Education + Training

Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Some insights for

entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey
Yonca Gürol Nuray Atsan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Yonca Gürol Nuray Atsan, (2006),"Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students", Education
+ Training, Vol. 48 Iss 1 pp. 25 - 38
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910610645716
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 13 March 2015, At: 07:29 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 52 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6112 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Thomas N. Garavan, Barra O#Cinneide, (1994),"Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes::
A Review and Evaluation – Part 1", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 Iss 8 pp. 3-12 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090599410068024
Colette Henry, Frances Hill, Claire Leitch, (2005),"Entrepreneurship education and training:
can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I", Education + Training, Vol. 47 Iss 2 pp. 98-111 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910510586524
Hannu Littunen, (2000),"Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality",
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 6 Iss 6 pp. 295-310 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550010362741

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 529950 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Entrepreneurial
Entrepreneurial characteristics characteristics in
amongst university students Turkey
Some insights for entrepreneurship education
and training in Turkey 25
Yonca Gürol
Business Department, Yildiz Technical University, Besiktas Kampuso Barboros,
Bulvari/Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey, and
Nuray Atsan
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Akdeniz University, Işletme Bölümü, Antalya, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to explore the entrepreneurship profile of Turkish
university students and to make an evaluation for their entrepreneurship orientation by comparing
them with non-entrepreneurially inclined students.
Design/methodology/approach – In this study, six traits, namely need for achievement, locus of
control, risk taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, innovativeness and self-confidence, are used
to define the entrepreneurial profile of students. The study is conducted on a random sample of fourth
year university students (n ¼ 400) from two Turkish universities. The question “what are you
planning to do after graduation?” was asked to students in order to discriminate between those who
are entrepreneurially inclined and those who are not. Respondents who have a response saying that
“I’m planning to form my own business venture” are accepted as potential entrepreneurs. Then, the
entrepreneurial traits of these students are subjected to a comparative analysis with other students
who do not plan to start their own businesses, and thus are not included in the group of potential
entrepreneurs. In short, a 40-item questionnaire is administered to students, with questions related to
demographic variables, entrepreneurial inclination, and six entrepreneurial traits above cited (with
Likert type items).
Findings – The results of the t-tests showed that, except for tolerance for ambiguity and self-confidence,
all entrepreneurial traits are found to be higher in entrepreneurially inclined students, as compared to
entrepreneurially non-inclined students. That is, these students are found to have higher risk taking
propensity, internal locus of control, higher need for achievement and higher innovativeness.
Research limitations/implications – The study comprises fourth year students only, and the
percentage of students in the sample who wish to be entrepreneurs is quite low (18 per cent). Also,
there are only two universities included in the sample. Further study can be conducted on a wider
basis to lead to more general conclusions.
Practical implications – This study provides insight into entrepreneurship education, as to which
entrepreneurial characteristics can be developed to raise good entrepreneurs.
Originality/value – This study contributes to understanding the differences between characteristics
of entrepreneurially inclined and non-inclined students at the edge of graduation.
Keywords Entrepreneurship, Students, Education, Training, Turkey
Paper type Research paper

Introduction Education þ Training

Vol. 48 No. 1, 2006
Entrepreneurship has been an important research field among economists and scholars pp. 25-38
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
worldwide for some considerable time. This prolonged and heightened interest in 0040-0912
entrepreneurship is prompted by several factors. First, for developed economies, DOI 10.1108/00400910610645716
 ET entrepreneurial activity (new venture formation) is a means of revitalizing stagnated
economies and of coping with unemployment problems by providing new job
48,1 opportunities. Moreover, it is accepted as a potential catalyst and incubator for
technological progress, product and market innovation (Mueller and Thomas, 2000;
Jack and Anderson, 1999). However, it has a more critical role for economies of
developing countries since entrepreneurship is seen as an engine of economic progress,
26 job creation and social adjustment. Thus, small business growth/new business
formation is widely encouraged by national economic policies to stimulate economic
growth and wealth creation.
In parallel with developing interest in entrepreneurship throughout the world,
Turkey has also witnessed an increasing interest in entrepreneurship fields both
among her academic scholars, and amongst government policy makers and business
leaders. Historically, due to lack of qualified entrepreneurs and capital accumulation,
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

during the first decades of the modern Turkish Republic, a state-initiated economic
policy was implemented with state-owned enterprises playing a leading role,
particularly in the industrial sector (Kurtuluş, 1987). Since the 1980 s, a major shift in
the economic development strategy has taken place in Turkey. A conservative
economic mindset has changed and the Turkish economy has now a rapidly growing
free market economy. Import substitution, which entailed state-ownership and control
of key sectors of the economy, was replaced by export orientation led by private capital
that operated in a freer domestic market (Aybar and Lapavitsas, 2002). In this regard,
the importance of entrepreneurship and small business to the economy is now widely
recognized and is provided with national incentives by prevailing governments.
Established in 1990, a government institution, the Small and Medium Enterprise
Development Agency (KOSGEB) undertakes a leading role in promoting and
developing national entrepreneurship movement. KOSGEB (2002) reported that the
small and medium enterprise sector comprises 99.5 percent of all the firms in Turkey
and accounting for about 61.1 percent of the workforce, but only 27.3 percent of the
economy’s total value added.
However, the development and indeed the pervasion of an entrepreneurship culture
have not reached a desired national level in comparison to the entrepreneurship
movement in other developed and developing nations. When the number of people who
found a business amongst 100 individuals is considered, Turkey has a lower number of
entrepreneurs than 29 countries (TUSIAD Report, 2002). While the average number of
business founders in Turkey is 4.6 among 100 individuals, it is 18.7 in Mexico, 12 in
Ireland, 7.7 in UK and 11.7 in USA (TUSIAD Report, 2002). The number of new
business openings is also relatively low in Turkey compared to other countries. While
the ratio of new business openings and closures to all businesses is 11-17 percent and
9-14 percent respectively in OECD countries, the respective figures in Turkey are 3.5
percent and 0.9 percent (TUSIAD Report, 2002). Another problem for Turkey is its
inability to make use of women and young entrepreneurs, an important entrepreneurial
potential within Turkish population. The percentage of women employers among all
employers in Turkey is as low as 3.3 percent (TUSIAD Report, 2002).

Enterprise education
A well functioning venture support system can stimulate and facilitate
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education is likely to play an important
element in any venture support system (Hansemark, 1998). There is currently a great
 deal of activity in the field of entrepreneurship education in universities and colleges Entrepreneurial
throughout the world (Gibb, 1993; Koh, 1996; Hansemark, 1998; Thompson, 1999; Jones characteristics in
and English, 2004). The USA seems to take the lead in entrepreneurship education. As
Kuratko (2003) noted in his study, the number of colleges and universities that offer Turkey
entrepreneurship courses has grown from a handful in 1970 s to more than 1,600 in
2003. Elsewhere, though, there is evidence of a growing number of Australian
universities, for example, offering entrepreneurship programs and in the UK business 27
and entrepreneurial development has been listed as one of the four strategic goals for
British universities (Kirby, 2004). In sum, the literature comprises studies emphasizing
that entrepreneurship and small business education have been rapidly promoted in
education institutions in European, Asian and African countries (Brockhaus, 1991;
Gibb, 1993; Ronstadt, 1987; Koh, 1996; Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004).
Whilst it would not be unreasonable to suggest that entrepreneurship education
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

in Turkey is far from being a national policy matter nevertheless, courses on

entrepreneurship have recently begun to be offered as elective courses in
undergraduate business administration programs of a limited number of Turkish
universities. A review of curricula of business schools in 53 state and 23 private
universities has shown that 15 state universities have elective entrepreneurship
course in their undergraduate curricula while seven private universities offer
entrepreneurship provision. In four private universities, an entrepreneurship course
is compulsory. In terms of MBA programs, nine state universities and four private
universities offer elective courses on entrepreneurship. However, there is only one
private university offering a major in entrepreneurship and there is a young
entrepreneur development program in only four universities.
Reviewing masters and doctoral theses from all Turkish universities, it is possible
to find only approximately 40 studies on entrepreneurship (TUSIAD Report, 2002).
Furthermore, the number of proceedings on entrepreneurship so far presented to the
13-year-old National Management and Organization Conference is not more than 20.
The more recent research and discussions on entrepreneurship in our literature may
show that there is still a quest for what should constitute entrepreneurship education
and how it should be designed. When course content is examined, it is observed that
students are generally trained in “how to start your business” skills and small and
medium sized enterprise management skills. However, as Kirby (2004) states the
successful entrepreneur has a set of personal skills, attributes and behavior that go
beyond the purely commercial. It is these attributes, this way of thinking and
behaving, which need to be developed in students if their entrepreneurial capabilities
are to be enhanced and they are to be equipped to meet the challenges of the
entrepreneurial climate of the twenty-first century. On this basis, therefore, it is our
contention that there is a clear need to seek to identify the personality traits and skills
that make for a successful entrepreneur in order to influence the debate about the
enterprise education and training curriculum with the country.

Aims of the study

The aims of this research were twofold. First, to explore the entrepreneurship profile of
Turkish university students by taking the trait model of entrepreneurship as a basis.
Second, to discuss the possible implications of this profile to the development of
national entrepreneurship education and training programs.
 ET The remaining sections of the study will first review the literature on the
48,1 psychological characteristics of entrepreneurs, followed by the development of
hypotheses, research design and methodology. The empirical results and discussion of
the findings are then presented.

A review of entrepreneurial characteristics

28 In studies of entrepreneurship it is possible to discriminate factors that influence
entrepreneurial behavior. These are individual, social and environmental factors.
The Social Factors model examines the personal background, family background,
stage of career (Robinson et al., 1991; Alstete, 2002; Green et al., 1996), early life
experiences and growth environment (Gibb, 1993), while the environmental factors
model looks at the contextual factors such as value of wealth, tax reduction and
indirect benefits, timing of opportunities in the career process, the impact of
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

market conditions (Alstete, 2002), social upheaval, supportive social and economic
culture (Green et al., 1996).
On the other hand, individual factors, widely known as the trait model, focus on
personality characteristics of entrepreneurs (Koh, 1996). This model rests on the
assumption that entrepreneurs have certain unique characteristics, attitudes and
values that provide an impetus for them and distinguish them from others (Thomas
and Mueller, 2000; Koh, 1996). In studies that employ the trait model, questions as to
whom the entrepreneurs are, why they become entrepreneurs, and the characteristics
of successful and unsuccessful enterprises are investigated (Bygrave and Hofer, 1991;
Littunen, 2000). The trait model has been a significant element of research on
entrepreneurship. Various research studies have analyzed certain traits of personality
as the characteristics of entrepreneurs. For instance, in the study by Entrialgo et al.
(2000) locus of control, need for achievement and tolerance for ambiguity are regarded
as the determinants of the tendency for entrepreneurship. In the studies by Stewart
et al. (1998), on the other hand, need for achievement, risk taking propensity, and
innovation have been used as determinants for distinguishing “entrepreneurs” from
“corporate managers” and small business owners.
In this study six personality characteristics are used to define the entrepreneurial
profile of students. These are need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking
propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, innovativeness and self-confidence. These
characteristics were chosen since they are frequently cited in different studies in the
entrepreneurship literature. Furthermore, the authors do consider these characteristics
as capable of representing the entrepreneurial behavior of individuals. However, it
should be noted that the overall results of research on these characteristics are still
inconclusive. Within the literature on this subject there is research that both supports
and refutes the relationship among the characteristics mentioned below.
Methodological, definitional and conceptual complexities are regarded as the major
reasons of these differences (Stewart et al., 1998; Robinson et al., 1991).

Innovativeness
Innovation has a comprehensive definition including to create new products or new
quality, to create new methods of production, to get into a new market, to create a new
source of supply or to create new organization or structure in business. Successful
innovation demands an act of will, that is, it demands a leader and it has to be carried
 through (Hansemark, 1998). Innovativeness is suggested as a behavior that Entrepreneurial
characterizes entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial orientation (Entrialgo et al. characteristics in
(2000). That is, by definition entrepreneurs are always looking for new opportunities
(Zacharakis, 1997). Drucker, for example, claims that innovation is the major tool of Turkey
entrepreneurship. He refers to innovation as a systematic search for the changes as
opportunities for new markets, products, or ideas (Cromie, 2000; Utsch and Rauch,
2000). Like did many authors in the literature, Stewart et al. (2003) argue that 29
innovation is inherent in the role of entrepreneurship and it can separate
“entrepreneurs” from “managers”. In the study by Utsch and Rauch (2000), it has
also been found that there is a close relationship between innovativeness and venture
performance. In the study by Thomas and Mueller (2000), innovativeness, also, has
been taken as a major characteristic in defining the entrepreneurship profile.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Need for achievement

The need for achievement theory of McClelland (1961) is one of the most applied theories
on entrepreneurship. According to its traditional definition, the need for achievement is
the impetus that forces the person to struggle for success and perfection (Sagie and
Elizur, 1999). Individuals who have a strong need to achieve are among those who want
to solve problems themselves, set targets and strive for these targets through their own
efforts, demonstrate a higher performance in challenging tasks and are innovative in the
sense of looking for new and better ways to improve their performance (Littunen, 2000;
Utsch and Rauch, 2000). While Murray (1938) identified the need for achievement as a
basic need that influences behavior, McClelland first established the construct in the
entrepreneurship literature by positing that a high need for achievement predisposes a
young person to seek out an entrepreneurial position to attain more achievement
satisfaction that could be derived from other types of positions (Entrialgo et al., 2000;
Stewart et al., 2003). With numerous comparative studies conducted among
entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, it appears that the need for achievement has a
more significant relation with entrepreneurship than other characteristics mentioned in
the literature (Hansemark, 1998; Littunen, 2000; Scott, 1998; Johnson, 1990).

Locus of control
Another extensively researched trait is locus of control (LoC). It is a personality
variable that is related to the generalized expectations of a person on whether he/she
will be able to control the events in life (Leone and Burns, 2000). According to Rotter
(1996) individuals vary in terms of how much personal responsibility they perceive and
accept for their behavior and its consequences. Individuals with an external LoC
believe circumstances beyond their immediate control such as luck, fate and other
people affect their performance across a range of activities. Individuals with an internal
LoC believe they personally control events and consequences in their lives (Koh, 1996;
Riipinen, 1994; Hansemark, 1998). It is believed that entrepreneurs have an internal
locus of control. Entrepreneurs searching for new opportunities and taking an
innovative attitude are also expected to have the capability to control the events in
their lives, or, in other words, have locus of inner control. Many studies on the subject
have verified this expectation (Mueller and Thomas, 2000; Hansemark, 1998; Koh,
1996; Utsch and Rauch, 2000). For example, Gilad (1982) was able to use LoC to
distinguish successful and unsuccessful small business owners (Engle et al., 1997).
 ET Similarly in Shapero’s study, the conclusion reached was that entrepreneurs have
48,1 relatively higher locus of inner control than those who are not entrepreneurs (Thomas
and Mueller, 2000).

Risk taking propensity

Risk taking propensity refers to the propensity of an individual to exhibit risk taking
30 or risk avoidance when confronted with risky situations. Entrepreneurship is
historically associated with risk taking. In one of the earliest examples, Chantilon
(1755), indicates in his work, that the main factor in differentiating entrepreneurs from
employed workers was the uncertainty and risk taken by the former (Entrialgo et al.,
2000; Thomas and Mueller, 2000). Particularly what is emphasized in differentiating
the entrepreneurs and professional managers in business activities is that the
entrepreneur personally takes the risk of profit and loss. However, being in an
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

uncertain environment, entrepreneurship also includes the risks related to financial

well-being, career opportunities, family relations, emotional state and psychic well
being (Erdem, 2001; Brockhaus, 1980; Littunen, 2000). Therefore, common sense would
suggest that entrepreneurs must not be averse to taking risks. In the literature on
entrepreneurship, thus, entrepreneurs are generally characterized as having a greater
propensity to take risks than other groups (Cromie, 2000; and Thomas and Mueller,
2000; Teoh and Foo, 1997).

Tolerance for ambiguity

Uncertainty is a state which cannot be structured due to insufficient data. The
tolerance for ambiguity is the ability to respond positively to ambiguous situations. If
an individual consents to inadequate data and trusts his decision taken under
uncertainty, his tolerance for such states is considered high (Teoh and Foo, 1997). On
the other hand, people with low level of tolerance for ambiguity tend to find uncertain
and unstructured situations more uncomfortable. Thus, they try to avoid such
ambiguous situations.
Tolerance of ambiguity can be effectively conceptualized as an individual’s
orientation toward taking chances in a decision-making state. Entrepreneurial
managers are generally believed to tolerate ambiguity better than do conservative
managers, because the entrepreneurial ones face a less structured, more uncertain set
of possibilities, and actually bear the ultimate responsibility for decision (Entrialgo
et al., 2000). Risk and uncertainty are elements of the entrepreneurial behavior since
entrepreneurs’ decisions result in actions that are innovative and original (Cromie,
2000; Teoh and Foo, 1997). This lack of clarity creates ambiguity, and Koh (1996) and
Teoh and Foo (1997) cite numerous research studies suggesting that entrepreneurs
have a significantly greater capacity to tolerate ambiguity.

Self confidence
Entrepreneurs are typically described as having self-confidence. Because they seek out
and complete demanding tasks it is unlikely that they could do this successfully if they
had low confidence. As noted by Cromie (2000), perhaps self-confidence is an outcome
rather than a determinant of entrepreneurship. In the literature on entrepreneurship, it
is stated that entrepreneurs demonstrate a higher degree of self-esteem with respect to
others (Koh, 1996; Robinson et al., 1991).
 Research design and methodology Entrepreneurial
This study aims to analyze the entrepreneurial characteristics of university students characteristics in
on the basis of the data collected in 2003 spring semester. The underlying assumption
is that certain entrepreneurial characteristics encourage persons to become Turkey
entrepreneurs (or create a tendency for entrepreneurship) and thus distinguish them
from the rest of the society. On the basis of a framework of variables (see above) the
following hypotheses are tested in the study: 31
H1. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate innovativeness higher than those
who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
H2. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate achievement higher than those
who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

H3. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate locus of control higher than
those who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
H4. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate risk taking higher than those
who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
H5. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate tolerance for ambiguity higher
than those who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
H6. Entrepreneurially inclined students will rate self confidence higher than those
who are not entrepreneurially inclined.
The independent variables of innovativeness, need for achievement, locus of control,
risk taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity and self confidence examined in the
previous section were tested in relation to entrepreneurship tendency; the dependent
variable.
A sample of university students was composed. It should be emphasized that our
starting point is the assumption that university students constitute a significant
portion of the pool of potential entrepreneurs in both developed and developing
countries, as stated by Thomas and Mueller (1998). The study was conducted on a
sample of undergraduate seniors in business administration from two universities,
namely Yıldız Technical University and Akdeniz University.
The research was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the questionnaires
were administered to 400 students in classroom settings by the authors. Thirty eight of
the responses were discarded due to deficiencies. Therefore, the total number of usable
responses was 362. In order to select the entrepreneurially inclined students, the
question “what are you planning to do after graduation?” was asked to the
respondents. The 66 respondents who responded that “I’m planning to form my own
business venture” were accepted as potential entrepreneurs – or those who are
entrepreneurially inclined. Those who responded to this question either as “I’m
planning to work in private sector with a salary” or “I’m planning to work in public
sector with a salary” were classified as non-entrepreneurially inclined. In the next
phase, the entrepreneurial traits of those students inclined to entrepreneurship were
subjected to a comparative analysis with the other students who did not plan to start
their own businesses, and thus were not included in the group of potential
entrepreneurs.
 ET Research instrument
48,1 The research instrument was structured into two parts. The first part included
demographic variables and entrepreneurial inclination measures. The second part
included variables to measure tolerance for ambiguity, risk taking propensity, locus of
control, achievement motivation, innovation and self confidence; characteristics which
are believed to discriminate between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial
32 inclination. This part was composed of 40 items with six items for need for
achievement, six items for innovativeness, six items for risk taking propensity, six
items for self-confidence, eight items for locus of control and eight items for tolerance
for ambiguity. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or
disagreement with each given statement on a five-point Likert scale. Some statements
were reverse-coded and intermingled with other statements to minimize response set
bias. Each of the six scales was subjected to reliability testing shown in Table I.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Need for achievement was measured by six items from an adapted version of the
work and family orientation scale that used by Chang et al. (1997). Locus of control
measure used by this study was a subset of Rotter’s (1996) original 29 item I-E scale
that used by Thomas and Mueller (2000). Although alternative locus of control scales
were developed in the literature, Rotter’s I-E scale has been widely used and seems to
continue to dominate as a measure of locus of control in entrepreneurship research. The
items to measure tolerance for ambiguity were from Budner’s (1962) test of intolerance
for ambiguity and MacDonald’s (1970) revision of Rydell’s and Rosen’s (1966) tolerance
for ambiguity scale (Kirton, 1981). Innovativeness was measured by six items adapted
from Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson 1994) which has been used previously by
Thomas and Mueller (2000). Risk taking propensity and self confidence were measured
using eight items each used by Koh (1996).
For all the scales, responses were coded in a way that higher scores mean higher
innovativeness, greater need for achievement, more internal locus of control, higher
risk taking propensity, greater tolerance for ambiguity and more self-confidence.

Results
Descriptive statistics of samples and variables
The 66 entrepreneurially inclined students include 12 female and 54 male students. The
numbers of female and male students among the 296 students who are not inclined to
entrepreneurship, on the other hand, are 139 and 157, respectively.
One of the questions directed at the students was about the occupations of their
parents, in order to find out if there were any entrepreneurs in their families. Among
the entrepreneurially inclined students, 53 percent had fathers occupied with
independent business. Among those students who did not have such an inclination,
however, this figure is only 19 percent. This finding is notable since it supports the
view that the inclination for entrepreneurship is affected by family culture, for in
Turkish family structure the father is usually seen as a role model. In both groups of
students, the great majority of mothers are not occupied. The rest are either retired or
working as office clerks. This finding can be explained by Turkey’s unique
characteristics such as the significantly low rate of women entrepreneurs, and the fact
that women participate in working life mostly as salaried workers.
 Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Students Entrepreneurially
Non-inclined Inclined
Variables Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Risk taking propensity 3.25 0.40 3.60 0.22 (0.66)

2. Tolerance for ambiguity 3.45 0.50 3.58 0.46 0.38 * (0.78)
3. Locus of control 2.95 0.46 3.26 0.41 0.28 * 0.43 * (0.80)
4. Need for achievement 3.39 0.41 3.69 0.50 0.24 * 0.33 * 0.22 * (0.61)
5. Innovativeness 3.50 0.49 4.10 0.30 0.38 * 0.36 * 0.37 * 0.30 * (0.70)
6. Self-confidence 2.98 0.45 3.09 0.49 0.39 * 0.30 * 0.29 * 0.23 * 0.31 * (0.76)
Notes: *p , 0:05; a values shown in parentheses
Entrepreneurial

reliabilities of sub-scales
Descriptive statistics,
correlations and
Turkey

33

Table I.
characteristics in
 ET Correlation analysis
48,1 In this analysis the dimensions of entrepreneurship (risk taking propensity, innovation,
tolerance for ambiguity, need for achievement, self-confidence and locus of control) are
converted into subscales and the mean, standard deviation, correlation values and
reliability levels are calculated (Table I). All these values demonstrate a meaningful
correlation among the subscales representing the characteristics of entrepreneurship.
34 In Table I, the values in parentheses are reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) of subscales.
All the subscales except the need for achievement have values that are above or close
to the Cronbach alpha level of 0.70.

Hypothesis testing
All of the hypotheses were tested using independent samples t-test in order to
investigate the differences statistically. Based on the results shown in Table I and
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Table II, H1 was accepted, which means there was a significant difference between
entrepreneurially inclined students and those who are not entrepreneurially inclined
with regard to innovativeness. H2 was accepted, which means there was a significant
difference between entrepreneurially inclined students and those who are not
entrepreneurially inclined with regard to need for achievement. H3 was accepted,
which means there was a significant difference between entrepreneurially inclined
students and those who are not entrepreneurially inclined with regard to locus of
control. H4 was accepted, which means there was a significant difference between
entrepreneurially inclined students and those who are not entrepreneurially inclined
with regard to risk taking propensity.
H5 was not accepted, which means there was not a significant difference between
entrepreneurially inclined students and those who are not entrepreneurially inclined
with regard to tolerance for ambiguity. H6 was not accepted, which means there was
not a significant difference between entrepreneurially inclined students and those who
are not entrepreneurially inclined with regard to self-confidence (see Table II).

Discussion
This study used the trait model of entrepreneurship to examine six traits associated
with entrepreneurship, namely need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking
propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, innovativeness and self-confidence. Given that the
six subscales all measure some aspects of entrepreneurship, it was expected that there
would be a degree of interrelatedness among the subscales. The correlation between
subscales was statistically significant as expected.
The tests performed to verify the hypotheses produced results demonstrate that the
students with an inclination for entrepreneurship are more innovative, have more

Variables N t-value p-value

1. Risk taking propensity 362 3.459 0.001

2. Tolerance for ambiguity 362 1.139 0.312
3. Locus of control 362 3.768 0.001
Table II. 4. Need for achievement 362 2.674 0.006
Results of t-tests of 5. Innovativeness 362 3.211 0.002
significant differences 6. Self-confidence 362 0.738 0.479
 incentives for success, more inner control and more tendency to take risks, in comparison Entrepreneurial
with those who do not have inclination for entrepreneurship. These findings are also in characteristics in
parallel with the findings of the previous research on the theory of entrepreneurial traits.
As a tentative conclusion, it is possible to argue that educational programs in Turkish Turkey
higher education could focus upon developing the above cited characteristics in students.
Team work and business games, for example, could be tools for developing such skills.
However, it is also noticed that there is not much difference between the two groups of 35
students with regard to the trait of self confidence. Further, no meaningful difference has
been found among the entrepreneurially inclined students and the rest in terms of
tolerance for ambiguity. This finding could, in fact, be thought as a consequence of the
strong tendency for avoiding ambiguity, which is common among the Turkish society
(Hofstede, 1984; Erdem, 1996). This finding can also be thought of as an outcome of the
economic transition process in Turkey, which could pose a negative impact upon
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

students in terms of their future employment status. Both these two entrepreneurial
characteristics could also be enhanced in higher education to boost the country’s future
economic viability.
Although a large group of students participated in the study, the number of
students who intended to be entrepreneurs was fairly limited. There can be a number
of reasons for this: First of all, the economic, social and political instability in the
country may lead people to prefer salaried jobs in public or private sectors instead of
running their own business. This tendency is observed amongst the university
students. Besides, lack of sufficient incentives toward entrepreneurship and lack of
sound entrepreneurship education hamper the development of any entrepreneurial
vision of individuals. There can be little doubt that Turkey’s young and dynamic
population represents an important entrepreneurial potential. However, it is not
possible to argue that this potential is well oriented and utilized. With this regard, it is
important that an entrepreneurship policy be developed both for the short and long
term. As this policy is put into practice, entrepreneurship education should be included
as an important component.
In terms of further research, the cross sectional nature of the study may be
considered as a limitation. Particularly, a regular observation throughout the whole
education period of students in universities which offer entrepreneurship courses could
help us gauge the effects of entrepreneurship education on the characteristics of
entrepreneurship. Empirical and conceptual academic studies on entrepreneurship
education would help not only clarify the content and the design of entrepreneurship
education, but also deepen and enrich entrepreneurship discussions in Turkish
academe. For instance, it is possible to suggest that the present study be replicated in a
more comprehensive fashion, covering more students and universities. Furthermore,
the question of whether students in public and private universities differ in terms of
entrepreneurial inclination could be an interesting topic for further research.
The core concern guiding this study was to assess which of the characteristics that
affect an “entrepreneurial” profile are prevalent among the Turkish students. The idea
that the findings of such a study could provide valuable data in the preparation of
educational programs that would be in line with the entrepreneurial characteristics of
the students has been our major incentive. Entrepreneurs are not born, they are made.
Working on this premise, it is critical that developing countries must explore further
the development of entrepreneurial talent and must provide the opportunities for an
 ET entrepreneurial class to emerge (Samli, 2002). We suggest that in Turkey a national
48,1 perspective on entrepreneurship education should be developed to encourage more
universities to provide courses on entrepreneurship and offer a major on
entrepreneurship, and, furthermore, to consider founding new institutions to teach
only entrepreneurship.
As we noted above, course content on entrepreneurship generally entails
36 information on the founding and managing of new businesses. However, we
question if enterprise education should be tied to the specifics of starting a business.
There is a strong case to be made that higher education should be seeking to nurture
and develop the entrepreneurial characteristics discussed in this study in all students.
As a country seeking EU membership, Turkey is in need of being more innovative,
more “entrepreneurial” so to speak, if she wishes to raise income per capita and to
decrease the rate of unemployment in line with required economic performance criteria.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Enterprising graduates can constitute a driving force in this process.

