Resumen de los impactos

Some researchers found self-efficacy to be a robust construct in explaining and predicting entrepreneurial behaviour and entrepreneurial intentions (for example Krueger and Brazeal 1994 and Krueger et al., 2000 in Krueger et al., 2008:8). Fayolle et al. (2006:708) and Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006:867) posit that perceived behavioural control appears quite similar to the concept of perceived self-efficacy. Similarly, Liñán et al. (2007:3) and Liñán (2008:259-260) concur that perceived venture feasibility is similar to perceived behavioural control or to the idea of perceived self-efficacy. Liñán and Chen (2006:4-5) and Liñán and Chen (2009:7) argue that perceived behavioural control is “therefore, a concept quite similar to perceived self- efficacy (SE) (Bandura, 1997). In the same way, it is also very similar to Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) vision about perceived feasibility. In all three instances, the important thing is the sense of capacity regarding the fulfillment of firm creation behaviors”.

Oruoch (2006:10) reports that perceived feasibility is derived from self-efficacy whereas Krueger et al. (2000:416) suggest that “perceived behavioural control reflects the perceived feasibility of performing the behaviour and is thus related to perceptions of situational competence (self-efficacy)”. Ajzen (2002:667) concurs that perceived behavioural control originates from self-efficacy. Bandura (1977 in Barbosa, Gerhardt and Kickul, 2007:88) defines perceived self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to organise and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments”.

Self-efficacy influences the types of activities and goals that people choose and the level of persistence that they exert in carrying out these activities (Bandura, 1986 in Schenkel et al., 2007:4). Self-efficacy theory describes and measures a person’s perceived competence to achieve a desired goal and it is concerned not with the skills one has but with one’s judgement of what one can do with the skills one possesses (Bandura, 1997 in Kickul and Krueger, 2005:1). It deals with individuals’ thoughts about whether they have the abilities perceived as important to task performance and the belief that they can be able to effectively convert those skills into a chosen outcome (Bandura, 1997 in Wilson et al., 2007:389). Kickul and Krueger (2005:6) and Kickul and D’Intino (2005:45) suggest that being exposed to an environment that is perceived to be more supportive can enhance self-efficacy.

An understanding of self-efficacy may help in uncovering the essential skills set required throughout the various stages of the entrepreneurial life-cycle (Kickul and D’Intino, 2005:39). Kamau-Maina (2007:10) argues that self-efficacy is a task and context-specific concept. Therefore, in the field of entrepreneurship, it is referred to as entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). Chen et al. (1998 in Kamau-Maina, 2007:10) define ESE as “the strength of a person’s belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the various tasks and roles of entrepreneurs”. De Noble et al. (1999) and Chen et al. (1998) have made valuable contributions to the field of entrepreneurship by identifying ESE factors which have been mostly used in recent research (for example Kickul and D’Intino, 2005:39-40; Kickul and Krueger, 2005:3; Zhao et al., 2005:1268; Barbosa et al., 2007:88; Sequeira, Mueller and McGee, 2007:284). However, Drnovšek, Wincent and Cardon (2010:341) point out that ESE is a multidimensional construct that consists of two types of beliefs. The first one is goal

beliefs which deals with the assessments that individuals make about their own capabilities to engage in activities that will lead to successful task completion during business start-up. The second one is control beliefs that relates to the beliefs that individuals have about their own capabilities to control negative thoughts and develop positive thoughts during goal pursuit.

Ajzen (2002:672) found that perceived self-efficacy accounts for a significant variance in intentions and behaviour more than attitudes and subjective norms. Self- efficacy was found to be strongly related to entrepreneurial intention (Frazier and Niehm, 2006:1; Kristiansen and Indarti, 2004:71; Kickul and D’Intino, 2005:44; Kickul and Krueger, 2005:5). Sequeira et al. (2007:288) concur that individuals with high self- efficacy have more intentions and desire to start a business and are more likely to engage in nascent behaviour such as writing a business plan or saving money to invest in a business. Schenkel et al. (2007:6) found that ESE was positively related to entrepreneurial intentions; more so in the short term than in the long term.

Zhao et al. (2005:1265) proposed a model in which self-efficacy mediated the influence of perceptions of formal learning, entrepreneurial experience, gender and risk propensity on entrepreneurial intentions. Their model was tested on a sample of MBA students from five universities in the United States (Zhao et al., 2005:1267). Perceptions of formal learning in entrepreneurship-related courses were significantly related to ESE. Perceptions of formal learning refer to the amount of entrepreneurship- related learning that the individuals report they have acquired in an entrepreneurship program (Zhao et al., 2005:1266). Risk propensity and previous entrepreneurial experience were positively related to ESE (Zhao et al., 2005:1268). ESE was also positively related to entrepreneurial intention. There was no significant relationship between gender and ESE (Zhao et al., 2005:1269). The findings on gender contradict those of other researchers reported in Sequeira (2005:1) that men display higher levels of ESE than women.

Furthermore, Kickul and Krueger (2005:1) proposed a cognitive processing model of ESE and intentionality using 138 students. In their model, they investigated the moderating and mediating influence of personal (proactivity, hardiness, alertness for opportunities) and cognitive style on self-efficacy, feasibility, desirability and

intentionality. They found that proactivity, hardiness and cognitive thinking style were linked to intentions beyond perceived feasibility and perceived desirability (Kickul and Krueger, 2005:5). Perceived feasibility and perceived desirability were found to be related and both being related to intentions. Alertness to opportunities and hardiness were positively related to perceived desirability. Proactivity and cognitive thinking style were positively related to perceived feasibility. In addition, Kickul and Krueger (2005:4) found that self-efficacy was positively related to perceived feasibility. ESE was in turn found to be related to entrepreneurial intention (Kickul and D’Intino, 2005:44; De Clercq and Arenius, 2004:6).