesis; “H10: The mind-set of

perceived cost (continuance commitment) develops when an entrepreneur recognizes that

12
he/she stands to lose investments, and/or perceives that there are no alternatives other than

to pursue the course of action relevance to a particular target (carrying on with his business).

This mind set negatively affects entrepreneurial commitment”.

Bridging the findings of H1 to H10, the hierarchical model of EC was affirmed. On the

whole, the hierarchical model of EC succeeded to realize the first research objective of this

study: to find out what shapes commitment in an entrepreneurial context. Succinctly, in an

entrepreneurial framework, commitment is shaped through affective, normative and

continuous factors, and that each factor is shaped by the respective features; passion, values

and personality positively impacts the entrepreneur’s affective commitment; internalized

norms, responsibility and righteousness positively affects the entrepreneur’s normative

commitment, while investment and the lack of alternatives negatively impacts continuous

commitment. Both affective commitment and normative commitment play a momentous role

in instilling entrepreneurial commitment, while continuous commitment opposes the impact

on entrepreneurial commitment per se.

In addition, this study deciphers the relationship between commitment and motivation,

and the roles played by both constructs leading to entrepreneurial performance. Commitment

is shown to bind the entrepreneur to his/her entrepreneurial goals; commitment in a way,

boosts motivation, leading to behavioral acts that amplify performance. Recently, this

‘relationship’ was empirically tested and it was demonstrated that commitment’s facets are

related to the parallel dimensions of work motivation; that commitment and motivation are

13
the antecedents for working attitudes and behavior, and that self-motivation played a critical

mediating role in positive behaviors (Battistelli, Galletta, Portoghese, & Vandenberghe,

2013). Commitment “is a force that binds an individual to a course of action that is of

relevance to a particular target” (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, p.301) while motivation is “a

set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to

initiate work-related behavior, to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration”

(Pinder, 1998, p. 11). This study therefore suggests; that entrepreneurial commitment enforces

motivation, which in turn reinforces entrepreneurial performance. That said, only with

commitment, an individual becomes powerfully motivated to perform entrepreneurially.

CONCLUSION

The study of the psychological notion of ‘commitment’ in successful entrepreneurs

necessitates a subtle understanding of what shapes ‘commitment’ in the first place, followed

by the comprehension of how commitment impacts entrepreneurial performance. This study

holds that to become highly successful in business, an entrepreneur needs to be i) highly

affectionate with what he does, ii) needs to transform the perception of “obligations” to

genuine “sincerity” and affection, and iii) needs to rationally battle his/her perception that

aborting the venture is the best way out. The journey to become a successful entrepreneur

often necessitates the entrepreneur to experience the metamorphosis from a nascent to a

habitual one. This journey encapsulates the experiences of wholesomeness, more often

14
accompanied by failures along the way. Nonetheless, genuine successful entrepreneurs will

thrive and rebound after failures and transform into habitual ones, and learn from experience.

Only with commitment, the journey to successful entrepreneurship becomes a reality.

The critical review and synthesis of literatures, followed by the exploratory findings of

Tasnim et al (2015, 2014, 2013) and further quantitative analysis directed in this study

concludes: that commitment is the so called strength that fastens oneself to his/her targeted

goals and actions. Commitment is the force that manipulates the entrepreneur’s behavioral

mindset, directing him/her to remain with entrepreneurship and to perform the needed tasks

to succeed. So powerful is this force that the entrepreneur perseveres even during the hardest

of times. One can say that commitment is a highly philosophical concept; that it is much said

and uttered in daily communications, but with little understanding of what it truly is,

moreover, on how it may be used to steer ones’ mindset and behavior. It can be argued that

relying on ample and improved external and institutional support is not the panacea. There is

a force deep within the entrepreneur that needs to be developed and nurtured throughout. It is

thus about time potential entrepreneurs understand what this force really means and is highly

capable of. This force - is the committed-mindset. Now that we understand what commitment

means to the entrepreneur and how it is developed, the researcher proposes future studies to

work on this “committed-mindset” focusing on, among others, (i) cultural and social norms

(e.g. why are some cultures highly committed to business performance than others?) (ii)

entrepreneurship education (e.g. how is entrepreneurial commitment best learnt and

15
transferred?), and iii) the entire entrepreneurship framework (e.g. how is the national

entrepreneurship framework related to nurturing entrepreneurial commitment?).

