The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intention

8/10/2019 The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intention

1/25

The Inuence of Personality Traits

and Demographic Factors on SocialEntrepreneurship Start Up Intentions Joyce Koe Hwee Nga

Gomathi Shamuganathan

ABSTRACT. The sheer impact of the recent globalfinancial turmoil and scandals (such as Enron andWorldCom) has demonstrated that unbridled commercialentrepreneurs who are allowed to pursue their short-termopportunities regardless of the consequences has led to amassive depreciation of the wealth of nations, sociallivelihood and environmental degradation. This articlesuggests that the time has come for entrepreneurs to adopta more integrative view of business that blends economic,social and environmental values. Social entrepreneurspresent such a proposition through their deep commit-ment towards the social vision, appreciation of sustainablepractices, innovativeness, ability to build social networksand also generate viable financial returns. It could beexpected that social entrepreneurs often possess certaindistinct personality characteristics which define their

behaviours/actions. Personality traits are partly developedby innate nurturing, socialization and education. Thesetacit traits are also formed values/beliefs held and play animportant role in driving social entrepreneurial deci-sion making. Thus, personality traits may influence theintentions and the manner in which the individual acts.We hold that if social entrepreneurship is to be effectiveand impactful, business and management education canfacilitate the development of these critical personalitytraits. Thus, this study primes at determining the per-sonality traits that influence social entrepreneurs start-upintentions. It also reinforces the findings that personality

traits do influence entrepreneurship in general. This studyexamines the influence of the Big Five personality traitson social entrepreneurship dimensions. The findingsreveal that agreeableness positively influences all dimen-sions of social entrepreneurship, whereas openness exertsa positive influence on social vision, innovation andfinancial returns. Methodologically, this study developsvalid and reliable scales for social entrepreneurship andverifies the adopted Big Five personality measure of Schmit et al. (Pers Psychol 53 :153193, 2000) using theve-point Likert scale. The implication of this study is

that element of appreciation of social responsibility, sus-tainability and character development needs to be inte-grated within the business education curriculum tosupport social entrepreneurs in realizing genuine valueand impact to the causes and communities they serve.Future business leaders also need to be equipped withentrepreneurship skills, while exuding independent andreective thinking in the pursuit life-long learning. Theoriginality of this study lies in its focus on personality traitson social rather than commercial entrepreneurship. It ishoped that the ndings will trigger a paradigm shift to-wards greater social entrepreneurship through educationby nurturing sustainable development values in futurebusiness graduates.

KEY WORDS: social entrepreneurship, personality traits,

social responsibility, entrepreneurship education

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is often dened as the opportunisticpursuit of economic wealth via creative initiatives of the individual operating within an uncertain envi-ronment constrained by limited tangible resources(Austin et al., 2006; Mitchell et al., 2002). The fram-

ing of entrepreneurship within economic theoryassumes the rationalistic model of man. Economicrationale neglects the idiosyncratic human capabilitiesthat promote exibility and use of social discretionin deriving practical innovative solutions (Baumol,1968 ; Loasby, 2007). Economic theory also ignoresthe differences in human values, capabilitiesandpower of the human will (Loasby, 2007). Past researchershave mostly focussed on commercial entrepreneur-ship with an emphasis of nancial returns over social

Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 95:259282 Springer 2010DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8


2/25

returns. Their reliance on the invisible hand of thefree-market system has placed the responsibility of safeguarding the public and social goods within theambit of governments. The bureaucratic, politicaland inexible nature of governments, however, haveoften rendered implementation of social policiesineffective (Dees, 2007). As a result, social entrepre-neurs have often stepped to meet these gaps wheregovernments have failed by emphasizing social valueabove nancial returns (Haughton, 2008). The sheer impact of the recent global nancial turmoil andscandals (such as Enron and WorldCom) has alsodemonstrated that commercial entrepreneurs who arelet free to pursue their short-term opportunitiesregardless of the consequences has led to a massive

depreciationof thewealthof nations, social livelihoodand environmental degradation. This article suggeststhat the time has come for entrepreneurs to adopt amore integrative view of business that blends eco-nomic, social and environmental values. Social entre-preneurs also adopt a wider viewpoint on valuecreation compared to their commercial counterparts.They uphold the synergistic derivation of social,economic and environmental values without over-emphasis on shareholders wealth maximization(Kurucz et al., 2008).

Personality traits have been posited in explainingthe industrious behaviours and agile actions of socialentrepreneurs (Llewellyn and Wilson, 2003). Socialentrepreneurs are often distinguished by their abilityto envisage, engage, enable and enact transforma-tional change efciently in the face of scarceresources, risks and diverse contexts (Thompson,2002 ; Thompson et al., 2000). However, the inu-ence that personality traits play in dening socialentrepreneurs has remained controversial and under-explored and under-researched.

This article endeavours to investigate the inuence

of the Big Five personality trait dimensions com-prising openness, agreeableness, neuroticism andconscientiousness on social entrepreneurship. In lightof the ndings that the inuence of personality traits isthe highest in determining business start-up inten-tions in budding entrepreneurs, a sample of collegeand undergraduates has been employed (Frank et al.,2007 ). In addition, the sample consisting of businessand management students from a private higher education institution (HEI) has also been selected inview of the implications of this study on the business

education curriculum. The quantitative surveymethod is adopted as part of an initial investigation toobtain the macro view concerning the inuencebetween personality traits and social entrepreneurshipbased on the conceptual framework developed for this study (Figure 1). Similar studies on commercialentrepreneurship have also adopted such quantitativesurvey methods (Table I). Implications are thenderived by employing theoretical triangulation indrawing inferences from the ndings of the study.The authors adopt a technical and situational para-digm stance which recognizes that quantitative andqualitative methods are interconnected but havedistinctive epistemological and ontological assump-tions (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Thus, while quanti-

tative and qualitative methods are not compatiblewithin the same phase of this study, qualitativemethods can be employed to draw theoretical infer-ences and/or applied within different study situationsand contexts (Flick, 2009; Miles and Huberman,1994 ).

As such, this article starts by rst reviewing theunderpinning literature concerning the concept of social entrepreneurship and the Big Five model of personality traits (Costa and McCrae, 1992 cited inLlewellyn and Wilson, 2003) to understand their interconnections that form the basis for the devel-opment of the conceptual framework and hypoth-eses of this study. Second, measurement scales for social entrepreneurship dimensions, namely sustain-ability, vision, networking and returns orientationare developed from concepts derived from extantliterature. The validity and reliability of socialentrepreneurship dimensions as well as the Big Fivepersonality trait measurement adapted from Schmitet al. (2000 ) are determined using Exploratory Fac-tor Analysis (EFA) and Cronbachs a , respectively.Third, hypotheses testing are conducted using

the Multiple Linear Regression to substantiate theresearch questions. The study found that agreeable-ness positively inuences all dimensions of socialentrepreneurship, whereas openness exerts a positiveinuence on social vision, innovation and nancialreturns. These ndings have important implicationson the design of business education curriculumparticularly in developing personality traits and val-ues within future business leaders/entrepreneurs thatwill enable them to be transformative in integratingsocial, environmental and economic values.

260 Joyce Koe Hwee Nga and Gomathi Shamuganathan


3/25

We maintain that if social entrepreneurship is tobe effective and impactful, business and managementeducation can facilitate the development of thesecritical personality traits. Thus, this study primes atdetermining the personality traits that inuence

social entrepreneurs start-up intentions. It also aimsto reinforce the ndings that personality traits doinuence entrepreneurship in general.

Theoretical background

This section provides the theoretical underpinningsurrounding the broad concepts of entrepreneurshipand personality traits. It will then streamline the focusof this study to social entrepreneurship and Big Fivepersonality traits and elaborate on their respective

dimensions. The social entrepreneurship dimensionscovered are social vision, sustainability, social net-works, innovation and nancial returns. The Big Fivepersonality traits comprises openness, extroversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness and neuroticism.

Overview of the eld of entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is a multi-dimensional disciplinewith roots spanning the elds of economics,

psychology, sociology and strategic management(Mitchell et al., 2002). Entrepreneurial motivationrepresents the blending of social interaction, technicalcompetence and emotional zeal of the individual(Goss, 2008). The denition of entrepreneurship

remains broad. In general, the evolving denition of entrepreneurship involves individual(s) who are dri-ven to act on opportunities and/or environmentalcatalysts by employing innovative processes in the faceof limited resources (Handy et al., 2007; Mitchellet al., 2002; Schaper and Volery, 2004). Past researchpertaining to entrepreneurship can be classied intothree major genres, namely the functional, personalityand behavioural approaches (Cope, 2005). Thefunctional approach is linked to rational outcomeswithin economic theory. The personality approachconcerns the characteristics of individual psychologi-cal traits that dene an entrepreneur. Finally, thebehavioural approach derives from strategic manage-ment and involves theprocess of howan entrepreneur perceives and acts on opportunities presented.

This study is positioned from the personalityapproach. Personality traits are predictable charac-teristics of individual behaviour which assist inexplaining the differences of individual actions insimilar situations (Llewellyn and Wilson, 2003). Weadopt the stance that individual personality of social

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

261The Inuence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors


4/25

T A B L E I

P r e v i o u s s t u

d i e s o n e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p e m p l o y i n g s t u

d e n t s a m p l e s

T y p e

S a m p l e s i z e

M a t l a y

( 2 0 0 8 )

Q u a l i t a t i v e / l o n -

g i t u d i n a l

6 4

S t u d y c o n d u c t e d o v e r 1 0 y e a r s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f u n

d e r g r a

d u a t e s

i n s e

l e c t i n g e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p a s a c a r e e r p a t h . F o u n d p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p e d u c a t i o n a n

d e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p c a r e e r a s p i r a t i o n

S c h m i t t - R o d e r m u n

d

( 2 0 0 4 )

Q u a n t i t a t i v e /

c r o s s - s e c t i o n a

l

3 2 0 C o l

l e g e a n

d n o n - c o l

l e g e

s t u d e n t s

T h e s t u

d y f o u n

d t h a t e a r l y p a r e n t a l m o d e l l i n g a n

d p e r s o n a

l i t y t r a i t s i n u e n c e

d

e n t r e p r e n e u r i a

l c o m p e t e n c e i n a d o l e s c e n c e

R a p o s o e t a l .

( 2 0 0 8 )



l

3 1 6 S t u d e n t s

T h e s t u

d y i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e n t r e p r e n e u r i a

l p r o

l e o f u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . T h e

n d i n g s s

h o w t h a t t h e p r o m i n e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e t h e

i n d e p e n

d e n t s a n

d

c o n

d e n t s . T h e

c o n

d e n t s

d i s p

l a y e d g r e a t e r l e a

d e r s h i p , s e l f - b e

l i e f a n d

a m b i t i o n c o n v e r t i n g t o a g r e a t e r p r o p e n s i t y t o u n

d e r t a

k e e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p

F r a n

k e t a l .

( 2 0 0 7 )

Q u a n t i t a t i v e

4 1 7 ( 1 8 y e a r o l

d s )

T h e s t u

d y f o u n

d t h a t e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l p e r s o n a

l i t y t r a i t s ( n e e

d f o r a c

h i e v e m e n t ,

l o c u s o

f c o n t r o l a n d r i s

k p r o p e n s i t y ) i n u e n c e w a s

h i g h e s t a m o n g s c

h o o l a n

d

u n i v e r s i t y s t u

d e n t s w

h o d i s p l a y e d

b u s i n e s s s t a r t - u p i n t e n t i o n s . H o w e v e r , p e r -

s o n a

l i t y t r a i t s w e r e n o t a b l e t o p r e d i c t l o n g - t e r m v e n t u r e s u c c e s s

7 7 7 ( U n i v e r s i t y s t u

d e n t s )

3 1 4 ( B u s i n e s s f o u n d e r s

)

1 1 6 9 ( S u c c e s s f u l

e n t r e p r e n e u r s )

W i l s o n e t a l .

( 2 0 0 7 )



l

4 , 2 9 2 M i d d l e /

h i g h s c h o o

l

s t u d e n t s a n d 1 , 1 3 2 M B A

s t u d e n t s

T h e s t u

d y i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r e l a t i o n s

h i p

b e t w e e n g e n d e r , e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p s e

l f -

e f c a c y a n

d c a r e e r i n t e n t i o n s . F e m a l e s h a v e b e e n

f o u n

d t o g e n e r a l

l y l o w e r s e

l f -

e f c a c y a n

d e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l c a r e e r i n t e n t i o n s

C r a n t

( 1 9 9 6 )

Q u a n t i t a t i v e

1 8 1 S t u d e n t s

T h e s t u

d y f o u n

d t h a t p r o a c t i v e p e r s o n a

l i t y , g e n d e r , e

d u c a t i o n l e v e

l a n d

e n t r e p r e n e u r i a

l p a r e n t a g e a r e i m p o r t a n t p r e d i c t o r s t

h a t h a v e a s i g n i

c a n t

p o s i t i v e i n u e n c e o n e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l i n t e n t i o n s

A b d M o e n e t a l .

( 2 0 0 4 ) Q u a n t i t a t i v e /


l

N o t s t a t e d

T h e M a l a y s i a n s t u

d y f o u n d t h a t a g e , g e n d e r , r a c e a n

d r e

l i g i o n d i

d n o t e x e r t a

s i g n i

c a n t i n u e n c e o n e n t r e p r e n e u r i a

l a t t i t u d e a m o n g y o u t

h s a t I n s t i t u t e

K e m a h i r a n B e l i a N e g a r a . A r t s m a j o r s t u d e n t s w e r e

f o u n

d t o b e m o r e e n t r e -

p r e n e u r i a

l c o m p a r e

d t o o t h e r m a j o r s



5/25


6/25

meeting gaps in social needs where governments andprivate enterprises lag (London, 2008). Traumaticevents experienced in early childhood often act ascatalysts in the development of beliefs of socialentrepreneurs (Barendsen and Gardner, 2004).Combined with an enduring commitment, socialentrepreneurs are not easily swayed by the pendulumof market forces in the quest towards social valuecreation.

Sustainability (STB). Sustainability is often triggeredby an engaged state of social and moral critical con-sciousness that businesses and individuals exist as partof an interconnected inter-generational, enduringglobal ecosystem (Cartwright and Craig, 2006;

Mustakova-Possardt, 1998; Savitz and Weber, 2006).Businesses can no longer elude that they are themajor contributors towards social and environmentaldegradations. As such, they need to lead changethrough restorative economic practices (Hawken,1992 ). Since biological resources are not substitutableas capital and labour are, businesses need to embracenatural capitalism whereby value is assessed by theintegrated ecological and economical impacts (Lovinset al., 2007). This study advances the view that sus-tainable development via natural capitalism practicesenhances the quality of life of society.

Sustainability complements the conventional eco-nomic wisdom with the commitment to do the rightthing in improving the quality of human life byincluding the Earth and society as legitimate stake-holders (Shrivasta, 2000 in Cartwright and Craig,2006 ; Hawken, 1992). As such, strategies towardssustainability are deeply entrenched within the value,culture and vision of the entrepreneur and/or orga-nization as they are affectively and normativelygrounded (Anderson, 1998; Keogh and Polonsky,1998 ). By embracing sustainability, social entrepre-

neurs are determined to drive social change byserving the needs of greater numbers of people(s)including the bottom of the pyramid market whichmay not be feasible for commercial entrepreneurs andgovernments (Hart, 2005). Social value creationbecomes an essential, integral component of share-holder wealth maximization to social entrepreneurs.

The quest towards sustainability requires congru-ency in thestrategicmanagement of theenvironment,values and resources (Thompson, 1998). The dex-terity of the entrepreneur in properly aligning

opportunities, vision and culture within the socialnetworks and actual available capabilities/compe-tencies resources promotes organizational learningthat stimulates desire for social change. They thenorchestrate further transformational change throughstewardship in harmonizing the legitimate eco-nomic, social and environmental concerns (Molteni,2006 ; Robins, 2006). Sustainability practices adoptentrenched responsibility and unity of purpose in judgements aimed at promoting stakeholder account-ability aimed at deriving triple bottom line perfor-mance (Mort et al., 2003).

In contrast with corporate philanthropy whichoften involves targeted shorter term giving linked torms commercial interests, reciprocal strategic eco-

nomic returns and reputational benets, socialentrepreneurship strives at providing solutions thatenhances social value through long-term sustenanceof quality of life and ecological balance (Leisinger,2007 ; Machan, 1999). Social entrepreneurs empha-size human life as part of an interdependent, livingecosystem. As such, any action undertaken needs tobe guided by authentic values, principles and com-mitment to preserve and protect the long-term sur-vival and rights of the community and environment.By doing so, social entrepreneurs seek to createenduring social value and to promote the bettermentof humankind through the dedication towards con-tinuous, responsible innovations (Machan, 1999).

Social networks (SN). Social capital theory suggeststhat social capital exist in three dimensions, namelystructural, relational and cognitive (Nahapiet andGhoshal, 1998). This study holds that social net-works (formal and/or informal) form an invaluableresource to social entrepreneurs for advice, humanresources, innovative ideas/capabilities, nancial andemotional support (Greve and Salaff, 2003; Nahapiet

and Ghoshal, 1998).From the structural perspective, social networksprovide a system whereby the mission of theentrepreneur is embedded and disseminated. Net-work ties enable a rich sharing of information andknowledge to create more innovative and relevantsolutions to service the benet of the wider com-munity (Chen and Wang, 2008; Nahapiet andGhoshal, 1998; Shaw and Carter, 2007; Thompsonand Doherty, 2006). Personal social network tiesestablished also bridges the information asymmetry



7/25

between the entrepreneur and the potential investors(Shane and Cable, 2002).

The relational perspective posits that active par-ticipation in networks induces collective learningand fosters better understanding of social communitynorms. Trust is developed through a dynamic pro-cess of open communication and renegotiationsbetween stakeholders. Hence, credibility of socialendeavours is enhanced through the identication of t between opportunities and the social need (Shawand Carter, 2007). Trust has been found to moderatethe relationship between social networking andinnovation (Chen and Wang, 2008). Social net-works evolve through the motivation, planning andcontracting stages (Greve and Salaff, 2003). The

highest level of communication occurs at the plan-ning phase. At the initial stages, networking is mostlyassociated with parties closest to the entrepreneur.This sets the momentum for longer term workingrelationships that allows time for mutual assessmentof personal motivations and commitments of par-ticipants resulting in the development of social rep-utational capital. Social entrepreneurs often rely onpersonal contacts and past experience to build sup-port for their mission and risk losing their credibilityif their venture fails (Shaw and Carter, 2007).Reputation plays an important mediating role andconstitutes a non-substitutable social resource incontracting, networking and the survival of thesocial enterprise (Schaper and Volery, 2004, pp. 64 65; Shane and Cable, 2002).

Finally, the cognitive dimension concerns thederivation of shared meanings in particular contexts(London, 2008; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Trustand credibility deepens as the shared meanings areentrenched within tacit personal values and beliefsfurther strengthening bonds of the network partici-pants (De Carolis and Saparito, 2006). The unity

towards a common purpose achieved through localenterprise networks comprising entrepreneurs, inves-tors, community, NGOs and governments indeveloping countries has been found to facilitate thegeneration of sustainable outcomes (Wheeler et al.,2005 ). The proximity to the context also allowsthese networks to develop native capabilities, coor-dinate resources and share knowledge therebymaximizing their long-term impact in enhancing thequality of life and economic development. Nativecapabilities also promote practical local solutions to

real problems further developing trust and socialcapital. This forms an important aspect of competi-tive advantage for social entrepreneurs (Hart andLondon, 2005).

Innovation (INV). Encumbered by uncertainty, en-dowed with limited resources and driven by anunwavering passion to be an agent of social change,social entrepreneurs need to be agile and creative inshaping collective social solutions (Dees, 2001;Elkington and Hartigan, 2008, pp. 85133; Shawand Carter, 2007). Social innovation unlocks valueby creating a platform for sustainable solutionsthrough a synergistic combination of capabilities,products, processes and technology (Auersweld,

2009 ; Phills et al., 2008). The motivation to be anagent of social change may go against the grain of rational and traditional economic thoughts and poseas a force for creative destruction to unlock value(Hart, 2005; Jayasinghe et al., 2008; Schumpeter,1971 cited in Pittaway, 2005).

Innovative capabilities are enhanced as individualsdevelop personal mastery throughout the networkingprocess involving combination and exchange of intellectual and social capital (Littunen, 2000;Nahapiet and Ghoshal. 1998). From the socialentrepreneurs perspective, this includes exploringways to penetrate unconventional bottom of thepyramid markets.These markets havebeenneglectedby commercial entrepreneurs due to the perceivedhigh risk that do not justify economic returns (Hart,2005 ). Innovative processes and technologies areemployedby socialentrepreneurs to createa socialandstrategic t for products and services to tap into theseunderdeveloped, unchartered markets (Hart andChristensen, 1992; Pralahad 2006, pp. 2527). Amore sustainable socio-economic development isachieved as these innovative initiatives gradually

empower theseunderprivileged markets to participatein the activities of mainstream markets.

Financial returns (FR). The nancial perspectiveoriginates from the demand side view which holdsthat entrepreneurs need to seize opportunities andcompete for scarce resources to generate economicreturns. The economic perspective upholds theshareholder primacy viewpoint whereby the role of the entrepreneur as an agent to the principal islimited to the maximization of nancial wealth.



8/25

Outcomes are quantiable in terms of protabilitymetrics. The invisible hand of free markets is as-sumed to be able to produce an efcient outcomeand absolves the responsibility of the entrepreneur from addressing social outcomes (Friedman, 2004 inSchaefer, 2008). In a less than perfect reality, thepublic good problem is not efciently addressed by asingle rm and often left to governments for reso-lution.

Proponents of the economic view adopt the viewthat human nature is rational and self-interested.They discount the individual ability to initiate freewill and exercise choice (Baumol, 1968; Machan,1999 ). The assumption of a perfectly laissez-faireeconomy capable of producing a morally justiable

outcome is far reaching. The rationale of mecha-nistic individuals devoid of morals, emotions andpractical reasoning is a fallacy. As such, a purelyeconomic view would exclude emphasis on subjective, intangible non-nancial (for example socialand environmental) and moral outcomes of socialresponsibility (Schaefer, 2008).

In practice, social entrepreneurship inclines to-wards stakeholder theory that seeks to bridge the gapin the provision of the public good where govern-ments are unable to and/or where the commercialviability dees capabilities of corporations (Haugh-ton, 2008). Social entrepreneurship manifests in acontinuum of business models ranging from lever-aged non-prot ventures, hybrid ventures to socialbusinesses (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008; Haugh-ton, 2008). Leveraged non-prots often rely onavailability of private funding in serving a basichuman need driven by an enlightened social vision.Hybrid ventures partially recover their costs throughprots generated from goods and services (Pralahad,2006 ). Hybrid ventures may also rely on grants fromgovernments and corporations. The pricing mecha-

nism adopted may be based on an equitable pay as you can afford system, for example, in the case of Aravind Eye Hospital, India. In contrast, socialbusinesses are set up as for prot ventures. However,they differ from commercial ventures in that theyemphasize social returns as well as nancial returns.Shareholders may receive a return of their initialinvestment but are not paid dividends (Yunus, 2007,pp. 2140). Prots are reinvested in the business toserve social policy initiatives (Gunn et al., 2008), for example, micro-nancing by Grameen Bank.

Social entrepreneurs pursue a variety of socialcauses requiring high levels of willpower, innova-tiveness, social interaction and sanctioning (Goss,2005 , 2008; Rhee and White, 2007). This studyadopts the stand that personality traits play animportant role in moulding the individuals per-ceptions and behaviours which are instrumental indriving the social mission and legitimacy of theenterprise. The following section discusses the BigFive personality traits factors that entrepreneurs arelikely to possess.

Personality traits

Personality traits are enduring, predictable charac-teristics of individual behaviour that explain differ-ences in individual actions in similar situations(Llewellyn and Wilson, 2003). Personality traits maybe inuenced by the unique, tacit, subjective per-sonal knowledge, values/beliefs, perception andexperiences of the individual that are not easilyreplicated (Kor et al., 2007). Personality traits of anindividual may serve as a catalyst which inuencesthe risk perception of entrepreneurs in decisionmaking (Chaucin et al., 2007; Naffziger et al., 1994;Rauch and Frese, 2007). Proactive personality havebeen found to be a signicant predictor especially of entrepreneurial start-up intentions, but the inuencereduces in time as the venture maturates (Crant,1996 ; Frank et al., 2007). Entrepreneurs have beenfound to possess higher scores of tolerance for ambiguity, internal locus of control, proactive per-sonality, self-efcacy and need for achievementcompared with non-entrepreneurs in explainingbusiness success (Cools and Van Den Broeck, 2008;Crant, 1996; DIntino et al., 2007; Ong and Ismail,2008 ; Rauch and Frese, 2007). Most studies

involving the relationship between personality traitson entrepreneurship and in organizational settings yielded inconclusive ndings (Abu Elanain, 2008;Ong and Ismail, 2008). This study attempts to ll thelacuna in studies investigating the inuence of theBig Five personality trait dimensions on socialentrepreneurship (Costa and McCrae, 1992 cited inLlewellyn and Wilson, 2003). The following sectiondiscusses the Big Five traits, namely openness,extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness andneuroticism.



9/25

Openness (OPEN)Openness is manifested in a liberal value systemwhere individual intellectual curiosity and afnitytowards novelty of new experiences are welcomed(McCrae and Costa, 1986 cited in Abu Elanain,2008 ). Individuals who are high on the opennessdimension are not afraid of new challenges, versatile,imaginative and often display high degree of crea-tivity (Yong, 2007, pp. 2930; Llewellyn and Wil-son, 2003). However, they may appear to beimpulsive, overly inquisitive and may be easily boredwith status quo. As such, they are often misunder-stood by others for their individualistic nature.Entrepreneurs have been found to have greater openness compared to administrative personnel due

to their need to be creative in the utilization of scarce resources (Nordvik and Brovold, 1998).Openness has also been found to positively inuencecitizenship behaviour (Abu Elanain, 2008). How-ever, openness is found to be negatively relatedto the long-term sustainability of a business venture(Ciavarella et al., 2004). As social entrepreneurshipis a relatively new eld that may require individualsto go against conventional economic wisdom tocreate social value, the following hypotheses areposited:

H 1( a ): OPEN have a positive inuence on the SVdimension of social entrepreneurship(SOC_ENT).

H 1( b ): OPEN have a positive inuence on the INVdimension of SOC_ENT.

H 1( c ): OPEN have an inuence on the FR dimensionof SOC_ENT.

Extroversion (EXTROV)Extroverted individuals are exemplied by sociable,outgoing, positive attitude and assertive characteris-tics (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Llewellyn and Wilson,

2003 ; Moon et al., 2008; Yong, 2007, p. 8). Extro-version contributes towards the proactive personalityrequired in fuelling the instinct and driving thecharismatic vision of the social entrepreneur (Crant,1996 ). Social entrepreneurs are expected to possessextroversion as they have to be willing and able tocommunicate well with a myriad of stakeholders.Extroversion also creates a positive perceived locus of control as they are driven to full their risk-takingpropensity and need for achievement (McCarthy,

2003 ). Entrepreneurs have been found to possesshigher extroversion than administrative workers(Nordvik and Brovold, 1998), and this assertivenesspositively inuences entrepreneurial success (Cali-endo and Kritikos, 2008). However, a detailedanalysis of extroversion characteristics comprisingreward sensitivity, sociability and positive emotionswas found to off-set one another (Ciavarella et al.,2004 ; Moon et al., 2008; Zhao and Seibert, 2006).This may explain why many studies investigating theoverall effect of extroversion on citizenship behav-iour and entrepreneurship remain inconclusive. Associal entrepreneurs are perceived to be led by their strong, albeit unreasonable drive to achieve socialmission through social businesses, the following

hypotheses are posited:H 2( a ): EXTROV has a positive inuence on the SV

dimension of SOC_ENT.H 2( b ): EXTROV has an inuence on the STB

dimension of SOC_ENT.H 2( c ): EXTROV has an inuence on FR dimension of

SOC_ENT.

Agreeableness (AGREE)Agreeableness concerns the ability to foster socialconsensus while upholding mutual understandingand trust (Llewellyn and Wilson, 2003; Yong, 2007,p. 30). Agreeableness in interpersonal relationshipsincludes the ability to be good listeners, patient,empathize and promoting harmony in social inter-actions (Caliendo and Kritikos, 2008). Trusting andco-operative environments establish good rapport inalliances which facilitates exchange of technologiesand raising capital for growth (Ciavarella et al., 2004).Nonetheless, overly agreeable individual character-istics may lead to compromise to gain acceptance of others and lower risk-taking propensity for unpop-ular ventures. The following hypotheses are posited.

H 3( a ): AGREE has a positive inuence on the SVdimension of SOC_ENT.

H 3( b ): AGREE has an inuence on the INV dimensionof SOC_ENT.

H 3( c ): AGREE has an inuence on the SN dimensionof SOC_ENT.

H 3( d ): AGREE has an inuence on the STB dimensionof SOC_ENT.;

H 3( e ): AGREE has an inuence on FR dimension of SOC_ENT.



10/25

Conscientiousness (CONSC)The conscientious trait relates to an individualsmeticulousness, conformance with rules/proceduresand the incessant obsession in maintaining highstandards of performance (Llewellyn and Wilson,2003 ; Yong, 2007, p. 32). Conscientious individualsare driven by a strong sense of responsibility,industriousness and need for achievement whichpromotes their dependability at work (Ciavarellaet al., 2004). Need for achievement has been foundto positively related to competitive advantage of therm (Ong and Ismail, 2008). Conscientiousness hasalso been positively linked to long-term survival of abusiness venture (Ciavarella et al., 2004). As such thefollowing hypotheses are posited.

H 4( a ): CONSC has an inuence on the STB dimensionof SOC_ENT.

H 4( b ): CONSC has an inuence on FR dimension of SOC_ENT.

Neuroticism (NEURO)Neuroticism is the degree of emotional stability of the individual (Yong, 2007, p. 9; Llewellyn andWilson, 2003). Individuals who are highly neuroticoften display mood swings, impulsiveness, self-con-sciousness, low self-esteem and depression (Costaand McCrae, 1992 cited in Zhao and Seibert, 2006).In contrast, entrepreneurs who are constantly chal-lenged by diversity of complex situations involvingmanagement of scarce resources in tandem withpressures of illuminating legitimacy in the face of pressures from stakeholders need to exhibit highdegree of optimism and emotional intelligence(Crane and Crane, 2007; DIntino et al., 2007). Assuch, low neuroticism scores are expected. Thus, thefollowing hypotheses are posited:

H 5( a ): NEURO has an inuence on the STB dimen-sion of SOC_ENT.

H 5( b ): NEURO has an inuence on the SN dimensionof SOC_ENT.

H 5( c ): NEURO has an inuence on the INV dimen-sion of SOC_ENT.

H 5( d ): NEURO has an inuence on FR dimension of SOC_ENT.

Social desirability bias

Social desirability bias (SDB) concerns the tendency of individuals to over-claim or present themselves in a

favourable manner (King and Brunner, 2000). SDB isespecially prevalent in self-report measures tappinginto values and perceptions that are considered sociallysensitive and/or undesirable research. While elimi-nating SDB in total is not possible, there are methodsto reduce the occurrence (Randall and Fernandes,1991 ). Measures include phrasing questions in a non-threatening manner using familiar terms, obtainingprior informed consent and through assurance of anonymity (Andanda, 2005; Homan, 2001; Vinten,1997 ). In addition, wording of questions seeking athird party view may encourage individuals todivulge their view more freely behind the facade of impersonality. Nonetheless, SDB in desirable valuesincrease rather than contaminate the validity of re-

sponses (Sarros et al., 2006 ). This is because individualsmay feel greater ease and less threatened to accentuatepositive traits or aspects of actions. This study has ad-dressed and taken the necessary precautions to reduceSDB. The StrahanGerbasi Social Desirability Scale(1972 cited in Thompson and Phua, 2005) has beenincluded to assess SDB.

The conceptual framework of this study toinvestigate the inuence of the Big Five personalityfactors on social entrepreneurship dimensions isillustrated in Figure 1.

Methodology

The authors adopt a technical and situational para-digm stance which recognizes that quantitative andqualitative methods are interconnected but havedistinctive epistemological and ontological assump-tions (Bryman and Bell, 2007). As such quantitativeand qualitative methods are not compatible withinthe same phase of this study. However, qualitativemethods can complement quantitative ndings by

drawing of theoretical inferences and/or appliedwithin different study situations and contexts infuture studies (Flick, 2009; Miles and Huberman,1994 ).

This section describes the methodology used in themain study which adopts the quantitative surveymethod as part of an initial empirical investigation toobtain the macro view concerning the inuencebetween personality traits and social entrepreneurship.The hypotheses within the conceptual frameworkdeveloped for this study (Figure 1) were derived from



11/25

review of extant literature in the previous section.Similar studies on commercial entrepreneurship havealso often adopted thequantitative methodology to testhypotheses triangulated from extant literature and/or previous qualitative study propositions (Table I).

The following section also describes the samplingdesign, measurement assessment and methods usedfor data analysis. The section starts by elucidating whya sample of students is selected as well as elaborates onthe scales used for the quantitative survey conducted.It then elaborates on the empirical tests used to test thehypotheses developed for this study based on theconceptual framework in Figure 1 above. The sta-tistical package used for this study was SPSS 16.

Sampling design

As the purpose of the study is to investigate thetheoretical rather than population generalizability of the conceptual model posited in Figure 1, a purpo-sive judgemental sampling design is utilized (Cavanaet al., 2000, p. 263). The sample comprised collegestudents and undergraduates from private HEI asthey form the future human capital and leaders innation development. Although there is no prior specic study relating to social entrepreneurship in

Malaysia, student samples have often been utilized inentrepreneurship studies as shown in Table I. Of atotal of 200 survey questionnaires were administeredon individual students, 181 were returned/com-pleted and used for data analysis.

Measurement assessment

The questionnaire for social entrepreneurshipdimensions was developed based on the conceptsderived from extant literature forming a methodo-logical contribution of this study. As for personalitytraits, the Big Five personality measures advanced bySchmit et al. ( 2000 ) are adopted and adapted for thecontext of this study. A ve-point Likert scale isemployed for the abovementioned constructs.

Reliability

Reliability or internal consistency of the itemswithin each construct of this study is assessed by

observing the Cronbach a (Cavana et al., 2000,p. 211). As this study forms a preliminary researchinto social entrepreneurship, the Cronbach a of 0.60and above will be considered to be reliable (Hair et al., 2006, pp. 137139; Nunnally, 1967 p. 226cited in Peterson, 1994).

Validity

There is many genres of validity, namely, face,content and construct validities (Cavana et al., 2000,pp. 212215). Face and content validities are assessedby an extant review and verication from literatureas well as obtaining independent expert review.

Construct validity comprising convergent and dis-criminant validities of the measurements for socialentrepreneurship and personality traits constructs isevaluated via EFA using the Principal ComponentsMethod. As the items making up the constructs of this study are likely to be correlated, the DirectOblimin factor rotation method is employed. In linewith the sample size of between 150 and 200, factor loadings of 0.45 and above is considered signicant(Hair et al., 2006, p. 128).

Data analysis

Hypotheses H 1 to H 5 series are tested by engagingthe Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) method.The relevant social entrepreneurship (SOC_ENT)dimensions are the dependent variables (SV, STB,SN and INV respectively) and the personality traitvariables (OPEN, EXTROV, AGREE, CONCand NEURO) as the independent variables. Inadopting the 95% condence interval, the hypoth-esis will be considered signicant if the p-value is

below 0.05.

Findings

Descriptive statisticsThe sample of this study comprise a total of 181respondents comprising students from private HEI inKlang Valley, Malaysia. Table II displays the sampledemographic characteristics of the respondents. Interms of age, the respondents have been found to be



12/25


13/25


14/25

T A B L E I V

P a t t e r n m a t r i x s o c i a l e n t r e p r e n e u r s h i p c o m p o n e n t s

C o m p o n e n t s

S o c i a

l v i s i o n

( S V )

F i n a n c i a l

r e t u r n

( F R )

I n n o v a t i o n

( I N V )

S u s t a i n a b i l i t y ( S T B )

S o c i a

l

n e t w o r

k s ( S N )

s v 0 4 T a k e a

f o c u s s e

d s t a n d o n s o c i a

l i s s u e s

0 . 8 4

s v 0 3 A r e s t r o n g l y c o m m i t t e d t o a s o c i a

l

v i s i o n

0 . 7 5

s v 0 7 A r e n o t e a s i

l y d i s t r a c t e d t o p u r s u e

o t h e r n o n - s o c i a

l i s s u e s

0 . 6 6

s v 0 1 A r e c l e a r

l y a b

l e t o i d e n t i f y a s o c i a

l

n e e d

0 . 6 6

s v 0 2 A r e a b

l e t o c r e a t e a c

l e a r s o c i a

l v i s i o n

0 . 6 3

s v 0 8 H a v e s t r o n g m o t i v a t i o n t o

d e f e n d a

s o c i a

l n e e

d

0 . 6 0

s v 0 6 A r e

d e t e r m i n e d t o b e a g e n t s o

f s o c i a l

c h a n g e

0 . 6 0

s v 0 5 A r e

d e t e r m i n e d t o m e e t a s o c i a

l n e e

d

0 . 5 0

f r 0 2 M a k i n g p r o t i s t

h e m a i n r e a s o n

f o r

t h e i r e x i s t e n c e

0 . 8 7

f r 0 5 S e l l i n g g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s f o r a p r o t

0 . 8 2

f r 0 3 - M a x i m i z i n g

n a n c i a

l w e a l t

h

0 . 7 6

f r 0 1 M a x i m i z i n g t h e w e a

l t h o f t h e i r

i n v e s t o r s

0 . 7 5

f r 0 7 S u r v i v a l t h r o u g

h p r o t s

0 . 7 0

f r 0 8 M a k i n g p r o t s a m e a n s t o a c

h i e v e a

s o c i a

l g o a

l

0 . 6 2

i n v 0 2 T h e y a r e a b

l e t o s e e r i s k s a s o p p o r -

t u n i t i e s t o c r e a t e s o c i a

l v a l u e

- 0 . 7 9

i n v 0 7 T h e y a r e

e x i

b l e i n d i v i d u a

l s

- 0 . 7 7

i n v 0 8 T h e y a r e i n n o v a t i v e i n d i v i d u a

l s

- 0 . 7 4

i n v 0 1 T h e y a r e p r o a c t i v e i n i d e n t i f y i n g

s o c i a

l o p p o r t u n i t i e s

- 0 . 7 1


l e t o c r e a t e b e t t e r s o c i a l

v a l u e c o m p a r e

d t o n o r m a l e n t r e p r e n e u r s

- 0 . 7 0



15/25

T A B L E I V

c o n t i n u e

d

C o m p o n e n t s

S o c i a

l v i s i o n

( S V )

F i n a n c i a l

r e t u r n

( F R )

I n n o v a t i o n

( I N V )

S u s t a i n a b i l i t y ( S T B )

S o c i a

l

n e t w o r

k s ( S N )


l e t o d e l i v e r s u s t a i n a b

l e

a d v a n t a g e t h r o u g

h i n n o v a t i v e g o o d s a n d

s e r v i c e s

- 0 . 6 7

i n v 0 6 T h e y a r e p r a g m a t i c i n d i v i

d u a l s

- 0 . 6 6


l e t o c r e a t e s o c i a l v a

l u e

t h r o u g

h g o o d s / s e r v i c e s

- 0 . 6 4

s t b 0 2 I m p r o v e q u a

l i t y o f

l i f e i n t h e l o n g r u n

0 . 7 9

s t b 0 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y f r i e n

d l y

0 . 7 4

s t b 0 3 I m p r o v e s a

l o n g t e r m s o c i a

l n e e

d

0 . 6 6

s t b 0 8 P r o m o t e s a

b a l a n c e o f e c o n o m i c ,

s o c i a

l a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s

0 . 6 0

s t b 0 7 P r o m o t e s a

b a l a n c e

b e t w e e n s o c i a

l

m i s s i o n a n

d s o c i a

l v a l u e

0 . 5 3

s t b 0 6 P r o m o t e s s o

l u t i o n s t h a t a r e e t

h i c a

l

0 . 5 3

s n 0 8 P r o v i d e m u t u a

l u n d e r s t a n

d i n g

f o r

e m o t i o n a

l s u p p o r t

- 0 . 7 5

s n 0 6 P r o m o t e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e

b u s i n e s s

- 0 . 7 0

s n 0 5 P r o m o t e t r u s t i n t h e

b u s i n e s s

- 0 . 5 9

s n 0 7 P r o v i d e a p l a t f o r m

f o r m u t u a l l y

b e n e

c i a l s o c i a

l e f f o r t s

- 0 . 5 6

s n 0 4 P r o m o t e

k n o w

l e d g e s h a r i n g

- 0 . 5 4

E i g e n v a l u e

1 1 . 6

8

3 . 4 8

2 . 1 8

1 . 7 2

1 . 2 4

P e r c e n t a g e o f e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e

3 5 . 3

9

1 0 . 5

4

6 . 6 0

5 . 2 0

3 . 7 6

C u m u l a t i v e p e r c e n t a g e o f e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e

3 5 . 3

9

4 5 . 9

3

5 2 . 5

3

5 7 . 7

3

6 1 . 4

9

C r o n b a c

h a

0 . 8 9

0 . 8 2

0 . 8 9

0 . 8 7

0 . 8 7

S c a l e m e a n

2 1 . 8

3

1 8 . 3

2

3 0 . 3

6

2 4 . 2

3

1 9 . 5

6

S c a l e s t a n d a r

d d e v i a t i o n

4 . 6 7

3 . 3 4

4 . 6 2

3 . 4 7

3 . 1 0

K M O m e a s u r e o f s a m p l i n g a d e q u a c y 0 . 8 9 1 .

B a r t l e t t s t e s t o f s p

h e r i c i t y c h i - s q u a r e = 3 , 5 8 4 ; d f = 5 2 8 ; p = 0 . 0 1 .



16/25

support the establishment of the social entrepre-neurship scale as a valid and reliable scale.

The nal StrahanGerbasi Social DesirabilityScale (1972 cited in Thompson and Phua, 2005)comprising seven (7) items recorded a Cronbach areliability of 0.63 with a scale mean of 22.80 andstandard deviation of 3.57. As the Cronbach a liesbetween the range of 0.60 and 0.70, reliability canalso be assumed (Hair et al., 2006, pp. 137139).

Hypothesis testing The 17 hypotheses (denoted by the H 1 to H 5 series)have been tested by employing multiple linear regression (MLR) method. The social entrepre-neurship dimensions of social vision (SV), sustain-

ability (STB), social networks (SN), innovation(INV) and nancial returns (FR) are treated asdependent variables. The independent variables arerepresented by the Big Five personality factors. SDBhas been included as an independent control vari-able. Table V below tabulates the results of thehypothesis testing. Assumptions of normality of theresiduals of the dependent variables have been sat-ised for all the hypotheses.

Based on Table V, hypotheses H 1(a) to H 1(c) aresupported at the 0.05 signicance level. As such,openness (OPEN) exerts an inuence on SV, STBand FR. Similarly, for agreeableness (AGREE),hypotheses H 3(a) to H3(e) are supported. Thus,AGREE exerts a signicant inuence on all four dimensions of social entrepreneurship. The relevanthypotheses related to conscientiousness (CONSC),H 4(a) and H 4(b) are also supported indicating thatCONSC has a signicant inuence on STB and FR.As for neuroticism (NEURO), only H 5(b) is sup-ported implying that NEURO exerts a negativerelationship on the fostering of social networks.Table V also shows that the control variable SDB

did not exert any statistically signicant inuence onthe responses in this study except for FR. The ad- justed R 2 in all the regression models range from0.096 to 0.262 indicating that the population effectsize is medium to large (Cohen, 1992).

Discussion and implications

The ndings of this study suggest that certain per-sonality traits such as agreeableness, openness and

T A B L E V

R e s u l t s o f

h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g

S o c i a

l v i s i o n

( S V )

S u s t a i n a b i l i t y

( S T B )

S o c i a

l n e t w o r

k s ( S N )

I n n o v a t i o n

( I N V )

F i n a n c i a l r e t u r n s

( F R )

R e f

b

p - V a l u e R e f

b

p - V a l u e R e f

b

p - V a l u e R e f

b

p - V a l u e R e f

b

p - V a l u e

O P E N

H 1 ( a )

0 . 2 9 7 0 . 0 3 1 *

H

1 ( b )

0 . 4 2 2 0 . 0 0 1 * H

1 ( c )

0 . 2 7 8 0 . 0 2 1 *

E X T R O

H 2 ( a )

0 . 0 5 4 0 . 6 0 4

H 2 ( b )

0 . 0 3 3

0 . 6 6 3

H 2 ( c )

- 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 3 1 3

A G R E E

H 3 ( a )

0 . 5 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 * H

3 ( b )

0 . 3 4 3

0 . 0 0 4 * H

3 ( c )

0 . 2 2 2 0 . 0 1 7 * H

3 ( d )

0 . 7 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 * H

3 ( e )

0 . 2 8 9 0 . 0 4 4 *

N E U R O

H 5 ( a )

0 . 0 5 7

0 . 7 1 7

H 5 ( b )

- 0 . 3 7 9 0 . 0 0 2 * H

5 ( c )

- 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 5 4 7

H 5 ( d )

0 . 1 5 9 0 . 4 1 0

C O N S C

H 4 ( a )

0 . 5 0 7

0 . 0 0 0 *

H 4 ( b )

0 . 2 5 8 0 . 0 4 4 *

S o c i a

l d e s i r a b i l i t y

b i a s

( S D B )

- 0 . 1 0 4 0 . 2 7 9

0 . 0 2 6

0 . 7 0 8

0 . 0 8 4 0 . 1 4 9

- 0 . 1 2 0 0 . 8 9 2

0 . 2 1 3 0 . 0 1 2

A d j u s t e

d R

2

0 . 1 2 4

0 . 2 6 2

0 . 0 9 6

0 . 2

2 5

0 . 1 2 2



17/25

conscientiousness exert an inuence on socialentrepreneurship dimensions. The following sec-tion discusses how we can develop the businessand management education curriculum further toenhance awareness, understanding and developmentof social responsibility and the requisite personalitytraits above through character education. Theimplication of how the development of character andsocial entrepreneurship can be inculcated throughstudent-centred learning and life-long learning is alsofurther discussed below.

Social responsibility

The study ndings reveal that agreeableness is theonly personality trait that exerts signicant inuenceacross all dimensions of social entrepreneurship. Assuch in a multi-racial nation such as Malaysia, theeducation curriculum needs to promote constructivedialogue to encourage better understanding onmulticultural values and perspectives. Students haveto appreciate their role as future leaders within anecosystem comprising businesses, society and theenvironment. Internalization of the interconnec-tedness of economic, social and environmentalconcerns requires continual reective learning rein-forcements across different disciplines of academia topromote holistic grasps of the principles of sustain-ability (Warburton, 2003). Within this context,collaborative efforts between academic institutions,corporations and society are required to provideinput towards a more comprehensive educationsystem that addresses the relevant modus operandifor sustainable development (Springett and Kearins,2001 ). Agreeableness through social consensus be-tween the Education Ministry, NGOs and the pri-vate sector may foster healthy appreciation for

differing stakeholder views and in deriving a moreholistic, dynamic and relevant business educationcurriculum (Rae, 2009).

The study also found that openness exerted sig-nicant positive inuence on nancial returns andsocial vision. Conscientiousness was found to exert apositive inuence on sustainability and nancialreturns. The ndings imply that social entrepre-neurship upholds the compelling values within thesocial mission in the quest towards long-term socialvalue. In many instances, the personal and corporate/

mutual goals of the entrepreneur are inseparable(London, 2008; Rae, 2009). Thus, the educationcurriculum needs to be robust in nourishing thedesire to create a more sustainable, just and com-passionate world (Johnson, 2005). Engagement of students in social issues can be encouraged to enhancemotivation, increase critical awareness (Warbuton,2003 ) and relevance of social entrepreneurship.Fostering awareness and nurturing them in recog-nizing their place as global citizens are necessary toequip them to cope with global pressures for sus-tainable development (Newport et al., 2003). Therole of students as empowered future catalyst for social change has to be continually reinforcedthroughout the curricula (Henle, 2006; Johnson,

2005 ).Higher education institutions in Malaysia need tolead in developing cogent global sustainabilitypractices and principles giving a balanced emphasisto the economic, environmental and social concerns(Newport et al., 2003). The appreciation and stanceof the academia towards doing its part alleviatingglobal issues such as global warming, security,human rights, poverty and other sustainability con-cerns are crucial in bridging the gap in academiccontent and extracting global relevance.

Student centred learning

This study also found that personality traits of openness and agreeableness exerted a positiveinuence on social vision construction. Agreeable-ness and conscientiousness also had a signicant andpositive inuence on the sustainability dimension.Development of sustainability and entrepreneurialtraits are driven by personal values/beliefs, experi-ences and interest beliefs (Barendsen and Gardner,

2004 ; Krueger Jr., 2007; Warbuton, 2003). Thus,the competence of students to learn how to learnand identify their potential role and contributiontowards society (Krueger Jr., 2007) is both a personaland corporate journey. The social entrepreneurialmindset invokes the need for openness in the con-struction of meaning within the complex businessenvironment involving the internal deliberation of personal values/beliefs and social concerns whilemaking business sense. As such, entrepreneurshipeducation curriculum in HEI need to nurture



18/25

independent learners who are able to develop thecompetence to construct meaning through concepts,discovery and reection. Personality traits of open-ness and agreeableness can also be inculcated viaactive, problem-based and cooperative learning asstudents grapple with real-life examples within dif-ferent social context (Richardson and Hynes, 2008).

Life-long learning

An individuals aspirations and values/beliefs mayevolve through socialization and personal experiencegained in the journey of ones career. Thus, per-sonality traits may also be transformed over time

(Mezirow, 2008). Life-long learning involves acombination of tacit and explicit knowledge andrecognizes the individual as an active creator of meaning in bridging theory and practice (Jrgensen,2004 ). Continuous learning takes place as one con-stantly applies acquired skills, social networks andexperience as practical reinforcements to create and/or capitalize on opportunities in a competitive busi-ness environment. Older individuals have beenfound to have a greater propensity to embark onentrepreneurship compared to younger individu-als (Arenius and Minniti, 2005; Beugelsdijk andNoorderhaven, 2005; Walker and Webster, 2007;Weber and Schaper, 2004). Entrepreneurial ten-dencies are higher among older individuals as they arenancially stable in terms of resources, and havegreater experience but may be less educated and haveless choice of employment. Thus, they may be pu-shed into self-employment due to lack of alterna-tives. However, younger individuals are oftenpulled or lured by greater choices of employmentdue to their higher nancial, family commitmentsand educational qualications. As such, there may be

a place for adult entrepreneurship education to but-tress the knowledge competence in bridging the gapbetween the current employment status and identitywith long-term personal aspiration in making mid-life self-employment transitions (Rae, 2005).

Besides technical know-how, life-long learningalso incorporates active citizenship which includesthe reection on how an individual sees ones rolewithin the larger society (Leader, 2003). Thus, for life-long business curricula to be relevant in devel-oping responsible citizens, a closely knit chain of

engagement staring from parents, educators andorganizational leaders are necessary (Packer andSharrar, 2003). Citizenship within the context of social entrepreneurship, the individual may, as aresponse to life-long learning, consider socialresponsibility as a good opportunity to ameliorateones intrinsic social vision within other personalgoals.

Character education

Character education may have a bearing in thedevelopment of conscientiousness which has beenfound to positively inuence sustainability and

nancial returns in this study. The twofold thrust of character education relates to the development of personal and relationship virtues (Benninga, et al.,2006 ). Personal virtues include development of conscientiousness, self-resolve, courage to exertones intellectual voice, exercise of responsibility,honesty, hope and humility (Rivers, 2004). On theother hand, relationship virtues relate to issues sur-rounding social interaction and integration, for instance, respect, tolerance, equitable practices andtolerance. As such, relationship virtues may promotepractical agreement through reasonable compromisewithin legal and moral connes.

Character education may also mitigate the resis-tance to change arising from false social perceptionsbetween different groups of peoples. Students arecontinually challenged to evaluate and deliberate onthe essence of a decision or situation on its ownmerits rather than passing simple right or wrong judgement. In so doing, students learn to developopenness via tolerate a diversity of views and learn toact responsibly despite the contingencies in the sit-uation (Benninga et al., 2006; Polan, 1991). As such,

character education provides the foundations for citizenship education which attempts to develop asense of moral and social/civic convictions throughcritical reection and engagement (Gilness, 2003; Joseph and Efron, 2005; Polan, 1991). Character education may indirectly contribute towards theinculcation of ones moral and social intelligence(Landy, 2005; Lennick and Kiel, 2005, p. 7;Silberman, 2001; Strang, 1930). In certain instances,character education has also been found to improveacademic achievement (Benninga et al., 2006). As



19/25

moral and social virtues permeate human interactionin all areas of business, character education pro-mulgation requires interdisciplinary reinforcements(Joseph and Efron, 2005; Polan, 1991; Rivers,2004 ).

Entrepreneurship education

Social and commercial entrepreneurs share certainsimilar characteristics such as afnity towards risk-taking, creativity and opportunism (Kirby, 2004;Mort et al., 2003). As such, entrepreneurship edu-cation needs to promote a proper balance of rationalthought rooted in technical knowledge base and

intuitive thinking (Kirby, 2004). Student-centredlearning approaches such as cooperative and prob-lem-based learning can be employed to increase therelevance of the curriculum and to encourage stu-dents to take ownership of their learning. Theexperience gained by involving students working inteams in solving simulations of real-life issues willdevelop the ability to endure the uncertainty in abusiness environment enveloped by constant change.Teamwork also establishes potential social and busi-ness networking opportunities (Collins et al., 2004).

Sustainability education

Social entrepreneurship education needs to include arm grounding on ethics and sustainable practices.A sustainability education curriculum needs toencourage greater research, deep reection and dis-cussions on ways to better achieve equitable balanceof economic, social and environmental development(Campbell and Dealtry, 2003). Human exploitationof the environmental resources needs to be carefully

weighed against the regenerative capability of theecosystem (Birch, 2008). Future leaders need toconsciously consider the pivotal role corporationsplay in preserving the equilibrium of the socio-economic and environmental ecosystem. Sustain-ability needs to be treated as an interdisciplinarydiscipline which is required integrated emphasisacross all core business courses taught at institutions of higher learning to reinforce its multi-faceted meaningand applications (Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008; Thomas,2004 ; Velazquez et al., 2005). In addition, future

business executives need moral courage to be leadersof transformation by embracing sustainability into thesoul of the business by committing to be global citi-zens (Birch, 2008).

Limitations and further research

This study is an initial study on personality traits andsocial entrepreneurship based on concepts derivedfrom literature. The study was undertaken with anunderstanding that undergraduate students can beskilfully trained and motivated to engage in sociallyentrepreneurial activities (Bull, 2008). The objectiveaim is to highlight areas where social entrepreneur-

ship and associated personality traits could beincorporated in business and management educationcurriculum.

However, the scope of this study is limited toundergraduate students. The quantitative surveymethod may also lack the depth in explanation of thedilemmas and challenges that social entrepreneursface in reality. As such, separate qualitative researchon the practitioners viewpoint using case studymethods to understand is suggested. Qualitativendings may also complement and deepen our understanding of how personalities cum character of social entrepreneurs are moulded. The insight gainedcan then be used to rene the conceptual frameworkthat applies to working adults as well as further reinforce relevance of business and managementeducation curricula.

Future studies may also need to control the effectof socio-economic factors and demographics beyondpersonality traits on the intention to pursue socialentrepreneurship.

Conclusion

Social entrepreneurship is emerging as a sustainablesolution in integrating nancial/economic interestand social value. This unity of purpose is upheld bythe overarching vision that commits to a socialdimension to business decisions. This study has foundthat personality traits such as agreeableness, opennessand conscientiousness have generally a positiveinuence on social entrepreneurship dimensions. Inparticular, agreeableness has been found to have a



20/25


21/25


22/25

Krueger, N. F. Jr: 2007, What Lies Beneath? TheExperiential Essence of Entrepreneurial Thinking,Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 31 (3), 123137.

Kurucz, E. C., B. A. Colbert and D. C. Wheeler: 2008,

The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsi-bility, in A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon and D. Seigel (eds.), The Oxford Handbook onCorporate Social Responsibility (Oxford University Press,Oxford, In Press: March 2008).

Landy, F. J.: 2005, Some Historical and Scientic IssuesRelated to Research on Emotional Intelligence, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 26 , 411424.

Leader, G.: 2003, Lifelong Learning: Policy and Practicein Further Education, Education + Training 45 (7),361370.

Leisinger, K. M.: 2007, Corporate Philanthropy: TheTop of the Pyramid, Business and Society Review 112 (3), 315342.

Lennick, D. and F. Kiel: 2005, Moral Intelligence:Enhancing Business Performance & Leadership Success(Wharton School Publishing, USA).

Littunen, H.: 2000, Entrepreneurship and the Charac-teristics of the Entrepreneurial Personality, Interna-tional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 6 (6),295309.

Llewellyn, D. J. and K. M. Wilson: 2003, The Con-troversial Role of Personality Traits in EntrepreneurialPsychology, Education + Training 45 (6), 341345.

Loasby, B. J.: 2007, A Cognitive Perspective on Entre-

preneurship and the Firm, Journal of Management Studies 44 (7), 10781106.

London, M.: 2008, Dual Roles for Corporate SocialResponsibility and Social Entrepreneurship, Organi-zational Dynamics 37 (4), 313326.

Lovins, A. B., L. H. Lovins and P. Hawken: 2007, ARoad to Natural Capitalism, Harvard Business Review , Jul/Aug, 172183.

Machan, T. R.: 1999, Entrepreneurship and Ethics,International Journal of Social Economics 26 (5), 596608.

Matlay, H.: 2008, The Impact of EntrepreneurshipEducation on Entrepreneurial Outcomes, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15 (2), 382 396.

McCarthy, B.: 2003, Strategy is Personality Driven,Strategy is Crisis Driven: Insights From Entrepre-neurial Firms, Management Decisions 41 (4), 327339.

Mezirow, J.: 2008, An Overview of TransformativeLearning, in P. Sutherland and J. Crowther (eds.),Lifelong Learning: Concepts and Contexts (Routledge,London), pp. 2438.

Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman: 1994, An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd Edition (SagePublication, Thousand Oaks, CA).

Mitchell, R. K., L. Busenitz, T. Lant, P. P. McDougall,E. A. Morse and J. B. Smith: 2002, Toward a Theoryof Entrepreneurial Cognition: Rethinking the PeopleSide of Entrepreneurial Research, Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice 27 (2), 93104.Molteni, M.: 2006, The Social-Competitive InnovationPyramid, Corporate Governance 6 (4), 516526.

Mort, G. S., J. Weerawardena and K. Carnegie: 2003,Social Entrepreneurship: Towards Conceptualisation,International Journal of Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Marketing 8 (1), 7688.

Mustakova-Possardt, E.: 1998, Critical Consciousness:An Alternative Pathway for Positive Personal andSocial Development, Journal of Adult Development 5 (1),1330.

Naffziger, D. W., J. S. Hornsby and D. F. Kuratko: 1994,A Proposed Research Model of EntrepreneurialMotivation, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 18 (3),2942.

Nahapiet, J. and S. Ghoshal: 1998, Social Capital,Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage,The Academy of Management Review 23 (2), 242266.

Newport, D., T. Chesnes and A. Lindner: 2003, TheEnvironmental Sustainability Problem: EnsuringThat Sustainability Stands on Three Legs, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 4 (4), 357 363.

Nordvik, H. and H. Brovold: 1998, Personality Traits inLeadership Tasks, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 39 ,

6164.Ong, J. W. and H. Ismail: 2008, Revisiting Personality

Traits in Entrepreneurship Study From a ResourceBased Perspective, Business Renaissance Quarterly 3 (1),97114.

Packer, A. H. and G. K. Sharrar: 2003, Linking LifelongLearning, Corporate Social Responsibility and theChanging Nature of Work, Advances in Developing Human Resources 5 (3), 332340.

Peterson, R. A.: 1994, A Meta-Analysis of CronbachsCoefcient Alpha, Journal of Consumer Research 21 (2),381391.

Phills, J. A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller: 2008,Rediscovering Social Innovation, Stanford Social Innovation Review 6 (4), 3443.

Pittaway, L.: 2005, Philosophies in Entrepreneurship: AFocus on Economic Theories, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11 (3), 201221.

Polan, A. J.: 1991, Personal and Social Education: Citi-zenship and Biography, Journal of Moral Education20 (1), 1332.

Pralahad, C. K.: 2006, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Prots (WhartonBusiness School Publishing, USA).



23/25

Rae, D.: 2005, Mid-career Entrepreneurial Learning,Education + Training 47 (8/9), 562574.

Rae, D.: 2009, Entrepreneurship: Too Risky to LetLoose in a Stormy Climate?, Entrepreneurship and

Innovation 10 (2), 137147.Randall, D. M. and M. F. Fernandes: 1991, The SocialDesirability Bias in Ethics Research, Journal of BusinessEthics 10 , 805817.

Raposo, M., A. do Paco and J. Farreira: 2008,Entrepreneurs Prole: A Taxonomy of Attributesand Motivations of University Students, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15 (2), 405 418.

Rauch, A. and M. Frese: 2007, Lets Put the Person Backinto Entrepreneurship Research: A Meta-Analysis onthe Relationship Between Business Owners Person-ality Traits, Business Creation and Business Success,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology16 (4), 353385.

Rhee, K. S. and R. J. White: 2007, The EmotionalIntelligence of Entrepreneurs, Journal of Small BusinessEntrepreneurship 20 (4), 409426.

Richardson, I. and B. And Hynes: 2008, Entrepreneur-ship Education: Towards and Industry Sector Approach, Education + Training 50 (3), 188198.

Ridley-Duff, R.: 2008, Social Enterprise as a SociallyRational Business, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 14 (5), 291312.

Rivers, T. M.: 2004, Ten Essentials for Character Edu-

cation, The Journal of General Education 3/4 (53), 247 260.

Robin, F.: 2006, The Challenge of TBL: A Responsi-bility to Whom?, Business and Society 111 (1), 114.

Sarros, J. C., B. K. Cooper and A. M. Hartican: 2006,Leadership and Character, Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal 27 (8), 682699.

Savitz, A. W. and K. Weber: 2006, The Triple Bottom Line (Jossey-Bass, USA).

Schaefer, B. P.: 2008, Shareholders and Social Respon-sibility, Journal of Business Ethics 81 , 297312.

Schaper, M. and T. Volery: 2004, Entrepreneurship and Small Business: A Pacic Rim Perspective (John Wiley andSons, Australia).

Schmit, M. J., J. A. Kihm and C. Robie: 2000, Devel-opment of a Global Measure of Personality, Personnel Psychology 53 , 153193.

Schmitt-Rodermund, E.: 2004, Pathways to SuccessfulEntrepreneurship: Parenting, Personality, Early Entre-preneurial Competence and Interest, Journal of Voca-tional Behaviour 65 , 498518.

Shane, S. and D. Cable: 2002, Network Ties, Reputa-tion and Financing of New Ventures, Management Science 48 (3), 364381.

Shaw, E. and S. Carter: 2007, Social Entrepreneurship:Theoretical antecedents and Empirical Analysis of theEntrepreneurial Processes and Outcomes, Journal of Small Business and Economic Development 14 (13), 418

434.Silberman, M.: 2001, Developing Interpersonal Intelli-

gence in the Workplace, International and Commercial Training 7 (5), 266269.

Springett, D. and K. Kearins: 2001, Gaining Legiti-macy?, Sustainable Development in Business School Cur-ricula 9 (4), 213221.

Strang, R.: 1930, Measures of Social Intelligence, The American Journal of Sociology 36 (2), 263269.

Stubbs, W. and C. Cocklin: 2008, Teaching Sustain-ability to Business Students: Shifting Mindsets, Inter-national Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 9 (3),206221.

Thomas, I.: 2004, Sustainability in Tertiary Curricula:What is Stopping it Happening?, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5 (1), 3347.

Thompson, J. L.: 1998, A Strategic Perspective of Entrepreneurship, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 5 (6), 279296.

Thompson, J. L.: 2002, The World of the SocialEntrepreneur, The International Journal of Public Sector Management 15 (5), 412431.

Thompson, J., G. Alvy and A. Lees: 2000, SocialEntrepreneurship A New Look at the People andPotential, Management Decision 38 (5), 328338.

Thompson, L. and B. Doherty: 2006, The DiverseWorld of Social Enterprise: A Collection of SocialEnterprise Stories, International Journal of Social Eco-nomics 33 (5/6), 361375.

Velazquez, L., N. Munguia and M. Sanchez: 2005,Deterring Sustainability in Higher Education Institu-tions: An Appraisal of The Factors Which InuenceSustainability in Higher Education Institutions, Inter-national Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 6 (4),383391.

Vinten, G.: 1997, The Threat in the Questions, Credit Control 18 (1), 2531.

Walker, E. A. and B. J. Webster: 2007, Gender, Age andSelf-Employment: Some Things Change, Some Staythe Same, Women in Management Review 22 (2), 122 135.

Warbuton, K.: 2003, Deep Learning and Education for Sustainability, International Journal of Sustainability inHigher Education 4 (1), 4456.

Weber, P. and M. Schaper: 2004, Understanding theGrey Entrepreneur, Journal of Enterprising Culture 12 (2), 147167.

Wheeler, D., K. McKague, J. Thomson, R. Davies, J. Medalye and M. Prada: 2005, Creating Sustainable



24/25


25/25

Reproduced withpermission of the copyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.

Documents

The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intention