Introduction
There is a widespread notion that entrepreneurs are by nature risk-takers, individual rather than collective in outlook, and short-term innovators rather than long-term manager types (Thomas & Mueller, 2000). A universal assumption is that successful entrepreneurs are driven by their motivation to accomplish their goals, in spite of any possible setbacks. Intensely passionate about their work, they are often able and willing to invest 15 or more hours a day in their work when active (Houtz & Heasley, 2002).
Although they are extremely focused on achieving their dreams, it is noted that the most effective entrepreneurs are also highly responsive to their employees and customers. Finally, entrepreneurs possess a strong desire to learn and grow that is reflected in their willingness to ask questions and acquire new knowledge.
Based on the above profile, it is evident that entrepreneurs possess certain characteristics that enable them to be successful. On one hand, it is widely believed, wrongly or rightly, that men are more likely to be such risk-accepting innovators than are women, due to what are perceived to be inherent biological, psychological, and social differences between the sexes. On the other hand, women are considered to be relationship-oriented individuals who are able to relate to others—an important trait of a successful entrepreneur (Sonfield, Lussier, Corman, & McKinney, 2001).
Opinion of Psychologists
The psychological literature has studied the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs in great depth. One personality trait that has received the most attention in a variety of studies is the need for achievement that McClelland identified and explored in 1961. McClelland felt that achievement-oriented individuals were a necessary contributing factor to rapid economic development, and he went on to further argue that an orientation towards achievement could in fact be deliberately cultivated through socialization and training: that is, individuals could learn entrepreneurial behavior. McClelland described entrepreneurs as leaders who were proactive and committed to others, enjoyed taking personal responsibility for their decisions, preferred moderate risks, enjoyed feedback on their performance, and disliked routine and repetitive tasks.
McClelland is singularly noted, however, for his belief that the crucial characteristic of successful entrepreneurs is a need for achievement rather than a desire for monetary gain.
Other psychologists have focused on the relationship between an entrepreneur’s internal locus of control and venture performance. Internal locus of control refers to individuals’ innate belief that their destiny or performance is determined by their own actions rather than by external factors. The level of an individual’s internal locus of control is typically measured by the application of the psychometric scale known as the “Rotter scale” (Rotter, 1982).
However, findings have been inconclusive, suggesting that while entrepreneurs have a high internal locus of control, so do other types of successful business managers (Schiller & Crewson, 1997; van Praag & van Ophem, 1995). Psychologists have also studied the characteristics of risk taking found among entrepreneurs, theorizing that successful entrepreneurs are less risk averse than non-entrepreneurs. This argument reflects the more general belief that entrepreneurial entry requires a more risk-seeking attitude.
Van Praag and her colleagues (2002) found that entrepreneurs were more willing to gamble than employees, and that risk-taking individuals were more likely to choose to become entrepreneurs. However, some scholars argued that the distinction between positive approaches to risk taking and optimism is blurry, and that since there is research that tells us that entrepreneurs interpret their environments more positively than non-entrepreneurs (Norton & Moore, 2002; Palich & Bagby, 1995), it is difficult to analytically distinguish true risk attitudes from over optimism with regard to risk outcomes. Xu and Ruef’s (2004) analyses of nascent entrepreneurs from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics suggested that nascent entrepreneurs are in fact more risk averse in the pursuit of pecuniary rewards than the general population.
A more recent stream of psychological research has revived the focus on individual traits as drivers of entrepreneurial performance. In particular, the work of Baum and Locke and their co-authors focused on the influence of individual skills, motivations, and personality traits on venture performance (Baum & Locke, 2004; Baum, Locke & Smith 2001).
Their studies of venture performance in the architectural woodwork industry suggested that while personality traits like tenacity, passion for work, and proactivity do not have direct effects on venture performance, they do have indirect effects. Specifically, they found that these traits were positively correlated with the CEO’s general and specific skills, as well as their level of motivation. Since skills and motivation have direct effects on venture performance, the overall model implies that the traits in question influence venture performance, albeit indirectly (Baum et al., 2001; Baum & Locke, 2004).
Baum and Locke did not relate the traits they studied to the Big Five personality factors studied by Ciavaralla et al. (2004), although tenacity and perseverance appear to be similar constructs. In this way these studies provided suggestive evidence that something like conscientiousness improves venture performance. However, it should be noted that Baum and Locke’s study samples were not limited to entrepreneurial ventures (although Baum and Locke, 2004, excluded ventures that have been sold to new proprietors). This suggests that the individual traits they identified as being important in venture performance may be generic leadership characteristics, as opposed to factors that are uniquely important to the entrepreneurial context.
Gender Difference
Gender difference studies conducted in societal settings have proven to be both revealing and controversial, yielding contradictory results. Throughout recorded history and across most cultures, females have commonly been expected to defer to males in all aspects of life (Glick & Fiske, 2000). In general, males have occupied more socially prominent positions than their female counterparts. Moreover, men are expected to be act more aggressively and violently than women. In fact, even young boys are often required to prove their masculinity via strenuous competitive and aggressive behavior.
These socially conditioned gender differences have traditionally reinforced a patriarchy in which men define the social norms, occupy public positions, formulate laws and rules, and control women (Reeves, 2000). Regardless of the advances made by women in recent years, the bias against women in the professional world is evidenced by the fact that they continue to struggle with the underlying sexual stereotypes that are prevalent in society. One of the dominant reasons for this is the self-perception of many women as interlopers in a male world or as being forced to play a game they did not create.
In some studies, (Lipman-Blumen, 1996; Reskin & Padavic, 1994; Wellington, 1999) researchers have found that women and men exhibit the same type of behaviors and abilities in leadership roles. Specifically, these women exhibit the aggressiveness, the analytical nature, and the orientation toward tasks, instead of toward relationships—characteristics that are generally associated with women.
Contrary to the stereotypical conceptions of female behavior that are manifested in the leadership styles, Lipman-Blumen (1996) argued that these female leaders could be even more task-oriented than their male counterparts—a behavioral characteristic that is typically related to men. Furthermore, women’s predisposition towards accomplishing tasks by forging relationships also proved to be unfounded in Lipman-Blumen’s research. As with male leaders, the female leaders tended to focus on accomplishing tasks without relying on relationships (Lipman-Blumen, 1996).
The behavior of successful women in leadership positions can be explained by the fact that they have natural inborn preferences, or have opted to adopt the masculine style of leadership so that their male peers and employers would accept them. Because male employers often promote employees who share similar social characteristics and traits with them, they are more likely to promote men to the upper ranks (Reskin & Padavic, 1994). Alternatively, a style of leadership that is considered masculine could be an inborn preference.
Lipman-Blumen (1996) reported that other researchers have stated that women exhibited “feminine” characteristics of leadership such as a willingness to share decision-making powers and to lead collaboratively. According to Steers & Black (1994), women in leadership positions regarded themselves as transformational leaders. These types of leaders seek to influence the attitudes of subordinates and build a sense of commitment in an effort to achieve the organization’s goals and overall mission.
Their influence over the employees stemmed largely from leaders’ high self-confidence, their ability to articulate a vision, and a willingness to assume high personal risks and to use unconventional strategies to realize their goals. They were leaders who aimed to achieve the common purpose of the organization by forging a supportive and stimulating environment in order to enable each employee to harness their potential and fulfill their objectives (Steers & Black, 1994).
In direct contrast, the men in the same research study considered themselves to be transactional leaders. Transactional leaders have a symbiotic relationship with their subordinates. Recognizing the fact that each individual gains from the other through their symbiotic relationship, these leaders offer their resources in anticipation of receiving rewards in return. They are able to motivate their employees by appealing to the latter’s self-interest and eliciting their obedience by offering them specific rewards when the designated tasks are completed (Steers & Black, 1994). Similarly, Rosener also supported the fact that male and female leaders utilized different approaches to motivate their subordinates.
While male leaders tended to derive their authority from their formal positions, female leaders strove to convert the employees’ self-interest into an overall commitment to the well being of the organization. Rather than order and control their employees, female leaders invested their energies in forging strong relationships with their subordinates and promoting a positive environment. In addition, they encouraged employees to participate in the decision-making process (Rosener, as cited in O’Toole, 1996).
Weiler & Bernasek (2001) noted that women entrepreneurs may struggle against the established networks of suppliers, creditors, and customers that remain male-dominated. Women may have difficulties moving into the upper echelons of their fields, even in the absence of direct discrimination, as they are excluded from these networks. A comparison of the gender profit difference and the wage difference between genders, using the earnings of self-employed women and men as success indicators, shows that the gender profit difference is larger than the gender earnings difference.
Another, more important consideration with regards to entrepreneurship should be one that relates to deciding to become an entrepreneur based on the notion that that an entrepreneurial career should be both attractive and practical. The decision involves assessment of personal feelings on control, independence, and risk tolerance. A common concern about potential entrepreneurs is whether they will be able to sustain enough drive and energy to create and manage a new business. Are they driven by an inner need to succeed and win? Will they have the courage to set aside personal feelings and do what is in the best interest of the business?
Closely related to the feeling of control is the need for independence. A potential entrepreneur should consider whether he/she is the type of person who needs to do things in his/her own way and time. As an entrepreneur, are you self-motivated and willing to do whatever it takes to get the job completed on time and have pride in doing the job well? To acquire independence, an entrepreneur must be willing to undertake a certain amount of risk. Each potential entrepreneur should assess his/her risk-taking behavior. Depending on the level of risk associated with the decision, an entrepreneur must be comfortable with his/her decision.
While a potential entrepreneur does not need to be totally self-directed, or a totally independent risk-taker [as the trait theories suggest], an awareness of individual characteristics is needed before deciding on entrepreneurship as a career. Each individual has strengths and an opportunity to develop skills. While the data for education were at best ambiguous, unequivocal, intuitively contradictory, becoming a successful entrepreneur has more to do with assertiveness, drive, energy, independence, and developing networks. Successful entrepreneurship is a characteristic that will be unique to each individual, not a general mix.
References
Allen, K. (1996). What do women want? Inc., 18(12), 27-28.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). Relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 587–598.
Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A. & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 292-303.
Ciavarella, M. A., Bucholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood ,R. D, & Stokes, G. S. (2004). The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 465-483.
Devine, T. (1994). Characteristics of self-employed women in the United States. Monthly Labor Review, 20-34.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.
Helms, M. M. (1997). Women and entrepreneurship: The appealing alternative. Business Perspectives, 10(1), 16-19.
Houtz, J., & Heasley, K. (2002). Seize the American dream: 10 entrepreneurial success strategies. Scottsdale, AZ: JaGrand.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1996). Connective edge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Murrell, A. J. & James, E. H. (2001). Gender and diversity in organizations: Past, present, and future directions. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 243.
Norton, W. I., & Moore, W. T. (2002). Entrepreneurial risk: Have we been asking the wrong question? Small Business Economics, 18, 281-287.
O’Toole, J. (1996). Leading change. New York: Ballantine Books.
Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risktaking: Challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425-438.
Reeves, M. (2000). Suppressed, forced out, and fired: How successful women lose their jobs. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Reskin, B., & Padavic, I. (1994). Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 191.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). Development and applications of social learning theory: Selected papers. New York: Praeger.
Schiller, B. R. & Crewson, P. E. (1997). Entrepreneurial origins: A longitudinal inquiry. Economic Inquiry, 35.
Smith, P. L., & Smits, S. J. (1994). Feminization of leadership. Training and Development, 48(2), 43-47.
Steers, R. M., & Black, J. S. (1994). Organizational behavior. New York: Harper Collins.
Thomas, A. S., & Mueller, S. L. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 287.
Weiler, S., & Bernasek, A. (2001). Dodging the glass ceiling? Networks and the new wave of women entrepreneurs. Social Science Journal, 38(1), 85-103.
Wellington, S. (1999). Advancing women in business: You’ve come a long way maybe! Vital Speeches of the Day, 65, 637-639.
van Praag, C. M., & van Ophem, H. (1995). Determinants of willingness and opportunity to start as an entrepreneur. Kyklos, 48, 513-540.
Xu, H. & Ruef, M. (2004). Myth of the risk tolerant entrepreneur. Strategic Organization, 2, 331-355.