Antecedents To Entrepreneurship Among

Journal of Enterprising Culture
Vol. 10, No. 2, (June 2002) 151-174
J. Enterprising Culture 2002.10:151-174. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

by CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on 02/04/15. For personal use only.
ANTECEDENTS TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONG

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SINGAPORE:
BELIEFS, ATTITUDES AND BACKGROUND
PHILLIP H. PHAN
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Lally School of Management & Technology
USA
POH KAM WONG

and
CLEMENT K. WANG
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Extant studies on entrepreneurial success that focus on the process of resource

acquisition and value creation have led to a deeper understanding of the resource
requirements of entrepreneurs, but have shed less light on the antecedents to the
propensity for entrepreneurial startups. Our study models the characteristics of
university students as antecedents to startups. These are background and experience, beliefs about organizations and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Background and attitudes are hypothesized to predict the propensity for entrepreneurship while beliefs are hypothesized to moderate the relationship between attitudes and the propensity to start a new business. Empirical data from a large
survey of university students in Singapore provide support for the model.
INTRODUCTION
Extant studies on entrepreneurial success usually focus on the process of
resource acquisition and value creation. These studies tend to use life cycle
models of the entrepreneurial process that begin with opportunity scanning
and idea generation. While these have led to a deeper understanding of the
social network and resource support requirements of entrepreneurs, they
have shed less light on the antecedents to the propensity for entrepreneu151

Phillip K Phan, Poh Kam Wong and Clement K. Wang
rial activity. This gap is being filled by such studies as Kourilsky and Walstad (1998) who tried to understand the pre-entrepreneurial characteristics
of students to understand how entrepreneurship education should be structured. Ongoing polls by the U.S. Small Business Administration, the
Gallup Organization and others further increases understanding by surveying the general population, heretofore ignored in many studies on the antecedents to entrepreneurial behavior. Our study adds to this growing literature by modeling the pre-entrepreneurial characteristics of Asian undergraduate and graduate non-business students as antecedents to the propensity for entrepreneurship, defined as the likelihood that students will create
their own ventures after graduating. Specifically, these antecedents are hypothesized to fall into three categories: beliefs about entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial success, attitudes towards entrepreneurship, and
personal background.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The link between attitudes and behaviors was first advanced by Brayfield
and Crockett (1955), and was empirically verified, among others, by
Cialdini, Petty and Cacioppo (1981), and Azjen and Fishbein (1977). In
related work, the link between attitudes, various organizational constructs,
such as culture, and employee performance has also been extensively researched (Stevens, Philipsen and Diederiks, 1992; Browner and Kubarski,
1991; Bowles, 1989; Lachman, 1988; Goldberg and Kirschenbaum, 1988;
Lachman and Nissim, 1986). These studies have shown that the personal
characteristics and mental attributes of individuals have significant impact
on performance (Pinder, 1984). More generally, the attitude that people
have about their work, opportunities and costs will have an important impact on decisions. Thus, the linkage between the propensity for entrepreneurial venture is tied to the attitudes that individuals had toward starting
new businesses.
Past research has shown a tendency for managerial attitudes to influence employee work attitudes and subsequent work performance (Pasquale
1986, Brown 1985; Mannheim, 1984; Jaccard and Pomazal, 1977). To the
extent that the aggregation of worker attitudes forms the basis of an organization's culture, worker attitudes also affects a firm's performance
(Pasquale, 1986; Fondas and Stewart, 1994). For example, related studies
that have looked at this issue have found that entrepreneurial beliefs about
the external environment, and attitudes towards the usefulness of market152

Antecedents To Entrepreneurs hip Among ...
ing and general managerial concepts, systematically affect certain aspects

of performance (Waddock and Isabella, 1989; Namiki, 1989; Norburn,
Birley and Dunn, 1989). The salient point here is that strong beliefs about
the importance of an area are often reflected in the choices made by the
entrepreneur (Hodgkinson and Johnson, 1994). For instance, companies
with managers who have favorable perceptions and attitudes about exporting, tend to be more successful at exporting because they are comfortable
with competing in hotly contested international markets (Aaby and Slater,
1989). U.S. entrepreneurs, with this type of perspective, have also had
greater success in exporting technology, arguably a more complex undertaking than the export of goods and services (McClenahen, 1988).
In entrepreneurial firms the link between attitudes and choice is more
likely to be direct because these firms have not yet developed bureaucratic
blockages that shield managerial personalities from organizational processes (Peterson, 1981). Due to the fact that young organizations have yet
to develop institutional constraints to change, founder-entrepreneurs are
more readily able to instill their attitudes into the firm, as opposed to the
lack of influence that a chief executive may have in an older and larger
firm (Mueller, 1994; Ray and Turpin, 1990). There is ample evidence to
suggest that managerial attitudes are often responsible for the ways a firm
responds to competitive pressures, simply because these attitudes determine the way competitive information is interpreted (Shaver and Scott,
1991; Gartner, 1989).
Stuart and Abetti (1990) found that prior experience and previous
managerial level was highly correlated with future performance of new
ventures. This seems to suggest that those entrepreneurs who have been
exposed to new venture creation in the past were more prepared to deal
with the uncertainties and challenges facing them in the future. In other
words, learning has an impact on performance. Individuals and organizations are continually engaged with their internal and external environments, and constantly responding to changing patterns of competition,
regulation, and the socio-demographic characteristics of employees and
consumers (Argyris and Schon, 1978). Learning occurs when error detection and correction leads to changes in organizational strategies, and assumptions within a constant framework of norms for performance (Bateson, 1972). When variances between outcomes and goals are detected, correction takes the form of altering the actions or the goals to reduce variance. Potential for inter-organizational learning is proportionately related
to the formality of these arrangements.
153

