In Pursuit Of A Better Understanding Of And Measure For Entrepreneurial .

These levels were cardinal traits, central traits andsecondary traits. He proposed that cardinal traitsdominate and shape a person’s behaviour and are theruling behaviour traits. Central traits, which are not asoverwhelming as cardinal traits but can be found tosome degree in every person, are the basic buildingblocks of behaviour, an example being honesty.Secondary traits, according to Allport, are like centraltraits but only occur under specific circumstances andneed to be understood in order to provide a completepicture of human complexity.Along with theories relating to motivation, drive andour frame of reference or perspective, Allport addedsignificant seminal work for other theorists to buildupon.These 4500 traits, of which many may be consideredinternal theories, were still too many to begin toprovide insight into personality and human behaviourand needed a more structured and more scientificapproach to identify the relationships between thesetraits. It was during this period that a statisticalanalysis methodology called factor analysis becamemore regularly used in the field of psychology.Allport went on to hypothesise an idea that is veryclosely related to our current understanding ofmindset. He proposed that internal and external forceshave an influence on an individual’s behaviour. Hecalled these forces genotypes and phenotypes (1937, p.16). Genotypes are the internal forces that influencebehaviour and include how information is processedand retained, and how these forces influence one’sinteraction with the external world. Phenotypes areexternal forces that influence one’s behaviour and howone accepts their surroundings. The largest criticism atthe time of this hypothesis was that these were internaltheories and were difficult to be observed, measured orproven.Factor analysis, originally developed by Spearman(1904), and then later generalised by Thurstone (1947),is a statistical test used to find relationships betweenmultiple items and propose a number of ‘factors’ thatthen serve as clusters to help one understand corebehaviour trends or themes.An early example of how factor analysis added value tothe behavioural sciences was where Fiske (1949)developed a rating scale, adapted from a larger scaledeveloped by Cattell (1947), where he identified 22core personality attributes (Table 1).Table 1: Fiske's Personality Rating Scale Definitions1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.Readiness to Cooperate vs. ObstructivenessPredictable vs. UnpredictableAssertive vs. SubmissiveDepressed vs. CheerfulFrivolous vs. SeriousAttentive to People vs. Cool, AloofEasily Upset vs. Unshakable PoiseNarrow Interests vs. Broad InterestsSuspicious vs. TrustfulGood-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, SelfishSilent, introspective vs. Talkative12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.Cautious vs. AdventurousGood-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, SelfishSocially Poised vs. Clumsy, Awkward in Social SituationsRigid vs. AdaptableDependent vs. Self-sufficientPlacid vs. Worrying, AnxiousConscientious vs. Not ConscientiousMarked vs. Slight Overt interest in opposite sexFrank, Expressive vs. Secretive, ReservedDependent vs. Independent MindedLimited vs. Marked Overt Emotional ExpressionIn Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 6

Through a factor analysis, the survey revealed fivefactors, each factor having a high correlation with someof the 22 items in Table 1. These are summarised in thepoints below.1. Socially Adaptable (Cheerful, Talkative,Adventurous, Adaptable and Placid)2. Emotional Control (Unshakable, Selfsufficient, Placid, Emotional Expression,Social Poise, Easily Upset, Worrying,Anxious, Dependent)3. Conformity (Readiness to cooperate,Serious, Trustful, Good-natured and easygoing, and conscientiousness4. The Inquiring Intellect (Broad ssofPurposeandConscientiousness)5. ConfidentSelf-expression(Assertive,Talkative, Marked Interest in the OppositeSex, Frank, ExpressiveFiske’s development of these five factors led tosignificant further study focused on defining a moreuniversally 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 thesefactors.Following a study on the relationship between agedifferences and personality, Costa and McCrae (1976)proposed the three broad traits of Neuroticism (N),Extraversion (E) and Openness to Experience (O), andthe 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). Theythen abandoned the use of NEO as an acronym anddeveloped the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI),which is now often referred to as the ‘Big Five’personality traits or Five Factor Model (FFM). The BigFive is often remembered nowadays through the‘OCEAN’ or ‘CANOE’ acronyms. Table 2 offers asummary of these five factors of personality.Table 2: Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI / Big Five Personality reeablenessNeuroticismDescriptionCurious, original, intellectual, creative and openness to new ideas.Organised, systematic, achievement oriented and dependable.Outgoing, talkative, sociable.Affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind and warm.Anxious, irritable, temperamental, moody.Popular critics of the Big Five include Block (2004) whoraised concerns about the use of the statistical methodof factor analyses as well as how the questionnairemeasured the Big Five. Ashton and Lee (2007) found theBig Five to be a useful tool in summarising basicinformation relating to one’s personality but raised aconcern on the usefulness of the tool in understandingpersonality in its detail, depth or context. McAdams(1992) proposed a ‘Big Six’ by introducing a sixth traitdomain: Honesty-Humility. However, broadly speaking,consensus around the Big Five model of personality hasgrown steadily since the early 1990s.The Big Five has since been used as a knowledge baseto better understand many sub-disciplines includingattitudes, goals and motivation; everyday behaviour;physical health; psychopathology; relationships andsocial status; self-concept; subjective well-being; workand achievement, mindset; and later entrepreneurialmindset.Based on further research within many of these subdisciplines, as well as developments within cognitiveand social psychology, the concept of mindset began todevelop, both in its definition and underlying theory aswell as in its properties as a construct.In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 7

Framing Mindset as a TheoryBruner and Tagiuri (1954) introduced the term ‘naïve,implicit personality theory’ to describe how peoplemake assumptions of others based on how theyinterpret their attributes and traits and therelationships between these. This shift in focus frompersonality traits to the interpretation of these traits,and the impact of these interpretations sparked initialthinking that is now well aligned to the definition ofmindset. In 1955 Gage and Cronbach attempted to viewimplicit personality theory as a set of assumptions thata person makes, often unconsciously, between thepersonality traits of people, with these assumptionsinfluencing how we respond to the people around us(Gage and Cronbach, 1955, p. 420). These implicitpersonality theories generally revolved around one’sassumptions of others and expanded its research insocial psychology, with some more popular theoriesrelated to what is more commonly known asstereotyping, the halo effect, fundamental attributionalerror and other attributional biases.The term schema refers to a knowledge structure thatpeople use to make sense of both social andorganisational situations. Similar to implicit personalitytheory, 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 arecognitive frameworks that help us to betterunderstand behaviour. A specific schema that isconcerned with both understanding the behaviour ofself and others and with guiding one’s behaviour inspecific 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 infuture behaviour being evoked by similar situationalcues. Scripts were more widely researched inorganisational psychology in understanding consumerbehaviour and the role of advertising and socialinfluence.Various studies conducted by Dweck, Reppucci andDiener (1973–1980) identified two major cognitiveeffects on behaviour. These were referred to as the‘helpless’ response and the ‘mastery-oriented’response. The helpless response generally avoidschallenges and when faced with obstaclesperformance deteriorates rapidly. In contrast, themastery-orientation drives people to look forchallenging tasks and when faced with obstacles andeven failure there is evidence of a maintained strivingto overcome these obstacles. Dweck and Elliot (1983and 1988) went on to look at how people’s motivationin goal-setting influenced behaviour. They proposedtwo motivations behind goal-setting: goals that aremotivated by the level of performance, whereindividuals are concerned with gaining favourablejudgments and avoiding failure, and goals that aremotivated by the opportunity to increase one’s level ofcompetence. This sparkedfurther research into the role of implicit theories,cognition and the underlying reasons for these initialfindings relating to mastery-orientation and goalsetting. Bandura and Dweck (1985 and 1986) went onto find relationships between effort, goal setting andmastery-orientation. This research led to theintroduction of what Dweck and Leggett (1988) calledimplicit theories of intelligence. They proposed twoimplicit theories of intelligence, entity theory andincremental theory. Entity theory sees intelligence as afixed or uncontrollable trait, where incremental theorysees intelligence as a malleable, increasable andcontrollable quality. This led to further research indetermining how these implicit theories can relate topeople, places and things and not only personal goalsIn Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 8

Dweck, Chiu and Yong (1995) then expanded the scopeof these implicit theories of intelligence and proposedthat people’s implicit theories about human attributesinfluence the way they understand and respond to theirworld. In 2006 Dweck called this implicit theorymindset.According to Molden and Dweck (2006), mindset refersto the view you adopt of both yourself and others andhas a profound impact on your life and the decisionsyou make. Dweck (2006) described mindset as a kind ofpersonal paradigm. The much quoted Oxford Dictionarydefines mindset as a ‘habitual way of thinking’.McGonical (2015) simplifies these definitions andsimply refers to mindset as a belief that biases how youthink, feel and act, and that reflects your philosophy oflife. Reed and Stoltz (2011) explain mindset bycomparing it to a skillset. They propose that if yourskillset is what you can do, then your mindset is whatyou see, think and believe. They go on to offer a simpledefinition of mindset: the internal lens through whichyou navigate life, with this lens influencing everythingthat you see and do. They suggest that each person’sunique mindset or lens is coloured by personal lifeexperiences, personal traits and education.Rucker and Galinsky (2016) went on to expand upon thedefinition of mindset as a ‘frame of mind that affectsthe selection, encoding and retrieval of information aswell as the types of evaluations and responsesindividuals give’ (2016, p. 161).Fixed and Growth MindsetsFollowing Dweck and Legget’s research in 1988 andadditional research by Dweck et al. (1995), two broadtypes of implicit theories on mindsets were proposed:entity theory and incremental theory, which since 2006have been more commonly referred to as fixed andgrowth mindsets.Dweck (2006) defined a fixed mindset as one where youbelieve that your qualities are carved in stone and areunlikely to change. She goes on to define a growthmindset as one where you believe that through efforteveryone can change and grow.Dweck went on to describe the likely influence thatthese mindsets may have on how you respond to theworld 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 thatthe research that has contributed to understandingfixed and growth mindsets should act as a springboardfor the further exploration of mindsets, beyond thesetwo mindsets alone. These include the exploration ofmindsets related to power (Galinsky et al., 2016;Anderson and Galinsky, 2006), construal level (Tropeand Liberman, 2010), regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997),self-monitoring (Snyder and DeBono, 1985) and theimplemental-deliberative mindset (Gollwitzer et al.,1990), to mention a few.For the purpose of this paper relating toentrepreneurial mindset, the seminal work inpersonality psychology and the understanding of theeffect of cognition on behaviour and mindset haveacted as a springboard for better understandingentrepreneurial mindset, which will now be focused onin more detail.In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 9

