ArticlePDF Available

Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequisite for Entrepreneurial Education

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
1
Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities
- A Prerequisite for Entrepreneurial Education
Vesa Routamaa
Professor, University of Vaasa
P.O.Box 700, FI-65101 Vaasa Finland, Ph. +35863248246,
Fax. +35863248195, wmr@uwasa.fi, www.uwasa.fi/~wmr/, www.mbtifinland.fi
Asko Miettinen
Professor, Tampere University of Technology
P.O.Box 541, FI-33101 Tampere, Ph. 3583311511, asko.miettinen@tut.fi
Keywords: Entrepreneurs, personality, MBTI, entrepreneurial education
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
2
Knowing Entrepreneurial Personalities
- A Prerequisite for Entrepreneurial Education
ABSTRACT
In spite of the fact that anyone can start up a company, certain personal
characteristics and behavior patterns may benefit running an enterprise.
Entrepreneurs as individuals differ from other people, i.e. entrepreneurs' personality
structure is supposed to differ from the average, at least statistically. Of course we
must not forget that entrepreneurs of different fields or different forms of enterprising
might be connected with different characteristics of entrepreneurs. In other words,
there might be, not only one true” personality type of an entrepreneur, but many
personalities that might favor different forms of enterprising. However, entrepreneurs
are often spontaneous, curious, adaptable, and open to what is new and changeable,
while most people favor a planned, organized life style avoiding risks and surprises
in their daily life. If about 70% of the population favor a planned, organized and
predictable life style, are our institutions, especially schools capable of educating
entrepreneurial people? In this paper, the psychological types most common to
entrepreneurs will be illustrated in the context of more average people. The analysis
is based on Jung's and Myers-Briggs typologies, and on an empirical Finnish sample
of about 3000 people. Based on this analysis and experiences of training programs
arranged, some suggestions for entrepreneurial education will be given.
INTRODUCTION
Since Schumpeter (1934), entrepreneurial types in general have got quite a lot of
attention in previous research (e.g. Smith 1967; Stanford & Curran 1976; Carland,
Hoy, Boulton & Carland 1984; Routamaa & Vesalainen 1987; Gartner 1989;
Timmons 1989; Miettinen & Lehtomaa 1995). However, in spite of the dominant
importance of entrepreneurship in economy, entrepreneurs as personalities have got
relatively little attention. Most often, a trait approach has been used to illustrate
entrepreneurial characteristics, like for example, the need for achievement, internal
locus of control and the propensity to take risks (e.g. McClelland 1961; Hornaday &
Aboud 1971; Timmons 1978; Welsh & White 1981; Borland 1974; Brockhaus 1982).
However, empirical research has not found any trait that is consistently associated
with entrepreneurship (Järlström 2002).
Jung's and Myers-Briggs typologies are seen to be a promising method of searching
for entrepreneurial types, here. Relationships between MBTI-preferences and
entrepreneurship have in fact been found in some studies (see, for example, Carland
1982; Routamaa, Vesalainen & Pihlajaniemi 1996; Reynierse 1997; Routamaa &
Varamäki 1998; Järlström 2002; Routamaa & Rissanen 2004). In this paper, the
basic question is, are there some typical entrepreneurial personalities to be identified
taking into account that there are also different kinds of enterprising fields. Using the
Myers-Briggs Indicator, entrepreneurs' personality types will be illustrated and
compared with the general population, and for example with the most general
manager types. More recently, the Five-Factor Model of personality has been applied
in a comparison of entrepreneurs and managers (Envick & Langford 2000). It may be
asked, however, whether the entrepreneurs constitute a homogeneous group such
that it can be described using common traits. Are the trait tests able to identify
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
3
different kinds of enterprising personalities? In addition, the 'still picture' of a person
uncovered by trait approach is a very narrow view of a dynamic personality, the
system of judging and perceiving.
PERSONALITY TYPES
There are several ways to conceptualize and assess personality. In this study, the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was used. It is based on Carl Jung’s theory of
psychological types and it reports personality preferences on four scales: Jungian
Extraversion Introversion, Sensing iNtuition, Thinking Feeling, and the Judging
Perceiving preference added by Briggs and Myers (see e.g. Hautala & Routamaa
2006). According to Myers (1992) ’the MBTI is primarily concerned with the valuable
differences in people that result from where they like to focus their attention, the way
they like to take information, the way they like to decide, and the way they like to
adopt’. Usually one pole dominates over another. The eight preferences are identified
in sixteen types, each representing a certain preference order (Myers & McCaulley
1990). Briefly illustrated the preferences or dimensions are (Myers 1992):
Extraversion (E) Interested in people and things in the world around them.
Introversion (I) Interested in the ideas in their minds that explain the world.
Sensing (S) Interested in what is real and can be seen, heard and touched.
Intuition (N) Interested in what can be imagined and seen with ’the mind’s eye’.
Thinking (T) Interested in what is logical and works by cause and effect.
Feeling (F) Interested in knowing what is important and valuable.
Judging (J) Interested in acting by organizing, planning, deciding.
Perceiving (P) Interested in acting by watching, trying out, adapting.
As stated by Myers & McCaulley (1990), according to theory, each of the 16 types
results from a preference for one pole of each of the four preferences over the
opposite pole. A preference of any dimension is designed to be psychometrically
independent of the preferences of the other three dichotomies, so that the
preferences on the four dichotomies yield sixteen possible combinations called types,
denoted by the four letters identifying the poles preferred (e.g., ESTJ, INFP). The
theory postulates specific dynamic relationships between the preferences. For each
type, one process is the leading or dominant process and a second process serves
as an auxiliary. Each type has its own pattern of dominant and auxiliary processes
and the attitudes (E or I) in which these are habitually used. Determining these
dynamic relationships is enabled by the J-P dichotomy of the MBTI. The
characteristics of each type follow from the dynamic interplay of these processes and
attitudes”.
In order to interpret the association between type and entrepreneurial identities, the
types are next briefly illustrated (Myers 1992; Hautala & Routamaa 2006):
ISTJs Quiet and serious. Succeed through concentration and thoroughness.
Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic, and dependable. See to it that
everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their own minds as to what
should be accomplished and work toward it steadily, regardless of protests or
distractions.
ISFJ Quiet, friendly, responsible, and conscientious. Work devotedly to meet their
obligations. Lend stability to any project or group. Thorough, painstaking, accurate.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
4
Their interests are usually not technical. Can be patient with necessary details. Loyal,
considerate, perceptive, concerned with how other people feel.
INFJs Succeed by perseverance, originality, and desire to do whatever is needed
or wanted. Put their best efforts into their work. Quietly forceful, conscientious,
concerned for others. Respected for their firm principles. Likely to be honored and
followed for their clear visions as to how best to serve the common good.
INTJs Have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and purposes. Have
long-range vision and quickly find meaningful patterns in external events. In fields
that appeal to them, they have a fine power to organize a job and carry it through.
Skeptical, critical, independent, determined. Have high standards of competence and
performance.
ISTPs Cool onlookers, quiet, reserved, observing and analyzing life with detached
curiosity and unexpected flashes of original humor. Usually interested in cause and
effect, how and why mechanical things work, and in organizing facts using logical
principles. Excellent at getting to the core of a practical problem and finding the
solution.
ISFPs Retiring, quietly friendly, sensitive, kind, modest about their abilities. Shun
disagreements, do not force their opinions or values on others. Usually do not care to
lead but are often loyal followers. Often relaxed about getting things done because
they enjoy the present moment and do not want to spoil it by undue haste or exertion.
INFPs Quiet observers, idealistic, loyal. Important that outer life be congruent with
inner values. Curious, quick to see possibilities, often serve as catalysts to implement
ideas. Adaptable, flexible and accepting unless a value is threatened. Want to
understand people and ways of fulfilling human potential. Little concern with
possessions or surroundings.
INTPs Quiet and reserved. Especially enjoy theoretical or scientific pursuits. Like
solving problems with logic and analysis. Interested mainly in ideas, with little liking
for parties or small talk. Tend to have sharply defined interests. Need careers where
some strong interest can be used and useful.
ESTPs Good at on-the-spot problem solving. Like action, enjoy whatever comes
along. Tend to like mechanical things and sports, with friends on the side. Adaptable,
tolerant, pragmatic; focused on getting results. Dislike long explanations. Are best
with real things that can be worked, handled, taken apart, or put together.
ESFPs Outgoing, accepting, friendly, enjoy everything and make things more fun
for others by their enjoyment. Like action and making things happen. Know what's
going on and join in eagerly. Find remembering facts easier than mastering theories.
Are best in situations that need sound common sense and practical ability with
people.
ENFPs Warmly enthusiastic, high-spirited, ingenious, imaginative. Able to do
almost anything that interests them. Quick with a solution to any difficulty and ready
to help anyone with a problem. Often rely on their ability to improvise instead of
preparing in advance. Can usually find compelling reasons for whatever they want.
ENTPs Quick, ingenious, good at many things. Stimulating company, alert and
outspoken. May argue for fun on either side of a question. Resourceful in solving new
and challenging problems, but may neglect routine assignments. Apt to turn to one
new interest after another. Skillful in finding logical reasons for what they want.
ESTJs Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact, with a natural head for business or
mechanics. Not interested in abstract theories, want learning to have direct and
immediate application. Like to organize and run activities. Often make good
administrators; are decisive, quickly move to implement decisions; take care of
routine details.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
5
ESFJs Warm-hearted, talkative, popular, conscientious, born co-operators, active
committee members. Need harmony and may be good at creating it. Always doing
something nice for someone. Work best with encouragement and praise. Main
interest is in things that directly and visibly affect people's lives.
ENFJs Responsive and responsible. Feel real concern for what others think or
want, and try to handle things with due regard for the other's feelings. Can present a
proposal or lead a group discussion with ease and tact. Sociable, popular,
sympathetic. Responsive to praise and criticism. Like to facilitate others and enable
people to achieve their potential.
ENTJs Frank, decisive, leaders in activities. Develop and implement comprehensive
systems to solve organizational problems. Good at anything that requires reasoning
and intelligent talk, such as public speaking. Are usually well informed and enjoy
adding to their fund of knowledge.
Instead of the sixteen types, different types of cognition have also been explained
with the help of four temperaments (Keirsey & Bates 1984; see Routamaa &
Varamäki 1998), which are SP, sensation perceptive Artisan (amiable,
troubleshooter); SJ, sensation judging Guardian (driver, traditionalist); NF, intuitive
feeling Idealist (catalyst, expressive)and; NT, intuitive thinking Rational (visionary,
analytical). SP has often been mentioned as the typical entrepreneur - negotiates
well, is good in a crisis and is a risk taker. However, SP lives for the moment and
does not like theory or routine (see Keirsey & Bates, 1984). NT is a visionary who
enjoys complexity and is an architect of change, sees long- and short-term
implications, and focuses on possibilities (Keirsey & Bates, 1984).
STUDIES ON ENTREPRENEURIAL PERSONALITY
Concerning the MBTI preferences, Carland (1982), Barbato & Durlabhji (1989), and
Carland & Carland (1992) found that entrepreneurs tended to be more often NTs
whereas typical owner managers or managers were SJs. Carland, Carland & Higgs
(1993) found NTs (intuitive thinking) displaying the highest entrepreneurship
tendency, i.e. NTs, as distinguished from the other temperaments, fit the traditional
view of entrepreneurship in that the NT preference was highly correlated with
innovation (cf. also Keirsey & Bates, 1984). These results uncovered that
entrepreneurs tend to be NTs but also NPs. Referring to Asikainen & Routamaa
(1997), NP's were found to be most creative. Also ENFPs have been seen to be
good to produce individualistic and original ideas (as illustrated above). Accordingly,
Asikainen & Routamaa's (1997) view sounds logical. According to Ginn and Sexton
(1988), fast-growth entrepreneurs tended to have significantly higher N, P, and NP
orientations than managers. These results were in line with Routamaa et al. (1996),
who found more Es, Ns, ENs, NTs but also NJs than ISs (and IJs) among
internationally oriented entrepreneurs. It could also be concluded that SPs and IPs
are more locally oriented entrepreneus, and also SJs seem to prefer traditional, local
fields of low risks, that is, NPs as entrepreneurs may be more suitable in global and
new business areas with high risk.
Reynierse (1997) found that entrepreneurs had significantly higher Ps and lower Js.
Further, entrepreneurs were more EPs, NPs, and TPs than IJs, SJs, and FJs. In her
study of business students, Järlström (2000) found that Ns and Ps chose relatively
more often creativity (entrepreneurial) and autonomous career anchors than Ss and
Js. Järlström (2002) found also that the J-P dichotomy of the MBTI played the most
important role separating entrepreneurial aspirations from organizational employment
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
6
aspirations. Intuitive and perceiving preferences were more assocaited with
entrepreneurial aspirations, whereas sensing and judging were more associated with
organizational employment aspirations.
Envick & Langford (2000) compared entrepeneurs and managers using the Five-
Factor Model of personality. Their results indicated that managers are significantly
more conscientious (planful, neat, dependable) and agreeable (team-oriented,
trusting, considerate) than entrepreneurs. That is, entrepreneurs were more
impulsive, careless and unorganized as well as more self-interested, cool and
skeptical. Managers were also more social (warm, optimistic and talkative) than
entrepreneurs, who were a little more independent, reserved and hard-to-read.
Entrepreneurs for their part were more adjusted (stable, confident and effective vs.
nervous, self-doubting and moody) and open (imaginative, curious and original vs.
practical, unimaginative, literal-minded) than managers, but not to a significant
degree. These results support those reported above at least regarding the frequency
of perceiving preference among entrepreneurs. Impulsive, careless and unorganized
entrepreneurs are able to act in a flexible, spontaneous and changing environment.
This corresponds with P preference of the MBTI.
METHOD
The sample of the study consists of 2960 observations from Finland. Full time
students were excluded from the sample. For measuring personality, a validated
Finnish research version of the MBTI Form was used. The occupation statistic is
originally reported by Hautala & Routamaa 2006. Occupations of each type were
ranked. Only the ranking of entrepreneurs of each type will be reported. Otherwise,
the number and diversity of all occupations is so high that it is not worth listing. The
percentages of the entrepreneurs in each type box will not be reported because the
number of the types varies a lot, and the percentages are not commensurable.
RESULTS
Next, the ranking position of entrepeneurs in each type will be reported (see Table 1).
Table 1. Entrepreneurs' ranking position among the occupations in each
psychological type
ISTJ
32.
ISFJ
44.
INFJ
39.
INTJ
33.
ISTP
9.
ISFP
19.
INFP
40.
INTP
6.
ESTP
5.
ESFP
3.
ENFP
17.
ENTP
12.
ESTJ
19.
ESFJ
24.
ENFJ
33.
ENTJ
23.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
7
As can be seen, ESFP, ESTP, INTP, ISTP, ENTP and ENFP are the six most
entrepreneurial types based on the occupation statistics of the sample. What is
common to all of them? The common preference is perceiving (P), that is, they all are
spontaneous, interested in acting by watching, trying out, adapting. The typical
managerial types, ISTJ, ESTJ, and ENTJ (see Routamaa & Ponto 1994; Routamaa,
Honkonen, Asikainen & Pollari 1997) are not among the top six entrepreneurial
types.
In Table 2, the most entrepreneurial and the least entrepreneurial types are
compared using some typical illustrations. Longer illustrations are presented above. It
must be remembered that there is not a question of good or bad qualities, better of
worse qualities, or even that some types would be unable to act as entrepreneurs.
Table 2. The most entrepreneurial and the least entrepreneurial types compared
Most Entrepreneurial Types Least Entrepreneurial Types
ESFP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Realistic adapter of human relationships
Likes action and making things happen
ISFJ
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Sympathetic manager of facts and
details
Type's interests are usually not technical.
ESTP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Realistic adapter in the world of material
things
Good at on-the-spot problem solving.
Likes action, enjoys whatever comes
along.
INFP
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Imaginative, independent helper
Important that outer life be congruent
with inner values.
INTP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Inquistive analyzer
Likes solving problems with logic and
analysis.
INFJ
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Peple-oriented innovator of ideas
Respected for their firm principles
ISTP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Practical analyzer, values exactness
Excellent at getting to the core of a
practical problem and finding the
solution.
ENFJ
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Imaginative harmonizer
Feels real concern for what others think
or want, and tries to handle things with
due regard for the other's feelings
ENTP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Inventive, analytical planner of change
Quick, ingenious, good at many things
INTJ
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Logical, critical, decisisive innovator
Skeptical, critical, independent,
determined
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
8
ENFP
Prefers a flexible, spontaneous and
changing environment
Warmly enthusiastic planner of change
Able to do almost anything that interests
them. Quick with a solution to any
difficulty and ready to help anyone with a
problem
ISTJ
Prefers a structured, organized and
planned environment
Analytical manager of facts and details
Sees to it that everything is well
organized.
As can be seen, the most common tendency of the most entrepreneurial types is
'prefers a flexible, spontaneous and changing environment' whereas the least
entrepreneurial types prefer 'a structured, organized and planned environment'.
Othewise, there are extraverts, introverts, sensing, thinking, and feeling preferences
on both sides of the comparative table. That is, perceiving (P) is the most
distinguishable preference between entrepreneurial and less entrepreneurial types.
The entrepreneurial mind seems to be entangled with Interest in acting by watching,
trying out, adapting in a flexible, spontaneous and changing environment. On the
contrary, the typical managerial types prefer a structured, organized and planned
environment.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study clearly indicate that there are some psychological types that
tend to become entrepreneurs more probably than orthers. Based on a data of 2930
occupations in Finland, ESFP, ESTP, INTP, ISTP, ENTP and ENFP are the six most
entrepreneurial psychological types. Except for certain types, Järlström's (2002)
results of employment status choice for the sixteen MBTI types in a business student
sample was quite in line with these results. In this occupation sample, the least
entrepreneurial types were ISFJ, INFP, INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ and ISTJ. It must be
emphasized that this result does not mean that these types could not succeed as
entrepreneurs; there are many successful entrepreneurs representing these type
(see e.g. Routamaa 2000).
Doubtless, perceiving (P) is the most visible personality preference of entrepreneurs.
In connection with that there may be many kinds of preference combinations. As
found by Routamaa et al. (1996), entrepreneurs have different kinds of orientations in
terms of locality, globality, risk, growth, branch etc., and, correspondingly, the
orientations are suitable for different types and combinations of preferences. Most
often, the common preference is P, in spite of the fact that anyone can start up an
enterprise and become an entrepreneur.
As could be seen, the most entrepreneurial types all preferred a flexible,
spontaneous and changing environment. On the contrary, all the least
entrepreneurial types preferred a structured, organized and planned environment.
This tendency explains why some types prefer unstable, risky, not foreseeable
working environments, and why some types try to avoid them. For example, the
typical managerial types prefer a structured, organized and planned environment. It
may be noted, however, that the global environment is not at all stable and
foreseeable. That is why the managers' psychological type structure will be
reshaped, soon. The continuous transition needs many kinds of managers, also that
kind of transformational leaders who manage changing circumtances.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
9
A current problem in Finland and most countries is how to activate and add start-ups
and make the entrepreneurial career more attractive to young as well as elder
people. Concerning entrepreneurial education, more and more entrepreneurial
education has been designed for school teachers of different school levels. However,
the voluntary enthusiasm for participating in the education and applying
entrepreneurial education has not been sufficient. Although the school system has
changed from the times of absolute donimance of one-way teacher's desk teaching,
the (Finnish) school system, where order and memorizing knowledge have been
most important, favor ‘law-abiding’ judging types more than perceiving, spontaneus
types. The well-organized and egalitarian educational system does not favor original
or creative pupils who want to behave differently (cf. Routamaa, Vesalainen &
Mahlberg 1995). Education emphasizing knowledge instead of applied activities,
little by little represses inborn creativity and risk taking. The spontaneus types do not
necessarily feel at home sitting 45 minutes listening to theoretical tuition.
Spontaneous Ps may be disorderly and break the rules more often than Js who
stand, even favor, a structured, organized and planned environment. Also the Finnish
feminine culture favors judging types more than perceiving types. That may be why
many entrepreneurs have quite low education, or have not been happy to work as
salary workers in hierarchical and structured big organizations. It may be supposed
that often the school system with all its rules and exact time schedules favor Js, and
maybe the detailed tuition given, also Ss. In order to treat the pupils more equally
according to their differences, the school system should be changed a little bit more
toward entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial courses. Further, regardless of the
teachers' own psychological types, the teachers should have good self-knowledge
and ability to recognize and understand different personalities, and they should have
an ability to act as good situational leaders taking into account pupils' different
psychological types when they plan teaching methods and arrangements. A good
mixture of subjects and teaching methods is needed to satisfy the variety of
psychological types in the class in order to allow individual growth and development
of the attitudes, knowledge and skills needed in entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship.
REFERENCES
Asikainen, V. & Routamaa, V. (1997). The relationship between the MBTI and the
creativity orientations of managers. Proceedings of the Leadership and the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Second International Conference, Washington.
Barbato, R.J. & Durlabhji, S. (1989). Budding entrepreneurs: Business students and
dislocated workers. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 1: 1, 49-57.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C.A. Kent, D.L.
Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 39-57.
Carland, J. W. (1982). Entrepreneurship in a small business setting: An exploratory
study. Doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, GA.
Garland, J.C. & Garland J.W. (1992). managers, small business owners and
entrepreneurs: The cognitive dimension. Journal of Business and
Entrepreneurship, 4: 2, 55-66.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.C. (1984). Differentiating
entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 354-359.
Ginn, C. & Sexton, D.L. (1988). psychological types oof Inc. 500 founders and their
spouses. Journal of Psychological Type, 16, 3-12.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
10
Envick, B.R. & Langford, M. (2000). The Five-factor Model of Personality: Assessing
Entrepreneurs and Managers. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 6: 1, 6-
17
Gartner, W. B. (1989). "Who Is an Entrepreneur?" Is the Wrong Question.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice , 13: 4, 47-68.
Ginzberg, E. (1955). What makes an executive. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Hautala, T. & Routamaa, V. (forthcoming 2006). Katse naamion taa. Itsetuntemuk-
sesta voimaa. Leadec Publications.
Hornaday, J. A. & Aboud, J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs.
Personnel Psychology, 24, 141-153.
Järlström, M. (2000). Personality preferences and career expectations of Finnish
business students. Career Development International, 5: 3, 144-154.
Järlström, M. (2002). Organizational employment versus entrepreneurship: The
personality approach to business students' career aspirations. Journal of
Business and Entrepreneurship, 14: 1, 103-123.
Keirsey, D. & M. Bates (1984). Please Understand Me. Prometheus Nemes Books,
Del Mar, CA.
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, N.J.: Von Nordstrand.
Miettinen, A. & Lehtomaa, A. (1995). Onko yrittäminen henkistä kiinni : erilaisten
sahayrittäjätyyppien menestyminen. Puumies 40: 1, 35-37, 39.
Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy with some of their applications to
socialpsychology, London: John W. Parker.
Myers, I. (1992). Introduction to Type. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Myers, I. & McCaulley, M.H. (1990). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use
of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Reynierse, J.H. (1997). An MBTI model of entrepreneurism and bureaucracy: The
psychological types of business entrepreneurs compared to business
managers and executive. Journal of Psychological Type, 40, 3-19.
Robinson, P., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J. C. & Hunt, H.K. (1991). An attitude
approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, 15: 4, 13-32.
Routamaa, V. (2000). Finland. In C. Ginn (Ed.), Leadership, Type, and Culture.
CAPT: Gainesville, Fl. (2000).
Routamaa, V. & Heinäsuo, K. (2006). Type and Values over Generations.
Psychological Type and Culture, East and West Conference, Honolulu Jan 6-
8, 2006. Electronic Proceedings.
Routamaa, V. & Rissanen, A-L. (2004). Entrepreneurial Identity and Personality
Types. Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Global Business
& Economic Development Guadalajara, Mexico, January 7-10, 2004
Routamaa, V. & Varamäki, E. (1998) Entrepreneurs’ personality and networking
attitudes. Proceedings of the 25th ISBC Conference, Sao Paulo, Brasil 11.
14.10.1998
Routamaa, V. & Vesalainen, J. (1987). Types of entrepreneur and strategic level goal
setting. International Small Business Journal, 5:3, 19-29
Routamaa, V., Vesalainen, J. & Mahlberg, T. (1995). Developing entrepreneurship by
training school teachers - the case of the province of Vaasa. Proceedings of
the ENDEC Conference Entrepreneurship in Transitional Economics,
Shanghai, China.
Routamaa, V., Vesalainen, J. & Pihlajaniemi, E. (1996). Meeting the Challenges of
Export Markets: Entrepreneurs' Personality and International Orientation.
Proceedings of the seventh ENDEC World Conference, Singapore.
Routamaa, V. & Miettinen. A. (2007). Awareness of Entrepreneurial Personalities: A Prerequite for
Entrepreneurial Education. NCGE Working Paper Series. National Council for Graduate
Entrepreneurship, Birmingham.
11
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of economic development. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Smith, N. R. (1967). The Entrepreneur Man and Type of Company. Michigan State
University.
Stanford, M. I. K. & Curran, J. (1976) Growth and the small firm an alternative view.
Journal of Management Studies, 13 (May), 95-110.
Timmons, J.A. (1978). Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship.
American Journal of Small Business, 3, 5-17.
Timmons, J.A. (1989). The Entrepreneurial Mind. Brick House Publishing, Andover,
MA.
Welsh, J.A. & White, J.F. (1981). Converging on characteristics of entrepreneurs. In
K.H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, Wellesley, MA:
Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 504-515
... There are many studies of the MBTI-profiles of entrepreneurs (e.g., Ginn and Sexton 1988;Routamaa and Miettinen 2007;Barbato and Durlabhji 1989;Carland 1982;Carland and Carland, 1992) but these studies do not combine the entrepreneurial attitude and mindset. Instead, they mostly focus on personality and entrepreneurship as an occupation. ...
... According to Ginn and Sexton (1988), fast-growth entrepreneurs tended to have significantly more intuition and perceiving (NP) orientations than managers. These results were in line with Routamaa and Miettinen (2007) who found more extraversion (E), intuition (N), extraversion and intuition (EN), intuitive thinking (NT) but also intuitive judging (NJ) than introversion and sensing (IS) and introversion and judging (IJs) among internationally oriented entrepreneurs. Carland, Carland, and Higgs (1993) found NTs (intuitive thinking) display the highest entrepreneurship tendency; in other words, NTs, as distinguished from the other temperaments, fit the traditional view of entrepreneurship in that the NT preference was highly correlated with innovation (cf. ...
... At the type level, ESFP (extravert-sensing-feeling-perceiving), ESTP (extravert-sensing-thinking-perceiving), INTP (introvert-intuitive-thinking-perceiving), ISTP (introvert-sensing-thinking-perceiving), ENTP (extravert-intuitive-thinking-perceiving), and ENFP (extravert-intuitive-feeling-perceiving) are the six most entrepreneurial oriented types based on the occupation statistics of the sample (Routamaa and Miettinen 2007). The common preference among them is perceiving (P), that is, they all are spontaneous, interested in acting by watching, trying out, or adapting. ...
Book
Full-text available
This theme issue of the Journal of Finnish Studies, edited by Tiina Brandt, includes cutting-edge research on entrepreneurship in Finland.
... There are many studies of the MBTI-profiles of entrepreneurs (e.g., Ginn and Sexton 1988;Routamaa and Miettinen 2007;Barbato and Durlabhji 1989;Carland 1982;Carland and Carland, 1992) but these studies do not combine the entrepreneurial attitude and mindset. Instead, they mostly focus on personality and entrepreneurship as an occupation. ...
... According to Ginn and Sexton (1988), fast-growth entrepreneurs tended to have significantly more intuition and perceiving (NP) orientations than managers. These results were in line with Routamaa and Miettinen (2007) who found more extraversion (E), intuition (N), extraversion and intuition (EN), intuitive thinking (NT) but also intuitive judging (NJ) than introversion and sensing (IS) and introversion and judging (IJs) among internationally oriented entrepreneurs. Carland, Carland, and Higgs (1993) found NTs (intuitive thinking) display the highest entrepreneurship tendency; in other words, NTs, as distinguished from the other temperaments, fit the traditional view of entrepreneurship in that the NT preference was highly correlated with innovation (cf. ...
... At the type level, ESFP (extravert-sensing-feeling-perceiving), ESTP (extravert-sensing-thinking-perceiving), INTP (introvert-intuitive-thinking-perceiving), ISTP (introvert-sensing-thinking-perceiving), ENTP (extravert-intuitive-thinking-perceiving), and ENFP (extravert-intuitive-feeling-perceiving) are the six most entrepreneurial oriented types based on the occupation statistics of the sample (Routamaa and Miettinen 2007). The common preference among them is perceiving (P), that is, they all are spontaneous, interested in acting by watching, trying out, or adapting. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study focuses on entrepreneurial aspects of different personality types in order to increase understanding of entrepreneurial mindsets in Finland. Our purpose is to identify the entrepreneurial personalities in Finland because there is high need to foster entrepreneurship and gaining more knowledge of entrepreneurial tendencies can support this. The data were gathered from 889 research participants. Personality was measured with Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). MBTI includes eight different preferences, which describe a person’s orientation of energy (extraversion, E and introversion, I), the way of gathering information (sensing, S and intuition, N), the way of making decisions (thinking, T and feeling, F) and the lifestyle (judging J and perceiving, P). Altogether there are sixteen possible personality types (e.g., ISTP, ESTJ). Results indicated that entrepreneurial tendencies largely correlated with the personality preferences extraversion and intuition.
... However, there are several studies available dealing with categorising entrepreneurs by identity and personality-related criteria (e.g. Routamaa and Miettinen, 2007;Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999). ...
... While there exist some studies dealing with the role of entrepreneurial identities in the pre-start phase of a new venture, there are hardly relevant studies investigating this issue for established ventures in the context of internationalisation. Especially, this is true for the question whether different types of this identity can be distinguished on the basis of regional origin. Based on existing literature, for example, De Vos and Romanucci-Ross (1975), Ackerman (1984), Vesalainen and Pihkala (1999) and Routamaa and Miettinen (2007), we would like to shed some light on this issue. ...
... This further confirms results from other scholars focusing on the pre- start phase of a new venture. For example, Routamaa and Miettinen (2007) found that most entrepreneurial types prefer flexible, spontaneous and changing environments. ...
Article
This paper examines if the identity shaped by the region does have an influence on the owner-manager's managerial behaviour. Two hypotheses have been formulated that are based on the identity theory saying that an individual's self consists of a set of different identities. The paper is based on an empirical study following a survey strategy. The sample consisted of SMEs from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. As technique the interviewer-administered questionnaire, using the telephone, was applied. The data were collected between October 2006 and March 2007. Eventually, 79 questionnaires were available to be included in the data analysis process. The hypotheses were tested applying hierarchical cluster analysis. The cluster analysis for the first hypothesis related to different levels of identities resulted in three clusters showing that the companies can be distinguished according to their expressive and/or instrumental behaviour. Interestingly, the third cluster is made of German SMEs only. The cluster analysis for the second hypothesis referring to different owner manager identities resulted in four clusters. Interestingly again, one cluster emerged comprising German SMEs only. The findings provide a fruitful base for a better understanding of the owner-manager's influence on the company's internationalization process and assist in developing specific policies for different characters of owner-managers. Furthermore, it suggests that owner-managers of small countries are made of other sets of identities compared with their German counterparts indicating a different course of action in terms of internationalization. Concluding, there is evidence that owner-manager identity can be categorized based on the owner-managers' origin.
... However, there are several studies available dealing with categorising entrepreneurs by identity and personality-related criteria (e.g. Routamaa and Miettinen, 2007;Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999). ...
... While there exist some studies dealing with the role of entrepreneurial identities in the pre-start phase of a new venture, there are hardly relevant studies investigating this issue for established ventures in the context of internationalisation. Especially, this is true for the question whether different types of this identity can be distinguished on the basis of regional origin. Based on existing literature, for example, De Vos and Romanucci-Ross (1975), Ackerman (1984), Vesalainen and Pihkala (1999) and Routamaa and Miettinen (2007), we would like to shed some light on this issue. ...
... This further confirms results from other scholars focusing on the prestart phase of a new venture. For example, Routamaa and Miettinen (2007) found that most entrepreneurial types prefer flexible, spontaneous and changing environments. ...
Article
This paper examines if the identity shaped by the region does have an influence on the owner-manager's managerial behaviour. A survey approach was chosen, addressing SMEs from Austria, Germany, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, to address the research aim. The hypotheses posed were investigated applying hierarchical cluster analysis. Based on it different clusters were identified relating to different types of owner–manager identity. The findings provide a fruitful base for a better understanding of the owner-manager's influence on the company's internationalisation process and assist in developing specific policies for different characters of owner-managers. Furthermore, the study's findings suggest that owner-managers of small countries are made of other sets of identities compared with their German counterparts indicating a different course of action in terms of internationalisation.
... This potential actualizes according to Reynierse's [22] study, when he found out that actually Ps, EPs, NPs and TPs are found to be entrepreneurs. More specifically, Routamaa and Miettinen [23] Concerning MBTI-studies entrepreneurship was related to Perceiving which is contradictory to Judging). ...
Article
This study concentrates on twenty owners of eighteen companies who are at reorganization proceedings. The purpose is to analyze if those entrepreneurs' (=RO-entrepreneurs) personality may be one reason for their fall into distressed situation. Results indicated RO-entrepreneurs' are having more than average sensing and feeling personality preferences and thus they are more similar to persons who work at service, selling and caring professions than entrepreneurs overall.
... Perceiving types tend to be more challenging than judging ones according to earlier studies also (Hautala, 2006). They are described as more prone to risk taking, and for example there are more entrepreneurs to be found with perceiving than with judging preferences (Routamaa and Miettinen, 2007). As stated earlier, challenging behavior is considered a masculine trait, and it may be that male leaders with perceiving preferences were regarded as more challenging from their subordinates' point of view too. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose ‐ There are many studies of personality and leadership and gender and leadership, but only few leadership studies have taken into account both personality and gender. That may partly be due to the fact that there are relatively few female leaders, however, the aim of this paper is to discover if similar personality types exhibit the same kind of leadership behavior irrespective of gender. Design/methodology/approach ‐ The quantitative analysis involves 459 leaders (283 men and 176 women) and 378 subordinates working in various fields. Leaders rated their leadership behavior and subordinates also appraised them. Findings ‐ Results indicated differences in leadership behavior by gender, in that women exhibited more enabling behavior, and men more challenging behavior. Further, gender and personality had an impact on leadership behavior, as viewed by both leaders and subordinates. For example, extraverted and intuitive male leaders along with those exhibiting the perceiving dimension regarded themselves as more challenging than their introverted, sensing and judging male counterparts, a view confirmed by subordinates in the case of perceiving male leaders. Research limitations/implications ‐ As limitations, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator offers only one view of the personality, and future studies would be needed with different methods. Also the study did not control confounding factors, and it should be taken into account with the study. Practical implications ‐ From a practical view point, this study offers specific knowledge for people seeking to develop themselves as leaders. Originality/value ‐ Very few studies have concentrated on the relationship between personality and gender in the transformational leadership context, and this study provides a new perspective on this area.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Attitude is presented as a better approach to the description of entrepreneurs than either personality characteristics or demographics. The development and validation of the Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO) scale are explained. Sixty-three undergraduates were used in developing and establishing the test-retest reliability of the EAO. Fifty-four entrepreneurs and fifty-seven non-entrepreneurs served as known groups in establishing the discriminant validity of the EAO. There was a significant difference between known groups for all four of the EAO subscales (achievement, personal control, innovation, self-esteem); all subscales but achievement entered into a stepwise discriminant function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether personality influences the choice of entrepreneurship or organizational employment. Career aspirations related to entrepreneurship or organizational employment were studied in a sample of 533 business students. Personality profiles were defined in terms of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The most frequent types of business students were ESTJ (15%), ENTJ (13%) and ISTJ (12%). The data based on the sample of Finnish business students was compared with the data of Australian postgraduate MBA students. In the Finnish sample extraversion (p <.001) and feeling (p <.001) were overrepresented. As expected, organizational employment was selected more than entrepreneurship. The J-P dichotomy of the MBTI was statistically related to the employment status choice.
Article
In the past decade interest in teaching and research on entrepreneurship has grown dramatically. More than one hundred universities now offer new venture creation and entrepreneurship courses that did not previously. Since 1973 we have seen nearly a dozen new books designed for college courses on the subject, the birth of the American Journal of Small Business, an International Symposium on Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (ISEED) and the emergence of numerous other activities, such as the Academy of Management Entrepreneurship Interest Group. A continuing area of research and practical interest is the personality and make-up of the entrepreneur: who are they? what are they like? how do they differ? This article attempts to summarize much of the research done on the personal characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship.