1
COMMERCIAL VS. SOCIAL
AN ENTREPRENEUR’S PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
Annewil Hooijer University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc BA Strategy & Innovation August 2012
Supervisor: Florian Noseleit & Pedro de Faria
ABSTRACT
This study compares social and commercial entrepreneurs based on their personality and their social capital. Personalities of the social entrepreneurs were assessed via the BFI-44, a questionnaire based on the Five Factor Model. Also, semi-structured interviews were held with these individuals concerning both their personalities and their social capital. These results were put in the light of entrepreneurship literature in order to draw a comparison with commercial entrepreneurs. Most important results are that social entrepreneurs score higher on Agreeableness and Openness to Experience, but lower on Conscientiousness than commercial entrepreneurs do. They also usually have a larger, more flexible, and more on society focused network than their commercial counterparts. Lastly, the differences in social capital use between the two are not convincingly caused by differences in their personalities.
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ... 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5 2.1 Entrepreneurship ... 5 2.2 Social Entrepreneurship ... 6 2.3 Personality ... 9 2.4 Social Capital ... 11
2.5 Personality and Social Capital Combined ... 13
2.6 Industry ... 13 3. METHOD ... 14 4. FINDINGS ... 17 4.1 Personality ... 17 4.2 Social Capital ... 18 5. DISCUSSION ... 20 5.1 Personality ... 20 5.2 Social Capital ... 22 5.3 Implications ... 23
5.4 Limitations and future research ... 24
APPENDIX A – BFI-44 ... 29
3 1. INTRODUCTION
Social entrepreneurship is a concept that has gained increasing interest from academics and professionals in recent years (Dacin, Dacin & Matear, 2010). Swanson & Di Zhang (2010) argue it to be a contributor to both economic and social well-being. The concept combines business practices with a social mission and can therefore be classified as a distinct subarea of the broader research field of entrepreneurship, which is a concept with a longer academic history. Important aspects of this general concept of entrepreneurship are the person behind the entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial opportunity and the resources to exploit it and the organizational and environmental context of the entrepreneur or enterprise (Morris, Kuratko & Schindehutte, 2001).
According to Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010) and Swanson & Di Zhang (2010), social entrepreneurship is still a poorly investigated field of research, especially in comparison to entrepreneurship in general. Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010) see opportunities for further research on the mission, processes, and resources in the social entrepreneurial context. Moreover, they acknowledge the value of comparing conventional entrepreneurs with social entrepreneurs and applying theories from conventional entrepreneurship literature in a social entrepreneurship context in order to improve the practices of the latter.
Many questions currently still stand about the importance of the various aspects of entrepreneurship for the concept of social entrepreneurship. Where entrepreneurial personality was one of the first and most important ways to define general entrepreneurs (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Mair & Marti, 2006), little is known yet on the personality of a social entrepreneur. The few things that are known about this relation are discussed in the literature review. However, it is clear that research on the social entrepreneur’s personality is currently still a lot less developed than that of a general entrepreneur. Moreover, one could question what exactly makes an entrepreneur social and whether this is related to the amount or type of social relations a person has. Also, little is known yet on the use of social capital by social entrepreneurs and how this use differs from that of commercial entrepreneurs. Austin et al. (2006) and Adler & Kwon (2002), who do devote some words to the relationship between social entrepreneurship and social capital, consider problems in resource mobilization for social entrepreneurs to be the cause of these differences but they do not give a clear image of the nature of these differences in social capital use between social and commercial entrepreneurs.
4 between both. Also, in the interviews conducted, an examination of a possible existence of a causal relationship between the both will be included. This study is aimed at exploring the intersections of these concepts, and thus at creating new knowledge that can later on be statistically tested. This leads to the following research question: To what extent do differences in personality traits between social and commercial entrepreneurs cause the social capital that both use to differ?
This research is a comparative study aimed at filling the gaps still existing in the literature on social entrepreneurship mentioned above. In the first place, it directly tests the social entrepreneurs from the cases on the several common personality traits from psychology research. Secondly, it assesses the nature and use of social capital in social entrepreneurship and it investigates the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and social capital for social entrepreneurs. These findings are then compared with existing literature on these factors for commercial entrepreneurs.
Since the research field of social entrepreneurship is still limited, the scope of this study is also limited. This study aims to create new knowledge by linking concepts that have not been linked in earlier research. Therefore, a comparative study with five social entrepreneurs will be used to explore the relationships between the variables. Consequently, the choice for a comparative study limits the scope of the study because the sample size of a comparative study is considerably lower than in case of testing a theory through the statistical assessment of a large sample of questionnaires or observations. This calls for the choice of a specific industry in which to conduct the research, in order to minimize the effects of external factors that would otherwise distort the results.
Therefore, this study will involve social entrepreneurs operating within the same Dutch industry, namely the food industry. This industry is chosen because of its accessibility. The Dutch social enterprise sector is not yet well-developed (Verloop et al., 2011). The food industry is one of the industry in which social enterprises are most common. The next chapter will elaborate on this industry further.
5 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Entrepreneurship
When studying social entrepreneurship, it is important to first discuss the roots of this concept, entrepreneurship in general. As will be argued the literature review on social entrepreneurship, this practical field can be classified as a subpart of the field of entrepreneurship. Many of the results of academic research on entrepreneurship are thus also relevant for social entrepreneurship.
One of the earliest definitions of the concept of entrepreneurship comes from Jean-Baptiste Say (Dees, 1998). It was in the beginning of the 19th century that this economist defined an entrepreneur as someone who “shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield” (Martin & Osberg, 2007; Koolman, 1971). Despite Say’s interest in entrepreneurship and his definition of the entrepreneur, the actual initial shaping of the research field of entrepreneurship started only with the work of Joseph Schumpeter in the 20’s and 30’s of last century. He placed the term in a context of capitalism and economic development and acknowledged the vital role entrepreneurs play in economic development and the importance of innovation for the viability of entrepreneurship (Santarelli & Pesciarelli, 1990 & Brouwer, 2002). Dees (1998) combines the work of both Schumpeter and Say by defining the ‘Say-Schumpeter tradition’ as one that sees entrepreneurs as catalysts and innovators shaping economic progress.
After Say and Schumpeter, other authors contributed to the further development of the concept of entrepreneurship. William Baumol (1968), for example, tried to get the concept of entrepreneurship settled in economic theory. In the meantime, several researchers like David McClelland, Everett Hagen, Seymour Martin Lipset and Frederik Barth were pioneers in a more behavioral tradition of studying entrepreneurship. During this time (1950-1970), research on the individual behind the entrepreneur and his or her traits was popular (Landström, 2005). Still later, during a period in which entrepreneurship was primarily studied as a process, some authors defended entrepreneurship as a business strategy (Landström, 2005). Peter Drucker (1985), as one of them, emphasized the importance of systematic innovation and market focus for entrepreneurship.
6 entrepreneurship is a broad concept in its very nature is proven by Morris, Kuratko & Schindehutte (2001). They attempt to draw up a framework of entrepreneurship by assembling different types of definitions into one single model. They show that, in earlier research, entrepreneurship has been defined based on the entrepreneur, the environment, the entrepreneurial process, the resources, the organizational context and the concept of entrepreneurship. All this builds a very wide construct of what entrepreneurship is. However, in the light of current research, narrowing down this construct is beneficial.
The entrepreneur as an individual who establishes a new organization is often at the core of entrepreneurship research (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). For example, Carland et al. (1984) define an entrepreneur as “an individual who establishes and manages a business for the principal purposes of profit and growth’. The entrepreneur is characterized principally by innovative behavior and the employment of strategic management practices in the business. However, starting a new enterprise is not a required condition for a person to be considered an entrepreneur (Dees, 1998). Other key elements of definitions of the entrepreneur are the presence of opportunities and the resources to exploit these opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Dees, 1998; Morris, Kuratko & Schindehutte, 2001). Also, defining an entrepreneur in terms of personality is significantly different than the definition in terms of venture creation. Especially in the light of the present study, this definition based on personality might be a better choice.
2.2 Social Entrepreneurship
7 broadly; businesses, governments and non-profit firms are included, as well as individuals, groups, entire organizations or even networks of people or firms.
However, from the overview of definitions that Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010) put together, one can see that some other authors choose to focus their definition on one particular type of actor. Consequently, from this overview, one could classify a lot of different organizational forms as being social enterprises. For example, a non-profit organization relying partly on earned income and an entirely financially self-sustaining business can both be seen as social enterprises. Similarly, Verloop et al. (2011) distinguish between different organizational forms of social entrepreneurship (see Figure 1). Important to mention here is that, following the definitions mentioned earlier, the second box in the figure, representing non-profit firms that receive funds from both grants and trading, could also be classified as social entrepreneurship. In this study, the definition of a social entrepreneur is limited to individuals. Reason for this is the fact that the study investigates entrepreneurial personality.
However, from the multiple other definitions of the concept summarized by Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010), the combined action of business theory and practice and a social mission is clear, regardless of the actor it is focused on. This is called the ‘double bottom-line’ by both Dees (1998) and Lasprogata & Cotten (2003). The latter two authors emphasize the fact that social enterprises are financially sustainable while pursuing their social mission. This sets them apart from charities whose main source of income is subsidies and donations.
8 social value (see Figure 1). Dees (1998) acknowledged this by emphasizing commercial entrepreneurs’ focus on wealth creation while social entrepreneurs put their social mission as the central criterion for value creation. Dees (1998) adds to this that the main reason for this difference is the fact that commercial entrepreneurs are subject to market discipline and the risk being driven out of business if they do not compete in an economically productive manner.
With all the definitions mentioned above, social entrepreneurship can thus be seen as a very distinct subpart of the broad field of entrepreneurship. It differs significantly from commercial entrepreneurship. Austin et al. (2006) identify four distinct factors that cause differences between the two. First, social enterprises are said to emerge from market failure; the inability of for-profit firms to meet a social need. Secondly, the right for social enterprises to exist is derived from a social mission; the creation of social value for the public good. In contrast, commercial enterprises strive for profit maximization for private gain. As a third factor, the authors state that social and commercial entrepreneurs deal with different human and financial resource mobilization. Reason for this is that their investors and staff have different interests. Consequently, in social enterprises, compensating staff cannot be done as competitively and possible capital sources are restricted by the fact that surpluses cannot be distributed to investors as freely as in commercial enterprises. Finally, both types of entrepreneurs face different modes of performance measurement due to differences in stakeholder types and differences in missions. Dees (1998) puts the second of those factors forward as the most important one. While social entrepreneurs measure their performance based on their mission-related impact, business entrepreneurs strive for wealth creation. Moreover, similar to the fourth factor put forward by Austin et al., that performance measurement for social enterprises is particularly hard because of the market’s inability to reflect social value.
9 2.3 Personality
As mentioned before, studies in the research field of entrepreneurship initially mainly focused on the individual (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Mair & Marti, 2006). The entrepreneur was dominantly defined based on his or her personality traits (Cope et al., 2007). For example, traits that are often attributed to entrepreneurs are risk-taking propensity, internal locus of control and high need for achievement (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006; Shane, 2003; Dollinger, 2003). In other words, a typical entrepreneur is someone who is not afraid of taking risk, who attributes its successes and failures to own efforts and who strives for high achievement. However, these character traits typical for entrepreneurs are not derived from a common and general personality model. Therefore, these traits will probably not provide a basis for opposing commercial and social entrepreneurs. Consequently, a more general personality trait model is needed to do so.
In the studies that have aimed to classify entrepreneurs based on a general personality theory, the Big Five personality model (or Five Factor Model; FFM) is often used (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006; Brandstätter, 2011; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). This model was drawn up by Costa & McCrae in 1992 after growing agreement among personality psychologists that character traits could be broadly classified into five categories. These dimensions are Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism
Dimension Traits Openness to Experience
(O)
Imaginative, sensitive to art and beauty, rich and complex emotional life, intellectually curious, behaviorally flexible, non-dogmatic, tendency to seek new experiences, creative, innovative, reflective, untraditional
Conscientiousness (C) Scrupulous, well-organized, diligent, persistent, hard-working, motivated
Extraversion (E) Sociable, active, tendency to experience positive emotions, assertive, dominant, energetic, talkative, enthusiastic
Agreeableness (A) Trusting, sympathetic, cooperative, forgiving, caring, altruistic, gullible
Neuroticism (N) Tendency to psychological distress, anxious, hostile, depressed, self-consciousness, impulsive, vulnerable
10 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Table 1 lists typical personality traits associated with all of these dimensions.
A study by Zhao & Seibert (2006) is the first one to place the entire entrepreneurial personality known in academic literature up to that point into the Five Factor Model. Aim of that study was to distinguish entrepreneurs from managers based on the personality dimensions of the FFM. They found that Conscientiousness is the dimension most significantly positively related to entrepreneurship. Especially a person’s motivation for achievement appeared to predict entrepreneurship. Secondly, Openness to Experience is a dimension positively related to the existence of entrepreneurship. In the light of the typically entrepreneurial personality traits mentioned before (risk-taking propensity, internal locus of control and high need for achievement), these are predictable results. For instance, Openness to Experience typically characterizes someone who is likely to create or be in risky situations in which risk taking propensity is needed to manage those. Moreover, both of the other traits (internal locus of control and high need for achievement) can be associated with a high score on Conscientiousness. Another study by Shane et al. (2010) only found a correlation between the dimension Extraversion and a person’s tendency to be an entrepreneur. Finally, Brandstätter (2010) states that entrepreneurs distinguish themselves from non-entrepreneurs by scoring higher on Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience and Extraversion and scoring lower on Agreeableness and Neuroticism.
11 one could expect a social entrepreneur to score higher on Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness than commercial entrepreneurs. They would score higher on Openness to Experience because innovativeness and creativity are of vital, and often even higher, importance in the sectors social entrepreneurs operate in than those commercial entrepreneurs operate in. They will probably score higher on Conscientiousness because of the devotion it takes to dedicate oneself to the social mission underlying the social enterprise, which Drayton (2002) acknowledges social entrepreneurs typically have. Finally, they will probably score higher on Agreeableness because of the altruistic aspect that Crandall (1991) recognizes and is often tightly linked with the social mission underlying a social enterprise.
2.4 Social Capital
According to Yang, Gong & Huo (2011), all five of the Big Five personality traits introduced above are of interpersonal relevance, i.e. they all influence the way in which people interact with other people around them. Because of this, the authors state that personality traits influence the constitution of a person’s social capital. This social capital is, according to Cope et al. (2007), an important determinant of the concept of entrepreneurship as a whole. The concept of social capital originally stems from sociology, where Pierre Bourdieu first defined it as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (Portes, 1998). More recently and from a business perspective, social capital has been defined as “the goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations and that can be mobilized to facilitate action” (Adler & Kwon, 2002). In other words, social capital is the collection of goodwill and resources stemming from the relations existing and used within the social networks an entrepreneur is in.
12 relations) and effects (the information, influence, and solidarity it makes available to the actor). In the present study, it is possible to investigate all of these three aspects.
Empirical studies about the link between social capital and entrepreneurship only recently emerged. Doh & Zolnik (2011), for example, define three core constructs of social capital, to test this relationship. Firstly, the extent to which people trust other persons and organizations determines the nature of social exchange and communication. Secondly, associational activities, referring to the tendency for citizens to voluntarily join various types of organizations, reflects embeddedness in social networks and closure of these networks. Finally, civic norms, referring to the general tendency of citizens to cooperate and weigh the public good against self-interest, are informal mechanisms shaping social activity and exchange. In the light of the earlier mentioned dimensions by Adler & Kwon (2002), one could classify associational activities and civic norms as sources of social capital and trust as substance of social capital.
The importance of social relations and networking has been clearly depicted Mark Granovetter (1973 & 1985) and Dacin, Dacin & Matear (2010). The importance of the concept for entrepreneurship lies in the emergence of the knowledge economy. Knowledge is one of the most essential assets an enterprise needs to conduct business. They access this knowledge through social networks, causing networking to be a vital activity for the modern entrepreneur (Doh & Zolnik, 2011). Moreover, the social relations an entrepreneur has and the goodwill it derives from them are important for entrepreneurship because they create access to external sources of support, information, expertise and finance, which relieves the burden on human and financial capital (Cope et al., 2007). Thus, social capital helps entrepreneurs to overcome resource constraints (Bauernschuster et al., 2008).
The nature of these social relations and the resources they give access to are likely to be different for social entrepreneurs than for commercial entrepreneurs. However, little is known about differences in social capital use of social and commercial entrepreneurs. Austin et al. (2006) do not recognize many differences in the importance of the network and the reputation needed to make proper use of this network between social and commercial enterprises. However, they do acknowledge some differences in the nature of human and financial resources because of difficulties in resource mobilization. Moreover, they state that a large portion of the resources social entrepreneurs rely upon are outside their direct control, which increases the importance of their network and, with that, their social capital.
13 state that “people who want to improve societal well-being may be more willing to participate in various activities”. They argue that social entrepreneurs use social capital derived from a larger and more varied amount of relations. In addition to this, social entrepreneurs are probably more embedded in societal networks, whereas commercial entrepreneurs probably have more pure business partners. In other words, social entrepreneurs interact more with political, environmental, governmental and charitable actors while commercial entrepreneurs particularly interact with customers, suppliers and competitors. Similarly, Dees (1998) particularly distinguishes investors and constituencies served as important stakeholders with different interests. All of these statements would imply a broader set of social relations for social entrepreneurs than commercial entrepreneurs and, with that, more sources of social capital. One can than question to what extent and in what way the goodwill that is derived from and the resources that flow from these relations differ between social and commercial entrepreneurs.
2.5 Personality and Social Capital Combined
Finally, studies linking all three of the concepts of entrepreneurship, character and networking are rarely conducted, however not entirely new. Wincent & Westerberg (2005) aim to link the concepts of inter-firm networking, CEO personality traits and firm-level entrepreneurship to each other. They found that without the mediating role of inter-firm networking, the link between CEO personality traits and firm-level entrepreneurship would not exist. Obviously, the concepts incorporated in the current study are slightly different since this study focuses on the choice of being either a commercial or a social entrepreneur instead of the performance of firm-level entrepreneurship. Also, in this case, personality traits of entrepreneurs instead of CEOs are considered. Lastly, the current study deals with social capital in general, not just inter-firm networking. However, similar results as in the study of Wincent & Westerberg (2005) could be expected. If a parallel could be drawn, one could expect that whether a person decides to be a commercial or social entrepreneur is not a direct outcome of that person’s personality, but rather the interplay of the entrepreneur’s personality and social capital.
2.6 Industry
14 industry with enough social enterprises for a comparative study to be viable. Verloop et al. (2011) mention the six industries in which the majority of the social enterprises in the Netherlands is operating; Cleantech, Biosystems, Economic Development, Civic Engagement, Health & Wellbeing, and Education. One of the best known and most successful social enterprises, Fairtrade, falls into the industry of Economic Development, because it addresses the unfair distribution of wealth in the value chain across countries. Fairtrade has become a widely known quality mark ensuring fair trade conditions for the producers of the products, usually farmers in development countries.
Similar to Fairtrade, a reasonable amount of organizations in the food industry operates with a social mission to create a fair supply chain at heart, ultimately pursuing fair division of wealth across the world. These firms strive for reasonable prices and good conditions for the farmers in the third world countries, the absence of child labor and slavery and a sustainable and environment friendly production process. These organizations all have different legal form. However, from the definitions mentioned above, these could all be considered social enterprises, as long as they strive to find innovative solutions to social problems. Consequently, the entrepreneurs at the heart of these organizations can be classified as social entrepreneurs.
These entrepreneurs are the center of the comparative study conducted in the present research. They are entrepreneurs working in the food industry for whom the social mission underlying their enterprise is the primary reason for doing business. The result from the personality test and interviews conducted with these entrepreneurs will be compared to existing literature on commercial entrepreneurs. The distinction between social and commercial underlying the choice of participating entrepreneurs is primarily made on the basis of the prevailing mission the entrepreneur pursues. If the primary goal of the company the entrepreneur works in is fulfilling a social need, than this person is considered to be a social entrepreneur.
3. METHOD
15 theory research (Myers, 2009; Flick, 2006). According to Flick (2006), the abandonment of the ex ante formulation of hypotheses suits a grounded theory research because it prevents the researcher for being too narrowly focused during data gathering. The aim of gathering information that could answer the formulated hypotheses could cause the interviewer to be biased in the structuring of the interview towards answers that might fit those hypotheses.
In order to explore the personality and social capital of social entrepreneurs, a comparative study is used. According to Flick (2006), a comparative study observes particular aspects of multiple cases. This research design best suits the research question because it allows the focus on several aspects of the case instead of a description in detail of the entire case, as is done with a regular case study. This focus on several aspects is needed to gain enough information on the personality and social capital of social entrepreneurs in order to assess the relationship between both and in order to have a solid base for comparison against literature on general entrepreneurship. In a comparative study, it is important to maintain a high degree of standardization in the remaining conditions (Flick, 2006). In this study, this is done by selecting entrepreneurs from the same industry, as can be seen in the section from the literature review that elaborates on the industry.
According to Flick (2006), cases in a grounded theory research should be selected based on their relevance to the research question. The sample of the present study consists of five cases, all of which concern social entrepreneurs operating in the food industry and aiming to shape the value chain in their industry. All of the cases are key cases, as opposed to outlier or local knowledge cases, selected based on their proximity to each other within the industry and based on the extent to which the social mission is central to the entrepreneur’s business.
16 For each participant, the second part of the study consists of an interview about the background of the entrepreneur and his/her enterprise(s), his/her use of social capital and the possible relationship between personality and social capital. These interviews are semi-structured in order to obtain all the relevant information. First, in a way, these interviews can be classified as expert interviews since the participants are included in the study as representing a group. The interviews will be recorded and a transcript will be made in order to be able to analyze the interview easily. The transcript will be analyzed according to the principle of Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring, 2000). Categories are made and useful information is divided into those categories in order to structure the answers of the interviewees based on the topics they discuss. Table 2 lists the categories being used. Then, the information derived from the different interviews will be compared in order to derive the matching results.
As mentioned above, the cases included in the comparative study will only concern social entrepreneurs. The reason for this is the lack of literature on the personality and social capital of this type of entrepreneurs. However, for entrepreneurs in general, a multitude of publications is already existent that covers those two aspects. Consequently, the primary data on social entrepreneurs will be compared with the literature on general entrepreneurship. Moreover, the social entrepreneurs
that are interviewed will be asked for their experience with and opinion on the commercial entrepreneurs they work with. When they recognize a given as being typical for commercial entrepreneurs, this will be taken into account when drawing conclusions.
Categories Personality - Openness to Experience - Extraversion - Conscientiousness - Agreeableness - Neuroticism
- Personality causing SE-ship - Differences SEs and CEs Social Capital
- Relationship types - Networking behaviour
- Difference between SEs and CEs Interrelation personality and social capital
17 4. FINDINGS
4.1 Personality
Starting with the results from the BFI-44 survey that all five of the respondents filled out, Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations of all the dimensions. Following from this, the entrepreneurs scored highest on Openness to Experience, followed by Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. This section will first discuss both the BFI-44 scores and the findings from the interviews for all the dimensions.
As mentioned above, the participating entrepreneurs scored highest on Openness to Experience. This follows both from the BFI-44 results, and from the interviews. This was a trait already known for characterizing entrepreneurs in general (Zhao & Seibert, 2006) and evidently also characterizes social entrepreneurs. The participating entrepreneurs pointed out that taking chances, seizing opportunities and
investigating new possibilities was an important part of their tasks. Both improvising and working with other people and using their ideas are vital for the success of their entrepreneurship. Moreover, it became apparent from the interviews that Openness to Experience was not only important for social entrepreneur, but also that it was embedded in their personality. The traits characterizing this dimension, and especially the innovativeness that is typical for it, were classified as being tightly related to the entrepreneurial mindset of the respondents.
From the BFI-44 results, Extraversion is the second highest scoring dimension. However, not all of the five entrepreneurs scored high on this trait. More specifically, for one entrepreneur only Neuroticism had a lower score. Thus, Extraversion is a less convincing determinant of social entrepreneurship. However, the respondents mentioned the importance of being active and assertive within their business, which are traits that are typical for the Extraversion dimension. An interesting fact is that three out of five respondents pointed out that their job required more Extraversion from them than they naturally possessed. Main reason for this was the network focus of their job. The dependence of their social enterprises on other organizations and persons required them to be assertive in building and maintaining their networks. Consequently, being extraverted benefited the success of their entrepreneurship. Dimension μ σ Openness to Experience 3,88 0,62 Conscientiousness 3,38 0,39 Extraversion 3,60 0,68 Agreeableness 3,47 0,26 Neuroticism 2,63 0,75
18 The third dimension in order of the highest mean is Agreeableness. Every entrepreneur scored rather average on this dimension and Agreeableness has the lowest standard deviation among all of the dimensions. Almost all of the entrepreneurs described themselves as being a team worker and prone to cooperation, which is distinctive for Agreeableness. Moreover, Agreeableness is pointed out as being one directly linked with being employed in the social sector. Altruism is a characterizing trait of Agreeableness and a striking fact is that all of the five interviewees describe reasons for being a social entrepreneur that are rooted in altruism, whether it sprung out of an upbringing that emphasized caring for the people in one’s own environment or out of a deep awareness of injustice and being socially active.
The fourth dimension is Conscientiousness. This dimension takes the most varied place in the preference lists of the entrepreneurs, i.e. Conscientiousness has both the highest and the lowest scores from different respondents. However, the dimension does not have a particularly high standard deviation. Most of the interviewees mentioned being organized as a trait characterizing them. Moreover, following from the interviews, most of the entrepreneurs can be described as hard-working, responsible people, which would point to high scores on Conscientiousness.
The last dimension of the Big Five personality model is Neuroticism. Three of the five respondents scored their lowest score on this dimension. Moreover, Neuroticism is the only dimension to have a below-average mean. Most of the entrepreneurs classified themselves as being secure and confidant, but acknowledged they had a sensitive side on the other hand as well. All together, Neuroticism is not a dimension that characterizes social entrepreneurship.
An interesting fact about the personality of the entrepreneurs is that four out of five believe that their personality has influenced their career paths and choices to become a social entrepreneur. However, in their answers, all of them mainly focus on their upbringing and some other factors in their social environment to motivate this career path. They thus all acknowledge the importance of their upbringings for the development of their personalities. However, none of them was able to specifically mention a personality trait that was important in their upbringings and later on guided their choice of becoming a social entrepreneur.
4.2 Social Capital
19 confirm the studies by Austin et al. (2006) and Adler & Kwon (2002) that were already mentioned earlier on in this article.
There were quite some differences in the type of contacts or organizations that the social entrepreneurs maintained contact with. It depended to a large extent on the core business of the social venture which types of relations were important. However, the wide variety of contacts almost in all cases included several societal actors, like governments, non-profit organizations focusing on sustainability, environment or development and NGOs. Moreover, some interviewees acknowledged the existence of a societal focus of a social entrepreneur’s network as opposed to a more business-focused commercial entrepreneur’s network, an idea that was already proposed by Adler & Kwon (2002).
Some of the entrepreneurs are involved in formal networks or associations. However, these are not really important for either of them because a well-fitting formal network for their sector is often non-existent. On the other hand, all of the five interviewees bear a responsibility outside of their occupations as social entrepreneurs. Most of them do this either out of a sense of responsibility or out of a former function within that organization.
All of the interviewees’ networks were primarily shaped by the social nature of their enterprise. This became clear from the range of different types of contacts present in their networks. Moreover, the way in which the individual entrepreneur shapes, maintains and uses their network is also, to a large extent, a result of the fact they are social entrepreneurs. An important difference between how a social and commercial entrepreneur builds, maintains and uses their social capital is, according to the interviewees, the long-term focus that social entrepreneurs have. Commercial entrepreneurs, on the other hand, want to gain profit from their network on the short term. This is mainly a consequence of their goals and targets instead of their personalities. Commercial entrepreneurs often strive for the highest financial results while social entrepreneurs strive for societal change. The social entrepreneurs also mentioned the rigidity of the networks of commercial entrepreneurs they know, to the extent that one of them called it an ‘old boys network’. In other words, commercial entrepreneurs tend to stick together, which causes them to have a limited network.
20 and use their network. Some of them indicate the extent to which they are extraverted, influences their networking behavior. Furthermore, the long term focus that results from being a social entrepreneur, as mentioned earlier, determines the focus of the entrepreneur concerning their network. The long term motives cause them to not quickly start and end a relationship. Finally, some of the social entrepreneurs indicated that they display ethical behavior when networking. According to their answers, this is often in contrast with their commercial counterparts.
5. DISCUSSION 5.1 Personality
Considering the findings from the BFI-44 questionnaire, one could assume social en commercial entrepreneurs to differ based on personality. Zhao & Seibert (2006) stated Conscientiousness to have the highest correlation with entrepreneurship, followed by Openness to Experience. However, the social entrepreneurs from this study scored highest on Openness to Experience, followed by Extraversion. This confirms the expectations from the literature review that were based on the results of Nga & Shamuganathan (2010) who, among other things, state that social entrepreneurs score higher on Openness to Experience that commercial entrepreneurs do. Thus, Openness to Experience is indeed an entrepreneurial characteristic that social entrepreneurs share with their commercial colleagues. Additionally, in the interviews, all social entrepreneurs classified themselves to be inventive and curious to a certain extent. Moreover, some of the social entrepreneurs mention creativity as one of their defining characteristics. Also, they stated that creativity is, to a certain extent, important for survival as an entrepreneur in their sector and for maintaining ones network. According to Sung & Choi (2009), this indicates high scores in both Openness to Experience and Extraversion, which would mean that the results from the BFI-44 and the interviews support each other.
21 would mean that Conscientiousness is more typical for entrepreneurs in general, than it is for social entrepreneurs.
Considering the third dimension, Agreeableness, Brandstätter (2010) stated this dimension to have a negative correlation with entrepreneurship. However, the social entrepreneurs from this study all scored above-average on this dimension. Also, Agreeableness was the third highest-scoring dimension among the respondents. This confirms the results by Nga & Shamuganathan (2010) and the statement by Crandall (1991) that social entrepreneurs would score higher on Agreeableness than commercial entrepreneurs would. This means that Agreeableness is a typical characteristic of social entrepreneurs. These results thus confirm earlier research by Drayton (2002) and Stasio & Capron (1998) that put a drive to change society and the concept of social interest, both traits that fit into the Agreeableness dimension, at the heart of a social entrepreneur’s personality.
Moreover, the interviewees also strongly confirm the BFI-44 results on Agreeableness. Several of them mention their altruism, caring nature and sense of injustice, usually for a large part incorporated in their upbringing, as a key reason for their career path and choice to become a social entrepreneur. This choice is thus often grounded in idealism, which was also recognized by Drayton (2002). Olson & Weber (2004) assign this trait primarily to the dimensions Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. In other words, people that score high on these dimensions are more likely to have idealistic tendencies. Hofstee et al. (1992) adds to this that these idealistic people are ‘helpful, cooperative, considerate, respectful and polite’ persons. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness together form a trait that is called cooperativeness. Costa & MCrae (1998) classify people that score high on these dimensions as ‘effective altruists’; people that diligently work for the sake of others. Thus, the outcomes of the BFI-44 and the interview support each other on this particular subject.
Another personality trait assigned to the dimensions Agreeableness and Conscientiousness is ethical behavior in leadership (Kalshoven, den Hartog & de Hoogh, 2011). Most of the respondents mentioned ethics and moral conscience to be important determinants of their behavior. Moreover, some of them particularly pointed out ethical behavior as a key difference between social and commercial entrepreneurs. Again, the results of the personality questionnaire and the answers given in the interviews support each other.
22 5.2 Social Capital
The importance of social capital for social entrepreneurs that became evident from the interviews fits in with the statement of Austin et al. (2006) that a social venture can never achieve its goals without networking because a single social enterprise will never have the power to change the economical system. Also the resource constraints that Bauernschuster et al. (2008) related to are present according to the interviewees. They mention that they use their network for external sources of support, which they need because their own human and financial capital is limited. The entrepreneurs gather the people around them who can support and strengthen their position and spread their message. Thus, social ventures need networking for name recognition and they need name recognition to reach their goals. Moreover, as was already clear from research by Austin et al. (2006), this is a key source of the differences in networking behavior between social and commercial entrepreneurs. According to the interviewees, commercial entrepreneurs often have more, especially financial, resources at their disposal. Consequently, they have to rely on their network far less to be able to gain access to resources than their social counterparts must. In other words, they are far less dependable on their network.
Considering the differences in social capital for social en commercial entrepreneurs, the literature (Kanter & Summers, 1987; Adler & Kwon, 2002) suggested a possible difference in the type of actors both maintain contact with. Firstly, some of the groups several of the social entrepreneurs kept contact with were a direct result of the social nature of the venture. Good examples of such groups are volunteers and the investors and constituencies served, as already mentioned by Dees (1998). Moreover, some of the interviewees recognized the rigidity of a commercial entrepreneur’s network and, with that, its limits. However, the interviewees among themselves all had such different variety in their networks, that it is hard to generalize them in order to compare them with commercial entrepreneurs. Consequently, it is difficult to assess whether social entrepreneurs have a broader set of stakeholders when they differ in that to such a large extent in comparison to each other.
23 The literature review discusses whether the results on the personality differences between social and commercial entrepreneurs and the results on social capital differences between the both could be interrelated. Research by Wincent & Westerberg (2005) might suggest such a thing. Concluding from the findings of the present study, this is only partly true. Social entrepreneurs scored higher on Agreeableness and lower on Conscientiousness than commercial entrepreneurs. This is displayed in their networking behavior in the way that their networks are more focused on serving the common good and in that their networks are less structured and more flexible. These things oppose a commercial entrepreneur’s focus on meeting financial targets and the rigidity of his/her network, which often is or has characteristics of an ‘old boys network’. The largest difference, however, in the way social and commercial entrepreneurs build, maintain and use their network is in the long-term focus social entrepreneurs have as opposed to the short term focus commercial entrepreneurs have. This is a result of the sector they are in to a larger extent than it is a result of the entrepreneurs’ personalities.
5.3 Implications
The implications of this study’s results are mainly academic. This is inherent to the research design. A grounded theory research is aimed at knowledge creation. The current findings on the differences between the interplay of personality and social capital of social and commercial entrepreneurs thus mainly give rise to new research opportunities. Next to statistically testing the findings of the current study, one could also investigate more specifically the events and reason that cause a person to choose a career as a social entrepreneur. Moreover, considering the social capital of entrepreneurs, one could study the exact differences of why and how commercial and social entrepreneurs build their network. For example, the rigidity and short-term focus of a commercial entrepreneur can be caused be the main goals he or she tries to fulfill out of his or her network. For all of the proposed academic implications it can be argued that devoting a study entirely to one of these aspects will almost automatically enlarge the number of conclusions that can be drawn about such a distinct subject. Moreover, one could more easily enlarge the sample size in such a case.
24 for jobs that require an entrepreneurial mindset in a social sector. Moreover, when the findings of this study will be statistically verified, it may be used by consultants and consultancy firms on the subject of networking. Such consultancy could advise social entrepreneurs how to interact with commercial entrepreneurs in their network in order to make the relationship work for both parties.
5.4 Limitations and future research
As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, this study is an explorative one. This brings along some limitations to the generalizability of the results. The small sample size of the study, although necessary for this type of research, is the main cause for this. With five respondents, the sample is too small in order to be able to generalize the results for all social entrepreneurs. Thus, statistically confirming the findings with a larger sample size would be a desirable next step. Moreover, the fact that all the interviewees were in the same sector created validity on the one hand, but made the generalizability of the results limited to the food sector. Consequently, the study that would statistically test the findings from this research on a larger sample could than drop the industry borders from this study in order to find enough social entrepreneurs to participate. Considering the generalizability of the information given by the social entrepreneurs about the commercial entrepreneurs they work with, these all consider the same industry. Thus, commercial entrepreneurs in different industries than the food industry can differ quite considerably from those mentioned in the interviews of the present study.
Another drawback of this research is that the results from the BFI-44’s and the interviews were compared to literature in order to distinguish social and commercial entrepreneurs with each other. Gathering primary data also for commercial entrepreneurs would provide the data with more internal validity. A difficulty in this would be that commercial entrepreneurs are not likely to volunteer in great numbers to be compared to social entrepreneurs because they might expect the results of such a study to put them in a poor light.
REFERENCES
25 Arregle, J., Hitt, M. A., Sirmon, D. G., & Very, P. (2007). The Development of Organizational Social Capital: Attributes of Family Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73-95.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or Both?. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
Bauernschuster, S., Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2010). Social capital access and entrepreneurship. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 821-833. Baumol, W.J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory. The American Economic
Review, 58(2), 64-71.
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality & Individual Differences, 51(3), 222-230.
Benet-Martínez, V. & John, O.P. (1998). Los Cino Grandes across cultures and ethni groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750.
Brouwer, M. T. (2002). Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on entrepreneurship and economic development. Journal Of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1/2), 83.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9(2), 354-359.
Carter, S., & Jones-Evans, D. (2006). Enterprise and the small businesss: Principles, practice and policy. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
Casson, M. & Giusta, M. Della (2007). Entrepreneurship and Social Capital: Analyzing the Impact of Social Networks on Entrepreneurial Activity from a Rational Action Perspective. International Small Business Journal, 25; 3, 220-244.
Cope, J., Jack, S. & Rose, M. (2007). Social Capital and Entrepreneurship: An Introduction. International Small Business Journal, 25 (3), 213-219.
Costa, P.T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.
Costa, P.T. & & McCrae, R.R. (1998) Manual supplement for the NEO 4. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
26 Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M., & Matear, M. (2010). Social Entrepreneurship: Why We Don't Need a New Theory and How We Move Forward From Here. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57.
Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.” Comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University. Available at http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/files/dees-SE.pdf
Doh, S. & Zolnik, E. J. (2011). Social capital and entrepreneurship: An exploratory analysis. African Journal of Business Management. 5(12), 4961-4975.
Dollinger, M. J. (1999). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and resources. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Drayton, W. (2002). The Citizen Sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120-132.
Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2005). Perceived emotional intelligence and life satisfaction: Predictive and incremental validity using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Personality And Individual Differences, 39(5), 937-948.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The Strenght of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360-1380.
Granovetter, M.S. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Harding, R. (2004). Social Enterprise: The New Economic Engine?. Business Strategy Review, 15(4), 39-43.
Hofstee, W. K., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 63(1), 146-163.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. B. (2011). Ethical leader behavior and Big Five factors of personality. Journal Of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349-366.
27 Koolman, G. G. (1971). Say's Conception of the Role of the Entrepreneur. Economica,
38(151), 269-286.
Landström, H. (2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship research. In G. Corbetta, M. Huse, & D. Ravasi (Eds.), Crossroads of entrepreneurship (pp. 13–31). New York: Springer. Lasprogata, G. A., & Cotten, M. N. (2003). Contemplating enterprise: The business and legal
challenges of social entrepreneurship. American Business Law Journal, 41, 67–113. Light, P. C. (2006). Reshaping Social Entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
4(3), 47-51.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal Of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
Marshall, R. (2011). Conceptualizing the international for-profit social entrepreneur. Journal Of Business Ethics, 98(2), 183-198.
Martin, R. L. & Osberg, S. (2007, April 20). Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 28-39.
Massetti, B. L. (2008). The Social Entrepreneurship Matrix as a "Tipping Point" for Economic Change. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 10(3), 1-8.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Researh, 1(2). Available at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs.
Morris, M. H., Kuratko, D.F., & Schindehutte, M. (2001), Towards Integration: Understanding Entrepreneurship Through Frameworks, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(1), 35-49.
Munshi, N. (2010). Value Creation, Social Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Global Economies. Journal Of Asia-Pacific Business, 11(3), 160-165.
Myers, M.D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. London: SAGE Publiations.
Nga, J., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The Influence of Personality Traits and Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intentions. Journal Of Business Ethics,95(2), 259-282.
Olson, K. R., & Weber, D. A. (2004). Relations Between Big Five Traits and Fundamental Motives. Psychological Reports, 95(3,Part1), 795-802.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review Of Sociology, 24(1), 1.
28 Santarelli, E., & Pesciarelli, E. (1990). The emergence of a vision: the development of Schumpeter's theory of entrepreneurship. History Of Political Economy, 22(4), 677-696.
Schumpeter, J. A. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Shane, S., Nicolaou, N., Cherkas, L., & Spector, T. D. (2010). Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-employed. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1154-1162. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy Of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226.
Stasio, M. J., & Capron, E. W. (1998). Social Interest as a Distinct Personality Construct: Comparisons with 'The Big Five' and Related Prosocial Constructs. Journal Of Individual Psychology, 54(1), 10.
Sung, S., & Choi, J. (2009). Do Big Five personality factors affect individual creativity? The moderating role of extrinsic motivation. Social Behavior And Personality, 37(7), 941-956.
Swanson, L. A., & Di Zhang, D. (2010). The Social Entrepreneurship Zone. Journal Of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(2), 71-88.
Thalmayer, A., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995-1009.
Verloop, W., Dijk, M. van, Carsouw, R., & Molen, O. van der ( November 2011). Opportunities for the Dutch Social Enterprise Sector. Retrieved from http://www.inspiriment.net/cms/files/ Sociaal-Ondernemerschap.pdf.
Wincent, J., & Westerberg, M. (2005). Personal traits of CEOs, inter-firm networking and entrepreneurship in their firms: Investigating strategic SME network participants. Journal Of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 271-284.
Yang, J., Gong, Y., & Huo, Y. (2011). Proactive personality, social capital, helping, and turnover intentions. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 739-760.
29 APPENDIX A – BFI-44
Ik zie mijzelf als iemand die…
(1=zeer mee oneens, 2=mee oneens, 3=neutraal, 4=mee eens, 5=zeer mee eens) 1 2 3 4 5 1. graag en veel praat.
2. de neiging heeft iets op anderen aan te merken. 3. zijn werk grondig doet.
4. neerslachtig, triest is.
5. origineel is, met nieuwe ideeën komt. 6. gereserveerd is.
7. behulpzaam en onbaatzuchtig is naar anderen toe. 8. enigszins onverschillig is.
9. ontspannen is, goed om kan gaan met stress . 10. nieuwsgierig is naar veel verschillende dingen. 11. vol van energie is.
12. routinewerk prefereert.
13. makkelijk ruzie maakt met anderen. 14. een betrouwbare werker is.
15. gespannen kan zijn. 16. geneigd is stil te zijn.
17. artistieke en esthetische ervaringen waardeert. 18. de neiging heeft ongeorganiseerd te zijn. 19. emotioneel stabiel/niet snel van streek is. 20. een levendige verbeelding heeft.
21. volhoudt tot een taak af is.
22. soms onbeleefd kan zijn naar anderen. 23. inventief is.
24. snel en makkelijk iemand vertrouwt. 25. de neiging heeft lui te zijn
26. zich veel zorgen maakt.
27. soms verlegen en/of geremd is. 28. vergevingsgezind is.
29. efficient is. 30. humeurig kan zijn. 31. vindingrijk, een denker is. 32. enthousiasme creëert. 33. koel en afstandelijk kan zijn.
34. plannen maakt en die nauwkeurig uitvoert. 35. kalm blijft in gespannen/moeilijke situaties. 36. houdt van nadenken over en spelen met ideeën. 37. attent en vriendelijk is naar bijna iedereen. 38. snel nerveus wordt.
39. ontwikkeld en wereldwijs is wat betreft kunst, muziek en literatuur. 40. een assertieve persoonlijkheid heeft.
41. houdt van samenwerken met anderen. 42. snel afgeleid is.
43. extravert en sociaal is
30 APPENDIX B – Interview Guide
Social entrepreneurship
- Can you tell who you are, what this company does and what you do in this company? - What is the legal form of the organization?
- Do you consider yourself to be an entrepreneur?
- Can you tell what prior work or entrepreneurial activities brought you here? - Why did you chose to become a social entrepreneur?
Personality
- Can you describe your personality?
- Are you inventive and curious or consistent and cautious? - Are you efficient and organized or easy-going and careless? - Are you outgoing and energetic or solitary and reserved? - Are you friendly and compassionate or cold and unkind? - Are you sensitive and nervous or secure and confident?
- Did your personality influence your choice to become a social entrepreneur?
Social capital
- Do you spend much time networking? Where, with whom and why?
- What type of enterprises, organizations or people are beneficial to maintain relations with for your business? Why are they important? How do you find and maintain these
relations?
- Are you a member of any associations, political parties or other professional networks and if so, how do those memberships benefit your business?
- Do you have any other professional responsibilities next to your work for your enterprise?
- To what extent are contacts with your family and friends important for your network? - To what extent is your network and your use of this network shaped by the fact you are a
social entrepreneur? Do you see differences in this between the social and commercial entrepreneurs around you?
