Digital Entrepreneurial Intention

1. Statement of Problem
Digital technologies (i.e., combinations of technologies related to social, mobile, analytics, cloud,
Internet of Things (IoT), and platforms, (Vial 2019)) are unique in that re-programmability,
homogeneity of data, and self-referential nature yield a different set of entrepreneurial outcomes as
they are easier to combine to create innovation (i.e., convergence) and enable unprompted change
(i.e., generativity) (Lyytinen et al.2016; Yoo et al. 2010). The uniqueness of digital technologies also
calls attention to the difference between traditional IT capabilities and digital capabilities with the
latter being defined as more appropriate for leveraging technology resources for innovation purposes
(Wiesbo¨ck et al. 2020). The characteristics of digital entrepreneurship outlined above become even
more critical for value creation due to the network externalities that are common for many new
ventures in the digital arena (Steininger et al., 2022). The study has considered following factors of
intention to digital entrepreneurship: social pressure, relational support, innovation, personal attitude ,
creativity, entrepreneurial intention and attitude towards entrepreneurship.

2. Objectives of the study

The main objective of the study is to find out the intention to digital entrepreneurship. In order to
achieve this main objectives:
 To find out the social pressure of entrepreneur
 To find out the relational support of entrepreneur
 To find out the innovation of entrepreneur
 To find out the personal attitude of entrepreneur
 To find out the creativity of entrepreneur
 To find out the entrepreneurial intention
 To find out the attitude towards entrepreneurship
3. Methodology

3.1 Research Approach

This is an exploratory research. The study have used structured questionnaire for data collection. The
study has collected responses from 40 entrepreneurs by non-probability convenience sampling
technique. To analysis the data, the study used frequency analysis reliability, descriptive, correlation
and regression analysis through statistical software SPSS 17.0.This study adopts a quantitative
research method to know intention to digital entrepreneurship.
3.2 Research instrument
The empirical data were collected using a structured questionnaire to understand the intention of
digital entrepreneurship in Chittagong. The study has used structured questionnaire which has two
parts where first part includes research related information as social pressure, relational support,
innovativeness, personal attitude, creativity, entrepreneurial intention and attitude toward
entrepreneurship. All constructs have collected from previous entrepreneur literature. Second part
also contains demographical information of entrepreneur such as age, gender, education and starting
capital. The study also used 7 point Likert scale, where 1=Strongly disagreed, 2= Somewhat
disagreed, 3= Disagreed, 4= Neutral, 5=Agreed, 6= Somewhat agreed & 7 = Strongly agreed.

3.3 Data collection

The population of the study is entrepreneur of Chittagong. Based on the 40 respondent, 62.5% are
female and 32.5% are male, reflecting the over representation of women than men (Chambers et al.,
2017; Pritchard & Morgan, 2017). 12.5% respondents are 20 to 30 years old while among them
12.5% are 30 to 40 years and only 7.5% are under 20 years old. Besides this 90% of the respondents
starting capital are below 5 lac taka, 7.5% have 5 to 10 lac taka and only 2.5% have taka 15 lac or
above.
4. Limitations
 Time constraint
 Small sample size
 Respondents not willingly provide information or cooperate
 Lack of experience
5. Literature Review

5.1 SOCIAL PRESSURE

Social or peer pressure can be a consequence of flatter management structures and increased worker
autonomy (Tompkins &Cheney, 1985). Although self-managing teams might experience less
bureaucratic control, they are not free from control because peer pressure can often develop. This kind
of social pressure directs employees’ behavior toward accomplishing organizational objectives
without relying on the bureaucratic hierarchy. Team members develop mechanisms “in concert” to
control their activities (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). However, when peer pressure is high, innovative
team output can be constrained in several ways. First, pressure to act in a particular way can stifle an
individual's intrinsic motivation (Saeed Khanagha et al., 2021)

5.2 RELATIONAL SUPPORT :

Relational capital of the LE also plays an important role on innovation. Relational capital, in this
study context, is defined as the close interaction at the personal level between partners (Kale et al.,
2000).
Studies of relational capital suggest a generally positive effect of being connected to others. Relational
capital results from individuals’ investments, through prior interactions, in building mutual trust and
goodwill, resulting in preferential access to resources through these connections (Adler & Kwon,
2002; Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Kale et al., 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).While relational
capital may also accrue in interactions within teams or alliances (Adner, 2006;Agarwal, Campbell,
Franco, & Ganco, 2016; Groysberg et al., 2008; Huckman & Pisano, 2006; Kapoor & Lee, 2013),

5.3 INNOVATIVENESS :
Innovation has traditionally been connected with entrepreneurship. In 1934, Schumpeter referred to
entrepreneurs as being the engine of innovation. Others have emphasized the relevance of innovation
for new and small firms (e.g., Hsueh and Tu, 2004; Freel and Robson, 2004). In fact, new firms are
not constrained by tradition and they can adopt innovative new models to organize and manage their
activities right from the start (Hsueh and Tu, 2004). Although small size can hamper innovative
activities, newly born firms are typically innovative (Huergo and Jaumandreu, 2004).
Innovation can be defined as the process of introducing new ideas to the firm which result in
increased firm performance(Rogers,2004) The process of innovation in touurism is described as
complex(Cooper,2015)resulting in additional difficulties for small-scale business(Dias et
al.,2021;Hoarau,2014).
Innovation is the process of turning ideas and knowledge into new value through creative thinking.
Innovativeness is an important element of entrepreneurship.(Ozaralli & Rivenburgh,2016).
Innovativeness is the ability and tendency of entrepreneurial leaders to think creatively and recognize
opportunities to produce novel and practical ideas, create new markets, introduce new products and
services (Chen 2007; Gupta et al. 2004). Research findings have provide evidence that innovation is a
primary motive in starting a new venture and also has a significant impact on venture performance
(Hisrich et al. 2008). Many authors argue that entrepreneurs have significantly higher levels of
innovative characteristic than managers or non-entrepreneurial counterparts (Gürol and Atsan 2006).

5.4 PERSONAL ATTITUDE :

Personal attitude refers to individuals’ perceptions of the personal desirability of performing
entrepreneurial behavior. According to Nicolaides (2011), an attitude towards an act is the degree to
which a person has a favorable or unfavourable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question.
The later authors seem to have derived their views on personal attitudes from Ajzen’s (1991). Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB) model. The TPB pre-supposes that individuals’ attitudes towards certain
actions are subjective conscious phenomena.In the context of entrepreneurship, PA, therefore,
refers to the degree to which individuals hold a positive or negative valuation towards entrepreneurial
behavior (Miralles, Riverola & Giones, 2012). As such, it is both a mental affair that deeply lies
within oneself. At the same time, the environment can also influence it. In summary, personal attitude
is a mentally prepared state for any known subject.

5.5 CREATIVITY :
Exposure to others’ creativity also enhances creativity. Amabile and Pillemer (2012) emphasize
social-environmental influences on creativity and defend a comprehensive view
of individual creative behaviour in social context. Seelig (2012) also argues that one’s immediate
surroundings significantly influence innovation and creativity.
Creativity is an important component of individual cognitive processing, and has the ability to
generate new and valuable ideas by recombining and matching information and knowledge(Zhang
and Zhang, 2018).
The divergence in the academic circle on the definition of creativity is wide. There are more than 100
definitions of creativity in various literatures (Meusburger,2009).
With the emergence of entrepreneurship, many scholars associate creativity with entrepreneurship
because creativity is particularly crucial for entrepreneurial activities, and entrepreneurship itself is a
creative activity(Shi et al.,2020)

5.6 ENTREPRENEURAL INTENTION :

The study of entrepreneurial intention is a rapidly developing area of research (Liñán and Fayolle,
2015) and research suggests that entrepreneurial intention is an important precursor in becoming an
entrepreneur (Zhao et al., 2010). Intention is a key antecedent of action, and the study of
entrepreneurial intention can deepen people’s understanding of entrepreneurial cognition and behavior
patterns. The formation of entrepreneurial intention is the product of the interaction between
individuals and the environment, and its relative research focuses more on the influencing factors of
entrepreneurial intention (Sun et al., 2011)

5.7 ATTITUDE TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP:

Attitude toward a behavior refers to “the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable
evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 188). In the entrepreneurship
context, attitude toward self-employment has been defined as “the difference between perceptions of
personal desirability in becoming self-employed and organizationally employed” (Souitaris, Zerbinati,
& Al-Laham, 2007, p. 570). For Liñán and Chen (2009, p. 596), “attitude toward start-up is the degree
to which the individual holds a positive or negative personal valuation about being an entrepreneur.”
Theorists have argued for a distinction between two components of attitude: affective/experiential
attitude, on the one hand, referring to feelings or emotions (e.g., joy, satisfaction), and drives
engendered by the prospect of performing a behavior; and instrumental/cognitive attitude, on the other
hand, referring to beliefs, thoughts, or rational arguments (Ajzen, 1991; Fernandes & Proença, 2013;
French et al., 2005; Goethner et al., 2009; Kraft, Rise, Sutton, & Roysamb, 2005; Lawton, Conner, &
Parker, 2007; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003; Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998; Yan, 2014).

6. Research proposed Model

Social
pressure
ATE(Attitude
toward
entrepreneur
ship)
Relationa
support
Personal
attitude

innovativ
eness
7. Findings
7.1 Reliability

List of Average Cronbach's Alpha No of Items

Average of SP .755 5

Average of RS .744 5

Average of IN .881 5

Average of PA .763 3

Average of CT .918 9

Average of EI .804 6

Average of ATE .727 5

Valid N (listwise) 40

7.2 Descriptives
AGE
 Frequency Percent

Less than 20 years 3 7.5

20 years to less than 30 years 31 77.5

30 years to less than 40 years 5 12.5

40 Years or Above 1 2.5

Total 40 100.0

Gender

Gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Male 15 37.5 37.5 37.5

Female 25 62.5 62.5 100.0

Total 40 100.0 100.0

Education :

Frequency Percent

SSC Completed 1 2.5

HSC Completed 12 30.0

Under Graduation Completed 16 40.0

Graduation Completed 11 27.5

Total 40 100.0

Starting capital

Frequency Percent

Below 5 lac Taka 36 90.0

5 Lac to 10 Lac Taka 3 7.5

Above 15 Lac Taka 1 2.5

Total 40 100.0

7.3 Correlation
 Correlations

Average of Average of Average of Average of Average of Average of Average of

SP RS IN PA CT EI ATE

Average of Pearson 1
SP Correlation

Average of Pearson .521** 1

RS Correlation

Average of IN Pearson .212 .535** 1

Correlation

Average of Pearson .297 .636** .600** 1

PA Correlation

Average of Pearson .102 .329* .696** .673** 1

CT Correlation

Average of EI Pearson .164 .359* .489** .527** .679** 1

Correlation

Average of Pearson .084 .456** .362* .695** .641** .471**

ATE Correlation

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

 7.4 Regression

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .794a .630 .563 .47795

a. Predictors: (Constant), Average of EI, Average of SP, Average of IN, Average of PA, Average of RS, Average
of CT

ANOVAb

Model Sum ofCoefficients

Squares a df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 12.826 6
Standardized 2.138 .000a
9.357 Accepted/

Residual 7.538
Unstandardized Coefficients 33
Coefficients .228 Rejected

Model Total B 20.364

Std. Error 39
Beta t Sig.

a. Predictors: (Constant),
1 (Constant) 2.679 Average of EI, Average of SP, Average of IN,4.068
.659 Average of PA, Average of
.000
RS, Average
Average of SPof CT -.173 .124 -.175 -1.400 .171
b. Dependent
Average of RS Variable:
.244Average of ATE
.127 .325 1.927 .063

Average of IN -.324 .130 -.412 -2.483 .018

Average of PA .278 .121 .411 2.308 .027

Average of CT .455 .158 .581 2.884 .007

Average of EI -.022 .120 -.027 -.183 .856

a. Dependent Variable: Average of ATE