the affect of environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship, … · through questionnaire...

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]



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


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


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


(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


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]


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



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.



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


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


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


p-value = 0.000,

Entrepreneurship factor had affected toward wealth


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


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


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










Antecedent


Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000














Av Redund

Rsq






6










Antecedent


Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000














Av Redund

Rsq





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










Antecedent


Entrep 0.533 DE N/A N/A N/A 0.503 0.610 0.499 0.000














Av Redund

Rsq





; 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#3 Outcome Analysis of Discriminat Validity and Quality of Measurement

151


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


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


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


[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

the affect of environment, personality traits, entrepreneurship, … · through questionnaire...

Documents