STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS FOR FAVOURABLE SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS

STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS FOR FAVOURABLE
SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS
Dr. Shradha Shivani
Lecturer, Department of Management,
Birla Institute of Technology,
Mesra, Ranchi,
India.
Dr. S. K. Mukherjee
Vice Chancellor,
Birla Institute of Technology,
Mesra, Ranchi ,
India.
Dr. Raka Sharan
Professor (retd.),
Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, India.

Abstract
There is a general agreement among experts that socio-cultural influence on the personality and
general behaviour of people in India is very strong. However, experts have arrived at
contradictory conclusions regarding whether these influences have been favourable or
unfavourable for the growth of entrepreneurship in Indian society. Empirical evidence regarding
the role is also inadequate and therefore inconclusive as well.
It cannot be denied that there is a growing need in this country to create and maintain a sociocultural environment that would help in building a wider base of population capable of
successful entrepreneurial behaviour and willing to accept it as their profession.
In the above background an empirical study was conducted using a sample of 200 small
entrepreneurs of Ranchi, the capital city of Jharkhand, one of the lesser-developed states of
India. The study involved a comparative measurement of levels of salient entrepreneurial traits
and entrepreneurial success achieved by male and female entrepreneurs, examining links
between these variables and socio-cultural factors like Caste, Religiosity, Family structure and
Family support.

The findings suggest that the socio-cultural factors definitely influence the entrepreneurial
behaviour. However, It is also observed that the nature of these factors and their influence is such
that appropriate structural interventions can make all these sociocultural attributes play a
favorable role for growth of entrepreneurship in the Indian society. The authors have made some
observations on the policy implications of the findings and they wish to share this information
with the international community, such as the present forum for wider support.

1


STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS FOR FAVOURABLE
SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS
I. INTRODUCTION
Desirable rate of economic growth calls for rapid emergence of a multitude of enterprises in all
walks of life. This requires the creation and maintenance of an environment that is conducive to
growth of existing enterprises and would help build up a wider base of population capable of
successful entrepreneurial behaviour. Lately the concept of culture of entrepreneurship has
received prominence and social scientists have observed that an entrepreneur is a product of the
socio–cultural milieu
Many economists now discuss the role of non-economic factors in economic growth, including
concepts developed in Sociology and Psychology (Lipset, 2000). In the above context, the views
of Max Weber (1864-1920) are relevant. A thesis suggested by Weber is that: Given the
economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whether or
not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.
Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether the
possibility becomes an actuality (Lipset, 2000). This means that an appropriate socio-cultural
environment is a prerequisite for industrial or economic growth. The event of enterprise creation,
the essential activity in entrepreneurship, can therefore be seen as a consequence of congruence
between environmental conditions and the entrepreneurial behaviour of individuals determined
by their socio-cultural background.

Inspired by Weber’s proposition that religion, norms and values, behavior, and economic
development are all interconnected, a number of experts reported their views on this relationship.
Mclelland (Mclelland, 1961), Berna (Berna, 1960), and Richard Fox (Fox, 1969) have also
related economic progress with culture. They tried to explain the economic backwardness of
India by linking it with the Indian culture. Some of these scholars argued that the spirit of
enterprise was inhibited among the indigenous population of India by the religious philosophy of
resignation embodied in the doctrine of karma and by the rigid social organization of the caste
system and the joint family. For instance, it has been observed by some of them that the tradition
bound Indian society offered little freedom of choice of profession to its population. It is the
caste that determined the occupation for its members, especially in the tradition bound families
(Weber1958, Tripathi, 1992). Consequently, the social base of entrepreneurial growth has
remained very limited in India
Tripathi has reported that the Indian personality, by and large, remained ‘unentrepreneurial’, if
not anti-entrepreneurial', (Tripathi, 1992). McClelland argued that Indians lacked Achievement
Motivation due to the sociocultural influences on them. (McClelland, 1969). On the contrary, a
few other scholars like Satish Saberwal (Saberwal, 1976), G.K. Chadha (Chadha, 1986),
Streefkerk (Streefkerk, 1985) have rejected Weber’s thesis. They were of the opinion that
structural conditions and not the cultural conditions determine whether entrepreneurship will
flourish in a society or not. Therefore as presented in the above discussion different researchers
have arrived at contradictory conclusions regarding the role of sociocultural factors in supporting
and promoting entrepreneurship, particularly in India. At the same time empirical evidence

2


regarding the role and the scope for structural interventions for influencing the sociocultural
factors for promotion of entrepreneurship is also inadequate and therefore inconclusive as well.
However, it cannot be denied that there is growing need in this country to create and maintain an
appropriate environment that is conducive to growth of existing enterprises and would help build
up a wider base of population capable of successful entrepreneurial behaviour. It would be

meaningful to empirically examine the possible links between growth of entrepreneurship and
sociocultural factors like Caste, Religiosity & Perceived Family support and to identify the
Structural interventions that can be designed to make the influencing sociocultural attributes play
a favourable role for growth of entrepreneurship in India
It is common knowledge that the proportion of women in the entrepreneur population of India is
miniscule. In this context it would be relevant to find out whether there are any differences
between Indian male and female entrepreneurs with respect to the levels of success achieved by
them. In case if any differences are observed it would be interesting to find out whether these
differences are due to sociocultural or structural reasons.
II. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
In the above background an empirical study was conducted on the entrepreneurs of Ranchi, the
capital city of Jharkhand, erstwhile a part of the state of Bihar in India. The study involved a
comparative measurement of levels of entrepreneurial traits and success achieved by male and
female entrepreneurs, examining links between these variables and a few sociocultural factors
like Caste, Religiosity, Family structure and Family support. The scope for structural
interventions for favourable influence of sociocultural factors was explored.
Several measurement scales were used in the study. The design of the scales was based on
review of relevant literature and consultation held with a group of five judges who were
representatives of Government support agencies, officials of the Ranchi chamber of commerce
and one expert academician in the subject. The scales are described in the annexure.
A random sample of 200 entrepreneurs was selected from the directory of Small Scale Industries
Association of Ranchi. The sample consisted of 150 male entrepreneurs and 50 Female
entrepreneurs. Relevant information was collected from the respondents with the help of a semistructured Interview Schedule. The findings reported in this paper are from a larger project
carried out during 2002-04.
III. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
Success of the Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurial success can be defined in many different ways. Comparison of the levels of
success achieved by entrepreneurs is a difficult task. One may use some quantified performance
indicators like financial performance, awards won or intangible measures like happiness,
satisfaction etc. that may be difficult to quantify. On review of scales used for measurement of

entrepreneurial success by various Indian researchers (Akhouri 1979, Rao1986, Kumar 1990), a
set of 3 key variables was selected for measurement of success of the respondents of this study.

3


These variables are, Net Profit (average of last 4-5 years), Turnover growth rate (average of last
4-5 years) and Diversification level of their enterprises.
Net Profit and Turnover growth were used in almost all the above-mentioned scales and these
are variables that are a function of some of the other measures like labour productivity, raw
material productivity, etc used in the scales referred above. Diversification level was included
along with the other two financial variables because measurement of entrepreneurial success
would remain incomplete without a measurement of the amount of innovation and risk taking
exhibited by the entrepreneur, as these are two important characteristic features of
entrepreneurship. This is as per a very widely accepted definition of the term ‘Entrepreneur’,
given by Hisrich & Brush. “Entrepreneur is a person who creates something different with value
by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and
social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction” (Hisrich
and Brush; 1978). Diversification decision of the entrepreneur is a suitable indicator of
innovativeness and risk taking propensity of the entrepreneur.
The findings regarding comparative levels of Net Profit, Turnover Growth and Diversification
level achieved by the respondents is presented in Figure 1, 2 and 3. Male respondents have
managed to earn relatively higher levels of profit and Turnover Growth as compared to the
female respondents. There is no significant difference in the level of diversification achieved by
the two groups. As presented in Figure 4 there is a striking difference between the male and
female respondents regarding their extent of Success. Male entrepreneurs have been found to be
more successful among the respondents. The chi square results agree to the significant difference
between the two sets of respondents. Hence one may conclude that entrepreneurial performance
can be differentiated on the basis of gender.
The reasons for this difference may be due to differences in the Sociocultural attributes of the

two sets of respondents, differences in their entrepreneurial traits or because of differences in
access to infrastructure support for male and female respondents. This will be explored later in
this discussion.

Socio-cultural Attributes and Success
Religiosity
Religion is an integral part of a cultural system. It is important because it promotes social
solidarity and reinforces social norms and values. Religion makes people share common beliefs
and thus a common value system
It is widely held by some western observers like Max Weber that India's spiritualism, philosophy
of renunciation, fatalism and asceticism constitute insurmountable obstacles to material progress
of the country (Singer; 1956). Following this analysis of Weber a few other researchers like
Dwijendra Tripathi, have also argued that, because of the religious philosophy of resignation
embodied in the doctrine of ‘Karma’ and the rigid social organization of the caste system the
Indian personality remained largely unentrepreneurial if not anti – entrepreneurial (Tripathi,

4


1992). Similarly. McClelland was of the opinion that the presence of a specific motivational
structure, the desire to achieve purely for the sake of achievement -- i.e. the `achievement
motivation' -- is of critical importance to successful entrepreneurship and he said that Indian
artisans lacked entrepreneurial values and motives, a conclusion he based on his experience with
handloom weavers in Orissa and artisans in Kakinada in south India (Mclelland and Winter,
1969)
But these assertions are contradicted at least on two counts. First, not all Hindu scriptures teach
doctrines of self-denial or the cessation of desire in order to achieve personal salvation.
Secondly, the secular doctrine abounds in works like Kautilya's, "Arthasastra", the "Rig-Veda
and Bhagavat Gita" (Rao, 1986, p-18).
Kunkel describes the reasoning of western observers who find the tenets of the Hindu religion as

responsible for India's economic backwardness in the following words, “ The sacred literature of
India contains values which are internalized by the people who then act in accordance with these
values, and thus India is economically stagnant, and there is little hope of economic growth"
(Kunkle, 1965). However, he also points out that the above reasoning is based on an assumption
for which there is no objective evidence.
Contrary to the western view, H.W. Singer (Singer, 1953), Srinivas (Srinivas, 1962) and others
argue that Indian population by and large is as materialistic in its daily life as its western
counterparts. Singer states that, "The Indian world view encompasses both material and spiritual
values, and these can be found in the behaviour of the ordinary Indian existing side by side and
in functional interdependence. Further he points out: A society dominated by a philosophy of
renunciation need not be a society of ascetics. In India, ascetics and holy-men have never
constituted more than a tiny fraction of the population. There have always been a sufficient
number of householders willing and able to do the world's work. And while the ideals of
asceticism may indirectly influence the general population, not all of these influences oppose
social reform and economic development" (Singer; 1953,p-83).
Milton Singer argued on the basis of an empirical study conducted by him in Madras that Hindu
industrialists in Madras compartmentalize their religious lives and their business activities (Siger,
1972). Timberg (Timberg, 1978) and Saberwal (Saberwal, 1976) had altogether rejected
Weber’s thesis that religion, norms and values, behavior and economic development are all
interconnected. They were of the view that India’s economic backwardness was due to certain
structural conditions that were unsuitable for entrepreneurship and not because of social or
cultural systems prevailing in the country.
While the above arguments have been forwarded, nothing conclusive has emerged. The views of
scholars regarding the influence of Indian religiosity on economic success are conflicting.
However, the fact remains that Indian economy remained stagnant for centuries for which
historically various explanations have been suggested of which religion is only one. Foreign rule
extended over a long period is another. Lack of modern educational facilities and other structural
facilities for growth of entrepreneurship is one of the consequences of foreign rule. Social and

5

political institutions, which were not conducive to economic development, are the third and
perhaps the most conclusive explanation (Rao; 1986, p-19).
As presented in the previous section, many scholars consider religion as an important
sociocultural attribute influencing economic development. Although a cause – effect relation
cannot be tested between the two variables; it would be appropriate to examine the relation
between religiosity and success levels achieved by the respondents of this study in a descriptive
manner. The religiosity of each respondent was measured by seeking information on his religious
habits. It was measured on a three-point scale with categories of high, medium and low. The
measurement scale is explained in the annexure.
The Figure 5 shows the respondents' religiosity and the extent of entrepreneurial success
achieved by them. Almost 90 percent respondents were found to have high religiosity or Medium
Religiosity. Only a small minority of 10 percent respondents was found to have low religiosity.
All the respondents said they had faith in the power of God.
There is no distinct relationship between religiosity and success level of the respondents. The
distribution of respondents in different levels of success for all religiosity categories is the same.
Although, statistically there is no significant relationship between religiosity and success but
almost all the respondents agreed that their religious functions, norms, practices and God’s
power helps them to be disciplined and gives them the confidence to overcome difficulties. It
may be concluded that religion is definitely not a barrier to entrepreneurial success in India;
rather it is a source of strength for entrepreneurs. This conclusion is valid for both Male as well
as Female entrepreneurs. Cross cultural research involving a comparative study of performance
& success of entrepreneurs from two different cultures can throw more light on the relationship
between religiosity or religion and entrepreneurial success.
Caste
Among the social institutions that are held responsible for India's backwardness, the caste system
is considered the most prominent one. All other social factors that inhibited development are
only offshoots of or closely related to the caste system. Since caste is an important sociocultural
attribute, therefore information regarding caste of the respondents and success achieved by them

has been analyzed to see the influence of caste level on success achieved by the respondents.
The grouping of castes is explained in the annexure. The caste composition and success level of
respondents is presented in Figure 6.As per the Figure 6 in the forward caste male category a
clear majority of 53.57 % are in the very successful category. Whereas, only 31.25 % and
15.18% belong to the successful and less successful categories. On the other hand among the
male respondents of the backward caste category, largest number of cases are in the successful
category i.e. 47 % and only 23.5% and 29.4% are in the Very successful and less successful
categories respectively. Among the females, majority of them belong to the forward caste and are
equally distributed in all categories of success. Only a small minority of 8 respondents were of

6


the SC category, out of whom the majority are in the successful or Very successful category. In
the ‘others’ category also most of the males are in the very successful category, i.e.46.15%.
The above figures suggest that the male and female respondents belonging to forward caste are
found in all categories of levels of success. There are few respondents from backward, scheduled
and others caste group but most of them are placed in the very successful and successful category
as per their performance. Statistical results did not show any significant relationship between
caste and success level for male or female entrepreneurs.
Although these figures do not indicate any apparent relation between caste and success there are
certain implications. The data suggests that an overwhelming majority of respondents are from
high caste while low caste respondents are very few in number. In this context, it would be
appropriate to point out one of the findings from general discussions with the respondents and
also with some experts. It was observed that high caste entrepreneurs are able to continue with
their enterprise because of their caste orientation. Even if they face failure at a certain stage they
are able to overcome them because of the tacit support of caste groupings. Whereas, the low
caste entrepreneurs are unable to continue in such situations because of the lack of such caste
support. Hence their actual number is less.
The findings of this study suggest that caste does not influence the success level that can be

achieved but it does influence the supply of entrepreneurs and the survival of the enterprise in
difficult situations. Therefore these findings do not conclusively support or reject the views of
Weber and other researchers who consider the Indian caste system as a hindrance to
entrepreneurship. This requires a systematic study of those individuals who had the desire to
become an entrepreneur but could not do so and an investigation of the reasons for the failure of
entrepreneurs who could not survive when faced with difficult situations.
The findings of this study are consistent with the views of a few other researchers who have
conducted their study in some other parts of the country and have presented evidences of
individuals from lower castes emerging as successful entrepreneurs. Holmström, observed that
`In some cases artisan castes of Delhi set up manufacturing units for light engineering products
like ball bearings and motor parts...' (Holmström, 1985). This transition from artisan to
industrialist occurred in other parts of India as well. Satish Saberwal described in detail how,
after 1930, carpenters and blacksmiths in a city of Punjab worked their way up to become
industrial entrepreneurs (Saberwal, 1976). To a large extent this is true for the state of Punjab as
a whole, as is shown in the study by G.K. Chadha, who described how artisans like blacksmiths,
masons, and carpenters, turned into good engineers who played a vital role in the regeneration of
the agro-industry in Punjab, setting up small industrial workshops, many of which in due course
grew into full-fledged industrial enterprises (Chadha, 1986).
In his study on small-scale
industrialists in two small Gujarat towns, Hein Streefkerk also showed that artisan caste
members, namely carpenters and blacksmiths, were the first to become actively involved in the
transition to industrial production (Streefkerk, 1985).
Based on the above discussion one can reject the argument that members of artisan castes were,
and are, unable for cultural and socio-psychological reasons to make a contribution to industrial
development. However, it may be concluded that caste influences entrepreneurial growth and

7


sustained entrepreneurial success and that there is need for designing appropriate structural

interventions to deal with this influence.
Family Support
A person imbibes certain norms and values and the way of life practiced in a religion or society
through his upbringing in the family. Many sociologists have regarded family as the corner stone
of society. "It forms the basic unit of social organization as in the society it's the responsibility of
family as a social organization to internalise the society's culture and hence structuring of human
personalities" (Haralambos, 1980).
During the exploratory interviews with the respondents, a hypothesis that emerged was that the
moral and financial support received by them from their family was valuable for them and it
played a significant role in enabling them to carry out their entrepreneurial activities. To test this
hypothesis, the level of Family support (Financial and Moral) received by the respondents (as
perceived by them) was measured and the link between level of perceived family support and
levels of success achieved by the respondents was explored. The scale used for the measurement
is described in the Annexure. Figure 7 & 8 present the level of family support and it’s relation
with the level of entrepreneurial success achieved by the respondents.
Overall we find from figure 7 that the largest proportion of respondents i.e. 44.5 percent of them
have received High level of family support for taking up entrepreneurship. Some differences are
observed between the male and female respondents with respect to family support. Among the
males a large proportion of them i.e. 49.33 percent have said that they received high level of
support from their families whereas the majority of the female respondents i.e. 52 percent of
them have said that they received only moderate support from their families. According to the
chi-square results this difference in the level of family support received by Male and Female
respondents has been found to be statistically significant. This difference could also be one of the
reasons for lesser degree of success achieved by the Female respondents. This can be confirmed
by analysing the relation between Success and Perceived Family support as given in Figure 8.
It is obvious from figure 8 that the majority of the respondents received a lot of family support
morally as well as financially to carry on their entrepreneurial activity. But, the more successful
respondents were found to have received greater family support as compared to the less
successful ones. Both chi square results and correlation between the family support received by
the respondents and their extent of success show positive significant relationship.

Another inference that can be drawn from the above information is that one of the reasons for
less degree of success achieved by Female respondents could be because they received less
degree of family support as compared to their male counterparts.
In the context of Family Support it would be pertinent to point out that the majority of the
entrepreneurs who have received high support are from extended families. These respondents
probably benefited more from the family because of the family structure. Joint families seem to
have encouraged entrepreneurship in this region. This is contrary to the views of researchers like

8


Dwijendra Tripathi who came to the conclusion that ‘the joint family system of Indian society is
an important factor in explaining India's retarded economic growth and the unentrepreneurial
personality of Indians (Tripathi, 1992).
On the other hand Milton Singer from his study of entrepreneurs of Madras concluded that the
joint family organization plays a positive role in promoting industrial entrepreneurship (Singer,
1972). The findings of Singer suggested that joint family units provide financial, physical and
social security to make entrepreneurial activity a success.
Most of the respondents belonged to the extended type of families and only a few were of
nuclear types. Many of these nuclear families had also recently branched out from extended
families. The respondents mentioned that they got all kinds of support from the members of their
extended families. Thus, one of the important factors influencing the success of an Indian
entrepreneur is the support from his family and the type of family he belongs to. This
observation indicates the social roots of Indian entrepreneurship.
Education
Along with the informal learning in a family, the child undergoes formal learning through his
education. Education is considered an important socio-cultural factor that influences the
performance of an entrepreneur. It is believed that education received in schools and college
inculcates the value of achievement and the value of equality of opportunity and also enables
people to acquire various types of technical skills. These values and skills have an important

function in this advanced industrial society, as it requires a highly motivated achievement
oriented work force, equipped with the required skills.
Hisrich and Peters have observed that although formal education is not necessary for starting a
new business, as is reflected in the success of many entrepreneurs who were high school drop
outs, found through out the world, it does provide a good background particularly when it is
related with the field of the venture. (Hisrich and Peters, 1998) The Figure 9 presents the extent
of success in relation to the education level of the respondents of this study.
As presented in Figure 9 the statistical results (chi square test) show a significant relationship
between the educational level of the respondents and their level of success. Respondents with
Higher levels of education have been found to be more successful than those with lower levels of
education.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: SOCIOCULTURAL ATTRIBUTES AND SUCCESS
The findings of this study suggest that there is a definite relation between sociocultural attributes
of entrepreneurs and the level of success achieved by them. It is observed that caste does not
influence the success level that can be achieved but it does influence the supply of entrepreneurs
and the survival of the enterprise in difficult situations. The representation of the lower castes in
the entrepreneur population is very low. Therefore these findings do not conclusively support or
reject the views of Weber and other researchers who consider the Indian caste system as a
hindrance to entrepreneurship.

9


Perceived Family support and Education level are two very important factors influencing the
success of entrepreneurs. The more successful respondents were found to have received greater
family support as compared to the less successful ones. An inference that can be drawn from the
above findings is that one of the reasons for less degree of success achieved by Female
respondents is because they received less degree of family support as compared to their male
counterparts. Almost all those who have received high support are from extended families. It is
indicated that the joint family system of India has not hindered the growth of entrepreneurship.

Highly educated respondents and respondents with professional qualification were found to be
more successful than the lesser educated ones.
Religiosity doesn’t have significant correlation with success although all the entrepreneurs are
found to have faith in God and religiosity was high among the entrepreneur population in
general. Indian religiosity is definitely not a barrier to entrepreneurial success; rather it is a
source of strength for the entrepreneurs.
The above conclusions indicate that there are certain sociocultural attributes like Caste,
Perceived Family support and Education that influence the growth of entrepreneurship whereas
others like Indian religiosity and the Joint family system have no influence but they definitely do
not hinder entrepreneurial activities. The implications of these findings for structural
interventions will be presented in a later section of this paper.
V ENTREPRENEURIAL TRAITS
Most experts have agreed that entrepreneurs possess certain distinctive qualities. As reported by
Joseph Schumpeter, John Stuart Mill claims that entrepreneurship requires "no ordinary skill,"
and he laments the fact that there is no good English equivalent word to encompass the specific
meaning of the French term ‘Entrepreneur’. (Schumpeter, 1951).
Alfred Marshall suggests that the skills associated with entrepreneurship are rare and limited in
supply. He claims that the abilities of the entrepreneur are "so great and so numerous that very
few people can exhibit them all in a very high degree". Marshall, however, implies that people
can be taught to acquire the abilities that are necessary to be an entrepreneur. (Marshall, 1994)
Various studies have been conducted to identify the important entrepreneurial traits. There is a
general agreement among writers that the four most important traits of an entrepreneur are his
Risk taking propensity, Innovativeness, Achievement orientation and Managerial skills.
If one tries to analyze how people acquire these traits, literature suggests that both structural as
well as sociocultural factors play a role. For example, Max Weber (1958) suggested that: Given
the economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whether
or not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.
Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether the
possibility becomes an actuality. (Lipset, 2000)
This means that an appropriate socio-cultural environment is a prerequisite for industrial and

economic growth. The event of enterprise creation, the essential activity for entrepreneurship,
10


can be seen as the consequence of congruence between environmental conditions and the
entrepreneurial behavior of individuals determined by his socio-cultural background (Robinson
et al 1991).
From the above discussion it can be inferred that an individual develops the above-mentioned
entrepreneurial attributes through his upbringing as he undergoes the process of socialization in a
given society and appropriate values and norms of social context support and promote
entrepreneurship.
Risk Taking Propensity:
Taking decisions and acting on an uncertainty is understood as a risk-taking activity. Risk taking
propensity is undoubtedly the most widely discussed entrepreneurial trait. Although it has not
been empirically established that Risk taking is a distinguishing characteristic of entrepreneurs
there is almost universal agreement on the fact that it is an essential trait found among
entrepreneurs all over the world. (Hisrich & Peters, 1998.)
Risk taking, whether financial, social, or psychological, is an integral part of the entrepreneurial
process. All recent definitions of entrepreneurship mention a risk-taking component. Cantillon,
who was the first to formally define the term ‘Entrepreneur’, explained that the entrepreneur is a
specialist in taking on risk. He "insures" workers by buying their products (or their labor
services) for resale before consumers have indicated how much they are willing to pay for them.
The workers receive an assured income (in the short run, at least), while the entrepreneur bears
the risk caused by price fluctuations in consumer markets. (Cantillon, 1755).
The U.S. economist Frank H. Knight refined this idea. To Knight, “entrepreneurs bear the
responsibility and the consequences of making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, that is,
where the uniqueness of the situation denies an objective, qualitatively determinate
probability.”(Knight, 1921)
He distinguished between risk, which is insurable, and uncertainty, which is not. Risk relates to
recurring events whose relative frequency is known from past experience, while uncertainty

relates to unique events whose probability can only be subjectively estimated. Changes affecting
the marketing of consumer products generally fall in the uncertainty category. Individual tastes,
for example, are affected by group culture, which, in turn, depends on fashion trends that are
essentially unique. Insurance companies exploit the law of large numbers to reduce the overall
burden of risks by "pooling" them. For instance, no one knows whether any individual, fortyyear-old, will die in the very next year. But insurance companies do know with relative certainty
how many forty-year-olds in a large group will die within a year. Armed with this knowledge,
they know what price to charge for their life insurance, but they cannot do the same when it
comes to uncertainties. Knight observed that while the entrepreneur can "lay off" risks much like
insurance companies do, he is left to bear the uncertainties himself. He is content to do this
because his profit compensates him for the psychological cost involved.

11


To measure risk-taking propensity of respondents the Risk Attitudes Inventory designed by Gene
Calvert, (1993) was used. (Ref. Annexure). Along with Kogan-Wallach CDQ and Jackson
Personality Inventory (JPI) this is another popular tool for measuring Risk Taking Propensity.
The max. Score was 15. The higher the total score the more is the Risk taking Propensity.
Therefore all those who scored from 0-5 were categorized as having Low Risk taking propensity,
those with scores between 6-10 as having moderate Risk taking Ability and those with 11-15 as
High Risk Taking propensity.
The Risk Taking Propensity of the Respondents is presented in the Figure 10. Overall we find
that a substantial proportion of respondents (43%) have low level of Risk Taking propensity. The
difference between the Male and Female respondents was not found to be significant. This
suggests that people in this region do not like to take high levels of risks for their ventures.
Probably, this is the reason why the entrepreneurial profession is not a very sought after one
among people here, as suggested by the officials of support organizations located in the district.
It was observed that 66.5% of the respondents are engaged in Non Manufacturing types of
enterprises while only 33.5% own a manufacturing enterprise. One may conclude from the above
that the preference of the respondents of this study for Non-Manufacturing types of enterprises is

because of low level of risk Taking Propensity among them because non-manufacturing
businesses are perceived to be less risky as they require lower initial outlay and have shorter
breakeven period. In this context one needs to examine whether there are any social origins of
such low levels of Risk taking propensity.
The above observation regarding preference for Non Manufacturing businesses is consistent with
the findings of a few other studies conducted in various other regions of the country. Some of
these researchers have explained the reasons for this observation by linking it with the traditional
approach of the Indian businessmen towards trade and commerce. A debate has ensued among
researchers regarding the preference of Indian entrepreneurs for manufacturing or nonmanufacturing type of enterprises. For example, According to Mario Rutten, studies conducted
on Indian entrepreneurs emphasized the specific commercial style of Indian traders, which was
said to stand in their way of establishing modern businesses. These studies argued that Indian
moneylenders and traders consider the production process to be something fixed and static and
are not prepared to invest more than the absolute minimum amount of capital in installations and
machines. This preference for rapid profits closely parallels the traditional Vaishya ethic. (Mario
Rutten, 2001)
James Berna, argued that Indian entrepreneurs with a background in trade are opportunistic
businessmen with very short time horizons, interested only in fast turnover and quick profits,
completely unconcerned with technology, unwilling to invest more than the bare minimum in
fixed capital, and still preoccupied far more with trade than with industry (Berna 1960). This
was also expressed by Leighton Hazlehurst , who concluded, on the basis of research among
Banias in a Punjab town, that rural traders invested their capital in productive enterprises only
very reluctantly (Hazlehurst, 1966). Again Richard Fox, who studied Banias in another small
North Indian town, also argued that these businessmen were more willing to accept smaller

12


profits as long as they covered essential expenses, rather than to invest in more profitable longterm enterprises in which they risked losing their investment (Fox, 1969).
At the same time Rutten also states that some studies done in the 70s and 80s (For eg. Van der
veen, 1976) argued that this short-term commercial orientation of Indian entrepreneurs does not

have social origin. Rather, it was a response to structural factors such as imperfect markets or
lack of an adequate institutional framework. These authors argued that, if the commercial climate
is favorable -- that is, there is an availability of market incentives, governmental support, and
sufficient banking and transport facilities -- industrial entrepreneurship is bound to develop. In
this approach the development of entrepreneurship -- that is, the employment of capital and other
productive means for industrial production -- was placed in a broader political and economic
frame.
There is evidence of Indians, both males and females, setting up a host of manufacturing
enterprises wherever structural factors favored such businesses. To a large extent this is true for
the states of Delhi, Punjab and Gujarat that are a few relatively more industrially advanced states
of India. This is shown in the study by G.K. Chadha, who described how artisans comprising
blacksmiths, masons, and carpenters turned into good engineers who played a vital role in the
regeneration of the agro-industry in Punjab. They set up small industrial workshops, many of
which in due course grew into full-fledged industrial enterprises (Chadha, 1986). In his study on
small-scale industrialists in two small Gujarat towns, Hein Streefkerk also showed that artisan
caste members, namely carpenters and blacksmiths, were the first to become actively involved in
the transition to industrial production (Streefkerk, 1985). Satish Saberwal described in detail,
how after 1930, carpenters and blacksmiths in a city of Punjab worked their way up to become
industrial entrepreneurs (Saberwal, 1976).
One may therefore conclude that it is not the sociocultural context that is the determinant of this
trait but the whole structural environment that has probably made the people of this region less
inclined towards risk taking in general.
Risk Taking and Environment Uncertainty
The above conclusion is further supported by the findings on the opinion of the respondents
regarding the level of uncertainty in the general environment, i.e., the social, political, legal, and
economic environment of this region. When asked to rate the level of uncertainty in the general
environment as perceived by them, the responses obtained were as presented in Figure 11
A large majority, that is, 75.5 percent of respondents considered the uncertainty in the
environment to be high or very high. The difference between male and female respondents is not
found significant. Considering the premise that higher the levels of uncertainty in a situation

lower the propensity to take risks, one may interpret from the above findings that the Risk taking
propensity of the entrepreneurs is low because the level of uncertainty in the general
environment in which they exist is high as perceived by them.

13


Innovativeness
The concept of innovation and newness is an integral part of entrepreneurship. It was
Shcumpeter who associated innovativeness with entrepreneurship for the first time. According to
him Innovativeness involves doing something new. The newness can consist of anything from a
new product to a new distribution system to developing a new organizational structure.
(Schumpeter, 1934)
There is a lot of disagreement regarding the definition of innovation. Kirzner suggests that the
process of innovation is actually that of spontaneous "undeliberate learning" (Kirzner, 1985).
Thus, the necessary characteristic of an entrepreneur is alertness, and no intrinsic skills-other
than that of recognizing opportunities, are necessary. Other economists of the innovation school
claim that entrepreneurs have special skills that enables them to participate in the process of
innovation. Leibenstein claims that the dominant, necessary characteristic of entrepreneurs is that
they are gap-fillers: they have the ability to perceive where the market fails and to develop new
goods or processes that the market demands but which are not currently being supplied.
(Lieibenstein, 1966)
Peter Drucker referred to the process of innovation as it occurs in developed countries as,
"creative imitation of innovations made in the developed countries." The term appears initially
paradoxical; however, it is quite descriptive of the process of innovation that actually occurs in
the developing nations. Creative imitation takes place when the imitators better understand how
an innovation can be applied, used, or sold in their particular market niche (namely their own
countries) than do the people who actually created or discovered the original innovation.
(Drucker, 1985)
The innovativeness of the respondents was measured using a scale consisting of six indicators

presented in detail in annexure. The innovativeness level was categorized as high, medium and
low. Figure 12 presents the Gender wise distribution of the respondents in the 3 categories of
innovativeness levels.
From the Figure 12 one can observe that a very low 19 percent and 18 percent each of male and
female respondents are highly innovative. It is interesting to note that the chi square results show
that there is no significant difference in the innovative traits of male and female entrepreneurs. It
was also observed that all those who are highly innovative have high level of education as well
(having acquired 13 or more years of education). This probably means that education and
training can help inculcate innovativeness also.
Most of the respondents are showing their trait of innovativeness by locating new ways to market
their products either by identifying a new market away from the state or by identifying new types
of channels. Some of the respondents identified new sources of raw materials, new ways of
motivating their employees and new ways of keeping records. Innovations in the form of
developing new innovative products or new ways of manufacturing or offering new kind of
service were very few.

14


Achievement Orientation
The need for achievement is also a very widely discussed characteristic of entrepreneurs. High
achievers are individuals “with high drive and high activity level, constantly struggling to
achieve something, which one could call as their own accomplishment. They like to be different
from others and strive to accomplish goals which are not otherwise very easy to achieve”
(Murthy; 1989)
According to David C. McClelland and many other social scientists, entrepreneurs have been
found to possess a relatively higher level of achievement orientation than other professionals.
McClelland developed a theory of needs of which the need for achievement was one. He
described this need as the drive to excel, to achieve in relation to a set of standards and to strive
to succeed. He argued that the presence of a specific motivational structure, the desire to

achieve, purely for the sake of achievement -- i.e. the `achievement motivation' -- is of critical
importance to successful entrepreneurship (McClelland, 1962).
McClelland differentiates ‘high achievers’ from ‘low achievers’ on the basis of certain
characteristics. According to him high achievers set moderately challenging goals for themselves
– tasks of intermediate difficulty and those where the probability of success is 0-5.They are not
gamblers and they dislike succeeding by chance. High achievers also seek situations in which
they can attain personal responsibility for the work performed by them. They also want rapid
feedback on their performance (McClelland, 1961).
To measure the achievement orientation of the respondents a scale was designed using
statements based on the above-mentioned attributes of High Achievers as proposed by
McClelland in his book “ The Achieving Society” The details of the scale are given in annexure.
The findings regarding this trait are presented in the Figure 13.
As presented in Figure 13 almost half of the respondents i.e. 49.5 percent of them have High
level of Need for achievement and only a low 15.5 percent have low level of Achievement
orientation. This means that the overall level of need for achievement is relatively high among
the respondents. But there is a marked difference between the male and female respondents with
respect to their level of this trait.
Majority of the Male Respondents, i.e. 54 percent of them have high level of achievement
orientation whereas the majority of female respondents have medium level of Achievement
orientation.Thus there seems to be quite a lot of variation in the achievement orientation between
the Male and Female respondents. This has also been statistically confirmed by the chi square
results. The likely reason for this difference was explained by analysing the level of family
support as presented in the following section.
Achievement Orientation and Perceived Family support
A person imbibes certain norms and values and the way of life practiced in a religion or society
through his upbringing in the family. Many sociologists have regarded family as the corner stone
of society. "It forms the basic unit of social organization as in the society it's the responsibility of

15

family as a social organization to internalize the society's culture and hence structuring of human
personalities" (Haralambos, 1992,).
Depth interviews conducted with a few female entrepreneurs during the preliminary
investigation of the study had indicated that acceptance of their profession by the family seemed
to be an important precondition for them to opt for entrepreneurship. At the same time it was also
observed that the female entrepreneurs considered Moral and financial Support of the family as
very important for them. In the later stages a measurement of the levels of Family support
received by the male as well as female respondents (as perceived by them) was undertaken. The
scale used for the measurement is described in the annexure. The findings are presented in figure
14. It was observed that the female entrepreneurs were found to have received lower level of
family support and this difference between Male and Female respondents is statistically
significant.
It was also observed that Family support and acceptance of their profession by the family is
particularly important for females as 80 percent of the female respondents said that they would
not have opted for entrepreneurship if their family had not agreed with their idea of becoming an
entrepreneur. Amongst the males only 55 percent had given this response.
From the above discussions an indirect inference may be drawn regarding the reasons for
relatively lower level of achievement orientation among female entrepreneurs. Females probably
do not aspire for more and more professional success or achievement because they are not
assured of getting the required support from the family.
Managerial Skills
Managerial skills are also a very important trait of entrepreneurs. Managerial skills are required
for ensuring smooth operations of the firm, effective planning, successfully coping with
competition and for long-term survival and growth of an enterprise. These skills of the
respondents were measured with the help of a specially designed scale using Robert Katz’s
classification of various types of managerial Skills (Katz, 1974). According to Katz there are
three types of managerial skills, technical, human and conceptual skills. The measurement is
explained in the annexure. The skill level was categorized into three major categories as high,
medium and low. The findings regarding the levels of managerial Skills is presented in Figure

15. As presented in Figure 15 in case of this important skill required of entrepreneurs one finds
that more than half of the respondents i.e. 51.5 percent of them possess High level of Managerial
skills. Once again we can observe marked differences between the male and female respondents
with respect to the levels of these skills among them. Female respondents have been found to
possess lower levels of this skill.
The low level of managerial skills among Indian women, especially conceptual skills and
technical skills like inventory management etc., may be attributed to lack of entrepreneurial
training, and lack of awareness due to poor networking ability and staying indoors most of the
time.

16


Entrepreneurial Traits and Success
There is almost universal agreement regarding the fact that all the four traits discussed above is
essential traits of entrepreneurs. But, there is no conclusive causal relationship that has been
determined to establish the significance of these traits for entrepreneurial success. An attempt
was made to quantify the relationship between different levels of entrepreneurial traits and
degrees of success. A correlation analysis between the score of each trait and the success score
achieved by the entrepreneurs in the sample was carried out. The findings (r values) are
presented in the Figure 16
It is observed that level of risk-taking; innovativeness, achievement-orientation and managerial
skills show a positive significant correlation with the success level of the respondents. The
highest correlation of success has been observed with Risk Taking Ability of the respondents.
VI Conclusions: Entrepreneurial Traits.
Overall, it is observed that the respondents possess moderate levels of achievement orientation
and managerial skills. However they (both Males and Females) have low Risk Taking Propensity
and Innovativeness. Low level of Risk taking propensity can be linked with structural factors.
Success achieved by the entrepreneurs is positively correlated with their levels of entrepreneurial
traits.

It is also found that Female respondents have comparatively lower levels of Achievement
Orientation and Managerial Skills as compared to the male respondents. The low level of
Achievement orientation could be because of lower level of family support received by the
female respondents. The low level of managerial skills among women, especially conceptual
skills and technical skills like inventory management etc., may be attributed to
lack of
entrepreneurial training and lack of exposure due to poor networking ability and staying indoors.
The overall conclusion that can be drawn is that the family and the social context do influence
the levels of entrepreneurial traits that in turn affect the success levels achieved by entrepreneurs.
However it is also true that these traits are further influenced by external factors like a conducive
economic environment and sufficient amount of encouragement and support offered by the
facilitator organizations etc. Hence, the roles of the structural factors and the social background
are equally important and complementary in promoting entrepreneurial activities.
VII: Overview of the role of facilitator organisations
The findings presented in the above sections support Weber’s thesis (See Chapter 1) that; Given
the economic conditions for the emergence of a system of rational capital accumulation, whether
or not such growth occurred in a systematic fashion would be determined by the values present.
Structural conditions make development possible, while cultural factors determine whether the
possibility becomes an actuality. (Lipset, 2000). At the same time, the findings have also

17


indicated that the nature of the sociocultural factors and their influence is such that appropriate
structural interventions can effectively deal with them.
Over the last fifty years a large variety of programmes have been designed and launched by the
govt. for promotion of entrepreneurship throughout the country. These programmes include
measures ranging from setting up of an elaborate network of institutional support infrastructure,
to offering financial incentives to small and micro entrepreneurs.
The salient aspects of the role of the support organizations functioning in Jharkhand state were

reviewed in order to identify the suitable structural measures for desirable growth of
entrepreneurship in the state.
The assistance provided by the support organizations can be categorized as, Non - Financial
assistance (Technical and other consultancy assistance) and Financial Assistance (- Arranging
access to finance). Salient agencies that offer the above-mentioned assistance were studied. They
are: Small Industries Service Institute, Ranchi, District Industries center, Ranchi and the Public
Sector Banks of Ranchi.
The prescribed role of the Small Industries Service Institute is to offer the following nonfinancial assistance: -

Providing technical services, Preparation of project reports, Conducting Management
Development Programmes and Entrepreneurship Development Programmes, and General
Consultancy, Economic information Services, Export promotion services, Modernization
assistance, marketing.

Statistics regarding the various types of training programmes like Skill development programmes,
Entrepreneurship development programmes, Management Development programmes and
Motivational campaigns conducted by SISI during the period 2000-2004, were studied. It was
observed that efforts are indeed being made by the promoter organizations to offer the required
technical assistance and motivational training to prospective and existing entrepreneurs. However,
the participation of women and members of backward and scheduled castes has been very low in
almost all such assistance programmes. Only 1 percent of the female respondents said that they
had attended an MDP conducted by the SISI. This may be one of the reasons why the women
respondents of this study were found to have very low managerial skills.
The participation of male as well as female participants in the motivational campaigns has been
satisfactory. However the officials of the Institute observed that the motivation level of the
participants of these programmes does not sustain and most of them (more than 96%) do not
actually take to entrepreneurship. This is often because of inadequate family support and
sometimes due to inability or lack of courage in the participants to take risks or make an extra
effort to succeed as an entrepreneur. They were of the opinion that these traits are acquired largely
by one’s upbringing in a particular society and the social background of the applicant does play a

significant role.

18


The role of the District Industries Center (DIC) DIC in entrepreneurship development is:
• Registering the Business Units
• Subsequently acting as a liaison for various help that the business unit requires
• Coordinating with banks in forwarding loan applications in PMRY (a govt. sponsored
scheme for encouraging self employment among youth) assistance, Coordinating with
RIADA (Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority) and other such agencies.
• Conducting training programs and seminars for the prospective and existing
entrepreneurs either through tie-up with Institute of Entrepreneurship development, Small
Industries Services Institute or on it’s own.
The officials of the DIC indicated that the trend regarding the participation of women and
members of scheduled and backward castes and the proportion of participants of these
workshops actually setting up a business was the same as that in the case of SISI programmes.
The number of loan applications received by the DIC and by the public sector banks, from
female applicants and members of the scheduled and backward castes is negligible. The Bankers
say that they are not able to achieve their targets regarding financing of small entrepreneurs
because the number of applications received by them is very low. Majority of the applications
are received from family members and close associates of existing entrepreneurs.
VIII Desired Structural Interventions
On the basis of the above findings it will be appropriate to observe that suitable structural
interventions can make the influencing sociocultural attributes play a favourable role for growth of
entrepreneurship in India. Measures need to be taken for widening the social base for
entrepreneurship in India, assuring the potential and existing entrepreneurs, both male and female,
of the required acceptance of their choice of career and support from their families. The kin
oriented nature of the Indian society has to be recognised while designing any measures for
encouraging the growth of entrepreneurship. It may be suggested, that the target for motivational

campaigns for promotion of entrepreneurship should be the immediate family of the participant as
well. This is specially required for females because 95 % of the female respondents in this study
said that they would not have opted for entrepreneurship if their family had not agreed with their
idea of becoming an entrepreneur. Amongst the males 55% had given this response.
A definite conclusion that emerges from the above discussions is that the promoter infrastructure
can be effective only if the target for its efforts is the society at large and not only those few who
are already favourably inclined toward entrepreneurship. Specially designed campaigns need to
be launched to educate the society as a whole regarding the merits of entrepreneurship as a
profession and to make entrepreneurship a preferred choice of profession.
The respondents of this study who are practicing entrepreneurs were found to possess relatively
low levels of Risk taking propensity. It was also concluded in the discussions thereafter that this
was largely due to unfavourable structural factors affecting them. It can therefore be

19


recommended that the promoter organizations need to give special attention towards building
and maintaining a favorable structural environment for entrepreneurship to flourish in the region.
The need for education cannot be overemphasized. As observed in this study education is a
social factor that is found to influence the ability to introduce entrepreneurial innovations and to
achieve entrepreneurial success. Another recommendation that can be made in this context is that
the curriculum of schools at the primary and junior levels should be altered to incorporate
theoretical content and exercises that would inculcate Risk Taking ability, Innovativeness and
Achievement Orientation among the masses from the very childhood and to develop a positive
attitude towards entrepreneurship as a profession. Probably a change needs to be introduced in
the overall school education system to promote the above traits in the population at large.
All the other sociocultural influences are not a barrier for entrepreneurial success but they
definitely affect the supply of entrepreneurs, hence, there is need to build an environment where
members from all castes and socio-economic strata, males and females, feel encouraged to opt
for entrepreneurship as their profession and support the entrepreneurs among their family and

acquaintances.
TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1
PROFIT
Gender
High %age Medium
Males
78
52.00
40
Females
18
36.00
13
Total
96
48.00
53
Chi square- 6.09 α < 0.05 df = 2

%age
26.67
26.00
26.50

Low
32
19
51

%age
21.33
38.00
25.50

N=200
Total
150
50
200

Figure 2
TURNOVER GROWTH
Gender High Percentage Medium Percentage Low
Males
84
56.00
56
37.33
10
Females 20
40.00
16
32.00
14
Total
104
52.00
72
36.00

24
Chi square- 16.36 α < 0.01 df = 2

N=200
Percentage Total
6.67
150
28.00
50
12.00
200

20


Figure 3
DIVERSIFICATION LEVEL
N=200
Gender High Percentage Medium Percentage Low Percentage Total
Males
47
31.33
59
39.33
44
29.33
150
Females 10
20.00
19

38.00
21
42.00
50
Total
57
28.50
78
39.00
65
32.50
200
Chi square-3.56 α > 0.05 df = 2

Figure 4
GENDER SUCCESS
N=200
%age Total

Gender

Very
%age Successful %age
Less
Successful
Successful
Males
76
50.67
49

32.67
25
16.67
Females
16
32.00
19
38.00
15
30.00
Total
92
46.00
68
34.00
40
20.00
Chi square-6.49
α < 0.04 df = 2

Total

Females

Males

16.6
7

15.

00

50.6
7

32.6
7

150
50
200

20.0
0

16.
00

34.0
0

19.
00

Very Successful
Successful
Less Successful

Very Successful
Successful

Less Successful

Very Successful
Successful
Less Successful

46.0
0

Figure 5
RELIGIOSITY AND SUCCESS
N=200
High

Religiosity

Medium

Low

Success Level

M

%age

F

%age

M

%age

F

%age

M

%age

F %age

Very Successful

25

45.45

9

45.00

41

50.62

6

26.09

7

50.00

3 42.86

Successful

20

36.36

29

35.80

8

34.78

3

21.43

Less Successful
Total

10

55

7
4

35.00

18.18

4
14

28.57

2 28.57
2 28.57

20

9
23

39.13

100

11
81

13.58

Chi Square-1.67

α > 0.05

100

20.00

100

100

100

7

100

df = 4

21


Figure 6
CASTE AND SUCCESS
N=200
Caste
M

Forward
Backward
SC
Others
%age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age M %age F %age

60

53.57

17

34.69

4

35

31.25
15.18

17 34.69
30.61
15

8

Success Level
Very
Successful

Successful
Less
Successful
Total

17
112

49

100

100

23.53 0

3

37.50 0

6

47.06 0
29.41
5
0
17 100 0

4

50.00 0
12.50
0
100 0

5

1
8

46.15 1 100.00

38.46 0
15.38
2
0
13 100 1

0.00
0.00
100

Chi-Square-2.15 α > 0.05 df = 2

Figure-7

FAMILY SUPPORT
Gender
High % age Moderate
Males

74
49.33
62
Females
15
30.00
26
Total
89
44.50
88
chi square = 6.56 α < 0.05 df = 2

% age Low % age
41.33 14
9.33
52.00
9
18.00
44.00 23 11.50

N=200
Total
150
50
200

Figure 8
FAMILY SUPPORT AND SUCCESS
N=200

Family
Support

Very Successful
M %age F
%age

43
58.90 10
High
24
32.88
5
Medium
6
8.22
3
Low
73
100
18
Total
9.00
%age 36.50
Chi-Square = 31.42 α < 0.01

55.56
27.78
16.67
100

M

Successful
%age F
%age

Less Successful
M %age F
%age Total %age

22
42.31 5 29.41
36.00 0
0.00
9
36.00 10 66.67
29 55.77 11 64.71
9
1.92
5.88
28.00 5 33.33
1
1
7
52
100
17
100
25

100
15
100
26.00
8.50
12.50
7.50

89
88
23
200

44.50
44.00
11.50
100

df = 4

22


Figure 9
EDUCATION LEVEL AND SUCCESS
N=200
Education

High

Medium

Low

Success Level

M

%age

F

%age

M

%age

F

%age

M

%age

F %age

Very Successful

33

84.62

9

90.00

36

39.56

8

26.67

4

20.00

1

10

Successful

5

12.82

1

10.00

39

42.86

12

40.00

8

40.00

4

40

Less Successful

1

2.56

0

0.00

16

17.58

10

33.33

8

40.00

5

50

Total
Chi Square-50.67

39 100.00

91

100.00

30 100.00 20 100.00

10

100

α < 0.01

10 100.00
df = 4

Figure 10
RISK TAKING PROPENSITY
High
Males
25
Females
8
Total
33
Chi-square-3.37

%age Moderate
16.67
65
16.00
15
16.50
80
α > 0.05 df = 2

M ales

40.0
0

54.0
0

Low

High

43.5
0
30.0
0

Moderate

Low

Male
14
99
22
15
0
150

%age Female
9.33 9
6600 29
14.66 9
10.00 3

0.00 0
100.00 50

%age
18.00
58.00
18
6.00
0.00
100.00

16.5
0

40.0
0

High
Low

UNCERTAINTY IN THE ENVIRONMENT
N= 200
Uncertainty
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Total

N=200
Total
150
50
200

%age
40.00
54.00
43.50

Total

16.0
0

16.67

Moderate

Low
60
27
87

Females

43.3
3

High

%age
43.33
30.00
40.00

Moderate

Figure 11
Total
23
128
31
18
0
200

%age
11.50
64.00
15.50
9.00
0.00
100.00

23


Chi-Square

=3.76

α > 0.05

df = 2

Figure 12
INNOVATIVENESS
High
%age Moderate
Males
29
19.33
69
Females
9
18.00
20
Total
38
19.00
89
Chi square =0.89 α > 0.05 df = 2
Males

42.00

Moderate

Total

36.50

High

Moderate

19.00
44.50

40.00

Low

N=200
Total
150
50
200

%age
34.67
42.00
36.50

18.00

46.00

High

Low
52
21
73

Females

19.33

34.67

%age
46.00
40.00
44.50

High

Low

Moderate

Low

Figure 13
ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION
High
%age Moderate
Males
81

54.00
44
Females
18
36.00
26
Total
99
49.50
70
Chi Square-8.49 α < 0.02 df = 2
Males

%age
29.33
52.00
35.00

Low
25
6
31

%age
16.67
12.00
15.50

Females

16.67

12.00

Total
15.50

36.00

54.00

High

35.00

52.00

29.33

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

N=200
Total
150

50
200

Low

High

49.50

Moderate

Low

24


Figure 14

FAMILY SUPPORT
Gender
High % age Moderate
Males
74
49.33
62
Females
15
30.00
26
Total

89
44.50
88
chi square = 6.56 α < 0.05 df = 2

% age Low % age
41.33 14
9.33
52.00
9
18.00
44.00 23 11.50

N=200
Total
150
50
200

Figure 15
MANAGERIAL SKILLS
High
%age Moderate
Males
90
60.00
46
Females
13
26.00

23
Total
103
51.50
69
Chi square = 20.31 α < 0.01 df = 2
Males

Low
14
14
28

%age
9.33
28.00
14.00

Females

9.33
30.67

%age
30.67
46.00
34.50

28.00

N=200
Total
150
50
200

Total

26.00

14.00

60.00
34.50

51.50

46.00

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Figure 16
Correlation Between the Entrepreneurial Traits and Success of Respondents
Entrepreneurial Traits
Risk-taking
Innovativeness
Achievement Orientation
Managerial Skills

Success (r)
0.726 *
0.691 *
0.511 *
0.563*

*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
ANNEXURE

25