Practical Advice to Entrepreneurs Series by ACE Adjunct Professor Dean Shepherd: Practical advice on whether to act entrepreneurially

The author, Dean Shepherd, is interested in the psychology of entrepreneurship — how entrepreneurs think, decide to act, and feel. He recently realized that while his publications in academic journals have implications for entrepreneurs, those implications have remained relatively hidden in the text of the articles and hidden in articles published in journals largely inaccessible to those involved in the entrepreneurial process. This series is designed to bring the practical implications of his research to the forefront.

Spot the differences in traditional and social entrepreneurial intention : highlighting the role of human and social capital

There is general agreement in the scientific community that entrepreneurship plays a central role in the growth and development of an economy in rapidly changing environments (Acs & Virgill 2010). In particular, when business activities are regarded as a vehicle for sustainable growth at large, that goes beyond mere economic returns of singular entities, encompassing also social problems and heavily relying on collaborative actions, then we more precisely fall into the domain of ‘social entrepreneurship’(Robinson et al. 2009). In the entrepreneurship literature, prior studies demonstrated the role of intentionality as the best predictor of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and assumed that the intention to start a business derives from the perception of desirability and feasibility and from a propensity to act upon an opportunity (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act (Krueger et al. 2000) and entrepreneurship is a planned behaviour (Katz & Gartner 1988), models of entrepreneurial intentions have substantial implications for intentionality research in entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to explore the emerging practice of social entrepreneurship by comparing the determinants of entrepreneurial intention in general versus those leading to startups with a social mission. Social entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit to be investigated given that the opportunity identification process is an intentional process not only typical of for profit start-ups, and yet there is a lack of research examining opportunity recognition in social entrepreneurship (Haugh 2005). The key argument is that intentionality in both traditional and social entrepreneurs during the decision-making process of new venture creation is influenced by an individual's perceptions toward opportunities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Besides opportunity recognition, at least two other aspects can substantially influence intentionality: human and social capital (Davidsson, 2003). This paper is set to establish if and to what extent the social intentions of potential entrepreneurs, at the cognitive level, are influenced by opportunities recognition, human capital, and social capital. By applying established theoretical constructs, the paper draws comparisons between ‘for-profit’ and ‘social’ intentionality using two samples of students enrolled in Economy and Business Administration at the University G. d’Annunzio in Pescara, Italy. A questionnaire was submitted to 310 potential entrepreneurs to test the robustness of the model. The collected data were used to measure the theoretical constructs of the paper. Reliability of the multi-item scale for each dimension was measured using Cronbach alpha, and for all the dimensions measures of reliability are above 0.70. We empirically tested the model using structural equation modeling with AMOS. The results allow us to empirically contribute to the argument regarding the influence of human and social cognitive capital on social and non-social entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, we highlight the importance for further researchers to look deeper into the determinants of traditional and social entrepreneurial intention so that governments can one day define better polices and regulations that promote sustainable businesses with a social imprint, rather than inhibit their formation and growth.

The influence of role models on students' entrepreneurial intentions

The Smart State initiative requires both improved education and training, panicularly in technical fields, plus entrepreneurship to commercialise new ideas. In this study, we propose an entrepreneurial intentions model as a guide to examine the educational choices and entrepreneurial intentions of first-year University students, focusing on the effect of role models. A survey of over 1000 first-year University students revealed that the most enterprising students were choosing to study in the disciplines of information technology and business, economics and law, or selecting dualdegree programs that include business. The role models most often identified for their choice of field of study were parents,followed by teachers and peers, with females identifying more role models than males. For entrepreneurship, students' role models were parents andpeers,followed by famous persons and teachers. Males and females identified similar numbers of role models, but males found starting a business more desirable and more feasible, and reponed higher entrepreneurial intention. The implications of these findings for Smart State policy are discussed.

Entrepreneurial intentions of women

Despite advances in gender equity, evidence suggests that the level of business ownership by males continues to be significantly higher than that offemales. Moreover, females, from an early age, have lower entrepreneurial intentions than males. This paper examines previous studies to determine the factors that have been shown to relate to lower entrepreneurial intentions in women, to identify areas where prior research has been inadequate or inconclusive, and to discuss how intentions models might be modified to better explain the lower level of female business start-ups. It was found that the lower level of intentions is related to a range of personal background and attitudinal variables, and these factors are critically examined in this review. It is suggested that future research should focus on role models, networks and life roles in order to better explain female entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurial bricolage : towards systematic empirical testing

The behavioral theory of “entrepreneurial bricolage” attempts to understand what entrepreneurs do when faced with resource constraints. Most research about bricolage, defined as “making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities” (Baker & Nelson 2005: 333), has been qualitative and inductive (Garud & Karnoe, 2003). Although this has created a small body of rich descriptions and interesting insights, little deductive theory has been developed and the relationship between bricolage and firm performance has not been systematically tested. In particular, prior research has suggested bricolage can have both beneficial and harmful effects. Ciborra’s (1996) study of Olivetti suggested that bricolage helped Olivetti to adapt, but simultaneously constrained firm effectiveness. Baker & Nelson (2005) suggested that bricolage may be harmful at very high levels, but more helpful if used judiciously. Other research suggests that firm innovativeness may play an important role in shaping the outcomes of bricolage (Anderson 2008). In this paper, we theorize and provide preliminary test of the bricolage-performance relationship and how it is affected by firm innovativeness.

PSED II and the comprehensive Australian study of entrepreneurial emergence (CAUSEE)

Two current longitudinal studies in advanced countries, PSED II in the US and CAUSEE in Australia, have attempted to harmonize the major features of the research design. A comparison of the initial screening and first detailed interviews indicates a higher participation in new firm creation in the U.S. Similar types of persons are involved in both countries, albeit more immigrants, older individuals with more work experience and more established individuals in Australia. The nascent enterprises in the two countries are similar on many characteristics, although those in Australia report greater emphasis on new technology and international customers. Assessment of the prevalence of nascent enterprises and new firms from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor surveys indicates a higher prevalence of new firms in Australia. These two longitudinal projects may help determine if this reflects a high proportion of new firm births or greater survival in the early years among Australian new firms.