Baron ‘s ( 2002 ) definition of entrepreneurship provinces that entrepreneurship is a hard procedure where certain persons place chances and so seek to permute this chances into concrete economic benefits by get downing a new venture. This corresponds with Schumpeter ‘s ( 1934, from: Elliot, 1983 ) early definition of entrepreneurship and enterprisers. He states that a venture is “a transporting out of new combinations” and enterprisers are the individuals whose undertaking it is to “carry them out“ . Harmonizing to Schumpeter each individual can be called an enterpriser merely when that individual is really “ transporting out new combinations. The rubric of enterpriser will be lost when he built up his concern. He so becomes merely a little concern proprietor ( Carland et al. , 1984 ) . In this study I use Schumpeter ‘s definition of enterprisers and with that focal point on enterprisers that started a concern late.
Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that enterprisers are rather different from other groups from a personality point of position ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . The five-factor theoretical account ( FFM ) of personality is a general recognized theoretical account for analyzing these differences. The FFM is composed of five reasonably independent dimensions. These dimensions are extroversion, emotional stability/ neurosis, conscientiousness, amenity, and openness to see ( Parks and Guay, 2009 ; Wang and Erdheim, 2007 ; Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . Each dimension reflects certain personal features.
Small concerns are different from big organisations. Small concerns are characterized by higher responsiveness, resource limitations, informal schemes and flexible organisation constructions ( Terziovski, 2010 ) . Small houses opportunity-seeking accomplishments can be high, but they can non ever turn their chances into a competitory advantage because of their cognition limitations and their deficiency of market power ( Ketchen et al. , 2007 ) .
This paper consists of a literature survey on the personal features of enterprisers and their influence on little concern ‘ growing. Scientific literature will be consulted to analyze this relationship. I have chosen to look into the relationship between an enterpriser ‘s personal features and their influence on little concern growing because I am interested in entrepreneurship and because I am working on puting up my ain little concern. It is an interesting subject because there are non many articles written about it and I think it can give enterprisers penetrations in how to utilize certain personal features to do a positive part to the growing of their little concern.
The research inquiry of the paper is:
To what extent are an enterpriser ‘s personal features of influence on little concern ‘ growing?
The sub inquiries are:
- How can personality be defined?
- Which personal features are harmonizing to the literature particular for an enterpriser?
- What are the features of the little concern sector?
- What sort of challenges will an enterpriser face after get downing up a concern?
The paper will be structured as follows. In the following subdivision I will set up a definition of personality and reexamine the Five Factor Model. Some penetrations about personal features of enterprisers that are written about in the literature are besides being discussed. After that a subdivision is dedicated to the features of the little concern sector and what sort of challenges enterprisers face after get downing up their concern. Section 4 consists of an analysis where the penetrations from the predating two subdivisions are combined. I will besides analyse and discourse the consequences of an interview with an enterpriser in this subdivision. In the last subdivision a decision will be given with a concrete reply to the sub inquiries and the research inquiry. I will besides discourse the restrictions of this survey and some recommendations for future surveies. Figure 1 summarizes the paper construction.
An enterpriser ‘s personal features
In this subdivision an overview is given of an enterpriser ‘s personal features that are elaborated on in the literature. First a definition of personality will be given. In the same subdivision The Five Factor personality Model ( FFM ) is explored because in this theoretical account certain personal features are grouped together into five different personality dimensions. After that other personal features that are quoted in the literature are being discussed. The end of this subdivision is to deduce a set of personal features from the literature that are typical for enterprisers and fit them to the dimensions of the FFM.
Personality and the Five Factor Model
This paragraph starts with a definition of personality. After that I will explicate the FFM theoretical account and stipulate an sum of personal features that are typical for the five dimensions of the theoretical account.
Personality can be defined as “enduring temperaments that cause features forms of interaction with the environment” ( Parks and Guay, 2009 ) . Personality consists of personality traits that are endogenous basic inclinations tied to underlying bio physiological reaction systems. They are strongly genetically determined, immune to influences from society and parents and rather stable throughout adulthood ( Olver and Mooradian, 2003 ) . In the 1990s consensus was reached about five wide classs of personality. These five classs together are called the Five Factor personality Model.
The five FFM dimensions are: conscientiousness, emotional stability/neuroticism, extroversion, amenity, and openness to see ( Parks and Guay, 2009 ; Wang and Erdheim, 2007 ; Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . Conscientiousness refers to doing calculated picks and being dependable. The personal features that belong to this dimension are being careful, thorough, responsible, motivated, organized and efficient. Emotional stability/neuroticism represents the single differences in the inclination to see hurt and the typical behaviours that are associated with it. Harmonizing to Parks and Guay ( 2009 ) emotional stableness refers to the features self-assured, resilient and well-balanced. Harmonizing to Wang and Erdheim ( 2007 ) neurosis is the antonym of emotional stableness and is being dying, down, emotional, disquieted and insecure. The 3rd dimension, extroversion, refers to being ambitious, chatty, self-asserting, and sociable. Agreeableness consists of the societal facet of personality, that is being friendly, concerted, loyal, gracious, good-natured and tolerant. Finally, openness to see refers to the features funny, inventive, open-minded and artistically sensitive. This dimension reflects the originative side of personality. Harmonizing to Zhao et Al. ( 2010 ) these five dimensions do non cover all personality traits, so they expanded the theoretical account with the dimension Risk leaning. Risk leaning can be defined as the willingness to prosecute determinations or classs of action affecting uncertainness sing success or failure results.
This was a short account about personality and the FFM. In the following paragraph I will discourse several personality traits of enterprisers that were elaborated on in literature.
An enterpriser ‘s personal features
In this paragraph I will get down with Schumpeter ‘s theory about the psychological science of the enterpriser. After that several personal features of an enterpriser that are reviewed in the literature will be discussed.
Schumpeter ( 1934, from: Elliot, 1983 ) was one of the first to discourse the personal features of the enterpriser. He argues that “there is the dream and the will to establish a private land, normally, though non needfully, besides a dynasty. Then there is the will to suppress: the urge to contend, to turn out oneself superior to others, to win for the interest, non of the fruits of success, but of success itself. Finally, there is the joy of making, of acquiring things done, or merely of exerting one ‘s energy and ingenuity” ( p. 93 ) . After Schumpeter several other research workers investigated the psychological science of the enterpriser.
Entrepreneurs differ from the remainder of the population in a figure of ways ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ; Brandstatter, 1997 ; Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . Entrepreneurs can be characterized by an inducement construction based on single duty and attempt, and a strong work moral principle ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) . This means that they think that the province should non take more duty, private ownership should be increased, that unemployed should non hold the right to decline a occupation and success is non a affair of fortune and connexions but of difficult work.
Brandstatter ( 1997 ) attaches an enterpriser ‘s personal features to some situational features that are common to all enterprisers. First, it is the absence of people who give orders, set ends and command the result. This means that enterprisers are more separately oriented than other people ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) . A 2nd facet is the insecurity. There is ever the hazard of economic failure that enterprisers have to cover with. They do n’t necessitate to be upset or worried really easy, so emotional stableness is a requirement for enterprisers. This corresponds with the vision of Zhang et Al. ( 2009 ) . They mention that the degree of neurosis was a cardinal forecaster of centrality in advice and friendly relationship webs. Peoples that score low on the degree of neurosis tend to obtain cardinal places in advice and friendly relationship webs and people high in neurosis tended to go the centre of adversarial webs. Because societal webs are really of import for enterprisers, these consequences suggest that enterprisers have to be emotional stalls.
The 3rd characteristic Brandstatter ( 1997 ) defines is the demand for societal contact. Entrepreneurs have to convert their clients of the utility of their merchandise and they have to maintain in touch with them to carry through their demands. Finally, enterprisers have to be ready to seek out new thoughts and react rapidly to alterations around them. This means that enterprisers have to be more advanced than others.
Another feature of enterprisers is that they score high on the extroversion dimension ( Zhang et al. , 2009 ) . This seems logical because extrovert people tend to hold more societal accomplishments and this is of import for enterprisers because they have to carry different stakeholders. Baron ( 2002 ) supports this vision. He states that enterprisers who are successful in bring forthing enthusiasm in others, may be significantly more successful than those who are non.
Smith-Hunter et Al. ( 2003 ) defined the most researched personal features from the traditional school, that is a group of research workers who focused on the personality features of the person. These features are locus of control ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) , risk-taking ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) , achievement motive ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) , and job resolution manner and innovativeness ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ; Schumpeter, 1934, from: Elliot, 1983 ) .
Locus of control can be defined as people ‘s perceptual experience of their ability to exert control over the environment ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) . Peoples with an internal venue of control believe that their ain attempt determines certain results in life, whereas people with an external venue of control believe that results are determined by external factors they ca n’t act upon. Locus of control is one of the classical subjects in the entrepreneurial trait research that differentiate enterprisers from non-entrepreneurs ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ; Poon et al. , 2006 ) . Entrepreneurs are characterized by a more internal venue of control ( Dvir et al. , 2010 ) .
Many recent surveies have focused on the relationship between the venue of control and an enterpriser ‘s degree of self-efficacy ( Smith-Hunter et al. , 2003 ) . Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is the grade to which people perceive themselves as holding the ability to successfully execute the assorted functions and undertakings of entrepreneurship ( Hmieleski and Baron, 2008 ) . Hmieleski and Baron ( 2008 ) investigated that self-efficacy is moderated by the grade of optimism and the industry conditions. The consequences of their survey indicate that ( 1 ) in dynamic environments, entrepreneurial self-efficacy exerts positive effects on public presentation for houses led by reasonably optimistic enterprisers, but exerts negative effects on public presentation for houses led by enterprisers who are extremely optimistic and ( 2 ) in stable environments, the effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on house public presentation are less clear and non moderated by the grade of optimism.
The sentiments about the characteristic risk-taking are diverse. Some research workers found that enterprisers are high hazard takers ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) , but others mention that enterprisers are moderate hazard takers ( Xu and Ruef, 2004 ) . There are two signifiers of hazard tolerance that may take persons to entrepreneurial activity, strategic and non-strategic ( Xu and Ruef, 2004 ) . In strategic hazard tolerance rational histrions actively prefer low-probability, high final payment results. In non-strategic hazard tolerance rational histrions need non hold active hazard penchants, but merely appear to prefer low-probability, high final payment results because their information on the distribution of results is based on conditions of imperfect cognition.
The demand to accomplish refers to a desire to make good in order to accomplish a sense of personal achievement ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) . The demand to accomplish can be related to the features desire for independency ( Dvir et al. , 2010 ; Poon et al. , 2006 ) and risk-taking leaning ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . Peoples who have a high demand for achievement possess five critical properties ( Smith-Hunter et al. , 2003 ) . High winners like state of affairss where they can take duty. They like rapid feedback on their public presentation, so they can knock their ain betterments. They avoid really easy or really hard undertakings and they dislike wining by opportunity. They prefer endeavoring to accomplish marks and the last feature is that they are interested in concrete cognition about the consequences of their determinations.
Finally invention and job resolution capablenesss are expected to be the nucleus of the entrepreneurial capableness of an enterpriser ( Smith-Hunter et al. , 2003 ) . Schumpeter ( 1934, from: Elliott, 1983 ) mentioned that “creative destruction” , whereby new merchandises and procedures replace old 1s, is more of import than monetary value competition among bing houses and merchandises. This means that enterprisers are more advanced than non-entrepreneurs ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) .
For this terminal the most of import features of an enterpriser that were cited in literature were discussed. Dvir et Al. ( 2010 ) mentioned the most often cited personality traits of enterprisers. These are the desire to be independent ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) , internal venue of control ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) , creativeness or innovativeness ( Schumpeter, 1934, from: Elliott, 1983 ) , risk-taking leaning ( Xu and Ruef, 2004 ; Zhao et al. , 2010 ) , need for accomplishment ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) , and believable function theoretical accounts. In the following paragraph the above mentioned characteristic will be related to the FFM dimensions.
An enterpriser ‘s personality traits and their relation with the FFM dimensions
The features mentioned in the foregoing paragraph can be related to the dimensions of the FFM. The five dimensions were Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability/Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Openness to see. The excess dimension added by Zhao et Al. ( 2010 ) was risk leaning.
Because of the strong work moral principle ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) and the high demand for accomplishment ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) entrepreneurs score high on the conscientiousness dimension. Conscientiousness has been found to be a consistent forecaster of occupation public presentation across businesss affecting pull offing others and gross revenues public presentation ( Ciavarella et al. , 2004 ) .
Emotional stableness is a requirement for enterprisers because of the insecurity they have to cover with ( Brandstatter, 1997 ) . Peoples that score high on the degree of emotional stableness tend to obtain cardinal places in advice and friendly relationship webs ( Zhang et al. , 2009 ) . An internal venue of control ( Poon et al. , 2006 ) and largely a high degree of entrepreneurial self-efficacy ( Hmieleski and Baron, 2009 ) are specific for an enterpriser ‘s emotional stableness.
Entrepreneurs besides score high on the extroversion dimension ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . The ground for this is that being extraverted should ease the development of societal webs, finally ensuing in stronger partnerships with providers and clients, which is really of import for enterprisers ( Ciavarella et al. , 2004 ) . The features of extroversion are being ambitious, chatty, self-asserting, and sociable ( Parks and Guay, 2009 ) .
Harmonizing to Ciavarella et Al. ( 2004 ) amenity is an interpersonal factor that focuses on the quality of relationships through cooperation and trust. Entrepreneurs who set up trusting, flexible, and gracious relationships with their clients should anticipate to harvest the net incomes of repetition concern. Zhao et Al. ( 2010 ) expected that, given the limited border for unselfish behaviour and the high likeliness of guarded and even conflictual interpersonal relationships associated with entrepreneurship, there would be a negative relationship between amenity and entrepreneurial purposes. However their consequences have shown that this is non true and that enterprisers do score high on amenity and with that are extremely concerted and dependable.
Openness to see depict the extent to which persons tend to be funny, originative, and open to new thoughts, which relates to autonomy values, those are beliefs that persons ought to be independent and autonomous ( Parks and Guay, 2009 ) . Successful entrepreneurship is likely to necessitate changeless information monitoring and acquisition to maintain up with altering gustatory sensations and market tendencies, rival behaviour, and new Technologies ( Zhao et al. , 2010 ) . This indicates that enterprisers are more advanced than non-entrepreneurs ( Beugelsdijk and Noorderhaven, 2005 ) and that they score high on openness to see.
For the last dimension, hazard leaning, the visions are non ever the same. Zhao et Al. ( 2010 ) argue that enterprisers are characterized by a high hazard leaning, while Xu and Ruef ( 2004 ) argue that enterprisers are moderate risk-takers.
The end of this 2nd subdivision was to deduce a set of personal features for an enterpriser from the literature and associate them to the FFM dimensions. After first discoursing the FFM theoretical account and after that, reexamining the personal features of an enterpriser, I attached the personal features to the dimensions of the FFM. With this the 2nd subdivision is finished.
In the following subdivision I will discourse the features of the little concern sector. Because of the focal point on enterprisers that late started their concern, some challenges they face will besides be reviewed.
- Baron, R.A. ( 2002 ) . OB and entrepreneurship: the mutual benefits of closer conceptual links. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 225 – 269.
- Beugelsdijk, S. and Noorderhaven, N. ( 2005 ) . Personality features of freelance ; an empirical survey. Small Business Economics, 24, 159 – 167.
- Brandstatter, H. ( 1997 ) . Becoming an enterpriser – a inquiry of personality construction? Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 157 – 177.
- Carland, J.W. , Hoy, F. , Boulton, W.R. and Carland, J.A.C. ( 1984 ) . Distinguishing enterprisers from little concern proprietors: a conceptualisation. Academy of Management Review, 9, 354 – 359.
- Dvir, D. , Sadeh, A. and Malach-Pines, A. ( 2010 ) . The tantrum between enterprisers ‘ personalities and the profile of the ventures they manage and concern success: An exploratory survey. Journal of High Technology Management Research, xx, 1 – 9.
- Hmieleski, K.M. and Baron, R.A. ( 2008 ) . When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus cut down steadfast public presentation? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 57 – 72.
- Ketchen, D.J. , Ireland, R.D. and Snow, C.C. ( 2007 ) . Strategic entrepreneurship, collaborative invention, and wealth creative activity. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 371 – 385.
- Olver, J.M. and Mooradian, T.A. ( 2003 ) . Personality traits and personal values: a conceptual and empirical integrating. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109 – 125.
- Parks, L. and Guay, R.P. ( 2009 ) . Personality, values, and motive. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 675 – 684.
- Poon, J.M.L. , Ainuddin, R.A. and Junit, S.O.H. ( 2006 ) . Effectss of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation on house public presentation. International Small Business Journal, 24, 61 – 82.
- Schumpeter, J. ( 1934 ) . The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press. From: Elliott, E. ( 1983 ) . The Theory of Economic Development. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
- Smith-Hunter, A. , Kapp, J. and Yonkers, V. ( 2003 ) . A psychological theoretical account of entrepreneurial behaviour. Journal of the Economy of Business and Economics, April, 2003, 1 – 12.
- Terziovski, M. ( 2010 ) . Innovation pattern and its public presentation deductions in little and average endeavors ( SMEs ) in the fabrication sector: a resource-based position. Strategic Management Journal, 1 – 11.
- Wang, M. and Erdheim, J. ( 2007 ) . Does the five-factor theoretical account of personality relate to end orientation? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1493 – 1505.
- Zhang, Z. , Zyphur, M.J. , Narayanan, J. , Arvey, R.D. , Chaturvedi, S. , Avolio, B.J. , Lichtenstein, P. and Larsson, G. ( 2009 ) . The familial footing of entrepreneurship: Effectss of gender and personality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 93 – 107.
- Zhao, H. , Seibert, S.E. and Lumpkin, G.T. ( 2010 ) . The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial purposes and public presentation: a meta-analytic reappraisal. Journal of Management, 36, 381 – 404.