See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263205057

The relationship between entrepreneurial attitudes and demographic,

occupational, and organisational variables: A South African study

Article · January 2004

CITATION READS
1 232

3 authors, including:

Rene Van Wyk Adre Boshoff

University of Johannesburg University of the Western Cape
88 PUBLICATIONS   888 CITATIONS    70 PUBLICATIONS   436 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Positive Emotional Experiences View project

Prediction of work wellbeing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rene Van Wyk on 19 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Management Dynamics Volume 13 No. 4, 2004
The relationship between entrepreneurial
attitudes and demographic, occupational,
and organisational variables:
A South African study
R.Van Wyk
A. B. Boshoff
B. S. Kruger
University of Pretoria
ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationship between
demographic, occupational, and organisational variables
and the entrepreneurial attitudes of 192 South African
individuals, as measured by the Entrepreneurial Attitude
Orientation Scale (EAOS) developed by Robinson,
Stimpson, Heufner and Hunt (1991). A one-way Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) was carried out on the
demographic, occupational, and organisational variables
as the independent variables, using the EAOS sub-scales as
the dependent variables. The results revealed some
significant differences in terms of the demographic,
occupational, and organisational variables in relation to the
EAOS achievement, personal control, economic
innovation, and self-esteem sub-scales. The implications
of the findings for management are set out and
recommendations for future research are made.
INTRODUCTION
The South African economy at the beginning of the 21st
century is characterised by rapid population growth
(which may be arrested by high death rates due to AIDS
in the reproductive age group), low growth in
productivity, and a low job creation level (Boshoff and
Van Wyk, 2001). This situation suggests that
entrepreneurship is an important resource that needs to
be exploited more fully in the present South African
economy. Entrepreneurial activity should be especially
highly valued, because it can be seen as essential in a
healthy market economy (Sarasvathy, 2004; Mitchell,
2003; Kroon, 2002; North, 2002; Hisrich and Peters,
15
1998; Van Aardt and Van Aardt, 1997; Jackson and
Rodkey, 1994; Jennings, 1994; and Timmons, 1994).
Individual entrepreneurial activities are important, but of
equal importance is the enhancement of corporate
entrepreneurship to prevent stagnation in the economy and
enhance the growth of organisations (Goosen, De Coning
and Smit, 2002; Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra, 2002;
Covin and Miles, 1999). Many believe that, in order to
advance corporate entrepreneurship, individuals in
business organisations need the ability to adapt to change
effectively in a rapidly changing environment, which
implies a need to be achievement-oriented, innovative,
flexible, and willing to take personal control of a situation
(Hornsby et al., 2002; Dess, Lumpkin and Mckee, 1999;
Stopford and Baden Fuller, 1994).
Sarasvathy (2004) suggests that an obsession with dividing
the world into entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs is
fruitless, and that the focus should rather be on identifying
entrepreneurial categories that increase people's potential
to become entrepreneurial. He argues that one should start
off with the assumption that a number of ideal
circumstances could foster entrepreneurship, which could
potentially transform an entire population into
entrepreneurs. However, Phan (2004: 620) proposes that
the search for idiosyncratic features which enable an
individual to identify and act on entrepreneurial
opportunities should not be neglected, as the findings of
such a search would give more insight into an
“entrepreneurial socio-economic environment”.
In terms of these arguments, studies on the entrepreneurial
characteristics of the people who determine strategies in
organisations, and the need for these people to be
innovative in volatile environments (Sarasvathy, 2004;
16
Morris Kuratko, 2002; Chandler, 2000; Carrier, 1997;
Zahra and Covin, 1995) seem both warranted and
necessary. In the current study, selected entrepreneurial
attitudes, as identified by Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner
and Hunt (1991), are used as a barometer to identify the
relationship of entrepreneurial attitudes to significant
demographic, occupational, and organisational
characteristics associated with entrepreneurship. The
identification of these characteristics should, however, not
be an end in itself; future studies should use these
characteristics to identify unique opportunities in the
economy and to utilise them in the form of intra- and
entrepreneurial activities. Such studies can then become
the building blocks for a theory of entrepreneurship as
Phan (2004) makes clear, a distinctive theory of
entrepreneurship with sufficient explanatory power has so
far eluded researchers.
Studies on the characteristics of entrepreneurs have
evolved considerably in the last two decades. Until the
late 1980s, research on entrepreneurial characteristics
tended to focus on discovering demographic and
personality trait variables that might distinguish
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1988),
as well as successful entrepreneurs from unsuccessful
entrepreneurs (Bygrave, 1989). Possibly because of the
wide variation in the kinds of business activity that
entrepreneurs engage in, these attempts to identify
specific helpful demographic and personality profiles
have been relatively unfruitful (Gartner, 1988). The
absence of a clear entrepreneurial profile has led to a
renewed call for the identification of entrepreneurial
characteristics (Carland, Hoy and Carland, 1988) and the
fortification of entrepreneurial research (Bygrave, 1989;
Gartner, 1989).
FIGURE 1
ATTITUDES IN RELATION WITH COGNITION, AFFECT AND CONATION
Achievement
Cognition
Self-esteem (beliefs/
thoughts)
Attitudes
Personal
control Conative behaviour
(intentions/actions)
Economic
innovation
In answer to this call, Robinson et al. (1991) suggested that
an alternative route to investigating entrepreneurship is to
explore attitudinal approaches towards entrepreneurship.
These authors argued that attitudes are more powerful and
flexible determinants of behaviour than a static, restrictive
view, such as that provided by studies of demographic and
personality “entrepreneurial traits” on their own. It has also
been argued by Robinson et al. (1991) that if
entrepreneurial attitudes could be identified, these
attitudes could be inculcated in individuals via various
training methods. Sarasvathy's (2004) argument also
relates to the premise that research and training should
move away from the old typology of trait approaches to an
evolutionary approach. Seeing entrepreneurship as an
attitude allows for idiosyncratic adaptation and variation
instead of mere categorisation (Phan, 2004).
Robinson et al. (1991) describe attitudes on the basis of the
Allport' view (1935). They see attitudes as consisting of
three dimensions, namely (1) affective feelings and (2)
cognitive beliefs or thoughts, which lead to (3) intended
conative behaviour. The aim of the study by Robinson et al.
(1991) was the empirical identification of the attitudinal
characteristics of entrepreneurship, activated (by intended
conative behaviour) through affective and cognitive
beliefs. This led to the development of the Entrepreneurial
Attitudes Orientation Questionnaire (EAOS) (Robinson et
al., 1991). The questionnaire measures four
entrepreneurial attitudes, namely (1) achievement in
creating business activities, (2) economic innovation in
reaction to business incentives, (3) the display of personal
control and influence over business incentives, and (4)
perceived competence in business affairs, which Robinson
et al. (1991) called self-esteem. The relationship between
these variables is illustrated in Figure 1.
Affection
(positive/
negative)
EAOS
Attitudes

