ScienceDirectProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Predicting Enterprising Tendency in High Ability and Average University Students
Margita Mesárošováa,b, Peter Mesároša*
aResearch Institute of ICT in Construction Sector, Garbiarska 5, Košice, 040 01 Slovakia, bUniversity of Pavol Jozef Šafárik at Košice, Moyzesova 9, Košice, 040 01 Slovakia
2 Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000
1. Introduction
Competency approach has become significantly popular in the study of entrepreneurial characteristics. The entrepreneurial competencies are integral part of eight key competencies which were set up by the Commission of the European Communities (2009). It is assumed that these competencies are interrelated and mutually affected. For example, an entrepreneur should have developed verbal, mathematical and digital competency, as well as cultural, social and civic competencies. Costigan and Donahue (2009) define a set of "eight major competencies" to promote the efficiency of the workers organisations of 21st century. These competencies include enterprising and performing, adapting and coping, organizing and executing, creating and conceptualizing, analysing and interpreting, interacting and presenting, supporting and cooperating, and leading and deciding. These competencies are part of managerial and leadership competencies.
1.1. Entrepreneurial competency and enterprising tendency
Exploring the entrepreneurial competency complicates the applied theoretical background (psychological, educational, or business) and methodological approach. Another reason for the complexity of the research of entrepreneurial competency is its comprehensive nature. On the basis of the psychological (McClelland, 1973) and a business approach (Caird, 1991; Cromie, 2000) one can understand entrepreneurial competency as complex concept, in which we can allocate more components: general and special abilities, entrepreneurship, managerial competency, skills and knowledge necessary for this activity, as well as achievement motivation and attitudes towards entrepreneurship, willingness to take risks, and autonomy.
Enterprising competency has many denominations in the literature, for example, entrepreneurial/enterprising tendency, business sense, and intention. The business sense is regarded as the potential that guarantees the development and achieving business goals established by entrepreneur. According Hulsink and Elfring (2003) the sense of the business is state of mind that leads to business behaviour and predicts business behaviour. Empirical experience confirms that a significant number of successful entrepreneurs come from poor, strict or disintegrated families. Other views focus on business conditions and it is believed that sense of business is shaped by the conditions offered by the environment, in which the individual develops. A sense of entrepreneurship is therefore formed by environmental and social conditions. On the other hand, Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin, & Spector. (2008) on the basis of their research claimed that there are some genetic predispositions for enterprising competency.
1.2. Giftedness and high ability
Besjes-de Bock and Ruyter (2011) listed five kinds of models of giftedness. Proponents of the oldest model of giftedness, biological model, regarded general intelligence as an innate characteristic. Degree of intelligence in this case is manifested in the educational process and is represented by a numerical value, that is, intelligence quotient. Based on this, we can predict the theoretical percentage of the gifted individuals in the future (Mönks, & Mason, 2000). Model points out that (high) intelligence is valuable, because it is essential in personal and social conditions. We can therefore say that giftedness help us to achieve certain social roles and positions (leader, innovator), which are useful to not only for individuals but also for society. Therefore, giftedness is attributed to social value. Proponents of this model (Feldman, 2003; Robinson, 2005) therefore propose that education can systematically promote maturation of academic ability. The problem with this model, however, is that the importance of the value of IQ is often overestimated and those with high intelligence quotient are in society often favoured what is incompatible with a democratic value of equal opportunities.
Models of specific talents are linked to the theory of Revesz (in Besjes-de Bock, Ruyter, 2011) and the theory of multiple intelligences Gardner (1999). The model accepts the biological basis of talent, but rejects the notion that talent is manifested only in academic skills. Different people have different talents. According Revesz (in Besjes-de Bock, & Ruyter, 2011) talent has a biological basis, and is developing on the basis of personal interest or social requirements. Gardner (1999) also addressed the social acceptance of giftedness and stated that based on his theory
Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000 3
of multiple intelligences, these kinds of talents are mutually incomparable, and therefore in this case the numerical value of IQ is irrelevant. The potential of gifted is defined according their professional activity and productivity in the field. This model points out that each specific talent is valuable for the company and reflects its utility value.
Mesárošová (1998) presented a model of giftedness building on statement that giftedness is a multidimensional phenomenon, which consists of a set of human characteristics, namely the determinants linked to personality and social environment.
1.3. Social competency
The general model of social skills (Riggio, 1989) is based on research and measurement of development of social skills. Riggio (1989, p 84) termed social competence a "constellation of different communication skills." It is a skill to obtain information that is associated with a communication sensibility, as well as skill transfer information - expressiveness and skill and also communication, monitoring, control and regulation. These three basic skills are applied in two areas, namely in verbal (social) and non-verbal (emotional). Riggio (1989) describes six different social skills, which are: emotional expression, emotional sensitivity, emotional control, social expression, social sensitivity and social control.
We assumed significant difference between high ability/gifted and average ability students in social competence in favour of the gifted in concordance with research findings (Corso, 2002; Perrone, Perrone, Książak, Wright, Jaskson, 2007). We also assumed that social competency can predict of an enterprising tendency/competency.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample consisted of one hundred and sixty university students of economics and humanities (70 students were assessed as high ability students, 63 % were female) aged from 19 to 27 years . Of note, the database analysed in this study was part of a larger study investigating the competencies for the knowledge society of university students. We prefer use term high ability instead of gifted or giftedness because of methods of identification, which was based on the results of test of intelligence structure.
In the group of 70 high ability students 32 were men and 38 women; 30 high ability students major in economics, 40 high ability students majoring in humanities. The average age of the high ability students was 22.11 years. Average ability sample was composed of 90 respondents including 26 men and 64 women, the students of economics and humanities; their average age was 22.32 years. In total sample sixty students were majoring in economics, and one hundred in humanities. For including to the sample of high ability students we applied the following criteria: study field in humanities or economics; superior performance in a test measuring intelligence (ISA-S), i.e. at least 84th percentile in verbal intelligence subtest of ISA-S or at least 84 percentile in mathematical intelligence subtest. Respondents in the average ability group were chosen from classmates of high ability college students.
4 Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000
2.2. Procedures
The approval to conduct the study was received from the participating high school and universities. Students were not paid for participation. In groups of approximately 20 to 30, students who assented to participate completed the measures described below and a brief demographic questionnaire. The manuscript author and additional research assistant were on hand throughout the administration of the tests and inventory to assist students with questions and to check for response errors. One session lasting approximately 60 minutes was held for direct measuring verbal competency, self-regulated learning strategies (metacognitive awareness) and professional interests.
2.3. Measures
Respondents completed General Enterprising Tendency test (Caird, 1991, 2011) to assess their enterprising tendency, Social Skills Inventory (Riggio and Carney, 2002) to ascertain social skills and The Intelligence Structure Analysis (Fay, Trost, & Gittler, G., 2001) to assess intellectual abilities. Analysis of variance and regression analysis were used to conduct statistical analysis. The Intelligence Structure Analysis (Fay, Trost, & Gittler, G., 2001) is a technique that diagnoses main aspects of the talents and abilities of general intellectual performance. Test is based on preceding classical intelligence tests (IST-70) and on the concept of measurement of intelligence structure rather than overall score. It enables evaluation of the level of cognitive skills in each group of tasks (subtest), as well as overall report about intellectual skills of an individual. It consists of 9 sets of tasks: (1) Completion of sentences (verbal-logical thinking, abstraction in verbal expression), (2) Common features (ability of abstraction in verbal expression), (3) Figural memory (immediate memory skills), (4) Numerical sequences (inductive thinking, mental flexibility), (5) Relationships (ability of precise use of verbal terms), (6) Cube recognition (spatial imagination), (7) Practical arithmetic (counting, inferences and induction), (8) Generation of terms (significant aspect of language acquisition), (9) Completion of figures (concrete imagination). For the purposes of this study we obtained scores for four subtests (two verbal and two mathematical subtests). Cronbach’s alfas were for these subtests as follows: Common features - Cronbach’s α was .80; Numerical sequences α was.72; Practical arithmetic α was .81; Generation of terms α was.76.
General Enterprising Tendency (GET; Caird, 1991, 2011) is aimed to assess the sense of entrepreneurship. The scale contains 54 items, in which the respondent assesses his/her business attributes: the need for success, the need for autonomy, the creativity, locus of control, and willingness to assume risk. Unlike of Caird (1991) in our study we asked respondents to express their level of agreement on a 100-point scale. We conducted a confirmatory analysis to check up that the factors of enterprising tendency (GET; Caird, 1991) are the same for our sample. Confirmatory analysis, however, did not confirm Caird model. The values of chi-square = 5954.6; p = .000; Steiger-Lind RMSEA index = .126 and Bentler CFI = .280 are not acceptable and there is a significant deviation of theoretical and empirical models. Thus we made an exploratory factor analysis which has yield five factors loaded by distinct items as it was in research of Caird (1991): Achievement motivation - Cronbach’s α was .76; Need for autonomy - Cronbach’s α was .72; Locus of control - Cronbach’s α was .63; Creativity - Cronbach’s α was .69; Risk taking - - Cronbach’s α was .77). Social Skills Inventory (SSI, Riggio, & Carney (2007). It is a self-report method that allows effective assessment of basic social /emotional competency. It contains 90 items with a 5-point scale response format (Not at all like me - A little like me - Like me - Very much like me - Exactly like me). The questionnaire contains six scales: Emotional Expressivity, Emotional Sensitivity, Emotional Control, Social Expressivity, Social Sensitivity, and Social Control. The overall SSI score is calculated by adding the emotional and social dimensions. Cronbach's alphas in our sample for the scale are as follows: Emotional Expressivity - Cronbach’s α was.78; Emotional Sensitivity - Cronbach’s α was. 82; Emotional Control - Cronbach’s α was.89; Social Expressivity - Cronbach’s α was.82; Social Sensitivity -Cronbach’s α was.84; Social Control - Cronbach’s α was.86; the whole scale - Cronbach’s α was.87.
Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000 5
2.4. Data analysis
Statistical program SPSS 20 was used for data processing. Independent variables in our research were gender, ability level (high ability, average ability) and the field of study (humanitarian and economic). Parametric and nonparametric methods (t-test and U-test) were employed for the calculation of the differences, as well as the linear regression method for prediction.
3. Results
3.1. Group differences in social competencies by ability level and study field
We have revealed by t-test that students are not differed by ability level in the social competencies (t = .815; p = .416), the mean raw score on social competencies questionnaire for high ability students was 285.65, compared to a mean of 281.61 for average students. The similar results were found in specific dimensions of social competencies, students did not differ by ability level in social dimensions (t = .445; p = .657), as well in emotional dimensions (t = 1.205; p = .230). The only statistically significant difference was found in experiencing the emotional control, which was higher developed in high ability students (t = 2.709; p = .007). Students of both study fields achieved comparable total scores on social competencies (t = -1.178, p =. 241); on the other hand, they differed in social competencies in cumulated control scales due to study field (t = -2.175, p =. 031) with higher control of students majoring in economics. In addition, the total social competencies scores were not differed for the groups in term of gender (t = 1.121, p = .263), as well as in specific social competencies dimensions (values of probability p ranged from .106 to .969). We have found only slightly higher total SSI score in female participants.
3.2. Group differences in enterprising tendency by ability level and study field
We have revealed by Man Whitney U - test that students are differed by ability level in the specific factors of General Enterprising Tendency. High ability students scored significantly higher in the factors such as achievement motivation, creativity, need for autonomy in comparison with average ability students who scored higher in factors willingness to take a risk and internal locus of control. Result of analysis is presented in Table 1.
High ability students majoring in economics expressed in GET higher achievement motivation, creativity, internal locus of control, and willingness to take a risk in comparison with high ability students majoring in humanities.
Table 1 Differences in Factors of General Enterprising Tendency due to ability level (Man Whitney U test)
Locus of Control 44.78 23.13 229.000 -4.404 0.000*
Creativity 44.45 28.79 331.500 -3.188 0.001*
Need for Autonomy 34.29 37.12 551.500 -0.576 0.565
Taking Risk 20.17 47.00 140.000 -5.460 0.000*
p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.01
3.3. Relations among social competencies factors, and factors of enterprising tendency
Pearson product-moment correlations among all continuous variables included in the analyses are presented in Table 3. The .05 level was adopted as a significance level. Social sensitivity was negatively correlated with need for autonomy, and total scores in General Enterprising Tendency. The small correlations between all presented variables (i.e., r = .01 to r = .19) indicate that these variables can be used in regression analyses without risking multicollinearity.
The results show a weak relationship between social competencies factors and factors of enterprising tendency. Namely, the higher social sensitivity individual has, the lower is his/her need for autonomy and general enterprising tendency. Correlations with other dimensions were not significant enough. This may be due to sample characteristics and size.
General Enterprising Tendency. To determine the extent to which social competency and the ability level predicted enterprising tendency, social competencies factors and the level of ability were entered into a simultaneous multiple regression equation (Table 4). The models for specific factors of general enterprising tendency were not statistically significant. The magnitude of the beta weights associated with social competencies suggests that this competency is not a predictor of enterprising tendency.
Table 3. Correlation among variables of Social Skills Inventory and General Enterprising Tendency.
Social Sensitivity -.14 -.14 -.15 -.17* -.10 -.19*
Social Control .12 .07 .15 .12 .08 .15
SSI Total Score -01 -.07 .06 -.04 -.02 -.02
Table 4.Regression Analysis for General Enterprising Tendency
General Enterprising Tendency F p R2adj
Achievement motivation
Locus of control
1.474
1.857
.227
.175
.009
.012
Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000 7
Creativity .502 .480 .003
Need for autonomy .095 .758 .001
Risk taking .744 .390 .005
.
4. Discussion and conclusion
The main objective of our research was to investigate the social competency and an enterprising tendency (sense of entrepreneurship) of high ability students and reveal if these students differ from average ability students in the social competencies and an enterprising tendency. On the basis of the information from theoretical and empirical sources we expected a statistically significant difference between high ability and average ability students in social competencies in favor of the gifted. The results showed no statistically significant differences between the high ability and average ability students in the social competency, but we noticed statistically significant differences on the level of subscales, specifically in emotional control scale. The results confirmed our assumption only partially. Our findings may be different due to cultural differences. Other possible reason for the discrepancy between our results and those of foreign research is to use of self-reporting methods. Research data of Gallowey and Porath (1997) confirmed that the results of self-reporting questionnaires did not show statistically significant difference between talented and untalented in the social competency. Our research findings are also in concordance with research findings of Seon-Young, Olszewski-Kubilius and Thomson (2012). In conclusion, our study did not reveal significant differences in enterprising tendency in university students with different level of intellectual abilities. Social skills did not predict their enterprising tendency. This issue needs the further examination.
Acknowledgements
Results have been achieved within the project “Identification of key competencies of university students for the needs of knowledge society development in Slovakia”, which is supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic in supplying incentives for research and development from the state budget in accordance with Act no. 185/2009 Z. z. on incentives for research and development and on supplementing Act. 595/2003 Z. z. Income Tax, as amended, as amended by Act no. 40/2011 Z. z.
Results have been achieved within the project “Cognitive, metacognitive competencies, self-regulation, self-efficacy of students in relationship to motivation and achievement”, which is supported by VEGA, a scientific grant agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic by Project VEGA 1/0849/14.
References
Besjes-De Bock, K.M., & De Ruyter, D.J. (2011). Five values of giftedness. In Roeper Review,33, 198-207.Caird, S. (1991). Testing enterprising tendency in occupational groups. British Journal of Management, 2, 177-186.Caird, S. (2011, November, 20). General Enterprising Tendency. Retrieved from http://get2test.net/background/index.htm. Corso, L. (2002). Social intelligence: Social skills competence and emotional intelligence in gifted adolescent. In Masters themes and special
projects. Paper 647. [2012. 09. 12.]. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/647/.Costigan, R. D. A Donahue, L. (2009). Developing the great eight competencies with leaderless group discussion. Journal of Management
Education, 33, 5, 596-616. Cromie, S. (2000). Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical evidence. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 7-30. Commission Of The European Communities (2009) Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The
European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions. Key competences for a changing world. Draft 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme” SEC (2009) 1598.Brussels, 25.11.2009. Retrieved form: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0640:FIN:EN:PDF
Fay, E., Trost, G., & Gittler, G. (2001). ISA. Analysis of the structure of intelligence. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika a.s. [ISA. Analýza štruktúry inteligencie. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika a.s.]
Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In Borland, J. H. (Eds.). Rethinking Gifted Education. New York: Teachers College Press. p. 9–33.
8 Margita Mesárošová, Peter Mesároš/ Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2015) 000–000
Galloway, B. & Porath, M. (1997). Parent and teacher views of gifted children`s social abilities. In Roeper Review, 202, 118-128. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books.Hulsink, W., & Elfring, T. (2003). Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high-technology firms. Small Business Economics, 21, 409-422.McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for Competence rather than for Intelligence. American Psychologist, 1, 1-14. Mesárošová, M. (1998). Gifted children. Identification and Fostering of their Personality. [Nadané deti. Poznávanie a rozvíjanie ich osobnosti].
Prešov: ManaCon. Mönks, F. J., & Mason, E. J. (2000). Developmental psychology and giftedness: Theories and research. In K. A. Heller, K.A., Mönks, F. J.,
Sternberg, R. J., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, England: Pergamon, pp 141–155. Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management
Science, 54, 1167-179. Perrone, K., Perrone, P., Ksziak, T. Wright, S., & Jackson, Z.V. (2007). Self- perception of gifts and talents among adults in a longitudinal study
of academically talented high school graduates. Roeper Review, 29, 4, 259-264. Riggio, R. E. (1989). Social Skills Inventory. Manual, research edition. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists PressRiggio, R. E., & Carney, D.R. (2007). Social Skills Inventory. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard
liberal. In Sternberg, R.J. &Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). Conceptions of Giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 280–294.Rychen, D.S. & Salganik, L.H. (Eds.). (2003). Key Competencies for A Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society. Hogrefe & Huber.Seon-Young, L., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. (2012). The social competence of highly gifted math and science adolescent. Asia
