Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Educat

Journal of Management
Education
http://jme.sagepub.com
Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Education: An

Attitudinal Approach
Juan Florin, Ranjan Karri and Nancy Rossiter
Journal of Management Education 2007; 31; 17
DOI: 10.1177/1052562905282023
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/17
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Organizational Behavior Teaching Society
Additional services and information for Journal of Management Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jme.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 28 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/1/17
Downloaded from http://jme.sagepub.com at The Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel on
November 20, 2007
© 2007 The Organizational Behavior Teaching Society. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use
or unauthorized distribution.
FOSTERING ENTREPRENEURIAL
DRIVE IN BUSINESS EDUCATION:
AN ATTITUDINAL APPROACH
Juan Florin
University of Connecticut
Ranjan Karri
University of Illinois Springfield
Nancy Rossiter
Simmons College
Drawing from research in individual characteristics of entrepreneurs and the

theory of planned behavior from social psychology literature, this study identi-
fies attitudinal dimensions of entrepreneurial drive (ED), proposes a model,
and develops and tests an instrument to measure it. Results show that students
differentiate among five attitudes that have been found to promote entrepre-
neurial behavior in prior research, namely, preference for innovation, noncon-
formity, proactive disposition, self-efficacy, and achievement motivation. Taken
together, these attitudes define the authors’conceptualization of ED. The arti-
cle provides recommendations of initiatives that were proven to be helpful in
developing entrepreneurial drive in undergraduate business students.
Keywords: entrepreneurial drive; business education; nonconformity; pro-

active; achievement; attitudes
The term entrepreneurial drive can be traced back to 1979 when Robert
Getley wrote:
[my aim is] to generate ideas on how we can increase the valuable combination
of qualities, skills and attitudes which I have called entrepreneurial drive. I
have used this term because I cannot think of a better one to describe the drive
that some people have to create things, the determination that they have to
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 31 No. 1, February 2007 17-42
DOI: 10.1177/1052562905282023
© 2007 Organizational Behavior Teaching Society
17
November 20, 2007
18 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / February 2007
achieve real progress, and the tenacity which is shown by them to change
things despite massive opposition. (p. 19)
Getley’s (1979) powerful call, directed mostly toward corporate trainers, has
had minor impact outside practitioner journals that continue to use this
concept in a variety of ways. However, the three dimensions proposed as drivers
of entrepreneurial behavior—qualities, skills, and attitudes—have received con-
siderable attention in entrepreneurship research as independent constructs.
Research into the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs has con-
cluded that no set of personality traits (the “qualities” in Getley’s [1979] defi-
nition) differentiates entrepreneurs from managers (Gartner, 1988; Low &
MacMillan, 1988; Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991; Sapienza &
Grimm, 1997; Sexton & Smilor, 1997; Shaver & Scott, 1991; Timmons,
1990). Zimmer and Scarborough (1998) argued that “rather than a genetic
trait, entrepreneurship is a learned skill” (p. 7). This belief, that entrepreneur-
ship can be taught and learned, has led to an unprecedented growth in entre-
preneurship education over the past 20 years, as evidenced in the increase in
the number of endowed positions in entrepreneurship and in the number of
colleges and universities in the United States offering entrepreneurship
classes. The increasing demand for entrepreneurial education is attributed to
the high personal costs of mistakes in starting and running a small business,
disenchantment with the traditional business education focus on large orga-
nizations, and changes in the job market (Ede & Panigrahi, 1998). Business
schools continue to respond to this challenge by initiating new courses and
programs with entrepreneurship concentrations, and by emphasizing initia-
tives that foster an entrepreneurial mind-set among their students. The
assumption is that entrepreneurial skills will prepare students better for their
careers in small and large organizations alike.
Despite this growth, the question of whether individuals can be taught to
be entrepreneurial continues to generate debate in academic and practitioner
circles. Whether curriculum initiatives are effective or useful in addressing
the need to develop an entrepreneurial mind-set among students is far from
clear. Thus a key question arises: “Can we define a so-called entrepreneurial
perspective that can be taught throughout the curriculum?” Furthermore, can
we measure such a construct to assess our efforts at teaching it? Krueger
(1993) stated that the training of entrepreneurs should focus on developing
perceptions of desirability and feasibility of entrepreneurial actions, as he
Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Juan Florin, University of Connecticut, Man-
agement Department, 2100 Hillside Rd., Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269; e-mail: Juan.florin@busi-
ness.uconn.edu
November 20, 2007
Florin et al. / ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE IN BUSINESS EDUCATION 19
found that these had a positive impact on entrepreneurs’ propensity to act. In

other words, learning a relevant skill is not sufficient to promote action; stu-
dents need to perceive that the application of the skill is feasible and that an
entrepreneurial approach is desirable. Thus, a focus on developing a positive
attitude toward entrepreneurial behavior appears to be central to entrepre-
neurship teaching and learning.
The effect of attitudes on intention and behavior has been thoroughly
researched and supported in the social-psychology literature (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975; Krueger, 1993; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Within this research
tradition, an approach that develops students’ attitudes has important impli-
cations for business education. Attitudes are open to change and can be influ-
enced by educators and by an environment that fosters entrepreneurial activ-
ity. In particular, we focus on the tripartite attitude model that suggests that
entrepreneurial attitudes can be encouraged by influencing thoughts, feel-
ings, and behavioral intentions related to the objects of those attitudes
(Rosenberg, 1960). We extend this research stream by identifying and mea-
suring attitudes about entrepreneurial activity that may foster students’
intentions to behave in entrepreneurial ways.
A complementary perspective with close links to the tripartite attitude
model focuses on the relationship between proactive disposition and entre-
preneurial behavior. This relatively new line of research has identified links
between proactive behavior in organizations and career success (Crant,
2000; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), job performance (Crant, 2000), and
entrepreneurial activity (Becherer & Maurer, 1999; Lumpkin & Dess, 2001).
In this view, a proactive disposition is essential to transform attitudes into
action.
Drawing on these two research traditions, we propose an actionable defi-
nition of entrepreneurial drive (ED) for students and argue for ED’s potential
influence in students’ future entrepreneurial behavior based on the theory of
planned behavior. Furthermore, given the importance of measurement to
assess initiatives in business schools, we developed an instrument to measure
those attitudes in students and applied the instrument to a sample of students
as part of the instrument development effort. We found the instrument to be
valid and reliable in measuring ED dimensions based on the empirical find-
ing that (a) students clearly differentiate among the five entrepreneurial
drive dimensions and (b) independent samples tests comparing subsamples
indicate that seniors and freshmen exhibit significant differences in these
indicators. Finally, we report the results of focus groups conducted with a
subsample of senior students, which support some of the findings with quali-
tative evidence and offer the reader a series of initiatives that, as reported by
November 20, 2007
the students, have proven valuable in developing entrepreneurial drive in

