Description
In this description with regards to entrepreneurial attributes of undergraduate business students.
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
333
ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTRIBUTES OF UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS
STUDENTS: A THREE COUNTRY COMPARISON REVISITED
Shelley M Farrington
Department of Business Management, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Danie JL Venter
Unit for Statistical Consultation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Christine R Schrage
Department of Marketing, University of Northern Iowa
Peter O van der Meer
Utrecht School of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Utrecht University
Accepted: July 2012
In 2001/2002 a study was undertaken to establish whether significant differences existed between the levels
of development of several entrepreneurial attributes, as perceived by undergraduate business students from
three universities in three different countries. The rationale was that, if entrepreneurial attributes could be
identified as more developed in one country than in another, solutions could be provided for developing
these attributes in others. The primary objective of this study is to investigate and compare the levels of
development of entrepreneurial attributes of undergraduate business students in the present study (2010) to
the levels of development reported by undergraduate business students in the 2001/2002 study.
Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of the measuring instrument and t-
tests to establish significant differences. Cohen’s d statistics were calculated to establish practical
significance. The findings suggest that the educational environment and entrepreneurship education policy
of the Dutch university participating in this study could provide solutions as to how entrepreneurial attributes
among students could be developed further.
Key words: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial attributes and entrepreneurship education
JEL: L260
1
Introduction and research objectives
According to Mueller (2004) and Shane (1992),
the prevalence of entrepreneurial attributes
varies across countries and cultures. Factors
contributing to these differences are culture,
level of economic development of the country,
and political-economic traditions (Mueller,
Thomas & Jaeger, 2002). Against this back-
ground in 2001/2002 Van Eeden, Louw and
Venter (2005) undertook a study with the main
objective being to report on the levels of
development of undergraduate business students’
entrepreneurial attributes (personality traits,
characteristics and skills) in three different
countries. They also wanted to establish
whether significant differences exist amongst
these countries in respect of the development
of these attributes. The reasoning was that if
entrepreneurial attributes could be identified as
more developed in one country than another,
that country could provide solutions as to how
to develop such attributes in other countries.
The results of that study (2001/2002)
reported that the order of the four most
developed entrepreneurial attributes differed
for each of the three participating countries.
Two attributes, however, Overcoming failure
and High energy level, were among the four
Abstract
334
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
most developed attributes in all three countries.
South African students and students from
the United States of America (USA) had three
of the top four most developed attributes
in common. Although for the Netherlands
the order of the least developed attributes
differed slightly, the four lowest scoring
attributes in all three countries were the same,
namely Continuous learning, Knowledge-
seeking, Initiative and responsibility, and
Communications ability. Furthermore, for nine
of the entrepreneurial attributes under
investigation, significant differences existed
between the mean scores reported by all three
countries, with the American sample scoring
significantly higher means than the other
countries on the levels of development (Van
Eeden et al., 2005).
Given the increased attention over the last
decade to the development of entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurship education and Entrepreneurship
as an academic discipline (Haase & Lauten-
schläger, 2011; Nishimura & Tristán, 2011;
Soetanto, Pribadi & Widyadana, 2010;
Herrington, Kew & Kew, 2009), the aim of
this study is to revisit the levels of develop-
ment of entrepreneurial attributes among
undergraduate business students so that
improvements to these levels, since 2001/2002,
can be established. By using the same
measuring instrument and a sample of students
from the same three universities as to the study
done in 2001/2002, it is hoped that where
improvements or changes are evident, didactical
solutions can be identified and shared among
all. Furthermore, few studies have investigated
entrepreneurial characteristics collectively to
profile individuals within countries (Tajeddini
& Mueller, 2009:7), whereas this study
attempts to do just that.
To advance entrepreneurial activity in a
country it is essential for the population to
possess a particular set of attributes (i.e.
personality traits, skills, aptitudes and desires)
(Thomas & Mueller, 2001; Krueger & Brazeal,
1994) and as the prevalence of these attributes
among a given population increases, so
too will the likelihood of entrepreneurial
behaviour and in turn entrepreneurial activity
in that country (Mueller, 2004). According to
Gurol and Atsan (2006), these entrepreneurial
attributes can be developed through educational
programmes. For example, Mahadea (2001:
193) suggests that an individual’s capacity to
take risks can be nurtured and developed
through appropriate training. According to
Chen and Lai (2010), potential entrepreneurs
should be developed while still students.
Fostering entrepreneurship among students has
become an important topic among universities,
governments and researchers (Venesaar, Kolbre
& Piliste, 2006). Through entrepreneurial
education the necessary skills and confidence
to undertake entrepreneurial activity can be
developed (Fatoki, 2010:92; Urban, Botha &
Urban, 2010:135), but it is important for
educational institutions to know which skills
and competencies to develop when educating
future entrepreneurs (Venesaar et al., 2006).
Against this background, the primary
objective of this study is to investigate and
compare the entrepreneurial attributes of
undergraduate business students in three
different countries at two different points in
time. The levels of development of entrepre-
neurial attributes of undergraduate business
students in the present study (2010) are
compared to the levels reported by under-
graduate business students in a previous study
(2001/2002). For the purpose of this study
entrepreneurial attributes refer to personality
traits, characteristics and skills commonly
associated with entrepreneurs, whereas ‘under-
graduate business students’ refers to students
completing business-related modules at
undergraduate levels. For convenience, the
three countries chosen to participate in the
study were the same as those that participated
in the 2001/2002 study, namely South Africa,
the USA and the Netherlands.
The purpose of this study was not to
develop and test hypotheses, but to establish
the extent to which entrepreneurial attributes
evident among the undergraduate business
students of 2010 have changed compared
to those of undergraduate business students
of 2001/2002. Thus, this study explores the
extent to which business students possess
more or fewer entrepreneurial attributes and
consequently entrepreneurial potential than
their counterparts in 2001/2002.
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
335
2
Entrepreneurial attributes
Numerous attributes (traits, characteristics and
skills) are associated with entrepreneurial
behaviour and entrepreneurial success (Deakins
& Freel, 2009; Ramana, Aryasri & Nagayya,
2008; Mahadea, 2001; Entrialgo, Fernandez &
Vazquez, 2000; McClleland, 1961). It is these
entrepreneurial attributes that distinguish
entrepreneurs from others, and individuals who
possess them may be predisposed or more
likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities
(Raab, Stedham & Neuner, 2005; Cromie, 2000).
In recent years there has been considerable
interest and debate over entrepreneurial character
(traits) as a predictor to engage in entrepre-
neurial activity (Tajeddini & Mueller, 2009;
Mueller, 2004). Attempts to predict entrepre-
neurial behaviour using trait approaches have
delivered poor results (Kristiansen & Indarti,
2004; Krueger, Reilley & Carsrud, 2000) and
there has been little support for a relationship
between personality traits and entrepreneurial
activity (Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker & Hay,
2001). Venesaar et al. (2006) assert that it is
methodically limiting to focus only on personality
traits to explain entrepreneurial initiative.
Similarly, Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) contend
that although attributes are a factor in pre-
dicting entrepreneurial behaviour, an individual’s
attitude most likely plays a bigger role.
Tabl e 1
Literature pertaining to entrepreneurial attributes
Entrepreneurial attributes References
Planning and perseverance
Scarborough, 2011; Barringer & Ireland, 2010; Wilner, 2009; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009;
Scarborough, Wilson & Zimmerer, 2009; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Wickham, 2006;
Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Bowler, 1995.
Persuasion and networking Mugshot, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Van Vuuren, 1997.
Communication ability
Marvin & Jones, 2010; Nitikina, 2007; Barrier, 1995; Marx, Van Rooyen, Bosch &
Reynders, 1998.
Commitment
Calvasina, Calvasina & Calvasina, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Marx et al., 1998;
Siropolis, 1990.
Overcoming failure
De Angelis & Hayes, 2010; Barringer & Ireland, 2010; Pryor, Toombs, Anderson & White,
2010; Kuratko, 2009; Goodman, 1994; Burns & Dewhurst, 1993; Gerdes, 1988.
Self-confidence and locus of
control
Scarborough, 2011; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Kuratko, 2009; Scarborough et al.,
2009; Chillemi, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2007; Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Cromie, 2000;
Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998; Goodman, 1994.
Risk-taking ability
Kuratko, 2009; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Scarborough et al., 2009; Timmons &
Spinelli, 2009; Kaluwasha, 2009; Wickham, 2006; Cromie, 2000; Mariani, 1994; Casson,
1991; Siropolis, 1990.
Initiative and responsibility
Scarborough et al., 2009; Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998; Marx et al., 1998; Goodman, 1994;
Gerdes, 1988.
High energy level
Scarborough, 2011; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Thomas & Mueller, 1999; Marx et al., 1998;
Mariani, 1994; Goodman, 1994; Casson, 1991.
Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty
Scarborough, 2011; Scarborough et al., 2009; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Nieman &
Bennet, 2005; Entrialgo et al., 2000; Bowler, 1995.
Creativity and flexibility
Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998; Casson,
1991; Gerdes, 1988.
Knowledge-seeking Julienti, Bakar & Ahmad, 2010; Mushonga, 1981; Bowler, 1995.
Continuous learning Ribeiro, 2010; Ming, 2009; Hellriegel, Jackson & Slocum, 1999; Kroon & Moolman, 1991.
Financial proficiency Mankelwicz & Kitahara, 2010; Scarborough et al., 2009; Wickham, 2006; Marx et al., 1998.
Money sense
Cudmore, Patton, Ng & McClure, 2010; Burns & Dewhurst, 1993; Burch, 1986; Kroon &
Moolman, 1991.
Business knowledge
Scarborough et al., 2009; Gerry, Marques & Nogueira, 2008; Barringer & Ireland, 2008;
Marx et al., 1998, Van Vuuren, 1997.
(Source: Farrington, Venter, Neethling & Louw, 2010)
Irrespective of this criticism, the ‘attribute’
approach, focusing on personal characteristics,
has dominated attempts to understand entrepre-
neurs, and whether an individual’s characteristics
predict entrepreneurial behaviour (Tajeddini &
Mueller, 2009; Raab et al., 2005). Although
attitude towards entrepreneurship has emerged
as the most important factor influencing
intentions to become self-employed, personality
traits have an indirect influence on the readiness
336
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
of the individual to undertake such activities
(Lüthje & Franke, 2003). In recent times an
interest in personality traits and whether these
traits affect the intention to engage in
entrepreneurial activity, has resurfaced (Mueller,
2004). Furthermore, psychological characteristics
are being recognised as being of great
importance in understanding and fostering
entrepreneurship, and in assessing entrepreneurial
potential (Raab et al., 2005). Nevertheless,
many consider the identification and investiga-
tion of entrepreneurial attributes a worthless
exercise (Ramana et al., 2008; Cromie, 2000),
yet the perspective of this article supports
those that disagree.
Although several attributes (traits, charac-
teristics and skills) have been identified in the
entrepreneurship literature as being associated
with entrepreneurial behaviour and success,
the focus of this study is on the attributes
identified by Van Eeden et al. (2005). This was
necessary so that the same entrepreneurial
attributes assessed in the 2001/2002 study
could be assessed in this (2010) study. As
such, an elaborate theoretical overview of the
various entrepreneurial attributes associated
with entrepreneurs was deemed beyond the
scope of this article. The attributes investigated
in this study, together with supporting
references, are summarised in Table 1.
3
Research design and methodology
3.1 Sample and sampling method
In assessing the entrepreneurial attributes of
undergraduate business students, a positivistic
research paradigm was adopted. All under-
graduate students studying business modules at
the participating universities were given the
opportunity of voluntarily participating in the
study. The sample obtained can thus be
described as a convenience sample.
3.2 Measuring instrument and data
collection
An existing measuring instrument (Van Eeden
et al., 2005; Louw, Du Plessis, Bosch &
Venter, 1997) was used to assess the levels
of development of several entrepreneurial
attributes in the present study. Section A of the
questionnaire consisted of 104 statements
relating to the entrepreneurial attributes under
investigation. The statements were phrased
with a possible response continuum linked to a
Tabl e 2
Operational definitions of the entrepreneurial attributes
Entrepreneurial attributes Operational definition
Planning and perseverance Having goals, plans and the determination to follow through.
Persuasion and networking Having the ability to convince others and build relationships.
Communication ability Having the ability to communicate ideas to others.
Commitment Having the ability to meet commitments in a timely manner.
Overcoming failure Having the ability to overcome failure and regard it as a learning experience.
Self-confidence and locus of
control
Having belief in oneself and believing that personal actions determine success.
Risk-taking ability
Having a predisposition for taking moderate, calculated risks, providing a
reasonable chance for success.
Initiative and responsibility Having the willingness to take initiative and be responsible.
High energy level Having the ability to work long hours and stay focused.
Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty
Having the ability to live with modest to high levels of uncertainty concerning job and
career security, being able to perform different tasks simultaneously.
Creativity and flexibility
Being able to think originally and creatively while flexible enough to handle changing
or multiple circumstances.
Knowledge-seeking Being willing to seek information, ideas, expertise and the assistance of others.
Continuous learning Having the desire to expand personal knowledge and enhance level of expertise.
Financial proficiency Having the ability to understand and/or interpret financial transactions and results.
Money Sense
Recognising that money is an important factor, and having the ability to correctly
use this resource.
Business knowledge Having a basic understanding of business operations and terminology.
(Source: Farrington et al., 2010; Van Eeden et al., 2005)
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
337
Likert-style five-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Using an
existing measuring instrument required that the
existing operational definitions (Van Eeden et
al., 2005) for the various entrepreneurial
attributes under investigation be adopted. In
some instances the attributes named by Van
Eeden et al. (2005) were renamed and the
operational definitions rephrased. This was
done to more accurately describe the personality
traits, characteristics and/or skills being
measured. However, the items in the 2010
survey were exactly the same as those used in
the 2001/2002 survey. These operational
definitions are summarised in Table 2. In
Section B of the questionnaire demographic
information relating to the gender and age of
the respondent, as well as the university attended,
was requested.
As in the survey carried out in 2001/2002,
in 2010 the measuring instrument was distributed
among students at the participating universities
during a business class. Students willing to
complete the questionnaire could do so during
class time or they could return it at a later date.
4
Data analysis and empirical results
4.1 Describing the samples
In 2001/2002, 1 528 undergraduate business
students participated in the study. The
respondents included 758 South African (SA),
379 American (USA) and 391 Dutch (NED)
students. From Table 3 it is evident that for SA
and the USA the sample consisted of a
satisfactory spread between males and females.
This figure is, however, slightly skewed in the
Dutch sample, with more males than females
participating in the study. In all three countries,
the majority of participants fell into the 20-25-
year old age group.
Tabl e 3
Composition of the samples
2001/2002 Sample
SA n % USA n % NED n %
Total 758 100% Total 379 100% Total 391 100%
Male 319 42.1% Male 182 48.0% Male 247 63.2%
Female 439 57.9% Female 197 52.0% Female 144 36.8%
25 9 2.3%
2010 Sample
SA n % USA n % NED n %
Total 199 100% Total 200 100% Total 224 100%
Male 95 48.2% Male 119 60.1% Male 114 52.3%
Female 102 51.8% Female 79 39.9% Female 104 47.7%
25 13 6.0%
In 2010, 623 undergraduate business students
participated in the study. A more or less even
number of respondents from each country
participated. In contrast to the 2001/2002
sample, the distribution of males and females
in the USA was uneven, whereas in 2001/2002
this was the case in the Dutch sample. In 2010,
both the South African and the Dutch samples
contained a satisfactory number of male and
female participants. As in the 2001/2002 sample,
the majority of participants from all three
countries fell into the 20-25-year old age
group. South Africa did, however, have a
much higher number of respondents in the
under 20 age group (40%) relative to the USA
(4%) and the Netherlands (17%).
4.2 Item analysis
In order to make a comparison between the
2001/2002 results and the results of the current
338
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
study, the exact items measuring the attributes
under investigation had to be used. An
exploratory factor analysis was therefore not
undertaken and the validity of the measuring
instrument based on the 2010 results was
not established. However, Cronbach alpha
coefficients were calculated for the scales to
determine whether the observed scale scores
were reliable (internal consistency). Cronbach
alpha coefficients (CA) less than 0.50 are
deemed unacceptable, while those between
0.50 and 0.60 are regarded as sufficient, and
those above 0.70 as acceptable (Nunnally,
1978). According to Sekaran (1992), CA values
greater than 0.80 can be regarded as good.
Table 4 shows that low Cronbach alpha
coefficients (less than 0.50) were reported for
Risk-taking (G), Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty (J), and Money sense (O). These
attributes were consequently excluded from
further analysis. Although Self-confidence and
locus of control reported a CA of below 0.50
for the American sample, it was decided to
retain this attribute because of its close proximity
to 0.50 and because of the satisfactory CA
levels reported by SA and the Netherlands.
There was thus evidence of sufficient
reliability for the measuring instrument.
Tabl e 4
Reliability of attribute scores (Cronbach alpha coefficients)
Category SA USA NED ALL
A: Planning and perseverance 0.80 0.74 0.71 0.77
B: Persuasion and networking 0.56 0.72 0.70 0.68
C: Communication ability 0.68 0.67 0.63 0.66
D: Commitment 0.66 0.56 0.71 0.67
E: Overcoming failure 0.59 0.57 0.69 0.64
F: Self-confidence and locus of control 0.50 0.47 0.59 0.52
G: Risk-taking 0.16 0.00 0.46 0.20
H: Initiative and responsibility 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.77
I: High energy level 0.58 0.53 0.58 0.61
J: Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty 0.49 0.32 0.19 0.39
K: Creativity and flexibility 0.74 0.50 0.70 0.69
L: Knowledge-seeking 0.74 0.60 0.71 0.72
M: Continuous learning 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.81
N: Financial proficiency 0.64 0.77 0.75 0.72
O: Money sense 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.38
P: Business knowledge 0.69 0.66 0.71 0.68
4.3 Descriptive analyses: The levels of
development of entrepreneurial
attributes
Respondents were requested to assess themselves
in terms of the entrepreneurial attributes defined
in Table 2. Descriptive statistics relating to
these attributes, such as the mean, standard
deviation and frequency distributions were
calculated to summarise the sample data
distribution. This was carried out for both the
individual items and the summated attribute
scores. Attribute scores were categorised as
Low (less than 2.6), Average (between 2.6 and
3.4 inclusive) and High scores (above 3.4).
These categories were established to facilitate
discussion, and were based on dividing the
scale scores so that the Low category
corresponded with options 1 and 2 of the five-
point Likert scale, the Average category with
option 3 and the High category with options 4
and 5 of the response scale. Attribute categories
that score Low on average can be considered as
underdeveloped, those scoring Average as
developed, and those that score High can be
considered well-developed. A summary of the
descriptive statistics reported for the various
attributes is reported in Annexure A (2001/
2002) and Annexure B (2010). A detailed
discussion of all the entre-preneurial attributes
under investigation is not offered in this paper.
However, attention will be given to the four
most developed attributes, as well as the four
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
339
least developed attributes.
From Table 5, it is evident that in 2001/
2002 the order of the four most developed
entrepreneurial attributes differed for each of
the three countries participating in the study. It
is interesting to note that two attributes,
Overcoming failure (E) and High energy level
(I), were among the four most developed
attributes in all three countries. South Africa
and the USA had three of the top four most
developed attributes in common, Commitment
(D), Overcoming failure (E) and High energy
level (I). The mean scored by Dutch students
for their most developed attribute, Financial
proficiency (N), was lower than the means of
any of the other four most developed attributes
of both SA and the USA. Financial proficiency
(N) was also not among the four most
developed attributes for either the SA or the
USA sample. Persuasion and networking (B),
on the other hand, was among the four most
developed attributes in the Netherlands and the
USA, but not in South Africa.
Tabl e 5
Summary of the four most developed attributes - 2001/2002 versus 2010
2001/2002 Sample
SA USA NED
D: Commitment 4.05 D: Commitment 4.32 N: Financial proficiency 3.68
E: Overcoming failure 3.93 I: High energy level 4.06 E: Overcoming failure 3.65
I: High energy level 3.94 B: Persuasion and networking 3.98 I: High energy level 3.64
A: Planning and perseverance 3.82 E: Overcoming failure 3.96 B: Persuasion and networking 3.61
2010 Sample
SA USA NED
D: Commitment 4.17 D: Commitment 4.35 D: Commitment 3.92
I: High energy level 4.07 N: Financial proficiency 4.12 F: Self-confidence and locus of control 3.77
A: Planning and perseverance 4.05 I: High energy level 3.96 K: Creativity and flexibility 3.66
E: Overcoming failure 3.97 B: Persuasion and networking 3.94 A: Planning and perseverance 3.66
Although the order was slightly different, the
2010 South African sample reported the same
four attributes as most developed as the
2001/2002 South African sample did, namely
Commitment, High energy level, Planning
and perseverance and Overcoming failure.
Commitment was once again perceived as the
most developed entrepreneurial attribute.
Three of the most developed attributes
reported by the 2001/2002 USA sample were
also reported as most developed by the 2010
USA sample, namely Commitment, High energy
level and Persuasion and networking. As in the
SA sample, Commitment was also once again
perceived as the most developed entrepre-
neurial attribute by the 2010 USA sample. In
contrast with the 2001/2002 USA sample, the
2010 sample perceived Financial proficiency
as one of the four most developed attributes,
whereas Overcoming failure was not.
Interestingly, none of the top four attributes
perceived as most developed among the
2001/2002 Dutch sample were among the top
four in the 2010 Dutch sample. As in the 2010
SA and USA sample, Commitment was also
perceived as the most developed attribute
among the 2010 Dutch sample.
The four least developed attributes in all
three countries are summarised in Table 6.
From Table 6 it is evident that, during the
2001/2002 study, three of the 13 entrepreneurial
attributes investigated obtained mean scores of
below the threshold value of 3.4 on the five-
point Likert scale for the South African
sample, namely Continuous learning (M),
Knowledge-seeking (L) and Initiative and
responsibility (H). On the other hand, in the
USA, only two of the 13 attributes obtained
mean scores of below 3.4, namely Continuous
learning (M) and Knowledge-seeking (L). In
the Netherlands four of the 13 entrepreneurial
attributes investigated obtained mean scores of
below the threshold value of 3.4, namely
Knowledge-seeking (L), Continuous learning
(M), Initiative and responsibility (H), and
Communication ability (C). These observations
340
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
suggest that the attributes that scored below the
threshold of 3.4 were regarded by the
respondents as not being well-developed.
Although the order differed slightly for the
Netherlands with regard to the least developed
attributes, the four lowest scoring attributes in
all three countries were the same, namely
Continuous learning (M), Knowledge-seeking
(L), Initiative and responsibility (H), and
Communication ability (C).
Tabl e 6
Summary of the four least developed attributes - 2001/2002 versus 2010
2001/2002 Sample
SA USA NED
M: Continuous learning 3.14 M: Continuous learning 2.95 L: Knowledge-seeking 2.74
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.18 L: Knowledge-seeking 3.19 M: Continuous learning 2.96
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.32 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.49 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.08
C: Communication ability 3.42 C: Communication ability 3.54 C: Communication ability 3.22
2010 Sample
SA USA NED
M: Continuous learning 3.45 M: Continuous learning 2.81 L: Knowledge-seeking 2.90
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.47 L: Knowledge-seeking 3.13 M: Continuous learning 3.16
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.57 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.41 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.37
C: Communication ability 3.60 C: Communication ability 3.49 C: Communication ability 3.48
Interestingly, the four attributes perceived as
least developed by the 2010 samples from all
three countries were exactly the same and in
the same order as perceived by the 2001/2002
samples. None of these attributes were
reported as less than the threshold value of 3.4
for the South African 2010 sample, whereas
two attributes were reported as less than the
threshold value of 3.4 for the American sample
and three for the Dutch sample.
4.4 Significant differences between
development of entrepreneurial
attributes between 2001/2002
and 2010
The extent to which differences in levels of
development of entrepreneurial attributes, as
perceived by students participating in the
2001/2002 study versus those in the 2010
study, were significant was established by
Tabl e 7
Significance of differences between time periods – SA sample
South Africa 2001/2 2010
Change
t-test
Cohen’s d Category Mean Mean Statistic p-value
A: Planning and perseverance 3.82 4.05 0.23 4.88 .000*** 0.39#
B: Persuasion and networking 3.78 3.96 0.18 4.01 .000*** 0.32#
C: Communication ability 3.42 3.60 0.18 4.02 .000*** 0.32#
D: Commitment 4.05 4.17 0.12 1.80 .071 n.a.
E: Overcoming failure 3.93 3.97 0.04 0.84 .400 n.a.
F: Self-confidence & locus control 3.76 3.91 0.15 3.50 .000*** 0.28#
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.32 3.57 0.25 5.11 .000*** 0.41#
I: High energy level 3.91 4.07 0.16 3.47 .001** 0.28#
K: Creativity and flexibility 3.61 3.89 0.28 6.07 .000*** 0.48#
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.18 3.47 0.29 5.52 .000*** 0.44#
M: Continuous learning 3.14 3.45 0.31 5.06 .000*** 0.40#
N: Financial proficiency 3.49 3.82 0.33 4.93 .000*** 0.39#
P: Business knowledge 3.55 3.90 0.35 5.95 .000*** 0.47#
n.a. = not applicable, not statistically significant; Statistical significance: * p
In this description with regards to entrepreneurial attributes of undergraduate business students.
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
333
ENTREPRENEURIAL ATTRIBUTES OF UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS
STUDENTS: A THREE COUNTRY COMPARISON REVISITED
Shelley M Farrington
Department of Business Management, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Danie JL Venter
Unit for Statistical Consultation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Christine R Schrage
Department of Marketing, University of Northern Iowa
Peter O van der Meer
Utrecht School of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Utrecht University
Accepted: July 2012
In 2001/2002 a study was undertaken to establish whether significant differences existed between the levels
of development of several entrepreneurial attributes, as perceived by undergraduate business students from
three universities in three different countries. The rationale was that, if entrepreneurial attributes could be
identified as more developed in one country than in another, solutions could be provided for developing
these attributes in others. The primary objective of this study is to investigate and compare the levels of
development of entrepreneurial attributes of undergraduate business students in the present study (2010) to
the levels of development reported by undergraduate business students in the 2001/2002 study.
Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of the measuring instrument and t-
tests to establish significant differences. Cohen’s d statistics were calculated to establish practical
significance. The findings suggest that the educational environment and entrepreneurship education policy
of the Dutch university participating in this study could provide solutions as to how entrepreneurial attributes
among students could be developed further.
Key words: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial attributes and entrepreneurship education
JEL: L260
1
Introduction and research objectives
According to Mueller (2004) and Shane (1992),
the prevalence of entrepreneurial attributes
varies across countries and cultures. Factors
contributing to these differences are culture,
level of economic development of the country,
and political-economic traditions (Mueller,
Thomas & Jaeger, 2002). Against this back-
ground in 2001/2002 Van Eeden, Louw and
Venter (2005) undertook a study with the main
objective being to report on the levels of
development of undergraduate business students’
entrepreneurial attributes (personality traits,
characteristics and skills) in three different
countries. They also wanted to establish
whether significant differences exist amongst
these countries in respect of the development
of these attributes. The reasoning was that if
entrepreneurial attributes could be identified as
more developed in one country than another,
that country could provide solutions as to how
to develop such attributes in other countries.
The results of that study (2001/2002)
reported that the order of the four most
developed entrepreneurial attributes differed
for each of the three participating countries.
Two attributes, however, Overcoming failure
and High energy level, were among the four
Abstract
334
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
most developed attributes in all three countries.
South African students and students from
the United States of America (USA) had three
of the top four most developed attributes
in common. Although for the Netherlands
the order of the least developed attributes
differed slightly, the four lowest scoring
attributes in all three countries were the same,
namely Continuous learning, Knowledge-
seeking, Initiative and responsibility, and
Communications ability. Furthermore, for nine
of the entrepreneurial attributes under
investigation, significant differences existed
between the mean scores reported by all three
countries, with the American sample scoring
significantly higher means than the other
countries on the levels of development (Van
Eeden et al., 2005).
Given the increased attention over the last
decade to the development of entrepreneurship,
entrepreneurship education and Entrepreneurship
as an academic discipline (Haase & Lauten-
schläger, 2011; Nishimura & Tristán, 2011;
Soetanto, Pribadi & Widyadana, 2010;
Herrington, Kew & Kew, 2009), the aim of
this study is to revisit the levels of develop-
ment of entrepreneurial attributes among
undergraduate business students so that
improvements to these levels, since 2001/2002,
can be established. By using the same
measuring instrument and a sample of students
from the same three universities as to the study
done in 2001/2002, it is hoped that where
improvements or changes are evident, didactical
solutions can be identified and shared among
all. Furthermore, few studies have investigated
entrepreneurial characteristics collectively to
profile individuals within countries (Tajeddini
& Mueller, 2009:7), whereas this study
attempts to do just that.
To advance entrepreneurial activity in a
country it is essential for the population to
possess a particular set of attributes (i.e.
personality traits, skills, aptitudes and desires)
(Thomas & Mueller, 2001; Krueger & Brazeal,
1994) and as the prevalence of these attributes
among a given population increases, so
too will the likelihood of entrepreneurial
behaviour and in turn entrepreneurial activity
in that country (Mueller, 2004). According to
Gurol and Atsan (2006), these entrepreneurial
attributes can be developed through educational
programmes. For example, Mahadea (2001:
193) suggests that an individual’s capacity to
take risks can be nurtured and developed
through appropriate training. According to
Chen and Lai (2010), potential entrepreneurs
should be developed while still students.
Fostering entrepreneurship among students has
become an important topic among universities,
governments and researchers (Venesaar, Kolbre
& Piliste, 2006). Through entrepreneurial
education the necessary skills and confidence
to undertake entrepreneurial activity can be
developed (Fatoki, 2010:92; Urban, Botha &
Urban, 2010:135), but it is important for
educational institutions to know which skills
and competencies to develop when educating
future entrepreneurs (Venesaar et al., 2006).
Against this background, the primary
objective of this study is to investigate and
compare the entrepreneurial attributes of
undergraduate business students in three
different countries at two different points in
time. The levels of development of entrepre-
neurial attributes of undergraduate business
students in the present study (2010) are
compared to the levels reported by under-
graduate business students in a previous study
(2001/2002). For the purpose of this study
entrepreneurial attributes refer to personality
traits, characteristics and skills commonly
associated with entrepreneurs, whereas ‘under-
graduate business students’ refers to students
completing business-related modules at
undergraduate levels. For convenience, the
three countries chosen to participate in the
study were the same as those that participated
in the 2001/2002 study, namely South Africa,
the USA and the Netherlands.
The purpose of this study was not to
develop and test hypotheses, but to establish
the extent to which entrepreneurial attributes
evident among the undergraduate business
students of 2010 have changed compared
to those of undergraduate business students
of 2001/2002. Thus, this study explores the
extent to which business students possess
more or fewer entrepreneurial attributes and
consequently entrepreneurial potential than
their counterparts in 2001/2002.
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
335
2
Entrepreneurial attributes
Numerous attributes (traits, characteristics and
skills) are associated with entrepreneurial
behaviour and entrepreneurial success (Deakins
& Freel, 2009; Ramana, Aryasri & Nagayya,
2008; Mahadea, 2001; Entrialgo, Fernandez &
Vazquez, 2000; McClleland, 1961). It is these
entrepreneurial attributes that distinguish
entrepreneurs from others, and individuals who
possess them may be predisposed or more
likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities
(Raab, Stedham & Neuner, 2005; Cromie, 2000).
In recent years there has been considerable
interest and debate over entrepreneurial character
(traits) as a predictor to engage in entrepre-
neurial activity (Tajeddini & Mueller, 2009;
Mueller, 2004). Attempts to predict entrepre-
neurial behaviour using trait approaches have
delivered poor results (Kristiansen & Indarti,
2004; Krueger, Reilley & Carsrud, 2000) and
there has been little support for a relationship
between personality traits and entrepreneurial
activity (Autio, Keeley, Klofsten, Parker & Hay,
2001). Venesaar et al. (2006) assert that it is
methodically limiting to focus only on personality
traits to explain entrepreneurial initiative.
Similarly, Kristiansen and Indarti (2004) contend
that although attributes are a factor in pre-
dicting entrepreneurial behaviour, an individual’s
attitude most likely plays a bigger role.
Tabl e 1
Literature pertaining to entrepreneurial attributes
Entrepreneurial attributes References
Planning and perseverance
Scarborough, 2011; Barringer & Ireland, 2010; Wilner, 2009; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009;
Scarborough, Wilson & Zimmerer, 2009; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Wickham, 2006;
Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Bowler, 1995.
Persuasion and networking Mugshot, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Van Vuuren, 1997.
Communication ability
Marvin & Jones, 2010; Nitikina, 2007; Barrier, 1995; Marx, Van Rooyen, Bosch &
Reynders, 1998.
Commitment
Calvasina, Calvasina & Calvasina, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Marx et al., 1998;
Siropolis, 1990.
Overcoming failure
De Angelis & Hayes, 2010; Barringer & Ireland, 2010; Pryor, Toombs, Anderson & White,
2010; Kuratko, 2009; Goodman, 1994; Burns & Dewhurst, 1993; Gerdes, 1988.
Self-confidence and locus of
control
Scarborough, 2011; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Kuratko, 2009; Scarborough et al.,
2009; Chillemi, 2010; Timmons & Spinelli, 2007; Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Cromie, 2000;
Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998; Goodman, 1994.
Risk-taking ability
Kuratko, 2009; Nieman & Nieuwenhuizen, 2009; Scarborough et al., 2009; Timmons &
Spinelli, 2009; Kaluwasha, 2009; Wickham, 2006; Cromie, 2000; Mariani, 1994; Casson,
1991; Siropolis, 1990.
Initiative and responsibility
Scarborough et al., 2009; Kreitner and Kinicki, 1998; Marx et al., 1998; Goodman, 1994;
Gerdes, 1988.
High energy level
Scarborough, 2011; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Thomas & Mueller, 1999; Marx et al., 1998;
Mariani, 1994; Goodman, 1994; Casson, 1991.
Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty
Scarborough, 2011; Scarborough et al., 2009; Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Nieman &
Bennet, 2005; Entrialgo et al., 2000; Bowler, 1995.
Creativity and flexibility
Timmons & Spinelli, 2009; Nieman & Bennet, 2005; Kreitner & Kinicki, 1998; Casson,
1991; Gerdes, 1988.
Knowledge-seeking Julienti, Bakar & Ahmad, 2010; Mushonga, 1981; Bowler, 1995.
Continuous learning Ribeiro, 2010; Ming, 2009; Hellriegel, Jackson & Slocum, 1999; Kroon & Moolman, 1991.
Financial proficiency Mankelwicz & Kitahara, 2010; Scarborough et al., 2009; Wickham, 2006; Marx et al., 1998.
Money sense
Cudmore, Patton, Ng & McClure, 2010; Burns & Dewhurst, 1993; Burch, 1986; Kroon &
Moolman, 1991.
Business knowledge
Scarborough et al., 2009; Gerry, Marques & Nogueira, 2008; Barringer & Ireland, 2008;
Marx et al., 1998, Van Vuuren, 1997.
(Source: Farrington, Venter, Neethling & Louw, 2010)
Irrespective of this criticism, the ‘attribute’
approach, focusing on personal characteristics,
has dominated attempts to understand entrepre-
neurs, and whether an individual’s characteristics
predict entrepreneurial behaviour (Tajeddini &
Mueller, 2009; Raab et al., 2005). Although
attitude towards entrepreneurship has emerged
as the most important factor influencing
intentions to become self-employed, personality
traits have an indirect influence on the readiness
336
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
of the individual to undertake such activities
(Lüthje & Franke, 2003). In recent times an
interest in personality traits and whether these
traits affect the intention to engage in
entrepreneurial activity, has resurfaced (Mueller,
2004). Furthermore, psychological characteristics
are being recognised as being of great
importance in understanding and fostering
entrepreneurship, and in assessing entrepreneurial
potential (Raab et al., 2005). Nevertheless,
many consider the identification and investiga-
tion of entrepreneurial attributes a worthless
exercise (Ramana et al., 2008; Cromie, 2000),
yet the perspective of this article supports
those that disagree.
Although several attributes (traits, charac-
teristics and skills) have been identified in the
entrepreneurship literature as being associated
with entrepreneurial behaviour and success,
the focus of this study is on the attributes
identified by Van Eeden et al. (2005). This was
necessary so that the same entrepreneurial
attributes assessed in the 2001/2002 study
could be assessed in this (2010) study. As
such, an elaborate theoretical overview of the
various entrepreneurial attributes associated
with entrepreneurs was deemed beyond the
scope of this article. The attributes investigated
in this study, together with supporting
references, are summarised in Table 1.
3
Research design and methodology
3.1 Sample and sampling method
In assessing the entrepreneurial attributes of
undergraduate business students, a positivistic
research paradigm was adopted. All under-
graduate students studying business modules at
the participating universities were given the
opportunity of voluntarily participating in the
study. The sample obtained can thus be
described as a convenience sample.
3.2 Measuring instrument and data
collection
An existing measuring instrument (Van Eeden
et al., 2005; Louw, Du Plessis, Bosch &
Venter, 1997) was used to assess the levels
of development of several entrepreneurial
attributes in the present study. Section A of the
questionnaire consisted of 104 statements
relating to the entrepreneurial attributes under
investigation. The statements were phrased
with a possible response continuum linked to a
Tabl e 2
Operational definitions of the entrepreneurial attributes
Entrepreneurial attributes Operational definition
Planning and perseverance Having goals, plans and the determination to follow through.
Persuasion and networking Having the ability to convince others and build relationships.
Communication ability Having the ability to communicate ideas to others.
Commitment Having the ability to meet commitments in a timely manner.
Overcoming failure Having the ability to overcome failure and regard it as a learning experience.
Self-confidence and locus of
control
Having belief in oneself and believing that personal actions determine success.
Risk-taking ability
Having a predisposition for taking moderate, calculated risks, providing a
reasonable chance for success.
Initiative and responsibility Having the willingness to take initiative and be responsible.
High energy level Having the ability to work long hours and stay focused.
Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty
Having the ability to live with modest to high levels of uncertainty concerning job and
career security, being able to perform different tasks simultaneously.
Creativity and flexibility
Being able to think originally and creatively while flexible enough to handle changing
or multiple circumstances.
Knowledge-seeking Being willing to seek information, ideas, expertise and the assistance of others.
Continuous learning Having the desire to expand personal knowledge and enhance level of expertise.
Financial proficiency Having the ability to understand and/or interpret financial transactions and results.
Money Sense
Recognising that money is an important factor, and having the ability to correctly
use this resource.
Business knowledge Having a basic understanding of business operations and terminology.
(Source: Farrington et al., 2010; Van Eeden et al., 2005)
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
337
Likert-style five-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Using an
existing measuring instrument required that the
existing operational definitions (Van Eeden et
al., 2005) for the various entrepreneurial
attributes under investigation be adopted. In
some instances the attributes named by Van
Eeden et al. (2005) were renamed and the
operational definitions rephrased. This was
done to more accurately describe the personality
traits, characteristics and/or skills being
measured. However, the items in the 2010
survey were exactly the same as those used in
the 2001/2002 survey. These operational
definitions are summarised in Table 2. In
Section B of the questionnaire demographic
information relating to the gender and age of
the respondent, as well as the university attended,
was requested.
As in the survey carried out in 2001/2002,
in 2010 the measuring instrument was distributed
among students at the participating universities
during a business class. Students willing to
complete the questionnaire could do so during
class time or they could return it at a later date.
4
Data analysis and empirical results
4.1 Describing the samples
In 2001/2002, 1 528 undergraduate business
students participated in the study. The
respondents included 758 South African (SA),
379 American (USA) and 391 Dutch (NED)
students. From Table 3 it is evident that for SA
and the USA the sample consisted of a
satisfactory spread between males and females.
This figure is, however, slightly skewed in the
Dutch sample, with more males than females
participating in the study. In all three countries,
the majority of participants fell into the 20-25-
year old age group.
Tabl e 3
Composition of the samples
2001/2002 Sample
SA n % USA n % NED n %
Total 758 100% Total 379 100% Total 391 100%
Male 319 42.1% Male 182 48.0% Male 247 63.2%
Female 439 57.9% Female 197 52.0% Female 144 36.8%
25 9 2.3%
2010 Sample
SA n % USA n % NED n %
Total 199 100% Total 200 100% Total 224 100%
Male 95 48.2% Male 119 60.1% Male 114 52.3%
Female 102 51.8% Female 79 39.9% Female 104 47.7%
25 13 6.0%
In 2010, 623 undergraduate business students
participated in the study. A more or less even
number of respondents from each country
participated. In contrast to the 2001/2002
sample, the distribution of males and females
in the USA was uneven, whereas in 2001/2002
this was the case in the Dutch sample. In 2010,
both the South African and the Dutch samples
contained a satisfactory number of male and
female participants. As in the 2001/2002 sample,
the majority of participants from all three
countries fell into the 20-25-year old age
group. South Africa did, however, have a
much higher number of respondents in the
under 20 age group (40%) relative to the USA
(4%) and the Netherlands (17%).
4.2 Item analysis
In order to make a comparison between the
2001/2002 results and the results of the current
338
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
study, the exact items measuring the attributes
under investigation had to be used. An
exploratory factor analysis was therefore not
undertaken and the validity of the measuring
instrument based on the 2010 results was
not established. However, Cronbach alpha
coefficients were calculated for the scales to
determine whether the observed scale scores
were reliable (internal consistency). Cronbach
alpha coefficients (CA) less than 0.50 are
deemed unacceptable, while those between
0.50 and 0.60 are regarded as sufficient, and
those above 0.70 as acceptable (Nunnally,
1978). According to Sekaran (1992), CA values
greater than 0.80 can be regarded as good.
Table 4 shows that low Cronbach alpha
coefficients (less than 0.50) were reported for
Risk-taking (G), Tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty (J), and Money sense (O). These
attributes were consequently excluded from
further analysis. Although Self-confidence and
locus of control reported a CA of below 0.50
for the American sample, it was decided to
retain this attribute because of its close proximity
to 0.50 and because of the satisfactory CA
levels reported by SA and the Netherlands.
There was thus evidence of sufficient
reliability for the measuring instrument.
Tabl e 4
Reliability of attribute scores (Cronbach alpha coefficients)
Category SA USA NED ALL
A: Planning and perseverance 0.80 0.74 0.71 0.77
B: Persuasion and networking 0.56 0.72 0.70 0.68
C: Communication ability 0.68 0.67 0.63 0.66
D: Commitment 0.66 0.56 0.71 0.67
E: Overcoming failure 0.59 0.57 0.69 0.64
F: Self-confidence and locus of control 0.50 0.47 0.59 0.52
G: Risk-taking 0.16 0.00 0.46 0.20
H: Initiative and responsibility 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.77
I: High energy level 0.58 0.53 0.58 0.61
J: Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty 0.49 0.32 0.19 0.39
K: Creativity and flexibility 0.74 0.50 0.70 0.69
L: Knowledge-seeking 0.74 0.60 0.71 0.72
M: Continuous learning 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.81
N: Financial proficiency 0.64 0.77 0.75 0.72
O: Money sense 0.20 0.24 0.44 0.38
P: Business knowledge 0.69 0.66 0.71 0.68
4.3 Descriptive analyses: The levels of
development of entrepreneurial
attributes
Respondents were requested to assess themselves
in terms of the entrepreneurial attributes defined
in Table 2. Descriptive statistics relating to
these attributes, such as the mean, standard
deviation and frequency distributions were
calculated to summarise the sample data
distribution. This was carried out for both the
individual items and the summated attribute
scores. Attribute scores were categorised as
Low (less than 2.6), Average (between 2.6 and
3.4 inclusive) and High scores (above 3.4).
These categories were established to facilitate
discussion, and were based on dividing the
scale scores so that the Low category
corresponded with options 1 and 2 of the five-
point Likert scale, the Average category with
option 3 and the High category with options 4
and 5 of the response scale. Attribute categories
that score Low on average can be considered as
underdeveloped, those scoring Average as
developed, and those that score High can be
considered well-developed. A summary of the
descriptive statistics reported for the various
attributes is reported in Annexure A (2001/
2002) and Annexure B (2010). A detailed
discussion of all the entre-preneurial attributes
under investigation is not offered in this paper.
However, attention will be given to the four
most developed attributes, as well as the four
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
339
least developed attributes.
From Table 5, it is evident that in 2001/
2002 the order of the four most developed
entrepreneurial attributes differed for each of
the three countries participating in the study. It
is interesting to note that two attributes,
Overcoming failure (E) and High energy level
(I), were among the four most developed
attributes in all three countries. South Africa
and the USA had three of the top four most
developed attributes in common, Commitment
(D), Overcoming failure (E) and High energy
level (I). The mean scored by Dutch students
for their most developed attribute, Financial
proficiency (N), was lower than the means of
any of the other four most developed attributes
of both SA and the USA. Financial proficiency
(N) was also not among the four most
developed attributes for either the SA or the
USA sample. Persuasion and networking (B),
on the other hand, was among the four most
developed attributes in the Netherlands and the
USA, but not in South Africa.
Tabl e 5
Summary of the four most developed attributes - 2001/2002 versus 2010
2001/2002 Sample
SA USA NED
D: Commitment 4.05 D: Commitment 4.32 N: Financial proficiency 3.68
E: Overcoming failure 3.93 I: High energy level 4.06 E: Overcoming failure 3.65
I: High energy level 3.94 B: Persuasion and networking 3.98 I: High energy level 3.64
A: Planning and perseverance 3.82 E: Overcoming failure 3.96 B: Persuasion and networking 3.61
2010 Sample
SA USA NED
D: Commitment 4.17 D: Commitment 4.35 D: Commitment 3.92
I: High energy level 4.07 N: Financial proficiency 4.12 F: Self-confidence and locus of control 3.77
A: Planning and perseverance 4.05 I: High energy level 3.96 K: Creativity and flexibility 3.66
E: Overcoming failure 3.97 B: Persuasion and networking 3.94 A: Planning and perseverance 3.66
Although the order was slightly different, the
2010 South African sample reported the same
four attributes as most developed as the
2001/2002 South African sample did, namely
Commitment, High energy level, Planning
and perseverance and Overcoming failure.
Commitment was once again perceived as the
most developed entrepreneurial attribute.
Three of the most developed attributes
reported by the 2001/2002 USA sample were
also reported as most developed by the 2010
USA sample, namely Commitment, High energy
level and Persuasion and networking. As in the
SA sample, Commitment was also once again
perceived as the most developed entrepre-
neurial attribute by the 2010 USA sample. In
contrast with the 2001/2002 USA sample, the
2010 sample perceived Financial proficiency
as one of the four most developed attributes,
whereas Overcoming failure was not.
Interestingly, none of the top four attributes
perceived as most developed among the
2001/2002 Dutch sample were among the top
four in the 2010 Dutch sample. As in the 2010
SA and USA sample, Commitment was also
perceived as the most developed attribute
among the 2010 Dutch sample.
The four least developed attributes in all
three countries are summarised in Table 6.
From Table 6 it is evident that, during the
2001/2002 study, three of the 13 entrepreneurial
attributes investigated obtained mean scores of
below the threshold value of 3.4 on the five-
point Likert scale for the South African
sample, namely Continuous learning (M),
Knowledge-seeking (L) and Initiative and
responsibility (H). On the other hand, in the
USA, only two of the 13 attributes obtained
mean scores of below 3.4, namely Continuous
learning (M) and Knowledge-seeking (L). In
the Netherlands four of the 13 entrepreneurial
attributes investigated obtained mean scores of
below the threshold value of 3.4, namely
Knowledge-seeking (L), Continuous learning
(M), Initiative and responsibility (H), and
Communication ability (C). These observations
340
SAJEMS NS 15 (2012) No 4
suggest that the attributes that scored below the
threshold of 3.4 were regarded by the
respondents as not being well-developed.
Although the order differed slightly for the
Netherlands with regard to the least developed
attributes, the four lowest scoring attributes in
all three countries were the same, namely
Continuous learning (M), Knowledge-seeking
(L), Initiative and responsibility (H), and
Communication ability (C).
Tabl e 6
Summary of the four least developed attributes - 2001/2002 versus 2010
2001/2002 Sample
SA USA NED
M: Continuous learning 3.14 M: Continuous learning 2.95 L: Knowledge-seeking 2.74
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.18 L: Knowledge-seeking 3.19 M: Continuous learning 2.96
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.32 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.49 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.08
C: Communication ability 3.42 C: Communication ability 3.54 C: Communication ability 3.22
2010 Sample
SA USA NED
M: Continuous learning 3.45 M: Continuous learning 2.81 L: Knowledge-seeking 2.90
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.47 L: Knowledge-seeking 3.13 M: Continuous learning 3.16
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.57 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.41 H: Initiative and responsibility 3.37
C: Communication ability 3.60 C: Communication ability 3.49 C: Communication ability 3.48
Interestingly, the four attributes perceived as
least developed by the 2010 samples from all
three countries were exactly the same and in
the same order as perceived by the 2001/2002
samples. None of these attributes were
reported as less than the threshold value of 3.4
for the South African 2010 sample, whereas
two attributes were reported as less than the
threshold value of 3.4 for the American sample
and three for the Dutch sample.
4.4 Significant differences between
development of entrepreneurial
attributes between 2001/2002
and 2010
The extent to which differences in levels of
development of entrepreneurial attributes, as
perceived by students participating in the
2001/2002 study versus those in the 2010
study, were significant was established by
Tabl e 7
Significance of differences between time periods – SA sample
South Africa 2001/2 2010
Change
t-test
Cohen’s d Category Mean Mean Statistic p-value
A: Planning and perseverance 3.82 4.05 0.23 4.88 .000*** 0.39#
B: Persuasion and networking 3.78 3.96 0.18 4.01 .000*** 0.32#
C: Communication ability 3.42 3.60 0.18 4.02 .000*** 0.32#
D: Commitment 4.05 4.17 0.12 1.80 .071 n.a.
E: Overcoming failure 3.93 3.97 0.04 0.84 .400 n.a.
F: Self-confidence & locus control 3.76 3.91 0.15 3.50 .000*** 0.28#
H: Initiative and responsibility 3.32 3.57 0.25 5.11 .000*** 0.41#
I: High energy level 3.91 4.07 0.16 3.47 .001** 0.28#
K: Creativity and flexibility 3.61 3.89 0.28 6.07 .000*** 0.48#
L: Knowledge-seeking 3.18 3.47 0.29 5.52 .000*** 0.44#
M: Continuous learning 3.14 3.45 0.31 5.06 .000*** 0.40#
N: Financial proficiency 3.49 3.82 0.33 4.93 .000*** 0.39#
P: Business knowledge 3.55 3.90 0.35 5.95 .000*** 0.47#
n.a. = not applicable, not statistically significant; Statistical significance: * p