Individual Entrepreneurial Proactiveness: A Dispositional Basis for Entrepreneurial Momentum

Abstract

Individuals experience uncertainty daily as a result of the unemployment rate. Studies have acknowledged proactiveness as one of the crucial dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) to determine entrepreneurial action. Yet, literature rarely addresses its application toward entrepreneurial momentum (EM). Thus, this study aims to investigate the extent to which EO propensity of proactiveness as an individual initiative, affects EM of business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth. The study adopts a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) approach, using probability and non-probability sampling. The participants include 492 final-year entrepreneurship students in Lagos, Nigeria. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 and NVivo 12 (qualitative data) were used to analyse the data. Results indicate strong, significant relationships between individual EO propensity of proactiveness and EM. Multicollinearity tests using VIF and Tolerance values confirm that the model is statistically robust. The study contributes to entrepreneurship literature by indicating the centrality of proactiveness in fostering EM and offers practical implications for entrepreneurship training and policy development.

Keywords

Sustainable business management entrepreneurial orientation entrepreneurial momentum individual entrepreneurial orientation propensity of proactiveness

Introduction

In the modern global economy, entrepreneurship has been viewed as a transformative force, as uncertainty is a way of life for millions of individuals (Kabbara, 2025; Yeung & Yang, 2020). Supporting entrepreneurship has become imperative to economic growth, considering the unemployment rate in developing countries such as Nigeria, as job prospects are a major issue for graduates (Afolabi, 2015; Ajide & Dada, 2023). Nigerian institutions produce more graduates annually than there are jobs (Ofor-Douglas, 2024). Statista (2024) shows that among recent graduates, 38% (BSc holders), 47% (OND holders) and 59% (HND holders) are unemployed. This is alarming as the unemployment rate for Nigerian graduates rises significantly yearly (Babalola, 2024). Studies show entrepreneurship has contributed to economic growth in Nigeria through business opportunities, reducing graduate employment dependency (Adeosun & Shittu, 2022; Ahn & Winters, 2023). As such, institutions encourage students to engage in entrepreneurial activities to alleviate job pressures.

Studies examine the impact of students’ self-efficacy, attitude, education and intention on entrepreneurship, without considering the propensity that drives entrepreneurial activity (Duong, 2023; Taneja et al., 2024). However, it is necessary to measure the perceived propensity and its effect on entrepreneurial momentum (EM). Evidence reveals that being entrepreneurially proactive provides business advantages, a pull factor when engaging in entrepreneurship and managing challenges (Kapur & Tyagi, 2025). Moustaghfir et al. (2020) argue that turning opportunities into actions requires proactiveness, entrepreneurial orientation (EO) construct. A proactive trait is an individual’s constant psychological ability to bring about change in the environment (Wahab & Blackman, 2023). Ibrahim and Martins (2020) opine that several entrepreneurial activities fail in Africa due to a lack of proactiveness. Understanding proactiveness is indispensable to comprehend why an individual chooses to be an entrepreneur (Bolton & Lane, 2012).

According to Ibrahim and Martins (2020), proactiveness is the best predictor of entrepreneurial action; thus, the higher the proactive tendency to perform entrepreneurial action, the greater the likelihood of business survival and sustainability. Researches on proactiveness concentrate on predicting and explaining what distinguishes individuals intending to engage in entrepreneurship from those without such ambitions but fail to link proactiveness with EM (Chadwick & Raver, 2020; Lumpkin & Pidduck, 2021; Singh & Mehdi, 2022). Such studies limit the current understanding of EM as growing evidence suggests that not all intentions are converted into business action without EO dimension of individual EO propensity (IEOP) of proactiveness (Bolton & Lane, 2012; Neneh, 2022). Additionally, research on proactiveness as an EO construct is situated in developed economies. There is a lack of empirical work within developing countries, particularly Nigeria, where high unemployment and institutional voids make entrepreneurship a critical livelihood strategy (Adeosun & Shittu, 2022; Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017). Moreover, there are insufficient models that examine the entire EM process (from discovery to growth) in relation to individual proactiveness. Most studies address isolated phases (e.g., intention or start-up) rather than providing an integrated framework.

Against this backdrop, this current study aims to examine the intention-related attributes by correlating proactiveness as an EO construct that drives EM of business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth. Thus, the study attempts to explain EM stages through EO construct of proactiveness at individual level. In this study, EM is not merely conceptualized as intent or aspiration but as a measurable process of sustained entrepreneurial progress driven by individual proactiveness. These theoretical constructs have received relatively little attention in entrepreneurship research. The study is relevant to the current situation in Nigeria (one of the most populous nations in Africa, having over 200 million people and a youth population that exceeds 60%) where employment has become relatively challenging (Olowe, 2021). The outcomes of this study advance the theoretical understanding of IEOP of proactiveness by framing it as a dispositional antecedent to EM. It provides context-specific empirical evidence that enhances the cross-cultural generalizability of EO theory by situating the research within a developing economy context (Nigeria). It also highlights the practical significance of developing individual proactiveness in settings marked by youth unemployment and limited institutional support for entrepreneurship.

The research objectives are:

To examine the relationship between IEOP of proactiveness and EM of business discovery.

To investigate the role of IEOP of proactiveness in EM of business idea(s).

To analyse the impact of IEOP of proactiveness on EM of business start-up.

To assess the link between IEOP of proactiveness and EM of business growth.

Research Questions

Does any relationship exist between IEOP of proactiveness and EM of business discovery?

What are the roles of IEOP of proactiveness in EM of business idea(s)?

Do IEOP of proactiveness impact EM of business start-up?

Is there any link between IEOP of proactiveness and EM of business growth?

The study is organized into the following sections. The first section presents the background and purpose of the study. The second section examines the extant literature. The third section outlines the methodology used to achieve the study objectives. The fourth section focuses on analysis and findings, which present the data statistical analysis and techniques applied to analyse the data. The fifth section discusses the findings, while the sixth section provides insights into the implications, limitations and direction for future study.

Literature Review

Theoretical Framework

EO theory posits that entrepreneurial behaviour comprises five dimensions: risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Lumpkin & Pidduck, 2021). Proactiveness, a key dimension of EO, focuses on opportunity-seeking, forward-looking behaviour and the willingness to act ahead of competitors (Bedi et al., 2025). It assumes that individuals with proactive tendencies anticipate opportunities and challenges and initiate actions to influence the environment rather than passively react to circumstances (Bolton & Lane, 2012). EO framework’s generalization across cultural and economic contexts might dilute specific insights into unique entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) such as Nigeria’s (Amoncar et al., 2023; Pidduck et al., 2024).

Opportunity Recognition theory highlights the cognitive and perceptual processes through which individuals identify business opportunities (Baron, 2006; Baron, 2010). This theory assumes that proactive individuals, equipped with foresight and initiative, are better positioned to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. The study implicitly integrates this theory by claiming that proactiveness enhances business discovery and sustainability. Proactive individuals anticipate future needs and changes, identifying innovative opportunities (Kumar & Shukla, 2022; Zhao & Smallbone, 2019). Also, it explains the cognitive processes underlying entrepreneurial action, making it a valuable addition to studies on entrepreneurial behaviour.

In the study, the EO dimension of proactiveness is extended by focusing specifically on the individual level. This approach bridges a gap in the literature, as previous research largely emphasized EO at the organizational level. IEOP of proactiveness is hypothesized to influence EM (business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth). Its focus on individual traits provides insights into personal factors that drive entrepreneurship, which aligns with the study’s emphasis on addressing unemployment challenges in Nigeria.

Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation Propensity of Proactiveness

Proactiveness, an EO construct, reflects humans’ propensity to act on entrepreneurial activities in this study. Individual entrepreneurial capability to enact change for environmental development rather than passively reacting to environmental constraints (Blanka, 2019; He & Kim, 2021); unlike passive individuals who tend to simply adapt to environmental circumstances instead of showing initiative, proactive individuals display the ability to recognize opportunities and persist until bringing relevant changes to influence the environment (Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022). Individuals with a proactive tendency tend to lead rather than follow, especially in creating novel strategies, technologies and/or goods (Saleem et al., 2023; Ratten, 2020). Yet, the application of proactiveness as a driver of EM at the individual level was rarely addressed.

A study by Al-Mamary and Alshallaqi (2022) asserts that proactiveness is linked to initiative and first-mover advantages, which are earned by seeking out new opportunities and acting in anticipation of future challenges. Wahab and Blackman (2023) also assume proactiveness to be a significant component of EO within individuals, as this propensity suggests a forward-seeking perspective that is required for any new venture accomplishment. Conversely, Alikaj et al. (2021) define a proactive person as someone who gets things done, free of situational forces, capable of problem-solving and able to impact environmental change. Parker et al. (2019) opine that situational circumstances bind a reactive individual, who is not a self-starter and takes little to no initiative to modify surroundings to achieve a desired end, rather than waiting for things to unfold before responding.

Proactiveness, according to Iddris (2025) and Neumann (2021), is pre-emptive and self-initiated behaviour that occurs in various situations particularly when acting in advance of a future scenario instead of responding to a situation or waiting for something to happen (i.e., proactiveness involves taking charge and making things happen). Potgieter (2014) states that proactiveness propensity includes: (a) accepting responsibility for decisions and actions, (b) setting a well-defined goal to clarify ideas, (c) effort and time, (d) identifying opportunities that others may have missed, (e) the ability to constantly develop one’s skills and knowledge and (f) the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. However, there is an inadequate link between self-proactiveness and EM in the literature. Thus, this study provides empirical evidence for such a mediation effect, addressing this theoretical void by focusing on the Nigerian context, where 235 million population, high rate of unemployment and resource constraints make entrepreneurship a critical factor for economic growth (Worldometer, 2024).

Entrepreneurial Momentum

Momentum is generally used to describe any increasing forward motion, relating to a driving force to promote change, a propensity to increase or maintain the emphasis and direction of prior actions in current behaviour (Friedrich et al., 2025). Momentum is both important and popular; however, it is often taken for granted, despite its absence or presence proving the ultimate determinant of the failure or success of a transformational effort for change (Harrington, 2017; Leong, 2024). Fisher (2024) describes momentum as an intersection of illusion and reality that deals with cognitive processes.

According to Vlados and Chatzinikolaou (2020), EM can be developed and sustained when individual are continuously inspired through each systemic level of the mundo- (i.e., global governance), macro- (i.e., national governance), meso- (i.e., organization and culture) and micro-systems (i.e., individual thinking). This suggests that the ability to motivate individuals before attempting to teach entrepreneurial skills is essential in developing EM, as motivation drives momentum for thinking creatively instead of reacting to environments (Adelakun & Van der Westhuizen, 2021; Chatzinikolaou & Vlados, 2024). Studies refer to EM as an EE that stimulates social change, innovation and economic growth (Alvedalen & Boschma, 2017; Harrington, 2017). EM benefits are increasingly acknowledged globally through human interaction with the physical environment (Harrington, 2016). Additionally, Harrington (2017) identifies individual entrepreneurial attributes as solely dependent on an EE framework. Harrington’s (2017) framework depicts entrepreneurial activity as the product of a system and prospective entrepreneurs as the key players (leaders) in the system creation and maintenance. Thus, entrepreneurial traits can be considered as EE elements existing through momentum output (Katernyak & Loboda, 2020).

Harrington (2016) further establishes that an EE framework includes four phases of EM activities, namely (a) discovery, (b) ideas, (c) start-up and (d) growth. He further emphasis on the kinds of development that may be involved in EM, such as entrepreneur, venture and economic development. Drawing from the approach, this current study adopted the same four stages of EM activity (i.e., discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth) to examine the impact of IEOP of proactiveness on EM. The shortcoming of Harrington’s (2016) study is that it only focused on the EE inventory and various developments within the EM ecosystem without offering how IEOP of proactiveness embraces the different stages of EM. As a means of addressing this omission, this current study argues that EM can be fully understood if and when the interplay between IEOP propensity and EM is examined. Thus, for this study, discovery is defined as business environmental scanning, opportunity recognition and foresight driven by IEOP of proactiveness. It involves perceiving unmet market needs, anticipating future demands and generating potential entrepreneurial ventures that can be developed into actionable business ideas.

Relationship Between IEOP of Proactiveness and EM Constructs

IEOP of Proactiveness and EM of Business Discovery

IEOP of proactiveness is related to opportunity identification and exploitation (Anwar et al., 2022). Kusa et al. (2021) define proactiveness as the mental capacities and skills of entrepreneurs that guide the process of identifying market opportunities. Lumpkin and Pidduck (2021) view it as a mindset open to new opportunities, especially in unpredictable circumstances with limited resources. In other words, IEOP of proactiveness easily helps to alleviate situational tensions, discover opportunities, imagine optimistic future events, take initiative and influence the environment by impacting significant changes (Fay et al., 2023; Reinkemeyer, 2022).

Zhao and Smallbone (2019) suggest that proactive individuals are more likely to identify innovative opportunities and establish a new business orientation. Similarly, Veleva (2021) further illustrates that individuals who are proactive discover opportunities, take initiative, initiate changes, act and continue until they achieve reasonable change in their surroundings. Passionate entrepreneurs are motivated to actively seek out novel opportunities, which is indispensable for proactiveness (Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022). The link between proactiveness and business discovery has been empirically established by Park (2021) and Reinkemeyer (2022), who argue that proactiveness increases the individual’s opportunity for business recognition, assisting in the formation of EO and future business behaviour. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

H₁: IEOP of proactiveness positively influences EM of business discovery.

IEOP of Proactiveness and EM of Business Idea(s)

A study by Watson et al. (2020) confirms that proactiveness is associated with business idea(s) as the disposition of an individual to create a positive image of entrepreneurial future outcomes. Likewise, Pidduck et al. (2023) assume that entrepreneurial proactiveness refers to the entrepreneurs’ cognitive propensity that directs the process of original business idea(s) into reality. According to Lumpkin and Pidduck (2021), proactiveness is a state of mind that is open to the business world of ideas, even in uncertainty with limited resources (Zighan & Ruel, 2023). Chowdhury and Audretsch (2021) disclose that IEOP of proactiveness initiates and proposes new ideas to source and utilize available resources for entrepreneurial action. Studies reveal that proactiveness emerges as a wider and a significant factor in shaping individuals’ perceptions that influence entrepreneurial action (Ahmad et al., 2023; Bourmistrov & Åmo, 2022).

Another study by Ratten and Rashid (2020) argues that proactiveness causes individuals to reconsider their tendency to engage in entrepreneurial activity in the context of a new idea(s). It motivates processes involved in business opportunities identified to make effective and efficient decisions on business ideas (Kandemir & Acur, 2022; Ullah et al., 2023). This is consistent with Neneh (2022), who states that proactiveness facilitates the generation of business opportunities and motivates entrepreneurs to engage in novel business idea(s) to express creative pathways of entrepreneurial action. The outcome of Alikaj et al. (2021) study reveals that proactive individuals are more likely to search for ways to construct a social environment conducive to business success. Thus, for this study, business idea(s) represent structured entrepreneurial concepts formulated to address identified opportunities, involving creativity, resource assessment and feasibility consideration prior to business start-up. Therefore, the study assumes the following hypothesis:

H₂: IEOP of proactiveness has a positive impact on the EM of business idea(s).

IEOP of Proactiveness and EM of Business Start-up

Zhao and Smallbone (2019) link IEOP of proactiveness with starting a business, the number of businesses established rather than buying or inheriting one. According to Ahmad et al. (2023), proactiveness is the ability to establish a new business based on an individual’s talent and competence. Zighan and Ruel (2023) assume that an individual’s propensity to achieve entrepreneurial obligations and meet expectations is stimulated by proactive behaviour. Proactiveness is the foundation of having a higher level of entrepreneurial passion and the ability to start innovative businesses (Bourmistrov & Åmo, 2022; Park, 2021). Thus, potential entrepreneurs need to depend on the assumption that they can start businesses, and achieve a focused task through proactiveness (Ma et al., 2020; Zighan & Ruel, 2023).

Proactiveness is significant to business start-ups as it generates an intricate network of mutually reinforcing expectations of an individual’s tendency to accomplish entrepreneurial tasks (Al-Mamary & Alshallaqi, 2022; Nair & Blomquist, 2021). Corvello et al. (2023) believe that proactiveness alters the start-up process, and perception depends on various ways of thinking, outlined the probabilistic patterns that influence individuals’ decisions to embark on an entrepreneurial career. This result corroborates with Klein et al. (2021) and Pidduck et al.’s (2023) outcomes that proactiveness is a mediating factor in engaging in business. Thus, for this study, business start-up is defined as transforming validated business idea(s) into an operational venture by formal establishment, resource mobilization and execution of business activities driven by IEOP of proactiveness. Therefore,

H₃: IEOP of proactiveness positively influences EM of business start-ups.

IEOP of Proactiveness and EM of Business Growth

Kafetzopoulos (2021) reveals that proactiveness is a way of improving and refining measures of business success and achievement. Adelakun and Van der Westhuizen (2021) assert that business growth is a process of development and adaptability that depends on IEOP of proactiveness. According to Neneh (2022), proactiveness promotes business growth, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses, where the smaller the business, the easier it is to launch novel activities to boost its growth. Anwar et al. (2022) support this assertion that proactiveness improves entrepreneurs’ personal ability to uncover new opportunities that lead to growth in a business environment. Elshaer and Saad (2022) suggest that proactive entrepreneurs are capable of growing businesses by predicting opportunities, anticipating challenges and taking action. Likewise, Neneh (2022) contends that entrepreneurs with a proactive propensity operate businesses for profit and advance corporate objectives. Thus, for this study, business growth, driven by IEOP of proactiveness, involves increasing operational capacity, introducing new products/services, improving processes and adapting to market changes to ensure long-term viability and competitive advantage. Thus;

H₄: IEOP of proactiveness has a significant positive effect on EM of business growth.

The current study expands existing knowledge and develops a model to examine the four hypotheses in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Proposed Research Model.

Figure 1 is the proposed research model illustrating the relationship between IEOP of proactiveness and EM of business (discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth).

Methodology

The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, using probability to select respondents for quantitative data, and non-probability sampling to select participants for interview, due to the nature of research objectives involving testing hypotheses, measuring constructs, and analyzing the strength and relationships among variables across a large population. This approach enables systematic data collection and statistical analysis, reduces bias and improves data accuracy, blending depth and generalizability findings from a broad sample of participants. The participants include entrepreneurship students in Lagos, Nigeria. Nigeria was selected as the study context due to its unique socio-economic conditions, characterized by high unemployment, especially among youth and graduates, with over 200 million people and more than 60% under the age of 30). This study focuses on Lagos as commercial capital and most populous city, widely recognized as the country’s entrepreneurial hub, making it a representative microcosm of the country’s entrepreneurial landscape. This geographical distribution ensures the inclusion of a broad spectrum of entrepreneurial university environments, due to the integration of entrepreneurship education into all academic programmes. Additionally, students are required to acquire at least one skill from the university’s ‘Skills Acquisition Centre’, studied as the fundamentals to stand independently after graduation. The chosen institution indicated an interest in the study participation, and access was granted.

A total population of 492 students was selected from a sample frame of 2,044 graduating students using Taro’s equation model. Purposive sampling was adopted to select 6 participants for interview. The participants were final-year students who had completed four years of entrepreneurship courses and possessed the necessary entrepreneurial skills to start a business. The respondents were informed that participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and that responses would be kept strictly confidential and used only for academic purposes. 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree) developed in prior studies (Bolton & Lane, 2012; Koe, 2016) was adapted. Issues with missing data, data distribution, outliers and suspicious response patterns, such as straight-lining and inconsistent answers, was resolved before proceeding to the PLS-SEM evaluation (Hair Jr et al., 2016).

Following the guiding principles for sampling size in quantitative research, 620 structured questionnaires were distributed directly amongst the research participants and 498 completed questionnaires were returned, 6 were not properly completed and were subsequently discarded. Thus, a total of 492 questionnaires (i.e., 79%) were used for analysis after addressing issues regarding incomplete responses. A purposive sampling was adopted to select 20 participants for the interview, which was analyzed through Nvivo 12. A pilot study was also conducted to improve the study design. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4.0. SEM assesses the reliability and validity of measurement instruments (through factor loadings, average variance extracted [AVE], composite reliability [CR]) and simultaneously tests the causal relationships among constructs in this study. SmartPLS 4.0 was selected as it is well-suited for exploratory, predictive research with complex structural models on proactiveness and momentum.

The first section of the survey questionnaire collected respondents’ demographic information (i.e., gender, age, educational level, years of experience), as presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Description		Frequency	%
Gender	Male	255	51.8
Gender	Female	237	48.1
Total		492	100
Age	<20	89	18.0
	20–24	147	29.9
	24–30	178	36.1
	>30	78	15.9
Total		492	100
Department	Food Science & Technology	60	12.1
	Building	52	10.5
	Business Administration	88	16.6
	Economics	70	14.2
	Entrepreneurship	96	19.5
	Accounting	62	12.6
	Mass Communication	64	13.0
Total		492	100

Table 1 reveals that 492 students participated in the study, 255 of whom were male (51.8%) and 237 (48.2%) were female. Eighty-nine (18%) were under 20 years of age, 147 (29.9%) were aged 20–24 years, 178 (36.1%) were aged 24–30 and 78 (15.9%) were >30 years of age. Sixty (12.1%) of the study respondents were final-year students from the Business, Food Science & Technology department, followed by Building (52; 10.5%), Business Administration (88; 16.6%), Economics (70; 14.2%), Entrepreneurship (96; 19.5%), Accounting (62; 12.6%) and Mass Communication (64; 13.0%).

Analyses and Results

The validity test results were assessed using CR and AVE, which measure the reliability and validity of the constructs in the study. The CR values for all constructs were above the acceptable threshold of 0.7, indicating that the measures used in the study were consistently reliable. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 0.650 to 0.911, also exceeding the minimum recommended threshold of 0.6 (Wilson, 2014). This confirms internal consistency across the constructs. The AVE values for all constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5, which suggests that the indicators effectively represent the underlying latent constructs (Hair Jr et al., 2022).

Table 2 depicts the link between IEOP of proactiveness and EM. According to the analysis, IEOP of proactiveness is positively and significantly associated with EM. IEOP of proactiveness correlates with EM of discovery (r = 0.958, N = 492 p < 0.001), EM of idea(s) (r = 0.950, N = 492 p < 0.001), EM of start-up (r = 0.904, N = 492, p < 0.001) and EM of growth (r = 0.903, N = 492, p < 0.001). The results imply that being entrepreneurially proactive will enhance student EM of business recognition, translate idea(s) into actionable strategies for start-up and accomplish growth to sustainability.

Table 2.

Construct Reliability and Validity.

Construct	Cronbach’s Alpha	Rho A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Proactiveness	0.911	0.900	0.880	0.866
Discovery	0.958	0.955	0.934	0.900
Idea(s)	0.950	0.900	0.899	0.831
Start-up	0.904	0.855	0.853	0.817
Growth	0.903	0.899	0.884	0.858

The correlation matrix result in Table 3 indicates the strength and direction of relationships between the constructs. The significant positive correlations were observed among all constructs, suggesting that higher levels of proactiveness are associated with increased levels of EM. The result indicates a strong positive correlation between proactiveness and discovery (r = 0.755), a moderate positive correlation for ideas (r = 0.588), weak positive correlation (r = 0.434) for start-up and weakest positive correlation for growth (r = 0.302).

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix.

		1	2	3	4	5	Mean	SD
1	Proactiveness	1	0.755**	0.588**	0.434**	0.302**	57.64	11.61
2	Discovery		1	0.738**	0.576**	0.446**	27.36	6.92
3	Idea(s)			1	0.568**	0.407**	22.11	6.75
4	Start-up				1	0.852**	42.96	17.82
5	Growth					1	27.24	13.23

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Figure 1 and Table 3 portray the regression analysis of IEOP of propensity, with R² = 0.504 which indicates that IEOP of proactiveness explains 50.4% variations in EM of business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth. The exogenous variables of the constructs are statistically significant at a confidence level of 95% in the model. According to the parameters estimated, idea(s) has the highest value of the parameter β = 0.571, t (492) = 1.354, p < 0.05, followed by the discovery β = 0.326, t (492) = 2.861, p < 0.05 and growth β = 0.209, t (492) = 1.409, p < 0.05, (0.209).

Nevertheless, the result also shows that individual entrepreneurial orientation propensity (IEOP) of proactiveness and EM of start-ups had a low correlation β = 0.063, t (246) = 0.087, p > 0.05. This insinuates a lack of resources to act in advance of future anticipation. For a successful business start-up to grow, a potential entrepreneur needs to act in advance of a future situation, take control and make things happen rather than waiting for things to happen or reacting to situations. This result conforms to Iddris’s (2025) findings that entrepreneurs who possess a high level of IEOP of proactiveness are more successful than those who exhibit a low level of proactiveness propensity.

Table 4 depicts the multicollinearity test; none of the predictors in regression model exceed critical thresholds (VIF < 10 and Tolerance > 0.10). This shows that the regression coefficients are dependable and consistent, IEOP of proactiveness impacts on EM are reliable and unaffected by predictor redundancy. Additionally, the structural model is empirically testable and theoretically sound for valid hypothesis testing and mediation analysis. Interpreting the relative effects of each predictor (e.g., β = 0.571; IEOP of proactiveness → idea) allows deeper insights into the dynamics of entrepreneurial action.

Table 4.

Multicollinearity Test.

Construct	B	SE	t-value	Sig.	Tolerance	VIF
Proactiveness	0.422	0.085	4.965	.000	0.379	2.638
Discovery	0.326	0.114	2.861	.005	0.387	2.585
Idea(s)	0.571	0.111	5.144	.000	0.325	3.077
Start-up	0.063	0.103	0.087	.776	0.472	2.118
Growth	0.209	0.111	1.409	.159	0.296	3.378

Table 5 illustrates that the direct effect of IEOP of proactiveness on EM of discovery (β = 0.326, p < .05) is positive and significant. The indirect effect (β = 0.421, p < .05) are both statistically significant, with a total effect (β = 0.747) indicating strong influence. The full mediation suggests that proactiveness drives opportunity recognition. The direct effect (β = 0.571, p < .05) and indirect effect (β = 0.289, p < .05) of IEOP of proactiveness on EM are both significant, with a substantial total effect (β = 0.860), indicating partial mediation. This suggests that proactive individuals tend to generate business ideas independently. It reflects the dual role of individual initiative in translating personal entrepreneurial drive into innovative business concepts. However, there is a weak and statistically insignificant direct relationship between IEOP of proactiveness and EM (β = 0.063, p > .05; indirect β = 0.297, p > .05), total effect β = 0.360), indicating no mediation.

Table 5.

Mediation Test Results.

Path	Direct Effect (β)	Indirect Effect (β)	Total Effect (β)	p Value	Mediation Type
Proactiveness → Discovery	0.326	0.421	0.747	<.001	Full Mediation
Proactiveness → Idea(s)	0.571	0.289	0.860	<.05	Partial Mediation
Proactiveness → Start-up	0.063	0.297	0.360	> .05	No Mediation
Proactiveness → Growth	0.209	0.375	0.584	<.05	Partial Mediation

This outcome shows that neither proactiveness nor orientation sufficiently clarifies start-up activities. It further suggests that this may result from external environmental constraints such as policy barriers, infrastructure deficiencies, or lack of capital prevalent in developing economies like Nigeria. The result further reveals that the IEOP of proactiveness on EM has a direct effect (β = 0.209, p < .05) and an indirect effect (β = 0.375, p < .05), both reaching significance, with a moderate total effect (β = 0.584), classified as partial mediation. This indicates that proactive entrepreneurs not only initiate growth-oriented behaviours directly but also benefit from the orientation of entrepreneurial frameworks that provide strategic direction and adaptability. It highlights growth as a complex outcome that depends on both individual-level proactiveness and system-level entrepreneurial capabilities.

The mediation analysis was conducted in Smart PLS 4.0 using PLS-SEM. The software is specifically suited for such tests, enabling the estimation of direct, indirect and total effects with statistical significance. EO partially mediates the relationship between proactiveness and growth, showing that EO complements proactive behaviour by providing strategic direction and adaptability.

Table 6 presents the clarification of the study’s constructs. The independent variable is IEOP of proactiveness. The dependent variables are four EM constructs (business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth).

Table 6.

Constructs Clarification.

Construct	Type of Variable	Description/Role in Study
IEOP of proactiveness	Independent	A dispositional trait reflecting the proactive tendency of individuals to engage in entrepreneurial activities. It is hypothesized as the main predictor of EM.
Discovery	Dependent	This is the initial stage of EM, recognizing and identifying business opportunities
Idea(s)	Dependent	Creating and refining successful business after discovery opportunities.
Start-up	Dependent	The actual launch of an emerging business based on the identified idea(s).
Growth	Dependent	The expansion and sustainability phase of the business, focusing on scaling and long-term viability.

Discussion of Findings

The study examines the impact of IEOP of proactiveness on EM in business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth. The results of this study are significant, as they establish empirical evidence for business formation and shed novel light on the factors that shape future entrepreneurs. Proactiveness is very pertinent to entrepreneurial research, since starting a business is an uncertain and challenging activity that requires acting on future needs and novelty in an individual’s abilities. The study outcome is evident in Kumar and Shukla’s (2022) empirical report that choosing an entrepreneurial career requires foresight and initiative finding. Neneh’s (2022) report proves that individuals must be proactive to discover and swiftly respond to business opportunities (Kumar & Shukla, 2022).

The Figure 2 above shows the outcome of this study, which reveals that a significant positive relationship exists between proactiveness and discovery (β = 0.326, p = 0.005). This implies that proactiveness directly contributes to identification and exploitation of business opportunities. Proactiveness in this context is characterized by forward-looking behaviour, persistence and a willingness to take initiative, significant traits in the uncertain and resource-constrained environments typical of Nigeria. This finding reinforces the idea that an entrepreneurial proactive mindset is vital for the initial stages of entrepreneurship, where opportunity recognition sets the foundation for subsequent activities. The result aligns with Parker et al. (2019) who states that IEOP proactiveness impacts business recognition.

Figure 2.

Source: Smart PLS 4.0 software output.

The relationship between IEOP of proactiveness and idea(s) is positive but not statistically significant (β = 0.571, p = 0.176). While entrepreneurial proactiveness supports recognizing opportunities, it does not appear to be the primary driver of idea creation. The generation of idea(s) may rely more heavily on creativity, specific knowledge, or collaborative team efforts (Du, Ma & Lin, 2021). This weak linkage suggests that entrepreneurs should pair entrepreneurial proactiveness with complementary traits like innovation or networks access for refining and developing viable business ideas. The result highlights an area for further research into how entrepreneurial proactiveness interacts with other cognitive and social factors in fostering entrepreneurial creativity.

Moreover, a weak and insignificant relationship exists between IEOP of proactiveness and start-up (β = 0.063, p = 0.776). This indicates that entrepreneurial proactiveness alone is insufficient to drive successful business start-ups. External factors, such as resource availability, access to funding and enabling institutional frameworks, may significantly mediate the relationship. The findings align with prior studies suggesting that proactiveness needs to be supplemented by entrepreneurial resources, infrastructure and support systems for tangible action to occur (Loan & Brahmi, 2023; Lyu, Shepherd & Lee, 2023). This result underscores the challenges entrepreneurs face in translating intent into action, particularly in resource-constrained settings like Nigeria. Likewise, the insignificant correlation may be ascribed to poor roads, networks, infrastructural facilities and unfriendly government policies (Adesina, 2013; Ajide & Dada, 2023).

Moreover, unreliable power supplies and other insurgencies prohibit many Nigerian regions from being proactive in start-up (Dheer & Castrogiovanni, 2023; Ifeoma et al., 2019). Nevertheless, Iddris (2025) and Neneh (2022) assert that entrepreneurial resources awaken IEOP of proactiveness to act and embrace entrepreneurial foresight in a novel way. Al-Mamary and Alshallaqi’s (2022) study investigated the influence of EO constructs on students’ intentions for business start-ups in Saudi universities, divulging a substantial relationship between proactiveness and entrepreneurship. This result also aligns with other studies, such as (Al-Mamary, 2025; Srivastava, 2024) which conclude that access to necessary entrepreneurial resources mediates IEOP of proactiveness in starting businesses. The relationship between IEOP of proactiveness and growth is weak but statistically significant (β = 0.209, p = 0.159). This shows that while proactiveness aids in initiating ventures, sustaining and scaling a business appears to depend more on strategic planning, resource management and market dynamics. Entrepreneurs may need to adopt additional growth-oriented strategies and leverage external resources to achieve long-term success. This finding suggests that entrepreneurial growth is a complex process that extends beyond individual traits, requiring systemic support and robust market mechanisms (Neumann, 2021).

Individual needs to be proactive to discover and promptly respond to business opportunities (Kumar & Shukla, 2022). As a result, proactiveness is a key factor in predicting an individual’s propensity for business action since it encourages creativity and inspires others to adopt new strategies for resolving entrepreneurial challenges (Bourmistrov & Åmo, 2022; Dheer & Castrogiovanni, 2023). Likewise, IEOP of proactiveness initiates and proposes new ideas to effectively source and utilize available resources to perform entrepreneurial action (Chowdhury & Audretsch, 2021). Literature reveals that entrepreneurial proactiveness emerges as a wider and a significant factor in shaping individuals’ perceptions that influence entrepreneurial action (Ahmad et al., 2023; Bourmistrov & Åmo, 2022).

A study by Alikaj et al. (2021) confirms that entrepreneurially proactive individuals are more likely to search for ways to construct a social environment that is conducive to business success. This implies that IEOP of proactiveness acts as a driver of EM. Thus, proactiveness is the determining factor for entrepreneurial success. The result corroborates the previous research (Klein et al., 2021; Pidduck et al., 2023).

Implications of the Study

The study offers significant theoretical and practical consequences for academics, researchers and decision-makers. It is a one-of-a-kind appraisal of the IEOP of proactiveness topic that its global audience will appreciate, from business start-ups to sustainability. The current framework expands on the specific form of empirical research by providing conceptual areas of study that can be replicated for the business world. Moreover, the study focused on the significance of IEOP of proactiveness, which is a relatively unexplored factor in EM research, particularly in developing countries such as Nigeria. It incorporated the concept of individual entrepreneurial proactiveness and proposes a research model (see Figure 1) to better predict and explain the EM of business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth. The study indicates that IEOP of proactiveness is a significant antecedent of EM. Thus, individuals must be encouraged to be proactive to participate in entrepreneurial activity and contribute to the economy and society at large.

The policymakers should develop resource hubs or business incubators to provide technical, managerial and financial support to entrepreneurs. Integrate entrepreneurship education into the curriculum and highlight the development of proactive traits and opportunity identification skills. Offer targeted training programmes focused on building resilience, innovation and strategic growth capabilities. Moreover, educators should facilitate connections between students and successful entrepreneurs through workshops, seminars and mentorship programmes. Promote collaborative projects to simulate EEs and prepare students for real-world challenges.

The main contribution of this study lies in the profound evaluation of IEOP of proactiveness to EM gap, whereby the contingent effect of these two forward-looking factors is examined. This study translates the EO component of IEOP of proactiveness to actual business gestation activities (i.e., business discovery, idea(s), start-up and growth). This research extends beyond previous studies that focused on individuals’ entrepreneurial intention, passion and attitude (Al-Mamary, 2025; Karimi, 2020) thus, providing a more nuanced understanding of the influence of IEOP of proactiveness in the translation of entrepreneurial intention, passion and attitude to actual business discovery and growth. It is one of the significant individual factors in initiating EM leading to self-reliance. Entrepreneurial proactive personality, as a personal initiative construct, enriches the growing body of literature in the fields of business, management and psychology. However, limited literature exists to synthesize the concept, and even no effort has been made to quantify and present the knowledge in the field.

Limitations

The study used convenience sampling and a cross-sectional approach, which means participants were selected based on accessibility and willingness, not randomly, this limits the ability to generalize the findings to the broader population of entrepreneurs across the country. Future studies should adopt probability sampling, include more diverse geographical regions and demographics, and ideally use longitudinal approach. Additionally, the study focused exclusively on entrepreneurship students, who may have higher entrepreneurial exposure and optimism compared to the general youth population or those without formal entrepreneurship education. This restricts generalization to other demographic groups such as early-career entrepreneurs, unemployed youth, or informal-sector entrepreneurs. Moreover, proactiveness propensity is considered without other EO dimensions. Therefore, future studies may need to examine the roles of other EO dimensions such as autonomy, competitive aggressiveness, innovativeness and risk-taking on EM.

Conclusion

Research has undertaken the significant mediating effects of EO constructs on entrepreneurship. Yet, the substantial impact of EO construct of proactiveness propensity on EM as a key prerequisite for entrepreneurship in emerging contexts is under-studied, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, this study explains IEOP of proactiveness on EM (discovery, idea, start-up and growth). The result confirms that IEOP of proactiveness positively and significantly influences EM, however, a marginal though substantial effect exists between proactiveness and start-ups. Thus, proactiveness would determine the business start-up only if individuals exploit their entrepreneurial initiative by actively shaping the environment rather than simply responding to external circumstances. This research implies that individuals’ entrepreneurial willingness with confidence increases their likelihood of taking entrepreneurial action. Business start-up requires well-planned individual action to achieve entrepreneurial success.

This study, though focused on the Nigerian context, offers insights that hold relevance for diverse regions facing similar economic and social challenges, such as high unemployment rates, resource constraints and the need for entrepreneurial growth. The findings offer valuable lessons for policymakers and educators globally by highlighting entrepreneurial proactiveness as a key driver of EM. Fostering entrepreneurial proactiveness can address unemployment and stimulate innovation, in both developing and developed nations. Policymakers should tailor initiatives to fit the unique economic conditions of their regions, ensuring accessibility and relevance. Moreover, entrepreneurial education must emphasize skill-building and experiential learning universally. Educators can prepare students to navigate diverse markets and challenges, fostering a global mindset among future entrepreneurs by incorporating global best practices. The importance of collaborative networks, knowledge sharing and mentorship transcends geographic boundaries. Countries can foster innovation and business sustainability by creating supportive environments for entrepreneurs to thrive. Conclusively, the findings underline that entrepreneurial proactiveness alone is insufficient without systemic support. This highlights the need for public-private partnerships and institutional frameworks that encourage sustainable business development worldwide.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Adelakun

, & Van der Westhuizen

(2021). Delineating government policies and individual entrepreneurial orientation. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 12(3–4), 106–117.

Adeosun

O. T.

, & Shittu

A. I.

(2022). Small–medium enterprise formation and Nigerian economic growth. Review of Economics and Political Science, 7(4), 286–301.

Adesina

O. S.

(2013). Unemployment and security challenges in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(7), 146–156.

Afolabi

(2015). The effect of entrepreneurship on economy growth and development in Nigeria. The Effect of Entrepreneurship on Economy Growth and Development in Nigeria, 3(2), 1–17.

Ahmad

M. I. S.

, Idrus

M. I.

, & Rijal

(2023). The role of education in fostering entrepreneurial spirit in the young generation. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management (ADMAN), 1(2), 93–100.

Ahn

, & Winters

J. V.

(2023). Does education enhance entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 61(2), 717–743.

Ajide

F. M.

, & Dada

J. T.

(2023). Poverty, entrepreneurship, and economic growth in Africa. Poverty & Public Policy, 15(2), 199–226.

Alikaj

, Ning

, & Wu

(2021). Proactive personality and creative behavior: examining the role of thriving at work and high-involvement HR practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 857–869.

Al-Mamary

Y. H.

(2025). Factors shaping green entrepreneurial intentions towards green innovation: an integrated model. Future Business Journal, 11(1), 21.

10.

Al-Mamary

Y. H.

, & Alshallaqi

(2022). Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness on students’ intention to start a new venture. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100239.

11.

Alvedalen

, & Boschma

(2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: Towards a future research agenda. European Planning Studies, 25(6), 887–903.

12.

Amoncar

, Igwe

P. A.

, & Madichie

(2023). Socio-cultural elements of the Marwari business community in India. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 25(3), 543–566.

13.

Anwar

, Clauss

, & Issah

W. B.

(2022). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance in emerging markets: the mediating role of opportunity recognition. Review of Managerial Science, 16(3), 769–796.

14.

Babalola

S. O.

(2024). Students-staff classroom co-creation as model of employability skills development in a Nigerian university. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(4), 1289–1300.

15.

Baron

R. A.

(2006). Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: How entrepreneurs ‘connect the dots’ to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.

16.

Baron

R. A.

(2010). Opportunity recognition: evolving theoretical perspectives. In Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research. Edward Elgar Publishing.

17.

Bedi

H. S.

, Vij

, & Farooq

(2025). Maximizing business performance through entrepreneurial orientation: a multilevel analysis. International Journal of Innovation Science, 17(1), 72–93.

18.

Blanka

(2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13(5), 919–961.

19.

Bolton

D. L.

, & Lane

M. D.

(2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a measurement instrument. Education+ Training, 54(2/3), 219–233.

20.

Bourmistrov

, & Åmo

B. W.

(2022). Creativity, proactivity, and foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121215.

21.

Chadwick

I. C.

, & Raver

J. L.

(2020). Psychological resilience and its downstream effects for business survival in nascent entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(2), 233–255.

22.

Chatzinikolaou

, & Vlados

C. M.

(2024). International Political Economy, Business Ecosystems, Entrepreneurship, and Sustainability: A Synthesis on the Case of the Energy Sector. Sustainability, 16(22), 10092.

23.

Chowdhury

, & Audretsch

D. B.

(2021). A dynamic relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial activity. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 19(3), 339.

24.

Corvello

, Cimino

, & Felicetti

A. M.

(2023). Building Start-Up Acceleration Capability: A Dynamic Capability Framework for Collaboration with Start-Ups. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(4), 100104.

25.

Dheer

R. J.

, & Castrogiovanni

G. J.

(2023). Cognitive adaptability’s impact on entrepreneurial intent: The mediating roles of entrepreneurial passion and efficacy. Journal of Business Research, 160, 113798.

26.

Duong

C. D.

(2023). A serial mediation model of the linkage between entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy, attitudes and intentions: does gender matter? A multi-group analysis. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures, 31(3/4), 174–195.

27.

, Ma

, & Lin

(2021). Can proactivity translate to creativity? Examinations at individual and team levels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 98, 103034.

28.

Elshaer

I. A.

, & Saad

S. K.

(2022). Entrepreneurial resilience and business continuity in the tourism and hospitality industry: The role of adaptive performance and institutional orientation. Tourism Review, 77(5), 1365–1384.

29.

Fay

, Strauss

, Schwake

, & Urbach

(2023). Creating meaning by taking initiative: Proactive work behavior fosters work meaningfulness. Applied Psychology, 72(2), 506–534.

30.

Fisher

(2024). The Principles of Entrepreneurial Progress: How to Create and Sustain Momentum When Launching a Startup. Oxford University Press.

31.

Friedrich

, Raab

, & Voigt

(2025). Grounded cognition and the representation of momentum: abstract concepts modulate mislocalization. Psychological Research, 89(1), 51.

32.

Hair Jr

J. F.

, Sarstedt

, Matthews

L. M.

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2016). Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method. European Business Review, 28(1), 63–76.

33.

Harrington

(2016). Is your entrepreneurial ecosystem scaling? An approach to inventorying and measuring a region’s innovation momentum. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 11(1–2), 126–142.

34.

Harrington

(2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystem momentum and maturity the important role of entrepreneur development organizations and their activities. Available at SSRN 3030886 (Working Paper). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3030886

35.

, & Kim

(2021). The effect of socially responsible HRM on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A proactive motivation model. Sustainability, 13(14), 7958.

36.

Ibrahim

A. U.

, & Martins

M. A.

(2020). Influence of entrepreneurial orientation on firms performance: Evidence from small and medium enterprises in Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 10(2), 99.

37.

Iddris

(2025). Entrepreneurship education on international entrepreneurship intention: the role of entrepreneurship alertness, proactive personality, innovative behaviour and global mindset. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 17(2), 640–662.

38.

Ifeoma

A. R.

, Purity

N. O.

, & Chuka

(2019). Sustainability in the Nigerian business environment: Problems and prospects. International Journal of Academic Management Science Research, 3(3), 72–80.

39.

Kabbara

(2025). Transformative entrepreneurship and global transformation. In Transformative Entrepreneurship in the Global Landscape: A Gender Perspective (pp. 9–34). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

40.

Kafetzopoulos

(2021). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, performance and environmental uncertainty. Business Process Management Journal, 27(3), 922–940.

41.

Kandemir

, & Acur

(2022). How can firms locate proactive strategic flexibility in their new product development process? The effects of market and technological alignment. Innovation, 24(3), 407–432.

42.

Kapur

, & Tyagi

(2025). Fostering entrepreneurial orientation as a source of sustainable competitive advantage: role of external environment. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy.

43.

Karimi

(2020). The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Applied Economics, 52(3), 331–344.

44.

Katernyak

, & Loboda

(2020). Entrepreneurial momentum for sustainable growth. In Sustainable Organizations-Models, Applications, and New Perspectives. IntechOpen.

45.

Klein

S. P.

, Spieth

, & Heidenreich

(2021). Facilitating business model innovation: The influence of sustainability and the mediating role of strategic orientations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38(2), 271–288.

46.

Koe

W. L.

(2016). The relationship between Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation (IEO) and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 6(1), 13.

47.

Kumar

, & Shukla

(2022). Creativity, proactive personality and entrepreneurial intentions: examining the mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Global Business Review, 23(1), 101–118.

48.

Kusa

, Duda

, & Suder

(2021). Explaining SME performance with fsQCA: The role of entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneur motivation, and opportunity perception. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(4), 234–245.

49.

Leong

(2024). Entrepreneurial energy in a far-from-equilibrium opportunity driving entrepreneurial actions. Authorea Preprints. sagepub.com/doi/full/10.31124/advance.13363421.v1

50.

Loan

N. T.

, & Brahmi

(2023). Do innovation and proactiveness impact the business performance of women-owned small and medium-scale enterprises in Vietnam? A study using the PLS-SEM approach. Nurture, 17(3), 253–271.

51.

Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Dess

G. G.

(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

52.

Lumpkin

G. T.

, & Pidduck

R. J.

(2021). Global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO): An updated, multidimensional view of, EO. In Entrepreneurial orientation: Epistemological, theoretical, and empirical perspectives (Vol. 22, pp. 17)–68). Emerald Publishing Limited.

53.

Lyu

, Shepherd

, & Lee

(2023). From intentional to nascent student entrepreneurs: The moderating role of university entrepreneurial offerings. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(1), 100305.

54.

, Lin

, & Wei

(2020). Linking perceived over qualification with task performance and proactivity? An examination from self-concept-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 118, 199–209.

55.

Moustaghfir

, El Fatihi

, & Benouarrek

(2020). Human resource management practices, entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: what is the link? Measuring Business Excellence, 24(2), 267–283.

56.

Nair

, & Blomquist

(2021). Exploring docility: A behavioural approach to interventions in business incubation. Research Policy, 50(7), 104274.

57.

Neneh

B. N.

(2022). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 587–603.

58.

Neumann

(2021). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review. Management Review Quarterly, 71(3), 553–584.

59.

Ofor-Douglas

(2024). Managing University Education for Employability In A Competitive Nigerian Society. International Journal of Innovative Education Research, 12(1), 131–141.

60.

Olowe

(2021). Africa 2100: how to feed Nigeria in 2100 with 800 million inhabitants. Organic Agriculture, 11(2), 199–208.

61.

Park

Y. E.

(2021). A data-driven approach for discovery of the latest research trends in higher education for business by leveraging advanced technology and big data. Journal of Education for Business, 96(5), 291–298.

62.

Parker

S. K.

, Wang

, & Liao

(2019). When is proactivity wise? A review of factors that influence the individual outcomes of proactive behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 221–248.

63.

Pidduck

R. J.

, Clark

D. R.

, & Lumpkin

G. T.

(2023). Entrepreneurial mindset: Dispositional beliefs, opportunity beliefs, and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 45–79.

64.

Pidduck

R. J.

, Hechavarria

, & Patel

(2024). Cultural tightness emancipation and venture profitability: An international experience lens. Journal of Business Research, 172, 114363.

65.

Potgieter

I. L.

(2014). Personality and psycho-social employability attributes as meta-capacities for sustained employability. Psycho-social career meta-capacities: Dynamics of contemporary career development, 35–54.

66.

Ratten

(2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. Thunderbird International Business Review, 62(5), 447–455.

67.

Ratten

, & Rashid

(2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: future research ideas. In Entrepreneurship as Empowerment: Knowledge Spillovers and Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (pp. 151–163). Emerald Publishing Limited.

68.

Reinkemeyer

(2022). Status and future of process mining: from process discovery to process execution. In Process Mining Handbook (pp. 405–415). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

69.

Saleem

, Humayun

, Raziq

M. M.

, Iqbal

M. Z.

, & Ahmad

(2023). Proactive personality and performance in the hospitality industry firms: Mediating role of job crafting. Current Psychology, 1–18.

70.

Sarstedt

, Hair

J. F.

, Pick

, Liengaard

B. D.

, Radomir

, & Ringle

C. M.

(2022). Progress in partial least squares structural equation modeling use in marketing research in the last decade. Psychology & Marketing, 39(5), 1035–1064.

71.

Singh

L. B.

, & Mehdi

S. A.

(2022). Entrepreneurial orientation & entrepreneurial intention: Role of openness to experience as a moderator. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100691.

72.

Srivastava

(2024). Investigating how individual entrepreneurial orientation impacts entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of positivity and moderating affect of institutional support among university students. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 1–21.

73.

Statista. (2024). Socioeconomic Indicators – Nigeria: What is the employment rate for graduate students in Nigeria? https://www.statista.com/outlook/nigeria

74.

Taneja

, Kiran

, & Bose

S. C.

(2024). Assessing entrepreneurial intentions through experiential learning, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial attitude. Studies in Higher Education, 49(1), 98–118.

75.

Ullah

, Hameed

R. M.

, & Mahmood

(2023). The impact of proactive personality and psychological capital on innovative work behavior: evidence from software houses of Pakistan. European Journal of Innovation Management.

76.

Veleva

(2021). The role of entrepreneurs in advancing sustainable lifestyles: Challenges, impacts, and future opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283, 124658.

77.

Vlados

, & Chatzinikolaou

(2020). Macro, meso, and micro policies for strengthening entrepreneurship: Towards an integrated competitiveness policy. Journal of Business & Economic Policy, 7(1), 1–12.

78.

Wahab

M. A.

, & Blackman

(2023). Proactive personalities, trait competitiveness and well-being among retail employees: job burnout as a mediator. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(1), 185–202.

79.

Watson

, Dada

, López-Fernández

, & Perrigot

(2020). The influence of entrepreneurial personality on franchisee performance: A cross-cultural analysis. International Small Business Journal, 38(7), 605–628.

80.

Wilson

(2014). Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your research project. Sage Publications.

81.

Worldometer. (2024). Nigeria Population. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/nigeria-population/

82.

Yeung

W. J. J.

, & Yang

(2020). Labor market uncertainties for youth and young adults: An international perspective. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 688(1), 7–19.

83.

Zhao

, & Smallbone

(2019). What affects nascent entrepreneurs’ proactiveness. Asia Pacific Management Review, 24(4), 318–326.

84.

Zighan

, & Ruel

(2023). SMEs’ resilience from continuous improvement lenses. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(2), 233–252.