Entrepreneurial potential: connecting some dots

1 Entrepreneurial potential: Connecting some dots Susana Correia Santos ISCTE-IUL Instituto Universitário de Lisboa António Caetano ISCTE-IUL Instituto Universitário de Lisboa Luís Curral Faculdade de Psicologia da Universidade de Lisboa Corresponding author at: Susana Correia Santos ISCTE – IUL – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Avenida das Forças Armadas, Edifício ISCTE, 2W8, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal E-mail address: susana[email protected] 2 ABSTRACT The present study proposes an entrepreneurial potential theoretical model and scale. Connecting the previous research evidences from entrepreneurs’ literature, we define entrepreneurial potential as the individuals’ readiness to engage on entrepreneurship typical activities, and we propose that the entrepreneurial potential includes four main dimensions (entrepreneurial motivations, management competencies, psychological competencies and social competencies) and eleven subdimensions. To assess the entrepreneurial potential we created the Entrepreneurial Potential Assessment Inventory (EPAI). In three studies, we present evidences of content, convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. The Inventory can be established as a tool of high value to the community to help identify competencies requiring development, and to help design or adjust training courses in entrepreneurship. Key-Words - individual characteristics; entrepreneurial potential; scale development INTRODUCTION Multidisciplinary research on the entrepreneurship process has emphasized the importance of entrepreneurship promotion as a critical factor in economic, social development, selfemployment, technological and innovation development (e.g., Licht and Siegel, 2006). More than eighty years after the first contributions of Schumpeter (1934), entrepreneurship research is becoming a more stable field with its own theoretical, empirical and methodological debates (e.g., Connelly, Ireland, Reutzel, and Coombs, 2010). However, there are still some theoretical, empirical and practical aspects that require deeper attention, as is the case of explaining the individual psychosocial dimensions that are involved on the entrepreneurial potential. Building theory based on past findings, the present study aims to slightly contribute to the development of the theoretical and empirical entrepreneurship field, proposing an entrepreneurial potential model and measurement. The main general question that guides the present research is: “How the entrepreneurial potential construct can be theoretically explained and methodologically assessed?”. Theoretical roots of the entrepreneurial potential The entrepreneurship process is deeply associated to the individuals’ characteristics (Baum, Frese, Baron, and Katz, 2007) given that he/she is the main agent in the decision making process to implement entrepreneurial initiatives and to assume the recurrent consequences. Thus, research has focused on the identification and description of the psychological characteristics, traits or personality characteristics that differentiate the entrepreneur (Baum and Locke, 2004; Brandstätter, 1997, 2011). In several decades of research on the question “Who is an entrepreneur?” (Carland, Hoy, and Carland, 1988; Gartner, 1989) empirical evidence is rich and diverse. Several scholars have supported the role of individual’s variables while developing entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao and Seibert, 2005; Rauch and Frese, 2000). Some attempts for further development 3 have been made based on the theoretical assumptions of the psychology of entrepreneurship (Baum, Frese & Baron, 2006). The first early work on the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur was McClelland’s (1961) research on need for achievement. McClelland and Winter (1969) achievement motivation training aimed at improving economic development in some Indian cities, and it was conceived of as an attempt to check the theory of achievement motivation in a work field setting. McClelland and Winter (1969) did not find any relationship between pre-training levels of achievement motivation and change in business activity. However their theoretical framework is particularly focused on achievement theory taking apart from competencies. After the hint, research on entrepreneurs characteristics spread, and differences between entrepreneurs and other groups were identified, as for example the differences on achievement, support, independence and leadership among successful entrepreneurs (Hornaday & Aboud, 1973; McClelland, 1987). Other robust theoretical approach was developed by Spencer and Spencer (1993). They suggested five universal competency models: (a) special technologists, (b) salesmen, (c) community workers, (d) managers, and (e) entrepreneurs. Each model consisted of more than ten different competency factors (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). The competency model for entrepreneurs described by the authors was based on 216 interviews to several countries business owners or partners, and the authors proposed seven generic competencies: achievement; thinking and problem solving; personal maturity; influence; directing and controlling; and orientation to others. Within the referred generic competencies, the authors proposed a total of twenty specific competencies. Despite the richness of the motivational approach of McClelland and Winter (1969) and the competency based approach developed by Spencer and Spencer (1993) these approaches do not include the prior research developed during the previous decades and their theoretical frameworks were not integrated. We suggest that they can be integrated around a proposed construct of entrepreneurial potential. Grounded on the relevance, assumptions and richness of the theoretical approaches, we next present the definition, level of analysis and dimensions of the entrepreneurial potential construct. Definition of the entrepreneurial potential Krueger and Brazeal (1994) developed theoretical propositions upon a model of entrepreneurial potential. Based on the Shapero’s (1982) model of entrepreneurial event, the authors proposed a model of entrepreneurial potential based on three critical constructs: perceived desirability, perceived feasibility and propensity to act. This aspired to be a multilevel model, including individual and organizational constructs, analyzing the potential entrepreneur in two disparate settings: corporate venturing and enterprise development. Despite the relevance of these other levels, the present paper is focused exclusively on the individual level. The focus on the individual level is strengthened by the importance that individual characteristics take place on the entrepreneurial process (e.g., Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001). We assume that entrepreneurship is not solely the result of individuals’ actions and characteristics, as external factors also may play a role. However, as the environmental factors 4 are uncontrollable by the entrepreneur him/herself, we argue that the individual psychosocial characteristics perform a critical role in the development of the entrepreneurial process. We propose a competency model to entrepreneurial potential and adopted the definition of competency suggested by Spencer and Spencer (1993): "A competency is an underlying characteristic of an individual that is casually related to criterion-referenced effective and/or superior performance in a job or situation". Based on the Krueger and Brazeal (1994) assumptions and Spencer and Spencer (1993) competency definition, we consider that the entrepreneurial potential refers to the individuals’ readiness to engage on entrepreneurship typical activities. We propose that the entrepreneurial potential is the summative result of the expression of several entrepreneurs’ individual characteristics. Connecting the previous research evidences from entrepreneurs’ literature, the theoretical developments and the predicted relations among the constructs and variables, we next present a resume organized on the main dimensions concerning the constructs domain: entrepreneurial motivations, management competencies, psychological competencies and social competencies. Included on these main dimensions, literature has evidenced that there are several subdimensions that are considered as more distinctive among the entrepreneurial behavior. It is not our purpose to develop a systematic literature review on entrepreneurs’ characteristics, and some good reviews (e.g., Chell, Haworth, & Brearly, 1991) and metaanalysis (Schwenk and Shrader, 1993) on psychological entrepreneurship research can provide a good overview on the research state of art. Entrepreneurial Motivations First, and one of the strongest predictors on entrepreneurial success, is human motivation as the main driver on pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities, assembling resources and engaging in the entrepreneurial process (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003). The entrepreneurial motivations highlighted in literature include general and task-specific levels (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003). Further impact on venture growth was also sustainable (Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001). The rich complexities of motivations were engaged as a critical role in entrepreneurial behaviors (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011). The entrepreneurial motivations were identified in the literature as one of the greatest predictors of a new venture’s success (Baum, Locke, and Smith, 2001). It expressed focused and directed effort on the entrepreneurial activity (e.g., Locke and Baum, 2007). Desire of Independence Among the entrepreneurial motivations, entrepreneurs’ frequently assume that they pursue a driving force of desire of independence, showing that they do want authority to take the important decisions (Kuratko & Hodgetts, 2007). Hisrich (1985) found that one of the prime motivations for starting a business was a desire for independence. Hornaday and Aboud (1973) surveyed 60 founders with several personality inventories and showed that these founders were significantly higher than the general population on measures of independence. Early, growth motivation has been characterized among entrepreneurship (Schumpeter 1934; Davidsson, 1991). Entrepreneurship drives innovation and technical change, and 5 therefore generates economic growth (Schumpeter, 1934). The pioneer Schumpeterian definition of entrepreneur included the notion that entrepreneurs’ are primarily motivated by the desire to build a private kingdom in the form of a large enterprise (Schumpeter 1934). Economic Motivation The desire to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities to generate economic profit, i.e., the economic motivation, had been cited as one of the most shared characteristics of the successful entrepreneurs: the need to create money. Generally, entrepreneurs perceived their work as more profitable (e.g., Brice, and Nelson, 2008). Moreover, because the opportunities that entrepreneurs recognize and pursue have different economic value, the opportunities themselves influenced entrepreneurial behaviour and motivation. Thus, behaviourally oriented entrepreneurship researchers argued that it is important to consider and measure the economic value of business opportunities as they drove the motivations of entrepreneurs (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003). Management Competencies Entrepreneurs also need to posses hard skills on how to manage a business - the management competencies. Entrepreneurship activity involves also the exploration of entrepreneurial opportunities, defined as the development of new ideas and the implementation of those ideas into thriving business. Thus, across the entrepreneurial process, individuals need to have specific skills on how to manage a venture. The management competencies are defined by the basic and specific competencies in business management (e.g., Baum, Locke, and Smith, 2001), and mostly they refer to the individual’s ability to manage the four elements of the business: the entrepreneur him/herself, business strategy, business resources and human resources. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy The individual belief on his/her capacity to pursue a particular goal has been identified as crucial to several activities (Bandura, 1997) and on the entrepreneurial activity, it is no exception (e.g., Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). Self-efficacy is important for entrepreneurs because they must be confident in their abilities to perform different and often unanticipated tasks in uncertain situations (Baum & Locke, 2004). Individuals with high self-efficacy were likely to persist when problems aroused and searched for challenges and, therefore, challenging opportunities (Bandura, 1982, 1997). Entrepreneurs also evidenced a higher degree of personal initiative (Speier & Frese, 1997); showed higher expectation for success and took a long-term perspective (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995). They also searched for information (Ashford & Tsui, 1991), which leaded to a better knowledge. Hence, self-efficacy has been related to business venture launch and success (Poon, Ainuddin, & Junit, 2006). Vision Although the diversity around the definition of vision, it is generally assumed as an idealized goal to be achieved in the future (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Kirkpatrick, Wofford, & Baum, 2002) or an ideal and unique image of the future that articulates the values, purposes, and identity of its followers (Boal & Bryson, 1988). Greenberger and Sexton (1988) 6 argued that “entrepreneurs are likely to have some abstract image in mind about what they intend to accomplish” (p.5), and this vision serves as a guide for their own actions. Empirically, vision capacity has been shown to be a predictor of entrepreneurial venture development (Baum, Smith & Locke, 2001). Baum, Locke and Kirkpatrick (1998) found direct and indirect causal effects of vision attribute, vision content, and vision communication on small venture performance. A longitudinal study found that visions of small business owners affected company performance directly as well as indirectly trough vision communication to employees (Baum, Locke, & Kirkpatrick, 1998). Resources Mobilization Capacity The ability to gather the resources to manage the venture (financial and material) has been identified as an important predictor of entrepreneurial success, given that resources are an essential feature of new venture development and make it easier for new ventures to adjust to complex environments (e.g., Tan and Peng, 2003). It has also been identified as an important predictor to the entrepreneurial success, as financial resources are an essential ingredient for the development of new ventures (Dollinger, 1995). Financial resources serve to acquire other resources in such a way that provides a venture with strategic flexibility and makes possible its adjustment to complex environments (Tan & Peng, 2003). Leadership Capacity Leadership research has shown that leadership emergence is greatly affected by personality traits (Lord, DeVader & Alliger, 1986) while leadership success is less clearly related to personality factors (Landy, 1989). Entrepreneurial leadership has been identified as important to this process and has been described as the ability to influence others, to manage resources strategically in order to emphasize both opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviours (Ireland, Hitt, & Simon, 2003). Psychological Competencies There is a broad set of characteristics that can be included among the psychological competencies, and they refer to the wide group of skills and attributes which characterize entrepreneurial individuals (e.g., Chell, 2008). There is a set of situational characteristics that are often common to all entrepreneurs: an absence of other people giving orders; the need for emotional stability; demand for social contact and readiness to respond to change and try out new ideas. The emotional stability, openness to new ideas and self-confidence on own ideas were suggested as fundamental to assess entrepreneurial behavior (Brandstätter, 1997), as the individual differences on these characteristics related both to the decision set up in business and to entrepreneurial success. Innovation Capacity There are significant differences between entrepreneurs and employers. The capacity for innovation is one of the main characteristics on the entrepreneurial human capital (e.g., Engle, Mah and Sadri, 1997). It was possible to distinguish entrepreneurs from nonentrepreneurs based on achievement, self-esteem, personal control, and innovation (Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt, 1991). Innovativeness can be defined as a characteristic of an individual person and innovation implementation effectiveness depends on a group of persons, and thus, 7 is a characteristic of an entrepreneurial venture (Klein & Sorra, 1996). In other words, it refers to the capacity to engage in inventive development processes, resulting in the introduction of new products, processes or market services. Emotional Intelligence Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000) defined emotional intelligence as a capability to express emotions, to use emotions for facilitating thinking, to understand and argue by means of emotions, to manipulate them inside and while communicating with other effectively. Previous research evidenced that entrepreneurs scored relatively high on emotional intelligence (Baron and Markman, 2000). Empirical studies, analyzing the relation of emotional intelligence with entrepreneurship attitudes and entrepreneurial intentions had been started to carry out. Resilience In entrepreneurship the uncertainty level is generally higher than in other organizational settings and entrepreneurs have to know how to design and implement adaptable behaviours. Resilience refers to the description and explanation of an unexpected positive outcomes despite a high risky and uncertainty scenario. Resilience evidenced multidimensional characteristics and can be conceptualized as a measure of successful stress-coping ability (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Empirical research evidenced that entrepreneurs showed greater levels of persistency than non-entrepreneurs (e.g., Markman, Baron and Balkin, 2005). Given that entrepreneurship was strictly associated with risk, it was relevant to analyse entrepreneur’s ability to cope with difficulties, threats and unsuccessful projects. We argue that resilience must be an important factor across the entrepreneurship process, as the level of uncertainty faced by entrepreneurs is greater than that of other organizational actors (Covin & Slevin, 1989). Entrepreneurs have to know how to design and implement positive adaptive behaviours that fit in the situation, i.e., they have to be resilient. Social Competencies The entrepreneur acts on a social context and has to interact with different actors, and thus, the social competencies were other dimension of entrepreneurs’ characteristics, denoting an individual’s ability to interact effectively with others (e.g., Baron, 2000). The entrepreneurs’ effectiveness in interacting with others, that is, his / her social competence, may also affect their entrepreneurial success (Baron & Markman, 2003). These assumption were based on the prediction that the higher an entrepreneur’s social competence, the greater the success of his or her business. Persuasion and Communication Capacity The ability to interact effectively with others has a positive effect on entrepreneurial success (Baron & Markman, 2000). Entrepreneurs consider themselves as having a greater capacity for persuasion (Hoehn-Weiss, Brush, and Baron, 2004). Recent studies evidenced that the social competencies bear significant relation to new venture performance measures, and this relation is mediated through success in information seeking and resources (Baron and Tang, 2009). 8 Network development capacity The ability to develop a network between entrepreneurs and other individuals who can provide resources for business implementation and development was identified as one of the entrepreneurial performance predictors (Baughn, Cao, Le, Lim & Neupert, 2006). The ability to develop the social network, together with other constructs, has a direct effect on venture creation development (e.g., Lee and Tang, 2001). The network approach assumes that entrepreneur's ability to organize and coordinating networks between individuals and organizations was critical for both, starting up a company and business success (Rauch, & Frese, 2000). The entrepreneurial potential construct Based on the assumption that the same main dimensions that are typical on entrepreneurs are critical to assess the individuals’ readiness to engage on entrepreneurship typical activities, i.e., individuals’ entrepreneurial potential, we suggest that the entrepreneurial potential can be explained by the four main dimensions evidenced on the entrepreneurs’ characteristics literature. Thus, and growing up theory build upon previous research, and based on the reasoning developed and on the previous literature evidences described, we suggest that the entrepreneurial potential can be explained on four main dimensions: (a) entrepreneurial motivations; (b) psychological competencies; (c) social competencies; and (d) management competencies, which allow to identify and differentiate the entrepreneurial potential. Moreover, and connecting the dots to bring together the most outstanding aspects of previous empirical research and theoretical suggestions, literature review highlighted eleven subdimensions. Taking into account that the entrepreneurial potential is conceptualized as the readiness of an individual to engage on entrepreneurial activities, it is also important to develop an assessment instrument based on the proposed theoretical model, which would allow to assess the entrepreneurial potential construct. Consequently, and to try to contribute to supply this aspects, the present study seeks to give a contribution to create an instrument to measure the entrepreneurial potential construct - the Entrepreneurial Potential Assessment Inventory (EPAI). To deepen our understanding of the entrepreneurial potential construct, we sought to address the methodological and psychometric shortcoming associated with the entrepreneurial potential measure. To these ends, we performed three studies. In the first and second studies, independent samples of individuals responded to the survey, which was tested on a university student’s sample (study 1) and on a young employee sample (study 2). We assessed the factor structure, internal consistency, psychometric properties, and deleted the items that diminished coherence of the scale. Studies 1 and 2 were conducted to test the factor structure and content validity of the scale. Study 3 was conducted to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. We tested the relation between the scale and the Attitudes Toward Enterprise scale (Athayde, 9 2009), and we tested the hypothesis that entrepreneurial intention and locus of control differentiates on the scores of the entrepreneurial potential. Upon creating an initial pool of items for the scale, we conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs, which allowed to assess how adjustable were the theoretical dimensions to the entrepreneurial context. Following a content analysis and preliminary tests, we compiled a second version with 42 items including several ones adapted from the previous studies, and others specifically created. The pool of 42 items on the Entrepreneurial Potential Assessment Inventory included the following operationalization. The desire to be independent was measured by four items as, for example, “One of the most important things to me is having a job where I’m my own boss”. Economic motivation was measured by four items (for example, “I will do my best to make as much money as possible”). Innovation capacity was measured by four items, as for example, “I often surprise people with my new ideas”. Emotional intelligence was measured by four items (e.g., “I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them”). Resilience was measured by four items, as for example, “In difficult times I tend to focus on what helps me to overcome them”. Communication and persuasion capacity was measured by four items (for example, “Normally, I am able to persuade others of many things”). Network development capacity was measured by four items, as for example, “I know people from a variety of different places”. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured by four items, among them were: “When I decide to start any business project, I know I will see it through”. Vision was measured by four items (for example, “I can see clearly how to implement unlikely initiatives”). Resources mobilization capacity was measured by five items as for example “Normally, I can find the resources to implement the initiatives I have”. Leadership capacity was measured with five items, as for example “I can easily lead people who have differing ideas on initiatives that I seek to achieve”. STUDY 1 SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND PSYCHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS This study included a sample of 521 university students, all aged between 17 and 30, 62.3 percent were female with a mean age of 22 (SD = 4.2). The majority of the students were undergraduates (92%) and 8% were doing a master degree. Their academic background included health sciences (24%), social sciences (32%), management sciences (23%) and technological sciences (21%). For each item, respondents indicated the level of agreement or disagreement with different sentences on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). To test whether the 42-items selected captured the proposed theoretical model on the entrepreneurial potential, we conducted two confirmatory factor analysis (CFAs) using AMOS software. In accordance with the classic model of survey development conducted by factor analysis (Kline, 1993), preliminary factor analyses were performed; however, we do not presented the detailed description of this analysis for reasons of parsimony. The results show that the loadings of some items are not appropriate and consequently, they are deleted 16 Concerning the employee sample, they only include young people, leaving the patterns of entrepreneurial potential for workers with greater experience still to be explored. It is further crucial to analyze the results of a sample of entrepreneurs. Second, the studies we have presented on this research are not sufficient to develop a complete validation process on the entrepreneurial potential scale. Validation is a long process, and further tests should be developed focusing on incremental and differential validity, which is particularly critical in the selection procedures (Kline, 1993; Spector, 1992). Moreover, it is critical to develop predictive validity tests, where the EPAI should assess exactly the same individuals, on a longitudinal design. To supply the referred limitations and to continue developing the validity on the entrepreneurial potential scale, there is a long route of studies to be conducted. Future research should focus on predictive and concurrent validity. Other route for research concerns the cross-cultural research on the entrepreneurial potential scale, trying to compare entrepreneur’s potential scores on different countries. Regarding practical implications, the Inventory can establish itself as a tool of high value to the community, since it allows students, teachers, academics and financial funders of projects to assess the level of entrepreneurial potential as well as the dimensions that need to be developed. Over the last decade, great attention has been paid to competency-based education, and its relevance in entrepreneurship education and training at the university level as well as other training venues has become apparent (Bird, 2002). A basic premise of this movement is that an educational position based on competency development can facilitate learning in a society characterized by complexity and rapid changes. Thus, our focus on the assessment of a preparedness to engage on typical entrepreneurship activities can be relevant also for the entrepreneurship education debates. In an educational setting the interest is in individual-level competency as we attempt to help students become more skilled and motivated to start and succeed in new ventures. Against a background of economic and social crisis, entrepreneurship presents itself increasingly as a solution for self-employment (e.g., Ashcroft, Holden, and Low, 2009; De Nardi and Villamil, 2009). In this sense, Entrepreneurial Potential Assessment Inventory (EPAI) can play a critical role in the early stages of the entrepreneurial process: the individual's motivation and the assessment of the main skills to the development of entrepreneurial business success. 17 REFERENCES Ashcroft, Brian; Darryl Holden; & Kenneth Low. (2009) “Entrepreneurial interest, vision and the self-employment choice decision in UK regions.” Regional Studies 43(8): 1075-1090. Ashford, Susan J. & Anne S Tsui. (1991) “Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback-seeking.” Academy of Management Journal 34(2): 251-280. Athayde, Rosemary. (2009) “Measuring enterprise potential in young people.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(2): 481-500. Bandura, Albert. (1982) “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.” The American Psychologist 37, 122 – 147. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-E ffi cacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, USA: Freeman and Co. Baron, Robert & Gideon D. Markman. (2000) “Beyond social capital: The role of social skills in entrepreneurs' success.” Academy of Management Executive 14: 106-116. Baron, Robert & Jintong Tang. (2009) “Entrepreneurs’ social skills and new venture performance: mediating mechanisms and cultural generality.” Journal of Management 35, 282-306. Baron, Robert. (2000) “Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs’ success.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1): 15-18. Baughn, C. Christopher, Johnson S.R. Cao, Linh Thi My Le, Victor A. Lim & Kent E. Neupert. (2006) “Normative, social and cognitive predictors of entrepreneurial interest in China, Vietnam and the Philippines.” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 11(1): 57-73. Baum, J. Robert & Edwin A. Locke. (2004) “The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skills, and motivation to subsequent venture growth.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89(4): 587-598. Baum, J. R., Frese, M., & Baron, R. A. (2006) The Psychology of Entrepreneurship. Mahway, N. J.: Erlbaum. Baum, J. R., Frese, M., Baron, R. , & Katz, J. A. (2007) “Entrepreneurship as an area of psychology study: An introduction”. In Psychology of Entrepreneurship, ed. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. Baron, 1-18. Lawrence Erlbaum: SIOP Frontier Series. Baum, J. Robert, Edwin A. Locke, & Shelley A. Kirkpatrick. (1998). “A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 43–54. Baum, J. Robert, Edwin A. Locke, & Ken G. Smith. (2001) “A multidimensional model of venture growth.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2): 292-303. Boal, K. B., & Bryson, J. M. (1988) “Charismatic leadership: A phenomenological and structural approach.” In Emerging leadership vistas, ed. J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baligia, H. P. Dachler and C. A. Schriesheim, 11-28. Lexington Books, Lexington, M.A. Brandstätter, Hermann. (1997) “Becoming an entrepreneur - A question of personality structure?.” Journal of Economic Psychology 18: 157-177. 18 Brandstätter, Hermann. (2011) “Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five metaanalyses.” Personality and Individual Differences 51: 222–230. Brice, Jeff Jr. & Millicent Nelson. (2008) “The impact of occupational preferences on the intent to pursue an entrepreneurial career.” Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 14(1): 13-36. Brockhaus, R. H. (1982) “The psychology of the entrepreneur.” In Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, eds. C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper, 39-56. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Byrne, Barbara M. (1989) “Multigroup comparisons and the assumption of equivalent construct validity across groups: Methodological and substantive issues.” Multivariate Behavioural Research 24, 503–523. Carland, James W., Frank Hoy, & JoAnn C. Carland. (1988) “Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth asking.” American Journal of Small Business 12(4): 33-39. Carsrud, Alan, & Malin Brännback (2011) “Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know?” Journal of Small Business Management 49(1): 9–26. Chell, E. (2008) The Entrepreneurial Personality: A Social Construction London: The Psychology Press/Routledge. Chen, Chao C., Patricia Gene Greene, & Ann Crick (1998) “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?.” Journal of Business Venturing 13: 295-316. Conger, Jay A., & Rabindra N. Kanungo, (1987) “Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings.” Academy of Management Review 12: 637-647. Connelly, Brian L., R.D. Ireland, Christopher Reutzel, & Joseph E. Coombs. (2010) “The power and effects of entrepreneurship research.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34 (1): 131-149. Connor, Kathryn M., & Jonathan R. T. Davidson. (2003) “Development of a new resilience scale: The connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC).” Depress Anxiety 18: 76- 82. Davidsson, P. (1991) “Continued Entrepreneurship: Ability, Need and Opportunity as Determinants of Small Firm Growth.” Journal of Business Venturing 6: 405-429. Davidson, P. (2004) Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer. De Nardi, Mariacristina, & Anne Villamil. (2009) Entrepreneurship, finance and employment. Annals of Finance 5(3/4): 289-293. Dollinger, M. (1995) Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. Flossmoor IL: Irwin/Austen Press. Engle, Diedre E., Joe J. Mah. & Golnaz Sadri. (1997) “An empirical comparison of entrepreneurs and employees: Implications for innovation.” Creativity Research Journal 10: 45–49. Gartner, William B. (1989) “Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. “ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13: 47-68. 19 Greenberg, David B. & Donald L. Sexton (1988) “An interactive model of new venture initiation.” Journal of Small Business Management 26 (1): 1-7. Hair, J., Black, D., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edition), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Heckhausen, Jutta & Richard Schulz (1995) “A life-span theory of control.” Psychological Review 102: 284 – 304. Hisrich, Robert D. (1985) “The woman entrepreneur in the United States and Puerto Rico: a comparative study.” Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 5: 3 – 8. Hoehn-Weiss, Manuela N., Candida G. Brush, & Robert Baron (2004) “Putting your best foot forward? Assessments of entrepreneurial social competence from two perspectives.“ The Journal of Private Equity 7: 17-26. Hornaday John A., & John Aboud. (1973) “Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs.” Personal Psychology 24: 141-153. Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., J. C. Wofford, & J. Robert Baum. (2002) “Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement.” The Leadership Quarterly 13: 139-150. Klein, Katherine J., & Joann Speer Sorra. (1996) “The challenge of innovation implementation.” Academy of Management Review 21: 1055-1080. Kline, P. (1993) Handbook of Psychological Testing. Londres: Routledge. Krueger, Norris F., & Deborah V. Brazeal. (1994) “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18(3): 91-104. Kuratko, D. F & R. M. Hodgetts. (2007) Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process and Practice. International Edition, 7th ed. Mason: Thomas South Western. Landy, F. J (1989) Psychology of Work Behaviour (4 th Ed). Pacific Grove: Brooks. Cole Publishing Co. Lee, Don Y., & Eric W. K Tsang. (2001) “The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth.” Journal of Management Studies 38: 583–602. Levenson, Hanna (1973) “Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41: 397-404. Licht, A. N., & J. L. Siegel. (2006) “The social dimensions of entrepreneurship”. In Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, ed. M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu A., & N. Wadeson, 511-539. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Locke, Edward A. & J. Robert Baum (2007) “Entrepreneurial motivation.” In Psychology of Entrepreneurship, eds. J. R. Baum, M. Frese, & R. Baron, 93 - 112. Lawrence Erlbaum: SIOP Frontier Series. Lord, Robert G., Christy L. De Vader, & George M. Alliger. (1986) “A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3), 402 – 410. 20 Markman, Gideon D, Robert Baron, & David B. Balkin. (2005) “Are perseverance and selfefficacy costless? Assessing entrepreneurs’ regretful thinking.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 1-19. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of Human Intelligence 396-420. New York: Cambridge. McClelland, David C. & David G. Winter. (1969) Motivating economic achievement. New York: Free Press. McClelland, David C. (1987) “Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.” Journal of Creative Behavior, 21: 219-233. McClelland, David C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, P. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts McClelland, David C. (1961) The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand. Osborne, Richard L. (1995) “The essence of entrepreneurial success.” Management Decision 33 (7): 4-9. Poon, June M. L., Raja Ainuddin, & Sa’Odah Haji Junit. (2006) “Effects of self-concept traits and entrepreneurial orientation of firm performance.” International Small Business Journal 24(1): 61 – 82. Ireland, R. Duane, Michael A. Hitt, and David.G. Sirmon (2003) “A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and its Dimensions.” Journal of Management 29: 963-989. Robinson, Peter B., David V. Stimpson, Jonathan C. Huefner, & Keith Hunt. (1991) “An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4): 13-31. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest and the Business Cycle, London: Oxford University Press. Shane, Scott, Edward Locke, & Christopher J. Collins (2003) “Entrepreneurial motivation.” Human Resources Management Review 13: 257-279. Shapero, Albert (1975) “The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur.” Psychology Today 9 (6): 83- 88. Spencer, L. M., Jr. , & Spencer, S. (1993) Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Tan, Justin & Mike W. Peng (2003) “Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy.” Strategic Management Journal 23 (13): 1249- 1263. Zhao, Hao, Scott Seibert, & Gerald E. Hills (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2): 1265–1272.