students.
Entrepreneurial Drive
Despite the unprecedented growth in undergraduate-level entrepreneur-

ship education, very little empirical research has been published in recent
years to assess its impact on student learning. Hatten and Ruhland (1995)
found that identifying and nurturing potential entrepreneurs throughout the
education process could produce more successful entrepreneurs. According
to a study conducted by Knight (1987), entrepreneurs who were graduates of
the University of Western Ontario believed that the business program had at
least partially prepared them to be entrepreneurs; however, they highly rec-
ommended stronger emphasis on entrepreneurship in all courses and the
use of case studies of entrepreneurs, particularly alumni who could serve as
role models (Knight, 1987). The positive use of role models in entrepreneur-
ship education suggests that attitudes regarding entrepreneurship can be
influenced positively in a variety of ways in the university environment. In
this section, we propose an attitudinal construct of ED that can guide the
development of initiatives to develop ED in students and help measure their
effectiveness.
A SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE
Personality and attitudes are closely linked when applied to the same goal:
the prediction of behavior (Hatten & Ruhland, 1995). Given the failure of
personality research in identifying an entrepreneurial personality and our
emphasis on developing entrepreneurial minds, the attitudinal approach to
the study of entrepreneurial drive provides the focus we need. In fact, Hatten
and Ruhland (1995) found that student attitudes toward entrepreneurship
could be measured and changed over time. Robinson and Haynes (1991)
posited that attitudes are learned and conceptually changed more easily than
personality traits, which suggests that attitudes can be influenced through
training programs. As educators, we can empower potential entrepreneurs
through the development of positive attitudes that will allow them to identify
and seize opportunities (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994).
An attitude is generally understood as a learned predisposition to respond
in a predictable manner with respect to the object of that attitude (Ajzen,
1982; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Every attitude has an object, and its measure-
ment is only valid as long as it is done in relation to that object (Robinson
et al., 1991). Here, we are interested in the attitudes that individuals hold with
November 20, 2007
respect to entrepreneurial activity. The tripartite model explains this complex

concept (Breckler, 1984). It holds that people react in three ways, namely, the
feelings they hold toward the object (affect), the beliefs and thoughts held
about the attitude object (cognition), and the intentions to behave in a certain
way when confronted with that object (conation). In this view, an attitude is a
combination of all three dimensions and can be better understood when the
three are considered simultaneously (Allport, 1935; Breckler, 1984). The
three-dimensional approach requires the simultaneous consideration of the
individuals we are seeking to understand (our students) and the environment
in which they operate (the business school). An important advantage of the
attitudinal model over traditional personality models is that it is more domain
specific, reducing unexplained variability and increasing the correlation with
behavior (Robinson et al., 1991).
In summary, an individual’s attitude toward entrepreneurial behavior can
be better understood when attitudes toward several interrelated objects form
a comprehensive and orderly pattern that indicates the degree of unity in that
person’s orientation toward entrepreneurial activity (Gasse, 1985; Robinson
et al., 1991). In other words,
when different measures of attitudes are found to be related to each other, to be

influenced by the same factors, and to exert the same effects on other variables,
the generality of our conclusions and thereby the confidence in these conclu-
sions are increased. (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 3)
ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE
The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) posits that intentions

toward a target behavior depend on a set of underlying attitudes. Specifically,
intentions to take a certain course of action depend on the participants’ per-
ceptions regarding personal and social desirability of the behavior, and the
participants’ perceptions of whether they can successfully perform (feasibil-
ity) such action. Our review of prior research, in the following sections, iden-
tifies five attitude constructs that hold a consistent relationship with entrepre-
neurial activity and are applicable to a student population. In Figure 1, we
depict these attitudinal dimensions as latent constructs of entrepreneurial
drive, within the attitudes-intentions-behavior model originally proposed by
Ajzen (1991; see Krueger, 2000, for its application to the entrepreneurial
context). The five dimensions, their theoretical background, and their appli-
cation to a college environment are discussed below.
A preference for innovation. Entrepreneurs are inherently creative and

innovative (Drucker, 1985; Schumpeter, 1934; Timmons, Smollen, & Din-
November 20, 2007
Preference
for
Innovation Entrepreneurial
Drive
Noncon- Perceived
formity Desirability
Proactive Intentions Behavior

Disposition
Self- Perceived
Efficacy Feasibility
Achievement
Motivation
Figure 1: The Role of Entrepreneurial Drive on Intentions and Behavior
gee, 1985). Consistent results show that a preference for innovation clearly
differentiates entrepreneurs from managers (Carland & Carland, 1991; Stew-
art, Watson, Carland, & Carland, 1999; Timmons, 1990). Managers tend to
be more adaptive (Buttner & Gryskiewicz, 1993), and to be rewarded for
their competence and efficiency (Schein, 1985) rather than for innovation
and creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1934). In a business setting, a prefer-
ence for innovation refers to a willingness and inclination toward experimen-
tation and creativity when developing and introducing new products and ser-
vices (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). In a business school environment, it refers to
the promotion and reward of creative and original thinking in class assign-
ments and extracurricular activities, and in general, to the promotion of inno-
vative thinking as a socially desirable behavior.
Nonconformity. Kirton (1976) considered innovation and adaptation as

two extremes of a continuum. This construct was measured by the Kirton
Adaptation Innovation Inventory, consisting of three subscales for original-
ity, rule conformity, and efficiency (Kirton). Subsequent research applied to
November 20, 2007
entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs identified a different set of relationships

among the constructs proposed by Kirton, where rule conformity acted as a
moderating variable for originality (Mudd, 1996; Rosenfeld, Winger-Bear-
skin, Marcic, & Braun, 1993). In other words, individuals can channel their
creativity toward adaptive innovations that follow accepted rules and proce-
dures of the organization, or they can challenge the status quo and develop
original innovations, reflecting their degree of conformity or nonconformity,
respectively.
We propose here that business school students with a nonconformist atti-
tude toward rules and procedures will channel their creativity more toward
original innovations than toward adaptive ones. Thus, we expected that pref-
erence for innovation and degree of nonconformity will be distinct dimen-
sions of entrepreneurial drive, and not a single construct as described in prior
research (Robinson et al., 1991). Seibert et al. (2001) found in their study of
determinants of career success that critically challenging the status quo with-
out offering innovative alternatives was detrimental to career success. In
other words, speaking up in a critical way needs to be accompanied with
innovative and constructive ideas (McCarthy, 2002), leading to a socially
desirable nonconformity.
Proactive disposition. Proactive behavior in organizations has been de-

fined as an individual’s initiative to improve on or to create entirely new cir-
cumstances (Crant, 2000). The behavior has been linked to an individual’s
career success (Seibert et al., 2001). This approach to proactive behavior is
in line with the tripartite model discussed above in that it is conditioned by
individual differences and is context dependent. Crant (2000) related pro-
active behavior to a set of personal predispositions including initiative, self-
efficacy, and taking charge, and a set of contextual factors including organi-
zational culture and norms, situational cues, management support, and
public or private settings. Examples of proactive behaviors resulting from a
proactive disposition include socialization, feedback seeking, issue selling,
innovation, career management, and stress coping (Crant, 2000). The com-
plexity of this construct provides interesting guidance as to initiatives that
one might take in educating students toward proactive behavior as a surrogate
for entrepreneurial action.
The parallels between entrepreneurship and proactive behavior are appar-
ent in their definitions by diverse scholars. People who exhibit proactive
behavior have been defined as those who “take action to influence their envi-
ronment . . . unconstrained by situational forces” (Bateman & Crant, 1993,
p. 103), as taking initiative and challenging the status quo (Crant, 2000), and
as opportunity seeking, forward looking, and anticipating competitors’
November 20, 2007
future actions (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Proactive individuals scan the envi-
ronment for opportunities, show initiative, and persevere until they bring
about change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Congruent with these conceptual-
izations, entrepreneurship researchers have described entrepreneurs as indi-
viduals that “pursue an opportunity regardless of the resources they control”
(Timmons, 1994, p. 7). These parallels are striking and have only recently led
to empirical research testing the relationship between the two constructs.
Becherer and Maurer (1999) studied presidents of small companies to
examine the connection between proactive behavior and entrepreneurial
action. The study found significant relationships between the president’s
proactivity and the firm’s competitive posture and growth in sales, thus estab-
lishing the first empirical bridge between the two concepts. The study clearly
shows that a proactive disposition is related to entrepreneurial action for
presidents of small companies in terms of their venture’s ability to compete
and grow. Another study found a significant relationship between proactive
disposition of small business owners and the level of innovation of their
implemented strategies (Kickul & Gundry, 2002), providing further support
for the proactive-entrepreneurship relationship.
A proactive disposition in students can be promoted by the development
of flexible syllabi that use student research and input, and the use of experien-
tial course materials and assignments. Given the complexity of the proactive
construct, we depict its contribution to the model in Figure 1 as influencing
desirability and feasibility, and directly influencing intentions. Furthermore,
we suggest in our model that the direct effect of proactive disposition on
intention is moderated by the perceived desirability and feasibility of the sub-
ject behavior. We propose these relationships as avenues for future research,
given the lack of prior work supporting its inclusion within the attitude-
intention-behavior framework.
Self-efficacy. Attitude research has consistently found that individuals’

perceptions of their ability to perform a task improve the chances of convert-
ing attitudes into behavior (Ajzen, 1982, 1991). For example, a study that
examined patent inventors found that those who had successfully started a
business had significantly higher self-efficacy than those who had not (Mark-
man, Balkin, & Baron, 2002). Other researchers focusing on resource acqui-
sition have found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is related to the entrepre-
neur’s perceived ability to obtain the necessary resources for a successful
start-up as needed (Erikson, 2002).
Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of successfully completing a
task or attaining a goal. It is a useful construct to predict an entrepreneur’s
behavioral choice, persistence, and effectiveness (Chen, Green, & Crick,
November 20, 2007
1998). Robinson et al. (1991) defined self-efficacy in business as an attitude

derived from an individual’s self-confidence and perceived competency of
his or her business ability. In general, differences in work interest and perfor-
mance have been traced to differences in self-efficacy, affecting individual
persistence, initiative, and performance (Eden, 1992; Krueger, 2000).
Here we redefine the concept from a focus on business affairs to a focus on
students’ curricular and extracurricular activities. Self-efficacy can be pro-
moted in students throughout the curriculum with guidance from faculty and
support resources, and through the encouragement of entrepreneurial activi-
ties outside the classroom. A few schools have developed business plan com-
petitions and incubation of small business start-ups. Others create entrepre-
neurship centers that coach students to participate in national competitions.
Yet others promote student involvement in the creation and management of
student organizations. This encouragement will nurture students’ perceived
feasibility toward entrepreneurial actions. We discuss some of these initia-
tives in more detail in the last section of this article.
Achievement motivation. Researchers have found that entrepreneurs

are more achievement oriented than the general population (Hornaday,
1982); and, when compared to managers of large firms, managers showed
a higher need for power and lower need for achievement than entrepreneurs
(McClelland & Winter, 1969). Although these findings have been challenged
for methodological issues and contradicted by the use of different samples,
other context-specific studies that focus on performance effects have found
that the achievement motivation of entrepreneurs not only influences their
ownership decisions but also the performance of their ventures (Begley &
David, 1987; Morris & Fargher, 1974; Smith & Miner, 1984; Stewart et al.,
1999; Wainer & Rubin, 1969).
Promoting an attitude toward high achievement in students that goes
beyond the external motivation for high grades is one of the most difficult
challenges in business education. Positive feedback regarding students’
entrepreneurial achievements during their college years seems to be an
important step in the development of a positive attitude toward their high
achievement.
AN ACTIONABLE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE
Ensley, Carland, and Carland (2000) discussed various streams of person-

ality and cognitive research devoted to understanding the entrepreneurial
psyche. They suggested that the entrepreneurial psyche can be better under-
stood as an individual drive toward entrepreneurial behavior. We propose
November 20, 2007
that this individual drive can help not only individuals that create and grow
their own organizations but also those who choose a corporate career in inno-
vative organizations. Unlike prior research, our goal here is to understand
where this drive is coming from so that we can promote a positive attitude
toward it, and assess whether initiatives designed to promote entrepreneurial
drive in business schools are effective. The tripartite model of attitudes has
helped us identify the key dimensions of ED and guides the instrument devel-
opment that follows. With this in mind, and guidance from a long tradition of
research leading to the theory of planned behavior discussed above, we pro-
pose the following definition:
Entrepreneurial drive (ED) is an individual’s perception of the desirability and

feasibility to proactively pursue opportunities and creatively respond to chal-
lenges, tasks, needs, and obstacles in innovative ways. Individuals with high
levels of entrepreneurial drive are generally high achievers, possess high self-
efficacy, question the status quo, and have a preference for innovative solutions.
Recent research on the entrepreneurial orientation of firms has found that

