Nonprofits and Social Entrepreneurship

8/17/2019 Nonprofits and Social Entrepreneurship

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nonprofits-and-social-entrepreneurship 1/21

1

Nonprof its and Social Entrepreneurship I ntentions: Examining the Role of Organizational

Attributes

Wee-Liang Tan & So-Jin Yoo

Little is known about social entrepreneurship in nonprofits, especially the factors thatinfluence social entrepreneurship intentions of these organizations. This study explores the direct

effect of the organizational attributes (commercial experiences of CEO, organizational level of

entrepreneurial orientation and collective efficacy, resource availability and social cause) on the

nonprofit organization’s intention to start a social enterprise. We find that nonprofits led byCEOs with commercial experience, with high collective efficacy and organization innovativeness

are more likely to evince intentions to start a social enterprise. Whilst it might have been thought

that the nonprofits’ social causes may have a negative effect on social entrepreneurship, it was

found to have a positive influence. Contrary to expectations, resource availability was not significant to intentions; neither was risk-taking. Hence, nonprofit organizations keen to foster

social entrepreneurship are advised to seek to align any social entrepreneurship activities to

their social causes and develop internal capability for social entrepreneurship and collectiveefficacy.

Keywords: Nonprofit Organizations, Social Enterprise, Entrepreneurship Intentions, SocialCause, Resource Availability, Collective Efficacy, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Role of

CEO.

Introduction

Nonprofit organizations are valued when they provide services or products that address unmet

needs in society. Social entrepreneurship by nonprofit organizations augments their contributions

through the new services, programs, enterprises and revenue generated. It is not surprising,

therefore, that policy makers encourage social entrepreneurship, social innovations and social

enterprises in the nonprofit sector. Yet, little is known about social entrepreneurship in

nonprofits and what drives entrepreneurship on the part of nonprofits and the much-desired

social innovations. Policy-makers have introduced measures presupposing that nonprofits will

respond in the same way as their for-profit cousins do.



2

Entrepreneurship researchers, though more discerning about differences between different

types of entrepreneurs, have began to examine the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship:

definitions, explanatory theories and description its features (Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern

2006; Townsend and Hart 2008; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum and Shulman 2009). The spectrum

of activities that come within the ambit of social entrepreneurship is wide: they are innovative;

undertake social value creating activity that can occur within or across the nonprofit, business, or

government sectors (Austin et al 2006).

Nonprofits have been at the forefront of social innovations in the form of the charities, non-

government organizations, international organizations and other organizations. Policy-makers

often encourage the nonprofit to engage in social entrepreneurship for social benefits as well as

potential revenue generation. One specific form of social entrepreneurship is the creation of

social enterprises, new ventures that permit revenue generation with or without the employment

of the disadvantaged. If nonprofits would establish new social enterprises, there could be net gain

in new services, products and innovations. What is not known are the factors that motivate the

nonprofits to embark on social entrepreneurship? Nonprofits may prefer to stay in their social

sector and not start a new business venture. After all, it requires them to venture outside of their

comfort zone into commercial activities, albeit with social outcomes and objectives.

From the researchers‟ perspective, these nonprofits also offer the opportunity to examine

organizational entrepreneurship in a setting that is unique where the profit motive is not

predominant. Nonprofits are more likely to be motivated to engage in social entrepreneurship

where the activities are aligned with their social causes and the activities serve a related purpose

that facilitates their work, be it income generation or the employment of the disadvantaged.

Entrepreneurship theory suggests that certain organizational factors influence the intentions



3

towards entrepreneurial acts (Krueger 2000; Krueger, O‟Reilly and Carsrud 2000). The

antecedents in the form of attitudes towards social entrepreneurship within the nonprofits would

influence the nonprofit organization‟s intention towards social entrepreneurship (Krueger ,

Schulte and Stamp 2008). These antecedents can act as either barriers or triggers to the

entrepreneurial action. Nonprofits having been steeped in meeting needs in social sectors may be

inhibited in starting social ventures. The prospect of having social enterprises that could augment

their revenue streams might not be perceived to be as desirable. Instead, the social cause that

they serve may act as an inhibitor. On the other hand, having top leadership supportive of social

entrepreneurship would facilitate social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit as the corporate

entrepreneurship literature suggests. Hence, the question is what conditions are necessary for

nonprofits to initiate new social ventures.

This paper reports a study that explores the role of organizational factors on the social

entrepreneurship intentions of nonprofits: the intentions to start new ventures that have both an

economic and social objectives. In particular, the study examines the role played by the social

mission of the nonprofit, collective efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on the social

entrepreneurship intentions of the nonprofits. There has been increasing interest in social

entrepreneurship and this research is an attempt to add to the field with this empirical study of

the organizational factors that facilitate social entrepreneurship.

Prior Research and H ypotheses Development

Social Entrepreneurship Intentions

The theory of planned behavior suggests that entrepreneurship intentions influence future

actions (Ajzen 1991; Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud 2000; Begley and



4

Tan 2001). Nonprofit organizations that manifest positive intentions towards social

entrepreneurship are more likely to launch social enterprises. Prior research has shown that

environmental factors such as social and cultural norms as well as economic factors influence

entrepreneurship intentions (Begley, Tan and Schoch 2005). However, these constructs have not

been examined in the case of nonprofit organizations. Krueger (2000) argues that perceptions of

organization members channeled through intentions can inhibit or enhance the identification and

pursuit of new opportunities, and those elements of a cognitive infrastructure need to be present.

According to Ajzen‟s theory of planned behavior (1991), the antecedents of intentions and

attitudes serve to precipitate the intentions into behavior (Krueger and Brazeal 1994; Krueger,

Reilly and Carsrud 2000). Hence, nonprofit organizations are more likely to act if they have

positive social entrepreneurship intentions.

Social entrepreneurship can take various forms. The nonprofit organizations can offer a new

service or product as part of their existing operations. They can encourage their volunteers to

venture into open source innovation and develop new ideas for processes, products, or improve

service. For the purposes of this paper, we measure the intentions of the nonprofit organizations

to start a new venture called social enterprise. It is a new venture initiated with multiple purposes

coupling the social with the economic. It also takes the form of business generating revenue,

which can be rechanneled toward the social cause of the nonprofit organizations. Alternatively, it

can be a business employing socially responsible processes or the disadvantaged as part of the

business as in the case of the Greyston Bakery in New York, which hires ex-convicts in their

bakery.



5

Role of Top Managers

The leaders in organizations play an important role in shaping organizations‟ cultures and

norms (Krueger 2000). Top management support is listed with work discretion, rewards and

reinforcement, time availability, and organizational boundaries for their role in corporate

entrepreneurship (Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., and Hornsby, J.S. 1990; Hornsby, J.S.

Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. 2002). Their role is all the more significant when speaking of

corporate action and shaping the norms. Guth and Ginsberg (1990) suggest “top management

actions and responses in relation to the autonomous strategic behavior of middle managers may

significantly influence the frequency and success of entrepreneurial effort in the firm.” Previous

study found that the number of entrepreneurial ideas implemented increases with perceived top

management support but at a faster rate for (a) middle and (b) senior-level managers than for

first-level managers (Hornsby, Kuratko, Shepherd and Bott 2009).

Prior work experience has been shown to influence entrepreneurship intentions in the case of

individual technology-based entrepreneurship (Jones-Evans 1996). With nonprofits, leaders with

little commercial experience are likely to look askance at the opportunities to engage in

innovative activities that involve the element of the economic; all the more so when the leaders

rise from the social sector in social work or counseling. Prior commercial experience of the chief

executive can affect a nonprofit organization‟s social entrepreneurship intention in a positive

way. This leads to the following hypothesis.

H1: Top manager’s commercial sector experience will be positively related to non-profit

organization’s intent to start a social enterprise.



6

Entrepreneurship Orientation

Corporate entrepreneurship refers to “the process of new business creation within existing

organizations to improve organizational profitability and enhance its competitive position or the

strategic renewal of existing business” (Zahra 1991). Research into corporate entrepreneurship

posits that certain organizational factors explain the incidence of corporate entrepreneurship.

These organizational traits or propensities - innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness - are

components of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) of organizations (Miller and Friesen 1982; Covin

and Slevin 1989). Among the three components of EO, innovativeness is associated with a strong

organizational commitment to “engage in and support new ideas, novelty, experimentation, and

creative processes that may result in new products, services or technological processes”

(Lumpkin and Dess 1996 p.142). Risk taking refers to the “degree to which managers are willing

to make large and risky resource commitments - that is, those which have a reasonable chance of

costly failure” (Miller and Friesen 1978. p.923). Proactiveness involves an “opportunity-seeking,

forward-looking perspective involving introduction of new products or services ahead of the

competition and acting in anticipation of future demand to create change and shape the

environment” (Lumpkin and Dess 2001. p.431).

These three components of EO are believed to lend positive effects to organization

profitability and growth (Covin and Slevin 1991; Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Miller and Friesen

1983; Wiklund and Shepherd 2005). As such, components of EO (innovativeness, risk-taking

and proactiveness) may also help nonprofit organizations in creating new businesses (social

enterprises) by initiating and developing new innovative business opportunities while taking

proactive stance and risks on them. Davis, Marino, Aaron and Tolbert (2011) employed

entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to examine the external scanning behavior of home nursing



7

administrators by profit and nonprofit start-ups. They found no significant difference in the EO

between the nonprofit organizations and the for-profits in that sector. Surprisingly, the nonprofits

were more likely to engage in environmental scanning activities than their for-profit

counterparts. This leads to the following hypothesis.

H2: Non- profit organization’s entrepreneurial orientation propensity will be positively related to

its intent to start a social enterprise.

Collective efficacy

Stakeholders possessing positive perceptions of social entrepreneurship in a nonprofit are part

of the intentionality equation. At organization level, there has to be collective efficacy towards

social entrepreneurship: “(un) less people believe that they can produce desired effects and

forestall undesired ones by their actions, they have little incentive to act. People do not live their

lives in individual autonomy” (Bandura 2000). Nonprofits activities are able to address social

problems in so far as they involve the interdependent efforts of other (staff, volunteers, donors

and government agencies). Community projects in the area of education, for instance, depend on

the pooling of resources, time and efforts of community people including community leaders

working together to secure what they can‟t accomplish on their own. This community project

could involve a corporate sponsor funding a library, the local village chief‟s sanction of the

project, the local government provision of space, and the positive response of the community

school. Such a collective exercise took place recently in the far-flung region of western region of

China. The collective efficacy of the stakeholders in the library project sponsored by the Swire

group from Hong Kong in respect of future projects would incline their initiation of future

community projects. As defined in social cognitive theory, all efficacy belief constructs are



8

“future-oriented judgments about capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action

required to produce given attainments in specific situations or contexts.” (Goddard, R.D., Hoy,

W.K., and Hoy, A. W. 2004). Bohn (2002) defines collective efficacy in organizations as “a

generative capacity within an organization to cope effectively with the demands, challenges,

stresses, and opportunities it encounters within the business environment.” Hence, nonprofit

organizations with a positive collective efficacy towards social entrepreneurship may have high

degree of social entrepreneurship intentions. This leads to the following hypothesis.

H3: Non- profit organization’s collective efficacy will be positively related to its intent to start a

social enterprise.

Resource Availability

In the realm of corporate entrepreneurship it is suggested that time and resource availability

influence employees‟ perceptions of corporate entrepreneurship activities (Pinchot 1985; Covin

and Slevin 1991; Kreiser, P. Marino, L. and Weaver, L.M. 2002; Hornsby et al. 2002).

Entrepreneurship activities depend on resources being available. Entrepreneurship literature

supports the important role of the availability of financing. Nonprofits like all other organizations

depend on resources. Researchers on non-profit organizations have variously pointed to the

integral role of resources to the capability of non-profit organizations to flourish, innovate and

deliver their services (Anheier 2005). The resource-based view suggests that entrepreneurship in

nonprofits would require resources. Nonprofits, however, are unique - they require resources to a

much greater degree. Nonprofits, in particular, charities, depend on externally generated

resources from their donor base. For these organizations, there is often a dependence upon

donors and philanthropists. Nonprofits face resource scarcity (see for example, Anheier 2005)



9

and are provided for specific purposes. The dedication of resources to specific activities is in

many countries, more often than not, a subject of the tax laws as the donors are often able to

deduct against their taxable income the amounts contributed towards charitable causes. With

their focus on the social agenda, it is not surprising that new activities such as social

entrepreneurship would require resources to be available. Corporate entrepreneurship research

also suggests the same. That stream of research suggests if corporations wish to encourage

innovation and corporate entrepreneurship, they should provide resources for these to occur

because entrepreneurial pursuits generally require considerable resources (for example, Hornsby

et al. 2002; Wiklund and Shepherd 2005). This suggests that similarly in nonprofits, if the

incumbents are provided with resources for social entrepreneurship, then they are more likely to

get involved in social entrepreneurship activities. Hence, this leads to the following hypothesis.

H4: Non- profit organization’s resource availability will be positively related to its intent to start

a social enterprise.

Social Cause

Prior studies have demonstrated that perceived desirability and feasibility are two key

precipitating factors when individuals and teams start new ventures (Krueger et al. 2000; Begley

and Tan 2001; Begley et al. 2005). Within organizations, the role of organization level

perceptions is extremely pertinent. Social entrepreneurship intentions are shaped by perceived

desirability and feasibility of organizations. The incumbents in an organization are more likely to

hold intentions towards entrepreneurial activities when the perceptions within the organization

are that such activities are desirable and that they are capable of engaging in them. It is in a sense



10

not different from situations in organizations like schools where attitudes within schools towards

scholastic or sporting achievements shape the behaviors.

The social element is important as it distinguishes this type of entrepreneurship. Yet it is the

social element that gives researchers some difficulty as the field moves from the pure business

arena to address social problems, that of definition (see for example, Tan et al. 2005). Setting

aside the definitional issue as the field has gravitated to accepting social entrepreneurship as

encompassing entrepreneurial activities that create value, economic and social value, across

nonprofit, government and business (Tan et al. 2005; Austin et al. 2006; Zahra, et al. 2009). The

interesting aspect of this research on non-profits and social entrepreneurship is that the non-

profits may prefer their non-profit activities to economic ones. While social entrepreneurship

marries enterprise principles and practices to the social, there may be a preference for the social

cause on the part of the organization. Obviously, the organization is a summation of the

individuals it comprises. In short, the perceptions incumbents in the non-profits have of starting

enterprises or engaging in entrepreneurial activities, may reflect a position akin to the Bible

passage admonishing the believers who place mammon in priority to God. They may place

priority on the social rather than the new venture with a business slant. A key reason for this lies

in the difference between a new social enterprise and one being initiated by an existing non-

profit. Unlike corporate entrepreneurship where there is some alignment as the new corporate

entrepreneurship venture has the same profit motive, the non-profits begin with the non-profit

mission. Hence, nonprofit organizations steeped in their social causes are more likely to have

negative perceptions of the desirability of social enterprises as they appear to be deviations from

their purposes.



11

Conversely, social entrepreneurship may offer an opportunity for the nonprofit organization

an alternative to fundraising or to achieving its social agenda through business activities reducing

the reliance on volunteers or grants. Hence, it is unclear whether the nonprofit organization‟s

focus on the social mission would influence social entrepreneurship intention positively or

negatively. As such, the study did not specify a direction and seeks to explore this relationship.

This leads to the following hypothesis.

H5: Non- profit organization’s social cause will be positively (or negatively) related to its intent

to start a social enterprise.

Method

A mail survey was employed in this study. The questionnaires were mailed to a list of 390

nonprofit organizations from MCYS‟ database and additions to the list from other sources such

as the database from the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre. The executive directors

and senior management of the nonprofit organizations were asked to complete the

questionnaires. In total, 600 nonprofit organizations were approached, and follow-up phone calls

were made on the incomplete responses. A total of 147 surveys, or 24.5% response rate was

achieved. Of these responses, only 101 of the respondents had not started a social enterprise and

these formed the sample for this study.

The research instrument was developed with scale items to measure the constructs of interest.

Social entrepreneurship intention was measured on a five-point scale in the form of the question

whether the nonprofit would start a social enterprise within the next five years. Prior commercial

experience of the chief executive is operationalized as a dichotomous variable (Yes or No). The

influence of social cause which is our measure of negative perceived desirability of social

entrepreneurship as explained earlier was measuring using three items, illustrated by the



12

following statement: “Our organization‟s priority is to run programs that directly tie to our social

mission.”

Drawing from prior research items was developed to measure collective efficacy (six items).

The scales for the perceived collective efficacy (organization feasibility) were developed for this

study, as the construct has not been previously operationalized in studies of entrepreneurship.

We employed one of the three suggested means of developing the measures. One possibility is to

include measures of individual self-efficacy and aggregating the scores. Alternatively, although

not possible in the case of this study, one could seek a group consensus of collective efficacy at

each nonprofit through discussion with the incumbents. Instead we employed measures of group-

referent capability with the measures r eferring to the object of the efficacy perception as “we”

instead of “I”. An example of a group-referent collective efficacy belief item is “Our

organization has the management know-how and skill to start and run a social enterprise.” This

approach has been applied in other contexts such as in schools (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy 2004).

New items were developed to measure resource availability. The items for resource

availability were borrowing ideas from the Kuratko et al (1990) Corporate Entrepreneurship

Assessment Instrument. Three items were developed and the incumbents in nonprofits were

asked to rate statements: “Our organization can raise enough funds to start a social enterprise,”

“We can staff a new social enterprise using existing manpower resources,” and “Our

organization can start a social enterprise without any form of assistance (such as subsidies,

funding) from the government.” This variable was conceptually justified as the nonprofit sector

in Singapore was usually less well resourced in funding and staffing. Most of the people

employed in this sector in Singapore were mostly from the social work sector and might not be

suited for social entrepreneurship ventures. The organization attributes of innovativeness and



13

risk-taking were examined employing items adapted from the Covin and Slevin‟s (1989)

entrepreneurial orientation scale. Innovativeness was explored employing statements on the

organization‟s emphasis on innovations; whether it sought new ways to address social needs; and

whether the organization was often in the lead as the first to introduce new products/services.

Risk-taking employed three items on the organization‟s preference for high-risk projects; if the

organization believed that bold and wide-ranging acts were necessary to attain its goals; if the

organization‟s response to uncertainty was a bold and aggressive posture. We employed

organization age and size as control variables in this study.

All constructs in the study have face and content validities derived from the extant literature

(Covin and Slevin 1989; Kuratko et al 1990; Goddard et al 2004). Discriminant validities for the

constructs are examined by exploratory factor analysis, using principal component factor method

with varimax rotation. After excluding three proactiveness items, twenty-one items loaded on the

six separate factors (social enterprise intent, social cause, innovativeness, risk-taking, collective

efficacy, resource availability) as anticipated, supporting their discriminant validities.

A coefficient alpha test is performed to examine the internal reliability, and all of the

independent variables (social enterprise intent, 0.84; social cause, 0.74; innovativeness, 0.75;

risk-taking, 0.72; collective efficacy, 0.88, and resource availability, 0.70) are above the cut-off

of 0.70 suggested by Nunnally (1978).

Analysis and Resul ts

A majority of the nonprofit organizations had less than 100 employees (84%) and been in

operation more than 10 years (64%). The nonprofit organizations served the following

beneficiaries: Youth (49.5%), Family (49.5%) and Children (48.5%). As the nonprofit



14

organizations at times served more than one group of beneficiaries, the totals did not add up

100.0%. They relied on donations (47.5%) and grants (37.6%) as their top two main sources of

revenue. Surprisingly approximately 10.0% of respondents indicated earned income as their

primary source of income. 62% of top managers in nonprofit organizations had previous work

experiences in commercial sectors whereas 35% had no commercial experience in their previous

workplace. Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations and correlations among the

variables.

This study explored the direct effect of the independent variables (commercial experiences of

CEO, organizational level of entrepreneurial orientation and collective efficacy, resource

availability and social cause) on the nonprofit organization‟s intention to start a social enterprise.

Hypotheses are tested by hierarchical regression analysis. Control variables (organization age

and size) are first entered into the regression and then independent variables are added into the

base model to create the full model.

H1 predicts that top manager‟s commercial experience in previous workplace may have a

positive effect on a nonprofit organization‟s intent to start a social enterprise. As shown in Table

2 the coefficients are significant and positive (0.17 p<0.05), supporting H1. Nonprofit

organization‟s entrepreneurial orientation propensity is predicted to have a positive effect on its

intent to start a social enterprise. Since items measuring proactiveness failed to load, only

innovativeness and risk-taking factors were employed in testing the hypothesis analysis. While

organization‟s innovativeness has a significant and positive effect (0.23, p<0.05) whereas risk-

taking has no significant effect. Therefore, H2 is partially supported. H3 predicts that nonprofit

organization‟s collective efficacy may have a positive effect on its intent to start a social

enterprise. The coefficients are significant and positive (0.27, p<0.05) as expected, supporting



15

H3. H4 predicts that resource availability may have a positive effect on the nonprofit

organization‟s intent to start a social enterprise. The coefficients are insignificant, and thus H4 is

rejected. H5 predicts that social cause of nonprofit organization may have a positive effect on its

intent to start a social enterprise. The coefficients are significant and positive (0.30, p<0.05),

supporting H5.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study supports that organization attributes affect social entrepreneurship intentions.

Nonprofit organizations with a high-perceived organization efficacy would have a higher degree

of intention to start a social enterprise. This finding is consistent with other studies on the role of

perceived feasibility on the entrepreneurship intentions (Maribel Guerrero, M., Rialp, J. and

Urbano, D 2008). It also suggests that the obstacles to social entrepreneurship lie within the

nonprofit organizations. If the constituents within the nonprofit organizations, particularly the

strategic actors with the power and influence to shape the attitudes of the workers, do not

perceive creating social enterprises as desirable or feasible, the intention to do so would be

absent. Since entrepreneurship intentions are the precedent to action (Kreuger et al 2000), steps

need to be taken to address these attitudes. Singapore policy makers need to work on the

nonprofit organizations in addition to the provision of financial incentives, if they are to see

favorable results. There are antecedents to organization efficacy. The nonprofit organizations

must possess the capabilities to embark on social entrepreneurship. The attitude associated with

organization efficacy does not stand-alone but is linked to capabilities, skilled workforce, and

access to the necessary ingredients of market information and technology. To spur greater social



16

entrepreneurship, it may be necessary to provide training and facilitate access to market

information so they have the wherewithal to start.

Innovativeness as an organization attribute has a positive influence on social entrepreneurship

intentions. It is a significant finding as it is a clear indication of an organization attribute that

works in tandem with the sense of ability towards an intention to start a social enterprise. The

development of this orientation (innovativeness) and attitude within the organization would aid

plans to engage in social entrepreneurship.

The importance played on the social cause also influences social entrepreneurship intention. It

has a

significant effect on social entrepreneurship intention. Although it wasn‟t clear at the outset

if social cause would be positive or negative in its effect on intention, the research findings prove

that it has a significant and positive effect on social entrepreneurship intention. Prima facie, this

may appear to be an odd finding since as the saying goes “you cannot serve God and mammon.”

Yet the social cause and social entrepreneurship have a common goal of the social cause. Hence,

it is not surprising since the social enterprise can address the same social causes, especially when

they employ the disadvantaged or generate income that are ploughed into social causes. The

mean for this variable is below the median on the side leaning towards disagreeing.

This finding has implications for the policy makers. It is clear that nonprofit organizations

such as existing charities would be inclined to start social enterprises if they have a bearing on

their capability to attain their social mission. Policy makers should not advocate social

entrepreneurship solely for any pecuniary benefits alone but strengthen the case for social

entrepreneurship as a means to attaining their goals. Similarly, the nonprofit organizations

seeking to embark on social entrepreneurship need to highlight to their internal and external

stakeholders the manner in which social entrepreneurship is a means to achieving the social



17

cause. This is needful as the social entrepreneurship activities often require involvement of other

staff as team members or innovators and units in the organization who contribute resources. It

can be argued from the findings of this exploratory study that nonprofit organizations seeking to

engage in social entrepreneurship should embark on developing their organizations in building

the capabilities for enterprise activities. Being pro-enterprise in outlook and the introduction of

applicable business practices into nonprofit organizations will contribute to the efficacy of the

organization. Emphasizing the need for innovation and innovativeness would be helpful. All

these comments are prefaced on the theory of intentionality.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.

Anheier, H.K. (2005). NonProfit Organizations: theory, management, policy. Oxford, U.K.:

Routledge.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship:

Same, Different, or Both?” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1): 1-22.

Bandura, A. (2000). “Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy,” Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 9(3): 75-78.

Begley, T. and Tan, W.L. (2001). “The Socio-Cultural Environment for Entrepreneurship: A

Comparison Between East Asian and Anglo Countries,” Journal of International BusinessStudies, 32(3): 537-553.

Begley, T. M., Tan, W.L and Schoch, H.P. (2005). “Politico-Economic Factors Associated withInterest in Starting a Business: A Multi- Country Study,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

29(1): 35-55.

Bohn, J., (2002). “The Relationship of Perceived Leadership Behaviors to OrganizationalEfficacy,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9: 65-79.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989). “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benignenvironments,” Strategic Management Journal , 10: 75-87.

Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991). “A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior,”

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7-25.



18

Davis, J. A., Marino, L. D., Aaron, J. R. and Tolbert, C. L. (2011). “An Examination of

Entrepreneurial Orientation, Environmental Scanning, and Market Strategies of Nonprofit and

For-Profit Nursing Home Administrators,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1):197-211.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., and Hoy, A. W. (2004). “Collective Efficacy Beliefs: TheoreticalDevelopments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions,” Educational Researcher , 33(3): 3-

13.

Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., and Urbano, D (2008). “The impact of desirability and feasibility on

entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model,” International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal , 4(1): 35-50.

Guth, D. W and Ginsberg, A. (1990). “Guest Editors‟ Introduction: Corporate Entrepreneurship,”

Strategic Management Journal , 11: 5-15.

Hornsby, J.S. Kuratko, D.F. and Zahra, S.A. (2002). “Middle managers‟ perception of the

internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale,” Journal of Business Venturing , 17: 253-273.

Hornsby, J.S. Kuratko, D.F., Shepherd, D. A., and Bott, J.P. (2009). “Managers' corporate

entrepreneurial actions: Examining perception and position,” Journal of Business Venturing , 24:

236-247.

Jones-Evans, D. (1996). “Experience and entrepreneurship: technology-based owner-managers

in the UK,” New Technology, Work and Employment , 11(1): 39-54.

Kreiser, P. Marino, L. and Weaver, L.M. (2002). “Assessing the relationship between

entrepreneurial orientation, the external environment and firm performance,” in the Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research. Ed. W.D. Bygrave, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Krueger, N. and D. Brazeal (1994). “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs,”

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3): 91-104.

Krueger, N. F. (2000). “The Cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence,”

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 24(3): 5-23.

Krueger, N., Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000). “Competing models of entrepreneurial

intentions,” Journal of Business Venturing , 15(5/6): 411-432.

Kuratko, D.F., Montagno, R.V., Hornsby, J.S., (1990). “Developing an entrepreneurialassessment instrument for an effective corporate entrepreneurial environment,” Strategic Management Journal , 11: 49-58 (Special Issue).

Lumpkin, G., & Dess, G. (1996). “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and

linking it to performance,” Academy of Management Review, 21: 135-172.



19

Lumpkin, G. T. and G. G. Dess. (2001). “Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation

to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle,” Journal of

Business Venturing, 16(5): 429-451.

Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen (1978). “Archetypes of strategy formulation,” Management Science,

24(9): 921-933.

Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen (1982). “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Twomodels of strategic momentum,” Strategic Management Journal, 3:1-25.

Miller, D. and P. H. Friesen (1983). “Strategy-making and environment: The third link,”Strategic Management Journal , 4: 221-235.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pinchot III, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: You don't have to leave the corporation to become anentrepreneur . New York: Harper & Row.

Tan, W.L., Tan, T. M. and Williams, J. (2005). “What Is The „Social‟ In „SocialEntrepreneurship‟?: Incorporating Altruism Into Entrepreneurship,” The International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal , 1(3): 353-365.

Townsend, D.M. and Hart, T.A. (2008). “Perceived Institutional Ambiguity and the Choice of

Organizational Form in Social Entrepreneurial Ventures,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4): 685-700.

Zahra, S. A. (1991). “Predictors and Financial Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: AnExploratory Study,” Journal of Business Venturing , 6: 259-285.

Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum D.O. and Shulman, J.M. (2009). “A typology of socialentrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges,” Journal of Business Venturing,

24: 519-532.

Wiklund, J. and She pherd, D. (2005). “Entrepreneurial orientation and small business

performance: a configurational approach,” Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 71-91.

Wee-Liang Tan is Associate Professor at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore

Management University.

So-Jin Yoo is responsible for entrepreneurship education at the Global Academy, Universityof Wales.

Address correspondence to: Wee-Liang Tan, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore

Management University, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore 178899. E-mail: [email protected].



20

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables

Variable Mean S.D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Intent 5.31 2.06 -

2. Organization Age 24.5 23.4 -0.18 -3. Organization

Size

64.6 155.1 0.11 0.19* -

4. Commercial

Experience

1.64 0.48 0.27** -0.07 0.03 -

5. Social Cause 8.11 2.41 0.40** -0.13 0.14 -0.01 -

6. Collective

Efficacy

20.1 4.93 0.48** -0.16* 0.10 0.24** 0.29** -

7. Resource

Availability

7.38 2.55 0.25* -0.02 0.24** 0.15 0.17* 0.59** -

8. Innovativeness 10.9 2.03 0.54** -0.06 0.21** 0.27** 0.24** 0.54** 0.39** -

9. Risk-taking 11.5 2.53 0.30** -0.18* 0.02 0.09 0.22** 0.49** 0.28** 0.43**

*P<0.05, **p<0.01

Table 2 Hierarchical regression analysis on the social enterprise intention

Base Model Full Model

Control Variables

Organization Age

Organization Size

Independent Variables

Commercial Experience

Innovativeness

Risk-taking

Collective EfficacyResource Availability

Social CauseR²

ΔR²

F

-0.19** -0.110.13 0.08

0.17**

0.23**-0.01

0.27**-0.020.30**

0.05 0.42

0.372.45* 7.98***

*p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01



Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Nonprofits and Social Entrepreneurship

Documents

Transcript of Nonprofits and Social Entrepreneurship