Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Research Report - In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Research Report - In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits

2,970
views

Published on

In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits: A Study of Entrepreneurial characteristics among University Students

In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits: A Study of Entrepreneurial characteristics among University Students

Published in: Education, Technology, Business

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,970
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits: A Study of Entrepreneurial characteristics among University Students Project Report Submitted in Partial fulfillment (Requirements) of Master of Business Administration Programme Under the Supervision of Dr. Neena Sihna By Jaspal Singh ENROL NO:011/MBA (IM)/SMS/04 ROLL NO: 0111664202 (M.B.A –IM) University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Kashmere gate, Delhi-110006 June, 2006
  • 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I take this opportunity to express my profound and sincere gratitude to University School of Management Studies (G.G.S I.P University), Delhi for providing me with the opportunity to explore the corridors of the corporate world and gather invaluable information & practical experience via such project work. I take the privilege of offering my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to Dr. Neena Sihna (Project Guide) for providing me with the opportunity to prepare this project report and his valuable inspiration to carry out this project. I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. A P Singh, Asst. Librarian, GGSIP University, for helping me to collect articles from different source; it is largely due to their support that I am able to accomplish my target. During the course of my project I had a positive response and assistance from all quarters. Finally I would like to thank Students of USMS for their participation in the survey, Computer Lab and library for providing me with necessary facilities to efficiently go about my project. Jaspal Singh M.B.A (IM), IVth Sem USMS, Delhi - II -
  • 3. University School of Management Studies GGS Indraprastha University CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Jaspal Singh (011/MBA-IM/SMS/04) of University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University has successfully completed project on “In Search of Entrepreneurial Traits: A Study of Entrepreneurial characteristics among University Students” This project has been done as a partial fulfillment of Master of Business Administration course. This student has made this project to my entire satisfaction as per requirement of course and I certify that the contents of the project are original and authentic. I wish him luck for all his future endeavors. Project Guide- (Dr. Neena Sihna) Reader, USMS G.G.S.I.P.University, Delhi - III -
  • 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Title Executive Summary Introduction Research Objective & Methodology 2.1 Aims of the study 2.2 Need of the study 2.3 Development of hypothesis 2.3.1 Need for achievement 2.3.2 Locus of Control 2.3.3 Propensity to take risk 2.3.4 Tolerance of ambiguity 2.3.5 Self-confidence 2.3.6 Innovativeness 2.4 Research Methodology Entrepreneurship 3.1 What is Entrepreneurship? 3.2 Defining Entrepreneurship 3.3 Measuring Entrepreneurship History of Entrepreneurship Development in India Government Endeavors for Promoting Entrepreneurship in India 5.1 Ministry 5.2 Small Industry Development Organization (SIDO) 5.3 National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) Ltd. 5.4 Small Scale Industries Board 5.5 National Institutes for Entrepreneurship Development 5.6 National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 6.1 Definition 6.2 Eligibility criteria 6.3 Definition of SME in other countries Review of Literature 7.1 Studies Related to Psychological Profile of Entrepreneurs 7.1.1 Achievement Motivation 7.1.2 Influence Motivation - IV - Page no. VIII 02 05 05 06 07 08 09 09 09 10 13 14 16 19 24 24 25 25 26 26 29 29 30 33 33
  • 5. 8.0 9.0 10.0 7.1.3 Risk Taking Willingness 7.1.4 Locus of Control 7.1.5 Adoption Propensity 7.1.6 Personal Efficacy 7.1.7 Attitude 7.2 Similar Studies conducted in the Hong Kong & Turkey 7.2.1 Testing Hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA Students 7.2.2 Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey 7.3 Factors of Success and Failure Data Analysis & Results 8.1 Entrepreneurial Inclination 8.2 Respondent Profile 8.3 Psychological Characteristics Summary & Conclusion Limitation of the Study Bibliography & References Annexure - Questionnaire -V- 33 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 42 43 45 49 51 53 61
  • 6. LIST OF TABLES Table 01 02 03 04 05 Title Frequency Distribution Future Plans/ Family Business Descriptive statistics of samples and variables Result of univariate tests – t-tests of significant differences Result of univariate tests – X2 tests of independence - VI - Page no. 43 45 46 46 47
  • 7. LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 01 02 03 04 05 Title Entrepreneurial Inclination Sex – Male/Female Comparison of future plans with Sex of the respondents Age Group - Distribution Comparison of future plans with family business of the respondents - VII - Page no. 42 43 44 44 45
  • 8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The meaning of "entrepreneur" is most familiar in the sense of an innovative, risk-taking business owner. Psychological characteristics school of entrepreneurship defines entrepreneurs as individuals with unique values, attitudes and needs which drive them and differentiate them from non-entrepreneurs. The main psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurship are need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance of ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness. In developing countries, Entrepreneurship is seen as an engine of economic progress, job creation and social adjustment. Recently, in India has witnessed an increasing interest in entrepreneurship fields both among the academic scholars, and amongst government policy makers and business leaders. All the entrepreneurs contribute to the spirit of free enterprise. Entrepreneur is an engine of economic growth and industrialization. The aim of the study is to test hypothesis of entrepreneurial characteristics among the university students in India. The research will explore the entrepreneurship profile of Indian University students and will make an evaluation for their entrepreneurship orientation by comparing them with non-entrepreneurially inclined students. The study used the trait model of entrepreneurship to examine six traits associated with entrepreneurship, namely need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness. Earlier, a number of studies have been conducted, both in India and abroad, which identify the factors affecting entrepreneurship development or on entrepreneurial characteristics. The studies so far conducted, particularly in India, have delineated a number of characteristics of a successful entrepreneur. The results of these studies explain the phenomenon of entrepreneurship only, but fail to predict the success of an individual potential entrepreneur. In view of the increasing expenditure incurred by the Government of India on Entrepreneurship Development, there is a need that the researches in the area of Entrepreneurship development should focus on predicting success of potential entrepreneurs so that the programmes of Entrepreneurship development could yield the desired results. The result of the study can be used to - VIII -
  • 9. forecast the entrepreneurial success, which in turn would help the programme implementation agencies in entrepreneurship development with higher rate of success. Earlier theoretical and empirical research in the academic and professional entrepreneurship literature has associated psychological characteristics with entrepreneurship. In is evidently clear by reviewing literature that entrepreneurially inclined person have greater need for achievement, more locus of control, higher propensity to take risk, greater tolerance for ambiguity, more self-confidence and greater innovativeness. Independent variables included in the study are the need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness. Whereas, the dependent variable in the study is entrepreneurial inclination. A self-administered Questionnaire is used to collect the information from the 50 respondents, consist two sections, first sections measures entrepreneurial inclination and second section measures the psychological characteristics. Out of 45 students surveyed, 16 of the students shows their inclination towards working in the entrepreneurial ways in their life, 23 students prefer to look for job opportunities in the private sector, whereas 5 students like to join the public sector companies after their post graduation and only 1 student show its intend to join the family business. Interestingly, 56 percent of the respondent whose family members own the business, preferred to work in the public or private sector with a salary. The results show that both entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined have same level of need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance of ambiguity and innovativeness, at 0.05 significance level. Government needs to take certain initiatives to develop and enhance the psychological characteristics of the entrepreneurially inclined respondents. Small sample size is used to conduct the survey i.e. 50 respondents, thus sample size may not be the true representative of the population or universe. - IX -
  • 10. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-1 Introduction -2-
  • 11. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 1.0 Introduction There has been a great deal of attention paid to the subject of entrepreneurship over the past few years, stemming primarily from the discovery by economic analysts that small firms contribute considerably to economic growth and vitality. Moreover, many people have chosen entrepreneurial careers because doing so seems to offer greater economic and psychological rewards than does the large company route. Programmes, such as the Prime Minister‟s Rozgar Yojana (PMRY) strive to identify potential entrepreneurs from within the target group of unemployed educated. Yet, despite all of the discussion and attention paid to this issue, two fundamental questions remain unanswered: What is entrepreneurship? and Can it be measured? Clearly, in the context of PMRY participant selection, these are two questions that need answering! Peter Kilby once compared entrepreneurship to the imaginary animal, the Heffalump: It is a large and important animal which has been hunted by many individuals using various ingenious trapping devices ... All who claim to have caught sight of him report that he is enormous, but they disagree on his particularities. Not having explored his current habitat with sufficient care, some hunters have used as bait their own favorite dishes and have then tried to persuade people that what they caught was a Heffalump. However, very few are convinced, and the search goes on. For India, Entrepreneurial activity is a means to cope with unemployment problems by providing new jobs opportunities. In developing countries, Entrepreneurship is seen as an engine of economic progress, job creation and social adjustment. Recently, in India has witnessed an increasing interest in entrepreneurship fields both among the academic scholars, and amongst government policy makers and business leaders. Besides the very rapid growth of both the professional and academic entrepreneurship literature and entrepreneurial ventures across India, perhaps the most obvious evidence of this resurgent interest is the emergence of university courses on entrepreneurship and the increasing number of business plans contest across the country. Many entrepreneurs are unusual, as each one has his own way of doing things, some become celebrities through their success and other are ridiculed for their failed dreams. -3-
  • 12. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University All the entrepreneurs contribute to the spirit of free enterprise. Entrepreneur is an engine of economic growth and industrialization. If India is enjoying today a good place in economic growth and a nation of development potential, it is because some people have dared to dream big. -4-
  • 13. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-2 Research Objectives & Methodology -5-
  • 14. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 2.0 Research Objectives & Methodology 2.1 Aim of the Study: The aim of the study is to test hypothesis of entrepreneurial characteristics among the university students in India. The study tries to distinguish between those who are entrepreneurially inclined and those who are not on the basis of psychological characteristics. The research will explore the entrepreneurship profile of Indian University students and will make an evaluation for their entrepreneurship orientation by comparing them with non-entrepreneurially inclined students The study aim to analyze the entrepreneurial characteristics of University students on the basis of data collected from the post-graduate students. It is assumed that certain entrepreneurial characteristics encourage persons to become entrepreneurs or create a tendency for entrepreneurship and thus distinguish them from the rest of the society. The study would consider the following Personal/ Psychological factors affecting Entrepreneurial Success: 1. Need for Achievement 2. Locus of Control 3. Risk-taking propensity 4. Ambiguity tolerance 5. Self-confidence 6. Innovativeness 7. Age 8. Sex 9. Family background 2.2 Need of the Study A number of studies have been conducted, both in India and abroad, which identify the factors affecting entrepreneurship development or on entrepreneurial characteristics. It is evident that the aim of science or for that matter that of social science is to explain natural/social phenomenon. The studies so far conducted, particularly in India, have delineated a number of characteristics of a successful entrepreneur. The results of these -6-
  • 15. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University studies explain the phenomenon of entrepreneurship only, but fail to predict the success of an individual potential entrepreneur. In view of the increasing expenditure incurred by the Government of India on Entrepreneurship Development, there is a need that the researches in the area of Entrepreneurship development should focus on predicting success of potential entrepreneurs so that the programmes of Entrepreneurship development could yield the desired results. In order to fulfill above objective, knowledge of the factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination can have practical significance. The result can be used to forecast the entrepreneurial success, which in turn would help the programme implementation agencies in entrepreneurship development with higher rate of success. 2.3 Development of Hypothesis Psychological characteristics school of entrepreneurship defines entrepreneurs as individuals with unique values, attitudes and needs which drive them and differentiate them from non-entrepreneurs. Its premise is that one‟s needs, drives, attitudes, beliefs and values are primary determinants of the behaviour. People who possess the same characteristics as entrepreneurs will have a higher tendency to perform entrepreneurial acts than people who do not possess such characteristics (Lachman, 1980). The main psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurship are need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance of ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness and the hypotheses relating to them are given below : 2.3.1 Need for achievement Need for achievement and locus of control has received the most attention in the entrepreneurship literature (Berger, 1991). According to the traditional definition, the need for achievement is the impetus that forces the person to struggle for success and perfection (Sagie and Elizur, 1999). While Murray (1938) identified the need for achievement as a basic need that influences behaviour, McClelland first established the construct in the entrepreneurship literature by position that a high need for achievement predisposes a young person to seek out an entrepreneurial position to attain more -7-
  • 16. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University achievement satisfaction that could be derived from other types of position (Entrialgo et al, 2000; stewart et al, 2003). McClelland‟s (1961) theory that need for achievement is a strong psychological driving force behind human action has been long proposed as a factor influencing entrepreneurial behaviour. According to McClelland, individuals who have a strong need to achieve are among those who want to solve problems themselves, set targets, and strive for these targets through their own efforts. The theory suggests that individuals with a strong need to achieve often find their way to entrepreneurship and succeed better than others as entrepreneurs. In other words, It is believed that individuals with a high need for achievement have a strong desire to be successful and consequently more likely to behave entrepreneurially. With numerous comparative studies conducted among entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, it appears that the need for achievement has a more significant relation with entrepreneurship than other characteristics mentioned in the literature (Hansemark, 1998; Littunen, 2000; Johnson, 1990). Thus based on the need for achievement theory and the previous research finding, this study postulates the following null hypothesis: H1: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same level of the need for achievement. 2.3.2 Locus of control Locus of control represents an individual‟s perceptions about the rewards and punishment in his/her life (Pervin, 1980). In other words, it is a personality variable that is related to the generalized expectations of a person on whether he/she will be able to control the events in life (Leone and Burns, 2000). According to Rotter (1996) individuals vary in terms of how much personal responsibility they perceive and accept for their behaviour and its consequences. While individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they are able o control life‟s event, individuals with an external locus of control believe that life‟s events are the result of external factors, such as chance, luck or fate (Rotter, 1996). -8-
  • 17. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986) suggested further that locus of control could distinguish entrepreneurs who are successful from those who are unsuccessful. It is believed that entrepreneurs have an internal locus of control. Entrepreneurs searching for new opportunities and taking an innovative attitude are also expected to have the capability to control the event in their lives, or, in other words, have locus of inner control. According to Shapero‟s study, the conclusion reached was that entrepreneurs have relatively higher locus of inner control than those who are not entrepreneurs (Thomas and Mueller, 2000). Given the above, another null hypothesis tested in this study is as follows: H2: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same locus of control. 2.3.3 Propensity to take risk Risk taking propensity refers to the propensity of an individual to exhibit risk taking or risk avoidance when confronted with risky situations. Mills (1984) suggested that risk bearing is the key factor in distinguishing entrepreneurs from managers, and others have suggested that the entrepreneurial function primarily involves risk measurement and risk taking. However, being an uncertain environment, entrepreneurship also includes the risks related to financial well-being, career opportunities, family relations, emotional state and psychic well being (Erdem, 2001; Brockhaus, 1980; Littunen, 2000). Bird (1989) divides the risks into the five types, four of which are clearly relevant to any potential entrepreneur: economic risk, risks in social relations, risks in career development, plus psychological and health risks.It is believed that entrepreneurs prefer to take moderate risks in situations where they have some degree of control or skill in realizing a profile. Much of the entrepreneurship literature includes risk taking as major entrepreurial characteristics. Thus, the third null hypothesis tested in this study is: H3: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same level of risk-taking propensity. -9-
  • 18. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 2.3.4 Tolerance of ambiguity Uncertainty is as state which can not be structured due to insufficient data. The tolerance for ambiguity is the ability to respond positively to ambiguous situations., if an individual consents to inadequate data and trusts this decision taken under uncertainty, his tolerance for such states is considered high ( Teoh and Foo, 1997). On the other hand, people with low level of tolerance for ambiguity tend to find uncertain and unstructured situations more uncomfortable. Thus, they try to avoid such ambiguous situations. It other words, the manner in which a person perceives an ambiguous situation and organizes the available information to approach it reflects his/her tolerance of ambiguity. Entrepreneurs eagerly undertake the unknown and willingly seek out and manage uncertainty (Mitton, 1989). It is believed that those who are entrepreneurially inclined are expected to display more tolerance of ambiguity than others. Hence, forth null hypothesis tested in this study is as follows: H4: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same level of ambiguity tolerance. 2.3.5 Self-confidence Entrepreneurs are typically described as having self-confidence. Because they seek out and complete demanding tasks it is unlikely that they could do this successfully if they had low confidence. In other words, an entrepreneur is expected to have a perceived sense of self-esteem and competence in conjunction with his/her business affairs. (Robinson, Stimpson and Huefner; 1991). In the literature on entrepreneurship, it is stated that entrepreneurs demonstrate a higher degree of self-esteem with respect to others (Koh, 1996; Robinson et al, 1991) H5: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same level of self confidence. 2.3.6 Innovativeness Innovation includes creating new products or new quality, to create new methods of production, to get into a new market, to create a new source of supply or to create new - 10 -
  • 19. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University organization or structure in business. In other words, innovativeness relates to perceiving and acting on business activities in new and unique ways (Robinson, Stimpson and Huefner, 1991). Successful innovation demands an act of will i.e. it demands a leader and it has to be carried through (Hansemark, 1998). Innovation is suggested as a behavior that characterizes entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation (Entrialgo et al, 2000). Drucker claims that innovation is the major tool of entrepreneurship. He refers to innovation as a systematic search for the changes as opportunities for new markets, products, or ideas (Cromie, 2000; Utsch and Rauch, 2000). Stewart et al (2003) argue that innovation is inherent in the role of entrepreneurship and it can separate “entrepreneurs” from “managers”. Thus, the last null hypothesis tested in this study is: H6: Individual who are entrepreneurially inclined and those are not have the same level of innovativeness. 2.4 Research Methodology: Earlier theoretical and empirical research in the academic and professional entrepreneurship literature has associated psychological characteristics with entrepreneurship. In is evidently clear by reviewing literature that entrepreneurially inclined person have greater need for achievement, more locus of control, higher propensity to take risk, greater tolerance for ambiguity, more self-confidence and greater innovativeness. The objective of the study is to investigate if these psychological characteristics can adequately distinguish between those who are entrepreneurially inclined and those who are not. It includes following items:  Research Framework:- The research framework used in the study is adapted from the earlier study conducted in Hong Kong (Koh, 1996) and Turkey (Gurol, 2006; Atsan, 2006). The variables selected for investigation are reflected in the null hypotheses developed in the previous section. Independent variables included in the study are the need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, - 11 -
  • 20. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness. Whereas, the dependent variable in the study is entrepreneurial inclination.  Type of Universe:- The universe is the entire group , that the researcher wishes to study. Under this project the studies have been confined with in the boundaries of New Delhi only.  Target group/respondents: Post-Graduate MBA Students of different streams.  Research Method: Survey & articles related to different areas related to entrepreneurship.  Research technique: fixed-alternative questionnaire was used to conduct the self-administered survey. Questionnaire consist two sections, first sections measures entrepreneurial inclination as well as selected demographic and family variables and second section measures the six psychological characteristics of the respondent specified in the six hypotheses; namely, need for achievement (eight items), locus of control (eight items), propensity to take risk (eight items), tolerance of ambiguity (eight items), self confidence (eight items) and innovativeness (eight items). These items were taken from the entrepreneurial self-assessment scale (Entrepreneur‟s Handbook, Technonet Asia).  Sample Distribution:  Sampling Technique: Random sampling technique has been used.  Sampling Unit:- The target population must be defined that has been to be sampled. The sampling unit of the project consists of post-graduate student in New Delhi.  Sample Size:- The sample consists of 50 respondents. - 12 -
  • 21. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-3 Entrepreneurship - 13 -
  • 22. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 3.0 Entrepreneurship 3.1 What is Entrepreneurship? Many definitions of entrepreneurship can be found in the literature describing business processes. The earliest definition of entrepreneurship, dating from the eighteenth century, used it as an economic term describing the process of bearing the risk of buying at certain prices and selling at uncertain prices. Other, later commentators broadened the definition to include the concept of bringing together the factors of production. This definition led others to question whether there was any unique entrepreneurial function or whether it was simply a form of management. Early this century, the concept of innovation was added to the definition of entrepreneurship. This innovation could be process innovation, market innovation, product innovation, factor innovation, and even organisational innovation. Later definitions described entrepreneurship as involving the creation of new enterprises and that the entrepreneur is the founder. Considerable effort has also gone into trying to understand the psychological and sociological wellsprings of entrepreneurship. These studies have noted some common characteristics among entrepreneurs with respect to need for achievement, perceived locus of control, orientation toward intuitive rather than sensate thinking, and risk-taking propensity. In addition, many have commented upon the common, but not universal, thread of childhood deprivation, minority group membership and early adolescent economic experiences as typifying the entrepreneur. At first glance then, we may have the beginnings of a definition of entrepreneurship. However, detailed study of both the literature and actual examples of entrepreneurship tend to make a definition more difficult, if not impossible. Consider, for example, the degree to which entrepreneurship is synonymous with 'bearing risk', 'innovation', or even founding a company. Each of the terms described above focuses upon some aspect of some entrepreneurs, but if one has to be the founder to be an entrepreneur, then neither Mukesh Ambani nor JRD Tata will qualify; yet few would seriously argue that these individuals are not entrepreneurs. Although risk bearing is an - 14 -
  • 23. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University important element of entrepreneurial behaviour, many entrepreneurs have succeeded by avoiding risk where possible and seeking others to bear the risk. As one extremely successful entrepreneur has said; 'My idea of risk and reward is for me to get the reward and others to take the risks'. Creativity is often not a prerequisite for entrepreneurship either. Many successful entrepreneurs have been good at copying others and they qualify as innovators and creators only by stretching the definition beyond elastic limits. The best example can be that of Sunil Bharti Mittal of Bharti Airtel Company. There are similarly many questions about what the psychological and social traits of entrepreneurs are. The same traits shared by two individuals can often lead to vast different results: successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs can share the characteristics commonly identified. As well, the studies of the life paths of entrepreneurs often show decreasing 'entrepreneurship' following success, which tends to disprove the centrality of character or personality traits as a sufficient basis for defining entrepreneurship. So, we are left with a range of factors and behaviours, which identify entrepreneurship in some individuals. All of the above tends to reinforce the view that it is difficult, if not impossible to define what an entrepreneur is, and that the word itself can be best used in the past tense to describe a successful business person. 3.2 Defining Entrepreneurship The word Entrepreneur derives from the French verb “entreprende,” meaning, “to undertake” and was translated from the German verb “unternehmen” which also means, “to undertake.” In the early sixteenth century, entrepreneurs were thought of as Frenchmen who undertook to lead military expeditions. The term was broadened by 1700 to include contractors who undertook to build for the military: roads, bridges, harbors, fortifications, and the like. At that time, French economists also used the word to describe people who bore risk and uncertainty in order to make innovations (de Farcy, 1973; Berthold 1951). - 15 -
  • 24. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University The Oxford English Dictionary defined the term "entrepreneur" as (a) "a director of a musical institution" (def. 1) and as "a person who undertakes or controls a business or enterprise and bears the risk of profit or loss" (def. 2), and finally as "a contractor who acts as an intermediary" (def. 3). Although the meaning of "entrepreneur" is most familiar in the sense of an innovative, risk-taking business owner, it is noteworthy that the first meaning has a distinct cultural association. Schumpeter (1939) probably is the major contributor to literature on conceptualization of entrepreneurs. For the first time, he identified human agent as the centre of process of economic development. He considered entrepreneur as an innovator, who carried new combinations to initiate and accelerate the process of economic development. These include five changes, namely, introduction of new goods, introduction of new production function, opening of new market, the conquest of a new source of supply of materials and carrying out of a new organization of industry (Schumpeter, 1934). According to him, development is not an automatic or spontaneous process. It must be actively promoted by some agency with in the system. Schumpeter called the agent who initiated the above changes as an "entrepreneur". Also, according to Schumpeter (1934), the key ingredient of entrepreneurship lies in the innovativeness of the individual and may not involve ownership at all. While, Broechl (1970) stated that entrepreneurship is the introduction of a new goods or quality goods with which consumers are not familiar, new ways of holding a commodity commercially. Rao and Mehta (1978) describe entrepreneurship as a "creative" and innovative response to environment. Such a response can take place in any field of endeavour - business, industry, agriculture, education, social work and the like. Doing new things or doing things that are already being done in a new way is, therefore, a simple definition of entrepreneurship. Grasley (1986) opined that it is more useful to describe an entrepreneur by what he or she does and thereby differentiate them more clearly from the management function of the business. Unfortunately, the term "entrepreneur" is often used loosely to apply to all - 16 -
  • 25. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University business owners and managers. Thus, simply defined, an entrepreneur is a decision taker, who can identify an opportunity, assemble the necessary factors of production and resources and transform an idea into a marketable product or service. Shelke et al. (2002) defined entrepreneur “A person who takes the risk of setting up his own venture for perceived rewards. He or she initiates the idea, formulates a plan, organizes resources and puts the plan into action, to achieve the goal.” 3.3 Measuring Entrepreneurship Despite the limitation in measuring entrepreneurship, there remains a powerful impulse, particularly amongst enterprise development researchers, to measure entrepreneurship in some way. These measurement attempts can range from simple checklists through to complex and detailed computer programmes. This need for a definition and measure of entrepreneurship is because the entrepreneur is the key to the successful launch of any business. Identifying and selecting the right opportunities for new businesses are among the most important abilities of a successful entrepreneur (Stevenson et al., 1985). He or she is the person who perceives the market opportunity and then has the motivation, drive and ability to mobilise resources to meet it. The major characteristics of entrepreneurs that have been listed by many commentators include the following. Self confident and multi-skilled. The person who can 'make the product, market it and count the money, but above all they have the confidence that lets them move comfortably through unchartered waters'. Confident in the face of difficulties and discouraging circumstances. Innovative skills. Not an 'inventor' in the traditional sense but one who is able to carve out a new niche in the market place, often invisible to others. Results-orientated. To make be successful requires the drive that only comes from setting goals and targets and getting pleasure from achieving them. - 17 -
  • 26. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University A risk-taker. To succeed means taking measured risks. Often the successful entrepreneur exhibits an incremental approach to risk taking, at each stage exposing him/herself to only a limited, measured amount of personal risk and moving from one stage to another as each decision is proved. Total commitment. Hard work, energy and single-mindedness are essential elements in the entrepreneurial profile. However, two warnings need to be attached to this partial list of entrepreneurial qualities. Firstly, selecting individuals for enterprise development training by such a set of attitudes and skills in no way guarantees business success. Secondly, the entrepreneurial characteristics required to launch a business successfully are often not those required for growth and even more frequently not those required to manage it once it grows to any size. The role of the entrepreneur needs to change with the business as it develops and grows, but all too often he or she is not able to make the transition. - 18 -
  • 27. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-4 History of Entrepreneurship Development in India - 19 -
  • 28. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 4.0 History of Entrepreneurship Development in India The central theme of the book by Tripathi (2005) is the evolution of Indian business from mercantile to industrial capitalism. India and China were the world's largest manufacturing economies in the eighteenth century before the Industrial Revolution. However, India's manufacturing was entirely in the hands of small artisans. Tripathi maintains that the powerful merchants found all over India showed no interest in manufacturing. This was not because of a cultural or religious aversion to capitalism -the "Indian spirit" as Weber described it -- but because there was little inducement given the fragmented markets, inadequate transport infrastructure, lawlessness and disregard for property rights, which characterized Mughal India. As the English East India Company slowly encroached on Indian affairs, Indian merchants usually regarded them as an improvement on the previous situation. The large "merchant princes" switched their services from the ailing Mughal Empire to the rising British one, only to find their roles as intermediaries as the East India Company introduced currency and banking reforms. More by accident than design, Tripathi argues, the new British rulers provided a far better climate for modern entrepreneurship to flourish than their predecessors. For him, there was no possibility of a Japanese-style success story cut short by imperialism. Indian business remained primarily focused on trading and money lending until the middle of the nineteenth century, although there was a modest demonstration effect as Indians observed a new style of entrepreneurship practiced by Europeans in India. However, things changed as the British built transport infrastructure, abolished internal customs tariffs, and established a legal system, which enforced property rights and eliminated the power of government to act in an arbitrary fashion. In Bengal, ethnic British entrepreneurs seized the opportunity to build new jute and coal industries. In Western India, Parsees such as the Tatas created a new cotton textile industry. Indian entrepreneurs developed the distinctive "managing agency" system, in response to shortages of capital and managerial skills, whereby families controlled through management contracts numerous independent joint-stock industries in diversified activities with outside shareholders. The British expatriate houses, such as the Birds and Andrew Yule, adapted this Indian management system. Although the outlines of this - 20 -
  • 29. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University story are familiar, Tripathi breaks new ground by assembling the existing empirical evidence on both the Indian and British entrepreneurs and firms active in nineteenth century India. The most negative consequences of colonialism, in Tripathi's view, was that it maintained the long-standing disinclination of the Indian business elite to invest in technological innovation because of "their easy access to foreign technology, thanks to the imperial connection" (p. 256). It was particularly unfortunate that the British technology to which Indians had such easy access turned out, especially in textiles, to be less than world-class. Indian entrepreneurs, Tripathi concludes, suffered from a bad case of "colonial syndrome," or "an instinctive inclination of a subject people to emulate the practices, behaviors, and institutions of the ruling race, resentment against political subjugation not withstanding" (p. 252). This view is a long way from the literature of several decades ago, when the British were blamed for the "deindustrialization" of India. Tripathi describes a remarkable growth of Indian-owned business from the First World War. Modern industrialization spread from the small confines of parts of western and eastern India to many other regions of India. A major turning point was the entry of the Marwaris into industry. The Marwaris were émigrés from Rajasthan who had built extensive trading, money lending and brokerage businesses, especially in Bengal, and by the end of the nineteenth century already dominated the domestic trade in raw jute. During the War, Ghanshyam Das Birla led the Marwari community into its first sustained manufacturing investments. He was offended by the racism he sometimes encountered from the British, but he also wanted to learn from them about modern business methods. During the interwar years the Marwaris and others greatly expanded their manufacturing investments, sometimes by buying the shares of British companies. Indian entrepreneurs invested in new industries such as sugar, paper, shipping and chemicals, and challenged the British incumbents in jute and coal. Despite the growth of the Birlas and other Marwaris, the Tatas remained preeminent, building a giant diversified business empire, and even launching an airline in the mid-1930s. - 21 -
  • 30. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University In contrast, the long-established British expatriate business houses grew at a slower pace than the Indian firms during the interwar years, although Tripathi is good at highlighting the diversity of experience between firms. Tripathi dismisses the view that the growth of Indian nationalism and growing political risk deterred the established British managing agencies from investing in new industries, and instead suggests they were crowded out by a new wave of Western multinational investors such as Dunlop, Philips, Imperial Tobacco, Unilever and ICI who held stronger competitive advantages in high technology and branded consumer goods. However, even after Independence in 1947, British expatriate firms did not suddenly divest from India. Long-established firms such as the Parrys and Binnys became Indian registered companies. Many made new investments. However, in time all of the former British business houses were either acquired by Indian investors or the government. The process was a long one. The long-established Assam Company was not "Indianised" until 1991. Indian capitalism managed to flourish after 1947, despite the formidable battery of government controls and restrictions, and despite a considerable number of firms experiencing problems because of family succession issues. The highly protected domestic market itself created profitable opportunities for incumbents, although Tripathi also notes -- somewhat circumspectly -- that one serious-trade off was a widespread spread of corruption, which resulted in India being "consistently rated as a highly corrupt society" (p. 333). Many new business groups were created, including by new Marwari families such as the Goenkas and Khaitans, who rapidly built empires acquiring former British assets. There were striking entrepreneurial success stories, such as Karsanblai Patel's Nirma Industries which challenged the long-established hold on the Indian market by Unilever by introducing a game-changing low-priced detergent. Policy liberalization after 1991 created new opportunities, especially in information technologies, in which firms such as Infosys and locations such as Bangalore finally revealed the potential of Indian business to the world's attention. - 22 -
  • 31. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-5 Government Endeavors for Promoting Entrepreneurship in India - 23 -
  • 32. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 5.0 Government Endeavors for Promoting Entrepreneurship in India Immediately after getting Independence, Indian government realized the intensity of the problem of unemployment and constituted Ford Committee to study the problems of Indian Industry. The committee submitted its recommendations to the government in 1954 as the measures to develop Indian economy through industrialization. As a result Government of India established the Small Industries Development Organisation (SIDO) in 1954, incorporated the National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) in 1955 as a Central public sector undertaking, enacted the Khadi & village Industries Commission Act 1957 leading to constitution of Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) in the same year and set up the Central Industrial Extension Training Institute (CIETI) in 1960, now renamed as National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training (NISIET). Presently, the small-scale industries (SSI) constitute one of the vibrant sectors of the Indian economy in terms of employment generation, the strong entrepreneurial base it helps to create and its share in industrial production and exports. The Government created the Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Agro and Rural Industries (SSI&ARI) in October, 1999 as the nodal Ministry for formulation of policy and co-ordination of Central assistance relating to promotion and development of the small-scale industries in India. The Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Agro and Rural Industries (SSI&ARI) was bifurcated into two separate Ministries, namely, Ministry of Small Scale Industries and Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries in September, 2001. Taking into account the high potential for growth in the SSI sector in terms of output, employment and exports, the role of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries is to strengthen the SSI sector, to enable it to remain competitive in market-led economy and generate additional employment opportunities. For achieving these objectives, the endeavor of the Ministry is to provide the SSI sector proper and timely inputs like:  adequate credit from financial institutions/banks;  funds for technology upgradation and modernization;  adequate infrastructural facilities;  modern testing facilities and quality certification laboratories; - 24 -
  • 33. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University  modern management practices and skill upgradation through advanced training facilities;  marketing assistance; and  level playing field at par with the large industries sector; 5.1 Ministry The Ministry of SSI designs policies, programmes, projects and schemes in consultation with its organizations and various stakeholder and monitors their implementation with a view to assisting the promotion and growth of small scale industries. The Ministry also performs the function of policy advocacy on behalf of the SSI sector with other Ministries/Departments of the Central Government and the State and Union Territories. The implementation of policies and various programmes/projects/schemes for providing infrastructure and support services to small enterprises is undertaken through its attached office, namely the Small Industry Development Organization (SIDO) and the National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) Ltd., a public sector undertaking under the Ministry. 5.2 Small Industry Development Organization (SIDO) The Office of the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) is also known as the Small Industry Development Organization (SIDO). It is an apex body for assisting the Ministry in formulating, coordinating, implementing and monitoring policies and programmes for the promotion and development of small scale industries in the country and is headed by the Development Commissioner (SSI). In addition, the SIDO provides a comprehensive range of common facilities, technology support services, marketing assistance, etc., through its network of 30 Small Industries Service Institutes (SISIs), 28 Branch SISIs, 7 Field Testing Stations (FTS), 4 Regional Testing Centres, 2 Small Entrepreneur Promotion and Training Institutes (SEPTI) and 1 Hand Tool Design Development and Training Centre. The SIDO also has a network of Tool Rooms, Process-cum-Product Development Centres (PPDCs) and technology and training support institutes which are run as autonomous bodies registered as societies under the Societies Act. - 25 -
  • 34. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 5.3 National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) Ltd. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. was set up with a view to promoting, aiding and fostering the growth of small scale industries in the country with focus on commercial aspects of these functions. NSIC continues to implement its various programmes and projects throughout the country to assist the SSI units. The Corporation has been assisting the sector through the following schemes and activities:  Supply of both indigenous and imported machines on easy hire-purchase terms  Composite term loan scheme  Procurement, supply and distribution, of indigenous and imported raw- materials  Marketing of small industries products  Export of small industries products and developing export-worthiness of small scale units  Enlisting competent units and facilitating their participation in Government Stores Purchase Programme  Training in several technical trades  Sensitizing SSI units on technological up gradation through Software Technology Parks and Technology Transfer Centres  Mentoring & advisory services  Technology business incubators  Setting up small scale industries in other developing countries on turnkey basis  Other areas & international co-operation Over the years, the Corporation has made significant contribution to the growth of the SSI sector in India. The Corporation has also set up a large number of turnkey projects in a number of developing countries. The Corporation is an ISO: 9001-2000 Company. 5.4 Small Scale Industries Board SSI Board is the apex non-statutory advisory body constituted by the Government of India to render advice on all issues pertaining to the SSI sector. The Minister incharge of the SSI Ministry is the Chairman of the Board. Members of the Board, include inter alia State Industries Ministers, selected Members of Parliament, Secretaries of various - 26 -
