Observational analysis reveals significant relationship between motivation and social entrepreneurship activities in individuals with disabilities, suggesting important implications for employment opportunities.
Despite the discrimination faced by people with disabilities (PWD) in the workforce, social entrepreneurship (SE) serves as a vital pathway to enhance their employment opportunities. SE is recognized as a driving force for addressing social issues by leveraging business activities that prioritize social outcomes, thereby supporting the efforts of non-profit organizations and government agencies to uplift economically disadvantaged communities. Successful social entrepreneurship necessitates strong motivation, particularly within underprivileged communities, to achieve social goals. When these motivational needs are unmet, it can result in decreased performance and increased organizational turnover. This study explores the relationship between motivation and social entrepreneurship activities, explicitly focusing on McClelland's theory of needs, which encompasses the need for achievement, affiliation, and power. Questionnaires were distributed to 103 individuals with disabilities, all 18 and older, registered with the Department of Social Welfare and engaged in social entrepreneurship. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28 and SmartPLS 4. The findings indicate a significant relationship between affiliation motivation and social entrepreneurship activities. A primary motivational profile was identified, highlighting the need for affiliation first, followed by power, and then achievement. This supports prior research suggesting that people with disabilities (PWD) engage more with their communities due to shared experiences, generating economic value. This study enhances McClelland's Need Theory concerning motivation in social entrepreneurship for individuals with disabilities. Future research should investigate longitudinal data and specific dimensions of affiliation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramdan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: