Influences of Creativity and Resource Availability in the Intelligent Career Framework:

Empirical Investigation of Nigerian Entrepreneurs

Isyaku Salisu *
School of Quantitative Sciences
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia
Email: abdaratsauri@gmail.com

Aminullah Abdurrasheed Abdullah

Department of Human Resources
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia

Munir Shehu Mashi

Department of Business Management
Federal University Dutsin-Ma, Dutsin-Ma, Nigeria

Md. Mahmudul Alam

School of Economics, Finance & Banking
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
Email: rony000@gmail.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7360-1259

Norashidah Hashim
School of Business Management
Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia

* Corresponding author

Citation Reference:

Salisu, I, Abdullah, A, Mashi, M, Alam, M.M., & Hashim, N. (2021). Influences of

Creativity and Resource Availability in the Intelligent Career Framework: Empirical
Investigation of Nigerian Entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies. 14(6), 1325-1352. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-03-2021-0117

This is a pre-publication copy.

The published article is copyrighted by the publisher of the journal.

1
Influences of Creativity and Resource Availability in the Intelligent Career Framework:
Empirical Investigation of Nigerian Entrepreneurs

Abstract

Purpose: This research investigates the influence of creativity and resource availability on
career competencies and career success of entrepreneurs in Nigeria using the Intelligent
Career Framework.
Design/methodology/approach: Data was obtained using answers to questionnaires given to
348 successful entrepreneurs. The data was analysed using non-parametric software (Smart-
PLS).
Finding: The results indicate that entrepreneurs who understand “know-why”, “know-how”,
and “know-whom” can access the required resources and are doing well in their careers. It is
suggested that these competencies were significantly related to entrepreneurial career
success. Resource availability moderates the relationship of knowing-how, knowing-why
competencies and career success, while creativity moderates only the link between knowing-
whom and entrepreneurs having successful careers.
Research limitations/implications: The results help us to comprehend better the nature of
successful entrepreneurial careers and the prominent role of tripartite competencies in
achieving a successful career. Also emphasised here is the prominence of a more holistic
perspective of these components based on a mix of social, motivational, and human capital.
Practical implications: These findings hinted that entrepreneur should pay uniform
consideration in fostering each career competency. There are implications for career advisers,
practitioners, and entrepreneurship programs.
Originality/value: This is a first-of-its-kind research that used primary source data in
understanding career competencies - “knowing-how, knowing-whom, and knowing-why” -
with entrepreneurs' career success in Nigeria.

Keywords: knowing-whom, career competencies, knowing-why creativity, knowing-how,

resource availability, entrepreneurial career success.

1. Introduction

There has been a significant emphasis on career research in recent decades. Various 'modern
career' models have emerged as an alternative to ‘traditional' organisational careers that have
evolved within a single workplace environment. As a result, the focus has changed from
organisational to individual behaviours and actions (Kozhevnikov, 2020). These new career
approaches such as boundaryless (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), kaleidoscope (Mainieroand
Sullivan, 2005), post-corporate (Peiperl and Baruch, 1997) and protean (Gubler, Arnold and
Coombs, 2014) careers, have arisen as responses to eventualities of modern-day work. Arthur
and Rousseau (1996, p. 6) and DeFillippi and Arthur (1996, p. 116) asserted that the
boundaryless career perfectly echoes “independence from, rather than dependence on,
traditional organizational career arrangements”. This concept has garnered a lot of
philosophical attention (Çakmak-Otluoğlu and Bolat, 2020; DeLuca, Mudrick, and Sauder,
2020; Kundi, Hollet-Haudebert, and Peterson, 2020; Parfitt, 2020). In the boundaryless type
of career, this requires getting the right competencies which is the individual’s responsibility
(DeFillippiand Arthur, 1994). Yet, despite the continuing curiosity about this form of career,
there is a scarcity of understanding how it applies to career success (CS) (Ng and Feldman,
2014). Further, literature has revealed several factors such as human capital and
organisational sponsorship, are responsible for how people evolve in organisations'

2
hierarchical systems (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, and Feldman, 2005). We do not understand well
enough CS’s eventualities when people’s careers are not restricted to a specific setting. More
about the prerequisites for success in the boundaryless career perspective to enlighten well
theory-building and practice (Beigi, Shirmohammadi, and Arthur, 2018) needs to be learnt.

Entrepreneurs are career players who make individual choices about business prospects and
opportunities to get the required resources to realise them (Marshall and Gigliotti, 2020).
According to Marshall and Gigliotti (2020, p. 292), “entrepreneurship as a career move or
transition relates well with the boundaryless career orientation”. Entrepreneurial careers are
regarded as “boundaryless” since such people are from relying on conventional career
arrangements (Chanet al., 2017). Although the literature recommends that entrepreneurs
amass several personal career competencies (CC) when they start out (Inkson and Arthur,
2001), entrepreneurship literature has explored these forms of CC separately. According to
Stringfellow and Shaw (2009), some conceptual articulations of several entrepreneurs'
competencies exist but not essentially vis-à-vis their careers. Hitherto, careers-related studies
encapsulate the concept of CC more generally by investigating jointly the “three ways of
knowing,” precisely “career motivation and purpose” (knowing-why), “skills and experience”
(knowing-how) and “networks and relationships” (knowing-whom) (Ayoobzadeh, 2021;
DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994). While competencies have been examined in several contexts,
such as expatriate (Dickmann et al., 2018), young professionals (Blokker, Akkermans, Tims,
Jansen, and Khapova, 2019), employees (Haenggli, and Hirschi, 2020; Sultana and Malik,
2019), women managers (Chen, Doherty, and Vinnicombe, 2012), and academics (Beigi et
al., 2018; Sherif, Nan, and Brice, 2020), not much is understood about their starring function
in entrepreneurial careers (Zikic and Ezzedeen, 2015).

Furthermore, while intelligent career theory has been used in other fields such as academia
(Beigi, Shirmohammadi, and Arthur, 2018; El Baroudi and Khapova, 2021), executives
(Guptill, Reibling, and Clem, 2018; Lee, 2018), expatriates (Cappellen and Janssens, 2008)
and other professionals (Beigi, Nayyeri, and Shirmohammadi, 2020; Blokker, Akkermans,
Tims, Jansen, and Khapova, 2019; Haenggli and Hirschi, 2020; Schlosser, Lam, and Kerr,
2021), and mostly found empirical backing for numerous career competencies and relevant
resources in influencing career success in all its forms, there is a vacuum about the context of
entrepreneurs. This especially refers to knowing whom, why, and how, which are prominent
in the new career literature but are glaringly ignored by most research in the entrepreneurship
area (Ayoobzadeh, 2021; Crowley-Henry, O'Connor, and Suarez-Bilbao, 2021; Schlosser et
al., 2021). Despite the intelligent career framework's theoretical appeal and practical
applicability, much empirical work continues to focus on career success as measured from an
organisational viewpoint. Consequently, there is a need to look at individuals who are
managers of their own careers, such as entrepreneurs (Van den Born and Van Witteloostuijn,
2013).

Studies are scarce on how aspiring entrepreneurs obtain access to the resources they require,
how they bring together these resources in novel ways, and how they transform them into
new insights, new markets, for competitive advantage (Kitagawa and Robertson, 2015). This
study examines one of these neglected resource themes in an entrepreneurial career, that have
been theoretically deliberated but not comprehensively investigated (Beigi et al., 2018). In
response to career scholars' demands for additional country-centred career enquiries (Ituma
and Simpson, 2009; Mayrhofer, Smale, Briscoe, Dickmann, and Parry, 2020), this paper uses
the intelligent career framework (ICF) to investigate the CC of entrepreneurs in Nigeria.
Given its development as part of the global economy, Nigeria symbolises a comparatively

3
overlooked yet suitable empirical avenue to examine the success of professional careers
(Ituma et al., 2011). The recent literature on entrepreneurial career has focused much more on
the developed than the developing world and considering the increased focus on
entrepreneurial studies in general, African countries require more attention (George, Kotha,
Parikh, Alnuaimi, and Bahaj, 2016). While studies from Western perspectives have greatly
enriched our understanding of EC, their applicability to the world’s emerging market
economies remains unknown. Nonetheless, entrepreneurs in developing countries face major
hurdles due to immense poverty, a lack of infrastructure, less wages, and unequal funding
policies (Harrison, Burnard, and Paul, 2018). The characteristics of African nations are likely
to affect current expertise and spark new management hypotheses (George et al., 2016).

This research explores the three dimensions of CC, thereby improving our understanding of
ECS. Despite the growing value of career competence in career-focused results, it has
become an under-studied subject. Findings based on the previous literature on the link
between CC and success of career are inconsistent. Given the increasing viability of CC and
in reaction to the gaps in our knowledge described earlier, it is necessary to discuss these
ideas with other promising career-focused aspects such as creativity and resource availability
since little theoretical consideration has been paid to understanding entrepreneurship
attributes (Chen, Chang, Wang, and Chen, 2017). Included here are the predictors of CC
presented here. This study's objectives are twofold: (1) to investigate the relationships
between the career competencies (knowing-why, knowing-how, and knowing-whom) on
Entrepreneurial Career Success; and (2) to explore the moderating influences of creativity
and resource availability on the links between three career competencies (knowing-why,
knowing-how, and knowing-whom) and Entrepreneurial Career Success.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1 Theoretical Background

The Intelligent Career Framework (ICF) delivers career advice by concentrating on expertise,
experience, and a network of partnerships, as well as expanding success beyond a specific
workplace to a broader job environment (Parker, Khapova, and Arthur, 2009). The
multilateral components of knowing constitutes the core framework of this study, namely:
"knowing-why," "knowing-how," and "knowing-whom". First, "knowing why" reflects a
human contribution to learning how to recognise the work group, its norms, connotations, and
desires (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2000). People who have this talent have no problem
determining how to advance in their professions and choose what give them a sense of
belonging, appreciation, motivation and pathway in the workplace. They show career
entrepreneurship and leadership because they want to foster a corporate culture and take
positive actions (Briscoe, Hoobler, and Byle, 2010). These activities are recognised by
functional and social bodies within a professional community, such as scholarly societies,
seminars, and academic associations, which provide room for and contribute to career
achievement (Sherif et al., 2020). Second, the “knowing-how” is recognised by
"monopolisation of socially valued knowledge" (Kanter, 1989), which is well-timed and rare
(Parker et al., 2009). Know-how investments lead to career growth (Judge, Kammeyer,
Mueller, and Bretz, 2004), which helps individuals to understand the importance of
knowledge and skills. Third, "knowing whom" includes the development of a plan to achieve
career ambitions by determining "who you know" and "what they can do for you" (Sherif et
al., 2020).

4
2.2 Entrepreneurial Career Success (ECS)

Career Success (CS) is one of the most commonly discussed constructs in career literature,
and theory notes that it can be split into two categories: an objective category, which includes
aspects like wage, salary, or promotion; and a subjective category, which incorporates factors
like career satisfaction and achievement. Yet the literature's dominant perspective on modern
careers is that, in the contemporary career setting, quantitative assessments of CS are no
longer the most important (Hofmans, Dries, and Pepermans, 2008). CS involves not only
companies and their workers but also self-employed people because their success would
inevitably contribute to their success (Lau, Shaffer, and Au, 2007). For an individual, well-
being is attained consequent to a successful career, and for companies their success is
intricately connected to individual success. From an occupational standpoint, self-employed
CS is distinct from an organisation's workforce. For example, wage/salary and the degree of
advancement in the organisational hierarchy have long been seen as the primary measure of a
successful career. These elements, however, are inadequate to measure entrepreneurs who are
their organisations' owners and managers (Lau et al., 2007). Therefore, literature has
increasingly accepted that entrepreneurs consider subjective success elements as more critical
and often do not strictly assess their success through financial metrics (Wach, Stephan,
Marjan, and Wegge, 2018).

Subjective CS denotes “an individual’s positive evaluation of his/her career” (Volmer and
Spurk, 2011, p. 208). Even though people have desirable extrinsic career outcomes, they are
satisfied with their careers. So intrinsic evaluations are considered to be more important (Kim
and Beehr, 2017). This study operationally defined CS from the perspective of intrinsic
domain in compliance with otherr research (e.g., Ekmekcioglu, Erdogan, and Sokmen, 2020).
Studies have shown that in the private sector, particularly for entrepreneurs, objective and
subjective CC are more closely connected (Abele, Spurk and Volmer, 2011; Ng et al., 2005).
Several data-driven studies have demonstrated an interest in following this approach (e.g.,
Ekmekcioglu et al., 2020; Salisu, Hashim, Mashi, and Aliyu, 2020; Salisu, Hashim, Ismail,
and Isa, 2017). This research centers on subjective CS. However, although ECS has always
drawn scholarly interest, the all-inclusive outcomes have not yet been documented (Salisu et
al., 2020), and while all entrepreneurs wish to succeed, data reveals that in the first five years
after the launch of a company or business, the level of failure surrounding such
entrepreneurial projects is as high as 60% (Chakraborty, Ganguly, and Natarajan, 2019). A
lack of critical assessment of multiple variables responsible for success may be the possible
cause (Chatterjee et al., 2019). Established in this paper are some of the significant factors
influencing ECS (career competencies, resources availability, and creativity).

2.3 Entrepreneur Career Competencies

Early literature on the competency-oriented perspective of individual careers is based on

dedicated intellectual study concerning the "core competencies" of the knowledge-based
organisation, its know-how, culture, and networks. People could consider their efforts in a
data-driven economy as their choice, rather than as dependents of the organisations that they
work for (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994). The principle that individuals should take charge of
their professions was further established by the seminal work on "intelligent careers" (Arthur,
Claman, and DeFillippi, 1995), which stated that such careers are based on three "ways of
knowing". Intelligent career players aspire to cultivate these three skills so that they become
career capitalists who benefit from the interrelatedness of the “three ways of knowing” to
gain prominence within the career group (Inkson and Arthur, 2001). For instance, people with

5
know-how competencies are required to have a set of connections outside their work-related
experiences and current environment. Their success promotes the appeal of the broader
industry's colleagues, supervisors, and the "dominant coalition" (know-whom). However,
inadequate experience limits relationship development (particularly with people who are
successful) due to the mismatches perceived by lesser experts about themselves compared to
people with higher status (Sherif et al., 2020).

According to human capital theory (Becker, 1962), individuals' competencies envisage

various career outcomes, such as CS (Spurk, Hirschi, and Dries, 2019). As such, several
studies have been conducted using the ICF to ascertain the power of CC (three knowings) on
CS. For instance, one study’s finding using 411 participants (alumni) by Eby et al. (2003)
offered initial evidence for the extrapolative importance of three approaches of interpreting
what a successful career is. Colakoglu (2011) has shown that the “three ways of knowing” are
necessary for people to develop independent and autonomous careers and to lessen the
complexity of their boundaryless careers. To achieve intrinsic CS, such career independence
was deemed to be influential. The utility of the tripartite components of knowing to describe
subjective CS among freelance workers was verified by Born and Witteloostuijn (2013). In
their work, Sherif et al. (2020) indicate that individuals who understand “know-why,” “know-
how,” and “know whom” have highly regarded resources and consequently thrive in
developing their careers. Inside their networks, they develop a high-level of social
prominence and exert energy to assemble resources. Beigi et al.'s (2018) work has asserted
that the “three ways of knowing” predict individual CS. Additionally, Ballout (2007) asserted
that for subjective career success, crucial forms of capital are the notions of “knowing-why,
knowing-how and to knowing-whom. The better an individual knows "why," "who," and
"how," the more intimate their relationship with their profession becomes, boosting
attachment and, eventually, leading to feelings of accomplishment. Subsequently,
entrepreneurs who utilise the "know why, know who, and know how" strategy to acquire a
better knowledge of their goal (in this case, their work) may be able to attain more subjective
career success (Olckers and Koekemoer, 2017).

2.3.1 Knowing-why Competency

Knowing-why is the process of identifying one's own career objectives and purposes, as well
as the motivation and confidence to achieve them (Inkson and Arthur, 2001). It deals with
issues such as personal values and interests, which are crucial for developing a sense of
purpose and career identity (Kozhevnikov, 2021). It focuses on a person's goals and
objectives, as well as their general self-awareness of personal beliefs, talents, and limitations,
in order to follow a certain professional route, explore other options, and adapt to ever-
changing work environments (Crowley-Henry et al., 2021). Individuals seek to positively
influence their motivation to perform well by creating a scientific identity (Baruch and Hall,
2004) and a sense of self-appreciation for their cognitive and innovative competencies (El
Baroudi and Khapova, 2021).

In particular, according to knowing-why, entrepreneurs may bring to their job the drive to
explore new solutions to organisational challenges, to share information gained elsewhere
with their colleagues, or to adopt best practises from other companies in their own work to
accomplish the desired outcomes (DeFillippi et al., 2006). As a result, know-why skills
necessitate a grasp of an entrepreneur's motivations, professional objectives, and personal
values. It also entails recognising the connections between successful professions and, as a
result, combining these potentially disparate work experiences into one cohesive career vision

6
(Donohue and Tham, 2019). According to Ballout (2007), knowing-why is important for
subjective career success since it implies that people should be aware of the following
factors: what drives them in their work; and what kind of employment would give them a
sense of personal significance so that they can completely identify with their work.
Individuals must be aware of their own talents and shortcomings, as well as their unique
career objectives they want to attain (Eby et al., 2003). This is because individuals need to
fulfil their job objectives and accomplish things, in order to be successful (Olckers and
Koekemoer, 2017; Ang, 2019). Based on this the study hypothesises:

H1: The relationship between entrepreneurial knowing-why and ECS is positive and
significant.

2.3.2. Knowing-how Competency

Individual knowledge, talents and expertise make up know-how. It includes a wide variety of
skills and technical competence, as well as tacit and explicit knowledge that are required to
complete job tasks and accomplish career goals (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1994; Kozhevnikov,
2021). It concerns human capital, i.e. “knowledge, skills and abilities” (KSAs) that one has.
The more one's expertise is evident, especially in areas where skills/talent deficits exist, the
more sought after he or she will be by companies looking for those specific skills/talents
(Crowley-Henry et al., 2021). Simply put, know-how refers to an individual's ability to build
a portfolio of skills that are easily transferred across professions and occupations (Donohue
and Tham, 2019). Individuals engage in their careers by acquiring competencies that are
necessary for long-term career success, according to Baruch and Hall (2004). Ballout (2007)
said that, in order to achieve idiosyncratic career success, ‘knowing how' implies that
individuals must participate in continual learning and growth. It means enhancing their
abilities, skills, and knowledge. Individuals with knowing-how career capital have a wide-
ranging and transportable collection of work skills, knowledge, and job-related resources so
they can thrive in their professions (Colakoglu, 2011). Hence, the study hypothesises:

H2: The relationship between entrepreneurial knowing-how and ECS is positive and
significant.

2.3.3. Knowing-whom Competency

“Knowing whom” capital refers to the social capital or networks of contacts that one relies on
to get jobs, promotions, or commercial relationships over the course of one's career. It
includes a network of connections from high school or college, prior employers or industry
ties, professional acquaintances, and family and friends who may offer career advice and
support (Crowley-Henry et al., 2021; Kozhevnikov, 2021). It is made up of a network of
intra/inter-firm, professional, and social relationships that help people acquire career
autonomy and pursue self-directed career pathways (Colakoglu, 2011). It is also connected to
investing in relational and professional networks that might assist a person to progress in his
or her job. Such investments indicate an entrepreneur's desire to build a scientific network in
terms of satisfaction and achievement, as well as a commercial network in order to earn
income (El-Baroudi and Khapova, 2021).

Entrepreneurs may access knowledge, resources, help, and opportunities through professional
networks (Davis, Wolff, Forret, and Sullivan, 2020). They frequently turn to their
professional networks for information and expertise relevant to their business. It also has to

7
do with the formation and maintenance of mentoring relationships, as well as the
maintenance of networks that offer support, advice, influence, and tacit knowledge (Donohue
and Tham, 2019). Networking and social capital, in particular, can improve entrepreneurs’
subjective success by improving their satisfaction and happiness (Olckers and Koekemoer,
2017) and according to Ballout (2007), entrepreneurs must develop and maintain
relationships with others in order to attain subjective career success. Entrepreneurs would
benefit from such a connection not just in terms of emotional support, but also information
(knowledge) about career options and prospective career possibilities (De Vos et al., 2009).
Subsequently, the study hypothesises the following:

H3: The relationship between entrepreneurial knowing-whom and ECS is positive and
significant.

2.4 Creativity as a Moderator Factor

Creativity is an essential factor in assessing the entrepreneurial ecosystem's health and well-
being (Keshishyan and Boghosian, 2020). It is characterised as the development and
application of innovative and valuable ideas for processes, goods, services, and business
models to create a new enterprise that makes a profit (Amabile, 1988). Entrepreneurial
creativity incorporates innovative and beneficial ways to solve obstacles faced by start-ups,
inventive business methods, or genuine improvements in the entrepreneurial process (Zhou,
2008). Chaston and Sadler-Smith (2012) and Chang, and Chen (2020) have shown that the
creativity of entrepreneurs has a significant effect on many outcomes. Although existing
studies show that entrepreneurs imbued with inventiveness generally have tremendous CS
(Chen et al., 2017), the empirical evidence is far from definitive.

In entrepreneurship, creativity is the focus of entrepreneurial practices and the guiding force
to entrepreneurial success (Albinsson, 2018). Visionary ingenuity and innovation are
significant besides the creation of new goods/services or amenities, but certainly in having
the propensity of marketing new concepts and creativities to seek recognition, financing and
other support are necessary for new enterprises to be successful (Chang and Chen, 2020).
Entrepreneurial creativity (EC) is the intellectual mechanism by which company founders
combine expertise, information, and rational thinking to develop new solutions (Werthes,
Mauer, and Brettel, 2018). Creativity is a core predictor of different entrepreneurial outcomes
and high levels of entrepreneurial desirability are displayed by innovative people
(Zampetakis, 2008). According to Puhakka (2012), EC applies to the corporate ability to find
and leverage business prospects to produce and execute innovative ideas or new projects that
can revitalise current organisations. Because an entrepreneur is required to be creative
enough to discover and identify new enterprise possibilities, innovation is a vital determinant
of various entrepreneurial behaviors (Chen, Tseng, and Teng, 2019; Zampetakis, 2008). This
includes the CS of entrepreneurs (Chen et al., 2017; Chang and Chen, 2020, Chen, Chang,
and Lin, 2018).

Amabile and Mueller (2008) stated that when entrepreneurs develop more creative abilities,
they become more successful in their ventures. The more creative individuals are, the smarter
they are by developing more creative skills and approaches to solving work-related problems
(Amabile and Kramer, 2007). So resource availability and CS are treasured for entrepreneur
career progression, and they are increasingly more useful when brought together with a
suitable capability (Binyamin and Carmeli, 2010). The present research contends that having
access to both resources and CS requires complementary support by relying on appropriate

8
resource creativity skills. According to theory, entrepreneurs will have a mixture of resources
and changing levels of competence and creativity to achieve success. Entrepreneurial success
and resource leverage depend on the entrepreneur’s creativity to exploit this scenario, build
on the existing competencies, and make current capabilities more unique (Caniëls and
Rietzschel, 2015). Yet, in the literature, while it is accepted that competencies lead to
success, it is still unknown what other variables can influence this path to success. Hence, this
study proposes that:

H4. The relationship between knowing–why competency and ECS is stronger for
entrepreneurs with high creativity than for entrepreneurs with low creativity.
H5. The relationship between knowing–how competency and ECS is stronger for
entrepreneurs with high creativity than for entrepreneurs with low creativity.
H6. The relationship between knowing–whom competency and ECS is stronger for
entrepreneurs with high creativity than for entrepreneurs with low creativity.

2.5 Resource Availability as a Moderator Factor

Entrepreneurs can be more agile in expanding their creativity and realising their innovative
projects' success when they have good access to required resources (Chen et al., 2018; Chen
et al., 2017). They are more capable of running their companies if there is more support from
the government and other stakeholders. Resource availability means entrepreneurs’
perceptions of access to money, equipment, people, and other resources necessary to run the
business (Shea, Jacobs, Esserman, Bruce, and Weiner, 2014). Prior studies acknowledged the
importance of resources for entrepreneurs' careers (Kloosterman, 2010). However, most
entrepreneurs operate small businesses with poor scalability, lack of financial capital and
expertise (Chaston, 2008; Fleming, 2007; Henry and De Bruin, 2011; Fleming, 2007). Based
on this, suitable entrepreneurship resources are essential for innovative entrepreneurs to seize
opportunities (Cameron, Moore, Montgomery, and Stewart, 2018). Entrepreneurs are less
likely to build on possibilities if the necessary entrepreneurial resources are not available
(Kloosterman, 2010). Also, administrative challenges to government legislation will impede
an innovative entrepreneur's efficacy and productivity (Bruton, Ahlstrom, and Li, 2010).
Availability of resources influences the financial feasibility and administrative stability of a
new company, which profoundly affects the connections with the tripartite components of
knowing and CS (Edelman and Yli-Renko, 2010). In Nigeria and many other countries,
entrepreneurs actively establish social links with many stakeholders (i.e., families, corporate
associates, competitors, society, and government officials) to access capital so that start-up
businesses can operate (Chen et al., 2015).

Resource availability ensures more managers operating in smaller business divisions; more
budget-based project teams; special capital reserves of undistributed funds that individuals
can leverage to resolve problems. Entrepreneurs are free to be more elastic in expanding their
thoughts and ideas (Barnard and Herbst, 2017). Nevertheless, most entrepreneurs cannot
access or harness resources for the best possible functioning of their business ventures
(Nwachukwu, 2018). In contrast, if there is room to access available resources without
restrictive institutional regulations, entrepreneurs will achieve greater competence, leading to
tremendous CS. A lot of support given by different stakeholders is invaluable to the success
of an entrepreneurial career. For entrepreneurs to act on business opportunities and attain
success in their career, ample resources are needed. Accordingly, the availability of resources
can decide the extent to which entrepreneurs' innovative thoughts can be transformed into
ECS (Edelman and Yli‐ Renko, 2010). Therefore, the study hypothesises the following:

9
 H7: The relationship between knowing–why competency and entrepreneur CC is
stronger for entrepreneurs with high resource availability than for entrepreneurs with
low resource availability.
H8: The relationship between knowing–how competency and entrepreneur CC is
stronger for entrepreneurs with high resource availability than for entrepreneurs with
low resource availability.
H9: The relationship between knowing–whom competency and entrepreneur CC is
stronger for entrepreneurs with high resource availability than for entrepreneurs with
low resource availability.

2.6 Conceptual Framework

Figure1 depicts the constructs and their hypothesised relationship. As shown in the figure,
three ways of knowing are the predictors of ECS. Furthermore, creativity and resources
availability featured as key moderating variables.

Career
Competencies Creativity

Knowing-why H4
H1 H6
H5

H2
Knowing-how
Entrepreneurial
Career Success

H3
H7
Knowing-whom H9 H8

Resources
Availability

Fig. 1. Research Framework

3. Methodology

3.1 Data Collection and Sample Design

10
The sample for this study comprises the SMEs in Nigeria which number 73,081 (Small and
Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria [SMEDAN], 2017) Regarding the
selection of participating entrepreneurs, a convenience sampling technique was adopted. This
was done due to the unavailability of the sampling frame. The current study used G-power in
determining the sample size and accordingly, the minimum sample size required to achieve
satisfactory power (80%) was 123. During the data-gathering process in total 400 survey
instruments were shared using Google Form over a six-month period, and in the end 360
were successfully retrieved. Consequently, 12 partially completed responses were omitted,
and based on the result of the outlier test using Mahalanobis Distance, no extreme cases were
detected. In total, there were 348 valid responses for the final analysis. This final size agreed
with the minimum sample size (i.e., n > 160) suggested in Partial Least Squares-Structural
Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) (Kock, 2018).

3.2 Measurements of Variables

This research followed the advice offered by Hair, Black, and Babin (2009) and Mishra,
Sharma, and Swami (2016) to develop the instrument prior to collecting the data. The full
questionnaire developed was presented to five SME experts to assess its reliability. They
were required to appraise the degree to which they observed that these items in the
questionnaire accurately assess their matching variables on a Likert scale (3-point) “3 = great
extent” “2 = somewhat” and “1 = not at all”. All items that were not ticked '1' by all the
experts and ticked '3' by no less than three experts were incorporated into the main
questionnaire. A pilot study with 30 sample of SMEs was undertaken to confirm the
appropriateness of these items. While some small improvements were made in the wording of
the final research instrument, the results of the pilot study confirmed the questionnaire's
reliability and validity. Cronbach's Alpha (CA) of the study’s variables were well above the
0.7 margin. Hence no one item was removed from the overall survey instruments, and the full
questionnaire contained 31 items. These items were adopted from well-established and high
impact sources.

Subjective CS was evaluated using an 8-item scale devised by Rothwell and Arnold (2007).
This scale was in turn derived from Nabi (1999) and Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley
(1990). Samples of the items are: “I am in a position to do mostly work which I really like”
and “My job title is indicative of my progress and my responsibility in the organization”.
Entrepreneurial CC was a measure using 18 items from Colakoglu (2011). These items
capture three dimensions of CC, namely: Knowing-why: 4 items, samples of the items are “I
have a good idea about my career-related skills and abilities” and “I know very well what my
aspirations are.” Knowing-how: 6-items and here the samples are “I seek out opportunities
for continuous learning in my career”, “I have a diversified set of job-related skills” and “My
job-related knowledge and skills are easily transferable/applied to other employment
settings”. Knowing-whom: 8-item scale, and here the samples of the items are “I regularly
network with individuals outside of my organization”, “I have close ties with my extended
family and friends” and “I am well-connected in my community”.

For entrepreneurial creativity, a 5-item scale was adopted from Oldham and Cummings
(1996) and Zhou and George (2001). Samples of the items are “I usually search out new
creative elements and inspiration, and then utilise those ideas in my creative business” and “I
usually suggest new ways to achieve goals and objectives”. Lastly, a 3-item scale measured
resources availability and based on the work done by Spreitzer (1996). The samples of the
items are “I can obtain the resources necessary to support new ideas” and “When I need

11
additional resources to do my job, I can usually get them.” It is worth noting that a 7-point
scale served to measure all items based on “1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree”.

3.3 Analytical Methods and Estimations

Before testing the model, this paper tested the data for multivariate normality. The skewness
coefficient (β = 7.069) and kurtosis coefficient (β = 65.136) were above the suggested
threshold score of Mardia’s coefficient, suggesting that data was not normal (Byrne, 2013;
Kline, 2011). Therefore, when using the non-parametric approach (i.e., bootstrapping
procedure), PLS-SEM is more suitable (Sarstedt, Ringle, and Hair, 2017). Consequently, the
paper uses the PLS-SEM approach to evaluate the MM utilising Smart-PLS 3.2. This method
has been described as an efficient analytical method for model evaluation by minimising type
II errors. It can furthermore handle both reflective as well as formative indicators, and
accurately deal with a complex model (Chin, 1998). Experts on SEM-related matters such as
Sarstedt et al. (2017) describe PLS-SEM's additional advantage as being non-parametric. This
means relaxing the criterion for normally distributed data, and the approach can be used with
a relatively small sample size. The investigator can examine complete models of direct and
indirect relationships. Based on Hair et al.’s (2017) procedures, the measurement model
(MM) was assessed independently prior to the assessment of the structural model (SM). The
MM was evaluated via internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity and the SM is estimated using: the lateral collinearity; the path coefficients (beta-
value); in-sample predictive power (R2) (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, and Ringle, 2019); the
predictive accuracy (Q2 and PLS predict) (Shmueli, Ray, Velasquez Estrada, and Chatla,
2016; Shmueli et al., 2019) and the effect size (f2) (Cohen, 1988). Furthermore, before the
PLS-SEM analysis, a number of tests such as CMV test, data screening for missing values,
etc., were estimated together with reliability and validity checks to ensure the accuracy,
consistency and quality of the MM.

3.4. Common Method Variance (CMV)

Considering that all of the answers originated from the same scenario, setting and source, the
CMV is known to exaggerate the importance of the hypothesised relationships among the
variables in the model. Harman's one factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and full collinearity
evaluation may help to uncover this possible bias (Kock and Lynn, 2012). The findings
revealed that the highest variance explained by an independent factor was less than 50%,
Furthermore, full collinearity was determined which has a VIF of less than 3.30 (Kock and
Lynn, 2012). Overall, it indicated that CMV is not a concern.

4. Estimations and Data Analysis

4.1 Participants’ Demographics Characteristics

The data analysis and estimation regarding the study results begin with a small overview of
respondents' demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 1, there were 226 males (64.9
percent) and 122 females in the study (35.1%). Most respondents were between 28 and 37
years of age (74.1%), married (70.4%), and have 1 to 10 years of entrepreneurial experience
(42.5%). Level of education indicated the highest percentage (45.4%) were degree holders.

Table 1: Participants’ Demographics Characteristics

12
 Variables Frequency %
Gender
Male 226 64.9
Female 122 35.1
Total 348 100.0
Age
Less than 18 years 12 3.4
18-27 16 4.6
28-37 258 74.1
38 and above 62 17.8
Total 348 100.0
Marital Status
Single 80 23.0
Married 245 70.4
Divorced 17 4.9
Widowed 6 1.7
Total 348 100.0
Educational Level
Primary Education 16 4.6
Secondary Education 36 10.4
Diploma/NCE 64 18.4
Bachelor 158 45.4
Master 62 17.8
Ph.D. 12 3.4
Total 348 100.0
Entrepreneurial Experience
<1 year 76 21.8
1 - 10 years 148 42.5
11 years and above 124 35.6
Total 348 100.0

4.2 Measurement Model

The MM was assessed using several parameters. Internal consistency reliability was
inspected using CA, rho_A, and composite reliability (CR). As shown in Table 2, they all
exceeded the benchmark of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017), strongly suggesting acceptable reliability
among the indicators. It is important to note here that in reflective MM, indicators must be
interrelated, to portray substantial values of outer loading values (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 2: Convergent Validity

Constructs Items Loadings CA rho_A CR AVE

CRT CRT1 0.880 0.891 0.898 0.920 0.697
CRT2 0.847
CRT3 0.814
CRT4 0.858
CRT5 0.772
ECS ECS1 0.702 0.875 0.876 0.902 0.535
ECS2 0.790
ECS3 0.708
ECS4 0.735

13
 ECS5 0.736
ECS6 0.803
ECS7 0.689
ECS8 0.679
KHW KHW1 0.642 0.776 0.786 0.848 0.531
KHW2 0.804
KHW3 0.819
KHW4 0.721
KHW6 0.635
KWM KWM1 0.623 0.822 0.826 0.871 0.531
KWM2 0.778
KWM3 0.710
KWM4 0.733
KWM5 0.802
KWM6 0.712
KWY KWY1 0.731 0.826 0.833 0.885 0.658
KWY2 0.815
KWY3 0.858
KWY4 0.834
RAV RAV1 0.842 0.797 0.800 0.881 0.711
RAV2 0.839
RAV3 0.849

Convergent validity was evaluated by AVE, which should be above 0.5; indicator loadings,
which should be greater than 0.6; and composite reliability (CR), which should be above 0.70
(Hair et al., 2017). In this study, as shown in Table 2, convergent validity was achieved as all
these thresholds were achieved. However, in achieving these values, some items loadings that
fall below the threshold were deleted.

Discriminant validity was evaluated by the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio with a

standard value of 0.90. Table 3 reveals that the total correlations among all the variables were
lower than the threshold. This confirmed there was adequate discriminant validity. Further,
Table 5 summarises that all the variables had VIF values less than the standard value of 5
(Hair et al., 2017; Becker et al., 2015), so there was no multicollinearity to worry about as far
as the predictors were concerned.

Table 3: HTMT Output

SN Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Creativity
2 Entrepreneurial career success 0.676
3 Knowing-how 0.828 0.794
4 Knowing-whom 0.812 0.729 0.848
5 Knowing-why 0.842 0.817 0.856 0.808
6 Resource availability 0.807 0.734 0.820 0.816 0.861

4.3 Structural Model: Hypotheses Testing

14
4.3.1 Analysis of Direct Relationships

The significance of path coefficients in the SM was evaluated via p-values, and confidence
intervals (95% bias-corrected and accelerated) using a bootstrapping procedure with an
iteration of 10,000 in the sub-sample. Table 4 and Figure 2 display the results of the
relationships. It emerges that knowing-why, knowing-how and knowing-whom CC have
significant positive relationships with ECS (H1: β = 0.322, p = 0.000) (H2: β = 0.161, p =
0.023) and (H3: β = 0.188, p = 0.001) so this means H1, H2 and H3 were all supported. In
other words, the three ways of knowing are true predictors of ECS. Chronologically, although
they are all positively related to the criterion variable, the beta, t-values, p-values and CI
show that knowing-why wields the largest influence followed by knowing-whom and
knowing-how.

Table 4: Result of the Hypothesis assessment

Confidence
Intervals

Std. Std. p- Inner R2 F2 Q2

Relationships Beta Error values 5% 95% VIF Decision
KWY -> ECS 0.322 0.074 0.000 0.206 0.448 3.623 0.062 Supported
KHW -> ECS 0.161 0.080 0.023 0.007 0.279 3.448 0.540 0.017 0.281 Supported
KWM -> ECS 0.188 0.063 0.001 0.075 0.285 3.231 0.024 Supported
KWY*CRT -> ECS -0.226 0.077 0.002 -0.359 -0.119 0.028 Not Supported
KHW*CRT -> ECS -0.061 0.087 0.243 -0.211 0.075 0.002 Not Supported
KWM*CRT -> ECS 0.268 0.081 0.001 0.125 0.392 0.036 Supported
KWY*RAV -> ECS 0.178 0.086 0.020 0.030 0.307 0.020 Supported
KHW*RAV -> ECS 0.233 0.108 0.016 0.062 0.406 0.024 Supported
KWM*RAV -> ECS -0.305 0.081 0.000 -0.443 -0.182 0.049 Not Supported

4.3.2 Analysis of Moderating Relationships

The moderation test was done to estimate the H4-H9 by considering the interaction effect of
creativity and resource availability, as observed in Table 5. The findings have shown that
creativity moderated the route between knowing-whom and ECS (H6: β = 0.268, p = 0.001),
with a small (ƒ2 = 0.036) effect size. Hence, H6 was supported. Conversely, the hypotheses
for moderating effect of creativity on the relationship of knowing-why and ECS, and
knowing-how and ECS (H4: β = −0.226, p = 0.002) and (H5: β = −0.061, p = 0.243) were not
significant (refer to Table 5). This means that H4 and H5 were not supported. The results
have indicated that resource availability moderated the route between knowing-why and ECS
(H7: β = 0.178, p = 0.020), and between knowing-how and ECS (H8: β = 0.233, p = 0.016).
However, this was not the case between knowing-whom and ECS (H9: β = -0.305, p = 0.000)
with small effect sizes of ƒ2 = 0.020 and ƒ2 = 0.024, respectively, so H7 and H8 are
supported. Meanwhile H9 was not supported (Table 5).

15
 Career
Competencies Creativity

H
6: H5 H
Knowing-why β= : 4:
H1: β=0.322** 0. β= β=
26 - -
0.0 0.
8*
61
* 22
6
H2: β=0.161*
Knowing-how
Entrepreneurial
Career Success
H H
H3: β=0.188** H
8: 7:
β= β=
Knowing-whom 9:
0. 0.
β=
23 17
-
3* 8*
0.
*
30
5Resources
Availability

Figure. 2. Summary of the structural model

4.4 Structural Model Efficiency Test

As written earlier, the SM is assessed through five steps, while the remaining four were.
Second, VIF was investigated to assess the issue of lateral collinearity. As revealed in Table
5, the values of VIF were less than the threshold of 3 (between 2.564 and 3.623) (Becker,
Ringle, Sarstedt, and Völckner, 2015). Third, to examine in-sample predictive power the R2
values of the model should be weak, moderate, or substantial, i.e. 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75,
respectively (Hair et al., 2016). Results revealed that 54% of ECS variance is explained by
“knowing-why, knowing-how, and knowing-whom” CC; (see Table 5). Fourth, the
construct's effect size was appraised using Cohen’s ƒ2 (Cohen, 1988). By observing the ƒ2
values in Table 5, it can be seen that knowing-why (ƒ2 = 0.062), knowing-how (ƒ2 = 0.017),
and knowing-whom (ƒ2 = 0.024) confirmed a small and trivial effect size in predicting R2 for
ECS respectively (Cohen 1988). Fifth, the predictive accuracy of the SM can be achieved by
computing Q2 values based on the blindfolding procedure (Geisser, 1975; Stone, 1977). As
demonstrated in Table 5, the Q2 values of ECS is 0.281 indicating the predictive accuracy of
the model (Q2>0). Further, the study examined the accuracy of the model’s prediction by
focusing on “a novel approach for assessing a model’s out-of-sample prediction” PLS predict
for out-of-sample prediction (Shmueli et al., 2019). As seen in Table 5, the PLS-predict
assessment result revealed that the value of Q2 produced by the PLS model is greater than the
LM model. By executing the procedures as done by Shmueli et al. (2019), the predictive
results can be attributed to all the ECS items in the PLS model producing the low predictive
error. This is in contrast to the LM model, confirming that the model possesses high
predictive power.

16
 Table 5: Result for PLS-predict

Items PLS LM PLS-LM

RMSE MAE Q²_predict RMSE MAE Q²_predict RMSE MAE Q²_predict
ECS1 1.202 0.945 0.334 1.232 0.946 0.301 -0.030 -0.001 0.033
ECS2 1.105 0.786 0.254 1.152 0.828 0.190 -0.047 -0.042 0.064
ECS3 1.338 0.969 0.293 1.382 0.997 0.246 -0.044 -0.028 0.047
ECS4 1.159 0.841 0.276 1.202 0.880 0.221 -0.043 -0.039 0.055
ECS5 1.185 0.834 0.238 1.259 0.893 0.140 -0.074 -0.059 0.098
ECS6 1.063 0.766 0.278 1.110 0.802 0.211 -0.047 -0.036 0.067
ECS7 1.191 0.861 0.197 1.286 0.919 0.064 -0.095 -0.058 0.133
ECS8 1.128 0.890 0.292 1.181 0.924 0.224 -0.053 -0.034 0.068

4.4.1 Model Fit Assessment

To test the overall fit of the research model, the SRMR was employed. The findings showed
that for the saturated model, the SRMR value was 0.076 (<0.08), suggesting that the model
has a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

4.4.4 Interaction Plot

All the significant interactions (H6, H7, and H8) were plotted in the interaction plot (Figures
3, 4 and 5) as recommended by Dawson (2014). Figure 3 reveals that when creativity is high,
the positive relationship of knowing-whom and ECS becomes stronger. Figures 4 and 5 show
that when resource availability is high, the positive relationships for a knowing-why and ECS
become stronger, and when resource availability is high, the positive relationships of
knowing-why and ECS become stronger.

Figure 3 Interaction plot for creativity*knowing-whom competency

17
 Figure 4 Interaction plot for resource availability*knowing-why competency

Figure 5 Interaction plot for resource availability*knowing-how competency

5. Discussion

Individuals and organisations are interested in learning more about the variables that
influence career success (Feldman, 1989). As more companies empower employees to
manage their own careers, these people have sought advice on how to do so successfully.
Organisations, on the other hand, continue to be interested in discovering the characteristics
that predict career success in order to recruit and develop high-potential personnel efficiently
and effectively. Given the significance of careers to both individuals and businesses, it is
necessary to investigate the elements that contribute to career success. Based on this, the
paper aimed to complement the existing body of evidence on the antecedents of ECS in
Nigeria, and the findings demonstrated significant contributions to rich information on CS
and ICF. As seen by the support for most of the tested hypotheses, a model based on the ICF
and supplemented with elements from the entrepreneurship literature can well explain ECS.
Hence, this study confirms the practicality of individual career models and it makes most
important inputs to the ICF and CS literature.

Our study offered strong empirical support for the significant positive linkages of the
tripartite career competencies - knowing-how (skills and expertise), knowing-whom

18
(relationships), and knowing-why (motivations) to ECS. These outcomes are in line with
other studies (see Beheshtifar and Zare, 2013; Blokker et al., 2019; Born and Witteloostuijn,
2013; Presti, Capone, Aversano, and Akkermans, 2021; Sultana and Malik, 2019). This is an
important outcome supporting the theoretical assertion that CC are essential for ECS.
Specifically, the findings recognised the unique facets of the three ways of knowing that
contributed most toward successful entrepreneurial career transition. Hence, the specific
characteristics of the three ways of knowing that accounted for becoming very successful in
an entrepreneurial career were deliberated in this research. The significant result concerning
these competencies and ECS and how they are linked, could be credited to the entrepreneurial
experience of the participants, most of whom in this research reported a high level of
entrepreneurial experiences. These experiences can help them to expand their social networks
within Nigeria; the respondents already may likely develop various portfolios of work-related
skills and knowledge. Their high level experiences explained their good understanding of
their interests, needs, aspirations, abilities, values, and preferences, which influences their
CC.

Specifically, with respect to “knowing-why”, the results suggest it is beneficial for career
success of entrepreneurs. In line with the agentic perspective, this finding suggests that when
individuals have a strong motivation to pursue boundaryless careers, they tend to proactively
plan and prepare for this transition (Guan, Arthur, Khapova, Hall, and Lord, 2019). With
regards to “knowing whom” the results suggest that knowing contacts that lead to authority
and promotion, having supervisors and/or senior mentors who are supportive of one’s career
development, and engaging in formal and/or informal networks, can enhance an individual’s
visibility in the work group, make her or him more eligible for important work and/or role
assignment, and increase the probability of a successful career. The findings are consistent
with those of previous studies, which showed that networks of relationships can bring a
number of significant advantages such as collaboration, alliance development, information
exchange, resources, and knowledge improvement (Forret and Dougherty, 2004; Moynihan
and Pandey, 2007; Linehan and Scullion, 2008).

With regard to “knowing-how”, the findings indicate that the stock of skills, experience and
expertise of entrepreneurs have played a significant role in their career success. When
entrepreneurs believe their knowledge, abilities, and expertise are critical to their job, they are
more likely to consider themselves successful. In exchange for career satisfaction,
achievement and social connection, they used their skills and knowledge to help their
organisations grow. Entrepreneurs in modern businesses must be well-versed, skilled and
talented in navigating the complexities of their environment (Bester, 2019). For this reason
successful entrepreneurs place a high priority on learning new skills and knowledge that will
help them become even more successful.

Our findings also confirm that the connections between CC and ECS can be strengthened by
creativity and resource availability. Creative entrepreneurs are vital for encouraging others
who want to learn new creative skills, knowledge, and competencies. They are considered
investors in skills, expertise and talent: their own or that of others (Bujor and Avasilcai,
2016), and have the ability to get the resources required to launch and maintain their business
(Beresford, 2021). This paper offers further support for a contingency view in
entrepreneurship studies which emphasise the importance of entrepreneurial CC, creativity,
and resource availability in the development of ECS. This finding shows that many factors
explain and can be explained by career competencies. However, much recent research has
tended to lump professional competencies together as a single construct, ignoring the

19
complexity of the relationships between distinct aspects of career competencies and various
antecedents and outcomes. As a result, existing research that treats career competencies as a
single construct should be refined if not questioned, and each career competency's
nomological network should be investigated separately.

6. Conclusion

This study begins by attempting to answer a crucial question: how may ECS benefit from
entrepreneurs' "three ways of knowing" in light of recent entrepreneurship research? The
three ways of knowing have been viewed as both a springboard and predictors of
entrepreneurial success. Drawing on ICF, this study contributes to entrepreneurship literature
by clarifying how the three ways of knowing influence the ECS and how the relationship is
strengthened by the presence of resource availability and creativity. This paper advances our
general understanding of the CC-ECS relationship. It demonstrated that creativity and
resource availability are important moderators. The paper recommends that entrepreneurs
who are continuously increasing their CC can achieve high CS most, especially if they are
creative and possess a large swathe of resources.

6.1 Theoretical Implications

This paper provides new perspectives on the conditions under which CC are related to ECS.
To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first research to use creativity and
resources availability as moderating variables that strengthen ICF relationships. Precisely, the
analysis found that the CC (three ways of knowing) play a critical role in influencing CS. The
study’s findings indicated that the association between career capital and CS is clear. It
became stronger when other variables are introduced, and in this case it refers to creativity,
and resource availability. In fact, entrepreneurs who have established a greater level of CC
were more pleased with their careers, especially when they are creative and have the
resources available to them. In other words, the findings demonstrated that the positive
associations between CC and ECS are moderated by creativity and resource availability in
Nigeria.

6.2 Practical Implications

The findings of this research have realistic outcomes for innovative entrepreneurs and
counsellors. It has significant practical implications for entrepreneurs in Nigeria and career
counsellors in general. First, our findings demonstrate that entrepreneurial CC are important
resources that are positively connected to achieving ECS. Thus, entrepreneurs in Nigeria who
devote their time to increase their CC are expected to achieve long-term success. Specifically,
entrepreneurs who are continuously growing their CC can achieve high CC. So this paper
recommends that entrepreneurs in Nigeria should improve their competencies and stipulate a
vision for their future. These findings could be useful to career counsellors to help
entrepreneurs in Nigeria build the three essential competency-related interventions, such as
training and counselling syllabi. Further, this analysis indicates that CC (three ways of
knowing) constitute a career resource that positively helps to achieve CS. Young
entrepreneurs who engage in the growth of their three ways of knowing are expected to
establish high-level frameworks for success.

Additionally, this study provides career development guidance for researchers and
professionals. A notion emerging from the PLS-SEM analysis is that “know-how” and

20
“know-who” require effort to build and maintain career success, and to continuously monitor
their competencies. One method is to create a dynamic social network to ensure their
knowledge is relevant and rigorous. Network node restructuring is also important for
advancing the knowledge set. It is evident that university faculties, for example, remaining
within a tight-knit homophilic network hinder their ability to sustain career success and
gradually lose any prestige or status they have as global experts. Second, given the
contingency effects of career entrepreneurship on career success, professionals need to
effectively manage interpersonal behaviours after developing individual competence.
Competence valued by professional communities facilitates a professional’s ability to deploy
resources acquired through social relationships in advancing his or her career.

6.3 Limitations and the Way Forward

This study has the following limitations: first, those entrepreneurial CC, which we
conceptualised as individual factors are positively linked with ECS. Future studies are
recommended to investigate whether or not multi-level factors can influence ECS. For
instance, Yu (2012) argued that family support might influence ECS. Second, the current
study focused on the entrepreneur's personal success, even though success reflects only one
aspect of the matter, so future researchers can concentrate on other themes by linking
competencies to undesirable entrepreneurial outcomes such as entrepreneurial failure, exit or
burnout. This will highlight the relevance of these competencies in predicting the undesired
outcomes since these are seldomly researched. Third, while the study identified the constructs
from the literature describing the CC tripartite framework, the relationships between these
constructs were scarcely investigated. For instance, knowing-how influences ease of social
resource access regarding the “know-whom” of the entrepreneur. The enhanced status of
individuals who "know-how" is indicated by the possession of extremely appealing traits,
which obligates others to extend courtesies and provide compassionate social affirmation of a
person’s extraordinary status (Sherif, Nan, and Brice, 2020). In other words, knowing how
was frequently entwined with knowing whom, and social support and inspiration obtained
from relationships were frequently linked to entrepreneurial motivation (knowing-why)
(Zikic and Ezzedeen, 2015). Here it can be stated that people who regularly participate in
networking behaviours are generally linked to a mentor who can help them develop new
talents, expertise and skills (i.e., knowing-whom to knowing-how). Future studies can explore
the relationships concerning three forms of understanding, as proposed by Sultana and Malik
(2019) and Beigi et al. (2018).

Fourth, although this study collected data from SMEs irrespective of their size, according to
Crowley-Henry et al. (2021), when SMEs do grow the strength of the link between the “three
ways of knowing” seemed to weaken. This study did not conclude whether there is difference
between small enterprises and medium-sized ones. Further, these SMEs are managed by men
and women so no test was done to assess the role of gender. What is encouraged here is
future study to conduct multi-group analysis using the same model. This would help us to
understand whether the result is the same for both genders. Fifth, as suggested by Guan et al.
(2019), what needs to be employed is a more systematic framework to organise the numerous
components of boundaryless careers to better comprehend the relationship between career
boundarylessness and career success. It is proposed that numerous mechanisms are
implicated in the association between career boundarylessness and success, so future research
should incorporate multiple perspectives to better understand how these complex
relationships work.

21
Sixth, a cross-sectional approach was used in this analysis, but no conclusions about causality
can be made from the findings. Considering the fact that CC and CS are hypothetically
related, it is possible to have mutual partnerships in which previous CS could improve the
growth of CC and this could serve as a new and valid contribution to CS. In this vein, future
studies that use a longitudinal approach can complement and build on the results of this
study. Seventh and finally, this study was conducted in only one country, Nigeria. Future
studies are needed to appraise the generalisability of these results across different
national/cultural contexts.

References

Abele, A. E., Spurk, D., and Volmer, J. (2011), “The construct of career success:
Measurement issues and an empirical
example”. ZeitschriftfürArbeitsmarktforschung, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp.195-206.
doi:10.1007/s12651-010-0034-6
Adner, R., and Levinthal, D. (2008), “Doing versus seeing: Acts of exploitation and
perceptions of exploration”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp.43-
52. doi:10.1002/sej.19
Akkermans, J., Brenninkmeijer, V., Huibers, M., and Blonk, R. W. (2013), “Competencies
for the contemporary career: Development and preliminary validation of the career
competencies Questionnaire”, Journal of career development, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp.245-
267. doi: 10.1177/0894845312467501
Albinsson, S. (2018), “Musicians as entrepreneurs or entrepreneurs as musicians?”, Creativity
and innovation management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.348-357. doi:10.1111/caim.12254
Amabile, T. A., and Mueller, J. S. (2008), “Studying creativity, its processes, and its
antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity”, Zhou J.
andShalley C. E. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity, Lawrence Erlbaum,
New York, NY, pp. 33– 64.
Amabile, T. M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.123-167.
Amabile, T. M., and Kramer, S. J. (2007), “Inner work life” Harvard Business Review.1-12
Ang, J. (2019), “The Capital Framework of Sponsorship”. In The Game Plan of Successful
Career Sponsorship, 63–71,. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-78756-
295-020191008
Arthur, M. B., and Rousseau, D. M. (1996), “A career lexicon for the 21st century” Academy
of Management Perspectives, 10(4), 28-39. doi:10.5465/ame.1996.3145317
Arthur, M. B., Claman, P. H., and DeFillippi, R. J. (1995), “Intelligent enterprise, intelligent
careers” Academy of management perspectives. Vol.9 No.4, pp.7-20,
doi:10.5465/ame.1995.9512032185
Ayoobzadeh, M. (2021). Freelance job search during times of uncertainty: protean career
orientation, career competencies and job search. Personnel Review.
Ayoobzadeh, M. (2021). Freelance job search during times of uncertainty: protean career
orientation, career competencies and job search. Personnel Review. 0048-3486
doi:10.1108/PR-07-2020-0563
Barnard, B., and Herbst, D. (2017), “A Resource-based Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: The
Optimal Organization of Entrepreneurs as Resource”, Business and management
studies. https://doi.org/10.11114/bms.v3i2.2375
Becker, G. S. (1962), “Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis”, Journal of
political economy, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp.9-49. doi:10.1086/258724?journalCode=jpe

22
Becker, J. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., and Völckner, F. (2015), “How collinearity affects
mixture regression results”, Marketing letters, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.643-659. doi:
10.1007/s11002-014-9299-9
Beheshtifar, M., and Zare, E. (2013), “Relationship between competencies career and
organizational success”, Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in
business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.834-842.
Beigi, M., Nayyeri, S., & Shirmohammadi, M. (2020). Driving a career in Tehran:
Experiences of female internet taxi drivers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116,
103347.
Beigi, M., Shirmohammadi, M., and Arthur, M. (2018), “Intelligent career success: The case
of distinguished academics”, Journal of vocational behavior, Vol.107, pp.261-275.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.007
Beresford, M. (2021). “Rethinking entrepreneurship through distribution: distributive
relations and the reproduction of racialized inequality among South African
entrepreneurs”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 108-
127.
Bester, M. (2019). A Review of Career Success and Career Wellbeing Through the Lens of
the Psychological Contract. In Potgieter I. L. et al. (eds.), Theory, Research and
Dynamics of Career Wellbeing, p. 59-90, Springer Nature Switzerland
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28180-9_4
Binyamin, G., and Carmeli, A. (2010), “Does structuring of human resource management
processes enhance employee creativity? The mediating role of psychological
availability”, Human Resource Management. Vol.49 No. 6, pp.1000-1024.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20397
Blokker, R., Akkermans, J., Tims, M., Jansen, P., andKhapova, S. (2019), “Building a
sustainable start: The role of career competencies, career success, and career shocks in
young professionals' employability”, Journal of vocational behavior, Vol.112, pp.172-
184. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.013
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., and Bloodgood, J. M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the
creation of social capital in organizations”, Academy of management review, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp.505-522.
Briscoe, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., and Byle, K. A. (2010), “Do protean employees make better
leaders? The answer is in the eye of the beholder”, Leadership quarterly. Vol. 21,
pp.783-795. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.007
Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., and Li, H. L. (2010), “Institutional theory and entrepreneurship:
where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?”, Entrepreneurship
theory and practice, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp.421-440. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x
Bujor, A., & Avasilcai, S. (2016), “The creative entrepreneur: A framework of
analysis”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 221, p. 21-28.
Byrne, B. M. (2013), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming, New York: Psychology Press
Çakmak-Otluoğlu, K. Ö., andBolat, B. A. (2020). Short forms of protean and boundaryless
career attitudes scales in the Turkish context: validation and psychometric
evaluation. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 1-21.
Cameron, T., Moore, K., Montgomery, R., and Stewart, E. J. (2018), “Creative ventures and
the personalities that activate them in a post‐disaster setting” Creativity and innovation
management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.335-347. doi:10.1111/caim.12270
Caniëls, M. C. J., and Rietzschel, E. F. (2015), “Organizing creativity: Creativity and
innovation under constraints” Creativity and innovation management, Vol. 24, No. 2,
pp.184-196. doi:10.1111/caim.12123

23
Cappellen, T., & Janssens, M. (2008). Global managers' career competencies. Career
Development International. 13 (6) (2008), pp. 514-537, 10.1108/13620430810901679
Chakraborty, T., Ganguly, M., and Natarajan, A. (2019), “Predicting entrepreneurial
satisfaction: the role of non-financial incentive factors and quality of life among women
digital entrepreneurs” Journal for global business advancement, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.328-
355. doi:10.1504/JGBA.2019.101388
Chan, K. Y., Ho, M. H. R., Kennedy, J. C., Uy, M. A., Kang, B. N., Chernyshenko, O. S.,
and Yu, K. Y. T. (2017). Who wants to be an intrapreneur? Relations between
employees’ entrepreneurial, professional, and leadership career motivations and
intrapreneurial motivation in organizations. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 2041.
Chang, Y. Y., and Chen, M. H. (2020), “Creative entrepreneurs’ creativity, opportunity
recognition, and career success: Is resource availability a double-edged sword?”,
European Management Journal. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2020.03.004
Chaston, I. (2008), “Small creative industry firms: a development dilemma?”, Management
DecisionVol.46 No. 6, pp.819-831. doi:10.1108/00251740810882617
Chaston, I., and Sadler‐Smith, E. (2012), “Entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial
orientation and firm capability in the creative industries”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp.415-432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00752.x
Chatterjee, N., Das, N., and Srivastava, N. K. (2019), “A structural model assessing key
factors affecting women’s entrepreneurial success” Journal of Entrepreneurship in
Emerging Economies. Vol. 11 No. 1, pp.122-151. Doi:10.1108/JEEE-08-2016-0030
Chen, A., Doherty, N., andVinnicombe, S. (2012), “Developing women's career
competencies through an EMBA”, Gender in management: An international journal,
Vol.27 No.4, pp.232-248 doi:10.1108/17542411211244786
Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., and Lin, Y. C. (2018), “Exploring creative entrepreneurs’
happiness: cognitive style, guanxi and creativity”, International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.1089-1110. doi:10.1007/s11365-017-0490-3
Chen, M. H., Chang, Y. Y., Wang, H. Y., and Chen, M. H. (2017), “Understanding creative
entrepreneurs’ intention to quit: The role of entrepreneurial motivation, creativity, and
opportunity”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp.1-16.
doi:10.1515/erj-2016-0001
Chen, M. H., Tseng, M., and Teng, M. J. (2019), “Creative entrepreneurs’ well-being,
opportunity recognition and absorptive capacity: Self-determination theory
perspective”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.1-15.
doi:10.1515/erj-2018-0171
Chen, X., Wang, P., Wegner, R., Gong, J., Fang, X., and Kaljee, L. (2015), “Measuring social
capital investment: Scale development and examination of links to social capital and
perceived stress”, Social indicators research, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp.669-687.
doi:10.1007%252Fs11205-014-0611-0
Chin, W.W., (1998), “Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling” Management
information systems quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp.7-16.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum
Colakoglu, S. N. (2011), “The impact of career boundarylessness on subjective career
success: The role of career competencies, career autonomy, and career insecurity”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp.47–59.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.011
Crowley-Henry, M., O'Connor, E. P., & Suarez-Bilbao, B. (2021). What goes around comes
around. Exploring how skilled migrant founder–managers of SMEs recruit and retain

24
 international talent. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management
Research. Vol. 9 No. 2, 2021 pp. 145-165 doi:10.1108/JGM-01-2021-0003
Davis, J., Wolff, H.-G., Forret, M.L. and Sullivan, S.E. (2020), “Networking via LinkedIn: an
examination of usage and career benefits”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 118, p.
103396.
Dawson, J. F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and
how”, Journal of business and psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.1-19.
doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
Defillippi, R. J., and Arthur, M. B. (1994), “The boundaryless career: A competency‐based
perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.15, No.4 pp.307-324
doi:10.1002/job.4030150403
DeLuca, J. R., Mudrick, M. T., and Sauder, M. H. (2020). Optimistic and Boundaryless:
Sport Management Students’ Conceptualization of Career. SCHOLE: A Journal of
Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 35(2), 82-100.
Dickmann, M., Suutari, V., Brewster, C., Mäkelä, L., Tanskanen, J., andTornikoski, C.
(2018), “The career competencies of self-initiated and assigned expatriates: Assessing
the development of career capital over time”, The international journal of human
resource management, Vol. 29 No. 16, pp.2353-2371.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1172657
Donohue, R., & Tham, T. L. (2019), “Career management in the 21st century.
In Contemporary HRM Issues in the 21st Century.”, p. 51–68. Emerald Publishing
Limited, doi:10.1108/978-1-78973-457-720191008
Edelman, L., and Yli–Renko, H. (2010), “The impact of environment and entrepreneurial
perceptions on venture-creation efforts: Bridging the discovery and creation views of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship theory and practice, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp.833-856.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00395.x
Ekmekcioglu, E. B., Erdogan, M. Y., and Sokmen, A. (2020), “Career commitment and
subjective career success: the moderating role of career-enhancing
strategies”, International journal of manpower, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp.1287-1305.
doi:10.1108/IJM-07-2018-0230
El Baroudi, S., & Khapova, S. N. (2021). Academic Expatriation to Emerging Economies: A
Career Perspective. Sustainability, 13(8), 4296.
El-Baroudi, S., & Khapova, S. N. (2021), “Academic Expatriation to Emerging Economies:
A Career Perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, No.8, 4296.
Fleming, T. (2007), Investment and funding for creative enterprises in the
UK. Entrepreneurship in the Creative Industries: An International Perspective, Edward
Elgar, pp.107-125.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes:
differences for men and women?. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 25(3), 419-437. doi: 10.1002/job.253
Forrier, A., Sels, L., and Stynen, D. (2009), “Career mobility at the intersection between
agent and structure: A conceptual model”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology. Vol.82, No.4, pp.739-759. doi:10.1348/096317909X470933
Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of the
American statistical Association, Vol.70, No.350 , pp.320-328.
doi:10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865
George, G., Kotha, R., Parikh, P., Alnuaimi, T., andBahaj, A. S. (2016). Social structure,
reasonable gain, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
37 No. 6, pp.1118-1131, doi:10.1002/smj.2381

25
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), “Effects of race on
organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86. doi:10.5465/256352
Guan, Y., Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., Hall, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (2019). Career
boundarylessness and career success: A review, integration and guide to future
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 110, 390-402. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.013
Gubler, M., Arnold, J., and Coombs, C. (2014), “Reassessing the protean career concept:
Empirical findings, conceptual components, and measurement”, Journal of
organizational behavior, Vol.35 No.S1, pp.S23-S40. doi:10.1002/job.1908
Guptill, M., Reibling, E. T., & Clem, K. (2018). Deciding to lead: a qualitative study of
women leaders in emergency medicine. International journal of emergency
medicine, 11(1), 1-10.
Haenggli, M., and Hirschi, A. (2020), “Career adaptability and career success in the context
of a broader career resources framework”, Journal of vocational behavior, Vol.119,
pp.1-14 doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103414
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C. and Babin, B.J. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., (2017), A Primer on Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., and Ringle, C. M. (2019), “When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Doi:10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P., (2018), Advanced Issues in Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hambrick, D. C., and Cannella Jr, A. A. (1993), “Relative standing: A framework for
understanding departures of acquired executives”, Academy of management
journal, Vol. 36 No.4, pp.733-762.doi: 10.2307/256757
Harrison, C., Burnard, K., and Paul, S. (2018), “Entrepreneurial leadership in a developing
economy: a skill-based analysis”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development. Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 521-548, doi:10.1108/JSBED-05-2017-0160
Henry, C., and De Bruin, A. (Eds.). (2011), Entrepreneurship and the creative economy:
process, practice and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling”, Journal of the
academy of marketing science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp.115-135. doi:10.1007%252Fs11747-
014-0403-8
Hoang, H., and Antoncic, B. (2003), “Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical
review”, Journal of business venturing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.165-187. doi:10.1016/S0883-
9026(02)00081-2
Hofmans, J., Dries, N. and Pepermans, R. (2008), “The career satisfaction scale: response
bias among men and women”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.73 No.3, pp.397-
403, doi: 10.1016/j. jvb.2008.08.001.
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol.6 No.1, pp.1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Ibarra, H. (1992), “Structural alignments, individual strategies, and managerial action:
elements toward a network theory of getting things done”, Nohria, N. and Eccles, R.G.
(Eds), Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, pp. 165-188.

26
Inkson, K., and Arthur, M. B. (2001), “How to be a successful career
capitalist” Organizational dynamics, Vol.30 No.1, pp.48–61. doi:10.1016/S0090-
2616(01)00040-7
Inkson, K., Khapova, S. N., Parker, P., Tams, S., and Arthur, M. B. (2007), “Studying careers
across cultures” Career Development InternationalVol. 12 No. 1, pp. 86-98
doi:10.1108/13620430710724848
Ituma, A., and Simpson, R. (2009), “The boundaryless' career and career boundaries:
Applying an institutionalist perspective to ICT workers in the context of
Nigeria”. Human Relations, Vol. 62 No. 5, pp. 727-761.
doi:10.1177/0018726709103456
Ituma, A., Simpson, R., Ovadje, F., Cornelius, N., andMordi, C. (2011), “Four ‘domains’ of
career success: how managers in Nigeria evaluate career outcomes”. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 17, 3638-3660.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.560870
Jones, C. and Lichtenstein, B. (2000), “The Architecture of Careers: How career
competencies Reveal Firm Dominant Logic in Professional Services” Peiperl M.,
Arthur M., Goffee R., and Morris T. (eds.), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of
Working Lives Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 153-176.
Jones, P., Maas, G., Dobson, S., Newbery, R., Agyapong, D., and Matlay, H. (2018a),
“Entrepreneurship in Africa, part 2: entrepreneurial education and eco-
systems” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol. 25 No. 4, pp.
550-553 doi:10.1108/JSBED-08-2018-400
Jones, P., Maas, G., Dobson, S., Newbery, R., Agyapong, D., and Matlay, H. (2018b),
“Entrepreneurship in Africa, part 3: Conclusions on African entrepreneurship”, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development. Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 706-709
doi:10.1108/JSBED-10-2018-401
Judge, T. A., Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D., and Bretz, R. D. (2004), “A longitudinal model of
sponsorship and career success: A study of industrial‐organizational
psychologists” Personnel psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp.271-303. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2004.tb02492.x
Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy,
Management and Careers in the 1990s, Routledge, London and New York.
Keshishyan, E., and Boghosian, M. H. (2020), “Startup Entrepreneurial Creativity and Impact
in Armenia: Case Study (2015–2018)”, New Business Ventures, pp.1–
9doi:10.1177/2632962X20964419
Kim, M., and Beehr, T. A. (2017), “Directing our own careers, but getting help from
empowering leaders”, Career Development International, Vol. 22 No.3, pp.300-317.
doi:0.1108/CDI-11-2016-0202
Kitagawa, F., and Robertson, S. (2015). High-Tech Entrepreneurial ‘Soft Starters’ in a
University-Based Business Incubator: Space for Entrepreneurial Capital Formation and
Emerging Business Models. In New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kline, R. B. (2011), Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Vol. xvi). New
York: Guilford Press
Kloosterman, R. C. (2010), “Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for
analysing (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness
perspective”, Entrepreneurship and regional development, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.25-45.
doi:10.1080/08985620903220488
Kock, N. (2018), “Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: an application in tourism
and hospitality research” Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., and Cobanoglu, C. (Eds.).

27
 (2018). Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research. Emerald
Group Publishing. pp.1-16 doi:10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181001
Kock, N., and Lynn, G. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based
SEM: An illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol.13 No.7, pp.1-40
Kozhevnikov, A. (2020), “Career capital in global versus second-order cities: Skilled
migrants in London and Newcastle”, Human relations, pp.1-24.
doi:10.1177/0018726720952857
Kozhevnikov, A. (2021). “Career capital in global versus second-order cities: Skilled
migrants in London and Newcastle”, human relations, Vol. 74, No.5, p. 705-728.
Kundi, Y. M., Hollet-Haudebert, S., and Peterson, J. (2020). Linking Protean and
Boundaryless Career Attitudes to Subjective Career Success: A Serial Mediation
Model. Journal of Career Assessment, 1069072720959782.
Lau, V. P., Shaffer, M. A., and Au, K. (2007), “entrepreneurial career success from a Chinese
perspective: conceptualization, operationalization, and validation” Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol.38 No.1, pp.126-146.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400252
Lee, C. I., Felps, W., and Baruch, Y. (2014), “Toward a taxonomy of career studies through
bibliometric visualization”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.85 No.3, pp.339-351.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.008
Lee, P. Y. (2018). How to develop dynamic capabilities in multiunits: The roles of
international experience and career capital. Management Decision. 56 (2) (2018),
pp. 344-357
Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. (2008). The development of female global managers: The role of
mentoring and networking. Journal of business ethics, 83(1), 29-40. doi:
10.1007/s10551-007-9657-0
Mainiero, L. A., and Sullivan, S. E. (2005), “Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation
for the “opt-out” revolution”, Academy of management perspectives, Vol.19 No.1,
pp.106-123. doi :10.5465/ame.2005.15841962
Marshall, D. R., and Gigliotti, R. (2020), “Bound for entrepreneurship? A career-theoretical
perspective on entrepreneurial intentions”, International entrepreneurship and
management journal, Vol.16 No.1, pp. 287-303. doi:10.1007/s11365-018-0523-6
Mayrhofer, W., Smale, A., Briscoe, J., Dickmann, M., and Parry, E. (2020). Laying the
foundations of international careers research. Human Resource Management
Journal, 30(3), 327-342.
Mishra, P., Sharma, S. K., and Swami, S. (2016), “Antecedents and consequences of
organizational politics: A select study of a central university” Journal of Advances in
Management Research, Vol.13 No.3, pp.334-351. doi:10.1108/JAMR-05-2015-0033
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation:
Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational
commitment. Administration & Society, 39(7), 803-832. doi:
10.1177/0095399707305546
Nabi, G.R. (1999), “An investigation into the differential profile of predictors of objective
and subjective career success”, Career Development International, Vol.4 No.4, pp.212-
24. doi:10.1108/13620439910270599
Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., and Feldman, D. C. (2005), “Predictors of objective
and subjective career success: A meta‐analysis”, Personnel psychology, Vol.58 No.2,
pp.367-408. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

28
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2014), “Subjective career success: A meta-analytic
review”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.85 No.2, pp.169-179.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.06.001
Nwachukwu, E. (2018), “Availability and Adequacy of Resources for Entrepreneurship
Education in Universities in South-East, Nigeria”, International Journal of Humanities
and Social Science. doi:10.30845/ijhss.v8n11p15
Olckers, C., & Koekemoer, E. (2017), “Linking psychological ownership with subjective
career success and positive work-related outcomes”. In Theoretical orientations and
practical applications of psychological ownership, p. 3-20. Springer, Cham.
Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996), “Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work”, Academy of management journal, Vol.9 No.3, pp.607-634.
doi:10.5465/256657
Oppong, N. (2019), “The petro-developmental state in Africa: Making oil work in Angola,
Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea”, doi:10.1080/14662043.2019.1615178
Parfitt, A. (2020). Can the concept of the protean career help us to understand millennial pre-
service teacher retention challenges? A study of two pre-service teachers’ career
pathways in England. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(3), 324-335
Parker, P., Khapova, S. N., and Arthur, M. B. (2009), “The intelligent career framework as a
basis for interdisciplinary inquiry”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.75 No.3,
pp.291-302. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.001
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.88 No.5, pp.879–903.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Presti, A. L., Capone, V., Aversano, A., and Akkermans, J. (2021). Career Competencies and
Career Success: On the Roles of Employability Activities and Academic Satisfaction
During the School-to-Work Transition. Journal of Career Development,
0894845321992536.
Puhakka, V. (2012), “Entrepreneurial creativity as discovery and exploitation of business
opportunities”, Burger-Helmchen T. Entrepreneurship–Creativity and Innovative
Business Models, InTech, pp.3-24.
Rothwell, A., and Arnold, J. (2007), “Self‐perceived employability: Development and
validation of a scale”, Personnel review, Vol.36 No.1, pp.23-41
doi:10.1108/00483480710716704
Salisu, I., Hashim, N., and Galadanchi, A. (2019), “Entrepreneurial career resilience and
entrepreneurial career success: Does entrepreneurial career commitment matter?”,
Management Science Letters, Vol.9 No.1, pp.73-90. doi:10.5267/j.msl.2018.10.014
Salisu, I., Hashim, N., Ismail, K., and Isa, F. M. (2017), “Mediating effect of entrepreneurial
career resilience between entrepreneurial career commitment and entrepreneurial career
success”, International Journal of Economic Research, Vol.14 No.19, pp.231-251.
Salisu, I., Hashim, N., Mashi, M. S., and Aliyu, H. G. (2020), “Perseverance of effort and
consistency of interest for entrepreneurial career success: Does resilience matter?”,
Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, Vol.12 No.2, pp.279-304
doi:10.1108/JEEE-02-2019-0025
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., and Hair, J. F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation
modelling”, Homburg C., et al. (eds), Handbook of Market Research, Springer
International Publishing AG pp.1–40. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-1
Schlosser, F., Lam, D., & Kerr, G. (2021). Intelligent careers of a resilient mobile workforce:
Edu‐immigrants. International Migration. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12852

29
Shea, C. M., Jacobs, S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., and Weiner, B. J. (2014),
“Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a
new measure”, Implementation Science, Vol.9, No.7, pp.1-15. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-
9-7
Sherif, K., Nan, N., and Brice, J. (2020), “Career success in academia”, Career Development
International, Vol.25 No.6, pp.597-616 doi:10.1108/CDI-09-2019-0232
Shmueli, G., S. Ray, J.M. Velasquez Estrada, and S.B. Chatla. (2016), “The elephant in the
room: Evaluating the predictive performance of PLS models”. Journal of Business
Research Vol.69 No.10, pp.4552–4564. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.049
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., and Ringle, C.
M. (2019), “Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLS
predict”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.53 No.11, pp.2322-2347.
doi:10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
Small and Medium Enterprise Development Agency of Nigeria (2017), National Survey of
Micro Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMES) 2017,
https://smedan.gov.ng/downloads/
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”,
Academy of management journal, Vol.39 No.2, pp.483-504. doi:10.5465/256789
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., and Dries, N. (2019), “Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus
subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions”, Journal of
Management, Vol.45 No.1, pp.35-69. doi:10.1177/0149206318786563
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions”,
Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Series B-36, pp.111-147.
Stringfellow, L., and Shaw, E. (2009), “Conceptualising entrepreneurial capital for a study of
performance in small professional service firms”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research. Vol.15 No.2, pp.137-161.
doi:10.1108/13552550910944557
Sultana, R., and Malik, O. F. (2019), “Is Protean Career Attitude Beneficial for Both
Employees and Organizations? Investigating the Mediating Effects of Knowing career
competencies”, Frontiers in psychology, Vol.10, No.1284 pp.1-13
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01284
Sutton, R. I., and Hargadon, A. (1996), ‘Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a
product design firm”, Administrative science quarterly, Vol.41, No.4, pp.685-
718.doi:10.2307/2393872.
Van den Born, A., and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2013), “Drivers of freelance career
success”, Journal of organizational behavior, Vol.34, No.1, pp.24-46.
doi:10.1002/job.1786
Volmer, J., and Spurk, D. (2011), “Protean and boundaryless career attitudes: Relationships
with subjective and objective career
success”, ZeitschriftfürArbeitsmarktForschung, Vol.43, No.3, pp.207-218.
doi:10.1007/s12651-010-0037-3
Wach, D., Stephan, U., Marjan, J. G., and Wegge, J. (2018), “Entrepreneurs’ achieved
success: developing a multi-faceted measure”, International entrepreneurship and
management journal, Vol.16, pp.1123–1151. doi:10.1007/s11365-018-0532-5
Werthes, D., Mauer, R., and Brettel, M. (2018), “Cultural and creative entrepreneurs:
understanding the role of entrepreneurial identity”, International journal of
entrepreneurial behavior and research, Vol.24, No.1, pp.290-314
Yu, C. (2012), “Career success and its predictors: Comparing between Canadian and
Chinese”, International Journal of business and Management, Vol.7, No.14, pp.88.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p88

30
Zampetakis, L. A. (2008), “The role of creativity and proactivity on perceived entrepreneurial
desirability”, Thinking skills and creativity, Vol.3, No.2, pp.154-162.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.07.002
Zhou, J. (2008), “New look at creativity in the entrepreneurial process”, Strategic
entrepreneurship Journal, Vol.2, No.1, pp.1-5. doi:10.1002/sej.38
Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity:
Encouraging the expression of voice”, Academy of management journal, Vol.44, No.4,
pp.682-696. doi:10.5465/3069410
Zikic, J., and Ezzedeen, S. (2015), “Towards a more integrated view of entrepreneurial
careers”, International journal of entrepreneurial behavior and research. Vol.21, No.6,
pp.756-777. doi:10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0129

31