Redalyc.THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de

Administración

ISSN: 1900-5016

[email protected]

Universidad El Bosque

Colombia

Martínez Campo, José Luis

THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS

Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración, vol. VI, núm. 10, enero-junio, 2010, pp. 51-76

Universidad El Bosque

Bogotá, Colombia

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=409634363004

How to cite

Complete issue

More information about this article

Journal's homepage in redalyc.org

Scientific Information System

Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal

Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative

http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=4096



http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=409634363004

http://www.redalyc.org/comocitar.oa?id=409634363004

http://www.redalyc.org/fasciculo.oa?id=4096&numero=34363

http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=409634363004


http://www.redalyc.org

51Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016

THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP:PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS1

LA PROPENSIÓN AL ESPÍRITU EMPRESARIAL:FACTORES PSICOLÓGICOS Y SOCIALES

José Luis Martínez Campo2

The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76

ABSTRACT

Personality traits, organizational factors, andenvironmental factors have been studied byentrepreneurship researchers as causes ofnew venture success; however, from 1961 to1990, research about entrepreneurs' traitsfound only weak effects (Aldrich & Wieden-mayer, 1993). Recently, a growing cohort ofpsychology-based researchers has renewedinterest in entrepreneurs' personal charac-teristics as predictors of success by movingbeyond the past focus on traits to study com-petencies, motivation, cognition, and behav-ior. The main purpose of this paper is to pro-vide a review and offer a theoretical exten-sion of research on the social and psycho-logical factors that influence the individualpropensity to new ventures creation, and of-fer suggestions about future directions for thistopic.

Key words: Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship,personality traits, entrepreneur´s traits, en-trepreneurial behavior.

RESUMEN

Los rasgos de personalidad, los factoresorganizacionales y los factores ambientaleshan sido estudiados por los investigadorescomo causas de la nueva empresa de éxito.Sin embargo, desde 1961 hasta 1990, lainvestigación sobre tales rasgos de losemprendedores encontró sólo efectos débiles(Aldr ich y Wiedenmayer, 1993).Recientemente, un grupo creciente deinvestigadores, basados en la psicología, harenovado el interés en las características depersonalidad de los emprendedores comopredictores de éxito al superar la anteriorpredilección en el estudio de rasgos talescomo las competencias, la motivación, losconocimientos y la conducta. El objetivo prin-cipal de este trabajo es proporcionar unarevisión y ofrecer una extensión teórica de lainvestigación sobre los factores sociales ypsicológicos que influyen en la propensiónindividual a la creación de nuevas empresas,y ofrecer sugerencias sobre la orientaciónfutura de este tema.

Palabras c lave: Emprendedor, espír i tuempresarial, los rasgos de personalidad, losrasgos de empresario, el comportamientoempresarial.

1 Trabajo de revisión crítica realizada por el autor en la Fundación Universidad del Norte, Business School.Escrito recibido en 22/02/2010 y aprobado el 05/04/2010.

2 Ingeniero industrial. Especialización en Ingeniería y Gestión de la Calidad. Maestría en Administración deEmpresas. Profesor Fundación Universidad del Norte, Business School. [email protected]

52 Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016

José Luis Martínez Campo

1. INTRODUCTIONEntrepreneurship has an important role in acountry's economy, contributing decisivelyfor the creat ion of new businesses orbusiness opportunities in companies thatalready exist, according to GlobalEntrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2007).

Consequently, entrepreneurship carries aseries of advantages for the countries/regions, with the creation of new businessesthat generate more investments in the localeconomy, creates new jobs, and increasescompetitiveness by developing innovativeworking tools. This way, this phenomenon isconsidered a major element in fostering thedynamics of an economy and bringing newtypes of competitive business (GEM, 2007).

Virtanen (1997) sees entrepreneurship as adynamic process which the main purpose is tocreate value in the market, through theexploration of economic innovations. Theentrepreneur, by creating value and byexploring innovative processes, is alsocontributing for the growth of their businessand the economy.

The definition of entrepreneurship has beenseen according to two criteria: the firstinvolves the knowledge and the individual'scapacity of recogniz ing economicopportunities existent in the market, whichmay be exploited through the creation of anew business; the second criteria involvesthe economic behavior and the creation ofthe new business in order to aggregate theeconomic value to knowledge (Audrestschand Keilbach, 2004)3. According to Bygraveand Hofer (1991) and Bygrave (1993)4,entrepreneurship is a process which involvesall the functions and activities related to theindividuals' perception of opportunity andrespective creation of enterprises in orderto undertake these opportunities. Involvesseveral precedent conditions and is startedby an act of willingness, occurring at anindividual level, implies a state of change anduniqueness, and its final results are sensitiveto the initial conditions. In Venkataraman5

(1997) opinion, quoted by Shane andVenkataraman (2000), the entrepreneurshipphenomenon cannot be explained based onwhat the entrepreneur is or does. For thisauthor the focus should be on the relationbetween the existence of prof i tableopportunit ies and the presence ofentrepreneurial individuals. Entrepreneurshipundertakes the evaluation of opportunitiessources, comprehending the discovery,estimation and exploration, plus a set ofindividuals that discover, evaluates andexplores it (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).The entrepreneurship process includesuncertainty and venture, management skillsand creative opportunism (Brockhaus, 1980).

According to Phi l ipsen (1998) featurestheories sustain that the individuals withpropensity for entrepreneurship have certaincharacteristics which distinguishing themfrom the remaining individuals. These theoriesseek to identi fy the key-features ofsuccessful entrepreneurs, includingpsychological, sociological andanthropological variables.

Additionally, according to Casson (1982) thefundamental features, associated with theentrepreneur, such as imagination, areinherent and cannot be learned. In theseterms, one of the many criticisms that aremade to features' theory is that it doesn'tenable us to distinguish inherent personalityfeatures from those that can be taught(Gordon, 2004).

By other hand, the inaptitude of thepsychological features theory to explainentrepreneurship may result from the lack ofknowledge regarding the social context andthe choices that individuals do in the decisionmoment whether they should or not becomeentrepreneurs (Reynolds, 1991). Accordingto Virtanen (1997) the sociological theoriesrely on the ethnical identification and try toexplain entrepreneurship as being a processwhere the individual sociological pastconstitutes a decisive factor for he, or she,becoming an entrepreneur.

3 Audretsch, D.B. & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. RegionalStudies, 38(8), 949-959. p. 949

4 Bygrave, W.D. (1993). Theory building in the entrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of Business Venturing, 8,255-280. p. 255

5 Venkataraman, S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An Editor's Perspective.Advances in Entrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus. Greenwich, JAI Press. 3: 119-138. p. 119



Different studies establish that propensityfor entrepreneurship depends on severalfactors. In this art ic le, I analyze aconceptual framework based on social andpsychological features.

2. THEORETICAL REVIEW"Entrepreneurship is the process of creatingsomething new with value by devoting thenecessary time and effort, assuming theaccompanying financial, psychic, and socialrisks, and receiving the resulting rewards"(Hisrich, Peters, & Shepherd, 2005).

Entrepreneurs are considered the center ofnew venture creation, and are individualswho capitalize intellectual and physical assetsin the process of wealth creat ion bydiscovering and transforming uniqueopportunities into new ventures.

Entrepreneurship-oriented intentions arebelieved to be precursors of entrepreneurialaction (Bird, 1988; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger& Brazeal, 19946; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud,2000)7. As to further developentrepreneurship theory, researchers needan understanding of the factors that mightinfluence the intentions of those consideringentrepreneurship for the first-time nascententrepreneurs (Carter, Gartner, & Reynolds,1996, p. 151; Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, &Greene, 2004; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005,p. 109). Factors that would influence one tobecome an entrepreneur are many, andconsist of various combinations of personalattributes, traits, background, experience,and disposition (Arenius & Minniti, 2005;Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000).

Psychological researchers have put emphasison the character and personality traits ofentrepreneurs. Two influential theoreticalviewpoints in this view are coming fromSchumpeter (1967) and Rotter (1966).According to the first author, the mostrelevant and important characteristic of anentrepreneur is his/her nature to makeinnovations. The entrepreneur providesleadership to discontinuous dynamic change

through means of production into new ways.He visualized this happening by means of anew combination of factors of productionresulting in one or a few of the following:introduction of a new product, institution ofa new technology, opening a new market,discovery of a new source of supply of rawmaterials and carrying out a new form oforganization. In Rotter's opinion, there aretwo broad categories of people-people whobelieve that what happens to them is theresult of chance, luck or factors beyond theircontrol termed primarily believers in theexternal locus of control and people whobelieve that, for the most part, the future istheirs to control through their own efforts,termed as believers in the internal locus ofcontrol. According to Rotter (1966), peoplewho are entrepreneurial are more likely tobelieve in the internal rather than in theexternal locus of control.

The motivations and behavior of individuals whoare intended to create new ventures is anintriguing area of entrepreneurship researchand has received increased attention over thelast decade (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carteret al., 1996, Davidsson and Honig, 2003).Several approaches to identifying "whereentrepreneurs come from" have recentlyemerged. One popular approach employs long-standing psychology models of plannedbehavior to explain how ideas evolve into newventures (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994)8. Anotherfocus applies motivation models thatincorporate personal attributes, values,characteristics, demographic factors andculture to explain why some individuals aremore likely to engage in entrepreneurialbehavior than others (Mueller and Thomas,2001). Still, other approaches are based onentrepreneurial process models that focus ona "gestation" period during which various formsof nascent behavior are presumed to take place(Carter et al., 1996)9.

The first research studies in the field ofentrepreneurship required to determine whatpersonality characteristics distinguishedentrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs,

6 Krueger, N.F., Jr. & Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepre-neurship Theory & Practice, 18(3), 91-104. p. 91

7 Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journalof Business Venturing, 15, 411-432. p. 411

8 Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, p. 919 Carter et al. 1996, p. 151



entrepreneurs from managers in large firms, andsuccessful entrepreneurs from unsuccessfulentrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus &Horwitz, 1986). The role of personal traits (risk-taking propensity, locus of control, and needfor achievement), found their way into journalsand models until Gartner (1988) commented thatthe entrepreneur described by these researchefforts had become larger than life and a sortof "generic everyman"; some aspects of thisdescription would fit almost anyone. In Gartner'sopinion, that line of reasoning had outlived itsutility. Shaver and Scott (1991) concluded theirresearch by stating: The study of new venturecreation began with some reasonableassumptions about the psychologicalcharacteristics of "entrepreneurs." Through theyears, more and more of these personologicalcharacteristics have been discarded, debunked,or at the very least, found to have beenmeasured ineffectively. The result has been atendency to concentrate on almost anythingexcept the individual. Economic circumstancesare important; marketing is important; financeis important; even public agency assistance isimportant. But none of these will, alone, createa new venture. For that we need a person, inwhose mind all of the possibilities come together,who believes that innovation is possible, andwho has the motivation to persist until the jobis done. Person, process, and choice; for thesewe need a truly psychological perspective onnew venture creation.

These arguments are consistent with thepsychological argument defining behavior asa function of the interaction between theindividual and the environment (Endler, 1983).Yet, Sexton and Bowman (1986) argued thatempirical research had failed to agree onwhich character ist ics dist inguishedentrepreneurs from other business persons.

Gartner (1985)10 proposed a conceptualframework of new venture creation thatportrayed the process as an interaction of the

environment, the individual, the organization, andentrepreneurial behavior. Gartner (1988)suggested that in entrepreneurship research, theresearch questions should focus on the processof entrepreneurship instead of who is theentrepreneur. His implication is thatentrepreneurship is a multidimensional processand that entrepreneurial traits are just onecomponent of that process. Johnson (1990)11

noted that few studies have explicitly addressedthe question of how psychological predisposition,individual behaviors, and firm-level outcomes arerelated. Entrepreneurship is a multidimensionalprocess that demands the utilization ofmultidimensional research models if trueunderstanding of the process is to be attained.

At about the time of the Gartner et al.debate, Greenberger and Sexton (1988)12,proposed a model that incorporated individualcharacteristics and environmental influences.Their model presented new venture creationas an interactive process in which personalcharacter ist ics, including personal i ty,interacted with an interpretation of salientevents in the environment to influencedecisions concerning new venture creation.Greenberger and Sexton also included theconcept of "vision," the entrepreneurs'abstract image of the kind of business theyintend to create which serves as a guide fortheir own act ions. The concepts ofintentionality (Bird, 1988)13 and propensity(Montanari, Domicone, Oldenkamp, & Palich,1990) have been suggested as key factorsin the venture creation process. Learned(1992, p. 36) introduced a model thatextended the interaction of personality traits,intention, propensity, and the situation.

Herron and Sapienza (1992)14 stated,"Because motivation plays an important partin the creation of new organizations, theoriesof organization creation that fail to addressthis notion are incomplete." Johnson (1990)15

in his review of achievement motivation and

10 Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation.Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696-706. p. 696.

11 Johnson, B. R. (1990). Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievementmotivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 39-54. p.48

12 Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 13(4), 47-68. p. 47

13 Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of ManagementReview. /J(3). 442-453. p. 442.

14 Herron, L.. & Sapienza. H. J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, /7(l), 49-55. p 49



the entrepreneur stated, i t remainsworthwhile to carefully study the role of theindividual, including his or her psychologicalprof i le. Individuals are, after al l , theenergizers of the entrepreneurial process.

Churchill (1992)16 summarized the anticipatedresearch needs concerning the psychologyof entrepreneurs by stating, we lack a genericdef init ion of the psychology of theentrepreneur and the relat ionship ofpsychological traits to both the initiation andgrowth of new enterprises . . . it might bebenef ic ia l to concentrate our researchefforts, not on the psychologicalcharacteristics of entrepreneurs, but ondetermining why they succeed or fail.

The decision to behave entrepreneurally is basedon more than personal characteristics andindividual differences. The interaction of personalcharacteristics with other important perceptionsof situational factors needs to be betterunderstood (Naffziger, Hornsby, Kuratko, 1994).Reynolds (1992, p. 268) proposed three factorsthat may affect an individual's decision to starta new firm: (1) the characteristics of theeconomic context; (2) the characteristics ofthe individual's life or career context; and (3)underlying personal disposition. Based upon thisand other existing literature, five majorcategories of variables are believed tointeractively influence an individual's decisionto behave entrepreneurially. Those variablesare: (1) an entrepreneur's personalcharacteristics; (2) the individual's personalenvironment; (3) the relevant businessenvironment; (4) the specific business idea;and (5) the goals of the entrepreneur (Naffziger,Hornsby, Kuratko, 1994).

The researches for personal i ty traitsdifferences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs were developed by severalresearchers in the 1980s. Much of theresearch focused on traits such as the need

for achievement, locus of control, and risk-taking propensity (Naffz iger, Hornsby,Kuratko, 1994)17. Gartner's (1985) model ofnew venture creation included those threevariables, not necessarily to say that theydif ferentiate entrepreneurs fromnonentrepreneurs, but to indicate that theyare important in the process of starting abusiness.

Other findings of individual characteristicsrelated to the venture creation processinclude energy level, conformity, and needfor autonomy (Sexton & Bowman, 1986),persistence and dominance (Neider, 1987),desire for personal control (Greenberger &Sexton, 1988), and the desire to buildsomething of one's own (Knight, 1987).Greenberger and Sexton (1988: 1-7) alsohypothesized that one's attitude about one'sself is influential in the decision to start abusiness. Herron and Sapienza (1992)18

proposed the importance of personality traitsin affect ing an entrepreneur's level ofaspiration towards a venture.

Personal goalsGreenberger and Sexton (1988, p. 4)19

identify the entrepreneur's vision as asignif icant and relevant force in thedevelopment of the new venture.Furthermore, Learned (1992) includedintentionality and propensity to found aventure as key variables in theentrepreneurial process. Herron and Sapienza(1992) demonstrated the importance of theentrepreneur's level of aspirations in theirventure initiation model (Naffziger, Hornsbyand Kuratko, 1994)20.

Naffziger et al (1994)21 proposed a Model ofEntrepreneurial Motivation and stated thatthe decision to behave entrepreneurially ishypothesized to be the result of theinteraction of several factors. One set offactors includes the personal characteristics

15 Johnson, B. R. (1990). Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievementmotivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 39-54. p. 48

16 Churchill, N. C. (1992). Research issues in entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & J. D. Kasarda (Eds.), Thestate of the art of entrepreneurship, pp. 579-590. Boston. MA: PWS-Kent Publishing. p. 585

17 Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., & Kuratko, D.F. (1994). A proposed research model of entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, p. 32

18 Herron and Sapienza. Op. cit. 1992, p. 4919 Greenberger, D.B., & Sexton, D. (1988). An interactive model of new venture initiation. Journal of Small

Business Management. 26(1), 1-7. p. 420 Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., & Kuratko, D.F. Op. cit.,1994.p. 3221 Ibid. p. 29



of the individual, the individual's personalenvironment, the relevant businessenvironment, the individual's personal goalset, and the existence of a viable businessidea. In addit ion, individuals makecomparisons between their perception of theprobable outcomes and the personalexpectations they have in mind. Then,individuals look at the relationship betweenthe entrepreneurial behavior they wouldimplement and the expected outcomes thatwould result. Thus, it is contended that anindividual's decision to behave in anentrepreneurial fashion is clearly influenced bymore than simply personal characteristics, asproposed in early entrepreneurial literature.

General profi les of entrepreneurs ofteninclude optimism and other entrepreneurialcharacteristics such as self confidence, highexpectations, willingness to accept risks,etc. Some empirical studies have examinedhow entrepreneurial characteristics impacton certain entrepreneurial decisions ininvestment, new venture creation, work/lifechoices, or success/failure of entrepreneurialactions. Researchers in psychology haveinvestigated optimism (often contrasted topessimism) as an attribute of individuals wholink positive thinking, better outcomes,personal control, personal well-being, copingstrategy, self-esteem, or interact ionsbetween individuals in different cultures andenvironments (Liang & Dunn, 2003). Optimismis often listed among the other characteristicsof entrepreneurs such as high achievementdrive, action oriented, internal locus of control,tolerance for ambiguity, moderate risk taking,commitment, opportunistic, initiative,independence and commitment/tenacity (Liangand Dunn, 2003; Malach-Pines, Ayala, ArikSadeh, Dov Dvir, and Orenya Yafe-Yanai,200222; Crane & Jeffrey, 2004)23.

Realism and optimismLiang and Dunn (2008) considered three newdimensions to the study of entrepreneurs -realism, mixed optimism/realism, and fuzzy.Little had been done in those areas. Theauthors discovered that while most

entrepreneurs are optimistic, they are alsorealistic. These findings would pushentrepreneurship research into a new field ofstudy. Several new research topics could bedeveloped such as how venture decisions arederived, how entrepreneurs assess or acceptrisks, if entrepreneurs behave differentlybecause of different set of parameters inoptimism and/or realism, and if specific traitsinfluence learning and expectations.

Entrepreneurs can be optimists and realistsat the same time (Liang and Dunn, 2008).The nature of the world means that to berealistic we must normally be optimistic(More, 1998). Optimists display certainattitudes, not detached estimates of theobjective probability of good and bad eventsin the future, to make personal commitmentsto certain modes of thinking and behaving(More, 1998). It is a way of thinking,generated by optimistic attitudes, that makesentrepreneurs unique.

"Economic circumstances are important;marketing is important; finance isimportant; even public agency assistanceis important. But none of these will, alone,create a new venture. For that we needa person, in whose mind all of thepossibilities come together, who believesthat innovation is possible, and who hasthe motivation to persist until the job isdone. Person, process, and choice: forthese we need a truly psychologicalperspective on new venture creation". -Shaver and Scott (1991)24

Different types of entrepreneursThe first work in this area was developed bySmith (1967), who isolated two types ofentrepreneurs, based on their personalcharacteristics and work motivations.'Craftsman' entrepreneurs came from blue-collarbackgrounds, relatively lower levels ofeducation, and had been associated withoperations rather than management in the past.In running their firms, they were typicallypaternalistic, used personal finances or relatives

22 Malach-Pines, Ayala, Arik Sadeh, Dov Dvir, and Orenya Yafe-Yanai (2002). Entrepreneurs and Managers:Similar Yet Different, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10(2), 174. p. 174

23 Crane, F., and Jeffrey, S. (2004), Imperatives to Venture Success, International Journal of Entrepreneur-ship and Innovation, 5(2), p.99

24 Shaver, K.G. & Scott, L.R. (1991): Person, process, choice: the psychology of new creation. Entrepreneu-rship: Theory & Practice, 16(2), 23-45. p. 39



and friends for financing, used personalrelationships in marketing, and adopted rigidstrategies. 'Opportunistic' entrepreneurs, on theother hand, had middle class backgrounds, weremore educated, had a greater variety of workexperience, and had some past experience withmanagement. They were more aware of andsensitive to the market, and better orientedtowards spotting opportunities and growth. Theirmanagement style was more professional, theydelegated more, looked for more financingoptions, adopted more innovative competitivestrategies, and led adaptive and faster growingfirms.

Other researchers have tried to build uponSmith's (1967) craftsman-opportunistictypology (Filley and Aldag, 197825; Smith andMiner, 1983)26. Broadly, three types ofentrepreneurs have been identified, 1) thecraftsman entrepreneurs, who are stronglymotivated to do what they enjoy doing, andvalue their independence, 2) managerialentrepreneurs, who are motivated byeconomic gain or building an organization,and are more concerned with administrativedetai ls and control systems, and 3)opportunistic entrepreneurs who can exploitthe market conditions by spotting a particularneed (Smith, 1967; Smith and Miner, 1983).

Further studies by Filley and Aldag (1978),Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986), and Lafuenteand Salas (1989) have also identi f ieddifferent types of entrepreneurs based ondifferent sets of initial classificatory variableslike education, previous work experience, theprocess of ownership, work expectations etc,and related these classification variables togrowth rates or type of firm created.

As Gartner (1985) highlighted, there are pertinentvariations among entrepreneurs and theenterprises/ organizations they create. Smith(1967) found opportunistic entrepreneurs'chances for survival and growth to be higherthan that of craftsman entrepreneurs. Carlandet al (1984) differentiated between

entrepreneurs and small business owners basedon the firm's growth orientation. Birch (1987)has discussed two types of small firms, incomesubstitutors and entrepreneurs, and noted thedifference in growth orientation between them.Westhead and Wright (1988)27 have distinguishedbetween novice, portfolio, and serialentrepreneurs, based on the entrepreneur'sexperience in new venture creation, andconclude that portfolio and serial entrepreneursare significantly associated with higher jobcreation rates.

Entrepreneurs create new ventures for avariety of reasons, and satisfying a variety ofpersonal objectives. Motivational structureswill be very different for the entrepreneur whowants challenging work and for one whochooses self employment as "a more desirableform of earning a living" (Chell, Haworth, andBrearley, 1991). This is expected to have asignificant effect on the behavior of theentrepreneur, and hence the futureperformance of the ventures created by them.

Kolvereid (1991, cited in Gundry and Welsch,1997) found that higher levels of growthaspirations were related to entrepreneurswho started businesses as a means ofpersonal achievement. Similarly, Amit andMuller (1996) found that "Pull" entrepreneurshad significantly higher chances of successthan "Push" entrepreneurs. Thus, reasons forstarting a business may be related to thegrowth orientation of the entrepreneur.

Moreover, although entrepreneurship is asituational phenomenon, combinations ofcircumstances cannot create a new ventureby themselves. The entrepreneur as anindividual has to employ his own skills to"shape a new organization out of complexityand chaos" (Herron, 1990, quoted in Herronand Sapienza, 1992)28. Entrepreneurs comefrom different social backgrounds; havevaried education, training and workexperience, al l of which result in thedevelopment of different skill sets. These

25 Filley, A.C., & Aldag, R.J. (1978). Characteristics and measurement of an entrepreneurial typology. Academyof Management Journal, 4(21), 5798-591. p. 578

26 Smith, N.R. y Miner, J.B. (1983): Type of entrepreneur, type of firm.and magerial motivation: implicationsfor organizational life cyle theory. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 325-340. p. 325

27 Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (1998). Novice, Portfolio, and Serial Founders: Are They Different? Journalof Business Venturing, 13, 173-204. p. 173

28 Herron and Sapienza, Op. cit.1992, p. 50



differences may impact their decisions andbe another source of variation between theventures they create.

Moreover, it is suggested that personality ismanifested in knowledge, skill and ability (Baum,1995). Herron and Robinson (1993)29

conceptualize 'skills' as a function of aptitudeand training. Hence, skill sets of entrepreneurswill capture the effect of the knowledge andabilities acquired by them through theireducation, training and work experience.

Early research on the decision to start a newbusiness tended to focus either on contextualfactors such as job displacement (Shapero& Sokol, 1982)30, prior work experience(Mokry, 1988) or on individual personalityfactors such as the need for achievement(McClelland, 1965)31, internal locus of control,acceptance of risk (Brockhaus & Horowitz,1986), and the tolerance of ambiguity(Scherer, 1982). More recent models ofentrepreneurial decision have adopted aperspective in which the individual is anintentional decision maker and actor, engagingin the rational appraisal of situational andpersonal factors (Bird, 1988, Krueger, 1993).

Thus, from the newer cognitive perspective,external factors and personality factors stillinfluence the entrepreneurial decision, butonly insofar as they are perceived andinterpreted by the potential entrepreneur.

Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud (2000)32 comparedtwo models of entrepreneurial decision makingbased on the premise that intention to start anew venture is the major predictor ofentrepreneurial behavior. In both models(Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Ajzen, 1991)33 self-

efficacy emerged an important influence onintention. In essence, the belief that one canpersonally execute the behaviors needed tocreate a new venture is professed to enhancethe intent to do so (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994;Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Brice, Jr. J, andSpencer (2007)34 were aimed to build on thiscognitive approach by profiling how individualsweigh different criteria when judgingentrepreneurial efficacy.

Entrepreneurial Self-EfficacyWhile relatively new to research onentrepreneurship, self-efficacy is widelyrecognized as a key construct in social learningtheory (Bandura, 1977, p. 191), a perspectivewhich assumes that behavior, cognitions, andthe environment continually influence eachother in the mindset of individuals (Bandura,1977, p. 191, and Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacyrefers to people's judgments regarding theirability to perform a given activity (Bandura,1977, 1982, and1986) and is proposed toinfluence individual choices, goals, emotionalreactions, effort, ability to cope, and persistence(Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). Hackett andBetz (1981, p. 326) proposed that Bandura's(1977) theory of self-efficacy provides a usefulconceptual framework from which to predictthe occupational preferences of individuals.

Based on this foundation, Boyd and Vozikis(1994)35 and Krueger and Brazeal (1994)36

helped lodge the notion of self-efficacy firmlyin the entrepreneurship l i terature bysuggest ing that perceptions ofentrepreneurial self-efficacy could contributesignificantly to an individual's deliberationsabout whether, or not, to pursue anentrepreneurial career.

29 Herron, L., & Robinson Jr., R. B. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristicson venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 281-294.p. 285.

30 Shapero, A. & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, &K.H. Vesper (eds.) Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, pp. 72-90. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. p. 72

31 McClelland, D. (1965). N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1: 389-392. p. 389

32 Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Jour-nal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432. p. 411

33 Ajzen, Op. cit.,1991, p. 17934 Brice, Jr. J, & Spencer, B. (2007). Entrepreneurial profiling: A decision policy analysis of the influence of

entrepreneurial self-efficacy on Entrepreneurial intent. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2), 47-48.

35 Boyd, N. & Vozikis, G. (1994). The Influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial inten-tions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4): 63-78.

36 Krueger and Brazeal Op. cit.1994, p. 92



Before the appearance of these keytheoretical pieces, Chandler and Jansen(1992) conducted research on businessfounders' self-assessments of "proficiency inthe entrepreneurial function."

A strength of this research was theirdevelopment of a scale measuring five humancompetencies associated with theentrepreneurial, managerial, and technical-functional roles of business founders (Mintzberg& Waters, 198237; Pavett & Lau, 198338;Schein, 1987)39. Chandler and Jansen (1992,p. 237)40 demonstrated that founders of themost successful firms in their sample ratedthemselves higher than others on capabilitiesassociated with all three of these roles.

More recently, Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998,p. 295-317) operationalized entrepreneurialsel f-eff icacy (ESE) as sel f-assessed"certainty" in dealing with 26 specific tasksidentified from prior literature and interviewswith several local entrepreneurs concerningkey entrepreneurial roles. After gatheringself-ratings on these tasks from students andbusiness owners/executives, they usedfactor analysis to combine them into fivecategories including marketing, innovation,management, risk taking, and financialcontrol. They also created an overall "ESE"measure, by taking the mean over all 26items. Their findings showed that amongstudents, overal l ESE was signif icantlycorrelated with the stated intention to starta business. Among business executives,those who were founders rated themselveshigher on total ESE and particularly, oninnovation and r isk-taking, than didnonfounders.

While Chandler and Jansen's (1992) and Chen,Greene and Crick's (1998) results areenticing, further research on entrepreneurialself-efficacy and the intention to start a newbusiness is needed. For instance, whatcriteria do people use when deciding abouttheir aptitude to start a business? Are someefficacy criteria more important than othersin making this evaluation?

Chandler and Jansen's (1992) mostsuccessful entrepreneurs rated themselveshighly on all competencies, while Chen,Greene and Crick's (1998, p. 295) foundersrated their abilities on innovation and risk-taking more highly than did non-founders.But neither study tells us which criteriapeople consider most, or least, importantwhen judging their ability to start a newventure. Such information would beparticularly important if it helped us tounderstand the decision-making processes ofprospective entrepreneurs.

A second troublesome unresolved issue relatedto entrepreneurial self-efficacy is the problemof social desirability bias in self-assessments.Because the notion of self-efficacy inherentlyinvolves people's judgments about their abilityto perform given activities (Bandura, 1982),the use of self-reported survey evaluationsmake sense. Yet, in such circumstances,individuals may be tempted to inflate theirratings (i.e., to impress study evaluators,among other reasons). In fact, Chen, Greene,and Crick (1998) noted that the highinterfactor correlations among their componententrepreneurial self-efficacy scores may wellhave been caused by social desirabilityresponse bias.

They stated that future researchers shouldthink of ways to reduce social desirability. Thestudy described here is an effort to advancethe research on entrepreneurial self-efficacyand entrepreneurial intentions and to addressthe social desirability limitation encounteredin Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998). A decisionmodeling approach is applied to assess howindividuals weigh several key entrepreneurialcompetencies in deciding whether someonewould be capable of pursuing a promisingbusiness venture. This method avoids thesocial desirability dilemma because respondentsmake hypothetical decisions based on specifiedcues. Decision modeling diminishes themisrepresentation of social desirabil ityresponse biases that might be uncovered byasking respondents to make judgments aboutambiguous situations in a seemingly external

37 Mintzberg & Waters, 1982, p. 465.38 Pavett & Lau, 1983, p. 17139 Schein, 1987, p. 15140 Chandler and Jansen, 1992, p. 237



world, which serves to expose their genuinesensitivities (Fischer, 1993)41.

Bandura (1982) defined self-efficacy as thetask-specific consideration of perceivedfitness to perform a particular activity. Inthe case of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialsel f-eff icacy may be comprised ofdeliberation of those tasks that relate to theinitiation and development of new ventures,which is considered emblematic of theentrepreneurial act (Livesay, 1982, p. 13).One way to identify these tasks is to thinkabout the basic functional areas of business.

For instance, a study by Scherer, Adams,Carley, and Weibe (1989, p. 53)42

operationalized entrepreneurial self-efficacyas expertise in accounting, production,marketing, human resources, and generalorganizational skills. A limitation of thisapproach is that proficiency in all of areasmay not be required for all new ventureefforts. For instance, while a prospectivemanufacturer of industrial equipment mayhave to consider whether he or she iscompetent in all of the aforementionedfunctional responsibilities before attemptingto develop a new venture, an independenthot-dog cart operator may only have toconsider his or her basic accounting andmarketing skills before launching a new hot-dog cart operat ion. As this exampledemonstrates, the assessment of specificfunctional abilities before new venture initiationis dependent on the scope and scale of theparticular venture being considered.

Additionally, an entrepreneurial self-efficacyconstruct based on functional capabilitiesignores the fact that co-opting from externalsources may solve some funct ionalshortcomings, on the part of the prospectiveentrepreneur. For example, an individual wholacks accounting/bookkeeping skill can easilyand inexpensively purchase that service froman independent contractor. Knowing this, aprospective entrepreneur without sufficientaccounting expertise may still be willing toundertake the development of a new venture.

Because a negative perception of one'sfitness in some functional capacities may nothave the predicted effect on entrepreneurialbehavior, it seems likely that a functionalcapability description of entrepreneurial self-efficacy may not have a decisive influenceon whether or not one decides to pursue anentrepreneurial career.

Instead of considering functional tasks, adifferent approach to clarifying entrepreneurialefficacy is to consider the broader humancompetencies associated with new venturedevelopment since human competencyassessments are less dependent on thespecification and complexity of particular newventure entry domains. Drawing from writingsby Mintzberg and Waters (1982); Pavett andLau (1983); and Schein (1987), Chandler andJansen (1992) identified five suchcompetencies based on the three primary rolesof the entrepreneur: the entrepreneurial,managerial, and technical-functional. The ideais that both an industrial manufacturer and ahot-dog cart operator must assume all of theseroles while initiating their firms, regardless ofthe scope or scale of their ventures.

In the entrepreneurial role, business foundersexamine their environment and listen to theircustomers to find new opportunities, anddevise methods to exploit opportunities forthe benefit of a new firm (Mintzberg & Waters1982). Two competencies are involved here.First, entrepreneurs must possess thehuman/conceptual competency to recognizeunique opportunities, and second, theyrequire the drive to take the venture fromconceptualization through to fulfi l lment(MacMillan, Siegel, & SubbaNarisimha, 1985,p. 119); Timmons, Muzyka, Stevenson, &Bygrave, 1987; Chandler & Jansen, 1992).In the managerial role, there are also twobroad competencies: leadership andorganizational skills (Pavett & Lau, 1983, p.170; Schein 1987, p. 151), and the politicalcompetence to procure the support ofnetwork members (Pavett & Lau 1983, p.170). In the technical-funct ional role,business founders must have some

41 Fisher, R.J. (1993). Social desirability and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Re-search, 20: 303- 315.

42 Scherer, Adams, Carley, and Weibe.Op. cit. 1989, p. 5343 Pavett, C.M. Lau, A.W. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and functional special-

ty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), p.170



specialized expertise in the industry withinwhich the firm will operate (Pavett & Lau198343; Chandler & Jansen, 1992)44.

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy andEntrepreneurial IntentionsSelf-efficacy is a construct indicating thatbehavior, cognition, and the environmentinfluence each other in a dynamic fashion,thus allowing individuals to form beliefs abouttheir abi l i ty to perform specif ic tasks(Bandura, 1977, p.194). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) is, therefore, viewed as havingthe capabilities that can modify a person'sbelief in his or her likelihood of completingthe tasks required to successfully initiate andestablish a new business venture (Bandura,1986). Specifically, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is defined as the degree to whichone is sel f-conf ident to be able tosuccessfully start a new business venture.

Past research can be used to l inkentrepreneurial sel f-eff icacy andentrepreneurial intentions. Hackett and Betz(1981, p. 326) projected that Bandura's(1977) theory of self-efficacy may be appliedto determine the vocational inclinations ofindividuals. Empirical findings indicate thatself-efficacy is highly involved in the careerdecision-making process. In fact, career self-efficacy was found to be the most importantpredictor of males' intentions to pursuecareers in traditionally female occupations(Giles & Rea, 1999). Individuals with highlevels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy mayalso have strong occupational intentions foran entrepreneurial career. Lent, Brown, andHackett (1994) applied self-efficacy in asocial cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986)to explain three aspects of generalized careerdevelopment: (1) the formation of career-relevant interests, (2) selection of a careerchoice opt ion ( intent ions), and (3)performance and persistence in the selectedoccupation. Lent, et al (1994) found thatself-efficacy was significantly related tocareer interests, career choice goals(intentions), and occupational performance.However, Lent, et al (1994) also found thatself-efficacy is the sole mediator between a

person's abil it ies and his or her careerinterests. These three findings taken togethercan be interpreted as meaning that self-efficacy may be used to predict the intendedcareer-related intentions and behavior ofindividuals. It has been established that self-efficacy is the major influence on career-related behavior in Bandura's (1986) socialcognitive theory (Lent, et al, 1994).

Since social cognitive theory proposes thatindividuals choose to undertake tasks inwhich they are confident, comfortable, andperceive competence (Bandura, 1986), thisstudy hypothesizes that individuals whomaintain relatively high entrepreneurialintentions will place significant weight ontheir perception of fitness for entrepreneurialcompetencies (highly entrepreneurial self-efficacious).

Intent is a dependable predictor of humanbehavior in an assortment of circumstances,and has been deemed by many to representthe most successful forecaster of humanattitudes and action (Ajzen, 1991, p. 179).Intentions are assumed to capture the essenceof stimulating factors that influence behavior.They are signals of how intensely individualsare prepared to perform and how much effortthey are prepared to commit to carry out theexpected behavior. Basically, the more robustthe intent, the more probable it is to be ableto foretell the anticipated behavior (Ajzen,1991). Past research (Kim & Hunter, 1993)found that intentions explained sixty-sevenpercent of the variance in behavior and pathanalysis confirmed that the associationbetween attitudes and behavior is fullyexplained by the attitude-intention andintention-behavior links (Krueger, 2000)45.

Brice, Jr. and Spencer (2007)46 stated severalimplications of entrepreneurial self-efficacythat deserve further emphasis. First, self-efficacy is a wide-ranging evaluation ofperceived fitness for the performance of aspecific activity (Bandura & Wood, 1989). Theyargue that in a real-world entrepreneurshipcontext, information derived exclusively fromthe individual (cognitions), the particular

44 Chandler, G.N. & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder's self-assessed competence and venture performance.Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3): p. 223.45 Brice, Jr. J, & Spencer, B. (2007). Entrepreneurial profi-ling: A decision policy analysis of the influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on Entrepreneurial intent.Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2), pp. 47-48.

46 Ibid. p. 62



venture creation and development task(behavior), and the network of supportingindividuals and organizations involved in aspecific entrepreneurial effort (environment)may possibly add to estimated capabilityjudgments on the part of the prospectiveentrepreneur. However, in the context of globalentrepreneurial self-efficacy research, it maybe more useful to examine self-efficacy forgeneral entrepreneurial tasks (such asnonspecific new venture initiation) through themechanism of universal assessment criteria(e.g. human competencies) instead of relyingon functional criteria that is too specific to beapplied to all forms of planned ventureinitiations.

Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief intheir personal capability to accomplish a jobor a specific set of tasks (Bandura, 1977)47.Self-efficacy is a useful concept for explaininghuman behavior as research reveals that itplays an influential role in determining anindividual's choice, level of effort, andperseverance (Chen et al., 2004)48.

Simply stated, individuals with high self-efficacy for a certain task are more likely topursue and then persist in that task thanthose individuals who possess low self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).

Self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1982, p.12), is the conviction that one can successfullyexecute the desired behavior (e.g.,successfully launch a business) required toproduce an outcome. Bandura contended thatrole-model influence occurs primarily throughmastery of experiences (repeated performanceaccomplishments), observational learning(observing rather than direct involvement), andsocial persuasion (convincing that tasks canbe performed).

Contrasting the Shapero´s (1982) and Ajzen´s(1991) theory, Krueger et al. (2000, p. 412-414)49 proposed that intentions predictentrepreneurship better than personality traitsand situations and that "a strong intention tostart a business should result in an eventualattempt, even if immediate circumstances such

as marriage, child bearing, finishing school, alucrative or rewarding job, or earthquakes maydictate a long delay."

Otherwise, McGee, Peterson, Mueller andSequeira (2009)50 developed a study focusedto refine and standardize the EntrepreneurialSelf-efficacy (ESE) measurement, becauseof inclusion of this construct in differentstudies on entrepreneurial motivat ion,intentions, and planned behavior.

In their study, McGee et al (2009), based onBarbosa, Gerhardt, & Kickul (2007), Boyd &Vozikis (1994) and Zhao, Seibert, & Hills (2005)establishes that Entrepreneurial self-efficacy(ESE) appears to be a particularly importantantecedent to new venture intentions. ESE isa construct that measures a person's belief intheir abil ity to successfully launch anentrepreneurial venture (McGee, et al, 2009)51.Additionally, McGee et al (2009, p. 965), statedESE is particularly useful since it incorporatespersonality as well as environmental factors,and is thought to be a strong predictor ofentrepreneurial intentions and ultimately action(Bird, 1988; Boyd & Vozikis).

In fact, the McGee and colleagues´ studysupports the advancement of research onESE and its relationship to entrepreneurialintentions by developing a more robustmeasure of ESE that can be used byresearchers in a variety of contexts.

Social competenceSeveral psychological variables are crucialand relevant to understand entrepreneurshipand entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurialintent and success have been linked to socialcompetence, motivation, self-efficacy (Chen,Greene, & Crick, 1998; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills,2005), and willingness to bear uncertainty.Other research has investigated the commonattributes of entrepreneurs (Baum & Locke,2004) and the effect of gender and minoritystatus on the propensity to considerentrepreneurship as a potential career option.By other hand, Baum, Frese and Baron (2007)stated that "despite the belief that theentrepreneur's personal characteristics are

47 Bandura, 1977, p.19448 Chen et al., 2004, p. 376.49 Krueger et al. Op. cit.,2000, p. 412-41450 McGee, Peterson, Mueller and Sequeira, Op. cit. 2009, p. 96551 Ibid. p. 965



important for new venture success, thepsychology of the entrepreneur has not beenthoroughly studied."

Personality and entrepreneurshipResearch on personality and entrepreneurshiphas been focused on two ways or researchquestions: Why do some people but notothers become entrepreneurs? Why do somepeople make more successful entrepreneursthan others? (Shaver, 2007). The personalityapproach provided the impetus for substantialresearch in the 1960s and 1970s, with specificresearch focused on need for achievement(McClelland, 1961), the most frequently studiedpersonality characteristic, rising in the 1980s(Rauch & Frese, 2007).

Some research has found that personalitycharacteristics fail to exactly distinguishbetween entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneursand generally account for a small part of thevariance in entrepreneurial success (Cromie,2000; Hisrich, 2000). By other way, meta-analyses have found a small and positiverelationship between autonomy, internal locusof control, and risk-taking propensity and newventure creation and success, and a moderate,positive relationship between innovativeness,and self-efficacy and new venture creation andsuccess (Hisrich, Langan-Fox and Grant, 2007).

According to Rauch & Frese (2000), risk-takingpropensity has a weaker association with bothoutcome variables, and self-efficacy has astronger association with success. However,it is possible that personality has a role inentrepreneurship that might has beenunderestimated in past research because ofdesign and methodological constraints (Hisrich,et al, 2007).

Entrepreneurship is a complex, dynamic,multiphase process, yet the relevance ofpersonality characteristics at each phase hasnot been identi f ied. Past research hasfocused on the start-up phase, withcharacter ist ics of entrepreneurs andnonentrepreneurs contrasted on the basis ofthe assumption that innate characteristicscause the entrepreneurship status (Davidsson,2007).

Hisrich et al (2007) establish that this issueis problematic because of: a) such anapproach does not test for reversedcausation. It is difficult to evaluate whetherthe personal i ty character ist ics ofentrepreneurs are a predisposing factor orare learned from the role itself. Empirical workhas assumed the former perspective: thatthose displaying the character ist ics inquestion self-select into entrepreneurship(Shane, 2003). b) The personal i tycharacteristics that predict entrepreneurialbehavior may not predict behavior later onin the entrepreneurship process (Eckhardt &Shane, 2003). c) Distal person characteristicsare unlikely to be a strong predictor of aproximal event (Davidsson, 2007).

Hisrich et al (2007)52 say: "Davidsson (2007)recommended using a behavioral aggregateof entrepreneurial act iv ity such asentrepreneurial career performance as analternative to the dichotomous outcomevariable of entrepreneurship status (i.e.,founder vs. nonfounder)".

Hisrich and colleagues proposed a number ofresearch questions that provide a call toact ion for psychologists interested inentrepreneurship, specifically in personalityand entrepreneurship, such as:

Are the personality characteristics ofentrepreneurs a predisposing factor, orare they learned from the role itself? Thatis, what are the antecedent personalitycharacteristics for entrepreneurship?

What is the relat ive importance ofdifferent personality characteristics ateach phase of the entrepreneurshipprocess? Do the personal i tycharacteristics that predict start-updiffer from those that predict growth andsurvival?

Which personality characteristics needto remain stable, and which personalitycharacter ist ics need to change ordevelop over time?

Are personal i ty character ist ics alongitudinal predictor of success?

52 Hisrich et al., Op. cit. 2007, p. 580



Which personality characteristics areassociated with failure?

What are the moderating and mediatingvariables in the personal i ty-entrepreneurship relationship?

Do the important personal i tycharacteristics differ for individual versuscorporate or team-based entrepreneurs?

