What Characteristics Help Entrepreneurs ‘Make It’ Early on in Their Entrepreneurial Careers? Findings of a Regional Study from Romania
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Theoretical Framework of the Study
2.1.1. Entrepreneurs and Nascent Entrepreneurs
- Have expressed the desire to start a new business;
- Acting on this desire, they got involved in at least two concrete activities supporting their objective: drew up a business plan and attended a training program in entrepreneurship.
2.1.2. Entrepreneurial Intention
2.1.3. Entrepreneurial Success
2.1.4. The Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs
- (1)
- Education—is considered to have an important role in entrepreneurial activity, mainly because of the concrete outcomes it produces (knowledge, competences, values) [17]. Historically, the educational level of entrepreneurs (assessed through the number of years spent in school) has known a significant increase, both in raw numbers and as compared to that of the general population [17]. However, the evidence that generic human capital in the form of university education is beneficial for entrepreneurial success as measured by financial performance was weak [12].
- (2)
- Professional experience—on the one hand, its function is very similar to that of education, and on the other hand, it could be the background for the crystallization of the entrepreneurial intention [17]. However, the empirical studies conducted so far have shown that the effects of professional experience in the field on the chances of success for newly established businesses can differ. Some authors [12,46] point out that professional experience can support the transition from nascent entrepreneur to the business owner, by equipping the nascent entrepreneurs with the skills to notice and assess the opportunities in the field, which gives their businesses better chances to survive [21,47]. On the contrary, other authors have identified a negative correlation between the professional experience and the actual starting of the new business, among nascent entrepreneurs [48].
- (3)
- Age—the perspectives on the influence of age on the success of the entrepreneurial initiative also vary. Thus, while some authors argue that the businesses owned by younger entrepreneurs have a higher probability for growth [49], others claim that middle-aged entrepreneurs are more likely to grow their businesses than other age groups [50].
- (4)
- Sex—there are authors that argue that the financial performance of firms led by women are superior to those led by men [12], while others claim the businesses led and owned by women tend to be smaller and have a lower probability for growth, compared with those led by men [51]. More recent research regarding inter-sex differences in the results of entrepreneurial activity, although still pointing out favorable results for men, claim that the differences are small [20].
2.2. Procedure
- Homogeneity of the sample: All the entrepreneurs who participated in the study were at the same point in their entrepreneurial career (after they have decided to set up their business, but before they know the results of their endeavor), so they create, from this perspective, a reasonably homogenous group. Similar studies conducted before compared the traits of successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs at different stages of their entrepreneurial career, or the traits of entrepreneurs and those of employees [9,57,58].
2.3. Instruments
- For the collection of data regarding human capital, we used a questionnaire with 13 items, through which we collected data about the sex, age, educational attainment, and professional experience of respondents;
- For the collection of data regarding the personality structure, we used specific purpose scales applied in entrepreneurial research to measure specific constructs or traits.
- Need for autonomy subscale of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale—W-BNS, Dutch version [59]. The subscale has six items. The need for autonomy is the inherent desire of individuals to feel autonomous and to experience a sense of choice and psychological freedom when performing an activity [60], which is considered a good premise for the crystallization of EI. A higher score indicates an increased level of satisfaction of the need for autonomy at the current job, and therefore it would not indicate a supportive factor for the decision to launch a business [61] and the preoccupation for a detailed documentation and planning.
- Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy—ESE [22], with 19 items. ESE is a construct that measures a person’s level of trust in their capacity to set up successfully their own business. The instrument assesses 5 dimensions: (1) Searching, (2) planning, (3) mobilizing, (4) implementation—people, and (5) implementation—financial. Additionally, it includes a separate subscale that assesses the attitude toward entrepreneurship/launching a business. Higher scores indicate an increased level of trust in their capacity and a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship, which are expected to reflect on the entrepreneur’s capacity to convince the panel juror about the feasibility of their business plan.
- The Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI, Form A) [62,63,64], with 32 items. Applied problem solving is a very complex, often intermittent, goal-oriented sequence of cognitive, affective, and behavioral operations performed by the individual to adapt to internal or external demands that are often considered stressful [62,65]. Three factors are assessed: (1) Problem Solving Confidence—PSC, 11 items, (2) Approach-Avoidance Style—AAS, 16 items; and (3) Personal Control—PC, 5 items. Each factor provides an assessment of a specific dimension of the problem-solving style, and the overall score reflects an individual’s overall evaluation of his or her problem-solving style. The results for all three factors and the total amount of PSI are continuous scores, not categorical. Lower scores for each factor (and for the total of PSI) are generally considered more functional.
- Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale—TAS [66], with 12 items. Tolerance of ambiguity is considered as the “tendency to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable” [67] (p. 29). TAS was developed by Herman et al. [66] based on a previous model of Budner [67]. A higher score on this scale indicates an increased capacity of tolerating ambiguous situations, which is extremely important in supporting the entrepreneur to adjust to the changes in the market environment.
- Risk Propensity Scale—RPS [68], with 7 items. The scale measures the general propensity of an individual toward risk-taking. Higher scores on RPS indicate an increased tendency to risk-taking. As mentioned previously, the entrepreneur is the actor who undertakes the main risks associated with setting up and operating the business.
- The Psychological Capital Questionnaire—PsyCap [69], with 24 items. The questionnaire comprises four subscales, each with six items: Hope, Optimism, Resilience, and Self-efficacy. Scores can be calculated individually, for each subscale, or as a composite score. Higher scores indicate an increased tendency toward the dimension assessed. As previously mentioned, resilience and self-efficacy are important for facing the daily tasks associated with entrepreneurial activities, while optimism and hope impact the aspirations of the entrepreneurs and have been proven to impact the success of the business [12].
- The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale—BIS-11 [70], with 30 items. Impulsivity is defined as “a predisposition to rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli, regardless of the negative consequences of these reactions on the subject or others” [71]. Higher scores indicate increased impulsiveness. Impulsive individuals are attracted to uncertain contexts, such as entrepreneurship, and are more likely to act despite this uncertainty [72].
- The Interpersonal Reactivity Index—IRI, subscales Perspective Taking—PT, Empathic Concern—EC, and Personal Distress—PD [73], with 21 items. Empathy is a central component of normal social functioning, providing a base for pro-social behavior [74], socialization [75], and the increase of psychological wellbeing [76]. Scores are calculated individually for each subscale. Higher scores indicate an increased tendency toward the dimension assessed. An empathic entrepreneur is able to understand more about the clients’ needs and thus better adjust to the market changes.
- Adaptive and Aggressive Assertiveness Scales—AAA-S [77], with 30 items. Assertiveness is the way to actively respond to interpersonal conflicts, to ensure that the personal needs are met [78]. The scale assumes two possible types of assertive response: (1) Aggressive assertiveness (denotes the use of coercive behaviors or violations of the rights of others, in the process of ensuring the satisfaction of needs); (2) adaptive assertiveness (reflects the use of socially acceptable behaviors, without violating the rights of others, in the process of ensuring the satisfaction of needs). Higher scores indicate an increased tendency toward the dimension assessed. Assertiveness has previously proved to have a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial success [9].
2.4. Participants
3. Results
3.1. Results Regarding the Differences in Human Capital among Successful and Unsuccessful Urban Nascent Entrepreneurs
- Graduates of high school or similar (lower than Bachelor—BA) represent 23 percent of the subgroup of successful urban nascent entrepreneurs and 25 percent among the unsuccessful ones;
- Twenty-eight percent of the successful entrepreneurs and 25 percent of the unsuccessful ones are graduates of higher education—BA level; and
- Forty-nine percent of the successful entrepreneurs and 50 percent of the unsuccessful ones have graduated an educational program higher than BA level.
3.2. Results Regarding the Differences in Personality Structure among Successful and Unsuccessful Nascent Entrepreneurs
3.2.1. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
3.2.2. The Problem-Solving Capacity
3.2.3. Psychological Capital
3.2.4. Assertiveness
3.2.5. Entrepreneurial Intention
4. Discussion
- Increased levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy for each phase of the entrepreneurial process (searching; planning; marshalling; and implementing) and a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship;
- Increased levels of problem-solving confidence and the tendency to deal with problems instead of avoiding them;
- Higher levels of trust in their capacity of taking up challenges; this type of trust can have a bi-directional relationship with success, feeding it, but also feeding from it;
- Increased levels of assertiveness, with a focus on solving potential conflicts by using socially acceptable behaviors to ensure the satisfaction of their needs;
- Greater confidence in their ability to control their entrepreneurial behavior and take the necessary steps to set up and run a business, compared to the unsuccessful entrepreneurs.
5. Limitations of the Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AAA-S | Adaptive and Aggressive Assertiveness Scales |
AAA-S_Adaptive assertiveness | Subscale of AAA-S |
AAA-S_Aggressive assertiveness | Subscale of AAA-S |
BA | Bachelor (Educational level) |
BIS-11 | The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale |
EI | Entrepreneurial intention |
EIQ | Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire |
EIQ_PA | Personal Attitude (Subscale of EIQ) |
EIQ_PBC | Perceived Behavioral Control (Subscale of EIQ) |
EIQ_SN | Subjective Norm (Subscale of EIQ) |
ESE | Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (Scale) |
ESE_EA | Entrepreneurial attitude (Subsclae of ESE) |
ESE_implementation financial | Subscale of ESE |
ESE_implementation people | Subscale of ESE |
ESE_marshalling | Subscale of ESE |
ESE_searching | Subscale of ESE |
GDP | Gross domestic product |
IRI | The Interpersonal Reactivity Index |
IRI_EC | Empathic Concern (Subscale of IRI) |
IRI_PD | Personal Distress (Subscale of IRI) |
IRI_PT | Perspective Taking (Subscale of IRI) |
ISCED | The International Standard Classification of Education |
PSI | The Problem-Solving Inventory (Scale) |
PSI_AAS | Approach-Avoidance Style (Subscale of PSI) |
PSI_PC | Personal Control (Subscale of PSI) |
PSI_PSC | Problem Solving Confidence (Subscale of PSI) |
PsyCap | The Psychological Capital Questionnaire |
PsyCap Hope | Subscale of PsyCap |
PsyCap_Optimism | Subscale of PsyCap |
PsyCap_Resilience | Subscale of PsyCap |
PsyCap_Self-efficacy | Subscale of PsyCap |
RPS | Risk Propensity Scale |
SME(s) | Small and medium-sized entreprise(s) |
SPSS | Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
TAS | Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale |
W-BNS | Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale |
References
- Chinitz, B. Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 1961, 51, 279–289. [Google Scholar]
- Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Glaeser, E.L.; Kerr, S.P.; Kerr, W.R. Entrepreneurship and Urban Growth: An Empirical Assessment with Historical Mines, Working Paper 18333. NBER Work. Pap. Ser. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado, M.; Porter, M.; Stern, S. Clusters and Entrepreneurship. J. Econ. Geogr. 2010, 10, 495–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosma, N.; Sternberg, R. Entrepreneurship as an urban event? Empirical evidence from European cities. Reg. Stud. 2014, 48, 1016–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diabate, A.; Sibiri, H.; Wang, L.; Yu, L. Assessing SMEs’ Sustainable Growth through Entrepreneurs’ Ability and Entrepreneurial Orientation: An Insight into SMEs in Côte d’Ivoire. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Howell, A.; He, C.; Yang, R.; Fan, C.C. Agglomeration, (un)-related variety and new firm survival in China: Do local subsidies matter? Pap. Reg. Sci. 2018, 97, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kluve, J.; Puerto, S.; Robalino, D.; Romero, J.M.; Rother, F.; Stoeterau, J.; Weidenkaff, F.; Witte, M. Interventions to improve the labour market outcomes of youth: A systematic review of training, entrepreneurship promotion, employment services and subsidized employment interventions. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2017, 13, 1–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caliendo, M.; Kritikos, A.S. Is entrepreneurial success predictable? An ex-ante analysis of the character-based approach. Kyklos 2008, 61, 189–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Helmers, C.; Rogers, M. Innovation and the survival of new firms in the UK. Rev. Ind. Organ. 2010, 36, 227–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quatraro, F.; Vivarelli, M. Drivers of entrepreneurship and post-entry performance of newborn firms in developing countries. World Bank Res. Obs. 2015, 30, 277–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Why Are Optimistic Entrepreneurs Successful? An Application of the Regulatory Focus Theory RePEc 2008. Available online: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/64399/wp914.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2020).
- Brandstätter, H. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, R.; Rubinstein, Y. Smart and illicit: Who becomes an entrepreneur and do they earn more? Q. J. Econ. 2017, 132, 963–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manso, G. Experimentation and the returns to entrepreneurship. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2016, 29, 2319–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, A.S. Self-analysis and assessment of entrepreneurial potential. Simul. Games 1985, 16, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, P.B.; Sexton, E.A. The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. J. Bus. Ventur. 1994, 9, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.A. Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs’ success. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2000, 9, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leutner, F.; Ahmetoglu, G.; Akhtar, R.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T. The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2014, 63, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhtar, R.; Ahmetoglu, G.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T. Greed is good? Assessing the relationship between entrepreneurship and subclinical psychopathy. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2013, 54, 420–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimov, D. Nascent Entrepreneurs and Venture Emergence: Opportunity Confidence, Human Capital, and Early Planning. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1123–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGee, J.E.; Peterson, M.; Mueller, S.L.; Sequeira, J.M. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 965–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.E.; Martinez, M.A. Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2001, 25, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F.; Chen, Y.W. Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2009, 33, 593–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.H.; Wong, P.K. An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liñán, F. Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa Small Bus. 2004, 2004, 11–35. [Google Scholar]
- Boyd, N.; Vozikis, G. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brush, C.G.; Ceru, D.J.; Blackburn, R. Pathways to entrepreneurial growth: The influence of management, marketing, and money. Bus. Horiz. 2009, 52, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, K. An examination of the influence of industry structure on eight alternative measures of new venture performance for high potential independent new ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 1999, 14, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vesper, K. New Venture Experience; Vector Books: Seattle, WA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Delmar, F.; Davidsson, P.; Gartner, W. Arriving at the high-growth firm. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 189–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Headd, B. Redefining Business Success: Distinguishing between Closure and Failure. Small Bus. Econ. 2003, 21, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brinckmann, J.; Grichnik, D.; Kapsa, D. Should Entrepreneurs Plan or Just Storm the Castle? A Meta-Analysis on Contextual Factors Impacting the Business Planning–Performance Relationship in Small Firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wennberg, K.; Wiklund, J.; DeTienne, D.R.; Cardon, M.S. Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial Exit: Divergent Exit Routes and Their Drivers. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parker, S.C.; Belghitar, Y. What Happens to Nascent Entrepreneurs? An Econometric Analysis of the PSED. Small Bus. Econ. 2006, 27, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukeš, M.; Zouhar, J. The causes of early-stage entrepreneurial discontinuance. Prague Econ. Pap. 2016, 1, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauch, A.; Frese, M. Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A General Model and an Overview of Findings. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Cooper, C., Robertson, I., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2002; pp. 101–142. [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi, M.; Henrekson, M. Is Neoclassical Economics still Entrepreneurless? Kyklos 2005, 58, 353–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Obschonka, M.; Stuetzer, M. Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: The Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). Small Bus. Econ. 2017, 49, 203–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laguna, M.; Razmus, W.; Żaliński, A. Dynamic relationships between personal resources and work engagement in entrepreneurs. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2017, 90, 248–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorgievski, M.J.; Moriano, J.A.; Bakker, A.B. Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. J. Manag. Psychol. 2014, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, L.; Maksimov, V.; Gilbert, B.A.; Fernhaber, S.A. Entrepreneurial orientation and international scope: The differential roles of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. J. Bus. Ventur. 2014, 29, 511–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsiao, C.; Lee, Y.H.; Chen, H.H. The effects of internal locus of control on entrepreneurship: The mediating mechanisms of social capital and human capital. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2016, 27, 1158–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidsson, P.; Gordon, S.R. Panel Studies of New Venture Creation: A Methods- Focused Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Small Bus. Econ. 2012, 39, 853–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brüderl, J.; Preisendörfer, P.; Ziegler, R. Survival Chances of Newly Founded Business Organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1992, 57, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukeš, M.; Zouhar, J. No Experience? No Problem—It’s all about yourself: Factors Influencing Nascent Entrepreneurship Outcomes. Ekon. Č. 2013, 61, 934–950. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, W.; Stewart, W., Jr.; BarNir, A. The effects of human capital, organizational demography and interpersonal processes on venture partner perceptions of firm profit and growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003, 18, 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, P. Entrepreneurship and Small Business; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Cooper, A.; Gimeno-Gascon, J.; Woo, C.Y. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1994, 9, 371–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.; Seibert, C.; Hills, C. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1265–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caliendo, M.; Fossen, F.; Kritikos, A.S. The personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 42, 787–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paunonen, S.V.; Jackson, D.N. What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! J. Personal. 2000, 68, 821–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K.; Perugini, M.; Szarota, P.; de Vries, R.E.; Di Blas, L.; De Raad, B. A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 356–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Knott, A. Entrepreneurial risk and market entry. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1315–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Obschonka, M.; Fisch, C.; Boyd, R. Using digital footprints in entrepreneurship research: A Twitter-based personality analysis of superstar entrepreneurs and managers. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2017, 8, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Konon, A.; Kritikos, A.S. Prediction based on entrepreneurship-prone personality profiles: Sometimes worse than the toss of a coin. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Broeck, A.; Vansteenkiste, M.; De Witte, H.; Soenens, B.; Len, W. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 981–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychol. Inquiry 2000, 11, 319–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekker, M.H.; van Assen, M.A. A short form of the autonomy scale: Properties of the autonomy–connectedness scale (ACS–30). J. Personal. Assess. 2006, 86, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heppner, P.P.; Krauskopf, C.J. An information-processing approach to personal problem solving. Couns. Psychol. 1987, 15, 371–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heppner, P.P.; Petersen, C.H. The development and implications of a personal problem solving inventory. J. Couns. Psychol. 1982, 29, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heppner, P.P. The Problem Solving Inventory (PSI): Research Manual; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Heppner, P.P.; Witty, T.E.; Dixon, W.A. Problem-Solving Appraisal and Human Adjustment: A Review of 20 Years of Research Using the Problem Solving Inventory. Couns. Psychol. 2004, 32, 344–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, J.L.; Stevens, M.J.; Bird, A.; Mendenhall, M.; Oddou, G. The Tolerance for Ambiguity Scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 2010, 34, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budner, S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J. Personal. 1962, 30, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meertens, R.M.; Lion, R. Measuring an Individual’s Tendency to Take Risks: The Risk Propensity Scale. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 38, 1506–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M.; Avolio, B.J. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Patton, J.H.; Stanford, M.S.; Barratt, E.S. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 1995, 6, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeller, F.G.; Barratt, E.S.; Dougherty, D.M.; Schmitz, J.M.; Swann, A.C. Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. Am. J. Psychiatry 2001, 158, 1783–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiklund, J.; Yu, W.; Tucker, R.; Marino, L.D. ADHD, impulsivity and entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2017, 32, 627–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, M.H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Cat. Sel. Doc. Psychol. 1980, 10, 85. [Google Scholar]
- Charbonneau, D.; Nicol, A.A.M. Emotional intelligence and prosocial behaviors in adolescents. Psychol. Rep. 2002, 90, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noller, P.; Ruzzene, M. Communication in marriage: The influence of affect and cognition. In Cognitions in Close Relationships; Fletcher, G.J.O., Fincham, F.D., Eds.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1991; pp. 203–233. [Google Scholar]
- Musick, M.A.; Wilson, J. Volunteering and depression: The role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, R.J.; Berenbaum, H. Adaptive and Aggressive Assertiveness Scales (AAA-S). J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2011, 33, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollandsworth, J.G. Differentiating assertion and aggression: Some behavioral guidelines. Behav. Therapy 1977, 8, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Population Aged 25–64 by Educational Attainment Level, Sex and NUTS 2 Regions. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/edat_lfse_04 (accessed on 26 May 2020).
- Barbosa, S.; Gerhardt, M.; Kickul, J. The role of cognitive style and risk preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2007, 13, 86–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bird, B. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florin, J.; Karri, R.; Rossiter, N. Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An attitudinal approach. J. Manag. Educ. 2007, 31, 17–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, S.L.; Goic, S. East-West differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Implications for entrepreneurship education in transition economies. Int. J. Entrep. Educ. 2003, 1, 613–632. [Google Scholar]
- Hisrich, R.D.; Peters, M.P.; Sheperd, D.A. Entrepreneurship, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Stajkovic, A.D.; Luthans, F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 240–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Shapero, A.; Sokol, L. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship; Kent, C., Sexton, D., Vesper, K., Eds.; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1982; pp. 72–90. [Google Scholar]
- Gimeno, J.; Folta, T.B.; Cooper, A.C.; Woo, C.Y. Survival of the Fittest? Entrepreneurial Human Capital and the Persistence of Underperforming. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 750–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefever, S.; Dal, M.; Matthiasdottir, A. Online data collection in academic research: Advantages and limitations. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2007, 38, 574–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Wronski, L. Examining completion rates in web surveys via over 25,000 real-world surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2018, 36, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greenacre, Z.A. The Importance of Selection Bias in Internet Surveys. Open J. Stat. 2016, 6, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Successful | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||
Highest educational level completed | Lower than BA level | Count | 9 | 21 | 30 |
% of Total | 7.3% | 17.1% | 24.4% | ||
BA level | Count | 11 | 21 | 32 | |
% of Total | 8.9% | 17.1% | 26.0% | ||
Higher than BA level | Count | 19 | 42 | 61 | |
% of Total | 15.4% | 34.1% | 49.6% | ||
Total | Count | 39 | 84 | 123 | |
% of Total | 31.7% | 68.3% | 100.0% |
Successful | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||
Professional experience | Less than 1 year | Count | 0 | 14 | 14 |
% of Total | 0.0% | 11.4% | 11.4% | ||
Between 1 and 5 years | Count | 12 | 19 | 31 | |
% of Total | 9.8% | 15.4% | 25.2% | ||
Between 5 and 10 years | Count | 5 | 15 | 20 | |
% of Total | 4.1% | 12.2% | 16.3% | ||
More than 10 years | Count | 22 | 36 | 58 | |
% of Total | 17.8% | 29.3% | 47.1% | ||
Total | Count | 39 | 84 | 123 | |
% of Total | 31.7% | 68.3% | 100.0% |
Successful Outcome in the Competition | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Yes | 39 | 35.38 | 6.556 | 1.050 |
No | 84 | 33.93 | 10.193 | 1.112 |
Successful | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||
Age category | 25 or under | Count | 2 | 21 | 23 |
% of Total | 1.6% | 17.1% | 18.7% | ||
26 to 35 | Count | 19 | 31 | 50 | |
% of Total | 15.4% | 25.3% | 40.7% | ||
36 to 45 | Count | 14 | 19 | 33 | |
% of Total | 11.4% | 15.4% | 26.8% | ||
Over 45 | Count | 4 | 13 | 17 | |
% of Total | 3.3% | 10.5% | 13.8% | ||
Total | Count | 39 | 84 | 123 | |
% of Total | 31.7% | 68.3% | 100.0% |
Successful | Total | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||||
Sex | Male | Count | 15 | 39 | 54 |
% of Total | 12.2% | 31.7% | 43.9% | ||
Female | Count | 24 | 45 | 69 | |
% of Total | 19.5% | 36.6% | 56.1% | ||
Total | Count | 39 | 84 | 123 | |
% of Total | 31.7% | 68.3% | 100.0% |
Variable | Criteria Outcome of the Competition | N | Mean | SD | t/p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Entrepreneur Self-Efficacy (ESE) | |||||
ESE_searching * | Successful | 39 | 13.08 | 1.99 | 3.49, p = 0.001 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 11.31 | 2.85 | ||
ESE_planning * | Successful | 39 | 16.79 | 3.07 | 2.82, p = 0.005 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 14.93 | 3.55 | ||
ESE_marshalling * | Successful | 39 | 13.13 | 2.12 | 2.81, p = 0.006 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 11.69 | 2.84 | ||
ESE_implementation people * | Successful | 39 | 26.18 | 3.90 | 2.25, p = 0.026 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 24.13 | 5.00 | ||
ESE_implementation financial * | Successful | 39 | 12.08 | 2.75 | 2.01, p = 0.047 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 10.94 | 2.99 | ||
ESE_total * | Successful | 39 | 81.26 | 12.46 | 2.93, p = 0.004 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 73.00 | 15.35 | ||
ESE_EA * | Successful | 39 | 14.31 | 1.36 | 2.66, p = 0.009 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 13.32 | 2.12 | ||
Need for Autonomy | |||||
Need for autonomy | Successful | 39 | 21.92 | 4.44 | 0.37, p = 0.713 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 21.59 | 4.64 | ||
The Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI) | |||||
PSI_PSC * | Successful | 39 | 21.87 | 11.25 | −2.34, p = 0.02 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 26.79 | 10.60 | ||
PSI_AAS * | Successful | 39 | 43.05 | 13.05 | −2.55, p = 0.01 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 49.81 | 13.90 | ||
PSI_PC | Successful | 39 | 13.05 | 5.25 | −1.86, p = 0.06 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 15.04 | 5.59 | ||
PSI_total * | Successful | 39 | 77.97 | 26.02 | −2.57, p = 0.01 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 91.63 | 27.98 | ||
Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale (TAS) | |||||
TAS | Successful | 39 | 38.38 | 4.76 | 0.33, p = 0.737 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 38.03 | 5.60 | ||
Risk Propensity Scale (RPS) | |||||
RPS | Successful | 39 | 31.69 | 6.40 | 0.30, p = 0.761 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 31.32 | 6.21 | ||
Psychological Capital (PsyCap) | |||||
PsyCap_Hope | Successful | 39 | 4.95 | 0.71 | 1.40, p = 0.16 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 4.73 | 0.88 | ||
PsyCap_Optimism | Successful | 39 | 4.68 | 0.74 | 0.48, p = 0.63 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 4.61 | 0.77 | ||
PsyCap_Resilience | Successful | 39 | 5.04 | 0.70 | 1.54, p = 0.12 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 4.81 | 0.81 | ||
PsyCap_Self-efficacy * | Successful | 39 | 5.42 | 0.73 | 2.09, p = 0.03 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 5.08 | 1.01 | ||
PsyCap_Total | Successful | 39 | 5.02 | 0.59 | 1.55, p = 0.12 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 4.81 | 0.77 | ||
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) | |||||
BIS-11 | Successful | 39 | 59.66 | 8.30 | 0.27, p = 0.787 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 59.13 | 10.94 | ||
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) | |||||
IRI_PT | Successful | 39 | 19.00 | 4.32 | 0.60, p = 0.547 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 18.47 | 4.53 | ||
IRI_EC | Successful | 39 | 18.66 | 4.89 | −0.24, p = 0.809 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 18.88 | 4.40 | ||
IRI_PD | Successful | 39 | 7.66 | 4.43 | −1.516, p = 0.132 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 9.04 | 4.82 | ||
Adaptative and Aggressive Assertiveness Scales (AAA-S) | |||||
AAA-S_Aggressive assertiveness | Successful | 39 | 37.15 | 11.16 | 1.62, p = 0.106 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 33.85 | 10.18 | ||
AAA-S_Adaptive assertiveness * | Successful | 39 | 58.56 | 7.77 | 2.06, p = 0.042 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 55.21 | 9.60 | ||
Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ) | |||||
EIQ_PA | Successful | 39 | 25.36 | 3.77 | 1.582, p = 0.116 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 23.95 | 4.92 | ||
EIQ_SN | Successful | 39 | 18.54 | 2.65 | 0.332, p = 0.741 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 18.35 | 3.16 | ||
EIQ_PBC * | Successful | 39 | 35.95 | 5.99 | 2.84, p = 0.005 |
Unsuccessful | 84 | 31.60 | 8.65 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Baciu, E.-L.; Vîrgă, D.; Lazăr, T.-A. What Characteristics Help Entrepreneurs ‘Make It’ Early on in Their Entrepreneurial Careers? Findings of a Regional Study from Romania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5028. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12125028
Baciu E-L, Vîrgă D, Lazăr T-A. What Characteristics Help Entrepreneurs ‘Make It’ Early on in Their Entrepreneurial Careers? Findings of a Regional Study from Romania. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):5028. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12125028
Chicago/Turabian StyleBaciu, Elena-Loreni, Delia Vîrgă, and Theofild-Andrei Lazăr. 2020. "What Characteristics Help Entrepreneurs ‘Make It’ Early on in Their Entrepreneurial Careers? Findings of a Regional Study from Romania" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 5028. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su12125028