Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2015 | 11 | nr 3 Entrepreneurship and Innovations : Novel Research Approaches | 89--116
Tytuł artykułu

Developing a Social Enterprise Performance Scale and Examining the Relationship Between Entrepreneurs' Personality Traits and Their Perceived Enterprise Performance

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
On the basis of the lack of measurement tools and the research gap regarding social entrepreneurship, three studies were conducted to develop a new measure of social enterprise (SE) performance that is empirically valid and easy to administer. The purpose of this measure was to examine the relationship between entrepreneurs' personality traits and their perceived SE performance. The results indicated that SE performance can be assessed using four dimensions: personal issues, social aspects, business elements, and service programmes. Extraversion positively influenced service programmes, and openness negatively affected service programmes. Neuroticism and conscientiousness positively predicted personal issues and service programmes, and agreeableness positively predicted all dimensions of perceived SE performance. The results also demonstrated the curvilinear relationship of the U-shaped curve between neuroticism and personal issues and the social aspects of SE performance. Furthermore, the results showed the curvilinear relationship of the inverted U-shaped curve between agreeableness and the four dimensions of SE performance. (original abstract)
Wobec braku narzędzi pomiaru oraz istnienia luki badawczej w zakresie przedsiębiorczości społecznej, przeprowadzono trzy badania mające na celu opracowanie nowego sposobu pomiaru wyników przedsiębiorczości społecznej, który byłby trafny empirycznie i łatwy do zastosowania. Opracowane narzędzie pozwala na badanie relacji między cechami osobowości przedsiębiorców i postrzeganiem przez nich wyników w zakresie przedsiębiorczości społecznej. Wyniki wykazały, że przedsiębiorczość społeczna może być oceniana w czterech wymiarach: aspektów osobistych związanych z przedsiębiorcą, aspektów społecznych, elementów biznesowych, oraz świadczonych usług. Ekstrawersja pozytywnie wpływa na świadczone usługi, natomiast otwartość ma na nie wpływ negatywny. Neurotyczność i sumienność wykazywały pozytywny związek z aspektami osobistymi przedsiębiorcy i świadczonymi usługami, a ugodowość miała pozytywny związek z wszystkimi wymiarami postrzeganych wyników przedsiębiorczości społecznej. Wyniki badań wykazały również krzywoliniowy związek w kształcie litery U pomiędzy neurotycznością i aspektami osobistymi przedsiębiorcy oraz aspektami społecznymi wyników przedsiębiorczości społecznej. Ponadto, zaobserwowano krzywoliniową, U-kształtną zależność pomiędzy ugodowością a czterema wymiarami wyników przedsiębiorczości społecznej. (abstrakt oryginalny)
  • Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
  • National Taiwan University, Taiwan
  • National Taiwan University, Taiwan
  • National Taiwan University, Taiwan
  • Arena, M., Azzone, G., Bengo, I. (2014). Performance measurement for social enterprises. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 649-672.
  • Ariani, D. W. (2013). Personality and learning motivation. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(10), 26-38.
  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
  • Baer, M., Oldham, G., Jacobsohn, G. C., Hollingshad, A. B. (2008). The personality composition of teams and creativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(4), 255-282.
  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 9-30.
  • Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 232-236.
  • Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., Baum, J. R. (2012). Entrepreneurs' behavior: Elucidation and measurement. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 889 -913.
  • Boluk, K. A., Mottiar, Z. (2014). Motivations of social entrepreneurs: Blurring the social contribution and profits dichotomy. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 53-68.
  • Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230.
  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: H. C. Triandis, J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 349-444). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Casson, M., Giusta, M. D. (2007). Entrepreneurship and social capital: Analysing the impact of social networks on entrepreneurial activity from a rational action perspective. International Small Business Journal, 25(3), 220-244.
  • Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26.
  • Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295-316.
  • Cohen, B., Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29-49.
  • Corner, P. D., Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635-659.
  • Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  • De Clercq, D., Dimov, D., Thongpapanl, N. (2013). Organizational social capital, formalization, and internal knowledge sharing in entrepreneurial orientation formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 505- 537.
  • Dean, T. J., McMullen, J. S. (2007). Towards a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76.
  • Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L. (2008). Neuroticism predicts reactions to cues of social inclusion. European Journal of Personality, 22(6), 497-517.
  • DTI Social Enterprise Unit (2003). A progress report on social enterprise: A strategy for success. London: Department of Trade and Industry's (DTI), Social Enterprise Unit.
  • Gemmell, R. M., Boland, R. J., Kolb, D. A. (2012). The socio-cognitive dynamics of entrepreneurial ideation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1053-1073.
  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of makers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
  • Hadad, S., Găucă, O. (2014). Social impact measurement in social entrepreneurial organizations. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 9(2), 119-136.
  • Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448.
  • Hockerts, K., Wüstenhagen, K. R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids: Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481-492.
  • Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., Keeney, J. (2011). A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 44-64.
  • Katre, A., Salipante, P. (2012). Start-up social ventures: Blending fine-grained behaviors from two institutions for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 967 -994.
  • Korsgaard, S., Anderson, A. R. (2011). Enacting entrepreneurship as social value creation. International Small Business Journal, 29(2), 135-151.
  • Kreiser, P. M., Patel, P. C., Fiet, J. O. (2013). The influence of changes in social capital on firm-founding activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 539-568.
  • Krlev, G., Münscher, R., Mülbert, K. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI): State-of-the-art and perspectives: A meta-analysis of practice in social return on investment (SROI) studies published 2000-2012. Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University. Retrieved from: http://CSI_SROI_Meta_Analysis_2013.pdf.
  • Le, H., Oh, I. -S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113-133.
  • LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in terms of members' cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27- 39.
  • Lin, J. -S., Liang, C. -T., Chang, W. -S., Liang, C. (2015). Relation between personality traits and imaginative capability of engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1A), 23-36.
  • Lin, S. Y. -H. (2009). Taiwanese influence. Retrieved from:
  • Marshall, A. Beachy, T. (2010). Questions only a parent would ask: An exercise for evaluating the impact of the social enterprise in your non- profit organization. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Demonstrating Value.
  • McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). The NEO personality inventory: Using the five-factor model in counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69(4), 367- 372.
  • Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource- based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka Fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661- 680.
  • Michel, J. S., Clark, M. A., Jaramillo, D. (2011). The role of the Five Factor Model of personality in the perceptions of negative and positive forms of work-nonwork spillover: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 191-203.
  • Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 510-523.
  • Pelchat, M. C. (2005). Social entrepreneurship in Taiwan: Possibilities and challenges for empowerment. Paper presented at the 4th ISTR Asia and Pacific Conference, Bangalore, India.
  • Penney, L. M., David, E., Witt, L. A. (2011). A review of personality and performance: identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 297-310.
  • Rose, R. M., Fogg, L. F., Helmreich, R. L., McFadden, T. J. (1994). Psychological predictors of astronaut effectiveness. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 65(10 Pt 1), 910-915.
  • Rothmann, S., Coetzer, E. P. (2003). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(1), 68-74.
  • Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's Unipolar Big-Five Makers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506-516.
  • Simon, M., Houghton, S. M., Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 113-134.
  • Smith, R., Bell, R., Watts, H. (2014). Personality trait differences between traditional and social entrepreneurs. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), 200-221.
  • Stewart, W. H., Roth, P. L. (2004). Data quality affects meta-analytic conclusions: A response to Miner and Raju (2004) Concerning entrepreneurial risk propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 14-21.
  • Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542-548.
  • Van Der Molen, H. T., Schmidt, H. G., Kruisman, G. (2007). Personality characteristics of engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(2), 495-501.
  • Vitiello, D., Wolf-Powers, L. (2014). Growing food to grow cities? The potential of agriculture foreconomic and community development in the urban United States. Community Development Journal, 49(4), 508-523.
  • Wang, J.-H., Liang, C. (2015). Empowerment through intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy: How personality traits influence rural practice in agricultural students? In: J. Hawkins (Ed.), Personality traits and types: Perceptions, gender differences and impact on behavior (pp. 109-132). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
  • Wolff, H. -G., Kim, S. (2012). The relationship between networking behaviors and the big five personality dimensions. Career Development International, 17(1), 43-66.
  • Yap, S. C. Y., Anusic, I., Lucas, R. E. (2012). Does personality moderate reaction and adaptation to major life events? Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(5), 477-488.
  • York, J. G., Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur-environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449-463.
  • Zabelina, D. L., Robinson, M. D., Anicha, C. L. (2007). The psychological tradeoffs of self-control: A multi- method investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 463-473.
  • Zahra, S. A., Newey, L. R., Li, Y. (2014). On the frontiers: The implications of social entrepreneurship for international entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 137-158.
  • Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259-271.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.