Personality and Firm Performance: The test of Mediating Effects of
Motivation among Entrepreneurs between Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral
Activation and Firm Performance
Derick Martina
July 7th, 2014
Master thesis
MSc. Small Business & Entrepreneurship Faculty of Economics and Business
1
Abstract
Research reveals that a relation between personality and firm performance exists. In this study the author tests a model of firm performance that examines the mediating effects of cognitive– motivational work orientations on the relationships between personality traits and firm performance (N = 107). Regression analyses showed motivational variables to be influential mechanisms through which personality systems, behavioral activation system (BAS) or behavioral inhibition system (BIS) affect firm performance. The BAS exists out of three dimensions, Reward Responsiveness, Drive, and Fun. Specifically, striving for status are suggested to mediate the effects of the both BAS Drive and BIS on firm performance. Furthermore, communion striving is related to BAS Reward Responsiveness, BAS Fun, and BIS. However, accomplishment striving is not related to any of the BAS dimensions nor BIS. The implications for both the academic field and practitioners are discussed.
Keywords: Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral Activation, Motivational Orientation,
2
Introduction
A great number of meta-analyses since at least the beginning of the 1990s have found that personality measures forecast both job and academic performance, training proficiency, counterproductive behaviors, accidents, productivity data, remuneration, promotions and progress, grade point average, and other related educational and organizational criteria (Salgado & Táuriz, 2014). Furthermore, Kadir (2014) states that the personality of the small-medium enterprise’s (SME) owners has a strong influence on the performance of the firm. Authors Ayyagari et al. (2007) claim that the majority of employment in most countries are provided by small-medium enterprises (SMEs) and according to Hancock (2009) the average contribution by SMEs to overall GDP in Europe is 67%.
However, not many research have examined the mechanisms through which performance is influenced by personality (Barrick et al., 2002). Barrick et al. (2002) found that proximal motivational variables (accomplishment striving, status striving, and communion striving) to be influential mechanisms through which the five-factor model (FFM) distal personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability and openness to experience) affect job performance. Barrick’s et al. (2002) research is based on a psychological foundation of personality and has not been done using a model of personality that has a physiological foundation. There are two basic dimensions of personality (extraversion and emotionality) that have long been held by Eysenck (Eysenck, 1967) and they reflect differences in the functioning of two aspects of the nervous system. Gray’s theory (1972, 1981), on which we focus here, has frequently been contrasted with Eysenck's theory.
Several types of psychopathology, with regards to brain functioning, can be accounted for through Gray’s (1972, 1981) theory of personality. As a result, it has a sizable group of followers among psychologists interested in various kinds of behavior problems (e.g., Fowles, 1987, 1988, 1993; Newman & Kosson, 1986; Quay, 1988, 1993). Understanding of the effects (appetitive and aversive systems) do not only inform models of psychopathology (Fowles, 1988, 1993) but surely also normal behavior. As Carver and White (1994) highlighted the importance of further empirical evaluation of the model's applicability to human experience the researcher has chosen to study it.
3
of punishment, no reward, and novelty according to Gray which as a result a person decreases movement toward a certain goal.
This study aims to replicate Barrick’s (2002) research using Gray’s (1972, 1981) personality theory in the context of SME to assess the role of motivation within the physiological personality based theory and firm performance. This leads us to the main question to be answered:
How do measures of motivational orientation (accomplishment striving, status striving, and communion striving) mediate the relationship between the personality systems (Behavioral activation system and behavioral inhibition system) and firm performance?
This paper hopes to contribute to both the academic field and practitioners in the following ways. First, by helping in validating the motivations as proposed by Barrick et al. (2002) as a more generalized mediating measure for possibly both psychological and physiological personality based views by testing it for the latter. Second, extending the study and understanding of the physiological personality view as proposed by Gray by applying it to a new area of research. Third, helping practitioners receive a better understanding of how personality in relation with motivations might influence firm performance. Fourth, and last, possibly show both academics’ and practitioners which motivations have the biggest impacts and which don’t.
This paper is organized into four sections. Section 1 presents the theoretical framework of personality, motivation orientation, the link between personality and motivation, and the hypotheses. Section 2 discusses the methods used in this research. Section 3 presents the results, and section 4 discusses the findings, limitation and directions for future research.
Theoretical Framework
Personality
The BAS is the physiological mechanism believed to control appetitive motivation. Activities in this system causes the individual to start or to increase goal directed movements as it is said to be sensitive to signals of reward, non-punishment, and escape from punishment. (Caver & White, 1994). It is responsible for an individual to experience positive feelings such as happiness, hope, and joy according to Gray (1977, 1981, 1990).
The other system, the BIS, regulates aversive motivation. It is comprised of the septohippocampal system, its monoaminergic afferents from the brainstem, and its neocortical projection in the frontal lobe. Gray has reasoned that this physiological mechanism controls the experience of anxiety in response to anxiety-relevant cues (Gray, 1972, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1987b, 1990). BIS activation causes inhibition of movement toward goals, it is caused by BIS activation seeing as it inhibits behavior that may lead to negative or painful outcomes (Carver & White, 1994).
