| Literature DB >> 36072027 |
Runping Guo1, Haobo Yin1, Xingqun Lv2,3.
Abstract
In the VUCA era, determining how to deal with environmental uncertainty has become one of the core issues. Research shows that improvisation is an effective way to deal with rapid changes and to obtain unexpected opportunities in a complex and changeable environment. Improvisation, as a needed capability in the entrepreneurial process, can also provide key strategies to effectively deal with emergencies. Although previous studies have explored the outcomes of improvisation in the entrepreneurial field, this paper aims to investigate in depth whether and how improvisation affects entrepreneurial intention in China. A moderated mediation model was constructed and tested using data from 251 Chinese university students to explore the influence mechanism of improvisation on entrepreneurial intention by combining social cognitive theory and the entrepreneurial event model. The results of this empirical analysis found that improvisation has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy plays a fully mediating role in the relationship between improvisation and entrepreneurial intention. Moreover, entrepreneurial policy support has been found to significantly moderate the mediated relationship between improvisation and entrepreneurial intention by entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The findings suggest that individuals should cultivate improvisation capabilities and entrepreneurial self-efficacy to enhance their entrepreneurial intention. They also need to pay attention to the dynamics of entrepreneurial policies in China. This study contributes to the extant literature by providing deeper insight into the relationship between improvisation and entrepreneurial intention and also has important practical implications for promoting entrepreneurial intention formation in contexts with environmental uncertainty like China.Entities:
Keywords: China; entrepreneurial intention; entrepreneurial policy support; entrepreneurial self-efficacy; improvisation
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072027 PMCID: PMC9441934 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.930682
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Research framework.
Factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, AVE and CR.
| Four Factors and Scale Items | Factor Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improvisation Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements | 0.929 | 0.509 | 0.930 | |
|
I serve as a good role model for creativity | 0.741 | |||
|
I demonstrate originality in my work | 0.781 | |||
|
I take risks in terms of producing new ideas in completing projects | 0.790 | |||
|
I think outside of the box | 0.773 | |||
|
I identify opportunities for new services/ products | 0.775 | |||
|
I find new uses for existing methods or equipment | 0.750 | |||
|
I identify ways in which resources can be recombined to produce novel products | 0.817 | |||
|
I perform better under time pressure | 0.702 | |||
|
I need pressure in order to focus | 0.662 | |||
|
I “think on my feet” when carrying out actions | 0.755 | |||
|
I respond to problems in a “spur of the moment” way | 0.594 | |||
|
I am a persistent person | 0.534 | |||
|
I don’t let past failures hinder future performance | 0.522 | |||
| ESE To what extent do you agree with the following statements regarding your degree of certainty in your ability to perform entrepreneurial-related task | 0.913 | 0.605 | 0.914 | |
|
Conduct market analysis | 0.746 | |||
|
Develop new markets | 0.819 | |||
|
Develop new products and services | 0.772 | |||
|
Conduct strategic planning | 0.828 | |||
|
Reduce risk and uncertainty | 0.809 | |||
|
Take calculated risks | 0.796 | |||
|
Perform financial analysis | 0.662 | |||
| EI Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements | 0.934 | 0.740 | 0.934 | |
|
My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur | 0.849 | |||
|
I will make every effort to start and run my own firm | 0.886 | |||
|
I am determined to create a firm in the future | 0.906 | |||
|
I have very seriously thought of starting a firm | 0.797 | |||
|
I have the firm intention to start a firm some day | 0.860 | |||
| EPS Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements | 0.901 | 0.695 | 0.901 | |
|
The government provides many preferential tax policies for entrepreneurship | 0.840 | |||
|
The registration and approval procedures of enterprises are simplified and convenient | 0.785 | |||
|
The government provides many consulting services for entrepreneurship | 0.860 | |||
|
The local government performed well in normalizing the policies and laws related entrepreneurship | 0.848 |
Note: CR: Composite reliability; AVE: Average variance extracted.
Confirmatory factor analysis.
| Model | χ | TLI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4-factor model | 2.255 | 0.901 | 0.910 | 0.909 | 0.071 | 0.050 |
| 3-factor model | 3.692 | 0.787 | 0.805 | 0.804 | 0.104 | 0.086 |
| 2-factor model | 5.369 | 0.654 | 0.681 | 0.680 | 0.132 | 0.106 |
| 1-factor model | 6.789 | 0.542 | 0.577 | 0.574 | 0.152 | 0.126 |
Note: n=251;
Combines improvisation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy into potential factors;
Combines improvisation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention into potential factors;
Combines all variables into one variable.
Variables mean, standard deviation and correlations.
| Factors | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 1.460 | 0.499 | 1.000 | ||||||||
| Grade | 2.430 | 0.862 | 0.056 | 1.000 | |||||||
| Engineering | 0.371 | 0.484 | –0.275** | 0.054 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Management | 0.251 | 0.434 | 0.279** | –0.036 | –0.444** | 1.000 | |||||
| Fearfail | 1.310 | 0.462 | –0.161* | –0.115 | –0.045 | 0.033 | 1.000 | ||||
| EPS | 3.075 | 0.848 | –0.017 | 0.033 | 0.032 | –0.008 | 0.158* | 0.834 | |||
| Improvisation | 3.270 | 0.607 | –0.167** | –0.102 | –0.009 | –0.035 | 0.260** | 0.407** | 0.713 | ||
| ESE | 3.239 | 0.680 | –0.214** | –0.095 | –0.026 | 0.000 | 0.272** | 0.246** | 0.614** | 0.778 | |
| EI | 2.943 | 0.875 | –0.235** | –0.042 | 0.059 | –0.059 | 0.182** | 0.078 | 0.470** | 0.646** | 0.860 |
Note: n=251; *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 2The analysis of mediation effect based on structural equation modeling.
Mediation model test.
| Path | β | S.E | C.R | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender⇒ EI | –0.076 | 0.075 | –1.667 | 0.095 |
| Grade⇒ EI | 0.050 | 0.140 | 0.586 | 0.558 |
| Engineering⇒ EI | 0.014 | 0.096 | 0.293 | 0.769 |
| Management⇒ EI | –0.036 | 0.050 | –2.852 | 0.004 |
| Fearfail⇒ EI | –0.026 | 0.163 | –0.425 | 0.671 |
| Improvisation⇒ ESE | 0.664 | 0.075 | 8.824 | 0.000 |
| ESE⇒ EI | 0.632 | 0.114 | 7.572 | 0.000 |
| Improvisation⇒ EI | 0.101 | 0.103 | 1.327 | 0.184 |
Note: n=251; β = Coefficient estimates; S.E = Standard error; C.R = Critical ratio; p = Level of significance.
Direct, indirect and conditional effects.
| Paths | β | S.E | t-Value | p | Bias-corrected Percentile 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| X→Y | 0.234 | 0.092 | 2.531 | 0.012 | 0.052 | 0.416 |
| X→M | 0.635 | 0.058 | 10.928 | *** | 0.521 | 0.750 |
| M→Y | 0.735 | 0.079 | 9.347 | *** | 0.580 | 0.890 |
| M×W→Y | 0.121 | 0.057 | 2.111 | 0.036 | 0.008 | 0.234 |
| Controls | ||||||
| Gender→Y | –0.103 | 0.092 | –1.118 | 0.265 | –0.284 | 0.078 |
| Grade→Y | 0.033 | 0.049 | 0.67 | 0.504 | –0.063 | 0.129 |
| Engineering→Y | –0.103 | 0.097 | 0.977 | 0.330 | –0.097 | 0.287 |
| Management→Y | –0.016 | 0.108 | –0.15 | 0.881 | –0.229 | 0.197 |
| Fearfail→Y | 0.012 | 0.095 | 0.129 | 0.897 | –0.175 | 0.200 |
Note: n=251; X=Improvisation; M=Entrepreneurial self-efficacy; Y=Entrepreneurial intention; W=Entrepreneurial policy support; β = Coefficient Estimates; S.E=Standard error; p = Level of significance; Bootstrapping=5000; CI=Confidence of interval 95%; *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.
Conditional indirect effect of improvisation on entrepreneurial intention through entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
| β | S.E | Percentile 95% CI | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| The conditional indirect effect at high, medium and low entrepreneurial policy support | |||||
| Low (-1sd) entrepreneurial policy support | 0.633 | 0.090 | 0.455 | 0.811 | *** |
| Medium (0) entrepreneurial policy support | 0.735 | 0.079 | 0.580 | 0.890 | *** |
| High (+1sd) entrepreneurial policy support | 0.838 | 0.095 | 0.652 | 1.025 | *** |
Note: Bootstrapping sample size = 5000; β = Coefficient estimates; **p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.