entrepreneurs with a proactive frame of mind performed better in industries
in early stages of development and dynamic environments, whereas entre-
preneurs in more established, highly competitive and hostile industries per-
form better with a competitive aggressiveness posture (Lumpkin & Dess,
2001). The definition proposed above attempts to capture both facets of
entrepreneurial activity by including the proactive search for opportunities
and the creative response to threats. It is in line with Getley’s (1979) original
conceptualization: “the drive that some people have to create things, the
determination that they have to achieve real progress, and the tenacity which
is shown by them to change things despite massive opposition” (p. 19).
In the following sections, we discuss the development and testing of an
instrument designed to assess the level of entrepreneurial drive in business
school students.
Instrument Development
We draw from two previously tested instruments that closely address our
needs. The first is an instrument developed by Robinson et al. (1991) follow-
ing the tripartite model discussed above. According to attitude theory, an atti-
tude refers to an object and is a way of responding to the world. Because it
necessarily refers to a specific object, its measurement is valid only when
done in relation to the object. This approach increases predictability because
of the limited scope of the instrument.
November 20, 2007
Given our focus on undergraduate business education, we adapted the

Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale developed and tested by
Robinson et al. (1991). As the EAO scale was constructed with entrepreneurs
and nonentrepreneurs in mind, we made changes where necessary to suit the
school context. Scale items that were highly specific to practicing entrepre-
neurs were eliminated or modified so that the object was the school environ-
ment and not the work environment. For instance, an item included in the
EAO scale that was not included in our scale is “I feel like a total failure when
my business plans don’t turn out the way I think they should.” Thus, the ques-
tions address each attitude we were interested in (achievement, innovation,
nonconformity, and self-efficacy) from three perspectives—affect, cogni-
tion, and conation—and with respect to a specific object (school work and
extracurricular activities). This approach can be thought of as a way to trian-
gulate on each of the attitudes, with questions phrased in affective, cognitive,
and behavioral form. The items used are listed in Table 2.
The second instrument we used is a scale for assessing proactive disposi-
tion developed by Bateman and Crant (1993), again adapted to business stu-
dents and the business school environment. We included several demo-
graphic questions to test individual differences and control for variables
suspected of predicting entrepreneurial behavior.
Method
The survey instrument was administered to a cross-sectional sample of

220 freshmen and seniors at a northeastern business school. The sample has a
total of 99 freshmen and 121 seniors. Of the 220 participants, 69 were female.
The school that the sample belongs to does not have a major in entrepreneur-
ship. The declared majors of the senior students are distributed among the
traditional areas of accounting, computer information systems, finance,
management, and marketing. No major differences were found between
groups regarding admissions criteria or effects due to attrition.
APPROACH TO INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
To demonstrate the construct validity, the current study evaluates the con-
tent validity, internal consistency, and reliability of the measures. Rating
scales were used to operationalize the constructs. A central concern with a
rating scale is its content validity, or the extent to which the measures consti-
tuting a scale capture the underlying construct of interest. A measure has con-
tent validity to the extent that items making up the measure are a representa-
tive sample of the domain of items associated with the variable being
November 20, 2007
measured (Nunnally, 1978). Robinson et al. (1991) established the content

validity of the scales. However, to verify the content validity of the adapted
scale items, we screened the items based on the assessment by a panel of
experts about the extent to which the items represent the construct.
FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

FOR INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Confirmatory factor analysis can be useful for assessing the validity of

empirical measures (Nunnally, 1978). However, it is important that the
results of factor analysis are interpreted with theoretical guidance. Here, we
used factor analysis primarily to establish the construct validity of the mea-
sures and to provide evidence for internal consistency of the scale. On factor
analyzing the items in the scale, items were dropped from the scale to ensure
that a clean factor structure emerged with significant loadings that would be
consistent with the theoretical framework.
Internal consistency of scales is also determined by assessing the degree
to which the items in a measure are homogeneous or are indices of a common
construct. We established reliabilities of the scales using Cronbach’s alpha to
determine the extent to which the measures were internally consistent.
Assessing the constructs using coefficient alpha assumes that each indicator
contributes equally to the overall observed variance.
To summarize, we analyzed data obtained from the survey using several
techniques. The construct validity was supported by the results of the confir-
matory factor analysis of the scale items. Factor analysis was instrumental in
refining the scale by selecting those items that had high factor loadings on
each of the factors that were extracted for the scales. Content validity was
established by ensuring that the items making up the scale for each construct
were a representative sample of items associated with the construct being
measured. Measures for all constructs subject to analysis here were internally
consistent and reliable.
Results
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Using a principal components analysis produced five distinct factors (see

Table 1). Items with loadings less than .4 were removed to obtain a clean fac-
tor structure. The five subscales represented by the factors comprised 42
items with significant factor loadings providing confidence that they are
indeed measuring common latent constructs. The total variance accounted
for by the five factors is 45.88%.
November 20, 2007
TABLE 1
Total Variance Explained in Factor Analysis of Scale Items Measuring
Entrepreneurial Drive Dimensions
Rotation Sums of
Initial Eigenvalues Squared Loadings
% of % of
Factor Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative %
1 7.14 16.23 16.23 5.16 11.72 11.72

2 4.87 11.06 27.29 4.85 11.03 22.75
3 4.12 9.37 36.66 4.04 9.18 31.93
4 2.21 5.02 41.69 3.40 7.73 39.66
5 1.84 4.19 45.88 2.74 6.22 45.88
NOTE: Extraction method: Principal components analysis.
The rotated factor structure is presented in Table 2. In this table, the num-
bers reported under each factor represent the partial correlation between the
item and the rotated factor. These correlations help in interpreting the factor
through the identification of a common thread among items that have large
loadings on it.
GROUP DIFFERENCES
The five subscales measuring ED were analyzed for differences based on

the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Multivariate tests were
conducted to verify if seniors had higher scores on the ED subscales com-
pared to freshmen (class). The underlying assumption for instrument devel-
opment is that there exist differences among the participants and that the
instrument can identify these differences. We also controlled for sex differ-
ences (sex) given that other studies have found such differences in some of
our constructs.
MANOVA was conducted first to determine whether there were overall
significant differences among groups before proceeding with the more-spe-
cific univariate analysis. This allows a simultaneous test of differences
among multiple dependent variables. Although there are many tests available
for this purpose, the most widely used is the test of Wilks’s Lambda. Table 3
summarizes the results of the multivariate analysis. The hypothesis of no
overall effect of sex was accepted, Wilks’s Lambda = .95, F(5, 190) = .29, p >
.05. The hypothesis of no overall Class (seniors vs. freshmen) effect was
rejected, Wilks’s Lambda = .95, F(5, 190) = 6.11, p < .05. This suggests that
ED among seniors is significantly higher than among freshmen for this
sample.
November 20, 2007
30
TABLE 2
Rotated Factor Matrix
Factor
Dimensions Item Description 1 2 3 4 5
Proactive disposition I am always looking for better ways to do things. .788

α = .90 I excel at identifying opportunities. .782
No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. .737
I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. .733
I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition. .726
If I see something I don’t like, I fix it. .702
Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality. .661
I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life. .633
I get a thrill out of doing new, unusual things at school or work. .625
Preference for I believe it is important to approach opportunities in unique ways. .768
November 20, 2007

innovation α = .85 I enjoy being the catalyst for change in school or work affairs. .744
I usually seek out colleagues who are excited about exploring new ways of doing things. .690
I get real excited when I think of new ideas to stimulate my group’s performance in school
assignments. .566
I believe it is important to continually look for new ways to do things at school or work. .561
I get excited when I am able to approach tasks in unusual ways. .550
I enjoy being able to do things in new ways. .544
I often approach school tasks in unique ways. .524
I believe that to be successful one must sometimes do things in ways that could seem unusual
at first glance. .517
I usually take control in unstructured situations. .452
I enjoy finding good solutions to problems that nobody has looked at yet. .433
I believe that to arrive at a good solution to a problem, it is important to question the
assumptions made in defining the problem. .433
I believe that when pursuing goals or objectives, the final result is far more important than
following the accepted procedures. .418
Self-efficacya α = .82 I feel inferior to most people I work with. .759
I often feel badly about the quality of work I do. .708
I never persist very long on a difficult job before giving up. .685
I often put on a show to impress the people I work with. .659
I feel self-conscious when I am with very successful people. .634
I feel uncomfortable when I’m unsure of what my team members think of me. .613
I seem to spend a lot of time looking for someone who can tell me how to solve all
my school problems. .610
I feel very self-conscious when making school presentations. .487
Achievement To be successful I believe it is important to use your time wisely. .734
motivation α = .73 I feel proud when I look at the results I have achieved in my school activities. .620
I do every job as thoroughly as possible. .599
I believe it is important to analyze your own weaknesses. .569
I make a conscientious effort to get the most out of my available resources. .551
November 20, 2007

I feel good when I have worked hard to improve my assignments. .548
I believe that to be successful a person must spend time planning the future. .417
Nonconformitya I always follow accepted practices in the dealings I have with others. .737
α = .78 I rarely question the value of established procedures. .703
I believe that currently accepted regulations at school were established for a good reason. .636
I feel best about my work when I know I have followed accepted procedures. .635
I believe that in order to succeed, one must conform to accepted practices. .511
NOTE: Extraction method: Principal components analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a. Items in these sections are reverse scored.
31
TABLE 3
Multivariate Tests
Wilks’s Lambda Hypothesis Error Significance
Effect Value F df df p Value
Intercept .99 .29 5 190 .92

Sex .95 1.83 5 190 .11
Class .86 6.11 5 190 .00
Sex × Class .99 .46 5 190 .88
NOTE: Design: Intercept + Sex + Class + Sex × Class
The statistically significant results were followed by calculation of uni-

variate F ratios for each dependent variable to determine the specific sub-
scales that have significant differences between freshmen and seniors, and
between males and females.
ANOVA models using Type III sum of squares are estimated for all ED
subscales as dependent variables and with sex and class as independent vari-
ables. Results are provided in Table 4.
Results from the ANOVA model suggest that self-efficacy and nonconfor-
mity (with sex and class as independent variables) were statistically signifi-
cant in explaining the variance in the overall model. Proactive disposition
was significantly higher among males compared to females (F = 3.97, p <
.05) and self-efficacy showed a weak significance level favoring males. Self-
efficacy and nonconformity values were significantly higher for seniors
compared to freshmen. Finally, there was a weak support for preference for
innovation among seniors compared to freshmen.
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
To establish the predictive validity of the five subscales measuring ED, we

conducted a stepwise discriminant analysis to determine if senior and fresh-
man students can be predicted based on their scores on the ED subscale mea-
sures. Four of the five subscales were significant in predicting seniors and
freshmen. Table 5 provides a summary of the stepwise discriminant analysis
and also the classification function coefficients. The proactive disposition
subscale did not provide significant contribution to the predictive ability of
the student standing; that is, seniors and freshmen. The discriminant function
was statistically significant, with Wilks’s Lambda of .838 (χ2 = 34.19, df = 4,
p < .0001). The accuracy of predicting group membership was 65.9% using
the classification function coefficients, providing further support for ED as a
latent construct. Table 6 summarizes the classification results.
November 20, 2007
TABLE 4
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Type III Sum Mean
Source Variable of Squares df Square F Significance
a
Corrected Proactive 4.98 3 1.66 1.68 .173
model Innovativeness 4.24b 3 1.41 1.42 .238
Self-efficacy 17.34c 3 5.78 6.24 .000***
Achievement 4.12d 3 1.37 1.38 .250
Nonconformity 13.13e 3 4.38 4.62 .004***
Intercept Proactive .47 1 .47 .47 .493
Innovativeness .07 1 .07 .07 .792
Self-efficacy .02 1 .02 .02 .880
Achievement .03 1 .03 .03 .857
Nonconformity .79 1 .79 .83 .364
Sex Proactive 3.93 1 3.93 3.97 .048**
Innovativeness .00 1 .00 .00 1.000
Self-efficacy 3.09 1 3.09 3.35 .069*
Achievement .05 1 .05 .06 .814
Nonconformity 1.84 1 1.84 1.94 .165
Class Proactive .23 1 .23 .23 .633
Innovativeness 3.23 1 3.23 3.25 .073*
Self-efficacy 13.65 1 13.65 14.74 .000***
Achievement 2.45 1 2.45 2.46 .118
Nonconformity 6.91 1 6.91 7.29 .008***
Sex × Class Proactive .65 1 .65 .66 .419
Innovativeness .11 1 .11 .11 .737
Self-efficacy .12 1 .12 .12 .733
Achievement .47 1 .47 .48 .491
Nonconformity .88 1 .88 .93 .337
Error Proactive 192.02 194 .99
Innovativeness 192.76 194 .99
Self-efficacy 179.66 194 .93
Achievement 192.88 194 .99
Nonconformity 183.87 194 .95
Total Proactive 197.00 198
Innovativeness 197.00 198
Self-efficacy 197.00 198
Achievement 197.00 198
Nonconformity 197.00 198
2 2
NOTE: a. R = .025 (Adjusted R = .010)
b. R2 = .022 (Adjusted R2 = .006)
c. R2 = .088 (Adjusted R2 = .074)
d. R2 = .021 (Adjusted R2 = .006)
e. R2 = .067 (Adjusted R2 = .052)
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
November 20, 2007
TABLE 5
Stepwise Discriminant Analysis
Classification
Function Coefficient
Wilks’s
Step F to Remove Lambda Significance Freshmen Seniors
1 Self-efficacy_factor 14.967
2 Self-efficacy_factor 15.763 .949 .000
Nonconformity_factor 11.416 .929 .000
3 Self-efficacy_factor 16.065 .928 .000
Nonconformity_factor 11.635 .908 .000
Innovativeness_factor 4.738 .878 .000
4 Self-efficacy_factor 16.332 .909 .000 –.360 .276
Nonconformity_factor 11.829 .890 .000 –.306 .235
Innovativeness_factor 4.817 .859 .000 –.195 .150
Achievement_factor 4.225 .857 .000 –.183 .141
(Constant) –.958 –.653
TABLE 6
Classification Results for Discriminant Analysis
Original Group Predicted Group Membership
Class Freshmen Seniors
Freshmen 46 (46.5%) 53 (53.5%)

Seniors 22 (18.2%) 99 (81.8%)
NOTE: 65.9% of the original grouped cases correctly classified.
QUALITATIVE STUDY: INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE

ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE IN STUDENTS
Focus groups of graduating students who had previously completed the

survey were conducted to discuss their experiences during the 4 years of their
tenure. The students were presented with the definition of entrepreneurial
drive and an explanation of its five dimensions. They were then asked to
provide examples, if any, of instances in which they had been able to develop
a positive or negative attitude toward any of the five ED dimensions. A list
of opportunities that students felt had helped them develop their entrepre-
neurial drive follows (the classification is proposed by the authors). The
appendix provides more detail about these programs and their potential for
ED development:
November 20, 2007
• Initiatives that show entrepreneurial proactive behavior:

• membership in the entrepreneurial club
• participation in the elevator pitch competition and business plan competition
• courses taken in starting and growing small businesses
• creating or leading student organizations
• participating in extracurricular activities such as organizing schoolwide
events
• taking more courses than required for graduation
• pursuing a double major
• Academic initiatives that provide opportunities for ED development:
• participation in the study abroad program
• taking courses with simulation game competitions where students had to
start and manage the growth of a business
• taking courses that develop people skills, such as personal selling
• taking organizational behavior courses that use experiential learning tools
• doing internships at local businesses where students work for the business
and conduct a project supervised by a faculty member for credit
• Outreach initiatives that provide opportunities for ED development:
• participating in the study abroad program
• doing volunteer work at nationally recognized nonprofit organizations as
part of a sociology course for credit
The groups also discussed differences among majors and concentrations.

Accounting majors, with few exceptions, said their discipline leaves little
room to be entrepreneurial, and their courses stressed the need for following
accounting rules and procedures. Management majors, on the other hand, felt
they had many opportunities to develop their entrepreneurial drive and pur-
sue diverse opportunities of interest. We conclude that future research
exploring relationships among the different dimensions of ED should control
for the disciplines, majors, or concentrations of their participants. Further-
more, instructional strategies based on experiential or simulation methods
may have an impact independently from the disciplines and curriculum
content being delivered.
Our quantitative analysis was performed primarily to develop and test the
measurement instrument. Other variables, such as the student’s own matura-
tion process, could account for ED development during the school years. The
qualitative analysis is a first step in establishing a link between the programs
offered and the development of entrepreneurial drive in students. Future
studies could use the instrument to test exiting students and follow the indi-
viduals over time to test the theory of planned behavior in business settings
and the impact of education on the performance of graduating business
students.
November 20, 2007
Discussion and Conclusions
What is entrepreneurial drive? Can it be taught? Can we measure it? These

are the questions we set out to address. Although we are far from definitive
answers, this article is a step in that direction. The current study developed an
actionable definition of entrepreneurial drive that draws on established
theories of individual behavior and a reliable instrument to assess the effective-
ness of initiatives to develop entrepreneurial drive among students. Results
suggest that there is a significant difference between seniors and freshmen in
their entrepreneurial drive, providing support to the notion that the five dimen-
sions proposed here are indeed assessing the same underlying construct (ED).
Results from the quantitative analysis comparing groups cannot be used to
conclude that the development of entrepreneurial drive in students resulted
from specific courses or initiatives experienced during their undergraduate
education. Other factors such as the students’ maturation process could
account for it. On the other hand, the exit focus groups conducted provided
some evidence that students attributed positive and negative effects to spe-
cific courses, programs, and experiences they endured. Unsolicited contribu-
tions from accounting majors as to the lack of opportunities to develop entre-
preneurial drive, and reports of being expressly discouraged from attempts
to deviate from the norm, point to the potential effects of instructional
strategy and discipline orientation in developing or inhibiting ED. These
accounts also provide anecdotal support to the model presented, in terms of
the importance of the perceived feasibility and desirability felt by individuals
in their willingness to transform attitudes into behaviors.
Based on the analysis presented in the preceding sections, we conclude
that the measures developed for ED have high validity and reliability. Educa-
tional drive subscales proved useful in discriminating between freshmen and
senior students. Although not central to the current study, the scales also
identified sex differences. Women showed lower proactive disposition and
self-efficacy compared to men. These results are in line with prior research
(Clements, 1987; Nevill & Schlecker, 1988) and highlight the need to
research and understand these individual differences in college education.
They could be used, for example, to support initiatives focused on developing
a positive attitude toward proactive behavior and on developing self-efficacy.
One such initiative currently being implemented in some schools and by non-
profit organizations is to develop women centers to support businesses and
other efforts led by women.
The instrument developed here could be used to conduct longitudinal
studies to determine the impact of business education as a whole and to assess
the effects of specific initiatives to foster ED. Although we do not claim that
November 20, 2007
business education is the most appropriate choice for potential students to

enhance their ED, further studies can establish the claim by comparing stu-
dents with different majors within a school or students across schools.
To conclude, this article is a first attempt to understand ED, propose meth-
ods to promote it among business school students, and develop a measure-
ment tool to assess initiatives designed to develop a positive attitude toward
entrepreneurial behavior. Our theory development summarized in Figure 1
suggests potential relationships between constructs that provide avenues for
future research. Results from the quantitative study confirm that the ED con-
struct can be measured. The qualitative study provided evidence to support
the notion that ED can be taught or at least fostered in a business school envi-
ronment. Future research could focus on the proposed relationships among
the five constructs discussed and the effect of ED on actual behaviors by stu-
dents during their academic tenure and later on, as they evolve in their chosen
careers.
So, what should we do differently in business education? Going back to
Getley’s (1979) definition, if we feel it is important to produce students with
“the drive that some people have to create things, the determination that they
have to achieve real progress, and the tenacity which is shown by them to
change things despite massive opposition” (p. 19), then it is not enough to
just teach skills, but rather to develop initiatives throughout the business pro-
gram to develop and foster entrepreneurial drive in students. We have defined
entrepreneurial drive as an individual’s perception of the desirability and
feasibility to proactively pursue opportunities and creatively respond to chal-
lenges, tasks, needs, and obstacles in innovative ways. Individuals with high
levels of ED are generally high achievers, possess high self-efficacy, ques-
tion the status quo, and have a preference for innovative solutions. Our next
task as educators seems to be to focus on the development of these attitudes.
Appendix
Curricular and Extracurricular Activities
That Foster Entrepreneurial Drive in Students
Membership in the Entrepreneurship Club

The E-Club is a student-led organization that organizes and promotes campus
activities, such as presentations by prominent business owners, and provides peer
support for students interested in starting their own business.
In addition to the proactivity required to organize and lead this volunteer group,
participating members develop their innovativeness and self-efficacy in developing
and implementing new activities.
November 20, 2007
Participation in the elevator pitch competition

and business plan competition
The Global Entrepreneurship Center, a school-funded organization, organizes
these two competitions. The elevator pitch competition is open to any student with an
idea for a business and requires the student or student team to present, in 60 seconds,
their idea to a panel of experts drawn from successful alumni. Similarly, the business
plan competition is open to any students that have developed a business plan and
intend to start a business. The Center provides training to students for these events and
solicits grants for prize money.
This is an extracurricular activity where students show proactiveness in register-
ing for the events and innovation in the development of their business ideas. The busi-
ness plan competition helps develop their achievement motivation.
Courses taken in starting and growing small businesses

The school does not have a concentration in entrepreneurship but offers two elec-
tives, a business plan development course and a course dealing with the issues of man-
aging and growing a small business. These courses are designed to provide the basic
skills to plan, fund, and grow a small business, and also to provide some level of self-
efficacy or confidence that they can actually do it through experiential exercises.
Creating or leading student organizations
Participating in extracurricular activities

such as organizing schoolwide events
The school encourages students to design and create organizations and events to
support their needs. These activities help them develop their proactiveness and self-
efficacy, as well as express their nonconformity.
Taking more courses than required for graduation
Pursuing a double major
Campus recruiters favor students that can prove their high achievement motivation
and proactive behavior. High achievers have the ability and motivation to take addi-
tional courses, negotiate changes in the curriculum, and pursue double majors to
improve their marketability or learn the skills they feel they need to succeed in their
job search and their career.
Participation in the study abroad program

Study abroad programs, if designed and controlled for quality and academic rigor,
open the students’ minds to different ways of doing and thinking, and they require
November 20, 2007
additional effort and commitment. They are open only to students in good standing
and with high grades. As a consequence, these programs are excellent in promoting
self-efficacy, innovativeness, and proactiveness, and reward high achievement.
Taking courses with simulation game competitions where

students had to start and manage the growth of a business
Simulation games where students’ grades are affected by their performance in the
game yet, instructors provide plenty of opportunity and assistance to succeed are par-
ticularly conducive to developing self-efficacy. Even for students that have performed
poorly, a good debriefing can help them understand and learn what skills and abilities
they lack. High achievers tend to get extremely involved.
Taking courses that develop people skills, such as personal selling
Taking organizational behavior courses that use experiential learning tools
These courses can be designed to develop students’ self-efficacy, achievement

motivation, and nonconformity. A school-level commitment to developing entrepre-
neurial drive would encourage all faculty to find ways to develop positive attitudes to
entrepreneurial drive (ED) through course design and student support. As specified in
the model presented, the perception of feasibility and desirability are key to go from
attitudes to behaviors. Desirability for entrepreneurial behavior may be difficult to
implement in certain disciplines such as accounting and finance.
Doing internships at local businesses where students work for

the business and conduct a project supervised by a faculty member for credit
These curricular activities are only available to students with high grades, thus
rewarding high achievement. They generally require a student to identify a problem
and develop a creative proposal to solve it. This exposure to real-time business issues
helps students develop an innovative attitude and self-efficacy.
Doing volunteer work at nationally recognized nonprofit

organizations as part of a sociology course for credit
This is an interesting way for students to get exposure to alternative ways of apply-
ing their business skills and alternative career paths. This course requires students to
identify a local nonprofit of their choice and gain access as volunteer workers for a
semester. Students involved in such initiatives show proactive behavior and can
develop their nonconformity and innovativeness in applying business skills to the
nonprofit sector.
November 20, 2007
References
Ajzen, I. (1982). On behaving in accordance with one’s attitudes. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, &
C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 3-
15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology
(pp. 798-884). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999, January). The proactive personality disposition and
entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 37, 28-36.
Begley, T. M. B., & David, P. (1987). A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small busi-
ness firms. Journal of Management, 13(1), 99-108.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct compo-
nents of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1191-1205.
Buttner, E. H., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1993). Entrepreneurs’ problem solving styles: An empirical
study using the Kirton adaptation/innovation theory. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment, 31(1), 22-31.
Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. A. (1991). An empirical investigation into the distinctions between male
and female entrepreneurs and managers. International Small Business Journal, 9(3), 62-72.
Chen, C., Green, R., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepre-
neurs from managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316.
Clements, S. (1987). The self efficacy expectations and occupational preferences of females and
males. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 23, 1455-1470.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.
Ede, F. O., & Panigrahi, B. (1998). African American students’attitudes toward entrepreneurship
education. Journal of Education for Business, 73(5), 291-297.
Eden, D. (1992). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling proph-
ecies in organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 3(4), 271-305.
Ensley, M. D., Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. A. (2000). Investigating the existence of the lead
entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(4), 59-77.
Erikson, T. (2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging venture’s most important asset and
competitive advantage. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 275-290.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11-32.
Gasse, Y. (1985). A strategy for the promotion and identification of potential entrepreneurs at the
secondary school level. In J. A. Hornaday, B. Shils, J. Timmons, & K. H. Vestper (Eds.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 538-559). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Press.
Getley, R. (1979). Entrepreneurial drive. Industrial and Commercial Training, 11(1), 19-23.
Hatten, T. S., & Ruhland, S. K. (1995). Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as predicted by
participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 224-228.
November 20, 2007
Hornaday, R. H. (1982). Research about living entrepreneurs. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K.

H. Vestper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 20-34). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kickul, J., & Gundry, L. K. (2002). Prospecting for strategic advantage: The proactive entrepre-
neurial personality and small firm innovation. Journal of Small Business Management,
40(2), 85-97.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 622-629.
Knight, R. M. (1987). Can business schools produce entrepreneurs? In N. C. Churchill (Ed.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 603-604). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Press.
Krueger, N. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5-23.
Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new ven-
ture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 5-22.
Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges.
Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-161.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to
firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of
Business Venturing, 16(5), 429-451.
Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. (2002). Inventors and new venture formation: The
effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, 27(2), 149-165.
McCarthy, J. F. (2002). Does having a proactive personality lead to career success? Academy of
Management Executive, 16(2), 168-170.
McClelland, D. C., & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New York: Free
Press.
Morris, J. L., & Fargher, K. (1974). Achievement drive and creativity as correlates of success in
small business. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 217-222.
Mudd, S. (1996). Kirton’s A-I theory: Evidence bearing on the style/level and factor composition
issues. British Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 241-251.
Nevill, D. D., & Schlecker, D. I. (1988). The relation of self-efficacy and assertiveness to willing-
ness to engage in traditional/non-traditional career activities. Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 12(1), 91-98.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Robinson, P., & Haynes, M. (1991). Entrepreneurship education in America’s major universities.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 41-52.
Robinson, P. B., Stimpson, D. V., Huefner, J. C., & Hunt, H. K. (1991). An attitude approach to
the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J.
Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland, W. J. McGuire, R. P. Abelson, & J. W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude,
organization, and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1-14).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rosenfeld, R. B., Winger-Bearskin, M., Marcic, D., & Braun, C. L. (1993). Delineating entrepre-
neurs’styles: Application of adaptation-innovation subscales. Psychological Reports, 72(1),
287-298.
November 20, 2007
Sapienza, H. J., & Grimm, C. M. (1997). Founder characteristics, start-up process, and strategy/
structure variables as predictors of shoreline railroad performance. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 22(1), 5-25.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudi-
nal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4),
845-874.
Sexton, D. L., & Smilor, R. W. (Eds.). (1997). Entrepreneurship 2000. Chicago: Upstart
Publishing.
Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture cre-
ation. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23-45.
Smith, N. R., & Miner, J. B. (1984). Motivational considerations in the success of technologically
innovative entrepreneurs. In K. H. Vestper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research
(pp. 488-495). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Press.
Stewart, W. H., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C., & Carland, J. W. (1999). A proclivity for entrepre-
neurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers.
Journal of Small Business Venturing, 14, 189-214.
Timmons, J. (1990). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship in the 1990s (3rd ed.). Homewood,
IL: Irwin.
Timmons, J. (1994). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Burr Ridge,
IL: Irwin.
Timmons, J., Smollen, L., & Dingee, A. (1985). New venture creation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Wainer, H. A., & Rubin, I. M. (1969). Motivation of research and development entrepreneurs:
Determinants of company success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 178-184.
Zimmer, T. W., & Scarborough, N. M. (1998). Essentials of entrepreneurship and small business
management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
November 20, 2007

Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Educat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Educat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Fostering Entrepreneurial Drive in Business Education: An

The online version of this article can be found at:

Organizational Behavior Teaching Society

Email Alerts: http://jme.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Citations (this article cites 28 articles hosted on the

Drawing from research in individual characteristics of entrepreneurs and the

Keywords: entrepreneurial drive; business education; nonconformity; pro-

found that these had a positive impact on entrepreneurs’ propensity to act. In

the students, have proven valuable in developing entrepreneurial drive in

Despite the unprecedented growth in undergraduate-level entrepreneur-

A SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVE OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE

respect to entrepreneurial activity. The tripartite model explains this complex

when different measures of attitudes are found to be related to each other, to be

ATTITUDINAL DIMENSIONS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) posits that intentions

A preference for innovation. Entrepreneurs are inherently creative and

Proactive Intentions Behavior

Figure 1: The Role of Entrepreneurial Drive on Intentions and Behavior

Nonconformity. Kirton (1976) considered innovation and adaptation as

entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs identified a different set of relationships

Proactive disposition. Proactive behavior in organizations has been de-

Self-efficacy. Attitude research has consistently found that individuals’

1998). Robinson et al. (1991) defined self-efficacy in business as an attitude

Achievement motivation. Researchers have found that entrepreneurs

AN ACTIONABLE DEFINITION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL DRIVE

Ensley, Carland, and Carland (2000) discussed various streams of person-

Entrepreneurial drive (ED) is an individual’s perception of the desirability and

Recent research on the entrepreneurial orientation of firms has found that

Given our focus on undergraduate business education, we adapted the

The survey instrument was administered to a cross-sectional sample of

APPROACH TO INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING

measured (Nunnally, 1978). Robinson et al. (1991) established the content

FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Confirmatory factor analysis can be useful for assessing the validity of

Using a principal components analysis produced five distinct factors (see

1 7.14 16.23 16.23 5.16 11.72 11.72

NOTE: Extraction method: Principal components analysis.

The five subscales measuring ED were analyzed for differences based on

Proactive disposition I am always looking for better ways to do things. .788

November 20, 2007

November 20, 2007

Intercept .99 .29 5 190 .92

NOTE: Design: Intercept + Sex + Class + Sex × Class

The statistically significant results were followed by calculation of uni-

To establish the predictive validity of the five subscales measuring ED, we

Freshmen 46 (46.5%) 53 (53.5%)

NOTE: 65.9% of the original grouped cases correctly classified.

QUALITATIVE STUDY: INITIATIVES TO PROMOTE

Focus groups of graduating students who had previously completed the

• Initiatives that show entrepreneurial proactive behavior:

The groups also discussed differences among majors and concentrations.

Discussion and Conclusions

What is entrepreneurial drive? Can it be taught? Can we measure it? These

business education is the most appropriate choice for potential students to

Membership in the Entrepreneurship Club

Participation in the elevator pitch competition

Courses taken in starting and growing small businesses

Creating or leading student organizations

Participating in extracurricular activities

Taking more courses than required for graduation

Pursuing a double major

Participation in the study abroad program