Tài liệu Tác động của tính cách, giáo dục và kinh nghiệm đến ý định khởi sự kinh doanh xã hội tt tiếng anh

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY -------------------------------- PHAN TAN LUC THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY TRAITS, EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE ON THE SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION Major: Business Administration Code: 9340101 SUMMARY OF PH.D THESIS Ho Chi Minh – 2021 The thesis was completed at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City Science Instructor 1. Associate Professor Pham Xuan Lan 2. Associate Professor Bùi Thanh Tráng Reviewer 1: ......................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................... Reviewer 2: ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................... Reviewer 3: ........................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................... The thesis will be presented to the school-level thesis evaluation board at: At …….. time …….. date …….. month ……. year …….. The thesis can be found at at the library: ........................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................................... LIST OF PUBLISHED PAPERS 1. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan & Angelina Nhat Hanh Le (2019). A Systematic Literature Review on Social Entrepreneurial Intention. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2019.1640770. (Scopus Q2) 2. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan, Angelina Nhat Hanh Le & Bui Thanh Trang (2020). A Co-Citation and Co-Word Analysis of Social Entrepreneurship Research, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2020.1782971. (Scopus Q2) 3. Phan Tan Luc, Pham Xuan Lan & Bui Thanh Trang (2020). Personality Traits and Social Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Desirability and Perceived Feasibility. The Journal of Entrepreneurship. DOI: 10.1177/0971355720974811. (Scopus Q2). 1 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH THESIS 1.1 Research problem Social entrepreneurship is playing an important role in supporting the provision of solutions to social problems (Ellis, 2010; Dees, 2017). Social enterprise can be regarded as a form of business activity that is beneficial to the whole society as it addresses the goals of addressing the social needs that the government or business normally does not address or respond to (Alvord et al., 2004). Over the past decade, in line with a considerable improvement in economic development, interest in social enterprises and social entrepreneurship has increased significantly in Vietnam (Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion Report, 2016). In 2014, social enterprises were officially recognized as a separate type of organization under the Vietnam Enterprise Law. This is an important milestone, allowing social enterprises to grow further with the support of a wide range of stakeholders. According to statistics of the United Nations Development Program (2016), the number of Vietnamese social enterprises officially registered with the government was 80. These social enterprises helped employ more than 100,000 people and improve the livelihoods of more than 600,000 people—mainly women, children, ethnic minorities, disabled workers, and low-income workers in various fields such as agriculture, education, environment, health and technology. All English publications related to social entrepreneurship (articles, books, editorial material, book chapters, notes, and letters) were searched in the Web of Science database. The phrase ‘social entrepreneurship’ was searched in the topic field (title/ abstract/keyword) in Web of Science database. This study examined publications that were published before November 2019. The preliminary search returned 1,278 publications. Co-citation analysis was used to analyze 1,278 publications related to social entrepreneurshipon from Web of Science database. The results showed the formation of five clusters (see Figure 1.1). SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP Cluster 1. The concept development of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise Cluster 2. Bricolage and issues related to management in social entrepreneurship Cluster 3. Opportunity recognition, motivation, and intention Cluster 4. Social innovation in social entrepreneurship Cluster 5. Institutional contexts Source: Author's summary Figure 1.1 Co-citation clusters on social entrepreneurship Based on the co-analysis results mentioned above, this thesis focuses on cluster 3 'Opportunity recognition, motivation, and intention.' Although social entrepreneurship is an issue that has received a lot of attention from stakeholders, there is currently an alarmingly low level of social entrepreneurship around the world, especially in developing countries such as Vietnam. According to Krueger et al. (2000), the development of entrepreneurship depends on the quality and quantity of entrepreneurs. Similarly, social entrepreneurship can only grow if the number of social entrepreneurs increases. Intention is the best indicator of behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and entrepreneurial intention arguably plays an important role in the decision to create a business (Liñán 2 & Chen, 2009). Although social entrepreneurship has been noted to be an important strategy for the sustainable development of society, academics and policymakers are trying to understand how an individual wishes to become a social entrepreneur to elevate its presence (Tan, Le, and Xuan 2019). The answer to this question may come from understanding social entrepreneurial intention (SEI) (Chipeta and Surujlal 2017). SEI can be interpreted as a belief, desire, and determination to establish a new social enterprise in the future (Tran and Von Korflesch 2016). Vietnam has several intermediary organizations dedicated to supporting social enterprise development. The major organizations that have experience in this area in Vietnam include the Supporting Vietnam Social Enterprise Community (SSEC), Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion (CSIP), Seed Planters, HATCH! and Evergreen Labs. In addition, a number of social enterprise incubators that have been established by government agencies, such as the Da Nang Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystem (DNES), SiHUB (Saigon Innovation Hub), Supporting Center for Youth's Startup (sYs), BKHUP, and Start-up Nation Programme, also contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. These characteristics make Vietnam a suitable location to carry out the current research on SEI. Based on the above-mentioned co-analysis results, this thesis focuses on cluster 3 ‘Opportunity recognition, motivation, and intention’. The phrase “social”, “entrep*” and “intent*” were searched in the topic field (title/ abstract/keyword) in selected databases. The scope of this study was restricted to dates before 2019/04/04. Due to variability in the peer-review process and their limited availability, book reviews, editorials, and papers from conference proceedings were eliminated; as such, only peer-reviewed papers in English were considered in this research (Jones, Coviello, and Tang 2011). As a result, a total of 624 papers were found, totalling 195 articles from the Scopus database, 126 articles from the WoS database and 303 articles from Google Scholar. The content analysis resulted in four categories: ‘core model, methodological, and theoretical issues’; ‘personal-level variables’; ‘context and institutional’; and ‘the SEI-to-behaviour process’. As presented in Table 2.2, each of the first three categories is composed of three themes, whereas the fourth category has only one theme. Table 2.2. Categories and themes in SEI research Categories Themes General test core model/Extending model Category 1: Core model, methodological, and theoretical issues (12) (7) New approaches (3) Methodology (2) Personality factors (9) Category 2: Personal-level variables (19) Background factors (8) Gender issues (2) Cross-cultural studies (2) Category 3: Context and institutional (4) Institutional variables (1) Organizational level (1) Category 4: The social entrepreneurial intention-tobehaviour process (1). * Note: number of published papers is presented in parentheses. Source:Analysis results 3 Category 1: core model, methodological, and theoretical issues (12 papers) Studies in this category analyze the main elements of the SEI model and solve theoretical issues or use new approaches and methodology to measure SEI. The authors found three themes within this category, namely: ‘general test core model/extending model’; ‘new approaches’; and ‘methodology’. Regarding the first theme - ‘general test core model/extending model’ - seven published papers were classified into this theme due to their testing of SEI models that extend entrepreneurial models with additional variables. In particular, based on the entrepreneurial event models of Shapero and Sokol (1982) and the entrepreneurial potential model of Kruger and Brazeal (1994), Noorseha (2013) investigated the SEI of university students with two additional variables: empathy, and social entrepreneurship exposure. Hockerts (2017) and Forster and Grichnik (2013) tested the first SEI model proposed by Mair and Noboa (2006). While Hockerts (2017) extended the model by adding prior experience with social problems, Forster and Grichnik (2013) proposed a new model by combining additional variables such as empathy, perceived social norms, self-efficacy, and perceived collective efficacy. More recently, two research projects have adopted the Hockerts (2017) model and tested it in both Hong Kong (Ip et al. 2017) and Philippines (Aure 2018). Tiwari, Bhat, and Tikoria (2017b) explored the role of cognitive style and self-efficacy in predicting SEI in India through three determinants of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). In the most recent research project, in order to examine the applicability of the theory of behavior for predicting SEI, Zaremohzzabieh et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis to propose two alternative models, with findings showing the better fit of alternative models in contrast to the original TPB model in their prediction of SEI. For the second theme of ‘new approaches’ with three papers in this category, alternative approaches in determining SEI were deployed. Tran and Von Korflesch (2016) contributed to social entrepreneurship literature by providing a new SEI model based on the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT). While Beugré (2014) developed a model of moral engagement to explain the motivation underlying the creation of social ventures, Rivera et al. (2018) carried out research using the servant leadership approach and lifestyles theory to measure SEI. Overall, these new approaches show the potential for SEI measurement, although further testing, comparison and expansion are needed in the future. The final theme within Category 1, namely ‘methodology’, has two papers which focus on methodology to measure SEI. Baierl et al. (2014) employed a questionnaire-based experimental design to show a positive influence of general social appraisal. To explore the moral portrait of social entrepreneurs and formulate empirically-grounded propositions, Bacq, Hartog, and Hoogendoorn (2016) performed four sets of binary logistic regressions that distinguish between social and commercial entrepreneurs based on the database from The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor’s (GEM) 2009 Adult Population Survey. Category 2. Personal-level variables (19 papers) This category includes the largest number of articles that study the roles of individual characteristics in forming SEI. Within the category, nine papers focus on the relationship between personality traits and SEI which constitute the ‘personality factors’ theme. A second theme with eight papers relates to various ‘background factors’ such as education, status, university category, and motivation. Another subset of two papers presents ‘gender issues’ in SEI. Within the ‘personality factors’ theme having nine papers, distinctive personality traits of social entrepreneurs and would-be social entrepreneurs are discussed. In order to discover the general personality of a potential social entrepreneur, Nga and Shamuganathan (2010) and Preethi and Priyadarshini (2018) draw on the Big 5 model (i.e., extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, conscientiousness and agreeableness) 4 to measure five SEI dimensions as follows: social vision, financial returns, innovation, sustainability, and social networking, whereas, Ip, Wu, et al. (2018) simply test the five personality traits of the Big 5 model. Next, specific personality traits for SEI have been studied, such as risk-taking propensity, proactivity and creativity (Chipeta and Surujlal 2017; Politis et al. 2016; Kedmenec, Rebernik, and Perić 2015; Prieto 2011), emotional intelligence and self-efficacy (Tiwari, Bhat, and Tikoria 2017a), and compassionate love, hardship in life and moral judgment competence (Kedmenec, Rebernik, and Perić 2015; Bacq and Alt 2018). With respect to ‘background factors’, eight papers in this theme study the impacts of various background factors affecting SEI. There are two papers examining the role of education on SEI. Shahverdi, Ismail, and Qureshi (2018) identify barriers of SEI by moderating the role of education amongst research universities in Malaysia. Hockerts (2018), in turn, focuses on the relationship between the process of experiential learning and the trend of social enterprise establishment. In addition, a number of background factors such as differing status (student and alumni) and university categories (research university, focus university, comprehensive university, and private university) (Radin et al. 2017), prior experience (Lacap, Mulyaningsih, and Ramadani 2018), perceived access to finance (Luc 2018), human capital and social capital (Jemari et al. 2017), motivational needs (Barton, Schaefer, and Canavati 2018) and social innovation orientation (Cavazos-Arroyo, Puente-Diaz, and Agarwal 2017) are empirically investigated in relation to SEI. Within Category 2, two papers in the ‘gender issues’ theme examine the role of gender in the formation of SEI. Notais and Tixier (2017) design a qualitative study to understand what motivates the desire of women to become social entrepreneurs. Lortie, Castrogiovanni, and Cox (2017) draw on theory from gender self-schemas and social identity theory to explain how women have a natural tendency to create social goals and intentions. Category 3. Context and institutions (4 papers) Although this category has only four papers which devote a special consideration to the environmental and institutional factors that influence SEI, the three themes of ‘cross-cultural studies’, ‘institutional variables’ and ‘organizational level’ are identified. There are two papers related to ‘cross-cultural studies’ that focus on comparing the intent of starting a social business between nations. Comparable pairs of countries include the United States and China (Yang et al. 2015) and Taiwan and Hong Kong (Ip, Liang, et al. 2018). The results of the studies show that SEI is not uniform across different cultures and individuals are affected by their culture during the formation process of SEI. Regarding the ‘institutional variables’ theme, there is only one paper Urban and Kujinga (2017) - which studies the contextual factors of the institutional environment in an African context. The findings show that the regulatory environment has a positive and significant impact on SEI through feasibility and desirability. Finally, with regard to the ‘organizational level’ theme, the paper by Tan and Yoo (2015) constitutes a theme of its own. The results show that organizational attributes and social missions have significant effects on SEI. Category 4. The social entrepreneurial intention-to-behavior process (1 paper) This group focused on longitudinal studies to learn about the process of change from SEI to the actual behavior of respondents. There is only one paper classifying all within this group. Salhi (2018) examines the role of personal motivation in the process of formulating the process of change from SEI to behavior. The results show that personal motivations do not affect SEI and SEI is not significant in determining behavior. On the other hand, the factors that influence SEI are very diverse; in this thesis, the author focuses on personality traits, experience, and social entrepreneurship education because these factors are all core components of human capital (Marvel et al., 2016). The interest in these factors has increased in parallel with the attention given to the impact of human capital on entrepreneurial intention in the past two decades (Marvel 5 et al., 2016). Human capital is a fairly broad structure and has many approaches; however, personality traits, experience, and social entrepreneurship are still indispensable core components of human capital. Ployhart and Moliterno (2011) divide human capital into two categories: cognitive human capital (experience and education) and noncognitive human capital (personality traits and motivation). Accordingly, cognitive human capital tends to be visible and developable, while noncognitive human capital tends to be hidden and difficult to develop. This thesis divides human capital into two groups (cognitive human capital noncognitive human capital) and explores each of these groups' impact on SEI through two empirical studies. The implementation of two empirical studies with these two groups of factors is an appropriate approach for the following reasons: Firstly, these are two groups of human capital that are different in nature. If personality traits are influenced by internal factors such as intellect, instincts, emotions, desires, habits, and ways of thinking (McClelland, 1965), experience and education are influenced by external factors such as work experience, the impact of courses, life experiences (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Marvel et al., 2016). Therefore, the mechanism of forming intentions through antecedents also requires these antecedents to be considered appropriately for each group of factors so that the combination of personality traits, experience, and social entrepreneurship education simultaneously in the same SEI model is inappropriate. Specifically, in this thesis, the personality traits that will be considered through two antecedents are perceived feasibility and perceived desirability, while experience and education will be regarded as having social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial outcome expectations. Secondly, in recent years, the interest of the academic community in the relationship between human capital factors and SEI has increased noticeably (Tan et al., 2019). Many studies focusing on the role of personality traits, experiences, and social entrepreneurship education have been conducted (Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017, Politis et al., 2016, Kedmenec et al., 2015, Prieto, 2011). However, these studies have not fully explored the roles of personality traits, experiences, and education in predicting SEI. Therefore, the simultaneous consideration of these factors can easily lead to overlapping and unclear identification of impact effects. For example, personality studies are a broad category in SEI topic (Tan et al., 2019), considering the interaction between personality traits and other factors is unnecessary even when social entrepreneurs' personality traits are still an unclear topic. Many current studies also focus more on personality traits rather than combining it with other factors in the model of social entrepreneurship intention (Russia and Shamuganathan, 2010; Aure, 2018; Chipeta and Surujlal, 2017; Prieto, 2011). For the above reasons, the thesis conducted two empirical studies to examine the impact of personality traits, experiences, and education on social entrepreneurial intention: ▪ The first empirical study: the impact of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention. ▪ The second empirical study: the impact of experiences and education on social entrepreneurial intention. 