Posibles efectos adversos

A continuously reoccurring theme when discussing new venture creation is that of entrepreneurial intention. It is argued that entrepreneurial behaviour is in fact an intentional one, and hence, to understand this behaviour, it is important to look at what factors affect this intention (H. Zhao et al., 2005). As put by Liñán et al. (2010):

“A narrow relationship would exist between the intention to be an entrepreneur, and its effective performance. Intention becomes the fundamental element towards explaining behaviour. It indicates the effort that the person will make to carry out that entrepreneurial behaviour.”

(p.199) Below, some key models and theories linked to this theoretical concept are presented, complemented with examples of how these have been used in entrepreneurship research, in order to help develop a framework, thereby enriching the KIE literature.

Potential KIE Entrepreneur Knowledge Resources Founder Characteristics

In discussing entrepreneurial intentions, the theory of planned behaviour, introduced by Ajzen (1991) plays a key role. This theory is the result of research within social psychology, the idea being that actions in fact are generally planned as opposed to happening out of coincidence. Furthermore, actions are preceded by intentions, which in turn are based on attitudes.

Figure 3.3

The theory of planned behaviour

(Ajzen, 1991) Ajzen (1991) claims that intentions say a great deal of whether or not we are likely to behave in a certain way; the stronger our intentions of doing something, the greater the probability that it will actually happen. This further tells us that a good way of estimating actual behaviours is to investigate the intentions.

What then affects our intentions? Ajzen (1991) introduces three main components for this, namely:

1. Attitude toward the behaviour, explained as “the degree to which a person has a favourable of or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behaviour in question”

2. Subjective norms, explained as “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behaviour”, and

3. Perceived behavioural control, explained as “the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour (…), assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles”

(Ajzen, 1991, p.188) It is further argued that perceived behavioural control in combination with behavioural intention can be used to predict behavioural achievement.

In applying the model, three conditions need to be met in order for the relationships to work. First of all, the measures of intention and of perceived behavioural control must correspond to, or be compatible with, the behaviour that is to be predicted.

Subjective Norms Perceived Behavioural Control Intention Attitude toward the Behaviour Behaviour

Second, intentions and perceived behavioural control must remain stable in the interval between their assessment and observation of the behaviour. Third, prediction of behaviour from perceived behavioural control should improve to the extent that perceptions of behavioural control realistically reflect actual control.

The model has been empirically tested, not least in the original study in which the framework was proposed, where 16 empirical studies were analysed. Both there, as well as in later applications, it has been shown that the factor subjective norms has weak effect on the actual intention. However, Ajzen (1991) proposes not only direct effects of the three attitude variables on intention, but also interactions between these three, meaning that while the direct effect on intention is not as high, subjective norms can still play an important role on the overall intention through its effect on attitude toward the behaviour and perceived behavioural control.

Though Ajzen (1991) comes from the field of social psychology, his theory has spread far outside the original field of study, not least to entrepreneurship studies. Krueger is one of the more cited scholars in this perspective, with numerous articles explaining the importance of understanding entrepreneurial intentions for entrepreneurship studies as a whole (cf. Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger & Carsrud, 1993; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994).

While initially proposing a direct adaptation of the theory of planned behaviour, over time Krueger came to advocate an alternate version of the model, namely the Shapero model of entrepreneurial event (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Krueger et al., 2000).

Figure 3.4

The Shapero-Krueger model of entrepreneurial intention

(Krueger et al., 2000) The framework is explained as an intention model specifically adapted for the field of entrepreneurship. As shown in Figure 3.4 above, alternative terminology is used and the parameter subjective norms has been deleted. Krueger et al. (2000) explain the model as built on the assumption that that our behaviours stay more or less the same until something specific happens which interrupts or changes this inertia. This is illustrated through the introduction of the parameter propensity to act, explained

Propensity to Act Perceived Feasibility Intention Perceived Desirability Specific Desirabilities Perceived Self-Efficacy

as “the effect placed by the personal disposition to act on one’s decisions, thus reflecting volitional aspects of intentions” (Krueger et al. 2000, p.419). Liñán et al. (2010) expand this reasoning, saying that:

“The entrepreneurial event theory considers firm creation as the result of the interaction among contextual factors, which would act through their influence on the individual’s perceptions. The consideration of the entrepreneurial option would take place as a consequence of some external change—a precipitating event.”

