Index

Table of contents
chapter Plan:
Chapter I:
a)Introduction
b)Objectives of the study
c)Review of Literature
d)Research Methodology
e)Limitations of the Study
Chapter II: Detailed study about the theme
Chapter III: Analysis and Interpretation of data
Chapter IV: Conclusions and Recommendations
Bibliography
Chapter I
A. INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have categorized generation into six broad classifications

i.e., Veterans/builders/traditionalists, baby-boomers, Generation X,
Generation Y/ Millennial, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha/ Facebook
generation. These different generations have different behavioral traits which
outline their workplace preferences and expectations and where they bring
unique benefits to the organization they also place different demands.
(Struckell, 2019) define millennial as technology savvy generation and
explained the characteristics of millennial i.e. narcissism, overconfidence,
impatience, low trust, work-life balance etc. As explained by (Otieno &
Nyambegera, 2019) generation Z differ from their ancestors i.e. millennial in
characteristics e.g. they are highly determined, involved, goal oriented, value
adaptability and flexibility etc. As there is a constant flux in the generational
shift at the workplace, old approaches of people management are also going
out dated and global changes are now paving the way for new generation Z
(Tang, 2019) that are considered as absolutely different from previous
generations in every aspect. Several researches suggested that they become
important as they have a significant impact on socio-economic, cultural, and
political factors and also changing global dynamics are shaping their
behaviors and values. Hence there are numerous factors and predictors of
behavioral intentions towards entrepreneurship. Most studied factors are
social norms, attitude toward career choice, perceived behavioral control,
entrepreneurial opportunities, entrepreneurial education, legacy, and risk etc.
As several studies paid considerable attention to technology adoption and
innovation by Generation Z and their infusion in the markets and businesses
however a few studies focused on entrepreneurial intentions of these digital
natives (Titko, Svirina, Skvarciany, & Shina, 2020). The millennial and post
millennial generation brings a different set of traits with them that require
new dynamics in the organizational settings (Otieno & Nyambegera, 2019).
Moreover, past studies mostly focus on the attitude of the millennial
generation towards entrepreneurship, while there are hardly any studies
which consider the intentions of Generation Z or both towards
entrepreneurship. Most of the previous studies focus on the difference
between the behavioral intentions of different generations and the most
studied generation is millennials who are considered as digital natives. Early
studies frequently emphasize on the factors that contributed towards the
success of an individual as an entrepreneur (Mohd, Tuan, & Mamun, 2019).
However, this paper focuses on behavioral intentions of generation Z towards
entrepreneurship as they either already entered their prime years or are going
to enter in a few years, hence it is important to study their values and
differences in their preferences as they are going to take offices and business.
Besides, the HDR 2019 report by UNDP indicates that youth comprises 64
percent of the total population of Pakistan. As youth is considered as the
backbone of a country and has the power to change a country’s future, it also
makes it imperative to study this generation’s attitude that will contribute to
the country's economy in future. The topic of entrepreneurship is not only
significant to us and Gen-Z but also to the academic society and therefore the
study will engender a fresh perspective in terms of Gen-Z intentions. To
summarize, we are embarking to advance the literature of entrepreneurship
and generations by considering Gen-Z intentions towards entrepreneurship in
a South Asian context. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the
literature review section, construct definitions, theoretical background and
hypothesis are developed. In the methodology section, the procedure and
inferential techniques are addressed. And finally, the paper discusses the
results and implications

B. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The present study is an attempt to explore and analyze the entrepreneurial
intentions of Gen-Z. Since technological advancement and emergence of new
business models has enabled individuals to be their own boss. Youth are
considered the backbone of a country and play a vigorous role in the
development of a country. Unlike other countries, Pakistani youth comprises
more than half of the country’s population. Therefore, the current study
intends to determine the effect of particular entrepreneurial traits on
behavioral intention of youth or Generation Z of Pakistan towards
entrepreneurship. To achieve these objectives, a positivism research paradigm
with deductive reasoning was applied. For the purpose of data collection
self-administered questionnaires were distributed by using Non-probabilistic
sampling technique. Initially 400 questionnaires were distributed among
University Students and after careful scrutiny only 300 were considered as a
sample of the study. Several statistical tests were applied by using SPSS and
SmartPLS. Results revealed that attitude and perceived behavioral control are
significantly associated with entrepreneurial intentions of youth while social
norms exhibit insignificant impact. However self-efficacy reveals a
significant mediating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial
opportunity and entrepreneurial intentions. Further, theoretical, and practical
implications are presented to understand the relationship

C. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Research on Millennials and Generation Z In addition to our study of student

personalities, we also examine the effects of two generational cohorts on
attitudes towards group projects. A large majority of students in our 2005-07
sample were Millennials as Institutional Research records indicate that most
of these students were born between 1982 and 1988. In contrast, over 70% of
students in our 2017-18 sample are Generation Z, the generation that has
mostly replaced Millennials in undergraduate college programs (Seemiller &
Grace, 2016). The date range that defines Millennials varies substantially
from source to source. Most researchers indicate that the generation began in
the late 1970s or 1980 and that the generation ended in the mid-1990s
(Carson, 2005). The group born in or after 1995 is known by many different
names including iGen, Generation Z, and Gen Z. This group is generally seen
as a new generation, not a subset of the Millennials. Generation Z has not yet
had the same amount of attention from researchers as Millennials. However,
there are a number of studies by research and consulting firms that provide
some information about this new generation. According to Beall (2017), this
group already has a significant influence on our culture and markets. They
represent the group that will likely decide the future of educational
institutions in this country as they make up most of our college students today
and will represent most of the traditional college student market for the next
decade. During the Great Recession, Generation Z children saw the impact of
the financial crisis on their families and their neighbors. They are worried
about the financial consequences of their decisions, particularly student loan
debt. To achieve their personal and financial goals, Generation Z students are
also more willing to give up their privacy than earlier generations to be
successful in college. Morrison (2017) writes that 76% of Gen Z students said
that closer monitoring of their work by the university would reduce college
dropout rates, and 91% said that they approve of t heir university using
analytics to track their weekly progress. Thus, Generation Z would welcome
interventions by their professors or the university to ensure better
educational outcomes. For Gen Z students, studying in college is not just a
way to get a d field, but a launch pad to a successful career (Josuweit,
2018)

D. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The questions measuring attitudes towards group projects were developed

after consultation with 24 marketing research students. A total of 10
statements were created and tested by the marketing research students with
the help of their professor. To avoid creating a response set, about half of the
statements were phrased as positives such as, “I enjoy the camaraderie of
working with other group members.” Others were phrased as negatives,
“Group projects waste a great deal of time.” Students’ responses were
collected using a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (score of 1) to
strongly agree (score of 5). The negative statements are not reversed in the
analyses that follow. Instead, high agreement with negative statements means
that students have negative attitudes towards group projects. The
questionnaire for this study includes a copyrighted scale by the TRACOM
Group for the measurement of assertiveness and responsiveness, and social
styles. This scale consists of a series of 30 bipolar opposite descriptors using
a 4-point semantic differential scale.The questionnaire was administered in
marketing and operations classes in two AACSB accredited business schools.
A total of 549 students completed a questionnaire for the project. There were
303 surveys collected between 2005 and 2007, and 246 surveys were
collected in the 2017-18 academic year. Students received bonus points for
completing the survey. The response rate varied by class and by year. The
response rate for the earlier sample was about 87%, while it was about 80%
for the later sample for an average response rate for both samples of about
84%.

E. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1) This research study shows that student attitudes towards team projects in
business classes have changed significantly since 2005-07. The student
sample from 2017-18 appears to be more anxious than the earlier cohort “…
because (they) fear that group members will not produce up to …
expectations,” are a little less likely to enjoy the camaraderie in team projects
and are more likely to believe that “Group projects bring out the worst in
people.” Concern about the contributions of others have been identified in
this study as the Fear Factor.
2)These findings are consistent with earlier research findings regarding
Generation Z (Bridgeworks, 2017). These students want to ensure that their
college education provides value for the money they spend on tuition and
other education-related expenses (Beall, 2017). For this reason, all class
activities/assignments are evaluated in terms of the educational value they
provide. If class assignments result in inequities in the contributions of team
members, Gen Z is more likely to be dissatisfied than earlier cohorts.
While Generation Z students are more concerned about accountability and
recognition of their individual contributions in group projects, these issues
have been discussed in business education research for the last 20 years.
Additionally, business educators must be attentive to student concerns about
“the learning” achieved by participating in group projects. In both our early
and later samples, students were almost equally divided in terms of agreeing
or disagreeing with the statement, “I learn more on group projects than when
I study for exams” (overall mean for both samples 3.0 on a Likert scale from
1 to 5). Bacon’s research (2016) provides further support for the argument
that many students don’t learn very much when participating in team projects.
Chapter II
● According to a recent Nielsen study, about 54% of Gen Z indicated they
wanted to start their own company. These want-to-be entrepreneurs indicated
control, debt-free, a purposeful life and being good to the planet were driving
their entrepreneurial ambitions. And that’s not all. A significant portion of the
Gen Z demographic is having second thoughts about whether college, and its
debt/cost, is necessary to accomplish their goals.

● Gen Z is becoming more open to doing college differently or not going at

all, according to a new study by TD Ameritrade. The study surveyed over
3,000 U.S. teens and adults, including approximately 1,000 Gen Z (ages 15 to
21), 1,000 young Millennials (ages 22 to 28), and 1,000 parents (ages 30 to
60). About one in five Gen Z and young Millennials say they may choose not
to go to college. Many others see a less conventional path through education
as a good idea.

● Over 30% of Gen Z, and 18% of young Millennials, said they have
considered taking a gap year between high school and college. What’s more,
89% of Gen Z, along with nearly 79% of young Millennials, have considered
an education path that looks different from a four-year degree directly out of
high school. For Millennials, that’s up 18% from 2017. More and more Gen
Z are considering a gap year. Based on rapidly rising technology and “digital
nomad” jobs, companies are stepping up and beginning to provide work
specific skills.

● Companies are now moving into the role of educator to train people for the
specific jobs they'll be doing and keeping their skills relevant as jobs change,
too. Firms like Google, Adobe, Hubspot, Microsoft and others offer students
inexpensive or free certifications that actually provide job skills training.
Something unusual is also beginning to happen. Gen Z students are asking
corporate recruiters whether companies will help them get new skills to do
their job. With Generation Z in mind, AT&T, Apple, Adobe and others are
making job and skill training a high priority.

● The other option is to experiment with either a gap year or working in a

valuable job to gain early work experience to figure out what they might want
to pursue as a career. Working right away is hardly an all-or-nothing choice.
If you've worked for a few years after high school and it isn't right for you,
going to college is still an option. The same holds true for a gap year, where
you could combine work, travel and volunteering to learn more about what
matters to you. And going to college later is no big deal. Plenty of programs
at a variety of institutions, from community college to Ivy League
universities, offer a gap year and also offer financial and other support for
"mature" students. In 2018, about 7.6 million students were 25 years old and
over, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. That’s over
30% of all college students in the USA

● If you combine the aspiration of wanting to start a company and the

questions of whether you need a college education, here are some benefits of
not going to college immediately after high school.

1. Perspective of a gap year. Who actually knows exactly want you

want for a career at the age of eighteen? A gap year could be that
perfect perspective on learning what matters to you.

2. Next generation skills. Quite a few employees are looking beyond a

college degree and looking for certain certifications and skills. If
you know how to utilize these next generation tools, you will be
valuable.
 3. Valuable work experience. If you have never had a professional job
before, learning what that looks like is invaluable. And if you
combine that experience with next generation tools or skills, it’s a
double win.

4. Income, no debt. Working right away after high school in a

professional setting will provide you with an income, no debt and
the ability to learn what you might actually be good at in terms of a
career.

5. Value and not time. Digital nomads have proven you don’t need to
be at a company location to be valued. It’s about getting the job
done and so working remotely is a viable option.

6. Go to college with purpose. Going to college after a few years of

valuable work experience allows you to gain knowledge, become
more mature and actually go through college with a real purpose.

