the affect of environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship, … · through questionnaire...
TRANSCRIPT
144
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
The Affect of Environment, Personality Traits, Entrepreneurship, Social Status, Wealth and Motivation
toward the Success of Small Business in the Northern Region, THAILAND
Boonthawan Wingwon 1 Chaiyutha Lertpachin 2 Benjawan Laolalit 3 1,2 M.B.A. Program, Faculty of Management Science, Lampang Rajabhat University
119 Lampang Matha Rd, Tumbol Chompoo, Muang District, Lampang Province, 52100,
Telephone: 08-1882-3465 E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 08-1824-7692 E-mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 08-1882-3465 E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract The objective of this study was to review the affect of
environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship, social status,
wealth and motivation factors toward the success of small
business and to analyze the causal relationship of affected
factors toward the success of small business in the Northern
region, Thailand. This survey research was conducted to analyze
the Structural Equation Model in questionnaire format from 450
SMEs entrepreneurs in 4 provinces. It revealed that the majority
of entrepreneurs was more female over male, with the average
age group between 31-50 years old, married marital status,
the undergraduate educational level, single proprietor / micro
community enterprise / limited partnership, business experience
of 1-10 years, employees of not over 10 persons, personal
investment representing 68.70% and the remaining from financial
institutions, with business growth rate at 1% to 9% level and
with sales value at medium level. Entrepreneurs valued the
importance of environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship,
social status, wealth, motivation and the success of business at
a high level of directly affected had direct affect on all factors.
The causal relationship of entrepreneurship factor played good
mediating role in the linkage of social status and wealth through
the motivation factor toward the success of business. For the
environment and the personality traits had direct affect toward the
entrepreneurship and also had direct affect toward the motivation
but with only indirect affect toward the success of business.
Keywords: Environment, Personality Traits, Entrepreneurship,
Motivation, Business Success
1. Introduction Following the growth of business were the expansion
of organization, customers, employees, productivity and the
investment which led the entrepreneur who was transforming
oneself to medium business had to be ready for the forthcoming
changes of business practice in the near future. However, the
transforming without appropriate direction or conceptual frame-
work would lead to the non directive changes, sometime had to
guess or to anticipate and had to go through numerous obstacles
to keep survival of such evolving business changes, [1] in
particular, for those close proximity changes of Asian Free Trade
Area (AFTA) which was officially enforced at the beginning of this
year 2010. Many items of trading products at country level in
Thailand were 0% imported duty, the exception of handful items
under the duty exemption deferment items. These factors had
inevitably affected toward all size of entrepreneurs in Thailand
and these impacts could be enlarged, in particular for those small
business enterprises who were transforming into the medium
or large size of business and were looking for the opportunity
to transform itself from the current O.E.M. business to the next
level as the designer or brand products business in the future
in order to align and cope with the business evolvement. [2]
Existing government paid close attention to the small
and medium enterprises as they were playing the critical role on
the recovery of Thai economy as these new entrepreneurs would
require not too large initial investments and if success they would
be the base source for the country development and the source
of training and developing of skill workers for the labor market,
for promoting the business competition and for preventing the
business monopoly. It would generate work employment, value
added productivity and imported products substitution which in
turn led to large sum of foreign currency exchanges saving in
each year. It was also the source of enhancing work experiences
and services quality for the entrepreneurs. [3] Therefore,
the entrepreneurs were the leader of changes and brought
progressive development to the society by utilizing its own
capability, family relatives and networks, including the adoption
of environment and social status to support the entrepreneurship
society in managing business toward the prosperous and the
growth and the understanding of conceptual process or the
business strategies adoption as the owner of enterprises. [4],
[5], [6]
Furthermore, 99.5% of SMEs were the businesses
with GDP of 38% [7] as they were the source of productivity and
145
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
employment scarcity throughout every populated and congested
communities [1] and were the businesses with unique identity,
independent administration, owned theories and traits, source
of business within the community and the size of operation was
limited within particular scale as per the study of Stanley and
Morse [8] summarized that the owner of business often managed
capital investment of the business from single source or from
small group of joint investments.
Nevertheless, for the existing SMEs in Northern region,
there were various factors which the entrepreneurs would require
to expedite their adjustments especially those entrepreneurs
that must had high motivation, the cooperative trait with other
stakeholders to achieve the business success. Occasionally, the
administrative management problems had arisen from the failing
to adapt and to cope with the evolved external environment, e.g.
on the magnitude of economic impact aspect due to the lack
of sourcing for knowledge, informative data and the adopting
of proactive marketing, including the non professional labor
forces who was unable to cope with the growth of the industrial
awareness and the personnel who was lack of knowledge on
quality of products and short of standard services, the O.E.M.
and own identity, networking for business alliance, no discipline
at works, festival absenteeism, low quality raw materials, variety
of local raw materials. Some businesses had financial loan
problems with financial institutions due to lack of trustworthy,
short of collateral and followed with the complicate loaning
process and the non standard accounting system. [7] The above
highlighted facts had led to the conducting of this research study
and as the critical information and the warning sign for the
entrepreneurs’ readiness in developing the appropriate business
strategies and in enhancing capability for business competition
in the long run.
2. Research Objectives 1. To study the level of environment, personality
traits, entrepreneurship, social status, wealth and motivation
toward the business success of SMEs in the Northern region of
Thailand,
2. To study the causal relationship of affected factors
toward the business success of SMEs in the Northern region of
Thailand
Scope of Study
The research focused on the importance of internal
and external market environment, including the affect of
motivation toward the business success of SMEs which could
be classified into 4 aspects as followed (1) Subject Matters:
To focus the study on the environment, personality traits,
entrepreneurship, social status, motivation, wealth and business
success of SMEs, (2) Population: 100 SMEs entrepreneurs on
3 provinces and 150 SMEs for large province of Chiangmai in
the Northern region of Thailand (3) Coverage Area: To study
through questionnaire survey of SMEs entrepreneurs in the
Northern region of Thailand, i.e. Lampang, Lamphun, Chiangmai
and Prayao. The questionnaires were distributed by the
assistant researcher on accidental random process to targeted
entrepreneurs and organized for the questionnaire to be picked
up 2 weeks after. There were 300 responded questionnaires
for the study with illustrated details as follows:
Province Population SampleLampang 100 85Lamphun 100 70Prayao 100 60
(3) Coverage Area: To study through questionnaire survey of
SMEs entrepreneurs in Northern region of Thailand, i.e. Lampang,
Lamphun, Chiangmai and Prayao, (4) Duration: To carry out the
study in 4 month from October 2010 till January 2011.
3. Theory, Research Conceptual Framework and Related Literature Review The review of related literature on SMEs revealed that
entrepreneur was the “economic power house” and could be
recognized as the key player of “New Business Era” including
the innovator of new products, pioneer of both internal and
external markets and the leader of global markets. [9] They were
the initiators of economic growth were the precious resource over
the innovation, capital investment or other related factors. They
developed new informative knowledge from the integrating of
relative factors with the past knowledge, from the accumulative
experience and from the local business alliance. Therefore, it
could be concluded that the entrepreneurs ought to recognize
and valued the affect of environment, geographic conditions,
economic factor and the involvement of community of activity,
[10] the sourcing of capital investment and the personal reward
through commitment, determination, capability and devotion as
preparation and readiness to confront risks and uncertainty for
the growth of own business. [11] For the each past year, there
would be a large number of new entrepreneurs established their
businesses and created own works which these mechanism
had supported their economic growth and capability to compete
for the country in the future. This research study adopted the
entrepreneurship concept of Joseph Schumpeter [12] and
Wickham [13] under the related variable factors of environment,
146
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
personality traits, entrepreneurship, social status, wealth and
motivation toward the business success as per descriptive
details below:
1. Environment
The environment factor supported or assisted in the
creation of new entrepreneurs. Although the vision of the new
entrepreneurs were on the opportunity or on the individual driving
force on such business often was congested in each particular
geographic zone [14] which was the environment that supported
or activated the generating of business and opportunity for many
new entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, the opportunities might first interact in
interesting ways with the attributes of people. Second, as much
of the macro level research has shown, the willingness to engage
in entrepreneurial activities depended on such things as the legal
system of the country in which the entrepreneur operated, the
age of the industry, the availability of capital in the economy (and
to the industry in particular), the condition of capital markets and
the state of the overall economy. These factors were important
and it might also be interesting to know whether motivations of
particular people lead to different types of entrepreneurial action
under different environmental conditions. [15]
2. Personality Traits
Personality traits were human predispositions
which were stable across time and setting. Traits ought to be
particularly important in the entrepreneurship situation where
few, or unclear, inhibiting organizational cues or constraints
were present. [16] Indeed, some personality traits of successful
entrepreneurs had been identified (achievement needs, locus
of control, risk propensity, etc.), but for the most part, these
traits also characterized successful managers and leaders of
mature businesses and produce weak relationships with venture
performance. [17], [18] Thus, leadership research was explored
in search for those traits that might be more powerful or might
have been overlooked.
Stogdill [19], Locke [20], Locke, Kirkpatrick, Wheeler,
Schneider, Niles, Goldstein, Welsh and Chah [21] and Yukl
[22] offered consistent support for an array of traits/motives
which associated with manager / leader performance: tenacity,
positive mood, ambition, goal-striving, high energy, high honesty
/ integrity, self-confidence and creativity. Many of these traits/
motives aligned with the entrepreneurship archetype. [16]
Additional trait variables were suggested: money-seeking,
status-seeking, fear of failure, and passion for work. Only “high
energy”, “creativity”, and “fear of failure” were not considered
important for entrepreneurship performance. Since it was difficult
in distinguishing between “tenacity”, “ambition”, and “goal
striving”, so these variables were combined.
Within the research domain of personality traits and
entrepreneurship, the concept of need for achievement had
received much attention. McClelland [23] argued that individuals
who were high in need of achievement were more likely than
those who were low in need achievement to engage in activities
or tasks that had a high degree of individual responsibility for
outcomes, required individual skill and effort, had a moderate
degree of risk, and included clear feedback on performance.
Further, McClelland stated that entrepreneurial roles were Trait
as having a greater degree of these task attributes than other
careers; thus, it was likely that individual with high in need of
achievement would be more likely to pursue entrepreneurial jobs
than other types of roles.
3. Entrepreneurship
Joseph Schumpeter [12] surveyed the relevant
literature about entrepreneurs and brought up the term
“entrepreneurship”. He believed that entrepreneurship was the
cause for discovering, driving new combinations of production
factors and creating social economy. Since then, entrepreneurship
had obtained the respect of academic communities. Scholars had
no uniform term for entrepreneur, including entrepreneurship, [12]
corporate entrepreneurship, [24] entrepreneurial posture, [25]
entrepreneurial strategic posture, [26] entrepreneurial orientation,
[27] entrepreneurial proclivity, [28] etc. Although different terms
were used, the meaning is similar. Their purpose was to pursue
competitive advantage of enterprises and to enhance business
performance. However, after Joseph Schumpeter, most scholars
used the constructs and relevant variables presented by Miller
and Friesen [29] and Miller [24] when measuring corporate
entrepreneurship. They added different variable aspects for
distinct purposes, and therefore expanded the contents of
entrepreneurship.
Miller [24] considered that the enterprise that owned
entrepreneurship needed to have three characteristics: the first
was innovation, including product and process innovation; the
second was risk-taking, i.e., the main decision maker of an
enterprise needs to have the capability of risk taking; and the
third was pro-activeness, means an enterprise has the ability to
acutely investigate the variation of the environment and to adopt
strategy to respond in advance. Covin and Slevin [25] considered
that the values and behaviors of entrepreneurship covered three
aspects, i.e., innovativeness, risk-taking, and pro-activeness.
In this research, we considered that entrepreneurship did not
only represent the personal characteristic of the owner or top
managers of an enterprise, but also a kind of business culture.
Hence, they were chosen Miller (1983), [24] Covin and Slevin
147
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
(1989) [25] as the measurement aspects of entrepreneurship.
The study of Michaels and Gow (2008) also revealed that
the entrepreneurs affected toward the organizational success
indirectly through motivation
4. Social Status
Entrepreneurs or founder team members of new
business were considered as the 2 precious pulling resources,
with the first as the human capital, e.g. the knowledge base, skill
base, experience, capability and the intellectual of all stakeholders.
The second was the social capital, e.g. the relationship of
entrepreneurs or founder team members with other persons
which resulted on the benefits toward the business from these
relationships, for instance reputation of activities or project, joint
working network, social network, etc. [30] Both social capitals
were recognized as social status by external persons with the
adding of the status would increase the strength to the business,
with the reputation and recognition by the public, the local society
and as the honorary person accepted by the society would lead
to the opportunity of success.
Furthermore, the human relationship ability was the
way that entrepreneur exhibited social status in many aspects,
e.g. personality, mental stability, human relationship skill,
socialize skill, building relationship with others, consideration
of others, concern on others, generosity to staff and the most
important factor of human relationship as part of the social status
of entrepreneurs for the good communication with customers and
other related business partners. [31]
5. Wealth
As wealth was one of the business objectives for both
objective and subjective as the current business practice was
with variety and with the severe competition. Entrepreneurs
had to adjust their organization to be aligned with environment
through the utilizing of communication which the majority of
information came from external persons or organizations.
Therefore, the physical wealth must relied on the analyzing of
data, the forecasting and researching to identify the organization
direction with high competency, to optimize benefits from the
human resource, network and internal and external resources, to
optimize benefits from assets, to obtain and own tangible assets.
The subjective wealth was the utilizing of intangible assets which
had the following 3 characteristics [32] (1) Able to be specified
meant the intangible asset must be able to be specified and
clearly isolated from the goodwill. It must be independent, i.e.
the operation must be able to specifically take future economic
benefits either from rent, sale or exchange (2) Under the
operation control meant business had authority to utilize such
asset and able to limit others from utilize and take future
economic benefits from such assets and (3) Having the future
economic benefits meant the revenue from the sale of product
and service, the saving capital or other benefits arisen from the
utilize of such intangible assets, e.g. intellectual property which
utilize on the production process which could reduce future
production costs. The application of both type of wealth had
affected toward the business success.
6. Motivation
Motivation referred to factors within an individual,
other than knowledge, which energize, direct, and sustain
behavior. [21] Entrepreneurial motivation was manifested in the
entrepreneur’s vision and goals, and it bore upon planning and
behavior [16]. Vision was the motivation dimension that referred
to a cognitive structure or image of a desired future state.
Management, leadership, and entrepreneurship theorists made
frequent mention of the importance of vision for business success
[33], [34], [35] however, little empirical research existed. Social
cognitive theory’s concept of self-efficacy had demonstrated
strong associations with performance.
7. Success
Individual was different in the level of desire for
success. Certain groups had low level of desire for success
and often satisfied with the current status, while on the contrary
other groups might have high level of desire for success and
fond competition to achieve success as expectation and satisfied
with the burden of responsibilities toward work. McClelland
discovered the relationship between the desire for success
and the business activities. It revealed that in average the
entrepreneurs had higher desired for success than the average
person The follow up research also revealed entrepreneurs were
the successors in business and similar traits also discovered
among other successful business managers. [36] Therefore,
the driving force from the desire for success led to the
aspiration of individual and the initiation of business establishment
as the individual destiny of achieving business success and
own expectation.
Hence, from the review of relevant subjective variables,
i.e. (1) environment, (2) personality traits, (3) entrepreneurship,
(4) social status, (5) motivation, (6) wealth and (7) SMEs business
success; could be summarized into the below research
conceptual framework.
148
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
Hypothesis Assumption
H:1 Environment affected toward Entrepreneurship
H:2 Personality Traits affected toward Entrepreneurship
H:3 Entrepreneurship affected toward Social status
H:4 Entrepreneurship affected toward Motivation
H:5 Entrepreneurship affected toward Wealth
H:6 Social Status affected toward Business Success
H:7 Motivation affected toward Business Success
H:8 Wealth affected toward Business Success
4. Research Methodology The research was carried out in 5 point Likert scale
[37] questionnaire survey with 7 measurable factors which were
modified from the success measurement of Fawcett et al. [38],
the entrepreneurship measurement the remaining environment,
personality traits, social status, motivation, wealth, and business
success were developed from the literature review. Questionnaires
were disseminated to 450 SMEs entrepreneurs and 300 were
received and compiled for analysis by Structural Equation
Model (SEM) and inferential statistics with Partial Least Squares
(PLS-Graph 3.0) technique [40] on the path analysis for the
direct and indirect relationship of environment, personality traits,
entrepreneurship, social status, motivation, wealth had affected
toward the SMEs business success at the Northern region of
Thailand.
4
with variety and with the severe competition. Entrepreneurs had to adjust their organization to be aligned with environment through the utilizing of communication which the majority of information came from external persons or organizations. Therefore, the physical wealth must relied on the analyzing of data, the forecasting and researching to identify the organization direction with high competency, to optimize benefits from the human resource, network and internal and external resources, to optimize benefits from assets, to obtain and own tangible assets. The subjective wealth was the utilizing of intangible assets which had the following 3 characteristics [32] (1) Able to be specified meant the intangible asset must be able to be specified and clearly isolated from the goodwill. It must be independent, i.e. the operation must be able to specifically take future economic benefits either from rent, sale or exchange (2) Under the operation control meant business had authority to utilize such asset and able to limit others from utilize and take future economic benefits from such assets and (3) Having the future economic benefits meant the revenue from the sale of product and service, the saving capital or other benefits arisen from the utilize of such intangible assets, e.g. intellectual property which utilize on the production process which could reduce future production costs. The application of both type of wealth had affected toward the business success.
6. Motivation Motivation referred to factors within an individual,
other than knowledge, which energize, direct, and sustain behavior. [21] Entrepreneurial motivation was manifested in the entrepreneur's vision and goals, and it bore upon
planning and behavior [16]. Vision was the motivation dimension that referred to a cognitive structure or image of a desired future state. Management, leadership, and entrepreneurship theorists made frequent mention of the importance of vision for business success [33], [34], [35] however, little empirical research existed. Social cognitive theory's concept of self-efficacy had demonstrated strong associations with performance.
7. Success Individual was different in the level of desire for
success. Certain groups had low level of desire for success and often satisfied with the current status, while on the contrary other groups might have high level of desire for success and fond competition to achieve success as expectation and satisfied with the burden of responsibilities toward work. McClelland discovered the relationship between the desire for success and the business activities. It revealed that in average the entrepreneurs had higher desired for success than the average person The follow up research also revealed entrepreneurs were the successors in business and similar traits also discovered among other successful business managers. [36] Therefore, the driving force from the desire for success led to the aspiration of individual and the initiation of business establishment as the individual destiny of achieving business success and own expectation.
Hence, from the review of relevant subjective variables, i.e. (1) environment, (2) personality traits, (3) entrepreneurship, (4) social status, (5) motivation, (6) wealth and (7) SMEs business success; could be summarized into the below research conceptual framework.
Hypothesis Assumption H:1 Environment affected toward
Entrepreneurship H:2 Personality Traits affected toward
Entrepreneurship H:3 Entrepreneurship affected toward Social status H:4 Entrepreneurship affected toward
Motivation H:5 Entrepreneurship affected toward Wealth H:6 Social Status affected toward Business
Success H:7 Motivation affected toward Business Success H:8 Wealth affected toward Business Success
4. Research Methodology The research was carried out in 5 point Likert scale [37]
questionnaire survey with 7 measurable factors which were modified from the success measurement of Fawcett et al. [38], the entrepreneurship measurement the remaining environment, personality traits, social status, motivation, wealth, and business success were developed from the literature review. Questionnaires were disseminated to 450 SMEs entrepreneurs and 300 were received and compiled for analysis by Structural Equation Model (SEM) and inferential statistics with Partial Least Squares (PLS-Graph 3.0) technique [40] on the path analysis for the direct and indirect relationship of environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship, social status, motivation, wealth had affected toward the SMEs business success at the Northern region of Thailand.
H:7
H:6
H:4
H:8 H:5
H:3
H:2
H:1 Environment
Traits
Entrepreneur
Status
Motivation
Wealth
Success
Figure # 1 Research Conceptual Framework
Figure #2 Analysis Outcome of Conceptual Structural Framework with PLS-Graph 3.0 [40]
Figure #2 Analysis Outcome of Conceptual Structural Framework with PLS-Graph 3.0 [40]
5. Research Summary The research revealed the majority of entrepreneurs
were female over male representing 61.00%, with the average age group between 31-50 years old, with married marital status, with established business in Chiangmai and Lampang at the similar proportion, with the undergraduate educational level, with single proprietor / micro community enterprise / limited partnership, with business experience of 1-10 years, with employees of not over 10 persons representing 87.80%, with personal investment representing 68.70% and the remaining from financial institutions, with business growth rate at 1% to 9% level and the majority with sales value at medium level.
From Figure#2, the outcome of PLS-Graph 3.0 program analysis revealed the entrepreneurs factor
was the good mediator to link the social status factor with the coefficient path value equal to 0.503, wealth factor with the coefficient path value equal to 0.461 through the motivation factor with coefficient value equal to 0.370 to business success factor at high level with the R2 value equal to 0.637. For the environment factor and personality traits factor had direct affected toward the entrepreneurship factor with coefficient value equal to 0.488 and 0.308, with R2 value equal to 0.533 and had direct affected toward the motivation factor with the coefficient value equal to 0.610, with R2 value equal to 0.372 and also with indirect affect toward the business success.
Table#1 Testing Result of Hypothesis Assumption
Hypothesis Coefficient path t-stat p-value Conclusion Environ Entrep 0.488 11.286 0.000*** Accepted
Trait Entrep PrcProd&ServQlty 0.308 6.946 0.009*** Accepted
Entrep Status 0.503 13.814 0.000*** Accepted
Entrep Motive 0.610 17.904 0.000*** Accepted
Entrep Wealth 0.499 13.384 0.000*** Accepted
Status Success 0.053 1.363 0.000 Rejected
Motive Success 0.370 9.019 0.000*** Accepted
Wealth Success 0.461 10.620 0.000*** Accepted
Remark: Accepted at p-value 0.10 From Table#1, the analysis of affected variables with
relationship revealed that
Environment factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.488 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Figure# 1 Research Conceptual Framework
149
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
5. Research Summary The research revealed the majority of entrepreneurs
were female over male representing 61.00%, with the average
age group between 31-50 years old, with married marital status,
with established business in Chiangmai and Lampang at the
similar proportion, with the undergraduate educational level, with
single proprietor / micro community enterprise / limited partnership,
with business experience of 1-10 years, with employees of not
over 10 persons representing 87.80%, with personal investment
representing 68.70% and the remaining from financial institutions,
with business growth rate at 1% to 9% level and the majority
with sales value at medium level.
From Figure#2, the outcome of PLS-Graph 3.0
program analysis revealed the entrepreneurs factor was the
good mediator to link the social status factor with the coefficient
path value equal to 0.503, wealth factor with the coefficient
path value equal to 0.461 through the motivation factor with
coefficient value equal to 0.370 to business success factor at
high level with the R2 value equal to 0.637. For the environment
factor and personality traits factor had direct affected toward
the entrepreneurship factor with coefficient value equal to 0.488
and 0.308, with R2 value equal to 0.533 and had direct affected
toward the motivation factor with the coefficient value equal to
0.610, with R2 value equal to 0.372 and also with indirect affect
toward the business success.
Figure #2 Analysis Outcome of Conceptual Structural Framework with PLS-Graph 3.0 [40]
5. Research Summary The research revealed the majority of entrepreneurs
were female over male representing 61.00%, with the average age group between 31-50 years old, with married marital status, with established business in Chiangmai and Lampang at the similar proportion, with the undergraduate educational level, with single proprietor / micro community enterprise / limited partnership, with business experience of 1-10 years, with employees of not over 10 persons representing 87.80%, with personal investment representing 68.70% and the remaining from financial institutions, with business growth rate at 1% to 9% level and the majority with sales value at medium level.
From Figure#2, the outcome of PLS-Graph 3.0 program analysis revealed the entrepreneurs factor
was the good mediator to link the social status factor with the coefficient path value equal to 0.503, wealth factor with the coefficient path value equal to 0.461 through the motivation factor with coefficient value equal to 0.370 to business success factor at high level with the R2 value equal to 0.637. For the environment factor and personality traits factor had direct affected toward the entrepreneurship factor with coefficient value equal to 0.488 and 0.308, with R2 value equal to 0.533 and had direct affected toward the motivation factor with the coefficient value equal to 0.610, with R2 value equal to 0.372 and also with indirect affect toward the business success.
Table#1 Testing Result of Hypothesis Assumption
Hypothesis Coefficient path t-stat p-value Conclusion Environ Entrep 0.488 11.286 0.000*** Accepted
Trait Entrep PrcProd&ServQlty 0.308 6.946 0.009*** Accepted
Entrep Status 0.503 13.814 0.000*** Accepted
Entrep Motive 0.610 17.904 0.000*** Accepted
Entrep Wealth 0.499 13.384 0.000*** Accepted
Status Success 0.053 1.363 0.000 Rejected
Motive Success 0.370 9.019 0.000*** Accepted
Wealth Success 0.461 10.620 0.000*** Accepted
Remark: Accepted at p-value 0.10 From Table#1, the analysis of affected variables with
relationship revealed that
Environment factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.488 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Remark: Accepted at p-value 0.10
From Table#1, the analysis of affected variables with
relationship revealed that
Environment factor had affected toward entrepreneurship
with coefficient value equal to 0.488 which was accepted with
p-value = 0.000,
Personality traits factor had affected toward
entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.308 which was
accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward
environment with coefficient value equal to 0.503 which was
accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward motivation
with coefficient value equal to 0.610 which was accepted with
p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth
with coefficient value equal to 0.499 which was accepted with
p-value = 0.000,
Motivation factor had affected toward business
success with coefficient value equal to 0.370 which was accepted
with p-value = 0.000,
Wealth factor had affected toward business success
with coefficient value equal to 0.461 which was accepted with
p-value = 0.000,
With the exception of environment factor, it had no
affect toward business success and was not in line with the
specified hypothesis assumption.
150
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
Outcome of Structural Framework and Measurement
Analysis
Table#2, it revealed that all coefficient path had
statistical significant and could be summarized that the conceptual
structural framework was suitable for both theoretical and
empirical reliability. The analysis of each variable revealed all
variables with high R2value and at acceptable level with the
exception of “Status” and “Wealth” with R2 value equal to 0.253
and 0.249 subsequently, but still within the acceptable tolerance.
6
Personality traits factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.308 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward environment with coefficient value equal to 0.503 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward motivation with coefficient value equal to 0.610 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth with coefficient value equal to 0.499 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Motivation factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.370 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Wealth factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.461 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
With the exception of environment factor, it had no affect toward business success and was not in line with the specified hypothesis assumption.
Table#2 Affections of Relevant Variables toward SMEs Business Success
Dependent variable R2 Effect
Antecedent
Environ Entrep Traits Status Motive Wealth Success
Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000
IE N/A N/A N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.481 TE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.481
Status 0.253 DE N/A N/A 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.053 IE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.053
Wealth 0.249 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461 IE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461
Motive 0.372 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
IE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
Success 0.637 DE N/A 0.000 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A IE N/A 0.225 N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 N/A TE N/A 0225 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A
Remark: TE = total effect, DE = direct effect, IE = indirect effect. Entrep = Entrepreneurship, Environ = Environment or Context, Traits = Personality Traits, Status = Social Status, Motive
= Motivation, Wealth = Wealth, Success = Business success Outcome of Structural Framework and
Measurement Analysis Table#2, it revealed that all coefficient path had
statistical significant and could be summarized that the conceptual structural framework was suitable for both
theoretical and empirical reliability. The analysis of each variable revealed all variables with high R2value and at acceptable level with the exception of “Status” and “Wealth” with R2 value equal to 0.253 and 0.249 subsequently, but still within the acceptable tolerance.
1. Discriminant Validity Table#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement
Environ Entrep Traits Wealth Status Motive Success Av Commun
Av Redund
Rsq
Environ 1.000 0.644 0.000 0.000 Entrep 0.693 1.000 0.539 0.287 0.532 Traits 0.665 0.633 1.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 Wealth 0.528 0.499 0.623 1.000 0.603 0.150 0.249 Status 0.587 0.503 0.655 0.600 1.000 0.626 0.158 0.252 Motive 0.699 0.610 0.697 0.640 0.653 1.000 0.540 0.200 0.371 Success 0.560 0.560 0.709 0.735 0.576 0.708 1.000 0.607 0.387 0.636
From Table #3, it revealed that all variables with
AVE value higher than the correlation between each value in column h with the variable in other cross construct correlation columns. It indicated that the measurement of all
7 constructs were reliable within own construct within cross measured to other constructs, and hAVE ; h = 1,2,…,7 with each value close to 0.7 , i.e. with value between 0.540 – 0.644 indicated the measurement within acceptable discriminant validity.
Remark: TE = total effect, DE = direct effect, IE = indirect effect.
Entrep = Entrepreneurship, Environ = Environment or Context, Traits = Personality Traits, Status = Social Status, Motive =
Motivation, Wealth = Wealth, Success = Business success
1. Discriminant Validity
6
Personality traits factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.308 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward environment with coefficient value equal to 0.503 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward motivation with coefficient value equal to 0.610 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth with coefficient value equal to 0.499 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Motivation factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.370 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Wealth factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.461 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
With the exception of environment factor, it had no affect toward business success and was not in line with the specified hypothesis assumption.
Table#2 Affections of Relevant Variables toward SMEs Business Success
Dependent variable R2 Effect
Antecedent
Environ Entrep Traits Status Motive Wealth Success
Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000
IE N/A N/A N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.481 TE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.481
Status 0.253 DE N/A N/A 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.053 IE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.053
Wealth 0.249 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461 IE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461
Motive 0.372 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
IE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
Success 0.637 DE N/A 0.000 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A IE N/A 0.225 N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 N/A TE N/A 0225 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A
Remark: TE = total effect, DE = direct effect, IE = indirect effect. Entrep = Entrepreneurship, Environ = Environment or Context, Traits = Personality Traits, Status = Social Status, Motive
= Motivation, Wealth = Wealth, Success = Business success Outcome of Structural Framework and
Measurement Analysis Table#2, it revealed that all coefficient path had
statistical significant and could be summarized that the conceptual structural framework was suitable for both
theoretical and empirical reliability. The analysis of each variable revealed all variables with high R2value and at acceptable level with the exception of “Status” and “Wealth” with R2 value equal to 0.253 and 0.249 subsequently, but still within the acceptable tolerance.
1. Discriminant Validity Table#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement
Environ Entrep Traits Wealth Status Motive Success Av Commun
Av Redund
Rsq
Environ 1.000 0.644 0.000 0.000 Entrep 0.693 1.000 0.539 0.287 0.532 Traits 0.665 0.633 1.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 Wealth 0.528 0.499 0.623 1.000 0.603 0.150 0.249 Status 0.587 0.503 0.655 0.600 1.000 0.626 0.158 0.252 Motive 0.699 0.610 0.697 0.640 0.653 1.000 0.540 0.200 0.371 Success 0.560 0.560 0.709 0.735 0.576 0.708 1.000 0.607 0.387 0.636
From Table #3, it revealed that all variables with
AVE value higher than the correlation between each value in column h with the variable in other cross construct correlation columns. It indicated that the measurement of all
7 constructs were reliable within own construct within cross measured to other constructs, and hAVE ; h = 1,2,…,7 with each value close to 0.7 , i.e. with value between 0.540 – 0.644 indicated the measurement within acceptable discriminant validity.
From Table #3, it revealed that all variables with
6
Personality traits factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.308 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward environment with coefficient value equal to 0.503 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward motivation with coefficient value equal to 0.610 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth with coefficient value equal to 0.499 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Motivation factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.370 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Wealth factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.461 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
With the exception of environment factor, it had no affect toward business success and was not in line with the specified hypothesis assumption.
Table#2 Affections of Relevant Variables toward SMEs Business Success
Dependent variable R2 Effect
Antecedent
Environ Entrep Traits Status Motive Wealth Success
Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000
IE N/A N/A N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.481 TE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.481
Status 0.253 DE N/A N/A 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.053 IE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.053
Wealth 0.249 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461 IE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461
Motive 0.372 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
IE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
Success 0.637 DE N/A 0.000 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A IE N/A 0.225 N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 N/A TE N/A 0225 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A
Remark: TE = total effect, DE = direct effect, IE = indirect effect. Entrep = Entrepreneurship, Environ = Environment or Context, Traits = Personality Traits, Status = Social Status, Motive
= Motivation, Wealth = Wealth, Success = Business success Outcome of Structural Framework and
Measurement Analysis Table#2, it revealed that all coefficient path had
statistical significant and could be summarized that the conceptual structural framework was suitable for both
theoretical and empirical reliability. The analysis of each variable revealed all variables with high R2value and at acceptable level with the exception of “Status” and “Wealth” with R2 value equal to 0.253 and 0.249 subsequently, but still within the acceptable tolerance.
1. Discriminant Validity Table#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement
Environ Entrep Traits Wealth Status Motive Success Av Commun
Av Redund
Rsq
Environ 1.000 0.644 0.000 0.000 Entrep 0.693 1.000 0.539 0.287 0.532 Traits 0.665 0.633 1.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 Wealth 0.528 0.499 0.623 1.000 0.603 0.150 0.249 Status 0.587 0.503 0.655 0.600 1.000 0.626 0.158 0.252 Motive 0.699 0.610 0.697 0.640 0.653 1.000 0.540 0.200 0.371 Success 0.560 0.560 0.709 0.735 0.576 0.708 1.000 0.607 0.387 0.636
From Table #3, it revealed that all variables with
AVE value higher than the correlation between each value in column h with the variable in other cross construct correlation columns. It indicated that the measurement of all
7 constructs were reliable within own construct within cross measured to other constructs, and hAVE ; h = 1,2,…,7 with each value close to 0.7 , i.e. with value between 0.540 – 0.644 indicated the measurement within acceptable discriminant validity.
value higher than the correlation between each value
in column h with the variable in other cross construct correlation
columns. It indicated that the measurement of all 7 constructs
were reliable within own construct within cross measured to
other constructs, and
6
Personality traits factor had affected toward entrepreneurship with coefficient value equal to 0.308 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward environment with coefficient value equal to 0.503 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward motivation with coefficient value equal to 0.610 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth with coefficient value equal to 0.499 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Motivation factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.370 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
Wealth factor had affected toward business success with coefficient value equal to 0.461 which was accepted with p-value = 0.000,
With the exception of environment factor, it had no affect toward business success and was not in line with the specified hypothesis assumption.
Table#2 Affections of Relevant Variables toward SMEs Business Success
Dependent variable R2 Effect
Antecedent
Environ Entrep Traits Status Motive Wealth Success
Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000
IE N/A N/A N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.481 TE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.481
Status 0.253 DE N/A N/A 0.000 N/A N/A N/A 0.053 IE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE N/A N/A 0.154 N/A N/A N/A 0.053
Wealth 0.249 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461 IE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.243 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.461
Motive 0.372 DE 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
IE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.000 TE 0.297 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.370
Success 0.637 DE N/A 0.000 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A IE N/A 0.225 N/A 0.000 0.000 0.000 N/A TE N/A 0225 N/A 0.053 0.370 0.461 N/A
Remark: TE = total effect, DE = direct effect, IE = indirect effect. Entrep = Entrepreneurship, Environ = Environment or Context, Traits = Personality Traits, Status = Social Status, Motive
= Motivation, Wealth = Wealth, Success = Business success Outcome of Structural Framework and
Measurement Analysis Table#2, it revealed that all coefficient path had
statistical significant and could be summarized that the conceptual structural framework was suitable for both
theoretical and empirical reliability. The analysis of each variable revealed all variables with high R2value and at acceptable level with the exception of “Status” and “Wealth” with R2 value equal to 0.253 and 0.249 subsequently, but still within the acceptable tolerance.
1. Discriminant Validity Table#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement
Environ Entrep Traits Wealth Status Motive Success Av Commun
Av Redund
Rsq
Environ 1.000 0.644 0.000 0.000 Entrep 0.693 1.000 0.539 0.287 0.532 Traits 0.665 0.633 1.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 Wealth 0.528 0.499 0.623 1.000 0.603 0.150 0.249 Status 0.587 0.503 0.655 0.600 1.000 0.626 0.158 0.252 Motive 0.699 0.610 0.697 0.640 0.653 1.000 0.540 0.200 0.371 Success 0.560 0.560 0.709 0.735 0.576 0.708 1.000 0.607 0.387 0.636
From Table #3, it revealed that all variables with
AVE value higher than the correlation between each value in column h with the variable in other cross construct correlation columns. It indicated that the measurement of all
7 constructs were reliable within own construct within cross measured to other constructs, and hAVE ; h = 1,2,…,7 with each value close to 0.7 , i.e. with value between 0.540 – 0.644 indicated the measurement within acceptable discriminant validity.
; h = 1,2,…,7 with each value
close to 0.7 , i.e. with value between 0.540 – 0.644 indicated
the measurement within acceptable discriminant validity.
Table#2 Affections of Relevant Variables toward SMEs Business Success
Table#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement
151
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
2. Convergent Validity
Table#4 Outcome Analysis of Convergent Validity
2. Convergent Validity Table#4 Outcome Analysis of Convergent Validity
Environ loading t-stat CR AVE
Envi1 0. 2883 20.9938 0.878 0.644
Envi2 0. 3257 24.9752
Envi3 0. 3128 22.9068
Envi4 0. 3186 22.1698
Entrep loading t-stat CR AVE
Entre1 0.5421 8.9018 0.874 0.539
Entre2 0.7303 15.6699 Entre3 0.7942 16.1793 Entre4 0.7857 18.6450 Entre5 0.7854 19.9696 Entre6 0.7375 18.5916 Traits loading t-stat CR AVE
Traits1 0.7665 13.4850 0.902 0.650
Traits2 0.8099 24.5371
Traits3 0.8257 26.2385
Traits4 0.8609 24.9611 Traits5 0.8453 24.2887 Wealth loading t-stat CR AVE Wealth1 0.7138 19.3451 0.901 0.603 Wealth2 0.6995 15.9101 Wealth3 0.7593 21.5863 Wealth4 0.8275 24.7752 Wealth5 0.8414 22.8203 Wealth6 0.8066 19.0445
Status loading t-stat CR AVE
Status1 0.7757 16.7053 0.870 0.626
Status2 0.8191 18.6958 Status3 0.8032 17.0660 Status4 0.7669 177182
Motive loading t-stat CR AVE
Motive1 0.7330 15.3367 0.875 0.540
Motive2 0.7541 21.2794
Motive3 0.7706 21.9350 Motive4 0.8267 25.8424 Motive5 0.7174 20.9604 Motive6 0.5864 11.1148
Success loading t-stat CR AVE
Success1 0.7678 23.0586 0.903 0.608 Success2 0.7613 27.7371 Success3 0.7942 33.0252 Success4 0.8146 28.6207
Success5 0.7765 25.1395
Success6 0.7617 27.5949
152
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
From Table#4, it revealed that all items with the
loading value higher than 0.707 and with statistical significance
with the exception of Environ 1-4 with lower value but still
remain as they were within significance level (t-stat value higher
than 1.96 with positive sign). Each construct with very high CR
value, i.e. CR value in the range of 0.870-0.903 indicated that
all items in every constructs could be used to measure its own
constructs with the validity value close to 0.900 and with AVE
within the range of 0.540-0.650 indicated that each constructs
could reflect outcome back to the indicators. Therefore, it could
be concluded that all measurement with high convergent validity.
6. Research Conclusion It revealed that the majority of entrepreneurs were
female over male, within the average age group between 31-50
years old. The majority were within the young age with physical
fitness, high patience, determination to build financial status,
ability to learn on business practice and adapting own working
approach to align with current business environment The majority
were in single proprietor business, followed by micro community
enterprise and limited partnership due to the flexibility in
managing business with full independent, simple and convenience
as described that entrepreneurs just like the integrated individual
with all sources of energy and powers to generate the economic
growth, developing new knowledge from blending individual
capability with existing experience, from local network alliance
for business success which at the end transform to the leader
of current gigantic business. [9]
Entrepreneurs valued the importance of environment
context, personality traits, entrepreneurship, social status, wealth,
motivation and business success at high level on all factors
which was in line with conclusion of Bannis and Nanus [33] that
the business operation must relied on variety of factors, e.g.
internal and external factors of organization under the personal
competency of each entrepreneurs.
Furthermore, the research study revealed that
entrepreneurs were good mediators in blending the resource
of both personal and social capitals for the recognition from
related stakeholders on social status [30] to build the wealth
from the business by adopting the suitable strategies in seeking
for external opportunity through the high level of motivation.
Entrepreneurs had high motivation for success with self discipline
in managing risks would yield business success in the long
run. The environment context and personality traits had direct
affect toward the entrepreneurship and key role players in new
business era, the innovators of new products to explore local and
international markets and the world market leaders [9] including
the initiator of economic growth in various aspects. All these
entrepreneurs were the precious resource with higher value over
innovation, capital investment and other relevant factors, also
with the development of new knowledge from the integration
of relevant factors to blend with existing knowledge which
accumulated from experience, including the knowledge from
the local alliance. Entrepreneurs must aware and value the
importance of the affect of environment, geographic conditions,
economic factors and community activities as they would support
the business success as well. Therefore, the personal traits
factor of entrepreneurs was one of the important drivers in
leading the organization to achieve its business success.
7. Research Recommendation 1. Policy Aspect:
Relevant work units must provide full support with
commitment. Current economic downfalls were impacting
the operation and creating problems toward numerous SMEs
businesses. Therefore, corrective solutions and directive
approaches should be various. The governmental sector should
provide support to entrepreneurs on each aspect, i.e. marketing,
production, technology, management and manpower in pairing
format by organizing the business into problem groups and be
paired and mentored by the skillful official units for constructive
advices
2. Research Aspect:
This research study was the analysis of environment
context and personality traits of entrepreneurs which was
the micro approach. Therefore, there should be follow up
macro research study on the strategic management, logistics
management of each type of industry with the intention to present
the new knowledge to support the Micro’s business operation
in the future.
8. Acknowledgements The research team would like to express our sincere
appreciation to the senior management of Rajabhat Lampang
University for their financial support of this research which had
generated new arisen level of knowledge, in turn be integrated in
academic curriculum and to be enhanced for effective teaching
methodology. Last but not the least, the team would also like
to respectfully recognize all academic specialists whom have
sacrificed their precious time and effort to review, to comment
and to make recommendations for the completeness of this
research study.
153
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
9. Reference[1] Gartner, W. B. & Bellamy, M. G. (2010). Enterprise.
South-Western, Cengage Learning.
[2] Hatten, T. S. (2009). Small business management:
Entrepreneurship and Beyond. (4th ed.). South-Western,
Cengage Learning.
[3] Boone, L. E. , & Kurtz, D. L. (2010). Contemporary
business. (13th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[4] Chandler,G.N.,&Jansen, E. (1992). The founder’s
Self-assessed competence and venture performance
Journal of Business Venturing, 7:223-236.
[5] Baum, J.R., & Locke, E.A. (2004). The relationship of
entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent
venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4):
587-598.
[6] Beaver, G. & Jennings, P. (2005). “Competitive advantage and
entrepreneurial power. The dark side of entrepreneurship.”
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
12(1): 9-23.
[7] Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion (2009)
“Analysis of Impacts of Global Economic Crisis toward
Thai SMEs in All Aspects 2008-2009” Bangkok: Office of
Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion
[8] Staley, E. & Morse, R. (1965). Modern Small Scale Industry
for Developing Countries. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[9] Frederick, H. F. , Kuratko, R. M. , & Hodgetts, D. F. (2006).
Entrepreneurship: theory, process, practice. South
Melbourne, Vic.: Thomson
[10] Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of
entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 25(3): 5-16.
[11] Boyd, D.P. & Gumpert, D.E. (1983). Coping with entrepreneurial
stress. Harvard Business Review, 61(2), 44-64.
[12] Schumpeter, J. (1760). Capitalism, socialism, and
democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
[13] Wickham, P. A. (2006). Strategic Entrepreneurship, 4/E.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[14] Bygrave, W. & Zacharakis, A. (2007). Entrepreneurship.
New York: John Wiley & Sons
[15] Shane, S. , Locke, E. A. & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial
Motivation. Human Resource Management Review,
13(3):257-279.
[16] Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman & Company.
[17] Begley, T.M.,&Boyd, D.P. (1987). Psychological characteristics
associated with performance. Motivation Mediators,
Personal Characteristics, and New Venture Performance.
In entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal
of Business Venturing, 2: 79-93.
[18] Low, M.B. , & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship:
Past research and future challenges. Journal of
Management, 14, 139-151.
[19] Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal factors associated
with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 25, 35-71.
[20] Locke, E.A. (1993). Prime movers: The traits of great
business leaders, In G. Cooper & S. Jackson (Eds.), Creating
tomorrow’s organizations: 75-96. Chichester, UK: Willey.
[21] Locke, E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal
setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
[22] Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organization. Eng
Elwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[23] McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving Society. New York:
D.Van Nostland.
[24] Miller, D. (1983). “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in
Three Types of Firms”, Management Science, 29(7): 770-
791.
[25] Covin, J.G. , & Slevin, D. P. (1991). “A Conceptual Model
of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice. 15(4): 35-50.
[26] Covin, J.G., Slevin, D. P. , & Schultz1, R. L. (1994),
“Implementing Strategic Mission: Effective Strategic,
Structural and Tactical Choices”, The Journal of
Management Studies, 31, 481-505.
[27] Lumpkin, G. T. and G. G. Dess (1996), “Clarifying the
Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to
Performance”, The Academy of Management Review,
21(1): 135-172.
[28] Mentzer & Ozsomer, (2002) The effects of entrepreneurial
proclivity and market orientation on business performance,
Journal of Marketing, 66 (July), 18-32.
[29] Miller, D. , & Friesen, P. H. (1982) “Innovation in Conservative
and Entrepreneurial Firms: Two Models of Strategic
Momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, 3(1): 1-25.
[30] Boxman, A. W., Graaf, P. M., Flap, H . D. (1991). “The
Impact of Social and Human Capital on the Income
Attainment of Dutch Managers”, Social Networks, 13(1):
51-73.
154
The International Conference on Sustainable Community Development27-29 January 2011
[31] Pipatsirisak, K. (2008). “Profile Index of Thai Entrepreneurs”
Graduate School, School of Business Administration,
Bangkok University.
[32] Moorman, J. W. , & Halloran, J. W. (2006). Successful
business planning for entrepreneurs (International ed.).
Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
[33] Bennis, W.G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies
for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
[34] Collins, J.C., & Lazier, W.C. (1992). Beyond Entrepre-
neurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[35] Filion, D.L. (1991). The electrodermal system. In
J.T. Cacioppo & L.G. Tassinary (Eds.) Principles of
Psychophysiology: Physical, social, and inferential
elements, (pp. 295-324). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
[36] Megginson, L. C. , Byrd, M. J. , & Megginson, W. L.
(2003). Small business management: An entrepreneur’s
guidebook (4 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[37] Chin, W. W. (2001). PLS-Graph Users Guide 3.0
C.T.Bauer College of Business, University of Houston,
Texas.
[38] Likert, R.(1932). “A Technique for the Measurement of
Attitudes”, Archives of Psychology 140, 1-55.
[39] Fawcett, et al. (2008). Evaluating Information Technology
as a Supply Chain Collaboration Enabler: Insights from
the Resource-Based View. CSCMP, Illinois