View of EFFECT OF PERSONALITY CORRELATES ON VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE OF ENTREPRENEURS

(1)

Vol. 03, Issue 09,September 2018 Available Online: www.ajeee.co.in/index.php/AJEEE

1

EFFECT OF PERSONALITY CORRELATES ON VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE OF ENTREPRENEURS

Rekha Kumari¹, A. Anjum² and Vandana Kumari³

1Counsellor, ICMR-Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RMRI), Agamkuan, Patna 800 007

2Retd. Professor, RDS College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

3Assistant Professor^,M.D.D.M College, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

Abstract - The present study was planned to examine the effect of personality correlates on vocational preference of entrepreneurs. The sample consisted of 400 subjects from Patna district of Bihar. Half of the sample (200) consisted of traditional entrepreneurs and half of the sample (200) consisted of non-traditional entrepreneurs. Achievement motive scale given by Choubey (1997) was used to measure the achievement motive of subjects. Hindi adaptation of Maslow’s security/Insecurity Scale was estimated as per Singh (1972), to measure the security. Level of aspiration scale developed by Department of Psychology, Ranchi University, was used to measure the level of aspiration of subjects. Non-risk taking scale as per Choubey (1972) was used to measure the risk-taking trait of subjects. Socio- economic status scale was used as per methods given by Kulshrestha, (1981) was used to assess the socio-economic status of subjects. The results showed that the entrepreneurs with high achievement motive preferred non-traditional vocation while those with low achievement motive preferred traditional vocation. Those with high aspiration level, preferred non-traditional vocation while those with low aspiration level preferred traditional vocation. Those respondents with high risk taking trait preferred non-traditional vocation, while those with low risk taking trait preferred traditional vocation. Those with more sense of security preferred non-traditional, while those with more sense of insecurity preferred traditional vocation. Those belonging to high socio-economic status preferred non- traditional vocation, while that belonging low socio- economic status preferred traditional vocation. Those of forward class preferred non-traditional vocation, while those of backward class preferred traditional vocation.

Keywords: Achievement motive, Aspiration, Personality Correlates, Entrepreneurs, Socio- economic status.

1 INTRODUCTION

Importance of entrepreneurship as an ingredient of economic development has been recognized since long. It was as early as 1950 that the need for entrepreneurial development was first felt and since then substantial amount of research has undertaken. But concerted efforts in the development of entrepreneurship were started only in the sixties. The Entrepreneurial Development Programmes (EDP) became a novel approach for harnessing vast untapped human resources. The EDPs are presently one of the most talked about social development activities which many organizations have taken up in right earnest. It strikes a welcome note in respect of change in perception and recognition of the critical role the entrepreneurs play in industrial development and creating avenues for self-employment.

The idea behind entrepreneurial development programmes was rightly

realised that the entrepreneurship is not inborn, hereditary nor, confined to a few others it can be developed as well for potential entrepreneurship exists in all regions and communities; and if sincere efforts are made, the latent or potential entrepreneurship might be brought out.

In the sixties, social scientist like David C.

McClelland observed that with proper training to right kind of person, entrepreneurship could be developed.

In Indian situation the word entrepreneur can be used for a person who on his own undertakes an economic activity which traditionally was not undertaken in his immediate social circle.

The concept of entrepreneurship has emerged out of several studies conducted in the area of industrial entrepreneurs by and large. The assumption that the same concept of entrepreneurship can be applicable in case of farm entrepreneurs too, has been clearly defined by Nadkarni (1982) and, stated that entrepreneurship should not be mistaken for only adoption

(2)

2 of a new idea or a new practice. A business involves deliberate decision or investment, after assessing risk, and possibi1ities of profit and loss, a proportion of which is distinct from the practice where agriculture serves merely as a means of livelihood or a hereditary vocation. What is significant here is the change in the identity of the person from a farmer to that of a farm business operator. In this sense, entrepreneurship is not simply adoption of a new activity or a practice. It is transformation of a person, his acquiring a new identity."

Psychological factors like motivation, risk taking, willingness, locus of control, adoption propensity etc. are essentials human resource development factors. They are pre-requisite to socio- economic development of people. It is not that one is endowed with psychological traits by birth. The same can even be acquired depending upon how permissive and congenial the environment around an individual. Achievement motivation has been found to form the basis of entrepreneurship. McClelland (1961) stated that an essential ingredient of entrepreneurship leading to economic development is achievement motivation.

He further concluded in 1969: "What is clear is that high achievement motivation leads to entrepreneurial activity".

According to Rao and Mehta (1978), achievement motivation leads one into the parlour of entrepreneurship (though it may not be adequate to secure success).

Achievement motivation as an important characteristic of entrepreneurship has been supported in Indian context by Sethi (1982), Singh (1982) and Singh (1983).

Even Santhanamet al. (1984) concluded that persons having high degree of need for achievement are prone to participate in rural development programme irrespective of socio-economic status.Risk Bearing Capacity: To be personally responsible for the risks involved in the establishment of an enterprise/

occupation may be considered as one of the important dimensions of an entrepreneurial behavior (Nadakarni and Rao, 1978).

According to Mathai (1978), the risk taking of a rural entrepreneur could be viewed in relation to four aspects:

a) Technical risks: The risk involved in not knowing the technical details.

b) Economic Risks: The risk of market fluctuation and changes.

c) Social Risks: The risks inherent in development of new inter and intra group relationships.

d) Environmental Risks: The risks which result from environmental changes in the villages work as an outcome of the new activity.

In rural areas, people’s perception of risk is a critical factor in taking up some new independent occupations and they always consider a new economic activity in terms of prevailing circumstances and their capability to bear loss in case of failure. So an individual well versed with the circumstances and knowledge about future activity will come up to take up higher level of risk. So the study was planned to examine the effect of personality correlates on entrepreneurship.

Khodeet al. (2009) reported that majority of the respondents (67.90 percent) had medium level of risk bearing capacity with respect to their entrepreneurship. Patil et al. (2009) found that majority of entrepreneurs had low to medium level of risk bearing traits for different farm practices. Subbi Reddy and Sobha Reddy (1984) collected data from 105 small scale entrepreneurs covering 10 districts. The result revealed that highest percentage of entrepreneurs belonged to business family background (49.5), age group of below 30 years (38.1) and secondary education level (40.9) having experience in industry (34.3). Singh and Sengupta (1985) interviewed 45 women entrepreneurs by and large settled in and around Delhi to study their profile. The study revealed that majority of the potential women entrepreneurs were aged between 21 to 30 years and bulk of them was graduate and belonged to lower middle income group. De (1986) found positive and significant association of entrepreneurial characteristics of farmers with their socio-economic status and educational level.Dash (1989) observed that the educational level of rural entrepreneurs ranged from no education to college education with majority having primary education. In land holding status, entrepreneurs were distributed from landless to big land owner but majority of them were small farmers. Dahiwale (1989) studied occupational mobility among scheduled castes of contemporary India in

(3)

3 Kolhapur city and observed that persons belonging to young age group gave away their caste occupation and preferred to adopt modern occupations.

Anna (1990) characterized the profile of 102 women entrepreneurs in Kerala state and found that 49.02 percent of them started their units between 26-35 years of age and majority (44.12%) of them was matriculate and only 13.73 percent non-matriculate. Nearly 82 percent and 91.20 percent women entrepreneurs were from independent and farm family background. Sadangi (1991) revealed that among the socio-personal variables tested for their association with diversification, it was found that age at entry, education of self, educational status of family, self-learning in diversified activities, family type, and social participation. Urban contact and non-crop occupational status of the family were significantly associate with diversification. From the percentage distribution of diversifiers and non- diversifiers in different classes of the said variables, it could be inferred that higher age, education of self, family education, self learning, social participation, urban contact, non-crop occupational status and joint family system promote diversification. He further found that variables like caste, marital status at entry, youth composition of family, family size, and primary occupation of father were not found associate with diversification. Khodeet al. (2009) stated that majority of the respondents had medium level of economic motivation and 91.86 per cent had never attended any training on dairy farming. Yasothai et al.

(2009) conducted a study on the profile of rural women of Erode district on various aspects of livestock farming during on campus training programmes and found that majority of the rural women participants were middle age group and primary level of education, had agricultural as their main occupation with animal husbandry as their subsidiary occupation.

Based on the studies made so far, it can be concluded that by and large, entrepreneurs are younger in age, better educated and more experience. Their own previous experience is a contributory factor in entrepreneurship development.

The past researches have divergent opinion as to the effect of caste on

entrepreneurship. Similarly, studies on other socio-economic variables are limited and sporadic. It is difficult to arrive at definite conclusions.

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS 2.1 Sample

The present study was conducted in Patna district. The purposive sample consisted of 400 subjects was drawn from entrepreneurs of Patna district. Half of the sample (200) consisted of non-traditional entrepreneurs and half of the sample (200) consisted of traditional entrepreneurs.The studywas conducted by the permission of B.R.A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur under the guidance of A. Ajum, Department of Psychology, Muzaffarpur.

2.2 Research Tools

In the present study the following research tools were used.

 Achievement motive scale (Choubey N P,1997) was used for measuring the need for achievement of subjects.

 Hindi adaptation of Maslow’s security/Insecurity Scale (Singh, 1972) was used to measure the security of subjects.

 Level of aspiration scale (Deptt. of Psychology, Ranchi University Ranchi) was used to measure the level of aspiration of subjects.

 Non-risk taking scale (Choubey N P, 1972) was used to measure the risk- taking trait of subjects.

 Socio-economic status scale (Kulshrestha, 1981) was used to assess the socio-economic status of subjects.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results recorded in table 1 showed significant effect of achievement motive on vocational choice of forward as well as backward respondents 69% of the non- traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 60% of the non-traditional entrepreneurs of backward class were found belonging to high achievement group. Only 27% of the traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 30% of the traditional entrepreneurs of backward class belonged to that group. Similarly 73% of the traditional and only 37% of the non-traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 30% of the traditional and only 40% of non-traditional entrepreneurs of

(4)

4 backward class belonged to low achievement motive group.

Result also showed significant effect of aspiration level on the vocational choice of the forward and backward respondents. 70% of the non-traditional and only 40% of the traditional subjects of forwards class and 65% of the non-

traditional and only 35% of the traditional subjects of backward class belonged and high aspiration group. 60% of the traditional and 30% of the non-traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 65% of the traditional and 40% of non-traditional entrepreneurs of backward class belonged to low aspiration group.

Table 1.Chi-Square showing the effect of personality correlates on vocational preference

Personality

correlates Forward Backward

Traditional

(N=100) Non- traditional

(N=100)

Chi

square Traditional

(N=100) Non- Traditional

(N=100)

Chi square Level of

Achievement motive

High 27% 69%

35.34* 30% 60%

18.18*

Low 73% 31% 70% 40%

Aspiration

Level High 40% 70% 18.18* 35% 60% 12.54*

Low 60% 30% 65% 40%

Level of Risk

taking High 24% 66% 35.64* 35% 67% 20.68*

Low 76% 34% 65% 33%

Security High 30% 60% 18.18* 25% 60% 25.08*

Low 70% 40% 75% 40%

Socio- economic status

High 40% 70%

18.18* 45% 65% 8.08*

Low 60% 30% 55% 35%

*Significant at 1%

Result also showed significant effect of level of risk taking on the vocational preference of the forward and backward respondents. 66% of the non- traditional and only 24% of the traditional respondents of forward class and 67% of the non-traditional and only 35% of the traditional respondents of forward class belonged to high risk taking group. While 76% of traditional and only 34% of non- traditional subjects of forward class and 65% of traditional and only 33% of non- traditional subjects of backward class belonged to low-risk taking group.

Result also showed significant effect of security-insecurity level on the vocational preference of the forward and backward respondents. Research findings showed that traditional entrepreneurs differ significantly from their non- traditional counterparts in respect of security insecurity 60% of the non- traditional and 30% of the traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 60% of the non-traditional and only 25% of the traditional entrepreneurs of backward class belonged to high security group.

40% of the non-traditional and 70% of the traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 40% of the non-traditional and 75%

of the traditional entrepreneurs of backward class belonged to low security group.

Findings showed significant effect of socio-economic status on the vocational preference of traditional and non- traditional entrepreneurs .70% of the non-traditional and only 40 % of the traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and 65% of the non- traditional and 45%

of the traditional subjects belonged to high socio-economic status group while 70% of the non-traditional and only 40%

of the traditional entrepreneurs of forward class and only 35% of the non-traditional and 55% of the traditional subjects of forward class belonged to low socio- economic status group and the difference was found significant.

4 CONCLUSION

The results showing the effect of the independent variables namely, achievement motive, aspiration level, security\insecurity, risk- taking, socio- economic status and social class on the dependent variable namely, vocational preference of the respondents showed in the table. In the light of these results the following conclusions were drawn:

1) The entrepreneurs with high achievement motive preferred non- traditional vocation while those with low achievement motive preferred traditional vocation.

(5)

5 2) Those with high aspiration level

preferred non-traditional vocation while those with low aspiration level preferred traditional vocation.

3) Those respondents with high risk taking trait preferred non- traditional vocation, while those with low risk taking trait preferred traditional vocation.

4) Those with more sense of security preferred non-traditional, while those with more sense of insecurity preferred traditional vocation.

5) Those belonging to high socio- economic status preferred non- traditional vocation, while that belonging low socio- economic status preferred traditional vocation.

6) Those of forward class preferred non-traditional vocation, while those of backward class preferred traditional vocation.

REFERENCES

1. Anna, V. (1990). Socio-Economic Basis of Women Entrepreneurship, SEDME, 17 (1):

17-47.

2. Dahiwale, S.M. (1989). Emerging Entrepreneurship among Scheduled Caste of Contemporary India: A study of Kolhapur City. Concept Publishing Company.

3. Dash, S.S. (1989). Small is Beautiful – A study of Village Level Entrepreneurship Development, SEDME, 16 (2): 65-78.

4. De, Dipak (1986).Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Characteristics of Farmers.The Indian Journal of Social Work, 46 (4): 540-547.

5. Khode, N.G., Sawarkar, S.W., Banitha, V.V., Nande, M.P. and Basunathe, V.K. (2009).

Adoption of improved dairy cattle management practices under vidarbha development programme package. Indian Res.

J. Extension Education, 9 (2): 80-84.

6. McClelland, D.C. (1961) Methods of Measuring Human Motivation.In: J.W.

Atkinson (Ed.) Motive in Fantasy, Action and Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton (U.S.).

7. Mathai, R. J. (1978). Rural Entrepreneurship:

A Framework. In: T.V. Rao and Udai Pareek (Eds.) Developing Entrepreneurship: A Hand Book Learning System, New Delhi: 58-66.

8. Nadakarni, M. and Rao, T.V. (1978).Risk Taking Behaviour and Feedback. In: T.V. Rao and UdaiPareek (Eds.) Developing Entrepreneurship: A Hand Book. Learning systems, New Delhi: 105-116.

9. Nadakarni, S.A. (1982). Women Entrepreneurs: A Socio-economic study with reference to Pune. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Poona, Maharshtra.

10. Rao, T.V. and Mehta, P. (1978).Pshychological Factors in Entrepreneurship. In: U. Pareek and T.V. Rao (Eds.) Developing Entrepreneurship: A Hand Book. Learning System, New Delhi.

11. Santhanam, M.L., Yogananda Sastry, C. and Vijaya Kumar, S. (1984). People’s Participation – Some Psychological Dimensions. J. Rural Development, NIRD, 3 (4) : 249-329

12. Sethy, B. (1982). A study of the Entrepreneurial Characteristics of the Farmers of Agricultural Advanced District of Orissa. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, IARI, New Delhi.

13. Singh, B.K. (1983). A study of socio- psychological dynamics in dairy progressive

and dairy non progressive

villages.Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, NDRI, Karnal – 132 001 (Haryana).

14. Singh, J. N. (1982). A study of the suitability of dairy farming innovations and factors associated with their adoption by cattle owners of ICDP, Gurgaon (Haryana).

Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, NDRI, Karnal (Haryana).

15. Sadangi, B.N. (1991). Occupational Diversification Among self-employed Rural Youth: A study in Coastal Orissa.

Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. IARI, New Delhi.

16. Subbi Reddy, T. and Sobha Reddy, N.

(1984).Profile of Small Entrepreneurs in Kurnool. SEDME, 11 (1): 39-50.

17. Yosothai, R., Gopalakrishnamurthy, T.R. and Shamsudeen, P. (2009).Profile of women trainees in livestock farming, Tamilnadu J.

Vety.& Animal Sc. 5 (2): 51-55.