The impact of personality traits, education and experience on the social entrepreneurial intention

research evidence in developing countries is still limited. For the above reasons, the author chose to implement the impact of personality, education, and experience on SEI. Source: Author's summary Figure 1.2 Two empirical studies in this thesis 1.3 Objectives of the study 1.3.1 The general objective of the study This thesis summarizes the SEI topic from research gaps and builds a model to clearly explain the impact role of each group of human capital factors, including noncognitive human capital (personality traits) and cognitive human capital (experience and education) and their influence on SEI. 1.3.2 Specific objectives The first objective: This thesis examines the impact of personality traits (noncognitive human capital) on SEI through two premises in the first SEI model of Mair and Noboa (2006). Second objective: This thesis examines the impact of experience with social organizations and social entrepreneurship education (cognitive human capital) on SEI through social cognitive career theory (SCCT). The third objective: Proposing policy implications to increase SEI in particular and social entrepreneurship in general based on aspects of human capital. 1.4 Research subjects and scope The object of this study is the two groups of factors of human capital, including personality traits (noncognitive human capital), experience, and education (cognitive human capital) and SEI. The author coordinated with the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC) to collect data from individuals participating in social entrepreneurship-related activities. The sample in this study is selected according to the conventional method. The questionnaire survey link created on Google Forms is sent to individuals who participate in the activities organized by SSEC. HUMAN CAPITAL (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011) Noncognitive (personality traits) Cognitive (experiences and education) The first empirical study: the impact of personality traits on SEI The second empirical study: the impact of experiences and education on SEI 7 Social entrepreneurship is still very new in Vietnam, so to ensure that the participating individuals have enough knowledge and understanding to complete the survey on SEI, this study will focus on individuals who have participated in courses/programs organized by the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC), Seed Planters, Saigon Innovation Hub and CSIP. These individuals mostly live in the HCMC area and surrounding areas. 1.5 Research method From identified research gaps, research models and draft scales were formed. After that, the author conducted a group discussion of expert social entrepreneurs or those who have social entrepreneurship experience to complete the model and scale. Subsequently, the second draft scale was formed to serve preliminary quantitative research. The second draft scale was used for the test with samples of 100 individuals using a convenient method when they participated in activities organized by the Supporting Social Enterprise Community (SSEC). Cronbach's Alpha exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate the reliability of the scale. As a result, the official scales are complete. The official questionnaire was emailed to the selected respondents. Both measurement and structural models were empirically tested by the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach. PLS is suitable for our research model because it emphasizes exploration and prediction (Hair Jr et al. 2016). In addition, the sequential mediation tests followed the stages suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The procedure for our data analysis consists of: (1) the assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurement model; (2) the evaluation of the structural model; and (3) the evaluation of the sequential mediating effect. 1.6 Contributions of thesis First, this is the earliest review on social entrepreneurship by combining co-citation analysis and keyword analysis to determine the literature structure and potential research directions. Second, this is the pioneer study to synthesize social entrepreneurial intention topics and to offer a guide to researchers by providing a systematic understanding of the structure of social entrepreneurial intention research from academic literature. Third, this thesis explores the personality traits of potential social entrepreneurs as a combination of general entrepreneurial traits and social entrepreneurial traits. Fourth, this thesis explores the mediating effect of perceived feasibility and perceived desirability in the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention. Fifth, this thesis examines the simultaneous impact of experience and education on social entrepreneurial intention through social cognitive career theory. Sixth, this thesis assesses social entrepreneurship education through awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned about social entrepreneurship. In addition, experience will be considered as prior experience with social organization. Seventh, this thesis was carried out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills and education on social entrepreneurs being in the early stage of formation and development, low levels of social entrepreneurship activities, but potential (CSIP, 2016). Finally, this research will focus on people who have a particular interest in social marketing. They are considered the most potential subjects to become social entrepreneurs in Vietnam. 8 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AND RESEARCH MODEL 2.1 Social entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship is a rapidly evolving field that aims to meet the needs of society (Urban and Kujinga 2017; Arroyo-López and Carcamo-Solis 2011). Social entrepreneurship covers business activities that combine the "social" and "entrepreneurship", therefore social entrepreneurship is considered to be a branch of entrepreneurship research (Peredo and McLean 2006). According to Leadbeater (1997), social entrepreneurship is regarded as an intermediary economic activity operating within public, private, and voluntary activities. It involves a novel way and creative perspective to address social issues such as those in education, environment, health and human rights (Mair and Noboa 2003). In a broad sense, social entrepreneurship refers to a new form of creating and maintaining social values (Anderson and Jack 2002). Although there are many descriptions and explanations, social entrepreneurship is generally defined as a "process that begins with the formation of social ideas, identifying opportunities and solutions for sustainable social development” (Salamzadeh, Azimi, and Kirby 2013; Shane 2003). Creating social value or solving social problems through innovative solutions is the primary goal of social entrepreneurship; indeed, this is the main difference between social business and other forms of business (Zahra et al. 2008; Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004). 2.2 Social entrepreneurial intention Intention reflects a motivational factor that influences behavior, thus it is a reliable indicator of the effort and willingness of a person to perform the behavior (Ajzen 1991; Austin, Stevenson, and Wei‐Skillern 2006). SEI refers to the intention of starting a social enterprise (Mair and Noboa 2006) and is considered a psychological behavior encouraging an individual to acquire knowledge, instigate novel ideas, and implement the social entrepreneurial plans to eventually become a social entrepreneur (Mair, Robinson, and Hockerts 2006). 2.3 Review background theories of social entrepreneurial intention By summarizing social entrepreneurial intention studies, the use of background theories to predict social entrepreneurial intention can be divided into three main groups: The first group inherits and uses theories from commercial entrepreneurial intentions such as Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event, entrepreneurial potential model (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The second group uses entirely new and specifically designed models for social entrepreneurship such as Mair and Noboa (2006)'s the first model of social entrepreneurial intention and model of Nga and Shamuganathan (2010). The third group includes new models emerging through the development of previous theories such as social cognitive career theory (was developed from social cognitive theory) or Hockert (2017) 's model (was changed and added new elements from the original model of Mair and Noboa (2006). 2.4 Research gaps in the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention and research model First, studies using The Big Five model have difficulty distinguishing between the personality traits of commercial entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Second, previous studies were based only on traits commonly found in commercial entrepreneurs, thus leading to a lack of consideration of social personality 9 traits. Third, social personality traits have not been considered in the social entrepreneurial intention, but only in studies on the intention to participate in social and volunteer activities. Fourth, it is essential to consider the role of both traditional personality traits and social entrepreneurial traits in order to understand the similarities and differences in personality traits of social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs (Smith et al., 2014). Fifth, the thesis explores the impact of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention through two antecedents of Mair and Noboa's first model of social entrepreneurial intention (2006), including perceived feasibility and perceived desirability. Finally, this study examines how traits in Asian culture affect social entrepreneurial intention. Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.7, 4 hypotheses for mediation effects are tested as follows: H9a: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits (risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9b: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits (risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9c: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9d: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention. Source: Proposed by author Figure 2.7. Proposed model and hypotheses 10 2.5 Research gaps in the relationship between education, experience, and social entrepreneurial intention First, experience and education are still new in social entrepreneurial intention, and there are still contradictions in previous studies. Second, previous studies only considered experience and education as control variables and have not yet clearly shown the impact of experience and education on the process of forming social entrepreneurial intention. Third, education and experience are two important structures in cognitive human capital. However, these factors have been studied separately but have not been considered to have a simultaneous impact on social entrepreneurial intention. Fourth, the indirect effects through the antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention have not received much attention, so in this study, the impact of the relationship between experience, education, and social entrepreneurial intention was considered through two antecedents of social cognitive career theory (social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial outcome expectations). Fifth, this thesis assesses social entrepreneurship education through awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned about social entrepreneurship. In addition, experience was considered as prior experience with social organization. Sixth, this thesis was carried out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills and education on social entrepreneurs being in the early stage of formation and development, low levels of social entrepreneurship activities but potential (CSIP, 2016). Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.8, 2 hypotheses for mediation effects are tested as follows: H8a: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of social entrepreneurship education on social entrepreneurial intention. H8b: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of prior experience with social organizations on social entrepreneurial intention. Source: Proposed by author Figure 2.8. Theoretical framework 11 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS Over the past decade, in line with a considerable improvement in economic development, interest in social enterprises and social entrepreneurship has increased significantly in Vietnam (Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion Report, 2016). In 2014, social enterprises were officially recognized as a separate type of organization under the Vietnam Enterprise Law. This is an important milestone, allowing social enterprises to grow further with the support of a wide range of stakeholders. According to statistics of the United Nations Development Program (2016), the number of Vietnamese social enterprises officially registered with the government was 80. These social enterprises helped employ more than 100,000 people and improve the livelihoods of more than 600,000 people—mainly women, children, ethnic minorities, disabled workers, and low-income workers in various fields such as agriculture, education, environment, health and technology. Vietnam has several intermediary organizations dedicated to supporting social enterprise development through the provision of courses, training and mentoring. The major organizations that have experience in this area in Vietnam include the Supporting Vietnam Social Enterprise Community (SSEC), Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion (CSIP), Seed Planters, HATCH! and Evergreen Labs. In addition, a number of social enterprise incubators that have been established by government agencies, such as the Da Nang Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystem (DNES), SiHUB (Saigon Innovation Hub), Supporting Center for Youth’s Startup (sYs), BKHUP and Start-up Nation Programme, also contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. These characteristics make Vietnam a suitable location to carry out the current research on SE intention. The sampling frame consisted of participants attending various programs hosted by SSEC and CSIP, such as the Funds for Social Entrepreneurs in Vietnam, Green our World, Social Immersion Program, and Workshop on Social Innovation and Enterprise. The survey was undertaken by collaborating with the two most prominent organizations (e.g., SSEC and CSIP) that promote social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. Based on the provided list, an online questionnaire created on Google Forms was sent to individuals who have taken at least three social-entrepreneurship orientation courses. The questionnaire was originally developed in English, and subsequently translated into Vietnamese for the collection of data. To ensure equivalence between the two versions, the back-translation technique was used. A total of 850 questionnaires were distributed. Finally, 503 valid responses were collected, representing a response rate of 59.17 percent. Specifically, the author performs the following steps: Step 1. Test the measurement model. The measurement model is tested through criteria of composite reliability (CR), Average Variance Extract (AVE), comparing the square root of extraction variance (AVE) with coefficients correlation to evaluate differentiation, factor loading factor (Factor Loading) and Cross Loading (Cross Loading) and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). Step 2. Examine the structure model. Structure model is tested through R2 and Q2. Step 3. Examine the direct effects of variables in the model. Step 4. Examining the mediating effect according to the 4-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Step 5 is to check the results of intermediate effects through two values: CI (Confidence interval) through the bootstrapp process with the sample number of 5,000 and the index Variance accounted for (VAF). 12 CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH RESULT 4.1 Research results on the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention 4.1.1 Measurement model Reliability of the factors was measured as both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values in this study ranged from 0.639 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). The composite reliability values ranged between 0.68 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). Cronbach’s alpha values and composite reliability for all the constructs are very close or above to the threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1978). The results indicated the evidence of construct reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs in this study was above 0.5, which indicated the convergent validity of each construct in the model. This study evaluated the discriminant validity using three criteria such as Fornell and Larcker (1981), cross loading and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) stated that the values of variables are compared to the square root of AVE. The square roots of all AVEs (from 0.526 to 0.730) were larger than the shared variance of a latent variable with other latent variable. Regarding cross loading, Chin (2010) suggests that each indicator loading should be greater than all its cross-loadings. In this model, each indicator’s outer loading was greater than 0.5 (from 0.502 to 0.980) on their own construct and higher than all its cross-loadings with other constructs. Finally, the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) is a new method for assessing the validity of discrimination in PLS-SEM and is considered superior to traditional discriminant validity assessment approaches such as Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and cross-loadings (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). The result showed that neither lower nor upper confidence interval (CI) includes a value of 1, which shows that the model satisfied discriminant validity. To sum up, the convergent validity and discriminate validity of the measurement items are achieved. 4.1.2 Structural model To test the hypotheses, this study ran the structural model. The criteria were considered evaluating the structural model assessment including path coefficient, the coefficient of determination (R2), cross-validated redundancy (Q2). A t-test calculated from the bootstrapping process of 5.000 samples was applied to test the direct effects (Figure 4.1). H1 and H2 examined direct relationships from perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship to social entrepreneurial intention. The result found the support for H1 and H2. The remaining hypotheses in the research model examine the direct impact from personality traits to perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship respectively and found the support for H3a, H3b, H4a, H5a, H5b, H6b, H7b, H8a, H8b, and remaining such as H4b, H6a, H7a rejected. The results were presented in Figure 4.1. 13 Source:Analysis results Figure 4.1 Research results and direct‐effect relationship coefficients 4.1.3 Mediation test The four‐step procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed to test the mediating effects of two mediators (perceived feasibility (PF) and perceived desirability (PD)) respectively in the relational antecedents (six personality traits include need for achievement (NA), risk-taking propensity (RT), innovativeness (INN), pro-activeness (PRO), empathy (EMP) and moral obligation (MO). In step 1, all antecedents (six personality traits: need for achievement, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, pro-activeness, empathy and moral obligation) were tested for direct impact on social entrepreneurial intention. At this step, there are only four personality traits that affect social entrepreneurial intention including pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation. Because risk-taking propensity and need for achievement failed to test direct effect, thus these two personality traits were not further assessed in step 2 and step 3. In Steps 2 and 3, the four antecedents (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) had significant impacts on the two mediators, which also significantly influenced the social entrepreneurial intention. In Step 4, the research results of testing mediating effects of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility showed that all relationships in steps 2 and 3 were supported, whereas in relation to the direct effect of personality traits (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) in step 1, only empathy and moral obligation were supported, the relationship between pro-activeness and innovativeness were not significant. Thus, the results showed that the two mediators (perceived desirability and perceived feasibility) 14 fully mediated the effects of pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators partially mediated the effects of moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived feasibility fully mediated the effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated the effects of empathy to social entrepreneurial intention. The result found the support for and H9d, and remaining such as H9b, H9a, H9b rejected. Table 4.1 Mediation test Analysis steps Research variables Mediator Outcome PD PF SEI Step 1 Antecedent RT -0.057 NA -0.037 PRO 0.146 b INN 0.141 b EMP 0.215 b MO 0.153 c Step 2 and Step 3 Antecedent PRO 0.303c 0.114a INN 0.054 0.193c EMP 0.100 0.256c MO 0.179b 0.155b Mediation PD 0.123 b PF 0.294 c Step 4 Antecedent PRO 0.323c 0.109a 0.090 INN 0.196c 0.106 EMP 0.257c 0.167 a MO 0.210c 0.157b 0.096 a Mediation PD 0.055 c PF 0.201 c Source:Analysis results The additional mediating test were conducted to test mediating effects. The bootstrapping process with 5,000 samples showed that pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation had indirect effect on the social entrepreneurial intention (Table 4.1). In summary, two mediators fully mediated the effects of pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators partially mediated the effects of moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived feasibility fully mediated the effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated the effects of empathy to social entrepreneurial intention. 15 Table 4.2. Supplementary mediation tests Antecedent‐mediators‐outcome relationship Significance effect at 95% level Point of estimate Confidence interval PRO - PD - SEI 0.016 0.006 – 0.041 PRO - PF - SEI 0.023 0.005 – 0.044 INN - PF - SEI 0.032 0.013 – 0.057 EMP - PF - SEI 0.042 0.019 – 0.071 MO - PD - SEI 0.011 0.004 – 0.030 MO - PF - SEI 0.033 0.012 – 0.060 Source:Analysis results 4.2.4 Discussion The research results bring interesting insights into the effect of general entrepreneurial traits and social entrepreneurial traits on social entrepreneurial intention. To consider the general entrepreneurial traits, this study examined the effect of four key general entrepreneurial personality traits on potential social entrepreneurs, including risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, proactiveness, and innovativeness. There is evidence that commercial entrepreneurs’ two very typical personality traits, including risk-taking propensity and need for achievement, did not affect social entrepreneurial intention. Social entrepreneurial intention is considered unaffected by risk-taking propensity because social entrepreneurs do not allow ri