Entrepreneurs Behavior

Barbara Bird Kogod School of Business American University

April 28, 2010

Our field of entrepreneurship research is at a point where the behavior of individuals (as sole actors or as parts of teams) should be come an important focus. To get a reasonable start at codifying and measuring entrepreneurs behavior, I suggest we start with very clear boundariesthe behaviors of those individuals at start up. If we can agree on core behavior at this stage and get good a measuring behavior, future scholars can look for these behaviors at later stages of organizational development and in corporate settings. To date the research on entrepreneurs behavior is fragmented and ad hoc (Bird & Schjoedt, 2009). Reports often fail to include measures of reliability and attempts to defend validity of measures. One exception to this are the use of the Panel Survey of Entrepreneurial Dynamics behavioral indicators comprised of 26 indicators of activity (indicators do not submit to the usual psychometrics of reliability). For our purposes here and going forward, entrepreneurs behavior (like the behavior of other people) is concrete, theoretically (if not practically) observable by some audience. And for the purposes of research is specific enough to achieve some face validity with operations and measures. This meeting has also raised the concern that this behavior be somehow distinct to entrepreneurs as actors. While some specific behaviors may not be distinct (e.g., selling, researching competition, setting up business operations), the configuration of behavior may be distinct. So that sales people sell but they do not set up business operations. Marketing managers an professionals may research competition, they do not sell, etc. Furthermore, it is my observation that very few parties to the disciplines of business and management actually measure or define behavior with any real clarity. If entrepreneurship scholars can do this (even in part) we will help to advance our field and the larger fields of business scholarship. I highly encourage the field to get to the fundamentals of measuring behavior and to do that we need to begin with finding what menu of behavior best describes what entrepreneurs do. We need to avoid simply laying extant theories or tools onto entrepreneurs (e.g., transactional v. transformational leadership). We need to avoid

applying organizational behavior concepts to entrepreneurship without carefully parsing out how our phenomena are different from (rather than the same as) managerial, leadership, or creativity behaviors. I would go so far as to recommend that the field of entrepreneurship treat with skepticism studies that use tools developed for managers or leaders. To do otherwise dilutes the field as distinct. Two approaches There are two broad approaches available to the measurement of behavior theory derived and empirical. We can (and probably should) choose both. Theoretical. Other than the theories of operant behavior (Skinnerian behaviorism), there are few general theories to human behavior that I have seen. I believe that middle range theories may offer the most promise. The nice thing about some of these mid-range theories is that they were not developed for exclusive use by other business disciplines. With thorough understanding and careful argumentation, we might develop a specific, measurable and useful set of behaviors (and measures) for entrepreneurship. Two mid-range theories that I recommend we look into are role theory and communication theory. I know a bit more about role theory than communication theory, so leave it to other scholars to create initial and refined frameworks for entrepreneurs communication behaviors. Role theory, primarily that developed by Goffman (1959) in the dramaturgical approach may be useful for entrepreneurship. He drew upon theories of drama and theater and applied concepts such as front- and back-stage, and props to the study of behavior in social settings. We can do this specifically for entrepreneurship. In doing this we can also include the theory developed by Katz & Kahn (1978) on roles and models derived from that which refine the notions even further (e.g., Nicholson, 1984). Empirical. The inductive approach is close to what we attempted at this meeting. We began a process modeled on that by Stogill and colleagues (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) when they tried (and succeeded) in developing a measure of leader behavior in the early 1950s, resulting in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). Roughly, that process involved several Ohio State scholars meeting to discuss what the dimensions of behavior were, how those dimensions linked to extant theories of leadership, the chunk size of behavior and the Likert anchors that could be used to measure behavior in a questionnaire. They ended with 9 dimensions. The scholars went home to develop questionnaire items and they ended up with 1790 items which the core group of scholars refined to 150 items (removing duplicates, removing items that had either no or multiple dimensional anchors, etc). From these 150 items, empirical studies of leaders allows the group to factor analyze data and developed shorter scales and finally the two dimensions of leader behavior (consideration and initiating structure). Once leadership scholars got to two dimensions (Michigan State scholars and others found similar two dimensional

measures) the field of leadership was ready for contingency theories (moderator and mediators). But first they needed a set of psychometrically solid and well-used measures. Psychology approaches to behavioral taxonomy Our biggest concern alongside determining the appropriate dimensions to entrepreneurs behavior is the choice of chunk size. What observable behaviors do entrepreneurs do sometimes, frequently, always, etc? Where on the continuum from atomic, molecular, molar, and galactic can and should we anchor entrepreneurs behavior? Our field can draw upon theories and work in these areas of psychology: 1. Taxonomic structures of events. Specifically efforts of Fleishman who attempted to lead his colleagues (across different disciplines) to taxonomy of work tasks (Fleishman, 1982), leader behavior (Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, & et al., 1991) and using operant theory of behavior, of supervisory behavior (Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jenson, 1986)empirical approach Event perception theory and partonomy structures of events (Zacks, 2004; Zacks & Tversky, 2001; Zacks, Tversky, & Iyer, 2001) Construal level theory (a hierarchy model on concrete-abstract dimension) which first addressed how individuals think about what they do (Vallacher & Wegner, 1985, 1987) and more recently in how subjects view the behavior of others (Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman, 2008)

2. 3.

Taxonomy structures or hierarchies classify objects (behaviors) in kind-of relationship. An MBA student is a kind of student. A rose is a kind of flower. An examination is a kind of evaluation process (behavior). An elevator pitch is a kind of new venture communication. Taxonomy promotes reasoning by way of intrinsic properties. Taxonomy frameworks rest on a basic level unit such that the number of features listed for events increases greatly from the superordinate level to the basic level, but not very much from the basic level to the subordinate level (Zacks & Tversky, 2001, p. 6). For us, this basic level may be determining benchmark competitors as basic, doing competitive analysis as superordinate, and on-line search for competitors as subordinate. What we need to do is determine the basic level of behaviors (or events) in the start up of new ventures. Partonomy structures or hierarchies classify objects (behaviors) in part-of relationship. Legs are part of a table. Applied to behavior, psychologists are building a theory of event perception. An event is defined as a segment of time at a given location that is conceived by an observer to have a beginning and an end (Zacks & Tversky, 2001, p. 3). The back swing is part of a golf swing. Collecting competitive benchmarks is part of planning a business. Partonomy promotes reasoning from physical structure to

function and cause (e.g., legs allow us to infer standing of some object). Partonomy structures allow observers to describe the activity from moments to years in duration (e.g., stepping from the curb, crossing the street, going to work, becoming a CEO) (for us perhaps, an unsatisfactory point of sale experience, discovering a new venture opportunity, establishing a business, recognition in the Inc. 500). One of the problems, of course is knowing when one behavior stops or changes into another. Events (and behaviors or behavioral episodes) have boundaries that define the various parts of the scene and observers are fairly consistent and recognizing when one event ends and another begins. Zacks and Tversky (2001) describe event boundaries as where (in the flow of action) the most physical features change. Event boundaries may be as short as a couple seconds (simple physical changes such as raising a hand), larger time chunks (10-30 seconds) is enough to show an intentional act, even longer temporal frames (minutes to hours) are plots or socially conventional actions (schema) defined more by goals and plans of participants. The longest time frame they consider are themes (peace process is a theme surrounding the signing of a treaty) Psychology research suggests that shorter time frames lead to better memories of events and that we treat (speak of) events very much like objects and in this reify the goal, its preparatory process, and/or its culmination. There are multiple sources of information about events that include observable signs of change (e,g,, direction of behavior, tempo, setting) and inferences from observations (e.g., causality, intention) and these streams of information are highly correlated. (Zacks & Tversky, 2001). Psychologists have found that action maintenance (of a task) is facilitated by self-talk that describe the behavior a higher level. Also of interest to this meeting may be construal level theory which characterizes behavior at levels in a hierarchy, with higher levels being increasingly abstract and focused on why or purpose and lower levels increasingly specific and focused on how or operations. This theory seems to be a partonomy approach. The examples given are things like shutting the door (lower is turning knob, pulling door) and higher is securing the building. Another example is preparing for an exam, lower is reading the book, higher is raising grade point average. The lower level specifies the higher level, the higher level explains the lower level. Construal theory has a hierarchy of behavioral chunks that others have found are commonly identified (across people and time). That is, people observing behavior commonly parse the behavior in the segments and these segments are highly similar across observers. These segments or chunks are commonly marked by large physical changes in the input (to the action) and changes in the actors goals (Hard, Lozano, & Tversky, 2006). Individuals who encode behavior using a hierarchical model (either trained or naturalistic) are better at action learning (Hard et al., 2006) although most of the work to date has been experimental design in nature and imitative. Other sources of behavioral coding

Other sources we may look to for models on the careful measurement of behavior (and specifically behavior change after intervention) are clinical and occupational psychology. In addition, we can and should look to the methods employed by ethnographers to determine meaningful units of behavior. Getting to measurement In summary, to get to measurement we probably need to begin with appropriate categories derived from (and feeding into) observational methods. We need to identify a behavioral repertoire that at least in terms of frequency, intensity, and/or duration uniquely applies to entrepreneurs in the start up process. We need to avoid the short cuts of direct borrowing from organizational behavior, leadership, occupational psychology etc. Instead, let us use appropriate theories and research from these and other areas to guide our efforts. When we address behavior we must explicitly include time (e.g., frequency, duration, and sequencing as appropriate). While we will never eliminate self-report, our methods of behavior assessment need to move beyond that if for no other reason than avoiding psychometric problems that we tend to avoid addressing (e.g., social desirability and other response biases). We also need to move beyond the fragility of single item measure such as those embedded in the PSED. We need to measure reliability in multiple ways (there are other measures besides alpha) and use solid methods to better establish validity. As Kelly shaver pointed out, we can and should employ experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Beyond Gateway There is a special issue of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on entrepreneurs behavior (Deadline April 2011). I propose that if there is momentum from a cadre of scholars here, that we plan a professional development workshop at the 2011 meeting of the Academy of Management. I hope that some among us are willing to participate (and set up) an on-line group for collaboration. Finally, I hope that I can see the day when our field has its equivalent to an Entrepreneurs Behavior Description Questionnaire (EBDQ). References

Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial behavior: Its nature, scope, recent research, and agenda for future research. In A. L. Carsrud & M. Brannback (Eds.), Understanding the Entrepreneurial Mind (pp. 327-358). New York: Springer. Fleishman, E. A. (1982). Systems for describing human tasks. American Psychologist, 37(7), 821-834. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., & et al. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245-287. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.

Hard, B. M., Lozano, S. C., & Tversky, B. (2006). Hierarchical encoding of behavior: Translating perception into action (Retracted article. See vol. 137, pg. 672, 2008). Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 135(4), 588-608. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley. Komaki, J. L., Zlotnick, S., & Jenson, M. (1986). Development of an Operant-Based Taxonomy and Observational Index of Supervisory Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 260-269. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172-191. Stogdill, R., & Coons, A. (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they are going? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1), 3-15. Zacks, J. M. (2004). Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(6), 979-1008. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 3-21. Zacks, J. M., Tversky, B., & Iyer, G. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 29-58.