In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure … · In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of...

September 2017

Prepared in collaboration with The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and written by Immanuel

Commarmond

In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of

and Measure for Entrepreneurial

Mindset

Contents Abstract 3

Introduction 4

Part 1: In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset 5

The Genesis of Mindset 5

Framing Mindset as a Theory 8

Fixed and Growth Mindsets 9

Exploring Entrepreneurial Mindset 10

Developments from Personality Psychology 10

Developments from Cognitive Psychology 12

More Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset 14

Developing a Shared Definition of Entrepreneurial Mindset 16

Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial Mindset from Literature 17

Summary of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from the Literature Review 21

Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset 23

Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from the Literature Review 23

Appropriateness of Tools for Measuring Identified Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions 26

Proposed Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset 26

Part 3: Conclusion and Future Research Considerations 27

Bibliography 28

Table of Tables

Table 1: Fiske's Personality Rating Scale Definitions ............................................................................. 6

Table 2: Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI / Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................ 7

Table 3: Summary of Early Characteristics of Entrepreneurs (Solomon and Winslow, 1988) ............10

Table 4: Summary of Entrepreneurial Characteristics from Literature Review (Adapted from Lau et

al., 2012) ..............................................................................................................................................11

Table 5: Cognitive Factors Relevant to Three Basic Issues Addressed by the Field of

Entrepreneurship (Baron, 2004) ..........................................................................................................13

Table 6: EMP Dimensions (Davis et al. 2016) ......................................................................................16

Table 7: List of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from Literature Review ...................................22

The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation aims to activate

personal initiative, intellectual imagination,

achievement excellence, courageous commitment and

a spirit of significance in individuals who aspire to be

high-impact responsible entrepreneurs. The Allan Gray

Orbis Foundation believes that this will be achieved

through the development of an entrepreneurial

mindset in these individuals along with a tactical focus

on education and experience complemented by the

personal traits of effort and ethics1.

With the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation’s focus being on

the development of an entrepreneurial mindset, they

join many cutting edge entrepreneurial programmes

who are beginning to focus less on the gaining of

content knowledge about entrepreneurship, and more

on developing an entrepreneurial mindset (Krueger,

2015). However, Krueger (2015) states that merely

saying that a programme is developing an

entrepreneurial mindset is insufficient if we cannot be

rigorous about what that term means both theoretically

and empirically.

In response to this need for rigour, this literature review

seeks to develop a more rigorous theoretical and

empirical understanding of entrepreneurial mindset

and its measurement.

From the literature review, multiple definitions of

entrepreneurial mindset and mindset in general are put

forward and from these the following common

understanding of entrepreneurial mindset is proposed:

Entrepreneurial mindset relates to how a person thinks,

their state of mind or the lens through which they see

the world, and how this influences their propensity for

entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. This state of

mind or lens is influenced by multiple factors that

include what people know or do not know (related to

their knowledge), what people have done or have not

done (related to their experience), what people can do

or believe they can do (related to their level of

competency and self-belief), and who they are (related

to their personality, values, attitudes and beliefs).

The literature review goes on to look at current

measurement tools for entrepreneurial mindset as well

as the limitations of these tools in providing a

comprehensive measure for the mindset dimensions

that were explored. Following these limitations, the

development of a quantitative survey based on the

identified entrepreneurial mindset dimensions is

proposed. This survey intends to measure

entrepreneurial mindset nationally as a general

population baseline, which can then support and

inform the development and impact of entrepreneurial

education and activities. The validity and reliability of

the survey will need to be confirmed before replicating

the survey in other countries to reveal further insights

into both the effectiveness of current interventions as

well as the development of programme and policy

recommendations.

Additional recommendations for future research are

then proposed, both to the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation

and to the broader research and practitioner

community.

Abstract

In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 3

1 www.allangrayorbis.org

http://www.allangrayorbis.org/

In 2016 the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and the Global

Entrepreneurship Research Network (GERN)1 began

collaborating on a project that aims to achieve the

following outcomes related to entrepreneurial

mindset1:

A. The development of a shared understanding

of entrepreneurial mindset.

B. The development of a universal

methodology for measuring entrepreneurial

mindset.

C. The development of an evidence-based

approach for enhancing entrepreneurial

mindset education theory and practice.

This paper aims to take the first steps towards achieving

these outcomes through providing a literature review

on entrepreneurial mindset – its definition, origins and

measurement – and then proposing a way forward to

begin to achieve these outcomes.

To do this, this paper will consist of three main parts:

• Part 1 – In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of

Entrepreneurial Mindset

• Part 2 – In Pursuit of a Better Measure for


• Part 3 – Possible Future Research Areas

Relating to Entrepreneurial Mindset and its

Measurement

Part 1 will explore the genesis of entrepreneurial

mindset and how an understanding of the mindset of

entrepreneurs was initially rooted in the behavioural

sciences and is based on decades of research within the

fields of personality, cognitive and social psychology.

Thereafter, a chronological overview of research

relating to the mindset of entrepreneurs is presented

along with the multiple definitions that have been

proposed. A shared understanding of entrepreneurial

mindset is then proposed along with a summary of

general themes that emerge from the literature. Finally,

a list of entrepreneurial mindset dimensions supported

by the literature review is tabulated.

Part 2 will explore the measurement of entrepreneurial

mindset by reviewing literature associated with the

measurement of these constructs as well as reviewing

the research methodologies used in identifying the

entrepreneurial mindset dimensions reviewed in Part 1

of this paper. Lastly, based on the limitations of each of

these tools in measuring the entrepreneurial mindset

dimensions identified in Part 1, a recommendation for

the development of a revised tool is put forward.

Part 3 recommends possible research areas for the

Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and other stakeholders to

consider in taking this study further.

In the spirit of lifelong learning, it is anticipated that this

paper and the insights and recommendations proposed

will continue to be refined as a community of practice

within this field emerges and research on

entrepreneurial mindset advances.

Introduction


2 http://gern.co/ 3 http://gern.co/gern/entrepreneurial-mindset-study

http://gern.co/

http://gern.co/gern/entrepreneurial-mindset-study


An often cited definition of entrepreneurial mindset is

a specific state of mind that orientates human conduct

towards entrepreneurial activities and outcomes

(Fayolle, 2012; Putta, 2014). To understand

entrepreneurial mindset more deeply and its relevance

to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education,

its roots in academic literature from the behavioural

sciences will be reviewed. Through this, a multi-

disciplinary understanding of entrepreneurial mindset

and the potential for future research and practice can

be explored.

The Genesis of Mindset

Entrepreneurial mindset finds its early roots in

personality psychology, which attempts to describe,

predict and explain recurrent behaviours that set

people apart from one another (Corr and Matthews,

2009, p. 43). With seminal work in psychology and the

emergence of personality psychology being led by

James (1842–1910), Freud (1856–1939), Calkins

(1863–1930), Adler (1870–1937) and Jung (1875–

1961); Gordon Allport (1897–1967) is often referred to

as the founder of personality as a separate field of

psychology. Allport made a significant contribution to

this particular field of study with his research,

Concepts of Trait and Personality (1927).

Allport defined personality as a dynamic organisation,

within an individual, of psychophysical systems that

determine one’s unique adjustments to the

environment (Allport, 1937, p. 48). McAdams and Pals

(2006, p. 212) offer a modern approach to this

definition and define personality as an individual’s

unique variation on the general design of human

nature, expressed as a developing pattern of

dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations and

integrative life-stories complexly and differentially

situated in culture.

Cloninger (in Corr and Matthews, 2009) synthesised the

various definitions of personality psychology in that a

person’s personality begins with certain innate

biological dispositions (both distinct and shared,

hereditary and influenced) and through life these

innate tendencies are channelled and influenced by

multiple, interrelated factors that include experiences

and culture and result in a pattern of behaviour,

cognitions and emotional patterns that all constitute

what is referred to as personality.

Mcdougall (1932) was one of the first to propose

various similar traits or topics to better understand

personality. He proposed five factors, namely, intellect,

character, temperament, disposition and temper – with

each of these factors being very complex and having

many underlying variables. However, his methodology

to define these factors needed further refinement and

his work sparked half a century of further research to

better organise the language of personality into a more

coherent structure.

Allport (1937) argued that internal individual traits

were the real causes for personality and needed to be

more deeply understood, but the challenge was how

to use language to define and express traits that are

not concrete and are generally experienced internally.

Allport, also known as the ‘trait’ psychologist,

developed a list of 4500 trait-like words to help

understand personality. He then clustered these

words into three trait levels to help us understand the

level of influence these traits may have on behaviour.

Part 1: In Pursuit of a Better

Understanding of Entrepreneurial

Table 1: Fiske's Personality Rating Scale Definitions

1. Readiness to Cooperate vs. Obstructiveness 12. Cautious vs. Adventurous

2. Predictable vs. Unpredictable 13. Good-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, Selfish

3. Assertive vs. Submissive 14. Socially Poised vs. Clumsy, Awkward in Social Situations

4. Depressed vs. Cheerful 15. Rigid vs. Adaptable

5. Frivolous vs. Serious 16. Dependent vs. Self-sufficient

6. Attentive to People vs. Cool, Aloof 17. Placid vs. Worrying, Anxious

7. Easily Upset vs. Unshakable Poise 18. Conscientious vs. Not Conscientious

8. Narrow Interests vs. Broad Interests 19. Marked vs. Slight Overt interest in opposite sex

9. Suspicious vs. Trustful 20. Frank, Expressive vs. Secretive, Reserved

10. Good-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, Selfish 21. Dependent vs. Independent Minded

11. Silent, introspective vs. Talkative 22. Limited vs. Marked Overt Emotional Expression

These levels were cardinal traits, central traits and

secondary traits. He proposed that cardinal traits

dominate and shape a person’s behaviour and are the

ruling behaviour traits. Central traits, which are not as

overwhelming as cardinal traits but can be found to

some degree in every person, are the basic building

blocks of behaviour, an example being honesty.

Secondary traits, according to Allport, are like central

traits but only occur under specific circumstances and

need to be understood in order to provide a complete

picture of human complexity.

Allport went on to hypothesise an idea that is very

closely related to our current understanding of

mindset. He proposed that internal and external forces

have an influence on an individual’s behaviour. He

called these forces genotypes and phenotypes (1937, p.

16). Genotypes are the internal forces that influence

behaviour and include how information is processed

and retained, and how these forces influence one’s

interaction with the external world. Phenotypes are

external forces that influence one’s behaviour and how

one accepts their surroundings. The largest criticism at

the time of this hypothesis was that these were internal

theories and were difficult to be observed, measured or

proven.

Along with theories relating to motivation, drive and

our frame of reference or perspective, Allport added

significant seminal work for other theorists to build

upon.

These 4500 traits, of which many may be considered

internal theories, were still too many to begin to

provide insight into personality and human behaviour

and needed a more structured and more scientific

approach to identify the relationships between these

traits. It was during this period that a statistical

analysis methodology called factor analysis became

more regularly used in the field of psychology.

Factor analysis, originally developed by Spearman

(1904), and then later generalised by Thurstone (1947),

is a statistical test used to find relationships between

multiple items and propose a number of ‘factors’ that

then serve as clusters to help one understand core

behaviour trends or themes.

An early example of how factor analysis added value to

the behavioural sciences was where Fiske (1949)

developed a rating scale, adapted from a larger scale

developed by Cattell (1947), where he identified 22

core personality attributes (Table 1).


Through a factor analysis, the survey revealed five

factors, each factor having a high correlation with some

of the 22 items in Table 1. These are summarised in the

points below.

1. Socially Adaptable (Cheerful, Talkative,

Adventurous, Adaptable and Placid)

2. Emotional Control (Unshakable, Self-

sufficient, Placid, Emotional Expression,

Social Poise, Easily Upset, Worrying,

Anxious, Dependent)

3. Conformity (Readiness to cooperate,

Serious, Trustful, Good-natured and easy-

going, and conscientiousness

4. The Inquiring Intellect (Broad Interests,

Independent-Minded, Imaginative,

Seriousness of Purpose and

Conscientiousness)

5. Confident Self-expression (Assertive,

Talkative, Marked Interest in the Opposite

Sex, Frank, Expressive

Fiske’s development of these five factors led to

significant further study focused on defining a more

universally accepted five-factor model of personality.

Cattell (1957), Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman

(1963), Borgatt (1964), Eysenck (1970) and Guilford

(1975) all contributed to the refinement of these

factors.

Following a study on the relationship between age

differences and personality, Costa and McCrae (1976)

proposed the three broad traits of Neuroticism (N),

Extraversion (E) and Openness to Experience (O), and

the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Inventory

(NEO-I) was developed. Later Costa and McCrae (1985)

went on to recognise two additional factors:

Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C). They

then abandoned the use of NEO as an acronym and

developed the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI),

which is now often referred to as the ‘Big Five’

personality traits or Five Factor Model (FFM). The Big

Five is often remembered nowadays through the

‘OCEAN’ or ‘CANOE’ acronyms. Table 2 offers a

summary of these five factors of personality.

Table 2: Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI / Big Five Personality Traits

Trait Description

Openness Curious, original, intellectual, creative and openness to new ideas.

Conscientiousness Organised, systematic, achievement oriented and dependable.

Extraversion Outgoing, talkative, sociable.

Agreeableness Affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind and warm.

Neuroticism Anxious, irritable, temperamental, moody.

Popular critics of the Big Five include Block (2004) who

raised concerns about the use of the statistical method

of factor analyses as well as how the questionnaire

measured the Big Five. Ashton and Lee (2007) found the

Big Five to be a useful tool in summarising basic

information relating to one’s personality but raised a

concern on the usefulness of the tool in understanding

personality in its detail, depth or context. McAdams

(1992) proposed a ‘Big Six’ by introducing a sixth trait

domain: Honesty-Humility. However, broadly speaking,

consensus around the Big Five model of personality has

grown steadily since the early 1990s.

The Big Five has since been used as a knowledge base

to better understand many sub-disciplines including

attitudes, goals and motivation; everyday behaviour;

physical health; psychopathology; relationships and

social status; self-concept; subjective well-being; work

and achievement, mindset; and later entrepreneurial

mindset.

Based on further research within many of these sub-

disciplines, as well as developments within cognitive

and social psychology, the concept of mindset began to

develop, both in its definition and underlying theory as

well as in its properties as a construct.


Framing Mindset as a Theory Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) introduced the term ‘naïve,

implicit personality theory’ to describe how people

make assumptions of others based on how they

interpret their attributes and traits and the

relationships between these. This shift in focus from

personality traits to the interpretation of these traits,

and the impact of these interpretations sparked initial

thinking that is now well aligned to the definition of

mindset. In 1955 Gage and Cronbach attempted to view

implicit personality theory as a set of assumptions that

a person makes, often unconsciously, between the

personality traits of people, with these assumptions

influencing how we respond to the people around us

(Gage and Cronbach, 1955, p. 420). These implicit

personality theories generally revolved around one’s

assumptions of others and expanded its research in

social psychology, with some more popular theories

related to what is more commonly known as

stereotyping, the halo effect, fundamental attributional

error and other attributional biases.

The term schema refers to a knowledge structure that

people use to make sense of both social and

organisational situations. Similar to implicit personality

theory, examples of schemas also include stereotypes

(Hamilton, 1979), prototypes (Cantor and Mischel,

1979 and 1977), implicit theories (Brief and Downey,

1983, Schneider, 1973), causal schemata (Kelly, 1973)

and frames (Minsky, 1975). Most of these schemas are

cognitive frameworks that help us to better

understand behaviour. A specific schema that is

concerned with both understanding the behaviour of

self and others and with guiding one’s behaviour in

specific situations became known as a script (Schank &

Abelson, 1977; Graesser, Gordon & Sawyer, 1979;

Abelson, 1981; Gioia & Poole, 1984).

Scripts can originate through habituating behaviour,

where a learned sequence of behaviour can result in

future behaviour being evoked by similar situational

cues. Scripts were more widely researched in

organisational psychology in understanding consumer

behaviour and the role of advertising and social

influence.

Various studies conducted by Dweck, Reppucci and

Diener (1973–1980) identified two major cognitive

effects on behaviour. These were referred to as the

‘helpless’ response and the ‘mastery-oriented’

response. The helpless response generally avoids

challenges and when faced with obstacles

performance deteriorates rapidly. In contrast, the

mastery-orientation drives people to look for

challenging tasks and when faced with obstacles and

even failure there is evidence of a maintained striving

to overcome these obstacles. Dweck and Elliot (1983

and 1988) went on to look at how people’s motivation

in goal-setting influenced behaviour. They proposed

two motivations behind goal-setting: goals that are

motivated by the level of performance, where

individuals are concerned with gaining favourable

judgments and avoiding failure, and goals that are

motivated by the opportunity to increase one’s level of

competence. This sparked

further research into the role of implicit theories,

cognition and the underlying reasons for these initial

findings relating to mastery-orientation and goal-

setting. Bandura and Dweck (1985 and 1986) went on

to find relationships between effort, goal setting and

mastery-orientation. This research led to the

introduction of what Dweck and Leggett (1988) called

implicit theories of intelligence. They proposed two

implicit theories of intelligence, entity theory and

incremental theory. Entity theory sees intelligence as a

fixed or uncontrollable trait, where incremental theory

sees intelligence as a malleable, increasable and

controllable quality. This led to further research in

determining how these implicit theories can relate to

people, places and things and not only personal goals



Dweck, Chiu and Yong (1995) then expanded the scope

of these implicit theories of intelligence and proposed

that people’s implicit theories about human attributes

influence the way they understand and respond to their

world. In 2006 Dweck called this implicit theory

mindset.

According to Molden and Dweck (2006), mindset refers

to the view you adopt of both yourself and others and

has a profound impact on your life and the decisions

you make. Dweck (2006) described mindset as a kind of

personal paradigm. The much quoted Oxford Dictionary

defines mindset as a ‘habitual way of thinking’.

McGonical (2015) simplifies these definitions and

simply refers to mindset as a belief that biases how you

think, feel and act, and that reflects your philosophy of

life. Reed and Stoltz (2011) explain mindset by

comparing it to a skillset. They propose that if your

skillset is what you can do, then your mindset is what

you see, think and believe. They go on to offer a simple

definition of mindset: the internal lens through which

you navigate life, with this lens influencing everything

that you see and do. They suggest that each person’s

unique mindset or lens is coloured by personal life

experiences, personal traits and education.

Rucker and Galinsky (2016) went on to expand upon the

definition of mindset as a ‘frame of mind that affects

the selection, encoding and retrieval of information as

well as the types of evaluations and responses

individuals give’ (2016, p. 161).

Fixed and Growth Mindsets Following Dweck and Legget’s research in 1988 and

additional research by Dweck et al. (1995), two broad

types of implicit theories on mindsets were proposed:

entity theory and incremental theory, which since 2006

have been more commonly referred to as fixed and

growth mindsets.

Dweck (2006) defined a fixed mindset as one where you

believe that your qualities are carved in stone and are

unlikely to change. She goes on to define a growth

mindset as one where you believe that through effort

everyone can change and grow.

Dweck went on to describe the likely influence that

these mindsets may have on how you respond to the

world around you. These included how you respond

(consciously or unconsciously) to challenges, obstacles,

effort, criticism and the success of others.

However, Rucker and Galinsky (2016) proposed that

the research that has contributed to understanding

fixed and growth mindsets should act as a springboard

for the further exploration of mindsets, beyond these

two mindsets alone. These include the exploration of

mindsets related to power (Galinsky et al., 2016;

Anderson and Galinsky, 2006), construal level (Trope

and Liberman, 2010), regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997),

self-monitoring (Snyder and DeBono, 1985) and the

implemental-deliberative mindset (Gollwitzer et al.,

1990), to mention a few.

For the purpose of this paper relating to

entrepreneurial mindset, the seminal work in

personality psychology and the understanding of the

effect of cognition on behaviour and mindset have

acted as a springboard for better understanding

entrepreneurial mindset, which will now be focused on

in more detail.


Solomon and Winslow then carried out multiple

interviews with entrepreneurs and found that

entrepreneurs have a high level of confidence and

optimism. Contrary to some previous research, they

found that entrepreneurs are not reckless risk-takers

and are not prone to taking great risks and prefer to be

very calculated in their risk-taking. They are

independent and self-reliant and have an internal locus

of control in that they are not easily swayed by the

judgments of others.

Developments from Personality Psychology Other earlier research, specifically focused on the

factors that influence the decision to start a new

business zoomed in on trait or personality

characteristics of individuals (Brockhaus, 1980 and

1982; McClelland, 1961). Van de Ven et al. (1984) and

Gartner (1985) also developed models of the

entrepreneurial process and included behavioural and

situational factors in their models. Earlier models

focusing on entrepreneurial intention (Shapero, 1975;

Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Bird, 1988; Boyd and Vozikis


Exploring Entrepreneurial Mindset Entrepreneurial mindset is of critical importance when

promoting entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial

mindset and the related entrepreneurial skills play a key

role in enabling people to notice and leverage

entrepreneurial opportunities (Nichter and Goldmark,

2009 in Valerio et al., 2014). Ireland (2003) promoted

entrepreneurial mindset as a critical characteristic for

leaders to create sustained value for the future through

the way in which entrepreneurial mindset can drive

one’s ability to rapidly sense,

act and mobilise, even under uncertain conditions.

What follows is a chronological review of notable

contributions towards the understanding of what we

are now beginning to understand as entrepreneurial

mindset.

Solomon and Winslow (1988) carried out a literature

review on understanding the characteristics of

entrepreneurs. They summarised their findings in Table

3.

Table 3: Summary of Early Characteristics of Entrepreneurs (Solomon and Winslow, 1988)

Date Authors Characteristics

1848 Mill Risk bearing 1917 Weber Source of formal authority 1934 Schumpeter Innovation, initiative 1954 Sutton Desire for responsibility 1959 Hartman Source of formal authority 1961 McClelland Risk-taking, need for achievement 1963 Davids Ambition, drive for independence, responsibility, self-confidence 1964 Pickle Mental drive, human relations, compatibility and technical knowledge 1971 Palmer Risk measurement 1973 Winter Need for power 1974 Borland Internal locus of control 1974 Liles Need for achievement 1977 Gasse Personal value orientation 1978 Timmons Drive/self-confidence, goal orientation, creativity and innovation 1980 Sexton Energetic, ambitious, positive reaction to setbacks 1981 Welsh & White Need for control, responsibility seeker, challenge taker, moderate risk taker 1982 Dunkelberg & Cooper Growth oriented, independence oriented, craftsman oriented 1986 Femald & Solomon Values of entrepreneurs 1987 Winslow & Solomon Mildly sociopathic

1994) included a focus on attitudes and their underlying

drivers in explaining the entrepreneurial process. These

models generally included perceptions on desirability

of becoming an entrepreneur, feasibility of starting

one’s own business, past experiences of starting a

business and whether these experiences were positive

or negative.

Borland (1974) and Begley and Boyd (1986) proposed

how characteristics such as an internal locus of control,

a tolerance for ambiguity and a Type A personality can

be found in people with a higher propensity for

entrepreneurship. Cunningham and Lischeron (1991)

proposed certain entrepreneurial behaviours that

entrepreneurs had in common, relating the dominant

entrepreneurship school of thought or entrepreneurial

models of the time. These behaviours included

intuition, vigour, energy, persistence, self-esteem,

personal values, need for achievement, risk-taking,

innovation, creativity, discovery and alertness to

opportunities.

Most of these behaviours were found outside of the

traditional management school entrepreneurship

models. Cunningham and Lischeron referred to what

they called The Psychological Characteristics School of

Entrepreneurship where one’s needs, drives, attitudes,

beliefs and values determine behaviour. This focus on

personality factors led to three personality

characteristics receiving considerable attention in

research. These are personal values such as honesty,

duty, responsibility and ethical behaviour; risk-taking

propensity; and the need for achievement.

Lau et al. (2012) after reviewing more recent literature

relating to the characteristics of entrepreneurs

summarised their findings; see Table 4 below.

Table 4: Summary of Entrepreneurial Characteristics from Literature Review (Adapted from Lau et al., 2012)

Date Authors Entrepreneurial Attributes

1983 Burgelman Innovativeness, negotiating, integration, results orientation 1985 Pinchot Moderate risk-taking, non-system bound orientation, informality, results orientation 1989 Mitton Innovativeness, networking, integration, opportunism, change-orientation, flexibility in

control, results orientation 1989 Covin & Slevin Innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking 1993 Gelsler Innovativeness, non-system bound orientation, change orientation, flexibility in control 1996 Zahra Innovativeness, venturing, strategic renewal 1997 Dess et al. Intentionality, autonomy 1997 Knight Innovativeness, proactiveness 1997 Dess et al. Intentionality, autonomy 2000 Barret et al. Innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking 2000 Zahra & Garvis Innovativeness, venturing, proactiveness 2001 Lumpkin & Dess Proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness 2002 Goosen et al. Innovativeness, proactiveness, influence 2003 Antoncic & Hisrich New venture formation, product/service/process innovation 2004 Kanter Networking, integration, result orientation 2005 Kuratko et al. Integration, opportunism 2007 Zampetakis & Moustakis Integration, change orientation, informality 2008 Yiu & Lau Product/organizational innovation, domestic/international venturing 2008 Man et al. Innovativeness, networking, integration, opportunism, results orientation 2009 Heavey et al. Innovativeness, venturing, renewal 2009 Ireland et al. Entrepreneurial strategic vision, pro-entrepreneurial organizational architecture 2010 Mitchelmore & Rowley Innovativeness, integration, opportunism, results orientation 2011 Welter & Smallbone Risk-taking, networking, non-system bound orientation, change orientation, flexibility in

control, informality



From these 23 studies, the entrepreneurial attributes

of innovativeness (14 counts), integration (7 counts),

proactiveness (6 counts) and results orientation (5

counts) show up dominantly. Integration, according to

Lau et al. (2012), refers to being involved in all aspects

of the business and being a strong systems thinker who

can make sense of complexity.

In 2000 McGrath and MacMillan released a book

entitled The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for

continually creating opportunity in the age of

uncertainty. They propose that a distinguishing

characteristic of an entrepreneurial mindset is the view

that uncertainty is one’s ally and not one’s enemy. They

then suggest several ways to better manage

uncertainty and develop the mindset that indeed

considers uncertainty as one’s ally. Notable points

include their view that ‘everyone plays’ (McGrath and

MacMillan, 2001), this notion encourages ideation

without judgement and places importance on serious

implementation but open and non-judgmental

creativity and innovation.

They go on to propose that people should experiment

intelligently; this related to multiple aspects including

calculated risk-taking and an openness to learning

being more dominant than a fear of failure.

Cromie (2000) suggested seven core entrepreneurial

attributes, relating predominantly to personality. These

include a need for achievement, an internal locus of

control, calculated risk-taking, tolerance of ambiguity,

creativity, a need for autonomy and self-confidence. In

conjunction with the above attributes, Cromie also

conducted the General Enterprising Tendency Test,

developed by Durham University Business School,

which also seeks to measure one’s level of motivation.

Also in 2000 Midgley et al. developed a set of scales that

they referred to as the patterns of adaptive learning

scales (PALS). These scales, initially used in the

education sector, looked at identifying attributes of

personal achievement goal-orientation, efficacy, self-

handicapping strategies (which are driven by a fear of

failure and an external locus of control), avoidance of

the unknown or novel options and self-presentation.

Midgley et al. (2001) looked further into goals

approached by a performance motivation in

comparison with goals approached by a mastery

motivation, where they propose the benefit of mastery-

approach goals, which is in line with Dweck and

Leggett's (1988) theory related to goal motivation and

mindset.

Several recent studies have looked into the Big Five

personality traits in order to gain insights into

entrepreneurial personality. Zhao and Seibert (2006)

propose that personality adds value in better

understanding entrepreneurial behaviour, but must

always be considered as one important component of a

multi-dimensional model of variables, processes and

environmental factors affecting entrepreneurship. Hao

Zhao et al. (2010) go on to agree on the role that

personality constructs have in developing an

understanding of entrepreneurship but also support

that this is a role where other variables must be

included.

Brandstätter (2011) and Leutner et al. (2014) agreed

that these personality traits predict business intention,

creation and success and that all of the Big Five traits

correlated somewhat with entrepreneurial success.

However, based on further meta-analytical studies,

they found that narrow personality traits such as

innovativeness predict outcomes better than broad

traits such as conscientiousness and extraversion. A

common view from correlation studies is the

acceptance of the role that the Big Five play in ensuring

entrepreneurial success, but not in isolation of other

multiple variables that also play a contributing factor.

Developments from Cognitive Psychology Mitchell et al. (2002) challenged the focus on

entrepreneurial personality attributes and began to

draw on learnings from the cognitive sciences and not

only personality psychology. They began to look at the

idea of entrepreneurial cognition. They defined

entrepreneurial cognition as the knowledge structures

that people use to make assessments, judgments or

decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture

creation and growth.


This was very similar to the definition of

entrepreneurial mindset later proposed by Fayolle

(2012) as a specific state of mind which orientates

human conduct towards entrepreneurial activities and

outcomes. This offered a significant shift in research to

incorporate the cognitive psychology subset of the

behavioural sciences into what was already understood

through research related to personality attributes. This

paper encouraged further theoretical study in this field

and in conjunction with the cognitive sciences.

Following this cognitive perspective on

entrepreneurship, Baron (2004) suggested how a

cognitive perspective may add insights into key aspects

of the entrepreneurial process, which at this point

incorporated some insights related to entrepreneurial

attributes drawn from personality psychology. Baron’s

work investigated the answers to three specific

questions. Why do some people choose to become

entrepreneurs and others not? Why do some people,

and not others, recognise opportunities for new

products and services that can lead to a profitable

outcome? Why are some entrepreneurs so much more

successful than others? Baron’s findings in relation to

these questions are summarised in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Cognitive Factors Relevant to Three Basic Issues Addressed by the Field of Entrepreneurship (Baron, 2004)

Why do some persons and not others become entrepreneurs?

Why do some persons and not others recognise opportunities?

Why are some entrepreneurs more successful than others?

Reduced perceptions of risk (Persons who become entrepreneurs perceive risks as smaller than other persons do)

Basic perceptual processes (Persons who recognize opportunities are more proficient than others at object or pattern recognition)

Counterfactual thinking (Successful entrepreneurs are better than less successful ones at using counterfactual thinking to formulate improved task strategies)

Prospect theory (e.g., Persons who become entrepreneurs overweight small probabilities)

Signal detection theory (e.g., Persons who recognize opportunities are more proficient at distinguishing ‘‘hits’’ from ‘‘false alarms’’)

Processing styles (Systematic vs. heuristic) (Successful entrepreneurs are better at switching between these two processing styles)

Greater susceptibility to various cognitive biases (e.g., Optimistic bias, affect infusion, planning fallacy, and illusion of control)

Regulatory focus theory (e.g., Persons adept at recognizing viable opportunities show a mixed pattern of promotion and prevention focus)

Reduced susceptibility to certain cognitive biases (e.g., Successful entrepreneurs are more successful at avoiding biases such as sunk costs)

Entrepreneurial alertness schema (Persons who recognize opportunities have a more developed alertness schema)

Baron concluded by stating that a cognitive perspective

can prove extremely valuable to the field of

entrepreneurship and proposed how a wide range of

cognitive factors may prove helpful for future research.

Brockner et al. (2004), still with a focus on gaining

insights from the cognitive sciences, investigated the

role of regulatory processes on the entrepreneurial

process.

Baron concluded that regulatory focus theory provided

a well-developed framework to better understand

motives, beliefs and behaviours that in turn can

influence the success of entrepreneurial ventures.

Future research was proposed as past empirical tests

were at the time not yet conducted with

entrepreneurs.

.


The Role of Effectuation in the Development of

Entrepreneurial Mindset Sarasvathy (2001) made a significant contribution by

proposing how effectuation rather than causality drives

entrepreneurial contingency and economic growth.

Causation processes take a particular effect as given

and focus on selecting between means to create that

effect. Effectuation processes, however, take a set of

means as given and focus on selecting between

possible effects that can be created with that set of

means (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245).

Whether an individual looks at a set of resources

through an effectuation or causality lens is completely

up to the individual and may not be a conscious

decision, but the probability of an innovative outcome

is much higher with the lens of effectuation.

Effectuation aligns with a preference for affordable loss

rather than expected returns, which in turn allows for

the creation of more options and a longer-term view of

maximising returns. Effectuation also prioritises

strategic alliances over competition as it will lead to a

greater ability in dealing with uncertainty and will lower

the barriers to entry. Another effectuation preference

relates to one’s exploitation of contingencies rather

than a default exploitation of pre-existing knowledge.

This preference allows for more adaptability and

pivoting rather than having a preference to respond

only to past knowledge that will not allow

experimentation with new or less explored

opportunities. Lastly, effectuation seeks to rather

control an unpredictable future than to try and predict

an already uncertain future. The core difference

between these two preferences relate to what one has

the power to influence and control and what one does

not. Read et al. (2009) went on to show how

effectuation influences one’s view of the future, givens,

attitude towards others, underlying logic and

predisposition towards risk and contingencies. It has a

high likelihood of influencing new venture creation

more positively than following responses that are more

closely related to causation. This is further supported

by Chandler et al. (2011) who proposed subsets of

effectuation, namely experimentation, affordable loss

and flexibility. They went on to show how causation is

negatively associated with uncertainty while

experimentation is positively correlated with

uncertainty. Their main contribution to the field was in

the development of validated scales to measure

causation and effectuation.

The Role of GRIT in the Development of

Entrepreneurial Mindset In 2007 Duckworth et al. defined grit as the

perseverance and passion for long-term goals. This

closely aligns to the importance of sustained effort,

highlighted by Dweck (2006). Their initial study

developed a measurement scale, called the Grit Scale,

that investigated correlations with other constructs.

Their findings included a negative correlation with IQ

but a positive correlation between Grit and the Big Five

personality traits. This offers interesting insights, since

we have shown earlier how the Big Five generally have

a positive correlation with entrepreneurial activity.

Duckworth and Quinn (2009) later validated the Grit

Scale and developed a shorter version called the Short

Grit Scale. Duckworth went on to publish a book in 2016

entitled Grit: the power and passion of perseverance

which should spark further interest into the

relationship between this construct and

entrepreneurial mindset and other disciplines.

Mooradian et al. (2016) looked at a combination of grit

and innovativeness as drivers for entrepreneurial

success. They found that consistency of interest,

perseverance of efforts and ongoing innovation had a

positive relationship with entrepreneurial performance

and that grit had a positive relationship with

innovativeness, which opened additional areas for

future study.

More Recent Contributions to the

Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset Lumpkin et al. (2009) showed how autonomy and

autonomous decision making and action improves

entrepreneurial outcomes. McGee et al. (2009) reflect

on how Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy (ESE) is being

included in many studies and is generally included in

intentionality models.

Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) looked at several

variables related to images of self and developed the

subsets of the images of opportunity, images of

vulnerability (fears) and images of capability (potential).


McKelvie et al. (2011) focused on better understanding

the effect of uncertainty (and how one deals with

ambiguity) on entrepreneurial activity and realised how

people respond to uncertainty differently, which

impacts significantly on the success of their venture.

Following an extensive analysis of entrepreneurial

education and training programmes globally, Robb et

al. (2014) and Valerio et al. (2014) split entrepreneurial

mindset into three clusters: socio-emotional skills,

communication and teamwork (which focused more on

characteristics relating to leadership); entrepreneurial

awareness; and perceptions of entrepreneurship.

Socio-emotional skills included persistence, self-

efficacy, need for achievement, pro-activity, creativity,

optimism, locus of control, openness to ambiguity,

opportunity recognition and self-confidence.

Entrepreneurial awareness focused on entrepreneurial

values, attitudes and norms with perceptions of

entrepreneurship focused on one’s willingness and

intention to become an entrepreneur.

Pizarro (2014) focused more on the development of an

institutional and pedagogical model for developing

entrepreneurial mindset and further validated the use

of the General Enterprising Tendency Test, developed

by Durham University Business School (as used by

Cromie, 2000). The findings once again highlighted

creativity, need for autonomy, risk-taking, internal

locus of control and a need for achievement as key

measures of entrepreneurial mindset.

Putta (2014) added that entrepreneurial mindset

includes characteristics such as motivation,

determination, passion, the insane hunger to succeed,

flexibility, opportunity recognition and exploitation,

planning ahead, putting in consistent effort and dealing

with uncertainty.

In 2015 Stauffer developed what he referred to as an

innovator’s mindset, which included a measurement

instrument and focused particularly on the underlying

processes for innovating and further developing this

mindset, called the innovation cycle. Stauffer included

creativity, adaptability, resourcefulness, imagination,

curiosity, courage and integrity as key attributes of this

mindset.

Pfeifer et al. (2016) looked at the relationships between

entrepreneurial identity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,

personal business exposure and social norms as key

shapers of the entrepreneurial mindset.

After the release of a White Paper in 2015 and the

launch of an online survey called the Entrepreneurial

Mindset Profile (EMP), Davis et al. (2016) placed

specific emphasis on the reliability and validity of their

measure for entrepreneurial mindset. Davis et al.

developed 14 traits related to entrepreneurial mindset.

These traits were categorised into two groups:

personality traits and what they referred to as skills,

with skills being areas that are generally considered to

be more malleable. This distinction also helped

separate aspects more related to entrepreneurial

personality (what had now become referred to as

entrepreneurial mindset, but had slightly differing

attributes). These dimensions are summarised in Table

6.

Table 6: EMP Dimensions (Davis et al. 2016)

Traits Skills

Independence The desire to work with a high degree of independence

Future Focus The ability to think beyond the immediate situation and plan for the future

Preference for a Limited Structure

A preference for tasks and situations with little formal structure

Idea Generation The ability to generate multiple and novel ideas and to find multiple approaches for achieving goals

Nonconformity A preference for acting in unique ways; an interest in being perceived as unique

Execution The ability to turn ideas into actionable plans; the ability to implement ideas well

Risk Acceptance A willingness to pursue an idea or a desired goal even when the probability of succeeding is low

Self-confidence A general belief in one’s ability to leverage skills and talents to achieve important goals

Action Orientation A tendency to show initiative, make decisions quickly, and feel impatient for results

Optimism The ability to maintain a generally positive attitude about various aspects of one’s life and the world

Passion A tendency to experience one’s work as exciting and enjoyable rather than tedious and draining

Persistence The ability to bounce back quickly from disappointment and to remain persistent in the face of setbacks

Need to Achieve The desire to achieve at a high level Interpersonal Sensitivity

A high level of sensitivity to and concern for the well-being of those with whom one works


Developing a Shared Definition of

Entrepreneurial Mindset From the literature reviewed, there were many

nuanced definitions of entrepreneurial mindset with

each definition adding its own unique take on this

concept.

McGrath and MacMillan (2000) viewed entrepreneurial

mindset as a way of thinking about business that

focuses on and captures the benefits of uncertainty.

Mitchell et al. (2002) understood entrepreneurial

mindset as knowledge structures or schemas, similar to

that of mindset, that people use to make sense

assessments, judgments or decisions involving

opportunity evaluation for venture creation or growth.

Ireland (2003) defined entrepreneurial mindset as a

growth-oriented perspective through which individuals

promote flexibility, creativity, continuous innovation

and renewal.

Other definitions refer to the socio-emotional skills and

overall awareness of entrepreneurship associated with

entrepreneurial motivation and future success as an

entrepreneur (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Fayolle et

al., 2006; Souitaris et al., 2007).

Entrepreneurial mindset is also viewed as meta-

cognitive in nature and refers to the ability to rapidly

sense, act and mobilise even under uncertain

conditions (Haynie et al., 2010). According to Valerio et

al. (2014), entrepreneurial mindset refers to the socio-

emotional skills and overall awareness of

entrepreneurship associated with entrepreneurial

motivation and future success as an entrepreneur.

Lastly and more succinctly, entrepreneurial mindset

was referred to as a specific state of mind that

orientates human conduct towards entrepreneurial

activities and outcomes (Fayolle, 2012; Putta, 2014).

From the definitions above and those of mindset, a

common understanding emerges where

entrepreneurial mindset relates to how one’s thinking

or state of mind (conscious or sub-conscious) or the

lens through which one sees the world (Reed and Stoltz

2011) influences one’s propensity for entrepreneurial

activities and outcomes.


From the definitions above and those of mindset, a

common understanding emerges where

entrepreneurial mindset relates to how one’s thinking

or state of mind (conscious or sub-conscious) or the

lens through which one sees the world (Reed and Stoltz

2011) influences one’s propensity for entrepreneurial

activities and outcomes.

This state of mind or lens is influenced by multiple

factors that include:

• what people know or do not know (relating to

knowledge);

• what people have done or have not done

(relating to experience);

• what people can do or believe they can do

(relating to level of competency and self-

belief); and

• who they are (relating to personality, values,

attitudes and beliefs).

All of these play a role in developing specific lenses

through which we see the world that may or may not

be conducive to driving entrepreneurial activity and

behaviour.

Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial

Mindset from Literature Following the multiple dimensions found in literature,

relating to various definitions and understandings of

entrepreneurial mindset, what are the key

characteristics of an entrepreneurial mindset? What

does an entrepreneurial mindset look like when

compared to a different mindset (where the probability

of entrepreneurial activities and outcomes are lower)?

From the literature reviewed, the following 11 key

themes emerged as core characteristics of an

entrepreneurial mindset.

Lifelong learning and openness to change Based on the premise of a growth mindset, a

characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is both the

belief in the malleability of behaviour (Dweck et al.,

1995) – that behaviour can change over time and is not

generally fixed – and the openness to changing one’s

own behaviour.

This includes an openness to consistently learn from

one’s context and environment, for example learning

from criticism and setbacks (Dweck, 2006) in order to

increase the likelihood of entrepreneurial activities or

outcomes.

Putta (2014) emphasises the importance of being

flexible; to be able to modify and adapt depending on

your context. Mooradian et al. (2016) add that firstly

there needs to be a willingness or openness to change

or compromise rather than a rigidity and fixation with

following the planned course and only that. This

openness can then lead to an ability to readily adjust

oneself and to pivot in changing environments, which is

a driver for increased entrepreneurial outcomes

(Totem Inc., 2015). Sarasvathy (2001) describes this as

effectuation – having the ability to exploit

contingencies that arise unexpectedly over time. They

can be exploited only when there is an initial belief and

openness to change and ongoing learning.

This openness to ongoing learning influences how one

will respond to critical feedback as well as failure.

Stauffer (2015) sees entrepreneurial mindset as an

open feedback system, where one is open and

receptive to feedback because it is an opportunity for

modification and improvement. Moberg et al. (2014)

agrees with this notion and sees the acceptance of

failure as a necessary process of learning that has the

potential to open opportunities for innovation. This is

further supported by Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010)

who focused on challenging one’s fear of failure in

order to increase entrepreneurial outcomes, where this

fear of failure can rather be replaced by the desire to

learn from the experience and continuously improve.

Engagement in a complex and uncertain world The world we live in is remarkably complex and is filled

with uncertainty and areas out of our control and

influence. An entrepreneurial mindset sees the world

through this lens and seeks to understand it better,

rather than through a lens where the world is perceived

as stable, predictable and controllable. Building further

upon a characteristic of growth mindset where one

believes in and is open to a dynamism and complexity

(Dweck et al., 1995).


With an entrepreneurial mindset the world and one’s

context is seen through a non-linear, more dynamic and

more ecological lens (Sarasvathy, 2001) where one is

open to and actively seeking linkages, systems and

patterns (Totem Inc., 2015) in order to better

understand the complexity and make sense of it. With

this lens one learns to accept areas that are not in our

influence or control and to rather focus on areas that

are. In this context, Sarasvathy (2001) shows that one’s

focus is on the controllable aspects of an unpredictable

future rather than on trying to predict the future and

control it as much as possible. This reveals an

underlying internal locus of control and influence

where one can continue to exert influence within

uncertain and complex environments, irrespective of

the circumstance. Entrepreneurial mindset allows for

an openness to accept uncertainty where relevant

rather than trying to control it and develop an

awareness of areas that are not within one’s influence

and control (Putta, 2014).

Creative and innovative approaches to problem

solving A key characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is the

ability to transcend traditional rules, patterns and

ideologies and to create meaningful, fresh ideas and

interpretations (Valerio et al., 2014). This creativity has

been known as a central characteristic of entrepreneurs

and influences how problems are perceived, analysed

and responded to. Creativity allows for flexibility and

adaptability in problem solving where the responses to

problems are fuelled by imaginative, innovative,

curious and versatile interventions (Kirton, 1976;

Solomon and Winslow, 1988; Pizarro, 2014).

Moberg et al. (2014) noted that this creativity relies on

imagination, that is the conscious representation of

what is not immediately present to the senses.

However, with creativity relying on imagination,

innovation relies on action and is defined as the act or

process of introducing new ideas, methods or

approaches (Mooradian et al., 2016) and this action

may be of equal importance to the entrepreneur.

This process of creativity leading to an innovative

output begins with a sheer curiosity and inquisitiveness

(Moberg et al., 2014) as well as a desire for

nonconformity or, as Davis et al. (2016) put it, a

preference and desire to act in a unique way and stand

out from the crowd.

This creative and innovative lens believes in

experimenting and is open to learning from an iterative

approach. This often begins with the generation of

many ideas (Davis et al., 2016) as well as the openness

to try multiple methods, experiment and adapt the

solutions through an effectual and non-linear process

(Stauffer, 2015).

Belief and confidence in one’s own capacity and

competency to be entrepreneurial Valerio et al. (2014) show how the belief in one’s

capacity and competency for producing a desired result

or effect (an entrepreneurial outcome) is a key

attribute of entrepreneurial mindset. This includes

feelings of trust in one’s abilities, qualities and

judgment. This general belief is commonly referred to

as self-efficacy and is a key driver of desired results and

effectiveness in any context (Midgley et al., 2000;

Moberg et al., 2014; Mooradian et al., 2016). Mitchell

and Shepherd (2010) and Pfeifer et al. (2016) refer to

this as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which they define

as the belief in one’s ability to successfully conduct

entrepreneurial tasks.

This self-efficacy is driven by self-belief, self-confidence

and self-esteem and are all related to having

confidence in one’s own abilities for entrepreneurial

behaviour (Moberg et al., 2014; Taulbert and

Schoeniger, 2010).

Desire, motivation and intention to practice

entrepreneurship and behave entrepreneurially Personal choice is a key factor that drives motivation

to become an entrepreneur or behave in an

entrepreneurial way (Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010)

and apart from self-efficacy, personal choice to

become an entrepreneur can also be influenced by

other factors. There is a need for one to have a

positive perception of entrepreneurship as well as a

desire, motivation and intention to be an

entrepreneur (Valerio et al., 2014). For some the

motivation to become an entrepreneur may be

influenced by autonomy, mastery


and a strong sense of purpose. Other motivational

factors may be power, honour or fame, but these

motivational factors need to be strong enough to drive

a willingness to strive for the attainment of these

motivations (Moberg et al., 2014).

However, because the entrepreneurial journey is not

linear, predictable or often easy, a critical lens through

which entrepreneurs see the world is one of optimism

(Davis et al., 2016) which is the ability to maintain

positivity even when things are not going well. This

optimism as well as the ability to perceive the unknown

with a probabilistic lens, where one is comfortable to

see an uncertain future unravel in a way that requires

adaptability (Stauffer, 2015).

One may also have a passion and interest in becoming

an entrepreneur through seeing entrepreneurial

activity as exciting and enjoyable, rather than tedious

and draining (Putta, 2014; Davis et al., 2016) and having

consistent positive feelings, emotions and beliefs

associated with entrepreneurial activity (Mooradian et

al., 2016). For some though, this motivation is very

personal and is linked to an entrepreneurial identity

(Pfeifer et al., 2016) which can often be linked to

positive experiences of entrepreneurship as well as

being aware of and in positive relationships with

entrepreneurs, e.g. parents who are entrepreneurs and

have a positive experience of entrepreneurship.

Taking initiative and personal responsibility for

actions A characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is the belief

in one’s responsibility to take personal leadership for

tasks (Valerio et al., 2014), driven by the underlying

belief that one can influence the outcomes of events

(Mooradian et al., 2016). This internal locus of control

drives entrepreneurs to base their success on their own

efforts and input and therefore take responsibility for

action. A further characteristic is the desire and ability

to translate ideas into actionable plans and to execute

these plans.

This action-orientation is further related to a tendency

to show a level of impatience in expectation of results

(Davis et al., 2016). This action-orientation brings with

it a high degree of excellence and attention to detail

during implementation, a desire to do one’s work well

and thoroughly and to be careful, meticulous and

rigorous while doing so. Mooradian et al. (2016) refers

to this attention to detail as conscientiousness.

Entrepreneurs have the need for a degree of

independence and autonomy in their work and have a

preference to assess and initiate things independently

(Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010; Moberg et al., 2014;

Stauffer, 2015; Totem Inc., 2015; Mooradian et al.,

2016;) and this is driven by the feeling of having the

power, authority and ability to be entrepreneurial. This

desire to work with a high degree of independence

(Davis et al., 2016) is less about working alone and more

about not functioning well in restrictive environments

without a degree of freedom (Cromie, 2000, p. 21).

This initiative and personal responsibility, however, is

not taken lightly but is carefully thought through with

self-reflection and a conscious effort to grow and

improve in the effectiveness of one’s responses to

challenges (Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010; Totem Inc.,

2015).

A pursuit of goal-attainment through personal

mastery and value-creation Begley and Boyd (1986) argued that entrepreneurs

have a higher desire than non-entrepreneurs to

achieve. Putta (2014) even describes this desire as an

‘insane hunger to achieve’. This need for achievement

is accelerated through goal-setting and the

establishment of stretch goals (Mooradian et al., 2016).

Totem Inc. (2015) goes on to show how entrepreneurs

have a desire for achievement that is at a very high

level, where one is resolute and determined to achieve

the set goals (Moberg et al., 2014).


However, inasmuch as goal attainment is important,

the path that is taken to achieve the goal is less

important as long as the result is achieved. Totem Inc.

(2015) refers to this as contextual goal orientation

where the drive is goal attainment without having the

need to follow a fixed plan. Often these goals are not

set for achievement sake, but for learning sake and the

opportunity for personal mastery (Dweck et al., 1995;

Midgely et al., 2000). The attainment of the goal is often

also driven by the creation of value for others (Totem

Inc., 2015).

Recognising opportunities An entrepreneurial mindset allows one to readily

recognise and pursue opportunities and to not be

resource dependent but rather resourceful with

whatever means are at one’s disposal (Taulbert and

Schoeniger, 2010; Putta, 2014).

Sarasvathy (2001) refers to this as the ability to deal

skilfully and promptly with a specific opportunity or

problem with limited tools or means. Sarasvathy called

this effectuation and showed how it is related to finding

more opportunities for innovation even with resource

limitations. This was also described as resourcefulness

(Totem Inc., 2015). Davis et al. (2016) agree with this in

their discussion of entrepreneurs’ preference for a

limited structure where they have the freedom to be

adaptable and can often even find it boring to follow

structured tasks.

Grit and perseverance in the face of challenges One of the key factors of a growth mindset is related to

understanding that effort, or ‘earnest, strenuous

attempts’ are required to achieve goals and overcome

challenges (Dweck et al., 1995; Putta, 2014). And, one

of the rewards that effort brings, like goal attainment,

is an opportunity for personal mastery. Dweck (2006)

refers to effort as the path to personal mastery. Further

to displaying effort, Dweck goes on to show how these

types of individuals embrace challenges and can persist

in the face of setbacks. This persistence, commitment

and determination are widely cited in support of this

being a prominent characteristic of entrepreneurial

mindset (Moberg et al., 2014; Totem Inc., 2015; Davis

et al., 2016).

This tenacity, persevered effort or grit (Mooradian et

al., 2016; Duckworth et al., 2007) is often coupled with

an ability to bounce back after failed attempts or

setbacks. Valerio et al. (2014) show how resilience is

developed when this consistent effort and tenacity is

displayed. Yet the objective, once again, is not to only

obtain the goal, but to allow for increased personal

mastery and an increased ability to adapt and discover

and use contingencies (Sarasvathy, 2001). A central

focus for the programmes developed by Taulbert and

Schoeniger (2010) was dealing with the fear of failure,

which can often be the most difficult setback to deal

with and, as Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) show, there

is a need to see failure as an opportunity to learn and

to determine what affordable failure is.

Taking risks that lead to learning, growth and

value Valerio et al. (2014) and Moberg et al. (2014) show how

people with an entrepreneurial mindset have the

propensity to take risks, but this propensity is closely

related to the degree of risk loss. Sarasvathy (2001)

called this degree of risk loss ‘affordable’ or ‘acceptable

risk’, where decision making is guided by what one is

willing to risk for the desired outcome. This is by no

means frivolous risk-taking but very calculated and

deliberate – entrepreneurs actually calculate risk very

carefully and are generally moderate, rather than high

risk takers (Caird, 1991; Cunningham and Lischeron,

1991; Drucker, 1985). This calculation of risk also

considers the longer-term viability of the opportunity

or problem and drives a level of thinking that is beyond

the immediate situation and seeks to consider the

future carefully (Putta, 2014; Davis et al., 2016).

This carefully calculated risk acceptance is described by

Davis et al. (2016) and Mooradian et al. (2016) as a

willingness to pursue a desired goal when the

probability of succeeding is low, but even though the

probability may be low the relative potential value, risk

return and the opportunity for learning is favourable.


A belief in one’s ability to influence Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010) state that

entrepreneurs have a desire to influence the character

development and behaviour of others. The underlying

drivers for this may vary but are generally driven by the

increased likelihood for goal attainment through

others, especially when other people can offer more

value than oneself to the task at hand. Sarasvathy

(2001) shows how this emphasises the leadership of

strategic alliances, co-operative strategies and pre-

commitments to create access to new markets and to

reduce or eliminate uncertainty and barriers to entry.

This desire to influence and lead may be contrary to the

level of autonomy detailed earlier in this paper, but one

must note that the end-goal is goal attainment and the

entrepreneur will need to see through this lens to know

when it is better to prioritise independence and when

it is better to work with others.

In order to influence and provide leadership to others,

a degree of social confidence is required. This includes

the ability to be assertive in social environments, to

meet new people and build relationships with

confidence (Moberg et. al., 2014).

In research conducted by Davis et al. (2016) they

referred to the importance of an ‘interpersonal

sensitivity’ for entrepreneurs, however, their research

did not show a strong correlation between

interpersonal sensitivity and entrepreneurial

behaviour. It was included as an entrepreneurial

mindset as they suspected that if entrepreneurs

increased their awareness of the feelings, motivations

and beliefs of the people around them they could be

even more effective. They proposed this for future

research but found little evidence of it during their

studies at the time.

Dweck (2016) in her unpacking of growth mindset

described the ability for one to be able to celebrate in

the successes of others rather than feeling threatened

or jealous of these. This celebration of other people’s

success is primarily driven by the lessons and

inspiration that can be found in sharing these

experiences. This desire and openness to other’s

success may further drive one’s openness to influence

others towards such successes.

Summary of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions

from the Literature Review Table 7 summarises the entrepreneurial mindset

dimensions that have been extracted from the

literature review. This summary forms the basis of Part

2 of this study that will seek to find an appropriate

measure for entrepreneurial mindset and these

underlying entrepreneurial mindset dimensions.

Table 7: List of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from Literature Review

Underlying Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions (# of underlying references)

Ability to exploit contingencies (1) Independence (2)

Achievement orientation (1) Initiative (2)

Action orientation (2) Innovation (2)

Adaptability (2) Insane hunger to succeed (1)

Ambition (2) Internal locus of control (4)

Antagonism (1) Interpersonal sensitivity (1)

Autonomy (1) Iterative (1)

Benefiting others (1) Learns from criticism (1)

Calculated risk-taking (1) Malleable behaviour (1)

Conscientiousness (2) Mastery-orientated (3)

Consistent passion and interest (1) Mediational judgement (1)

Context of relevance: More dynamic, nonlinear, and ecological (1)

Motivation (3)

Contextual goal-orientation (1) Nature of the unknown: Focus on the controllable aspects of an unpredictable future (1)

Creativity and imagination (3) Need for achievement (3)

Curiosity (1) Need for empowerment (1)

Dealing with uncertainty (1) Neuroticism (1)

Decision Making: Decisions made by what one is willing to risk (1)

Nonconformity (1)

Decision Making: Explores what else could be possible with given means (1)

Open to collaborate and partner (1)

Decision Making: Focused on the process and adaptable learning journey (1)

Open to feedback (1)

Desire to influence others (3) Open to experiences (1)

Determination (2) Opportunity recognition (2)

Dynamism and complexity (1) Optimism (1)

Effectual (1) Passionate (2)

Effort-oriented (2) Passion for entrepreneurship (1)

Embrace challenges (1) Persistence (4)

Entrepreneurial identity aspiration (1) Planning ahead (1)

Entrepreneurial intention (1) Preference for a limited structure (1)

Entrepreneurial motivation (1) Probabilistic (1)

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (3) Recognise Patterns and Linkages (1)

Extraversion (1) Reflective (1)

Feeling of empowerment (1) Resilience (1)

Finds lessons and inspiration in the success of others (1)

Resourcefulness (2)

Flexibility (2) Responds rather than reacts (1)

Future focused (1) Risk-orientation (4)

General self-efficacy (3) Self-belief and self-confidence related (6)

Goal-oriented (1) Tenacious (1)

Goals set for learning sake (1) Tolerance for failure (3)

Idea generation (1) Underlying logic: To the extent we can control the future, we do not need to predict it (1)



Based on the proposed shared understanding of

entrepreneurial mindset and the entrepreneurial

mindset dimensions identified in Part 1, Part 2 aims to

explore the measurement of entrepreneurial mindset

and the appropriateness of current tools in measuring

the dimensions identified thus far. This will be achieved

by reviewing literature associated with the

measurement of these constructs as well as reviewing

the research methodologies used in identifying the

entrepreneurial mindset dimensions (Table 7, p. 24).

Lastly, based on the limitations of each of these tools in

measuring these entrepreneurial mindset dimensions,

a recommendation for the development of a revised

tool is put forward.

Several psychological tests have been used in an

attempt to better understand the nature of

entrepreneurs. These tests include the Thematic

Apperception Test (TAT), Edwards’ Personal Preference

Schedule, the Honey and Mumford Measure of

Learning Styles, Jackson’s Personality Inventory (JPI)

and the more commonly used Myers-Briggs Type

Indicator (MBTI).

Caird (1993) showed how the application of these

psychological tests reveal the following characteristics

of entrepreneurs:

• a high need for achievement, autonomy,

change and dominance

• a low need for deference, abasement,

affiliation and order

• characteristics of risk-taking, energy and social

adroitness

• a preference for learning through action and

pragmatism

• a preference for intuition and thinking

However, Caird went on to highlight a few challenges

and limitations relating to the use of psychological tests

to better understand the nature and attributes of

entrepreneurs.

These include the various definitions for an

entrepreneur, the numerous characteristics associated

with entrepreneurs and uncertainty regarding which

characteristics are more significant than others.

Following the findings of Part 1 of this study, which

included multiple definitions and nuanced

understandings of entrepreneurial mindset, as well as

numerous characteristics associated with

entrepreneurial mindset, the challenges that Caird

highlighted should be kept in mind when exploring

instruments that claim to measure attributes relating to

entrepreneurial mindset.

Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from

the Literature Review Following the findings of Borland (1974) and Begley and

Boyd (1986), characteristics such as an internal locus of

control are evident in people with a higher propensity

for entrepreneurship. In this study, an instrument used

by Levenson (1973) to measure locus of control in

psychiatric patients was adapted to measure the same

construct among entrepreneurs and non-

entrepreneurs. Levenson developed several

statements related to the subsets of locus of control,

namely internal control and chance control where

respondents would rate the extent to which they agree

with the statements, for example “my life is determined

by my own actions,” which is related to the subset of

internal control.

Several studies relating to entrepreneurial mindset

have used a scale developed by Durham University

Business School called the General Enterprise Tendency

Test (GET2). Based on a response of either ‘tend to

agree’ or ‘tend to disagree’, respondents are requested

to respond to a series of 54 statements. This instrument

has been designed to measure characteristics relating

to what they call ‘enterprising tendency’, which

includes the need for achievement, autonomy, creative

tendency, calculated risk-taking as well as internal locus

of control.

Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for



Based on the literature reviewed in this study, what

follows are brief descriptions of the survey instruments

that led the various researchers to their findings related

to entrepreneurial mindset.

The Entrepreneurial Attitude Scale (EAS) was

developed by Robinson et al. (1991). This was a 10-

point Likert-scale survey (ranging from strongly agree

to strongly disagree) and measured entrepreneurial

attitude orientation. The Entrepreneurial Attitude Scale

sought to step away from the dominant personality

trait approach to studying entrepreneurship by

focusing instead on attitude theory. The four subsets of

this scale are the need for achievement, personal

control, innovation and self-esteem. Robinson et al.

hoped that the development of this scale and the

application of attitude theory would allow for the

increased prediction of entrepreneurial behaviour.

Dweck et al. (1995) in their research related to growth

(incremental) and fixed (entity) mindsets developed

several statements in a Likert-scale survey intending to

measure the degree to which respondents displayed

either of these two mindsets. They divided these

statements across three subsets: intelligence, morality

and perspectives of the world. Similar surveys have

been developed over the years to measure fixed vs.

growth mindsets, however, with little evidence for the

validation of these scales.

Following the work of Bandura (1977) and Ajzen (1991

and 1988) on the theory of planned behaviour, social

cognitive theory and self-efficacy; Vesper (1996)

designed a scale for entrepreneurial self-efficacy based

on the stages of venture creation. These scales, related

to the stages of searching, planning, marshalling and

implementing have been used widely to determine

entrepreneurial self-efficacy and are often included as

a component of other instruments designed to

measure entrepreneurial mindset.

Similarly, entrepreneurial intention is rooted in the

theory of planned behaviour and instruments that

measure entrepreneurial intention are commonly used

to predict entrepreneurial behaviour.

Peng et al. (2012) defined entrepreneurial intention as

a mental orientation such as desire, wish and hope

influencing their choice of entrepreneurship. Multiple

scales measuring entrepreneurial intention exist, with

Thompson (2009) developing a 6-aggregate scale that

measures not only entrepreneurial self-efficacy and

entrepreneurial intention but also the attractiveness of

entrepreneurship as a profession, its social valuation

and one’s entrepreneurial capacity.

Duckworth et al. (2007) in their research relating to grit,

designed the 12-item grit scale, which splits its

statements between the subsets of consistency of

interests and perseverance of effort. In 2009 Haynie

and Shepherd developed the Metacognitive Resource

Scale, which focused on goal orientation and

metacognitive knowledge, experience, monitoring and

control. Ahmetoglu et al. (2011) developed the

Measure of Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities

(META), which measures entrepreneurial creativity,

level of proactivity, entrepreneurial awareness and

entrepreneurial vision.

Two recent contributions to the measurement of

entrepreneurial mindset have been developed by

Moberg et al. (2014) in a project called ASTEE and Davis

et al. (2016) with their work related to the

Entrepreneurial Mindset Profile (EMP).

The objective of the ASTEE project was to develop a set

of common European tools for measuring the impact of

entrepreneurship education on students’

entrepreneurial competencies across all education

levels. ASTEE developed a self-rating scale across

various dimensions related to entrepreneurial mindset

including creativity, managing ambiguity, marshalling of

resources, teamwork, entrepreneurial intention, locus

of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy and

entrepreneurial mindset. The items relating specifically

to entrepreneurial mindset focused more closely on

innovative problem solving. While the instruments

developed by ASTEE seem robust, there is very little

evidence for the reliability and validity of the

instrument at this point.


Davis et al. (2016) developed a measure of

entrepreneurial mindset – the Entrepreneurial Mindset

Profile (EMP). They cited the interest in measuring the

personality traits, motivations, attitudes and

behaviours that contribute to entrepreneurial

behaviour and activity, but also raised the challenges of

how efforts to measure these constructs have been

ineffective and have ‘proceeded in a piecemeal fashion’

in the past (Davis et al., 2016, p.21).

Davis et al. started by identifying a list of possible

dimensions that might characterise entrepreneurs and

contribute to entrepreneurial success. To do so they

focused on research related to the traits and

motivations of individuals and that of entrepreneurial

organisations. They also had conversations with

entrepreneurs in order to determine any attributes not

revealed through academic investigation.

Key insights from Davis et al. on the development of

their instrument are listed below:

• They measured specific dimensions rather

than broad domains to yield meaningful

associations with entrepreneurial behaviour.

• During the scale-development process they

realised a distinction between more

‘personality-like’ attributes and others that

were more closely related to ‘skills’. Like fixed

and growth mindsets they found that the

personality-like attributes were slightly less

malleable than those that they categorised as

skills.

• By applying the question: ‘Is there evidence

that this dimension can be altered by training

practice or intervention?’ they determined

whether to categorise the attribute as less

malleable (personality traits) and more

malleable (skills).

From the 14 dimensions that they identified, 7 were

labelled personality traits while the remaining 7 were

labelled skills. They drew from some pre-existing scales

(Torrance, 1968) to develop their instrument. Other

scales were developed by the three authors

independently to measure each dimension.

The process that led to the development of version 2 of

the EMP is broadly outlined as follows:

• The initial version of the instrument included

118 items that were administered online to a

convenience sample of 300 working adults.

• Two exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were

carried out to evaluate the adequacy of the

initial set of items. EFA is a technique that

inductively identifies the best-fitting solution

for a given set of data.

• From the findings a second version of the

instrument was developed.

• The revised version was tested with two

sample groups, which included corporate

managers and entrepreneurs, with the

intention of determining the tool’s ability to

differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-

entrepreneurs. A total of 725 respondents

were included.

• Further EFAs were conducted and the items

that were loaded most highly underwent

another set of EFAs to determine the items

with the highest loadings. This was done to

maximise an item’s reliability in testing the

construct or dimensions that it claims to test

for.

• With the revised version of the survey a

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a technique

that assesses the degree to which a

hypothesised model can reproduce the

observed item co-variances, was done. For the

CFA, the feasibility of a hypothesised model, in

this case the EMP, is determined by assessing

how well it fits the existing data.

• The model’s feasibility was assessed using

multiple methods including EQS (Bentler,

1995), the non-formed fit index (NNFI),

comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990 and

1995), the goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Jorskog

& Sorbom, 1988) and the root mean square

error of approximation (RMSEA).

Davis et al. (2016) conclude by proposing a case for

validity and reliability of the tool due to the steps taken

in its design and further studies comparing the results

of the EMP to results of other assessments, including a

measure of the Big Five mentioned earlier in this study

and two further measures of divergent thinking that

show some notable correlations in their findings.


Appropriateness of Tools for Measuring

Identified Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions From this overview it is evident that various

instruments have been used to measure specific

dimensions of entrepreneurial mindset depending on

the focus of the research, with several of these

instruments incorporating validated scales adapted

from the fields of both personality and cognitive

psychology.

However, none of these identified measures are

individually able to measure all or even a significant

percentage of the entrepreneurial mindset dimensions

identified in the literature review (Table 7). Ideally a

combination of these tools is required for a

comprehensive measure of these dimensions. It is also

noted that some dimensions were initially measured

using qualitative or mixed-method approaches and the

development of quantitative items for these

dimensions will need to be explored.

Proposed Measure for Entrepreneurial

Mindset Based on the limitations of current tools in measuring

the entrepreneurial mindset dimensions identified in

Part A (Table 7), the development of a quantitative

survey is proposed with the intention of it being piloted,

tested and refined in South Africa, and later replicated

in other countries.

This survey will be differentiated from previous

measures in that it will aim to measure the dimensions

identified in this study while using the underlying

literature reviewed and the entrepreneurial mindset

definition proposed as a basis for its development.

A quantitative survey using Likert Scale questions

(Likert, 1932) and possibly Semantic Differential

questions (Osgood et al., 1957) are proposed, but more

research will be required to determine which of these

are most effective.

Initial relevant demographic questions can be included

to better differentiate between core characteristics of

respondents; this may include age, gender,

employment/vocational status and level of education.

Further to this, it is recommended that validated and

publicly available scales are used first in the

development of the survey, with the creation of scales

being a secondary step so that maximum validity of the

scale items are ensured.

Further research and expertise will be required to

refine the pilot survey and ensure that it is sufficiently

valid and reliable for replication in other contexts

beyond South Africa.


This paper intended to explore a better understanding

of and measure for entrepreneurial mindset that will in

turn allow for the development of future research areas

with this paper serving as a foundation for such

research.

In order to better understand entrepreneurial mindset,

the genesis of mindset was explored chronologically so

that a strong contextual base from the behavioural

sciences could be formed in order for entrepreneurial

mindset to be better understood and so that

entrepreneurial mindset is not only understood from a

specific vantage point proposed by a specific

researcher. Thereafter, and following a similar

chronological structure, the development of

entrepreneurial mindset from the behavioural sciences

was explored in depth with the literature culminating in

a specific focus on more recent contributions to this

field.

Based on the chronological literature review, a

summary of emerging themes was presented followed

by several definitions of entrepreneurial mindset. A

shared understanding of entrepreneurial mindset was

then proposed, along with a tabulated list of the

entrepreneurial mindset dimensions from the

literature review.

This paper then reviewed how mindset and

entrepreneurial mindset have been measured thus far,

highlighting the successes and some of the limitations

of these measures. With the successes and limitations

in mind, a recommendation for a universal measure for

entrepreneurial mindset was then proposed.

The development of the entrepreneurial mindset

survey can lead to significant opportunities for future

research, both for the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation as

well as other organisations and stakeholders.

These can include the building of a shared

understanding of entrepreneurial mindset, the

introduction of a data-based system of measuring

progress for entrepreneurial development

interventions as well as a basis for an evidence-based

framework for developing both policy and programme

recommendations.

Apart from the development of the survey, this

literature review can also serve as a starting point for

the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and other

organisations to adopt a research based

understanding of entrepreneurial mindset and to use

the literature to serve as a guide for the refinement of

their own programmes and policies relating to

entrepreneurial mindset. Although a broad overview is

presented by this paper, further research can be

conducted on specific areas related to entrepreneurial

mindset that may be aligned to the organisation and

its area of influence.

Part 3: Conclusion and Future Research

Considerations

Abelson, R.P., 1981. Psychological status of the script concept. Am. Psychol. 36, 715. Adler, A., 1929. The practice and theory of individual psychology / Alfred Adler., 2nd rev. ed. ed.

London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1929], London. Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2011. EQ-nomics: Understanding the relationship

between individual differences in Trait Emotional Intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51, 1028–1033. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.016

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., 1988. Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Allport, G.W., 1937. Personality: a psychological interpretation. Henry Holt and Co., New York. Allport, G.W., 1927. Concepts of trait and personality. Psychol. Bull. 24, 284. Anderson, C., Galinsky, A.D., 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 511–536.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.324 Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., 2007. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of

Personality Structure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 150–166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907

Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change/. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215.

Bandura, M., Dweck, C.S., 1985. The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect and behaviour.

Baron, R.A., 2004. The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions. J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 221–239. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9

Begley, T.M., Boyd, D.P., 1986. Psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurial performance. Front. Entrep. Res. 146.

Bird, B., 1988. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Acad. Manage. Rev. 13, 442. doi:10.2307/258091

Block, J., 2004. „A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description “. Psychol. Individ. Differ. Boyle GJ Saklofske DH Lond. Sage 2, 223–280.

Borgatta, E.F., 1964. The structure of personality characteristics. Behav. Sci. 9, 8–18. Borland, C.M., 1974. Locus of control, need for achievement and entrepreneurship. (Doctoral

Dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, Austin, Texas. Boyd, N.G., Vozikis, G.S., 1994. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial

intentions and actions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18, 63–63. Brandstätter, H., 2011. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.

Personal. Individ. Differ. 51, 222–230. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007 Brief, A.P., Downey, H.K., 1983. Cognitive and organisational structures: a conceptual analysis of

implicit organising theories. Hum. Relat. 36, 1065–1089. Brockhaus, R.H., 1982. The Psychology of the Entrepreneur, in: Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship.

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 39–57. Brockhaus, R.H., 1980. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Acad. Manage. J. 23, 509–520. Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., Low, M.B., 2004. Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process.

J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00007-7 Caird, S., 1993. What do psychological tests suggest about entrepreneurs? J. Manag. Psychol. 8, 11. Caird, S., 1991. Testing enterprise tendency in occupational groups. Br. J. Manag. 2, 177–186. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., 1979. Prototypes in person perception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12, 3–52. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., 1977. Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35, 38. Cattell, R.B., 1957. Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Harrap, London. Cattell, R.B., 1947. Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika 12,

197–220.

Bibliography


Chandler, G.N., DeTienne, D.R., McKelvie, A., Mumford, T.V., 2011. Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 375–390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.006

Corr, P.J., Matthews, G., 2009. The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.

Costa, Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1976. Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach. J. Gerontol. 31, 564–570.

Cromie, S., 2000. Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical evidence. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 9, 7–30. doi:10.1080/135943200398030

Cunningham, J.B., Lischeron, J., 1991. Defining entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 29, 45–61. Davis, M.H., Hall, J.A., Mayer, P.S., 2016. Developing a new measure of entrepreneurial mindset:

Reliability, validity, and implications for practitioners. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 68, 21–48. doi:10.1037/cpb0000045

Drucker, P.F., 1985. Entrepreneurial strategies. Calif. Manage. Rev. 27, 9–25. Duckworth, A., 2016. Grit: the power of passion and perseverance. Scribner, New York, N.Y. Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., Kelly, D.R., 2007. Grit: Perseverance and passion for

long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., 2009. Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit–S). J.

Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174. doi:10.1080/00223890802634290 Dweck, C.S., 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, New York. Dweck, C.S., 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41, 1040. Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., 1995a. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A

word from two perspectives. Psychol. Inq. 6, 267–285. Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., 1995b. Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A

Word From Two Perspectives. Psychol. Inq. 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 Dweck, C.S., Elliott, E.S., 1983. Achievement motivation, in: Socialization, Personality and Social

Development. Wiley, New York, pp. 643–691. Dweck, C.S., Leggett, E.L., 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol.

Rev. 95, 256. Elliott, E.S., Dweck, C.S., 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. J. Pers. Soc.

Psychol. 54, 5. Eysenck, H.-J., 1970. The structure of human personality, 3rd ed. Methuen, London. Fayolle, A., 2012. Lexicon.ft.com [WWW Document]. Financ. Times Lex. URL

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=entrepreneurial-mindset (accessed 11.12.16). Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., Lassas-Clerc, N., 2006. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education

programmes: A new methodology. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 30, 701–720. Fiske, D.W., 1949. Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources.

J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44, 329. Freud, S., 1953. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud /

translated from the German under the general editorship of James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud; assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson. Vol. 5, The interpretation of dreams: second part; On dreams: (1900-1901)., Reprinted with corrections. ed. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-analysis, 1953 (1981 printing), London.

Gage, N.L., Cronbach, L., 1955. Conceptual and methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev. 62, 411.

Galinsky, A.D., Rucker, D.D., Magee, J.C., 2016. Power and perspective-taking: A critical examination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 67, 91–92. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.12.002

Gartner, W.B., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10, 696–706.

Gioia, D.A., Poole, P.P., 1984. Scripts in Organizational Behaviour. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9, 449. doi:10.2307/258285


Gollwitzer, P.M., Heckhausen, H., Steller, B., 1990. Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 1119.

Graesser, A.C., Gordon, S.E., Sawyer, J.D., 1979. Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities: Tests of a script pointer+ tag hypothesis. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 18, 319–332.

Guilford, J.P., 1975. Factors and factors of personality. Psychol. Bull. 82, 802. Hamilton, D.L., 1979. A cognitive attributional analysis of stereotyping1. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12,

53–84. Hao Zhao, Seibert, S.E., Lumpkin, G.T., 2010. The Relationship of Personality to Entrepreneurial

Intentions and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Manag. 36, 381–404. doi:10.1177/0149206309335187

Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., Earley, P.C., 2010. A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 217–229. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001

Haynie, M., Shepherd, D.A., 2009. A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 695–714.

Higgins, E.T., 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52, 1280–1300. Ireland, R., 2003. A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and its Dimensions. J. Manag.

29, 963–989. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2 James, W., 1891. The Principles of Psychology. Am. J. Psychol. 3, 551. doi:10.2307/1412068 Kelly, h. ., 1973. The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 28, 107. Kirton, M., 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 61, 622. Krueger, N., 2015. The Entrepreneurial Mindset (Entrepreneurship 360 Thematic Paper No. Part 1),

Entrepreneurial Education in Practice. Lau, T.L.M., Shaffer, M.A., Fai Chan, K., Wing Yan Man, T., 2012. The entrepreneurial behaviour

inventory: A simulated incident method to assess corporate entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 18, 673–696. doi:10.1108/13552551211268120

Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personal. Individ. Differ. 63, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042

Levenson, H., 1973. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41, 397.

Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes., Archives of Psychology. The Science Press, New York, N.Y.

Lindzey, G., 1954. Handbook of Social Psychology. Addison Wesley, Cambridge; New York. Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C., Schneider, D.R., 2009. Understanding and measuring autonomy: An

entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 47–69. McAdams, D.P., 1992. The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. J. Pers. 60, 329–361. McAdams, D.P., Pals, J.L., 2006. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of

personality. Am. Psychol. 61, 204–217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204 McClelland, D.C., 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Norstrand, Princeton, N.J. McCrae, R.R., Costa, Jr., P.T., Martin, T.A., 2005. The NEO–PI–3: A More Readable Revised NEO

Personality Inventory. J. Pers. Assess. 84, 261–270. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05 Mcdougall, W., 1932. Of the Words Character and Personality. Character Personal. 1, 3. McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L., Sequeira, J.M., 2009. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining

the Measure. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 965–988. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x McGonigal, K., 2015. The upside of stress: Why stress is good for you (and how to get good at it).

Penguin Random House UK, London. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I., 2001. Guidelines for managing with an entrepreneurial mindset.

Strategy Leadersh. 29. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I., 2000. The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continually creating

opportunity in the age of uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press.


McKelvie, A., Haynie, J.M., Gustavsson, V., 2011. Unpacking the uncertainty construct: Implications for entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 273–292. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.004

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., 2001. Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 77–86. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77

Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., Urdan, T., 2000. Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor 1001, 48109–1259.

Minsky, 1975. Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing, in: TINLAP ’75 Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Association for computational linguitics, Stroudsburg, pp. 104–116.

Mitchell, J.R., Shepherd, D.A., 2010a. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 138–154. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.08.001

Mitchell, J.R., Shepherd, D.A., 2010b. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 138–154. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.08.001

Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., Smith, J.B., 2002. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 27, 93–104.

Moberg, K., Vestergaard, L., Fayolle, A., Redford, D., Cooney, T., Singer, S., Sailer, K., Filip, D., 2014. How to assess and evaluate the influence of entrepreneurship education: A report of the ASTEE project with a user guide to the tools.

Molden, D.C., Dweck, C.S., 2006. Finding “Meaning” in Psychology: A Lay Theories Approach to Self-Regulation, Social Perception, and Social Development. Am. Psychol. 61, 192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192

Mooradian, T., Matzler, K., Uzelac, B., Bauer, F., 2016a. Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. J. Econ. Psychol. 56, 232–243. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001

Mooradian, T., Matzler, K., Uzelac, B., Bauer, F., 2016b. Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. J. Econ. Psychol. 56, 232–243. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001

Nichter, S., Goldmark, L., 2009. Small Firm Growth in Developing Countries. World Dev. 37, 1453–1464. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.013

Norman, W.T., 1963. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 66, 574.

Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1957. The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.

Peng, Z., Lu, G., Kang, H., 2012. Entrepreneurial Intentions and Its Influencing Factors: A Survey of the University Students in Xi’an China. Creat. Educ. 03, 95–100. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.38B021

Peterman, N.E., Kennedy, J., 2003. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 28, 129–144.

Pfeifer, S., Šarlija, N., Zekić Sušac, M., 2016. Shaping the Entrepreneurial Mindset: Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business Students in Croatia. J. Small Bus. Manag. 54, 102–117. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12133

Pizarro, N., 2014. An institutional and pedagogical model that fosters entrepreneurial mindset among college students. J. Entrep. Educ. 17, 143–162.

Putta, S.S., 2014a. Entrepreneurial mindset crisis in Enterprises. J. Commer. Manag. Thought 5, 70. doi:10.5958/j.0976-478X.5.1.006

Putta, S.S., 2014b. Entrepreneurial mindset crisis in Enterprises. J. Commer. Manag. Thought 5, 70. doi:10.5958/j.0976-478X.5.1.006

Read, S., Song, M., Smit, W., 2009. A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 573–587. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.005

Reed, J., Stoltz, P.G., 2011. Put your mindset to work. Penguin UK, London.


Robb, A., Valerio, A., Parton, B. (Eds.), 2014. Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Insights from Ghana, Kenya, and Mozambique. The World Bank.

Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K., 1991. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 15, 13–31.

Rucker, D.D., Galinsky, A.D., 2016. Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behaviour. J. Consum. Psychol. 26, 161–164. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009

Sarasvathy, S.D., 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26, 243. doi:10.2307/259121

Schank, R.C., Abelson, R.P., 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. New York: Erlbaum division of Wiley, Hillsdale. N.J.

Schneider, D.J., 1973. Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychol. Bull. 79, 294–309. Shapero, A., 1975. The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychol. Today 9, 83–88. Shapero, A., Sokol, L., 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship., in: The Encyclopaedia of

Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 72–90. Snyder, M., DeBono, K.G., 1985. Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the

psychology of advertising. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 586. Solomon, G.T., Winslow, E.K., 1988. Toward a descriptive profile of the entrepreneur. J. Creat. Behav.

22, 162–171. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., Al-Laham, A., 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial

intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. J. Bus. Ventur. 22, 566–591. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002

Spearman, C., 1904. “General Intelligence,” Objectively Determined and Measured. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 201. doi:10.2307/1412107

Stauffer, D.A., 2015. Valuable novelty: a proposed general theory of innovation and innovativeness. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 7, 169–182.

Taulbert, C., Schoeniger, G., 2010. Who owns the Icehouse? Eight lessons from an unlikely entrepreneur. ELI Press, Cleveland.

Thompson, E.R., 2009. Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 669–694.

Thurstone, L.L., 1947. Multiple-factor analysis: a development and expansion of the vectors of mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.

Totem Inc., 2015. Swarm Innovation Profiler: Interpretive Guide. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117,

440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963 Tupes, E.C., Christal, R.E., 1961. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (No. ASD-TR-61-

97). Personnel Research Lab, Texas. Valerio, A., Parton, B., Robb, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the

World: Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Van de Ven, A.H., Hudson, R., Schroeder, D.M., 1984. Designing new business startups:

Entrepreneurial, organisational and ecological considerations. J. Manag. 10, 87–107. Vesper, K.H., 1996. New Venture Experience. Vector Books, Seattle, WA. Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., 2006. The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-

analytical review. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 259–271. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259


In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure … · In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of...

Documents

Transcript of In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure … · In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of...