gaya HIPSTER bagi muslimah .

Asslamualaikum , zaman sekarang fesyen sgat digemari dan peredarannya sgat cepat sehingga kita tidak dapat untuk dikejar .Pelbagai gaya fesyen yang muncul berjaya meledakkan arus fesyen tanah air dan angin ketaksuban gaya tersebut turut terkena tempias kepada fesyen Muslimah yang menitikberatkan penjagaan aurat mereka. Ada diantarannya ialah fesyen muslimah yang bertemakan HIPSTER .

Sejauh mana penerimaan fesyen ini diantara kalangan remaja . Ya ini merupakan salah satu fesyen yang sangat digemari oleh golongan remaja. Mereka lebih cenderung untuk mengikut fesyen terkini . 

Siapa kata gadis Muslimah tidak tahu tentang fesyen? Jika diperhati, mereka gemar mengikuti trend fesyen terkini malah fesyen jalanan atau hipster turut menjadi ikutan gadis-gadis ini dan menjadi alternatif bagi yang ingin menutup aurat mereka dengan gaya penuh berketerampilan untuk apa sahaja tujuan, masa dan tempat.

mereka berpendapat bahawa golongan ini lebih mementinkan keselesaan dan ringkas terutamanya ketika mereka ingin keluar ke kelas atau bersama kekawan . Kewujudan jenama Naive Malaysia (Naive), memberi pilihan kepada golongan ini untuk mendapatkan rekaan yang santai tetapi mampu membuatkan mereka kelihatan lebih bergaya dan menyuntik keyakinan dalam diri melalui koleksi rekaan terbaharu dan segar .

Dalam memperkatakan sesuatu tentang fesyen untuk Muslimah, mereka tidak mengongkong fikiran dengan menggambarkan pilihan yang terhad.

Mereka percaya Islam tidak menentukan fesyen atau bentuk pakaian asalkan tidak melanggar hukum syarak yang telah ditetapkan.

Usia remaja adalah usia yang penuh cabaran, liku dan kecelaruan. Dalam usia ini remaja sering mengalami tekanan, kecelaruan mengenali identiti diri dan mudah terpengaruh dengan persekitaran.

Remaja dalam bahasa Arab disebut sebagai murahaqah. Murahaqah berasal daripada perkataan rahaqa yang membawa maksud dari sudut bahasanya ialah bodoh, ringan, melakukan keburukan dan kezaliman dan melakukan hal-hal yang diharamkan. Ia satu nama dari tindakan membuat helah, iaitu membebankan seseorang dengan sesuatu yang tidak mampu ia lakukan, dusta serta tergesa-gesa. Manakala perkataan rahiqa pula membawa maksud hampir kepada usia dewasa dan hampir sempurna kematangannya. Perkataan al-rahq pula bermaksud menguasai dan bertambah. Keadaan yang mencerminkan keadaan emosi seorang remaja.

Orang Inggeris menyebut remaja sebagai adolecern. Ia bermaksud hampir secara berperingkat kepada kematangan. Tanda-tanda kematangan seorang remaja boleh dilihat daripada kematangan seksual dan kematangan kelenjar reproduksi. Remaja atau murahaqah bagi seorang perempuan bermula antara usia 11-13 tahun dan lelaki bermula antara 12-14 tahun. Usia remaja seorang perempuan berlanjutan sehingga berumur 17 tahun. Mana kala lelaki pula ialah berlangsung sehingga berumur 18-19 tahun.

Pertembungan antara baik dan buruk

Sebenarnya dalam diri seorang remaja itu terkumpul sifat baik dan sifat buruk. Sikap bodoh, melakukan kejahatan dan kezaliman, melakukan perkara yang haram dan merbahaya, memaksa dan mendesak serta gopoh adalah antara sikap negatif seorang remaja. Sekiranya tidak dididik dan dibentuk dengan adab yang mulia dan akhlak Islam remaja ini akan terus hanyut tanpa kawalan.

Dalam waktu yang sama, dalam usia ini juga remaja sudah menuju kematangan dan bersedia untuk membentuk diri menjadi baik dan bertanggungjawab. Sebab itu ada setengah ulama menyamakan fasa remaja sebagai fasa murahaqah. Di mana seseorang menjadi baligh dan berupaya menerima tanggungjawab seperti menjauhi yang haram dan melakukan yang halal. Justeru, Islam menegaskan pendidikan akidah, adab, fekah dan muamalat perlu ditekankan semenjak zaman kanak-kanak lagi. Perintah ini sebagai persediaan kepada anak yang meningkat remaja, supaya dia mampu menerima tanggungjawab dan berkembang untuk menjadi matang dan bijaksana.

Remaja Gen Y yang ingin bebas
Remaja generasi Y ini dikatakan lahir pada 1977 – 1997. Antara ciri-ciri remaja generasi Y pada hari ini ialah keinginan mereka untuk bebas membuat keputusan dan pilihan, mereka mahu bebas bersuara dan sangat terbuka terhadap sesuatu perkara. Mereka sangat menghargai keterbukaan, ketelusan dan kejujuran serta cenderung kepada membina hubungan antara satu sama lain tanpa mengira jantina, warna kulit, bangsa dan agama. Dalam waktu yang sama, mereka sangat interaktif dan inginkan sesuatu dengan cepat dan pantas.

Keterbukaan yang merbahayakan

Remaja ini dilahirkan ketika dunia dilimpahi dengan segala macam teknologi maklumat dan informasi. Lahir dalam dunia yang sedang laju dan kehidupan dihujung jari. Dunia yang terbuka luas tanpa sempadan yang tidak boleh menyekat mereka untuk berhubungan antara satu sama lain. Remaja ini lahir dalam era globalisasi yang sedang mencorak kehidupan manusia.

Globalisasi adalah proses membentuk sebuah dunia tanpa sempadan dan kedudukan geografi. Proses ini mengakibatkan dunia sudah tidak mempunyai sempadan dengan ruang udara dan langit sesebuah negara terbuka luas untuk dimasuki oleh pelbagai maklumat yang disalurkan menerusi berbagai-bagai saluran informasi dan tele komunikasi seperti internet, media eletronik dan teknologi siber. Keterbukaan ini menjadikan perhubungan antara manusia sesama manusia menjadi semakin dekat dan tempoh yang sangat cepat dan singkat.

Secara langsung, remaja Gen Y terdedah dengan berbagai-bagai ajen globalisasi yang mempengaruhi cara mereka berfikir, bertindak, bertingkah laku dan membuat keputusan dan pilihan.

TIGA cabaran yang dihadapi oleh remaja generasi Y

i- Cabaran ICT

Remaja hari ini terdedah dengan teknologi maklumat yang cukup terbuka dan bebas. Para remaja boleh mengakses laman pornografi dengan begitu mudah tanpa sebarang halangan dan kesukaran. Begitu juga laman-laman sesawang yang boleh merosakkan akidah dan mencairkan jatidiri Islam seseorang remaja. Oleh sebab itu, para ibu bapa perlu mempunyai peraturan dan ketegasan dalam isu yang berkaitan penggunaan internet seperti penggunaan youtube, facebook, instalgram, whatsapps dan lain-lain. Kebebasan tanpa had dan batasan akan merosakkan minda dan otak remaja selain merosakkan jatidiri muslim seorang remaja. Banyak berita yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar arus perdana tentang kisah remaja-remaja lelaki yang merogol adik perempuan dan kawan-kawan perempuan mereka setelah terangsang akibat melihat video lucah atau aksi lucah di internet.

ii- Ibu bapa yang sibuk dengan kerjaya

Kesibukan ibu bapa hari ini mengakibatkan pendidikan agama anak-anak terabai. Masa anak-anak banyak dihabiskan bersama pembantu rumah atau berada di hadapan televisyen tanpa batasan. Secara langsung keadaan mempengaruhi kehidupan anak-anak sehingga mereka memilih untuk menentukan cara hidup mereka sendiri. Kesibukan ini sekiranya tidak diimbangi dengan penekanan soal keagamaan dan kerohanian dalam diri anak-anak mengakibatkan anak-anak tidak tahu membezakan antara yang halal dan yang haram. Faktor kesibukan ibu bapa juga menjadi antara alasan kuat golongan remaja ini untuk keluar mencari keseronokan sendiri bersama kawan-kawan. Kesilapan dalam memilih kawan, boleh memberikan akibat yang buruk kepada kehidupan dan masa depan remaja.

iii- Sistem pendidikan yang diplomasi

Cara mendidik remaja generasi Y hari ini amat berbeza dengan pendidikan generasi X dan sebelumnya. Remaja hari ini berhadapan dengan diplomasi pendidikan yang cukup tinggi sehingga menyebabkan para pendidik dan guru akan berhadapan dengan tindakan disiplin sekiranya mereka melakukan kekasaran kepada para pelajar. Berbeza dengan sistem pendidikan dahulu yang mengiktiraf penggunaan rotan dan hukuman kepada murid. Pada hari ini, kesalahan dan kenakalan murid hanya perlu diatasi dengan nasihat dan khidmat kaunseling. Sebahagian daripada kaedah ini tidak berjaya membentuk murid yang taat kepada perintah agama dan takut kepada Allah SWT dalam setiap amalan dan tingkah laku.

Ketiga-tiga cabaran ini mendedahkan remaja Gen Y kepada sebuah kehidupan yang cukup bebas daripada ikatan peraturan agama. Perkara ini mudah berlaku sekiranya tidak diberikan penekanan yang sewajarnya oleh ibu bapa dan penjaga. Longgarnya kehidupan dan penghayatan agama akan mendorong berbagai-bagai jenayah dan masalah sosial yang bakal membelenggu kehidupan remaja.

Fenomena itu telah berlaku pada hari ini. Statistik penagihan dadah, jenayah juvana, kelahiran luar nikah, rogol, buang bayi semakin meningkat tahun demi tahun. Oleh sebab itu, para ibu bapa perlu mengimbangi antara tugas mencari rezki dan bekerjaya dengan keperluan anak-anak terhadap kasih sayang dan perhatian ibu bapa. Yang lebih penting penekanan terhadap pendidikan dan penghayatan agama dalam rumahtangga. Inilah yang boleh menyelamatkan kita daripada dibakar oleh api neraka.

Masalah Kemurungan Remaja

Kita semua tahu bahawa ramai remaja belasan tahun yang mempunyai putaran emosi yang tidak menentu. Satu ketika mereka kata mereka sayangkan anda dan dua minit kemudian, mereka mungkin mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat yang tidak pernah anda dengar kepada anda atau kepada kawan-kawan mereka di telefon. Tidak kira jantina, remaja awal belasan tahun dan remaja belasan tahun terdorong untuk mengalami mood yang tidak menentu ini. Dalam kemuncak luahan emosi yang serius daripada anak-anak remaja anda kerana pakaian yang bersepah di lantai biliknya, anda mungkin tertanya-tanya adakah dia berkelakuan begitu kerana dia mengalami kemurungan.

Kebanyakan ibu bapa sebelum ini sering menganggap keadaan emosi yang tidak menentu dan masalah kemurungan adalah sebahagian daripada proses tumbesaran mereka. Ia adalah satu kelakuan yang normal bagi remaja dan ada di antara mereka yang berkata “apa lagi yang anda boleh jangkakan dari seorang remaja belasan tahun?”. Walau bagaimanapun, untuk pengetahuan anda, banyak lagi yang boleh anda jangkakan dan yang pastinya, anda boleh berbuat lebih daripada hanya berdiri dan mengangkat bahu.

Kami tidak berniat untuk menakut-nakutkan anda, tetapi anda perlu tahu mengenai kajian statistik yang dijalankan di Amerika Syarikat mengenai perkara ini. Kira-kira 17 juta orang di Amerika Syarikat daripada semua peringkat umur mengalami masalah mental pada tahap-tahap yang berlainan setiap tahun! Dalam umur remaja, jumlah ini adalah mengejutkan iaitu setiap seorang daripada lapan kanak-kanak! Ya, ia menakutkan, tetapi bukankah kami telah memberi amaran kepada anda? Ini membuatkan kemurungan adalah satu daripada masalah kesihatan mental yang paling biasa pada setiap ketika.

Down and out

Perasaan murung hampir selalunya menjadi tidak terkawal, pada sesiapa sahaja pun. Contohnya, jika anda berasa murung mengenai wang dan anda perasan bahawa anda berasa murung, anda boleh mandi air panas dan minum segelas wain untuk menggembirakan diri anda. Tetapi pada remaja, ia lebih sukar daripada itu. Masalah mereka biasanya kelihatan terlalu besar dan terlalu sukar bagi diri mereka. Harapan dan impian mereka menjangkau lebih tinggi daripada awan dan jika mereka diberitahu bahawa mereka tidak cukup bagus untuk mencapai matlamat mereka, ini boleh membuatkan mereka berasa tidak berguna, putus asa, sedih, murung dan lumpuh emosi.

