Personalities of (social) entrepreneurs, using the MBTI (or JTI) indicator. Paper belonging to the presentation given for the Intensive Program NetAware at the University of Economics in Katowice, March 8, 2012.
Transcript of "Do you have what it takes? Personality Traits of Social Entrepreneurs"
DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES? Personality Traits of Social Entrepreneurs Literature review and indications for further research ir. J.P. Spruijt Avans University of Applied Sciences ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands February, 2012 email@example.comABSTRACT The landscape of entrepreneurial activities is changing and results in the rapid development of socialorganizations. Depicted as the main reason for entrepreneurial success, it is interesting to explore literature onpersonality traits of social entrepreneurs. Results of this study are relevant because it will provide usefulinformation for social entrepreneurs themselves, for organizations in general, when in need of socialentrepreneurs, managers of CEO’s and for educational institution in order to create course programs to teachstudents to become more socially conscious. The rationale for this study can be found in the fact that there are noscientific publications yet on personality traits of social entrepreneurs. Results suggest that there indeed seem to be distinctions between social entrepreneurs and entrepreneursin general. Social entrepreneurs distinguish themselves principally on the fact that they are more introversion-oriented than their counterparts who are not engaging in social activities and the fact that their choices are muchmore led by feelings than by logical reason. Types that possibly indicate a social-entrepreneur-to-be are INFP’sand INFJ’s, also referred to as the “Guides” and the “Idealists”. There also seem to be differences when variablessuch as innovation-consciousness and size of organization are taken into account. This literature review leads to several apparent hypotheses that should be tested with empirical,qualitative research.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Introduction This article reflects the results from preliminary findings of a literature study onpersonality traits of social entrepreneurs. During the last two decades, the landscape forentrepreneurism has changed rapidly. Important trends are the transition from domestic andstatic economies towards global and dynamic economies, from homogenous, experienced andpermanent workforces towards diverse, educated and flexible workforces, from the useroutine technologies and mass production towards complex and knowledge-driventechnologies and customization and from bureaucratic, efficiency-driven organizationstowards organic and innovation-driven organizations (Greiner and Cummings, 2004). Thesetrends are reflected by recent figures. Between 2004 and 2009 the Netherlands showed anincrease in young entrepreneurial potential1 of 41%, the actual number of entrepreneursincreased with 14% and the number of fast-growing organizations increased with 59%2.Across Western Europe numbers are comparable, while in Eastern-Europe growth is evenstronger. In the same time, in the USA these numbers were respectively -33%, -6% and 51%,indicating a decreasing amount of entrepreneurial potential while still showing increasingentrepreneurial activity. When taking into account the after-effects of the IT bubble – orperhaps: entrepreneurial bubble – it is clear that the landscape for doing business is changingrapidly.Existing literature The implications of these trends on entrepreneurism have been widely researched. Oneof the classics in organization theory and debating the role of entrepreneurism is Greiner’s“Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow”. The model elaborates on the “FivePhases of Growth” in which organization growth is considered as a life cycle: growth throughcreativity, direction, delegation, coordination and collaboration. (Greiner, 1972, 1998; Lowand MacMillan, 1988; Ven and Poole, 1995). In 65% of more than 1500 citations to Greiner’s model for organizational growth,personal characteristics are topic of subject. Innovation is in 19% of the citations topic ofsubject. In general, it could be stated that entrepreneurial success is most importantly linked tothe personal characteristics of entrepreneurs (Baum and Locke, 2004; Crane and Matten,2007). Many researchers have elaborated on characteristics of entrepreneurs. A substantialpart of them use the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator, which has gained recent popularity amongscientists to explain entrepreneurial characteristics. Substantial research has been done to find1 TEA index: Total Entrepreneurial Activity Index; sum of entrepreneurs in the process of starting their own business and entrepreneurs in abusiness younger than 2,5 years as a percentage of total labor force.2 Based on statistics from CBS and Eurostat
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)a relation between MBTI and entrepreneurs, most significantly by Carland and Reynierse.Besides MBTI, many other correlations has been taken into account, such as entrepreneurialvision, intentionality, psychology and the Big 5 personality types (Begley and Boyd, 1987;Singh and DeNoble, 2003; Ortigueira, 2008). The founding father of MBTI, Jung, tried to introduce a way to measure the cognitivetypology of the respondents, often referred to as temperaments, problem-solving capabilities,cognitive styles or management styles (Jung, 1971; Jung et al., 1991; Keirsey and Bates,1998). Myers & Briggs studied this typologies further to find correlations and make it moreexplicit. They introduced a measurement tool (Myers, 1962). The measurement was called theMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The indicator gives scores on four personality traits: Attitude to outer world: Extraversion (E) vs. Introversion (I) Function to gathering information: Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N) Function to decision making: Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F) Attitude to organizing life: Judging (J) vs. Perception (P) The combination of these four personality traits results in 16 different typologies,briefly summarized in figure 1. Figure 1: Dominant Characteristics on Cognitive Typologies (Myers et al., 1985; Carland and Carland, 1992)
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012) Comparing known data samples of entrepreneurial characteristics and populationaverages, it was possible to sketch percentages of personality types that are over-representedamong entrepreneurs in comparison with the average population. Entrepreneurs are mostlyfound amongst the NT cognitive dimension, “the NT temperament is visionary and anarchitect of change” and to some extent to ST and NF people (Carland and Carland, 1992;Tieger and Barron-Tieger, 2000). Table 1 and 2 shows an overview of these sample resultsand sample sizes. Compared to the total population entrepreneurs are also more extroverted.Compared to business in general, entrepreneurs the difference in T is less prominent, but theN is even stronger and entrepreneurs are more Perceiving. Table 1: average distributions as indicated by Myers and Briggs (1985)Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging-Perceiving Introversion Intuition FeelingTotal Population 0,7 -23,2 9,8 -4,1Business in general -6,7 -4 -8,5 -10Managers in general -6,7 -6,3 -11,6 -9,3 Table 2: results of MBTI studies among entrepreneurs.Source (s) Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging- Data Formula Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving (d) for meta-(Carland Entrepreneurs -12.23 0.5 -14.2 -1.7 N=114 analysisandCarland, 2 s1992)(Huefner et Entrepreneurs -8.2 5.1 0.0 2.8 N=316 i di i 1al., 1996) 2Meta-analysis Entrepreneurs -9,3 3,9 -3,7 1,6 d i 1 iMissing literature Much less research has been carried out when it comes to characteristics of socialentrepreneurs. Gaining more attention lately, “social entrepreneurs are not content just to givea fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishingindustry.” quoted by Bill Drayton, CEO and founder of Ashoka, a non-profit organizationaiming to developing the profession of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship wasfirstly introduced by Prahalad in his work “Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”, pointing3Number indicates average distribution. So -12.2 means the estimated average on a scale from 0 to 100 equals37.8. This means (in this case) 37.8% in introversion-oriented and 62.2% is extroversion-oriented.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)out that most of the world’s population – around 4 billion people – are living close or belowthe poverty line (Prahalad, 2006). Researchers have proposed a large number of differentdefinitions of social entrepreneurship, however, almost all of them relate entrepreneurshipwith a social vision or particular aim (Low and MacMillan, 1988; Mair and Martí, 2005).Mair & Martí distinguish three different movements amongst scholars, according to whichsocial entrepreneurship is: 1. aiming at not-for-profit initiatives to create social value, 2. a commercial business sector aiming at socially responsible practice and 3. a means to address social problems and accelerate social transformations.Many of the definitions mention the personal behavior of the social entrepreneur or founder,while only some of them focus on the outcome. A general, and broadly accepted, view isprovided by the same authors: “Social entrepreneurship is the process involving theinnovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze socialchange and/or address social needs.” In contrast with theoretical definitions, economic definitions are drawing comparisonsbetween social enterprises and not-for-profit organizations. The OECD also acknowledges therelation between the two, but sees difference in the fact that social enterprises are moredirectly engaged in production and/or sales of goods and services, have a higher degree ofautonomy and are more involved with risk than not-for-profit organizations. Therefore, therationale for social enterprises is twofold (OECD, 2012): 1. They deliver service in a participatory nature, engaging in communities – its stakeholders – and pioneering leading towards social cohesion and 2. Strive for social inclusion through workforce integration of marginalized people eg. long term unemployed, disabled, homeless and/or minorities. For the continuation of this paper, I will suggest the following definition of socialentrepreneurship: Social entrepreneurship is the process of pursuing opportunities to delivernew and innovative products or services leading towards social cohesion and socialinclusion. As indicated earlier, not only is an entrepreneur’s character named as one of theelements of entrepreneurial success, also is their innovative capacity. However, this fielddidn’t get much attention of researchers. Out of all citations of Greiner, none of them combineboth “personal characteristics” and “innovation”. So why would their innovative capacity bean important measure for social entrepreneurs? The early definitions of innovation focus onprofit-driven new products resulting in economic growth (Schumpeter, 1994). Recent
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012) literature points out that when the motivating driver is changed, the same principles still apply (Bessant and Tidd, 2007). This mea ns that sometimes the rationale for innovation is not economic growth but the desire of making a difference in society. According to Schilling, innovation is: “The act of introducing a new device, method or material for application to commercial or practical objectives”(Schilling, 2005). Early literature mostly described product innovation as part of a product life cycle with accompanying segments (Levitt, 1965; Rogers, 1995; Perreault et al., 2000). The art of innovating – the continuous process of innovation – became part of a new era of business: innovation management: the aim to make the chance of successful technological and commercial innovation as large as possible (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Schilling, 2005). Many scholars have tried to identify phases or stages of innovation processes, resulting in the following stages of innovation: market research, idea generation, conceptual and technological development and commercialization (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour, 1997; Verhaeghe and Kfir, 2002; Adams et al., 2006), see table 3. Table 3: Overview of literature on innovation processes(Gopalakrishnan and (Adams et al., (Goffin and Pfeiffer, (Verhaeghe and Kfir, (Rothwell, 1992)Damanpour, 1997) 2006) 1999) 2002) InputsIdea Generation Knowledge Creativity Idea Generation Idea Generation managementProject Definition Human Resources Technology AcquisitionProblem Solving Strategy Innovation Strategy NetworkingDesign and development Project Portfolio Management Development Developing, management prototyping & manufacturingMarketing and commer- Commercialization Project management Commercialization Marketing & Salescialization Over the years, the context of innovation has changed rapidly, which had consequences on the methods and techniques used to address the above-mentioned phases (Rothwell, 1992; Chesbrough, 2003).
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012) Table 4: Overview of innovation processes in different contexts Market Idea Conceptual Commer- Research Generation Development cialisation Technology Fundamental Technical Production SalesExternal---------------------------------- Internal Push Science Design Market Pull Customer Developments Production Marketing & Requirements Sales Integrated Market Research Idea Generation Research & Marketing & Innovation Development Sales Open Market & Trend External Idea Open and Marketing & Innovation Research Generation Cooperative Sales Development Social Social (Media) Crowdsourcing Open Shared Innovation Research Development Business and Co- Models, Creation Participative Models Based upon (Rothwell, 1992; Chesbrough, 2003)So why this literature review? The goal of this review is to form hypothetical conclusions on the interface of socialentrepreneurship, social innovation and personality tests. These hypothetical conclusionspoint to possible directions for further research and provide useful inside to stakeholdersinvolved with social entrepreneurship. Regarding the earlier-mentioned change of entrepreneurial landscape and thedevelopment of social organizations it is interesting to explore literature on personality traitsof social entrepreneurs. Doing so will be relevant – in the first place - for social entrepreneursthemselves. They will get insight in their own personality traits and will get possibleexplanations of why “they have what it takes” or why “they don’t have what it takes” and howto adapt their behavior on these results. Moreover, organizations and institutions willing toemploy social entrepreneurs or socially-oriented managers, could find it useful to usepersonality indexing techniques to screen and select candidates. Lastly, it would be useful foreducational institutions who tutor and coach their students to prepare them for roles in socialorganizations.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Methodology Research on social entrepreneurship has been conducted by using the key words“social entrepreneurship” and “social business” in combination with keywords such aspersonality, characteristics, MBTI, behavior and the like. The number of results were notabundant and therefore case studies and internet sources have been included. Much of theresearch on social entrepreneurship is based on theoretical deviations instead of empiricalevidence. The data used for the recalculation of the distributions of personal characteristics ofsocial entrepreneurs is reliable, uses relatively large sample sizes and has adequately tested byt-tests, f-tests and accompanying p-values. However, it is unclear if all used terminologycorresponds to the same sample segments, i.e. “entrepreneurs” in one empirical study couldhave a different definition (and therefore different researched segment) than “entrepreneurs”in another publication. Research regarding Greiner’s model of growth has been conducted bycombining keywords such as Entrepreneurship, Organizational Growth and Innovation. Tonarrow down results, these searched have been performed in citations of Greiner’s 1972article and some of the most-cited citations that were published afterwards. Literature on thistopic is massive and therefore possibly not all relevant results could be included. There are afew systematic literature reviews, such as Levie & Lichtenstein, that have provided usefulinsight in the mass of literature on organizational growth.Questions The changing entrepreneurial landscape draws attention to the flexibility oforganizations to handle these changes. As pointed out earlier, one of the elements thatcharacterize organizational success are the personal characteristics of the founders orentrepreneurs themselves. In the context of social entrepreneurship, it would therefore berelevant to find out if there is a difference in personality between entrepreneurs in general,social entrepreneurs and the population as a whole. The above leads to three relevant questions: 1. In terms of MBTI, which personality traits characterize social entrepreneurs in contrary to entrepreneurs in general and the population as a whole? 2. In terms of MBTI, which personality traits characterize social entrepreneurs in contrary to managers and owner-managers of social organizations? 3. In terms of MBTI, which personality traits characterize social entrepreneurs in the context of (social) innovation?
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Personality traits of social entrepreneurs As said before, there are no studies relating MBTI personality traits to socialentrepreneurs. However, there are few sample studies that have tried to score “key values” ofentrepreneurs and among them are factors that indicate a social orientation. The main characteristics the authors contribute to social entrepreneurs are “SocialResponsibilty”, “Community Relations” and to a lesser extend “People Emphasis” (Reynierseet al., 2000). Results of the above are depicted in Table 5 Table 5: MBTI scores of some socially related key values of entrepreneurs.Source Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging- Data Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving(Myers et Total Population 0,7 -23,2 9,8 -4,1 --al., 1985)(Carland et Entrepreneurs -9,3 3,9 -3,7 1,6 N=430al., 1996;Huefner etal., 1996)(Reynierse Social 19.8 - 31.8 - N=122et al., 2000) Responsibility Community 20.8 - 33.3 - N=122 Relations People Emphasis 21.3 N=122 Reynierse et al. show evidence that social entrepreneurs are stronger than averagecorrelated to Introversion and Feeling, suggesting “the joint contribution of internalized reflection and personal, subjective values that extend beyond the immediate business relationship.” Reynierse didn’t find any evidence for the S-Naspects, so it would be reasonable to suggest that social entrepreneurs are, like entrepreneurs,strongly distributed towards the N (as compared to the total population). In contrary withentrepreneurs, who are in general over-represented in the NT temperament, socialentrepreneurs are over-represented in the NF temperament. Both entrepreneurs and socialentrepreneurs have a stronger tendency towards the J (judging) way of organizing life. Social entrepreneurs also distinguish themselves from other entrepreneurs on the factthat they are more introversion-oriented than their counterparts. By combining the above results, it is possible to give indications for distributions foreach type. The results are depicted in table 6. This results in the following top 6 personalitytypes that are over-represented compared to the population as a whole: Entrepreneurs: ENTP’s, ENTJ’s, INTP’s, INTJ’s, ENFP’s and ENFJ’s Social Entrepreneurs : INFP’s, INTJ’s, ENFP’s, INFJ’s, ENTP’s and INTP’s
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012) Table 6 : estimated distributions for all types (indexed, total population = 100) estp estj esfp esfj entp entj enfp enfj istp istj isfp isfj intp intj infp infjEntrepreneurs 114 91 66 52 363 289 211 168 76 60 44 35 242 193 141 112Social 60 50 68 56 183 152 208 172 71 59 81 67 218 181 247 205Entrepreneurs According to several studies, personalities could show significant differences depending on the stage and size, age of structure of the organization and the importance of innovation in the strategy of the organization (Carland et al., 1996; Levie and Lichtenstein, 2010). As noted earlier, Greiner has made an attempt to map the different phases of growth of organizations and the roles that entrepreneurs take in that growth. Many authors have elaborated on this model and few of them have proposed new or adapted models. Table 7 shows an overview of some of the most-cited articles and some recent views on new theories regarding ‘university spin-offs’ and high-tech start-ups (Ambos and Birkinshaw, 2010; Ferreira et al., 2011; Xiao, 2011). Table 7: Overview of literature on stages of organization growth (Greiner, (Scott and (Quinn and (Kazanjian, 1988; (Ambos and (Ferreira et (Xiao, 1972) Bruce, Cameron, Kazanjian and Birkinshaw, al., 2011) 2011) 1987) 1983) Drazin, 1989) 2010) Begin Entrepreneuring Conceptualisation Aspiration- Birth and Development driven Creativity Collectivity Ability-driven Expansion Start-up Direction Survival Formalisation Commercialisation Market-driven Early stage Delegation Growth and control Growht Late-stage Coordination Expansion Elaboration and Stability Collaboration Maturity structure Maturity Diversification Decline Levie and Lichtenstein have created a list of all models published between 1960 and 2010, concluding there is no consensus about the different stages and that most of them, regarding context, could be valid. There is few empirical evidence for Greiner’s phases of growth and the order in which companies go through them (Scott and Bruce, 1987; Whetten,
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)1987; Levie and Lichtenstein, 2010). Nevertheless, many scholars have found it interesting totry to characterize the different phases of organizational growth, see Table 8. Table 8: overview of characteristics of different stagesGreiner: Creativity Direction Delegation Coordination CollaborationScott & Bruce: Begin Survival Growth Expansion MaturityKazanjian: Development Commerciali Growth Stability Stability sationKey areas Customers, Incomes and Managing Financing Focus on costs production Costs growth and growth, control and productivity personnelRole of Direct supervision Supervision Delegate Decentralization Decentralizationmanagement on managersManagement Entrepreneurial, Entrepreneuri Entrepreneuria Professional, Watch Dogstyle individualistic al, l, coordinating Administrative administrativeOrganization Unstructured Simple Functional, Functional, Product-structure centralized decentralized oriented, decentralizedInnovation No Few Product- Innovation, Process development marketing Innovation 4Size 58,1 68,1 345,6 423,3 5Age 4,3 5,6 7,1 9,4Growth of Sales6 3,7% 4,2% 6,4% 1,8% Despite of the confusion about different stages of an organization’s life cycle, thereseems to be consensus about the size of organizations. Adopting the different stages fromXiao, the following three categories could be defined: Early-stage (stage 1): up to 50 employees; unstructured organizations Medium-stage (stage 2): 50-300 employees; simple functional structures Late-stage (stage 3-5): more than 300 employees; (de)centralized functional structures. There are some empirical results of scholars linking early-stage entrepreneurs,medium-stage entrepreneurs and late-stage entrepreneurs to personal characteristics (Hoy and4 Average number of employees5 Average age in years6 Percentage of previous age
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Hellriegel, 1982; Ginn and Sexton, 1988, 1989, 1990; Huefner et al., 1996). See results intable 9 and is meta-analyzed in table 10. Table 9: results from MBTI studies for entrepreneurs in different stagesSource (s) Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging- Data (d) Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving(Carland Entrepreneurs -12.2 0.5 -14.2 -1.7 N=114and Small-Business -6.1 -6.8 -7.6 -4.2 N=347Carland, Owners1992) Managers -2.9 -6.3 -15.2 -7.0 N=387(Huefner et Entrepreneurs -8.2 5.1 0.0 2.8 N=316al., 1996) Manager- 0.1 -11.1 3.5 -18.6 N=316 Owners Table 10: Meta-analyses on results:Source Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging- Formula for meta- Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving analysis(Carland Early-stage -9.3 3.9 -3.7 1.6and Entrepreneurs 2Carland,1992; Medium-stage Entrepreneurs -6.1 -6.8 -7.6 -4.2 s i 1 i diHuefner et Late-stage -1.6 -8.4 -6.8 -12.2 2al., 1996) Entrepreneurs d i 1 i Results show that entrepreneurs leading medium- and late-stage organizations aremore introversion-oriented than early-stage entrepreneurs. They are also much more S(sensing) compared to early-stage entrepreneurs and are more J (judging) than early-stageentrepreneurs. If these findings are to be extended to the field of social entrepreneurs, thenresults indicate that medium-stage and late-stage social entrepreneurs (i.e. leading medium-sized and large organization in the social field) will be more introversion-oriented, sensingand judging than early-stage social entrepreneurs. Comparing this with earlier-mentionedresults, this leads to the hypothesis that medium- and late-stage social entrepreneurs arecomplete opposites than early-stage entrepreneurs that don’t engage in social fields. As indicated earlier, it would not only be interesting just to know the personality typesof social entrepreneurs, but also to indicate if there is a difference in the way they formstrategies and tactics on innovation. Several studies have elaborated on comparisons betweenspecific characteristics that coherent with innovative entrepreneurs, such as risk-taking,innovativeness and result-orientation (Carland et al., 1996). According to Carland et al. twokey elements of entrepreneurs indicate their drive towards innovation and their achievementsskills (Carland et al., 1996). Results indicate that innovators score much higher on NT and to
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)some extent NF temperaments. There is a small relation between innovators and P(perceptive) personalities. This results in the suggestion that innovative social entrepreneurshave a personality that is even stronger focused on N (intuition) types and less focused on F(feeling) types. The latter, however, is still over-represented compared to entrepreneurs (fromvarious stages) in general.Table 11: MBTI results on innovativeness of entrepreneursSource (s) Characteristic Extroversion- Sensing- Thinking- Judging- Data (d) Introversion Intuition Feeling Perceiving(Carland et Innovativeness 13.0 -7.0 -0.2 N=114al., 1996) Visualizing some of the above, the differences can be seen clearly: Figure 2: Results from this studyFurther research This all leads to several hypotheses that should be tested with empirical, qualitativeresearch. First of all: social entrepreneurs seem to be more led by the F and I compared toentrepreneurs in general. On the N and J they seem to have equal personalities. Entrepreneursin medium- and late-stage organizations are even more introversion-oriented and less drive by
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)intuition. The J seems to get stronger. When innovation plays a role, entrepreneurs seem tolean mostly on their intuitions. This suggests that the same goes for social entrepreneurs. With the intention to find empirical evidence of these hypotheses, I would propose toconduct a case study on social entrepreneurs and social businesses. Moreover, a large sampleconsisting of social entrepreneurs as well as medium- and late-stage manager-owner’s andCEO’s from social organizations and entrepreneurs in general should undertake the MBTItest. In addition to the above, it would also be interesting to compare results with not-for-profit organizations and to include other psychological personality indexing techniques, suchas DISC, Big Five and key values.Conclusions The purpose of this exploratory research was to find indications in literature that socialentrepreneurs could possibly be characterized by using a personality index such as MBTI. Therationale for this purpose is the fast-changing landscape of entrepreneurism and the rise ofsocial entrepreneurism in recent years. It is therefore relevant to be able to sketch personalitytypes of social entrepreneurs in order to provide useful information for social entrepreneursthemselves, for organizations in general, when in need of social entrepreneurs, managers ofCEO’s and for educational institution in order to create course programs to teach students tobecome more socially conscious. Results suggest that there indeed seem to be distinctions between social entrepreneursand entrepreneurs in general. Also, extending the line found on question 2 – indicating thatmedium- and late-stage entrepreneurs differ from early-stage entrepreneurs – to socialentrepreneurs, it could be stated that medium- and late-stage social entrepreneurs havedifferent personalities than early-stage social entrepreneurs and are mostly opposites of early-stage entrepreneurs that don’t engage in social fields. Social entrepreneurs distinguish themselves principally on the fact that they are moreintroversion-oriented than their not-so-social counterparts and the fact that their choices aremuch more led by feelings than by logical reason. In contrary, late-stage entrepreneurs, suchas large corporation CEO’s, seem less influenced by feelings, but even more introversion-oriented. Types that possibly indicate a social-entrepreneur-to-be are INFP’s and INFJ’s, alsoreferred to as the “Guides” and the “Idealists”.
REFERENCESAdams, R., Bessant, J., Phelps, R., 2006. Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews 8, 21–47.Ambos, T.C., Birkinshaw, J., 2010. How Do New Ventures Evolve? An Inductive Study of Archetype Changes in Science-Based Ventures. Organization Science 21, 1125–1140.Baum, J.R., Locke, E.A., 2004. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 587.Begley, T.M., Boyd, D.P., 1987. Psychological characteristics associated with performence in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing 2, 79–93.Bessant, J., Tidd, J., 2007. Innovation and entrepreneurship. Wiley.Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1997. The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 1–34.Carland, J., Carland, J., 1992. Managers, small business owners and entrepreneurs: the cognitive dimension. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 4, 55–62.Carland, J.A., Carland, J.W., Stewart, W.H., 1996. Seeing what’s not there: The enigma of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Strategy 7, 1–20.Chesbrough, H.W., 2003. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.Crane, A., Matten, D., 2007. Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, USA.Ferreira, J.J.M., Azevedo, S.G., Cruz, R.P., 2011. SME Growth in the Service Sector: A Taxonomy combining Life-cycle and Resource-based Theories. The Service Industries Journal 31, 251–271.Ginn, C.W., Sexton, D.L., 1988. Psychological types of Inc. 500 founders and their spouses. Journal of Psychological Type 16, 3–12.Ginn, C.W., Sexton, D.L., 1989. Growth: A vocational choice and psychological preference. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College 1– 12.Ginn, C.W., Sexton, D.L., 1990. A comparison of the personality type dimensions of the 1987 Inc. 500 company founders/CEOs with those of slower-growth firms. Journal of business venturing 5, 313–326.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Goffin, K., Pfeiffer, R., 1999. Innovation management in UK and German manufacturing companies - OpenGrey.Gopalakrishnan, S., Damanpour, F., 1997. A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. Omega 25, 15–28.Greiner, L.E., 1972. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review 50, 37–46.Greiner, L.E., 1998. Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review 76, 55–68.Greiner, L.E., Cummings, T.G., 2004. Wanted. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, 374 –391.Hoy, F., Hellriegel, D., 1982. The Kilmann and Herden model of organizational effectiveness criteria for small business managers. Academy of Management Journal 308–322.Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K., Robinson, P.B., 1996. A comparison of four scales predicting entrepreneurship. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 1, 56–80.Jung, C.G., 1971. Psychological Types. Collected works of CG Jung, Vol. 6. Poutledge & Kegan Paul, University.Jung, C.G., Baynes, H., Hull, R., 1991. Psychological types. Routledge London.Kazanjian, R.K., 1988. Relation of Dominant Problems to Stages of Growth in Technology- Based New Ventures. Academy of Management Journal 31, 257–279.Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R., 1989. An Empirical Test of a Stage of Growth Progression Model. Management Science 35, 1489–1503.Keirsey, D., Bates, M., 1998. Please understand me: Temperament, character, intelligence. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company.Levie, J., Lichtenstein, B.B., 2010. A Terminal Assessment of Stages Theory: Introducing a Dynamic States Approach to Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice 34, 317–350.Levitt, T., 1965. Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review 43, 81–94.Low, M.B., MacMillan, I.C., 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges. Journal of Management 14, 139 –161.Mair, J., Martí, I., 2005. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Predication and Delight. IESE Business School, University of Navarra Working Paper.Myers, I.B., 1962. The myers-briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto, CA.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., Most, R., 1985. Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press Palo Alto, CA.OECD, 2012. The Social Enterprise Sector: A Conceptual Framework.Ortigueira, L.C., 2008. Criticism and Counter-Criticism of Public Management: Strategy Models. Business Research Yearbook, Global Business Perspectives. Rodney A. Oglesby & Marjorie G. Adams Editors. Publication of the International Academy of Business Disciplines 15, 742.Perreault, W.D., McCarthy, E.J., Parkinson, S., Stewart, K., 2000. Basic Marketing, European ed. McGraw-Hill, Berkshire.Prahalad, C., 2006. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Pearson Education India.Quinn, R.E., Cameron, K., 1983. Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science 29, 33.Reynierse, J.H., Ackerman, D., Fink, A.A., Harker, J.B., 2000. The effects of personality and management role on perceived values in business settings. International Journal of Value-Based Management 13, 1–13.Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.Rothwell, R., 1992. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management 22, 221–240.Schilling, M.A., 2005. Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. McGraw-Hill Irving, New York.Schumpeter, J.A., 1994. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Psychology Press.Scott, M., Bruce, R., 1987. Five Stages of Growth in Small Business. Long Range Planning 20, 45–52.Singh, G., DeNoble, A., 2003. Early retirees as the next generation of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27, 207–226.Tieger, P.D., Barron-Tieger, B., 2000. Just your type: Create the relationship you’ve always wanted using the secrets of personality type. Little, Brown and Company.Ven, A.H. van de, Poole, M.S., 1995. Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review 20, 510–540.Verhaeghe, A., Kfir, R., 2002. Managing innovation in a knowledge intensive technology organisation (KITO). R&D Management 32, 409–417.Whetten, D.A., 1987. Organizational Growth and Decline Processes. Annual Review of Sociology 13, 335–358.
Do you have what it takes? – J.P. Spruijt (2012)Xiao, L., 2011. Financing high-tech SMEs in China: A three-stage model of business development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 23, 217–234.