Introduction

Globalization has delivered nations collectively and created a borderless world market. It has been an open secret that there are a lot of modifications in the global political map of the world. Countries are starting to demonstrate determination towards switching from monarchies of the ancient period and dictatorial systems to democracy. More importantly, the recent emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in people worldwide have to contend with more self-reliant economic arrangements and job displacement. Globally, the unemployment rate is rising at an unprecedented pace, and this phenomenon is affecting the youth who are ready to enter the workforce. In this case, employment and job creation, with a particular focus on youth unemployment are considered as primary issues. The phenomenon of youth unemployment is reflected in the statistics reported by ILO (2020) recently. Based on the statistics provided by ILO (2020), the employment opportunities for young people is declining: Specifically, there is a decreasing rate of youth employment globally from 46.4 percent in 1999 to 35.6 percent in 2019, and the same trend also exists in the Arab States, which show a decreasing rate from 27.8 percent in 1999 to 21.4 percent in 2019. This trend is directly related to the increasing trend in the youth unemployment. Table 1 shows the increasing trend of youth unemployment in comparison with the World and Arab States, male and female youth unemployment rates from 2019 to 2021(estimates). As shown in Table 1, the rate of youth unemployment in the Arab States is comparatively higher than the global rate. Further, the youth female unemployment rate is consistently higher than the youth male unemployment.

Table ‎1 The Rates of Youth Unemployment (%) Based On Global And Arab States And Gender
Region	Youth Total (%)			Youth Male (%)			Youth Female (%)
2019	2020	2021	2019	2020	2021	2019	2020	2021
World	13.6	13.7	13.8	14.0	14.0	14.1	13.0	13.1	13.2
Arab States	22.9	23.0	22.9	19.7	19.8	19.6	42.2	42.1	42.5

These statistics indicate that global youth unemployment is becoming a world problem, which may disrupt the economic growth and social harmony of a nation. The statistics also show that the rate of youth unemployment in Arab countries is higher than the world’s unemployment rate. Further, the consistently higher rate of unemployment rate for female youth in comparison to male youth can be seen as an obstacle to Arab female entrepreneurs and the success of their businesses (Al Matroushi, Jabeen, Matloub & Tehsin, 2020).

Although there has been a growing concern of the government to address the unemployment issues among the youth, the number of initiatives provided by the government is marginal about the tremendous amounts of supports schemes and funds to support the formative-year job services. In this respect, governments tend to focus on identifying structures and solutions to create new jobs and increase the employment rate. Recognizing the direct relationship between entrepreneurship and the growth of the economy, inculcating youth entrepreneurship is regarded as a viable solution to address the issue of youth unemployment. Developing an entrepreneurial environment is one of the ways to encourage the youth to create a new job and reduce the specter of unemployment (Aljuwaiber, 2020). If vigorously encouraged, youth entrepreneurship is expected to assist with the survival of rising economies. Therefore, an open question is raised: How to develop entrepreneurship among youth in developing countries such as the Arab States? In this case, this research argues that the development of entrepreneur intention at an early age is the key to shifting the employment market to self-independency, in which the new generation can use their entrepreneurial skills to develop new businesses. Even though the literature has highlighted and emphasized the essential role of entrepreneurial education, the majority if now not all paid attention to the university level rather than school. This leaves an unbridged gap because the entrepreneurial competencies improve in the early age of the entrepreneurs. This opens room for an investigation of the factors that impact youth entrepreneurship and the position of the school education. Current empirical work that investigates youth entrepreneurship has provided new insights into the development processes that define the emergence of an entrepreneurial mindset among the youth (Obschonka, 2016). However, a study that emphasizes the creation of entrepreneurial skills resulting from the interrelationship between biological-related factors and cognitive entrepreneurial factors, such as entrepreneurial alertness is still very limited (Obschonka, Hakkarainen & Lonka, 2016). Therefore, this work explores entrepreneurial alertness as part of the cognitive development by emphasizing the development of entrepreneurial cognitive of the young as they reach their adulthood, hence recognizing entrepreneurial alertness as a significant step in the overall growth of a person's vocation (Obschonka, Moeller & Goethner, 2019), time of developmental precursors, especially of an adult entrepreneurial mind-set (Obschonka & Silbereisen, 2015; Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2017) and the explicitly underlying practices of youth entrepreneurship (Olugbola, 2017). Focusing on youth could also be beneficial in advising education initiatives and strategies aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship (Geldhof et al., 2014; Obschonka, Hakkarainen & Lonka, 2016). In addition, aiming to investigate the function of an academic gadget on formative years’ entrepreneurs, this research examines the interplay between formative years’ personality and entrepreneurial competencies as properly as know-how and capabilities on their entrepreneurial alertness and intention.

