Thematic Apperception Test - Essay Example

A general of an entrepreneur hardly incorporates the various types of entrepreneurship at work in today’s society and in the global marketplace. Customarily, however, they are most often described as individuals who undertake innovations in the business realm for the purpose of transforming ideas into viable and successful business ventures, with the obvious form being that of initiating “startup companies.” In recent years the term has also been applied to social and political forms of entrepreneurial activity. No matter how or where the term is applied, certain elements are constant: entrepreneurs are persons of certain psychological qualities and unique abilities who, through these qualities, contribute wealth and energy to an economy and social benefits beyond business. There are a whole range of theories as to what makes an entrepreneur. Regarding the assertion that entrepreneurs are born, not made...Shane (2010) asserts this may be only half true if one is speaking about genetic traits. Thematic Apperception Test One of the more modern empirical investigations was done by Collins and Moore and published in their exceptional analysis in The Enterprising Man. (delete words) Seeking to prove their theory that entrepreneurs represents certain psychological traits, they employed the Thematic Apperception Tests (TAT) test. The subject, presented with a set of cards with human figures in a variety of settings, creates a story including elements describing the event shown; what has led up to it; what the characters in the picture are feeling and thinking; and the outcome of the event. The test assumes certain results about the subject’s personality in relationship to entrepreneurship—workaholics rarely every satisfied; patronizing with subordinates; suspect and rejecting of authority—that within the Collins and Moore psychological profile theory represents early childhood relationships with adults in the entrepreneurs life. (Roberts, 1991: 50). Throughout other studies, however, while there appears to be a clear relationship between entrepreneurship and achievement motivation across a number of measurement instruments (Edwards Personal Preference Scale, the Mehrabian Scale, and the TAT (1) Sexton and Bowman (1986) found inconsistencies that challenge the blind acceptance of this theory, and that ‘students and nonstudents (entrepreneurs, potential entrepreneurs, and nonentrepreneurs) differ on a variety of characteristics which are supposed to be stable across time and situations according to personality theory’ (Robertson et al, 1991: 42). Contingency Approach Theory Furnham (1994) adds another theory to the personality approach. While the Contingency Approach theory does ‘not ignore[ing] trait and behavioral studies’ (Furnham 1994:175), it finds a more economic and social basis for entrepreneurship patterns based on solid business skills and their utilization to best result. This approach ‘assumes that the behaviour of an entrepreneur is a function of various specifiable contextual (i.e., socio-economic) variables’ (Furnham, 1994: 175). Proponents of this approach look at different types of firms, their environments that may bring out entrepreneurial characteristics in subjects with or without personality traits generally acceded to a certain entrepreneurial type from birth, so to speak. Using firms from small to large, the theory suggests that each type requires different entrepreneurial abilities where ‘the economic reality thus drives the individual behaviour’ (Furnham, 1994: 175). Timmons Theory Model vs Chell and Haworth The Timmons Model (fig 1), while considering traits and other behavior elements, ‘comprises a set of personality traits, cognitive elements, and also emphasizes such personal business skills as team building and delegating to best and most successful affect. Experts including Chell and Haworth take issue with the Timmons on the basis of its assumption that an entrepreneur is, as Collins and Moore suggest, an one-dimensional archetype and too rigidly defined. (Furnham, 1994) As explained by Furnham (1994), Chell divides the personality into the five categories of skill, abilities, constructs, expectancies, values, strategies and plans, held as ‘general features of people, which in combination with particular socio-economic and business situations, will result in particular actions’ (Furnham, 1994: 175). From a purely practical sense, this conglomeration of tangible and intangible factors can be found in entrepreneurs of various leagues and stripes, supporting an ‘attitude model’ or theory which suggests a dynamism among entrepreneurs that ‘changes across time and from situation to situation’ (Robertson et al, 1991: 42). Howard Hughes Considered: Profile of a Rebel Theory aside, it is helpful to look at some highly successful entrepreneurs whose success support one or all of these theories. The most convincing argument for personality theory is American entrepreneurial icon, Howard Hughes. If one is to believe even a portion of what has been written, Hughes not only incorporates all of the traits and behaviors of the quintessential business mogul, but a few factors most business students might overlook. Higham (1994) in his celebrated work Howard Hughes: The Secret Life, presents a profile of a deeply disturbed individual whose success came on the backs of friend and foe alike. Hughes, whose disdain for authority was evidenced in his behaviour, achieved great wealth through ruthlessness both in his business and private life. Adhering to particular family traits learned in childhood, Hughes’ parents were themselves the typical prototype: ‘his father [an] outlaw [overly-authoritative] wildcatter; his mother [a] neurotic...heiress...’ (Higham, 1994: 13). While Hughes, in most ways, fit the various profiles, personality theory supports the archtype born and bread of childhood experiences and influences. If descriptions in his biography (Howard Hughes Troubled Tycoon, 2008) are to be believed, Hughes certainly inherited entrepreneurial traits from that very source Richard Branson—The Innovation Factor Innovation, a necessary ingredient in all business ventures, can be defined largely by the innovator him or herself. Generally it is someone who pushes business boundaries and brings ideas to reality, a contingency approach well endowed with an attitude model allowing for the assessment of market needs and acceptance. The natural need or ability to innovate fits well into all of the theories of what makes an entrepreneur. Whether coming natural to the innovator or a learned concept, it is key to the entrepreneur’s modis operenti, and to the ongoing success of British industrialist, Sir Richard Branson. Branson, best known for his Virgin Group of over three-hundred and sixty companies, true to the basic profile, started at age 16 with a magazine called ‘Student’, consistent with other integrated theories parlaying the business into Virgin Records, Virgin Megastores and the highly regarded Virgin Atlantic Airways. He is, according to Forbes Magazine (2009), the two-hundred and twelfth richest person in the world, with £2.97 billion. What Branson saw as innovative in all of his business ventures was a focus on customer experience; and it was that ability which became primary in his success. As Robertson found among Gartner’s (1990) identification of recurring themes in definitions of entrepreneurship, innovation... is a definition characteristic’ (Robertson, et al, 1991:1) Whether selling records or the massive variety of products sold through Megastores to a trip across the Atlantic on a Virgin Airline flight, the experience was key—the way to consumer hearts that would keep them coming back, and the reputation of his various business ventures at the top of many best company lists. As opposed to the dour personality picture painted by Collins and Moore, Branson said in interview that one vital ingredient characterizes his companies: ‘Fun, with a capital F’ (Branson, 2010: par 1). Bill Gates: Man with a Mission As a fascinating subject for study, Bill Gates, Harvard dropout, founder of world computer giant Microsoft and America’s richest entrepreneur provides an expanded context within which to study theories related what makes an entrepreneur. Gates’ wealth and global success exceeds even the most expansive definitions, challenging narrow personality theories and moving the discussion to an entirely new level. In one generation, ‘Gates obliterated...[the] notion that big ideas come only from philosophers, writers and academic circles’ (Lowe, Preface, 1998: xi). In Gates’ case, a person of obvious expansive imagination and work ethic, exhibits what Robertson (1991 called an Entrepreneurial Attitude Orientation (EAO)—or a dynamic interactive way of relating to the environment in conjunction with a specific person, place, thing, event, activity, idea, or life style. In short, Gates took the idea of the personal computer and ran with it, stifling competitors along the way with what a TAT test might reveal is a rather cut throat business ethic behind the charities and low-key demeanor.‘Gates is a...victor in an industry [of unheard of proportions]with little history, few traditions and almost no manners’ (Lowe, Preface, 1998: xii). Gates is currently redefining the role of entrepreneur in reshaping the destiny of mankind through his foundation efforts and evangelical role in getting others to support charitable programs. It is doubtful, from my research, that any of the current strict personality theories covers this instinct or purpose, which for Gates is part of his entrepreneurial DNA. Yet when analyzed, much of his work in the areas of global education and world health come heavily from a good business standpoint than any purely philosophical and or altruistic driver. In strange twist of fortune, Gates has forced us to recognize the hypocrisy indigenous to capitalist society, which while at once revering extreme financial success despises and mistrusts those who attain it. As Lowe (1998) suggests ‘ He[Gates] brought to the roiling point and the conflicted feelings our society has about capitalism—our national longing for economic success and our anger, anxiety and fear of abuse when someone actually achieves it’ (Lowe, Preface, 1998: xii). With a hard core work ethic, Gatesian Management style and admitted personality of an obsessive learner [not a trait covered in personality theory profiles], Gates hires the smartest people he can, surrounds himself regularly with young workers with new ideas, and creates a business environment journalist Randall Stross described as a ‘pragmatic thoughtfulness that informed[s] its decisions’ (Lowe qtg. Stross, 1998: 42-44). That pragmatism extends to what Aussie-Lamumbia (2004) writes amount to an extremely smart entrepreneurial philosophy of; ‘Tax the world selling overpriced Microsoft products, amass a private fortune and use it to save millions of lives in poor countries...’ (42) combined with a solid social conscience that prompted the world’s richest entrepreneur to say in a quote to the Guardian: ‘The world’s poorest two-billion people desperately need health care, not laptops’ (Assie-Lamumba, 2004:43). The Non-Profit Entrepreneur: Success for the Sake of It Focusing for a bit on the British entrepreneurial scene, Pepin makes some interesting statements pertaining to the adaptation of entrepreneurial spirit in the interests of social improvement rather than profit. Speaking of utilizing the methods and goals of entrepreneurial activity to further the goals of charities, Pepin writes: To remain vital, to stay ahead, a charity’s leadership must not stand still. They must innovate, becoming more socially entrepreneurial, creating and implementing new ways to generate additional and diverse sources of revenues. They must learn to manage innovation and be commercially entrepreneurial, all the time protecting their mission and living their core values. (Pepin, Introduction, 2004: par 3). Venture philanthropy, as it is called, is marked by being motivated by one’s peer group; feeling the joy of giving and intellectual stimulation applying one’s knowledge and values especially as it relates to entrepreneurialism [the classic, having an idea and making it happen]. These non-profit but for profit entrepreneurs have as their goal to convince those with money to share it with programs and individuals in need. It a venture capitalist approach to investing in charities, this work provides a growing new source of funding, whether for traditional venture capital funding of charity commercial ventures seeking a financial return on investment, or for philanthropic purposes attempting to achieve a social return on the investment. Most of the efforts to date have been in North America. However, it is now at the beginning stages in the UK. (Pepin, 2004). A prime example of this entrepreneurial activity is President Bill Clintons efforts in getting large corporation s and entities to become financially involved in important global projects. A new generation of responsible entrepreneurs is focusing less upon pure profit and more on how their businesses will benefit society. As citizens’ attitudes to business focus more on their social and environmental impact, the new entrepreneurs are demonstrating that business can be both responsible and attentive to social needs while simultaneously inspiring more young people to become responsible entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs: Lifeblood of Economy Few would argue the fact that entrepreneurial endeavors feed economies with everything from jobs to infusions of cash into the GNP. What they also do in economic terms is create markets and opportunities for further markets though expansion and innovation. Societies without the ability to allow its citizens the opportunity to express new and interesting business ideas generally stagnate in an environment that keeps them in poverty, or at best, at lower levels on the economic spectrum. The effective response to change and opportunity of all individuals and organizations (for example, large or small) is crucial to the success of a society and its economy. An entrepreneurial response is likely to be strategic rather than changing for the sake of change, or simply following the flow of others. Of particular importance in helping many economies to adapt to fundamental changes is the role of new business formation and particularly the development of fast growth businesses. (Glancey et al, 2000: 206) What entrepreneurs and their endeavors contribute to economies has been studied many times over by both business experts and those responsible for the well being of businesses in large industrial economies and more local burgeoning ones.In the words of Kiessling quoting Austrian economist Schumpeter, ‘The function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried...possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, opening a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing a new industry’ (Kiessling Schumpeter, 1952; p. 63). So what does this say about the entrepreneurial activity and the basis of free market capitalism? As it seems it speaks volumes about the importance of the activity to the very core of the concept. One might say if entrepreneurs are not actively pursuing innovation on an ongoing basis, the entire notion collapses in on itself, creating within the economy a vacuum of new ideas and reliance on old ways of thinking inappropriate and irrelevant to current economies. As a final word on the impact of entrepreneurial activity on the economy, Kiessling (2004) quotes Schumpeter. ‘Innovations do not appear independently of one another but in swarms or clusters. This clustering of innovations occurs because the appearance of one or a few entrepreneurs facilitate the appearance of others, and thus the appearance of more, in ever-increasing numbers’ (1). The conclusion, then, is simple and to the point. ‘Innovation clusters reinforce purchasing power and create conditions for prosperity’ (Kiessling qtg. Schumpeter, 2004: 1). Conclusion In the last analysis the perspectives of personality and business theories of what an entrepreneur is and does is a portrait of an individual as a multi-dimensional product of his or her inborn personality traits, behavoural practices and intellectual ability that satisfy the profile demands of entrepreneurial activities as they contribute to society and economies at large. These are complex people with equally complex drives and motives. Entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates think beyond business success to responsibility to the world around him. There is little evidence, for instance, that most take their social responsibility as leaders of the business world to heart as he does. American entrepreneur John D. Rockefeller is a good example of the complexities suggested by theorists who maintain childhoods and experiences do not necessarily make the entrepreneur. Rockefeller, raised with values that demanded the rich and successful give back to society, funded hundreds of projects including the development of the State University of New York (SUNY) educational system, as well as the prestigious University of Chicago think tank. In Britain, Sir Thomas Hunter, sports retail chain mogul of Sport Division and many others give much of their money away. Why they do it is frankly may be unimportant to the fact that they do. Rockefeller’s motive was simple, direct and unexpectedly honest. ‘I can’t endure to see...money sit idle’ (Segall, 2001: 73). From an economic standpoint what Rockefeller’s industrial endeavors meant for a burgeoning U.S. economy is incalculable. As we look at the U.S. economy today, some say it relies too heavily on the production of oil, an industry Rockefeller built to astounding economic proportions. One wonders if the U.S. would have the economic prowess in the world it has today without it. Thus entrepreneurship can be seen to encompass all parts of society, private, public or not-for-profit sectors as well as those who are self-employed or owning, developing or running a business. In summation, without entrepreneurs the world would certainly be a lesser place. Figure Fig 1 Bibliography Assie-Lamumba, N.T. (2004). Cyberspace, Distance Learning, and Higher Education in Developing Countries: Old and Emergent Issues of Access, Pedagogy, and Knowledge Production. Boston: Brill. Branson, R. ‘The Importance of Not Being Earnest’ 20 October 2010. Accessed 11 November 2010, Entrepreneur.com online at: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/217440 Furnham, A. (1994).Personality at Work: The Role of Individual Differences in the Workplace. London: Routledge. Glancey, K, McQuaid, R.W. and Campling, J. (2000). Entrepreneurial Economics. Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Company. Higham. C. (1994). Howard Hughes: The Secret Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press. ‘Howard Hughes, Troubled Tycoon’ 10 October 2008. Accessed 10 November 10 2010. Read More