See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/266477717

Affective, Non-calculative and Social Motivation to lead: What we know from

studies of Entrepreneurial, Professional & Leadership motivation

Conference Paper · May 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1799.5529

CITATION READS

1 8,637

5 authors, including:

Kim Yin Chan Moon-Ho Ringo Ho

Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
69 PUBLICATIONS 3,301 CITATIONS 143 PUBLICATIONS 11,702 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Emma Yoke Loo Sam

Nanyang Technological University
22 PUBLICATIONS 551 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kim Yin Chan on 07 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 1

Running head: Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead

Affective, Non-calculative and Social Motivation to lead: What we know from studies of

Entrepreneurial, Professional & Leadership motivation

Chan, Kim Yin, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Li, Yimeng, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Ho, Moon-Ho. Ringo, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Chernyshenko, Olexander, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Sam, Yoke Loo, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Paper presented at the 16th Congress of the European Association of Work and Organizational

Psychology (EAWOP), 22-25 May 2013, Münster, Germany.

Please address correspondence to: akychan@[Link] or liyi0018@[Link]

 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 2

ABSTRACT

Purpose. In 2001, Chan & Drasgow developed a 3-factor model and self-report measure of the

motivation to lead (MTL) including affective, social-normative and non-calculative factors.

Recently, Chan et al. (2012) adapted this 3-factor model for the measurement of entrepreneurial

and professional motivations as part of a new measure of entrepreneurial, professional and

leadership (EPL) career aspirations. We explore the meanings of the three MTL factors

empirically in relation to EPL career intentions, the Big Five personality factors, individualism-

collectivism values, and EPL efficacy.

Design/Methodology. Using a data from a university-wide survey of 10,326 students, we

examine relationships between affective, social-normative and calculative/non-calculative EPL

motivation factors with respective EPL career intentions. We employ structural equation

modeling with separate survey data from 638 undergraduate students to examine the relationship

between personality, values and efficacy with each of the three factors of EPL motivation.

Results. All three factors of EPL motivation are found to correlate with the respective, EPL

career intentions. Interestingly, all three professional motivation factors correlate negatively

with entrepreneurial career intentions. Like Chan and Drasgow (2001), we also observe different

patterns of relationships between the Big Five personality factors, individualism-collectivism

values, and EPL efficacy measures with each of the three factors of EPL motivation.

Limitations. Observations are based on cross-sectional, self-report survey data collected from

university students in Singapore.

Research/Practical Implications. Findings are discussed in relation to the meaning and

measurement of MTL.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 3

Originality/Value. We enhance the understanding of MTL by contrasting it with entrepreneurial

and professional motivation.

 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 4

INTRODUCTION

Chan & Drasgow (2001) proposed a theoretical framework for understanding the

relationship between individual differences and leadership behaviours (see Figure 1). The theory

suggested that non-cognitive ability constructs such as personality, values, leadership experience

and leadership efficacy are antecedents to a person's motivation to lead (MTL), and, that MTL in

turn predicts the person's participation in leadership roles and activities, including leadership

training and development, which raises the individual's knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs)

for leading. This increases the person's leadership experience, which raises leadership efficacy

and MTL in the form of a feedback loop.

Chan & Drasgow (2001) defined MTL as “an individual differences construct that affects

a leader's or leader-to-be's decisions to assume leadership training, roles, and responsibilities and

that affect his or her intensity of effort at leading and persistence as a leader”. They assumed that

one could find individual differences in MTL that are relatively stable over time; and, that these
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 5

individual differences in MTL interact with the person's vocational or life-domain interests and

abilities to predict leadership behaviors (e.g., participation in leadership roles and training)

within a specific domain of work or life activity. Individual differences in MTL were thought to

change with leadership experience and training and are an immediate outcome of one's

leadership self-efficacy and accumulated leadership experience, which were in turn affected by

sociocultural values, personality, and acquired social skills and knowledge for leading.

Three Factor Model of MTL

In proposing the MTL construct, Chan and Drasgow (2001) addressed the dimensionality

of leader motivation by referring to Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action and

Triandis's (1980) theory of interpersonal behavior which posited three determinants of a person's

social behavior: the valences associated with an act (i.e., affect), the person's (calculative) beliefs

about the outcomes associated with success, and social norms related to the act. They thus

proposed three components underlying individual differences in MTL namely, affective-identity,

noncalculative, and social-normative MTL, and reasoned: “It is possible that some people just

like to lead others (i.e., affective MTL), whereas others would lead for reasons such as a sense of

duty or responsibility (i.e., social-normative MTL). It is also possible that other people may only

lead if they are not calculative about the costs of leading relative to the benefits (i.e.,

noncalculative MTL).” They added, “The reason for the non-calculative direction is that

leadership usually involves certain responsibilities or costs. Hence, the less calculative that one is

about leading others, the less one would wish to avoid leadership roles”. They also considered

the possibility of a general factor of MTL: “if it can be shown empirically that the three

dimensions of MTL are correlated, one may infer that a second-order general-MTL construct

exists to account for the common variance among the three first-order factors”.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 6

Using data from military and student samples in Singapore and in the US, Chan and

Drasgow (2001) showed that MTL could be conceptualised and measured in terms of three

correlated factors, namely, affective-identity, noncalculative, and social-normative MTL. Using

structural equation modeling, they showed that personality, socio-cultural values and leadership

self-efficacy and past leadership experience are antecedents to MTL; and, that general cognitive

ability is unrelated to MTL. Specifically, the structural model of antecedents to MTL in Figure 2

was found to be invariant across military vs. student, and Singapore vs. U.S. samples. They also

reported a 1-2 month predictive validation of the MTL measure. The data showed that affective

MTL and non-calculative MTL were predictive of assessment center and peer and superior

ratings of leadership potential over and above their own antecedent factors (e.g., personality,

values, past leadership experience, and leadership self-efficacy).

 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 7

Since Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) paper, several other researchers have also attempted to

validate the three MTL factors by examining the relationships between the MTL factors with

various individual differences antecedents and leadership criteria. Using a sample of 100 leaders

of four-person teams performing a manufacturing task in a laboratory setting, Hendricks and

Payne (2007) replicated Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) findings: “the MTL factors are significantly

related to but distinct from Leadership Self Efficacy (LSE)… (and) the relationships between the

Big Five and the three MTL factors, as well as LSE”. They remarked, “Consistent findings

suggest robust relationships and warrant further theoretical attention” (p. 338). They also

examined the predictive validity of the MTL factors for leadership effectiveness and observed

that noncalculative MTL was positively related to team ratings of leadership effectiveness after

controlling for the leader’s previous task performance and the leader and the team members’ Big

Five characteristics. They remarked: “those who are motivated to lead because they do not

calculate the costs of leading are more effective leaders in the eyes of their followers” (p. 336).

Using a sample of 402 soldiers from the Israel Defense Forces, Amit, Lisak, Popper and

Gal (2007) posited the addition of two other MTL factors which they labeled “ideological” and

“patriotic”. Their empirical results confirmed the existence of Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) three

MTL factors showed that “adding the items of the ideological and patriotic MTL scales to the

factor analysis did not raise the overall variance accounted for (approx. 40%)…” (p. 150). In

attempt to provide some criterion-related validity for the MTL factors, they also reported that out

of the entire sample of 402 soldiers, those defined by their peers and commanders as leaders

scored higher in all three MTL factors than those defined as non-leaders. In a separate study

using 215 military recruits also from the Israeli military, Luria and Berson (2012) showed that

MTL could predict formal leader emergence measured via other sources a year later.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 8

Using a sample of 231 U.S. airforce personnel, Clemmons and Fields (2011) also

validated Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) 3-factor MTL model and showed that personal values

made significant incremental contributions beyond personality and in explaining of all three

forms of MTL, with personal “self-transcendence” values (operationalized in terms of spirituality,

personal integrity, and willingness to serve) having the largest incremental effect in explaining

noncalculative MTL. In contrast, “self-enhancement” values (operationalized via through desire

for power and achievement) were reported to have a larger positive relationship with affective-

identity and social-normative MTL than did self-transcendence values.

In a different approach contributing to the nomological network for MTL, Hinrichs et al.

(2012) examined the relationship between a person’s leadership motivation and “moral

disengagement”, i.e., the propensity to justify one’s unethical behavior by shifting responsibility

to those people in leadership positions who ordered or condoned the behavior. They found that

affective MTL was related to moral disengagement through the displacement of responsibility

and argued that “people with high affective MTL would be less likely to obey a leader’s orders

without question because they are likely to see themselves as being every bit as capable of

analysis and decision making as their superiors, and are consequently less likely to justify their

obedience by claiming they were following orders”. In contrast, they found that people high non-

calculative MTL are more likely to displace responsibility for their actions onto others; which

they reasoned on basis that they “value harmony and are nonconfrontational in their relationships

with others”. In separate quasi-experimental study, Waldman, Galvin, and Walumbwa (2013)

showed that business students exposed to behavior-modeling methods emphasizing the

importance of transformational leadership increased in their social-normative MTL. All of these

studies add to the overall validation of the MTL construct, and the 3 factor model.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 9

Conceptualising and Measuring EPL Career Aspirations

In 2012, Chan et al. proposed a new framework for careers in the 21st century called

“Entrepreneurship, Leadership & Professionalism” (EPL) which they justified with reference to

earlier macro-level national and organizational career models proposed by Kanter (1989) and

Schein (1978, 1985).They argued that the rise of a new, knowledge-based globalized economy

demanded a significant change in the models of work, education and careers in many societies,

and a new mindset was needed in the work force whereby entrepreneurship, professionalism and

leadership are not seen as different career paths but rather as a lifelong developmental career

space in which individuals can and should grow and apply themselves in all three domains. Such

a mindset was also deemed necessary in an age of the “Protean or Boundaryless Career” (Arthur,

1994; Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall & Associates, 1996) where people increasingly adopting a

personal values-driven, self-directed attitude toward career management resulting in greater

mobility and a more “whole-life perspective” in their careers.

To operationalize the EPL framework, Chan et al. (2012) developed measures of EPL

career aspirations, including the motivations to pursue leadership, entrepreneurial, or

professional careers. For this purpose, they built on the Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) MTL work

by developing measures of the affective, normative and calculative dimensions of individual’s

motivation to pursue each of the three career paths. In addition, measures of EPL efficacies and

intentions, entrepreneurial activity/experience and perceived entrepreneurial climate were also

developed. Over sixty statements tapping each of these dimensions were generated and

administered together with existing measures of career anchors, personality, vocational interests,

and work and entrepreneurial values in a pilot study which was reported at by Chan et al. (2010).
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 10

Using a data from a university-wide survey of 10,326 students, Chan et al. (2012)

reported that EPL career aspirations (including motivations, efficacies, and intentions) could be

measured independently, and that these career dimensions are independent of vocational interests.

It was shown that the EPL motivation measures were best fitted to a measurement model with

three second-order factors (E, P, & L motivation), each with three first-order factors following

Chan and Drasgow's (2001) framework of affective/identity, calculative/non-calculative, and

social-normative motivations (see Figure 3). Interestingly, whereas leadership motivation had a

non-calculative component, entrepreneurial and professional motivations were calculative. Chan

et al. (2012) suggested that this reinforced Chan and Drasgow's (2001) interpretation that an

important aspect of leadership is that it involves significant costs and personal sacrifice.

Figure 3. Measurement model for EPL motivations (from Chan et al. 2012)
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 11

Aim of Present Study

Our primary purpose is to examine the generalizability of Chan and Drasgow’s (2001)

three-factor (i.e., affective/identity, calculative/non-calculative, social-normative) motivational

model to other career roles such as entrepreneurship and professional work. Are the 3 MTL

factors generalizable to entrepreneurship and professional work roles? Can entrepreneurial and

professional career motivation be conceptualized using the 3-factor model?

In this paper, we report the analysis of two sets of EPL data, first to examine relationships

between affective, social-normative and calculative/non-calculative EPL motivation factors with

their respective EPL career intentions as the outcomes; and secondly to study how each of these

factors relate to the Big Five personality factors, individualism-collectivism values and EPL

efficacies as possible antecedents.

At a broader level, we explore if different kinds of individuals (with different traits and

values) attracted to entrepreneurial, professional and/or leadership roles? We ask: Are each of

these social, work- or career-related roles rooted in different personality traits or socio-cultural

values that attract some toward one role and not the other? We see this as a follow-up to Chan et

al.’s (2012) call to researchers to use the EPL framework to “unravel” the conceptual boundaries

between entrepreneurship, professionalism, and leadership.

MFE and PCM constructs

While much is already known about the MTL construct, there is also a need to better

understand the meanings of the Motivation for Entrepreneurship (MFE) and Professional Career

Motivation (PCM) construct which were proposed by Chan et al. (2012) alongside the MTL as

part of the EPL career aspiration framework. As mentioned earlier, Chan et al. (2012) developed

their measures of MFE and PCM by adapting the idea of affective/identity, social normative and
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 12

calculative/non-calculative dimensions of an individual’s motivation to entrepreneurial and

professional career roles. Sample items for the EPL motivation scales (including the affective-

identity, calculative/non-calculative, and social-normative facets of motivation) are provided in

Table 1. In constructing the items for the MFE and PCM scales, Chan et al. (2012; see also Chan

et. Al., 2011) referred to Kanter’s (1989) framework of three principal career forms –

bureaucratic (or leader/ managerial), professional, and entrepreneurial careers – where she

argued that each of these career forms is defined by its own logic as summarized in Table 2.

“Professional” work in the PCM items were described in terms of a high level of specialized

expertise and skill, while “Entrepreneurship” in the MFE items was associated with starting,

opening or going into business.

Table 1: Sample Items of EPL Career Motivation Scales

Motivation for Entrepreneurship (MFE)

• Affective-identity: Ever since I was a kid I dreamed about opening my own business.
• Calculative: The rewards and satisfactions of starting and running a business far outweigh
the risks and sacrifices needed.
• Social-normative: This country needs more entrepreneurs and I feel obliged to ‘give it a
go’.
Professional Career Motivation (PCM)

• Affective-identity: I like to be highly specialized and experienced in a specific area of

expertise.
• Calculative: I doubt that becoming a skilled professional in my field would result in
sizable monetary or social status gains (R).
• Social-normative: The best way to increase my country’s competitiveness is for people
like me to become highly skilled professionals.
Motivation to Lead (MTL)

• Affective-identity: I am definitely more of a follower by nature, so I am happy to pass

leadership responsibilities to others. (R)
• Non-Calculative: I don’t expect to get any privileges if I agree to lead or be responsible
for a project.
• Social-normative: I feel that I have a duty to lead others if I am asked.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 13

Table 2. Three Career Forms by Kanter (1989).

Career Forms
Bureaucratic Professional Entrepreneurial
Logic defined Advancement Craft or skill & reputation Creation of new value
by…

Key resources Rank & position in Monopolization of socially Capacity to create valued
for individual organizational hierarchy valued knowledge & outputs
reputation

“Growth” “Moving up” in the Increased cross- Organizational growth

involves… hierarchy organizational mobility

Essence of Security Rarity & quality of one’s Risk

career… skill & expertise

Nature of Anonymous & Freedom, independence & Freedom, independence &

career… predictable; but can get control over one’s tasks control over one’s tasks &
stuck in hierarchy (can’t organizational context; also
more until others leave)… more uncertainty about the
future.

Thus, PCM can be described as an individual differences construct that affects a person’s

decisions to pursue work roles or jobs where one is highly specialized and experienced in a

specific area of expertise. Following Kanter’s (1989) model and Chan et al.’s (2012) EPL

framework, PCM should be contrasted with MFE, which can be described as an individual

differences construct that affects a person’s decisions to start, open or go into business so as to

create new economic value.

How do MTL, MFE, PCM relate to Career Intentions?

While other studies have validated MTL against both objective and perceptual leader

emergence criteria in experimental groups (e.g., Hendricks and Payne, 2007) and military

settings (e.g., Amit, et al., 2007; Luria and Berson, 2012), this study also aims to validate MTL

against self-reported leadership/managerial career intentions. Like MTL, both PCM and MFE

are broad, general motivational factors that are expected to affect their educational, training and
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 14

career-related choices and intentions, and their intensity of effort pursuing or excelling as

professionals or entrepreneurs respectively. We therefore expect that individuals with high PCM

to eventually pursue professional careers and to strive to attain the highest levels of

professionalism in their chosen field of specialization. Those with high MFE are expected to

strive to pursue entrepreneurial work and opportunities and to persist even in the face of

challenges or failure. Note however that following Chan et al. (2012), it is important to

recognize that MTL, PCM and MFE should be seen as independent dimensions of a

boundaryless “career space”. Individuals may be one, two or even three dimensional in their

career thinking, based on the EPL framework.

Personality, Values and Efficacy as antecedents to EPL motivations.

Unlike leadership and entrepreneurship research which have emerged separately as

social-behavioral scientific research fields despite struggling with similar trait-based

explanations in their early stages (see Cogliser and Brigham, 2004), the study of professionals

and professionalism has remained as a topic of sociological study (e.g., Hall, 1968; Sniezek,

1972) with some organizational extensions (e.g., Kerr, Von Glinow & Schriesheim, 1977).

Hardly any studies have attempted to establish any trait or personality linkages as a possible

basis for understanding the motivational antecedents for highly specialized, professional work.

Today, the Big Five personality factors (e.g., Costa & McRae, 1992; Digman, 1990;

Goldberg, 1990) are recognized as the most comprehensive, integrative framework for

personality and are therefore the most appropriate starting point for traits research on leadership

and entrepreneurship. In separate meta-analytic studies, Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt (2002)

reported a multiple correlation of .53 between the Big Five personality factors with leadership
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 15

emergence criteria while Zhao et al. (2010; see also Zhao et al., 2005) reported a multiple

correlation of .36 between the Big Five personality factors with entrepreneurial intentions.

While the corresponding correlations were consistently smaller for entrepreneurial

intentions than for leadership emergence for extraversion, openness, emotional stability and

conscientiousness, both studies concluded that agreeableness was most unrelated to leadership

emergence criteria or entrepreneurial intentions. On the other hand, we know of no research that

has examined traits in relation to professional motivations or intentions. We therefore expect the

following broad relationships between the Big Five personality factors with the EPL motivations:

The Big Five personality factors, particularly extraversion, openness, emotional stability and

conscientiousness, will account for substantial variance in entrepreneurial and leadership

motivations (i.e., MFE and MTL). On the other hand, we have no basis to assume that the Big

Five factors should necessarily relate to PCM.

At the level of the three MTL factors, Chan and Drasgow (2001) reported very different

patterns of relationships between the Big Five personality factors, social cultural values, efficacy

(as possible antecedents to these factors): individuals high in Affective/Identity MTL tended to

be high in extraversion, value competition and achievement (i.e., are vertical individualists) and

possess high leadership self-efficacy. In contrast, individuals high in noncalculative MTL tend to

be high in agreeableness and collectivist values, “irrespective of their own leadership experience

or self-efficacy”, while those high in social-normative MTL tended to have a unique profile of

sociocultural values such that they are high in vertical individualism and vertical collectivism but

low in horizontal individualism. Such a profile suggested that social-normative MTL was related

to having a sense of social duty and obligation, where one is accepting of social hierarchies but
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 16

rejecting of social equality. Social-normative MTL was also found to be related to having high

leadership self-efficacy.

Without any prior research/measures of PCM and MFE, we have no basis to assume that

the Big Five factors, socio-cultural values and efficacy should necessarily relate to PCM or MFE.

Thus, our goal is to explore and report these relationships between personality, values and

efficacy with PCM, MFE and MTL on an empirical basis.

STUDY 1: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 3-FACTORS OF E, P, L MOTIVATIONS

WITH RESPECTIVE E, P, L CAREER INTENTIONS

Chan et al.’s (2012) research aimed to show that entrepreneurial, professional, and

leadership career aspirations (including motivations, efficacies, and intentions) could be

measured independently, that these career dimensions are independent of vocational interests,

and that they are to some degree viewed as competing career alternatives. They therefore

focused their analyses on broad level EPL career motivation constructs and did not report the

specific relationships between the three (affective/identity, calculative/non-calculative, social-

normative) factors of E, P and L motivation with the respective E, P and L intention.

Table 3 below therefore presents the correlation and regression coefficients for the

10,326 Singaporean university students reported in Chan et al. (2012). Note: The average age of

the participants was 22.8 years (s.d. = 3.63 years). Among these participants, 56.3% were males,

and 68.6% were Singaporean.

Observations

We observe the following: Except for non-calculative MTL, the 3 factors of MFE, PCM

and MTL are strongly correlated (and predictive of) their respective E & P career intentions.

Interestingly, we also observe that the 3 factors of PCM are negatively correlated with
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 17

Entrepreneurial intent, suggesting (as highlighted by Chan et al., 2012) that the Singaporean

students tend to see professional and entrepreneurial work as opposing options.

Table 3. Relationships between 3-factors of EPL motivation with EPL career intentions

L intent P intent E intent

Regression Regression Regression
Correlation Correlation Correlation
coefficient coefficient coefficient
MTL_AI .258** .111** .018 .234** .046**
** ** ** ** **
MTL_NC .050 -.046 .074 .034 .045 -.021**
MTL_SN .419** .340** .101** .017* .183**
** ** ** **
PCM_AI .164 .047 .475 .345 .046**
** * ** **
PCM_C .071 -.025 .237 .059 .082**
** ** ** **
PCM_SN .154 .030 .422 .222 .049** -.033**
** ** ** ** **
MFE_AI .240 .143 -.168 -.131 .640 .401**
** ** ** ** **
MFE_C .125 -.040 -.205 -.159 .530 .179**
** ** ** **
MFE_SN .154 -.124 -.032 .559 .230**
R2 .209 .334 .488
2
Adjusted R .208 .334 .487
Note. N=10326. *p<.05. **p<.01. Regression coefficients not significant are not shown in the table.

STUDY 2: RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 3-FACTORS OF E, P, L MOTIVATIONS

WITH RESPECTIVE E, P, L CAREER INTENTIONS

Data

A total of 638 undergraduate students attending a public university in Singapore

participated in a research survey in which they were paid 10 Singapore dollars. The average age

of the students was 21.6 years (s.d. = 2.46 years). Among these students, 46.1% were males.

Measures.

EPL career aspiration survey. The EPL Career Aspiration scales comprising self-

report measures of entrepreneurial, professional, and leadership career motivations, intentions,

and efficacies used in the university-wide survey were first developed in a pilot study. The pilot

included (1) a 27-item EPL motivation measure (derived from an initial pool of 63 Likert-type
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 18

items) in which participants indicated on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree

whether they want to be an entrepreneur, a professional, or a leader for affective/identity,

calculative/non-calculative, or social-normative reasons; (2) a 9-item scale EPL intention

measure (derived from an initial pool of 21 Likert-type items) in which participants indicated on

a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree whether they endorsed statements

expressing intention to pursue an entrepreneurial, a professional, or a leadership career upon

graduation; and, (3) a 27-item self-report scale asking respondents to rate on a 7-point scale from

not at all confident, somewhat confident (mid-point), to extremely confident, their feeling about

performing items on a list of skills and actions. Sample items for the various EPL motivation

scales (including the affective-identity, calculative/non-calculative, and social-normative facets

of motivation) are provided in Table 1, while Table 4 presents samples of the EPL career

intention and efficacy scale items. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach alpha statistics for

the EPL scales and factors are presented in Table 4.

Goldberg’s (1992) bipolar measure of Big Five personality factors. The Big Five

personality factors were measured using 35 items from Goldberg’s (1992) original 50-item

adjective-anchored bipolar rating scales. The 35 items were selected from the highest loading

items per factor based on data collected in an earlier study in the same setting. Participants were

asked to indicate how inaccurately or accurately each bipolar item described them on a 1-5 rating

scale. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach alpha statistics for the Big Five factors are

presented in Table 5.

Individualism-Collectivism (INDCOL) measure. The INDCOL measure, designed by

Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995), was used as a measure of socio-cultural values.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 19

The scale measures four dimensions: horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal

collectivism, and vertical collectivism. Those high in horizontal individualism tend to value

their individuality and uniqueness, while those high in vertical individualism tend to value

achievement and competition. In contrast, vertical collectivists tend to accept social hierarchies

and would subordinate their goals to the majority or to authorities, while horizontal

collectivists tend to value collective harmony and equality (cf. Triandis, 1998). For vertical

individualism, an example of the items includes “It annoys me when other people perform better

than I do”. For horizontal collectivism, an example of the items includes “It is important to me to

Table 4. Sample items for EPL Career Efficacy and Intention Scales

Entrepreneurial Career
Entrepreneurial Efficacy
• I am confident to… Plan a business (incl market analysis, pricing, finance/costs, marketing &
sales, etc)…
•
Entrepreneurial Intent
• I am definitely going to be an entrepreneur after my studies and am prepared to do anything to
achieve that goal

Professional Career
Professional Efficacy
• I am confident to… Constantly keep up with the advancing knowledge and skills in my area of
expertise, specialization or profession.

Professional Intent
• My main career goal is to be a technical expert, specialist or professional in my field of study.

Leadership Career
Leadership Efficacy
• I am confident to… Plan a business (incl market analysis, pricing, finance/costs, marketing &
sales, etc)…

Leadership Intent
• I am definitely going to be an entrepreneur after my studies and am prepared to do anything to
achieve that goal.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 20

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities and correlations across various measures.

Scale or measure Mean SD No. of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

items
1 MTL_AI 3.15 .85 3 .730
2 MTL_NC 3.18 .77 3 .090* .624
3 MTL_SN 3.71 .63 3 .466** .126** .595
4 PCM_AI 3.76 .75 3 .161** -.002 .213** .726
5 PCM_C 3.51 .67 3 -.006 -.040 .070 .383** .504
6 PCM_SN 3.69 .70 3 .065 .011 .183** .553** .438** .538
7 MFE_AI 3.02 .92 3 .348** -.047 .137** .038 -.102* -.049 .758
8 MFE_C 3.19 .77 3 .153** -.036 .132** -.003 -.148** -.027 .425** .534
9 MFE_SN 2.64 .75 3 .156** -.079* .136** .007 -.088* .098* .423** .432** .554
10 L intent 3.54 .83 3 .597** -.005 .428** .189** .076 .123** .257** .115** .124** .773
11 P intent 3.80 .81 3 .002 .002 .086* .617** .356** .535** -.129** -.143** -.043 .071 .770
12 E intent 2.65 .83 3 .322** -.003 .161** -.105** -.192** -.106** .578** .443** .507** .275** -.224** .751
15 L efficacy 3.95 1.15 7 .378** -.034 .254** .097* -.021 .002 .314** .147** .167** .281** -.079* .200** .917
14 P efficacy 4.14 1.24 5 .054 -.029 .034 .393** .233** .259** .072 .003 .003 .004 .356** -.070 .545** .916
13 E efficacy 3.55 1.16 7 .299** -.068 .148** .006 -.070 -.091* .495** .259** .301** .264** -.130** .376** .751** .460** .907
16 Extraversion 5.90 1.33 7 .455** .092* .306** .036 .016 -.036 .239** .106** .110** .329** -.063 .229** .344** .122** .345** .871
17 Agreeableness 6.88 1.13 7 .186** .101* .186** .047 .049 .067 .172** .056 .145** .135** -.043 .141** .164** .065 .145** .499** .871
18 Conscientious 6.74 1.20 7 .226** .029 .163** .173** .097* .128** .142** -.002 .141** .234** .066 .114** .222** .190** .178** .342** .529** .856
19 Emotional Stability 5.96 1.22 7 .160** .156** .182** .033 .056 .026 .154** .087* .082* .151** -.011 .189** .120** .127** .185** .329** .392** .372** .838
20 Openness 6.76 1.04 7 .358** .007 .246** .236** .075 .117** .307** .117** .150** .282** .126** .194** .320** .298** .315** .421** .421** .472** .400** .831
21 Horizontal individualism 6.45 1.19 7 .220** .021 .202** .188** -.011 .139** .094* .129** .042 .160** .077 .104** .114** .099* .081* .179** .009 .088* .047 .292** .759
22 Vertical individualism 5.59 1.08 7 .158** -.216** .178** .254** .182** .277** .084* .077 .123** .183** .156** .049 .058 .098* .074 .097* -.035 .074 -.124** .155** .303** .623
23 Collectivism 6.66 .75 14 .145** .217** .228** .066 .003 .130** .135** .154** .217** .130** .083* .114** .085* -.002 .074 .218** .313** .228** .216** .163** .155** -.014 .699
Note. N=638. *p<.05. ** p <.01. The bold numbers on the diagonal indicate the Cronbach's alpha.
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 21

maintain harmony within my group”. For vertical collectivism, an example of the items includes

“I usually sacrifice my self interest for the benefit of my group”. Following Chan and Drasgow’s

(2001) exploratory factor analysis, we used 28 items (i.e., 7 of the original 8 items per factor) for

measuring each factor. Following Chan and Drasgow (2001), we also collapsed vertical and

horizontal collectivism into a single, latent collectivism construct because the two factors were

highly correlated. Means, standard deviations and Cronbach alpha statistics for the Big Five

factors are presented in Table 5.

FINDINGS

Correlations

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities and correlations across the

various measures. While the reliabilities for the EPL efficacy, intent, Big Five and INDCOL

scales were acceptable (above.7), the reliabilities for the 3-factors of E, P and L motivation

scales were somewhat weak (between .504 to .73) mainly because each scale only comprised 3

items. We therefore decided to use latent variable modeling to study the relationships between

the various antecedents and the 3-factor EPL measures so as to minimize the effects on

measurement error on the statistics. Table 5 summarizes the models of antecedents to the 3-

factors of MTL, PCM and MFE. The indicators suggest reasonably good fit give us some

confidence in interpreting the parameter estimates for the 3 models.

Table 6. Goodness of Fit of Models of Antecedents to E, P & L motivations

Model Chi-sqr df GFI SRMR RMSEA NNFI CFI

MTL 2391.99 819 .85 .057 .056 .94 .94
PCM 1998.01 739 .86 .058 .052 .94 .94
MFE 2302.4 782 .85 .057 .056 .94 .94
Note. Valid N=620. GFI=goodness-of-fit index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual;
RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation; NNFI=nonnormed fit index;
CFI=comparative fit index.

21
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 22

Modeling Antecedents and Outcomes of MTL

Figure 4 presents the significant paths observed between the Big Five personality factors,

INDCOL factors and leadership efficacy with Affective-identity MTL, noncalculative MTL and

Social-normative MTL. We observe that extraversion, leadership self-efficacy and individualism

predict Affective/Identity MTL, collectivism best predicted noncalculative MTL, while social-

normative MTL was predicted by leadership efficacy and both collectivism and vertical

individualism. On the whole, these paths seem to replicate Chan and Drasgow’s (2001)

observations. While Affective-identity and Social-normative MTL appear quite strongly related

to leadership/managerial career intentions, non-calculative MTL seems very weakly negatively

related to the intention to assume leadership or managerial careers upon graduation. Note that

this is independent of the fact that non-calculative MTL is weakly positively correlated with the

other two MTL factors (see Table 5).

Figure 4. Modeling personality, values and efficacy as antecedents to MTL factors.

22
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 23

Modeling Antecedents and Outcomes of PCM

Figure 5 presents the significant paths observed between the Big Five personality factors,

INDCOL factors and leadership efficacy with Affective-identity PCM, calculative PCM and

Social-normative PCM. Interestingly, compared to the model for MTL, we observe that

Introversion seems to predict both Affective-identity PCM, and Social-normative PCM. We also

observe a path from openness to professional efficacy (as seen with the MTL model) and to

calculative PCM, and paths (which are much stronger than those in the MTL model) from

professional efficacy to all three PCM factors. All three PCM factors are also predicted (strongly)

by vertical individualism, with affective and social-normative PCM related to collectivism.

These observations seem to suggest that those motivated toward professional careers in this

sample tend to be introverts, value achievement & competitiveness, and have very strong sense

of professional efficacy. Similar to the MTL model, Affective-identity and Social-normative

PCM appear are related to professional career intentions but calculative PCM is not.

Figure 5. Modeling personality, values and efficacy as antecedents to PCM.

23
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 24

Modeling Antecedents and Outcomes of MFE

Figure 6 presents the significant paths observed between the Big Five personality factors,

INDCOL factors and leadership efficacy with Affective-identity MFE, calculative MFE and

Social-normative MFE. Interestingly, we do not observe any significant direct path from

extraversion to the three MFE factors; instead, extraversion and openness both relate to

entrepreneurial efficacy which seems strongly related to all three MFE factors. Calculative MFE

seems directly related to low conscientiousness. Of all the INDCOL values, all three MFE

factors seem to be predicted by collectivism. These observations seem to suggest that those

motivated for entrepreneurial careers in this sample tend to have very strong sense of

entrepreneurial efficacy and to value social harmony. All three MFE factors appear are related to

the intention to pursue entrepreneurship in the future.

Figure 6. Modeling personality, values and efficacy as antecedents to MFE.

24
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 25

DISCUSSION

This paper aimed to examine the generalizability of Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) three-

factor (i.e., affective/identity, calculative/non-calculative, social-normative) motivational model

to other career roles such as entrepreneurship and professional work. Specifically, we examined

the empirical relationships between each of the three factors for E, P and L motivations (as

measured by Chan et al., 2012) with respective E, P and L career intentions. Next, we explored

our EPL data to see if different individuals (with different traits, values and efficacies) are

attracted to entrepreneurial, professional and/or leadership careers for different (affective/identity,

calculative/non-calculative or social-normative) reasons.

In our first study, we examine the correlation and regression coefficients (with the 3-

factors of EPL motivations as predictors of EPL career intentions) using the data from 10,326

Singaporean university students reported in Chan et al. (2012). We observed that except for non-

calculative MTL, the 3 factors of MFE, PCM and MTL are strongly correlated (and predictive of)

their respective E & P career intentions. Interestingly, we also observed that the 3 factors of

PCM are negatively correlated with Entrepreneurial intent. This suggested (as highlighted by

Chan et al., 2012) that the Singaporean university students tend to see professional and

entrepreneurial work as opposing options.

Next, using a different sample of 638 Singaporean university students, we modeled the

relationship between the 3-factors of EPL motivations with their respective EPL career intentions.

We observed that while both Affective-identity and Social-normative MTL were quite strongly

related to leadership/managerial career intentions, non-calculative MTL seemed only very

weakly, negatively related to the intention to assume leadership or managerial careers upon

graduation. In contrast, all three MFE factors contributed to the intention to pursue

25
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 26

entrepreneurship in the future, while Affective-identity and Social-normative PCM appear are

related to professional career intentions but calculative PCM isn’t. Clearly, Affective/ Identity

motivation consistently plays a strong role in predicting E, P and L career intentions in our

sample. The finding that all three MFE factors contribute to the prediction of entrepreneurial

intentions suggests that the motivations underlying the intention to start a business are very

varied -- at least in our sample of Singaporean university students. This reinforces the value of

having the multidimensional (at least 3-factor) model of entrepreneurial motivation. Our research

also helps to address the call by Shane, Locke and Collins (2003) for more within-person

understanding of the factors affecting entrepreneurial motivation.

To the extent that highly professional work has elements of public service or service to

society (e.g., Hall, 1968) and/or is usually associated with having a “calling” (e.g., Dobrow,

2011), we can expect that the intention to pursue professional work has an Affective or Social

normative basis. This also strengthens the value of having a multidimensional (at least 3 factor)

model of PCM rather than only affective ones (e.g., “Calling”).

We also used latent variable modeling to explore the relationships between personality,

values and efficacy with the three factors of PCM, MFE and MTL on an empirical basis. These

analyses showed different antecedents for each of the three factors. Of the Big Five personality

factors, extraversion consistently predicted the affective/identity factors for MTL, MFE and

PCM (negatively) directly; while openness to experience directly affected efficacy, which in turn

predicted the various factors of MTL, MFE and PCM.

In terms of social-values, those who intended to pursue professional careers our sample

tended to value achievement & competitiveness (vertical individualists), while those who

intended to start business were very strong in collectivist values. We also observed different

26
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 27

patterns of relationships between the INDCOL factors with each of the three factors of MTL,

MFE and PCM.

Conclusions

Our EPL data supports the value of having multidimensional models of Professional and

Entrepreneurial Career motivations with at least 3 factors, which in turn reinforces the value of

Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) multidimensional model of MTL.

Besides demonstrating the value of the 3-factor model of motivation, our research also

takes a first “deep” look at the PCM and MFE constructs which are proposed alongside MTL in

Chan et al.’s (2012) EPL Framework for Careers. To the extent that Chan and Drasgow (2001)

showed how their MTL construct could provide a theoretical explanation for the relationship

between traits and leadership outcomes, we also call for more research (like the present one) that

span the conceptual boundaries of entrepreneurship, leadership and professionalism that may

lead to better theorizing about the common or different mechanisms through which traits

influence leadership, entrepreneurship and/or professional aspirations, motivation and emergence.

Compared to leadership and entrepreneurship, professionalism is much less studied in

psychology. The present research provides an initial exploration of the PCM construct in terms

of its components and antecedents. PCM, as a construct, is independent of entrepreneurial career

motivation and leadership career motivation; it may cut across various occupation choices and be

a general construct that can be measured before one really becomes a professional. Although

having a high level of PCM does not necessarily mean that one can become a good professional,

but PCM, at the very least, separates those who want to pursue professional careers and those

who do not, which offers a start to study who want to become professionals, who have the

potential to develop the right professional attitudes, and who are likely to take part in

27
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 28

professional development; and these could serve as a basis for researchers to study and develop

theories on the psychology of professionals and professionalism.

One major limitation of the present studies is that it only relies on data from Singaporean

students and may be over-descriptive of the relationships between personality, socio-cultural

values and efficacies with the 3 factors of MTL, MFE and PCM. On the other hand, it is

important to remember that one of Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) motivation to develop the 3-

factor model of MTL was because they recognized that “leadership is learned and takes on

different meanings in different societies and cultures (e.g., Gerstner & Day, 1994)”, which was

why they hypothesized sociocultural values as distal antecedents to MTL. There is therefore a

need for data from other socio-cultural settings and career/developmental maturity levels to

further test and validate Chan and Drasgow’s (2001) 3-factor model of MTL.

REFERENCES

Amit, K., Lisak, A., Popper, M., & Gal, R. (2007). Motivation to lead: Research on the motives

for undertaking leadership roles in the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Military Psychology,

19(3), 137-160.

Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership:

understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481.

Chan, K. Y., Chernyshenko, O., Ho, M. H. R., & Chew, P. Y. G. (2011). Measuring

Entrepreneurial, Professional, and Leadership (EPL) Career Aspirations. Paper

presented at the 15th European Association of Work & Organizational Psychology

(EAWOP) at Maastricht, The Netherlands, 25-28 May 2011.

28
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 29

Chan, K. Y., Ho, M. H. R., Chernyshenko, O., Bedford, O. A., Uy, M. A., Gomulya, D. M., &

Phan, W. M. J. (2012). Entrepreneurship, professionalism, leadership: A framework and

measure for understanding boundaryless careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 73-

88.

Clemmons, A., & Fields, D. (2011). Values as determinants of motivation to lead. Military

Psychology, 23(6), 587-600.

Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2004). The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship:

Mutual lessons to be learned. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 771–799.

Dobrow, S. R. & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure.

Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 1001-1049.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Don Mills, Ontario,

Canada: Addison-Wesley.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality”: The Big-Five factor

structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and Bureaucratization. American Sociological Review, 33

(1), 92-104.

Hendricks, J.W., & Payne, S.C. (2007). Beyond the Big Five: Leader goal orientation as a

predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance, 20, 317-343.

Hinrichs, K. T., Wang, L., Hinrichs, A. T., & Romero, E. J. (2012). Moral disengagement

through displacement of responsibility: The role of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 42, 62-80.

29
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 30

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A

qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.

Kanter, R.M. (1989). Careers and the wealth of nations: A macro-perspective on the structure

and implications of career forms. In M. Arthur, D. Hall, & B. Lawrence (Eds.),

Handbook of career theory (p. 506-522). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kerr, S., Von Glinow, M. A., & Schriesheim, J. (1977). Issues in the study of "professionals" in

organizations: The case of scientists and engineers. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 18, 329-345.

Luria, G., & Berson, Y. (2012). How do leadership motives affect informal and formal

leadership emergence? Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi: 10.1002/job.1836

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2012). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource

Management Review, 13(2), 257- 279.

Snizek, W. E. (1972). Hall's Professionalism Scale: An Empirical Reassessment. American

Sociological Review, 37(1), 109-114.

Triandis, H. C. (1980). Value, attitudes and interpersonal behavior. In M. M. Page (Ed.),

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values (Vol. I, pp. 195-259).

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.

Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2013). The Development of Motivation to

Lead and Leader Role Identity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 156-

168.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial

status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 259–271.

30
 Three Factors of the Motivation to Lead 31

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to

entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of

Management, 36, 381–404.

31

View publication stats