T he Russian entrepreneur:

a study of psychological
characteristics
R. Green, J. David and M. Dent
Staffordshire University, UK and

A. Tyshkovsky
Moscow StateAcademy of Management, Russia

Research from the discipline of psychology has attempted to characterize

entrepreneurs in terms of variables such as personality, attitudes, biography,
demography and behaviour in the business world. (e.g. Fraboni and Saltstone,
1990). Psychological traits of entrepreneurs have received particular attention.
While a variety of definitions, methodologies, and in some cases quite
heterogeneous samples have been used, making comparisons across studies
difficult, some consensus has, nonetheless, emerged. For example,
entrepreneurs have been found to score higher on need for achievement,
internal locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity, and type A behaviour.
They are believed to be moderate and calculated risk takers, and, in another
series of studies, have also been found to score higher on the Protestant work
ethic scale (see references in later sections).
Not surprisingly, researchers have also asked questions about causal factors
in successful entrepreneurism, with the familiar debate between the role of
individual and social/situational factors ( e.g. family background, stage of
career, features of the political, economic or social environment) to the fore. The
search for stable traits is consistent with an individual model of causation, and
the notion of an entrepreneurial personality, i.e. a constellation of stable traits
(innate and/or acquired) has also been proposed. In contrast, Gibb and
Ritchies
(1981) social development model explains the shaping of entrepreneurs wholly
in relation to early life experiences, while interactionist models (e.g. Winfield,
1984) acknowledge that environmental contexts (such as social upheaval and a
supportive social and economic culture) are necessary conditions for the
expression of personality. A similar view is expressed in terms of a contingent
model (Miller and Friesen, 1982), where the traits and behaviours required of a
successful entrepreneur would depend on key features of the environment in
which he or she was working.
The evidence and developmental models just outlined have all emerged
through the study of entrepreneurs in Western economies, mainly Britain, the
USA and Australia. Studies of entrepreneurism in other cultures would be
useful in contributing to the debate about causation yet the literature is patchy,
with the exception of some cross-cultural comparisons of entrepreneurial

values (McGrath and MacMillan, 1992). One study is reported by

Venkatapathy (1986), working in India, but here a more
general set of
entrepreneurial
groups. was used to compare first- and secondpersonality dimensions
Our
own
study,
then, reports on entrepreneurism in terms of small business
generation
already outlined, an understanding of such entrepreneurial activity is clearly
activity and its location within individuals who wish to
important in a context in which, despite the continuing domination of state
capitalize on the
enterprise, private businesses have grown rapidly in recent years, and
potential for innovation in the new Russian economy. Apart
according to many experts must be encouraged to grow further to boost the
from the rationale
national economy.
T he question posed was whether the Russian entrepreneur could be
characterized as similar to entrepreneurs identified in research in Western
economies.
T he study comments on methodology
A questionnaire format was thought appropriate for a first investigation of our
target population. This would allow the collection of data from relatively large
number of subjects and would allow us to include standardized versions of
scales for the measurement of chosen traits (details later).
Two other key issues concerned:
(1) how entrepreneur should be defined for the purposes of the study; and
(2) what type of sample should be chosen as a control or comparison group.
In both cases a decision was made on the basis of past common practice.
Entrepreneurs were defined as first-generation business founders, a group who,
in past research, have been found to demonstrate entrepreneurial
characteristics rather more strongly than second-generation and more
established owners. We acknowledge that finer distinctions within the
D

could not easily be made in the absence of fuller interview data. We were also
aware of other important distinctions specifically relating to the Russian
context. Radaev (1993), for example, found that Russian experts believed in the
existence of three different types of entrepreneur:
(1) those coming from and involved in the privatization of stateowned property (nomenclatura recruits), who bring with them high
status and financial capital, and the ability to exploit old personal
networks;
(2) independent entrepreneurs, coming from nowhere and raising their
own start-up capital through savings or loans; and
(3) shadow dealers from already existing black markets.

A decision was made to locate the sample within group (2) of this typology, this
being the nearest equivalent to groups of entrepreneurs studied in other
cultures.
Our comparison sample was a group of business managers, in this case from
state enterprises. One problem this choice creates is that managers also tend to
score highly on the traits of interest, (e.g. type A, need for achievement (NA))
relative to members of the general public, a fact that is believed to contribute to
a certain degree of inconsistency in reported results. However, it was felt that
any other comparison would introduce too many other non-matched variables.
T he study subjects, materials and procedure
A total of 99 junior and middle managers of state enterprises (group M) and 108
first-generation small-business founders (entrepreneurs group E) were
interviewed, covering as wide a range as possible of types of business
enterprise. Restrictions in sampling the entrepreneur group were that the
business should have been running for at least six months and that it should be
legally registered (implying viability, since registration is not cheap).
Questionnaires to both groups covered biographical data on level of
education, working history, and family background. Group M were further
asked about their current managerial position, and any intentions they might
have for starting their own business. Group E were asked about the type of
business in which they were involved, the role taken in that business, and the
reasons for originating the business. Both groups then completed the four
scales described below. All questionnaire items were translated into Russian
following detailed discussions between authors to arrive at semantically and
colloquially acceptable equivalents. Back translation confirmed the accuracy of
the translation process.
Scale 1 need for achievement (NA)
The individuals internalized need for personal achievement and fulfilment was
measured using Smiths (1973) scale of ten true-false items. McClelland (1961)
initially found that successful entrepreneurs in the USA scored highly on NA;
similar results have since been obtained by a number of other authors, e.g.
Begley and Boyd (1986). The behaviours presumed to contribute to greater
entrepreneurial success in high need achievers include the setting of
challenging goals, demand for feedback to evaluate accomplishments, and
continuous striving for improved performance.
Scale 2 economic locus of control (ELC)
T his was measured using a 12-item version of Furnhams (1986)
multidimensional scale. Subscales of three items each reflect internal
economic locus of control (ELC-int), concerned with personal control over
positive outcomes relating to financial affairs; external-denial locus of control
(ELC-ed), concerned with negative economic outcomes that happen to other
people and the denial that poverty exists; powerful others locus of control

(ELC-po), referring to the power of others over ones economic position; and
chance locus of control (ELC-ch), concerned with beliefs
about how
position.
uncontrollable luck or chance factors affect ones own and/or
Items financial
selected from Furnhams larger set were those with the highest factor
others
were required.
Locus of
in generalResponses
refers to the
degree to which an individual
loadings
oncontrol
each subscale.
of agree,
perceives
success
and
failure
as
being
contingent
on personal initiative,
undecided, or disagree
Shapero (1975) found that entrepreneurs tended to score at the internal end of
Rotters IE scale, indicating greater belief in the efficacy of their own behaviour,
and rejecting the influence of external factors such as destiny, luck or chance.

led

Scale 3 Protestant work ethic (PWE)

Mirels and Garretts (1971) 19-item scale was used with responses given on
seven-point rating scales. PWE reflects work values and beliefs associated with
Webers theory of Protestantism and economic growth, e.g. belief in hard work,
delayed gratification, etc. Furnham (1990) argues that the scale seems intrinsic
to entrepreneurship, and has used it successfully (Bonnett and Furnham, 1991)
to distinguish potential entrepreneurs on a British youth training programme.
It is worth noting that its applicability in a Soviet context, while superficially
questionable on the grounds of its religious basis, is nonetheless acceptable in
the light of the quite broad range of cross-cultural contexts in which it has now
been applied (e.g. Furnham, 1990) and the contention that secularization has
to an uncoupling of the ethic from its Protestant roots.

entrepreneurs
D

Scale 4 intrinsic work motivation (IWM)

Measures of work involvement and intrinsic work motivation (the extent to
which a person wants to be involved in work and wants to perform well) have
been found to correlate positively with Protestant work ethic (Saal, 1978) and
internality on locus of control (Runyon, 1973), though research on
intrinsic work motivation was used (six items with seven-point rating scales) as
a means of looking more explicitly at motivational aspects of entrepreneurial
experience, though it should be noted that responses are likely to be more
dependent on current job experience than in the case of the other measures
adopted.
Questionnaires were completed by selected respondents in Moscow during
late 1993/early 1994. Interviewers were in attendance during this process to
clarify and ensure complete responses. Coded data were then returned to
England for analysis.
Results
A number of descriptive characteristics of the two groups are summarized in
Table I.

Group E were younger (t = 12.01, p= 0.0001), contained a higher proportion of

males and single respondents, and a lower proportion who had attained a
university education. There was little evidence in either group for a direct
influence from parental work experience. Entrepreneurs, when asked to rate
their satisfaction with the effects of recent changes in the Russian economy,
reported a significantly more favourable view in terms of both impact on
themselves (t = 7.47, p= 0.0001) and on the country (t = 5.08, p= 0.0001).
Additional data indicate that while the modal size of enterprise for both
groups employed six to 50 people, the proportion of respondents working in
smaller enterprises was greater for group E, and the proportion working in
larger enterprises was greater for group M. The average time in business for
group E was 4.5 years. Finally, it may be noted that only 12 per cent of group M
expressed any serious intentions of starting up a small business in the near
D

of the study.
The main results which are the concern of this paper are comparisons of
groups M and E on the four scales described above. Initial hypotheses predicted
that the entrepreneur group would score higher on PWE and NA, and would be
more internal on ELC-int than state managers. In looking at the results below it
should be noted that high scores on PWE and NA represent high levels of that
attribute, while low scores on ELC represent high locus of control for that
subscale. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table II, together with
the results of t-tests comparing group M and group E scores. Two-tailed tests
were conducted except in the case of NA, ELC-int, and PWE scores, where
specific directional hypotheses had been proposed.
In summary, the entrepreneur group scored significantly higher on NA
(t = 3.31, p= 0.001), lower on the internal subscale of ELC (t = 2.29, p= 0.023)

Discussion
Initial results suggest that this group of Russian first-generation entrepreneurs
share characteristics of groups similarly labelled in research in capitalist
D

achievement, and (though not significant in this study) Protestant work ethic.
That PWE does not differentiate as clearly as the other two scales may be a
reflection of its multidimensional base, in that it covers values and attitudes
related to morality, leisure and politics as well as to work and the economy.
Thus only some components are likely to be intrinsic to entrepreneurship, while
others may actually be more likely to differentiate the same group negatively.
What may be of more interest here is the fact that the mean score on PWE for
the sample as a whole (78.3) is within a range found in many reports of average
PWE scores in Western cultures such as the UK, USA and Australia. This
evidence could be seen as adding weight to the argument that a broad European
consensus now exists with regard to a vocational work ethic (e.g. Giorgi and
Marsh, 1990), and that perhaps the label Protestant is now something of a
misnomer. It is less clear that our findings would support some of Furnhams

(1990) cross-cultural predictions about PWE scores (pp. 135-9), e.g. that scores
should be lower in more authoritarian and more bureaucratic
cultures, and in
However,
obviously
in are
this large
case inequalities
no direct cross-cultural
comparisons
were
countries where
there
between the
rich
produced,
and
the
question
of
whether
attitudes
endorsed
by
the
business
and the poor.

destiny

depend
remain

considered.
community are representative of the general population would
state
managers
also have
to be on ELC-po; in a society emerging from state domination it is
perhaps not surprising that those creating economic success in the private
domain
should
hold
less strong group
beliefsscored
about higher
the control
on their
In addition,
the
entrepreneur
than exerted
a
control group of
by powerful others.
Finally, state managers actually scored higher than entrepreneurs on
intrinsic work motivation, although for both groups scores on this dimension
are relatively high. It has already been noted that IWM is a more situationallydependent measure than others chosen for this study; the degree to which
intrinsic rewards are perceived and valued must, to some extent at least,
on the nature of the job itself. We suggest tentatively that managers who
in the state system may do so partly because their jobs are relatively fulfilling,
while for a significant number in the entrepreneur group more mundane jobs
may be compensated for by high extrinsic rewards (see also comments below).
Correlations beween scale scores present a rather less clear pattern. The
relationship between PWE and internal locus of control is consistent with
earlier research (e.g. Furnham, 1986). One might also predict a relationship
between NA and ELC-int, which was not found, though again some (e.g.
Brockhaus, 1980) argue that this may only hold for successful entrepreneurs.
That high need achievers believe less strongly in chance and in the control of
powerful others is plausible and consistent with the overall pattern of results.
However, further analysis revealed results that should lead to caution with
regard to the conclusion that first-generation small business owners in the
Soviet economy possess characteristics true to an entrepreneurial type or

gender and age respectively also need to be taken into account, either as main
effects or in interaction with entrepreneurial status. If we take the example of
age, it should be clear that the social/economic situation must also play its part,
since the opportunities offered by perestroika are recent, and were therefore
unavailable to an older generation. An interactionist or contingent model of the
type reviewed earlier seems more appropriate (see also Chell, 1986) and might
be tested by conducting longitudinal research.
Finally, looking at the interaction effect of gender and business group on
internal locus of control, one possible interpretation is that female state
managers are adopting stereotypical male characteristics in order to be more
successful in a traditional male environment, in this case assuming an image of
being in personal control of events. The results for entrepreneurs would reflect
more normal gender differences.

A couple of critical points should be offered in conclusion. First, we

acknowledge the failure to obtain a truly representative sample. The whole
sample was located in Moscow; thus certain businesses, e.g. those
with agriculture, were excluded. Other studies suggest Russian entrepreneurial
associated
styles vary quite considerably on a regional basis (Batstone, S. personal
communication). The state manager sample also contained a higher proportion
of females than one would expect (although other studies, e.g. Fagenson (1993)
have found gender differences to be much smaller than those created by
business experience). Having said this, the internal consistency in the pattern of
results obtained overall still gives us some degree of confidence in our sampling
procedures.
Second, we are also a little cautious about interpreting the similarities in scale
scores obtained as truly representative of underlying similarities in character.
To give one example, need for achievement has been described as being made
up of a number of different factors, such as status aspiration, competitiveness,
excellence, acquisitiveness and mastery (Cassidy and Lynn, 1989). It would not
be unreasonable to hypothesize that currently Russian entrepreneurs might be
more strongly motivated by acquisitiveness ( i.e. need for extrinsic reward) than
their Western counterparts, and if we refer back to our results on intrinsic work
motivation, we have noted earlier the possibility that entrepreneurial work in
Russia may not in itself be of a nature to inspire a desire for achievement . Hence
equivalence on overall need for achievement between, say, Russian and British
entrepreneurs could mask important differences in motivational profile.
Finally, it would be helpful to the promotion of business venturing in growing
economies if differences in entrepreneurial psychological profiles could not only
be identified, but were also indicative of the potential for training or
socialization. McClellands (1961) belief that this is true in the case of need for
achievement, and that the number of entrepreneurs in a country is related to its
economic growth, has not, on balance, been supported, though a later study by
McClelland (1987) does identify specific competences which distinguish
D

successful entrepreneurs in a number of developing countries ( India, Malawi

and
Ecuador)
and which
become
a clear
focus
entrepreneurial
training.
Certainly,
traits might
such as
NA, PWE
and ELC
dofor
develop
through
socialization, learning and experience, rather than being inborn; thus one might
still remain optimistic about the general notion of developing encouraging
rather than discouraging entrepreneurial predispositions. However, relative to
the scale of the environmental changes in Russia that have facilitated new
business venture activity, the effects reported in this study should probably be
seen as having more theoretical than practical interest. It may even be the case
that entrepreneurial experience has itself in some cases contributed to changes
in psychological attitudes, although no positive correlations between scale
scores and length of entrepreneurial activity could be detected in this study.
Again issues such as these highlight the potential value which longitudinal
research in this area would offer.