Seringkali, kemarahan adalah emosi yang menemani kemurungan. Perasaan marah boleh hilang dan muncul semula kemudian. Ia adalah sesuatu yang datang dan pergi, tetapi bagi perasaan murung, ia biasanya kekal selama beberapa hari, minggu, bulan atau tahun. Adalah penting bagi seseorang itu membuang perasaan ini secepat mungkin. Kadang kala, perasaan ini terlalu dalam hinggakan ia menjejaskan aspek-aspek kehidupan yang lain. Pelajaran mereka terjejas, mereka mula kehilangan kawan dan memberi kesan negatif kepada sesiapa sahaja yang mereka jumpa dalam kehidupan seharian mereka. Ini membuatkan hidup mereka lebih murung daripada sebelumnya, dan memburukkan lagi keadaan. Sebagai ibu bapa, kita haruslah sentiasa memerhatikan tingkah laku yang aneh ini. Jika kemurungan dibenarkan tinggal lebih lama, ia boleh diklasifikan sebagai ‘kemurungan’.

Tiga Jenis Kemurungan

Secara amnya, terdapat tiga jenis kemurungan. Satu jenis ialah yang dipanggil kemurungan major. Seorang kanak-kanak yang mengalami major depression tidak berupaya merasa keseronokan atau kebahagiaan. Dia sentiasa merasa seperti dunia ini sentiasa menentangnya. Tidak kira apa yang anda lakukan, anak anda akan terus berapa sedih dan murung. Jenis kemurungan ini kekal lama dan boleh menjejaskan kanak-kanak ini pada setiap jam setiap hari. Ini menyebabkan tinggal dengan mereka agak membimbangkan.

Satu lagi jenis kemurungan dipanggil dysthymia. Apabila seorang kanak-kanak merasa sedih dan murung dan kemudian gembira secara bertukar ganti sepanjang satu tempoh masa tertentu seperti satu tahun contohnya, anak anda mungkin mengalami dysthymia. Kebiasaannya, kemurungan jenis ini mudah diubati dan ibu bapa boleh membantu anak-anak mereka merasa bahawa ada lebih lagi dalam hidup ini daripada perkara-perkara menyedihkan yang dialami mereka. Biasanya, remaja merasa bahawa masalah mereka tidak boleh diselesaikan dan mereka sentiasa berenang melawan arus. Dengan membantu mereka memahami gambaran sebenar dan memberikanmereka harapan dapat membantu menyelesaikan masalah ini dengan mudah.

Seorang remaja yang mengalami masalah gangguan emosi yang bertukar ganti mungkin mengalami masalah Bipolar disorder. Tetapi bukankah ini kedengaran seperti remaja biasa yang lain? Perbezaannya ialah remaja yang mengalami Bipolar disorder mengalami intermittent low-energy depression, kemudian diikuti dengan uncharacteristic temper tantrums dan perlakuan ganas.

Perhatikan Diri Anda Sendiri

Jika anda merasa bahawa anak remaja anda mengalami kemurungan, pertama sekali anda harus melihat kepada keadaan mental dan sejarah emosi anda sendiri. Adakah anda juga mudah berasa murung? Sebabnya ialah kemurungan cenderung berlaku dalam keluarga. Oleh itu, jika anda pernah mengalami masalah kemurungan sebelum ini (walaupun anda telah sembuh), anak remaja anda mudah mengalami masalah ini. Walaupun jika anda tidak pernah mengalami kemurungan sepanjang hidup anda dan mempunyai sikap yang positif tentang kehidupan, periksalah ahli keluarga yang lain dan keluarga pasangan anda juga.

Terdapat banyak sebab bagi kemurungan dan adalah tanggungjawab anda untuk mengenalpasti sebab itu. Apa yang lebih penting, kami di sini untuk membantu mereka dan menjadi tempat mereka meluahkan perasaan. Jika keadaan mereka tidak begitu serius, biasanya ia boleh diubati dengan menawarkan bahu untuk mereka bergantung dan pelukan mesra setiap hari. Tetapi jika anda rasa bahawa tiada apa yang anda lakukan dapat membantu anak remaja anda, jangan ragu-ragu mendapatkan bantuan profesional.

Bagaimana Mengenalpasti Kemurungan?

Pertama sekali, gunakan rasa hati anda sebagai panduan. Anda kenal anak remaja anda lebih dari orang lain dan anda adalah orang yang terbaik untuk mengenal sama ada anak anda mengalami masalah emosi. Walau bagaimanapun, untuk diagnosis yang proper, seorang yang professional adalah diperlukan untuk mengetahu lebih lanjut mengenai apa yang rasa hati anda beritahu. Ahli psikiatri itu perlu tahu sama ada:  

• Anak anda dapat melakukan tugas hariannya tanpa merasa murung;
• Sama ada tabiat makannya telah berubah;
• Sama ada anjing peliharaannya masih lagi merupakan teman setianya;
• Adakah dia mengalami masalah berat badan sama ada turun atau naik yang serius, atau perubahan tabiat tidur;
• Adakah dia kehilangan kawan atau mendapat kawan baru yang memberi pengaruh kurang sihat;
• Mengadu mengalami penyakit yang tidak berasas;
• Tahap keyakinan diri turun mendadak;
• Sama ada dia sering merasa letih;
• Sama ada dia merasa tidak berguna kepada rakan-rakan, keluarga dan hidupnya;
• Sama ada dia pernah berfikir hendak membunuh diri atau pernah cuba membunuh diri;
• Adakah dia tiba-tiba mula merokok, minum minuman keras atau mengambil dadah.

Jangan

Jika anda akhirnya telah dapat tahu mengenai kesalahan atau tabiat buruk yang cuba disembunyikan oleh anak anda, jangan cuba memburukkan keadaan dengan berpura-pura bahawa ia adalah perkara kecil. Memang benar, anda tidak mahu mereka merasa lebih teruk dengan memperbesar-besarkan perkara itu, tetapi dengan berpura-pura bahawa tiada apa yang perlu dirisaukan akan hanya menghantar mesej bahawa apa yang mereka rasakan itu adalah bodoh dan hanya membuang masa anda sahaja.

Anda seharusnya meluangkan lebih masa dengan anak remaja anda, berbual-bual dan menganalisa perkara-perkara yang mengganggu fikiran mereka. Dia seharusnya dibenarkan bercakap lebih banyak dan anda sepatutnya menjadi pendengar. Jangan berpura-pura bahawa masalah ini akan hilang begitu sahaja. sedarlah bahawa ia adalah satu halangan dan beritahu dia bahawa anda sentiasa bersamanya untuk mengatasi masalah ini. Anda sendiri tidak seharusnya berasa murung. Mengetahui bahawa anak anda mengalami kemurungan boleh membuatkan anda murung, dan anda akan tertanya-tanya adakah itu silap anda. Kuatkan semangat untuknya semasa dia cuba mengenalpasti jalan penyelesaiannya. Ini bukan salah sesiapa dan ia boleh berlaku kepada sesiapa sahaja. Beritahu dia berulang kali bahawa anda sentiasa di sisinya apabila dia memerlukan anda, dan jangan jemu berkata demikian. Jika dia tidak memperdulikan anda, teruskan memberitahunya bahawa anda bersedia membantunya. Lama-kelamaan mesej ini akan masuk juga ke kepalanya. Tetapi berhati-hatilah supaya tidak masuk campur dalam kehidupannya.

Salah satu cara menangani kemurungan ialah dengan membuatkan seseorang yang murung itu merasa bahawa perasaan mereka penting kepada orang lain, terutamanya kepada seseorang yang menyayangi dan mengambil berat tentang mereka. Ini termasuklah ibu-ibu dan bapa-bapa

FRIENDS !

Sometimes our preoccupation is on having friends. Perhaps we should focus on being a friend.

The definition of a friend has changed in today’s technologically connected world. Today we may think we have many “friends.” It is true: we do enjoy the ability to be informed and to stay current with what is happening in the lives of many of our acquaintances as well as current and former friends and even people we have not met personally whom we call our friends.

In the context of social media, the term “friend” is often used to describecontacts rather than relationships. You have the ability to send your “friends” a message, but this is not the same thing as having a relationship with a person one on one.

Sometimes our preoccupation is on having friends. Perhaps we should focus on being a friend.

Meaning of Entrepreneurial Motivation: Nature of Motivation

Meaning:

Let us first understand the meaning of the term ‘motivation,’ in general. This will help us understand and explain the meaning of the term ‘entrepreneurial motivation’. The word motivation originally comes from the Latin word mover, which means “to motive”.

The term motivation has been derived from the English word ‘motive’. Motive is an inner state of our mind that moves or activates or directs our behaviours towards our goals. Motives are expressions of a person’s goals or needs. They give direction to human behaviour to achieve goals or fulfill needs. Motive is always internal to us and is externalized via behaviour.

Let us give some definitions on motivation:

According to Fred Luthans, “Motivation is a process that starts with a physiological or psychological deficiency or need that activates behaviour or a drive that is aimed at a goal or incentive.”

Stephen P. Robbins (2010) defines motivation as “the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals, conditioned by the effort and ability to satisfy some individual need.”

In the opinion of Gray and Starke, “Motivation is the result of processes, internal or external to the individual that arouses enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action.” Based on above definitions, now motivation may be defined as one’s willingness to exert high level of efforts towards the accomplishment of goal or fulfillment of need.

Accordingly, the entrepreneurial motivation may be defined as the process that activates and motivates the entrepreneur to exert higher level of efforts for the achievement of his/her entrepreneurial goals. In other words, the entrepreneurial motivation refers to the forces or drive within an entrepreneur that affect the direction, intensity, and persistence of his / her voluntary behaviour as entrepreneur. So to say, a motivational entrepreneur will be willing to exert a particular level of effort (intensity), for a certain period of time (persistence) toward a particular goal (direction).

The need for and significance of entrepreneurial motivation in running an enterprise can best be appreciated as: “While an organization is like a vehicle, entrepreneurships as driving and the entrepreneurial motivation as fuel or power that makes the organizational vehicle move or run.”

Nature of Motivation:

The nature of motivation emerging out of above definitions can be expressed as follows: 

Motivation is internal to man:

Motivation cannot be seen because it is internal to man. It is externalized via behaviour. It activates the man to move toward his / her goal.

A Single motive can cause different behaviours:

A person with a single desire or motive to earn prestige in the society may move towards to join politics, attain additional education and training, join identical groups, and change his outward appearance.

Different motives may result in single behaviour:

It is also possible that the same or single behaviour may be caused by many motives. For example, if a person buys a car, his such behaviour may be caused by different motives such as to look attractive, be respectable, gain acceptance from similar group of persons, differentiate the status, and so on.

Motives come and go:

Like tides, motives can emerge and then disappear. Motives emerged at a point of time may not remain with the same intensity at other point of time. For instance, an entrepreneur overly concerned about maximization of profit earning during his initial age as entrepreneur may turn his concern towards other higher things like contributing towards philanthropic activities in social health and education once he starts earning sufficient profits.

Motives interact with the environment:

The environment in which we live at a point of time may either trigger or suppress our motives. You probably have experienced environment or situation when the intensity of your hunger picked up just you smelled the odour of palatable food.

You may desire an excellent performance bagging the first position in your examination but at the same time may also be quite sensitive to being shunned and disliked by your class mates if you really perform too well and get too much of praise and appreciation from your teachers. Thus, what all this indicates is that human behaviour is the result of several forces differing in both direction and intent.

The motivation to become an entrepreneur

Herron and Sapienza (1992, p. 49) stated, “Because motivation plays an important part in the creation of new organizations, theories of organizational creation that fail to address this notion are incomplete”. More recently, Kuratko et al. (1997) reported that the lack of empirical research into entrepreneurial motivation was still evident.

Being an entrepreneur, one who is self‐employed and who starts, organizes, manages, and assumes responsibility for a business, offers a personal challenge that many individuals prefer over being an employee working for someone else. Entrepreneurs accept the personal financial risks that go with owning a business but also benefit directly from the potential success of the business. Being an entrepreneur is often viewed as an aversive career choice where one is faced with everyday life and work situations that are fraught with increased uncertainty, impediments, failures, and frustrations associated with the process of new firm creation (Campbell, 1992). Not surprisingly, many researchers have investigated the motivation to become self‐employed. What is it about certain people that drives them to take on the risk, the uncertainty and the independent structure of business ownership?

In this paper we examine key components of motivation that may contribute to the decision to become self‐employed. We begin with a review of the evolution of research on entrepreneurial motivation starting with content‐based theories of motivation. We then explore the current state of the more recent process‐oriented research on the motivation to become an entrepreneur. Three constructs that play an important role in the intention to become self‐employed are proposed as part of our model of entrepreneurial motivation. To test the model, four hypotheses are suggested. An exploratory research study is then presented utilizing a survey instrument that was presented to 112 undergraduate business students. The findings of our hypothesis testing are discussed with attention given to the limitations and implications of this study.

Motivation and entrepreneurship

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene... <<MethodologyResearch designDiscussionLimitationsConclusionsReferences

The topic of motivation in the entrepreneurship literature has evolved along a path similar to that of the organizational psychology field. From an organizational psychology perspective, theories of motivation have progressed from static, content‐oriented theories to dynamic, process‐oriented theories, a framework suggested by Campbell et al. (1970). Content theories search for the specific things within individuals that initiate, direct, sustain, and stop behavior. Process theories explain how behavior is initiated, directed, sustained, and stopped.

Organizational psychology research focused on developing and testing content (i.e. need) theories of motivation during the 1950s and early 1960s. According to Landy (1989, p. 379), “data supportive of need theories have been infrequent. Damaging data are commonplace.” In a general sense, focusing on personality profiles of people to explain behaviors, the personological perspective, has fallen out of favor. For over 30 years, psychologists have accepted Mischel's (1968) explanation that behavior results from the interaction between the person and the situation, a dynamic process (Shaver and Scott, 1991).

According to Landy (1989), by the mid‐1960s process models were preferred, beginning with Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory. This was supplanted by Locke's (1968) goal‐setting theory and later by Bandura's (1977) self‐efficacy theory.

Early entrepreneurial research followed a similar path, focusing on identifying traits and characteristics that distinguished entrepreneurs from the general population, rather than developing process‐based models. Beginning with McClelland (1961), who argued that a high need for achievement was a personality trait common to entrepreneurs, a great deal of research has focused on characteristics of entrepreneurs (Churchill and Lewis, 1986; Shaver and Scott, 1991).

In spite of the large number of studies examining personality traits of entrepreneurs (Churchill and Lewis, 1986; Timmons, 1999), results are still mixed and inconclusive (Herron and Sapienza, 1992; Shaver and Scott, 1991). Yet studies continue (Stewart et al., 1998). Low and MacMillan (1988, p. 148) commented:

Being innovators and idiosyncratic, entrepreneurs tend to defy aggregation. They tend to reside at the tails of personality distributions, and though they may be expected to differ from the mean, the nature of these differences are not predictable. It seems that any attempt to profile the typical entrepreneur is inherently futile.

Gilad and Levine (1986) proposed two closely‐related explanations of entrepreneurial motivation, the “push” theory and the “pull” theory. The “push” theory argues that individuals are pushed into entrepreneurship by negative external forces, such as job dissatisfaction, difficulty finding employment, insufficient salary, or inflexible work schedule. The “pull” theory contends that individuals are attracted into entrepreneurial activities seeking independence, self‐fulfillment, wealth, and other desirable outcomes. Research (Keeble et al., 1992; Orhan and Scott, 2001) indicates that individuals become entrepreneurs primarily due to “pull” factors, rather than “push” factors.

Entrepreneurship research has also attempted to identify the situational and environmental factors that predict entrepreneurial activity, such as job displacement, previous work experience, availability of various resources, and governmental influences. However, these empirical studies of contextual factors have found low explanatory power and predictive ability (Krueger et al., 2000).

Logically, there is no reason to expect a direct relationship between these external forces and entrepreneurial activity. For example, job displacement may be a triggering event leading to entrepreneurship. However, displaced workers will not pursue this career unless there is a more direct, process‐oriented linkage. Although external forces may provide a more conducive environment supporting entrepreneurship, it may be just as likely that other career option may be pursued.

Sexton (1987) stated that much of the then‐current research was fragmented and unrelated. He felt that the transfer of up‐to‐date research findings from other areas was needed to contribute to the development of paradigms and constructs that lead to the development of convergent theories. Bird and Jelinek (1988) mentioned the need for a behavioral, process‐oriented model of entrepreneurship. Calls for frameworks grounded in well‐established theory are regularly echoed (Jelinek and Litterer, 1994;MacMillan and Kartz, 1992).

As a result, many of the entrepreneurship models advanced in recent years are process‐oriented cognitive models, focusing on attitudes and beliefs and how they can predict intentions and behaviors. Human endeavors, especially complex activities such as new venture initiation, are a result of people's cognitive processes. Humans are able to think about possible future outcomes, decide which of these are most desirable, and whether it is feasible to pursue attaining these outcomes. It is not reasonable to expect people to pursue outcomes that they perceive to be either undesirable or unfeasible.

Many cognitive models explaining the motivation to found a new enterprise are analogous to Vroom's (1964) expectancy framework. Although these models use different terminology and build on different theory bases, Vroom's expectancy model can be used to demonstrate the commonalities between these disparate models.

The Vroom model explains that an individual will choose among alternative behaviors by considering which behavior will lead to the most desirable outcome. Motivation is conceptualized as the product of expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy is analogous to measures such as perceived feasibility and self‐efficacy used in other models predicting entrepreneurial intentions. Despite subtle, technical differences in these constructs, they are frequently operationalized in similar ways. For example, expectancy, self‐efficacy, and perceived feasibility have all been measured by responding to the question: How confident are you that you can perform the task?’ by circling the appropriate percentage range on a survey.

Mone (1994) discussed two measures of self‐efficacy, process and outcome. The former refers to people's confidence to successfully perform a task, whereas the latter refers to people's confidence to achieve an outcome. The first measure would be analogous to expectancy; the latter would be analogous to the product of expectancy and instrumentality. The product of instrumentality and valence is analogous to a wide variety of measures used in various organizational psychology or economic decision models predicting entrepreneurial intentions, such as perceived desirability, outcome expectations, net benefits, and perceived utility.

Vroom's (1964) expectancy model establishes a common thread connecting many process‐oriented explanations of entrepreneurial motivation. Current process models are implicitly or explicitly grounded in this basic conception: an individual's intentions to become an entrepreneur are predicted by these two questions:

1. 1. 
   is entrepreneurship desirable to me? (i.e. does it lead to desired outcomes?); and
2. 2. 
   is entrepreneurship feasible for me? (i.e. do I have what it takes to succeed as an entrepreneur?).

Current process models of entrepreneurial motivation

Baumol (1990) suggested that entrepreneurs are motivated by the reward structure in the economy. This economic perspective on new venture initiation focuses on the usefulness, utility, or desirability of an entrepreneurial career. Campbell's (1992) economic decision model compares the expected net present benefits of entrepreneurship relative to the expected gains from wage labor. For both entrepreneurship and wage labor, Campbell multiplied probability of success times average income to determine expected benefits.

Praag and Cramer (2001) found that people would become entrepreneurs if the expected rewards surpass the wages of employment. Because expected rewards depended on assessments of individual ability and attitudes towards risk, perceptions of entrepreneurial feasibility were included. Thus the model, like expectancy theory, finds entrepreneurial activity to be a function of feasibility and desirability. Levesque et al. (2002) examined the choice between employment and self‐employment in a utility‐maximizing model that changes according to the individual's age (i.e. stage of life).

These economics‐based models (Campbell, 1992; Praag and Cramer, 2001; Levesque et al., 2002) explicitly consider the role of risk in the decision to become an entrepreneur. Rees and Shah (1986) found that the variance of earnings for self‐employed individuals was triple that of individuals working for others, leading to the conclusion that risk‐averse individuals are less likely to pursue self‐employment. Douglas and Shepherd (1999, p. 231), using anticipated risk as a predictor, stated “The more tolerant one is of risk bearing, the greater incentive to be self‐employed.”

Other recent research is based on an organizational psychological framework. Bird (1988), stressing the importance of entrepreneurial intentions as a precursor to new venture creation, called for development of a behavioral, process‐oriented model of entrepreneurship.

In a theoretical discussion of the psychology of new venture creation, Shaver and Scott (1991) emphasized that new ventures emerge because of deliberate choices made by individuals. They then examined the immediate antecedents of choice:

• • 
  Can I make a difference? (i.e. feasibility).
• • 
  Do I want to? (i.e. desirability).

Arguably the most widely and successfully applied theories for predicting behavioral intention are the theories of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is essentially an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) that includes measures of control belief and perceived behavioral control. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) was developed to account for the process by which individuals decide on, and engage in, a particular course of action. Kolvereid (1996) demonstrated that the Ajzen (1991) framework is a solid model for explaining or predicting entrepreneurial intentions. Ajzen (1991) states that a person's intention is the immediate antecedent of behavior. Intent to perform a behavior, in turn, is a function of three variables:

1. 1. 
   attitude toward the behavior, which refers to the degree to which individuals perceive the attractiveness of the behavior in question. In general, a person who believes that the performance of a given behavior will, with high probability, lead to mostly positive outcomes will possess a favorable attitude toward that behavior;
2. 2. 
   subjective norm, which refers to the perceived social pressure to perform the behavior in question. Perceived social norms is a measure of social support of the behavior by significant others, such as family, friends, and other role models and mentors; and
3. 3. 
   perceived behavioral control (i.e. a self‐evaluation of one's own competence with regard to the task or behavior). Perceived feasibility is a measure of behavioral control, similar to Bandura's (1986) self‐efficacy construct.

Thus, the TPB provides an account of the way in which attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions combine to predict behavioral performance. Depending on the difficulty of engaging in the behavior, perceived behavioral control may also exert a direct effect on behavioral performance. Ajzen's theory of planned behavior has wide acceptance in many behavioral science disciplines and has been used empirically in a variety of settings to predict and understand behavioral intentions (Bansal, 2002; King, 2003; Masalu and Astrom, 2001; Rhodes, 2002).

Individuals' behavioral intentions are, according to Shapero's (1982) model of the entrepreneurial event, also dependent on two main factors: perceived credibility (perceived feasibility) and perceived desirability. Shapero and Sokol (1982) conceptualized perceived desirability as the personal attractiveness of starting a business, and perceived feasibility as a perceptual measure of personal capability with regard to new venture creation. In addition, Shapero adds a third predictor variable, propensity to act. This measure of volition or proactiveness is closely related to locus of control. Both Shapero and Sokol (1982) and Krueger (1993) argued that perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and propensity to act are associated with entrepreneurial behavioral intentions. Moreover, Erikson (2001) found that the model explained entrepreneurial intentions quite well.

The Azjen and Shapero models consider self‐efficacy, a proxy for feasibility, an important predictor. Chen et al. (1998) found entrepreneurial self‐efficacy a reliable measure to differentiate between business founders and non‐founders.

Krueger et al. (2000) compared the predictive validity of the Ajzen and Shapero‐Krueger models, using a sample of 97 senior university business students. Regression analysis using perceived desirability, subjective norms, and perceived feasibility to predict intentions supported Ajzen's theory of planned behavior, with adjusted R² of 0.350 (P<0.0001) for the overall model. However, the subjective norms predictor variable was not significant in the regression. Regression analysis using perceived desirability, propensity to act, and perceived feasibility to predict intentions fully supported the Shapero‐Krueger model, with adjusted R² of 0.408 (p<0.0001). The Shapero‐Krueger model used Seligman's (1990) learned optimism construct to measure propensity to act.

Our proposed model of entrepreneurial motivation

We started with the Shapero‐Krueger framework, as described in Krueger et al. (2000), also using self‐efficacy as a proxy for perceived feasibility. Borrowing from the previously discussed economic models (Campbell, 1992; Praag and Cramer, 2001;Levesque et al., 2002), we substituted perceived net desirability for perceived desirability, believing that people may be motivated to become entrepreneurs if they believe self‐employment is more likely than working for others to lead to valued outcomes. It seemed to us that the motivation to become an entrepreneur is driven by the difference between the desirability of self‐employment and the desirability of working for others.

We also operationalized Shapero and Krueger's propensity to act differently. We felt that an individual's willingness to accept a moderate, calculated risk would be the best indicator of this propensity. We recognized that not all people viewing themselves as efficacious, and seeing self‐employment as a path to acquiring desirable outcomes, intend to become self‐employed. To act on their perceptions of feasibility and net desirability, people must be willing to bear the moderate, calculated risk intrinsic to self‐employment. This is consistent with the economics‐based models discussed above (Campbell, 1992; Douglas and Shepherd, 1999,Praag and Cramer, 2001; Levesque et al., 2002), which all included risk as a predictor.

We view the decision between a career of self‐employment or working for others as a rational three‐part process in which:

1. 1. 
   Individuals compare the desirability of self‐employment with the desirability of working for others.
2. 2. 
   Individuals assess whether they possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the tasks and activities necessary to become an entrepreneur.
3. 3. 
   Individuals determine whether they are willing to accept the inherent risk of entrepreneurial activity.

People with a sense of entrepreneurial self‐efficacy may be drawn to self‐employment's desirable opportunities and benefits, compared to the availability of these benefits obtained through working for others. If they also can accept the intrinsic risk of self‐employment, they are likely to act on these perceptions by forming intentions and goals for self‐employment.

The current study therefore represents a new paradigm for process‐oriented entrepreneurial motivation research drawing upon well‐grounded theory. It facilitates a needed convergence of frameworks on the motivational intention to become an entrepreneur. This model of entrepreneurship motivation introduces new constructs and uniquely combines them in specifying that the intention to become an entrepreneur is a function of these three variables: the perceived net desirability of self‐employment (NDSE), the perceived feasibility (self‐efficacy) of self‐employment (SE), and tolerance for risk (TR). Our model is depicted graphically in Figure 1. Our model addresses a long‐standing call in the entrepreneurial literature for the development of behavioral, process‐oriented models of entrepreneurship that are well‐grounded and transfer up‐to‐date research findings (Jelinek and Litterer, 1994; MacMillan and Kartz, 1992; Sexton, 1987).

To test our model, we hypothesize as follows:H1. There is a positive relationship between an individual's entrepreneurial self‐efficacy (SE) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. H2. There is a positive relationship between an individual's tolerance for risk (TR) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. H3. There is a positive relationship between an individual's net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. H4. There is a positive relationship between an individual's net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE), entrepreneurial self‐efficacy (SE) and tolerance for risk (TR) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. H1 through H3 suggest that each of the three independent variables in the model separately explain an individual's entrepreneurial intentions. H4 suggests that all three independent variables together (our model) significantly explain an individual's intention to become an entrepreneur.

Methodology

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene...Methodology <<Research designDiscussionLimitationsConclusionsReferences

This section examines the methodology used in the present study, including sample data and variable measures, and research design.

Sample data and variable measures

Sample data. We began this research with a survey instrument consisting of 100 questions, many of which dealt with parameters outside the scope of the present research. We administered this survey to 112 junior and senior undergraduate business students at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). Later, the survey was reformulated to be more focused, reducing the total number of questions from 100 to 26. The final sample for this study consisted of the responses to the 26‐question survey by 115 junior and senior undergraduate business students at FGCU, and was administered in January 2001. Surveys were completed anonymously during regular class time, with a response rate of 100 percent. Student respondents were close enough to graduation to contemplate important career choices, such as that of self‐employment versus working for others.

Dependent variable. The dependent variable in our model is entrepreneurial intentions. The survey instrument defined entrepreneurship as “being self‐employed in your own business.” Chen et al. (1998) established six measures of entrepreneurial intentions using the questions listed below:Q1. How interested are you in becoming an entrepreneur? Q2. How much have you considered becoming an entrepreneur? Q3. How much have you already prepared to become an entrepreneur? Q4. How likely are you to become an entrepreneur? Q5. How likely are you to work very hard at becoming an entrepreneur? Q6. How soon are you going to become an entrepreneur? We included all six measures of intentions in our initial test of the model. Later, we reduced the length of the survey instrument. We accomplished this reduction in length in part by reducing the number of questions designed to measure entrepreneurial intentions from six to one. This reduction was justified based on the results of Cronbach Alpha analysis. Cronbach Alpha is a model of internal consistency, based on the average inter‐item correlation. Crano and Brewer (1986) suggest that the degree of internal consistency is considered acceptable if the Alpha coefficient is 0.75 or better.

Table I shows the impact on reliability (Alpha) of removing each of the questions, 1 through 6, one at a time. It is clear from this analysis that question 6 is not internally consistent with questions 1 through 5. The overall Alpha increases to an acceptable level, 0.9175 when questions 1 through 5 are included and question 6 is removed.

These results suggest that questions 1 through 5 create a unitary construct that measures entrepreneurial intentions. Based on these results, and our desire to reduce the length of our survey to improve the accuracy of subject responses, we selected question 4 (How likely are you to become an entrepreneur?) as our measure of the dependent variable entrepreneurial intentions.

Independent variables. The model includes three independent variables. The first independent variable is entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, which was measured by one question designed to assess an individual's self‐confidence in his or her ability to perform the tasks and activities necessary to become an entrepreneur. The second independent variable was an entrepreneur's tolerance for risk (TR). Tolerance for risk was determined by asking pointedly “To what extent are you willing to take a moderate, calculated risk to get ahead?” The third independent variable in the model is net desirability to become self‐employed (NDSE). The computation and significance of this variable deserves special attention.

The variable net desirability to become self‐employed (NDSE) was calculated as shown in Figure 2. The decision between a career of self‐employment or working for others may be viewed as a rational process in which individuals compare the relative desirability of each option. If an individual believes self‐employment is more likely than working for others to lead to valued outcomes, then he or she is more likely to be drawn to self‐employment.

A review of the literature revealed five outcomes emphasized as criteria in the decision between self‐employment or being employed by others: income potential; financial security; independence; need for achievement; and escape from corporate bureaucracy. Using an expectancy (Vroom, 1964) framework, we hypothesized that the desirability of self‐employment (DSE) is related to the product of, first, importance of desired outcomes and second, the probability of attaining these outcomes through self‐employment. In a similar vein, desirability of working for others is obtained by multiplying importance of desired outcomes by the probability of attaining these outcomes through working for others (DWO). Net desirability to become self‐employed (NDSE) was then obtained by subtracting desirability of working for others (DWO) from desirability of self‐employment (DSE).

Research design

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene...MethodologyResearch design <<DiscussionLimitationsConclusionsReferences

After identifying and computing variables necessary for evaluating the efficacy of the model, we tested the model, as previously described in Figure 1. We used regression analysis to assess the ability of the model to explain self‐employment intentions, the dependent variable. As we test the model using regression, the appropriate comparative diagnostic is the Adjusted R².

Model results

Results are presented in Figure 3 and Table II. Figure 3 shows significant and complete support for the model. The Adjusted R² for the regression was 0.528 (p<0.001). A discussion of the findings of each of the four model hypotheses follows.H1. There is a positive relationship between an individual's entrepreneurial self‐efficacy (SE) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. It is apparent from Table II that the dependent variable intentions was significantly positively correlated with the independent variable self‐efficacy with a significant (0.001) Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.669. Higher entrepreneurial self‐efficacy was associated with a higher intention to engage in entrepreneurial activity. In addition, the model's link between self‐efficacy and intentions possessed significant explanatory power, with a t‐statistic of 7.116 (p<0.001).H2. There is a positive relationship between an individual's tolerance for risk (TR) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. An individual's intention to become an entrepreneur was significantly positively correlated with the independent variable tolerance for risk (TR). A higher entrepreneurial TR was associated with a higher likelihood to become an entrepreneur with a significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.480 (p < 0.001). In addition, the model's link between TR and intentions possessed significant explanatory power, with a t‐statistic of 2.476 (p= 0.015), demonstrating that higher TR led to a higher likelihood that an individual would engage in entrepreneurial activity.H3. There is a positive relationship between an individual's net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. An individual's intention to become an entrepreneur was significantly positively correlated with the independent variable net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE). Higher NDSE was associated with a higher likelihood to become an entrepreneur with a significant Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.488 (p<0.001). In addition, the model's link between NDSE and intentions possessed significant explanatory power, with a t‐statistic of 3.032 (p = 0.003), demonstrating that higher NDSE led to higher aspirations toward entrepreneurial activity.H4. There is a positive relationship between an individual's net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE), entrepreneurial self‐efficacy (SE) and tolerance for risk (TR) and his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. Figure 3 summarizes the overall findings of our model. The test of the overall model resulted in an adjusted R² of 0.528 (p<0.001) indicating strong support for the overall model.

Discussion

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene...MethodologyResearch designDiscussion <<LimitationsConclusionsReferences

We can understand why the intentions construct validated by Chen et al. (1998) failed to form a unitary construct in our study. The first five questions asked students whether they had plans, aspirations, or intentions to eventually become entrepreneurs, and these were highly correlated with each other. The sixth question focused instead on how soon they would act on those plans. Clearly, the respondents saw the eventual intention of entrepreneurship as an issue separate and unrelated to their timing to initiate this action. For these students, questions regarding whether they had entrepreneurial intentions were addressing a quite different issue than the question addressing their time frame for taking such an action.

One of the most significant findings of this study was the statistical support for the variable net desirability for self‐employment (NDSE). Previous organizational psychology‐based research based has investigated the usefulness of the perceived desirability of self‐employment on the intention to engage in entrepreneurial activity. These studies, however, did not use a “net” variable to focus on the difference between the desirability of self‐employment and the desirability of working for others.

As hypothesized, the respondents in this study formed entrepreneurial intentions if they considered themselves to be efficacious and they anticipated positive outcomes from entrepreneurship. We also found that an individual's tolerance for risk (TR) had a significant influence on his or her intention to engage in entrepreneurial activity. Even though an individual might find engagement in entrepreneurial activity desirable and has the self‐confidence to do so, it was also important that that person have a relatively high tolerance for risk to engage in such activity.

The R² for this model was 0.528; such strong explanatory power is rare in the literature explaining entrepreneurial behavior. Kruegeret al. (2000) found R² of 0.350 for the Ajzen theory of planned behavior and R² of 0.408 for the Shapero‐Krueger model. In comparison it should be noted that trait or attitude measures typically measure 10 percent of variance in behavior (Ajzen, 1987).

Limitations

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene...MethodologyResearch designDiscussionLimitations <<ConclusionsReferences

Our sample consisted entirely of undergraduate business students. However, other research (Audet, 2000; Krueger et al., 2000) has also relied on student surveys to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Our primary goal was to better understand these students' decisions to become self‐employed or work for others. This study was not a simulation using students to predict the behavior of managers or other non‐student populations. Rather, this was a study of people actually beginning to face career decisions. However, they are students – we cannot be certain that their intentions are durable and clear. Also, our findings may not be generalizable to non‐student populations.

This research did not examine the role of negative motivations, or “push” factors. As mentioned above, “push” factors appear to be less important than “pull” factors in explaining the motivation to become an entrepreneur. Also, we believe “push” factors are less significant to our sample of young college students than to the general population. Because of the students' lack of prior work experience, dissatisfaction or involuntary separation from previous employment would not have been an important issue. Accordingly, our findings may not generalize to non‐student populations with greater levels of work experience.

The cross‐sectional rather than longitudinal design of the study raises the usual caveats regarding lack of causal evidence. However, cross‐sectional research designs are frequently used and considered acceptable in this type of research (Ajzen, 1987).

Finally, a limitation of any survey research is the inability to ask follow‐up questions and explore in more depth the reasoning behind any finding. The inclusion of qualitative interviews and/or focus group sessions could therefore provide rich explanatory information that could add value to the survey data.

Conclusions

Section:ChooseTop of pageIntroductionMotivation and entreprene...MethodologyResearch designDiscussionLimitationsConclusions <<References

According to Timmons (1999), America has created over 34 million new jobs since 1980, while the Fortune 500 lost over 5 million jobs. Timmons further reported that, since 1980, entrepreneurs have created over 95 percent of the wealth that exists in America today. For these reasons, understanding why people make intentions to become entrepreneurs is becoming increasingly important for educators and policy makers.

This research proposed a new model of entrepreneurship motivation. Introduced was the construct net desirability for self‐employment, which was operationalized as the difference between the desirability of self‐employment compared to the desirability of working with others. Tolerance for risk was also operationalized uniquely in the model as an indicator of the propensity to act. Together with the construct of perceived feasibility (self‐efficacy) a new model of motivational intentions was proposed. The results indicate that tolerance for risk, self‐efficacy and perceived net desirability significantly predict self‐employment intentions. Further, the findings illustrated that when combined these three variables provide a stronger indication for the intention to become an entrepreneur.

This research study furthers our understanding of what motivates someone to become an entrepreneur by expanding on the process models of motivation that have been offered by Ajzen (1991), Shapero (1982) and others that have explored entrepreneurial intentions. The results have important implications for those who have the opportunity to guide and influence career choices and provide career preparation.

We suggest educators, policy makers, and other wishing to enhance entrepreneurial activity focus first on increasing entrepreneurial self‐efficacy. According to Bandura (1986), self‐efficacy in an activity such as entrepreneurship develops through four processes:

1. 1. 
   enactive mastery or repeated performance accomplishments;
2. 2. 
   vicarious experience or modeling;
3. 3. 
   verbal persuasion; and
4. 4. 
   autonomic or physiological arousal.

Educators may also point out the relative merits of self‐employment versus working for others. A common misconception is that the vast majority of small businesses fail within their first few years. This has a chilling effect on perceptions of outcome expectations. Yet, a large‐scale study of the eight‐year destiny of small firms (Kirchhoff, 1994) found that only 18 percent of all new venture initiations resulted in business failures with losses to creditors. In contrast, 28 percent survived under their original ownership and another 26 percent continued under ownership changes. To stimulate entrepreneurship, perhaps educators should remind students of the high earnings potential an entrepreneurial career makes possible. The best‐selling book: The Millionaire Next Door (Stanley and Danko, 1999) reported that two‐thirds of America's 3.5 million millionaires were self‐employed.

Finally we suggest educators and policy makers highlight the advantages of taking moderate, calculated risks to get ahead. Examples of the rewards that can result from risking an entrepreneurial endeavor abound. Many of our most successful executives, including Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and many others achieved their success by taking the risk of launching their own ventures.

As the foregoing discussion suggests, many educational practices may be modified to increase entrepreneurial self‐efficacy, highlight the advantages of self‐employment, and encourage judicious risk taking. Further research is planned to recommend specific pedagogical methods and interventions, based on our model, that entrepreneurship educators may use to stimulate entrepreneurial intentions.