Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BY
M. F. R. KETS DE VRIES
- : ^
:^r-
.'-
! . "
1977
5J
unsuccessful actor died when our hero was very young, leaving the mother
to take care of the family, having to work extremely long hours. The story
continues by describing how Bernard G>mfeld after many difficulties became
an investment professional (thus ending his career as a social worker), and
began to sell mutual funds overseas (not necessarily to the benefit of its
investors) being extremely successful at it. But his fund of funds became like
a chain letter game,financialcontrols were lacking and chaos prevailed in the
company. Eventually Cornfeld was deposed leaving the remains of the
company wide open to plunder by Robert Vesco.
Another entrepreneurial saga tells the tale of the rise and fall of Charles
Steen, from an uranium roilUonaire to a pauper. ^ When we look at his family
history we find a father who squandered all his money on 'loose living* and
eventually divorced his wife. Charles Steen never saw his father again after
this divorce. His mother on her part married a total of nine times. Further
study of Charles Steen's personal background reveals that he seemed to have
difficulties in holding on to a job. After his last dismissal, unsuccessful in
finding a new position, he decided that the only choice left was to strike out
on his own. The story continues by describing a period of extreme hardship
and poverty finally broken by his uranium find. But his wealth did not last
long; excessive spending and poor investments caused his bankruptcy. And
now we can find him broke roaming the desert again.
These two stories are spectacular but not uncommon examples of the rise
and fall of entrepreneurs. While other stories might be less dramatic and often
limited to the successful part of the entrepreneur's endeavour, closer analysis
of these various stories reveals that most of these tales of hardship and
success contain a number of common, rather familiar themes. We are usually
introduced to a person with an unhappy family background, an individual
who feels displaced and seems a misfit in his particular environment. We are
also faced with a loner, isolated and rather remote from even his closest
relatives. This type of person gives the impression of a 'reject', a marginal
man, a perception certainly not lessened by his often conflicting relationships
with family members. The environment is perceived as hostile and turbulent,
populated by individuals yearning for control, with the need to structure his
activities. We observe an individual who utilizes innovative rebelliousness as
an adaptive mode with occasional lapses toward delinquency, ways of
demonstrating his ability to break away, to show independence of mind. Due
to these reactive ways of dealing widi feelings of anger, fear and anxiety,
tension remains since 'punishment' in the form of failure may follow suit.
Failure is expected and success is often only perceived as a prelude to failure.
^ Becker, W. C , 'Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline', in Hof&nan, M. L.
and Hoffman, L. W. (Eds.), Revieiv of Child Deveiopmtnt Rtstarih^ Vol. i. New York; Russell Sage
Foundation, 1964.
j6
' \'
FEBRUARY
Interrelated with this strange pattern of elation and despair, of successes and
failures, we also observe a kind of person who demonstrates a remarkable
resilience in the face of setbacks, with the ability to start all over again when
disappointments and hardships come his way.
Tlie person we are describing, the entrepreneur or the 'creative destructor*
to use Schumpeter's^ terminology, is a highly complex individual, certainly
not the simpleton or automaton which many economists would like us to
believe he is. The entrepreneur is obviously not that 'lightning calculator of
pleasures and pains*, as Veblen* once cynically described him and bears no
resemblance to that mythical creature of economic theory, the economic man.
On the contrary, we are dealing with an individual often inconsistent and
confused about his motives, desires and wishes, a person under a lot of stress
who often upsets us by his seemingly 'irrational', impulsive activities.
Notwithstanding the multitude of articles written about entrepreneurship
and the entrepreneurial organization, the entrepreneur has remained an
enigma, his motivations and actions far from clear, a state of affairs aggravated
because of contradictory theoretical and research findings. Consequently, the
purpose of this article is a review of the concept of entrepreneurship and of
empirical studies of entrepreneurial behaviour patterns. Subsequently, social,
economic and psychodynamic forces influencing entrepreneurship will be
explored. A conceptualization of the entrepreneurial personality will be
presented largely based upon interviews and the life histories of a number of
entrepreneurs. Finally the implications of these entrepreneurial behaviour
patterns for entrepreneurial organizations will be discussed.
Entrepreneurial Roles
Economists have always looked at entrepreneurs with a great deal of ambivalence. The often unpredictable, irrational actions of entrepreneurs do not
fit the economists' rational, logical schemes; they tend to disturb the implicit
harmony of their models. Generally speaking their attitude toward entrepreneurship has been one of'benign neglect'. Baumol's exasperated statement
that *the theoretical firm is entrepreneurless the Prince of Denmark has
been expunged from the discussion of Hamlet'* is not far from the truth. But
some economists have shown interest in the entrepreneur. Beginning with
Cantillon* and Say' who stressed respectively the uncertainty bearing and
' Schutnpeter, Joseph A., Tbtorie dtr WirtsebaftUcben EttfvitJkJmg, e" Aufl., Miinchen und Leibzig:
Dunckerund Humblat, 1951.
Veblen, Tborstein, 'Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?*, The Qunrterfy Journal of
EtoBomics, Vol. XII, No. 4, 1889. p. J89.
Bautnol, William J., 'Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory', Ameriean Eeortomie Rtvitv,
Vol. LVm, No. 2, 1968, p. 66.
Candllon, Richard, Essay sur la Nature dttComtnerte en Ghural, Londres et Paris: R. Gyles, I7j6.
' Say, Jcan-Baptiste, Catetbim of Politieat Etonomy, London, igi6.
1977
57
58
FEBRUARY
uncertainties. But with the division of ownership and management, the use
of other than the entrepreneur's personal capital sources, the entrepreneur
can be considered more a creator of risk than a taker of it. However, although
the entrepreneur does not necessarily bear the financial risk of an operation,
he is exposed to a considerable degree of social and psychological risks.
More often than not a great decline in prestige and status income is a common
phenomenon in the initial phase of entrepreneur ship. The 'purgatory of
entrepreneurship', i.e. the period preceding recognition of one's entrepreneurial abilities, can be a time of extreme hardship during which considerable
sociopsychological sacrifices have to be endured. Naturally a certain tolerance
for economic risk is necessary but a tolerance for psychosocial risks might be
more important.
, ,
.
Testing Entrepreneurial Behaviour Patterns
1977
39
178-84.
40
.-/I
>.
FEBRUARY
1977
4^
42
FEBRUARY
45
questioned. Overlap in types is very likely and the question of other types
may be raised.
Naturally, the possibility exists that a new type of entrepreneur is emerging;
an individual who is better educated, not as impulsive, less concerned about
control and independence and more adaptive in his approach to the environment. If this is a trend in entrepreneurship, its impact on existing large
companies (as far as internal entrepreneurship is concerned, creation of new
product ventures and new technology divisions in existing companies) could
be enormous. Perhaps 'internal' entrepreneurship in large bureaucratic
organizations is the inevitable response to organizational decay and inertia.
Which organizational parameters are important to create a work environment
congenial to 'internal' entrepreneurship is another issue worth exploring, but
will not be dealt with in this paper.
Patterns in Entrepreneurship
44
FEBRUARY
1977
45
4^
FEBRUARY
One way of looking at the family dynamics of entrepreneurs and its role and
emerging career orientations is by using a simplified conceptualization of
basic personality dimensions. Here, referral is made to the polarities high
control-low control, and acceptance-rejection, attitudes expressed by
parents toward their children. * The way parents relate to these dimensions
becomes extremely important for later personality development. The
eventual personality make-up of the adult will heavily depend on the way
in which these personality dimensions are emphasized and expressed by the
parents, and eventually assimilated and internalized by the developing child.
Combinations of these personality dimensions lead to four possible configurations for each parent. (Respectively: acceptance and high control, acceptance
and low control, rejection and high control, rejection and low control.)
