Advertisement

Am I Able to Be an Entrepreneur?

Chapter

Abstract

Entrepreneurial foresight is one component of entrepreneurial acting in the entrepreneurial functions. So, the question of how entrepreneurial acting and foresight are coming into the world arises. For both, the process of perception is an important point. As entrepreneurial acting is done by humans, with this there comes the question of how the entrepreneur as a human must be constructed to work successfully corresponding to the goals of his enterprise in the entrepreneurial functions. This paper shows that not only the economics supposed characteristics are responsible for creating a successful entrepreneur. The target is to give answers about components constructing such a successful entrepreneur including facts from the interdisciplinary fields of genetics, neurobiology, and most importantly the field of psychology. The results show as hypothesis that entrepreneurial behavior and entrepreneurial foresight capability is mainly constructed by the genes and the very early childhood. It also reports about the influences of experience, the social environment, and the personal self-concept for entrepreneurial acting and with this about the ability to be a successful and foresight-oriented entrepreneur. So, the paper shows a basis to create an interdisciplinary model about a successful entrepreneur in a later research, which can be falsified by the Popper criterion.

Keywords

Entrepreneurial acting Entrepreneurial functions Foresight Psychology Big five 

5.1 The Person of the Entrepreneur in the Economics

To lead an enterprise is a big task and challenge. It is not done with day-to-day well-practiced actions of human life. On the contrary, a holistic long-term orientation is needed. Such an orientation must point out the past as well as the present, has to include uncertainties and discontinuities, and should point out alternative futures and choices.1 Entrepreneurial acting means to work in and with the entrepreneurial functions. This is the role that the entrepreneur gets allocated in the theory of singular economic theories.2

“Entrepreneurial functions” means that within the enterprise there are three big blocks, which point out an enterprise as a system of productive potentials. These are the task sectors: system renewing, system use, and system safeguard. Standing behind these task sectors, we can find each entrepreneurial function as visible in the following figure. These are the functions of innovation, coordination, arbitrage, and risk management (Fig. 5.1) (Freiling, 2005, p.142).3
Fig. 5.1

Systematic of entrepreneurial functions (Freiling, 2005, p. 142)

The innovation function is a renewing function in the system of entrepreneurial functions. This renewing function always holds the enterprise with its infrastructure on a competitive level and opens the possibility for creating new ideas for the market. The coordination function and the arbitrage function belong as entrepreneurial functions to the mode of system use. The coordination function takes care of what is happening inside the enterprise including the cooperation partners. Internal coordination means product and service production as well as the coordination of the administrative workflow.4 The arbitrage function doesn’t look for the internal processes of the enterprise. This function is only for the external affairs: generating, recognizing, and developing opportunities on the market. These two functions are urgently necessary to lead an enterprise.5 Risk management means to make the system safe and to judge about risk assumption and diversification of risks.6

With this, there is an abstraction from the person of the entrepreneur. So, an entrepreneur is everybody acting in the entrepreneurial functions. But, there remains the question who it is, who is acting in the entrepreneurial functions. Because enterprises are not governed by themselves, they are also not acting alone.

Obviously, the individual entrepreneurial abilities play a role in the market process. And this “acting in the entrepreneurial functions” as an all-including term doesn’t automatically give success for an enterprise. Entrepreneurial functions without thinking and acting human behind them, are not thinkable. And so, the necessity comes out that there is a person who needs cognition as a precondition for entrepreneurial acting.

Information is necessary for the cognition bringing out entrepreneurial acting on a basis of knowledge. The entrepreneur needs information from his enterprise, but also from outside for acting well in the entrepreneurial functions. Information and knowledge grow from perception. And, because the entrepreneur is a human, his entrepreneurial ability for perception and the resulting understandings from this perception are the crucial experience by which entrepreneurial acting is started and gives the permission to act in the entrepreneurial functions.7

This process to “see” by perception certain entrepreneurial possibilities, to combine them, and to create from these concrete actions is referred to as entrepreneurial foresight.

Entrepreneurial foresight is the individual, or a person, with a fixed capability for perception and the capability to bring the results of this perception under the limitations of bounded rationality along the way as action into the entrepreneurial functions.

Bounded rationality reflects on this, that an individual decider can never have all possible and impossible information. The neoclassic assumptions of reality concerning the homo oeconomicus are not appropriate.8 The entrepreneur is limited in his borders for getting new insights. These borders are based in the individually limited capability for perception.

Perception is created by “comparing the inner incoming information of the sense with inner sensual expectations.”9 Individuals have different boarders of perception. By these different boarders of perception, they are acting in different ways by doing the entrepreneurial functions in their enterprises. The reason for individual capabilities for perception lies in the personality of the entrepreneur. “The personality of a human is understood as the whole of his personality traits: the individual differences in the physical appearance and the regularity of behavior and experience.”10 “Our reality depends on our biology.”11

The appearance of the entrepreneur practicing the entrepreneurial functions is beside his biological and psychological constituted personality signed by his competences. Competences are cognitive abilities and skills, which can be learnt by individuals, helping them solve certain problems. Besides, competences with these cognitive abilities and skills restrict motivational, volitional, and social skills and the willingness to use the solutions of problems in variable situations with success and responsibility.12 Over all, the economics-accepted competences are risk tolerance, locus of control, achievement motivation, tolerance of ambiguity, eagerness for independence, assertiveness, adaptability, problem-solving orientation, emotional stability, resilience, and fortitude for impulses.13 Regarding entrepreneurial competences, it is possible to look over the entrepreneur in economic plausible categories. Through a questionnaire technique, the following were found out (Fig. 5.2) (Müller, 2010, p.67).14
Fig. 5.2

Entrepreneurial relevant competences measured by dependent working people and by entrepreneurs and self-employed working people (215)

So, we can suppose that entrepreneurial acting people should have the following competences:
  • High achievement motivation

  • A very high internal locus of control

  • Above average of independence

  • Above average of impulse fortitude

  • A very high resilience

  • Average till above average problem-solving orientation

  • Above average risk tolerance

  • A little bit more than average tolerance for uncertainty

  • A higher assertiveness

  • A little bit higher than average social adaptability

The criticism of this supposition is founded in the fact that the presented competences are a shortened denomination of something “in which the influences from another much more widespread social and biological system are coming in.”15 So, these are denominations for facts, which are not coming from the economics but, for example, from the psychology, the biology, the genetics, etc.

With this, from other sciences—like the psychology—facts are also important and influence economically demanded entrepreneurial competences. And these results are not developed on the ground of the economics. It is not without reason that “the psychology of the personality is anchored in those psychological processes which are the ground for the behavior and the experience of the mental healthy human, and gives answer how these processes influence themselves by building an organized system, named personality.”16 Taking psychological facts to contour the entrepreneurial personality is caused by the circumstances in which personality traits are determinants of entrepreneurial success.17

So, the economics of constructing “their” entrepreneurial personality are working with results from other disciplines without questioning how to explain the constructing elements of the entrepreneur as actor in the entrepreneurial functions. That means that the economics by themselves are not able to explain the personality of the entrepreneur as the main agent in the entrepreneurial functions and in the field of entrepreneurial foresight, but urgently need other academic disciplines to find results.

As mentioned before, the person of the entrepreneur as actor in the entrepreneurial functions comes into the focus. It is the person, the entrepreneur who has to perceive signals and to form signals to information. It is this person, who has to bring this information into the enterprise and who must have entrepreneurial foresight over the process of perception.

This is postulated as the central point of self-efficacy18 and points out the demand on the person “behind” the entrepreneurial functions. So, it is necessary to learn more about the personality of the entrepreneur as a determinant of entrepreneurial acting and entrepreneurial foresight.

5.2 The Way to Interdisciplinary Bricks that Build Entrepreneurial Acting and Entrepreneurial Foresight

The individual-related fact of perception and with this the turning to the individual personality give an indication to the reciprocal relation between the filters of perception and decision. Those signals are weighted as significant, which are compatible to the preference structure of a person and with this, can pass unconsciously the personal selection filter. There is an unconscious preselection of information, which can manifest in the action tendencies of a person.19 So, we need to learn more about those characteristics and their construction, characterizing a person—the entrepreneur—over a longer period. It is necessary to look over those characteristics which determine in a person his/her polarization and which are seen by the person as important bricks of his/her life story (experiences, narrative).20

So, there is the discussion about psychological—biological processes, about cognitive processes, which create a person—the entrepreneur.21 These processes do not only start the cognition of an object of perception, but in the same time the evaluation and the assessment of this object.22 Perhaps, it is a question of the self-surveillance tendency that is bounded in the cognition of such an object of perception. And also, this self-surveillance tendency is meant to be the pure personal psychological ability of the entrepreneur that has entrepreneurial functions and entrepreneurial foresight. There is the question “Who does this situation want me to be and how can I be that person” in case of a high self-surveillance tendency, in contrast to the question “Who am I and how can I be me in this situation” in case of a low self-surveillance tendency.23

The difficult comprehensible broadness of the personality is reflected by his/her personality characteristics and his/her cognitive capabilities: “Identity and reputation shape the roles of individuals in the economy and the society to which they belong.”24

The personality is constituted by six paradigms: (a) paradigm of characteristics, (b) paradigm of information processing, (c) the dynamic-interacting paradigm, (d) paradigm of neuroscience, (e) paradigm of molecular genetics, and (f) the evolutionary-psychological paradigm.25 Paradigms are propositions, bundles of hypothesis or theoretical concepts.

The paradigm of characteristics tells about the individuality of a person by describing his/her characteristics. The characteristics are summarized in a personality profile.26

The paradigm of information processing postulates, that “human behavior and experience is grounded in the handling of information inside the nervous system, getting by receptors impulses from the environment and from the own body, which are converted into other information and are responsible for consciously experience and bring out by motor functions (activities) information to the environment.”27

The dynamic-interacting paradigm is understanding the development of personality as an interaction between environment and the own characteristics during the process of life.28

The paradigm of neuroscience of psychology contains a trial to explain human behavior by neuroscientific reasons.29 This approach bases on the fact that human information processing is done by the nervous system (brain and nerves) in such a way that the smallest units of the nervous system, the neurons, serve as information carriers. So, this approach is a biological one to explain the human personality by explaining the information transfer inside the nervous system.30

The molecular-genetic paradigm is based on the molecular behavior genetics. This is a projection of explanation “to refer personality to the individual typical pattern of alleles.”31 “Allele” is the name for different forms of a gene.32 “Genes are sectors on the chromosomes which are defined by their function in the metabolism. They can vary from person to person in their structure.”33 So, different alleles on the same gene are told about. The human genome was until now deciphered with about 25,000 genes. They all can appear in different patterns of alleles. As this pattern of alleles in a human is unchangeable, the conclusion is near “to refer individual particularities of the personality in individual typical patterns of alleles in the genes.”34 Today, a genetic determination of the personality is estimated by about 50%.35 There is the supposition that different patterns of alleles are influencing the efficiency of the neurotransmitter assimilation and, with this, are influencing the biochemical information transfer. Despite this obviously serious influence of the genes on the human personality, other authors argue that not only the genes induce human behavior, but that genes and environment are working together in such a complex way that genetic determinations can bring out—depending on environment influences—overcomplex processes of brain behavior development in different ways.36

The evolutionary-psychological paradigm contains the demand for reasons of the fundamental existence of big differences in the personality. This is an attempt to find out differences in the personality and the personality development over the very long time in human-evolutionary processes, by which human behavior and human experience are visible.37

The mentioned paradigms clearly show the psychological and biological implementation of the human personality. These implementations highlight “that the numberless facets of our behavior, our thinking and our experience are depending inseparable from a very huge moist and chemical-electric network, named nervous system”,38 which by the activities of the brain rules the human action. The brain research acts on the assumption “that the personality is anchored in the brain and in a wider sense in the peripheral nervous system.”39 That means that in the physical appearance everybody can be an entrepreneur—like in the economics said. But how a person can manage the entrepreneurial functions with a defined success strongly depends on the biological determination.

As stated before, the biological determination (genes and differences in the brain development) is constructed by about 50% of the differences in the personality, and with this the biological determination is responsible for the temperament and specific abilities of a person, including the degree of intelligence. But besides that, pre-natal and very early experiences after the birth and in the very first years of childhood determine the human personality by about 30%. In the later years of childhood and in the early years of youth are added by the processes of socialization (familial, social, environment dependent) the last 20%, influencing the personality.40

5.2.1 Personality Differences in the previously Shown Sectors

Personality differences exist in (a) skills and competences, (b) the emotional cognitive sector, and (c) the sector of social behavior.41

Deviations of the personality in the sector of skills and competences are manifested in points like (a) intelligence, (b) creativity, (c) wisdom, life understanding and self-understanding, (d) social competences, (e) self-regulation and self-control, and (f) stress handling.42

Personality differences in the area of emotional-cognitive competences are defined by a vocabulary like anxiety, anger tendency, stress, well-being, self-esteem, locus of control, self-efficacy, and optimism.43 Those are all terms that are found in human beings, including the entrepreneur, and they influence entrepreneurial acting. The terms refer to the fact that all the human body—from its inner side or from outside—perceives signals that bring out emotional situations.

Personality differences in the sector of social behavior are signaled by pro-social behavior (behavior to help), empathy, aggressiveness, self-expression, and social support. Social behavior means the interaction with others: signed by emotions, behavior regulated by emotions.44 Emotions also have a biological origin. They are neurobiological processes which bring out emotions over the limbic system, triggered by neuromodulators like serotonin, acetylcholine, dopamine, noradrenalin, etc.45 So, emotions are a factor for the conscious planning of behavior and the controlling of behavior concerning the choice of action and certain behavior patterns.46 The level of the human social competence depends on the human capability (the capability of the entrepreneur) to make thoughts about their own behavior and about the environment by recognizing the correlations between perceptions and by changing these perceptions into expectations.47

Concerning the potential for successful entrepreneurial acting and for the capability to have entrepreneurial foresight, through a nearer analysis of differences in the personality, we can highlight the following:

Skills and competences

Appearance

Presumption about entrepreneurial potential

Intelligence

Minimum

At least middle general intelligence with good

Middle

Competences in the fields of memory, learning, perception, and imagination

Creativity

Necessary

Necessary with sensitivity for problems, originality, and flexibility of thinking

Wisdom, life understanding, self-understanding

Necessary

Necessary for having future awareness (foresight) by combining cognitive, affective, motivational, personal, ethical, and social dimensions

Social competences

High

High social competences because they are combined with assertiveness and flexibility, relationship ability

Self-regulation and self-control

High

High competence is necessary for the regulation of the creating process of self-congruent targets, the regulation of target-control, and the maintenance of target tracking intentions

Stress handling

High

High competence to handle stress and a high stress resistance are necessary

Emotional-cognitive characteristics

Appearance

Presumption about entrepreneurial potential

Anxiety

Not too high

Not too high anxiety, to not give too much attention

To menacing stimuli and to have the chance

To solve complex tasks better

Anger tendency

Middle

Not too high, but also not too low as anger tendency

Is necessary to trigger rational problem-oriented

Discussions about the recognition of own mistakes

Stress

Positive affectivity

Positive affectivity to avoid: Nervous behavior, depressions, frustrations, feelings of guilt, lower task tackling

Well-being

High

High subjective well-being which brings out a high self-acceptance, control about the environment, positive relationship to others, the presence of life targets, personal growth, and the ambition for autonomy

Self-esteem

High

High self-esteem with a stable self-acceptance: Necessary to recognize own weak points, to react on success and failure, to take references serious-ly, to avoid general self-doubts

Locus of control

Internal

More internal locus of control and with this adapted higher flexibility in situations and higher efficiency

Self-efficacy

High

Higher belief into self-efficacy from which depends

Self-evaluation and promising action

Optimism

Positive

Optimistic positive main tendency, by this better cognition, stress handling, and higher efficiency.

But no overoptimism caused by resulting misjudgment of situation

Social characteristics

Appearance

Presumption about entrepreneurial potential

Pro-social behavior

Positive

Positive pro-social behavior promotes self-confidence into the own action competences and gives a sense for justness

Empathy

High

High empathy helps to overcome economic and staff-oriented areas of conflicts and brings out coincident actions in the enterprise

Aggressivity

Middle

Middle potential of aggression, also knotted with a potential for innovation capability

Self-expression

Higher

A higher potential of self-expression is the locus for self-control, important for leadership emergence in groups and for organizational capabilities

Social support

High

High social supporting capabilities bring out the ability for creating social networks which are important for orientation possibilities in stress situations and in complex social situations

5.2.2 Personality as a Result of Personality-Building Determinants

Personality is understood as the summation of the personality traits of a human, by which his/her appearance and his/her regular behavior patterns and experience patterns are signed.48 These are physical as well as psychical aspects under which the human personality must be summarized: aspects from (a) morphology, (b) physiology, (c) needs, (d) interests, (i) attitudes, aptitudes, and (f) temperament.49 With this, the human personality is more than only a subject of psychology but also a subject of anthropology, somatology, biology, sociology, and genetics. The personality is noticed first with the entrance into social relationships as “personality.” “The personality is not preexistent but made by the exchange with the environment.”50

In the nearer interest stands here the psychological approach, by which the (entrepreneurial) personality is contoured by personality traits. Because, this may be an approach by which the entrepreneur can be described and explained a little bit nearer, concerning his/her abilities to develop entrepreneurial foresight, to act with uncertainties that are not quantifiable.51 With this, there are personality traits in the foreground, which means under the aspect of time and trans-situation rather stabile traits, which are grounded in the behavior and the self-evaluation of people, manifested by differences in experience and behavior.52

The procedure chosen here is the “Big Five Concept.” This is a concept that describes the present status of literature and knowledge of the human personality best. This concept brings out, besides habitual behavioral orientations between humans, also personal differences in sectors of personal attitudes and the regions of motivation and experience.53 “The behaviors of the person, respective of his/her reactions on particular situations, are dependent on the traits of the person, which also builds his/her behavior dispositions.”54

The “Big Five” factor model has the following dimensions to describe the personality: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness55 for experience.

These are the personality traits which “in parts depend on the genetics and the brain development, in other parts are sized in the very early childhood, but are stabilized in their individual sizing very early.”56 Besides that, there are researches about correlations between the Big Five and the survival of enterprises, the working performance, and income.57

The contents of the Big Five can be shown together with their supposed characteristics for the entrepreneurial functions acting people like in the following:

Neuroticism

Emotional stability

Versus

Emotional lability

Stabile, calm, unhurried, content, superior, effective, bold, low emotionality

Curious, anxious, nervous, cranky, worried, sensitive, raspy, fearful, with self-pity, instable, discouraged, disheartened

Supposed for entrepreneurial acting: High emotional stability

Extraversion

Extraverted

Versus

Introverted

Active, convivial, communicative, optimistic, sociable, cordially, easygoing, assertive

Distant, calm, restrained, contact avoiding

Supposed for entrepreneurial acting: Higher extraverted

Agreeableness

Agreeable

Versus

Irreconcilable

Compassionate, kind, admiring, cordial, softhearted, warm, generous, trustful, helpful, forgiving, friendly, cooperative, sensitive

Cold, harsh, disputatious, steel-hearted, cruel, thankless, penny-pinching

Supposed for entrepreneurial acting: More less than higher agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Conscientious

Versus

Not conscientious

Organized, accurate, making plans ahead, effective, responsible, reliable, accurate, practical, careful, considerate

Careless, unorderly, lightheaded, irresponsible, unreliable, forgetful, chaotic, unpunctual

Supposed for entrepreneurial acting; more conscientious than not conscientious concerning innovative facts: Neutral

Openness

Open

Versus

Withdrawn

Broad interested, intelligent, original, imaginative, inventive, artistic, clever, eager for knowledge, intellectual, ingenious, wise

Ordinary, one-way interested, simple without depth, not intelligent

Supposed for entrepreneurial acting: High openness for experience and combined with this higher supposed probability for entrepreneurial foresight

Finding out the Big Five underlies a lexical process: “The lexical valuation reduces step by step the whole lexicon of a language to a manageable set of trait descriptions. With this set, there can be many self-evaluations and evaluations done, with many people, by circles of acquaintances. The resulting correlative structure of similarity is packed by factor analysis to very few independent factors.58” But also, as the Big Five projection describes, the personality comes out of a lexical construction, let’s not forget that behind the personality describing words, there are differences in the human personality to be seen, like presented above. This is due to the fact that the very strict genetic determination of the human personality must be seen. Researches about correlations between genetic influences and the Big Five show a heritability of the Big Five with about 50%, in particular, neuroticism with 48%, extraversion with 54%, agreeableness with 45%, conscientiousness with 49%, and openness for experiences with 57%.59 “The other 50% belong to factors of the environment. But this under the point of view that the shared environment (growing up in the same family) only has very little influence, the most important influence being the individual environment.”60

There is some importance in taking a view on the personality that was presented before. Because: The entrepreneur must make his decisions under uncertainty. To do this, he needs beside his professional skills and a certain tolerance for risk also the structure of his personality influenced capabilities.61 It is not to ignore that the entrepreneurial structure of personality influence entrepreneurial acting, this in matters of the from perceptions concentrated information, which reaches the entrepreneur from inside of his enterprise, but also from the markets, the politics, the environment, etc.

5.2.3 The Self-concept and Its Importance

Besides the shown elements of the personality like (a) the paradigms of the psychology of personality, (b) the differences in the personality, and (c) the personality traits, the discussion must be minimally completed in this article with the d) self-concept as a further cornerstone. The discussion about self-concepts is so important, because they include process-related changing results of interaction processes. With this they don’t have such an outliving structure as the personality traits have.62 The self-concept is to be understood as the “entirety of the judgments, related to a person.63 This entirety is produced by the summary of perceptions to oneself.64

The general self-concept of a person is developed by the made experiences of this person, under physical, emotional, activity-related, and social aspects.65 The subject of the self-concept is the sum of the cognitive representations, a person saves in his/her memory from him/herself.66 The self-concept is to differ in a cognitive-evaluative component and into an affective component. The cognitive-evaluative component means a self-description of the person, the affective component contains self-evaluations—evaluated cognitions—and with this something which is named self-esteem.67 The self-esteem of a person is the sum of her evaluated self-cognitions on the basis of made experiences in the above-mentioned sectors.

By this self-picture, a person is drawing for him−/herself an image that determines how the person appears with his/her action in his/her environment.68 It depends on the self-concept of a person how they will interpret his/her received perceptions and how to act with them.69 As defined before, entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions and to have entrepreneurial foresight, presumes perception. So, it is easy to follow from this that entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions depends on the self-concept of the acting entrepreneur. This is due to the fact that the self-concept has a selective effect on perception. Imaginations of oneself are like evidence and keeper points and with this seen like facts. Thus, it is necessary to integrate new experiences and to estimate from the perception resulting following expectations.70

Significant elements from the sector of self-concept, self-evaluation, and self-esteem, which are also relevant for entrepreneurial acting, can be shown in the following list in their positive and negative characteristics71:

Object of observation

Positive

Negative

Self-concept, self-evaluation, self-esteem (572)

Criticism

Less accessible for criticism

More accessible for criticism

Affinity to generalize criticism

Perception

More optimistic colored

More pessimistic colored

Perception

Perception

Self-concept, self-evaluation, self-esteem

Personal importance

Feels the own person minimum as important as others

Feels the own person as not so important

Own characteristics

More convinced about their own good characteristics

Less convinced about their own good characteristics

Assertiveness

Becomes more accepted with own aspects

Becomes less accepted with own aspects

New tasks

Likes more to deal with new tasks

Likes less to deal with new tasks

Future expectation

Positive, with the expectation to solve problems

Less positive with lower expectation to solve problems

Expectation for acceptance

High expectation for acceptance by the partners of interaction

Acceptance by the partners of interaction

Anxiety

Lower

Higher

Efficiency and competence for decision-making and responsibility

Is rather overestimated

Is rather underrated

Insecurity

Lower

Higher

Own targets

Rather higher

Rather lower

A consequence that can result by a positive ranking of the self-worth is the fact that people are more successful in difficult situations than those with a lower ranking of the self-worth. A high self-worth estimation is knotted with stability, assertiveness, affability, open-mindedness, but also with vanity, self-hubris, pride, and overdrawn self-assurance. In this context, a positive self-concept is related more to an internal than to an external locus of control.72

Concerning the supposition about entrepreneurial potential capacity and the bounded higher flexibility to adapt on situations and to show a higher efficiency like done with discussing the differences in the personality, this is also equivalent to the abovementioned connection between self-concept and locus of control: a positive self-concept supports the own efficiency for entrepreneurial acting.73

Self-concepts are to be seen as “process-related changing results of interactions and not as an entity with an outlasting structure.”74 These interaction processes are the fundamental of relevant social standard; they give the comparisons, through which people are enabled to perceive something. “In the reciprocal influence of the individual and its social environment, the individual gives to the fellow men particular impressions on oneself, and by this is functionalizing the interaction partners to form one’s self-image.”75

By this comparative process of perception, people are able to learn how occurrences are interconnected with the appearance of other occurrences, and which consequences will follow by which behavior patterns. So, people can construct a horizon of expectation about what could happen in the future. And by this, they are able to control and to regulate their behavior.76 This statement is perhaps further evidenced that foresight-oriented entrepreneurial acting is combined with the characteristic of the self-concept that the acting person has.

There is also a connection between the Big Five personality dimensions and self-esteem: higher self-esteem correlates with lower neuroticism and higher extraversion. People with a low self-esteem are connected with a higher worth of neuroticism and a lower worth for agreeableness and conscientiousness. So, instability of self-esteem brings out a behavior with higher emotional patterns. On the other hand, people with a high self-esteem compensate fluctuation self-esteem feeling by the trial to get the environmental situation under control.77

The consequence for the entrepreneur is that—in the daily acting in the entrepreneurial functions as well as in a foresight-oriented process—he should have a positive self-concept to fulfill his business. As a result of this, entrepreneurs with a positive self-concept are working target oriented, caused by the fact that disturbing anxiety for failing is probably lower than having a negative self-concept.78 “There is the expectation that the ideas which people develop from themselves (self-concept) have an important impact on their henceforward self-perception and their constitution to act.”79 So, we highlight the fact that the entrepreneurial “self” must be anchored in the self-concept of the entrepreneur and that this demand for economic success is much more important than economic awareness and experiences.80 This entrepreneurial “self” comes out, if entrepreneurial acting happens correspondent to personal ideals, and so the problems that the entrepreneur has in his enterprise are mutating into the own personal problems of the entrepreneur.81

5.3 Final Considerations

This research gives information about economic attended competences for the entrepreneurial functions acting person that have an interdisciplinary background. This background can explain, in part, why entrepreneurs set their actions, as they do. Entrepreneurial acting results by the process of perception from genetic, neurobiological, psychological, and sociologic components which determine the human personality: genes and the development of the brain determine about 50% of the personality, 30% are done by the very shaping age of childhood and the early youth, and the least are added in the later childhood and in the youth further socializing components which finalize the building of the personality: “Our aware personality is at every time a socialized personality which is developed during puberty and in the very early age of being grown up….”82 This socialization happens under the influence of genetic dispositions, development of the brain, and prenatal till early childhood development and includes about 20% of the personality.83

Thus, a person is essentially predisposed to be able to work in the entrepreneurial functions with success correspondent to the targets of the enterprise, or not. The reality shows a picture with a modified content: The personality and the personality traits are rather stable over time, but by using entrepreneurship education, there is the assumption that personality-related characteristics of an entrepreneur can be learned (599). So, by the development of entrepreneurial action competences, the capability for entrepreneurial acting and entrepreneurial thinking can be promoted: “Core competences to be self-dependent can be gained, trained or improved by professional experience. These core competences are an important link between the lengthy, more stable personality characteristics on the one side and concrete entrepreneurial behavior on the other side.”84 Besides professional competence and competence in methods, education also improves social competences and self-competences. The advancement serves to the consolidation of affective, motivational, cognitive, and social capabilities of a person, and with this, it has an influence on the emotional stability, achievement motivation, locus of control, problem-solving orientation, tolerance of ambiguity, and assertiveness.85 But, such a promotion doesn’t change the fundamental structure which is anchored in the personality of the entrepreneur.

A direct result of how a talented entrepreneur or entrepreneurial foresight must be constructed is not to be read here. This is due to the fact that entrepreneurial foresight is only one component of entrepreneurial acting, and it also depends on the process and the ability of entrepreneurial perception. And this ability for perception is presented by the shown interdisciplinary elements. We can suppose that each entrepreneurial action also has a little bit of this entrepreneurial foresight component. Nevertheless, there are people who have by their genetic/ biological/psychological predisposition the talent to knot and to concentrate perceptions in a very special way. The results then are shown as pioneering and foresighted activities and results.

This article does not represent a closed result. The next steps are to “create” a model of an entrepreneurial personality, which beside the presented entrepreneurial competences also includes these contents, coming from the interdisciplinary field of personality research and the research of self-concept.

But also, when this step is done, a universally modeled entrepreneur will not appear as a standard to judge about the founding of new enterprises, for the capability to be a good successor in an enterprise, etc. Thus, such a universally modeled entrepreneur would not give space for different targets of the concrete enterprise. The entrepreneur with the target for profit maximizing will probably not be constructed as an entrepreneur who is directed much more in social aspects in his enterprise or as an entrepreneur who is primarily interested in the development of new marketable products.

However, related to the title of this essay, there is an answer in so far as the reader can scrutinize himself in a calm moment about the own status of his personality. Perhaps he will find out weak points that indicate he is not an entrepreneur—or he says for himself: I am highly predestined to be an entrepreneur.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    Tiberius (2011), p. 13.

  2. 2.

    Schneider (1995), p. 32.

  3. 3.

    Freiling (2008), p. 47.

  4. 4.

    Freiling (2008), p. 48.

  5. 5.

    Freiling (2008), p. 48.

  6. 6.

    Freiling (2008), pp. 48/49.

  7. 7.

    Colwell and Narayanan (2010), p. 299.

  8. 8.

    Neumer (2012), p. 42.

  9. 9.

    Eagleman (2012), p. 63.

  10. 10.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 2.

  11. 11.

    Eagleman (2012), p. 243.

  12. 12.

    Weinert (2001), p. 14.

  13. 13.

    Brauckmann, Bijedic, and Schneider (2008), pp. 13–17.

  14. 14.

    Müller (2010), p. 67.

  15. 15.

    Eagleman (2012), p. 256.

  16. 16.

    Rammsayer and Weber (2010), p. 17.

  17. 17.

    Anger (2012), p. 4.

  18. 18.

    Rammsayer and Weber (2010), p. 100.

  19. 19.

    Scheffer and Mainz (2009).

  20. 20.

    Brüll (2010), pp. 21/22.

  21. 21.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 25.

  22. 22.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 52.

  23. 23.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 62.

  24. 24.

    Borghans, Goldsteyn, Heckmann, and Humphries (2011), p. 4.

  25. 25.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), pp. 25–78.

  26. 26.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 26.

  27. 27.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 33.

  28. 28.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 39.

  29. 29.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 49.

  30. 30.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 49.

  31. 31.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 62.

  32. 32.

    Graw (2010), p. 3.

  33. 33.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 62.

  34. 34.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 62.

  35. 35.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 63.

  36. 36.

    Roth (2008), p. 10.

  37. 37.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 68.

  38. 38.

    Eagleman (2012), p. 8.

  39. 39.

    Roth (2007), p. 88.

  40. 40.

    Roth (2007), pp. 104/105.

  41. 41.

    Weber and Rammsayer (2005), pp. 321–501.

  42. 42.

    Weber and Rammsayer (2005), pp. 321–374.

  43. 43.

    Weber and Rammsayer (2005), pp. 385–446.

  44. 44.

    Rudolph (2007), Chap. 11, p. 2.

  45. 45.

    Roth (2008), p. 7.

  46. 46.

    Roth (2003), p. 291.

  47. 47.

    Laskowski (2000), p. 9.

  48. 48.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 2.

  49. 49.

    Rammsayer and Weber (2010), pp. 14/15.

  50. 50.

    Simon (2006), pp. 10/11.

  51. 51.

    Koetz (2006), p. 13.

  52. 52.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 251.

  53. 53.

    Gerlitz and Schupp (2005), p. 2.

  54. 54.

    Brauckmann, et al. (2008), p. 6.

  55. 55.

    Roth (2007), pp. 17/18.

  56. 56.

    Roth (2007), p. 32.

  57. 57.

    Markgraf and Löbler (2007), p. 1.

  58. 58.

    Asendorpf and Neyer (2012), p. 106.

  59. 59.

    Bouchard and McGue (2003), p. 23.

  60. 60.

    Bouchard and McGue (2003), p. 23.

  61. 61.

    Caliendo, Fossen, and Kritikos (2011), p. 4.

  62. 62.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 15.

  63. 63.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 25.

  64. 64.

    Laskowski (2000), p. 15.

  65. 65.

    Daig (2006), p. 29.

  66. 66.

    König (2006), p. 72.

  67. 67.

    König (2006), p. 72.

  68. 68.

    Laskowski (2000), p. 15.

  69. 69.

    Laskowski (2000), p. 15.

  70. 70.

    Laskowski (2000), pp. 22/23.

  71. 71.

    Laskowski (2000), pp. 32–37.

  72. 72.

    Laskowski (2000), p. 28.

  73. 73.

    Braun, Mieg, and Neyer (2009), p. 73.

  74. 74.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 15.

  75. 75.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 70.

  76. 76.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 15.

  77. 77.

    Mummendey (2006), p. 147.

  78. 78.

    Laskowski (2000), pp. 8/9.

  79. 79.

    Laskowski (2000), S. 9.

  80. 80.

    Rövekamp (2011), pp. 338/339.

  81. 81.

    Menzenbach (2012), p. 77.

  82. 82.

    Roth (2007)/2013, p. 105.

  83. 83.

    Roth (2007)/2013, p. 105.

  84. 84.

    Müller (2013), p. 55.

  85. 85.

    Bijedic (2013), p. 57.

References

  1. Anger, S. (2012). Die Weitergabe von Persönlichkeitseigenschaften und intellektuellen Fähigkeiten von Eltern an ihre Kinder. DIW Wochenbericht., ISSN0012-1304, 79(29), 3–12.Google Scholar
  2. Asendorpf, J. B., & Neyer, F. J. (2012). In J. B. Asendorpf & F. J. Neyer (Eds.), Psychologie der Persönlichkeit (p. 5). Berlin, Germany: Springer. Auflage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bijedic, T. (2013). ‘Unternehmerisch handeln macht Schule‘ Legitimation, Voraussetzun-gen und Ergebnisse einer Entrepre-neurship Education in der Sekundarstufe II. Zeitschrift für ökonomische Bildung (ZföB), 01, 44–72.Google Scholar
  4. Borghans, L., Goldsteyn, B., Heckmann, J., & Humphries, J. (2011). Identification problems in personality psychologiy. Schriftenreihe METEOR/Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organizations, 11, 25.Google Scholar
  5. Bouchard, T., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54, 4–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brauckmann, U., Bijedic, T., & Schneider, D. (2008). Unternehmerische Persönlichkeit - eine theoretische Rekonstruktion und normaldefinitorische Konturierung, Schumpeter school of business and economics. Wuppertal, Germany: Bergische Universität Wuppertal.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, A., Mieg, H., & Neyer, F. J. (2009). Sind Erfinder anders als es die psychologische Forschung erwarten lässt? Wirtschaftspsychologie, 1, 69–79.Google Scholar
  8. Brüll, M. (2010). Akademisches Selbstkonzept und Bezugsgruppenwechsel. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Caliendo, M., Fossen, F. M., & Kritikos, A. (2011). Personality characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung. 2011, ECONIS-Online. Katalog der ZBW.Google Scholar
  10. Colwell, K., & Narayanan, V. K. (2010). Foresight in economic development policy: Shaping the institutional vontext for entrepreneurial innovation. Futures, 45(2010), 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daig, I. (2006). Male gender role dysfunction. Dissertation, FB Erziehungs-wissenschaften und Psychologie, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Eagleman, D. (2012). Inkognito, die geheimen Eigenleben unseres Gehirns. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
  13. Freiling, J. (2005). Unternehmerfunktionen als Brücke zwischen Marketing und Innova-tionsmanagement. In J. Freiling (Ed.), Technologiemanagement & Marketing – Herausforde-rungen eines integrierten Innovati-onsmanagements (pp. 133–154). Wiesbaden, Germany: Deutscher Universitäts-verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Freiling, J. (2008). Unternehmerfunktionen und Gründungsmanagement. In J. Freiling (Ed.), Entrepreneurship. Theorien und Fallstudien zu Gründungs- Wachstums- und KMU Manage-ment. Wien, Austria: Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels, AG.Google Scholar
  15. Gerlitz, J.-Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlich-keitsmerkmale im SOEP. In Dokumentation der Instrumentenentwicklung BFI-S auf Basis des SOEP-Pretests 2005. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung).Google Scholar
  16. Graw, J. (2010). Genetik (5th ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koetz, E. (2006). Persönlichkeitsstile und unternehmerischer Erfolg von Existenzgründern. Dissertation Lehreinheit Psychologie: Universität Osnabrück im Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  18. König, J. (2006). Sekundarschulen als differenzielle Entwicklungsmilieus? Dissertation, FB Erziehungswissenschaft und Psychologie, FU Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Laskowski, A. (2000). Was den Menschen antreibt. Entstehung und Beeinflussung des Selbstkonzepts. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Markgraf, D., & Löbler, H. (2007). Persönlichkeit und wirtschaftliche Orientierung als Einflussgrößen auf den Unternehmensgründungsprozess. Leipzig, Germany: Universität Leipzig – Lehrstuhl für BWL insb. Marketing – Veröffentlichungen.Google Scholar
  21. Menzenbach, J. (2012). Visionäre Unternehmensführung. Fachmedien, Wiesbaden: Springer-Gabler, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Müller, G. F. (2010). Unternehmerische Eignung – Impuls – und Erfolgsfaktoren für eine erfolgreiche berufliche Selbständigkeit. In Psychologische Expertise für erfolgreiches Unter-nehmertum in Deutschland.Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (Hrsg.). Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Psychologen Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Müller, Günter F. (2013). Berufliche Selbständigkeit. In: Wirtschaftspsychologie, K. Moser (Hrsg.), Springer, Berlin, Germany, 379–398.Google Scholar
  24. Mummendey, H. D. (2006). Psychologie des Selbst. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Neumer, J. (2012). Entscheiden unter Ungewissheit. Von der bounded rationality zum situativen Handeln. In: Fritz Böhle, Sigird Busch (Hrsg.): Management von Ungewissheit. Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Rammsayer, T., & Weber, H. (2010). Differentielle Psychologie - Persönlich-keitstheorien. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Roth, G. (2003). Fühlen, denken, handeln. Wie das Gehirn unser Verhalten steuert. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Roth, G. (2007). Persönlichkeit, Entscheidung und Verhalten (8th ed.). Klett-Cotta. Auflage 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Roth, G. (2008). Hirnforschung. Homo neuro-biologicus- ein neues Menschenbild? Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 44–45, 2008.Google Scholar
  30. Rövekamp, Cornelia. (2011). Was unterscheidet erfolgreiche von weniger erfolgreichen Gründer- innen?: Qualitaitve Längsschnittuntersuchung von Kleinstunternehmer/−innen. Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
  31. Rudolph, U. (2007). Soziales Verhalten. In: Stemmler, G. (Hrsg.) Enzyklopädie der Emotionen. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe, 2007.Kapitel 11.Google Scholar
  32. Scheffer, D., & Mainz, D. (2009). Messung von impliziten Persönlichkeits-Systemen mit Hilfe der visuellen Testmethode des Visual Questionnaire ViQ: Arbeitspapiere der Nordakademie. Elmshorn, Germany: Hochschule der Wirtschaft.Google Scholar
  33. Schneider, D. (1995). Betriebswirtschaftslehre Band 1: Grundlagen. München, Germany: Oldenbourg Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon, W. (Hrsg.). (2006). Persönlichkeitsmodelle und Persönlichkeitstests. GABAL Verlag GmbH, Offenbach, Germany.Google Scholar
  35. Tiberius, V. (Hrsg.). (2011). Zukunftsorientierung in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
  36. Weber, H., & Rammsayer, T. (Hrsg.). (2005). Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsy-chologie und Differentiellen Psychologie. Hofgrefe Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
  37. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen - eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit. Zitiert bei: Kompetenzentwicklung und Wissensmanagement im Kontext des lebenslangen Lernens und ihre Thematisierung in der Öffentlichkeit, Katharina M. Baumeister, Inauguraldissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Fakultät für Psychologie und Pädagogik, 2009 Department Psychologie, Organisations- und Wirtschafts-psychologie.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Beraten und Helfen BeratergemeinschaftOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations