The Effect of Entrepreneurial Human Capital and Entrepreneurial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractBeing an entrepreneur or continuing to work as a regular employee is a difficult decision a number of people are dealing with when choosing their career. The entrepreneurs can contribute for the economics' growth. However, because of the high rate of failure businesses, the failed entrepreneurs have to deal with amorous difficulties. This study has conducted to identify the life of the entrepreneurs who had failure experiences from the time after their failure to the recovery time of them. The quantitative method was conducted to find the relationship between the entrepreneurial human capital and the learning process from failure, the restart intention. The finding of this research indicated positive impact of entrepreneurial human capital and failure learning on restart intention. The research also provided evidences to scholars who are developing literature review of entrepreneurship to help them with a new researching direction about entrepreneurs' intentions and behaviors by using Motivation-Opportunity-Ability perspectives. Based on this study, failed entrepreneurs would be provided with different points of view about their collapse, as well as found some helpful mechanisms to use as resources and drew useful lessons from their failure to build up optimism in their future entrepreneurial career.Keywords: entrepreneurship failure, entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurship restart intention, entrepreneurial intention, human capital1. Introduction1.1 Research IntroductionBeing an entrepreneur or continuing to work as a regular employee is a difficult decision a number of people are dealing with when choosing their career. Becoming an entrepreneur, who establishes, organizes, controls, and takes responsibility for a new business, can offers a person more chances to solve some difficulties so that many people may desire to be entrepreneur rather than a mere employee (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005). An individual chooses to be an entrepreneur for a wide range of reason. According to Gilad and Levine (1986), there are two kinds of closely related reasons of entrepreneurial motivation, the push theory and the pull theory. Negative external factors can be seen as the reason behind people who are pushed into becoming entrepreneurs, for example job loss, job issues, discomfort in traditional working environment, inflexible schedules and even insufficient incomes. On the other hand, the pull theory referred to the individual's internal factors including desire for independence, self-fulfillment, power, reputation and more which are the main factors impacting the decide to be an entrepreneur. Moreover, being entrepreneurs, people expect to be rewarded with the wages of employment (Van Praag & Cramer, 2001) and also hope for brighter future in their life. Keeble, Bryson, and Wood (1992), Orhan and Scott (2001) and Segal et al. (2005) argued that the pull factors have more influences in entrepreneurial decision-making than the push factors.However, deciding to become entrepreneurs, people have to deal with countless difficulties, challenges, and confrontations ahead. The threat can be derived from external environment as well as internal one. The critical role of entrepreneurship research which can be seen as the effect of entrepreneurial activities in establishing new business has been a key influence on the economy growth, employee and innovation (Guerrero, Rialp, & Urbano, 2008).However, in the research conducted by Knott and Posen (2005), the author indicated that around 80-90 percent of new firm ultimately failed, a shocking figure. Approximately 10-20 percent of the surviving firms let the entrepreneurs achieve their business establishing goals such as high incomes, elevated reputations, and realistic ambition. Furthermore, the data from the U.S. Census Business Information Tracking Series in the study conducted by Headd (2003) mentioned that the failure was not the same in the new firms. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».