Generation(s) and marketing strategy

As explained previously, to be more effective, companies should move

beyond birth date and the chronological age perspective. When assigning
consumers to a generation, marketing managers should be aware of the
different possible levels of analysis. Limiting oneself to biological age may
be risky. Marketing strategists may also approach consumers from other
possible angles: social age, cognitive age, subjective age, personal age, and
‘other-perceived’ age (Barak & Schiffman, 1981). Social age is based on
consumers’ status and roles in the society in which they evolve. Cognitive
age corresponds to the age individuals attribute to themselves. Subjective age
is the age group in which consumers place themselves (for instance,
middle-aged, elderly, or old). Perceived age is four-dimensional: feel age
(how old consumers feel), look age (how old consumers look), do age (linked
to involvement in actions), and interest age (related to the similarity of
consumers’ interests to other age groups). Barak (1987) also includes group
referral, the identification with generational groups, to apprehend cognitive
age better. This framework calls for nuance and precision in the development
of marketing strategy and implementation of an appropriate marketing mix.

Let us take the example of a company targeting baby boomers, who are now
considered as seniors. The term ‘baby boomers’ refers to the generation born
following World War II, i.e. from 1946 to 1964 (Roberts & Manolis, 2000).
Since these consumers were born at a time of increasing birth rates, they now
comprise a significant proportion of the members of western societies,
contributing to an aging population. This generation is characterized by a
very high average disposable income, thus attracting marketers (Paul, 2003).
However, when targeting baby boomers, marketing deciders cannot limit
their vision of this segment to their chronological age. Instead, they should
adopt a multidimensional perspective, integrating the different dimensions
defined above. At this level, gerontographics may reveal insights into this
generation, as its approach is based on the grey generation’s psychographics
and lifestyles, providing details of needs, attitudes, and behaviors (Moschis,
1996). Companies may associate their products with semiotic cues conveying
denotations and/or connotations of the dynamism and youth sought by this
generation. When designing advertising campaigns, they may also use
relatively young characters and make sure that themes such as vitality, action
and family are present in the scenario, but also consider some of the
psychological, sociological, and behavioral features characterizing the
generation that contribute to their intra-generational consistency
(Bourcier-Béquaert & de Barnier, 2010).

Beyond baby boomers, other generational cohorts have retained the attention
of marketing researchers. Generation Z is the generational cohort of
consumers born between 1995 and the late 2000s (Posnick-Goodwin, 2010).
In 2017, this group is 22 years old or younger. They are also known as ‘Gen
Next,’ ‘Gen I,’ or ‘Echo Bust.’ This market segment includes the most
educated, mobile, and connected consumers to date (Babin & Harris, 2016).
Generation Z members are also socially conscious, tech-savy, particularly
innovative and permanently looking for change. They are continuously
connected through smartphones, tablets, and the Internet of Things. They are
highly tolerant, have great self-esteem, and are perplexed by violence and
adult content in the media. They prefer written communication forms to oral
ones. Finally, they have access to more information than any other
generational cohort (Kardes, Cronley, & Cline, 2014)

Chapter III
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA- ATTITUDE OF
GENERATION Z TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The current work uses PLS-SEM (Partial Least Square-Structured Equation

Modelling) to analyse the data as it is most widely applied in research of
management sciences because it allows researchers to estimate complex
models with numerous constructs and paths without enforcing any
distributional assumptions to the records. Also it provides comprehensive
methods to test and analyse the results of a selected study (Joseph F. Hair,
Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). The first of the valuation of PLS-SEM
outcomes involves the examination of measurement models. After which
further robustness checks are run to check the validity of the results.
1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

As other statistical models provide with some rules of thumbs, PLS-SEM

also provide some guidelines that serve as the threshold values to statistical
tests. While Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency reliability is the most
widely accepted reliability indicator however composite reliability is
considered more viable criteria for testing internal consistency as shown in
table 1. Usually, the acceptable alpha value lies 0.7 to 0.9.

Validity analysis of the present study has conducted the confirmatory

factor analysis of the partial least square-PLS, model fit construct
measurement test, discriminant validity and convergent validity. As the
composite reliability is always higher to that of Cronbach’s Alpha’s value the
threshold value is considered significant if it is less than or equal to 0.95. For
AVE the rule of thumb value is more than or equal to 0.5, considered as
significant.

TABLE 1

CONSTRUCT RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

A Rho_A CR AVE

Attitude towards 0.780 0.811 0.849 0.536

Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurial 0.818 0.821 0.868 0.525

Intentions

Entrepreneurial 0.837 0.839 0.880 0.551

Opportunities
 Perceived 0.802 0.815 0.858 0.503
Behavioural Control

Self-Efficacy 0.821 0.822 0.870 0.527

Social Norms 0.777 0.798 0.899 0.817

2. Discriminant Validity

In order to check the discriminant validity there are the several criterions
among which Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) value is the most
recommended. The HTMT value for the conceptually similar constructs is
recommended as <0.9 while conceptually different constructs it resulted in
significant as <0.85. Hence the results of the test validate the disciminant
validity of the construct as shown in Table 2

TABLE 2

HTMT CRITERION

AT EI EO PBC SE SN

AT 1 - - - - -

EI 0.704 1 - - - -

EO 0.809 0.679 1 - - -

PBC 0.728 0.695 0.810 1 - -

SE 0.822 0.808 0.715 0.813 1 -

SN 0.673 0.477 0.722 0.810 0.561 1

3. Hypothesis Test

The path coefficient indicates the strength and direction of the relationships.
The table: 5.3 reveal the significance of positive influence of indicators. P
values in each case lies0.000, 0.001, 0.044 and 0.041 which all are <0.05.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESIS TEST

β SD t-values p-values

EO->SE 0.600 0.055 10.983 0.001

AT->EI 0.116 0.068 1.713 0.000

PBC->EI 0.106 0.080 1.327 0.044

SE->EI 0.580 0.078 7.420 0.000

SN->EI -0.003 0.045 0.072 0.041

4. Structural Equation Modelling (T-statistics)

The graphical presentation of t-statistics among hypothesized relationships

under the structural model are presented in the below diagram.

5. R-Squared value of the model

R-squared also known as coefficient of determination is a statistical

measure used in regression that is used to indicate the proportion of
variance on dependent variable which could be explained by the
independent variable as shown in Table 4. The P-value of 0 or greater
indicates the positive association.
 TABLE 4

R-SQUARED VALUE

B SD T-STATS P-VALUES

EI 0.549 0.054 10.157 0.000

SE 0.360 0.066 5.491 0.000

Chapter IV
CONCLUSION

To conclude, the study investigated the influence of certain variables e.g.,

attitude, perceived behavioral control, social/subjective norms, and
opportunities, on behavioral intent of youth towards entrepreneurship. This
study explored how these factors influence the intention to start a new
venture. Three out of four variables found to positively impact the intentions
of youth to enterprise. As predicted the results reveal that the majority of
Gen-Z individuals are intended to become entrepreneurs. The practical
repercussions of current study provide a meaningful understanding to
academic, progressive scholars and professionals who are interested in
understanding the pre-startup behaviors in venture creation. The study also
suggested ways to promote the involvement in start-ups. Also, the study
contributes towards the theory of TBP by expanding its practice and
including the opportunity factor to it that has a positive impact on aspiration
of young entrepreneurs. Overall, the authors are assured about the
contributions it made towards literature and suggested a need for future study
that will contribute to the better understanding of context.
RECOMMENDATIONS

The present work is centered on Gen-Z intentions towards entrepreneurship,

future studies may consider the Gen-Y and Facebook generation. A
comparative analysis may also provide better insights towards
entrepreneurship intentions. For potential studies It is important to determine
the validity of the current model and outcomes across the times regardless of
the youth from urban or rural areas. Further it will be of great interest to take
a deeper insight of other impelling factors like psychological capital, risk
propensity, business education, technological factors etc. that can impact the
behavioral intention to start a venture. Hence the study recommends future
scholars to study these factors in relation with the availability of resources
towards pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Besides the study uses
quantitative methods to investigate the aspects, however future studies may
add with qualitative methods like interviews and conduct open-ended
questionnaires so that these behavioral intentions towards entrepreneurship
can be studied deeply.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
● https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348404056_D
etermining_the_Entrepreneurial_Intentions_of_Youth_G
eneration_Z_A_Study_of_Youth_Intent_towards_Entre
preneurship
● https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernhardschroeder/2020/0
2/18/a-majority-of-gen-z-aspires-to-be-entrepreneurs-an
d-perhaps-delay-or-skip-college-why-that-might-be-a-g
ood-idea/
● https://www.wikipedia.com
● https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packag
ed-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-imp
lications-for-companies