1.2 Research gaps Firstly, analyzes and classifications of SEI studies are scarce. Furthermore, scholars to date have unclear and non-systematic information about the quantity and quality of SEI research that has been conducted. Secondly, most of the research on SEI uses the theory of intention from EI such as Shapero's Entrepreneurial Event (SEE) (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) or theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), the use of new theoretical models also should be considered and assessed for the applicability in the context of social entrepreneurship. Thirdly, previous studies have not highlighted which traits are characteristic of social 6 entrepreneurs. In addition, there is little empirical evidence on the indirect relationship between personality traits and SEI (Russia and Shamuganathan, 2010; Ip et al., 2018a; Hsu and Wang, 2018; Preethi and Priyadarshini, 2018). Fourthly, in previous studies, two factors, experience, and education were mostly considered control variables in forming the SEI, and not much attention is given to the relationship between experience, education, and SEI. Fifthly, the relationship between human capital factors and SEI is mainly studied in developed economies, while the research evidence in developing countries is still limited. For the above reasons, the author chose to implement the impact of personality, education, and experience on SEI. HUMAN CAPITAL (Ployhart and Moliterno, 2011) Noncognitive (personality traits) Cognitive (experiences and education) The first empirical study: the impact The second empirical study: the impact of experiences and education on SEI of personality traits on SEI Source: Author's summary Figure 1.2 Two empirical studies in this thesis 1.3 Objectives of the study 1.3.1 The general objective of the study This thesis summarizes the SEI topic from research gaps and builds a model to clearly explain the impact role of each group of human capital factors, including noncognitive human capital (personality traits) and cognitive human capital (experience and education) and their influence on SEI. 1.3.2 Specific objectives The first objective: This thesis examines the impact of personality traits (noncognitive human capital) on SEI through two premises in the first SEI model of Mair and Noboa (2006). Second objective: This thesis examines the impact of experience with social organizations and social entrepreneurship education (cognitive human capital) on SEI through social cognitive career theory (SCCT). The third objective: Proposing policy implications to increase SEI in particular and social entrepreneurship in general based on aspects of human capital. 1.4 Research subjects and scope The object of this study is the two groups of factors of human capital, including personality traits (noncognitive human capital), experience, and education (cognitive human capital) and SEI. The author coordinated with the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC) to collect data from individuals participating in social entrepreneurship-related activities. The sample in this study is selected according to the conventional method. The questionnaire survey link created on Google Forms is sent to individuals who participate in the activities organized by SSEC. 7 Social entrepreneurship is still very new in Vietnam, so to ensure that the participating individuals have enough knowledge and understanding to complete the survey on SEI, this study will focus on individuals who have participated in courses/programs organized by the Vietnam Social Enterprises Community (SSEC), Seed Planters, Saigon Innovation Hub and CSIP. These individuals mostly live in the HCMC area and surrounding areas. 1.5 Research method From identified research gaps, research models and draft scales were formed. After that, the author conducted a group discussion of expert social entrepreneurs or those who have social entrepreneurship experience to complete the model and scale. Subsequently, the second draft scale was formed to serve preliminary quantitative research. The second draft scale was used for the test with samples of 100 individuals using a convenient method when they participated in activities organized by the Supporting Social Enterprise Community (SSEC). Cronbach's Alpha exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate the reliability of the scale. As a result, the official scales are complete. The official questionnaire was emailed to the selected respondents. Both measurement and structural models were empirically tested by the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach. PLS is suitable for our research model because it emphasizes exploration and prediction (Hair Jr et al. 2016). In addition, the sequential mediation tests followed the stages suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The procedure for our data analysis consists of: (1) the assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurement model; (2) the evaluation of the structural model; and (3) the evaluation of the sequential mediating effect. 1.6 Contributions of thesis First, this is the earliest review on social entrepreneurship by combining co-citation analysis and keyword analysis to determine the literature structure and potential research directions. Second, this is the pioneer study to synthesize social entrepreneurial intention topics and to offer a guide to researchers by providing a systematic understanding of the structure of social entrepreneurial intention research from academic literature. Third, this thesis explores the personality traits of potential social entrepreneurs as a combination of general entrepreneurial traits and social entrepreneurial traits. Fourth, this thesis explores the mediating effect of perceived feasibility and perceived desirability in the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention. Fifth, this thesis examines the simultaneous impact of experience and education on social entrepreneurial intention through social cognitive career theory. Sixth, this thesis assesses social entrepreneurship education through awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned about social entrepreneurship. In addition, experience will be considered as prior experience with social organization. Seventh, this thesis was carried out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills and education on social entrepreneurs being in the early stage of formation and development, low levels of social entrepreneurship activities, but potential (CSIP, 2016). Finally, this research will focus on people who have a particular interest in social marketing. They are considered the most potential subjects to become social entrepreneurs in Vietnam. 8 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTION AND RESEARCH MODEL 2.1 Social entrepreneurship Social entrepreneurship is a rapidly evolving field that aims to meet the needs of society (Urban and Kujinga 2017; Arroyo-López and Carcamo-Solis 2011). Social entrepreneurship covers business activities that combine the "social" and "entrepreneurship", therefore social entrepreneurship is considered to be a branch of entrepreneurship research (Peredo and McLean 2006). According to Leadbeater (1997), social entrepreneurship is regarded as an intermediary economic activity operating within public, private, and voluntary activities. It involves a novel way and creative perspective to address social issues such as those in education, environment, health and human rights (Mair and Noboa 2003). In a broad sense, social entrepreneurship refers to a new form of creating and maintaining social values (Anderson and Jack 2002). Although there are many descriptions and explanations, social entrepreneurship is generally defined as a "process that begins with the formation of social ideas, identifying opportunities and solutions for sustainable social development” (Salamzadeh, Azimi, and Kirby 2013; Shane 2003). Creating social value or solving social problems through innovative solutions is the primary goal of social entrepreneurship; indeed, this is the main difference between social business and other forms of business (Zahra et al. 2008; Alvord, Brown, and Letts 2004). 2.2 Social entrepreneurial intention Intention reflects a motivational factor that influences behavior, thus it is a reliable indicator of the effort and willingness of a person to perform the behavior (Ajzen 1991; Austin, Stevenson, and Wei‐Skillern 2006). SEI refers to the intention of starting a social enterprise (Mair and Noboa 2006) and is considered a psychological behavior encouraging an individual to acquire knowledge, instigate novel ideas, and implement the social entrepreneurial plans to eventually become a social entrepreneur (Mair, Robinson, and Hockerts 2006). 2.3 Review background theories of social entrepreneurial intention By summarizing social entrepreneurial intention studies, the use of background theories to predict social entrepreneurial intention can be divided into three main groups: The first group inherits and uses theories from commercial entrepreneurial intentions such as Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event, entrepreneurial potential model (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The second group uses entirely new and specifically designed models for social entrepreneurship such as Mair and Noboa (2006)'s the first model of social entrepreneurial intention and model of Nga and Shamuganathan (2010). The third group includes new models emerging through the development of previous theories such as social cognitive career theory (was developed from social cognitive theory) or Hockert (2017) 's model (was changed and added new elements from the original model of Mair and Noboa (2006). 2.4 Research gaps in the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention and research model First, studies using The Big Five model have difficulty distinguishing between the personality traits of commercial entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs. Second, previous studies were based only on traits commonly found in commercial entrepreneurs, thus leading to a lack of consideration of social personality 9 traits. Third, social personality traits have not been considered in the social entrepreneurial intention, but only in studies on the intention to participate in social and volunteer activities. Fourth, it is essential to consider the role of both traditional personality traits and social entrepreneurial traits in order to understand the similarities and differences in personality traits of social entrepreneurs and commercial entrepreneurs (Smith et al., 2014). Fifth, the thesis explores the impact of personality traits on social entrepreneurial intention through two antecedents of Mair and Noboa's first model of social entrepreneurial intention (2006), including perceived feasibility and perceived desirability. Finally, this study examines how traits in Asian culture affect social entrepreneurial intention. Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.7, 4 hypotheses for mediation effects are tested as follows: H9a: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits (risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9b: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of general entrepreneurial traits (risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, pro-activeness and innovativeness) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9c: Perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention. H9d: Perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship mediate the effects of social entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) and social entrepreneurial intention. Source: Proposed by author Figure 2.7. Proposed model and hypotheses 10 2.5 Research gaps in the relationship between education, experience, and social entrepreneurial intention First, experience and education are still new in social entrepreneurial intention, and there are still contradictions in previous studies. Second, previous studies only considered experience and education as control variables and have not yet clearly shown the impact of experience and education on the process of forming social entrepreneurial intention. Third, education and experience are two important structures in cognitive human capital. However, these factors have been studied separately but have not been considered to have a simultaneous impact on social entrepreneurial intention. Fourth, the indirect effects through the antecedents of social entrepreneurial intention have not received much attention, so in this study, the impact of the relationship between experience, education, and social entrepreneurial intention was considered through two antecedents of social cognitive career theory (social entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social entrepreneurial outcome expectations). Fifth, this thesis assesses social entrepreneurship education through awareness of individuals' perceptions after having experienced and learned about social entrepreneurship. In addition, experience was considered as prior experience with social organization. Sixth, this thesis was carried out in Vietnam - a developing country - characterized by skills and education on social entrepreneurs being in the early stage of formation and development, low levels of social entrepreneurship activities but potential (CSIP, 2016). Besides the direct impact hypotheses as shown in Figure 2.8, 2 hypotheses for mediation effects are tested as follows: H8a: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of social entrepreneurship education on social entrepreneurial intention. H8b: SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations sequentially mediate the effect of prior experience with social organizations on social entrepreneurial intention. Source: Proposed by author Figure 2.8. Theoretical framework 11 CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODS Over the past decade, in line with a considerable improvement in economic development, interest in social enterprises and social entrepreneurship has increased significantly in Vietnam (Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion Report, 2016). In 2014, social enterprises were officially recognized as a separate type of organization under the Vietnam Enterprise Law. This is an important milestone, allowing social enterprises to grow further with the support of a wide range of stakeholders. According to statistics of the United Nations Development Program (2016), the number of Vietnamese social enterprises officially registered with the government was 80. These social enterprises helped employ more than 100,000 people and improve the livelihoods of more than 600,000 people—mainly women, children, ethnic minorities, disabled workers, and low-income workers in various fields such as agriculture, education, environment, health and technology. Vietnam has several intermediary organizations dedicated to supporting social enterprise development through the provision of courses, training and mentoring. The major organizations that have experience in this area in Vietnam include the Supporting Vietnam Social Enterprise Community (SSEC), Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion (CSIP), Seed Planters, HATCH! and Evergreen Labs. In addition, a number of social enterprise incubators that have been established by government agencies, such as the Da Nang Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystem (DNES), SiHUB (Saigon Innovation Hub), Supporting Center for Youth’s Startup (sYs), BKHUP and Start-up Nation Programme, also contribute to the development of social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. These characteristics make Vietnam a suitable location to carry out the current research on SE intention. The sampling frame consisted of participants attending various programs hosted by SSEC and CSIP, such as the Funds for Social Entrepreneurs in Vietnam, Green our World, Social Immersion Program, and Workshop on Social Innovation and Enterprise. The survey was undertaken by collaborating with the two most prominent organizations (e.g., SSEC and CSIP) that promote social entrepreneurship in Vietnam. Based on the provided list, an online questionnaire created on Google Forms was sent to individuals who have taken at least three social-entrepreneurship orientation courses. The questionnaire was originally developed in English, and subsequently translated into Vietnamese for the collection of data. To ensure equivalence between the two versions, the back-translation technique was used. A total of 850 questionnaires were distributed. Finally, 503 valid responses were collected, representing a response rate of 59.17 percent. Specifically, the author performs the following steps: Step 1. Test the measurement model. The measurement model is tested through criteria of composite reliability (CR), Average Variance Extract (AVE), comparing the square root of extraction variance (AVE) with coefficients correlation to evaluate differentiation, factor loading factor (Factor Loading) and Cross Loading (Cross Loading) and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). Step 2. Examine the structure model. Structure model is tested through R2 and Q2. Step 3. Examine the direct effects of variables in the model. Step 4. Examining the mediating effect according to the 4-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). Step 5 is to check the results of intermediate effects through two values: CI (Confidence interval) through the bootstrapp process with the sample number of 5,000 and the index Variance accounted for (VAF). 12 CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH RESULT 4.1 Research results on the relationship between personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention 4.1.1 Measurement model Reliability of the factors was measured as both Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values in this study ranged from 0.639 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). The composite reliability values ranged between 0.68 (for empathy) to 0.93 (for need for achievement). Cronbach’s alpha values and composite reliability for all the constructs are very close or above to the threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1978). The results indicated the evidence of construct reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs in this study was above 0.5, which indicated the convergent validity of each construct in the model. This study evaluated the discriminant validity using three criteria such as Fornell and Larcker (1981), cross loading and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) stated that the values of variables are compared to the square root of AVE. The square roots of all AVEs (from 0.526 to 0.730) were larger than the shared variance of a latent variable with other latent variable. Regarding cross loading, Chin (2010) suggests that each indicator loading should be greater than all its cross-loadings. In this model, each indicator’s outer loading was greater than 0.5 (from 0.502 to 0.980) on their own construct and higher than all its cross-loadings with other constructs. Finally, the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) is a new method for assessing the validity of discrimination in PLS-SEM and is considered superior to traditional discriminant validity assessment approaches such as Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion and cross-loadings (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015). The result showed that neither lower nor upper confidence interval (CI) includes a value of 1, which shows that the model satisfied discriminant validity. To sum up, the convergent validity and discriminate validity of the measurement items are achieved. 4.1.2 Structural model To test the hypotheses, this study ran the structural model. The criteria were considered evaluating the structural model assessment including path coefficient, the coefficient of determination (R 2), cross-validated redundancy (Q2). A t-test calculated from the bootstrapping process of 5.000 samples was applied to test the direct effects (Figure 4.1). H1 and H2 examined direct relationships from perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship to social entrepreneurial intention. The result found the support for H1 and H2. The remaining hypotheses in the research model examine the direct impact from personality traits to perceived desirability of social entrepreneurship and perceived feasibility of social entrepreneurship respectively and found the support for H3a, H3b, H4a, H5a, H5b, H6b, H7b, H8a, H8b, and remaining such as H4b, H6a, H7a rejected. The results were presented in Figure 4.1. 13 Source:Analysis results Figure 4.1 Research results and direct‐effect relationship coefficients 4.1.3 Mediation test The four‐step procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed to test the mediating effects of two mediators (perceived feasibility (PF) and perceived desirability (PD)) respectively in the relational antecedents (six personality traits include need for achievement (NA), risk-taking propensity (RT), innovativeness (INN), pro-activeness (PRO), empathy (EMP) and moral obligation (MO). In step 1, all antecedents (six personality traits: need for achievement, risk-taking propensity, innovativeness, pro-activeness, empathy and moral obligation) were tested for direct impact on social entrepreneurial intention. At this step, there are only four personality traits that affect social entrepreneurial intention including pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation. Because risk-taking propensity and need for achievement failed to test direct effect, thus these two personality traits were not further assessed in step 2 and step 3. In Steps 2 and 3, the four antecedents (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) had significant impacts on the two mediators, which also significantly influenced the social entrepreneurial intention. In Step 4, the research results of testing mediating effects of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility showed that all relationships in steps 2 and 3 were supported, whereas in relation to the direct effect of personality traits (pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation) in step 1, only empathy and moral obligation were supported, the relationship between pro-activeness and innovativeness were not significant. Thus, the results showed that the two mediators (perceived desirability and perceived feasibility) 14 fully mediated the effects of pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators partially mediated the effects of moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived feasibility fully mediated the effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated the effects of empathy to social entrepreneurial intention. The result found the support for and H9d, and remaining such as H9b, H9a, H9b rejected. Table 4.1 Mediation test Analysis steps Research variables Mediator PD Outcome PF PRO SEI -0.057 -0.037 0.146b INN 0.141b EMP 0.215b MO 0.153c RT NA Antecedent Step 1 Antecedent Step 2 and Step 3 Mediation Antecedent Step 4 Mediation PRO INN EMP MO PD PF PRO INN EMP MO PD PF 0.303c 0.054 0.100 0.179b 0.323c 0.210c 0.114a 0.193c 0.256c 0.155b 0.109a 0.196c 0.257c 0.157b 0.123b 0.294c 0.090 0.106 0.167a 0.096a 0.055c 0.201c Source:Analysis results The additional mediating test were conducted to test mediating effects. The bootstrapping process with 5,000 samples showed that pro-activeness, innovativeness, empathy and moral obligation had indirect effect on the social entrepreneurial intention (Table 4.1). In summary, two mediators fully mediated the effects of pro-activeness to social entrepreneurial intention, while these two mediators partially mediated the effects of moral obligation to social entrepreneurial intention. In addition, only perceived feasibility fully mediated the effects of innovativeness to social entrepreneurial intention and partially mediated the effects of empathy to social entrepreneurial intention. 15 Table 4.2. Supplementary mediation tests Antecedent‐mediators‐outcome relationship PRO - PD - SEI PRO - PF - SEI INN - PF - SEI EMP - PF - SEI MO - PD - SEI MO - PF - SEI Significance effect at 95% level Point of estimate Confidence interval 0.016 0.023 0.032 0.042 0.011 0.033 0.006 – 0.041 0.005 – 0.044 0.013 – 0.057 0.019 – 0.071 0.004 – 0.030 0.012 – 0.060 Source:Analysis results 4.2.4 Discussion The research results bring interesting insights into the effect of general entrepreneurial traits and social entrepreneurial traits on social entrepreneurial intention. To consider the general entrepreneurial traits, this study examined the effect of four key general entrepreneurial personality traits on potential social entrepreneurs, including risk-taking propensity, need for achievement, proactiveness, and innovativeness. There is evidence that commercial entrepreneurs’ two very typical personality traits, including risk-taking propensity and need for achievement, did not affect social entrepreneurial intention. Social entrepreneurial intention is considered unaffected by risk-taking propensity because social entrepreneurs do not allow risk barriers to reduce their desire to pursue social values (Peredo & McLean, 2006). They are aware of the risks of failure as part of the innovation process rather than an individual tragedy and are willing to accept it (Mair & Marti, 2006). Social entrepreneurs do not seek short-term solutions or short-term results but want to create a lasting social impact and sustainable results. Regarding the need for achievement, this study’s results can be explained by potential social entrepreneurs who are socially oriented in their thinking; they are oriented to pursue social value instead of fame, money, or achievement. Perceived desirability and perceived feasibility fully mediated the relationship between proactiveness and social entrepreneurial intention. Proactive people are continually looking for opportunities to change their lives, and starting a business is also one of their priority options (Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017). Thus, they always have the desire to become entrepreneurs. In addition, they always strive to develop their capabilities to meet best the opportunities they see, so these individuals always feel confident when they find opportunities to become entrepreneurs. This result also confirmed once again the role of innovativeness in entrepreneurial intention and social entrepreneurial intention (Irena Kedmenec et al., 2015). In social entrepreneurship, an entrepreneur is an innovator with different approaches (Dees, 2007). Many studies suggest that social entrepreneurs exhibit greater innovativeness than commercial entrepreneurs because they face less common problems and situations in society (Irena Kedmenec et al., 2015). The intriguing insights obtained about mediation indicate that only perceived feasibility fully mediated the relationship between innovativeness and social entrepreneurial intention. This can be explained because innovativeness is a common trait that increases confidence in finding solutions to social problems, but that does not mean that innovativeness promotes the desire to become social entrepreneurs. The two social personality traits, including empathy, and moral obligation, also affect social entrepreneurial intention. The research results show that like traditional personality traits, empathy and moral obligation also strongly affect the individual desire to become a social entrepreneur. Perceived desirability and perceived feasibility partially mediated the relationship between moral obligation and social entrepreneurial intention. The cognitive process of helping individuals is one of the basic personalities that distinguish commercial 16 entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs (Ip et al., 2018), which is especially true for individuals who intend to become social entrepreneurs. Moral obligations can guide individuals to help people around them by shaping their desire to become social entrepreneurs. The findings from previous studies suggest that empathy is contradictory (Hockerts, 2017), but this finding agrees with most previous studies when it comes to empathy that has a direct and indirect effect on social entrepreneurial intention (Ip et al., 2018). In addition, moral obligation and empathy help individuals overcome barriers of knowledge and skills to believe it is feasible to become a social entrepreneur. Regarding the mediating effects of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility, the personality traits all affect social entrepreneurship’s perceived feasibility. It means these personality traits, not only influence attitudes, subjective norms, or the desire to become entrepreneurs like previous studies (Chipeta & Surujlal, 2017), but they also play an important role in promoting belief about their competence to become a social entrepreneur. While perceived desirability and perceived feasibility fully mediate in the relationship from general entrepreneurial traits (proactiveness and innovativeness) to social entrepreneurial intention, perceived desirability and perceived feasibility partially mediate the relationship from social entrepreneurial traits (empathy and moral obligation) to social entrepreneurial intention. This divergence might come from differences in the nature of the two groups of personality traits. Social entrepreneurial traits can directly influence intention when an individual has empathy or moral obligation for social issues. Meanwhile, general entrepreneurial traits require a process of evaluation and information gathering to form perceived desirability and perceived feasibility before starting a social entrepreneurial intention. 4.2 Research results on the relationship between education, experience and social entrepreneurial intention 4.2.1 Measurement model The reliability and convergent validity of measurement scales are typically determined by factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair Jr et al., 2016). The results presented in Table 2 showed that Cronbach's α and CR values were greater than the recommended value of 0.7, while factor loadings and AVE were above the threshold of 0.5; together, these results indicated the reliability and validity of all constructs in the model (Hair Jr et al., 2016). Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which constructs are distinct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity can be assessed by comparing the amount of the variance captured by the construct and the shared variance with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In Table 3, the square roots of all AVEs were larger than correlations among constructs that indicated the measures were discriminate. Additionally, discriminate validity was confirmed by examining the cross-loading of the indicators (Hair Jr et al., 2016) and HTMT (Henseler et al., 2015). In this measurement model, factor loadings were above 0.5 and higher on their own construct than for their cross-loadings on other constructs. Furthermore, all HTMT values were lower than the threshold value of 0.90, and neither lower nor upper confidence interval (CI) included a value of 1. Thus, both convergent and discriminant validity were established for this measurement model. 4.2.2 Structural model The R2 values for the endogenous variables of SE self-efficacy, SE outcome expectations, and social entrepreneurial intention were 0.195, 0.717 and 0.229, respectively, values which were considered acceptable (Hair Jr et al., 2016). In addition, the authors used the predictive sample reuse technique (Q2) to evaluate for predictive relevance (Hair Jr et al., 2016). Based on the blindfolding procedure, Q 2 for SE self-efficacy, SE 17 outcome expectations and social entrepreneurial intention were 0.044, 0.351 and 0.122, respectively, which were greater than 0. This showed that the research model had significant predictive relevance (Hair Jr et al., 2016). A t-test calculated from the bootstrapping process of 5000 samples was applied to test the direct effects (Figure 4.2). The results showed that the direct impacts from SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations to social entrepreneurial intention were significant. Thus, H1, H2 and H3 were supported. In addition, social entrepreneurship education was positively associated with SE self-efficacy, but the relationship between social entrepreneurship education and SE outcome expectations was not significant; hence H4 was supported, while H5 was not supported. Prior experience with social organizations was also positively associated with both SE self-efficacy and SE outcome expectations, supporting H6 and H7. Source:Analysis results Figure 4.2 Theoretical framework and analysis results 4.2.3 The sequential mediating effects The authors used the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test the sequential mediating effects (Table 4). In step I, EDU and EXP positively affect SEI. In steps II and III, EXP and EDU had significant impacts on the two sequential mediators (SESE and SEOE), which also significantly influenced the SEI, whereas the SESE significantly affected the SEOE. In the final step, the results showed that all the relationships in steps 2 and 3 were supported, whereas in relation to the direct effect of the two antecedents (EDU and EXP) in step 1, only the relationship between EDU and SEI was supported—the relationship between EXP and SEI was not significant. Thus, the results showed that the two mediators (SESE and SEOE) fully and sequentially mediated the effects of EXP to SEI, while SESE partially mediated the effects of EDU to SEI.