The importance of motivation in leadership

use a lot of statistics and questionares for this a lot of data 

“Organizational Behavior and Leadership”-course

Research paper topic: THE IMPORTANCE OF MOTIVATION IN LEADERSHIP

Orientation related to the research paper

Undertaking an independent research on a critical Organizational Behavior or a Leadership issue arising from their organizational or their professional activity (our research paper topic is The importance of motivation in leadership)

Identify and clearly articulate a current managerial or leadership issue – (The importance of motivation leadership) within their organizational context, which is worthy of conducting research from the OB&L perspective and which is likely to be a vehicle for individual and shared learning.

Develop a response to that issue from a range of alternatives.

The response must be supported by knowledge of most appropriate models, theories, approaches, and professional practice, and above all by empirical evidence.

Critically reflect on personal progression and growth while completing the assignment.

Submit a Word Paper document based on the Research findings related to the topic chosen. The importance of motivation in leadership.

The research paper should be 5000 word, (without references)

12 , Times New Roman ,1.5 spaced.

Reference should be extra in the last page. The more references the better. References should be APA style.

The research paper is better to contain paragraphs such as:

· Abstract,

· Introduction,

· Literature Review and Hypothesis development,

· Research Philosophy/Research Purpose/Research Strategy/Methodological choice

· Discussion

· Conclusion

· References

If needed there can be a chart to represent statistic that match the research.

The factors that affect entrepreneurship intentions

ABSTRACT

Why are intentions interesting to those who care about new venture formation? Entrepreneurship is a way of thinking, a way of thinking that emphasizes opportunities over threats. The opportunity identification process is clearly an intentional process and therefore, entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit our attention (Krueger et al. 2000). This research aims to identify and explore the main factors that affect entrepreneurship intentions. When examining the literature on entrepreneurship intentions, we found three main factors that affect entrepreneurship behaviour: personality traits, entrepreneurship education and previous entrepreneurship experiences. To answer our research question, we undertook a survey strategy, while the instrument we used was a questionnaire. Based on the analysis of the data we collected, we tested our hypotheses. In this study we concluded that personality traits, as well as entrepreneurship education have a positive relationship with entrepreneurship intentions. On the other hand, our results showed that previous entrepreneurial experiences do not have a significant positive relationship with entrepreneurship intentions.

I.INTRODUCTION

Starting a business is seen as a key factor in promoting innovation, creating employment opportunities and generating social and economic wealth in a nations’ economy (Wong et al. 2005). The role of entrepreneurship seems to be growing, and some authors now talk about the “entrepreneurial economy” (Thurik, 2009). From a dynamic perspective, entrepreneurs are agents of change since entrepreneurship implies starting new businesses, experimenting with new techniques and a new organization of production, introducing new products or even creating new markets (Wennekers, Uhlaner and Thurik, 2002). Therefore, a considerable agreement exists about the importance of promoting entrepreneurship to stimulate economic development and employment generation (Mitra 2008).

Since entrepreneurship has a great importance in society, it is necessary to increase the entrepreneurial intention among people. The aim of this research is to answer to the following question: Which are the factors that impact the most, the decision to become an entrepreneur?

Firstly, in the literature review chapter, we analyze and discuss the main factors that affect entrepreneurial intention. We use the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,

1

991), to reviewed the previous findings of the impact that personality has on entrepreneurial intentions.Based on research papers, internal locus of control, need for achievement, risk tolerance, and entrepreneurial alertness are dimensions of personality traits which lead a person to develop the entrepreneurial intention. A lot of papers are being written in the field of entrepreneurial intentions (EI) and talk about personality traits as one of influential factors, but not as a main factor.

In this chapter, it is also reviewed the relationship between entrepreneurship education or trainging programs and entrepreneurial intentions. Drucker (1985) stated that entrepreneurship can be learned through training. The previous researches show that there probably exists significant differences, in terms of, intentions and behaviours, between students having attended entrepreneurship education programs and students having not. However, a lot of concerns are raised, according to the previous researches in this fieled.