(p.198) How one chooses to act based on this event is the result of one’s perceptions of the desirability (“I want to act upon this opportunity”) as well as feasibility (“I am able to act upon this opportunity) of doing so.

Krueger et al. (2000) apply the suggested model to an actual data set. As in the original study by Ajzen (1991), it is found that the direct effect of subjective norms on intention is hard to verify. The authors conclude that while there is an even better fit to the Shapero model, the theory of planned behaviour can be seen as an equally good tool in understanding more about the process leading up to the decision of venture creation.

Through several studies, Liñán and colleagues have contributed to the work on entrepreneurial intentions, attempting at further developing the frameworks set up by Ajzen and Shapero. A mixture of the terminology from the work by Ajzen and Shapero is used, and the authors also explain the links that can be made between these different theoretical frameworks, not least when it comes to perceived behavioural control and perceived self-efficacy/perceived feasibility. In his work, Liñán has also introduced the effect of some external factors, however not directly on the intention itself, but rather on the attitudes. This is explained by Liñán et al. (2010), stating that:

“External circumstances would not determine firm-creation behaviours directly, but rather they would be the result of the (conscious or unconscious) analysis carried out by the person about the desirability and feasibility of the different possible alternatives in that situation.”

(p.198) Liñán et al. (2010) discuss entrepreneurial intentions in relation to education, arguing for changes to be made to educational activities as to further enhance the will and act of entrepreneurship. They examine what can be considered as most valuable in encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour, concluding that the two seemingly most important factors in explaining entrepreneurial intention are personal attitude and perceived behavioural control. They further argue that this points to the belief that

entrepreneurial intention is not only something inherent, but indeed something that can be trained if the right measures are taken throughout education. Also, role models and a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship in general in society are highlighted as important factors.

Fitzsimmons & Douglas (2011) further analyse the work of Ajzen (1991). They explore whether there are connections between the different parameters of the model, more specifically between perceived desirability (i.e., attitude toward the behaviour) and perceived feasibility (i.e., perceived behavioural control). Business students are the object of study, more specifically MBA students from four different countries. What they find is that there is a negative interaction effect between perceived feasibility and perceived desirability. Furthermore, they showcase that a high value in one of the factors compensates for a low value in the other, that is, entrepreneurial intentions can still be high even if for example perceived desirability is low, if instead the perceived feasibility is high. The authors show that there is no significant difference in intention to act entrepreneurially between these cases (Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011). The results are used to create a typology of entrepreneurs, as showcased in Figure 3.5 below.

Figure 3.5

Typology of entrepreneurs

(Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2011) The four types of entrepreneurs require some more explanation.

Accidental entrepreneur: This category is one out of two hybrid cases (high/low),

explained by Fitzsimmons & Douglas (2011) as an individual who “does not start out with any strong desire to become an entrepreneur, but forms the intention to become one after recognising the high feasibility of entrepreneurial action” (p.437).

Accidental Entrepreneur

(sufficiently high intention)

Natural Entrepreneur

(very high intention)

Non-Entrepreneur

(low intention)

Inevitable Entrepreneur

(sufficiently high intention) Perceived Desirability Perceived Feasibility Low High Low High

Non-entrepreneur: In line with the theories of entrepreneurial intentions, the authors

argue that for individuals where both perceived feasibility and perceived desirability are low, entrepreneurship is not a viable route forward.

Inevitable entrepreneur: The second of the so-called hybrid cases (low/high) is

explained by Fitzsimmons & Douglas (2011) as an individual who ”has a strong and ongoing desire to become an entrepreneur and may explore many entrepreneurial opportunities before ultimately forming the intention to act entrepreneurially” (p.437).

Natural entrepreneur: These individuals, as the terminology suggests, know that

they want to become entrepreneurs, and furthermore also know how to go about in doing so – entrepreneurship falls naturally.

In summary, entrepreneurial intentions should be seen as dynamic and non-binary, the two main factors affecting the level being the perceived desirability and perceived feasibility of becoming an entrepreneur. These are also the key aspects of interest for my study of fashion design graduates as potential entrepreneurs, as is visualised by an adapted model in Figure 3.6 below.

Figure 3.6

Adapted model: entrepreneurial intentions for potential KIE entrepreneurs