September 2017 Prepared in collaboration with The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and written by Immanuel Commarmond In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset
September 2017
Prepared in collaboration with The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and written by Immanuel
Commarmond
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of
and Measure for Entrepreneurial
Mindset
Contents Abstract 3
Introduction 4
Part 1: In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset 5
The Genesis of Mindset 5
Framing Mindset as a Theory 8
Fixed and Growth Mindsets 9
Exploring Entrepreneurial Mindset 10
Developments from Personality Psychology 10
Developments from Cognitive Psychology 12
More Recent Contributions to the Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset 14
Developing a Shared Definition of Entrepreneurial Mindset 16
Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial Mindset from Literature 17
Summary of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from the Literature Review 21
Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset 23
Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from the Literature Review 23
Appropriateness of Tools for Measuring Identified Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions 26
Proposed Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset 26
Part 3: Conclusion and Future Research Considerations 27
Bibliography 28
Table of Tables
Table 1: Fiske's Personality Rating Scale Definitions ............................................................................. 6
Table 2: Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI / Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................ 7
Table 3: Summary of Early Characteristics of Entrepreneurs (Solomon and Winslow, 1988) ............10
Table 4: Summary of Entrepreneurial Characteristics from Literature Review (Adapted from Lau et
al., 2012) ..............................................................................................................................................11
Table 5: Cognitive Factors Relevant to Three Basic Issues Addressed by the Field of
Entrepreneurship (Baron, 2004) ..........................................................................................................13
Table 6: EMP Dimensions (Davis et al. 2016) ......................................................................................16
Table 7: List of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from Literature Review ...................................22
The Allan Gray Orbis Foundation aims to activate
personal initiative, intellectual imagination,
achievement excellence, courageous commitment and
a spirit of significance in individuals who aspire to be
high-impact responsible entrepreneurs. The Allan Gray
Orbis Foundation believes that this will be achieved
through the development of an entrepreneurial
mindset in these individuals along with a tactical focus
on education and experience complemented by the
personal traits of effort and ethics1.
With the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation’s focus being on
the development of an entrepreneurial mindset, they
join many cutting edge entrepreneurial programmes
who are beginning to focus less on the gaining of
content knowledge about entrepreneurship, and more
on developing an entrepreneurial mindset (Krueger,
2015). However, Krueger (2015) states that merely
saying that a programme is developing an
entrepreneurial mindset is insufficient if we cannot be
rigorous about what that term means both theoretically
and empirically.
In response to this need for rigour, this literature review
seeks to develop a more rigorous theoretical and
empirical understanding of entrepreneurial mindset
and its measurement.
From the literature review, multiple definitions of
entrepreneurial mindset and mindset in general are put
forward and from these the following common
understanding of entrepreneurial mindset is proposed:
Entrepreneurial mindset relates to how a person thinks,
their state of mind or the lens through which they see
the world, and how this influences their propensity for
entrepreneurial activities and outcomes. This state of
mind or lens is influenced by multiple factors that
include what people know or do not know (related to
their knowledge), what people have done or have not
done (related to their experience), what people can do
or believe they can do (related to their level of
competency and self-belief), and who they are (related
to their personality, values, attitudes and beliefs).
The literature review goes on to look at current
measurement tools for entrepreneurial mindset as well
as the limitations of these tools in providing a
comprehensive measure for the mindset dimensions
that were explored. Following these limitations, the
development of a quantitative survey based on the
identified entrepreneurial mindset dimensions is
proposed. This survey intends to measure
entrepreneurial mindset nationally as a general
population baseline, which can then support and
inform the development and impact of entrepreneurial
education and activities. The validity and reliability of
the survey will need to be confirmed before replicating
the survey in other countries to reveal further insights
into both the effectiveness of current interventions as
well as the development of programme and policy
recommendations.
Additional recommendations for future research are
then proposed, both to the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation
and to the broader research and practitioner
community.
Abstract
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 3
1 www.allangrayorbis.org
In 2016 the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and the Global
Entrepreneurship Research Network (GERN)1 began
collaborating on a project that aims to achieve the
following outcomes related to entrepreneurial
mindset1:
A. The development of a shared understanding
of entrepreneurial mindset.
B. The development of a universal
methodology for measuring entrepreneurial
mindset.
C. The development of an evidence-based
approach for enhancing entrepreneurial
mindset education theory and practice.
This paper aims to take the first steps towards achieving
these outcomes through providing a literature review
on entrepreneurial mindset – its definition, origins and
measurement – and then proposing a way forward to
begin to achieve these outcomes.
To do this, this paper will consist of three main parts:
• Part 1 – In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of
Entrepreneurial Mindset
• Part 2 – In Pursuit of a Better Measure for
Entrepreneurial Mindset
• Part 3 – Possible Future Research Areas
Relating to Entrepreneurial Mindset and its
Measurement
Part 1 will explore the genesis of entrepreneurial
mindset and how an understanding of the mindset of
entrepreneurs was initially rooted in the behavioural
sciences and is based on decades of research within the
fields of personality, cognitive and social psychology.
Thereafter, a chronological overview of research
relating to the mindset of entrepreneurs is presented
along with the multiple definitions that have been
proposed. A shared understanding of entrepreneurial
mindset is then proposed along with a summary of
general themes that emerge from the literature. Finally,
a list of entrepreneurial mindset dimensions supported
by the literature review is tabulated.
Part 2 will explore the measurement of entrepreneurial
mindset by reviewing literature associated with the
measurement of these constructs as well as reviewing
the research methodologies used in identifying the
entrepreneurial mindset dimensions reviewed in Part 1
of this paper. Lastly, based on the limitations of each of
these tools in measuring the entrepreneurial mindset
dimensions identified in Part 1, a recommendation for
the development of a revised tool is put forward.
Part 3 recommends possible research areas for the
Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and other stakeholders to
consider in taking this study further.
In the spirit of lifelong learning, it is anticipated that this
paper and the insights and recommendations proposed
will continue to be refined as a community of practice
within this field emerges and research on
entrepreneurial mindset advances.
Introduction
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 4
2 http://gern.co/ 3 http://gern.co/gern/entrepreneurial-mindset-study
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 5
An often cited definition of entrepreneurial mindset is
a specific state of mind that orientates human conduct
towards entrepreneurial activities and outcomes
(Fayolle, 2012; Putta, 2014). To understand
entrepreneurial mindset more deeply and its relevance
to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education,
its roots in academic literature from the behavioural
sciences will be reviewed. Through this, a multi-
disciplinary understanding of entrepreneurial mindset
and the potential for future research and practice can
be explored.
The Genesis of Mindset
Entrepreneurial mindset finds its early roots in
personality psychology, which attempts to describe,
predict and explain recurrent behaviours that set
people apart from one another (Corr and Matthews,
2009, p. 43). With seminal work in psychology and the
emergence of personality psychology being led by
James (1842–1910), Freud (1856–1939), Calkins
(1863–1930), Adler (1870–1937) and Jung (1875–
1961); Gordon Allport (1897–1967) is often referred to
as the founder of personality as a separate field of
psychology. Allport made a significant contribution to
this particular field of study with his research,
Concepts of Trait and Personality (1927).
Allport defined personality as a dynamic organisation,
within an individual, of psychophysical systems that
determine one’s unique adjustments to the
environment (Allport, 1937, p. 48). McAdams and Pals
(2006, p. 212) offer a modern approach to this
definition and define personality as an individual’s
unique variation on the general design of human
nature, expressed as a developing pattern of
dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations and
integrative life-stories complexly and differentially
situated in culture.
Cloninger (in Corr and Matthews, 2009) synthesised the
various definitions of personality psychology in that a
person’s personality begins with certain innate
biological dispositions (both distinct and shared,
hereditary and influenced) and through life these
innate tendencies are channelled and influenced by
multiple, interrelated factors that include experiences
and culture and result in a pattern of behaviour,
cognitions and emotional patterns that all constitute
what is referred to as personality.
Mcdougall (1932) was one of the first to propose
various similar traits or topics to better understand
personality. He proposed five factors, namely, intellect,
character, temperament, disposition and temper – with
each of these factors being very complex and having
many underlying variables. However, his methodology
to define these factors needed further refinement and
his work sparked half a century of further research to
better organise the language of personality into a more
coherent structure.
Allport (1937) argued that internal individual traits
were the real causes for personality and needed to be
more deeply understood, but the challenge was how
to use language to define and express traits that are
not concrete and are generally experienced internally.
Allport, also known as the ‘trait’ psychologist,
developed a list of 4500 trait-like words to help
understand personality. He then clustered these
words into three trait levels to help us understand the
level of influence these traits may have on behaviour.
Part 1: In Pursuit of a Better
Understanding of Entrepreneurial
Table 1: Fiske's Personality Rating Scale Definitions
1. Readiness to Cooperate vs. Obstructiveness 12. Cautious vs. Adventurous
2. Predictable vs. Unpredictable 13. Good-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, Selfish
3. Assertive vs. Submissive 14. Socially Poised vs. Clumsy, Awkward in Social Situations
4. Depressed vs. Cheerful 15. Rigid vs. Adaptable
5. Frivolous vs. Serious 16. Dependent vs. Self-sufficient
6. Attentive to People vs. Cool, Aloof 17. Placid vs. Worrying, Anxious
7. Easily Upset vs. Unshakable Poise 18. Conscientious vs. Not Conscientious
8. Narrow Interests vs. Broad Interests 19. Marked vs. Slight Overt interest in opposite sex
9. Suspicious vs. Trustful 20. Frank, Expressive vs. Secretive, Reserved
10. Good-natured, Easy-going vs. Self-centred, Selfish 21. Dependent vs. Independent Minded
11. Silent, introspective vs. Talkative 22. Limited vs. Marked Overt Emotional Expression
These levels were cardinal traits, central traits and
secondary traits. He proposed that cardinal traits
dominate and shape a person’s behaviour and are the
ruling behaviour traits. Central traits, which are not as
overwhelming as cardinal traits but can be found to
some degree in every person, are the basic building
blocks of behaviour, an example being honesty.
Secondary traits, according to Allport, are like central
traits but only occur under specific circumstances and
need to be understood in order to provide a complete
picture of human complexity.
Allport went on to hypothesise an idea that is very
closely related to our current understanding of
mindset. He proposed that internal and external forces
have an influence on an individual’s behaviour. He
called these forces genotypes and phenotypes (1937, p.
16). Genotypes are the internal forces that influence
behaviour and include how information is processed
and retained, and how these forces influence one’s
interaction with the external world. Phenotypes are
external forces that influence one’s behaviour and how
one accepts their surroundings. The largest criticism at
the time of this hypothesis was that these were internal
theories and were difficult to be observed, measured or
proven.
Along with theories relating to motivation, drive and
our frame of reference or perspective, Allport added
significant seminal work for other theorists to build
upon.
These 4500 traits, of which many may be considered
internal theories, were still too many to begin to
provide insight into personality and human behaviour
and needed a more structured and more scientific
approach to identify the relationships between these
traits. It was during this period that a statistical
analysis methodology called factor analysis became
more regularly used in the field of psychology.
Factor analysis, originally developed by Spearman
(1904), and then later generalised by Thurstone (1947),
is a statistical test used to find relationships between
multiple items and propose a number of ‘factors’ that
then serve as clusters to help one understand core
behaviour trends or themes.
An early example of how factor analysis added value to
the behavioural sciences was where Fiske (1949)
developed a rating scale, adapted from a larger scale
developed by Cattell (1947), where he identified 22
core personality attributes (Table 1).
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 6
Through a factor analysis, the survey revealed five
factors, each factor having a high correlation with some
of the 22 items in Table 1. These are summarised in the
points below.
1. Socially Adaptable (Cheerful, Talkative,
Adventurous, Adaptable and Placid)
2. Emotional Control (Unshakable, Self-
sufficient, Placid, Emotional Expression,
Social Poise, Easily Upset, Worrying,
Anxious, Dependent)
3. Conformity (Readiness to cooperate,
Serious, Trustful, Good-natured and easy-
going, and conscientiousness
4. The Inquiring Intellect (Broad Interests,
Independent-Minded, Imaginative,
Seriousness of Purpose and
Conscientiousness)
5. Confident Self-expression (Assertive,
Talkative, Marked Interest in the Opposite
Sex, Frank, Expressive
Fiske’s development of these five factors led to
significant further study focused on defining a more
universally accepted five-factor model of personality.
Cattell (1957), Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman
(1963), Borgatt (1964), Eysenck (1970) and Guilford
(1975) all contributed to the refinement of these
factors.
Following a study on the relationship between age
differences and personality, Costa and McCrae (1976)
proposed the three broad traits of Neuroticism (N),
Extraversion (E) and Openness to Experience (O), and
the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Inventory
(NEO-I) was developed. Later Costa and McCrae (1985)
went on to recognise two additional factors:
Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness (C). They
then abandoned the use of NEO as an acronym and
developed the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI),
which is now often referred to as the ‘Big Five’
personality traits or Five Factor Model (FFM). The Big
Five is often remembered nowadays through the
‘OCEAN’ or ‘CANOE’ acronyms. Table 2 offers a
summary of these five factors of personality.
Table 2: Costa & McCrae's NEO-PI / Big Five Personality Traits
Trait Description
Openness Curious, original, intellectual, creative and openness to new ideas.
Conscientiousness Organised, systematic, achievement oriented and dependable.
Extraversion Outgoing, talkative, sociable.
Agreeableness Affable, tolerant, sensitive, trusting, kind and warm.
Neuroticism Anxious, irritable, temperamental, moody.
Popular critics of the Big Five include Block (2004) who
raised concerns about the use of the statistical method
of factor analyses as well as how the questionnaire
measured the Big Five. Ashton and Lee (2007) found the
Big Five to be a useful tool in summarising basic
information relating to one’s personality but raised a
concern on the usefulness of the tool in understanding
personality in its detail, depth or context. McAdams
(1992) proposed a ‘Big Six’ by introducing a sixth trait
domain: Honesty-Humility. However, broadly speaking,
consensus around the Big Five model of personality has
grown steadily since the early 1990s.
The Big Five has since been used as a knowledge base
to better understand many sub-disciplines including
attitudes, goals and motivation; everyday behaviour;
physical health; psychopathology; relationships and
social status; self-concept; subjective well-being; work
and achievement, mindset; and later entrepreneurial
mindset.
Based on further research within many of these sub-
disciplines, as well as developments within cognitive
and social psychology, the concept of mindset began to
develop, both in its definition and underlying theory as
well as in its properties as a construct.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 7
Framing Mindset as a Theory Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) introduced the term ‘naïve,
implicit personality theory’ to describe how people
make assumptions of others based on how they
interpret their attributes and traits and the
relationships between these. This shift in focus from
personality traits to the interpretation of these traits,
and the impact of these interpretations sparked initial
thinking that is now well aligned to the definition of
mindset. In 1955 Gage and Cronbach attempted to view
implicit personality theory as a set of assumptions that
a person makes, often unconsciously, between the
personality traits of people, with these assumptions
influencing how we respond to the people around us
(Gage and Cronbach, 1955, p. 420). These implicit
personality theories generally revolved around one’s
assumptions of others and expanded its research in
social psychology, with some more popular theories
related to what is more commonly known as
stereotyping, the halo effect, fundamental attributional
error and other attributional biases.
The term schema refers to a knowledge structure that
people use to make sense of both social and
organisational situations. Similar to implicit personality
theory, examples of schemas also include stereotypes
(Hamilton, 1979), prototypes (Cantor and Mischel,
1979 and 1977), implicit theories (Brief and Downey,
1983, Schneider, 1973), causal schemata (Kelly, 1973)
and frames (Minsky, 1975). Most of these schemas are
cognitive frameworks that help us to better
understand behaviour. A specific schema that is
concerned with both understanding the behaviour of
self and others and with guiding one’s behaviour in
specific situations became known as a script (Schank &
Abelson, 1977; Graesser, Gordon & Sawyer, 1979;
Abelson, 1981; Gioia & Poole, 1984).
Scripts can originate through habituating behaviour,
where a learned sequence of behaviour can result in
future behaviour being evoked by similar situational
cues. Scripts were more widely researched in
organisational psychology in understanding consumer
behaviour and the role of advertising and social
influence.
Various studies conducted by Dweck, Reppucci and
Diener (1973–1980) identified two major cognitive
effects on behaviour. These were referred to as the
‘helpless’ response and the ‘mastery-oriented’
response. The helpless response generally avoids
challenges and when faced with obstacles
performance deteriorates rapidly. In contrast, the
mastery-orientation drives people to look for
challenging tasks and when faced with obstacles and
even failure there is evidence of a maintained striving
to overcome these obstacles. Dweck and Elliot (1983
and 1988) went on to look at how people’s motivation
in goal-setting influenced behaviour. They proposed
two motivations behind goal-setting: goals that are
motivated by the level of performance, where
individuals are concerned with gaining favourable
judgments and avoiding failure, and goals that are
motivated by the opportunity to increase one’s level of
competence. This sparked
further research into the role of implicit theories,
cognition and the underlying reasons for these initial
findings relating to mastery-orientation and goal-
setting. Bandura and Dweck (1985 and 1986) went on
to find relationships between effort, goal setting and
mastery-orientation. This research led to the
introduction of what Dweck and Leggett (1988) called
implicit theories of intelligence. They proposed two
implicit theories of intelligence, entity theory and
incremental theory. Entity theory sees intelligence as a
fixed or uncontrollable trait, where incremental theory
sees intelligence as a malleable, increasable and
controllable quality. This led to further research in
determining how these implicit theories can relate to
people, places and things and not only personal goals
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 8
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 8
Dweck, Chiu and Yong (1995) then expanded the scope
of these implicit theories of intelligence and proposed
that people’s implicit theories about human attributes
influence the way they understand and respond to their
world. In 2006 Dweck called this implicit theory
mindset.
According to Molden and Dweck (2006), mindset refers
to the view you adopt of both yourself and others and
has a profound impact on your life and the decisions
you make. Dweck (2006) described mindset as a kind of
personal paradigm. The much quoted Oxford Dictionary
defines mindset as a ‘habitual way of thinking’.
McGonical (2015) simplifies these definitions and
simply refers to mindset as a belief that biases how you
think, feel and act, and that reflects your philosophy of
life. Reed and Stoltz (2011) explain mindset by
comparing it to a skillset. They propose that if your
skillset is what you can do, then your mindset is what
you see, think and believe. They go on to offer a simple
definition of mindset: the internal lens through which
you navigate life, with this lens influencing everything
that you see and do. They suggest that each person’s
unique mindset or lens is coloured by personal life
experiences, personal traits and education.
Rucker and Galinsky (2016) went on to expand upon the
definition of mindset as a ‘frame of mind that affects
the selection, encoding and retrieval of information as
well as the types of evaluations and responses
individuals give’ (2016, p. 161).
Fixed and Growth Mindsets Following Dweck and Legget’s research in 1988 and
additional research by Dweck et al. (1995), two broad
types of implicit theories on mindsets were proposed:
entity theory and incremental theory, which since 2006
have been more commonly referred to as fixed and
growth mindsets.
Dweck (2006) defined a fixed mindset as one where you
believe that your qualities are carved in stone and are
unlikely to change. She goes on to define a growth
mindset as one where you believe that through effort
everyone can change and grow.
Dweck went on to describe the likely influence that
these mindsets may have on how you respond to the
world around you. These included how you respond
(consciously or unconsciously) to challenges, obstacles,
effort, criticism and the success of others.
However, Rucker and Galinsky (2016) proposed that
the research that has contributed to understanding
fixed and growth mindsets should act as a springboard
for the further exploration of mindsets, beyond these
two mindsets alone. These include the exploration of
mindsets related to power (Galinsky et al., 2016;
Anderson and Galinsky, 2006), construal level (Trope
and Liberman, 2010), regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997),
self-monitoring (Snyder and DeBono, 1985) and the
implemental-deliberative mindset (Gollwitzer et al.,
1990), to mention a few.
For the purpose of this paper relating to
entrepreneurial mindset, the seminal work in
personality psychology and the understanding of the
effect of cognition on behaviour and mindset have
acted as a springboard for better understanding
entrepreneurial mindset, which will now be focused on
in more detail.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 9
Solomon and Winslow then carried out multiple
interviews with entrepreneurs and found that
entrepreneurs have a high level of confidence and
optimism. Contrary to some previous research, they
found that entrepreneurs are not reckless risk-takers
and are not prone to taking great risks and prefer to be
very calculated in their risk-taking. They are
independent and self-reliant and have an internal locus
of control in that they are not easily swayed by the
judgments of others.
Developments from Personality Psychology Other earlier research, specifically focused on the
factors that influence the decision to start a new
business zoomed in on trait or personality
characteristics of individuals (Brockhaus, 1980 and
1982; McClelland, 1961). Van de Ven et al. (1984) and
Gartner (1985) also developed models of the
entrepreneurial process and included behavioural and
situational factors in their models. Earlier models
focusing on entrepreneurial intention (Shapero, 1975;
Shapero & Sokol, 1982; Bird, 1988; Boyd and Vozikis
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 10
Exploring Entrepreneurial Mindset Entrepreneurial mindset is of critical importance when
promoting entrepreneurship as entrepreneurial
mindset and the related entrepreneurial skills play a key
role in enabling people to notice and leverage
entrepreneurial opportunities (Nichter and Goldmark,
2009 in Valerio et al., 2014). Ireland (2003) promoted
entrepreneurial mindset as a critical characteristic for
leaders to create sustained value for the future through
the way in which entrepreneurial mindset can drive
one’s ability to rapidly sense,
act and mobilise, even under uncertain conditions.
What follows is a chronological review of notable
contributions towards the understanding of what we
are now beginning to understand as entrepreneurial
mindset.
Solomon and Winslow (1988) carried out a literature
review on understanding the characteristics of
entrepreneurs. They summarised their findings in Table
3.
Table 3: Summary of Early Characteristics of Entrepreneurs (Solomon and Winslow, 1988)
Date Authors Characteristics
1848 Mill Risk bearing 1917 Weber Source of formal authority 1934 Schumpeter Innovation, initiative 1954 Sutton Desire for responsibility 1959 Hartman Source of formal authority 1961 McClelland Risk-taking, need for achievement 1963 Davids Ambition, drive for independence, responsibility, self-confidence 1964 Pickle Mental drive, human relations, compatibility and technical knowledge 1971 Palmer Risk measurement 1973 Winter Need for power 1974 Borland Internal locus of control 1974 Liles Need for achievement 1977 Gasse Personal value orientation 1978 Timmons Drive/self-confidence, goal orientation, creativity and innovation 1980 Sexton Energetic, ambitious, positive reaction to setbacks 1981 Welsh & White Need for control, responsibility seeker, challenge taker, moderate risk taker 1982 Dunkelberg & Cooper Growth oriented, independence oriented, craftsman oriented 1986 Femald & Solomon Values of entrepreneurs 1987 Winslow & Solomon Mildly sociopathic
1994) included a focus on attitudes and their underlying
drivers in explaining the entrepreneurial process. These
models generally included perceptions on desirability
of becoming an entrepreneur, feasibility of starting
one’s own business, past experiences of starting a
business and whether these experiences were positive
or negative.
Borland (1974) and Begley and Boyd (1986) proposed
how characteristics such as an internal locus of control,
a tolerance for ambiguity and a Type A personality can
be found in people with a higher propensity for
entrepreneurship. Cunningham and Lischeron (1991)
proposed certain entrepreneurial behaviours that
entrepreneurs had in common, relating the dominant
entrepreneurship school of thought or entrepreneurial
models of the time. These behaviours included
intuition, vigour, energy, persistence, self-esteem,
personal values, need for achievement, risk-taking,
innovation, creativity, discovery and alertness to
opportunities.
Most of these behaviours were found outside of the
traditional management school entrepreneurship
models. Cunningham and Lischeron referred to what
they called The Psychological Characteristics School of
Entrepreneurship where one’s needs, drives, attitudes,
beliefs and values determine behaviour. This focus on
personality factors led to three personality
characteristics receiving considerable attention in
research. These are personal values such as honesty,
duty, responsibility and ethical behaviour; risk-taking
propensity; and the need for achievement.
Lau et al. (2012) after reviewing more recent literature
relating to the characteristics of entrepreneurs
summarised their findings; see Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summary of Entrepreneurial Characteristics from Literature Review (Adapted from Lau et al., 2012)
Date Authors Entrepreneurial Attributes
1983 Burgelman Innovativeness, negotiating, integration, results orientation 1985 Pinchot Moderate risk-taking, non-system bound orientation, informality, results orientation 1989 Mitton Innovativeness, networking, integration, opportunism, change-orientation, flexibility in
control, results orientation 1989 Covin & Slevin Innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking 1993 Gelsler Innovativeness, non-system bound orientation, change orientation, flexibility in control 1996 Zahra Innovativeness, venturing, strategic renewal 1997 Dess et al. Intentionality, autonomy 1997 Knight Innovativeness, proactiveness 1997 Dess et al. Intentionality, autonomy 2000 Barret et al. Innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking 2000 Zahra & Garvis Innovativeness, venturing, proactiveness 2001 Lumpkin & Dess Proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness 2002 Goosen et al. Innovativeness, proactiveness, influence 2003 Antoncic & Hisrich New venture formation, product/service/process innovation 2004 Kanter Networking, integration, result orientation 2005 Kuratko et al. Integration, opportunism 2007 Zampetakis & Moustakis Integration, change orientation, informality 2008 Yiu & Lau Product/organizational innovation, domestic/international venturing 2008 Man et al. Innovativeness, networking, integration, opportunism, results orientation 2009 Heavey et al. Innovativeness, venturing, renewal 2009 Ireland et al. Entrepreneurial strategic vision, pro-entrepreneurial organizational architecture 2010 Mitchelmore & Rowley Innovativeness, integration, opportunism, results orientation 2011 Welter & Smallbone Risk-taking, networking, non-system bound orientation, change orientation, flexibility in
control, informality
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 11
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 12
From these 23 studies, the entrepreneurial attributes
of innovativeness (14 counts), integration (7 counts),
proactiveness (6 counts) and results orientation (5
counts) show up dominantly. Integration, according to
Lau et al. (2012), refers to being involved in all aspects
of the business and being a strong systems thinker who
can make sense of complexity.
In 2000 McGrath and MacMillan released a book
entitled The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for
continually creating opportunity in the age of
uncertainty. They propose that a distinguishing
characteristic of an entrepreneurial mindset is the view
that uncertainty is one’s ally and not one’s enemy. They
then suggest several ways to better manage
uncertainty and develop the mindset that indeed
considers uncertainty as one’s ally. Notable points
include their view that ‘everyone plays’ (McGrath and
MacMillan, 2001), this notion encourages ideation
without judgement and places importance on serious
implementation but open and non-judgmental
creativity and innovation.
They go on to propose that people should experiment
intelligently; this related to multiple aspects including
calculated risk-taking and an openness to learning
being more dominant than a fear of failure.
Cromie (2000) suggested seven core entrepreneurial
attributes, relating predominantly to personality. These
include a need for achievement, an internal locus of
control, calculated risk-taking, tolerance of ambiguity,
creativity, a need for autonomy and self-confidence. In
conjunction with the above attributes, Cromie also
conducted the General Enterprising Tendency Test,
developed by Durham University Business School,
which also seeks to measure one’s level of motivation.
Also in 2000 Midgley et al. developed a set of scales that
they referred to as the patterns of adaptive learning
scales (PALS). These scales, initially used in the
education sector, looked at identifying attributes of
personal achievement goal-orientation, efficacy, self-
handicapping strategies (which are driven by a fear of
failure and an external locus of control), avoidance of
the unknown or novel options and self-presentation.
Midgley et al. (2001) looked further into goals
approached by a performance motivation in
comparison with goals approached by a mastery
motivation, where they propose the benefit of mastery-
approach goals, which is in line with Dweck and
Leggett's (1988) theory related to goal motivation and
mindset.
Several recent studies have looked into the Big Five
personality traits in order to gain insights into
entrepreneurial personality. Zhao and Seibert (2006)
propose that personality adds value in better
understanding entrepreneurial behaviour, but must
always be considered as one important component of a
multi-dimensional model of variables, processes and
environmental factors affecting entrepreneurship. Hao
Zhao et al. (2010) go on to agree on the role that
personality constructs have in developing an
understanding of entrepreneurship but also support
that this is a role where other variables must be
included.
Brandstätter (2011) and Leutner et al. (2014) agreed
that these personality traits predict business intention,
creation and success and that all of the Big Five traits
correlated somewhat with entrepreneurial success.
However, based on further meta-analytical studies,
they found that narrow personality traits such as
innovativeness predict outcomes better than broad
traits such as conscientiousness and extraversion. A
common view from correlation studies is the
acceptance of the role that the Big Five play in ensuring
entrepreneurial success, but not in isolation of other
multiple variables that also play a contributing factor.
Developments from Cognitive Psychology Mitchell et al. (2002) challenged the focus on
entrepreneurial personality attributes and began to
draw on learnings from the cognitive sciences and not
only personality psychology. They began to look at the
idea of entrepreneurial cognition. They defined
entrepreneurial cognition as the knowledge structures
that people use to make assessments, judgments or
decisions involving opportunity evaluation, venture
creation and growth.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 13
This was very similar to the definition of
entrepreneurial mindset later proposed by Fayolle
(2012) as a specific state of mind which orientates
human conduct towards entrepreneurial activities and
outcomes. This offered a significant shift in research to
incorporate the cognitive psychology subset of the
behavioural sciences into what was already understood
through research related to personality attributes. This
paper encouraged further theoretical study in this field
and in conjunction with the cognitive sciences.
Following this cognitive perspective on
entrepreneurship, Baron (2004) suggested how a
cognitive perspective may add insights into key aspects
of the entrepreneurial process, which at this point
incorporated some insights related to entrepreneurial
attributes drawn from personality psychology. Baron’s
work investigated the answers to three specific
questions. Why do some people choose to become
entrepreneurs and others not? Why do some people,
and not others, recognise opportunities for new
products and services that can lead to a profitable
outcome? Why are some entrepreneurs so much more
successful than others? Baron’s findings in relation to
these questions are summarised in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Cognitive Factors Relevant to Three Basic Issues Addressed by the Field of Entrepreneurship (Baron, 2004)
Why do some persons and not others become entrepreneurs?
Why do some persons and not others recognise opportunities?
Why are some entrepreneurs more successful than others?
Reduced perceptions of risk (Persons who become entrepreneurs perceive risks as smaller than other persons do)
Basic perceptual processes (Persons who recognize opportunities are more proficient than others at object or pattern recognition)
Counterfactual thinking (Successful entrepreneurs are better than less successful ones at using counterfactual thinking to formulate improved task strategies)
Prospect theory (e.g., Persons who become entrepreneurs overweight small probabilities)
Signal detection theory (e.g., Persons who recognize opportunities are more proficient at distinguishing ‘‘hits’’ from ‘‘false alarms’’)
Processing styles (Systematic vs. heuristic) (Successful entrepreneurs are better at switching between these two processing styles)
Greater susceptibility to various cognitive biases (e.g., Optimistic bias, affect infusion, planning fallacy, and illusion of control)
Regulatory focus theory (e.g., Persons adept at recognizing viable opportunities show a mixed pattern of promotion and prevention focus)
Reduced susceptibility to certain cognitive biases (e.g., Successful entrepreneurs are more successful at avoiding biases such as sunk costs)
Entrepreneurial alertness schema (Persons who recognize opportunities have a more developed alertness schema)
Baron concluded by stating that a cognitive perspective
can prove extremely valuable to the field of
entrepreneurship and proposed how a wide range of
cognitive factors may prove helpful for future research.
Brockner et al. (2004), still with a focus on gaining
insights from the cognitive sciences, investigated the
role of regulatory processes on the entrepreneurial
process.
Baron concluded that regulatory focus theory provided
a well-developed framework to better understand
motives, beliefs and behaviours that in turn can
influence the success of entrepreneurial ventures.
Future research was proposed as past empirical tests
were at the time not yet conducted with
entrepreneurs.
.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 14
The Role of Effectuation in the Development of
Entrepreneurial Mindset Sarasvathy (2001) made a significant contribution by
proposing how effectuation rather than causality drives
entrepreneurial contingency and economic growth.
Causation processes take a particular effect as given
and focus on selecting between means to create that
effect. Effectuation processes, however, take a set of
means as given and focus on selecting between
possible effects that can be created with that set of
means (Sarasvathy, 2001, p. 245).
Whether an individual looks at a set of resources
through an effectuation or causality lens is completely
up to the individual and may not be a conscious
decision, but the probability of an innovative outcome
is much higher with the lens of effectuation.
Effectuation aligns with a preference for affordable loss
rather than expected returns, which in turn allows for
the creation of more options and a longer-term view of
maximising returns. Effectuation also prioritises
strategic alliances over competition as it will lead to a
greater ability in dealing with uncertainty and will lower
the barriers to entry. Another effectuation preference
relates to one’s exploitation of contingencies rather
than a default exploitation of pre-existing knowledge.
This preference allows for more adaptability and
pivoting rather than having a preference to respond
only to past knowledge that will not allow
experimentation with new or less explored
opportunities. Lastly, effectuation seeks to rather
control an unpredictable future than to try and predict
an already uncertain future. The core difference
between these two preferences relate to what one has
the power to influence and control and what one does
not. Read et al. (2009) went on to show how
effectuation influences one’s view of the future, givens,
attitude towards others, underlying logic and
predisposition towards risk and contingencies. It has a
high likelihood of influencing new venture creation
more positively than following responses that are more
closely related to causation. This is further supported
by Chandler et al. (2011) who proposed subsets of
effectuation, namely experimentation, affordable loss
and flexibility. They went on to show how causation is
negatively associated with uncertainty while
experimentation is positively correlated with
uncertainty. Their main contribution to the field was in
the development of validated scales to measure
causation and effectuation.
The Role of GRIT in the Development of
Entrepreneurial Mindset In 2007 Duckworth et al. defined grit as the
perseverance and passion for long-term goals. This
closely aligns to the importance of sustained effort,
highlighted by Dweck (2006). Their initial study
developed a measurement scale, called the Grit Scale,
that investigated correlations with other constructs.
Their findings included a negative correlation with IQ
but a positive correlation between Grit and the Big Five
personality traits. This offers interesting insights, since
we have shown earlier how the Big Five generally have
a positive correlation with entrepreneurial activity.
Duckworth and Quinn (2009) later validated the Grit
Scale and developed a shorter version called the Short
Grit Scale. Duckworth went on to publish a book in 2016
entitled Grit: the power and passion of perseverance
which should spark further interest into the
relationship between this construct and
entrepreneurial mindset and other disciplines.
Mooradian et al. (2016) looked at a combination of grit
and innovativeness as drivers for entrepreneurial
success. They found that consistency of interest,
perseverance of efforts and ongoing innovation had a
positive relationship with entrepreneurial performance
and that grit had a positive relationship with
innovativeness, which opened additional areas for
future study.
More Recent Contributions to the
Understanding of Entrepreneurial Mindset Lumpkin et al. (2009) showed how autonomy and
autonomous decision making and action improves
entrepreneurial outcomes. McGee et al. (2009) reflect
on how Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy (ESE) is being
included in many studies and is generally included in
intentionality models.
Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) looked at several
variables related to images of self and developed the
subsets of the images of opportunity, images of
vulnerability (fears) and images of capability (potential).
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 15
McKelvie et al. (2011) focused on better understanding
the effect of uncertainty (and how one deals with
ambiguity) on entrepreneurial activity and realised how
people respond to uncertainty differently, which
impacts significantly on the success of their venture.
Following an extensive analysis of entrepreneurial
education and training programmes globally, Robb et
al. (2014) and Valerio et al. (2014) split entrepreneurial
mindset into three clusters: socio-emotional skills,
communication and teamwork (which focused more on
characteristics relating to leadership); entrepreneurial
awareness; and perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Socio-emotional skills included persistence, self-
efficacy, need for achievement, pro-activity, creativity,
optimism, locus of control, openness to ambiguity,
opportunity recognition and self-confidence.
Entrepreneurial awareness focused on entrepreneurial
values, attitudes and norms with perceptions of
entrepreneurship focused on one’s willingness and
intention to become an entrepreneur.
Pizarro (2014) focused more on the development of an
institutional and pedagogical model for developing
entrepreneurial mindset and further validated the use
of the General Enterprising Tendency Test, developed
by Durham University Business School (as used by
Cromie, 2000). The findings once again highlighted
creativity, need for autonomy, risk-taking, internal
locus of control and a need for achievement as key
measures of entrepreneurial mindset.
Putta (2014) added that entrepreneurial mindset
includes characteristics such as motivation,
determination, passion, the insane hunger to succeed,
flexibility, opportunity recognition and exploitation,
planning ahead, putting in consistent effort and dealing
with uncertainty.
In 2015 Stauffer developed what he referred to as an
innovator’s mindset, which included a measurement
instrument and focused particularly on the underlying
processes for innovating and further developing this
mindset, called the innovation cycle. Stauffer included
creativity, adaptability, resourcefulness, imagination,
curiosity, courage and integrity as key attributes of this
mindset.
Pfeifer et al. (2016) looked at the relationships between
entrepreneurial identity, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
personal business exposure and social norms as key
shapers of the entrepreneurial mindset.
After the release of a White Paper in 2015 and the
launch of an online survey called the Entrepreneurial
Mindset Profile (EMP), Davis et al. (2016) placed
specific emphasis on the reliability and validity of their
measure for entrepreneurial mindset. Davis et al.
developed 14 traits related to entrepreneurial mindset.
These traits were categorised into two groups:
personality traits and what they referred to as skills,
with skills being areas that are generally considered to
be more malleable. This distinction also helped
separate aspects more related to entrepreneurial
personality (what had now become referred to as
entrepreneurial mindset, but had slightly differing
attributes). These dimensions are summarised in Table
6.
Table 6: EMP Dimensions (Davis et al. 2016)
Traits Skills
Independence The desire to work with a high degree of independence
Future Focus The ability to think beyond the immediate situation and plan for the future
Preference for a Limited Structure
A preference for tasks and situations with little formal structure
Idea Generation The ability to generate multiple and novel ideas and to find multiple approaches for achieving goals
Nonconformity A preference for acting in unique ways; an interest in being perceived as unique
Execution The ability to turn ideas into actionable plans; the ability to implement ideas well
Risk Acceptance A willingness to pursue an idea or a desired goal even when the probability of succeeding is low
Self-confidence A general belief in one’s ability to leverage skills and talents to achieve important goals
Action Orientation A tendency to show initiative, make decisions quickly, and feel impatient for results
Optimism The ability to maintain a generally positive attitude about various aspects of one’s life and the world
Passion A tendency to experience one’s work as exciting and enjoyable rather than tedious and draining
Persistence The ability to bounce back quickly from disappointment and to remain persistent in the face of setbacks
Need to Achieve The desire to achieve at a high level Interpersonal Sensitivity
A high level of sensitivity to and concern for the well-being of those with whom one works
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 16
Developing a Shared Definition of
Entrepreneurial Mindset From the literature reviewed, there were many
nuanced definitions of entrepreneurial mindset with
each definition adding its own unique take on this
concept.
McGrath and MacMillan (2000) viewed entrepreneurial
mindset as a way of thinking about business that
focuses on and captures the benefits of uncertainty.
Mitchell et al. (2002) understood entrepreneurial
mindset as knowledge structures or schemas, similar to
that of mindset, that people use to make sense
assessments, judgments or decisions involving
opportunity evaluation for venture creation or growth.
Ireland (2003) defined entrepreneurial mindset as a
growth-oriented perspective through which individuals
promote flexibility, creativity, continuous innovation
and renewal.
Other definitions refer to the socio-emotional skills and
overall awareness of entrepreneurship associated with
entrepreneurial motivation and future success as an
entrepreneur (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Fayolle et
al., 2006; Souitaris et al., 2007).
Entrepreneurial mindset is also viewed as meta-
cognitive in nature and refers to the ability to rapidly
sense, act and mobilise even under uncertain
conditions (Haynie et al., 2010). According to Valerio et
al. (2014), entrepreneurial mindset refers to the socio-
emotional skills and overall awareness of
entrepreneurship associated with entrepreneurial
motivation and future success as an entrepreneur.
Lastly and more succinctly, entrepreneurial mindset
was referred to as a specific state of mind that
orientates human conduct towards entrepreneurial
activities and outcomes (Fayolle, 2012; Putta, 2014).
From the definitions above and those of mindset, a
common understanding emerges where
entrepreneurial mindset relates to how one’s thinking
or state of mind (conscious or sub-conscious) or the
lens through which one sees the world (Reed and Stoltz
2011) influences one’s propensity for entrepreneurial
activities and outcomes.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 17
From the definitions above and those of mindset, a
common understanding emerges where
entrepreneurial mindset relates to how one’s thinking
or state of mind (conscious or sub-conscious) or the
lens through which one sees the world (Reed and Stoltz
2011) influences one’s propensity for entrepreneurial
activities and outcomes.
This state of mind or lens is influenced by multiple
factors that include:
• what people know or do not know (relating to
knowledge);
• what people have done or have not done
(relating to experience);
• what people can do or believe they can do
(relating to level of competency and self-
belief); and
• who they are (relating to personality, values,
attitudes and beliefs).
All of these play a role in developing specific lenses
through which we see the world that may or may not
be conducive to driving entrepreneurial activity and
behaviour.
Emerging Characteristics of Entrepreneurial
Mindset from Literature Following the multiple dimensions found in literature,
relating to various definitions and understandings of
entrepreneurial mindset, what are the key
characteristics of an entrepreneurial mindset? What
does an entrepreneurial mindset look like when
compared to a different mindset (where the probability
of entrepreneurial activities and outcomes are lower)?
From the literature reviewed, the following 11 key
themes emerged as core characteristics of an
entrepreneurial mindset.
Lifelong learning and openness to change Based on the premise of a growth mindset, a
characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is both the
belief in the malleability of behaviour (Dweck et al.,
1995) – that behaviour can change over time and is not
generally fixed – and the openness to changing one’s
own behaviour.
This includes an openness to consistently learn from
one’s context and environment, for example learning
from criticism and setbacks (Dweck, 2006) in order to
increase the likelihood of entrepreneurial activities or
outcomes.
Putta (2014) emphasises the importance of being
flexible; to be able to modify and adapt depending on
your context. Mooradian et al. (2016) add that firstly
there needs to be a willingness or openness to change
or compromise rather than a rigidity and fixation with
following the planned course and only that. This
openness can then lead to an ability to readily adjust
oneself and to pivot in changing environments, which is
a driver for increased entrepreneurial outcomes
(Totem Inc., 2015). Sarasvathy (2001) describes this as
effectuation – having the ability to exploit
contingencies that arise unexpectedly over time. They
can be exploited only when there is an initial belief and
openness to change and ongoing learning.
This openness to ongoing learning influences how one
will respond to critical feedback as well as failure.
Stauffer (2015) sees entrepreneurial mindset as an
open feedback system, where one is open and
receptive to feedback because it is an opportunity for
modification and improvement. Moberg et al. (2014)
agrees with this notion and sees the acceptance of
failure as a necessary process of learning that has the
potential to open opportunities for innovation. This is
further supported by Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010)
who focused on challenging one’s fear of failure in
order to increase entrepreneurial outcomes, where this
fear of failure can rather be replaced by the desire to
learn from the experience and continuously improve.
Engagement in a complex and uncertain world The world we live in is remarkably complex and is filled
with uncertainty and areas out of our control and
influence. An entrepreneurial mindset sees the world
through this lens and seeks to understand it better,
rather than through a lens where the world is perceived
as stable, predictable and controllable. Building further
upon a characteristic of growth mindset where one
believes in and is open to a dynamism and complexity
(Dweck et al., 1995).
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 18
With an entrepreneurial mindset the world and one’s
context is seen through a non-linear, more dynamic and
more ecological lens (Sarasvathy, 2001) where one is
open to and actively seeking linkages, systems and
patterns (Totem Inc., 2015) in order to better
understand the complexity and make sense of it. With
this lens one learns to accept areas that are not in our
influence or control and to rather focus on areas that
are. In this context, Sarasvathy (2001) shows that one’s
focus is on the controllable aspects of an unpredictable
future rather than on trying to predict the future and
control it as much as possible. This reveals an
underlying internal locus of control and influence
where one can continue to exert influence within
uncertain and complex environments, irrespective of
the circumstance. Entrepreneurial mindset allows for
an openness to accept uncertainty where relevant
rather than trying to control it and develop an
awareness of areas that are not within one’s influence
and control (Putta, 2014).
Creative and innovative approaches to problem
solving A key characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is the
ability to transcend traditional rules, patterns and
ideologies and to create meaningful, fresh ideas and
interpretations (Valerio et al., 2014). This creativity has
been known as a central characteristic of entrepreneurs
and influences how problems are perceived, analysed
and responded to. Creativity allows for flexibility and
adaptability in problem solving where the responses to
problems are fuelled by imaginative, innovative,
curious and versatile interventions (Kirton, 1976;
Solomon and Winslow, 1988; Pizarro, 2014).
Moberg et al. (2014) noted that this creativity relies on
imagination, that is the conscious representation of
what is not immediately present to the senses.
However, with creativity relying on imagination,
innovation relies on action and is defined as the act or
process of introducing new ideas, methods or
approaches (Mooradian et al., 2016) and this action
may be of equal importance to the entrepreneur.
This process of creativity leading to an innovative
output begins with a sheer curiosity and inquisitiveness
(Moberg et al., 2014) as well as a desire for
nonconformity or, as Davis et al. (2016) put it, a
preference and desire to act in a unique way and stand
out from the crowd.
This creative and innovative lens believes in
experimenting and is open to learning from an iterative
approach. This often begins with the generation of
many ideas (Davis et al., 2016) as well as the openness
to try multiple methods, experiment and adapt the
solutions through an effectual and non-linear process
(Stauffer, 2015).
Belief and confidence in one’s own capacity and
competency to be entrepreneurial Valerio et al. (2014) show how the belief in one’s
capacity and competency for producing a desired result
or effect (an entrepreneurial outcome) is a key
attribute of entrepreneurial mindset. This includes
feelings of trust in one’s abilities, qualities and
judgment. This general belief is commonly referred to
as self-efficacy and is a key driver of desired results and
effectiveness in any context (Midgley et al., 2000;
Moberg et al., 2014; Mooradian et al., 2016). Mitchell
and Shepherd (2010) and Pfeifer et al. (2016) refer to
this as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which they define
as the belief in one’s ability to successfully conduct
entrepreneurial tasks.
This self-efficacy is driven by self-belief, self-confidence
and self-esteem and are all related to having
confidence in one’s own abilities for entrepreneurial
behaviour (Moberg et al., 2014; Taulbert and
Schoeniger, 2010).
Desire, motivation and intention to practice
entrepreneurship and behave entrepreneurially Personal choice is a key factor that drives motivation
to become an entrepreneur or behave in an
entrepreneurial way (Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010)
and apart from self-efficacy, personal choice to
become an entrepreneur can also be influenced by
other factors. There is a need for one to have a
positive perception of entrepreneurship as well as a
desire, motivation and intention to be an
entrepreneur (Valerio et al., 2014). For some the
motivation to become an entrepreneur may be
influenced by autonomy, mastery
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 19
and a strong sense of purpose. Other motivational
factors may be power, honour or fame, but these
motivational factors need to be strong enough to drive
a willingness to strive for the attainment of these
motivations (Moberg et al., 2014).
However, because the entrepreneurial journey is not
linear, predictable or often easy, a critical lens through
which entrepreneurs see the world is one of optimism
(Davis et al., 2016) which is the ability to maintain
positivity even when things are not going well. This
optimism as well as the ability to perceive the unknown
with a probabilistic lens, where one is comfortable to
see an uncertain future unravel in a way that requires
adaptability (Stauffer, 2015).
One may also have a passion and interest in becoming
an entrepreneur through seeing entrepreneurial
activity as exciting and enjoyable, rather than tedious
and draining (Putta, 2014; Davis et al., 2016) and having
consistent positive feelings, emotions and beliefs
associated with entrepreneurial activity (Mooradian et
al., 2016). For some though, this motivation is very
personal and is linked to an entrepreneurial identity
(Pfeifer et al., 2016) which can often be linked to
positive experiences of entrepreneurship as well as
being aware of and in positive relationships with
entrepreneurs, e.g. parents who are entrepreneurs and
have a positive experience of entrepreneurship.
Taking initiative and personal responsibility for
actions A characteristic of entrepreneurial mindset is the belief
in one’s responsibility to take personal leadership for
tasks (Valerio et al., 2014), driven by the underlying
belief that one can influence the outcomes of events
(Mooradian et al., 2016). This internal locus of control
drives entrepreneurs to base their success on their own
efforts and input and therefore take responsibility for
action. A further characteristic is the desire and ability
to translate ideas into actionable plans and to execute
these plans.
This action-orientation is further related to a tendency
to show a level of impatience in expectation of results
(Davis et al., 2016). This action-orientation brings with
it a high degree of excellence and attention to detail
during implementation, a desire to do one’s work well
and thoroughly and to be careful, meticulous and
rigorous while doing so. Mooradian et al. (2016) refers
to this attention to detail as conscientiousness.
Entrepreneurs have the need for a degree of
independence and autonomy in their work and have a
preference to assess and initiate things independently
(Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010; Moberg et al., 2014;
Stauffer, 2015; Totem Inc., 2015; Mooradian et al.,
2016;) and this is driven by the feeling of having the
power, authority and ability to be entrepreneurial. This
desire to work with a high degree of independence
(Davis et al., 2016) is less about working alone and more
about not functioning well in restrictive environments
without a degree of freedom (Cromie, 2000, p. 21).
This initiative and personal responsibility, however, is
not taken lightly but is carefully thought through with
self-reflection and a conscious effort to grow and
improve in the effectiveness of one’s responses to
challenges (Taulbert and Schoeniger, 2010; Totem Inc.,
2015).
A pursuit of goal-attainment through personal
mastery and value-creation Begley and Boyd (1986) argued that entrepreneurs
have a higher desire than non-entrepreneurs to
achieve. Putta (2014) even describes this desire as an
‘insane hunger to achieve’. This need for achievement
is accelerated through goal-setting and the
establishment of stretch goals (Mooradian et al., 2016).
Totem Inc. (2015) goes on to show how entrepreneurs
have a desire for achievement that is at a very high
level, where one is resolute and determined to achieve
the set goals (Moberg et al., 2014).
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 20
However, inasmuch as goal attainment is important,
the path that is taken to achieve the goal is less
important as long as the result is achieved. Totem Inc.
(2015) refers to this as contextual goal orientation
where the drive is goal attainment without having the
need to follow a fixed plan. Often these goals are not
set for achievement sake, but for learning sake and the
opportunity for personal mastery (Dweck et al., 1995;
Midgely et al., 2000). The attainment of the goal is often
also driven by the creation of value for others (Totem
Inc., 2015).
Recognising opportunities An entrepreneurial mindset allows one to readily
recognise and pursue opportunities and to not be
resource dependent but rather resourceful with
whatever means are at one’s disposal (Taulbert and
Schoeniger, 2010; Putta, 2014).
Sarasvathy (2001) refers to this as the ability to deal
skilfully and promptly with a specific opportunity or
problem with limited tools or means. Sarasvathy called
this effectuation and showed how it is related to finding
more opportunities for innovation even with resource
limitations. This was also described as resourcefulness
(Totem Inc., 2015). Davis et al. (2016) agree with this in
their discussion of entrepreneurs’ preference for a
limited structure where they have the freedom to be
adaptable and can often even find it boring to follow
structured tasks.
Grit and perseverance in the face of challenges One of the key factors of a growth mindset is related to
understanding that effort, or ‘earnest, strenuous
attempts’ are required to achieve goals and overcome
challenges (Dweck et al., 1995; Putta, 2014). And, one
of the rewards that effort brings, like goal attainment,
is an opportunity for personal mastery. Dweck (2006)
refers to effort as the path to personal mastery. Further
to displaying effort, Dweck goes on to show how these
types of individuals embrace challenges and can persist
in the face of setbacks. This persistence, commitment
and determination are widely cited in support of this
being a prominent characteristic of entrepreneurial
mindset (Moberg et al., 2014; Totem Inc., 2015; Davis
et al., 2016).
This tenacity, persevered effort or grit (Mooradian et
al., 2016; Duckworth et al., 2007) is often coupled with
an ability to bounce back after failed attempts or
setbacks. Valerio et al. (2014) show how resilience is
developed when this consistent effort and tenacity is
displayed. Yet the objective, once again, is not to only
obtain the goal, but to allow for increased personal
mastery and an increased ability to adapt and discover
and use contingencies (Sarasvathy, 2001). A central
focus for the programmes developed by Taulbert and
Schoeniger (2010) was dealing with the fear of failure,
which can often be the most difficult setback to deal
with and, as Mitchell and Shepherd (2010) show, there
is a need to see failure as an opportunity to learn and
to determine what affordable failure is.
Taking risks that lead to learning, growth and
value Valerio et al. (2014) and Moberg et al. (2014) show how
people with an entrepreneurial mindset have the
propensity to take risks, but this propensity is closely
related to the degree of risk loss. Sarasvathy (2001)
called this degree of risk loss ‘affordable’ or ‘acceptable
risk’, where decision making is guided by what one is
willing to risk for the desired outcome. This is by no
means frivolous risk-taking but very calculated and
deliberate – entrepreneurs actually calculate risk very
carefully and are generally moderate, rather than high
risk takers (Caird, 1991; Cunningham and Lischeron,
1991; Drucker, 1985). This calculation of risk also
considers the longer-term viability of the opportunity
or problem and drives a level of thinking that is beyond
the immediate situation and seeks to consider the
future carefully (Putta, 2014; Davis et al., 2016).
This carefully calculated risk acceptance is described by
Davis et al. (2016) and Mooradian et al. (2016) as a
willingness to pursue a desired goal when the
probability of succeeding is low, but even though the
probability may be low the relative potential value, risk
return and the opportunity for learning is favourable.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 21
A belief in one’s ability to influence Taulbert and Schoeniger (2010) state that
entrepreneurs have a desire to influence the character
development and behaviour of others. The underlying
drivers for this may vary but are generally driven by the
increased likelihood for goal attainment through
others, especially when other people can offer more
value than oneself to the task at hand. Sarasvathy
(2001) shows how this emphasises the leadership of
strategic alliances, co-operative strategies and pre-
commitments to create access to new markets and to
reduce or eliminate uncertainty and barriers to entry.
This desire to influence and lead may be contrary to the
level of autonomy detailed earlier in this paper, but one
must note that the end-goal is goal attainment and the
entrepreneur will need to see through this lens to know
when it is better to prioritise independence and when
it is better to work with others.
In order to influence and provide leadership to others,
a degree of social confidence is required. This includes
the ability to be assertive in social environments, to
meet new people and build relationships with
confidence (Moberg et. al., 2014).
In research conducted by Davis et al. (2016) they
referred to the importance of an ‘interpersonal
sensitivity’ for entrepreneurs, however, their research
did not show a strong correlation between
interpersonal sensitivity and entrepreneurial
behaviour. It was included as an entrepreneurial
mindset as they suspected that if entrepreneurs
increased their awareness of the feelings, motivations
and beliefs of the people around them they could be
even more effective. They proposed this for future
research but found little evidence of it during their
studies at the time.
Dweck (2016) in her unpacking of growth mindset
described the ability for one to be able to celebrate in
the successes of others rather than feeling threatened
or jealous of these. This celebration of other people’s
success is primarily driven by the lessons and
inspiration that can be found in sharing these
experiences. This desire and openness to other’s
success may further drive one’s openness to influence
others towards such successes.
Summary of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions
from the Literature Review Table 7 summarises the entrepreneurial mindset
dimensions that have been extracted from the
literature review. This summary forms the basis of Part
2 of this study that will seek to find an appropriate
measure for entrepreneurial mindset and these
underlying entrepreneurial mindset dimensions.
Table 7: List of Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions from Literature Review
Underlying Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions (# of underlying references)
Ability to exploit contingencies (1) Independence (2)
Achievement orientation (1) Initiative (2)
Action orientation (2) Innovation (2)
Adaptability (2) Insane hunger to succeed (1)
Ambition (2) Internal locus of control (4)
Antagonism (1) Interpersonal sensitivity (1)
Autonomy (1) Iterative (1)
Benefiting others (1) Learns from criticism (1)
Calculated risk-taking (1) Malleable behaviour (1)
Conscientiousness (2) Mastery-orientated (3)
Consistent passion and interest (1) Mediational judgement (1)
Context of relevance: More dynamic, nonlinear, and ecological (1)
Motivation (3)
Contextual goal-orientation (1) Nature of the unknown: Focus on the controllable aspects of an unpredictable future (1)
Creativity and imagination (3) Need for achievement (3)
Curiosity (1) Need for empowerment (1)
Dealing with uncertainty (1) Neuroticism (1)
Decision Making: Decisions made by what one is willing to risk (1)
Nonconformity (1)
Decision Making: Explores what else could be possible with given means (1)
Open to collaborate and partner (1)
Decision Making: Focused on the process and adaptable learning journey (1)
Open to feedback (1)
Desire to influence others (3) Open to experiences (1)
Determination (2) Opportunity recognition (2)
Dynamism and complexity (1) Optimism (1)
Effectual (1) Passionate (2)
Effort-oriented (2) Passion for entrepreneurship (1)
Embrace challenges (1) Persistence (4)
Entrepreneurial identity aspiration (1) Planning ahead (1)
Entrepreneurial intention (1) Preference for a limited structure (1)
Entrepreneurial motivation (1) Probabilistic (1)
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (3) Recognise Patterns and Linkages (1)
Extraversion (1) Reflective (1)
Feeling of empowerment (1) Resilience (1)
Finds lessons and inspiration in the success of others (1)
Resourcefulness (2)
Flexibility (2) Responds rather than reacts (1)
Future focused (1) Risk-orientation (4)
General self-efficacy (3) Self-belief and self-confidence related (6)
Goal-oriented (1) Tenacious (1)
Goals set for learning sake (1) Tolerance for failure (3)
Idea generation (1) Underlying logic: To the extent we can control the future, we do not need to predict it (1)
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 22
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 23
Based on the proposed shared understanding of
entrepreneurial mindset and the entrepreneurial
mindset dimensions identified in Part 1, Part 2 aims to
explore the measurement of entrepreneurial mindset
and the appropriateness of current tools in measuring
the dimensions identified thus far. This will be achieved
by reviewing literature associated with the
measurement of these constructs as well as reviewing
the research methodologies used in identifying the
entrepreneurial mindset dimensions (Table 7, p. 24).
Lastly, based on the limitations of each of these tools in
measuring these entrepreneurial mindset dimensions,
a recommendation for the development of a revised
tool is put forward.
Several psychological tests have been used in an
attempt to better understand the nature of
entrepreneurs. These tests include the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT), Edwards’ Personal Preference
Schedule, the Honey and Mumford Measure of
Learning Styles, Jackson’s Personality Inventory (JPI)
and the more commonly used Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI).
Caird (1993) showed how the application of these
psychological tests reveal the following characteristics
of entrepreneurs:
• a high need for achievement, autonomy,
change and dominance
• a low need for deference, abasement,
affiliation and order
• characteristics of risk-taking, energy and social
adroitness
• a preference for learning through action and
pragmatism
• a preference for intuition and thinking
However, Caird went on to highlight a few challenges
and limitations relating to the use of psychological tests
to better understand the nature and attributes of
entrepreneurs.
These include the various definitions for an
entrepreneur, the numerous characteristics associated
with entrepreneurs and uncertainty regarding which
characteristics are more significant than others.
Following the findings of Part 1 of this study, which
included multiple definitions and nuanced
understandings of entrepreneurial mindset, as well as
numerous characteristics associated with
entrepreneurial mindset, the challenges that Caird
highlighted should be kept in mind when exploring
instruments that claim to measure attributes relating to
entrepreneurial mindset.
Measurement of Entrepreneurial Mindset from
the Literature Review Following the findings of Borland (1974) and Begley and
Boyd (1986), characteristics such as an internal locus of
control are evident in people with a higher propensity
for entrepreneurship. In this study, an instrument used
by Levenson (1973) to measure locus of control in
psychiatric patients was adapted to measure the same
construct among entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs. Levenson developed several
statements related to the subsets of locus of control,
namely internal control and chance control where
respondents would rate the extent to which they agree
with the statements, for example “my life is determined
by my own actions,” which is related to the subset of
internal control.
Several studies relating to entrepreneurial mindset
have used a scale developed by Durham University
Business School called the General Enterprise Tendency
Test (GET2). Based on a response of either ‘tend to
agree’ or ‘tend to disagree’, respondents are requested
to respond to a series of 54 statements. This instrument
has been designed to measure characteristics relating
to what they call ‘enterprising tendency’, which
includes the need for achievement, autonomy, creative
tendency, calculated risk-taking as well as internal locus
of control.
Part 2: In Pursuit of a Better Measure for
Entrepreneurial Mindset
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 24
Based on the literature reviewed in this study, what
follows are brief descriptions of the survey instruments
that led the various researchers to their findings related
to entrepreneurial mindset.
The Entrepreneurial Attitude Scale (EAS) was
developed by Robinson et al. (1991). This was a 10-
point Likert-scale survey (ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree) and measured entrepreneurial
attitude orientation. The Entrepreneurial Attitude Scale
sought to step away from the dominant personality
trait approach to studying entrepreneurship by
focusing instead on attitude theory. The four subsets of
this scale are the need for achievement, personal
control, innovation and self-esteem. Robinson et al.
hoped that the development of this scale and the
application of attitude theory would allow for the
increased prediction of entrepreneurial behaviour.
Dweck et al. (1995) in their research related to growth
(incremental) and fixed (entity) mindsets developed
several statements in a Likert-scale survey intending to
measure the degree to which respondents displayed
either of these two mindsets. They divided these
statements across three subsets: intelligence, morality
and perspectives of the world. Similar surveys have
been developed over the years to measure fixed vs.
growth mindsets, however, with little evidence for the
validation of these scales.
Following the work of Bandura (1977) and Ajzen (1991
and 1988) on the theory of planned behaviour, social
cognitive theory and self-efficacy; Vesper (1996)
designed a scale for entrepreneurial self-efficacy based
on the stages of venture creation. These scales, related
to the stages of searching, planning, marshalling and
implementing have been used widely to determine
entrepreneurial self-efficacy and are often included as
a component of other instruments designed to
measure entrepreneurial mindset.
Similarly, entrepreneurial intention is rooted in the
theory of planned behaviour and instruments that
measure entrepreneurial intention are commonly used
to predict entrepreneurial behaviour.
Peng et al. (2012) defined entrepreneurial intention as
a mental orientation such as desire, wish and hope
influencing their choice of entrepreneurship. Multiple
scales measuring entrepreneurial intention exist, with
Thompson (2009) developing a 6-aggregate scale that
measures not only entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intention but also the attractiveness of
entrepreneurship as a profession, its social valuation
and one’s entrepreneurial capacity.
Duckworth et al. (2007) in their research relating to grit,
designed the 12-item grit scale, which splits its
statements between the subsets of consistency of
interests and perseverance of effort. In 2009 Haynie
and Shepherd developed the Metacognitive Resource
Scale, which focused on goal orientation and
metacognitive knowledge, experience, monitoring and
control. Ahmetoglu et al. (2011) developed the
Measure of Entrepreneurial Tendencies and Abilities
(META), which measures entrepreneurial creativity,
level of proactivity, entrepreneurial awareness and
entrepreneurial vision.
Two recent contributions to the measurement of
entrepreneurial mindset have been developed by
Moberg et al. (2014) in a project called ASTEE and Davis
et al. (2016) with their work related to the
Entrepreneurial Mindset Profile (EMP).
The objective of the ASTEE project was to develop a set
of common European tools for measuring the impact of
entrepreneurship education on students’
entrepreneurial competencies across all education
levels. ASTEE developed a self-rating scale across
various dimensions related to entrepreneurial mindset
including creativity, managing ambiguity, marshalling of
resources, teamwork, entrepreneurial intention, locus
of control, self-esteem, self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial mindset. The items relating specifically
to entrepreneurial mindset focused more closely on
innovative problem solving. While the instruments
developed by ASTEE seem robust, there is very little
evidence for the reliability and validity of the
instrument at this point.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 25
Davis et al. (2016) developed a measure of
entrepreneurial mindset – the Entrepreneurial Mindset
Profile (EMP). They cited the interest in measuring the
personality traits, motivations, attitudes and
behaviours that contribute to entrepreneurial
behaviour and activity, but also raised the challenges of
how efforts to measure these constructs have been
ineffective and have ‘proceeded in a piecemeal fashion’
in the past (Davis et al., 2016, p.21).
Davis et al. started by identifying a list of possible
dimensions that might characterise entrepreneurs and
contribute to entrepreneurial success. To do so they
focused on research related to the traits and
motivations of individuals and that of entrepreneurial
organisations. They also had conversations with
entrepreneurs in order to determine any attributes not
revealed through academic investigation.
Key insights from Davis et al. on the development of
their instrument are listed below:
• They measured specific dimensions rather
than broad domains to yield meaningful
associations with entrepreneurial behaviour.
• During the scale-development process they
realised a distinction between more
‘personality-like’ attributes and others that
were more closely related to ‘skills’. Like fixed
and growth mindsets they found that the
personality-like attributes were slightly less
malleable than those that they categorised as
skills.
• By applying the question: ‘Is there evidence
that this dimension can be altered by training
practice or intervention?’ they determined
whether to categorise the attribute as less
malleable (personality traits) and more
malleable (skills).
From the 14 dimensions that they identified, 7 were
labelled personality traits while the remaining 7 were
labelled skills. They drew from some pre-existing scales
(Torrance, 1968) to develop their instrument. Other
scales were developed by the three authors
independently to measure each dimension.
The process that led to the development of version 2 of
the EMP is broadly outlined as follows:
• The initial version of the instrument included
118 items that were administered online to a
convenience sample of 300 working adults.
• Two exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were
carried out to evaluate the adequacy of the
initial set of items. EFA is a technique that
inductively identifies the best-fitting solution
for a given set of data.
• From the findings a second version of the
instrument was developed.
• The revised version was tested with two
sample groups, which included corporate
managers and entrepreneurs, with the
intention of determining the tool’s ability to
differentiate between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs. A total of 725 respondents
were included.
• Further EFAs were conducted and the items
that were loaded most highly underwent
another set of EFAs to determine the items
with the highest loadings. This was done to
maximise an item’s reliability in testing the
construct or dimensions that it claims to test
for.
• With the revised version of the survey a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a technique
that assesses the degree to which a
hypothesised model can reproduce the
observed item co-variances, was done. For the
CFA, the feasibility of a hypothesised model, in
this case the EMP, is determined by assessing
how well it fits the existing data.
• The model’s feasibility was assessed using
multiple methods including EQS (Bentler,
1995), the non-formed fit index (NNFI),
comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990 and
1995), the goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Jorskog
& Sorbom, 1988) and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA).
Davis et al. (2016) conclude by proposing a case for
validity and reliability of the tool due to the steps taken
in its design and further studies comparing the results
of the EMP to results of other assessments, including a
measure of the Big Five mentioned earlier in this study
and two further measures of divergent thinking that
show some notable correlations in their findings.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 26
Appropriateness of Tools for Measuring
Identified Entrepreneurial Mindset Dimensions From this overview it is evident that various
instruments have been used to measure specific
dimensions of entrepreneurial mindset depending on
the focus of the research, with several of these
instruments incorporating validated scales adapted
from the fields of both personality and cognitive
psychology.
However, none of these identified measures are
individually able to measure all or even a significant
percentage of the entrepreneurial mindset dimensions
identified in the literature review (Table 7). Ideally a
combination of these tools is required for a
comprehensive measure of these dimensions. It is also
noted that some dimensions were initially measured
using qualitative or mixed-method approaches and the
development of quantitative items for these
dimensions will need to be explored.
Proposed Measure for Entrepreneurial
Mindset Based on the limitations of current tools in measuring
the entrepreneurial mindset dimensions identified in
Part A (Table 7), the development of a quantitative
survey is proposed with the intention of it being piloted,
tested and refined in South Africa, and later replicated
in other countries.
This survey will be differentiated from previous
measures in that it will aim to measure the dimensions
identified in this study while using the underlying
literature reviewed and the entrepreneurial mindset
definition proposed as a basis for its development.
A quantitative survey using Likert Scale questions
(Likert, 1932) and possibly Semantic Differential
questions (Osgood et al., 1957) are proposed, but more
research will be required to determine which of these
are most effective.
Initial relevant demographic questions can be included
to better differentiate between core characteristics of
respondents; this may include age, gender,
employment/vocational status and level of education.
Further to this, it is recommended that validated and
publicly available scales are used first in the
development of the survey, with the creation of scales
being a secondary step so that maximum validity of the
scale items are ensured.
Further research and expertise will be required to
refine the pilot survey and ensure that it is sufficiently
valid and reliable for replication in other contexts
beyond South Africa.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 27
This paper intended to explore a better understanding
of and measure for entrepreneurial mindset that will in
turn allow for the development of future research areas
with this paper serving as a foundation for such
research.
In order to better understand entrepreneurial mindset,
the genesis of mindset was explored chronologically so
that a strong contextual base from the behavioural
sciences could be formed in order for entrepreneurial
mindset to be better understood and so that
entrepreneurial mindset is not only understood from a
specific vantage point proposed by a specific
researcher. Thereafter, and following a similar
chronological structure, the development of
entrepreneurial mindset from the behavioural sciences
was explored in depth with the literature culminating in
a specific focus on more recent contributions to this
field.
Based on the chronological literature review, a
summary of emerging themes was presented followed
by several definitions of entrepreneurial mindset. A
shared understanding of entrepreneurial mindset was
then proposed, along with a tabulated list of the
entrepreneurial mindset dimensions from the
literature review.
This paper then reviewed how mindset and
entrepreneurial mindset have been measured thus far,
highlighting the successes and some of the limitations
of these measures. With the successes and limitations
in mind, a recommendation for a universal measure for
entrepreneurial mindset was then proposed.
The development of the entrepreneurial mindset
survey can lead to significant opportunities for future
research, both for the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation as
well as other organisations and stakeholders.
These can include the building of a shared
understanding of entrepreneurial mindset, the
introduction of a data-based system of measuring
progress for entrepreneurial development
interventions as well as a basis for an evidence-based
framework for developing both policy and programme
recommendations.
Apart from the development of the survey, this
literature review can also serve as a starting point for
the Allan Gray Orbis Foundation and other
organisations to adopt a research based
understanding of entrepreneurial mindset and to use
the literature to serve as a guide for the refinement of
their own programmes and policies relating to
entrepreneurial mindset. Although a broad overview is
presented by this paper, further research can be
conducted on specific areas related to entrepreneurial
mindset that may be aligned to the organisation and
its area of influence.
Part 3: Conclusion and Future Research
Considerations
Abelson, R.P., 1981. Psychological status of the script concept. Am. Psychol. 36, 715. Adler, A., 1929. The practice and theory of individual psychology / Alfred Adler., 2nd rev. ed. ed.
London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1929], London. Ahmetoglu, G., Leutner, F., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2011. EQ-nomics: Understanding the relationship
between individual differences in Trait Emotional Intelligence and entrepreneurship. Personal. Individ. Differ. 51, 1028–1033. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.016
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., 1988. Attitudes, personality and behaviour. Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Allport, G.W., 1937. Personality: a psychological interpretation. Henry Holt and Co., New York. Allport, G.W., 1927. Concepts of trait and personality. Psychol. Bull. 24, 284. Anderson, C., Galinsky, A.D., 2006. Power, optimism, and risk-taking. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 511–536.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.324 Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., 2007. Empirical, Theoretical, and Practical Advantages of the HEXACO Model of
Personality Structure. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 150–166. doi:10.1177/1088868306294907
Bandura, A., 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change/. Psychol. Rev. 84, 191–215.
Bandura, M., Dweck, C.S., 1985. The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect and behaviour.
Baron, R.A., 2004. The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship’s basic “why” questions. J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 221–239. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9
Begley, T.M., Boyd, D.P., 1986. Psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurial performance. Front. Entrep. Res. 146.
Bird, B., 1988. Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention. Acad. Manage. Rev. 13, 442. doi:10.2307/258091
Block, J., 2004. „A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description “. Psychol. Individ. Differ. Boyle GJ Saklofske DH Lond. Sage 2, 223–280.
Borgatta, E.F., 1964. The structure of personality characteristics. Behav. Sci. 9, 8–18. Borland, C.M., 1974. Locus of control, need for achievement and entrepreneurship. (Doctoral
Dissertation). University of Texas, Austin, Austin, Texas. Boyd, N.G., Vozikis, G.S., 1994. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial
intentions and actions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18, 63–63. Brandstätter, H., 2011. Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses.
Personal. Individ. Differ. 51, 222–230. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007 Brief, A.P., Downey, H.K., 1983. Cognitive and organisational structures: a conceptual analysis of
implicit organising theories. Hum. Relat. 36, 1065–1089. Brockhaus, R.H., 1982. The Psychology of the Entrepreneur, in: Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 39–57. Brockhaus, R.H., 1980. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Acad. Manage. J. 23, 509–520. Brockner, J., Higgins, E.T., Low, M.B., 2004. Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process.
J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 203–220. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00007-7 Caird, S., 1993. What do psychological tests suggest about entrepreneurs? J. Manag. Psychol. 8, 11. Caird, S., 1991. Testing enterprise tendency in occupational groups. Br. J. Manag. 2, 177–186. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., 1979. Prototypes in person perception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12, 3–52. Cantor, N., Mischel, W., 1977. Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35, 38. Cattell, R.B., 1957. Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Harrap, London. Cattell, R.B., 1947. Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika 12,
197–220.
Bibliography
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 28
Chandler, G.N., DeTienne, D.R., McKelvie, A., Mumford, T.V., 2011. Causation and effectuation processes: A validation study. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 375–390. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.006
Corr, P.J., Matthews, G., 2009. The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.
Costa, Jr., P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1976. Age differences in personality structure: a cluster analytic approach. J. Gerontol. 31, 564–570.
Cromie, S., 2000. Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical evidence. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 9, 7–30. doi:10.1080/135943200398030
Cunningham, J.B., Lischeron, J., 1991. Defining entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 29, 45–61. Davis, M.H., Hall, J.A., Mayer, P.S., 2016. Developing a new measure of entrepreneurial mindset:
Reliability, validity, and implications for practitioners. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 68, 21–48. doi:10.1037/cpb0000045
Drucker, P.F., 1985. Entrepreneurial strategies. Calif. Manage. Rev. 27, 9–25. Duckworth, A., 2016. Grit: the power of passion and perseverance. Scribner, New York, N.Y. Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., Kelly, D.R., 2007. Grit: Perseverance and passion for
long-term goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 Duckworth, A.L., Quinn, P.D., 2009. Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit–S). J.
Pers. Assess. 91, 166–174. doi:10.1080/00223890802634290 Dweck, C.S., 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House, New York. Dweck, C.S., 1986. Motivational processes affecting learning. Am. Psychol. 41, 1040. Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., 1995a. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A
word from two perspectives. Psychol. Inq. 6, 267–285. Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C., Hong, Y., 1995b. Implicit Theories and Their Role in Judgments and Reactions: A
Word From Two Perspectives. Psychol. Inq. 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 Dweck, C.S., Elliott, E.S., 1983. Achievement motivation, in: Socialization, Personality and Social
Development. Wiley, New York, pp. 643–691. Dweck, C.S., Leggett, E.L., 1988. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol.
Rev. 95, 256. Elliott, E.S., Dweck, C.S., 1988. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 54, 5. Eysenck, H.-J., 1970. The structure of human personality, 3rd ed. Methuen, London. Fayolle, A., 2012. Lexicon.ft.com [WWW Document]. Financ. Times Lex. URL
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=entrepreneurial-mindset (accessed 11.12.16). Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., Lassas-Clerc, N., 2006. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: A new methodology. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 30, 701–720. Fiske, D.W., 1949. Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources.
J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 44, 329. Freud, S., 1953. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud /
translated from the German under the general editorship of James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud; assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson. Vol. 5, The interpretation of dreams: second part; On dreams: (1900-1901)., Reprinted with corrections. ed. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-analysis, 1953 (1981 printing), London.
Gage, N.L., Cronbach, L., 1955. Conceptual and methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev. 62, 411.
Galinsky, A.D., Rucker, D.D., Magee, J.C., 2016. Power and perspective-taking: A critical examination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 67, 91–92. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.12.002
Gartner, W.B., 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10, 696–706.
Gioia, D.A., Poole, P.P., 1984. Scripts in Organizational Behaviour. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9, 449. doi:10.2307/258285
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 28
Gollwitzer, P.M., Heckhausen, H., Steller, B., 1990. Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 59, 1119.
Graesser, A.C., Gordon, S.E., Sawyer, J.D., 1979. Recognition memory for typical and atypical actions in scripted activities: Tests of a script pointer+ tag hypothesis. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 18, 319–332.
Guilford, J.P., 1975. Factors and factors of personality. Psychol. Bull. 82, 802. Hamilton, D.L., 1979. A cognitive attributional analysis of stereotyping1. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12,
53–84. Hao Zhao, Seibert, S.E., Lumpkin, G.T., 2010. The Relationship of Personality to Entrepreneurial
Intentions and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Manag. 36, 381–404. doi:10.1177/0149206309335187
Haynie, J.M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., Earley, P.C., 2010. A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 217–229. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.001
Haynie, M., Shepherd, D.A., 2009. A measure of adaptive cognition for entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 695–714.
Higgins, E.T., 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am. Psychol. 52, 1280–1300. Ireland, R., 2003. A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and its Dimensions. J. Manag.
29, 963–989. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00086-2 James, W., 1891. The Principles of Psychology. Am. J. Psychol. 3, 551. doi:10.2307/1412068 Kelly, h. ., 1973. The processes of causal attribution. Am. Psychol. 28, 107. Kirton, M., 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 61, 622. Krueger, N., 2015. The Entrepreneurial Mindset (Entrepreneurship 360 Thematic Paper No. Part 1),
Entrepreneurial Education in Practice. Lau, T.L.M., Shaffer, M.A., Fai Chan, K., Wing Yan Man, T., 2012. The entrepreneurial behaviour
inventory: A simulated incident method to assess corporate entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 18, 673–696. doi:10.1108/13552551211268120
Leutner, F., Ahmetoglu, G., Akhtar, R., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., 2014. The relationship between the entrepreneurial personality and the Big Five personality traits. Personal. Individ. Differ. 63, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.042
Levenson, H., 1973. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 41, 397.
Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes., Archives of Psychology. The Science Press, New York, N.Y.
Lindzey, G., 1954. Handbook of Social Psychology. Addison Wesley, Cambridge; New York. Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C., Schneider, D.R., 2009. Understanding and measuring autonomy: An
entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 47–69. McAdams, D.P., 1992. The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. J. Pers. 60, 329–361. McAdams, D.P., Pals, J.L., 2006. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of
personality. Am. Psychol. 61, 204–217. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204 McClelland, D.C., 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Norstrand, Princeton, N.J. McCrae, R.R., Costa, Jr., P.T., Martin, T.A., 2005. The NEO–PI–3: A More Readable Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. J. Pers. Assess. 84, 261–270. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403_05 Mcdougall, W., 1932. Of the Words Character and Personality. Character Personal. 1, 3. McGee, J.E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L., Sequeira, J.M., 2009. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: Refining
the Measure. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 965–988. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x McGonigal, K., 2015. The upside of stress: Why stress is good for you (and how to get good at it).
Penguin Random House UK, London. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I., 2001. Guidelines for managing with an entrepreneurial mindset.
Strategy Leadersh. 29. McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I., 2000. The entrepreneurial mindset: Strategies for continually creating
opportunity in the age of uncertainty. Harvard Business School Press.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 29
McKelvie, A., Haynie, J.M., Gustavsson, V., 2011. Unpacking the uncertainty construct: Implications for entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 273–292. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.10.004
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., 2001. Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? J. Educ. Psychol. 93, 77–86. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77
Midgley, C., Maehr, M.L., Hruda, L.Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K.E., Urdan, T., 2000. Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor 1001, 48109–1259.
Minsky, 1975. Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on theoretical issues in natural language processing, in: TINLAP ’75 Proceedings of the 1975 Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Association for computational linguitics, Stroudsburg, pp. 104–116.
Mitchell, J.R., Shepherd, D.A., 2010a. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 138–154. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.08.001
Mitchell, J.R., Shepherd, D.A., 2010b. To thine own self be true: Images of self, images of opportunity, and entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 25, 138–154. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.08.001
Mitchell, R.K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P.P., Morse, E.A., Smith, J.B., 2002. Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrep. Theory Pract. 27, 93–104.
Moberg, K., Vestergaard, L., Fayolle, A., Redford, D., Cooney, T., Singer, S., Sailer, K., Filip, D., 2014. How to assess and evaluate the influence of entrepreneurship education: A report of the ASTEE project with a user guide to the tools.
Molden, D.C., Dweck, C.S., 2006. Finding “Meaning” in Psychology: A Lay Theories Approach to Self-Regulation, Social Perception, and Social Development. Am. Psychol. 61, 192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
Mooradian, T., Matzler, K., Uzelac, B., Bauer, F., 2016a. Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. J. Econ. Psychol. 56, 232–243. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001
Mooradian, T., Matzler, K., Uzelac, B., Bauer, F., 2016b. Perspiration and inspiration: Grit and innovativeness as antecedents of entrepreneurial success. J. Econ. Psychol. 56, 232–243. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2016.08.001
Nichter, S., Goldmark, L., 2009. Small Firm Growth in Developing Countries. World Dev. 37, 1453–1464. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.01.013
Norman, W.T., 1963. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 66, 574.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1957. The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.
Peng, Z., Lu, G., Kang, H., 2012. Entrepreneurial Intentions and Its Influencing Factors: A Survey of the University Students in Xi’an China. Creat. Educ. 03, 95–100. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.38B021
Peterman, N.E., Kennedy, J., 2003. Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 28, 129–144.
Pfeifer, S., Šarlija, N., Zekić Sušac, M., 2016. Shaping the Entrepreneurial Mindset: Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business Students in Croatia. J. Small Bus. Manag. 54, 102–117. doi:10.1111/jsbm.12133
Pizarro, N., 2014. An institutional and pedagogical model that fosters entrepreneurial mindset among college students. J. Entrep. Educ. 17, 143–162.
Putta, S.S., 2014a. Entrepreneurial mindset crisis in Enterprises. J. Commer. Manag. Thought 5, 70. doi:10.5958/j.0976-478X.5.1.006
Putta, S.S., 2014b. Entrepreneurial mindset crisis in Enterprises. J. Commer. Manag. Thought 5, 70. doi:10.5958/j.0976-478X.5.1.006
Read, S., Song, M., Smit, W., 2009. A meta-analytic review of effectuation and venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 24, 573–587. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.02.005
Reed, J., Stoltz, P.G., 2011. Put your mindset to work. Penguin UK, London.
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 30
Robb, A., Valerio, A., Parton, B. (Eds.), 2014. Entrepreneurship Education and Training: Insights from Ghana, Kenya, and Mozambique. The World Bank.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., Hunt, H.K., 1991. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 15, 13–31.
Rucker, D.D., Galinsky, A.D., 2016. Growing beyond growth: Why multiple mindsets matter for consumer behaviour. J. Consum. Psychol. 26, 161–164. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.009
Sarasvathy, S.D., 2001. Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26, 243. doi:10.2307/259121
Schank, R.C., Abelson, R.P., 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. New York: Erlbaum division of Wiley, Hillsdale. N.J.
Schneider, D.J., 1973. Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychol. Bull. 79, 294–309. Shapero, A., 1975. The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychol. Today 9, 83–88. Shapero, A., Sokol, L., 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship., in: The Encyclopaedia of
Entrepreneurship. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 72–90. Snyder, M., DeBono, K.G., 1985. Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the
psychology of advertising. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 49, 586. Solomon, G.T., Winslow, E.K., 1988. Toward a descriptive profile of the entrepreneur. J. Creat. Behav.
22, 162–171. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., Al-Laham, A., 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial
intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. J. Bus. Ventur. 22, 566–591. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Spearman, C., 1904. “General Intelligence,” Objectively Determined and Measured. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 201. doi:10.2307/1412107
Stauffer, D.A., 2015. Valuable novelty: a proposed general theory of innovation and innovativeness. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 7, 169–182.
Taulbert, C., Schoeniger, G., 2010. Who owns the Icehouse? Eight lessons from an unlikely entrepreneur. ELI Press, Cleveland.
Thompson, E.R., 2009. Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development of an internationally reliable metric. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 669–694.
Thurstone, L.L., 1947. Multiple-factor analysis: a development and expansion of the vectors of mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
Totem Inc., 2015. Swarm Innovation Profiler: Interpretive Guide. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117,
440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963 Tupes, E.C., Christal, R.E., 1961. Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (No. ASD-TR-61-
97). Personnel Research Lab, Texas. Valerio, A., Parton, B., Robb, A., 2014. Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programs around the
World: Dimensions for Success. The World Bank. Van de Ven, A.H., Hudson, R., Schroeder, D.M., 1984. Designing new business startups:
Entrepreneurial, organisational and ecological considerations. J. Manag. 10, 87–107. Vesper, K.H., 1996. New Venture Experience. Vector Books, Seattle, WA. Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., 2006. The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-
analytical review. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 259–271. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.259
In Pursuit of a Better Understanding of and Measure for Entrepreneurial Mindset - 31