Opportunities and Challenges in Encouraging an Entrepreneurial Spirit in Gen Z

There’s a quiet revolution happening in classrooms, dorm rooms, and coffee shops worldwide. It’s not loud and doesn’t make headlines like tech IPOs. But if you look closely, you’ll see it: Generation Z, born roughly between 1997 and 2012, is rethinking what work means. They’re not just looking for jobs; many want to build something. This piece argues that Gen Z’s entrepreneurial drive is real, but turning it into action depends on education, mindset, digital fluency, and social support. The central question is not whether Gen Z has an entrepreneurial streak the research covers that. The real question is what helps them move from intention to action and what stands in their way. (Prakash & Arora, 2024, pp. 297-315)

I’ve reviewed recent studies, and the picture is more subtle than the usual “Gen Z wants to be their own boss” narrative. That desire exists, but the path from wanting to doing is shaped by education, mindset, digital fluency, and social and psychosocial factors that either fuel or weaken it. (Antecedents to Generation Z’s entrepreneurial intention: A fusion of social support theory and the theory of planned behavior, 2026) This review focuses on what moves Gen Z from intention to action and what holds that shift back.

The Entrepreneurial Intention Is Real

First, the baseline: Gen Z shows strong entrepreneurial intent. In the Philippines, Etrata and Raborar (2022) found that Filipino Gen Z demonstrates clear business-mindedness, motivated by economic necessity and the wish for independence. Similar studies across countries show the same pattern: personality traits, education, and entrepreneurial orientation shape intention. RiAryoko, Anggara, and Fauziridwan (2024) examined how risk tolerance, achievement needs, and social media engagement drive Gen Z entrepreneurial intentions in Asia. Their work suggests this generation’s digital nativity is a core feature of how they discover, evaluate, and commit to business ideas.

Even in Eastern and Central Europe, where post-communist economies might theoretically discourage risk-taking, Wasilczuk and Karyy (2022) found that youth attitudes toward entrepreneurship remain surprisingly positive, though gender differences persist in how those attitudes translate into action.

So the intention is there globally and consistently. But intention, as any founder will tell you, is cheap. What turns it into action? Education is one answer. The studies below suggest the answer lies in education, mindset, digital fluency, and social support. (Yuliana et al., 2026, pp. 2003-2014)

Education as The Double-Edged Sword

If there’s one factor in nearly every study, it’s education. But here’s the interesting part: education doesn’t just provide knowledge. It shapes self-belief, expands networks, and reframes failure from shameful to instructive. At least, good education does. In this discussion, education is not just one influence among many; it is a key lever in turning intention into action. (Lesinskis et al., 2023)

Gubik and Bartha (2025) examined how students perceive university efficacy in shaping entrepreneurial mindset, and their findings in Theory, Methodology, Practice suggest that students are acutely aware of whether their institution is actually helping them or just checking boxes. That perception matters. If students feel their university is genuinely invested in their entrepreneurial growth, the mindset follows. (Makai & Dőry, 2023) (Makai & Dőry, 2023) (Labiad, 2025)

Rahim, Mohamed, Tasir, and Shariff (2022) got more specific. Their study of engineering students found that experiential learning and case-study immersion significantly increased entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. In other words, doing beats listening. Gen Z doesn’t want to hear about entrepreneurship in lectures. They want to build prototypes, pitch to mock investors, fail, and try again.

Rahman and colleagues (2023), studying Malaysian public university students, reinforced this: an entrepreneurial mindset and business creation are closely linked, but the mindset must be actively cultivated, not assumed. Similarly, Yang (2024), studying vocational students in China, argued that entrepreneurial education forms the basis for an enhanced entrepreneurial mindset among engineering students. Whether vocational, engineering, or business, the principle holds: structured, relevant education moves the needle. (Woraphiphat & Roopsuwankun, 2023)

Lei (2023) tied this to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that enhancing entrepreneurial mindset and skills through education isn’t just good for individuals; it’s a macroeconomic imperative for China’s recovery. That’s a big claim, but it reflects a growing consensus that entrepreneurship education is no longer a nice-to-have elective. It’s infrastructure. (The AI-powered entrepreneur: how ChatGPT adoption amplifies the impact of education on digital entrepreneurial intention via self-efficacy and perceived control?, 2026)

Even Schnell and colleagues (2020), examining engineering graduates, found that continued entrepreneurial skill development correlates with sustained intentions over time. The takeaway? A single entrepreneurship course in sophomore year won’t cut it. It needs to be iterative, reinforced, and connected to a real-world application. (Lesinskis et al., 2023)

But education has limits. Hossain, Tabash, Siow, Ong, and Anagreh (2023), studying Gen Z university students in Bangladesh, identified significant entrepreneurial constraints alongside intentions. Education can open doors, but if the ecosystem beyond those doors is bureaucratic, undercapitalized, and socially unsupportive, intentions stall. That leads to the mindset puzzle.

The Mindset Puzzle

Education feeds into something deeper: an entrepreneurial mindset. But what exactly is that? The literature defines it as a combination of self-efficacy, achievement motivation, opportunity recognition, and resilience. (Lim & Sustaningrum, 2026) For Gen Z, two elements seem especially critical because they help turn interest into action.

First, self-efficacy is the belief that you can actually pull this off. Ampa, Rijal, Tadampali, Nurwahida, and Purnamasari (2026) found that self-efficacy and achievement motivation play pivotal roles in forming Gen Z’s entrepreneurial mindset. It’s not enough to want success; you have to believe you’re capable of achieving it. Second, the broader psychological profile. Mahfudh (2024) argued that building Gen Z entrepreneurial intentions requires cultivating entrepreneurial attitudes specifically, not just skills or knowledge, but a disposition toward opportunity, risk, and innovation. Gianis, Ramli, and Mariam (2025) added that social inclusion, gender, and entrepreneurship education all interact with self-efficacy to predict intention. It’s a system, not a single trait. Pihie and Arivayagan (2016) identified predictors of entrepreneurial mindset that remain relevant: prior exposure to entrepreneurship, role models, and educational interventions. The good news? Mindset is malleable. The bad news? It requires intentional cultivation, and not all environments provide that. (Mawson et al., 2023) Digital tools add another layer.

Digital Natives, Digital Entrepreneurs

Here’s where Gen Z diverges sharply from previous generations. They didn’t adopt digital tools; they were born into them. And that changes everything about how they approach entrepreneurship. Digital fluency is, therefore, not just a context here; it is part of the mechanism that can move intention into practice. (Han et al., 2026) (Han et al., 2026) (Tripopsakul & Hoonsopon, 2026, pp. 1-15)

Abidin and Pamungkas (2020) explored how digital platforms function as non-formal learning spaces in higher education. For Gen Z, TikTok isn’t just entertainment; it’s market research. Instagram isn’t just social; it’s brand building. Using these platforms in student entrepreneurial activities represents a key element. (Septiawan, 2025) Soni and colleagues (2024) put it plainly: digitalization plays an essential role in encouraging entrepreneurial spirit in Gen Z. It lowers barriers to entry, democratizes access to markets, and provides real-time feedback loops that previous generations could only have dreamed of.

But digital literacy isn’t automatic. Indraswari, Wulandari, and Fauzan (2026) found that digital literacy and creativity predict interest in digital entrepreneurship among Gen Z, but this relationship is mediated by entrepreneurial mindset. In other words, being good with technology isn’t enough; you need the mindset to use that technology entrepreneurially. Saputra (2025) showed that both entrepreneurial mindset and digital literacy independently influence entrepreneurial decisions among Gen Z. You need both. One without the other creates a lopsided founder, either technically capable but directionless, or visionary but unable to execute digitally. (Eesley et al., 2023)

Utami and colleagues (2025) tied these threads together, examining how entrepreneurship education, attitude toward risk, and digUtami and colleagues (2025) tied these threads together, examining how entrepreneurship education, attitude toward risk, and digital literacy collectively shape entrepreneurial intention. Their model suggests these factors don’t just add up; they interact. Education builds literacy. Literacy reduces perceived risk. Reduced risk strengthens intention. That interaction is key. are about purpose. Not all of them, not uniformly, but enough to shift the conversation on entrepreneurship. That makes social entrepreneurship an important next lens to consider. That values layer matters because purpose can strengthen the move from intention to action. (Foe & Soelaiman, 2026) (Thomas, 2022) (Saputra et al., 2026, pp. 29-41) (Cáceres-Carrasco et al., 2026)

Jasin, Hansaram, Chong, and Adam (2024) examined social entrepreneurship through the eyes of Gen Z and found that an intentional perspective shapes how young people approach socially minded ventures. Prakash and Arora (2024), in Industry and Higher Education, explored contextual factors influencing social entrepreneurial intentions and found that Gen Z responds strongly to environmental cues: community need, institutional support, and perceived social impact.

Sharma, Bagdi, Bulsara, and Lodaliya (2025) added an important wrinkle: personality traits stimulate social entrepreneurial intentions among Gen Z, but gender moderates this effect. The stimulus differs for young men and women, suggesting one-size-fits-all interventions may miss the mark.

Rakičević, Njegić, Cogoljevic, and Rakičević (2023) examined the mediated effect of entrepreneurial education on students’ intention to engage in social entrepreneurial projects, specifically finding that the impact of education flows through increased awareness and perceived capability. Social entrepreneurship isn’t just about good intentions. It requires the same skill-building as any venture, perhaps more so given the complexity of measuring social impact. (Rawhouser et al., 2019, pp. 82-115) (Rawhouser et al., 2019, pp. 82-115) (Rawhouser et al., 2019, pp. 82-115)

The Gender Question

Speaking of nuance, gender consistently emerges as a factor that complicates simple narratives.

P. (2025), in the AMC Indian Journal of Entrepreneurship, examined empowering women through entrepreneurial education from a SWOC (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges) perspective through the Gen Z lens. The evidence shows that while education opens doors for women, structural weaknesses and cultural challenges remain. It’s not enough to teach entrepreneurship; the environment must also support women’s participation. (Yadav & Unni, 2016)

Gianis, Ramli, and Mariam (2025) explicitly included gender in their model of social inclusion and entrepreneurial intention, finding that it interacts with self-efficacy and education in complex ways. As mentioned, Wasilczuk and Karyy (2022) found gender differences in how youth attitudes translate into entrepreneurial action across Eastern and Central Europe.

The implication? Programs aiming to foster Gen Z entrepreneurship need to ask: For whom? May universal programs perpetuate existing inequaThe implication? Programs aiming to foster Gen Z entrepreneurship need to ask: For whom? Universal programs may perpetuate inequalities if they don’t account for differential access to networks, capital, and social permission. (Bennett & Robinson, 2024)and set all you want. But if the broader ecosystem is broken, Gen Z entrepreneurs face a cliff. (Manalu et al., 2026)

Gołembski and Narojczyk (2025), in their study from the Silesian University of Technology, explicitly tackled the challenges of starting a business for Generation Z. Their work reminds us that regulatory burden, access to capital, market saturation, and mental health pressures are real constraints that no amount of classroom optimism can fully overcome. (Gołembski & Narojczyk, 2025)

In Bangladesh, Hossain and colleagues (2023) identified entrepreneurial constraints that temper university students’ intentions. Munir, Nauman, Shah, and Zahid (2024), studying Pakistani Gen Z, found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy and social norms mediate the relationship between attitudes toward entrepreneurship education and actual intentions. Social norms matter. If your family expects you to become a doctor and your community views business failure as personal failure, education alone won’t override that. (Yüncü et al., 2026)

Tung and Hien (2025), examining Generation Z students at Vietnam’s Academy of Policy and Development, found that entrepreneurial motivation mediates the relationships among education, self-efficacy, environment, and intention. But they also imply that without environmental support, motivation wanes. (Kamalia et al., 2026)

Even in more developed contexts, the ecosystem challenge persists. (Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Diagnostics, n.d.) (Mago & Merwe, 2023), in their Gen Z Jabodetabek case study, linked an entrepreneurial mindset to sustainable economic growth but acknowledged that a mindset without opportunity creates frustration rather than businesses.

The Darker Undercurrents

It would be irresponsible to discuss Gen Z entrepreneurship without acknowledging the unique pressures this generation faces.

Husic (2024), writing in Sustainable Earth Reviews, reframed sustainability initiatives in higher education, noting that Gen Z carries an unusual burden: they’re expected to solve problems that previous generations created. That expectation can be motivating, but it can also be paralyzing. (Lim & Sustaningrum, 2026) (Role ambiguity in entrepreneurship education: expectation gaps between educators and students in venture creation courses, 2021, pp. 1309-1325) (Antecedents to Generation Z’s entrepreneurial intention: A fusion of social support theory and the theory of planned behavior, 2026)

Gen and colleagues (2026) captured something haunting in their phenomenological study of Indonesian urban Gen Z, such as #KaburAjaDuluand hopes for transnational migration. Using structural equation modeling, they found that economic precarity, coupled with digital exposure to alternative lifestyles abroad, drives some Gen Z to view entrepreneurship not as a passion but as an exit strategy. That’s a fundamentally different motivation than the “follow your dream” narrative usually sold in entrepreneurship courses. (Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2025)

Dr. K. and Gen (2023), in Acta Theologica, explored how Africa’s digital natives engage with digital ecclesiology, which is how religious communities adapt to digital spaces. While not strictly an entrepreneurship study, it hints at how Gen Z seeks meaning and community in cyberspaces, which inevitably influences how they build businesses and what values those businesses embody.

What Actually Works Toward a Synthesis

So after all this, what do we actually know about fostering entrepreneurial spirit in Gen Z?

Education must be experiential and iterative.

The lecture-and-exam model doesn’t build entrepreneurs. Case studies, simulations, real ventures, and repeated exposure do. Universities should be judged not by how many entrepreneurship courses they offer, but by how many students they help actually start something.

Digital literacy and an entrepreneurial mindset must be developed together.

You can’t separate the two for this generation. Programs that teach coding without business thinking, or business strategy without digital execution, prepare students for a world that no longer exists.

Social entrepreneurship deserves dedicated attention.

Gen Z’s values orientation isn’t a fringe interest. It’s central to how many define success. Programs that ignore this miss a major motivational lever.

Gender and inclusion cannot be afterthoughts.

The data consistently show differential experiences and outcomes. Targeted support for underrepresented groups isn’t charity. It’s accuracy.

Ecosystem support must match educational investment.

This is where many programs fail. You can’t build an entrepreneurial mindset in a vacuum and then release students into bureaucratic, undercapitalized, risk-averse environments. Policy, funding, mentorship, and community norms need to align with educational goals.

Motivation and mental health matter.

Gen Z faces unique pressures, and entrepreneurship is stressful even under ideal conditions. Programs that build resilience and provide psychological support will see better retention and outcomes.

The Road Ahead

I started this piece by saying there’s a quiet revolution happening. After reviewing this research, I think that’s only half true. The revolution isn’t quiet because Gen Z is timid. It’s quiet because it’s happening in fragmented ways in online communities, university incubators, side hustles that may never become full-time businesses, and social enterprises that measure success by impact rather than profit.

The opportunity is enormous. Gen Z is educated, digitally fluent, globally connected, and values-driven in ways that might change capitalism itself. (Marlina, 2025) (The power of entrepreneurial innovation capital in higher education: A diffusion of innovation approach to Generation Z entrepreneurship education, 2026). The challenge is that intention doesn’t guarantee action, and action doesn’t guarantee success.

Fostering entrepreneurial spirit in this generation isn’t about convincing them to want entrepreneurship. They already do. It’s about building the educational architectures, digital infrastructures, social supports, and policy environments that let them move from wanting to building and from building to sustaining.tatement. But if we get it right, the payoff isn’t just more businesses. It’s a generation that defines work on its own terms. And honestly? Given the state of the world, we could use more of that.

References

Makai, A. L. & Dőry, T. (2023). Perceived university support and environment as a factor of entrepreneurial intention: Evidence from Western Transdanubia Region. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.09678

Petchamé, J., Novkovic, D., Fox, P., Kinnear, L. & Torres-Kompen, R. (2026). SDG-Driven Entrepreneurship Through Technology Solutions in Higher Education Enhanced by Problem-Based Learning: An Active Learning Approach in a Smart Classroom Environment. Sustainability 18(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su18041849

Bahaw, P., Baboolal, A. & Mack, A. J. (2024). Exposure to entrepreneurship education interventions reveals improvements to vocational entrepreneurial intent: a two-wave longitudinal study. Discover Education 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00241-4

Saeedikiya, M., Salamzadeh, A., Salamzadeh, Y. & Aeeni, Z. (2023). Cognitions Affecting Innovation Among Generation Z Entrepreneurs: The External Enablement of Digital Infrastructure. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 30(23), pp. 572-608. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2023-0188

Thomas, O. (2022). Entrepreneurship education: Which educational elements influence entrepreneurial intention?. International Small Business Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222221121065

Mago, S. & Merwe, S. v. (2023). Exploring Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Developed Countries: A Systematic Review. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231217886

(2021). Role ambiguity in entrepreneurship education: expectation gaps between educators and students in venture creation courses. Education + Training 63(9), pp. 1309-1325. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2020-0204

(2026). The power of entrepreneurial innovation capital in higher education: A diffusion of innovation approach to Generation Z entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education 24(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2026.1013

Prakash, D. & Arora, T. (2024). Exploring the influence of contextual factors on social entrepreneurial intentions: A study of Generation Z. International Small Business Journal 39(3), pp. 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222241289799

(2026). Antecedents to Generation Z’s entrepreneurial intention: A fusion of social support theory and the theory of planned behavior. Global Economics Research 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecores.2026.100028

Yuliana, R., Suryana, S., Suwatno, S. & Sultan, M. A. (2026). A Mixed Methods Analysis of Global Mindset, Digital Skills, and Institutional Support on Digital Entrepreneurship Intentions. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Kesatuan 14(2), pp. 2003-2014. https://doi.org/10.37641/jimkes.v14i2.5085

Lesinskis, K., Mavlutova, I., Spilbergs, A. & Hermanis, J. (2023). Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of a Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z. Sustainability 15(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310135

Woraphiphat, I. & Roopsuwankun, P. (2023). The impact of online design thinking-based learning on entrepreneurial intention: the case of a vocational college. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00278-z

(2026). The AI-powered entrepreneur: how ChatGPT adoption amplifies the impact of education on digital entrepreneurial intention via self-efficacy and perceived control?. BMC Psychology 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04195-0

Lim, J. & Sustaningrum, R. (2026). Do Social Media Shape Gen Z’s Entrepreneurial Intention? Testing Opportunity Recognition and Self-Efficacy as Mediators. Jurnal Manajemen Sains dan Organisasi 7(1). https://doi.org/10.52300/jmso.v7i1.25405

Mawson, S., Casulli, L. & Simmons, E. L. (2023). A Competence Development Approach for Entrepreneurial Mindset in Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Education and Work 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25151274221143146

Septiawan, E. (2025). Student Digital Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Literature Review using The PRISMA Framework. Indo-MathEdu Intellectuals Journal 6(4). https://doi.org/10.54373/imeij.v6i4.3615

Eesley, C., Pennsylvania, U. o. & Technology, M. I. (June 15, 2023). Innovative founders give tech start-ups an edge, Stanford research shows. Stanford University School of Engineering. https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/innovative-founders-give-tech-start-ups-edge-stanford-research-shows

Foe, G. B. & Soelaiman, L. (2026). Perbedaan Persepsi Keinginan dan Kelayakan terhadap Intensi Wirausaha Sosial Generasi Z Berdasarkan Gender. Jurnal Manajerial Dan Kewirausahaan 8(1). https://doi.org/10.24912/jmk.v8i1.36949

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social Impact Measurement: Current Approaches and Future Directions for Social Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(1), pp. 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258717727718

Yadav, V. & Unni, J. (2016). Women entrepreneurship: research review and future directions. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-016-0055-x

Bennett, V. M. & Robinson, D. T. (2024). Why Aren’t There More Minority Entrepreneurs?. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w33229

Gołembski, M. & Narojczyk, S. Ł. (2025). UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGES OF STARTING A BUSINESS FOR GENERATION Z. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization and Management Series 2025(240):99-117. https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2025.240.6

Yüncü, V., Ağtaş, E. & Gürpınar, K. (2026). Beyond the lecture hall: unpacking the contextual drivers of entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship Education 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-026-00179-8

(n.d.). Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Diagnostics. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/entrepreneurial-ecosystem-diagnostics_7096961f-en.html

Marlina, L. (2025). Reframing Higher Education Value: A Systematic Literature Review on Gen Z’s Perception in the Digital Economy Era. Commercium: Journal of Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.61978/commercium.v3i3.809