Attitude towards Entrepreneurship among Management Students-A Comparative Study

 

Shakuntala Jain¹, Swaranjeet Arora²

¹Research Scholar, Prestige Institute of Management and Research, Indore.

²Associate Professor, The NorthCap University, Gurgaon.

 

ABSTRACT:

For the economic development entrepreneurship plays an important role that contributes in the development process. Governments and business organizations across the world have hailed the importance of entrepreneurship and its contribution to socio-cultural and economic development. Entrepreneurship is quite a novel phenomenon in academics. There is general agreement that attitude towards the entrepreneur, entrepreneurial activity and its social function is determinant factors for university students to decide an entrepreneurial career. The objective of the present paper is to compare attitude towards entrepreneurship between male and female students of private and public management institutes in India. The study also attempts at narrowing the gap in literature by examining management student’s attitude towards entrepreneurship. The study was based on primary data and respondents were selected from undergraduate students pursuing management education. The results show that there is significant difference in level of entrepreneurial attitude between male and female students. The findings of the present study can counter the findings of previous studies concerning attitude towards entrepreneurship.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Attitude determines the degree of behavior that an individual would show positively or negatively (Liñán, 2004). Attitude includes self-sufficiency, progressiveness, respect for facts, practicality, commitment to making a difference, assertiveness, competitiveness and independence (Gartner, 1988). Attitude tends to account for a big variation in range of behaviors (Ajzen and Madden, 1986; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). According to Sagiri and Appolloni (2009) behavior of an individual merely relies on individual’s attitudes and beliefs and it plays a very important role in stimulating the individual’s course of action.

 

According to Amdam (2011) belief reflects a person’s knowledge and assessment of the attitude. He further said that belief is a bunch of feelings and priorities that people have about some particular thing. Students’ attitudes can be observed through their behavior inside and outside the classroom, faculty wing, during internships in different companies or while implementing different projects.

 

An individual becomes a businessperson only if the total gratification expected from freedom, hard work, risk and profit combined for entrepreneurial activity is higher: it then becomes the best option (Shepherd and Douglas 1997). Attitudes vary between individuals because of the factors influencing it and the attractiveness of the entrepreneurship as a career (Monitor, 2014). Guerrero et al. (2008) found that attitude towards entrepreneurship is a determining factor to decide to start a business enterprise and become an entrepreneur.  As stated by Nybakk and Hansen (2008), there are two important parts of entrepreneurial attitudes: one, the capability to identify the opportunities and second, the ability to take calculated risks. Additionally people with entrepreneurial attitude are more prone to start new venture. A person’s attitude towards entrepreneurial activities could be better understood when attitude towards an object form widespread and orderly pattern which indicates unity in a person’s orientation towards entrepreneurial activity (Gasse, 1985; Robinson et al., 1991a and Florin et al., 2007).

 

Indarti et al. (2009) noticed that students’ attitude, knowledge and behavior tend to stimulate their willingness and intentions to start a new firm in the future. Several studies have found that males have a higher preference for entrepreneurship behavior than females (Delmar and Davidsson, 2000; Kolvereid, 1996).Studies found that males have a significantly higher preference for self-employment than females (Singh et al., 2014).The entrepreneurship literature frequently mentions that females have lower entrepreneurial attitude compared to males (Wilson et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2004; Kirkwood, 2009; Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Marlino and Wilson, 2003; Minniti and Nardone, 2007; Fernández et al., 2015).It has become very important to promote entrepreneurship and to explore the factors and driving forces that trigger the entrepreneurship development process.

 

Gender difference is also one of the socio-cultural dimensions that influence entrepreneurship and attitude towards entrepreneurship. Males and females exhibit different views of world due to differences in their experiences and socialization processes (Fischer et al., 1993), which could lead to difference in their attitude with respect to entrepreneurship (Yordanova and Tarrazon, 2010).In view of these differences, the present study is undertaken to understand the difference in the attitude towards entrepreneurship among male and female students of government and private institutes teaching management courses.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Attitude is threefold model consist of three types of reaction to the whole thing: influence, perception and intention (Carlson, 1985; Breckler, 1983 and 1984; Kothandapani, 1971; Allport, 1935). Sagiri and Appolloni (2009) and Trevelyan (2009) also specified that behavior of an individual is totally dependent upon their attitudes and beliefs that play a very important part in determining one’s action. Goel et al. (2007) said that social support was a vital facilitator in the entrepreneurial activity in a country and attitude towards entrepreneurship was an important determining factor for future entrepreneurial activity. The hypotheses were tested among 5000 recipients in India and China. Results have revealed that familiar occupational backgrounds affect the attitude towards entrepreneurship. In view of Jaleel et al. (2017) poor attitude towards entrepreneurship was one of the main problems amongst graduates. They found that there are a number of entrepreneurial opportunities in their arena of study and also found that the entrepreneurial environment and entrepreneurial attitude within a college is positively interconnected. They concluded that the environment of college has helped to improve the entrepreneurial attitudes of students.

 

Gibson et al. (2011) examined the entrepreneurial attitude among university students across the United States of America by considering the students from two-year college programs and doing a comparison with the students who were enrolled in business programs in four universities. The online survey responded by 395 students showed that the entrepreneurial attitude is linked with the entrepreneurial orientation scale (EAO)-viz., personal control, self-esteem, innovation and achievement. Othman and Ishak (2009) examined effect of attitude on choosing entrepreneurship as career among 266 graduates of entrepreneurial scheme in Malaysia. The results indicated that graduates had a high preference towards entrepreneurship which related with high aspiration level.

 

In view of Crant (1996) entrepreneurial attitudes could be associated with one’s intention to start a business. The research was conducted in a university of the United States of America and highlighted that gender, parents who own businesses and educational level influence entrepreneurial attitude. The study noted that demographic variables, university, parental income and profession influence the attitude towards entrepreneurship and there was no significant difference in their attitude with respect to gender. Males are generally more interested in an entrepreneurial career than females (Blanchflower et al., 2001; Grilo and Irigoyen, 2006), males have higher aspiration and attitude towards entrepreneurship than females (Crant, 1996).Going further into this field of academic research is always worth undertaking as entrepreneurship development is always considered as one of the major field of economic and industrial development of every country. Hence, this study is aimed to compare attitude towards entrepreneurship among male and female management students of public and private management institutes.

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The Study:

The present investigation is based on exploratory research inquiry and examines the entrepreneurial intention among management students in Indore district. The study is based on primary data that is collected through the use of questionnaire and aims to compare entrepreneurial intentions among male and female students of government and private management institutes of Indore district.

 

Coverage:

(i) Universe of the Study:

The study will be confined to compare influence of gender and type of institute on entrepreneurial intention among management students in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh, India. Indore is known as the Educational hub of Madhya Pradesh. As per Directorate of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh 2019 total numbers of private management institutes in Indore district are fifty four and total numbers of government management institutes are eight. Total numbers of students studying in private management institutes are 13860 and total numbers of students studying in public management institutes are 2160. The present research is to be conducted on students studying in public or private management institutes in Indore district, India.

 

(ii) Sampling:

It will be very difficult to cover all the students studying in public or private management institutes in Indore district, India. Therefore in order to select the sample, multi-stage random sampling technique will be used to select the sample frame.

 

Stage one: Selection of Management Institutes:

In stage one all government and eight private management institutes which had highest intake of students as per Directorate of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh 2019 were taken for study.

 

Stage 2: Selection of students:

In Stage 2 from the selected group of management institutes, a total of 600 students were interviewed. The number of students selected for study from government management institutes were 300 (150 male students and 150 female students) and 300 students were selected for study from private management institutes (150 male students and 150 female students). An attempt was made to include students from all selected management institutes so from each institute 37 to 38 students were interviewed.

 

Tools for Data Collection:

As this research has a quantitative base so questionnaire used in this research was close ended questionnaire. The research instrument used to collect data was based on Liñán and Chen (2009); Asmara, et al. (2016); and Lűthje and Franke (2003). The questionnaire consists of 12 close-ended questions based on an interval scale. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each of the questions on a five-point Likert scale. The secondary data was collected through various research magazines, journals and newspapers.