Literature Review

Mei, et al., (2017) state that entrepreneurial intention is “an individual’s intention to start a business”. Literature on entrepreneurial intention tends to focus on the factors leading to entrepreneurial intention drawn specifically from the psychological perspectives (Laviolette, 2012; Shook & Bratianu, 2010). Three common theories/models that guide the understanding of entrepreneurial intention are (1) Entrepreneurial Ideas (EI) (Bird, 1988); (2) Entrepreneurial Event (EE) (Shapero & Sokol, 1982); and (3) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). Entrepreneurial Ideas (EI) focuses on the importance of implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas (EI) that lead to entrepreneurial intention, which subsequently lead to entrepreneurial actions or activities. Bird (1988) who advocates this model describes intention as one’s interest with a unique purpose to achieve something. About entrepreneurial activities, the entrepreneurial intention is viewed as “creating a new mission or growing new values in a cutting-edge undertaking” (Bird, 1988). Venturing is considered as “an intentional act that includes repeated attempts to reap the preferred result” (Shaver, Gartner & Gatewood, 2001), According to Bird (1988), entrepreneurial intention is the result of an individual’s rational thinking, which is shaped by two-way interactions between individual’s factors such as, personal history, personality and abilities, and the social contexts of the individual, for example, the social, political, and economic context. The outcome of entrepreneurial intention is the entrepreneurial actions, which are executed within a specific period (Tran & Korflesch, 2016).

Accordingly, Boyd & Vozikis (1994) included ‘self-efficacy’ in this model. This is in line with several researchers who claimed that social support, role models, and previous career experiences influence the perception of self-efficacy (Kazumi & Kawai, 2017; Kerr, Kerr & Xu, 2018; Levine & Rubinstein, 2017). However, this model was criticized for being individualistic and did not take into account the external social factors (Y?ld?r?m, Çak?r & A?kun, 2016). Developed by Shapero & Sokol (1982), the entrepreneurial event model advocates that entrepreneurial activities, such as firm creation are the outcome of the interaction between cultural and social factors, which is influenced by individual perceptions. As shown in Figure 1, entrepreneurial intentions are the result of the three factors, which are an individual’s perceived desire, the propensity to act, and the perceived feasibility (Krueger, & Brazeal, 2018). The three factors represent “the crucial moments that capture the extent to which an individual feels competent of starting a business” (Shook, Priem & McGee, 2003).

Schlaegel & Koenig (2014) defined these three factors. Specifically, perceived desirability is defined as “the degree to which an individual feels attracted to become an entrepreneur and reflects individual preferences for entrepreneurial behavior” In a similar vein, Shook, Priem & McGee (2003) refer it as “the attractiveness of being an entrepreneur”.

Further, Schlaegel & Koenig (2014) defined perceived feasibility as “the degree to which individuals are confident that they are personally able to start their own business and consider the possibility to become an entrepreneur as being feasible”, while propensity to act as “an individual’s disposition to act on one’s decision”.

The TPB model was developed by Ajzen (1991) who highlighted three determinants of intention, which are the “attitude toward the act, subjective norms, and perceived feasibility” (Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), with the addition of Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) as a new variable (Sabah, 2016). Shook, Priem & McGee (2003) define the three antecedents of intention about entrepreneurial actions. Perception-based intentions and beliefs can be acquired rather than inherited (Kakouris, 2016). Besides, the intention is dynamic, and it is influenced by personal differences such as experience, knowledge, and others (Bjorvatn, Cappelen, Sekei, Sorensen & Tungodden, 2020). Since the central aim of this research to find out how personality traits influence youth entrepreneurial intention through improving their capabilities, using TPB alone as underpinning theory is not sufficient. Therefore, the entrepreneurial event model (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) has been used to investigate how entrepreneurial intention is formed through their perception of propensity to act upon opportunities (Krueger & Brazeal, 2018). Therefore, the integration between Theory of Planning Behavior and Entrepreneurial Event has been adopted in this research. Finally, the model of Entrepreneurial Idea (EI) model that focuses on implementing entrepreneurial ideas is found to be too limited to provide an understanding of the personality factors. Studies of entrepreneurial intention have been extensively documented, and the majority of these studies were drawn from psychology perspectives (Laviolette, 2012; Shook & Bratianu, 2010; Su, Liu, Zhang & Liu, 2020). Specifically, the literature has reported the dynamic influence of an individual’s entrepreneurial intentions and utilized psychological models (Arend, 2019; Kautonen, Luoto & Tornikoski, 2010). As such, it is pertinent to discuss the positioning of this research to highlight the gaps addressed by this research.

Drawn from the discussion above, this research aims to gain an understanding of the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial awareness and intention. In this case, entrepreneurial skills and knowledge, known as entrepreneurial competencies are considered as the mediating factors that facilitate the relationship of the previously mentioned constructs. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework and the relevant hypotheses to be investigated in this research. As shown in Figure 2, ten hypotheses to test the direct relationship among the constructs have been proposed.

Alertness is a thought that has the achievable to add extensively to our perception of how new thoughts get initiated and pursued” (Tang, Kacmar & Busenitz, 2012). Further, Entrepreneurial Alertness (EA) characterizes humans who have a sensor that allows the consciousness of gaps with limited clues, and a high stage of EA facilitates a mental framework to expand adaptability to exclusive situations (Tang et al., 2012). McMullen and Shepherd (2006) supplied empirical proof that EA immediately contributed to individuals’ judgment and probability identification, which helps to shape their EI and future commercial enterprise behavior. Li, Wang & Liang (2015), in a study of Chinese students, verified that EA significantly envisioned opportunity cognizance and that entrepreneurial alertness is at the heart of being an entrepreneur. In this regard, Hu & Ye (2017) determined that the social cognitive factors of entrepreneurial alertness have a sturdy influence on sports activities' fundamental students’ entrepreneurial intention. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Entrepreneurial alertness has a positive significant relationship with entrepreneurial intention among students.

