gatton.uky.edugatton.uky.edu/sites/default/files/parkistan-project/Hafiz Ullah.docx · Web viewSimilarly, in Pakistan and particularly in KP province, terrorism law and order situation

A STUDY OF PERSONALITY TRAITS THAT INFLENCE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROPENSITY:

COMPERISION BETWEEN THE BUSINESS STUDENTS OF GATTON COLLEGE OF BUSINESS & ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY-USA AND KOHAT UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECNOLOGY, KOHAT-PAKISTAN

HAFIZULLAH (Scholar)

Assistant Professor, Kohat University of Science& Technology, Kohat- PK, Pakistan.

WALTER FERRIER(Supervisor)

Gatton Endowed Associate Professor of Strategic Management, Gatton Business School, University of Kentucky,USA

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND:

Entrepreneurship has become a word of the day. Researchers, policy makers, economist,

academics and even graduates are discussing about it. Workshops, various programs and

conferences across the world are being organized every year which emphasized the significance

of entrepreneurship to the economy of a country, society and for individual as well. (Bechard &

Toulouse, 1998; Schaper & Volery, 2004 and Matlay & Westhead, 2005).

Research related to entrepreneurship and its education have been rising from the last

many years (Hatten and Ruhland, 1995; Green et al., 1996; Outcalt, 2000; Alstete, 2002;

Morrison, 2000; Rohaizat and Fauziah, 2002; Klapper, 2004; Frank et al., 2005; Gurol and

Atsan, 2006). Reason behind this is its played vital role for economic growth and development.

This helped to cope issues of unemployment, potential catalyst and incubator for technological

development, market and product related innovation and social adjustment.

Many researches in the USA (e.g. Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Lüthje and Franke,

2003; Van Auken et al., 2006) and in Europe (e.g. Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Gürul and Atson,

2006) have reported indication of people’s inclination to establish their own business or self-

employment.

As unemployment rate has been mounting due to global financial crisis, nowadays

graduates have more probability than before to create their own business as a viable choice

compare to become job seeker (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997).

Similarly, in Pakistan and particularly in KP province, terrorism law and order situation

has devastated economic activities at a gross root level. This developed unemployment rate

which further increase problems both for public and government e.g. law and order situation,

raised crimes ratio and various social issues. Among various option, best solution recommended

by the economists is self-employment or entrepreneurship which can contribute a lot in all over

the world and especially with reference to Pakistan.

Since, the issue of graduate unemployment has become a major problem and mostly they

depend on public and private sector. Therefore, self-employment and entrepreneurship is consider

as recommended solution for young unemployed force. Hence, the aim of this research is to

survey that whether existing business students of Gatton college of Business & economics,

University of Kentucky, USA and Kohat University of science & technology, Pakistan have

entrepreneurial propensity. In other words are they inclined towards entrepreneurship?

This research will helped to create a clear picture for the development of

entrepreneurship at gross root level in general for our future generations and particularly for

current graduating students so that they become able to move to a new level by becoming

entrepreneurs.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION:

This research will primarily address the following main question:

How the different personality traits make influence on entrepreneurial propensity among

business students of the above stated universities?

1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES:

The primary objectives of this research are as follows:

1. To measure the influence of personality traits on entrepreneurial propensity among the

business students of both universities as mentioned above.

2. To find relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial propensity

3. To also evaluate demographic impacts of both universities business students on

entrepreneurial propensity

4. To give suggestions of the most influencing personality traits which measure

entrepreneurial propensity.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Attention in entrepreneurship is extremely generated through the globe due to many

reasons. For example in developed world “entrepreneurial activity (new venture formation) is a

means of revitalizing economy” and help to reduce unemployment. Further, this consider “as a

potential catalyst and incubator for technological progress, product and market innovation”

(Mueller and Thomas, 2000; Jack and Anderson, 1999). But, its role for developing economies is

realized as an “engine of economic progress, job creation and social adjustment”. Therefore, new

business creation is extensively motivated and stimulated by economic policies to expedite

economic growth and wealth creation.

But according to Mitton (1989), “research in entrepreneurship has been criticized due to lack

of consensus about the definition of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship”. However, Cunningham

and Lischeron (1991) classified entrepreneurship into six different schools of thought as shown

in the following table:

Approaches to entrepreneurship

Great person school

Psychological Characteristics

Classical school

Management school

leadership school

Intrapreneurship

School

Behavior & Skills

Intuition, vigor, energy, persistence and self-esteem

Personal values, risk taking, need for achievement, locus of control, tolerance for ambiguity

Innovation, creativity

,discovery, ability to see opportunity

Expertise, technical

Knowledge,

technical planning,

people organizing,

capitalization budgeting

Motivating,

directing,

leading,

personal style,

attitudes

Alertness to

opportunities

Maximizing

Decisions

Source: Cunnihgham,J.B & Lischeron,J. (1991), “Defining Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business management, 29 (1) :45-61

This research adopts “psychological characteristics school of thought” which consider that

entrepreneurs possessed unique personal characteristics. These entrepreneurial characteristics are

narrated in the literature by the various scholers (Koh,1996, Begley and Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus,

Sr. and Horwitz, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934; Korunka et al., 2003; Bygrave ,1989; Shaver and

Scott, 1991& Robinson et al.,1991). Connie et al. (2005) said that research related to personality

have an important role in examining “the entrepreneurial personality” and has re-emerged as a

burning issue (Rauch and Frese, 2000) “with the individual as the unit of analysis” (Korunka et

al., 2003).

Following is the detail of different personality traits as discussed in literature by various

scholars like (Chell, Haworth, and Brearly, 1991, p.317; Cooper and Gimeno, 1992 and

Furnham, 1992) that influence the entrepreneurial propensity of individual. Moreover, these

traits facilitate the decision of entrepreneurs to not only exploit opportunities and to increase

entrepreneurial propensity but also have strong relationship.

2.1 Innovativeness:

Innovation is a process of creating, changing, experimenting, transforming and

revolutionizing (Mary, 2005,p.11). In other word it means continuous “search for new markets,

products or ideas” (Utsch & Rauch,2000). According to Schumpeter (1934) and Mitton (1989),

innovativeness is an important element of entrepreneurship and a necessary entrepreneurial

characteristic. Literature reported that entrepreneurs are significantly more innovative than non-

entrepreneurs (Ho and Koh, 1992, Koh,1996;Gurol & Astan,2006;Stewart et al.,1998;Robinson

et al., 1991a, Robinson et al., 1991b., Cromie, 2000). Hence, higher tendency towards

innovativeness lead greater entrepreneurial propensity.

2.2 Risk taking:

It is the propensity to take risk or to avoid when confronted by risky situation. Risk

taking is consider major entrepreneurial characteristic as well as widely discussed in literature

and differentiate an entrepreneur from non-entrepreneur. Thus, risk taking is associated with a

willingness to take courageous actions like entering into unknown new markets, to invest large

amounts having more chances of failure or uncertain outcomes (Miller and Friesen, 1982).

It is considered that entrepreneurs desire to take moderate risks in circumstances having “some

degree of control or skill in realizing a profit”. Therefore, risk taking propensity have positive

influence on entrepreneurial propensity.

2.3 Achievement Motivation:

People those possessed achievement motivation have ability to resolve issues, having

ambitious in life and want to achieve it by showing greatest performance and also to see in a new

angle in order to get better one (Littunen, 2000; Utsch et al., 2000).

“Need for achievement theory” was developed by McClelland in 1961. For every human

action this achievement motivation is an essential psychological driving force which influence

entrepreneurial behavior. It is described as “behavior towards competition with a standard of

excellence” (McClelland, 1953). Nor, Ezlika and Ong(2004) said that “individuals with high

need for achievement have strong desire to be successful and are consequently more likely to

behave entrepreneurially”. It is also stated that entrepreneurs possessed higher need for

achievement as compared to non-entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991) and have strong relation

with entrepreneurial propensity.

2.4 Locus of Control:

Researches connected this trait with entrepreneurial propensity. It is related with the

individual’s perception having abilities “to control the events in life” (Leone et al., 2000).

Personal spirits “about the rewards and punishments in his/her life are called by Locus of

control” (Pervin, 1980). People having “internal locus of control” feel that they have ability to

control life events, While people having with an “external locus of control believe that life events

are affected by external elements, such as chance, luck or fate and other individual affect their

performance across range of activities” (Koh, 1996; Riipinen, 1994; Hansemark, 1998 and

Barney,1986). Entrepreneurs think that they have ability to accomplish goals and make impact

on environment (Shane, 2003, p. 327) and to resolve issues (Busenitz and Barney, 1997).

Mitton(1989), said that “entrepreneurs prefer to take and hold distinctive command

instead of leaving things to external factors”. Entrepreneurs are always in searching of

opportunities and due to their innovative attitude have confidence “to control the events in their

lives or in other words, have locus of inner control” (Mueller et al., 2000; Hansemark, 1998;

Koh, 1996; Utsch et al., 2000).

Similarly Mueller and Thomas (2000) concluded that “entrepreneurs have relatively more

locus of inner control as compare to the non-entrepreneurs”. Experiential findings about this trait

had been talk about by many scholors (Ho and Koh, 1992, Robinson, et al., 1991 and Cromie,

2000). In a student sample, positive association of this trait was determined with the aspiration

to become an entrepreneur (Bonnett and Furnham, 1991). Hence, “greater the internal locus of

control” higher is the probability to have entrepreneurial propensity.

2.5 Tolerance for Ambiguity:

When insufficient or too complex or contradictory information is available about an

activity is referred to as ambiguous one. Tolerance for ambiguity referred to as the tendency to

perceive ambiguity situation as desirable whereas “intolerance for ambiguity” is tendency to

receive ambiguous situation as threat.

Koh (1996) reported that “person who has high tolerance of ambiguity is one who finds

ambiguous situations challenging and who strives to overcome unstable and unpredictable

situations in order to perform well”. Entrepreneurs have more ability to tolerate ambiguity (Koh

(1996) and Teoh and Foo (1997). Thus entrepreneur respond positively to ambiguous situations

and willingly seeks out and manages uncertainty Mitten (1989), while others who feel

uncomfortable in uncertain situation and hence avoid ambiguous stimuli (Busenitz et al.,1997) .

Thus, it can be said that this is an entrepreneurial characteristic (Ho and Koh, 1992; Sarachek,

1978; Schere, 1982; Sexton, and Bowman, 1985) and have a strong relation with entrepreneurial

tendency .Therefore, the entrepreneurial inclines individual are consider to show more tolerance

for ambiguity as compare to others.

2.6 Demographics:

There are various demographic factors such as “age, gender, educational and family

backgrounds, motivation and prior business experiences” affecting student’s

propensity/inclination towards entrepreneurial activities as documented by various researchers

(Kristiansen & Nurul Indarti, 2004; Shane 2000; Lee and Tsang, 2001 and Shay & Terjensen,

2005).

Kristiansen and Nurul Indarti (2004) in research about “entrepreneurial intention” among

Indonesian and Norwegian graduates determined that “age, gender and educational background”

had no major influence on “entrepreneurial intention”. Shinnar et al.,(2009) said that there were

no significant differences between male and female graduates with respect to attention in

entrepreneurship. But Shay and Terjensen (2005) establish that males had higher tendency than

females to create their own enterprise.

Ooi (2008) research about Northern Peninsular Malaysian students discover that gender,

along with other factors e.g “programs of study, previous working experience and mother’s

occupation” had significant differences about their liking to become entrepreneurs. Similarly

study by Barcelona & Valida (1992) on 800 business graduates in Malaysia found association

between demographics and entrepreneurial attitude. Hence, there are mixed results with respect

to gender about entrepreneurial proclivity.

Mohd Nizam et al.,(2009) examined that female and Chinese indicated more proclivity to

become entrepreneurs as compared to male and non-Chinese. Yar et al., (2008) and Basu &

Virick(2008) in research measured that “entrepreneurship education and prior entrepreneurial

experience has greater positive impact on entrepreneurial intentions. Similarly, Henning's and jar

dim (1977,p.221) as well as Helfat et al., (2002) found that “entrepreneurs tend to be the first

born”.

A study analysis directed by Mazzarol, Thein and Doss (1999) on the sample of (93)

respondents in Western Australia, establish factors such as “background of the respondents” and

individual character determined to found self-owned businesses

Previous study had exposed attention of numerous demographics like ethnicity, “personality,

human capital, marital status, family size”, experience, work status and educational level, age,

gender, religion, socio-economics position and religion contribute in starting a business

(Mazzarol, Thein and Doss, 1999).

Bruch (1992) found that men are more inclined towards entrepreneurial business than

women. Zaidatol et al., (2008a) found that there was higher mean difference between students

regarding entrepreneurship experience with respect to entrepreneurial spirit. Similarly Zaidatol et

al.,(2009a) examined that male university students possessed more entrepreneurial intention

compared to their female counterparts.

Research done by Crant (1996) first year undergraduates (91) and degree owners (90)

found significant relationship between entrepreneurship attitude and demographics like

education, family with business interest and gender.

The research on (89) ex-business management students established that families and

gender affected entrepreneurial attitudes among the respondents (Matthews and Moser,1996).

Various studies like Hatten & Ruhland(1995) on 220 college students in USA sponsored

by Small Business Institute, and Louis et al.1989 at various universities in USA found that age

as well as gender could be linked to become entrepreneur. The study was directed by Crant

(1996) in an institution of higher education in the USA found that educational level ,gender and

parents having business contribute towards entrepreneurial behavior.

Since, there are mix results about demographics around the globe, hence this becomes

debatable and it need further research in order to achieve some substantial results with respect to

both different cultures.

2.1 Theoretical Frame Work

Personality Traits

Innovativeness

Risk taking attitude

Achievement motivation

Internal locus of control

Tolerance for ambiguity

Entrepreneurial Propensity

Demographic Variables

Figure 2.1 Personality traits that influence Entrepreneurial Propensity

2.7 Research Hypotheses:

To analyze the theoretical frame work given in Figure 2.1, the following hypotheses are

developed and tested to draw conclusion regarding the influence of different factors as stated

above on entrepreneurial propensity among the business students of both Universities.

Hypothesis (H1): Students with the difference of education level (BBA/MBA) changes their

entrepreneurial propensity

Hypothesis (H2): Non local students have higher entrepreneurial propensity than local one

Hypothesis (H3): Male students have more level of entrepreneurial propensity than female

students

Hypothesis (H4): Students having different age groups possessed different entrepreneurial

propensity

Hypothesis (H5): Students with first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than others

Hypothesis (H6): Students having self-employed parents influenced greater entrepreneurial

propensity than job oriented parents.

Hypothesis (H7): Students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity

than others who have not attended business seminar

Hypothesis (H8): Innovativeness, risk taking, achievement motivation, inter locus of control,

tolerance for ambiguity and entrepreneurial propensity are correlated.

Hypothesis (H9): Innovativeness has an influence on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H10): Risk taking has an impact on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H11): Achievement motivation has an effect on entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H12): Internal locus of control predicts the variance in entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H13): Tolerance for ambiguity determines entrepreneurial propensity.

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Survey Approach and Data Collection:

Survey approach have excessive applied in social sciences for data collection (Babbie,

1993, p.256), to define phenomena by testing hypotheses through responses to different questions

Baker(1994, p.8). The instrument used in survey research is questionnaire. In social sciences

researchers use survey approach because it can also be “an excellent vehicles for measuring

attitudes and orientation in a population” (Babbie, 1993, p.257). Hence, survey methodology to

measure the “entrepreneurial propensity, innovativeness, risk taking, achievement motivation,

locus of internal control & tolerance for ambiguity” is applied to collect data through

questionnaire from business students registered with Gatton College of Business & Economics,

University of Kentucky-USA and Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat-Pakistan.

Survey instrument is on paper. This preserves anonymity

3.2 Questionnaire development:

To establish content validity of the scales used in the present study, researcher discussed

questionnaire with experts in their respective fields. Also questionnaire was discussed with

supervisors and faculty members. Final questionnaire consist of two parts and forty seven

questions.

The first part included demographic as well as general information. Ten questions about

gender, age groups, domicile, number of siblings & birth order, education level(graduate &

under graduate), family occupation (self-employed vs job oriented) and planning about future

courses, entrepreneurship related seminars / workshops participation and their future intention

regarding to start own business are asked in questionnaire. These entire questions are measured

on nominal scale except question regarding age group which is measure on ordinal scale.

Second part consists of research variables. Q11 to Q16 are about entrepreneurial

propensity, Q17 to Q24 are about “innovativeness”, Q25 to Q31 are concerning “risk taking”,

Q32 to Q37 are regarding “achievement motivation” while Q38 to Q41 are about “Internal locus

of control” and Q42 to Q47 are about “tolerance for ambiguity” measurement. These entire

questions are measured on interval scale. Respondents are asked to give their response on a five-

point Likert scale.

3.3 Population of the Study:

Total population consist of MBA(graduate) & Senior Under graduate students of Gatton

college of Business & Economics, University of Kentucky-USA & Final semesters students of

BBA & MBA of Kohat University of Science & technology, Kohat-Pakistan. Voluntarily

participation & non participation is unrelated with the class room activities and responsibilities as

well as unrelated to students Grades. Since, total population is taken therefore, neither taken

sample nor used sampling techniques.

Table 3.1 Population of the Study

S# Universities BBA BMA TOTAL

1 Gatton College of Business &Econ-Kentucky, USA 70 72 142

2 Kohat university of Science & Tech(KP)-Pakistan 120 46 166

Note: Out of 142 questionnaires, nine questionnaires were incomplete while in 166 questioners

only 152 questionnaires were filled completely. Hence incomplete questionnaires were ignored.

3.4 Statistical Methods

According to the nature of the research study, both descriptive and inferential statistics

are used.Various tools are applied by the researcher for data analysis due the dependent and

independent variables of data. Statistical tools descriptive (frequencies, percentages, mean and

standard deviations) and Inferential (correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis, T-Test,

and ANOVA etc) are applied for data analysis and hypotheses testing. Particularly Pearson’s

correlation is used to determine association among variables measured on interval scale. Multiple

regressions determined whether independent variables are significantly influencing the

dependent variable entrepreneurial propensity. To determine significant mean difference, tests of

significance (T-test, and ANOVA) are used for hypotheses testing. For checking the reliability,

Cronbach’s Alpha internal consistency coefficient is calculated for each variable construct by

Using SPSS.

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

After collection of data from target population of research study, then subsequent stage is

to examine it by testing research hypotheses. Data is analyzed to create respondents’ profile

through frequency distributions. Various types of analyses like “reliability analysis, descriptive

analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis” are applied by using SPSS.

Program (BBA/MBA)

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Program Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

BBA 70 52.6 52.6

MBA 63 47.4 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Program Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

BBA 110 72.4 72.4

MBA 42 27.6 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Home Town

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Hometown Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Kentucky(local) 109 82.0 82.0

Others(Non Local) 24 18.0 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Hometown Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

KP(local) 150 98.7 98.7

Others(Non Local) 2 1.3 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Gender

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Male 90 67.7 67.7

Female 43 32.3 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Gender Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Male 135 88.8 88.8

Female 17 11.2 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Age

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Bellow or equal to 25 115 86.5 86.5

Between 26-35 16 12.0 98.5

Above 35 2 1.5 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Age Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Bellow or equal to 25 112 73.7 73.7

Between 26-35 40 26.3 100.0

Above 35

Total 152 100.0 100.0

Siblings

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Siblings Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

0-2 Siblings 111 83.5 83.5

3 or more siblings 22 16.5 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Siblings Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

0-2 Siblings 10 6.6 6.6

3 or more

siblings142 93.4 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Birth Order

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA

“Birth Order” Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

First Born 50 37.6 37.6

Others 83 62.4 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Birth Order Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

First Born 66 43.4 43.4

Others 86 56.6 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Family Own Business

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Family Own Business

Frequency Percentage Cumulative %

Yes 72 54.1 54.1

No 61 45.9 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Family Own Business


Yes 50 32.9 32.9

No 102 67.1 100.0

Total 152 100.0

Workshop or Seminar Attended

Gatton College of Busi &Eco-Kentucky,USA Workshop or Seminar Attend


Yes 14 10.5 10.5

No 119 89.5 100.0

Total 133 100.0

KUST(KP)-Pakistan Workshop or Seminar Attend


Yes 45 29.6 29.6

No 107 70.4 100.0

Total 152 100.0

4.2 Reliability Analysis

A Cronbach’s coefficient Alpha was used to test the “reliability of all its item variables”

in order to find the “internal consistency”. Sekaran (1999, p.311) said that “Cronbach’s alpha is

a reliability coefficient that indicates how well the items in a set are correlated to one another and

closer the Cronbach’s alpha is to 1, higher the internal consistency reliability”. Moreover,

Sekaran (1999, p.311) stated that in general “the reliabilities less than 0.60 are considered to be

poor, those in 0.70 range, acceptable, and those over 0.80 good”. As Cronbach’s Alpha is above

0.60 hence, internal reliability having range from poor to good. The results are represented in

Table 4.1 & 4.2

4.4 Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive statistics for example means as well as std. deviation for research variables

calculated on five-point scale are displayed in Table 4.3 & 4.4

From table 4.3 & 4.4 among different factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity, the mean

value more than three on 5-point scale indicates that respondents have above average response

than indifferent/neutral about these variables or it can be stated that respondents from both

universities are optimistic about role of different independent variable’s impact on

entrepreneurial propensity as indicated in above mention tables 4.3 & 4.4.

4.5 Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis is calculated to find out any association among the variables. To test

Hypothesis H9, Pearson’s correlation matrix obtained from both universities business students

among variables measured on five point interval scale is showed in Table 4.5 and 4.6

From the result in Table 4.5, it is concluded that entrepreneurial propensity is positively

correlated with all independent variables, i.e. correlation is significant at the 0.01& 0.05 level

which recommend that if entrepreneurial propensity is to be boosted, then it is essential to

enhance level of “innovation; risk taking, need for achievement motivation; locus of control and

tolerance for ambiguity”. Similarly in Table 4.6 correlation is significant at the 0.01 which mean

that to augment the entrepreneurial propensity, there is need to raise the level of above

mentioned factors among business students of both universities. Hence, correlations values

computed among the variables are positively correlated to entrepreneurial propensity in both

cases. Hence, Hypothesis H8 was accepted.

4.6 Hypothesis Testing

Hypotheses have been developed and tested through the application of T-test, ANOVA

and Multiple Regression. Results are significant if “probability of occurrence (P-value) is equal

to or less than 0.05 levels” of significance.

Hypothesis (H1): Students with the difference of education level (BBA/MBA) changes

their entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis H1 used of independent sample T-test because there are two groups and the

dependent variable, entrepreneurial propensity, is measured on five point Likert interval scale.

The result of T-tests are shown in Table 4.7(A) &4(B) and its interpretation is given below:

From result in Table 4.7(A) , difference in the means of 3.285 and 3.365 with standard

deviation of 0.886 and 0.839 for the undergrad and BMA students of Gatton, Kentucky-USA

about their entrepreneurial propensity is not significant as p>0.05 at 131 df. Hence H1 is

rejected

While H1 is accepted for students of KUST,KP-Pakistan as given in Table 4.7(B) i.e.

P<0.05,at 150 df means that there is a significant difference about entrepreneurial propensity

with respect to BBA & BMA graduates. .

Hypothesis (H2): Non local students have higher entrepreneurial propensity than local one

Hypothesis (H2) was tested using independent samples t-test, its result are displayed in

Table 4.8(A) & 4.8(B). In both cases as seen in table 4.6(A) and table 4.6(B), H2 was rejected as

P>0.05 which means that there was no significant difference between local and non-local

students about their entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H3): Male students have more level of entrepreneurial propensity than female

students.

From results in Table 4.9(A), H3 was accepted as P<0.05 which determines that there is

significant difference among male and female students regarding their perception about

entrepreneurial propensity while in Table 4.8(B), H3 was rejected as P>0.05 which determines

that there is no statistical difference among students with respect to their gender about

entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, H3 has mixed results.

Hypothesis (H4): Students having different age groups possessed different entrepreneurial

propensity

Likewise Hypothesis (H4) was tested using ANOVA and its results are shown in Table

4.10 (A) & (B) and interpretation is given bellow:

Degrees of freedom (df) between groups variance, df= (K-1) i.e. 3-1 is 2 while with in

groups df= (N-K) i.e.133-3 is 130 While in Table 4.10 (B) df with in groups is 149. F value is

calculated as

F= MS explained/MS residual

In first case of Gatton (USA) as in Table 4.10(A), F=0.012(0.009/0.755) value is not Significant

at P>0.05 and H4 rejected while in second case of Kohat (Pakistan) F=11.306 (4.534/0.401) is

significant at p<0.05. Hence H4 accepted which means that difference was significant

differences among different age groups about their entrepreneurial propensity. Therefore, H4

have a mixed results

Hypothesis (H5): Students with first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than

others.

Hypothesis (H5) again call for the use of t-test and reported in Tables 4.11(A) and

4.11(B). H5 was accepted in case of Gatton (USA) as P<0.05 while Rejected in case of Kohat

(Pakistan) as P>0.05. Therefore, H5 have mixed results

Hypothesis (H6): Students having self-employed parents influenced greater entrepreneurial

propensity than job oriented parents.

Hypothesis (H6) results are reported in Table 4.12(A) & 4.12(B). In Both cases, H6 was

rejected because P>0.05 which means that there was no significant difference between groups

about their perception regarding entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis (H7): Students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity

than others who have not attended business seminar

Hypothesis (H7) was tested using independent samples t-test and results displayed in the

Tables 4.13(A) & 4.13(B). In both cases H7 was accepted as P<0.05 which mean that there was a

significant difference about entrepreneurial propensity between groups with respect to attending

workshops/seminar. In other words students those who attended training workshops/seminar

possessed higher entrepreneurial propensity than others which means training

workshops/seminar plays an important role to promote entrepreneurial propensity among

students.

To test H9, H10, H11, H12, H13 following hypothesis is tested:

Hypothesis: Students’ innovativeness, risk taking attitude, need for achievement motivation,

and internal locus of control and tolerance of ambiguity level significantly explains the

variance in entrepreneurial propensity.

To test above hypothesis, multiple regression analysis is used. Multiple regression

analysis results of five independent variables against one dependent variable displayed in Table

4.14(A) & Table 4.14(B).

R (0. 452) value in model summary Table 4.14(A), is correlation of the above five

independent variables with the dependent variable. Likewise, R Square (0.205) means that 20.5%

of the variance (R-Square) in the entrepreneurial propensity has been significantly explained by

five independent variables.

Table ANOVA, shows that F value of 6.538 is significant at the .0001 levels(p<0.05).

Hence, hypothesis was accepted which means that “risk taking, innovativeness, need for

achievement motivation, locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity level” of students of

Gatton college collectively predicts entrepreneurial propensity.

Table Coefficients explains that which variables has most significant impact on

entrepreneurial propensity. Highest value of beta is 0.408 for the “risk taking attitude” and

significant at 0.000 levels while beta is 0.086 for “tolerance of ambiguity” and 0.052 “for

achievement motivation” but not significant at 0.005 respectively. While beta is negative for

“innovativeness and internal locus of control”.

O‟Brien & Robert (2007) reported that “tolerance value less than 0.20 or 0.10 indicates a

multi collinearity problem”. In the above table the tolerance values of all (I.V‟s) are in range of

0.644 to 0.791 which show that “tolerance level is moderate and good”.

Value measures the magnitude of multi collinearity problem and if

then multi collinearity is high (Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, 2004). Since In

above table titled Coefficients, VIF values are in range of 1.264 to 1.552 which shows that there

is no multi collinearity issue in above mentioned variables.

Similarly in table 4.14(B), R Square (0.724) means that 72.4% of the variance (R-Square) in the

entrepreneurial propensity has been significantly described by the five independent variables as

stated above.

Table 4.14 of ANOVA, displays that F value of 76.648 is significant at the .0001 levels.

Hence, hypothesis has been accepted. In Table Coefficients 4.14(B) shows beta is 0.682 for the

“achievement motivation” and 0.266 for “risk taking attitude” significant at 0.000 levels and

0.116 for innovations, significant at 0.043 levels respectively. The positive beta weight specifies

that if entrepreneurial propensity is to be enhance then it is necessary to increase the

“achievement motivation, risk taking and innovative behavior level” of business students. While

“locus of control and tolerance for ambiguity” has negative beta value of 0.110 & 0.024

respectively. Hence, it is stated that three independent variables stated above has positive and

significant influence on entrepreneurial propensity. Therefore, hypothesis was accepted.

Similarly the above table titled Coefficients also demonstrates that tolerance values of all

(I.V‟s) are in range of 0.280 to 0.589 which show that the tolerance level is moderate and good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicollinearity

In the same way VIF values are in range of 1.00 to 5.0 which indicates there is no multi

collinearity problem in above mentioned variables.

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

As date was collected from two different universities of USA and Pakistan, therefore,

analysis and its interpretation “opens-up new levels of understanding about various factors”

influencing entrepreneurial propensity among business students.

As this study “adopts the psychological characteristics school of thought” which describe

entrepreneurs as individuals having “unique values, attitudes and needs” which drive them.

These personality traits/characteristics are included in this research as these frequently described

in the literature and indicated strong association with entrepreneurship (Koh, 1996; Begley and

Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus, Sr. and Horwitz, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934; Korunka et al., 2003;

Bygrave ,1989; Shaver and Scott, 1991& Robinson et al.,1991). Connie et al. (2005) said,

personality research plays a significant role in investigating the entrepreneurial personality and

has a burning and interesting issue (Rauch and Frese, 2000) with the “individual as unit of

analysis” (Korunka et al., 2003).

For this purpose existing literature was investigated with an intention to learn about the

current scholarly position on the topic selected. The literature provided the variable and

relationship in the form of theoretical frame work. The literature review given in chapter 2 was

used as guide line to collect primary data for conducting survey through questionnaire from

business students of Gatton Business School, USA and business students of KUST, KP-Pakistan.

From empirical study close association among entrepreneurial propensity and personal

psychological traits is found.

Apart from research variables, there are demographics that make impacts on individual

entrepreneurial propensity. Among these demographics, gender, age, domicile, education level,

birth order, family occupation, business related training workshops etc. are mostly documented

in literature.

Students with the difference of education level i.e. BBA & MBA changes their

entrepreneurial propensity was the hypothsisH1 and having mixed results. This means that

H1was accepted for Kohat Students, Pakistan which means that MBA’s students are more

mature, having more knowledge and are more oriented towards entrepreneurial activities. But H1

was rejected in Gatton (USA) means that there was no significant difference between BBA &

MBA graduates regarding entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, study have mixed results.

Similarly, students other than home town have greater entrepreneurial propensity was hypothesis

H2 and rejected in both cases. In Kohat University, Pakistan proportion of non-local students

was too much low as compare to Gatton, USA because in Kohat, Pakistan mostly students are

from KP Province and very limited students come from other province due to limited seats for

other province. While in Gatton, portion other than Kentucky was high because students come

from other states and countries as well. This study rejected the previous studies as mentioned in

literature that non local are prominent in business activities but the results of this study depicts

that now local are also entering entrepreneurial activities and have entrepreneurial propensity as

well.

Likewise, gender have different level of entrepreneurial propensity was hypothesis H3.

This H3 has also mixed results. H3 was accepted for Gatton students and supported previous

studies. But rejected in Kohat students which means that trend is changing among Kohat female

students and reasons may be that if female students are given education about business creation

then this create motivation towards entrepreneurial propensity. Although in general, Pakistani

society is male dominated and male are responsible for bread and butter but through awareness

programs, role models and successful stories, workshops and seminars this trend can be changed.

Further, the result of this study cannot be generalized because the portion of female students was

very low and they are business graduates.

In the same way, students with different age groups have different entrepreneurial

propensity was hypothesis H4 and having mixed results. As H4 was accepted for Business

students of Gatton, USA but rejected for business students of KUST, Pakistan. In Gatton- USA,

all students with respect to their age are involved in entrepreneurial activities but in KUST

mostly young students have more entrepreneurial propensity as compare to old one because old

are risk avoider.

Further, students having first birth order have more entrepreneurial propensity than other

was hypothesis H5 produced mixed results. H5 was again accepted for Business students of

Gatton, USA and supported the previous study which described that elder son /daughter takes the

responsibility of his/her parents and having more entrepreneurial propensity as compare to

younger. Further, elder child personality is impressed by his/her parents more as compare to

others. But H5 was rejected for business students of Kust, Pakistan. Generally in Pakistani

society all children are involved in business activities as compare to elder one because of poverty

and more unemployment.

Moreover, Students having self-employed parents have greater entrepreneurial propensity than

others was hypothesis H6 and rejected in both cases. It means that there is no significant

difference in family own business and job oriented family with respect to students

entrepreneurial propensity. This further, elaborate that now job oriented families are also

motivating their children to become successful entrepreneurs i.e. to have more entrepreneurial

propensity. Hence, society as a whole have more tendency towards business activities. Further,

in some cases students of Kust-Pakistan their parents are taking golden hand shake or retirement

before time and motivating children to become self-employed which is good trend.

Similarly, students attended business seminars have higher entrepreneurial propensity

than others who have not attended business seminar was Hypothesis H7 and accepted in both

cases. This hypothesis come up with statistically significant results. It means that there was

significant difference among students those attending seminar and others with respect to their

entrepreneurial propensity perception. Further, this supported that training workshops/seminars

play important role to flourish entrepreneurial propensity among business students of Gatton,

USA as well as Kust, Pakistan.

Further, hypothesis H8 was accepted in both cases .This means that research variables are

interrelated with each other as shown in Pearson correlation matrix Table 4.5 and Table4.6

Finally, to check hypotheses H9, H10, H11, H12 and H13 multiple regression analysis

was used and supported the previous researches that five independent variables collectively

predict entrepreneurial propensity. In case of students of Gatton Business school, USA beta is

0.408 for risk taking attitude which is significant at 0.000 levels and is the most influencing

variable in entrepreneurial propensity measurement. While in case of business students of KUST,

KP-Pakistan, beta is 0.682 for the achievement motivation, significant at 0.000 levels. Next beta

is 0.266 for risk taking attitude, significant at 0.000 levels and 0.116 for innovations, significant

at 0.043 levels respectively. This indicate that achievement motivation, risk taking and

innovation have most impact and influence on entrepreneurial propensity. Hence, if

entrepreneurial propensity is to rise then it is compulsory to enhance the individual’s

achievement motivation, risk taking and innovative behavior level of business students.

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of literature review and findings of present study, researcher has suggested the

following recommendations to flourish entrepreneurial propensity among students:

There is need to create more awareness among business about the importance of

entrepreneurial activates for country, society as well as for individual. For this purpose more

training workshops and seminar should be conducted at various levels. This can be done through

public and private collaboration.

Further, it is also required that entrepreneurial skills particularly personal traits that promote

entrepreneurial propensity should be developed among students through training and education

before starting business or entering into market. Further, fairs and exhibitions should be arranged

with mutual collaboration at various level in order to enhance entrepreneurial culture among

students. Similarly, different Business plan competition should be organized regularly in the

university level as well as among different universities.

Pakistan and particularly in KP province of Pakistan, women face gender base

discrimination. Women which are more than 50% of population should be motivated to come

forward in business related activities. Female should be respected and be considered trustworthy.

Further, business environments are not friendly for female in male dominated society. Thus,

women entrepreneur of KP should know about their rights and privileges. This is important to

change the perception of men towards women entrepreneur.

Media can play important role by publishing/broadcasting their success stories and

presenting them as positive role models specifically in KP province of Pakistan. This will help to

create not only positive image for women on rest of community regarding their choice about

career decision but also for their role in economic development of a country. This will be helpful

for family members to give permission to their female to come/enter into business related

activities.

Networking is another important tool to promote entrepreneurial culture in our society. For

achieving this one, local media for example cables networks, print media etc. can perform an

effective role for excellent networking among entrepreneurs. Further, in this regard there is need

to develop networking of associations at national and global level to support entrepreneurial

endeavors in economy. Hence, chambers and various associations can play effective role.

Further, due to significant role of entrepreneurship in the development of a country, researcher

proposed that entrepreneurship education is very important and more universities and colleges

should offer courses about entrepreneurship because it has been observed that there is no offering

of specialization courses in entrepreneurship field on university level as well as at batcher level

in different universities of KP which is the need of time.

Since, access to resources especial to financial resources is key element to promote

entrepreneurial culture. Hence, there should be flexible banking policies to provide loan at low

interest rate through one window operation with easy repayment options by considering the

unavailability of collateral and inability of entrepreneurs to develop feasible business plans.

Luckily, nowadays in Pakistan discount rate is lowest i.e.7 % over the last forty years as

announced by State Bank Of Pakistan with effect from May25,

2015(http://tribune.com.pk/story/891149/sbp-cuts-discount-rate-to-7%/express tribune) which

can create opportunities for them to make investment at low interest rate and will reduce cost of

doing business.

Due to lack of data regarding local markets, there may be limited support to forecast market

trends. Business support institutions should develop a mechanism for the selection of potential

entrepreneurs to tap international markets.

As in Kp province of Pakistan, there are mostly family businesses and start-up capital

supplied by their family and friends. Hence, parent/family members’ role is very significant to

promote entrepreneurial culture, change mindset and should motivate their young generation “to

become jobs creators not the jobs seeker “

As non-locals are too much involved in the entrepreneurial business activities because due to

socially marginalize and migrated people their survival is a big challenge. Further, the proportion

of local members is comparatively low, so it is necessary that local community be encouraged to

come forward and participate further in the entrepreneurial activities.

It is also recommended that education and training regarding improving psychological

factors in the business community as well as among the potential entrepreneurs should be

introduced. In this context, workshops and seminars can play a significant role for promoting

entrepreneurial culture with public private collaboration in this province of Pakistan.

Finally, eminent researchers suggest that environment has significant role to boom

entrepreneurial culture. But in KP province of Pakistan necessity-based entrepreneurship is more

dominant as compare to opportunity - based entrepreneurship because mostly people established

enterprises to meet their personal needs of bread and butter. Moreover at present in Pakistan and

particularly in KP province, environment is not favorable due to adverse law-and-order situation,

electricity shortages, increasing electricity charges, war against terror may affect negatively the

present and potential entrepreneurs to become job seeker rather than to become job creators.

Hence, maximum incentives towards entrepreneurship development and business friendly

environment can be helpful to flourish entrepreneurial vision of persons as well as to provide

opportunities for an entrepreneurial class to come forward.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/891149/sbp-cuts-discount-rate-to-7%25/express

6.1 FUTURE DIRECTION

Following are some important points for future research:

Future researches can be done on different samples and should include other states or

provinces of both countries in order to make it more generalize.

Similarly, researchers should design longitudinal study in order to analyze the responses

continuity and changes with passage of time. Thus, researchers should test hypotheses on

longitudinal data which would increase the reliability of these results.

Likewise, future research may include different angles due to cross cultural situation and

national setting that may provide more valid, exhaustive and useful insights.

Moreover, future research could develop more complex way of studying the relationships

i.e.to find out further moderating variables which may affect entrepreneurial propensity among

students.

References:

Alstete, J.W. (2002), "On becoming an entrepreneur: an evolving typology",

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 8 No.4, pp.222-34.

Babbie, E. (1993). The practice of social research.7th ed. Wardsworth publishing

company.

Baker , Therese L.(1994).Doing social rsearch.Singapore:Mcgraw Hill

Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factors markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy.

Management Science, 32, 1231–1241.

Barcelona, A.C., & Valida, A.C. (1992). Interrelationship between personal variables and

entrepreneurial potentials of senior students of Universiti Utara Malaysia. Malaysian

Management Review, 29(4), 15-28.

Basu, A., & Virick, M. (2008). Assessing Entrepreneurial Intentions Amongst Students: A

Comparative Study. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from National Collegiate Inventors and

Innovators Alliance Web site: http://nciia.org/conf08/assets/pub/basu2.pdf

Bonnett, C., & Furnham, A. (1991). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of

adolescents interested in a young enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology,

12(3): 465-478.

Busenitz, L.W. & Barney, J.B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers

in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of

Business Venturing, 12, 9–30.

Béchard, J. P. and J. M. Toulouse (1998). "Validation of a didactic model for the analysis

of training objectives in entrepreneurship." Journal of Business Venturing 13: 317-332.

Begley, M.W., Boyd, D.P. (1987), “Psychological Characteristics Associated with

Performance in Entrepreneurial Firms and Small Businesses”, Journal of Business

Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.

Brockhaus, R.H., Sr., Horwitz, P.S. (1986), “The Psychology of the Entrepreneur”, in

The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, ed. D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, Cambridge:

Ballinger, pp. 25-48.

Bruch C.,(1992) Research on women Business owner:Past Trends, a new perspective &

future direction”. Entrepreneurship theory & practice,16(4)5-30

Bygrave, W.D. (1989). “The entrepreneurship paradigm (I): a philosophical look at its

research methodologies”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 7-26.

Cunningham, J.B. and Lischeron, J. (1991). “Defining entrepreneurship”, Journal of

Small Business Management, Vol. 29, pp. 45-61.

Connie, R., James, W.K., John, E.F., Susan, M.F., Steven, S.W. and Daniel, W.W.

(2005). “A Framework for the Entrepreneurial Learner of the 21st Century”, Online

Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Vol. 8 No. 3.

Chell, E., Haworth, J., & Brearley, S. (1991). The entrepreneurial personality: concepts,

cases, and categories. London, New York: Routledge.

Cooper, A. C. & Gimeno-Gascon, F. J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, process of founding,and

new-firm performance. In d. L. Sexton & j. D. Kasarda (eds.). The State of the Art of

Entrepreneurship, 301-340.

Crant, J.M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of

entrepreneurship intention.Journal of Small Business Management , 34(3), 42-49

Cromie, S. (2000), “Assessing entrepreneurial inclination: Some approaches and

empirical evidence”.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 7-

30.

Frank, H., Korunka, C., Lueger, M., Mugler, J. (2005), “Entrepreneurial orientation and

education in Austrian secondary schools”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 259-273.

Furnham, A. (1992). Personality and productivity. London: Routledge.

Green, R., David, J., Dent, M., Tyshkovsky, A. (1996), "The Russian entrepreneur: a

study of psychological characteristics", International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, Vol. 2 No.1, pp.49-58.

Gurol, Y., Atsan, N. (2006), “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students:

Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey”, Education and

Training, Vol. 48 Issue 1, pp. 25-38.

Hansemark, O.C. (1998).The effects of an entrepreneurship programmes on need for

achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4, (1), 28-50

Henning And Jardim.(1977).The managerial women. Anchor press garden city New

York

Helfat, C. E., & Lieberman, M. B. (2002). The birth of capabilities: market entry and the

importance of the pre-history. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 725–760.

Hatten T.S. and Ruhland, S.K.(1995), “Student Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship As

Affected by Participation in an SBI Program, Journal of Education For Business, Vol. 70

No. 4, pp 224-227.

Ho, T.S. & Koh, H.C.,(1992).Differences in psychological characteristics between

entrepreneurially inclined and non-entrepreneurially inclined accounting graduates in

singapore.Entrepreneurship, innovation and change: An International Journal, Vol.

1,243-54.

Jack, S.L., Anderson, A.R. (1999), "Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise

culture", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5 No.3,

pp.110-25.

Koh, H.C. (1996). “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of

Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1225.

Klapper, R. (2004), “Government goals and entrepreneurship education – an

investigation at Grande Ecole in France”, Education and Training, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp.

127-137.

Koh, H.C. (1996). “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of

Hong Kong MBA students”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1225.

Kourilsky, M.L. and Walstad, W.B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth:

Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices. Journal of Business

Venturing, 13: 77-88.

Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a

major in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial Training,

21 (4): 154.

Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter.(2004).Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th edition,

McGraw-HillIrwin.Downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki _inflation_factor,

dated -4-9-2010.

Korunka,C., Frank, H., Luegler, M. and Mugler, J. (2003). “The entrepreneurial

personality in the context of resources, environment and the start-up process: A

configurational approach”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, pp. 23-42.

Kristiansen, S., & Nurul Indarti. (2004). Entrepreneurial Intention Among Indonesian and

Norwegian Students.Journal of Enterprising Culture,12(1), 55–78

Lee, D.Y. & Tsang, E.W.K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality.

Background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies,

38(4), 583–602.

Leone, C. & Burns, J. (2000).The measurement of locus of control: assessing more than

meetsthe eye? The Journal Of Psychology, 134(1),63-76.

Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial

personality. International Journal Of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,6(6),295-

309.

Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003). The ‘Making’ of an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of

Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering Students at MIT. R&D Management, 33: 2.

Mathews, C.H., & Moser, S.B. (1996). A longitudinal investigation of the impact

of family background and gender on interest in small firm ownership. Journal of

Small Business Management , 34(2), 29-43

Mazzarol, T., Doss, N., & Thein, V. (1999). Factors influencing small business start-up.

International Journal of Entrepreneur Behaviour and Research, 5(2), 48 – 63.

McClelland, D.C. (1953). The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

McClelland, D.C.(1961).The achieving society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ :New York.

Mary Coulter.(2005).Eentrepreneurship in action. 2nd ed.Prentice Hall of India private

limited,New Delhi.

Matlay, H. and P. Westhead (2005). "Virtual teams and the rise of entrepreneurship in

Europe." International Small Business Journal 12(3): 353-365.

Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H.,(1982). Strategy making and environment: The third link.

Strategic Management Journal, 4,221-35.

Mitton, D.G. (1989). “The complete entrepreneur”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, Vol. 13, pp. 9-19.

Morrison, A. (2000). “Entrepreneurship: what triggers it?”, International Journal of

Entrepreneurship Behavior & Research, Vol 6, No 2, pp. 59-71.

Mohd Nizam, A.R., Norhamidi, M., Dzuraidah A.W., Jaharah, A.G., Nishata Royan, R.R.,

& Shahida Azura, M.A. (2009). Engineering Students towards Entrepreneurship

Awareness. Seminar Pendidikan Kejuruteraan dan Alam Bina (PeKA’09). [Online]

Available: http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~upak/pdffile/PeKA09/P4/33.pdf(June10, 2010)

Mueller, S.L., Thomas, A.S. (2000), "Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine

country study of locus of control and innovativeness", Journal of Business Venturing,

Vol. 16 pp.51-75.

Nor, M., Ezlika, G. and Ong, C. C. (2004). Demographics and personal characteristics of

urban Malaysian entrepreneurs: an ethnic comparison. Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on SMEs in a Global Economy,University Teknologi

Mara,Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-7th July, 2004.

O’Brien, RobertM.(2007). “A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation

factors”, quality and quantity41 (5), 673-690.Peninsula Malaysia. Swinburne University

of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Ooi, Y.K., (2008). Inclination towards entrepreneurship among Malaysian university

students in Northern Peninsula Malaysia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Swinburne

University of Technology, elbourne,Australia.

Outcalt, C. (2000), “ The Notion of Entrepreneurship: Historical and Emerging Issues”,

Kaufman Center for Entrepreneural Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship

Education. Kansas City, United States of America.

Pervin, L.A.(1980). Personality: Theory, assessment and research.3rd ed. John Wiley &

Sons, New York.

Riipinen, M. (1994). Extrinsic occupational needs and the relationship between need for

achievement and locus of control. The Journal of Psychology, 128( 5),577-88.

Rohaizat, B. and Fauziah, S.A. (2002), “Access to Human Capital in Entrepreneurship

Education: A Comparison of Male and Female Students in Technical Disciplines”,

Akauntan Nasional, September, pp. 30-33.

Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K. (1991a), "An attitude

approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship", Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

Vol. 15 No.4, pp.13-32.

Robinson, P.B., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K. (1991b), “Entrepreneurial research on student

subjects does not generalize to real world entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business

Management, Vol. 29, pp. 42-50.

Rauch, A. and Frese, M. (2000).”Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A

general model and an overview of findings”, In C.L. Cooper and I.T. Robertson (Eds.),

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, pp.101-142.

Sarachek, B.,(1978). American entrepreneurs and the Horatio Alger Myth. Journal of

Economic History, 38, 439-56.

Schaper, M. and T. Volery (2004). „Entrepreneurship and small business: A Pacific Rim

perspective“. Milton, Queensland, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd.

Schere, J.(1982). Tolerance of ambiguity as a discriminating variable between

entrepreneurs and managers.The Academy Of Management, 42,404-8.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, M.A.

Sekaran Uma.(1999).Research methods for business:A skill building approach. 4th ed.

Southern Ill notes University of Carbondale.

Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N.,(1985).The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more.

Journal of Business Venturing, 1,129-40.

Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and discover of entrepreneurial activities.

Organization Science, 11, 448–469.

Shane, S.(2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity

Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L.R. (1991). “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new

venture creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 23-45.

Shay, J., & Terjensen, S. (2005). Entrepreneurial aspirations and intentions of business

students: A gendered perspective. [Online] Available:

http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/2005FER/chapter_ii/summary_ii7.html(June 20,2010)

Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes

across campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159

Stewart, W. H., & P. L. Roth (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs

and managers: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1), 145–153.

Teoh, H.Y. & Foo, S.L. (1997). Moderating effects of tolerance for ambiguity and risk

taking propensity on the role conflict-perceived performance relationship: evidence from

Singaporean entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,12, 67-81

Utsch, A. & Rauch, A. (2000).Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between

achievement orientation and venture performance. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.

Van Auken, H.; Stephens, P.; Fry F. and Silva J. (2006). Role model influences on

entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico. Entrepreneurship

Management, 2: 325-336.

Yar Hamidi, D., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in Entrepreneurship

Education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. 15(2), 304–320.

Zaidatol Akmaliah, L.P., & Abdullah Salleh, A.S. (2008a). Development of

Entrepreneurial Spirit among Students: A Case Study. International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 3(3), 213–220.

Zaidatol Akmaliah, L.P & Afsaneh, B. (2009a). Entrepreneurial Intention of University

Students: An Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Groups. International Journal of Knowledge,

Culture and Change Management, 9(4), 49–60.

APPENDIX ATable 4.1: Reliability Statistics Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Gatton College of Business &Econ-Kentucky, USA Variables Cronbach Alpha

Entrepreneurial Propensity 0.902

Innovation 0.791

Risk Taking 0.604

Achievement Motivation 0.778

Internal locus of Control 0.682

Tolerance for Ambiguity 0.709

Table 4.2: Reliability Statistics Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Kohat university of Science & Tech(KP)-Pakistan Variables Cronbach Alpha

Entrepreneurial Propensity 0.836

Innovation 0.767

Risk Taking 0.794

Achievement Motivation 0.849

Internal locus of Control 0.838

Tolerance for Ambiguity 0.726

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Variables Sample Size(n) Mean Std. Deviation

Entrepreneurial Tendency133 3.3233 .86231

Innovation133 3.7406 .51782

Risk Taking133 3.3298 .50757

Achievement Motivation133 4.3759 .46269

Internal locus of Control133 4.0019 .54832

Tolerance for Ambiguity133 3.7356 .51865

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Entrepreneurial Tendency 152 3.9178 .52367

Innovation 152 3.8562 .60798

Risk Taking 152 4.3300 .64292

Achievement Motivation 152 4.1168 .88256

Internal locus of Control 152 3.9715 .50047

Tolerance for Ambiguity 152 4.0625 .67512

Table4.5 Correlations Analysis Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Innovation Risk Taking

“Achievement

Motivation”

“ locus of

Control”

“Tolerance for

Ambiguity”

Entrepreneuri

al Propensity

Innovation “Pearson Correlation 1 .449** .226** .148 .510** .192*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .009 .090 .000 .027

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

Risk Taking “Pearson Correlation .449** 1 .080 -.158 .409** .441**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .363 .070 .000 .000

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

Achievement Motivation “Pearson Correlation .226** .080 1 .380** .336** .080

Sig. (2-tailed) .009 .363 .000 .000 .362

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

Internal locus of Control “Pearson Correlation .148 -.158 .380** 1 .139 -.104

Sig. (2-tailed) .090 .070 .000 .110 .233

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

Tolerance for Ambiguity “Pearson Correlation .510** .409** .336** .139 1 .242**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .110 .005

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

“Pearson Correlation .192* .441** .080 -.104 .242** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .027 .000 .362 .233 .005

N” 133 133 133 133 133 133

**. “Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)”.

*. “Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)”.

Table4.6 Correlations Analysis Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Innovation Risk Taking

“Achievement

Motivation”

“Internal locus

of Control”

“Tolerance for

Ambiguity”

Entrepreneuri

al Propensity

Innovation “Pearson

Correlation1 .514** .527** .573** .537** .536**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

Risk Taking “Pearson

Correlation.514** 1 .681** .683** .607** .700**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

Achievement Motivation “Pearson

Correlation.527** .681** 1 .813** .451** .824**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

Internal locus of Control “Pearson

Correlation.573** .683** .813** 1 .550** .679**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

Tolerance for Ambiguity “Pearson

Correlation.537** .607** .451** .550** 1 .446**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

“Pearson

Correlation.536** .700** .824** .679** .446** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N” 152 152 152 152 152 152

**. “Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)”.

Table 4.7 (A) Group Statistics- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Program “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity BBA 70 3.2857 .88654 .10596

MBA 63 3.3651 .83968 .10579

“Independent Samples Test”

“Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances” “t-test for Equality of Means”

“F” “Sig.” “T” “Df”

“Sig. (2-

tailed)”

“Mean

Difference

”

“Std. Error

Difference

”

“95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference”

“Lower” “Upper”

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

“Equal variances

assumed”.994 .321 -.529 131 .598 -.07937 .15016 -.37642 .21769

Equal variances

not assumed-.530 130.648 .597 -.07937 .14973 -.37558 .21685

Table 4.7 (B) Group Statistics - Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan



MBA 42 3.7738 .94196 .14535

“Independent Samples Test”

“Levene's Test for

Equality of

Variances” “t-test for Equality of Means”

Table 4.7 (A) Group Statistics- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA



“F” “Sig.” “t” “Df”

“Sig.

(2-

tailed)

”

“Mean

Differenc

e”

“Std.

Error

Differenc

e”

“95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference”

“Lower” “Upper”

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed10.741 .001 3.367 150 .001 .39892 .11847 .16484 .63300

Equal variances

not assumed2.606 50.200 .012 .39892 .15306 .09151 .70632

Table 4.8(A) Group Statistics- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Hometown “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity Kentucky(local) 109 3.3257 .86317 .08268

Others(Non Local) 24 3.3125 .87685 .17899

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed.366 .546 .068 131 .946 .01319 .19517 -.37291 .39928

Equal variances

not assumed.067

33.53

7.947 .01319 .19716 -.38769 .41407

Table 4.8(B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan


Entrepreneurial

Propensity

KP(local) 150 4.0678 .67806 .05536

Others(Non Local) 2 3.6667 .00000 .00000



Entrepreneurial Propensity Kentucky(local) 109 3.3257 .86317 .08268


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed2.146 .145 .834 150 .406 .40111 .48104 -.54937 1.35159

Equal variances

not assumed7.245

149.0

00.000 .40111 .05536 .29171 .51051


Gender “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity Male 90 3.4556 .87367 .09209

Female 43 3.0465 .77692 .11848


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differen

ce

Std.

