Keywords

Entrepreneurship, Enterprising Tendency, Traits, Tribal, Mizoram

Introduction

The idea of entrepreneurship can be associated with different perceptions. Some understandings are related to what an entrepreneur does and others to who the entrepreneur is. Many intrinsic and extrinsic factors build the entrepreneurial characteristics of an individual. Hence, entrepreneurship is a field of study covered by many disciplines like psychology, sociology, business administration, and economics. Owing to entrepreneurship being taken up in multiple domains, several interpretations have been provided for entrepreneurship (Casson & Wadeson, 2007). For example, from the economist viewpoint, entrepreneurship is the identifying and recognising the current business opportunities and the action of turning such opportunities and existing demand into a business plan by taking risks and inducing resources together (Erkoc & Kert, 2013); The psychologist point of view would hold entrepreneurship as a process of the spending an endeavour to accomplish something in results, to achieve something, to think out of the box, or to participate in the authority that others have, which requires a high level of motivation (Karabulut & Do?an, 2018).

Enterprising Tendency

In developing countries, attempts are made to conceive and nurture entrepreneurial tendencies by creating awareness and promoting people to become entrepreneurs. This is held as a critical area of study and is considered a mechanism of contribution to a nation’s economic development (Mueller & Thomas, 2001). Many historical types of research demonstrated that entrepreneurial tendency to set up a new venture depends on many different incalculable pulls and push factors such as living pattern, the literacy level of individuals, social and cultural background, and prior work experience with networking support. Different push and pull factors can affect individuals with different qualifications, such as undeveloped vocation plans, unemployment, or improper operating conditions. Higher social standing, individual experience, self-employment and other situational chances are an example of pull factors (Hindle et al., 2009; Mueller & Thomas, 2001). Rasmussen and Sørheim (2006) recommend that entrepreneurship is like a motor for the financial growth of any country, as entrepreneurship creates new enterprises or adds significance to the existing ventures. Individual interaction with environmental determinants plays an essential role in increasing entrepreneurial tendencies that show an individual's motivation and drive to create enterprise. Overall entrepreneurial behaviour combines self-efficacy with a resolve, risk-bearing ability and encouraged competitiveness structure (Okudan & Rzasa, 2006). Planning, collaboration, and operational insight are three dimensions of entrepreneurial thought (Zhu & Lin, 2019). Multiple prior investigations in the identical area highlighted the consequences of personal traits on entrepreneurship (Casson & Wadeson, 2007; Hartog et al., 2008; Mumford & Hunter, 2005). Hayton and Kelley (2006) opined that the features that need to be held by an entrepreneur are risk-taking capability, openness to new experiences, transformational leadership quality, honesty, trust, reliability, and perseverance. Also, other theoretical studies show that the personality of the individual entrepreneurs is influenced by not only various economic, demographical, sociological, and psychological characteristics but also at different degrees (Casson & Wadeson, 2007; Fak et al., 2008; Kahraman et al., 2003). Significant elements covered in skills development are identifying opportunities and exploiting them, enhancing risk-bearing capacity (Contreras et al., 2019) and innovativeness and confidence in bringing out new ideas (Hynes, 1996; McCarver et al., 2010). Also, structured entrepreneurship education could enhance students’ entrepreneurial competency and improve the tendency to become entrepreneurs (Trivedi, 2016).

The General measure of Enterprising Tendency (GET) test was first developed in 1987-1988 by Sally Caird and Cliff Johnson at Durham University Business School (Caird, 2013). The internal reliability of the said test was scientifically accepted in several studies such as Stormer et al. (1999). As for its internal consistency, studies such as Van der Lingen and Van Niekerk (2015) are worth noting as measurement of enterprising traits. The key entrepreneurial characteristics associated with the GET test include the need for achievement, autonomy, creative tendency, calculated risk-taking, and drive and determination. The maximum score (Representing General Enterprising Tendency) is 2255. Scores between 44-54 depict high enterprising tendency. Scores between 27-43 have medium enterprising qualities. Low scores on enterprising tendency lies between 0-26. There are recommended average scores for each of the five tendencies viz. Need for achievement (9/12), Need for autonomy (4/6), Creative tendency (8/12), calculated risk-taking (8/12) and Drive & determination (8/12).

Objectives of The Study

The objective of the study focuses on these following issues

a) To establish the enterprising tendency scores of Mizo youth in Mizoram, using the General Enterprising Tendency (GET) test.

b) To find out whether certain demographic variables generate significant influences to GET scores among the Mizo youths.

Research Methodology

The present study measures enterprising tendency using General Enterprising Tendency (GET) test. It is conducted among youths of Mizoram affiliated in streams of studies viz. arts, science and commerce. Mizoram is a state in north-eastern India, with Aizawl as capital city and about 95% of Mizoram's population originates from varied tribal origin. Mizos first began to settle the area in the 16th century, coming in waves of immigration from Southeast Asia. According to Demographic Status of Scheduled Tribe Population of India (2013), Mizoram has the highest concentration of tribal people among all states of India.

Primary information was collected using standard GET instrument and is analysed using appropriate methodology prescribed by the instrument itself. The sample size is 752, drawn randomly from target population of study.

Assessments and Presentations of General Enterprising Tendency of Sample Respondents

The following interpretations were demonstrated according to the standard process of responses towards GET questionnaire.

Table 1 demonstrated that the arithmetic mean of general enterprising tendency score for youth in Mizoram was scored at 30.31, which falls within the threshold of medium level enterprising score. All individual scores for need for achievement need for autonomy, creative tendency, calculated risk-taking and drive and determination are lower than the prescribed average scores.

District based comparison of respondents was mapped to find out whether there are statistical differences between districts of Aizawl, Lunglei, Champhai, Kolasib, Serchhip, Mamit, Lawngtlai and Siaha respectively. It should be noted that data collected were classified in 9 undivided districts prior June 2019. The following table demonstrates their relative statistics.

Table 1 Total General Enterprising Tendency Score
Measure	Need for achievement	Need for autonomy	Creative tendency	Calculated risk taking	Drive and determination	Total score
Mean	6.82	2.96	6.49	6.91	7.19	30.31
Std. Deviation	1.73	1.16	1.79	1.7	1.91	4.82
Evaluation	Below average<9	Below average<4	Below average<8	Below average<8	Below average<8	Medium

The above Table 2 shows that respondents from Aizawl district score significantly higher than the other eight districts in all tendencies except in need for autonomy. Moreover, the other eight districts exhibit similar scores to each other.

Table 2 District-Wise Get Score Comparison
Tendencies	F score	Sig.	Whether there are any differences district-wise
Need for achievement	5.684	.000	Between Aizawl & Lunglei Between Aizawl & Serchhip Between Aizawl & Mamit Between Aizawl & Siaha
Need for autonomy	2.032	.048	None observed statistically
Creative tendency	7.338	.000	Between Aizawl & Champhai Between Aizawl & Serchhip Between Aizawl & Lawngtlai Between Lunglei & Siaha Between Kolasib & Siaha
Calculated risk-taking	5.889	.000	Between Aizawl & Mamit Between Aizawl & Lawngtlai Between Aizawl & Siaha Between Champhai & Siaha
Drive and determination	11.615	.000	Between Aizawl & Lunglei Between Aizawl & Serchhip Between Aizawl & Mamit Between Aizawl & Champhai Between Aizawl & Siaha Between Aizawl & Kolasib
Total score	15.678	.000	Observed significant difference between Aizawl district and all other districts. No statistical differences observed between the other 8 districts.

The next line of inquiry was set out to find whether there are any significant differences between respondents of different family occupational background in Mizoram with regards to GET scores. The following array shows the findings from primary sources.

The above Table 3 analysis revealed that there is an overall statistically significant difference between self-employed families with govt. employed and business respectively, while there is no statistically significant difference between govt. employed and business families.

Table 3 Differences In Get Between Family Occupational Backgrounds
Tendencies	F	Sig.	Whether there are any differences between family occupational backgrounds?
Need for achievement	7.776	.000	Between Govt. Servant and Self-employed Between Business and Self-employed No difference between Govt. Servant and Business
Need for autonomy	1.989	.137	None
Creative tendency	3.881	.021	Between Govt. Servant and Self-employed No difference between Govt. Servant and Business No difference between Self-employed and Business
Calculated risk taking	2.826	.059	None
Drive and determination	5.387	.005	Between Self-employed and Business No difference between Govt. Servant and Business No difference between Govt. Servant and Self-employed
Total score	10.860	.000	Between Govt. Servant and Self employed Between Self-employed and Business No difference between Govt. Servant and Business

Certain demographic variables were tested against enterprising tendency as outcome to find out whether these have significant influences on overall GET scores. Thus, postulating age, gender, stream of study and region within Mizoram as predictors yield the following results in Table 4.

Table 4 Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.239a	0.057	0.055	4.67716

It was found that only 5.7% change in variance of overall GET score would be contributed by these select predictors. However, correlations between these variables with the scores are significant statistically.

Table 5 demonstrates whether these predictor variables to be a good fit using ANOVA for the outcome (GET score) variable.

Table 5 A Test Of Good Fit Using Anova
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Regression	2926.912	4	731.728	33.449	.000b
Residual	48323.661	2209	21.876
Total	51250.573	2213

The above table gave a very significant p-value i.e., <0.05, the model using the said variables as independent variables gave a significant good fit model.

Since the model was assumed to be good fit as exhibited above, coefficients for each variable may be calculated as follows in Table 6:

Table 6 Calculations Of Coefficients
Variables		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
	(Constant)	33.454	1.222		27.374	0
	Gender of respondents (X1)	-0.612	0.2	-0.064	-3.061	0.002
	Subject course taken by respondents (X2)	0.752	0.133	0.126	5.638	0
	Age of respondents (X3)	-0.132	0.062	-0.045	-2.136	0.033
	Location (X4)	-0.274	0.046	-0.134	-5.904	0

It may be noted that each calculated coefficients display significances as predicting variables within the model viz. age, gender, subject and location (region) of origin to GET score. Thus, multiple regression equation may be formulated as below:

? (Overall GET score) = 33.454 - 0.612(X₁) + 0.752(X₂) -0.132(X₃) -0.274(X₄) (e)

Conclusion

The general enterprising tendency of Mizo youth in Mizoram, assessed using the GET test, reported a medium level enterprising tendency. The average enterprising tendency score of the sample respondents is 30.31, which falls within medium range as prescribed by the instrument. It was observed that in all individual tendencies or traits, the respondents fall short of reaching the average scores done elsewhere. However, it should be noted that the mean score revealed that respondents are likely to have intensities in some of the enterprising characteristics and thus may be enterprising at certain level. Occupation of family, as a variable, displayed significant differences between self-employed families with govt. employed and business respectively, while there is no statistically significant difference between govt. employed and business families. Other demographic variables, taken as independent variables significantly predict the outcome in overall GET scores. These variables may be taken into consideration when formulating entrepreneurship related enhancement programmes.

References

Caird, S. (2013). General measure of Enterprising Tendency test.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Casson, M., & Wadeson, N. (2007). Entrepreneurship and macroeconomic performance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 239–262.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Contreras, A., Nieto, I., Valiente, C., Espinosa, R., & Vazquez, C. (2019). The study of psychopathology from the network analysis perspective: A systematic review. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 88(2), 71–83.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Erkoc, M., & Kert, S. (2013). A comparative study on entrepreneurship tendencies and individual innovativeness perceptions of pre-service teachers. International Journal Social Sciences and Education, 3, 1085–1097.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Fak, B., Fak, B., & Fak, B. (2008). Entrepreneurship tendency: A Research on Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University and Atatürk University Students. Kenan ÖZDEN.
Hartog, J., Praag, M., & van der Sluis, J. (2008). If you are so smart, why aren’t you an entrepreneur? Returns to cognitive and social ability: Entrepreneurs versus employees. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 19.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hayton, J., & Kelley, D. (2006). A competency-based framework for promoting corporate entrepreneurship. Human Resource Management, 45, 407–427.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hindle, K., Klyver, K., & Jennings, D.F. (2009). Understanding the entrepreneurial mind. 34–50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Hynes, B. (1996). Entrepreneurship education and training - introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(8), 10–17.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16, 382–394.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Karabulut, E., & Dogan, P. (2018). Investigation of entrepreneurship trends and general competency levels of university students studying at faculty of sports sciences. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6, 212.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

McCarver, D., Jessup, L., & Davis, D. (2010). Building Entrepreneurship across the University: Cross-Campus collaboration between business and engineering. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23, 761–768.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mueller, S.L., & Thomas, A.S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mumford, M., & Hunter, S. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. Research in Multi-Level Issues, 4, 9–73.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Okudan, G.E., & Rzasa, S.E. (2006). A project-based approach to entrepreneurial leadership education. Technovation.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Rasmussen, E., & Sørheim, R. (2006). Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation, 26, 185–194.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Stormer, Flora, Kline, Theresa, and Goldenberg, Sheldon. ‘Measuring Entrepreneurship with the General Enterprising Tendency (GET) Test: Criterion-related Validity and Reliability’. (1999): 47 – 52.

Google Scholar

Trivedi, J. (2016). Factors determining the acceptance of E wallets. International Journal of Applied Marketing and Management, 1(2), 42-53.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Van der Lingen, E., & van Niekerk, G. (2015). Entrepreneurship traits of Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) students. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 7(1), 117 - 144.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Zhu, Z., & Lin, S. fu. (2019). Understanding entrepreneurial perceptions in the pursuit of emerging e-business opportunities: The dimensions and drivers. Computers in Human Behaviour, 95, 252–261.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 01-Nov-2021, Manuscript No. ije-21-9447; Editor assigned: 04-Nov-2021, PreQC No. ije-21-9447(PQ); Reviewed: 25-Nov-2021, QC No. ije-21-9447; Revised: 31-Dec-2021, Manuscript No. ije-21-9447(R); Published: 07-Jan-2022