Naturally the existence of siblings, the nature and intensity of intersibling
rivalry, the competition for parental affection, and the latters' reactions, adds
to the complexity of the dynamics of family life.
Consistency in childrearing assumes that parents will take a similar stand
toward these personality dimensions. But given each person's unique
psychologicai make-up, this situation will be rare, in spite of the fact that
generally accepted childrearing practices encourage parents to make a concerted effort to appear as a 'closed front' to their children. It is obvious that
the parents of entrepreneurs usually do not fall into the category of consistency
in childrearing. At the risk of over-simplification, a possible configuration in
the family of the potential entrepreneur (postulating a father who is remote
* Collins, O. F., Moore, D. G. and Unwalla, D. B., ibid.; Kcts de Vries, M. F. R., op. cit.
Becker, W. C , op. dt.; White, Robert W., Tbt Enterprise of Living, New York; Holt, Rinehatt
and Winston, 1971.
1977
47
or absent and a mother who is dominant but supportive) gives the impression
of the father as low on control and basically rejective (in the child's fantasy
world remoteness easily become synonymous with rejection) while the
mother will be perceived as high on control and accepting. Naturally, the
child's perception ofthe intensity of each dimension by parent will vary. And
we can observe how, in spite of the limited integration of these perceptions
by the child (the great dissonance between parental attitudes makes integration of the child's perceptions very difficult), some integration of these
images will occur, to be assimilated and internalized by the child. We hypothesize that in the case of the potential entrepreneur a perception of high control
and rejection usually becomes the predominant pattern.
The lack of integration of these parental configurations, in addition to each
parent's stand on these two personality dimensions leaves the child with a
feeling of inconsistency, confusion and frustration. On the one hand the child
may submit to the control ofthe mother mainly with fear, anxiety and a sense
of helplessness, while on the other hand the perceived rejection by the father
is also resented and leads to aggressive retaliatory fantasies. A state of anger
may be the legacy of this particular type of family dynamics, anger which may
be directed toward the self or projected to others contributing to a sense
of guilt and undermining of self-confidence. In a later state of personality
development this tendency toward hostility and anger may injure relationships with peers.
In the case that the predominant attitudes of parents are rejection and high
control, the psychologist White (a researcher of longitudinal life histories)
comments that:
'. . . When combined with rejection, high control still exerts a pressure for
docile compliance but there is now a problem connected with hostility.
Rejecting parents offer the child a meagre ration of love in return for his
sacrifices of freedom. He submits mainly out of fear, and with resentment.
A variety of consequences follow, which are easily understood as different
dispositions ofthe hostility. This may be directed at the self, creating a sense
of guilt that eats away at self-confidence and that sometimes plays a part in
the development of neurosis. It may injure the relation to other children,
promoting either a quarrelsome tendency or, to avoid this, a withdrawal
from contact. It may produce half-hearted compliance with authority in
which socialized behaviour is performed with sour resignation. It may be
displaced to more remote objects such as outgroups seen as enemies of
sound values. It may finally come into focus on the parents or on authority
in general, producing a belated and often difficult rebellion.*"
The combination of a dominant, controlling, somewhat nurturing mother
"Ibid., p. JJ.
48
FEBRUARY
,.
1977
49
50
FEBRUARY
hostile wishes against parental figures or, more generally, all individuals in
a position of authority. Distrust and suspicion of everyone in a position of
authority forces the entrepreneur to search for non-structured situations
where he can assert his control and independence. He is also an individual
who tends to deny his hostile wishes and projects these on the outside world.
And it is extremely hard, if not impossible for individuals with an entrepreneural disposition to integrate their personal needs with those of" organizations. To design one's own organization, to create and structure organizations centred aroxond themselves often becomes the only alternative.
