Exploring entrepreneurial personality traits, motivation, and entrepreneurial success in the urban poor community
Rohana Ngah1
Noor Faizah Mohd Lajin2*
Hardy Loh Rahim3
Mohd Ali Bahari Abdul Kadir4
1,2,3Department of Entrepreneurship & Marketing, Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Puncak Alam, Selangor, 42300 Malaysia. |
AbstractThis paper studies the effect of entrepreneurial personality traits on the entrepreneurial success of entrepreneurs from underprivileged communities in Malaysia. The poor from the underprivileged community were encouraged to be self-employed as they are marginalized in terms of employability. In this study, a quantitative approach to the face-to-face survey was administered using a simple random sampling method among entrepreneurs from the urban poor community. A total of ninety-four usable questionnaires were then used for data analysis. A partial least square structural equation modeling technique was used to investigate the relationship between entrepreneurial personality traits and entrepreneurial success. The findings revealed that entrepreneurial personality traits positively affected entrepreneurial success, where entrepreneurial motivation prevailed as a vital mediator in the relationship. Interestingly, opportunity motivation positively impacted entrepreneurial success compared to necessity motivation. Based on these findings, entrepreneurial personality traits are important to ensure the success of any business venture. On top of it, the urban poor entrepreneurs are embarking on business because of opportunity, which would help them to be more resilient, innovative, and creative to create sustainable business ventures. This study contributes to the literature by growing understanding of entrepreneurship in different groups of society. The study offers insights into how relevant government agencies can develop suitable entrepreneurial training and assistance that support and encourage urban poor entrepreneurship for these entrepreneurs to remain sustainable and successful. |
Licensed: |
|
Keywords: JEL Classification: |
|
Received: 13 November 2023 |
|
(* Corresponding Author) |
Funding: This research is supported by Universiti Teknologi MARA (Grant number: 600-RMC/GPK 5/3 (150/2020)). |
Institutional Review Board Statement: The Ethical Committee of the Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia has granted approval for this study on 1 October 2022 (Ref. No. REC/10/2022 (ST/MR/217)). |
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. |
Data Availability Statement: The corresponding author may provide study data upon reasonable request. |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Authors’ Contributions: The selection of units of analysis, data processing, and presentation of articles, R.N.; data analysis, H.L.R.; data collection, data presentation and article templates, N.F.M.L.; data analysis and data processing, M.A.B.A.K.; data management, R.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. |
1. Introduction
The substantial rural-urban migration has created a new phenomenon in cities, especially in terms of economic disparities between rich and poor (Wan, Zhang, & Zhao, 2022). Urban poverty has become more visible in Malaysia in the last decade or so, especially in significant cities, as urbanization weighs on the less able financially (Daros, 2019). On many occasions, rural people have migrated to the cities without proper qualifications, and their employment prospects have resulted in them earning low incomes (NST, 2019), which constitutes the urban poor. Urban poverty issues have become the primary concern. Malaysia had reduced poverty from 52.4% in 1970 to 5.7% in 2004, but visible pockets of urban poverty are often neglected (Ridzwan & Idris, 2018). During the COVID19 pandemic, the unemployment rate soared when many people, especially those in poor communities, left without sufficient financial support (UNICEF, 2021). Entrepreneurship is the way to help the poor in urban areas escape poverty (Si, Ahlstrom, Wei, & Cullen, 2020). But entrepreneurship is for everybody. Entrepreneurship has become an option to escape unemployment. Necessity has become the main reason for entrepreneurship, but opportunity-based entrepreneurship also plays a vital role in enticing new entrepreneurs (Mota, Braga, & Ratten, 2019). However, the sustainability and success of entrepreneurial activities among entrepreneurs in poor urban communities have yet to be discovered or documented. Their characteristics and personality traits should be researched to better understand their needs and requirements. In fact, entrepreneurial personality traits have been widely researched, but the impact on necessity for entrepreneurs in the poor urban community is unknown. In addition, entrepreneurial motivation is another element that influences entrepreneurial success (Shi & Wang, 2021) and should be explored in the community. Therefore, this study explores the impact of entrepreneurial personality traits and motivation on the entrepreneurial success of poor urban communities.
Furthermore, entrepreneurial personality traits only focus on proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness (Linton, 2019). However, studies of entrepreneurial personality traits do not include opportunity motivation (Kerr, Kerr, & Xu, 2018) even though necessity entrepreneurs are also opportunists. In addition, entrepreneurial motivation and the need for achievement, social environment, and government support have been investigated separately, even though their existence should be regarded collectively (Barba-Sánchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2017). Therefore, in exploring the study, the impact of entrepreneurial motivation, necessity, and opportunity should be considered. In this study, the entrepreneurial motivation of opportunity and necessity is explored in the relationship between entrepreneurial personality traits and entrepreneurial success.
The remainder of the study consists of five sections. The literature review is illustrated in Section 2, where the relationship between variables is discussed in detail. Section 3 describes the research design and methodology. Then, in Section 4, the analysis and the results are presented and discussed, respectively. Section 5 reports the study’s main implications and limitations, representing future research directions.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Entrepreneurship and Urban Poverty
Urban poverty is typically characterized in two ways: as an absolute standard based on the least amount of income necessary to maintain a healthy and minimally pleasant life and as a relative standard based on the average of a country's standard of living (McDonald & McMillen, 2010). Low agency (or the ability to make choices for oneself), low standards of living, and limited mobility can also be seen as vulnerability, which can transcend a monetary and temporal definition. In Malaysia, the urban poor can be categorized as having a relative standard due to the high cost of living. Poverty is mainly associated with a lack of income, and individuals whose income level falls below the minimum basic human needs are considered poor (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020). Massive rural-urban migration necessitated by industrialization and rapid urbanization caused the emergence of a new social class: the "new poor" or "urban poor" (Khoo, Samsurijan, Gopal, Malek, & Hamat, 2018). The traditional approach to measuring poverty has focused solely on income, with poor and non-poor households distinguished by a poverty line income (PLI). According to the Household Income Survey (HIS) 2016 (Economic Planning Unit, 2018), the PLI for urban poverty was determined to be RM960 for Peninsular Malaysia, RM1,180 for Sabah and Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan, and RM1,020 for Sarawak.
2.2. Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success
Numerous factors influence the choice to start a business (Otache, 2019). On the one hand, people's entrepreneurial attitudes and traits influence the choice. Research has indicated that personality attributes such as innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness influence individuals' decisions to become entrepreneurs (Smith, Sardeshmukh, & Combs, 2016; Solesvik, Westhead, & Matlay, 2014). The study of business owners' personality traits has been linked to both the rise of entrepreneurship and achieving entrepreneurial goals (Rauch & Frese, 2000). Numerous researchers (Salmony & Kanbach, 2022) have studied entrepreneurial personality traits in relation to the emergence of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial success (Rauch & Frese, 2000). Previous studies have shown mixed findings on the impact of entrepreneurial personality on entrepreneurial success (Kerr et al., 2018).
The three most often researched personality traits were the internal locus of control, risk-taking, and the drive for achievement (Cao, Asad, Wang, Naz, & Almusharraf, 2022). Desire for success The idea of accomplishment motivation was connected to economic growth and development by McClelland (1961). Frey (1984) endorsed the conclusion that economic progress follows a nation's thirst for achievement. According to Cooper and Gimeno-Gascon (1992) review, the success of small-scale firms was positively correlated with the demand for achievement in three of the four investigations. According to one study, personality traits can evolve. Training programs can boost employee enthusiasm and improve company performance (Li, Huang, & Gao, 2022).
H1: Entrepreneurial Personality Traits have a positive relationship with entrepreneurial success.
2.3. Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Motivation
Personality characteristics strongly influence entrepreneurial motivation (Awwad & Al-Aseer, 2021). Different entrepreneurs have different characteristics (Zhang, Wang, & Zhao, 2022). It is observed that personality strongly influences motivation and persistence significantly (Caliendo, Goethner, & Weißenberger, 2020). It was shown that those who failed in business had a low psychological commitment to their endeavours (Pan, Tsai, Popan, & Chang, 2022). However, Chu (2000) found that entrepreneurs' personalities did not influence their motivation, regardless of gender.
H2a: Entrepreneurial Personality Traits have a positive relationship with Entrepreneurial Motivation (Necessity).
