Download pdf - In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for ... · entrepreneurial mindset and mindset in general are put ... their state of mind or the lens ... and culture and result

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………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

Developments from Personality Psychology………………………………………………………………………………..11

Developments from Cognitive Psychology…………………………………………………………………………………..14

More Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset………………………………16

Developing a Shared Definition of Entrepreneurial Mindset……………………………………………………………18

Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial Mindset from Literature…………………………………………19

Summary of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from the Literature Review…………………………..24

Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset………………………………………………..25

Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from the Literature Review……………………………………….25

Appropriateness of Tools for Measuring Identified Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimension…………….28

Proposed Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset………………………………………………………………………….28

Part 3: Conclusion and Future Research Considerations………………………………………………………………….30

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31

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 (AGOF) aims to

activate personal initiative, intellectual imagination,

achievement excellence, courageous commitment and

a spirit of significance in individuals who aspire to be

responsible high-impact entrepreneurs. AGOF 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 a focus on the development of an entrepreneurial

mindset, the Foundation joins many leading edge

entrepreneurial programmes that 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

program is developing an entrepreneurial mindset is

insufficient if we cannot be rigorous about what that

term means both theoretically and empirically.

In response to the need for rigor, 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 for

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 to pursue

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 their limitations 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 is intended to measure

entrepreneurial mindset nationally as a general

population baseline that can then support and inform

the development and impact of entrepreneurial

education and activities. The survey can also support

and inform the design and development of new

government policies, and entrepreneur support

organization programs and initiatives. Before the

survey can be replicated in other countries to reveal

further insights into both the effectiveness of current

interventions as well as the development of policy and

program recommendations, its validity and reliability

will need to be confirmed.

Additional recommendations for future research are

then proposed, both to AGOF and to the broader

research and practitioner communities.

Abstract

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

1 www.allangrayorbis.org

http://www.allangrayorbis.org/

In 2016, 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 to measure entrepreneurial

mindset.

C. The development of an evidence-base that

can be used to enhance entrepreneurial

mindset education theory and practice.

This paper aims to take the first steps toward achieving

these outcomes by 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 consists 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

Measurement

Part 1 explores 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 explores 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

AGOF, GERN, 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 emerges within this field 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 which 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). Gordon Allport (1897-1967) is often

referred to as the founder of personality as a separate

field of psychology building on the seminal work in

psychology and the emergence of personality

psychology led by James (1842-1910), Freud (1856-

1939), Calkins (1863-1930), Adler (1870-1937) and

Jung (1875-1961). Allport made a significant

contribution to this particular field of study with his

Concepts of Trait and Personality (1927) study.

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 defining 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

stating 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 for defining these factors

needed further refinement; his work sparked a half a

century of further study to better organise the

language of personality into a more coherent

structure.

Allport (1937) argued that internal individual traits

were the real causes of personality and needed to be

more deeply understood. The challenge, he said, 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 they may have on

behaviour. These levels consisted of 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.

Part 1: In Pursuit of a Better

Understanding of Entrepreneurial

Mindset


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

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, which he called genotypes and phenotypes

(1937, p. 16), have an influence on an individual’s

behaviour. Genotypes are the internal forces that

influence behaviour; they 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.

The 4500 traits, of which many may be considered

internal theories, were too many to begin to provide

insight into personality and human behaviour. A more

structured and more scientific approach was needed

to identify the relationships between these traits. It

was during this period that a statistical analysis

methodology called factor analysis became more

widely 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 identify 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 is when Fiske (1949) used the

method to develop a rating scale, adapted from a

larger scale developed by Cattell (1947), which

resulted in the identification of 22 core personality

attributes (Table 1).


Through factor analysis, the Fiske’s survey revealed

five factors, each 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),

leading to the development of the Neuroticism-

Extraversion-Openness Inventory (NEO-I). Later, Costa

and McCrae (1985) recognised two additional factors:

Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C) to

develop the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI).

Abandoning the use of NEO as an acronym, this is now

often referred to as the “Big Five” personality traits or

Five Factor Model (FFM), and often remembered

nowadays through the ‘OCEAN’ or ‘CANOE’ acronyms.

Table 2 summarizes the 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 critiques of the Big Five include Block (2004)

who raised concerns about the factor analyses

statistical method 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

questioned 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. Broadly speaking,

however, 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, which expanded

mindset research into the social psychology domain,

leading to overlaps with 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, 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 research 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,

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, 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,

which is divided into entity theory and incremental

theory. Entity theory, on the one hand, sees

intelligence as a fixed or uncontrollable trait;

incremental theory, on the other hand, sees

intelligence as a malleable, increasable and

controllable quality.



This led to deeper research to determine whether

these implicit theories 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 an ‘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 reflect your philosophy

of life. Reed and Stoltz (2011) describe 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 or 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

to 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, the understanding of the

effect of cognition on behaviour and mindset has acted

as a springboard to better understand 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 focused on trait or personality

characteristics of individuals (Brockhaus, 1980, 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.


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 toward 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

Earlier models focusing on entrepreneurial intention

(Shapero, 1975, Shapero & Sokol, 1982, Bird, 1988,

Boyd and Vozikis, 1994) included a focus on attitudes

and their underlying drivers in explaining the

entrepreneurial process.These models generally

included perceptions on the desirability of becoming

an entrepreneur, the feasibility of starting one’s own

business, and 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 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 propose 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, which is

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 to 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

which 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) then 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) agree that personality constructs are

important to developing an understanding of

entrepreneurship, but that other variables must also

be included.

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

that the Big Five personality traits predict business

intention, creation and success and that all of the 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 from

other contributing factors.

Developments from Cognitive Psychology

Mitchell et al. (2002) challenged the focus on

entrepreneurial personality attributes and drew on

learnings from the cognitive sciences and not only

personality psychology. They looked at the idea of

entrepreneurial cognition, which they defined as the

knowledge structures that people use to make

assessments, judgments or decisions involving

opportunity evaluation, venture creation and growth.

Later, Fayolle (2012) proposed a similar definition of

entrepreneurial mindset as a specific state of mind

which orientates human conduct towards



The Role of Effectuation in the Development of


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 the means to

create that effect. Effectuation processes, however,

take a set of means as given and focus on selecting

between the possible effects that can be created with

that set of means (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245).

.

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), with a focus on gaining insights

from the cognitive sciences, investigated the role of

regulatory processes on the entrepreneurial process.

They 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 not yet conducted with entrepreneurs.

This led to a significant shift in research with the

incorporation of the cognitive psychology subset of the

behavioural sciences into what was already

understood through research related to personality

attributes. The Fayolle paper encouraged further

theoretical study in this field in conjunction with the

cognitive sciences.

Furthering a 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, recognize 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)



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 through an effectuation lens.

Effectuation aligns with a preference of affordable loss

rather than expected returns, which in turns allows for

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

maximising returns. Effectuation also prioritises

strategic alliances over competition as these lead to a

greater ability in dealing with uncertainty and lower

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 whereas a preference for responding

based on past knowledge does not allow for

experimentation with new or less explored

opportunities. Lastly, effectuation seeks to control an

unpredictable future rather than predicting an

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, attitudes toward

others, underlying logic, and predisposition toward risk

and contingencies. These have a higher likelihood of

influencing new venture creation more positively than

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

demonstrated how causation is negatively associated

with uncertainty, while experimentation is positively

correlated with uncertainty. By developing validated

scales to measure causation and effectuation they

contributed significantly to the field.

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). For their initial study,

they developed a measurement scale, called the Grit

Scale, to investigate 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. In 2016, Duckworth published a book

entitled Grit: The Power and Passion of Perseverance,

which promises to spark further interest in 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 opens 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, vulnerability

(fears) and 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

that different responses to uncertainty significantly

impacts the success of their venture.

Following an extensive analysis of entrepreneurial

education and training programs globally, Robb and

Valerio et al. (2014) split entrepreneurial mindset into

three clusters: 1). socio-emotional skills,

communication and teamwork (which focuses on

characteristics relating to leadership); 2).

entrepreneurial awareness; and, 3). perceptions of

entrepreneurship. Socio-emotional skills include

persistence, self-efficacy, need for achievement, pro-

activity, creativity, optimism, locus of control,

openness to ambiguity, opportunity recognition and

self-confidence. Entrepreneurial awareness focuses on

entrepreneurial values, attitudes and norms, and

perceptions of entrepreneurship focus 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 highlight

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, flexibility, opportunity

recognition and exploitation, planning ahead, putting

in consistent effort, dealing with uncertainty, and what

he called the insane hunger to succeed.

In 2015, Stauffer studied what he referred to as an

innovator’s mindset, and developed a measurement

instrument that focuses particularly on the processes

for innovating and the underlying 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, categorised into two groups, personality

traits and what they referred to as skills (areas that are

generally considered to be more malleable). This

distinction helped to 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


From the literature reviewed, there are many nuanced

definitions of entrepreneurial mindset, with each

adding its own unique take on the 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 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 mobilize 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 which

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 they see the world (Reed and

Stoltz 2011), influences their propensity to engage in



This state of mind or lens is influenced by multiple

factors, which 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 belief they can do

(relating to level of competency and self-

belief)

• 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 be conducive

to driving entrepreneurial activity and behaviour.

Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial

Mindset from Literature

Following the multiple dimensions found in the

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 in

comparison to a mindset with a lower probability of

leading to entrepreneurial activities and outcomes?

From the literature reviewed, the following 11 key

themes emerged as core characteristics of an

entrepreneurial mindset.

1.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 allow one’s own

behaviour to change. This includes an openness to

consistently learn from one’s context and

environment, which can include 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

the 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 to

following only a planned course. This openness can

then lead to an ability to adjust readily and to pivot

with changing circumstances, which is a driver of

increased entrepreneurial outcomes (Totem Inc.,

2015). Sarasvathy (2001) describes this as effectuation,

the ability to exploit contingencies that arise

unexpectedly over time, and can only be exploited

when there is an initial belief and openness to change

and ongoing learning.

The 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

the fear of failure can be replaced by the desire to learn

from experience and continuously improve.

2. 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 or

influence. Rather than perceiving the world as stable,

predictable and controllable, entrepreneurial mindset,

building upon a characteristic of growth mindset

where one believes in and is open to a dynamism and

complexity (Dweck et al., 1995), sees the world

through this lens and seeks to understand it better...

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 actively seeking linkages, systems and patterns

(Totem Inc., 2015) in order to better understand the

complexity and make sense of it. Through this lens,

one learns to accept areas that are not in their

influence or control and to 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 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 influence within uncertain

and complex environments, irrespective of the

circumstances. Entrepreneurial mindset allows for an

openness to accept uncertainty, rather than trying to

control it, and developing an awareness of areas that

are not within one’s influence and control (Putta,

2014).

3. 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). Such 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 creativity relies on

imagination, that is, the conscious representation of

what is not immediately present to the senses.

However, while creativity relies 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). Action may be of

equal importance to the entrepreneur. The process of

creativity leading to an innovative output begins with

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.

A person with a creative and innovative lens believes

in experimenting and is open to learning through

iterative approaches. Experimentation and iteration

often begin with the generation of many ideas (Davis

et al., 2016) as well as an openness to trying multiple

methods, and adapting solutions through an effectual

and non-linear process (Stauffer, 2015).

4. 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. Commonly referred to as self-efficacy, this

general belief 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

defined as the belief in one’s capability to successfully

conduct entrepreneurial tasks.

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).

4. 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. Commonly referred to as self-efficacy, this

general belief 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

defined as the belief in one’s capability to successfully

conduct entrepreneurial tasks.


Entrepreneurs have the need for a degree of

independence and autonomy in their work and 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). This is driven by a feeling of having the power,

authority and ability to be entrepreneurial. The desire

to work with a high degree of independence (Davis et

al., 2016) is less about working alone than not

functioning well in restrictive environments without a

degree of freedom (Cromie, 2000, p. 21).

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).

7. 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’. The need for achievement

is accelerated through goal-setting and the

establishment of stretch goals (Mooradian et al.,

2016). Totem Inc. (2015) show how entrepreneurs

have a desire for achievement that is at a very high

level, where one is resolute and determined to achieve

set goals (Moberg et al., 2014).

However, the path 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 the need to

follow a fixed plan. In addition, goals are often not set

for achievement sake, but for the sake of learning, the

opportunity for personal mastery (Dweck et al. 1995;

Midgely et al., 2000), and by the creation of value for

others (Totem Inc., 2015).

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).

5. 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)

Apart from self-efficacy, personal choice to become an

entrepreneur can also be influenced by other factors

including the need 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, and fame, but these motivational

factors need to be strong enough to drive a willingness

to strive for the attainment of goals (Moberg et al.,

2014).

6. 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. Action-orientation is further

related to a tendency to show a level of impatience in

expectation of results (Davis et al., 2016) and brings 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.



8. Recognising opportunities

An entrepreneurial mindset allows one to readily

recognise and pursue opportunities, and not to 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 opportunities for innovation even with limited

resources. Totem Inc (2015) describe this as

resourcefulness. Davis et al. (2016) called this a

preference for limited structure where entrepreneurs

are free to be adaptable and from the boredom of

following structured tasks.

9. 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

persist in the face of setbacks.

Persistence, commitment and determination are

widely cited as prominent characteristics of

entrepreneurial mindset (Moberg et al., 2014; Totem

Inc., 2015; Davis et al. 2016).

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 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 of the programmes developed by

Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010) was dealing with the

fear of failure, which as Mitchell and Shepherd (2010)

show, requires seeing failure as an opportunity to learn

and to determining what affordable failure is.

10. 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 the propensity is closely

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

called the 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 calculated and

deliberative as entrepreneurs calculate risk very

carefully and are generally moderate, rather than high

risk takers (Caird, 1991; Cunningham and Lischeron,

1991; Drucker, 1985). 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).

Such 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.

11. A belief on 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 though

others, especially when other people can offer more

value than oneself to the task at hand. Sarasvathy

(2001) shows how this emphasises the development 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.


The desire to influence and lead may be contrary to the

level of autonomy detailed earlier in this paper, but

one must note that the purpose[?] 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 a ‘interpersonal

sensitivity’ for entrepreneurs, however, their research

did not show a strong correlation between

interpersonal sensitivity and entrepreneurial

behaviour. They included it as an entrepreneurial

mindset because 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 to be able to celebrate the

successes of others rather than feeling threatened or

jealous. Celebrating the success of other people is

driven primarily by the lessons and inspiration that can

be found in sharing these experiences. The desire and

openness to celebrate other’s success may further

drive one’s openness to influence others toward 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 the study that seeks to find an appropriate

measure for entrepreneurial mindset and the

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 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 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 identify[?]/list[?]

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

identified must be kept in mind when exploring

instruments that claim to measure attributes relating

to entrepreneurial mindset.

Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from

the Literature Review

What follows are brief descriptions of survey

instruments used as part of research studies reviewed

above (for this study) that sourced the data and led to

their findings related to entrepreneurial mindset.

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 had 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.

Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for


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.

GET2 was designed to measure characteristics relating

to what they call an ‘enterprising tendency’, which

includes the need for achievement, autonomy,

creative tendency, calculated risk-taking as well as

internal locus of control.

Robinson et al. (1991) developed a 10-point

Entrepreneurial Attitude Scale (EAS), ranging from

strongly agree to strongly disagree that measured

entrepreneurial attitude orientation. The scale’s four

subsets are the need for achievement, personal

control, innovation and self-esteem. By focusing on

attitude theory, the EAS sought to step away from the

dominant personality trait approach to studying

entrepreneurship. Robinson et al. hoped that the 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 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 of validation of

these scales.

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

1988) on the theory of planned behaviour, social

cognitive theory, and self-efficacy, Vesper (1996)

designed scales to measure 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, because entrepreneurial intention is rooted

in the theory of planned behaviour, 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. Most

notably, Thompson (2009) developed a 6-aggregate

scale that measures not only entrepreneurial intention

but also entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the

attractiveness of entrepreneurship as a profession, its

social valuation, and one’s entrepreneurial capacity.

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

designed a 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 a Metacognitive Resource

Scale, which focused on goal orientation and

metacognitive knowledge, experience, monitoring and

control. Ahmetoglu et al. (2011) developed a Measure

of Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities (META)

scale that measures entrepreneurial creativity, level of

proactivity, and entrepreneurial awareness and vision.

More recently, Moberg et al. (2014) developed an

entrepreneurial mindset measurement scale in a

project called ASTEE, and Davis et al (2016) developed

an Entrepreneurial Mindset Profile (EMP).

The ASTEE project objective was to establish a

common set of tools for measuring the impact of

entrepreneurship education on European 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 appear robust, at this

point there is very little evidence for the reliability and

validity of the instrument.

The EMP Davis et al. (2016) developed was designed to

measure the personality traits, motivations, attitudes

and behaviours that contribute to entrepreneurial

activity. They also sought to address 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 characterize 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 include:

• 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 of which

were labelled personality traits and 7 labelled skills,

they drew from some pre-existing scales (Torrance

1968) to develop their instrument. Other scales were

developed by the authors independently to measure

each dimension.

The process leading to version 2 of the EMP was

broadly 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 that included corporate

managers and entrepreneurs, with the

intention of determining the tools

effectiveness at differentiating 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 and maximise

reliability of 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 conducted to

assess how well the EMP fits the existing data.

• The EMP was assessed using multiple

methods including EQS (Bentler 1995), the

non-formed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit

index (CFI; Bentler 1990, 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 mentioned

earlier in this study, including a measure of the Big Five,

as well as two further measures of divergent thinking

showing 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, several of these instruments

include validated scales adapted from the personality

and cognitive psychology fields.


However, none of the measurement tools identified

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,

necessitating the development of quantitative items

for these dimensions.

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. This survey is to be piloted, tested,

and refined in South Africa, with the intention to later

be replicated in other countries.

This survey is differentiated from previous measures in

that it aims 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 is required to determine which of these

are most effective. Initial relevant demographic

questions can be included to better differentiate

among respondents’ core characteristics, which may

include age, gender, employment/vocational status,

and level of education. Further in the development of

the survey, validated and publicly available scales were

used first, 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 is intended to explore a better

understanding of and measure for entrepreneurial

mindset, which in turn will serve as a foundation for

discussions about the development of future research

areas.

In order to better understand entrepreneurial

mindset, the genesis of mindset was explored

chronologically to form a strong contextual base from

the behavioural sciences. to ensure that

entrepreneurial mindset is understood beyond those

specific vantage points proposed by specific

researchers. Thereafter, and following a similar

chronological structure, the development of

entrepreneurial mindset within the behavioural

sciences was explored in depth. The literature

culminated in a specific focus on more recent

contributions to the field.

Based on the chronological literature review, a

summary of emerging themes was presented followed

by several definitions for entrepreneurial mindset. A

shared understanding of entrepreneurial mindset was

then proposed, along with a tabulated list of

entrepreneurial mindset dimensions from the

literature review.

This paper then reviewed how mindset, and

entrepreneurial mindset, has been measured to date,

highlighting the successes and some limitations with

these measures. With the successes and limitations in

mind, a recommendation for a universal measure for

entrepreneurial mindset was then tabled.

The development of an entrepreneurial mindset

survey can lead to significant opportunities for future

research, both for the AGOF, GERN and other

organisations, institutions, and stakeholders.

Future study may include building of a shared

understanding of entrepreneurial mindset,

introducing a data-based system for measuring

progress of entrepreneurial development

interventions, and a foundation for an evidence-

based framework in which to develop policy and

program recommendations.

Apart from the development of the survey, this

literature review can also serve as a starting point for

the AGOF, GERN 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 programs 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, which may better align to

the organisation and its areas 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
