

Ing. Salih CAVKIC
orbus editor in chief


Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis

Perpetual Self conflict: Self
awareness as a key to our ethical drive, personal mastery, and perception of
entrepreneurial opportunities.
Murray Hunter

The Continuum of Psychotic Organisational Typologies
Murray Hunter

There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
entrepreneurially
Murray Hunter

Groupthink may still be a hazard to your organization - Murray Hunter

Generational Attitudes and Behaviour -
Murray Hunter

The environment as a multi-dimensional system: Taking off your rose
coloured glasses
- Murray Hunter

Imagination may be more important than knowledge: The eight types of
imagination we use - Murray Hunter

Do we have a creative intelligence? - Murray Hunter

Not all opportunities are the same: A look at the four types of
entrepreneurial opportunity -
Murray Hunter

The
Evolution of Business Strategy
- Murray Hunter

How
motivation really works - Murray Hunter

Evaluating Entrepreneurial Opportunities: What’s wrong with SWOT? - Murray
Hunter

The five types of thinking we use - Murray Hunter

Where do entrepreneurial opportunities come from? - Murray Hunter

How we create new ideas
- Murray Hunter

How emotions influence, how we see the world? - Murray Hunter

People tend to start businesses for the wrong reasons - Murray Hunter

One Man, Multiple Inventions: The lessons and legacies of Thomas Edison
- Murray Hunte