REFERENCES
Abdul Halim, M. A. S., Wan Ab Aziz, W. A., & Zakaria, Z. (2010). Entrepreneurial Characteristics and Commitment
in Terengganu Heritage Industry. JM International Journal of Management Research, November 2010, 13-23.
Annual Report, MECD. (2005). Malaysian Entrepreneurship and Cooperative Development (MECD).
Ariff, M., & Abubakar, S. Y. (2003). Strengthening Entrepreneurship in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.mansfieldfdn.org/programs/program_pdfs/ent_malaysia.pdf
Baron, R. A. (2002). OB and Entrepreneurship: The Reciprocal Benefits of Closer Conceptual Links. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 24, 225-269.
Basu, A., Osland, A., & Solt. (2009). A new course on sustainability entrepreneurship. Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship, 3(6), 71-78.
Battistelli, A., Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Vandenberghe, C. (2013). Mindsets of commitment and motivation:
interrelationships and contribution to work outcomes. Journal of Psychology, 147(1), 17-48.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(2), 292-303.
Beal, R. M. (2000). Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strategy and organizational
performance in small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1, January), 27-47.
Breugst, N., Domurath, A., Patzelt, H., & Klaukien, A. (2011). Perceptions of Entrepreneurial Passion and
Employees’ Commitment to Entrepreneurial Ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (January 2012),
172–192.
Cardon, M. S., Gregoire, D. A., Stevens, C. E., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Measuring entrepreneurial passion: Conceptual
foundations and scale validation. Journal of Business Venturing, doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.003.
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovesk, M. (2009). The nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion.
Academy of Management Review, 34, 511-532.
Chelliah, S., Sulaiman, M., & Yusoff, Y. M. (2010). Internationalization and Performance: Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(6 (2010),
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/5606).
Chiang, Y.-H., Shih, H.-A., & Hsu, C.-C. (2013). High commitment work system, transactive memory system, and
new product performance. Journal of Business Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.01.022.
Churchill, N. C., & Lewis, V. L. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review(May-
June), 50.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial systems. Business Strategy Environment, 15(1), 1-14.
Contractor, F. J., Kundu, S. K., & Chin, C. H. (2003). A three stage theory of international expansion: The link
between multinationality and performance in the service sector. Journal of International Business Studies, 34,
5-18.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16(September), 297-

16
 334.
De Clercq, D., Menzies, T. V., Diochon, M., & Gasse, Y. (2009). Explaining nascent entrepreneurs' goal commitment:
An exploratory study. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship 22(2).
Deraman, N., Zainuddin, N., & Hamdan, O. (2005). Kajian Tentang Ciri-Ciri Personaliti Keusahawanan Di Kalangan
Uasahawan Bumiputera (Melayu) Malaysia. Jurnal Manajemen & Bisnis Sriwijaya Vol. 3 No. 6 Desember 2005,
3(6 Desember), 1-15.
Fang Wua, S., & Cavusgil, T. (2006). Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm
relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59, 81-89.
Fayolle, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship and New Value Creation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flamholtz, E. G., & Randle, Y. (1990). Growing pains: How to make the transition entrepreneurship to a
professionally managed firm. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal
and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch's propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
69, 331-345.
GEM. (2010a). Entrepreneurship in Malaysia: The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Malaysian Report,
2010. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Tun Abdul Razak.
GEM. (2010b). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2010 Global Report. MA, USA: The Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor
GEM. (2011). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Global Entpreneurship Report 2011. MA, USA: Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor.
GEM. (2012). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2012 Global Report. MA, USA: Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor.
GEM. (2014). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2013 Global Report. MA, USA: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Gelderen, M. van. (2012). Perseverance strategies of enterprising individuals. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 18(6), 630–648.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552551211268102
GEM. (2015). GEM Global Report 2014. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Series, 116.
GEM Malaysia. (2013). Opportunities abound – but entrepreneurial education, skills and abilities are far behind.
Retrieved January 28, 2016, from http://www.gemconsortium.org/country-profile/86
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five Factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
26-42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Gundry, K. L., & Welsch, H. (2001). The Ambitous Entrepreneur: High Growth Strategies of Women-Owned
Enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 453-470.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of marketing theory and
practice, 19(2), 139-150.
17
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The Assessment of Goal
Commitment: A Measurement Model Meta-Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
85(1, May), 32-55.
Kauanui, S. K., Thomas, K. D., Sherman, C. L., Gail Ross Waters, & Mihaela Gilea. (2010). An exploration of
entrepreneurship and play. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(1), 51–70.
Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The Psychology of Commitment. New York: Academic Press.
Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of entrepreneurial personality. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(6), 103-121.
Low, M. B., & McMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of organisational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, Research and Application. London: Sage
Publications.
Meyer, J. P., & Morin, A. J. S. (2016). A person-centered approach to commitment research: Theory, research, and
methodology. Journal of Organizational Behavior. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2085.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, L. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and
implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 1–16.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, Research and Application. London: Sage
Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual
Analysis and Integrative Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
MIER. (2012). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, http://www.mier.org.my/publications/.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (2002). The personal characteristics inventory manual. Libertyville, IL: The
Wonderlic Corporation.
Muda, M. S., Halim, M. A. S. A., & Amin, W. A. A. W. M. (2011). Malaysian Craftspreneur Operations: Assessing
the Relationships between Sustainalbel Entrepreneurship Involving Entrepreneurial Motivation, Growth and
Performance. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 6(2), 275-284.
Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring Performance in Entrepreneurship Research. Journal of
Business Research, 36, 15-23.
Nieman, G., & Bennett, A. (2002). Business management: A value chain approach. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical
integration. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109-125.
Omar, R., & Sapuan, D. A. (2010). Rejuvinating Motivations and Renewing Technology: A Quest for Electronic
Endeavor among Malaysian SMEs European Journal of Social Sciences, 12(3 (2010),
http://eprints.utm.my/10031/1/European_Journal_of_Social_Sciences.pdf).
Ong, J. W., Ismail, H., & Yeap, P. F. (2010). Malaysian Small and Medium Enterprises: The Fundamental Problems
18
 and Recommendations for Improvement Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 6(1, July 2010),
39-52.
Ortmans, J. (2013). The State of Entrepreneurship in Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.entrepreneurship.org/policy-forum/the-state-of-entrepreneurship-in-malaysia.aspx
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: step-by-step guide to data analysis, 3rd edn. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 675-
684.
Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices. Journal of
Marketing Research, 16(1 (February)), 6-17.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS. Retrieved 31 December 2012, from http://www.smartpls.de
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Schmidt, J. B., & Calantone, R. J. (2002). Escalation of commitment during new product development. Journal of
the Academt of Marketing Science, 30, 103-118.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 550-562.
Simon, M., Elango, B., Houghton, S. M., & Savelli, S. (2002). The Successful Product Pioneer: Maintaining
Commitment while Adapting to Change. Journal of Small Business Management, 40(3), 187-203.
Sleuwaegen, L., & Onkelinx, J. (2013). International commitment, post-entry growth and survival of international
new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.01.001.
Sørensen, J. B., & Phillips, D. J. (2011). Competence and commitment: employer size and entrepreneurial endurance.
Industrial and Corporate Change. http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr025
Tang, J. (2008). Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: entrepreneurial alertness and commitment.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(3), 128-151.
Tasnim, R. (2015). THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL COMMITMENT:
MODELLING COMMITMENT AMONG MALAYSIAN ENTREPRENEURS. PhD Thesis,
https://www.academia.edu/20309474/THE_ANTECEDENTS_AND_CONSEQUENCES_OF_ENTREPRENEU
RIAL_COMMITMENT_MODELLING_COMMITMENT_AMONG_MALAYSIAN_ENTREPRENEURS.
Tasnim, R., Salleh, Y., & Zainuddin, M. H. (2014). “I’m Loving It!”: What Makes the Successful Entrepreneur
Affectively Committed to Entrepreneurial Performance? Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 19(2), 27–52.
Tasnim, R., Yahya, S., Mohd Nor, M., Said, H., & Zainuddin, M. N. (2013). “Are Successful Entrepreneurs
Committed or Motivated?”: A Research Review Synchronyzing Commitment, Motivation and the Entrepreneur.
ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 2(2, October 2013), 46–62, ISSN 2224–9729.
Tasnim, R., Yahya, S., & Zainuddin, M. N. (2013). “ I Believe...” The Normative Commitment of the Successful
Entrepreneur. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 9(2), 188–217.
The Ease of Doing Business 2014: World Bank Data. (2013). Retrieved 29 October 2013, from
http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/malaysia/
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Oppen, C. v. (2009). Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical
Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quarterly 33(1, March 2009), 177-195.
Yusof, M. K. (2001). Locus of Control and Malaysian Entrepreneurship: A Survey of Literature. Paper presented at
the Persidangan Kebangsaan Pertama Keusahawanan & Perniagaan Kecil Anjuran Bersama Sekolah
19
Pengurusan & Institut Pembangunan Keusahawanan, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

20
21