Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs

Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs Purpose – This paper aims to identify personality trait differences between social and traditional entrepreneurs. Design/methodology/approach – The Durham Business School’s General Enterprise Tendencies (GET) test was chosen to measure an individual’s entrepreneurial personality. The choice was based on the test’s established use within industry and its ability to measure traits most commonly considered “entrepreneurial” by the extant literature. The test was adapted for this study and distributed to both social and traditional entrepreneurs. The results were then statistically analysed to test for significant differences between the two groups. Findings – It was found that social entrepreneurs exhibited statistically significantly higher levels of creativity, risk-taking and need for autonomy than traditional entrepreneurs. The results were then discussed critically in light of the literature. Research limitations/implications – The modest sample size was the main limitation of the research. In addition, the sample set was fairly culturally homogeneous. It has been recommended that an additional test be carried out with a larger sample size, consisting of a more culturally diverse range of participants, to improve the generalisation of the findings. Originality/value – This research provides new insights into personality trait differences between social and traditional entrepreneurs and is particularly useful to those with an interest in entrepreneurial orientation and those interested in the identification and development of social entrepreneurs. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Enterprise Journal Emerald Publishing

Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs

Smith, Rachael; Bell, Robin; Watts, Helen
Social Enterprise Journal , Volume 10 (3): 22 – Oct 28, 2014
Download PDF
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/personality-trait-differences-between-traditional-and-social-QWHbzl2abx
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1750-8614
DOI
10.1108/SEJ-08-2013-0033
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to identify personality trait differences between social and traditional entrepreneurs. Design/methodology/approach – The Durham Business School’s General Enterprise Tendencies (GET) test was chosen to measure an individual’s entrepreneurial personality. The choice was based on the test’s established use within industry and its ability to measure traits most commonly considered “entrepreneurial” by the extant literature. The test was adapted for this study and distributed to both social and traditional entrepreneurs. The results were then statistically analysed to test for significant differences between the two groups. Findings – It was found that social entrepreneurs exhibited statistically significantly higher levels of creativity, risk-taking and need for autonomy than traditional entrepreneurs. The results were then discussed critically in light of the literature. Research limitations/implications – The modest sample size was the main limitation of the research. In addition, the sample set was fairly culturally homogeneous. It has been recommended that an additional test be carried out with a larger sample size, consisting of a more culturally diverse range of participants, to improve the generalisation of the findings. Originality/value – This research provides new insights into personality trait differences between social and traditional entrepreneurs and is particularly useful to those with an interest in entrepreneurial orientation and those interested in the identification and development of social entrepreneurs.

Journal

Social Enterprise Journal – Emerald Publishing

Published: Oct 28, 2014

There are no references for this article.