Rauch and Frese (2007) stated that widetaxonomies of personality traits such as theBig Five have been less frequently studied inthe entrepreneurship literature and thatgeneral traits have lower predictive validitythan specific traits. Hisrich et al (2007, p.582)53 say Rauch and Frese (2007) suggestedthat (a) predictor and criterion variables shouldbe matched on the basis of broadness versusspecificity and (b) the effect of broad traitson new venture creation and success may bemediated by specific traits. Nonperson mediatorand moderator variables should also be includedin future research (Davidsson, 2007).

Kumar (2007)54 states that entrepreneurshipl i terature has a lot of studies probingpropensity of an individual towards enterprisecreation. These studies could be divided intotwo categories. F irst category is onpersonality traits. Some of scholars, mainlypsychologists, working in this field havedeveloped useful insights towards this. Someof important concepts that have beenexplored by these scholars to explainentrepreneurship are: Need for Achievement(McClel land; 1961), Need for power(McClelland, 1975), Internal locus of control(Rotter; 1966), Risk taking propensity(Brockhaus, 1982), Tolerance for ambiguity(Begley and Boyd, 1987).

However, the research on trait theories hasyielded, at best, moderate results (Gartner,1988, Baron, 2000). The reasons for failureare twofold. Firstly there has been problemin measuring the various concepts (Chell,1989) and secondly these concepts may not

be good indicators of entrepreneurship(Robinson et. al: 1991).

The second line of research has a focus onsociology, in which sociologists have analyzedbackground and demographical factors ascauses of successful enterprise creation. Thisemphasis led to finding out conditions thatare responsible for emergence ofentrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994).The result of these studies have shownfactors such as dissatisfaction with previousjob or life experiences (Brockhaus, 1982),immigration (Borjas, 1986), ability to formsocial networks and social capital (Aldrich,2000; Reynolds, Storey and Westhead, 1994),minority status (Hisrich and Brush, 1986;Turner and Bonacich, 1980) and host of otherfactors. However, both trait and sociologicalfactors have received indifferent success.

Consistent with Baron (2004), Kumar (2007)proposed several constructs in order toestablish a model. These constructs are:Threat to identity, Self-efficacy, Cognitivecomplexity, Cultural aspirations.

Kumar (2007)55 makes the following question:Why would a person like to start an enterprise,especially when entrepreneurship is notpreferred career option? The willingness isdetermined by the pulls and pushes that anindividual faces while starting an enterprise(Clark and Drinkwater, 2001; Olomi et al., 2000).Pushes and pulls arise from positive or negativeemotions that a person experiences. Push isnegative emotion that forces a person to leavethe status quo whereas Pull is a positive forcethat attracts person towards new path, whichcan be enterprise formation. In other words,a person finds his current status to beunsatisfactory and alternatives like enterpriseformation become attractive (Kumar, 2007)57.

The push factors are: job dissatisfaction, jobloss, unemployment, career setbacks,saturation in the existing market, language,immigrant status, deprivation, low familyincome and lack of flexibility in the previous

53 Ibid. p. 582.54 Kumar, M. (2007). Explaining entrepreneurial success: A conceptual model. Academy of Entrepreneurship

Journal, 13 (1), 57-7755 Ibid. p.6356 Ibid. pp.63-64.57 Foo, M., Uy, M., & Baron, R. (2009). How Do Feelings Influence Effort? An Empirical Study of Entrepre-

neurs' Affect and Venture Effort. American Psychological Association, 94 (4), 1086-1094.



job. In addition to the push, pull is also requiredto initiate action to regain identity. Variouspull factors described in literature are: Needfor achievement, Internal locus of control,Intentionality, Practical purpose of individualaction, Demand, Common culture, Language,Self sustaining economic environment, Goodpolicy, Infrastructure and Profit (Kumar, 2007).

Kumar (2007, p. 71) places of interest theimportance of both negative emotions andpositive emotions as reasons whyentrepreneurs take decisions to create theirorganizations.

Foo, Uy and Baron (2009, p. 1086) mentions:"the start-up process is rich with affectiveups and downs (Cook, 1986), andentrepreneurs are often portrayed aspassionate, enthusiastic, and persistenteven in the face of challenge and adversity(e.g., Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne,& Davis, 2005). Baron (2008) noted tworeasons why entrepreneurs who create newventures experience strong affect ivereact ions. First, the new ventureenvironment is highly unpredictable, becausethe entrepreneurial process is chaotic,complex, and compressed in time (Aldrich &Martinez, 2001). Second, entrepreneurs makemajor investments in time, energy, and effortin their ventures and often stake theirpersonal fortunes and even their self-esteemon the success of their ventures". Given thesefacts, Foo et al (2009) consider importantto investigate the role of affect with respectto new ventures.

When people experience positive or negativeaffect, they immediately ask themselves howthey feel about the specific situation (Frijda,1986; Schwarz & Clore, 1983).

Foo et al (2009, p. 1091) found that the resultsof their study indicate that the entrepreneur'saffect does indeed play a significant role inthe process of new venture creation.Consistent with the affect-as-informationperspective, they found that negative affectincreases venture efforts on tasks that areimmediately required. Extending this theory bydrawing on the proactivity literature, they alsofound that positive affect increases venture

efforts on tasks beyond what is immediatelyrequired.

They also found that future temporal focusmediates the relationship between positiveaffect and venture effort on tasks beyond whatis required.

Their findings suggest that affect serves as asource of information for entrepreneurs. Asargued in the affect-as-information theory,negative affect signals that things are notgoing well in the venture and may leadentrepreneurs to expend more effort onventure tasks requiring immediate attention.An unexpected finding was that negativeaffect also increased venture efforts beyondwhat is immediately required. Because negativeaffect signals that something is wrong in theventure situation, it could lead entrepreneursto engage in precautionary behaviors to preventfuture damage to the venture (Foo et al, 2009).Positive affect signals that things are going wellin the venture, and, using affect-as-informationtheory, one might expect the entrepreneur toreduce effort because all is well at the moment.The authors argued that positive affect shouldincrease venture efforts. It is precisely becausepositive affect signals that things are going wellat the moment that the entrepreneur's focuscan shift to the future, and such focus motivatesthe entrepreneur to work harder because itpromotes behaviors to achieve desired futureoutcomes (Karniol & Ross 1996).

The Foo and colleagues' study helps to clarifythe mechanisms that underl ie the l inkbetween affect and task-directed effort.Drawing on the affect-as informationperspect ive, they show that theentrepreneurs' affect has an informationalfunct ion that could inf luence theentrepreneurs' venture efforts.

The personality of an entrepreneur still beingof interest in entrepreneurship research.However, personality is a weak predictor ofventure perform ance (Utsch and Rauch, 2000,p. 46)58. Today's research rediscovers thepersonality of an entrepreneur in dispositions(Rauch & Frese, 2000), which "intuitivelyappears to be related to entrepreneurship"(Crant, 1996, p. 43). These authors stated

58 Utsch, A. & Rauch, A. (2000). Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement orientationand venture performance. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.



also need to consider the specific behaviouralprocesses and strategies by which personalitycharacteristics influence the ventureperformance (Utsch and Rauch, 2000, p. 46).Two entrepreneurial behaviors that haveemerged in studies and are central to thesituation of the entrepreneur areinnovativeness and initiative (Frese, 1995).

Utsch and Rauch (2000) state that manyauthors emphasize the importance ofinnovativeness as a strategy in theentrepreneurial process (Frese, 1995; Lumpkin& Dess, 1996; More, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934,1942). Innovativeness is a behavior thatcharacterizes entrepreneurship (Drucker, 1985;Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Drucker (1985) refersto innovation as the result of purposeful actionsand systematic work. Additionally, West andFarr (1990) defined innovation as "the intentionalintroduction and application within a role, group,or organization, of ideas, processes, productsor procedures, new to the relevant unit ofadoption, designed significantly benefit theindividual the group or wider society"

Personal initiative is a behavior syndrome thatincludes self-starting, proactive, and long-term oriented behavior as well as persistencetowards obstacles (Frese, Fay, Hilburger,Leng, & Tag, 1997; Frese, Kring, Soose, &Zempel, 1995). Successful entrepreneursshould be proactive rather than merelyreactive to events (cf., Kotey & Meredith,1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Utsch andRauch (2000, p. 49) proposed a model basedon the following statements:

(1) Achievement orientation is positivelyrelated to innovativeness.

(2) Achievement orientation is positivelyrelated to initiative.

(3) Innovativeness is positively related toventure performance.

(4) Initiative is positively related to ventureperformance.

(5) The relationship between achievementorientation and venture performance ismediated through innovativeness andinitiative.

The authors found that the most powerful factorin the mediation model is innovativeness. There

was a strong link from achievement orientationto innovativeness and a strong link frominnovativeness to both venture performancevariables. According to Utsch and Rauch(2000)59 there are several reasons whyinnovativeness is important for ventureperformance. Entrepreneurs who try to improvetheir work get more feedback from their work.Therefore, they have the possibility to integratemore information. Also, innovativeness is a goal-oriented behavior and a planning behavior. Allthese aspects are related to job performanceor venture performance (Frese, 1995; Locke &Latham, 1990; Miner et al., 1989; Schwenk &Shrader, 1993).

Otherwise, in a study, Baron (2000) proposedtwo questions: Do entrepreneurs thinkdifferently than others persons do? And dosuccessful entrepreneurs differ from lesssuccessful ones in such respects? Carefulexaminations of the environments in whichentrepreneurs operate suggests that theanswers to both questions may well be "yes"Baron (2000, p. 15). Entrepreneurs often workin situations that are, by definition, new,unpredictable, complex and subject to high timepressures. Moreover, entrepreneurs'commitment to the new ventures is oftenintense, so they may also experience powerfulemotions in connection with their activities.Together, such factors may produce severeinformation overload, and it is precisely undersuch conditions that individuals often rely onheuristics to guide their thinking and decisionmaking, and show enhanced susceptibility tovarious forms of cognitive bias or error (Baron,2000, p. 15). A general prediction, then, isthat entrepreneurs may be more likely thanother people to employ heuristics and to fallprey to various forms of cognitive error (e.g.,overconfidence, escalation of commitment)(Baron, 1998).

According to Baron (2000, p. 15-16), Busenitzand Barney (1997) found that entrepreneurswere significantly more likely to showoverconfidence in their own judgments andsignificantly more likely to make use of therepresentative heuristics than were otherpersons. Similarly, Palich and Bagby (1995)found that entrepreneurs tended to perceivegreater potential for gain in highly uncertain

59 Ibid. p. 57



situations that nonentrepreneurs did; inessence, their perceptions of risk showedgreater bias than those of other persons.These findings suggest that entrepreneurs mayindeed show discriminating susceptibility tovarious cognitive mistakes.

According to Zhao and Seibert (2006)60,personality variables may have an importantrole to play in developing theories of theentrepreneurial process, including such areasas entrepreneurial career intentions (e.g., Crant,1996; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005),entrepreneurial cognition and opportunityrecognition (e.g., Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray,2003), entrepreneurial role motivation (e.g.,Miner, 1993), and new venture survival (e.g.,Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riordan, Gatewood, &Stokes, 2004).

Zhao and Seibert (2006)61 state thatindicative of this importance, a substantialamount of research has examined the role ofpersonality in entrepreneurial status (ES) overthe last 4 decades (Zhao and Seibert, 2006).Partially reflecting the state of personalityresearch at the time, these studies includeda confusing variety of personality variables,sometimes with unknown reliability andvalidity and often with little theoreticaljustification (Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Gartner,1989). By the late 1980s, inconsistent andeven contradictory results from the empiricalstudies led narrative reviewers to concludethat there is no identifiable relationshipbetween personality and ES and that futureresearch using the trait paradigm shouldtherefore be abandoned (Brockhaus &Horwitz, 1986; Chell, 1985; Gartner, 1988;Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991).

However, Zhao and Seibert (2006) developedthe first study to use the Five Factor Model(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness toExperience, Agreeableness andConscientiousness) to organize the full rangeof personality variables that have been examinedin the entrepreneurship literature. In their study,Zhao and Seibert (2006) stated the question:Do entrepreneurs differ from others in terms oftheir basic personality? In contradiction to

accepted conclusions in the field ofentrepreneurship, their results suggest thatindeed, entrepreneurs differ from those inmanagerial positions on four of the fivefundamental dimensions of personality(Neuroticism, Openness to Experience,Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).

The personality construct with the strongestrelationship to ES was Conscientiousness.Achievement motivation has been implicatedas an important individual difference variablepredicting entrepreneurship since the work ofMcClelland (1961). The Zhao and Seibert'sresults support McClelland's (1961) originalproposition and are consistent with meta-analytical results presented by Collins et al.(2004) and Stewart and Roth (2004b). Collinset al. showed further that achievementmotivation is positively related to entrepreneurialperformance. These studies provide growingevidence regarding the importance ofachievement motivation in entrepreneurship.There is some evidence that facets within asingle primary personality dimension can havedifferential relationships with ES.

One of the unique contributions of their use ofthe FFM to organize the literature on personalityand ES is their focus on the Openness toExperience dimension. The Openness constructbrings together in one coherent dimension ofpersonality such traits as imagination, creativity,intuition, and independence of judgment andthus allows drawing a single clear conclusionabout this important domain of psychologicalfunctioning (2006, p. 266). Their results showedthat entrepreneurs scored higher on Opennessthan did managers. Innovation, change, andcreativity are at the core of recent definitionsof entrepreneurship (e.g., Shane &Venkataraman, 2000), and these traits evokeSchumpeter's (1942/1976) classic descriptionof the entrepreneur as the agent of "creativedestruction." Despite its strong intuitive appeal,relatively little attention has been devoted tothe role of this global personality dimension instudies of ES to date.

Zhao, Seibert and Hill (2005)62 developed astudy focused to develop and test a set of

60 Zhao, H., Seibert, S. (2006) The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial Status: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91. p. 259

61 Ibid. p. 25962 Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of

entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1265-1272.



hypotheses in which entrepreneurialsel feff icacy mediates the relat ionshipbetween individual-level antecedent factorsand entrepreneurial intentions. In previouswork, Boyd and Vozikis (1994) developed atheoretical model in which self-efficacy wasproposed as a cr i t ical antecedent ofentrepreneurial intentions and behavior.

The Zhao and colleagues' results providedevidence that individuals choose to becomeentrepreneurs (or at least formulate theintentions of doing so) most directly becausethey are high in entrepreneurial self-efficacy-the belief that they can succeed in this role.Also, their results supported the criticalmediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacyin entrepreneurial intentions for three of thefour antecedent variables (perceptions offormal learning, entrepreneurial experience, riskpropensity and gender). These results indicatethat entrepreneurial self-efficacy provides atheoretical explanation for the relationshipbetween three of the most frequently identifiedindividual-level antecedents ofentrepreneurship and subsequent intentions tobecome an entrepreneur (Zhao et al, 2005).The factors most amenable to change-learningand experience-each had stronger influenceon self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentionthan did the relatively stable characteristicsof risk propensity and gender. This resultsuggests that efforts to increaseentrepreneurial activity that are focused atthe individual level may indeed be worthwhile.Gender was not related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy but was directly related toentrepreneurial intentions such that womenreported lower intentions to become anentrepreneur than men (Zhao et al, 2005).

Collins, Locke and Hanges (2004)63 found thatachievement motivation64 does significantlypredict entrepreneurial activity across thestudies that were included in their meta-analysis. The researchers argued that therelatively small variance in entrepreneurialactivity that was explained by achievement

motivation might have significant implicationsbecause of the multiple opportunities for anindividual to exhibit achievement-orientedbehavior. Their f indings suggest thatachievement motivation may be particularlypotent in predicting outcomes at particularlevels of analysis and in specific situations.

Baum and Locke (2004) developed a studythat has contributed to the revival of interestin understanding the effects of entrepreneurs'personal characteristics. Their empiricalresearch extends and refines Baum, Lockeand Smith´s (2001) 2-year study of theeffects of f ive categories of personal,organizational, and environmental factors onnew venture growth that chal lengedentrepreneurship researchers' shi ft toexternal (organizational and environmental)explanations of new venture performance(Gartner, 1989). According to Baum and Locke(2004, p. 587), the Baum et al. (2001) studyargued that entrepreneurship researchers'conclusion that personal characteristics areunimportant for new venture performancemissed important indirect effects andpersonal characteristics other than traits.

The Baum and Locke (2004, p. 587) studysupports the case for attent ion toentrepreneurs' personal characteristics; itinvolved the fol lowing six refinements,improvements, and extensions over Baum etal.'s (2001) study, using data from that studyplus follow-up data.

1. Rather than using broad categories orfactors, they used individual variables toanalyze the separate effects andinterrelationships among personalcharacteristics.

2. They used a 6-year follow-up comparedwith the previous 2-year period to providea greater challenge to the proposed modelof entrepreneurship characteristics.

3. They added the study of a situationallyspecific new resource skill65, which is

63 Collins, C. J., Hanges, P. J., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepre-neurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95-117.

64 The concept of need for achievement was formulated in the 1950s (McClelland, Clark, Roby and Atkinson,1958). McClelland and his colleagues argued that high need for achievement people are more likely thatlow need for achievement people to engage in energetic and innovative activities that require planning forthe future and entail an individual's responsibility for task outcomes.

65 New resource skill is the ability to acquire and systematize the operating resources needed to start andgrow an organization



more oriented toward entrepreneurs'work than the general competenciesstudied by Baum et al. (2001).

4. They used an expanded measure of visionthat reflected communication of the vision.

5. They included only growth-orientedfounders-owners who managed their youngventures. They excluded purchasers ofestablished businesses, absentee founders,and founders-managers of maturebusinesses. This is consistent withresearchers' recent suggestions thatentrepreneurship research focus on thosewho discover and exploit new products,new processes, and new ways of organizingrather than on those who manageestablished businesses or those whomanage businesses they did not create(Davidson, Low, & Wright, 2001; Shane &Venkataraman, 2000; Zahra, Ireland, &Hitt, 2000).

6. They included both surviving and failedventures to capture greater variance inoutcomes.

According to Baum and Locke (2004)66,researchers hoped that personality screeningcould help entrepreneurs avoid personaldisappointment and could help nations avoidwasted resources (McClel land, 1965).However, research about the most significanttraits in terms of their correlation withventure performance (need for achievement,locus of control, and risk taking propensity)found weak (though not always null) results(Aldrich & Wiedenmayer, 1993). For example,Johnson's (1990) meta-analysis concludedthat need for achievement was the mostsignificant trait predictor of new ventureperformance; however, he found that lessthan 7% of the variance in new ventureperformance is explained by this motive.Researchers concluded that the study ofentrepreneurs' personal characteristics wasa dead-end strategy (Gartner, 1989).

To cope with the challenges, Baum and Locke(2004) believed that entrepreneurs had togenuinely love their work and be tenacious

about pursuing their goals given the manyobstacles they would face. Thus, passion andtenacity seemed most promising in terms ofleadership and entrepreneurship theoreticalsupport (Locke, 2000; Yukl, 1989) eventhough there had been no previousquantitative tests using these variables aspredictors of entrepreneurship performance.Indeed, there were no empirical studies ofpassion. Passion for work, or love of one'swork, has been identified in a qualitativeanalysis by Locke (2000) as a corecharacteristic of great wealth creators, suchas Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Ken Iverson(Nucor), and Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay).These entrepreneurs confronted opportunityand challenges with fervor and ardor Baumand Locke (2004)67.

According to Baum and Locke (2004), theenthusiasm of these entrepreneurs for a typeof business was so intense that they workedthrough financial barriers (Gates and Iverson)and challenges to their new products andtheir new ways of marketing (Ash). Smilor(1997) suggested that passion is "perhapsthe most observed phenomenon of theentrepreneurial process" (p. 342), and Bird(1989) noted that entrepreneurial behavioris "passionate, full of emotional energy, drive,and spirit" (pp. 7-8).

Baum and Locke (2004)68 measured passionfor work in terms of the emotions of love,attachment, and longing; however, passioncan be witnessed over time in the long hoursworked during venture start-up and growthphases and in the tendency for entrepreneursto experience their venture's successes anddifficulties as personal events. Leadershipresearchers (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; House &Shamir, 1993) have claimed that passion forwork is a character ist ic of successfulbusiness leaders, and passion is relevant inthe entrepreneurship setting because itdr ives entrepreneurs to face extremeuncertainty and resource shortages(Timmons, 2000).

Tenacity, or perseverance, is a trait thatinvolves sustaining goal-directed action andenergy even when faced with obstacles (Baum

66 Baum, J. & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequentventure growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), p.588.

67 Ibid. p. 588.68 Ibid. p. 589



and Locke, 2004). In addition to beingassociated with successful leadership (Bass &Stogdill, 1990; House & Shamir, 1993; Locke,2000), tenacity has been identified consistentlyas an archetypical entrepreneurship traitbecause the business start-up processinvolves confrontation of formidable barriersto market entry (Gartner, Gatewood, & Shaver,1991). There are no quantitative tests of theeffects of tenacity on venture performance(Baum and Locke, 2004).

Baum and Locke (2004) mentions thatMarkman, Baron, and Balkin (2001) found thatinventors who started new ventures have moretenacity than inventors who chose to beemployees of established organizations;however, they did not study whether tenacityis related to performance among entrepreneurs.Entrepreneurs who hold stubbornly to theirgoals and who hate to give up increase theirchances of start-up survival and success(Timmons, 2000).

Moreover and according to Baum and Locke(2004), Smith and Smith (2000) suggested thatentrepreneurs' successful efforts to arrange andorganize resources are predictors of newventure success. Indeed, founders oftenexperience limited growth because they lacknew resource skill or fail to employ individualswho are skilled with resources (Timmons, 2000).

Additionally, Baum and Locke (2004)69 proposethat traits affect new resource skill. Krampeand Ericsson (1996) suggested that traitsaffect specific skills such as expert musicaland athletic performance. Then, Baum andLocke (2004, p. 589) propose that tenacityand passion will increase entrepreneurs' skillwith resource acquisition and systematization.

According, to Baum and Locke (2004), theliterature suggests that at least threemotivation factors impact businessperformance: vision, goals, and self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997; House & Shamir, 1993; Locke& Latham, 1990). They believe thatcommunication of the vision is as important asvision content alone for motivating high ventureperformance. Entrepreneurs may communicatetheir vision through their behavior (Bandura,1986); however, an entrepreneur's vision can

inspire more directly through speeches, peptalks, and written presentations (Tichy &Devanna, 1986). Then, they propose thathighly communicated vision growth content willpredict high venture growth and believe thatfounders who are more confident about theirentrepreneurial abilities will achieve greater newventure growth.

Additionally, Baum and Locke (2004, p. 590-591)70 proposed and supported the following:

1. The more challenging the communicatedventure growth content of theentrepreneur's vis ion, the morechallenging the goals for venture growthwill be.

2. The higher the entrepreneur's self-efficacy about venture growth, the higherthe goals for subsequent venture growthwill be.

3. The greater the entrepreneur's passionand tenacity, the greater thecommunicated venture growth contentof the vision will be.

4. The greater the entrepreneur's passionfor work and tenacity, the higher the self-efficacy about venture growth will be.

5. The greater the entrepreneur's passion forwork and tenacity, the higher the goalsfor subsequent venture growth will be.

6. The greater the entrepreneur's newresource ski l l , the greater thecommunicated venture growth contentof the vision will be.

7. The greater the entrepreneur's newresource skill, the greater the goals forsubsequent venture growth will be.

8. The greater the entrepreneur's newresource skill, the greater the self-efficacyfor subsequent venture growth will be.

These researchers found that specificcomponent variables of entrepreneurs' traits,skill, and motivation categories are significantdirect or indirect predictors of venture growthfor a period of 6 years following initialmeasurement. Findings that the situationallyspecific motivation concepts studied by Baumand Locke have strong direct effects onventure growth are fully consistent withprevious applied psychology and socialpsychology research (Bandura, 1997; Baum et

69 Ibid. p. 58970 Ibid. pp. 590-591



al., 1998; Locke & Latham, 1990). The positiveeffects for goals and self-efficacy areconsistent with the results of hundreds ofperformance studies (Baum and Locke, 2004).

Vision had not only an indirect effect on growththrough specific goals but also a direct effect(Baum and Locke, 2004). The researchersfound that the greater the communicatedventure growth content of the entrepreneur'svision, the entrepreneur's self-efficacy aboutventure growth, the entrepreneur's goals forventure growth, the greater the subsequentventure growth will be.

Finally, the finding that passion and tenacityhad no direct effect on venture performancesuggests that the weak results of previousstudies of entrepreneurial traits may not havebeen caused by studying the wrong traitsbut by the fact that the traits have indirectrather than direct effects (Baum and Locke,2004). In this respect, their results agreewith Baum et al . 's (2001), in whichaggregated trait effects were indirect. Theseresults are also in concert with Locke's(2001) review in which he found thatpersonality and other general motivationaleffects on performance are mediated by thesituationally and task-specific factors ofgoals and self-efficacy.

Herron and Robinson (1993) according to theNanda and Chatterjee´s study (2007)71

establish that one of the major problems withentrepreneurship research is that mediatingand moderating paths between variables haveoften not been examined. Studies which havetried to link personality traits and otherdemographic character ist ics of theentrepreneur directly to outcomes, insteadof testing contingent sets of relationships,have not reported significant findings (Nandaand Chatterjee, 2007, p. 6). Similarly,according to Nanda and Chatterjee (2007),Baum (1995) suggests that the limited effectof entrepreneurial personality on performancemay be explained by analysis of mediationpaths through competencies, motivation,strategy, and structure. Herron and Robinson(1993) suggest that personality traits do nothave a strong direct effect on behavior and

performance, but are mediated bymotivations and moderated by abilities, orskills of the entrepreneur. This is consistentwith literature on psychological job testingwhich suggests that the relationship betweentraits and performance is not a direct one,but is moderated and mediated by othervariables (Herron and Robinson, 1990).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSAn entrepreneur is an individual whoestablishes and manages a new businesssearching profit and growth. This individualis characterized principally by innovativebehavior and will use strategic managementpractices in the enterprise.

According to the literature review, threecategories of factors associated with thedecision to become an entrepreneur haveemerged: psychological influences upon theindividual, effects of previous experience, andpersonal characteristics.

Within the psychological characteristics,researchers have found: need forachievement, locus of control, risk-takingpropensity, problem-solving style andinnovativeness and values.

Additionally, there have been several recentintentions to summarize those traits that arenecessary to become a successfulentrepreneur. These research results seemto indicate that there are few psychologicalcharacter ist ics that dist inguish theentrepreneur from managers. This conceptionwould be true if the studies are dealing withthe intention to begin an enterprise or withexamining those entrepreneurs who havesuccessfully opened their own business. Theresearch studies not often consider the typeof business the entrepreneur is involved inor the measure of the business´s success.

As to the effects of previous experience,researchers conclude that decisions aremade not only on the basis of personalitybut also with consideration of one´s pastexperiences. The decision to become anentrepreneur must be influenced by events

71 Nanda, M., and Chatterjee, L. (2007). Entrepreneurial human capital and New venture performance: Insearch of the elusive link. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 1-22.



that have preceded the decision. There havebeen several studies that have examined theeffect of past experience, part icular lydissatisfaction with previous work experienceand the existence of role models, on thedecision to become an entrepreneur.

Moreover, according to other research results,personality, background and experience of theentrepreneur, which are used more often inentrepreneurship research, may not have adirect impact on organizational outcomes, butmay be mediated by a combination of skillsand motivations.

The l i terature appears to support theargument that there is no generic definitionof the entrepreneur. A few generalcharacteristics of the entrepreneur do emerge,however. The entrepreneur appears to beachievement oriented and, at least in the earlystages of business venture, have internal locusof control. In general, their values approachhas been to concentrate on making short-rundecisions and solving immediate problems. Thistendency to view the world in concrete, short-run terms could possibly result from heavy workload assumed by most entrepreneurs(Brockhaus, Horwitz, 1986).

I think that there have been several criticallimitations in most of the research focused onthe study of psychological of the entrepreneur.The individuals either are trying to becomeentrepreneurs, with no business pastperformance, or are entrepreneurs who havesucceeded. Future research would be focusedto develop a longitudinal study of prospectiveentrepreneurs through the creation andmanaging of their business. This would offer theopportunity to study the traits of both successfuland unsuccessful entrepreneurs.

Another limitation of the research is that thetypes of business are not often identified. Afuture research address would be thecomparison of entrepreneurs in severaldifferent industries or economic sectors.

Finally, several research results seem to showthat personality theory provides a completetheory of entrepreneurship or even exhauststhe range of topics that can be explored atthe level of the individual entrepreneur. Rather,other results show that personality must beconsidered as one important component of amultidimensional model of the variables,

processes, and environmental factors affectingentrepreneurship and new venture creation.

Additionally, the review may suggest twooutlines of future research that might need tobe considered. First, personality traits variablesare interesting and relevant when thesevariables consider the specific work situationand context for an entrepreneur. And second,to explain entrepreneurial behavior is necessaryto consider achievement orientation.

BIBLIOGRAPHYAJZEN, I. (1991). The theory of plannedbehavior. Organizational Behavior & HumanDecision Processes, 50, 179-211.

AMIT, R., & MUELLER, E. (1996). "Push" and"pull" entrepreneurship. Small Business andEntrepreneurship, 12, 64-80.

ALDRICH, H.E., & WIEDENMAYER, G. (1993).From traits to rates: An ecological perspectiveon organizational foundings. In J.A. Katz & R.H.Brockhaus, Sr. (Eds.), Advances inentrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth,1, 145-195. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.

ARENIUS, P., & MINNITI, M. (2005). PerceptualVariables and Nascent Entrepreneurship. SmallBusiness Economics 24, 193-203

AUDRETSCH, D.B. & KEILBACH, M. (2004).Entrepreneurship capital and economicperformance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949-959.

BANDURA, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward aunifying theory of behavioral change.Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

BANDURA, A. (1982). The self and mechanismsof agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), PsychologicalPerspectives on the Self (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations ofthought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

BANDURA, A. & WOOD, R.E. (1989). Effect ofperceived controllability and performancestandards on self-regulation of complexdecision-making. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56: 805-814.

BANDURA, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Theexercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman

BARBOSA, S., GERHARDT, M., & KICKUL, J.(2007). The role of cognitive style and riskpreference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy



and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4),86-104.

BARON, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms inentrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneursthink differently than other people. Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 13, 275-294.

BARON, R. A. (2000). Psychologicalperspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitiveand social factors in entrepreneurs' success.Current Directions in Psychological Science,9, 15-18.

BAUM, J.R. (1995). The relation of traits,competencies, motivation, strategy, andstructure to venture growth. Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA:Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.

BAUM, J. & LOCKE, E. (2004). The relationshipof entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivationto subsequent venture growth. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89(4), 587-598.

BAUM, J. R., LOCKE, E. A., & SMITH, K. G.(2001). A multidimensional model of venturegrowth. Academy of Management Journal, 44,292-303.

BAUM, R., FRESE, M., and BARON, R. ThePsychology of Entrepreneurship. 1a ed. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.403 p.

BIRCH, D. L. (1987). Job creation in AmericaHow our smallest companies put the mostpeople to work. New York: Free Press.

BIRD, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurialideas: The case for intention. Academy ofManagement Review. /J(3). 442-453.

BIRLEY, S., & WESTHEAD, P. (1994). ATaxonomy of Business Start-Up Reasons andTheir Impact on Firm Growth and Size, Journalof Business Venturing, 9, 7-31.

BOYD, N. & VOZIKIS, G. (1994). The Influenceof self-efficacy on the development ofentrepreneurial intentions and actions.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4):63-78.

BRICE, Jr. J, & SPENCER, B. (2007).Entrepreneurial profiling: A decision policyanalysis of the influence of entrepreneurialself-eff icacy on Entrepreneurial intent.Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2),47-48.

BROCKHAUS, R.H. (1980). Risk takingpropensity of entrepreneurs. Academy ofManagement Journal, 23(3), 509-520.

BROCKHAUS, R. H. (1982). The psychology ofthe entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton,& K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia ofentrepreneurship (pp. 39-57). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

BROCKHAUS, R. H., & HORWITZ, P. S. (1986).The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.Sexton & R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and scienceof entrepreneurship (pp. 25-48). Cambridge,MA: Ballinger.

BUSENITZ, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial riskand strategic decision making: It's a matterof perspective. Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 35, 325-340.

BUSENITZ, L. W., & BARNEY, J. B. (1997).Differences between entrepreneurs andmanagers in large organizations: Biases andheuristics in strategic decision making. Journalof Business Venturing, 12, 9-30.

BYGRAVE, W.D. (1993). Theory building in theentrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 8, 255-280.

BYGRAVE W. D. & HOFER, CW. (1991). Theorizingabout entrepreneurship. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 16(2), 13-22.

CARTER, N.M.; GARTNER, W.B. & REYNOLDS,P.D. (1996): Exploring start-up eventsequences, Journal of Business Venturing, 11,151-166

CASSON, Mark C. (1982). The Entrepreneur.An Economic Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

CHANDLER, G.N. & JANSEN, E. (1992). Thefounder's self-assessed competence andventure performance. Journal of BusinessVenturing, 7(3): 223-237.

CHELL, E., HAWORTH, J. y BREARLEY, S. (1991).The entrepreneurial personality: Concepts,cases and cathegories. Londres: Routledge.

CHEN, C.C., GREENE, P. & CRICK, A. (1998).Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguishentrepreneurs from managers? Journal ofBusiness Venturing, 13(4): 295-317.

CHURCHILL, N. C. (1992). Research issues inentrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & J. D.Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art ofentrepreneurship, pp. 579-590. Boston. MA:PWS-Kent Publishing.



COLLINS, C. J., HANGES, P. J., & LOCKE, E. A.(2004). The relationship of achievementmotivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95-117.

