The Impact of Organizational and Personal Character Traits on a Nonprofit Organization’s Intention towards Entrepreneurial Activity

This study explores the impact of organizational and individual characteristics towards entrepreneurial behaviors in a non-profit setting. It aims to understand which set of characteristics has more significant impact on the entrepreneurial plan of the NPO. The study also analyzes the collective characteristics of an NPO that has an impact on the entrepreneurial intention of that NPO. The research uses the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to explore the characteristics that exist in the executive leadership teams of NPOs.

Running head: IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP
The Impact of Organizational and Personal Character Traits on a Nonprofit Organization’s
Intention towards Entrepreneurial Activity
Leigh Lester-Holmes
Maharishi University of Management

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 2
The Impact that Organizational and Personal Character Traits have on a Nonprofit
Organization’s Intention Towards Entrepreneurial Activity
Nonprofit Organizations(NPOs) are charged with “problems of our society in the twenty-
first century face are— poverty, racism, environmental degradation, lack of health protection,
declining trust in governments” (Eisenberg, 2005). In order to deal with these issues, many
organisations struggle to maximize funding for their activities as the sources of funding vary
widely from donations to the sale of goods and services. However, most receive a large part of
their funding from government sources (Renz, 2010). With cutbacks to government and private
funding in recent years, many agencies have struggled.
It must be acknowledged that NPOs have always for new ways of raising funds. This
effort has intensified as a result of the cutbacks as stated. This includes strategies that have
historically been for-profit. Unlike their for-profit brethren, NPOs have social service focus and
for that matter experience a challenge to maintain that while also focusing on revenue
production. Social entrepreneurship appears to be the happy medium between financial
sustainability and social purpose (Mair & Noboa, 2006). NPOs have often found it difficult to
garner the support to compete in the for-profit space (Tuckman, 1998).The question I have asked
is why more NPOs have not moved towards social entrepreneurial endeavors?
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study is to understand the impact of organizational and individual
characteristics towards entrepreneurial behaviors in a non-profit setting. The objectives of a
company is set with the help of the core values and principles which are brought by the
entrepreneurs, therefore in a non-profit organisation there are certain characteristics traits of the

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3
entrepreneur that drives the objectives of the company as well as motivates others to be
associated with the cause without having a financial motive.
With the help of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) characteristics that exist in the
executive leadership teams of NPOs will be explored. The organizational attributes of
entrepreneurial NPOs that affect the intention to be entrepreneurial will also be reviewed and
analyzed in the research. Understanding which set of characteristics has more significant impact
on the entrepreneurial plan of the NPO will help future leadership teams focus their training in
these areas. Thus this analysis will provide the most beneficial long-term sustainability of the
organization. Another recently coined term intrapreneurship will be analyzed in the research. The
concept explains the attributes of an employee which is similar to that of an entrepreneur
(Antoncic and Hisrich, 2003).
Research Question 1:
What are the individual characteristics of the executives of non-profit organizations have? What
are the impacts of the characteristic traits on the entrepreneurial intention of their NPOs?
H1a - The NPO executive’s attitude towards intrapreneurship will have a positive impact
on the entrepreneurial intention of the organization.
H1b. The NPO executive’s subjective norms about intrapreneurship will have a negative
impact on the entrepreneurial intention of the organization
H1c. The NPO executive’s perceived behavior control about intrapreneurship will have a
positive effect on the entrepreneurial purpose of the organization.
H1d. NPO executive’s self-efficacy will have a positive impact on the entrepreneurial
intention of the organization.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 4
The literature indicates additional variables that can have an impact on intentions. The
variables include demographics such as age (Kautonen et al., 2010) a person who is young may
have a fresh approach towards the objective of an organisation or an experienced person also
may have a fresh approach depending on the type of experience they have over the years, and
family business (Van Auken, Fry, & Stephens, 2006) if the organisation is a family business then
the attitude of the entrepreneur. These variables will be accounted for in the research design.
Research Question 2:
Which of the following collective characteristics of an NPO has an impact on the
entrepreneurial intention of that NPO: active board of directors, management/community support
or collective efficacy of the nonprofit organization?
H2a. An active NPO board of directors will have a positive impact on the entrepreneurial
intention of the organization.
H3b. Management/Community support of intrapreneurship within an NPO will have a
positive impact on the entrepreneurial intention of the organization.
H3c. Collective efficacy of an NPO will have a positive impact on the entrepreneurial
intention of the organization.
Importance of the Study
There are several organisations who work for the profit gaining objectives and in the
process they impact the society and the environment negatively. There are several approaches
taken to oblige corporate with the responsibilities they have towards these elements. However,

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 5
there are several organisations that are developed with the motivation of improving societal or
environmental issues. This study will indicate the traits that are present in individuals that
motivate them to build an organisation that runs on non-profit objectives. This will also helps in
determining the characteristics and differentiate in the ways of a profit oriented leader with a
non-profit objective entrepreneur. These traits can be developed as skills among the leaders to
ensure a more humane approach towards business.
Definition of Terms
Defining essential terms in this study is necessary for setting a foundation of universal
understanding.
Intrapreneurial Intention refers to those who contribute to corporate entrepreneurship at
the firm level (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Morris & Kuratko, 2002; Davidsson, 2006).
A nonprofit organization(NPO)refers to those organizations that have been granted
501(c)(3) status by the United States Internal Revenue Service and are generally considered by
charter to be a charitable organization (Stoudt, 2012).
Entrepreneur is a person who undertakes venture (Herrington et al., 2010),
Entrepreneurship is described by Timmons (1997), as a thought process, interpretation and
performing activities that is based on opportunities it is balanced leadership.
Intention is the emotion of motivation towards an aim or goal (Ajzenl, 1985).
Attitude is the way of thinking and developing perspective about various aspects in life.
Attitude can be positive or negative depending upon the actions that are undertaken (Ajzenl,
1985).

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 6
Personality Traits these are the aspects the behavioral pattern of an individual that build
the character of the person.
Motivation is the feeling that helps drive towards a certain behavior of an individual.
Literature Review
Overview
The purpose of this section is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature on the
antecedents of organisational and personal characteristic traits on NOPs entrepreneurship. To
start, we must first understand what we mean when we say intrapreneurial intention. Antoncic &
Hisrich define intrapreneurship as entrepreneurship within an existing organization (2003). This
has also been referred to as corporate entrepreneurship. Lashmar defines entrepreneurism as, “a
state of mind, a way of looking out at the world and constantly watching for opportunities. You
attune your mind, so you look at every situation and evaluate for its business potential. You look
for opportunities” (2013, para. 1). Another researcher, Djordjevic, describes the effects of this
way of thinking by saying, “Entrepreneurship is the economic engine driving many nations’
economies…Research conducted has shown…100 percent of the new jobs in the United States
were created by entrepreneurial firms of less than two years’ age” (2013, p. 401).I will provide a
thorough review of the antecedents to the intrapreneurial intent oforganizational leaders and the
precursors of entrepreneurial corporateintention.
Research shows that entrepreneurism is essential to the sustainability of all three sectors
of business: for-profit, nonprofit and public. The research also shows the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship training programs geared towards college students and small and medium
business enterprises (SMEs). What the research is inconclusive about is the effectiveness of

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 7
entrepreneurship training programs in developing entrepreneurial mindset or orientation for
nonprofit leaders which, if similar to the outcomes for SMEs, could have a positive long-term
effect on organizational performance and sustainability.
There was one main source for this literature review: peer-reviewed journal articles. A
considerable amount of time was spent reading articles written by scholars on this topic. The
following databases were searched: Google Scholar, ProQuest, ProQuest Entrepreneurship,
EbscoHost, and Emerald. By searching keywords: “Entrepreneurship Education,”
“Entrepreneurship Training,” “Intrapreneurship,” Corporate Entrepreneurship,” and “Nonprofit,”
there were quite a few peer-reviewed journal articles on this topic that were found and collected.
However, before the training can be designed, one must find the areas that most need assistance.
Policy makers are continually encouraging social enterprises, initiatives,and innovations
since they provide services that are not offered in the free market while focusing on the creation
of social wealth rather than generating economic benefits. Nonprofit organizations often aim to
develop entrepreneurial initiatives that serve environmental and social missions while reinvesting
a significant amount of their surplus to support their goals. Additionally, these organizations
promote programs that focus on self-sustaining activities including the creation of new revenue
sources and voluntary welfare programs that provide opportunities to obtain financial support for
businesses. The complexity of both environmental and social problems has resulted in an
increasing prominence of nonprofit organizations in the commercial market sector.
Background
The Nonprofit Sector

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 8
According to Hall (1987), The nonprofit sector has been a major part of the American
landscape for over a century. According to, Weerawardena et al. (2010), the purpose has been to
fill the gap left from the private and public sectors using volunteer resources, community
advocates, government and private philanthropic funding. With the reduction of government
funding and corporate philanthropic dollars in recent years, NPOs have struggled to remain
sustainable. Making the NPO self-sustaining is nownew focus (Sontag-Padilla, Staplefoote &
Morganti, 2012). The authors also state that the nonprofit sector (NPS) is developed to serve the
gap between the private sector and the government. The Business sector does not satisfy these
needs because it cannot do it profitably. The government does not satisfy these needs because
there is not enough public support to do so (Sontag-Padilla, Staplefoote & Morganti, 2012). A
nonprofit pursues a mission that is neither financially sustainable using a for-profit business
model, nor for which there is public support sufficient to move a government to action and the
expenditure of taxpayer funds (Weerawardena, McDonald, & Mort, 2010).
The financial challenges facing NPOs has been going on for quite some time. A study
conducted by the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI) speaks to this issue. “…fundraisers’
assessment of the current giving environment fell to its lowest level since the Center of
Philanthropy began the study in 1998 (Keirouz et al., 1999). ‘The steep decline in confidence in
current fundraising conditions confirms that NPOs are still encountering difficult times and
anticipate that they are facing more ahead’” (Besel, Williams & Klak, 2011, p. 1).
Entrepreneurship Orientation
According to Paton and Macalman (2000), workplaces are challenged with staying
relevant. This causes endless transitions in services offered and goods sold. Effective

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 9
management of those transitions is an important skill currently required by organizations.
Traditional organizations plan growth and change in a very methodical way. Entrepreneurial
organizations embrace more of a “let’s do it and see what happens” strategy as well as a formal
planning process (Burgelman, 1983).
There has been a spotlight in the research on understanding entrepreneurial culture
(Gartner, 1988; Miller, 1983; Wortman, 1987), quantifying cultural aspects (Chadwick, Barnett,
& Dwyer, 2008; Khandwalla, 1977; Knight, 1997), and associating culture to firm performance
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Parnell & Lester, 2007). Entrepreneurship is described as the “creation
of new business, and by new, I mean a business that does not exactly duplicate existing
businesses but has some element of novelty” (Rumelt, 2005, p. 11).
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is described by Burgelman as the processes,
practices,and activities that lead to entrepreneurship (1983). EO involves three elements:
proactively going after opportunities, having a high-risk level of tolerance and having a high
concentration of innovation (Lumpkin & Dees, 1996). Research has shown that organizations
that exhibit EO features such as the willingness to participate in high risk activities, and the focus
on innovation tend to have high levels of success (Covin, 1991; Wiklund & Shepard, 2005).
The EO and For-Profit Sector.
In the next two sections, I discuss the three aspects of EO in the context of the for-profit and
nonprofit sectors.
Typically, in the for-profit world, entrepreneurial organizations allow for more flexibility
in the creative process. Supporting the flow of creativity within an organization enables them to
allow for processes that may be temporary and specific to a new product or service. This also

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 10
allows them to collect input from internal sources as well as external sources. They do not rely
solely on upper management or on creative teams to make suggestions. This imbalance produces
a culture that encourages individuals to not only embrace but seize opportunities for growth
(Wheatley, 1999)
For the purpose of this discussion on for-profit organizations, the concept of risk taking is
defined as the extent to which top management is willing to take on business related risks about
financial investment and strategic actions without some modicum of assurance (Covin & Slevin,
1988; Miller, 1983). In doing so, the organization leaders are seeking higher rates of return for
their higher risk investment.
Innovativeness is defined by Lumpkin & Dees (1996) as an organization’s desire to
develop new products, services or technological processes by the discovery of solutions for
problems. It is defined by Covin and Slevin as “extensiveness and frequency of product
innovation and technological leadership to obtain a competitive advantage for the firm” (1988, p.
228). One can extrapolate from these two definitions that innovativeness means a strong
emphasis on research and development of new products or services or processes.
Proactiveness has been defined by Miller’s research as the instigating nature of an
organization as evidenced by its desire to compete aggressively with other organizations (1983).
Venkatraman defines proactiveness as “proclivity to pursue new opportunities by anticipating
and acting on future needs by being the first to market with new products or services” (2008,
para. 14). One can deduce from these two definitions that proactiveness is the willingness to be
forward or out-of-the-box thinking and planning, paired with the desire to implement innovative
activities.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 11
The EO and the Nonprofit Sector
Due to funding challenges and the desire for long-term sustainability, successful NPOs
are adopting for-profit business models (Farruggia, 2007). The lines between for-profit and
nonprofit business models are beginning to blur. As much as NPOs are driven by economic
endeavors so are for-profit organizations being more driven by social endeavors. NPOs are
incorporating for-profit business strategies into their current missions to help them increase
funding. Some are creating for-profit divisions or subsidiaries to help fund their non-profit
missions.
Focusing on the mission instead of profits by way of the three constructs of
entrepreneurship: risk-taking, innovativeness and proactiveness is not how NPOs have operated.
In figure 1, Morris, Webb,and Franklin (2011) show a conceptualization of how the three EO
concepts are viewed in the nonprofit area.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 12
Figure 1 – Entrepreneurial Orientation in Nonprofit Organizations (2011)

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 13
The authors go on to explain how, “the nonprofit context differs from the for-profit
context for which the EO scale was developed, particularly about motivations, processes, and
outcomes” (2011). This, they say, is a gap that needs to be further explored.
Also, NPOs do not want to appear to lose focus on their mission by putting their efforts
into entrepreneurial pursuits. Those NPOs that straddle the line of mission-focus and revenue-
focus are called sector benders. A risk of sector-bending is the potential forthe loss of the
nonprofit status. For-profit partners may see sector benders as competition which could lead to a
reduction in their contributions. In previous years, NPOs only faced the dilemma of justifying
their existence with performance measures. Now, they are pressured by funders also to prove
their long-term sustainability strategies which include leveraging their funding over several
sources (Urban Institute, 1983).This is a direct result of a change in the nonprofit landscape.
There has been an increase in nonprofit organizations and they are all vying for the same funding
from the same companies. Also, public funding has been reduced due to the political climate.
Therefore, support which originally gave birth to the nonprofit movement, now barely supports
it.
Granting all this, NPO leaders are still faced with needing to research EO on an
organizational level and develop strategies for sustaining their missions (Drucker, 1990).
Regardless of the challenges faced by NPOs and their leadership teams, to survive, the NPOs
must find ways to stay relevant. Those that do not adopt an EO could mean closed doors in the
future in the face of for-profit competition (Krueger, 2000).

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 14
The Entrepreneurship Training and the For-profit sector
Current research shows that entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on
organizational performance. “…the higher the schooling level or the more years of education
have been pursued, the higher are the chances that performance is good: earnings are higher,
growth is more likely, survival chances are better” (van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., &
Vijverberg, W., 2008).{That quote is not about effect of entrepreneurship education, but about
years of education] In multi-case study analysis, Alvord, Brown, and Letts (2004) argued the
benefits of using entrepreneurial practices and procedures to create sustainable and scalable
social transformation [that sentence is not about entrepreneurial education but about using
entrepreneurial practices].
According to Sherman, many entrepreneurs will say they learned basic business skills in
school. However, they learned how to be an entrepreneur on the job (2005). On-the-job training,
also known as experiential learning (Kolb, 2014), is an effective way to transfer skills to
entrepreneurs. The potential entrepreneur transforms their experience into knowledge and
development (Torbert, Glueck & Elmering, 1972).
Researchers, Mensah and Benedict, conducted an empirical study on the effects of
entrepreneurial education on poor people in the Eastern Free State of South Africa. Their
findings concluded that offering entrepreneurship training to micro and small enterprise
operators not only helped them to be more successful in their businesses but also helped them to
help others to do the same. They hypothesized that entrepreneurship education could help to
reduce or even eradicate poverty in this region (2010).

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 15
In an article entitled, “Delivering entrepreneurship training and support,” Ewan (2015)
states that for new businesses to succeed, new entrepreneurs need a certain skill set. He continues
to say that, “Ideas don’t always work, in themselves they rarely ever make money, but the
pursuit of an opportunity or a viable business model is what will make money.” It is those with
the entrepreneurial orientation who will succeed. Based on a client list of over 30,000
entrepreneurs, Ewan conducted a study of what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur. There
were three areas of focus: how to stimulate more entrepreneurial activity; how to minimize early
stage entrepreneurial mortality; and how to identify the key barriers that prevent business
growth.
According to Ewan, the most important was that entrepreneurs need entrepreneurship
training. “You can’t make the initial fire that ignites an entrepreneur, that must come from inside.
But once lit, the rest can be taught through peer-to-peer learning, through trusted mentoring
relationships and even in a formal learning environment” (2015).
Based on the studies mentioned above, in most cases, entrepreneurship education has had
a positive effect not only on the individual learner and they skills they will bring to any future
job… but also on the long-term sustainability of for-profit organizations.
Research on Entrepreneurial Orientation and Training
There is much research on how EO information is disseminated to individuals in public,
to students at primary and secondary schools and even within the for-profit world. From the
literature of entrepreneurship training and nonprofit sustainability, a basic synopsis of what is
available is provided below.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 16
Table 1 shows published studies on the efficacy of entrepreneurship training. The original
criteria for inclusion were they had to be empirical and they had to have a focus on
training/education. They had to focus on a sample from the nonprofit/social entrepreneurship
groups. However, there were no studies that included all three criteria. Therefore, the last search
criteria were removed. The research terms used were: Entrepreneurial Orientation, EO, Training,
Education, Nonprofit training, Nonprofit Education, Training, Education, Nonprofit
performance. The table is organized by authors and showcases the studies that have empirical
data related to its outcomes. It is important to note that there were zero empirical studies found
showing the efficacy of entrepreneurship training on nonprofit leaders.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 17
Autho
r(s)/
Date
Type of Study/ Type of
Participants
Research
Question
Type of Training Significant Findings Variables
Bauer
(2011)
Exploratory Study/43
female entrepreneurs in
the state of Vermont
What motivates
women to
become
entrepreneurs?
Micro Business
Development
Program –
Workshops, One-
on-one counseling,
and Financial
education class.
The Mercy
Connections
Women’s Small
Business Program
is an ongoing class
with the same 15
participants
Training was a key
component to their success.
It helped them think
critically in terms ofbusiness
decision making.
Entrepreneurship training in
success
Fairlie,
Karlan
, &
Zinma
n
(2015)
4,197 individuals offered
free entrepreneurship
training
What is the
impact of
entrepreneurship
training on new
business
creation?
Group training and
one-on-one
training in
entrepreneurship
from Business
Consultants
Findings indicate that
business creation was the
highest in the short term (6
months or less), however
long-term impact was
minimal in individuals.
However, many participants
were unemployed when they
took this training and
subsequently became
employed.
Subsidized Entrepreneurship
Training

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 18
Ooster
beek,
Praag,
&
Ijsselst
ein
(2009)
250 College students
from all over The
Netherlands
Is the SMC
program
effective?
Young Enterprise
student mini-
company (SMC)
program
The findings showed that
there was no discernable
difference between students
who went through the
program and those who did
not. The program was
designed for primary and
secondary school students,
but this research was applied
to college students.
Entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurship skills and
motivation
Table 1: Bibliography
None of the studies in Table 1 focused on the characteristic traits for nonprofit
organizations or even general entrepreneurship training programs in which nonprofit agencies
participated. One used a control group posttest only design while the other used a pretest/posttest
design. One used a group of students in one general area while the other used individuals from
the general population across several states. The last used a group of individuals who had
previously undergone training and there utilized a posttest and interview design.
Bauer studied the effect of entrepreneurship training on female graduates of two different
entrepreneurship training programs in Vermont.(1) The Women’s Small Business Program
(WSBP), which is run by Mercy Connections, a nonprofit organization based in Burlington, and
(2) the Micro Business Development Program (MBDP), of the Vermont Community Action
Agencies (Bauer, 2011). These programs offered training very similar to the study with SBA

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 19
below including one-on-one consulting along with classroom training. There were a total of 43
women who participated in the posttest survey and interviews. The study was conducted in
partnership with the local university who used college students to give the interviews.
The participants reported they received four assets from the training: how to create a solid
business plan, how to plan financially to run a business, how to market your business and
increased confidence. Although the surveys pointed out several flaws with the programs such as
lack of preparation dealing with labor issues, programs focused on certain industries or too much
business training before the business idea had been thoroughly developed, many attributed their
later business success to the training. The researchers concluded that the training programs had a
positive effect on the long-term success of its participants.
Efficacy and Entrepreneurship
Fairlie, Karlan, & Zinman (2015) studied the efficacy of a broad longitudinal study
sponsored and implemented by a government agency, the Small Business Administration (SBA).
The study involved 4,197 participants from all walks of life. Training in entrepreneurship was
provided through a combination of group sessions and one-on-one consultations. Sixty-four
percent of individuals then received one-on-one counseling/consulting that was customized to
the individual’s experience, capabilities, circumstances, and opportunities. Seventy-seven
percent of the treatment group received classroom/group training(s). These targeted a variety of
general and specialized topics at different experience levels. Introductory workshops covered
subjects such as legal structure, business plans, and marketing. Intermediate and advanced group
training covered subjects including managing growth, obtaining financing, legal risks, and

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 20
personnel issues. More specialized group training covered topics such as accounting, information
technology, and web-based businesses.
Training increased business planning and business ownership in the short-term (less than
six months). Marginal businesses were unsuccessful and failed to produce meaningful results at
any of the follow-ups (6-, 18- and 60-months). The moderately successful organizations saw no
significant change as a result of the training. The researchers concluded that entrepreneurship
training had little impact on long-term business creation.
Oosterbeek, Praag, & Ijsselstein (2009) investigated the efficacy of the Young Enterprise
student mini-company (SMC) program created by Junior Achievement. This program is used all
over the world, educating young people in primary and secondary schools on the tenets of
entrepreneurship. This study involved 250 college students in the last semester of their
undergraduate education. They were all from the same university in The Netherlands. The
researchers surveyed the students before them take the SMC program. They were re-surveyed at
the end of the course. There was a treatment group and a control group. The results of the
training showed no significant difference between the treatment group and the study group after
the treatment was applied. On the question of EI, the treatment had a negative effect. This result
stands in sharp contrast to earlier positive outcomes of assessments based on the appreciation of
the parties involved.
According to Bornstein (2008), business strategies have been increasingly applied to
address the problems that arise from revenue generation such as the decreased public offering of
products that meet the needs of the customer. Further, he states that the increasing disparities in
the distribution of income level in developed and developing countries are a major contributor to

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 21
the development of these programs. Therefore, due to increased competition between various
nonprofit organizations to achieve grants and donations to support their projects they had to
professionalize the activities they undertake with the aim of minimizing financial dependence
while promoting economic stability to enhance the development of their mission.
Tan and Yoo (2015) argue that an effective organization requires collective efficacy to
achieve social entrepreneurship since addressing social problems involves the interdependence of
efforts between donors, staff, volunteers and government agencies (Tian & So-Jin, 2015, p. 105).
Bohn (2002) describe collective efficacy as the ability of an organization to cope effectively by
applying jhh of effectively dealing with demand, opportunities, challenges,and stresses that are
encountered in businesses. Consequently, for a community project to work in an area, there is a
need to input collective efficacy. Production of certain goals and attainments for these
organizations require the organization and execution of the courses of action in specific
situations (Bohn, 2002, p. 67).
In other studies, Anheier (2005) states that NPOs often face the scarcity of resources thus
the need to attract private contributions, involve commercial activities and obtain grants from the
government. The role of these resources is to flourish, innovate and deliver services to the
intended communities. The researcher states that the activities require time and availability of
resources which influence the perceptions of the employees about corporate entrepreneurship
(Anhier, 2005, p. 33).
According to Mair and Noboa(2006), there are various unique aspects of social
entrepreneurship that require intentions such as empathy which dictates attitude towards a
behavior, moral judgment as an indicator of social norms, self-efficacy for internal behavioral

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 22
control and social support for feasibility. Further, they suggest that individuals often expect to
receive support from the people in their surrounding which can be positively related to social
entrepreneurial intentions (Mair & Noboa, 2006, p. 126). However, Krueger argues that the
leaders in an organization play an important role in shaping the structure and norms required by
every employee including the achievement of their goals. He states that the exposure of these
leaders to prior work experience influences their entrepreneurial and technological intentions.
Further, their experience guides them in creating ideas that shape the opportunities and feasibility
of the organization. Therefore, they evaluate new ventures and innovations that are necessary to
improve service delivery while ensuring that they have a maximum number of donors to finance
their program (Krueger , 2009, p. 70).
Organizational and Personal Character Traits
According to Lukes & Stephan (2012), the personality traits among the non-profit
leaders and profit leaders are same the only aspect that is different the individuals are the factor
of motivation and objective that drive them. The traits that the authors state are
conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, emotional stability, and agreeableness.
However some of the specific traits that are described by authors are: self-efficacy, willingness
to take responsibility, individual initiative or motivation, internal locus of control (Lukes &
Stephan, 2012). Motivation plays a large part of characteristic trait (Lukes & Stephan, 2012),
thus the motivation that drives NPO leaders as stated by De Hoogh et al. (2005) are affiliation
such as activities of companionate nature, care and thoughtfulness.
Nonprofit Organization’s Intention

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 23
As suggested the non-profit seeking organizations run on the objectives which are driven by
compassion, care and the sense of responsibility towards society and environment. Depending on
the area of interest of the entrepreneur the intentions of organisation vary. Some organizations
are based on the well-being and development of the society at large on the other hand there are
organizations that fight for environmental causes (Merchant et al., 2010).
Theory of Planned behavior
The above diagram displays a
simplified explanation of the
theory. According to Ajzen
(1991), the theory is also
called Theory of Reasoned
Action it is used to predict the intention of a person to behave in a certain place at the very
moment. The theory seeks to determine and analyze the behavioral traits among individual which
have voluntary influences. The theory explains that characteristics traits depend upon both

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 24
motivation (intention) and ability (behavioral control or voluntary actions).the three types of
beliefs that are explained here are behavioral, normative, and control. The actual control over a
person's behavior is focused of six elements that together represent the behavior of the
individual. These constructs are: attitude, behavioral intent, subjective norms, societal norms,
perceived power and perceived behavioral control (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015).

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 25
Conclusion
As portrayed above, the character traits of individuals as well as the organization are
instrumental in the agencies’ entrepreneurial activity. For instance, a demotivated employee
tends to be unproductive; hence, harming the organization. On the other hand, the organization’s
mission, vision, and objectives drive the performance of the institution. As such, more research
must be undertaken on the characteristics of the individuals as well as the organization to fully
comprehend their impacts. Moreover, nonprofit institutions should focus on understanding
personal and organizational traits as fundamental facets of improving the institution.
Method
In this section, I will detail the design, setting, participants, survey instrumentation, and
analytical approach to this study. I will also discuss how I plan to collect data and ensure the
confidentiality and ethical protection of my participants. The purpose of this study is to
understand and determines the importance of individual characteristics on the entrepreneurship
of Non-profit organisations.
Evaluation Plan
This study aims to use a cross-sectional survey research design consisting of well-
structured questionnaires to collect data. The data on what impact the following characteristics
have on intrapreneurial intention of an NPO executive: Self-efficacy, Personal attitudes (PA)
towards an intrapreneurial aim, Subjective Norms (SN) towards intrapreneurship, and Perceived
behavioral control (PBC) towards intrapreneurship. The survey will also collect data on what

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 26
impact the following characteristics have on entrepreneurial intention of an NPO: active board of
directors, management/community support or collective efficacy of the nonprofit organization.
The primary significance of the choice and use of the cross-sectional study is because it
can be used to make a generalization about the population being studied. Using the cross-
sectional survey based on the random sampling technique in the validation of the process of
results obtained from the research. Since cross-sectional surveys take snapshot of all factors
simultaneously, the outcome of this type of instrument is prevalence. For the purpose of this
study, prevalence of the variables is what is being studied.
Sampling Method
The list-based random sampling method to be used by this study is the administration of
the survey to a group based on certain criteria. In this process the population of the study has
equal probability of being chosen. One of the advantages of this sampling method is that there
are no biases in choosing the sample. are After much deliberation with my dissertation board,
and thinking through most ways of sampling which could help to answer the research question as
well as fulfill the purpose of the study with resources at disposal, list based random sampling
method was deemed the best choice for the study. The program will make the final sample a
complete representation of the total population (Radhakrishna, & Doamekpor, 2008). This type
of sampling will also allow the study to be generalizable and avoid the possibility of confounds
and alternative explanation due to the testing techniques. Besides, it will enhance data quality,
accuracy, and details while preventing sampling errors.
Sample Size

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 27
Based on the cross-sectional survey technique, the study will utilize the entire sample
population in the study. The unit of measurement and analysis will be based on the two types of
employees: the executives at the helm of the organization and the non-managerial staff and board
members. The focus will beon the nonprofit executives’ characterat a personal level as well as on
the staff for the traits attributed to the organization.
Selection of Participants
The participants will be employees chosen from four separate groups described below:
1. The Counselor’s Corner. There are 1,500 current members across the US. This will be
done via in introduction email from the CEO of the organization. Those interested will
contact the researcher directly for participation.
2. UnidosUS. There are 263 affiliate organizations across the US. This will be done via in
introduction email from the Vice President of Housing and Community Development.
Those interested will contact the researcher directly for participation.
3. Nonprofit Housing Agencies across the US. There are 1,178 agencies across the US. An
introduction email will go to the executive directors/CEO from the researcher soliciting
participation.
4. Nonprofit employees who have participated in an entrepreneurship training program.
There are 115 individuals. An introduction email will go to the employee from the
researcher soliciting participation.
Instrumentation
An online survey will be employed in this study. The researchinstrument will be
developed using already established scales: Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ),

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 28
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Scale (ESE), Intrapreneurial Intention Survey (IIS), Board
Effectiveness Quick Check (BEQC), six questions regarding collective efficacy and two
questions regarding collective intention normed in a study conducted by Tan and Yoo (2015).
The survey tool has the mandate to help in the assessment of the perceptions of the
employees based on the three areas of intention towards intrapreneurial behavior using the theory
of planned behavior and self-efficacy. It will also look at the three areas for organizational
intention which are: active board of directors, management/community support or collective
efficacy of the nonprofit organization. The responses in this method would be based on five-
point likert scale that ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree arranged in a pattern mode
to cater to all the possibilities in the case.The dimensions used by the tool are as described
below:
Attitude
The NPO executive’s perception of the value of intrapreneurial activity. This section has
five questions.Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ). Cronbach alpha is 0.897.
Subjective Norm
The NPO executive’s perception of the social desirability of intrapreneurial activity. This
section has three questions. Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ). Cronbach alpha is
0.773.
Perceived Behavior Control
The NPO executive’s perception of the control over intrapreneurial activity. This section
has six questions.Entrepreneurial Intention Questionnaire (EIQ). Cronbach alpha is 0.885.
Self-Efficacy

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 29
The NPO executive’s level of confidence that they can successfully be intrapreneurial.
This section has ten questions.Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Scale (ESE). Cronbach alpha is
0.978.
Intrapreneurial Intention
The NPO executive’s intention to engage in intrapreneurial activity. This section has
three questions.Intrapreneurial Intentions Survey (IIS). Cronbach alpha is 0.865.
ORGANIZATION
Organizational Support and Presence/Absence of Board Practices
This section investigates the staff’s perception of support from the community and the
organization’s management team for the innovative ideas, provision of the available and
significant resources that is needed for entrepreneurial endeavors.
The evidence of board practices shows that the board is active. These sections have a
combined fifteen questions.Board Effectiveness Quick Check. Both Cronbach alphas were 0.90.
Collective Efficacy
This part covers the creation and the utilization of the systems that are toward supporting
the entrepreneurial activities, show the critical accomplishments, and then encourage the plight
to help in challenging the aspects of work. This section has six questions. Six question scale
developed from Tan & Yoo, 2015. Cronbach alpha is 0.88.
Collective Entrepreneurial Intention

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 30
The NPO’s intention to engage in entrepreneurial activity. This section has three
questionsdeveloped from Tan & Yoo, 2015. Cronbach alpha is 0.85.
Table 3.1 Variables, Definitions and Test Instruments

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 31
Statistics
This study will employ path analysis as the analytical tool of choice. This method was
chosen for its ability to test the relationship between the variables.
Proposed Dissertation Writing Schedule

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 32
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 182.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 27-58.
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal
transformation in an exploratory study. The journal of applied behavioral science, 40(3),
260-282.
Anhier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit Organizations. Theory, Management, Philosophy. Routledge,
30-50.
Antoncic, B. and Hisrich, R.D. (2003). Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept. Journal of Small
Business Enterprise Development, 10(1), 7-24.
Bauer, K. (2011), “Training women for success: an evaluation of entrepreneurship training
programs in Vermont, USA,” Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 14, pp. 1-24.
Besel, K., Williams, C. L., & Klak, J. (2011). Nonprofit sustainability during times of
uncertainty. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(1), 53-65. doi:10.1002/nml.20040.
Bohn, J. (2002). The Relationship of Perceived Leadership Behaviors to Organizational Efficacy.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(3), 65-79.
Braver, M. C. W., & Braver, S. L. (1988). Statistical treatment of the Solomon four-group
design: A meta-analytic approach. Psychological bulletin, 104(1), 150-154.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a
process study. Management Science, 29(2), 1349-1364.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 33
Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chadwick, K., Barnett, T., & Dwyer, S. (2008). An empirical analysis of the entrepreneurial
orientation scale. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 13(4), 64-85.
Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu/pqdweb?did=
1609415271&sid=1&Fmt=4&clientId=62763&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Covin, J. G. (1991). Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and
performance. Journal of Management Studies, 28(5), 439-462.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organizational structure on the utility of an
entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies,25, 217-234.
Cox, L.W., Mueller, S.L., & Moss, S.E. (2002). The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(2),
229-245.
Davidsson, P. (2006). Method Challenges and Opportunities in the Psychological Study of
Entrepreneurship. In J.R. Baum, M. Frese, & R.A. Baron (Eds.), The Psychology of
Entrepreneurship. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dess, G.G.,and Lumpkin, G.T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating
effective corporate entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19
No. 1. Pp. 147-156.
Douglas, E.J. & Fitzsimmons, J.R. (2012). Intrapreneurial intentions versus entrepreneurial

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 34
intentions: distinct constructs with different antecedents. Small Business Economics, Vol. 41 No.
1, pp. 115-132.
Drucker, P. F. (1990). Lessons for successful nonprofit governance. Nonprofit management and
leadership, 1(1), 7-14.
Eisenberg, P. (2005). The nonprofit sector and the will to change. The New England Journal of
Public Policy, 20(1), 167-176.
Emeritus, Branislav Djordjevic.(2013). Strategic Entrepreneurship.Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences. Vol. 4, no. 15. Retrieved online December 17,
2015,from<http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/2365.
Ewan, G. (2015). Delivering Entrepreneursip training and support.Local Economy. Vol. 30, no. 5
Fairlie, R., Karlan, D., and Zinman, D. (2015) Behind the GATE Experiment: Evidence on
Effects of and Rationales for Subsidized Entrepreneurship Training. Dartmouth College
Working Paper, available
at:http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jzinman/Papers/GATE_2013sept.pdf.
Farruggia, G. (2007). How is the nonprofit sector changing? Futures Research Quarterly, 2, 5-16.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of Industrial Training, 30, 701–
720. doi:10.1108/03090590610715022
Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory
Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
Grice, J. W., & Iwasaki, M. (2007). A truly multivariate approach to MANOVA. Applied
Multivariate Research, 12(3), 199-226.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 35
Hall, P. D. (1987). A historical overview of the private nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell (Ed.),
The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. (pp. 3-26), New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Herrington, M., Kew, J., Kew, P., & Monitor, G. E. (2010). Tracking entrepreneurship in South
Africa: A GEM perspective (pp. 1-174). South Africa: Graduate School of Business,
University of Cape Town.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the
internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale.
Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253—273.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Holt, D. T., & Wales, W. J. (2013). Assessing a measurement of
organizational preparedness for corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 30(5), 937—995.
Huck, S., & Sandier, H. M. (1973). A note on the Solomon 4-group design: Appropriate
statistical analyses. Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 54-55.
Ireland, R.D., Covin, J.G. & Kuratko, D.F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate entrepreneurship
strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 19-46.
Kautonen, T., Luoto, S., & Tornikoski, E. T. (2010). Influence of work history on entrepreneurial
intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary study. International Small
Business Journal, 28, 583–601. doi:10.1177/0266242610368592
Khandwalla, P. N. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 213-225.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 36
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Pearson Education.
Krueger, Jr., N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 24(3) 9-27.
Krueger , N. (2009). Entrepreneurial Intentions are Dead:Long Live Entrepreneurial Intentions.
In Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 51-72). New York : Springr.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J. S. &. Covin, J.G. (2014) Diagnosing a firm's internal environment for
corporate entrepreneurship, In Business Horizons, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 37-47, ISSN
0007-6813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.08.009.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681313001353)
Keirouz, K. S., Grimm Jr, R. T., & Steinberg, R. (1999). The Philanthropic Giving Index: A New
Indicator of the Climate for Raising Funds. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
28(4), 491-499.
Lashmar, P. (2013). What is Entrepreneurism? Online Journalism: The Essential Guide.
Retrieved Online December 17, 2015, from http://onlinejournalismguide.com/what-is-
entrepreneurism/
Linan, F., & Chen, Y.W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific
instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
33, 593-617.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135. Retrieved
from http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 37
Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: How Intentions Create a Social
Venture get Formed. Journal of World Business, 121-136.
McEwan, G. (2015). Delivering entrepreneurship training and support. Local Economy,
0269094215589317.
McCrum-Gardner, E. (2010). Sample size and power calculations made simple. International
Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 17(1), 10-14.
Mensah, S. A., & Benedict, E. (2010). Entrepreneurship training and poverty alleviation:
Empowering the poor in the Eastern Free State of South Africa. African Journal of
Economic and Management Studies, 1(2), 138-163.
Meyers, L., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A.J. (2013). Applied multivariate research design and
interpretation (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management
Science, 24, 921-933.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two
models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1-25.
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship
education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3),
442–454.
Morris, M.H., and Kuratko, D.E. (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship. Mason, OH: Thomson
South-western.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 38
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., & Franklin, R. J. (2011). Understanding the Manifestation of
Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Nonprofit Context. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 35(5), 947-971. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00453.x.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample
size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599-620.
Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship
education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54,
442–454. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002
Parnell, J. A., & Lester, D. L. (2007). Reevaluating the entrepreneurship management
conundrum: Challenges and solutions. Journal of Applied Management and
Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 74-88.
Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J. (2000), Change Management: A Guide to Effective
Implementation, Sage, London.
Pavarini, M. (2018). Conclusions: Contractual Reason and Disciplinary Necessity at the Basis of
Punishment by Deprivation of Liberty. In The Prison and the Factory (40th Anniversary
Edition) (pp. 247-255). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Radhakrishna, R. B., & Doamekpor, P. (2008). Strategies for generalizing findings in survey
research. Journal of Extension [On-line] 46(2), Article 2TOT1. Available at:
http://www.joe.org/joe/2008april/tt1.php
Razavi, S. H. & Aziz, K.A. (2017) The dynamics between entrepreneurialorientation,
transformational leadership, and intrapreneurial intention in Iranian R&D sector.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 39
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. Vol. 23 Issue: 5, pp.769-
792,
Renz, David O. Herman, Robert D.. (Eds.) (2010) The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit
leadership and management /San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Chapter One: Hall, P. D.
Historical Perspectives on Nonprofit Organizations in the United States.
Rumelt, R. P. (2005). Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. In Handbook of entrepreneurship
research (pp. 11-32). Springer US.
Sherman, P. S. (2005). A PROPOSED LOOK AT THE ROLE OF SELF-EFFICACY AS A
MEDIATOR BETWEEN EXPERIENTIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND
PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES. Paper presented at the, 11(1) 39-43. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/192402315?accountid=458.
Sontag-Padilla, L., Staplefoote, L., and Morganti, K. (2012). Financial Sustainability for
Nonprofit Organizations. RAND Corporation. Pittsburg, PA.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
inspiration, and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Stewart, A. & Diebold, J. (2017). Turnover at the Top: Investigating Performance-Turnover
Sensitivity Among Nonprofit Organizations. Public Performance & Management
Review. Retrieved on November 25, 2017, from https://news.ncsu.edu/2017/08/nonprofit-
executive-turnover-2017/.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 40
Tian, W. L., & So-Jin, Y. (2015). Social Entrepreneurship Intentions of Nonprofit Organizations.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 103-125.
Torbert, W. R., Glueck, E., & Elmering, H. (1972). Learning from experience: Toward
consciousness (pp. 5-23). New York: Columbia University Press.
Tuckman, H. P. (1998). Competition, commercialization, and the evolution of nonprofit
organizational structures. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 175-194.
Urban Institute (1983). Serving community needs The nonprofit sector in an era of governmental
retrenchment. Nonprofit Sector Project Progress Report no. 3.
Van Auken, H., Fry, F., & Stephens, P. (2006). The influence of role models on entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11, 157– 167.
doi:10.1142/S1084946706000349
van der Sluis, J., van Praag, M., & Vijverberg, W. (2008). Education and Entrepreneurship
Selection and Performance: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Journal Of Economic
Surveys, 22(5), 795-841.
Wang, C. K., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of students in Singapore.
Technovation, 24, 163–172. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00016-0
Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R.E., & Mort, G.S.(2010) Sustainability of nonprofit
organizations: An empirical investigation, Journal of World Business, Volume 45, Issue 4,
pgs 346-356, Retrieved from:
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090951609000455)

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 41
Westland, J.C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476-487.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehloer
Wiklund, J., & Shepard, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance:
A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 71- 91.
Wortman, M. S., Jr. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the
empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13, 259-279.
Wu, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial intent,and new venture creation: a test
of a framework in a Chinese context. Ph.D., Virginia Tech.
Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp.
11-39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lukes, M., & Stephan, U. (2012). Nonprofit leaders and for-profit entrepreneurs: Similar people
with different motivation. Ceskoslovenska psychologie, 56(1), 41-55.
De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P.T., van
der Weide, J.G., Wilderom, C. (2005): Leader motives, charismatic leadership, and
subordinates’ work attitude in the profit and voluntary sector. Leadership Quarterly, 16,
17-38.
Merchant, A., Ford, J. B., & Sargeant, A. (2010). Charitable organizations' storytelling influence
on donors' emotions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 754-762.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 50(2), 179-211.

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND PERSONAL TRAITS ON NON-
ORGANIZATION’S ENTREPRENEURSHIP 42
Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior,
and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, research and practice, 95-
124.