An empirical examination of the relationship of personality and the propensity for self-venturing.
Gaulden, Corbett ; Jackson, William T. ; Gaster, Walter 等
Like human beings, firms are constantly being born that cannot
live. Others may meet...death from accident or illness. Still others die
a "natural" death, as men die of old age. And the
"natural" cause, in the case of firms, is precisely their
inability to keep up the pace in innovating which they themselves had
been instrumental in setting in the time of their vigor.
(Schumpeter, 1934, pp. 94-95)
ABSTRACT
Over the last several years, a handful of researchers have shown
renewed interest in demonstrating the relationship of cognition and
entrepreneurial intent. Drawing from this Herculean effort, the authors
continue the search for a personality linkage. One hundred and seventeen
undergraduate students from two diverse southwestern universities were
administered the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Carland
Entrepreneurial Index (CEI). Results provide further support of a
cognitive relationship as well as implications for continued research.
INTRODUCTION
Since 1984 (Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland) considerable
debate has centered on defining the entrepreneur. One school of thought
has taken (what these authors consider) the easy way out by maintaining
that anyone that engages in self-venturing is an entrepreneur. At the
other end of this continuum, an aggressive, robust, and maybe (some may
contend) fool-hearty group still contends that understanding the
cognitive relationship of the individual and the venture is critical for
better appreciating entrepreneurship.
The purpose of this paper will be to continue the monumental task
of searching for a relationship between personality and the propensity
to self-venture. It is worth repeating, the intent of this research is
not to provide evidence of differences between small businesses and
entrepreneurs, but rather, to accept the conclusions drawn by Carland,
Carland and Hoy (1992), Jackson, Watts and Wright (1993) that: the
entrepreneur and his/her activity is best defined on a continuum; and,
that there exists a "clear and pressing need to establish a valid
measure of entrepreneurship" (Carland, Carland & Ensley, 2001).
We also hope to provide further support to the convergent validity of
the CEI with the MBTI as a means of defining the entrepreneur.
To accomplish this, we provide a brief history of the "E"
debate, an overview of the instruments recommended for future research,
and an empirical examination of the relationship between the two
instruments. The ultimate outcome is that we contribute a small part in
ensuring that entrepreneurship research does not suffer a slow death as
described by Schumpeter's opening quote.
THE LINE IN THE SAND
From the mid-fifties into the mid-eighties, considerable discussion
of the entrepreneur and his/her characteristics was carried on regularly
in the literature. As Table 1 suggests, characteristics assigned to the
entrepreneur were quite diverse. For the most part, this early research
paid little if any attention to the type of small businessperson being
investigated. Carland, Hoy, Boulton and Carland (1984), however,
categorically insisted that our point of research orientation had to be
narrowed. A "Mom and Pop" small business owner had to be
different from one that started a venture that grew into a larger
corporation. Many applauded quietly while others beat their war drums to
the contrary.
Probably the most vocal of the dissenters was Gartner (1988).
Gartner, is essence, drew the line in the sand and strongly declared
that it does not matter-self-venturing is entrepreneurship. Considering
that there had already been recent calls in the management and marketing
disciplines for a more scientific, quantitative approach to research, it
is no surprise that many joined Gartner's camp.
For the most part, the years since have witnessed a limited
approach to discussion of cognition and the entrepreneur. The Carlands
have held fast in their convictions to expand research in this area
(Carland, Hoy & Carland, 1988; Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland,
1988; Carland & Carland, 1991, 1992, 1997, 2001; Ensley, Carland
& Carland, 1998; Stewart, Carland & Carland, 1996; Carland,
Carland & Stewart, 1996; Carland, Carland & Carland, 1995).
Fortunately, a few others have followed in the vein of the
"cognitive connection" (Forsgren, 1990; Ginn & Sexton,
1990; Sexton & Ginn, 1990; Brodzinski, Scherer & Wiebe, 1990;
Dugan, Feeser & Plaschka, 1990; Jackson, Watts & Wright, 1993;
Reynierse, 1997; Tampere & Koiranen, 2000).
Still others (most very recently) have actually offered specific
approaches to take. It was suggested that we should explore
"potential" (Palmer, 1971), "conative (motivational and
volitional) constructs" (Ruothotie & Koiranen, 2000),
"psychological ownership" (Pierce,Kostova & Dirks, 2001),
"psychological correlates" (Stewart, 1996),
"entrepreneurial teams" (Ensley, 1999), "skills"
(Robinson & Herron, 2001), and "strategic continuums"
(Jackson, Watts & Wright, 1993). While many declare the need-none
have offered the validated means to accomplish the task.
The Carlands have done just this by suggesting that it is quite
appropriate to apply multiple measurement scales to the "E"
phenomenon (Carland, Carland & Ensley, 2001). They have not stopped
with just the idea-they have put forth the effort to provide the initial
support for answering the question of who is the dancer.
PRIOR RESEARCH
Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Entrepreneur
Before discussing the prior research accomplished with the MBTI in
terms of entrepreneurial personality traits, a general overview of this
instrument is warranted. One of the most succinct explanations of this
instrument was provided by Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer (1998):
The purpose of the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI) personality
inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C.
G. Jung (1921/1971) understandable and useful in peoples' lives.
The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in
behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic
differences in the way individuals prefer to use their perception and
judgment (p. 3).
The means of accomplishing the separation needed to define types is
based upon responses to forced choice questions that focus on four basic
principles. These principles are: where does an individual prefer to
focus their energies-internally or externally; how does an individual
prefer to perceive stimuli-through their senses or through intuitive
relationships; how does an individual make judgments-impersonally based
upon logical consequences or rather on personal or social values; and
how does an individual prefer to deal with the world-either through
thinking or feeling or through sensing or intuition. These dichotomies
are shown below in Table 2. The combination of responses allows for
sixteen possible individual personality types.
The instrument (through numerous revisions) has been examined
within over "4,000 research studies, journal articles, and
dissertations ... since 1962 (Myers et al, 1998, p. 10). Considerable
tests of validity and reliability of the instrument have occurred within
many of these studies. However, only a limited number of studies have
specifically focused on entrepreneurs. The authors have set out to add
to that limited literature in the current research.
As is evidenced by Table 3 below, each preference has a dichotomous element that leans toward previously identified traits of the
entrepreneur. While experts in the area of MBTI development stress that
it is the collective groupings of these dichotomies that provide full
meaning, the individual pairings still provide considerable insight into
the individual's characteristics.
Numerous researchers have examined the differences in these
individual preferences over the last decade in a wide variety of
populations. Some have specifically addressed the difference between
small business owners and entrepreneurs, while others have focused on
the assumed characteristics of the entrepreneur.
Fasiska (1992) as well as Carland and Carland (1992) determined
that entrepreneurs demonstrated a higher E value (preferring to focus
their attention on the outer-world versus their inner world) than did
managers. The Carland study also supported the direct difference between
small business owners and entrepreneurs with the same findings.
Several studies have provided support for the conclusion that
entrepreneurs (or potential entrepreneurs) demonstrated a preference for
collecting information through intuition (N) versus through hard cold
facts (S) (Fasiska, 1992; Carland & Carland, 1992; Carland, Carland,
Hoy & Boulton, 1988; Ginn & Sexton, 1990; and, Sexton &
Bowman, 1985). These results are not surprising given almost all
research (whether theoretical or empirical) has recognized the
entrepreneur as being innovative (Palmer, 1971), a change-agent
(Drucker, 1985), as an individual that through his/her foresight "upsets and disorganizes" (Weber, 1958), or is the means for
"creative destruction" (Schumpeter, 1934). Or as Stewart
(1996) suggests, the commonality among [entrepreneurs] was the ability
to see what was not there, to envision the creation of a new
venture" (p xi).
Results of studying the third preference (T-F) have provided mixed
signals. As can be seen by referring back to each preference as
discussed in table 2, this is probably to be expected. It may very well
be that, entrepreneurs (as is probably the case with most business
managers) must, at times, base conclusions on facts (Carland &
Carland, 1992; Reynierse, 1993; Roach, 1986). In addition, entrepreneurs
have often been recognized as individuals with high personal values.
Thus, two dilemmas surface--this is probably an area we cannot expect
differences with business people in general, and that the entrepreneur
may use each preference T or F with equal ease.
The final preference P--J has also received reasonable support in
the literature regarding the entrepreneur. Several studies have shown
the entrepreneur preferring to deal with the outer-world using P rather
than J (Reynierse, 1993; Roach, 1986; Fasiska, 1992, Carland &
Carland, 1992, Sexton & Ginn, 1996). It is also reasonable to expect
these results--the entrepreneur is expected to exercise considerable
adaptability when maneuvering a new venture into the market.
While the above summary of preference for information-related
processes is encouraging from a theoretical perspective, it still enjoys
only limited empirical support. For the most part, the entrepreneur has
been ill defined (as has been the case of most entrepreneur/small
business research), and the sample has often been questionable.
The Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI)
In 1992, Carland, Carland and Hoy presented a manuscript on
empirical validation of a new entrepreneurship scale-the CEI. The
authors based this instrument on considerable research in "...
entrepreneurial planning, characteristic behavior and distinctions, and
[borrowed] heavily from the literature of cognitive psychology."
What emerged was an investigative tool that evaluated entrepreneurial
drive on a continuum rather than as a dichotomous condition.
Results of this study proved promising. In their study of
"conative" constructs, Ruohotie and Koiranen (2000) lauded the
value of this instrument. According to these authors, "... the
widely known Carland Index nicely aggregates four key elements of
entrepreneurship: personality, innovativeness, risk-taking propensity,
and strategic posture" (p 11). Validation of the instrument
remained, however, a work in progress-that is until recently.
In their recent study (Carland, Carland & Ensley, 2001), these
pioneers in the field provided considerable support in terms of
reliability, discriminant and convergent validity, as well as some
predictive validity. The results indicated, "... personality
behavioral elements which have traditionally been associated with
entrepreneurship were correlated with the entrepreneurship index at a
high level and in the correct direction" (p. 67). The authors
downplayed the success of the study and vowed to improve the scale
(especially in the area of its predictive qualities).
The authors need to give themselves more credit. It was, indeed, a
tremendous success in that through the results we can discriminate between different types of entrepreneurs on a continuum. While many have
suspected this (Jackson, Watts & Wright, 1993; Carland &
Carland, 1997), an instrument for confirmation is now in place. This
marks a new stage in entrepreneurial research, and one that brings us a
major step closer to defining the "E" word. Most great
researchers (and the same might be said for true entrepreneurs) are
never satisfied until total resolution occurs, but in the interim we
should be applauding loudly. The research community has an obligation to
continue along this path until additional modifications of the
instrument are made, thus providing support for the quantum leap in
research results that will surely occur.
HYPOTHESES
The current research is based on the implicit assumption that a
group of advanced business students will exhibit personality
characteristics in common with persons actively engaged in business.
More particularly, business students will compare well with other groups
of businesspersons in terms of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
Furthermore, prior research suggests certain relationships between
the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) results and the score value on
the Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI). In particular, more
"entrepreneurial" persons are expected to show a stronger
tendency to E over I. They should also show a greater likelihood for T
over F, N over S and for P over J. These statements are based on the
discussion offered earlier in conjunction with Table 3. It would be
expected that these correlations would be present in the business
student population as well. Given those a priori expectations, the
following four working hypotheses regarding traits were developed for
evaluation in the current research.
H1: Respondents scoring higher on the CEI should exhibit preference
for E over I on the MBTI.
H2: Respondents scoring higher on the CEI should exhibit preference
for N over S on the MBTI.
H3: Respondents scoring higher on the CEI should exhibit preference
for T over F on the MBTI.
H4: Respondents scoring higher on the CEI should exhibit preference
for P over J on the MBTI.
A fifth hypotheses was formulated based more generally on the
literature. This hypothesis relates to types rather than traits. The
hypothesis states that ESTJ and ISTJ types will be more common among
more entrepreneurial persons.
H5: Respondents scoring higher on the CEI should prefer ESTJ and ISTJ
over other types.
THE SAMPLE
A sample of upper-level undergraduate business students from two,
small rural universities completed both the MBTI and the CEI scales.
Some 117 useable sets of responses were obtained from the students. The
analyses that follow are based on the data obtained from that sample of
students. Before turning to the analysis, however, a brief profile of
the sample is provided. The sample was young, as would be expected of
undergraduates. Over 62% were between the ages of 19 and 25, and 20.5%
were in the 26 to 35 group. The selection of the sample was secondary to
the source of the sample elements. The researchers desired to gather
data in classes composed of advanced business students. Over 85% of the
students were, in fact, seniors and another 12% were juniors. As far as
gender is concerned, 53.8% of the students were women and 46.2% were
men. The only other major demographic concern in the research was
exposure to the small business environment. Three questions were
directed at this issue. Only 21% of the students surveyed reported
having owned their own businesses. On the other hand, over 50% reported
that their parents owned their own small businesses. In addition, over
82% of the students reported they had been (or currently were) employed
by a small business at least once. The researchers saw nothing in this
data that was surprising or alarming.
Historically, there have been some concerns about using student
groups as populations in research. That concern does not apply in the
current research because the researchers specifically wanted to know
about students. However, that concern is real. For that reason, the
researchers decided to "compare" the MBTI profile of the
student sample to some other relevant, known group. Reynierse (1997)
reports on several samples that might be of interest. One sample, in
particular, discussed originally by Carland and Carland (1992) consisted
partly of small business owners in a larger study of several
populations. While that analysis is beyond the scope of this study, the
researchers found no significant differences between the current student
sample and the reported sample insofar as any traits on the MBTI are
concerned. The analysis used was a standard SSRT Comparison used for
such purposes.
DATA ANALYSIS
A note on CEI scoring
The analytical technique selected for the hypotheses specified
above, was a simple analysis of proportions. Before beginning the
analysis, the authors had to decide on the "degree of
granularity" for the Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) scores.
The decision to specify two levels of granularity was based on a lack of
clear guidance in the literature. The researchers were not able to find
any specification of a cut-off point for delineating between high and
low levels of CEI. It did not seem appropriate to just choose some
score. After some deliberation, the researchers decided to approach the
question on the basis of the content of the data. At one level of
granularity, the researchers decided to allow a boundary based on
cumulative distribution. Because the interest was vested in higher CEI
scores (see the hypotheses), the groups came out as follows:
LOW CEI score of 20 or less
HIGH CEI score of 21 or higher
In order to consider other approaches to deciding on the High/Low
CEI issue, the researchers determined to also use a tercile approach.
The decision as to what constitutes a tercile was also based on
cumulative frequency. The groups fell out as specified below:
LOW CEI score of 18 or less
MEDIUM CEI score of 19 to 22
HIGH CEI score of 23 or higher
These decision rule results indicate a tight compaction of scores
around the score of 20 or 21. Analysis of the data (presented below) for
the four stated hypotheses was carried out on the basis of both score
category schemes.
The High/Low approach to the data yielded 54 respondents with
"Low" scores (20 or less) on the CEI and 63 respondents with
"High" scores (21 or more) on the CEI. The other approach
High/Medium/Low yielded 36 respondents with "Low" scores (18
or less), 40 with "Medium" scores (19-22) and 41 with
"High" scores (22 or above) on the CEI. Having dispensed with
the issue of granularity in the analysis, the following tables present
the results of the analysis for each of the four hypotheses in turn.
In the following discussion of hypothesis tests, both the 2-group
and 3-group CEI groupings are tested. Furthermore, the reader should
note that in the data analysis tables, the MBTI anchors are presented in
the order specified in the hypotheses, which is not the customary order.
Specifically, in Hypothesis 2, the order in the table is reversed from
the normal S-N to N in the first data column since the hypothesis
predicts N as dominant in the case at hand. Also for the discussion of
Hypothesis 4, the columns are reversed from the customary J-P to present
P first in keeping with the prediction in the hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 predicted that respondents who scored higher on the
Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) would be more likely to prefer
personality trait E (extraversion) over trait I (introversion). Results
were generated using both the 2-group and the 3-group approaches. These
results are presented and discussed below.
Using the 2-group (High vs. Low) approach, the following data were
obtained:
E (%) I (%)
Low CEI (< 20) 27 (50%) 27 (50%)
High CEI (>21) 45 (71%) 18 (29%)
At first glance, the data support the hypothesis that High CEI
types are more likely to prefer E over I on the MBTI. These results are
significant (using the Pearson chi-square test) at the .018 level.
Using the 3-group (High-Medium-Low) approach, the following data
were obtained:
E (%) I (%)
Low CEI (< 18) 14 (39%) 22 (61%)
Medium CEI (=19-22) 26 (65%) 14 (35%)
High CEI (>21) 32 (78%) 9 (22%)
The hypothesis is supported at the .002 level by the Pearson test.
Obviously, the data overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that High
CEI score respondents are more likely to demonstrate preference for
Extraversion over Introversion on the MBTI.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 predicted that respondents who scored higher on the
Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) would be more likely to prefer
personality trait N (intuition) over trait S (sensing). Using the
2-group (High vs. Low) approach, the following data were obtained:
N (%) S (%)
Low CEI (< 20) 30 (43%) 40 (57%)
High CEI (>21) 33 (70%) 14 (30%)
Again, the data support the hypothesis that High CEI types are more
likely to prefer N over S on the MBTI. These results are significant
(using the Pearson chi-square test) at the .004 level.
Using the 3-group (High-Medium-Low) approach, the following data
were obtained:
N (%) S (%)
Low CEI (< 18) 11 (31%) 25 (69%)
Medium CEI (=19-22) 11 (28%) 29 (73%)
High CEI (>21) 25 (61%) 16 (39%)
The hypothesis is supported at the .003 level by the Pearson test.
Again, the data overwhelmingly support the hypothesis that High CEI
score respondents are more likely to demonstrate preference for
Intuition over Sensing on the MBTI.
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 predicted that respondents who scored higher on the
Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) would be more likely to prefer
personality trait T (thinking) over trait F (feeling). Results were
generated using both the 2-group and the 3-group approaches. These
results are presented and discussed below.
Using the 2-group (High vs. Low) approach, the following data were
obtained:
T (%) F (%)
Low CEI (< 20) 26 (48%) 28 (52%)
High CEI (>21) 41 (65%) 22 (35%)
Again, the data support the hypothesis that High CEI types are more
likely to prefer T over F on the MBTI. These results are significant
(using the Pearson chi-square test) at the .065 level.
Using the 3-group (High-Medium-Low) approach, the following data
were obtained:
T (%) F (%)
Low CEI (< 18) 14 (39%) 22 (61%)
Medium CEI (=19-22) 27 (68%) 13 (32%)
High CEI (>21) 26 (63%) 15 (37%)
The hypothesis is supported at the .026 level by the Pearson test.
The test results are not as strong as in the test of the first two
hypotheses, but are convincing nonetheless. The data definitely support
the hypothesis that High CEI score respondents are more likely to
demonstrate Thinking over Feeling on the MBTI.
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 predicted that respondents who scored higher on the
Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) would be more likely to prefer
personality trait P (perceiving) over trait J (judging). Results were
generated using both the 2-group and the 3-group approaches. These
results are presented and discussed below.
Using the 2-group (High vs. Low) approach, the following data were
obtained:
P (%) J (%)
Low CEI (< 20) 16 (30%) 38 (70%)
High CEI (>21) 25 (40%) 38 (60%)
In this case, the data do not support the hypothesis that High CEI
types are more likely to prefer P over J on the MBTI.
Using the 3-group (High-Medium-Low) approach, the following data
were obtained:
P (%) J (%)
Low CEI (< 18) 13 (36%) 23 (64%)
Medium CEI (=19-22) 15 (38%) 25 (62%)
High CEI (>21) 13 (32%) 28 (68%)
The 3-group granularity in the definition of level of CEI score
also failed to support the hypothesis.
The test results clearly argue against the hypothesis that high CEI
respondents are more likely to prefer Perceiving over Judging on the
MBTI. In this case, in fact, the distribution of selection of Perceiving
and Judging are remarkably constant across the two approaches to
granularity.
Before proceeding with the final hypothesis, which is really of a
different kind, the reader might be interested in some reflections on
the bigger picture with respect to the first four hypotheses. Consider
the following data on the MBTI traits without regard to CEI score.
Characteristic N
Extraversion 72
Intraversion 45
Sensing 70
Intuition 47
Thinking 67
Feeling 50
Judging 76
Perceiving 41
Note that we have highlighted the trait in each pair that is the
predicted variable in the first four hypotheses. We will have more to
say on this data in the implications section.
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 5 predicted that respondents who scored higher on the
Carland Entrepreneurial Index (CEI) would prefer personality types ESTJ
and ISTJ over other personality types. One important aspect of this
hypothesis is that ESTJ and ISTJ are only two of the sixteen types
available in MBTI type research. This means there are fourteen other
types that could be selected. This compounds selection because there is
only a one in eight probability that one of the two specified types
would be "uncovered" at random with any given respondent. With
fairly small samples, a strong bias against the hypothesis is built in.
But, you need a hypothesis to move things forward.
The researchers first looked at simple counts to test this
hypothesis. For the 117 students surveyed, the following results ensued.
The sixteen types are listed in order of counts from most frequent to
least frequent.
Clearly, something related to the hypothesis of interest is going
on. The two types predicted to dominate the data for high CEI
respondents are the two most frequent for the entire sample. Together
they account for 29% of all respondents. On a strictly random basis,
they should account for only 12.5%. Of course, MBTI types do not occur
in completely equal proportions. Some types are relatively more (and
some relatively less) common in the population. It is possible that the
preponderance of these two types in the sample would mask the
proposition inherent in the hypothesis.
TYPE N
ESTJ 19
ISTJ 15
ENFP 11
ISFJ 10
ESFJ 10
ENTJ 9
ENFJ 9
ENTP 7
ISTP 5
INTP 5
ESFP 4
INTJ 4
ISFP 4
ESTP 3
INFP 2
INFJ 0
However, the question at hand relates to the sample itself. Are the
students in the study who produced higher CEI scores more likely than
students in the study who produced lower CEI scores, to prefer ESTJ or
ISTJ types on the MBTI? Again, the test of choice is a simple test of
proportions. As before, results were generated using both the 2-group
CEI and the 3-group CEI approaches. These results are presented and
discussed below.
Using the 2-group (High vs. Low) approach, the following data were
obtained:
ESTJ/ISTJ (%) Not ESTJ/ISTJ (%)
Low CEI (< 20) 17 (31%) 37 (69%)
High CEI (>21) 17 (27%) 46 (73%)
In this case, the data do not support the hypothesis that High CEI
types are more likely to prefer ESTJ or ISTJ over other MBTI types--at
least not at a higher rate than the low CEI respondents. This is obvious
in that the Low CEI group actually selected ESTJ/ISTJ at a slightly
higher proportion than the High CEI group.
Using the 3-group (High-Medium-Low) approach, the following data
were obtained:
ESTJ/ISTJ (%) Not ESTJ/ISTJ (%)
Low CEI (< 18) 9 (25%) 27 (75%)
Medium CEI (=19-22) 15 (38%) 25 (62%)
High CEI (>21) 10 (24%) 31 (76%)
The finer granularity in the 3-group definition of level of CEI
score also failed to support the hypothesis. Interestingly, in this
case, the highest proportion was for the medium CEI group, while the low
CEI and high CEI groups were almost identical in distribution.
The test results clearly argue against the hypothesis that high CEI
respondents are more likely to prefer ESTJ and ISTJ types over all other
MBTI types relative to lower CEI respondents.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The researchers set out to consider a simple problem. This problem
relates to the correlation between the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI)
and the Carland Entrepreneurship Index (CEI). The discussion of the
background literature related to the MBTI and the CEI led to the
specification of five very straightforward hypotheses. Data were
collected from 117 undergraduate students using a convenience sampling
technique. The student respondents were recruited in senior level
business classes. We assumed that the student group would exhibit some
tendency toward entrepreneurship greater than the general population.
The researchers concede that the sample is fairly small, but the study
is exploratory in nature.
Table 3 specifies the predictions to be found in the first four of
the five hypotheses. The table and accompanying hypotheses (1-4) predict
specific trait preferences based on an analysis of existing literature.
Specifically, we predicted that respondents who scored higher on the CEI
would prefer one trait over the other on each of the four MBTI
dichotomies (E over I, N over S, T over F, and P over J). Three of these
four hypotheses were supported by the data collected from the sample. To
wit, the data indicated a significant preference for E over I, for N
over S and for T over F. The last of the trait related hypotheses was
not supported by the data. It is possible that the small sample size
used in the study confounded this hypothesis. For the whole sample, 65%
(76) of the respondents preferred Judging over Perceiving. For the four
dichotomies, this was the strongest split. It may be that the sheer
weight of the Judging preference in the sample masked the expected
preference.
The fifth hypothesis predicted that ESTJ and ISTJ types would be
more common among high CEI respondents. It turned out that STJ's
were simply more common. The two types accounted for 29% (34) of the
respondents. Even though (or perhaps because of) the overall preference
for ESTJ and ISTJ types in the sample, the hypothesis was not supported.
We did not find that higher CEI score respondents were more likely to
prefer ESTJ or ISTJ over the other fourteen types. Again, the size of
the sample might have confounded the analysis.
The first implication to be drawn from the research is obvious. The
sample behaved largely as the trait-related hypotheses predicted. The
fact that three of the four trait hypotheses was supported lends to the
argument that respondents who "score" near the upper end of
the CEI do, in fact, tend to prefer specific traits over others on the
MBTI trait pairs. Furthermore, the preferences match predictions made
from prior research and theory for three of the four trait pairs.
At the same time, the data acquired from the respondents did not
support the fourth trait-related hypothesis. While it is possible that
the hypothesis related to this trait pair (J-P), is in some way faulty,
the researchers are reluctant to say so based on the concern over sample
size and results of previous research. The relationship between the CEI
and the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy requires further study. We have
already mentioned that a strong majority of the sample (without regard
to CEI score) preferred Judging over Perceiving. That being the case,
more detailed research needs to be conducted to decide whether we need
to rethink the prediction of a preference for Perceiving among more
entrepreneurial (as determined by CEI score) individuals. Of course, it
may also be that the sample used, and not just its size, was inadequate
for a fair test of the hypothesis.
Conversely, the data related to the hypothesis (H2) concerning the
S-N pair are very impressive. The sample as a whole clearly preferred
Sensing (60%) over Intuition (40%). What the data indicate is that while
that strong Sensing preference is evident in the sample, the 40% who
preferred Intuition were heavily concentrated among those who scored
toward the high end of the CEI. This has to be one of the strongest
conclusions in the study.
The last of the five hypotheses predicted that respondents with
high CEI scores would prefer ESTJ and ISTJ types over other types. This
hypothesis was not supported even though ESTJ and ISTJ were the two most
preferred types over all. The lack of support for the hypothesis
surprised us. Further analysis and more research need to be directed at
the relationship between xSTJ types and CEI scores to uncover the nature
of the relationship that might exist, particularly in light of the
strong overall preference for xSTJ.
Further development of several of the findings of this research is
in order and already underway. The researchers expected to find, and
found, that persons with more propensity for self-venturing would prefer
Extraversion to Introversion. We also expected to find, and found, that
persons of the same high propensity to self-venture would prefer
Thinking to Feeling. We expected to find, and found, to a surprisingly
high degree that persons with high propensity to self-venture preferred
Intuition to Sensing. These findings are completely consistent with
general expectations. We did not find that persons with a high
propensity to self-venture preferred Perceiving over Judging. In fact,
the data demonstrate a very high level of Judging over Perceiving and
imply that persons who do prefer Perceiving are diffuse with respect to
the CEI.
In terms of research, a larger sample needs to be acquired to
determine whether or not sample size confounded the analysis related to
the last two hypotheses. Another implication is that a different kind of
population might produce results more in keeping with expectations.
Another matter for discussion among scholars is the arbitrary method(s)
the researchers used to distinguish "levels" of CEI scores.
The researchers used a percentile of responses approach. What cut-off
levels would be most appropriate? Perhaps a theoretical cut-point based
on a normal probability distribution would yield different results.
The researchers feel that the study presented in this paper lends
considerable support for the proposition that personality traits, as
indicated by MBTI scores, do correlate well with the propensity to
self-venture. The study indicates certain areas in which more definitive
research efforts are needed and can be used to help specify some of that
research. Finally, the study adds another piece to the puzzle about who
the entrepreneur is.
REFERENCES
Brodzinski, J. D., Scherer, R. F. & Wiebe, F. A. (1990).
Boundary spanning activity: A function of the small business
owner's decision style. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship,
2(2), 1-12.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R. & Carland, J. C.
(1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A
conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.
Carland, J. W., Carland, J. C, Hoy, F. & Boulton, W. R. (1988).
Distinctions between entrepreneurial and small business ventures.
International Journal of Management, 5, 98-103.
Carland, J. W. & Carland, J. C. (1991). An empirical
investigation into the distinctions between male and female
entrepreneurs and managers. International Journal of Small Business,
9(3), 62-72.
Carland, J. C. & Carland, J. W. (1992). Managers, small
business owners, entrepreneurs: The cognitive dimensions. Journal of
Business & Entrepreneurship, 4 (2), 55-66.
Carland, J. W., Carland, J. C. Stewart, W. H. (1996). Seeing
what's not there: The enigma of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Business Strategy, 7(1), 1-20.
Carland, J. W., Jr. & Carland, J. C. (1997). Entrepreneurship:
An American dream. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 9 (1),
33-46.
Carland, J. W., Carland, J. C. & Ensley, M. D. (2001). Hunting
the heffalump: The theoretical basis and dimensionality of the Carland
Entrepreneurship Index. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2),
51-84.
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York:
Harper Row.
Dugan, K. W., Feeser, H. R. & Plaschka, G. R. (1990). A
comparison of personality characteristics among women entrepreneurs,
corporate businesswomen and the general female population, In T. W.
Garsombke & D. J. Garsombke (Eds.), Conference Proceedings, Orlando,
FL: United States Association for Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
88-94.
Fasiska, E. J. (1992). Managerial type determination and its role
in the development of a Entrepreneurial Quotient (EQ) instrument.
International Journal of Value-Based Management, 5, 17-37.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). "Who is the entrepreneur?" is the
wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32.
Ginn, C. & Sexton, D. L. (1990). A comparison of the
personality type dimensions of the 1987 inc. 500 company founder/ceos
with those of slower-growth firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5),
313-326.
Herron, L. (1992). Cultivating corporate entrepreneurs. Human
Resource Planning, 15, 3-14.
Jackson, W. T., Watts, L. R. & Wright, P. (1993). Small
businesses: An examination of strategic groups. Journal of Business
& Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 85-96.
Jackson, W. T., Gaulden, C. & Gaster, W. (2001). Who it is and
what it does: Finding the "Heffa-Preneur". Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 17-29.
Jackson, W. T. & Gaulden, C. (2001). Life cycle theory: New
implications for defining entrepreneurial types in developing countries.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 5, 81-92.
Jung, C. (1923). Psychological Types. London: Pantheon books.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton: Van
Nostrand.
Myers, I. B. & Briggs, K. C. (1962). The Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator. Princeton: Educational Testing Services.
Myers, I. B. & Myers, P. B. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L. & Hammer, A. L.
(1998). MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (3rd Edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to
entrepreneurial potential. California Management Review, 8(3), 32-38.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. & Kirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a
theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.
Reynierse, J. H. (1993). The distribution and flow of managerial
types through organizational levels in business and industry. Journal of
Psychological Type, 25, 11-23.
Reynierse, J. H. (1997). An MBTI model of entrepreneurism and
bureaucracy: The psychological types of business entrepreneurs compared
to business managers and executives. Journal of Psychological Type, 40,
3-19.
Robinson, R. & Herron, L. (2001). The impact of strategy and
industry structure on the link between the entrepreneur and venture
performance. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 31-50.
Ruohotie, P. & Koiranen, (2000). In the pursuit of conative
constructs into entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship
Education, 3, 9-21.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stewart, W. H., Jr. (1996). Psychological Correlates of
Entrepreneurship, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Translated by Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner's.
Corbett Gaulden, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin William T. Jackson, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin Walter
(Buddy) Gaster, Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Table 1
Entrepreneurial Characteristics
Date Author(s) Trait
1954 Sutton Desire for Responsibility
1959 Hartman Source of Formal Authority
1961 McClelland Need for Achievement
1963 Davids Ambition, Independence, Self-Confidence
1964 Pickle Drive, Human Relations Skills
1971 Palmer Risk Taker
1973 Winter Need for Power
1974 Borland Internal Locus of Control
1977 Gasse Personal Value Orientation
1978 Timmons Drive, Moderate Risk Taker
1980 Sexton Energetic
Source: Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984
Table 2
The Four Dichotomies of the MBTI
E-Extroversion Directing energy I-Introversion Directing energy
toward the outer toward the inner
world of people world of
and objects experiences
and ideas
S-Sensing Focusing on what N-Intuition Focusing on
can be perceived perceiving
by the senses patterns and
interrelationships
T-Thinking Basing F-Feeling Basing
conclusions on conclusions on
logical analysis personal social
with objectivity values with a
and detachment focus on harmony
J-Judging Preferring the P-Perceiving Preferring the
decisiveness and flexibility that
closure that results from
results from dealing with the
dealing with the outer world
outer world using one of
using one the perceiving
judging processes
processes (sensing or
(thinking or intuition)
feeling)
Source: Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998
Table 3
Dominant Preference Characteristics
Preference Preference Characteristic
E-I Outward-directed focus toward new products, emerging
markets and opportunities
S-N Innovative, strategic focus emphasizing future
possibilities
T-F Tough minded, impersonal, non-accommodating approach
to decision making
J-P Unstructured, adaptable, rebellious toward authority,
will break the rules, and tends to initiate change
Source: Reynierse, 1997
