Essays /

154696885 Entrepreneurs Born Or Made Essay

Essay preview


Ervin L. Black*
F. Greg Burton
Anne M. Traynor
David A. Wood

*Corresponding Author
529 TNRB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (801) 422-1767
Fax: (801) 422-0621
Email: [email protected]

KEY WORDS: Entrepreneurial Success, Venture Capital Funding, Traits for Success TOPIC: Entrepreneurial and Small Business Education, New Venture Creation and Venture Capital

Dr. Ervin L. Black is associate professor of accounting at Brigham Young University. His research interests include entrepreneurship, financial accounting, and international business. Dr. F. Greg Burton is associate professor of accounting at Brigham Young University. His research interests include fraud and corruption, market behavior, and entrepreneurship. Anne M. Traynor is a student at Brigham Young University in the entrepreneurship program. Her research interests include gender issues in small business and new venture creation. David A. Wood is a doctoral student at Indiana University. His research interests include corporate governance, entrepreneurial success, and internal audit.

What characteristics do entrepreneurs believe make them successful? We interview
entrepreneurs and venture capitalists (VCs) to determine traits that each of these groups perceive as necessary for entrepreneurial success. We show that entrepreneurs cite traits inherent to their nature (for example, hard working, persistent, risk-taker) significantly more than VCs. We also test to see if entrepreneurs are able to identify factors that VCs consider most important for the funding decision. We find that entrepreneurs who do not have previous VC funding experience differ significantly from VCs in what factors are important for VC funding; whereas, entrepreneurs with previous VC funding experience did not differ from VCs in identifying important funding-decision factors. Overall, our results demonstrate that even though entrepreneurs believe factors they are born with are most important to achieve success, they still learn through experience.

1. Introduction
The question, “What makes entrepreneurs successful?” is important to multiple constituencies. Despite the interest in this question, measuring success has proven problematic because there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes a successful entrepreneur (Rogoff, Lee, and Suh 2004). In general, most research studies use company longevity as a proxy for entrepreneurial success without consideration of other qualitative or quantitative measures. While there could be many viable definitions of success, a fruitful first step would be to ask entrepreneurs and their capital providers what entrepreneurial traits lead to a successful business venture and whether these traits are an inherent part of an entrepreneur’s character or whether they can be acquired through experience or training. For instance, would an entrepreneur who sought venture capital in the past learn from this experience and change his/her approach and thinking?

A continually debated question in the popular press is whether people are “born” or “made” to be successful. Each year companies spend millions of dollars hiring consultants to train their staff to be successful—with some companies claiming that it worked and others believing it was a waste of time and money. Numerous books, articles, and internet sites argue about what aspects of success are inherent to a person’s nature versus what is learnable through study or experience.

Successful entrepreneurs also carry out this debate with varying opinions about how much of entrepreneurial success can be attributed to nature versus nurture. On one end of the spectrum, Bo Peabody—an internet entrepreneurial multi-millionaire—stated, “One does not decide to be an entrepreneur. One is an entrepreneur. Those who decide to be entrepreneurs are making the first in a long line of bad business decisions (Farrell 2005).” On the other end of the

spectrum Lloyd Shefsky—author, entrepreneur, and adjunct faculty—claims that through his research of more than 200 entrepreneurs that successful entrepreneurs are made and not born (Shefsky 1996). Finally, in the middle of the spectrum are voices like Herb Kelleher, co-founder and former CEO of Southwest airlines, who believes that successful entrepreneurs have a combination of innate character traits and training (Watkinson 2004). This study asks entrepreneurs and venture capitalist to identify characteristics of entrepreneurs that are important for their success.

First, we report which specific traits

entrepreneurs believe make them successful, thus addressing what entrepreneurs believe in the born versus made debate. Second, we compare the entrepreneurs’ responses to an important “gatekeeper” in small business success—venture capitalists (VCs). Third, we compare what the two groups consider to be the most important factors for venture capital funding decisions. Finally, we compare responses from entrepreneurs who have solicited funding from venture capitalists to entrepreneurs who have not solicited funding from venture capitalists to see if entrepreneurs learn from experience what venture capitalists seek when making their funding decisions.

The rest of this paper proceeds as follows; in the next section, we discuss relevant literature and our research questions. In section three, we present the methodology used to evaluate our research questions followed by a discussion of the results in section four. In section five, we discuss implications of our findings. We conclude in section six with limitations of our research and recommendations for future studies.

2. Literature Review and Research Questions
Entrepreneurial Success

Many studies have attempted to catalog factors that contribute to entrepreneurial success (Sahlman 1990; Sapienza 1991; Timmons 1994; and Rogoff et al. 2004) and failure (see Zacharakis, Meyer, and DeCastro 1999 for a review of the relevant literature). Past research about entrepreneurship has attempted to define the personality of entrepreneurs, hoping to show that entrepreneurs are intrinsically different from other people (see Smith-Hunter, Kapp, and Yonkers 2003 for a review of the literature). The underlying theme of this type of trait-based research is that no amount of training will make an entrepreneur (Smith-Hunger, Kapp, and Yonkers 2003). However, the results of this stream of research have not produced a definitive personality of an entrepreneur. From these studies, the only consistent difference found between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs is that entrepreneurs have higher achievement motivations (Shaver 1995).

The inability of this line of research to define a specific entrepreneurial personality has caused a debate about the efficacy of personality-based research as a way of finding significant differences between entrepreneurs and others (Aldrich 1999; Begley and Boyd 1987; Gartner 1988; Johnson 1990; Mueller and Thomas 2001; Shaver 1995; Shaver and Scott 1991; Shaver, Gatewood, and Gartner 2001; Spangler 1992). In contrast to the trait-based research, another line of research is looking for ways to better understand the factors that influence how entrepreneurs behave (Baron 1998; Douglas and Shepard 2000; Simon, Houghton, and Aquino 2000). We contribute to this line of research by examining what traits entrepreneur...

Read more


-0621 -10 -1066 -134 -137 -14 -154 -1767 -192 -20 -23 -251 -294 -32 -334 -376 -40 -42 -436 -45 -521 -54 -60 -90 -93 /moneytree/nav.jsp?page=definitions#industry. /sustainable 0 0.024 0.025 0.026 0.043 0.046 0.059 0.068 0.104 0.123 0.149 0.217 0.236 0.484 0.681 0.836 0.840 1 1.00 1.5 10 10.8 100 1051 11 11.1 11.7 112 113 119128 12 123 124138 13 13.3 14 14.5 140 15 154696885 16 169 18 18.2 180 19 1952 1981 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2 20 200 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 21 22 22.2 23 230 231 24 25 27 27.8 275 28 3 30 316 32 33 34 35 36 364 37 38 39 39.8 3rd 4 4.0 4.8 40 41 414 42 422 43 44 45 473 49 5 5.2 5175 529 53 56.5 6 6.2 6.5 60 62 66 7 7.2 7.8 71.1 73 75 77 78.3 79 8 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.9 801 83 84602 9 9.3 95 97 a.s a.v abil abl abstract academ academi acceler access account achiev acquir activ add addit address adjunct adv advantag age aggreg agre airlin al aldrich also although american amount analys analysi analyt angel ann anoth answer appli approach aquino argu articl ask aspect associ attempt attitud attribut audit author averag average-s avlid b b.r babson back bad bank baron base baselin basi becom begley behav behavior believ belong benchmark benefit berelson better bias binomi black bo book born borrow boyd brigham broad bruno build bulletin burton busi c.w capit capitalist captur carri case cash catalog categor categori caus center ceo chang charact characterist characterst chi chi-squar chisquar choic citat cite claim clear close co co-found code cognit collect colleg college-bas combin come comet common communic compani compar comparison competitor conclud conclus conduct confer congruent consid consider consist constant constitu constitut consult consum contact content continu contrast contribut control convers corpor correspond corrupt could counselor countri coverag creat creation creativ criteria cultur current custom d d.a d.c d.p data david deal debat decastro decid decis dedic defin definit definitions.2 deleg demand demograph demonstr deriv describ descript despit determin deviat differ direct disciplin discuss disposit disproportion distinguish distribut doctor dollar done dougla dr dreamer drive dud e e.j earli earn econom ed educ effect efficaci electronics/instrumentation email emphas emphasi empir employe end endnot energi enovc entir entrepreneur entrepreneuri entrepreneurship equal equiti [email protected] ervin especi establish et etc ethic evalu evc even evid evolv examin exampl exclud exist exit exp expand expans expect experi experienc expert exploratori extend extens extern f factor faculti fail failur far farrel fax feel final financi find finish firm first first-mov fit five flexible/non-structured flow focus follow formal format former found founder four fr fraud free frequenc frequent frontier fruit fund funding-decis futur g gain game gap gartner gatekeep gatewood gender general generaliz geograph give given glamour glenco glencoe/mcgraw-hill good gorman govern graduat greenvill greg group growth gut h.e h.j hall hand hard hard-work help herb high high-inherentfactor high-potenti higher hire his/her histori hofer home homewood hope houghton howev human hunger hunter hypothes i.c idea identifi il ill imped implic import improv inabl includ independ indiana indic individu industri industry/domain/market inexperienc influenc inform inher inherentfactor initial/potential innat innov insert insight instanc instinct intellig inter inter-rat interest intern internet interview interviewe intrins introduct invest investig investment-bank investor irwin issu item j januari job johnson journal june k k.g kapp kelleh key know knowledg l l.e l.r largest last later lead leader leadership learn learnabl least lee less like likeabl limit line liquid list literatur lloyd loan locat locus london long longev look lowperform luck m m.b.a macmillan made major make manag mani margin market masters/phd match maxim may measur mechan median meet mention merger meta meta-analys methodolog meyer middl might million millionair mind model money moneytre most motiv move mover much mueller multi multi-millionair multidimension multipl must must-hav myth n name nascent natur near necessari need network new news next nine non non-entrepreneur nonentrepreneur number numer nurtur o often one onlin oper opinion opportun optimist order organ other overal overemphas owner p p-valu p-valuea p.n panel paper part parti particular passion past patent pay payback peabodi peopl perceiv percent percentag percept perform persist person personality-bas phone phrase place plan player popul popular posit possess possibl potenti practic predict prefer preliminari present press prevent previous prime princip prior problem problemat proceed process produc product product/service products/services profession professor profit program project propos proven provid provo proxi ps psycholog public pvalu qualit qualitymind quantit question questionnair quick r r.a rais random rang rater realist receiv recent recommend record recruit refer relat relev reliabl remain report repres research resourc respect respons rest result return reveal review reward/low risk risk-tak rogoff roi role run s.l s.m sacrific sage sahlman sale sampl sandberg sapienza scienc score scott scrappi screen second section see seed seek seen select self self-start sens separ serv servic set seven sever share shaver shefski shepard show shown siegal signific similar simon sinc singl site six size size/potential skill skin small smaller smallest smith smith-hung smith-hunt softwar solicit solut solvent sought southwest spangler speakerphon specif spectrum spend split squar staff stage standard start start-up starter state statist step still strateg strategi stream strong stronger structur stubborn student studi subbanarasimha subject succeed success suggest suh survey syndic t.m t.t tabl tail take taker target tat taught team technolog telephon tell test theme theori therefor think third thoma though thousand three thus time timmon titl tnrb togeth told top topic total toward track train trait trait-bas transcrib traynor truli trustworthi trustworthy/integrity two two-tail tyebje type typic under understand understood undervalu uniqu univers unsuccess upon us use ut utah utah-bas util v valu valuea vari vc vcs ventur versus via viabl view virtual vision voic vol w w.a w.b w.d w.r want washington wast watkinson way weight well well-capit wherea whether wide win wish within without wood word work would wrong year yonker york young zacharaki zemann