CRANE, F., and JEFFREY, S. (2004), Imperativesto Venture Success, International Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 99

DAVIDSSON, P. & HONIG, B. (2003). The roleof social and human capital among nascententrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,18, 301-331.

DAVIDSSON, P. (2007). Method challenges andopportunities in the psychological study ofentrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, &R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology ofentrepreneurship (pp. 287-323). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

ENDLER, N. S. (1983). Interactionism: Apersonality model, but not yet a theory. In M.M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium onMotivation 1982: Personality-Current theoryand research, (pp. 155-200). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.

FILLEY, A.C., & ALDAG, R.J. (1978).Characteristics and measurement of anentrepreneurial typology. Academy ofManagement Journal, 4(21), 5798-591.

FISHER, R.J. (1993). Social desirability and thevalidity of indirect questioning. Journal ofConsumer Research, 20: 303- 315.

FOO, M., UY, M., & BARON, R. (2009). How DoFeelings Influence Effort? An Empirical Studyof Entrepreneurs' Affect and Venture Effort.American Psychological Association, 94 (4),1086-1094.

FRESE, M. (1995). Entrepreneurship in EastEurope: A general model and empirical findings.In C.L., Cooper & D.M. Rouseau (Eds.), Trendsin organizational behavior (pp. 63-83).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

GARTNER, W. B. (1985). A conceptualframework for describing the phenomenon ofnew venture creation. Academy ofManagement Review, 10(4), 696-706.

GARTNER, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur?Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theoryand Practice, 13(4), 47-68.

GILES, M. & REA, A. (1999). Career self-efficacy: An application of the theory ofplanned behavior. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 72: 393-399.

GIST, M.E., STEVENS, C.K. & BAVETTA, A.G.(1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition andmaintenance of complex interpersonal skill.Personnel Psychology. 44, 837-861.

GREENBERGER, D.B., & SEXTON, D. (1988). Aninteractive model of new venture initiation.Journal of Small Business Management. 26(1),1-7

GUNDRY, L. and H. WELSCH (1997) 'TheAmbitious Entrepreneur: Attributes of FirmsExhibiting High Growth Strategies', paperpresented at the Babson EntrepreneurshipResearch Conference, Wellesley, MA., May 1997.

HACKETT, G. & BETZ, N.E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career developmentof women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18:326-336.HERRON, L., & ROBINSON Jr., R. B. (1993). Astructural model of the effects ofentrepreneurial characteristics on ventureperformance. Journal of Business Venturing,8, 281-294.

HERRON, L.. & SAPIENZA. H. J. (1992). Theentrepreneur and the initiation of new venturelaunch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, /7(l), 49-55.

HISRICH, R., LANGAN-FOX, J. & GRANT, S.(2007). Entrepreneurship Research andPractice: A Call to Action for Psychology.American Psychologist, 62(6), 575-589

HISRICH, R. M. PETERS y D. SHEPHERD (2005).Entrepreneurship. 6th edition. New York:McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005.

JOHNSON, B. R. (1990). Toward amultidimensional model of entrepreneurship:The case of achievement motivation and theentrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 14(3), 39-54.

KIRKPATRICK, S. A., & LOCKE, E. A. (1996).Direct and indirect effects of three corecharismatic leadership components onperformance and attitudes. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81, 36-51

KOLVEREID, L. (1996). Organizationalemployment versus self-employment: Reasonsfor career choice intentions. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 20 (3), 23-31

KRUEGER, N.F., Jr. & BRAZEAL, D.V. (1994).Entrepreneurial potential and potentialentrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory &Practice, 18(3), 91-104.



KRUEGER, N.F., REILLY, M.D., & CARSRUD, A.L.(2000). Competing models of entrepreneurialintentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,411-432.

KUMAR, M. (2007). Explaining entrepreneurialsuccess: A conceptual model. Academy ofEntrepreneurship Journal, 13 (1), 57-77

LEAMED. K. E. (1992). What happened beforethe organization? A model of organizationformation. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 17(1), 39-48.

LENT, R.W., BROWN, S.D. & HACKETT, G.(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitivetheory of careerand academic interest, choice,and performance. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 45: 79-122.

LIANG, K. & DUNN, P. (2003). Love, Life, andFamily Ties: Couples' Assessment of NewVenture Creation and Business Developmentand Family Relationships, Proceedings of theAssociation for Small Business andEntrepreneurship.

LIVESAY, H. C. (1982). Entrepreneurial History.In Kent, Sexton, and Vesper's Encyclopedia ofEntrepreneurship (pp. 7-15). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

MCGEE, J., PETERSON, M., MUELLER, S.,SEQUEIRA, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining the Measure. Entrepreneurship:Theory and Practice, 965-988

MACMILLAN, I.C., SIEGEL, R., &SUBBANARISIMHA, P.N. 1985. Criteria used byventure capitalists to evaluate new ventureproposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1,119-128.

MALACH-PINES, AYALA, ARIK SADEH, DOVDVIR, and ORENYA Yafe-Yanai (2002).Entrepreneurs and Managers: Similar YetDifferent, The International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, 10(2), 174

MARKMAN, G.D., BARON, R.A., & BALKIN, D.B.(2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacycostless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretfulthinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior,26(1), 1-19.

MCCLELLAND, D. (1965). N achievement andentrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1: 389-392.

MCCLELLAND, D. C. (1965). N achievement andentrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-392.

MINTZBERG, H., & WATERS, J. (1982) Trackingstrategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academyof Management Journal, 465-499.

MOKRY, B. W. (1988). Entrepreneurship andpublic policy: Can government stimulate startups? New York: Quorum Books.

MONTANARI, J.R., DOMICONE, H.A.,OLDENKAMP, R.L., & PALICH, L.E. (1990). Theexamination of a development model forentrepreneurial firms: An empirical test.Academy of Management Proceedings, 59-63.

MORE, M. (1998). Dynamic Optimism - AnExtropian Cognitive-Emotional Virtue, http://www.maxmore.com/optimism.htm

MUELLER, S.L. and THOMAS, A.S. 2001.Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A ninecountry study of locus of control andinnovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing,16: 51-75.

NAFFZIGER, D.W., HORNSBY, J.S., & KURATKO,D.F. (1994). A proposed research model ofentrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 18, 29-42

NANDA, M., and CHATTERJEE, L. (2007).Entrepreneurial human capital and New ventureperformance: In search of the elusive link. Academyof Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 1-22.

NEIDER, L. (1987). A preliminary investigationof female entrepreneurs in Florida. Journal ofSmall Business Management, 25(3), 22-29.

PAVETT, C.M. LAU, A.W. (1983). Managerialwork: The influence of hierarchical level andfunctional specialty. Academy of ManagementJournal, 26(1), 170 - 177

PHILIPSEN, K. (1998). Entrepreneurship asorganizing. Presentation Paper: DRUID SummerConference, Denmark.

RAUCH, A., & FRESE, M. (2000). Psychologicalapproaches to entrepreneurial success: Ageneral model and an overview of findings.International Review of Industrial &Organizational Psychology, 15, 101- 141.

RAUCH, A., & FRESE, M. (2007). Born to be anentrepreneur? Revisiting the personalityapproach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum,M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychologyof entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.


REYNOLDS, P. (1991). Sociology andEntrepreneurship: Concepts and Contributions.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winther,47-70.

REYNOLDS. P. (1992). Predicting new firmbirths: Interactions of organizational and humanpopulations. In D. L. Sexton & J. D. Kasarda(Eds.). The state of the art ofentrepreneurship. pp. 268-297, Boston: PWS-Kcnt Publishing.

REYNOLDS, P. D., CARTER, N. M., GARTNER,W. B. & GREENE, P. G. (2004). The prevalenceof nascent entrepreneurs in the United States:Evidence from the Panel Study ofEntrepreneurial Dynamics. Small BusinessEconomics. 23: 263-284.

ROTEFOSS, B., & KOLVEREID, L. (2005).Aspiring, Nascent, and Fledgling Entrepreneurs.Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(2), 109-127.

ROTTER, J. (1966). Generalized expectanciesfor internal versus external control ofreinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80,Whole No. 609.

SEXTON, D. L. & BOWMAN, N. B. (1986).Validation of a personality index: Comparativepsychological characteristics analysis of femaleentrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurshipstudents and business students. In R.

RONSTADT, J. A. HORNADAY, R. PETERSON, &K. H. VESPER (Eds.), Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research, 40-51.

SCHEIN, E.H. (1987). Individuals and careers.In J. Lorsch's (ed), Handbook of OrganizationalBehavior (pp. 151-171). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

SCHERER, R.F., ADAMS, J.S., CARLEY, S.S. &WIEBE, F.A. (1989). Role model performanceeffects on the development of entrepreneurialcareer preference. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 13(3): 53-71.

SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1967). The Theory ofEconomic Development, 5th ed. New York:Oxford University Press, 1967.

SHANE, S. & VENKATARAMAN, S. (2000). Thepromise of entrepreneurship as a field ofresearch. Academy of Management Review,25(1), 217-226.

SHAPERO, A. & SOKOL, L. (1982). The socialdimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent,D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (eds.) Encyclopediaof entrepreneurship, pp. 72-90. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

SHAVER, K.G. & SCOTT, L.R. (1991): Person, process,choice: the psychology of new creation.Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 16(2), 23-45.

SHAVER, K. G. (2007). Psychological methodsin entrepreneurship research. In J. R. Baum,M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychologyof entrepreneurship (pp. 335-346). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

SMITH, N. R. (1967). The entrepreneur andhis firm: The relationship between type of manand type of company. East Lansing: MichiganState University, Graduate School of BusinessAdministration.

SMITH, N.R. y MINER, J.B. (1983): Type ofentrepreneur, type of firm.and magerialmotivation: implications for organizational lifecyle theory. Strategic Management Journal,4, 325-340.

SMITH, J. K., & SMITH, R. L. (2000).Entrepreneurial finance. New York: Wiley.

TIMMONS, J. A., MUZYKA, D. F., STEVENSON,H. H., & BYGRAVE, W. D. (1987). Opportunityrecognition: The core of entrepreneurship. InN. C. Churchill, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers ofentrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA:Babson College.

UTSCH, A. & RAUCH, A. (2000). Innovativenessand initiative as mediators betweenachievement orientation and ventureperformance. European Journal of Work &Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.

VENKATARAMAN, S. (1997). The DistinctiveDomain of Entrepreneurship Research: AnEditor's Perspective. Advances inEntrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus.Greenwich, JAI Press. 3: 119-138.

VIRTANEN, M. (1997). The role of differenttheories in explaining entrepreneurship. In S.Kunkel (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The engine ofglobal economic development. Journal of BestPapers of the 42nd World Conference,International Council for Small Business 1997,San Francisco.

WEST, M. A. & FARR, J. L. (1990) Innovationat work. In M.A. West and J.L. Farr (eds.):Innovation and creativity at work:Psychological and organizational strategies.Wiley. Chichester. pp. 3-13.

WESTHEAD, P., and WRIGHT, M. (1998). Novice,Portfolio, and Serial Founders: Are They Different?Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 173-204.

ZHAO, H., SEIBERT, S. (2006) The Big FivePersonality Dimensions and EntrepreneurialStatus: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91. 259-271

ZHAO, H., SEIBERT, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005).The mediating role of self-efficacy in thedevelopment of entrepreneurial intentions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1265-1272.


Redalyc.THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Documents

Transcript of Redalyc.THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP