T. Raja Suresh*
* Assistant Professor of Commerce, Udaya College of Arts and Science, Vellamodi.
Women Entrepreneur is very important one for the Economic growth of the country. The almost half of the population is women. While business owned and operated by them less than 5 Percent is reflection on social, cultural as well as economic distortions in the decades of its Development. This research paper totally depends on primary and secondary data from District Industrial Centre, Nagercoil. In this paper explain the various outcomes of Entrepreneurial traits and analyze the major impact of Entrepreneurial traits on its various outcomes and its stimulated using t-test and fitted regression model respectively.
Introduction:
Entrepreneurship plays a critical role in a country’s economic growth. The industrial growth and economic development of a nation is largely dependent on its enterprising spirit. Entrepreneurship as an economic activity emerges and functions in a socio-cultural setting. Commercialization and modernization of the economy gradually eliminated many of the avenues of employment to women in agriculture and industries and thus enabled them to find ways of supplementing their family income. As a result of this, a section of urban women have emerged as potential entrepreneurs.
Statement of the Problem:
Indian economy which is a developing economy is in a transitional stage and the attitude towards women is not unfavorable as it was in the past. Women are trying hard to establish themselves as entrepreneurs. Before independence, women were engaged mostly in agriculture house hold activities or in family trade activities. Even if they were holding any position it was merely secondary management, and the real management was in the hands of men. Today, there is much talk about the development of woman entrepreneurship in India.
Objectives of the study: The main objectives of the present study are
- To explain the various outcome of entrprneurial traits
- To evaluate the major impact of entrepreneurial traits on its various outcome.
Methodology: The present study is mainly based on both primary data and secondary data. The secondary data related to the population of the study has been collected from the District Industries Centre at Nagercoil.
Statistical Tools used for the study: For analyzing the data collected during the investigation, the following statistical tools were used. It is highly based on the nature of data and the relevance of information required. The applied statistical tools like t-test and multiple regression analysis are used.
Sampling: This study is based on both primary and secondary data. The secondary data were collected from the district industrial centre at Nagercoil. The samples are drawn from each block of Knayakumari district and 4 municipalities of the district. The industrialists who registered before 2005 is treated as experienced wheeas the others are classified as less experienced. The total sample size of the women industrialists was 676 respondents. It came to 420 experienced and 502 less experienced women industrialist. The collected data were processed with the help of appropriate statistical tools.
Framework of Analysis: The present study has made an attempt to analyze the various outcomes of entrepreneurial traits and also the major impact of entrepreneurial traits on various outcomes. These are presented in Figure1.
Figure: 1
Outcome of Entrepreneurial Traits
Enterprise involvement represents the degree of involvement in the various activities related to enterprising among the respondents. The variables related to enterprise involvement are too many, the present study confine to only 12 variables. The respondents are asked to rate these 12 variables at five point scale according to their order of involvement among the respondents from very high to very low. The ’t’ test has been applied to find out the significant difference among two group of respondents regarding the variables in Enterprise Involvement (EI). The results are shown in Table 1.
Table: 1
Variables Related to Enterprise
Involvement (EI) among the Respondents
| SI.No | Variables in EI | Mean Score among respondents | ‘t’ Statistics | |
| Experienced | Less Experienced | |||
| 1. | Own interest to become an entrepreneurs | 3.8183 | 3.3089 | 2.6671* |
| 2. | Personal role in setting up enterprise | 3.8021 | 3.2446 | 2.6042* |
| 3. | Role in management of the unit | 3.9114 | 3.3868 | 2.5991* |
| 4. | Role in major decisions related to the unit | 3.6608 | 3.0142 | 2.4008* |
| 5. | Time spent on unit related work | 3.8919 | 3.4546 | 1.5891 |
| 6. | Perceived satisfaction in entrepreneurial work | 3.7338 | 3.0445 | 2.7914* |
| 7. | Pride in being an entrepreneur | 3.8084 | 3.1778 | 2.68816* |
| 8. | Participation in professional bodies | 3.6502 | 2.8667 | 2.9194* |
| 9. | Role in designing future plans | 3.8117 | 3.1448 | 2.8044* |
| 10. | Level of training obtained | 3.9093 | 3.0245 | 3.1774* |
| 11. | Interaction with other entrepreneurs | 3.8548 | 3.1776 | 2.8808* |
| 12. | Degree of liking in enterprising | 3.9241 | 3.4543 | 1.8081 |
*Significant at five per cent level
The highly viewed variables among the experienced respondents are degree of liking in enterprising and role in management of the unit since their mean score are 3.9241 and 3.9114 respectively. Among the less experienced respondents these are ‘time spent on unit related work’ and degrees of liking in enterprising since their mean score are 3.4546 and 3.4543 respectively. Regarding the view on variables in enterprise involvement, the significant difference among the experienced and less experienced respondents have been noticed in 10 variables out of 12 variables in enterprise involvement since their respective ’t’ statistics are significant at five per cent level.
Entrepreneurial risk is the one of the important entrepreneurial traits is risk bearing. In order to analyse the level of entrepreneurial risk among the respondents, the totally 17 risks have been risk identified with the help of reviews. The respondents are asked to rate the 17 risks variable at five point scale. The mean scores of each variable in entrepreneurial risks results are shown in Table 2.
Table: 2
Entrepreneurial Risks among the Respondents
| SI. No | Variables in entrepreneurial risks | Mean Score among respondents | ‘t’ statistics | |
| Experienced | Less Experienced | |||
| 1. | Poor financial conditions | 3.0278 | 3.8667 | -3.1082* |
| 2. | Hectic competition | 3.3381 | 3.9774 | -2.1193* |
| 3. | Higher cost of production | 3.3211 | 3.8668 | -2.1011* |
| 4. | Non-co-operation of financial institutions | 3.2709 | 3.9038 | -2.4478* |
| 5. | Low skilled worker | 3.1144 | 3.7996 | -2.5089* |
| 6. | Technology obsolence | 3.0445 | 3.8404 | -2.9968* |
| 7. | Higher marketing cost | 3.1082 | 3.4562 | -0.8661* |
| 8. | Availability of low cost substitutes | 3.3667 | 3.8778 | -2.1178* |
| 9. | Market selection | 2.9668 | 3.7314 | -2.9965* |
| 10. | Shortage of working capital | 3.6673 | 3.9968 | -0.7038 |
| 11. | Higher marketing cost | 3.2114 | 3.8089 | -2.3991* |
| 12. | Frequent change in Government policy | 3.4543 | 3.6536 | -0.2961 |
| 13. | Inconsistent labour availability | 3.9667 | 3.8562 | 0.2884 |
| 14. | Poor power supply | 3.4508 | 3.9097 | -1.5441 |
| 15. | Poor quality perception of customers | 3.1173 | 3.8684 | -2.7349* |
| 16. | Poor in network | 3.0077 | 3.9344 | -3.3868* |
| 17. | Partnership problems | 3.2672 | 3.8486 | -2.8096* |
*Significant at five per cent level
The table 2 shows the mean scores of each variable in ER among the experienced and less experienced respondents. The highly perceived risk among the experienced respondents is in consistent labour availability and frequent changes in Government policies since their mean scores are 3.9667 and 3.4543 respectively. Among the less experienced respondents these are shortage of working capital and hectic competition since their mean scores are 3.9968 and 3.9774 respectively. Regarding the level of perception on variables in entrepreneurial risks, the significant difference among the experienced and less experienced respondents have been noticed. The problem in enterprising units may be in different dimensions. The dimensions of
Problem included in the present study are financial, entrepreneur, knowledge related, psychological general business problem and social problems.
The business performance is measured by the financial indicator namely net profit or return on investment. In the present study, the business performances have been measured with the help of 12 related variables. The Table 3 shows the mean scores of performance variables among the urban and rural respondents with its ’t’ statistics.
Table: 3
Mean Scores of Variables in Business
Performance
| SI.No | Variables in business performance | Mean Score among respondents | ‘t’ Statistics | |
| Experienced | Less Experienced | |||
| 1. | Market share | 3.5143 | 2.7132 | 2.6568* |
| 2. | Sales volume | 3.6027 | 2.8108 | 2.8017* |
| 3. | Firms reputation | 3.8184 | 3.0224 | 3.0233* |
| 4. | Return on investment | 3.3039 | 2.7337 | 2.5001* |
| 5. | Profitability | 3.2667 | 2.4506 | 3.2676* |
| 6. | Owners satisfaction | 2.8996 | 2.2145 | 2.4565* |
| 7. | Customers base | 3.3084 | 2.3142 | 3.2765* |
| 8. | Size of customers order | 3.4181 | 2.8509 | 2.7113* |
| 9. | Value of production | 3.6624 | 2.9911 | 2.6089* |
| 10. | Employment generation | 3.4077 | 2.6065 | 3.0996* |
| 11. | Years of existence | 3.5542 | 2.8189 | 2.8117* |
| 12. | Risk tolerance | 3.4108 | 3.4081 | 3.6942* |
*Significant at five percent level
The highly viewed business performance variables among the experienced respondents are value of productive and firms reputation since their mean scores are 3.6624 and 3.8184 respectively. Among the less experienced respondents, these are firms’ reputation and value of production since its mean scores are 3.0224 and 2.9911 respectively. Regarding the perception on performance variables, the significant difference among the urban and rural respondents have been identified in the case of all 12 variables since their respective ‘t’ statistics are significant at five per cent level.
The multiple regression analysis have been executed to find out the
- The impact of entrepreneurial traits on entrepreneurial risk
- The impact of entrepreneurial motivation on business performance
Impact of Entrepreneurial Traits on Entrepreneurial Risk
The entrepreneurial traits of the women industrialist may considerably reduce to their perception on risk involved in their enterprises. The multiple regression analysis have been used. The impacts have been measured among the experienced and less experienced respondents and pooled respondents separately. The results are shown in Table 4.
Table: 4
Impact of Entrepreneurial Traits on
Entrepreneurial Risk
| SI.No | Entrepreneurial traits | Mean Score among respondents
|
||
| Experienced | Less Experienced | Pooled Data | ||
| 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
|
Decision making
Exposure to media Scientific management Leadership activities Networks Access to credit facilities Constant R2 ‘F’ statistics |
0.1023
0.0447 -0.1886* -0.1476* 0.0557 0.1011 |
-0.1773*
0.0224 -0.2149* -0.1887* 0.0789 0.0344 |
-0.1452*
0.0334 -0.1909* -0.1592* 0.0673 0.0739 |
| -0.4547 | -0.8588 | -0.7349 | ||
| 0.7876 | 0.8142 | 0.8339 | ||
| 7.4345* | 8.3969* | 8.9911* | ||
*Significant at five percent level
Impact of Entrepreneurial Motivation Factor on Business Performance
The entrepreneurial motivation among the respondents may have its own influence on the business performance in the SSI units. The multiple regression analysis have been used. The fitted regression model is
Y= a+b1X1+b2X2+…………. +b4X4+e
Whereas
Y – Score on business performance
X1 – Score on security factor
X2 – Score on independence factor
X3 – Score on intrinsic factor
X4 – Score on income factor
b1….b4 – regression co-efficient of independent variables
a – intercept and
e- error term
The impact of entrepreneurial motivation on business performance among the experienced and less experienced respondents also pooled data separately. The results are given in Table5.
Table: 5
Impact of Entrepreneurial Motivation
Factors on Business Performance
| SI.No | IEMF | Regression co-efficient among respondents
|
||
| Experienced | Less Experienced | Pooled Data | ||
| 1.
2. 3. 4.
|
Security
Independence Intrinsic Income Constant R2 ‘F’ statistics |
0.1631
0.1866* 0.0934 0.1022 0.5493 |
0.1442*
0.0994 0.1017 0.1886* 0.3094 |
0.1517*
0.1308* 0.0823 0.1518* 0.4132 |
| 0.8342 | 0.8017 | 0.8607 | ||
| 9.2363 | 8.4082* | 10.2342 | ||
*Significant at five percent level
The significantly and positively influencing IEMF on the business performance among the experienced respondents and security and independence since their respective regression co-efficients are significant at five per cent level. A unit increase in the above said two factors result in an increase in business performance by 0.1631 and 0.1866 units respectively. Among the less experienced respondents, a unit increase in the level on security and income factors result in an increase in business performance by 0.1442 and 0.1886 units respectively.
Findings:
The researcher analyses the data regarding summerise the findings as follows:
- The significantly and negatively influencing entrepreneurial traits on the entrepreneurial risk among the experienced respondents are scientific management and leadership activities whereas among the less experienced respondents, these are decision making scientific management and leadership activities. The changes in the entrepreneurial traits explain the changes in perception on entrepreneurial risk to a higher extent among the experienced and less experienced respondents.
- The significantly and positively influencing entrepreneurial motivation factors on the business performance among the experienced respondents are security and independence whereas among the less experienced respondents, these are security and income. The changes in the level of entrepreneurial motivation explain the changes in business performance at higher extent among the experienced respondents their among the less experienced respondents.
Conclusion:
We can conclude that the entrepreneurial traits among the experienced respondent’s women industrialists are higher than the less experienced respondents. The entrepreneurial traits of the wome industrialists have a significant positive impact on enterprise involvement whereas a significant reduction in entrepreneurial risk and enterprise problem to a higher extent among less experienced respondents than the experienced respondents.
References:
- Dil Bagh Kaur, Annadurai, M. and Sharma, V.K., Rural Women Entrepreneur”, Abhigyan, 20 (4), January – March, 2003, pp. 27 31.
- Shailendra Singh and Saxena. S.C., “Women Entrepreneurs of Eastern Challenges and Strategies of Empowerment”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 36 (1), July 2000, pp.67-75.
- Thangamani, K., and Uma Priya, V., “Impact of Micro Enterprises Undertaken by Women Beneficiaries of Loan and Fund Scheme of Avinashilignam Trust”, Journal of Extension Education. 12 (1), January – March, 2001, pp.3048-3055.
- Gayatridevi Patil and Uma Gaurmath, “Rural Development Programme: A Study of Women Beneficiaries”, India Journal of Training and Development, 32 (4). October – December, 2002, pp.87-94
- , A., Govindarajalu, S., Anuratha, E.K., and Amudha, R., “Stress and Coping Styles of an Entrepreneur: An Empirical Study”, Journal of Management Research, 3(1), April 2003, pp.43-50.
- Karl Schussler (1971), Analyzing Social Data, Honghton Mifflin, Boston, p.4.
- Anderson, J.C and Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp.411-423.
- Fornell, G and Larcker, D.M., (1981), “Evaluating structural equatio modeling with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 11(1), pp.39-50.
- Gi-Du Kang, Teffrey Fames and Kostas Alexandris (2002). “Measurement of Internal Service Quality”, Managing Service Quality, 12(5), pp.278-291.
- Lalitha Rani, “Enterprise Development: Employment avenues for women”, Monthly Public Opinion Survey, 45(12), September 2000, pp.26-27.
- Manimekalai, N., “ A Comparative Study of Working Women and Housewives”, Social Welfare, 49(5), August, 2002, pp.29-38.