The 'reactive mode' which characterizes entrepreneurial behaviour makes
for an extremely unstable personality make-up. Since prestige, power, and
self-confidence are used as reassuring weapons to deal with low self-esteem,
inferiority and related feelings of anxiety, any perceived depletion of these
outward symbols may be the cause of a psychological disequilibrium and
trigger ofF impulsive reactions. If self-confidence is weak and inner hostility
provokes guilt feelings, punishment is expected unconsciously. Any sign of
failure means that expected punishment is at hand, any sign of success may be
interpreted as an achievement not really deserved, which again indicates that
punishment is not far off. Although the entrepreneur fears failure, the
'irrational' unconscious notion prevails that punishment is deserved, be it
only for hostile wishes against authority figures. Using the same kind of
logic, success only means that putiishment will follow immediately and
therefore causes anxiety about future failures and punishments. Given the
existence at an unconscious level of fear of success and fear of failure, combined with impulsivity of action and forgoing thorough deliberation and
judgement, it is not surprising that the careers of many entrepreneurs appear
to be a remarkable succession of business successes and failures. Actually,
because of this psychological process the entrepreneur may feel at his best
when he has reached 'rock bottom'. His feelings of guilt being 'paid off', he is
'free', unburdened, able to start all over again.
We notice how the entrepreneur emerges as a psychological risk taker
subjected to a high degree of psychosodal risks. Due to intrapsychic transformations, original feelings of helplessness, dependency and rejection are
replaced by a proactive style in which power, control and autonomy become
predominant issues. What used to be an inclination toward submission and
passivity becomes an active impulsive mode of behaviour. The entrepreneur
may follow what is sometimes described as an 'identification with the aggressor' pattern.^' The role of the passive, helpless victim is replaced by acting
the role of the one in control. We have indicated before that the often selfemployed father was frequently an undependable and terrifying influence to
Freud, Anna, Tbt Egp and tbe Metbatiismi of Defetut, Londcwi: Hogarth Press and the Institute
of Psycho-Analysis. 19J7.
1977
Jl
the entrepreneur in his youth. Now the roles have changed; after having been
continuously manipulated at an early age, the entrepreneur will do the
manipulation himself (identify with the agressor) in a compensatory fashion,
reliving these actions as a kind of 'protective reaction' against first his father
and later authority figures in general. We see that the inability to function in
structured situations makes it necessary for him to design his own organization where he is in control and at the centre of action. His achievements in
setting up enterprises become important tangible symbols of prestige and
power and a way of bolstering an easily depleted, insecure sense of self-esteem.
But his achievements are not sufficient to ward off a persisting sense of
anxiety and other stress indicators. Rejection, dissatisfaction and a sense of
failure follow the entrepreneur like an inseparable shadow. (A summary of
the various psychological forces working upon the potential entrepreneur is
given in figure i.)
The Entrepreneurial Work Environment
FEBRUARY
Environmental
turbulence
Perception
of rejection
: . t a * ...,..;; A .
High perception
of control
Entrepreneurial
parsonolity
Anger, hostility
and guilt
Identity
confusion
(identification with
the aggressor)
1977
J}
But this very fact of complete psychological immersion of the entrepreneur a factor which may have been a key ingredient for the initial success
of the enterprise can lead to serious dysfunctional developments in the
future in the case of continued growth of the enterprise. What we frequently
encounter in an entrepreneurial organization is an organizational structure
and work environment completely dependent and dominated by the entrepreneur. The enterprise is run in a very autocratic, directive way whereby all
the dedsion-making processes centre around the entrepreneur. We are also
faced with an individual who refuses to delegate, is impulsive, lacks any
interest in conscious, analytical forms of planning, and engages regularly in
bold, proactive moves. Bold and proactive moves make for the initial
successes and may contribute to the continued success of the enterprise, but
due to the absence of a conscious planning effort also carry a high risk
component. The entrepreneur makes no distinction between operating,
day-to-day decision-making and more long-term strategic moves. The
impulsivity of his style, his lack of deliberation and judgement, the importance of 'hunches* also makes for a rather limited time horizon. The entrepreneur has no sense of priorities and may spend equal time on the greatest
trivia as on major strategic decisions.
Within the organization power depends on the proximity to the entrepreneur, is constantly changing and creates a highly uncertain organizational
environment. This state of affairs contributes to a highly politically charged
atmosphere where changing coalitions and collusions are the order of the day.
The suprastructure is poorly defined, a formal organization chart is outdated
by the time it is drawn, or non-existent. It basically resembles a 'spider's
web' with the entrepreneur in the centre, who is constantly changing loyalties
and keeping his subordinates in a state of confusion and dependence. The
organization has usually a poorly defined or poorly used control and information system (no sharing of information); there is an absence of standard
procedures and rules and a lack of formalization. Instead, we notice the use
of subjective, personal criteria for the purpose of measurement and control.
Job descriptions and job responsibilities are poorly defined or non-existent.
This situation contributes to a high incidence of role conflict and role
ambiguity leading to low job satisfaction, low self-confidence, a high degree
of job-related tension, a high sense of futility and low confidence in the
organization.** Withdrawal or avoidance b^aviour and a reduction in
communication among employees also becomes symptomatic. Information
hoarding turns into a common practice and contributes to the general state
of disorganization. In addition, given the 'spider's web' structure, the
number of people reporting to the entrepreneur will be large, adding to a
* Kahn, Robert L., Wolfe, Donald M., Quinn, Roben P. and Snoek, G. Dicdrick, Organiz^a$iaui Strtss: Studies in Roll Cotifliet and Ambipdty, New York: Wiley, 1964.
54
FEBRUARY
Autocrative
'-
^
Directive
'j
Centralized
Lack of delegatitm
' '*
Impulsivity
Tim$ horizo
Pontr
Proximity to entrepreneur
Organizatiotial envirottmeni High uncertainty
I-ack of sharing information
Poorly defined
Suprastructun
Absence of formal organization chart
'Spider's web' structure
Infrastrustwrt
\ .*v. '
- . t.
'
"
"'*'
>
1977
55
j6
FEBRUARY
1977
17
highly creative and imaginative but, on the other hand, highly rigid, unwilling
to change, incapable of confronting the issue of succession. Christensen'*
after studying over a hundred companies, came to a similar conclusion struck
by the frequency in which he encountered a denial of the reality of the
succession issue among the entrepreneurs.
Succession becomes identified with loss and losing out and therefore takes
the meaning of a taboo. But the issue of succession is inevitable not only for
reasons of age but also because of increasing maturation and growth of the
company. The entrepreneur is no longer alone, other interest groups such as
employees, family members, bankers, customers, suppliers and the government are getting involved. Depending on the strengtli of the entrepreneur's
position they can have some influence on the policies of the enterprise. But
change by this type of pressure is usually only of a modest character. A more
drastic type of change is needed for continued growth and success of the
enterprise apart from changes caused by old age or death. We imply here the
attainment of a sense of psychological maturity on the part of the entrepreneur. This means a willingness to assess his personal strengths and
weaknesses to master his conflict-ridden behaviour and overcome and
surpass the problems of the past. But adaptation to present-day reality and
foregoing the legacies of his personal history requires a considerable basis of
self-awareness and insight. Important as this psychological state might be for
the continued survival of the enterprise for overcoming rigid behaviour and
greater flexibility in operating modes, adaptation of this kind is rare and
hard to attain. More often than not, separation from the enterprise by the
entrepreneur in one form or another tums out to be the only alternative for
the purpose of survival. This development highlights the depressive facet of
the entrepreneurial dimension. While the entrepreneurial spirit is one of the
strong countervailing forces preventing decay and decline of the economy as
a whole, in the final deliberation, the entrepreneur pays an extremely high
price in an emotional sense in this process of economic growth.
>'-