Niewenhuizen and Kroon (2002) suggest that a holistic
approach should be followed to foster a culture of
entrepreneurship in society. Researchers should therefore
look for facets of intrapreneurship in current organisations
in order to identify ideal circumstances that could foster
entrepreneurship, as suggested by Sarasvathy (2004).
These building blocks form part of the quest for a theory of
entrepreneurship (as proposed by Phan, 2004), and they
could support the suggestion made by Sarasvathy (2004)
that an entire population could potentially be transformed
into entrepreneurs. There can therefore be no final solution
to the search for the idiosyncratic features that Phan (2004)
suggests are ideal, and they could encourage individuals to
identify and act on entrepreneurial opportunities to help to
cultivate an intra- or entrepreneurial socio-economic
environment.
So far, there have not been sufficient studies that verify the
relationship between demographic, organisational, and
occupational factors and the entrepreneurial attitudes
claimed by Robinson et al. (1991) as important, namely
achievement, economic innovation, personal control, and
self-esteem. Such an investigation can be deemed
necessary, as its results could be used as a tool to identify
low scoring individuals on the entrepreneurial attitude
scale. These individuals can then be trained to foster these
helpful attitudes.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The current study investigates whether selected
entrepreneurial attitudes are related to demographic,
organisational, and occupational variables. The
identification of these entrepreneurial attitudes will enable
further investigations to see how an entrepreneurial culture
can be secured both in individuals and organisations.
As the pioneering perspective on entrepreneurship as an
attitude emerged, new questions have arisen concerning
possible links between entrepreneurial attitudes (as the
dependent variables) and demographic variables,
occupational groups and organisational settings as the
independent variables. Van Wyk and Boshoff (2004)
reported on a study with 365 participants, in which an
attempt was made to differentiate between entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs using the Holland (1985) hexagon
of occupational groups. Van Wyk and Boshoff's (2004)
study shows that individuals with an entrepreneurial
profile scored significantly higher on the economic
innovation sub-scale than those with a non-entrepreneurial
profile, but they scored significantly lower on the self-
esteem sub-scale.
17
The current study investigates the entrepreneurial attitudes
of selected individuals (n = 192) in three different
occupational groups, in five different South African
organisations. The study therefore attempts to identify
demographic, organisational, and occupational features
within organisations that are related to entrepreneurial
attitudes that could potentially identify an entrepreneurial
socio-economic environment.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following research questions were considered:
1. Are there significant relationships between
demographic variables and entrepreneurial
attitudes?
2. Do individuals in different occupational groups
differ significantly in terms of entrepreneurial
attitudes, as measured by the EAOS?
3. Do individuals in different organisations differ
significantly in terms of entrepreneurial attitudes, as
measured by the EAOS?
METHODOLOGY
Sample selection
The sample consisted of 192 individuals (median age
= 40.0 years, SD = 10.83), of whom 70.3% were males
and 29.7% females. The majority (75.5%) of the
participants were married, 17.2% indicated that they
had never been married and 6.3% were divorced or
widowed. The participants were mainly Afrikaans-
speaking (69.8%), while 19.8% were English-
speaking, and participants with an indigenous Black
language as their home language formed only 10.4% of
the sample. The educational qualifications of the
participants were as follows: individuals with 12 years
of school education (26.6%), post-school diploma
(8.3%), university degree (22.4%), degree and diploma
(8.3%), and more than one degree and diploma
(23.4%). Eleven percent did not indicate their
educational qualifications. The participants belonged
to three different occupational groups - engineers
(33.3%), administrative staff (23.8%), and sales
representatives (42.9%). They were employed in five
different organisations - research (20.3%),
telecommunications (3.2%), electronics companies
(9.4%), tertiary institutions (23.4%), and insurance
companies (42.9%). Further information about the
sub-groups in the sample is set out in Table 1.
18

TABLE 1
SUB-GROUPS IN THE SAMPLE (n =192)
Variable Subgroups n Percentage
Age 18-30 39 20.3
31-40 58 30.2
41-50 60 31.3
51 + 35 18.2
Gender Male 135 70.3
Female 57 29.7
Marital status Married 145 75.5
Single (never been married) 33 17.2
Divorced, Widowed 12 6.3
No response 2 1.0
Home-language Afrikaans 134 69.8
English 38 19.8
Indigenous black languages 20 10.4
Mother tongue Afrikaans 137 71.4
English 29 15.1
No response 26 13.5
Number of dependents 0 50 26.0
1 33 17.2
2 46 24.0
3 37 19.3
4 17 8.9
5-7 7 3.6
No response 2 1.0
Qualifications High school 51 26.6
Post School diploma 16 8.3
University degree 43 22.4
Degree + degree and diploma 16 8.3
More degree(s) + diploma(s) 45 23.5
No response 21 11.0
Years in organisation 0-5 86 44.8
6-10 52 27.1
11-15 37 19.3
16+ 17 8.9
Level of position Top and middle management 32 16.7
Lower management 40 20.8
Not management 95 49.5
Other 24 12.5
No response 1 0.5
Hours work per week <40 13 6.8
40 60 31.4
41-60 96 50.0
61 + 21 10.9
No response 2 1.0
Days annual leave none 13 6.8
1-10 45 23.5
11-20 81 42.2
21+ 51 26.6
No response 2 1.0
Work for Self and organisation 60 31.3
Organisation only 129 67.2
No response 3 1.6
Organisation Tertiary institution 45 23.4
Insurance company 81 42.2
Research Company 39 20.3
Electronic Company 18 9.4
Telecommunications 6 3.2
No response 3 1.6

Procedure
A convenience sample was used. Contact persons were
identified, who distributed the questionnaires, which were
returned to the first author in pre-addressed envelopes. Of
the 250 questionnaires distributed, 192 were returned (a
response rate of 76.8%). An Analysis of Variance (SAS
Institute, 1998) was done, using the EAOS sub-scales'
scores as the dependent variables and the biographic,
organisational, and occupational factors as the
independent variables. Significant relationships were
investigated further by means of Tukey's range test and t-
tests on the Least Square Means
Measuring instruments
The questionnaire consisted of the Entrepreneurial
Attitudes Orientation Scale (EAOs) developed by
Robinson et al. (1991) and selected demographic and
organisational variables. The EAOS contains 75 response
items, and the participants respond using a 10-point Likert-
type scale, measuring the four entrepreneurial attitudes of
economic innovation, achievement, self-esteem, and
personal control in business situations. Although
Robinson et al. (1991) did not do a Factor Analysis of the
responses to the items of their scale, the internal
consistency of the different factors appeared to be
satisfactory, as can be seen in Table 2. The sub-scale
scores correlated quite highly with each other, with
common variances between 20.5% and 51.4%. Robinson
et al. (1991) also concluded that the EAOS successfully
distinguishes between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs
Applications of the EAOS in other South African studies
have suggested reasonable portability (Van Wyk, Boshoff
TABLE 2
CRONBACH ALPHAS OF THE FACTORS OF THE EAOS
Factor
Innovation
Achievement
Self-esteem
Personal control
19
and Owen, 1999; Hoole and Boshoff, 1997; Boshoff and
Scholtz, 1995).
It was decided to do an Item Analysis rather than a Factor
Analysis on the responses to the 75 items in the EAOS.
Kerlinger and Lee (2000) argue that when a multivariate
statistical procedure (of which Factor Analysis is an
example) is carried out, the ratio between the dependent
and the independent variables should ideally be 1:10, but
that a ratio of 1:5 is still acceptable. In the present study,
192 participants responded to the 75 items in the EAOS - a
ratio of only 2.56 respondents per item. It was therefore
not likely that a Factor Analysis of the responses to the
items would give valid and consistent (reliable) results.
With 26, 23, 14, and 12 items respectively forming the
EAOS sub-scales, Item Analysis seemed more feasible, as
the ratios of the number of items in a sub-scale to the
number of respondents were respectively 1:7.38, 1:8.35,
1:13.71, and 1:16. It should be noted that Robinson et al.
(1991) did not do a Factor Analysis on the responses to
their 75-item scale. Some doubt about the factorial
structure of the scale, especially when the scale is used in
South Africa, therefore still exists.
In the item analyses of the responses of the 192 participants
in the EAOS (Robinson et al., 1991), items that did not
have a corrected item weight of .30 or higher were left out
of subsequent rounds of analysis. Several rounds of Item
Analysis were carried out in order to progressively
eliminate items that did not have the minimum required
corrected item weight. These analyses, which are reported
in Table 3, resulted in acceptable Cronbach alpha
coefficients for each sub-scale, namely innovation (0.90),
achievement (0.87), personal control (0.78), and self-
esteem (0.70).
Cronbach Alpha No of items
0.90 26 items
0.84 23 items
0.73 14 items
0.70 12 items
20

TABLE 3
CORRECTED rtt -VALUES OF ITEMS IN FOUR-FACTOR SOLUTION

Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

number Innovation Achievement Personal control Self-esteem

20 0.636 0.000 0.000 0.000

27 0.592 0.000 0.000 0.000
31 0.476 0.000 0.000 0.000
62 0.652 0.000 0.000 0.000
65 0.469 0.000 0.000 0.000
70 0.662 0.000 0.000 0.000
74 0.471 0.000 0.000 0.000
78 0.628 0.000 0.000 0.000
79 0.520 0.000 0.000 0.000
84 0.732 0.000 0.000 0.000
87 0.737 0.000 0.000 0.000
89 0.659 0.000 0.000 0.000
90 0.652 0.000 0.000 0.000
93 0.663 0.000 0.000 0.000
15 0.000 0.390 0.000 0.000
17 0.000 0.352 0.000 0.000
21 0.000 0.435 0.000 0.000
23 0.000 0.426 0.000 0.000
37 0.000 0.610 0.000 0.000
38 0.000 0.677 0.000 0.000
40 0.000 0.584 0.000 0.000
41 0.000 0.518 0.000 0.000
44 0.000 0.371 0.000 0.000
47 0.000 0.572 0.000 0.000
50 0.000 0.518 0.000 0.000
51 0.000 0.495 0.000 0.000
56 0.000 0.346 0.000 0.000
60 0.000 0.320 0.000 0.000
64 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.000
75 0.000 0.375 0.000 0.000
77 0.000 0.675 0.000 0.000
81 0.000 0.687 0.000 0.000
83 0.000 0.656 0.000 0.000
88 0.000 0.322 0.000 0.000
22 0.000 0.000 0.477 0.000
29 0.000 0.000 0.472 0.000
58 0.000 0.000 0.461 0.000
61 0.000 0.000 0.506 0.000
63 0.000 0.000 0.635 0.000
67 0.000 0.000 0.436 0.000
76 0.000 0.000 0.402 0.000
80 0.000 0.000 0.591 0.000
28 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.535
35 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.564
42 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.431
43 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.439
 21

RESULTS The significant differences shown in Table 5 were

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine
whether there were differences between the EAOS sub-scale
scores of the demographic, organisational, and occupational
groups included in the sample. The subgroups formed for
analysis purposes are set out in Table 4.
investigated further by means of Tukey's range test and t-
tests on the Least Square (LS) Means scores of the
demographic, organisational, and occupational groups
concerned. Significant differences between groups at the
.05 level of significance are set out in Table 6.

TABLE 4
DEMOGRAPHIC, ORGANISATIONAL AND
OCCUPATIONAL SUB-GROUPS

Demographic Organisational Occupational

Age Tertiary institution Engineer
Gender Insurance company Sales Representative
Marital status Research company Administrative
Home-language Electronic company
Qualifications Telecommunications
Years in organisation
Position
Working hours per week
Days annual leave

Significant differences in the categories of the number of

One-way ANOVA was carried out, using the variables in
Table 1 as the independent variables and the scores on the
achievement, personal control, innovation, and self-
esteem sub-scales of the EAOS as the dependent variables.
Significant differences at the .05 level of significance are
set out in Table 5 (note that only significant differences are
shown).
days leave per annum on the achievement sub-scale were
noted: the two groups of individuals at the two extremes
(no leave or more than 21 days leave per annum) scored
higher on the achievement sub-scale than individuals who
had between 1-10 and 11-20 days' leave. Top, middle, and
lower management scored significantly higher on the
innovation sub-scale than non-management. Participants

TABLE 5
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE WITH THE ACHIEVEMENT, PERSONAL
CONTROL, INNOVATION AND SELF-ESTEEM SUB-SCALES AS THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLES
Dependent variable Independent Variable F df p>F
Achievement Days vacation 3.79 3 .0122
Organisation 9.6 4 .0001
Occupation 17.62 2 .0001
Personal Control Organisation 19.49 4 .0001
Occupation 36.21 2 .0001
Innovation Position 2.76 3 .0454
No of work hours 3.77 3 .0125
Organisation 6.59 4 .0017
Occupation 4.99 2 .0008
Self-esteem No of dependents 2.88 5 .0389
Organisation 8.91 4 .0002
Occupation 4.41 2 .0020
22

TABLE 6
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DERIVED BY MEANS OF TUKEY'S RANGES
TEST AND LS-MEANS IN TERMS OF BIOGRAPHICAL, ORGANISATIONAL
AND OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS, USING THE EAOS SUB-SCALES AS THE
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Dependent Independent F Differences in Groups
variable sub-scale Variable
Achievement Days vacation 3.79 No leave >11-20 days
per annum 1-10 days < 21 + days
11-20 days < 21 + days
Organisation 9.6 Assurance > research, electronics, telecom
Tertiary > research, electronics, telecom
Occupation 17.62 Sales rep > engineers
Administrative > engineers
Personal Control Organisation 19.49 Assurance > research, electronics, telecom,
Tertiary
Tertiary > research, electronics, telecom
Occupation 36.21 Sales rep > admin, engineers
Administrative > engineers
Innovation Level of position 2.76 Lower management > other
Middle + top > other
No of work hours 3.77 61 + > 40
41 - 60 > 40
Organisation 4.99 Assurance > electronics, telecom
Tertiary > electronics, telecom, engineers
Occupation 6.59 Sales rep > admin, engineers
Administrative > engineers
Self-esteem No of dependants 2.88 No dependents < all other groups
Organisation 4.41 Assurance > tertiary, research, electronics
Occupation 8.91 Sales representatives < admin, engineers

who worked more than 41 hours per week scored higher on
the innovation sub-scale than individuals who worked 40
hours or less per week. Individuals with no dependants
scored higher on the self-esteem sub-scale than individuals
with more than one dependant.
the achievement, personal control, and innovation
entrepreneurial attitude sub-scales and higher than sales
representatives on the self-esteem sub-scale.
CONCLUSIONS

In terms of the organisational categorisation, the
respondents who worked for an insurance company scored
higher than those from most of the other kinds of
organisations on all the entrepreneurial attitude sub-scales
of achievement, personal control, innovation, and self-
esteem. Respondents from tertiary institutions scored
higher than the respondents from the other identified types
of organisation (see Table 6) only on the achievement,
personal control, and innovation entrepreneurial attitude
sub-scales.
In terms of the occupational sub-scale, sales
representatives scored higher than engineers and
admininistrative personnel on the three entrepreneurial
attitude sub-scales of achievement, personal control, and
economic innovation, but they scored lower than engineers
and administrative staff on the self-esteem sub-scale.
Administrative personnel scored higher than engineers on
The high loss of items in the Item Analysis of the EAOS
(24 out of 75 were lost) suggests that Item or Factor
Analysis needs to be done in the application of the
measuring instrument, to minimise error variance. This
confirms the findings of other South African studies (Van
Wyk et al., 1999; Hoole and Boshoff, 1997; Boshoff and
Scholtz, 1995). It should, however, be pointed out that the
instrument, after thorough Item Analysis, is able to yield
significant results and useable information.
The empirical findings suggest a number of significant
differences (at p = 0.05) with regard to the demographic,
organisational, and occupational variables on the
achievement, personal control, innovation, and self-
esteem sub-scales of the EAOS. The findings with regard
to the relationships between the demographic variables
seem to be a clear answer to the criticism expressed in
previous studies that the identification of demographic

profiles was relatively unfruitful in the past (Gartner,
1988), as well as a step in the direction of identifying a
clearer entrepreneurial profile, as contemplated by
Carland et al. (1988). Interpretations should, however, be
treated with caution. Given the limited sample, the
findings cannot be generalised to the larger population or
other careers, or to types of organisations that are not
represented in this study.
The differences with regard to the categories of vocational
leave indicate that taking zero or more than 21 days of
annual leave is associated with a higher achievement
entrepreneurial orientation than taking one to 20 days'
leave. This is possibly an indication that extremes both the
“workaholics” (those who take no leave) and those
individuals who do take proper leave to refresh themselves
fully - tend toward higher achievement or business
creation. This phenomenon needs to be explored further, as
high achievement workaholics (who take no annual leave)
may run a higher health risk than individuals who take
proper annual leave, especially in the light of the
contention that Type A individuals, who have a high
achievement competitive urge, could be more prone to
coronary artery disease (Dembroski and Costa, 1988; Els,
1987; Friedman and Rosenman, 1974).
Both groups of individuals in managerial positions and
respondents indicating that they worked more than 41
hours per week scored higher than non-managerial
personnel, on the economic innovation entrepreneurial
attitude sub-scale. This could be an indication that
individuals in non-managerial positions and working 40 or
less hours per week should be encouraged to develop
stronger economic innovation entrepreneurial attitudes.
On the sub-scale that explores attitude towards self-esteem
in business, individuals with no dependants scored lower
than individuals who had more than one dependant, which
could be an indication that an entrepreneur's family
situation could contribute to entrepreneurial self-esteem or
perceived confidence in business affairs.
The insurance company respondents scored significantly
higher than respondents from most other types of
organisation on all four entrepreneurial sub-scales. The
sales representatives scored significantly higher on the
achievement, personal control, and innovation
entrepreneurial attitude sub-scales, but significantly lower
on the self-esteem sub-scale, compared to respondents in
some other occupations (as indicated in Table 6). The
finding that sales representatives had a lower
entrepreneurial self-esteem attitude could be due to the fact
that these individuals had a more realistic view of the
reality of business affairs, and therefore of their
competencies, than some of the other respondents. These
23
findings are similar to the results of the study by Van Wyk
and Boshoff (2004), who reported that non-entrepreneurs
scored significantly higher on the self-esteem
entrepreneurial attitude sub-scale than entrepreneurs did.
The significantly lower score of engineers in the current
study on the three entrepreneurial attitudes of
achievement, personal control, and innovation could be
due to a lack in both the level of education and experience
of individuals in this career field.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
Although the empirical results show a number of
significant relationships between the biographical,
organisational, and occupational variables, the
interpretations must be read within the limited framework
of the current sample, representing the three occupations of
administrative staff, engineers, and sales representatives,
in four types of organisation, namely insurance,
tertiary institutions, electronics companies, and
telecommunications. More research needs to be done on a
larger variety of occupations and organisations to be able
to generalise these findings. The sample sizes of
respondents from the electronics company (n = 18) and
from telecommunications (n = 6) are too small to be seen
as providing valid and reliable results.
In the current sample, both individuals who took zero or
more than 21 days' leave per annum were associated with a
high achievement entrepreneurial orientation. The health
risks run by individuals who are highly achievement-
oriented, but who do not take annual leave, need to be
investigated in the light of health risks indicated for Type A
achievement-oriented individuals (Dembroski and Costa,
1988; Els, 1987; Friedman and Rosenman, 1974). Should
the health risk be confirmed, management should
encourage staff to take proper annual leave, as doing so
could be associated with higher achievement in the
creation of business, whereas no leave, although it is
achievement-related, could lead to higher health risks.
The finding that individuals with no dependants scored
lower than individuals with dependants on the
entrepreneurial self-esteem sub-scale could be an
indication to management that an individual's perceived
competence in business affairs (in other words,
entrepreneurial self-esteem) is associated with a person's
life situation.
Management should investigate the low entrepreneurial
self-esteem attitude of sales representatives, i.e. low
perceived competence in business affairs. Though this may
be due to a more realistic view of these individuals
concerning business incentives, this is an important
entrepreneurial attitude to be nurtured and advanced. Sales
24
representatives may be more effective if they have a more
positive view of their own competence.
Management needs to improve the entrepreneurial
attitudes of the people working in research, or for
electronics and telecommunication companies, as well as
of individuals working as engineers, in terms of
achievement, personal control, and innovation
entrepreneurial attitudes. Individuals in engineering
occupations and in managerial positions, as well as in the
research, electronics, and telecommunication sectors must
attend training programmes which are developed to
improve entrepreneurial attitudes. These programmes
should be aimed at increasing and sensitising business
achievement incentives, exerting control over business
opportunities, and encouraging an innovative stance
towards business incentives.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future research should be aimed at a redevelopment of the
EAOS to make it more suitable for use in a South African
context.
Larger samples and stronger research designs are
recommended in order to provide clearer answers to the
research questions investigated in the current study.
Similar studies should be done to verify the
generalisability of the results in the current study, so that
these results can become building blocks for an
entrepreneurial theory, as contemplated by Phan (2004).
Such answers can probably be sought by means of a
differently designed study one in which the occupational
and organisational groups under review are more
heterogeneous.
Future research should investigate the effectiveness of the
training given to individuals with regard to entrepreneurial
attitudes. The low entrepreneurial self-esteem attitude
indicated by sales representatives is of concern; it needs to
be investigated and then improved. The enhancement of
effective entrepreneurial attitudes should be incorporated
into educational programmes, as has already been
suggested by Sarasvathy (2004).
REFERENCES
Allport, G.W. 1935. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.).
Handbook of Social Psychology: 798-884. Worcester,
MA: Clark University.
Boshoff, A.B. and Scholtz, C.P.T. 1995. Measuring
attitudes as a way of differentiating entrepreneurs?
South African Journal of Economic and Management
Sciences, 16 (winter): 1-11.
Boshoff, A.B. and Van Wyk, R. 2001. Entrepreneurship in
South Africa. In Stones C.R. (Ed.). Social
psychological phenomena in South Africa: New York :
Nova Science Publishers.
Bygrave, W.D. 1989. The entrepreneurship paradigm (1):
A philosophical look at its research methodologies.
Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 14 (Fall):17-26.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F. and Carland, J.A.C. 1988. Who is
an entrepreneur? is a question worth asking. American
Journal of Small Business, 121(4): 33-39.
Carrier, C. 1997. Intrapreneurship in small businesses: An
exploratory study. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 20 (Fall):15-20.
Chandler, G.N. 2000. Unravelling the determinants and
consequences of an innovative-supportive
organisational culture. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 25(1):159-77.
Covin, J.G. and Miles, M.P. 1999. Corporate
entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory Practice,
23(3):147-64.
Dembroski, T.M. and Costa, P.T. 1988. Assessment of
coronary-prone behaviour: A current overview.
Annals of Behavioural Medicine Psychology,
10(2):160-63.
Dess, G.G., Lumpkin, G.T. and Mckee, J.E. 1999. Linking
CE to strategy, structure and process: Suggested
research directions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 23(3):185-88.
Els, N.J.S. 1987. Gedragskorrelate van koronêre
hartsiektes by swartes. Meestersgraadverhandeling:
Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, Johannesburg.
Friedman, M. and Rosenman, R.H. 1974. Type A
behaviour and your heart. New York: Knopf.
Gartner, W.B. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the
wrong question. American Journal of Small Business,
12(4):111-32.
Gartner, W.B. 1989. Some suggestions for research on
entrepreneurial traits and characteristics.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14 (Fall): 27-37.
Goosen, C.J., De Coning, T.J. and Smit, E. V.d.M. 2002.
The development of a factor-based instrument to
measure corporate entrepreneurship: A South African
perspective. South African Journal of Business
Management, 33(3):139-51.
Hisrich, R.D. and Peters, M.P. (1998). Entrepreneurship.
(4th international ed.). Boston: McGrawhill.
Hornsby, S., Kuratko, F. and Zahra, A. 2002. Middle
managers' perception of the internal environment for
corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement
scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17:1253-273.
Holland, J.L. 1985. Making vocational choices: A theory
of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 25

Hoole, C. and Boshoff, A.B. 1997. Measurement qualities Van Wyk, R. and Boshoff, A.B. 2004. Entrepreneurial
of the entrepreneurial attitude orientation scale when attitudes: A distinction between two mutually
used interculturally. South African Journal of exclusive groups on the Holland Hexagon of
Economic and Management Sciences, 21(Fall):11-25. Occupations. South African Journal of Business
Jackson, J.E. and Rodkey, G.R. 1994. The attitudinal Management, 35(2):133-37.
climate for entrepreneurial activity. Public-Opinion- Van Wyk, R, Boshoff, A.B. and Owen, J.H. 1999.
Quarterly, 58(3):1358-380. Construct validity of psychometric instruments
Jennings, D.F. 1994. Multiple perspective of developed in the United States, when applied to
entrepreneurship: Text, readings and cases. professional people in South Africa. Monograph.
Cincinnatti: South Western Publishing. South African Journal of Economic and Management
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. 2000. Foundations of Sciences. Supplement Series, (1):1S1- S72.
Behavioral Research, (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt. Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. 1995. Contextual influences
Kroon, J. 2002. 'n Strategie vir entrepreneurskap- on the corporate entrepreneurship performance
ontwikkeling in Suid-Afrika. Tydskrif vir relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Geesteswetenskappe, 42(3):1215-223. Business Venturing, 10: 43-58.
Kruger, B.S. 2000. Entrepreneurial attitudes in different
occupational groups. MBA dissertation: University of
Pretoria, Pretoria.
Mitchell, B.C. 2003. African entrepreneurs: An analysis
of their motivation for starting their own business.
South African Journal of Economic Management
Sciences, NS, 6(4):1724-743.
Morris, M.H. and Kuratko, D.F. 2002. Corporate
Entrepreneurship. New York: Harcourt College
Publishers.
Niewenhuizen, C. and Kroon, J. 2002. Identification of
entrepreneurial success factors to determine the
content of entrepreneurship subjects. South African
Journal of Higher Education, 16(3):1157-166.
North, E. 2002. A decade of entrepreneurship education in
South Africa. South African Journal of Education,
22(1):124-27.
Phan, P.H. 2004. Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities
and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing,
19(5):1617-620.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefener, J.C. and Hunt,
H.K. 1991. An attitude approach to the prediction of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 15(4):113-31.
Sarasvathy, S.D. 2004. The questions we ask and the
questions we care about: Reformulating some
problems in entrepreneurship research. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19(5):1707-717.
SAS Institute Inc. 1992. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version
6 (4th ed., Vol. 1). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Stopford, J.M. and Baden Fuller, C.W.F. 1994. Creating
corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
Journal, 15:1521-536.
Timmons, J.A. 1994. New venture creation:
Entrepreneurship for the 21st century. Homewood Ill.:
Irwin.
Van Aardt, J. and Van Aardt, C. 1997. Entrepreneurship
and new venture management. Johannesburg:
International Thomson Publishing.

Viewpublicationstats