H2b: Entrepreneurial Personality Traits have a positive relationship with Entrepreneurial Motivation (Opportunity).
2.4. Entrepreneurial Motivation and Entrepreneurial Success
Entrepreneurial motivation is vital to encourage and motivate entrepreneurs toward entrepreneurial success (Ephrem et al., 2021). Entrepreneurial motivation is about the goals that the entrepreneur seeks to achieve by setting up a business (Eijdenberg & Masurel, 2013). According to studies from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), the majority of entrepreneurs in developing nations are essential (Murnieks, Klotz, & Shepherd, 2020). Entrepreneurs who are driven by necessity undertake their business endeavours at random, without both vision and essential resources. Many studies have shown that entrepreneurial personality traits such as the need for achievement, proactiveness, risk-taking, and innovativeness positively impact firm performance (Salmony & Kanbach, 2022). Caliendo, Kritikos, and Stier (2023) emphasized that entrepreneurs who are driven by opportunity tend to be more innovative and creative and can stay ahead of their competitors. According to Hisrich and Peters (2007) successful businesspeople like taking chances, have an internal center of control, and have higher needs for achievement and independence. Nevertheless, a study conducted by Ephrem et al. (2021) failed to find any evidence linking entrepreneurial motivation to success. Moreover, without necessity entrepreneurs are less likely to succeed.
H3a: Entrepreneurial Motivation (Necessity) has a positive relationship with Entrepreneurial Success.
H3b: Entrepreneurial Motivation (Opportunity) has a positive relationship with Entrepreneurial Success.
2.5. Entrepreneurial Personality Traits, Entrepreneurial Motivation, and Entrepreneurial Success
Entrepreneurial Personality Traits would influence entrepreneurial success through mediators such as goals, strategy, and environment (Rauch & Frese, 2000). A study by Otache, Edopkolor, and Kadiri (2022) showed that entrepreneurial motivation significantly mediated individual personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. What determines an entrepreneurs' course of action under the influence of entrepreneurial motivation? However, necessity, entrepreneurs' desire to be successful in business, and their motivation are not fully understood (Crawford, 2018). According to a different study, motivation is a key mediator between company performance and human capital (Chyne & Syngkon, 2022).
H4a: Entrepreneurial Motivation (Necessity) mediates the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success.
H4b: Entrepreneurial Motivation (Opportunity) mediates the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success.
3. Research Methodology
A survey methodology was employed to examine the connections inside the research model. The survey was carried out on a face-to-face basis to ensure respondents understood the questionnaire. The survey was carried out in underprivileged community areas. All items for the study were adopted from various authors; thus, validity was not an issue. All items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale with anchors from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree’’. The questionnaire included items worded with proper negation and a shuffle of the items to reduce the monotony of questions measuring the same construct. A quantitative research design was used in this study to determine the relationship between the independent variable (Entrepreneurial Personality Traits), mediating variable (entrepreneurial motivation), and dependent variable (entrepreneurial success) within a population (entrepreneurs from underprivileged communities) (Morgan, 2014).
4. Results and Discussion
This study involved 94 respondents in total. Although every respondent owns their own company, only 69% of them are formally registered. Details of the respondents are shown in Table 1.
| Item | Frequency |
Percent |
|
| Gender | Male | 18 |
19 |
| Female | 76 |
81 |
|
| Age | Less than 24 | 9 |
9.6 |
| 25 -34 years old | 28 |
29.8 |
|
| 35 -44 years old | 36 |
38.3 |
|
| 45 - 54 years old | 19 |
20.2 |
|
| More than 54 years old | 2 |
2.1 |
|
| Education | High school certificate of education | 60 |
63.8 |
| Professional certificate | 8 |
8.5 |
|
| Diploma | 8 |
8.5 |
|
| Degree | 14 |
14.9 |
|
| Postgrad | 1 |
1.1 |
|
| Others | 3 |
3.2 |
|
| Monthly income | Less than RM2000 | 42 |
44.7 |
| RM2001- RM3000 | 26 |
27.7 |
|
| RM3001 – RM5000 | 17 |
18.1 |
|
| More than RM5000 | 9 |
9.6 |
|
| Occupation | Unemployed | 2 |
2.1 |
| Public sector employee | 4 |
4.3 |
|
| Private sector employee | 14 |
14.9 |
|
| Self-employed | 74 |
78.7 |
|
| Ownership status | Sole proprietorship | 72 |
76.6 |
| Partnership | 11 |
11.7 |
|
| Private limited | 11 |
11.7 |
|
| Note: | RM – Ringgit Malaysia (Malaysian Dollar). |
4.1. Data Analysis
To validate the created measures and test the hypotheses, the Smart PLS 3.0 program (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Gudergan, 2017) was utilized in conjunction with partial least-squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Because PLS-SEM simultaneously analyzes the associations between multi-item latent variables and places an emphasis on prediction in statistical model estimation—a situation where a smaller sample size is acceptable—it is considered appropriate (Hair Jr, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014). Measurement and structural model analysis were the two stages of the data analysis process. Internal consistency, discriminant validity, and item loadings were evaluated using the PLS measurement model. Standardized betas of the path coefficients were used to examine the structural model and hypotheses. The total predictive power of the dependent constructs was evaluated by calculating the explained variance.
4.2. Measurement Model
In order to investigate the loadings, validity, and reliability of the measures used to represent each construct (Chin, 2010) and the methodology of PLS threshold values as recommended by Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) the measurement model, also known as the outer model, presents the outer model results. Each variable's outer loadings revealed good loadings between 0.820 and 0.952. Convergence validity was evaluated using factor loadings, composite reliability, and extracted average variance.
| Variable | Loadings |
CR |
AVE |
| Entrepreneurial success | 0.731 – 0.919 |
0.963 |
0.612 |
| Innovative | 0.770-0.889 |
0.959 |
0.646 |
| Locus control | 0.480-0.942 |
0.708 |
0.485 |
| Need achievement | 0.631 – 0.900 |
0.95 |
0.783 |
| Proactive | 0.788 -0.893 |
0.922 |
0.778 |
| Risk tolerance | 0.830-0.898 |
0.792 |
0.706 |
| Necessity motivation | 0.686 – 0.916 |
0.914 |
0.690 |
| Opportunity motivation | 0.924 – 0.984 |
0.985 |
0.924 |
The composite reliability values in Table 2 indicate that the construct indicators reveal the latent to a greater extent than the suggested value of 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). While the average variance recovered (a measure of the total variation in the indicators that the latent construct accounts for) was higher than the suggested threshold of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2011). As a result, all the variables' and constructions' measures exhibit strong degrees of convergent validity. The heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT), which has been shown to be reliable in assessing discriminant analysis (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015) was selected to assess discriminant validity.
A low correlation between the measure of interest and the measurements of other constructs indicates discriminant validity, which is the degree to which a measure does not reflect another variable (Cheung & Lee, 2010). It was suggested by Henseler et al. (2015) to use the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) to look at discriminant validity because it works better for finding discriminant validity (Ab Hamid, Sami, & Sidek, 2017). Discriminant validity between two reflective constructs has been demonstrated if the HTMT value is less than 0.90. Table 3 demonstrates that all variable values are less than 0.9, establishing discriminant validity.
| Construct | 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| Entrepreneurial success | 0.782 |
|||||||
| Innovative | 0.804 |
|||||||
| Locus control | 0.696 |
|||||||
| Necessity motivation | 0.831 |
|||||||
| Need achievement | 0.885 |
|||||||
| Opportunity motivation | 0.961 |
|||||||
| Proactive | 0.882 |
|||||||
| Risk tolerance | 0.84 |
Therefore, the findings show that the measures' convergent and discriminant validity were appropriate.
4.3. Structural Model
Examining the postulated connections between the elements in the research model is the purpose of the structural model, also known as the inner model (Hair Jr et al., 2017). Figure 1 illustrates how antecedents of entrepreneurial personality traits of entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities accounted for a total of 63.6% of the variance (R²) in entrepreneurial success, indicating a strong predictive explanatory power of variance. When mediating variables were included, the variance explained (R²) was increased to 0.917 as shown in Figure 2. Both Necessity and Opportunity Motivation mediate the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success.
Entrepreneurial Personality Traits have a significant effect on Entrepreneurial Success (β = 0.797, with a t-value of 15.639); therefore, H1 is supported. Entrepreneurial Personality Traits have a significant effect on both the entrepreneurial motivation of necessity (β = 0.689 with a t-value of 11.305) and opportunity with a path (β) coefficient of 0.648 and t-value of 7.708. Entrepreneurial motivation of necessity (β = 0.212 with t-value of 1.650) has no effect on Entrepreneurial Success while Entrepreneurial motivation of opportunity (β = 0.271 with t-value of 2.293) has a significant effect on Entrepreneurial Success. Finally, only Entrepreneurial motivation for opportunity (β = 0.176 with a t-value of 2.102) mediates the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success. Table 4 presents the findings of the total effect and results of the hypotheses.
4.4. Mediation Effect
According to Hair Jr et al. (2014) mediation is the process by which the influence of the independent variable is transferred to the dependent variable. Later, the VAF (variance account for) calculation demonstrates that mediation exists through the motivation of necessity and opportunity between the antecedents and entrepreneurial success.
The model's predictive validity is supported by the high value of 0.743 for the coefficient of determination R² in the case of entrepreneurial success (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). The Q² value of the predictive relevance (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) lends further credence to this conclusion. The predictive relevance of the PLS path model is indicated by the Q² value of Company Performance (0.779), which is significantly higher than zero, following the blindfolding technique (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, 2009) with an omission distance of D 9. The mediation analysis that satisfies the Hair Jr et al. (2014) criteria for evaluating the mediation effect is tested using the total effect through bootstrapping, and the VAF calculation (99%) demonstrates the existence of the mediation impact through Necessity and Opportunity Motivation and Entrepreneurial Success.
| Hypotheses | Path coefficient |
T-statistics |
P-value |
Remark |
| H1: EPT->ES | 0.797 |
15.639 |
0.000 |
Supported |
| H2a: EPT ->NM | 0.689 |
11.305 |
0.000 |
Supported |
| H2b: EPT ->OM | 0.648 |
7.708 |
0.000 |
Supported |
| H3a: NM ->ES | 0.212 |
1.650 |
0.099 |
Not supported |
| H3b: OM ->ES | 0.271 |
2.293 |
0.022 |
Supported |
| H4a: EPT ->NM-> ES | 0.146 |
1.560 |
0.119 |
Not supported |
| H4b: EPT ->OM-> ES | 0.176 |
2.102 |
0.036 |
Supported |
| Note: | EPT – Entrepreneurial personality traits; NM – Necessity motivation; OM – Opportunity motivation; ES- Entrepreneurial success. |
4.5. Discussion
The findings of our analysis reveal nuanced relationships that contribute to a deeper understanding of the dynamics within entrepreneurial endeavours. One notable outcome of our study is the identified relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success. This result aligns with previous research emphasizing the role of individual characteristics in predicting entrepreneurial outcomes (Li et al., 2022). The connection suggests that certain personality traits may serve as catalysts or impediments to entrepreneurial success, thereby underscoring the significance of individual differences in the entrepreneurial context. Our exploration further unveils the mediating role of Entrepreneurial Motivation in the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success. This mediation effect suggests that individuals with specific entrepreneurial traits may be more likely to seize opportunities, consequently enhancing their chances of success. This finding resonates with the idea that motivational factors, particularly those aligned with recognizing and pursuing opportunities, play a pivotal role in entrepreneurial achievement (Willmott, Pang, & Rundle-Thiele, 2021). Interestingly, we observed a lack of a direct relationship between Necessity Motivation and Entrepreneurial Success. This finding contrasts with some prior studies suggesting a positive correlation between necessity-driven entrepreneurship and success (Mota et al., 2019). Our results imply that, while necessity motivation may drive individuals to embark on entrepreneurial ventures, its direct impact on success is not evident.
Identifying Opportunity Motivation as a mediator in the relationship between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Success highlights the critical role of recognizing and pursuing opportunities in achieving entrepreneurial goals. This finding aligns with the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial environments, where the ability to identify and capitalize on opportunities often distinguishes successful ventures from others. Conversely, the absence of a direct relationship between Necessity Motivation and Entrepreneurial Success challenges conventional wisdom regarding the impact of necessity-driven entrepreneurship on success. This calls for a re-evaluation of the role of necessity motivation in the entrepreneurial process and prompts further inquiry into the conditions under which necessity-driven ventures can thrive.
5. Conclusion
The established link between Entrepreneurial Personality Traits and Entrepreneurial Success highlights the enduring importance of individual differences in shaping entrepreneurial journeys. As entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve, acknowledging and harnessing the diverse traits entrepreneurs bring to the table becomes imperative for fostering innovation and sustainable business growth. In conclusion, our study contributes to the evolving field of entrepreneurship research by unravelling the complexities of the relationships between personality traits, motivations, and success. As we explore these dynamics, a richer understanding of the entrepreneurial process emerges, enabling scholars and practitioners to make more informed decisions and interventions in the dynamic and challenging realm of entrepreneurship.
5.1. Limitations
The study has a few limitations. Firstly, the survey was conducted on a site where many disturbances might influence respondents' perceptions of the survey's items. Secondly, the survey provides only generalizations without in-depth descriptions of the related activities of entrepreneurs. Lastly, the study only focused on metropolitan cities where poor urban entrepreneurs compete with well-funded entrepreneurs.
5.2. Future Research
Future research should explore the specific conditions under which different motivational factors may amplify or attenuate the influence of entrepreneurial traits on success. More research should also investigate the influence of personality traits on success, which operates, in part, through the motivational pathway of opportunity recognition and pursuit. This insight provides a more comprehensive understanding of how individual traits contribute to entrepreneurial success.
References
Ab Hamid, M. R., Sami, W., & Sidek, M. M. (2017). Discriminant validity assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker criterion versus HTMT criterion. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing, 890(1), 012163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0441-z
Awwad, M. S., & Al-Aseer, R. M. N. (2021). Big five personality traits impact on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-09-2020-0136
Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2017). Entrepreneurial motivation and self-employment: Evidence from expectancy theory. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-017-0441-z
Caliendo, M., Goethner, M., & Weißenberger, M. (2020). Entrepreneurial persistence beyond survival: Measurement and determinants. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(3), 617-647. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2019.1666532
Caliendo, M., Kritikos, A. S., & Stier, C. (2023). The influence of start-up motivation on entrepreneurial performance. Small Business Economics, 61, 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00722-6
Cao, Y., Asad, M. M., Wang, L., Naz, A., & Almusharraf, N. (2022). Role of personality traits for entrepreneurial intentions of young entrepreneurs: A case study of higher education institution. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 6045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1010412
Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 24-30.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H., Eds., Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer.
Chu, P. (2000). The characteristics of Chinese female entrepreneurs: Motivation and personality. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 8(01), 67-84. Https://Doi.Org/10.1142/S021849580000005X
Chyne, R., & Syngkon, R. A. J. (2022). The mediating effect of motivation on human capital and performance: A study of women entrepreneurs in Meghalaya. Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal, 47(1), 53–63.
Cooper, A. C., & Gimeno-Gascon, F. J. (1992). Entrepreneurs, processes of founding and new firm performance, In: D. Sexton and J. Kasarda, Eds., The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship. In (pp. 301-340). Boston: PWS Publishing Co.
Crawford, A. (2018). Application of the EMA model to tourism entrepreneurs: Motivation as a mediator. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(8), 1254-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348017731129
Daros, R. (2019). The need to battle urban poverty. The Malaysian reserve. Retrieved from https://themalaysianreserve.com/2019/08/22/the-need-to-battle-urban-poverty/
Economic Planning Unit. (2018). Mid-term review of the eleventh Malaysia plan (2016-2020): New priorities and emphases. Putrajaya: Ministry of Economic Affairs.
Eijdenberg, E. L., & Masurel, E. (2013). Entrepreneurial motivation in a least developed country: Push factors and pull factors among MSEs in Uganda. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(01), 19-43. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495813500027
Ephrem, A. N., Nguezet, P. M. D., Charmant, I. K., Murimbika, M., Awotide, B. A., Tahirou, A., . . . Manyong, V. (2021). Entrepreneurial motivation, psychological capital, and business success of young entrepreneurs in the drc. Sustainability, 13(8), 4087. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084087
Frey, R. S. (1984). Does n-achievement cause economic development? A cross-lagged panel analysis of the McClelland thesis. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122(1), 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1984.9713458
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrics, 61(1), 101-107.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121.
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sinkovics, R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advance in International Marketing, 20, 277-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hisrich, R. D., & Peters, M. P. (2007). Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing and managing a new enterprise (7th ed.). Chicago: Irwin McGraw Hill.
Kerr, S. P., Kerr, W. R., & Xu, T. (2018). Personality traits of entrepreneurs: A review of recent literature. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 14(3), 279-356. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24097
Khoo, L. S., Samsurijan, M. S., Gopal, P. S., Malek, N. M., & Hamat, Z. (2018). Urban poverty alleviation strategies from multidimensional and multi-ethnic perspectives: Evidences from Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 36(2), 43-68. https://doi.org/10.21315/km2018.36.2.3
Li, L.-N., Huang, J.-H., & Gao, S.-Y. (2022). The relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention among college students: The mediating role of creativity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 822206. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.822206
Linton, G. (2019). Innovativeness, risk-taking, and proactiveness in startups: A case study and conceptual development. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-019-0147-5
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McDonald, J. F., & McMillen, D. P. (2010). Urban economics and real estate: Theory and policy. Hoboken, N: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045-1053.
Mota, A., Braga, V., & Ratten, V. (2019). Entrepreneurship motivation: Opportunity and necessity. Cham: Springer.
Murnieks, C. Y., Klotz, A. C., & Shepherd, D. A. (2020). Entrepreneurial motivation: A review of the literature and an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 115-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2374
NST. (2019). Dr M: Urban poverty due to rural migration, lack of skills. Retrieved from https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/10/530506/dr-m-urban-poverty-due-rural-migration-lack-skills
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Developing countries and development co-operation: What is at stake? Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/developing-countries-and-development-co-operation-what-is-at-stake-50e97915
Otache, I. (2019). Enhancing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: The role of entrepreneurial lecturers. Education+ Training, 61(7/8), 918-939. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2018-0127
Otache, I., Edopkolor, J. E., & Kadiri, U. (2022). A serial mediation model of the relationship between entrepreneurial education, orientation, motivation and intentions. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(2), 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100645
Pan, L.-Y., Tsai, I.-C., Popan, S.-H., & Chang, S.-C. (2022). Entrepreneurial business start-ups and entrepreneurial failure: How to stand up after a fall? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 943328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943328
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 101-142.
Ridzwan, A., & Idris, A. N. (2018). Urban poor constitute a quarter of KL households. The Edge Financial Daily. Retrieved from https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/399240
Salmony, F. U., & Kanbach, D. K. (2022). Personality trait differences across types of entrepreneurs: A systematic literature review. Review of Managerial Science, 16(3), 713-749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00466-9
Shi, B., & Wang, T. (2021). Analysis of entrepreneurial motivation on entrepreneurial psychology in the context of transition economy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 680296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.680296
Si, S., Ahlstrom, D., Wei, J., & Cullen, J. (2020). Business, entrepreneurship and innovation toward poverty reduction. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(1-2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2019.1640485
Smith, R. M., Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Combs, G. M. (2016). Understanding gender, creativity, and entrepreneurial intentions. Education+ Training, 58(3), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-06-2015-0044
Solesvik, M., Westhead, P., & Matlay, H. (2014). Cultural factors and entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training, 56(8/9), 680-696. https://doi.org/10.1108/et-07-2014-0075
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validation and multinomial prediction. Biometrics, 61(3), 509-515.
UNICEF. (2021). As Malaysia entered MCO 2.0, many low-income urban families were already close to breaking point. Families on the Edge: Part 3 reveals the risk of widening disparities and the need for strengthened social protection. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/press-releases/malaysia-entered-mco-20-many-low-income-urban-families-were-already-close-breaking
Wan, G., Zhang, X., & Zhao, M. (2022). Urbanization can help reduce income inequality. Npj Urban Sustainability, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00040-y
Willmott, T. J., Pang, B., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2021). Capability, opportunity, and motivation: An across contexts empirical examination of the COM-B model. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1014. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11019-w
Zhang, Y., Wang, P., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Big five personality, academic entrepreneurial motivation, and academic entrepreneurial intention: A research method based on fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 799770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.799770