Personality and Entrepreneurial Alertness and Intention

Researches that investigate the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial intention and alertness tend to measure the different personalities based on gender: male and female (Brandstätter, 2011), or biological strategy (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin & Spector, 2008). According to Obschonka (2014), the common investigation of personality factors in an entrepreneur is the traditional method to explaining entrepreneurial competence, motivation, and mindset. However, to gain a holistic understanding of becoming an entrepreneur, variations in personality needs to be critically considered (Hisrich, Langan-Fox, & Grant, 2007).

Concerning the previous investigations of entrepreneurial alertness to unique personality traits, such as proactivity (Uy, Chan, Sam, Ho & Chernyshenko, 2015), we adopted the Big Five personality traits, which is one of the established methods to analyze different types of personality drawn from the perspective of psychology (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Specifically, our investigation involved the intra-individual entrepreneurial Big Five personality profile, which is the high degree of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness; low stages of agreeableness; and emotion stability. These personality traits have been recognized as a robust predictor of entrepreneurial outcomes, competencies, motivation, and self-identity (Obschonka, 2014; Obschonka & Silbereisen, 2015). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Entrepreneurial personality positively predicts entrepreneurial alertness among students

H3: Entrepreneurial personality positively predicts entrepreneurial intention among students

Personality and entrepreneurial competencies

Age is appropriate entrepreneurial competencies that function as mediators. To gain an understanding of the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial alertness and intentions, we investigated the variable of age for entrepreneurial competencies. Prior research suggests that factors such as leadership, self-esteem, and intrinsic motivation demonstrate entrepreneurial expertise that are developmental precursors of matured entrepreneurial undertaking (Schmitt-Rodermund, 2004; Schmitt-Rodermund, 2007; Obschonka, Silbereisen & Schmitt-rodermund, 2010; Obschonka, Martin & Silbereisen, 2011). These factors are also considered as the constructs of the foundation of entrepreneurial talents of the occupational profession (Obschonka, Martin & Silbereisen, 2011). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4: An entrepreneurial personality positively influences entrepreneurial skills among students.

Personality and Entrepreneurial Knowledge

Considering that people with traits such as the need for achievement, risk-taking propensity, and locus of control have a positive relationship with entrepreneurship education outcomes, namely entrepreneurship intention (Obschonka, Hakkarainen & Lonka, 2016; Ndofirepi, 2020), there is a need to focus on identifying people with these characteristics. However, some studies suggest individual psychological traits are stable; hence and therefore cannot be altered by exposure to external intervention measures (Obschonka et al., 2016). Some studies questioned the predictive power of personality traits on entrepreneurial intentions (Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5: An entrepreneurial personality positively predicts entrepreneurial knowledge amongst students.

Entrepreneurial Competencies and Entrepreneurial Alertness and Intention

Ahmad (2007) defined entrepreneurial competencies as the ‘individual characteristics that include both attributes and behaviors, enabling the entrepreneur to achieve and business successes. Botha, Carruthers & Venter (2019) claimed that entrepreneurs who have higher levels of general skills, such as communication skills and networking have a high possibility to start a new business. This is supported by the personality theory that takes into consideration the relationship between motivations and traits of an entrepreneur (Loscocco & Robinson, 1991). Mischel (1973) asserted that entrepreneurial competencies provide a better method for assessing an individual’s likelihood of success than focusing on personality only. For this research, entrepreneurial competencies are a set of competencies that result in entrepreneurial action. The set of competencies that are positively related to entrepreneurial intention and alertness as identified by Obschonka, Hakkarainen & Lonka (2016) are leadership skills (van Laar, van Deursen, van Dijk & de Haan, 2017), self-esteem (Newman, Obschonka, Schwarz, Cohen & Nielsen, 2019), school engagement and intrinsic motivation (Bueckmann et al., 2020). Previous researches also suggest that the experience of an entrepreneur influences their alertness to identify and exploit the opportunities (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020; Obschonka et al., 2016), together with future behavioral intention and attitudes (Botha et al., 2019). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H6: Entrepreneurial skills have a positive significant effect on entrepreneurial alertness among students

H7: Entrepreneurial skills have a positive significant effect on entrepreneurial intention among students.

Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Alertness and Intention

Students in schools gained entrepreneurial knowledge from training related to entrepreneurship knowledge and skills. Studies have shown that entrepreneurial knowledge can significantly enhance entrepreneurial intentions among college students (Al-Shami, Mamun, Sidek & Rashid, 2019; Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020; Ndofirepi, 2020; Sang & Lin, 2019). According to Sang & Lin (2019), entrepreneurial education with a comprehensive and effective system can be categorized into four groups: content teaching; business plan training; interactive exchange or internship; and support from the educational institutions. Finally, another factor contributing to the level of students ‘entrepreneurial ability is team building tasks. Previous studies show that new firms cannot develop effective teamwork. Managing teams are very important for new venture creation and the growth of the business. In the process of building teamwork, the new venture should concentrate on what each of them can offer rather than their personality. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H8: Entrepreneurial Knowledge has a positive significant relationship with Entrepreneurial Intention

H9: Entrepreneurial Knowledge has a positive significant relationship with Entrepreneurial alertness.

Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Skills

Entrepreneurship education is described as the process in which “behaviors, skills, and attributes are practiced and developed and they help individuals and organizations in creating, bearing, and enjoying the changes and innovations involving larger levels of uncertainty and complexity” (Rauch & Hulsink, 2015; Zhang, Duysters & Cloodt, 2014). Entrepreneurship education includes a set of education and training activities within the educational system, and they focus on developing students the intention to perform entrepreneurial behaviors, elements that affect intention, such as entrepreneurial knowledge, the desirability of the entrepreneurial activity, or feasibility (Barba-Sánchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018) and financial literacy (Al-Shami, Muhamad, Majid & Rashid, 2019; Oseifuah, 2010). Entrepreneurship knowledge relates closely to acquiring knowledge and applying new behaviors of the very entrepreneurs, in the process of recognizing and using opportunities, and organizing and managing the existing ventures (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H10: Entrepreneurial knowledge in school influence positively entrepreneurial skills.

Methodology

A quantitative method was adopted, meanwhile, a questionnaire with a Likert scale seven-point (1- strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) was used as a tool for gathering data. The data was collected for the present study by distributing a set of 500 questionnaires (sample size) among students in the final year of their secondary school at Emirates National Schools ENS. ENS is private tuition-based, PK to grade 12 schools in five locations: Mohammed Bin Zayed City (4,301 students), Al Ain City (2,847 students), Abu Dhabi City (2,066 students), Sharjah (1,614 students), and Ras Al Khaimah (1549 students). Therefore, this research used randomly stratified where the population was divided into five strata. However, 320 were found valid for statistical data analysis. Of them, 62% were males and 38% female.

Table 2 Sample Distribution and Collection
School Location	Population	Sample	%	Completed
Mohammed Bin Zayed City	4301	174	35%	110
Al Ain City	2847	115	23%	75
Abu Dhabi City	2066	83	17%	55
Sharjah	1614	65	13%	43
Ras Al Khaimah	1549	63	12%	37
Total	12377	500	100%	320

Terms Definition

Exogenous variable refers to Five Big personalities, which defines youth entrepreneurial personality from the Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Emotion stability, and Conscientiousness. For measuring the big five traits 28 items were adopted from (Farrington, 2012; Obschonka, Hakkarainen, Lonka & Salmela-Aro, 2017). Endogenous variable, which refers to as a “self-acknowledged conviction via a person who intends to set up a new business enterprise assignment and consciously plans to do so at some factor in the future”. In this research, the entrepreneurial intention is measured through six measurements adopted from (Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard & Rueda-Cantuche, 2011; Obschonka et al., 2017; Zampetakis, Gotsi, Andriopoulos & Moustakis, 2011). There are three mediators namely entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial skills, and entrepreneurial knowledge. Entrepreneurial alertness defines as scanning and looking for information, connecting until now disparate information [and] making reviews on the existence of profitable commercial enterprise possibilities. In this research, entrepreneurial alertness among youth is measured by 22 items suggested by (Ho, Uy, Kang & Chan, 2018; Neneh, 2019; Tang et al., 2012). Entrepreneurial skills, which refers to the prior knowledge or experience, refers to an individual’s distinctive information about a particular subject matter, maybe the result of work experience, education (Cooper, 1997), or other means (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Entrepreneurial skills were measured through 21 items represents school engagement, self-esteem, intrinsic motivations, and team management (Obschonka et al., 2017). Finally, entrepreneurial knowledge is known as the entrepreneurial ability to sense, select, shape, and synchronize internal and external conditions for the exploration (recognition, discovery, and creation) and exploitation of opportunities (Zahra, 2011). To measure young entrepreneurial ability as knowledge, this research used finance Management knowledge financial knowledge Marketing knowledge Effective business plan Team building task Administrative task Motivation Opportunity (Olugbola, 2017).

Figure 3, shows the demographic profiles of the respondents in this study. More of the respondents were male (62%) than male (38%).

Analysis

As shown in Figure 4, 56 female students about 46% of total participated states that they want to be an entrepreneur after finishing their study compared to only 37 respondents about 12% of their counterpart male students. This shows new insight into the regional change in Arab and women empowerment, especially in the UAE. It also indicates that most of the male students in the UAE prefer to join the government sector with about 38% compared to 32% of women.

Validity and Reliability

The evaluation of construct reliability, indicator reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the defined constructs is the first step in SEM. Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach's alpha were used to determine construct dependability (CA). The requirement is that the CR value must be greater than 0.07 to show that the construct hair is reliable. The CR values obtained for this present were greater than 0.07, indicating sufficient construct dependability, according to the measurement model results (Table 3). The indicator's dependability was then tested using CA, with CA values greater than 0.07. As a result, the CA in this study for all parameters was acceptable. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was used to determine the convergent validity of constructs, which should be more than 0.50 (Ringle & Sarstedt, 2016). The convergent validity of constructs for this study was confirmed because the results demonstrated that all constructs had significant AVE. Table 2 depicts the values of CA, CR, and AVE.