Tools for Data Analysis:

One sample KS test, One way ANOVA and Tukey (HSD) test was to analyze the data. The data was analyzed using window based Statistical package of the Social Science (SPSS).

 

Item Total Correlation:

Questionnaire adopted in this study consisted of 12 questions; item total correlation was used in order to check the normality of the sample. As the sample size was 600, item with correlation value less than 0.1948 should be dropped. All the items in the study had correlation values more than 0.1948 thus; no item was dropped from the questionnaire.

 

Reliability of the Measures:

Reliability of the measures was assessed with the use of Cronbach’s alpha on all the 12 items. Cronbach’s alpha is designed as a measure of internal consistency that is do all the items within the instrument measure the same thing. It allows us to measure the reliability of different variables. It consists of estimates of how much variation in scores of different variables is attributable to chance or random errors (Selltiz et al., 1976). As a general rule, a coefficient greater than or equal to 0.7 is considered acceptable and a good indication of construct reliability (Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach’s alpha for the questionnaire is (0.905) shown in table 1. Hence, it is reliable and can be used for analysis.

 

OBJECTIVES:

1.     To study and compare the impact of gender differences on attitude towards entrepreneurship between students of government management institutes.

2.     To study and compare the impact of gender differences on attitude towards entrepreneurship between students of private management institutes.

3.     To study and compare the impact of gender differences on attitude towards entrepreneurship among students of government management institutes and private management institutes.

4.     To open up new vistas of research and develop a base for application of the findings in terms of implications of the study.

 

HYPOTHESES:

H₀₁:

There is no significant difference among male students of government management institutes, male students of private management institutes, female students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₂:

There is no significant difference between male students of government management institutes and male students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₃:

There is no significant difference between male students of government management institutes and female students of government management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₄:

There is no significant difference between male students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₅:

There is no significant difference between male students of private management institutes and female students of government management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₆:

There is no significant difference between male students of private management institutes and female students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

H₀₇:

There is no significant difference between female students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship.

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Kolmogorov- Smirnov Test:

Kolmogorov- Smirnov test is performed to test if the values follow normal distribution. This test is essential to decide the statistical test that is to be applied to compare the averages of respondents. The result of the test (table-2) show that values in attitude towards entrepreneurship among students follow normal distribution hence ANOVA can be used for comparing means.

 

Results of One way ANOVA:

Table 3 depicts that the F value for between groups is 5.671 and p value is 0.001 therefore, null hypothesis H₀₁ is rejected at one percent level of significance. It means that attitude towards entrepreneurship of male and female students in government and private management institutes significantly differ in their mean values. Male students studying in private management institutes are having highest mean value of 4.13 followed by male students studying in government management institutes with mean value of 3.84. While, female students studying in private management institutes have mean values of 3.90 and female students studying in government management institutes have mean values of 3.79 which represents that male students have higher attitude towards entrepreneurship than female students and also students of private management institutes have higher attitude towards entrepreneurship than students of government management institutes.

In order to find out significant difference between six groups i.e., male students of government management institutes and male students of private management institutes; male students of government management institutes and female students of government management institutes; male students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes; male students of private management institutes and female students of government management institutes; male students of private management institutes and female students of private management institutes; female students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes Tukey HSD test was applied (Table 4). It represents that p value of male students of government management institutes and male students of private management institutes; male students of government management institutes and female students of government management institutes; male students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes; male students of private management institutes and female students of government management institutes; male students of private management institutes and female students of private management institutes; female students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship is 0.007, 0.947, 0.916, 0.001, 0.046 and 0.628 respectively which means null hypothesis H_02, H₀₅and H₀₆ are rejected and H_03, H₀₄ and H₀₇ are not rejected. Hence it can be inferred that there is significant difference between male students of government management institutes and male students of private management institutes; male students of private management institutes and female students of government management institutes and male students of private management institutes and female students of private management institutes and there is no significant difference between male students of government management institutes and female students of government management institutes; male students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes and female students of government management institutes and female students of private management institutes students with respect to attitude towards entrepreneurship. As expected, men reported a higher attitude towards starting a business than women. Such differences are consistent with the results of previous studies carried out in different countries, which have suggested a greater initiative towards self-employment in men compared to women (Crant, 1996; Kourilsky, and Walstad, 1998; Wilson, et al., 2004; Zhao, et al., 2005).Several studies have found that males have a higher attitude for entrepreneurship behavior than females (Delmar and Davidsson, 2000; Kolvereid, 1996). Studies found that males have a significantly higher preference for self-employment than females (Singh et al., 2014).

 

CONCLUSION:

Entrepreneurship education is not only a means to foster young entrepreneurs and self-employment but at the same time to equip individuals with the attitudes and skills necessary to deal with the uncertain employment paths of today’s societies. This paper seeks to examine attitude towards entrepreneurship of male and female students studying in government and private management institutes. Research in this field much needed in the current scenario, as entrepreneurship has become important as well as a relevant instrument to uphold countries economic development and promising way to improve the work interest of youth and also a way to develop social and economic welfare. Hence, more awareness is very much required for promoting new ventures, employment opportunities. Gender differences and differences in educational delivery approach are some factors that influence entrepreneurial attitude among students. The results of the present study revealed that male students of private management institutes are more inclined towards entrepreneurship as their career choice.  Attitude toward entrepreneurship of male students of private management institutes are significantly higher than male students of government management institutes as well as female students of government and private management institutes. This reflects that female inclination towards entrepreneurship as a career option is less motivated. Hence, management institutes should have programs to encourage the female students to consider about their entrepreneurial career as an alternative. Government and institutions should also focus on sound theoretical frameworks in order to develop and implement effective educational strategies in order to promote entrepreneurship.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

2.     Ajzen, I. and Madden, T. (1986). Prediction of goal directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.

3.     Allport, G. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark Univ. Press.

4.     Amdam, L. (2011). Influence of Socio Cultural Factors on Consumer Buying Behavior in Borno state. Unpublished dissertation, university of Maiduguri.

5.     and Chicago, IL: Simmons School of Management and The Committee of 200

6.     arlino, D and F Wilson (2003). Teen Girls on Business: Are They Being Empowered? Boston, MA

7.     Asmara, H., Djatmika, E. and Indrawati, A. (2016). The Effect of Need for Achievement and Risk-taking Propensity on Entrepreneurial Intention through Entrepreneurial Attitude. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18(6), 117-126.

8.     Blanchflower, D.; Oswald, A. and Stutzer, A. (2001). Latent Entrepreneurship across Nations. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 680-691.

9.     Breckler, S. (1983). Validation of Affect, Behavior and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(11B), 3569.

10.  Breckler, S. (1984). Empirical Validation of Affect, Behavior and Cognition as Distinct Components of Attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191-1205.

11.  Carlson, S. (1985). Consistency of Attitude Components: A New Approach for an Old Problem. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (09B), 3261.

12.  Crant, J. (1996). The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3), 42-49.

13.  Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P. (2000). Where do They Come From? Prevalence and Characteristics of Nascent Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.  12(1), 1-23.

14.  Fernández, M.; Blanco Jiménez, F. and Cuadrado Roura, J. (2015). Business Incubation: Innovative Services in an Entrepreneurship Ecosystem. The Service Industries Journal, 35(14), 783-800.

15.  Fischer, E.; Reuber, A. and Dyke, L. (1993). A Theoretical Overview and Extension of Research on Sex, Gender, and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(2), 151-168.

16.  Florin, J.; Ranjan, K. and Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Education: An Attitudinal Approach. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 17-42.

17.  Gartner, W. (1988).Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. American Journal of Small Business, 12 (4), 11-32.

18.  Gasse, Y. (1985). A Strategy for the Promotion and Identification of Potential Entrepreneurs at the Secondary School Level. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College: Wellesley, MA: 538-559.

19.  Gibson, S.; Harris, M.; Mick, T. and Burkhalter, T. (2011). Comparing the Entrepreneurial Attitudes of University and Community College Students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 11(2), 11-18.

20.  Goel, A.; Vohra, N.; Zhang, L. and Arora, B. (2007). Attitudes of the Youth towards Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of India and China. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 3(1), 1-36.

