Current Issues in Tourism
ISSN: 1368-3500 (Print) 1747-7603 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20
Start-up entrepreneurs’ personality traits. An
exploratory analysis of the Italian tourism industry
Angelo Presenza, Tindara Abbate, Marta Meleddu & Lorn Sheehan
To cite this article: Angelo Presenza, Tindara Abbate, Marta Meleddu & Lorn Sheehan (2019):
Start-up entrepreneurs’ personality traits. An exploratory analysis of the Italian tourism industry,
Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1677572
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1677572
Published online: 17 Oct 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 109
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcit20
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1677572
Start-up entrepreneurs’ personality traits. An exploratory analysis
of the Italian tourism industry
Angelo Presenzaa, Tindara Abbateb, Marta Meledduc and Lorn Sheehand
a
Department of Economic, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy; bDepartment of Economic, University of Messina,
Messina, Italy; cDepartment of Economic and Commercial Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy; dRowe School
of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
This study examines the personality traits of start-up entrepreneurs within
the Italian tourism industry. The purpose is to investigate how the specific
personality traits of narcissism, locus of control, and the Big Five (i.e.
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to
experience) influence the tourism start-up entrepreneur’s behaviour.
After a review and assessment of the literature regarding entrepreneurs’
personality traits, the paper describes a quantitative analysis of eightynine Italian start-up entrepreneurs operating in the tourism sector. Two
main results arose from the empirical analysis. Firstly, tourism
entrepreneurs seem to be particularly narcissistic, extroverted and
friendly (extraversion), disciplined (agreeableness), self-assured, efficient
and organized (conscientiousness), unconventional (openness to
experience), and proactive and vigorous (internal locus of control).
Secondly, some personality traits are found to influence the efficiency
and innovative capacity of entrepreneurs which ultimately lead to the
success of start-ups. The paper further advances our understanding of
tourism entrepreneurship by clarifying the relevance of specific
personality traits that characterize start-up entrepreneurs in the tourism
industry.
Received 1 July 2019
Accepted 2 October 2019
KEYWORDS
Personality traits;
entrepreneurship; start-up;
entrepreneurial intention;
entrepreneurial behaviour
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has been studied for more than a century in various disciplines (Ateljevic & Li, 2009).
Within tourism research, it has recently attracted greater attention, ‘reflecting the important role of
entrepreneurs and new firm startups within the tourism industry for innovation and value creation’
(Solvoll, Alsos, & Bulanova, 2015, p. 2).
Existing studies of tourism entrepreneurship (i.e.: Alsos, Eide, & Madsen, 2014; Cheng, Li, Petrick, &
O’Leary, 2011; Solvoll et al., 2015; Viken & Aarsaether, 2013) have addressed a number of issues illustrating the large variety and scope of areas of tourism in which entrepreneurship is relevant.
Established firms and larger firms have to a limited extent been able to innovate and develop their
offerings to meet the increasing demand for unique experiences, creating memories, and engagement and emotional involvements for tourists. Hence, the tourism industry is largely dependent
on new firms both to serve market growth and to support innovation (Rodriguez-Sanchez, Williams,
& Brotons, 2019) and industry transformation towards the offering of experience-based products.
Consequently, entrepreneurship has also been the focus of policies directed towards developing
the tourism industry with the aim of increasing innovation and value creation. Furthermore,
CONTACT Angelo Presenza
presenza@unimol.it
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
tourism has increasingly been targeted as a part of a strategy for economic development in weak
regions and several countries now make specific efforts to support new business start-ups within
tourism (Jóhannesson, Huijbens, & Sharpley, 2010).
Scholars emphasize the need for increased research attention on innovation and transformation in
the tourism industry to take better advantage of opportunities related to the demand for experiencebased products (Alsos et al., 2014). The exploration and exploitation of such opportunities require
entrepreneurial action (Sarasvathy, 2008; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Consistent with this development, various scholars have called for research related to entrepreneurship in the tourism industry
(Cheng et al., 2011; Hjalager, 2010; Li, 2008).
As an academic field of study, tourism entrepreneurship has slowly emerged from a few articles
published in the 1970s and 1980s, primarily within the area of business economics and geography,
to a more diverse body of literature with an increasing number of studies (Carmichael & Morrison,
2011). However, until recently, only a small proportion of articles in the tourism literature have
been related to entrepreneurship issues (Li, 2008). The scant attention is also reflected in the
limited focus on entrepreneurship in tourism journals, with only one journal ever listing entrepreneurship as a relevant discipline in its mission statement (Cheng et al., 2011).
This paper contributes to an understanding of tourism entrepreneurship by providing insights
regarding the personality traits of tourism start-up entrepreneurs.
Following the previous efforts of Leonelli, Ceci, and Masciarelli (2016), this study sheds new light
on how the specific personality traits of narcissism, locus of control, and the Big Five (i.e. extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) affect the start-up
entrepreneurs’ behaviour, in particular with reference to efficiency and innovation behaviour.
Although significant consensus has emerged that big five personality traits capture the basic
structure of human personality, ‘some personality constructs cannot be readily assigned to one
and only one of the Big Five dimensions’ (Zhao, Seibert, & Lumpkin, 2010, p. 383). Therefore,
several additional traits have been added to the Big Five for entrepreneurial research, including
locus of control (Rauch & Frese, 2007). Additionally, researchers have acknowledged that personality
traits should be aligned with specific workplace criteria reflective of the narcissism trait (Hogan &
Holland, 2003).
The paper focuses on start-up entrepreneurs because of the crucial role they play in the management and organization of new enterprises. As stated by Leonelli et al. (2016, p. 71), ‘the startup entrepreneur’s personality strongly influences business decisions’. The launch of new tourism businesses
(start-ups) is particularly important given the rapidly growing expectation that entrepreneurs will
contribute to value creation and quickly respond to opportunities through a diffuse use of innovation
(Solvoll et al., 2015).
This paper consists of six sections. Following this introduction, the theoretical background is structured into two sub-sections, the first examines the literature related to the personality traits of the
entrepreneur, while the second analyses entrepreneurial innovation and efficiency. Next, the methodology section illustrates the data setting, analysis, and explains the statistical model utilized. In the
results section, the outcomes of Structural Equation Modeling are presented and interpreted.
The paper finishes with a section to relay the findings and another to provide a conclusion with
the main implications of the research and suggestions for future research.
Theoretical background
Personality traits of the entrepreneur
Personality traits have been defined as the characteristics of individual behaviour that clarify why
individuals act differently in similar situations (Llewellyn & Wilson, 2003; Nga & Shamuganathan,
2010). It has been suggested that those who create and manage new business ventures should
have specific capabilities (i.e. Corbetta, 2011; Green & Binsardi, 2015). In this regard, an entrepreneur
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
3
should be innovative and a risk taker; able to develop, recognize, evaluate and exploit new opportunities; and make rapid decisions under conditions of uncertainty and in a resource-constrained
environment (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003; Choi & Shepherd, 2004; Hall, 2012; Koh, 1996;
Shane, 2003).
Several studies have made contributions by explaining the linkage between the personality traits
of individuals and their intention to start a business (Frese, Chell, & Klandt, 2000; Rauch & Frese, 2007;
Utsch & Rauch, 2000). Indeed, the influence of personality traits is considered to be the most important determinant of business start-up intentions in budding entrepreneurs (Nga & Shamuganathan,
2010). Additionally, personality traits have been found to influence the decision to start an enterprise
more than subsequent business success because the impact of the individual owner decreases with
the increasing size of the enterprise (Frese et al., 2000; Rauch & Frese, 2007). Specifically, individuals
with personality traits such as high need for achievement, propensity to take risk, generalized selfefficacy, high tolerance of ambiguity, innovativeness and internal locus of control, are more entrepreneurial and engage in entrepreneurial activities such as starting up a new business (Rauch & Frese,
2007; Thomas & Mueller, 2000; Utsch & Rauch, 2000).
Tourism entrepreneurship has been recognized as being vital to tourists’ experiences and satisfaction as well as to destination and community development (Jaafar, Abdul-Aziz, Maideen, & Mohd,
2011; Li, 2008). More specific to the present study, the literature in management suggests that personality traits influence business intentions, creation and success (Brandstätter, 2011; Koh, 1996;
Mueller & Thomas, 2001).
Several tourism-specific studies are also relevant. Some studies have investigated the influence
of personality traits on tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions (Altinay, Madanoglu, Daniele, &
Lashley, 2012; Gurel, Altinay, & Daniele, 2010). They have found that tourism students possess
some key characteristics of entrepreneurs (such as innovativeness and propensity to take risks)
and also that these traits have a bearing on their intentions to start a new business (Gurel
et al., 2010).
Other tourism-specific contributions have examined the personality traits of entrepreneurs in
the context of being small business owners. Ahmad (2015, p. 4) found that the success of an entrepreneur in the tourism industry was significantly influenced by several traits, such as sense of commitment, desire for achievement, tolerance for ambiguity, creativity and innovativeness, taking
moderate risk, and internal locus of control. Similarly, Katongole, Ahebwa, and Kawere (2013)
have investigated the role of personality traits towards the success of women entrepreneurs in
tourism business. Their research revealed that conscientiousness (reliability, hard work and perseverance) and extraversion (being talkative, outgoing and social) are strongly associated with entrepreneurial success.
Personality traits may refer to characteristics of individual psychological traits that can specifically
define an entrepreneur. Table 1 lists the facets and components concerning key personality traits
considered here. Facets are specific and unique aspects of a broader personality trait (McCrae &
Costa, 2003), while components are the expression of the trait, where the trait is visible through a
person’s actions (McCrae & Costa, 2003). In the following sections each personal trait is presented
and discussed.
Narcissism
Narcissism has recently become of more interest in management research (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). It
was described as a grandiose preoccupation with one’s own self-importance; that is, the belief that
one is special and, consequently more important than others (American Psychiatric Association,
2013), thereby causing negative ethical and interpersonal implications. Diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include fantasies of unlimited success, hypersensitivity to criticism, entitlement, exploitativeness, and a lack of empathy (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 645).
Similar to other personality traits, narcissism exists along a continuum, moving from high to low
levels. However, normal levels of narcissism are reflected in strategies oriented to promote a positive
4
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Table 1. Facets and components related to entrepreneurs’ personality traits.
Personality traits
Facets
Narcissism
Positive self-view, attractive, charismatic,
creative, visionary
Extraversion
Sociable, gregarious, assertive, enthusiastic,
active, talkative
Agreeableness
(likability,
friendliness)
Conscientiousness
(conformity,
dependability)
Confident, altruistic, courteous, disciplined,
trusting, good-natured, flexible, forgiving,
soft-hearted, tolerant.
Efficient, well-organized, not lazy, not
impulsive, responsible, plans, hardworking,
achievement-oriented, persevering.
Neuroticism
Anxious, irritable, depressed, impulsive.
Openness to
experience
Curious, imaginative, wide interests,
unconventional
Internal Locus of
control
External Locus of
control
Active agent, problem-solving capacity,
persuasive
Passive agent, believes in fate, stressed, ill,
imposing
Components
Self-admiration: vision of themselves as perfect, special,
and unique.Self-centred: needs attention, inability to
listen to others, no empathy for peers.Innovative: idea
generator.
Ambition: impetuous, seeks leadership roles, persuasive,
initiative.Sociability: talkative, gregarious, enjoys
meeting people.Individuality: enjoys taking chances
and stirring up excitement
Cooperative: likes to help others and does things for
friends, trustful of others.Considerate: good-natured,
cheerful, forgives others easily
Dependability: thorough, careful.Industriousness: strives
to do the best, does more than planned, hardworking,
persistent.Efficiency: plans in advance, rarely late for
appointments, neat and orderly.
Security: feels secure about self, not bothered by
criticism
Open: cultured, likes to try new and different things,
enjoys art, music, and literatureIntellect: imaginative,
likes abstract ideas and concepts, analytical and
introspective, enjoys philosophical debates.
Takes one’s fate into his/her hands.Modifies and
improves any situation
Uncertainty: hates ambiguity and new situations
Source: Adapted from Leonelli et al. (2016) and Ciavarella et al. (2004)
self-image and facilitate relationships among psychologically well-adjusted individuals (Wales, Patel,
& Lumpkin, 2013). Narcissists normally have a positive and inflated self-view, such as a personal
admiration or perverse self-love, and a self-regulatory strategy to maintain and enhance this positive
self-view (Ackerman et al., 2011). Narcissists dream of power, notoriety and status, and believe themselves to be very special, unique, attractive, and more intelligent (Humphreys, Haden, Novicevic,
Clayton, & Gibson, 2011; Mathieu & St-Jean, 2013).
In organizations, narcissistic individuals tend to perform leadership roles (Benson & Campbell,
2007; Blair, Hoffman, & Helland, 2008). They have compelling, even gripping, visions for firms (e.g.
they do not try to understand the future, rather they attempt to create it) and an enthusiastic capacity
to attract followers through adept public speaking and charisma (Goncalo, Flynn, & Kim, 2010). For
these reasons, narcissists are often found in positions of power such as CEOs (Chatterjee & Hambrick,
2007; Nevicka, De Hoogh, Van Vianen, Beersma, & McIlwain, 2011).
Gardner and Avolio (1998, p. 154) emphasize that ‘charismatic leaders are exceptionally expressive
people, who employ rhetoric to persuade, influence, and mobilize others’. This allows them to
improve their creativity and their innovation capacity. Steve Jobs, the well-known former CEO of
Apple, clearly exhibited the trait – in particular,
while he displayed a range of the stereotypical egocentric personality traits associated with narcissism, such as
being self-centered, arrogant, and entitled, he also had an almost hypnotizing level of charisma that enabled
him to get others to buy into his grand visions. (Grijalva & Harms, 2014, p. 2014)
While some (Goncalo et al., 2010) assert that narcissistic individuals bring benefits to organizations
thanks to their visionary and innovative qualities, others (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007 and Wales
et al., 2013) claim that narcissistic CEOs tend to generate extreme performance, both positive and
negative. Furthermore, these CEOs have wide fluctuations in performance from one period to
another (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007). Importantly, Pinto and Patanakul (2015) find that entrepreneurs’ narcissistic behaviour facilitates new product development, new operational initiatives and
new project ventures.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
5
Extraversion
Extraversion is observed as a trait that consists of ‘sociability, dominance, ambition, positive emotionality, and excitement-seeking’ (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001, p. 11). It represents the tendency to be
outgoing, assertive, active, dominant, energetic enthusiastic, and excitement seeking (Costa &
McCrae, 1992; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Individuals with a high level of extraversion are normally dominant in social situations, optimists, inspire positive feelings and seek excitement and stimulation
(Brandstätter, 2011; Rothamann & Coetzer, 2003; Zhao et al., 2010). On the other hand, individuals
with a low level of extraversion prefer to spend more time alone and are characterized as reserved,
quiet, and independent (Zhao & Seibert, 2006).
Extraverted people are often attracted to enterprising occupations such as business (Costa,
McCrae, & Holland, 1984), and more specifically have entrepreneurial intentions (Zhao et al., 2010).
Thus, extroversion may be a valuable trait for entrepreneurs, who necessarily must interact with a
variety of people, such as venture capitalists, partners, employees, and customers. Research has
revealed that extraversion is strongly related to firm performance (Barrick et al., 2001; Mount,
Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). High levels of extraversion facilitate entrepreneurs’ social interaction with
stakeholders which in turn improves performance (Baron & Markman, 2003; Rothamann & Coetzer,
2003; Zhao et al., 2010). Additionally, entrepreneurs with a high level of extraversion are considered
charismatic leaders by their employees (Judge & Bono, 2000), and considered able to generate certain
kinds of organizational outcomes such as teamwork effectiveness (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion,
2005).
Agreeableness
Agreeableness is usually defined as the tendency to be courteous, altruistic, trusting, modest, forgiving, and flexible in dealing with others (Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riordan, Gatewood, & Stokes, 2004;
Zhao et al., 2010). Specifically, it is the interpersonal element that characterizes the quality of relationships through trust, tolerance and cooperation (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). In this respect, it is plausible
that a level of agreeableness is necessary to receive the required support to get a new venture started
or to sustain the survival of a venture. However, it has been argued that agreeableness has a negative
influence on firm performance because entrepreneurs should be able to exploit opportunities,
achieve their own goals and manipulate situations for firm survival and growth (Zhao & Seibert,
2006). On the other hand, Ross and Offermann (1997) reveal the existence of a positive relationship
between agreeableness and charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders tend to be generous, tolerant and attentive towards others, by promoting cooperation they are able to secure capital and future
support from venture capitalists, thus increasing the probability of long-term survival of the venture
(Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Shane & Cable, 2002).
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is ‘thinking before acting, being respectful of rules and law, as well as planning and
organizing tasks’ (Leonelli et al., 2016, p. 77). Conscientious individuals have impulse control that
enhances task- and goal-orientated behaviours. In general, it is expected that highly conscientious
individuals (i.e. ambitious, persistent, serious, exacting, disciplined, and methodical) are significantly
different from their less conscientious counterparts (i.e. lazy, remitting, carefree, imprecise, disorganized, and impetuous) in terms of performance expectancy and goal choice. Dependability,
efficacy and industriousness are assumed to be the basic components of conscientiousness, and,
therefore, those high in this factor tend to be hardworking and persevering (Zhao et al., 2010).
Zhao and Seibert describe conscientiousness as a composite personality dimension including
achievement, motivation and dependability (Barrick & Mount, 1991). McClelland (1961) posits that
a high need for achievement would drive individuals to become entrepreneurs primarily because
they prefer situations in which performance is due to their own efforts rather than to other factors
(Baum & Locke, 2004; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Dependability reflects the extent to which one is
6
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
organized, deliberate, and methodical and ‘can be relied on to fulfill one’s duties and responsibilities’
(Zhao & Seibert, 2006, p. 262).
Conscientiousness allows the entrepreneur to obtain high levels of productivity and benefits
derived from greater efficiency and effectiveness of the firm (Ciavarella et al., 2004). In addition, conscientiousness has been found to be positively related to entrepreneurial firm performance as
measured by firm survival (Ciavarella et al., 2004) as well as growth, and profitability (Zhao et al.,
2010).
Neuroticism
Neuroticism represents individual differences in adjustment and emotional stability. High levels of
neuroticism are associated with a lack self-confidence and self-esteem and include negative emotions
such as anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). Such individuals rarely want to take on the personal responsibilities and anxieties
related to the entrepreneurial role (Judge & Bono, 2000; Zhao et al., 2010). They tend to work more
hours and often have difficulty separating work from their personal life (Dyer & Handler, 1994). If
this trait persists, starting and running a new business venture and assuming the related financial
risk can produce physical and psychological stress (Leonelli et al., 2016). Thus, they could compromise
the performance of their venture and face problems concerning the maintenance of relationships that
facilitate long-term success (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).
Openness to experience
Openness to experience is a personality trait characterizing individuals that tend to be creative, imaginative, intellectually curious, and perceptive (Chang, Hung, & Lin, 2014). They are more oriented to
seek new experiences and to explore new ideas (Zhao & Seibert, 2006), with a tendency to be unconventional, untraditional and to hold different ethical, social and political concepts (Rothamann &
Coetzer, 2003).
Starting a new venture is likely to require the entrepreneur to explore new ideas, utilize their creativity to discover solutions to novel problems, and develop innovative approaches to product development, business methods, and/or strategies (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2010; Zhao & Seibert,
2006). Especially in competitive and dynamic markets, entrepreneurs must be ready to evolve their
products/services and technologies in order to compete and to obtain a sustainable competitive
advantage. This requires a continued emphasis on innovation (Schumpeter, 1946), intelligence and
creativeness to acquire and assimilate new knowledge of technological advances and to solve
day-to-day problems (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2010).
Locus of control
Locus of control is an important personality trait in the entrepreneurial literature. Rotter’s (1966)
theory of social learning first introduced the concept of locus of control. In general, it indicates the
way in which an individual believes that personal outcomes are influenced by his or her ability,
effort, or skills (internal locus of control), versus external forces beyond his or her control (external
locus of control).
Individuals with an internal locus of control see themselves as active agents believing that their
destiny is not predetermined and that they can change it. Yusof, Sandhu, and Jain (2007) elaborate
that individuals with this belief consider themselves capable of effectively controlling their life events
and that their successes and failures are largely determined by their ability, capability, effort and
commitment.
On the other hand, individuals with an external locus of control see themselves as passive agents
and believe that life events are uncontrollable because they stem from reasons of force majeure such
as luck, fate, powerful people or institutions (Rotter, 1966).
Entrepreneurs with an internal locus of control exhibit different characteristics than those with an
external locus of control. Specifically, the locus of control trait influences the relationship between
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
7
stress and illness (Boone, Brabander, & Witteloostujn, 1996; Lefcourt, 2014). If entrepreneurs with an
external locus of control are facing high levels of stress, they react by feeling psychologically and
physically ill (e.g. depression, herpes). In contrast, entrepreneurs with an internal locus of control
deploy a problem-solving approach because they believe that they can effect change (Boone
et al., 1996).
The existence of a relation between locus of control and the likelihood to take action, which may
affect the ability to become (or not become) an entrepreneur is the focus of this study. Individuals
who perceive an entrepreneurial opportunity as desirable and achievable will start a new business
venture only if they are psychologically prepared. Accordingly, an internal locus of control orientation
increases the likelihood that a potential entrepreneur will implement their entrepreneurial intentions
(Julian & Terjesen, 2006). In addition, it has been suggested that locus of control influences an entrepreneurs’ behaviour; in particular, entrepreneurs with an external locus of control are less likely to
implement innovative and risky activities by avoiding uncertainty and ambiguity (Miller, 2011). Conversely, entrepreneurs with an internal locus of control will develop innovation strategies, new products, and implement R&D activities.
Finally, it has been shown that locus of control does affect new venture creation and business performance, with empirical evidence demonstrating that ventures run by entrepreneurs with internal
locus of control perform better than those directed by entrepreneurs with an external locus of
control (Boone et al., 1996). Other studies show that start-ups created by entrepreneurs with an
internal locus of control are more successful and possess more survival capacity than start-ups
created by entrepreneurs with an external locus of control (Brockhaus, 1980; Gatewood, Shaver, &
Gartner, 1995).
Entrepreneur personality traits and the relationship with efficiency and innovation
Any business is fundamentally concerned with two strategies for attracting and serving customers –
efficiency (to lower costs and offer an attractive price) and innovation (to differentiate products)
(Porter, 1996). Innovation creates a valuable and perhaps unique (for at least a period of time)
product or service which may be described in terms of a specific customer value proposition
(Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann, 2008). Efficiency, on the other hand, improves the profitability
of the business owner. Both innovation and efficiency are important to the survival and growth of the
business. This section explores the relationships between entrepreneurship personality traits and the
two strategically important concepts of efficiency and innovation, following which a hypothesis is
proposed for each relationship.
Efficiency
Broad thinking about business management and efficiency may be accredited to Frederick Taylor,
who in his pioneering book The Principles of Scientific Management claims that maximum prosperity
occurs when the individual reaches the highest state of efficiency (Taylor, 1911). As an early and
highly influential thinker on entrepreneurship, Jovanovic (1982) linked firm growth and survival to
both innovation and efficiency. He suggested that start-up entrepreneurs, having incomplete information, learn more about their efficiency as they operate in an industry (Jovanovic, 1982, p. 649).
Focusing on the successful entrepreneur, McClelland (1987) describes an efficiency orientation as
finding ways to do things faster or with fewer resources or at a lower cost. Higher degrees of
efficiency among entrepreneurs have been shown to not only result in better deployment of their
resources and higher profitability but also a lower use of public funds dedicated to promote entrepreneurship (Hammer & Hershman, 2010; Reboredo, 2004).
More recently, Salimath and Jones (2011) have extended Taylor’s notions of efficiencies to the
entrepreneurial context. They specifically refer to the efficiency techniques of bricolage (improvization) and bootstrapping (operating effectively without external/financial help) as being commonly
used by entrepreneurs (Salimath & Jones, 2011, p. 86).
8
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Bricolage was a term originally introduced by Lévi-Strauss (1966) as he described how to make do
with whatever is available. The notion of bricolage has since been used and extended in various management domains including entrepreneurship (i.e.: Baker & Nelson, 2005; Baker, Miner, & Eesley,
2003).
The concept of bootstrapping is seen by Bhide (1992) as a creative problem-solving process that is
necessary given the emergent nature of entrepreneurship. Ebben (2009, p. 348) concluded that bootstrapping has been found to be a necessity for many start-up entrepreneurs who have difficulty
attracting financial capital early on, but later transition to more desirable methods of financing
and operating as they gain legitimacy and leverage. Gaining efficiencies through techniques such
as bricolage and bootstrapping are critical for start-up entrepreneurs. Put in dramatic yet simple
terms, ‘the efficient grow and survive; the inefficient decline and fail’ (Jovanovic, 1982, p. 649).
The importance of efficiency to the growth and survival of start-ups naturally leads to the importance of understanding what might influence and improve entrepreneurs’ abilities to gain such
efficiencies. Despite its obvious importance, the specific connection between efficiency and the
entrepreneur’s personality traits has received scant attention aside from the recognition that
efficiency is part of the personality trait of conscientiousness, where conscientiousness affords the
entrepreneur higher productivity and efficiency (Ciavarella et al., 2004). Therefore, the link
between the entrepreneur’s personality traits and efficiency clearly merits special attention. Consequently, the following hypothesis is developed:
Hp1. Entrepreneur personality traits positively influence the self-assessment of efficiency.
Innovation
While efficiency or operational effectiveness is logically important to the financial success of start-ups
it is rarely the basis for establishing competitive advantage (Porter, 1996). Rather, it is the ability to
differentiate products and services through innovation that sets any business (including start-ups)
apart from the existing competition. Indeed, the success of start-ups has been found to be positively
correlated with their innovation capabilities (Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, & Bausch, 2011). More specifically, Groenewegen and de Langen (2012) have found that ‘uniqueness of the advantages of the
innovation’ is one of three key factors that determine the growth and survival of start-ups.
The interest in studying the relation between entrepreneurship and innovation is significant and
confirmed in literature (Marcati, Guido, & Peluso, 2008; Naldi, Nordqvist, Sjöberg, & Wiklund, 2007). It
highlights the existence of relationships among distinctive dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation
and innovation. Studies within the entrepreneurship literature have explored the role of psychological variables in explaining entrepreneurs’ intention to adopt innovations (Buttner & Gryskiewicz,
1993; Foxall & Payne, 1989; Zhao & Seibert, 2006). Indeed, the importance of internal factors relating
to personality traits in the decision to adopt an innovation is well documented (Becker, 1992). More
recent studies exploring the relationship between firm innovation and the characteristics of the
entrepreneur (Groenewegen & de Langen, 2012; Pérez-Luño, Wiklund, & Cabrera, 2011) have
found that the latter does have an impact on innovation. This is especially true for small firms,
especially start-ups where the entrepreneur is much closer to the decision-making process and consequently his/her personality, motivations, skills and behaviour have greater influence on the organization, management and performance of the firm (Marcati et al., 2008). Consequently, the following
hypothesis is developed:
Hp2. Entrepreneur personality traits positively influence the self-assessment of innovation.
Methodology
Data setting
The paper employs statistical analysis of survey data collected from members of the Italian Tourism
Startups Association. The Association was developed in 2013 as a result of a casual meeting between
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
9
a couple of Italian tourism entrepreneurs with a common desire to create a network and share past
experiences and challenges. The mission is ‘to create a database of all of the innovative startups in the
tourism industry operating in the country of Italy’ (www.startup-turismo.it/la-nascitadellassociazione/).
The Association offers several services to support the growth of startups with the overall goal of
obtaining a competitive advantage for all and to accelerate innovation both nationally and internationally. More specifically, the Association seeks to promote creativity and digital innovation, support
the growth of start-ups to further development of the Italian tourism economy, facilitate meetings
and collaboration among members, create new opportunities for sharing experiences, train and
update young people and those who want to get to know and experience the business culture
and tourism innovation, and build a space for dialogue, meetings, and collaboration between stakeholders, institutions, and the government.
The Association promotes the initiatives of its members and gives them national and international
visibility through the preparation and participation in exhibitions, workshops and events in the travel
industry. In 2019, the Italian Tourism Startups Association consists of 112 members that operate in
different areas of the tourism industry.
Data collection
A questionnaire was created with statements/items drawn from Leonelli et al. (2016) and organized
into two sections. One section asked respondents about their general socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, education), relevant features of their company, and the main motivation behind
the start of their business. The other section asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement
with 40 statements regarding entrepreneurial personality traits. Answers were recorded on a 5-point
Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire was pre-tested by researchers on three Italian tourism entrepreneurs. Based on suggestions during the pre-test, a number of
minor changes were made to the questionnaire.
The target population included all the 112 members of the Italian Tourism Startups Association.
The questionnaire was forwarded to all the members of the association by e-mail, followed by two
reminders. These activities were carried out between September and November of 2018. The
response rate was 79.46%, with 89 usable responses collected.
The demographic profile of the entrepreneurs is given in Table 2. Most of the respondents are
between 31 and 40 years old, male (80%), and have attained at least a High school level of education.
The results reveal that 82% of respondents classify their business as an innovative start-up according to the Italian Law number 221/2012. Most of the companies were created after 2014 (Table 3) and
have none or one employee (beyond the entrepreneur), while 78% of respondents have up to 4
business partners and are legally structured as a limited liability company (or LLC which is usually
referred to as an SRL in Italy).
Table 2. Demographic profile of the respondents.
Demographic profile
Age range
Gender
<20
20–30
31–40
41–50
>50
female
male
Primary school
High school
Undergraduate degree
Graduate degree
N
%
1
17
45
17
9
18
71
1
18
61
9
1
19
51
19
10
20
80
1
20
68
10
10
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Table 3. Core start-up company information.
Constitution year
Number of business partners
N
%
2010
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
0
1
2
3
4
1
3
8
13
28
19
16
1
11
24
23
10
1
3
9
15
31
21
18
1
12
27
26
11
5
6
7
>7
7
2
3
8
8
2
3
9
Number of employees
Legal status
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>8
Limited Company (Ltd)
Limited Company (Ltd) with
semplifications (Italian Low)
Incorporated Company
Other
N
%
36
15
9
9
3
5
1
2
1
6
60
13
41
17
10
10
3
6
1
2
1
7
68
15
9
6
10
7
Analysis
The theoretical framework has been developed by employing the Partial Least Square Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) methodology to the set of 40 statements presented in the second
part of the questionnaire. The application of PLS-SEM has increased of late due to its applicability
to problematic models and its ability to assess data with non-normal features or with small sample
sizes (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014). PLS-SEM has been commonly used in tourism
research (do Valle & Assaker, 2016) and in other fields such as supply chain management (Hazen,
Overstreet, & Boone, 2015) and consumer behaviour (Zhang, 2009). It is capable of assessing both
casual relationships between indicators/items and further casual relationships between latent constructs (Gudergan, Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2008) while also being suitable for exploratory and confirmatory research in the assessment of complex relationships where many indicators and constructs
are present (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003). The PLS-SEM methodology is applied here to assess
the research model and hypotheses proposed using the software R (3.2.2 version) plspm package
(Sanchez, 2013).
The class of models used is defined by two sets of linear equations: the inner model and the outer
model. The inner (structural) model postulates the relationships between unobserved or latent constructs, whereas the outer (measurement) model specifies the relationships between a latent construct and its observed or manifest items. The data analysis follows a two-step approach: the first
step assesses the measurement model to ensure reliability and validity of the constructs; the
second step tests the causal paths between the constructs that comprise the theoretical model
and evaluates the structural model (i.e.: the relationship between personality traits and two endogenous constructs, efficiency and innovation).
In the first step, item reliability, internal consistency and discriminant validity were used to test the
reliability and validity of the model. The item reliability was examined through factor loadings that
indicate the degree to which each indicator (that forms the construct) is correlated with its relevant
latent variable. The internal consistency (also called unidimensionality) was tested using Cronbach’s
alpha (C.alpha) and the Dillon-Goldstein’s rho (DG Rho). DG Rho allows one to check both unidimesionality and the variance of the sum of variables in a block. Sanchez (2013) reports that the DG Rho is
a better indicator than Cronbach’s alpha since it considers how the latent variable explains its block of
indicators.
In the second step, the structural model was tested based upon the significance of the path coefficients, representing the strength of causal relationships between constructs, by observing the R2
values of the dependent variables, and observing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) which
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
11
measures the amount of variance that a latent variable captures from its indicators in relation to the
amount of variance due to measurement error.
Results
The measurement model
In order to assess the reliability and validity of the model, item reliability, internal consistency and
discriminant validity were tested (Chin, 1998). As shown in Table 4 and Figure 1, most of the
factor loadings are greater than the minimum threshold of 0.5 recommended in the literature and
reach a threshold of 0.70; this indicates that the survey instrument was reliable for measuring
each personality trait construct. Equivalently, communalities values greater than 0.49 are considered
as acceptable. Because communalities represent the amount of variability explained by a latent variable, a communality greater than 0.5 means that more than 50% of the variability in an indicator is
captured by its latent construct.
Accordingly, Extraversion and Conscientiousness are the only constructs with acceptable values
for the Cronbach’s alpha (greater than 0.7), meaning that the employed items well measure the corresponding latent construct. These indexes suggest that not all the factors are internally consistent.
Table 4. Measurement model.
Personality traits
Narcissism
Agreeableness
(likability, friendliness)
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
(conformity, dependability)
Neuroticism
Openness to experience
Internal Locus of control
External Locus of control
Efficiency
Factors
loading
communality
C.alpha
DG Rho
Risk-taker
Self-realization
Need-autonomy
Positive
Attractive
Charismatic
Creative
Visionary
Altruist
Disciplined
Modest
Friendly
Enthusiast
Extrovert
Sure of me
Efficient
Arranged
Impulsive
Anxious
Irritable
Depressed
Explorer
Adventurous
Curious
Imaginative
many-interests
Unconventional
Decision-maker
Stress-tolerant
Self-control
Vigorous
Active
Problem-solving
Persuasive
Lazy
Passive
Fatalist
Respectable
Effective
0.259518
0.128956
0.323014
0.692
0.737607
0.685387
0.53899
0.575551
0.644395
0.869688
0.302793
0.771106
0.684193
0.936513
0.813535
0.787017
0.802525
0.812869
0.482011
0.938135
0.390118
0.507755
0.515279
0.552574
0.617214
0.702392
0.703238
0.491328
0.076164
0.527607
0.727825
0.751902
0.622264
0.640371
0.524145
0.462975
0.941819
0.728212
0.827238
0.06735
0.01663
0.104338
0.478864
0.544064
0.469755
0.29051
0.331259
0.415244
0.756358
0.091683
0.594604
0.46812
0.877057
0.661838
0.619395
0.644046
0.660757
0.232335
0.880098
0.152192
0.257815
0.265512
0.305338
0.380953
0.493354
0.494544
0.241403
0.005801
0.278369
0.529729
0.565357
0.387213
0.410076
0.274728
0.214346
0.887022
0.530292
0.684323
0.617449
0.740508
0.521271
0.75817
0.750244
0.857456
0.738648
0.85335
0.689035
0.811772
0.667349
0.781594
0.651073
0.76626
0.533442
0.762778
0.357072
0.756737
12
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Figure 1. The measurement model.
Notes: Solid thick lines and stars indicate a positive and statistically significant relationship. Solid thin lines indicate a positive but not statistically
significant relationship; dashed lines indicate a negative but not statistically significant relationship.
However, as Table 4 displays in the last column, the DG Rho exceeds the critical threshold of 0.7 for all
constructs meaning that the items within each personality trait group are measuring the same latent
variable and are pointing in the same direction. These index scores validate the constructs as unidimensional, hence internal consistent. Based on this result, we were able to consider this measurement model for this first investigation of the factors.
A further construct has been built and tested to explore self-assessed efficiency (Hp1) in relationship to the other personality traits. Specifically, efficiency includes respectable and effective items. As
for the relationship between innovation and personality traits (Hp2), only one item (innovator) is
employed for assessment. Therefore there is no need to test for unidimensionality.
The structural model
The second step of the analysis establishes the structural relationship between facets. Specifically,
personality traits (exogenous factors) are supposed to influence the self-assessed efficiency and
Table 5. Structural model relationships.
Path
narcissism → efficiency
extraversion → efficiency
agree → efficiency
conscient → efficiency
neurot → efficiency
openness → efficiency
int_locus → efficiency
ext_locus → efficiency
narcissism → innov
extraversion → innov
agree → innov
conscient → innov
neurot → innov
openness → innov
int_locus → innov
ext_locus → innov
Path coefficient
Std. Error
t-value
Pr(>|t|)
0.211
-0.028
0.114
0.253
0.140
0.103
0.265
0.030
0.430
−0.065
0.046
0.253
0.064
0.008
0.120
−0.071
0.119
0.100
0.086
0.105
0.083
0.107
0.110
0.089
0.150
0.125
0.108
0.131
0.104
0.135
0.139
0.113
1.774
-0.282
1.333
2.417
1.687
0.964
2.408
0.334
2.872
−0.522
0.423
−0.742
0.608
0.060
0.868
−0.629
0.080
0.779
0.186
0.018
0.095
0.338
0.018
0.739
0.005
0.603
0.673
0.460
0.545
0.953
0.388
0.531
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
13
innovation (endogenous factors). The structural model (Figure 1) has been measured as shown
in Tables 5 and 6. It reveals a positive and statistically significant relationship between narcissism
and efficiency, supported with a Path coefficient of 0.211. Furthermore, Conscientiousness (coscient,
path coefficient = 0.253), Neuroticism (neurot, path coefficient = 0.140), Internal Locus of control
(int_locus, path coefficient = 0.265) and Efficiency are positively related. The other relationships,
except for narcissism and innovation (innov) were not statistically significant. The model
developed explains 50% (R 2 = 0.50) of the variance for efficiency and 21% of the variance for innovation (R 2 = 0.21). The Communality indicates how much of the block variability is reproducible by
the latent variables, while the Redundancy represents the percentage of the variance in the endogenous block that is predicted from the independent latent variables associated with the endogenous
latent variables. High redundancy means high ability to predict. The average redundancy for Innovation and Efficiency indicates that the exogenous facets predict 21% and 30%, respectively, of
the variability of Innovation and Efficiency indicators. The average variance extracted (AVE) values
were not above 0.5 for all the scales, which indicates a need to be cautious when using all of the
constructs.
Additionally, the goodness of fit (GoF) index has been calculated as suggested by Tenenhausa,
Esposito Vinzia, Chatelinc, and Lauro (2005). GoF can be used as a global criterion that helps us to
evaluate the performance of the model in both the inner and the outer models. Basically, GoF
assesses the overall prediction performance of the model. Acceptable ‘good’ values within the
PLS-PM community are GoF >0.7. In our case, GoF = 0.39 meaning that the predictive power of the
model is 39%, so there is still room for improvement of the model construct and specification.
Discussion
The study yielded two major results: (1) tourism entrepreneurs exhibit specific personality traits; and
(2) some personality traits influence the efficiency and innovation capacity of entrepreneurs. The
existing literature has suggested that an interesting mix of entrepreneurial characteristics may
influence the long-term survival and success of business ventures (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Leonelli
et al., 2016). Our findings suggest that tourism entrepreneurs have an original, curious and
complex combination of all personality traits. By using the above-mentioned descriptive facets,
the tourism entrepreneur seems to be particularly attractive (narcissism), extroverted and friendly
(extraversion), disciplined (agreeableness), self-assured, efficient and organized (conscientiousness),
unconventional having many interests (openness to experience), and are proactive and vigorous
(internal locus of control). This multidimensional combination suggests that many important personality traits may be necessary to achieve productivity (Belbin, 1981) and foster a culture of creativity
based on extensive social interactions both internally (within the firm) and externally (outside the
firm) (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010). Specifically, this unique set of psychological factors, concerning
mainly extraversion and openness to experience, may be important to find new opportunities and
ways of organizing and developing the start-up, including establishing a social network.
Table 6. Diagnostics of the structural model.
Personality trait factors
Narcissism
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to experience
Internal Locus of control
External Locus of control
Innovation
Efficiency
Type
R2
Communality
Redundancy
AVE
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Exogenous
Endogenous
Endogenous
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.209
0.500
0.288
0.647
0.421
0.642
0.481
0.366
0.345
0.459
1.000
0.607
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.209
0.304
0.288
0.647
0.421
0.642
0.481
0.366
0.345
0.459
1.000
0.607
14
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
The entrepreneur also exhibits several other traits that influence the ability to adjust emotional
states to changing situations and to remain calm and focus in stressful circumstances and events
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1997). Indeed, the findings show
that irritability (neuroticism) and fatalism (external locus of control) strongly characterize this
aspect of the psychological profile of the entrepreneur, influencing ineluctably mental and behavioural processes and determine individual forms of entrepreneurial experience and action.
Going beyond description, the results for conscientiousness, with its descriptive factors such as
sure of myself, efficient, and organized, indicate the relevance of this personality trait within the
mentioned combination by highlighting that entrepreneurs tend to be hardworking and persevering (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Ciavarella et al., 2004). According to Timmons (1989). Their perseverance, total dedication, and drive to succeed as an entrepreneur allow them to overcome obstacles,
challenges and setbacks, by taking control and assuming responsibility for strategic projects and
activities (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010). Conscientiousness, as a composite personality dimension
that includes an achievement orientation and dependability (Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae &
Costa, 1997), shows that tourism entrepreneurs are individuals with a need for control and concrete
feedback on their actions, while following norms and rules, and planning and prioritizing tasks
(Zhao & Seibert, 2006). This result is consistent with Stewart and Roth (2007), confirming that an
achievement orientation is a prominent characteristic of entrepreneurs, in particular of entrepreneurs who are the founders of their business and who are concretely oriented toward the
growth of their entrepreneurial initiatives. Specifically, ‘high achievers feel a strong need to take
responsibility for doing things immediately’ (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010, p. 1053), by preferring
situations in which performance is due to the effectiveness of their efforts and commitment
rather than other factors.
Paradoxically, analysing the results obtained for conscientiousness and external locus reveals the
existence of a particular ‘contradiction’ because tourism entrepreneurs seem to be more fatalist (with
an external locus-of-control personality trait), even though they describe themselves as able to work
harder, be well-organized, responsible and achievement-oriented. Indeed, tourism entrepreneurs
attribute the outcomes of their activities to chance, luck or fate, as under the control of powerful
others, or as unpredictable because of the complexity of the forces surrounding them. This may
be explained in part by the fact that demand for tourism experiences is significantly influenced by
the marketing and promotional policies and programs of government and destination management
organizations that are not controlled by individual tourism businesses even though they are clearly
important stakeholders (Sheehan & Ritchie, 2005). For this reason, these entrepreneurs may decrease
their internal personal effort in certain situations where they perceive that their abilities to effect
change are limited (Wijbenga & Witteloostuijn, 2007).
A further result indicates an influence of some personality traits on the efficiency and innovation
capacity indicating the existence of relationships among the investigated personality traits and the
related components. Firstly, the analysis suggests that the efficiency construct, defined as the
capacity of entrepreneurs to plan and organize in advance, is mainly related to an internal locus of
control, conscientiousness, narcissism, and neuroticism, meaning that those positively affect the
way entrepreneurs plan and organize their activities to achieve performance.
The innovation construct, defined as the capacity to generate innovation, is only positively linked
to attractive (narcissism). Interestingly, entrepreneurs exhibiting the narcissist personality trait believe
they are special, charismatic and unique, more intelligent and attractive – all factors that are linked to
their visionary and their innovative qualities (Goncalo et al., 2010). At the same time, extraversion
(being outgoing and friendly) is found to be negatively related to both efficiency and innovation,
implying that tourism entrepreneurs who are dominant in social situations perform worse inside
their firm. Furthermore, entrepreneurs with an external locus of control tend to be less creative,
visionary and, subsequently innovators (Miller, 2011) because they believe themselves to be
passive actors, facing uncontrollable external forces that determine the firm’s success.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
15
Conclusion
This paper investigated the personality and psychological traits of start-up entrepreneurs in the
tourism industry. The study findings are based on the analysis of a sample of eighty-nine Italian
tourism start-up entrepreneurs.
Even though it is of great importance in a multitude of contexts, tourism literature remains arguably underdeveloped regarding the personality and psychological traits of start-up tourism entrepreneurs. This research has shed new light on the topic and so doing has contributed several specific
findings relevant in both theoretical and managerial domains.
From a theoretical perspective, the findings confirm much of the existing knowledge from the
entrepreneurship literature regarding personality traits in the tourism context. At the same time, it
also reveals how tourism entrepreneurs exhibit an original, curious and complex combination of
all personality traits making the study of entrepreneurs in the tourism context of particular interest.
From a managerial perspective, the findings reveal a complex mix of characteristics that successful
tourism entrepreneurs possess. This is highly relevant for policymakers as well as for universities and
others involved in training future entrepreneurs. A better understanding of the main traits and precursors of successful entrepreneurs’ behaviours will support the development of more incisive
support policies and training interventions.
Even though this study advances the existing literature connecting tourism start-up entrepreneurs’ personality traits with innovation and efficiency behaviour, it has certain limitations. Firstly,
the sample start-up entrepreneurs are exclusively Italian, which limits the study’s generalizability
to other countries. Mueller and Thomas (2001, p. 52) found that national culture influences the potential for entrepreneurship across countries. Similar studies in other country settings would improve
generalizability and reveal any important country or cultural differences.
Secondly, the study applies a quantitative approach by highlighting relevant relationships among
the investigated items. While this a useful and necessary first step, it does not provide a deeper
understanding of the findings. In this respect, a future study employing a method that mixes quantitative and qualitative analyses could complement the present findings. Such a study could increase
the quality of the analysis, add understandings that could be verified through thematic analysis,
improve the dependability of the findings, provide context and visual output for reporting.
More specifically, several new unanswered questions merit further and deeper analysis. For
example, research is required to better understand the specific external factors beyond the entrepreneur that are most important in influencing the entrepreneur’s behaviour. The first step in this regard
could be based on a qualitative analysis of the perspective of tourism entrepreneurs on the topic. This
knowledge could advance a better understanding of the tourism entrepreneur and the tourism
business ecosystem.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., & Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87.
Ahmad, S. Z. (2015). Entrepreneurship in the small and medium-sized hotel sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 18(4),
328–349.
Alsos, G. A., Eide, D., & Madsen, E. L. (2014). Handbook of research on innovation in tourism industries. In G. A. Alsos, D.
Eide, & E. L. Madsen (Eds.), Introduction: Innovation in tourism industries (pp. 1–26). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Altinay, L., Madanoglu, M., Daniele, R., & Lashley, C. (2012). The influence of family tradition and psychological traits on
entrepreneurial intention. International Journal Hospitality Management, 31, 489–499.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA:
American Psychiatric Publishing.
16
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.
Ateljevic, J., & Li, L. (2009). Tourism entrepreneurship. Concepts and issues. In J. Ateljevic & L. Li (Eds.), Tourism and entrepreneurship. International Perspectives (pp. 9–31). Oxford: Elsevier.
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving, and improvisational competency
in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255–276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.
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.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium:
What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30.
Baum, J. R., & Locke, E. A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture
growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598.
Becker, G. S. (1992). The economic way of looking at life. Nobel Prize in Economics documents, Nobel Prize Committee.
Retrieved from: www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/becker-lecture.pdf
Belbin, M. (1981). Management teams, why they succeed or fail. London: Heinemann.
Benson, M. J., & Campbell, J. P. (2007). To be, or not to be linear: An expanded representation of personality and its
relationship to leadership performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 232–249.
Bhide, A. (1992). Bootstrap finance: The art of start-ups. Harvard Business Review, 70, 109–117.
Blair, C. A., Hoffman, B. J., & Helland, K. R. (2008). Narcissism in organizations: A multisource appraisal reflects different
perspectives. Human Performance, 21, 254–276.
Boone, C., Brabander, B., & Witteloostujn, A. (1996). Ceo locus of control and small firm performance: An integrative framework and empirical test. Journal of Management Studies, 33(5), 667–700.
Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(3), 222–230.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Psychological and environmental factors which distinguish the successful from the unsuccessful
entrepreneur: A longitudinal study. In Academy of management proceedings (pp. 368–372). Briarcliff Manor, NY:
Academy of Management.
Buttner, E. H., & Gryskiewicz, N. (1993). Entrepreneurs’ problem-solving styles: An empirical study using the Kirton adaption/innovation theory. Journal of Small Business Management, 31, 22–22.
Carmichael, B. A., & Morrison, A. (2011). Researching tourism entrepreneurship: Multiple worldviews, voices, and truths.
Tourism Planning and Development, 8(2), 115–227.
Chang, J. J., Hung, K. P., & Lin, M. J. J. (2014). Knowledge creation and new product performance: The role of creativity.
R&D Management, 44(2), 107–123.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company
strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 351–386.
Cheng, C.-K., Li, X., Petrick, J. F., & O’Leary, J. T. (2011). An examination of tourism journal development. Tourism
Management, 32(1), 53–61.
Chin, W. Y. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. L. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study.
Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Choi, Y. R., & Shepherd, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurs’ decisions to exploit opportunities. Journal of Management, 30(3),
377–395.
Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stokes, G. S. (2004). The Big Five and venture survival: Is
there a linkage?. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 465–483.
Corbetta, G. (2011). Imprenditorialità e aziende dell’Italian style. Sinergie, 71, 53–72.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Discriminant validity of neo-phi facet scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58,
67–78.
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interest in an adult sample. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 69, 390–400.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of personality traits and subjective well-being.
Psychology Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
do Valle, P. O., & Assaker, G. (2016). Using partial least squares structural equation modeling in tourism research: A review
of past research and recommendations for future applications. Journal of Travel Research, 55(6), 695–708.
Dyer, W. G., & Handler, W. (1994). Entrepreneurship and family business: Exploring the connections. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 19, 71–83.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
17
Ebben, J. J. (2009). Bootstrapping and the financial condition of small firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research, 15(4), 346–363.
