66

Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions Tatiana Iakovleva* Nordland Research Institute, Nordlandsforskning, N-8049, Bodø, Norway E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Lars Kolvereid Bodø Graduate School of Business, Høgskolen i Bodø, 8049, Bodø, Norway E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The present research investigates whether the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the model of the entrepreneurial event (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) can be integrated into one model of entrepreneurial intentions, and clarifies the differences between different types of entrepreneurial intentions. The model is tested using data from 324 Russian university business students. The results indicate that the two intentions models can be successfully integrated into one, where attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control determine desirability-feasibility, which in turn, determines intentions. Keywords: entrepreneurial intentions; integration of theories; business students; Russia. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Iakovleva, T. and Kolvereid, L. (2009) ‘An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions’, Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.66–80. Biographical notes: Tatiana Iakovleva is currently a senior researcher at the Nordland Research Institute. She received her Dr. Oecon. in 2007 from Bodø Graduate School of Business. Her research interests include new small businesses performance, female entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Lars Kolvereid is a Professor of Entrepreneurship at Bodø Graduate School of Business in Bodø, Norway. He received his PhD from Henley Management College, UK in 1985. His current research interests include entrepreneurial intentions, new business start-up processes and new business performance.

1

Introduction

The intention to create a business is an important antecedent of actual efforts to start a business. Business creation, in turn, is perceived as an important driver of the economic prosperity of countries (Reynolds et al., 2000). New venture creation Copyright © 2009 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

67

contributes to economic development in certain ways – creating new jobs, contributing to wealth creation, prompting innovation, strengthening competition and reducing prices, and it increases consumer choices and contributes to the growth of export activities (Storey et al., 1987; Gartner et al., 1999). The Russian government has identified entrepreneurship as an important way to improve the economic situation in the country (Putin, 2006). In such a situation there is need for research that can highlight the emergence of intentions to start a business. Knowledge of the factors associated with the intentions to start a business can help to create mechanisms of stimulating entrepreneurship in a country, especially among young people. Our understanding of entrepreneurial intentions has, to a large extent, been guided by two models: •

Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE)

•

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).

In the SEE model, entrepreneurial intentions are derived from perceptions of desirability and feasibility, and a propensity to act upon opportunities. In this model, perceived desirability is defined as the attractiveness of starting a business, perceived feasibility as the degree to which the individual feels capable of starting a business, and propensity to act as the personal disposition to act on one’s decisions. While the SEE model was developed to understand entrepreneurial intention and behaviour, Ajzen’s TPB was developed to explain individual behaviour in general. According to the TPB attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control determine intentions. Intentions, in turn, along with perceived behavioural control determine actual behaviour. Empirical testing of entrepreneurial intentions among students has found support for both the SEE model and the TPB (Kolvereid, 1996b; Krueger et al., 2000). Based on a review of the literature, Shook et al. (2003) suggested several future directions for research on entrepreneurial intentions. Among their recommendations, researchers were encouraged to investigate whether the definition of entrepreneurial intent makes a difference and to integrate and reduce the number of alternative intentions models. The purpose of the present research is to reply to these challenges by investigating whether intentions to become self-employed are different from intentions to start a business and intentions to acquire a business and whether the SEE model and the TPB can be integrated into one encompassing model capable of predicting individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, the two research questions to be addressed are: •

Are employment status choice intentions different from, or similar to, intentions to start a business or intentions to acquire a business?

•

How are the independent variables from the two intention models in question related to each other and to entrepreneurial intentions?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In the next section, the theoretical foundations of the study are discussed. Then, issues regarding methodology are presented, emphasising the sample framework and measures applied. Finally, results are presented and discussed and theoretical as well as practical implications of the study are highlighted.

68

2

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

Literature review

2.1 Shapero and Sokol’s model of the entrepreneurial event Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) model of the ‘Entrepreneurial Event’ (SEE) is implicitly an intention model, which is specific to the domain of entrepreneurship (Krueger et al., 2000). The entrepreneurial event was defined as the unit of interest primarily due to the problems associated with defining what an entrepreneur is in distinction to other individuals. Shapero and Sokol (1982) suggested that the entrepreneurial event comprises five characteristics: •

initiative-taking

•

consolidation of resources

•

management of the organisation

•

relative autonomy

•

risk taking.

Thus, in this approach, the entrepreneurial event could concern the formation of a new business. However, the inheritance of a business may also be regarded as an entrepreneurial event. Based on the work of Shapero and Sokol (1982) and Krueger and Carsrud (1993) further developed the model. This model (Figure 1) assumes that inertia guides human behaviour until something interrupts or ‘displaces’ that inertia. Figure 1

Shapero-Krueger model

Source: Krueger et al. (2000)

The choice of behaviour depends then on the relative ‘credibility’ of alternative behaviours to the particular decision maker, plus some ‘propensity to act’, without which significant action may not be taken. ‘Credibility’ requires that the behaviour be both desirable and feasible (Krueger et al., 2000). Shapero and Sokol (1982) defined perceived desirability as the personal attractiveness of starting a business, including both intrapersonal and extrapersonal impacts. Perceived feasibility is the degree to which one feels personally capable of starting a business (Krueger et al., 2000). Propensity to act can be conceptualised as the personal disposition to act on one’s decisions, thus reflecting the volitional aspects of intentions. Conceptually, propensity to act on an opportunity depends on control perceptions – the desire to gain control by taking action.

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

69

2.2 The Theory of Planned Behaviour The TPB is designed to predict and explain human behaviour in specific contexts. This model assumes that broad attitudes and personality traits only have an indirect impact on specific behaviours by influencing factors that are closer to the action in question (Ajzen, 1991). Hence, people’s ‘general’ attitudes, values and beliefs are presumed to be relatively far from action. Therefore, in order to adequately explain a specific behaviour, for example, the decision to become an entrepreneur, one needs concepts closer to the behaviour in question. The TPB hypothesises that behavioural intentions are determined by three key antecedents: •

attitudes toward the behaviour in question

•

subjective norm

•

perceived behavioural control.

Figure 2

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Source: Ajzen (1991)

Attitude towards behaviour refers to the degree to which the individual has favourable or unfavourable assessments of the behaviour in question. Subjective norm refers to the perceived social pressure to either perform or not perform the behaviour. The third antecedent, perceived behavioural control, is concerned with the individual’s control beliefs regarding the behaviour. More specifically, this construct refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour.

2.3 Entrepreneurial intent Entrepreneurial intentions are often defined differently by researchers (Shook et al., 2003). In some studies, entrepreneurial intent has been defined as the intention to become self-employed (Crant, 1996; Kolvereid, 1996a, 1996b), while in other studies entrepreneurial intent has been defined as the intention to start a business (Bird, 1992; Krueger et al., 2000; Reitan, 1998; Scherer et al., 1989). These concepts can be different from each other. People who start businesses may not intend to become self-employed, but may do so in order to have a part-time operation or plan to hire others to manage the business. Isaksen and Kolvereid (2005) found that in 48.9% of all new businesses, the founder had no intention of becoming full-time employed in the business. In addition,

70

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

individuals can purchase or inherit an existing business and thereby become a business owner/manager. Some researchers feel purchases are an entry, while others consider only de novo starts to represent entrepreneurship (Dennis, 1997). To date, no research has investigated whether acquisitive and de novo entry is perceived differently among potential entrepreneurs. These issues are, under the present circumstances, explored using principal component analysis, where the following hypotheses are tested: Hypothesis 1.1: Intentions to become self-employment will load on a separate component than intentions to start a business and intentions to acquire a business. Hypothesis 1.2: Intentions to start a business will load on a separate component than intentions to become self-employment and intentions to acquire a business Hypothesis 1.3: Intentions to acquire a business will load on a separate component than intentions to become self-employed and intentions to acquire a business.

2.4 An integrated model Krueger et al. (2000) took an important first step in consolidating the theories of intention by testing both the TPB and SEE, but no attempt was made to integrate them. Krueger (1993) argued that attitude in the TPB encompasses the notion of perceived desirability in the SEE model. He also argued that subjective norm overlaps with the notion of desirability and feasibility, and that feasibility overlaps with perceived behavioural control. Bagozzi (1992) suggested that attitudes may first be translated into desires, which then develop into intentions to act, which direct action. Armitage and Conner (2001) speculated that desires would inform intentions, upon which behavioural self-predictions are partly based. They argued, however, that further work is needed to test the causal relationship between desires, intentions, and self-predictions. The present research attempts to integrate some parts of the two models. Based on the literature, it seems plausible to suggest that attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control do influence intentions through desirability and feasibility. That means that desirability and feasibility are functions of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Intention, in turn, is a function of desirability and feasibility. That employment status choice intention is a function of desirability and feasibility is also assumed in the Flash Eurobarometer (2004), which each year investigates the employment status choice preferences, the desirability and feasibility of self-employment in 29 different countries. Therefore, the following research model is proposed in Figure 3. Figure 3

Proposed integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

71

The model in Figure 3 suggests that intention is a function of the desirability-feasibility, which in turn is a function of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Desirability-feasibility mediates the relationship between the explanatory variables in TPB and entrepreneurial intentions. Mediation is presented if three conditions are met. First, the independent variable should be significantly associated with the dependent variable. Second, the independent variable should be significantly associated with the mediator. Third, the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable should diminish when the mediation variable is entered into the regression. If the direct effect of the independent variable is fully diminished, a full mediation is present. Hence, the following hypotheses are suggested: Hypothesis 2.1: Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are significantly positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. Hypothesis 2.2: Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are significantly positively associated with desirability-feasibility. Hypothesis 2.3: Desirability-feasibility reduces the effect of attitudes, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control on entrepreneurial intentions.

3

Methodology

3.1 Sample The participants were 324 university students enrolled in business programmes in the Baltic State Technical University in St. Petersburg, Russia. Students are often used to test intention models since it is relatively easy to collect data from them and since there is a greater probability that young people will have entrepreneurial intentions (Kolvereid, 1996b; Tkachev and Koveried, 1999; Krueger et al., 2000). Among the participants, 226 third-year students were enrolled in the bachelor’s Business Administration programme with the International Industry Management Department (IIMD), 20 students were enrolled in the Master of Business Administration programme and 78 students were taking the second Master of Business degree on the same IIMD (these are typically students from the engineering Departments of the University, pursuing an additional degree in business or economics). A questionnaire was administered in December 2004. After controlling for missing values, seven questionnaires were removed due to a high percentage of missing values. Totally, 317 questionnaires obtained from Russian students were used in the analysis. The average student age was 21.5 years, with 54% females. Twenty-three percent reported to have parents who had been self-employed, while only 7% of the respondents had been self-employed. Forty six percent of the respondents had never been employed, and about the same proportion had between 1 and 3 years of work experience.

3.2 Measures Participants completed measures of attitude towards self-employment, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, perceived desirability and feasibility as well as entrepreneurial intentions. Prior to the main data collection, the questionnaire was translated into Russian and tested on a smaller number of respondents.

72

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

Since one of the objectives of the present study is to find whether intentions to become self-employed, intentions to start up a business, and intentions to acquire a business differ from each other, intent was measured by questions related to these three outcomes. Employment status choice intentions was measured by three items adopted from Kolvereid (1996b), intentions to start a business by three items adopted from Krueger et al. (2000), and acquisition intentions by three items developed by the authors. The employment status choice items were: •

If you could choose between being self-employed and being employed by someone, what would you prefer (1 = prefer to be employed to 7 = prefer to be self-employed)

•

How likely is it that you will pursue a career as self-employed (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely)

•

How likely is it that you will pursue a career as an employee (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely). The third item was recoded (1 = 7, 2 = 6, etc.,) before the subsequent analysis.

The business start-up items were: •

I will probably start and run my own business one day

•

It is likely that I will stat and run a small business in the relative near future

•

I often think of starting and running my own business.

The items related to the intention to acquire a business were: •

I will probably acquire and run my own business one day

•

It is likely that I will acquire and run a small business in the relative near future

•

I often think of acquiring and running my own business.

Responses were given on a 7-point scale from 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. Attitude towards self-employment was measured by a scale developed by Gundry and Welch (2001) and slightly modified by Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006). This scale measures the degree to which entrepreneurs are willing to exert maximum motivation and effort toward the success of their venture and has been applied in a variety of studies conducted in the USA, Central America, and Eastern Europe. The scale consists of three items: •

I would rather own my own business than earn a higher salary employed by someone else

•

I would rather own my own business than pursue another promising career

•

I am willing to make significant personal sacrifices in order to stay in business.

Questions were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = absolutely disagree, 7 = absolutely agree). The measure of subjective norm was adopted from Kolvereid (1996b). Participants were graded on a 7-pont scale if

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions •

“my closest family”

•

“my closest friends”

•

“people who are important to me” think that the respondent should not (=1) or should (=7) pursue a career as self-employed.

73

Subsequently, in order to measure the motivation to comply, respondents were asked on a 7-point scale (from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much) about the extent to which they cared about the opinion of •

“my closest family”

•

“my closest friends”

•

“people who are important to me” in their choice of employment status.

The belief items were recoded into a bi-polar scale (1 = –3 to 7 = +3), multiplied with the respective motivation to comply item, and the score averaged in order to obtain an overall measure of subjective norm. Similar measures of subjective norms have been used in a number of studies (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen and Driver, 1992; Madden et al., 1992). The use of such a multi-item measure to assess subjective norm is strongly recommended over less reliable single-item measures (Armitage and Conner, 2001). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.76. The perceived behaviour control measure was constructed based on the examples provided by Ajzen (2002) concerning the measurement of perceived controllability of behaviour. An earlier version of this measure was used by Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999). The items included were: •

If I wanted to, I could easily become self-employed

•

If I wanted to, I could easily start and run a business

•

I would have complete control over the situation if I was self-employed.

•

I would have complete control over the situation if I start and run a business.

Responses were given on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 = absolutely disagree to 7 = absolutely agree. The Cronbach alpha was 0.85. The measure of perceived desirability and feasibility was adapted from Kickul and Krueger (2004) and consisted of eight items: “How attractive is starting and running your own business?”, “How interesting is starting and running your own business?”, “How desirable is starting and running your own business?”, “How feasible would it be for you to start and run your own business?”. Participants assigned a rating on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 = ‘Not at all’ to 7 = ‘Very’. Using the same rating scale, participants were also asked “How attractive, interesting, desirable, feasible is being self-employed for you?” This measure loaded on a single component in a Principal Component analysis, making it impossible to test the suggested model illustrated in Figure 3. Instead, a simplified model, illustrated in Figure 4, is tested. The Cronbach alpha of the desirability-feasibility measure was 0.93.

74

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

Figure 4

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

The age of respondents can influence their intentions, as older students may have stronger entrepreneurial intentions. Age is, therefore, included as a control variable. Gender differences should also be taken into consideration. Women constitute about 30% of all entrepreneurs in Russia (Bezgodov, 1999). Therefore, gender is the second control variable included (female = 0, male = 1). Tracking models suggest that parental self-employment can positively influence entrepreneurial intentions. This is accounted for by including a dummy variable, where 1 indicates the presence of entrepreneurs among the respondent’s parents, and 0 indicates that neither of the parents has ever been an entrepreneur.

4

Results

Principal components analysis was used to investigate the first research question, whether the intentions to become self-employed, to start and run a business or to acquire a business, are similar or different from each other. The results are presented in Table 1. Table 1

PCA for intentions measures

Variables

Component 1

Component 2

Communality

Self-employment and start up intentions If you could choose between being self-employed (to work in your own firm) and being employed by someone, what would you prefer

0.774

0.674

How likely is it that you will pursue a career as self-employed

0.874

0.838

I will probably start and run my own business one day

0.860

0.798

I often think of starting and running my own business

0.781

0.713

How likely is that you will pursue a career as an employee (reversed)

0.651

0.513

I will probably acquire and run my own business one day

0.673

0.640

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions Table 1

75

PCA for intentions measures (continued)

Variables

Component 1

Component 2

Communality

It is likely that I will personally start and run a small business in the relatively near future

0.658

0.669

It is likely that I will personally acquire and run a small business in the relatively near future

0.928

0.886

I often think of acquiring and running my own business

0.796

0.722

Self-employment and start up intentions

Eigenvalue

3.671

2.783

Percent variance explained

4.790

30.917

Cumulative percent variance explained Chronbach’s alpha

71.708 0.89

0.86

Component loadings 0.4 or smaller are suppressed. KMO = 0.833, Bartletts’s test of Sphericity App. Chi-Sq 2000.879; df = 36, Sig. 000.

Table 1 show that intentions to become self-employed and intention to start up a business are close to each other’s load on the same component, while intention to acquire a business stands apart. Therefore, Hypothesis 1.3 is supported, but not Hypotheses 1.1 and 1.2. This can be explained by the limited resources that young people have. Acquiring a business will, in most cases, imply buying a business, which is not a realistic option for most students. Therefore, from now on the focus will be on intentions to become self-employed and intentions to start and run a business. Table 2 shows descriptive statistics and correlations among the analysis variables. Attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are highly positively significantly correlated with entrepreneurial intentions, giving preliminary support for Hypothesis 2.1, and with desirability-feasibility, giving preliminary support for Hypothesis 2.2. In order to answer the second research question multiple regression analysis was applied. First, the hypothesis related to the direct effect of the attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control on intentions was tested. The control model explains a statistically significant share of the variance in firm performance (R2 = 0.02, p < 0.05). Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (TPB mode) make a significant contribution over and above the model (∆R2 = 0.44, p < 0.001). The tolerance value was calculated for each independent and control variable. According to Hair et al (1998), the tolerance value is an indicator of the amount of variability of the selected independent variable not explained by the other independent variables. Tolerance values range from 0 to 1, where a small value (approaching zero) indicates high multicollinearity. According to Hair et al. (1998), a common threshold is a value of 0.10. As shown in Table 3, the tolerance values are satisfactory, indicating that multicollinearity is not a problem. In summary, Hypothesis 2.1 is supported. In the next step, the hypothesis related to the direct effect of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control on desirability-feasibility was tested.

76

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and correlations among the analysis variables

Variables

Mean

1 Age

21.44

SD

1

3.23

1

2

3

2 Gender

0.47

0.50

0.125*

1

3 Parental selfemployment

0.23

0.42

–0.141*

–0.125

1

0.021

4

5

6

4 Attitudes

0.014

0.99

0.061

0.238**

5 Subjective norms

0.012

1.01

0.059

0.186** 0.124* 0.494**

6 Perceived behavioural control

0.01

1.01

–0.002

0.057

0.103

7 Desirability – feasibility

0.014

1.00

0.014

0.121*

0.140* 0.534** 0.540** 0.648**

8 Intentions

0.018

1.00

0.059

0.158*

0.043

7

8

1 1

0.496** 0.455**

1

1

0.547** 0.536** 0.537** 0.784**

1

*Correlation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); n = 300. Table 3

Attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regressed on intentions Control model St. beta

Model 1 St. beta

Tolerance values for model 1

Age

0.064

0.037

0.960

Gender

0.160**

0.025

0.902

Parental self-employment

0.058

Attitude

–0.022 0.269***

0.947 0.642

Subjective norms

0.248***

0.687

Perceived behavioural control

0.328***

0.692

R2

0.033

0.476

Adjusted R2

0.023

0.466

F

3.382*

Change in R2 Change in F

44.430*** 0.443 82.678***

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (n = 300).

The control model explains a statistically significant share of the variance in firm performance (R2 = 0.03, p < 0.01). Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (TPB mode) makes a significant contribution over and above the control model in explaining desirability and feasibility (∆R2 = 0.486, p < 0.001). There were no serious departures from normality, and the tolerance values reported in Table 4 are satisfactory. Thus, Hypothesis 2.2 is supported, suggesting that desirability-feasibility is a function of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions Table 4

77

Attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regressed on desirability: feasibility Control model St. beta

Age

Model 1 St. beta

Tolerance values for model 1

0.023

0.001

0.959

Gender

0.140*

0.013

0.898

Parental self-employment

0.155**

0.062

0.943

Attitude

0.209***

0.639

Subjective norms

0.226***

0.683

0.435***

0.690

Perceived behavioural control R2

0.039

Adjusted R²

0.029

F

4.009**

0.525 0.515 54.637***

Change in R2

0.486

Change in F

101.245***

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (n = 304).

Finally, hierarchical regression is applied to find out weather desirability-feasibility mediates the direct effect of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control on intentions. The results are presented in the Table 5. Table 5

Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and desirability-feasibility regressed on intentions

Age

Control model St. Beta

Model 1 St. Beta

0.064

0.037

Gender

0.160**

Parental self-employment

0.058

Model 2 St. Beta

Tolerance values for model 2

0.035

0.960

0.025

0.017

0.901

–0.022

–0.058

0.941

Attitude

0.269***

0.141**

0.607

Subjective norms

0.248***

0.112**

0.643

Perceived behavioural control

0.328***

0.055

0.541

0.620***

0.480

Desirability-feasibility R2

0.033

Adjusted R2

0.023

F

3.382*

0.476 0.466 44.430***

0.661 0.653 81.222***

Change in R2

0.443***

0.184***

Change in F

82.678***

158.592***

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (n = 300).

The addition of the desirability-feasibility measure makes a significant contribution over and above TPB model (∆R2 = 0.184, p < 0.001). The total explanation power of the integrated model is R2 = 0.653, p < 0.001. It is also evident that desirability-feasibility

78

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

partially mediates the effects of attitudes and subjective norms (a decrease in the statistical significance of these variables from p = 0.001 to p = 0.01), and fully mediates the effect of the perceived behavioural control on entrepreneurial intentions (a decrease in statistical significance of this variable from 0.001 to zero). Again, the tolerance values cause no concern. Therefore, Hypothesis 2.3 is supported. Overall, these findings reveal that desirability-feasibility is a function of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Self-employment and start-up intention, in turn, are functions of attitudes, subjective norm and desirability-feasibility. This new integrated model explains about 65% of the variance in the intentions.

5

Conclusions

The findings indicate that intention to acquire a business differs from intentions to become self-employed or to start and run a business, among Russian students. The acquisition option is probably perceived as very different since students do not have the necessary resources to start a business. Thus, when speaking about entrepreneurial intentions, it is probably best to focus on self-employment and start-up rather than on acquisition. It is interesting that the self-employment and start-up intentions associated with uncertain datelines in the future are perceived similarly, while the item related to the start-up intention in the nearest future is loaded together with the acquisition intentions. One probable explanation is that the natural career start for most students would be salaried work right after the graduation, while in the distant future some of them can think of becoming entrepreneurs. The findings indicate that the intention to become self-employed and start one’s own business is a function of desirability-feasibility, which formed one component of the principal component analysis. This desirability-feasibility construct, in turn, is a function of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control (see Figure 4). Therefore, the TPB and SEE models can be successfully integrated into one model. Actually, the new model consisting of attitudes, subjective norms and desirability-feasibility seems to provide an excellent explanation of the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions. The present research has several limitations. First, the use of student samples to investigate entrepreneurial intentions is not unproblematic. Starting a business may not be a realistic option for many of the respondents. Second, the proposed model illustrated in Figure 3 could not be tested since the Russian students did not perceive desirability to be different from feasibility. In other countries respondents are likely be able to distinguish between these two concepts. Moreover, the snap-shot cross sectional approach used here makes it impossible to infer causal relationship and examine actual behaviour. Ultimately, we are more interested in actual behaviour. However, Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) have demonstrated that new business founders’ intentions to become self-employed are strongly associated with subsequent actual behaviour. Therefore, studies of entrepreneurial intentions are valuable on their own since the intentionbehaviour linkage has been manifested in other surveys. It remains to be seen if the model presented here is robust in other settings. Future research should investigate whether some of the concepts included in the model presented here have direct effects on behaviour. In particular, it would be interesting to investigate the extent to which perceived behavioural control has a direct effect on

An integrated model of entrepreneurial intentions

79

behaviour, as suggested by the TPB. Moreover, it remains unclear what role, if any, propensity to act has on entrepreneurial behaviour. This research presents a first attempt to integrate two competing models of entrepreneurial intention that incorporates multiple and competing explanations on the decision to pursue an entrepreneurial career. Formal intention models are frequently used as a theory base across different disciplines with clear, testable hypotheses. The present research shows the importance of studying cognitive processes in exploring the intentions to become an entrepreneur. More importantly, as suggested by the theory and also recently supported by the empirical evidence (Kolvereid andd Isaksen, 2006), intentions to start a business are the best antecedents of the actual behaviour. Understanding the nature of intentional behaviour helps explain why many entrepreneurs decide to start a business long before they scan for opportunities or decide exactly what type of business to start (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986). Therefore, gaining a better understanding of the real antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions enables us to create mechanisms to facilitate entrepreneurship.

References Ajzen, I. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behaviour’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.179–211. Ajzen, I. (2002) ‘Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.665–683. Ajzen, I. and Driver, B.L. (1992) ‘Application of the theory of planned behaviour to leisure choice’, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.207–224. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Armitage, C.L. and Conner, M. (2001) ‘Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review’, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.471–499. Bagozzi, R.P. (1992) ‘The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions and behaviour’, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55, pp.178–204. Bezgodov, A. (1999) Entrepreneurship Sociology (очерки социологии предпринимательства) St. Petersburg, Petropolis (СПБ, ‘Петрополис’). Bird, B. (1992) ‘The operation of intentions in time: the emergence of the new venture’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 17, No. 11, pp.11–20. Brockhaus, R. and Horwitz, P. (1986) ‘Psychology of the entrepreneur’, in Sexton, D. and Smilor, R. (Eds.): The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge, pp.25–48. Crant, J.M. (1996) ‘The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.42–49. Dennis Jr., W.J. (1997) ‘More than you think: an inclusive estimate of business entries’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.175–196. Flash Eurobarometer (2004) Downloaded 6 April 2005 from http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/ enterprise_policy/survey/rapporten2004.pdf Gartner, W., Starr, J.A. and Bhat, S. (1999) ‘Predicting new venture survival: an analysis of ‘anatomy of start up’. Cases from inc. Magazine’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.215–232. Gundry. L.K. and Welch, H.P. (2001) ‘The ambitious entrepreneur: High growth strategies of women-owned enterprises’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp.453–470. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

80

T. Iakovleva and L. Kolvereid

Isaksen, E. and Kolvereid, L. (2005) ‘Growth objectives in Norwegian start-up businesses’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.17–26. Kickul, J. and Krueger, N. (2004) ‘A cognitive processing model of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentionality’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Downloaded 12 April from http://www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/FER_2004/web-content/Section%20XXII/P3/XXII-P3.html Kolvereid, L. (1996a) ‘Organizational employment versus self-employment, pp. Reasons for career choice intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.23–31. Kolvereid, L. (1996b) ‘Prediction of employment status choice intentions’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.47–56. Kolvereid, L. and Isaksen, E. (2006) ‘New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp.866–885. Krueger, N.F. (1993) ‘The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.5–21. Krueger, N.F. and Carsrud, A.L. (1993) ‘Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behavior’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5, No. 4. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000) ‘Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, Nos. 5–6, pp.411–432. Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S. and Ajzen, I. (1992) ‘A comparison of the theory of planned behaviour and reasoned action’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.3–9. Putin, V. (2006) Annual Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in 2006, http://www.kremlin.ru/eng Reitan, B. (1998) Perspectives on New Venture Creation. The Stimulation of Entrepreneurial Potential and New Venture Attempts among Young People, Doctoral dissertation. The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Reynolds, P., Hay, M., Bygrave, W., Camp, S. and Autio, E. (2000) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Babson College, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and the Erving Marion Kauffman Foundation, London Business School, Kansas City, Missouri, USA. Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S. and Wiebe, F.A. (1989) ‘Role model performance effects on the development of entrepreneurial career preference’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.53–71. Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982) ‘The social dimension of entrepreneurship’, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp.72–90. Shook, C.L., Priem, R.L. and McGee, J.E. (2003) ‘Venture creation and the enterprising individual: a review and synthesis’, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.379–399. Storey, D., Keasey, K., Watson, R. and Wynarczyk, P. (1987) Performance of Small Forms: Profits, Jobs, and Failure, Croom Helm, London. Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999) ‘Self-employment among Russian students’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.269–280.