Error

Differen

ce

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal

variances

assumed

1.287 .259 2.615 131 .010 .40904 .15644 .09957 .71851

Equal

variances not

assumed

2.72692.20

0.008 .40904 .15006 .11102 .70707


Gender “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Male 135 4.0753 .71403 .06145

Female 17 3.9608 .13856 .03361


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed12.288 .001 .658 150 .512 .11452 .17407 -.22942 .45847

Equal variances

not assumed1.635

129.2

92.104 .11452 .07004 -.02405 .25310

ANOVA

Table 4.10(A)

Entrepreneurial Propensity(University Of Kentucky)

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .018 2 .009 .012 .988

Within Groups 98.136 130 .755

Total 98.153 132

ANOVA

Table 4.10(B) Entrepreneurial Propensity(Kohat University)

Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 9.068 2 4.534 11.306 .000

Within Groups 59.755 149 .401

Total 68.823 151


Birth Order “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity First Born 50 3.5200 .79085 .11184

Others 83 3.2048 .88626 .09728


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed2.855 .093 2.067 131 .041 .31518 .15249 .01351 .61685

Equal variances

not assumed2.126

112.6

55.036 .31518 .14823 .02150 .60886


Birth Order “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity First Born 66 4.0682 .50972 .06274

Others 86 4.0581 .78164 .08429


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed1.539 .217 .091 150 .928 .01004 .11084 -.20897 .22906

Equal variances

not assumed.096 146.483 .924 .01004 .10507 -.19762 .21770


Family Own Business “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”

Entrepreneurial Propensity Yes 72 3.3981 .83477 .09838

No 61 3.2350 .89255 .11428


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed.016 .901 1.088 131 .279 .16318 .14995 -.13347 .45982

Equal variances

not assumed1.082

124.2

26.281 .16318 .15079 -.13528 .46163

Table 4.12 (B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Family Own Business “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”


No 102 4.0278 .75565 .07482


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed1.580 .211 .905 150 .367 .10556 .11662 -.12488 .33599

Equal variances

not assumed1.056

141.71

9.293 .10556 .09999 -.09210 .30321


Workshop or seminar “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation” “Std. Error Mean”


No 119 3.2381 .85221 .07812


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed4.134 .044 3.458 131 .001 .80952 .23412 .34638 1.27267

Equal variances

not assumed4.719

20.53

6.000 .80952 .17156 .45225 1.16679

Table 4.13 (B) Group Statistics- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Workshop or seminar “N” “Mean” “Std. Deviation”

“Std. Error

Mean”


No 107 3.9330 .71699 .06931


Levene's Test for


F Sig. T Df

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Differenc

e

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

Entrepreneurial

Propensity

Equal variances

assumed3.193 .076 3.805 150 .000 .43735 .11493 .21026 .66444

Equal variances

not assumed4.615

131.3

10.000 .43735 .09477 .24987 .62483

Table 4.14 (A) Model Summary- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .452a .205 .173 .78400

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Internal locus of Control, Risk Taking, Achievement

Motivation, Innovation

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 20.092 5 4.018 6.538 .000a

Residual 78.061 127 .615

Total 98.153 132

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Internal locus of Control, Risk Taking, Achievement

Motivation, Innovation

b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity.

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardize

d

Coefficients

T Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

for B

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) .704 .856 .823 .412 -.989 2.398

Innovation -.062 .164 -.037 -.378 .706 -.386 .262 .649 1.542

Risk Taking .694 .161 .408 4.302 .000 .375 1.013 .695 1.438

Achievement

Motivation.097 .168 .052 .576 .565 -.235 .429 .773 1.294

Internal locus of

Control

-.104 .140 -.066 -.741 .460 -.381 .173 .791 1.264

Table 4.14 (A) Model Summary- Gatton College of Business &Economics-Kentucky, USA

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .452a .205 .173 .78400

Tolerance

For Ambiguity.142 .164 .086 .869 .386 -.182 .467 .644 1.552

a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

Table 4.14 (B) Model Summary- Kohat University of Science & Technology (KP)-Pakistan

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .851a .724 .715 .36061

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Achievement Motivation, Innovation, Risk Taking, locus of

Control

ANOVAb


1 Regression 49.837 5 9.967 76.648 .000a

Residual 18.986 146 .130

Total 68.823 151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Achievement Motivation, Innovation, Risk Taking, locus of Control

b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) -.285 .294 -.969 .334

Innovation .149 .073 .116 2.043 .043 .589 1.699

Risk Taking .295 .075 .266 3.915 .000 .409 2.443

Achievement

Motivation

.716 .083 .682 8.605 .000 .301 3.323

ANOVAb


1 Regression 49.837 5 9.967 76.648 .000a

Residual 18.986 146 .130

Total 68.823 151

a. Predictors: (Constant), Tolerance for Ambiguity, Achievement Motivation, Innovation, Risk Taking, locus of Control

Internal locus

of Control-.084 .063 -.110 -1.343 .181 .280 3.573

Tolerance for

Ambiguity-.032 .080 -.024 -.408 .684 .541 1.847

a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Propensity

APPENDIX B

A study of personality traits that influence entrepreneurial propensity

1. Program (BBA / MBA) 2.Hometown (city, state or country) or Local/Nonlocal

3. Gender (Male / Female) 4. Age (Bellow or equal25/Between26-35/Above35)

5. Number of siblings (1-2 /3 or more) 6. Birth Order (First Born/ others)

7. Does/has any one in your family owned or founded a family –owned business? Yes/ No

8. Have you taken or (plan) to take an entrepreneurship /small business management courses? Yes/ No

9. Have you attended business seminar or workshop? Yes/ No

10. Ae you likely to start your own business in the future? Yes/ No

Please answer all the following questions by circling the appropriate level of agreement

S# Strongly Agree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

11 I am considering starting my own business 1 2 3 4 5

12 I have a plan to start my own business in the future 1 2 3 4 513 I see myself as an entrepreneur one day 1 2 3 4 514 Developing entrepreneurship skills is a part of my academic program 1 2 3 4 515 I hope to own my own business 1 2 3 4 516 I consider myself to be entrepreneur 1 2 3 4 5

17 I often surprise people with new ideas of doing things 1 2 3 4 518 I often try new things without worrying about future 1 2 3 4 519 People ask me for help in developing new ideas 1 2 3 4 520 I looks at problems and challenges from many different view points 1 2 3 4 521 I experiment with new ways of doing the same thing 1 2 3 4 522 I seek to develop new solutions to the problems 1 2 3 4 523 I like situations that require coming up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 524 I rarely carry out a task exactly others taught me to tackle it 1 2 3 4 5

25 I feel excitement by taking on tough challenges 1 2 3 4 526 I am comfortable taking financial risk 1 2 3 4 527 I would prefer to start and/or own my own business rather than

work in an organization1 2 3 4 5

28 I do not feel pressure from others to quickly take a job with an organization

1 2 3 4 5

29 I am comfortable with situations that have uncertain outcomes 1 2 3 4 530 I think of my involvement in uncertain situations in terms of

varying levels of calculated risk1 2 3 4 5

31 I don’t worry too much about failing at tasks(large or small) in my daily life

1 2 3 4 5

32 I am highly determined to achieve my life’s ambition 1 2 3 4 533 Achieving status in my life, community and/or career in important 1 2 3 4 534 I plan to actively work to achieve things that brings me status and

recognition1 2 3 4 5

35 I will work hard to do what it takes to achieve my life’s ambitions 1 2 3 4 536 I derive satisfaction from accomplishing difficult tasks 1 2 3 4 537 I believe that work hard and perseverance is the pathway to

achievement1 2 3 4 5

38 I seek to maintain strong control over the direction of my life 1 2 3 4 539 Success in life is not the result of external factors such as luck or

chance1 2 3 4 5

40 The course of my life and achievement directly result from my own choice and actions

1 2 3 4 5

41 Success depends mostly on my own ability 1 2 3 4 5

42 I am confident that I can manage life’s uncertainties 1 2 3 4 543 I am comfortable being in situations in which there is little hard

information available to help solve the problem1 2 3 4 5

44 I do what it takes to overcome uncertainty/unpredictability in situations in order to reach my objectives.

1 2 3 4 5

45 I have patience necessary to function in uncertain situation 1 2 3 4 546 When I find myself in uncertain situation, I am willing to take

chances to achieve my objectives1 2 3 4 5

47 I rarely get upset/frustrated when things don’t go as planned. 1 2 3 4 5

Documents

gatton.uky.edugatton.uky.edu/sites/default/files/parkistan-project/Hafiz Ullah.docx · Web viewSimilarly, in Pakistan and particularly in KP province, terrorism law and order situation