The second chapter will discuss previous research relating to entrepreneurship and the tendency of independent variables in the study. Definitions, definitions and concepts relating to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial tendencies, and the independent variables of the study pro-active personality, self-efficacy, locus of control, innovation and risk considerations are discussed as a theoretical basis for the development of research framework. Discussion of studies on demographic factors, development of theoretical framework and hypothesis, the hypothesis will be discussed in this chapter.
Entrepreneurs in the Malay language term is actually derived from the word "effort”, which means the power of initiative, events, and other acts for the purpose of carrying out or completing any work (Kamus Dewan, 2000). According to Kamus Dewan also means a business which operates an enterprise that is a businessman.
In related research enterprise, the various definitions of entrepreneurs have been given by previous researchers according to their concept of learning. Among them include the entrepreneur as an individual who is always alert to the various business opportunities that others do not perceive (Kirzner, 1979). By Kuratko and Hodgetts (1992), the entrepreneur is an individual who is willing to organize, manage and anticipate the risks of business. Hisrich and Peters (2002) briefly defined entrepreneurs as "the individual people who takes risks and St arts something new" (Hisrich and Peters, 2002: 7).
According to the definition, this study concluded that the entrepreneur is an individual who sees an opportunity (Kirzner, 1979), willing to organize, manage and anticipate the risks (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 1995) and started a new innovative idea (Hisrich and Peters, 2002).
The tendency of an individual entrepreneur would not exist if they fail to understand what the entrepreneur and entrepreneurship. Apart from the definition of business discussed above, the term entrepreneur also needs to be discussed first on individual personality that explain the relationship between entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial tendencies.
Entrepreneurship refers to activities which benefit the development of profit-oriented business (Cole, 1969). Entrepreneurship also refers to the readiness of individuals to take advantage of the current sources without taking the left is in control (Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck, 1996). Schumpeter (1934) in Dollinger (1995) also defines entrepreneurship as companies implement new combinations of development products and new services, new sources for raw materials, new production methods, new markets and new form of organization.
Dollinger (1995) defines entrepreneurship as the creation of an innovative economy for the purpose of profit or progress and readiness to deal with risks and uncertainties. Hisrich and Peters (2002) defines entrepreneurship as the next;
“Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and Saturday, assuming the accompanying financial, Psychic, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal Satisfaction and independence ". (Hisrich and Peters, 2002: 10th).
Based on discussions relating to definition of entrepreneurship, it is understandable that entrepreneurship refers to individuals' readiness to seize opportunities regardless of resources available to them (Stevenson, Roberts and Grousbeck, 1989) or the creation of something new and anticipate the risks and rewards to be received (Hisrich and Peters, 2002) or activities that would benefit through the development of profit-oriented business (Cole, 1969). It also referred to the economic development of innovative companies for the purpose of profit (Schumpeter, 1934) is available to deal with risk and uncertainty (Dollinger, 1995).
2.4 Intrapreneurial Intention
2.4.1 Definition and concept of Intrapreneurship Intention
The intrapreneurial intention is defined as a state of mind which directs attention to a specific object or path to reach a (Birds, 1988). It also refers to the extent that an individual has a tendency to start a project (Caird, 1988). Crant (1996) relates to the consideration of the intrapreneurial intention that is made by an individual to have an own business. Davidsson (1995) also defines the intrapreneurial intention as the decision to launch a new firm and it is assumed to be able to roughly predict the choices of individuals to start their own firms.
Chen, Greene and Crick (1998) defines intrapreneurial intention to entrepreneurial decision where it defines the entrepreneurial decision as the decision to create and manage an own business. It is a complex process and depends on several factors which influence factors context (state) and individual factors. According Kickull and Zaper (1999), the decision to launch the new venture is a complex process that involves the interaction between man and organization.
Based on the concepts that are discussed, this study takes the concept of intrapreneurial intention discussed by Davidsson (1995), Crant (1996), Chen et al. (1998), and Kickul and Zaper (1999). In the context of the study, intrapreneurial intention is defined as the tendency of judgments made by an individual to start a new firm (Davidsson, 1995), to create, manage and have an own business (Crant, 1996; Chen Ct al., 1998; Kickul and Zaper , 1999).
2.4.2 Previous Studies on Intrapreneurial Orientation
Model likelihood Bird (1988) suggest that the tendency is based on two-dimensional rational and intuitive thinking in the context of both social and individual interaction in the process of structuring the trend. Model of entrepreneurial intention is largely homogenous. It focuses on the events before or pre-integration theory of entrepreneurship and the attitude and behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and self-efficacy theory and social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). The researcher also tried to develop a model of integration will not only take into account the general psychological characteristics of an entrepreneur, but a special attitude to the domain, and variable background of the individual situation (Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Shaver & Scott, 1991).
Diversity trend model developed by researchers earlier including the model proposed by Bird (1988) and developed by Boyd & Vozikis (1994), Shapero model (Shapero, 1975; Shapero & Sokol 1982) tested by Krueger (1993) and model variations Davidsson (1995). Empirical studies related to the tendency is less error compared with the study of actual intrapreneurial intention. It can be reviewed at an early stage with a large sample covering different groups of undergraduate and postgraduate students (Wang, Wong and Lu, 2001).
General belief is that entrepreneurship is a tendency single predictor of entrepreneurial behavior is the best. This is because the decision to form a firm can be considered as an action-based and planned behavior. It is appropriate relationship between the inclination and the actual behavior is quite strong (Ajzen, 1991; Sheppard, Hartwick & Warshaw, 1988). Likelihood-based approach offers a model of demand theory can be tested bcrkenaan how external factors such as demographic characteristics and circumstances influence the entrepreneurial attitudes, preferences and behavior (Krueger & Carsrud, 1993).
Most studies of entrepreneurial behavior and try to look at the factors that contribute to the entrepreneurial decision. Early Research on personality characteristics and demographic characteristics of the factors entrepreneurs (Brockhaus and Horwitz, 1986; Furnham, 1992; Hisrich, 1986) failed to explain why some individuals with similar demographic characteristics bekeria scbagai choose to become entrepreneurs than employees. Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner and Hunt (1991) argued that the attitude of business as their attitude towards risk or the attitude of freedom is the Balk predictor of entrepreneurial intention than demographic characteristics. As a reaction to the proposed Robinson et al. (1991) for a more dynamic entrepreneurial model, many models of entrepreneurial choice and the tendency has been proposed (Wang et al., 200 1).
In contrast to studies of organizational behavior related to personality, research on entrepreneurship has been made based on consensus where there are few scholars who have neglected the five key dimensions of personality (The Fig Five). Instead, they took measurements of less theoretical and psychometric as the locus of control (Chen, Green and Crick, 1998) and a tendency to take risks (Brockhaus, 1980) in measuring the characteristics of individual differences (individual differences) (Hmie1eski and Corbett, 2003 ). Based on previous studies, studies related to cognitive style. Innovation (pembaharuan. intuition (intuition) and education seen as a relevant priority in entrepreneurship studies (Allison and Hayes. 1996; Kirton and Pender, 1982; Eison and Pollio, 1990).
Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986) suggest several factors that determine an individual's decision to become an entrepreneur. It includes psychological influences that occur on their din, effects of past experiences that are owned and personal characteristics of an individual. Research on entrepreneurial behavior and the recent focus on the personal attitudes and personal perceptions of the environment (Wang Ct al., 2001). Krueger, Reilly, Carsrud, (2000) telab two-stage model to test the tendency of intrapreneurial orientation is adapted from two earlier models presented by Ajzen (1987) and Shapero (1982). Variables used as self-efficacy, expected values, attitudes towards entrepreneurship action, confidence in the potential and confidence in the desire has been shown to significantly support the two models.
Douglas and Shepherd (2000) present economic models relevant to the decision to choose a career. Describe the various features were used as study variables. Career choice as either an entrepreneur or a worker is measured by the satisfaction function. earnings expectations, expectations of work-related efforts, the expected risk and freedom. Douglas and Shepherd found that individuals who have a high tolerance for work effort and risk-ta set a strong tendency to choose the entrepreneurial freedom.
2.5 Proactive Personality
2.5.1 Definition and concept of Proactive Personality
The term personality refers to the proactive attitude is not restricted by the situation and bring about change in their environment. Bateman and Crant (1993) defines a person who has a "prototypical" proactive personality as a relatively restricted by the forces of change in the situation and enjoy the surroundings. Bateman and Crant also stated that proactive personality is a stable behavior toward proactive behavior or behavior.
According to Bateman and CRAM again, individuals who have high proactive personality will identify opportunities and act on it. They show initiative, take action and resilient (hard to do) to lead to meaningful change. While individuals with low levels of proactive personality is passive and is "reactive" where they are more likely to modify the din with certain conditions and change. They are shaped by the environment Bateman and Cran, 1993). Based on the definition and concept of proactive personality proposed by Bateman and Crant this, researchers will use the definitions and concepts to study the relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial intention in this study.
2.5.2 Previous Studies of Proactive Personality.
The meaning of proactive orientation has been discussed in other theoretical treatments entrepreneurial process. Shapero and Sokol (1982) had touched on the tendency of action and initiative in his discussion in respect of the social dimension of entrepreneurial events. Krueger and colleagues (Krueger, 1993; Krueger and Brazeal, 1994) include a tendency to act in their work with respect to trends and potential of entrepreneurship. Krueger and Brazeal (1994) suggests that other measurements related to the tendency is very useful and proactive personality scale is one of that measurement (Crant, 1996).
Involves the creation of proactive change rather than predict. It not only involves the properties of flexibility and for use in the future are uncertain, but also take into account the initiatives to improve existing businesses. Behaviors that are proactive, not letting other people and expect the success of the passive that the changes will be brought by external factors (Seibert, Crant and Kraimer, 1999). Individuals who are being proactive to refer to those who took over the task, launch initiatives, generating constructive change and proactive leadership. They solve the problems faced and worked to bring change in the building (Seibert et al., 1999). Proactive features are the ability to identify opportunities for change, determining the target base changes that focus on achieving a real impact, predict and prevent problems, make different things or do things differently, to take action, despite trying uncertainty. Proactive individuals who are consistent. They will not withdraw its din of the barrier, not to answer "no" to the question, do not admit defeat to the lack of and not happy with given the opportunity to defend the din after the defeat. Perseverance is referring to the effort and do not necessarily mean the strategy and tactics remain the same. It means taking a new direction, when discovered dead end.
Proactive personality scale is a measure of the tendency of individuals to proactive behaviour. The idea of this is related to entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996). It can be seen by definition, the definition of entrepreneurial intention is a relevant consideration to the possibility of having their own business. According Crant (1996), Krueger (1993) arguing that entrepreneurship is the central tendency of the understanding of the entrepreneurial process as it forms the basis of the new organization. This explanation clearly describes the relationship between the concept and the term pro-active entrepreneurial tendencies at the same requires the efforts and initiatives.
The tendency towards a proactive is the tendency to become leaders and change the environment to maintain the action directly (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Proactive behaviour is instrumental because it is part of a class of behaviour that have an impact on the environment (BUSS and Finn, 1987). Individuals who are proactive behavior is regarded as transformational and charismatic leader. High scores with the size of this instrument may recommend that a person is fit to own and run their own business.
6.2 Self Efficacy
2.6.1 Definitions and concepts of Self Efficacy
Self-efficacy or self-efficacy "is defined as the beliefs associated with the ability to direct their own behavior din to obtain the desired results (Bandura, 1989a and 1989b; 1994; 1997). When an individual has high self-efficacy individuals are assumed to believe that he can do what I do though to control difficult situations. between the concepts of entrepreneurship and term trend at the same proaktit requires the efforts and initiatives.
The tendency towards a proactive is a tendency to initiate and sustain actions that directly alter persekilaran (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Proactive behavior is an instrumental as it is part of the class behaviour give the impact on environments (Buss and Finn, 1987). Individuals who are proactive behaviour is regarded as transformational and charismatic leader. High scores with the size of this instrument may recommend that a person is fit to own and run their own business.
6.2 Self Efficacy
2.6.1 Definitions and concepts of Self Efficacy
Self-efficacy or self-efficacy "is defined as the beliefs associated with the ability to direct their own behaviour din to obtain the desired results (Bandura, 1989a and 1989b; 1994; 1997). When an individual has high self-efficacy individuals are assumed to believe that he can do what I do though to control difficult situations. Chen et al. (1998) found that there was a significant positive effect of self-efficacy related to entrepreneurial interests to become entrepreneurs among students and business executives. Students who have high efficacy ang entrepreneurship has a tendency to start a business level high.
Research related to the tendency of entrepreneurship among students of higher learning in Singapore by Wang et al. (2001) discovered that Polytechnic students have the motivation and self-efficacy that can act like entrepreneur. The desire and the possibility of entrepreneurship is more influenced by the attitude of self-efficacy and independence from the attitude towards performance and risk. According to Krueger et al. (2000), self efficacy has positive influence on entrepreneurial fiat one in which it was accomplished as individual entrepreneurial action.
2.7 The locus control
2.7.1 Definition and concept of locus of control
Locus of control (locus of control) was introduced by Rotter in 1966 by "social learning theory." According to Rotter, an individual believes the outcome of the events that occurred as it exists either within or outside the control of din and knowledge. Individuals who believe that an internal nature influences their end-end capabilities. effort, or skills. On the other hand, is someone who believes external forces beyond their control that determines the outcome.
Locus of control refers to the individual to control his nature, whether internal (internal) who believe that anything could be done by yourself or are external (external) who believe that things happen because of the external environment such as fate, chance and the others ( Hampson, 1988).
Jegede, Fan, Chan, Yum and Taplin (1999), defines the locus of control as "a person Beliefs about control over life events and describes the individual as well as djfferences predicts behavior in organisational settings" (Jegede, Fan, C tires, Yum and Taplin , 1999: 3). They state that the locus of control is divided into two dalarnan locus of control and external locus of control in which he expressed this as a locus of control "LOC Beliefs can either be internal (the feeling of personal resposibiffly for the things that happen to a person) or external (the feelings that life events in a person are determined by forces beyond his / her control,). "(Jegede et al., 1999: 3).
Discussions relating to locus of control above clearly shows that the internal locus of control refers to the sense of personal responsibility for things that happen to a person while external locus of control refers to the feelings that occur in life that are caused by forces or forces beyond their control limits. Based on the discussion of the concepts of locus of control above, this study takes the concept of locus of control was introduced by Rotter to examine the locus of control among students in UUM.
2.7.2 Previous Studies on locus of control
Hampson (1988) states that the internal nature will believe that they are responsible for the goal. Instead, a person associated with the external nature would believe that bad things that good is determined by fate, chance and the others. Lefcourt in Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman (1991) states that the locus of control is important to explain why some people implied statement is active, resilient and willing to face any possibility. While some people but that is lost in the range of negative emotions.
Lefcourt (1981) states that the locus of control is centered on the belief that people hold on to the relationship between actions and rewards in which the concept of internal locus of control refers to believe that a return is the result and impact of the action being performed. The concept of external locus of control refers to the belief that a return result obtained was not due to their own individual capacity. In general, he was rnengklasifikasikan individuals who have internal locus of control as sorang bang knows the value of a goal and strive to achieve it, always searching for information, be vigilant, to make their own decisions and are in peace. Conversely, those with external locus of control is found often experience stress, anxiety, and less able to deal with challenging life.
Internal locus of control has a positive relationship with self-esteem '(din price), while external locus of control were found to have a negative relationship with self-esteem' (Bradshaw and Gilbrech, 2002). In their review of locus of control and achievement among students of Liu, Lavelle, and Andris, (2002) proves that the players who have internal locus of control showed higher scores in completing courses online than external locus of control. In the context of entrepreneurship, the concept of "Need for Autonomy" or "Internal locus of Control" is an important feature to be available to an entrepreneur. The concept of "Internal locus of Control" or the locus of control dalarnan but this team and the "Theory of Personal Belef 'presented by Rotter (1966).
Berlew cited and Brockhaus and Horw'itz (1986) suggest that successful entrepreneurs to act well in situations where they have the virus pen responsibility for their decisions. and more prone to internal control over external control. Borland cited and Mohd Salleh (1992) found that there were significant differences in the internal controls of the students who tend to start a business with students who are not inclined to do so. He has suggested that internal controls are good for determining entrepreneurial intention than achievement motivation.
Sexton and Bowman (1984) found that students who are majoring in majoring in business entrepreneurship and show the same performance in internal control. Even students who have both this specialization shows high performance on a scale of internal control over students who have specialized in both these areas.
2.8.1 Definitions and Concepts of Innovative
Innovative is defined as a tendency to be creative in thought and action (Jackson, 1994). It also refers to the renewal, creativity and initiative as one of the features that support the characteristics or nature of business (McCIelIad, 1987; Hornaday and Aboud, 1971; Timmons, 1978). It is related to kcpcrcayaan new and unique action that takes place in business activities (Koh, 1996). In entrepreneurship, innovation is the point (major) and it is necessary entrepreneurship in the characteristics of entrepreneurship (Schumpeter, 1934).
According to Schumpeter (1934), innovation is related to economic development is the main function of entrepreneurship. According to him, innovation is a feature that distinguishes the business manager in the manager's mom is to establish and conduct business while entrepreneurs are individuals who introduce something new (innovative). Innovative by Schumpeter is a feature or behavior brought about by a reform. However, the innovative concepts that will be used in this study is the concept proposed by Jackson (1994) the tendency to be creative in thought and action.
2.8.2 Previous Studies of Innovative
Schein (1977) in his study found that students need kpada creativity as it has relevance to the entrepreneurial career. In fact, many business owners say more creative than individuals who do not have their own business (Hull, Bosely and Udell, 1980). Sexton and Bowman (1984) also found that students who have potential as an entrepreneur is more innovative than other students who are not focused or have priority (major) in business. Silver (1983) found that entrepreneurs who krcatii exceeding the ability to identify problems when compared to the industry that are not creative. Robinson et al. (1991) that a study related to the approach as a determinant of entrepreneurial attitude that is innovative, the most significant factor in determining the entrepreneurial attitude of the entrepreneur.
In contrast, individuals who called innovative entrepreneurs have higher levels than individuals who are not entrepreneurs (Robinson et al., 1991). The findings were supported by Ho and Koh (1992) in research related differences in psychological characteristics of accounting students tend to be entrepreneurial with accounting students do not tend towards entrepreneurship. The study conducted in Singapore, this shows that students tend to be more innovative entrepreneurship than students who do not tend to be entrepreneurial.
According to research conducted on MBA students in Hong Kong pub. Koh (1996) found that innovative entrepreneurship is a feature of the pelting in determining an individual's entrepreneurial propensity. The study shows that individuals tend to have entrepreneurial willingness to take high risks, more tolerant of uncertainty and have innovative features that good.
2.9 Consideration Risk Taking
2.9.1 Definitions and concepts of Risk Taking Considerations
The concept of risk-taking refers to the orientation of the opportunities in the context of decision-making uncertainty (Koh, 1996). It also refers to a psychological evaluation of opportunities for success or failure for a given task or an action planned (Bird, 1989). In a business context, risk takers are often described as a continuing business ideas business where the probability of success is low (Chell, Hawoth, and Brearley, 1991). Consideration of risk is defined as the ability to manage information that is incomplete, and act according to the risky option that requires the skill (skill) to realize the goals realistic but challenging (Caird, 1991).
If seen, and in terms of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs may face uncertainties in the following areas of financial, social, and probably (probability and social), physical and emotional health and the possibility of development or decline of the organization (Birds, 1989). Based on the concept of risk as discussed above, this review will consider the concept of risk as suggested by Caird (1991), which is the ability to manage information that is incomplete, and act according to the risky option that requires the skills (skill ) to realize the goals realistic but challenging. This concept will be used to study the consideration of risk taking among students UUM.
Previous Studies on Considerations of Risk Taking
In general, people assumed that entrepreneurs are individuals who find risk than other individual which is considered as an avoidance of risk (Mohd. Salleh, 1992). However, previous study found that entrepreneurs are individuals who take risks have been considered to the risk first. Energetic first after a certain rate based on situations and specific information may not be available or not appreciated by others (Mohd. Salleh, 1992). Previous studies also suggest that a person who has a need for achievement (Need of Achievement) has tendency to take moderate risk (MeClelland, 1961).
The tendency to become entrepreneurs is related to individual attitudes of dependency and willingness to take risks. Shepherd (1997) in his study entitled "Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intentions of Career Decision Makers" have concluded that the tendency for entrepreneurial individuals that have a high positive attitude towards dependence compared with individuals who are low-inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Kolvereid (1996), did the empirical study about career options, whether as employees and entrepreneurs among MBA students in Norway showed that the risk, independence and work effort are three key factors that separate the workers and potential entrepreneurs. Wales and White, (1981) and UdeIl Colton, (1976) is among researchers who support the hypothesis that risk taking is a major factor in entrepreneurship. However, there are studies last seen as not supporting the hypothesis Brokhaus among others, (1980), Sexton and Bowman (1983).
Previous Studies of Demographic Factors
And in terms of gender, said female entrepreneurs have characteristics such as motivation, business skills and background work that is different from male entrepreneurs. The boys are assumed to have a strong entrepreneurial tendencies than female students (Hisrich and Brush, 1986). The boys were found to have a consistent interest, but female students were found to have decreased interest in time (Matthews and Moser, 1996). And in terms of marital status is, Hisrich and Brush (1985) in his study on the tendency of women to become entrepreneurs find most of the women entrepreneurs are married. In Malaysia, Hisrich and Brush findings were supported by Rohana et at. (1996) that most of the rural Malay women participating in economic activities to improve the standard of living is a woman who is married.
In terms of level of education and research among students pursuing studies at the third level of education (Education at the tertiary students in Singapore have polytechnics, university students, and undergraduate students and students who learn the business as a priority area of study (major ) have the attitude and interest toward entrepreneurship (Wang et al., 2001). However, not all the students have a high likelihood of entrepreneurship. Only graduate students and students enrolled in priority courses (major) in relation to engineering and computer scientists had shown interest and abilities to start a business.
Stewart et al. and Carland (1999) found that on average, better educated entrepreneurs from small business owners. While corporate managers have found that most Linggi education than small business owners and entrepreneurs. Ghazali's study, Ghosh and Tay (1995) in Singapore found that graduates-graduates who have the distinction of Balk or higher degree is less interested in self-employment. this because they have good career opportunities in the corporate sector. The role of family members as determinants of career choice factors among individual entrepreneurs is also important. Hisrich and Brush (1985) found that the majority: women entrepreneurs are self-employed father. Scott and Twomey (1988) reported that students who have family members who have their own small businesses show a high tendency to self-reliance and self-employed. But they also show a low propensity to work as an employee in a large enterprise.
In a study of career choice in the United States of America (Schiller and Crewson, 1997) and England (Taylor, 1996), shows that the role of family members is significant for female respondents only. The findings relating to the role of the family as a model example of entrepreneurial intention ml were not significant in the study of undergraduate students in business schools in the U.S. (Brenner, Pringle, and Greenhaus, 1991). and research on career self-selection in Singapore (Ghazali et al., 1995).
Lack of work experience is seen to have relevance in a short period of his career among the entrepreneurs (Rostadt, 1984a). According to the Birds (1989) work experience through small business managers to contribute to the development of the behavior of enterprise (enterprise). Stuart and Abetti (1990) says that the experience of the early pub-related entrepreneurship is a very important factor in determining the initial performance of a new venture ng.
In contrast, male entrepreneurs to start ventures or business at the age of 25 to 35 years compared to women entrepreneurs who start at the age of about 35 to 45 years old (Hisrich and Peters, 1989). Gartner (1985) found that age, work experience, the family involved and listen to entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on entrepreneurship. Sexton and Robinson (1989) also found that gender, marital status, educational background and work experience have a significant relevance for entrepreneurship.
There are several opinions on the role of race and religion on the development of entrepreneurship. Hofstede in Mohd. SaIIeh (2002) states that among the factors affecting the entrepreneurial climate, particularly the development of entrepreneurship is the factor of religion and race. In the study of comparative level of entrepreneurial intention among the indigenous people who have a nation of immigrants in Israel, Russia, and Czamanski Mesch (1997) found that people have the tendency of immigrants than indigenous people.
And in terms of religion, Weher (1958) stressed the importance of religious beliefs in determining the enterprise in which he asserts that the Protestant religion, with strong help entrepreneurs. This opinion was disputed by Samuelson (1961) in which he stated that the spirit of capitalism has been in existence before the coming of Protestisme. Mohd. Saileh (2002) states that the appreciation of the religion, culture and values that are appropriate to support entrepreneurship as a long-term career (Mohd. Salleh, 2002).
This part is a discussion about the development of theoretical framework built on previous studies to be discussed before this. The independent variables are demographic studies and entrepreneurial personality and the dependent variable is the likelihood of entrepreneurship research. The independent variables, a total of eight demographic characteristics were selected, namely age, sex, marital status, educational level, race, religion, family roles and work experience. While the entrepreneurial personality is represented by five key personality characteristics of entrepreneurs who have chosen the proactive personality, self-efficacy, locus of control, innovation and considered risk taking. In brief, the theoretical framework of the study are the figure 2.1.
Theory and Hypothesis Development Framework research
Activities and entrepreneurial behaviour in an organization known as intrapreneurial orientation (Hult, Rutherford & Clohessy, 2007). Development and adaptation of intrapreneurial orientation by individuals or employees in an organization as large as government organizations found to contribute a positive impact on organizational performance. Kuratko, Ireland & Hornsby, (2001) found that intrapreneurial orientation activities in an organization has produced a variety of products and markets which could become a tool for improvement of financial performance (p. 69). Available from quantitative studies that support the findings obtained by the researchers. Among them is the study conducted by Zahra and Covin (1995); Zahra & graphics (2000). In addition, there are also research findings by other researchers show that intrapreneurial orientation is not only contributes to the improved performance of the real (tangible outcomes) but also contribute a positive impact on knowledge, skills, commitment and job satisfaction (Adoisi 2003; Ireland, Kuratko & Covin, 2003).
Study of intrapreneurial orientation has been much done by many researchers, especially in countries like the United States and Europe since 1983. Studies in this area began by Miller (1983) by developing measurement tools of intrapreneurial orientation. The results of the Miller study (1983) has led to greater interest to researchers and managers of the organization. This is due to the impact on corporate entrepreneurial firm performance organization that is constantly faced with an environment that is dynamic, complex and full of uncertainties (Ireland et al., 2003). Next, there is a tendency of researchers to investigate the organizational factors that contribute to the improvement of the practice of intrapreneurial orientation among its employees. For example, Hornsby, Kuratko & Zahra (2002) has identified five factors that can contribute to the improvement of the practice of intrapreneurial orientation among its employees. The study done by them is based on literature studies in the past. These factors are management support, autonomy, rewards and reinforcement, time availability and organizational structure. Based on these factors, et al Hornsby., (2002) have resulted in instruments known as the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instruments (CEAI). They claimed that the instrument was developed to help managers and leaders to measure each factor against the intrapreneurial orientation within an organization. The essence of the instrument developed by Hornsby et al., (2002) could be the basis for the manager to improve efficiency in management, assist and enhance intrapreneurial orientation (Irelang, Kuratko & Morris, 2006). The research discussed above has led to empirical research on intrapreneurial orientation. Up to now there are more different opinions and arguments about intrapreneurial orientation. According to Zahra, Jenning & Kuratko, (1999), the existence of a conflict of opinion on the new field as happened to the concept of intrapreneurial orientation is a habit, especially in the development of concepts and measurement. However, it will encourage empirical studies of continuous groups of researchers. In general, this study is to investigate a comprehensive model of intrapreneurial orientation at the individual as the unit of analysis. In this study no longer use the firm as the unit of analysis as most previous studies.
Defining the issues of Intrapreneurial Orientation
Between key components in most previous studies related to intrapreneurial orientation are the comments about the issues defining the concept of entrepreneurship. In view of intrapreneurial orientation is still considered new (Holt et al., 2008), conflict of understanding concepts and theories are still unclear and often debated. The concept of intrapreneurial orientation in the study of individual behaviour that focus on individual actions that affect the performance of an organization. This is particularly interesting if applied, but still problematic in terms of identification and measurement concepts related ideas. For example, Sess, Ireland Zahra Floyd, Jenney & Lane (2003), have already divided the types of intrapreneurial orientation are: to maintain the development (sustained regeneration), defining the organization (Organizational redefinition), reform strategies (strategic renewal) and defining the domain (domain redefinition). Categorization shows that the concept of intrapreneurial orientation is to define clearly.
In general, Zahra (1993) has defines intrapreneurial orientation as "... ... the renewal of the organization is divided into two different dimensions of inter-related but that is innovation, business and innovation strategy." However, according to Miller (1983) and several other researchers, such as Morris & Paul, (1987), Covin & Selvin, (1990), Dean Meyer & De Castro (1993) has the same view of what is called intrapreneurial orientation. They think that there are three main components in the behavior of proactive intrapreneurial orientation, innovation and risk considerations. Similarly, Lumpkin & Sess views with a view similar to defined intrapreneurial orientation to some components of autonomy, innovation, consideration of risk taking, proactive and aggressive competition. These researchers say that this dimension is a component or behaviors that can explain what is meant by intrapreneurial orientation. Meanwhile, Kuratko, Irealand, Covin & Hornby (2005) was of the opinion that the discussion about intrapreneurial orientation but it is associated with a set of internal behavior or behavior. Describe the behavior of the need and role of organizational resources in developing a wide range of values the creation of innovation (p. 700). Finally, Ireland, Kuratko & Morris (2006) view that " intrapreneurial orientation is a process of how individuals in an organization to hunt or pursue opportunities to create innovations, regardless of level and the resources available at that time (p. 10).
Without taking into account the number of specific behaviors, the concept of intrapreneurial orientation refers to activities that encourage innovation and the ability to create new value in an organization (Covin & Selvin, 1989; Ireland et al., 2003; Kuratko et al., 2001 ). There are still many debates and conflicts associated with specific behaviors that represent the corporate enterprise. However, there are similarities or agreement, especially in terms of empirical research. This is because, most researchers agree with the concept presented by Covin and Selvin (1989) in relation to three dimensions is given by the researchers. Three dimensions are innovative, proactive and considered risk taking among member organizations (Zahra et al., 1999). So this study will be adopting the concepts and measurements made by Covin and Selvin (1989) in explaining the concept of intrapreneurial orientation.
Figure 1: Relationship between Context, Process, Personality, Intrapreneurial orientation and the role of Organisational Structure as Moderating Variable.
Based on Figure 1, the researcher has presented a model that can explain integrative and a guide to research done this. The model can describe a simple and compact the constructs to be used in this study. Based on Figure 1, reflected that there are several interrelated factors in explaining the factors or determinants of intrapreneurial orientation and the impact or outcome of intrapreneurial orientation. The variables involved in determining the intrapreneurial orientation is comprised of personality factors, the factors or travel organizations and individual factors. The model also reflects several dimensions of intrapreneurial orientation can be represented as proposed by Covin and Slevin (1989). While the personality factor is represented by the five dimensions related to individual personalities. These factors are transparency (openness), the degree of agreement (agreeableness), level of socialization (extraversion), passion (conscientionousness) and neurotik or emotional disorders (neuroticism) (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Zhao & Siebert, 2006). Individual factor is represented by the dimensions of learning orientation, memory and orientation (Hult, Snow & Kandemir, 2003). Organizational factors are represented by the dimensions set forth by Hornsby et al., (2002) that support the management, job autonomy, rewards and reinforcement, and finally, availability or keluangan time there. Please be advised that all the variables selected was due to interest from theoretical and practical. Among the reasons why the variables were selected because there are some empirical evidence to support the relationship between these factors in intrapreneurial orientation. In practical terms, all variables are chosen because of all these factors have been tested for validity and reliability by previous researchers. More detailed explanation of each dimension of the relevant variables will be discussed in the next sub-section.
Although the study of individual personality characteristics of intrapreneurial orientation by many previous researchers, but there are still more interested researchers present the constructs-constructs or ideas which have yet to be explored (Miner, 2004; Stewart & Roth , 2001). Zhao & Siebert (2006), has accumulated findings from 23 studies concerned with individual personality characteristics that can influence intrapreneurial orientation. Researchers found that there were significant differences between entrepreneurs and managers on the dimensions of personality. The result shows that there is evidence that it could encourage researchers examine the effects of each individual tendency to act like an entrepreneur within an organization. This is important evidence for the researchers to take the initiative to review the intrapreneurial orientation to take the individual as the unit of analysis. The study also shows that in an organization, individual personality characteristics can affect the tendency of individuals connected to act as an entrepreneur.
As with any study performed by Zhao & Siebert (2006), this study will also measure the personality characteristics of individuals using five factors of personality. Five factors are generally agreed by most previous researchers as a taxonomy of personality. It is known as "The Big Five Factor" (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The five factors that define the various dimensions of personality, openness (openness), the degree of agreement (agreebleseness), level of socialization (extraversion), care (conscientioness) and neurotik or emotional disorders (neuroticism). In summary the socialization (extraversion) refers to the tendency of the social person, firm, and active. agreement (agreebleseness) refers to the tendency of a person believed to be simple, easy to listen, and altruistik (attitude put the other). Transparency (openness) refers to the tendency of a person to be imaginative, like abnormalities and love to create. Prudence (conscientiousness), refers to the tendency to care, determined, confident and dependable. Finally, neurotik refers to the tendency of a fear that a simple, easy to erect, and easily agitated.
Some specific features of personality are suitable for the test will be the extent of these characteristics affect intrapreneurial orientation. This is due to the importance of the characteristics of the formation of behavior of individuals in the workplace that can affect job performance (Baer & Jones, 2005), leadership (Judge, Bono Ilies & Gerhardt (2002) and creativity (Baer & Oldham, 2006 ). Based on the evidence and the information disclosed, it is proposed that the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: individual personality characteristics (openness, degree of agreement, the socialization, care and neurotik will have a significant relationship with intrapreneurial orientation.
Previous researchers have found that there are differences in the degree of intrapreneurial orientation based on the individual. In addition, each organization at certain times, will practice orientation or motivation of corporate entrepreneurial behavior among its employees up to the norms of the organization. Essence here, the employee must have the impression that there is a culture within the organization who can encourage them bergelagat innovative, proactive and able to consider the risk-free and without compulsion. But researchers are of the opinion that the learning context or situation that exists in the organization can lead to increased likelihood of intrapreneurial orientation among the members of the organization. There is a pembolehubah relevant to the context or situation of the organization of learning. This study will focus on organizational learning variables.
Discussion of previous studies or literature review is very important in the development of a theoretical model or design review. Based on the discussion of the previous studies, In this model takes several models as a basis to shape the research model. Increase on the previous research models have been made and entered into the model that has been discussed. Based on the discussion of key concepts of the study under discussion, the study will be continued with the next chapter the methodology of the study. This part will be discussed in the next chapter in chapter three.