Shivani Pap

download Shivani Pap

of 33

Transcript of Shivani Pap

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    1/33

    STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS FOR FAVOURABLE

    SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS

    Dr. Shradha Shivani

    Lecturer, Department of Management,

    Birla Institute of Technology,Mesra, Ranchi,

    India.

    Dr. S. K. Mukherjee

    Vice Chancellor,

    Birla Institute of Technology,Mesra, Ranchi ,

    India.

    Dr. Raka Sharan

    Professor (retd.),Indian Institute of Technology,Kanpur, India.

    Abstract

    There is a general agreement among experts that socio-cultural influence on the personality and

    general behaviour of people in India is very strong. However, experts have arrived at

    contradictory conclusions regarding whether these influences have been favourable or

    unfavourable for the growth of entrepreneurship in Indian society. Empirical evidence regardingthe role is also inadequate and therefore inconclusive as well.

    It cannot be denied that there is a growing need in this country to create and maintain a socio-cultural environment that would help in building a wider base of population capable of

    successful entrepreneurial behaviour and willing to accept it as their profession.

    In the above background an empirical study was conducted using a sample of 200 small

    entrepreneurs of Ranchi, the capital city of Jharkhand, one of the lesser-developed states of

    India. The study involved a comparative measurement of levels of salient entrepreneurial traits

    and entrepreneurial success achieved by male and female entrepreneurs, examining linksbetween these variables and socio-cultural factors like Caste, Religiosity, Family structure and

    Family support.

    The findings suggest that the socio-cultural factors definitely influence the entrepreneurialbehaviour. However, It is also observed that the nature of these factors and their influence is such

    that appropriate structural interventions can make all these sociocultural attributes play afavorable role for growth of entrepreneurship in the Indian society. The authors have made some

    observations on the policy implications of the findings and they wish to share this information

    with the international community, such as the present forum for wider support.

    1

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    2/33

    STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS FOR FAVOURABLE

    SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS

    I. INTRODUCTION

    Desirable rate of economic growth calls for rapid emergence of a multitude of enterprises in all

    walks of life. This requires the creation and maintenance of an environment that is conducive togrowth of existing enterprises and would help build up a wider base of population capable of

    successful entrepreneurial behaviour. Lately the concept of culture of entrepreneurship has

    received prominence and social scientists have observed that an entrepreneur is a product of thesociocultural milieu

    Many economists now discuss the role of non-economic factors in economic growth, includingconcepts developed in Sociology and Psychology (Lipset, 2000). In the above context, the views

    of Max Weber (1864-1920) are relevant. A thesis suggested by Weber is that: Given the

    economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whether or

    not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.

    Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether thepossibility becomes an actuality (Lipset, 2000). This means that an appropriate socio-cultural

    environment is a prerequisite for industrial or economic growth. The event of enterprise creation,the essential activity in entrepreneurship, can therefore be seen as a consequence of congruence

    between environmental conditions and the entrepreneurial behaviour of individuals determined

    by their socio-cultural background.

    Inspired by Webers proposition that religion, norms and values, behavior, and economic

    development are all interconnected, a number of experts reported their views on this relationship.Mclelland (Mclelland, 1961), Berna (Berna, 1960), and Richard Fox (Fox, 1969) have also

    related economic progress with culture. They tried to explain the economic backwardness of

    India by linking it with the Indian culture. Some of these scholars argued that the spirit ofenterprise was inhibited among the indigenous population of India by the religious philosophy ofresignation embodied in the doctrine of karma and by the rigid social organization of the caste

    system and the joint family. For instance, it has been observed by some of them that the tradition

    bound Indian society offered little freedom of choice of profession to its population. It is thecaste that determinedthe occupation for its members, especially in the tradition bound families

    (Weber1958, Tripathi, 1992). Consequently, the social base of entrepreneurial growth has

    remained very limited in India

    Tripathi has reported that the Indian personality, by and large, remained unentrepreneurial, if

    not anti-entrepreneurial', (Tripathi, 1992). McClelland argued that Indians lacked Achievement

    Motivation due to the sociocultural influences on them. (McClelland, 1969). On the contrary, afew other scholars like Satish Saberwal (Saberwal, 1976), G.K. Chadha (Chadha, 1986),

    Streefkerk (Streefkerk, 1985) have rejected Webers thesis. They were of the opinion that

    structural conditions and not the cultural conditions determine whether entrepreneurship willflourish in a society or not. Therefore as presented in the above discussion different researchers

    have arrived at contradictory conclusions regarding the role of sociocultural factors in supporting

    and promoting entrepreneurship, particularly in India. At the same time empirical evidence

    2

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    3/33

    regarding the role and the scope for structural interventions for influencing the sociocultural

    factors for promotion of entrepreneurship is also inadequate and therefore inconclusive as well.

    However, it cannot be denied that there is growing need in this country to create and maintain an

    appropriate environment that is conducive to growth of existing enterprises and would help build

    up a wider base of population capable of successful entrepreneurial behaviour. It would bemeaningful to empirically examine the possible links between growth of entrepreneurship and

    sociocultural factors like Caste, Religiosity & Perceived Family support and to identify the

    Structural interventions that can be designed to make the influencing sociocultural attributes playa favourable role for growth of entrepreneurship in India

    It iscommon knowledge that the proportion of women in the entrepreneur population of India is

    miniscule. In this context it would be relevant to find out whether there are any differencesbetween Indian male and female entrepreneurs with respect to the levels of success achieved by

    them. In case if any differences are observed it would be interesting to find out whether these

    differences are due to sociocultural or structural reasons.

    II. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

    In the above background an empirical study was conducted on the entrepreneurs of Ranchi, thecapital city of Jharkhand, erstwhile a part of the state of Bihar in India. The study involved a

    comparative measurement of levels of entrepreneurial traits and success achieved by male and

    female entrepreneurs, examining links between these variables and a few sociocultural factorslike Caste, Religiosity, Family structure and Family support. The scope for structural

    interventions for favourable influence of sociocultural factors was explored.

    Several measurement scales were used in the study. The design of the scales was based onreview of relevant literature and consultation held with a group of five judges who were

    representatives of Government support agencies, officials of the Ranchi chamber of commerce

    and one expert academician in the subject. The scales are described in the annexure.

    A random sample of 200 entrepreneurs was selected from the directory of Small Scale Industries

    Association of Ranchi. The sample consisted of 150 male entrepreneurs and 50 Femaleentrepreneurs. Relevant information was collected from the respondents with the help of a semi-

    structured Interview Schedule. The findings reported in this paper are from a larger project

    carried out during 2002-04.

    III. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

    Success of the Entrepreneur

    Entrepreneurial success can be defined in many different ways. Comparison of the levels of

    success achieved by entrepreneurs is a difficult task. One may use some quantified performanceindicators like financial performance, awards won or intangible measures like happiness,

    satisfaction etc. that may be difficult to quantify. On review of scales used for measurement of

    entrepreneurial success by various Indian researchers (Akhouri 1979, Rao1986, Kumar 1990), a

    set of 3 key variables was selected for measurement of success of the respondents of this study.

    3

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    4/33

    These variables are, Net Profit (average of last 4-5 years), Turnover growth rate (average of last

    4-5 years) and Diversification level of their enterprises.

    Net Profit and Turnover growth were used in almost all the above-mentioned scales and these

    are variables that are a function of some of the other measures like labour productivity, raw

    material productivity, etc used in the scales referred above. Diversification level was includedalong with the other two financial variables because measurement of entrepreneurial success

    would remain incomplete without a measurement of the amount of innovation and risk taking

    exhibited by the entrepreneur, as these are two important characteristic features ofentrepreneurship. This is as per a very widely accepted definition of the term Entrepreneur,

    given by Hisrich & Brush. Entrepreneur is a person who creates something different with value

    by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and

    social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction (Hisrichand Brush; 1978). Diversification decision of the entrepreneur is a suitable indicator of

    innovativeness and risk taking propensity of the entrepreneur.

    The findings regarding comparative levels of Net Profit, Turnover Growth and Diversification

    level achieved by the respondents is presented in Figure 1, 2 and 3. Male respondents havemanaged to earn relatively higher levels of profit and Turnover Growth as compared to the

    female respondents. There is no significant difference in the level of diversification achieved by

    the two groups. As presented in Figure 4 there is a striking difference between the male andfemale respondents regarding their extent of Success. Male entrepreneurs have been found to be

    more successful among the respondents. The chi square results agree to the significant difference

    between the two sets of respondents. Hence one may conclude that entrepreneurial performance

    can be differentiated on the basis of gender.

    The reasons for this difference may be due to differences in the Sociocultural attributes of the

    two sets of respondents, differences in their entrepreneurial traits or because of differences inaccess to infrastructure support for male and female respondents. This will be explored later in

    this discussion.

    Socio-cultural Attributes and Success

    Religiosity

    Religion is an integral part of a cultural system. It is important because it promotes social

    solidarity and reinforces social norms and values. Religion makes people share common beliefs

    and thus a common value system

    It is widely held by some western observers like Max Weber that India's spiritualism, philosophy

    of renunciation, fatalism and asceticism constitute insurmountable obstacles to material progressof the country (Singer; 1956). Following this analysis of Weber a few other researchers like

    Dwijendra Tripathi, have also argued that, because of the religious philosophy of resignation

    embodied in the doctrine of Karma and the rigid social organization of the caste system theIndian personality remained largely unentrepreneurial if not anti entrepreneurial (Tripathi,

    4

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    5/33

    1992). Similarly. McClelland was of the opinion that the presence of a specific motivational

    structure, the desire to achieve purely for the sake of achievement -- i.e. the `achievement

    motivation' -- is of critical importance to successful entrepreneurship and he said that Indianartisans lacked entrepreneurial values and motives, a conclusion he based on his experience with

    handloom weavers in Orissa and artisans in Kakinada in south India (Mclelland and Winter,

    1969)

    But these assertions are contradicted at least on two counts. First, not all Hindu scriptures teach

    doctrines of self-denial or the cessation of desire in order to achieve personal salvation.Secondly, the secular doctrine abounds in works like Kautilya's, "Arthasastra", the "Rig-Veda

    and Bhagavat Gita" (Rao, 1986, p-18).

    Kunkel describes the reasoning of western observers who find the tenets of the Hindu religion asresponsible for India's economicbackwardness in the following words, The sacred literature of

    India contains values which are internalized by the people who then act in accordance with these

    values, and thus India is economically stagnant, and there is little hope of economic growth"

    (Kunkle, 1965). However, he also points out that the above reasoning is based on an assumptionfor which there is no objective evidence.

    Contrary to the western view, H.W. Singer (Singer, 1953), Srinivas (Srinivas, 1962) and others

    argue that Indian population by and large is as materialistic in its daily life as its western

    counterparts. Singer states that, "The Indian world view encompasses both material and spiritualvalues, and these can be found in the behaviour of the ordinary Indian existing side by side and

    in functional interdependence. Further he points out: A society dominated by a philosophy of

    renunciation need not be a society of ascetics. In India, ascetics and holy-men have never

    constituted more than a tiny fraction of the population. There have always been a sufficientnumber of householders willing and able to do the world's work. And while the ideals of

    asceticism may indirectly influence the general population, not all of these influences oppose

    social reform and economic development" (Singer; 1953,p-83).

    Milton Singer argued on the basis of an empirical study conducted by him in Madras that Hindu

    industrialists in Madras compartmentalize their religious lives and their business activities (Siger,1972). Timberg (Timberg, 1978) and Saberwal (Saberwal, 1976) had altogether rejected

    Webers thesis that religion, norms and values, behavior and economic development are all

    interconnected. They were of the view that Indias economic backwardness was due to certain

    structural conditions that were unsuitable for entrepreneurship and not because of social orcultural systems prevailing in the country.

    While the above arguments have been forwarded, nothing conclusive has emerged. The views of

    scholars regarding the influence of Indian religiosity on economic success are conflicting.

    However, the fact remains that Indian economy remained stagnant for centuries for whichhistorically various explanations have been suggested of which religion is only one. Foreign rule

    extended over a long period is another. Lack of modern educational facilities and other structural

    facilities for growth of entrepreneurship is one of the consequences of foreign rule. Social and

    5

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    6/33

    political institutions, which were not conducive to economic development, are the third and

    perhaps the most conclusive explanation (Rao; 1986, p-19).

    As presented in the previous section, many scholars consider religion as an important

    sociocultural attribute influencing economic development. Although a cause effect relationcannot be tested between the two variables; it would be appropriate to examine the relation

    between religiosity and success levels achieved by the respondents of this study in a descriptive

    manner. The religiosity of each respondent was measured by seeking information on his religioushabits. It was measured on a three-point scale with categories of high, medium and low. The

    measurement scale is explained in the annexure.

    The Figure 5 shows the respondents' religiosity and the extent of entrepreneurial successachieved by them. Almost 90 percent respondents were found to have high religiosity or Medium

    Religiosity. Only a small minority of 10 percent respondents was found to have low religiosity.

    All the respondents said they had faith in the power of God.

    There is no distinct relationship between religiosity and success level of the respondents. The

    distribution of respondents in different levels of success for all religiosity categories is the same.Although, statistically there is no significant relationship between religiosity and success but

    almost all the respondents agreed that their religious functions, norms, practices and Gods

    power helps them to be disciplined and gives them the confidence to overcome difficulties. Itmay be concluded that religion is definitely not a barrier to entrepreneurial success in India;

    rather it is a source of strength for entrepreneurs. This conclusion is valid for both Male as well

    as Female entrepreneurs. Cross cultural research involving a comparative study of performance

    & success of entrepreneurs from two different cultures can throw more light on the relationshipbetween religiosity or religion and entrepreneurial success.

    Caste

    Among the social institutions that are held responsible for India's backwardness, the caste system

    is considered the most prominent one. All other social factors that inhibited development areonly offshoots of or closely related to the caste system. Since caste is an important sociocultural

    attribute, therefore information regarding caste of the respondents and success achieved by them

    has been analyzed to see the influence of caste level on success achieved by the respondents.

    The grouping of castes is explained in the annexure. The caste composition and success level of

    respondents is presented in Figure 6.As per the Figure 6 in the forward caste male category aclear majority of 53.57 % are in the very successful category. Whereas, only 31.25 % and

    15.18% belong to the successful and less successful categories. On the other hand among the

    male respondents of the backward caste category, largest number of cases are in the successfulcategory i.e. 47 % and only 23.5% and 29.4% are in the Very successful and less successful

    categories respectively. Among the females, majority of them belong to the forward caste and are

    equally distributed in all categories of success. Only a small minority of 8 respondents were of

    6

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    7/33

    the SC category, out of whom the majority are in the successful or Very successful category. In

    the others category also most of the males are in the very successful category, i.e.46.15%.

    The above figures suggest that the male and female respondents belonging to forward caste are

    found in all categories of levels of success. There are few respondents from backward, scheduled

    and others caste group but most of them are placed in the very successful and successful categoryas per their performance. Statistical results did not show any significant relationship between

    caste and success level for male or female entrepreneurs.

    Although these figures do not indicate any apparent relation between caste and success there are

    certain implications. The data suggests that an overwhelming majority of respondents are from

    high caste while low caste respondents are very few in number. In this context, it would be

    appropriate to point out one of the findings from general discussions with the respondents andalso with some experts. It was observed that high caste entrepreneurs are able to continue with

    their enterprise because of their caste orientation. Even if they face failure at a certain stage they

    are able to overcome them because of the tacit support of caste groupings. Whereas, the low

    caste entrepreneurs are unable to continue in such situations because of the lack of such castesupport. Hence their actual number is less.

    The findings of this study suggest that caste does not influence the success level that can be

    achieved but it does influence the supply of entrepreneurs and the survival of the enterprise in

    difficult situations. Therefore these findings do not conclusively support or reject the views ofWeber and other researchers who consider the Indian caste system as a hindrance to

    entrepreneurship. This requires a systematic study of those individuals who had the desire to

    become an entrepreneur but could not do so and an investigation of the reasons for the failure of

    entrepreneurs who could not survive when faced with difficult situations.

    The findings of this study are consistent with the views of a few other researchers who have

    conducted their study in some other parts of the country and have presented evidences ofindividuals from lower castes emerging as successful entrepreneurs. Holmstrm, observed that

    `In some cases artisan castes of Delhi set up manufacturing units for light engineering products

    like ball bearings and motor parts...' (Holmstrm, 1985). This transition from artisan toindustrialist occurred in other parts of India as well. Satish Saberwal described in detail how,

    after 1930, carpenters and blacksmiths in a city of Punjab worked their way up to become

    industrial entrepreneurs (Saberwal, 1976). To a large extent this is true for the state of Punjab as

    a whole, as is shown in the study by G.K. Chadha, who described how artisans like blacksmiths,masons, and carpenters, turned into good engineers who played a vital role in the regeneration of

    the agro-industry in Punjab, setting up small industrial workshops, many of which in due course

    grew into full-fledged industrial enterprises (Chadha, 1986). In his study on small-scaleindustrialists in two small Gujarat towns, Hein Streefkerk also showed that artisan caste

    members, namely carpenters and blacksmiths, were the first to become actively involved in the

    transition to industrial production (Streefkerk, 1985).

    Based on the above discussion one can reject the argument that members of artisan castes were,

    and are, unable for cultural and socio-psychological reasons to make a contribution to industrial

    development. However, it may be concluded that caste influences entrepreneurial growth and

    7

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    8/33

    sustained entrepreneurial success and that there is need for designing appropriate structural

    interventions to deal with this influence.

    Family Support

    A person imbibes certain norms and values and the way of life practiced in a religion or societythrough his upbringing in the family. Many sociologists have regarded family as the corner stone

    of society. "It forms the basic unit of social organization as in the society it's the responsibility of

    family as a social organization to internalise the society's culture and hence structuring of humanpersonalities" (Haralambos, 1980).

    During the exploratory interviews with the respondents, a hypothesis that emerged was that the

    moral and financial support received by them from their family was valuable for them and itplayed a significant role in enabling them to carry out their entrepreneurial activities. To test this

    hypothesis, the level of Family support (Financial and Moral) received by the respondents (as

    perceived by them) was measured and the link between level of perceived family support and

    levels of success achieved by the respondents was explored. The scale used for the measurementis described in the Annexure. Figure 7 & 8 present the level of family support and its relation

    with the level of entrepreneurial success achieved by the respondents.

    Overall we find from figure 7 that the largest proportion of respondents i.e. 44.5 percent of them

    have received High level of family support for taking up entrepreneurship. Some differences areobserved between the male and female respondents with respect to family support. Among the

    males a large proportion of them i.e. 49.33 percent have said that they received high level of

    support from their families whereas the majority of the female respondents i.e. 52 percent of

    them have said that they received only moderate support from their families. According to thechi-square results this difference in the level of family support received by Male and Female

    respondents has been found to be statistically significant. This difference could also be one of the

    reasons for lesser degree of success achieved by the Female respondents. This can be confirmedby analysing the relation between Success and Perceived Family support as given in Figure 8.

    It is obvious from figure 8 that the majority of the respondents received a lot of family supportmorally as well as financially to carry on their entrepreneurial activity. But, the more successful

    respondents were found to have received greater family support as compared to the less

    successful ones. Both chi square results and correlation between the family support received by

    the respondents and their extent of success show positive significant relationship.

    Another inference that can be drawn from the above information is that one of the reasons for

    less degree of success achieved by Female respondents could be because they received lessdegree of family support as compared to their male counterparts.

    In the context of Family Support it would be pertinent to point out that the majority of the

    entrepreneurs who have received high support are from extended families. These respondents

    probably benefited more from the family because of the family structure. Joint families seem to

    have encouraged entrepreneurship in this region. This is contrary to the views of researchers like

    8

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    9/33

    Dwijendra Tripathi who came to the conclusion that the joint family system of Indian society is

    an important factor in explaining India's retarded economic growth and the unentrepreneurial

    personality of Indians (Tripathi, 1992).

    On the other hand Milton Singer from his study of entrepreneurs of Madras concluded that the

    joint family organization plays a positive role in promoting industrial entrepreneurship (Singer,1972). The findings of Singer suggested that joint family units provide financial, physical and

    social security to make entrepreneurial activity a success.

    Most of the respondents belonged to the extended type of families and only a few were of

    nuclear types. Many of these nuclear families had also recently branched out from extended

    families. The respondents mentioned that they got all kinds of support from the members of their

    extended families. Thus, one of the important factors influencing the success of an Indianentrepreneur is the support from his family and the type of family he belongs to. This

    observation indicates the social roots of Indian entrepreneurship.

    Education

    Along with the informal learning in a family, the child undergoes formal learning through hiseducation. Education is considered an important socio-cultural factor that influences the

    performance of an entrepreneur. It is believed that education received in schools and college

    inculcates the value of achievement and the value of equality of opportunity and also enablespeople to acquire various types of technical skills. These values and skills have an important

    function in this advanced industrial society, as it requires a highly motivated achievement

    oriented work force, equipped with the required skills.

    Hisrich and Peters have observed that although formal education is not necessary for starting a

    new business, as is reflected in the success of many entrepreneurs who were high school drop

    outs, found through out the world, it does provide a good background particularly when it isrelated with the field of the venture. (Hisrich and Peters, 1998) The Figure 9 presents the extent

    of success in relation to the education level of the respondents of this study.

    As presented in Figure 9 the statistical results (chi square test) show a significant relationship

    between the educational level of the respondents and their level of success. Respondents with

    Higher levels of education have been found to be more successful than those with lower levels of

    education.

    IV. CONCLUSIONS: SOCIOCULTURAL ATTRIBUTES AND SUCCESS

    The findings of this study suggest that there is a definite relation between sociocultural attributes

    of entrepreneurs and the level of success achieved by them. It is observed that caste does not

    influence the success level that can be achieved but it does influence the supply of entrepreneursand the survival of the enterprise in difficult situations. The representation of the lower castes in

    the entrepreneur population is very low. Therefore these findings do not conclusively support or

    reject the views of Weber and other researchers who consider the Indian caste system as a

    hindrance to entrepreneurship.

    9

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    10/33

    Perceived Family support and Education level are two very important factors influencing the

    success of entrepreneurs. The more successful respondents were found to have received greaterfamily support as compared to the less successful ones. An inference that can be drawn from the

    above findings is that one of the reasons for less degree of success achieved by Female

    respondents is because they received less degree of family support as compared to their malecounterparts. Almost all those who have received high support are from extended families. It is

    indicated that the joint family system of India has not hindered the growth of entrepreneurship.

    Highly educated respondents and respondents with professional qualification were found to bemore successful than the lesser educated ones.

    Religiosity doesnt have significant correlation with success although all the entrepreneurs are

    found to have faith in God and religiosity was high among the entrepreneur population ingeneral. Indian religiosity is definitely not a barrier to entrepreneurial success; rather it is a

    source of strength for the entrepreneurs.

    The above conclusions indicate that there are certain sociocultural attributes like Caste,Perceived Family support and Education that influence the growth of entrepreneurship whereas

    others like Indian religiosity and the Joint family system have no influence but they definitely donot hinder entrepreneurial activities. The implications of these findings for structural

    interventions will be presented in a later section of this paper.

    VENTREPRENEURIAL TRAITS

    Most experts have agreed that entrepreneurs possess certain distinctive qualities. As reported by

    Joseph Schumpeter, John Stuart Mill claims that entrepreneurship requires "no ordinary skill,"and he laments the fact that thereis no good English equivalent word to encompass the specific

    meaning of the French term Entrepreneur. (Schumpeter, 1951).

    Alfred Marshall suggests that the skills associated with entrepreneurship are rare and limited in

    supply. He claims that the abilities of the entrepreneur are "so great and so numerous that very

    few people can exhibit them all in a very high degree". Marshall, however, implies that peoplecan be taught to acquire the abilities that are necessary to be an entrepreneur. (Marshall, 1994)

    Various studies have been conducted to identify the important entrepreneurial traits. There is a

    general agreement among writers that the four most important traits of an entrepreneur are hisRisk taking propensity, Innovativeness, Achievement orientation and Managerial skills.

    If one tries to analyze how people acquire these traits, literature suggests that both structural as

    well as sociocultural factors play a role. For example, Max Weber (1958) suggested that: Giventhe economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whether

    or not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether the

    possibility becomes an actuality. (Lipset, 2000)

    This means that an appropriate socio-cultural environment is a prerequisite for industrial and

    economic growth. The event of enterprise creation, the essential activity for entrepreneurship,

    10

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    11/33

    can be seen as the consequence of congruence between environmental conditions and the

    entrepreneurial behavior of individuals determined by his socio-cultural background (Robinson

    et al 1991).

    From the above discussion it can be inferred that an individual develops the above-mentioned

    entrepreneurial attributes through his upbringing as he undergoes the process of socialization in agiven society and appropriate values and norms of social context support and promote

    entrepreneurship.

    Risk Taking Propensity:

    Taking decisions and acting on an uncertainty is understood as a risk-taking activity. Risk takingpropensity is undoubtedly the most widely discussed entrepreneurial trait. Although it has not

    been empirically established that Risk taking is a distinguishing characteristic of entrepreneurs

    there is almost universal agreement on the fact that it is an essential trait found amongentrepreneurs all over the world. (Hisrich & Peters, 1998.)

    Risk taking, whether financial, social, or psychological, is an integral part of the entrepreneurial

    process. All recent definitions of entrepreneurship mention a risk-taking component. Cantillon,who was the first to formally define the term Entrepreneur, explained that the entrepreneur is a

    specialist in taking on risk. He "insures" workers by buying their products (or their labor

    services) for resale before consumers have indicated how much they are willing to pay for them.The workers receive an assured income (in theshort run, at least), while the entrepreneur bears

    the risk caused by price fluctuations in consumer markets. (Cantillon, 1755).

    The U.S. economist Frank H. Knight refined this idea. To Knight, entrepreneurs bear the

    responsibility and the consequences of making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, that is,

    where the uniqueness of the situation denies an objective, qualitatively determinateprobability.(Knight, 1921)

    He distinguished between risk, which is insurable, and uncertainty, which is not. Risk relates torecurring events whose relative frequency is known from past experience, while uncertainty

    relates to unique events whose probability can only be subjectively estimated. Changes affecting

    the marketing of consumer products generally fall in the uncertainty category. Individual tastes,

    for example, are affected by group culture, which, in turn, depends on fashion trends that areessentially unique. Insurance companies exploit the law of large numbers to reduce the overall

    burden of risks by "pooling" them. For instance, no one knows whether any individual, forty-

    year-old, will die in the very next year. But insurance companies do know with relative certaintyhow many forty-year-olds in a large group will die within a year. Armed with this knowledge,

    they know what price to charge for their life insurance, but they cannot do the same when it

    comes to uncertainties. Knight observed that while the entrepreneur can "lay off" risks much likeinsurance companies do, he is left to bear the uncertainties himself. He is content to do this

    because his profit compensates him for the psychological cost involved.

    11

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    12/33

    To measure risk-taking propensity of respondents the Risk Attitudes Inventory designed by Gene

    Calvert, (1993) was used. (Ref. Annexure). Along with Kogan-Wallach CDQ and Jackson

    Personality Inventory (JPI) this is another popular tool for measuring Risk Taking Propensity.The max. Score was 15. The higher the total score the more is the Risk taking Propensity.

    Therefore all those who scored from 0-5 were categorized as having Low Risk taking propensity,

    those with scores between 6-10 as having moderate Risk taking Ability and those with 11-15 asHigh Risk Taking propensity.

    The Risk Taking Propensity of the Respondents is presented in the Figure 10. Overall we find

    that a substantial proportion of respondents (43%) have low level of Risk Taking propensity. The

    difference between the Male and Female respondents was not found to be significant. This

    suggests that people in this region do not like to take high levels of risks for their ventures.Probably, this is the reason why the entrepreneurial profession is not a very sought after one

    among people here, as suggested by the officials of support organizations located in the district.

    It was observed that 66.5% of the respondents are engaged in Non Manufacturing types ofenterprises while only 33.5% own a manufacturing enterprise. One may conclude from the above

    that the preference of the respondents of this study for Non-Manufacturing types of enterprises isbecause of low level of risk Taking Propensity among them because non-manufacturing

    businesses are perceived to be less risky as they require lower initial outlay and have shorter

    breakeven period. In this context one needs to examine whether there are any social origins ofsuch low levels of Risk taking propensity.

    The above observation regarding preference for Non Manufacturing businesses is consistent with

    the findings of a few other studies conducted in various other regions of the country. Some ofthese researchers have explained the reasons for this observation by linking it with the traditional

    approach of the Indian businessmen towards trade and commerce. A debate has ensued among

    researchers regarding the preference of Indian entrepreneurs for manufacturing or non-manufacturing type of enterprises. For example, According to Mario Rutten, studies conducted

    on Indian entrepreneurs emphasized the specific commercial style of Indian traders, which was

    said to stand in their way of establishing modern businesses. These studies argued that Indianmoneylenders and traders consider the production process to be something fixed and static and

    are not prepared to invest more than the absolute minimum amount of capital in installations and

    machines. This preference for rapid profits closely parallels the traditional Vaishya ethic. (Mario

    Rutten, 2001)

    James Berna, argued that Indian entrepreneurs with a background in trade are opportunistic

    businessmen with very short time horizons, interested only in fast turnover and quick profits,completely unconcerned with technology, unwilling to invest more than the bare minimum in

    fixed capital, and still preoccupied far more with trade than with industry (Berna 1960). This

    was also expressed by Leighton Hazlehurst , who concluded, on the basis of research amongBanias in a Punjab town, that rural traders invested their capital in productive enterprises only

    very reluctantly (Hazlehurst, 1966). Again Richard Fox, who studied Banias in another small

    North Indian town, also argued that these businessmen were more willing to accept smaller

    12

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    13/33

    profits as long as they covered essential expenses, rather than to invest in more profitable long-

    term enterprises in which they risked losing their investment (Fox, 1969).

    At the same time Rutten also states that some studies done in the 70s and 80s (For eg. Van der

    veen, 1976) argued that this short-term commercial orientation of Indian entrepreneurs does not

    have social origin. Rather, it was a response to structural factors such as imperfect markets orlack of an adequate institutional framework. These authors argued that, if the commercial climate

    is favorable -- that is, there is an availability of market incentives, governmental support, and

    sufficient banking and transport facilities -- industrial entrepreneurship is bound to develop. Inthis approach the development of entrepreneurship -- that is, the employment of capital and other

    productive means for industrial production -- was placed in a broader political and economic

    frame.

    There is evidence of Indians, both males and females, setting up a host of manufacturing

    enterprises wherever structural factors favored such businesses. To a large extent this is true for

    the states of Delhi, Punjab and Gujarat that are a few relatively more industrially advanced states

    of India. This is shown in the study by G.K. Chadha, who described how artisans comprisingblacksmiths, masons, and carpenters turned into good engineers who played a vital role in the

    regeneration of the agro-industry in Punjab. They set up small industrial workshops, many ofwhich in due course grew into full-fledged industrial enterprises (Chadha, 1986). In his study on

    small-scale industrialists in two small Gujarat towns, Hein Streefkerk also showed that artisan

    caste members, namely carpenters and blacksmiths, were the first to become actively involved inthe transition to industrial production (Streefkerk, 1985). Satish Saberwal described in detail,

    how after 1930, carpenters and blacksmiths in a city of Punjab worked their way up to become

    industrial entrepreneurs (Saberwal, 1976).

    One may therefore conclude that it is not the sociocultural context that is the determinant of this

    trait but the whole structural environment that has probably made the people of this region less

    inclined towards risk taking in general.

    Risk Taking and Environment Uncertainty

    The above conclusion is further supported by the findings on the opinion of the respondents

    regarding the level of uncertainty in the general environment, i.e., the social, political, legal, and

    economic environment of this region. When asked to rate the level of uncertainty in the general

    environment as perceived by them, the responses obtained were as presented in Figure 11

    A large majority, that is, 75.5 percent of respondents considered the uncertainty in the

    environment to be high or very high. The difference between male and female respondents is notfound significant. Considering the premise that higher the levels of uncertainty in a situation

    lower the propensity to take risks, one may interpret from the above findings that the Risk taking

    propensity of the entrepreneurs is low because the level of uncertainty in the generalenvironment in which they exist is high as perceived by them.

    13

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    14/33

    Innovativeness

    The concept of innovation and newness is an integral part of entrepreneurship. It was

    Shcumpeter who associated innovativeness with entrepreneurship for the first time. According tohim Innovativeness involves doing something new. The newness can consist of anything from a

    new product to a new distribution system to developing a new organizational structure.

    (Schumpeter, 1934)

    There is a lot of disagreement regarding the definition of innovation. Kirzner suggests that the

    process of innovation is actually that of spontaneous "undeliberate learning" (Kirzner, 1985).Thus, the necessary characteristic of an entrepreneur is alertness, and no intrinsic skills-other

    than that of recognizing opportunities, are necessary. Other economists of the innovation school

    claim that entrepreneurs have special skills that enables them to participate in the process of

    innovation. Leibenstein claims that the dominant, necessary characteristic of entrepreneurs is thatthey are gap-fillers: they have the ability to perceive where the market fails and to develop new

    goods or processes that the market demands but which are not currently being supplied.

    (Lieibenstein, 1966)

    Peter Drucker referred to the process of innovation as it occurs in developed countries as,

    "creative imitation of innovations made in the developed countries." The term appears initiallyparadoxical; however, it is quite descriptive of the process of innovation that actually occurs in

    the developing nations. Creative imitation takes place when the imitators better understand how

    an innovation can be applied, used, or sold in their particular market niche (namely their owncountries) than do the people who actually created or discovered the original innovation.

    (Drucker, 1985)

    The innovativeness of the respondents was measured using a scale consisting of six indicatorspresented in detail in annexure. The innovativeness level was categorized as high, medium and

    low. Figure 12 presents the Gender wise distribution of the respondents in the 3 categories of

    innovativeness levels.

    From the Figure 12 one can observe that a very low 19 percent and 18 percent each of male and

    female respondents are highly innovative. It is interesting to note that the chi square results showthat there is no significant difference in the innovative traits of male and female entrepreneurs. It

    was also observed that all those who are highly innovative have high level of education as well

    (having acquired 13 or more years of education). This probably means that education and

    training can help inculcate innovativeness also.

    Most of the respondents are showing their trait of innovativeness by locating new ways to market

    their products either by identifying a new market away from the state or by identifying new typesof channels. Some of the respondents identified new sources of raw materials, new ways of

    motivating their employees and new ways of keeping records. Innovations in the form of

    developing new innovative products or new ways of manufacturing or offering new kind ofservice were very few.

    14

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    15/33

    Achievement Orientation

    The need for achievement is also a very widely discussed characteristic of entrepreneurs. High

    achievers are individuals with high drive and high activity level, constantly struggling toachieve something, which one could call as their own accomplishment. They like to be different

    from others and strive to accomplish goals which are not otherwise very easy to achieve

    (Murthy; 1989)

    According to David C. McClelland and many other social scientists, entrepreneurs have been

    found to possess a relatively higher level of achievement orientation than other professionals.McClelland developed a theory of needs of which the need for achievement was one. He

    described this need as the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards and to strive

    to succeed. He argued that the presence of a specific motivational structure, the desire to

    achieve, purely for the sake of achievement -- i.e. the `achievement motivation' -- is of criticalimportance to successful entrepreneurship (McClelland, 1962).

    McClelland differentiates high achievers from low achievers on the basis of certain

    characteristics. According to him high achievers set moderately challenging goals for themselves tasks of intermediate difficulty and those where the probability of success is 0-5.They are not

    gamblers and they dislike succeeding by chance. High achievers also seek situations in whichthey can attain personal responsibility for the work performed by them. They also want rapid

    feedback on their performance (McClelland, 1961).

    To measure the achievement orientation of the respondents a scale was designed using

    statements based on the above-mentioned attributes of High Achievers as proposed by

    McClelland in his book The Achieving Society The details of the scale are given in annexure.The findings regarding this trait are presented in the Figure 13.

    As presented in Figure 13 almost half of the respondents i.e. 49.5 percent of them have Highlevel of Need for achievement and only a low 15.5 percent have low level of Achievementorientation. This means that the overall level of need for achievement is relatively high among

    the respondents. But there is a marked difference between the male and female respondents with

    respect to their level of this trait.

    Majority of the Male Respondents, i.e. 54 percent of them have high level of achievement

    orientation whereas the majority of female respondents have medium level of Achievementorientation.Thus there seems to be quite a lot of variation in the achievement orientation between

    the Male and Female respondents. This has also been statistically confirmed by the chi square

    results. The likely reason for this difference was explained by analysing the level of family

    support as presented in the following section.

    Achievement Orientation and Perceived Family support

    A person imbibes certain norms and values and the way of life practiced in a religion or society

    through his upbringing in the family. Many sociologists have regarded family as the corner stone

    of society. "It forms the basic unit of social organization as in the society it's the responsibility of

    15

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    16/33

    family as a social organization to internalize the society's culture and hence structuring of human

    personalities" (Haralambos, 1992,).

    Depth interviews conducted with a few female entrepreneurs during the preliminary

    investigation of the study had indicated that acceptance of their profession by the family seemed

    to be an important precondition for them to opt for entrepreneurship. At the same time it was alsoobserved that the female entrepreneurs considered Moral and financial Support of the family as

    very important for them. In the later stages a measurement of the levels of Family support

    received by the male as well as female respondents (as perceived by them) was undertaken. Thescale used for the measurement is described in the annexure. The findings are presented in figure

    14. It was observed that the female entrepreneurs were found to have received lower level of

    family support and this difference between Male and Female respondents is statistically

    significant.

    It was also observed that Family support and acceptance of their profession by the family is

    particularly important for females as 80 percent of the female respondents said that they would

    not have opted for entrepreneurship if their family had not agreed with their idea of becoming anentrepreneur. Amongst the males only 55 percent had given this response.

    From the above discussions an indirect inference may be drawn regarding the reasons for

    relatively lower level of achievement orientation among female entrepreneurs. Females probably

    do not aspire for more and more professional success or achievement because they are notassured of getting the required support from the family.

    Managerial Skills

    Managerial skills are also a very important trait of entrepreneurs. Managerial skills are required

    for ensuring smooth operations of the firm, effective planning, successfully coping withcompetition and for long-term survival and growth of an enterprise. These skills of the

    respondents were measured with the help of a specially designed scale using Robert Katzs

    classification of various types of managerial Skills (Katz, 1974). According to Katz there arethree types of managerial skills, technical, human and conceptual skills. The measurement is

    explained in the annexure. The skill level was categorized into three major categories as high,

    medium and low. The findings regarding the levels of managerial Skills is presented in Figure

    15. As presented in Figure 15 in case of this important skill required of entrepreneurs one findsthat more than half of the respondents i.e. 51.5 percent of them possess High level of Managerial

    skills. Once again we can observe marked differences between the male and female respondents

    with respect to the levels of these skills among them. Female respondents have been found topossess lower levels of this skill.

    The low level of managerial skills among Indian women, especially conceptual skills andtechnical skills like inventory management etc., may be attributed to lack of entrepreneurial

    training, and lack of awareness due to poor networking ability and staying indoors most of the

    time.

    16

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    17/33

    Entrepreneurial Traits and Success

    There is almost universal agreement regarding the fact that all the four traits discussed above isessential traits of entrepreneurs. But, there is no conclusive causal relationship that has been

    determined to establish the significance of these traits for entrepreneurial success. An attempt

    was made to quantify the relationship between different levels of entrepreneurial traits anddegrees of success. A correlation analysis between the score of each trait and the success score

    achieved by the entrepreneurs in the sample was carried out. The findings (r values) are

    presented in the Figure 16

    It is observed that level of risk-taking; innovativeness, achievement-orientation and managerial

    skills show a positive significant correlation with the success level of the respondents. The

    highest correlation of success has been observed with Risk Taking Ability of the respondents.

    VI Conclusions: Entrepreneurial Traits.

    Overall, it is observed that the respondents possess moderate levels of achievement orientation

    and managerial skills. However they (both Males and Females) have low Risk Taking Propensityand Innovativeness. Low level of Risk taking propensity can be linked with structural factors.

    Success achieved by the entrepreneurs is positively correlated with their levels of entrepreneurial

    traits.

    It is also found that Female respondents have comparatively lower levels of Achievement

    Orientation and Managerial Skills as compared to the male respondents. The low level of

    Achievement orientation could be because of lower level of family support received by thefemale respondents. The low level of managerial skills among women, especially conceptual

    skills and technical skills like inventory management etc., may be attributed to lack of

    entrepreneurial training and lack of exposure due to poor networking ability and staying indoors.

    The overall conclusion that can be drawn is that the family and the social context do influence

    the levels of entrepreneurial traits that in turn affect the success levels achieved by entrepreneurs.However it is also true that these traits are further influenced by external factors like a conducive

    economic environment and sufficient amount of encouragement and support offered by the

    facilitator organizations etc. Hence, the roles ofthe structural factors and the social background

    are equally important and complementary in promoting entrepreneurial activities.

    VII: Overview of the role of facilitator organisations

    The findings presented in the above sections support Webers thesis (See Chapter 1) that; Given

    the economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whetheror not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.

    Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether the

    possibility becomes an actuality. (Lipset, 2000). At the same time, the findings have also

    17

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    18/33

    indicated that the nature of the sociocultural factors and their influence is such that appropriate

    structural interventions can effectively deal with them.

    Over the last fifty years a large variety of programmes have been designed and launched by the

    govt. for promotion of entrepreneurship throughout the country. These programmes include

    measures ranging from setting up of an elaborate network of institutional support infrastructure,to offering financial incentives to small and micro entrepreneurs.

    The salient aspects of the role of the support organizations functioning in Jharkhand state werereviewed in order to identify the suitable structural measures for desirable growth of

    entrepreneurship in the state.

    The assistance provided by the support organizations can be categorized as, Non - Financialassistance (Technical and other consultancy assistance) and Financial Assistance (- Arranging

    access to finance). Salient agencies that offer the above-mentioned assistance were studied. They

    are: Small Industries Service Institute, Ranchi, District Industries center, Ranchi and the Public

    Sector Banks of Ranchi.

    The prescribed role of the Small Industries Service Institute is to offer the following non-financial assistance: -

    - Providing technical services, Preparation of project reports, Conducting ManagementDevelopment Programmes and Entrepreneurship Development Programmes, and General

    Consultancy, Economic information Services, Export promotion services, Modernization

    assistance, marketing.

    Statistics regarding the various types of training programmes like Skill development programmes,

    Entrepreneurship development programmes, Management Development programmes and

    Motivational campaigns conducted by SISI during the period 2000-2004, were studied. It wasobserved that efforts are indeed being made by the promoter organizations to offer the required

    technical assistance and motivational training to prospective and existing entrepreneurs. However,

    the participation of women and members of backward and scheduled castes has been very low inalmost all such assistance programmes. Only 1 percent of the female respondents said that they

    had attended an MDP conducted by the SISI. This may be one of the reasons why the women

    respondents of this study were found to have very low managerial skills.

    The participation of male as well as female participants in the motivational campaigns has been

    satisfactory. However the officials of the Institute observed that the motivation level of the

    participants of these programmes does not sustain and most of them (more than 96%) do notactually take to entrepreneurship. This is often because of inadequate family support and

    sometimes due to inability or lack of courage in the participants to take risks or make an extra

    effort to succeed as an entrepreneur. They were of the opinion that these traits are acquired largelyby ones upbringing in a particular society and the social background of the applicant does play a

    significant role.

    18

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    19/33

    Therole of the District Industries Center (DIC) DIC in entrepreneurship development is:

    Registering the Business Units

    Subsequently acting as a liaison for various help that the business unit requires

    Coordinating with banks in forwarding loan applications in PMRY (a govt. sponsoredscheme for encouraging self employment among youth) assistance, Coordinating withRIADA (Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority) and other such agencies.

    Conducting training programs and seminars for the prospective and existing

    entrepreneurs either through tie-up with Institute of Entrepreneurship development, Small

    Industries Services Institute or on its own.

    The officials of the DIC indicated that the trend regarding the participation of women and

    members of scheduled and backward castes and the proportion of participants of theseworkshops actually setting up a business was the same as that in the case of SISI programmes.

    The number of loan applications received by the DIC and by the public sector banks, fromfemale applicants and members of the scheduled and backward castes is negligible. The Bankerssay that they are not able to achieve their targets regarding financing of small entrepreneurs

    because the number of applications received by them is very low. Majority of the applications

    are received from family members and close associates of existing entrepreneurs.

    VIII Desired Structural Interventions

    On the basis of the above findings it will be appropriate to observe that suitable structural

    interventions can make the influencing sociocultural attributes play a favourable role for growth of

    entrepreneurship in India. Measures need to be taken for widening the social base for

    entrepreneurship in India, assuring the potential and existing entrepreneurs, both male and female,of the required acceptance of their choice of career and support from their families. The kin

    oriented nature of the Indian society has to be recognised while designing any measures for

    encouraging the growth of entrepreneurship. It may be suggested, that the target for motivationalcampaigns for promotion of entrepreneurship should be the immediate family of the participant as

    well. This is specially required for females because 95 % of the female respondents in this study

    said that they would not have opted for entrepreneurship if their family had not agreed with their

    idea of becoming an entrepreneur. Amongst the males 55% had given this response.

    A definite conclusion that emerges from the above discussions is that the promoter infrastructure

    can be effective only if the target for its efforts is the society at large and not only those few who

    are already favourably inclined toward entrepreneurship. Specially designed campaigns need tobe launched to educate the society as a whole regarding the merits of entrepreneurship as aprofession and to make entrepreneurship a preferred choice of profession.

    The respondents of this study who are practicing entrepreneurs were found to possess relativelylow levels of Risk taking propensity. It was also concluded in the discussions thereafter that this

    was largely due to unfavourable structural factors affecting them. It can therefore be

    19

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    20/33

    recommended that the promoter organizations need to give special attention towards building

    and maintaining a favorable structural environment for entrepreneurship to flourish in the region.

    The need for education cannot be overemphasized. As observed in this study education is a

    social factor that is found to influence the ability to introduce entrepreneurial innovations and to

    achieve entrepreneurial success.Another recommendation that can be made in this context is thatthe curriculum of schools at the primary and junior levels should be altered to incorporate

    theoretical content and exercises that would inculcate Risk Taking ability, Innovativeness and

    Achievement Orientation among the masses from the very childhood and to develop a positiveattitude towards entrepreneurship as a profession. Probably a change needs to be introduced in

    the overall school education system to promote the above traits in the population at large.

    All the other sociocultural influences are not a barrier for entrepreneurial success but theydefinitely affect the supply of entrepreneurs, hence, there is need to build an environment where

    members from all castes and socio-economic strata, males and females, feel encouraged to opt

    for entrepreneurship as their profession and support the entrepreneurs among their family and

    acquaintances.

    TABLES AND FIGURES

    Figure 1

    N=200

    Gender High %age Medium %age Low %age Total

    Males 78 52.00 40 26.67 32 21.33 150

    Females 18 36.00 13 26.00 19 38.00 50

    Total 96 48.00 53 26.50 51 25.50 200

    Chi square- 6.09 < 0.05 df = 2

    PROFIT

    Figure 2

    N=200

    Gender High Percentage Medium Percentage Low Percentage Total

    Males 84 56.00 56 37.33 10 6.67 150

    Females 20 40.00 16 32.00 14 28.00 50

    Total 104 52.00 72 36.00 24 12.00 200

    Chi square- 16.36 < 0.01 df = 2

    TURNOVER GROWTH

    20

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    21/33

    Figure 3

    N=200

    Gender High Percentage Medium Percentage Low Percentage Total

    Males 47 31.33 59 39.33 44 29.33 150

    Females 10 20.00 19 38.00 21 42.00 50

    Total 57 28.50 78 39.00 65 32.50 200

    Chi square-3.56 > 0.05 df = 2

    DIVERSIFICATION LEVEL

    Figure 4

    N=200

    Gender Very

    Successful

    %age Successful %age Less

    Successful

    %age Total

    Males 76 50.67 49 32.67 25 16.67 150

    Females 16 32.00 19 38.00 15 30.00 50

    Total 92 46.00 68 34.00 40 20.00 200

    Chi square-6.49 < 0.04 df = 2

    GENDER SUCCESS

    Males

    16.6

    7

    32.6

    7

    50.6

    7

    Very Successful

    Successful

    Less Successful

    Females

    15.

    00

    19.

    00

    16.

    00

    Very Successful

    Successful

    Less Successful

    Total

    20.0

    0

    34.0

    0

    46.0

    0

    Very Success u

    SuccessfulLess Successful

    Figure 5

    N=200

    Religiosity

    Success Level M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age

    Very Successful 25 45.45 9 45.00 41 50.62 6 26.09 7 50.00 3 42.86

    Successful 20 36.36 7 35.00 29 35.80 8 34.78 3 21.43 2 28.57

    Less Successful 10 18.18 4 20.00 11 13.58 9 39.13 4 28.57 2 28.57

    Total 55 100 20 100 81 100 23 100 14 100 7 100

    Chi Square-1.67 > 0.05 df = 4

    High Medium Low

    RELIGIOSITY AND SUCCESS

    21

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    22/33

    Figure 6

    N=200Caste

    Success Level

    M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age

    Very

    Successful

    60 53.57 17 34.69 4 23.53 0 3 37.50 0 6 46.15 1 100.00

    Successful 35 31.25 17 34.69 8 47.06 0 4 50.00 0 5 38.46 0 0.00

    Less

    Successful 17

    15.1815

    30.61

    5

    29.41

    0 1

    12.50

    0 2

    15.38

    0

    0.00

    Total 112 100 49 100 17 100 0 8 100 0 13 100 1 100

    Chi-Square-2.15 > 0.05 df = 2

    OthersForward Backward SC

    CASTE AND SUCCESS

    N=200

    Gender High %age Moderate %age Low %age Total

    Males 74 49.33 62 41.33 14 9.33 150

    Females 15 30.00 26 52.00 9 18.00 50

    Total 89 44.50 88 44.00 23 11.50 200

    chi square = 6.56 < 0.05 df = 2

    Figure-7

    FAMILY SUPPORT

    Figure 8

    N=200

    M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age

    High 43 58.90 10 55.56 22 42.31 5 29.41 9 36.00 0 0.00 89 44.50

    Medium 24 32.88 5 27.78 29 55.77 11 64.71 9 36.00 10 66.67 88 44.00

    Low 6 8.22 3 16.67 1 1.92 1 5.88 7 28.00 5 33.33 23 11.50

    Total 73 100 18 100 52 100 17 100 25 100 15 100 200 100

    %age 36.50 9.00 26.00 8.50 12.50 7.50

    Chi-Square = 31.42 < 0.01 df = 4

    Successful Less SuccessfulFamily

    Support

    Very SuccessfulTotal

    FAMILY SUPPORT AND SUCCESS

    %age

    22

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    23/33

    Figure 9

    N=200Education

    Success Level M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age

    Very Successful 33 84.62 9 90.00 36 39.56 8 26.67 4 20.00 1 10

    Successful 5 12.82 1 10.00 39 42.86 12 40.00 8 40.00 4 40

    Less Successful 1 2.56 0 0.00 16 17.58 10 33.33 8 40.00 5 50

    Total 39 100.00 10 100.00 91 100.00 30 100.00 20 100.00 10 100

    Chi Square-50.67 < 0.01 df = 4

    LowHigh Medium

    EDUCATION LEVEL AND SUCCESS

    Figure 10

    N=200High %age Moderate %age Low %age Total

    Males 25 16.67 65 43.33 60 40.00 150

    Females 8 16.00 15 30.00 27 54.00 50

    Total 33 16.50 80 40.00 87 43.50 200

    > 0.05 df = 2

    RISK TAKING PROPENSITY

    Chi-square-3.37

    Males

    43.3

    3

    16.6740.0

    0

    High Moderate Low

    Females

    54.0

    0

    16.0

    0

    30.0

    0

    High Moderate Low

    Total

    40.0

    0

    16.5

    043.5

    0

    High ModerateLow

    UNCERTAINTY IN THE ENVIRONMENT Figure 11

    N= 200

    Uncertainty Male %age Female %age Total %ageVery high 14 9.33 9 18.00 23 11.50

    High 99 6600 29 58.00 128 64.00

    Moderate 22 14.66 9 18 31 15.50

    Low 15 10.00 3 6.00 18 9.00

    Very Low 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

    Total 150 100.0050 100.00 200 100.00

    23

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    24/33

    Chi-Square

    =3.76

    > 0.05 df = 2

    Figure 12

    N=200

    High %age Moderate %age Low %age Total

    Males 29 19.33 69 46.00 52 34.67 150

    Females 9 18.00 20 40.00 21 42.00 50

    Total 38 19.00 89 44.50 73 36.50 200

    INNOVATIVENESS

    Chi square =0.89 > 0.05 df = 2

    Males

    34.67

    46.00

    19.33

    High Moderate Low

    Females

    18.00

    40.00

    42.00

    High Moderate Low

    Total

    36.50

    44.50

    19.00

    High Moderate Low

    Figure 13

    N=200

    High %age Moderate %age Low %age TotalMales 81 54.00 44 29.33 25 16.67 150

    Females 18 36.00 26 52.00 6 12.00 50

    Total 99 49.50 70 35.00 31 15.50 200

    ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION

    Chi Square-8.49 < 0.02 df = 2

    Males

    54.00

    29.33

    16.67

    High Moderate Low

    Females

    36.00

    52.00

    12.00

    High Moderate Low

    Total

    49.5035.00

    15.50

    High Moderate Low

    24

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    25/33

    N=200

    Gender High %age Moderate %age Low %age Total

    Males 74 49.33 62 41.33 14 9.33 150

    Females 15 30.00 26 52.00 9 18.00 50

    Total 89 44.50 88 44.00 23 11.50 200

    chi square = 6.56 < 0.05 df = 2

    Figure 14

    FAMILY SUPPORT

    Figure 15

    N=200

    High %age Moderate %age Low %age Total

    Males 90 60.00 46 30.67 14 9.33 150

    Females 13 26.00 23 46.00 14 28.00 50

    Total 103 51.50 69 34.50 28 14.00 200

    MANAGERIAL SKILLS

    Chi square = 20.31 < 0.01 df = 2

    Males

    9.33

    30.67 60.00

    High Moderate Low

    Females

    28.00

    46.00

    26.00

    High Moderate Low

    Total

    51.50

    14.00

    34.50

    High Moderate Low

    Figure 16

    Correlation Between the Entrepreneurial Traits and Success of Respondents

    Entrepreneurial Traits Success (r)

    Risk-taking

    Innovativeness

    Achievement Orientation

    Managerial Skills

    0.726 *

    0.691 *

    0.511 *

    0.563*

    *Significant at 0.05 level of significance

    ANNEXURE

    25

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    26/33

    A group of five judges who were representatives of Government support agencies, officials of

    the Ranchi chambers of commerce and one expert academician in the subject were consulted for

    finalization of the measurement scales described below.

    Measurement of Perceived Family Support

    A set of 3 indicators was used to measure the Level of family Support received (as perceived by

    the respondents). Information was sought from the respondents with the help of the following

    questions:

    1. How do you rate the level of support you have received from your family for carrying out your

    business?

    Very high / High / Low/ Very LowThe responses would be given 0,1,2 and 3 points respectively for the 4 alternative answers.

    2. Who/What inspired you to become an entrepreneur?

    i) A success story (Whose Please state)

    ii) Help from family, relatives and friendsiii) Previous related experience

    iv) Technical training

    v) Government supportvi) Other (specify)

    1 point would be given if choice ii) were answered.

    3. I chose this career because:

    0 i) I knew I would get full family support for this choice of career.

    1 ii)I desired to be self-employediii) There was prestige in being called an entrepreneur

    iv) I had this idea that I would be able to make a lot of money in this profession

    v) I did not have any other alternative.

    1 point would be given if choice i) were answered.

    The scale that was used consisted of 3 levels of Family Support. The total scores were rangingfrom 0-5.Therefore the respondents were assigned to the three levels as follows:

    4-5: High

    2-3: Medium

    0-1: Low

    Measurement of Success

    The scale for Measurement of success was based on a study of scales used by S. Ashok Kumar

    (1990), Akhouri(1979) , and Lakshamana Rao (1986). For measurement of success three

    parameters were used:

    26

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    27/33

    (a) Average percentage of net Profit per annum achieved during the last three years(b) Rate of Growth of Turnover during the last three years

    (c) Level of Diversification (Diversification level was included along with the other two financial

    variables because entrepreneurial success is reflected by the amount of innovation and risk taking

    exhibited by the entrepreneur, as these are two important characteristic features of entrepreneurship.

    The performance of the unit of each respondent was rated on each of these variables on a 3- point scale asdescribed below. A panel of judges was consulted for deciding the cut offs for the different levels in the

    scales.

    a) Profit - Information regarding Average percentage of Net profit per annum achieved during the

    last 3 years was obtained from each respondent. Scores were assigned to each entrepreneur asfollows:

    Above 25 % - High 3 points

    15% - 25% - Medium 2 points

    Less than 15% - Low 1 point

    b) Turnover Information regarding Average rate of growth of Turnover achieved during the last 5years was obtained through the Interview schedule. Scores were assigned to each entrepreneur as

    follows:

    Above 15 % - High 3 points

    5% - 15 % - Medium 2 points

    Less than 5% - Low 1 point

    c) Diversification - Information regarding No. Of diversifications made during the last 5 years, was

    obtained through the Interview schedule

    1 every year High - 3 points

    1 every 2 years - Medium 2 points

    1 every 3 years or more or

    no diversification at all - Low 1 pointSo the total scores were ranging from 3-9. Respondents were categorized as having Low, Medium &

    High level of success for scores ranging from 3-4, 5-7. 8-9, respectively.

    Measurement of Religiosity

    A set of 6 indicators was used to measure Religiosity. Information regarding the indicators were obtained

    from the respondents with the help of the following questions:

    Q. Do you:

    Have faith in God? Yes/No

    Have a place of worship in Office? Yes/No

    Worship daily? Yes/NoCelebrate all important festivals? Yes/No

    Visit the Temple/public place of worship regularly? Yes/No

    Perform any other specific rituals? Yes/No

    The respondents were given 1 point for each affirmative answer. The scale that was used consisted of 3levels of Religiosity The scores were ranging from 0-6. Therefore the respondents were assigned to the

    three levels as follows:

    27

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    28/33

    0-2: High

    3-4: Medium

    5-6: Low

    Caste Categories

    The various castes have been divided into four major groups based on the census classifications (Censusof the Government of India, 1991). They are (i) Higher/Forward caste (i.e. Brahmins, Kayasthas,

    Kshatriyas, Vaishyas) (ii) Backward caste (iii) Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe (iv) Others (comprised

    of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains etc.).

    Measurement of Risk Taking propensity

    For Measurement of Risk Taking propensity an instrument called Risk Attitude Inventory,

    designed by Gene Calvert (1993) was used. Along with Kogan-Wallach CDQ this is another

    popular tool for measuring Risk Taking Propensity. This tool consists of a set of statements aspresented below:

    Answer Agree/Disagree

    1. Taking management risks makes good sense only in the absence of acceptable

    alternatives.

    2. I generally prefer stimulation to security.3. I have confidence on my ability to recover from my mistakes no matter how big.

    4. I would promote someone with unlimited potential but limited experience to a key

    position over someone with limited potential but more experience.5. Anything worth doing is worth doing less than perfectly.

    6. I believe that opportunity generally knocks only once.

    7. It is better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness8. Success in management is as much a matter of luck as ability9. I would choose a three thousand rupees annual raise over a ten thousand rupees bonus,

    when I had about a one-in-three chance of winning the bonus.

    10. I can handle big losses and disappointments with little difficulty.11. If forced to choose between them, I would take safety over achievement.

    12. Failure is the long road to management success.

    13. I tolerate ambiguity and unpredictability well.14. I would rather feel intense disappointment than intense regret.

    15. When facing a decision with uncertain consequences, my potential losses are my greatest

    concern.

    Scoring:

    One point for each of the following questions on which the respondent agrees

    2,3,4,5,10,13,14

    One point for each of the following questions on which the respondent disagrees:

    1,6,7,8,9,11,12,15

    28

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    29/33

    The scale that was used for measurement of Risk taking Propensity consisted of three levels,

    Low Medium and high. The max. Score is 15. The respondents were assigned to the three

    levels as follows:0-5 Low, 6-10 Medium, 11-15 - High

    Measurement of Innovativeness

    A set of 6 indicators was used to assess the level of innovativeness of the respondents.

    Information on these indicators was obtained with the help of the following questions in thepersonally administered Interview Schedule:

    Question

    During the last 4-5 years

    1. Did you find new market/new buyers? Yes/NoIf Yes, Please give details..

    2.Did you adopt any new ways to manage the enterprise? Yes/No. If Yes, Please give

    details..

    3.Did you locate any new sources for supply of raw materials? Yes/No. If Yes, Please givedetails.

    4. Did you establish any new channels of distribution?Yes/No If Yes, Please give details.

    5.Did you adopt any new technology method for manufacturing/ offering service/trading?

    Yes/No.If Yes, Please give details..

    6. Did you launch/produce a new product or service for an existing market?

    If Yes, Please give details

    Each Yes answer to questions 1-6 was given 1 point. The scores were ranging from 1-6. Againa three level scale was used for measurement of Innovativeness. The respondents were assigned

    to different levels depending upon their scores as follows:

    1-2 Low, 3-4 Medium, 5-6 High.

    Measurement of Achievement Orientation

    To measure the achievement orientation of the respondents a scale was designed using

    statements based on the 3 attributes of High achievers as proposed by McClelland in his book,

    The Achieving Society. McClelland differentiates high achievers from low achievers on the

    basis of certain characteristics. According to him high achievers set moderately challenginggoals for themselves tasks of intermediate difficulty and those where the probability of success

    is 0-5.They are not gamblers and they dislike succeeding by chance. High achievers also seek

    situations in which they can attain personal responsibility for the work performed by them. Theyalso want rapid feedback on their performance. (McClelland, 1961)

    Three statements were presented to each respondent as given below:

    1) In a situation where I know that Higher the Risk Higher the Return is applicable I shall opt

    for:

    i) Low risk

    ii) Medium risk

    29

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    30/33

    iii) High risk

    2) I assume personal responsibility for my success / Failure.

    i) Agreeii) Neither Agree nor Disagree

    iii) Disagree

    3) I ask for feedback on my performance.i) Always

    ii) Sometimes

    iii) Never1,2 and 3 points were assigned for the answers i), ii) and iii) respectively. The total scores

    were ranging from 3-9. Respondents were categorized as having Low, Medium & High

    Achievement orientation for scores ranging from 3-5, 6-7. 8-9, respectively.

    Measurement of Managerial skills

    Measurement of managerial skills was based on the classification of Robert Katz. Katz identified

    three essential management skills: Technical Skills, Human Skills and Conceptual Skills.(Katz,1974)

    Technical skills encompass the ability to apply specialized knowledge or expertise. Some

    entrepreneurs learn the special knowledge and practices of the field through extensive formal

    education, while others develop their technical skills on the job itself. Our study takes intoaccount three technical skills: i) Account keeping, ii) Capability to organize resources, iii)

    Knowledge of the job of the firm

    The respondent was rated on each of these skills on a 3-point scale (Low, Medium High). The

    information regarding these skills of the respondents was obtained with the help of one open

    ended and two closed ended questions as given below. The interviewer based on his owninterpretation classified the response to question no. 1)

    1) Please describe your method of Account Keeping.

    Structured / Semi structured / Unstructured2) How often do you face a problem of inadequate stock position?

    Never / Sometimes / Often

    3)) How proficient are you in the technical aspects of the jobs performed in your organization?Very proficient / somewhat proficient / Not at all proficient

    1, 2 and 3 points were assigned for the first, second, and third options. The total scores were

    ranging from 3 to 9. So scores from 3-4 were rated in the low Technical skills category, 5-7 was

    rated as Medium and 8-9 were rated as High Skills category.

    The ability to interact effectively and work with, understand and motivate other people describes

    the human skills. These were judged with the help of 3 indicators; the entrepreneurs ability tohandle grievances, encourage participation of employees and the ability to network. The

    information on the above three indicators were obtained through the following questions in the

    interview schedule:1) How do you handle a crisis or a grievance in your firm?

    30

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    31/33

    a) You leave the matter to the parties

    b) You reprimand the parties.

    c) You intervene and suggest solutions

    2) I Involve my subordinates in my decision making process

    a. Never b. Sometimes

    Always

    1,2 and 3 points were assigned for the responses a), b) and c) respectively.

    3) a) Do you participate in Religious get -tog ethers?

    b) Are you a member of any professional association?

    c) Do you have friends among political or administrative authorities?1 point was assigned for every affirmative answer.

    The total scores were ranging from 3-9. In this case the score categories were decided as, 3-4

    Low, 5 -7 Moderate, 8-9High.

    The mental ability to see into the future and develop a vision is called conceptual skill. It alsoencompasses the ability to analyze and diagnose complex situations. The conceptual skills of the

    entrepreneurs were judged on the basis of the clarity in the future plans of their firm.

    Information on clarity of the plans was obtained through question - what are your future plansfor your firm?

    Depending on the clarity of the plan the interviewer would assign1, 2 or 3 points, assigning a

    higher score for clearer plans.This skill was also categorized as Low Medium and high with scores 1,2 and 3.

    To give an overall measurement of Managerial skills the Low Medium and Highcategories of each of the above mentioned three skills were given scores of 1, 2 and 3. So

    the total scores were ranging from 3-9. Respondents were categorized as having Low,

    Medium & High Managerial skills for scores ranging from 3-4, 5-7. 8-9, respectively.

    REFERENCES

    Akhouri, M. M. P., 1979, Entrepreneurial economic Success Index for assessing

    Entrepreneurial Success, SEDME, Vol. 4, No. 1, March, 1979,p112.

    Berna, James G., 1960, Industrial Entrepreneurship in Madras State, Bombay, Asia

    Publishing House

    Calvert, Gene, September, 1993 Highwire Management: Risk Taking Tactics for Leaders,

    Innovators and Trailblazers, Jossey Bass.

    Cantillon R, 1755, Essay on the Nature of Trade in General, p-40-59

    Chadha, G.K., 1986, The State and Rural Economic Transformation; The Case of Punjab,

    1950-85. Delhi, Sage Publications.

    31

  • 7/27/2019 Shivani Pap

    32/33

    Drucker, Peter, 1985 Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Heineman, London, p 20

    Fox, Richard G., 1969, From Zamindar to Ballot Box; Community Change in a North

    Indian Market Town, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

    Haralambos, Michael and Heald, Robin, 1980 Sociology: Theories and Perspective,

    Oxdford University Press, Delhi, p-325.

    Hazlehurst, Leighton W., 1966, Entrepreneurship and the Merchant Castes in a PunjabiCity, Duke University Programme in Comparative Studies on Southern Asia, Monograph

    1.

    Holmstrm, Mark, 1985, Industry and Inequality: The Social Anthropology of Indian

    Labour, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 85-86.

    Hisrich R. D., and C. G. Brush, 1986, The Woman entrepreneur: Starting, financing and

    managing a successful New Business, Lexington Books.

    Hisrich Robert D. and Peters Michael P. 1998, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 1998

    Katz, Robert L., Sept-Oct 1974, Skills of an Effective Administrator, Harvard Business

    Review, pp 90-102.

    Kirzner, Israel M., 1985, Discovery and the Capitalist Process, Chicago, The ChicagoUniversity Press, pp10-70

    Kogan N and Wallach, M.A, 1964, Risk Taking, New York: Holt, Rinehatr and Winston.

    Knight Frank, 1921, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, New York: Houghton Miffin

    Company, pp231-232

    Kumar, S.A., 1990, Entrepreneurship in Small Industry, Discovery Publishing House,

    New Delhi, p-112

    Kunkel, John H, 1965, Values and Behaviour in Economic Development, Econo