21.  Grilo, I. and Irigoyen, J. (2005). Entrepreneurship in the EU: To Wish and not to be. Discussion Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, Max-Planck Institute Jena.

22.  Guerrero, M.; Rialp, J. and Urbano, D. (2008). The Impact of Desirability and Feasibility on Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Structural Equation Model. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4(1), 35-50.

23.  Indarti N.; Rostiani, R. and Nastiti, T. (2009). Underlying Factors of Entrepreneurial Intentions among Asian Students. The South East Asian Journal of Management, 4 (2), 143-159.

24.  Jaleel, A.; Vijayaraghvan, P. and Unias, M. (2017). A Study on Attitude of Commerce Graduating Students towards Entrepreneurship in Kerala. Quest Journals, Journal of Research in Business and Management, 5(1), 42-47.

25.  Kirkwood, J. (2009). Motivational factors in a push‐pull theory of entrepreneurship. Gender in Management, 24(5), 346-364.

26.  Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47–57.

27.  Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of Feeling, Belief and Intention to Act as Three Components of Attitude and Their Contribution to Prediction of Contraceptive Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 321-333.

28.  Kourilsky, M. and Walstad, W. (1998). Entrepreneurship and Female Youth: Knowledge, Attitudes, Gender Differences, and Educational Practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 77-88.

29.  Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based Models of Entrepreneurship Education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11-35.

30.  Liñán, F. and Chen, Y.  (2009). Development and Cross‐cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593-617.

31.  Lűthje, 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), 135- 147.

32.  Marlino, D. and Wilson, F. (2003). Teen Girls on Business: Are they being empowered? Simmons College School of Management.

33.  Minniti, M. and Nardone, C. (2007). Being in someone else’s Shoes: The Role of Gender in Nascent Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2-3), 223-238.

34.  Monitor, G.  (2014). GEM 2013 global report. Global Report.

35.  Nunnally, C. (1978).  Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.

36.  Nybakk, E. and Hansen, E. (2008). Entrepreneurial Attitude, Innovation and Performance among Norwegian Nature-based Tourism Enterprise. Forestry policy and economics, 10(7/8), 473-479.

37.  Othman, N. and Ishak, S. (2009). Attitude towards Choosing a Career in Entrepreneurship amongst Graduates. European Journal of social sciences, 10 (3), 419-434.

38.  Robinson, P.; Stimpson, D.; Huefner, J. and Hunt, H. (1991a). An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31.

39.  Sagiri, S. and Appolloni, A. (2009). Identifying the Effect of Psychological Variables on Entrepreneurial Intentions. DSM Business Review, 1(2), 61-86.

40.  Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. and Cook, W. (1976). Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY.

41.  Shepherd, D. and Douglas, E. (1997). Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intentions of Career Decision Maker. Working Paper.

42.  Singh, A.; Singh, S. and Singh, K. (2014). Engineering Education and Entrepreneurial Attitudes among Students: Ascertaining the Efficacy of the Indian Education System, Prabandhan:Indian Journal of Management, 7(6), 7-20.

43.  Trevelyan, R. (2009). Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Action in New Venture Development. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10 (1), 21-32.

44.  Wilson, F.; Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387-406.

45.  Wilson, F.; Marlino, D. and  Kickul. J. (2004). Our Entrepreneurial Future: Examining the Diverse Attitudes and Motivations of Teens across Gender and Ethnic Identity. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 9 (3), 177-197.

46.  Yordanova, D. and Tarrazon, M. (2010). Gender Differences in Entrepreneurial Intentions: Evidence from Bulgaria. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 245-261.

47. Zhao, H.; Seibert, S. and Hills, G. (2005). The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 12-65.

 

Annexure

Table 1: Reliability Statistics

 

Table 2: One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (Attitude towards Entrepreneurshipamong Management students)

a. Test distribution is Normal.                 b. Calculated from data.

 

Table 3:one way ANOVA (Attitude towards Entrepreneurship among Management students)

 

Table 4:Post Hoc Tests

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 

 

 

Accepted on 03.05.2020           ©AandV Publications All right reserved