Table 3 Validity and Reliability
Construct	CA	CR	AVE	Discriminant Validity
Entrepreneurial Alertness (EA)	0.931	0.941	0.571	YES
Entrepreneurial Skills	0.944	0.95	0.68	YES
Entrepreneurial Skills – Intrinsic (ECIM)	0.879	0.912	0.675	YES
Entrepreneurial Skills – Leadership (ECLE)	0.865	0.908	0.713	YES
Entrepreneurial Skills –School Engagement (ECSE)	0.876	0.91	0.669	YES
Entrepreneurial Skills – Self Esteem (ECSF)	0.874	0.909	0.666	YES
Entrepreneurial Intention (EI)	0.852	0.894	0.628	YES
Entrepreneurial Knowledge (EK)	0.76	0.837	0.508	YES
Personality Traits – Agreeableness (PTAR)	0.749	0.842	0.571	YES
Personality Traits – Conscientiousness (PTCO)	0.844	0.89	0.618	YES
Personality Traits – Extraversion (PTEX)	0.736	0.851	0.655	YES
Personality Traits – Neuroticism (PTES)	0.762	0.863	0.677	YES
Personality Traits – Openness (PTOP)	0.801	0.87	0.628	YES

The discriminant validity of the components was assessed using three methods: the Fornell and Lacker criterion, cross-loading, and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Hair Jr et al., 2016). By comparing the square root of AVE retrieved from each concept with the correlation between constructs, the Fornell–Lacker criterion is used to assess discriminant validity. The cross-loading approach then advises that the construct's outer loading should be greater than the associated construct loading to indicate appropriate discriminant validity. Table 4 shows the Fornell–Lacker results, whereas Table 4 shows the cross-loading results. According to (Kline et al., 2012), values above 0.85 imply that the measurement has good discriminant validity. As a result, the discriminant validity of the constructs was confirmed in this investigation, as all loadings of the constructs were higher than the other constructs. Finally, the Fornell–Lacker criterion is used to verify discriminant validity, which demonstrated substantial relationships between the constructs. (Figure 5)

Table 4 Discriminant Validity
	EA	EC	ECIM	ECLE	ECSE	ECSF	EI	EK	PT	PTAR	PTCO	PTEX	PTES	PTOP
EA	0.755
EC	0.507	0.706
ECIM	0.449	0.792	0.822
ECLE	0.534	0.885	0.604	0.844
ECSE	0.384	0.876	0.574	0.703	0.818
ECSF	0.382	0.880	0.549	0.748	0.715	0.816
EI	0.465	0.394	0.388	0.337	0.341	0.285	0.793
EK	0.430	0.350	0.320	0.321	0.311	0.252	0.375	0.713
PT	0.356	0.279	0.319	0.210	0.204	0.224	0.217	0.347	0.700
PTAR	0.292	0.262	0.328	0.202	0.172	0.199	0.189	0.322	0.923	0.756
PTCO	0.309	0.214	0.220	0.168	0.130	0.215	0.168	0.268	0.860	0.736	0.786
PTEX	0.296	0.250	0.297	0.186	0.199	0.176	0.153	0.325	0.886	0.804	0.665	0.809
PTES	0.297	0.259	0.289	0.175	0.199	0.224	0.195	0.262	0.912	0.805	0.765	0.764	0.823
PTOP	0.375	0.257	0.292	0.199	0.216	0.175	0.250	0.364	0.857	0.759	0.579	0.752	0.733	0.792

Hypotheses Testing

Based on the results obtained through PLS-SEM, the structural model was used to test the hypothesis of the present research study as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Path Coefficients
Path	Path Coefficient	S.E	t-Value	p-Value
EA → EI	0.295	0.076	3.877	0.000
EC → EA	0.376	0.062	6.034	0.000
EC → EI	0.179	0.075	2.407	0.016
EK → EA	0.239	0.054	4.402	0.000
EK → EC	0.288	0.057	5.087	0.000
EK → EI	0.187	0.059	3.142	0.002
PT → EA	0.168	0.056	3.018	0.003
PT → EC	0.179	0.062	2.862	0.004
PT → EI	-0.003	0.055	0.053	0.957
PT → EK	0.347	0.050	6.975	0.000

The values of path coefficients, t-values, and p-values at a significance level of 0.05 were evaluated to test the hypothesis. First, our results show a positive relationship between EA and EI with b coefficient of 0.295. This confirms studies by (Murugesan & Jayavelu, 2017; Obschonka et al., 2017). Second, there is a significant positive relationship between EC and EA, at b coefficient of 0.376, which is in line with the study by (Bueckmann-Diegoli et al., 2020). Third, there is a significant positive relationship between EC and EI, at b coefficient of 0.179, which is in line with the studies by (Neneh, 2019; Sang & Lin, 2019; Urban, 2020). Fourth, there is a significant positive relationship between EK and EA, at b coefficient of 0.239, which is in line with the studies by (Obschonka et al., 2017). Fifth, there is a significant positive relationship between EK and EC, at b coefficient of 0.288, which is in line with the studies by (Murugesan & Jayavelu, 2017). Sixth, there is a significant positive relationship between EK and EI, at b coefficient of 0.187, which is in line with the studies by (Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riordan, Gatewood & Stokes, 2004). Seventh, there is a significant positive relationship between PT and EA, at b coefficient of 0.168, which is in line with the study by (Pyysiäinen, Anderson, McElwee & Vesala, 2006). Eighth, there is a significant positive relationship between PT and EC, at b coefficient of 0.179, which is in line with the study by (Obschonka et al., 2017). Ninth, there is no relationship between PT and EI. According to the results of the present study, the value of the path coefficient between PT and EI was measured as -0.003. The t-value was 0.053 which is smaller than a critical value of 1.96 and the p-value of 0.957 was also found to be more than the threshold value of 0.05 and hypothesis 9 was rejected. The finding of this paper is in line with studies by (Obschonka et al., 2017), in which prior knowledge, which refers to an individual’s distinctive information about a particular subject matter, may be the result of work experience and education (Cooper, 1997) or other means (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Finally, there is a significant positive relationship between PT and EK. According to the results of the present study, the value of path coefficient between PT and EK was measured as 0.347. The t-value was 6.975 which is larger than the critical value of 1.96 and the p-value of 0.000 was also found to be less than the threshold value of 0.05. These values proved the significance of this path coefficient. The finding of our study h confirms studies in the literature, in which a high level of emotional stability harms entrepreneurial performance (Mei et al., 2017) and vice versa (Caliendo, Fossen & Kritikos, 2014).

Discussion and Conclusion

Following a thorough literary analysis of key factors that influence entrepreneurship, a conceptual model was developed which demonstrated potential connections between entrepreneurial personality characteristics, self-esteem, and business behavior (Al-Shami et al., 2015). The impact of knowledge overload was also included, which, even though recognized as a problem, was not evaluated empirically in the business discipline. In my research, all these main relationships in an evolving economic sense were empirically tested and contributed greatly to literature. The main contributions to theory are mentioned below:

In the case of the emerging economies, (Zahra, Filatotchev & Wright, 2009), suggested testing existing western theories. The findings in the field of personality and business performance were based on the current theory (Teece & Pisano, 1997; Zhao, Hills & Seibert, 2005). In terms of entrepreneurial actions, these investigations have turned observed actions into empirical constructions and have been able to assess the relationship between the personality and entrepreneurial performance of the entrepreneurs. Some positive relationships were published. This is the base for further research. This research is useful by researching UAE students in the developing economies for the business studies undertaken. The number of published researches in this sector is not reasonably representative of the extent of entrepreneurs' activities, although there is a growing population of entrepreneurs. This study thus helps to develop the perception of UAE entrepreneurs in reality. The findings have substantial theoretical and practical consequences. The present study first expands the literature about entrepreneurship by adding a psychological viewpoint to explain the causes of personality features that contribute to entrepreneurship.

Given that Big Five Personality is not enough to clarify UAE people's motives or actions (Zheng, Yang & Feng, 2010), We researched relationships with entrepreneurial purpose between the Big Six personality (e.g.: Emotional Health, Conscience), Agreeability, Extraversion, Openness, and IR). Combining personality theory with the cognitive and affective framework, social cognitions, and personal health theory, this research highlights the influence of personality traits on the selection of individuals in work, such as entrepreneurship. In particular, based on the theory of fitness for the workforce, we supposed that personality traits could be an indicator of the purpose and choice of a worker. We find the Emotional in this current study. Stability, perception, extraversion, and the relationship between individuals have been positively related to enterprise purpose. It means that those four dimensions undoubtedly influence the entrepreneurial purpose of a person to a different extent. These results expand the theory of person-fitness and provide empirical evidence that the great six personalities are logical and useful in determining the purpose of the individual. The research, therefore, leads to the integration in a particular sense of personality and entrepreneurship. In addition, our work applies personality theory (Mischel, 1973) and the theory of social cognition (Bandura, 2012) to the study of the relationship between characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions. These relationships were planned and evaluated to integrate both static and dynamic. The statistical viewpoint is rooted in the logic of the relatively stable characteristic of personality based on a genetic view, while cognitive-affective system theory of personality and social cognition theory offers us a complex logic to explore the deep connection between interpersonal and cognitive relationships. These two cognition theories indicated that interpersonal relationships have contributed to cognitive change and development and, in turn, could drive personality development (Jing, Rosenzweig & G d’Ydewalle, 2006). Combining the above two logics of static and dynamics, we suggest the sustainable identity of the Big Six, emphasized based on the UAE system.

In conjunction with the above studies, we adopted the Big Six personality model (Bandura, 2012), differentiated from that of the Big Five concerning the dimension of interpersonal relations to explore its effects on entrepreneurial purpose. These results suggest that interpersonal contact might be best suited to describe the personalities, motives, or actions of UAE people adequately. This thesis, therefore, explores cognition theories further and integrates them with business. We stress, first of all, that personality is maintained based on personality theory (Mischel, 1973), of the cognitive-affecting mechanism and its continuing effect on the entire life of people. The main influence of Interpersonal relationships on entrepreneurship provides the basis for the suggestion that personality is sustainable. Sustainable personality, in particular, is compatible positively with generating creativity that is closely linked to sustainable economic growth. In the Soriano et al., study (Soriano, Roig, Sanchis & Torcal, 2002), they proposed a new means of encouraging innovation functions such as targets or service innovation for consulting companies that lead to the growth of these companies in a sustainable manner. It is therefore necessary to note the sustainable personality of the energetic and creative students in the same manner as (Soriano et al., 2002).

