Content uploaded by Akilimali Ndatabaye Ephrem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Akilimali Ndatabaye Ephrem on Jul 22, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
I wish I had a paid job
or a business: a moderated effect
of entrepreneurial potential
on career choice regret
Akilimali Ndatabaye Ephrem and McEdward Murimbika
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose –Despite the merit of extant studies on career decision regrets, they are not well integrated, are
developed at different speeds and differ in focus. Specifically, they do not address an important question about
the levels and antecedents of regret arising from choosing entrepreneurship instead of paid employment and
vice versa. The authors adopted the regret regulation theory as foundation to examining the moderated effect
of entrepreneurial potential (EP) on career choice regret (CCR) among employees and entrepreneurs.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors surveyed 721 employees and 724 entrepreneurs from a
developing country and applied partial least squares-structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypotheses.
Findings –Employees regretted their career choice three times more when compared with entrepreneurs.
However, the authors failed to conclude that the latter had three times better living conditions when compared
with the former. EP negatively influenced the regret of being an entrepreneur in lieu of an employee while it
positively influenced the regret of being an employee in lieu of an entrepreneur. The perceived opportunity cost
of being a higher EP employee was three times greater when compared with that of being a lower EP
entrepreneur. The effect of EP on CCR was mitigated or amplified by duration in the career, former career
status, decision justifiability, and perceived environment’s supportiveness.
Research limitations/implications –The design was cross-sectional, thus, the findings cannot be
interpreted in the strict sense of causality.
Originality/value –The authors rely on an important yet often overlooked context of the choice between
entrepreneurship and paid employment to test, clarify, and extend the regret regulation theory. The findings
have novel human resource management and entrepreneurship policy implications.
Keywords Entrepreneurial potential, Career choice regret, Regret regulation theory
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Career choice is socially and economically important (Hsu et al., 2019) but one of the life
domains, after romance and education, in which individuals experience severe regrets
(Budjanovcanin and Woodrow, 2022). Regret is beneficial from a learning experience
perspective (Hwanwoo and Sturm, 2017;Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007). However, intense
career choice regret (CCR) might decrease the well-being of individuals, their self-image, work
commitment, and productivity (Inman and Zeelenberg, 2002). Scholars largely focused on
Career
choice regret
© Akilimali Ndatabaye Ephrem and McEdward Murimbika. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may
reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of
this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The authors would like to spare a thought for the anonymous reviewers who put in their time pro
bono to help further the quality of this paper, and for the editors of Career Development International
who raised important and recent methodological issues to address.
Funding: This research received no funding
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1362-0436.htm
Received 1 September 2022
Revised 1 April 2023
26 May 2023
23 June 2023
1 July 2023
Accepted 1 July 2023
Career Development International
Emerald Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/CDI-09-2022-0249
regret and anticipated regret of choosing one job position or an organization over another
(Budjanovcanin and Woodrow, 2022;Reb et al., 2018;Willits and Franco-Watkins, 2021).
Entrepreneurs’regrets about daily task decisions have also been examined (Arora et al., 2013;
Markman et al., 2005). Few studies have measured entrepreneur’s regret either as a self-blame
for not having a regular job (Hsu et al., 2019); a self-blame for business failure (Quach et al.,
2021); a disappointment for delayed entrepreneurial pursuit (Ahmed and Talat, 2021); or an
anticipated misery that hinders entrepreneurial choice (Neneh, 2019).
These studies have merit; however, they do not address an important question about the
levels and antecedents of regret arising from choosing entrepreneurship in lieu of paid
employment and vice versa. Addressing this gap is critical for a better understanding of widely
used regret regulation theory and evaluating the attractiveness of entrepreneurship versus paid
employment. We examined the effect of entrepreneurial potential (EP) on CCR among employees
and entrepreneurs. EP is the extent to which an individual exhibits the competencies, behaviors,
and mindsets necessary to successfully start and sustain a business (Ephrem and Murimbika,
2023). Extant literature offers adequate evidence that most of the dimensions of EP are
important drivers of career success among entrepreneurs and employees, albeit a few mixed
findings (Ephrem and Murimbika, 2023;Spurk et al., 2019). However, there is a need to
complement rather than substitute career success with CCR. This approach is consistent with
the regret regulation theory that postulates (see second proposition) that individuals care not
only about the outcome of th e chosen option but also about what might have b een the outcome of
the best foregone option (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2007). Within the regret regulation theory
debates, arguably, an important question that remains unaddressed is the EP implication of
being an entrepreneur versus being an employee for CCR.
This paper addressed this gap by focusing on multiple moderators (decision justifiability,
duration in the career, former career status, and perceived environment supportiveness); thus
acknowledging that the effect of EP on CCR depends on many contingencies. We show that
decision justifiability is one of the most researched propositions of the regret regulation theory
(McQueen, 2017); however, confusion remains on when does it mitigate regret. We also consider
duration in the career and former career status, arguing that the effect of EP on CCR operates
through career outcome and its cognitive appraisal which depend on time and previous choices,
respectively. While we agree with the regret regulation theory that regret is a self-blame
negative emotion (Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007), we include environment supportiveness as a
moderator. We argue that the outcome and cognitive processes that cause regret are subject to
the level of environmental support towards the chosen option.
We do not only test but also clarify and extend the regret regulation theory. More
specifically, we make the following contributions. First, by focusing on EP as a driver of
the outcome that generates CCR, the paper clarifies the reasons why what must be
regulated is not only regret, but also, and more importantly, the outcome that produces
regret. Second, we provide empirical evidence that the drivers of the outcomes that
generate regret have varying effects over time and depend on previous choices. Third,
given that the effect of EP on CCR was positive among employees and remained so after
controlling for the moderating effect of decision justifiability, we discuss when decision
justifiability mitigates regret, when it does not and urge the regret scholars to reconsider
the decision justifiability assumption. Fourth, we avail empirical evidence showing that
the role of the environment should be reconsidered in the regret regulation theory.
Subsequently, we reveal that a friendly business environment increases the opportunity
cost associated with entrepreneurial choice for higher EP individuals. Thus, a policy
contribution is made by showing that the collective goal of governments to enable the
business environment does not necessarily correspond to entrepreneurs’goal of
maximizing profits. An effective policy must balance entrepreneurship and paid
employment promotion, or else, policy makers will also experience regret.
CDI
2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development
2.1 Effect of entrepreneurial potential on career choice regret
Intuitively and consistent with its definition, EP is a positive driver of success in
entrepreneurship (Ephrem and Murimbika, 2023). EP is also a positive driver of career
success in paid employment. Employee’s EP is an antecedent of both intrapreneurship and
corporate entrepreneurship (Glinyanova et al., 2021). Therefore, it might be viewed as a
strategic resource enabling organizational competitive advantage (Glinyanova et al., 2021).
In return, higher EP employees are easily promoted.
Since EP drives career success of both entrepreneurs and employees, it is arguably critical
to address an often-overlooked question, in the regret regulation theory debates, about which
regret regulation strategy between being an employee or an entrepreneur is most effective for
individuals with higher versus lower EP.
We postulated that EP has a positive effect on employees’CCR and a negative effect on
entrepreneurs’CCR. Following the agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), it is neither
certain that the EPof employees would be fairly acknowledged by the employers nor that higher
EP employees would dedicate themselves to the organizations as if they were their own
businesses. Someorganizations haverules, systems, politics, and cultures that might bufferthe
employee’s EP by implying low tolerance for positive deviant behaviors, such as
intrapreneurship (Glinyanova et al., 2021). Therefore, higher EP employees could experience
regret because of the escalation of entrepreneurial inaction, which diminishes EP. Importantly,
higher EP individuals are satisfied not only by paid employment hedonic rewards but also care
about the eudemonic attributions of entrepreneurship (Glinyanova et al., 2021).They might
realize that they deserve their positions, thus bow less to hierarchical bosses. However, in some
developing countries where toxic bosses may want to be revered, such an employee attitude can
be interpreted as arrogance (Milosevic et al., 2020). As a result, more EP stifles the career
progression of employees, increases their CCR, especially when the latent norm is mediocrity
and when incompetent candidates are promoted and support each other. Therefore,
H1. EP has a (i) negative effect on CCR among entrepreneurs and (ii) a positive effect on
CCR among employees.
2.2 Moderators of the effect of entrepreneurial potential on career choice regret
Conceptually, decision justifiability is one of the most researched propositions of the regret
regulation theory (McQueen, 2017;Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2007). However, except in a few
cases, such as Inman and Zeelenberg (2002) who reported its attenuating role in the feeling of
regret, it has rarely been tested on the ground. Therefore, question remains whether it works
in real life and under which conditions. We rely on the seventh proposition of the regret
regulation theory (see Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007) to posit that decision justifiability
increases the negative effect of EP on CCR among entrepreneurs and decreases the positive
effect of EP on CCR among employees. Arguably, if an individual had no other viable option
than being an entrepreneur or an employee, then regret should not occur regardless of the
outcome and EP level. Therefore,
H2. Decision justifiability (i) positively moderates the effect of EP on CCR among
entrepreneurs and (ii) negatively moderates the effect of EP on CCR among employees.
The sixth proposition of the regret regulation theory assumes that individuals’tendency to
anticipate regret positively depends on the expectation that they would learn about the
outcomes of their choices quickly (see Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007). However, the theory does
not go further to elaborate how actual regret depends on the time from decision formation to the
point of outcome awareness. Arguably, because the effect of EP on career choice outcomes
depends on time, the latter has the potential to moderate the effect of EP on CCR.
Career
choice regret
We acknowledge that individuals who have just got a chance of being employed or
starting a business might not report CCR, and that at a given age, the individuals become less
productive (Zhao et al., 2021). However, in general, the individual’s productivity and outcome
in the chosen career could increase with time because of experience. Thus, the negative effect
of EP on CCR among entrepreneurs might be stronger in the long term, while the positive
effect of EP on CCR among employees might be weaker in the long term. Therefore,
H3. Duration in the career (i) positively moderates the effect of EP on CCR among
entrepreneurs, and (ii) negatively moderates the effect of EP on CCR among employees.
In this study,the environment refers to the organization and the business ecosystem in the
case of employees and entrepreneurs, respectively. The regret regulation theory (see Pieters
and Zeelenberg, 2007) does not acknowledge environmental supportiveness among the
drivers of regret. Scholars seem to concur with the argument that regret is a self-blame
negative emotion (Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007;Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2007). However, the
outcome that causes regret could be driven by the lack of environmental support in the
chosen option. In this case, individuals might blame themselves for the choice of an option
that may turn out to be linked to a bad environment. While in general the effect of EP on CCR
might be positive among employees, its magnitude can decrease when organizations are
supportive. Within the same geographical area, some entrepreneurs might be better
supported and achieve better outcomes than others, something that can amplify the negative
effect of EP on CCR. Therefore,
H4. Perceived environment supportiveness (i) positively moderates the effect of EP on
CCR among entrepreneurs and (ii) negatively moderates the effect of EP on CCR
among employees.
The effect of job satisfaction on employee turnover has been researched (Choi et al., 2022).
However, the reverse relationship is not equally addressed. Instead of focusing on satisfaction as
an outcome construct, we focused on CCR which encompasses both the satisfaction with the
chosen career and the imagined satisfaction with the foregone option. We examined former
career status as a moderator of the effect of EP on CCR. Thus, we shed light on whether career
switching is an effective regret regulation strategy for either employees or entrepreneurs
regardless of or with consideration of their respective EP. This focus built from the ninth
proposition of the regret regulation theory (see Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007), which states that
the intensity of regret depends on the information available aboutwhat would have happened if
the individual made a different choice. One of the best ways to collect information about the
foregone option would consist of trying it at some point in the past. We posited that individuals
are rational; thus they often have a bad experience with the options they abandoned.
Subsequently, thenegative effectof EP on entrepreneurs’regrets could be greater among former
employees whereas the opportunity cost associated with an employee’s higher EP could be
lower among former entrepreneurs. Therefore,
H5. The effect of EP on CCR is positively (i) and negatively (ii) moderated by having tried
the foregone option in the past, among entrepreneurs and employees, respectively.
The hypotheses were summarized in the conceptual model (see Figure 1).
3. Methods
3.1 Design, context, population, sampling, and data collection procedure
We did not adopt a longitudinal but a cross-sectional design, as we were interested in
examining whether the hypothesized effects, which were yet to be established in the
literature, could be supported at a specific point in time. Fortunately, the constructs are
CDI
cumulative of past events. Through a step-by-step process, the changes in EP gradually
influence CCR.
Data were collected on randomly selected entrepreneurs and employees in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC). There is high reluctance by individuals to pursue
entrepreneurship in the DRC, despite remarkable business opportunities coupled with high
rates of unemployment and underemployment (Ephrem and Murimbika, 2023). Institutional
failures and natural resources’curse in this context potentially harm the entrepreneurial
spirit. However, we argued that the starting point to addressing this conundrum is to
investigate whether individuals who have higher EP indeed launch businesses and report
lower CCR when compared with employees. Responding to this question is important because
it accounts for the conditions and extent to which entrepreneurship might be regarded as a
credible career path against unemployment; otherwise, it is a better option than inactivity.
Individuals who owned a business and a paid job concurrently were excluded from
participating in this study. There was no prior information on the best foregone option
between full-time entrepreneurship and full-time paid employment against which hybrid
entrepreneurs could be asked to compare themselves.
We secured a sample of 724 entrepreneurs and 721 employees which was higher than the a
priori G* power minimum sample size of 652 in each case. The latter was computed by
considering a linear multiple regression (fixed model, single regression coefficient, two-tailed
test), the effect size of 0.02, the coefficient
α
of 0.05, the strict power of 0.95, and tested
predictors equal to 11 (Franz et al., 2009).
The study considered all the employees regardless of the industry, the kind of contracts,
and hierarchical positions. Entrepreneurs were neither considered in the strict sense of value
creation and business formality nor the number of employees. The aim was to comply with
the characteristics of paid employment and entrepreneurship in the surveyed country. We
controlled for career formality, coded 1 for employees who held formal jobs or entrepreneurs
who held formal businesses and 0 otherwise.
Thirty research assistants were involved in the online data collection through Qualtrics.
They spread the questionnaire to respondents through a link circulated on social media
platforms, and made the follow-ups by prompting the participants to complete the survey
where partial responses were recorded.
63.3% of the surveyed employees had formal contracts. Although the businesses were
small (the average number of employees per business 511), nearly two-third of
entrepreneurs were operating formal businesses. 56.6% of employees were working for
SMEs, followed by the public sector and NGOs, which employed 25 and 17.5% of the labor
force, respectively. Women were less represented in paid employment (about 59 women for
100 men) and even more so in entrepreneurship (44 women for 100 men). Most respondents
had a bachelor’s degree; however, employees were more educated compared to entrepreneurs.
The average age was 38 and 35 years for entrepreneurs and employees, respectively.
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
of the research
Career
choice regret
3.2 Measurements
The constructs were measured on ordinal seven-point Likert scales. Only EP in both samples
and perceived environment supportiveness in the sample of entrepreneurs, were measured
formatively. Full items for all the constructs are provided as supplementary material.Wedid
not develop new measures; rather, we adopted or adapted existing measures selected based
on their proven psychometric properties, their suitability to our research’s goal, and their
validation in a developing country context. In the data analysis section, we reflect on the
adaptations we made to existing scales and their benefits in line with mitigating common
method bias threats. The adaptation of scales also consisted of rewording some items so that
they could better reflect the research’s goal.
CCR was measured as self-blame emotion occurring when an employee imagines that
entrepreneurship would have been the better career option and vice versa for an
entrepreneur. Five items adapted from Hsu et al. (2019) were used to measure CCR. Sample
of them for entrepreneurs was: “the choice of entrepreneurship instead of paid employment is
one of the biggest mistakes of my professional life”. Similar wording was used for employees,
mutatis mutandis. We adopted an EP scale from Ephrem and Murimbika (2023), which was
made of thirty-four items, one of them being: “how often do people commend you on original
ideas and tangible outputs?”Decision justifiability was measured by three items adapted from
Inman and Zeelenberg (2002), sample of which for entrepreneurs was: “I did not have any
other option than being an entrepreneur”. Similar wording was used for employees, mutatis
mutandis. The nine items, sample of which was: “DRC is a good place for someone to invest
and conduct businesses”, used to measure perceived environment supportiveness (PES) for
entrepreneurs were adapted from Mujahid et al. (2019). For employees, three PES items,
sample of them was: “the organization for which I work supports me in several ways”, were
adapted from Tumwesigye (2010).
Duration in the career was measured by the number of years the respondent had spent in
entrepreneurship or in paid employment. Former career status was coded 1 if an entrepreneur
(or an employee) was a former employee (or entrepreneur) and 0 otherwise.
We controlled for variables that could confound the hypothesized main effect by inflating
or deflating the estimates (Masood et al., 2023). Educational level was measured on an ordinal
scale ranging from 0 (below the state diploma) to 5 (PhD). Entrepreneurship education
attendance was measured by a single item ‘’How often do you participate in entrepreneurial
training?’’ and answers ranged from ‘’ 1-never’’ to ‘’7-always’. To measure age, the
respondents reported how old they were. Sex was coded 1 for males and 0 for females.
Entrepreneurial family background captured whether at least one of the parents is or was an
entrepreneur, then coded 1 and 0 otherwise.
3.3 Data analysis techniques
3.3.1 Preliminary analyses. The constructs were measured subjectively, on the same
questionnaire, and from the same respondent. They were prone to common method bias
(CMB) (Masood et al., 2023). We undertook several procedural remedies to offset the CMB
effects. We avoided neutrally worded scale points, even though the scales did indeed have a
medium point corresponding to four. The neutral point potentially encourages laziness as
some respondents would arbitrary and consistently select neutrality to satisfy the need to
participate in the research rather than making the necessary effort to reflect on the questions
(Mackenzie and Podsakoff, 2012). It also breaks the order of the answers, thus these can no
longer be interpreted in terms of higher versus lower or more versus less. We included more
than one response format (“totally agree”versus “totally disagree”,“always”versus “never”,
“totally true”versus “totally false”). We used a cover message to separate questions of
different constructs (Tehseen et al., 2017). We assured the respondents that we would report
CDI
the findings anonymously. Thus, we boosted participants’confidence not to over–or under–
represent themselves in responses. Prior to data collection, we piloted the questionnaire on
thirty employees and thirty entrepreneurs to test ease of understanding and quickness to
respond, and revised problematic items (Tehseen et al., 2017). We were fortunate that the
majority of respondents held a bachelor’s degree, implying they could reflect on the questions
they responded to. Except for EP, the scales were short to minimize respondents’fatigue,
which otherwise could lead to CMB (Mackenzie and Podsakoff, 2012).
We examined the effectiveness of these remedies by Harman’s test (Tehseen et al., 2017).
We entered all the constructs’items within a single Principal Component Analysis with “none
rotation method”. The first factor captured 11.44 and 14.43% of the variance in the data for
entrepreneurs (15 factors loaded) and employees (13 factors loaded) respectively. Thus, CMB
was not of concern since no single factor emerged with at least 50% of the variance (Masood
et al., 2023;Tehseen et al., 2017).
3.3.2 PLS-SEM to estimate the structural model. Although PLS-SEM and covariance-
based (CB)-SEM are both effective, we preferred the former. We were interested in both
explanatory and predictive power of the model; and we did not aim at merely testing but
also extending the regret regulation theory (Sarstedt et al., 2022). Unlike CB-SEM, which
supports factor measurement models, PLS-SEM supports both factor and composite
models (Dash and Paul, 2021); further justifying our choice. We applied bootstrapping with
5,000 samples, a technique credited with improving the quality of PLS-SEM outputs
(Sarstedt et al., 2022).
4. Findings
4.1 Reliability and validity of latent constructs
4.1.1 Reflectively measured constructs. All the outer loadings of reflectively measured
constructs were significantly different from zero and were higher than the threshold of 0.708
(Sarstedt et al., 2022). Subsequently, the AVE of each construct was higher than the threshold
of 0.5 (see Table 1), fulfilling convergent validity (Sarstedt et al., 2022). The constructs were
internally consistent (see Table 1 in which rho_A are higher than or closer to 0.7). All the
Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios were lower than a more strict threshold of 0.85 (Sarstedt
et al., 2022) on each sample; thus discriminant validity was fulfilled.
4.1.2 Formatively measured constructs. We relied on redundancy analysis to test
convergent validity of formative constructs. For each construct, we run a PLS-SEM
regression in which the formative construct was the exogeneous variable and its best
alternative single measure item was the endogenous variable (Hair et al., 2020). The best
measure of perceived environment supportiveness on the entrepreneur sample was “The
DRC is a good place for someone to invest and conduct businesses”. The nearly closer to the
best alternative measure of EP was “I trust my ability to succeed as an entrepreneur or initiator
of new things”. In any case, convergent validity was fulfilled because the estimate was
significant (Sarstedt et al., 2022). None of the indicators of formative constructs were
redundant. They scored a variance inflation factor (VIF) value lower than three (Hair et al.,
2020). The outer weights were significant for all formative constructs.
4.2 Descriptive statistics
We reported but did not interpret the average because the ordinal scale is not continuous,
lacks a meaningful zero point, and tells nothing about the interval between the responses
(T
oth et al., 2020). For each latent construct, the number of times the respondents agreed (scale
point equal to or higher than five) was computed and divided by the total number of
responses recorded. The descriptive statistics were summarized in Table 1.
Career
choice regret
12 3 4 5 6
Career Formality (1) 1
Sex (2) 0.026 (0.003) 1
Level of education (3) 0.208
**
(0.010) 0.024 (0.048) 1
Duration in the career (4) 0.192
**
(0.017) 0.159
**
(0.001) 0.027 (0.004) 1
Former career status (5) 1.053 (0.003) 0.033 (0.049) 0.118
**
(0.011) 0.096
*
(0.906
**
)1
EEA (6) 0.072 (0.006) 0.007 (0.046) 0.127
**
(0.160
**
)0.102
**
(0.091) 0.053 (0.119
**
)1
Age (7) 0.137
**
(0.040) 0.084
*
(0.025) 0.030 (0.006) 0.300
**
(0.051) 0.127
**
(0.025) 0.059 (0.037)
EFB (8) 0.019 (0.005) 0.060 (0.044) 0.039 (0.090
*
)0.090
*
(0.132
**
) 0.101
**
(0.113
**
) 0.110
**
(0.001)
Career choice regret (9) 0.166
**
(0.003) 0.028 (0.101
**
)0.097
**
(0.015) 0.377
**
(0.756
**
)0.321
**
(0.751
**
) 0.106
**
(0.172
**
)
Entrepreneurial potential (10) 0.021 (0.045) 0.066 (0.037) 0.010 (0.155
**
) 0.088
*
(0.408
**
)0.086
*
(0.423
**
) 0.026 (0.054)
Decision justifiability (11) 0.007 (0.037) 0.030 (0.209
**
)0.017 (0.056) 0.028 (0.130
**
) 0.104
**
(0.126
**
) 0.007 (0.127
**
)
Environment supportiveness (12) 0.036 (0.045) 0.004 (0.076
*
) 0.086
*
(0.075
*
) 0.075
*
(0.148
**
)0.020 (0.147
**
) 0.092
*
(0.102
**
)
Mean 5.991 (7.466)
SD 6.19 (6.37)
AVE
rho_A
Prop (X ≥5)
Z-STAT for mean difference test 0.362
Z-STAT for proportion difference test
78 9101112
Career Formality (1)
Sex (2)
Level of education (3)
Duration in the career (4)
Former career status (5)
EEA (6)
Age (7) 1
EFB (8) 0.030 (0.022) 1
Career choice regret (9) 0.121
**
(0.025) 0.039 (0.067) 1
(continued )
Table 1.
Correlation coefficients
and descriptive
statistics of the
variables for
employees
(entrepreneurs)
CDI
78 9101112
Entrepreneurial potential (10) 0.022 (0.041) 0.038 (0.093
*
) 0.472
**
(0.352
**
)1
Decision justifiability (11) 0.065 (0.038) 0.077
*
(0.149
**
)0.180
**
(0.209
**
)0.036 (0.109
**
)1
Environment supportiveness (12) 0.050 (0.057) 0.009 (0.051) 0.107
**
(0.078
*
) 0.060 (0.160
**
)0.136
**
(0.022) 1
Mean 4.298 (2.960) 4.37 (4.66) 4.106 (6.141) 4.537 (4.074)
SD 1.737 (1.337) 1.123 (1.037) 1.451 (1.479) 1.283 (1.641)
AVE 0.737 (0.756) 0.634 (0.686) 0.627
rho_A 0.914 (0.920) 0.761 (0.777) 0.784
Prop (X ≥5) 0.472 (0.153) 0.469 (0.483) 0.423 (0.718) 0.543 (0.433)
Z-STAT for mean difference test 36.969 3.61 2.035 13.644
Z-STAT for proportion difference test 29.035 2.65 16.805 8.890
Note(s): ** Correlation is significant at 1%
*Correlation is significant at 5%
The figures in () correspond to entrepreneurs
EEA 5Entrepreneurship education attendance rate
EFB 5Entrepreneurial family background
SD5Standard deviation
Prop (X≥5) reads as the proportion of the total cases (responses) for which individuals agreed, at least, with the questions they responded to for a specific latent construct.
Italic values indicate difference of mean or of proportion between employees and entrepreneurs is significant at 5 % when the associated z-stat is greater than 1.96
Source(s): Compilation in SPSS 20
Table 1.
Career
choice regret
In 48.3 and 46.9% of cases, entrepreneurs and employees agreed that they had the EP,
respectively. In 47.2 and 15.3% of cases, employees and entrepreneurs regretted their career
choices, respectively. The difference between the two groups was significant. On average,
entrepreneurs and employees had been in their chosen career for 6 and 7.5 years, respectively.
The proportion of former employees (43.8%) among entrepreneurs was significantly higher
when compared with the proportion of former entrepreneurs (28.5%) among employees. The
decision to start a business was justifiable in 71.8% of cases. The decision to hold a paid job
was justifiable in 42.3% of cases. Organizations were significantly more supportive (54.3%)
of their employees when compared with the perceived business ecosystem supportiveness by
entrepreneurs (43.3%).
The coefficients of correlation (see Table 1) supported the hypothesized effects, except for
perceived environmental supportiveness which was positively and significantly correlated
with CCR among entrepreneurs.
4.3 PLS-SEM results
The findings in Table 2 supported the hypothesis H1. However, EP caused three times more
regret about being an employee when compared with the level of rejoice it provided for being
an entrepreneur (see effect sizes-f
2
). Decision justifiability positively moderated the effect of
EP on CCR among entrepreneurs and employees. This moderating effect was significant
among the former, therefore supporting the hypothesis H2 for entrepreneurs only. Duration
in the career negatively and significantly moderated the effect of EP on CCR among
employees and entrepreneurs. Thus, the hypothesis H3 was supported for employees only.
Constructs/Variables
Employees Entrepreneurs
Estimate f
2
VIF Estimate f
2
VIF
Effect of exogenous variables
Decision justifiability (DJ) 0.151
***
0.033 1.064 0.076
***
0.015 1.267
Duration in the career (DCR) 0.320
***
0.134 1.187 0.411
***
0.099 5.683
Entrepreneurial potential 0.310
**
0.089 1.683 0.183
***
0.027 4.098
Former career status (FCS) 0.590
***
0.102 1.060 0.616
***
0.044 5.751
Perceived environment supportiveness (PES) 0.087
**
0.010 1.115 0.086
***
0.017 1.450
Moderating (interaction) effects
DCR 0.112
***
0.017 1.022 0.073
**
0.005 3.415
DJ 0.029 0.002 1.061 0.076
***
0.018 1.404
FCS 0.270
***
0.023 1.577 0.173
*
0.005 4.035
PES 0.023 0.001 1.073 0.127
***
0.040 1.737
Effect of control variables
Sex 0.143
**
0.007 1.035 0.195
***
0.025 1.094
Age 0.012 0.000 1.139 0.059
**
0.011 1.022
Level of education 0.064 0.006 1.087 0.002 0.000 1.088
Entrepreneurial family background 0.034 0.002 1.050 0.026 0.002 1.069
Entrepreneurship education attendance 0.041 0.002 1.160 0.037 0.004 1.124
Job (business) formality 0.082
***
0.009 1.103 0.022 0.000 1.010
R-square (p-value) 0.354 (0.000) 0.698 (0.000)
Adjusted R-square 0.340 0.692
Note(s): ***Path estimate is significant at 1%
**Path estimate is significant at 5%
*Path estimate is significant at 10%
Source(s): Compilation in SmartPLS 4
Table 2.
PLS-SEM results
CDI
PES negatively, but not significantly, moderated the positive effect of EP on CCR among
employees; however, it negatively and significantly moderated the negative effect of EP on
CCR among entrepreneurs. Thus, the hypothesis H4 was not supported. The hypothesis H5
was fully supported.
The PLS-SEM literature does not adequately elaborate on how to interpret fit statistics,
and there has been an increasing call discouraging their use for model assessment (Sarstedt
et al., 2022). We relied on the VIF, the explanatory and predictive power to assess the
structural model.Except for duration in the career and former career status in the case of
entrepreneurs, the VIF values were lower than 3, indicating that multicollinearity was not a
concern. The two collinear variables were not dropped because their inclusion was important
in making comparisons with employees. The model’s explanatory power was equal to 69.2
and 34% for entrepreneurs and employees, respectively (see Table 2). All the PLS-SEM
indicators yielded lower prediction errors on both samples (see Table 3) compared to the
errors of a naı€ve linear model; thus the model had a high predictive power (Sarstedt
et al., 2022).
5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical implications
5.1.1 Career choice regret levels. While previous studies reported that entrepreneurs would
experience regret (Hsu et al., 2019;Markman et al., 2005;Quach et al., 2021), because of the
escalation of commitment to their ventures coupled with higher failure rates (Oliver, 2018),
this research showed different trends. Both employees and entrepreneurs reported lower
CCR, although the CCR of the former was three times more when compared with the latter. We
neither conclude that employees and entrepreneurs were better off nor that the latter had
three times better living conditions when compared with the former. Lower regret might be
explained by career choice justifiability, regret aversion and satisficing attitude (Pieters and
Zeelenberg, 2007). Several factors might justify the difference in CCR levels between
employees and entrepreneurs. First is the ease with which employees could engage in upward
social comparison with successful entrepreneurs whose wealth is public and easily noticeable
compared to the wealth of successful employees. Second, employees and entrepreneurs are
intrinsically different, in that the former are more likely to complain about their situation
whereas the latter are passionate about their choices. Entrepreneurs seem to view an
opportunity in every situation including learning from poor outcomes, they are satisfied not
only with hedonic attributions such as monetary rewards, but also with eudemonic
attributions such as the joy of being their own bosses (Wiklund et al., 2019).Third, there seems
to be a myopic admiration of entrepreneurship or a collective underestimation of its
challenges (Brownell et al., 2021;Dodd et al., 2013). Fourth, the ease justifiability of
Employees Entrepreneurs
Indicators
PLS-SEM
RMSE/
LM(b) (a)-(b)
PLS-SEM
RMSE/
LM(b) (a)-(b)
RMSE
(a)
Q
2
_
predict
RMSE
(a)
Q
2
_
predict
CCR1 1.616 0.276 1.684 0.068 0.960 0.427 1.039 0.079
CCR2 1.527 0.222 1.597 0.070 1.003 0.371 1.100 0.097
CCR3 1.545 0.235 1.622 0.077 0.897 0.411 1.008 0.111
CCR4 1.491 0.231 1.566 0.075 0.916 0.435 1.031 0.115
CCR5 1.519 0.215 1.618 0.099 0.847 0.425 0.938 0.091
Source(s): Compilation in SmartPLS 4.0
Table 3.
Predictive capacity of
the model
Career
choice regret
entrepreneurial choice due to its accessibility when compared with paid employment, and
fifth, the ease of reversing paid employment choice both matter in regret occurrence. For this
last reason, this study did not support the regret regulation theory’s suggestion that decision
irreversibility promotes more regret (Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007). Rather, it supported
Gilbert and Ebert (2002) who argued that reversibility generates counterfactual thinking or
the ease of reassessing one’s decision, which in most cases promotes regret as a switching
justification.
5.1.2 Effect of entrepreneurial potential on career choice regret. By focusing on EP as a
driver of the outcome that generates CCR and consistent with the remaining issues in the
regret regulation theory (Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007), we contribute by availing evidence
that what individuals regulate or must regulate is not only regret, but also, and most
importantly, the outcome that produces regret. Arguably, when individuals focus on the
expected outcome of their choices in relation to the expected outcomes of foregone options
rather than focusing on regrets, they are more likely to consider the true drivers of regret
(which in this case are drivers of outcomes), thus they make informed decisions. Regret is
meaningless unless associated with the process and antecedents that generate the choice
outcomes. Individuals are regret averse (Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2007); thus, they might fail to
anticipate regret when they are making the choice but could find it easier to collect the
information on the antecedents of the expected outcomes of various options. In so doing, both
effectiveness and efficiency of regret management increase because individuals can reduce
their tendency to unnecessarily pay regret insurance. Therefore, outcome maximization and
regret minimization strategies must complement each other.
5.1.3 Moderators of the effect of EP on career choice regret. Decision justifiability was a
most preferred regret regulation strategy by entrepreneurs compared to employees, although
it was less effective for the former. We contribute to a better understanding of the regret
regulation theory by arguing that the more a regret management strategy is chosen by
individuals, as was the case for decision justifiability among entrepreneurs, the less it is
discriminative and the less effective it is. The attenuating effect of decision justifiability on
regret, often reported in previous studies (Inman and Zeelenberg, 2002;McQueen, 2017), was
not supported for higher EP employees. Our finding contributes to a better understanding of
the regret regulation theory by showing that the effect of decision justifiability on regret
depends on the characteristics of individuals, and on the severity of regret. When the regret is
extremely intense, as was the case for higher EP employees, individuals’disappointment
distances them from considering the conditions in which they made their choices. Thus,
decision justifiability decreases regret, contingent to the level of disappointment about the
outcome of the chosen option in relation to the imagined outcome of the foregone option.
This study clarifies the role of time and experience with the foregone option in the
experience of regret by showing that they are not only drivers of regret as suggested by the
regret regulation theory (Pieters and Zeelenberg, 2007), but that they are also conditions on
which the effects of the antecedents of regret depend. In the long term, higher EP employees
reduced their CCR either because their potential was finally rewarded by organizations, or
they realized it was too late to launch and grow businesses or they simply gave up on hope for
any alternative option. In contrast, the negative effect of EP on CCR among entrepreneurs
decreased with time, which could be explained by unfulfilled expectations within necessity
entrepreneurship or the escalation of entrepreneurial commitment (Oliver, 2018). Having tried
the alternative option, mitigated the positive effect of EP on CCR among employees and
amplified the negative effect of EP on CCR among entrepreneurs. Arguably, career switching
is an effective regret regulation strategy for both employees and entrepreneurs. However,
even though the outcome in the second career option is poor, individuals might avoid regrets.
Individuals have no guarantee that switching to previous career would not increase regrets,
which in turn could lead to an endless cycle of regrets. Besides, switching potentially reduces
CDI
regret as the individual resigns to their fate confidence that they have exercised alternate
choices.
While this research agreed with the regret regulation theory that regret is a self-blame
negative emotion, it makes a novel contribution, showing that regret depends on the
environment. If both career environments were supportive to the same extent and were
constant, individuals could blame themselves for making the choice of a wrong environment.
However, as the environments constantly change and provide varying support, individuals
might blame the environment, thus amplifying or leading to self-blame. Supportiveness of the
chosen environment could implicitly prevent individuals from thinking about what might
have happened in alternative options, thus, potentially reducing the room for regret.
5.2 Practical implications
If we consider the levels of CCR and the reasons discussed for their difference between
employees and entrepreneurs, it follows that in countries with high unemployment rates,
entrepreneurship should be carefully encouraged, not because it necessarily provides more
monetary benefits when compared with paid employment, but rather for its non-monetary
rewards and for being an alternative to inactivity.
It is a bad choice to be an entrepreneur when one has lower EP, and it is worse for one to be
an employee with higher EP. Our research is consistent with studies that highlighted the
challenges of promoting corporate entrepreneurship and business sustainability, both of
which positively depend on employee EP, in developing countries (Tariq et al., 2015).
Arguably, higher EP employees are likely to leave their organizations to start their
businesses or quiet quite, not necessarily because of poor work conditions, but because of the
eudemonic rewards of entrepreneurship. Therefore, there is a need for human resource
managers to examine the preference of their employees between entrepreneurship and paid
employment and the reasons behind such a preference, so that they avoid misallocating
resources and attention to employees who cannot stay in the organization, no matter what.
Alternatively, identifying higher EP employees who are passionate about entrepreneurship
and aligning their compensations to the non-monetary benefits of entrepreneurship is a
human resource management action to reduce turnover and ‘’locked at the job’’ phenomenon
(Feenstra-Verschure et al., 2023).
Enabling the business environment increased CCR among higher EP entrepreneurs.
Unlike studies that emphasized the relevance of friendly business ecosystems in promoting
entrepreneurship (Mujahid et al., 2019), we suggest and consistent with Shane (2009) that the
collective goal of governments to enable the business environment, might not correspond
with the goal of entrepreneurs of maximizing profits. When the business environment is
enabled, many individuals pursue entrepreneurship, therefore, the number of available
business opportunities per individual decreases followed by an increase in competition which
decreases the profit at the individual’s level by buffering the EP dividend. Therefore, there is
a need for balanced policy that promotes both entrepreneurship and paid employment.
6. Limitations and opportunities for new research
First, we did not examine what was regretted by entrepreneurs for not being employees or by
employees for not being entrepreneurs. Examining the advantages of entrepreneurship that are
most attractive to employees and vice versa is a credible future research question. Second, our
speculative discussion on the reasons for an attenuating effect of experience about the foregone
option on CCR suggests that more research is needed on how the outcome of the chosen option
versus the imagined outcome of the foregone option justifies the intensity of regret in a cycle of
choices. It might bethat for the second time choice, regret depends more on the first-time regret
Career
choice regret
than on the outcome of the chosen versus theimagined outcome of foregone options, and so for
the third time choice. Third, for relevant reasons, we modified scales. While we are not afraid to
have altered content validity, especially because we avoided cascading adaptation, thrived to
keep the operational definition of each construct, and though we reported acceptable validity
metrics, we must acknowledge that the overall validity of modified scales might have been
affected (Heggestad et al., 2019), but hopefully not significantly. Fourth, we included control
variables and moderators to mitigate endogeneity. However, there are other factors that might
confound the main relationship. Moreover , if a valid instrument was available, it could be used to
address the bidirectional relationship between EP and CCR. Thus, we cannot interpret the
findings in the strict sense of causality. The doubt is exacerbated by a cross-sectional design, yet
the phenomena investigated are dynamic. While this weakness is somehow compensated by
large sample size (Schreurs et al., 2022), it is important that future studies adopt longitudinal or
quasi-experimental designs to replicate our model, perhaps in acontext different from thechoice
of entrepreneurship and paid employment.
7. Conclusion
Within the regret regulation theory debates, we stimulated the conversation which we hope
will continue on the role of the environment, experience with the foregone option, time, and
decision justifiability in the experience of regret. We illustrated the usefulness and
practicality of regulating, not only regret, but also the outcomes that generate regret. We
discussed the difference in the levels of CCR between employees and entrepreneurs; thus, we
conclude by suggesting that, in countries with high unemployment rates, entrepreneurship
should be carefully encouraged, not because it necessarily provides more hedonic benefits
when compared with paid employment, but for its eudemonic rewards and for being an
alternative to inactivity. The government’s effort to enable the entrepreneurial ecosystem is
collectively beneficial in the short run. However, in the long run, it discourages
entrepreneurship by reducing the EP dividend for entrepreneurs and by hindering
corporate entrepreneurship, thus increasing entrepreneurial choice regret. A most effective
policy should thrive to balance entrepreneurship and paid employment promotion.
References
Ahmed, I. and Talat, I. (2021), “I regret as my family fallows my entrepreneurial self-efficacy! Evidence
from the male sample of an emerging economy (Pakistan)”,Entrepreneurship Research Journal.
doi: 10.1515/erj-2020-0133.
Arora, P., Haynie, M.J. and Laurence, A.G. (2013), “Counterfactual thinking and entrepreneurial self-
efficacy: the moderating role of self-esteem and dispositional affect”,Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 359-385, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00472.x.
Brownell, M.K., McMullen, S.J. and O’Boyle, H.E. (2021), “Fatal attraction: a systematic review and
research agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106106.
Budjanovcanin, A. and Woodrow, C. (2022), “Regretting your occupation constructively: a qualitative
study of career choice and occupational regret”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 136,
pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103743.
Choi, J., Oh, J. and Kim, J. (2022), “Relationship between active seniors’job change and life satisfaction:
serial multiple mediation effects of person–job fit and job satisfaction”,The Career Development
Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 327-341, doi: 10.1002/cdq.12310.
Dash, G. and Paul, J. (2021), “CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and
technology forecasting”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 173, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.
1016/j.techfore.2021.121092.
CDI
Dodd, S.D., Jack, S. and Anderson, A.R. (2013), “From admiration to abhorrence: the contentious
appeal of entrepreneurship across Europe”,Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 25
Nos 1-2, pp. 69-89, doi: 10.1080/08985626.2012.746878.
Ephrem, A.N. and Murimbika, M. (2023), “Development and validation of an individual
entrepreneurial potential new measurement scale”,Journal of Research in Marketing and
Entrepreneurship, pp. 1-48, doi: 10.1108/JRME-07-2022-0094.
Feenstra-Verschure, M., Kooij, D., Freese, C., Velde, M. and Lysova, E. (2023), “‘Locked at the job’:
a qualitative study on the process of this phenomenon”,Career Development International,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 92-120, doi: 10.1108/CDI-06-2022-0154.
Franz, F., Erdfelder, E., Axel, B. and Albert-Georges, L. (2009), “Statistical power analyses using G *
Power 3.1 :Tests for correlation and regression analyses FRANZ”,Behavior Research Methods,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1149-1160, doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Gilbert, D.T. and Ebert, J.E. (2002), “Decisions and revisions: the affective forecasting of changeable
outcomes”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 503-514, doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.82.4.503.
Glinyanova, M., Bouncken, R.B., Tiberius, V. and Cuenca, B.A. (2021), “Five decades of corporate
entrepreneurship research: measuring and mapping the field”,International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 1731-1757, doi: 10.1007/s11365-020-00711-9.
Hair, J.F., Howard, M.C. and Nitzl, C. (2020), “Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using
confirmatory composite analysis”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 101-110, doi: 10.
1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
Heggestad, E.D., Scheaf, D.J., Banks, G.C., Hausfeld, M.M. and Tonidandel, S. (2019), “Scale adaptation
in organizational science research: a review and best-practice recommendations”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 2596-2627, doi: 10.1177/0149206319850280.
Hsu, D.K., Shinnar, R.S. and Anderson, S.E. (2019), “I wish I had a regular job: an exploratory study of
entrepreneurial regret”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 96, pp. 217-227, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.
11.006.
Hwanwoo, L. and Sturm, R.E. (2017), “A sequential choice perspective of postdecision regret and
counterfactual thinking in voluntary turnover decisions”,Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 99, pp. 11-23, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.003.
Inman, J.J. and Zeelenberg, M. (2002), “Regret in repeat purchase versus switching decisions: the
attenuating role of decision justifiability”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 116-128, doi: 10.1086/339925.
Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and
ownership structure”,Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-360, doi: 10.1177/
0018726718812602.
Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms,
and procedural remedies”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542-555, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.
2012.08.001.
Markman, G., Baron, R. and Balkin, D. (2005), “Are perseverance and self-efficacy costless? Assessing
entrepreneurs’regretful thinking”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-19,
doi: 10.1002/job.305.
Masood, H., Podolsky, M., Budworth, M.-H. and Karajovic, S. (2023), “Uncovering the antecedents and
motivational determinants of job crafting”,Career Development International, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 33-54, doi: 10.1108/CDI-07-2022-0209.
McQueen, P. (2017), “When should we regret?”,International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 608-623, doi: 10.1080/09672559.2017.1381408.
Milosevic, I., Maric, S. and Lonc, D. (2020), “Defeating the toxic boss: the nature of toxic leadership and
the role of followers”,Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 117-137, doi: 10.1177/1548051819833374.
Career
choice regret
Mujahid, S., Mubarik, S. and Naghavi, N. (2019), “Prioritizing dimensions of entrepreneurial
ecosystem: a proposed framework”,Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 9 No. 51,
pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s40497-019-0176-0.
Neneh, B. (2019), “From entrepreneurial intentions to behavior: the role of anticipated regret and proactive
personality”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 112, pp. 311-324, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.005.
Oliver, T. (2018), “Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: what do we know and
where do we go from here?”,Management Review Quarterly, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 107-143, doi: 10.
1007/s11301-018-0135-9.
Pieters, R. and Zeelenberg, M. (2007), “A theory of regret regulation 1.1”,Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-35, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_6.
Quach, S., Weaven, S.K., Thaichon, P., Grace, D., Frazer, L. and Brown, J.R. (2021), “The experience of
regret in small business failure: who’s to blame?”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 8,
pp. 2201-2238, doi: 10.1108/ejm-12-2019-0917.
Reb, J., Li, A. and Bagger, J. (2018), “Decoy effect, anticipated regret, and preferences for work–family
benefits”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 441-464, doi: 10.
1111/joop.12207.
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F. and Ringle, C.M. (2022), “‘PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet’–retrospective
observations and recent advances”,Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, pp. 139-152, doi: 10.
1080/10696679.2022.2056488.
Schreurs, B., Duff, A., Blanc, P.M. and Stone, T.H. (2022), “Publishing quantitative careers research:
challenges and recommendations”,Career Development International, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 79-98,
doi: 10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0217.
Shane, S. (2009), “Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy”,Small
Business Economics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 141-149, doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5.
Spurk, D.M., Hirschi, A. and Dries, N. (2019), “Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus
subjective career success: competing perspectives and future directions”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 35-69, doi: 10.1177/014920631878656.
Tariq, N., Shah, A. and Zulfiqar, S. (2015), “Do behavioural biases impact corporate entrepreneurship,
agency cost and firm performance: evidence from developed and developing economies”,
Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 761-798, available
at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/188222
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T. and Sajilan, S. (2017), “Testing and controlling for common method
variance: a review of available methods”,Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 146-175, doi: 10.20547/jms.2014.1704202.
T
oth, Z.E.,
Arva, G. and D
enes, R.V. (2020), “Are the ‘illnesses’of traditional Likert scales treatable?”,
Quality Innovation Prosperity, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 120-136, doi: 10.12776/QIP.V24I2.1439.
Tumwesigye, G. (2010), “The relationship between perceived organisational support and turnover
intentions in a developing country: the mediating role of organisational commitment”,African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4, pp. 942-952, available at: http://www.academicjournals.org/
AJBM ISSN
Wiklund, J., Nikolaev, B., Shir, N., Foo, M. and Bradley, S. (2019), “Entrepreneurship and well-being:
past, present, and future”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 579-588, doi: 10.1016/
j.jbusvent.2019.01.002.
Willits, T.I. and Franco-Watkins, A.M. (2021), “Is it worth the regret? Deciding to engage in employee
voice”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 1151-1170, doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09728-x.
Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2007), “A theory of regret regulation 1.0”,Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-18, doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1701_3.
Zhao, H., O’Connor, G., Wu, J. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2021), “Age and entrepreneurial career success:
a review and a meta-analysis”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.
1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106007.
CDI
Appendix
Entrepreneurial potential (EP) dimensions and items
Adopted from Ephrem and Murimbika (2023)
Proactive Innovativeness
‒
Response format: Never (1) to Always (7)
1. How often has it happened to you to initiate and implement new projects that give satisfaction to people
around you?
2. How often has it happened to you to design something that did not exist in your environment?
3. How often do people commend you on original ideas and tangible outputs?
4. How often do you find yourself looking for new ways to serve people?
5. How often are you the first to look for solutions to the problems around you?
Social skill
‒
Response format: Totally false (1) to Totally true (7)
6. I am patient to listen and respond to others when they are talking
7. Most people are always willing to associate with me for the pursuit of a common goal
8. When I have no other choice than lying, I do, to achieve my purpose (reverse code)
9. My partners and friends rarely disappoint me
10. When I ask for something from other people, I always get it
Entrepreneurial behaviors prone to cognitive and heuristic biases
‒
Response format: Completely disagree (1) to
Completely agree (7)
11. My first impression of things and situations is always right
12. I am attached to whatever I initiate as the mum is attached to her baby
13. When I am part of a team for which I am not among the best performers, I feel disturbed
14. I always make sure I have exhausted all the alternatives before I give up on a failing project, relationship, or
deal
15. I love being an entrepreneur
16. I trust my ability to succeed as an entrepreneur or initiator of new things
17. I am good at managing situations involving pressure and complexity
18. Failure of any of my projects disturbs and disappoints me a lot
19. I easily worry about unfortunate and bad circumstances (reverse coded)
20. I would describe myself as someone who does what most of my friends, neighbors, and popular persons do
(reverse coded)
Calculated risk-taking propensity
‒
Response format: Totally false (1) to Totally true (7)
21. I would describe myself as someone who is good at assessing the risks involved in any kind of project
22. I can recall several situations I benefited from recently for which people around me could not see anything
good than chao
23. When something seems interesting to me, I choose to do it regardless of the risk involved
24. I recall several occasions I took big risks when I knew I could benefit
Financial literacy
‒
Response format: Completely disagree (1) to Completely agree (7)
25. I save part of my earnings regularly
26. I know how to look for money
27. I am always willing to look for productive assets in which I can invest when I have money in hands
28. When I have money, I always know what to do about it
Bricolage
‒
Response format: Completely disagree (1) to Completely agree (7)
29. I always make decisions based on what I am seeing, what I have
30. When something is interesting to me, I immediately do it
31. There are several projects I have not yet launched because of resource constraints (reverse coded)
Management skill
‒
Response format: Totally false (1) to Totally true (7)
32. I would describe myself as someone who spends time wisely
33. All my projects and activities are planned, structured, and continuously controlled
34. My projects and activities are always budgeted
Career choice regret-entrepreneurs (similar items were used for the employee sample mutatis mutandis)
Response format: Totally disagree (1) to Totally agree (7)
Adapted from Hsu et al. (2019)
(continued )
Table A1.
Scales
Career
choice regret
Corresponding author
Akilimali Ndatabaye Ephrem can be contacted at: 2450275@students.wits.ac.za
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1. The choice of entrepreneurship instead of the paid employment is one of the biggest mistakes of my
professional life
2. When I think of what I would have achieved in the paid employment, I blame myself for being an
entrepreneur
3. If I were given a new career choice opportunity, I would not hesitate to choose the paid employment
4. If I were an employee, I would be living a better life compared to my current situation
5. If I were asked to choose for my beloved ones, I would recommend them the paid employment instead of
entrepreneurship
Decision justifiability-entrepreneurs (similar items were used for the employee sample mutatis mutandis)
Response format: Totally false (1) to Totally true (7)
Adapted from Inman and Zeelenberg (2002)
1. I did not have any other option than being an entrepreneur
2. There was no organization that could hire me before I started-up my business
3. I could not decide otherwise than being an entrepreneur given the conditions in which I found myself at
that moment
Perceived environment supportiveness-entrepreneur sample
Response format: Totally disagree (1) to Totally agree (7)
Adapted from Mujahid et al. (2019)
1. In my entrepreneurial pursuit, I am always supported by different partners, friends, and family members
2. The local community cares about me as an entrepreneur
3. The Government supports my business in several ways
4. My employees care about my business and support me
5. Banks and other financial institutions have put in place good loan policies that benefit me
6. My customers are kind
7. The competition among entrepreneurs is fair and regulated in my country
8. DRC is a good place for someone to invest and conduct businesses
9. My suppliers are kind
Perceived environment (organizational) supportiveness-employee sample
Response format: Totally disagree (1) to Totally agree (7)
Adapted from Tumwesigye (2010)
1. At the workplace, I am helped by my colleagues whenever I am in need
2. The organization for which I work cares about me
3. The organization for which I work supports me in several ways
Table A1.
CDI