Exploring Entrepreneurial MindsetEntrepreneurial mindset is of critical importance whenpromoting entrepreneurship as entrepreneurialmindset and the related entrepreneurial skills play a keyrole in enabling people to notice and leverageentrepreneurial opportunities (Nichter and Goldmark,2009 in Valerio et al., 2014). Ireland (2003) promotedentrepreneurial mindset as a critical characteristic forleaders to create sustained value for the future throughthe way in which entrepreneurial mindset can driveone’s ability to rapidly sense,act and mobilise, even under uncertain conditions.What follows is a chronological review of notablecontributions towards the understanding of what weare now beginning to understand as entrepreneurialmindset.Solomon and Winslow (1988) carried out a literaturereview on understanding the characteristics ofentrepreneurs. They summarised their findings in Table3.Table 3: Summary of Early Characteristics of Entrepreneurs (Solomon and Winslow, erWinterBorlandLilesGasseTimmonsSextonWelsh & WhiteDunkelberg & CooperFemald & SolomonWinslow & SolomonCharacteristicsRisk bearingSource of formal authorityInnovation, initiativeDesire for responsibilitySource of formal authorityRisk-taking, need for achievementAmbition, drive for independence, responsibility, self-confidenceMental drive, human relations, compatibility and technical knowledgeRisk measurementNeed for powerInternal locus of controlNeed for achievementPersonal value orientationDrive/self-confidence, goal orientation, creativity and innovationEnergetic, ambitious, positive reaction to setbacksNeed for control, responsibility seeker, challenge taker, moderate risk takerGrowth oriented, independence oriented, craftsman orientedValues of entrepreneursMildly sociopathicSolomon and Winslow then carried out multipleinterviews with entrepreneurs and found thatentrepreneurs have a high level of confidence andoptimism. Contrary to some previous research, theyfound that entrepreneurs are not reckless risk-takersand are not prone to taking great risks and prefer to bevery calculated in their risk-taking. They areindependent and self-reliant and have an internal locusof control in that they are not easily swayed by thejudgments of others.Developments from Personality PsychologyOther earlier research, specifically focused on thefactors that influence the decision to start a newbusiness zoomed in on trait or personalitycharacteristics of individuals (Brockhaus, 1980 and1982; McClelland, 1961). Van de Ven et al. (1984) andGartner (1985) also developed models of theentrepreneurial process and included behavioural andsituational factors in their models. Earlier modelsfocusing on entrepreneurial intention (Shapero, 1975;Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Bird, 1988; Boyd and VozikisIn Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 10

1994) included a focus on attitudes and their underlyingdrivers in explaining the entrepreneurial process. Thesemodels generally included perceptions on desirabilityof becoming an entrepreneur, feasibility of startingone’s own business, past experiences of starting abusiness and whether these experiences were positiveor negative.Borland (1974) and Begley and Boyd (1986) proposedhow characteristics such as an internal locus of control,a tolerance for ambiguity and a Type A personality canbe found in people with a higher propensity forentrepreneurship. Cunningham and Lischeron (1991)proposed certain entrepreneurial behaviours thatentrepreneurs had in common, relating the dominantentrepreneurship school of thought or entrepreneurialmodels of the time. These behaviours includedintuition, vigour, energy, persistence, self-esteem,personal values, need for achievement, risk-taking,innovation, creativity, discovery and alertness toopportunities.Most of these behaviours were found outside of thetraditional management school entrepreneurshipmodels. Cunningham and Lischeron referred to whatthey called The Psychological Characteristics School ofEntrepreneurship where one’s needs, drives, attitudes,beliefs and values determine behaviour. This focus onpersonality factors led to three personalitycharacteristics receiving considerable attention inresearch. These are personal values such as honesty,duty, responsibility and ethical behaviour; risk-takingpropensity; and the need for achievement.Lau et al. (2012) after reviewing more recent literaturerelating to the characteristics of entrepreneurssummarised their findings; see Table 4 below.Table 4: Summary of Entrepreneurial Characteristics from Literature Review (Adapted from Lau et al., 052007200820082009200920102011Covin & SlevinGelslerZahraDess et al.KnightDess et al.Barret et al.Zahra

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 .