J
Ö N K Ö P I N GI
N T E R N A T I O N A LB
U S I N E S SS
C H O O L JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITYE n t r e p r e n e u r i a l P o t e n t i a l
- Measuring the entrepreneurial potential among pharmacists in Jönköping
Bachelor Thesis within Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Management Author: Nathalie Almqvist
Niklas Eliasson
Markus Salmela
Tutor: Börje Boers
Acknowledgments
We would hereby like to thank all people that have helped us with our work with this Bachelor Thesis.
First we would like to thank all the pharmacists that has participated in this study, and es-pecially Fredrik Weinarsson.
We also thank our tutor Börje Boers for advice and support.
We want to thank Veronica Gustavsson, for all help with reviewing.
At last we thank the groups that have opposed on us and gave us many valuable insights and comments. _______________________________ Nathalie Almqvist _______________________________ Niklas Eliasson _______________________________ Markus Salmela
Bachelor Thesis within Entrepreneurship, Marketing
and Management
Title: Entrepreneurial Potential – Measuring the entrepreneurial po-tential among pharmacists in Jönköping.
Authors: Niklas Eliasson
Nathalie Almqvist
Markus Salmela
Tutor: Börje Boers
Date: Jönköping, December 2008
Key words: Entrepreneurial orientation, Apoteket AB, entrepreneurs, en-trepreneurial potential
Abstract
Sweden needs entrepreneurs (Maud Olofsson, cited by Ringvold Hasle, 2008) and with the upcoming re-regulation of the pharmaceutical market it opens up an opportunity for entre-preneurs to start their own pharmacies. This opportunity has been highly recognized by the Pharmaceutical Union which represent 7 500 pharmacists. They claim that the best out-come would be if the pharmacies were sold out to pharmacists which give them a chance to be entrepreneurs, running their own pharmacy. This will be organized by the profes-sional model, built on entrepreneurship and large scale operations.
The purpose of this thesis is to measure to what extent pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential.
Many theories support the importance of entrepreneurship in society (McClelland, 1961), and the “entrepreneur” is often discussed and defined as a person with different traits, cha-racteristics or a certain orientation. This has lead to theories in entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) which builds on different dimensions, which independently can be valued and show the potential for an individual to be an entrepreneur.
The thesis is a case study where only pharmacists in Jönköping are investigated. The case study is done as a quantitative research where we measured entrepreneurial potential by a self-completion questionnaire. The sample consisted of 64 pharmacists, from which we re-ceived response from 33 of them. The questionnaire is designed as the semantics scale with a range of 1 to 6, where the higher number equals a stronger entrepreneurial orientation. We found that the pharmacists did have an entrepreneurial orientation, i.e. entrepreneurial potential. The whole population had a score slightly above the ‘neutral average’ showing a leaning towards being entrepreneurially oriented. In fact 42.4 percent of pharmacists were to be defined to have clear entrepreneurial potential according to our measurements.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ... i
1
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background ...1 1.2 Problem discussion ...2 1.3 Purpose ...3 1.4 Delimitations ...3 1.5 Definitions...42
Frame of Reference ... 5
2.1 Defining Entrepreneurship...52.1.1 Who is the entrepreneur? ...5
2.2 Entrepreneurs in larger organizations...6
2.2.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship / Intrapreneurship ...7
2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation ...7 2.3.1 Autonomy ...8 2.3.2 Innovativeness ...8 2.3.3 Proactiveness ...8 2.3.4 Competitive aggressiveness...8 2.3.5 Risk taking ...8
2.3.5.1 Summary of the dimensions ...9
2.3.6 Post buy-out situation ...9
2.4 How to measure entrepreneurship? ...10
2.5 Conclusion of Theories...11
2.6 Research questions...11
3
Method ... 12
3.1 Research Approach...12
3.1.1 Deductive and Inductive ...12
3.2 Research Design ...12 3.3 Research Strategy...13 3.4 Data Collection ...13 3.4.1 Selection of sample ...13 3.4.1.1 Non-probability sampling ... 14 3.4.1.2 Non-responsiveness ... 14 3.5 Measurement instrument...15 3.6 Questionnaire design...15 3.6.1 Rating scales ...15
3.6.1.1 Odd or even numbers ... 16
3.7 Pilot Study ...16 3.8 Statistic measurement ...17 3.9 Generalization ...17 3.10 Trustworthiness ...18 3.10.1 Validity...18 3.10.2 Reliability ...19
4
The Entrepreneurial Potential ... 20
4.1 Innovativeness ...20
4.3 Proactiveness ...21 4.4 Competitive Aggressiveness ...21 4.5 Risk-taking...22 4.6 Dimension averages...22 4.7 Total Average ...23
5
Analysis ... 24
5.1.1 Is Apoteket AB today Innovative and Proactive? ...24
5.1.1.1 Innovativeness ... 24
5.1.1.2 Proactiveness ... 25
5.1.1.3 Future outlook for innovativeness, and willingness to innovate ... 25
5.1.2 The Pharmacist - Independent and Competitive?...25
5.1.2.1 Autonomy... 26
5.1.2.2 Competitive Aggressiveness ... 26
5.1.2.3 Could the pharmacists’ willingness to compete be a key factor? ... 26
5.1.3 The Minimization of Risks...27
5.1.3.1 Risk-Taking ... 27
5.2 The Averages of the Dimensions ...27
5.3 Distribution of Entrepreneurs ...28
5.4 The Total Entrepreneurial Potential of the Case Population...29
6
Conclusion ... 30
7
Discussion ... 31
8
References... 32
Figures and Tables ...35
Figure 1A ... 35 Figure 6A ... 35 Figure 11A ... 35 Figure 11B ... 35 Table 2A ... 35 Table 4A ... 35 Table 4B ... 35 Table 4C ... 35 Table 4D ... 35 Table 4E ... 35 Table 4F ... 35 Table 4G ... 35
9
Appendices... 36
Appendix 1: The Swedish Trade Institute HUI Report...36
Appendix 2: The Complete Results of our Study...37
1 Introduction
In this chapter we will introduce the purpose with our study. We will start with a background for the study and through a problem discussion argue for why the subject chosen is of interest. To be able to keep the study focused we have delimited our study which we will discuss in the end of the introduction.
1.1 Background
The Swedish market for pharmaceuticals today is regulated and the state-owned firm Apo-teket AB has a dominant position. From the beginning in the 17th century pharmacists es-sentially were structured in the manner of a franchise/license chain called “Privileged Pharmacists”. This concept was based upon that a pharmacist needed a letter of privilege from the government which granted access to buy and run a pharmacy with exclusive rights in the region. So for 400 years pharmacists ran small businesses on their own (Apo-teket webpage, 2008) until 1970 when Apo(Apo-teket AB were imposed to a monopoly market with exclusive rights to practice marketing, distribution and sales of pharmaceuticals. (Apo-teket AB, 2007)
In 2001 the Swedish company Bringwell International AB marketed Nicorette patches and Nicorette chewing gum, two products regarded as non-prescription pharmaceutical prepa-rations under Swedish legislation. The Swedish authorities commenced actions against Bringwell and they defended themselves declaring that Swedish national law were contrary to articles 28, 31 and 43 of the Treaty of the European Community, which deals with the existence of state monopolies. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (2005) ruled that Swedish regulation was contrary to community competition law and Swedish government now had to ensure that Apoteket AB was freed up to avoid discrimination of foreign actors and the market to be opened up for competition.
After the election in 2006 when the right wing parties came to rule, the new political alli-ance decided that there would be a re-regulation of the pharmaceutical market as from the 1st of July 2009 and also a following partial sell out of the dominant pharmaceutics monop-oly company Apoteket AB (Nilsson, 2008). The term re-regulation is used instead of de-regulation due that it will not be a total disclaim of rules rather than a change of them. There are both foreign pharmacy chains and domestic wholesalers who have shown inter-est in entering the market post re-regulation. The prediction by HUI (2008) of the market after the re-regulation is that it will be divided into four segments; one with the state-owned Apoteket AB, one consisting of two or three foreign pharmacy chains, one with in-dependent pharmacies and one with the Pharmacists Union, who are protecting the interest of 7 500 member pharmacists and also has shown interest in starting up an own organiza-tion. All these would then have about 16-20 percent each of the 40 billion SEK total mar-ket turnover (cited by Wallén, 2008).
The Pharmacist Union requested the Swedish Trade Institute (HUI) to conduct an investi-gation (Hortlund & Jonsson, 2008) concerning and suggesting how single, independent pharmacists could have a chance of being owners of their own pharmacies in the free-for-all that waits on the market for pharmaceuticals (Wfree-for-allén, 2008). The investigation by HUI claims that the pharmaceutical market of Sweden is equal to retailing and the most success-ful model of retailing in Sweden is the “ICA-model”, hereby referred to as ‘the professional model’, building its success on the combination of both entrepreneurship and large-scale operations (Hortlund & Jonsson, 2008).
1.2 Problem
discussion
The government decision of a sell out of about 50 percent of Apoteket AB’s 880 pharma-cies (Apoteket AB, 2007) and the opening for new establishments is predicted to be result-ing in similar developments as the Norwegian market where they have gone from hundreds of single, independently owned pharmacies to a market dominated by three main actors, creating a oligopoly situation. The solution to meet this development is to already have es-tablished horizontal integration in the market before the re-regulation comes to effect. This is something that would be highly beneficial for the single pharmacist, but in return the suggested model is requiring entrepreneurial features (Hortlund and Jonsson, 2008).
Apoteket AB has initiated a pilot project where 20 pharmacies try the form as franchisees. This far it has been a good response with many pharmacists showing their interest. When the now ruling four parties were in opposition they suggested that a first step of the Apote-ket AB sell out is that the 12 000 present employees should get the opportunity to buy the pharmacy which they work at and then get connected to Apoteket through a franchise con-tract (Helte, 2007).
Lennart Axelsson, Director of the Pharmacists Union, comments that after 36 years of monopoly, Apoteket AB should make it easier for those who already shown interest in es-tablishing themselves after the sell out. He also suggests that they need to make the changes necessary now already, and if that does not happen, it will make it harder for the entrepreneurs to meet competition when time comes (Låt inte Apoteket befästa sitt mo-nopol, 2007).
According to Cecilia Bernsten, Chairman of the Pharmacists Union, the entrepreneurial spirit in the organization of Apoteket AB has been oppressed several years and that it hopefully will bloom once again within the new organization by the Union. Hence, this brings up the question whether there is any entrepreneurial spirit that could bloom. The re-regulation of the market is an opportunity, which through a healthy system of rules could replace the monopoly with a market supporting self-employment and professional creativ-ity with focus on patient and customer needs (Johansson, 2008).
One of the goals with the re-regulation is to make the pharmacies and the pharmaceutical market more efficient, and an upside with the probable structure of the new market is that it to some extent would solve the problem of incorrect medications. This is something that would save several millions SEK in expenses every year, and would be solved because it is easier for single, independent pharmacies to adapt to customer needs than larger bureau-cratic organizations with overarching control regulations (Bernsten, 2008a).
Another goal that the Pharmacists Union states is that there should be several different forms of ownership, because that market diversity gives better service for the customer, and if the government is serious with this re-regulation there is no point of going from monopoly to oligopoly, and they should focus the re-regulation towards self-employment and small enterprises. They should prioritize to instate a system with hiving-off to present pharmacy personnel instead of foreign large chain establishments (Bernsten, 2008b). This has been heard and responded to from government’s side in the aspect of the opportunity to seek funding from a 30 million fund for pharmaceutical businesses (Olofsson, 2008). Lennart Axelsson considers the situation forecast as good, but if the re-regulation will suc-ceed is completely dependent on the fact if many enough pharmacists are willing and dar-ing to start their own business (Wadman, 2008). A claim made by Bernsten is that at least 50 percent of the pharmacies that will be sold out should be reserved to pharmacists. There
is a large interest shown, and an investigation of 10 percent of the 7 500 members of the Pharmacists Union shows that 43 percent of them would like to start their own pharmacies (Bernsten, 2008b).
Summarizing the developments in the last year, the general consensus is that the best op-tion is if the market is diversified with many types of ownership and mainly of independent pharmacists working together through the new organization (to be provided by the Phar-macists Union). What none of the previously mentioned touches upon are the require-ments of business skills accompanying the running of one’s own pharmacy, and even more important, that the business model chosen by the organization emphasizes on the impor-tance of the entrepreneurship of the independent pharmacist.
If the present personnel who might be willing to take over an existing pharmacy inhabit a very low level of entrepreneurial potential it could have effect upon the future success of the new organization. Therefore it is an issue we find interesting and will further investigate within this bachelor thesis.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to measure to what extent pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential.
1.4 Delimitations
We will delimit our bachelor thesis with the following delimitations;
◊ We will not look into if the pharmacists in our case study have the will and intention of starting their own business.
◊ We will not examine into the pharmacists ability and resources to start their own busi-ness.
◊ We have geographically delimited our case study to only include pharmacists in Jönköping.
1.5 Definitions
Re-regulation – The term re-regulation is used instead of de-regulation due that it will not be
a total disclaim of rules rather a change of them.
Pharmacy personnel – The employees working at the pharmacies, with the requirement of
be-ing an educated pharmacist to be involved in our study.
Professional Model – Is a business model with emphasis on entrepreneurship together with
large-scale operations. This model is in Sweden also referred to as the ICA-model. For fur-ther description of the model, see Appendix 1.
Entrepreneurial potential – to what extent the individual or group has an entrepreneurial
orien-tation concerning innovativeness, autonomy, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk taking.
2
Frame of Reference
In this section we will present theories that for this study are relevant, when defining and measuring entre-preneurship. These theories will then be used when analyzing the collected empirical data for our case, and as support when making conclusions.
2.1 Defining
Entrepreneurship
Over time it has been much research done within in the field of entrepreneurship, though much of it is on the levels of defining the meaning of the term further (Timmons, 1999) and the process of entrepreneurship studied by Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002). In terms of entrepreneurship one of the applied definitions is that entrepreneurship according to Davidsson (2003) is the ‘creation of a new economic activity’ (cited in McKelvie, 2006 p.43), and according to a claim made by Bill Gartner (1990) who further implies that entre-preneurship is the process of the creation of a new firm. New firms are though not created by accident, there is enough distinction involved in the process suggesting that the actions is clearly intentional (Shaver, 1985). The intentions to start a new business is often divided into two factors; push and pull, where the push factor force you to start and pull factors lures you to start (Basu & Goswami, 1999). Researchers have highly adapted the theories of McClelland (1961) stating the effects of achievement-motivation to the wealth of nations and one of the often used (Small business administration, 1998) indicators of economic freedom and well-being is the continual creation of new small firms in all sectors of busi-ness by all segments of society (cited in Baum et al, 2007).
Weber (1898) suggested the definition of entrepreneurship as the overtaking and organiz-ing of a firm or a venture, were people’s demands are fulfilled by a trade for makorganiz-ing a prof-it including ones economic risk (cprof-ited in Swedberg, 2000). Schumpeter (1911) treated the field of motivations or required conditions for entrepreneurship to occur, and stated that the five conditions needed were; newness, new goods, new production methods, new mar-kets, new sources of materials or new organizations (cited in McKelvie 2006). Later Schumpeter (1935) also tried to explain the term by defining the entrepreneur by traits in form of innovativeness, achievement orientation and dominance, and became one in a row of several studies trying to research which traits characterized the entrepreneur (cited by Baum et al. 2007). The consensus of how the term entrepreneurship could be defined pointed the research scope more towards the individual entrepreneur, to by means of the definition of him or her; also try to define the term entrepreneurship.
2.1.1 Who is the entrepreneur?
To measure whether pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential or not we first need to de-fine the term entrepreneur to know what we should be looking for. There have been sev-eral attempts on this before, beginning already in the 18th century when Cantillon (1755) stated the entrepreneur as one purchasing resources at a certain or fixed price, and then sold the products at an uncertain price in the future (Cited in Bjerke, 2007). This was fol-lowed by another definition that came from Schumpeter (1934) who stated entrepreneurs are responsible for driving market process, in other words moving the economic equilib-rium forward. This was made through the process of ‘creative destruction’, e.g. when the calculator destructed the need for the abacus.
A challenger to Schumpeter’s theories were Kirzner (1973) who instead argue that entre-preneurs search for market flaws that can be filled, and for that reason brings the market closer to equilibrium. For example information asymmetries, (the possibility to buy an ob-ject at one price and sell it to a higher price) cause the market to be inefficient and this is what the entrepreneur is searching for. Drucker (1985) argue that entrepreneurs act on op-portunities and the ideas they come up with is a response to a need they see as untapped or a potential business opportunity (cited in Bjerke 2007). Others have claimed the entrepre-neur as the function of a set of characteristics as Timmons (1999) and de Vries (1985). Timmons (1999) states the importance of fit between the resources, opportunity and team and also argues that the most general characteristics of an entrepreneur are; opportunity obsession, self confidence, desire for responsibility, internal locus of control, commitment, motivation to excel, tolerance to risk, and being creative. De Vries (1985) looks closer into the more or less ‘bad habits’ of the entrepreneur such as; a need for control, sense of dis-trust and desire for applause defining the entrepreneur as one who can not be led, suspi-cious towards other people and with a need to be seen as a hero and not ignored.
Measuring the entrepreneurial personality often leads to the inaccuracy of ‘fundamental at-tribution error’ which is the common tendency to explain behavior of others as an out-come of their personality rather than an effect of what the situation has to offer. To get by this the research goes towards ones cognitions and motivations which are used as the ex-planatory factors of entrepreneurship (Low and MacMillan, 1988).
This problem of trying to characterize the entrepreneur’s personality is also touched upon by Peter Kilby (1971) who argues in his ‘Hunting the Heffalump: entrepreneurship and economic development’ that the entrepreneur is much like the Heffalump; “…all who claim to have caught sight of him report that he is enormous, but they disagree on his par-ticularities…” (Cited in Wickham, p.6, 2004). This thought is also supported by Gartner (1988) who state that a concentration on the traits and personality of entrepreneurs never will show the way to a definition of the entrepreneur, and moreover do not help us to un-derstand the phenomena of entrepreneurship.
This is clearly showing that the definition of an entrepreneur is different depending who you ask, and that there is an inability of finding one definition to be generally accepted as the right one. This is leading the scope of research within entrepreneurship more towards the behavior of the entrepreneur and the aspect of entrepreneurial orientation of the firm (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.2 Entrepreneurs in larger organizations
Entrepreneurship is mainly linked with the construction of new business enterprises and firms but also stand as a central factor within existing organizations (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). It has in many cases taken the shape of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) that can be explained as the activities in a business that aims at recognizing new opportunities ahead of the core business or create new business for the corporation (Veciana, 1996). This field is not new and a number of researches were carried out in the 1970’s but in the name of ‘ven-ture management’ (Cook, 1970). But in current point in time the used term has been cor-porate entrepreneurship.
2.2.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship / Intrapreneurship
Organizations are at present pressured from many angles in form of global competition and technological changes among other issues. To be able to face these, organizations need to avoid the status quo in their organization (Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006). Within large busi-nesses where novelty often could be lost in the bureaucracy and unresponsiveness of the organization, and intrapreneurs cannot satisfactorily develop their ideas on their own. Knight (1987) is stating that a corporate setting which approves intrapreneurship is sup-porting and having champions all the way through the organization, who not only support the creative activity and risk of resulting failures, but also have the planning flexibility to es-tablish new objectives and directions as needed (cited in Carter & Jones-Evans, 2000). Many entrepreneurs have the wish to be their own manager responsible for the destiny of their business; and intrapreneurs have an aspiration to have single control over the destiny of their idea. For intrapreneurship to work within the organization it is according to Garn-sey & Wright (1990) needed that the intrapreneur has the power (and the accompanying re-sponsibility) he or she needs to make decisions related to the project limit (cited in Carter & Jones-Evans, 2000).
To be able to understand what an intrapreneur is, we want to start with defining neurship. We will use the definition from Dollinger (2003), where he states that intrapre-neurship is (Cited from Bjerke, 2007):
◊ entrepreneurship within existing business,
◊ the development within a corporation from autonomous units which creates products or services in partly a unique way, or
◊ An opportunity for corporate managers to take initiative and try new ideas and at last an in-ternally initiated diversification.
It is stated that unlike the entrepreneurs, i.e. intrapreneurs also will need team-building skills, a business understanding, and at the same time have power over the qualities of rapid decision-making and leadership, which also has been discussed by Collins, (2001) stating the high probability of the best leaders already being in the organization. Jansen and van Wees (1994) believe those who possess these managerial skills and ability to handle a pro-ject within the limitations of a large business and the entrepreneurial skills to be able to take the project forward to be considered as intrapreneurs (cited in Carter & Jones-Evans, 2000). In addition to that, other research indicates that intrapreneurs have to be able to adapt to corporate policies but entrepreneurs on the other hand dislikes this behavior and evades conventional organizations (Collins and Moore, 1964). These theories have led the research scope towards how the organization is structured to either enhance or weaken en-trepreneurial features in the firm, which have been researched by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) in the form of ‘entrepreneurial orientation’.
2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has two primary purposes; the creation and pursuit of new venture opportunities and strategic renewal (Guth, 1990). CE has been highly put into practice in businesses where strategic leaders and the culture mutually create a strong force to innovate, take risks and aggressively pursue new venture opportunities. Such conditions have been captured by the idea of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). EO refers to the strategy practice that firms use to see and act upon corporate ven-tures and signify a mentality about entrepreneurship reflected in a firm’s ongoing process.
The entrepreneurial manner according to Mintzberg (1973) is the search for new opportu-nities and progress with a high uncertainty. The most frequent traits and dimensions of en-trepreneurship have been derived from both earlier strategy- and enen-trepreneurship re-search. The three ones derived is innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness, and Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also add two additional in form of competitive aggressiveness and autonomy. The purpose of these factors are that they work together to enhance the en-trepreneurial performance of the firm. These dimensions are autonomy, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk-taking. These five dimensions could both be used for measuring the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm or the individual.
2.3.1 Autonomy
When discussing entrepreneurship and autonomy, it is regarding autonomous entities that effort to control a firm’s strength and develop the business practice. It equals to an enthu-siasm to work independently and take action on opportunity as well as putting into practice entrepreneurial ideas. To be able for a firm to keep on being entrepreneurial they must promote and push entrepreneurial behavior (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.3.2 Innovativeness
Innovativeness is one of the most imperative components of an entrepreneurial approach. Innovation entails creativeness and experimentation to be capable to discover new prod-ucts or product advances. A firm gain from being innovative however there are also risks since the investments into innovations might not always pay off (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.3.3 Proactiveness
Is referring to an organization’s try to recognize and seize new opportunities. The organiza-tion should not merely look for opportunities, they should also be capable to pursue these prior to competition. Along with all dimensions of EO, according to Rauch, Wiklund, Lumkin & Frese (2004) proactiveness is the part that is most consistently linked with strong performance (cited in Baum et al, 2007). Proactivity as a persona dimension is an individual-level measure that has been linked with the success of entrepreneurial startups as well as career achievement in general (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.4 Competitive aggressiveness
Competitive aggressiveness is the firm’s eagerness to outperform competition. Even though a culture of motivating entrepreneurial initiative, many ideas could fail. One way to evade the expensive failures can be to support a key role in the entrepreneurial practice – the ‘exit champions’, who confronts new venture initiatives and puts a stop to projects that come out to lack viability (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.5 Risk taking
The individual willing to take decisions and take action on opportunities lacking constantly having the information of the consequences is considered to be a risk-taker. To be success-ful throughout entrepreneurship, firms have to be competent to take on riskier alternatives than only going with the past familiarity of what works or not (Baum et al, 2007). To be able to minimize the risks, organizations can use real option analysis. This is done at any
time companies investigate a new venture and at first invest in market tests, prototypes etc. The practice of evaluating entrepreneurial thoughts can assist companies to decrease uncer-tainty and lessen risks (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.5.1 Summary of the dimensions
We have summarized the five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) and we present it here below:
Autonomy - independent actions by an individual or team aimed at bringing forth a business concept or vision and carrying it to completion.
Innovativeness - willingness to introduce newness and novelty through experimenta-tion and creative processes aimed at developing new products and services, as well as new processes
Pro-activeness - a forward looking perspective characteristic of a market leader that has the foresight to seize opportunities in anticipation of future de-mand
Competitive aggressive-ness -
effort to outperform industry rivals, characterized by a combative posture or aggressive response aimed at improving position or over-coming a threat
Risk-taking - making decisions without certain knowledge of probable outcome, this can also involve substantial resource commitments in the process of venturing.
Table 2A
2.3.6 Post buy-out situation
The situation of Apoteket AB selling out pharmacies is a potential buy-out opportunity for pharmacists.
Within the post-buy-out situation entrepreneurial orientation plays a role, according to Bru-ining (1999) the entrepreneurial orientation increases after a buy-out, both in risk-taking, competitive aggressiveness and pro-activeness, though risk-taking is seen as the one factor with the least increase.
Wright et al, (1992) and Bruining (1992) states entrepreneurs implicated in buy-outs make key changes at the moment of the transaction or shortly afterwards (cited in Bygrave, 1994). It is discussed whether this is dependent on if the new leader is an entrepreneur or not, but as previously mentioned the research on the entrepreneurs psychological profile has not led to replicable findings (Covin & Slevin, 1991).
2.4 How to measure entrepreneurship?
In the case of having researched different definitions of characteristics of an entrepreneur, and also the behavior of the entrepreneurial individual or firm it is of course interesting to measure the amount of this in reality. There have been many different thoughts and opin-ions about the measurability of entrepreneurship and also methods of doing this. One of the more classical approaches to measuring this is the personality approach which investi-gates and evaluates traits and characteristics, but has been challenged with the argument by Low and MacMillan (1988) that entrepreneurship requires too diverse behavior to be re-lated to specific personality traits, that the studies made are purely descriptive and without theoretical framework (cited by Chell, 2008). These arguments were considered well-built enough to get a principal position that studies on personality traits should be discontinued. The same research topic existed a while in organizational behavior and psychology, but similar arguments on the lack of usefulness of personality prediction ended this (Guion & Gottier, 1965). The opinion though changed over time towards a higher acceptance and a clearly sufficient evidence for the validity of certain personality variables for organizational behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1991). One of the prior attempts to make a functioning inves-tigation of primary traits was conducted by Cattell (1971) with the Sixteen Personality Fac-tor Questionnaire, which for a while became the standard scale of measurement (cited by Chell, 2008). This was followed by the ‘Entrepreneurial Quotient’ design by a life insurance company, Nortwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (1985), who used it to recognize and hire agents who were entrepreneurial (cited by Chell, 2008), but was not accepted of real academic value.
The ‘Entrepreneurial Potential Questionnaire’ by King (1985) measuring six traits in form of; need for achievement, internal locus of control, problem-solving orientation, risk-taking propensity and manipulation/assertiveness is one of the more accepted vehicles for meas-urement, and has also been updated with a newer version released as pen and paper version from Müller and Gappisch (2005) (cited by Chell, 2008). Though the ‘entrepreneurial Ori-entation’ defined as the process, practices and making of decisions resulting in a new firm (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) with the key dimensions of innovativeness, autonomy, proac-tiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk-taking. These dimensions are beneficial to measure when one want to predict successful start-ups of firms and the performance of them (Wiklund, 1999).
2.5 Conclusion of Theories
To sum up, what defines an entrepreneur depends on who you ask. Many claims on the de-finition have been made but there has been no success in finding only one correct and gen-erally accepted definition of the entrepreneur. It is also stated that characteristics and traits are not very useful when trying to understand the whole concept of entrepreneurs or trepreneurship (Gartner, 1988) and therefore research is pointed towards studies of the en-trepreneurs’ behavior in firms (Dollinger, 2003, cited in Bjerke, 2007) and the entrepreneu-rial orientation of firms and individuals (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). It is these theories about ‘entrepreneurial orientation’ (EO) we chose to use in our study as a tool for measuring en-trepreneurship because they seem most ‘up to date’ within the research field of entrepre-neurship. Often the manner to conducting these studies is in the way of measuring each and every of these EO dimensions independently and valuing it as the higher the factor an-swer of each dimension, the higher the potential for the respondent to be an entrepreneur (Bruining, 1999).
The theories that is leading up to ‘entrepreneurial orientation’ should though not be totally discarded due to that they are available to confirm specific points that may appear in our empirical findings.Timmons (1999) among other researchers (Schumpeter, 1935; Cantillon, 1755; DeVries, 1985) has partly defined the entrepreneur to be tolerant to risk, have a de-sire for responsibility, have an internal locus of control and be creative; which are all giving a strong indication that certain ways of behaving or feeling about these issues are con-nected with entrepreneurial orientation.In the theories of ‘EO’it is the degree of orienta-tion that becomes measurable when looking at an individual’s mindset to be entrepreneu-rial or not, and therefore we have related this to potential of being entrepreneur. Hence, having a strong entrepreneurial orientation is indicating to us to that these individuals should have higher potential to be entrepreneurs.
2.6 Research
questions
• To what extent do the pharmacists in Jönköping as a group have entrepreneurial potential? • How many pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential?
3 Method
This chapter will explain and state the research approach and strategy chosen. We will also explain how the data collection is conducted and which techniques that has been used to enable us to answer our objectives. We will end with a discussion of the trustworthiness of the study.
This study aims to be of descriptive purpose to our problem, describing the entrepreneurial potential of pharmacists. It will be measured by a questionnaire derived from the theories of ’entrepreneurial orientation’ (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Each and every step of the proc-ess of the methodology, data collection, and sample will be described more thoroughly.
3.1 Research Approach
According to Holme and Solvang (1991) it is difficult to reach the goals of the research without knowledge of how to use methods to answer the purpose of the study. Therefore we begin with deciding which method we will use to reach our aspiration with our study. We have decided to study the phenomena of entrepreneurial potential and our next step will be to choose research approach, which is important due to several reasons. With a clear research approach we are able to base or choice of research design on better informa-tion. Secondly it enables us to see what research strategy should be used, what would work or not work. And last, with knowledge of different research approaches we will be able to adapt to the constraints of the study (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002; cited in Saunders et al, 2007).
3.1.1 Deductive and Inductive
Within the research approach there are two methods that can be used, the deductive ap-proach which is conducted by stating a hypothesis and testing it to reality, or the inductive approach where data is collected and theories are developed from (Saunders et al, 2007). The nature of the research topic is central when choosing approach to use; since our re-search topic is derived from existing theories we have chosen to take the deductive ap-proach that we see as most suitable.
We started out from theory where we searched for the definition of an entrepreneur or en-trepreneurship, and how it could be measured. This is in favor of being able to answer and investigate our purpose and area of interest with this study. We are not, within this paper, aiming at creating new theories, and are instead from using both the existing theories and the empirical data collected to draw logical conclusions. As Saunders et al (2007) also state is that the deductive approach also can be seen as a less time-consuming and less risky when conducting a research within a limited time frame which is crucial to regard. Al-though there always can exist a risk of not getting enough of responses, Bryman & Bell (2007) also continues with stating that starting from theory signifies that it is more of a de-ductive approach to see the relationship between research and theory.
3.2 Research
Design
The population for data is all the pharmacy personnel of Jönköping; hence this can be seen as a case study. The case study is described as an empirical investigation of a particular
con-temporary phenomenon, within its real life context (Saunders et al, 2007). This suites us well by taking a representative case (Bryman & Bell, 2007), which explores a smaller sample that can represent or exemplify a larger population. This measurement is to be seen as a
snapshot of the situation, and due our convenience sampling, a snapshot of Jönköping. Another strategy would be to use the survey design that also has a deductive approach and often uses questionnaires as tool for the study. Though the restrictions of geography, target group profession and the temporary phenomenon of the upcoming re-regulation this study will be in the light of a case study. The value of using a single case study when theories al-ready exist is also confirmed by Saunders et al (2007)
3.3 Research
Strategy
The design of the research strategy is of importance due that a well chosen strategy will benefit when answering the research question as well as meeting the objectives with the study (Saunders et al, 2007). There are mainly two different types of studies that are con-sidered: the quantitative study (data that can be numerated) and the qualitative study (data that is of non-numerated data, e.g. opinions). Both terms are used to further define the procedure of data analysis and the collection of it that is used. In our case the technique for data collection is a questionnaire with numerated answers to be able to rank our data, which also favors us in our analysis to be able to see a clear distinction of either being en-trepreneurially oriented or not, i.e. having entrepreneurial potential.
In this study we will measure if there is any entrepreneurial potential in a certain popula-tion, it will be a descriptive study and the measurement will be quantitative rather than qua-litative. The quantitative research we have chosen is characterized by answers able to be numerated or weighted (e.g. valued); while the qualitative study is more denoted by depth question and deals with the underlying perception of a problem. Since we are not in-terested in knowing why people have more or less entrepreneurial orientation, but instead to what extent, our study is more of quantitative research. When conducting a quantitative research it includes some main steps, starting with theory and then on with research design, operationalization, selecting sample, collect data and analyze it and then ending with draw-ing conclusions (Bryman & Bell, 2007). It is not unusual within quantitative research that a hypothesis is deducted from theories and after the analysis is tested. However much of quantitative research today do not have the requirement of a hypothesis, and instead theory is used as background knowledge as when the business researcher collects data. The re-quirement of using a hypothesis and testing it is most within experimental research.
3.4 Data
Collection
The data collection can be either through primary data or secondary data. Primary data is data collected for the ‘first’ time, by the researcher him- or herself and to be used specifi-cally for the study’s purpose. Secondary data is collected by someone else than the re-searcher and can be used by others (Saunders et al, 2007).
Since our research is specific and there is no secondary data to retrieve on the entrepreneu-rial potential within a certain population, our data will consist of primary data. Our secon-dary data consists of the HUI-Report (2008) that explains the professional model further and the need of entrepreneurs. We will not introduce it in our section with empirical find-ings; instead provide it in the appendices for mere background purposes (Appendix 1).
3.4.1 Selection of sample
When organizing our questionnaire the sample size is determined by the kind of data analy-sis wanted to be carried out as well as the nature of the conclusion wanted to be drawn.
According to Davies (2007) within a descriptive or exploratory study a sample in the range of 60-120 respondents are normal. We have found that there are 64 pharmacists in Jönköping based on how many there are at every pharmacy according to personnel, and then summed to a total. This meaning that the 64 pharmacists are to be seen as our whole population (which of 33 respondents could be used for the analysis). With such a limited population we see a chance to be able to cover the whole population; hence we make a 100 percent sample. The term population refers to the grouping of people that we intend to write the thesis about or draw our sample from (Davies, 2007).
According to Davies (2007) if the sample is representative of the population and not too small, there is no need to do more in order to arrive at conclusions that are applicable gen-erally. Concerning the response rate we estimate that we need at least 50 percent to be able to draw some conclusions of our results (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson, November 2008).
The questionnaire will be handed out to the pharmacies personally and we have through Fredrik Weinarsson, that is the department chief of all pharmacies in Jönköping, received help to reach all personnel and he has also emphasized the importance of filling in this questionnaire to increase our response rate.
3.4.1.1 Non-probability sampling
According to Bryman and Bell (2007) there are three different types of non-probability sampling, convenience sampling, snowball sampling and quota sampling. Convenience sampling is the one that is easily accessible for us as researchers. Snowball sampling is a form of convenience sampling, but it requires a lot of time, in some cases a couple of years, where the researcher is in contact with a group of people who are related to the research and by these contacts establish further contact. The quota sampling is used much in com-mercially directed research, such as market research and political opinion polling, with aim to produce a sample that reflects a population proportionally. In our sampling we chose convenience sampling on all pharmacists in Jönköping, due to the easy access and because we felt it was a good sample for our case study.
3.4.1.2 Non-responsiveness
According to Bryman & Bell (2007) non-responsiveness is a source of non-sampling error that are likely to occur when collecting data from individuals. Further it is implied that this can happen for several reasons, such as people’s unwillingness to cooperate, inability to be reached or for some other reason cannot answer.
Since our study was in the local area and the population consisted of only 64 persons we expected a very high response rate, however the non-responsiveness in our study was high-er than expected: 48.43 phigh-ercent. When handing out the questionnaire we met some reluc-tance from the personnel to answer. This was probably both due to the reason that they had limited time to fill it in because heavy work loads and also non-interest. However we feel that our response rate that exceeds 50 percent is high enough to draw a conclusion about the pharmacists in Jönköping region.
To increase our response rate in the study, we received help from the department chief of the pharmacies in Jönköping, who reminded all pharmacists to fill in the questionnaire and emphasized on the importance to do so. We also visited the pharmacies two or three times to both collect completed questionnaires and to see if there were any questions that had occurred and we could answer so more would be encouraged to fill in the questionnaires.
3.5 Measurement
instrument
To measure a concept where we test attitudes or behavior we need indicators that will sup-port the concept. The concept in question in our study is the entrepreneurial potential. These indicators can be set through a series of questions, e.g. structured interviews or completion questionnaires (Bryman & Bell, 2007). We have chosen to use a self-completion questionnaire as an instrument for collecting data because we want to work with standardized questions. The other possible method to use, structured interviews, is however discarded because its nature of more open ended questions, attaining more quali-tative data which this study is not aiming for.
3.6 Questionnaire design
The self-completion questionnaire is testing a concept, i.e. entrepreneurial orientation, through 15 questions. The questions are derived from the theory of entrepreneurial orien-tation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) which has five different dimensions. Each dimension is measured with help of three indicators, i.e. three different questions with two bipolar statements for respondents to consider and then select one which they agree mostly with. The question designs most important part is the ability to be numerated. The types of vari-ables we investigate are all of the three existing types (opinion, behavior and attributes) usually measured in questionnaires (Saunders et al, 2007). The types of individual question design are based upon the style of rating questions, and not category questions and open questions due to that we will operationalize our data with ranks. We have chosen to use all of our indicators to measure the concept, this since if only measuring one indicator could capture only a part of the concept, or incorrectly classify many individuals. If we examine more than one indicator we also are able to make better distinctions (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The layout of the questionnaire was systematic and easy to comprehend and answer. The questionnaire was only one page and had a short introduction showing the importance of filling in and also explaining what the results will be used for and that the respondents are anonymous. Also the order of the questions was thought through to ensure a ‘red thread’ throughout the questionnaire to further make it easier for the respondent. We also focused on short and concise statements to make it easy for the respondents to understand. The questionnaire used is also provided in the appendices (Appendix 3).
3.6.1 Rating scales
Measuring attitudes are often more complex than behavior, it can be easier to answer be-havioral questions since they can reflect on previous experiences, whereas attitudes are something that people often find hard to describe. Therefore it is needed to put it into a format where it is possible to analyze, i.e. numerated data.
The itemized rating scales are common to use to get measures of attitudes, where we can develop attitude statements and the respondents will then answer how they feel about each statement using a rating scale (Brace, 2004). There are three main types of attitudinal rating scales (Brace, 2004):
Likert scale;
Semantic differential scale; Staple scale
The Likert scale is known as the ‘agree-disagree’ scale, where there are attitude statements which the respondents then are inclined to answer how strongly they agree or disagree (most often within a scale of 1-5 or 1-7). The semantic differential scale is a bipolar scale where two opposite statements are placed at two ends and the respondent is supposed to answer with which they mostly agree by marking along the scale. The third scale, staple scale, has a statement in the middle and with the scale on both sides of the statement. The respondent answers through choosing side of the statement; and the results is often nu-merated as one side of the statement as being negative and the other side as being positive numbers.
Our study is regarding the phenomena if pharmacists has entrepreneurial potential or not, derived from the theory of entrepreneurial orientation. We have dimensions that build a concept to test. These dimensions can be measured by giving statements which the re-spondents should take standpoint to. Therefore we find the semantic differential scale to suit our questionnaire best, also confirmed as suitable because it is often used when inves-tigating underlying attitudes (Saunders et al, 2007). For each bipolar statement the respon-dent receives a score depending on what he or her has answered, which is then summed up with the scores of all questions answered to get an average indicator. We have made short and concise statements that are bipolar but also tried to keep them both to seem positive so it does not affect the respondents to answer what they feel to be more positive than the other. Semantic differential scales are also seen to be better suited for descriptive dimen-sions (Brace, 2004).
3.6.1.1 Odd or even numbers
The range of rating scales consists of odd or even numbers, meaning if there are an odd or even number of answering alternatives. The most commonly used scale is ranging within the numbers 1-5 or 1-7, this is positive since this is easy to understand for respondents. It also gives respondents the choice to be able to have a ‘neutral’ mid-point choice (Brace, 2004). However as Brace (2004) also mentions is that a neutral option are sometimes not provided, since it is not always desirable to encourage respondents to have a ‘neutral’ or ‘don’t know’ answer about how they feel for a statement.
There is a possibility to use even numbers, which forces the respondent to take a stand and according to Kalton, Roberts and Holt (1980) and Presser and Schuman (1980) studies have shown that with a possibility of neutral statements, the neutral choices increases, thus indicating that taking away the neutral mid-point would increase the respondents to take a stand of which side they feel is most appropriate (cited in Brace, 2004).
We have chosen to use the even number scale since the statements we have are directed towards the individuals’ attitudes upon certain statements. Our statements are of the kind that we want to force every participant to have an opinion and through avoiding the neutral mid-point we hope that we encourage them to think about which statement suits them best and thereby enhancing the clear cut between the degrees of orientation i.e. potential.
