Factors Affecting Social Entrepreneurs to Lead an Initiative
ARIK SADEH, AVSHALOM ADERET
Technology Management Faculty
HIT Holon Institute of Technology
52 Golomb St. Holon 58102
ISRAEL
Abstract: - One of the interesting questions in education research is how to motivate students to become social
entrepreneurs. In this study, we examine five considerations which influence the decision of social
entrepreneurs to lead an initiative. a. The extent to which the project is interesting, innovative and will bring
about long-term change in the community. b. People’s level of cooperation in the community where the
initiative will be carried. c. The initiative’s level of logistic simplicity. d. The extent to which the entrepreneur
is able to invest time in the project, in relation to his current level of activity in the different areas of his life. e.
The extent to which the project’s vision and the entrepreneur’s social vision are compatible. We collected data
from 144 potential social entrepreneurs using an experimental design pattern. We found that all these five
factors are statistically significant in their impact on willingness to initiate a social innovation. The
Standardized Coefficients are given in brackets: e (0.474), a (0.265), b (0.236), d (0.221) and c (0.108). More
analyses are conducted in this research.
Key-Words: - Innovation, social entrepreneurship, experimental design
1 Introduction
Drayton [1] indicates several characteristic lines of
social entrepreneurs: They bring about strong and
intense changes in the system; they are creative;
their projects have the potential ability to influence
the general public; and they have a strong moral
makeup. In other words, entrepreneurs exist in the
world in order to shape society in accordance with
their personal visions. Social entrepreneurs must
have the combined ability to both determine goals
and solve problems. They differ from regular
professionals, who are content to solve the problem
for their clients. Social entrepreneurs try to change
the world, and years of difficulties and complexities
won’t stop them.
Because social entrepreneurs are task-oriented,
internal values and motivation are the significant
drivers behind their initiatives [2]. For example, [3]
emphasizes their passion for providing a solution to
the community’s needs, as a central driving force
among social entrepreneurs. Others stress the
charisma of social entrepreneurs [4] or their
leadership [5].
The factors and considerations that influence social
entrepreneurs to generate social change are critical
in understanding the entrepreneur’s priorities and
their involvement in social entrepreneurship. Until
now, this subject has received very little research
attention. In the current study, we focus on the
entrepreneur’s attitudes and decision-making
processes, when trying to lead social change.
Leading a social initiative or project demands a
series of decisions from the entrepreneur, who must
take into account the parameters of the project itself
(for example, how innovative and interesting the
project is) as well as personal parameters (the
amount of personal time the entrepreneur really has
to invest in leading the project, for example).
Decision-making regarding leading the initiative is
one of the first subjects the entrepreneur will have to
relate to: Whether he or she is personally ready and
willing to lead the project. This is a central issue,
regardless of whether the idea for the project
originated with the entrepreneur, himself, or with
others.
In this study, we examine the considerations which
influence the decision of social entrepreneurs to lead
an initiative.
London and Morfopoulos [6] identified 5 major
strategies in managing social initiatives:
1. Identifying the needs and creating a vision that
provides an answer to these needs
2. Establishing suitable communication with the
community, mainly for the development and
arrangement of supporting sources from the
community
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
54
Volume 2, 2022
3. Carrying out the initiative
4. Evaluating the results of the initiative
5. Maintaining continuity of the activity
The first two strategies, i.e. the entrepreneur’s vision
and the level of communication with the community
– led us to choosing two out of the five factors
which influence the entrepreneur’s decision to lead
a social initiative: the extent of compatibility
between the project’s vision and the entrepreneur’s
personal-social vision; and the community’s future
level of cooperation in the project.
In the research literature, much importance is placed
on the initiative’s level of innovation [5],[7], as well
as its level of continuity in the community [8], as
core dimensions in social initiatives. Another factor
in our study is the extent to which the project is
interesting, innovative, and will bring about a long-
term change within the community.
The logistic complexity or simplicity of the
initiative is often discussed in the literature. The
creative use of minimal resources as one of the three
important dimensions of a social initiative is given
in [9]. The initiative’s level of simplicity, from a
logistic point of view, is another factor we included
in this study. This variable expresses, among other
things, the absence of a need to raise money for the
project, a lack of involvement of public entities in
the project, a need for cooperation between a
relatively small number of individuals, etc.
In a study [10] examining the factors that lead to
successful social ventures in Israel, found 8 factors
that support success:
1. The entrepreneur’s social network
2. Complete dedication to the initiative’s success
3. The basis of the funding in the establishment
stage
4. Acceptance of the entrepreneur’s idea in a public
forum
5. The initiative’s staff
6. Creating long-term cooperation in the public and
third sectors
7. The service’s ability to withstand the market test
8. The entrepreneur’s prior managerial experience
The entrepreneur’s complete dedication to the
initiative’s success factor stems, to a large extent,
from the fifth factor, which will be examined in this
study: “The extent to which the entrepreneur is
available and has time to deal with the initiative”, in
relation to his current level of activity in the
different areas of his life (work, studies, family,
hobbies).
To conclude, the five factors that influence the
social entrepreneur’s level of willingness to lead a
project, which we examine in this study, are as
follows:
a. The extent to which the project is interesting,
innovative and will bring about long-term change in
the community (“innovation and influence”)
b. People’s level of cooperation in the community
where the initiative will be carried out (the
willingness of key individuals in the community to
undertake the initiative, the community members’
response to take an active part in the initiative.
(“Cooperation”)
c. The initiative’s level of logistic simplicity.
Logistic simplicity, among other things, relates to
the lack of a need to raise funds for the project, the
lack of involvement of public entities in the
initiative, the need for cooperation between a
relatively small numbers of people, and so forth.
("Logistic simplicity")
d. The extent to which the entrepreneur is able to
invest time in the project, in relation to his current
level of activity in the different areas of his life
("entrepreneur availability")
e. The extent to which the project’s vision and the
entrepreneur’s social vision are compatible
(“compatibility with personal vision”)
2 Methods
A total of 144 subjects, students from the Seminar
HaKibbutzim College, participated in the study:
The research tools were as follows:
1. A personal details questionnaire
2. A profile questionnaire, which examined the
respondents’ considerations about the decision to
lead an educational initiative. In the profile
questionnaire, we presented the respondents with a
series of various different profiles of social
initiatives, with the five parameters mentioned
above.
Based on the personal details questionnaire we
found:
A. A total of 144 students participated in the study;
27 men and 121 women; 37% were single, 57%
were married; the majority (75%) had 2-3 children.
B. As regards Age: 8% of the participants were
between the ages of 18-22; 23% were between the
ages of 23-29; 25% were between the ages of 30-39;
29% were between the ages of 40-49; 10% were
between the ages of 50-59 and 4% were over the age
of 60.
C. Participants’ average income was according to
the following distribution: 10% reported a “far
below average” income; 13% “below average”; 23%
average; 40% above average; and 13% “far above
average”.
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
55
Volume 2, 2022
D. A total of 74% of the participants said they were
currently involved in social projects; 36% reported
involvement in at least 3 or more projects; and 20%
indicated involvement in 5 social projects.
E. A total of 32% of the participants invest up to
two hours a week in social projects; 40% invest
between 2-4 hours a week; and 28% invest more
than 4 hours a week on social projects.
F. A total of 67% of the participants are involved in
these projects on a managerial level; 13% deal with
managerial activities; and 15% are involved in
activities related to training & education.
G. Only 12% of the participants said they are not
involved in social projects. A total of 32% reported
involvement in social activities for 1-2 years; 22%
indicated 3-5 years; and 34% reported involvement
in social activities for over a period of 5 years.
In the profile questionnaire we asked the
respondents to assume they have been presented
with an initiative that deals with social or
educational activity for the good of the community,
while the “project itself is interesting, and
significantly contributes to a community that is
important to the respondent, and that he/she is
thinking about leading the project”.
The respondents were then presented with various
different possible project profiles, regarding the
above-mentioned parameters, where each parameter
receives one of two values – high or low. For
example, a profile may describe the project as “low”
on innovation, interest and the change it will bring
to the community; “high” as regards the
community’s level of cooperation in the project;
“low” in relation to its logistic simplicity (that is, the
project is complex from a logistic point of view);
“low” in regard to the entrepreneur’s current ability
to invest time in the project; and “high” on
compatibility between the project’s vision and the
entrepreneur’s social vision.
A total of 32 profiles were proposed. For each of the
situations, the respondents were asked to indicate,
on a scale of 0 to 10, the chance they would take to
lead a project with the same profile.
In order to make the ranking easier for the
respondents, the 32 profiles were divided into two
series of 16 profiles; each series was passed out to
half of the respondents, in each of the populations. It
is important to note that a series of 16 profiles is
considered a full factorial experiment for 5 main
effects and second-order interactions [11]. These
factorial experiments allowed us to examine all of
the possible interactions for all profile types [12].
3 Findings
Table 1 presents the number of questionnaires,
averages, and standard deviations for all 32 profiles.
1. Profile rankings reflect almost the entire range of
the scale, starting from a ranking of 1.31 for Profile
12, in which all of the parameters are “low” and up
till a 9.53 ranking in Profile 28, in which all of the
parameters are “high”.
2. The average ranking for all profiles is 5.40, and
the average standard deviation for all profile
rankings is 2.22.
Table 2 presents the profiles ranked above 7 (on a
scale from 0 to 10), in descending order.
1. As expected, the highest ranking was for Profile
28, in which all of the five parameters were “high”
(9.53).
2. In Profile 7, where only the Logistic Simplicity
parameter was “low” and the rest of the parameters
were “high”, the respondents’ willingness to lead
the project was relatively high (8.9).
3. The rankings decreased when the Innovation and
Influence parameter was “low” (Profile 13), and the
rest of the parameters were “high” (8.05); when the
Cooperation parameter was “low” (Profile 1) and
the rest of the parameters were “high” (7.46); and
when the Entrepreneur Availability parameter was
“low” (Profile 16) and the rest of the parameters
were “high” (7.40).
4. The two last profiles whose rankings were still
above 7 were Profile 19, in which Cooperation and
Logistic Simplicity were “low” and the rest of the
parameters were “high” (7.34); and Profile 24, in
which Logistic Simplicity and Entrepreneur
Availability were “low” and the rest of the
parameters were “high” (7.22).
Table 3 presents the profiles ranked below 4 (on a
scale of 0-10), in ascending order.
1. The lowest ranking, as expected, was given to
Profile 12, in which the five parameters were “low”
(1.31).
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
56
Volume 2, 2022
2. The second lowest ranking was given to Profile
23, in which four of the parameters were “low” and
only the Logistic Parameter was “high” (2.01).
3. The next three rankings, in ascending order, were
given to Profile 32, in which only the Entrepreneur
Availability parameter was “high” and the rest of
the parameters were “low” (2.52); Profile 29, in
which only the Innovation and Influence parameter
was “high” and the rest of the parameters were
“low” (3.04); and Profile 17, in which only the
Cooperation parameter was “high” and the rest of
the parameters were “low” (3.28).
In order to evaluate the extent of the influence of
each of the five parameters on the entrepreneur’s
decision to lead an initiative, we conducted
regression analyses for all of the study’s data. This
includes both the questionnaires completed at the
beginning of the workshop as well as those
completed at the end. Table 4 presents the
conclusive findings of these analyses.
1. The five parameters explain 42% of the variance,
which indicates that these are very relevant
parameters in the decision-making process of social
Table 1: Averages and Standard Deviations for all 32 social project profiles
S.D
Mean
Entrepreneur
availability
Logistic
simplicity
Cooperation
Innovation
&influence
n
Profile
no.
2.05
7.46
high
high
low
high
135
1
2.33
4.51
high
low
high
low
134
2
2.30
4.22
low
high
high
low
134
3
2.30
5.95
low
low
high
low
134
4
2.55
5.43
high
low
low
low
136
5
2.45
5.65
low
low
low
high
136
6
1.41
8.90
high
low
high
high
136
7
2.21
3.83
high
high
low
low
111
8
2.25
5.18
low
high
low
low
111
9
2.31
4.80
low
low
high
high
111
10
2.30
4.90
high
low
low
high
136
11
1.92
1.31
low
low
low
low
135
12
1.77
8.05
high
high
high
low
136
13
2.45
6.06
high
high
high
high
102
14
2.23
4.20
low
high
low
high
102
15
1.95
7.40
low
high
high
high
102
16
2.64
3.28
low
low
high
low
146
17
2.16
6.44
low
high
low
high
149
18
2.03
7.34
high
low
low
high
149
19
2.37
4.99
high
high
low
high
147
20
2.56
4.92
low
high
high
high
147
21
2.63
4.29
high
high
high
low
147
22
2.40
2.01
low
high
low
low
149
23
2.00
7.22
low
low
high
high
147
24
2.31
5.63
high
low
high
high
148
25
2.39
6.10
high
high
low
low
148
26
2.15
6.33
low
high
high
low
148
27
0.91
9.53
high
high
high
high
149
28
2.66
3.04
low
low
low
high
149
29
2.68
4.36
low
low
low
low
149
30
1.90
6.84
high
low
high
low
149
31
2.52
2.52
high
low
low
low
149
32
Table 2: Profiles ranked above 7 (on a scale of 0-10)
S.D
Mean
Entrepreneur
availability
Logistic
simplicity
Cooperation
Innovation
&influence
n
Profile
no.
0.91
9.53
high
high
high
high
149
28
1.41
8.90
high
low
high
high
136
7
1.77
8.05
high
high
high
low
136
13
2.05
7.46
high
high
low
high
135
1
1.95
7.40
Low
high
high
high
102
16
2.03
7.34
High
low
low
high
149
19
2.00
7.22
Low
low
high
high
147
24
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
57
Volume 2, 2022
entrepreneurs when deciding on their level of
willingness to lead an initiative. All of the
parameters’ regression coefficients were statistically
significant.
2. The most influential parameter is the level of
compatibility between the initiative’s vision and the
personal vision of the entrepreneur.
3. From among the initiative’s parameters, the level
of innovation and influence and the level of
cooperation were of greatest importance.
4. The importance of the initiative’s logistic
simplicity was low compared to the rest of the
parameters.
4 Discussion and Conclusions
The study examined students’ attitudes about social
entrepreneurship and, specifically, the importance of
different factors in the decisions made by
entrepreneurs when considering whether or not to
lead a social initiative or project. The parameters we
examined are related to the nature of the social
initiative (its level of innovation and influence,
logistic simplicity, the extent of cooperation it will
achieve), as well as the personal characteristics of
the entrepreneur (the entrepreneur’s level of
availability to dedicate himself to the project, and
the level of compatibility between the project’s
vision and the entrepreneur’s personal vision).
One of the main findings is that the above five
parameters explain 42% of the variance among the
profile rankings of the various projects presented to
the study’s subjects, some of whom were MA
students and some of whom were teaching
assistants. In other words, these parameters are
apparently significant as regards their influence on
the considerations of the subjects-students about
leading social initiatives.
Without a doubt, additional studies are necessary,
using different populations and different contexts in
order to further establish the “status” of these five
factors as determining the considerations of social
entrepreneurs when deciding upon their level of
willingness to lead a specific social project.
The subjects were presented with a series of Project
Profiles; each profile was different in regard to the
five parameters mentioned above, in accordance
with the study’s methodology. This allowed us to
examine the extent of the influence of each one of
the parameters, in relation to the existence or
absence of the other parameters in the project.
Regression analyses of the profile rankings,
presented in Table 7, show the relative influence of
each of the five parameters on the rankings. As
expressed in the previous tables as well, the factor
that most influences students’ willingness to lead a
social project is level of compatibility between the
project’s vision and their personal vision. Although
the regression coefficients of the other four
parameters – the project’s level of innovation and
influence; the community’s willingness to cooperate
with the project; the project’s level of logistic
simplicity; and the extent to which the entrepreneur
is available to deal with the project – are statistically
significant, they all reflect only a minor influence,
when compared with the compatibility parameter.
When the project’s vision is compatible with the
entrepreneur’s personal vision, he is willing “to
compromise” on the absence or weakness of other
parameters and still be willing to lead the initiative.
Table 3: Profiles Ranked below 4 (on a scale of 0-10), in ascending order
S.D
Mean
Entrepreneur
availability
Logistic
simplicity
Cooperation
Innovation
&influence
n
Profile
no.
1.92
1.31
low
low
low
low
135
12
2.40
2.01
low
high
low
low
149
23
2.52
2.52
high
low
low
low
149
32
2.66
3.04
low
low
low
high
149
29
2.64
3.28
low
low
low
low
146
17
Table 4: The Five Parameters: Results of the Regression Analyses
Variable
coefficient
p-value
(Constant)
5.475
0.0
Innovation and Influence
0.775
0.0
Level of Cooperation
0.687
0.0
Level of Logistic Simplicity
0.316
0.0
Entrepreneur’s Availability to Lead the Initiative
0.644
0.0
Level of Compatibility between the Initiative’s Vision and the Entrepreneur’s
Personal Vision
1.382
0.0
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
58
Volume 2, 2022
follow our instructions faithfully, otherwise you
have to resubmit your full paper. This will enable us
to maintain uniformity in the conference
proceedings as well as in the post-conference
luxurious books by WSEAS Press. Thank you for
your cooperation and contribution. We are looking
forward to seeing you at the Conference.
References:
[1] Drayton, W. (2002) The citizen sector:
Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive
as business, California Management Review,
44 (3), 120–132.
[2] Hemingway, C. A. (2005) Personal values as a
catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship,
Journal of Business Ethics, 60 (3), 233–249.
[3] Bornstein, D. (2004). How to change the world:
Social entrepreneurs and the power of new
ideas, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
[4] Roper, J. & Cheney, G. (2005). Leadership,
learning and human resource management: The
means of social entrepreneurship today,
Corporate Governance 5 (3), pp. 95–104.
[5] Thompson, J. L., Alvy G.& Lees, A. (2000)
Social entrepreneurship: A new look at the
people and the potential, Management
Decision, 38 (6), 328–338.
[6] London, M & Morfopoulos, R.G., 2010, Social
entrepreneurship, Routledge.
[7] Thompson, J. L, (2002) The world of the social
entrepreneur, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 15 (5), 412 - 431
[8] Sullivan M.G., Weerawardena, J. & Carmegie,
K. (2005), Social entrepreneurship: Towards
conceptualization. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8
(1), 76-88
[9] Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social
entrepreneur. London: Demos
[10] Sharira, M. & Lernerb, M., (2006), Gauging the
success of social ventures initiated by
individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of
World Business, 41 (1), 6-20
[11] Box. G., W. Hunter and J. S. Hunter (1978),
Statistics for Experiments, John Wiley & Sons,
NY NY.
[12] Bilitzki A. and A. Sadeh, 2005. Efficient
Solutions for Special Zero-One Programming
Problems. In Journal of Combinatorial
Optimization, 10, 227-238
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE
DOI: 10.37394/232022.2022.2.9
Arik Sadeh, Avshalom Aderet
E-ISSN: 2732-9984
59
Volume 2, 2022