  • 35. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Departments of the Central Government, Heads of Financial Institutions, Representatives of Industry Associations and Eminent Experts. The SSI Board provides to its members a forum for interaction to facilitate co-operation and inter-institutional linkages and to render advice to the Government on various policy matters, for the development of the sector. The Board was first constituted in 1954. Its term is for two years. The Board was last constituted on 18th January 2003, with 101 members and held its 48th meeting on 17 January, 2004. 5.5 National Institutes For Entrepreneurship Development As entrepreneurship development and training is one of the key elements for the promotion of small scale industries, the Ministry has established three National Institutes, viz. the National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training (NISIET) at Hyderabad, the National Institute of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development (NIESBUD) at NOIDA and the Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship (IIE) at Guwahati as autonomous bodies. These Institutes are responsible for development of training models and undertaking of research and training for entrepreneurship development in the SSI sector. 5.6 National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector The National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector was constituted in September 2004 under the chairmanship of Dr. Arjun K. Sengupta, an eminent economist. It has three full-time Members and two part-time Members and an Advisory Board consisting of 11 eminent experts from different fields relating to the unorganized/informal sector. The Commission will recommend measures considered necessary for bringing about improvement in the productivity of the informal sector enterprises, generation of large scale employment opportunities on a sustainable basis, particularly in the rural areas, enhancing the competitiveness of the sector in the emerging global environment, linkage of the sector with institutional framework in areas such as credit, raw material, infrastructure, technology upgradation, marketing and formulation of suitable arrangements for skill development. - 27 -
  • 36. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University In accordance with its terms of reference, the Commission and its Advisory Board have held several rounds of deliberations on a host of issues relating to the unorganized/informal sector enterprises. In the light of these deliberations, the Commission for detailed consideration and recommendations has identified the following issues so far:  notion of growth poles for the informal sector in the form of clusters/hubs, where external economies need to be provided to spur employment generation and productivity enhancement and the feasibility of integrating the initiatives and programmes of various Ministries in this domain;  skill formation in the informal sector and potential for public private partnership in providing the required skills;  provision of micro finance and related services to the informal sector enterprises and strengthening of the institutional framework in this area; and  issues concerning social security for the workers in the informal sector and instrumentalities for achieving this objective. - 28 -
  • 37. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-6 Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) - 29 -
  • 38. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 6.0 Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 6.1 Definition According to Reserve Bank of India‟s Circular No. RBI/2005-06/159 DBOD. BP. BC. No. 34 / 21.04.132/ 2005-06 Dated September 8, 2005 SMEs have been defined, eligibility criteria and viability criteria for credit flow have been enumerated as below: Definition " At present, a small scale industrial unit is an undertaking in which investment in plant and machinery, does not exceed Rs.1 crore, except in respect of certain specified items under hosiery, hand tools, drugs and pharmaceuticals, stationery items and sports goods, where this investment limit has been enhanced to Rs. 5 crore. A comprehensive legislation, which would enable the paradigm shift from small-scale industry to small and medium enterprises, is under consideration of Parliament. Pending enactment of the above legislation, current SSI/ tiny industries definition may continue. Units with investment in plant and machinery in excess of SSI limit and up to Rs. 10 crore may be treated as Medium Enterprises (ME). 6.2 Eligibility criteria These guidelines would be applicable to the following entities, which are viable or potentially viable: All non-corporate SMEs irrespective of the level of dues to banks. All corporate SMEs, which are enjoying banking facilities from a single bank, irrespective of the level of dues to the bank. All corporate SMEs, which have funded and non-funded outstanding up to Rs.10 crore under multiple/ consortium banking arrangement (for outstanding of Rs.10 crore and above, guidelines are being issued separately). Accounts involving willful default, fraud and malfeasance will not be eligible for restructuring under these guidelines. Accounts classified by banks as "Loss Assets" will not be eligible for restructuring. In respect of BIFR cases banks should ensure completion of all formalities in seeking approval from BIFR before implementing the package. - 30 -
  • 39. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Viability criteria Banks may decide on the acceptable viability benchmark, consistent with the unit becoming viable in 7 years and the repayment period for restructured debt not exceeding 10 years. 6.3 The definition of Small & medium enterprise in other countries The definition of SMEs varies from country to country, is as follows: European Union: The EU‟s definition of SME is based on the number of people employed in the enterprise. A micro enterprise has a headcount of less than 10, and a turnover or balance sheet total of not more than two million euros. A small enterprise has a headcount of less than, and a turnover or balance sheet total of not more than ten million euros. A medium-size enterprise has a headcount of less than 250 and a turnover of not more than fifty million euros or a balance sheet total of not more than forty-three million euros. United Kingdom: Sections 247 and 249 of the companies act 1985, define a SME as a small company that has a turnover of not more than £ 5.6 m, a balance sheet total of not more than £ 2.8m and not more than 50 employees. A medium –sized company has a turnover of not more than £ 22.8m, a balance sheet total of not more than £ 11.4m and not more than 250 employees. USA: In the USA, SME means an Organisation of up to 1500 employees and turnover of $0.75-29m, depending upon the type of business. In the US, a government department called the Small Business Administration (SBA) sets the definition of small business. The SBA uses the term “size standards” to indicate the largest a concern can be in order to still be considered a small business and therefore able to benefit from small business targeted funding. Australia: Micro enterprise is that which employs less than five employees and those employees between 5-19 personnel are small and the medium enterprises are those that employ 20 – 200 employees. - 31 -
  • 40. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University China: for defining an SME, the categorization is sector-specific and is divided between small and medium segments. In the industrial sector, those employing between 200-2000 people and having sales between 230-300m yuan or assets in the range of 40-400m yuan are considered small and those above this are medium-level enterprises. Similarly, for construction industry, one of their huge employers, the employee strength between 6003000 and, sales and assets level of 30-300m yuan and 40-400m yuan respectively are considered small and those having more than this are considered medium. - 32 -
  • 41. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-7 Review of Literatures - 33 -
  • 42. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 7.0 Review of Literature: 7.1 Studies Related to Psychological Profile of Entrepreneurs 7.1.1 Achievement Motivation: Achievement motivation has been found to form the basis of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs have been found having high drive and activity level, struggling to achieve something, which they call as their own accomplishment. Individuals with high achievement motivation in general behave like successful rationalizing business entrepreneurs (McClelland and Winter, 1969) that is; they set moderately difficult goals for themselves, neither too easy nor too hard, so as to minimize the likelihood of achievement dissatisfaction. Researchers suggest (Rao and Mehta, 1978) that achievement motivation leads into the parlour of entrepreneurship (though it may not be adequate to secure success). Achievement motivation as an important characteristic of entrepreneurship has been reported by McClelland (1961), McClelland and Winter (1969), Hagon (1971) and Hornaday and Abond (1971). It was supported in Indian context by Singh (1966) Singh and Singh (1971), Mohiuddin (1971), Nandi (1973), Patel (1977), Ramakrishna (1979) and Singh (1979). Patel (2002) indicates that the entrepreneurship of sugarcane growers was significantly influenced by their achievement motivation, positive attitude towards innovation, better extension participation and information seeking behaviour. 7.1.2 Influence Motivation: It has been defined as the desire for influencing other people and the surrounding environment (Mehta, 1977). Though achievement has been proved to be essential for entrepreneurship it need not be the only factor making him successful an entrepreneur has to plan the role of manager (Rao and Mehta, 1978). Mohiuddin (1971), Nandi (1973) and Bhattacharjee and Akhouri (1975) found power as a significant characteristic for entrepreneurial success. 7.1.3 Risk Taking Willingness: To be personally responsible for the risks involved in the establishment of an enterprise/occupation may be considered as one of the important dimensions of an entrepreneurial behaviour (Nadakarni and Rao, 1978). - 34 -
  • 43. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University According to Mathai (1978), the risk taking of an entrepreneur could be viewed in relation to four aspects: a) Technical Risk: The risk involved in not knowing the technical details. b) Economic Risk: The risk of market fluctuation and changes. c) Social Risk: The risk inherent in development of new inter and intra group relationships. d) Environmental Risk: The risks at work, which result from environmental changes as an outcome of the new activity. Bird (1989) divides the risks into the five types, four of which are clearly relevant to any potential entrepreneur: economic risk, risks in social relations, risks in career development, plus psychological and health risks. People perception of risk is a critical factor in taking up some new independent occupations and they always consider a new economic activity in terms of prevailing circumstances and their capability to bear loss in case of failure. So an individual well versed with the circumstances and knowledge about future activity will come up to take higher level of risk. By and large, the entrepreneurs take up higher risk as reported by McClelland (1961), Christopher (1974), Bhattacharjee and Akhouri (1975), Sethy (1982), Sagar and Roy (1985). Moderate risk taking as a characteristic of successful entrepreneurs has been reported by McClelland and Winter (1969), Singh (1970), Singh and Singh (1971), Khandawala (1976), Rao and Mehta (1978) and Sadangi (1991). 7.1.4 Locus of Control: The concept of locus of control developed by Rolter (1954). Locus of control is the perception of the factors responsible for the outcome of an event. An individual with an internal locus of control believes their actions caused the outcome. Conversely, an individual with an external locus of control believes the outcome was determined by outside forces. Internals are quicker than externals to adopt innovations and new practices. So people with small family size norm also tend to be internals (Pareek and Rao; 1974). Gupta - 35 -
  • 44. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (1989) measured the locus of control of 60 industrial entrepreneurs of Okhla, Delhi and found that none of the entrepreneurs had external locus of control. 7.1.5 Adoption Propensity: The readiness on the part of individual to change and adopt the best means available at the particular time makes him more dynamics and efficient in managing the situation. Schumpeter has placed innovator in the centre in the whole process of economic development. The proneness to change or to adopt new idea is an important that initiates from within an individual. A higher level of adoption propensity or innovativeness of the entrepreneurs has been reported by Christopher (1974), Mishra (1979), Sethy (1982), Singh (1982a), Murthy (1983) and Singh (1983). 7.1.6 Personal Efficacy: Entrepreneurs tend to present themselves as persons striving towards goals that involve action. Being confident about their own abilities and resources, they see themselves as problem solvers rather than problem avoiders, as initiative takers rather than complainants. They tend to see themselves as effective persons (Rao and Mehta, 1979). Such characteristics donate personal efficacy. It has been defined as the general sense of adequacy in a person. (Pareek and Rao, 1978) and has been conceived as an important factor contributing to entrepreneurial behaviour of a person. Personal efficacy is the tendency in an individual to accept success or failure, which is within his control. Mohiuddin (1971), Nandi (1973), and Rao (1978) have reported personal efficacy as an important characteristics of entrepreneurs. 7.1.7 Attitude: According to Robinson (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner & Hunt, 1991), attitude is a better approach to the study of entrepreneurship than either personality or demographics. Personality approach were not developed for or specifically intended to be used in measuring entrepreneurship. They were borrowed from psychology and applied to the area of entrepreneurship, sometimes inappropriately and often ineffectively (Hornaday, 1987; Hornaday & Nunnally, 1987). Personality theories are intended for use across a broad spectrum of situations, measuring general tendencies (Abelson, 1982; Epstein, 1984). Personality measurements often lose efficacy when applied to a specific domain such as entrepreneurship. - 36 -
  • 45. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 7.2 Similar Studies conducted in the Hong Kong & Turkey 7.2.1 Testing Hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA Students (Koh, 1996) The study was conducted by the Prof Hian Chye Koh, School of Accountancy and Business, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The objective of the study is to test the hypothesis of entrepreneurial characteristics and attempt to distinguish between entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined students on the basis of psychological characteristics. The aim of the study is to develop a tool which can be used as a career guidance tool for student or as a device for screening entrants into an entrepreneurship programme or in later stage; it can serve as inputs to entrepreneurship programme. For the study, the population of interest comprises MBA students in Hong Kong. The sample of 100 students is drawn randomly from MBA students in the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The results show that those who are entrepreneurially inclined have a higher propensity to take risks, more tolerance of ambiguity and greater innovativeness. Collectively, the six psychological characteristics can distinguish between those who are entrepreneurially inclined and those who are not an overall holdout accuracy rate of 87.04 per cent. 7.2.2 Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey (Gurol and Atsan, 2006) The purpose of the research was to explore the entrepreneurship profile of Turkish university students and to make an evaluation for their entrepreneurship orientation by comparing them with non-entrepreneurially inclined students. The study is conducted on a random sample of forth year university students from two Turkish universities. A 40item questionnaire is administered to 400 students, with questions relating to demographics variables, entrepreneurial inclination, and six entrepreneurial traits. - 37 -
  • 46. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University The results of t-tests showed that, except for tolerance for ambiguity and self-confidence, all entrepreneurial traits are found to be higher in entrepreneurially inclined students, as compare to entrepreneurially non-inclined students. Thus, these students are found to have higher risk taking propensity, internal locus of control, higher need for achievement and higher innovativeness. 7.3 Factors of Success and Failure A number of personal, socio-economic and psychological as well as factors external to the entrepreneur have been studied to know their role in relation to success and failure. Bogaert et al. (1973) found that tribal entrepreneurs faced a considerable number of handicaps in starting business. It was due to the fact that tribal entrepreneurs lacked a family tradition of business. SIET (Small Industries Extension Training Institute), Hyderabad (1974) conducted a survey of small units situated in Hyderabad and Secundarabad. The study revealed 'capital shortage' and government 'red-tape' as the most discouraging factors. The study further showed that younger age, formal education, urban background, experience in industry, high scores in levels of aspirations, risk taking and adoption propensity were some of the characteristics that were positively associated with quality of entrepreneurship. But factors like technical education, high monthly income, being first born or eldest among male children, contact with influential people and need for achievement were not associated with entrepreneurship. Christopher (1974) got ten factors ranked by 61 small industry entrepreneurs. He found that high demand for the product was perceived as most important factor followed by experience in line, support from friends and family. Government red tape and capital shortage were together perceived as the most discouraging factor followed by nonavailability of raw material and labour. - 38 -
  • 47. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University The small-scale industries in Madurai city were facing problems with regard to raw material, finance, machinery and equipment, work shed, marketing and taxation as reported by Subramanian and Shivkumar (1975). Sharma (1975) studied the entrepreneurs in Uttar Pradesh with respect to their entrepreneurial orientation, commitment and achievement. He found that entrepreneurs had higher entrepreneurial orientation than entrepreneurial commitment and achievement. The low entrepreneurial achievement was attributed to non-conducive socio-economic milieu, non-commitment of workers and officials and shortage of raw materials. Moulik et al. (1978) found that some socio-psychological variables and economic variables other than initial fixed capital were best predictors of business success. The majority, i.e., 78 per cent of the entrepreneurs received family help for their entrepreneurial activities, reported Deshpande (1979). A study on the profile of 304 entrepreneurs in North-East region conducted by Sharma (1978) indicated that a successful entrepreneur was comparatively young, with education up to matriculation or above, having previous experience in artisanship or of business and trade. It also revealed that the entrepreneurs had links with government officials and a moderate degree of social participation. Murthy (1983) studied the satisfaction level of the rural entrepreneurs and found that two-fifths of the entrepreneurs in all activities at Anakapalle except farmers had ranked their present occupations as the best one. None of the farmers there rated farming as the best one. Regarding their commitment, he observed that nearly 59 per cent devoted 75100 per cent of their time, 27 per cent devoted 50-75 per cent time and the remaining spared not even 50 per cent of their time to their enterprise. A comparison between two groups of trained-employed-and-continuing (TEC) and trained-employed-and-discontinued (TED) TRYSEM beneficiaries was made by Anuradha (1983) which revealed caste, influence motivation and risk (A) as major discriminating variables but surprisingly, the successful group, i.e., TEC group got significantly less score than the unsuccessful group, i.e., TED group in the above aspects. - 39 -
  • 48. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Sarupria (1983) reported that successful entrepreneurs were significantly more internal than unsuccessful but there was no significant difference between two groups on risk taking. A sample study of 108 beneficiaries covering 6 blocks by Sarma and Vallabh Reddy (1985) revealed that due to establishment of units, the average income of beneficiaries in Jhabua district had increased by 230 per cent and in Jabalpur by 130 per cent. On an average, a unit of investment generated 0.48 unit of income in Jhabua and 0.37 unit of income in Jabalpur. Sridhar (1988) made interesting case studies of IRDP and TRYSEM beneficiaries in Karnataka who took new occupations along with their family occupation and could be able to cross poverty line. The analysis of personality traits revealed that the beneficiaries of both had high aspiration and were interested in new occupations. The beneficiaries encountered difficulties in finance, skill and raw materials for their new occupation. A number of research scholars including Nafziger (1975), Gasse (1981), Nadakarni (1982), Abranam (1989), Sinha (1989), Kar (1990), Shanker and Rao (1990) studied the causes of sickness of small scale industries under two broad factors, i.e., external and internal factors. The external factors were inadequate finance, marketing problem, and non-availability of raw materials, inadequate infrastructure, labour problem, power cut, skilled labour problem, delay in getting loan, and delay in getting payment from the customers, stiff competition and frequent change in Government policy. The internal factors were inadequate technical know-how, improper location inappropriate planning, lack of managerial skill and improper financial management. The study on grass-root entrepreneurship by Umamohan and Rao (1987) gave a very interesting result, stating that age, education, caste, occupational background, previous experience, type of family and location were not found significantly associated with degree of success of entrepreneurs. Contrary to this, another study in the industrial state of Amaravati city by Kaptan (1987) showed that age, occupational background of the parent, community background, previous job experience and commitment were significantly associated with success-failure. - 40 -
  • 49. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Sharma (1990) observed that successful entrepreneurs had acquired more personal and household assets. Giriappa (1990) found that in low income units, the proportion of problems per unit and the average number of problem per unit were higher when compared with high income units. Jayasree and Sugirthavathy (1991) noticed that religion, community, age, education, training, marital status and place of birth not showed significant relationship with entrepreneurial success. Significant relationship was found among monthly family income and entrepreneurial success at Madras as well as at Pondicherry. - 41 -
  • 50. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-8 Data Analysis & Results - 42 -
  • 51. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 8.0 Data Analysis and Results Entrepreneurial self-assessment questionnaire was adapted for the Entrepreneurial handbook, Technonet Asia. A self-administered survey was conducted to evaluate the entrepreneurial inclination & psychological characteristics of the students of University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. Out of Sample size of 50, only 45 questionnaires were valid for the study. 5 Questionnaire were discarded due to the lack of data. 8.1 Entrepreneurial Inclination Out of 45 students surveyed, 16 of the students shows their inclination towards working in the entrepreneurial ways in their life, 23 students prefer to look for job opportunities in the private sector, whereas 5 students like to join the public sector companies after their post graduation and only 1 student show its intend to join the family business. Graph 1 Entrepreneurial Inclination Setup your own entreprise 2% 36% 51% 11% Planning to work in Public sector with a salary Planning to work in Private sector with a salary Join the Family Business Although the inclination of the young post-graduate students is more towards the job but still large no of students shows their inclination towards entrepreneurship. - 43 -
  • 52. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 8.2 Respondent Profile Table 1 Frequency Distribution Total Sample Entrepreneur Non-Entrepreneur Num. Percent Num. Num. Male 26 (57.78%) 11 (68.75%) 15 (51.72%) Female 19 (42.22%) 05 (31.25%) 14 (48.28%) Below 20 yrs 00 (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) 21-23 yrs 33 (73.33%) 08 (50.00%) 25 (86.20%) 23-27 yrs 12 (26.67%) 08 (50.00%) 04 (13.80%) More than 27 yrs 00 (0.00%) (0.00%) (0.00%) Entrepreneur 16 (35.56%) 06 (37.50%) 10 (34.48%) Non-Entrepreneur 29 (64.44%) 10 (62.50%) 19 (65.52%) Percent Percent Sex Age 00 00 00 00 Family Graph 2 Sex 42% Male Female 58% Out of 45 respondents, 26 were males & rests 19 were females. But if we compare the future plans of the respondent with their sex, it was found that 42 percent of the male respondent wants to start their own business, whereas only 26 percent of the female respondent shows the entrepreneurship inclination. Interestingly 68 percent of female - 44 -
  • 53. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University respondent want to do a job after their post graduation, but only 58 percent of the male respondent look job as their career option. Graph 3 Sex Comparison of Future plans with Sex of the respondents 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Male Female Setup your own entreprise Planning to Planning to work in Public work in Private sector with a sector with a salary salary Join the Family Business Future Plans The age distribution of the sample is very similar, 33 respondents are between 21-23 yrs old and only 12 respondents belong to the age group of 23-27 yrs. No respondents belong to other group. Thus, sample group is quite young and most of them are inexperienced. Graph 4 Age Group 27% 0% Below 20 yrs 21-23 yrs 23-27 yrs 73% - 45 - More than 27 yrs
  • 54. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Out of 45 respondents, 16 respondents have their own family business i.e. 35 percent of the total sample. But few interesting facts emerge, when we compare the future plans and family business of the respondents. Out of 16 respondents who have their family business, only 6 respondents want to setup their own enterprise. On the other hand, 10 respondents who planned to setup their own business, none of their family member is in the business. Whereas, 56 percent of the respondent whose family members own the business, preferred to work in the public or private sector with a salary. Table 2 Future Plans Family Business Yes No Setup your own enterprise 6 10 Planning to work in Public sector with a salary 2 3 Planning to work in Private sector with a salary 7 16 Join the Family Business 1 0 Graph 5 Family Business Comparison of Future plans with the Family Business 20 15 10 Yes No 5 0 Setup your own entreprise Planning to Planning to work in Public work in sector with a Private sector salary with a salary Join the Family Business Future Plans 8.3 Psychological Characteristics As for the six psychological characteristics, the mean and standard deviation score for both entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined students is calculated. The mean score range from 2.95 for propensity to take risk to 3.62 for innovativeness for - 46 -
  • 55. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University entrepreneurially inclined students and for non-inclined students, mean score ranges from 3.01 for propensity to take risk to 3.45 for locus of control. Table 3 Students Entrepreneurially Total Sample Variables Inclined Non-inclined Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D 1. Need for achievement 3.37 0.42 3.51 0.47 3.30 0.38 2. Locus of Control 3.46 0.44 3.52 0.43 3.45 0.46 3. Propensity to take risk 2.99 0.32 2.95 0.34 3.01 0.32 4. Tolerance of ambiguity 3.39 0.48 3.51 0.53 3.32 0.45 5. Self-Confidence 3.46 0.47 3.57 0.58 3.40 0.40 6. Innovativeness 3.44 0.42 3.62 0.55 3.34 0.30 The mean scores shown in Table 3 are consistent with expectations reflected in the hypotheses and indicate that those who are entrepreneurially inclined have greater need for achievement, more internal locus of control, higher propensity to take risk, greater tolerance of ambiguity, more self-confidence and greater innovativeness. To investigate the differences statistically at the univariate level, independent-samples ttests is used. At a 0.05 significance level, the result of Table 3 & 4 shows that all the six psychological characteristics are not significant. P-value is more than the significance level i.e. 0.05 thus all the hypotheses will be accepted as true. In other words, those who are entrepreneurially inclined and those who are not having the same level of need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance of ambiguity, selfconfidence and innovativeness. Table 4 Variables N t-value p-value 1. Need for achievement 45 1.657 0.105 2. Locus of Control 45 1.253 0.217 3. Propensity to take risk 45 1.387 0.173 4. Tolerance of ambiguity 45 -0.170 0.866 - 47 -
  • 56. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 5. Self-confidence 45 0.213 0.832 6. Innovativeness 45 0.281 0.780 To ensure that the results are not confounded by systematic differences of other extrageneous factors, X2 tests of independence are performed to investigate if significant difference with respect to demographic and family characteristics exist between the two subgroups of respondents i.e. entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined. Table 5 shows that at a significance level of 0.05, two subgroups of entrepreneurially inclined and nonentrepreneurially inclined respondents are heterogeneous with respect to age but can be considered homogenous with respect to sex and family entrepreneurial inclination. Table 5 Df X2-value p-value 1. Sex 1 1.089 0.297 2. Age 1 9.800 0.002 3. Family Entrepreneurial inclination 1 3.756 0.053 Variables - 48 -
  • 57. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-9 Summary & Conclusions - 49 -
  • 58. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 9.0 Summary and conclusions The study used the trait model of entrepreneurship to examine six traits associated with entrepreneurship, namely need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, self-confidence and innovativeness. The test performed to verify the hypotheses produced results contrary to the finding of previous research on the theory of entrepreneurial traits. The results show that both entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined have same level of need for achievement, locus of control, propensity to take risk, tolerance of ambiguity and innovativeness. The objective of the study is to investigate whether or not, the entrepreneurial inclination is significantly associated with the psychological characteristics. T-tests result shows that at a significance level of 0.05, the psychological characteristics of entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined post-graduate student are same. - 50 -
  • 59. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Chapter-10 Limitations - 51 -
  • 60. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University 10.0 Limitation of the Study In interpreting the result of the study, a few limitations should be borne in mind. First, the sample size is small i.e. 50 respondents. Compare to the population for the study, the sample size could not be the actual representative of the population. Thus, the results infers from the sample may not be correct. Secondly, the study only focuses on MBA students in Delhi or in particular, GGSIP University, Delhi. Thus other population‟s e.g. non-MBA students or MBA students in other states may yield finding that are different from those reported in the study. Finally, logit analysis should be used to test the accuracy of the t-tests. - 52 -
  • 61. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Bibliography & References - 53 -
  • 62. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Bibliography & References:Akhouri, M. M. P., Mishra, S.P. and Sengupta, Rita (1999) “Trainers Manual on Developing Entrepreneurial Motivation ”, NIESBUD, New Delhi Andrews, K.J. (1998), “Born or bred? What it takes to be an entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurial Edge Magazine, Vol. 3. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R. and Ray, S (2003), “A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 105-123. Begley, T. M. & D.P. Boyd. (1986) “Psychological Characteristics Associated with Entrepreneurial Performance.” In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, eds. Bercherer, R.C. & J.G. Maurer. (1999) “The Proactive Personality Disposition and Entrepreneurial Behavior among Small Company Presidents.” Journal of Small Business Management, 37: 28–36. Bhattacharjee, S.K. and Akhouri, M.M.P. (1975) Profile of Small Industry Entrepreneurs, SEDME, 2(1): 73-88. Brockhaus, R.H. (1982), “The psychology of the entrepreneur”, in Kent, C.A., Sextion, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 25-48. Broechl, W.G. (1970) A less developed entrepreneurs, Columbia, Journal of Social Business, March-April. Busenitz, L.W. (1999) “Entrepreneurial Risk and Strategic Decision Making: Its a Matter of Perspective.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35: 325–340. Casson, M. (1962), “The entrepreneur: an economic theory”, Martin Robertson, Oxford. Chell, E. (1986), “The Entrepreneurial personality: a review and some theoretical developments”, in Curran, J., Stanworth, J. and Watkins, D. (Eds), the Survival of the small firms, Vol. 1 of The Economics of Survival and Entrepreneurship, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 102-119. - 54 -
  • 63. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Christopher, K. J. (1974) Social-Psychological Factors Influencing the Adoption of Innovation of Starting a Small Industry Unit, SITE Institute, Hyderabad., Cunnigham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991), “Define Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business management, Vol. 29, pp 45-61. Deamer Ian, Earle Louise (2004) “Searching for entrepreneurship.” Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 36.3, pp 99-103. Erikson Truls (2003) “Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol. 10, pp 106-112. Gartner, W.B. (1994) “Where‟s Entrepreneurship: Finding the Definitive Definition.” In Marketing and Entrepreneurship, ed. G.E. Hills, pp. 25–33. Westport, CN: Quorum Books. Gartner, W.B.,(1989) “Some suggestion for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics”. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 27-37. Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Gatewood, E. and Katz, J.A. (1994), “Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 5-9. Gartner, W. (1989), “Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the wrong question”, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 47-67. Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1982), “Understanding the process of starting small business”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-45. Grasley, R.H. (1986) The human side of entrepreneurship. The Entrepreneurship Development Review 1:3-4 Gupta, P. (1989) Role Stress, Locus of Control, Coping Style and Role Efficacy: A study on First Generation Industrial Entrepreneurs, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Psychology, Delhi University, New Delhi. Gürol Yonca, Atsan Nuray (2006) “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey.” Education + Training, Vol 48, pp 25-38. - 55 -
  • 64. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Hagon, E.E. (1971) How economic growth begins: A theory of social change In: Peter Kilby (Ed.) Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, Free Press, New York. Hatch, J.E. & J. Zweig. (2000) “What is the Stuff of an Entrepreneur.” Ivey Business Journal, 65: 68–72. Hian Chye Koh (1996) “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students.“ Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11, pp 1225 Ho, T.S. and Koh, H.C. “Differences in psychological characteristics between entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduate in Singapore”, Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Change: An International Journal, Vol.1, 1992, pp 243-54. Holt, D. H. (2000) “Entrepreneurship New Venture Creation”, Pub: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd , New Delhi Hornaday, J.A. and Abond, J. (1971) Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Personal Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 11: 141-152. Johnson, B.R. (1990) “Toward a Multidimensional Model of Entrepreneurship: The Case of Achievement Motivation and the Entrepreneur.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14: 39–54. Khandawala, P. N. (1976) The Management of Effective Top Management Styles. Vikalpa, 1 (2). Kilby, P. (1971) Hunting the Heffalump: Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. L. Osborne Richard (1995) “The essence of entrepreneurial success.” Management Decision, Vol 33, pp 4-9. Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 295-309. Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial Potential and potential Entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and practice, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp 91-103. - 56 -
  • 65. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Lachman, R. (1980), “Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies,” Management International Review 20 (2), 108-116. Littunen Hannu (2000) “Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. Vol. 6, pp 295-310. Low, M. and Macmillan, I. (1988), “Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-161. Mathai, R. J. (1978) Rural Entrepreneurship: A Framework, In: T.V. Rao and Udai Pareek (Eds.) Developing Entrepreneurship: A Handbook, Learning System, New Delhi, 58-66. McClelland, D. C. and Winter, D.C. (1969) Motivating Economic Achievement, Free Press, New York. McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society. New York: Free Press. McClelland, D.C. (1965) “Achievement Motivation can be Developed.” Harvard Business Review, 43: 6–24. Mishra, S. P. (1979) A study of Farm Entrepreneurs in a Backward District of Bihar, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi. Mohiuddin, Asghari (1971) Identification and Selection of Entrepreneurs, In: Developing Entrepreneurship: Issues and Problems, SIET Institute, Hyderabad. Morrison, A. (2000), “Entrepreneurship: what trigger it?”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviors & Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 59-71. Murthy, B. E. V. V. N. (1983) Entrepreneurship in small towns: A study with special reference to two selected towns in Coastal Andhra. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. Nandi, Ashish (1973) Motives, Modernity and Entrepreneurial Competence, Journal of Social Psychology 91: 127-196. - 57 -
  • 66. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Nandi, Ashish (1973) Need Achievement in a Calcutta Suburb, In: Milton Singh (Ed.) Entrepreneurship and Modernization of Occupational Cultures in South Asia, Duke University, Durham. Osborne, R., (1991) “The Dark side of the Entrepreneur”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24 pp. 26-31. profile of the successful entrepreneur. Pervin, L.A. (1980), “Personality: Theory, Assessment and Research”, John Wiley & Sons, New York. NY Rae, David (2000) “Understanding entrepreneurial learning: a question of how?” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. Vol. 6, pp 145 159. Patel, V.G. (1977) Entrepreneurship Development, Development Digest, Vol. XV, No. 2. Palmer, M. (1971), “the application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential”, California Management Review, Vol. 13, pp 32-38 Ramakrishna, K. (1979) Interview Techniques as a method of selection, In: T.V. Rao and T.K. Moulik (Ed.) Identification and Selection of Small Scale Entrepreneurs, I.I.M. Ahmedabad. Rao, T. V. and Mehta, P. (1978) Psychological Factors in Entrepreneurship In U. Pareek and T.V. Rao (Eds.) Developing Entrepreneurship: A Hand Book, Learning System, New Delhi. Rao, T. V. and Mehta, P. (1979) Psychological Factors in Entrepreneurship. In: U. Pareek and T. V. Rao (Ed.) Development Entrepreneurship: A Handbook Learning System, New Delhi. Rao, T. V. and Pareek, Uday (1978) “Developing Entrepreneurship – a Handbook ”, Pub: Learning Systems, New Delhi Rao, T. V. and Pareek, Uday (1991) “Developing Motivation Through Experiencing”, Pub:Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd., New Delhi - 58 -
  • 67. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2000), “Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: a general model and an overview of findings”, in Cooper, C.L. and Roberston, I.J. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 15. Robert Ronstadt, John A. Hornaday, Rein Peterson, & Karl Vesper, pp. 146–165. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship”. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, Vol. 15, pp 13-31. Sadangi, B. N. (1991) Occupational Diversification Among Self-employed Rural Youth: A study coastal Orissa, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi. Sagar, R. L. and Ray, G. L. (1985) Risk Orientation and Productivity in Farming, Indian Journal of Applied Psychology 22 (2): 66-69. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), “The theory of economic development. In E. Okum (Ed.), studies in economic development. P. 64. Cambridge MA: Harvard University. Schumpeter, J.A. (1939) Business Cycles Vol. I McGraw Hill, New York: 102. Sethy, B. (1982) A study of the Entrepreneurial characteristics of the Farmers of Agricultural Advanced District of Orissa, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi. Shane, S. & Venkatraman, S.. (2000) “The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research.” Academy of Management Review, 25: 217–226. Shelke, R. D.; Kalyankar, S. P. and Dhoke, P. K. (2002) "Essential qualities of successful entrepreneurs". Paper presented in National Seminar on Entrepreneurship Development in Agriculture March 2, 2002 organised by Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani, Maharashtra Society of Extension Education. Singh, N. P. (1970) Risk Taking and Anxiety Among Successful and Unsuccessful Traditional and Progressive Agricultural Entrepreneurs of Delhi, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9: 301-308. - 59 -
  • 68. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Singh, N. P. (1982) Initiating Indigenous Rural Entrepreneurship: A Methodology in Conflict, In: N.P. Singh (Ed.) Role of Financial Institutions in Rural Entrepreneurship, Development Banking Centre, Management Development Industry, New Delhi, 33-49. Singh, N. P. (1983) Perception of Opportunities, Profitability and Outlook of Rural Entrepreneurship, Vikas Banking 3 (1&2): 73-88. Singh, N. P. and Singh, K. (1971) Motivational Components of Agricultural and Business Entrepreneur in India, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 7 (1): 32-52. Singh, Pritam (1966) The Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development, In: P.S. Lokanathan (Ed.) Economic Development: Issues and Policies, Vora and Co. Ltd., Bombay. Singh, Sheobahal (1979) Organization of the Carpet Industry of Badohi, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 14, No. 21. Small Industries Development Organiation (2005) Laghu Udyog Samachar, Special Issue on Small and Medium Enterprises Stewart, W.H., J.C. Carland & J.W. Carland. (1996) “Empirically Defining the Entrepreneur.” Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 8: pp 1–18. Sophia Stathopoulou, Demetrios Psaltopoulos, Dimitris Skuras (2004) “Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: A research framework and agenda.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 10, pp 404 - 425 Technonet Asia (1980), Entrepreneur‟s Handbook, Institute for Small Scale Industries, University of Philippines. Wortman, M.S. Jr, (1986) “A united framework, research topologies, and research prospects for the interface between entrepreneurship and small business”, in Sexton, D.L. and Smior, R.W., The art and science of entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 273-332. - 60 -
  • 69. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Annexure - 61 -
  • 70. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110 006 Questionnaire Dear Friends, The purpose of this research is to explore the entrepreneurship profile of post-graduate students and to make an evaluation for their entrepreneurship orientation by comparing them with non-entrepreneurial inclined students. Section I 1. What are you planning to do after post-graduation? (Put  in appropriate box) Setup your own Enterprise Planning to work in Public sector with a salary Planning to work in Private sector with a salary Join the family business 2. What is your sex? (Put  in appropriate box) Male Female 3. What is your age? (Put  in appropriate box) Below 20 yrs 21 - 23 yrs 23 - 27 yrs More than 27 Yrs. 4. What is your martial status? (Put  in appropriate box) Single Married 5. Whether the family member own business? (Put  in appropriate box) Yes No - 62 -
  • 71. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Section II Strongly Agree 1. I want to earn only as much as to attain a comfortable way of life. 2. The knowledge, experience and training I have on my proposed business are inadequate. 3. While my product/service may not entirely be new, I am thinking of new and better way to make it competitive. 4. I don‟t choose to work with unlovable, unpopular people even if doing so is most useful for me to do achieve the goal. 5. I need not waste time and money on „market research.‟ If the product sells, I‟ll go on producing. 6. I don‟t see the importance of reading the newspaper everyday. 7. I don‟t fear investing my money on a venture whose dividends I have calculated. 8. I have weakness and fears that are far from being resolved. 9. When I do something, I see to it that it doesn‟t only get done but done excellently besides. 10. I accomplish most when I am alone, under no direct supervision of anyone. 11. I don‟t enjoy working in a team as a leader. I rather be a member 12. I doubt my ability to cope under new, untested conditions. 13. It is I, not luck nor fate, which influence the outcome of events in my life. 14. I don‟t enjoy, outcomes, no matter how favorable, if they don‟t stem from my own efforts. 15. I wait for other people to originate ideas and action 16. I will consider a risk worth taking if the probability for success is 30-40%. - 63 - Agree Neither Strongly agrees nor Disagree Disagree disagrees
  • 72. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Strongly Agree 17. I will consider a risk worth taking only if the probability for success is 60-100%. 18. I don‟t mind routine, unchallenging work if the pay is good. 19. I take pleasure in responding to challenges, so competition makes me work harder. 20. I will consider a risk worth taking if the probability for success is 40-60%. 21. I believe success is a product of luck and fate rather than personal effort. 22. I avoid changing the way things are done. 23. My abilities are above average. 24. If my business fails I won‟t take it as a personal failure. 25. While others see nothing unusual in the surroundings, I am able to perceive in it new opportunities for business. 26. Considering my business competence, my plans would be difficult to attain. 27. The business I‟m thinking of is not really unusual. 28. I can‟t wait and watch things happen; I prefer to make things happen. 29. I am willing to take substantial risks for substantial returns. 30. I hire people on the basis of friendship and other relations (for their loyalty) rather than on the basis of complete. 31. I am willing to accept both positive and negative consequences of my decisions and actions. 32. The knowledge, experience and training I have on my proposed business is good enough. 33. I don‟t care if the profit is small so long as it is assured and constant. 34. My competence is better than that of ordinary man in my community. - 64 - Agree Neither Strongly agrees nor Disagree Disagree disagrees
  • 73. University School of Management Studies Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Strongly Agree 35. I find difficulty in asserting myself against the opinion of majority. 36. Even if I am capable, hardworking and ambitious, if I don‟t have the money, I can‟t start a business. 37. I am able to beat around difficulties through strokes of ingenuity and resourcefulness. 38. I tend to overestimate my capacities for succeeding in any venture. 39. In business, I am more concerned with growth (being a success) rather than with profit. 40. I find it difficult to come up with new, wild or even crazy ideas. 41. I don‟t like a job for the good pay I get but for the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment I derive from it. 42. I fear moving into a new undertaking I know nothing about. 43. I believe there are always new and better ways of doing things. 44. I want to have good knowledge of my market before I start my business. 45. I have never tried introducing new products to the market and I don‟t think I want to try. 46. I have confidence in my ability to achieve. 47. I don‟t mind working under conditions of uncertainty as long as there is a reasonable probability of gains from it for me. 48. I see to it that I am an expert in the product I‟m selling. - 65 - Agree Neither Strongly agrees nor Disagree Disagree disagrees