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka for funding this research

References

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2. Al-Shami, S., Mamun, A., Al, Sidek, S., & Rashid, N. (2019). Causes of failure among Malaysian female entrepreneurs: A qualitative case study of Malaysian microcredit borrowers. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 12(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-12-2018-0142
3. Al-Shami, S.S.A., Muhamad, M.R., Majid, I., & Rashid, N. (2019). Women’s entrepreneurs’ micro and small business performance: Insights from Malaysian microcredit. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 38(3), 312–338. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2019.103433
4. Al-Shami, S.S., Majid, I., Rizal, S., Muhamad, M.R., Sarah-Halim, & Rashid, N. (2015). The impact of Malaysian microfinance on women livelihood. Advanced Science Letters, 21(6), 2046–2049. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2015.6202
5. Al Matroushi, H., Jabeen, F., Matloub, A., & Tehsin, M. (2020). Push and pull model of women entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from the UAE. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-02-2017-0020
6. Aljuwaiber, A. (2020). Entrepreneurship research in the Middle East and North Africa: trends, challenges, and sustainability issues. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2019-0123
7. Arend, R.J. (2019). Entrepreneurial entrepreneurship youth education: Initiating grounded theory. Entrepreneurship Education, 2(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-019-00014-3
8. Bandura, A. (2012). Social foundations of thought and action. In the health psychology reader. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221129.n6
9. Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.04.001
10. Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta?analysis. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
11. Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442–453. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306970
12. Bjorvatn, K., Cappelen, A.W., Sekei, L.H., Sorensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2020). Teaching through television: Experimental evidence on entrepreneurship education in Tanzania. SSRN Electronic Journal, in press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2594748
13. Botha, M., Carruthers, T.J., & Venter, M.W. (2019). The relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and the recurring entrepreneurial intention and action of existing entrepreneurs. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 11(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v11i1.191
14. Boyd, N.G., & Vozikis, G.S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800404
15. Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007
16. Bueckmann-Diegoli, R., García de los Salmones Sánchez, M. del M., & San Martín Gutiérrez, H. (2020). The development of entrepreneurial alertness in undergraduate students. In Education and Training. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2019-0042
17. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F., & Kritikos, A.S. (2014). Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Business Economics, 42(4), 787-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9514-8
18. Ciavarella, M.A., Buchholtz, A.K., Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D., & Stokes, G.S. (2004). The big five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 465–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.03.001
19. Cooper, W. (1997). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. The Journal of Private Equity, 1(2), 13–30.
20. Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2007). The long way to entrepreneurship: Personality, parenting, early interests, and competencies as precursors for entrepreneurial activity among the “Termites.”
21. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
22. Farrington, S.M. (2012). Does personality matter for small business success? South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 15(4), 381-401.
23. Geldhof, G.J., Malin, H., Johnson, S.K., Porter, T., Bronk, K.C., Weiner, M.B., … & Damon, W. (2014). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology Entrepreneurship in young adults?: Initial findings from the young entrepreneurs study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 410–412.
24. Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd edition). SAGE.
25. Hisrich, R., Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship research and practice: A call to action for psychology. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.575
26. Ho, M.H.R., Uy, M.A., Kang, B.N.Y., & Chan, K.Y. (2018). Impact of entrepreneurship training on entrepreneurial efficacy and alertness among adolescent youth. Frontiers in Education, 3(13). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00013
27. HU, R., & Ye, Y. (2017). Do entrepreneurial alertness and self-efficacy predict chinese sports major students’ entrepreneurial intention? Social behavior and personality: An International Journal, 45(7), 1187–1196. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6356
28. Kakouris, A. (2016). Exploring entrepreneurial conceptions, beliefs and intentions of Greek graduates. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07-2014-0137
29. Kautonen, T., Luoto, S., & Tornikoski, E.T. (2010). Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions in “prime age” and “third age”: A preliminary study. International Small Business Journal, 28(6), 583-601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242610368592
30. Kazumi, T., & Kawai, N. (2017). Institutional support and women’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11(3), 345-365. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-12-2017-041
31. Kerr, S.P., Kerr, W.R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1561/0300000080
32. Kline, E., Wilson, C., Ereshefsky, S., Tsuji, T., Schiffman, J., Pitts, S., & Reeves, G. (2012). Convergent and discriminant validity of attenuated psychosis screening tools. Schizophrenia Research, 134, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2011.10.001.
33. Krueger, Jr., N.F., & Brazeal, D.V. (2018). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. REGEPE - Revista de Empreendedorismo e Gestão de Pequenas Empresas. https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.v7i2.1071
34. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0
35. Laviolette. (2012). Article information. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior, 18(6), 720–742.
36. Levine, R., & Rubinstein, Y. (2017). Smart and illicit: Who becomes an entrepreneur and do they earn more? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 963–1018. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw044
37. Li, Y., Wang, P., & Liang, Y.J. (2015). Influence of entrepreneurial experience, alertness, and prior knowledge on opportunity recognition. Social behavior and personality: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.9.1575
38. Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z
39. Llewellyn, D.J., & Wilson, K.M. (2003). The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurialpsychology.Education+Training.https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310495996
40. Loscocco, K.A., & Robinson, J. (1991). Barriers to women’s small business success in the UnitedStates.Gender&Society,5(4),511–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124391005004005
41. Mei, H., Ma, Z., Jiao, S., Chen, X., Lv, X., & Zhan, Z. (2017). The sustainable personality in entrepreneurship: The relationship between Big Six personality, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in the Chinese context. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(9), 1649. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091649
42. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035002
43. Murugesan, R., & Jayavelu, R. (2017). the influence of big five personality traits and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention: The role of gender. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, 3(1), 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393957516684569