Phillip H. Phan, Poh Kam Wong and Clement K. Wang
Barkham (1993) showed that the size of a new firm is strongly influenced by entrepreneurial characteristics. He posited that education influenced entrepreneurial ability such that more educated entrepreneurs reacted more quickly to disequilibrium (Schultz, 1980) so that more capable
entrepreneurs are able to grow larger firms that the degree of organizational complexity increases with size. He also found that entrepreneurs
with prior experience were more likely to succeed with larger ventures.
Finally, he found that entrepreneurs with better content knowledge of
markets, management and technology were more likely to be associate
with larger firms. Clouse (1990) conducted an experiment linking entrepreneurial education to students' start-up decisions and found that students
exposed to multiple experiences in simulated new venture decision making
were more prepared to deal with complex decisions involved in business
start-ups. He found significant differences in decision-making behavior
before and after students were exposed to a venture creation curriculum.
They were more able to assess risks and accordingly made better decisions.
Kuratko, Hornsby and Neffziger (1997) found a significant correlation
between the goals of the entrepreneur and the sustainability of the business
development effort. They also found that entrepreneurs were motivated by
a set of goals comprising extrinsic rewards, the need for independence,
intrinsic rewards, and family security. Stewart, Watson, Carland and Carland (1998) found significant differences in the need for achievement, risk
taking propensity, and preference for innovation between corporate managers, small business owners and entrepreneurs. In particular, they found
that entrepreneurs scored highest on all three dimensions, suggesting that
individuals can be classified according to their proclivity for entrepreneurship on the three dimensions. Interestingly, they also found that while, on
average, entrepreneurs were more educated than small business owners,
corporate managers were the most highly educated group. This suggests
that while content knowledge is important for individuals to take the entrepreneurial plunge, a surfeit of knowledge can lead to risk aversion behaviors that reduce the propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activity.
Ven de Ven, Hudson and Schroeder's (1984) comprehensive research
on business startups suggest that entrepreneur's level of education and distinctiveness of the business idea were important contributions to new venture success. In particular, they found that college educated entrepreneurs
were more likely to be associate with longer surviving firms. Hood and
Young (1993) reviewed the literature on entrepreneurship education and
concluded that the "encouragement of independent thinking and attitudinal
154

training for typically independent students is a recurring theme in studies

focusing on entrepreneurship education". Using four areas in which they
perceived to be important for entrepreneurs they posited that a successful
education program focus on content, skills and behaviors, mentality, and
personality. Specifically, the authors defined content as domain areas of
knowledge appropriate to the administration of firm and therefore focus on
traditional management education.
Early studies on entrepreneurship focus on the need for achievement
and risk orientation as antecedents to an entrepreneurial outlook. Personality refers to traits such as need for achievement, locus of control, etc.,
which have been shown to differ significantly between entrepreneurs and
non-entrepreneurs. For example, Sexton and Bowman (1985) found that
entrepreneurs differed significantly from managers in their higher tolerance for ambiguity, preference for autonomy or independence, resistance
to conformity, higher social adroitness, propensity to take risks, adaptability to change, and higher internal locus of control. In sum, they were able
to identify a set of traits that could distinguish entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs. Cunningham, Gerrard, Chiang, Lim, and Siew (1995) found
similar traits in their comparison of business students and entrepreneurs,
while Kolvereid (1996) found systematic difference in attitudes towards
risk, independence and efforts among MBA students in Norway choosing
career intention choice between employees and entrepreneurs. The gender
factor has been studied in many papers. It has been observed that male
students have stronger entrepreneurship aspiration than females (De Wit
and Van Winden, 1989; Lerner and Hendeles, 1996; Mesch and
Czamanski, 1997; Matthews and Moser, 1996; Crant, 1996; Kourilsky and
Walstad, 1998). Matthews and Moser (1996) through a longitudinal study
also discovered that males' interests are consistent but females' interests
decline with time. On family background, Scott and Twomey (1988) reported that students whose parents owned a small business demonstrated
the highest preference for self-employment and the lowest for employment
in a large business. However Brenner (1991) found that the influence of
parent role on entrepreneurship propensity of US business school undergraduates was insignificant.
There has been relatively few empirical studies on the influence of antecedent factors on entrepreneurial intentions of students in Singapore, and
these reported mixed results. Thus, while Doh et al (1996) identified some
correlations of business student background characteristics with their entrepreneurial interest, Ghazali et al (1995) found little influence of parental
role on the self-employment choice of graduates in Singapore. Tan et al
155

(1996) examined entrepreneurial spirit of tertiary students in Singapore,

but did not directly address the determinants of entrepreneurial intention
directly.
In summary we find a good deal of research on entrepreneur attitudes,
background, behaviors and traits and business startups in the literature.
However, the findings are mixed in studies that look at how early entrepreneur background contributes to attitudes and beliefs and how these in
turn can lead to a proclivity for starting new businesses. Thus, the policy
implications for entrepreneurship education are still unclear.
THEORETICAL MODEL
Figure 1 shows the theoretical model we used for this study. The model is
synthesized from our review of the extant literature on the antecedents to
entrepreneurial intention by grouping the reported antecedents into three
conceptual blocks - socio-economic background variables, attitudinal
variables, and constructs for beliefs. The arrows are the hypotheses while
the boxes are the measured constructs. Specifically, attitude towards entrepreneurship is hypothesized to be related to beliefs but also has separate
and positive effects on the propensity for entrepreneurship. Specifically, a
positive attitude is hypothesized to be positively correlated with increased
tolerance for risk taking, which is in turn positively related to entrepreneurship. More significantly, the interaction between beliefs and attitudes
has an additional (i.e., multiplicative) positive effect on the propensity for
entrepreneurship.
Figure 1. Precursors to Entrepreneurship.
Background
Prior Family
j Business
Gender
Level of Education
Attitudes
Intrinsically motifc,
w vated
Extrinsically motivated
i L
N.
^ \ ^
Beliefs
About the importance of business
related factors to
success
156
Propensity for New

Venture Creation
^ Likelihood of Starting a
Business
Interest in Starting a
Business
r

Antecedents To Entrepreneurship Among ...
The behavior of serial entrepreneurs has been of some interest, in part

because they form a significant group of successful entrepreneurs. There is
a growing literature that seems to suggest past experience, entrepreneurial
family histories, and even failed attempts have a positive relationship to
future entrepreneurship. Therefore, we hypothesize that family background and past experience with venturing will have a positive impact on
the propensity for new venture creation. With this hypothesis, the research
on serial entrepreneurship is linked to that of new venture creation. More
interestingly, we also hypothesize that those students who come from
lesser economic means are more likely to engage in entrepreneurship. This
is in line with extant social impact studies on government self-help and
economic revival programs in inner cities.
Beliefs about what constitutes the business requirements for success
are hypothesized to lead to the propensity for entrepreneurial behavior.
The rationale is that the stronger the belief, the more confident and the less
the perceived uncertainty, thus lowering the level of perceived risk, which
increases the relative benefits to entrepreneurship (self-fulfillment, professional challenge, economic independence, and control over one's own career).
METHODS
Data is collected from a sample of 13014 undergraduate and graduate students from the engineering, science, and computer science faculties at the
National University of Singapore, the largest public university in Singapore. The response rate was 60.98%. Analysis revealed no response biases,
however, it is recognized that as the sample is limited to only students in
technical fields, the findings may not be generalizable to non-technical
students. The survey instrument is constructed based on scales similar to
those used in past empirical studies on entrepreneurial attitudes, beliefs
and knowledge (see e.g. Krueger and Carsrud (1993), Kolvereid (1996),
Robinson et al (1991) and Kourilsky and Walstad (1998)) and adapted after incorporating feedback from interviews with several informants knowledgeable about entrepreneurship in Singapore.
Variables
The study variables are groups into 4 categories. The dependent variable
measures the propensity for new venturing and consists of two dimen157

sions. The intention to start a new business is measured by the sum of two
Likert scales measuring the intention to start a new business in the respondent's area of study (engineering, science, computing) and the intention to
start a new business not in the area of study. The usefulness of intention
measure as a predictor of future behavior has found support in the literature (Ajzen, 1985; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). The likelihood of starting
a new business measures the time from graduation that a respondent believes he or she will start the new business. This ranges from 'dropping out
of school to start the business' to 'more than 10 years from graduation' to
'never'. The responses for the latter were recoded into an ordinal scale reflecting the time to starting a new business.
There are 3 categories of independent variables. Attitudes toward entrepreneurship, beliefs about what makes successful businesses, and respondents' backgrounds. Attitudes toward entrepreneurship were measured with two scales. One was a 9-item Likert scale (1 to 5, 1 = not important, 5 = very important) tapping into attitudes towards independence, risk
taking, innovation, prestige and wealth, and social consciousness (Table
1). The items were reduced to three factors using factor analysis and the
reliabilities of the factors were determined using Cronbach's Alpha. Table
1 reports the three resulting factors, Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Communal
Motivators for starting a business, and their reliabilities .82, .79, .85, respectively. All three factors were used for subsequent analysis, as they
were highly reliable. In addition, by examining the item loadings, we determined the face validity of the factors to be high.
Table 1. Rotated Component Matrix of Attitudes Towards Starting New Businesses.
Variables
Intrinsic
Motivators
Extrinsic
Motivators
Communal
Motivators
.790
.776
.739
.626
.220
.191
.215
.145
.006
.8147
.008
.142
.326
.310
.832
.751
.740
.001
.008
.7907
.006
.006
.004
.156
-.006
.262
-.211
.889
.885
.8548
Testing my own ideas

Enjoying personal challenges
Accomplishing personal achievement
Becoming independent
Achieving status and prestige
Receiving public recognition
Accumulating money and wealth
Contributing to society
Helping my country to advance
| Reliability Alpha
158

The second attitude scale refers to the respondents' attitudes toward

education and whether they felt prepared to start new businesses given
their formal training. We felt this to be important because all the respondents were students from non-business faculties. A large part of their attitudes would be influenced by their formal education. In addition, this variable is in line with previous research that sought to show the influence of
education on entrepreneurial proclivities (Hood and Young, 1993). The
measure consisted of a 6-item Likert scale (1 to 5, 1 = strongly disagree, 5
= strongly agree) that was factor analyzed to produce 2 factors (Table 2).
One clearly showed the respondents' attitudes towards business education
and indicated the value they placed on this as a factor of successful business startup. The Cronbach's Alpha of the factor was high, at .79. On the
other hand, the second factor did not have a high reliability (alpha = .18).
Thus, the latter factor was dropped from further analysis. We then went on
to measure the beliefs of the respondents.
Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix on Attitudes Towards Education.
Variables
Prepared to make some sacrifices (additional fees

or class time)
Prepared to spend an extra year at NUS
Entrepreneurship courses should be compulsory
More elective entrepreneurship courses in the curriculum
Education at university adequate for career in entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship cannot be taught
Reliability Alpha
Attitude Towards
Attitude
Entrepreneurship
Towards
Education
Experience
.813
-.002
.796
.792
.730
.103
-.002
-.215
.176
.822
-.204
.7942
.626
.1804
Specifically, we used an 11-item scale to measure the beliefs that the

respondents had about the importance of business-related factors of startup
success. We labeled these beliefs because the respondents were nonbusiness students and therefore we did not expect them to have specific
content knowledge of business related disciplines. However, we felt that
students who have been exposed to news broadcasts, newspapers, and
other common sources of information on business related issues would
have developed some general beliefs about what may be important for
success. We measured this because we felt that students with stronger beliefs in these areas would be more predisposed to seek more information
159

and therefore have a positive attitude toward business education and hence
display a greater propensity for venturing. Thus, beliefs were operationalized as moderators to the influence of attitudes on the probability of startups. Table 3 reports the factor analytical results of the scale. As expected
two factors were derived, one beliefs about business-related areas of success and other on personal competency-related areas of success. The factor
for business-related beliefs also reported a high Cronbach's Alpha at (.85)
while the one for personal competency was lower at .74. Because the Alpha for the second factor was low, we dropped it from further analysis.
Table 3. Rotated Component Matrix of Beliefs about Entrepreneurial Success Factors.
Business
Factors
Variables
Having an establishing network of business contacts
Understanding the business environment
Having easy access to finance
Having an innovative product/idea/process
Learning from yours and others' mistakes
Having supportive government policies
Building a capable management team
Attending formal business management courses
Having supportive teachers and mentors
Having necessary business management experience
Having supportive family members
1 Reliability Alpha
.797
.765
.747
.631
.577
.547
.541
.009
.005
.387
.274
.8518
Competency^
Factors
.009
.222
.164
-.006
.349
.363
.443
.79
.768
.636
.577
.7427
The last group of variables referred to respondents' backgrounds or

demographics, which were shown to be correlated with the propensity to
venturing in previous studies. Specifically, these were socioeconomic
status, which was measured by the type of residences (a proxy for family
income), amount of formal education, which was measured by the year of
enrollment in the university and whether the respondent was a graduate or
undergraduate student, previous experience, measured as whether the respondent's family has a business, and gender. This last set of variables is
seen to have a primary impact on attitudes and beliefs, which in turned
leads to the propensity for new business startups.
160

Table 4. Correlation Matrix of Research Variables.
1. Interest in starting a business

2. Likelihood of starting a business
3. Respondent's field of study
4. Gender of respondent
5. Social economic status
6. Involved in family Business
7. Amount of formal education
8. Intrinsic motivators for venturing
9. Extrinsic motivators for venturing
10. Communal motivators for venturing
11. Attitude towards entrepreneurship
education
12. Beliefs about business related success
factors
13. Beliefs about biz success factors x
Attitude toward education
Intrinsic motivators
Extrinsic motivators
Communal motivators
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.00
.518 + 1.00
-.011 -.006 1.00
.153 + .145 + 1.00
.223+
.014 .009 .023*-.O08 1.00
.082 + .055 + .038*.166+ 1.00
.078+
.002 .047 + .236 + 1.00
+
.366
.054+ .043+
.339 + .229 + .031*.002 .012 .076 + 1.00
.023*
.191 + .157 + -.008 .11T-.016 .002 .032*-.004 1.00
.100 + .096 + .051 + .053 + .061+.005 -.002 1.00
.046\025*
.335 + .255 + .000 .049 + .001 .029*.045+ .218+ .139\188 + 1.00
13
14
_15
.225+ .089+ .059+ .019 .048+ .021*.425+ .142+ .059+ .131 + 1.00
.027*
.007 .006 .001 .018 -.002-.001-.013.049 + 1.00
+
.029* .070 .024*
.191 +
.014 .007 .005 .006
.380 + 1.00
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
.057 .055
.039 .137 .105 .089 .063 .317
.001 -.012.003 -.004.124 + .209 + .211 + 1.00
.053 + .047 +
.036*.121 +
.041 + .024*.126 +
-.018.020.004 -.010.148 + -.016.262 + .232 + .098+
.020*
.023*
.035*.120 + .045 +
.188+

Statistical Approach
As the model (Figure 1) predicts both moderating and mediating relationships between the independent variables and dependent variables, we used
a series of hierarchical regressions to check for the effects of the variables
(Tables 5-7). Simply, hierarchical regression allows us to determine if the
hypothesized mediating and moderating effects exists and the contributions to total variance explain by the moderating effects. We also report a
general model, in which the simultaneous effects of all the variables are
considered, and explore their contributions to variance explained (Table
8).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 4 reports the correlation table for the study's variables. Due to the
size of the sample, it is not unexpected that many of the correlations will
be statistically significant. However, what is important for us to determine
is if there is a problem with percet-percept problems, i.e., method variance
biases. This is a potential problem since many of our independent variables and one dependent variable are perceptual. We argue that the dependent variable measuring likelihood to start a new business is not perceptual since it directly asks respondents for their intentions and does not
require self-reports of affects. While method variance can still be a problem in this case, the worse form, that of percept-percept, is avoided. First
we notice that both dependent variables were highly correlated (r=.52).
The stated intention to start a business is correlated with the time interval
from graduation to startup (likelihood), which suggests that the respondents are consistent and reliable. Next, we find there the intention to start a
business is moderately correlated with the intrinsic motivators for venturing (r=.34) and the attitude towards entrepreneurial education (r=.34). The
former result was expected but the latter was unexpected. While this may
be an issue, other studies (eg., Crampton and Wagner III, 1994; and Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) have suggest that where they occur, this is merely
a low profile finding. Many variables in this study are not conceptual variables except the motivation variables, which are not particularly susceptible to inflationary effects. Very few studies on motivation of entrepreneurial intention exist, and thus the consistency motive factor will not be significant. Also the social desirability factor does not exist for motivation
variables. The other independent variables did not show an unusual degree
162

of correlation with the dependent. Next, we find that the likelihood of

starting a new business was not highly correlated with any of the independent variables. Thus, although method variance was a possibility with
our data capture design, it proved not to be a problem. A cursory examination of the remaining correlations reveals no unusually high coefficients,
which allowed us to rule our multicollinearity as a possible cause of variance explained inflation. Thus we conclude that method variance if it exists, is not a serious problem in this research.
Table 5. Hierarchical Regression to Mediate Attitudes on Background and Propensity for
Entrepreneurship.
Dependent: Interest in Dependent: Likelihoodl
Starting a Business
of Starting a Business |
Beta
t
Model
Beta
t
SiR.
SiR1
(Constant)
63.712
.000
69.127 .0001
Respondent's field of study
-.009 -.761
.447 -.006 -.491 .624|
.000
R-square
.000
1
.000
.000
Adjusted R square
1.2466
SE of Estimate
2.6834
.241 (.624)
1
F (significance)
.579(.447)
16.364
.000
18.653 .0001
2
(Constant)
.014 1.095
.274
.036 2.677 .007
.171 13.432
.000
.152 11.932 .000
Gender of respondent
.891
.000 -.027 .978
Social economic status
-.002 -.137
.000
.068 5.484 .000
Involved in family business
.092 7.460
.030 -.028 -2.116 .034|
Amount of formal education
-.029 -2.166
1
R-square
.027
.033
.026
Adjusted R square
.033
1.2301
SE of Estimate
2.6392
36.321(.000)
F (significance)
45.085(.000)
3
(Constant)
.000
22.439 .000
22.198
.511
.018 1.420 .156
-.008 -.657
.000
.124 10.212 .000
.135 11.849
.718
.005
.004
.400 .689
.361
.000
.047 3.979 .000
.061 5.542
.000 -.017 -1.311 .190'
-.042 -3.540
.000
Intrinsic motivators for venturing
.187 15.793 .000
.284 25.542
.000
Extrinsic motivators for venturing
.119 10.177 .000
.147 13.361
.000
Communal motivators for venturing
.055 4.660 .000
.052 4.718
.000
Attitude towards entrepreneurship educa.180 14.831 .000
.239 20.897
tion
1
R-square
.237
.135
Adjusted R square
.236
.134
SE of Estimate
2.3455
1.1603
1
F (significance)
225.192(.000)
113.006(.000)
163

Turning to the tests of the model, Table 5 reports the hierarchical regression results to check for the mediation of attitude on background. Specifically, we hypothesize that background will have an impact on attitudes
towards entrepreneurship and that these attitudes are responsible for new
venture creation. First, we find that respondent's background while significantly related to the dependent variables contributes only about 3% of
the variance explained. Specifically, we found that males tend to be more
likely to start new businesses (B=.15, p<.000) and also state an interest in
doing so (B=.17, p<.000). We also found that students who had families
with businesses were also more likely (B=0.07, p<.000) and interested
(B=.09, p<.000) in starting a business themselves. Interestingly, we found
that students with more years of formal education were less likely (B=.03,
p<.05) and less interested (B.03, p<.05) in starting a business, although
this result is a weak one, considering the size of the sample.
We also found that the hypothesized mediating effect of attitudes is
not supported. Instead, we found that attitude was a separate independent
construct. Notice that the variance explained increases substantially (.20
for interest and .10 likelihood). Also, the 'background' variables continued
to remain statistically significantly related to the dependents. This indicates that the impact of the attitude variables was separate. Specifically,
we found that intrinsic motivators and the attitude toward entrepreneurship
education were both highly positively related to interest (B=.28, p<.000;
B=24, p<.000, respectively) and likelihood (B=. 19, p<000; B=18,
p<.000, respectively) of starting a new business. We also found that both
extrinsic and communal motivators to venture were related to the interest
(B=15, p<.000; B=.05, p<.000, respectively) and likelihood (B=. 12,
p<.000; B=.06, p<.000, respectively) of new venturing. The independent
variables also contributed a great deal to variance explained, confirming
their importance in the model. Overall variance explained ranged from .13
(F=225, p<.000) to .24 (F=113, p<.000), which was deemed acceptable in
this exploratory study.
Table 6 reports the tests for mediation of beliefs on background and
the propensity for venturing. Specifically, we wanted to see if a respondent's background would be related to his beliefs about what were the success factors for new ventures (given that background included family
business experience, socioeconomic status and amount of education, all of
which were hypothesized to shape beliefs), and whether such beliefs
would lead to new venture creation. The idea behind this hypothesis is that
the more confident that an individual believes he knows the success factors, the less the perceived risk and therefore the greater the likelihood and
164

interest in venturing. First, we found that the additional variance explained

by beliefs is double for that of 'interest' (.04), a substantial increase, given
that it is only one variable; and that for 'likelihood' is .01, a small increase. Also, beliefs was a significantly positive predictor of interest
(B= 22, p<.000) and likelihood (B= 08, p<.000) of new venturing. We also
concluded that beliefs acted as an independent variable, rather than a mediator since there was an increase in variance explained and the background variables continued to remain statistically significant. Overall, the
variance explained by this part of the model was lower, however the equation were significant and tests for estimation biases revealed no problems.
Table 6. Hierarchical Regression to Mediate Beliefs on Background and Propensity for
Entrepreneurship.
Model
1
(Constant)
R-square
Adjusted R square
SE of Estimate
F (significance)
2
(Constant)
1
R-square
Adjusted R square
SE of Estimate
F (significance)
B
(Constant)
Beliefs about business related success
factors
1
R-square
Adjusted R square
SE of Estimate
1
F (significance)
Dependent: Interest in Dependent: Likelihood

of Starting a Business |
Starting a Business
Beta
t
t
Beta
SIRSIR.
69.127 .oool
63.712
.000
.447
-.006 -.491 .624|
-.761
-.009
.000
1
.000
.000
.000
1.2466
2.6834
.241 (.624)
1
.579(.447)
16.364
.000
18.653 .oool
1.095
.274
.014
.036 2.677 .007
.000
.171 13.432
.152 11.932 .000
.891
-.137
-.002
.000 -.027 .978
.000
.092 7.460
.068 5.484 .000
.030
-.028 -2.116 .034
-.029 -2.166
.027
.033
.026
.033
1.2301
2.6392
36.321(.000)
45.085(.000)
.000
19.006 .000
17.638
.173
1.361
.037 2.770 .006
.018
.000
.147 11.589 .000
.158 12.729
.734
-.001 -.099 .921
-.340
-.004
.000
.064 5.169 .000
.081 6.724
-.028 -2.094 .036
.022
-.030 -2.296
.000
.079 6.430 .000
.215 18.003
.079
.078
2.5762
93.449(.000)
165
.033
.032
1.2263
37.346(.000)

Table 7. Hierarchical Regression to Moderate Beliefs with Attitudes and Propensity for
Entrepreneurship.
Dependent: Interest in 1Dependent: Likelihood 1
Starting a Business | of Starting a Business |
Model
[ Beta
t
Beta
t
Sig.
SiS.000
69.587
jl (Constant)
64.183
.oooj
.382 -.006 -.485
-.011 -.874
.627|
R-square
1
.000
.000
1
Adjusted R square
.000
.000
SE of Estimate
2.6863
1.2468
F (significance)
.763(382)
.236(.627)
2 (Constant)
74.297
.000
72.370
.000
-.019 -1.737
.082 -.016 -1.384
.166
.264 21.428
.000
.210 16.067
.000
.151 13.552
.000
.139 11.735
.000
.052 4.646
.000
.065 5.466
.000
.239 20.833
.000
.184 15.080
.000
Attitude towards entrepreneurship education
.056 4.610
.000 -.048 -3.704
.000
Beliefs about business related success factors
I R-square
.217
.119
Adjusted R square
.216
.118
SE of Estimate
2.3787
1.1709
F (significance)
304.81 (.000)
148.33(.000)
1
3 (Constant)
.000
73.930
71.588
.000)
.078 -.016 -1.361
-.019 -1.765
.173
.000
.263 21.286
.207 15.803
.000
.159 14.076
.000
.144 12.023
.000
.050 4.428
.000
.063 5.238
.ood
.238 20.630
.182 14.891
.000
.000
.069 5.427
.000 -.052 -3.828
Beliefs about business related success factors
.000
.022 1.814
.070
.018 1.421
Beliefs about biz factors x attitude toward
.155
entrepreneur education
A92
.032 2.574
.010 -.009 -.687 i
Beliefs about biz factors x intrinsic motiva\
tors
.001
.001
-.037 -3.281
-.041 -3.391
Beliefs about biz factors x extrinsic motivators
.110 -.001 -.093
.926
.019 1.597
Beliefs about biz factors x communal motivators
.220
.120
[ R-square
.219
.119
Adjusted R square
1.1701
2.3747
SE of Estimate
90.446 (.000)
186.094 (.000)
1 F (significance)
In Table 7, we report the result of the moderator regression we used to

check for the moderating impact of beliefs on attitudes. The results confirm part of our model. Specifically, we found the beliefs positively moderated the relationship between intrinsic motivators (B=.03, p<.01) and
attitude towards entrepreneurship education (B=.02, p<.10) and interest in
starting a new business. It negatively moderates the relationship between
extrinsic motivators and the interest in starting a new business (B=-.04,
166

p<.001). The results for the 'likelihood' dependent variable were weaker.
Specifically, we found that beliefs negatively moderated the relationship
between extrinsic motivators and the likelihood of business startup (B=.04, p<.001) by the respondents.
In Table 8, we find that the independent variables explained about
twice the variance for interest in starting a business as for the likelihood of
doing so. Examining where the greatest contribution to variance explained
came from, we discover that it is attitudes, rather than background or beliefs or knowledge that provided the greatest explanatory power. In addition, the attitude construct was also responsible for explaining interest
more completely than likelihood. An earlier analysis of the correlation table for method variance did not reveal any notable problems. Thus, we are
fairly confident that these results are not spurious, even though there was a
potential for this problem to occur. Table 8 also suggests the interaction of
beliefs and attitudes did not contribute to a high level of variance explained, although there were statistically significant findings. This may
imply that the two constructs, in contrast to the theory, may not be distinct.
Table 8. Hierarchical Regression of the General Model (Figure 1).
Model
I (Constant)
Dependent: Interest in Dependent: Likelihood of]

Starting a Business |
Starting a Business
Beta
t
Beta
t
Sig.
Sig.
63.712
69.212
.000
.000
-.009
-.761
.447
-.006
R-square
.000
.000
Adjusted R square
.000
.000
2.6834
1.2466
SE of Estimate
F (significance)
16.364
.000
1.095
.274
.035
.171 13.432

.014
.630
1
.241 (.624)
.579(.447)
b (Constant)
-.482
18.696
.000
2.666
.008
.000
.152 11.941
.000
-.002
-.137
.891
.000
-.005
.996
.092
7.460
.000
.067
5.414
.000
-.029 -2.166
.030
-.027 -2.039
.041
R-square
.033
.027
Adjusted R square
.033
.026
SE of Estimate
2.6392
1.2301
F (significance)
45.085(.000)
36.321(.000)
167

Table 8. (Continued)
Model
3 (Constant)
-.657
.511
.018
1.423
.155
.135 11.849
.000
.124 10.229
.000
.004
.361
.718
.005
.419
.675
.061
5.542
.000
.046
3.916
.000

Dependent: Interest in 1 Dependent: Likelihood of]

Starting a Business | Starting a Business |
Beta
Beta
t
t
Sig.
Sig22.441
.000
.000
22.198
-.008
-.042 -3.540
.000
.016
1.244
.213
.284 25.542
.000
.186 15.678
.000

.147 13.361
.000
.052
4.718
.000
.118 10.091
.055 4.626
.000

R-square
.239 20.897
.000
.179 14.722
.000
Adjusted R square
SE of Estimate
F (significance)
.237
.135
.236
.134
2.3455
1.1603
225.192(.000)
U (Constant)
-.006
.133
.003
.060
-.042
.263
.140
.049
Attitude towards entrepreneurship educa.238
tion
Beliefs about business related success
.051
| factors
R-square
.239
Adjusted R square
.238
SE of Estimate
2.343
F (significance)
1 204.945
168
.000
113.006(.000)
22.289
-.507
11.715
.284
5.467
-3.560
21.455
12.587
4.451
20.896
.000
.612
.000
.776
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.016
.126
.006
.047
-.016
.209
.126
.058
.180
22.400
1.277
10.378
.496
4.001
-1.261
15.999
10.620
4.885
14.767
.0001
.202
.000
.620
.000
.207
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.192
.000
-.054 -4.170
.000
(.000)
.137
.136
1.159
103.726
(.000)

Table 8. (Continued)

Model
5 (Constant)
Dependent: Interest in Dependent: Likelihood of]

Starting a Business
Starting a Business
t
Beta
t
Beta
Sig.
Sig22.294
22.532
.000
.000

-.006 -.533
.131 11.527
.272
.003
.060 5.420
-.041 -3.468
.262 21.323
.147 13.061
.047 4.154
Attitude towards entrepreneurship educa.237 20.718
tion
Beliefs about business related success fac.062 4.873
tors
Beliefs about biz factors x Attitude toward
.018 1.525
education
Beliefs about biz factors x Intrinsic motiva.025 2.031
tors
Beliefs about biz factors x Extrinsic moti-.035 -3.094
vators
Beliefs about biz factors x Communal mo.021 1.834
tivators
.242
1 R-square
Adjusted R square
.240
SE of Estimate
2.3394
1 F (significance)
148.308(.000)
1.255
10.341
.514
4.029
1.159
15.759
10.842
4.589
14.606
.210
.000
.608
.000
.247
.000
.000
.000
.000
-.059 -4.372
.000
1.197
.231
.042
-.016 -1.183
.237
.002
-.037 -3.057
.002
.241
.810
.594
.000
.785
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.127
.067
.016
.125
.006
.047
.015
.206
.130
.055
.178
.015
.003
.139
.137
1.1581
75.046(.000)
These results suggest two important implications. First attitudes are

better predictors of entrepreneurial intentions, implying that educational
effort at encouraging entrepreneurship should pay attention to developing
the right attitudes and motivations towards entrepreneurship. Secondly, the
general findings imply that while an individual may express interest, the
likelihood of actually starting a business still depends on other, as yet undetected, factors.. We speculate that some type of triggering event is necessary for startup to actually occur, for example a concrete idea for a business, access to funds, external validation of the idea by peers or others.
CONCLUSION
This study has drawn from past research on entrepreneurial attitudes and
demographics and the link to intentions in order to understand the role of
education in the pre-start up phase of new businesses. In particular, it at169

tempted to investigate how education or students' background may be contributing factors to the propensity for entrepreneurial activity. Using data
from a large sample of university students in Singapore, it found that while
the length of formal education reduced the propensity to start businesses,
possibly because of the high opportunity cost of human capital, strong beliefs (confidence) about the business factors that lead to success was
strongly correlated with the propensity to start new businesses. Most importantly, we found that attitudes towards entrepreneurship were key to
explaining new business startups. In addition, we found statistically significant interaction effects between beliefs and attitudes, although these
effects did not account for a large amount of additional variance.
The study findings hold clear implications for policy prescriptions.
Firstly, they suggest that introducing students to entrepreneurship at an
early stage can be beneficial as they develop positive attitudes toward
starting new businesses. In addition, the content of entrepreneurship
courses should focus on practice rather than theory, in order for students to
experience rather than simply learn about entrepreneurship. Finally, evoking interest at an early stage may also reduce the tendency for an attenuation of interest that may come with more years of formal education.
A number of promising future research directions can be identified
from the research reported in this paper. Firstly, while the empirical data
from Singapore broadly confirm the research model on antecedents to entrepreneurship, it would be interesting to explore if similar findings hold
for other socio-economic environments and cultural settings. For example, the significant negative effect of opportunity cost of human capital in
the study could be due to the sizable presence of large multinational enterprises in Singapore, leading to abundant supply of high paying jobs and
attractive career options (Wong, 2001). Its negative influence on entrepreneurial propensity may be less pronounced in countries where unemployment rates among university graduates are higher. Application of the research model to different countries may thus provide cross-cultural insights on how national environments shape the antecedents to entrepreneurship. Secondly, while this paper's empirical focus on university students in technical fields is particularly relevant to policy makers interested
in technology-based startups by technically trained professionals, it may
be useful to extend the empirical research to university students in nontechnical fields (e.g. business management) as well.
170

REFERENCES
Aaby, N. and Slater, S. F. (1989). Management Influences on Export Performance: A
Review of the Empirical Literature, International Marketing Review, 6:4, 7-26.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing: Reading, MA.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In J.Kuhl &
J.Beckmann (Eds.). Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg:
Springer: pp. 11-39.
Azjen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis
and Review of Empirical Research, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Barkham, R. J. (1994). Entrepreneurial Characteristics and the Size of the New Firm: A
Model and an Econometric Test, Small Business Economics, 6:3, 117-125.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to An Ecology of Mind, Ballantine: New York, NY.
Bowles, M. L. (1989). Myth, Meaning and Work Organization, Organization Studies,
10:3,405-421.
Brayfield, A. H. and Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 415-422.
Brenner, O. C, Pringle, C. D. and Greenhaus, J. H. (1991). Perceived Fulfillment of Organizational Employment Versus Entrepreneurship: Work Values and Career, Intentions of Business College Graduates, Journal of Small Business Management, 29(3):
62-74.
Brown, L. H. (1985). Democracy in Organizations: Membership Participation and Organizational Characteristics in U.S. Retail Foods Co-Operatives, Organization Studies,
6:4,313-334.
Browner, C. H. and Kubarski, K. (1991). The Paradoxical Control of American Clerks,
Organization Studies, 12:2, 233-250.
Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and Attitude Change,
Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
Clouse, Van G. H. (1990). A Controlled Experiment Relating Entrepreneurial Education
to Students' Start-up Decisions, Journal of Small Business Management, April, 4553.
Crampton, S. M. and Wagner, J. A. Ill (1994). Percept-percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: an Investigation of Prevalence and Effect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1): 67-76.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The Proactive Personality Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial
Intentions, Journal of Small Business Management, 34(3): 42-49.
Cunningham, Barton, Philip G., Chiang Fock Pong, Lim Kok Yng, and Celine Siew Linn.
(1995). Do Undergraduates Have What it Takes to be Entrepreneurs and Managers
of Small Businesses in Singapore? Journal of Asian Business, 11:4, 35-49.
De Wit, G. and Van Winden, F. A. (1989). An Empirical Analysis of Self-employment in
the Netherlands, Small Business Economics, 1(4): 263-272.
Doh, J. C, W. L. Tan and T. S. Chiong. (1996). Entrepreneurship Inclination of Singapore Business Students, Journal of Enterprising Culture 4(2): 209-223.
Fondas, N. and Stewart, R. (1994). Enactment in Managerial Jobs: A Role Analysis,
Journal of Management Studies, 31:1, 83-103.
Gartner, W. B. (1989). Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial Traits and
Characteristics, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14:1, 27-38.
171


Ghazali, A., Ghosh, B. C. and R. S. T. Tay. (1995). The determinants of self-employment
choice among university graduates in Singapore, International Journal of Management 12(1): 26-35
Goldberg, A. I., and Kirschenbaum, A. B. (1988). The Organizational Imperative in Science, Organization Studies, 9:2, 201-220.
Hodgkinson, G. P. and Johnson, G. (1994). Exploring the Mental Models of Competitive
Strategists: The Case for a Processual Approach, Journal of Management Studies,
31:4,525-551.
Hood, J. N. and John, E. Young. (1993). Entrepreneurship's Requisite Areas of Development: A Survey of Top Executives in Successful Entrepreneurial Firms, Journal
of Business Venturing, 8:2,115-135.
Jaccard, J., G. W. King and Pomazal, R. (1977). Attitudes and Behavior: An Analysis of
Specificity of Attitude Predictors. Human Relations, 9, 817-824.
Jaccard, J., G. W. King and Pomazal, R. (1977). Attitudes and Behavior: An Analysis of
Specificity of Attitude Predictors. Human Relations, 9, 817-824.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Organizational employment versus self-employment: reasons for
career choice intentions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 20(3): 23-31.
Kourilsky, M. L. and Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and Female Youth:
Knowledge, Attitudes, Gender Differences, and Educational Practices, Journal of
Business Venturing, 13(1): 77-88.
Krueger, N. F. and Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entreprenurial intentions: Applying the theory
of planned behavior. Entrepreneurial and Regional Development 5: 315-330.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornzby, J. S. and Naffziger, D. W. (1997). An Exmination of Owner's
Goals in Sustaining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management,
January, 24-32.
Lachman, R. (1988). Factors Influencing Workers' Orientations: A Secondary Analysis of
Israeli Data, Organization Studies, 9:4, 491-510.
Lachman, R. and Nissim, A. (1986). Job Attitudes and Turnover Intentions Among Professionals in Different Work Settings, Organizational Studies, 7:3, 279-293.
Lerner, M. and Hendeles, Y. (1996). New Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurial Aspiration
among Immigrants from the Former USSR in Israel, Journal of Business Research,
36(1): 59-65.
Mannheim, B. (1984). Managerial Orientations and Workers' Job Responses in LabourOwned and Private Industrial Plants in Israel, Organization Studies, 5:1, 23-42.
Matthews, C. H. and Moser, S. B. (1996). A Longitudinal Investigation of the Impact of
Family Background and Gender on Interest in Small Firm Ownership, Journal of
Small Business Management, 34(2): 29-43.
McClenahen, J. S. (1988). How U.S. Entrepreneurs Succeed in World Markets, Industiy
Week, 236:9, 47-49.
Mesch, G. S. and Czamanski, D. (1997). Occupational Closure and Immigrant Entrepreneurship: Russian Jews in Israel, Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(6): 597-610.
Mueller, F. (1994). Teams between Hierarchy and Commitment: Change Strategies and
the Internal Environment, Journal of Management Studies, 31:3, 381-403.
Namiki, N. (1989). Different Types of "Reactors" in High Technology Industries: An
Empirical Study, Akron Business & Economic Review, 20:4, 69-78.
Norburn, D., Birley, S. and Dunn, M. (1988). Strategic Marketing Effectiveness and Its
Relationship to Corporate Culture and Beliefs: A Cross National Study, International Studies of Management and Organization, 18:2, 83-100.
172


Pasquale, G. (1986). The Creation and Change of Organizational Culture: A Conceptual
Framework, Organization Studies, 7:2, 117-134.
Peterson, R. A. (1981). Entrepreneurship and Organization, In P.C. Nystrom and W.H.
Starbuck (Eds), Handbook of Organization Design, vl, New York: Oxford University Press.
Pinder, C. C. (1984). Work Motivation: Theory, Issues, and Applications, Glenview, 111:
Scott, Foresman & Co.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in Organizational Research:
Problems and Prospects, Journal ofManagement, 12: 531-544.
Ray, D. M., and Turpin, D. V. (1990). Factors Influencing Japanese Entrepreneurs in
High-Technology Ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, 5:2, 91-102.
Robinson, P. B. et al. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(4): 13-31.
Schultz, T. W. (1980). Investment in Entrepreneurial Ability, Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 82, 437-448.
Scott, M. G. and Twomey, D. F. (1988). The Long-term Supply of Entrepreneurs: Students' Career Aspirations in Relation to Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, 26(4): 5-13.
Sexton, D. L. and Bowman, N. (1985). The Entrepreneur: A Capable Executive and
More, Journal of Business Venturing, 1:3, 129-140.
Shaver, K. G. and Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of New
Venture Creation, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16:2, 23-45.
Stevens, F., Philipsen, H. and Diederiks, J. (1992). Organizational and Professional Predictors of Physician Satisfaction, Organization Studies, 13:1, 35-49.
Stewart, Wayne H. Jr., Warren Watson, Joann C. Carland, and James. W. Carland (1998)
A Proclivity for Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Entrepreneurs, Small Business
Owners, and Corporate Managers, Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 189-214.
Stuart, R. W. and Abetti, P. A. (1990). Impact of Entrepreneurial and Management Experience on Early Performance, Journal of Business Venturing, 5:3, 151-162.
Tan, W. L. et al (1995). Entrepreneurship Spirit among Tertiary Students in Singapore,
Journal of Enterprising Culture 3(2): 211-227.
Tan, W. L., Long and Robinson. (1997). Entrepreneurship attitude orientation and the
intention to start a business, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 13:4,
39-50.
Van de Ven, Andrew, H. and Schroeder, D. M. (1984). Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurial, Organizational, and Ecological Considerations, Journal of
Management, 10:1, 87-107.
Waddock, S. A. and Isabella, L. A. (1989). Strategy, Beliefs about the Environment and
Performance in a Banking Simulation, Journal of Management, 15:4, 617-632.
Wong, P. K.(2001). Leveraging multinational corporations, fostering local technopreneurship: The evolving role of public Science & Technology policy in Singapore,
International Journal of Technology Management 22 (5/6): 539-567, 2001.
173
Phillip H Phan, Poh Kam Wong and Clement K. Wang
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Phillip H Phan is Warren H. Bruggeman '46 adn Pauline Urban Bruggeman Distinguished Chair and Associate Professor, Lally School of Management and Technology,
Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute. He is also the Director of Research, Severino Center for
Technological Entrepreneurs hip, Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute. He obtained his PhD from University of Washington.
Poh-Kam Wong is an Associate Professor at the Business School of the National University of Singapore, where he is also director of the Centre for Entrepreneur ship. He obtained his B.Sc, M.Sc. and PhD from MIT. His current research interests are focused on
management of technological innovation, national science and technology policy, and
technology entrepreneurs hip.
Clement Wang is an Assistant Professor at the Business School of the National University
of Singapore. He obtained his B.Sc, and PhD from the University of Waterloo. His research interests are in New Product Development, Venture Capital Financing and Entrepreneurs hip.
174

Antecedents To Entrepreneurship Among

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Antecedents To Entrepreneurship Among

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Enterprising Culture

Vol. 10, No. 2, (June 2002) 151-174

J. Enterprising Culture 2002.10:151-174. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com