The Propensity For Entrepreneurship Psychological And Social Factors

Description
During this such a brief illustration around the propensity for entrepreneurship psychological and social factors.

51
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
THE PROPENSITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS
1
LA PROPENSIÓN AL ESPÍRITU EMPRESARIAL:
FACTORES PSICOLÓGICOS Y SOCIALES
José Luis Martínez Campo
2
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
ABSTRACT
Personality traits, organizational factors, and
environmental factors have been studied by
entrepreneurship researchers as causes of
new venture success; however, from 1961 to
1990, research about entrepreneurs' traits
found only weak effects (Aldrich & Wieden-
mayer, 1993). Recently, a growing cohort of
psychology-based researchers has renewed
interest in entrepreneurs' personal charac-
teristics as predictors of success by moving
beyond 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 individual
propensity to new ventures creation, and of-
fer suggestions about future directions for this
topic.
Key words: Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship,
personality traits, entrepreneur´s traits, en-
trepreneurial behavior.
RESUMEN
Los rasgos de personal i dad, l os factores
organizacionales y los factores ambientales
han sido estudiados por los investigadores
como causas de la nueva empresa de éxito.
Sin embargo, desde 1961 hasta 1990, la
i nvesti gaci ón sobre tal es rasgos de l os
emprendedores encontró sólo efectos débiles
(Al dri ch y Wi edenmayer, 1993).
Reci entemente, un grupo creci ente de
investigadores, basados en la psicología, ha
renovado el interés en las características de
personalidad de los emprendedores como
predictores de éxito al superar la anterior
predilección en el estudio de rasgos tales
como las competencias, la motivación, los
conocimientos y la conducta. El objetivo prin-
cipal de este trabajo es proporcionar una
revisión y ofrecer una extensión teórica de la
investigación sobre los factores sociales y
psicológicos que influyen en la propensión
individual a la creación de nuevas empresas,
y ofrecer sugerencias sobre la orientación
futura de este tema.
Pal abras cl ave: Emprendedor, espí ri tu
empresarial, los rasgos de personalidad, los
rasgos de empresario, el comportamiento
empresarial.
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 de
Empresas. 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. INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship has an important role in a
country's economy, contributing decisively
f or the creati on of new busi nesses or
business opportunities in companies that
al ready exi st, accordi ng to Gl obal
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2007).
Consequently, entrepreneurship carries a
seri es of advantages for the countri es/
regions, with the creation of new businesses
that generate more investments in the local
economy, creates new jobs, and increases
competitiveness by developing innovative
working tools. This way, this phenomenon is
considered a major element in fostering the
dynamics of an economy and bringing new
types of competitive business (GEM, 2007).
Virtanen (1997) sees entrepreneurship as a
dynamic process which the main purpose is to
create value in the market, through the
exploration of economic innovations. The
entrepreneur, by creati ng val ue and by
expl ori ng i nnovati ve processes, i s al so
contributing for the growth of their business
and the economy.
The definition of entrepreneurship has been
seen according to two criteria: the first
involves the knowledge and the individual's
capaci ty of recogni zi ng economi c
opportunities existent in the market, which
may be exploited through the creation of a
new business; the second criteria involves
the economic behavior and the creation of
the new business in order to aggregate the
economic value to knowledge (Audrestsch
and Keilbach, 2004)
3
. According to Bygrave
and Hofer (1991) and Bygrave (1993)
4
,
entrepreneurship is a process which involves
all the functions and activities related to the
individuals' perception of opportunity and
respective creation of enterprises in order
to undertake these opportunities. Involves
several precedent conditions and is started
by an act of willingness, occurring at an
individual level, implies a state of change and
uniqueness, and its final results are sensitive
to the initial conditions. In Venkataraman
5
(1997) opi ni on, quoted by Shane and
Venkataraman (2000), the entrepreneurship
phenomenon cannot be explained based on
what the entrepreneur is or does. For this
author the focus should be on the relation
between the exi stence of prof i tabl e
opportuni ti es and the presence of
entrepreneurial individuals. Entrepreneurship
undertakes the evaluation of opportunities
sources, comprehendi ng the di scovery,
estimation and exploration, plus a set of
i ndi vi dual s that di scover, eval uates and
explores it (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000).
The entrepreneurshi p process i ncl udes
uncertainty and venture, management skills
and creative opportunism (Brockhaus, 1980).
Accordi ng to Phi l i psen (1998) f eatures
theories sustain that the individuals with
propensity for entrepreneurship have certain
characteristics which distinguishing them
from the remaining individuals. These theories
seek to i denti f y the key-f eatures of
successf ul entrepreneurs, i ncl udi ng
psychol ogi cal , soci ol ogi cal and
anthropological variables.
Additionally, according to Casson (1982) the
fundamental features, associated with the
entrepreneur, such as i magi nati on, are
inherent and cannot be learned. In these
terms, one of the many criticisms that are
made to features' theory is that it doesn't
enable us to distinguish inherent personality
features from those that can be taught
(Gordon, 2004).
By other hand, the i napti tude of the
psychol ogi cal features theory to expl ai n
entrepreneurship may result from the lack of
knowledge regarding the social context and
the choices that individuals do in the decision
moment whether they should or not become
entrepreneurs (Reynolds, 1991). According
to Virtanen (1997) the sociological theories
rely on the ethnical identification and try to
explain entrepreneurship as being a process
where the i ndi vi dual soci ol ogi cal past
constitutes a decisive factor for he, or she,
becoming an entrepreneur.
3 Audretsch, D.B. & Keilbach, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional
Studies, 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
53
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
Different studies establish that propensity
for entrepreneurship depends on several
f actors. In thi s arti cl e, I anal yze a
conceptual framework based on social and
psychological features.
2. THEORETICAL REVIEW
"Entrepreneurship is the process of creating
something new with value by devoting the
necessary time and effort, assuming the
accompanying financial, psychic, and social
risks, and receiving the resulting rewards"
(Hisrich, Peters, & Shepherd, 2005).
Entrepreneurs are considered the center of
new venture creation, and are individuals
who capitalize intellectual and physical assets
i n the process of weal th creati on by
di scoveri ng and transf ormi ng uni que
opportunities into new ventures.
Entrepreneurship-oriented intentions are
believed to be precursors of entrepreneurial
action (Bird, 1988; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger
& Brazeal, 1994
6
; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud,
2000)
7
. As to f urther devel op
entrepreneurship theory, researchers need
an understanding of the factors that might
influence the intentions of those considering
entrepreneurship for the first-time nascent
entrepreneurs (Carter, Gartner, & Reynolds,
1996, p. 151; Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, &
Greene, 2004; Rotefoss & Kolvereid, 2005,
p. 109). Factors that would influence one to
become an entrepreneur are many, and
consist of various combinations of personal
attributes, traits, background, experience,
and disposition (Arenius & Minniti, 2005;
Krueger, Reilly & Carsrud, 2000).
Psychological researchers have put emphasis
on the character and personality traits of
entrepreneurs. Two influential theoretical
viewpoints in this view are coming from
Schumpeter (1967) and Rotter (1966).
Accordi ng to the fi rst author, the most
relevant and important characteristic of an
entrepreneur i s hi s/her nature to make
i nnovati ons. The entrepreneur provi des
leadership to discontinuous dynamic change
through means of production into new ways.
He visualized this happening by means of a
new combination of factors of production
resulting in one or a few of the following:
introduction of a new product, institution of
a new technology, opening a new market,
discovery of a new source of supply of raw
materials and carrying out a new form of
organization. In Rotter's opinion, there are
two broad categories of people-people who
believe that what happens to them is the
result of chance, luck or factors beyond their
control termed primarily believers in the
external locus of control and people who
believe that, for the most part, the future is
theirs to control through their own efforts,
termed as believers in the internal locus of
control. According to Rotter (1966), people
who are entrepreneurial are more likely to
believe in the internal rather than in the
external locus of control.
The motivations and behavior of individuals who
are intended to create new ventures is an
intriguing area of entrepreneurship research
and has received increased attention over the
last decade (Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carter
et al., 1996, Davidsson and Honig, 2003).
Several approaches to identifying "where
entrepreneurs come from" have recently
emerged. One popular approach employs long-
standi ng psychol ogy model s of pl anned
behavior to explain how ideas evolve into new
ventures (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994)
8
. Another
focus appl i es moti vati on model s that
i ncorporate personal attri butes, val ues,
characteristics, demographic factors and
culture to explain why some individuals are
more likely to engage in entrepreneurial
behavior than others (Mueller and Thomas,
2001). Still, other approaches are based on
entrepreneurial process models that focus on
a "gestation" period during which various forms
of nascent behavior are presumed to take place
(Carter et al., 1996)
9
.
The first research studies in the field of
entrepreneurship required to determine what
personal i ty characteri sti cs di sti ngui shed
entrepreneurs 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. Journal
of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432. p. 411
8 Krueger and Brazeal, 1994, p. 91
9 Carter et al. 1996, p. 151
54
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
entrepreneurs from managers in large firms, and
successful entrepreneurs from unsuccessful
entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 1982; Brockhaus &
Horwitz, 1986). The role of personal traits (risk-
taking propensity, locus of control, and need
for achievement), found their way into journals
and models until Gartner (1988) commented that
the entrepreneur described by these research
efforts had become larger than life and a sort
of "generic everyman"; some aspects of this
description would fit almost anyone. In Gartner's
opinion, that line of reasoning had outlived its
utility. Shaver and Scott (1991) concluded their
research by stating: The study of new venture
creati on began wi th some reasonabl e
assumpti ons about the psychol ogi cal
characteristics of "entrepreneurs." Through the
years, more and more of these personological
characteristics have been discarded, debunked,
or at the very least, found to have been
measured ineffectively. The result has been a
tendency to concentrate on almost anything
except the individual. Economic circumstances
are important; marketing is important; finance
is important; even public agency assistance is
important. But none of these will, alone, create
a new venture. For that we need a person, in
whose mind all of the possibilities come together,
who believes that innovation is possible, and
who has the motivation to persist until the job
is done. Person, process, and choice; for these
we need a truly psychological perspective on
new venture creation.
These arguments are consistent with the
psychological argument defining behavior as
a function of the interaction between the
individual and the environment (Endler, 1983).
Yet, Sexton and Bowman (1986) argued that
empirical research had failed to agree on
whi ch characteri sti cs di sti ngui shed
entrepreneurs from other business persons.
Gartner (1985)
10
proposed a conceptual
framework of new venture creation that
portrayed the process as an interaction of the
environment, the individual, the organization, and
entrepreneurial behavior. Gartner (1988)
suggested that in entrepreneurship research, the
research questions should focus on the process
of entrepreneurship instead of who is the
entrepreneur. His implication is that
entrepreneurship is a multidimensional process
and that entrepreneurial traits are just one
component of that process. Johnson (1990)
11
noted that few studies have explicitly addressed
the question of how psychological predisposition,
individual behaviors, and firm-level outcomes are
related. Entrepreneurship is a multidimensional
process that demands the utilization of
multidimensional research models if true
understanding of the process is to be attained.
At about the ti me of the Gartner et al .
debate, Greenberger and Sexton (1988)
12
,
proposed a model that incorporated individual
characteristics and environmental influences.
Their model presented new venture creation
as an interactive process in which personal
characteri sti cs, i ncl udi ng personal i ty,
interacted with an interpretation of salient
events i n the envi ronment to i nfl uence
decisions concerning new venture creation.
Greenberger and Sexton also included the
concept of "vi si on," the entrepreneurs'
abstract image of the kind of business they
intend to create which serves as a guide for
thei r own acti ons. The concepts of
intentionality (Bird, 1988)
13
and propensity
(Montanari, Domicone, Oldenkamp, & Palich,
1990) have been suggested as key factors
in the venture creation process. Learned
(1992, p. 36) i ntroduced a model that
extended the interaction of personality traits,
intention, propensity, and the situation.
Herron and Sapi enza (1992)
14
stated,
"Because motivation plays an important part
in the creation of new organizations, theories
of organization creation that fail to address
this 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 achievement
motivation 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 and
Practice, 13(4), 47-68. p. 47
13 Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management
Review. /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
55
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
the entrepreneur stated, i t remai ns
worthwhile to carefully study the role of the
individual, including his or her psychological
prof i l e. Indi vi dual s are, af ter al l , the
energizers of the entrepreneurial process.
Churchill (1992)
16
summarized the anticipated
research needs concerning the psychology
of entrepreneurs by stating, we lack a generic
def i ni ti on of the psychol ogy of the
entrepreneur and the rel ati onshi p of
psychological traits to both the initiation and
growth of new enterprises . . . it might be
benef i ci al to concentrate our research
ef f orts, not on the psychol ogi cal
characteri sti cs of entrepreneurs, but on
determining why they succeed or fail.
The decision to behave entrepreneurally is based
on more than personal characteristics and
individual differences. The interaction of personal
characteristics with other important perceptions
of situational factors needs to be better
understood (Naffziger, Hornsby, Kuratko, 1994).
Reynolds (1992, p. 268) proposed three factors
that may affect an individual's decision to start
a new firm: (1) the characteristics of the
economic context; (2) the characteristics of
the individual's life or career context; and (3)
underlying personal disposition. Based upon this
and other existing literature, five major
categori es of vari abl es are bel i eved to
interactively influence an individual's decision
to behave entrepreneurially. Those variables
are: (1) an entrepreneur' s personal
characteristics; (2) the individual's personal
envi ronment; (3) the rel evant busi ness
environment; (4) the specific business idea;
and (5) the goals of the entrepreneur (Naffziger,
Hornsby, Kuratko, 1994).
The researches f or personal i ty trai ts
differences between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs were developed by several
researchers i n the 1980s. Much of the
research focused on traits such as the need
for achievement, locus of control, and risk-
taki ng propensi ty (Naf f zi ger, Hornsby,
Kuratko, 1994)
17
. Gartner's (1985) model of
new venture creation included those three
variables, not necessarily to say that they
di f f erenti ate entrepreneurs f rom
nonentrepreneurs, but to indicate that they
are important in the process of starting a
business.
Other findings of individual characteristics
rel ated to the venture creati on process
include energy level, conformity, and need
for autonomy (Sexton & Bowman, 1986),
persistence and dominance (Neider, 1987),
desire for personal control (Greenberger &
Sexton, 1988), and the desi re to bui l d
something of one' s own (Knight, 1987).
Greenberger and Sexton (1988: 1-7) also
hypothesized that one's attitude about one's
self is influential in the decision to start a
busi ness. Herron and Sapi enza (1992)
18
proposed the importance of personality traits
i n af f ecti ng an entrepreneur' s l evel of
aspiration towards a venture.
Personal goals
Greenberger and Sexton (1988, p. 4)
19
i denti f y the entrepreneur' s vi si on as a
si gni f i cant and rel evant f orce i n the
devel opment of the new venture.
Furthermore, Learned (1992) i ncl uded
intentionality and propensity to found a
venture as key vari abl es i n the
entrepreneurial process. Herron and Sapienza
(1992) demonstrated the importance of the
entrepreneur's level of aspirations in their
venture initiation model (Naffziger, Hornsby
and Kuratko, 1994)
20
.
Naffziger et al (1994)
21
proposed a Model of
Entrepreneurial Motivation and stated that
the decision to behave entrepreneurially is
hypothesi zed to be the resul t of the
interaction of several factors. One set of
factors includes the personal characteristics
15 Johnson, B. R. (1990). Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement
motivation 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.), The
state 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. 49
19 Greenberger, D.B., & Sexton, D. (1988). An interactive model of new venture initiation. Journal of Small
Business Management. 26(1), 1-7. p. 4
20 Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., & Kuratko, D.F. Op. cit.,1994.p. 32
21 Ibid. p. 29
56
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
of the individual, the individual's personal
envi ronment, the rel evant busi ness
environment, the individual's personal goal
set, and the existence of a viable business
i dea. In addi ti on, i ndi vi dual s make
comparisons between their perception of the
probabl e outcomes and the personal
expectati ons they have i n mi nd. Then,
individuals look at the relationship between
the entrepreneurial behavior they would
implement and the expected outcomes that
would result. Thus, it is contended that an
i ndi vi dual ' s deci si on to behave i n an
entrepreneurial fashion is clearly influenced by
more than simply personal characteristics, as
proposed in early entrepreneurial literature.
General profi l es of entrepreneurs often
include optimism and other entrepreneurial
characteristics such as self confidence, high
expectations, willingness to accept risks,
etc. Some empirical studies have examined
how entrepreneurial characteristics impact
on certai n entrepreneuri al deci si ons i n
investment, new venture creation, work/life
choices, or success/failure of entrepreneurial
actions. Researchers in psychology have
investigated optimism (often contrasted to
pessimism) as an attribute of individuals who
l i nk posi ti ve thi nki ng, better outcomes,
personal control, personal well-being, coping
strategy, sel f-esteem, or i nteracti ons
between individuals in different cultures and
environments (Liang & Dunn, 2003). Optimism
is often listed among the other characteristics
of entrepreneurs such as high achievement
drive, action oriented, internal locus of control,
tolerance for ambiguity, moderate risk taking,
commi tment, opportuni sti c, i ni ti ati ve,
independence and commitment/tenacity (Liang
and Dunn, 2003; Malach-Pines, Ayala, Arik
Sadeh, Dov Dvir, and Orenya Yafe-Yanai,
2002
22
; Crane & Jeffrey, 2004)
23
.
Realism and optimism
Liang and Dunn (2008) considered three new
dimensions to the study of entrepreneurs -
realism, mixed optimism/realism, and fuzzy.
Little had been done in those areas. The
authors di scovered that whi l e most
entrepreneurs are optimistic, they are also
real i sti c. These fi ndi ngs woul d push
entrepreneurship research into a new field of
study. Several new research topics could be
developed such as how venture decisions are
derived, how entrepreneurs assess or accept
risks, if entrepreneurs behave differently
because of different set of parameters in
optimism and/or realism, and if specific traits
influence learning and expectations.
Entrepreneurs can be optimists and realists
at the same time (Liang and Dunn, 2008).
The nature of the world means that to be
realistic we must normally be optimistic
(More, 1998). Opti mi sts di spl ay certai n
attitudes, not detached estimates of the
objective probability of good and bad events
in the future, to make personal commitments
to certain modes of thinking and behaving
(More, 1998). It i s a way of thi nki ng,
generated by optimistic attitudes, that makes
entrepreneurs unique.
"Economic circumstances are important;
marketi ng i s i mportant; fi nance i s
important; even public agency assistance
is important. But none of these will, alone,
create a new venture. For that we need
a person, i n whose mi nd al l of the
possibilities come together, who believes
that innovation is possible, and who has
the motivation to persist until the job is
done. Person, process, and choice: for
these we need a trul y psychol ogi cal
perspective on new venture creation". -
Shaver and Scott (1991)
24
Different types of entrepreneurs
The first work in this area was developed by
Smith (1967), who isolated two types of
entrepreneurs, based on thei r personal
characteri sti cs and work moti vati ons.
'Craftsman' entrepreneurs came from blue-collar
backgrounds, rel ati vel y l ower l evel s of
education, and had been associated with
operations rather than management in the past.
In running their firms, they were typically
paternalistic, 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
57
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
and friends for financing, used personal
relationships in marketing, and adopted rigid
strategies. 'Opportunistic' entrepreneurs, on the
other hand, had middle class backgrounds, were
more educated, had a greater variety of work
experience, and had some past experience with
management. They were more aware of and
sensitive to the market, and better oriented
towards spotting opportunities and growth. Their
management style was more professional, they
delegated more, looked for more financing
options, adopted more innovative competitive
strategies, and led adaptive and faster growing
firms.
Other researchers have tried to build upon
Smi th' s (1967) craftsman-opportuni sti c
typology (Filley and Aldag, 1978
25
; Smith and
Mi ner, 1983)
26
. Broadl y, three types of
entrepreneurs have been identified, 1) the
craftsman entrepreneurs, who are strongly
motivated to do what they enjoy doing, and
value their independence, 2) managerial
entrepreneurs, who are moti vated by
economic gain or building an organization,
and are more concerned with administrative
detai l s and control systems, and 3)
opportunistic entrepreneurs who can exploit
the market conditions by spotting a particular
need (Smith, 1967; Smith and Miner, 1983).
Further studies by Filley and Aldag (1978),
Cooper and Dunkelberg (1986), and Lafuente
and Sal as (1989) have al so i denti f i ed
different types of entrepreneurs based on
different sets of initial classificatory variables
like education, previous work experience, the
process of ownership, work expectations etc,
and related these classification variables to
growth rates or type of firm created.
As Gartner (1985) highlighted, there are pertinent
variations among entrepreneurs and the
enterprises/ organizations they create. Smith
(1967) found opportunistic entrepreneurs'
chances for survival and growth to be higher
than that of craftsman entrepreneurs. Carland
et al (1984) differentiated between
entrepreneurs and small business owners based
on the firm's growth orientation. Birch (1987)
has discussed two types of small firms, income
substitutors and entrepreneurs, and noted the
difference in growth orientation between them.
Westhead and Wright (1988)
27
have distinguished
between novice, portfolio, and serial
entrepreneurs, based on the entrepreneur's
experience in new venture creation, and
conclude that portfolio and serial entrepreneurs
are significantly associated with higher job
creation rates.
Entrepreneurs create new ventures for a
variety of reasons, and satisfying a variety of
personal objectives. Motivational structures
will be very different for the entrepreneur who
wants challenging work and for one who
chooses self employment as "a more desirable
form of earning a living" (Chell, Haworth, and
Brearley, 1991). This is expected to have a
significant effect on the behavior of the
entrepreneur, and hence the future
performance of the ventures created by them.
Kolvereid (1991, cited in Gundry and Welsch,
1997) found that higher levels of growth
aspirations were related to entrepreneurs
who started busi nesses as a means of
personal achievement. Similarly, Amit and
Muller (1996) found that "Pull" entrepreneurs
had significantly higher chances of success
than "Push" entrepreneurs. Thus, reasons for
starting a business may be related to the
growth orientation of the entrepreneur.
Moreover, although entrepreneurship is a
situational phenomenon, combinations of
circumstances cannot create a new venture
by themsel ves. The entrepreneur as an
individual has to employ his own skills to
"shape a new organization out of complexity
and chaos" (Herron, 1990, quoted in Herron
and Sapienza, 1992)
28
. Entrepreneurs come
from di fferent soci al backgrounds; have
vari ed educati on, trai ni ng and work
experi ence, al l of whi ch resul t i n the
development of different skill sets. These
25 Filley, A.C., & Aldag, R.J. (1978). Characteristics and measurement of an entrepreneurial typology. Academy
of 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: implications
for 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? Journal
of Business Venturing, 13, 173-204. p. 173
28 Herron and Sapienza, Op. cit.1992, p. 50
58
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
differences may impact their decisions and
be another source of variation between the
ventures they create.
Moreover, it is suggested that personality is
manifested in knowledge, skill and ability (Baum,
1995). Herron and Robi nson (1993)
29
conceptualize 'skills' as a function of aptitude
and training. Hence, skill sets of entrepreneurs
will capture the effect of the knowledge and
abilities acquired by them through their
education, training and work experience.
Early research on the decision to start a new
business tended to focus either on contextual
factors such as job displacement (Shapero
& Sokol , 1982)
30
, pri or work experi ence
(Mokry, 1988) or on individual personality
factors such as the need for achievement
(McClelland, 1965)
31
, internal locus of control,
acceptance of risk (Brockhaus & Horowitz,
1986), and the tol erance of ambi gui ty
(Scherer, 1982). More recent model s of
entrepreneurial decision have adopted a
perspective in which the individual is an
intentional decision maker and actor, engaging
in the rational appraisal of situational and
personal factors (Bird, 1988, Krueger, 1993).
Thus, from the newer cognitive perspective,
external factors and personality factors still
influence the entrepreneurial decision, but
onl y i nsofar as they are percei ved and
interpreted by the potential entrepreneur.
Krueger, Reilly, and Carsrud (2000)
32
compared
two models of entrepreneurial decision making
based on the premise that intention to start a
new venture i s the major predi ctor of
entrepreneurial behavior. In both models
(Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Ajzen, 1991)
33
self-
efficacy emerged an important influence on
intention. In essence, the belief that one can
personally execute the behaviors needed to
create a new venture is professed to enhance
the intent to do so (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994;
Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Brice, Jr. J, and
Spencer (2007)
34
were aimed to build on this
cognitive approach by profiling how individuals
wei gh di fferent cri teri a when judgi ng
entrepreneurial efficacy.
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
Whi l e rel ati vel y new to research on
entrepreneurshi p, sel f-effi cacy i s wi del y
recognized as a key construct in social learning
theory (Bandura, 1977, p. 191), a perspective
which assumes that behavior, cognitions, and
the environment continually influence each
other in the mindset of individuals (Bandura,
1977, p. 191, and Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy
refers to people's judgments regarding their
ability to perform a given activity (Bandura,
1977, 1982, and1986) and is proposed to
influence individual choices, goals, emotional
reactions, effort, ability to cope, and persistence
(Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991). Hackett and
Betz (1981, p. 326) proposed that Bandura's
(1977) theory of self-efficacy provides a useful
conceptual framework from which to predict
the 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 firmly
i n the entrepreneurshi p l i terature by
suggesti ng that percepti ons of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy could contribute
significantly to an individual's deliberations
about whether, or not, to pursue an
entrepreneurial career.
29 Herron, L., & Robinson Jr., R. B. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics
on 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 Personality
and 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. 179
34 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
59
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
Bef ore the appearance of these key
theoreti cal pi eces, Chandl er and Jansen
(1992) conducted research on busi ness
founders' self-assessments of "proficiency in
the entrepreneurial function."
A strength of thi s research was thei r
development of a scale measuring five human
competenci es associ ated wi th the
entrepreneurial, managerial, and technical-
functional roles of business founders (Mintzberg
& Waters, 1982
37
; Pavett & Lau, 1983
38
;
Schein, 1987)
39
. Chandler and Jansen (1992,
p. 237)
40
demonstrated that founders of the
most successful firms in their sample rated
themselves higher than others on capabilities
associated with all three of these roles.
More recently, Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998,
p. 295-317) operationalized entrepreneurial
sel f -ef f i cacy (ESE) as sel f -assessed
"certainty" in dealing with 26 specific tasks
identified from prior literature and interviews
with several local entrepreneurs concerning
key entrepreneurial roles. After gathering
self-ratings on these tasks from students and
busi ness owners/executi ves, they used
factor analysis to combine them into five
categories including marketing, innovation,
management, ri sk taki ng, and fi nanci al
control. They also created an overall "ESE"
measure, by taking the mean over all 26
items. Their findings showed that among
students, overal l ESE was si gni f i cantl y
correlated with the stated intention to start
a busi ness. Among busi ness executi ves,
those who were founders rated themselves
higher on total ESE and particularly, on
i nnovati on and ri sk-taki ng, than di d
nonfounders.
While Chandler and Jansen's (1992) and Chen,
Greene and Cri ck' s (1998) resul ts are
enticing, further research on entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and the intention to start a new
busi ness i s needed. For i nstance, what
criteria do people use when deciding about
their aptitude to start a business? Are some
efficacy criteria more important than others
in making this evaluation?
Chandl er and Jansen' s (1992) most
successful entrepreneurs rated themselves
hi ghl y on al l competenci es, whi l e Chen,
Greene and Crick's (1998, p. 295) founders
rated their abilities on innovation and risk-
taking more highly than did non-founders.
But neither study tells us which criteria
people consider most, or least, important
when judging their ability to start a new
venture. Such i nf ormati on woul d be
parti cul arl y i mportant i f i t hel ped us to
understand the decision-making processes of
prospective entrepreneurs.
A second troublesome unresolved issue related
to entrepreneurial self-efficacy is the problem
of social desirability bias in self-assessments.
Because the notion of self-efficacy inherently
involves people's judgments about their ability
to perform given activities (Bandura, 1982),
the use of self-reported survey evaluations
make sense. Yet, in such circumstances,
individuals may be tempted to inflate their
ratings (i.e., to impress study evaluators,
among other reasons). In fact, Chen, Greene,
and Cri ck (1998) noted that the hi gh
interfactor correlations among their component
entrepreneurial self-efficacy scores may well
have been caused by soci al desi rabi l i ty
response bias.
They stated that future researchers should
think of ways to reduce social desirability. The
study described here is an effort to advance
the research on entrepreneurial self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intentions and to address
the social desirability limitation encountered
in Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998). A decision
modeling approach is applied to assess how
individuals weigh several key entrepreneurial
competencies in deciding whether someone
would be capable of pursuing a promising
business venture. This method avoids the
social desirability dilemma because respondents
make hypothetical decisions based on specified
cues. Deci si on model i ng di mi ni shes the
mi srepresentati on of soci al desi rabi l i ty
response biases that might be uncovered by
asking respondents to make judgments about
ambiguous situations in a seemingly external
37 Mintzberg & Waters, 1982, p. 465.
38 Pavett & Lau, 1983, p. 171
39 Schein, 1987, p. 151
40 Chandler and Jansen, 1992, p. 237
60
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
world, which serves to expose their genuine
sensitivities (Fischer, 1993)
41
.
Bandura (1982) defined self-efficacy as the
task-speci fi c consi derati on of percei ved
fitness to perform a particular activity. In
the case of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial
sel f -ef f i cacy may be compri sed of
deliberation of those tasks that relate to the
initiation and development of new ventures,
whi ch i s consi dered embl emati c of the
entrepreneurial act (Livesay, 1982, p. 13).
One way to identify these tasks is to think
about the basic functional areas of business.
For instance, a study by Scherer, Adams,
Carl ey, and Wei be (1989, p. 53)
42
operationalized entrepreneurial self-efficacy
as experti se i n accounti ng, producti on,
marketing, human resources, and general
organizational skills. A limitation of this
approach is that proficiency in all of areas
may not be required for all new venture
efforts. For instance, while a prospective
manufacturer of industrial equipment may
have to consi der whether he or she i s
competent i n al l of the aforementi oned
functional responsibilities before attempting
to develop a new venture, an independent
hot-dog cart operator may only have to
consider his or her basic accounting and
marketing skills before launching a new hot-
dog cart operati on. As thi s exampl e
demonstrates, the assessment of specific
functional abilities before new venture initiation
is dependent on the scope and scale of the
particular venture being considered.
Additionally, an entrepreneurial self-efficacy
construct based on functional capabilities
ignores the fact that co-opting from external
sources may sol ve some f uncti onal
shortcomings, on the part of the prospective
entrepreneur. For example, an individual who
lacks accounting/bookkeeping skill can easily
and inexpensively purchase that service from
an independent contractor. Knowing this, a
prospective entrepreneur without sufficient
accounting expertise may still be willing to
undertake the development of a new venture.
Because a negati ve percepti on of one' s
fitness in some functional capacities may not
have the predicted effect on entrepreneurial
behavior, it seems likely that a functional
capability description of entrepreneurial self-
efficacy may not have a decisive influence
on whether or not one decides to pursue an
entrepreneurial career.
Instead of considering functional tasks, a
different approach to clarifying entrepreneurial
efficacy is to consider the broader human
competencies associated with new venture
devel opment si nce human competency
assessments are l ess dependent on the
specification and complexity of particular new
venture entry domains. Drawing from writings
by Mintzberg and Waters (1982); Pavett and
Lau (1983); and Schein (1987), Chandler and
Jansen (1992) i denti fi ed fi ve such
competencies based on the three primary roles
of the entrepreneur: the entrepreneurial,
managerial, and technical-functional. The idea
is that both an industrial manufacturer and a
hot-dog cart operator must assume all of these
roles while initiating their firms, regardless of
the scope or scale of their ventures.
In the entrepreneurial role, business founders
examine their environment and listen to their
customers to find new opportunities, and
devise methods to exploit opportunities for
the benefit of a new firm (Mintzberg & Waters
1982). Two competencies are involved here.
Fi rst, entrepreneurs must possess the
human/conceptual competency to recognize
uni que opportuni ti es, and second, they
require the drive to take the venture from
conceptual i zati on through to ful fi l l ment
(MacMillan, Siegel, & SubbaNarisimha, 1985,
p. 119); Timmons, Muzyka, Stevenson, &
Bygrave, 1987; Chandler & Jansen, 1992).
In the managerial role, there are also two
broad competenci es: l eadershi p and
organizational skills (Pavett & Lau, 1983, p.
170; Schein 1987, p. 151), and the political
competence to procure the support of
network members (Pavett & Lau 1983, p.
170). In the techni cal -f uncti onal rol e,
busi ness f ounders 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. 53
43 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
61
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
specialized expertise in the industry within
which the firm will operate (Pavett & Lau
1983
43
; Chandler & Jansen, 1992)
44
.
Entrepreneuri al Sel f-Effi cacy and
Entrepreneurial Intentions
Self-efficacy is a construct indicating that
behavior, cognition, and the environment
influence each other in a dynamic fashion,
thus allowing individuals to form beliefs about
thei r abi l i ty to perf orm speci f i c tasks
(Bandura, 1977, p.194). Entrepreneurial self-
efficacy (ESE) is, therefore, viewed as having
the capabilities that can modify a person's
belief in his or her likelihood of completing
the tasks required to successfully initiate and
establish a new business venture (Bandura,
1986). Specifically, entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is defined as the degree to which
one i s sel f -conf i dent to be abl e to
successfully start a new business venture.
Past research can be used to l i nk
entrepreneuri al sel f -ef f i cacy and
entrepreneurial intentions. Hackett and Betz
(1981, p. 326) projected that Bandura's
(1977) theory of self-efficacy may be applied
to determine the vocational inclinations of
individuals. Empirical findings indicate that
self-efficacy is highly involved in the career
decision-making process. In fact, career self-
efficacy was found to be the most important
predi ctor of mal es' i ntenti ons to pursue
careers in traditionally female occupations
(Giles & Rea, 1999). Individuals with high
levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy may
also have strong occupational intentions for
an entrepreneurial career. Lent, Brown, and
Hackett (1994) applied self-efficacy in a
social cognitive framework (Bandura, 1986)
to explain three aspects of generalized career
development: (1) the formation of career-
relevant interests, (2) selection of a career
choi ce opti on (i ntenti ons), and (3)
performance and persistence in the selected
occupation. Lent, et al (1994) found that
sel f-effi cacy was si gni fi cantl y rel ated to
career i nterests, career choi ce goal s
(intentions), and occupational performance.
However, Lent, et al (1994) also found that
self-efficacy is the sole mediator between a
person' s abi l i ti es and hi s or her career
interests. These three findings taken together
can be interpreted as meaning that self-
efficacy may be used to predict the intended
career-related intentions and behavior of
individuals. It has been established that self-
efficacy is the major influence on career-
related behavior in Bandura's (1986) social
cognitive theory (Lent, et al, 1994).
Since social cognitive theory proposes that
individuals choose to undertake tasks in
which they are confident, comfortable, and
perceive competence (Bandura, 1986), this
study hypothesi zes that i ndi vi dual s who
mai ntai n rel ati vel y hi gh entrepreneuri al
intentions will place significant weight on
their perception of fitness for entrepreneurial
competencies (highly entrepreneurial self-
efficacious).
Intent is a dependable predictor of human
behavior in an assortment of circumstances,
and has been deemed by many to represent
the most successful forecaster of human
attitudes and action (Ajzen, 1991, p. 179).
Intentions are assumed to capture the essence
of stimulating factors that influence behavior.
They are signals of how intensely individuals
are prepared to perform and how much effort
they are prepared to commit to carry out the
expected behavior. Basically, the more robust
the intent, the more probable it is to be able
to foretell the anticipated behavior (Ajzen,
1991). Past research (Kim & Hunter, 1993)
found that intentions explained sixty-seven
percent of the variance in behavior and path
anal ysi s confi rmed that the associ ati on
between atti tudes and behavi or i s ful l y
expl ai ned by the atti tude-i ntenti on and
intention-behavior links (Krueger, 2000)
45
.
Brice, Jr. and Spencer (2007)
46
stated several
implications of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
that deserve further emphasis. First, self-
effi cacy i s a wi de-rangi ng eval uati on of
perceived fitness for the performance of a
specific activity (Bandura & Wood, 1989). They
argue that in a real-world entrepreneurship
context, information derived exclusively from
the 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
62
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
venture creati on and devel opment task
(behavior), and the network of supporting
individuals and organizations involved in a
specific entrepreneurial effort (environment)
may possibly add to estimated capability
judgments on the part of the prospective
entrepreneur. However, in the context of global
entrepreneurial self-efficacy research, it may
be more useful to examine self-efficacy for
general entrepreneuri al tasks (such as
nonspecific new venture initiation) through the
mechanism of universal assessment criteria
(e.g. human competencies) instead of relying
on functional criteria that is too specific to be
appl i ed to al l forms of pl anned venture
initiations.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in
their personal capability to accomplish a job
or a specific set of tasks (Bandura, 1977)
47
.
Self-efficacy is a useful concept for explaining
human behavior as research reveals that it
plays an influential role in determining an
i ndi vi dual ' s choi ce, l evel of effort, and
perseverance (Chen et al., 2004)
48
.
Simply stated, individuals with high self-
efficacy for a certain task are more likely to
pursue and then persist in that task than
those i ndi vi dual s who possess l ow sel f-
efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1982, p.
12), is the conviction that one can successfully
execute the desi red behavi or (e.g.,
successfully launch a business) required to
produce an outcome. Bandura contended that
role-model influence occurs primarily through
mastery of experiences (repeated performance
accomplishments), observational learning
(observing rather than direct involvement), and
social persuasion (convincing that tasks can
be performed).
Contrasting the Shapero´s (1982) and Ajzen´s
(1991) theory, Krueger et al. (2000, p. 412-
414)
49
proposed that i ntenti ons predi ct
entrepreneurship better than personality traits
and situations and that "a strong intention to
start a business should result in an eventual
attempt, even if immediate circumstances such
as marriage, child bearing, finishing school, a
lucrative or rewarding job, or earthquakes may
dictate a long delay."
Otherwise, McGee, Peterson, Mueller and
Sequeira (2009)
50
developed a study focused
to refine and standardize the Entrepreneurial
Self-efficacy (ESE) measurement, because
of inclusion of this construct in different
studi es on entrepreneuri al moti vati on,
intentions, and planned behavior.
In their study, McGee et al (2009), based on
Barbosa, Gerhardt, & Kickul (2007), Boyd &
Vozikis (1994) and Zhao, Seibert, & Hills (2005)
establishes that Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
(ESE) appears to be a particularly important
antecedent to new venture intentions. ESE is
a construct that measures a person's belief in
thei r abi l i ty to successful l y l aunch an
entrepreneurial venture (McGee, et al, 2009)
51
.
Additionally, McGee et al (2009, p. 965), stated
ESE is particularly useful since it incorporates
personality as well as environmental factors,
and is thought to be a strong predictor of
entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately action
(Bird, 1988; Boyd & Vozikis).
In fact, the McGee and colleagues´ study
supports the advancement of research on
ESE and its relationship to entrepreneurial
i ntenti ons by devel opi ng a more robust
measure of ESE that can be used by
researchers in a variety of contexts.
Social competence
Several psychological variables are crucial
and relevant to understand entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurial
intent and success have been linked to social
competence, motivation, self-efficacy (Chen,
Greene, & Crick, 1998; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills,
2005), and willingness to bear uncertainty.
Other research has investigated the common
attributes of entrepreneurs (Baum & Locke,
2004) and the effect of gender and minority
status on the propensi ty to consi der
entrepreneurship as a potential career option.
By other hand, Baum, Frese and Baron (2007)
stated that "despi te the bel i ef that the
entrepreneur's personal characteristics are
47 Bandura, 1977, p.194
48 Chen et al., 2004, p. 376.
49 Krueger et al. Op. cit.,2000, p. 412-414
50 McGee, Peterson, Mueller and Sequeira, Op. cit. 2009, p. 965
51 Ibid. p. 965
63
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
i mportant for new venture success, the
psychology of the entrepreneur has not been
thoroughly studied."
Personality and entrepreneurship
Research on personality and entrepreneurship
has been focused on two ways or research
questions: Why do some people but not
others become entrepreneurs? Why do some
people make more successful entrepreneurs
than others? (Shaver, 2007). The personality
approach provided the impetus for substantial
research in the 1960s and 1970s, with specific
research focused on need for achievement
(McClelland, 1961), the most frequently studied
personality characteristic, rising in the 1980s
(Rauch & Frese, 2007).
Some research has found that personality
characteristics fail to exactly distinguish
between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs
and generally account for a small part of the
variance in entrepreneurial success (Cromie,
2000; Hisrich, 2000). By other way, meta-
analyses have found a small and positive
relationship between autonomy, internal locus
of control, and risk-taking propensity and new
venture creation and success, and a moderate,
positive relationship between innovativeness,
and self-efficacy and new venture creation and
success (Hisrich, Langan-Fox and Grant, 2007).
According to Rauch & Frese (2000), risk-taking
propensity has a weaker association with both
outcome variables, and self-efficacy has a
stronger association with success. However,
it is possible that personality has a role in
entrepreneurshi p that mi ght has been
underestimated in past research because of
design and methodological constraints (Hisrich,
et al, 2007).
Entrepreneurship is a complex, dynamic,
multiphase process, yet the relevance of
personality characteristics at each phase has
not been i denti f i ed. Past research has
f ocused on the start-up phase, wi th
characteri sti cs of entrepreneurs and
nonentrepreneurs contrasted on the basis of
the assumption that innate characteristics
cause the entrepreneurship status (Davidsson,
2007).
Hisrich et al (2007) establish that this issue
i s probl emati c because of : a) such an
approach does not test f or reversed
causation. It is difficult to evaluate whether
the personal i ty characteri sti cs of
entrepreneurs are a predisposing factor or
are learned from the role itself. Empirical work
has assumed the former perspective: that
those di spl ayi ng the characteri sti cs i n
question self-select into entrepreneurship
(Shane, 2003). b) The personal i ty
characteristics that predict entrepreneurial
behavior may not predict behavior later on
in the entrepreneurship process (Eckhardt &
Shane, 2003). c) Distal person characteristics
are unlikely to be a strong predictor of a
proximal event (Davidsson, 2007).
Hisrich et al (2007)
52
say: "Davidsson (2007)
recommended using a behavioral aggregate
of entrepreneuri al acti vi ty such as
entrepreneurial career performance as an
al ternati ve to the di chotomous outcome
variable of entrepreneurship status (i.e.,
founder vs. nonfounder)".
Hisrich and colleagues proposed a number of
research questions that provide a call to
acti on f or psychol ogi sts i nterested i n
entrepreneurship, specifically in personality
and entrepreneurship, such as:
Are the personality characteristics of
entrepreneurs a predisposing factor, or
are they learned from the role itself? That
is, what are the antecedent personality
characteristics for entrepreneurship?
What i s the rel ati ve i mportance of
different personality characteristics at
each phase of the entrepreneurshi p
process? Do the personal i ty
characteri sti cs that predi ct start-up
differ from those that predict growth and
survival?
Which personality characteristics need
to remain stable, and which personality
characteri sti cs need to change or
develop over time?
Are personal i ty characteri sti cs a
longitudinal predictor of success?
52 Hisrich et al., Op. cit. 2007, p. 580
64
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
Which personality characteristics are
associated with failure?
What are the moderating and mediating
vari abl es i n the personal i ty-
entrepreneurship relationship?
Do the i mportant personal i ty
characteristics differ for individual versus
corporate or team-based entrepreneurs?
Rauch and Frese (2007) stated that wide
taxonomies of personality traits such as the
Big Five have been less frequently studied in
the entrepreneurship literature and that
general traits have lower predictive validity
than specific traits. Hisrich et al (2007, p.
582)
53
say Rauch and Frese (2007) suggested
that (a) predictor and criterion variables should
be matched on the basis of broadness versus
specificity and (b) the effect of broad traits
on new venture creation and success may be
mediated by specific traits. Nonperson mediator
and moderator variables should also be included
in future research (Davidsson, 2007).
Kumar (2007)
54
states that entrepreneurship
l i terature has a l ot of studi es probi ng
propensity of an individual towards enterprise
creation. These studies could be divided into
two categori es. Fi rst category i s on
personality traits. Some of scholars, mainly
psychologists, working in this field have
developed useful insights towards this. Some
of i mportant concepts that have been
expl ored by these schol ars to expl ai n
entrepreneurship are: Need for Achievement
(McCl el l and; 1961), Need f or power
(McClelland, 1975), Internal locus of control
(Rotter; 1966), Ri sk taki ng propensi ty
(Brockhaus, 1982), Tolerance for ambiguity
(Begley and Boyd, 1987).
However, the research on trait theories has
yielded, at best, moderate results (Gartner,
1988, Baron, 2000). The reasons for failure
are twofold. Firstly there has been problem
in measuring the various concepts (Chell,
1989) and secondly these concepts may not
be good i ndi cators of entrepreneurshi p
(Robinson et. al: 1991).
The second line of research has a focus on
sociology, in which sociologists have analyzed
background and demographical factors as
causes of successful enterprise creation. This
emphasis led to finding out conditions that
are responsi bl e f or emergence of
entrepreneurship (Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994).
The resul t of these studi es have shown
factors such as dissatisfaction with previous
job or life experiences (Brockhaus, 1982),
immigration (Borjas, 1986), ability to form
social networks and social capital (Aldrich,
2000; Reynolds, Storey and Westhead, 1994),
minority status (Hisrich and Brush, 1986;
Turner and Bonacich, 1980) and host of other
factors. However, both trait and sociological
factors have received indifferent success.
Consistent with Baron (2004), Kumar (2007)
proposed several constructs i n order to
establish a model. These constructs are:
Threat to identity, Self-efficacy, Cognitive
complexity, Cultural aspirations.
Kumar (2007)
55
makes the following question:
Why would a person like to start an enterprise,
especi al l y when entrepreneurshi p i s not
preferred career option? The willingness is
determined by the pulls and pushes that an
individual faces while starting an enterprise
(Clark and Drinkwater, 2001; Olomi et al., 2000).
Pushes and pulls arise from positive or negative
emotions that a person experiences. Push is
negative emotion that forces a person to leave
the status quo whereas Pull is a positive force
that attracts person towards new path, which
can be enterprise formation. In other words,
a person fi nds hi s current status to be
unsatisfactory and alternatives like enterprise
formation become attractive (Kumar, 2007)
57
.
The push factors are: job dissatisfaction, job
l oss, unempl oyment, career setbacks,
saturation in the existing market, language,
immigrant status, deprivation, low family
income 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), 57-77
55 Ibid. p.63
56 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.
65
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
job. In addition to the push, pull is also required
to initiate action to regain identity. Various
pull factors described in literature are: Need
for achievement, Internal locus of control,
Intentionality, Practical purpose of individual
action, Demand, Common culture, Language,
Self sustaining economic environment, Good
policy, Infrastructure and Profit (Kumar, 2007).
Kumar (2007, p. 71) places of interest the
importance of both negative emotions and
positi ve emoti ons as reasons why
entrepreneurs take decisions to create their
organizations.
Foo, Uy and Baron (2009, p. 1086) mentions:
"the start-up process is rich with affective
ups and downs (Cook, 1986), and
entrepreneurs are of ten portrayed as
passi onate, enthusi asti c, and persi stent
even in the face of challenge and adversity
(e.g., Cardon, Zietsma, Saparito, Matherne,
& Davis, 2005). Baron (2008) noted two
reasons why entrepreneurs who create new
ventures experi ence strong af f ecti ve
reacti ons. Fi rst, the new venture
environment is highly unpredictable, because
the entrepreneuri al process i s chaoti c,
complex, and compressed in time (Aldrich &
Martinez, 2001). Second, entrepreneurs make
major investments in time, energy, and effort
i n thei r ventures and often stake thei r
personal fortunes and even their self-esteem
on the success of their ventures". Given these
facts, Foo et al (2009) consider important
to investigate the role of affect with respect
to new ventures.
When people experience positive or negative
affect, they immediately ask themselves how
they feel about the specific situation (Frijda,
1986; Schwarz & Clore, 1983).
Foo et al (2009, p. 1091) found that the results
of their study indicate that the entrepreneur's
affect does indeed play a significant role in
the process of new venture creati on.
Consistent with the affect-as-information
perspective, they found that negative affect
increases venture efforts on tasks that are
immediately required. Extending this theory by
drawing on the proactivity literature, they also
found that positive affect increases venture
efforts on tasks beyond what is immediately
required.
They also found that future temporal focus
mediates the relationship between positive
affect and venture effort on tasks beyond what
is required.
Their findings suggest that affect serves as a
source of information for entrepreneurs. As
argued in the affect-as-information theory,
negative affect signals that things are not
goi ng wel l i n the venture and may l ead
entrepreneurs to expend more effort on
venture tasks requiring immediate attention.
An unexpected finding was that negative
affect also increased venture efforts beyond
what is immediately required. Because negative
affect signals that something is wrong in the
venture situation, it could lead entrepreneurs
to engage in precautionary behaviors to prevent
future damage to the venture (Foo et al, 2009).
Positive affect signals that things are going well
in the venture, and, using affect-as-information
theory, one might expect the entrepreneur to
reduce effort because all is well at the moment.
The authors argued that positive affect should
increase venture efforts. It is precisely because
positive affect signals that things are going well
at the moment that the entrepreneur's focus
can shift to the future, and such focus motivates
the entrepreneur to work harder because it
promotes behaviors to achieve desired future
outcomes (Karniol & Ross 1996).
The Foo and colleagues' study helps to clarify
the mechani sms that underl i e the l i nk
between affect and task-di rected effort.
Drawi ng on the af f ect-as i nf ormati on
perspecti ve, they show that the
entrepreneurs' affect has an informational
f uncti on that coul d i nf l uence the
entrepreneurs' venture efforts.
The personality of an entrepreneur still being
of interest in entrepreneurship research.
However, personality is a weak predictor of
venture perform ance (Utsch and Rauch, 2000,
p. 46)
58
. Today's research rediscovers the
personality of an entrepreneur in dispositions
(Rauch & Frese, 2000), which "intuitively
appears 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 orientation
and venture performance. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.
66
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
also need to consider the specific behavioural
processes and strategies by which personality
characteri sti cs i nfl uence the venture
performance (Utsch and Rauch, 2000, p. 46).
Two entrepreneurial behaviors that have
emerged in studies and are central to the
si tuati on of the entrepreneur are
innovativeness and initiative (Frese, 1995).
Utsch and Rauch (2000) state that many
authors emphasi ze the i mportance of
i nnovati veness as a strategy i n the
entrepreneurial process (Frese, 1995; Lumpkin
& Dess, 1996; More, 1986; Schumpeter, 1934,
1942). Innovativeness is a behavior that
characterizes entrepreneurship (Drucker, 1985;
Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Drucker (1985) refers
to innovation as the result of purposeful actions
and systematic work. Additionally, West and
Farr (1990) defined innovation as "the intentional
introduction and application within a role, group,
or organization, of ideas, processes, products
or procedures, new to the relevant unit of
adoption, designed significantly benefit the
individual the group or wider society"
Personal initiative is a behavior syndrome that
includes self-starting, proactive, and long-
term oriented behavior as well as persistence
towards obstacles (Frese, Fay, Hilburger,
Leng, & Tag, 1997; Frese, Kring, Soose, &
Zempel, 1995). Successful entrepreneurs
shoul d be proacti ve rather than merel y
reactive to events (cf., Kotey & Meredith,
1997; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Utsch and
Rauch (2000, p. 49) proposed a model based
on the following statements:
(1) Achievement orientation is positively
related to innovativeness.
(2) Achievement orientation is positively
related to initiative.
(3) Innovativeness is positively related to
venture performance.
(4) Initiative is positively related to venture
performance.
(5) The relationship between achievement
orientation and venture performance is
mediated through innovativeness and
initiative.
The authors found that the most powerful factor
in the mediation model is innovativeness. There
was a strong link from achievement orientation
to innovativeness and a strong link from
innovativeness to both venture performance
variables. According to Utsch and Rauch
(2000)
59
there are several reasons why
i nnovati veness i s i mportant for venture
performance. Entrepreneurs who try to improve
their work get more feedback from their work.
Therefore, they have the possibility to integrate
more information. Also, innovativeness is a goal-
oriented behavior and a planning behavior. All
these aspects are related to job performance
or venture performance (Frese, 1995; Locke &
Latham, 1990; Miner et al., 1989; Schwenk &
Shrader, 1993).
Otherwise, in a study, Baron (2000) proposed
two questi ons: Do entrepreneurs thi nk
differently than others persons do? And do
successful entrepreneurs differ from less
successful ones in such respects? Careful
examinations of the environments in which
entrepreneurs operate suggests that the
answers to both questions may well be "yes"
Baron (2000, p. 15). Entrepreneurs often work
in situations that are, by definition, new,
unpredictable, complex and subject to high time
pressures. Moreover, entrepreneurs'
commitment to the new ventures is often
intense, so they may also experience powerful
emotions in connection with their activities.
Together, such factors may produce severe
information overload, and it is precisely under
such conditions that individuals often rely on
heuristics to guide their thinking and decision
making, and show enhanced susceptibility to
various forms of cognitive bias or error (Baron,
2000, p. 15). A general prediction, then, is
that entrepreneurs may be more likely than
other people to employ heuristics and to fall
prey to various forms of cognitive error (e.g.,
overconfidence, escalation of commitment)
(Baron, 1998).
According to Baron (2000, p. 15-16), Busenitz
and Barney (1997) found that entrepreneurs
were si gni fi cantl y more l i kel y to show
overconfidence in their own judgments and
significantly more likely to make use of the
representative heuristics than were other
persons. Similarly, Palich and Bagby (1995)
found that entrepreneurs tended to perceive
greater potential for gain in highly uncertain
59 Ibid. p. 57
67
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
situations that nonentrepreneurs did; in
essence, their perceptions of risk showed
greater bias than those of other persons.
These findings suggest that entrepreneurs may
indeed show discriminating susceptibility to
various cognitive mistakes.
According to Zhao and Seibert (2006)
60
,
personality variables may have an important
role to play in developing theories of the
entrepreneurial process, including such areas
as entrepreneurial career intentions (e.g., Crant,
1996; Zhao, Sei bert, & Hi l l s, 2005),
entrepreneurial cognition and opportunity
recognition (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 Sei bert (2006)
61
state that
indicative of this importance, a substantial
amount of research has examined the role of
personality in entrepreneurial status (ES) over
the last 4 decades (Zhao and Seibert, 2006).
Partially reflecting the state of personality
research at the time, these studies included
a confusing variety of personality variables,
someti mes wi th unknown rel i abi l i ty and
val i di ty and often wi th l i ttl e theoreti cal
justification (Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Gartner,
1989). By the late 1980s, inconsistent and
even contradictory results from the empirical
studies led narrative reviewers to conclude
that there is no identifiable relationship
between personality and ES and that future
research using the trait paradigm should
theref ore be abandoned (Brockhaus &
Horwitz, 1986; Chell, 1985; Gartner, 1988;
Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991).
However, Zhao and Seibert (2006) developed
the first study to use the Five Factor Model
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
Experi ence, Agreeabl eness and
Conscientiousness) to organize the full range
of personality variables that have been examined
in the entrepreneurship literature. In their study,
Zhao and Seibert (2006) stated the question:
Do entrepreneurs differ from others in terms of
their basic personality? In contradiction to
accepted concl usi ons i n the fi el d of
entrepreneurship, their results suggest that
indeed, entrepreneurs differ from those in
managerial positions on four of the five
fundamental di mensi ons of personal i ty
(Neuroti ci sm, Openness to Experi ence,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).
The personality construct with the strongest
relationship to ES was Conscientiousness.
Achievement motivation has been implicated
as an important individual difference variable
predicting entrepreneurship since the work of
McClelland (1961). The Zhao and Seibert's
results support McClelland's (1961) original
proposition and are consistent with meta-
analytical results presented by Collins et al.
(2004) and Stewart and Roth (2004b). Collins
et al . showed further that achi evement
motivation is positively related to entrepreneurial
performance. These studies provide growing
evi dence regardi ng the i mportance of
achievement motivation in entrepreneurship.
There is some evidence that facets within a
single primary personality dimension can have
differential relationships with ES.
One of the unique contributions of their use of
the FFM to organize the literature on personality
and ES is their focus on the Openness to
Experience dimension. The Openness construct
brings together in one coherent dimension of
personality such traits as imagination, creativity,
intuition, and independence of judgment and
thus allows drawing a single clear conclusion
about this important domain of psychological
functioning (2006, p. 266). Their results showed
that entrepreneurs scored higher on Openness
than did managers. Innovation, change, and
creativity are at the core of recent definitions
of entrepreneurshi p (e.g., Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000), and these traits evoke
Schumpeter's (1942/1976) classic description
of the entrepreneur as the agent of "creative
destruction." Despite its strong intuitive appeal,
relatively little attention has been devoted to
the role of this global personality dimension in
studies of ES to date.
Zhao, Seibert and Hill (2005)
62
developed a
study 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. 259
62 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.
68
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
hypotheses i n whi ch entrepreneuri al
sel f ef f i cacy medi ates the rel ati onshi p
between individual-level antecedent factors
and entrepreneurial intentions. In previous
work, Boyd and Vozikis (1994) developed a
theoretical model in which self-efficacy was
proposed as a cri ti cal antecedent of
entrepreneurial intentions and behavior.
The Zhao and colleagues' results provided
evidence that individuals choose to become
entrepreneurs (or at least formulate the
intentions of doing so) most directly because
they are high in entrepreneurial self-efficacy-
the belief that they can succeed in this role.
Also, their results supported the critical
mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
in entrepreneurial intentions for three of the
four antecedent variables (perceptions of
formal learning, entrepreneurial experience, risk
propensity and gender). These results indicate
that entrepreneurial self-efficacy provides a
theoretical explanation for the relationship
between three of the most frequently identified
i ndi vi dual -l evel antecedents of
entrepreneurship and subsequent intentions to
become an entrepreneur (Zhao et al, 2005).
The factors most amenable to change-learning
and experience-each had stronger influence
on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention
than did the relatively stable characteristics
of risk propensity and gender. This result
suggests that efforts to i ncrease
entrepreneurial activity that are focused at
the individual level may indeed be worthwhile.
Gender was not related to entrepreneurial self-
effi cacy but was di rectl y rel ated to
entrepreneurial intentions such that women
reported l ower i ntenti ons to become an
entrepreneur than men (Zhao et al, 2005).
Collins, Locke and Hanges (2004)
63
found that
achievement motivation
64
does significantly
predict entrepreneurial activity across the
studies that were included in their meta-
analysis. The researchers argued that the
relatively small variance in entrepreneurial
activity that was explained by achievement
motivation might have significant implications
because of the multiple opportunities for an
individual to exhibit achievement-oriented
behavi or. Thei r f i ndi ngs suggest that
achievement motivation may be particularly
potent in predicting outcomes at particular
levels of analysis and in specific situations.
Baum and Locke (2004) developed a study
that has contributed to the revival of interest
in understanding the effects of entrepreneurs'
personal characteri sti cs. Thei r empi ri cal
research extends and refines Baum, Locke
and Smith´s (2001) 2-year study of the
ef f ects of f i ve categori es of personal ,
organizational, and environmental factors on
new venture growth that chal l enged
entrepreneurshi p researchers' shi f t to
external (organizational and environmental)
explanations of new venture performance
(Gartner, 1989). According to Baum and Locke
(2004, p. 587), the Baum et al. (2001) study
argued that entrepreneurship researchers'
conclusion that personal characteristics are
unimportant for new venture performance
mi ssed i mportant i ndi rect ef f ects and
personal characteristics other than traits.
The Baum and Locke (2004, p. 587) study
supports the case f or attenti on to
entrepreneurs' personal characteristics; it
i nvol ved the fol l owi ng si x refi nements,
improvements, and extensions over Baum et
al.'s (2001) study, using data from that study
plus follow-up data.
1. Rather than using broad categories or
factors, they used individual variables to
anal yze the separate effects and
i nterrel ati onshi ps among personal
characteristics.
2. They used a 6-year follow-up compared
with the previous 2-year period to provide
a greater challenge to the proposed model
of entrepreneurship characteristics.
3. They added the study of a situationally
specific new resource skill
65
, 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 that
low need for achievement people to engage in energetic and innovative activities that require planning for
the 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 and
grow an organization
69
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
more oriented toward entrepreneurs'
work than the general competenci es
studied by Baum et al. (2001).
4. They used an expanded measure of vision
that reflected communication of the vision.
5. They i ncl uded onl y growth-ori ented
founders-owners who managed their young
ventures. They excluded purchasers of
established businesses, absentee founders,
and founders-managers of mature
busi nesses. Thi s i s consi stent wi th
researchers' recent suggesti ons that
entrepreneurship research focus on those
who discover and exploit new products,
new processes, and new ways of organizing
rather than on those who manage
establ i shed busi nesses or those who
manage businesses they did not create
(Davidson, Low, & Wright, 2001; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Zahra, Ireland, &
Hitt, 2000).
6. They included both surviving and failed
ventures to capture greater variance in
outcomes.
Accordi ng to Baum and Locke (2004)
66
,
researchers hoped that personality screening
could help entrepreneurs avoid personal
disappointment and could help nations avoid
wasted resources (McCl el l and, 1965).
However, research about the most significant
trai ts i n terms of thei r correl ati on wi th
venture 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 concluded
that need for achievement was the most
significant trait predictor of new venture
performance; however, he found that less
than 7% of the variance in new venture
performance is explained by this motive.
Researchers concluded that the study of
entrepreneurs' personal characteristics was
a dead-end strategy (Gartner, 1989).
To cope with the challenges, Baum and Locke
(2004) believed that entrepreneurs had to
genuinely love their work and be tenacious
about pursuing their goals given the many
obstacles they would face. Thus, passion and
tenacity seemed most promising in terms of
leadership and entrepreneurship theoretical
support (Locke, 2000; Yukl , 1989) even
though there had been no previ ous
quantitative tests using these variables as
predictors of entrepreneurship performance.
Indeed, there were no empirical studies of
passion. Passion for work, or love of one's
work, has been identified in a qualitative
anal ysi s by Locke (2000) as a core
characteristic of great wealth creators, such
as Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Ken Iverson
(Nucor), and Mary Kay Ash (Mary Kay).
These entrepreneurs confronted opportunity
and challenges with fervor and ardor Baum
and Locke (2004)
67
.
According to Baum and Locke (2004), the
enthusiasm of these entrepreneurs for a type
of business was so intense that they worked
through financial barriers (Gates and Iverson)
and challenges to their new products and
their new ways of marketing (Ash). Smilor
(1997) suggested that passion is "perhaps
the most observed phenomenon of the
entrepreneurial process" (p. 342), and Bird
(1989) noted that entrepreneurial behavior
is "passionate, full of emotional energy, drive,
and spirit" (pp. 7-8).
Baum and Locke (2004)
68
measured passion
for work in terms of the emotions of love,
attachment, and longing; however, passion
can be witnessed over time in the long hours
worked during venture start-up and growth
phases and in the tendency for entrepreneurs
to experience their venture's successes and
difficulties as personal events. Leadership
researchers (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; House &
Shamir, 1993) have claimed that passion for
work i s a characteri sti c of successf ul
business leaders, and passion is relevant in
the entrepreneurshi p setti ng because i t
dri ves entrepreneurs to f ace extreme
uncertai nty and resource shortages
(Timmons, 2000).
Tenacity, or perseverance, is a trait that
involves sustaining goal-directed action and
energy even when faced with obstacles (Baum
66 Baum, J. & Locke, E. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent
venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), p.588.
67 Ibid. p. 588.
68 Ibid. p. 589
70
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
and Locke, 2004). In addi ti on to bei ng
associated with successful leadership (Bass &
Stogdill, 1990; House & Shamir, 1993; Locke,
2000), tenacity has been identified consistently
as an archetypical entrepreneurship trait
because the busi ness start-up process
involves confrontation of formidable barriers
to market entry (Gartner, Gatewood, & Shaver,
1991). There are no quantitative tests of the
effects of tenacity on venture performance
(Baum and Locke, 2004).
Baum and Locke (2004) menti ons that
Markman, Baron, and Balkin (2001) found that
inventors who started new ventures have more
tenacity than inventors who chose to be
empl oyees of establ i shed organi zati ons;
however, they did not study whether tenacity
is related to performance among entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs who hold stubbornly to their
goals and who hate to give up increase their
chances of start-up survival and success
(Timmons, 2000).
Moreover and according to Baum and Locke
(2004), Smith and Smith (2000) suggested that
entrepreneurs' successful efforts to arrange and
organize resources are predictors of new
venture success. Indeed, founders often
experience limited growth because they lack
new resource skill or fail to employ individuals
who are skilled with resources (Timmons, 2000).
Additionally, Baum and Locke (2004)
69
propose
that traits affect new resource skill. Krampe
and Ericsson (1996) suggested that traits
affect specific skills such as expert musical
and athletic performance. Then, Baum and
Locke (2004, p. 589) propose that tenacity
and passion will increase entrepreneurs' skill
with resource acquisition and systematization.
According, to Baum and Locke (2004), the
l i terature suggests that at l east three
moti vati on factors i mpact busi ness
performance: vision, goals, and self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997; House & Shamir, 1993; Locke
& Latham, 1990). They bel i eve that
communication of the vision is as important as
vision content alone for motivating high venture
performance. Entrepreneurs may communicate
their vision through their behavior (Bandura,
1986); however, an entrepreneur's vision can
inspire more directly through speeches, pep
talks, and written presentations (Tichy &
Devanna, 1986). Then, they propose that
highly communicated vision growth content will
predict high venture growth and believe that
founders who are more confident about their
entrepreneurial abilities will achieve greater new
venture growth.
Additionally, Baum and Locke (2004, p. 590-
591)
70
proposed and supported the following:
1. The more challenging the communicated
venture growth content of the
entrepreneur' s vi si on, the more
challenging the goals for venture growth
will be.
2. The hi gher the entrepreneur' s sel f -
efficacy about venture growth, the higher
the goals for subsequent venture growth
will be.
3. The greater the entrepreneur's passion
and tenaci ty, the greater the
communicated venture growth content
of the vision will be.
4. The greater the entrepreneur's passion
for work and tenacity, the higher the self-
efficacy about venture growth will be.
5. The greater the entrepreneur's passion for
work and tenacity, the higher the goals
for subsequent venture growth will be.
6. The greater the entrepreneur' s new
resource ski l l , the greater the
communicated venture growth content
of the vision will be.
7. The greater the entrepreneur' s new
resource skill, the greater the goals for
subsequent venture growth will be.
8. The greater the entrepreneur' s new
resource skill, the greater the self-efficacy
for subsequent venture growth will be.
These researchers found that speci fi c
component variables of entrepreneurs' traits,
skill, and motivation categories are significant
direct or indirect predictors of venture growth
for a peri od of 6 years fol l owi ng i ni ti al
measurement. Findings that the situationally
specific motivation concepts studied by Baum
and Locke have strong direct effects on
venture growth are fully consistent with
previ ous appl i ed psychol ogy and soci al
psychology research (Bandura, 1997; Baum et
69 Ibid. p. 589
70 Ibid. pp. 590-591
71
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
al., 1998; Locke & Latham, 1990). The positive
effects for goal s and sel f-effi cacy are
consistent with the results of hundreds of
performance studies (Baum and Locke, 2004).
Vision had not only an indirect effect on growth
through specific goals but also a direct effect
(Baum and Locke, 2004). The researchers
found that the greater the communicated
venture growth content of the entrepreneur's
vision, the entrepreneur's self-efficacy about
venture growth, the entrepreneur's goals for
venture growth, the greater the subsequent
venture growth will be.
Finally, the finding that passion and tenacity
had no direct effect on venture performance
suggests that the weak results of previous
studies of entrepreneurial traits may not have
been caused by studying the wrong traits
but by the fact that the traits have indirect
rather than direct effects (Baum and Locke,
2004). In this respect, their results agree
wi th Baum et al . ' s (2001), i n whi ch
aggregated trait effects were indirect. These
resul ts are al so i n concert wi th Locke' s
(2001) revi ew i n whi ch he f ound that
personality and other general motivational
effects on performance are mediated by the
si tuati onal l y and task-speci fi c factors of
goals and self-efficacy.
Herron and Robinson (1993) according to the
Nanda and Chatterjee´s study (2007)
71
establish that one of the major problems with
entrepreneurship research is that mediating
and moderating paths between variables have
often not been examined. Studies which have
tried to link personality traits and other
demographi c characteri sti cs of the
entrepreneur directly to outcomes, instead
of testing contingent sets of relationships,
have not reported significant findings (Nanda
and Chatterjee, 2007, p. 6). Si mi l arl y,
according to Nanda and Chatterjee (2007),
Baum (1995) suggests that the limited effect
of entrepreneurial personality on performance
may be explained by analysis of mediation
paths through competencies, motivation,
strategy, and structure. Herron and Robinson
(1993) suggest that personality traits do not
have a strong direct effect on behavior and
perf ormance, but are medi ated by
motivations and moderated by abilities, or
skills of the entrepreneur. This is consistent
with literature on psychological job testing
which suggests that the relationship between
traits and performance is not a direct one,
but is moderated and mediated by other
variables (Herron and Robinson, 1990).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
An entrepreneur i s an i ndi vi dual who
establishes and manages a new business
searching profit and growth. This individual
is characterized principally by innovative
behavior and will use strategic management
practices in the enterprise.
According to the literature review, three
categories of factors associated with the
decision to become an entrepreneur have
emerged: psychological influences upon the
individual, effects of previous experience, and
personal characteristics.
Wi thi n the psychol ogi cal characteri sti cs,
researchers have f ound: need f or
achievement, locus of control, risk-taking
propensi ty, problem-solving style and
innovativeness and values.
Additionally, there have been several recent
intentions to summarize those traits that are
necessary to become a successf ul
entrepreneur. These research results seem
to indicate that there are few psychological
characteri sti cs that di sti ngui sh the
entrepreneur from managers. This conception
would be true if the studies are dealing with
the intention to begin an enterprise or with
examining those entrepreneurs who have
successfully opened their own business. The
research studies not often consider the type
of business the entrepreneur is involved in
or the measure of the business´s success.
As to the effects of previous experience,
researchers concl ude that deci si ons are
made not only on the basis of personality
but also with consideration of one´s past
experiences. The decision to become an
entrepreneur must be influenced by events
71 Nanda, M., and Chatterjee, L. (2007). Entrepreneurial human capital and New venture performance: In
search of the elusive link. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 1-22.
72
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
that have preceded the decision. There have
been several studies that have examined the
ef f ect of past experi ence, parti cul arl y
dissatisfaction with previous work experience
and the existence of role models, on the
decision to become an entrepreneur.
Moreover, according to other research results,
personality, background and experience of the
entrepreneur, which are used more often in
entrepreneurship research, may not have a
direct impact on organizational outcomes, but
may be mediated by a combination of skills
and motivations.
The l i terature appears to support the
argument that there is no generic definition
of the entrepreneur. A f ew general
characteristics of the entrepreneur do emerge,
however. The entrepreneur appears to be
achievement oriented and, at least in the early
stages of business venture, have internal locus
of control. In general, their values approach
has been to concentrate on making short-run
decisions and solving immediate problems. This
tendency to view the world in concrete, short-
run terms could possibly result from heavy work
l oad assumed by most entrepreneurs
(Brockhaus, Horwitz, 1986).
I think that there have been several critical
limitations in most of the research focused on
the study of psychological of the entrepreneur.
The individuals either are trying to become
entrepreneurs, with no business past
performance, or are entrepreneurs who have
succeeded. Future research would be focused
to develop a longitudinal study of prospective
entrepreneurs through the creation and
managing of their business. This would offer the
opportunity to study the traits of both successful
and unsuccessful entrepreneurs.
Another limitation of the research is that the
types of business are not often identified. A
f uture research address woul d be the
compari son of entrepreneurs i n several
different industries or economic sectors.
Finally, several research results seem to show
that personality theory provides a complete
theory of entrepreneurship or even exhausts
the range of topics that can be explored at
the level of the individual entrepreneur. Rather,
other results show that personality must be
considered as one important component of a
multidimensional model of the variables,
processes, and environmental factors affecting
entrepreneurship and new venture creation.
Additionally, the review may suggest two
outlines of future research that might need to
be considered. First, personality traits variables
are interesting and relevant when these
variables consider the specific work situation
and context for an entrepreneur. And second,
to explain entrepreneurial behavior is necessary
to consider achievement orientation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AJZEN, I. (1991). The theory of planned
behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
AMIT, R., & MUELLER, E. (1996). "Push" and
"pull" entrepreneurship. Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 12, 64-80.
ALDRICH, H.E., & WIEDENMAYER, G. (1993).
From traits to rates: An ecological perspective
on organizational foundings. In J.A. Katz & R.H.
Brockhaus, Sr. (Eds.), Advances i n
entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth,
1, 145-195. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
ARENIUS, P., & MINNITI, M. (2005). Perceptual
Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship. Small
Business Economics 24, 193-203
AUDRETSCH, D.B. & KEILBACH, M. (2004).
Entrepreneurshi p capi tal and economi c
performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949-959.
BANDURA, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a
uni fyi ng theory of behavi oral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
BANDURA, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms
of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological
Perspectives on the Self (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations of
thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
BANDURA, A. & WOOD, R.E. (1989). Effect of
perceived controllability and performance
standards on sel f-regul ati on of compl ex
decision-making. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56: 805-814.
BANDURA, A. (1997). Sel f-effi cacy: The
exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman
BARBOSA, S., GERHARDT, M., & KICKUL, J.
(2007). The role of cognitive style and risk
preference on entrepreneurial self-efficacy
73
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(4),
86-104.
BARON, R. A. (1998). Cognitive mechanisms in
entrepreneurship: Why and when entrepreneurs
think differently than other people. Journal of
Business Venturing, 13, 275-294.
BARON, R. A. (2000). Psychol ogi cal
perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive
and social factors in entrepreneurs' success.
Current Directions in Psychological Science,
9, 15-18.
BAUM, J.R. (1995). The relation of traits,
competenci es, moti vati on, strategy, and
structure to venture growth. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA:
Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
BAUM, J. & LOCKE, E. (2004). The relationship
of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation
to subsequent venture growth. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587-598.
BAUM, J. R., LOCKE, E. A., & SMITH, K. G.
(2001). A multidimensional model of venture
growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
292-303.
BAUM, R., FRESE, M., and BARON, R. The
Psychology of Entrepreneurship. 1a ed. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
403 p.
BIRCH, D. L. (1987). Job creation in America
How our smallest companies put the most
people to work. New York: Free Press.
BIRD, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial
ideas: The case for intention. Academy of
Management Review. /J(3). 442-453.
BIRLEY, S., & WESTHEAD, P. (1994). A
Taxonomy of Business Start-Up Reasons and
Their Impact on Firm Growth and Size, Journal
of Business Venturing, 9, 7-31.
BOYD, N. & VOZIKIS, G. (1994). The Influence
of sel f-effi cacy on the devel opment of
entrepreneuri al i ntenti ons and acti ons.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(4):
63-78.
BRICE, Jr. J, & SPENCER, B. (2007).
Entrepreneurial profiling: A decision policy
analysis of the influence of entrepreneurial
sel f-effi cacy on Entrepreneuri al i ntent.
Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2),
47-48.
BROCKHAUS, R.H. (1980). Ri sk taki ng
propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of
Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.
BROCKHAUS, R. H. (1982). The psychology of
the entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton,
& K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encycl opedi a of
entrepreneurship (pp. 39-57). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
BROCKHAUS, R. H., & HORWITZ, P. S. (1986).
The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.
Sexton & R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science
of entrepreneurship (pp. 25-48). Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
BUSENITZ, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk
and strategic decision making: It's a matter
of perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 35, 325-340.
BUSENITZ, L. W., & BARNEY, J. B. (1997).
Di fferences between entrepreneurs and
managers in large organizations: Biases and
heuristics in strategic decision making. Journal
of Business Venturing, 12, 9-30.
BYGRAVE, W.D. (1993). Theory building in the
entrepreneurship paradigm. Journal of Business
Venturing, 8, 255-280.
BYGRAVE W. D. & HOFER, CW. (1991). Theorizing
about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 16(2), 13-22.
CARTER, N.M.; GARTNER, W.B. & REYNOLDS,
P.D. (1996): Expl ori ng start-up event
sequences, 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). The
founder' s sel f-assessed competence and
venture performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 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 distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of
Business Venturing, 13(4): 295-317.
CHURCHILL, N. C. (1992). Research issues in
entrepreneurship. In D. L. Sexton & J. D.
Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the art of
entrepreneurship, pp. 579-590. Boston. MA:
PWS-Kent Publishing.
74
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
José Luis Martínez Campo
COLLINS, C. J., HANGES, P. J., & LOCKE, E. A.
(2004). The relationship of achievement
motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: A meta-
analysis. Human Performance, 17, 95-117.
CRANE, F., and JEFFREY, S. (2004), Imperatives
to Venture Success, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 99
DAVIDSSON, P. & HONIG, B. (2003). The role
of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing,
18, 301-331.
DAVIDSSON, P. (2007). Method challenges and
opportunities in the psychological study of
entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum, M. Frese, &
R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychol ogy of
entrepreneurship (pp. 287-323). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
ENDLER, N. S. (1983). Interactionism: A
personality model, but not yet a theory. In M.
M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposi um on
Motivation 1982: Personality-Current theory
and research, (pp. 155-200). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
FILLEY, A.C., & ALDAG, R.J. (1978).
Characteri sti cs and measurement of an
entrepreneuri al typol ogy. Academy of
Management Journal, 4(21), 5798-591.
FISHER, R.J. (1993). Social desirability and the
validity of indirect questioning. Journal of
Consumer Research, 20: 303- 315.
FOO, M., UY, M., & BARON, R. (2009). How Do
Feelings Influence Effort? An Empirical Study
of Entrepreneurs' Affect and Venture Effort.
American Psychological Association, 94 (4),
1086-1094.
FRESE, M. (1995). Entrepreneurship in East
Europe: A general model and empirical findings.
In C.L., Cooper & D.M. Rouseau (Eds.), Trends
i n organi zati onal behavi or (pp. 63-83).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
GARTNER, W. B. (1985). A conceptual
framework for describing the phenomenon of
new venture creati on. Academy of
Management Review, 10(4), 696-706.
GARTNER, W. B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur?
Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 13(4), 47-68.
GILES, M. & REA, A. (1999). Career self-
efficacy: An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational 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 and
maintenance of complex interpersonal skill.
Personnel Psychology. 44, 837-861.
GREENBERGER, D.B., & SEXTON, D. (1988). An
interactive model of new venture initiation.
Journal of Small Business Management. 26(1),
1-7
GUNDRY, L. and H. WELSCH (1997) 'The
Ambitious Entrepreneur: Attributes of Firms
Exhibiting High Growth Strategies', paper
presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship
Research Conference, Wellesley, MA., May 1997.
HACKETT, G. & BETZ, N.E. (1981). A self-
efficacy approach to the career development
of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18:
326-336.
HERRON, L., & ROBINSON Jr., R. B. (1993). A
structural model of the effects of
entrepreneurial characteristics on venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing,
8, 281-294.
HERRON, L.. & SAPIENZA. H. J. (1992). The
entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture
launch activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, /7(l), 49-55.
HISRICH, R., LANGAN-FOX, J. & GRANT, S.
(2007). Entrepreneurshi p Research and
Practice: 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 a
multidimensional model of entrepreneurship:
The case of achievement motivation and the
entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 14(3), 39-54.
KIRKPATRICK, S. A., & LOCKE, E. A. (1996).
Direct and indirect effects of three core
chari smati c l eadershi p components on
performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 36-51
KOLVEREID, L. (1996). Organi zati onal
employment versus self-employment: Reasons
for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 20 (3), 23-31
KRUEGER, N.F., Jr. & BRAZEAL, D.V. (1994).
Entrepreneuri al potenti al and potenti al
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice, 18(3), 91-104.
75
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
The propensity for entrepreneurship: Psychological and social factors. 51-76
KRUEGER, N.F., REILLY, M.D., & CARSRUD, A.L.
(2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15,
411-432.
KUMAR, M. (2007). Explaining entrepreneurial
success: A conceptual model. Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 13 (1), 57-77
LEAMED. K. E. (1992). What happened before
the organization? A model of organization
formati on. Entrepreneurshi p Theory and
Practice, 17(1), 39-48.
LENT, R.W., BROWN, S.D. & HACKETT, G.
(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive
theory of careerand academic interest, choice,
and performance. Journal of Vocati onal
Behavior, 45: 79-122.
LIANG, K. & DUNN, P. (2003). Love, Life, and
Family Ties: Couples' Assessment of New
Venture Creation and Business Development
and Family Relationships, Proceedings of the
Associ ati on for Smal l Busi ness and
Entrepreneurship.
LIVESAY, H. C. (1982). Entrepreneurial History.
In Kent, Sexton, and Vesper's Encyclopedia of
Entrepreneurship (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 by
venture capitalists to evaluate new venture
proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1,
119-128.
MALACH-PINES, AYALA, ARIK SADEH, DOV
DVIR, and ORENYA Yafe-Yanai (2002).
Entrepreneurs and Managers: Similar Yet
Di fferent, The Internati onal Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 10(2), 174
MARKMAN, G.D., BARON, R.A., & BALKIN, D.B.
(2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacy
costless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretful
thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
26(1), 1-19.
MCCLELLAND, D. (1965). N achievement and
entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1: 389-
392.
MCCLELLAND, D. C. (1965). N achievement and
entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389-
392.
MINTZBERG, H., & WATERS, J. (1982) Tracking
strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy
of Management Journal, 465-499.
MOKRY, B. W. (1988). Entrepreneurship and
public policy: Can government stimulate start
ups? New York: Quorum Books.
MONTANARI, J.R., DOMICONE, H.A.,
OLDENKAMP, R.L., & PALICH, L.E. (1990). The
examination of a development model for
entrepreneurial firms: An empirical test.
Academy of Management Proceedings, 59-63.
MORE, M. (1998). Dynamic Optimism - An
Extropian Cognitive-Emotional Virtue, http://
www.maxmore.com/optimism.htm
MUELLER, S.L. and THOMAS, A.S. 2001.
Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine
country study of l ocus of control and
innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing,
16: 51-75.
NAFFZIGER, D.W., HORNSBY, J.S., & KURATKO,
D.F. (1994). A proposed research model of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 18, 29-42
NANDA, M., and CHATTERJEE, L. (2007).
Entrepreneurial human capital and New venture
performance: In search of the elusive link. Academy
of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(1), 1-22.
NEIDER, L. (1987). A preliminary investigation
of female entrepreneurs in Florida. Journal of
Small Business Management, 25(3), 22-29.
PAVETT, C.M. LAU, A.W. (1983). Managerial
work: The influence of hierarchical level and
functional specialty. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(1), 170 - 177
PHILIPSEN, K. (1998). Entrepreneurship as
organizing. Presentation Paper: DRUID Summer
Conference, Denmark.
RAUCH, A., & FRESE, M. (2000). Psychological
approaches to entrepreneurial success: A
general model and an overview of findings.
Internati onal Revi ew of Industri al &
Organizational Psychology, 15, 101- 141.
RAUCH, A., & FRESE, M. (2007). Born to be an
entrepreneur? Revi si ti ng the personal i ty
approach to entrepreneurship. In J. R. Baum,
M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology
of entrepreneurship (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
76
Cuadernos Latinoamericanos de Administración - Vol. VI No. 10 - Enero - Junio de 2010 - ISSN 1900-5016
REYNOLDS, P. (1991). Soci ol ogy and
Entrepreneurship: Concepts and Contributions.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Winther,
47-70.
REYNOLDS. P. (1992). Predicting new firm
births: Interactions of organizational and human
populations. In D. L. Sexton & J. D. Kasarda
(Eds.). The state of the art of
entrepreneurship. pp. 268-297, Boston: PWS-
Kcnt Publishing.
REYNOLDS, P. D., CARTER, N. M., GARTNER,
W. B. & GREENE, P. G. (2004). The prevalence
of nascent entrepreneurs in the United States:
Evi dence from the Panel Study of
Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Small Business
Economics. 23: 263-284.
ROTEFOSS, B., & KOLVEREID, L. (2005).
Aspiring, Nascent, and Fledgling Entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17
(2), 109-127.
ROTTER, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies
for i nternal versus external control of
reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80,
Whole No. 609.
SEXTON, D. L. & BOWMAN, N. B. (1986).
Validation of a personality index: Comparative
psychological characteristics analysis of female
entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurship
students and business students. In R.
RONSTADT, J. A. HORNADAY, R. PETERSON, &
K. H. VESPER (Eds.), Fronti ers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 40-51.
SCHEIN, E.H. (1987). Individuals and careers.
In J. Lorsch's (ed), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (pp. 151-171). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
SCHERER, R.F., ADAMS, J.S., CARLEY, S.S. &
WIEBE, F.A. (1989). Role model performance
effects on the development of entrepreneurial
career preference. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 13(3): 53-71.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1967). The Theory of
Economic Development, 5th ed. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967.
SHANE, S. & VENKATARAMAN, S. (2000). The
promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review,
25(1), 217-226.
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.
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 methods
in entrepreneurship research. In J. R. Baum,
M. Frese, & R. A. Baron (Eds.), The psychology
of entrepreneurship (pp. 335-346). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SMITH, N. R. (1967). The entrepreneur and
his firm: The relationship between type of man
and type of company. East Lansing: Michigan
State University, Graduate School of Business
Administration.
SMITH, N.R. y MINER, J.B. (1983): Type of
entrepreneur, type of fi rm.and mageri al
motivation: implications for organizational life
cyle 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). Opportunity
recognition: The core of entrepreneurship. In
N. C. Churchill, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers of
entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA:
Babson College.
UTSCH, A. & RAUCH, A. (2000). Innovativeness
and i ni ti ati ve as medi ators between
achi evement ori entati on and venture
performance. European Journal of Work &
Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45-62.
VENKATARAMAN, S. (1997). The Distinctive
Domain of Entrepreneurship Research: An
Edi tor' s Perspecti ve. Advances i n
Entrepreneurship. J. Katz and R. Brockhaus.
Greenwich, JAI Press. 3: 119-138.
VIRTANEN, M. (1997). The role of different
theories in explaining entrepreneurship. In S.
Kunkel (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The engine of
global economic development. Journal of Best
Papers of the 42nd Worl d Conference,
International Council for Small Business 1997,
San Francisco.
WEST, M. A. & FARR, J. L. (1990) Innovation
at work. In M.A. West and J.L. Farr (eds.):
Innovati on and creati vi ty 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 Five
Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial
Status: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91. 259-271
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.
José Luis Martínez Campo

doc_510687252.pdf