Tha last factor taken into account is previous entrepreneurial experiences. Prior entrepreneurial experience appears as a factor likely to influence entrepreneurial intention (Hills and Welsch 1986; Kentet al. 1982).

Secondly, in the methodology chapter, we discuss the way we carried out our research. In this research we have taken a survey strategy, while the instrument chosen for this research is a questionnaire. We have used a quantitative method, as it allows us to quantify and analyze statistically the findings, so we can reach a clear conclusion.

Thirdly, in the findings chapter, we present our main findings based on the information gathered from the questionnaire. Fourthly, in the discussion section we discuss our findings according to the conceptual frameworked used in the literature rivew section. Finally, based on our findings, we use our judgment to give the conclusions.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW& HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

In this chapter we are going to analyze the previous research work of personality, education and previous experiences, according to their relationship with entrepreneurship.

2.1 Personality and entrepreneurial intentions

Personality refers to a distinctive assemblage of traits – characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. It derives from a mix of inborn dispositions and inclinations along with environmental factors and experiences.A lot of papers are being written in the field of entrepreneurial intentions (EI) and talk about personality traits as one of influential factors, but not as a main factor.The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is probably one of the most widely used models of intention to this day. Numerous research works have used it to improve our understanding of the entrepreneurial intentions of students (Fayolle, 2004; Linan, 2004;Fayolle et al., 2014; Krueger, 2007) and of other categories of individuals.Attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are shown to be related to appropriate sets of salient behavioral, normative, and control beliefs about the behavior, but the exact nature of these relations is still uncertain (Ajzen, 1991).Each factor in the theory of planned behavior is the individual’s intention to perform a given behavior. Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Figure 1 Theory of planned behavior, Ajzen, 1991.

Behaviour is best predicted by intentions, which derive from attitudes. In turn, attitudes derive from exogenous influences. That is, attitudes predict intentions which in turn predict behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Ajzen 1987). Intentions thus serveas a mediator or catalyst for action. Empirically, behaviour is only weakly predictedby attitudes toward that behaviour or by other exogenous factors which may besituationalorpersonal. Entrepreneurship research typically tests the impact of exogenous factors on entrepreneurial activity and typically finds relatively small effects(Krueger Carsrud ERD, 1993).

Intentions are specific to the person and the context, while exogenous factorsare generally either person or situation variables. The influence of exogenous factors is usually indirect. The intentions-based approach offers testable, theory-driven models of how exogenous factors affect attitudes, intentions and behavior(Krueger Carsrud ERD, 1993). Based on research papers, internal locus of control, need for achievement, risk tolerance, and entrepreneurial alertness are dimensions of personality traits which lead a person to develop the entrepreneurial intention. Effects of these personality traits dimensions on the entrepreneurial intention have been examined in some studies (LiñánYi-Wen Chen, 2009; Liñán; Fayolle, 2015).

3.1.1 Internal locus of control

Locus of control is the degree of control of a person over his/her life. Internal locus of control showsthat a personbelieves his/her decisions can control his/her life whereas external locus of control shows that a person’s life is affected from external factors such as destiny, luck, other people beyond his/her decisions. It is expected that people who have internal locus of control can determine their career paths, have entrepreneurial intentions and start their own businesses(Green et al. 1996, Personality Traits on Entrepreneurial Intention, Ahu TuğbaKarabuluta, 2016). Consistent with an emphasis on factors that are directly linked to a particular behavior, perceived behavioral control refers to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest. Whereas locus of control is ageneralized expectancy that remains stable across situations and forms of action, perceived behavioral control can, and usually does, vary across situations and actions (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, a person may believe that, in general, her outcomes are determined by her own behavior (internal locus of control), yet at the same time she may also believe that her chances of becoming a commercial airplane pilot are very slim (lowperceived behavioral control).

3.1.2 Need for achievement

Need for achievement is the drive of a person to succeed. People who have high need for achievement have entrepreneurial intentions. They are eager for success. They want to show themselves as entrepreneurs who can establish successful businesses in competitive markets. McClelland (1961, 1978, 1987) revealed the relationship between achievementmotivation andentrepreneurial intention. According to McClelland (1965), Need for achievement could be measured in peopleand groups. He (1965) adds that it can bemeasured by coding spontaneous thoughts of people as in stories they tell, for the frequency with which they thinkabout competition with excellence standards.

3.1.3 Risk tolerance

Taking calculated risk is the latest approach in entrepreneurship. Risk taking can lead both success and failure.Thus, entrepreneurs should calculate risks of their actions before they take them, evaluate advantages anddisadvantages of risk taking in all stages of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs tolerate risks more than other people(Ahu TuğbaKarabuluta, 2016). Tolerating risks is a major trait for entrepreneurs to succeed. Entrepreneurs take career, financial, family andreputation risks when they decide to establish their own ventures. People who can tolerate risks can haveentrepreneurial intentions and start their own businesses (Stewart and Roth, 2004).A person who has entrepreneurial intention should have an optimum degree of risk orientation. Entrepreneurs take several risks for capital, career, prestige, and family relations (McClelland,1961) .

3.1.4 Entrepreneurial Alertness

Entrepreneurial alertness is a major trait for entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurial alertness leads entrepreneurial intention.There are several researches verifying the effects of entrepreneurial alertness on entrepreneurial intention (Krueger, 1994). Entrepreneurial alertness causes entrepreneurs to explore and get the advantage of new opportunities. Kirzner (1973, 1979, 1985) defined “entrepreneurial alertness” as the ability to notice a chance that had been ignored by other people, Kirzner suggests that entrepreneurial alertness is a unique ability allowing people to pioneer opportunities.

3.1.5 Perceived Self-Efficacy

Perceived self-efficacy is the perceived personal ability to execute a target behavior.That is, self-efficacy is an attribution of personal competence and control in a givensituation. Self-efficacy is linked conceptually and empirically to attribution theory,which has seen growing interest in entrepreneurship research. The highly self-efficacious labelsetbacks as leaming experiences, not personal failure. Self-efficacy has been linkedtheoretically and empirically with phenomena related to managerial behavior, managerial cognition, and directly to entrepreneurship(Krueger, 1994).

Figure 2 Personality traits to EI, Ahu TuğbaKarabuluta, 2016.

2.2 Entrepreneurship education

Research works have underlineda strong and growing interest of students towards entrepreneurship careers,since the nineties(Brenner and al., 1991; Hart and Harrison, 1992; Fleming, 1994; Kolvereid, 1996). According to Drucker (1985), entrepreneurship can be learned through training. Kuratko (2014) also confirms that the specificpersonality traits, abilities, and skills necessary to become entrepreneurs, can be obtained through training.

Fayoelle et. al (2006) has defined EEP (entrepreneurship education programs) in a wide sense as “any pedagogical programme or process of education for entrepreneurial attitudes and skills, which involves developing certain personal qualities”. Therefore, EEP is not entirely focused on the creation of new businesses.

The role of ETP (entrepreneurship teaching programs) on student entrepreneurial orientationhas been underlined by some empirical research. For instance, the work of Chen and al., (1998), reflects the correlation between the intensity of management education and the level of entrepreneurial intention. This is also supported by other researchers, who show that entrepreneurship education and teaching programs are influencing student entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999; Fayolle, 2002).

In other words, there probably exists significant differences, in terms of, intentions and behaviours, between students who have attended ETP and who have not. Other research works have compared the occurrence and the intensity of student intentions and/or student behaviours, between different groups. An example is the longitudinal research of Varela and Gimenez (2001), who have selected five groups of students in three Colombian universities. The results show that there is a correlation between the amount of entrepreneurs and the investment intensity of the university in developing and promoting ETP. Other research works have studied the relationship between ETP and some variables such as the need for achievement and the locus of control (Hansemark, 1998) or the “self-efficacy” (Ehrlich and al., 2000). The results show a positive impact.

More specifically, Noel (2001) has studied the ETP impact on entrepreneurial intention and on entrepreneurial “self-efficacy”. The working sample included different groups of students: those who graduated in entrepreneurship, in management and those who graduated in other disciplines. All of the students had attended an ETP. The propensity to act as an entrepreneur, entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial “self efficacy”, according to the results, reach the highest scores amongst the students who graduated in entrepreneurship.

Fayolle & Gailly (2004) realised an experimentation with a teaching group,who attendeda course of entrepreneurship in a French engineering school. The one-dayETP covered differententrepreneurship topics, such as corporate venturing, acquiring existing businesses and starting newcompanies.During this experiment, there were administrated twofull questionnaires, oneat the beginning and one at the end of the ETP. The aim of the questionnaire was, to measure attitudes, entrepreneurialintention and the possible effects of some variables related to ETP. The results showed that the ETP had a strong measurable impact on the entrepreneurial intention of the students, while it had a positive, but not very significant, impact on their attitude related to perceived control. On one hand it gave them more confidence about what could be done to become an entrepreneur (positive effect) but it also made them realize that it was more difficult that they had initially anticipated (negative effect).

These findings of Fayoelle & Gailly (2004) are consistent with the statement of Krueger and Carsrud, (1993), who claim that teaching people about the realities of entrepreneurship may increase their entrepreneurial self-efficacy, but simultaneously decrease the perceived desirability of starting a business.

Dickson et al. (2008) analyzed the impact of entrepreneurship education on a diapason of entrepreneurial activities. They found that “there was a significant and positive correlation between participation in the entrepreneurship educational programs and selection into entrepreneurship” (Dickson et al., 2008, p. 245). Furthermore, there were identified critical methodological weaknesses, such as an over-reliance of measurements conducted solely after the intervention, a focus on specific, unique and sometimes nontransferable education programs and a tendency towards cross-section surveys with few experimental controls.

While analyzing 108 papers dedicated to five main themes andcovering 17 studies,Mwasalwiba (2010) concluded that “Although most studies vary in terms of approach and theoretical orientations […] their results indicate that entrepreneurship education has some positive impact on students.”

More recently, Martin et al. (2012) conducted the first meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education and training outcomes. A significant relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurship skills, intentions, and outcomes was found, based on 42 independent samples. Their results also emphasized the concern that the entrepreneurship education and training literature suffers from low standards of rigor.

Out of all these reasearches, only two studies found a negative impact of entrepreneurship education (Oosterbeek, van Praag, & Ijsselstein, 2010; von Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber,2010).

The majority of these reviews suggest to some extent a positive impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcome measures. At the same time, they also acknowledge potential issues in methodologies. This expresses concern that these methodologically deficient studies can lead to both confusing and misleading results and interpretations (Matlay, 2005). These concerns were validated empirically by Martin et al. (2012). They showed that most studies which did not meet their criterion for rigor reported stronger relationships than those that did meet the rigor criterion. In other words, their results suggest that less rigorous studies tend to overestimate the impact of entrepreneurship education programs.

Another concern is whether and how these results can be generalized to various settings (Zhao, Hills, and Seibert 2005). Most of these studies have been realized in developed countries and only a few studies have been done on developing countries. Moreover, the potential causal link between some educational variables (participant selection and past exposure, course contents, pedagogical methods, teacher’s professional profile, available resources, etc.) and the impact of the EEP on the antecedents of the intention and/or behavior (attitudes, values, skills, etc.), is nearly unknown. Finally, attitudes, perceptions, and intentions toward entrepreneurship may vary over time (Bird 1992; Bruyat, 1993; Shook, Priem, and Mcgee 2003). Some authors even claim that has not been shown evidence of the stability (or persistence) of intention (Audet, 2004; Moreau and Raveleau 2006).

To conclude, the educational setting appears to be an important factor in developing the entrepreneurial spirit and perceived self-efficacy , that impacts the way someone sees him/herself and his/ her belief to become a successful entrepreneur. On the other hand, EEP on its own, seem to have a lower impact on someone’s desirability and decision to become an entrepreneur. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the impact that entrepreneurship education has, in following an entrepreneurial career.

2.3 Previous experiences

Prior entrepreneurial experience appears as a factor likely to influence entrepreneurial intention (Hills and Welsch 1986; Kentet al. 1982). Entrepreneurial experience correspond to four types of entrepreneurial exposure: a concrete entrepreneurial experi-ence within the family of the individual, that of a relative or a close friend, a past or present job experience in a small firm, and finally, having started his or her own business (Krueger 1993).

This definition includes the emulation of close relatives or friends. Krueger (1993) includes, in his research, the quantitative (breadth) and qualitative importance (positiveness) of these experiences and finds significant links between prior entrepreneurial exposure and the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. His results are substantially supported by Peterman and Kennedy’s (2003) research based on a sample of high school students in Australia or by Tkachev and Kolvereid’s (1999) study concerning Russian students. In the French context, Fayolle (1996) underlined the existence of significant correlations between engineers’ entrepreneurial intention and behavior and such factors as taking part in setting up or managing a student organization, or even living abroad for a certain period of time (at least six months). The studies mentioned previously highlight the important role that prior entrepreneurial experience plays with respect to the antecedents of intention and the level of entrepreneurial intention.

Little is known, however, regarding how prior entrepreneurial experience affects how participants to an EEP are influenced by that EEP. The question remains therefore open as whether there is a “virtuous circle” effect, where highly “aware” students attending an EEP (in particular an elective one) will benefit disproportionally from it, or whether there are some compensation/saturation effects, where highly exposed students will be marginally, or even negatively affected by EEP, whereas less “aware” students (eg, attending a compulsory course) could be very positively impacted. It can be expected that an EEP aimed at “average” students could “push” positively students with a lower prior exposure to entrepre-neurship and hence a lower initial intention while simultaneously “pulling” down those with a higher initial level of intention.

Past Experience also affect on intentions and behavior of individuals. While several researchers focused on identifying what influences the behavior of individuals past experience as a variable was only an indirect variable in their research and model determination (Ajzen, 1991; Bird, 1988; Krueger, Reilly &Carsrud, 2000). In those studies intention, self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control are factors influenced by past experience and influence behavior. Therefore, less emphasis was done on identifying to what extend past experience influences the behavior of individuals directly. Identifying those three factors gives better insight how past experience influences behavior.

In introducing of his model of influences on human intentionality Bird (1988) identified intention as how a human seen his potential behavior in the lights of his experience and attention. Therefore, the strength of the intentions is positively related to the possibility of acting out the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Such intention is set to be influenced by two factors: contextual (external influence of politics, economy and social environment) and personal (internal influence of past experience, personality and capabilities of individual). In short the model states that these factors including past experience influence the way of thinking which influences the intentions resulting in a behavior/action. Personal experience is therefore a factor affecting the behavior of an individual according to Bird (1988). Additionally, Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000) state that contextual and personal factors have affect the attitude which directly influences intentions and behavior. As attitude is formed by past experience it may have an effect on behavior. Later on self-efficacy became a factor linked to intended behavior (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self- efficacy is defined as the extent to which an individual beliefs in his strengths to reach a certain goal to be able to act upon it (Boyd &Vozikis, 1994; Lent & Hackett, 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989). Experience has a strong influence on the self-efficacy and its development (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Wood & Bandura, 1989; Zhao, Seibert & Hills, 2005). It will determine the course of peoples’ intentions and therefore the behavior (Wood & Bandura, 1989; Zhao, Seibert & Hills, 2005). Hence, past success positively influences self-efficacy but to certain extend as it makes people more vulnerable to small failures resulting in decrease of self-efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Constant failures have the same effect in decreasing self-efficacy. Therefore, positive experience is stated to positively influence behavior through self-efficacy while negative has an inverse effect.

Afterward Ajzen (1991) identified a new factor closely linked to the idea of self-efficacy and intention named perceived behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control is defined as how an individual sees the obstacles and comfort in behaving in an intended way (Ajzen, 1991). It is therefore developed through several experiences making up the beliefs towards the behavior and has a direct influence on intentions and behavior. Hence, the better the experience with positive and negative aspects in performing the intended behavior the more likely the intended behavior will be performed. Additionally, Ajzen (1991) states that next to the personal experience, experience of the close, influential people will influence the direction of the intention. Following this idea Boyd and Vozikis (1994) combined the idea of planned behavior of Ajzen (1991), Birds’ (1988) model of intention with the idea of self-efficacy to create an overall picture. There one can see that the two contextual and personal (including experience) factors influence attitude, self-efficacy and intentions influencing behavior in the end. Hence, the model combines all ideas on the influence of past experience on several factors like perceived behavioral control, attitudes and self-efficacy into one model. All the selected studies identified past experience as being a direct factor influencing self-efficacy, intentions and perceived behavioral control while those three influence the behavior. None of those made a closer link between past experience and behavior as other factors appear to be influential next to the past experience. Nevertheless, past experience is recognized having an effect on behavior of individuals which will be the focus of this study. At the same time it is visible that both positive and negative experiences have an effect of behavior if it is strong enough. Although no link has been made if negative or positive behavior is more influential than the other it indicates that both will have a significant effect on the behavior of leaders as they form their beliefs and attitudes.

2.4 Hypotheses Development

Based on previous researches and theories according to entrepreneurial intentions, we have developt three hypotheses, which we have tested using the data gathered from the questionnaire.

H1: Personality traits have a positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions.

H2: Entrepreneurship education has a positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions.

H3: Previour entrepreneurial experiences have a positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions.

III. RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY/ RESEARCH PURPOSE / RESEARCH STRATEGY/ METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE

This research reflects the philosophy of positivism. It is worked with an observable social reality, such as that of the decision to become an entrepreneur.It is based on the existing theories and previous researches.Moreover, the research is undertaken in a value-free way, meaning that the researchers neither affect, nor are affected by the subjects of the research.

The purpose of this research is exploratory, because it aims to explore the factors that impact the indivual’s decision to follow an entrepreneurial career and consequently to identify the factor/factors that impact the most this decision.

In this research we have taken a survey strategy, as it is more appropriate for our research question and our exploratory purpose. Moreover, a survey allows us to collect a larger amount of data, so the study can be more representative. The instrument chosen for this research is a questionnaire, because it allows us to easily compare the factors that have the highest impact on entrepreneurial intentions. The research population includes students of different universities, some of which have attended ETP and have had previous entrepreneurial experiences. To avoid bias, there are included students from minorities and from both genders. Our sample was developed through , school-related, work-related or informal contacts. Every participant was informed about the aim of the study and was garantueed about his or her anonymity. The questionnaire was distributet online, through a platform named Google Form. The data generated from the questionnaire were then analyzed using a statistical software (SPSS).

V. DISCUSSION

In this chapter we focus on explaining and evaluating our findings, showing how they relate to our literature review and research questions.

According to our findings, overall personality traits have a positive relationship with enterpreneurial intensions. More specifically, the results of our research confirm that entrepreneurs tolerate risks more than other people (Ahu TuğbaKarabuluta, 2016). As suggested by Stewart and Roth (2004), people who can tolerate risks can have entrepreneurial intentions and start their own businesses. This conclusion is also reflected in our findings, due to the significant positive relationship of the statement “I am willing to start an effective business”.

Moreover, our findings confirm the proposition of Krueger (1994), that “self-efficacy has been linked theoretically and empirically with phenomena related to managerial behavior, managerial cognition, and directly to entrepreneurship”. This can be seen by the significant positive relationship of such statements as “Starting a business and running it, would be easy for me”,“I know the necessary practical features to start a business ”, “I know how to develop an entrepreneurship project” and “If I would start a business, I would have great opportunities to be successful”.

Additionally, by the significant positive relationship of the statement “I can control the process of creating a new firm”, our results confirm that it is expected that people who have internal locus of control can determine their career paths, have entrepreneurial intentions and start their own businesses (Green et al. 1996, Personality Traits on Entrepreneurial Intention, Ahu TuğbaKarabuluta, 2016).

According to enterpreneurship education, our findings conclude that is has a positive relationship with enterpreneurial intentions. We can say that our findings confirm the conclusions of Kolvereid and Moen (1997) , Tkachev and Kolvereid, (1999) and Fayolle (2002), that entrepreneurship education and teaching programs influence students entrepreneurial intentions and behaviours. Therefore, students who have attended entrepreneurship education and students who have not, have differences is intentions and behaviours.

Regarding previous entrepreneurial experiences, according to our findings there is no significant positive relationship between previous enterpreneurial experiences and enterpreneurial intentions. We can say that our findings are contradictory to previous findings. The studies of Fayolle (1996), for example, mentioned the important role that prior entrepreneurial experience plays with respect to the antecedents of intention and the level of entrepreneurial intention. However, our results support the findings of Ajzen (1991), Bird (1988), Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000), that past experience as a variable was only an indirect variable in their research and model determination.

IV.CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we presented an overview and analysis of the factors that affect the entrepreneurial intentions. Personality, education and previous experiences are the factors that were taken into account. For each of these factors, we reviewed the findings of previous researches and also showed that some of these past studies suffer from numerous weaknesses.

Based on the literature reviewed, we were able to develop the main hypotheses of our study. We linked these hypotheses to the three main influencing factors that were education, personality and previous experience. To verify whether these hypotheses were consistent, we distributed a questionnaire and analyzed the data statistically. Regarding to entrepreneurship education we can conclude that it has a significant and positive impact to entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, personality traits, alo a have positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. As for previous entrepreneurial experiences, we found that it does not have a significant positive relationship with entrepreneurial intentions. However, further research is needed to provide evidence of the factors that contribute the most to the entrepreneurial intention.

References

Ahu TuğbaKarabulut(2016). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 229: 12 – 21

Ajzen, I. (1991). “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Audet, J. (2004b). “L’impact De Deux Projets De Session Sur Les Perceptions Et Intentions Entrepreneuriales D’étudiants En Administration,” Journal of Small Business andEntrepreneurship 17(3): 223–240.

Bandura, A. (1991), Social cognitive theory of self-regulation, Organisational Behaviour and Human

decision Processes, 50: 248-287.

Bird, B. (1992). “The Operation of Intentions in Time: The Emergence of the New Venture,”

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17: 11–20

Bird, B. (1988). “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case of Intention,” Academy of.Management Review 13: 442–453.

Boyd, N.G andVozikis, G.S. (1994). The Influence of Self- Efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18: 63-77.

Brenner O.C., Pringle C.D.,and Greenhaus J.H., (1991), “Perceived fulfilment of organizational

employment versus entrepreneurship: work values and career intentions of business college

graduates”, Journal of Small Business Management, 29 (3): 62-74.

Bruyat, C. (1993). Création d’entreprise: Contributions épistémologiques et modélisation. Thèse de Doctorat de Sciences de Gestion (unpublished). Université Pierre Mendès France de Grenoble, France.

Chen C.C., Greene P.G.,and Crick A., (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish

entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, 13 (4): 295-316.

Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T. and Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and

success: Does education matter? Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

15:239–258

Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Ehrlich S.B., De Noble A.F., and Jung D., Pearson D., (2000),“The impact of entrepreneurship training

programs on an individual’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy”, Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings,

www.babson.edu/entrep/fer

.

Fayolle, A. (1996). Contribution à l’étude descomportements entrepreneuriaux desingénieurs français, Thèse de doctorat ensciences de gestion, Université Jean Moulin de Lyon.

Fayolle A., (2002), “Les déterminants de l’acte entrepreneurial chez les étudiants et les jeunes

diplômés de l’enseignement supérieur français », Revue Gestion 2000, 4: 61-77.

Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly (2004). “Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Assess Entrepreneurship Teaching Programs: A First Experimentation,” IntEnt 2004 Conference, Naples (Italy), 5–7 July.

Fayolle, A., and B. Gailly (2015), “The Impact of Entrepreneurship Educationon Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intention:Hysteresis and Persistence”, Journal of Small Business Management 53(1): 75–93

Fayolle, A., and J. C. Castagnos (2006). “Impact des formations à l’entrepreneuriat: vers de nouvelles méthodes d’évaluation,” Management International 10(4): 43–52.

Fleming P., (1994), “The role of structured interventions in shaping graduate entrepreneurship”, Irish

Business and Administrative Research, 15: 146-157.

Hansemark O.C., (1998), “The effects of an entrepreneurship program on need for achievement and

locus of control of reinforcement”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and

Research, 4 (1)28-50.

Hart M., and Harrison R., (1992), “Encouraging enterprise in Northern Ireland: constraints and opportunities”, Irish Business and Administrative Research, 13: 104-116.

Hills, G. E., and H. Welsch (1986). “Entrepreneurship Behavioral Intentions and StudentIndependence, Characteristics and Experiences,” in Frontiers of EntrepreneurshiResearch. Eds. J. A. Hornaday, J. A. Timmonsand K. H. Vesper. Wellesley, MA: BabsonCollege, 173–186.

Kent, A. C., D. L. Sexton, P. M. Van Auken, and D. M. Young (1982). “Managers and Entrepreneurs: Do Lifetime Experience Matter?,”in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.Eds. J. A. Hornaday, J. A.Timmons and K. H.Vesper. Wellesley, MA: Babson College,516–525.

Kolvereid L., (1996), “Organisational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20 (3): 23-31.

Kolvereid L., (1996), “Prediction of employment status choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3): 45-57.

Kolvereid L., and Moen O., (1997), “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4)

Krueger N.F.,and Carsrud A.L., (1993), “Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned

behaviour”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 5:327.

Krueger, N. F. (1993). “The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Feasibility and Desirability,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(1): 5–21.

Krueger Jr, N. F., Reilly, M. D., and Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of business venturing, 15(5): 411-432.

Kuratko, D. F. (2014). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process, Practice. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30(3): 347-382.

Martin, B., Mcnally, J. and Kay, M. (2012) Examining the formation of human capital in

entrepreneurship: A meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal

of Business Venturing, in press.

Matlay, H. (2005). Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools. Conceptual,

contextual and policy considerations. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development 4:627–643

McClelland, D. (1965). The achieving society, The Free Press, London:6-24.

Mitra, J. (2008). Towards an analytical framework for policy development. In J. Potter (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and higher education. Paris: OECD—Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED).

Moreau, R., and B. Raveleau (2006). “Les Trajectoires De L’intention Entrepreneuhriale,” Revue Internationale PME 19(2): 101–131.

Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives,

teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52:20–47.

Noel T.W., (2001), “Effects of entrepreneurial education on intent to open a business”, Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings, www.babson.edu/entrep/fer.

Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., and Ijsselstein, A. 2010. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3): 442-454.

Shook, C. L., R. L. Priem, and J. E. Mcgee (2003). “Venture Creation and the Enterprising Individual: A Review and Synthesis,” Journal of Management 29(3): 379–399.

Stewart Jr., W. H. and Roth, P. L. (2001), “Risk Propensity Differences Between Entrepreneurs and Managers: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1): 145-153.

Thurik, A.R. (2009), “Entreprenomics: entrepreneurship, economic growth and policy”, in Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. and Strom, R. (Eds), Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, :219-49

Tkachev A., Kolvereid L., (1999), “Self-employment intentions among Russian students”,

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11 (3) :269-280.

Varela R., andJimenez J.E., (2001), « The effect of entrepreneurship education in the universities of Cali », Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Conference Proceedings,

www.babson.edu/entrep/fer.

von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., and Weber, R. 2010. The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1): 90-112.

Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., and Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3): 335–350.

Zhao, H., G. E. Hills, and S. E. Seibert (2005). “The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy in the Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(6): 1265–1272.

1