Should I stay or should I go Career choice intentions of students with family [619684]

Licență

Should I stay or should I go Career choice intentions of students with family [619684]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background
Thomas Zellweger ⁎, Philipp Sieger, Frank Halter
University of St. Gallen, Center for Family Business (CFB-HSG), Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
article info abstract
Article history:
Received 10 September 2008
Received in revised form 13 April 2010
Accepted 13 April 2010Available online xxxxPersonal and motivational patterns of intentional founders have been researched in great
depth; however, antecedent s to career choices of intent ional successors have been
conspicuously missing in entrepreneurship research. By drawing on theory of planned
behavior, we investigate how intentional founders, successors, and employees differ in terms of
locus of control and entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy as well as independence and innovation
motives. We ﬁnd that transitive likelihood of ca reer intent depends on degree of
entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy and the independence motive. Unexpectedly, we see that high
levels of internal locus of control lead to a preference of employment, which challengestraditional entrepreneurship research and suggests that the feasibility of an entrepreneurial
career path does not automatically make it desirable. Our ﬁndings suggest that students with
family business background are pessimistic about being in control in an entrepreneurial career,
but optimistic about their ef ﬁcacy to pursue an entrepreneurial career.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords:
Career choice intentions
Theory of planned behavior
MotivesTheory of mixed control
1. Executive summary
While a long history of entrepreneurship literature investigates career choice intentions and motives of founder entrepreneurs
(e.g., Carroll and Mosakowski, 1987; Kolvereid, 1996a; Baron, 1998; Krueger et al., 2000; Simon et al., 2000; Carter et al., 2003; Lee
et al., in press ), we lack an understanding of the antecedents to career choice intentions of successors. In particular, little is known
about how intentional successors differ from both intentional founders and employees, as most entrepreneurial career choice
studies focus on comparing intentional founders with employees (e.g., in terms of perceived behavioral control and attitudes).
Regarding career choices of intentional successors, Birley (2002) notes that there are “no instruments in the literature that deal
directly with this particular topic, simply a number of assertions about, for example, the early involvement of children in thebusiness as a way of training for succession or the timing of retirement of the previous generation ”(p.8).
We attempt to ﬁll this void in the literature by investigating the determinants of career choice intentions of students with
family business backgrounds. Drawing on theory of planned behavior and its application to the entrepreneurship context (e.g.,
Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991; Kolvereid, 1996b; Krueger et al., 2000 ), we examine how levels of perceived behavioral
control (captured by general locus of control and domain-speci ﬁc entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy) and attitudes (in ﬂuenced by the
independence and innovation motives) impact the likelihood of three career choice intentions: founding one's own ﬁrm (founding
intention), assuming a leadership role in the parental ﬁrm (succession intention), or being an employee outside the family ﬁrm
(employee intention). Using multinomial logistic regression, we ﬁnd that intentional founders and successors do not differ
signiﬁcantly in terms of locus of control. Unexpectedly, we see that high levels of internal locus of control lead to a preference of
employment, which challenges traditional entrepreneurship research (e.g., Mueller and Thomas, 2001; Shook et al., 2003 ). We
alsoﬁnd that transitive preferences of career intent depend on levels of entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy, indicating a pecking order ofJournal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxx
⁎Corresponding author. Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Tel.: +41 71 224 7100.
E-mail addresses: thomas.zellweger@unisg.ch (T. Zellweger), philipp.sieger@unisg.ch (P. Sieger), frank.halter@unisg.ch (F. Halter).JBV-05558; No of Pages 16
0883-9026/$ –see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business VenturingARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

career preferences (employee intention bsuccession intention bfounding intention), with succession preferred only at medium
levels. Turning to motivational aspects, our ﬁndings reveal that transitive preferences depend on the level of the independence
motive (employee intention bsuccession intention bfounding intention), with succession chosen only at medium levels. Finally,
when students attribute a higher importance to innovation, we ﬁnd that they are more likely to prefer the founding intention to
the succession intention.
Our study makes several important contributions. First, we add to the burgeoning theory of entrepreneurial career by shedding
light on the scarcely researched career path of succession ( Scherer et al., 1989; Birley, 2002; Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007; Sinclair,
2008 ). To our knowledge, we are the ﬁrst to directly investigate the antecedents to the succession career intent and to compare
intentional successors explicitly with intentional founders and employees, as recently suggested by Krueger (2009) .
Second, our ﬁndings extend the studies of Davidsson (1995) and Carsrud, Brännback, Kickul, and Krueger (2007) , who argue
that the family ﬁrm context, as a vicarious entrepreneurial experience, should spur founding career intentions among offspring,
and of Scherer et al. (1989) , who claim that role model performance may bias career choices. We ﬁnd that intentional successors
with high levels of internal locus of control tend to prefer employment to succession or founding, thereby avoiding the constraints
related to entrepreneurial careers ( Stavrou, 1999; Douglas and Shepherd, 2000 ). This speaks to Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986) as
to why many offspring opt against self-employment. Presumably, students raised in a family business environment vicariouslyexperience the constraints and personal sacri ﬁces imposed on their parents and are affected by the parents' absence due to
business matters ( Stavrou, 1999; Douglas and Shepherd, 2000; Douglas and Shepherd, 2002 ). For these self-directed potential
successors, because an entrepreneurial career path is feasible does not automatically mean that it is desirable. This suggests that
students with family business background seem to be pessimistic about being in control, but optimistic about their capabilities and
resources to pursue an entrepreneurial career.
Third, our study adds to theory of planned behavior and the recent development of a theory of mixed control ( Monsen and
Urbig, 2009; Urbig and Monsen, 2009 ). While we do not ﬁnd evidence for an interaction effect between locus of control and self-
efﬁcacy as suggested by Monsen and Urbig (2009) ,w e ﬁnd evidence that the family ﬁrm context as an external source of
behavioral control positively contributes to the inclination to start an entrepreneurial career through heightened perceptions of
entrepreneurial ef ﬁcacy, as suggested by previous research ( Janney and Dess, 2006 ). In contrast, the same external context lessens
the willingness to start an entrepreneurial career in case of strong perceptions of internal locus of control. As such, students withfamily business background are optimistic about having the necessary skills and resources for an entrepreneurial career but
pessimistic about being in control when pursuing such a career. This ﬁnding augments the relevance of the source dependence
argument in a theory of mixed control ( Monsen and Urbig, 2009; Urbig and Monsen, 2009 ).
Finally, our theoretical considerations and empirical ﬁndings contribute to the ongoing discussion of the content and form of
academic entrepreneurship programs, which have been found to impact the intention to opt for an entrepreneurial career path(e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007; Tegtmeier, 2007 ). If entrepreneurship programs are intended to motivate students to choose careers in
their family ﬁrms, educators may use our ﬁndings to differentiate between founder and successor entrepreneurs, and make
parents aware of their impact on children's entrepreneurial career choice intentions.
2. Introduction
In the entrepreneurship literature, there is a long history of investigating career choice intentions of students intending to
found a ﬁrm
after completion of studies. Generally, these intentional founders are compared with intentional employees, i.e. those
who strive for an organizational employment after their studies. This research has contributed to the emergence of a theory of
entrepreneurial career specifying various personal characteristics, cognitions, emotions, and social conditions that lead an
individual to choose a career as a founder versus an employee ( Hayward et al., 2006; Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007; Sinclair, 2008 ).
For example, intentional founders strive for independence and seek high levels of innovation and self-ful ﬁllment (e.g., Fischer
et al., 1993; Kolvereid, 1996a,b; Stewart et al., 1999; Krueger et al., 2000; Carter et al., 2003 ). In the context of family ﬁrms,
however, offspring not only have the option to found their own company or ﬁnd employment, but also to become a successor.
Surprisingly, the career option of succession is conspicuously absent in the literature on career choice intentions. Despite a few
noteworthy studies (e.g., Chrisman et al., 1998; Stavrou, 1999; Sharma and Rao, 2000; Birley, 2002; Sharma and Irving, 2005 ), little
is known about the underlying attitudes and motivations of intentional successors and how they differ from intentional foundersor employees.
Investigating the motives that drive students with a family business background to become a successor versus to become a
founder or an organizational employee is highly pertinent, given the worldwide social and economic relevance of family ﬁrms
(Astrachan and Shanker, 1996; Astrachan and Shanker, 2003 ). For these ﬁrms' transgenerational sustainability, family succession
is a critical prerequisite ( Sharma, 2004 ). Despite that, little is known about this topic, and even less about the motives of potential
successors (e.g., Le Breton-Miller et al., 2004; Chrisman et al., 2005; Sharma and Irving, 2005 ). Closing this gap in the literature
makes important theoretical contributions to the family business and entrepreneurship literatures. Discovering the determinants
of an individual's intention to pursue a succession career path will contribute valuably to family business and, more speci ﬁcally,
succession literature. Investigating how students with family business backgrounds form career choice intentions provides furtherinsight into how a family business background primes goal intentions of offspring ( Bagozzi, 2000; Sheeran et al., 2005 ), an
insufﬁciently understood mechanism in entrepreneurship literature. Although having self-employed parents as role models and a
family business background may impact the likelihood of pursuing an entrepreneurial career ( Scherer et al., 1989; Boyd and
Vozikis, 1994; Davidsson, 1995 ), it is unclear whether these external factors inspire potential successors to start their own ﬁrm (as2 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

suggested by entrepreneurship literature), succeed in the family ﬁrm, or seek outside employment. Exploring the impact of
external factors such as a family ﬁrm background on career intent is timely given assertions about source dependence of
perceptions of ef ﬁcacy and control in a recently proposed theory of mixed control ( Monsen and Urbig, 2009; Urbig and Monsen,
2009 ). Consequently, investigating the motivations that drive students with a family business background to become successors
versus founders or organizational employees holds wide practical and theoretical relevance.
Drawing on theory of planned behavior and its application to the entrepreneurship context ( Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen,
1991; Kolvereid, 1996b; Krueger et al., 2000 ) and basing our study on data gathered from 5363 students with a family business
background, we examine how perceived behavioral control (captured by locus of control and entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy) and
attitudes (in ﬂuenced by the independence and innovation motives) impact the likelihood of these three career choice intentions.
We argue that the strength of perceived behavioral control and attitudes will discriminate between preferred career choices and
suggest transitive likelihoods of career preferences.
We begin by providing the theoretical foundations of our considerations. Next, we develop a series of hypotheses regarding
how perceived behavioral control and motives impact career choice intentions of students with family business backgrounds. We
then describe our sample and our methodological approach and present the results of our analysis. After we outline our ﬁndings
and contributions, mention limitations, and point to possible avenues for future research, we offer our conclusion.
3. Theoretical foundations
3.1. Theory of planned behavior in the context of entrepreneurship
To examine the antecedents of career choice intentions, we draw on theory of planned behavior ( Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975;
Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1991 ).Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) claim that “since much of human behavior appears to be under
volitional control …the best single predictor of an individual's behavior will be a measure of his intention to perform that
behavior ”(p. 369). Intention is a state of mind directing a person's attention and experience toward a speci ﬁc object or method of
behaving; in the words of Ajzen, “an indication of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to
exert in order to perform the behavior. As a general rule, the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely should
be its performance ”(p.181).
According to Ajzen (1991), intentions are formed as a result of three factors: attitude toward performing the behavior,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The ﬁrst construct, attitude toward performing the behavior, taps perceptions
of the personal desirability of performing the behavior. Such salient desirability beliefs link behavior to a certain outcome or tosome other attribute, such as the cost or bene ﬁt incurred by the behavior. Hence, attitude toward the behavior is determined by
underlying beliefs about the likely outcomes of that behavior and reﬂ ects the positive or negative evaluation of these outcomes
(Armitage and Conner, 2001 ). The second major construct, subjective norms, is nurtured by normative beliefs, such as family
expectations, when considering performing a certain act. This concept was introduced into theory of planned behavior toaccommodate the nonvolitional elements inherent, at least potentially, in all behaviors ( Ajzen, 2002 ). Finally, perceived behavioral
control refers to “people's perception of the ease or dif ﬁculty of performing the behavior of interest ”(Ajzen, 1991 , p.183). It
comprises Bandura's (1994) concept of self-ef ﬁcacy and the concept of locus of control ( Brockhaus, 1980; Ajzen, 2002 ), the
perceived ability to execute a target behavior.
Based on assertions that intentions are the single best predictors of actual behavior ( Bagozzi et al., 1989 ), a signi ﬁcant number
of scholars have used theory of planned behavior to predict entrepreneurial behavior, since entrepreneurship is regarded as a typeof behavior for which intention models are ideally suited ( Bird, 1988; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Kolvereid, 1996a ).Krueger
et al.
(2000) argue that it seems evident that much of what we consider entrepreneurial activity is intentionally planned behavior. The
act of starting a ﬁrm can hardly be seen as a re ﬂex. Even when a single event (e.g., downsizing) may spur an individual to perform
an entrepreneurial act, there is often evidence of a previous interest in founding one's own company. Davidsson (1995) suggests
that no distal variable can accurately predict narrowly de ﬁned entrepreneurial behavior. Intentions are seen as particularly apt
predictors of actual entrepreneurial behavior, since the creation of ﬁrms may be dif ﬁcult to observe due to its relative rareness, the
often incremental nature of founding activities, and the time lag before the new ﬁrm becomes an identi ﬁable public entity.
3.2. The family business context and career intentions
Growing up in a family where parents are the managers and owners of a company represents a particular context in which
career intentions are formed. Children raised in the family ﬁrm context where the ﬁrm is controlled and operated by the family
with a transgenerational perspective ( Chua et al., 1999), are often closely exposed to the challenges and opportunities related to
an entrepreneurial career. These family-related early life experiences play a major role in molding an individual's beliefs,
attitudes, personality, and intentions ( Bronfenbrenner, 1986 ). It has been put forth that if parents serve as positive role models,
offspring from business families should be more motivated to start their own ﬁrm (i.e., to be intentional founders) than children
without this background ( Kolvereid, 1996b ). This may be related to family support in terms of resources needed to launch a ﬁrm,
learning effects, or strengthened perceptions about mastery of the challenges related to an entrepreneurial career and, hence,heightened perceived behavioral control ( Carsrud et al., 2007 ). Family members and in particular parents may be seen as
powerful others ( Bandura, 1997 ), given their overlapping role as altruistic parents and owner-managers of the largest part of3 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

the family's wealth and legacy. In line with Bandura (1997) , the family may then in ﬂuence perceptions of controllability and
self-ef ﬁcacy.
Besides a peculiar familial context, by opting for succession, offspring also face a particular organizational context in
comparison to the founding or employment contexts. For example, family ﬁrms and their senior managers often exhibit strong
legacy concerns, sometimes accompanied by the inclination to tolerate underperforming activities because of family tradition.
Offspring, then, may face strong inertial forces inhibiting timely and creative adaptations of the business portfolio ( Sharma and
Manikutty, 2005 ). To perpetuate continued family control, family ﬁrms tend to be more concerned about wealth preservation than
wealth generation, thereby limiting the feasibility of bold entrepreneurial strategies ( Zellweger and Sieger, forthcoming).
Moreover, governance structures are often personalized and focused on paternalistic family members ( Carney, 2005 ).
Rationally calculated decision criteria may be ignored, since control rights permit the family to intervene in the affairs of the ﬁrm
by substituting other, “particularistic ”criteria of their choosing. Families may employ decision criteria based upon altruism or
nepotism, which may undermine the adoption of more objective and rationally calculated decision criteria that normally occur in
the nonfamily context. Also, an owner-centric corporate culture, often impacted by the beliefs and fundamental motives of the
founder, may limit a successor's room for discretion and may predetermine processes, behaviors, and decision-making routines.
Regarding continued founder in ﬂuence, Baron, Hannan and Burton (1999) state: “Once formulated and articulated, a founder's
organizational blueprint likely ‘locks in ’the adoption of particular structures, as well as certain premises that guide decision-
making ”(p. 532). These lock-in effects may persist in family ﬁrms, given continued family control.
In sum, students with family business background stem from a particular familial context that may mold their future career
intentions. When joining the family ﬁrm offspring have to deal with an organizational context that is often characterized by legacy
concerns, person-dependent governance structures and owner centric organizational cultures. Consequently, we expect that thesuccession intention, hence the intention to assume a leadership role in the parents' ﬁrm, will seem attractive only to a speci ﬁc
type of individual with speci ﬁc levels of perceived behavioral control and attitudes, as we will explore in the next section of our
paper.
3.3. Perceived behavioral control and career intent
Recent entrepreneurship research suggests that perceived behavioral control is among the most pertinent antecedents to
entrepreneurial career intent ( Krueger et al., 2000; Shook et al., 2003 ).Krueger (1993) ﬁnds that perceived feasibility perceptions,
a surrogate for perceived behavioral control, explain most of the variance in entrepreneurial intent. An intriguing question, for
both theory of planned behavior in a broader sense and its application to the entrepreneurship and family business context, is the
potentially differing impact of locus of control and self-efﬁ cacy as distinct aspects of perceived behavioral control ( Armitage and
Conner, 1999; Ajzen, 2002 ). The case has been made that measures of perceived behavioral control need to incorporate both locus
of control, which is assumed to deal with external factors that may facilitate or impede performance of a behavior, and self-
efﬁcacy, which re ﬂects internal factors ( Ajzen, 2002 ).
Self-ef ﬁcacy can be affected by performance ( Chen et al., 1998 ) and locus of control by life experiences ( Dyal, 1984 ). While
both concepts are cognitive and control-based, two important distinctions can be made. First, internal versus external locus of
control (I-E) is a generalized construct covering a variety of situations, whereas self-ef ﬁcacy is mostly considered to be domain-
or task-speci ﬁc,
reﬂecting the individual's conviction that he or she can perform in a certain domain (such as founding an own
ﬁrm) or a speci ﬁc task (such as marketing a new product) at a speci ﬁc level of expertise ( Gist, 1987 ).Bandura (1977) claims that
individuals may show strong internal locus of control in general, but believe they have low skill levels in certain areas, whichwould lead to low ef ﬁcacy perceptions on relevant tasks. A second difference is that locus of control as measured by Rotter's I-E
scale ( Rotter, 1966 ) includes outcome expectancies in addition to behavior expectancies, while self-ef ﬁcacy concerns only
behavioral control.
Rotter (1966) suggests that an individual perceives the outcome of an event as being either within or beyond his or her
personal control and understanding. An “internal ”believes that one has in ﬂuence over outcomes through ability, effort, or skills.
“Externals ”believe that forces outside the control of the individual determine outcomes ( Rotter, 1966; Shook et al., 2003 ). An
individual with internal locus of control should be particularly inclined to overcome obstacles. A rich stream of founding
entrepreneurship research suggests that individuals with high levels of general internal locus of control are more inclined to
choose a founder career path than individuals with general external locus of control (e.g., Brockhaus, 1980; Shapero, 1982; Mueller
and Thomas, 2001 ).
In line with these considerations, we expect that students with a family business background who display high levels of general
internal locus of control will be inclined to prefer the founding to the succession intention. A successor's in ﬂuence over outcomes is
likely to be more limited. A member of the younger generation joining the family ﬁrm might experience a lack of acceptance and
legitimacy among long-time employees but also among family members (e.g., Barach et al., 1988; Sharma et al., 2001 ). As a
consequence, implementing plans and projects and achieving desired outcomes is hampered. Successors in family ﬁrms often
must subordinate themselves to existing decision-making and control structures, making it dif ﬁcult to implement ideas and
control the organization's fate ( Swagger, 1991 ). Thus, the successor's personal control over outcomes is limited by several external
factors that may even reach beyond the domain of the ﬁrm. Consequently, students with high general internal locus of control are
expected to prefer the founding to the succession option. When becoming an employee, the opportunity to control outcomes is
restricted due to the lack of in ﬂuence through ownership, leaving the employee's career exposed to many external factors beyond
his or her control.4 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

We then propose a pecking order of career choice intentions that depend on degree of general internal locus of control. High
levels of internal locus of control are expected to spur the founding intention, medium levels the succession intention, and low
levels the intention for employment. More formally stated:
Hypothesis 1. All else being equal, the more pronounced the perceived general internal locus of control of students with family
business backgrounds, the more likely their career choice intentions are transitive. Speci ﬁcally, the founding intention is preferred
to the succession intention, and the succession intention is preferred to the employee intention.
The self-ef ﬁcacy dimension, in turn, dictates the ease or dif ﬁculty of performing the actual behavior ( Bandura, 1994; Ajzen,
2002 ). Self-ef ﬁcacy refers to “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce (certain
outcomes) ”(Bandura, 1998 , p.624). According to entrepreneurship literature, vicarious experiences within family ﬁrms and
parents as role models may be major sources of entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy ( Davidsson, 1995 ) and determine the strength of an
individual's belief that he or she is capable of successfully performing the roles and tasks of an entrepreneur ( Chen et al., 1998 ).
Boyd and Vozikis (1994) suggest that pro ﬁcient role models, such as parents running their own ﬁrm, convey effective strategies for
managing challenging situations, and that entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy is affected by a social comparison process that ultimately
nurtures the intention to start a ﬁrm. That is, children from business families judge their own capabilities to found a ﬁrm through
observational learning and by comparing themselves to their parents.
Bandura (1997) suggests that high levels of self-ef ﬁcacy reinforce persistent efforts to achieve goals, even under stressful
situations, and promote quick recovery from failure, and that these bene ﬁts are likely to be particularly advantageous in the
context of new venture creation ( Hmieleski and Baron, 2008 ). Founders, who need particularly pronounced perceptions of strong
skills, will power, and a commitment to motives, maintain a sense of task focus, persist in the face of failure, and attribute failure to
lack of personal effort ( Norman and Hoyle, 2004 ). This suggestion is in line with recent assertions that founders may be more
inclined to display overcon ﬁdence biases ( Forbes, 2005 ). A high level of entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy helps them establish a new
company, create products, facilities, and networks from scratch, and overcome the liability of newness ( Stinchcombe, 1965;
Markman and Baron, 2003 ). Thus, with high levels of self-ef ﬁcacy in the entrepreneurship domain, we expect the founding
intention to be the preferred career path.
In contrast to the founding context, the succession career path may seem attractive at moderate levels of self-efﬁ cacy speci ﬁct o
the entrepreneurship domain, since uncertainty related to the often long-term established family ﬁrm is lower. In fact, family ﬁrms
ripe for succession have already overcome liability of newness and often operate on a more solid resource base ( Habbershon et al.,
2003 ). An intentional successor will be able to draw upon the implicit and explicit knowledge of a proven management team
(Sirmon and Hitt, 2003 ) and obtain support from the ﬁnancial and human capital of the family ( Steier, 2007 ). Also, the extensive
network of the family in the focal industry and the local community ( Pearson et al., 2008 ) provides additional con ﬁdence that the
intentional successor will successfully execute the entrepreneurial role inside the family ﬁrm. Consequently, while founders need
particularly pronounced perceptions of strong skills, will power, and commitment, moderate levels of entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy
will let the succession option emerge as the most attractive career, given the relative stability of the organizational context and theestablished resource base provided by the family and the ﬁrm.
In sum, we propose a hierarchy of career preferences depending on levels of domain-speci ﬁc entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy: high
levels of self-ef ﬁcacy will spur the founding intention, medium levels the succession intention, and low levels the employment
intention. More formally:
Hypothesis 2. All else being equal, the more pronounced the perceived domain-speci ﬁc entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy of students
with family business backgrounds, the more likely their career choice intentions are transitive. Speciﬁ cally, the founding intention
is preferred to the succession intention, and the succession intention is preferred to the employee intention.
3.4. Personal motives and career intent
Beyond the pivotal role of perceived behavioral control, a rich stream of literature explores the impact of individual motives as
cues for the perceived desirability of a certain career intent ( Herron and Sapienza, 1992; Kolvereid, 1996a; Kuratko et al., 1997;
Carter et al., 2003 ). Regarding career choice motives, theory of planned behavior assumes that if the outcome of a behavior (e.g.,
founding a ﬁrm) is believed to satisfy a speci ﬁc individual motive (e.g., independence), performing the behavior will be evaluated
more positively with increasing levels of the corresponding motive. This results in a more favorable attitude toward that behavior,
which, in turn, leads to a stronger intention to actually perform it.
Despite the failure of personality- and trait-based studies to establish a link between entrepreneurs and venture creation
(Gartner, 1989b), the individual remains a cogent unit of analysis in entrepreneurship research ( Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007 ).
Carter et al. (2003) provide a parsimonious synthesis for the motives that entrepreneurs offer for forming a business. In addition to
need for approval, ﬁnancial success, and desire to follow role models, independence and innovation are proposed as two highly
discriminating career choice motives. The independence motive describes an individual's desire for freedom, control, andﬂexibility ( Schein, 1978; Smith and Miner, 1983 ) and the innovation motive describes an individual's intention to accomplish
something new ( Carter et al., 2003 ). Founders will likely display greater levels of independence and innovation motives than
employees.5 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

In contrast to these ﬁndings on motives of founding entrepreneurs and employees, there is little research investigating the
motives and intentions of successors in family ﬁrms ( Birley, 2002 ). Exceptions are Stavrou (1999) and Ward (1987) , who both ﬁnd
that among the most frequent reasons cited why offspring intend to join the family ﬁrm is the will to control the ﬁrm's operations
and to be one's own boss. This emphasizes the fact that the intention to succeed is also related to the independence motive.
Within a family ﬁrm, however, there is the necessity of coping with existing structures, aggravated by the idiosyncrasies and
personalism of family ﬁrms' business models ( Carney, 2005 ), which often depend on an individual entrepreneur. Furthermore, a
founder- or owner-centric organizational culture that manifests itself through limited delegation of authority and a continued
paternalistic or maternalistic management style may also be constraining factors (cp. Nordqvist et al., 2008 ). Frequently, a change
in the business structure, strategy, or culture is delayed until the parent/leader either dies or is unable to manage the businesseffectively ( Matthews et al., 1999 ). Given such a rigid organizational context, the successor's ability to decide independently,
maintain personal freedom, and realize his or her dreams are restricted. The third career option, being an employee is assumed tooffer the lowest degree of independence, given that employees in a hierarchical structure lack stock ownership and voting rights.
In light of the three career choices explored here, we expect that founding a ﬁrm best satis ﬁes the independence motive.
Starting a ﬁrm enables students with family business backgrounds to be independent, enjoy a great deal of personal freedom, and
realize their own dreams. Accordingly, we argue that students with family business backgrounds consider that becoming afounder entrepreneur will satisfy the independence motive to a greater extent than becoming a successor entrepreneur, and that
this motive is satis ﬁed least when becoming an employee. In line with theory of planned behavior, the strength of the
independence motive affects attitudes toward the three different career options and, ultimately, career choice intentions. Thus, weformally claim:
Hypothesis 3. All else being equal, the more pronounced the independence motive of students with family business backgrounds,
the more likely their career choice intentions are transitive. Speci ﬁcally, the founding intention is preferred to the succession
intention, and the succession intention is preferred to the employee intention.
Carter et al.'s (2003) study on career motives of founder entrepreneurs suggests that the innovation motive is a further critical
driver of career intent. To establish an organization, founder entrepreneurs need to explore new ways to seize entrepreneurial
opportunities. Attributes such as broadmindedness and originality are important when starting a new venture ( Bird, 1988 ). When
launching a new ﬁrm, individuals need to build infrastructure and develop new products and services simultaneously ( Markman
and Baron, 2003 ).Hmieleski and Corbett (2006) report that a proclivity for improvisation and innovation is strongly linked with
the intention to be entrepreneurial. Founder entrepreneurs tend to develop and execute novel solutions to problems and
opportunities encountered extemporaneously, in strong contrast to a strategically planned utility maximization model of
entrepreneurial action ( Baker et al., 2003 ).
In opposition to these considerations regarding founder entrepreneurs, we expect that in the context of an established ﬁrm,
successors face the challenge of improving and exploiting existing processes or goods, a differentiation from the more explorative
and creative activities of most founders. It has been argued that innovativeness decreases with continuous aging of family ﬁrms
(McCann et al., 2001 ); that is, the face of innovation changes, which may require lower levels of product innovation and creativity,
but a greater proclivity to improve existing solutions and structures ( Zellweger and Sieger, forthcoming ). Further constraints may
be related to the continuous presence of family members of earlier generations, who may protect antiquated activities, products,processes, and structures that they have innovated. Ties to outdated structures inhibiting innovativeness may be nurtured by
emotional attachment based on family tradition, emotional bonds among family members, and nostalgia ( Sharma and Manikutty,
2005; Gomez-Mejia et al., 2007; Zellweger and Astrachan, 2008 ). Such emotional bonds may restrict resource shedding, an activity
crucial for the rejuvenation and continued innovativeness of family ﬁrms ( Sirmon and Hitt, 2003 ). Regarding the employee option,
we assume this career path offers the least means and possibilities to be innovative.
We expect, therefore, that students with family business backgrounds consider that becoming a founder entrepreneur will
satisfy
the innovation motive to a greater extent than becoming a successor entrepreneur, whereas this motive is satis ﬁed least
when becoming an employee. According to theory of planned behavior, this will ultimately affect the formation of career choice
intentions. More formally stated:
Hypothesis 4. All else being equal, the more pronounced the innovation motive of students with family business backgrounds, the
more likely their career choice intentions are transitive. Speci ﬁcally, the founding intention is preferred to the succession
intention, and the succession intention is preferred to the employee intention.
4. Methods
We rely on a dataset originating from the International Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship (ISCE) conducted in 20061.A
core team consisting of senior faculty members of two major German and Swiss universities developed the questionnaire and
distributed it to eight representatives in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland,
who in turn e-mailed the questionnaire to students at 87 universities in these eight countries. By using an identi ﬁcation-based
1The ISCE project has been rebranded to GUESSS (Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey) in 2008.6 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

survey, we prevented multiple responses. Without using reminder emails or incentives, the response rate of 6.98% compares
favorably with other e-mail student surveys ( Porter and Whitcomb, 2003 ). The data set is comprised of the responses of students
who have not started professional careers yet, which enables us to take a prospective view, thereby avoiding survivor bias fromwhich retrospective studies suffer. Our data set thus differs signi ﬁcantly from the PSED and SARIE data sets (cp. Carter et al., 2003;
Sinclair, 2008 ).Table 1 describes our sample, return rates, and demographics of respondents in more detail (see also Halter et al.,
2005; Chlosta and Jaskiewicz, 2009 ).
For our analysis, we included only questionnaires in which all items necessary for our purposes received responses. Of the
36,451 students responding, 9904 have a family business background. Of these, 609 intend to follow in their parents' footsteps,1808 intend to create their own ﬁrms, and 2946 plan to become employees. The remaining students did not indicate de ﬁned career
intentions. Thus, we analyzed the responses of 5363 students.
4.1. Dependent variable
Our dependent variable is categorical, with three different values that represent options within ﬁve years of completion of studies:
if the student intends to be 1) an employee, 2) a successor, or 3) a founder entrepreneur. This time lag is predicated on the observation
that typical entrepreneurs work elsewhere before starting their own business ( Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986) ). Furthermore, as
mentioned, such a prospective research approach overcomes retrospection biases, such as intentional and unintentional inaccuraciesresulting from interviewing entrepreneurs about their motives after they are in business ( Gartner, 1989a; Shaver and Scott, 1991;
Davidsson, 2004 ).
4.2. Independent variables
In line with prior studies (e.g., Mueller and Thomas, 2001 ), we adapted items from Rotter's (1966) I-E scale for general locus of
control (see Appendix A for items). We used a general locus of control measure since locus of control is considered to be a central
characteristic of individuals ( Seeman, 1959 ) that pervades and in ﬂuences behavior across contexts (i.e., private and business)
(Rotter, 1990 ). Moreover, even if not all of Rotter's measures are equally plausible predictors of entrepreneurial behavior ( Shaver
and Scott, 1991 ), empirical studies using multidimensional measures of locus of control that better address the entrepreneurship
context support the ﬁndings of a general locus of control (e.g., Levin and Leginsky, 1990; Bonnett and Furnham, 1991 ). The general
locus of control measure exhibits a Cronbach's alpha of 0.70. Our domain-speci ﬁc entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy measure was inspired
byDe Noble, Jung, and Ehrlich (1999) (see Appendix A for items). We chose a domain-speci ﬁc measure for two main reasons. First,
Bandura (1997) regards self-ef ﬁcacy as a contextual phenomenon. Accordingly, a general self-efﬁ cacy scale may not be able to
predict domain-speci ﬁc behaviors ( Pajares, 1996; Eden and Granat-Flomin, 2000 ). When conceptualized in a too general way, self-
efﬁcacy may be rendered indistinguishable from universal disposition constructs such as self-esteem or locus of control ( Chen et al.,
1998 ). To achieve explanatory and predictive power, Bandura (1997) suggests to tailor the self-ef ﬁcacy measure to a speci ﬁc
domain, such as entrepreneurial behavior. Second, using a domain-speci ﬁc
measure overcomes the limitations of a task-speci ﬁc
measure, which may be too narrow or raise the question why the particular tasks and not others are included in the construct. Thisargument is particularly relevant for the entrepreneurship context in light of the dissimilarities of the related tasks. As such, our
domain-speci ﬁc self-ef ﬁcacy measure is distinct from Lee et al. (in press) who use a task speci ﬁc measure (IT-related skills) and
from Chen, Gully and Eden (2001) who use a general self-ef ﬁcacy measure. Cronbach's alpha for this variable reaches 0.69.
To test whether the distinction between locus of control and self-efﬁ cacy is warranted, we conducted a con ﬁrmatory factor
analysis comparing a two-factor structure that includes locus of control and self-ef ﬁcacy with a one-factor structure that combines
these factors. The two-factor structure ﬁts the data signi ﬁcantly better, which supports the distinction ( χ
2(43)=1021.429,
RMSEA=.065, CFI=.900, GFI=.966 compared to χ2(44)=3174.455, df=44, RMSEA=.115, CFI=.681, GFI=.919, difference in
χ2=2153.026, df=1, pb0.001).
For the independence motive , we relied on a measure used by Kuratko, Hornsby, and Naffziger (1997) . For the innovation motive ,
we used a measure developed by Carter, Gartner, Shaver, and Gatewood (2003) . Respondents were asked how important the
different motives were to them when evaluating future career options. We used a Likert index of six items ranging from “very
unimportant ”to“very important ”and created multi-item motive variables (see items in the Appendix A ). The Cronbach alpha for
Table 1
Sample characteristics.
Country Universities Average student age Average study year Female students (%)
CH 26 24.8 3.1 37.2
GER 9 24 3.23 51.3
AUT 23 25.3 3.64 52.3
BEL 5 23 2.75 48.1
FIN 8 25.5 2.48 51.7
NOR 6 24.4 3.06 40.0
HUN 8 23.3 3.19 48.4
NZL 2 22.8 2.91 53.2
Total 87 24.1 3.05 47.87 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

the independence measure is 0.71 and 0.70 for the innovation measure. The alpha measures for the independent variables are all
above the recommended value of 0.60 for exploratory research ( Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ).Table 2 summarizes the
convergent and divergent validities of our dependent and independent variables.
4.3. Control variables
One of our control variables is student age. Research presents mixed ﬁndings on the relation between age and successor
inclination. While Birley (1991) ﬁnds that the younger the person, the more likely his or her intention to join the family ﬁrm,
Stavrou (1999) ﬁnds the opposite. Similarly, the number of years of study might impact the propensity to launch a new ﬁrm. We
also look at gender (1: female; 0: male), which has been reported to impact the founding propensity ( Kolvereid, 1996b; Carter et
al., 2003 ). We include four dummies for the ﬁeld of study, namely business administration, economics and law, natural sciences
and engineering, and other social sciences. In addition, the wide geographic reach of our study requires that we address the issue
of possible culture-related differences and differing levels of entrepreneurial activities among countries ( Hofstede, 2001; Reynolds
et al., 2005 ). We include eight country dummies, assigning the value of 1 for the student's home country and 0 otherwise. We
expect that students from transition countries (e.g., Hungary with its relative youth of private entrepreneurial activity and hence
the absence of the succession option) or from countries with very high founding activity (e.g., New Zealand; Bosma et al., 2008 )
will prefer the founding career path.
We also examined family business exposure quality by investigating the feelings the students attribute to their family business,
assuming that those with positive emotions will display a higher propensity to follow in their parents' footsteps ( Birley, 2002 ). We
used the statement, “The feelings that I connect with our family business are mainly positive or negative ”and included this
measure as a partial control for subjective norms, the third antecedent to intentions according to theory of planned behavior. Weexpect that the more positive the perceived vicarious experience in the family business, the stronger the subjective norms favor
the succession intention ( Ajzen, 2002 ). This control variable takes the value of 1 for positive exposure and 0 for negative exposure.
To explore the possibility of nonresponse bias, we compared the data from early and late respondents using ANOVA,
2a test
based on the assumption that late respondents are more similar to nonrespondents than are early respondents (c.f., Oppenheim,
1966; Chrisman et al., 2004 ). No statistically signi ﬁcant differences were found. We also conducted an ANOVA between the
respondents who answered all relevant questions and those who did not. Again, no signi ﬁcant differences emerged, which
mitigates nonresponse concerns.
We next applied Harman's one-factor test (1967) as suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986) . Following the recommendation
ofPodsakoff et al. (2003) , we entered all our variables into a factor analysis, extracting a 10-factor solution. These factors account
for 68.9% of the variance in total. The ﬁrst factor explains 9.6% of the variance, providing initial evidence that common method bias
is not a problem because no single factor accounts for the majority of the variance. Potential concerns for common method bias arefurther mitigated due to the prospective design of our study, in comparison to retrospective studies that are more likely to
experience consistency effects ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). As a third precaution against common method bias and to assess the
validity and distinctiveness of our measures of locus of control, entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy, and the independence and innovation
motives, we conducted a con ﬁrmatory factor analysis ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Speci ﬁcally, we compared the ﬁt of a four-factor
structure to that of a one-factor structure. Our four-factor structure ﬁts the data very well ( χ
2(129)=1785.913, RMSEA=.049,
CFI=.911, GFI=.964). The results of the one-factor structure ( χ2(135)=5597.916, RMSEA=.087, CFI=.706, GFI=.922) are
signiﬁcantly worse than for the four-factor structure (difference in χ2=3812.003, df=6, pb0.001). This indicates that the
measures we used are not only theoretically but also empirically distinguishable, and that common method bias is not a concern
(Podsakoff et al., 2003 )3.
2In each country, we formed two groups of respondents (early and late) and then conducted the ANOVA for these two groups for each country. No signi ﬁcant
differences between early and late respondents were detected in any country.
3In addition, the four-factor structure was compared to a two-factor structure, with the latter consisting of perceived behavioral control (locus of control plus
self-ef ﬁcacy) and motives (independence and innovation). The two-factor structure yielded less favorable results ( χ2(131)=5008.790, RMSEA=.083,
CFI=.737, GFI=.925), whereas the difference is signi ﬁcant (difference in χ2=3222.877, df=2, pb0.001).Table 2
Summary of convergent and divergent validities of measures.
Measure Converges on Diverges from
Career choice intention (general) Kolvereid (1996b) (for founding versus
employment intention) Birley (2002)
(for succession intention)Kolvereid (1996b) and Birley (2002) in the sense that
we do not use a binary variable as above authors do, buta categorical variable with three outcomes (founder,successor, employee)
Locus of control Rotter (1966); Mueller and Thomas (2001) Bonnett and Furnham (1991)
Entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy
(domain speci ﬁc)De Noble, Jung &Ehrlich (1999); Chen,Greene and Crick (1998) (these are summed
task-speci ﬁc measures)Lee, Wong, Foo and Leung (in press) , using a task speci ﬁc
measure; Chen, Gully and Eden (2001) using a general
measure
Independence motive Kuratko, Hornsby and Naffziger (1997) –
Innovation motive Carter, Gartner, Shaver and Gatewood (2003) –8 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxx ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

5. Results
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations are provided in Table 3 . Since all our correlations are below the 0.60 cut-
off, there is no indication that our data suffer from shared variance. To substantiate this claim, we calculated the Variance Inﬂ ation
Factor (VIF), which reaches 2.15. This value is below the critical cut-off of 10 ( Hair et al., 2006 ), suggesting that multicollinearity is
not a concern. As our dependent variable is categorical and consists of three dimensions, we conducted a multinomial logistic
regression, a suitable method for this kind of research question and data (e.g., Gregory et al., 2005; Li et al., 2008 ). Here, the effects
of the independent variables on each of the outcomes are compared to a base category. We use succession intention as thecomparison baseline, as it always represents the middle position in our hypotheses assuming transitivity.
Table 4 reports the results of multinomial regression analysis. Models 1a and 1b include our control variables only; the
independent variables are added in Models 2a and 2b.
Our control models reveal that results differ by country. As expected, Hungarian students are more likely to choose to be
founders than to choose the other career paths. In Germany, the employment option is preferred to the succession option. New
Zealand stands out with a strong preference for a career path other than succession, which agrees with GEM data indicating a high
founding proclivity there ( Bosma et al., 2008 ). We found that age has no impact on the likelihood of career choice intentions. Also,
the number of years of study and the major ﬁelds of study do not play signi ﬁcant roles. Gender, however, has a signi ﬁcant effect in
our control models: women display a higher likelihood to opt for employment and a lower inclination to be intentional founders.
Furthermore, we ﬁnd that positive exposure toward the family business increases the likelihood of preferring the succession
intention to both alternatives.
Models 2a and 2b test our hypotheses. They reach a Nagelkerke R
2of 0.256. Our predictions ( Hypothesis 1 ) for locus of control
are rejected because students with higher levels of internal locus of control are more likely to opt for employment ( β=0.198,
pb.05), whereas we ﬁnd no difference between intentional founders and successors. Hypothesis 2 ﬁnds full support. Students with
high levels of entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy are less likely to become employees than to become successors ( β=−0.154, pb.01).
Our expectation that intentional founders demonstrate higher entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy than successors is supported as well
(β=0.108, pb.05). Hypothesis 3 , regarding transitive career choice preferences with increasing levels of the independence
motive, also ﬁnds full support (founding intention Nsuccession intention Nemployee intention) ( β=−0.898, pb.001; β=0.173,
pb.05). Hypothesis 4 , dealing with the innovation motive, ﬁnds partial support. Comparing the founding intention with the
succession intention shows a signi ﬁcant preference for founding ( β=0.327, pb.001). However, when comparing the employee
intention with the succession intention, there is no signi ﬁcant coef ﬁcient for innovation. To validate our model further, we split
our data into two random subsamples. The independent results from these subsamples do not differ signiﬁ cantly from the results
presented here.
5.1. Post-hoc test for interaction between locus of control and entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy
Our opposing ﬁndings for the locus of control and entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy constructs deserve further investigation. Theory
suggests that the more internal the attribution of causality and the more controllable the situation, the stronger the impact of self-
efﬁcacy on initiating and persisting in entrepreneurial activity ( Krueger, 2003 ). In this vein, control beliefs are expected to
moderate the extent to which ef ﬁcacy beliefs in ﬂuence judgments of outcome probabilities and corresponding risk perceptions
(Gist, 1987; Bandura, 1997 ). Hence, in the context of our study it could be argued that students who exhibit high levels of
entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy will exhibit an even stronger inclination to start an own ﬁrm in presence of a strong belief that the
outcome
of their behavior is contingent on their own behavior (high internal locus of control).
Following this line of thinking about a multiplicative interaction between locus of control and entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy
(Monsen and Urbig, 2009 ), we conducted three binomial logit regressions. Next to the control variables we entered
entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy, locus of control, just as the interaction term between self-ef ﬁcacy and locus of control in the
regression models. We then regressed these variables on three binary dependent variables, founding versus succession intention,
founding versus employment intention and succession versus employment intention. However, none of the coef ﬁcients was
signiﬁcant in either regression, which corroborates our view to treat entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy and locus of control as
independent additive effects.
6. Discussion
By explicitly comparing intentional founders, successors, and employees regarding their underlying motives and behavioral
control perceptions, our study makes several important contributions.
First, our study contributes to theories of entrepreneurial career by investigating career choice intentions of students with
family business backgrounds, speci ﬁcally by exploring the succession career ( Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007; Sinclair, 2008 ). By thus
far ignoring succession, entrepreneurship research has widely failed to account for a third career path (after founding and
employment). To our knowledge, we are the ﬁrst to explicitly investigate this career path in detail and to compare it to the
founding and employment intention. We show that students with family business backgrounds who intend succession differ interms of perceived behavioral control and motives from intentional founders and employees. Although the personality- and trait-
based streams of research have produced few noteworthy results ( Gartner, 1989a ), our study adds to recent calls not to abandon
elements of the person ( Schjoedt and Shaver, 2007; Hmieleski and Corbett, 2008; Hmieleski and Baron, 2009 ).9 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations.
Mean S.D. Empl.=1,
Succ.=2,
Founder=3AUT BEL FIN GER HUN NZ NOR CH
Empl.=1, Succ.=2, Founder.=3 1.788 .917 1
AUT .201 .401 .010 1
BEL .043 .203 .042 ⁎−.106 ⁎⁎ 1
FIN .038 .192 .006 −.100⁎⁎−.042 1
GER .073 .259 −.096⁎⁎−.140⁎⁎−.059⁎⁎−.056⁎⁎1
HUN .094 .292 .115⁎⁎−.161⁎⁎−.068⁎⁎−.064⁎⁎−.090⁎⁎1
NZ .284 .451 .010 −.316 ⁎⁎−.134 ⁎⁎−.126 ⁎⁎−.176 ⁎⁎−.203 ⁎⁎ 1
NOR .029 .167 .002 −.086 ⁎⁎−0.037 ⁎−.034 −.048 ⁎⁎−.056 ⁎⁎−.109 ⁎⁎ 1
CH .238 .426 −.064 ⁎⁎−.280 ⁎⁎−.119 ⁎⁎−.112 ⁎⁎−.156 ⁎⁎−.180 ⁎⁎−.352 ⁎⁎−.096 ⁎⁎ 1
Student
age 23.475 3.595 −.021 .155 ⁎⁎−.059 ⁎⁎ .029 .020 −.057 ⁎⁎−.276 ⁎⁎ .058 ⁎⁎ .166 ⁎⁎
Study year 3.115 1.797 −.035 .130⁎⁎−.057⁎⁎−.088⁎⁎.004 .020 −.072⁎⁎.001 .004
Gender, 1=female .446 .497 −.092⁎⁎.047⁎−.004 .026 .021 −.005 .071⁎⁎−.009 −.135⁎⁎
Economics & law .133 .340 .000 −.079⁎⁎.079⁎⁎−.064⁎⁎−.069⁎⁎.082⁎⁎.058⁎⁎−.018 −.003
Business Admin. .323 .468 .083 ⁎⁎ .166 ⁎⁎−.001 .020 −.011 .039 ⁎−.167 ⁎⁎−.079 ⁎⁎ .022
Natural Science/engineering .402 .490 −.050 ⁎⁎−.104 ⁎⁎−.059 ⁎⁎ .054 ⁎⁎ .037 ⁎−.051 ⁎⁎ .035 .106 ⁎⁎ .035
Other social sciences .125 .330 −.050 ⁎⁎ .016 .012 −.043 ⁎ .038 ⁎−.058 ⁎⁎ .111 ⁎⁎−.055 ⁎⁎−.080 ⁎⁎
Positive emotions toward f.b. .862 .345 .090 ⁎⁎−.028 −.014 −.035 −.048 ⁎⁎−.030 .055 ⁎⁎−.002 .041 ⁎
Locus of control 4.429 .592 .100 ⁎⁎ .137 ⁎⁎−.086 ⁎⁎−.034 .001 .005 −.042 ⁎−.042 ⁎−.015
Entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy 3.286 1.008 .156⁎⁎−.032 .013 −.016 −.003 −.017 .026 .016 .012
Independence motive 4.723 .713 .351⁎⁎.079⁎⁎−.029 −.051⁎⁎−.088⁎⁎.092⁎⁎.077⁎⁎−.086⁎⁎−.094⁎⁎
Innovation motive 4.604 .969 .235⁎⁎.000 −.024 −.014 −.083⁎⁎.142⁎⁎.034 .017 −.072⁎⁎
StudentageStudyyearGender,1=femaleEcon.& lawBus.Admin.Natural Sc./Engin.Othersocial sc.Positive emotionstoward f.b.Locus ofcontrolEntrepreneurialself-ef ﬁcacyIndep.motiveInnov.motive
⁎pb.01.
⁎⁎pb.001.
Table 4Results of multinomial logistic regression analyses.
a
Variables Model 1a: employee intention Model 1b: founding intention Model 2a: employee intention Model 2b: founding intention
ControlAustria
b−0.317* 0.076 −0.177 −0.003
Belgium −0.385 0.425 −0.392 0.435
Finland −0.301 0.144 −0.356 0.156
Germany 0.576** 0.166 0.565** 0.187
Hungary 0.111 1.233*** 0.298 1.045***
New Zealand 0.529*** 1.011*** 0.720*** 0.924***
Norway −0.220 0.227 −0.381 0.218
Student age 0.014 0.019 0.021 0.012
Study year 0.043 0.001 0.022 0.004
Gender (1=female) 0.227* −0.237* 0.140 −0.152
Economics and law −0.320 −0.726 −0.082 −0.764
Business Administration −0.621 −0.671 −0.453 −0.685
Natural science/engineering −0.041 −0.514 0.047 −0.552
Other social sciences 0.341 −0.106 0.502 −0.225
Positive emotions toward f.b. −1.417*** −0.886*** −1.257*** −0.970***
IndependentInternal locus of control 0.198* 0.014
Self-ef ﬁcacy −0.154** 0.108*
Independence motive −0.898*** 0.173*
Innovation motive 0.039 0.327***
Intercept 2.466*** 1.676** 5.697*** −0.872
Log-likelihood 5734.73*** 8797.66***
Likelihood-ratio chi-square 438.71*** 1310.72***
Nagelkerke R-square 0.093 0.256
*pb.05.
**pb.01.
***pb.001.
aThe comparison baseline is “succession intention ”.
bThe reference country is Switzerland.Second, our study speaks to entrepreneurship and family business research, which suggests that the family ﬁrm context as a
vicarious entrepreneurial experience should bias career choices ( Scherer et al., 1989; Kolvereid, 1996b). We extend Sharma and
Irving's (2005) consideration of commitment as an antecedent to the focal behavior to pursue a career inside a family business. We10 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

add here that locus of control, entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy, and the independence and innovation motives should be
contemplated as predictors of succession career intent.
Whereas our ﬁndings regarding entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy and the independence motive are in line with our assumptions,
our results on locus of control challenge a traditional perspective of intentional entrepreneurs. This speaks to Brockhaus and
Horwitz (1986) on the reasons why many offspring opt against self-employment. Presumably, students raised in a family business
environment vicariously experience the constraints and personal sacri ﬁces imposed on their parents and are affected by the
parents' absence due to business matters ( Stavrou, 1999; Douglas and Shepherd, 2000; Douglas and Shepherd, 2002 ). Offspring
from business families who exhibit high levels of self-directedness may thus want to avoid the responsibilities and pressures
related to entrepreneurial careers. As a result, these students realize that being able to control one's own fate by following an
entrepreneurial career may largely be an illusion. For these self-directed intentional successors, because an entrepreneurial career
path is feasible does not automatically mean that it is desirable.
Also, being closely exposed to the role of an entrepreneur may reduce overcon ﬁdence and potential hubris about one's level of
self-determination when pursuing an entrepreneurial career ( Hayward et al., 2006 ). Studies on overcon ﬁdence bias show that
entrepreneurs overweight the utility of private information relative to the value of public information ( Bernardo and Welch,
2001 ). In consequence, an overcon ﬁdence propensity causes entrepreneurs to underestimate venture failure rates and,
potentially, the burden and emotional costs related to entrepreneurial activity ( Kahneman and Lovallo, 1993; Zellweger and
Astrachan, 2008 ). Here, the family business experience may provide an unbiased inside perspective that unveils otherwise private
information about the downside of entrepreneurial activity and discredits the seemingly self-directed life of an entrepreneur. This
ﬁnding challenges the prominent assertion that entrepreneurial role models (i.e., parents) should generally motivate offspring to
follow entrepreneurial careers (e.g., Dyer and Handler, 1994; Kolvereid, 1996b ). Rather, students with family business background
seem to be pessimistic about being in control, but optimistic about their capabilities and resources to pursue an entrepreneurial
career.
Third, and building on above reasoning, our study furthers theory of planned behavior and the development of a theory of
mixed control ( Monsen and Urbig, 2009; Urbig and Monsen, 2009 ). While we do not ﬁnd evidence for the proposed interaction
between locus of control and self-ef ﬁcacy, our considerations support the relevance of self- and other-induced beliefs regarding
one's own perceptions of ef ﬁcacy and control. It seems reasonable to assume that the family and more speci ﬁcally parents of
students with family business background represent powerful others that impact perceptions of control and ef ﬁcacy ( Janney and
Dess, 2006 ). Often, children of business families rely on their parents networks and ﬁnancial capital to start an own ﬁrm (Steier,
2007 ). Accordingly, the family business context and hence the external source of entrepreneurial ef ﬁcacy adds to the perceived
self-ef ﬁcacy to take risks and pursue an entrepreneurial career. Building on Monsen and Urbig (2009) we thus propose that the
inclination to start an own ﬁrm for students with family business background is π=(es+ef), with esand efrepresenting self- and
family-induced ef ﬁcacy beliefs. In stark contrast to above motivation, the same external context may reduce the inclination to start
an own ﬁrm through lessening perceptions of internal locus of control when pursuing such a career ( π=(cs−cf), with csand cf
representing self- and family-induced control beliefs). Accordingly, the same external source can have opposite effects onTable 3 (continued)
Student
ageStudyyearGender,1=femaleEcon.& lawBus.Admin.Natural Sc./Engin.Othersocial sc.Positive emotionstoward f.b.Locus ofcontrolEntrepreneurialself-ef ﬁcacyIndep.motiveInnov.motive
1
.418⁎⁎1
−.091⁎⁎.012 1
−.084⁎⁎−.017 .041⁎⁎1
.072 ⁎⁎ .009 .030 −.271 ⁎⁎ 1
−.024 −.009 −.197 ⁎⁎−.321 ⁎⁎−.566 ⁎⁎ 1
.017 .015 .197 ⁎⁎−.148 ⁎⁎−.261 ⁎⁎−.309 ⁎⁎ 1
−.053 ⁎⁎−.030 −.036 ⁎ .011 .011 .001 −.025 1
.063 ⁎⁎ .022 −.042 ⁎ .009 .077 ⁎⁎−.031 −.067 ⁎⁎ .052 ⁎⁎ 1
.034 −.005 −.190⁎⁎.038⁎.032 −.011 −.061⁎⁎.093⁎⁎.135⁎⁎1
−.016 −.044⁎−.041⁎.051⁎⁎.061⁎⁎−.085⁎⁎−.003
.119⁎⁎.350⁎⁎.124⁎⁎1
.028 .014 −.087⁎⁎−.034 −.051⁎⁎.027 .074⁎⁎.031 .201⁎⁎.079⁎⁎.418⁎⁎111 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

perceptions of ef ﬁcacy and control. We therefore suggest to rethink the conceptual argument that the in ﬂuence of powerful others
on perceptions of control should lead to greater optimism through social action on the sources of external control ( Bandura, 1997 ).
In fact, our ﬁndings on locus of control point in the opposite direction. In combination with our ﬁnding that locus of control and
entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy are distinct constructs ( Rhodes and Courneya, 2003; Norman and Hoyle, 2004 ), with independent
and additive effects on entrepreneurial career intent, we hence model the inclination of students with family business background
to start an own ﬁrm as π=(es+ef)+( cs−cf). This ﬁnding also speaks to Goodie and Young (2007) by suggesting that the altering
relevance of ef ﬁcacy and control beliefs for choices under uncertainty may depend on the impact of external sources.
Last but not least, and as a side effect, our theoretical considerations and empirical ﬁndings contribute to the ongoing
discussion of the content and form of academic entrepreneurship programs, which have been found to impact the intention to optfor an entrepreneurial career path (e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007; Tegtmeier, 2007 ). If these programs are intended to motivate
students to choose careers in their family ﬁrms, educators may use our ﬁndings to differentiate between founder and successor
entrepreneurs, and point to differences in terms of independence and innovation motives, just as perceptions of self-ef ﬁcacy. In
continuous education classes family ﬁrm owners, and in particular parents, should be sensitized to the negative impact they might
have on their children's entrepreneurial career intention through perceptions of locus of control.
6.1. Limitations
Ourﬁndings may be limited by a relatively low response rate (7%). However, this rate compares favorably with other e-mail
student surveys, especially when relying on only one e-mail and providing no incentives (cp. Porter and Whitcomb, 2003 ). We
would be remiss in concluding that the individual's motives and behavioral control perceptions are the only factors that determine
the likelihood of career choice intentions. Other elements may be individual and social factors (cp. Dyer and Handler, 1994 ), as
well as economic prospects of the company and ﬁnancial attractiveness of other career options ( Stavrou and Swiercz, 1998; Birley,
2002 ). In addition, birth order and number of siblings may have an impact. However, we can expect that students indicating that
they intend succession should be able to judge whether these reasons inhibit a potential career within the family ﬁrm. Also worth
mentioning is the link between intention and actual behavior. Although intentions are believed to be the “best single predictors of
an individual's behavior ”(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 , p.369), they are only predictors. Theories of effectuation and bricolage, for
example, cast doubt on the intentional and volitional aspects of entrepreneurial intent ( Sarasvathy, 2001; Baker and Nelson,
2005 ). We believe that the students in our sample are well aware of the role of founder, successor, or employee, given their ties to
the family ﬁrm and the resulting insights into the different career paths. Thus, these predictions seem reliable. While applying
theory of planned behavior, we do not have an explicit measure of normative beliefs that may spur subjective norms. We includedthe students' feelings attributed to the family ﬁrm as a related control variable. Thus, the contribution of our study is valid,
particularly because subjective norms have not been found to directly impact the founding intention and may be confounded with
the motive to act and with perceived behavioral control ( Krueger et al., 2000 ). Moreover, it seems important to stress that we are
using general locus of control and domain-speci ﬁc self-ef ﬁcacy measures. However, there may be advantages and disadvantages of
using general versus task-speci ﬁc measures ( Zhao et al., 2005 ). While there are good reasons to use the above measures for the
purpose of this study, as outlined in the method section, it is important to note that task- and general self-ef ﬁcacy measures just as
task- or domain-speci ﬁc locus of control measures could be used to test for the robustness of our ﬁndings.
6.2. Avenues for future research
Our study may spur future research in several directions. Although Ajzen (2002) theorizes no distinction between the causal
effects of entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy and locus of control, we question how different combinations of these two elements may
affect entrepreneurial intentions. Successors might exhibit high levels of entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy given resource endowment
and family support. However, locus of control could be low if these resources are controlled by a dominant family member. Eventhough we were unable to detect signi ﬁcant interaction effects between perceptions of control and ef ﬁcacy,
a direct instead of an
imputed distinction between the sources of those perceptions (self versus other induced) may be helpful in further untangling thepossible interaction of ef ﬁcacy and control beliefs ( Monsen and Urbig, 2009 ). To this end, Urbig and Monsen's (2009) scales for
internal and social forms of control and ef ﬁcacy beliefs could be utilized. It may be also promising to adapt the abstract locus of
control measure to capture the con ﬁdence in overcoming career-related obstacles. In this vein, the concept of collective
entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy of the family could be tapped, which has been argued to reinforce individual entrepreneurial self-
efﬁcacy ( Carsrud et al., 2007 ). In this context, future studies could incorporate the concept of implementation intention
(Gollwitzer and Brandstätter, 1997; Sheeran et al., 2005 ) as a self-regulatory strategy that alleviates obstacles related to goal
pursuit and promotes goal-directed behavior. Also, future studies may advance the understanding of entrepreneurial
intentionality by exploring the reciprocal causation between intent and desirability ( Krueger, 2009 ).
Another promising avenue for research centers around the impact of family social norms that often supersede general social
norms, which appear to drive respondents' intent to undertake entrepreneurial careers ( Carsrud et al., 2007 ). These social norms
may include a strong element of personal entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy or explicit or implicit cues that the offspring are exposed to
signiﬁcant entrepreneurial capabilities or resources. Also, a deeper look at the self-efﬁ cacy measure may be warranted. It is
conceivable that individuals with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy in the family ﬁrm context may not only be induced by
higher availability and willingness to allocate personal resources in terms of time and effort, but will most likely be able to draw
from the extended resource base of the family (e.g. in terms of ﬁnancial, knowledge, social capital just as moral support; Steier,12 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

2007 ). It is possible that other-induced perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efﬁ cacy nurture overcon ﬁdence in one's own abilities,
which in turn creates complacency, hubris, and inadequate personal effort to attain the goal ( Vancouver et al., 2002 ).
Moreover, PSED data shows a sizable number of subjects who have neither launched nor quit, but are still trying to found ﬁrms.
A similar effect may occur in the succession context: individuals may pronounce the intention to succeed, but may postpone
actually joining the family ﬁrm, preferring to wait for the right personal or business circumstances. It seems plausible to introduce
a phase of interest and observation into the successor career path, during childhood and beyond.
7. Conclusion
Ourﬁndings offer a nuanced perspective on career choice intentions of students with family business backgrounds. We not
only provide a prospective and detailed analysis of their underlying motives and behavioral control perceptions, but also explicitly
compare intentional founders, successors, and employees. We contribute to research in a number of ways and hope to inspire
other researchers to conduct additional work in the fascinating ﬁeld of entrepreneurial intentions.
Appendix A. Measures for independent variables
We used 6-item Likert scales with answers ranging from “strongly disagree ”to“strongly agree ”(for locus of control and self-
efﬁcacy); and from “very unimportant ”to“very important ”(for independence and innovation motives).
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179.
Ajzen, I., 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-ef ﬁcacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology (32), 1 –20.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: assessment of predictive validity and ‘perceived control ’. British Journal of Social Psychology 38,
35–54.
Armitage, C.J., Conner, M., 2001. Ef ﬁcacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40, 471 –499.
Astrachan, J., Shanker, C., 1996. Myths and realities: family businesses' contribution to the US economy —a framework for assessing family business statistics.
Family Business Review 9 (2), 107 –123.
Astrachan, J.H., Shanker, M.C., 2003. Family businesses' contribution to the U.S. economy: a closer look. Family Business Review 16 (3), 211 –219.
Bagozzi, R.P., 2000. On the concept of intentional social action. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (3), 388 –396.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, J., Yi, Y., 1989. An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude –behavior relationship. Journal of Economic
Psychology 10 (1), 35 –62.
Baker, T., Nelson, R., 2005. Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (3),
127– 140.
Baker, T., Miner, A.S., Eesley, D.T., 2003. Improvising ﬁrms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy 32
(2), 255– 276.
Bandura, A., 1977. Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York.
Bandura, A., 1994. Self-ef ﬁcacy. In: Ramachaudran, V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71 –81.
Bandura, A., 1997. Self-ef ﬁcacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freemann & Co, New York, NY.
Bandura, A., 1998. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology and Health 13 (4), 623 –649.
Barach, J.A., Gantisky, J., Carson, J.A., Doochin, B.A., 1988. Entry of the next generation: strategic challenge for family business. Journal of Small Business
Management 26 (2), 49 –56.Locus of control (general) Please evaluate the following statements … α=0.704
It mainly depends of me whether other people act in accordance with my wishes.
Whether I reach a goal or not mainly depends on me and my behavior.
When I make a plan I am sure that the planned will become reality.I myself can determine very much of what's going on in my life.If I get what I want it is the result of my endeavor and personal commitment.
Entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy (domain-speci ﬁc) Please evaluate the following statements … α=0.688
I feel capable of starting my own ﬁrm.
I am con ﬁdent that the launching of my own ﬁrm will be a success.
I have all the necessary knowledge to start my own ﬁrm.
I have the entrepreneurial skills to start my own ﬁrm.
Independence motive What do you connect with your working life/career after your studies?Please evaluate the aspects according to their importance.α=0.712
How important is it to you to be your own boss?How important is it to you to decide independently?How important is it to you to have personal freedom?How important is it to you to realize your own dream?How important is it to you to be independent?
Innovation motive What do you connect with your working life/career after your studies?Please evaluate the aspects according to their importance.α=0.698
How important is it to you to create something new?How important is it to you to seize advantages from your creative potential?13 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxx
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Baron, R.A., 1998. Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when entrepreneurs think differently than other people. Journal of Business Venturing 13
(4), 275.
Baron, J.N., Hannan, M.T., Burton, M.D., 1999. Building the iron cage: determinants of managerial intensity in the early years of organizations. American Sociological
Review 64, 527 –548.
Bernardo, A.E., Welch, I., 2001. On the evolution of overco ﬁdence and entrepreneurs. Journal of Economic Management Strategy 10, 301 –331.
Bird, B.J., 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management Review 13 (3), 442.
Birley, S., 1991. Succession in the family ﬁrm: the inheritor's view. In: Aronoff, E.C., Ward, J. (Eds. ), Family Business Sourcebook. Omnigraphics, Detroit MI,
pp. 126 –134.
Birley, S., 2002. Attitudes of owner-managers' children towards family and business issues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 26 (3), 5 –19.
Bonnett, C., Furnham, A., 1991. Who wants to be an entrepreneur? A study of adolescents interested in a Young Enterprise scheme. Journal of Economic Psychology
12, 465 –478.
Bosma, N., Acs, Z.J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., Levie, L., 2008. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report. Babson Park, Santiago, London.Boyd, N.G., Vozikis, G.S., 1994. The in ﬂuence of self-ef ﬁcacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
18 (4), 63 –78.
Brockhaus, R.H., 1980. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal 23 (3), 509 –520.
Brockhaus, R., Horwitz, P., 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In: Sexton, D., Smilor, R. (Eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Ballinger,
Cambridge, pp. 25 –48.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1986. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology 22 (6), 723 –742.
Carney, M., 2005. Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled ﬁrms. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 29 (3), 249 –265.
Carroll, G.R., Mosakowski, E., 1987. The career dynamics of self employment. Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (4), 570 –589.
Carsrud, A., Brännback, M., Kickul, J., Krueger, N., 2007. The family business pipeline: where norms and modeling make a difference. Family Enterprise Research
Conference. Monterrey (Mexico).
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Gatewood, E.J., 2003. The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (1), 13 –39.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G., Crick, A., 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13 (4),
295– 316.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Eden, D., 2001. Validation of a new general self-ef ﬁcacy scale. Organizational Research Methods 4, 62 –83.
Chlosta, S., Jaskiewicz, P., 2009. Beyond entrepreneurial intention: how personality distinguishes succession from start-up intention. Academy of Management
Conference. Chicago (USA).
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Sharma, P., 1998. Important attributes of successors in family businesses: an exploratory study. Family Business Review 11 (1), 19 –34.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Litz, R., 2004. Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family ﬁrms: conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 28 (4), 335– 354.
Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., Sharma, P., 2005. Trends and directions in the development of a strategic management theory of the family ﬁrm. Entrepreneurship Theory
& Practice 29 (5), 555 –575.
Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., Sharma, P., 1999. De ﬁning the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 23 (4), 19 –39.
Davidsson, P., 1995. Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. RENT IX Workshop. Piacenza.
Davidsson, P., 2004. Researching entrepreneurship. Springer Publication, New York.
De Noble, A.F., Jung, D., Ehrlich, S.B., 1999. Entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy:
the development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. In: Reynolds,
P. (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Babson Park (MA).
Douglas, E.J., Shepherd, D.A., 2000. Entrepreneurship as a utility maximizing response. Journal of Business Venturing 15 (3), 231.
Douglas, E.J., Shepherd, D.A., 2002. Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 26 (3), 81.
Dyal, J.A., 1984. Cross-cultural research with the locus of control construct. In: Lefcourt, H.M. (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct, 3. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 209 –306.
Dyer, W.G., Handler, W., 1994. Entrepreneurship and family business: exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19 (1), 71 –84.
Eden, D., Granat-Flomin, R., 2000. Augmenting means ef ﬁcacy to improve service performance among computer users. 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New Orleans, LA.
Fischer, E.M., Reuber, A.R., Dyke, L.S., 1993. A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing
8 (2), 151– 168.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, New York.Forbes, D.P., 2005. Are some entrepreneurs more overcon ﬁdent than others? Journal of Business Venturing 20 (5), 623 –640.
Gartner, W.B., 1989a. Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 14 (1), 27 –37.
Gartner, W.B., 1989b. “Who Is an entrepreneur? ”Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 13 (4), 47 –68.
Gist, M.E., 1987. Self-ef ﬁcacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review 12 (3), 472 –485.
Gollwitzer, P.M., Brandstätter, V., 1997. Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1), 186 –199.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Nunez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L., Moyano-Fuentes, J., 2007. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled ﬁrms:
evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (1), 106 –137.
Goodie, A.S., Young, D.L., 2007. The skill element in decision making under uncertainty: control or competence. Journal of Business Venturing 2 (3), 189– 203.
Gregory, B.T., Rutherford, M.W., Oswald, S., Gardiner, L., 2005. An empirical investigation of the growth cycle theory of small ﬁrmﬁnancing. Journal of Small
Business Management 43 (4), 382– 392.
Habbershon, T.G., Williams, M., MacMillan, I.C., 2003. A uni ﬁed systems perspective of family ﬁrm performance. Journal of Business Venturing 18 (4), 451 –465.
Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.Halter, F., Frey, U., Zellweger, T., 2005. The socialisation's impact from family business on youth personality and career choice motives. International Family
Enterprise Research Academy. Brussels (Belgium).
Harman, H.H., 1967. Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hayward, M.L.A., Shepherd, D.A., Grifﬁ n, D., 2006. A hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science 52 (2), 160 –172.
Herron, L., Sapienza, H.J., 1992. The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 17 (1), 49 –55.
Hmieleski, K.M., Baron, R.A., 2008. When does entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy enhance versus reduce ﬁrm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2, 57 –72.
Hmieleski, K.M., Baron, R.A., 2009. Entrepreneur's optimism and new venture performance: a social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal 52 (3),
473– 488.
Hm
ieleski, K.M., Corbett, A.C., 2006. Proclivity for improvisation as a pr edictor of entrepreneurial intentio ns. Journal of Small Business Management 44 (1),
45–63.
Hmieleski, K.M., Corbett, A.C., 2008. The contrasting interaction effects of improvisational behavior with entrepreneurial self-ef ﬁcacy on new venture performance
and entrepreneur work satisfaction. Journal of Business Venturing 23, 482 –496.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE.Janney, J.J., Dess, G.G., 2006. The risk concept of entrepreneurs reconsidered: new challenges to the conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing 21,
385– 400.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., 1993. Timid choices aqnd bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science 39, 17 –31.
Kolvereid, L., 1996a. Organizational employment versus self-employment: reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 20 (3), 23.
Kolvereid, L., 1996b. Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 21 (1), 47.
Krueger, N., 1993. The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18 (1), 5.14 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Krueger, N., 2003. The cognitive psychology in entrepreneurship. Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research: An Interdisciplinary Survey and Introdu ction. In:
Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B. (Eds.), Springer, New York.
Krueger, N., 2009. Entrepreneurial intentions are dead: long live entrepreneurial intentions. In: Carsrud, A., Brännback, M. (Eds.), Understanding the
entrepreneurial mind: opening the black box. Springer, New York, pp. 51 –72.
Krueger, N.F., Carsrud, A.L., 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5, 315 –330.
Krueger Jr., N.F., Reilly, M.D., Carsrud, A.L., 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15 (5,6), 411.
K u r a t k o ,D . F . ,H o r n s b y ,J . S . ,N a f f z i g e r ,D . W . ,1 9 9 7 .A ne x a m i n a t i o no fo w n er's goals in sustaining entrepreneu rship. Journal of Small Business Management
35 (1), 24.
Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., Steier, L.P., 2004. Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 28 (4), 305– 328.
Lee, L., Wong, P.K., Foo, M.D., Leung, A., in press. Entrepreneurial intentions: the in ﬂuence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.04.003 .
Levin, R., Leginsky, P., 1990. The independent social worker as entrepreneur. Journal of Independent Social Work 5, 22 –31.
Li, D.A.N., Eden, L., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., 2008. Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Partner selection in R&D alliances. Academy of Management Journal 51 (2),
315– 334.
Markman, G.D., Baron, R.A., 2003. Person-entrepreneurship. Why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management
Review 13 (2), 281 –301.
Matthews, C.H., Moore, T.W., Fialko, A.S., 1999. Succession in the family ﬁrm: a cognitive categorization perspective. Family Business Review 12 (2), 159 –170.
McCann, J.E., Leon-Guerrero, A.Y., Haley Jr., J.D., 2001. Strategic goals and practices of innovative family businesses. Journal of Small Business Management 39 (1),
50–59.
Monsen, E., Urbig, D., 2009. Perceptions of ef ﬁcacy, control and risk: a theory of mixed control. understanding the entrepreneurial mind. In: Carsrud, A., Brännback,
M. (Eds.), Springer, New York, pp. 259 –281.
Mueller, S.L., Thomas, A.S., 2001. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing
16 (1), 51.
Nordqvist, M., Habbershon, T.G., Melin, L., 2008. ransgenerational entrepreneurship: exploring EO in family ﬁrms. entrepreneurship, sustainable growth and
performance: frontiers in European entrepreneurship research. In: Landström, H., Crijns, H., Laveren, E. (Eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 93 –116.
Norman, P., Hoyle, S., 2004. The theory of planned behavior and breast self-examination: dinstinguishing between perceived control and self-ef ﬁcacy. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 34 (4), 694 –708.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oppenheim, A.N., 1966. Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. Free Press, New York.
Pajares, F., 1996. Self-ef ﬁcacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66, 543 –578.
Pearson, A.W., Carr, J.C., Shaw, J.C., 2008. Toward a theory of familiness: a social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 32 (6), 949 –969.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: problems and perspectives. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531 –544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879 –903.
Porter, S.R., Whitcomb, M.E., 2003. The impact of lottery incentives on student survey response rates. Research in Higher Education 44 (4), 389 –407.
Reynolds, P., Bosma, N., Autio, E., Hunt, S., De Bono, N., Servais, I., Lopez-Garcia, P., Chin, N., 2005. Global entrepreneurship monitor: data collection design and
implementation 1998-2003. Small Business Economics 24 (3), 205 –231.
Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S., 2003. Modelling the theory of planned behaviour and past behavior. Psychology, Health and Medicine 8 (1), 57 –69.
Rotter, J.B., 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80 (1) Whole No. 609.Rotter,
J.B., 1990. Internal versus external control reinforcement. American Psychologist 45 (4), 489 –493.
Sarasvathy, S., 2001. Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management
Review 26 (2), 243 –263.
Schein, E.H., 1978. Career dynamics: matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S., Wiebe, F.A., 1989. Role model performance effects on development of entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice 13 (1), 53 –71.
Schjoedt, L., Shaver, K.G., 2007. Deciding on an entrepreneurial career: a test of the pull and push hypothesis using the panel study of entrepreneurial dynamics
data. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 31 (5), 733 –752.
Seeman, M., 1959. On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review 24, 772 –783.
Shapero, A., 1982. Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In: Kent, D., Sexton, D., Vesper, K. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, pp. 72 –90.
Sharma, P., 2004. An overview of the ﬁeld of family business studies: current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review 17 (1), 1 –36.
Sharma, P., Irving, P.G., 2005. Four bases of family business successor commitment: antecedents and consequences. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 29 (1),
13–33.
Sharma, P., Manikutty, S., 2005. Strategic divestments in family ﬁrms: role of family structure and community culture. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 29 (3),
293– 311.
Sharma, P., Rao, A.S., 2000. Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family ﬁrms: a comparative study. Family Business Review 13 (4), 313 –330.
Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J., Pablo, A.L., Chua, J.H., 2001. Determinants of initial satisfaction with the succession process in family ﬁrms: a conceptual model.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice 25 (3), 1 –19.
Shaver, K.G., Scott, L.R., 1991. Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (2).
Sheeran, P., Webb, T.L., Gollwitzer, P.M., 2005. The interplay between goal intentions and implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31
(1), 87 –98.
Shook, C.L., Priem, R.L., McGee, J.E., 2003. Venture creation and the enterprising individual: a review and synthesis. Journal of Management 29, 379 –399.
Simon, M., Houghton, S.M., Aquino, K., 2000. Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: how individuals decide to start companies. Journal of
Business Venturing 15 (2), 113.
Sinclair, R.F., 2008. The ﬁrst step toward a theory of the entrepreneurial career. USASBE, San Antonio (USA).
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., 2003. Managing resources: linking unique resources, management, and wealth creation in family ﬁrms. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice 27 (4), 339 –358.
Smith, N.R., Miner, J.B., 1983. Type of entrepreneur, type of ﬁrm, and managerial innovation: implications for organizational life cycle theory. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Babson College, Wellesley, MA. 51 –71.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., Al-Laham, A., 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of
learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4), 566 –591.
Stavrou, E.T., 1999. Succession in family businesses: exploring the effects of demographic factors on offspring intentions to join and take over the business. Journal
of Small Business Management 37 (3), 43 –61.
Stavrou, E.T., Swiercz, P.M., 1998. Securing the future of the family enterprise: a model of offspring intentions to join the business. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice 23 (2), 19 –39.
Steier, L., 2007. New venture creation and organization: a familial sub-narrative. Journal of Business Research 60 (10), 1099 –1107.
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., Carland, J.W., 1999. A proclivity for entrepreneurship: a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and
corporate
managers. Journal of Business Venturing 14 (2), 189 –214.
Stinchcombe, A.L., 1965. Social structure and organizations. Handbook of Organizations. In: March, J.G. (Ed.), Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 142 –193.
Swagger Jr., G., 1991. Assessing the successor generation in family business. Family Business Review 4, 397 –411.15 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Tegtmeier, S., 2007. Introduction lectures in entrepreneurship —an effective tool for promoting entrepreneurial intentions? —empirical implications based on the
“theory of planned behavior ”. ICSB World Conference. Turku.
Urbig, D., Monsen, E., 2009. Optimistic, but not in control: life-orientation and the theory of mixed control. Jena Economic Research Papers, Working Paper Nr.
2009-013.
Vancouver, J.B., Thompson, C.M., Tischner, E.C., Putka, D.J., 2002. Two studies examining the negative effect of self-ef ﬁcacy on performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology 87 (3), 506– 516.
Ward, J., 1987. Keeping the family business healthy. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (CA).
Zellweger, T., Sieger, P., forthcoming. Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family ﬁrms. Small Business Economics. doi:10.1007/s11187-010-9267-6 .
Zellweger, T.M., Astrachan, J.H., 2008. On the emotional value of owning a ﬁrm. Family Business Review 21 (4), 347– 363.
Zhao, H., Hills, G.E., Seibert, S.E., 2005. The mediating role of self-ef ﬁcacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6),
1265 –1272.16 T. Zellweger et al. / Journal of Business Venturing xxx (2010) xxx –xxxARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article as: Zellweger, T., et al., Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family
business background, J. Bus. Venturing (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.04.001

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: Should I stay or should I go Career choice intentions of students with family [619684] (ID: 619684)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

Should I stay or should I go Career choice intentions of students with family [619684]

Copyright Notice

Programul de studii: ASISTENȚĂ MEDICALĂ GENERALĂ [627954]

Programul de studii: DENUMIREA PROGRAMULUI [308264]

Iubirea ( Sensul vieții) [307633]

Unitatea ܈colară : ܇coala Gimnazială nr.116 Clasa : pregătitoare Aria curriculară : Limbă ܈i comunicare DISCIPLINA : Comunicare în limba română… [611961]

Prelucrarea materialelor sintetice [618010]

Caiet Practica Psihologie (1) [606550]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts