Adaptatıon of Socıal
Entrepreneurshıp Competency Scale in Hıgher Educatıon: A Scale Adaptatıon Study
Mustafa SOBA
Usak
University
Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences Business Department,
Usak,
Turkey
Ezgi Pelin YILDIZ
Department
of Computer Programming,
Kafkas University
Kazım
Karabekir Vocational School of Technical Sciences,
Kars,
Turkey
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurship
is considered as an activity that includes the innovative perspective of
individuals and organizations that play an important role in the development of
societies by creating economic growth and employment in the society in which it
operates. One of the types of entrepreneurship is social entrepreneurship. Social
entrepreneurship is an approach that adopts free market-based methods in
solving social problems. Social entrepreneurs are those that are established
commercially but whose purpose is to solve social problems. In this study, an
adaptation study of the relevant scale developed by Peris, Gomez, Puig and Bernardo
(2020) into Turkish was carried out in order to determine the social
entrepreneurship competencies of higher education students.The validity and
reliability studies of the scale were carried out with the participation of 161
students studying in different departments, Vocational and Technical Sciences
High School of a university.For the scope and appearance validity of the scale,
1 language specialist, 3 field specialists, 1 psychological counselor, 1
assessment and evaluation specialist were consulted. EFA was used to serve
structure validity. At the end of the study, a 6-dimensional scale consisting
of 30items explaining 74.31% of the total variance was obtained.The internal
consistency coefficient of the scale calculated with Cronbach Alpha is .93. In the context of the confirmatory factor analysis, it
was determined that the final compliance indiceswere within the desired limits.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship,
Social Entrepreneurship, Scale Adaptation.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship
is different in different ways among disciplines that can be defined.Entrepreneurship;
the process of creating or growing a new for-profit business to create value
and creating a new good or service (Bird, 1989). According to Mueller and
Thomas (2000), entrepreneurship; it is an activity of perceiving an opportunity
and creating an organization to seize that opportunity. While defining
entrepreneurship with these definitions, factors such as: innovation and
change, flexibility, dynamism, risk taking, creativity and being focused on
development are effective in all of them (Korkmaz, 2000).
Entrepreneurship,
which is the basis of both economic and social development, due to the end of “World War II” and the need
for industrial countries to rebuild, it began to become the focus of
researchers in the mid-1900s (Hoppe, 2016).
One of the types of entrepreneurship is social
entrepreneurship.Social entrepreneurship is an emerging area of investigation
within the entrepreneurship and not-for-profit marketing literatures (Weerawardena
ve Sullivan Mort, 2001; Weerawardena and Mort, 2006).Social entrepreneurship is
an approach that adopts free market-based methods in solving social problems (Tasavori,
et al., 2015). Social entrepreneurs are those that are established commercially
but whose purpose is to solve social problems. The basic basis of social
entrepreneurship is to find solutions to the problems of a society related to
economic, social and environmental problems (Boluk and Mottiar, 2014). In this
context, social entrepreneurship offers innovative approaches to address and
solve complex social need (Rhodes et al., 2008).
While defining social entrepreneurship, J. Gregory
Dess (1998) focuses on five factors.
These are;
·
Adopting
a mission to create a social value and ensure its sustainability,
·
To
constantly pursue new opportunities to realize this mission,
·
To
be involved in continuous innovation, adaptation and learning process,
·
Acting
boldly without being limited to the resources currently available,
·
To
show the increased sense of responsibility towards the society.
The term social entrepreneurship, which dates back
to the 1970s (McAnany, 2012), is included in H. Bowen's book, "Social
Responsibilities of Businessmen", first published conceptually in 1953
(Kocak and Kavi, 2014). The first examples of social entrepreneurship from a
historical perspective; “Florence Nightingale”, which revolutionized the
hospital structure and established a nursing school, is the first social
entrepreneurship activities of the public education reformer “Horace Mann” and
the activities of “John Durand”, who started working with people with mental disabilities
(Paksoy et al., 2015).
The fact that the first examples of social
entrepreneurship in history is related to various fields such as health,
education, personal and working rights, shows the direction of social
entrepreneurship to find solutions to problems in society and to provide social
development (Coskun, 2015).
Universities have an important role in creating or
increasing social entrepreneurship tendency.The development of analytical
thinking abilities of university students will lead to an awareness of
questioning, research and sharing, and thus an increase in social
entrepreneurship tendencies (Cetin and Tasdemir, 2007).
In this study,
an adaptation study of the relevant scale developed by Peris, Gomez, Puig and
Bernardo (2020) into Turkish was carried out in order to determine the social
entrepreneurship competencies of higher education students.It is predicted that
the social entrepreneurship adequacy scale will be an effective data collection
tool to determine the entrepreneurial behavior of university students.
2.
METHOD
This research is a scale adaptation study. A
detailed literature research was carried out to serve the purpose, and the theoretical
framework of the scale was determined, the information about the research group
and the development process of the scale and the steps followed are given
below:
2.1.
Sample
Groups
The validity and reliability studies of the scale were carried out with the participation of 161 students studying in different departments, Vocational and Technical Sciences High School of Kafkas University in Turkey.
Tables of
students' demographic data are given below:
Table 1. Gender
|
Gender |
f |
% |
|
Female |
94 |
58.4 |
|
Male |
67 |
41.6 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
|
Age |
f |
% |
|
18-20 |
60 |
37.3 |
|
21-25 |
78 |
48.4 |
|
26
and over |
56 |
14.3 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
Table3. Department
|
Department |
f |
% |
|
Computer
Technology |
13 |
8.1 |
|
Programming
of Computer |
13 |
8.1 |
|
Machine |
25 |
15.5 |
|
Electrical |
37 |
23.0 |
|
Architectural
Restoration |
31 |
19.3 |
|
Traditional
Crafts |
20 |
12.4 |
|
Food
Business |
11 |
6.8 |
|
Veterinary
Medicine |
11 |
6.8 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
Table4. Father’Job
|
Father’Job |
f |
% |
|
Worker |
28 |
17.4 |
|
Officer |
21 |
13.0 |
|
Retired |
20 |
12.4 |
|
Self-employed |
30 |
18.6 |
|
Farmer |
20 |
12.4 |
|
Artisan |
38 |
23.6 |
|
Unemploye |
4 |
6.8 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
Table5. Mother’Job
|
Mother’Job |
f |
% |
|
Worker |
13 |
8.1 |
|
Officer |
26 |
16.1 |
|
Retired |
24 |
14.9 |
|
House-wife |
98 |
60.9 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
Table6. Socio-economic level
|
Socio-economic level |
f |
% |
|
Low |
35 |
21.7 |
|
Middle |
95 |
59.0 |
|
High |
31 |
19.3 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
Table7. Living Place
|
Living Place |
f |
% |
|
Province |
78 |
48.4 |
|
District |
59 |
36.6 |
|
Town |
7 |
4.3 |
|
Village |
17 |
16.0 |
|
Total |
161 |
100 |
2.2. Data
Collection Tool
Information about the data collection tool used in
the research is given below:
2.2.1. Adaptation
of Social Entrepreneurship Competency Scale:
The adaptation steps of the scale
are presented below.
2.2.2. Introduction
of the scale
In this
study, an adaptation study of the relevant scale developed by Peris, Gomez,
Puig and Bernardo (2020) into Turkish was carried out in order to determine the
social entrepreneurship competencies of higher education students.The original scale
consists of 30 items and the 5-point Likert scale was used Consistency
coefficient was determined “good” (α = .82) and strong correlations between
items (𝑟 = .76, p <.00).The factor
loads of the scale items vary between .63 and .88.As a result, the scale can be
accepted as a strong scale that tests the social entrepreneurship competence of
higher education students.
2.2.3. Adaptation
of the scale
Permission was obtained from Carlos Capella, the
person who developed the scale, to conduct the adaptation study of the Social
Entrepreneurship Competence Scale (SECS).The English form of the scale was
translated into Turkish by a language expert who speaks English and Turkish
well. The created Turkish form was given to a linguist academician and
controlled.According to the feedback received, the Turkish form of the scale
was seen to be close to the English form.Then, opinions were received from 3
field experts, 1 psychological counselor and 1 assessment and evaluation
specialist to determine whether the relevant items served the purpose.As a
result, the scale was finalized in line with the opinions and suggestions
received from the experts.
After all
these stages, the original form was applied to students studying in different
departments of the Vocational and Technical Sciences High School of Kafkas
University within 3 weeks.Structure validity was examined for the validity of
the scale.The reliability study was examined with Cronbach alpha coefficient
and test-retest method.
The scale items and average and standard deviation
values obtained as a result of the application to the group of 161 people are
given in Table 8:
Table 8.Social Entrepreneurship
Competency Scale Items Average and Standard Deviation Values Application
Results
|
Items |
X |
SD |
|
M1. |
4.23 |
1.07 |
|
M2. |
4.28 |
.801 |
|
M3. |
3.98 |
1.35 |
|
M4. |
3.65 |
1.06 |
|
M5. |
3.70 |
1.01 |
|
M6. |
3.70 |
1.35 |
|
M7. |
3.98 |
.897 |
|
M8. |
3.91 |
.974 |
|
M9. |
3.44 |
1.20 |
|
M10. |
3.92 |
1.26 |
|
M11. |
3.95 |
1.15 |
|
M12. |
4.19 |
.986 |
|
M13. |
3.88 |
1.05 |
|
M14. |
3.91 |
1.01 |
|
M15. |
3.42 |
1.43 |
|
M16. |
3.83 |
1.25 |
|
M17. |
3.95 |
.917 |
|
M18. |
4.52 |
.662 |
|
M19. |
3.61 |
1.36 |
|
M20. |
4.02 |
1.012 |
|
M21. |
3.65 |
1.22 |
|
M22. |
3.88 |
.999 |
|
M23. |
3.67 |
1.15 |
|
M24. |
3.80 |
1.15 |
|
M25. |
4.20 |
.807 |
|
M26. |
4.25 |
1.00 |
|
M27. |
4.26 |
.827 |
|
M28. |
4.22 |
.999 |
|
M29. |
3.84 |
1.08 |
|
M30. |
4.16 |
.934 |
|
General Average |
3.93 |
1.06 |
The average for the 30 items ranged from 4.52 to 3.42.
Since the overall average of all items for the questionnaire is 3.93, it is
revealed that the students generally “Agree” to the items related to social
entrepreneurship. Highest average item is: “M18: I prefer to work in situations
that involve more people”; lowest average item is: “M15: I would rather
collaborate for free in a non-governmental organisation”. According to all
these results, it is understood that the social entrepreneurship competency of
the students participating in the research is high.
3.
FINDINGS
3.1. Validity
Processes
Appearance, scope and structure validity were
examined as validity study of Social Entrepreneurship Competency Scale. For the
appearance and content validity, 1 language specialist, 3 field specialists, 1
psychological counselor and 1 assessment and evaluation specialist were
consulted.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed for
construct validity. According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), a 6-dimensional scale consisting of 30 items explaining 74.31% of the
total variance was obtained.According to the results obtained; the scale item
with an eigenvalue greater than 1 was not detected so no item was removed from
the original scale. The explained variance is 74.31%; this rate is quite enough.
The explained variance rate above 30% is considered sufficient in test
development studies in behavioral and social sciences (Buyukozturk, et al. 2018).
3.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Processes
The data obtained from the scale is normally
distributed, "principal component analysis" was used while making
factor analysis.This analysis calculates on total variance.Therefore, the
specific variance observed in the variable itself on the factors and the error
variance defined as the inexplicable part of the data set are also taken into
account (Gorsuch, 1990).
In
order to perform EFA, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, which tests the adequacy
of the sample, was first looked at. KMO value was found as .93. As this value
is greater than .70, it is concluded that factor analysis can be made on these
data (Buyukozturk, vd. 2018; Hutcheson ve Sofroniou, 1999).Secondly, by looking
at the Barlett Sphericity test (x ^ 2 = 4250.741 p =.000), it has been
determined that the data obtained differ significantly and are suitable for
factor analysis. The KMO and Barlett test shows that the data are suitable for
factor analysis.
While determining the items to be included in the
test as a result of the EFA performed for the construct validity of the scale,
it was paid attention that the factors forming the scale items were 1 and
above, and the load values of the items to be 0.30 and above.In addition,
attention was paid to whether the items were included in a single factor or
there was at least 0.10 difference between the factors in two factors
(Buyukozturk, 2018).The results obtained from EFA show that the scale has a six-dimensional
structure. These dimensions are shown in Figure 1 on the Scree Plot Chart:
Figure 1. Eigenvalue-factor
number chart of the scale
The load values and the common factor variance in
the factors with the items are shown in Table 9:
Table 9.
Exploratory Factor Analysis Results
|
Component |
Initial eigenvalues |
Sum of Subtraction of Loads Square |
Rotational Total of Loads Square |
||||||
|
|
Total |
Variance % |
Cumulative% |
Total |
Variance % |
Birikimli % |
Total |
Variance % |
Cumulative % |
|
1 |
11.932 |
39.774 |
39.774 |
11.932 |
39.774 |
39.774 |
10.048 |
33.495 |
33.495 |
|
2 |
3.603 |
12.009 |
51.782 |
3.603 |
12.009 |
51.782 |
3.915 |
13.049 |
46.544 |
|
3 |
2.564 |
8.545 |
60.328 |
2.564 |
8.545 |
60.328 |
2.717 |
9.056 |
55.600 |
|
4 |
1.888 |
6.294 |
66.621 |
1.888 |
6.294 |
66.621 |
2.303 |
7.678 |
63.278 |
|
5 |
1.294 |
4.314 |
70.935 |
1.294 |
4.314 |
70.935 |
1.760 |
5.868 |
69.146 |
|
6 |
1.013 |
3.378 |
74.313 |
1.013 |
3.378 |
74.313 |
1.550 |
5.167 |
74.313 |
When
Table 9 is examined, it is seen that the scale consists of a 6-factor structure.It
explains 74.31% of the total variance.These results show that the scale
explains Social Entrepreneurship Competency features well.The scale included a
total of 30 statements.
For
Turkish adaptation study; these dimensions: personal
features for entrepreneurship (7), innovation and cooperation in
entrepreneurship (5), social features and risk on entrepreneurship (6), concordance
and overcoming in entrepreneurship (4), aid and trust yourself in
enterpreneurship (4), problem solving and leadership in entrepreneurship (4).
3.3.
Reliability
Process
In order to determine the reliability of the
research, the internal consistency coefficient of the six-factor structure of
the scale, which was determined by Cronbach Alpha, was found to be .93.As a
result of the analysis on the sub-dimensions of the scale, the internal
consistency coefficients calculated with Cronbach Alpha: for personal
features for entrepreneurship dimension .90; innovation and cooperation in entrepreneurship
.87; social features and risk on entrepreneurship .86; concordance and
overcoming in entrepreneurship .83; aid and trust yourself in enterpreneurship
.93 and problem solving and leadership in entrepreneurship .86. According to
many researchers, the reliability increases when the number of coefficients
approaches 1 (Sekaran, 2003).Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) reliability
coefficient. If it is less than 60, the scale is very weak, with .60. They
indicate that it is good to be between 70 and within the acceptable limits and
above .80.Accordingly, it can be said that the reliability coefficients of each
of the related dimensions of the scale are good.
4.
Result
and Suggestions
EFA was performed for the construct validity of the
scale. According to the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a 6-dimensional
scale consisting of 30 items explaining 74.31% of the total variance was
obtained.According to the results obtained; the scale item with an eigenvalue
greater than 1 was not detected, so no item was removed from the original
scale.The explained variance rate above 30% is considered sufficient in test
development studies in behavioral and social sciences (Buyukozturk, 2018).
In order to perform exploratory factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, which tests the adequacy of the sample, was first looked at. KMO value was found as .93. As this value is greater than .70, it is concluded that factor analysis can be made on these data (Buyukozturk, 2004; Hutcheson and Sofroniou, 1999).Secondly, by looking at the Barlett Sphericity test (x ^ 2 = 4250.741 p =, 000), it has been determined that the data obtained differ significantly and are suitable for factor analysis.The KMO and Barlett test shows that the data are suitable for factor analysis.
The results obtained from EFA show that the scale
has a six-dimensional structure. These dimensions are: personal features for
entrepreneurship (7), innovation and cooperation in entrepreneurship (5),
social features and risk on entrepreneurship (6), concordance and overcoming in
entrepreneurship (4), aid and trust yourself in enterpreneurship (4), problem
solving and leadership in entrepreneurship (4).As a result of the analysis on
the sub-dimensions of the scale, the internal consistency coefficients calculated
with Cronbach Alpha: for personal features for
entrepreneurship dimension .90; innovation and cooperation in entrepreneurship
.87; social features and risk on entrepreneurship .86; concordance and
overcoming in entrepreneurship .83; aid and trust yourself in enterpreneurship
.93 and problem solving and leadership in entrepreneurship .86.
In the light of
all these data, the reliability and validity of the relevant scale were tested.This
adapted scale is a good test for testing social entrepreneurship competence. As
research proposals; the scale can be applied to different sample groupsthus,
different results can be obtained and future researches can be shed light on.
Reference
Bird, B. A. (1989).
Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, Il: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Boluk, K. A. and Mottiar, Z. (2014) Motivations of
Social Entrepreneurs: Blurring the social contribution and profits dichotomy. Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 10 Is 1:
53-68.doi:10.1108/SEJ-01-2013-0001.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç,
Ç. E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. and Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Carlos Capella-Peris, Jesús Gil-Gómez, Manuel
Martí-Puig and Paola Ruíz- Bernardo (2020) Development and Validation of a
Scale to Assess Social Entrepreneurship Competency in Higher Education, Journal
of Social Entrepreneurship, 11:1, 23-39, DOI:
10.1080/19420676.2018.1545686.
Cetin, O. and Tasdemir Ö. (2017). Girişimcilik
Kapasitesi ve Bireysel Yenilikçiliğin Girişimcilik Niyeti Üzerine Etkisi. Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi, 6(3),
76-87.
Coskun, L., (2015), Sürdürülebilir Girişimcilik ile
Sürdürülebilir Rekabet Avantajı Nasıl Sağlanır? http://www.mikadoconsulting.com/blog/11/.
Date of access: 01.05.2020.
Dess, J., G. (1998). Social enterprise: Private Initiatives for the common good. Boston:
Harvard Business School, Publishing Division, 9-395-116.
Fraenkel, R. J. and
Wallen, E. N. (2006). How to design
andevaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoppe, M. (2016). The
Entrepreneurship Concept: A Short Introduction, Högre Utbildning Vol. 6, Nr. 2: 95-108.doi:10.1007/s11187-015-9676-7.
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. (1999) The Multivariate Social Scientist. Sage,
London.
Koçak, O and Kavi, E. (2014). Sosyal Politika Aktörü
Olarak Sosyal Girişimci Belediyecilik, HAK-İŞUluslararası
Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, Vol: 3, Issue:6: 26-49.
Korkmaz, S. (2000). Girişimcilik ve üniversite
öğrencilerinin girişimcilik özelliklerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari
Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(1), 163-179.
McAnany, E. G. (2012). Social Entrepreneurship and
Communication for Development and Social Change, Nordicom Review: 205-218.
Monette, D., Sullivan, T. and DeJong, C. 2005.
Applied social research: A tool for the human services, Belmont, CA: Thomson
Brooks/Cole. [Google Scholar].
Mueller, S. L. and Thomas, A. S. (2000). Culture and
entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and
innovativeness. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16, 51-75.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00039-7.
Paksoy, M. H.,Özbezek D., B. and Özçalıcı M. (2015).
Bireysel ve Örgütsel Sosyal Sorumluluk Faaliyetlerinde Sosyal Girişimcilik
Algısı, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, II. Uluslararası Girişimcilik ve
Kariyer Sempozyumu, 9-11 Ekim 2015, Muğla (Sözel Bildiri Sunum):1-16.
Rhodes M., L, Rhodes M and Donnelly-Cox, G. (2008).
Social entrepreneurship as a performance landscape: The case of Front Line,
Emergence: Complexity and Organization: 1-14.
Sekaran,
U. (2003) Research Methods for Business A
Skill-Building Approach. 4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
Hoboken.
Tasavori, M., Ghauri, P., N. and Zaefarian, R.
(2015). Entering the base of the pyramid market in India: A corporate social
entrepreneurship perspective. International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 Iss 4 pp.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2014-0085.
Weerawardena, J., & Sullivan Mort, G. (2001).
Learning, innovationand competitive advantage in not-for-profit aged care
marketing:A conceptual model and research propositions.Journal ofNonprofit
&Public Sector Marketing, 9(3):
53–73.
Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G.S. (2006). Investigating
social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business 41 (2006) 21–35.
Annex 1. ADAPTATION OF SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURSHIP COMPETENCY SCALE TURKISH FORM
|
BOYUT I : GİRİŞİMCİLİĞE DAİR KİŞİSEL ÖZELLİKLER |
|
|
|
1. Problemli çoğu durumla başa çıkabileceğime
inanıyorum. |
|
|
|
2. Her zaman kötü durumlarda olumlu tarafları
ararım. |
|
|
|
3.
Bence risk
alan insanların başarılı olma olasılığı almayanlara göre daha yüksektir. |
|
|
|
4. Yaptıklarımın ve/veya söylediklerimin
sonuçlarını üstlenirim. |
|
|
|
5. Her işi olabildiğince iyi yapıyorum. |
|
|
|
6.
Eğitimimi
bitirdikten bir süre sonra kendi işimi kurmayı ciddi olarak düşünüyorum. |
|
|
|
7. Bazı şeyleri başkalarının nasıl yaptığını
farklı bir şekilde hayal edebiliyorum. |
|
|
|
BOYUT II : GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE YENİLİK VE
İŞBİRLİĞİ |
|
|
|
8. İşbirlikli çalışmalarda diğer insanları koordine etmeyi severim. |
|
|
|
9. Bazı grup projelerinde/ortak çalışmalarda yer
aldım. |
|
|
|
10. Ortak hedefler için yeni faydalar
düşünürüm. |
|
|
|
11. Herhangi bir iş rolümde veya katıldığım
projelerde genellikle çok iyi performans gösteririm. |
|
|
|
12. Birlikte
yaşama/çalışma problemleri diyaloglar kurularak çözülebilir. |
|
|
|
BOYUT III: GİRİŞİMCİLİĞE DAİR SOSYAL
ÖZELLİKLER VE RİSK ALMA |
|
|
|
13. Öngörülemeyen
durumlarla başa çıkmak konusunda iyiyim. |
|
|
|
14. İş
fırsatları yaratabilip, onlardan yararlanabilirim. |
|
|
|
15. Problemli
çoğu durumla başa çıkabileceğime inanıyorum. |
|
|
|
16. Yaptığım hataları analiz edip, onlardan ders alıyorum. |
|
|
|
17. İlerlemek için risk almanın
gerekli olduğunu düşünüyorum. |
|
|
|
18. Yeni fikirlerle hesaplanmış riskler
almayı seviyorum. |
|
|
|
BOYUT IV: GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE UYUM VE ÜSTESİNDEN
GELME |
|
|
|
19.Fırsatların problemlerden veya
zor durumlardan çıkarılabileceğine inanıyorum. |
|
|
|
20. Planlar değiştiğinde
zorlanmadan doğaçlama çalışarak görevimi yaparım. |
|
|
|
21. Problemli çoğu durumla başa
çıkabileceğime inanıyorum. |
|
|
|
22. İş
arkadaşlarımla uyumlu ve koordineli bir şekilde çalışabilirim. |
|
|
|
BOYUT V: GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE YARDIMSEVERLİK VE
KENDİNE GÜVEN |
|
|
|
23.
Arkadaşlarıma/sınıf arkadaşlarıma
yardım etmeyi seviyorum. |
|
|
|
24. Başkalarına yardım eden insanlar takip edilebilecek örneklerdir. |
|
|
|
25. Daha fazla insanın bulunduğu ortamlarda
çalışmayı tercih ederim. |
|
|
|
26. Her durumda potansiyelime inanıyorum. |
|
|
|
BOYUT VI: GİRİŞİMCİLİKTE PROBLEM ÇÖZME VE
LİDERLİK |
|
|
|
27.Gruplar
halinde çalışırken lider olmayı tercih ederim. |
|
|
|
28. Henüz keşfedilmemiş sorunlara çözüm
önerileri bulmaktan zevk alırım. |
|
|
|
29.Sivil
toplum kuruluşlarında/organizasyonlarda ücretsiz olarak çalışmayı tercih
ederim. |
|
|
|
30. Dahil olduğum projeleri iyileştirmek için
yeni öneriler sunabilirim. |
|
|
