details

1. J Ö N K Ö P I N G I N T E R N A T I O N A L B U S I N E S S S C H O O L
JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY
Entrepreneurial Potential
- Measuring the entrepreneurial potential among pharmacists in Jönköping
Bachelor Thesis within
Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Management
Author: Nathalie Almqvist
Niklas Eliasson
Markus Salmela
Tutor: Börje Boers
Jönköping December 2008

2. i
Acknowledgments
We would hereby like to thank all people that have helped us with our work with this
Bachelor Thesis.
First we would like to thank all the pharmacists that has participated in this study, and es-
pecially Fredrik Weinarsson.
We also thank our tutor Börje Boers for advice and support.
We want to thank Veronica Gustavsson, for all help with reviewing.
At last we thank the groups that have opposed on us and gave us many valuable insights
and comments.
_______________________________
Nathalie Almqvist
_______________________________
Niklas Eliasson
_______________________________
Markus Salmela

3. ii
Bachelor Thesis within Entrepreneurship, Marketing
and Management
Title: Entrepreneurial Potential – Measuring the entrepreneurial po-
tential among pharmacists in Jönköping.
Authors: Niklas Eliasson
Nathalie Almqvist
Markus Salmela
Tutor: Börje Boers
Date: Jönköping, December 2008
Key words: Entrepreneurial orientation, Apoteket AB, entrepreneurs, en-
trepreneurial potential
Abstract
Sweden needs entrepreneurs (Maud Olofsson, cited by Ringvold Hasle, 2008) and with the
upcoming re-regulation of the pharmaceutical market it opens up an opportunity for entre-
preneurs to start their own pharmacies. This opportunity has been highly recognized by the
Pharmaceutical Union which represent 7 500 pharmacists. They claim that the best out-
come would be if the pharmacies were sold out to pharmacists which give them a chance
to be entrepreneurs, running their own pharmacy. This will be organized by the profes-
sional model, built on entrepreneurship and large scale operations.
The purpose of this thesis is to measure to what extent pharmacists have entrepreneurial
potential.
Many theories support the importance of entrepreneurship in society (McClelland, 1961),
and the “entrepreneur” is often discussed and defined as a person with different traits, cha-
racteristics or a certain orientation. This has lead to theories in entrepreneurial orientation
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) which builds on different dimensions, which independently can
be valued and show the potential for an individual to be an entrepreneur.
The thesis is a case study where only pharmacists in Jönköping are investigated. The case
study is done as a quantitative research where we measured entrepreneurial potential by a
self-completion questionnaire. The sample consisted of 64 pharmacists, from which we re-
ceived response from 33 of them. The questionnaire is designed as the semantics scale with
a range of 1 to 6, where the higher number equals a stronger entrepreneurial orientation.
We found that the pharmacists did have an entrepreneurial orientation, i.e. entrepreneurial
potential. The whole population had a score slightly above the ‘neutral average’ showing a
leaning towards being entrepreneurially oriented. In fact 42.4 percent of pharmacists were
to be defined to have clear entrepreneurial potential according to our measurements.

4. iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................i
1 Introduction ................................................................................1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................1
1.2 Problem discussion ................................................................................2
1.3 Purpose..................................................................................................3
1.4 Delimitations...........................................................................................3
1.5 Definitions...............................................................................................4
2 Frame of Reference ...................................................................5
2.1 Defining Entrepreneurship......................................................................5
2.1.1 Who is the entrepreneur?.......................................................................5
2.2 Entrepreneurs in larger organizations.....................................................6
2.2.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship / Intrapreneurship ......................................7
2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation ....................................................................7
2.3.1 Autonomy ...............................................................................................8
2.3.2 Innovativeness .......................................................................................8
2.3.3 Proactiveness.........................................................................................8
2.3.4 Competitive aggressiveness...................................................................8
2.3.5 Risk taking..............................................................................................8
2.3.5.1 Summary of the dimensions ...........................................................................................9
2.3.6 Post buy-out situation.............................................................................9
2.4 How to measure entrepreneurship? .....................................................10
2.5 Conclusion of Theories.........................................................................11
2.6 Research questions..............................................................................11
3 Method ......................................................................................12
3.1 Research Approach..............................................................................12
3.1.1 Deductive and Inductive .......................................................................12
3.2 Research Design..................................................................................12
3.3 Research Strategy................................................................................13
3.4 Data Collection .....................................................................................13
3.4.1 Selection of sample ..............................................................................13
3.4.1.1 Non-probability sampling ............................................................................................. 14
3.4.1.2 Non-responsiveness .................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Measurement instrument......................................................................15
3.6 Questionnaire design............................................................................15
3.6.1 Rating scales........................................................................................15
3.6.1.1 Odd or even numbers .................................................................................................. 16
3.7 Pilot Study ............................................................................................16
3.8 Statistic measurement..........................................................................17
3.9 Generalization ......................................................................................17
3.10 Trustworthiness ....................................................................................18
3.10.1 Validity..................................................................................................18
3.10.2 Reliability..............................................................................................19
4 The Entrepreneurial Potential.................................................20
4.1 Innovativeness .....................................................................................20
4.2 Autonomy .............................................................................................21

5. iv
4.3 Proactiveness.......................................................................................21
4.4 Competitive Aggressiveness ................................................................21
4.5 Risk-taking............................................................................................22
4.6 Dimension averages.............................................................................22
4.7 Total Average .......................................................................................23
5 Analysis ....................................................................................24
5.1.1 Is Apoteket AB today Innovative and Proactive?..................................24
5.1.1.1 Innovativeness............................................................................................................. 24
5.1.1.2 Proactiveness .............................................................................................................. 25
5.1.1.3 Future outlook for innovativeness, and willingness to innovate .................................. 25
5.1.2 The Pharmacist - Independent and Competitive?.................................25
5.1.2.1 Autonomy..................................................................................................................... 26
5.1.2.2 Competitive Aggressiveness ....................................................................................... 26
5.1.2.3 Could the pharmacists’ willingness to compete be a key factor?................................ 26
5.1.3 The Minimization of Risks.....................................................................27
5.1.3.1 Risk-Taking.................................................................................................................. 27
5.2 The Averages of the Dimensions .........................................................27
5.3 Distribution of Entrepreneurs................................................................28
5.4 The Total Entrepreneurial Potential of the Case Population.................29
6 Conclusion ...............................................................................30
7 Discussion................................................................................31
8 References................................................................................32
Figures and Tables ...........................................................................................35
Figure 1A ............................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 6A ............................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 11A ............................................................................................................................ 35
Figure 11B ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 2A ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4A ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4B ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4C ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4D ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4E ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4F ............................................................................................................................ 35
Table 4G ............................................................................................................................ 35
9 Appendices...............................................................................36
Appendix 1: The Swedish Trade Institute HUI Report.......................................36
Appendix 2: The Complete Results of our Study..............................................37
Appendix 3: Our questionnaire..........................................................................38

6. 1
1 Introduction
In this chapter we will introduce the purpose with our study. We will start with a background for the study
and through a problem discussion argue for why the subject chosen is of interest. To be able to keep the study
focused we have delimited our study which we will discuss in the end of the introduction.
1.1 Background
The Swedish market for pharmaceuticals today is regulated and the state-owned firm Apo-
teket AB has a dominant position. From the beginning in the 17th
century pharmacists es-
sentially were structured in the manner of a franchise/license chain called “Privileged
Pharmacists”. This concept was based upon that a pharmacist needed a letter of privilege
from the government which granted access to buy and run a pharmacy with exclusive
rights in the region. So for 400 years pharmacists ran small businesses on their own (Apo-
teket webpage, 2008) until 1970 when Apoteket AB were imposed to a monopoly market
with exclusive rights to practice marketing, distribution and sales of pharmaceuticals. (Apo-
teket AB, 2007)
In 2001 the Swedish company Bringwell International AB marketed Nicorette patches and
Nicorette chewing gum, two products regarded as non-prescription pharmaceutical prepa-
rations under Swedish legislation. The Swedish authorities commenced actions against
Bringwell and they defended themselves declaring that Swedish national law were contrary
to articles 28, 31 and 43 of the Treaty of the European Community, which deals with the
existence of state monopolies. The Court of Justice of the European Communities (2005)
ruled that Swedish regulation was contrary to community competition law and Swedish
government now had to ensure that Apoteket AB was freed up to avoid discrimination of
foreign actors and the market to be opened up for competition.
After the election in 2006 when the right wing parties came to rule, the new political alli-
ance decided that there would be a re-regulation of the pharmaceutical market as from the
1st
of July 2009 and also a following partial sell out of the dominant pharmaceutics monop-
oly company Apoteket AB (Nilsson, 2008). The term re-regulation is used instead of de-
regulation due that it will not be a total disclaim of rules rather than a change of them.
There are both foreign pharmacy chains and domestic wholesalers who have shown inter-
est in entering the market post re-regulation. The prediction by HUI (2008) of the market
after the re-regulation is that it will be divided into four segments; one with the state-
owned Apoteket AB, one consisting of two or three foreign pharmacy chains, one with in-
dependent pharmacies and one with the Pharmacists Union, who are protecting the interest
of 7 500 member pharmacists and also has shown interest in starting up an own organiza-
tion. All these would then have about 16-20 percent each of the 40 billion SEK total mar-
ket turnover (cited by Wallén, 2008).
The Pharmacist Union requested the Swedish Trade Institute (HUI) to conduct an investi-
gation (Hortlund & Jonsson, 2008) concerning and suggesting how single, independent
pharmacists could have a chance of being owners of their own pharmacies in the free-for-
all that waits on the market for pharmaceuticals (Wallén, 2008). The investigation by HUI
claims that the pharmaceutical market of Sweden is equal to retailing and the most success-
ful model of retailing in Sweden is the “ICA-model”, hereby referred to as ‘the professional
model’, building its success on the combination of both entrepreneurship and large-scale
operations (Hortlund & Jonsson, 2008).

7. 2
1.2 Problem discussion
The government decision of a sell out of about 50 percent of Apoteket AB’s 880 pharma-
cies (Apoteket AB, 2007) and the opening for new establishments is predicted to be result-
ing in similar developments as the Norwegian market where they have gone from hundreds
of single, independently owned pharmacies to a market dominated by three main actors,
creating a oligopoly situation. The solution to meet this development is to already have es-
tablished horizontal integration in the market before the re-regulation comes to effect. This
is something that would be highly beneficial for the single pharmacist, but in return the
suggested model is requiring entrepreneurial features (Hortlund and Jonsson, 2008).
Apoteket AB has initiated a pilot project where 20 pharmacies try the form as franchisees.
This far it has been a good response with many pharmacists showing their interest. When
the now ruling four parties were in opposition they suggested that a first step of the Apote-
ket AB sell out is that the 12 000 present employees should get the opportunity to buy the
pharmacy which they work at and then get connected to Apoteket through a franchise con-
tract (Helte, 2007).
Lennart Axelsson, Director of the Pharmacists Union, comments that after 36 years of
monopoly, Apoteket AB should make it easier for those who already shown interest in es-
tablishing themselves after the sell out. He also suggests that they need to make the
changes necessary now already, and if that does not happen, it will make it harder for the
entrepreneurs to meet competition when time comes (Låt inte Apoteket befästa sitt mo-
nopol, 2007).
According to Cecilia Bernsten, Chairman of the Pharmacists Union, the entrepreneurial
spirit in the organization of Apoteket AB has been oppressed several years and that it
hopefully will bloom once again within the new organization by the Union. Hence, this
brings up the question whether there is any entrepreneurial spirit that could bloom. The re-
regulation of the market is an opportunity, which through a healthy system of rules could
replace the monopoly with a market supporting self-employment and professional creativ-
ity with focus on patient and customer needs (Johansson, 2008).
One of the goals with the re-regulation is to make the pharmacies and the pharmaceutical
market more efficient, and an upside with the probable structure of the new market is that
it to some extent would solve the problem of incorrect medications. This is something that
would save several millions SEK in expenses every year, and would be solved because it is
easier for single, independent pharmacies to adapt to customer needs than larger bureau-
cratic organizations with overarching control regulations (Bernsten, 2008a).
Another goal that the Pharmacists Union states is that there should be several different
forms of ownership, because that market diversity gives better service for the customer,
and if the government is serious with this re-regulation there is no point of going from
monopoly to oligopoly, and they should focus the re-regulation towards self-employment
and small enterprises. They should prioritize to instate a system with hiving-off to present
pharmacy personnel instead of foreign large chain establishments (Bernsten, 2008b). This
has been heard and responded to from government’s side in the aspect of the opportunity
to seek funding from a 30 million fund for pharmaceutical businesses (Olofsson, 2008).
Lennart Axelsson considers the situation forecast as good, but if the re-regulation will suc-
ceed is completely dependent on the fact if many enough pharmacists are willing and dar-
ing to start their own business (Wadman, 2008). A claim made by Bernsten is that at least
50 percent of the pharmacies that will be sold out should be reserved to pharmacists. There

8. 3
is a large interest shown, and an investigation of 10 percent of the 7 500 members of the
Pharmacists Union shows that 43 percent of them would like to start their own pharmacies
(Bernsten, 2008b).
Summarizing the developments in the last year, the general consensus is that the best op-
tion is if the market is diversified with many types of ownership and mainly of independent
pharmacists working together through the new organization (to be provided by the Phar-
macists Union). What none of the previously mentioned touches upon are the require-
ments of business skills accompanying the running of one’s own pharmacy, and even more
important, that the business model chosen by the organization emphasizes on the impor-
tance of the entrepreneurship of the independent pharmacist.
If the present personnel who might be willing to take over an existing pharmacy inhabit a
very low level of entrepreneurial potential it could have effect upon the future success of
the new organization. Therefore it is an issue we find interesting and will further investigate
within this bachelor thesis.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to measure to what extent pharmacists have entrepreneurial
potential.
1.4 Delimitations
We will delimit our bachelor thesis with the following delimitations;
◊ We will not look into if the pharmacists in our case study have the will and intention
of starting their own business.
◊ We will not examine into the pharmacists ability and resources to start their own busi-
ness.
◊ We have geographically delimited our case study to only include pharmacists in
Jönköping.

9. 4
1.5 Definitions
Re-regulation – The term re-regulation is used instead of de-regulation due that it will not be
a total disclaim of rules rather a change of them.
Pharmacy personnel – The employees working at the pharmacies, with the requirement of be-
ing an educated pharmacist to be involved in our study.
Professional Model – Is a business model with emphasis on entrepreneurship together with
large-scale operations. This model is in Sweden also referred to as the ICA-model. For fur-
ther description of the model, see Appendix 1.
Entrepreneurial potential – to what extent the individual or group has an entrepreneurial orien-
tation concerning innovativeness, autonomy, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and
risk taking.

10. 5
2 Frame of Reference
In this section we will present theories that for this study are relevant, when defining and measuring entre-
preneurship. These theories will then be used when analyzing the collected empirical data for our case, and
as support when making conclusions.
2.1 Defining Entrepreneurship
Over time it has been much research done within in the field of entrepreneurship, though
much of it is on the levels of defining the meaning of the term further (Timmons, 1999)
and the process of entrepreneurship studied by Zimmerer and Scarborough (2002). In
terms of entrepreneurship one of the applied definitions is that entrepreneurship according
to Davidsson (2003) is the ‘creation of a new economic activity’ (cited in McKelvie, 2006
p.43), and according to a claim made by Bill Gartner (1990) who further implies that entre-
preneurship is the process of the creation of a new firm. New firms are though not created
by accident, there is enough distinction involved in the process suggesting that the actions
is clearly intentional (Shaver, 1985). The intentions to start a new business is often divided
into two factors; push and pull, where the push factor force you to start and pull factors
lures you to start (Basu & Goswami, 1999). Researchers have highly adapted the theories of
McClelland (1961) stating the effects of achievement-motivation to the wealth of nations
and one of the often used (Small business administration, 1998) indicators of economic
freedom and well-being is the continual creation of new small firms in all sectors of busi-
ness by all segments of society (cited in Baum et al, 2007).
Weber (1898) suggested the definition of entrepreneurship as the overtaking and organiz-
ing of a firm or a venture, were people’s demands are fulfilled by a trade for making a prof-
it including ones economic risk (cited in Swedberg, 2000). Schumpeter (1911) treated the
field of motivations or required conditions for entrepreneurship to occur, and stated that
the five conditions needed were; newness, new goods, new production methods, new mar-
kets, new sources of materials or new organizations (cited in McKelvie 2006). Later
Schumpeter (1935) also tried to explain the term by defining the entrepreneur by traits in
form of innovativeness, achievement orientation and dominance, and became one in a row
of several studies trying to research which traits characterized the entrepreneur (cited by
Baum et al. 2007). The consensus of how the term entrepreneurship could be defined
pointed the research scope more towards the individual entrepreneur, to by means of the
definition of him or her; also try to define the term entrepreneurship.
2.1.1 Who is the entrepreneur?
To measure whether pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential or not we first need to de-
fine the term entrepreneur to know what we should be looking for. There have been sev-
eral attempts on this before, beginning already in the 18th
century when Cantillon (1755)
stated the entrepreneur as one purchasing resources at a certain or fixed price, and then
sold the products at an uncertain price in the future (Cited in Bjerke, 2007). This was fol-
lowed by another definition that came from Schumpeter (1934) who stated entrepreneurs
are responsible for driving market process, in other words moving the economic equilib-
rium forward. This was made through the process of ‘creative destruction’, e.g. when the
calculator destructed the need for the abacus.

11. 6
A challenger to Schumpeter’s theories were Kirzner (1973) who instead argue that entre-
preneurs search for market flaws that can be filled, and for that reason brings the market
closer to equilibrium. For example information asymmetries, (the possibility to buy an ob-
ject at one price and sell it to a higher price) cause the market to be inefficient and this is
what the entrepreneur is searching for. Drucker (1985) argue that entrepreneurs act on op-
portunities and the ideas they come up with is a response to a need they see as untapped or
a potential business opportunity (cited in Bjerke 2007). Others have claimed the entrepre-
neur as the function of a set of characteristics as Timmons (1999) and de Vries (1985).
Timmons (1999) states the importance of fit between the resources, opportunity and team
and also argues that the most general characteristics of an entrepreneur are; opportunity
obsession, self confidence, desire for responsibility, internal locus of control, commitment,
motivation to excel, tolerance to risk, and being creative. De Vries (1985) looks closer into
the more or less ‘bad habits’ of the entrepreneur such as; a need for control, sense of dis-
trust and desire for applause defining the entrepreneur as one who can not be led, suspi-
cious towards other people and with a need to be seen as a hero and not ignored.
Measuring the entrepreneurial personality often leads to the inaccuracy of ‘fundamental at-
tribution error’ which is the common tendency to explain behavior of others as an out-
come of their personality rather than an effect of what the situation has to offer. To get by
this the research goes towards ones cognitions and motivations which are used as the ex-
planatory factors of entrepreneurship (Low and MacMillan, 1988).
This problem of trying to characterize the entrepreneur’s personality is also touched upon
by Peter Kilby (1971) who argues in his ‘Hunting the Heffalump: entrepreneurship and
economic development’ that the entrepreneur is much like the Heffalump; “…all who
claim to have caught sight of him report that he is enormous, but they disagree on his par-
ticularities…” (Cited in Wickham, p.6, 2004). This thought is also supported by Gartner
(1988) who state that a concentration on the traits and personality of entrepreneurs never
will show the way to a definition of the entrepreneur, and moreover do not help us to un-
derstand the phenomena of entrepreneurship.
This is clearly showing that the definition of an entrepreneur is different depending who
you ask, and that there is an inability of finding one definition to be generally accepted as
the right one. This is leading the scope of research within entrepreneurship more towards
the behavior of the entrepreneur and the aspect of entrepreneurial orientation of the firm
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.2 Entrepreneurs in larger organizations
Entrepreneurship is mainly linked with the construction of new business enterprises and
firms but also stand as a central factor within existing organizations (Stevenson & Jarillo,
1990). It has in many cases taken the shape of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) that can be
explained as the activities in a business that aims at recognizing new opportunities ahead of
the core business or create new business for the corporation (Veciana, 1996). This field is
not new and a number of researches were carried out in the 1970’s but in the name of ‘ven-
ture management’ (Cook, 1970). But in current point in time the used term has been cor-
porate entrepreneurship.

12. 7
2.2.1 Corporate Entrepreneurship / Intrapreneurship
Organizations are at present pressured from many angles in form of global competition
and technological changes among other issues. To be able to face these, organizations need
to avoid the status quo in their organization (Seshadri & Tripathy, 2006). Within large busi-
nesses where novelty often could be lost in the bureaucracy and unresponsiveness of the
organization, and intrapreneurs cannot satisfactorily develop their ideas on their own.
Knight (1987) is stating that a corporate setting which approves intrapreneurship is sup-
porting and having champions all the way through the organization, who not only support
the creative activity and risk of resulting failures, but also have the planning flexibility to es-
tablish new objectives and directions as needed (cited in Carter & Jones-Evans, 2000).
Many entrepreneurs have the wish to be their own manager responsible for the destiny of
their business; and intrapreneurs have an aspiration to have single control over the destiny
of their idea. For intrapreneurship to work within the organization it is according to Garn-
sey & Wright (1990) needed that the intrapreneur has the power (and the accompanying re-
sponsibility) he or she needs to make decisions related to the project limit (cited in Carter
& Jones-Evans, 2000).
To be able to understand what an intrapreneur is, we want to start with defining intrapre-
neurship. We will use the definition from Dollinger (2003), where he states that intrapre-
neurship is (Cited from Bjerke, 2007):
◊ entrepreneurship within existing business,
◊ the development within a corporation from autonomous units which creates products or
services in partly a unique way, or
◊ An opportunity for corporate managers to take initiative and try new ideas and at last an in-
ternally initiated diversification.
It is stated that unlike the entrepreneurs, i.e. intrapreneurs also will need team-building
skills, a business understanding, and at the same time have power over the qualities of rapid
decision-making and leadership, which also has been discussed by Collins, (2001) stating
the high probability of the best leaders already being in the organization. Jansen and van
Wees (1994) believe those who possess these managerial skills and ability to handle a pro-
ject within the limitations of a large business and the entrepreneurial skills to be able to take
the project forward to be considered as intrapreneurs (cited in Carter & Jones-Evans,
2000). In addition to that, other research indicates that intrapreneurs have to be able to
adapt to corporate policies but entrepreneurs on the other hand dislikes this behavior and
evades conventional organizations (Collins and Moore, 1964). These theories have led the
research scope towards how the organization is structured to either enhance or weaken en-
trepreneurial features in the firm, which have been researched by Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
in the form of ‘entrepreneurial orientation’.
2.3 Entrepreneurial Orientation
Corporate Entrepreneurship (CE) has two primary purposes; the creation and pursuit of
new venture opportunities and strategic renewal (Guth, 1990). CE has been highly put into
practice in businesses where strategic leaders and the culture mutually create a strong force
to innovate, take risks and aggressively pursue new venture opportunities. Such conditions
have been captured by the idea of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996). EO refers to the strategy practice that firms use to see and act upon corporate ven-
tures and signify a mentality about entrepreneurship reflected in a firm’s ongoing process.

13. 8
The entrepreneurial manner according to Mintzberg (1973) is the search for new opportu-
nities and progress with a high uncertainty. The most frequent traits and dimensions of en-
trepreneurship have been derived from both earlier strategy- and entrepreneurship re-
search. The three ones derived is innovativeness, risk-taking and pro-activeness, and
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) also add two additional in form of competitive aggressiveness
and autonomy. The purpose of these factors are that they work together to enhance the en-
trepreneurial performance of the firm. These dimensions are autonomy, innovativeness,
proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk-taking. These five dimensions could
both be used for measuring the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm or the individual.
2.3.1 Autonomy
When discussing entrepreneurship and autonomy, it is regarding autonomous entities that
effort to control a firm’s strength and develop the business practice. It equals to an enthu-
siasm to work independently and take action on opportunity as well as putting into practice
entrepreneurial ideas. To be able for a firm to keep on being entrepreneurial they must
promote and push entrepreneurial behavior (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.3.2 Innovativeness
Innovativeness is one of the most imperative components of an entrepreneurial approach.
Innovation entails creativeness and experimentation to be capable to discover new prod-
ucts or product advances. A firm gain from being innovative however there are also risks
since the investments into innovations might not always pay off (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
2.3.3 Proactiveness
Is referring to an organization’s try to recognize and seize new opportunities. The organiza-
tion should not merely look for opportunities, they should also be capable to pursue these
prior to competition. Along with all dimensions of EO, according to Rauch, Wiklund,
Lumkin & Frese (2004) proactiveness is the part that is most consistently linked with
strong performance (cited in Baum et al, 2007). Proactivity as a persona dimension is an
individual-level measure that has been linked with the success of entrepreneurial startups as
well as career achievement in general (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.4 Competitive aggressiveness
Competitive aggressiveness is the firm’s eagerness to outperform competition. Even
though a culture of motivating entrepreneurial initiative, many ideas could fail. One way to
evade the expensive failures can be to support a key role in the entrepreneurial practice –
the ‘exit champions’, who confronts new venture initiatives and puts a stop to projects that
come out to lack viability (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.5 Risk taking
The individual willing to take decisions and take action on opportunities lacking constantly
having the information of the consequences is considered to be a risk-taker. To be success-
ful throughout entrepreneurship, firms have to be competent to take on riskier alternatives
than only going with the past familiarity of what works or not (Baum et al, 2007). To be
able to minimize the risks, organizations can use real option analysis. This is done at any

14. 9
time companies investigate a new venture and at first invest in market tests, prototypes etc.
The practice of evaluating entrepreneurial thoughts can assist companies to decrease uncer-
tainty and lessen risks (Baum et al, 2007).
2.3.5.1 Summary of the dimensions
We have summarized the five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996) and we present it here below:
Autonomy - independent actions by an individual or team aimed at bringing forth
a business concept or vision and carrying it to completion.
Innovativeness - willingness to introduce newness and novelty through experimenta-
tion and creative processes aimed at developing new products and
services, as well as new processes
Pro-activeness - a forward looking perspective characteristic of a market leader that
has the foresight to seize opportunities in anticipation of future de-
mand
Competitive aggressive-
ness -
effort to outperform industry rivals, characterized by a combative
posture or aggressive response aimed at improving position or over-
coming a threat
Risk-taking - making decisions without certain knowledge of probable outcome,
this can also involve substantial resource commitments in the process
of venturing.
Table 2A
2.3.6 Post buy-out situation
The situation of Apoteket AB selling out pharmacies is a potential buy-out opportunity for
pharmacists.
Within the post-buy-out situation entrepreneurial orientation plays a role, according to Bru-
ining (1999) the entrepreneurial orientation increases after a buy-out, both in risk-taking,
competitive aggressiveness and pro-activeness, though risk-taking is seen as the one factor
with the least increase.
Wright et al, (1992) and Bruining (1992) states entrepreneurs implicated in buy-outs make
key changes at the moment of the transaction or shortly afterwards (cited in Bygrave,
1994). It is discussed whether this is dependent on if the new leader is an entrepreneur or
not, but as previously mentioned the research on the entrepreneurs psychological profile
has not led to replicable findings (Covin & Slevin, 1991).

15. 10
2.4 How to measure entrepreneurship?
In the case of having researched different definitions of characteristics of an entrepreneur,
and also the behavior of the entrepreneurial individual or firm it is of course interesting to
measure the amount of this in reality. There have been many different thoughts and opin-
ions about the measurability of entrepreneurship and also methods of doing this. One of
the more classical approaches to measuring this is the personality approach which investi-
gates and evaluates traits and characteristics, but has been challenged with the argument by
Low and MacMillan (1988) that entrepreneurship requires too diverse behavior to be re-
lated to specific personality traits, that the studies made are purely descriptive and without
theoretical framework (cited by Chell, 2008). These arguments were considered well-built
enough to get a principal position that studies on personality traits should be discontinued.
The same research topic existed a while in organizational behavior and psychology, but
similar arguments on the lack of usefulness of personality prediction ended this (Guion &
Gottier, 1965). The opinion though changed over time towards a higher acceptance and a
clearly sufficient evidence for the validity of certain personality variables for organizational
behavior (Barrick & Mount, 1991). One of the prior attempts to make a functioning inves-
tigation of primary traits was conducted by Cattell (1971) with the Sixteen Personality Fac-
tor Questionnaire, which for a while became the standard scale of measurement (cited by
Chell, 2008). This was followed by the ‘Entrepreneurial Quotient’ design by a life insurance
company, Nortwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (1985), who used it to recognize
and hire agents who were entrepreneurial (cited by Chell, 2008), but was not accepted of
real academic value.
The ‘Entrepreneurial Potential Questionnaire’ by King (1985) measuring six traits in form
of; need for achievement, internal locus of control, problem-solving orientation, risk-taking
propensity and manipulation/assertiveness is one of the more accepted vehicles for meas-
urement, and has also been updated with a newer version released as pen and paper version
from Müller and Gappisch (2005) (cited by Chell, 2008). Though the ‘entrepreneurial Ori-
entation’ defined as the process, practices and making of decisions resulting in a new firm
(Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) with the key dimensions of innovativeness, autonomy, proac-
tiveness, competitive aggressiveness and risk-taking. These dimensions are beneficial to
measure when one want to predict successful start-ups of firms and the performance of
them (Wiklund, 1999).

16. 11
2.5 Conclusion of Theories
To sum up, what defines an entrepreneur depends on who you ask. Many claims on the de-
finition have been made but there has been no success in finding only one correct and gen-
erally accepted definition of the entrepreneur. It is also stated that characteristics and traits
are not very useful when trying to understand the whole concept of entrepreneurs or en-
trepreneurship (Gartner, 1988) and therefore research is pointed towards studies of the en-
trepreneurs’ behavior in firms (Dollinger, 2003, cited in Bjerke, 2007) and the entrepreneu-
rial orientation of firms and individuals (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). It is these theories about
‘entrepreneurial orientation’ (EO) we chose to use in our study as a tool for measuring en-
trepreneurship because they seem most ‘up to date’ within the research field of entrepre-
neurship. Often the manner to conducting these studies is in the way of measuring each
and every of these EO dimensions independently and valuing it as the higher the factor an-
swer of each dimension, the higher the potential for the respondent to be an entrepreneur
(Bruining, 1999).
The theories that is leading up to ‘entrepreneurial orientation’ should though not be totally
discarded due to that they are available to confirm specific points that may appear in our
empirical findings. Timmons (1999) among other researchers (Schumpeter, 1935; Cantillon,
1755; DeVries, 1985) has partly defined the entrepreneur to be tolerant to risk, have a de-
sire for responsibility, have an internal locus of control and be creative; which are all giving
a strong indication that certain ways of behaving or feeling about these issues are con-
nected with entrepreneurial orientation. In the theories of ‘EO’ it is the degree of orienta-
tion that becomes measurable when looking at an individual’s mindset to be entrepreneu-
rial or not, and therefore we have related this to potential of being entrepreneur. Hence,
having a strong entrepreneurial orientation is indicating to us to that these individuals
should have higher potential to be entrepreneurs.
2.6 Research questions
• To what extent do the pharmacists in Jönköping as a group have entrepreneurial potential?
• How many pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential?

17. 12
3 Method
This chapter will explain and state the research approach and strategy chosen. We will also explain how the
data collection is conducted and which techniques that has been used to enable us to answer our objectives.
We will end with a discussion of the trustworthiness of the study.
This study aims to be of descriptive purpose to our problem, describing the entrepreneurial
potential of pharmacists. It will be measured by a questionnaire derived from the theories
of ’entrepreneurial orientation’ (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Each and every step of the proc-
ess of the methodology, data collection, and sample will be described more thoroughly.
3.1 Research Approach
According to Holme and Solvang (1991) it is difficult to reach the goals of the research
without knowledge of how to use methods to answer the purpose of the study. Therefore
we begin with deciding which method we will use to reach our aspiration with our study.
We have decided to study the phenomena of entrepreneurial potential and our next step
will be to choose research approach, which is important due to several reasons. With a
clear research approach we are able to base or choice of research design on better informa-
tion. Secondly it enables us to see what research strategy should be used, what would work
or not work. And last, with knowledge of different research approaches we will be able to
adapt to the constraints of the study (Easterby-Smith et al, 2002; cited in Saunders et al,
2007).
3.1.1 Deductive and Inductive
Within the research approach there are two methods that can be used, the deductive ap-
proach which is conducted by stating a hypothesis and testing it to reality, or the inductive
approach where data is collected and theories are developed from (Saunders et al, 2007).
The nature of the research topic is central when choosing approach to use; since our re-
search topic is derived from existing theories we have chosen to take the deductive ap-
proach that we see as most suitable.
We started out from theory where we searched for the definition of an entrepreneur or en-
trepreneurship, and how it could be measured. This is in favor of being able to answer and
investigate our purpose and area of interest with this study. We are not, within this paper,
aiming at creating new theories, and are instead from using both the existing theories and
the empirical data collected to draw logical conclusions. As Saunders et al (2007) also state
is that the deductive approach also can be seen as a less time-consuming and less risky
when conducting a research within a limited time frame which is crucial to regard. Al-
though there always can exist a risk of not getting enough of responses, Bryman & Bell
(2007) also continues with stating that starting from theory signifies that it is more of a de-
ductive approach to see the relationship between research and theory.
3.2 Research Design
The population for data is all the pharmacy personnel of Jönköping; hence this can be seen
as a case study. The case study is described as an empirical investigation of a particular con-
temporary phenomenon, within its real life context (Saunders et al, 2007). This suites us
well by taking a representative case (Bryman & Bell, 2007), which explores a smaller sample
that can represent or exemplify a larger population. This measurement is to be seen as a

18. 13
snapshot of the situation, and due our convenience sampling, a snapshot of Jönköping.
Another strategy would be to use the survey design that also has a deductive approach and
often uses questionnaires as tool for the study. Though the restrictions of geography, target
group profession and the temporary phenomenon of the upcoming re-regulation this study
will be in the light of a case study. The value of using a single case study when theories al-
ready exist is also confirmed by Saunders et al (2007)
3.3 Research Strategy
The design of the research strategy is of importance due that a well chosen strategy will
benefit when answering the research question as well as meeting the objectives with the
study (Saunders et al, 2007). There are mainly two different types of studies that are con-
sidered: the quantitative study (data that can be numerated) and the qualitative study (data
that is of non-numerated data, e.g. opinions). Both terms are used to further define the
procedure of data analysis and the collection of it that is used. In our case the technique for
data collection is a questionnaire with numerated answers to be able to rank our data,
which also favors us in our analysis to be able to see a clear distinction of either being en-
trepreneurially oriented or not, i.e. having entrepreneurial potential.
In this study we will measure if there is any entrepreneurial potential in a certain popula-
tion, it will be a descriptive study and the measurement will be quantitative rather than qua-
litative. The quantitative research we have chosen is characterized by answers able to be
numerated or weighted (e.g. valued); while the qualitative study is more denoted by in-
depth question and deals with the underlying perception of a problem. Since we are not in-
terested in knowing why people have more or less entrepreneurial orientation, but instead
to what extent, our study is more of quantitative research. When conducting a quantitative
research it includes some main steps, starting with theory and then on with research design,
operationalization, selecting sample, collect data and analyze it and then ending with draw-
ing conclusions (Bryman & Bell, 2007). It is not unusual within quantitative research that a
hypothesis is deducted from theories and after the analysis is tested. However much of
quantitative research today do not have the requirement of a hypothesis, and instead theory
is used as background knowledge as when the business researcher collects data. The re-
quirement of using a hypothesis and testing it is most within experimental research.
3.4 Data Collection
The data collection can be either through primary data or secondary data. Primary data is
data collected for the ‘first’ time, by the researcher him- or herself and to be used specifi-
cally for the study’s purpose. Secondary data is collected by someone else than the re-
searcher and can be used by others (Saunders et al, 2007).
Since our research is specific and there is no secondary data to retrieve on the entrepreneu-
rial potential within a certain population, our data will consist of primary data. Our secon-
dary data consists of the HUI-Report (2008) that explains the professional model further
and the need of entrepreneurs. We will not introduce it in our section with empirical find-
ings; instead provide it in the appendices for mere background purposes (Appendix 1).
3.4.1 Selection of sample
When organizing our questionnaire the sample size is determined by the kind of data analy-
sis wanted to be carried out as well as the nature of the conclusion wanted to be drawn.

19. 14
According to Davies (2007) within a descriptive or exploratory study a sample in the range
of 60-120 respondents are normal. We have found that there are 64 pharmacists in
Jönköping based on how many there are at every pharmacy according to personnel, and
then summed to a total. This meaning that the 64 pharmacists are to be seen as our whole
population (which of 33 respondents could be used for the analysis). With such a limited
population we see a chance to be able to cover the whole population; hence we make a 100
percent sample. The term population refers to the grouping of people that we intend to
write the thesis about or draw our sample from (Davies, 2007).
According to Davies (2007) if the sample is representative of the population and not too
small, there is no need to do more in order to arrive at conclusions that are applicable gen-
erally. Concerning the response rate we estimate that we need at least 50 percent to be able
to draw some conclusions of our results (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson,
November 2008).
The questionnaire will be handed out to the pharmacies personally and we have through
Fredrik Weinarsson, that is the department chief of all pharmacies in Jönköping, received
help to reach all personnel and he has also emphasized the importance of filling in this
questionnaire to increase our response rate.
3.4.1.1 Non-probability sampling
According to Bryman and Bell (2007) there are three different types of non-probability
sampling, convenience sampling, snowball sampling and quota sampling. Convenience
sampling is the one that is easily accessible for us as researchers. Snowball sampling is a
form of convenience sampling, but it requires a lot of time, in some cases a couple of years,
where the researcher is in contact with a group of people who are related to the research
and by these contacts establish further contact. The quota sampling is used much in com-
mercially directed research, such as market research and political opinion polling, with aim
to produce a sample that reflects a population proportionally. In our sampling we chose
convenience sampling on all pharmacists in Jönköping, due to the easy access and because
we felt it was a good sample for our case study.
3.4.1.2 Non-responsiveness
According to Bryman & Bell (2007) non-responsiveness is a source of non-sampling error
that are likely to occur when collecting data from individuals. Further it is implied that this
can happen for several reasons, such as people’s unwillingness to cooperate, inability to be
reached or for some other reason cannot answer.
Since our study was in the local area and the population consisted of only 64 persons we
expected a very high response rate, however the non-responsiveness in our study was high-
er than expected: 48.43 percent. When handing out the questionnaire we met some reluc-
tance from the personnel to answer. This was probably both due to the reason that they
had limited time to fill it in because heavy work loads and also non-interest. However we
feel that our response rate that exceeds 50 percent is high enough to draw a conclusion
about the pharmacists in Jönköping region.
To increase our response rate in the study, we received help from the department chief of
the pharmacies in Jönköping, who reminded all pharmacists to fill in the questionnaire and
emphasized on the importance to do so. We also visited the pharmacies two or three times
to both collect completed questionnaires and to see if there were any questions that had
occurred and we could answer so more would be encouraged to fill in the questionnaires.

20. 15
3.5 Measurement instrument
To measure a concept where we test attitudes or behavior we need indicators that will sup-
port the concept. The concept in question in our study is the entrepreneurial potential.
These indicators can be set through a series of questions, e.g. structured interviews or self-
completion questionnaires (Bryman & Bell, 2007). We have chosen to use a self-
completion questionnaire as an instrument for collecting data because we want to work
with standardized questions. The other possible method to use, structured interviews, is
however discarded because its nature of more open ended questions, attaining more quali-
tative data which this study is not aiming for.
3.6 Questionnaire design
The self-completion questionnaire is testing a concept, i.e. entrepreneurial orientation,
through 15 questions. The questions are derived from the theory of entrepreneurial orien-
tation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) which has five different dimensions. Each dimension is
measured with help of three indicators, i.e. three different questions with two bipolar
statements for respondents to consider and then select one which they agree mostly with.
The question designs most important part is the ability to be numerated. The types of vari-
ables we investigate are all of the three existing types (opinion, behavior and attributes)
usually measured in questionnaires (Saunders et al, 2007). The types of individual question
design are based upon the style of rating questions, and not category questions and open
questions due to that we will operationalize our data with ranks. We have chosen to use all
of our indicators to measure the concept, this since if only measuring one indicator could
capture only a part of the concept, or incorrectly classify many individuals. If we examine
more than one indicator we also are able to make better distinctions (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
The layout of the questionnaire was systematic and easy to comprehend and answer. The
questionnaire was only one page and had a short introduction showing the importance of
filling in and also explaining what the results will be used for and that the respondents are
anonymous. Also the order of the questions was thought through to ensure a ‘red thread’
throughout the questionnaire to further make it easier for the respondent. We also focused
on short and concise statements to make it easy for the respondents to understand. The
questionnaire used is also provided in the appendices (Appendix 3).
3.6.1 Rating scales
Measuring attitudes are often more complex than behavior, it can be easier to answer be-
havioral questions since they can reflect on previous experiences, whereas attitudes are
something that people often find hard to describe. Therefore it is needed to put it into a
format where it is possible to analyze, i.e. numerated data.
The itemized rating scales are common to use to get measures of attitudes, where we can
develop attitude statements and the respondents will then answer how they feel about each
statement using a rating scale (Brace, 2004). There are three main types of attitudinal rating
scales (Brace, 2004):
ƒ Likert scale;
ƒ Semantic differential scale;
ƒ Staple scale

21. 16
The Likert scale is known as the ‘agree-disagree’ scale, where there are attitude statements
which the respondents then are inclined to answer how strongly they agree or disagree
(most often within a scale of 1-5 or 1-7). The semantic differential scale is a bipolar scale
where two opposite statements are placed at two ends and the respondent is supposed to
answer with which they mostly agree by marking along the scale. The third scale, staple
scale, has a statement in the middle and with the scale on both sides of the statement. The
respondent answers through choosing side of the statement; and the results is often nu-
merated as one side of the statement as being negative and the other side as being positive
numbers.
Our study is regarding the phenomena if pharmacists has entrepreneurial potential or not,
derived from the theory of entrepreneurial orientation. We have dimensions that build a
concept to test. These dimensions can be measured by giving statements which the re-
spondents should take standpoint to. Therefore we find the semantic differential scale to
suit our questionnaire best, also confirmed as suitable because it is often used when inves-
tigating underlying attitudes (Saunders et al, 2007). For each bipolar statement the respon-
dent receives a score depending on what he or her has answered, which is then summed up
with the scores of all questions answered to get an average indicator. We have made short
and concise statements that are bipolar but also tried to keep them both to seem positive
so it does not affect the respondents to answer what they feel to be more positive than the
other. Semantic differential scales are also seen to be better suited for descriptive dimen-
sions (Brace, 2004).
3.6.1.1 Odd or even numbers
The range of rating scales consists of odd or even numbers, meaning if there are an odd or
even number of answering alternatives. The most commonly used scale is ranging within
the numbers 1-5 or 1-7, this is positive since this is easy to understand for respondents. It
also gives respondents the choice to be able to have a ‘neutral’ mid-point choice (Brace,
2004). However as Brace (2004) also mentions is that a neutral option are sometimes not
provided, since it is not always desirable to encourage respondents to have a ‘neutral’ or
‘don’t know’ answer about how they feel for a statement.
There is a possibility to use even numbers, which forces the respondent to take a stand and
according to Kalton, Roberts and Holt (1980) and Presser and Schuman (1980) studies
have shown that with a possibility of neutral statements, the neutral choices increases, thus
indicating that taking away the neutral mid-point would increase the respondents to take a
stand of which side they feel is most appropriate (cited in Brace, 2004).
We have chosen to use the even number scale since the statements we have are directed
towards the individuals’ attitudes upon certain statements. Our statements are of the kind
that we want to force every participant to have an opinion and through avoiding the neutral
mid-point we hope that we encourage them to think about which statement suits them best
and thereby enhancing the clear cut between the degrees of orientation i.e. potential.
3.7 Pilot Study
We conducted a pilot study to confirm that the questionnaire works and to make it as easy
as possible for the respondent to grasp. This is especially important because we use a ques-
tionnaire with close end questions (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Our pilot study consisted of 10
students from HLK and IHH on Jönköping University, whom none were to be seen as the

22. 17
target group of our questionnaire. The number of people involved in the pilot study were
based upon that we had put a lot of effort into the design of the questionnaire and there-
fore only needed a pre-run check. We wanted to have some involved in the pilot study with
low knowledge of the concepts of entrepreneurship and therefore we included the students
from HLK, who have not read courses within entrepreneurship theories. The results of the
pilot study was that 40 percent found it hard to understand whether one should mark with
one our two ticks on each row, explained by a diffuse introduction which we re-formulated
to solve the problem. The remaining 60 percent found the questionnaire easy to under-
stand and had no special comments. Due to the lack of spontaneous responses about
whether the underlying concepts we are measuring were obvious or not, we pursued with
questions about this with the response that both statements seemed equally good, fulfilling
our purpose of not making a questionnaire biased because respondents answering as they
think ‘they should’. We also checked how long it took to fill in the questionnaire, which
were approximately about five minutes. Also we consulted one with knowledge in the field
to see through the questionnaire, and to investigate if it needed further improvements
without any complaints raised (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson, November
2008).
3.8 Statistic measurement
To be able to analyze if the pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential, within the theory of
entrepreneurial orientation we have used a common measure of central tendency of obser-
vations, the arithmetical mean value. The data we have is gathered, encoded and the sum of all
observations is then divided by the number of observations in the set. Thus meaning that
our respondent answers for each question is combined to be analyzed as a group value ra-
ther than individual. The statements in the questions have been valued with a scale ranging
from 1 to 6. The higher the value is, the higher the entrepreneurial orientation is. This lead-
ing to that all the respondents is ranked after their answers, with the value of the chosen
statement. For example if respondent A has answered 5 and respondent B has answered 3,
this would lead to an average of 4 (5+3/2=4). The mean of observations is the most com-
monly used measure of central tendency, and summarizes all the information about the da-
ta. The mean can be viewed as the point where all the observations are concentrated (Aczel
& Sounderpandian 2006).
The arithmetical mean value formula:
3.9 Generalization
Generalization means that our result would be applicable to all of the pharmacists in Swe-
den (Bryman and Bell, 2007). In our study we have chosen to limit our research to only
one region, Jönköping in which we have sent out the questionnaire to 64 pharmacists and
we received 33 responses, resulting in a response rate of 51.56 percent. We believe that it is
a fair response rate and thus we can draw some conclusion about how pharmacists have
entrepreneurial potential or not. However since our population was only pharmacists in
Jönköping, therefore we will not claim that our findings can be statistically generalized. All
though the results are not to be completely disregarded, they might be applicable, since
there is no substantial difference in how the situation looks for pharmacists over the coun-
try. Another important issue is that the re-regulation is taking effect and the entrepreneurial
spirit would be intrigued by all the pharmacists in the country.

23. 18
Since our population is only 64 pharmacists, it can be argued that the number of respon-
dents is so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions, and also results in that the ‘five re-
spondents per item’-rule is impossible to fulfill (personal communication, Börje Boers, De-
cember 9th
, 2008) However, all of the 33 respondents did answer all questions and no er-
rors were to be retrieved. We have a majority of the population which would be indicating
an ability to generalize for the case in question.
3.10 Trustworthiness
To further assure that our study is relevant and results are reliable, we must discuss the is-
sue of the trustworthiness of our study. When using a questionnaire that we have con-
structed ourselves to collect primary data, it affects the reliability and validity of the study.
When collecting we cannot know for certain that the information that we get is what we
are after. To know what we are investigating as well as that we are doing it in a reliable way,
thus meaning having validity and reliability (Holme & Solvang, 1991; Patel & Davidson,
1994).
3.10.1 Validity
To be able to know that we are measuring what we intend to measure, we have to secure
the validity of the study. The term validity refers to the important criterion of integrity of
the conclusions generated from the data. According to Saunders et al. (2007) conducting a
survey has several important aspects; it is almost always carried out for a specific purpose
and it assumes validity. The survey has a meaning and the researchers should as far as pos-
sible make sure that the readers can rely on the result (Davies, 2007).
To see that the indicators that we use really measures the concept we have used we have
first looked at the content of our instrument, i.e. how we constructed our questionnaire, if
the questions are devised to really reflect the theoretical factor they should be reflecting
(Bryman & Bell, 2007). The fifteen questions in the survey is divided as three questions of
each dimension of the entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996); and each of
these three question alone is measuring one factor mentioned in the theory (e.g. creativity).
Secondly, we have also used ‘face validity’, which means that we establish that the measures
reflect the content of the concept often through asking other people to verify (Bryman &
Bell, 2007). We have shown a researcher within the field of entrepreneurship our question-
naire to determine if the content really reflects the concept in question, which we got clear
that it did (personal communication, Veronica Gustavsson, November 2008) increasing the
validity in our study.
The question of ‘external validity’, or the validity of the input of data being accurate is
touching upon the question of sampling methods, but since we are using a 100 percent
sample the risk of miss-sampling is eliminated. It is crucial to be able to judge to what ex-
tent the collected sample can draw generalized conclusions, in our situation of a case study
of pharmacists in Jönköping the result could be used as an indication of direction for the
whole population in Sweden. However, important to regard is that the region Jönköping
can be regarded as a special region to test entrepreneurial orientation within; therefore we
are careful with generalizing our results from this study.
With these things in mind we are aiming at maximizing credibility, dependability and con-
formability, making our findings as true, replicable and un-intruded by the investigators
themselves as possible (Bryman & Bell, 2007).

24. 19
3.10.2 Reliability
The term reliability refers to the consistency of a measure of a concept (Bryman & Bell,
2007). Since we are doing a case study, it is difficult to say that the results are to be consis-
tent through time. The case study is a snapshot of the reality here and now, and if the per-
sonnel is to change over time it is impossible to replicate the exact result e.g. in a period of
five or ten years. Also the beliefs might change of the persons in the study.
In our questionnaire we have a scale of entrepreneurial orientation where the answers re-
sulting in higher numbers are denoted as “a higher degree” of entrepreneurial orientation.
This supports the internal reliability, which refers to ‘the relation between scores on differ-
ent indicators’ (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
When conducting an own questionnaire as in our study, we have a smaller chance to secure
reliability in advance. What we can do is to assure that people answering the questionnaire
perceives it in the way they should do (Patel & Davidson, 1994). We have therefore been
specific with instructions of how to answer the questionnaire as well as looked at the design
to make it easy to comprehend. To secure the formulations of the questions and to see that
the instructions are clear we tested the questionnaire on a random sample of students that
gave us input in what we needed to change in order to get it as clear as possible.

25. 20
4 The Entrepreneurial Potential
In this chapter we will present the results from our collected data derived from our questionnaires. For the
reader to clearly understand the results we with every indicator describe the meaning of the variable. To con-
clude the data we also include a presentation of averages from the different dimensions investigated.
Through our questionnaire we have measured different aspects that has effects on the en-
trepreneurial orientation and therefore also the entrepreneurial potential. The questionnaire
has been sent out to the 64 pharmacists in Jönköping, who with a time limit of about one
week has filled it in and responded. The collected answers from the respondents have been
gathered and then an average on each indicator has been calculated followed by an average
of each dimension is also calculated. The answers are numbered on a scale ranging from 1
to 6 where the higher number is equal to a higher entrepreneurial potential. We have set a
theoretical mean of the dimensions (3.500). This to be able to make a distinction whether
someone has entrepreneurial potential, meaning that with scores above 3.500 we can as-
sume they have at least a slight entrepreneurial orientation. This is calculated by the for-
mula; (1+2+3+4+5+6/6=3.5). This is also to be considered as the neutral alternative rep-
resenting the case of being precisely neither nor entrepreneurially oriented. The question is
to see if pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential and we have set the limit that to if they
answer 4 or higher on the different statements (indicators) then they are consider to inhabit
more entrepreneurial potential. Therefore we will in the findings emphasize on how many
respondents that has answers ranging from 4 and higher. We set the limit of 4 since the re-
spondents only are able to answer with whole numbers e.g. 1,2,3, and 3 is below the theo-
retical mean and therefore not seen as being entrepreneurially oriented. Hence, we chose to
draw the limit at number 4 as being evidently entrepreneurial.
4.1 Innovativeness
Creativity 4.242
Willingness to introduce novelty 4.636
Willingness to experiment 3.273
Table 4A
The results from each respondent to the dimension of innovativeness and the indicators
are shown in Appendix 2. The result we show here are the mean value to each indicator,
which we have calculated to be able to analyze the results as a group of respondents instead
of one by one. The dimension of innovativeness is measured through indicators that reflect
creativity, the introduction of novelty and to what extent a firm is able to experiment with
different solutions. We can see that willingness to introduce novelty has the highest mean
value of 4.636, where the majority (28 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. When it
comes to creativity, we also have a large majority (24 respondents) that has answered 4 or
higher. Then the results differ a bit and willingness to experiment got only a minority that
answered 4 or above (only 12 respondents has answered 4 or higher). Combining the indi-
cators mean value and calculating an average of the dimension thus gives us the value of
4.050 which is above the theoretical mean that is 3.500.

26. 21
4.2 Autonomy
Individuality 2.788
Initiative 4.212
Overall Responsibility 3.909
Table 4B
The dimension of autonomy refers to the independence of an individual or individual team
and here the indicators that serve as measurement tools are individuality, ability to take the
initiative and the notion of an overall responsibility. Also here the theoretical mean is con-
sidered to be 3.500. The results of the first indicator that shows individuality has an average
result with 2.788, with a minority (10 respondents) that has answered 4 or higher. The sec-
ond indicator concerning initiative has an average result of 4.212, where the majority (25
respondents) answered 4 or higher. The statements about initiative has the highest average
mean of 4.212, thus the majority (25 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The last
statement regarding overall responsibility shows an average mean of 3.909 where the ma-
jority of the answers (20 respondents) were 4 or higher. The calculated average mean value
of the whole dimension is 3.636, and hence just slightly above the average theoretical mean
(3.500).
4.3 Proactiveness
Forward looking perspective 4.394
Ability to anticipate future demand 3.455
Recognize and seize new opportunities 3.818
Table 4C
The dimension of proactiveness is defined by planning and ‘thinking ahead’, the ability to
foresee eventual future demands and seeing and seizing the opportunities that appear. The
first indicator of forward looking perspective has given an average mean value of 4.394,
where the majority (24 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The second statement about
ability to anticipate future demand has an average mean value of 3.455 where just slightly
above half of the respondents (17 respondents) has answered 4 or higher. The last state-
ment with the indicator of recognizing and seizing new opportunities the result was an av-
erage mean value of 3.818 with 21 respondents, answering 4 or higher. The average of the
whole dimension is 3.888 which are slightly above the theoretical mean 3.500. Note that
the respondents’ ability to anticipate future demand is close to the theoretical mean of
3.500.
4.4 Competitive Aggressiveness
Willingness to outperform competition 3. 515
Willingness to respond aggressively to threats 4.727
Competitive attitude 3.697
Table 4D
The dimension of competitive aggressiveness equals ones willingness to compete; i.e. the
willingness to outperform competition, the aggressive rather than defensive approach to-
wards threats and the competitive attitude. The result of the first statements regarding will-
ingness to outperform competition is an average mean of 3.515 with 18 respondents stating
having 4 or higher. The second statement concerning aggressively response towards threats

27. 22
has an average mean of 4.727, showing that a majority (28 respondents) having answered 4
or higher. The competitive attitude has shown result of an average mean of 3.697 where 21
respondents has answered 4 or higher. The average mean of the whole dimension is 3.979
which are just slightly above the theoretical average mean 3.500.
4.5 Risk-taking
Willingness to take decisions with limited information 4.121
Willingness to risk resources(e.g. own money) 3.909
Uncertainty acceptance 3.152
Table 4E
The dimension of risk-taking is measured through the willingness to take risks involving
decision making, risking resources (own or others), and accepting an uncertain outcome on
a project or venture. The first statement regarding willingness to take decisions with limited
information shows a result of an average mean of 4.121, having 22 respondents answering
4 or higher. The second statements regarding willingness to risk resources the result is an
average mean of 3.909 with 22 respondents that has answered 4 or higher. The last state-
ments regarding uncertainty acceptance is 3.152, with 13 respondents answering 4 or high-
er. The whole dimensions average mean is calculated to be 3.727.
4.6 Dimension averages
The entrepreneurial orientation that consists of five different dimensions is here presented
as average means of every dimension. Thus meaning that the three indicators that are mea-
suring each dimension is combined and an average can be calculated
(Amq1+Amq2+Amq3/nq=dta1)*. These averages show the full dimensions entrepreneu-
rial orientation, making it easier to see the overall outcome of each dimension independ-
ently. The theoretical mean value still is 3.500 for each dimension. The first dimension
which shows innovativeness has a total average of 4.050, which is the highest value of the
dimensions. The second dimension concerning autonomy shows a result of an average of
3.636. The third dimension, proactiveness shows the results of an average of 3.888. The
fourth dimension of competitive aggressiveness has the result of an average of 3.979 and
the fifth and last dimension has the result of an average of 3.727. All the average results of
the dimensions are all on the upper 50 percent percentiles, this meaning that they all are
above the mean being 3.500, innovativeness being the most significant higher value.
*(Where Amq= average mean of the question, dta=dimension total average, nq=number of questions)
Innovativeness 4.050
Autonomy 3.636
Proactiveness 3.888
Competitive Aggressiveness 3.979
Risk-taking 3.727
Table 4F
The dimension averages is all on the upper 50 percentile (the median is 3.500) showing at
least some inclination towards being entrepreneurially oriented.

28. 23
4.7 Total Average
The total average is our key number that is to be used when answering our purpose, and is
derived from all of the five dimensions (Amd1+Amd2+Amd3+Amd4+Amd5/nd=EP)*
adding up to the total entrepreneurial potential. This is measurable to the whole scale from
1 to 6 as 3.857 of the maximum of 6.000.
*(Where Amd= Average mean of dimension, nd= number of dimensions, EP=entrepreneurial potential)
Entrepreneurial Potential 3. 857
Table 4G
The total entrepreneurial potential average is above the mean of 3.500. A full data table is
found in appendix (Appendix 2), which also will be used in the next section further investi-
gating the data collected.

29. 24
5 Analysis
In this chapter we will relate our findings to our theories. We have chosen to concentrate upon the data that
is standing out and the averages of the questions, respondents, dimensions and the total. The section is struc-
tured in the same manner as the last section with empirical findings. In the analysis we also refer to the
complete data set, which one can find in the appendices, Appendix 2.
The collected data from our questionnaire has shown an evenly spread result where the real
mean and theoretical mean is close to each other (real =3.857 and theoretical =3.500).
Therefore it is important to investigate the different respondents individually and also the
dimensions and questions closer. This will enable us to search for conspicuous data that
changes the mean of the total results. In our analysis we have been able to use 33 respon-
dents out of our sample of 64.
The distribution of respondents with an orientation towards being entrepreneurial (and al-
so non-entrepreneurial) is described in the section of ‘Distribution of Entrepreneurs’. It
will also show how the maximum, minimum and other scores are distributed on the scale
of 1 to 6. The different dimensions are to be scrutinized and analyzed looking for distin-
guishing answers with large effect upon the total results and averages that measure the en-
trepreneurial orientation.
5.1.1 Is Apoteket AB today Innovative and Proactive?
The results of innovativeness of the respondents were a bit higher than the other dimen-
sions averages. This is a good sign because there is a growing necessity for both innova-
tiveness and proactiveness to increase or keep the competitive advantage when the market
is opened up for competition. Innovativeness can also be seen as a source for strong cor-
porate growth which is highly interesting in the case of individual pharmacists starting out
on their own with the ambition to expand to a chain of pharmacies (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996).
The value of innovativeness is for the pharmacies important, since it could increase their
chances to find their own niche in the new diversified opened market for pharmaceuticals.
It also implies that pharmacists that start new pharmacies would be able to find new solu-
tions to fill market imperfections, all in accordance with theories of Kirzner (1973).
5.1.1.1 Innovativeness
The level of innovativeness of the respondents is both in creativity and willingness to in-
troduce novelty above 4.000. This could be affected by the size of the pharmacies, e.g. with
five or less employees the power distance could be lower and it is a more familiar setting
present. Creativity is the part of innovativeness that Timmons (1999) states as important,
and this is shown to have high scores in our study. The willingness to introduce newness
(which also can be seen as the reversed resistance to change) has one of the higher scores
of the questions with an average result of 4.636. This might be because pharmacies are in-
volved in a structured type of business, resulting in that pharmacists might have a wish to
innovate and change their working methods. Another point of view could be that they ac-
tually need to innovate their work, e.g. keeping themselves updated to new types of medi-
cations etc. What lowers the dimensions total average is the result of the question treating
the willingness to experiment, which we interpret, could be a result of the fact that phar-
macists line of work is of the more analytical type and it would be less effective, if not even
dangerous, to experiment their way to solutions when handling medications. The impor-

30. 25
tance of innovativeness as one of the larger components of entrepreneurial orientation
(Baum et. al, 2007) and the high results in this case is though showing good hope for the
overall entrepreneurial orientation to be high.
5.1.1.2 Proactiveness
The forward looking perspective receives high results (4.394) in the study, which could be
because the pharmacists strong incentive to be well planned, e.g. as they have the demand
to always have pharmaceuticals in stock. This could affect their view on long-term versus
short-term planning. This resulting in rigorous planning in advance and could be seen as a
strength if starting and running their own business. The two other questions results are
around the theoretical mean of 3.500. The ability to anticipate future demand (3.455) gen-
erates relatively low results in the study, and could be seen as a risk after the re-regulation.
We believe this could be because they have not faced competition before on the market,
and therefore the future market with several actors and a shifting demand due to competi-
tion could complicate their demand prognoses. The ability to recognize and seize new op-
portunities (3.818) had 21 of 33 respondents answering 4.000 or higher, hence it is obvious
that some of the remaining respondents lowered the average significantly.
Many of the remaining respondents answered 2 or lower on that specific question which
evidently lowered the average. Also worth to mention is that this is one of the most volatile
results in our study. This in combination with the ability of a forward looking perspective
could also be considered as the most important factors due that they need to anticipate the
future market development after the re-regulation and the eventual sell out of the phar-
macy, and also seek new opportunities to follow. This is also in line with the definition of
the needs for entrepreneurship by Schumpeter (1911) stating new methods, or a new mar-
ket, as required conditions for entrepreneurship to flourish. The proactiveness is also asso-
ciated as the factor most strongly connected to performance (Baum et al, 2007). Therefore
a strong proactiveness among our respondents is vital for the upcoming change on the
market.
5.1.1.3 Future outlook for innovativeness, and willingness to innovate
The high number in the forward looking perspective (4.394), the average in creativity
(3.455) and the relatively high willingness to introduce novelty (3.818) is indicating a mod-
erate positive outlook when discussing the visionary abilities. From our result we see a low
willingness to experiment (which could be affected by their line of work) but also that there
exists a more ‘carpe diem’ approach to opportunities rather than a planned seizing of them.
This is important for the future entrepreneurial orientation of the pharmacies but it would
be beneficial if the willingness to experiment increased amongst the pharmacists before
they succeed into the market as entrepreneurs.
5.1.2 The Pharmacist - Independent and Competitive?
The power distance at Apoteket is considered to be both high and low (Apoteket AB,
2007). It is seen high because the pharmacies are governed by centralized ruling, which is
because of the highly regulated market for pharmaceuticals that exist today. The claim that
it is low power distance within Apoteket AB is mainly because a large amount of responsi-
bility is outsourced on the individual pharmacies. The study’s results is showing a high ini-
tiative orientation among the respondents, and also is showing a high overall responsibility
of the work being completed, which could be due to the size of pharmacies and a close
working relation between the colleague pharmacists.

31. 26
5.1.2.1 Autonomy
The respondents’ individuality (2.778) is the lowest result we have found in our investiga-
tion. One reason could be the effect by the responsibility of descriptive medicines being
correct and the nearness of a second opinion of a colleague. The study’s results clearly state
that our respondents prefer to work in teams or groups, with this not said that it could not
be entrepreneurial teams, though the individualistic orientation is low. The ability to take
initiatives (4.212) is high, as like the overall responsibility feeling (3.909) towards the whole
project rather than just being satisfied with completing one’s own part. One of the explana-
tions could be that the pharmacists orientation towards self-action is high, taking care of
the whole process from evaluating a customers need when they enter the pharmacy with an
illness to choosing the appropriate medication. The overall responsibility could also be
connected to their line of work because a mistake of a pharmacy (e.g. wrong medications)
could have serious consequences. That the respondents show high results in their feeling of
overall responsibility leading to a higher entrepreneurial orientation is also stated important
by the theory of individual actions (Baum et. al, 2007); working with bringing forth a busi-
ness concept or vision and especially carrying it to completion.
5.1.2.2 Competitive Aggressiveness
The results in the will to outperform competition (3.515) are close to the theoretical mean.
We believe that the results might had been higher if we measured after the re-regulation,
when competition was introduced and the pharmacists had been confronted with the issue
of competition. This could also be an effect of the lack of competition seen on the market
today. Our study resulted in similar results when measuring the overall competitive attitude
(3.697), which is close to the theoretical mean. The willingness to respond aggressively to
threats (4.727) is very high, which contributes to a higher competitive aggressiveness aver-
age, and also covers for the lower willingness to outperform competition; stating that the
pharmacists at least respond aggressively and not passively to developing changes. The is-
sue of being aggressively oriented is associated with the will to sacrifice profitability or cut
prices to gain or sustain market share (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). With the risk of competi-
tors entering the market with lower prices when the re-regulation comes into effect, a
strong resistance among pharmacists to also lower their prices could therefore be hurtful
for their market share and success.
5.1.2.3 Could the pharmacists’ willingness to compete be a key factor?
The willingness to compete is one of the most important factors when talking about the
proposed new market for pharmaceuticals. There will be an entering of new actors and the
pharmacies this far only experienced competition within Apoteket AB and the different
pharmacies. The will to outperform competition (3.515), the overall competitive attitude
(3.697) and the aggressive response to threats (4.727) will all be essential determinants of
the success due to the importance of being competitively minded (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
The results in this dimension should be higher in order for us to conclude that the pharma-
cists would reassure a competitive edge. With the results received we can only say that the
competitive edge is not highly apparent to exist today, only the response to threats are evi-
dent to exist.

32. 27
5.1.3 The Minimization of Risks
The results are showing a level of risk-taking that seem to be connected to a notion of try-
ing to minimize the necessary risks. This shows an acceptance to the fact that you some-
time have to take decisions without all information, but then need to minimize the risks of
invested resources and the uncertainty of outcomes. If the later of these is high it could al-
so be an indicator of high proactiveness, i.e. a willingness of trying to anticipate future de-
velopment (Dess & Lumpkin, 1996). For the pharmacies this is of course a very interesting
issue due that they might be sold out, and in every case probably will meet new competi-
tion on the market resulting in a need to increase or keep their competitive advantage to-
wards the competitors.
5.1.3.1 Risk-Taking
Risk-taking is considered as one of the fundamental and most occurring parts of defining
entrepreneurship (Weber, 1898; Timmons, 1999; Baum et al, 2007). The willingness to take
decisions with limited information (4.121), which we believe they practice in their line of
work (in the cases when patients do not disclose all information, and the pharmacists have
to choose the right medication anyway). Of course there is a question whether if the phar-
macists keep this attitude to more managerial decisions, but still, the mentality is measured
as high. The willingness to risk one’s own resources (3.909) is a bit over the theoretical
mean showing a moderate willingness to take risks. Although the results do indicate that
they are entrepreneurially oriented within the issue of risking one’s own resources. This is
not to be an essential problem if the pharmaceutical union chooses to use the professional
model with the main financing coming from the union (HUI Report, 2008).
Analyzing the results from measuring the uncertainty acceptance, we can see that the re-
sults are low (3.152). We believe that a low acceptance of uncertainty is of importance due
to that for the moment there exists a high uncertainty on the market because the pending
re-regulation. This could influence the pharmacies that are affected by the re-regulation
and/or the sell out, and make it harder for them to accept the changes; even they have a
high result when measuring willingness to innovate. The risk-taking is overall not consid-
ered high, which also is consistent with the study of Bruining (1999) where similar results
were presented, and which we conclude could be because the fact that one wants to keep
down the risks always, no matter of the circumstances.
5.2 The Averages of the Dimensions
The different dimensions contribute to total average of entrepreneurial orientation of our
population in different ways. The three most important dimensions according to theory
(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Drucker, 1985; Timmons, 1999) are innovativeness, where our re-
spondents’ results averaged a 4.050; proactiveness with an average of 3.888 and risk taking
with 3.727. As mentioned the lower result in risk taking is similar to the low results noticed
in the study by Bruining (1999). The high averages in innovativeness and proactiveness are
there for if measuring these three dimension strong signs of an entrepreneurial orientation.
The two other dimensions added and commonly used by Lumpkin and Dess (1996); au-
tonomy (3.636) and competitive aggressiveness (3.979) had both scores above the theoreti-
cal mean. The autonomy contributes to the total average with a lowering of it, and the
competitive aggressiveness that almost got an average above 4.000 contributes positively as
the second highest average in our study when measuring dimensions.

33. 28
5.3 Distribution of Entrepreneurs
To further get a better picture of the entrepreneurial orientation among pharmacists in
Jönköping, we also look at the individual profiles of our respondents. Entrepreneurial Ori-
entation is processes, practices and the making of decision that results in the creation of a
new firm (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), and is determined by the key dimensions. Each of the
dimensions is of use when predicting the successful creation of a venture and the ventures
performance (Wiklund, 1999). Therefore the entrepreneurial orientation of an individual
could be seen as an indicator when predicting the success of performance in a new phar-
macy. It is also interesting to see whether a large amount of our respondents has low re-
sults under the theoretical mean, since these possibly will be seen as ‘opponents’ against en-
trepreneurial orientation in a firm, and therefore have an impact on the potential of suc-
cess.
From our complete data set (Appendix 2) we have derived three groupings of profiles, the
non-entrepreneurial, the middle ground and the ones entrepreneurially oriented. We have
calculated the score of each respondent as the average of their total scores on every inde-
pendent question. We assume that the profiles are to be seen as following:
◊ Non-entrepreneurial – scores between 1.000 and 2.999
◊ Middle ground – scores between 3.000 and 3.999
◊ Entrepreneurial – scores between 4.000 and 6.000
In our study we found that there were 14 respondents (of which 2 have very high scores)
considered to be entrepreneurially oriented, 16 as middle ground and 3 that were seen as
non-entrepreneurial.
Derived from the bell-curve (Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2006) graph above, we can see that
the majority of respondents are distributed between 3.500 and 4.000, showing a slight lean-
ing towards being entrepreneurially oriented. These are not to be seen as ‘obstacles’ for en-
trepreneurship, but not as enhancers of it either. These could be induced into ‘entrepreneu-
rial teams’ (Timmons, 1999) though with a need for an entrepreneurial leader.

34. 29
The two respondents who answered total average scores of above 5.000 one might see as
potential entrepreneurial leaders, depending on the push and pull effects luring or forcing
them to take the step to start their own pharmacy (Basu & Goswami, 1999). We believe it
also is important to mention that the push and pull effects also could change the leaning
towards entrepreneurial orientation of the majority of respondents between 3.500 and
4.000 because they might feel that their calculated risks is a necessity to accept (e.g. if there
is a strong push effect if their present pharmacy is to be sold or closed).
The respondents that have scores below 3.500 and especially those under 3.000 are not
necessarily distinguished dysfunctional in an entrepreneurial organization, but clearly reduc-
ing the entrepreneurial orientation of the firm. The disturbance of the respondents with
scores beneath 3.000 would particularly become apparent if these are managing their phar-
macy today, and therefore possibly will show a lower willingness to change, compete and
innovate in the presence of the market re-regulation.
5.4 The Total Entrepreneurial Potential of the Case Population
The mean value of our total population, the average that is answering our research ques-
tion; is 3.857 – showing at least a slight leaning towards being entrepreneurially oriented. If
removing the two highest and two lowest scores from our responded sample it would only
change the mean value with 0.050, hence, the mean is not very clustered and rather coher-
ent. Therefore we can draw conclusion about the whole population of the case study is en-
trepreneurially oriented. All five dimension compounded with a leaning towards entrepre-
neurship is both by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) and Wiklund (1999) stated as important, and
when predicting potential success, a key indicator.
Another issue that could be brought up is the fact that when the Pharmacists Union con-
ducted an investigation of how many pharmacists were interested in starting their own
business i.e. running their own pharmacy they got a result of 43 percent who were willing
to start, and the value in this information is that our results show that 42.4 percent has an
orientation towards being entrepreneurial, obviously very similar to the results shown in
willingness, and therefore worth mentioning.

35. 30
6 Conclusion
In this section we will present our conclusion we have drawn from our analysis and empirical data collected.
The conclusion are answering our research question, hence also answering our purpose.
Hereby we present our conclusion consistent with our research questions and also answer-
ing our purpose with the study:
• To what extent do the pharmacists in Jönköping as a group have entrepreneurial potential?
It is evident by our study that there is a notable leaning towards pharmacists being entre-
preneurs among our case study population, in the case of measuring their potentiality as
their attitude to be entrepreneurially oriented within the different aspects of the concept of
‘entrepreneurial orientation’ (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
The theoretical mean that indicates a person being ‘neither nor’ entrepreneurially oriented
is calculated to be 3.500 and the total sample mean derived from our data is 3.857. This is
noticeably showing that the population of the case study (pharmacists in Jönköping) has a
tendency to be entrepreneurial as group.
• How many pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential?
We have stated the respondents with average scores above 4.000 as clearly entrepreneurially
oriented persons, thus having entrepreneurial potential. This resulted in 14 defined indi-
viduals. These persons have scored high in all five dimensions of innovativeness, auton-
omy, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness and acceptance to risk.
The total sample consists (with non-respondents excluded) of 33 persons, and by measur-
ing the percentage of pharmacists who at least to some extent is perceived as potential en-
trepreneurs (in our case 14 persons), this gives us a result of 42.4 percent having entrepre-
neurial potential. We have stated the persons being ‘neither nor’ as they who has average
scores in the interval between 3.000 and 3.999. The number of pharmacists in this interval
consists of 16 persons. The remaining respondents are three persons that have a scoring
below 2.999 and they are seen as non-entrepreneurial. We also want to declare that there
are two persons who have scores 5.000 and above, showing great entrepreneurial potential-
ity.
- The purpose of this thesis is to measure to what extent pharmacists have entrepreneurial potential.
The conclusion of our thesis is that there exists entrepreneurial potential amongst pharma-
cists. The degree of entrepreneurial potential that exists is for the whole sample slightly
above theoretical mean, and also with a clear leaning towards positive results also on indi-
vidual level. Thus leading us to conclude that there exists entrepreneurial potential amongst
pharmacists.