AN EMOTIONAL BUSINESS: THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE IN ENTREPRENEURIAL SUCCESS
Erin B. McLaughlin, B.S., M.B.A.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2012
APPROVED:
Warren Watson, Major Professor
Lewis A. Taylor, III, Committee Member
Robert Pavur, Committee Member
Mark A. Davis, Coordinator of the Doctoral
Program
Vicki L. Goodwin, Chair of the Department of
Management
O. Finley Graves, Dean of the College of
Business
James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the
Toulouse Graduate School
McLaughlin, Erin B. An Emotional Business: The Role of Emotional Intelligence in
Entrepreneurial Success. Doctor of Philosophy (Management), May 2012, 193 pp., 16 tables, 5
illustrations, references, 382 titles.
Successful entrepreneurial activity is important for a healthy economy and can be a
major source of job creation. While the concept of entrepreneurship has been around for quite
some time, researchers continue to explore the factors that underlie entrepreneurial
performance. Specifically, researchers have sought to further examine why some
entrepreneurial ventures are more successful than others.
The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has gained the attention of researchers and
practitioners alike. Practitioners have realized that employees can no longer be perceived as
biological machines that are capable of leaving their feelings, norms, and attitudes at home
when they go to work. Researchers are embracing the concept of emotional intelligence
because of its relationship with efficiency, productivity, sales, revenues, quality of service,
customer loyalty, employee recruitment and retention, employee commitment, employee
health and satisfaction, and morale.
While there is considerable evidence documenting the effects of emotional intelligence
on leadership performance, job performance in large firms, and educational performance, very
little research has examined how emotional intelligence affects entrepreneurial performance
and the variables that account for this relationship. Individuals in entrepreneurial occupations
face business situations that necessitate unique skills and abilities in social interactions.
Emotional intelligence has implications for entrepreneurial situations and social interactions
such as negotiation, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying and exploiting
opportunities, managing stress, obtaining and maintaining customers, and providing leadership.
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate emotional intelligence in the
context of entrepreneurship. In addition, the study will shed light on the mediating
effects of individual competencies, organizational tasks, and the environmental culture
and climate. The results of the study provide insights for emotional intelligence
researchers, entrepreneurship researchers, individuals with entrepreneurial aspirations,
academic institutions, as well as government and financial entities that provide
resources to new ventures.
Copyright 2012
by
Erin B. McLaughlin
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my chair, Dr. Warren Watson, and my
committee members, Dr. Lewis Taylor and Dr. Robert Pavur, for their support and guidance
throughout the process. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Dr. Elizabeth Rozell
for introducing me to Emotional Intelligence and the academic research process during my
MBA.
Above all, a very special note of appreciation goes to my family, for providing
continuous support and encouragement throughout my education. No matter what the
accomplishment or hurdle was along the way, we celebrated or overcame it together, just like
we always do.
-To my sister, Megan, who patiently listened and encouraged me throughout the process.
-To my parents, Patrick and Lana, for all of their many sacrifices to make sure my sister and I
had every opportunity imaginable. My parents, both educators themselves, are truly an
inspiration and unparalleled role models.
-To my fiancé, Brian, for your unwavering support in so many ways. You have waited very
patiently and I look forward to starting a new chapter in our lives together.
I am so grateful for the love and support of my family, THANK YOU!
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
iii
ix
x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Theoretical Perspectives
General Theory of Entrepreneurship
Industry and Environmental Determinants
Individual Determinants
Non-Psychological Factors
Human Capital Theory
Psychological Factors
The Psychology of the Entrepreneur
Social and Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence Schools of Thought
Emotional Intelligence Perspectives
Mayer and Salovey’s Model
Goleman’s Model
Bar-On’s Model
Dulewicz and Higgs’ Model
Summary of the Pertinent Theories
Purpose of the Research and Research Questions
Significance and Contributions
Contributions to Research
Practical Implications
Study Layout
1
2
5
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
19
19
20
22
24
25
26
28
28
29
30
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Emotional Intelligence
The Study of Emotions
Workplace Performance
Leadership
Transformational Leadership
Education
Interpersonal Relationships
32
32
34
35
37
39
41
45
iv
Job Satisfaction
Positive Organizational Attitudes and Behaviors
Negotiations
Other Emotional Intelligence Relationships
Using the Ability-based Model
Mayer and Salovey’s Ability-based Model
Identifying Emotions
Facilitating Emotions
Understanding Emotions
Regulating Emotions
Summary
Entrepreneurial Success
Measures of Entrepreneurial Success
Financial Firm Success
Relative Firm Success
Personal Success
Summary
Linking Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Success
Mediating Variables
Individual Competence
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Venture Organizational Tasks
Interpersonal Tasks
Environmental Factors
Munificence
Dynamism
Chapter Summary
CHAPTER III: METHODS
Research Design
Validity
Internal Validity
External Validity
Reliability
Data Collection
Participants
46
48
49
50
51
52
53
53
54
54
55
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
68
69
71
72
74
74
76
77
80
83
86
86
87
87
88
89
89
90
v
Procedures
Construct Measures
Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Success
Financial Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Relative Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Personal Entrepreneurial Success
Mediating Variables
Individual Competence
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Venture Organizational Tasks
Interpersonal Activities
Environmental Factors
Munificence
Dynamism
Pilot Study
Survey Process and Response Rate
Characteristics of the Pilot Study Sample
Analytical Procedures
Descriptive Statistics
Reliability Coefficients
Hypothesis Testing
Direct Relationships
Indirect Relationships: Mediation
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Interpersonal Activities
Munificence
Dynamism
Summary and Revisions to the Main Study
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Data Collection
Participants
Procedures
Construct Measures
90
90
91
91
92
93
94
95
95
96
96
97
97
98
98
99
99
100
100
100
102
102
103
104
104
105
106
108
110
111
112
116
120
120
120
121
122
vi
Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Success
Financial Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Relative Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Personal Entrepreneurial Success
Mediating Variables
Individual Competence
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Venture Organizational Tasks
Interpersonal Activities
Environmental Factors
Munificence
Dynamism
Analytical Procedures
Descriptive Statistics
Reliability Coefficients
Hypothesis Testing
Direct Relationships
Indirect Relationships: Mediation
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Interpersonal Activities
Munificence
Dynamism
Summary
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
Introduction
Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Success
Discussion of the Mediators
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Interpersonal Activities
Munificence
Dynamism
vii
123
123
124
125
125
126
127
127
128
128
129
129
130
130
131
131
132
132
133
134
135
136
138
140
141
142
147
150
150
151
152
153
154
154
155
155
Contributions and Implications
Research
Managerial
Limitations
Future Research
Summary
156
156
158
159
160
162
REFERENCES
164
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of four major perspectives of emotional Intelligence
21
Table 2 Table of hypotheses
95
Table 3 Demographic characteristics of the pilot study sample
114
Table 4 Pilot study descriptive statistics
116
Table 5 Pilot study reliability coefficients
116
Table 6 Pilot study Baron and Kenny mediation analysis
128
Table 7 Pilot study mediation statistics
129
Table 8 Pilot study summary of hypothesis testing
130
Table 9 Demographic characteristics of the survey participants
136
Table 10 Descriptive statistics
147
Table 11 Reliability coefficients
148
Table 12 Baron and Kenny mediation analysis
160
Table 13 Mediation statistics
162
Table 14 Summary of hypothesis testing
162
Table 15 Rank order of total effect mediated
163
Table 16 Summary of hypothesis testing
164
ix
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 A general theory of entrepreneurship framework
7
Figure 2 Research model
37
Figure 3 Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in testing for mediation
119
Figure 4 Research model
149
Figure 5 Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in testing for mediation
151
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The field of entrepreneurship represents an increasingly dynamic productive force in the
economy and resides at the forefront of adaptation and the growth of new markets (Gavron,
Cowling, Holtham, & Westall, 1998). There are over 850,000 new businesses launched in the
United States every year, and new entrepreneurs get credit for launching 84% of those
businesses (Price, 2006; Zimmerer, Scarborough, & Wilson, 2007). Small firms in general and
new firms in particular, contribute substantially to economic growth and economic prosperity
for well-developed countries (Birch, 1987). Such economic growth is a direct result of an
increase in the size of existing firms as well as the creation of new firms. Creating new
economic entities, or entrepreneurship, is vital to the progression of organizations and
economies (Aldrich, 1999). Entrepreneurial activity is a vital component of national economic
growth and development (Kim, Aldrich & Keister, 2003). Entrepreneurship promotes
innovation, fosters job creation, and encourages global competitiveness for firms and countries
(Bednarzik, 2000).
The present economic situation has resulted in organizational downsizing and regular
periods of unemployment, which have induced growing numbers of people to aspire to selfemployment. Individuals are seeking entrepreneurial careers at an increasingly rapid rate,
despite the financial, managerial, and personal challenges associated with entrepreneurial
careers (Zimmerer et al., 2007). From an individual’s perspective, creating a new firm is often
developed as part of the entrepreneur’s personal life strategy, as a means of earning a living
(Littunen, 2000). For many individuals, self-employment represents both an escape from life in
1
traditional organizational bureaucracies and an opportunity to generate greater personal
wealth (Walker & Webster, 2007). Self-employment offers opportunities for flexibility,
independence, profits, and personal recognition. Thus, successful entrepreneurship today is
about how well entrepreneurs manage themselves and others. Entrepreneurs in today’s
society must have the ability to be flexible and adapt to a constantly changing business society;
and often to a greater extent than individuals operating in the context of larger firms who are,
to some extent, more protected by the organization.
Statement of the Problem
Why are some entrepreneurial ventures more successful than others? Nearly every
entrepreneur begins their new venture with hopes of great success, but nearly half of the
850,000 new businesses started every year in the United States close their doors within the first
12 months (Small Business Administration, 2010). A breakdown of these staggering statistics
shows that only one-third of start-up firms in the United States survive at least two years, but
less than half of the surviving businesses make it to the four year mark (Small Business
Administration, 2010). Thus, it is evident that understanding factors relating to entrepreneurial
success is critical for the field of entrepreneurship; particularly for the entrepreneur, the
stakeholders, and the health of the economy as a whole (Lussier & Halabi, 2010; Pompe &
Bilderbeek, 2005; Carter, Williams & Reynolds, 1997).
Early entrepreneurial research explored the role of biographical information and
personality characteristics in entrepreneurial performance (e.g., Gartner, 1988). These studies
found mixed results and researchers argued that future entrepreneurial research should
explore other facets, such as skills and abilities (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000), or needs and
2
opportunities (e.g., Davidsson, 1991). Entrepreneurial success has since been linked, in part, to
cognitive abilities and social skills (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000, 2003). Some of those skills
include accurately perceiving others, making good first impressions, and persuading or
influencing others in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000; Duck, 1994).
Emotional intelligence (EI) encompasses many of these social and cognitive skills, as it is defined
as the ability to identify, facilitate, understand and regulate your own emotions as well as the
emotions of others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Thus, while EI encompasses many of the skills and
abilities found to relate to entrepreneurial success, very little research in the field of
entrepreneurship has explored the role of emotional intelligence.
While there is substantial evidence documenting the effects of emotional intelligence on
leadership performance (e.g., Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002; George, 2000), job
performance in large firms (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002), and educational performance
(e.g., Humphrey, Curran, Morris, Farrell & Woods, 2007), there is much less research examining
how emotional intelligence affects entrepreneurial performance and the variables that account
for this relationship. Individuals in entrepreneurial occupations face business situations that
necessitate unique skills and abilities in social interactions (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000;
Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Begley & Boyd, 1987). Emotional intelligence has implications for
entrepreneurial behaviors such as negotiation, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying
and exploiting opportunities, managing stress, obtaining and maintaining customers, and
providing leadership (e.g., Foo, Elfenbein, Tan & Aik, 2004; Mitchell, Busenitz, Bird, Galio,
McMullen, Morse & Smith, 2006; Rozell, Pettijohn & Parker, 2004; Stein, 2009).
3
Providing a better understanding of the role of emotional intelligence in entrepreneurial
success is a primary focus of this investigation. This study also explores the mediating role of
individual, organizational, and environmental-level variables. A mediator is a third variable that
intervenes between the independent and dependent variables; theoretically, a mediator
facilitates the relationship between the other two variables (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson &
Tatham, 2006). Individual-level mediators explored include managerial and entrepreneurial
competencies. Organizational-level mediators include interpersonal tasks; and environmentallevel mediating variables include munificence and dynamism.
Because very little research on emotional intelligence has been conducted in the
entrepreneurship realm, this study provides insight on the significance of studying EI in this
field. Furthermore, while exploring the role of emotional intelligence in entrepreneurial
performance, it is imperative that entrepreneurial success be addressed by the multiple forms
that currently reside in the entrepreneurial literature. Emotional intelligence may play a role in
any one, or multiple, performance measures (i.e., financial entrepreneurial firm success,
relative firm success, and/or personal success). The mediating variables for this study were also
chosen based on the previous literature. Other forms of competence (e.g., social competence,
political competence) have been found to mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and performance in various organizational contexts (e.g., Salovey, Brackett &
Mayer, 2004); therefore, necessitating an investigation of the potential mediating role that
entrepreneurship specific competencies play in the relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurial success. Emotional intelligence has also been recognized as extremely
important in interpersonal tasks (e.g., O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver & Story, 2010;
4
Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2009); thus, the potential mediating role of interpersonal tasks is
also important to the investigation of the EI-entrepreneurial success relationship. Finally,
environmental variables, such as dynamism and munificence, are exceedingly important in the
performance and survival of entrepreneurial firms (e.g., Baron, 2000; Chandler & Hanks, 1994;
Tang, 2008). Addressing the role of these environmental variables in the EI-entrepreneurial
success relationship will provide better insight on the influence of resource availability and
competition.
So what makes some entrepreneurs more successful than others? This research
investigation seeks to address this question by investigating the role of emotional intelligence in
entrepreneurial success. Three forms of entrepreneurial success are addressed (i.e., financial,
relative to competitors, and personal success), as well as variables that may mediate the EIentrepreneurial success relationship. The following section describes the theoretical
foundation for the relationships proposed in this investigation.
Theoretical Perspectives
A General Theory of Entrepreneurship
The field of entrepreneurship focuses on how to create and grow new ventures through
the discovery and exploitation of opportunities that bring goods and services into existence
(Shepherd, 2004; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997), and how to succeed
(McGrath, 1999). The majority of studies on entrepreneurial success typically fall into one of
two streams of research. The first stream of research centers on the characteristics of
entrepreneurs themselves, their abilities to recognize opportunities, their strategies and
resource acquisitions, as well as their organizing processes (Shane, 2003). The second stream
5
of entrepreneurial success research primarily focuses on contextual factors that are external to
the entrepreneurial business itself. These factors include industry characteristics and the
environment in which entrepreneurs operate successfully. Figure 1 depicts a general theory of
entrepreneurship framework proposed by Shane (2003). This study focuses on the individual
determinants, with an emphasis on emotional intelligence, in the organizational and
environmental contexts.
Environmental Determinants
Industry Determinants
Economic
-Societal Wealth
-Economic Stability
-Capital Availability
-Taxation
Knowledge Conditions
-Locus of Innovation
-Uncertainty of Industry
-Size of Innovating Entity
-R & D Intensity
Political
-Freedom
-Property Rights
-Centralization of Power
Industry Structure
-Cost of Inputs
-Capital Intensity
-Advertising Intensity
-Profitability of Industry
-Industry Concentration
-Average Firm Size
Social
-Beliefs and Attitudes
-Social Norms
-Cultural Beliefs
A General Theory of Entrepreneurship
Individual Determinants
Non-psychological Factors
-Age
-Education
-Career Experience
-Social Position
-Opportunity Costs
Psychological Factors
-Motivation
-Cognition
-Core Evaluation
Figure 1. A general theory of entrepreneurship framework.
6
Appropriability Conditions
-Strength of Patents
-Complementary Asset
Importance
Demand Conditions
-Market Size
-Market Segmentation
-Market Growth
Industry Life Cycles
-Industry Age
-Dominant Design
-Density of Firms
Industry and Environmental Determinants
In one primary stream of entrepreneurial research, investigators seek to explain
entrepreneurship by referencing the differences in the industries and the environment where
entrepreneurs are found, typically seeking to identify situations in which entrepreneurial
activity is most likely to occur or entrepreneurs are most likely to succeed. Shane (2003)
provides a review of several industry differences seen throughout the literature on
entrepreneurial activity. The first of these industry differences is knowledge conditions, which
consists of research and development intensity (e.g., Klepper & Sleeper, 2005), locus of
innovation (e.g., Klevorick, Levin, Nelson & Winter, 1995), size of innovating entities (e.g., Acs &
Audretsch, 1989), and uncertainty in the industry (e.g., Audretsch, 1991). Demand conditions
also constitute industry differences and include market size (e.g., Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven,
1995), market growth (e.g., Gimeno, Folta, Cooper & Woo, 1997), and market segmentation
(e.g., Shane, 2003). The third dimension of industry differences includes industry life cycles,
industry age, presence of a dominant design, and density of firms within an industry (Aldrich,
1999). Additionally, appropriability conditions, including strength of patents and the
importance of complementary assets (e.g., Shane, 2001) constitute the fourth dimension of
industry differences. The final industry difference is structure. Industry structure differences
include such factors as cost of inputs (e.g., Baum & Oliver, 1991), capital intensity (e.g., Dean &
Meyer, 1992), advertising intensity (e.g., Dorfman & Steiner, 1954), profitability of the industry,
industry concentration (e.g., Dean, Brown & Bamford, 1998), and average firm size (Shane,
2001).
7
The environments in which successful entrepreneurial endeavors can be found are also
important in entrepreneurial success research, in part because such contexts appear to have an
influence on entrepreneurial activity and provide government officials the ability to influence
entrepreneurial endeavors in form and size (Shane, 2003). There are three main facets of the
environmental research in entrepreneurship. The first is the economic environment that
includes the following: economic wealth (e.g., Grant, 1996), economic stability, capital
availability (e.g., Audretsch & Acs, 1994), and taxation (e.g., Carroll, Holtz-Eakin, Rider & Rosen,
1989). The political environment constitutes the second dimension and includes political
freedom (e.g., Hayek, 1945) and centralization of power (e.g., Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).
The final dimension of the institutional environment influencing entrepreneurial activity is the
social-cultural environment. The social-cultural environment consists of norms (e.g., Aldrich,
1990), beliefs and attitudes, and cultural differences (Shane, 2003).
Without the human component previous researchers have provided inadequate
explanations for entrepreneurial success (e.g., Shane, 2003). Investigations of the industry and
environment alone cannot offer a complete explanation of entrepreneurship because they lack
exploration of the actions of the individual who is identifying and pursuing the opportunities
(Shane, 2003). Other researchers also claim that the act of entrepreneurship cannot be
detached from entrepreneurs, or individual determinants (e.g., Baron, 2004; Carland & Carland,
1988).
Individual Determinants
In 2003, Shane identified psychological and non-psychological factors that served as
individual-level determinants of entrepreneurship. Psychological factors include aspects such
8
as motivation, risk-taking, and the desire for independence (e.g., Cromie, 1987; Boswell, 1973);
core self-evaluation, including locus of control (e.g., Cromie & O’Donoghue, 1992) and selfefficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997). Psychological factors such as cognition include overconfidence
(e.g., Busenitz, 1999; Aldrich, 1999) and intuition (e.g., Allinson, Chell & Hayes, 2000). Nonpsychological factors at the individual-level include opportunity costs, such as possible income
forfeited (e.g., Johansson, 2000); social position, including social status and social ties (e.g.,
Aldrich, 1999); education (e.g., Reynolds, 1997); age (e.g., Long, 1982); and career experience,
including experience in general business, experience in the industry, experience with start-up
ventures, and experience through vicarious learning (Shane, 2003). Individual-level research
includes constructs such as dissatisfaction with previous job or life experiences (e.g., Brockhaus,
1982), ability to create and sustain social networks and social capital (e.g., Baron, 2000, 2004),
minority status (e.g., Hisrich & Brush, 1985), and various other constructs. Individuals engage in
entrepreneurial behavior at particular times, and in response to particular situations; thus, it is
more descriptive to account for entrepreneurial success by looking at the human aspects within
environmental and organizational contexts (Carroll & Mosakowski, 1987).
Non-Psychological Factors
In seeking to explain entrepreneurial performance economists have naturally addressed
tangible, non-psychological factors such as physical capital, natural resources, and labor
(Tomer, 2003). Variables in these investigations include formal education, career experience,
training, parental background, social status, and opportunity costs (e.g., Shane, 2003). Over the
last thirty years entrepreneurship researchers have embraced human capital theory when using
non-psychological factors to build models predicting entrepreneurial success (e.g., Chandler &
9
Hanks, 1998; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Rauch, Frese & Utsch, 2005; Unger, Rauch, Frese &
Rosenbusch, 2009).
Human capital theory. Using the definition outlined by Becker (1964), human capital
can be defined as the skills and knowledge individuals can acquire via investments in training,
schooling, and other experiences. Attributes of human capital, such as education, experience,
knowledge, and skills are argued throughout the literature as critical resources for
entrepreneurial performance (e.g., Unger et al., 2009). The human capital-entrepreneurial
success relationship has been well established in the literature and provides several arguments
for how human capital can increase an owners’ ability to be successful (e.g., Bosma, van Praag,
Thurik & de Wit, 2004; Cassar, 2006; Cooper, Gimeno-Gascon & Woo, 1994). For example,
researchers contend that human capital plays a large role in entrepreneurial success due to the
constantly changing knowledge-intense occupation and work environment (e.g., Bosma et al.,
2004). Researchers also claim that human capital enhances the owner’s ability to discover and
exploit business opportunities, a key entrepreneurial task (Shane & Venkatraman, 2000). Other
researchers contend that prior knowledge and experience can increase entrepreneurial
alertness, which enables owners to discover entrepreneurial opportunities others may not see
(Westhead, Ucbasaran & Wright, 2005). Chandler and Hanks (1994) suggest that human capital
also affects an owner’s approach to exploiting such opportunities.
Additional research supporting the human capital-entrepreneurial success relationship
contends that knowledge is useful in acquiring physical and financial capital resources (Brush,
Greene & Hart, 2001). Furthermore, because financial capital is such a constraint for most
entrepreneurial firms, increased human capital may partially compensate for the lack of
10
financial resources (Chandler & Hanks, 1994). Prior research evidence also reveals that human
capital is positively related to business strategy and planning, which ultimately influences
entrepreneurial success (Frese, Krauss, Keith, Escher, Grabarkiewicz, Luneng, Heers, Unger &
Friedrich, 2007). Last, but not least, researchers have reported the significance of human
capital in the ability to accumulate new knowledge and skills, such as education (e.g., Ackerman
& Humphreys, 1990; Hunter, 1986). In sum, it is evident that entrepreneurs with greater
human capital (greater knowledge and experience) should be more efficient and effective at
running their businesses (Unger et al., 2009).
Nonetheless, while there is general consensus in the literature that there is a positive
and significant relationship between human capital and entrepreneurial success, some authors
feel the relationship is overemphasized (Baum & Silverman, 2004); and the magnitude of the
human capital-entrepreneurial success relationship varies across studies (e.g., Duchesneau &
Gartner, 1990; Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Gimeno et al., 1997). Reasons for the discrepancies
include confounding factors (e.g., Gimeno et al., 1997), the emphasis of research in the latter
stages of entrepreneurial development (e.g., Prisendorfer & Voss, 1990), and failure to
incorporate social structure variables (e.g., Bates, 1990; Bruderl & Prisendorfer, 1998;
Prisendorfer & Voss, 1990; Robinson & Sexton, 1994). Thus, future research on the human
capital-entrepreneurial success relationship should consider theoretically derived mediators
and moderators (Unger et al., 2009).
Recent studies are going beyond traditional measures of human capital and
acknowledging intellectual, social, and emotional capital (e.g., Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
Intellectual capital is in reference to learning capacity, cognitive complexity, as well as tacit and
11
explicit knowledge (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Social capital is comprised of networks of
relationships, trustworthiness, and socialability; networks that present opportunities for access
to resources (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003). Social capital can provide
productive capacity used by organizations to achieve their goals (Tomer, 2003). Previous
researchers have suggested that successful entrepreneurs have greater social intelligence than
other individuals; they interact more effectively in social settings and when adapting to new
social situations (e.g., Baron, 2000). Emotional capital (i.e., self-awareness, ambition, courage,
integrity, resilience) allows individuals to translate their intellectual capital (i.e., knowledge) and
social capital (i.e., relationships) into effective actions (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003). As
researchers continue to seek constructs beyond the traditional measures of human capital (i.e.,
education and experience), this study incorporates additional human capital constructs more
recently recognized, such as abilities, skills, and knowledge (e.g., Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003).
One important component of emotional capital, which has recently received considerable
attention, is the human capital capacity of emotional intelligence (Tomer, 2003). Having
discussed non-psychological factors, it is time to address the psychological, individual
determinants of entrepreneurial success.
Psychological Factors
Psychology-based research in entrepreneurship has strong roots in motive theory, trait
theory, and cognitive theory (Cross & Travaglione, 2003). Self-efficacy, a cognitive theory, has
attempted to explain entrepreneurship as a series of definitive thought processes where
entrepreneurs perceive their abilities to be greater than the norm and hence obtain greater
outcomes (Neck, Neck, Manz & Godwin, 1999). Another cognitive theory, risk propensity
12
theory, addresses the successful decision making skills and confidence in taking risks that an
entrepreneur possesses (Busenitz, 1999; Cross &Travaglione, 2003; Littunen, 2000).
The psychology of the entrepreneur. Research on the psychology of entrepreneurs has
revealed a great deal in the last decade, with interest in entrepreneurial processes such as
discovering opportunities, making complex decisions, solving unexpected problems, and
operating new ventures (Baron & Ward, 2004). Previous researchers have highlighted the
notion that entrepreneurs think differently than other individuals in many respects (Baron,
2000). Research on entrepreneurial psychology compares entrepreneurs and other
professionals in the contents of their thoughts (e.g., Mitchell, Smith, Morse, Seawright, Perdeo
& McKenzie, 2002) as well as the thought processes they use (e.g., Baron, 2000). In Baron and
Ward (2004), specific thought processes were shown to differentiate entrepreneurs from other
business professionals (i.e., willingness, arrangements, and abilities). Willingness included an
entrepreneur’s commitment to starting the new venture; and arrangement of thoughts focused
on resources, relationships, and entrepreneurial assets. Finally, thought processing abilities
were concerned with the skills, knowledge, and capacities needed to undertake an
entrepreneurial endeavor (Mitchell, Smith, Seawright & Morse, 2000; Mitchell et al., 2002).
Entrepreneurial intentions, a cognitive state preceding the decision to act (Krueger, 2000), also
compares the thoughts and mental frameworks of entrepreneurs to those in other business
capacities (Baron & Ward, 2004). Intentions to start a new venture are influenced by beliefs
that the endeavor is desirable and feasible (e.g., Krueger, 1993). According to Baron and Ward
(2004) research on entrepreneurial psychology has also investigated attributions (e.g.,
13
Gatewood, Shaver & Gartner, 2002) and engaging in counterfactual thinking, or what might
have been (Baron, 2000).
Other researchers have investigated the role of cognitive biases and errors in
entrepreneurial thinking (Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Evidence from
these prior studies suggest that entrepreneurs’ thought processes are affected by errors and
biases that may result in unrealistic expectations (e.g., overconfidence, Busenitz & Barney,
1997) and flawed decisions (Baron & Ward, 2004). Entrepreneurs may also be subject to other
cognitive biases such as illusion of control and law of small numbers (Simon, Houghton &
Aquino, 2000). Cognitive biases may also be significant in the initial decision to become an
entrepreneur (e.g., Baron & Ward, 2004).
With opportunity recognition at the forefront of the entrepreneurial process,
researchers have focused on the thought processes involved in opportunity recognition (e.g.,
Krueger, 2003). Gaglio and Katz (2001) take this notion a step further and suggest that
successful entrepreneurs possess a mental framework, or cognitive schema, called
entrepreneurial alertness, or being alert to opportunities. The authors contend that the
complex, adaptive mental frameworks of entrepreneurs allows them to think outside of the box
more than individuals lacking this ability (Galio & Katz, 2001). Other researchers recognize the
role of information in recognizing opportunities, suggesting that entrepreneurs recognize
opportunities better than other individuals because they have access to pertinent information
or are better at utilizing the information they have (e.g., Shane, 2003). Baron and Ward (2004)
conclude their discussion on the psychology of entrepreneurs by recognizing other factors that
14
are important in the entrepreneurial literature such as creativity and other aspects of learning
(e.g., Corbett, 2002).
Emotions have also been intertwined in behavioral research in the workplace for several
decades (e.g., George, 2000; Cross & Travaglione, 2003). Emotions interact with cognitive
processes and behaviors; they are high intensity feelings that require attention (Forgas, 1992).
Prior research evidence reveals that emotions can influence judgments, creativity, memory
recall, as well as deductive and inductive reasoning (George, 2000). Because emotions can, and
do, affect thought processes and behaviors their potential role in entrepreneurship is evident
(Cross & Travaglione, 2003).
Social and emotional intelligence. An understanding of the evolution of emotional
intelligence theory contributes to the current conceptualization. The roots of emotional
intelligence (EI) stem from the concept of social intelligence that was first acknowledged by
Thorndike in 1920. Thorndike defined social intelligence as “the ability to understand and
manage men/women, boys/girls—to act wisely in human relations” (1920: p. 231). Gardner
(1993) followed up on Thorndike’s work and identified seven intelligence domains in his
development of the Multiple Intelligence Theory. In Gardner’s (1993) work on multiple
intelligences, he recognized interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences as two imperative
aspects of the social intelligence outlined by Thorndike (1920). Specifically, intrapersonal
intelligence deals with an individual and his or her ability to embody complex emotions and
differentiate between feelings; while interpersonal intelligence in an individual’s ability to make
distinctions in the emotions of other people, including their moods, motivations, and even their
intentions (Thorndike, 1920).
15
The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has gained the attention of researchers and
practitioners alike (e.g., Weisenger, 1998; Abraham, 1999). Practitioners have realized that
employees can no longer be perceived as biological machines that are capable of leaving their
feelings, norms, and attitudes at home when they go to work. The study of emotional
intelligence has been a heavily researched topic in areas such as sociology and psychology, but
has more recently moved into organizational behavior research as a result of an increased
emphasis in studying how emotions relate to actions (e.g., Robbins & Judge, 2009).
Management researchers are embracing the concept of social and emotional intelligences due
to their applicability to workplace issues such as performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism,
organizational commitment, intentions, and leadership issues (Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker,
2002).
Emotional Intelligence Schools of Thought
The two main schools of thought on emotional intelligence are mental ability models
(e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997) and mixed models (e.g., Goleman, 1995). Mental ability models
explore the interplay of emotion and cognitive intelligence, recognizing abilities that allow
individuals to be more emotionally adaptable in work and life contexts. Mixed models focus
more on a variety of traits and talents. The divergence in conceptualizing emotional
intelligence means that researchers have different perspectives on what constitutes EI, and
different beliefs on what EI predicts.
In ability-based models, emotional intelligence is defined as a set of abilities concerning
emotions and emotional information processing (Cote, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010). In the
ability-based conceptualization, abilities are distinct from personality traits, which are enduring
16
personality characteristics that explain how people behave in various situations over time
(McCrae & John, 1992). The ability-based approach is best assessed through maximal (not
typical) performance (Petrides & Furnham, 2000); as mental abilities are a person’s capacity to
complete psychological tasks that meet a particular criterion, like accuracy or time constraints
(Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). Ability-based approaches center on the following skills and
abilities: accuracy of emotional perception, use of emotional information in thinking, reasoning
about emotions, and emotion management or regulation (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997).
Mixed models are substantially different than ability-based models of emotional
intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Mixed models define emotional intelligence
more broadly, combining emotions, motivational factors, and personality traits such as warmth,
outgoingness, optimism, and persistence (Cote et al., 2010). Researchers pursuing the mixed
model approach (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995, 1998) believe that emotional intelligence
has a theoretical foundation in psychological research and personality characteristics. Mixed
model approaches include attributes such as assertiveness, the need for achievement and
flexibility (Bar-On, 1997). Goleman’s (1995) mixed model approach to emotional intelligence is
comprised of (1) knowing one’s emotions, (2) managing emotions, (3) motivating oneself, (4)
recognizing emotions in others, and (5) handling relationships. Specific attributes of
motivation, as developed by Goleman (1995), include delaying gratification, stifling
impulsiveness, and marshalling emotions. Goleman’s claims for the predictive validity of his
mixed model include success at work, home, and school; for instance, less aggressiveness, more
popularity, improved learning, better cooperation, and more intimate relationships (Mayer et
al., 2004).
17
To some degree, ability-based models and mixed models of emotional intelligence do
overlap with other constructs (Mayer et al., 2004). For example, mental ability models overlap
with complementary competencies such as empathic accuracy (Ickes, 1997), as well as social
and/or emotional competence (e.g., Saarni, 1999; Mayer et al., 2004). Similarly, mixed models,
on a much broader scale, overlap with concepts such as achievement motivation (e.g.,
McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953), alexithymia (e.g., Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994),
emotional-responsiveness (e.g., Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972), optimism (e.g., Scheier & Carver,
1985), pleasant-unpleasant affectivity (e.g., Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993), practical
intelligence (e.g., Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985),
self-esteem (e.g., Blascovich & Tamaka, 1991), and subjective well-being (e.g., Andrews &
Robinson, 1991). Additionally, mixed models overlap substantially with personality dimensions
(e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1985) including warmth, assertiveness, trust, self-discipline, etc. (Mayer,
Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Nonetheless, researchers acknowledge that while both ability-based
and mixed models of emotional intelligence may overlap with other measures, they do, in fact,
predict job performance (e.g., Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005; Cherniss, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2010).
According to Bar-On there are five basic components common to all EI models: 1) the ability to
recognize, understand, and express emotions and feelings; 2) the ability to understand how
others feel and relate to them; 3) the ability to manage and control emotions; 4) the ability to
manage change, adapt and solve problems of a personal and interpersonal nature; and 5) the
ability to regulate positive affect and be self-motivated (Bar-On, 2005).
18
Emotional Intelligence Perspectives
According to McEnrue and Groves (2006), ability-based models and mixed models can
be broken down into four major perspectives. The primary ability-based model is that of Mayer
and Salovey (1997), the four branch cognitive ability model. The other three major
perspectives of EI are mixed models, including Goleman’s (1995, 1998) four dimension model,
Bar-On’s (1997) five dimension trait-based model, and Dulewicz and Higgs’ (1999, 2000) seven
dimension model. These four major perspectives are summarized in table 1 below.
Table 1
Summary of the Four Major Perspectives of Emotional Intelligence
Ability Model
Mixed Models
Goleman
Bar-On
Dulewicz and Higgs
Mayer and Salovey
(1990, 1997)
(1995, 1998)
(1997)
(1999, 2000)
Identify Emotions
Self-Awareness
Intrapersonal Skills
Self-Awareness
Facilitate Emotions
Self-Management
Interpersonal Skills
Emotional Resilience
Understand Emotions
Social Awareness
Adaptation
Motivation
Manage Emotions
Relationship Management
Stress Management
Interpersonal Sensitivity
General Mood
Influence
Intuitiveness
Conscientiousness
Mayer and Salovey’s model. Although emotional intelligence research was not
specifically published until 1990, general literature had at least referenced the concept as early
as 1986 (a doctoral dissertation, never published, by Wayne Payne). By the late 1980s,
psychologists, evolutionary biologists, psychiatrists, computer scientists, and others had
identified a number of human capacities involved in identifying and understanding emotions. A
means to organize these many research contributions was needed, and Salovey and Mayer
(1990) proposed that the abilities together made up a unitary construct which they labeled
19
emotional intelligence. Thus, the first theoretical framework was introduced by academics
Salovey and Mayer (Landy, 2005). In 1990, Salovey and Mayer conducted research on
emotional intelligence, aesthetics, artificial intelligence, brain research, and clinical psychology
in order to develop the formal theory and measurement of emotional intelligence (Mayer,
2001). The researchers defined emotional intelligence as the “ability to monitor one’s own and
others’ feelings and emotions to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide
one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990: p. 189). They suggested that emotional
intelligence could be divided into three broad areas, and further into sub-areas. Mayer and
Salovey later recognized that their first definition connected abilities and feelings, instead of
cognition about those feelings. Thus, in 1997 Mayer and Salovey added a fourth branch to their
model and defined emotional intelligence as “the ability to perceive and express emotion,
assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in
self and others” (Mayer & Salovey, 1997: p. 401). Mayer and Salovey’s (1997)
conceptualization of emotional intelligence has been described as the most workable,
contemporary definition (Matthews et al., 2002), and is often referred to as the most widely
accepted scientific definition (Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts, 2004).
Goleman’s model. Goleman’s writing (e.g., 1995, 1998) has generated additional
interest in the field of emotional intelligence primarily from the perspective of managers,
individuals involved in leadership roles, and other practitioners (Mayer, 2001). Goleman’s
model of EI is a mixed conceptual model. In 1995 Goleman published his first book, Emotional
Intelligence, in which he described the concept of EI as abilities including self-control, zeal,
persistence, and the ability to motivate oneself. Goleman adds later that emotional intelligence
20
abilities include “being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to
control impulse and delay gratification; to regulate one’s emotions and keep distress from
swamping the ability to think, to empathize, and to hope” (Goleman, 1995: p. 34).
In 1998 Goleman outlined a set of emotional competencies underlying the emotional
intelligence concept. He defined emotional competence as a learned capability resulting in
outstanding performance and leadership (Brown & Moshavi, 2005; Goleman, 1998). By
integrating previous research Goleman (1998) presented twenty-five competencies, arranged in
five clusters, which comprised his proposed model of emotional intelligence. The competencies
and clusters consisted of the following:
1. Self-awareness cluster: Emotional awareness, Accurate self-assessment, and Selfconfidence
2. Self-regulation cluster: Self-control, Trustworthiness, Conscientiousness, Adaptability,
and Innovation
3. Motivation cluster: Achievement drive, Commitment, Initiative, and Optimism
4. Empathy cluster: Understanding others, Developing others, Service orientation,
Leveraging diversity, and Political awareness
5. Social skills cluster: Influence, Communication, Conflict management, Leadership,
Change catalyst, Building bonds, Collaboration and cooperation, and Team capabilities
Following this concept Goleman published another New York Times Bestseller with
colleagues Boyatzis and McKee (2002) titled Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with
Emotional Intelligence. In this book the authors outline four domains of EI (1) self-awareness,
21
(2) self-management, (3) social awareness, and (4) relationship management. Goleman and
colleagues emphasize that the first two domains (self-awareness and self-management) are
about managing ourselves; and the final two domains (social awareness and relationship
management) primarily concern capabilities in how we manage our relationships (Goleman et
al., 2002).
The business management industry quickly embraced Goleman’s conceptualization of
emotional intelligence, particularly the notion that EI is a learned competency which can
increase with training and development (Goleman, 1998). Goleman’s conceptualization of
emotional intelligence also gained footing in educational and psychological research (Dulewicz
& Higgs, 2000) with its claims of being another determinant, besides general intelligence, that
may better predict life success (Goleman, 1995). Nonetheless, critics of Goleman’s mixed
model approach continue to raise concerns that this version of emotional intelligence, and the
importance of personality-related traits, may yield no information beyond research of the Big
Five personality traits (neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience,
and extraversion) or theories of motivation (Zeidner et al., 2004).
Bar-On’s model. The third theoretical model of emotional intelligence is from Bar-On
(1997). This conceptual model is also a mixed model that defines emotional intelligence as, “an
array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to
succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (Bar-On, 1997: p. 12). This
model focuses on innate personal qualities that enable emotional well-being (Brown &
Moshavi, 2005), and are based on the following five dimensions: (1) intrapersonal skills; (2)
interpersonal skills; (3) adaptation; (4) stress management; and (5) general emotion
22
management. This model is grounded in the psychological literature of personality and is based
on a wide array of traits and characteristics relating to success in various facets of life. The
dimension of interpersonal skills includes self-regard, emotional self-awareness, assertiveness,
independence, and self-actualization; interpersonal skills include empathy, social responsibility,
and interpersonal relationships. The third set of skills in Bar-On’s model comprise the
adaptability dimension and include reality-testing, flexibility, and problem-solving. The stress
management dimension is comprised of stress tolerance and impulse control; while general
emotion management consists of optimism and happiness (Bar-On, 2005).
In 2000 Bar-On and Parker devised the first self-report assessment available
commercially to test emotional intelligence. This assessment was labeled the EQ-i, or
Emotional Quotient Inventory, and it was the first self-report assessment published by a
psychological test publisher. From this assessment Bar-On assisted in coining the term
emotional quotient, or EQ—a counterpart to the intelligence quotient or IQ (Matthews et al.,
2002).
Bar-On revised his model in 2005 and reconceptualized EI as an Emotional-Social
Intelligence (ESI), defining it as, “a cross-section of interrelated emotional and social
competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express
ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands” (Bar-On,
2005: p. 3). In this reconceptualization Bar-On expresses that emotional intelligence and
general intelligence together create a more balanced intelligence (EQ + IQ = Balanced IQ)
(Mayer et al., 2000).
23
Dulewicz and Higgs’ model. The fourth major theoretical framework of emotional
intelligence was developed by Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2000). This emotional intelligence
framework is a mixed model consisting of the following seven dimensions: (1) self-awareness,
(2) emotional resilience, (3) motivation, (4) interpersonal sensitivity, (5) influence, (6)
intuitiveness, and (7) conscientiousness. Self-awareness is being aware of one’s feelings and
managing them, emotional resilience is being able to maintain one’s performance when under
pressure, and motivation is having the drive and energy to attain challenging goals or targets.
The dimension of interpersonal sensitivity is showing sensitivity and empathy towards others,
and influence is persuading others to accept one’s views or proposals. Finally, intuitiveness is
making decisions using reason and intuition when appropriate, and conscientiousness is being
consistent in one’s works and actions while behaving according to ethical standards (Dulewicz,
Higgs & Slaski, 2003).
Dulewicz and Higgs’ (2000) study included an extensive review of the emotional
intelligence literature to date, a longitudinal study of the personality characteristics and
personal competencies of a group of managers over seven-years, and a content analysis to
identify related traits based on the Job Competencies Survey. The Job Competencies Survey is a
16 personality factor test and an occupational personality questionnaire. In the Job
Competencies Survey there are 40 competencies identified and divided into three subsets.
Emotional competencies, those relating to EI, comprise the first subset. IQ competencies, those
related to general intelligence, comprise the second set; and managerial competencies (MQ),
those relating to managerial skills comprise the third and final subset (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000).
24
In the longitudinal study, the three scales together accounted for 71% of the total variance in
company advancement (Dulewicz & Higgs, 1999).
After conducting these studies, Dulewicz and colleagues (2003) went on to develop the
Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ). This questionnaire was developed to measure EI
directly through self-completion or through a 360-degree format. Dulewicz and Higgs define
emotional intelligence as “a) being aware of and managing one’s own feelings and emotions; b)
being sensitive to and influencing others; c) sustaining one’s motivation; and d) balancing one’s
motivation and drive with intuitive, conscientious, and ethical behavior” (2003: p. 47). The
Dulewicz and Higgs’ theoretical framework has primarily revolved around the correlation of
individual success and advancement, as well as leadership effectiveness (Dulewicz & Higgs,
2002).
Summary of the Pertinent Theories
The field entrepreneurship has moved to multi-level models with the understanding
that neither the individual-centric approach, nor the industry/environmental-centric approach,
alone is adequate. The entrepreneurial phenomenon cannot be explained by just individual or
just industry/environmental constructs in the absence of one another (Shane, 2003). As Baron
(2004) states, entrepreneurial performance can be explained by (1) willingness to start an
enterprise, (2) ability to identify opportunities, or (3) success of the enterprise. While it is
evident that many new ventures fail within the first few years of founding (Small Business
Administration, 2010), the factors that influence the success of entrepreneurial firms is still not
readily understood. Thus, a central question in the field of entrepreneurship remains: What
factors play a role in the success of entrepreneurial ventures?
25
Purpose of the Research and Research Questions
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate emotional intelligence in the context
of entrepreneurship. This study focuses on the general question of the field of
entrepreneurship that continues to plague researchers: Why are some entrepreneurial
ventures more successful than others? In addition, the study sheds light on the mediating
effects of individual competencies, organizational tasks, and the environmental culture and
climate.
The results of this research provide additional insight for individuals with
entrepreneurial aspirations, as well as academic and government institutions that provide
resources to new ventures (Carter & Van Auken, 2006). Furthermore, findings from the study
have the potential to provide important information for entrepreneurs that can be used in the
designing of organizational strategies that ensure growth, profitability, and organizational
success. Many researchers and practitioners believe that emotional intelligence is improved
through education and training programs (e.g., Beaujean, Davidson & Madge, 2006; Akers &
Porter, 2003; Cherniss & Caplan, 2001) and it is expected that results from this study will assist
in developing better training and learning programs, by providing the opportunity for educators
to enhance their curriculums.
Therefore, the following questions are presented:
1) Does emotional intelligence play a meaningful role in entrepreneurial success?
a. Is there a significant correlation between emotional intelligence and financial
entrepreneurial firm success?
26
b. Is there a significant correlation between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial firm success?
c. Is there a significant correlation between emotional intelligence and the
perception of personal success in entrepreneurial occupations?
2) Do individual-level constructs mediate the EI-success relationship? Specifically, does
competence mediate the relationship?
a. Does managerial competence mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success?
b. Does entrepreneurial competence mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success?
3) Do venture organizational tasks mediate the emotional intelligence-entrepreneurial
success relationship?
a. Do interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurial success?
4) Do environmental variables mediate the emotional intelligence-entrepreneurial success
relationship?
a. Does munificence mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success?
b. Does dynamism mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success?
27
Significance and Contributions
A broad perspective on the meaning of education indicates that being educated means
not only being cognitively intelligent, knowledgeable, and well versed in the sciences,
humanities, and arts; but also having social intelligence, being kind, caring, considerate,
responsible, trustworthy, conscientious, honest, and prosocial in interpersonal interactions
(Elias, Hunter & Kress, 2001). Further, prior research evidence reveals that individuals can
enjoy happier and more fulfilled lives if they are aware of their own emotions, the emotions of
other people, and if they are able to regulate those emotions effectively (e.g., Mayer & Salovey,
1997). Thus, the contributions of this study are abundant and exist from a research perspective
as well as a practitioner perspective.
Contributions to Research
From the research perspective this study contributes to the field of entrepreneurship by
assessing the influence of emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial success. While researchers
have used substantial resources to explore the role of emotional intelligence in general
workplace performance, leadership, teams, and education, they have spent much less time
exploring the role of emotional intelligence in the entrepreneurial context (e.g., Cross &
Travaglione, 2003; Rhee & White, 2007), particularly ability-based emotional intelligence.
Nonetheless, emotional intelligence has implications for entrepreneurial behaviors such as
negotiations, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying and exploiting opportunities,
obtaining and maintaining customers, leading the organization, and other interpersonal
activities.
28
This study also contributes to the emotional intelligence literature. Because EI has such
strong roots and ties to social intelligence, theoretically differentiating the two constructs
continues to challenge researchers (Gardner, 1993); nonetheless, the emotional intelligence
perspective remains another tool that scholars can use in their efforts to understand and
predict performance. Therefore, this study adds and contributes to the understanding of
emotional intelligence and assists in the building of a nomological network to support this
stream of research.
Additionally, by addressing multiple measures of entrepreneurial success (financial,
relative, and personal), this study adds to the literature on these critical components of
entrepreneurial performance. From a research perspective, emotional intelligence may provide
another explanation for various measures of entrepreneurial success. Dividing entrepreneurial
success into multiple measures provides a more thorough explanation for the contribution of
emotional intelligence in the field of entrepreneurship.
Practical Implications
Several practical implications for the study of these relationships warrant further
discussion as well. For instance, this study seeks answers to the age old question, why are
some entrepreneurs more successful than others in starting and operating new ventures?
Previous efforts to answer this question have typically focused on external factors, like the
number of competing businesses (Baron & Markman, 2000); or personality traits, like
agreeableness and conscientiousness (e.g., Warwick & Nettelbeck, 2004). Following the work
of Baron and colleagues (e.g., Baron & Ward, 2004; Baron & Markman, 2000) this study
proposes that entrepreneurial cognition and social skills (abilities that assist in the effective
29
interaction with others, like emotional intelligence) may be fundamental to entrepreneurial
success. Furthermore, because emotional intelligence abilities can be taught, learned, and/or
acquired (e.g., Beaujean et al., 2006) individuals pursuing emotional intelligence training and
education may reap important benefits when it comes to entrepreneurial behaviors such as
negotiation, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying and exploiting opportunities,
obtaining and maintaining customers, as well as providing leadership and organization. Thus,
this study contributes to the notion that emotional intelligence skills can be enhanced and
provides another perspective on a potentially valuable set of skills for entrepreneurs.
Contributions from this study may also be of high utility for educators. Currently, many
entrepreneurship courses emphasize entrepreneurial management and planning skills, but
overlook entrepreneurial skills like emotional control, creativity, and relational abilities. The
skills taught tend to be technical, lacking attention to cognition and belief systems of the
entrepreneur (Kickul & D’Intino, 2005). Thus, emotional intelligence abilities should be
considered when educators design and assess entrepreneurial curriculum, as these constructs
can change and improve with attention, training, and practice (D’Intino, Goldsby, Houghton &
Neck, 2007). Support for the research questions in this study would confirm the need to create
supportive classrooms that focus on key entrepreneurial skills and allow individuals to launch
successful businesses in a competitive, global climate.
Study Layout
The remainder of this dissertation is organized into four additional chapters, outlined as
follows. Chapter II provides the research model and a literature review of the predictor
variable (emotional intelligence), criterion variable (entrepreneurial success), and mediating
30
variables (managerial competence, entrepreneurial competence, interpersonal tasks,
munificence, and dynamism). Specifically, I address the role of emotional intelligence in
workplace performance, leadership, education, interpersonal relationships, job satisfaction,
organizational attitudes and behaviors, negotiations, teamwork and groups, problem solving
and decision making. Building on previous research addressing the role of emotional
intelligence in these areas of performance, I propose a research model that sheds light on the
emotional intelligence-success relationship in the entrepreneurial context. After reviewing the
pertinent literature, I then summarize the chapter and close with support for a series of
hypotheses concerning the association between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial
success.
In chapter III I discuss the research methods that are necessary to test the proposed
hypotheses. Specifically, I describe the data collection technique and the research design. I
then discuss threats to validity, reliability, and relevance; as well as providing a detailed
description of the questionnaires used. Statistical power, effect size, and sample size are
discussed before outlining the pilot study and discussing the pilot study analysis. I close chapter
III with a summary of the pilot study and any necessary changes to the main study. Chapter IV
presents the detailed analyses of the main study and an interpretation of the results. The
dissertation closes, in chapter V, with a discussion of the implications for research and practice
along with suggestions for future research.
31
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Emotional Intelligence
The interest in emotional intelligence in the workplace rests on the belief that EI plays
an important role in innovation, efficiency, productivity, the development of talent, sales,
revenues, quality of service, customer loyalty, employee recruitment and retention, employee
commitment, morale, health and satisfaction, and client or student outcomes (Cherniss, 2001).
Previous researchers have explored the role of emotional intelligence in a range of
organizational activities, recognizing that the integration of explicit knowledge and tacit
emotional abilities may lead to greater success (Zeidner et al., 2009). In this chapter, the
conceptual claims and empirical evidence of research on emotional intelligence in the
workplace are addressed.
The relationship between emotional intelligence and the success of entrepreneurial
ventures are explored. The mediating role of individual competence, namely managerial
competence and entrepreneurial competence, are examined; along with venture organizational
tasks, namely interpersonal activities; and environmental level variables, namely dynamism and
munificence. The relationships among these variables are depicted in the research model
displayed in Figure 2. The remainder of this chapter is dedicated to a thorough discussion of
the constructs and the relationships presented in the research model.
32
Individual Competence
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Success
Entrepreneurial Competence
Financial Firm
Success
Venture Organizational Tasks
Emotional
Intelligence
Interpersonal Activities
Relative Firm
Success
Environment
Personal
Success
Munificence
Dynamism
Figure 2. Research model.
Emotional intelligence is defined as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’
feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s
thinking and actions” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990: p. 189). Over the past 30 years, the concept of
emotional intelligence (EI) has gained the attention of researchers and practitioners alike (e.g.,
Weisenger, 1998; Abraham, 1999). Practitioners have realized that employees can no longer be
perceived as biological machines that are capable of leaving their feelings, norms, and attitudes
at home when they go to work. Thus, individuals must have more than just intellectual ability
and great ideas, they must also possess certain human characteristics and personal qualities
(Cross & Travaglione, 2003), such as emotional intelligence.
33
The Study of Emotions
The study of emotions has been an extensively researched topic in areas such as
sociology and psychology, but has more recently moved into business management research as
a result of an increased emphasis in studying how emotions relate to performance (e.g., Joseph
& Newman, 2010; Mayer et al., 2008; Law, Wong & Song, 2004; Grandey, 2000). Previous
researchers have identified emotions as being associated with the following: selection and
hiring practices in jobs with substantial social interaction (e.g., Goleman, 1995); positive
emotions have been found to enhance problem solving in the decision making process (e.g.,
Forgas, 1989); positive emotions lead to greater creativity and the ability to come up with more
ideas in the brainstorming process (e.g., George & Zhou, 2007). Organizations that promote
more positive emotions at work are likely to have more motivated workers (e.g., Erez & Isen,
2002); effective leaders rely on emotional appeals to help convey their messages (e.g., Lewis,
2000); and skilled negotiators are able to use emotional intelligence for their poker face (Ferris,
Treadway, Kolodinsky, Hochwarter, Kacmar, Douglas, & Frink, 2005). Furthermore, worker’s
emotional states influence customer service, which influences levels of repeat business and
levels of customer satisfaction (Tsai & Huang, 2002). Finally, when leaders display positive
emotions subordinates are more positive and tend to cooperate better (Robbins & Judge,
2009).
Researchers are embracing the concept of emotional intelligence due to its applicability
to many of these same workplace issues, including performance, job satisfaction, absenteeism,
organizational commitment, and leadership issues (Rozell et al., 2002). The remarkable growth
of emotional intelligence in the literature has also been fueled by the claims that EI may be as
34
strong a predictor of job performance as cognitive intelligence, or IQ (e.g., Cherniss, 2010;
Mayer et al., 2008). The following sections address the role of emotional intelligence in various
work contexts.
Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Performance
There has been increasing evidence that high levels of emotional intelligence are
positively associated with job performance (e.g., Law et al., 2004; Greenstein, 2001; O’Boyle et
al., 2010; Rozell et al., 2002; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Prior research evidence reveals
that emotional intelligence influences workplace success via interpersonal relationships with
colleagues, the strategies individuals use to manage stress and workplace conflict, and overall
job performance (e.g., Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). In the organizational setting much of the
interest in EI revolves around the assumption that emotional intelligence plays a role in
workplace productivity, profitability, and enhancing the overall quality of work and life (e.g.,
Goleman, 1995, 1998; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Matthews, Emo, Zeidner & Roberts, 2006; Mayer
et al., 2000; Zeidner et al., 2009). According to Cooper (1997), greater emotional intelligence
enables individuals to build stronger relationships, enjoy greater health, lead more effectively,
and achieve greater career success. The roots of emotional intelligence in the organizational
context can be traced to classic management theory and practice where strategies for
assessment greatly revolved around cognitive abilities (e.g., social awareness) found to be
predictive of successful performance in managerial positions (Gowing, 2001). Since such early
psychological assessments researchers have further vindicated the significance of social and
emotional skills in the prediction of occupational performance (e.g., Jordan, Ashkanasy &
Ascough, 2007; Cherniss, 2000; Boyatzis, 1982; Howard & Bray, 1988; O’Boyle et al., 2010).
35
Workplace behaviors affected by emotional intelligence include innovation, service quality,
employee commitment, customer loyalty, teamwork, and talent development (Zeidner et al.,
2004).
Evidence of the EI-workplace performance relationship can be depicted by a recent
meta-analysis conducted by Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004). The authors investigated the
results of 57 previous studies, concluding that EI was a predictor of effective performance.
More specifically, the study showed that 5% of the variance in workplace performance was
indeed attributable to EI (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
Several empirical research investigations support the emotional intelligence-workplace
performance relationship. For example, in a study of the successes and failures of American
presidents (from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton) emotional intelligence was the key quality
that differentiated the successful from the unsuccessful (Greenstein, 2000). In a study by
Spencer and Spencer (1993), at L’Oreal, sales agents selected on the basis of certain emotional
competencies significantly outsold salespeople selected using the company’s old selection
procedure. On an annual basis salespeople selected on the basis of emotional competence sold
over $90,000 more than other salespeople, resulting in a revenue increase of over $2.5 million.
Salespeople selected on the basis of emotional competence also had 63% fewer turnovers
during the first year than those selected in a typical way (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).
Researchers claim that emotional intelligence contributes to such workplace success because it
affects an individual’s ability to succeed when coping with environmental pressures and
demands (Bar-On, 1997).
36
Throughout the literature general abilities predict approximately 10-30% of the criterion
variance in job performance (e.g., Jensen, 1998). This leaves approximately 70-90% of the
variance in successful job performance unaccounted for due to other variables. Nonetheless,
many replicated findings have pointed to cognitive variables, such as EI, as major contributors
in better understanding job performance. According to Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts’ (2002)
book titled Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth, the concept of EI has received
considerable attention because it is also claimed to be useful when evaluating regular
functioning, and the well-being of individuals who are at critical stages of their careers (i.e.,
selection, placement, training, promotion).
Emotional Intelligence and Leadership
Evidence from studies conducted over the last several decades reveal that EI plays an
important role in leadership performance (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002). Advocates of EI argue that
without it a person can have outstanding training, a highly analytical mind, a compelling vision,
and an endless supply of ideas, but still not make a great leader (Goleman, 1998). Researchers
(e.g., George, 2000) contend that leaders with greater emotional intelligence are better able to
appraise and influence the emotions of their followers. Such abilities enable leaders to acquire
more support for their goals, objectives and vision, as they can use intense emotions to direct
followers’ attention to projects needing immediate attention (Zeidner et al., 2004). Leaders
with greater emotional intelligence can infuse enthusiasm, optimism, and excitement in the
work environment while anticipating the followers’ reactions to changes (George, 2000).
Finally, greater emotional intelligence from a leader is said to create a work environment based
37
on trust and cooperation via the creation of high quality interpersonal relationships (e.g.,
George, 2000; Schutte, Malouff, Bobik, Coston, Greeson, Jedlicka, Rhodes & Wendorf, 2001).
Several empirical studies have investigated the role of EI in leadership. For instance,
Spencer, McClelland and Kelner (1997) studied more than 300 top-level executives from 15
global companies and showed that six emotional intelligence competencies distinguished star
executives from the average. Boyatzis (1982) found that accurate self-assessment, a
foundation of identifying emotions in EI, was associated with superior performance among
several hundred managers from 12 different organizations.
McClelland (1999) studied a large beverage firm using standard methods to hire division
presidents. In this study 50% of the division presidents left within two years, mostly due to
poor performance. When they started selecting based on emotional competencies only 6% left
in two years. Furthermore, division leaders with emotional competencies outperformed their
targets by 15 to 20%; those who lacked them under-performed by almost 20% (McClelland,
1999).
In their 2002 book Primal Leadership Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee labeled an
emotionally intelligent leader as a resonant leader. They went on to discuss that resonant
leaders have the ability to delve into the emotionality of their constituents and are thus able to
better understand the perspectives of their followers. Depending on the situation, resonant
leaders are more flexible in their leadership styles, they are better able to adapt to negative
outcomes, as well as being more capable of establishing and maintaining high-quality
relationships (Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, & Roberts, 2001). Therefore, EI enables leaders to read
cues from others that allow them to deliver the necessary leadership mode (Goleman et al.,
38
2002). The opposite of a resonant leader is a dissonant leader; one who lacks the
aforementioned synchronization with followers. A dissonant leader lacks empathy and
exhausts the peace, hope, and happiness of others (Goleman et al., 2002). Followers of
dissonant leaders become exhausted and easily burn out while trying to get their leader to
understand their perspectives (Goleman et al., 2002). A dissonant leader is unable to adapt to
stressful life events, thus facing greater depression and hopelessness (Ciarrochi et al., 2001).
Emotional Intelligence and Transformational Leadership
Emotional intelligence has also been extensively researched in the context of
transformational leadership specifically. A core component of emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense the needs of others,
listen to what followers say (and do not say), and are able to read the reactions of others
(Goleman et al., 2002). Transformational leaders are often recognized as those with an innate
ability to empathize; thus, research on the role of emotional intelligence in transformational
leader performance is also abundant.
Researchers claim that the relationship between transformational leadership and
emotional intelligence is intuitive (e.g., Dulewicz, Young & Dulewicz, 2005), and empirical
investigations support the relationship. According to Ashforth and Humphrey (1995),
transformational leadership provides a good example of just how valuable emotions can be in
leadership effectiveness. These authors suggest that transformational leaders are able to
arouse followers’ emotions in order to inspire commitment and dedication to the changes of
the organization (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). For example, shared vision is claimed to be a
characteristic of transformational leaders (Burns, 1978), and leaders who possess greater
39
emotional intelligence are better able to stimulate enthusiasm and more clearly articulate their
goals, objectives, and shared vision (Goleman, 1998). Previous research exploring the
relationships between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance
has shown that leaders possessing high scores on EI and/or transformational leadership
demonstrate superior performance (Mandell & Pherwani, 2003).
In order to be an effective transformational leader an individual must be able to identify
or relate emotionally with others (Hoffman & Frost, 2006). In a study of 32 managers from
large firms in the Northeastern part of the United States, Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found
that a person with high EI was more inclined to demonstrate transformational leader attributes.
A significant difference (p<.05) was found between emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership style; thus their regression analysis provided evidence that transformational
leadership could be predicted by using a managers’ emotional intelligence score (Mandell &
Pherwani, 2003).
An empirical investigation of 49 managers in a large pulp and paper organization was
conducted by Barling, Slater, and Kelloway (2000) which concluded that emotional intelligence
was associated with the following three aspects of transformational leadership style: (1)
idealized influence, (2) inspirational motivation, (3) and individualized consideration. The study
used Bar-On’s (1997) mixed model assessment to unveil the transformational leadership-EI
relationship; the researchers suggest that leaders with greater emotional intelligence are
viewed by their subordinates as displaying more leader behaviors (Barling et al., 2000). Leban
and Zulauf (2004) paralleled their results by assessing emotional intelligence with an ability
based model, finding significant relationships between EI and the same three aspects of
40
transformational leadership mentioned above. Thus, EI can be linked to three of the four
elements of transformational leadership regardless of the theoretical framework (ability-based
or trait-based) used to examine it.
In closing, theoretical and empirical investigations have provided evidence of a positive
relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Studies show
that emotional intelligence may play an important role in leadership performance by
emphasizing collaborative relationships and bringing to the forefront the role of emotions in
leadership styles.
Emotional Intelligence and Education
Theory and empirical research also supports the role of emotional intelligence in
educational performance and outcomes. In this context, researchers and practitioners contend
that students in today’s society may have adequate cognitive abilities, but are lacking
emotional intelligence (e.g., Zeidner et al., 2009). Some authors (e.g., Romasz, Kantor & Elias,
2004) take it to the next level and contend that acquiring social and emotional skills is actually a
prerequisite for students to be able to benefit from the traditional academic material presented
in classrooms (Humphrey et al., 2007). Whatever the view, there is a consensus among
researchers that greater levels of EI can be helpful in acquiring knowledge and developing
cognitive abilities (Capara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura & Zimbardo, 2000).
Emotional intelligence is thought to be directly predictive of educational success
(Hawkins, Smith & Catalano, 2004). Zins, Payton, Weissberg, and O’Brien (2007) suggest that
students with high-levels of emotional intelligence not only have higher achievement in the
classroom, but that such students are also more motivated to learn. Researchers have also
41
provided empirical evidence that emotional competence can help students pay attention in the
classroom and better retain the material presented (Trentacosta, Izard, Mostow & Fine, 2006).
In a study of 263 first and second grade students enrolled in two elementary schools, multiple
regression analysis provided evidence that emotional knowledge predicted attentional
competence. Emotional intelligence was predictive of scores on standardized achievement
tests (e.g., Malecki & Elliot, 2002; Welsh, Park, Widaman & O’Neil, 2001) and increased
performance in reading and spelling assessments (e.g., Feshback & Feshback, 1987). Additional
experimental work by Feshback and Cohen (1988) provided evidence that empathy training in
youth has positive effects on school achievement and self-esteem; and decreased feelings of
aggression. In a study by Denham (2006), elementary school children showed consistent
relationships between social and emotional competencies and school achievement. A review of
studies by Halberstadt and Hall (1980) concluded that a positive relationship exists between
emotional awareness and cognitive outcomes in youth. Emotional intelligence was also
associated in the literature with prosocial behaviors like empathy (Hawkins et al., 2004).
Researchers contend that a child’s ability to understand emotions creates the foundation for
utilizing emotions effectively and for social adaptation (e.g., Izard, 1971, 2002). Trentacosta
and colleagues (2006) take this one step further and explain that children who successfully
process emotional signals in an academic environment are indeed more likely to effectively
complete tasks at school; meanwhile, children with less emotional understanding may suffer
from poor relationships and greater disruptive behaviors with their teachers and peers. Thus,
individuals with less emotional understanding have greater difficulty maintaining their
concentration when it comes to school tasks. Less emotional intelligence is also likely to
42
increase stress and distractions that create inattentive classroom behaviors (Izard, 1991; Izard,
Fine, Schultz, Mostow, Ackerman & Youngstrom, 2001).
In a longitudinal study conducted by Aronson (2000) the EI-education relationship was
investigated by analyzing students over the course of twelve years. Children were studied at
age 4 for their ability to control impulse behaviors and delay immediate gratification (selfmotivation and managing self). Ten years later the same students, now adolescents, were
analyzed in a follow-up study. The results indicated that the children with greater self-control,
or self-regulation, early in life (age 4) were more verbally fluent, rational, able to concentrate,
and more self-assured than the children with less self-control (Shoda, Mischel & Peake, 1990).
Furthermore, the adolescents with less self-control at age 4 were more likely to have less selfconfidence, to be short-tempered, and powerless when faced with stress (Shonda et al., 1990).
Another follow-up was conducted when the children were in high-school, as teenagers. Those
initially delaying gratification (at age 4) were found to have greater academic motivation and an
increased eagerness to learn; they were also more able to reason, organize, and express their
ideas, as depicted by their higher SAT scores (Shoda et al., 1990).
Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts (2002) contend that EI plays an important role in
schools as a mechanism for increasing interest in social-emotional learning. Yet, the extent to
which emotional intelligence translates into an enhanced education continues to raise
questions (Matthews et al., 2006). In a meta-analysis of over 300 studies that assessed the
benefits of social and emotional learning (SEL) programs, the benefits of SEL programs showed
the following: students were ranked at least 10% higher on achievement tests, students had
higher GPAs, students had significantly better attendance records, students liked school more
43
overall, students showed more constructive classroom behaviors than their counterparts, and
students were less likely to have been disciplined or suspended (Matthews et al., 2006).
The concept of more constructive, and less disruptive classroom behaviors, has
attracted even more attention in recent years. Statistics on school violence, bullying, dropouts,
and youth suicide are on the rise; as is childhood depression, emotion-related illnesses, and
expressions of fear and hopelessness in youth (McCombs, 2004). Thus, researchers and
practitioners seek answers to these escalating statistics. Previous researchers have
demonstrated that correlates of classroom bullying and antisocial behaviors are associated with
a lack of empathy and a lack of self-regulatory skills (Olweus, 2001); providing evidence that
social and emotional learning be the missing piece in education (Elias, Zins, Weissberg, Frey,
Greenberg, Haynes, Kessler, Schwab-Stone & Shriver, 1997).
Empirical evidence has also shown that low EI is a key ingredient to various deviant
behaviors that are linked to emotional deficiencies (Roberts & Strayer, 1996). For example,
Petrides, Fredrickson and Furnham (2004) studied 650 eleventh grade students in Britain and
found that EI was negatively associated with deviant school behaviors such as being expelled
from school. In a sample of youth in North America researchers Trinidad and Johnson (2002)
found EI to be negatively associated with deviant behaviors such as tobacco and alcohol use at
school.
Additionally, researchers suggest that the process of learning is in and of itself social in
nature; meaning that a variety of classroom learning elements are relational or social and thus
necessitate emotional skills (Elias et al., 2001). Emotional intelligence skills that may promote
learning include self-control and effective self-regulation. Social skills like forming constructive
44
learning partnerships and avoiding damaging antisocial behaviors may also promote learning
(Hawkins et al., 2004).
In closing, complex economic and cultural changes may necessitate emotional and social
curriculum in order to assist in the successful academic performance of children and adults.
While emotional and social skills have not always been considered key elements of education in
the past, they may now be as critical as basic knowledge in reading, writing, and math
(Greenberg, Kusche & Riggs, 2004). Furthermore, according to Hawkins and colleagues (2004),
cognitive and emotional abilities are no longer mutually exclusive, but rather they can be
instilled simultaneously.
Emotional Intelligence and Interpersonal Relationships
Individuals with greater emotional intelligence have been referred to as being more
socially competent, as having more quality social relationships, and for being more prosocial or
interpersonally sensitive (e.g., Brackett, Warner & Bosco, 2005; Brackett, Rivers & Salovey,
2011; Lopes, Salovey, Cote & Beers, 2005; Lopes, Salovey & Straus, 2003; Lopes, Brackett,
Nezlek, Schutz, Sellin & Salovey, 2004; Schutte et al., 2001). Researchers suggest that
emotional intelligence has the ability promote positive social functioning and more productive
interpersonal relationships by enabling individuals to better detect emotional states, see the
perspectives of others, improve communication, and regulate behaviors (Brackett et al., 2011).
Emotional intelligence has been found to be positively associated with supportive interpersonal
relationships between individuals and their friends and parents; while negative associations
have been identified between emotional intelligence and antagonistic or conflictual
relationships with friends and family (e.g., Lopes et al., 2004; Lopes et al., 2005). Individuals
45
with greater emotional intelligence have also been found to show greater emotional closeness
to others, making others feel comfortable, depending on others, and having others depend on
them (Kafetsios, 2004).
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2000, 2004), and Ogilvie and Carsky (2002) emphasized the
role of emotional intelligence in daily life, and expressed that EI may serve as a good indicator
of success or failure in interpersonal relationships. The authors specifically addressed leaderto-follower and peer-to-peer relationships, suggesting that self-awareness, self-control, and
emotional mastery significantly improved interpersonal relationships, and the overall human
interactions (e.g., Mayer et al., 2000, 2004; Ogilvie & Carsky, 2002; Schutte et al., 2001).
Social interaction is also dependent upon self-regulation and impulse control. Selfregulation and impulse control includes managing personal goals, developing strategies to
attain those goals, and handling the obstacles that arise during the process, including one’s
emotional reactions (Matthews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2002). Researchers (e.g., Goleman, 1998;
Zeidner et al., 2004) suggest that individuals with greater emotional intelligence better succeed
at the communication of their thoughts, goals, ideas, and intentions by expressing them in
appealing and assertive ways. Furthermore, that the developing, sustaining, and maintaining of
quality collaborative relationships are associated with emotional intelligence abilities
(Matthews et al., 2006).
Emotional Intelligence and Job Satisfaction
Emotional intelligence has also been linked to greater job satisfaction (e.g., Kafetsios &
Zampetakis, 2008; Sy, Tram & O’Hara, 2006). Researchers contend that individuals with greater
emotional intelligence are better able to appraise and manage the emotions of others (Zeidner
46
et al., 2009). Such abilities allow high EI individuals to foster interpersonal interactions that can
boost the morale of the group, contributing to overall well-being and satisfaction (Sy et al.,
2006). Additionally, individuals with greater emotional intelligence are better able to regulate
their own emotions in order to reduce job stress (Kafetsios & Zampetakis, 2008). Finally,
supervisors that have greater EI are better able to help other workers manage their emotions
and foster a work environment that can enhance overall job satisfaction (Sy et al., 2006).
Empirical investigations to support this claim have been conducted by several
researchers. For instance, Slaski and Cartwright (2003) used the EQ-i to study 224 managers
from a supermarket chain in the United Kingdom. To assess performance line managers were
asked to evaluate the frequency of specific behaviors, such as setting goals and objectives or
evaluating policies and procedures. Relationships existed between emotional intelligence and
the following: quality of work satisfaction (r = 0.41), morale (r = 0.55), distress (r = -0.57), and
general mental health (r = .50). But only a moderate positive relationship existed between
emotional intelligence and managerial performance (r = 0.22).
In another empirical study, Sy, Tram, and O’Hara, (2006) collected data from nine
restaurants, consisting of 187 employees, all from the same restaurant franchise. Results from
this study concluded that employee emotional intelligence was positively associated with
performance and job satisfaction (Sy et al., 2006). Additionally, manager’s emotional
intelligence was more positively correlated with job satisfaction when employees had lower
emotional intelligence, but not for employees with lower performance (Sy et al., 2006).
Therefore, researchers have suggested that individuals with high emotional intelligence use
their abilities to appraise and manage others emotions, which ultimately helps them to foster
47
interactions that boost morale (Sy et al., 2006). High EI individuals may also be better able to
reduce job stress by regulating their emotions as well as helping others to manage their
emotions, which buffer them from negative events, ultimately increasing job satisfaction (Sy et
al., 2006).
Emotional Intelligence and Positive Organizational Attitudes and Behaviors
A few articles (e.g., Jordan, Ashkanasy & Hartel, 2002) have also linked emotional
intelligence to organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e., workplace attitudes and actions that
benefit working relationships and ultimately contribute to an overall positive working climate).
Theoretically, Abraham (2005) argues that emotional intelligence should augment
organizational citizenship behaviors and enhance overall organizational commitment. Jordan,
Ashkanasy and Hartel (2002), on the other hand, contend that attitudes and commitment to an
organization are mediated by EI; more specifically, that individuals with greater emotional
intelligence are more likely to generate high affective commitment. Nevertheless, these
theoretical models have not be tested empirically, thus validity remains in question (Matthews
et al., 2006).
Other empirical investigations that support the EI-affective outcomes relationship
include the relationships between emotional intelligence and the following: a) altruistic
behavior, career commitment, and affective commitment to the organization (Carmeli &
Josman, 2006); b) interpersonal sensitivity and prosocial tendencies (Lopes et al., 2005); c)
altruism and compliance (Carmeli & Josman, 2006); d) satisfaction with other group members
and with communication within their group (Lopes et al., 2005); e) job dedication (Law et al.,
2004); f) customer orientation (Rozell et al., 2004); g) conflict resolution styles (Jordan & Troth,
48
2002); h) affective tone in negotiation (Foo et al., 2004); and i) willingness to change (Vakola,
Tsaousis & Nikolaou, 2004).
Emotional Intelligence and Negotiations
Researchers suggest that emotional intelligence also plays an important role in
negotiations, as EI has the ability to influence information acquisition, decision-making
soundness, and tactical manipulation of one’s own and/or other’s emotions (Fulmer & Barry,
2004). A negotiator’s verbal and nonverbal expressions provide cues that may assist in the
initiation, influence, problem solving, and conclusion phases of the negotiation process (Morris
& Keltner, 2000). Additionally, self-control of one’s own emotions may assist an individual in
compartmentalizing their emotions and avoiding potential impairments in the information
gathering and processing phases (Fulmer & Barry, 2004). With regard to the role of emotional
intelligence in decision-making soundness, research theorists have suggested that differences
exist in the cognitive and emotional evaluation of risk, with emotional evaluation being more
likely to lead to behavior (e.g., Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee & Welch, 2001). According to Fulmer
and Barry, “the emotional intelligence model proposed by Salovey and colleagues incorporates
both self-awareness and self-regulation of emotion, which suggests that emotionally intelligent
negotiators are better positioned to recognize emotional responses for what they are, to
control the situations which are known to give rise to strong or blinding emotions, and possibly
to override those emotions when they are maladaptive” (2004: p. 259). Finally, emotional
intelligence has the ability to affect tactical manipulation of one’s own emotions and/or the
emotions of others. Fulmer and Barry (2004) suggest that negotiators with higher emotional
intelligence may be more likely to operate strategically and seize any opportunities to influence
49
or manipulate an opponent’s emotions; this is referred to in the early development of EI as the
dark side of emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Negotiators with high emotional
intelligence may be able to use emotion management tactics or compartmentalize the extreme
emotional reactions of others to reach their own goals in the negotiation process (e.g.,
Thompson, Nadler & Kim, 1999).
Empirical evidence to support the claims on the role of emotional intelligence in the
negotiation process have been provided by Foo, Elfenbein, Tan, and Aik (2004), who found that
individuals with greater emotional intelligence did, indeed, report a more positive negotiation
experience. A sample of 164 students in an undergraduate course on Management and
Organizations participated in the negotiation exercise to evaluate the objective and subjective
outcomes of negotiation (Foo et al., 2004). The authors suggest that the more positive
experiences in the negotiation process, experienced by individuals with greater emotional
intelligence, may be due to the fact that individuals with greater EI are typically more satisfied
with their interpersonal relationships (Law et al., 2004; Lopes et al., 2003).
Other Emotional Intelligence Relationships
Emotional intelligence has also been claimed to be useful in team-based projects and
group development; this is largely due to an effective team knowing each other’s strengths and
weaknesses and leveraging them whenever possible (Bar-On, 1997). Researchers suggest that
emotional intelligence is indeed related to the social skills that are imperative for teamwork
(e.g., Bar-On, 1997), and individuals with greater emotional intelligence are especially skilled at
creating and completing projects filled with feelings and aesthetics (Sjoberg, 2001; Zeidner et
al., 2004). In a study by Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel and Hooper (2002) results indicated that the
50
low emotional intelligence groups performed at a lower level initially, but over time they
increased their performance to the level of the teams with high emotional intelligence. The
authors suggest that the gap in team performance, based on emotional intelligence abilities,
may diminish for both process and goal criteria over time.
Emotional intelligence has also been linked to problem solving abilities and decision
making skills. In a study by Schutte, Scheuettpelz, and Malouff (2000) the authors compared
individuals with varying levels of EI in terms of their problem solving abilities and showed that
those with greater emotional intelligence were better able to solve difficult or frustrating
problems, when compared to low EI individuals. The results of their study illustrate the second
branch of Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model of emotional intelligence, the ability to use
emotions to facilitate thought. The link between emotional intelligence and decision making is
evident from previous literature as well. Damasio (1994) claimed that rationality is best served
by emotions, which are necessary for sound judgment and decision making processes.
Furthermore, emotions are commonly viewed in the literature as useful resources which may
help us interpret and manage our social environments when making decisions (Matthews et al.,
2006).
Using the Ability-Based Model
The two primary schools of thought on emotional intelligence include ability-based
models (e.g., Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and mixed models (e.g.,
Goleman, 1995, 1998). While ability-based models of emotional intelligence investigate the
interaction of emotion and cognitive intelligence, mixed models classify EI as a combination of
personality measures, affect, and intellect (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Mixed model
51
definitions are the source of many criticisms in the EI literature (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010;
Locke, 2005; Matthews et al., 2002; Murphy, 2006; Zeidner, 2004). Mixed models are criticized
for being overly redundant with personality traits, therefore failing to be justified as a distinct
construct (Conte, 2005; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003; Van Rooy, Dilchert, Viswesvaran & Ones,
2006). Empirical results support these claims and provide evidence that mixed models of EI
demonstrate considerable overlap with the Big Five personality traits (e.g., Daus & Ashkanasy,
2003; McRae, 2000). McRae (2000) further suggests that Bar-On and Goleman’s measures
included personality traits and social competence that substantially exceeded Mayer and
Salovey’s original conceptualization of emotional intelligence. In addition, mixed model
questionnaire measures in early empirical research failed to meet reliability and psychometric
property standards (e.g., Davies, Stankov & Roberts, 1998); nonetheless, more recent empirical
research provides evidence that mixed model measures are improving (e.g., Conte, 2005). As a
result of these criticisms researchers have concluded that mixed models of EI are profoundly
flawed based on a lack of empirical support and exceedingly broad conceptualizations (e.g.,
McEnrue & Groves, 2006). Of the four major perspectives of EI, previously discussed in chapter
I, only Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) four branch model is ability-based. Thus, the remainder of
this dissertation focuses on the ability-based model of emotional intelligence as developed by
Mayer and Salovey (1997).
Mayer and Salovey’s Ability-based Model
According to Mayer and Salovey (1990, 1997) emotional intelligence is a multidimensional construct consisting of four dimensions, also referred to as branches. The four
dimensions are as follows: (1) identifying emotions, (2) facilitating emotions, (3) understanding
52
emotions, and (4) regulating emotions. Each dimension is discussed in the following paragraphs
in greater depth.
Identifying emotions
Identifying or perceiving emotions is the initial and most basic of the four dimensions. It is
the nonverbal reception and expression of emotion and includes several skills such as the ability
to identify feelings, express emotions accurately, and to differentiate between real and phony
emotional expressions (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000). Furthermore, emotions tend to
appear in facial expressions, tone of voice, body language, and even works of art (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990). Emotions researchers, evolutionary biologists, specialists in nonverbal behavior,
and others have made tremendous strides in understanding how human beings recognize and
express emotions. They have pointed out that emotional expressions evolved in animal species
as a form of critical social communication; and that facial expressions such as happiness,
sadness, anger, and fear are universally recognizable in humans (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). This
branch of emotional intelligence pertains to the ability to correctly interpret one’s own
emotions, as well as the emotions of others.
Facilitating Emotions
Salovey and Mayer (1990) identified the second dimension as using emotions to facilitate
thought. This is the capacity of emotions to enter into and guide the cognitive system and to
promote thinking. The emotional facilitation of thought includes the ability to use emotions to
redirect attention to important events and to generate emotions that facilitate decision-making
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990). It is also the ability to generate emotions which can assist in
judgment and memory processes, the ability to produce moods which assist in generating
53
consideration from multiple perspectives, and the production of emotional states which
encourage different thinking styles (Brackett et al., 2011).
Understanding Emotions
This dimension is an assessment of an individual’s ability to understand emotions and to
reason with emotional knowledge (Kerr, Garvin & Heaton, 2006). An individual who
understands the complexities of emotions can better handle challenging situations, because the
ability to comprehend the cause of emotions gives insight into human nature, particularly
regarding relationships (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Understanding emotions is the ability to
comprehend complex emotions, the ability to recognize the causes of emotions, and the ability
to understand relationships among emotions (Mayer et al., 2000). It includes basic skills such
as labeling emotions, being aware of similarities and differences that exist between actual
emotions and emotional labels, as well as interpreting the origins and meanings of emotions
(Brackett et al., 2011).
Regulating emotions
The fourth dimension of the emotional intelligence model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990)
involves the ability to manage both one’s own emotions and the emotions of others, by
preventing, reducing, enhancing, or modifying emotional responses (Brackett et al., 2011).
Managing emotions includes the ability to remain aware of and open to a range of emotions;
the ability to determine whether an emotion is clear or typical; and the ability to solve emotionladen problems by working through the emotions, as opposed to suppressing negative
emotions (Mayer et al., 2000). This branch involves analyzing a situation and making decisions
54
regarding the usefulness and appropriateness of an emotion; whether to engage in the emotion
or detach from the emotion based on its perceived utility (Brackett et al., 2011).
Researchers (e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Mayer et al., 2000; Salovey & Grewal, 2005)
contend that the ability-based emotional intelligence model is a form of intelligence. Mayer,
Caruso and Salovey (2000) identify three criteria of an intelligence construct: (1) it must consist
of mental abilities; (2) the mental abilities must meet certain correlational criteria; and (3) the
mental abilities must develop with age. After numerous empirical studies, a scale was
developed to test an individual’s level of emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000). This test is
known as the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) and is similar in format to mental
ability tests such as IQ tests (Matthews et al., 2002). Empirical studies were conducted and
showed (1) that a moderate and significant correlation existed between emotional intelligence,
as measured by the MEIS, and general intelligence; and (2) that a moderate and significant
correlation existed between EI and verbal intelligence (Mayer et al., 2000). Thus, supporting
the notion that EI is related to other intelligences. Finally, a study of emotional intelligence in
adolescents and adults provided evidence that adults performed at a much higher level than
adolescents, meeting the third criteria of an intelligence construct (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey,
2000). With EI meeting the conceptual, correlational, and developmental criteria outlined
above, Mayer, Salovey and colleagues concluded that emotional intelligence can be considered
a form of general intelligence.
Summary
The concept of emotional intelligence has consistently shown to be positively associated
with differences in performance. If EI research is to be validated empirical evidence must be
55
present across a multitude of occupations where EI distinguishes between high and low
performers and predicts career success (Zeidner et al., 2004). The aforementioned studies have
provided theoretical and empirical evidence for the relationship between emotional
intelligence and performance. Research on the role of emotional intelligence in workplace
performance has emerged in the literature from areas such as leadership, education,
interpersonal relationships, job satisfaction, positive organizational attitudes and behaviors,
teamwork and groups, negotiations, problem solving, and decision making.
Entrepreneurial Success
Successful entrepreneurial activity is important for a healthy economy and can be a
major source of job creation (Jackson & Rodkey, 1994). While the concept has been around for
quite some time researchers for the past several decades continue to seek the factors that
underlie entrepreneurship. Drawing on the general theory of entrepreneurship proposed by
Shane (2003), this study focuses on entrepreneurial success.
Research at the onset of entrepreneurial investigations sought to understand
biographical information and the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs. These studies
were often criticized for lacking a clear paradigm guiding the research (Bygrave, 1989), and
failed to yield consistent results or a clear picture of entrepreneurial individual characteristics
(Gartner, 1988). Thus, researchers (e.g., Carland & Carland, 1988; Carland, Hoy & Carland,
1988) argued that entrepreneurial investigations on individual characteristics should continue,
but new approaches were also needed. In 1991 Davidsson reviewed the entrepreneurship
literature and suggested that the three key determinants of continued entrepreneurship
(success) were abilities, need, and opportunities. Along these same lines, researchers (e.g.,
56
Baron & Markman, 2000) have emphasized that exploring entrepreneurial abilities can be a
more useful approach to understanding entrepreneurial actions than using the personality
traits of entrepreneurs, because abilities can change more easily than personality traits. Thus,
more information on abilities that could be useful in entrepreneurial success are important, yet
have not been thoroughly investigated.
Entrepreneurial success has been linked to cognitive and social skills, at least in part
(e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000, 2003); and psychological researchers have attempted to assist in
the identification of cognitive and social factors that affect entrepreneurial success as well as
techniques that assist in coping with the lack of social or cognitive abilities (Baron, 2000).
Through this process psychologists have suggested training social and interpersonal skills that
may be vital to the entrepreneurial process. Several skills and abilities have been identified as
determinants of successful interaction with others (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000), including
accurately perceiving others, making good first impressions, and the ability to persuade or
influence others (Duck, 1994).
Social skills have been listed as key ingredients to the formation of new ventures
(Vesper, 1990), and empirically linked to entrepreneurial success. For instance, a study
conducted by Duchseneau and Gartner (1990) provided evidence that entrepreneurs
successfully communicating with others were more likely to have successful companies than
entrepreneurs without the strong communication skills. In a study of entrepreneurs’ social
skills, adaptability and perception were found to be significant predictors of financial success
for high-tech and cosmetic companies (Baron & Markman, 2000). Along these same lines,
Baron and Markman (2000) found that an entrepreneur’s social skills were particularly vital
57
when interacting with venture capitalists in positive business relationships. The research by
Baron and Markman (2000) was a follow-up to Baron’s earlier research (1993) which concluded
that entrepreneurs with greater social skills were better able to obtain funding, attract and hire
desired employees, establish and maintain effective relationships, and conduct favorable
arrangements with suppliers, current customers, and potential customers.
Measures of Entrepreneurial Success
Previous researchers suggest that success is a multidimensional construct that is difficult
to measure (e.g., Brush & VanderWerf, 1992; Chandler & Hanks, 1993, 1994; Zahra, Neubaum
& El-Hagra, 2002). For instance, new ventures are usually private organizations with no
obligation to disclose performance information; therefore, traditional measures of financial
performance are often unavailable (e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Sandberg, 1986), or business
owners are unwilling to share this information with outsiders (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984).
Other research studies have concluded that some traditional measures are not appropriate
when studying entrepreneurial ventures because of enormous and erratic growth rates, or
small starting capital (e.g., Walsh & White, 1981). Thus, conventional financial measures of
performance (e.g., ROI and ROA) may also have inherent challenges. Additionally, objective
measures such as survival or breakeven points are often difficult because of the need for a
longitudinal sample design. Thus, the use of multiple indicators to gauge performance is
recommended (e.g., Sandberg, 1986; Zahra et al., 2002). Chandler and Hanks (1993) recognize
the inherent challenges in entrepreneurial research and identify three of the most common
approaches to estimating entrepreneurial performance when only self-reported data is
available. They are (1) measuring objective firm performance in broad categories; (2) using
58
subjective measures of firm performance in relation to competitors; and (3) subjective
measures of owner satisfaction with the firm’s performance (Chandler & Hanks, 1993).
Throughout the literature entrepreneurial firm success is measured both objectively and
subjectively. Objective measurement is typically examined by analyzing hard numbers or
financial measures; where subjective performance is assessed more in terms of personal beliefs
or views (e.g., Reijonen, 2008). Subjective measures are often self-report measures at the firm
and/or individual levels of analysis (Haber & Reichel, 2005), such as the entrepreneurs’
perspective on financial (e.g., growth, profitability) and non-financial (e.g., job satisfaction,
product quality) dimensions. For this investigation entrepreneurial success is operationalized
as firm success based on financial information; subjective firm success, using perceptions of
competitive position; and subjective personal success, all of which our outlined in the following
paragraphs.
Financial Firm Success
Financial firm success can be measured by different indicators that reflect distinct
dimensions (Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Financial measures seen throughout the
literature include areas such as growth, profitability, turnover, return on investment, and
number of employees (e.g., Honig, 1998; Walker & Brown, 2004). In a meta-analysis by Combs,
Crook and Shook (2005) three performance dimensions emerged; they were profitability,
growth, and stock market performance. In many studies (including this one) stock market
performance cannot be analyzed because entrepreneurial firms are often studied before going
public (Eisenhardt & Schoonhoven, 1990; Frese et al., 2007).
59
Relative Firm Success
Many researchers suggest that subjective performance measures are appropriate in
entrepreneurial settings due to difficulties in acquiring financial measures (e.g., Dess &
Robinson, 1984; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Chandler & Hanks, 1993) associated with the
absence of publicly available information and lack of financial disclosure from privately held
small businesses (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984; Sapienza, Smith & Gannon, 1988). Researchers
have taken different approaches to overcoming these difficulties. One approach was proposed
by Gupta and Govindarajan (1984) who argued that subjective firm performance could be
measured by asking respondents to state the importance and satisfaction with their relative
firm on several performance measures.
Another commonly used technique for assessing entrepreneurial performance is to ask
founders to compare the performance of their companies with their closest competitors (e.g.,
Abeele & Christiaens, 1986; Dess & Robinson, 1984; Sapienza et al., 1988). According to Porter
(1980) firms are aware of the activities their competitors are undertaking. This contention was
empirically supported in the entrepreneurship realm by Brush and Vanderwerf (1992),
competitors are aware of the performance of new ventures similar to their own. Nonetheless,
firm performance data of new ventures is often closely guarded and founders may not have an
accurate depiction of the performance of their competitors.
Other supporters of relative performance measures contend that objective financial
measures alone insufficiently predict firm success (e.g., Reijonen, 2008). Researchers contend
that business owners should be the initial starting point for analyzing success (e.g., Stenberg,
2004; Simpson, Tuck & Bellamy, 2004; Poole, Langan-Fox & Omoder, 1993) because objective
60
financial measures may be inappropriate, misleading, and even meaningless for entrepreneurs
who each have their own views of success (Simpson et al., 2004).
Personal Success
Subjective measures of success seen throughout the literature include personal
satisfaction, pride in the job, personal achievement, and lifestyle flexibility (Reijonen, 2008).
Used in the entrepreneurial literature as a surrogate for objective performance measures,
personal success is a measure of performance where organizations are successful to the extent
that the interests of the stakeholders’ are indeed satisfied (Murphy & Callaway, 2004), with the
business owner being the most important stakeholder in the entrepreneurial venture. Cooper
and Artz (1995) identify personal success, or entrepreneurial satisfaction as it is sometimes
called, as fundamental to measuring success and critical to investment and continuance
decisions of the entrepreneur. While substantial research in the organizational behavior field
has linked satisfaction and voluntary job turnover (e.g., Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), fewer
researchers have explored the consequences of satisfaction for business owners (Cooper &
Artz, 1995); even though the consequences of satisfaction are far more substantial for new
venture owners than large corporation employees (Murphy & Callaway, 2004).
Personal success is viewed throughout the literature as a basic measure of subjective
performance (e.g., Cooper & Artz, 1995). Perceptions of success facilitate decisions individual
entrepreneurs make with regard to investing time and money, and can influence interpersonal
interactions. One explanation in industrial and organizational psychology addressing job
satisfaction is discrepancy theory. According to this theory, satisfaction is determined by a gap
which exists between individual personal standards (e.g., what an individual wants or feels
61
entitled to) and actual experiences. In 1986 Michalos found that 90% of studies investigating
discrepancy theory’s existence reported a significant relationship between what individuals
have and what they want to have; thus providing strong support for discrepancy theory.
Personal success can also be viewed as a measure of entrepreneurial success as it
provides a foundation for which individual entrepreneurs make decisions on whether or not to
invest more money and/or time, whether to cut back, or even to close shop. Additionally, it
might influence if entrepreneurs work effectively with customers, buyers, suppliers, and other
employees in interpersonal interactions (e.g., Cooper & Artz, 1995; Schutte et al., 2001).
Summary
Entrepreneurs do not merely work for companies, they are part of the firm;
entrepreneurs have often invested a great deal of time and energy into seeing the venture
through to fruition, in making the decisions to operate on a daily basis, and in overall
commitment to the organization (e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1994). An entrepreneur’s intense
commitment means they may also experience more powerful emotions in connection with the
activities required by the venture (Baron, 2000). Nonetheless, some of the complexities of
multi-level entrepreneurial research can be minimized because “all revolves around the
entrepreneur…its goals are his/her goals, its strategy his/her vision of its place in the world”
(Mintzberg, 1988: p. 534). Thus, while measuring entrepreneurial success does present
challenges, using multiple measures and approaches to assess performance can be a valuable
way to confront the difficulties associated with acquiring new venture performance information
(Chandler & Hanks, 1993).
62
Linking Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Success
Empirical evidence supports the contention that the ability to interact effectively with
others is vital to success in many facets of life and across many contexts (Baron, 2000). For
example, social skills have been identified for their positive association with personal
adjustment, job interviews, negotiations, performance reviews, educational performance, and
leadership outcomes (Baron, 2000; O’Boyle et al., 2010; Robbins & DeNisi, 1994).
While previous research provides some evidence by which the emotional intelligencejob performance relationship unfolds, explanations for the role that emotions play in
entrepreneurial success are few. Two specific studies have clearly addressed the relationship
between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial performance. In a study by Cross &
Travaglione (2003), five Austrian entrepreneurs were studied via in-depth interviews. From the
results the authors suggest that entrepreneurs with greater overall emotional intelligence make
for successful individuals in work contexts as well as social environments. Furthermore, the
researchers (Cross & Travaglione, 2003) found support for their hypothesis that entrepreneurs
exhibited greater levels of EI than the norm, and also showed that entrepreneurs exhibited high
levels of each of the three sub-dimensions originally proposed by Salovey & Mayer (1990). The
Goleman model was also integrated into the structured interviews and the researchers found
support for extraordinary levels of emotional intelligence as developed in mixed models of EI
(Cross & Travaglione, 2003).
Another empirical investigation was conducted by Rhee and White (2007) who used a
mixed model approach to explore the emotional intelligence of entrepreneurial venture
leaders. The respondents were asked to complete the Emotional Competency Inventory
63
(Boyatzis, Goleman & Rhee, 2000; Boyatzis & Sala, 2004), including 72 questionnaire items that
measure eighteen mixed model emotional competencies. Participants of this study included
161 members of the Young Entrepreneur’s Organization (YEO) who demonstrated high levels of
self-confidence, trustworthiness, achievement orientation, service orientation, change catalyst,
teamwork and collaboration. While this empirical investigation provided some support for the
importance of emotional intelligence in the context of entrepreneurship, no additional
evidence has emerged; furthermore, this study did not address emotional intelligence from the
ability-based perspective.
While additional studies have not specifically addressed ability-based emotional
intelligence in the entrepreneurial context other support for the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success is available. Previous researchers have
provided evidence that aspects of social intelligence are critical to entrepreneurial success (e.g.,
Baron, 2000). For example, emotional intelligence may play a critical role in an entrepreneur’s
ability to present to investors (i.e., bankers, angel investors, venture capital firms, friends, and
family) in order to obtain financing, gain new customers, and/or maintain current customers.
Emotional intelligence abilities may be particularly crucial for negotiations, the selection of
employees or partners, and the attracting and handling of customers, employees, suppliers,
and partners (e.g., Foo et al., 2004; Fulmer & Barry, 2004). Therefore, emotional intelligence
may enable effective interaction with others, which increases the likelihood of favorable
performance.
Empirical evidence to support the claims that greater social abilities increase
entrepreneurial success can be found in the work by Baron and Markman (2000). These
64
authors proposed that greater social competence in entrepreneurial individuals would lead to
greater financial performance; and their results concluded that social perception and
adaptability were significant predictors of financial performance for new firms in the cosmetic
industry (Baron & Markman, 2000). Thus, providing support for the contention that
entrepreneurs’ social intelligence influences the financial success of new ventures.
Emotional intelligence is a dimension of social intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1999; Mayer
et al., 2004) and pertains to the ability to be socially adaptable in a wide range of social
situations and to behave appropriately in such situations. Results of previous studies have
provided evidence that social adaptability has a positive relationship with firm performance
(e.g., Baron & Markman, 2003). The ability to adapt to rapidly changing situations and
demands may also be advantageous for entrepreneurs. In new ventures it is quite common for
entrepreneurs to have to interact with individuals from diverse backgrounds and operate in a
variety of social situations. Thus, in accordance with theory, and the aforementioned studies
on emotional intelligence, there will be a positive relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurial success.
Hypotheses addressing the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success were developed on the basis of previous research findings concerning
the influence of social and political skills (e.g., Baron & Tang, 2008; Pfeffer, 1992; Riggio &
Riggio, 2001). Political skill is defined as “the ability to effectively understand others at work
and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that enhance one’s personal
and/or organizational objectives” (Ahearn, Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, & Ammeter, 2004: p.
311). Aspects of political skill are closely related to emotional intelligence (e.g., social
65
adaptability, social perception, expressiveness) and can thus be viewed as complementary
social skills (e.g., Ferris et al., 2005; Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska & Shaw, 2007), which can be used
for important entrepreneurial tasks, such as obtaining capital.
Expressiveness, another social skill, is the ability to express feelings and reactions clearly
and openly; and has been identified as closely related to emotional intelligence and exerting
interpersonal influence (e.g., Cialdini, 2000). Interpersonal relations are a huge part of
entrepreneurial activities so the significance of emotional intelligence in entrepreneurial
success is evident. For example, entrepreneurs must often convince customers to buy their
product or service, or investors to lend money to their ideas. Thus, emotional intelligence,
specifically the entrepreneur’s ability to express and/or regulate emotions, will be positively
related to entrepreneurial success.
Emotional intelligence involves perceiving others accurately and previous researchers
suggest that social perception predicts favorable outcomes in various business contexts. For
example, social perception can predict positive interviewer ratings (e.g., Kacmar, Carlson, &
Bratton, 2003) and more positive performance evaluations from supervisors (e.g., Harris et al.,
2007). Perceiving others accurately, a component of emotional intelligence, is directly related
to entrepreneurial activities as well; such activities include successful negotiations, selecting
superior partners, and hiring top-quality employees (Baron & Tang, 2008). Thus, an
entrepreneur’s emotional intelligence, specifically their accuracy in perceiving others
(competitors), will be positively related to entrepreneurial success.
According to Kafetsios and Zampetakis (2008) emotional awareness, associated with
emotional intelligence, is expected to benefit social and interpersonal relationships which affect
66
the experience of emotions and stress in the workplace. Individuals with greater emotional
intelligence are better able to use their abilities to appraise and manage the emotions of other
people (Sy et al., 2006). Individuals with greater EI are also better able to use their emotional
intelligence skills to cultivate positive personal interactions, which helps boost personal morale,
the morale of others, and contributes to the feelings of personal success and job satisfaction
(Shimazu, Shimazu, & Odahara, 2004). Additionally, being aware of one’s emotions can help an
individual in better identifying sources of frustration or stress, and in regulating such emotions
to reduce the stress and to perform better in the workplace (Sy et al., 2006). Individuals with
greater emotional intelligence abilities are better able to understand their causes of stress and
devise strategies to handle the negative consequences of the stress (Cooper & Sawf, 1997).
Empirical support for these contentions can be found in the research conducted by Sy and
colleagues (2006) who observed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and abilitybased emotional intelligence among employees and their managers. In closing, the hypotheses
that address the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success were
derived from literature reviews on social skills (e.g. Baron & Markman, 2000; Matthews et al.,
2006), political skills (e.g., Baron & Tang, 2008; Pfeffer, 1992; Riggio & Riggio, 2001; Harris et al.,
2007), and human capital (e.g., Unger, Rauch, Frese & Rosenbusch, 2009).
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 1a: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and
financial entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 1b: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and
relative entrepreneurial firm success
67
Hypothesis 1c: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and
personal entrepreneurial success
Mediating Variables
Having presented the aforementioned hypotheses, I turn my attention to the possible
mediators of the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success.
According to Baron and Kenny, “the mediator function of a third variable represents the
generative mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the
dependent variable of interest” (1986: p. 1173). Stated differently, a mediator is a third
variable that intervenes between the independent and dependent variables (Hair et al., 2006).
A mediator accounts for the relationship (fully or partially) between the independent variable
(emotional intelligence) and dependent variable (entrepreneurial success). Theoretically, a
mediator facilitates the relationship between the other two variables (Hair et al., 2006).
Previous researchers have indicated that various constructs (e.g., competence,
confidence, coping, creativity, decision making, interpersonal skills) that may account for some,
if not all, of the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance. Furthermore,
some authors feel that the linear effect models, on the relationship between emotional
intelligence and workplace performance, are overly simplistic and incomplete (Cote & Miners,
2006). Authors Van Rooy & Viswesvaran (2004) found support for this contention with their
meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and workplace performance, these authors suggest that
mediating variables may exist in the relationship and should be further investigated in future
research.
68
Individual Competence
Introduced in the management literature in the early 1980s by Boyatzis, competence
has become widespread in the field as a way to describe types of knowledge, skills, and
personal abilities associated with superior performance and leadership (e.g., Martin & Staines,
1994). Researchers suggest that social competence important in the business context (e.g.,
Baron, 2000; Baron & Markman, 2000) as well. For example, an individual’s capacity to
effectively interact with others contributes to positive outcomes in job interviews, yearly
performance reviews, and negotiations (Robbins & DeNisi, 1994).
Social competence is also important in the entrepreneurial context and may play an
important role in entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurs deal with interpersonal relationships
both inside and outside of their organizational walls. Within the venture entrepreneurs often
have to get along with partners or employees. Outside of the organization entrepreneurs must
interact with bankers, investors, prospective customers, and potential employees. Baron
(2000) contends that the ability to interact with others both inside and outside of the
organization increases the chances of favorable outcomes in face-to-face contexts, such as
acquiring financing or gaining new customers.
Previous researchers have suggested that job performance may be attained through
various competencies and intelligences via multiple complementary mechanisms (e.g., Law et
al., 2004; Man, Lau & Chan, 2002; Mitchelmore & Rowley, 2010). First, because working
individuals interact with others (i.e., customers, clients, coworkers, supervisors, financial
institutions), public display of emotions through facial expressions, vocal cues, and body
language are all signals that provide important information about goals, attitudes, and
69
intentions (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). The ability to read, understand, interpret, and regulate
such displays of emotion can be converted into greater performance for those with high
emotional intelligence. For example, Law, Wong and Song (2004) found that employees could
enhance their task performance when they accurately detected their coworkers’ emotions and
used that information to facilitate interpersonal interactions.
Regulating emotions may also influence social networks and the overall quality of social
relationships (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002). Previous researchers have found that individuals who
display genuine emotions through their facial, vocal, and bodily expressions tend to acquire
more favorable reactions from others when compared to individuals displaying fake or phony
emotional expressions (e.g., Grandey, 2003). Using emotional intelligence abilities may enable
individuals to create better social networks and overall social relationships which they can use
to elicit advice and social support from, ultimately enhancing their performance (e.g.,
Sparrowe, Linden, Wayne & Kraimer, 2001; Wong & Law, 2002).
Emotional intelligence also includes the use of emotions to facilitate thought, which
provides a third mechanism for which EI may enhance performance. This mechanism includes
the effects of emotions on the thought processes and actions of individuals (Cote & Miners,
2006). The ability to manage emotions in thought and action enables individuals to increase
their motivation and the overall quality of the decisions (Law et al., 2004).
Early studies on emotional intelligence and other cognitive competencies have provided
support for the relationships with job performance in an independent and complementary
linear way (e.g., Goleman, 1998; Mayer et al., 2000). Furthermore, previous empirical results
(e.g., Cote & Miners, 2006; Law et al., 2004; Man et al., 2002; Wong & Law, 2002) show that the
70
relationship between emotional intelligence and performance may be accounted for, at least to
some degree, by other competencies. In the proposed model, emotional intelligence and
cognitive competencies, namely managerial and entrepreneurial competencies, are related yet
distinct constructs within a similar content domain (Cote & Miners, 2006).
Managerial Competence
The increasing need to improve management capability to sustain business performance
has drawn attention to the managerial competence perspective (Boam & Sparrow, 1992). The
foundation of managerial competence research is identifying characteristics of effective
managers that enable organizations to be successful (Mintzberg, 1973). Building on the
research of McClelland (1973), Boyatizis (1982) defined managerial competencies as underlying
characteristics of a person resulting in superior job performance.
Since the work of Boyatizis (1982) researchers have explored the competencies of
outstanding managers. For example, Schroder (1989) developed three classes of competencies:
entry level competencies, basic competencies, and high performance competencies. Entry level
competencies consist of individual characteristics, and basic competencies consist of knowledge
and skills needed to perform the functions of managing; while high performance competencies
include behaviors that produce superior workgroup performance in complex organizational
environments. Essential competencies in managerial roles include conceptual competence,
which entails coordinating the firms’ activities (Pavett & Lau, 1983; Schein, 1987); and human
competence, which involves working with others, understanding others, and motivating other
working in groups or as individuals (Pavett &Lau, 1983).
71
Entrepreneurial Competence
The competency approach is a common method of studying entrepreneurial
characteristics (e.g., Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Man et al., 2002; Sony & Inman, 2005). The
classic entrepreneurial role consists of scanning the environment, selecting promising
opportunities, and formulating strategies (e.g., Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Mintzberg & Waters,
1982; Thompson & Strickland, 1989). Competencies required to effectively perform the
entrepreneurial role include recognizing and seizing opportunities (e.g., MacMillan, Siegel &
SubbaNarisimha, 1985; Timmons, Muzyka, Stevenson & Bygrave, 1987), which have been
shown to influence venture performance (e.g., Hofer & Sandberg, 1987). Another critical
competency of the entrepreneurial role is the drive to see the venture through the initial
phases of creation (Hofer & Sandberg, 1987; Schein, 1987). Seeing the venture through is
particularly important when venture capitalists are making financing decisions (Chandler &
Jansen, 1992; MacMillan et al., 1985). Man, Lau and Chan (2002) define entrepreneurial
competencies as characteristics that encompass personality traits, skills, and knowledge all of
which are the total ability of the entrepreneur to successfully perform a job. The six major
entrepreneurial competencies are identified as the following: (1) opportunity, (2) organizing,
(3) strategic, (4) relationship, (5) commitment, and (6) conceptual competencies (Man et al.,
2002).
Empirical researchers have provided evidence of significant positive relationships
between both managerial and entrepreneurial competencies and firm performance (e.g.,
Baum, Locke & Smith, 2001; Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Chandler & Jansen, 1992). In a study of
new venture founders, Chandler and Jansen (1992) surveyed 84 manufacturing firms and 50
72
service firms in the state of Utah. The manufacturing firms produced a range of products from
ceramic pottery, upholstered furniture, and animal kennels to medical equipment and
electronic instruments. While service firms were comprised of restaurants, nursing homes, and
security systems. From their results the authors suggest that new venture founders’ selfreported competencies were correlated with firm performance, indicating that “the most
successful founders—those whose firms showed higher levels of growth and earnings—
perceived themselves as competent” (Chandler & Jansen, 1992: p. 233). Therefore,
competence is a key component that may account for some of the relationship between the
abilities of the founder and firm performance (e.g., Stuart & Abetti, 1990). Thus,
Hypothesis 2: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 2a: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 2b: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 2c: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 3: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 3a: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 3b: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
73
Hypothesis 3c: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
Venture Organizational Tasks
Previous researchers have provided support for the mediating effect of job roles on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and performance (O’Boyle et al., 2010). According
to Baron (2007) affect and emotions may have an effect on the performance of entrepreneurial
ventures based on the specific tasks the entrepreneur must endure. While entrepreneurial
tasks are varied and constantly changing (e.g., Shane, 2003) they are often influenced by affect
and emotions (e.g., Forgas, 2000). Baron reviews the literature and reminds us that previous
researchers have provided evidence that affect and emotions have “strong effects on creativity
(which may play an important role in opportunity recognition; e.g., Isen, 1993), on persuasion
(which may influence entrepreneurs’ success in acquiring essential resources), on decision
making and judgments (which play a key role in the formation of effective business models and
strategies; e.g., Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003), and on the formation of productive working
relationships with others (e.g., Diener & Seligman, 2002; Harker & Keltner, 2001)” (2008, p.
329).
Interpersonal Tasks
O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver and Story (2010) contend that emotional
intelligence may be particularly important in sales jobs, the service sector, or in other roles
where interpersonal interaction is necessary on a regular basis. This concept has previously
been brought to the forefront by Zeidner, Matthews, and Roberts (2009), who assert that
emotional intelligence is particularly important in certain people-oriented occupations. In
74
nearly every work setting, including the entrepreneurial context, individuals have to cooperate
and interact with others in order to complete their work tasks (O’Boyle et al., 2010).
Empirical researchers have provided support for the mediating effect of job roles on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and success. For instance, Wong and Law (2002)
provided empirical evidence to support the contention that the predictive power of emotional
intelligence was dependent on the emotional demands employees experienced on the job. In
their study of 146 middle-level managers in the Hong Kong government, the authors found that
emotional intelligence and job performance were significantly correlated, and that the
relationship was mediated by emotional labor. Emotional labor is when an individual finds it
necessary to alter his or her emotional expression in an effort to fulfill the display rules of the
situation or organization (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993).
Cote & Miners (2006), on the other hand, were unable to find support for the role of
emotional demands on the emotional intelligence-performance relationship. In a study of 175
full-time employees of a large public university, the results of the study indicated no evidence
that emotional intelligence predicted job performance differently when the emotional
demands of the jobs were different. Nonetheless, the authors advise additional research
exploring the effects of the nature of the job on the emotional intelligence-job performance
relationship (Cote & Miners, 2006).
Therefore, because activities performed in the entrepreneurial role involve highly
interpersonal activities (e.g., negotiating and obtaining financing) it is believed that the
emotional intelligence-entrepreneurial success relationship will be enhanced when the daily
operations of the entrepreneurial venture consist of highly interpersonal tasks. Thus,
75
Hypothesis 4: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success.
Hypothesis 4a: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success.
Hypothesis 4b: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success.
Hypothesis 4c: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success.
Environmental Factors
Over the last forty years researchers have used a considerable amount of resources to
explore the influence of the environment on the strategies, structures, processes, and
outcomes of firms as environments are a major contingency faced by firms (e.g., Dess & Beard,
1984; Keats & Hitt, 1988; Korunka, Frank, Lueger & Mugler, 2003; Naffziger, Hornsby & Kuratko,
1994; Tang, 2008). Following the work of Dess and Beard (1984) dimensions of the
environment include munificence, dynamism, and complexity. These environmental
dimensions were identified from the original six as outlined by Aldrich (1979). Previous
researchers have identified significant relationships between the aforementioned
environmental dimensions and performance, strategy, and structure of organizations (e.g.,
Keats & Hitt, 1988). The two primary environmental variables considered to exist in the
entrepreneurship literature are dynamism and munificence. For this study, these variables are
investigated for their role in the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success.
76
Previous literature emphasizes how crucial a conducive environment is in developing an
entrepreneurial venture (e.g., Tang, 2008). Entrepreneurs are confronted with work
environments that are often new, unpredictable, complex, and consist of a great deal of
pressure and constraints (e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984; Baron, 2000). Because an entrepreneurs’
commitment to the organizational endeavors are intense, they often experience powerful
emotions in connection with their activities (Baron, 2000). Furthermore, previous researchers
have asserted that individuals can use their emotional intelligence abilities to successfully cope
with environmental demands. Thus, these are exceedingly important abilities to harness in
stressful work conditions (Bar-On, 1997), such as entrepreneurship.
Munificence
Environmental munificence is the extent to which critical resources exist in the
environment (Castrogiovanni, 1991; Dess & Beard, 1984; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Randolph &
Dess, 1984; Staw & Szwajkowski, 1975; Tushman & Anderson, 1986). In a theoretical
assessment of environmental munificence Castrogiovanni (1991) outlines three distinct types of
munificence, namely capacity, growth/decline, and opportunity/threat. Capacity is the level of
resources the firm has available. Growth/decline is the change in capacity; and
opportunity/threat is the amount of unexploited capacity (Castrogiovanni, 1991).
Munificence effects the survival and growth of firms as well as the ability of new firms to
enter into the environment (Castrogiovanni, 1991; Randolph & Dess, 1984). Environmental
munificence is directly related to the firm’s ability to acquire resources that influence
performance, because the greater the resources available (munificence) the greater the
opportunity for a firm to acquire those resources (Bruno & Tyebjee, 1982). In a munificent
77
environment, or when there is an abundance of resources available, there is greater room for
organizational flexibility (e.g., Starbuck, 1992) and a broader range of strategic options available
to the firm (e.g., Romanelli, 1987). Additionally, in an environment with an abundance of
resources, an organization can develop slack resources (Cyert & March, 1963). Slack resources
are of extreme value to entrepreneurial firms because it allows them to allocate resources to
innovation, new strategic processes, and structures (Cyert & March, 1963).
On the other hand, in a non-munificent environment, the lack of available resources
intensifies the competition (Dess & Beard, 1984; Hofer, 1975; Porter, 1980; Yasai-Ardekani,
1989). Researchers have suggested that environmental munificence is conceptually the
opposite of environmental hostility (Miller & Friesen, 1983). The scarcity of resources and
increased competition adversely affect profitability, slack resources, and even survival (e.g.,
Child, 1972), requiring firms to focus more on resource conservation than new innovation,
strategies and structures (e.g., Goll & Rasheed, 2004). Additionally, scarce resources often
cause changes in the behaviors of members of the firms and in intraorganizational
characteristics such as budgets, planning systems, equipment and facilities (Koberg, 1987).
Researchers have explored the influence of environmental munificence on
organizational strategies (e.g., Koberg, 1987) structures (e.g., Yasai-Ardekani, 1989), and
processes (Miller & Friesen, 1983). Highly munificent environments enable firms to accumulate
slack resources making it easier for firms to successfully operate (e.g., Bruno & Tyebjee, 1982),
while less munificent environments require additional efforts and abilities of the individuals
operating the firm in order to access the scarce environmental resources (e.g., Koberg, 1987).
78
Thus, munificence may account for some of the relationship between EI and entrepreneurial
success.
The role of environmental munificence on the performance of entrepreneurial firms has
received considerable attention throughout the entrepreneurship literature (e.g.,
Castrogiovanni, 1991; Dess & Beard, 1984); and has provided evidence to support the
importance of environmental munificence in entrepreneurial success, namely the ability to take
advantage of slack resources to pursue innovation, new strategies and structures (e.g., Goll &
Rasheed, 2004). In an empirical study conducted by Chandler and Hanks (1994), the authors
remind us that entrepreneurial businesses, due to their small size and often limited resources,
are considerably less protected from the influences of the environment. In this empirical
investigation the influence of the environment was operationalized as munificence, or resource
availability and the sample consisted of 115 manufacturing businesses started between 1980
and 1991 in northwest Pennsylvania. The results of the empirical study concluded that the
environment the founder’s experienced did indeed effect the growth and sales volume of the
emerging manufacturing firms. With their findings the authors encourage additional multi-level
research to be conducted to explore the role of resource availability in the relationship
between entrepreneurial abilities and venture performance (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Emotional intelligence skills are likely to be important in less munificent environments,
as individuals can use their EI abilities to acquire the sought after resources that enable their
firm to continue to grow, profit, and survive. In highly munificent environments, where
resources that facilitate entrepreneurial ventures are high, entrepreneurial success is expected
to be greater regardless of the entrepreneur’s emotional intelligence. In such highly munificent
79
environments the abundant resources can enhance the performance of the organization and
help the entrepreneur achieve his or her goals. When munificence is low the entrepreneur
must leverage his or her own abilities to acquire the much sought after resources. Therefore,
the ability to identify, facilitate, understand, and regulate emotions in negotiations, purchasing
and/or buying decisions, and other interpersonal relationships will enable an entrepreneur to
achieve greater success. Thus, it is proposed that the positive association between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success is mediated by environmental munificence.
Hypothesis 5: Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 5a: Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 5b: Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 5c: Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
Dynamism
Dynamism was defined by Miller and Friesen (1983: p. 222) as the “rate of change and
innovation in an industry as well as the uncertainty or unpredictability of the actions of
competitors and customers.” The unpredictable nature of dynamic environments increases the
level of uncertainty experienced by firms, and the individuals that operate those organizations
(e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984; Duncan, 1972; Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). Many researchers suggest
that dynamic environments form a fertile context for emerging entrepreneurial opportunities
80
(e.g., Hmieleski & Baron, 2009; Kirzner, 1997; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Nonetheless,
entrepreneurial ventures competing in highly dynamic environments must have great flexibility
to adapt and survive (e.g., Lichenstein, Dooley & Lumpkin, 2006). Environments of high
dynamism are quickly changing, which increases the risk and unpredictability; where
environments of low dynamism may indicate an economic slowdown, or simply a wellestablished industry (D’Aveni, 1994).
Previous research in the field of entrepreneurship has extensively addressed the
influence of dynamic and stable environments on entrepreneurial firm success (e.g., Wiklund &
Shepherd, 2005). The emphasis in this stream of literature is that dynamic environments
benefit entrepreneurial firms by allowing them to capitalize on their abilities and respond
quickly to changing environmental conditions, which provides them with a competitive
advantage (Davis, 2007).
Due to the uncertainty and risk (i.e., financial capital) needed to compete with an
entrepreneurial business, individuals owning and operating firms in highly dynamic
environments are often faced with major challenges (Hmieleski & Baron, 2009). Such
challenges consist of information processing burdens (e.g., Chandler et al., 2005; Tushman,
1979) including distress and anxiety (Markman Baron & Balkin, 2005). Thus, because
entrepreneurs function in environments that change rapidly and are often unpredictable, they
are unable to rely on well-learned cognitive scripts or prescribed sets of procedures;
entrepreneurs often face intense time pressures causing premature decision-making and acting
on incomplete information (Baron, 2007). In such situations, feelings, emotions, and affect can
have powerful effects on cognitions and behaviors (e.g., Forgas, 1995, 2000; Forgas & George,
81
2001), and emotional intelligence can help reduce such effects (e.g., Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002;
Petrides et al., 2004). Feelings, emotions, and affect also have strong influences on decisionmaking strategies in highly dynamic environments, particularly for entrepreneurs who are often
under intense time pressures (Baron, 2007; Forgas & George, 2001).
Empirical support can be found in the research conducted by Ensley, Pearce, and
Hmieleski (2006). Their study surveyed 258 individuals serving on top management teams in
164 of the 1999 Inc. 500 firms. The authors note, as mentioned above, that high uncertainty—
the difference between the projected outcomes and the actual outcomes—create challenges
with regard to the availability of information (Simon, 1955) and the information processing
burdens (e.g., Chandler, Honig & Wiklund, 2005; Tushman, 1979). Their results conclude that
environmental dynamism does indeed have a significant positive effect on the relationship
between transformational leadership and new venture performance. Because transformational
leadership behavior was found to be more effective in more dynamic environments, the
authors reemphasize how important such skills and abilities can be in situations where routine
cognitive scripts are unavailable (Ensley et al., 2006).
Entrepreneurs making decisions in dynamic environments need to be able to handle the
stress and anxiety associated with time pressures and limited information which can impede on
cognitive processing and effect their ability to quickly acquire and process pertinent
information (Fiedler, 2001). Therefore, entrepreneurs with greater emotional intelligence will
be particularly good at leading their ventures in dynamic environments because emotional
intelligence positively influences an entrepreneur’s capacity to make decisions quickly and
effectively. Environmental dynamism will mediate the EI-entrepreneurial success relationship
82
which will enable the entrepreneur to use his or her emotions to facilitate thoughts and make
effective decisions in a more timely fashion. Highly dynamic environments do not always allow
individuals to rely on cognitive scripts, but instead require skills, such as emotional intelligence,
that enable a person to read others verbal and non-verbal cues to make quick, effective
decisions under time constraints and unpredictability. Thus, the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success is mediated by environmental dynamism.
Hypothesis 6: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurial success
Hypothesis 6a: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence
and financial entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 6b: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence
and relative entrepreneurial firm success
Hypothesis 6c: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence
and personal entrepreneurial success
Chapter Summary
A general consensus is apparent in the literature: emotional Intelligence is positively
associated with work performance (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2000). Nonetheless, a gap exists in
the literature with regard to studying this relationship in the entrepreneurial context.
Additional research also needs to explore the mediating mechanisms that account for the
relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success; such mechanisms
exist at the individual, organizational, and environmental levels. The individual level mediators
of particular interest in this study are managerial and entrepreneurial competencies. The
83
organizational level mediator under investigation is interpersonal activities; and the
environmental mediators under investigation are munificence and dynamism.
The research model (Figure 2) associated with this study indicates a direct relationship
between the predictor variable, emotional intelligence, and the dependent variable,
entrepreneurial success. As previously discussed, entrepreneurial success is assessed in three
distinct ways: (1) financial entrepreneurial firm success; (2) relative entrepreneurial firm
success; and (3) personal entrepreneurial success. The hypotheses associated with each of the
relationships are summarized in table 2.
Table 2
Table of Hypotheses
H1:
There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial
success
H1a: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and financial
entrepreneurial firm success
H1b: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial firm success
H1c: There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and personal
entrepreneurial success
H2:
Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
H2a: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
H2b: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
H2c: Managerial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
H3:
Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
H3a: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
H3b: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
H3c: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
table continues
84
Table 2 (continued).
H4:
H4a:
H4b:
H4c:
H5:
H5a:
H5b:
H5c:
H6:
H6a:
H6b:
H6c:
Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success
Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
financial entrepreneurial firm success
Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
relative entrepreneurial firm success
Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between emotional intelligence and
personal entrepreneurial success
Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success
Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
financial entrepreneurial firm success
Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
relative entrepreneurial firm success
Munificence mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
personal entrepreneurial success
Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success
Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and financial
entrepreneurial firm success
Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial firm success
Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and
personal entrepreneurial success
85
CHAPTER III
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success. In addition, the study examines how individual
competence, venture organizational tasks, and environmental variables mediate the EIentrepreneurial success relationship. Chapter III provides a detailed explanation of how the
study was conducted with an emphasis on the following four questions: (1) Who are the
participants of the study; (2) What materials are needed to conduct the study; (3) What data
will be collected; and (4) What is required of the participants. This chapter also addresses the
potential threats to reliability and validity. The final sections in this chapter outline the pilot
study conducted.
Research Design
This section outlines the validity and reliability of this investigation. The study employed
a quantitative research method to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence
and entrepreneurial success. First, the variables for the study were identified and the items
used to measure the variables were located in the relevant literature. The survey was then
submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. A pilot study was conducted to
assess the survey distribution method, the data collection process, and analyze the data. Final
modifications were then be made to the instrument before conducting the main study. For this
investigation addressed the relationships among the variables in a natural occupational setting.
86
Validity
Each of the variables and relationships theoretically discussed in chapters 1 and 2 are
operationally defined in this chapter. Validity is defined by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and
Tatham (2006) as the extent to which research is accurate. Validity refers to the extent to
which a test measures what one wants to measure (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Measures were
used from previous studies with evidence of validity and reliability to reduce mono-method
bias. Artifactual bias is also a concern due to self-reported responses from common sources for
both predictor and criterion variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986); such a threat to validity is also
known as common method variance (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Fiske, 1982). Statistical
procedures used to address common method variance include post hoc analyses such as
Harman’s one-factor test and partial correlation procedures. Additionally, scale reordering was
employed to reduce the effects of consistency artifacts; scale reordering is the altering of the
design of the questionnaire so the dependent and independent variables are randomly placed
throughout the questionnaire (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Internal Validity
Internal validity, also known as rigor (Taylor, Goodwin & Cosier, 2003), is important in
the measurement of a construct. Internal validity consists of construct validity and criterionrelated validity. Construct validity is the extent to which a set of measured items actually
reflects the theoretical latent construct those items are designed to measure, and thus deals
with the accuracy of measurement (Hair et al., 2006). Construct validity assesses if the survey,
and the items comprising the survey, do in fact measure what is intended. Criterion-related
87
validity measures how well one variable, or a set of variables, can predict an outcome based on
information available from other variables.
Evidence of construct and criterion-related validity are composed of the following four
components: (1) convergent validity, (2) discriminant validity, (3) nomological validity, and (4)
face validity (Hair et al., 2006). Convergent validity is the extent to which different assessment
methods concur in their measurement of the same trait (i.e., construct); ideally, these values
should be moderately high (Byrne, 1961). Discriminant validity is the extent to which a
construct is truly distinct from other constructs; ideally these values should demonstrate
minimal convergence. High discriminant validity provides evidence that a construct is unique
and captures some phenomena other measures do not. Nomological validity is the degree to
which a construct does indeed behave as it should within a system of related constructs
(Bagozzi, 1980). Nomologically valid items are those that are most predictive; this study used
previously validated items and scales to address nomological validity. Finally, face validity
ensures that, on its face, the operationalization is a good translation of the construct (Huck,
2008). To ensure construct validity for the operationalized constructs, previously validated
measures were used throughout this study. These items were selected based on the thorough
literature review discussed in the first two chapters.
External Validity
External validity, also known as relevance (Taylor et al., 2003), is the generalizability of
the results beyond this specific study (Hair et al., 2006). In an effort to conduct this initial
entrepreneurial investigation, founders, co-founders, and owners involved in the daily
operations of their entrepreneurial ventures were gathered from across the United States to
88
represent the population of interest. The range of data on gender, age, race, ethnicity,
education, and geographic location of the entrepreneurs helps to enhance the generalizability
of the findings.
Reliability
Reliability refers to how well the instrument consistently yields similar results
(Crohnbach, 1951; Hair et al., 2006). Using reliability analysis enables the researcher to
determine the extent to which the items of a questionnaire are related to one another, obtain
an index of the internal consistency of the scale as a whole, and identify problem items that
should be extracted from future studies using the scale (Byrne, 1961). Cronbach’s alphas were
used to determine the reliability of the variables used in this dissertation. Cronbach’s alpha is a
statistical procedure that involves correlating test items with each other; a score of .70 is
considered acceptable, but the higher the score the better the evidence that items in the
instrument are measuring the same construct (Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Data Collection
Of particular difficulty in entrepreneurial investigations is the collection of data from
practicing entrepreneurs. Therefore, the survey was distributed via a networking project
conducted in an introductory Entrepreneurship course. While students in the course are
working on business plans for hypothetical new ventures they have the opportunity to
interview practicing entrepreneurs to get a better understanding of experiences in the field.
The entrepreneurs are then asked to complete the survey and the students are introduced to
research methods in the classroom.
89
Participants
The sample drawn from the target population consisted of entrepreneurs from multiple
firms located across the United States. All entrepreneurs are either firm founders or owners
participating in the daily operations of the business. The study of entrepreneurs located
throughout the United States and in various businesses aligns with the purpose of this study, an
investigation on the role of emotional intelligence in entrepreneurial success.
Procedures
Data for this investigation was collected via the use of a survey. The survey approach
was appropriate for this study because the nature of the constructs presented in the theoretical
model. Entrepreneurs participating in the study provided contact information and consent to
participate in the study. The primary investigator followed up with a random sample of the
participating entrepreneurs to ensure the sample population. The returned surveys were
checked for accuracy and any necessary modifications were submitted to the IRB for final
approval. Data was then entered into SPSS and statistically analyzed for the reporting of the
pilot study results.
Construct Measures
The items used in the development of the questionnaire are based upon theoretically
derived, previously validated instruments. The survey was approved by the IRB with all rules
governing the use of human subjects in research. The survey was pre-tested with a sample of
307 entrepreneurs participating in a pilot study of the instrument.
The primary independent variable in the research model (Figure 2) was emotional
intelligence. The primary dependent variable was entrepreneurial success, which was further
90
broken down into financial firm success, relative firm success, and personal success. The
mediating variables consisted of individual competence (managerial and entrepreneurial),
venture organizational tasks (interpersonal), as well as dynamism and munificence. The
measures for each of these variables are described in detail in the next section.
Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
The independent variable under investigation in this study is emotional intelligence.
Because there are several approaches to the theoretical framework of EI, previous researchers
have provided several validated measures of ability-based emotional intelligence and mixed
model emotional intelligence (see chapters 1 and 2). The remainder of this dissertation
employs ability-based measures of emotional intelligence.
Law, Wong and Song (2004) provided empirical evidence in support of self-report
measures of emotional intelligence. The authors further explain that self-report EI measures
are reasonably valid if their development is based on the four dimensions proposed by Mayer
and Salovey (1997). For this study, the Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) was
used to collect data on this construct.
Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
The Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) is a validated questionnaire which
measures 16 items that belong to the four major emotional intelligence dimensions (Wong &
Law, 2002); namely, identifying, facilitating, understanding, and regulating emotions (Mayer &
Salovey 1997). This scale was chosen for several reasons. First, it assesses both overall
emotional intelligence as well as the four specific emotional intelligence branches identified by
Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model. Second, the Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
91
is the most widely used and supported self-report measure of EI (e.g., Mayer et al., 2000).
Furthermore, the WLEIS was developed specifically for organizational research purposes.
Reliability of the WLEIS is high, with coefficient alphas for each of the four branches
(identifying, facilitating, understanding, and regulating) at 0.89, 0.88, 0.76, and 0.85,
respectively (Wong & Law, 2002). Each of the four dimensions contains four items. A sample
item from the identifying emotions dimension is: I really understand what I feel; and from the
regulation of emotions dimension: I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties
rationally. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors at 1 (strongly
disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
Dependent Variables: Entrepreneurial Success
The dependent variables in this study are financial entrepreneurial firm success, relative
entrepreneurial firm success, and personal entrepreneurial success. Validated items from
previous research studies were used for each of these variables (e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993;
Zahra et al., 2002). Several challenges exist when assessing new venture performance or
success. New venture performance is a complex and multidimensional construct that is tough
to measure (Brush & VanderWerf, 1992; Chandler & Hanks, 1993, 1994; Zahra et al., 2002). For
instance, new ventures are usually private organizations with no obligation to disclose
performance information; therefore, traditional measures of financial performance are often
unavailable (e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Sandberg, 1986), or business owners are unwilling to
share this information with outsiders (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984). Other research studies
have concluded that some traditional measures are not appropriate when studying
entrepreneurial ventures because of enormous and erratic growth rates, or small starting
92
capital (e.g., Walsh and White, 1981). Thus, conventional financial measures of performance
(e.g., ROI and ROA) may also have inherent challenges. Additionally, objective measures such
as survival or breakeven points are often difficult because of the need for a longitudinal sample
design. Thus, the use of multiple indicators to gauge performance is recommended (e.g.,
Sandberg, 1986; Zahra et al., 2002).
Chandler and Hanks (1993) recognize the inherent challenges in entrepreneurial
research and identify the three most common approaches to estimating entrepreneurial
performance when only self-reported data is available. They are (1) measuring financial firm
performance in broad categories; (2) using subjective measures of firm performance in relation
to competitors; and (3) subjective measures of owner satisfaction with the firm’s performance
(Chandler & Hanks, 1993).
Financial Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Items measuring financial entrepreneurial firm success were adopted from Chandler
and Hanks (1993). Previous researchers have suggested that information on performance from
privately held entrepreneurial firms is more easily obtained when requested in broad
categories (e.g., Begley & Boyd, 1987; Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Chandler & Jansen, 1992).
While measurement precision is sacrificed, to some degree, it does overcome many of the
challenges associated with the unwillingness to disclose financial information.
Financial entrepreneurial firm success is measured in broad categories of growth and
business volume. The three items used to measure growth include the following: (1) perceived
growth in market share; (2) change in cash flow; and (3) sales growth. The three items used to
measure business volume include (1) earnings, (2) sales, and (3) net worth (Chandler & Hanks,
93
1993). The evaluation of psychometric properties from previous investigations indicates that
these scales are valid and reliable for research involving financial entrepreneurial firm success
(e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993). Chandler and Hanks (1993) used confirmatory factor analysis
and all coefficient alphas met or exceeded the .70 recommended for research purposes
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Specifically, the coefficient alpha for the growth scale was .72,
and .81 was the coefficient alpha for the business volume scale.
Relative Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Entrepreneurial firm success can be measured objectively or subjectively; several
previous studies have used subjective data to capture a company’s performance (e.g., Covin &
Slevin, 1990; Dess & Robinson, 1984; Zahra et al., 2002). Porter (1980) contends that
competitors are aware of the performance of other firms within their industries; and Brush and
Vanderwerf (1992) substantiate this claim in the entrepreneurial realm by providing evidence
that competitors are indeed aware of the performance indicators of new ventures within their
industries. Researchers have asked entrepreneurs to subjectively evaluate the performance of
their companies relative to other competitors in the industry that are at or near the same age
and stage of development (e.g., Abeele & Christiaens, 1986; Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Dess &
Robinson, 1984; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Sapienza et al., 1988).
For this study respondents were asked to use a seven-point Likert-type scale, with
anchors at substantially lower and substantially higher to subjectively compare their firm’s
performance to their closest competitor (same industry) that was at or near the same age and
stage of development as their firm (Chandler and Hanks, 1993). The eight items included the
following: (1) sales growth, (2) return on sales, (3) cash flow, (4) return on investment, (5) net
94
profits, (6) return on assets, (7) growth in market share, and (8) growth in net worth of the
company. Previous research conducted by Chandler and Hanks (1993) found that all items in
the performance relative to competitors scale loaded on the same factor and had a coefficient
alpha of .93; thus, there was a high level of internal consistency and it was appropriate to
combine the items forming a single scale measuring performance relative to competitors.
Personal Entrepreneurial Success
Subjective performance measures are useful when objective data is difficult to obtain
(Dess & Robinson, 1984) and may provide some insights into perceptions of satisfaction with
company performance (e.g., Bantel, 1998; Covin & Slevin, 1990; Zahra et al., 2002). To
operationalize personal entrepreneurial success respondents were asked to assess several
dimensions of satisfaction, on a Likert-type scale, as outlined by Cooper and Artz (1995). Two
of the items assessed the entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with their firm’s sales and with their
profits, or with specific performance areas. A third item asked the responding entrepreneur to
assess their overall personal satisfaction with their venture. The fourth item assessed the
entrepreneurs’ willingness to start the same business again, which also targets the overall
satisfaction. Cooper and Artz (1995) conducted a factor analysis and found the four items
represented one underlying factor. Thus, validated items from previous research studies were
used to measure personal entrepreneurial success. The Cronbach’s alpha in Cooper and Artz
(1997) investigation was .78, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency.
Mediating Variables
Individual competence is addressed by measuring managerial and entrepreneurial
competencies. Venture tasks are assessed my measuring the amount of time each
95
entrepreneur spends on various interpersonal activities; and environmental mediators include
the assessment of munificence and dynamism. Validated items from previous research studies
were used to measure the mediating variables, and their detailed descriptions are provided
below.
Individual Competence
Individual competencies were assessed using measures developed by Chandler and
Jansen (1992), which provided evidence that self-assessments of managerial and
entrepreneurial competencies were significantly related to performance of the firm. Empirical
support for the strong positive relationships between perceived competencies and actual
competencies was provided by Gist (1987); as well as the performance appraisal literature,
which has identified self-ratings of competence and performance to be useful and valid (e.g.,
Latham & Wexley, 1981). Chandler and Jansen (1992) provided evidence of the discriminant,
convergent, and external validity for the individual competence scales used in this study, which
are discussed in greater depth in the following sections. The two individual competencies
(managerial and entrepreneurial) have been identified in previous research as necessary in
selecting opportunities and allocating/using resources (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Managerial competence. Managerial competence was measured using the following
six-item scale developed by Chandler and Jansen (1992): (1) I make resource allocation
decisions that achieve maximum results; (2) One of my greatest strengths is achieving results by
organizing and motivating people; (3) One of my greatest strengths is organizing resources and
coordinating tasks; (4) One of my greatest strengths is my ability to supervise, influence, and
lead people; (5) One of my greatest strengths is my ability to delegate effectively; and 6) One of
96
my greatest strengths is my ability to keep this organization running smoothly. Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was 0.84, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Respondents were
asked to respond to the six items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Entrepreneurial competence. Entrepreneurial competence was also measured using a
six-item scale developed by Chandler and Jansen (1992). The items consisted of the following:
(1) I accurately perceive unmet consumer needs; (2) I spend considerable time and energy
looking for products or services that will provide real benefits to my customers; (3) One of my
greatest strengths is identifying goods and services people want; (4) One of my greatest
strengths is my ability to seize high-quality opportunities; (5) I have an extremely strong
internal drive to see this venture through to fruition; (6) One of my greatest strengths is my
ability to develop goods and services that are technically superior. The coefficient alpha for this
scale is 0.70, which also indicates acceptable internal consistency. Again, the entrepreneurs
responded to the six items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Venture Organizational Tasks
Because activities performed in the entrepreneurial role involve highly interpersonal
activities (e.g., negotiating and obtaining financing) venture organizational tasks are assessed as
a potential mediator in this study. Furthermore, empirical evidence has provided support that
interpersonal activities affect business performance (e.g., Watson, Ponthieu & Critelli, 1995;
Watson, Stewart & BarNir, 2003; Watson, Cooper, Pavur & Torres, 2011). Thus, interpersonal
tasks are assessed using the scale developed by Watson, Stewart, and BarNir (2003).
97
Interpersonal activities. The scale developed by Watson and colleagues (2003) was used
to measure small businesses, and is comprised of ten items that represent two dimensions (i.e.,
relational activities and task activities). Relational activities consist of five items which include
coordinating interaction, demonstrating flexibility, openly sharing information, being
cooperative, and focusing on common goals. The authors report a Cronbach’s alpha for the five
items (in the United States) at 0.80. The task activities also consisted of five items including
goal setting, improvement procedures, problem-solving efficiency, quality standards, and
effective leadership functions. Cronbach’s alpha for the five task activities was 0.82 (in the
United States). Anchors for the 7-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (not very often, if at all)
to 7 (extremely often).
Environmental Factors
Due to the implications of measuring privately held entrepreneurial firms in multiple
industries, subjective assessments were necessary (Chandler & Hanks, 1994) for measuring
munificence and dynamism. Typical measures such as the stock price-earnings ratio
(Castrogiovanni, 1991) are not available because the entrepreneurial ventures are privately
held, not publically traded. Thus, it is evident that finding suitable objective measures of the
environment can be difficult in this entrepreneurial context (Chandler & Hanks 1994). Previous
researchers have provided support for subjectively measuring the task environment (e.g.,
Castrogiovanni, 1991). Researchers assert that the task environment can be subjectively
measured via expert knowledge (e.g., Weick, 1969), and that the perceptions of business
founders or managers (experts) can serve as indicators of these environmental variables
(Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
98
Munificence. Munificence is the availability of financial, physical, human, and
technological resources used to help firms achieve their goals (Hofer & Schendel, 1978); thus,
respondents were asked to assess 18 items based on whether accessibility to the resources
placed their firm at an advantage or disadvantage. For example, one item lists the following
resource: expertise in customer relations. Respondents are asked to respond to each item on a
Likert-type scale from 1 (great disadvantage) to 7 (great advantage). The Cronbach’s alpha for
the 18 items was 0.86 (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Dynamism. Previous research (e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984; Miller & Friesen, 1983) has
operationalized dynamism in various ways, as little consensus has transpired around a single
measure. For this study dynamism was operationalized using the scale developed by Paswan,
Dant and Lumpkin (1998). The environmental dynamism scale consists of three subdimensions;
namely industry, competition, and consumer. Industry dynamism consisted of the following
three items: (1) changes in mix of products/services carried in the industry are; (2) changes in
sales strategies in the industry are; and (3) changes in sales promotion/advertising strategies in
the industry are. Competition dynamism consisted of three items as well, including: (1)
changes in competitor’s mix of products/services are; (2) changes in competitor’s sales
strategies are; and (3) changes in competitor’s sales promotion/advertising strategies are.
Finally, consumer dynamism consisted of (1) changes in consumer preferences in
product/service features are; (2) changes in consumer preferences in loyalty are; and (3)
changes in consumer preferences in product quality/price are. Anchors for this 7 point Likerttype scale ranged from 1 (very infrequent) to 7 (very frequent). The reliability for industry
99
dynamism was 0.80, for competition dynamism 0.87, and for consumer dynamism 0.72, all
indicating acceptable reliabilities.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted in Spring 2011. Data collected from the pilot study sample
was used to make adjustments to the final survey before conducting the main study. The
following sections outline the pilot study.
Survey Process and Response Rate
As previously discussed, the data used in this study came from surveys completed by
entrepreneurs currently involved in the daily operations of their businesses. Students
participating in the networking project assigned in the introductory Entrepreneurship course
conducted 346 interviews with practicing entrepreneurs; thus, the original sample consisted of
346 potential respondents. Of the 346 entrepreneurs 307 chose to participate in the survey in
its entirety. Thus, the resulting response rate was approximately 88.7%.
Characteristics of the Pilot Study Sample
Several items were used to measure the descriptive characteristics of the sample. Items
included age, gender, ethnicity, contact information, position in the firm, participation in the
daily operations, number of other business owned, number of years as an entrepreneur, years
of work experience, years of managerial experience, functional areas of work experience,
highest level of education obtained, primary area of post high-school education, city and state
of business operation, years in operation, number of full-time employees, partners in the
business, relationship of partners in the business, purpose for establishing the business, and if a
written plan for the business exists. Table 3, provided below, is an overview of the descriptive
100
characteristics of the sample in order to provide a better understanding the demographic and
background information of the respondents. As depicted, ages ranged from to 19 to 72 in the
pilot study sample. Nearly 32% of the sample was women, and 68% men. The ethnicity
demographic included 128 Hispanic entrepreneurs (41.7%), 112 Caucasian entrepreneurs
(36.5%), 33 African Americans (10.7%), 14 Asian entrepreneurs (4.6%) and 19 that classified
themselves in the Other category (6.2%). With regard to education, 27% of the respondents
earned a high school diploma as their highest form of education, 6.8% earned Vocational
degrees, 10.1% earned an Associate’s degree, 40.4% earned a Bachelor’s degree, 11.1%
achieved an education at the Master’s degree level, and 3.6% earned a Doctorate.
Table 3
Demographic Characteristics of the Pilot Study Sample
Demographics
Gender
Male
Female
N
%
210
97
68.4
31.6
Ethnicity
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Other
112
33
128
14
19
36.5
10.7
41.7
4.6
6.2
Age
19-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66-75
34
11.2
59
19.4
63
20.7
99
32.5
41
13.5
8
26.3
table continues
101
Table 3 (continued).
Demographics
Education
High School Diploma
Vocational/Technical School
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Doctorate
N
%
84
21
31
124
34
11
27.0
6.8
10.1
40.4
11.1
3.6
Analytical Procedures
Descriptive statistics and psychometric properties of the data were analyzed prior to
evaluating the relationships among the variables. Factor structures of the existing scales used
in this study are well established in the literature and the measures have been regarded as valid
and reliable. Bivariate correlations were then analyzed to assess the convergent and
discriminant validity of the constructs. Finally, regression analysis was used to test the
hypotheses in order to determine whether emotional intelligence influences financial
entrepreneurial firm success, relative entrepreneurial firm success, and personal
entrepreneurial success; and to what extent the relationships are mediated by managerial
competence, entrepreneurial competence, interpersonal activities, munificence, and
dynamism.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 4 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all of the primary
variables of this investigation. The correlations provided are Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients via the use of interval data. Significant correlations exist between all of
the variables at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), except the correlation between interpersonal activities
102
and relative entrepreneurial success, as well as the correlation between emotional intelligence
and relative entrepreneurial success, which are both significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 4
Pilot Study Descriptive Statistics
Construct
Mean
Std Dev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. EI
5.74
0.81
-
2. Financial Success
5.23
1.21
.482**
-
3. Relative Success
4.95
1.4
.114*
.388**
-
4. Personal Success
4.5
1.26
.378**
.963**
.370**
-
5. Man. Competence
5.85
1.02
.668**
.431**
.162**
.322**
-
6. Ent. Competence
5.75
0.93
.634**
.530**
.196**
.421**
.712**
-
7. Interpersonal
5.67
1.02
.409**
.400**
.115*
.338**
.476**
.448**
-
8. Munificence
5.35
1.02
.436**
.400**
.223**
.335**
.484**
.505**
.350**
-
9. Dynamism
5.95
0.98
.319**
.339**
.148**
.266**
.426**
.474**
.630**
.390**
9
-
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Reliability Coefficients
Reliability coefficients for the measures are within acceptable limits, as described by
Nunally and Bernstein (1994). Table 5 lists the reliability coefficients from previous studies and
from this study. As depicted below, the measures demonstrate consistent reliability across the
previous studies and this dissertation.
Table 5
Pilot Study Reliability Coefficients
Measure
Emotional Intelligence
Identify
Facilitate
Understand
Regulate
Previous α
0.89
0.88
0.76
0.85
Current α
0.91
0.87
0.74
0.71
table continues
103
Table 5 (continued).
Measure
Previous α
Current α
0.72
0.81
0.93
0.78
0.84
0.70
0.90
0.86
0.95
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.80
0.82
0.86
0.78
0.88
0.93
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.81
0.91
0.82
Financial Success
Growth
Business Volume
Relative Success
Personal Success
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Competence
Interpersonal
Relational
Task
Munificence
Dynamism
Industry
Competition
Consumer
Hypothesis Testing
Direct Relationships
Hypotheses 1a through 1c address the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success, namely financial, relative, and personal success. Hypothesis 1a
proposed that emotional intelligence was positively related to financial entrepreneurial firm
success. As depicted in table 4, emotional intelligence correlated positively with financial
entrepreneurial firm success (r = .482, p < .01). A simple regression analysis was conducted
providing evidence of support for Hypothesis 1a, the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success (F[1, 305] = 92.071, R2 = .232, p < .01).
Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported.
Hypothesis 1b states that emotional intelligence is positively related to relative
entrepreneurial firm success. Emotional intelligence correlated positively with relative
104
entrepreneurial success (r = .114, p < .05). Support for Hypothesis 1b was also provided from a
simple regression analysis of the relationship between EI and relative entrepreneurial firm
success (F[1, 305] = 4.009, R2 = .013, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was supported.
Hypothesis 1c proposes that emotional intelligence is directly related to personal
entrepreneurial success, and table 4 depicts a positive correlation (r = .378, p <.01). A simple
regression provided support for Hypothesis 1c, emotional intelligence positively predicted
personal entrepreneurial success (F[1, 305] = 50.690, R2 = .143, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1c
was supported.
Indirect Relationships: Mediation
As previously discussed, a mediator is a third variable that intervenes between the
independent and dependent variables (Hair et al., 2006). A mediator accounts for the
relationship (fully or partially) between the independent variable (emotional intelligence) and
dependent variable (entrepreneurial success). Theoretically, a mediator facilitates the
relationship between the other two variables (Hair et al., 2006). According to Baron and Kenny
(1986), four conditions should be met for evidence of mediation. Figure 3 provides a visual
depiction of the steps, analysis, and equations. First, the independent variable of interest
(emotional intelligence) should account for significant variance in the dependent variable
(entrepreneurial success). Second, the independent variable must be significantly related to
the proposed mediators (managerial competence, entrepreneurial competence, interpersonal
activities, munificence, and dynamism). Third, the independent variable should account for
significant variance in the dependent variable. If significant relationships exist in steps 1
through 3, then it is necessary to proceed to step 4; in step 4 multiple regression analysis is run
105
with the independent variable and the mediator predicting the dependent variable. Some form
of mediation is supported if the effect of the mediator on the dependent variable remains
significant after controlling for the independent variable. If both the independent variable and
the mediating variable still significantly predict the dependent variable then partial mediation is
supported. If the independent variable is no longer significant when the mediator is controlled
then findings support full mediation (Hair et al., 2006).
Testing for Mediation
H
X
M
f
1 Simple Regression analysis X predicting Y to
test path h
2 Simple Regression analysis X predicting M
to test path f
3 Simple Regression analysis M predicting Y
to test significance of path g
Y
g
H
Y = B0 + B1X + e
X
M = B0 + B1X + e
X
Y = B0 + B1M + e
M
Y
F
M
G
Y
H
4 Multiple regression analysis X and M
predicting Y
Y = B0 + B1X +
B2M + e
X
M
Y
G
Figure 3. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in testing for mediation.
Managerial competence. To determine whether managerial competence was a
mediator of entrepreneurial success predicted by emotional intelligence, Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) four step regression analysis procedure was used. First, a simple regression analysis was
run with emotional intelligence (X) predicting financial entrepreneurial success (Y) to test for a
106
direct effect. The regression analysis demonstrated that emotional intelligence explained a
significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .232, F[1, 305] =
92.07, B = .717, t = 9.60, p < .01) and in managerial competence (R2 = .447, F[1, 305] = 246.31, B
= .763, t = 15.69, p < .01). Hence, the first and second conditions for mediation were
supported. For the third requirement of mediation, managerial competence must be related to
financial entrepreneurial firm success, and results indicate that this condition was also met (R2 =
.186, F[1, 305] = 69.479, B = .562, t = 8.335, p < .01). For full mediation to exist, the predictor
variable (EI) should have no effect when the mediator (managerial competence) is controlled,
this was not the case, indicating only partial mediation (R2 = .253, F[2, 304] = 51.563, B = .257, t
= 2.954, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to determine that 20.67% of the total effect
between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by managerial competence.
Thus, Hypothesis 2a is supported.
Steps 1-4 were repeated to analyze relative entrepreneurial success. A simple
regression analysis demonstrated that emotional intelligence (X) predicted relative
entrepreneurial success (Y) providing support for EI explaining a significant amount of variance
in relative entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.009, B = .177, t = 2.002, p < .05).
Second, emotional intelligence was found to be significantly related to managerial competence
(R2 = .447, F[1, 305] = 246.31, B = .763, t = 15.69, p < .01). Third, managerial competence was
also significantly related to relative entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .026, F[1, 305] = 8.258, B
= .221, t = 2.874, p < .01). In step 4, relative entrepreneurial success is regressed on managerial
competence and emotional intelligence (R2 = .026, F[2, 304] = 4.124, B = .212, t = 2.049, p <
.05). Because the relationship between emotional intelligence (IV) and relative entrepreneurial
107
success (DV) is no longer significant when managerial competence (mediator) is controlled,
findings support full mediation. Thus, Hypothesis 2b is supported.
The analyses were then repeated to analyze personal entrepreneurial success.
Emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .143,
F[1, 305] = 50.690, B = .648, t = 7.120, p < .01) and managerial competence (R2 = .447, F[1, 305]
= 246.31, B = .763, t = 15.69, p < .01). Managerial competence was also found to be
significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .103, F[1, 305] = 35.177, B = .483,
t = 5.931, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements of Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
regression analysis procedures for mediation. In step 4 the analysis of emotional intelligence
and managerial competence predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides support for
partial mediation at the 0.10 level (R2 = .151, F[2, 304] = 27.072, B = .188, t = 1.762, p < .10).
Mediation tests indicated that 22.16% of the total effect between EI and personal
entrepreneurial success is mediated by managerial competence. Thus, Hypothesis 2c is
marginally supported.
Entrepreneurial competence. As previously stated, emotional intelligence explains a
significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .232, F[1, 305] =
92.07, B = .717, t = 9.60, p < .01). Emotional intelligence also explains a significant amount of
variance in entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .402, F[1, 305] = 204.896, B = .794, t = 14.314, p <
.01); hence, the first two requirements of mediation have been met. Next, entrepreneurial
competence was found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial
firm success (R2 = .281, F[1, 305] = 119.389, B = .631, t = 10.927, p < .01). Partial mediation was
supported when financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and
108
entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .563, F[2, 304] = 70.424, B = .448, t = 6.140, p < .01).
Mediation tests were then run to determine that 49.55% of the total effect between EI and
financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by entrepreneurial competence. Thus,
Hypothesis 3a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.009, B = .177, t =
2.002, p < .05), and in entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .402, F[1, 305] = 204.896, B = .794, t =
14.314, p < .01). Entrepreneurial competence also explains a significant amount of variance in
relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .039, F[1, 305] = 12.223, B = .244, t = 3.496, p < .01). Full
mediation was supported because the relationship between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial success was no longer significant when entrepreneurial competence was
controlled (R2 = .039, F[2, 304] = 6.122, B = .257, t = 2.853, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3b is
supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .143, F[1, 305] = 50.690, B = .648, t = 7.120, p < .01) and entrepreneurial
competence (R2 = .402, F[1, 305] = 204.896, B = .794, t = 14.314, p < .01). Entrepreneurial
competence is also significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .178, F[1, 305]
= 65.864, B = .578, t = 8.116, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial competence predicting personal entrepreneurial
success provides support for partial mediation (R2 = .198, F[2, 304] = 37.517, B = .417, t = 4.584,
p < .01). Mediation tests indicated that 51.12% of the total effect between EI and personal
109
entrepreneurial success is mediated by entrepreneurial competence. Thus, Hypothesis 3c is
supported.
Interpersonal activities. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance
in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .232, F[1, 305] = 92.07, B = .717, t = 9.60, p < .01)
and interpersonal activities (R2 = .167, F[1, 305] = 61.328, B = .511, t = 7.831, p < .01).
Interpersonal activities was found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial
entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .160, F[1, 305] = 57.950, B = .476, t = 7.612, p < .01). Partial
mediation was supported when financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional
intelligence and interpersonal activities (R2 = .281, F[2, 304] = 59.450, B = .290, t = 4.565, p <
.01). Mediation tests were then run to determine that 20.67% of the total effect between EI
and financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by interpersonal activities. Thus,
Hypothesis 4a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.009, B = .177, t =
2.002, p < .05), and in interpersonal activities (R2 = .167, F[1, 305] = 61.328, B = .511, t = 7.831, p
< .01). Interpersonal activities also explain a significant amount of variance in relative
entrepreneurial success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.058, B = .143, t = 2.014, p < .05). In step 4 the
results of the regression were no longer significant when emotional intelligence and
interpersonal activities were regressed on relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .019, F[2, 304]
= 2.869, B = .082, t = 1.311, p = .191). Thus, Hypothesis 4b is not supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .143, F[1, 305] = 50.690, B = .648, t = 7.120, p < .01) and interpersonal activities (R2
110
= .167, F[1, 305] = 61.328, B = .511, t = 7.831, p < .01). Interpersonal activities was also
significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .114, F[1, 305] = 39.361, B = .465,
t = 6.274, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional
intelligence and interpersonal activities predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides
support for partial mediation (R2 = .183, F[2, 304] = 34.049, B = .303, t = 3.882, p < .01).
Mediation tests indicated that 23.90% of the total effect between EI and personal
entrepreneurial success is mediated by interpersonal activities. Thus, Hypothesis 4c is
supported.
Munificence. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance in
financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .232, F[1, 305] = 92.07, B = .717, t = 9.60, p < .01)
and munificence (R2 = .190, F[1, 305] = 71.400, B = .545, t = 8.450, p < .01). Munificence was
found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 =
.160, F[1, 305] = 58.001, B = .476, t = 7.616, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported when
financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and munificence (R2
= .276, F[2, 304] = 58.069, B = .279, t = 4.326, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to
determine that 21.21% of the total effect between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success
is mediated by munificence. Thus, Hypothesis 5a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.009, B = .177, t =
2.002, p < .05), and in munificence (R2 = .190, F[1, 305] = 71.400, B = .545, t = 8.450, p < .01).
Munificence also explains a significant amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success
(R2 = .050, F[1, 305] = 15.965, B = .277, t = 3.996, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported
111
when relative entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and munificence
(R2 = .050, F[2, 304] = 8.015, B = .266, t = 3.446, p < .01). Mediation tests were run to
determine that 81.83% of the total effect between EI and relative entrepreneurial success is
mediated by munificence. Thus, Hypothesis 5b is supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .143, F[1, 305] = 50.690, B = .648, t = 7.120, p < .01), and munificence (R2 = .190,
F[1, 305] = 71.400, B = .545, t = 8.450, p < .01). Munificence was also significantly related to
personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .112, F[1, 305] = 38.618, B = .460, t = 6.214, p < .01), thus
meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional intelligence and munificence
predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides support for partial mediation (R2 = .179,
F[2, 304] = 33.032, B = .289, t = 3.651, p < .01). Mediation tests indicated that 24.32% of the
total effect between EI and personal entrepreneurial success is mediated by munificence. Thus,
Hypothesis 5c is supported.
Dynamism. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance in financial
entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .232, F[1, 305] = 92.07, B = .717, t = 9.60, p < .01) and
dynamism (R2 = .102, F[1, 305] = 34.491, B = .382, t = 5.873, p < .01). Dynamism was found to
explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .115, F[1,
305] = 39.506, B = .420, t = 6.285, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported when financial
entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and dynamism (R2 = .270, F[2,
304] = 56.229, B = .256, t = 3.986, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to determine that
13.64% of the total effect between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by
dynamism. Thus, Hypothesis 6a is supported.
112
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .013, F[1, 305] = 4.009, B = .177, t =
2.002, p < .05), and in dynamism (R2 = .102, F[1, 305] = 34.491, B = .382, t = 5.873, p < .01).
Dynamism also explains a significant amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2
= .022, F[1, 305] = 6.854, B = .192, t = 2.618, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported when
relative entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and dynamism (R2 =
.027, F[2, 304] = 4.206, B = .161, t = 2.088, p < .05). Mediation tests were run to determine that
34.87% of the total effect between EI and relative entrepreneurial success is mediated by
dynamism. Thus, Hypothesis 6b is supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .143, F[1, 305] = 50.690, B = .648, t = 7.120, p < .01), and dynamism (R2 = .102, F[1,
305] = 34.491, B = .382, t = 5.873, p < .01). Dynamism was also significantly related to personal
entrepreneurial success (R2 = .071, F[1, 305] = 23.134, B = .380, t = 4.810, p < .01), thus meeting
the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional intelligence and dynamism predicting
personal entrepreneurial success provides support for partial mediation (R2 = .166, F[2, 304] =
30.249, B = .231, t = 2.925, p < .01). Mediation tests indicated that 13.65% of the total effect
between EI and personal entrepreneurial success is mediated by dynamism. Thus, Hypothesis
6c is supported.
Results of the pilot study analysis are reported in the tables below. Table 6 depicts the
results of each step of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analysis procedure. Table 7 displays
a summary of the mediation statistics for the proposed relationships, and table 8 summarizes
the hypotheses.
113
Table 6
Pilot Study Baron and Kenny Mediation Analysis
R
R^2
Prob>F
EI and Financial Success with Mediators
Financial Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Man. Competence and EI
0.482 0.232
0.668 0.447
0.503 0.253
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Comp regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.482 0.232
0.634 0.402
0.563 0.317
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.482 0.232
0.409 0.167
0.530 0.281
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.482 0.232
0.436 0.190
0.526 0.276
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
0.482 0.232
0.319 0.102
0.520 0.270
0.000
0.000
0.000
EI and Relative Success with Mediators
Relative Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Man. Competence and EI
0.114 0.013
0.668 0.447
0.163 0.026
0.046
0.000
0.017
Relative Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Competence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.114 0.013
0.634 0.402
0.197 0.039
0.046
0.000
0.002
Relative Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.114 0.013
0.409 0.167
0.136 0.019
0.046
0.000
0.058
Relative Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.114 0.013 0.046
0.436 0.190 0.000
0.224 0.050 0.000
table continues
114
Table 6 (continued).
Relative Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
0.114 0.013
0.319 0.102
0.164 0.027
0.046
0.000
0.016
EI and Personal Success with Mediators
Personal Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Man. Competence and EI
0.378 0.143
0.668 0.447
0.389 0.151
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Competence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.378 0.143
0.634 0.402
0.445 0.198
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.378 0.143
0.409 0.167
0.428 0.183
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.378 0.143
0.436 0.190
0.423 0.179
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
0.378 0.143
0.319 0.102
0.407 0.166
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 7
Pilot Study Mediation Statistics
EI
EI
EI
EI
EI
Man. Competence Financial Success
Ent. Competence
Financial Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Financial Success
Dynamism
Financial Success
Munificence
Financial Success
Sobel
Z-test
2.903
5.643
3.944
3.298
3.851
EI
EI
EI
Man. Competence Relative Success
Ent. Competence
Relative Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Relative Success
2.031
2.798
1.293
115
p-value
0.042
0.005
0.196
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
Total Effect
Mediated
0.273
0.496
0.207
0.136
0.212
0.915
1.155
0.293
table continues
Table 7 (continued).
EI
Dynamism
Relative Success
EI
Munificence
Relative Success
1.967
3.191
0.049
0.001
0.349
0.818
EI
EI
EI
EI
EI
1.751
4.366
3.478
2.618
3.351
0.080
0.000
0.001
0.009
0.008
0.222
0.511
0.224
0.136
0.243
Man. Competence Personal Success
Ent. Competence
Personal Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Personal Success
Dynamism
Personal Success
Munificence
Personal Success
Table 8
Pilot Study Summary of Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Support
Findings
1a
S
.482 correlation significant at .01 level
1b
S
.114 correlation significant at .05 level
1c
S
.378 correlation significant at .01 level
2a
S
27.32% of total effect mediated
2b
S
91.47% of total effect mediated
2c
MS
22.16% of total effect mediated
3a
S
49.55% of total effect mediated
3b
S
100% of total effect mediated
3c
S
51.12% of total effect mediated
4a
S
20.67% of total effect mediated
4b
NS
insignificant indirect effects
4c
S
23.90% of total effect mediated
5a
S
21.21% of total effect mediated
5b
S
81.83% of total effect mediated
5c
S
24.32% of total effect mediated
6a
S
13.64% of total effect mediated
6b
S
34.87% of total effect mediated
6c
S
13.65% of total effect mediated
S = Support; NS = No Support; MS = Marginal Support
Summary and Revisions to the Main Study
A pilot study allows a researcher to address the potential hazards of a study before
collecting and analyzing the main study data. Conducting a pilot study allowed me to assess the
116
distribution method and response rate of entrepreneurs for this study. The pilot study also
provided me with the opportunity to assess potentially obscure items and analyze the power
and sample size necessary for the main study. Finally, the ability to analyze the hypothesized
relationships in the entrepreneurial setting provided insight into potential relationships and
results.
Based on the pilot study data collection and analysis, three changes to the survey were
made before conducting the main study. First, and foremost, definitions were provided for the
financial entrepreneurial success measures. As previously discussed, 346 entrepreneurs were
interviewed as part of the course networking assignment and 307 entrepreneurs completed the
survey in its entirety. Of the 39 entrepreneurs who either chose not to take the survey at all, or
skipped entire sections of the survey, 18 skipped the financial firm success questions. As
recommended by previous entrepreneurial researchers (e.g., Begley & Boyd, 1987; Chandler &
Hanks, 1993; Chandler & Jansen, 1992), financial success questions were asked in broad
categories in order to minimize confidentiality concerns. Thus, a follow-up was conducted with
the entrepreneurs who chose not to complete the financial success section. Of their responses,
several said they were unclear about what questions like perceived growth in market share and
net worth actually meant. It became evident that several entrepreneurs had skipped this
section or items in this section because of a need for further clarification, not because of
confidentiality concerns. Upon further reflection, less than 60% of the entrepreneurs in the
pilot study had an education at a Bachelor’s Degree level or higher, which may represent the
need for further clarification of these financial items. The remainder of the survey was
117
assessed for similar concerns, but the need for additional clarification of other constructs was
not evident or warranted.
The second change that took place before conducting the main study was the addition
of a demographic question. The pilot study survey asked the following three questions: 1) Have
you started or owned ANOTHER business? (Yes/No); 2) How many OTHER businesses have you
previously owned? (fill in the blank, numerical); and 3) How many OTHER businesses do you
currently own? (fill in the blank, numerical). Upon reflection, asking the number of businesses
owned and the number of businesses started are not the same question. It may be more
important, in the entrepreneurial context, to address the number of other businesses an
individual has started, as opposed to the number of other businesses he or she owns.
The final change made to the survey before conducting the main study is simply
reducing the number of personal identification questions asked. The first 37 questions of the
survey ask the entrepreneur personal questions about themselves and their business;
specifically asking for contact information such as their name, phone number, email address,
name of the student conducting the interview, name of their business, business address, city
and state. This information was requested in order to follow-up with the entrepreneurs on
response rate, clarifications, and to follow up with a random sample to verify that the students
did indeed conduct the interviews. While all personally identifiable information is removed
from the surveys after the follow-up (each survey is given a randomly assigned number from
that point forward), it was the cause of apprehension for some entrepreneurs and is not all
necessary for the data analysis. Thus, for the main study the entrepreneur will have the option
of submitting a phone number or email address for a follow-up; he or she will not be required
118
to submit the name of the business (industry, type of product/service, and functional area of
working career are all addressed in other questions); and the respondent will only need to
provide the city/state in which the business operates.
This chapter described the research design and methodology used for this dissertation.
An analysis of the pilot study identified minor survey modifications that were addressed before
conducting the main study. Chapter IV discusses the hypothesis testing and results of the main
study.
119
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The overarching research question of this study is: Why are some entrepreneurial
ventures more successful than others? More specifically, what is the role of emotional
intelligence in the entrepreneurial context? The first section of this chapter explains the survey
instrument, describing the demographic characteristics of participants, the data collection
process, and the response rate. A description of the variables used in the study is then
provided. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to evaluate the relationship between
all variables; means and standard deviations for the variables are also presented. The chapter
concludes with the results of the regression analyses and hypotheses testing.
Data Collection
Like the pilot study, the survey was distributed via a networking project conducted in an
introductory Entrepreneurship course. While students in the course are working on business
plans for hypothetical new ventures they have the opportunity to interview practicing
entrepreneurs to get a better understanding of experiences in the field. The entrepreneurs
interviewed are then asked to complete the survey and the students are introduced to research
methods in the classroom.
Participants
Participants in this study included 609 entrepreneurs from multiple firms located across
the United States. The participating entrepreneurs were either firm founders or owners who
participate in the daily business operations. The study of entrepreneurs located throughout the
120
United States and in various businesses aligns with the purpose of this study, an investigation
on the role of EI in entrepreneurial success.
Procedures
Students participating in the networking project conducted 683 interviews with
practicing entrepreneurs. Of the 683 entrepreneurs interviewed 609 chose to participate in the
survey in its entirety; thus, resulting in a response rate of approximately 89.17%. The
entrepreneurs completing the survey in its entirety were comprised of 400 males (65.7%) and
209 females (34.3%). The ages of the entrepreneurs ranged from 19 years old to 78 years old.
The ethnicity demographic included 292 Caucasian entrepreneurs (47.9%), 169 Hispanic
(27.8%), 91 African American (14.9%), 28 Asian (4.6%), and 29 entrepreneurs that classified
themselves in the Other category (4.8%). With regard to education, 154 entrepreneurs earned
a high school degree as their highest form of education (25.3%), 50 earned a vocational or
technical certificate (8.2%), 68 respondents earned an Associate’s degree (11.2%), 237 earned a
Bachelor’s degree (38.9%), 75 earned a Master’s degree (12.3%), and 23 entrepreneurs
participating in the study had earned a Doctoral degree (3.8%). Table 9 details the
demographic characteristics of the participating entrepreneurs.
Table 9
Demographic Characteristics of the Survey Participants
Demographics
N
%
Gender
Male
400
65.7
Female
209
34.3
Ethnicity
Caucasian
292
47.9
African American
91
14.9
table continues
121
Table 9 (continued).
Demographics
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Age
19-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
66+
Education
High School Diploma
Vocational/Technical School
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Doctorate
N
169
28
29
%
27.8
4.6
4.8
61
126
127
190
85
18
10.2
20.8
20.6
31.3
14.1
3.0
154
50
68
237
75
23
25.3
8.2
11.2
38.9
12.3
3.8
Construct Measures
The items used in the survey are based upon theoretically derived, previously validated
instruments. The survey was approved by the IRB with all rules governing the use of human
subjects in research. The primary independent variable in the research model was emotional
intelligence. The primary dependent variable was entrepreneurial success, which was further
broken down into financial entrepreneurial firm success, relative entrepreneurial firm success,
and personal entrepreneurial success. The mediating variables consisted of individual
competence (managerial and entrepreneurial), venture organizational tasks (interpersonal), as
well as dynamism and munificence. The measures for each of these variables are described in
detail in the next section.
122
Independent Variable: Emotional Intelligence
Law, Wong and Song (2004) provided empirical evidence in support of self-report
measures of emotional intelligence. The authors further explain that self-report EI measures
are reasonably valid if their development is based on the four dimensions proposed by Mayer
and Salovey (1997). For this study, the Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) was
used to collect data on this construct.
Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
The Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) is a validated questionnaire which
measures 16 items that belong to the four major emotional intelligence dimensions (Wong &
Law, 2002); namely, identifying, facilitating, understanding, and regulating emotions (Mayer &
Salovey 1997). This scale was chosen for several reasons. First, it assesses both overall
emotional intelligence as well as the four specific emotional intelligence branches identified by
Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) model. Second, the Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS)
is the most widely used and supported self-report measure of EI (e.g., Mayer et al., 2000).
Furthermore, the WLEIS was developed specifically for organizational research purposes.
Reliability of the WLEIS is high, with coefficient alphas for each of the four branches
(identifying, facilitating, understanding, and regulating) at 0.89, 0.88, 0.76, and 0.85,
respectively (Wong & Law, 2002). Each of the four dimensions contains four items. A sample
item from the identifying emotions dimension is: I really understand what I feel; and from the
regulation of emotions dimension: I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties
rationally. The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors at 1 (strongly
disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
123
Dependent Variables: Entrepreneurial Success
The dependent variables in this study are financial entrepreneurial firm success, relative
entrepreneurial firm success, and personal entrepreneurial success. Validated items from
previous research studies were used for each of these variables (e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993;
Zahra et al., 2002). Several challenges exist when assessing new venture performance or
success. New venture performance is a complex and multidimensional construct that is tough
to measure (Brush & VanderWerf, 1992; Chandler & Hanks, 1993, 1994; Zahra et al., 2002). For
instance, new ventures are usually private organizations with no obligation to disclose
performance information; therefore, traditional measures of financial performance are often
unavailable (e.g., Chandler and Hanks, 1993; Sandberg, 1986), or business owners are unwilling
to share this information with outsiders (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984). Other research studies
have concluded that some traditional measures are not appropriate when studying
entrepreneurial ventures because of enormous and erratic growth rates, or small starting
capital (e.g., Walsh and White, 1981). Thus, conventional financial measures of performance
(e.g., ROI and ROA) may also have inherent challenges. Additionally, objective measures such
as survival or breakeven points are often difficult because of the need for a longitudinal sample
design. Thus, the use of multiple indicators to gauge performance is recommended (e.g.,
Sandberg, 1986; Zahra et al., 2002).
Chandler and Hanks (1993) recognize the inherent challenges in entrepreneurial
research and identify the three most common approaches to estimating entrepreneurial
performance when only self-report data is available. They are (1) measuring financial firm
performance in broad categories; (2) using subjective measures of firm performance in relation
124
to competitors; and (3) subjective measures of owner satisfaction with the firm’s performance
(Chandler & Hanks, 1993).
Financial Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Items measuring financial entrepreneurial firm success were adopted from Chandler
and Hanks (1993). Previous researchers have suggested that information on performance from
privately held entrepreneurial firms is more easily obtained when requested in broad
categories (e.g., Begley & Boyd, 1987; Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Chandler & Jansen, 1992).
While measurement precision is sacrificed, to some degree, it does overcome many of the
challenges associated with the unwillingness to disclose financial information.
Financial entrepreneurial firm success was measured in broad categories of growth and
business volume. The three items used to measure growth include the following: (1) perceived
growth in market share; (2) change in cash flow; and (3) sales growth. The three items used to
measure business volume include (1) earnings, (2) sales, and (3) net worth (Chandler & Hanks,
1993). The evaluation of psychometric properties from previous investigations indicates that
these scales are valid and reliable for research involving financial entrepreneurial firm success
(e.g., Chandler & Hanks, 1993). Chandler and Hanks (1993) used confirmatory factor analysis
and all coefficient alphas met or exceeded the .70 recommended for research purposes
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Specifically, the coefficient alpha for the growth scale was .72,
and .81 was the coefficient alpha for the business volume scale.
Relative Entrepreneurial Firm Success
Entrepreneurial firm success can be measured objectively or subjectively; several
previous studies have used subjective data to capture a company’s performance (e.g., Covin &
125
Slevin, 1990; Dess & Robinson, 1984; Zahra et al., 2002). Porter (1980) contends that
competitors are aware of the performance of other firms within their industries; and Brush and
Vanderwerf (1992) substantiate this claim in the entrepreneurial realm by providing evidence
that competitors are indeed aware of the performance indicators of new ventures within their
industries. Researchers have asked entrepreneurs to subjectively evaluate the performance of
their companies relative to other competitors in the industry that are at or near the same age
and stage of development (e.g., Abeele & Christiaens, 1986; Chandler & Hanks, 1993; Dess &
Robinson, 1984; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1984; Sapienza et al., 1988).
For this study respondents were asked to use a seven-point Likert-type scale, with
anchors at substantially lower and substantially higher to subjectively compare their firm’s
performance to their closest competitor (same industry) that was at or near the same age and
stage of development as their firm (Chandler and Hanks, 1993). The eight items included the
following: (1) sales growth, (2) return on sales, (3) cash flow, (4) return on investment, (5) net
profits, (6) return on assets, (7) growth in market share, and (8) growth in net worth of the
company. Previous research conducted by Chandler and Hanks (1993) found that all items in
the performance relative to competitors scale loaded on the same factor and had a coefficient
alpha of .93; thus, there was a high level of internal consistency and it was appropriate to
combine the items forming a single scale measuring performance relative to competitors.
Personal Entrepreneurial Success
Subjective performance measures are useful when objective data is difficult to obtain
(Dess & Robinson, 1984) and may provide some insights into perceptions of satisfaction with
company performance (e.g., Bantel, 1998; Covin et al., 1990; Zahra et al., 2002). To
126
operationalize personal entrepreneurial success respondents were asked to assess several
dimensions of satisfaction, on a Likert-type scale, as outlined by Cooper and Artz (1995). Two
of the items assessed the entrepreneurs’ satisfaction with their firm’s sales and with their
profits, or with specific performance areas. A third item asked the responding entrepreneur to
assess their overall personal satisfaction with their venture. The fourth item assessed the
entrepreneurs’ willingness to start the same business again, which also targets the overall
satisfaction. Cooper and Artz (1995) conducted a factor analysis and found the four items
represented one underlying factor. Thus, validated items from previous research studies were
used to measure personal entrepreneurial success. The Cronbach’s alpha in Cooper and Artz
(1997) investigation was .78, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency.
Mediating Variables
Individual competence was addressed by measuring managerial and entrepreneurial
competencies. Venture tasks were assessed by measuring the amount of time each
entrepreneur spends on various interpersonal activities; and environmental mediators include
the assessment of munificence and dynamism. Validated items from previous research studies
were used to measure the mediating variables, and their detailed descriptions are provided
below.
Individual Competence
Individual competencies were assessed using measures developed by Chandler and
Jansen (1992), which provided evidence that self-assessments of managerial and
entrepreneurial competencies were significantly related to performance of the firm. Empirical
support for the strong positive relationships between perceived competencies and actual
127
competencies was provided by Gist (1987); as well as the performance appraisal literature,
which has identified self-ratings of competence and performance to be useful and valid (e.g.,
Latham & Wexley, 1981). Chandler and Jansen (1992) provided evidence of the discriminant,
convergent, and external validity for the individual competence scales used in this study, which
are discussed in greater depth in the following sections. The two individual competencies
(managerial and entrepreneurial) have been identified in previous research as necessary in
selecting opportunities and allocating/using resources (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Managerial competence. Managerial competence was measured using the following
six-item scale developed by Chandler and Jansen (1992): (1) I make resource allocation
decisions that achieve maximum results; (2) One of my greatest strengths is achieving results by
organizing and motivating people; (3) One of my greatest strengths is organizing resources and
coordinating tasks; (4) One of my greatest strengths is my ability to supervise, influence, and
lead people; (5) One of my greatest strengths is my ability to delegate effectively; and 6) One of
my greatest strengths is my ability to keep this organization running smoothly. Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was 0.84, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Respondents were
asked to respond to the six items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Entrepreneurial competence. Entrepreneurial competence was also measured using a
six-item scale developed by Chandler and Jansen (1992). The items consisted of the following:
(1) I accurately perceive unmet consumer needs; (2) I spend considerable time and energy
looking for products or services that will provide real benefits to my customers; (3) One of my
greatest strengths is identifying goods and services people want; (4) One of my greatest
128
strengths is my ability to seize high-quality opportunities; (5) I have an extremely strong
internal drive to see this venture through to fruition; and (6) One of my greatest strengths is my
ability to develop goods and services that are technically superior. The coefficient alpha for this
scale is 0.70, which also indicates acceptable internal consistency. Again, the entrepreneurs
responded to the six items on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Venture Organizational Tasks
Because activities performed in the entrepreneurial role involve highly interpersonal
activities (e.g., negotiating and obtaining financing) venture organizational tasks were assessed
as a potential mediator in this study. Furthermore, empirical evidence has provided support
that interpersonal activities affect business performance (e.g., Watson, Ponthieu & Critelli,
1995; Watson, Stewart & BarNir, 2003; Watson, Cooper, Pavur & Torres, 2011). Thus,
interpersonal tasks were assessed using the scale developed by Watson, Stewart, and BarNir
(2003).
Interpersonal activities. The scale developed by Watson and colleagues (2003) was used
to measure small businesses, and is comprised of ten items that represent two dimensions (i.e.,
relational activities and task activities). Relational activities consist of five items which include
coordinating interaction, demonstrating flexibility, openly sharing information, being
cooperative, and focusing on common goals. The authors report a Cronbach’s alpha for the five
items (in the United States) at 0.80. The task activities also consisted of five items including
goal setting, improvement procedures, problem-solving efficiency, quality standards, and
effective leadership functions. Cronbach’s alpha for the five task activities was 0.82 (in the
129
United States). Anchors for the 7-point Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (not very often, if at all)
to 7 (extremely often).
Environmental Factors
Due to the implications of measuring privately held entrepreneurial firms in multiple
industries, subjective assessments were necessary (Chandler & Hanks, 1994) for measuring
munificence and dynamism. Typical measures such as the stock price-earnings ratio
(Castrogiovanni, 1991) are not available because the entrepreneurial ventures are privately
held, not publically traded. Thus, it is evident that finding suitable objective measures of the
environment can be difficult in this entrepreneurial context (Chandler & Hanks 1994). Previous
researchers have provided support for subjectively measuring the task environment (e.g.,
Castrogiovanni, 1991). Researchers assert that the task environment can be subjectively
measured via expert knowledge (e.g., Weick, 1969), and that the perceptions of business
founders or managers (experts) can serve as indicators of these environmental variables
(Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
Munificence. Munificence is the availability of financial, physical, human, and
technological resources used to help firms achieve their goals (Hofer & Schendel, 1978); thus,
respondents were asked to assess 18 items based on whether accessibility to the resources
placed their firm at an advantage or disadvantage. For example, one item lists the following
resource: expertise in customer relations. Respondents are asked to respond to each item on a
Likert-type scale from 1 (great disadvantage) to 7 (great advantage). The Cronbach’s alpha for
the 18 items was 0.86 (Chandler & Hanks, 1994).
130
Dynamism. Previous research (e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984; Miller & Friesen, 1983) has
operationalized dynamism in various ways, as little consensus has transpired around a single
measure. For this study dynamism was operationalized using the scale developed by Paswan,
Dant and Lumpkin (1998). The environmental dynamism scale consists of three subdimensions;
namely industry, competition, and consumer. Industry dynamism consisted of the following
three items: (1) changes in mix of products/services carried in the industry are; (2) changes in
sales strategies in the industry are; and (3) changes in sales promotion/advertising strategies in
the industry are. Competition dynamism consisted of three items as well, including: (1)
changes in competitor’s mix of products/services are; (2) changes in competitor’s sales
strategies are; and (3) changes in competitor’s sales promotion/advertising strategies are.
Finally, consumer dynamism consisted of (1) changes in consumer preferences in
product/service features are; (2) changes in consumer preferences in loyalty are; and (3)
changes in consumer preferences in product quality/price are. Anchors for this 7 point Likerttype scale ranged from 1 (very infrequent) to 7 (very frequent). The reliability for industry
dynamism was 0.80, for competition dynamism 0.87, and for consumer dynamism 0.72, all
indicating acceptable reliabilities.
Analytical Procedures
Descriptive statistics and psychometric properties of the data were analyzed prior to
evaluating the relationships among the variables. Factor structures of the existing scales used
in this study are well established in the literature and the measures have been regarded as valid
and reliable. Bivariate correlations were then analyzed to assess the convergent and
discriminant validity of the constructs. Finally, regression analysis was used to test the
131
hypotheses in order to determine whether emotional intelligence influences financial
entrepreneurial firm success, relative entrepreneurial firm success, and personal
entrepreneurial success; and to what extent the relationships are mediated by managerial
competence, entrepreneurial competence, interpersonal activities, munificence, and
dynamism.
Descriptive Statistics
Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were analyzed to address the
bivariate relationships among the variables. Table 10 presents the means, standard deviations
and correlation coefficients for the primary variables of investigation in this study. Significant
correlations exist between all of the variables at the 0.01 level.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics
Construct
Mean
Std Dev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. EI
5.86
0.93
-
2. Financial Success
5.43
1.16
.497**
-
3. Relative Success
5.56
0.81
.292**
.313**
-
4. Personal Success
5.22
1.33
.375**
.960**
.247**
-
5. Man. Competence
5.72
0.92
.778**
.579**
.429**
.452**
-
6. Ent. Competence
5.76
1.04
.722**
.561**
.433**
.443**
.907**
-
7. Interpersonal
5.96
0.89
.486**
.415**
.566**
.346**
.591**
.573**
-
8. Munificence
5.51
1.03
.304**
.341**
.600**
.270**
.474**
.493**
.675**
-
9. Dynamism
5.92
0.97
.456**
.309**
.583**
.208**
.512**
.554**
.744**
.671**
9
-
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Reliability Coefficients
Reliability coefficients examine the internal consistency of the scales using Cronbach’s
alpha. The results indicate all scales have a high degree of internal consistency, since the alpha
132
values are greater than Nunnally’s (1978) level of acceptability criterion of .70. Table 11
provides the reliability coefficients from the original studies and the current study.
Table 11
Reliability Coefficients
Measure
Emotional Intelligence
Identify
Facilitate
Understand
Regulate
Financial Success
Growth
Business Volume
Relative Success
Personal Success
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial
Competence
Interpersonal
Relational
Task
Munificence
Dynamism
Industry
Competition
Consumer
Previous α
Current α
0.89
0.88
0.76
0.85
0.93
0.90
0.72
0.75
0.72
0.81
0.93
0.78
0.84
0.92
0.86
0.76
0.88
0.82
0.70
0.90
0.80
0.82
0.86
0.88
0.91
0.94
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.91
0.93
0.91
Hypothesis Testing
The research model in Figure 4 addresses the relationships among the variables and
depicts the hypotheses analyzed. The following sections provide additional information the
statistical methods used to analyze the research model. The direct relationships are covered in
the next section, followed by the indirect, or mediated, relationships.
133
Individual Competence
Managerial Competence
Entrepreneurial Success
Entrepreneurial Competence
Venture Organizational Tasks
Emotional
Intelligence
Interpersonal Activities
Financial Firm
Success
Relative Firm
Success
Environment
Personal
Success
Munificence
Dynamism
Figure 4. Research model.
Direct Relationships
Hypotheses 1a through 1c address the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success, namely financial, relative, and personal success. Hypothesis 1a
proposed that emotional intelligence was positively related to financial entrepreneurial firm
success. As depicted in table 10, emotional intelligence correlated positively with financial
entrepreneurial firm success (r = .497, p < .01). A simple regression analysis was conducted
providing evidence of support for Hypothesis 1a, the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success (F[1, 607] = 199.13, R2 = .247, p < .01).
Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported.
Hypothesis 1b states that emotional intelligence is positively related to relative
entrepreneurial firm success. Emotional intelligence correlated positively with relative
entrepreneurial success (r = .292, p < .01). Support for Hypothesis 1b was also provided from a
134
simple regression analysis of the relationship between EI and relative entrepreneurial firm
success (F[1, 607] = 56.549, R2 = .086, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was supported.
Hypothesis 1c proposes that emotional intelligence is directly related to personal
entrepreneurial success, and table 10 depicts a positive correlation (r = .375, p <.01). A simple
regression provided support for Hypothesis 1c, emotional intelligence positively predicted
personal entrepreneurial success (F[1, 607] = 99.019, R2 = .140, p <.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1c
was supported.
Indirect Relationships: Mediation
As previously discussed, a mediator is a third variable that intervenes between the
independent and dependent variables (Hair et al., 2006). A mediator accounts for the
relationship (fully or partially) between the independent variable (emotional intelligence) and
dependent variable (entrepreneurial success). Theoretically, a mediator facilitates the
relationship between the other two variables (Hair et al., 2006). According to Baron and Kenny
(1986), four conditions should be met for evidence of mediation. Figure 5, below, provides a
visual depiction of the steps, analysis, and equations. First, the independent variable of interest
(emotional intelligence) should account for significant variance in the dependent variable
(entrepreneurial success). Second, the independent variable (emotional intelligence) must be
significantly related to the proposed mediators (managerial competence, entrepreneurial
competence, interpersonal activities, munificence, and dynamism). Third, the independent
variable should account for significant variance in the dependent variable. If significant
relationships exist in steps 1 through 3, then it is necessary to proceed to step 4; in step 4
multiple regression analysis is run with the independent variable and the mediator predicting
135
the dependent variable. Some form of mediation is supported if the effect of the mediator on
the dependent variable remains significant after controlling for the independent variable. If
both the independent variable and the mediating variable still significantly predict the
dependent variable then partial mediation is supported. If the independent variable is no
longer significant when the mediator is controlled then findings support full mediation (Hair et
al., 2006).
Testing for Mediation
H
X
M
f
1
2
3
Simple Regression analysis X predicting Y to
test path h
Simple Regression analysis X predicting M
to test path f
Y
g
Y = B0 + B1X + e
H
X
M = B0 + B1X + e
X
Simple Regression analysis M predicting Y to Y = B0 + B1M + e
test significance of path g
M
Y
F
M
G
Y
H
4
Multiple regression analysis X and M
predicting Y
Y = B0 + B1X +
B2M + e
X
M
Y
g
Figure 5. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) steps in testing for mediation.
Managerial competence. To determine whether managerial competence was a
mediator of entrepreneurial success predicted by emotional intelligence, Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) four step regression analysis procedure was used. First, a simple regression analysis was
run with emotional intelligence (X) predicting financial entrepreneurial success (Y) to test for a
136
direct effect. The regression analysis demonstrated that emotional intelligence explained a
significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .247, F[1, 607] =
199.133, B = .497, t = 14.111, p < .01) and in managerial competence (R2 = .605, F[1, 607] =
939.247, B = .778, t = 30.500, p < .01). Hence, the first and second conditions for mediation
were supported. For the third requirement of mediation, managerial competence must be
related to financial entrepreneurial firm success, and results indicate that this condition was
also met (R2 = .336, F[1, 607] = 306.592, B = .579, t = 17.510, p < .01). For full mediation to
exist, the predictor variable (EI) should have no effect when the mediator (managerial
competence) is controlled, this was not the case, indicating only partial mediation (R2 = .341,
F[2, 606] = 156.812, B = .488, t = 9.298, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to determine
that 76.37% of the total effect between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success is
mediated by managerial competence. Thus, Hypothesis 2a is supported.
Steps 1-4 were repeated to analyze relative entrepreneurial success. A simple
regression analysis demonstrated that emotional intelligence (X) predicted relative
entrepreneurial success (Y) providing support for EI explaining a significant amount of variance
in relative entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .086, F[1, 607] = 56.549, B = .293, t = 7.520, p <
.01). Second, emotional intelligence was found to be significantly related to managerial
competence (R2 = .605, F[1, 607] = 939.247, B = .778, t = 30.500, p < .01). Third, managerial
competence was also significantly related to relative entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .186,
F[1, 607] = 137.606, B = .431, t = 11.731, p < .01). In step 4, relative entrepreneurial success is
regressed on managerial competence and emotional intelligence (R2 = .191, F[2, 606] = 70.879,
B = .517, t = 8.831, p < .01). Because the relationship between emotional intelligence (IV) and
137
relative entrepreneurial success (DV) is no longer significant when managerial competence
(mediator) is controlled, findings support full mediation. Thus, Hypothesis 2b is supported.
The analyses were then repeated to analyze personal entrepreneurial success.
Emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .140,
F[1, 607] = 99.019, B = .375, t = 9.951, p < .01) and managerial competence (R2 = .605, F[1, 607]
= 939.247, B = .778, t = 30.500, p < .01). Managerial competence was also found to be
significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .204, F[1, 607] = 155.886, B =
.452, t = 12.485, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements of Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
regression analysis procedures for mediation. In step 4 the analysis of emotional intelligence
and managerial competence predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides support for
partial mediation (R2 = .206, F[2, 606] = 78.449, B = .407, t = 7.064, p < .01). Mediation tests
indicated that 84.54% of the total effect between EI and personal entrepreneurial success is
mediated by managerial competence. Thus, Hypothesis 2c is supported.
Entrepreneurial competence. As previously stated, emotional intelligence explains a
significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .247, F[1, 607] =
199.133, B = .497, t = 14.111, p < .01). Emotional intelligence also explains a significant amount
of variance in entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .521, F[1, 607] = 660.343, B = .722, t = 25.697,
p < .01); hence, the first two requirements of mediation have been met. Next, entrepreneurial
competence was found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial
firm success (R2 = .315, F[1, 607] = 279.436, B = .561, t = 16.716, p < .01). Partial mediation was
supported when financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .333, F[2, 606] = 151.140, B = .423, t = 8.827, p < .01).
138
Mediation tests were then run to determine that 61.46% of the total effect between EI and
financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by entrepreneurial competence. Thus,
Hypothesis 3a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .086, F[1, 607] = 56.549, B = .293, t
= 7.520, p < .01), and in entrepreneurial competence (R2 = .521, F[1, 607] = 660.343, B = .722, t
= 25.697, p < .01). Entrepreneurial competence also explains a significant amount of variance in
relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .188, F[1, 607] = 139.768, B = .434, t = 11.822, p < .01).
Full mediation was supported because the relationship between emotional intelligence and
relative entrepreneurial success was no longer significant when entrepreneurial competence
was controlled (R2 = .189, F[2, 606] = 70.189, B = .466, t = 8.759, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3b is
supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .140, F[1, 607] = 99.019, B = .375, t = 9.951, p < .01) and entrepreneurial
competence (R2 = .521, F[1, 607] = 660.343, B = .722, t = 25.697, p < .01). Entrepreneurial
competence is also significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .197, F[1, 607]
= 148.595, B = .443, t = 12.190, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements. The analysis
of emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial competence predicting personal entrepreneurial
success provides support for partial mediation (R2 = .203, F[2, 607] = 77.098, B = .361, t = 6.898,
p < .01). Mediation tests indicated that 51,12% of the total effect between EI and personal
entrepreneurial success is mediated by entrepreneurial competence. Thus, Hypothesis 3c is
supported.
139
Interpersonal activities. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance
in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .247, F[1, 607] = 199.133, B = .497, t = 14.111, p <
.01) and interpersonal activities (R2 = .236, F[1, 607] = 187.617, B = .486, t = 13.697, p < .01).
Interpersonal activities was found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial
entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .173, F[1, 607] = 126.601, B = .415, t = 11.252, p < .01).
Partial mediation was supported when financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on
emotional intelligence and interpersonal activities (R2 = .287, F[2, 606] = 121.738, B = .228, t =
5.800, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to determine that 22.26% of the total effect
between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by interpersonal activities.
Thus, Hypothesis 4a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .086, F[1, 607] = 56.549, B = .293, t
= 7.520, p < .01), and in interpersonal activities (R2 = .236, F[1, 607] = 187.617, B = .486, t =
13.697, p < .01). Interpersonal activities also explain a significant amount of variance in relative
entrepreneurial success (R2 = .323, F[1, 607] = 288.193, B = .569, t = 16.976, p < .05). In step 4
the results of the regression were no longer significant when emotional intelligence and
interpersonal activities were regressed on relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .324, F[2, 606]
= 144.106, B = .558, t = 14.556, p <.05). Mediation tests indicated that 92.33% of the total
effect between EI and personal entrepreneurial success is mediated by interpersonal activities.
Thus, Hypothesis 4b is supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .140, F[1, 607] = 99.019, B = .375, t = 9.951, p < .01) and interpersonal activities (R2
140
= .236, F[1, 607] = 187.617, B = .486, t = 13.697, p < .01). Interpersonal activities was also
significantly related to personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .120, F[1, 609] = 82.386, B = .346,
t = 9.077, p < .01), thus meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional
intelligence and interpersonal activities predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides
support for partial mediation (R2 = .175, F[2, 606] = 64.425, B = .214, t = 5.078, p < .01).
Mediation tests indicated that 27.81% of the total effect between EI and personal
entrepreneurial success is mediated by interpersonal activities. Thus, Hypothesis 4c is
supported.
Munificence. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance in
financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .247, F[1, 607] = 199.133, B = .497, t = 14.111, p <
.01) and munificence (R2 = .092, F[1, 607] = 61.811, B = .304, t = 7.862, p < .01). Munificence
was found to explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success
(R2 = .116, F[1, 607] = 79.773, B = .341, t = 8.932, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported
when financial entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and
munificence (R2 = .287, F[2, 606] = 121.776, B = .209, t = 5.805, p < .01). Mediation tests were
then run to determine that 12.79% of the total effect between EI and financial entrepreneurial
firm success is mediated by munificence. Thus, Hypothesis 5a is supported.
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .086, F[1, 607] = 56.549, B = .293, t
= 7.520, p < .01), and in munificence (R2 = .092, F[1, 607] = 61.811, B = .304, t = 7.862, p < .01).
Munificence also explains a significant amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success
(R2 = .361, F[1, 607] = 143.078, B = .601, t = 18.451, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported
141
when relative entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and munificence
(R2 = .374, F[2, 606] = 179.980, B = .564, t = 16.658, p < .01). Mediation tests were run to
determine that 58.56% of the total effect between EI and relative entrepreneurial success is
mediated by munificence. Thus, Hypothesis 5b is supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .140, F[1, 607] = 99.019, B = .375, t = 9.951, p < .01), and munificence (R2 = .092,
F[1, 607] = 61.811, B = .304, t = 7.862, p < .01). Munificence was also significantly related to
personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .073, F[1, 607] = 47.914, B = .270, t = 6.922, p < .01), thus
meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional intelligence and munificence
predicting personal entrepreneurial success provides support for partial mediation (R2 = .167,
F[2, 606] = 60.869, B = .173, t = 4.435, p < .01). Mediation tests indicated that 14.01% of the
total effect between EI and personal entrepreneurial success is mediated by munificence. Thus,
Hypothesis 5c is supported.
Dynamism. Emotional intelligence explains a significant amount of variance in financial
entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .247, F[1, 607] = 199.133, B = .497, t = 14.111, p < .01) and
dynamism (R2 = .208, F[1, 607] = 159.079, B = .456, t = 12.613, p < .01). Dynamism was found to
explain a significant amount of variance in financial entrepreneurial firm success (R2 = .309, F[1,
607] = 64.206, B = .309, t = 8.013, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported when financial
entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and dynamism (R2 = .256, F[2,
606] = 104.081, B = .105, t = 2.654, p < .01). Mediation tests were then run to determine that
9.58% of the total effect between EI and financial entrepreneurial firm success is mediated by
dynamism. Thus, Hypothesis 6a is supported.
142
Support was previously provided for emotional intelligence explaining a significant
amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2 = .086, F[1, 607] = 56.549, B = .293, t
= 7.520, p < .01), and in dynamism (R2 = .208, F[1, 607] = 159.079, B = .456, t = 12.613, p < .01).
Dynamism also explains a significant amount of variance in relative entrepreneurial success (R2
= .346, F[1, 607] = 319.145, B = .588, t = 17.865, p < .01). Partial mediation was supported
when relative entrepreneurial success was regressed on emotional intelligence and dynamism
(R2 = .347, F[2, 606] = 159.781, B = .575, t = 15.510, p < .01). Mediation tests were run to
determine that 88.59% of the total effect between EI and relative entrepreneurial success is
mediated by dynamism. Thus, Hypothesis 6b is supported.
Again, emotional intelligence was significantly related to personal entrepreneurial
success (R2 = .140, F[1, 607] = 99.019, B = .375, t = 9.951, p < .01), and dynamism (R2 = .208, F[1,
607] = 159.079, B = .456, t = 12.613, p < .01). Dynamism was also significantly related to
personal entrepreneurial success (R2 = .043, F[1, 607] = 27.319, B = .208, t = 5.227, p < .01), thus
meeting the first three requirements. The analysis of emotional intelligence and dynamism
predicting personal entrepreneurial success does not provide support for mediation (R2 = .142,
F[2, 606] = 50.133, B = .047, t = 1.101, p = .271). Thus, Hypothesis 6c is not supported.
Results of the pilot study analysis are reported in the tables below. Table 12 depicts the
results of each step of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) mediation analysis procedure. The Sobel
mediation statistics are discussed in table 13. Table 14 summarizes the hypotheses testing and
Table 15 rank orders the hypotheses based on the total effect mediated.
143
Table 12
Baron and Kenny Mediation Analysis
R
R^2
Prob > F
EI and Financial Success with Mediators
Financial Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Man. Comp and EI
0.497
0.778
0.584
0.247
0.605
0.341
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Comp regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.497
0.722
0.577
0.247
0.521
0.333
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.497
0.486
0.535
0.247
0.236
0.287
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.497
0.304
0.535
0.247
0.092
0.287
0.000
0.000
0.000
Financial Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Financial Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
0.497
0.456
0.506
0.247
0.208
0.256
0.000
0.000
0.000
EI and Relative Success with Mediators
Relative Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Man. Competence and EI
0.293
0.778
0.584
0.086
0.605
0.341
0.000
0.000
0.000
Relative Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Competence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.293
0.722
0.435
0.086
0.521
0.189
0.000
0.000
0.000
Relative Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.293
0.486
0.569
0.086
0.236
0.324
0.046
0.000
0.058
Relative Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.293
0.304
0.612
0.086
0.046
0.092
0.000
0.374
0.000
table continues
144
Table 12 (continued).
Relative Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Relative Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
R
0.293
0.456
0.589
R^2
0.086
0.208
0.347
Prob > F
0.046
0.000
0.016
EI and Personal Success with Mediators
Personal Success regressed on EI
Managerial Competence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Man. Competence and EI
0.375
0.778
0.403
0.140
0.605
0.206
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Entrepreneurial Competence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Ent. Competence and EI
0.375
0.722
0.450
0.140
0.521
0.203
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Interpersonal regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Interpersonal and EI
0.375
0.486
0.419
0.140
0.236
0.175
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Munificence regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Munificence and EI
0.375
0.304
0.409
0.140
0.092
0.167
0.000
0.000
0.000
Personal Success regressed on EI
Dynamism regressed on EI
Personal Success regressed on Dynamism and EI
0.375
0.456
0.377
0.140
0.208
0.142
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 13
Mediation Statistics
Sobel
Z-test
p-value
Total Effect
Mediated
EI
EI
EI
EI
EI
Man. Competence Financial Success
Ent. Competence
Financial Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Financial Success
Dynamism
Financial Success
Munificence
Financial Success
8.894
8.348
5.341
4.670
2.597
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.764
0.615
0.223
0.128
0.096
EI
EI
EI
EI
Man. Competence Relative Success
Ent. Competence
Relative Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Relative Success
Dynamism
Relative Success
8.440
8.298
9.944
7.111
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.923
0.586
table continues
145
Table 13 (continued).
EI
Munificence
Relative Success
EI
EI
EI
EI
EI
Man. Competence
Personal Success
Ent. Competence
Personal Success
Interpersonal Tasks
Personal Success
Dynamism
Personal Success
Munificence
Personal Success
Sobel
Z-test
p-value
Total Effect
Mediated
9.741
0.000
0.886
6.882
6.662
4.761
3.863
1.097
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.272
0.845
0.697
0.278
0.140
0.057
Table 14
Summary of Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Support
Findings
1a
S
.497 correlation significant at .01 level
1b
S
.289 correlation significant at .01 level
1c
S
.375 correlation significant at .01 level
2a
S
76.37% of total effect mediated
2b
S
100% of total effect mediated
2c
S
84.54% of total effect mediated
3a
S
61.46% of total effect mediated
3b
S
100% of total effect mediated
3c
S
51.12% of total effect mediated
4a
S
22.26% of total effect mediated
4b
S
92.33% of total effect mediated
4c
S
27.81% of total effect mediated
5a
S
12.79% of total effect mediated
5b
S
58.56% of total effect mediated
5c
S
14.01% of total effect mediated
6a
S
9.58% of total effect mediated
6b
S
88.59% of total effect mediated
6c
NS
Non-significant indirect effects
S = Support; NS = No Support; MS = Marginal Support
146
Table 15
Rank Order of Total Effect Mediated
Hypothesis
2b
3b
4b
6b
2c
2a
3a
5b
3c
4c
4a
5c
5a
6a
6c
EI
Man. Competence
Relative Success
EI
Ent. Competence
Relative Success
EI
Interpersonal Tasks
EI
Munificence
EI
Man. Competence
Personal Success
EI
Man. Competence
Financial Success
EI
Ent. Competence
Financial Success
EI
Dynamism
EI
Ent. Competence
EI
Interpersonal Tasks
Personal Success
EI
Interpersonal Tasks
Financial Success
EI
Dynamism
Personal Success
EI
Dynamism
Financial Success
EI
Munificence
Financial Success
EI
Munificence
Personal Success
Relative Success
Relative Success
Relative Success
Personal Success
Findings
100% of total effect mediated
100% of total effect mediated
92.33% of total effect mediated
88.59% of total effect mediated
84.54% of total effect mediated
76.37% of total effect mediated
61.46% of total effect mediated
58.56% of total effect mediated
51.12% of total effect mediated
27.81% of total effect mediated
22.26% of total effect mediated
14.01% of total effect mediated
12.79% of total effect mediated
9.58% of total effect mediated
Non-significant indirect effects
Summary
The purpose of this research was to examine the role of emotional intelligence in the
entrepreneurial context. This chapter offered an analysis of the hypotheses and detailed
presentation of the data. Table 16, below, provides a summary of the hypotheses and results.
Table 16
Summary of Hypothesis Testing
H1:
Support
H1a:
Support
H1b:
There is a positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
There is a positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
There is a positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
table continues
147
Table 16 (continued).
Support
H1c: There is a positive correlation between emotional
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
H2:
Managerial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial
success
Support
H2a: Managerial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and financial
entrepreneurial firm success
Support
H2b: Managerial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial firm success
Support
H2c: Managerial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and personal
entrepreneurial success
H3:
Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial
success
Support
H3a: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and financial
entrepreneurial firm success
Support
H3b: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and relative
entrepreneurial firm success
Support
H3c: Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship
between emotional intelligence and personal
entrepreneurial success
H4:
Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Support
H4a: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between
emotional intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm
success
Support
H4b: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between
emotional intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm
success
table continues
148
Table 16 (continued).
Support
H4c: Interpersonal tasks mediate the relationship between
emotional intelligence and personal entrepreneurial
success
H5:
Munificence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Support
H5a: Munificence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm
success
Support
H5b: Munificence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm
success
Support
H5c: Munificence mediates the relationship between
emotional intelligence and personal entrepreneurial
success
H6:
Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and entrepreneurial success
Support
H6a: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and financial entrepreneurial firm success
Support
H6b: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional
intelligence and relative entrepreneurial firm success
No
H6c: Dynamism mediates the relationship between emotional
Support
intelligence and personal entrepreneurial success
149
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The objective of this investigation was to empirically determine if there was a
relationship between emotional intelligence and performance in the entrepreneurial context.
The results of the data analysis and hypothesis testing of the main study are summarized in
chapter IV. Chapter V discusses conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, as well as
recommendations for future research.
Introduction
Society recognizes that entrepreneurship is a vital part of our economy, and researching
constructs that lead to successful entrepreneurial performance is imperative. It is necessary for
entrepreneurs today to be flexible and adapt to the dynamic business climate; and human
abilities like emotional intelligence can set successful entrepreneurs apart. As emotional
intelligence continues to be more prevalent in the literature it has been identified for being as
important, if not more important, than general intelligence (IQ) and other cognitive abilities.
Research has provided us evidence that overall emotional intelligence contributes to individual
performance above and beyond the level associated with general intelligence (e.g., Lam &
Kirby, 2002).
Today, researchers are exploring both inside and outside of the venture to identify
competitive advantages. The research question presented at the beginning of this dissertation
questioned what made some entrepreneurial firms more successful than others. Empirical
evidence supports the contention that the ability to interact effectively with others is vital to
success in many facets of life and across many contexts. Nonetheless, while previous research
150
provides some evidence of the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance,
explanations for the role that EI plays in entrepreneurial success are few (e.g., Cross &
Travaglione, 2003; Rhee & White, 2007). While empirical studies have not specifically
addressed ability-based emotional intelligence in the entrepreneurial context, other support for
the EI-entrepreneurial success relationship is available. More specifically, the emotional
intelligence-performance relationship has been studied in great depth in the areas of
leadership, negotiation, education, teamwork, decision-making, interpersonal relationships, job
satisfaction, and problem solving. Based on previous research in these other areas it is evident
that emotional intelligence abilities play a role in entrepreneurial activities such as negotiating,
presenting to potential investors, building and maintaining customer relationships, obtaining
financing, decision-making, choosing partners, selecting employees, and leading the
organization.
Emotional Intelligence and Entrepreneurial Success
The empirical results obtained through this investigation provided several interesting
points that necessitate further discussion. As was expected, given the widespread empirical
support shown for this relationship in other contexts, a higher level of emotional intelligence
was found to be positively correlated with entrepreneurial success. The overall measure of
emotional intelligence showed a significant, positive correlation with financial entrepreneurial
success, performance relative to competitors, and personal entrepreneurial success. Financial
entrepreneurial success addressed broad categories of growth and business volume. Relative
entrepreneurial success was measured as an entrepreneurs’ evaluation of the performance of
his or her company relative to other competitors in the industry that were at or near the same
151
age and stage of development. Personal entrepreneurial success was about perceptions of
satisfaction with company performance; this is particularly important in entrepreneurship as
starting a business is not always about growth, volume, or typical financial figures. Some
individuals pursue entrepreneurship to achieve greater work/life balance, avoid schedule
conflicts, or for other personal interests.
Emotional intelligence abilities are particularly salient to entrepreneurs because of their
need to manage social interactions with other individuals. Social interactions include activities
such as presenting to investors, gaining and maintaining customers, negotiating, as well as
attracting, selecting, and handling employees, suppliers, and partners. With a greater ability to
identify, understand, and manage the emotional responses of themselves, and others,
entrepreneurs will obtain a competitive advantage that sets their business performance apart
from their competitors.
Discussion of the Mediators
Another important area of discussion that stems from the regression results is the
observed impact of the various mediating variables investigated throughout the study.
Mediating variables were addressed at the individual, organizational, and environmental levels.
According to Baron and Kenny, “the mediator function of a third variable represents the
generative mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the
dependent variable of interest” (1986: p. 1173). Stated differently, a mediator is a third
variable that intervenes between the independent and dependent variables. A mediator
accounts for the relationship between the independent variable (emotional intelligence) and
dependent variable (entrepreneurial success), either fully or partially. Theoretically, a mediator
152
facilitates the relationship between the other two variables (Hair et al., 2006). Individual-level
mediators explored included managerial and entrepreneurial competencies. Organizationallevel mediators included interpersonal tasks; and environmental-level mediating variables
included munificence and dynamism.
Managerial Competence
The foundation of managerial competence is identifying individual skills and
characteristics that enable an organization to be successful (Mintzberg, 1973). Defined by
Boyatizis (1982), managerial competencies are underlying characteristics of a person resulting
in superior job performance. The increasing need to sustain business performance has drawn
considerable attention to the managerial competence perspective and highlights the need to
further develop entrepreneurial abilities to assist in the critical thinking and decision making
processes in the entrepreneurial context. Researchers have previously identified a positive
relationship between emotional intelligence and other competencies, such social competence
(Baron & Markman, 2003) and academic competence (Izard et al., 2001). Many of the tasks
associated with a managerial role, and thus managerial competence, are social in nature; such
tasks include supervising, influencing, leading, and motivating people. Based on the previously
supported relationships, the emotional intelligence-managerial competence relationship
emerges. It is also somewhat intuitive that greater managerial competence would lead to
greater entrepreneurial success, as the ability to adequately perform the managerial tasks
necessary would likely enhance the financial performance of the firm, performance relative to
the competition, and the entrepreneur’s feelings of personal success. As anticipated,
153
managerial competence was found to be an important component that accounted for much of
the relationship between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success.
Entrepreneurial Competence
Emotional intelligence has implications for entrepreneurial behaviors such as
negotiation, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying and exploiting opportunities,
managing stress, obtaining and maintaining customers, and providing leadership.
Entrepreneurship also includes social tasks such as identifying or exploiting goods and services,
negotiating, and obtaining the necessary financing, which require entrepreneurial competence.
Therefore, the logic remains that emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial competence will
have a significant positive relationship, similar to the aforementioned studies on EI and various
competencies (e.g., Baron & Markman, 2003; Izard et al., 2001). Entrepreneurial competence is
comprised of the skills, traits, and knowledge of the entrepreneur to successfully fulfill the
duties of the job. Emotional intelligence plays a vital role in the critical thinking abilities,
decision making processes, and the facilitation of interpersonal relationships, which are all
important entrepreneurial skills that ultimately lead to greater performance. This investigation
provides empirical evidence that entrepreneurial competence accounts for much of the
relationship between the emotional abilities of the founder and entrepreneurial success.
Interpersonal Activities
Previous researchers have provided support for the mediating effect of job roles on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and performance (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2010).
Stated differently, empirical evidence has been provided to support job roles as an intervening
variable in the emotional intelligence-performance relationship. Affect and emotion have an
154
effect on the performance of entrepreneurial ventures based on the specific tasks the
entrepreneur must endure. While entrepreneurial tasks remain varied and constantly
changing, this study provides evidence that interpersonal tasks account for a portion of the
relationship between the independent variable (emotional intelligence) and the dependent
variable (entrepreneurial success). Theoretically, interpersonal tasks facilitate the relationship
between emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial performance to some extent.
Munificence
Environmental munificence is the extent to which critical resources exist in the
environment (e.g., Dess & Beard, 1984). The results of the investigation depict that
munificence partially mediated the relationship between emotional intelligence and
entrepreneurial success; nonetheless, the percent of total effect mediated was quite small. The
issue may stem from how the environmental variables were operationalized, as individual
perceptions instead of objective industry values. More specifically, because the entrepreneurs
were asked their perception of munificence (resource availability) it may be that individuals
with greater emotional intelligence actually perceive their environments to be more munificent
than they truly are because they are better able to acquire and utilize limited resources. The
industry the venture was competing in may have also had an impact, as resource availability,
and the competition for the necessary resources, is often tied to industry-related factors.
Dynamism
Dynamism was defined by Miller and Friesen (1983: p. 222) as the “rate of change and
innovation in an industry as well as the uncertainty or unpredictability of the actions of
competitors and customers.” The results depict that dynamism partially mediated the
155
relationship between emotional intelligence and both financial entrepreneurial success, as well
as relative entrepreneurial success; but the percent of total effect mediated was small.
Insignificant indirect effects were found when dynamism was included as a mediator in the
emotional intelligence-personal entrepreneurial success relationship. Dynamism was also an
environmental variable operationalized as a perception of the entrepreneur. Because
entrepreneurs often operate under great time pressures, information processing burdens, and
stress they are often unable to rely on cognitive scripts that other individuals can depend on.
Entrepreneurs instead have to focus on instincts, gut feelings, and emotions to guide to their
thoughts and behaviors (e.g., Forgas, 2000). Therefore, entrepreneurs with greater emotional
intelligence may perceive their environments to be less dynamic and unpredictable because
they are better able to use their feelings and emotions as guides. Additionally, because the
entrepreneurs were asked their perception of dynamism, it may be that individuals with greater
emotional intelligence actually perceive their environments to be less dynamic than they truly
are because they are better able to handle the industry changes as well as the unpredictability
of their competitors and customers.
Contributions and Implications
Research
This study contributes to the field of entrepreneurship having addressed the influence
of emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial success. Researchers have previously used
extensive resources to investigate the role of emotional intelligence in leadership, general
workplace performance, and education, but have spent considerably less time exploring
emotional intelligence in the entrepreneurial context (e.g., Cross & Travaglione, 2003; Rhee &
156
White, 2007). Ability-based emotional intelligence has implications for entrepreneurial
behaviors such as negotiations, obtaining and organizing resources, identifying and exploiting
opportunities, obtaining and maintaining customers, leading the organization, and other
interpersonal activities.
This investigation also contributes to the emotional intelligence stream of research.
Researchers agree that emotional intelligence is a tool scholars can use to better understand
and predict performance, but the construct has strong roots in social intelligence and
theoretically differentiating the constructs has plagued researchers (e.g., Gardner, 1993).
Exploring the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance in the
entrepreneurial context contributes to the building of a nomological network to support EI
research; more specifically, the study includes the theoretical framework of emotional
intelligence, provides an empirical framework for measuring it in the entrepreneurial context,
and outlines the linkages among and between the constructs.
In this investigation, entrepreneurial success was broken down into three constructs,
financial entrepreneurial success, relative entrepreneurial success, and personal
entrepreneurial success. By addressing entrepreneurial success from three different
perspectives this study looks much deeper at the effect of emotional intelligence on
entrepreneurial performance. More specifically, financial entrepreneurial success addressed
objective growth and business volume figures, while relative entrepreneurial success and
personal entrepreneurial success served as subjective measures. Relative entrepreneurial
success took into account the competition and personal entrepreneurial success addressed the
motives and satisfaction of the entrepreneurs. By evaluating multiple forms of entrepreneurial
157
success a more thorough explanation is provided for the contribution of emotional intelligence
in the field of entrepreneurship as well as a clearer depiction of the role of the mediating
variables (managerial competence, entrepreneurial competence, interpersonal tasks,
dynamism, and munificence).
Managerial
Previous research has sought to answer the question, why are some entrepreneurs
more successful than others in operating ventures? While previous research has explored
characteristics, such as personality traits, this study investigated the role of cognition and social
skills in entrepreneurial success. Because emotional intelligence abilities can be taught and
learned, individuals seeking emotional intelligence training and education may acquire a
competitive advantage in negotiations, obtaining and maintaining customers, as well as
providing leadership and maintaining order. These tasks are vital to entrepreneurial success, so
this study provides additional evidence to support the need for emotional intelligence training
and education.
The contributions of this study are also important for educators. Due to the critical role
that entrepreneurial ventures play in our economy, the number of entrepreneurial education
programs has increased considerably in the last decade. However, entrepreneurial education
currently emphasizes technical skills, like creating a business plan, managing daily operations,
and planning skills; but overlooks entrepreneurial abilities like emotional control and relational
abilities. This investigation provides additional verification for the need to provide supportive
classrooms that focus on key entrepreneurial skills, such as emotional intelligence, that allow
individuals to launch successful businesses in a competitive, global climate. Entrepreneurship
158
educators are thus encouraged to consider addressing topics throughout their curriculum like
ethics, dealing with uncertainty, and how emotional intelligence can be beneficial throughout
the entrepreneurial process.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was the use of self-reported data. Although widely used in
survey research, individuals often have difficulty accurately rating their own behaviors.
Additionally, previous research on self-report measures has recognized that the low reliability
claims may be more of a myth than reality (e.g., Furnham & Stringfield, 1994) and effort was
made to minimize the bias associated with self-reported data. All of the constructs were
operationalized using well-developed and previously validated scales. The entrepreneurs
surveyed were owners or part-owners of the business and were involved in the daily
operations. Additionally, unlike a typical organization, entrepreneurial firms have few, if any,
other employees who have the knowledge and involvement with the business to accurately
assess the entrepreneur’s abilities or the firm’s success. As previously mentioned, the
incorporation of more objective data for constructs like munificence and dynamism may be
better defined and help minimize the bias associated with the self-reported data.
Cross-sectional data collection techniques raise the usual caveats concerning a lack of
causal evidence. While there were relatively strong associations between emotional
intelligence abilities and entrepreneurial success, the results are correlational as opposed to
causal. Without a longitudinal study it is not possible to determine if emotional intelligence
developed before or simultaneously with the successful business. Nonetheless, cross-sectional
research designs have been frequently used and considered acceptable for this type of research
159
(e.g., Ajzen, 1987, Sy et al., 2006). Future studies should investigate whether emotional
intelligence abilities lead to continued entrepreneurial success in a longitudinal study.
Another limitation involves the demographics of the sample of entrepreneurs. The
accessible sample was drawn primarily from a relatively small geographic area of the United
States. Large samples of respondents from multiple geographic regions may provide additional
value, especially if used to compare and contrast with the present sample of entrepreneurs.
Finally, while a detailed assessment of additional mediating and moderating variables was
beyond the scope of the current study, future research should address additional variables that
may influence entrepreneurial success.
Future Research
While considerable research has addressed the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership performance, and found considerable support, it is necessary to
explore the role of emotional intelligence in other contexts. Therefore, this investigation
addressed the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance in the
entrepreneurial environment. Based on the results provided from this study, several ideas for
future research have surfaced and additional suggestions have emerged for improving future
investigations on the role of emotional intelligence in entrepreneurship.
Future research should explore the four dimensions of emotional intelligence and how
each relates to (or which has the greatest impact on) entrepreneurial performance. Using the
unidimensional, global index of emotional intelligence was adequate for the preliminary nature
of this investigation, but addressing each of the four facets of emotional intelligence
(identifying emotions, facilitating emotions, understanding emotions, and regulating emotions)
160
may provide additional insight into the relationship between EI and entrepreneurial success.
Additional research could also explore the role of emotional intelligence in specific
entrepreneurial functions, such as acquiring financial resources, negotiating with suppliers, as
well as acquiring and maintaining customers. This research should be validated in other
occupational contexts such as human resource management, crisis management, and
marketing. Future research should also empirically examine the differences between emotional
intelligence and other similar constructs, such as self-monitoring and entrepreneurial alertness.
In an effort to further validate the emotional intelligence stream of research, future
investigations should continue to differentiate between ability-based emotional intelligence
and mixed models of emotional intelligence. As previously mentioned, using objective
measures, instead of self-reported perceptions, for constructs such as munificence and
dynamism would also provide results that are potentially more reliable. Additional research
could also compare and contrast the similarities and differences of the relationship between
emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial success across various geographic regions in the
United States and around the world.
As considerable controversy still exists on the differences between the emotional
intelligence levels of men and women, future research could explore demographic
characteristics as well. Besides the differences between men and women, researchers could
explore differences in education level, work experience, industry, and venture size. As with any
investigation, future research should also be conducted to replicate the findings of this
investigation. When additional analyses are conducted investigators should consider using
other statistical techniques, such as hierarchical regression or structural equation modeling to
161
further validate the results. Finally, additional research is necessary to explore other potential
mediating and moderating variables.
Summary
The intentions of the study were to contribute to the body of knowledge on the
relationship between emotional intelligence and performance, specifically, by exploring the
relationship in the entrepreneurial context. Effective entrepreneurs use their emotional
intelligence abilities to not only manage themselves but also in their business operations,
acquiring resources, building and maintaining relationships, as well as leading their
organizations. The results of this investigation show that emotional intelligence has a
significant effect on entrepreneurial success. While emotional intelligence has been identified
throughout the literature as consistently associated with differences in performance, EI
research needs to be validated with empirical evidence across a multitude of occupations.
Across the contexts emotional intelligence should distinguish high and low performers and
predict success.
Effective entrepreneurs can use their emotional intelligence not only to manage
themselves, but also to effectively manage others, and the venture. Therefore, greater
emotional intelligence could help improve financial entrepreneurial success, performance
relative to competitors, and perceptions of personal entrepreneurial success. It is also essential
to note that emotional intelligence is an important ability, but that it is only one factor that
coexists with several other skills and abilities.
The results of the study provide insight for individuals with entrepreneurial aspirations,
academic institutions, as well as government and financial entities that provide resources to
162
entrepreneurial ventures. The research provides particularly important information to
practicing entrepreneurs designing their organizational strategies to ensure growth,
profitability, and organizational success. This dissertation contributes to a better understanding
of entrepreneurial success and encourages additional research to be conducted on the role of
emotional intelligence in various occupational contexts.
163
REFERENCES
Abeele, P., & Christiaens, I. (1986). Strategies of high-tech Belgian firms. Industrial Marketing
Management, 15, 299-308.
Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic,
Social and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209-224.
Abraham, R. (2005). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A review and synthesis.
Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe and Huber.
Ackerman, B., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Individual differences in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. D. a. L. M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 223-282). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (1989). Small firm entry in US manufacturing. Economica, 56(222), 255266.
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader
political skill and team performance. Journal of Management, 30, 309-327.
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in
personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (20), 163.
Akers, M. D., & Porter, G. L. (2003). Your EQ skills: Got what it takes? Journal of Accountancy,
195-210.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organization founding rates.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 4(3), 7-24.
Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. London: Sage Publications.
Allinson, C., Chell, E., & Hayes, J. (2000). Intuition and entrepreneurial behavior. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 33-43.
Alvarez, S., & Busenitz, L. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of
Management, 27(6), 755-775.
164
Andrews, F. M., & Robinson, J. P. (1991). Measures of subjective well-being. In J. P. Robinson, P.
R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological
attitudes (pp. 61-114).
Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate. New York: Freeman.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence of
identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human
Relations, 48, 97-125.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
441-452.
Audretsch, D. (1991). New firm survival and technological regime. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 73(3), 441-450.
Audretsch, D., & Acs, Z. (1994). New firm startups, technology, and macro-economic
fluctuations. Small Business Economics, 6(439-449).
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale:
Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 38, 23-32.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New York: W. H. Freedman.
Bantel, K. A. (1998). Technology-based "adolescent" firm configurations: Strategy identification,
context, and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 205-230.
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,
21(3), 157-161.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional
intelligence. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient
Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
165
Bar-On, R. (2005). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema, 17(Special
Issue on Emotional Intelligence).
Baron, R. A. (2000). Counterfactual thinning and venture formation: The potential effects of
thinking about "what might have been." Journal of Business Venturing, 14(1), 106-116.
Baron, R. A. (2004). Potential benefits of the cognitive perspective: Expanding
entrepreneurship's array of conceptual tools. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(169172).
Baron, R. A. (2007). Behavioral and cognitive facets in entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs as the
active element in new venture creation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 167182.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2000). Beyond social capital: How social skills can enhance
entrepreneurs' success. Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 106-131.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneurs' social
competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 41-60.
Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2008). Entrepreneurs' social skills and new venture performance:
Mediating mechanisms and cultural generality. Journal of Management, 35(2), 282-306.
Baron, R. A., & Ward, T. B. (2004). Expanding entrepreneurial cognition's toolbox: Potential
contributions from the field of cognitive science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
28(6), 553-574.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bates, T. (1990). Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 72, 551-559.
Baum, J., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multidimensional model of venture growth.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292-302.
Baum, J., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative
Science Quarterly (36), 187-218.
Baum, J. A. C., & Silverman, B. S. (2004). Picking winners or building them? Alliance,
intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and
performance of biotechnology startups. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 411-436.
166
Beaujean, M., Davidson, J., & Madge, S. (2006). The moment of 'truth' in customer service.
McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 62-73.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bednarzik, R. W. (2000). The role of entrepreneurship in U. S. and European job growth.
Monthly Labour Review (6), 3-16.
Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in
entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 79-93.
Birch, D. (1987). Job creation in America. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L.
S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp.
115-160). New York: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Boam, R., & Sparrow, P. (1992). The rise and rationale of competency-based approaches. In R.
Boam & P. Sparrow (Eds.), Designing and achieving competency (pp. 3-15). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R., & de Wit, G. (2004). The value of human and social capital
investments for the business performance of startups. Small Business Economics, 23,
227-236.
Boswell, J. (1973). The rise and decline of small firms. London: Allen and Unwin.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York:
Wiley.
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. S. (2000). Clustering competence in emotional
intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On & J.
D. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). Assessing emotional intelligence competencies. In G. Geher
(Ed.), The measurement of emotional intelligence (pp. 147-180). Hauppauge, NY: Novas
Science Publishers.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of
competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.
167
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., & Salovey, P. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Implications for
personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5(1), 88-103.
Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship
quality among couples. Personal Relationships (91), 780-795.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. L. S. C. A. Kent, & K. H.
Vesper (Ed.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 39-57). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: A
potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867-871.
Bruderl, J., & Preisendorfer, P. (1998). Network support and the success of newly founded
businesses. Small Business Economics, 10(3), 213-225.
Bruno, A. V., & Tyebjee, T. T. (1982). The environment for entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L.
Sexton & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. M. (2001). From initial idea to unique advantage: The
entrepreneurial challenge of constructing a resource base. Academy of Management
Executive, 15(1), 64-78.
Brush, C. G., & Vanderwerf, P. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining
estimates of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 157-170.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Busenitz, L. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision making. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35(3), 325-340.
Busenitz, L., & Barney, J. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large
organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business
Venturing, 12(1), 9-30.
Bygrave, W. D. (1989). The entrepreneurship paradigm (II): Chaos and catastrophes among
quantum jumps? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(2), 7-10.
Byrne, D. (1961). The repression-sensation scale: Rational, reliability, and validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.
168
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Capara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial
foundations of children's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(302-306).
Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. A. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth asking.
American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 33-39.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J. A. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth
asking. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 33-39.
Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task
performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403419.
Carroll, G., & Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative
Science Quarterly(32), 570-589.
Carroll, R., Holtz-Eakin, D., Rider, M., & Rosen, H. (1989). Personal income taxes and the growth
of small firms'. In G. Libecap (Ed.), Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation
and Economic Growth. 121-147.
Carter, N. M., & Van Auken, H. (2006). Small Firm Bankruptcy. Journal of Small Business
Management, 44(4), 493-591.
Carter, N. M., Williams, M., & Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Discontinuance among new firms in retail:
The influence of initial resources, strategy, and gender. Journal of Business
Venturing(12), 125-146.
Cassar, G. (2006). Entrepreneur opportunity costs and intended venture growth. Journal of
Business Venturing, 21(5), 610-632.
Castrogiovanni, G. J. (1991). Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of
Management Review, 16(3), 542-565.
Chandler, G., & Hanks, S. (1993). Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A
validation study. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 391-408.
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment, and venture
performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 77-89.
169
Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1998). An examination of the substitutability of founders’
human and financial capital in emerging business ventures. Journal of Business
Venturing, 13(5), 353-369.
Chandler, G. N., Honig, B., & Wiklund, J. (2005). Antecedents, moderators, and performance
consequences of membership change in new venture teams. Journal of Business
Venturing(20), 705-725.
Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1992). The founder's self-assessed competence and venture
performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 223-236.
Cherniss, C. (2000). Social and emotional competence in the workplace. In R. Burke & C. Cooper
(Eds.), Inspiring leaders (pp. 132-148). London: Routledge.
Cherniss, C. (2001). Implementing emotional intelligence programs in organizations. In C.
Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 286-304). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial
Organizational Psychology(3), 110-126.
Cherniss, C., & Caplan, R. D. (2001). A case study in implementing emotional intelligence
programs in organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence, Winter, 73-85.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic
choice. Sociology, 6, 1-21.
Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A., Caputi, P., & Roberts, R. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence. In J.
Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A
scientific inquiry. Hove: Psychology Press.
Combs, J. G., Crook, T. R., & Shook, C. L. (2005). The dimensionality of organizational
performance and its implications for strategic management research. In D. J. Ketchen &
D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategic management (pp. 259-286). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440.
Cooper, A. C., & Artz, K. W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 10, 439-357.
170
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as
predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371-395.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed.). Boston: McGrawHill Irwin.
Cooper, R. K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training and
Development, 51, 31-38.
Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leaders and
organizations. New York: Grosset/Putnam.
Corbett, A. C. (2002). Recognizing high-tech opportunities: A learning and cognitive approach.
In C. G. B. W. D. Bygrave, P. Davidsson, J. Fiet, P. G. Greene, R. T. Harrison, M. Lerner, G.
D. Meyer, J. Sohl, & A. Zacharackis (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 4960). Wellesley, MA: Babson College Press.
Cote, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. T. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence and
leadership emergence in small groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496-508.
Cote, S., & Miners, C. T. H. (2006). Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 1-28.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1990). Content and performance of growth-seeking strategies: A
comparison of small firms in high- and low-technology industries. Journal of Business
Venturing, 5, 391-412.
Cromie, S. (1987). Motivations of aspiring male and female entrepreneurs. Journal of
Organizational Behavior(8), 251-261.
Cromie, S., & O'Donoghue, J. (1992). Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations. International Small
Business Journal(10), 66-73.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-234.
Cross, B., & Travaglione, A. (2003). The untold story: Is the entrepreneur of the 21st century
defined by emotional intelligence? The International journal of Organizational Analysis,
11(3), 221-228.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
171
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Decartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Avon.
Daus, C. S. (2006). The case for an ability-based model of emotional intelligence. In K. R.
Murphy (Ed.), A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: What Are the Problems and How Can
They Be Fixed? (pp. 301-324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence please stand up? On
deconstructing the emotional intelligence 'debate'. The Industrial and Organizational
Psychologist, 41(2), 69-72.
D'Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering.
New York: Free Press.
Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: Ability, need, and opportunity as
determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 405-429.
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301-331.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive
construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015.
Davis, J. L. (2007). Firm-level entrepreneurship and performance: An examination and extension
of relationships and measurements of the entrepreneurial orientation construct.
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.
Dean, T., Brown, R., & Bamford, C. (1998). Differences in large and small firm responses to
environmental context: Strategic implications for a comparative analysis of business
formations'. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 709-728.
Dean, T., & Meyer, G. (1992). New venture formation in manufacturing industries: A
conceptual and empirical analysis. In S. B. N. Churchill, W. Bygrave, D. Muzyka, C.
Wahlbin and W. Wetzel (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 173-187).
Babson Park: Babson College.
Denham, S. A. (2006). The emotional basis of learning and development in early childhood
education. In B. S. a. O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of
young children (2nd ed., pp. 85-103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409-443.
172
Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. B. (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit.
Strategic Management Journal, 5, 297-312.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(81-84).
D'Intino, R. S., Goldsby, M. G., Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2007). Self-leadership: A process
for entrepreneurial success. Journal of Management History, 14(1), 39-57.
Dorfman, R., & Steiner, P. O. (1954). Optimal advertising and optimal quality. The American
Economic Review, 44, 826-836.
Duchesneau, D. A., & Gartner, W. B. (1990). A profile of new venture success and failure in an
emerging industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 297-312.
Duck, S. (1994). Interpersonal perception. New York: Guilford.
Dulewicz, C., Young, M., & Dulewicz, V. (2005). The relevance of emotional intelligence for
leadership performance. Journal of General Management, 30(3), 71-86.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 20(5), 242-253.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation study. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341-372.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2002). Making sense of emotional intelligence. Windsor, UK: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership at the top: The need for emotional intelligence in
organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(3), 193-210.
Dulewicz, V., Higgs, M., & Slaski, M. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence: Content,
construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(5), 405420.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived uncertainty.
Administrative Science Quarterly(17), 313-327.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, K. (1990). Organizational growth: linking founding team
strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504-529.
173
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, K. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance
formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms'. Organizational Science,
7(2), 136-151.
Elias, M. J., Hunter, L., & Kress, J. S. (2001). Emotional intelligence in education. In J. Ciarrochi, J.
P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 133-249).
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greeberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997).
Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental
dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new
venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing(21), 243-263.
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive effect on the components of expectancy
motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055-1067.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., et
al. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of
Management, 31(1), 126-152.
Feshbach, N. D., & Cohen, S. (1988). Training affects comprehension in young children: An
experimental evaluation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology(9), 2201-2210.
Feshbach, N. D., & Feshbach, S. (1987). Affective processes and academic achievement. Child
Development(58), 1335-1347.
Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective influences on social information processing. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),
Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiske, D. W. (1982). Convergent-discriminant validation in measurements and research
strategies. In D. Brinberg & L. Kidder (Eds.) New Directions for methodology of social
and behavioral science: Forms of validity in research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Foo, M. D., Elfenbein, H. A., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2004). Emotional intelligence and
negotiation: The tension between creating and claiming value. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 15(411-429).
Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision-making strategies. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 41, 197-214.
174
Forgas, J. P. (1992). On mood and peculiar people: Affect and person typicality in impression
formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 863-875.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
Forgas, J. P. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Affective influences on social cognition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments, decision making and
behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes(86), 3-34.
Frese, M., Krauss, S. I., Keith, N., Escher, S., Grabarkiewicz, R., Luneng, S. T., et al. (2007).
Business owners' action planning and its relationship to business success in three
African countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1481-1498.
Fulmer, I. S., & Barry, B. (2004). The smart negotiator: Cognitive ability and emotional
intelligence in negotiation. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3),
245-272.
Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1994). Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial
practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 67, 57-67.
Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification:
Entrepreneurial alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2), 95-111.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). "Who is the entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. American Journal of
Small Business 2, 11-29.
Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G., & Westall, A. (1998). The entrepreneurial society. London:
Institute for Public Policy Research, Central Books.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations(53), 1027-1055.
175
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622.
Gimeno, J., Folta, T., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial
human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms'. Administrative Science
Quarterly (42), 750-783.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy belief: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of
emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2004). The moderating effect of environmental munificence and
dynamism on the relationship between discretionary social responsibility and firm
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 41-54.
Gowing, M. K. (2001). Measurement of individual emotional competence. In C. Cherniss & D.
Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How to select for, measure, and
improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 83-131).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-110.
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When 'the show must go on': Surface acting and deep acting as
determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal(46), 86-96.
Grant, D. (1996). The political economy of new business formations across the American States,
1970-1985. Social Science Quarterly, 77(1), 28-42.
Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing personal human capital: New ethos for the
'volunteer' employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1-10.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect
ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041.
176
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Riggs, N. (2004). The PATHS curriculum: Theory and research
on neurocognitive development and school success. In M. R. B. J. E. Zins, R. P.
Weissberg, and H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Building Academic Success on social and emotional
learning: What does the research say? (pp. 170-188). New York: Teachers College Press.
Greenstein, F. I. (2000). The presidential difference: Leadership style from FDR to Clinton. New
York: Martin Kessler Books/Free Press.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and
business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 25-41.
Haber, S., & Reichel, A. (2005). Identifying performance measures of small ventures: The case
of the tourism industry. Journal of Small Business management, 43(3), 257-286.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Halberstadt, A. G., & Hall, J. A. (1980). Who's getting the message? Children's nonverbal skill
and their evaluation by teachers. Developmental Psychology(16), 564-573.
Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotions in women's college yearbook
pictures and their relationships to personality and life outcomes across adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112-124.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on
impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278-285.
Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Social development and social and
emotional learning. In R. P. W. J. E. Zins, M. C. Wang, and H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Building
academic success on social and emotional learning. What does the research say? New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519530.
Hisrich, R. D., & Brush, C. G. (1985). Women and minority entrepreneurs: A comparative
analysis. In Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (J. A. Hornaday, E. B. Shills and J. A.
Timmons ed., pp. 566-576). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Entrepreneurs' optimism and new venture
performance: A social cognitive perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3),
473-488.
177
Hofer, C. W. (1975). Toward a contingency theory of business strategy. Academy of
Management Journal, 18, 784-810.
Hofer, C. W., & Sandberg, W. R. (1987). Improving new venture performance: Some guidelines
for success. American Journal of Small Business, 3, 11-21.
Hofer, C. W., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. West: St. Paul.
Hoffman, B. J., & Frost, B. C. (2006). Multiple intelligences of transformational leaders: An
empirical examination. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 37-51.
Honig, B. (1998). What determines success? Examining the human, financial, and social capital
of Jamaican microentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(5), 371-394.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition. New York: Guilford Press.
Humphrey, N., Curran, A., Morris, E., Farrell, P., & Woods, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence and
education: A critical review. Educational Psychology(27), 235-254.
Hunter, J. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge and job performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340=362.
Ickes, W. (1997). Empathetic accuracy. New York: Guilford Press.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The
construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29, 963-989.
Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewisk & J. M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 261-277). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventative interventions.
Psychology Bulletin(128), 796-824.
Izard, C. E., Fine, S. E., Schultz, D., Mostow, A. J., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001).
Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in
children at risk. Psychological Science(12), 18-23.
Jackson, J. E., & Rodkey, G. R. (1994). The attitudinal climate for entrepreneurial activity. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 58(3), 358-380.
178
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Johansson, E. (2000). Self-employment and liquidity constraints: Evidence from Finland.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 123-134.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ascough, K. (2007). Emotional intelligence in organizational
behavior and industrial-organizational psychology. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner & R. D.
Roberts (Eds.), Emotional intelligence knowns and unknowns (Vol. 356-375). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator
of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management
Review, 27, 361-372.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper, G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional
intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal
focus. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 195-214.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution: Implications
for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 62-79.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional Intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and
cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.
Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., & Bratton, V. K. (2004). Situational and dispositional factors as
antecedents of ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65(2), 309-331.
Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course.
Personality and Individual Differences(37), 129-145.
Kafetsios, K., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: Testing the
mediatory role of positive and negative affect at work. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 712-722.
Keats, B. W., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions,
macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal 31, 570-598.
Kerr, R., Garvin, J., & Heaton, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27, 265-279.
179
Kickul, J., & D'Intino, R. (2005). Measure for measure: modeling entrepreneurial self-efficacy
onto instrumental tasks within the new venture creation process. New England Journal
of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 39-48.
Kim, P. H., Aldrich, H. E., & Keister, L. A. (2006). The impact of financial, human, and cultural
capital on entrepreneurial entry in the United States. Small Business Economics(27), 522.
Kirzner, I. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian
approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 60-85.
Klepper, S. & Sleeper, S. (2005). Entry by spinoffs. Management Science, 51(8), 1291-1306.
Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1995). On the sources of significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities'. Research Policy(24), 185-205.
Kolberg, C. (1987). Resource scarcity, environmental uncertainty, and adaptive organizational
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 798-807.
Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Mugler, J. (2003). The entrepreneurial personality in the
context of resources, environment and the startup process: A configurational approach.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 22-43.
Krueger, N. F. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new
venture feasibility and desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 91-104.
Krueger, N. F. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Z. A. A. D. B. Audretsch
(Ed.), Handbook of entrepreneurial research (pp. 105-140). London: Kluwer Law
International.
Lam, L. T., & Kirby, S. L. (2002). Is emotional intelligence an advantage? An exploration of the
impact of emotional and general intelligence on individual performance. Journal of
Social Psychology, 142, 133-143.
Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional
intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(411-424).
Latham, G., & Wexley, K. (1981). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 483-496.
180
Leban, W., & Zulauf, C. (2004). Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational
leadership styles. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25(7), 554-564.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative
emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 221-234.
Lichenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the dynamics
of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153-175.
Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 6(6), 295-310.
Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(4), 425-431.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological
Bulletin(127), 267-286.
Long, J. (1982). The income tax and self-employment. National Tax Journal(35), 31-42.
Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional
intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin(30), 10181034.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the
quality of social interaction. Emotion(5), 133-118.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality, and the
perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences(35), 641658.
Lussier, R. N., & Halabi, C. (2010). A three country comparison of the business success vs failure
prediction model. Journal of Small Business Management, 48(3), 59-67.
MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R., & SubbaNarisimha, P. N. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists
to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), 119-128.
Malecki, C. K., & Elliot, S. N. (2002). Children's prosocial behaviors as predictors of academic
achievement: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Quarterly(17), 1-23.
181
Man, T. W. Y., Lau, T., & Chan, K. F. (2002). The competitiveness of small and medium
enterprises: A conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal
of Business Venturing, 123-142.
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17(3), 387-404.
Markman, G. D., Baron, R. A., & Balkin, D. B. (2005). Are perseverance and self-efficacy
costless? Assessing entrepreneurs' regretful thinking. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26(1), 1-19.
Martin, G., & Staines, H. (1994). Managerial competences in small firms. Journal of
Management Development, 13(7), 23-34.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Matthews, G., Emo, A., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2006). What is this thing called emotional
intelligence? In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the
problems and how can they be fixed? (pp. 3-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. (2006). Models of personality and affect for education:
A review and synthesis. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 163-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2007). The Science of Emotional Intelligence. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Mayer, J. D. (2001). A field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas & J. D.
Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:
The case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional
intelligence: Theory development, assessment, and application at home, school and in
the workplace (pp. 320-342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence.
Annual Review of Psychology(59), 507-536.
182
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17,
443-442.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Slyter
(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators
(pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence as zeitgeist, as
personality, and as a mental ability. In R. B.-O. a. J. D. A. Parker (Ed.), The handbook of
emotional intelligence. New York: Josey-Bass.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and
implications. Psychological Inquiry(15), 197-215.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American
Psychologist, 28, 1-14.
McClelland, D. C. (1999). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews.
Psychological Science, 9(5), 331-339.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. W., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McCombs, B. L. (2004). The learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for
balancing academic achievement and social-emotional learning outcomes. In J. E. Zins,
M. R. Weissberg, M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social
and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 23-39). New York: Teachers
College Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Updating Norman's 'adequate taxonomy': Intelligence and
personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215.
McEnrue, M. P., & Groves, K. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What is
the evidence? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 9-42.
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure.
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 13-30.
183
McRae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of the five-factor model of
personality. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality,
40, 525-543.
Michalos, A. C. (1986). Job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and the quality of life: A review and
preview. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the quality of life. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: The third link. Strategic
Management Journal, 4, 221-235.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Mintzberg, H. (1988). The simple structure. In J. B. Quinn, H. Mintzberg & R. M. James (Eds.),
The strategy process: Concepts, contexts and cases (pp. 532-539). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. Academy of
Management Journal, 25(3), 465-499.
Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Bird, B., Gaglio, C. M., McMullen, J., Morse, E., et al. (2006). The
central question in entrepreneurial cognition research. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 31(1), 1-43.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Morse, E., Seawright, K. W., Peredo, M., & Mckenzie, B. (2002). Are
entrepreneurial cognitions universal? Assessing entrepreneurial cognitions across
cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26, 9-32.
Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., Seawright, K. W., & Morse, E. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the
venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974-992.
Mitchelmore, S., & Rowley, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial competencies: A literature review and
development agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
16(2), 92-111.
Morris, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2000). How emotions work: The social functions of emotional
expression in negotiations. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol.
22, pp. 1-50). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
184
Murphy, G. B., & Callaway, S. K. (2004). Doing well and happy about it? Explaining variance in
entrepreneurs' stated satisfaction with performance. New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship, 7, 15-26.
Murphy, K. R. (2006). A critique of emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can
they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Naffziger, D., Hornsby, J., & Kuratko, D. (1994). A proposed research model of entrepreneurial
motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 29-43.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Neck, C. P., Neck, H. M., Manz, C. C., & Godwin, J. (1999). "I think I can; I think I can" A selfleadership perspective toward enhancing entrepreneur through patterns, self-efficacy,
and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(6), 477-501.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects
on occupational stress and organizational commitment. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 10(4), 327-342.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Boyle, E. H. J., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2010). The
relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Organizational Behavior.
Ogilvie, J. R., & Carsky, M. L. (2002). Building emotional intelligence in negotiations.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), 381-400.
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J.
Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of vulnerable and
victimized (pp. 3-20). New York: Guilford Press.
Paswan, A. K., Dant, R. P., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1998). An empirical investigation of the linkages
among relationalism, environmental uncertainty, and bureaucratization. Journal of
Business Research, 43(3), 125-140.
Pavett, C. M., & Lau, A. W. (1983). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and
functional specialty. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 170-177.
185
Petrides, K. V., Fredrickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in
academic performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual
Differences(36), 277-293.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation
with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425448.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
Podsakoff, P. A., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Pompe, P. M., & Bilderbeek, S. (2005). The prediction of bankruptcy of small-and-medium sized
industrial firms. Journal of Business Venturing(20), 847-869.
Poole, M., Langan-Fox, J., & Omoder, M. (1993). Contrasting subjective and objective criteria as
determinants of perceived career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 66(1), 39-54.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
Preisendorfer, P., & Voss, T. (1990). Organizational mortality of small firms: The effects of
entrepreneurial age and human capital. Organizational Studies, 11, 107-129.
Price, R. W. (2006). Entrepreneurship. Dubuque, IL: McGraw-Hill.
Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Academy of
Management Review(12), 23-37.
Randolph, W., & Dess, G. G. (1984). The congruence perspective of organization design: A
conceptual model and multivariate research approach. Academy of Management
Review, 9(1), 114-127.
Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Utsch, A. (2005). Effects of human capital and long-term human
resource development and utilization on employment growth and small-scale
businesses: A causal analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(6), 681-698.
186
Reijonen, H. (2008). Understanding the small business owner: What they really aim at and how
this relates to firm performance. Management Research News, 31(8), 616-629.
Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Who starts new firms? Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation.
Small Business Economics(9), 449-462.
Rhee, K. S., & White, R. J. (2007). The emotional intelligence of entrepreneurs. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 409-425.
Riggio, R. E., & Riggio, H. R. (2001). Self-report measurement of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A.
Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 127142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (10th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1994). A closer look at interpersonal affect as a distinct influence
on cognitive processing in performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
341-353.
Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional expressiveness, and prosocial behavior.
Child Development, 67, 449-470.
Robinson, P. B., & Sexton, E. A. (1994). The effect of education and experience on selfemployment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), 141-156.
Romanelli, E. (1987). New venture strategies in the minicomputer industry. California
Management Review, 30, 160-175.
Romasz, T. E., Kantor, J. H., & Elias, M. J. (2004). Implementation and evaluation of urban
school-wide social-emotional learning programs. Evaluation and Program Planning(27),
89-103.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2002). An empirical evaluation of emotional
intelligences: The impact of management development. Journal of Management
Development, 21(4), 272-289.
Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the
roles of emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. Psychology and
Marketing, 21, 405-424.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.
187
Salovey, P., Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: Key readings on the
Mayer and Salovey model. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.
Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 281-285.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sandberg, W. R. (1986). New venture performance: The role of strategy and industry structure.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sapienza, H. J., Smith, K. G., & Gannon, M. J. (1988). Using subjective evaluations of
performance in small business research. American Journal of Small Business, 13, 45-53.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Schein, E. H. (1987). Individuals and careers. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (pp. 155-171). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schroder, H. M. (1989). Managerial competence: The key to excellence. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al. (2001).
Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social Psychology, 14(4),
523-536.
Schutte, N. S., Schuettpelz, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2000). Emotional intelligence and task
performance. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 20(4), 347-354.
Shane, S. (2001). Technology opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science, 47(2),
205--220.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus.
Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research.
Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 13-17.
Shepherd, D. (2004). Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from
failure. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 274-287.
188
Shimazu, A., Shimazu, M., & Odahara, T. (2004). Job control and social support as coping
responses in job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 94(2), 449-456.
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory
competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions.
Developmental Psychology(26), 978-986.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics,
69(1), 99-118.
Simon, M., Houghton, S., & Aquino, K. (2000). Cognitive biases, risk perception and venture
formation: How individuals decide to start businesses. Journal of Business Venturing,
15(2), 113-134.
Simpson, M., Tuck, N., & Bellamy, S. (2004). Small business success factors: The role of
education and training. Education and Training, 46(8-9), 481-491.
Sjoberg, L. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A psychometric analysis. European Psychologist, 6(2),
72-95.
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for stress,
health and performance. Stress and Health, 19(4), 233-239.
Small Business Administration. (2008). from www.sba.gov.
Sony, H. P., & Inman, S. (2005). Relationship between entrepreneurial learning, entrepreneurial
competencies and venture success: Empirical study on SMEs. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(5/6), 454-468.
Sparrowe, R. T., Linden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the
performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal(44), 316-325.
Spencer, L. M. J., McClelland, D. C., & Kelner, S. (1997). Competency assessment methods:
History and state of the art. Boston: Hay/McBer.
Spencer, L. M. J., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies,
29, 713-739.
189
Staw, B. M., & Szwajkowski, E. (1975). The scarcity-munificence component of organizational
environments and the commission of illegal acts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20,
345-354.
Stein, S. J. (2009). Emotional intelligence for dummies. Mississauga, ON: John Wiley & Sons
Canada.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Successful intelligence as a basis for entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19(2), 189-201.
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing Common Sense.
American Psychologist, 50, 912-927.
Stuart, R. W., & Abetti, P. A. (1990). Impact of entrepreneurial and management experience on
early performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 151-162.
Sy, T., Tram, S., & O'Hara, L. A. (2006). Relation of employee and manager emotional
intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior(68),
461-473.
Tang, J. (2008). Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial alertness and
commitment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 14(3), 128151.
Taylor, L. A., Goodwin, V. L., & Cosier, R. A. (2003). Method myopia, real or imagined. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 12, 255-263.
Thompson, A. A., & Strickland, A. J. (1989). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. Plano,
TX: Business Publications Inc.
Thompson, L. L., Nadler, J., & Kim, P. H. (1999). Some like it hot: The case for the emotional
negotiator. In J. M. L. D. M. M. L. L. Thompson (Ed.), Shared cognition in organizations:
The management of knowledge (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper's Magazine, 140, 227-235.
Timmons, J. A., Muzyka, D. F., Stevenson, H. H., & Bygrave, W. D. (1987). Opportunity
recognition: The core of entrepreneurship. In N. C. Churchill, J. A. Hornaday, B. A.
Kirchhoff, O. J. Krasner & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers in entrepreneurship research (pp.
109-123). Wellesley, MA: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Tomer, J. F. (2003). Person capital and emotional intelligence: An increasingly intangible source
of economic growth. Eastern Economic Journal, 29(3), 453-469.
190
Trentacosta, C. J., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., & Fine, S. E. (2006). Children's emotional
competence and attentional competence in early elementary school. School Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 148-170.
Trinidad, D. R., & Johnson, C. A. (2002). The association between emotional intelligence and
early adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(1),
95-105.
Tsai, W., & Huang, Y. (2002). Mechanisms linking employee affective delivery and customer
behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 1001-1008.
Tushman, M. (1979). Work characteristics and sub-unit communication structure: A
contingency analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(1), 82-99.
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational
environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 439-465.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2009). Human capital and entrepreneurial
success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing(26), 341-358.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and personality
variables on attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
19, 88-110.
Van Rooy, D. L., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2006). Multiplying intelligences: Are
general, emotional, and practical intelligences equal? In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), The case
against emotional intelligence: What are the problems and how can they be fixed?
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation
of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior (65), 71-95.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's
perspective. In J. K. a. R. Broukhaus (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence, and Growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119-138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801814.
Vesper, K. H. (1990). New venture strategies (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
191
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of
tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 737-743.
Walker, E. A., & Brown, A. (2004). What success factors are important to small business
owners? International Small Business Journal, 22, 577-594.
Walker, E. A., & Webster, B. J. (2007). Gender, age and self-employment: Some things change,
some stay the same. Women in Management Review, 22(2), 122-135.
Walsh, J. A., & White, J. F. (1981). Small business ratio analysis: A cautionary note to
consultants. Journal of Small Business Management, 3, 20-23.
Warwick, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2004). Emotional intelligence is...? Personality and Individual
Differences, 37(5), 1091-1100.
Watson, W., Cooper, D., Pavur, R., & Torres, J. L. N. (2011). Managerial characteristics,
operational observations, and small business performance: A comparison of US and
Mexican ventures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Watson, W., Ponthieu, L. D., & Critelli, J. W. (1995). Team interpersonal process effectiveness in
venture partnerships and its connection to perceived success. Journal of Business
Venturing(10), 393-411.
Watson, W., Stewart, W. H., & BarNir, A. (2003). The effects of human capital, organizational
demography, and interpersonal processes on venture partner perceptions of firm profit
and growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 145-164.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weisinger, H. (1998). Emotional intelligence at work: The untapped edge for success. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Welsh, M., Park, R. D., Widaman, K., & O'Neil, R. (2001). Linkages between children's social and
academic competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 463481.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions, Actions, and Performance: Do
Novice, Serial, and Portfolio Entrepreneurs Differ? Journal of Small Business
Management, 43(4), 393-417.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
performance: A configurational approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91.
192
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). Development of an emotional intelligence instrument and an
investigation of its relationship with leader and follower performance and attitudes.
Leadership Quarterly(13), 243-274.
Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1989). Effects of environmental scarcity and munificence on the
relationship of context to organizational structure. Academy of Management Journal,
32, 131-156.
Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., & El-Hagrassey, G. M. (2002). Competitive analysis and new
venture performance: Understanding the impact of strategic uncertainty and venture
origin. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2-27.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: A
critical review. Applied Psychology, 53(3), 371-399.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). What we know about emotional
intelligence: How it affects learning, work, relationships, and our mental health.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zimmerer, T. W., Scarborough, N. M., & Wilson, D. (2007). Essentials of entrepreneurship and
small business management (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Zins, J. E., Payton, J. W., Weissberg, R. P., & O'Brien, M. U. (2007). Social and emotional learning
for successful school performance. In M. Z. G. Matthews, and R. D. Roberts (Ed.),
Emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (pp. 376-395). New York: Oxford
University Press.
193