4
1987b, 1990). Carver and White (1994) argued that a greater BIS sensitivity should be reflected in greater proneness to anxiety, provided the individual is exposed to the proper situational signals in terms of the individual variances in personality.
However, both BAS and BIS, the two personality systems, are assumed to be related to one broad affective quality, the BAS to positive affect and the BIS to negative affect, and to be unrelated to another affect (Carver & White, 1994). Additionally, seeing as BAS and BIS represent separate structures in the nervous system, being divisible both pharmacologically and by brain lesions, their sensitivities are assumed to be orthogonal (Gray, 1987a, 1987b; Quay, 1993). Bringing us to what Carver and White (1994) argue that all combinations of high and low BIS and BAS sensitivity should exist within a given population.
Motivation Orientation
Now we turn our attention to the discussion of motivation. Mitchell’s (1997) defined motivation as “those psychological processes involved with the arousal, direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal directed” (p. 60) and it captures cognition as a central aspect of motivation. This seems to be in precise alignment with what the authors Locke and Latham (1990) argue, that while, for the purpose of scientific study, motivation and cognition can be conceptually divided, they are virtually never separate in reality. Yet, no accepted framework for measuring motivational constructs exists.
Barrick et al. (2002) argued that by first identifying basic goals that regulate personal behavior followed by determining the arousal, intensity, and persistence related with those goals, motivational constructs can be measured. Individuals may choose virtually an unlimited number of specific goals, however, the identification of a restricted number of rudimentary goals that regulate social behavior in the place of work is necessary in a broadly applicable theory of work motivation (Barrick et al., 2002). Barrick et al. (2002) identified “a broad set of cognitive goals, or intentions, that influence behavior across work settings.” (p. 43)
Both Gray’s personality dimensions and work performance are relatively broad constructs so this focus on broad goals seems appropriate. The most explanatory power should be provided by mediators of the two constructs that are similarly broad (Stewart, 1999). Two broad motivational intentions focusing on social interactions have been identified by Wiggins and Trapnell (1996) and R. Hogan (1996; R. Hogan & Shelton, 1998) and have found that individuals strive for communion and for agency and status.
5
independent of other people is included and this construct has been named accomplishment striving, keeping in line with Barrick et al. (2002).
Accomplishment striving represents “an individual’s intention to accomplish tasks and is characterized by high task orientation.” (Barrick et al., 2002, p. 44). Employees who are task-oriented have a strong desire of expressing their individual qualities and preferences by completing task-related objectives (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Based on various researchers, Barrick et al. (2002, p. 44) stated that “this desire for an independent self-construal arises from a belief in the inherent separateness of individuals and inherent growth tendencies or innate psychological needs for competence as a fundamental motivational orientation.” Bringing us to the understanding that status striving and communion striving are expected to be distinctive from accomplishment striving.
Linking Personality to Motivational Constructs
BAS & Status striving. The motivational intentions status striving is expected to be
associated with the motivational system of BAS and performance. According to Carver and White (1994) given that people have different personalities, when the individuals are exposed to cues of future reward a greater proneness to engage in goal-directed efforts and to experience positive feelings should be the reflected in a greater BAS sensitivity. Depue and his colleagues (e.g., Depue & Iacono, 1989; Depue, Krauss, & Spoont, 1987) and Cloninger (1987) have developed comparable lines of thought.
Instruments measuring extraversion, for example, which were developed for other purposes were used by some researchers to study Gray's ideas, there is reason to be worried about the suitability or correctness of using these for such a task. Even though, evidence was found that links status striving with extraversion, which is described by some authors as being assertive, social, bold, active, energetic, and adventurous (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992).
6
between extraverts and high performance in sales only when that performance was explicitly rewarded. As BAS is also reward focused it is thus predicted to have motivations consistent with striving for status. Barrick et al. (2002) their results suggest that status striving is the motivational intention most strongly associated with performance. This leads us to the following hypothesis:
H1: BAS is positively related to status striving
H2: Status striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and performance
BAS & accomplishment striving. The motivational intentions Accomplishment striving is
expected to be associated with the motivational system of BAS and performance. This motivational intention reflects a person’s intent to complete tasks in the beliefs of future rewards. Walker and Brown (2004) argue that an individual might have a reasonably strong positive internal desire to start a business which is in line with the BAS line of thought that entrepreneurs might do this to experience positive feelings from accomplishing this. Baumol (1968) argues that the entrepreneur’s job, who could also double as a manager, is to find new ideas and put them into effect, to lead, inspire, not being able to allow thing to stagnate in the business practices. The entrepreneur should, in other words, be hardworking, determined, self-disciplined, and achievement oriented. This is what some authors (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1992) call conscientiousness while adding the terms “organized” and “reliable” to describe the term. Conscientiousness is associated with sales performance and a consistent relationship, irrespective of a person’s job, between conscientiousness and job performance was found (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997).
Barrick and Mount (1993) found that sales representatives who scored high in conscientiousness was more likely to set and be dedicated to these sales goals. As a result, higher sales goals were associated with greater sales volume job performance. These are all in line with BAS as it reflects the system that causes the individual to start or to increase goal directed movements. Furthermore, Barrick et al. (2002) research results found conscientiousness and accomplishment striving to be positively linked with accomplishment striving mediating the conscientiousness–performance relationship. Therefore, the following hypotheses has been formulated based on the line of reasoning presented:
H3: BAS is positively related to accomplishment striving
H4: Accomplishment striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and performance
BAS & communion striving. The motivational intention communion striving is not
7
are eager to help others usually striving for cooperation rather than competition (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Yet, the activities in the BAS are focused on increasing goal directed movements and being sensitive to signals of reward. These differ fundamentally from one another. Furthermore, entrepreneurs need to be primarily focused on the financial performance of the firm, seeing as ill performance the firm would not be able to survive. Barrick et al. (2002) did not find any relationship between communion striving and performance. There is, thus, no reason to assume that communion striving does any aid in achieving this goal of financial performance. Based on this reasoning hypotheses regarding the relationship between BAS, communion striving and firm performance have been excluded.
BIS & status striving. The motivational intention status striving is expected to be
associated with the motivational system of BIS and performance. Gray argued that BIS functioning is responsible for the experiencing of negative feelings such as anxiety, frustration, fear and sadness. This shows that BIS is very similar to one FFM trait called Emotional Stability which, much like BIS, involves anxiety and depression (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992). BIS does not explicitly mention depression but uses the term sadness in the theory. However, it causes, as a result of its activation, inhibition of movement toward goals.
According to Carver and White (1994) these characteristics “do not link to the motivational goals and potentially detract from rather than enhance performance” (p. 45). This researcher agrees with Carver and White that these characteristics do not link but not that they “potentially” detract rather they probably detract performance. This means that BIS activation means detraction or lessening of striving for status, which would mean taking less actions to obtain power and dominance within a status hierarchy. This seems to be a reasonable line of thought that should be tested as the actions that one would normally take in striving for status would be very negatively impacted by the BIS activation. Furthermore, while bringing our attention back to performance, emotional stability has not been linked to performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Vinchur et al., 1998) and the findings of Caver and White (1994) also indicate that a weak relation was found between emotional stability and sales performance. Yet, since BIS is focused on the inhibition of action due to the avoidance of negative or painful outcomes one can expect that firm performance will be negatively impacted. This leads us to the following hypotheses:
H5: BIS is negatively related to status striving
H6: Status striving positively mediates the relationship between BIS and performance
8
related or mediated the relationship between emotional stability and performance even though this FFM trait is the one most similar to BIS. Therefore we also expect the same results and no hypotheses regarding this relationship has been formulated.
BIS & communion striving. The motivational intention communion striving is expected
to be associated with the motivational system of BIS but not to performance. When BIS is activated, which causes inhibition of movement toward goals, other actions could be taken instead to so avoid negative or painful outcomes and the negative feelings such as anxiety, frustration, fear and sadness by forming a support group to fall back on.
Here, striving for communion by taking actions to obtain acceptance in personal relationships and getting along with others would add the most value. Just like with the agreeableness of the FFM trait where people usually help others striving for cooperation rather than competition (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This would decrease the negative feelings and feeling of the potentially negative outcomes. This, however, does not have any impact on performance as, according to Barrick et al. (2002), no relationship between communion striving and performance was found in their study. There is, thus, no reason to assume that communion striving is related to firm performance. Based on this reasoning only a hypotheses regarding the relationship between BIS, communion striving has been formulated and excluded for firm performance.
H7: BIS is positively related to communion striving
To give a better view of what is expected a conceptual model has been included below which depicts the hypotheses argued. The hypotheses originating with BAS (Conceptual model 1) are separated from those with the BIS (Conceptual model 2) for a better overview.
9 Conceptual model 2
Method
In this part the method of this study is discussed by first elaborating on the participants and procedures of this study followed by the measures used.
Participants and Procedures
Those that participated in this study were 107 entrepreneurs in small-medium sized enterprises in Germany and the Netherlands with a response rate of 35%. The SMEs included in this study were firms with minimum of one paid part time employee. This fits the definition as presented by Van Praag and Versloot (2007). They did a meta-analysis on entrepreneurship and its economic value. They found that the most common empirical definitions, which they also employed, of ‘the entrepreneur ‘or ‘entrepreneurial firm’ which they used interchangeably was defined as firms that satisfy one of the following conditions: 1. They employ fewer than 100 employees; 2. They are younger than 7 years old; 3 They are new entrants into the market. They chose to, like I do following their lead, without an accepted superior empirical definition, not to deviate from what seems to be conventional. The SMEs in this study are present in diverse industries ranging from financial services, healthcare, retail and construction. Of those who participated 27% were women and 73% men entrepreneurs ranging between the ages of 67 and 59 (mean = 46.4 years). The participants followed formal education between 5 and 22 years (mean = 12.2 years).
There are two sources of the data obtained. The first source are surveys completed by 93 German firms. These firms were contacted and asked to participate. A confidentiality letter was signed and then the information was gathered through having the entrepreneurs fill the survey which was the German translation of the original English one. The second source of data was obtained in the Netherlands by the following process. First a list of entrepreneurs believed to fit the definition were contacted to access their willingness regarding participating in the study. These entrepreneur were found using a program called Orbis that receives its information from a governmental institution called Chambers of Commerce. Entrepreneur were also found through the personal network of the researcher. After analyzing whether the entrepreneurs fit the criteria they were asked if they would want to help with the research by filling in a survey. The survey
10
could be completed using an online version or a hard-copy version in Dutch or English always using the English version as the definite one. Only the firms that fit the criteria were invited to participate amounting to 14 firms in total. The data from these two sources were both obtained by having the entrepreneurs, who gave their consent, to complete a survey. It contained short demographic questions to obtain general information, questions to measure motivational orientation, personality and firm performance.
Measures
To find empirical evidence for the formulated hypotheses a quantitative study is selected as we are researching whether there are and what the relationships between the motivation orientation, personality and firm performance are.
Motivational orientation. Barrick et al. (2002) developed motivational orientation measure
by examining literature. The measure used were based on Mitchells’ (1997) conceptualization and used three psychological processes, arousal, intensity and persistence, to measure each one of the three motivational intentions (communion striving, status striving, and accomplishment striving.)
Barrick et al. (2002) developed a pool of 50 items that were specifically developed to assess each of the associated process for each of the three intentions within the work context. As a result, the Motivational Orientation Inventory was developed using these 50 items. After revising the three construct scales (status striving, accomplishment striving and communion striving) they only retained items that had high factor loadings with coefficient alpha reliability estimates of .89, .88 and .76. In this study the reliability estimates are namely .88, .78 and .79. The Cronbach Alpha scores are calculated to be able to determine the reliability of the items used to operationalize the variables. The common requirement is a score that is equal to or higher than a value of 0.7, it indicates that it is a reliable representation of the underlying variable. Lower scores generally do indicate an insufficient reliability of the items that are used to measure a particular variable; it has as an effect that the reliability of the results is lower (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). The 31 items selected as measure of the three motivation orientation measures were 11, 11 and 9 items for accomplishment striving, status striving and communion striving. The items are in a 5-point Likert form on a scale ranging from “1” being “Does not apply at all” to “5” being “does absolutely apply” with a neutral response in the scale when the answer is unknown. An overview of the items used in the survey can be found in Appendix 1.
Personality. The authors Carver and White (1994) began their efforts in measuring
11
First, a unidimensional characterize BIS scale or punishment sensitivity scale which includes all items referencing reactions to the anticipation of punishment produced a coefficient alpha reliability estimates of .74. In the present study the coefficient alpha reliability estimate is .51 which is low, however given that it produces a high score in Carver and White’s (1994) study the author decided to continue with the original scale as proposed by the original authors. This, however, means that the reliability of the results, as argued by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) related to the BIS scale is lower.
Second, three BAS-related scales, respectively, reward responsiveness, drive, and fun-seeking scales which produced a coefficient alpha reliability estimates of .73, .76 and .66, in this study the estimates are .79, .78, and .72. The first scale, drive, is made of items that focus on the “persistent pursuit of desired goals” (Carver & White, 1994, p. 322). Fun-seeking, the second scale, reflects two things at the same time, namely “a desire for new rewards and a willingness to approach a potentially rewarding event on the spur of the moment” (Carver & White, 1994, p. 322). The items that focus “on positive responses to the occurrence or anticipation of reward.” (Carver & White, 1994 p 322) make up the last scale, reward responsiveness scale. These are the scales used in our study to measure personality and an overview of all these items can be found in Appendix 1.
Firm performance. Turning our attention to the measure of firm performance, financial
measures are normally used and are based on either employee numbers or financial performance, such as profit, turnover or return on investment (Barkham, Gudgin, Hart & Hanvey, 1996; Brüderl and Preisendörfer, 1998; Forsaith and Hall, 2000; Gray, 1998; Ibrahim and Goodwin, 1986; Kalleberg and Leicht, 1991; Kelmar, 1991). Following Dess and Robinson (1984), and are either objectively or subjectively measured.
Dawes (1999) defined the term “subjective” as the firm’s “performance score derived using a scale with anchors such as “very poor” to “very good,” or “much lower” to “much higher” compared to competitors.” The opposite are “objective” measures such as an actual percentage figure for profitability or sales growth (Dawes, 1999). We chose to use subjective measures in this study for numerous good reasons.
12
account when providing a response (e.g. “rate the profit performance of your firm relative to others in your industry”) makes subjective measures arguably more suitable in this situation. Lastly, there have been several studies that show a strong correlation between objective and subjective measures (Dawes, 1999)
Furthermore, Cameron (1978) views performance as a multidimensional construct and argues that by comparing that performance with competitors vital information is revealed (Birley & Westhead, 1990). Following researchers Wiklund and Shepherd’s (2003) method I asked participants to compare their own firm’s development over the past 3 years relative to their two most main competitors on 10 different dimensions of performance. These dimensions were: sales growth, revenue growth, growth in the number of employees, net profit margin, product/service innovation, process innovation, adoption of new technology, product/service quality, product/service variety, and customer satisfaction. In Wiklund and Shepherd’s (2003) study the performance scale produced a coefficient alpha reliability estimate of .82 and in this study a score of .86. These items are measured by answering a question regarding the development of the firm during the last three years relative to two of their most important competitors on a variety of areas on a 5-point Likert form on a scale ranging from “1” being “much worse than our competitors” to “5” being “much better than our competitors” with a neutral response in the scale when the answer is unknown. An overview of all these items can be found in Appendix 1.
Results
Table 1 presents correlation coefficients and other descriptive statistics for all variables measured in this study. Relationships between personality constructs and motivational variables are generally as predicted: The largest correlation for BAS Reward Responsiveness is with communion striving (r .222), BAS Drive is with status striving (r .207), BAS Fun is with communion striving (r .331), and BIS is with status striving (r -.304).
Variable Mᵃ SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 BIS 2.44 0.42 (.51)
2 BAS Reward Responsiveness 3.24 0.57 .421** (.79)
3 BAS Drive 3.06 0.56 .278** .599** (.78) 4 BAS Fun 2.88 0.65 .344** .468** .486** (.72) 5 Status Striving 3.15 0.91 -.304** .160 .207* .033 (.88) 6 Accomplishment Striving 4.17 0.53 .135 .174 .095 .042 .412** (.78) 7 Communion Striving 3.03 0.73 .277** .222* .124 .331** .162 .268** (.79) 8 Firm Performance 3.61 0.50 -.205* .084 .243* .127 .229* .013 .081 (.86) ᵃ N = 107. * p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed. Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Note. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses along the diagonal.
13
As expected generally, BAS Drive and BIS are correlated with firm performance (r .243 and -.205, respectively). As a whole, the correlational results support many of the hypotheses proposed in this study urging a further examination. Regression analyses, based on the four steps as proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and other authors, was performed to test the hypotheses.
Table 2 presents the results of the regression tests executed based on the four steps. Now a brief explanation of each of the four steps to test for mediation as discussed by Baron and Kenny (1986), Judd and Kenny (1981), and James and Brett (1984) is given. First, the causal variable has to be correlated with the outcome. Second, the causal variable has to be correlated with the mediator. Third, show that the mediator affects the outcome variable. Fourth, to establish that the mediator variable completely or partially mediates the causal-outcome relationship.
Table 2
Variable Firm
Performance Status Striving
Accomplishment Striving Communion Striving Firm Performance Step 1 Step 2 & 3 Step 2 & 3 Step 2 & 3 Step 4
Beta -.205* -.304* .135 .277** R-Square .042 .092 .018 .077 F-test 4.587* 10.671* 1.944 4.316** Beta .084 .160 .174 .222* R-Square .007 .026 .030 .049 F-test .742 2.753 3.259 5.454* Beta .243* .207* .095 .124 R-Square .059 .043 .009 .015 F-test 6.612* 4.720* .964 1.638 Beta .127 .033 .042 .331*** R-Square .016 .001 .002 .110 F-test 1.728 .114 .183 12.963*** Beta .229* .013 .081 R-Square 0.052 .000 .007 F-test 5.808* .017 .691
BIS & Beta BIS -.149
Status Striving Beta S.S. .184
R-Square .073
F-test 4.065*
BAS Drive & Beta BAS D .205*
Status Striving Beta S.S. .186
R-Square .093
F-test 5.301**
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Regression Analyses of all related variables
Note. Results marked bold meet the requirements to pass to the next step of analysis. BAS D = Bas Drive, S.S.
14
To test the hypothesis (H1) that BAS is positively related to status striving a simple regression analysis was performed. Results of the regression analysis provided partial support for the research hypothesis as only BAS Drive is significantly (Beta = .207, p < .05) related to status striving. Furthermore, the R-square (.043) indicates that 4.3% of the variance in status striving can be predicted from BAS Drive. The significant F Value (F = 4.720, p < .05) does indicate that BAS Drive reliably predicts status striving. Therefore we partially accept the hypothesis that BAS is positively related to status striving.
Hypothesis 2 states that “Status striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and performance.” Results of the regression analysis provided partial support for the suggestion that the relationship indeed is partially mediated. BAS Drive is significantly related (Beta = .205, p < .05) to performance, however the relationship between status striving and performance becomes insignificant (Beta = .186). Even though, the R-square (.093) is not significant, the F Value (F = 5.301, p < .01) is significant and indicates that BAS Drive and status striving reliably predicts performance. Therefore we partially accept the hypothesis and suggest that status striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and firm performance.
The results to test the hypothesis (H3) that BAS is positively related to accomplishment striving provided no support for the hypothesis as none of the BAS dimensions (Reward Responsiveness Beta = .174, Drive Beta = .095, and Fun Beta = .042) are significantly related to accomplishment striving. Therefore we reject the hypothesis that BAS is positively related to accomplishment striving.
Hypothesis 4 states that “Accomplishment striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and performance.” Results of the regression analysis provided no support for this hypothesis as it is not significantly related to, at least, one of the BAS dimensions nor is it significantly related to performance, both of which are requirements for testing whether accomplishment striving mediates this relationship. Therefore we reject the hypothesis that accomplishment striving positively mediates the relationship between BAS and firm performance. Turning our attention to the hypothesis (H5) that BIS is negatively related to status striving, the results of the regression analysis provided support for the research hypothesis as BIS is significantly (Beta = -.304, p < .05) related to status striving. Furthermore, the R-square (.092) indicates that 9.2% of the variance in status striving can be predicted from BIS. The significant F Value (F = 10.671, p < .05) does indicate that BIS reliably predicts status striving. Therefore we accept the hypothesis that BIS is negatively related to status striving.
15
The results of the hypothesis (H7) testing whether BIS is positively related to communion striving provide support for the research hypothesis as BIS is significantly (Beta = .277, p < .01) related to communion striving. Furthermore, the R-square (.077) indicates that 7.7% of the variance in communion striving can be predicted from BIS. The significant F Value (F = 4.316, p < .01) does indicate that BIS reliably predicts communion striving. Therefore we accept the hypothesis that BIS is positively related to communion striving.
Discussion and Conclusion
The aim of this study is to answer the following research question:
How do measures of motivational orientation (accomplishment striving, status striving, and communion striving) mediate the relationship between the personality systems (Behavioral activation system and behavioral inhibition system) and firm performance?
The results suggest that only the motivational orientation status striving partially positively mediates the relationship between personality system’s dimension BAS Drive and firm performance. Entrepreneurs with BAS Drive activated were more likely to be motivated by status striving, which in turn, caused the firm to perform better. Which makes sense as BAS Drive refers to a persistent pursuit to achieve a certain goal, in this obtain power and dominance. Status striving is also suggested to positively fully mediate the relationship between BIS and performance. Entrepreneurs with BIS activated were less likely to be motivated by status striving which in turn helped them to let the firm perform better by not making movements toward goals as it could lead to negative or painful outcomes, worse performance of the firm by not choosing their apparent desire for power and dominance but for the well-being of the firm.
Status striving did not, however, mediate the relationship between the other two dimension of the BAS personality system (Reward Responsiveness, & Fun) and firm performance. Based here on it seems that entrepreneurs have very clear idea what their goals are thus don’t seem to desire new rewards nor a willingness to approach a potentially rewarding event on the spur of the moment as Carver and White (1994) defined BAS Fun as they already know where they want their rewards to come from, in this case their current business. This, furthermore, might mean, based on the definitions of BAS Reward Responsiveness, that they don’t even focus on positive responses to the occurrence or anticipation of reward.
It should also be noted that the motivational orientation accomplishment striving was not found to suggest to mediate any relationship between any of dimension of the personality system BAS and firm performance, which is not what we expected. This might mean that entrepreneurs do not necessarily have a high intent to complete tasks regardless of whether they are driven for power and dominance, desire for new rewards, willingness to approach a potentially rewarding event on the spur of the moment or anticipate reward.
16
relationship between any of dimension of the personality system BAS or BIS and firm performance.
There are three surprise findings found in this study. First, as BIS increases communion striving also increases. This could possibly be caused when the BIS is activated the person would seek refuge in others to deal better with the fear of punishment or negative of some kind. That person would possibly try to validate every action taken with the group before thus increasing the value of the group and community for that person. As a result that person would strive to build bonds within the group as the BIS increases. Second, as BAS Reward Responsiveness increases communion striving also increases was another surprising finding. An explanation might be that because people want to feel accepted and get along with others they celebrate together as soon as a rewarding event occurs or is anticipated. Third, as BAS Fun increases communion striving also increases which might be explained by as a desire for new business ideas rise or a potentially rewarding event presents itself on a short notice, that they might discuss this with those around them to see if it’s a good idea or not, in other words, validating their ideas. This would raise the value of the people around them thus motivating them to have this, then, as a goal.
There are potentially a few limitations in this research worth mentioning. First, self-responses was used for both personality measures and motivational measures which introduces common-method bias. Yet, intentions are nearly impossible to measure except through self-response and the same applies to the personality systems as they currently are constructed. By obtaining alternative indicators of personality future studies may reduce this confound. A second limitation of this study is the cross-sectional design, which does not allow for an assessment of causality. Also, as it’s only a snapshot of the situation, it may provide differing results if another time-frame had been chosen. Furthermore, the Neyman bias is also an issue as the entrepreneur filling the survey cannot answer questions involving past events with perfect accuracy, which is applicable to firm performance. By using a longitudal study, as researchers conduct several observations over a period of time, will solve the time snapshot and Neyman issues. And even though it generally also solves the issue of the causality assessment as causes precede their effects in time, it’s not expected to be the case here as these two constructs seem to closely related to be able to do that. Third, only one method was used to analyze the data. This may be solved in the future by other researchers by using other/additional data analysis methods to test the relationships presented in this study.
17
performance. Or that when they get fearful to take a specific action that it might actually be of value for their firm performance as they don’t take actions which they might regret afterwards. Fourth, and last, based on Gray’s personality systems both academics’ and practitioners should know that status striving have biggest impacts on firm performance and accomplishment striving the least.
Even though this research found support for the usefulness of a motivational model which is based on the broad goals of achievement striving, communion striving, and status striving, I believe that other broad goals that might add to this model exists. Broad goals such as independence and egoistic passion. Independence, according to Locke (2000), entails taking the responsibility to use one’s own judgment and taking responsibility for one’s own life instead of living off the efforts of others. Egoistic passion is more precisely a passionate selfish love of the work. According to Shane, Locke and Collins (2003) some critics enjoy pretending that the core motive of businessmen’s is to selflessly serve their workers and society. Yet they argue the opposite, that ego is a central motive as “the true or rational egoist passionately loves the work; they love the process of building an organization and making it profitable. They are motivated to do what is actually in their own interest—that is, to do everything necessary” (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, p. 269).
Furthermore, other views on motivation exist. Following Barrick et al. (2002) some perspectives include emotional processes, others place their focus more heavily on environmental factors such as job design. Yet other perspectives focus on differences such as learning goals versus performance, and autonomous versus controlled goals. By replicating this study using a different view on motivation a much deeper understanding of BAS and BIS will be obtained thus adding to the limited available knowledge.
Acknowledgements
First, I would sincerely like to thank my supervisor dr. Andreas Rauch for his patience, motivation, and the space to explore the subject as I desired. Yet, his critical but constructive feedback sharpened my focus throughout the whole process. Second, my appreciation goes out to every single entrepreneur that took the time to fill in the survey. Finally, I would like to thank my father, Fernando, for always motivating me, my mother, “Annie”, for her unconditional love and brother, Anthony, for always pushing me a step further while in the process of writing this thesis.
Reference
Ayyagari, M., Beck, T. & Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2007). Small and Medium Enterprises Across the Globe. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 415-434.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
18
Barkham, R., Gudgin, G., Hart, M., & Hanvey, E. (1996). The Determinants of Small Firm Growth, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.
Barrick, M. T., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and Job Performance: Test of the Mediating Effects of Motivation Among Sales Representatives. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43-51.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Birley S, Westhead P. 1990. Growth and performance contrasts between ‘types’ of small firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11(7), 535–557.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brüderl, J., & Preisendörfer, P. (1998). Network Support and the Success of Newly Founded Businesses. Small Business Economics, 10(2), 213-225.
Cameron K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 604–632.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & 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.
Dawes, J. (1999). The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: further empirical evidence. Marketing bulletin-Department of Marketing Massey University, 10, 65-75.
Depue, R. A., & Iacono, W. G. (1989). Neurobehavioral aspects of affective disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 457-492.
Depue, R. A., Krauss, S. P., & Spoont, M. R. (1987). A two-dimensional threshold model of seasonal bipolar affective disorder. In D. Magnusson & A. Ohman (Eds.), Psychopathology: An interactional perspective (pp. 95-123). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
19
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield, 1L: Charles C Thomas. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Forsaith, D., & Hall, J. (2000). Financial Performance and the Size of a Business: Proceedings of the 45th ICSB World Conference ‘Entrepreneurial SME’s – Engines for Growth in the
Millenium’, Brisbane: International Council for Small Business.
Fowles, D. C. (1980). The three arousal model: Implications of Gray's two-factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity, and psychopathy. Psychophysiology, 17, 87-104. Fowles, D. C. (1987). Application of a behavioral theory of motivation to the concepts of anxiety
and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 417-435.
Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology: A motivational approach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373-391.
Fowles, D. C. (1993). Biological variables in psychopathology: A psychobiological perspective. In P. B. Sutker & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 57-82). New York: Plenum.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
Gray, J. A. (1972). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion: A modification of Eysenck's theory. In V. D. Nebylitsyn & J. A. Gray (Eds.), The biological bases of individual behaviour (pp. 182-205). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gray, J. A. (1977). Drug effects on fear and frustration: Possible limbic site of action of minor tranquilizers. In L. L. Iversen, S. D. Iversen, & S. H. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of psychopharmacology (Vol. 8, pp. 433-529). New York: Plenum.
Gray, J. A. (1978). The 1977 Myers lecture: The neuropsychology of anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 69, 417-434.
Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246-276). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo- hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. A. (1987a). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493-509.
Gray, J. A. (1987b). The psychology of fear and stress. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269-288.
Gray, J. H. (1998). Self-employment as a Career Option for Redundant Workers. Faculty of Business & Economics Working paper 51/98, Victoria: Monash University.
20
Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality, 163–179. New York: Guilford Press.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129–144.
Ibrahim, A. B., & Goodwin, J. R. (1986). Perceived Causes of Success in Small Business. American Journal of Small Business, 12(1), 41-50.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
Kadir, N. (2014). The Influences of the Performance of the Owner’s Business And Personality-Based Small and Medium Enterprises: A Study on SME’s in Sengkang Regency. Journal of Business and Management, 16(4), 21-24.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Leicht, K. T. (1991). Gender and Organizational Performance: Determinants of Business Survival and Success. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 136-161.
Kelmar, J. (1991). Measurement of Success and Failure in Small Business: A Two Factor Approach. Curtin Business School Working Paper, Perth: Curtin University.
Locke, E. A. (2000). The prime movers: traits of the great wealth creators. New York: AMACOM Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452– 468.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 19, pp. 57–149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Newman, J. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive avoidance learning in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 252-256.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Praag C., & Versloot, P. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research, Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382.
Quay, H. C. (1988). The behavioral reward and inhibition system in childhood behavior disorders. In L. M. Bloomingdale (Ed.), Attention deficit disorder (Vol. 3, pp. 176-186). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Quay, H. C. (1993). The psychobiology of undersocialized aggressiveconduct disorder: A theoretical perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 165-180.
21
Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014). The Five-Factor Model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal Of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3-30.
Shane S., Locke. E.A., Collins, C.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257-279.
Stellar, J. R., & Stellar, E. (1985). The neurobiology of motivation and reward. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 619–627.
Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959– 968.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., III, & Roth, P. L. (1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586– 597.
Walker, E., & Brown, A. (2004). What Success Factors are Important to Small Business Owners? International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 577-594.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York: Guilford Press.
Wiklund, J., and D. Shepherd. 2003. Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1307-1314.
Wolfe, R. N., & Kasmer, J. A. (1988). Type versus trait: Extraversion, impulsivity, sociability, and preferences for cooperative and competitive activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 864-871.
22
Appendix 1
Item description A. Motivation orientation
1 I frequently think about ways to advance and obtain better sales or working conditions. 2 I focus my attention on attaining higher sales than my competitors.
3 I set personal goals for obtaining more sales than anyone else.
4 I spend a lot of time contemplating way to get ahead of my competitors.
5 I often compare my work accomplishments against competitors’ accomplishments. 6 I never give up trying to perform at a level higher than others.
7 I always try to be the highest performer.
8 I get excited about the prospect of being the most successful among my competitors. 9 I feel a thrill when I think about getting a higher status position.
10 I am challenged by a desire to perform my job better than my coworkers.
11 I get worked up thinking about ways to become the highest performing among my competitors.
12 I frequently think about getting my work done. 13 I focus my attention on completing work assignments. 14 I set personal goals to get a lot of work accomplished. 15 I often consider how I can get more work done 16 I often consider how I can get more work done. 17 I try hard to get things done in my job.
18 I put a lot of effort into completing my work tasks. 19 I never give up trying to finish my work.
20 I spend a lot of effort completing work assignments. 21 I feel enthused when I think about finishing my work tasks. 22 It is very important to me that I complete a lot of work.
23 I focus my attention on getting along with others at work
24 I spend a lot of time contemplating whether my colleagues like me. 25 I never give up trying to be liked by my colleagues and employees.
26 I expend a lot of effort developing a reputation as someone who is easy to get along with 27 I get excited about the prospect of having colleagues who are good friends.
28 I enjoy thinking about cooperating with my colleagues and employees. 29 I care a lot about having colleagues and employees who are like me 30 I am challenged by a desire to be a team player.
31 I get worked up thinking about ways to make sure others like me. B. Personality systems
1 If I think something unpleasant is going to happen I usually get pretty "worked up." 2 I worry about making mistakes.
3 Criticism or scolding hurts me quite a bit.
4 I feel pretty worried or upset when I think or know somebody is angry at me.
5 Even if something bad is about to happen to me, I rarely experience fear or nervousness. 6 I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something.
7 I feel worried when I think I have done poorly at something. 8 I have very few fears compared to my friends.
Measures of status striving
Measures of accomplishment striving
Measures of communion striving
Measures of BIS
23
9 When I get something I want, I feel excited and energized 10 When I'm doing well at something, I love to keep at it. 11 When good things happen to me, it affects me strongly. 12 It would excite me to win a contest.
13 When I see an opportunity for something I like, I get excited right away.
14 When I want something, I usually go all-out to get it. 15 When I want something, I usually go all-out to get it.
16 If I see a chance to get something I want, I move on it right away. 17 When I go after something I use a "no holds barred" approach.
18 I will often do things for no other reason than that they might be fun. 19 I crave excitement and new sensations.
20 I'm always willing to try something new if I think it will be fun. 21 I often act on the spur of the moment.
C. Firm performance
1 Sales growth 2 Revenue growth 3 Growth in employees 4 Net- / profit margin
5 Product/service innovation 6 Process innovation
7 Adoption of new technology 8 Product / service quality 9 Product / service variety 10 Customer satisfaction
Measures of BAS Reward Responsiveness
Measures of BAS Drive
