a.~~red by a written test. i) female co

159 Pages·2016·5.44 MB·English

In « addition, males' knowledge. of business was
£:,
signi.ficl:Irntlmyore than their female counter.par.t•s This
\);
. .. \J ->
was mE1;\a.~~rbeyd a written test.
!, i)
!)
As far as the participants in the research as a whole were
concerned, the "llotter I-E measurement oonfirmed that tl:;e
males wer$ significantly more internally orientated than
ii
the females.
),1
A com.parison between the entrepreneurs in the student
il
sal'llpleang. the rest ()fthe participants· showed thQ"tthere
was a significant difference in ten out of the fifty
variables, particularly on the AMQ measurement as well as
G'
post intervention Rot~!Sr valUes. ,The entrepreneurs also
did.sig;nificantly better on the wrid:en numeracy test.
()
In the research sample the~e were more entrepreneurs on the
East Rand than Soweto.. l<wa Thema sohoo Ls did significantly
better in their matriculation results in business related
'J
,$ubjects, compared with other school groupings.
,J l)
6.2 ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH PRO~LEMS
The findings on the research problems 't'lillnow be
dit:3cussed.
279
/1
RESEARCH PReBLEM :EFFECT ',OF THE
INTERVENTIQ.N .ON..... THE PARTICIPANTS' PERSONALITY
i
VALUES~ COMPARED WITH THE CONTROL G~OUP
The statistlcal results in Chapter 5 show that there are
~i9nificaJ7,t differences (at the level of 10% or less)
between the means of the Experimental and Control Groups
in" regard to Persistence (factor A), Action br.ientation;
(factor C) and Goal Directedness (factor AA). No
significance! vias shown f.or factor B (Time Awareness),
.Aspiration Level (factor D) and Personal causation
(factor E). personal Excellence (f~ctor B~}'\\.dindot show
/<:>---;Z/
a significaryt shift" As regards'(fIactor AM (Achievement
Motivation) there was a shift in the values between the
o
E:xpertm~.mtal and the "Control Groups.
-z:
$ignificantl:'tdifferent at the 12% level (p:::.1:2O4) •
Unlike previous South African stUdies on achievement
motivation with young black sUbject populati(>rts(pottas
et ell. 1980 1981; Erwee 198~t 1986) ( the research g'roup
I
in the present stUdy was' not dl;'awn from first""ye~r
university students, but from stUdents in the last YS9-r
'. I)
at high school. (A compa:!;'iSOolf1 the statistics betW'een
the studies mentiqned is given i116.2.2)
-::~,
In Chapter 3 t.hefl.V~.fac't:orsof the Al-1Qil1strumeri~'\we:t'~
(.)~,
\)
280
))
analysed. Figure ,3.1 sUI!Ill\ariztehse details on each of
the dimensions. Factor A, Persistence, is an index of an
individual's perseverence in seeking solutions to
problems under adverse circumstances. Setbacks are viewed
as presenting new "challenges. There was a significant
difference between the means of the Experimental ang
Control Groups, a,sa result of the intervention.
In the experiential learninr.; exercise, whioh took the
form of the settiny-up a:r.....r.unning of a micro bt1s:Li'laassS
explained previously, eaoh research gr:?up Was given the
)i
challenge to run an actual'busi.ness vtj'rtnre ,<ltpspite the
problems in doing this. These prOblems occm.:rEldiude tr.1. a
(I
Variety' of circumstances 'SlJchas lacl-:o:f' prQ,du¢t sales,
a'II'
or cash flow'difficultie~;, real life situation~ since
the business run Was a venturI'? interacting" ''V,:L.th')the
stUdents' neighbOUrhood environment. 'The sncce$S of the
','
venture as the 1l1tima!::oebjective, Was to make a retu.rn
.on the partioipants investment of tim~~ and money,
1
"
Although there were many distraotions fo~ the students
c) due (,to their school wOl:k not the least of Which was the
t
trial matriculai;~,d.onexamination and speoial revision (,'
sessions and tests held d'L1ringthl,9 intetAventiIDnpe:t'iod,
\\\\" ~'_i
the average a'l:tendal}c.f~igu);'~'wSer~\good (G:foup 1:8l.:b~;,
, ,.',}, '),jt" c::" o
Grou;p
2:7$.7%; Group 3:83. 5%:; ahd Gro\:tr4J; 85. ~1%,with an
(. ('; (t:~:">,;;>,)
I)
281
overall 82~2% average att.endance) .. None ~f the' four
groups showed" a. lack of interest in learning or pUr'$uipg
( -.
their self ..c..hosen roles in their ventures. Persistence
in meet.ing the targets set durling the intervention is
II
essential, If the venture is going "to be succesSful.
Because of the experiential nature of the intervention,
the signif:tcant movements on the AMQ measurement that
::;_..::.::.i:.:.-.
occurrr~ :In the Expe:r.iment(il Group compared to the
I. 'I
Cont:r:ol Gr!t>Up,are to be expected. This is particularly
So (Persistence), and 'factor c
(Action or:~entC\tion) and therefore in Goal Directednes$
I.
There was also a positive movementin the mean~measul:'ed
on a post... less pre-intervention basis in Awareness of
r.rime (factc)r B). Under the heading Personal Excellen~@
(fastor BB) and Aspiration Level (factor D) there was
also a positive movement, but this was not of
~,
significance.
The above results may be related to the 11~ud,ents'
business" venture. The Junior' Ach~;~ve:mentprograpl!,l.le
(Appendix ~J is a time-pressured one, and the programme
is highly structured;' in order to, meet the objectives of
running a mini..c..ompanythat. makes a profit in a short
282
u
period of eleven weeks the ulife" of 'the'ventu:r!'e.
i;'
There is ~ lot of work to do and activities necessat~
within the worksp.op sessions and in the students! own
f\
environment. The tutors constantly remind the group of
the {,neoessityto meet their own targets (e.g. production,
sales, and collection 9£ :monies). The reaJ:;llinogf the
\~ U
o
,
targets set by "the partioipants themselves acts as a
stimulus and a real indication of what can be aChieved by
"
one's own effort and working as a tealn. This increases
the st1iClents' own personal aspiration, based up0110 the
f
5J feed.b.a.c.k from par~nts of the pa'l:'ticipantosf"o" mpleting the
~iegUlar Junior AchieVement prograllll.l.ie
The encouragement of the Experimental Group to behave in
a;n entrepreneurial fashion is an objective of ,the Junior
AChievement:, programme. Th~ ~~rsona.l attribu·te; developed
are role orientation", motiv~:tion and 'ability to think
intuitively and rationally. This may be rel'ated to"olson
and BoSSerman's work (1984). Also reinforcing the
concept of the en~repreneurial approach Ln particular, is
the' research of Chell (1985).~ Chell and Haworth (1987)
and Timmons" at (Ial." (1985). One of"the probl~rns tba1'~
"
outside the
.,:'
'"
classroom is, being able to apPteciate the interaction of
••0)
the and si:tuatioml). influences in the new,
283
\I'
c
circutastanqes lea.ving school. This has been dlsoussed
in 2.5.7 and 2.6.1
The'7only faptor out of ttle five dimensions in the AMQ
measur~ments that showed movement in an unexpeotsed
direction was Personal causation (factor ,.,E) • The
measUrement is similar to Rotter's Internal-E»tern.al Locus
of control measurement. This personality fact.orhas to do
with e~erting control ,over life events and reliance on
one's own ability to overcome obstacles. The control Group
measurement showed a more positi«tve movement on. a 'p.re-to
post(7'interventiQn basis, than did the Experimental ~roup.
,\
ccase of the I-E measurement (ROTDIF), there wa.s
little difference .in the 'pre'"and post,...va;J.·u(eps=O.960)c
Roweyer'j whe.m entrepre.neur business owners were compared
0
with the remainder of the participants', this was not the
()
{;
caJk (Sectio~ 6.3.1)~
on a gender differentiation measurement, there is a
signifioant movement in the I-E values on a pre- and post-
basis.' VIt would appeaz that the female participants'
Weighting in the overall vatues giv~n by the El:~~sperimental
and the" C011trolGroups have caused factor E on the AMQ" a!ld
to
ROTDIF to give nu~asurements which .are oontral;'Y
((
expectation. (Se9tion 6·~2.7. examines gender dlfference~).
,::'
284
o
The Achie'Vsment Motivation. value (AMOIF) as shown in
(/
Table 5.2.indicates a signIficant shift in group means at
the 12% levels. The ovef.allvalue shift that has taken
(I
pla.ce between the Experimental }:!.ndcontrol GrOUpS
C\ '
indicate" that the intervention has producedothe d~sired
e.ffec.t as was expect~d.
I
o
6~2.2 COMPARISON OF DESCRIPTIVE STATIS~ICS FOR ..THE
A9HIEVEMENT MOTIVATION MEASUREMENT {AM}
To determine the research groups' AM valuas compared with
c
ohher similar stlbjea:tgr0u.ps\', the research of potta::;
(1930, 1981) and Erwee (1981, 1986) was reviewed.
Ii
,(Appendix 24 rSl'~vesthe desc.l';iptivestatistics of the
'A'qhievement M(;>tviat.Lon IJimensions).
\-\ 0
The research \'i. partici}?ants1 mean scores using the AMQ
.
/;
instrumet),t with both Experimeptal and Control Groups
compare favo'l:lrablywith one another and with the work
t
done by Pottas et ale and Erwee.
Table 6~1 r~cords the compari6ons' of t1Je'resul'tsl',fith
o
previous resear&h work.
.
.
r(
\\ u
285
COMPARISON c)F PREVIOUS RESEARCHWORK ON ACHIEVEMENT MOT!VATION"
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION SCORE
SUBJECT REseARCHER
STANDARD IlEVIATION n POPULATION
12.2 251 1styear black Erwee 1981
UniversitY students Erwee 1986
11.5 745 ditto F'ottas.at. ai
1980,1981
10.2 101 BI.Mkmatriculants Present research:
eXperimental Group
91 ditto Control Group
Table 6.?,
COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS RESEARCHWORK WITJ.f(OCUS OF CONTROL INSTRUMENT
. LOCUS OFCONTROLSCORE n SUBJ=CT RESEARCHER
POI3ULATIOI\i
MEAN STANDARD [lEVIATION
10.60 3.55 135 Blackuniversity Moodley-Rajab &
i;'
students Ramkissoon,1979
13.44 3.79
Present research:
9.87 3.07 92 Blackmatrlculants Experimental
Group
1\
9.81 2.67 101 ditto Control Group
lk::=============="====:"=" =;======"""""=========::::!1
=ri),.=....
28q
.6'.2" 3 ROTTER LOCUS OF ,·CONTROL r-E MEASUREMENT RESULTS
'l'heltleas~.lrelt\oefnt the Rotter el-E} scores on the pre'-
and pos~-intervention comparing the "'means '~tthe
(~ .'J "
EXfJerimt::l and control Groups (RbTDIF) did not 'show(';lny"
, ·...1
signifioant difference (p=O.960), Which is contrary to
;,1
what the au.thor.expected. 'l'he possible explanation for
this Wa,$ given in the previous section i.e. the
weightings of the female participants have cancelled out
the shift in thC% values given by the male group.
o "
A co)1l.parisonof the .Rotter I ..E. value~\ measured before
~IS
the intervention for the. two 9roup~~ in the pres~nt
researQh, with previous values reported by a local study,
is 9'iven in TablEl!6.2
The work of Pottas (1981) and Erwee (1.981, 1986) on the
Rotter instrument has been on the multi-dimensional
nature of the construct. In the present stUdy, as with
MoodleY-Rajab and RamkissQon (1979), the I-E measurement
'is considered to be uni-dim;nsd.onaL,
,287
6.2.4 ~ij,EKIRTON ADAPTIVE·INNOVATIVE MEASUREMENTS
It
The application of the KAI to the research work of this
!\
study did hot yi~ldresults of significance. No shifts in
the value of the dimensions, or in the KAI score can be
interpreted!1as having been due to the intervention. An
exhaustive study of the KAI results was not carried out, as
is the jl case with the other constructs used, as the1'values
given for both groups did not seem to be relevant. As
p6inted out in section 2.5.8, Kirton s construct has to do
c.' I
with inn9vation. Although r~,(t&archon the connection
between entrepreneurshi~ and innovation has taken p*ace
)j
(H~bert ar'AdLink 1982; Weber 1930; and Schumpeter 1939)[
the work done in this ftieldu.sing Kirton's instrument is
Ii
sparso. 'I'heevid~nce is lpffew researchers working in the
l'
ent:repreneursh,iparea. (Khaneja 1962; Dewan 1982). It has
not been established tha.t the KAI has a~1\application in
studiesoin the snlallbusiness,field•
.
The results given 1'n Table 5.2 comparing the group meahs
for the Experimental and Control Groups and the difference
n,Q
in the KAI tests, show significant difference,in the
three factors SODIF (Sufficiency of originality), of EFODIF
(Efficiency of Operation) or f{DIF(Role/GJ:q'uCPonformity),
and the KAI score. The SO factor is the one which :may
indicate an increase in innovation. The p-valuSt
288