Most studies on entrepreneurial intention use student samples (Schlaegel & Koenig,
2014; Bird,
2015). To the best knowledge of the authors of this paper, only a handful of studies have used non-student samples in entrepreneurial intention research. Bird (
2015) observes that there are differences between students and non-students in the way their intentions are formed. Hamidon et al. (2017) observed that the extent of research concerning the entrepreneurial intention of employees is small. Costa et al. (
2016) investigated the entrepreneurial intention of temporary workers. Some studies include employees in general, without distinguishing managerial roles (Lee, et al.,
2011). Some other studies compare entrepreneurial intent between entrepreneurs and managers (e.g., Smith, et al.
1988; Allinson, Chell and Hayes 2000). One of the very few studies to use a sample of managers is the Paul and Shrivatava (
2016) study. Their research examines whether young managers in India show stronger entrepreneurial intentions than those in Japan. Their findings suggest that there is no significant difference in entrepreneurial intention between Indian and Japanese managers.
Pearce II et al. (
1997) indicate that there is a research deficit on a concurrent comparison of entrepreneurial behavior and general management practice. Opting out of managers into an entrepreneurial venture has not been abundantly investigated. Manager’s intention to leave has been studied by several authors (Good, Sisler and Gentry 1988; Rosin and Korabik
1991; Katsikea, Theodosiou and Morgan
2015). A growing stream of research is concerned with self-employment preferences and business start-up intentions (Kolvereid,
2016). Most of the research on the manager’s turnover investigates job characteristics and job satisfaction, whereas studying individual characteristics and entrepreneurial intentions of managers as determinants of quitting to create their ventures are scarce. The propensity of individuals within organizations to become entrepreneurs has not been studied and understood thoroughly. Researchers (e.g., Krasniqi,
2014) ask for further inquiry into how people change their employment status and how potential entrepreneurs change their behavior. This paper investigates entrepreneurship as a personal phenomenon, therefore taking a managerial approach (Gürbüz & Aykol,
2009). The study addresses this gap in the literature by investigating how individual differences affect entrepreneurial intentions. The paper examines how the decision-making style of managers can predict their propensity to create new ventures.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents a literature review on entrepreneurial intention, followed by a discussion of the cognitive perspective of entrepreneurship research and the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and the constructs of cognitive and decision-making style. The following section presents a description of the participants, measures used in the questionnaire, and the method used to test hypotheses. After presenting the results, their practical and theoretical implications are discussed.
Literature review
Research on factors triggering employee’s entrepreneurial behavior predominantly lies in realms of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. Entrepreneurship literature has lacked studies and theoretical frameworks aimed at investigating factors influencing the employee’s decision to become entrepreneurs. One of the first and most comprehensive frameworks has been developed by Hornsby et al. (
1993). Their model suggests that a combination of organizational and individual characteristics precipitate the decision to act entrepreneurially. Considerable merit for contribution to literature on the manager’s entrepreneurial orientation is attributed to Kuratko and colleagues (Kuratko, Ireland, & Hornsby,
2004; Kuratko, Ireland, Covin, & Hornsby,
2005a; Kuratko, Hornsby, Bishop,
2005b).
Kuratko et al. (
2004) claim that the motives of entrepreneurial behavior among managers are not fully understood and specified. Authors have proposed a manager-centered model of corporate entrepreneurship process suggesting that entrepreneurial behavior of managers has two stimuli: the external transformational triggers and organizational antecedents. Aside from comprehensive models, several models of factors affecting the manager’s entrepreneurial behavior focus on middle-level managers (Hornsby, et al., 2002; Kuratko, et al.,
2005b; Mustafa, et al.,
2016).
Fayolle and Liñán (
2014) consider entrepreneurial intention a consolidated area of research within the field of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial intentions offer a means to better explain and predict entrepreneurship (Krueger, et al.,
2000). The intention of an entrepreneur to create new ventures falls in the pre-decision stage (Volery, et al.,
1997). Crant (
1996) defines entrepreneurial intention as “one’s judgments about the likelihood of owning one’s own business.” Bird (
1988) sees intentionality as a state of mind that directs a person’s attention, experience, and action toward a specific object or a path to achieve something. The author stresses that entrepreneurial intentions’ aims are twofold: creating a new venture or creating new values in existing ventures.
Reviewing recent entrepreneurship research, Thompson (
2009), stresses that entrepreneurial intent is not a direct indicator of entrepreneurial activity. However, the author points out that since not every intention turns into action, the entrepreneurial intent construct is needed in new business formation theory and research. For Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (
2000), intentions, rather than situational and individual variables, are the best predictors of entrepreneurial behavior. Attitudes influence behavior by their impact on intentions. Intentions and attitudes depend on the situation and person. Accordingly, intention models will predict behavior better than either individual or situational variables (Krueger, et al.,
2000). Most researchers interested in entrepreneurial intentions have developed their own research instruments (Chandler & Lyon,
2001). This has triggered Liñán and colleagues (Liñán
2004; Liñán
2005; Linan, Rodríguez-Cohard and Rueda-Cantuche
2005; Liñán and Chen
2009) to take the “task of building a measure that may be statistically robust and theoretically sound.” Measures of entrepreneurial intention vary from single-item measures, 3-item measures to 6-item measures, as is the Liñán and Chen (
2009) measure (Kolvereid,
2016).
According to Ferreira et al. (
2012), there are two approaches to entrepreneurial intention: psychological and behavioral. Typical characteristics associated with entrepreneurship are the need for achievement (McClelland,
1961), locus of control (Shapero
1975) tolerance for ambiguity (Budner,
1962), and type A behavior (Friedman & Rosenman,
1974). Marques et al. (
2012) postulate that the literature on entrepreneurial behavior is broadly based upon the personalities and demographic variables of the respective entrepreneurs as a predictive factor for success or failure.
The bulk of entrepreneurial intention research emanates from Entrepreneurial Event Theory (Shapero & Sokol,
1982) and Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,
1985) as the main theory-driven models. The theory of planned behavior is usually applied to decision making (Conner and Armitage
1998; Ajzen
2011). The cognitive approach embodied in Ajzen’s theory has encouraged many authors to apply it in organizational settings, given the rational nature of decision making in organizational behavior. Gerardus, Vermeulen and Curşeu (
2008) argue that there are differences in entrepreneurs’ decision-making styles, which are related to the content of their cognitions concerning the decisions they make. The following sections present a review of research with a cognitive style approach to entrepreneurship intention.
Brigham, De Castro and Shepherd (
2007) posit that behavior is best understood by studying the person and the situation. According to them, this makes the psychology of the entrepreneur central in the cognitive perspective in entrepreneurial research. This is supported by Allinson et al. (
2000) and Baron (
2004) who claim that the cognitive perspective has the potential to contribute importantly to the study of entrepreneurship. According to Kickul et al. (
2009) cognitive style may influence the preference for different types of learning, knowledge gathering, information processing, and decision making, which are critical behaviors of entrepreneurs. Knockaert et al. (
2015) maintain that growth intention research has surprisingly neglected to incorporate a cognitive style perspective. Allinson, Chell and Hayes (2000) hypothesize that owner-managers who are successful entrepreneurs have a more intuitive cognitive style compared to the general population of managers, middle and junior managers, whereas there is no difference in cognitive style from senior managers and executives. Busenitz and Barney (
1997) have examined differences between managers and entrepreneurs in the decision-making process, building on the behavioral decision theory models of non-rational decision making. Their findings suggest that entrepreneurs are more prone than managers to use biases and heuristics. The bounded rationality of individuals’ decision-making processes is a widely studied topic in management studies (Caputo,
2014). Busenitz and Barney (
1997) maintain that future research should examine whether the use of biases and heuristics in strategic decision making remains stable over time. Although largely neglected in the literature, decision-making style measures may be just the right tools to test how managers make decisions and whether they predict their intention for entrepreneurship as the ultimate step toward action.
There are very few studies observing the relationship between cognitive styles and the entrepreneurial behavior of managers (Sadler-Smith
2004; Kickul, et al.
2009). Barbosa, Gerhardt and Kickul (2007) examine how cognitive style and risk preference contribute to an individual’s assessment of their skills, abilities, and entrepreneurial intentions. The authors conclude that cognitive style predicts entrepreneurial intention, with intuitive style entrepreneurs exhibiting a higher level of opportunity identification efficacy.
Kickul et al. (
2009) attest that deep cognitive structures are at play concerning how entrepreneurial intentions evolve. Their findings show that individuals with intuitive cognitive style show confidence in their ability to identify and recognize opportunities, whereas individuals with analytic cognitive style are more confident in their abilities to assess, evaluate, plan, and marshal resources. For Bird (
1988), rationality versus intuition is a dimension of entrepreneurial intention. Krueger (2003) asserts that in cognitive psychology, the intention is the cognitive state immediately prior to executing a behavior.
Entrepreneurship researchers perceive cognition as an agenda for understanding how some individuals identify and exploit opportunities to create something of value (Sadler-Smith
2004; Sassetti, et al.
2018). Krueger (
2000) points out that many authors have argued that there is a need to use cognition-based perspectives to describe and explain managerial and entrepreneurial behavior. Intentionality is deeply ingrained in how people process information into action (Krueger,
2000).
Crant (
1996) explored the relationship between individual differences and entrepreneurial intention, concluding that higher entrepreneurial intention was associated with male rather than female, MBA students rather than undergraduates and their parent’s business ownership. Markman and Baron (
2003) assert that research provides evidence that individual differences are important in entrepreneurship success, as different people may be better suited in opportunity exploitation than others.
According to Appelt et al. (
2011), “individual differences is a broad term, covering any variable that differs between people, from decision style to cognitive ability to personality.” The term cognitive style is used to refer to individual differences in the way people process information to make decisions (Ruble & Cozier,
1990). The authors claim that the literature refers to individual differences construct as decision-making styles and problem-solving styles. There is a lack of consensus on whether decision-making style and cognitive style are interchangeable concepts (Anderson,
2000), or decision-making style is a subset of cognitive style (Kozhevnikov,
2007). Thunholm (
2004) moves to the other extreme, claiming that cognitive styles are a subset of decision-making style. Decision-making style is defined as a habitual pattern used by individuals when making decisions (Driver & Rowe,
1979). Scott and Bruce (
1995) define decision-making style as “the learned, habitual response pattern exhibited by an individual when confronted with a decision situation.” Penino (2002) and Gambetti et al. (
2008) claim that decision-making styles differ by situation and as such are different from cognitive styles and psychological types that remain unchanged across situations. Other authors (Rowe & Boulgarides, 1983; Betsch & Iannello, 2010) refer to decision styles as personality traits, whereas for Scott and Bruce (
1995), decision-making style is not a personality trait, but a habit-based propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context. A growing body of literature uses either the Decision Style Inventory (DSI; Rowe & Mason,
1987) or the General Decision-Making Style (GDMS; Scott & Bruce,
1995) to measure decision-making style (Berisha, et al.,
2018). Decision-making style in this research is operationalized with GDMS. Scott and Bruce (
1995) define decision-making styles in behavioral terms: rational style is characterized by a thorough search for information and logical evaluation of alternatives, intuitive style is characterized by a reliance on hunches and feelings, dependent style is characterized by a search for advice and direction from others, and avoidant style is characterized by attempts to avoid decision making and spontaneous style is characterized by a feeling of immediacy and a need to make decisions quickly. According to Scott and Bruce (
1995), the patterns of correlations between five style scales suggest conceptual independence. Therefore, the decision-making styles measured by GDMS are not mutually exclusive, meaning that individuals do not rely on a single decision-making style.
Authors that investigate individual differences in decision making acknowledge the lack of attention toward individual differences and claim that they are indispensable for understanding decision-making behavior (Parker and Fischhoff
2005; Mohammed and Schwall
2009; Appelt, et al.
2011). Brigham, De Castro and Shepherd (
2007) suggest that stable individual differences, such as cognitive style and decision-making style, can play an important role in explaining the entrepreneurial phenomenon. According to Sadler-Smith and Badger (
1998), “cognitive style is widely recognized as an important determinant of individual behavior.” Albeit cognitive styles usefulness in the conceptualization of entrepreneur characteristics, they have received little attention in entrepreneurship literature (Sadler-Smith,
2004). Past research on cognition processes in entrepreneurship has focussed on identifying differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (Busenitz & Barney,
1997). Their findings suggest that entrepreneurs compared to managers are more likely to use decision-making biases and heuristics.
Decision-making style has been used in studies in the context of small business survival (Gray,
1999). Brigham, De Castro and Shepherd (
2007) claim that decision-making style research of owner-managers and entrepreneurs can prove worthy for the person-organization fit approach. Researching a sample of owner-managers in high-technology firms, they found that decision-making style predicts satisfaction, intentions to exit, and entrepreneur actual turnover.