Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465 – 483

The Big Five and venture survival: Is there a linkage?

Mark A. Ciavarellaa,*, Ann K. Buchholtzb,1, Christine M. Riordanb,1,
Robert D. Gatewoodb,1, Garnett S. Stokesc,2
a
Management Department, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA
b
Department of Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-6275, USA
c
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA

Received 1 August 2000; received in revised form 1 June 2002; accepted 1 March 2003

Abstract

This study examines the relationship of the entrepreneur’s personality to long-term venture survival.
We measure survival in two ways: (1) the likelihood the venture will survive for at least 8 years and (2)
the overall life span of the venture. The ‘‘Big Five’’ personality attributes—extraversion, emotional
stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience provide the measures of the
entrepreneur’s personality. As hypothesized, the entrepreneur’s conscientiousness was positively
related to long-term venture survival. Contrary to expectations, we found a negative relationship
between the entrepreneur’s openness and long-term venture survival. Extraversion, emotional stability,
and agreeableness were unrelated to long-term venture survival.
D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Personality of entrepreneurs; The Big Five; New venture survival

1. Executive summary

For years, entrepreneurship research has explored the implications of the entrepreneur’s
personality. The majority of work has focused on either what personality traits affect an

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-570-577-1337; fax: +1-570-577-1338.

E-mail addresses: mciavare@bucknell.edu (M.A. Ciavarella), abuchholtz@terry.uga.edu (A.K. Buchholtz),
criordan@terry.uga.edu (C.M. Riordan), gatewood@terry.uga.edu (R.D. Gatewood), gstokes@uga.edu
(G.S. Stokes).
1
Tel.: +1-706-542-1294; fax: +1-706-542-3743.
2
Tel.: +1-706-542-2174; fax: +1-706-542-3275.

0883-9026/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.03.001
466 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

individual’s likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur, or the differences between entrepreneurs

and managers. Few have addressed another important question of entrepreneurship research:
What factors contribute to, and what factors detract from, an entrepreneur’s success? In this
study, we examine the relationship between the entrepreneur’s personality and one measure of
success—new venture survival. Survival is measured in two ways: (1) whether the new
venture survived beyond the adolescence stage (i.e., a minimum of 8 years) and (2) the
overall length of time the new venture survived.
Recent convergence in personality theory has led to an overarching five factor model of
personality, i.e., the Big Five. The Big Five factors of personality are (1) extraversion, (2)
emotional stability, (3) agreeableness, (4) conscientiousness, and (5) openness to experi-
ence. This robust model has caused a resurgence of interest in personality traits and their
effects on individual behaviors and performance in various occupational settings. How-
ever, they have yet to be tested with respect to entrepreneurial success. Using arguments
derived from personality theory and entrepreneurship research, we hypothesize that each
factor will have positive effects on the new venture’s likelihood of survival and its overall
life span.
To test our hypotheses, we surveyed graduates of a large southeastern university about
their work histories from 1972 to 1995. From the responses, we were able to determine if the
respondent started a business and the length of time that the business survived. Our definition
of entrepreneur for the purposes of this study is an individual who founds an independent new
venture. In all, 111 respondents met our criteria and provided complete information for this
study. Of these, 57 individuals were considered successful (able to maintain the operations of
the venture for the minimum of 8 years) and 54 individuals closed their business to seek
employment elsewhere.
For the first measure of survival, whether the new venture survived beyond adolescence
(i.e., 8 years), we used logistic regression. For the second measure of survival, the length of
time the venture survived, we used survival analysis. Utilizing both statistical techniques
allowed us to test the effects of the Big Five factors on whether and for how long the new
venture survived. Although we hypothesized a positive relationship between each of the
personality factors and new venture survival, only conscientiousness was a significant
predictor of the relationships. This suggests that being hardworking and persevering are
important to both the likelihood of long-term venture survival and the overall life span of the
firm. Contrary to expectations, openness to experience was negatively related to long-term
new venture survival. It appears that those who are averse to taking the venture in various
strategic or opportunistic directions in the startup stage are more likely to have a venture
survive for the long term. Extraversion, emotional stability, and agreeableness were not
significant predictors of long-term venture survival.
The results suggest that an entrepreneur needs to evolve into a manager to shepherd a new
venture to long-term survival. In particular, a conscientious attitude and not being open to
various avenues of divergence appear to be key to long-term new venture survival.
Interestingly, these personality factors are more predictive of venture survival than industry,
startup experience, or the age and gender of the entrepreneur. These findings have
implications for those who fund entrepreneurial new ventures, those who provide supple-
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 467

mental services such as counseling to prospective entrepreneurs, and potential entrepreneurs

who are evaluating their own likelihood of success.

2. Introduction

Researchers have long attempted to understand the nature of the entrepreneur and the
phenomena behind his or her actions. Most studies addressing the issue have examined
which personality types are more likely to become entrepreneurs (Gartner, 1988). Far fewer
studies have explored which personality types are prone to successfully guide their ventures
to long-term survival (Sandberg and Hofer, 1987). Notable exceptions are studies by
Brockhaus (1980) and Hornaday and Aboud (1971), who examined the relationship between
personality and venture success for 3 and 5 years, respectively. In Brockhaus’ study,
successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs were compared using measures of locus of control
and risk-taking propensity; however, only internal locus of control indicated significant
differences between the two groups. Hornaday and Aboud’s study measured several
personality variables such as need for achievement, autonomy, aggression, and independ-
ence, but found no significant differences between entrepreneurs and ‘‘men in general’’ for
any of the variables.
Due to inconsistent findings among the personality studies of entrepreneurs, Gartner
(1988) charged that examining ‘‘Who is an entrepreneur?’’ is the wrong question to
answer. Gartner (1989, p. 28) went on to say, ‘‘an entrepreneurship study of psychological
traits is first and foremost a psychological study, and secondarily an entrepreneurship
study [and] must follow the same ‘rules of the game’ as other studies of psychological
traits found in the mainstream of the discipline of psychology.’’ Similarly, in testing
relationships between psychological variables and venture success, Miner (1997, p. 19)
asserted, ‘‘if one wishes to understand, predict, and influence people toward entrepreneu-
rial success, the only comparison that matters is between successful and less successful or
failed entrepreneurs.’’
The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between the entrepreneur’s
personality and the overall long-term survivability of the venture. We test the relationship in
two ways. First, we follow firm survival for 8 years, enabling us to explore the relationship
between the entrepreneur’s personality and his or her likelihood of guiding the firm to the
maturity stage (Biggadike, 1979). Second, we use survival analysis to assess the effects of the
entrepreneur’s personality on new venture closure, i.e., how long the venture will survive. In
the process, we extend the entrepreneurship literature by drawing upon current personality
theory to obtain robust measures of the entrepreneur’s personality, and using those measures
to predict the likelihood of long-term venture survival.
We begin with an examination of previous studies linking entrepreneurship and personality
traits. Then, the Big Five personality factors central to current personality theory are
delineated. Hypotheses regarding the relationship between personality and long-term new
venture survival are developed and tested. Finally, we end with a general discussion of
limitations, implications, and directions for future research.
468 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

3. Theory development

3.1. Personality traits of the entrepreneur

Empirical studies of the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs date back to 1961 with
McClelland’s (1961) analysis of their need for achievement (Hornaday and Bunker, 1970;
Hornaday and Aboud, 1971; Mescon and Montanari, 1981; Sexton and Bowman, 1984;
Begley and Boyd, 1987; Shaver and Scott, 1991). The findings in entrepreneurship research
related to this factor have been mixed (Brockhaus, 1982). Nevertheless, Shaver and Scott
(1991) contend that this trait remains the only variable whose association with launching a
new venture is convincing. Four other traits, along with need for achievement, have been
called the ‘‘hallmarks of the entrepreneurial personality.’’ They are locus of control, risk-
taking propensity, tolerance of ambiguity, and Type A personality (Begley and Boyd, 1987).
However, like the need for achievement findings, attempts to couple these factors with
entrepreneurs have had mixed results (Gartner, 1988; Ginsberg and Buchholtz, 1989). This
inability to obtain consistent findings has been linked to conceptual and methodological
differences among the studies (Ginsberg and Buchholtz, 1989; Shane et al, 2003). Previous
studies have (1) used different operationalizations of the same construct, (2) used measures
that lack validity and reliability (Johnson, 1990; Gartner, 1989), (3) erred in their use of
situationally based measures of personality such as risk propensity (Gasse, 1982), or (4)
ignored testing the instruments for variable unidimensionality or multidimensionality (Shaver
and Scott, 1991). As a result, the ability to generalize from past empirical research on
personalities (whether entrepreneurial or in general) is limited (Johnson, 1990; Mount and
Barrick, 1998). According to Johnson (1990, p. 49), ‘‘it is imperative that valid and reliable
instruments designed specifically to measure the operationalized psychological character-
istics. . .be employed.’’
This study answers Johnson’s (1990) call by utilizing the ‘‘Big Five’’ measure of person-
ality, which has been shown to be both valid and reliable (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Hurtz and
Donovan, 2000). The development of a five-factor model of personality has led to a ‘‘. . .rapid
convergence of views regarding the structure of the concepts of personality’’ (Digman, 1990,
p. 418) and ‘‘advanced [personality research] considerably in its conceptual sophistication,
reliability of measurement models, and predictive validity’’ (Nicholson, 1998, p. 530).

3.2. The Big Five

Since the mid-1980s, the Big Five model has been found to be a robust indicator of an
individual’s personality. General agreement among personality theorists has developed
around the use of the terms extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, and openness to experience (Judge et al., 1999; Mount and Barrick, 1998; Hogan,
1991). Table 1 lists the five factors with their respective descriptive components and/or traits
as delineated in Barrick and Mount (1991).
Some studies in entrepreneurship have investigated single factors or primary traits within
the context of their respective Big Five higher order factors (e.g., Hornaday and Aboud, 1971;
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 469

Table 1
The Big Five Factors, Traits, and Components
Big Five factor Traits
Extraversion sociable, gregarious,
(surgency) assertive, talkative, active
Emotional stability calm, even-tempered,
self-satisfied, comfortable,
unemotional, hardy,
stable, confident, effective
Agreeableness being courteous, flexible,
(likability, trusting, good-natured,
friendliness) cooperative, forgiving,
soft-hearted, tolerant
Conscientiousness responsible, well-organized,
(conformity, planful, hardworking,
dependability) achievement-oriented,
persevering
Openness to being imaginative, creative,
experience cultured, curious, original,
(intellect) broadminded, intelligent,
artistically sensitive
Components
ambition—initiative, surgency, impetuous,
likes to be in charge, seeks leadership roles,
persuasive
sociability—talkative, gregarious, enjoys
meeting people
individuality—shows off, enjoys taking
chances and stirring up excitement
steady—even-tempered,
steady emotionally
security—feels secure about self, not bothered
by criticism
cooperative—likes to help others and does
things for friends, trusting of others
considerate—good-natured, cheerful,
forgives others easily
dependability—thorough, careful
industriousness—strives to do best, does more
than planned, hardworking, persistent
efficiency—neat and orderly, plans in advance,
rarely late for appointments
intellect—imaginative, likes abstract ideas and
concepts, analytical and introspective,
enjoys philosophical debates
open—cultured, likes to try new and
different things, enjoys art, music, literature

Hoy and Carland, 1983). However, only one study examined all of the Big Five factors as
potential personality traits of ‘‘entrepreneurial leaders’’ (see Nicholson, 1998). While
Nicholson found these entrepreneurial leaders to be more stress-resistant (a trait of emotional
stability), assertive (extraversion), and conscientious as compared to other managers, he did
not address the relationship of the entrepreneurial leader’s personality to venture survival.
Personality theorists agree that an individual’s personality predicts his or her behavior
(Funder, 1994). It follows, then, that the personality traits of entrepreneurs may have
important implications for the long-term success of ventures inasmuch as the entrepreneur’s
behavior is likely to influence venture success (Hunt and Adams, 1998). Entrepreneurs with
personalities that enhance their ability to perform in various situations should have a greater
probability of sustaining the operations of the venture for the long-term when compared to
entrepreneurs with personalities that are not suited for venture ownership. Following is a
description of the factors that provide the support for our hypotheses.

3.2.1. Extraversion
Extraversion is primarily associated with the quantity and intensity of relationships and, as
such, is manifested in sociability, higher energy levels, positive emotionality, and excitement
470 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

seeking (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998). Research has shown that extraverted people are more
likely to take on leadership roles (Judge et al., 1999), and extraversion is a predictor of job
performance for managers and salespeople (Vinchur et al, 1998; Barrick and Mount, 1991).
While the subjects for these studies were not entrepreneurs, it is plausible that the results are
applicable to entrepreneurs since effective management and selling practices are vital to the
survival of all ventures, particularly nascent ones. Indeed, basing arguments on this notion,
Morrison (1997) found that extraversion was strongly correlated with the performance of
franchisees.
A trait of extraversion is the assertiveness of the individual (Barrick and Mount, 1991). In a
study of entrepreneurs from India, Malawi, and Ecuador, assertiveness was found to be a
differentiator between ‘‘successful’’ and ‘‘average’’ entrepreneurs (the categorization was
determined by judges’ perceptions of whether the entrepreneurs were successful or average)
(McClelland, 1987). Although these findings were for entrepreneurs outside the United
States, we expect to find similar results for entrepreneurs in the sample of this study.
Moreover, being extraverted should facilitate the development of social networks,
ultimately resulting in stronger partnerships with suppliers and customers (Baker, 1994;
Barringer and Greening, 1998). The ability to establish networks with suppliers, advisors,
and customers is a crucial task, and doing so effectively should increase the likelihood of
venture success (Baron and Markman, 2000), culminating in long-term survival. From this,
we can surmise that not only should entrepreneurs higher in extraversion have an
increased likelihood of surviving beyond 8 years, but we also expect that entrepreneurs
high in this factor will have the efficacy to maintain the operations of the venture for any
period. Thus,

H1a: Extraversion of the entrepreneur will be positively related to the likelihood of long-term
new venture survival.

H1b: The greater the entrepreneur’s extraversion, the longer the life span of the new venture.

3.2.2. Emotional stability

Individuals low in emotional stability are prone to stress and tend to have sustained periods
of depression, irritability, and anxiety (Judge et al., 1999). Within general work environments,
low emotional stability is positively related to absenteeism, intentions to quit, and voluntary
turnover (Barrick and Mount, 1996; George, 1989, 1990; Judge, 1992). For entrepreneurs,
emotional volatility and worrying are expected to be obstacles (Vesper, 1990), and individuals
who are not up to the task of maintaining optimism about the results of their efforts will
negatively affect the performance of their venture. We expect that entrepreneurs who practice
these attitudes and behaviors in their personal businesses will not succeed over the long-term
and will have a faster rate of exit from new venture ownership.
On the other hand, high emotional stability may aid the ability of individuals to maintain
relationships (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000), which should facilitate the entrepreneur’s long-
term success through relationships with customers, employees, and resource providers.
Owning and operating an entrepreneurial firm typically requires coping abilities to be able
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 471

to manage the day-to-day performance pressures and expectations placed upon the entrepre-
neur by various stakeholders. Those high in emotional stability should be able to tolerate
these stressful situations. Similarly, entrepreneurs take personal risks to create and sustain the
operations of the business and are not guaranteed future employment. Those who are self-
confident and self-secure in undertaking these risks and can cope with uncertainty are
expected to prevail through such conditions, resulting in a greater likelihood of survival for
the venture. As evidence of these potentialities, an empirical study within franchise environ-
ments found that emotional stability was positively correlated with franchisee performance
(Morrison, 1997). Thus,

H2a: Emotional stability of the entrepreneur will be positively related to the likelihood of
long-term new venture survival.

H2b: The greater the entrepreneur’s emotional stability, the longer the life span of the new
venture.

3.2.3. Agreeableness
Individuals high in agreeableness tend to be courteous, forgiving, and flexible in dealing
with others. It is an interpersonal factor that focuses on the quality of relationships through
cooperation and trust (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998; Judge et al., 1999). As such, it is plausible
that a level of agreeableness is necessary to receive the required support to get a new venture
started. Entrepreneurs who establish trusting, flexible, and courteous relationships with their
customers should expect to reap the profits of repeat business. According to Judge et al.
(1999, p. 625), ‘‘the cooperative nature of agreeable individuals may lead to more successful
careers, particularly in occupations where. . .customer service is relevant.’’ Within the
entrepreneurial realm, Cable and Shane (1997) propose that cooperation is a key factor in
the entrepreneur’s ability to secure capital and future support from venture capitalists,
increasing the chance for long-term survival of the venture.
Although occupationally related, agreeableness was not found to be a predictor of job
performance for managers or salespeople (Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Barrick and Mount,
1991). However, it may be that this factor has more of an effect on interpersonal relations
rather than task performance (Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000).
Baron and Markman (2000) infer that entrepreneurs who are trusting and cooperative in their
business relationships are more likely to develop alliances with larger companies, resulting in
new product development, shareholder wealth, and venture survival. We posit that entrepre-
neurs must exhibit agreeableness with suppliers and investors, if for no other reason than to
maintain quality relationships with these individuals/firms so that there is a greater likelihood
of receiving essential future support and resources. This support should promote the
entrepreneur’s ability to maintain the operations of the business over the long-term and
should increase the probability of a longer life span for the venture. Thus,

H3a: Agreeableness of the entrepreneur will be positively related to the likelihood of long-
term new venture survival.
472 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

H3b: The greater the entrepreneur’s agreeableness, the longer the life span of the new
venture.

3.2.4. Conscientiousness
Dependability, industriousness, and efficiency are the basic components of conscientious-
ness, and those high in this factor tend to be hardworking, achievement-oriented, and
persevering. Conscientiousness has been found to be a consistent predictor of job perform-
ance across occupations involving managing others and sales performance (Hurtz and
Donovan, 2000; Barrick and Mount, 1991). Moreover, this factor has been associated with
both goal-directed behavior (such as efficacy) and control-related traits (e.g., internal locus of
control) (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998). As such, higher levels of conscientiousness should
play a pivotal role in the entrepreneur’s ability to lead his/her new venture to long-term
survival.
The importance of this factor is exemplified by research showing that the number one
factor venture capitalists seek in prospective loan recipients is the capability of sustained
intense effort (MacMillan et al., 1985) (i.e., persevering from the conscientiousness
construct). According to Timmons (1989), ‘‘more than any other single factor, total
dedication and perseverance to succeed as an entrepreneur can overcome incredible obstacles
and setbacks’’ (p. 32). Being persevering should result in higher sales productivity, while
being well-organized signifies increased efficiency and effectiveness. Conversely, it is
plausible that individuals who are disorganized, or who fail to persevere, will tire quickly
from the daily demands that entrepreneurs and small-business owners face and thus will have
a faster rate of new venture failure or closure. Based on these arguments, we expect that

H4a: Conscientiousness of the entrepreneur will be positively related to the likelihood of

long-term new venture survival.

H4b: The greater the entrepreneur’s conscientiousness, the longer the life span of the new
venture.

3.2.5. Openness to experience

Individuals high in openness are characterized as being intellectual, intelligent, and open to
new ideas and experiences. Although this factor has had little relationship with occupational
outcomes, its primary contribution to workplace environments is its direct relationship with
cognitive ability (Barrick and Mount, 1991). The attributes of intelligence, broad-minded-
ness, and originality are salient for starting a new venture, and should remain so for the
survivability of the venture. Indeed, creativity and the ability to discover innovative ways of
protecting the firm from competition may be key factors in the success of the venture (Bird,
1989). It is imperative that entrepreneurs be ready for changing markets, products, and
technology in today’s business environment to survive. The constancy of change requires
intelligence and curiosity to acquire new knowledge of technological advances, and
innovative thinking to develop new strategies to take advantage of untapped sources of
revenues. As such, we expect that higher levels of openness will lead to an increased
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 473

likelihood of maintaining the existence of the venture to the 8-year point and a decreased rate
of failure for a new venture. Thus,

H5a: Openness to experience of the entrepreneur will be positively related to the likelihood
of long-term new venture survival.

H5b: The greater the entrepreneur’s openness to experience, the longer the life span of the
new venture.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

The data for this study were obtained from surveys of graduates of a large southeastern
university. The survey design was a two-step process where initial surveys were adminis-
tered to students in a basic psychology class during their first year at the university between
1968 and 1973. In this phase, the students completed a biographical questionnaire (see
Owens and Schoenfeldt, 1979), which gathered information about their adolescent experi-
ences, such as school grades, athletic activities, parental supportiveness, and socioeconomic
status. Follow-up surveys were mailed in 1995 to students who responded to the initial
survey and subsequently graduated from the university. This phase was designed to assess
their career progress over the 18–23 years following graduation, as well as assess their job
satisfaction, life satisfaction, quality of life, and personality. All of the information for this
study was obtained from the 1995 survey, and all was self-reported. Of the 5890 graduates
identified for participation from the first phase, 1766 (30%) responded to the second survey
phase.
For the purposes of this study, it was necessary to identify individuals who were
entrepreneurs during their careers. Survey respondents indicated for each year between
graduation and 1995 the industry in which they worked, the position they held, a description
of their job duties, the number of subordinates underneath them, the total number of
employees in the company, and whether they owned all or part of the business. Only those
individuals who indicated that they owned all or part of the business were screened for
inclusion. Of this group, only those who made it clear in their description of job duties that
they founded a business and reported that the number of subordinates reporting to them
equaled the total number of employees in the firm were considered for the final analysis. Two
hundred and forty-two respondents (13.7%) started their own business over the period
covered by the survey.
We reduced our sample further by excluding ‘‘professional’’ or ‘‘licensed’’ entrepreneurs
(doctors, attorneys, accountants, veterinarians, and insurance agents) since our purpose in this
study is to examine and analyze the personality characteristics of ‘‘true’’ entrepreneurs. The
term true entrepreneurs is used to identify those that have decided to launch a small business
by forgoing all other career alternatives and without the safety net of a professional license in
474 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

case of failure. We further reduced our sample set by eliminating individuals who started a
business as part of a partnership, took over a family business, or bought an existing business.
Doing so allowed us to focus on independent ventures, or those ventures that are created and
controlled by an individual acting in his or her own self-interest (Vesper, 1990). Of those who
responded, 144 met our criteria of an entrepreneur. Finally, due to missing data for some of
the independent and control variables, our sample size was reduced to 111 cases. The overall
sample was 67.4% male and 32.6% female and averaged 30 years of age at startup.

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. The Big Five personality measures

A 120-item scale measured the personality of the subjects for quantification of the Big Five
personality factors using the Personal Characteristics Inventory—Form D (Barrick and
Mount, 1993). The scale has been tested for its reliability and construct validity (Barrick
and Mount, 1993) and is anchored on a three-point Likert scale (agree–neutral–disagree).

4.2.2. Survival
We measured survival in two ways. For the ‘‘a’’ hypotheses, survival is whether the new
venture survived beyond the startup and adolescent stage of the new venture life cycle, i.e., a
minimum of 8 years (Biggadike, 1979) measured dichotomously (0 = closed before year 8,
1 = survived at least 8 years). For the ‘‘b’’ hypotheses, survival is the number of years the
business survived, up to a maximum of 23 years (1972–1995). Of the 111 individuals
identified for participation in this study, 57 were able to maintain the operations of the business
for at least 8 years while 54 cases ceased operations prior to the eighth year. The individuals
comprising this latter category either closed their business before reaching the mature stage to
open another business (two cases) or to seek employment elsewhere (52 cases).

4.2.3. Controls
The control variables for this study were sex, experience within the industry of the new
venture, age at opening, prior startup experience, and size (the logarithm of the venture’s
highest number of employees during the period covered by the survey).3

4.3. Analysis

We used hierarchical logistic regression to test the ‘‘a’’ set of hypotheses predicting
whether the venture survived to the maturity stage. For the ‘‘b’’ set of hypotheses predicting

3
Industry was also analyzed as a control variable on two levels. First, the participants classified their venture
within 13 industry categories, however, this factor was not significantly related to any of the other variables. To
further test the potential relationship between industry and venture success, we categorized the respondents
classifications into a total of three industries (manufacturing-, service-, and wholesale/retail-related), which also
resulted in no significant relationship between industry and any of the control, independent, or dependent
variables. Thus, industry was dropped from the analysis.
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 475

how long the venture survived, we used survival analysis that takes into account the failure of
some data termination, and thus controls for right censoring.

5. Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables,
Table 3 shows the results of the logistic regression analysis, and Table 4 reflects the findings
for the survival analysis.
The relationships for three of the personality factors were not supported for either analysis.
Neither extraversion nor emotional stability nor agreeableness were predictive of maintaining
the operations of the venture until the eighth year (H1a–3a, respectively). Similarly, none
were predictive of the overall life span of the venture (H1b–3b).
H4a states that the conscientiousness level of the entrepreneur will be positively related to
the venture’s survival for at least 8 years. This hypothesis was supported (b = 1.242, p < .05).
Moreover, H4b, which predicts a positive relationship between the conscientiousness level of
the entrepreneur and the overall life span of the venture was also supported (b = 0.907,
p < .01). Thus, being hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering results in an
increase in the likelihood of long-term venture survival beyond the adolescent stage and
an overall longer life span for the venture.
Finally, H5a and H5b predict positive relationships between an entrepreneur’s openness to
experience and long-term new venture survival. Although we expected a positive relation-
ship between the variables for H5a, the result was in the opposite direction than
hypothesized and significant (b = 1.142, p < .05). H5b was also in the opposite direction
than hypothesized, however, this relationship only approached statistical significance
(b = 0.592, p < .10). These findings seem to indicate that those who stick to the task at
hand rather than being open to a variety of opportunities are more suitable to guide the
venture into the maturity stage. Three plausible and related reasons illuminate why this may
be the case.
First, it may be that openness has a significant relationship with the propensity to start a
new venture (which was not tested in this study), but not long-term venture survival.
Individuals high in openness possess the traits of being introspective, creative, broad-
minded, and intelligent. Entrepreneurs characteristically seem to fit this profile in that they
often reflect on their own thinking and perceptions to assess and define problems and
opportunities and through their creativity and broad-mindedness they develop solutions to
take advantage of existing opportunities. Over the long term, however, the requirements of
sustaining the venture may shift from an introspective and creative mindset to a managerial
one. Individuals high in openness may not be able to make this shift easily. Second, new
ventures typically have a small margin of error in the allocation of venture resources. Those
high in openness may be more likely to envision various opportunities in their environment,
while those low in openness may be more likely to follow paths with which they are
familiar and those that reduce uncertainty (George and Zhou, 2001). To explore the
advantages of the foreseen opportunities, entrepreneurs high in openness may be open to
 476
M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
Variable Meana Meanb n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Sex 1.42 1.24 144 –
2. Industry experience 0.57 0.75 134 .04 –
3. Age at opening 30.23 29.37 144 .19* .12 –
4. Startup experience 0.28 0.17 144 .05 .00 .10 –
5. Size 1.34 2.17 139 .23** .10 .17* .01 –
6. Extraversion 67.08 66.64 131 .22* .04 .07 .08 .30** –
7. Emotional stability 43.67 45.78 133 .27* .02 .04 .13 .29** .15 –
8. Agreeableness 47.09 48.25 133 .11 .04 .06 .06 .01 .11 .31*** –
9. Conscientiousness 78.62 80.15 132 .12 .16 .01 .03 .01 .08 .15 .07 –
10. Openness to experience 48.91 46.19 132 .10 .03 .18* .11 .04 .13 .02 .04 .05 –
11. Survival 2.90c 11.87c 144 .19* .20* .09 .12 .36*** .02 .14 .09 .11 .19*
a
Means for subgroup that did not survive until eighth year.
b
Means for subgroup that survived until the eighth year.
c
Means equal the average length of time in years the venture was in operation.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 477

Table 3
Results of logistic regression analysisa
Variable b Wald Dv2
Sex 0.545 1.210
Industry Experience 1.136 5.640*
Age at opening 0.298 0.319
Startup experience 0.570 1.154
Size 1.799 9.900** 25.294***
Extraversion 0.131 0.063
Emotional stability 0.470 0.665
Agreeableness 0.511 1.144
Conscientiousness 1.242 4.631*
Openness to experience 1.142 4.185* 13.227*
2 log-likelihood = 115.277, v2 = 39.521, percent correct = 73.0%, Cox and Snell R2=.293, df=(10,101).
a
The dependent variable is survival until the eighth year (coded ‘‘0’’ if the venture did not survive until the eighth
year, ‘‘1’’ if it survived at least 8 years).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

too many opportunities and spread resources among these rather than concentrating
available resources on one opportunity and significantly improving its chance of success.
Third, movement beyond the creativity-driven startup phase may cause the entrepreneur
high in openness less satisfaction as work becomes more stable and routine. This lack of
satisfaction with venture ownership may result in poor venture performance or early
business closure (Cooper and Artz, 1995), and the entrepreneur may seek other avenues

Table 4
Results of survival analysisa
Variable b Wald Dv2
Sex 0.444 2.213
Industry Experience 0.616 5.168*
Age at opening 0.158 0.231
Startup experience 0.339 1.306
Size 1.364 9.514** 27.802***
Extraversion 0.109 0.101
Emotional stability 0.161 0.240
Agreeableness 0.358 1.817
Conscientiousness 0.907 6.567*
Openness to experience 0.592 3.254+ 13.433*
2
2 log-likelihood = 482.800, v = 41.235.
a
The dependent variable is the length of time the venture survives, up to a maximum of 23 years (1972 – 1995).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
+
p < .10.
478 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

of employment where creativity and broad-mindedness can be expressed more regularly and
with fewer resource constraints.
Given the significance of only two of the five dimensions on survival until the eighth year,
we conducted post hoc analyses to determine if any of these dimensions were significantly
related to survival over a shorter period. We chose 4 years as the cutoff for these analyses
since this point defines the average amount of time a new venture shifts from the startup stage
to the adolescent stage (Biggadike, 1979). The results both replicated and diverged from
earlier findings.
Of the control variables, the entrepreneur’s experience in the industry and the size of the
venture were again significantly related to survival to the fourth year ( p < .05 and p < .001,
respectively). Of the personality dimensions, conscientiousness again significantly predicted
the ability of the entrepreneur to successfully operate the venture to the fourth year
(Wald = 5.163, p < .05). Openness to experience, although still negatively related to survival,
was no longer a significant predictor of survival to the fourth year. As was the case in the 8-
year analysis, none of the other Big Five dimensions were related to 4-year survival. Thus,
only conscientiousness emerged as a primary predictor of venture survival for either 4 or 8
years. Openness, on the other hand, appears to have increasingly detrimental effects as time
passes, emerging as a stronger influence of firm closure as the venture ages. This gives
more support to advising entrepreneurs who are resource poor from the start to aim
resources at credible opportunities with greater chances of success rather than spreading
those resources over several opportunities with riskier or uncertain levels of return.
Otherwise, those high in openness who try new ideas or pursue various avenues are likely
to be gambling with the firm’s survival beyond the adolescent stage as initial working
capital is exhausted.
In addition, the results of the logistic regression and survival analysis reveal three other
interesting relationships. First, there was a significant relationship between the size of the
venture and its survival in both the logistic regression equation and survival analysis
(b = 1.799, p < .01, and b = 1.364, p < .05, respectively). Though logical, we should expect
the true relationship to be one of reverse causality, where initial success would lead to an
increase in employment growth, both of which are dependent on the entrepreneur’s ability to
maintain the venture’s existence. Second, industry experience was significantly related to
survival in both analyses (b = 1.136, p < .05, and b = 0.616, p < .05). This finding implies that
knowledge of the industry in which the venture operates may allow entrepreneurs to reduce
environmental uncertainty by making initial contacts with suppliers, customers, and capital
providers, and establishing networking relationships with others who have knowledge of the
industry, thus enhancing the venture’s chance of survival. This finding also lends support to
anecdotal advice provided by current entrepreneurs to prospective entrepreneurs (Lussier,
1995), and empirical evidence showing a positive relationship between firm performance and
the entrepreneur’s industry experience (Box et al, 1994). Third, in contrast to Stuart and
Abetti (1990), our findings did not show a relationship between new venture creation
experience and the long-term survivability of the venture. This may be because Stuart and
Abetti’s sample consisted of technical ventures whereas our sample consisted of new ventures
in various industries.
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 479

6. Discussion

In this study, we addressed Gartner’s (1989) concern that examinations of the personality
of entrepreneurs be first and foremost psychological studies through our use of the most
recent theoretical and methodological developments in personality research. Moreover, we
addressed Miner’s (1997) assertion that studies of entrepreneurial success should compare
successful and less successful entrepreneurs. From these directives, our findings have
provided new and distinct avenues that explain new venture survival, yet implore further
investigation.
The implications of this study are threefold. First, certain personality factors seem to
influence the entrepreneur’s likelihood of taking the venture from the startup stage to the
maturity stage. Specifically, the findings indicate that once an individual high in conscien-
tiousness and/or low in openness to experience decides to become an entrepreneur, s/he may
be more committed to maintaining the operations of the venture during the critical first startup
years, resulting in a higher likelihood of venture survivability into venture maturity and a
longer venture life span. Obviously, some firms may continue to be entrepreneurial beyond
the maturity stage, while others become lifestyle firms prior to this stage. Entrepreneurs who
possess higher levels of conscientiousness and lower levels of openness may have a greater
ability to evolve into a managerial mindset and maintain the operations of either an
entrepreneurial or lifestyle venture.
Second, it appears that entrepreneurs who are able to cultivate the firm to long-term
survival have both comparative and contrasting commonalities with other managers. In
Barrick and Mount’s (1991) and Hurtz and Donovan’s (2000) meta-analyses, conscientious-
ness was found to be a consistent and valid predictor of managerial performance. The current
study adds support to this finding. Barrick and Mount also found a weak positive relationship
between openness and managerial performance. We discovered, however, a negative
relationship between openness and the entrepreneur’s ability to lead the new venture to
long-term survival. Future research should explore the implications of the differences
between these two groups in their openness to new experiences.
Third, we agree with Stuart and Abetti’s (1990) assertion that venture capitalists (or any
resource providers) should not be unduly influenced by the personality of the entrepreneur.
However, the results of our study suggest that venture capitalists, bankers, employees, and
other stakeholders of the venture would be wise to have some indication of the entrepreneur’s
personality. We cannot adhere to Stuart and Abetti’s claim that the existence of, or lack of,
certain personality characteristics are not associated with performance.
We faced several limitations in this study. First, due to using survey methodology, there is a
possibility of common method bias. Both the personality and the survival measures were
obtained through self-report measures during the same period. However, it is unlikely that this
is a threat to the interpretability of the results since recent research has found that common
method bias does not significantly affect measures that describe personal characteristics
(gender, personality) or factual events (e.g., work history) (Crampton and Wagner, 1994).
Second, all of the measures provided by the respondents were self-reported, which may
create a potential for social desirability or self-deception bias. Indeed, individuals can alter
480 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

their scores on personality measures (Hogan, 1991). However, this rarely happens unless the
respondents are instructed to do so (Hough et al, 1990; Hogan, 1991). It is doubtful that the
participants in this study intentionally distorted their answers, as the inventory was part of a
larger survey with several unrelated social measurement scales.
A third limitation is that the entrepreneur’s personality was measured after the survival of
the venture was determined. Indeed, entrepreneurship researchers have criticized this
methodological precedence (Gartner, 1989). However, we feel this limitation has been
greatly reduced in this study since an individual’s personality takes its fully developed form
between the ages of 21 and 30, and changes in traits after the age of 30 are the exception
rather than the rule (Costa and McCrae, 1994; Shaver, 1995). Given that the average age of
the entrepreneurs in this sample was 29.78 (S.D. = 4.65) at startup, we believe that their
personality structures were stable prior to the creation of the new venture and remained stable
over the time period of this study. Furthermore, our use of the Big Five factors has allowed us
to test our hypotheses using a robust personality measure within the field of psychology.
Judge et al. (1999) state that ‘‘evidence is accumulating which suggest that virtually all
personality measures can be reduced or categorized under the umbrella of. . .the ‘Big Five’’’
(p. 623). The comprehensiveness of these factors and their reliability over time upholds our
belief in the stability of the entrepreneurs’ personalities in this study. Nevertheless, the
findings of this study could be supplemented by future research that measures entrepreneurs’
personalities prior to venture creation and follows the success of the venture over time.
Finally, we were limited by only being able to observe the outcome of survival. As such,
we could not analyze whether or how the entrepreneur’s personality affects his or her decision
processes and the growth of the venture. We cannot deny that these decision processes are
likely to have an effect on the long-term survival of the new venture and whether the
entrepreneur prefers to grow the venture or keep it at an individually controlled size.
Additional research should examine a possible personality–process–survival linkage.

7. Conclusion

This study explored the impact of psychological characteristics on the survival of a new
venture. By utilizing the most recent personality theory, we showed that entrepreneurs who
are higher in conscientiousness are significantly more likely to maintain the survivability of
the venture beyond the adolescence stage and have ventures with longer overall life spans
than those who are lower in conscientiousness. Additionally, those who are more open to new
experiences are significantly less likely to have businesses that survive beyond the
adolescence stage and also tend to have ventures with shorter life spans than those who
are lower in this dimension.
The results of this analysis may provide the basis for future research using personality
theory to better understand entrepreneurial ventures. A replication of this study is warranted
to provide an extension of the personality–survival relationships found here. Since person-
alities are stable and inherent, while skills are taught, researchers should concentrate on
determining the specific personality composition that relates to persistence to stay with the
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 481

venture over the long term (Shaver, 1995). In addition, the performance measure of this study
was long-term survival of the venture. Future studies should examine the effects of the Big
Five personality variables on other measures of performance, such as sales and/or employee
growth, profitability measures, and effects on stakeholders.
We would be remiss to conclude that the entrepreneur’s personality is the only factor that
affects the long-term survivability of the venture; the entrepreneur’s decision making and
behaviors matter also. Yet, these idiosyncratic decisions and behaviors reflect personality
structure (Shaver and Scott, 1991), and the extent to which personality traits predict
behavior is comparable to situational factors (Funder and Ozer, 1983; Funder, 1994).
Obviously, situational and external considerations must be given some attribution. However,
in our attempt to examine the personality of the entrepreneur, we controlled for many of the
situational factors that provide the basis for potential performance variation in entrepre-
neurial firms. We know from prior research that situational factors external to the
entrepreneur should not be ignored and must necessarily be controlled when studying the
entrepreneur’s personality. Similarly, researchers in entrepreneurship should not ignore the
impact of the entrepreneur’s personality when testing the effects of situational factors on
venture performance.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the useful comments and guidance provided by the anonymous
reviewers at the Journal of Business Venturing.

References

Baker, W.E., 1994. Networking Smart: How to Build Relationships for Personal and Organizational Succes.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Baron, R.A., Markman, G.D., 2000. Beyond social capital: how social skills can enhance entrepreneurs’ success.
Acad. Manage. Exec. 14, 106 – 116.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Pers. Psychol. 44, 1 – 26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1993. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five person-
ality dimensions and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 111 – 118.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1996. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive
validity of personality constructs. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 261 – 272.
Barringer, B.R., Greening, D.W., 1998. Small business growth through geographic expansion: a comparative case
study. J. Bus. Venturing 13, 467 – 492.
Begley, T.M., Boyd, D.P., 1987. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial
firms and smaller businesses. J. Bus. Venturing 2, 79 – 93.
Biggadike, R., 1979. The risky business of diversification: a bold approach can make all the difference in new
ventures. Harvard Bus. Rev. 57 (3), 103 – 111.
Bird, B.J., 1989. Entrepreneurial Behavior. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.
Box, T.M., Watts, L.R., Hisrich, R.D., 1994. Manufacturing entrepreneurs: an empirical study of the correlates of
employment growth in the Tulsa MSA and rural East Texas. J. Bus. Venturing 9, 261 – 271.
482 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483

Brockhaus, R.H., 1980. Psychological and environmental factors which distinguish the successful from the
unsuccessful entrepreneur: a longitudinal study. Proc. Acad. Manage., 368 – 372.
Brockhaus, R.H., 1982. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In: Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 39 – 57.
Cable, D.M., Shane, S., 1997. A prisoner’s dilemma approach to entrepreneur – venture capitalist relationships.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 22, 142 – 176.
Cooper, A.C., Artz, K.W., 1995. Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Venturing 10, 439 – 457.
Costa Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1994. ‘‘Set like plaster?’’ Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In:
Heatherton, T., Weinberger, J. (Eds.), Can Personality Change? American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 21 – 40.
Crampton, S.M., Wagner, J.A., 1994. Percept – percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation
of prevalence and effect. J. Appl. Psychol. 79, 67 – 76.
DeNeve, K.M., Cooper, H., 1998. The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective
well-being. Psychol. Bull. 124, 197 – 229.
Digman, J.M., 1990. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 417 – 440.
Funder, D.C., 1994. Explaining traits. Psychol. Inq. 5 (2), 125 – 127.
Funder, D.C., Ozer, D.J., 1983. Behavior as a function of the situation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 44, 107 – 112.
Gartner, W.B., 1988. ‘‘Who is an entrepreneur?’’ is the wrong question. Am. J. Small Bus. 13, 11 – 31.
Gartner, W.B., 1989. Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Entrep. Theory
Pract. 14, 27 – 37.
Gasse, Y, 1982. Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur. In: Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L., Vesper, K.H.
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 57 – 71.
George, J.M., 1989. Mood and absence. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 317 – 324.
George, J.M., 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 107 – 116.
George, J.M., Zhou, J., 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior:
an interactional approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 513 – 524.
Ginsberg, A., Buchholtz, A., 1989. Are entrepreneurs a breed apart? A look at the evidence. J. Gen. Manage. 15,
32 – 40.
Hogan, R.T., 1991. Personality and personality measurement. In: Dunnette, M.D., Hough, L.M (Eds.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 873 – 919.
Hornaday, J.A., Aboud, J., 1971. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Pers. Psychol. 24, 141 – 153.
Hornaday, J.A., Bunker, C., 1970. The nature of the entrepreneur. Pers. Psychol. 23, 47 – 54.
Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D., McCloy, R.A., 1990. Criterion-related validities of
personality constructs and the effect of a response on those validities. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 581 – 595.
Hoy, F., Carland, J.W., 1983. Differentiating between entrepreneurs and small business owners in new venture
formation. In: Hornaday, J.A., Timmons, J.A., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Wellesley, MA, pp. 180 – 191.
Hunt, R.E., Adams, D.C., 1998. Entrepreneurial behavioral profiles and company performance: a cross-cultural
comparison. Int. J. Commer. Manage. 8 (2), 33 – 49.
Hurtz, G.M., Donovan, J.J., 2000. Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 85,
869 – 879.
Johnson, B.R., 1990. Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: the case of achievement motivation
and the entrepreneur. Entrep. Theory Pract. 14, 39 – 54.
Judge, T.A, 1992. The dispositional perspective in human resources research. In: Ferris, G.R., Rowland,
K.M. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, vol. 10. JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 31 – 72.
Judge, T.A, Higgins, C.A., Thoresen, C.J., Barrick, M.R., 1999. The Big Five personality traits, general mental
ability, and career success across the life span. Pers. Psychol. 52, 621 – 652.
Lussier, R.N., 1995. Startup business advice from business owners to would-be entrepreneurs. SAM Adv. Man-
age. J. 60 (1), 10 – 17.
 M.A. Ciavarella et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 465–483 483

MacMillan, I.C., Siegel, R., Subba Narasimha, P.N., 1985. Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new
venture proposals. J. Bus. Venturing 1, 119 – 128.
McClelland, D.C., 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
McClelland, D.C., 1987. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. J. Creat. Behav. 21, 219 – 233.
Mescon, T., Montanari, J., 1981. The Personalities of Independent and Franchise Entrepreneurs. Academy of
Management, San Diego, CA.
Miner, J.B., 1997. A Psychological Typology of Successful Entrepreneurs. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Morrison, K.A., 1997. How franchise job satisfaction and personality affects performance, organizational commit-
ment, franchisor relations, and intention to remain. J. Small Bus. Manage. 35, 39 – 67.
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., 1998. Five reasons why the ‘Big Five’ article has been frequently cited. Pers.
Psychol. 51, 849 – 858.
Nicholson, N., 1998. Personality and entrepreneurial leadership: a study of the heads of the UK’s most successful
independent companies. Eur. Manage. J. 16, 529 – 538.
Owens, W.A., Schoenfeldt, L.F., 1979. Toward a classification of persons. J. Appl. Psychol. 65, 569 – 607.
Sandberg, W.R., Hofer, C.W., 1987. Improving new venture performance: the role of strategy, industry structure,
and the entrepreneur. J. Bus. Venturing 2, 5 – 28.
Sexton, D.L., Bowman, N.B., 1984. Personality inventory for potential entrepreneurs: evaluation of a modified
JPI/PRF-E test instrument. In: Hornaday, J.A., Tarpley, F., Timmons, J.A., Vesper, K.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Wellesley, MA, pp. 513 – 528.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A., Collins, C.J., 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Hum. Res. Manage. Rev. 13, 257 – 279.
Shaver, K.G., 1995. The entrepreneurial personality myth. Bus. Econ. Rev. 41 (3), 20 – 23.
Shaver, K.G., Scott, L.R., 1991. Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrep. Theory
Pract. 16, 23 – 45.
Stuart, R.W., Abetti, P.A., 1990. Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on early performance.
J. Bus. Venturing 5, 151 – 162.
Timmons, J.A., 1989. The Entrepreneurial Mind. Brick House, Andover, MA.
Van Scotter, J.R., Motowidlo, S.J., 1996. Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 525 – 531.
Vesper, K.H., 1990. New Venture Strategies. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Vinchur, A.J., Schippmann, J.S., Switzer, F.S., Roth, P.L., 1998. A meta-analytic review of predictors of job
performance for sales people. J. Appl. Psychol. 83, 586 – 597.