|
There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
entrepreneurially
Murray Hunter
University Malaysia Perlis
Finding
common characteristics shared by all entrepreneurs has been an elusive task.
Back in the 1960s researchers have tried to link entrepreneurs to psychological
traits and characteristics with the hope that questions like ‘ why do some
people see opportunity, when others do not?’,’is there any difference between
people who are entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs?’, and ‘can a
psychological profile be developed for entrepreneurs?’.
Over the years a large number of personality traits have been explored and
reported upon. Early work by McClelland in the 1960s postulated that the key to
entrepreneurial behavior was the need for achievement as a source of motivation[1].
According to McClelland people with a high need for achievement wanted to take
responsibility for their decisions, set goals and accomplish them through their
own effort[2]. They also desire some form
of regular feedback[3]. High achievers
wanted challenging tasks with concrete goals and succeed by their own efforts
rather than by chance[4]. Based on the
logic of the need for high achievement, people with this need would become
entrepreneurs[5]. However the need for
achievement is not an exclusive trait for entrepreneurs and it fails to predict
entrepreneurial tendencies[6].
1. Research turned their attention to the study of the locus of control. The
locus of control generally refers to a person’s perceptions of the outside world
and the reasons they believe are the causes of events impacting on their lives.
People who believe they can control the environment through their actions have
what is called and internal locus of control. Whereas people who believe they
have little control of the environment have what is called an external locus of
control. Generally it was believed that people with an internal locus of control
would gravitate towards being entrepreneurs and people with an external locus of
control would be reluctant to become entrepreneurs[7][8].
Rotter hypothesized that people exhibiting an internal locus of control would be
more likely to strive for achievement than people with an external locus of
control[9]. Although there was much
research that supported these ideas, this was not a trait exclusive to
entrepreneurs and was found in people of other professions[10].
The propensity to take financial, family or career risks are often attributed to
entrepreneurs. Thus it was assumed by researchers that entrepreneurs would take
moderate risks in trying to satisfy their need for achievement[11],
and propensity to take risks would be higher than managers. Some research
studies concluded that the propensity to take risks, among other personality
characteristics was important in identifying entrepreneurial types[12].
However many other results have shown to the contrary[13].
Peter Drucker took the point of view that the entrepreneurs don’t take risk,
they actually try and minimize risks before acting and the entrepreneur as a
risk taker is a myth[14]. Taking this
view, entrepreneurs are capable risk managers who defuse risk through their
knowledge and confidence of situations that others may view as high risk[15].
Other studies have shown that the amount of risk a person is willing to take is
situational upon specific conditions[16],
and entrepreneurs don’t take any more risks than managers[17].
Research on specific psychological traits did not identify any typology type
profiles of entrepreneurs or any exclusive traits that would lead to the
prediction of entrepreneurs. Very few personality traits differentiate the
entrepreneur from other people. Nor did trait studies give any insights into the
belief systems or behavior patterns of entrepreneurs. Behavior is too complex a
phenomenon with too many factors influencing how one perceives the world, feels
emotionally and perceives their own self esteem for the trait approach to
explain[18]. Any psychological profile
would be too theoretical and too general to have any real meaning. For example,
under the Myers-Briggs description of ENTP – (extrovert intuitive thinker and
perceiver), a person would look for one exciting challenge after another.
They would be highly inventive and their enthusiasm would lead to lots of
different activities. Their inventiveness is attributable to their rich
intuition which would give them a world of endless possibilities, when combined
with their objective decision making facilities and directed outwardly converts
everything to ideas and schemes. Such a horoscope like description really
doesn’t bring much deeper understanding of who is an entrepreneur and why they
see opportunity, when others don’t.
If one undertook several case studies of successful entrepreneurs and identified
important traits that assisted in their respected successes, these traits would
not necessarily be common to all cases. Therefore the study of psychological
traits as a means to answer the question of ‘why some people see
opportunities and others don’t’, etc, was widened to include other internal
and external factors as well as situational circumstances[19].
For example, extroversion would be a much more important trait in a situation
where an employee had direct contact with customers than in a position that
dealt in paperwork[20].
Each entrepreneur will have a number of positive and negative personality
characteristics that will not direct behavior but be ancillary to behavior.
Therefore as broad dispositions, these traits cannot be expected to be a very
good predictor of individual behavior[21].
A person’s general orientation, situation and personal motives also come to play
in influencing behavior[22]. A list of
some commonly mentioned traits are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Some Commonly Mentioned Characteristics of Entrepreneurs.
Ability to learn from mistakes |
Foresight |
Product knowledge |
Able to take calculated risks |
Goal orientated |
Profit orientated |
Aggressive |
Honest |
Quick decision maker |
Balanced |
Imaginative |
Resourcefulness |
Charismatic |
Independent |
Responsible |
Committed |
Influential over people |
Responsive to criticism |
Confidence |
Initiative |
Responsive to suggestions |
Cooperative |
Integrity |
Self-reliant |
Courageous |
Intelligent |
Sense of power |
Creativity |
Leadership |
Sensitive |
Customer orientated |
Market knowledge |
Sociable |
Determination |
Maturity |
Street smart |
Diligence |
Need for achievement |
Technical knowhow |
Dynamism |
Non-conformist |
Thorough |
Efficacy |
Optimism |
Tolerant of ambiguity |
Efficient |
Passion for work |
Trustful of others |
Egotistical |
Perceptive |
Trustworthy |
Energy |
Perseverance |
Versatility |
Flexible |
Positive to challenges |
Visionary |
As can be seen from the list above, the traits themselves are very narrow and
cannot on their own or combined predict who the entrepreneur really is and why
they can see opportunities. Some traits maybe helpful in opportunity
identification and venture creation but may tend to be destructive during growth
and maturity stages of a business. For example, the need to control others will
be very useful when the early stages of a new business must focus on production
and sales. As the company grows and needs new opportunities and strategies to
grow centralized control and decision making may stifle creativity and
innovation within the firm. Another issue is that behavioral relationships
between different traits can be totally unpredictable. For example, a
self-centeredness will have influences on the locus of control, need for
achievement and propensity to take risks in ways where behavior cannot be
predicted, especially where situational aspects are varied between people.
Most traits also have opposites like independent-dependent, thorough-lax,
sociable-unsociable, and responsible-irresponsible, etc. Many
personality traits like the need for power[23],
recklessness, over confidence and unrealistic optimism[24],
and sociopathic tendencies[25], can have
very counter-productive results on behavior. As mentioned, the need for control
can stifle creativity and innovation. A sense of distrust of others can bare
many negative consequences on the firm and other individuals[26].
Osbourne postulated that the ownership of an enterprise itself can actually
corrupt and change people for the worse[27].
People might not be driven by their traits but by their flaws, as flaws may be
motivated as defense systems. For example, behind the need to achieve may be the
fear of being found out[28]. People may
work hard for success to compensate for failed (or failing) relationships and
easily become obsessive.
With the disappointment with the traits approach not being able to predict who
would become an entrepreneur, some researchers looked at typologizing
entrepreneurs as a way to understand anchor traits, value systems, and thinking
for given typologies of entrepreneurs[29].
Typologies can be considered theories that can be modeled according to traits
and variables into a synthesized conception of an entrepreneur type[30].
Landau proposed that entrepreneurs could be classified according to their
innovative and risk bearing characteristics and proposed four basic typologies[31].
The consolidator is a person who develops a business on a low innovation, risk
bearing platform and aims to consolidate and slowly improve, usually bringing
low returns. The gambler is characterized by a low degree of innovation and high
level of risk where he or she takes big chances in what they do, but is able to
deliver through breakthroughs if successful. The dreamer attempts to combine a
high level of innovation with a low level of risk. However without risk the
dream can never be realized. The entrepreneur takes a high level of risk and
innovation and succeeds on the basis of how they are able to manage the risk.
Research has also focused on the typologies of the entrepreneur as a craftsman
with a blue collar and limited educational background, who prefer technical work
and are motivated by the want of personal autonomy, and opportunists who are
well educated and motivated by building a successful organization and financial
gains[32]. Another typology is an
inventor-entrepreneur who has a strong commitment for new product development
and rapid market entry with an orientation towards the future[33].
Siu developed five typologies of entrepreneurs in China; the senior citizen, who
seeks to work by him or herself, the workaholic, the swinger who jumps from deal
to deal, the idealist who tends to think in longer timeframes, and the high
flyers[34]. Jones-Evans suggested four
technical categorizations of entrepreneurs[35].
The research based technical entrepreneur is in a research environment where his
or her ideas have been incubated for a long period of time. He or she is purely
a research based entrepreneur without much business experience. The producer
technical entrepreneur is an individual who has some exposure to business
decision making, probably within manufacturing. The user technical entrepreneur
is an individual whose main experience is commercially based with some technical
background, and the opportunist entrepreneur is one who has no previous exposure
to technology but has seen a commercial opportunity.
Although typologies are not absolutes, as individuals may have characteristics
from more than one typology, a good typology fit can be predictive of behavior.
The typology approach can be widened to include any number of potential
typologies to describe an entrepreneur and the way they seek and exploit
opportunities.
The search for opportunity, subsequent strategy development and execution has
multidimensional factors influencing it. Without these other multidimensional
factors, psychological characteristics will not drive these processes.
Opportunity is a socio-psycho phenomenon and from this point of view, the
potential factors that influence entrepreneurial behavior[36]
are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The Potential Socio-psycho Factors that Influence Opportunity
Discovery and Behavior.
There is no way to explain precisely the phenomenon of
entrepreneurship. What factors, situations and emotions determine how people
behave is so complex that no diagram or explanation can cover all behavioral
contingencies. However for a person to start looking with intention at ideas
that can turn into opportunities and be acted upon through a set of strategies
requires a trigger situation. A trigger situation can be activated from
an external event and/or internal consideration. External events could be shocks
that may occur through sudden unemployment, being overlooked for promotion or
some other personal tragedy that sets the process off. This may not be a sudden
response to the tragedy, as alternative courses of action like looking for
another job may precede the setting off of the situational trigger. Other
internal triggers may occur when a person may be dissatisfied at work, feel they
can do it better or have immense difficulties working under others. This
internal ‘cooking’ of desire or frustration may take time and itself
require some event in the workplace like being passed up for promotion or having
a new ideas ignored to ‘tip the balance’.
When an idea exists and there is a “gap” between the present situation
and the potential reality that a new idea could create, there is enough tension
to activate a motivational trigger. An idea is needed to set off this
situational trigger because without any idea there can be no opportunity
alternatives available to the person to think about and act upon.
Acting as a filter through our perception mechanisms is a group of attributes
called personal paradigms. Personal paradigms act to pattern or filter
information going into the psych where cognitive decision making processes take
place. The author believes that it is these personal paradigms, which are
particular attributes related to how opportunity is seen, appraised and acted
upon, have great influence over our decision making and behavior. They are a
buffer between our internal and external world where ‘what we see’, ‘how
we feel’, and ‘what we think’, relates back to our personal
paradigms. A brief description of some personal paradigms follows
below;
Alertness or entrepreneurial
alertness is the ability to be sensitive to information about objects, incidents
and patterns in the environment where ideas and potential opportunities can be
constructed[37]. To perceive potential
opportunities there must be a heightened perceptual and cognitive alertness[38].
Without alertness, any information will not gain any cognitive attention and be
forgotten almost immediately. Alertness is a product of our psych and the
environment[39].
Motives push people to perceive, think and act in specific ways that
attempt to satisfy needs[40]. Motives
often stay unconscious in a person, as the person doesn’t know exactly what they
want, yet these motives remain powerful influence behind thoughts, feelings and
behaviors[41]. People differ in their
types and strength of motives, taking them on different lifetime journeys with
different outcomes. For example, Anita Roddick, the founder of The Body Shop may
have been personally committed to the environment, education and social change,
while Jack Welch and Bill Gates were more motivated by competition and winning,
leading to completely different types of organizations and operational
philosophies, while all being considered more than successful. Motivation is
also situational where for example one can see the higher rates of
entrepreneurship among migrant populations in developed countries[42].
Studying motives can assist in answering the question of ‘why people do what
they do?”
Motivation is not static. There are two sets of motivational factors. The first
set that motivates a person initially usually involves need, responsibilities
and obligations that may have arisen from some form of trauma like job
retrenchment. A second set of motivators come into influence once a person has
established something and involves motivational factors related to the tasks
themselves. These higher order motivations have a lot to do with achievement,
satisfaction, recognition and fulfillment. Motivational goals often keep moving
as one progresses thus maintaining tension and drive in the person. For example,
an original motivation may have been to serve a particular geographic area, but
as time goes along, ambitions and motivations grow to new and larger areas. When
one does meet a goal or objective, then that goal or objective ceases to be a
motivator and complacency can set into the person. A list of common motivational
factors is listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Some Common Motivational factors[43]
Motivator |
Description |
Achievement |
A need to master,
manipulate, organize and arrange objects, people and events in an
accomplished way by overcoming obstacles and excelling. |
Exhibition |
A need to be seen and
heard by others and be the centre of attention and make an
impression on others. |
Order |
A need to put things in an
orderly arrangement, balance and in precision. |
Dominance |
To seek and direct the
behavior of others by persuasion, command, coercion or seduction. To
seek to control the environment. |
Abasement |
To accept injury,
criticism and blame. To submit to the force of others and resign
yourself to fate. To admit wrong doing, inferiority and error. |
Aggression |
To overcome any opposition
forcibly. To avenge injury and hurt with attack and oppression.
|
Autonomy |
To maintain free of others
restraints, to break out of confines, to be one’s own master. |
Blame-avoidance |
To avoid blame and
humiliation at all costs, to avoid situations that may lead to
embarrassment, to refrain from action because of fear of failure. |
Affiliation/Intimacy
|
To seek cooperation with
others, to draw near and close to others, to win affection of others, to
be liked to develop loyalty and receive loyalty from others.
|
Nurturance |
To take care of others in
need, to give sympathy and gratify the needs of helpless others. |
Succor
|
To receive help from
other, to have one’s needs gratified by another, to be indulged, nursed,
supported and protected by others. |
Motivation appears to come from the ego portion
of the psych[44]. The ego gives a person
a sense of purpose and this is where ‘the urge to make a difference’, ‘to
be respected’, ‘to be admired’, ‘to be wealthy’, ‘to be
successful’, ‘to control others’ and ‘to be the best originates’.
The ego holds emotions of self esteem, the sense of achievement, envy, greed,
hate, anger, anxiety, fear, guilt and empathy which are the building blocks of
motivators.
Prior knowledge is information and
knowledge a person accumulates over a period of time[45].
Prior knowledge assists a person discover opportunities as it patterns incoming
information with familiar knowledge already known. This recognizes the specific
value of incoming information in the light of prior information. Shane
postulates that a person will tend to discover only opportunities related to
their own prior knowledge[46]. Thus
people without specific prior information related to incoming information will
not see the same opportunities as those that have[47]
As everybody’s prior information has its own idiosyncrasies, each person will
have their own unique ‘knowledge corridor’ that allows them to see
certain types of opportunities but not others[48].
In relation to opportunity, there are three dimensions of prior knowledge; 1.
Prior knowledge of markets, 2. Prior knowledge of ways to serve markets, and 3.
Prior knowledge of customer problems[49].
This can be further broken down two areas. The first is knowledge of special
interests to a person, which can provide them with profound insights into their
special interest areas. The second area is knowledge accumulated from their work
experience over a number of years[50].
When information from the first area is mixed with information from the second
area, new insights may be gained which lead to the discovery of unique
opportunities. For example, a salesperson that goes yachting every weekend may
discover unique business opportunities related to the leisure sailing industry
through the mixing of both phases of his or her prior knowledge.
The strategic outlook paradigm is
concerned about vision, the ability to recognize and evaluate opportunities by
turning them into mental scenarios, seeing the benefits, identifying the types
and quantities of resources required and weight up all the issues in a strategic
manner. A vision helps a person focus upon the types of opportunities suited to
their disposition. This sense of vision is guided by their assumptions, beliefs
and values within the psych. Vision has varying strengths in different people
depending upon their ego characteristics and motivations. The ability to spot
and evaluate opportunities is closely linked with a person’s creativity
paradigm, their propensity to action and their perceptions of their own talents
and available skills. According to Bolton and Thompson entrepreneurs spot
particular opportunities and extrapolate potential achievable scenarios within
the limits of their skills and ability to gather resources to exploit the
opportunity[51]. These extrapolations
from opportunity to strategy require both visual/spatial and calculative
thinking skills at a strategic rather than detailed level.
Adequate concentration is required in order to have a strategic outlook upon
things. This requires focus in strategic thinking, creativity, ego values and
interpersonal paradigms. Too little focus will result in random jumping from
potential opportunity to opportunity without undertaking any diligent mental
evaluations. Too much focus may result in narrow mindedness and even obsessive
thinking which would result in either blindness to many potential opportunities
or action without truly “objective” evaluation. Table 3. below shows the
potential effects of focus on behavior.
Table 3. The Potential Effects of Focus on behavior.
Variable |
Absent Focus |
Mean Focus |
Extreme Focus |
Strategic Outlook |
Switch off, insensitive to environment,
blind to opportunity. |
Able to spot opportunities, work towards
exploiting them, able to see required resources and identify potential
sources. |
Look in too much detail so fail to get
overview or big picture. |
Creativity |
Unimaginative |
Able to think both laterally and serially
and construct opportunities. |
Over-imaginative, lose sight of big
picture. |
Ego Values |
Purposelessness not interested.
|
Able to contemplate some form of action
with some form of motivators driving ego. |
Self-delusion, delusions of grandeur.
|
Interpersonal |
Individualistic and independent.
|
Able to communicate and work within
social sphere. |
Hesitant to take responsibility,
dependent. |
Overall
|
Random scanning of environment, jump from
opportunity to opportunity, apathetic. |
Focused on opportunity possibilities and
drawbacks. Orientated towards action. |
Tunnel vision, fanatical and/or
blindness. |
The element of
creativity expresses itself through other facets and talents. It is a
competence that gives a person the ability to make connections between unrelated
things, thus creating new ideas, concepts through what can be called an
innovation. Creativity is the element that creates opportunity constructs from
the fusion of external stimuli and internal information or prior knowledge of
the person. Creativity develops innovation which becomes an element behind most
opportunities, problem solving, combining resources, generally using talents and
skills, and in overcoming barriers and obstacles. Motivation is required to
drive creativity and focus maximizes the sensitivity of creativity.
In Tom Peters and Robert Waterman’s
seminal book ‘In Search of Excellence’, they listed ’a bias for
action’ as the first of their eight basic principles. ‘A bias for action’
is a preference for doing something rather than getting into the inertia of
doing nothing[52]. Many people spot
opportunities but for various reasons fail to do anything about them. The
propensity for action is about energy, both cognitive and physical to act upon a
perceived opportunity. Cognitive energy is required during the mental evaluation
stage and physical energy is required to actually put strategies into effect.
Without any propensity for action, no other personal paradigm will have any
constructive effect.
Personal talents are natural
aptitudes, abilities, skills and intelligence to assist a person pursue their
life goals according to their interests, motivations and contexts[53].
Talents according to Cattell are almost fully inherited[54].
Abilities are also aptitudes, skills and intelligence to enable someone
to do physical or mental things, but are developed through lifetime learning.
Talents and some abilities through learning can be developed into excellence. To
utilize and enhance talents and abilities a person must have temperament,
attitude, motivation, and interest[55].
Temperament encompasses the ability to manage talent and maintain perseverance.
Many talented careers, particularly in sport and the performing arts fail
because of the wrong attitudes and temperament. Personal talents and abilities
link closely with the personal creativity paradigm and may act as both an anchor
and a primer for creative action. Personal talents and abilities may also
heighten patterning attention towards stimuli and information close to a
person’s span of talent and ability areas.
The interpersonal paradigm will
almost directly influence how large an opportunity a person may consider,
dependent on their ability to communicate, collaborate, and work with others.
Those with extrovert personalities and leadership qualities are able to bring
others onboard and acquire talents and abilities they themselves lack. This
means that a person can generally imagine larger potential opportunities because
in their assumptions exists the possibility of building large organizations,
than would be the case if they were considering or only comfortable working by
themselves. How people view others is partly influenced by how they tend to view
trust. Those people who tend to be trusting of others will tend to build
organizations that may be more open for creativity and innovation than those
that are built on assumptions of mistrust of people.
For the purpose of entrepreneurial behavior, the ego drives a person. This is
especially so in the creativity, strategic outlook, motivation, alertness and
propensity for action paradigms. A very weak ewhere a strong ego would lead to a much stronger sense of self. Without
a healthy ego, talents and abilities would be wasted. The ego provides our
temperament and influences our basic assumptions, beliefs and values. On our
external side, the ego along with the rest of the psych forms< our personality
traits. The world sees us through our personality traits and to a certain degree
our traits along with our psych are precursors to our behavior[56].
Bolton and Thompson describe the ego as having two parts[57].
The inner part of the ego is concerned about our internal manifestations of self
assurance, dedication and motivation. The inner ego produces our interest and
passion about things and is the psychic driver of a person. The facets of the
outer ego are more behavioral and concern more about a person’s outward
qualities. These qualities include a person’s sense of responsibility,
accountability and courage. Courage is perhaps the element that makes one feel
confident, face reality and stand up to their beliefs and values. The ego tends
to be shaped by our self perceptions, experience and unconscious primitive
drives and basic morality.
Our perceptions, experience, prior knowledge and psych help shape “who I am”
though a continual molding and shaping process. When set off by a trigger,
our perceptions, psych, traits and skills combine to form ideas and some
behavioral response, “what I do”, which produces certain outcomes. As we
produce outcomes, we measure them against our personal goals and go back through
our perception system as feedback or ‘how we feel”.
A person reacts to the environment they are within. However it is impossible to
predict the behavior that will come from the combination of the personality and
environment. Predicting behavior is difficult because all behavior is
situational upon the environment. In other words, behavior is both personality
and environmentally dependent.
Not only is behavior environmentally influenced, a person with a particular
personality leaning will attempt to seek out or create an environment that is
suitable to them[58]. For
example, an introvert will seek a quiet, unobtrusive environment which is
secluded and personal, where an extrovert will prefer a social environment with
interpersonal interaction. Personal paradigms are not static, their will shift
in their influence and dominance over times and according to life circumstances[59].
Finally, personality can act as a type of memory filter. People tend to remember
things that are compatible with their personality traits. Therefore a person
with a calm and non-confronting disposition will remember events that promote
these attributes, rather than conflicting and divisive situations[60].
REFERENCES:
[1] McClelland, D. C. (1961). The
achieving society, Princeton, D. Van Nostrand.
[2] McClelland, D. C. (1967). The Achieving
Society, New York, Free Press.
[3] Begly, T. M. and Boyd, D. P. (1987). A
comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business firms, Journal of
management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 99-108, Johnson, B. R. (1990). Toward a
multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achievement motivation
and the entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 14, No.
3, pp. 39-48.
[4] Chell, E., Haworth, J. M., and Brearley,
S. (1991). The Entrepreneurial personality: concepts, cases, and categories,
London, Routledge.
[5] Smith-Hunter, A., Kapp, J. & Yonkers,
V. (2003). A psychological model of entrepreneurial behavior, Journal of
Academy of Business and Economics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 180-192.
[6] Sexton, D. L. & Bowman-Upton, N.
(1985). The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 1, pp. 129-140.
[7] Chen, C. C., Greene, P., and Crick, A.
(1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from
managers?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13, No. 4., pp. 295-317,
Sexton, D. L. & Bowman-Upton, N. (1985), op. cit.
[8]
However people with an internal
locus of control may believe that fate and luck have a great influence in their
lives and take action based on these beliefs. Likewise a person with a strong
internal locus of control may undertake strategies that have little or no
realistic chances of success due to overwhelming competition and other odds
against success. Therefore locus of control cannot necessarily predict behavior
and reactions of people.
[9] Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized
expectancies for internal verses external control of reinforcements,
Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80, No. 609.
[10] Hull, D., Bosley, J. and Udell, G.
(1980). Renewing The Hunt for the Heffalump: Identifying Potential Entrepreneurs
by Personality Characteristics, Journal of Small Business, Vol. 18, No.
1., pp. 11-18, Chen, C. C., Greene, P., and Crick, A. (1998), op. cit.,
Sexton, D. L. And Bowman-Upton, N. (1985), op. cit.
[11] Bowen, D. D. and Hisrich, R. D.
(1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 393-407.
[12] HULL,
(1980), G. Udell, and J. Bosley, D.,op. cit.
[13] Sexton, D. L. and Smilor, R. W.
(1986). The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger
Publishing Company.
[14] < Drucker, P., F.,
(1984), <op<. <cit.
[15] Amit, R., Glostent, L. and Muller,
E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 815-834.
[16] KENT, I. K.( Vesper, D. Sexton, C.,
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, ENGLEWOOD Inc. Prentice-Hall NJ, Cliffs,
[17] SEXTON, I
D. (1985), N. Bowman-Upton, And L. op. cit.
[18] There are in fact about 5000 traits
that make up a person’s personality. Not more than half a dozen of these traits
have been examined about causality with entrepreneurship. Personalities are very
complex and most psychological profiling methods measure them simply missing
much of the depth of a personality. Thus personalities really cannot be
accurately understood through a 5 or 7 point scale, etc, as a personality is
made up of thousands of traits or attributes which vary in influence according
to time of day, mood and situational occurrences. What even makes personality
more difficult to understand is that a person’s ‘self-view’ may be very
different to what they portray to the world, i.e., an attention seeker shows
grandiosity but may have a very low self-esteem. Our general surface observation
of a person can only see what that person wants us to see and what they want to
be, rather than whom they are.
[19] Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who Is an
Entrepreneur?” Is the wrong question, American Journal of Small Business,
Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 11-32, Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., and Ray, S. (2003). A
theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development, Journal
of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 105-123, Smith-Hunter, A., Kapp, J. &
Yonkers, V. (2003), op. cit.
[20] Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S.,
Switzer III, F, S., and Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytical view of job
performance for salespeople, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No.
4., pp. 586-597.
[21] Epstein, S. and O’Brien, E. J.
(1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 98, No. 3, P. 532.
[22] Shaver, K. G. and Scott, L. R.
(1991). Person, Process, Choice: The psychology of new venture creation,
Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 23-45.
[23] Peay, T. R. and Dyer, W. G. Jr.
(1989). Power orientations of entrepreneurs and succession planning, Journal
of Small Business Planning, January, pp. 47-52.
[24] Kidd, J. B. and Morgan, J. R.
(1969). A Predictive information system for management, Operational Research
Quarterly, June, pp. 149-170, Laurie, L. and Whittaker, W. (1977).
Managerial Myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning, Journal of
Applied Psychology, April, pp. 194-198.
[25] Solomon, G. T. and Winslow, E, K.
(1988). Toward a descriptive profile of an entrepreneur, Journal of Creative
Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 1., pp. 162-171.
[26] Kets de Vries, M. (1996). The
anatomy of the entrepreneur, Human Relations, Vol. 49, pp. 853-884.
[27] OSBOURNE,
I entrepreneur, the of side dark The (1991), M., Long Range Planning, VOL. 26-31. pp. 3, No., 24,
[28] <Kets de Vries, M. (1996), <op.
cit.
[29] FILION, I
of (Ed.), L.P. Dana, In: Canada, in self-employed types Two (2004).
L.J. Handbook of Research on International Entrepreneurship, CHELTENHAM,
pp. 325.
[30] Miner, J. B. (1997). A
Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs, Westport, CT, Quorum
Books.
[31] Landau, R. (1982). The innovative
milieu, In: Landstedt, S.B. & Colglarzion, E.W. Jr., (Eds.). Managing
Innovation: The social dimensions of creativity, invention, and technology,
New York, Pergamon Press.
[32] WOO, I
and of The typologies, entrepreneurial interpretation development (1991). A.C.
Cooper, & C.Y. Journal of Business Venturing, VOL. pp. 93-114. 2,
No. 6,
[33] Miner, J.B., Smith, N. R., &
Bracker, J.S. (1992). Defining the inventor-entrepreneur in the context of
established typologies, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.
103-113.
[34] Siu, W-S. (1996). Entrepreneur
Typologies: The case of the owner managers in China, International Small
Business Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 53-64.
[35] Jones-Evans, D. (1995). A Typology
of technical based entrepreneurs, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
research and Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 26-42.
[36] THERE the of in strategies. selected
through opportunities exploiting towards behavior interested are we arguments
these purpose For entrepreneurship. definition agreed no is
[37] Kirzner, I. M. (1973).
Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL., University of Chicago Press.
[38] Ray, S. and Cardozo, R. (1996).
Sensitivity and creativity in entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: a
framework for empirical investigation, paper presented to the 6
th
Imperial College London.
[39] Shapero, A. (1975). The displaced,
uncomfortable entrepreneur, Psychology today, Vol. 11, No. 9, pp. 83-88,
Sathe, V. (1989). Fostering entrepreneurship in the large diversified firm,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 20-32, Hisrich, R. D. (1990).
Entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship, American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2,
pp. 209-222, Gaglio, C. M. and Taub, R. P. (1992), Entrepreneurs and opportunity
recognition, In: Churchill, N. C., Birly, S. Bygrave, W., Muzyke, D., Wetzel, W.
E, (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 136-147.
[40] Larsen, R. J. and Buss, D. M.
(2005). Personality Psychology, 2nd Ed., New
York, McGraw-Hill, P. 339.
[41] Barembaum, N. B. and Winter, D. G.
(2003). Personality, In: Freedheim, D. K. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology:
History of Psychology, New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 177-203.
[42] Kloosterman, R. and Rath, J.
(Editors.), (2003). Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Venturing Abroad in the Age of
Globalization, New York, Berg.
[43] ADAPTED in Press. University Oxford
York, New Personality, Explorations (1938). A. H. Murray, from
[44] Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2003).
The Entrepreneur in Focus: achieve your potential, London, Thomson, P.
78.
[45] Von Hippel, E., (1994). “Sticky
information” and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation,
Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 429-439.
[46] Shane, S. (1999). Prior knowledge
and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities, Organizational Science,
Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 448-469.
[47] Kirzner, I. M. (1997).
Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian
approach, J. Econ. Lit., Vol. 35, pp. 60-85.
[48] Hayek, F. (1945). The use of
knowledge in society, Am. Econ. Rev., Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 519-530,
Ronstadt, R. (1988). The corridor principal, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 31-40.
[49] ARDICHVILI,
I and (2003), S. Ray, R., Cardozo, A., op. cit.
[50] Sigrist, B. (1999). Entrepreneurial
opportunity recognition, presented to the Annual UIC/AMA Symposium at
Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface, Sofia-Antipolis, France.
[51] BOLTON, and
J. pp. (2003), 92-93. Thompson, B.
[52] Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H.
(1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies,
New York, Collins.
[53] Moon, S. M. (2003). Personal talent,
High Ability Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 5-21.
[54] Cattell, R. B. (1966). The
Scientific Analysis of Personality, Baltimore, Penguin.
[55] ALLEN, I
(2003), B. P., Personality Theories: Development, Growth, and Diversity, 4<th
<Edition, BOSTON, and 388. P.
Bacon, Allyn
[56]
HOWEVER and the behavior we is complex. extremely psych traits, our between relationship
seen have as
[57] BOLTON, I
and J. (2003), Thompson, B. op. cit.
[58] Scarr, S. and McCartney, K. (1983).
How children make there own environments: A theory of genotype environment
effects, Child Development, Vo. 54, pp. 424-435.
[59] Mitchell, R. W. (1993). Mental
Models of Mirror-Self-Recognition: Two Theories, New ideas in Psychology,
Vol. 3, pp. 295-325.
[60] LARSEN, I
and J. D. (2005), M. Buss, R. op. cit, P. 186.
March, 2012
PUBLICATIONS:
One Man, Multiple Inventions: The lessons and legacies of Thomas Edison -
Murray Hunter
People tend to start businesses for the wrong reasons - Murray
Hunter
How
emotions influence, how we see the world? - Murray Hunter
How we create new ideas - Murray Hunter
Where do entrepreneurial opportunities come from? - Murray Hunter
The
five types of thinking we use - Murray Hunter
Evaluating Entrepreneurial Opportunities: What’s wrong with SWOT? - Murray
Hunter
How
motivation really works - Murray Hunter
The
Evolution of Business Strategy - Murray Hunter
Not all opportunities are the same: A look at the four types of
entrepreneurial opportunity -
Murray Hunter
Do we
have a creative intelligence? - Murray Hunter
Imagination may be more important than knowledge: The eight types of imagination
we use - Murray Hunter
The environment as a multi-dimensional system:
Taking off your rose coloured
glasses
- Murray Hunter
Generational Attitudes and Behaviour -
Murray Hunter
Groupthink may still be a hazard to your organization - Murray Hunter
Perpetual Self conflict: Self awareness as a key to our ethical drive, personal mastery, and perception of
entrepreneurial opportunities - Murray Hunter
The Continuum of Psychotic Organisational Typologies - Murray Hunter
There is no such person as an entrepreneur, just a person who acts
entrepreneurially - Murray Hunter
Go Home, Occupy Movement!!-(The McFB– Was Ist Das?) - prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Diplomatie préventive - Aucun siècle Asiatique sans l’institution pan-Asiatique - prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic
Democide Mass-Murder
and the New World Order - Paul Adams















Adria

Bosnian
Važne vijesti
Bulgarian
Важни новини
Catalan
Notícies importants
Czech
Důležité zprávy
Danish
Vigtige nyheder
Dutch
Belangrijke nieuws
English
Important News
Estonian
Tähtis Uudised
French
Nouvelles importantes
German
Wichtige News
Greek
Σημαντικές ειδήσεις
Hungarian
Fontos hírek
Irish
Fógra tábhachtach Nuacht
Italian
Importanti novitŕ
Latvian
Svarīga Jaunumi
Lithuanian
Svarbu Naujienos
Portuguese
Importante Notícias
Slovenian
Pomembne novice
Spanish
Noticias importantes
Swedish
Viktiga nyheter


BALKAN AREA


prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Go Home, Occupy Movement!!
-
(The McFB – Was Ist Das?)
-
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Diplomatie préventive - Aucun sičcle Asiatique sans l’institution pan-Asiatique
- prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic\/span|

ADDENDUM – GREEN/POLICY PAPER: TOWARDS THE CREATION OF THE OSCE TASK FORCE ON (THE FUTURE OF) HUMAN CAPITAL
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic

Gunboat Diplomacy in the South China Sea – Chinese
strategic mistake
-
Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Geopolitics of Quantum Buddhism: Our Pre-Hydrocarbon Tao Future
prof. dr. Anis Bajrektarevic


Maasmechelen Village

Maasmechelen Village

| |