DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/idjina.v2i2.59500 IDJINA (2023)
Interdisciplinary Journal of
Innovation in Nepalese Academia
Volume 2 Issue 2, October 2023
Article Type: Research Article
Impact of Personality Traits on Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Development
Bhupal Bikram Kathayat1* , Dipak Singh Rawat1
, Bablu Gurung1
1Graduate School of Management Mid-West University, Birendranagar, Surkhet, Nepal
Received: 13 August 2023; Accepted: 08 October 2023; Published: 8 November 2023
*Corresponding email: bnb.kathayat@gmail.com ISSN: 2976-1204 (Print), 2976 – 131X (Online)
Copyright © 2023 by authors and Interdisciplinary Journal of Innovation in Nepalese Academia. The articles in IDJINA
are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any
medium or format in unadapted form only, for non-commercial purposes only, and only so long
as attribution is given to the creator.
Abstract
The evolving landscape of globalization is bringing about inevitable changes in the development of sustainable
entrepreneurship. Sustainable entrepreneurship combines entrepreneurial traits with a focus on both market success
and social impact. However, in today's competitive environment, it is imperative for every entrepreneur to possess
specific personality traits to enhance their competitiveness. The primary objective of this research is to investigate the
influence of four significant personality traits: agreeableness, openness, extraversion, and neuroticism, on the
sustainable development of entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The study employs a
positivist research philosophy, an explanatory research design, and a quantitative survey method using a convenience
sampling technique. A total of 396 entrepreneurs from the registered SMEs in Surkhet district were identified as
samples. Inferential statistics, specifically structural equation modeling, were used to analyze the data. The study
reveals that personality traits such as agreeableness, openness, and extraversion have a positive influence on the
development of sustainable entrepreneurship. This suggests that individuals possessing interpersonal skills,
innovativeness, curiosity, situational sociability, confidence, and passion played a foundational role in promoting
entrepreneurial sustainability. On the other hand, the personality trait of neuroticism demonstrats an insignificant
positive impact on sustainable entrepreneurial development. This implies that neurotic individuals, prone to anxiety,
stress, and emotional instability, may hinder decision-making processes and disrupt the stability of sustainable
entrepreneurship. Based on these findings, the study suggests that entrepreneurs should prioritize instrumental features
of personality traits like agreeableness, openness, and extraversion for sustainable entrepreneurship development,
while minimizing the influence of neuroticism.
Keywords: SMEs, entrepreneurship, agreeableness, openness, extraversion, neuroticism
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 203 IDJINA (2023)
Introduction
Business creation, operation, and sustainability are becoming increasingly difficult for
entrepreneurs in today's highly competitive global market. The start-up and advancement of
enterprises are significant subsets of sustainable entrepreneurship (Ahmad & Maochun, 2019).
Besides, tremendous opportunities and challenges positively or negatively influence
entrepreneurial activities. As a result, every entrepreneur must possess exceptional personality
traits to grab opportunities and successfully navigate business-related challenges (Kirkley, 2017;
Brandstatter, 2011; Chitra & Ramya Sreedevi, 2011)
Most renowned authors have defined entrepreneurship as one of the critical drivers of economic
growth (Landes et al., 2012; Grey, 2013). Similarly, entrepreneurship has been recognized as a
catalyst for enhancing the quality of human social life (Keat et al., 2011); however, Neck Greene
(2011) has discussed entrepreneurship as a tool to generate novel ideas in unsettling circumstances.
The term "entrepreneurs" is also used to describe people who grow and expand their businesses
(Kyro, 2001; Gartner, 1990); social-economic movements of people (Pastakia, 1998; Mair & Marti,
2006). Moreover, individuals imitate others to stay competitive (Wiklund, 1999), and personality
traits or qualities correspondingly, such as ambition, leadership, team building, personal
involvement, and commitment (Keogh & Polonsky, 1998; Prahalad, 2006).
The most important question for entrepreneurship development is whether or not entrepreneurs
can enhance personality traits associated with creativity and innovation (Schaltegger & Wagner,
2011); despite any difficulties they may experience (Kiefer et al., 2019). Moreover, business success
depends on personal capabilities, organizational structure, and socio-cultural environment (Breuer
& Ludeke-Freund, 2017). Even though entrepreneurial traits are crucial for business success and
ultimately benefit society (Freeman, 1984), they can also help entrepreneurs take advantage of
market opportunities (Schaltegger & Burritt, 2018).
Sustainable entrepreneurship development combines strong environmental and social values with
energetic, entrepreneurial traits and attitudes (Schaltegger, 2002). Sustainable entrepreneurs show
personal mastery that consists of professional and creative activities (Senge, 1990). As per TeranYepez
et al. (2020), sustainable entrepreneurship is one of the fundamental aspects of
entrepreneurial initiatives that consider the traits and qualities of entrepreneurs who have to
establish market success and social transformation. Sustainable entrepreneurship can also emerge
as a result of particular behavioural responses. For this reason, Klewitz and Hansen (2014) identify
five distinct practices leading to sustainable enterprises, ranging from resistant, reactive,
anticipatory, innovation-based, and sustainability-rooted. On the contrary, business growth and
development depend on individual cognitive mechanisms, behavioural responses, specific values,
and attitudes (Hummels & Argyrou, 2021).
In addition, personality traits play a vital role in determining behavior of an individual to make
initiation on entrepreneurship growth and promotion (Tran & Von Korflesch, 2016). A few
variables mediating the effect of personality traits on entrepreneurial development include
perception, attitude, and intention (Shepherd & Krueger, 2002). Despite the role of personality in
entrepreneurial cognitions and opportunity recognition (Ardichvili et al., 2003); motivation,
dedication, self-control, and socialization as qualities or traits of rational entrepreneurs (Miner,
1963); and the fact that personality plays a more significant role in business survival (Ciavarella et
al., 2004), personality traits play a pivotal role in the development of entrepreneurship (Farrukh et
al., 2018). Furthermore, Ahmad and Maochun (2019) identify five big personality traits influencing
entrepreneurial intention and development: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism,
conscientiousness, and openness.
Most previous researchers try to investigate the impact of personality traits on entrepreneurial
intentions in university-level business students. Some of the researchers attempt to recognize risk-
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 204 IDJINA (2023)
taking propensity, need for achievement, and locus of control as the key personality traits for
entrepreneurial development. On the other hand, self-efficiency, self-control, self-determination,
and motivation are the major personality traits needed to become rational entrepreneurs. Besides,
little research is conducted in developed and developing countries worldwide. In the context of
Karnali province and Nepal, there is a lack of empirical research in this field of study.
However, the researcher has conducted an empirical study examining how the personality traits of
agreeableness, openness, extraversion, and neuroticism impact sustainable entrepreneurship
development in Surkhet district. This study significantly contributes to existing research by offering
valuable empirical insights and serving as a theoretical framework for future studies. Its primary
objective is to enhance both theoretical and practical understanding of how these personality traits
influence sustainable entrepreneurship development. To address research gaps, specific research
questions guide the analysis and hypothesis testing, shedding light on the role of these traits in the
context of sustainable entrepreneurship.
Methodology
Entrepreneurship transforms or creates an organization to add value by utilizing available
resources (Bird & Jelinek, 1989). In order to add value, entrepreneurs first choose a service or a
product (Rauch & Frese, 2007; Stewart & Roth, 2001; Zhao et al., 2010). Numerous studies have
found a strong correlation between personality traits and intentions to start and expand a business
venture (Brice, 2004; Zhao & Sibert, 2004; Zhao et al., 2010). Sustainable entrepreneurship
depends on the knowledge and skills, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, motivation and intention, values
and attitudes, business orientation and moral cognition of the entrepreneurs (Ardichvili et al.,
2003).
Furthermore, several personality traits lead to the individual's behavior toward entrepreneurial
intention and development, like risk-taking propensity, the need for achievement, locus of control
(Begley & Boyd, 1987), and despite that, motivation and emotional factors (Fini et al., 2012). In
addition, self-efficiency, self-judgment, self-initiation, and self-control are the major personality
traits for entrepreneurship development (Zhao & Seibert, 2006; Kiviluto et al., 2011; Park, 2017;
Farrukh et al., 2017). There are varieties of personality traits according to the previous studies or
researchers. But in this study, the researcher focuses to identify the four major personality traits
that influence on sustainable entrepreneurship development such as agreeableness, openness,
extraversion, and neuroticism.
Usually, the issue of sustainable entrepreneurship development has been more significant day by
day. The remarkable factors directly or indirectly influence businesses' establishment, operations,
and diversification. In this study, the researcher tried to understand the relationship between four
major personality traits and sustainable entrepreneurship development in the context of small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Surkhet district. The four major personality traits can be
identified as independent variables, and sustainable entrepreneurial development is recognized as
a dependent variable. From the operational point of view, the researcher has scratched the surface
of the study's theoretical framework.
Figure 1
Theoretical Framework of the Study
Personality Traits
• Agreeableness
• Openness
• Extraversion
• Neuroticism
Sustainable Entrepreneurship
Development
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 205 IDJINA (2023)
Figure 1 demonstrates the affiliation between personality traits and sustainable entrepreneurial
development. The personality traits mentioned earlier were adopted by John et al. (2008). John has
identified five big personality traits in their studies such as: agreeableness, openness, extraversion,
neuroticism, and conscientiousness. But in this study, the researcher has attempted to examine the
impact four personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Agreeableness and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development
Agreeableness is one of the key personality traits that may create some benefit to business
enterprises in the long term. According to John et al. (2008), agreeableness is a prosaically and
communally oriented trait with antagonism, including altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, modesty,
and integrity. Besides that, it is related to obedience, custom, and dependence (Costa & McCrae,
1992), reliance and caring (Goldberg, 1992), and selflessness and forgiveness (Zhao & Seibert,
2006). In addition, Brice (2004) defined it as a binding individual characteristic of emotional
dominance. Antonacic et al. (2015) have found that the components of agreeableness, like
patience, cooperativeness, and friendliness, play vital roles in entrepreneurial growth and
promotion. On the other hand, the survival and expansion of entrepreneurial firms require selfcentered
and manipulative entrepreneurial traits (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Similarly, the
agreeableness trait is highly dependent, which can harm business (Judge & Cable, 1997).
Furthermore, entrepreneurs with agreeableness characteristics do not readily accept new ideas.
Such kinds of people keep their beliefs inside because they value other beliefs and repel innovative
ideas (Judge & Cable, 1997). By reviewing the previous theoretical and empirical studies, the
present researcher strives to establish working hypotheses for assessing the impact of
agreeableness personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurial development. The working
hypothesis can be expressed as follows:
H1: The agreeableness has a significant positive impact on sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Openness and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development
Openness is one personality trait that leads to the behavioral aspects of the individual with much
clarity and intensity. As per John et al. (2008), openness describes an individual's mental and
experimental life's breadth, depth, originality, and complexity. Furthermore, McCrae and Costa
(1997) defined openness as a complement to the risk-seeking behaviour of an individual that leads
to the success of the business enterprise. On the other hand, the individual who has openness
personality traits seek to gain open experiences with a high level of acceptance of environmental
change and innovation, tolerance of uncertainty and do not resist changes in his/her individual
and professional life (Ariani, 2013; Costa & McCrae, 1992). According to Zhao et al. (2010), the
openness personality trait describes a person's curiosity, broadmindedness, and creativity toward
duties. Thus, such individuals can discover novel ideas that transform them into existence or
functioning (Zhao & Seibert, 2006). After appraising the ground reality of previous studies, the
present researcher tried to set up a working hypothesis for examining the effect of openness
personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurship development. The operational hypothesis can be
articulated as follows:
H2: The openness has a significant positive impact on sustainable entrepreneurship development
Extraversion and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development
The next essential personality trait is extraversion. An extraversion trait is an energetic approach
in that people can realize the social and material world. Therefore, realism can also be identified
as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and optimism (John et al., 2008). In addition, Costa and
McCrae (1992) discussed the extraversion trait that designates the extent to which individuals are
dominant, assertive, enthusiastic, and talkative. Moreover, an individual with extraversion is
exposed to positive emotions in the workplace. The sub-components of extraversion, like
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 206 IDJINA (2023)
enthusiasm, assertiveness, and optimism, play vital roles in entrepreneurship development (Zhao
& Seibert, 2006). On the contrary, Envick and Langford (2000) found that less extroverted
entrepreneurs cannot run larger enterprises; they only operate small businesses. Therefore, the
higher level of the extraversion personality trait may significantly influence entrepreneurship
development. Through reviewing previous theoretical and empirical results of the studies, the
present researcher attempts to create a working hypothesis for assessing the impact of extraversion
personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurship development. The working hypothesis can be
illustrated as:
H3: The extraversion has a significant positive impact on sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Neuroticism and Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development
Neuroticism was another imperative personality trait. According to John et al. (2008), the
neuroticism personality trait refers to a pessimistic approach that contrasts emotional stability,
temperedness, and feelings of anxiety, nervousness, sadness, and stress. Moreover, it can be
recognized as an individual's exposure to numerous adverse emotions such as hostility,
nervousness, self-consciousness, depression, vulnerability, and impulsiveness (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Most researchers have demonstrated that an individual with neurotic traits is powerless to
have self-confidence, which does not lead to sustainable entrepreneurial development (Judge &
Cable, 1997; Brice, 2004). Therefore, Baron and Markman (1999) highlighted that the individual
with an emotionally stable score or low neuroticism makes more incredible changes in
entrepreneurial initiatives. According to Locke (2000), an individual with a high level of
neuroticism may create problems for business success in the long run. On the contrary,
entrepreneurs needed favorable and hardy characteristics to develop sustainable businesses.
Subsequently evaluating the outcomes of previous studies, the present study focused on
developing operational hypotheses to investigate the influence of the neuroticism personality trait
on sustainable entrepreneurial development. The operational hypothesis can be expressed as
follows:
H4: The neuroticism has a significant positive impact on sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Sampling Techniques and Determination of Sample Size
In this study, the researcher has employed a quantitative approach to examine the effects of four
personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurial development. It means that the objectives of the
study require a survey-based investigation. Creswell (2009) and Maxwell (2016) argue that by using
mathematical, computational, and statistical methods, a quantitative approach helps examine the
cause-and-effect relationship between variables, such as dependent and independent variables. For
this reason, the researcher applied the positivist research paradigm, quantitative methods, and
explanatory research design for the overall operations of the study. Overall, the use of these
methods in this study is to contribute to the credibility, reliability, and generalizability of the study's
findings, particularly in natural and social sciences where empirical evidence and causality are often
of paramount importance. The study's target population was all entrepreneurs who registered their
businesses in the office of small and cottage industries in the Surkhet district.
Besides that, a convenient sampling technique was used to determine the samples. Out of the total
population (5638), only 396 entrepreneurs were taken as the sample size in this study. Sample size
calculation was carried out using the formula for adjusted sample size, as prescribed by Cochran
(1977): 𝑛 = 𝑍2
(𝑝𝑞)/𝑒2
. Hence, the minimum required sample size was determined to be 384.
However, this study collected 396 samples to gather relevant data. The study used a survey
questionnaire to gather primary data for further analysis. For this, there are two parts to the
questionnaire; the first includes seven questions related to demographic responses, and the second
uses five-point Likert scale questions for study variables with twenty-five items. The survey has
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 207 IDJINA (2023)
been conducted during the study's October 2022–November 2022 period. In addition, descriptive
and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and
percentage are applied to the demographic responses. In the meantime, inferential statistics were
employed, likewise structural equation modeling (SEM). Similarly, this study used IBM SPSS 20
and AMOS 22 as a data analysis tool. The study also addresses issues related to research ethics
concerning data collection, adhered to the guiding principles of APA 7th style, and followed the
instructions provided by the journal's publisher.
Results
In this study, there are two distinct parts of the analysis incorporated. The first part analyzes
demographic responses through descriptive statistics such as frequency and percentage. For the
second part, the variables-related responses of the respondents are analyzed through inferential
statistics such as structural equation modeling and hypotheses testing. Both the analysis and the
data are represented and examined with the help of the tables and figures below:
Table 1
Analysis of Demographic Responses
Demographic Variable Category Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Age
20-30 years 96 24.2
30-40 years 131 33.1
40-50 years 107 27.0
50 and above 37 9.3
Less than 20 years 25 6.3
Gender
Female 173 43.7
Male 223 56.3
Education
Post graduate level 24 6.1
Primary level 42 10.6
Secondary level 192 48.5
Under graduate level 138 34.8
Nature of Business
Construction oriented 41 10.4
Manufacturing oriented 124 31.3
Service oriented 156 39.4
Trading oriented 75 18.9
Satisfaction
No 46 11.6
Yes 350 88.4
Sample Size (N) - 396 100
Source: Researchers' Survey (2022)
Table 1 shows the results of the respondents' demographic characteristics of the respondents. Out
of the total respondents, 33.1 percent respondents are in the 30-40 year age group and 27 percent
respondents were in the 40-50 year age group. Similarly, 24.2 percent were 20-30 year age group,
9.3 percent were 50 and above age group and 6.3 percent were less than 20 year age group. On the
other hand, of all respondents, 43.7 percent were female, and 56.3 percent were male respondents
took part in this study.
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 208 IDJINA (2023)
Similarly, of all respondents, 48.5 percent respondents have represented the secondary level, 34.8
percent respondents represented the undergraduate level, 10.6 percent respondents represented
the primary level, and 6.1 percent represented the post graduate level of the education. In the same
way, 88.4 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied with their current businesses and 11.6
percent of the respondents said they were not satisfied with the current business. In conclusion,
the study's key findings underscored a concentration of respondents aged 30-50, indicating a strong
inclination among this age group towards entrepreneurship development. The study also reveals a
gender-balanced distribution, with the majority having secondary or undergraduate education.
Furthermore, most participants expressed satisfaction with their current businesses.
Table 2
Measurement of Data Reliability
Variables Items Loading Score KMO % of Variance Eigenvalue
Agreeableness Agre5 .874 .854 82.234 4.112
Agre3 .865
Agre2 .864
Agre4 .846
Agre1 .838
Openness Open1 .867 .826 74.475 2.979
Open4 .807
Open3 .752
Open2 .622
Extraversion Extra3 .845 .652 72.888 2.187
Extra2 .836
Extra1 .669
Neuroticism Neur2 .900 .787 70.210 2.802
Neur3 .862
Neur4 .821
Neur1 .606
SED Sed4 .845 .820 85.848 3.434
Sed3 .835
Sed2 .815
Sed1 .809
Note: SED = Sustainable Entrepreneurship Development
Table 2 demonstrates the reliability results from the principal component analysis (PCA). In this
study, the researcher has first tried to make factors loading to confirm the items regarding the
study variables. Out of 20 items of the study variables, all items were accepted for confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to measure validity and model fit indices to the study's path analysis. The
calculated KMO, percentage of variance explained, and eigenvalues of each construct were best
fitted with cutoff criteria (KMO> 0.60; % of variance> 70%; eigenvalue > 1). Therefore, the
dataset used in this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of each computed value in
the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The results derived from PCA can be further analyzed
and compared with cutoff criteria recommended by renowned authors, mathematicians, and
researchers who have empirically established these standards. A confirmatory factor analysis was
performed using the PCA results to evaluate the structural equation modeling (SEM) model fit
and validity indices. The above-mentioned findings indicate that there are no issues with data
reliability for rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM),
ensuring the validity and reliability of the research and enhancing confidence in its findings and
conclusions. All latent variables and their respective items exhibit strong factor loadings, KMO
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 209 IDJINA (2023)
values, explained percentages, and eigenvalues. Based on this robust data reliability and validity,
the study has conducted CFA, path analysis, and hypotheses testing, as highlighted in the table
below:
Figure 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Figure 2 reveals the regression coefficient and covariance of all the study constructs. Out of 20
items, only 17 items were fitted in the CFA for the study's validity and model fit indices. Agre2,
Sed3, and Open1 items were excluded from the CAF. The estimated beta coefficients of the latent
variables are positive. It depicts that the one-unit increase in the exogenous (independent) variables
leads to one-unit increases in the endogenous (dependent) variable. Thus, there is a significant
impact and association between agreeableness, openness, extraversion, and neuroticism
personality traits and sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Table 3
Model Fit Indices of the CFA
Model Fit Indices CMIN/DF RMR GFI TLI CFI RMSEA
Recommended
Value
3-5 ≤ 0.05 >0.90 >0.90 >0.90 <0.08
Obtained Value 3.060 0.017 0.917 0.956 0.945 0.072
Note: CMIN/DF=Relative X2, RMR=Root Mean Squared Residual, GFI= Goodness of Fit
Index, TLI= Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI= Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA= Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation.
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 210 IDJINA (2023)
Table 3 describes the measurement model for great personality traits and sustainable
entrepreneurship development. The model was also acceptable based on model fit indices
(CMINDF = 3.060, RMR = 0.017, GFI = 0.917, TLI = 0.956, CFI = 0.945, and RMSEA = 0.072).
The above-mentioned recommended values of the model fit indices were prescribed by Bentler
(1990), Hu and Bentler (1999), Ullman (2001), Schumacker and Lomax (2004), and Hair et al.
(2010). Further, validity and reliability are also assessed using average variance explained (AVE),
composite reliability (CR), maximum shared variance (MSV), and average shared variance (ASV).
Convergent validity has been established because the AVE value was greater than 0.5 and the CR
values were greater than 0.7.
Table 4
Measurement of Validity
CR AVE MSV MaxR(H) Agre Sed Open Neur Extra
Agre 0.931 0.772 0.317 0.933 0.879
Sed 0.932 0.821 0.541 0.939 0.537*** 0.906
Open 0.867 0.686 0.541 0.881 0.563*** 0.736*** 0.828
Neur 0.868 0.637 0.148 0.922 0.317*** 0.385*** 0.366*** 0.798
Extra 0.829 0.624 0.273 0.882 0.444*** 0.523*** 0.491*** 0.370*** 0.790
Note: Cr = Composite Reliability; AVE= Average Variance Explained; MSV= Maximum Squared
Variance; MaxR (H)=Maximum Reliability; Agre=Agreeableness; Sed=Sustainable
Entrepreneurship Development; Open=Openness; Neur=Neuroticism; Extra=Extraversion
Table 4 displays that both discriminant and convergent validity have been satisfied: the value of
CR was higher than 0.70 and the value of AVE was greater than 0.5. Before conducting structural
equation modeling, the researcher required testing different kinds of validity and model fit indices
through CFA. Therefore, there are no issues of validity or reliability in the present study. SEM and
path analysis are essential research tools, helping model complex relationships, evaluate theories,
test hypotheses, and enhance our understanding of how variables interact systematically across
various disciplines, aiding informed decision-making and knowledge advancement. Therefore,
switching from PCA to CFA and EFA to CFA is possible.
In this study, the researcher has used EFA for CFE and SEM analyses. After creating CFA and
verifying model fit indices and reliability and validity tests of statistics, the present researcher draws
the SEM model for testing the hypothesis using IBM SPSS Amos 22. The main aim of conducting
SEM is to examine the impact of drivers and restrainers on indigenous entrepreneurship
development. The outcome of SEM path analysis in this study was to encompass model fit
assessments, parameter estimates, hypothesis testing results, and a visual representation of the
model. Additionally, the choice of cut-off values may vary based on the research context and the
field's standards. This study also considers theoretical plausibility and the practical implications of
the model when interpreting the fit indices. Thus, it can be represented with the help of the figure
below:
Figure 3 exhibits the regression weights of each independent variable on the dependent variable.
The SEM was conducted to justify the cause-and-effect relationship between personality traits and
sustainable entrepreneurial development. However, for analyzing the designed hypothesis, the
value of regression weights was taken from the outputs of AMOS based on the structural equation
modeling path. As per the results, personality traits had a significant positive impact on
entrepreneurship development. Table 5 presents the findings from the standardized equation
modeling.
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 211 IDJINA (2023)
Figure 3
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Table 5
SEM Path Analysis Estimates
Path Estimate S.E. C.R. P Results
Sed <--- Agre .149 .058 2.568 .010 Significant
Sed <--- Open .718 .076 9.407 *** Significant
Sed <--- Extra .150 .044 3.373 *** Significant
Sed <--- Neur .073 .038 1.889 .059 Not significant
Note: (***) Denotes p-value significant at the 0.01 level of significance.
Table 5 illustrates the impact of different personality traits on sustainable entrepreneurship. The
result reveals that out of four independent variables, only three constructs (agreeableness,
openness, and extraversion) have been found to have a significant and positive impact on
entrepreneurship development (here, Agre → Sed, β = 0.149**, C.R. = 2.568, P<0.05; Open →
Sed, β = 0.718***, C.R. = 9.407, P <0.01; Extra → Sed, β = 0.150***, C.R. = 3.373, P <0.01).
Moreover, the result shows no significant impact of the neuroticism personality traits on
sustainable entrepreneurship development (Neur → IED, β = 0.073, C.R. = 1.889; P>0.05). Thus,
it can be said that agreeableness, openness, and extraversion personality traits positively influence
entrepreneurial development in the long run.
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 212 IDJINA (2023)
Discussion
Several studies have examined the impact of personality traits on entrepreneurship development,
but only a few have focused on it. The study's findings are consistent with previous researches that
have found a positive relationship between these personality traits and entrepreneurship
development (Antonacic et al., 2015; Ariani, 2013; Brandstätter, 2011; Zhao et al., 2010; Rauch &
Frese, 2007; Envick & Langford, 2000). Moreover, Salleh and Zainal (2021) and Costa and McCrae
(1992) found that three personality traits, namely agreeableness, openness, and extraversion,
significantly and positively impact sustainable entrepreneurship development (Salleh & Zainal,
2021; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Personality traits like agreeableness, openness, and extraversion
have significantly and favorably impacted sustainable entrepreneurship development.
Entrepreneurs with high scores on these personality traits tend to be more successful in developing
sustainable businesses. Specifically, agreeableness is associated with working effectively with others
and building strong relationships with customers and partners. Openness is linked to creativity,
innovation, and a willingness to explore new opportunities. Finally, extraversion is associated with
strong communication skills, assertiveness, and the ability to network effectively.
On the contrary, the researcher has found that entrepreneurs who score higher in neuroticism,
which is characterized by emotional instability, anxiety, and negative effect, are not more likely to
engage in sustainable entrepreneurship (Salleh & Zainal, 2021; Obschonka et al., 2013; Zhao et al.,
2010; Locke (2000). The findings related to neuroticism personality traits suggested that
entrepreneurs with low levels of neuroticism are more likely to engage in sustainable
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs may be better able to cope with the uncertainties and challenges
of entrepreneurship and may be more willing to take risks and seize opportunities. However,
entrepreneurs who score higher in neuroticism are not more likely to engage in sustainable
entrepreneurship. It is suggested that entrepreneurs with low levels of neuroticism may be better
able to cope with the uncertainties and challenges of entrepreneurship and may be more willing to
take risks and seize opportunities.
Overall, the study's findings suggest that entrepreneurs with the personality traits of agreeableness,
openness, and extraversion are more likely to succeed in sustainable entrepreneurship
development by demonstrating social and environmental responsibility, promoting innovation and
creativity, and building strong relationships with stakeholders. On the other hand, this section lacks
a comprehensive exploration of the potential drawbacks and challenges associated with the
personality traits of agreeableness, openness, and extraversion in the context of sustainable
entrepreneurship. A more balanced perspective, including both strengths and limitations, would
enhance the depth of understanding.
Conclusion
In conclusion, personality traits have significantly impacted entrepreneurial development,
particularly sustainable entrepreneurship. The study's findings are consistent with previous
researches that have found a positive relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial
development. Agreeableness, openness, and extraversion are personality traits that significantly
and positively impact sustainable entrepreneurship development. Entrepreneurs with high scores
on these personality traits tend to be more successful in developing sustainable businesses by
working effectively with others, exploring new opportunities, and communicating assertively.
However, the study also suggests that entrepreneurs who score higher in neuroticism are less likely
to engage in sustainable entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs with low levels of neuroticism may be
better equipped to cope with the uncertainties and challenges of entrepreneurship and may be
more willing to take risks and seize opportunities. In sum, these findings underscore the
significance of personality traits in shaping the path of entrepreneurship, shedding light on both
the advantageous and disadvantageous dimensions of these traits. This knowledge can inform
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 213 IDJINA (2023)
entrepreneurial education and development programs, offering valuable insights for aspiring and
current entrepreneurs aiming to succeed in sustainable business ventures.
The implications of this study are significant for entrepreneurs, educators, and policymakers who
aim to promote sustainable entrepreneurship development. Understanding the importance of
personality traits in entrepreneurial success can help individuals make informed decisions about
their entrepreneurial aspirations and develop strategies to enhance their personal strengths.
Educators can also use this knowledge to design entrepreneurship education programs that
promote the development of essential personality traits. Policymakers can create policies and
programs that support the development of these traits, such as providing funding for mentorship
programs and networking events. Furthermore, this study relied on a quantitative survey, utilizing
convenience sampling, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.
In addition, due to budget and time constraints, a more comprehensive mixed-methods approach
was not feasible. However, it is imperative for future research to address these limitations in order
to advance our comprehension of sustainable entrepreneurship development in Surkhet and the
broader Karnali Province. Future research endeavors should also investigate the potential impacts
of personality traits, consider longitudinal studies, and conduct comparative analyses to further
enrich our understanding of this dynamic field. Ultimately, the findings of this study suggest that
sustainable entrepreneurship development requires a combination of personal and environmental
factors, and policymakers should consider both in their efforts to promote entrepreneurship as a
driver of economic and social development.
References
Ahmad, S. Z., &Maochun, H. (2019). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review and future research
agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 1468-1480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.249
Antoncic, B., Hisrich, R. D., &BratkovicKregar, T. (2015). The influence of big five personality
traits on entrepreneurial intentions and self-employment. Journal of Small Business
Management, 53(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12089
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification
and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-9026(01)00068-4
Ariani, D. W. (2013). Personality traits and entrepreneurial intention: A review of literature. Journal
of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 16(1), 113-124.
https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v16i1.52
Baron, R. A., &Markman, G. D. (1999). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance
entrepreneurs' success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(1), 106–116.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2000.2909843
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in
entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79-93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90011-3
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2),
238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bird, B., &Jelinek, M. (1989). The operation of entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 14(3), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225878901400302
Brandstatter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.012
Breuer, C., &Ludeke-Freund, F. (2017). The impact of personal capabilities on entrepreneurial
opportunity identification and exploitation. Small Business Economics, 48(3), 619-638.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9794-4
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 214 IDJINA (2023)
Brice, J. (2004). The influence of personality on new venture creation: An examination of founders'
and key employees' psychometric profiles. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 10(3), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550410541027
Brice, W. D. (2004). Correlates of the big five personality dimensions: A view from self, spouse,
and peers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 219–230.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_02
Chitra, R., &RamyaSreedevi, R. (2011). Personality traits of successful entrepreneurs. International
Journal of Management and Business Studies, 1(2), 21-25.
Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G. S. (2004). The
big five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 465-483.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.001
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and individual
differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
Envick, B. R., & Langford, M. (2000). The five-factor model of personality: Assessing
entrepreneurs and managers. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 6(1), 6-17.
Farrukh, M., Abbas, Q., &Aftab, J. (2017). The impact of personality traits on the entrepreneurial
intentions of Pakistani university students. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
9(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-06-2016-0022
Farrukh, M., Mubeen, R., & Rasheed, H. F. (2018). The effect of personality traits on
entrepreneurial intentions and self-employment. International Journal of Entrepreneurship,
22(2), 1-12.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Marzocchi, G. L., &Sobrero, M. (2012). The determinants of corporate
entrepreneurial intention within small and newly established firms. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 36(2), 387-414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00417.x
Freeman, C. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of
Business Venturing, 5(1), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(90)90023-M
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological
Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
Grey, D. (2013). Entrepreneurship and economic development. Routledge.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hummels, H., &Argyrou, A. (2021). The role of values, attitudes, and cognitive mechanisms in
small business growth and development. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(1), 126-
146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1789477
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy:
History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research. Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1997.tb00726.x
Keat, O. Y., Selvarajah, C., & Meyer, D. (2011). Entrepreneurship and innovation: The key to
national competitiveness and prosperity. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 8(2),
93-109. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.pr1.0007.0093
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 215 IDJINA (2023)
Keogh, W., &Polonsky, M. (1998). Environmental commitment: A basis for environmental
entrepreneurship? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 11(1), 38-49.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819810201390
Kiefer, T., Henseling, C., &Lettl, C. (2019). Revisiting the dark side of entrepreneurship:
Antecedents and mechanisms of entrepreneurial failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 34(2),
311-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.07.004
Kirkley, W. W. (2017). The role of personality in entrepreneurship: A review of the literature.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship Development, 5(1), 13-28.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sbed.20170501.13
Kiviluoto, N., Karjaluoto, H., &Hyvönen, S. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions and self-efficacy
among arts and science students. Education + Training, 53(8/9), 748-766.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911111179428
Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic
review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57-75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.045
Kyro, P. (2001). Born global firms: A new international enterprise. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 7(3), 136-144.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550110396047
Landes, D. S., Mokyr, J., &Baumol, W. J. (2012). The invention of enterprise: Entrepreneurship from ancient
Mesopotamia to modern times. Princeton University Press.
Locke, E. A. (2000). Self-efficacy, goal setting, and task performance: 1970-1990. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.225
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction,
and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002
Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193
Miner, J. B. (1963). The rational management of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
Management, 1(1), 15-22.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new
frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
627X.2010.00321.x
Obschonka, M., Schmitt-Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R. K., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2013).
The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-prone personality profile
in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom: a socioecological
perspective. Journal of personality and social psychology, 105(1), 104.
Park, S. H. (2017). The effect of big five personality traits on entrepreneurial intention mediated
by self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(3), 481-494.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5746
Pastakia, A. (1998). The informal economy and microfinance in Africa: A literature review.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 4(1), 24-42.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552559810207480
Prahalad, C. K. (2006). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Pearson
Education.
Rauch, A., &Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A metaanalysis
on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation,
and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353-385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438
Schaltegger, S. (2002). Sustainability as a criterion for corporate decision-making. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 11(2), 91-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323
Kathayat et al. (2023): Impact of Personality Traits…
Volume 2, Issue 2 216 IDJINA (2023)
Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2018). Business cases for sustainability and the role of business model
innovation: Developing a conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 216-224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.179
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation:
Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday/Currency.
Shepherd, D. A., & Krueger, N. F. (2002). An intentions-based model of entrepreneurial teams'
social cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 167-185.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.00006
Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and
managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145-153.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.145
Teran-Yepez, E., Delgado-García, J. B., González-Bustos, J. P., &Vizcaíno-González, J. L. (2020).
Sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(9), 3876.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093876
Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick& L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using
multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Wiklund, J. (1999). The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(1), 37-48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902400104
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status:
A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of applied psychology, 90(6), 1265-1279.