The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training on business school students' and graduates'...

72 Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training on business school students’ and graduates’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship

Jean-Charles Cachon* and Barry Cotton School of Commerce and Administration, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6 Canada Fax: 705 673 6518 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: At Laurentian University (Ontario, Canada), all second-year Business students complete an entrepreneurial active learning experience by preparing a comprehensive business plan over six months. Students develop an original business idea, perform a market research, and prepare a detailed business plan. This activity involves active, collaborative, and small group learning, and ‘learning by doing’. This research verified whether Personal Objectives, Attitude towards Risk, Internality and Perceptions on Tutoring variables were associated with a high Entrepreneurial Orientation and whether highly entrepreneurial students had attitudes similar to those of self-employed graduates. Results showed that personal attitudes of students towards the business plan project related to the strength of their entrepreneurial orientation. Laurentian graduates high rate of self-employment was over 20%.

Keywords: active learning; entrepreneurial teaching; business plans; self-employed business school graduates; self-employment rates university graduates.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Cachon, J-C. and Cotton, B. (2008) ‘The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training on business school students’ and graduates’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship’, Int. J. Business and Globalisation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.72–91.

Biographical notes: Jean-Charles Cachon is a Professor of Organisational Strategy at the School of Commerce and Administration, Faculty of Management, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. His main research interests focus on various facets of entrepreneurship such as technological clusters, retailing and entrepreneurial education.

Barry Cotton is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the School of Commerce and Administration, Faculty of Management, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. His main areas of interest are entrepreneurial education and training, business to business marketing and retailing.

The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training 73

1 Introduction

There have been many developments in the pedagogy of entrepreneurship teaching over the past three decades. This paper describes the mechanisms at play behind an active learning experiment that appears to result in unusual levels of self-employment among the graduates of a Canadian business school.

Audet (2004, p.224) stated that, “Although there exists a tradition of teaching about entrepreneurship in Canada, the impact of the diverse methods utilised remains unclear”. There is, however, a body of research evaluating the effects of various methods of teaching entrepreneurial notions (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006), as well as measuring entrepreneurial attitudes (Cromie, 2000; Caird, 1991; Robinson et al., 1991; Cachon and Cotton, 1987; Cotton and Cachon, 1987).

Since 1985, students in the Core Year of Laurentian University’s Honours Bachelor of Commerce degree programme receive an active learning experience comprising an academic-year long integrated venture creation project. The project, completed in groups of three to five students, requires students to create an innovative business concept, identify information requirements, fully research all aspects of the proposed concept and develop a comprehensive business plan to the point where, should venture financing be made available, groups could commence their launch preparations immediately. The pedagogy of this activity includes four types of learning that have been identified in the literature as active learning, collaborative learning, small group learning and ‘learning by doing’. The venture creation project also helps students develop several entrepreneurial attitudes which are described below. Scores obtained will be compared between three samples: students, self-employed graduates and employed graduates.

2 Literature review

The importance of entrepreneurs to the socio-economic well-being of virtually all communities is well-established; primary reasons being job creation and economic development; hence there continues to be an extensive, and continually growing, interest in entrepreneurial education.

Research and discussion on an entrepreneurial personal ‘make up’ has evolved since the early 1980s when attitudinal variables associated with entrepreneurship were proposed by Gasse (1982a, 1982b, 1982c) and Sexton and Bowman (1984a, 1984b), and others, which are likely attributable to highly entrepreneurially-oriented students, were identified in the literature, particularly a willingness to take risks (Caird, 1991, Cromie and O’Donoghue, 1992) and an internal Locus of Control (LC) (Franke and Lüthje, 2004). These variables would also be identified in those graduates who are entrepreneurs (i.e., derive their main income from self-employment). Over the intervening years researchers have expanded the inventory of personal attributes. For example, Hornaday (1982) identifies 19 characteristics. Timmons et al. (1985) point to 15 similar characteristics, or behaviours, and Gibb (1990) identifies 12 characteristics. More recently, Kirby (2006), citing the work of Lessem (1986), identifies six ‘Entrepreneurship types’ each with an associated personality type. Importantly, Kirby (2006, p.44), in summarising the psychological literature, makes the important observation that the characteristics are “ … not so much ... individual, dominant characteristics” but characteristics which the entrepreneur will have ‘in combination’ and

74 J-C. Cachon and B. Cotton

which may comprise the ‘entrepreneurial spirit’, the focus of the work of Verzat and Bachelet (2006).

More recently, research and discussion have shifted away from an entrepreneurial characteristics focus (Rae and Carswell, 2000) to the evolution of entrepreneurial education in higher-learning institutions (Kirby, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006). While there is a consensus that entrepreneurial attitudes, or behaviours, can be learned or acquired (Rae and Carswell, 2000; Kirby, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006) and are best learned by experience, a universal experiential- or ‘active-learning’ model is yet to emerge (Leitch and Harrison, 1999; Rae and Carswell, 2000; Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006). Indeed, notwithstanding the widespread provision of entrepreneurial courses or programmes across many countries, there is a paucity of reports on the effectiveness of the pedagogical techniques utilised.

The literature on pedagogical techniques (besides traditional lecturing methods) describes six distinct approaches including learning for mastery, active learning, collaborative learning, small group learning, learning communities and ‘learning by doing’. Four of these techniques are particularly relevant to this research:

• Active learning implies transforming the student into an active learner through debates, simulations and other activities where students are required to play an active role. Active learning alone has been measured as improving learning outcomes by 10% (Leitch and Harrison, 1999; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2004).

• Collaborative learning involves ‘a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together’ (Smith and MacGregor, 1992, p.10), emphasising the social interaction aspect of learning, but also mimicking entrepreneurial as well as management behaviour. Reviewing 305 studies on the subject, Johnson et al. (1998) found a 17% average increase in students’ results over non-collaborative, independent learning techniques, and a 19% average increase when comparing cooperative learning to competitive learning.

• Small group learning techniques are reported as enhancing leadership, problem-solving and communication skills (Colbeck et al., 2000), with general learning results 19% higher than for students who did not participate in such learning techniques (Springer et al., 1999).

• ‘Learning by doing’ involves giving students “an active role in the learning process” (Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006, p.84) “as well as control and mould the learning situation”.

Recent publications (Akola and Heinonen, 2006; Solomon et al., 2002; Vesper and Gartner, 1997, 2001; Menzies and Gasse, 1999) show the still-existing predominance of traditional methods of teaching entrepreneurship, such as lectures, games, self-assessment, e-learning, films, videos and case studies, while others have tried to demonstrate the impact of teaching entrepreneurial concepts on entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Gorman et al., 1997; Béchard, 1994). Various types of experiential training methods such as simulations are also reported (Geneste and Schaper, 2004). At another extreme, universities such as Twente in the Netherlands and Babson in the USA achieve high start-up rates among their students by providing them with support systems such as business incubators (Galloway and Brown, 2002).


In the affirmative, it could be assumed that an active exercise such as the creation of a venture concept and the preparation of a business plan is effective in developing among students attitudes similar to those of entrepreneurial graduates. This is, what Franke and Lüthje (2004) are arguing and demonstrating to some extent through a model including didactic activities at the university level involving training and networking. It is also argued in the literature that there is still a lack of measures of the outcomes of entrepreneurship education (Hills and Morris, 1998).

3 The Laurentian integrated venture creation project

3.1 Purpose and structure of the project

The Laurentian Faculty of Management Honours Bachelor of Commerce degree programme includes an integrated ‘Core Year’ in which second- and third-year students are required to take five functional management area courses: management accounting, financial management, marketing management, human resource management and operations management. Strategy orientated and utilising the case study method extensively, the pedagogical focus is on opportunity analysis and decision-making.

The reason for embedding the project within mandatory courses in the Core Year of programme was to ensure that all students were exposed to venture creation and business planning’s risks and uncertainties, and to the reality of making business decisions in terms of planning and structuring an enterprise.

The experience which all undergraduate Business students are required to undergo in the Core Year involves the development, in groups of three to five, across the academic year, of an integrated venture creation project. The project has students develop a business concept, research its’ feasibility by performing all necessary market research and information gathering, develop a business plan, present the business plan to a panel of external judges, role-playing the seeking of venture capital support. Projects are taken to the point where, should such capital be forthcoming, the groups will be in a position to commence their start-up operations immediately.

Although groups consult closely with instructors, who approve product concepts, the key decisions are taken within the groups as to what information needs exist, how the information is to be obtained, where, when and by whom, thus providing an atmosphere of ambiguity and risk. Groups also network with external expert/information sources including a local, government-run business development office, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as local prominent, successful entrepreneurs and financial institutions.

More specifically, the project is divided into two phases, Phase I occupying the Fall term of the class year and Phase II occupying the second, Winter, term. During the course of the project students are expected to:


Phase I: Venture feasibility

• Develop an original, innovative yet realistic business idea from within the group although many of the concepts proposed come from family-members, friends or other contacts.

• Identify information needs and perform all the necessary market research, including market surveys with both consumers and customers (retailers) and other potential channel of distribution intermediaries.

• Begin the creation of a product prototype.

• Develop preliminary investment requirements.

• Perform a competitive analysis.

• Acquire preliminary supply-chain information and component supply/contract manufacturing costing.

• Present their Phase I research and feasibility findings to their fellow students and instructors at the end of the term.

Groups are at risk at this stage. Should there be deficiencies in the Phase I development or should the project selected prove unfeasible, groups will then be required to make up the Phase I deficiencies or to start over in the case of an unfeasible project. This places the students in incompletion jeopardy risk in addition to grade risk.

Phase II: Preparation of the business plan

• Make up deficiencies from Phase I.

• Fulfill all information needs for the development of a complete business plan including integrated and comprehensive marketing, financial, operations/supply chain and human resource plans.

• Finalise prototype development/service template development – where feasible given limited student resources, working prototypes are encouraged.

• Present the final business plans to fellow students, instructors and a panel of external expert business judges.

As well as grades, students are competing for the possibility of winning substantial externally-sponsored monetary prizes ranging from $200 to $1000 for winning teams.

3.2 Assessment

Phases I and II are graded separately, although grades lost due to Phase I deficiencies can be recovered in Phase II in some circumstances. Grades and monetary prizes are awarded on the basis of performance in several key areas of the project:

• originality/innovativeness/workability of the concept.

Contents of the business plan in terms of:

• validity and extent of feasibility assessment

• assessment of start-up and operational financial requirement


• pro forma operating statements/cash flow projections • comprehensiveness of marketing plan • operations factors including contract manufacturing arrangements where done • quality/professionalism of report structuring • quality/professionalism of presentations.

The difficulties experienced in running the experiment are that students need extensive coaching from faculty, who are not always all committed or able to devote time and energy to provide students with more support. However, graduates consider it an added value to their degree and keep advocating the continuance of the business plan exercise as part of the mandatory core activities of the undergraduate business program at Laurentian University.

4 Methodology

4.1 Model

A theoretical model including seven attitudinal variables was developed and reported in Cachon and Cotton (1987), of which four variables were confirmed as explanatory of an EO. Figure 1 presents a model integrating two sets of components. The first set includes the three pedagogical processes described in the literature review which are at play during the business plan development activity, as well as ‘learning by doing’ as a fourth relevant pedagogical process. The second set of components covers the variables representing entrepreneurial attitudes (Table 1). The dependent variable in the model is EO, which represents entrepreneurial attitudes regarding achievement, self-esteem, personal control, and innovation in a business context (Robinson et al., 1991).

The four independent variables are: • The PO of the students, representing their attitudes towards what they wished to

achieve (obtain a good mark, learn about starting a business), their level of motivation, their perceptions about interactions with their group, and personal interest and perceived influence they had in generating ideas and accomplishing the project.

• The Risk Attitude (RA), representing the attitude of students towards risk in social and financial contexts (Kogan and Wallach, 1959, 1961, 1964).

• Tutoring (TU) representing the perception of students regarding the level of support and tutoring they perceived to have received or thought they needed or not from the instructor.

• LC, the students’ level of internality. LC has been defined as the perception of controlling the events of one’s life (Rotter, 1966): people who have an internal LC believe they can influence their surroundings to a stronger level than people who display an external LC, who tend to believe to a larger degree that fate plays a role in life and cannot be much controlled. Earlier versions of the model attempted to include other variables such as group interactions, past entrepreneurial experiences and personal skills, but none of them proved empirically relevant in the previous research.


Figure 1 Integrative model of pedagogical processes and entrepreneurial attitudes

Table 1 Attitudinal variables

Variable name Variable acronym Citations

Related literature on similar variable measurement Scale

Entrepreneurial orientation EO Robinson et al. (1991) Caird (1991), Cromie (2000) and Kirby (2006)

1 – 10

Personal orientation and attitudes towards the activities and the group

PO Cachon and Cotton (1987) Colbeck et al. (2000)

0 – 100

Attitude towards risk RA Cachon and Cotton (1987) Kogan and Wallach (1959, 1961, 1964)

0 – 100

Locus of control LC Neal and Seeman (1964) and McGraw and Robichaud (1995)

Rotter (1966) and Cachon (1988)

Forced choice

Perceptions towards instructor’s support and tutoring

TU Cachon and Cotton (1987) Johnson et al. (1998)

0 – 100

4.2 Instrument

The questionnaire included five attitudinal scales. EO was measured through a 35-question version of the originally 75-item Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EO) scale (Robinson et al., 1991). The four independent variables were measured as follows: for LC, the Neal and Seeman (1964) scale was used, while the three other scales were


developed by Cachon and Cotton (1987). A high level of internality would be reflected by a low score on the Neal and Seeman scale and a high level of independence would be reflected by a low score on the TU scale; conversely, higher scores were to be expected on the PO and RA scales from students displaying a high EO. Each item measuring EO was rated on a scale from 1 to 10 while each item measuring PO, RA and TU was rated from 0 to 100. The LC scale was coded 0 for answers reflecting an internal LC, and 1 for answers reflecting an external LC.

4.3 Hypotheses

Three sets of hypotheses were formulated. The first set considered the differences between students with a strong EO and students with a weak EO based upon their scores on the four independent scales. High EO score subjects were defined as having scored half a standard deviation above the median of the student group on the EO scale (EO score above 274), while Low EO score subjects were defined as having scored half a standard deviation below the median of the student group on the EO scale (EO score below 246). The second set of hypotheses pertains to differences between students and graduates, and the third set examines differences between employed and self-employed graduates, as well as self-employment rates amongst graduates.

Hypotheses 1: High EO Score students have significantly higher PO and RA scores and significantly lower TU and LC scores than Low EO Score students. Highly entrepreneurial students would already display higher levels of internality and need less support and tutoring from the instructor for the course. They would, therefore, be expected to obtain lower scores on the TU and LC scales; conversely, they are more personally committed to the project and are less averse to a calculated amount of risk. These students are also more likely to become self-employed during or after the course of their studies. In fact, it happens that a student goes through the exercise and concurrently helps someone close prepare and implement an ‘actual’ business venture plan. This was the case in one known instance in 2005–2006.

Hypotheses 2: Graduates were expected to have significantly higher scores than students on all scales, except for LC, as they would be expected to have developed a stronger internal LC. High EO Score students were expected to have scores similar to those of self-employed graduates on the four attitudinal scales.

Hypotheses 3: Self-employed graduates have significantly higher PO and RA scores and significantly lower TU and LC scores than employed graduates, and the proportion of self-employed graduates for the period 1989–2005 is higher than proportions at other undergraduate business schools and higher than in the general population in Canada.

4.4 Samples

The student sample included 147 undergraduate students of 2005–2006 to whom the questionnaire was administered in the classroom one week after the business plans were submitted. The graduate sample consisted of 193 graduates from the B.Com. program who obtained their degree from 1989 to 2005 (1075 questionnaires were sent out, 121 of them were returned undelivered, of the remaining 954 questionnaires


193 were filled out for a response rate of 20.2%). Both samples included Anglophone majority and Francophone minority subjects, potential differences between the two groups will be the subject of another paper. Data were analysed with SPSS version 12.0. Each scale was tested for reliability. T-tests comparing group means, correlations between the dependent and independent variables, and regressions were also performed. Regression analyses used the EO score as the dependent variable and the four attitudinal variables as the independent variables.

5 Results

Reliability procedures were conducted using the SPSS split-half procedure yielding Spearman-Brown reliability coefficients for each scale (Table 2). The RA scale had a lower level of reliability than expected but the other scales showed acceptable levels.

Table 2 Spearman-brown split-half reliability coefficients

Scale Number of

items Spearman-brown

coefficient Guttman

split-half coefficient Correlation

between forms PO 14 0.71 0.71 0.55 RA 8 0.29 0.29 0.17 TU 5 0.66 0.65 0.48 EO 35 0.82 0.82 0.70 LC 7 0.64 0.64 0.47

Pearson correlation analyses between the dependent and the independent variables (Tables 3 and 4) showed that PO and RAs were significantly associated with a high score on EO among both student and graduate groups, while internality (LC) and TU perceptions were not. Graduates, particularly the self-employed, expressed a significantly more internal LC. Overall, the hypotheses were partly verified, as follows.

Hypotheses 1: As expected, high scorers on EO had a significantly higher personal commitment to the project: they were less focused on “getting a good grade”, more inclined to have put their own money in the project and had a more positive view of the work done within their group. For the TU and LC scales, while differences between means (Table 5) were in the right direction, i.e., high EO students had a higher level of internality than low EO students and also a lower dependency on the instructor, the differences were not significant. Separate regression analyses were conducted for each of these two student groups to identify which variables were predictive of an EO among the groups, with EO as the dependent vector and the four other scales as the independent matrix. Results were weak, with R-squares of 0.211 for the Low EO group (significant predictive variables were RA and internality (LC) in negative direction), and 0.126 for the High EO group with no significant predictor.

Hypotheses 2: High EO score students had mean scores statistically similar to self-employed graduates for two of the scales, LC and RA (no significant mean differences on the t-tests), but had significantly lower scores for TU (p < 0.05) and higher scores for PO (p < 0.001, see Tables 5 and 6). Their significantly higher score on the EO scale (p < 0.05) is the result of the definition of the High EO score category and was not part of these hypotheses.


Table 3 Correlations between entrepreneurial orientation and the independent variables student sample n = 147

PO RA TU LC

EO 0.435** 0.296** –0.044 –0.113 PO 0.233** –0.023 –0.059 RA 0.287** –0.200* TU –0.223**

*Significant at p < 0.05 (2-tailed). **Significant at p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 4 Correlations between Entrepreneurial Orientation and the independent variables Graduate sample n = 191

PO RA TU LC EO 0.374** 0.343** –0.073 –0.168* PO 0.347** –0.053 –0.169* RA 0.137 –0.329** TU –0.095

*Significant at p < 0.05 (2-tailed). **Significant at p < 0.01 (2-tailed).

Table 5 Means (medians) and standard deviations: students

All students N = 147

All students

Low EO scores N = 49

Low EO scores

High EO scores N = 46

High EO scores

Variable Mean (Median) Std. D. Mean Std. D. Mean Std. D. PO 699.5 (695) 224.9 586.6 (600) 202.3 824.8* (832.5) 214.0 RA 450.0 (440) 111.8 405.8 (425) 110.9 483.8* (475) 100.3 TU 326.1 (330) 96.1 322.4 (320) 95.2 301.8 (310) 100.2 EO 258.6 (260) 28.8 227.2 (233) 16.9 290.1* (288) 14.2 LC 3.09 (3.00) 1.62 3.10 (3.00) 1.43 2.77 (3.00) 1.75

Low EO scorers are cases scoring below 0.5 standard deviation below the all students’ median. High EO scorers are cases scoring above 0.5 standard deviation above the all students’ median. *t-test significant at p < 0.001 between high and low EO scorers.

As shown in Table 6, graduates’ scores were significantly different than those of students on all scales. While the higher TU score among graduates may appear difficult to understand, it is possible to imagine that graduates tend to respond more positively to questions about past class activities dating back many years than students who are still in their school year and have to deal with end-of-year stress. Yearly surveys of graduates also show a high level of satisfaction towards the programs taught at the Laurentian University’s School of Commerce, which most likely provokes a positive halo effect on graduates’ perceptions of past university experiences.


Hypotheses 3: While sample means were in the expected direction according to Table 6, self-employed graduates differed significantly from their employed counterparts only for the RA scale, suggesting they were significantly more willing to take risks.

Table 6 Means (medians) and standard deviations – graduates

All graduates N = 191

All graduates

Employed graduates N = 152

Employed graduates

Self-employed graduates N = 39

Self-employed graduates

Variable Mean

(Median) Standard deviation Mean (Median)

Standard deviation Mean (Median)

Standard deviation

PO 634.8*(655) 207.4 626.5 (640) 212.3 667.5 (690) 186.0 RA 484.6* (487.5) 117.3 473.4 (480) 112.5 529.1** (527.5) 127.0 TU 357.0* (370) 88.9 358.1 (367.5) 82.4 352.8 (380) 112.4 EO 274.0* (277) 30.0 272.7 (273) 30.4 279.2 (279.5) 28.2 LC 2.52* (2.00) 1.83 2.60 (2.00) 1.84 2.18 (2.00) 1.76

*t-test significant at p < 0.01 between students and graduates. **t-test significant at p < 0.01 between employed and self-employed graduates.

The proportions of self-employed business school graduates reported by various institutions vary greatly and there appears to be is a paucity of data on this topic. In many instances it seems that business school degrees are perceived as a ticket to lucrative life-time employment within large corporations and government agencies. A majority of universities report about employment and proportions of graduates who are employed, but neglect most of the time to report on self-employment. Data exist mostly for MBA programs, for example, Altman (2006) mentions that 23% of the Cranfield School MBA graduates launch their own business, without mentioning which proportion of them have that business as their main source of income. A report from the University of Surrey (2004) indicates that, at the undergraduate level, 1.8% of business graduates became self-employed and 3.7% of those who graduated in business plus another subject. Galloway and Brown (2002) report a rate of self-employment of 7.3% among Scottish graduates, while the rate is 4% among the general population (Galloway and Levie, 2001). In terms of the general population, self-employment seems to vary between jurisdictions. In North America, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), self-employment rates among the general population stood on average at 7.7% in the USA between 1998 and 2000, and 11.2% in Canada (Torrini, 2002). Thirty nine out of the 193 graduate respondents have indicated self-employment as their primary source of income, a proportion of 20.2%, almost double the Canadian average.

6 Discussion

The low reliability of the RA scale is explainable insofar as risk-taking is influenced by a number of general factors as reported by Nicholson et al. (2002). These factors include gender, age and personality traits such as one’s openness to values and the fact of seeking sensations. While humans avoid risky situations when they feel relatively secure


(Nicholson, 1998), some people take risks more consistently than others who are more consistently risk averse; generally, risk-taking is instrumental in order to obtain a material or a psychological satisfaction, rather than for the enjoyment of the risk itself. In the context of entrepreneurship, risk taking is mainly considered as a calculated risk, whereby entrepreneurs do business planning in order to enhance their chances of success as well as prepare for potential risky situations that may arise in the future by having alternate plans and retreat positions. Sometimes, entrepreneurs will see situations and opportunities as risky not only in terms of a potential failure (‘sinking risk’) but also in terms of failing to seize a promising opportunity (‘missing risk’).

The results obtained on the LC scale were consistent with findings from McGraw and Robichaud (1995). However, even if the relatively high standard deviations yielded by the Neal and Seeman scale render the results inconclusive in absolute terms; it remains that, as was the case in previous similar studies (Miller and Toulouse, 1986; Cachon, 1988), practicing entrepreneurs display more internality than non-entrepreneurs in a consistent way.

As for the vast majority of entrepreneurship education studies, the present one involves a single institution, thus rendering difficult any generalisation. At the same time, as an increasing number of higher education institutions worldwide (Fayolle and Klandt, 2006) more often adopt pedagogical techniques and processes putting students always closer to real entrepreneurial situations (Gasse and Tremblay, 2006; Cannavacciuolo et al., 2006; Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006), each of the local experiments reported similar outcomes: the more exposed students are to entrepreneurial activities, the less they become fearful of becoming self-employed at a later stage.

7 Conclusion

The Integrated Venture Project has been used since the mid-1980s; thus it presents an opportunity to research, as this study reports, not only students who recently completed the project, but also graduates who completed it some time ago.

The high self-employment rate of the graduates is the most surprising finding of this research. It is difficult to cast doubt on the validity of the result as the sample represents over 20% of the Laurentian University’s School of Commerce bachelor graduates over a period of 15 years. All these graduates were exposed to the same exercise during their studies and had, therefore, acquired a thorough knowledge of what a business plan is, of how it is prepared and how it is evaluated. It would be interesting to establish how these graduates started their businesses, and, if they did, what proportion of them came from business families, but also how Laurentian University’s graduates compare with those from other universities in Ontario or Canada. The high level of entrepreneurs is even more surprising if the local environment is considered: Northern Ontario’s economy being dominated by large employers from both the private and the public sector (Mulholland et al., 1998) and providing lifetime employment for decades, thus creating a strong ‘employee culture’ as opposed to an entrepreneurial culture. Another research by McLarty (2005) reports self-employment levels among university graduates ranging between 2% and 10% in the UK, but the data cover single years and date back to the period between 1990 and the mid-nineties. McLarty concludes that, in general, self-employed graduates from East Anglia felt poorly prepared regarding selling,


accounting and facing risks. The question is raised whether universities train students to become employees rather than entrepreneurs.

Since Knight (1987) asked whether business schools can “produce entrepreneurs”, there has been a need for research about entrepreneurial education in order to identify models which are working and those which are not (Volery and Mueller, 2006). Galloway and Brown (2002) quote the fact that a program called Graduate into Enterprise was not as successful as expected at the University of Stirling; Akola and Heinonen (2006) examined 37 entrepreneurial training programs in seven European countries and conclude that the key results of these programs indicate how well students scored, rather than how well the program trained them. Akola and Heinonen argue that enterprise education can only be successful if the teaching of entrepreneurial processes produces outcomes, i.e., new entrepreneurs. However, there are also indications that entrepreneurship training is successful in increasing a positive attitude towards self-employment (Tkachev and Kolvereid, 1999) as well as the intention to become an entrepreneur (Fayolle, 2005), by developing the sense of an entrepreneurial vision (Filion, 1991).

The attitudinal measures performed in this research also continue to show the persistence of characteristics such as the desire to control one’s environment and positive attitudes and communication skills as relevant. Besides active experiences, other types of training, such as co-op placements in business settings, could also reinforce the entrepreneurial attitudes of students. At the upper-year undergraduate as well as at the MBA level, other experiential teaching activities have been put into practice by both authors, for example involving strong students in consulting activities with businesses, non-profit organisations and government agencies. The limited numbers involved prevent drawing conclusions relating to the students’ experiences, but it can be hypothesised that students who have participated in these high-risk types of activities have developed a higher entrepreneurial attitude than students who limited themselves to traditional class work, even with a heavy use of the case method and other classroom experiments.

At Laurentian University, the recent creation of cooperative education Honours Bachelor of Commerce programs (in French since 2005, in English starting in 2007), where students with a B average (i.e., 70% or above) can obtain a full year of meaningful work experience, and graduate with a degree in four years, should reinforce entrepreneurial attitudes among students. The development of entrepreneurial training activities aimed at the general student population, as well as cooperative placements are also contemplated, as well as the possibility of helping students wishing to start a business after completing the venture project.

References Akola, E. and Heinonen, J. (2006) ‘Does training of entrepreneurs support entrepreneurial learning?

A study of training programmes for existing and potential entrepreneurs in seven European countries’, 51st International Council for Small Business World Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, p.10.

Altman, W. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurial Spirit … Dead or Alive?’, Engineering Management Magazine, April, Accessed on April 22, http://www.iee.org/oncomms/sector/management/ magazine.cfm?issueID=108&articleID=B2.


Audet, J. (2004) ‘L’impact de deux projets de session sur les perceptions et intentions entrepreneuriales d’étudiants en administration’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.223–240.

Béchard, J-P. (1994) ‘Les grandes questions de recherche en entrepreneurship et éducation’, Cahier de recherche – École des Hautes Études Commerciales, Montréal, QC, Canada, No. 94-11-02.

Cachon, J-C. (1988) ‘Venture creators and firm buyers: a comparison of attitudes towards government help and locus of control’, in Kirchhoff, B.A., Long, W.A., Ed McMullan, W., Vesper, K.H. and Wetzel Jr., W.E. (Eds.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, Chap. 31, pp.568-579.

Cachon, J-C. and Cotton, G.B. (1987) ‘Assessing entrepreneurial orientation in an educational setting: testing a model’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.44–52.

Caird, S. (1991) ‘The enterprising tendency of occupational groups’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.75–81.

Cannavacciuolo, L., Capaldo, G., Esposito, G., Iandoli, L. and Raffa, M. (2006) ‘To support the emergence of academic entrepreneurs: the role of business plan competitions’, in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds.): International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Elgar, pp.55–73.

Colbeck, C., Campbell, S. and Bjorklund, S. (2000) ‘Grouping in the dark: what college students learn from group projects’, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 71, pp.60–83.

Cotton, G.B. and Cachon, J-C. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurial pedagogy’, Business Education, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.17–29.

Cromie, S. (2000) ‘Assessing entrepreneurial implications: some approaches and empirical evidence’, European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.7–30.

Cromie, S. and O’Donoghue, J. (1992) ‘Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.66–73.

Fayolle, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of entrepreneurship education: behaviour performing or intention increasing?’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.89–98.

Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (2006) International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Filion, L.J. (1991) ‘Vision and relations: elements for an entrepreneurial metamodel’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.26–40.

Franke, N. and Lüthje, C. (2004) ‘Entrepreneurial intentions of business students: a benchmarking study’, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.269–288.

Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002) ‘Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms?’, Education and Training, Vol. 44, Nos. 8–9, pp.398–406.

Galloway, L. and Levie, J. (2001) Global Entrepreneurship Scotland, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

Gasse, Y. (1982a) ‘L’entrepreneur moderne: attributs et fonctions’, Revue Internationale de Gestion, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.3–10.

Gasse, Y. (1982b) ‘Entrepreneurs and university graduates: expectations and evaluations’, in Vesper, K.H. (Ed.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson College, Boston, pp.568–578.

Gasse, Y. (1982c) ‘Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur’, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Englewood-Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp.57–71.

Gasse, Y. and Tremblay, M. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education among students at a Canadian university: an extensive empirical study of students’ entrepreneurial preferences and intentions’, in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds.): International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp.241–262.


Geneste, L. and Schaper, M. (2004) ‘‘Let’s go shopping!’: an entrepreneurship simulation exercise’, Training and Management Development, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.601–607.

Gibb, A.A. (1990) ‘Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship – exploring the differences’, in Donckels, R. and Miettinen, A. (Eds.): New Findings and Perspectives in Entrepreneurship, Gower, Aldershot, pp.33–67.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and W. King (1997) ‘Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten year literature review’, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.56–77.

Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S-A. (2006) ‘An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: mission impossible?’, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.80–94.

Hills, G.E. and Morris, M.H. (1998) ‘Entrepreneurship education: a conceptual model and review’, in Scott, M.G., Rosa, P. and Klandt, H. (Eds.): Educating Entrepreneurs for Wealth Creation, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Hants, pp.38–58.

Hornaday, J.A. (1982) ‘Research about living entrepreneurs’, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.L. (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.20–34.

Johnson, D., Craig, J.B.L. and Hildebrand, R. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education: towards a discipline-based framework’, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.40–54.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K.A. (1998) ‘Cooperative learning returns to college: what evidence is there that it works?’, Change, Vol. 30, July–August, pp.27–35.

Kirby, D.A. (2006) ‘Entrepreneurship education: can business schools meet the challenge?’, in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds.): International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Elgar, pp.35–54.

Knight, R. (1987) ‘Can business schools produce entrepreneurs? an empirical study’, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.17–27.

Kogan, N. and Wallach, M.A. (1959) ‘Sex differences and judgement processes’, Journal of Personality, Vol. 27, pp.555–564.

Kogan, N. and Wallach, M.A. (1961) ‘Aspects of judgement and decision-making: interrelationships and changes with age’, Behavioral Science, Vol. 6, pp.23–36.

Kogan, N. and Wallach, M.A. (1964) Risk Taking, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Leitch, C.M. and Harrison, R.T. (1999) ‘A process model for entrepreneurship education

and development’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.83–98.

Lessem, R. (1986) Enterprise Development, Gower, Aldershot. McGraw, E. and Robichaud, Y. (1995) ‘Le concept de contrôle du destin et son influence sur

le comportement entrepreneurial’, Revue Internationale PME, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.79–97. McLarty, R. (2005) ‘Entrepreneurship among graduates: towards a measured response’,

The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.223–238. Menzies, T. and Gasse, Y. (1999) Entrepreneurship and the Canadian Universities: Report

of a National Study of Entrepreneurship Education, The John Dobson Foundation, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Miller, G. and Toulouse, J-M. (1986) ‘Chief executive personality and corporate strategy and culture in small firms’, Management Science, Vol. 32, pp.1389–1409.

Mulholland, R., Blanco, Cachon, J-C., H., Vincent, C. and Zinger, T. (1998) The State of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in Northern Ontario, FedNor/Industry, Canada.

Neal, A.G. and Seeman, M. (1964) ‘Organizations and powerlessness: a test of the mediation hypothesis’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, pp.216-226.

Nicholson, N. (1998) ‘How hardwired is human behavior?’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp.134–147.


Nicholson, N., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Soane, E. and Willman, P. (2002) Risk Propensity and Personality, University of London, London, Available from http://facultyresearch. london.edu/docs/risk.ps.pdf, Accessed April 23, 2006.

Pascarella, E. and Terenzini, P. (2004) How College Affects Students Volume 2: A Third Decade of Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003) ‘Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.129–144.

Rae, D. and Carswell, M. (2000) ‘Using a life-story approach in researching entrepreneurial learning: the development of a conceptual model and its implications in the design of learning experiences’, Education and Training, Vol. 42, Nos. 4–5, pp.220–227.

Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C. and Hunt, H.K. (1991) ‘An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15, pp.13–31.

Rotter, J.B. (1966) ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80, No. 1, p.609.

Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984a) ‘Entrepreneurship education: suggestions for increasing effectiveness’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp.18–25.

Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B. (1984b) ‘Personality inventory for potential entrepreneurs: evaluation of a modified JPI/PRF-E test instrument’, in Hornaday, J.A., Tardley, F.A., Timmons, J.A. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds.): Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, Chap. 35, pp.513–528.

Smith, B. and MacGregor, J. (1992) ‘What is collaborative learning?’, in Goodsell, M.M.A. and Tinto, V. (Eds.): Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, University Park, Pennsylvania State University, National Center on Post-secondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, PA, pp.9–22.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and A. Tarabishy (2002) ‘The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: a nationwide survey and analysis’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.65–87.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. and Donovan, S. (1999) ‘Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: a meta-analysis’, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 69, pp.21–51.

Timmons, J.A., Smollen, L.E. and Dingee, A.L.M. (1985) New Venture Creation, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Tkachev, A. and Kolvereid, L. (1999) ‘Self-employment intentions among Russian students’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.269–280.

Torrini, R. (2002) ‘Cross-country differences in self-employment rates’, Temi di Discussione, Banca d’Italia, No. 459, p.43.

University of Surrey (2004) First Destinations of Business Studies Graduates, accessed on April 22, 2006, http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/staffcareers/documents/Business Studies_000.pdf.

Verzat, C. and Bachelet, R. (2006) ‘Developing an entrepreneurial spirit among engineering college students: what are the educational factors?’, in Fayolle, A. and Klandt, H. (Eds.): International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, Cheltenham, UK, Elgar, pp.191–217.

Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997) ‘Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education’, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.403–421.

Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (2001) Compendium of Entrepreneur Programs, University of Southern California, Lloyd Grief Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Los Angeles.

Volery, T. and Mueller, S. (2006) ‘A conceptual framework for testing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education programs towards entrepreneurial intention’, 51st International Council for Small Business World Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, p.12.


Questionnaire

The first sets of questions below refer to the venture project involving preparing a business plan in group during core year. Please circle 100 if you totally agree with the statement, 0 if you totally disagree, and anywhere in between to reflect your level of agreement or disagreement.

My major objectives out of this project were:

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 1 To get a good mark 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 2 Sell my own ideas to other people 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 3 Generate an idea that would allow

me to make money 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 4 To show my own Personal skills 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 5 To get some fun out of class work

by doing something I like 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 6 To learn as much as possible on

starting a business venture 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 7 To be better accepted by my

group 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 8 To lead the group 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 9 To be liked by the other people in

my group 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 10 To impress somebody, either

within the group or outside 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 11 To overcome problems in my

course performance 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 12 I played a very strong role leading

the group 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 13 I think I spent more time than

others working on the project 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 14 I would have worked more if the

project had contributed more to the final mark

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:

1 I usually do not care much about

what people think of what I do 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 3 I believe our venture would have a

high pay-off potential 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 4 I would not go to a party where I know only one person 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 5 I never went to a restaurant or bar alone 0 30 70 100


:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 6 If I am lost in a city, I’m never afraid of asking for directions 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 7 I feel threatened in a large class 0 30 70 100 :…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 8 I enjoyed heated debate within our

group 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 1 I never knew exactly what the professor expected from us 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 2 In my opinion, the professor was too directive 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 3 I often felt that the ‘course rules’ were negatively affecting our work 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 4 I think we did not have enough readings for preparing the project 0 30 70 100

:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…:…: 5 I think we did not have enough time devoted to discuss the project in class

0 30 70 100

The following questions are addressed to you as a business person. Indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements by circling

a number between ‘1’ and ‘10’ where ‘1’ indicates that you strongly disagree with the statement and ‘10’ indicates you strongly agree with the statement. A ‘5’ indicates you only slightly disagree and a ‘6’ shows only slight agreement. Work as quickly as you can, do not stop to think too deeply about any one question, but mark down your first thought. Please answer all of the questions.

1 I get my biggest thrills when my work is among the best there is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 I seldom follow instructions unless the task I am working on is too complex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 I never put important matters off until a more convenient time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 I feel very energetic working with innovative colleagues in a dynamic business climate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 I believe that concrete results are necessary in order to judge business success 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 I spend a considerable amount of time making any organisation I belong to function better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 I believe it is important to analyse your own weaknesses in business dealings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 I get excited when I am able to approach tasks in unusual ways 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 I enjoy being able to use old business concepts in new ways 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


10 I feel terribly restricted being tied down to tightly organised business activities, even when I am in control

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I often sacrifice personal comfort in order to take advantage of business opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 I do every job as thoroughly as possible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 To be successful I believe it is important to use your time wisely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 I make a conscientious effort to get the most out of my business resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 I get a sense of pride when I do a good job on my business projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 I believe that organisations which do not experience radical changes now and then tend to

get stuck in a rut 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 I think that to succeed in business these days you must eliminate inefficiencies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18 I feel proud when I look at the results I have achieved in my business activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19 Most of my time is spent working on several business ideas at the same time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 I believe it is more important to think about future possibilities than past accomplishments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 I usually delegate routine tasks after only a short period of time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22 I will spend a considerable amount of time analysing my future business needs before

I allocate any resources 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 23 I believe that to become successful in business you must spend some time every day

developing new opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24 I make it a point to do something significant and meaningful at work every day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 I usually take control in unstructured situations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26 I believe that when pursuing business goals or objectives, the final result is far more

important than following the accepted procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 27 I feel depressed when I do not accomplish any meaningful work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 28 I often approach business tasks in unique ways 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 29 I believe the most important thing in selecting business associates is their competency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 30 I enjoy finding good solutions for problems that nobody has looked at yet 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


31 I always feel good when I make the organisations I belong to function better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 32 I get real excited when I think of new ideas to stimulate my business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 33 I always try to make friends with people who may be useful in my business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 34 I usually seek out colleagues who are excited about exploring new ways of doing things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 35 I enjoy being the catalyst for change in business affairs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In this section, please choose, for each pair of statements, the ONE of two answers best corresponding to your opinion (X one line only per pair).

1 I think we have adequate means for preventing runaway inflation –––––––– There is very little we can do to keep prices from going higher –––––––– 2 Conflict with those of strong pressure groups –––––––– I feel that we have adequate ways of coping with pressure groups –––––––– 3 A lasting world peace can be achieved by those of us who work toward it –––––––– There is very little we can do to bring a permanent world peace –––––––– 4 There is very little persons like myself can do to improve world opinion

of Canada –––––––– I think each of us can do a great deal to improve world opinion of Canada –––––––– 5 This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the

little guy can do about it –––––––– The average citizen can have an influence on government decisions –––––––– 6 It is only wishful thinking to believe that one can really influence what

happens in society at large –––––––– People like me can change the course of world events if we make

ourselves heard –––––––– 7 More and more, I feel helpless in the face of what's happening in the

world today –––––––– I sometimes feel personally to blame for the sad state of affairs in our

government ––––––––

The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training on business school students' and graduates'...

Documents

Transcript of The long-term effects of active entrepreneurial training on business school students' and graduates'...