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.
Aybar, S. and Lapavitsas, C. (2002), “The recent Turkish crisis: another step toward free market
authoritarianism”, Historical Materialism, pp. 297-308.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-20.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1991), “Entrepreneurship education and research outside North America”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 77-84.
Budner, S. (1962), “Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable”, Journal of Personality,
Vol. 30, pp. 29-50.
Bygrave, W.D. and Hofer, C.W. (1991), “Theorizing about entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Winter, pp. 13-22.
Cromie, S. (2000), “Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: some approaches empirical evidence”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-30.
Engle, E.D., Mah, J. and Sadri, G. (1997), “An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and
employees: implications for innovation”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 45-9.
Entrialgo, M., Fernandez, E. and Vazquez, C. (2000), “Characteristics of managers as
determinants of entrepreneurial orientation: some Spanish evidence”, Enterprise and
Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Erdem, F. (1996), Işletme Kültürü, Freidrich-Neumann, Vakfı Yayınları, Ankara.
Erdem, F. (2001), “A cultural approach toward risk taking propensity and tolerance for
ambiguity of entrepreneurs”, Akdeniz IIBF Dergisi, Vol. 2, pp. 43-61.
Gibb, A. (1993), “Small business development in Central and Eastern Europe – opportunity for a
rethink?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8, pp. 461-86.
Green, R., David, J., Dent, M. and Tyshkovsky, A. (1996), “The Russian entrepreneur: a study of
psychological characteristics”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Hansemark, O.C. (1998), “The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement
and locus of control of reinforcement”, International Journal of Entrepreuneurial Behaviour
& Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 28-50.
 Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Entrepreneurial
Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives characteristics in
and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”, Education
& Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23. Turkey
Jack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (1999), “Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 110-25.
Jackson, D.N. (1994), Jackson Personality Index, Sigma Assessments, Port Huron, MI. 37
Jones, C. and English, J. (2004), “A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education”,
Education & Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 416-23.
Kirby, D.A. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?”,
Education & Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 510-19.
Kirton, M.J. (1981), “A reanalysis of two scales of tolerance of ambiguity”, Journal of Personality
Assessment, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 407-14.
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

Koh, H.C. (1996), “Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics”, Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 12-25.
Kuratko, D.F. (2003), Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for the 21st
Century, Coleman Foundation White Paper Series, http://usasbe.org/pdf/CWP-2003-
kuratko.pdf
Kurtuluş, K. (1987), “Entrepreneurship in Turkey”, Journal of Small Business Management,
October, pp. 66-9.
Leone, C. and Burns, J. (2000), “The measurement of locus of control: assessing more than meets
the eye?”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 295-309.
MacDonald, J.A.P. (1970), “Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: reliability and validity”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 26, pp. 791-8.
Mueller, S.L. and 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.
Riipinen, M. (1994), “Extrinsic occupational needs and the relationship between need for
achievement and locus of control”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 577-88.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991), “An attitude approach to the
prediction of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 13-32.
Ronstadt, R. (1987), “The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is
beginning”, American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-53.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80.
Rydell, S.T. and Rosen, E. (1966), “Measurement and some correlates of need-cognition”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 19, pp. 1303-12.
Sagie, A. and Elizur, D. (1999), “Achievement motive and entrepreneurial orientation: a structural
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 375-87.
Samli, A.C. (2002), “Entrepreneurship and small business development: the necessary ingredient
for economic progress”, 11th World Business Congress, July 10-14, 2002, Antalya.
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C. and Carland, J.W. (1998), “A proclivity for
entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate
managers”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 14, pp. 189-214.
 ET Stewart, W.H., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., Watson, W.E. and Sweo, R. (2003), “Entrepreneurial
dispositions and goal orientations: a comparative exploration of United States and Russian
48,1 entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Teoh, H.Y. and 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, Vol. 12, pp. 67-81.
38 Thomas, A.S. and Mueller, S.L. (1998), “Are entrepreneurs the same across cultures?”, USASBE
conference papers, available at: www.usasbe.org
Thomas, A.S. and Mueller, S.L. (2000), “A case for comparative entrepreneurship: assessing the
relevance of culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 287-301.
Thompson, J.L. (1999), “The world of the entrepreneur – a new perspective”, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 209-24.
TUSIAD Report (2002) “Türkiye’de Girişimcilik” (“Entrepreneurship in Turkey”), available at:
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

www.tusiad.org/turkish/rapor/girisimcilik/girisimcilik.pdf
Utsch, A. and Rauch, A. (2000), “Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement
orientation and venture performance”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Zacharakis, A. (1997), “Entrepreneurial entry into foreign markets”, Entrepreneurship: Theory
and Practice, Spring, pp. 23-40.

Further reading
Bamber, D., Owens, J., Davies, J. and Suleman, A. (2002), “Enabling the emergent entrepreneurial
organisation to develop new products”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
& Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 203-21.
Chen, C.C., Grene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, pp. 295-316.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), “Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 27-37.
Louw, L., Eeden, S.M., Bosch, J.K. and Venter, D.J.L. (2003), “Entrepreneurial traits of
undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-26.
Miner, J. (2000), “Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business founders”,
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March, pp. 43-68.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984), “Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing
effectiveness”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22, April, pp. 18-25.
Sitkin, S.B. and Paolo, A.L. (1992), “Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1573-92.
Williams, S. and Narendan, S. (1999), “Determinants of managerial risk: exploring personality
and cultural influences”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 139 No. 1, pp. 102-25.

Corresponding author
Yonca Gurol can be contacted at: gurol@yildiz.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Olufunmilola (Lola) Dada, Anna Watson, David Kirby. 2015. Entrepreneurial tendencies in franchising:
evidence from the UK. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 22:1, 82-98. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
2. Roberto Espíritu-Olmos, Miguel A. Sastre-Castillo. 2015. Personality traits versus work values:
Comparing psychological theories on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef]
3. Akilah Abdullah, Raudah Danila, Marhaiza Ibrahim. 2014. Developing Entrepreneurial Accounting
Graduates Using Accounting Simulation Model among Accounting Students at Malaysian Public
Universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 164, 647-652. [CrossRef]
4. Kate Pascoe, Kathleen Mortimer. 2014. Identifying entrepreneurs through risk taking behaviour: illegal
downloading. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 16:2, 183-199. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

5. Arthur Sserwanga, Rebecca Isabella Kiconco, Malin Nystrand, Rachel Mindra. 2014. Social
entrepreneurship and post conflict recovery in Uganda. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and
Places in the Global Economy 8:4, 300-317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. 2014. Interest of Venture Capital Companies in Open Source-Based New Ventures. International Journal
of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation 3:10.4018/IJEEI.20121001, 1-16. [CrossRef]
7. F.J. Sanchez i Peris, C. Ros Ros. 2014. Development of Entrepreneurial Competence Through Practicum
in Pedagogy Degree. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 139, 116-122. [CrossRef]
8. María Teresa Méndez, Miguel-Angel Galindo, Miguel-Angel Sastre. 2014. Franchise, innovation and
entrepreneurship. The Service Industries Journal 34, 843-855. [CrossRef]
9. Harun Sesen. 2013. Personality or environment? A comprehensive study on the entrepreneurial intentions
of university students. Education + Training 55:7, 624-640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Sudipa Majumdar, Damodharan Varadarajan. 2013. Students' attitude towards entrepreneurship: does
gender matter in the UAE?. foresight 15:4, 278-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Victor Zengyu Huang, Anup Nandialath, Abdulkareem Kassim Alsayaghi, Emine Esra Karadeniz. 2013.
Socio‐demographic factors and network configuration among MENA entrepreneurs. International Journal
of Emerging Markets 8:3, 258-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Omerzel Gomezelj Doris, Kušce Irena. 2013. The influence of personal and environmental factors on
entrepreneurs' performance. Kybernetes 42:6, 906-927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Kayhan Tajeddini, Stephen L. Mueller. 2012. Corporate entrepreneurship in Switzerland: evidence from
a case study of Swiss watch manufacturers. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8,
355-372. [CrossRef]
14. Levent Altinay, Melih Madanoglu, Roberto Daniele, Conrad Lashley. 2012. The influence of family
tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 31, 489-499. [CrossRef]
15. Dawn Langkamp Bolton, Michelle D. Lane. 2012. Individual entrepreneurial orientation: development
of a measurement instrument. Education + Training 54:2/3, 219-233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Syed Zamberi Ahmad, Siri Roland Xavier. 2012. Entrepreneurial environments and growth: evidence from
Malaysia GEM data. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship 4:1, 50-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 17. Hamidreza Arasteh, Taraneh Enayati, Farshideh Zameni, Atefeh Khademloo. 2012. Entrepreneurial
Personality Characteristics of University Students: A Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
46, 5736-5740. [CrossRef]
18. Rosa M. Hernández-Maestro, Óscar González-Benito. 2011. Objective quality and business performance
in service environments: moderating effects of entrepreneurs' knowledge and involvement. The Service
Industries Journal 31, 2321-2354. [CrossRef]
19. YA-CHUNG SUN. 2011. The impact of locus of control and priming on the endowment effect.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 52:10.1111/sjop.2011.52.issue-5, 420-426. [CrossRef]
20. Zeliha İlhan Ertuna, Eda Gurel. 2011. The moderating role of higher education on entrepreneurship.
Education + Training 53:5, 387-402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Todd Davey, Carolin Plewa, Miemie Struwig. 2011. Entrepreneurship perceptions and career intentions
of international students. Education + Training 53:5, 335-352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Eda Gurel, Levent Altinay, Roberto Daniele. 2010. Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Annals
Downloaded by AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY At 07:29 13 March 2015 (PT)

of Tourism Research 37, 646-669. [CrossRef]

23. Ali Reza Ma’atoofi, Kayhan Tajeddini. 2010. The Effect of Entrepreneurship Orientation on Learning
Orientation and Innovation: A Study of Small-Sized Business Firms in Iran. International Journal of
Trade, Economics and Finance 254-260. [CrossRef]
24. Benjamin Temkin. 2009. Informal Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Entrepreneurship or
Survivalist Strategy? Some Implications for Public Policy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
9:10.1111/asap.2009.9.issue-1, 135-156. [CrossRef]
25. Kayhan Tajeddini, Stephen L. Mueller. 2009. Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the UK:
A comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 7, 1-25. [CrossRef]
26. Duygu Turker, Senem Sonmez Selcuk. 2009. Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university
students?. Journal of European Industrial Training 33:2, 142-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Mehmet Turan, Ali Kara. 2007. An exploratory study of characteristics and attributes of
Turkish entrepreneurs: A cross-country comparison to Irish entrepreneurs. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship 5, 25-46. [CrossRef]
28. Leyla Tulunay, Semra Güney, M. Kemal ÖktemEntrepreneurship Readiness in Turkey: 415-426.
[CrossRef]