Foxall, G. R., & Payne, A. F. (1989). Adaptors and innovators in organizations: A cross-cultural study of the cognitive styles
of managerial functions and subfunctions. Human Relations, 42(7), 639–649.
Frese, M., Chell, E., & Klandt, H. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurship. Introduction, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 3–6.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 32–58.
Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 371–391.
Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived
creativity, and creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1484–1495.
Green, J., & Binsardi, B. (2015). Entrepreneurial intentions: A grounded theory of green-fielding. Sinergie, 33(97), 17–36.
Grijalva, E., & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 108–126.
Groenewegen, G., & de Langen, F. (2012). Critical success factors of the survival of start-ups with a radical innovation.
Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 2(3), 155–171.
Gudergan, S. P., Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of
Business Research, 61(12), 1238–1249.
Gurel, E., Altinay, L., & Daniele, R. (2010). Tourism students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3),
646–669.
Hair, J. F. J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLSSEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
Hall, A. (2012). Top characteristics of successful entrepreneurs: Larry Levy, Kellogg School of Management, Weighs. In. Forbes.
Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanhall/2012/10/24/top-characteristics-ofsuccessful-entrepreneurslarry-levy-kellog-school-of-management-weighs-in/#2ecb32291ac7
Hammer, M., & Hershman, L. (2010). Faster, cheaper, better: The 9 levers for transforming how work gets done. New York:
Crown Business.
Hazen, B. T., Overstreet, R. E., & Boone, C. (2015). Suggested reporting guidelines for structural equation modeling in
supply chain management research. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 26(3), 627–641.
Hjalager, A. M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1–12.
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 100–112.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 129–144.
Humphreys, J. H., Haden, S. P., Novicevic, M. M., Clayton, R. W., & Gibson, J. W. (2011). Lillian McMurry of trumpet records:
Integrity and authenticity in the charismatic, constructive narcissist leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 18(1), 40–55.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(6), 869–879.
Jaafar, M., Abdul-Aziz, R. A., Maideen, S. A., & Mohd, Z. S. (2011). Entrepreneurship in the tourism industry: Issues in developing countries. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 827–835.
Jóhannesson, G. T., Huijbens, E., & Sharpley, R. (2010). Icelandic tourism: Past directions – future challenges. Tourism
Geographies, 12(2), 278–301.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86
(12), 51–59.
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–670.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.
Julian, C. C., & Terjesen, S. (2006). Entrepreneurial aspirations-a five country study. Proceedings of the 11th Annual
Conference of Asia Pacific decision Sciences Institute, June 2006.
Katongole, C., Ahebwa, W. M., & Kawere, R. (2013). Enterprise success and entrepreneur’s personality traits: An analysis of
micro- and small-scale women-owned enterprises in Uganda’s tourism industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 13
(3), 166–177.
Koh, H. C. (1996). Testing hypotheses of entrepreneurial characteristics: A study of Hong Kong MBA students. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 11(3), 12–25.
Lefcourt, H. M. (2014). Locus of control: Current trends in theory & research. New York: Psychology Press.
Leonelli, S., Ceci, F., & Masciarelli, F. (2016). The importance of entrepreneurs’ traits in explaining start-ups’ innovativeness.
Sinergie, 34(101), 71–85.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Li, L. (2008). A review of entrepreneurship research published in the hospitality and tourism management journals.
Tourism Management, 29(5), 1013–1022.
18
A. PRESENZA ET AL.
Llewellyn, D. J., & Wilson, K. M. (2003). The controversial role of personality traits in entrepreneurial psychology. Education
+ Training, 45(6), 341–345.
Marcati, A., Guido, G., & Peluso, A. M. (2008). The role of SME entrepreneurs’ innovativeness and personality in the adoption of innovations. Research Policy, 37(9), 1579–1590.
Mathieu, C., & St-Jean, É. (2013). Entrepreneurial personality: The role of narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(5), 527–531.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). Achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Company.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(3), 219–233.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5),
509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social
skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving
interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2-3), 145–165.
Mueller, S. L., & Thomas, A. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and
innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51–55.
Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. O. L. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the
Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in family
firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.
Nevicka, B., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Beersma, B., & McIlwain, D. (2011). All I need is a stage to shine:
Narcissists’ leader emergence and performance. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 910–925.
Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 259–282.
Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., & Cabrera, R. V. (2011). The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation
influences innovation generation and adoption. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(5), 555–571.
Pinto, J. K., & Patanakul, P. (2015). When narcissism drives project champions: A review and research agenda. International
Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1180–1190.
Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy. International Regional Science
Review, 19(1-2), 85–90.
Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16, 353–385.
Reboredo, J. C. (2004). A note on efficiency and solvency in banking. Applied Economics Letters, 11(3), 183–185.
Rodriguez-Sanchez, I., Williams, A. M., & Brotons, M. (2019). The innovation journey of new-to-tourism entrepreneurs.
Current Issues in Tourism, 22(8), 877–903.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship
between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1078–1086.
Rothamann, S., & Coetzer, E. (2003). The big five personality dimensions and job performance. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 29(1), 68–74.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28.
Salimath, M. S., & Jones, R. J. (2011). Scientific entrepreneurial management: Bricolage. Bootstrapping, and the Quest for
Efficiencies. Journal of Business and Management, 17(1), 85–103.
Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modeling with R. Online at http://www.gastonsanchez.com
Sarasvathy, S. (2008). Effectuation – Elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1946). John Maynard Keynes 1883-1946. American Economic Review, 36(4), 495–518.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Press.
Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3),
364–381.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: Exploring identity and salience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(3), 711–734.
CURRENT ISSUES IN TOURISM
19
Solvoll, S., Alsos, G. A., & Bulanova, O. (2015). Tourism entrepreneurship – review and future directions. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(sup.1), 120–137.
Stewart, W. H., Jr, & Roth, P. L. (2007). A meta‐analysis of achievement motivation differences between entrepreneurs and
managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 45(4), 401–421.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper Brothers.
Tenenhausa, M., Esposito Vinzia, V., Chatelinc, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data
Analysis, 48, 159–205.
Thomas, A. S., & Mueller, S. L. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture. Journal
of International Business Studies, 31, 287–301.
Timmons, J. A. (1989). The entrepreneurial mind. Andover, MA: Brick House Publishing.
Utsch, A., & Rauch, A. (2000). Innovativeness and initiative as mediators between achievement orientation and venture
performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 45–62.
Viken, A., & Aarsaether, N. (2013). Transforming an iconic attraction into a diversified destination: The case of North Cape
tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13(1), 38–54.
Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2013). In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism, entrepreneurial orientation, and
firm performance variance. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1041–1069.
Wijbenga, F. H., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2007). Entrepreneurial locus of control and competitive strategies–The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(5), 566–589.
Yusof, M., Sandhu, M. S., & Jain, K. K. (2007). Relationship between psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial inclination: A case study of students at University Tun Abdul Razak (Unitar). Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and
Sustainability, 3(2), 23–41.
Zhang, J. (2009). Exploring drivers in the adoption of mobile commerce in China. The Journal of the American Academy of
Business, 15(1), 64–69.
Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The relationship of personality to entrepreneurial intentions and performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(2), 381–404.