3.7 Pilot
Study
We conducted a pilot study to confirm that the questionnaire works and to make it as easy as possible for the respondent to grasp. This is especially important because we use a ques-tionnaire with close end questions (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Our pilot study consisted of 10 students from HLK and IHH on Jönköping University, whom none were to be seen as the
target group of our questionnaire. The number of people involved in the pilot study were based upon that we had put a lot of effort into the design of the questionnaire and there-fore only needed a pre-run check. We wanted to have some involved in the pilot study with low knowledge of the concepts of entrepreneurship and therefore we included the students from HLK, who have not read courses within entrepreneurship theories. The results of the pilot study was that 40 percent found it hard to understand whether one should mark with one our two ticks on each row, explained by a diffuse introduction which we re-formulated to solve the problem. The remaining 60 percent found the questionnaire easy to under-stand and had no special comments. Due to the lack of spontaneous responses about whether the underlying concepts we are measuring were obvious or not, we pursued with questions about this with the response that both statements seemed equally good, fulfilling our purpose of not making a questionnaire biased because respondents answering as they think ‘they should’. We also checked how long it took to fill in the questionnaire, which were approximately about five minutes. Also we consulted one with knowledge in the field to see through the questionnaire, and to investigate if it needed further improvements without any complaints raised (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson, November 2008).
3.8 Statistic
measurement
To be able to analyze if the pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential, within the theory of entrepreneurial orientation we have used a common measure of central tendency of obser-vations, the arithmetical mean value. The data we have is gathered, encoded and the sum of all observations is then divided by the number of observations in the set. Thus meaning that our respondent answers for each question is combined to be analyzed as a group value ra-ther than individual. The statements in the questions have been valued with a scale ranging from 1 to 6. The higher the value is, the higher the entrepreneurial orientation is. This lead-ing to that all the respondents is ranked after their answers, with the value of the chosen statement. For example if respondent A has answered 5 and respondent B has answered 3, this would lead to an average of 4 (5+3/2=4). The mean of observations is the most com-monly used measure of central tendency, and summarizes all the information about the da-ta. The mean can be viewed as the point where all the observations are concentrated (Aczel & Sounderpandian 2006).
The arithmetical mean value formula:
3.9 Generalization
Generalization means that our result would be applicable to all of the pharmacists in Swe-den (Bryman and Bell, 2007). In our study we have chosen to limit our research to only one region, Jönköping in which we have sent out the questionnaire to 64 pharmacists and we received 33 responses, resulting in a response rate of 51.56 percent. We believe that it is a fair response rate and thus we can draw some conclusion about how pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential or not. However since our population was only pharmacists in Jönköping, therefore we will not claim that our findings can be statistically generalized. All though the results are not to be completely disregarded, they might be applicable, since there is no substantial difference in how the situation looks for pharmacists over the coun-try. Another important issue is that the re-regulation is taking effect and the entrepreneurial spirit would be intrigued by all the pharmacists in the country.
Since our population is only 64 pharmacists, it can be argued that the number of respon-dents is so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions, and also results in that the ‘five re-spondents per item’-rule is impossible to fulfill (personal communication, Börje Boers, De-cember 9th, 2008) However, all of the 33 respondents did answer all questions and no er-rors were to be retrieved. We have a majority of the population which would be indicating an ability to generalize for the case in question.
3.10 Trustworthiness
To further assure that our study is relevant and results are reliable, we must discuss the is-sue of the trustworthiness of our study. When using a questionnaire that we have con-structed ourselves to collect primary data, it affects the reliability and validity of the study. When collecting we cannot know for certain that the information that we get is what we are after. To know what we are investigating as well as that we are doing it in a reliable way, thus meaning having validity and reliability (Holme & Solvang, 1991; Patel & Davidson, 1994).
3.10.1 Validity
To be able to know that we are measuring what we intend to measure, we have to secure the validity of the study. The term validity refers to the important criterion of integrity of the conclusions generated from the data. According to Saunders et al. (2007) conducting a survey has several important aspects; it is almost always carried out for a specific purpose and it assumes validity. The survey has a meaning and the researchers should as far as pos-sible make sure that the readers can rely on the result (Davies, 2007).
To see that the indicators that we use really measures the concept we have used we have first looked at the content of our instrument, i.e. how we constructed our questionnaire, if the questions are devised to really reflect the theoretical factor they should be reflecting (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The fifteen questions in the survey is divided as three questions of each dimension of the entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996); and each of these three question alone is measuring one factor mentioned in the theory (e.g. creativity). Secondly, we have also used ‘face validity’, which means that we establish that the measures reflect the content of the concept often through asking other people to verify (Bryman & Bell, 2007). We have shown a researcher within the field of entrepreneurship our question-naire to determine if the content really reflects the concept in question, which we got clear that it did (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson, November 2008) increasing the validity in our study.
The question of ‘external validity’, or the validity of the input of data being accurate is touching upon the question of sampling methods, but since we are using a 100 percent sample the risk of miss-sampling is eliminated. It is crucial to be able to judge to what ex-tent the collected sample can draw generalized conclusions, in our situation of a case study of pharmacists in Jönköping the result could be used as an indication of direction for the whole population in Sweden. However, important to regard is that the region Jönköping can be regarded as a special region to test entrepreneurial orientation within; therefore we are careful with generalizing our results from this study.
With these things in mind we are aiming at maximizing credibility, dependability and con-formability, making our findings as true, replicable and un-intruded by the investigators themselves as possible (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
3.10.2 Reliability
The term reliability refers to the consistency of a measure of a concept (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Since we are doing a case study, it is difficult to say that the results are to be consis-tent through time. The case study is a snapshot of the reality here and now, and if the per-sonnel is to change over time it is impossible to replicate the exact result e.g. in a period of five or ten years. Also the beliefs might change of the persons in the study.
In our questionnaire we have a scale of entrepreneurial orientation where the answers re-sulting in higher numbers are denoted as “a higher degree” of entrepreneurial orientation. This supports the internal reliability, which refers to ‘the relation between scores on differ-ent indicators’ (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
When conducting an own questionnaire as in our study, we have a smaller chance to secure reliability in advance. What we can do is to assure that people answering the questionnaire perceives it in the way they should do (Patel & Davidson, 1994). We have therefore been specific with instructions of how to answer the questionnaire as well as looked at the design to make it easy to comprehend. To secure the formulations of the questions and to see that the instructions are clear we tested the questionnaire on a random sample of students that gave us input in what we needed to change in order to get it as clear as possible.
4
The Entrepreneurial Potential
In this chapter we will present the results from our collected data derived from our questionnaires. For the reader to clearly understand the results we with every indicator describe the meaning of the variable. To con-clude the data we also incon-clude a presentation of averages from the different dimensions investigated.
Through our questionnaire we have measured different aspects that has effects on the en-trepreneurial orientation and therefore also the enen-trepreneurial potential. The questionnaire has been sent out to the 64 pharmacists in Jönköping, who with a time limit of about one week has filled it in and responded. The collected answers from the respondents have been gathered and then an average on each indicator has been calculated followed by an average of each dimension is also calculated. The answers are numbered on a scale ranging from 1 to 6 where the higher number is equal to a higher entrepreneurial potential. We have set a theoretical mean of the dimensions (3.500). This to be able to make a distinction whether someone has entrepreneurial potential, meaning that with scores above 3.500 we can as-sume they have at least a slight entrepreneurial orientation. This is calculated by the for-mula; (1+2+3+4+5+6/6=3.5). This is also to be considered as the neutral alternative rep-resenting the case of being precisely neither nor entrepreneurially oriented. The question is to see if pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential and we have set the limit that to if they answer 4 or higher on the different statements (indicators) then they are consider to inhabit more entrepreneurial potential. Therefore we will in the findings emphasize on how many respondents that has answers ranging from 4 and higher. We set the limit of 4 since the re-spondents only are able to answer with whole numbers e.g. 1,2,3, and 3 is below the theo-retical mean and therefore not seen as being entrepreneurially oriented. Hence, we chose to draw the limit at number 4 as being evidently entrepreneurial.
4.1 Innovativeness
Creativity 4.242
Willingness to introduce novelty 4.636
Willingness to experiment 3.273
Table 4A
The results from each respondent to the dimension of innovativeness and the indicators are shown in Appendix 2. The result we show here are the mean value to each indicator, which we have calculated to be able to analyze the results as a group of respondents instead of one by one. The dimension of innovativeness is measured through indicators that reflect creativity, the introduction of novelty and to what extent a firm is able to experiment with different solutions. We can see that willingness to introduce novelty has the highest mean value of 4.636, where the majority (28 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. When it comes to creativity, we also have a large majority (24 respondents) that has answered 4 or higher. Then the results differ a bit and willingness to experiment got only a minority that answered 4 or above (only 12 respondents has answered 4 or higher). Combining the indi-cators mean value and calculating an average of the dimension thus gives us the value of 4.050 which is above the theoretical mean that is 3.500.
4.2 Autonomy
Individuality 2.788 Initiative 4.212
Overall Responsibility 3.909
Table 4B
The dimension of autonomy refers to the independence of an individual or individual team and here the indicators that serve as measurement tools are individuality, ability to take the initiative and the notion of an overall responsibility. Also here the theoretical mean is con-sidered to be 3.500. The results of the first indicator that shows individuality has an average result with 2.788, with a minority (10 respondents) that has answered 4 or higher. The sec-ond indicator concerning initiative has an average result of 4.212, where the majority (25 respondents) answered 4 or higher. The statements about initiative has the highest average mean of 4.212, thus the majority (25 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The last statement regarding overall responsibility shows an average mean of 3.909 where the ma-jority of the answers (20 respondents) were 4 or higher. The calculated average mean value of the whole dimension is 3.636, and hence just slightly above the average theoretical mean (3.500).
4.3 Proactiveness
Forward looking perspective 4.394
Ability to anticipate future demand 3.455
Recognize and seize new opportunities 3.818
Table 4C
The dimension of proactiveness is defined by planning and ‘thinking ahead’, the ability to foresee eventual future demands and seeing and seizing the opportunities that appear. The first indicator of forward looking perspective has given an average mean value of 4.394, where the majority (24 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The second statement about ability to anticipate future demand has an average mean value of 3.455 where just slightly above half of the respondents (17 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The last state-ment with the indicator of recognizing and seizing new opportunities the result was an av-erage mean value of 3.818 with 21 respondents, answering 4 or higher. The avav-erage of the whole dimension is 3.888 which are slightly above the theoretical mean 3.500. Note that the respondents’ ability to anticipate future demand is close to the theoretical mean of 3.500.
4.4 Competitive
Aggressiveness
Willingness to outperform competition 3. 515
Willingness to respond aggressively to threats 4.727
Competitive attitude 3.697
Table 4D
The dimension of competitive aggressiveness equals ones willingness to compete; i.e. the willingness to outperform competition, the aggressive rather than defensive approach to-wards threats and the competitive attitude. The result of the first statements regarding will-ingness to outperform competition is an average mean of 3.515 with 18 respondents stating having 4 or higher. The second statement concerning aggressively response towards threats
has an average mean of 4.727, showing that a majority (28 respondents) having answered 4 or higher. The competitive attitude has shown result of an average mean of 3.697 where 21 respondents has answered 4 or higher. The average mean of the whole dimension is 3.979 which are just slightly above the theoretical average mean 3.500.
4.5 Risk-taking
Willingness to take decisions with limited information 4.121 Willingness to risk resources(e.g. own money) 3.909
Uncertainty acceptance 3.152
Table 4E
The dimension of risk-taking is measured through the willingness to take risks involving decision making, risking resources (own or others), and accepting an uncertain outcome on a project or venture. The first statement regarding willingness to take decisions with limited information shows a result of an average mean of 4.121, having 22 respondents answering 4 or higher. The second statements regarding willingness to risk resources the result is an average mean of 3.909 with 22 respondents that has answered 4 or higher. The last state-ments regarding uncertainty acceptance is 3.152, with 13 respondents answering 4 or high-er. The whole dimensions average mean is calculated to be 3.727.
4.6 Dimension
averages
The entrepreneurial orientation that consists of five different dimensions is here presented as average means of every dimension. Thus meaning that the three indicators that are mea-suring each dimension is combined and an average can be calculated (Amq1+Amq2+Amq3/nq=dta1)*. These averages show the full dimensions entrepreneu-rial orientation, making it easier to see the overall outcome of each dimension independ-ently. The theoretical mean value still is 3.500 for each dimension. The first dimension
which shows innovativeness has a total average of 4.050, which is the highest value of the dimensions. The second dimension concerning autonomy shows a result of an average of 3.636. The third dimension, proactiveness shows the results of an average of 3.888. The fourth dimension of competitive aggressiveness has the result of an average of 3.979 and the fifth and last dimension has the result of an average of 3.727. All the average results of the dimensions are all on the upper 50 percent percentiles, this meaning that they all are above the mean being 3.500, innovativeness being the most significant higher value.
*(Where Amq= average mean of the question, dta=dimension total average, nq=number of questions)
Innovativeness 4.050 Autonomy 3.636 Proactiveness 3.888 Competitive Aggressiveness 3.979 Risk-taking 3.727 Table 4F
The dimension averages is all on the upper 50 percentile (the median is 3.500) showing at least some inclination towards being entrepreneurially oriented.
4.7 Total Average
The total average is our key number that is to be used when answering our purpose, and is derived from all of the five dimensions (Amd1+Amd2+Amd3+Amd4+Amd5/nd=EP)* adding up to the total entrepreneurial potential. This is measurable to the whole scale from 1 to 6 as 3.857 of the maximum of 6.000.
*(Where Amd= Average mean of dimension, nd= number of dimensions, EP=entrepreneurial potential)
Entrepreneurial Potential 3. 857
Table 4G
The total entrepreneurial potential average is above the mean of 3.500. A full data table is found in appendix (Appendix 2), which also will be used in the next section further investi-gating the data collected.