44. Ndofirepi, T.M. (2020). Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial goal intentions: Psychological traits as mediators. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0115-x
45. Neneh, B.N. (2019). From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.10.020
46. Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012
47. Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T.D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54(1), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0761
48. Silbereisen, O.M. (2011). Successful entrepreneurship as developmental outcome. QUT, 16(3), 174–186.
49. Obschonka, M. (2014). Entrepreneurship as 21st century skill: Taking a developmental perspective. In Psycho-Social Career Meta-Capacities: Dynamics of Contemporary Career Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00645-1_16
50. Obschonka, M. (2016). Adolescent pathways to entrepreneurship adolescent pathways to entrepreneurship. Child development perspectives adolescent, 0(0), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12185
51. Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., & Lonka, K. (2016). Entrepreneurship as 21st century skill: Taking a developmental perspective entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century skill?: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9798-6
52. Obschonka, M., Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). Entrepreneurship as a twenty-first century skill: Entrepreneurial alertness and intention in the transition to adulthood. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9798-6
53. Obschonka, M., Moeller, J., & Goethner, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial passion and personality: The case of academic entrepreneurship. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2697. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02697
54. Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R.K. (2015). Entrepreneurial self-identity: Predictors and effects within the theory of planned behavior framework entrepreneurial self-identity: Predictors and Effects within the Theory of Planned Behavior Framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 773–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9385-2
55. Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R.K., & Schmitt-rodermund, E. (2010). Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior Journal, 77(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.008
56. Obschonka, M., & Stuetzer, M. (2017). Integrating psychological approaches to entrepreneurship: The Entrepreneurial Personality System (EPS). Small Business Economics, 49, 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9821-y
57. Olugbola, S.A. (2017). Exploring entrepreneurial readiness of youth and startup success components: Entrepreneurship training as a moderator. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(3), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.004
58. Oseifuah, E.K. (2010). "Financial literacy and youth entrepreneurship in South Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies.
59. Pyysiäinen, J., Anderson, A., McElwee, G., & Vesala, K. (2006). Developing the entrepreneurial skills of farmers: Some myths explored. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550610644463
60. Jing, Q.C., Rosenzweig, M.R., & G d’Ydewalle, H.Z. (2006). Progress in psychological science around the world.
61. Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship Education where the intention to Act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning and Education. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0293
62. Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865–1886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449
63. Sabah, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial Intention: Theory of planned behaviour and the moderation effect of start-up experience. In Entrepreneurship - Practice-Oriented Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5772/65640
64. Sang, D., & Lin, J. (2019). How does entrepreneurial education influence the entrepreneurial intention of college students: The moderating and mediating effects of entrepreneurial alertness. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(8), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i08.10408
65. Schlaegel, C., & Koenig, M. (2014). Determinants of entrepreneurial intent: A meta-analytic test and integration of competing models. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12087
66. Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004). Pathways to successful entrepreneurship: Parenting, personality, early entrepreneurial competence, and intezrests. Journal of Vocational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.007
67. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research note the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research University of Maryland. Review Literature and Arts Of The Americas. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.2791611
68. Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 72–90.
69. Shaver, K.G., Gartner, W.B., & Gatewood, E.J. (2001). Framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business. ETP, 26(2), 5–28.
70. Shook, C.L., & Bratianu, C. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy: An application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian Students’ Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy: An application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-008-0091-2
71. Shook, C.L., Priem, R.L., & McGee, J.E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00016-3
72. Soriano, D.R., Roig, S., Sanchis, J.R., & Torcal, R. (2002). The role of consultants in SMEs: The use of services by Spanish Industry. International Small Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242602201007
73. Su, X., Liu, S., Zhang, S., & Liu, L. (2020). To be happy: A case study of entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial process from the perspective of positive psychology. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(2), 584; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020584
74. Tang, J., Kacmar, K. M. M., & Busenitz, L. (2012). Entrepreneurial alertness in the pursuit of new opportunities. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(1), 77–94.
75. Teece, D.J., & Pisano, G.S. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
76. Tran, A.T.P., & Von Korflesch, H. (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjie-12-2016-007
77. Urban, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial alertness, self-efficacy and social entrepreneurship intentions. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development.
78. Uy, M.A., Chan, K.Y., Sam, Y.L., Ho, M. ho R., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2015). Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115-123.
79. van Laar, E., van Deursen, A.J.A.M., van Dijk, J.A.G.M. & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
80. Y?ld?r?m, N., Çak?r, Ö., & A?kun, O.B. (2016). Ready to dare? A case study on the entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students in Turkey. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 229, 277 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.138
81. Zahra, S.A., Filatotchev, I., & Wright, M. (2009). How do threshold firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.09.001
82. Zampetakis, L.A., Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Moustakis, V. (2011). Creativity and entrepreneurial intention in young people Empirical insights from business school students. Entrepreneurship and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2011.0037
83. Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor of university students’ entrepreneurial intention. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(3), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0246-z
84. Zhao, H., Hills, G.E., & Seibert, S.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265
85. Zheng, J., Yang, J., & Feng, H. (2010). Personality Trait structure of shanxi business-tycoons in the chinese ming and qing dynasties. International Journal of Psychological Studies. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v2n2p117