Investigation of the Moderator Role of University Conditions Under the Effect of Personality Traits on Entrepreneurship Competence

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 138 - 149, 30.04.2021

Deniz Bas Koyuncuoglu , Mahmut Tekin

Öz

This study aimed to investigate the moderator effect of university conditions in the relationship between personality traits and
entrepreneurial competence. In this cross-sectional study, the questionnaire method used in quantitative studies was preferred to obtain
primary data. The population of the research is the students of Selçuk University in Konya and consists of 3rd and 4th year students
studying in 2018-2019 academic year. Personal information form, Entrepreneurial-Innovative University Conditions Scale, Scale of
Entrepreneurial Competencies and The Five-Factor Personality Inventory were used as data collection tools. Multiple linear regression
analysis was used to analyze the data. The results show that personality traits have a positive effect on entrepreneurial competence. It
was found that university conditions did not have a moderator effect in the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial
competence. Some suggestions were offered considering the results obtained

Anahtar Kelimeler

Entrepreneurial competence, Moderator variable, Personality traits, University conditions, Higher education

Kişilik Özelliklerinin Girişimcilik Yetkinliği Üzerinde Etkisi Sürecinde Üniversite Koşullarının Moderatör Rolünün İrdelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, kişilik özelliklerinin girişimcilik yetkinliği üzerinde etkisi sürecinde girişimci-yenilikçi üniversite koşullarının moderatör
rolünün irdelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla anket yöntemiyle elde edilen veriler SPSS 24.0 paket programıyla analiz edilmiş ve
üniversite öğrencilerinin kişilik özellikleri, girişimci-yenilikçi üniversite koşullarına ilişkin algıları ve girişimcilik öz-yetkinlikleri arasındaki
ilişkilerin demografik, aile, çalışma/iş durumu ve teknoloji faktörleri açısından nedensel ve ilişkisel tarama modelleri ile incelenmiştir. Bu
bağlamda Türkiye’nin büyük üniversitelerin birinde saha araştırması yapılmış öğrencilere anket uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre,
üniversite koşullarının kişilik özellikleri ile girişimcilik yetkinliği arasında moderatör etkisi bulunmamaktadır. Bununla birlikte araştırma
sonuçlarına göre öğrencilerin girişimci-yenilikçi üniversite koşullarına ilişkin algılarının ve kişilik özelliklerinin girişimcilik yetkinliklerini
anlamlı düzeyde yordadığı görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin girişimcilik yetkinlikleri en güçlü şekilde yordayan değişkenin kişilik özellikleri
olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca araştırmada öğrencilerin girişimcilik yetkinliklerin demografik, fakülte, bölüm, sınıf, aile, çalışma/iş durumu,
teknolojiye ilgi duyma ve teknoloji alanında proje yapma faktörleri açısından anlamlı farklılıklar göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Girişimcilik Yetkinliği, Kişilik Özellikleri, Yükseköğretim, Moderatör Değişken, Üniversite koşulları

Kaynakça

• Akiskal, H. S., Hirschfeld, M. A., & Yerevanian, B. I. (1983). The relationship of personality to affective disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 40, 801-810.
• Barbak, A., Burmaoğlu, S., & Esen, M. (2016). Araştırma üniversitesi olmak [Being a research university]. In: H. Yalçın, M. Esen, S. Burmaoğlu, & M. F. Sorkun (Eds.), Bilim, Teknoloji ve İnovasyon Çağında Araştırma Üniversitesi Olmak [Being a Research University in the Age of Science, Technology and Innovation] (pp. 107-123). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Başol, O., Dursun, S., & Aytaç, S. (2011). Kişiliğin girişimcilik niyeti üzerine etkisi: üniversiteli gençler üzerine bir uygulama [The effect of personality on entrepreneurial intention: an application on university students]. “İş Güç” Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi, 4(13), 7-22.
• Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 53-76.
• Blenker P., Dreisler P., & Kjeldsen J. (2006). Entrepreneurship education – The new challenge facing the universities - A framework or understanding and development of entrepreneurial universitiy communities, working paper, Department of Management, Aarhus School of Business and University of Aarhus, Denmark.
• Brandstätter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrepreneur – a question of personality structure? Journal of Economics, 18, 157-177.
• Braukmann, U., Bijedic, T., & Schade, C. (2008). Unternehmerische persönlichkeit - Eine theoretische rekonstruktion und normaldefinitorische konturierung. Wuppertal: Schumpeter School of Business and Economics.
• Brown, J. T., & Kant, A. C. (2008). Creating bioentrepreneurs: How graduate student organisations foster science entrepreneurship. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 15(2), 125-35.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Caliendo, M., & Kritikos, A. S. (2011). Searching for the entrepreneurial personality: New evidence and avenues for further research. IZA Discussion Papers 5790, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
• Cardy L., & Selvarajan, R. (2006). Competencies: Alternative frameworks for competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 49(3), 235-245.
• Chrisman, J. J., Hynes, T., & Fraser, S. (1995). Faculty entrepreneurship and economic development: The case of the University of Calgary. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(4), 267-281.
• Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial university: Organizational pathways of transformation. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
• Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). Therelationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human performance, 17(1), 95-117.
• Çavuş, M. F., & Pekkan, N. Ü. (2017). Algılanan sosyal desteğin sosyal girişimciliğe etkisi: Üniversite öğrencileri üzerinde bir araştırma [The effect of perceived social support on social entrepreneurship: A study on university students]. Business and Economics Research Journal, 8(3), 519-532.
• Çetin, F., & Varoğlu, A. K. (2009). Özellikler bağlamında girişimcinin beş faktör kişilik örüntüsü [The entrepreneur's five factor personality pattern in terms of characteristics]. Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 51-66. Çokluk, O., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate SPSS and LISREL applications for social sciences]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the united states. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 136-157.
• Donckels, R. (1991). Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and university education in Belgium. Journal of small business & entrepreneurship, 9(1), 35-42.
• Etzkowitz H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64-77.
• Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in american academic science. Minerva, 21, 1–21.
• Fernie, D. E., Kantor, R., Klein, E. L., Meyer, C., & Elgas, P. M. (1988). Becoming students and becoming ethnographers in a preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3(2), 132-141.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Edition), London: Sage Publications Ltd.
• Galloway, L., & Brown, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms? Education+ Training, 44(8-9), 398-405.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26-42.
• Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32, 1555–1568.
• Jacobsen, L. (2003). Bestimmungsfaktoren für Erfolg im Entrepreneurship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, FB Erziehungswissenschaft, Freie Universität zu Berlin, Germany.
• Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(1), 67-82.
• John O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Hand-book of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 102-138). New York: The Guilford Press. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
• Kailer, N. (2005). Komzeptualisierung der entrepreneurship education an hochschlen: Empirische ergebnisse, problemfelder und gestantlungsansätze. Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship, 53(3), 165-184.
• Kailer, N., & Weiß, G. (2018). Gründungsmanagement kompakt: Von der idee zum businessplan. Wien: Linde Verlag.
• Karabulut, T. (2009). Üniversite öğrencilerinin girişimcilik özelliklerini ve eğilimlerini belirlemeye yönelik bir araştırma [A research to determine the entrepreneurial characteristics and tendencies of university students], Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(1), 331-356.
• Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279-356.
• Khanal A. (2016). Sampling. In mahajan's methods in biostatistics for medical students and research workers. 8th ed. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P), 113-127.
• Kiggundu, M. N. (2002). Entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in Africa: What is known and what needs to be done. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 239-258.
• Kocabacak, A. (2011). İnsan kaynaklari seçme ve yerleştirme süreci açisindan kişilik boyutları ile çalışan performansı ilişkisi: ilaç sektöründe psikoteknik boyutta bir uygulama [Relationship between personality dimensions and employee performance in terms of human resources selection and placement process: A psychotechnical application in the pharmaceutical industry]. Doktora tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.
• Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Mugler, J. (2003). The entrepreneurial personality in the context of resources, environment, and the startup process - A configurational approach. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 28(1), 23-42.
• Korunka, C., Kessler, A. , Frank, H., & Lueger, M. (2011). Personal characteristics, resources, and environment as predictors of business survival. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 1025-1051.
• Koyuncuoğlu, Ö., & Tekin, M. (2019). Türkiye’de girişimci ve yenilikçi üniversitelerin gömülü teoriye göre değerlendirmesi ve bir model önerisi [Evaluation and recommendation of a model based on the theory embedded in the entrepreneurial and innovative universities in Turkey]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitü Dergisi, 41, 16-31.
• Markowska, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial competence development: Triggers, processes and consequences. JIBS Dissertation Series No. 071, Jönköping International Business School, Printed by ARK Tryckaren.
• Mc Adams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology. Academic Press.
• McNally, J. J., Martin, B. C., Honig, B., Bergmann, H., & Piperopoulos, P. (2016). Toward rigor and parsimony: A primary validation of kolvereid’s (1996) entrepreneurial attitudes scales. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 358-379.
• Minniti, M., Bygrave, W. D., & Autio, E. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitör: Executive Report 2005, London.
• Morris, M. H., Shirokova, G., & Tsukanova, T. (2017). Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: a multi-country empirical exploration. European Journal International Management, 11(1), 65-85.
• Mould, C. (2013). Do personality traits predict entrepreneurial intention and performance? Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town.
• Muofhe, N. J., & Du Toit, W. F. (2011). Entrepreneurial education's and entrepreneurial role models' influence on career choice. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 243-257.
• 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.
• Müller, G. F. (2005). F-DUP. Fragebogen zur diagnose unternehmerischer potentiale. In: W. Sarges, & H. Wottawa (Eds.), Handbuch wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren (pp. 337-341), Lengerich: Pabst.
• Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583.
• Odabaşı, Y. (2007). 21.yüzyil’in üniversite modeli olarak girişimci üniversiteler [Entrepreneurial universities as the university model of the 21st century]. In: C. C. Aktan (Ed.), Değişim Çağında Yükseköğretim Global Trendler-Paradigmal Yönelimler [Higher education global trends - Paradigmal trends in the age of change] (pp. 117-133), İzmir: Yaşar Üniversitesi Yayını.
• Özutku H., & Algur, O. (2012). Uluslararası görevler için yönetici seçiminde ve performans değerlemesinde yetkinliklerin kullanimi: Perfetti Van Melle Gıda San. Tic. A.Ş. Örneği [Use of competencies in executive selection and performance appraisal for international duties: Perfetti Van Melle Gıda San. Tic. A.S. Example]. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 53-73.
• Patır, S., & Karahan, M. (2010). Girişimcilik eğitimi ve üniversite öğrencilerinin girişimcilik profillerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir alan araştırması [A field study on entrepreneurship education and determining the entrepreneurship profiles of university students]. İşletme ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(2), 27-44.
• Pott, O., & Pott, A. (2012). Eentrepreneurship, unternehmensgründung, unternehmerisches handeln und rechtliche aspekte. Heidelberg: Springer.
• Raab, G., & Neuner, M. (2008). Gründungsrelevante persönlichkeitsmerkmale von wirtschaftsstudenten in Deutschland und den USA: Eine vergleichende empirische untersuchung. In: S. Kraus und K. Gundolf (Eds.), Stand und perspektiven der deutschsprachigen entreneurship- und KMU-Forschung (pp. 305-321), Köln: ibidem.
• Rathgens, F. (2012). Eine reflexion der persönlichkeit im kontext des gründungsprozesses. In: W. Fröhlich (Ed.), Unternehmensgründung und Persönlichkeit (pp. 21-42). Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
• Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Tet’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta‐analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, Business Creation, and Success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.
• Robertson, I. (2008). Comment: How universities and graduates can thrive. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/student/career-planning/getting-job/comment-how-universities-and-graduates-can-thrive-918572.html.
• Saßmannshausen, W. (2008). Waldorf-Pädagogik auf einen blick: Einführung für den kindergarten. Herder Freiburg.
• Schick, H. (2007). Unternehmensgründung und nachhaltigkeit, schriften zur nachhaltigen unternehmensentwicklung. München/Metering: Rainer Hampp.
• Schmitt-Rodermund, E. (2004). Pathways to success entrepreneurial competence, and interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 498-518.
• Schumpeter, J. A., Becker, M. C., Knudsen, T., & Swedberg, R. (2011). The entrepreneur : classic texts by Joseph A. Schumpeter. Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press.
• Setiawan, J. L. (2014). Examining entrepreneurial self-efficacy among students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 115, 235-242.
• Sharma, L., & Madan, P. (2013). Affect of perceived barriers to entrepreneurship on the career choice decision of students: A study of Uttarkhand state, India. Business and Economic Horizons, 9, 23-33.
• Singh, G., & DeNoble, A. (2003). Early retirees as the next generation of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 207-226.
• Subotzky, G. (1999). Beyond the entrepreneurial university: The potential role of South Africa’s historically disadvantaged institutions. In Reconstruction and Development International Review of Education, 45(6), 507-527.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measuring attitudes and data analysis with SPSS.]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Tekin, M., Baş, D., Geçkil, T., & Koyuncuoğlu, Ö. (2019). Entrepreneurial competences of university students in the digital age: A scale development study. In: N. M. Durakbasa, & M. G. Gençyılmaz (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium for Produktion Research 2019 (pp. 593-604), Cham: Springer Nature Schwitzerland AG 2020.
• Tekin, M., Koyuncuoğlu, Ö., Geçkil, T., & Baş, D. (2019). Evaluation of entrepreneurial-innovative university conditions and activities from students’ point of view in the context of industry 4.0. In: N. M. Durakbasa, & M. G. Gençyılmaz (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium for Produktion Research 2019 (pp. 605-618), Cham: Springer Nature Schwitzerland AG 2020.
• Thomson, G. S., & Minhas, W. (2017). Enabling entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial intentions among emirati students. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 25(2), 211–237.
• Top, S., & Öner, A. (2012). İşletme perspektifinden sosyal sorumluluk teorisinin incelenmesi [Study of social responsibility theory from a business perspective]. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 4(7), 95-108.
• Turan, N. (2015). Çalışma yaşamında yetenek, beceri, yetkinlik, yeterlilik [Talent, skill, competence, competence in working life]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık, Ankara.
• Vatansever, Ç. (2011). Türkiye’de bir yetkinlik olarak girişimcilik [Entrepreneurship as a competence in Turkey]. Balkan Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 1-9.
• Wissema, J. G. (2014). Üçüncü kuşak üniversitelere doğru [Towards third generation university]. İstanbul, Özyeğin Üniversitesi Yayıncılık.
• Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2014). SPSS uygulamali bilimsel araştirma yöntemleri [SPSS applied scientific research methods]. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
• Yıldırım, E. (2015). İstatistiksel araştirma yöntemleri [Statistical research methods], Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta‐analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.
• Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.