On the Interdisciplinary Origin of Entrepreneurial Action and Foresight

Travail de Recherche , 2024 , 123 Pages

Gestion d'entreprise - Direction d'entreprise, Management, Organisation

This paper delves into the complex realm of entrepreneurial action and foresight, seeking to answer the fundamental question of how entrepreneurs navigate the unpredictable landscape of business. Acknowledging that traditional business economics alone cannot fully address this question, the study embarks on an interdisciplinary journey, drawing insights from personality psychology, biology, genetics, and neurosciences. Through this interdisciplinary lens, the research explores the innate traits and learned competencies that differentiate successful entrepreneurs from others. By synthesizing insights from various disciplines, the study sheds light on why some entrepreneurs possess a greater ability to anticipate future trends and capitalize on opportunities. While recognizing the limitations of such research, particularly in capturing the multifaceted nature of entrepreneurial behavior, the study aims to offer practical implications for assessing entrepreneurial potential in business start-ups and succession planning. Ultimately, the research underscores the importance of shifting focus from traditional business metrics to the individual entrepreneur in understanding and fostering entrepreneurial success.

Preface

Some entrepreneurs have a ‘famous’ name by their creation of well sounded company empires, based on a big knowledge and a big providence, and perhaps sometimes also with some luck. You can say: these people had an entrepreneurial success in their life and have got - not at least by forward-looking acting - some ‘entrepreneurial magnitude’. Perhaps, these people have something special. Something like an ‘entrepreneurial gene’, giving to them a worth mentioning place in the economic history concerning to their entrepreneurial talents.

Obviously, most of the entrepreneurial acting people must live without such a story of success. But however, they also very often have an economic success, achieve profits, keep their enterprises in stable positions on the markets; develop new ideas, managing their enterprises with a huge entrepreneurial foresight. And that all very oftentimes over the period of divers generations. So, there remains the question for the ‘entrepreneurial gene’ of these people, and if this gene has another character as that of the preceding mentioned very important persons. Because otherwise, over the time a lot of entrepreneurs would be the leaders of similar big economical companies as those at the beginning named people.

It gets somehow obvious that ‘being an entrepreneur’ is not the same as ‘being an entrepreneur’, that there are apparently differences which give to the one entrepreneur on a wondrous manner the competence, to hurry up to bigger horizons than other entrepreneurs are able to.

With this, there arises the idea that entrepreneurs perhaps have different abilities to be entrepreneurs. The leading thought is coming out that different abilities bring out different entrepreneurial actions. If so, there must be starting points, making recognizable why the one entrepreneur doesn’t act in the same way as the other one, and why the one entrepreneur with his acting has a bigger success - or perhaps more failure - as the other entrepreneur. The obtruding question by this is, how entrepreneurial acting comes into the world , to make explainable why there are so different stories of entrepreneurial success and entrepreneurial disappointment.

Being an entrepreneur, also means being able, to always look a little bit into the entrepreneurial future, to orient oneself towards those things which will get some relevance tomorrow for holding the enterprise on the market. By this, being an entrepreneur also means to recognize by forward-looking perception enterprise related chances and risks and to apply the entrepreneurial action to them. Demanded is the ability to act forward-looking – with entrepreneurial providence. To this, obviously not all entrepreneurs are able to, because otherwise there would be less breakdowns of enterprises. In this sense, the credit protection union from 1870 in Austria had in August 2016 the heading: “Reasons for insolvency 2015: Every second enterprise fails on its executive suite” and so points out a lack of an urgently necessary commercial farsightedness, as well as a lacking surveillance of the economy, of offers and demands, interest and costs, etc. (Kreditschutzverband von 1870).

Thereby, the question arises where this entrepreneurial providence is anchored in the entrepreneurial personality,how this ability for entrepreneurial providence- which must discharge into an (successful) entrepreneurial acting - comes into the world .

The research for explaining the origin of entrepreneurial action, and with this also of entrepreneurial providence can bring out an essential understanding why entrepreneurs are acting in that way, they do.

A little input to this theme, will bring out this paper by bringing together interdisciplinary bricks from which entrepreneurial acting and entrepreneurial prevision are loaded. It will be shown which projections of explanation by the business economics are given by themselves, and in how far - respectively which - interdisciplinary (genetic, neuro-biologic, psychologic) bricks are needed for a well-grounded attempt to explain. Just bricks which make it explainable, why the fulfilment of by the business economics formulated requirement of competencesto a successful entrepreneur, are dependent on his deepest own personality-and why by this the capability for entrepreneurial acting and entrepreneurial providence differs from entrepreneur to entrepreneur.

So, this paper shows (of course not exhausting) bricks which may give indications if somebody is able to be an entrepreneur or if he is not. By this, the paper brings out a contribution for the judgement about the potential entrepreneurial ability in cases of founding new enterprises, as well as a contribution to the judgement about successors in enterprises, and people who want to get a leadership position in the business world.

Contents

Preface...1

1 Introduction to a complex topic...5

1.1 Guide to the topic and explanatory notes about the basis to work with the theme...6

1.2. Relevant elements for the research about entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight and the configuration of research...8

2 The business economic way to entrepreneurial action and foresight – it’s borders and reflections about an interdisciplinary demand...9

2.1 Business economic entrepreneurial functions and the positioning of the entrepreneur...9

2.1.1 Presentation of the entrepreneurial functions...9

2.1.2 The importance of the entrepreneur for doing the entrepreneurial functions...12

2.2 Awareness as action parameter by doing the entrepreneurial functions...14

2.2.1 The contents of awareness concerning insecurity, uncertainty, and risk...15

2.2.2 Ways to win insight...17

2.3 Possible tools for winning and combining insights by perception in the sense of entrepreneurial foresight and the borders of insightgains...23

2.3.1 Strategic foresight in the light of seizing and reconfiguring...25

2.3.2 Entrepreneurial perception by sensing...26

2.3.3 Borders of insight-gains...29

2.4 The personality of the entrepreneur as promotor of perception and generator of entrepreneurial action and foresight for doing the entrepreneurial functions...31

2.4.1 Business economic demands on the entrepreneurial personality...32

2.4.2 The deficiency of business-economic demands on the entrepreneurial personality...39

2.4.3 Interdisciplinary extension of the research-field about the expectations on an entrepreneurial and foresight convenient acting entrepreneurial person by doing the entrepreneurial functions...41

2.5. The interdisciplinary research-question about the becoming of entrepreneurial foresight-leaded acting...43

2.6 To interdisciplinarity: The person-related character of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight - the individual personality as a core-determinant...44

3 Interdisciplinary the personality constructing bricks as fundament of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight...48

3.1 Personality-differences as indication for different human (entrepreneurial) acting...52

3.1.1 Personality differences in the sector of abilities and competences...53

3.1.2 Personality differences in the emotional-cognitive sector...60

3.1.3. Personality-differences in the sector of social behaviour...68

3.1.4. Supposed psychological requirements to the with foresight acting entrepreneur on basis of the presented personality differences...72

3.2 Personality as flow of personality educating determinants...74

3.2.1 Psychological personality-traits on basis of the ‘Big-Five’ personality-dimensions...76

3.2.2 The self-concept and its meaning...85

3.3 The convertibility of the (entrepreneurial) person...89

4 Entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight on a common economical and interdisciplinary basis...92

4.1 Business-economic competences and interdisciplinary contents about the personality on a common platform...94

4.1.1 The balance about differences in the personality with business-economical postulated demands on the successful and foresight-oriented entrepreneur...96

4.1.2 Business-economical competence-demands and the dimensions of personality (‘Big Five’)...103

4.1.3 Business economical competence-requirements and the self-concept...105

4.2 The foresight-factor inside the entrepreneurial personality...107

5 In a nutshell: Final Comments...109

Reference list...111

1 Introduction to a complex topic

This script is the research about how entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight comes into the world – the research question. It can be shown that this is not a question being solvable by the business economics itself – much more the business economics silently work with facts which stem from other sciences. Other scientific disciplines help giving an answer on the at the very beginning named research question on a very wide scale. That is the reason why the research got the title:

On the interdisciplinary origin of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight

Besides the economics will be jumped into the field of the personality psychology, the biology, the genetics, the neurosciences. So will be made a trial giving minimum an attempt of explanation why entrepreneurs act as they do and why some entrepreneurs have the chance looking into the future with more success than others.

The complexity of this theme touches not only in the field of a scientific research. It is not a theme which can be developed from the sciences alone. How should the sciences from alone experience and explain why so many new business start-ups fail, why the heir taking-over in the company succession cannot be the right person for the job. And why completely different reasons can be important for filling a managerial position in a company than just excellent professional training.

The reason coming a little bit nearer to this problematic - by the way the here in this paper now demanded question stems from the consulting-practice of much more than 1000 company start-ups - is having awareness for that what in the entrepreneurial practice happens and developing so the here formulated research questions, the sciences may perhaps find an answer on. It will be shown that awareness and perception are core ingredients for entrepreneurial action and foresight.

This paper is a monograph that was developed from a by the author in the past hermeneutically designed work and therefore only illuminates the purely scientific part of the topic.

The paper has a classical structure: after a necessary in-depth introduction (chapter 1) three chapters touch about actual topic: entrepreneurial action on an economic view (chapter 2), entrepreneurial action on an interdisciplinary view (chapter 3), economic and interdisciplinary results on a common basis (chapter 4). The final comments (chapter 5) give a short sum up. A sum up at the end of each chapter was not done because the chapters essentially show facts und no theoretical reflections with controversy discussed meanings.

Entrepreneurial action on an interdisciplinary view (chapter 3) refers to the personality research in the field of differences in the personality, personality traits and the self-concept. So, the assumption might come into the focus that “persons with personality characteristics are born that make them entrepreneurs, while others do not exhibit these personality traits. The focus is therefore on the question according to which personality traits characterize these people” (Raab 2022:31)

The study is certainly limited in its validity. This is due to the fact that the non-economic parameters of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight in their complexity could rather be touched on their surface than could actually be presented with a certain meaningfulness.

Nevertheless, tasks for practice should arise from such a study, e.g.: the creation of simple assessment bases which, when assessing a new business start-up, do not put the business plan in the foreground as is usual today, but put the focus of the assessment on the person who want to run the business.

1.1 Guide to the topic and explanatory notes about the basis to work with the theme

Leading enterprises is a big task and challenge which is mostly not comparable with spontaneously practiced actions of every day in the human life. It is rather needed a much more holistic long-term orientation. This is an orientation which must show the past and the future, which must consider uncertainness and discontinuities, which must bring out alternative futures and choices, and with this show this fact which is named by Victor Tiberius (2011:13) with the ‘term of forecast’. That is why in the center of a prospective entrepreneurial action is “not the foreknowledge[…] but the forecast (English: foresight, French: prévoyance). Forecasting means not to know, but it is an activity with the end of which, we can know what canhappen […], and not what will happen” (Tiberius 2011:46).

That is why to uncover the facts, how these thoughts of such a forecast can be integrated into the economic thought patterns of entrepreneurial action. It must be spread out which economic nutrient medium exists, to practice entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial forecast, which questions come out concerning entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial forecast - we will call from here ‘entrepreneurial foresight’ - and in how far fields of interdisciplinary sciences can give an answer on this, to formulate and to substantiate research-questions about the origin and the design of entrepreneurial foresight as one aspect of entrepreneurial action, and the origin of entrepreneurial action itself.

The reason to work with this object of investigation is to argue as following: The by the doctrine about the entrepreneurial functions concretized concept of research about the ‘reduction of income-insecurities’, reasoned by getting an income to every person gives the task “[…] to deal with uncertainness by income acquiring, based on the individual knowledge, the individual labour force and the individual other capabilities“ (Schneider 1995:31). By this, - by Schneider not more specified - is identifiable that besides the input of labour force there must also be some knowledge and ‘other capabilities’, (skills, potentials), and that - by turning away from the homo oeconomicus model - there is unsureness. The cognition or non-cognition of unsureness brings out the ability on the one - or inability on the other side, to have entrepreneurial foresight and successful entrepreneurial action, or to have not. The ability to recognize or not to recognize depends on the aspect of perception. But this very high level of abstraction doesn’t open the door for explanations, how this ‘knowledge’ and ‘other capabilities’ are specified; much less how they are coming into the world. For this reason, there is a need for explanation. Because, doing the entrepreneurial functions needs human action, and the handling of uncertainty needs human perception and foresight.

The turning to a personwho is doing the entrepreneurial functions is indispensable by person’s making his/her action and his/her decisions in the entrepreneurial functions explainable. This particularly under the aspect, that the orientation of entrepreneurial decisions is notsolely shaped by the economic principle, but that under the aspect of behavioural-science perspectives there is also the question, howthe act of human choices is created in fact (Schneider 1997:18).

This inclusion of - by behavioural-science perspectives (behavioural biology, psychology) shaped - explanatory arguments into a decision-oriented argumentation makes the interdisciplinary field of research for the meaning of ‘doing the entrepreneurial functions’ more visible. It brings perhaps out in an interdisciplinary research field, what it does mean to act with the basis of knowledge, individual labour force and individual capabilities, to deal with insecurity by earning the income. And this turn to explanation approaches, gives a concretion to which extent perhaps there are by the business economics notexplainable parameters which influence the definition of the word ‘entrepreneur’ – a definition which is done by Schneider (1995:32) as a name for the particular characteristics which “[…] are attributed to persons in a theory about the human living together”.

This consideration brings out - also nurtured by non-economic fields – the importance of the human person ‘entrepreneur’, in that role this person has as practitioner in the entrepreneurial functions.

This is the basis – and perhaps the scientific additional value of this paper - for a try to open the door to other disciplines like for instance the psychology, in terms of the high level of abstraction which the doctrine of the entrepreneurial functions has. Such a try to work with interdisciplinary methods of resolution, is not new in the business economics – think on the psychological perceptions in the sector of marketing, or the sector of the human resources department. That is why it is wise to open the - till now more closed - door also a little bit in questions of the entrepreneurial functions, and to scrutinize how the person, the human must be constructed , to act with success in the entrepreneurial functions.

The interdisciplinary complexity the theme brings out, is the inevitable fact to work and to argue with an indeed limited but nevertheless mentionable number of different pillars of argumentation - ‘constructs’. This, by opening the door a little bit, which is signed by Schneider (1995:31) concerning the humans (entrepreneurs) as ‘input of knowledge, labour force and ‘other capabilities’. These pillars of argumentation are:

- entrepreneurial business economic competence and the thoughts (constructs) which bring out this competence

- the in the psychology of personality anchored differences in the human personality

- personal differences of behaviour under the aspect of the so called ‘Big-Five’ behavioural dimensions of the human personality

- the body of thought about the human self-concept

The three last-mentioned pillars of argumentation are meaning the personality of a human (the entrepreneur) and they are connected amongst another, as later will be visible.

So, the way is designed. Humans are acting in a different way by doing the entrepreneurial functions. And there must be reasons for this. That is why to determine the real existing circumstances about the becoming of entrepreneurial foresight in theoreticalway as well as in a practical way.

The experiment at hand to get by research as close as possible to the question about the origin of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, is done to contribute to a later (in another step) development of tools, to prognosticate and to test in a reliable way the existence of a successful entrepreneurial action and of entrepreneurial foresight.

1.2. Relevant elements for the research about entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight and the configuration of research

Necessary for the research wanted as deep as possible are a clear structure how to act and to proceed with the theme. So, first of all are standing all those from the interdisciplinary sciences as necessary filtered out facts in the foreground which may be elements for the explanation of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight. So, a theoretical fundament perhaps can be spread out which then will be the ground for a comparison with the reality of “daily life” – which always happens without having a theoretical background in mind.

Starting with the entrepreneurial functions and their practice of doing by the entrepreneur, there is to carve out the question for the becoming of individual-related entrepreneurial awareness as target of action, by doing the entrepreneurial functions. This question is combined with the questions about tools, by which awareness for entrepreneurial foresight and for entrepreneurial action can be created.

Thus, first of all the business economic personality of the entrepreneur is in the focus - with the by this person supposed competences for their business economic successful action - as the promotor of knowledge acquisition, and with this as the ‘generator’ of entrepreneurial foresight. This business economic entrepreneurial personality is critical to go through with a fine-tooth comb, also in a to substantiate interdisciplinary method of approach

This critical analysis means: Finding out facts in an interdisciplinary field, giving hints and explanations from outside of the business economics, how the presented business economic entrepreneurial demanded personality is formed, constructed, and influenced.

Here, the theoretical research will be about the differences in the personality. Beside personality differences in the sector of a) abilities and competences, there is to differ in b) the emotional cognitive sector and c) the sector of social behaviour (Weber and Rammsayer 2005:321 ff.). There are manifold different singular aspects which must be shown as ‘influencers’ by the influence on entrepreneurial action. Effects of the genetic heritage, neuro-scientific facts, the binding-experiences in the early childhood and youth, etc. will play a role.

Under the label ‘the Big Five dimensions’ must be named the factors (description-dimensions of personality): neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness (for experiences). These are personality-traits, “[…] being in parts caused genetical or by the development of the brain, in other parts patterned early infantile, and being stabilized in their individual specificity early” (Roth 2013:32). Under neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness again are summarized lots of singular traits, influencing the business-entrepreneurial personality.

The last here nearer researched brick having a possible influence on the business entrepreneurial action and foresight is the so named self-concept. The self-concept means “[…] the entirety of evaluation concerning the own person” (Mummendey 2006:25). Here too are a lot of different factors by which entrepreneurs and with this entrepreneurial action can differ.

At the end, there is a trial to bring together in form of a balance the business economic demands of the entrepreneurial personality with interdisciplinary found out facts how the entrepreneur should be. This trial has not the approach to be somehow a model, but perhaps it can be the origin for the research further on.

2 The business economic way to entrepreneurial action and foresight – it’s borders and reflections about an interdisciplinary demand

The basis for a tentative explanation about the preceding presented why-question is – beginning with the doctrine of the entrepreneurial functions as a very high degree of abstraction of entrepreneurial action - the engagement with the person of the entrepreneur in general (representative the three presented protagonists), the question about the gain of insight by the person of the entrepreneur, the significance of the phenomenon of perception, and the demand of business economic requirements on the person of the entrepreneur.

2.1 Business economic entrepreneurial functions and the positioning of the entrepreneur

“According to the action theory process model of entrepreneurship, action is the key success factor in entrepreneurship. All other psychological or contextual factors influence entrepreneurial performance indirectly through action or moderate the effect of action on entrepreneurial performance” (Saladaňa-Lugo 2023:139).

Showing entrepreneurial action, is until today closely linked with doing the . already multiple mentioned - entrepreneurial functions. This is particularly evident in the professional literature of Schneider (1995:33), who - without going inside this - works out three entrepreneurial functions. Ment are the functions describing the original line of action of an entrepreneur: “ (a) the occasionally adoption of income precariousness of other persons as the institution constituting entrepreneurial function, b) searching for arbitrage profits and speculative gains as information from outside getting function, and (c) enforcing of changes as the institution preserving function inside the organisation”. With this, Schneider (2011:60) defines the term ‘entrepreneur’ in the sense of the theory about the singular economics of the institutions as something like a name or a function indication for those, who are doing inside the theory about the human living together particular (entrepreneurial) tasks.

Beginning with this situation there is to scrutinize which position entrepreneurial functions have in the business economics today; where the entrepreneur as stakeholder in the entrepreneurial functions is to be found, and how he can practice the entrepreneurial functions: that means, which insights and which tools he needs to do this job.

2.1.1 Presentation of the entrepreneurial functions

As proclaimed by Freiling and Wessels (2010:324): „ The insufficient and not on the situation adopted practice of singular entrepreneurial functions effectuates […] by a limitation of competitiveness a process into the direction of entrepreneurial failure”. This should be a hint to deal more intensive with the essence of the entrepreneurial functions. Not in vain, Freiling (2008:45) brings out the question about the “nucleus of entrepreneurial thinking and entrepreneurial action”, and with this, shades more open as Schneider: “who - as Freiling writes (2008:45) - is doing the entrepreneurial functions, constitutes the reason for the formation and the preservation of enterprises over the time”.

But Freiling as well as Schneider emphasize the overriding importance of entrepreneurial functions as those, behind which the entrepreneur as practitioner seems to appear in the background in a sense as formulated by Hering and Vincenti (2008:32): “In the sense of a functional definition, in principle the entrepreneur as practitioner is initially viewed as that businessperson, which executes certain entrepreneurial functions”. That is correspondent with the by Schneider (1995:32) made statement: “The role, the entrepreneur plays in the singular theory of economics, gets the name ‘practicing entrepreneurial functions’ “.

Like Schneider, also Freiling means that enterprises can only come successful on the market and can exist with success on the market, if there is a tuned interaction between the entrepreneurial functions. So, the view of Schneider (1997:55) is in the foreground, who defines the term ‘enterprise’ as a name “for processes in the enterprise, put in order by the structure of the enterprise and it’s regulars”.

Freiling (2008:47 f.) explains the entrepreneurial functions on the by Schneider done basis as following, and with this, he purports the frame how the entrepreneurial functions should be understood in this script: There are in the enterprise three big task areas by which an enterprise as a system of productive potentials can be indicated. These are the task areas: system renewing, system usage and system validation. Behind these task areas are each standing entrepreneurial functions, how they are visible in the following figure 1. That are the functions of innovation, coordination, arbitrage, and risk management.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 1: Classification of the entrepreneurial functions in the context of the formation of an enterprise
Source: Freiling 2006:91

From these four shown entrepreneurial functions, the innovation function serves to the system renewing, to make the enterprise infrastructural capable of competing at any time, best case also to bring new things cutting-edge on the market (Freiling 2008:48).

The coordination function and the arbitrage function are related to the system usage. The coordination function refers to the process inside the enterprise, including the cooperation partners. “The internal coordination refers to the processes of creating goods and services, and with this, secures the smoothly process. Above all, the coordination function serves to develop the motivational potentials of the enterprise” (Freiling 200:48).

The arbitrage function doesn’t look at the internal process of the enterprise, but this function is oriented to the installation und the maintenance of customer relations, the preparation, and the completion of sales. “In summary, the generation, the cognition und the exploitation of opportunities of the market are allocated to the arbitrage function” (Freiling 2008:48).

By the two functions of system usage (coordination function and arbitrage function) are found out the urgently necessary perspectives of a business management in a common theoretical conception by the model of the entrepreneurial functions (Reckenfelderbäumer 2001:160).

The sector of system validation by Freiling (2008:48 f.) is signed by the entrepreneurial function of risk management. This function enables the possibility of realizing und finding out dangers by insecurity and the evaluation of these dangers. So, a judgement concerning a risk assumption and a diversification of risks should be possible.

Of course, the entrepreneurial functions are not standing isolated each for itself. They are done in an interacting way amongst another. Accordingly, Freiling (2008:49) names the term of entrepreneurship a “doing the presented entrepreneurial functions”, this with a clear hint on the component of a proactive action. The entrepreneurial functions adumbrate the ‘playing ground’ on which the entrepreneurial person is acting.

The abstraction from the personof the entrepreneur is significant, by speaking about ‘entrepreneurship’. Here, Freiling is on the same line of argumentation as Schneider. They both see the nucleus of entrepreneurial thinking and entrepreneurial action in the practice of the entrepreneurial functions. And with this, they place the person of the entrepreneur minimum not in the first row. This is particularly visible in the definition of the term ‘entrepreneur’ by Schneider (1995:31), who finds out as prescribed terminology: “Everybody is with regard to uncertainties of income acquisition an entrepreneur of his knowledge, his labour and his abilities”. And with this, in principle everybody is an entrepreneur.

With certainty, the entrepreneurial functions must be done, so that an enterprise can be run. But with this, there is no conclusionabout, in which manorthey are practiced, if they are well or bad done, what a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ practice means at all, and which are the consequences by doing the entrepreneurial functions.

Even if the doctrine of the entrepreneurial function as delineated above, puts in front the pure doctrine of the functions to those who act in the functions - namely humans -, so the question must be allowed, WHOon basis of which abilities is doing the entrepreneurial functions. Because: enterprises are not administrated by themselves, and they do not act from alone. The question WHO, the personal relation, brings out at once conspicuous features which are linked up with the high abstraction, the above standing definition of an entrepreneur brings out.

2.1.2 The importance of the entrepreneur for doing the entrepreneurial functions

Freiling (2008:45) sums up: “Similar like for von Mises, for Schneider the practice of the entrepreneurial functions is not bonded to the person of the owner-entrepreneur. It is much more making sure that in the mentioned enterprise, the entrepreneurial functions are factual done. Though, in principle all people can do such functions”.

This points out that there must be humanswho are doing the entrepreneurial functions, that these functions are not done by themselves and from alone. It is open if these humans must be owner-entrepreneurs or employed managers. The existing difference between ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘manager’ should only be mentioned in so far in dependence to Schneider (1995:32), as an owner- entrepreneur by himself does the entrepreneurial functions; but a manager is a person, the entrepreneurial functions are assigned to.

Schneider (1997:106) argues this esodic way to the person, by looking beside the preceding abstract concept of the entrepreneurship as something like an encompassing parenthesis (in the sense of Freiling), also to the singular person of the entrepreneur: “Leading a company, means persons, company management as part of their activities: corporate governance means doing the entrepreneurial functions by a company management. Every practice doing the entrepreneurial functions, needs a decision- making process as well as a process of will implementation by own action and by instructing others, to do this or that. Who is doing the entrepreneurial functions based on own decision-making and by decision implementation in the organisation of an enterprise, is leading this enterprise”.

Like this, are also the arguments of Hering and Vincenti (2008:32) by naming the entrepreneur as an economic involved person who is doing certain entrepreneurial functions.

The following figure 2 ‚entrepreneurial functions, entrepreneurship and success’ indeed shows the relation between the entrepreneurial functions and the business success, including the independent variable of the configuration level and the dependent sphere of action. However, there is no statement how a person must be constructed,to act on the configuration level in a way which brings out am minimum acceptably business success.

<> Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 2: Entrepreneurial tasks, entrepreneurship, and success
Source: Freiling 2008:49

Doubtlessly, the behind the entrepreneurial functions standing persons, can fulfil these functions good or bad, and with this, influence the sphere of action. “Like an actor, who can do the role of Hamlet good or bad, and as human can embody many or only little characteristics of that fabled Danish king, as less entrepreneurs as persons may recognize and fulfil those tasks, doing the entrepreneurial functions longs for” (Schneider 1995:32)

Ebner (2002:615) points out the entrepreneur as following: „The entrepreneur in the sense of Schumpeter is the ‘internal supporter of the variation mechanism’ of capitalistic economic activities”. And this is a very clear indication to a person. Ebner (2002:612) also writes: “Schumpeter’s theory of development describes different types of corporative actors, by which the economic process of development is signed. In the foreground is standing the entrepreneur, who’s function is as an internal incitement of development to enforce technological an organizational innovation”. With this, Schumpeter very clearly refers to the human and his action.

But Reckenfelderbäumer (2001:167) also doesn’t let the person of the entrepreneur out of consideration. This under the aspect, that he in principle abstracts the analysis of the entrepreneurial functions from the personality of the entrepreneur. But he also points out, that there is not at every time a clear separation between the entrepreneurial functions and the person and the personality of the entrepreneur: “Personal and functional aspects are very often mixed with each other. Finally, that brings out a not in real clear view about the economic importance of the entrepreneur in the market process” (Reckenfelderbäumer 2001:168).

Reckenfelderbäumer (2001:157 f.) points to the approaches of the New Austrian Economics, by which the importance of the entrepreneur in the market processes is a bigger one, and by which a relation between the competitiveness of an entrepreneur and his individual entrepreneurial abilities is constructed.

So, obviously the individual entrepreneurial abilitiesin the market process could play a role in a form, that doing the entrepreneurial functions notautomatically - as in under the headline ‘entrepreneurship’ in figure 2 presented scope of effect - brings out success but is dependent from acting persons and their individual abilities. So, there is the imperative of acting humans. This corresponds to the singular economic theory of the institutions, which do not see the knowledge and the abilities of the actor as given from outside (Reckenfelderbäumer 2001:181).

2.2 Awareness as action parameter by doing the entrepreneurial functions

A premise to act - at least consciously - is knowledge– this, to bear the decisions, actions are followed by. The term of knowledge must be understood in the sense as used by Probst et al. (2012:23): “Knowledge means the entirety of skills and abilities the persons apply for solving problems. Knowledge is supported by dates and information, but in the opposite to these, at every time knowledge is bonded on a person. Knowledge is constructed by individuals and represents their expectations about the relations between cause and effect”.

An essential precondition for entrepreneurial action, thus is to win findings, to generate
knowledge based on them; and then doing decisions on basis of valued and reflected
knowledge. This is formulated by Mandl and Hense (2004:4) more general as a demand on a society of knowledge and not only reflected on the person of the entrepreneur. They complete their arguments in the way that the singular person must be “empowered for a self-contained information search and a responsible usage of knowledge”, and with this, also an entrepreneur. With this, the entrepreneur needs insights to get by this action parameters for doing the entrepreneurial functions.

As shown, that are humans, standing behind and doing the entrepreneurial functions. It is negligible, the persons who are doing the entrepreneurial functions are owner-entrepreneurs or hired managers. As also shown, these persons need for their action and the factual practice of the entrepreneurial functions insights, which are pre-connected to the circumstance of action.

A definition about what insights (awareness) are, goes beyond the scope of this script as problems of the philosophy, related by Brülisauer (2008:22) to two groups: “The problem of the one enfolds considerations concerning the cognition about what is and what we find in the world as facts, the other enfolds considerations about what shall be, that means about how we have to behave with ourselves and with others”.

Certainly, these thoughts contain the challenge to a process of realism,which must be connected upstream by doing the entrepreneurial functions, and with this also of the entrepreneurial action: To be able to recognize and analyze an as-is state, and to deduce a possible target state about what can be - and then after the occurred analysis, acting in an entrepreneurial manor in such a way that the analysis-results influence the doing of the entrepreneurial functions . By this, the person (entrepreneur, manager, group of persons) who is demanded to notice and to analyze something, will a) come into effect with the results of analysis on the ground of the entrepreneurial functions, b) gets an important role, giving to the entrepreneurship (fig. 2) a more specific spotlight than ‘only’ doing the entrepreneurial functions.

The anticipation of a target state, concerning a real implementation in doing the entrepreneurial actions, can bear dangers. They need a proximal commentary. It is not possible to exclude these dangers, as well as a human - and with this entrepreneurial - action is at least by part the result of conscious thoughts, arising by the coalescence of necessity and freedom (Martin 2011:9).

2.2.1 The contents of awareness concerning insecurity, uncertainty, and risk

The dangers of entrepreneurial actions are justified in the fact, that there is even not a homo economicus – that player “acting own-interested (a) and with rationality (b), is maximizing his own benefit (c), is reacting on restrictions (d), has established preferences (e), possesses complete information (f)” (Franz 2004:2).

Kirchgässner (2013:17) names this picture of homo economicus as a consistently distortion, because individuals even do not act with complete information and must come to decisions. And by this fact, the complete rationality which adheres to the homo economicus, is on the testbed, because there is no complete information.

At the same time, also under the aspect of a rational action, there another fact gives substance: “The decision-making situation of a singular individual is essential described by two elements: by individual’s preferences and by restrictions” (Kirchgässner 2013:13). By this, the freedom of the action of individuals is restricted. Individuals do not know possibilities of decision making exactly, and that is why determinations how to act also are knotted with by future expectations leaded pressures (Kirchgässner 2013:13).

With this, entrepreneurial decisions are adhered with an ‘element of future expectation’. But this is an element, which even ‘only’ represents expectations. And expectations imply coaction of chances and risks. Expectations are knotted with an imperative for action: “Either you want to know what do, or to find out what to preclude” (Horn 2010:13). But in every case, that are perceptions, which trigger actions, based on the with the perceptions knotted expectations. And, by the way, also to act not is an action based on insight.

But as there is even not the complete information as to homo economicus, perceptions must be incomplete, and with this, “every intentional human behaviour is to explain as a by preferences leaded individual adaptive behaviour” (Kirchgässner 2013:18). The reason why such a behaviour bears dangers is the always incomplete information; the behaviour is based on. And such dangers - to which also underlies entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions –, can be named as insecurity, uncertainty and risk . Perceptions as an incitement of entrepreneurial action can be afflicted with dangers. And that is why, this fact is to curtail conceptual more concrete.

Following to Schneider (1995:12), insecurity is based on uncomplete knowledge. He presumes also that there is even no complete knowledge about facts, theories, expectations, and personal affinity of a homo economicus. “The term insecurity we only refer to incomplete knowledge about, which achievement of goals will come out after doing this or that action” (Schneider 1995:12). To be able to schedule entrepreneurial visions, is limited by insecurity. With this, the insecurity also is an element which must be in calculation by doing the entrepreneurial functions.

Acting in insecure areas, the entrepreneur is demanded to make decisions “as well how to act under insecurity, also as how to handle the insecurity” (Neumer 2009:6). “Insecurity by doing decisions is existent under the aspect that it is not known which of all possible wider environmental situations will occur, which consequences will have the realization of a specific chosen alternative” (Neumer 2009:9).

That’s why it is to say that as actor in the entrepreneurial functions, the entrepreneur comes to the fore. And with this, the question how he deals with insecurities, because: “But it is exactly this unformed nescience, letting appear the future as open, full of insecurities and dangers, but also full of chances and options” (Elbe 2015:13). Insecurity, the entrepreneur must overbear with the greatest possible extent, doing the entrepreneurial functions permanent with success. But this completely will never work, because particularly by the complexity of crucial correlations, insecurity never can be eliminated completely (Neumer 2012:38).

Insecurity is always concentrated on situations of the future. And handling these situations, applies to the entrepreneur very personal, and depends on his personal position to the theme of insecurity: “In summary, our conscious of the future and our ability to formulate and act on goals for the future is strongly influenced by our needs for security and adventure. Both sets of needs exist in all of us, but if our security needs become too powerful, we limit, if not totally repress, our openness to the future” (Lombardo 2008:26).

In every case, insecurity is something, the entrepreneur is extremely influenced by, doing his entrepreneurial functions and the with this bonded attainment of insights. Because in the moment of planning, he doesn’t know what can get when reality, and whether what was supposed as one of many possible planning situations of the future, really happens. Or whether perhaps also a future can happen, having not been known in the moment of planning (Schneider 1995:12).

Schneider (1995:12) interprets the term of uncertaintyas a subset of insecurity. He speaks uncertainty about, if it is indeed known that a planned situation will happen, but it is not clear which situation that will be. With this, the term of uncertainty is closer defined. But nevertheless, for uncertainty is valid as well as for insecurity, that results of entrepreneurial action are not predictable, and that occurrence probabilities cannot be prognosticated (Beckert 1996:132).

Just by this, for the entrepreneur occurs the necessity to strive for getting a maximum of new insights, and this for curtailing the quantity of as possibility planned situations. By occupying oneself intensely with uncertainty, the entrepreneur gets new insights about the future. And what there is fundament and difficulty at the same moment by getting new insights, this at once brings out a statement about, how the entrepreneur should act: “The paradox between seeking information about the future, and the uncertainty of the future can be overcome by exploring the differences between empirical and interpretive knowledge. Empirical knowledge about the future is difficult, if not impossible, to come by; by contrast interpretive knowledge is obtainable, because it is a fundamental human capacity with intrinsic spiritual dimensions” (Robinson 2001:556).

Insecurity as well as uncertainty, can create entrepreneurial mistakes by the fact of the failure to differentiate between right and wrong preconditions for an action, and to recognize what at all is necessary to initiate a correct and future minded entrepreneurial action: “The structural characteristics of uncertainty prevent rational decision in the sense of the economic theory” (Beckert 1996:135).

Concerning insecurity and uncertainty, the difficulty is reasoned in the fact, that the entrepreneur must do the entrepreneurial functions on a background, to which possible changes simply cannot be known. Exactly, this brings out the necessity for a preferably comprehensive gain of new insights, to structure insecurity and uncertainty as small as possible for the entrepreneurial action.

Not so as with insecurity and uncertainty, it is another thing with the term of risk. “[…] ‘risk’ applies specifically to a situation where the probability of the outcomes is known” (Hadfield 2005:4). Speaking about risk, with this is no longer ment a situation of complete insecurity.

So, concerning the term of risk, Schneider (1995:12) speaks about a dimension of idealized insecurity; the variation around the expectancy value of a command variable. Different from insecurity and uncertainty, concerning the risks, the occurrences are known by which entrepreneurial action is necessary. But not known is the occurrence probability. Beckmann and Müller (2011:2) argue the difference between uncertainty and risk in a way, that uncertainty has too little empirical values for unique possible situations, to specify quantitative incidence rates. They refer on Knight (1921 in ‘Risk, Uncertainty and Profit’), who allocates logical and empirical probabilities with the term of risk. In the opposite, estimated probabilities get connected with the term uncertainty.

Strictly spoken, situations of uncertainty and risk are not comparable, because the knowledge about decision relevant probabilities brings a completely new quality of information into the play. Speaking about decisions under risk, there is at every time presumed to know, which incidents really have a decision relevance as well” (Martin 2011:62). That’s why the entrepreneur must do efforts, to bring insecure and uncertain situations minimum into a risk situation. Because doing the entrepreneurial functions on a basis of ‘predictable insecurities’ will be rather possible than decision on the ‘basis of knowing nothing’.

The discussion about insecurity, uncertainty and risk brings out that the entrepreneur for overcoming this, must win new insights. And these winnings of insight are going ahead to the action in the entrepreneurial functions, and so are reasoned in the person of the entrepreneur (manager, leading group of an enterprise); a person, who has to have foresight by doing the entrepreneurial functions. Only by gaining insights, the entrepreneur can break free from a situation in which the “knowledge is perceived as absent, incomplete, irrelevant, insufficient, inaccurate, ambiguous, inconsistent, fragmented, manipulated, complex or otherwise limited” (van Asselt et al. 2007:669 f.).

That’s why there is a big importance to experience more about, in which way the entrepreneur gets insights for doing the entrepreneurial functions.

2.2.2 Ways to win insight

To be able to do the entrepreneurial functions and bonded with this also to be able to make conclusions about the future, awareness is necessary. And this about the past, as well as about the present and the future. Awareness (insight) comprehends a process of perception which ends in a result of the perception. As already quoted with Brülisauer (2008:22), it is necessary to notice what is about, and what is more to reflect by perception about what shall be. That also applies to the entrepreneur, willing to recognize something. Thus, perception includes the dimension ‘analysis of the present’ as well as ‘information retrieval for a forecast’.

Although, the question may be asked, if this process of perception necessarily must be done systematically - as Kornmeier describes for the sciences - and if the entrepreneur really is able to bring the sum of his findings into a context of justification (Kornmeier 2007: 4 f.), or if entrepreneurial actions don’t work very often much more undifferentiated - and with this do not go on the path of a philosophy of science. Nevertheless, Kornmeier’s statement is right, that empiricism (and entrepreneurial action is a part of empiricism) and the theory in the business economics do not get along without another (Kornmeier 2007:43). He brings the theory and the economic business practice on an equivalent coexisting standing. In so far, concerning new insights, the entrepreneur has falling back to the results of the business economic theory.

That’s why it is important, to let the three in chapter 1.2.3 presented entrepreneurs speak in their interviews not only isolated from a theoretical fundament, but by getting a cross-fertilizing common nutrient medium for the research about entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, creating a connection between a theoretical matrix and the by empiricism won statements.

Just here, is constituted a hermeneutic approach of research for with foresight afflicted entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions, because: for doing the entrepreneurial functions, the entrepreneur in his status as this, doesn’t practice sciences in the sense of the preceding systematic perception. But to win insights, he possibly uses - by deduction or induction - scientific won hypotheses. Thereby, the entrepreneur - a human with humanely nature - acts in a way, as Kornmeier (2007:80) describes as ‘method of an understanding way of life’, the characteristic of hermeneutic: “Who is proceeding on a hermeneutic way, tries to explain interdependences by retracing and understanding them. Representatives of hermeneutic examine sentences and their meaning in a context. They act on the assumption that the singular can only be understood by the whole, and vice versa.”

By understanding in a cognitive way, then there is knowledge available, by which decisions are triggered with afterwards following actions – actions being discharged into doing the entrepreneurial functions (Neumer 2012:53).

Thereby, cognitive faculties of the entrepreneur are coming into a certain focus; by Neumer (2012:53) described as newer empirical findings for decision-making: “Here are brought empirical observable phenomena of body ken, know-how and implied knowledge into the focus, and are systemized as relevant resources of insight for decision-making processes. In the consequence, successful decisions are not done only in a rational logic thinking, but also by action”.

Grounded on the preceding considerations and the fact that for having perception, the entrepreneur as human being is demanded, the term of cognition should be considered as cited by Lombardo (2008:27): “The term ‘cognition’ refers to all those psychological processes involved in the acquisition, storage, use, and creation of knowledge - cognition is knowing. Cognitive processes include perception, learning, memory, imagination, conceptual and abstract understanding, thinking and language”.

Here comes out a clear direction to the entrepreneur, to the human being, who in principal can do the entrepreneurial functions on the ground of insights. And that makes the entrepreneur as human being to the object of investigation as ‘motor’ of entrepreneurial action. “Therefore, entrepreneurial cognition and enactment are key first step for encouraging entrepreneurial activity” (Colwell and Narayanan 2010:299).

Despite a now presented definition about cognition, it is to point out that the term of cognition as one of the core-terms of entrepreneurial actioncertainly is not concluding determined. Not in vain, Amsteus (2008:54) points to the fact that there is no in general accepted answer about the subject of cognition.

After documenting the question for (entrepreneurial necessary) cognition generally, and after concerning to this, a focusing to the person of the entrepreneur was done, the question about from where the entrepreneur gets his insights comes out automatically.

2.2.2.1 Entrepreneurial insight-gains by knowledge from information

The entrepreneur needs information by which knowledge can grow on the way to get insights for his actions. The entrepreneur needs information from inside of his enterprise, but also from outside, to act in the entrepreneurial functions. That information are the sign and data based starting point for entrepreneurial action, shows the following by North (2005:32) used figure (fig. 3):

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 3: Step of knowledge Source: North 2005:32

The status of information is created by the fact that existing respectively noticed signs and data are established in relationship to other data, questions, problems, surveillances (syntax), etc.

Thereby, the question comes into focus how the entrepreneur reaches information, by which he can recuperate knowledge and action. What is although considered as information, is e.g. described by Wesseling (1991:19) with his verbalization that information a) are more than only a data transport – but a process, b) person’s changes of knowledge are interlinked with information, c) lead dependent from the subjective state of knowledge of a person to a change of his/her knowledge, d) are referred to a concrete problem. “Information in their character is process related, knowledge changing, related to a subject and not to objectivity” (Wesseling 1991:19).

It gets obvious that information as basis for knowledge and action, then can create entrepreneurial competitiveness. Related to entrepreneurial action and competitiveness, it makes a sense, limiting the otherwise widely spread conception concerning knowledge (implicit knowledge by routines, processes, experiences, habitudes and knowledge won by papers, data files, internet) in the way, as Helm et al. (2007:213) did: “It is only to look knowledge at, improving the processes of creating goods and services as well as the performance by itself, and thus brings out a direct reference to the business activities of enterprises”.

With this, all four entrepreneurial functions are quasi meant, to which the entrepreneur by doing them has to bring inside his (entrepreneurial usable) knowledge.

As delineated before, the entrepreneur gets his knowledge and with this his insights for action (or also non-action) by information. But with this, is yet nothing said about, HOW the entrepreneur gets the necessary information. It is only known that he has information needs in doing the entrepreneurial functions in the with this bonded scope of duties. He needs this information to accompany and influence the planning, management, organisation, control, bookkeeping e.g. in a leading and target-oriented way. As well as he must achieve information-gains by observation, he is needy to observe based on the information-gains what happens in the enterprise. By observation, the entrepreneur creates information, allowing him the construction of his management decisions(Bardman 2011:448), by which a wise action in the entrepreneurial functions gets possible.

Grümer (1974:26) denominates the supervision “as a method which is directed on a target-oriented registration of perceptible facts, in which the observer behaves passive against the object of observation, and at once tries to systemize his observation and to control the singular acts of observation”. But that for alone is not enough for entrepreneurial information retrieval, because supervision means target-orientation, systematization and control. But so, the ‘impressions’ are not looked for, the entrepreneur records in a moment, in which perhaps they will not have a relevance, but are able to get this in a later moment absolutely.

As a wider defined term, here perhaps perceptioncomes into the foreground. Perception can be defined as “information about sensual (evident) facts in our world, the environment and the own-corporal region” (Scharfetter 2002:190). Kulbe (2009:73) specifies: “Perception can be defined as a bio-psycho-social process, by which the human gets information from his environment (external perception) and from his emotional-psychical world (inner perception, emotional world), creating his own individual reality by these two forms of perception (world-outlook)”. For this reason, perception has a lack on target orientation and systematic of the surveillance. Nevertheless, perception is not a passive process, but an often by preconceptions determined and expectations regulated recording of - by human senses - data picked up.

Thereby, it gets obvious again, that doing the entrepreneurial functions, a human - the entrepreneur - is necessary, who as ‘motor’ brings in the information which - transferred in action - are the essence of doing the entrepreneurial functions: “The entrepreneur is a person, not a team, committee, or organisation. This person has a comparative advantage in decision making and makes decisions that run counter the conventional wisdom either because he has a better information or a different perception of events or opportunities” (Hébert and Link 1989:47). And, as the entrepreneur is a person, his entrepreneurial ability for perception and the by this coming out results, is seen as the key effect, starting entrepreneurial action (Colwell and Narayanan 2010:299), and with this allows doing the entrepreneurial functions.

So, the question how the entrepreneur gets by information fed knowledge - his insights - for doing the entrepreneurial functions, has an answer by only one word: by perception. It is caused by this result, that the entrepreneur is demanded to connect by perception won insights, making entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight possible.

2.2.2.2 Combination of won insights by the entrepreneur: the way to entrepreneurial foresight

Implanting the results of combinations into his enterprise, the entrepreneur must combine perceptions. With this, he is doing a not knowledge-based preview. Much more, that is an activity, “after having done, we will know about what canhappen” (Tiberius 2011:46). Linked with this, is a movement away from insecurity and uncertainty to risk. This is in so far, a progress, that things get more predictable in the sense of a ‘constriction’ from insecurity to uncertainty and risk. The entrepreneur needs future-oriented perspectives. Thinking ahead as a learning process is demanded, having an existence in the future (Cuhls 2011:193).

The entrepreneur needs a toolbox he can dig deep in, to make occurrences - got from insights - visible, and transporting them notional into the future: “It must be a part of a more general toolbox that allowed us to escape from the present and develop foresight” (Suddendorf and Corballis 2007:303). Tools like that, facilitate to open decision possibilities by the process of perception there, where without this process blindness would dominate (Hayward and Voros 2005:4).

The question appears, which tools should contain such a pictorial toolbox. If this toolbox for all entrepreneurs would contain completely identic tools, there could be the idea about an identic success or failure in their markets. Imaging two completely uniform enterprises, leaded by coeval entrepreneurs, identical in all like monozygotic twins, having the same education and the same experience of life – there it is however not attenable, their toolbox will be filled with exactly same tools. The enterprises will have different developments. This fact is caused in the probably different perceptions of the entrepreneurs, leading probably to different entrepreneurial actions. Because human metacognitive processes are not running congenial, but they are individual-related: “Metacognition is the capacity of the individual to understand their thinking or behavior ‘as an operation itself’, and thus to see themselves as not only having agency over their behaviors but also agency over the thinking that precedes behaviors” (Hayward and Voros 2005:5). Thus, that are metacognitive processes, interconnected with perception and by this, starting entrepreneurial action by the functions of thinking, combining, and reacting.

This process, recognizing possibilities by entrepreneurial perception, combining, and starting actions, has in the following the term of entrepreneurial preview, ergo ‘ entrepreneurial foresight ’. “The entrepreneurs, like the foresight practitioner, needs ways for seeing or perceiving with broaden and deepen awareness of what is in our environment that we are currently blind to” (Hayward and Voros 2005:14). The metacognitive processes of perception are complemented by metacognitive knowledge. (Baron 2013:76).

Entrepreneurial foresight is the individual personal ability for perception and bringing the results of perception under the restriction of ‘bounded rationality’ into actions, by reason, doing the entrepreneurial functions. With this, entrepreneurial foresight is a component of entrepreneurial action.

Bounded rationality reflects on the fact that an individual decision-maker never can be really informed overall, because the homo oeconomicus rationality assumption is simply not appropriate (Neumer: 2012: 42).

The entrepreneur, doing the entrepreneurial functions, gets able by perception processes in the sense of entrepreneurial foresight, assessing possible consequences of actions and decisions which must be done. Before their appearance, he gets able to discover and to avoid problems. He gets able making conclusions concerning possible future-related occurrences, as well as ideas about a preferable (but also avoidable) future (Morrow 2006:607). Also, by entrepreneurial foresight the entrepreneur has the possibility to connect things on basis of his metacognitive abilities – things which at the first moment do not glance forming a set, but at all can make a meaningful whole.

Doing entrepreneurial foresight, a cognitive self-leading based on strategies for mastering mental strategies is necessary: “Elements based on self-leading strategies are e.g.: inner dialogs, visual realizations, tenets of faith, and setting of targets as levelling rule for acceptable performances – having a better chance interpreting feedback of efforts” (Koetz 2006:31).

The question comes out, if the entrepreneur is at all able to ‘practice’ entrepreneurial foresight, or if this is simply a talent, an ability to have or not to have. It is this an ability, into which beside the pure perception also are flowing inside things like learning, memory, imagination, understanding of correlations, thinking on oneself, as well as the faculty of speech (Lombardo 2007:27).

Having this ability, out of an absolute entrepreneurial insecurity by continuing the entrepreneurial decision process, a relatively to insecurity more safe uncertainty or a (predictable, tainted with likelihood) decision risk and action risk can arise.

May be, the entrepreneurial ability for perception as this, as well as the ability having entrepreneurial foresight is different from entrepreneur to entrepreneur. How indeed to act with perceptions on the way to decision-making, Roth (2007:194) summarizes like a simple instruction manual as following: “(1) Never begin with a singular activity stinging in your eye, but make an accurate analysis about what the problem is and how urgent a solution is needed; (2) always have in mind the medium-term and long-term consequences of singular activities and the effects on other sectors; (3) think about the big importance of positive and negative reaction, every intervention into a process has; (4) check your working hypothesis and strategies with the reality; (5) don’t start mercurial into new projects, having first disappointments; but rather follow patient and at the same moment self-critical und reality-checked a particular strategy, also against resistances; (6) don’t duck out of the personal responsibility, and in cases of failure don’t look for scapegoats, but be conform with your decisions and try to correct them”.

However, these are steps downstream to the emergence of entrepreneurial perception. Who is perceiving noting, is not able to bring entrepreneurial foresight into the cycle of the enterprise, and perhaps will not have a grasp for entrepreneurial uncertainty. And who is not striving to eliminate (entrepreneurial) uncertainty, also is not able to enlarge his action possibilities and freedom of action (Böhle 2011:20).

Thus, a lack of entrepreneurial foresight can bring out an entrepreneurial failure, this finishing fact, Freiling and Wessels (2010:319) understand as culminating point of a preceding negative development of the enterprise. Besides three other reasons, Freiling and Wessels (2010:325) argue: “Thus, apparently ignorance and inability significant contribute to insufficient doing the entrepreneurial functions”.

Thereby, responsible for entrepreneurial failure are the persons, doing the entrepre-neurial functions in an inadequate way, just now as they didn’t have the necessary processes of perception and the combination of perceptions, having a good entrepre-neurial success. There is a lack of entrepreneurial foresight as catalyst of entrepreneurial action.

If it is necessary for the entrepreneur having a gain of insights - perceptions - and connecting them, then, there appears the question about the tools the entrepreneur has for doing entrepreneurial foresight, getting a gain of insights by this.

2.3 Possible tools for winning and combining insights by perception in the sense ofentrepreneurial foresight and the borders of insightgains

Undoubtedly, the entrepreneur needs insights for practicing the entrepreneurial functions. But even if for this - like presented - entrepreneurial foresight is necessary, the question comes out about the tools, the entrepreneur has, getting insights. Owning the ability for a forecast to start actions, certainly can’t be judged as a tool, because this ability can’t be switched on or switched off after usage like a tool (Martin 2011:25).

Winning insights, needs as described dates being able to get interpretable information by consolidation, using suitable methods. For this reason, two things are needed: data acquisition and data evaluation.

Essentially, newdata the entrepreneur gets (but as under the aspect of perception shown not only) out of the area of system usage; this means - thought in entrepreneurial functions – the sectors of coordination function and arbitrage function. Meant is with this the flow of data, coming on the one hand from goods and services and the processes of administration, but on the other hand from the flow of data coming out by identification, creation, and exploitation of realities on the markets (Freiling 2008:48). Caused by the situation-adapted coordination requirement of all entrepreneurial functions maintaining the competitiveness (Freiling and Wessels 2010:325), these data also determine the entrepreneurial action in the two remaining entrepreneurial functions – risk management and innovation.

In a sense of information acquisition and information connection as perception like entrepreneurial foresight, winning insights, the data evaluation is done in a form described in the literature with ‘dynamic capabilities’: “We define dynamic capabilities as a firm’s behavioural orientation constantly to integrate, renew and recreate its resources and capabilities and, most importantly, upgrade and reconstruct its core capabilities in response to the changing environment to attain and sustain competitive advantage” (Wang and Pervaiz 2007:35). With this, the data evaluation is carried out - bonded with the ability for doing this - by pouncing and bundling entrepreneurial possibilities, ‘seizing’, as well as by the reshaping, new and in another way connecting of information, ‘reconfiguring’(Teece 2007:1319).

Beside seizing and reconfiguring there appears the term ‘sensing’ too, Teece (2007:1319) also is using in the relationship with dynamic capabilities: “to sense and to shape opportunities and threats”. Thus, here it is about a feeling of situations and the feeling inside into possible situations.

With this, the data evaluation is done by three difficult comprehensible terms, for purpose of opening an entrepreneurial action related future strategy: seizing, reconfiguring and sensing. It is necessary, to make these terms more concrete, concerning entrepreneurial foresight and entrepreneurial action.

Seizing and reconfiguring in the business economics is done under different names and points of view, e.g.: corporate foresight, economy foresight, open foresight, strategic foresight, technology foresight, etc. Behind these terms, reflections about action and manner can be found, tracing entrepreneurial future. This, recognizing dangers and taking opportunities in time. That’s about the organisation of future orientation.

The reason, speaking in the following strategic foresight about in short, is understanding strategic foresight as an instrument, serving to decision-makers in dependence on and in mutual reactions with the strategy of the enterprise, preparing on an uncertain future (Müller and Müller-Stevens 2009:V). Müller/Müller- Stevens speaking about an ‘instrument’ (at least for doing seizing and reconfiguring), there is to examine in how far this instrument, using perception, entrepreneurial foresight is grounded on.

Concerning the term ‘sensing’ - much more difficult to grip than ‘seizing’ und ‘reconfiguring’ -, Hayward and Voros (2005:6) connect to the made definition about entrepreneurial foresight: “[…] we now understand foresight as a metacognitive process that allows an observer stance to be adopted; by so doing we improve our awareness of environment and niche by providing a sensing capacity in addition to experience”.

The question about is arising, if there are ‘instruments’ for sensing; by using them the entrepreneur has the chance influencing his perception for getting entrepreneurial foresight. It is in question, finding in the business-economic sector ‘instruments’, bringing out as result an approach to with cognitive processes bonded perceptions – just like about strategic foresight. Or if there are eventually other instruments available for usage of the entrepreneur, getting entrepreneurial foresight.

Here for example can be a starting point the Hope Theory of the psychologist Charles Richard Snyder, cited at Morrow (2006:609) as following: “Hope Theory can be summarized as having three equally important aspects: agency (willpower), pathways (waypower) and goals. Hope reflects the capacity on an individual to conceptualize goals, develop pathways to achieve these goals; and initiate and sustain the motivation required to achieve them”.

Relating to ‘sensing’, this theory not really is continuative, because perception for identification of goals is bonded on hope. Hope in the before standing sense, may quicken in case of packing data to information by coming into the corridor of perception, and leading to intensified purposeful processes of perception. But, as question it remains open, hope can be the causal flash point of sensing by the means of perception - the feeling of one’s way into possible realities.

That’s why it is necessary – getting as close as possible to ‘sensing’ - after making studies about seizing and reconfiguring based on the sample of strategic foresight, looking into the thoughts of ‘environmental scanning described however by Slaughter (1999:441 ff.); afterwards making an excursion by subducting into the deepest areas of perception - the ‘presencing’ as it will be named by Scharmer (2013) - in the frame of the so called ‘Theory U’. That way, the question can be made, if seizing, reconfiguring and sensing are able to explain the process of perception in the sense of entrepreneurial foresight as a partial aspect of entrepreneurial action; or if there are borders which must be broken through, satisfying proceeded needs for explanation.

2.3.1 Strategic foresight in the light of seizing and reconfiguring

“Strategic Foresight names a systematic-participatory strategic process inside the enterprise, tracing as target a support of the strategic decision-making inside the enterprise by holistic anticipation, analysis and interpretation of long-term social, economic and technological environmental development, as well as giving a support by an active configuration of alternative future-oriented terms and visions” (Müller 2008:25).

Thereby, strategic foresight is a decision-supporting process, exceeding a pure action of analysis (Müller and Müller-Stewens 2009:7). It is a process, serving to the target, preparing enterprise-strategic tasks, by having perceptions and by connecting information: namely long-term protection of competitive ability of the enterprise, as well as the enforcement of its innovation ability (Müller and Müller-Stewens: 2009:7).

Working in a sense of strategic foresight, advantages are:

- enhancement of flexibility and responsiveness in the enterprise

- maintenance of entrepreneurial ability and flexibility by inventing oneself new at every time with a by this caused enhancement of competitiveness

- convertibility of insecurity into calculable risks by recognition of dangers

- creation of a common comprehension of the future inside the enterprise by communication

- creation of pictures about the future and the trial to describe these pictures transparently

- creation of a managerial immune system by continuity in the foresight process (Pillkahn 2007:165 f.)

The preceding definition of strategic foresight indicates the wanted supportfor decision making by this strategic preview. In so far, concerning seizing and reconfiguring, strategic foresight can be a concomitant function by the reason that by combination of information insights are won; insights which otherwise would not have come into the perceptual field of the entrepreneur. For this reason, strategic foresight is a matter of the identification of chances and the action with chances. By this, Brühwiler and Romeike (2010:46) in strategic foresight in general identify managerial functions: “Without early detection, the leading institutions of an organisation are not able to fulfil their responsibility, in special in the sectors of danger-evaluation and danger-accomplishment in an adequate way”.

By identification and rating, this for entrepreneurial foresight demanded perception happens in a systematic way by prehension and bundling (seizing). Out of this perception, then strategies have ability to be developed, by which the enterprise in the markets, but also in the internal sector can be positioned in another way than before. Fundaments are done, on which by doing the entrepreneurial functions, a reconfiguring can happen. By doing the planning of restructuring and new structuring (reconfiguring), possibly “demands for facilities of resources and in general for activities doing a strategy” (Schreyögg and Kliesch 2005:6) appear.

Strategic foresight is able, triggering processes of perception in form of seizing, and trigger steps into the direction of reconfiguring; this by systematization of acquisition of information. With this, strategic foresight can be the zero point of entrepreneurial strategies. But such an organizational competence however is not a resource by itself. Schreyögg and Kliesch (2005:5 f.) argue: “An organizational competence is thus resource based but not a resource on itself (or at best, a derivate one). It refers to the combination of complex bundles of tangible and intangible resources, which are permanently selected and (re)-combined in the performance process”.

By doing the strategic foresight process, it is possible by purposeful used methods of information-acquisition and information-bundling, coming on the way of restructuring and new-structuring of the enterprise; by this, perceptions are created systematically. But at all, also such a systematic approach finding perceptions, cannot be a reliable tool judging about, how the entrepreneur found out results realizes and brings in the results over the process of reconfiguring by doing the entrepreneurial functions into the enterprise.

Thereby, respective all economic methods of approach, is signed out a fact named with Abreu (2010:175) ‘behavioural economics’ with the comment: “The foundations of economic theory were constructed assuming that details about the functioning of the brain’s black box would not be known”. Camerer (2003:1673) comments to this: “Behavioural economics replaces strong rationality assumptions with more realistic ones and explores their implications”. So, he refers to the eminent progress of knowledge in psychology and neurosciences as indicator for economic problems too.

For this reason, the question comes out how to come ‘deeper’ to this process of perception as - of course highly qualified - strategic foresight does. Perception means the entrepreneur as personat a point, on which this person is ‘feeling’ and adumbrating something – sensing. By this, it remains fathoming which possibilities there are for sensing, picking up entrepreneurial perception.

2.3.2 Entrepreneurial perception by sensing

Entrepreneurial insights by sensingas one possibility of perception about the environment and niches is seen at Hayward and Voros (2005:6) as a chance to enlarge the horizon of perception. Thereby, they understand foresight - and so also sensing, feeling situations - also as a metacognitive process: “Metacognition can be described as level of understanding “above” the operations of thinking and behavior and by doing so create the process of consciously” That means a removal from concrete methods of interpretation and evaluation of received data, up to processes of emotional realization by personal perception.

A sensor is necessary - and this sensor is the human, the entrepreneur - executing sensing, that means to feel something and getting conscious as perception about the felt. This process of feeling brings out a sensation for facts and situations: “Sensation is a simple, primary cognitive mental process in which the individual merely becomes aware of immediate present stimuli in the environment” (Mishra 2016:133).

Sensing is a very personal process, because by sensing the human sensory receptors and the brain are coming to terms with - and connect them - stimuli out of the environment, as well as with received data. The business-economics cannot explain with its instruments the processes of such procedures. Nevertheless, there is the question about methods, making sensing also under an economic point of view more available, and bringing out by this a contribution to the process of perception in the sense of entrepreneurial foresight.

Here, one approach can be the so called ‘Theory U’ from Scharmer (2013). He demonstrates a way, leading from the dimension of future, using for this ‘presencing’ as a social procedure. Presenting this projection, is worth the trouble, because the projection shows in a special dimension the process of ‘plunging’ into the world of ‘feeling’ and with this perhaps also into the world of ‘perception’.

‘Theory U’ (a process from the first observance by emotional realization down to the ground of a ‘U’ with a following reconfiguring) acts on the assumption about a ‘blind spot’ shaping social processes, which can be realized by the structure of the used concentration (Scharmer 2013:32). “This blind spot concerns to the aspect of our seeing or perception, we usually don’t look for detailed. It is the inner place or the inner source, out of which a singular person or a social system is acting” (Scharmer 2013:49 f.). Concerning managers (entrepreneurs), by experiencing this blind spot consciously, the possibility should be given not only to put their ‘doing’ into the foreground but seeing their “inner natural disposition” as source-point of entrepreneurial action (Scharmer 2013:33).

Scharmer (2013:34) names ‘presencing’ - sensing the presence - the opening of this source-point as starting point for noticing and combining future oriented possibilities. “Presencing means, to feel out one’s own highest future oriented potential, to let oneself implicate into this potential, and then acting from this place – that means, getting present in the sense of our highest future oriented possibilities” Thus, the source-place of an emerging future can be reached. Pitching down to this source-place, by cognition of the blind spot, as well as the drawing conclusions from the cognition, is influencing changing processes and innovation processes essentially (Scharmer 2013:50).

This process of pitching down is demonstrated in fig. 4

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig 4: similar Scharmer: the complete U: six transition points.
Source: Scharmer 2013:6

Albeit here is described a proceeding for the attainment of a deepened perception, this should not mask the fact about psychological mental processes, running in the background – processes being not able to be caught by the instruments of business-economics.

Business economics cannot explain the functioning of perception. But as shown in the previous sample of presencing, business economics have the chance, trying to enlarge the horizon of perception by using ‘tools’, and by this starting an active process of sensing. It is a technic of self-perception, a technic running ‘in the human himself’. the process of sensing needs humans - the entrepreneur - as ‘sensor of reality’. And thereby, the process of sensing has natural limitations, constituted in the personal agency potentials and the sensibility of the entrepreneur as sensor (Ciompi 2005:36 f.).

Martin (2011:132) delineates the by ‘Theory U’ shown process as following: The mode of perception is followed by the mode of imagination. The mode of perception determines the feeling and the sensual perception, whereas the mode of imagination opens ways over the imagination to those matters, being not present directly. First after passing one of these or both modes, is starting the intellectual mode of thinking, by which perceptions are judged and plans are developed. Likewise, as a bracket for these three modes, the emotional mode must be mentioned, which quickens the other modes.

Other authors too, dealing for getting perception with the phenomenon of ‘feeling’ - ‘feeling inside’ -, reveal the process of perception as a process, not being located in the field of a pure economic method of approach, but at all, that there are thoughts how to find ways, making perception accessible by sensing. In this connection, just in the preliminary considerations was pointed out the ‘Hope Theory’ of Snyder, acting on the assumption that hope is an inducement for persons (entrepreneurs) for the development of targets, and that a high ‘ability for hope’ quickens entrepreneurial action (Morrow 2006:606 ff.).

The also for the theme ‘sensing’ enumerating ‘Four-Quadrant-Reflection’, makes a scaling of the ‘inner emotions’, the external individual biologic conditions, the collective internal valuation of a society, as well as collective external conditions (economic system, politics, etc.). By integrating the personal thoughts into the special scale sectors of such a schema, and by connecting the singular schema segments, a process of perception can be started (Slaughter 1999:441 ff.). An ‘environmental scanning’ (ES) occurs, that means a process of perception: “The view set out above is that ES needs to move beyond its initial concerns with the world ‘out there’ to include phenomena that tend to be overlooked and undervalued in part because they are ‘in here’, where different forms of knowledge and tests of truth and usefulness apply. The reason for this view is that without a multi-perspective, multi-level or, perhaps, four-quadrant view of the world, a great deal of foresight work and strategy development merely ‘spins in the wheels’ in the sense that it produces surprisingly little that is either original or useful” (Slaughter 1999:450).

Finally, we speak about a procedure, feeling one’s way to the unconscious, to something which is described in ‘Theory U’ as blind spot.

Which tools however are used, coming to by perception defined entrepreneurial foresight, the access to this is still limited. Buzzwords for this limitation are ‘bounded rationality’ and ‘bounded reliability’. Besides, the question remains as open, how to reach the for foresight important process of perception, which is wanted to be made accessible - as shown- by ‘tools’.

2.3.3 Borders of insight-gains

Getting new insights, for the entrepreneur there are restrictions. These restrictions are based on the individual capability having perceptions. Perception is created by “comparison of incoming sensual data with inner expectations” (Eagleman 2012:63). Eagleman (2012:63) further points out: “We are getting consciously to our environment first at that moment, when the sensual impressions are dissent to the expectations”.

Indicated by Lehmann-Waffenschmidt (2008) that distortions of behaviour can be caused in the incomplete perception of situations, the conclusion of this statement is an indication about the at humans - and with this at entrepreneurs - different ability for having perception. Koetz (2006:36) underlines this by a statement about problem solving oriented people, having a more differentiated perception and a more quickly apprehension. This is an indication about the obviously different human ability (and with this also the ability of entrepreneurs), converting perceptions into expectations, and doing so a foresighted planning (Laskowski 2000:99). This, on the other hand, points out the borders, that having knowledge-gains is reasoned in the personality of the entrepreneur. The manner of our perception is crucial influencing our behavior (Scheffer and Loerwald 2009: no page number: visual perception and behavior).

The individual different borders of perceptual capacity entrepreneurs have, are the reason for their different course of action by doing the entrepreneurial functions.

Thereby, the homo economicus debate of a fictive corporative actor ends, because by an individual-related and restricted perceptual capacity, also an in the model supposed complete information, a completely rational entrepreneurial behavior und with this a generally admitted complete entrepreneurial foresight, cannot exist. It is not the critic on the homo economicus model itself. But in fact the circumstance must be considered, that just caused on a bordered gain of insights by a limited ability for perception, the status of insecurity gets possible. First making decisions under insecurity, brings out entrepreneurial action (Beckert 1996:127).

Also, the concept of homo agens doesn’t rectify this status of bordered ability for perception. With reference to von Mises (Human Action: A Treatise in Economics, 1949), Freiling et al. (2006:14) point out this concept. It describes the actor (and with this also the entrepreneur) as an active, with will for design equipped market actor - an actor, being able, influencing his situation by his own leeway in decision-making. In the process, targets can vary dependent from the individual knowledge and individual experiences, whereby a permanent searching for action alternatives can be started.

Deduced from Rese’s thoughts (2000:3), the homo agens underlies to the (radical) subjectivism, that means there is a dissimilarity of the actors by experiencing their (entrepreneurial) world. The fact is accentuated, that humans have a different willingness for configuration, that uncertainty of the actors plays a role, and that doing (entrepreneurial) action, the scope of action and the time according to the calendar plays a role.

Only by economic sciences, the reason for differences of perception by entrepreneurs, and the from this fact inevitable following entrepreneurial actions by doing the entrepreneurial functions, is not explainable. This fact cannot be changed by concepts like ‘bounded rationality’, albeit this concept acts on the assumption “[…] that in practice, the for a rational decision necessary information about influencing factors, possible alternatives and consequences of decisions in normal case are not given” (Böhle 2011:21) …. and with this insecurity and uncertainty are determined for the entrepreneur.

Conceding to the entrepreneur too, he can find an optimal solution for himself and his entrepreneurial tasks amongst the for him rational available alternatives and possibilities, there is nothing said about, howthese alternatives and possibilities - also under the precondition of ‘only’ limited rationality - by the process of perception as motor for entrepreneurial foresight and entrepreneurial action, are affecting him.

Neumer (2009:13) alludes to the also context and time dependent contrariness and indecisiveness, by which human and with this entrepreneurial action is determined; and by which rational plans of an actor, and by this also of an actor in the entrepreneurial functions, just not has a continuous rational appearance.

That means, terms like homo economicus, homo agens, or the term of bounded rationality, always only can try to converge to entrepreneurial behavior, because the entrepreneurial process of perception - that means the becoming of perception as well as the personal handling with perceived facts - by these terms themselves is not made accessible. And with this, there are set to the economic sciences borders for the question of explaining about gains of insights, this by the not-existence of the possibility to explain the process of perception.

Thereby, it becomes apparent that it is even not - what generally is right - enough postulating, that the entrepreneurial functions can be done by everybody; but that a focusing on the personality of the entrepreneur is necessary – to the personal characteristics of such an entrepreneur, doing the entrepreneurial functions with success. It is not the question, how such a success may be defined. For the business-economics, probably terms like gain maximizing, growth of the enterprise, seizing market-opportunities, are standing in the foreground.

That’s why in and for the business economics the question appears, which nature the entrepreneur as personality must have, doing the entrepreneurial functions in his enterprise - also under inclusion of entrepreneurial foresight based on perception -, with success.

2.4 The personality of the entrepreneur as promotor of perception and generator ofentrepreneurial action and foresight for doing the entrepreneurial functions

As shown, doing the entrepreneurial functions, a human is needed: the entrepreneur, respectively the manager to whom doing the entrepreneurial functions is delegated. Almost equal if entrepreneur or manager, in each of these persons, an own personality is anchored.

Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:2) give a ‘handy‘ definition of the term ‘personality’: “With personality of a human is ment the entirety of his personality traits: the individual characteristics in his bodily appearance and in regularities of behavior and experience”. Roth (2013:15) speaks about time outlasting patterns, concerning a combination “of characteristics meaning the temperament, the affectivity, the intellect, and the way how to act, to communicate and to move”. Explicitly, the behaviour a person has, he includes as habits into the personality. Borghans et al. (2011:4) complete: “Personality is the system of relationships that map traits and other determinants of behavior, thoughts and feelings into measured actions”.

By Eagleman (2012:243) the consequence out of these definitions is summarised: “ Our reality depends on our biology”. It remains to request and to have a nearer research about if the exclusiveness of this sentence has substance. But Eagleman (2012:252) bases on this sentence the difference between personalities and the difference between decisions, which must be done.

Hence, there comes out the explanatory statement, why entrepreneurs as practitioners in the entrepreneurial functions must attain different results of success - or also failure. For this reason, it also gets understandable, why the preceding as sample delineated completely identical entrepreneurs in completely identical enterprises, despite all similarities must reach different entrepreneurial results.

In the sense of homo agens, the entrepreneur must have an active character, being equipped with determination to get things accomplished. Because otherwise, he would not practice the entrepreneurial functions; worst case, the enterprise would not exist furthermore. By the fact, the entrepreneur is active, having the willpower to configure something, he takes the position as a ‘person with leadership qualities’, being able at all, starting the process of perception, by which he gets a gain of insights for his possibility, having entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight.

The entrepreneurial functions do not start from alone and don’t have a self-monitoring by themselves, by doing their actions and interactions. Being successful, here it is necessary - correspondent to the particularly defined targets of the enterprise – that a personality with leadership qualities is needed. A person having the following characteristics, as Ingruber (1994), cited at Brauckmann et al. (2008:2) writes: “[…] authenticity and openness, activity for action, talent for integration, stability in confrontation, personal engagement, positive charisma, being realistic, creating confidence, being reliable and even-handed, as well as having the willingness for the own development”. Being able to begin and to change things, the entrepreneur must be a person with the ability, getting gains of insight as well out of the perception of intrinsic processes, as out of the perception of actualities and changes in the environment - and out of the interdependency of these perceptions (Brauckmann et al. 20085:6).

With this, the entrepreneur must have personal characteristics (competences) being successful in doing the entrepreneurial functions in a sense of just set targets or planed targets.

Baron (2013:27) points out the closely alliance between aspects about the personality of the entrepreneur and his purposes (and with this also actions): “In other words, the grater the degree to which individuals demonstrate certain personal characteristics, the more likely they are to form the intention of becoming an entrepreneur”. Of course, his statement doesn’t mean only entrepreneurs who want found their enterprise, but also the entrepreneur in a just existing enterprise. Concerning the new foundation of an enterprise, the same statement also Caliendo et al. (2011b:1) have, writing about the willingness of entrance into self-dependence as entrepreneur, this strongly is influenced by the personality of the entrepreneur. Consequential, there is the task, delineated by Caliendo et al. (2011b:4): “This also means that personality characteristics related to the entrepreneurial tasks need to be identified in order to the able [note: ability], to estimate the true effects of personality and entrepreneurship”.

For this reason, must be shown, which requirements the business-economics demand on the personality of the entrepreneur, so that he can do the entrepreneurial functions; if and perhaps which deficiencies are coming out of these demands, and how the field of research for the formulation of concrete further demands can be broaden - if necessary, in an interdisciplinary direction. However, thereby no statement is yet done, in how far the entrepreneur is able, having entrepreneurial perception; there is only done the assumption about an interlinking of the entrepreneurial personality and entrepreneurial perception.

2.4.1 Business economic demands on the entrepreneurial personality

The appearance of the entrepreneur as actor in the entrepreneurial functions, is shown beside his biological and psychological constituted personality i.a. in his competences. Competences are “cognitive abilities and skills individuals have or can learn, for solving particular problems, as well as having the with this bonded motivational, volitional and social willingness and skills, for using problem-solving in variable situations with success and responsible” (Weinert 2001:27f.)

Relating the entrepreneur, Major et al. (2001:96) concretize the term competence as a skill, by which fortitudes, pushing the targets of the enterprise can be developed (or just exist). Thereby, the debate comes into a direction, looking for such competences, the entrepreneur often is described by for his entrepreneurial action in the business economics. In this sense, Frahm (2003:37 f.) alludes to the fact, that competences are earnt by experiences, but that also the personality traits of the entrepreneur for entrepreneurial action are not allowed to disregard.

Having a view on the entrepreneurial competences, it is possible to ‘break down’ the personality of the entrepreneur to by business-economics understandable and manageable terms, and even to look over those competences as resources, the entrepreneur needs for doing the entrepreneurial functions. Thereby, as Schreyögg and Kliesch (2005:8) emphasize, a competence is not a singular resource, “but a professional usage or combination of different resources, aimed at the solution of certain organizational problems”.

So at least, that are competences - under a business-economic view - which produce entrepreneurial thinking and action and reflect on a descriptive way the manner of thinking and acting, by which an entrepreneurial personality can be encompassed from dependent employed people (Mandl 2004:5).

The presentation of such concrete competences, in the literature is manifold and specially has a place in the advising literature, but without having in this literature an exemplary integration of the competences into bigger levels of consideration. Such levels of consideration for example by Bijedic (2013:53) are focused, by developing competences out of an affective, a motivational, a cognitive and a social level of the entrepreneurial personality.

In a similar way, Mandl and Hense (2004:9) speak about motivational, social, and organizational competences. But even if such more abstract levels of consideration as a frame of classification for the derivation of entrepreneurial competences, certainly have their eligibility, a concretization on action engraving competences (characteristics) about the entrepreneurial personality is necessary; creating by this way benchmarks, by which business economic action in the entrepreneurial functions gets visible.

“Overall, seemingly the literature shows consensus about the directly action forming characteristics of entrepreneurs. In this context, need for achievement, a moderate predisposition for taking risks, tolerance of ambiguity, internal locus of control, activity orientation, as well as striving for autonomy, are named consistently” (Fallgatter 2007:200).

By this reason, in the following as fundament for the description of the ‘business-economic’ entrepreneurial personality, the following competences will serve, being a benchmark on which entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions can be taken a reading from: a) a moderate predisposition for risk-tolerance, b) locus of control, c) power motive strength, d) tolerance of ambiguity, e) eagerness for independence, f) assertiveness and flexibility, g) problem solving orientation, h) emotional stability, i) resilience, j) motivational force (Brauckmann et al. 2008:13 ff.). These are terms (competences) which must be looked about a little bit nearer.

The predisposition for risk tolerance, an activity-related entrepreneurial competence, as entrepreneurial ‘skill’ in the business-economic literature nearly universal is demanded as a fundamental basic skill for entrepreneurial activities, particularly in lots of non-academic guidebooks. It is pointed out the fact, that the predisposition for risk tolerance should be moderate (Brauckmann et al. 2008:13). Though, the term of risk must be seen more broaden than ‘only’ as confined preceding, being the spreading around the expectation value of a command-variable. Not in vain, Schneider (1995:12) points to the fact, that risk colloquial is signed as something, which is felt as not controllable on the way for reaching own intentions.

Entrepreneurs are aimed to hold risks they have gambling with, preferably calculable and as small as possible. In doing so, the willingness for taking risks, can depend on pull and push factors. As sample, the foundation of an enterprise out of joblessness (push factor) is assessed with a higher readiness to assume a risk, than founding an enterprise as best possibility out of umpteen alternatives (pull factor) (Jacobsen 2003:60).

Jacobsen (2003:61) summarizes “that the motivation avoiding risks, respectively the ability for risk assessment and risk control, is a crucial character trait of potential and particularly successful entrepreneurs”. And how this character trait is developed, depends on the inner personal constitution of the entrepreneur, and embodies the fact, “[…] that entrepreneurs who are strongly motivated to minimize risks and to avoid pursuing false alarms, may set their subjective criteria relatively high, while those who are relatively tolerant of risk and more concerned about overlooking bona fide opportunities may set their criteria somewhat lower” (Baron 2013:140).

The locus of controlis seen as a further action formative entrepreneurial competence, which should be anchored in the entrepreneurial personality. The locus of control is “the generalized expectation, having action consequences by oneself under control (internal control), or rather being a victim of circumstances (external control)” (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:184).

With this, the locus of control is concerning the entrepreneur knotted on expectations, influencing by oneself expectations and occurrences in the entrepreneurial living environment; or - as opposite pole - accepting occurrences as not influenceable.

Expectations presume perception, being the core element of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight. “Expectations are subjective probabilities about all possible relations between stimuli and reactions; they embody the certainty about, what will follow on a particular mode of behavior – with this, expectations are important inner determinants of individual behavior” (Mummendey 2006:55). In the following, Mummendey (2006:55) argues: “Subjective expectations then play a dominant role as well for thinking ahead - anticipating and planning – as for realizing behavioural patterns”.

Caliendo et al. (2011b:15) point to the fact, that entrepreneurs should have available a high internal locus of control, as well as a rather lower external locus of control. Brauckman et al. (2008:14) too, ascribe a high locus of control to the successful entrepreneur. Though, they refer to a longitudinal study of Brockhaus (1982:38ff), bringing out that successful foundations of enterprises are done by entrepreneurs, having rather a high internal locus of control; against what, with failed foundations a more external locus of control could be located. Müller and Thomas (2001:56) confirm this, indicating that previewing entrepreneurs have a more internal, than an external locus of control.

The power of motive strengthsigns the own abilities, dealing with challenges, with work tasks which must be done (Brauckmann et al. 2008:14). Power of motive strength is a characteristic trait on the motivational level, bringing out corresponding to Bijedic (2013:54) a in special valid determinant of entrepreneurial thinking and action. So, to power of motive strength is ascribed the nature, being a stabile predictor, concerning the foundation of an entrepreneurial independency. (Müller et al. 2002:19 ff.).

Power of motive strength is linked with tasks and actions, bringing out intrinsic incentives, to which good chances of success a realization can be spoken to (Müller et al. 2002:19 ff.). With reference to McClelland and Winter (1971), Rauch and Frese (2001:4553) indicate, that the power of motive strength should be higher for people who are willing to found an enterprise ( and of course also for people in existing enterprises), because the power of motive strength describes ‘striving for efficiency’; “ergo the wish, doing something better, more quickly and in the same time with less efforts” (Jacobsen 2003:56 f.).

People have different entries to and a different handling of and with insecurity and uncertainty. The tolerance of ambiguitysigns the fact how a person (and with this also the entrepreneur) is dealing with non-transparent, ambiguous, and/or complex situations (Brauckmann et al. 2008:14). “The tolerance of ambiguity - in opposite to a strong ligation on norms - associates a certain eagerness to experiment, and so is also connected to creativity” (Westerfeld 2001:143 f.).

Persons with a high tolerance of ambiguity find a challenge in the multi-layer contours of complex and non-transparent situations. They make no overhasty decisions, being no longer obliged to hold up aggravating situations (Brauckmann et al. 2008:14). By this reason, people with a high tolerance of ambiguity are not needy for finishing uncertain situations as quick as possible. Fallgatter (2007:199) points out this fact, allotting higher tolerance-degrees of ambiguity to entrepreneurs as to other people. He argues: “This also makes a sense, because the engagement with the new - the innovative - as it can be regarded as typical for entrepreneurial action, always is at the same time an engagement in ambiguous situations”.

For entrepreneurial action, a further motive lies in the wish and the striving for independency. Striving for independencyis signed by the wish, having autonomy and individual fulfilment. Independency and creativity are brought into connection by Funke (2000:289 ff.), because independency allows connected with creativity unusual connotations, the change of perspectives and the broadening of the horizon.

For Baron (2013:31), in striving for independency a reason is seen, why humans get entrepreneurs. But indeed, striving for independency also bears dangers inside, because this striving for independency can block the view on the ideas und the behaviour of other humans, by practicing experienced behavioural patterns on basis of the by self-acting practiced free creative power (Thraen 2011:16).

Despite such dangers, it can be stated that - concerning the entrepreneurs - the needs for independence, respectively the whish for acting autonomously, could be verified (Jacobsen 2003:61). By this means, also Caliendo et al. (2011b:4) include striving for independence into the checklist of characteristics (competence-catalogue), the entrepreneur should bring with himself, doing entrepreneurial action and with this also doing the entrepreneurial functions and entrepreneurial foresight: “Typical examples of personality characteristics, matching entrepreneurial tasks are, inter alia, need of achievement, locus of control, risk taking, need for autonomy and assertiveness”.

Assertiveness- the ability to assert oneself - includes a dominant and vigorous mannerism, which can certainly also appear in a feeling of social superiority (Gerlitz and Schupp 2005:28). Assertiveness yields the ability and with this also the result of human (entrepreneurial) action. With Szczęk (2015:62 f.), it is cited as the capability of a person, “starting different methods, techniques and strategies, winning also against resistances other humans for the own targets, in a way that these people get ambitious, realizing the targets”. Assertiveness should be – depending on the situation - shaped in a moderate degree (Brauckmann et al. 2008:15).

For entrepreneurs, there is the necessity, doing decisions not always in sense of the best of all options of a moment, but reacting immediately on changes as soon as a done decision seemingly is not optimal (Baron 2013:135). And with this, the competence of an adaptability (in sense of flexibility) is demanded. In the same sense are the arguments of van Reedt et al. (2016:16): “Flexibility refers to changing the configuration of an asset in order to enable adaption to future changes on demand”. A complementary approach to the ability of entrepreneurial adaptability, with this means social-communicative competences of interpersonal reactivity, thus, to approach conversational partners and contact partners (Brauckmann et al. 2008:15). Because, social entrepreneurial abilities, for the entrepreneur are helpful, constructing social networks (Baron 2013:99).

The problem-solving orientationis closely connected with creativity. “Creativity means the ability, considering in problem-solving situations not only possibilities known and just thought about, but developing out of a network of individual and potentially relevant experiences always new situation-related solutions” (Koetz 2006:35). Problem-oriented entrepreneurial action needs beside know-how also ingenuity and capacity for innovation (Koetz 2006:36).

The problem-solving orientation is an ability (competence), coming up to not standardized and complex requirements by handling available information, based on widespread planning skills (Brauckmann et al. 2008:16). Problems firstly can be recognized and solved if information - stimuli - are existent. Lehmann-Waffenschmidt et al. (2008:4) point out the fact, that there is not a simple mechanism, converting stimuli into reactions, or problems into decision. That’s why a problem-solving awareness - a concentration on possibly problematic contents - is necessary. Because “ […] the more we focus ourselves on something, the higher becomes the intensity of the conscious perception about the relevant incident” (Roth 2013:77). Thereby, problem orientation needs a high, target oriented awareness for purpose of (mental) perception by doing the entrepreneurial functions, as well as triggering entrepreneurial foresight.

Brauckmann et al. (2008:16) point to the advantageously fact of a high problem-solving orientation as ‘tool’ of entrepreneurial action. Rammseyer and Weber (2010:96) combine the problem-solving ability with the presence of an internal locus of control. By this relationship, demands of professional life in principle are visible as successful solvable problems.

Being able to a problem-solving orientation, is individual-related – ergo thereby also bonded on the personality of the entrepreneur. For this fact, Mummendey (2006:48) uses the following sentence: “It is unarguable that mental or intellectual activities can be applied on the own person - thereby, the activities of thinking as for example getting logical results from information, ranging objects into abstract categories, constructing causal relations and doing predictions, developing questions from inside, seeking for all possible solutions and finding problem solving solutions”.

Emotional stabilityis linked with “[…] characteristics like tranquility, placidness,
sovereignty, low emotionality, stability, effectivity, but also hardihood and complacency” (Caliendo et al. 2011a:3). “Emotional stability describes kind and intensity of emotional reactions; persons have on aversive incidents” (Brauckmann et al. 2008:16). By the human (entrepreneurial) emotional system, inner personal states are observed; linked with the question about things are turning to a good or to a bad side (Eagleman 2012:131).

That are inner neuronal reticulations, also interrogating entrepreneurial action about priorities, integrating, and judging in different ways. Given that the priority of entrepreneurial actions is regulated from out of the personality, a high emotional stability for the entrepreneur as practitioner of the entrepreneurial functions, is important; so that having emotional ‘slip-ups’ as possible wrong decisions will not appear. So, Caliendo et al. (2011a:3) rightly write, the possibility for an enterprise foundation and for entrepreneurial success also depends on a personal high emotional stability. This high emotional stability for entrepreneurial success is highly preferable, because: “Decisions are emotional at every time, as long as weighing them before. And rational arguments, decisions only affect only by the with them bonded emotions, that means expectations and apprehensions” (Roth 2013:197).

Entrepreneurs (humans) differ in their skills (competence), handling the ability to work under pressure; that means tackling stress, working with irksome situations, accepting pressures as challenge. Baron (2013:164) ascribes the ability to work under pressure of a person - and for this reason the entrepreneur - on his/her psychological capital, as a combination between self-efficacy, optimism, hope and endurance. He describes the following assumption about a relationship: “The higher entrepreneurs are in psychological capital, the lower the levels of stress they report, and the higher their subjective well-being. Developing a high level of psychological capital, then, can be very beneficial for entrepreneurs” (Baron 2013:165).

It was possible showing by studies, that entrepreneurs have higher degrees of resilience than dependent employees have (Brauckmann 2008:16). That means, the entrepreneur should have as possible a balance between job requirements on the one side, and the for him available personal environmental resources for entrepreneurial action on the other hand: this for having the chance, avoiding stress-induced pressures. Only in case, this balance preferably widely exists, the entrepreneur can bring together objective and subjective perceptions in a way, growing out of this for himself in a self-determined rationality and entrepreneurial action (Benedikter et al. 2010:1003), allowing to him, to do the entrepreneurial functions free of pressures.

Close to emotional stability and ability to work under pressure, the personal entrepreneurial motivational forcemust be named. Motivational force mirrors the ability, starting duties, and/or bringing them also to an end. Motivational force has a connection to willingness for efforts, activity and being eager to work, but also with a high pace of work, endurance, energy, and vigor (Brauckmann 2008:17).

Thereby, motivational force concerns the (entrepreneurial) self-discipline and with this the tendency, doing tasks defiance boredom or diversion: For success, a hard work is necessary (Dehne and Schupp 2007:39).

By means of the preceding competences as reference points for the business-economic contouring of an entrepreneurial personality as actor in the entrepreneurial functions, Müller (2010:67) has illustrated the complete entrepreneurial capability on a comparing basis between dependent employed people and self-employed working people by using a test procedure with 90 items, in which lowest appropriateness has the figure 0, and highest appropriateness the figure 9. The rating about the characteristic features was done in a questionnaire technique. With this, there is the Diagramm in figure 5.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 5: Characteristics of entrepreneurial relevant features for appropriateness in case of being employed and being self-employed. ● = employed ♦ = entrepreneur od independent working
Source: Müller 2010:6

The ratings show that entrepreneurial working persons in all characteristics of relevant suitability features (competences) reach higher amounts than employed working persons. But the ratings give no exploration about, which amount the suitability features in ideal should have for a successful entrepreneurial action and for a successful doing the entrepreneurial functions. However, it is visible that in special motivational force, locus of control - namely high internal -, ability to work under pressure as well as the risk appetite of the entrepreneurial acting person should be sized in a special way highly.

Over all characteristics of appropriateness (competences), describing - as preceding - the entrepreneurial acting person, it is the personality of the entrepreneur as promotor of getting insights and with this having the ability for perception in the sense of entrepreneurial foresight, correspondent to the made definition. The definition which signs the entrepreneur as a person, having the following characteristics (without prejudicing absolute measurements):

- a high degree of motivational force

- a particularly high degree of internal locus of control

- an above-average striving for independence

- an above-average power of motive strength

- a particularly high ability to work under pressure

- an average till above-average problem-solving orientation

- a minimum moderate till higher risk appetite

- a tolerance for uncertainty a little bit above the average

- an increased assertiveness

- a social adaptability a little bit above average.

With this, nothing is said about, in how far a person wishing to be an entrepreneur or doing entrepreneurial practice, effectively also is able in a specifically measure, having entrepreneurial foresight. It is merely predicated that a person with these characteristics of appropriateness is suitable, developing the necessary entrepreneurial foresight for doing successful the entrepreneurial functions. Because: Entrepreneurial foresight is the individual personal ability for perception and bringing the results of perception under the restriction of ‘bounded rationality’ into actions; by reason, doing the entrepreneurial functions.

And thereby, the ability for entrepreneurial action and having entrepreneurial foresight is not bonded on somehow specially distinguished entrepreneurial competences, but merely on such competences, being necessary in the ‘normal operation’ of entrepreneurial action in doing the entrepreneurial functions. As well as in painting, fine arts, physics etc. there are protruding geniuses, also amongst entrepreneurs there will be those, who by specially appropriateness are able, doing the entrepreneurial functions in a real extraordinary good way; having as such persons perhaps the ability for a very special way for new insights by means of perception and entrepreneurial foresight.

However, it is not the requirement of this script, working out characteristics for such a genius. Much more, it is to scrutinize if the in (beside of course also others) the business-economics presented characteristics are sufficient, coming on the traces of the character - origin – of entrepreneurial action, and with this the character of entrepreneurial foresight. And just here, criticism begins.

2.4.2 The deficiency of business-economic demands on the entrepreneurial personality

The question about the effectual acceptability of the in the business-economic literature presented characteristics - coming with this also along the way to entrepreneurial foresight – is allowed, but certainly difficult for having an answer. This gets apparent, bringing the preceding theoretical considerations into a connection with the three in chapter 2 presented protagonists. It will be difficult, judging these protagonists by concrete statements about the in detail explicated competences under a business-economic viewconcerning their entrepreneurial action and their ability for entrepreneurial foresight. The only thing, getting obvious by reading the presented entrepreneurial profiles, is the fact that all three interview partners are acting since many years in the entrepreneurial functions, preserving their enterprises at market.

As well as the back dated imminent insolvency of the tour operator could be judged as an indication, even having not the ability for the demands on successful action in the entrepreneurial function, on the other hand is to argue that the tour operator with comprehension of a further, in economic questions competent shareholder, even had the needed entrepreneurial foresight. He started those actions, bringing his enterprise away from a financial incline.

Thus, perhaps there is the conclusion, the presented three entrepreneurial active humans in the sum fulfil the business economic competence requirements – perhaps in one case better or in another worse. Otherwise, they would not be or not yet involved in doing the entrepreneurial functions, or the by them leaded enterprises would not be on the market any longer.

Nevertheless, no statement can be made, which height for example the motivational force is, concerning the three presented entrepreneurs; if they fulfil the demand of a more internal locus of control perhaps ‘only just’, if and with which measure they have the readiness to assume risk

This disability for giving a concrete answer depends on the fact, that preceding terms like motivational force, locus of control, striving for independency, power of impetus, ability to work under pressure, problem solving orientation, risk appetite, tolerance for uncertainty, assertiveness, emotional stability and adaptability have one thing common: that are terms for human, and with this also entrepreneurial behaviour . And with this - Eagleman (2012:256) argues -, concerning behaviour and brain, the terms are “a shortened denomination for something, in which are flowing in influences out of a much wider spread social-biological system” The terms are denominations for facts, being not settled in the business-economics, but for example in the psychology, biology, the genetics, etc.

Thereby, from other sciences - as for example the psychology - facts and results of research are adopted, being not grown on the ground of the business-economics. Not in vain, “[…] the psychology of the personality refers to psychological processes, being at the basis of the behaviour and the experience of the psychic healthy human; and how these processes are influencing reciprocal, building an organised system, we name personality” (Rammsayer and Weber 2010:17). By this tacit adoption of genetic, biologic and psychologic facts contouring the entrepreneurial personality in the business-economics, the evidence appears that obviously personality traits - formed into business-economic competence demands - can be assumed as determinants of economic success.

Thereby, business-economics contouring the entrepreneurial personality, are working with results coming from other sciences. And this, without questioning how the ‘design features’ of the personality, the entrepreneur as actor in the entrepreneurial functions has, are formed.

By this the fact is neglected, that the personality of the entrepreneur also could perhaps be contoured otherwise, concerning entrepreneurial foresight in the business economic surroundings by doing the entrepreneurial functions, as described before detailed by entrepreneurial competence characteristics. The business-economics by themselves have no explanation why entrepreneurs make mistakes in complex situations, bearing ‘wrong’ entrepreneurial action, blocking or impeding entrepreneurial foresight.

That are faults, Gleißner exemplary speaks about: slowness of thinking, existence of a low ‘inlet’ capacity of commemoration and oblivion, lack of experience by handling complex situations, mistakes by maintenance of actionability, mistakes by handling probabilities, etc. (Gleißner 2003:69 ff.).

Perception as fundament of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, is the premise for receiving and using information. Having efforts for handling problems, this premise can be “built by […] the interaction of psychically forces, a person sometimes more or less is extradited to, but which can sometimes (in a certain extent) be influenced by the person itself “ (Martin 2011:115). Further on, Martin (2011:115) points to the biological anchorage of these forces inside the human nature; an argument also Roth (2003:399) picks up: “A complete understanding of personality differences will not be possible without bio-psychological concepts”.

Thereby, it gets visible that business-economics by themselves are not concluding able,
contouring the entrepreneurial personality, which is doing the entrepreneurial functions, and having entrepreneurial foresight too, but must revert to results from other sciences.This argument also Heckman (2011:3) has, writing: “Personality psychology considers a wider array of actions than are usually considered by economics and enlarges the economist’s way to describe and model the world. Personality traits are not set in stones. They change over the life cycle”.

That means, the presented ‘business economic’ characteristics of competence for an entrepreneurial personality - and with this the ability of the person for foresighted action - , concerning its origin, must be regarded for explanations in a wider field of research as the business economic-sciences are.

2.4.3 Interdisciplinary extension of the research-field about the expectations on an entrepreneurial and foresight convenient acting entrepreneurial person by doing the entrepreneurial functions

Already Karl Popper has the requirement for interdisciplinarity, by constructing scientific findings on three, mutual influencing pillars: the societal world of ideas, the observation of the biophysical world, as well as the internal world of the observer (Brown 2015:211).

Correspondent, Schneider (1995:121 f.) points to the fact that for business-economic sciences as a singular institutional theory of the economics, human action - and with this also entrepreneurial action – is not completely to explain, but that for entrepreneurial action only can be given significant tips. Further on Schneider (1997:18) argues: “Paradigms, adopted from psychology, social-psychology and sociology build the background for models or hypothesis, explaining how those decisions arise, which are research object of the business economics”.

Exactly here is the reason for seeking explanations in an interdisciplinary field of research, contouring the entrepreneurial personality, it’s ability for doing the entrepreneurial functions by entrepreneurial action, as well as having the ability for foresight.

Such an enlargement of the area of research is supported by the evidence, that not only the economics are engaged in the person of the entrepreneur, but also sciences like for example sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc. (Reckenfelderbäumer 2001:164). This hint is made more significant by Reckenfelderbäumer (2001:178), writing: “The mentioned forced opening of business economics in direction to behavioural sciences has brought out, that going along with this, also business-economic thoughts about the function of the entrepreneur have a considerable reference to non-economic neighbor disciplines of the business economics”.

Accordingly, for a future oriented awareness - ending in future oriented entrepreneurial action - is demanded, examining for this the complete human psychology including thoughts, emotions, motivations, behaviour, etc. (Lombardo 2008:44). That is about Lombardo’s appellation, bringing inside a multidimensional future orientation as well scientific, technologic, ecologic, psychosocial, as religious-spiritual aspects (Lombardo 2007:16).

The hint about the characterization of the behavioural scientific decision theory as explanation projection for empiric observed decision behaviour by different theoretical perceptions - which is not a closed construction - makes the interdisciplinarity of decision research visible: political, psychological, sociological, and business economical questions are to combine (Neumer 2009:12), coming along entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight.

By the fact that under sociologic, historic, psychologic perceptions - and perhaps also by the recent presentation of the entrepreneur as a rational actor under considerations about usefulness - insights in each singular science have developed isolated (Fontela et al. 2006:3) - , an interdisciplinary pooling of these isolated won insights can bring out a better understanding for evaluation and origin of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight. That is why interdisciplinarity is somehow a brick, thrilling deeper complex problems (here the problem about the ability to explain entrepreneurial action inclusive the aspect of entrepreneurial foresight), by bringing together perspectives, ideas and theories form different fields of science, and approaches from the practice too (Bridle et al. 2013:23).

Therefore, Vanberg (2002:28) argues: “Interdisciplinary consistence is not only a premise, bringing the economics as experience-oriented science on a more sustainable behavioural theoretic basis. It (note: interdisciplinary consistence) is also an essential premise for the progress of insights in the social sciences in general”. Further on is argued: Economists, sociologists, and anthropologists (and of course the enumeration is not complete) are not allowed, giving no attention on relevant results about human (and with this also entrepreneurial) behaviour (Vanberg 2002:28), because it must not be surprisingly that the dialogue between the sciences can contribute a lot, explaining human and entrepreneurial behavioural patterns (Fiedler 2011:541).

By this, Heckman’s (2011:3) demand knotting personality traits of the psychology with economic facts, is quite warrantable: “Economists need to link the traits of psychology with the preferences, constraints, and expectation mechanism of economics. We need to develop rigorous methods of analyzing causal relationships in both fields. We also need to develop a common language and a common framework to promote interdisciplinary exchange”.

Thus, it seems to be allowed, enlarging, and manifesting in the following interdisciplinary the field of research for the origin and the basis for competence/qualification characteristics, acting entrepreneurial and having foresight ability by doing the entrepreneurial functions.

2.5. The interdisciplinary research-question about the becoming of entrepreneurial foresight-leaded acting

„Academic findings are not made by disciplines, but by individuals or groups, who are not taking care of the borders of subjects” (Vossenkuhl 1999:53). Seeing under this the sciences comprehensive aspect entrepreneurial foresight - the individual personal ability for perception and bringing the results of perception under the restriction of ‘bounded rationality’ into actions, by reason, doing the entrepreneurial functions - not only under pure business economical points of view, necessarily the question arises, how this entrepreneurial ability just as entrepreneurial action itself gets formatted.

In effect, the question is much wider and not only concerning the entrepreneur: “The question of ‘what is the essence of the human being’ becomes a new catechism of our age that increasingly lies at the center of all other fields of action, including politics, economics, technology, science, medicine, culture, psychology, education and religion” (Benedikter et al. 2010:1104).

The general scrutinizing and the trial to find out the ‘essence of the human being’, then perhaps may give conclusions, concerning the preceding nearer presented competence characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality; and this for taking these competence characteristics in the business-economic sciences, perhaps for widen them, or perhaps for falsify them.

For this reason, Benedikter et al. (2010:1104) claim the comprehension of questions about genetic and neuroscience as fact to explain into the research field about the explanation of getting human consciousness (and with this also the human, and - so too - entrepreneurial perception).

For a research-entry about the business-economic demanded personality as promotor by doing the entrepreneurial functions it means, that for the formation of this, personality entries of explanation must be provided from the genetics, the neurosciences, the psychology, etc.

Having such explanations at first, business-economic sciences then for their research have the skeletal structure, contouring the personality of the entrepreneur, and using the presented competence characteristics not only by an all-days practice, but then with a ‘background knowledge’ about the formation of these competences (characteristics). Principal then it gets visible about, Schneider (1995:13) means with ‘willing’ and the ‘usage of the first endowment of ability’, in which beside ‘knowledge’ the human capability is anchored.

With this, it is necessary, making interdisciplinary visible the construction of individual-related perception as fundament of entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions; and with this, also the construction of entrepreneurial foresight – more visible, as it happens on the high abstraction level about the doctrine concerning the entrepreneurial functions.

Coming on this trace is important, this especially under the aspect, that also the homo agens is acting on the platform of bounded rationality, because: “Monitoring of the brain impulses reveals that over 85 % of human reflection and decision-making takes place within the unconscious mind, the realm of feelings and imagination” (Brown 2015:211).

Thereby, concerning a business-economic perspective and business-economic assumed entrepreneurial competences, the question comes out, howperception as a fundamental brick of entrepreneurial foresight and for entrepreneurial action comes into the world; whyhereby individual patterns of personality are added up, having aftersuch an explanation-trial the chance getting adopted to the business-economic sciences as competences for a foresighted and successful in the entrepreneurial functions acting entrepreneur.

Thereby, that are until now interdisciplinary researched bricks, ready for working out the contours of a foresight suitable and entrepreneurial acting personality. By this, then in the business-economic sciences preceding presented characteristics of competence for a successful entrepreneurial personality can be confirmed, enlarged, or perhaps also falsified.

It is necessary to carve out the individual personality of the entrepreneur on basis of
‘construction -characteristics’ as authoritative determinants for entrepreneurial foresight and entrepreneurial action, and pointing out facts too, how these construction-characteristics make visible different entrepreneurial action and bonded with this entrepreneurial foresight.

For doing this there are the by interviews won statements (Annex A) from the in chapter 1.2.3 presented entrepreneurs. By this way, perhaps an inducement will be created, and a basis too, thinking about models by which entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight can be made ‘measurably’. This in a form, having then in the business economic sciences as well as in the economic practice assessment criterions, which can give answers about the capability of a person, acting successful in the entrepreneurial functions and practicing entrepreneurial foresight.

An advancement in that direction, is correspondent too - appropriate to Heinen (1971:22) - with the decision theoretical reflections of business-economics: “The decision theoretical related business-economic sciences try to explain much more on the basis of a descriptive theory of human decision behaviour, explaining the sequence of decision processes in enterprises, and giving suggestions how to behave for decision-makers.” Doing so, an interdisciplinary open mindedness comes along for the processes of a decision-making and will-power as an indicator of the decision theoretical system-design in business-economic sciences (Heinen 1971:22).

2.6 To interdisciplinarity: The person-related character of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight - the individual personality as a core-determinant

As previous developed, the personof the entrepreneur as actor in the entrepreneurial functions comes into the foreground. It is the entrepreneur (manager, group of persons), having perception, knotting signals to information, bringing that information by doing the entrepreneurial functions into the enterprise, and having by the process of perception entrepreneurial foresight too.

By this, no longer onlythe entrepreneurial functions are in the focus, but hardly the person of the entrepreneur itself. Because it is the person, having activities, making demands on its efficiency, acquiring knowledge, and bringing that all into (also foresighted) concepts.

Rammseyer and Weber (2010:100) point out this fact as central point of ‘self-efficacy’, revealing with this the requirement on the ‘person’ behind the entrepreneurial functions.Only a person, knowing who he/she is, he/she is capable to do, is in the situation for planning actions, predicting action results, having control about occasions(Laskowski 2000:38). Cognition of a person about his/her intelligence, his/her punctuality, diligence, etc. create the (having later a nearer look on) self-concept of a person (Laskowski 2000:15). Only persons, being reflected in that way, are able, acting in the entrepreneurial functions with success.

Feeling out such a self-consciousness, it is necessary, trying to get to the bottom of the
personality of the entrepreneur as a central determinant of entrepreneurial action and
entrepreneurial foresight.

The scrutinizing about the bricks of the personality in general - and so also the entrepreneurial personality - and with this applying on interdisciplinary explanation approaches, is the task. Along this way, the analysis of interdisciplinary parameters, forming the personality, is necessary.

The way how a person has perception, bringing with this, signals into foresight-capable information and action, depends on the preceding mentioned - but nearer to explain –

self-concept. That means the assumption of the person about the own ability-characteristics in achievement-positions. “These assumptions influence in a manifold way the experience and the behaviour of the person; a positive self-concept of the own efficiency seems to be a supporting factor for entrepreneurial action” (Braun et al. 2009:69). Because – as Laskowski (2000:22) points out: “The self-definition or rather the established self-conceptof the person, extensive determines the interpretation and organisation of the person …”

Although the problem is that persons oftentimes are not aware about their feelings and motivations. And by this, there are running intra-psychical processes conflicting with not influenced compromises as result (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:61 f.). This is also equivalent to the preceding statement that 85% of human decision-making happens unconsciously.

The person-relation of perception - and with this the steering towards the individual personality- arises from the evidence of a mutual relationship between perception-filters and decision-filters: those signals are assessed more significant, being compatible with the competence-structure of a person and passing by this the personal selection-filter automatic. So, an automatic preselection of information happens, being then manifested in the action-tendencies of a person (Scheffer and Loerwald 2009 no page). Thus, it is the person-relation of perception by which it is necessary, experiencing more about such characteristics and their occurrence, by which a person - the entrepreneur - over a longer time is characterized, by which the polarization of the person is determined, and more than only this, are seen by the person as important bricks of his/her life story (experiences, narratives) (Brüll 2010:21 f.).

For this reason, that are psychologic-biological processes, cognitive procedures, creating a person – also the entrepreneur (Mummendey 2006:258). On behalf of these processes, not only a recognition of a perception-object starts, but at the same time its evaluation and rating (Mummendey 2006:25). It is perhaps a question of the self-regulation tendency, in which the recognition of a perception-object is bundled, characterizing then well possible the pure personal of the entrepreneur by acting in the entrepreneurial functions and his ability for having foresight. That is to say: “Who does this situation want me to be and how can I be that person” in case of a high self-control tendency, in opposite to the question “Who am I and how can I be me in this situation” in case of a low self-control tendency (Mummendey 2006:63).

The second part of the question mirrors more the situation found out about the tour operator, whereas the first part of the question corresponds more to the other two presented interview partners.

The identity, the personality of a human is determined by his/her mindsets, dispositions, and habitudes. Martin (2011:186) refers to durableness and constancy, the reference of behaviour-patterns and characteristic traits to the nucleus of being – to the inner nucleus of personality. Furthermore, Martin (2011:187) points out that it is deemed to be identity constructing, “[…] by what human thinking, feeling and, acting in a fundamental sense is coined, what is anchored deep inside the human, ‘percolating’ all his sensing and character”. And for this, the origin must be felt out, coming nearer to an understanding of the entrepreneurial personality.

What such a difficult conclusion as the preceding contains, is shown in the following figure (fig.6), showing all the interdependent factors, by which humans - and with this also, the entrepreneurial personality - is represented.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig.6: Roberts model of personality as output of a system. Source: Borghans et al. 2011:4

The figure represents an unimagined complexity of the human personality. In this script, the complexity surely cannot be dissolved completely and explanatory. But a trial can be made, looking nearer on an explanatory way (and of course not final) for those elements, which can be relevant, explaining an entrepreneurial personality. Characteristics - ‘traits’ -, skills, preferences, and narratives (the self-concept) are forming the personality (Borghans et al. 2011:4).

The difficult comprehensible wideness of the personality is mirrored by its personality characteristics and its cognitive abilities. Borghans et al. (2014:4) point out: “Identity and reputation shape the roles of individuals in the economy and the society to which they belong”.

Under the aspect of the in figure 6 shown complexity of the human personality, humans (entrepreneurs) try compressing perceptions to information. And doing this, they are extradited in the resulting actions to the inner-psychical forces, they can handle only in a certain extent, but often just not by themselves.

These forces are anchored in the biologic human nature, in the human psychological
constitution in the moment of action, the requirement of the respective action situation. With this, the entrepreneur as acting person (as well as every other person too) is defined by a “ […] conglomerate of problem situations, inner models, thoughts, action drafts, attitudes, claims, motive constellations, etc.” (Martin 2011:115).

Not in vain, genes in figure 6 are standing as a ‘preceding’ factor which is particularly by their correlation bonded with the fields of ‘traits’, ‘abilities’, ‘motives and values’, as well as the ‘narratives’. This circumstance is taken by Brauckmann et al. (2008:4), pointing out that experiencing, behaviour, adaptability, as well as the willingness for changes in the personality are genetic fixed by their evolutionary determination. There is existing in a strong measure a genetic determined psychological-vegetative and affective basic equipment of a person, in which its personality is ‘anchored’. As a sample Roth (2013:21) here names the common level of excitement, swiftness of bio-inspired information, behaviour and adaptability in front of new situations. Further on Roth (2013:21 f.) points out: “Concerning more complex characteristics like openness and closeness, positive or negative emotionality and the ability to be socialized, there is an insoluble intermixture between genetic and by upgrowth caused characteristics, and by prenatal or by early infantile effectual environmental influences …”

Thereby, it gets obvious that the contouring of the entrepreneurial personality depends on completely other factors than on pure business-economic ones. And with this, also the ‘setting in motion’ of the entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions as well as the ability for having entrepreneurial foresight, by business-economic sciences only hardly - if at all - is to explain.

So, it makes a sense, immerging into the bricks, by which a personality is constructed. By the then won insights, perhaps afterwards a comparison with competences is possible, brought preceding inside under business-economic aspects as necessity for a successful, foresight-able entrepreneur.

3 Interdisciplinary the personality constructing bricks as fundament of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight

By what a personality is represented, Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:25) summarize in six paradigms of the differential psychology: a) paradigm of attributes, b) paradigm of information processing, c) dynamic-interactionistically paradigm, d) paradigm of neuroscience, e) molecular-genetic paradigm, f) evolution-psychological paradigm. With paradigms are ment bundles of hypothesis or theoretical concepts.

The paradigm of attributesinforms about the individuality of a person by describing characteristics, being bundled in a profile of personality (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:26). Characteristics (traits) by characterising a person, fulfil three functions: a)”the summaryof trends in behaviour and experience in different situations”, b) “the prediction of henceforward behaviour and experience” c) the “explanationof individual trends about behaviour and experience” (Angleitner and Riemann 2005:93).

In such a characterization hint on competences can be found, by which preceding entrepreneurial action was characterized: risk appetite, locus of control, force of motive power, tolerance of ambiguity, striving for independence, assertiveness, adaptability, problem solving orientation, emotional stability, ability to work under pressure and strength of inducement.

Angleitner and Riemann (2005:93) point to the fact, that behind linguistic used characteristics are standing elements to explain, by which the dissimilarity in the human personality is determined: genetic nature, activities of regions in the brain, hormonal influences, concentrations of neurotransmitters, influences of the environment.

The paradigm of the differential psychology in the following will have a more extensive importance as there are models, describing very completely and exactly factors, by which the personality is built

“The paradigm of information processingassumes the fact that human behaviour and experience is based on the information transfer in the nervous system, which receives by receptors stimuli from the environment and from the own body, converting them into other information which are responsible for a conscious experience, and transfer by motoric activities information to the environment (behaviour)” (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:33). Here - concerning the entrepreneur - is applied on his/her perception, by which entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight is triggered. The call-off order of information is done by indication-stimuli out of the environment of the person by itself. By these indication-stimuli begins a search for stimulus compatible information in the episodic memory (Jäncke 2013:514). With this, the paradigm of information processing is acting with cognitive information processing and with learning processes, by which experience and behaviour as results of neuronal information-molding processes are characterized (Brauckmann et al. 2008:5).

There are individual-typical information handling parameters stable by time (degree of speed barrier of flashpoint, intensity of a reaction, capacity of the working memory) by which personality characteristics are represented. But individual-typical contents of memory in the long-term memory too, must be included into the personality characteristics (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:33). Here too, Brauckmann et al. point to an in parts genetic determined dissimilarity of personality, but also to the by the environment coined differences. The citation further on: “Though, these individual differences do not only exist in the speed and the capacity of information processing, but also in the characteristics of temperament and motives” (Brauckmann et al- 2008:5f).

As the two preceding paradigms communicate snap-reading methods of a personality, change-processes of the personality with them are not included (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:33). Finding here answers about the convertibility of the personality - and thereby about the entrepreneurial personality for the purpose, doing the entrepreneurial functions ‘better’ – the dynamic-interactionistic paradigmprobes the causes of questions about the personality development. “The dynamic-interactionistic paradigm is understanding personality development as interdependency between environment and the own characteristics during a life cycle” (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:33). Personality-environment interactions are included as interaction into the (entrepreneurial) personality under the point of view, regarding an outcoming dynamic lap of time of the observing-cycle. Thereby, this approach is acting with long-term projections about personality development and changes in the personality (Brauckmann et al. 2008:6)

Later, there will be a recourse to the dynamic-interactionistic paradigm, showing the borders of convertibility of the (entrepreneurial) personality. This point of view, also in the business economics is of concern, because by this perhaps an information can be given about, which potentials of convertibility an entrepreneur is able to have, giving higher effectiveness to his action in the entrepreneurial functions and to his entrepreneurial foresight.

The contents of the neuroscientific paradigmare just ‘arrived’ in the economics. On this Schilke and Reimann refer by writing: “The economic sciences provide theoretical and practice-oriented problem statements. The neurosciences give answer about the anatomy of the human brain, respectively its functionality. With their methods, the neurosciences support the localization, description and differentiation of states and processes inside the human brain, and by this, give exploration about the neuronal basis of human behaviour in economic decision situations”. Thereby, the neuroscientific paradigm of psychology contains the trial, giving a neuroscientific explanation for human behaviour (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:49). This approach bases on the fact that human information processing is done by the nervous system (brain and nerves), as the smallest units of the nervous system (neurons) are serving as information carrier. Thereby, it is a biologic approach, explaining the human personality by looking on the information transfer in the nervous system (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:49).

This information transfer is based on biochemical processes, done by presently known about 60 substances – neurotransmitters, complemented by the mode of action of hormones. To these substances, in the personality-psychological academic research impacts on personality-relevant functions are referred to (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:52). So, the household of neurotransmitters a person has, amateurish said, influences the personality of a person.

Relating to the entrepreneurial personality, that means that indeed - as described before - everybody can be an entrepreneur; but that perhaps, the biological personality is a determinant, how this entrepreneur does the entrepreneurial functions or is able to do. That are so to say the personality coining biological/chemical processes, the entrepreneur is not able to influence concerning his personality development. So, for example, neurotransmitter systems (noradrenagene, serotonergene, cholinger system) are parameters for establishing concentration (attention) (Jähnke 2013:360 f.), influencing the human process of having perception, and with this also the entrepreneurial perception. Modern research methods substantiate the fact about neuronal processes, which are bringing out in the human brain physical and psychical states, which are based on verifiable physical processes (Krug 2013:236). By this, human characteristics - and so also for entrepreneurial action as relevant classified suitability features - can be classified and observed, but business-economical are not comprehensible concerning their origin.

The molecular-genetic paradigmhas the molecular behavioural genetics as subject. That means an explanation, “referring personality on the individual-typical patterns of alleles” (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:16). ‘Allele’ is the denomination for different forms of a gene (Graw 2010:3). “Genes are sectors on the chromosomes, which can be defined by their function concerning the metabolism; they can vary from person to person in their structure” (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:62). One refers to different alleles of the same gene. The human genome until now was deciphered with about 25.000 genes, which by themselves can appear in different alleles. Humans do not differ in their genes, but - no doubt - in their patterns of alleles. As these patterns of alleles in a human are unchangeable, as Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:62) say, the conclusion is nearby, “ […] that specialties in the personality relate to the individual-typical alleles-patterns in the genes”.

Today is acted on the assumption that the genetic determination of the personality is at about 50% (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:62). Corresponding to this, Roth argues the strong genetic conditionality of several personality characteristics, and here for example names the intelligence (Roth 2013:30).

There is the supposition that different patterns of alleles influence the efficiency of neurotransmitter absorption, and with this influence the biochemical information transfer. Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:63) give the hint about the fact that particularly alleles-constellations on a defined gene can bring out a deficit of the neurotransmitter dopamine, by what comes out a human behaviour striving for news, excitement, and changes, for the purpose of increasing the dopamine level.

It is this a hint that the human ‘biology’ minimum in parts determines the human behavior, and that with this also the entrepreneurial behaviour in parts is steered by the genes. The different mixture of genetic factors (gene-polymorphisms) is correspondent to the actual standard of psychological and neurobiological personality research an influencing value of the human personality(Roth 2013:103).

Thereby, it seems to be implausible that - as thought about in the preface - there is an entrepreneurial gene; but that at all it is probable that genes influence the entrepreneurial personality (Caliendo et al. 2011b:1).

Despite this evidently grave influence of the genes on the human personality, Roth (2008:10) argues, that not singular genes induce a certain behaviour, but that genes and environment are working together in a complicated mode, that genetic dispositions can get behavioural relevant in different ways by complex processes of brain-development, depending on environmental influences.

In the following, Roth (2008:10) writes that by four factors the human personality and human action is determined: “1) genetic predisposition, 2) idiosyncrasy of brain development, 3) early psychical embossment, in special by regarding the bonding experience, and 4) further psychosocial experiences in childhood and youth”.

The evolution-psychological paradigmdemands the reason for the fundamental existence of big differences in the personality. This paradigm tries making visible differences in the personality and its development based on human-evolutionary processes by principles of these processes, by which the human experience and behaviour of today evolutionary has developed (Asendorpf and Neyer 202:68). The paradigm acts on genetic explainable differences in the personality by frequency-dependent selection (dependence of the fitness of a gene dependent from its occurrence in the population), and on conditional strategies of development. That means the genetic determination of evolutionary ancestors, dependent from their typical environmental conditions (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:73 ff.). In how far this approach brings out explanations for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, is not explainable in the frame of this script. Thereby, the evolution-psychological paradigm is merely named for the complete denomination of what the fundament is about, by which the biologic-psychological view on explanations for entrepreneurial action perhaps is deduced from and explainable.

The preceding named paradigms distinct point out the psychological and biological implementation of the human personality. That are these implementations which are at least bringing out the insights “[…] that the numberless facets of our behavior, thinking and experience are inseparable linked up with a giant moisty chemical-electric network named nervous system” (Eagleman 1012:8), by which based on brain-activities the human action is determined. The brain research - together with the predominant part of personality psychology - acts on the assumption, that the personality is anchored in the brain, and in a wider sense inside the peripheral nervous system which again is closely linked up with the body and its functions” (Roth 2013:88).

By this, indeed physical everybody can be an entrepreneur in the sense of the business economic sciences. But in how far though a person does with a however defined success the entrepreneurial functions, to a great extend depends on his/her biologic determination.

Roth (2013:104 f.) suggests, that it is the biologic determination (genes and differences in the brain-development), by which in a great extent, 50%, the differences in the personality are determined, and exemplifies on this biological determination in special the temperament of a person, as well as specific abilities including the level of intelligence. But he also points out that more than only this, prenatal and early after the birth made experience of the first years of one’s life constitute about 30% of the human personality. Then, in the later childhood and the youth socializing processes (familial, social, environmental) are added, influencing the development of the personality, the last about 20%.

For the entrepreneur, that means that for him/her by the own personality at bottom, it is determined how he/she will act in the entrepreneurial functions. The back-breaking plurality of non-business-economic factors by which entrepreneurial action is represented, perhaps may be an indication why Schneider (1995:13) by having a business economic view only speaks about the ‘first endowment of capabilities’, looking on the ability of a human; making by this no further differentiation.

By the many preceding influencing factors also gets visible, why the three presented entrepreneurs must act with different entrepreneurial foresight in the entrepreneurial functions: Just because they got different biologic/genetic - and by bonding experiences in the earliest childhood - behaviour-patterns into their bassinet, they are not able to elude from.

As result the question comes out, how and which differences in the personality are delineated, by which humans can vary. And with this, there is also the question how entrepreneurs, concerning their action in the entrepreneurial functions are bringing out different results of their actions, and give to them different abilities, having entrepreneurial foresight.

3.1 Personality-differences as indication for different human (entrepreneurial) acting

The two completely identical entrepreneurs, preceding just spoken about, same aged, with the same education and the same horizon of experiences, coming from the same culture group (no monozygotic twins), in two really in all identical enterprises, with some probability will not have a completely identic entrepreneurial action. One reason for this must be searched in the different personality of these two entrepreneurs. For this reason, the question comes out, in what differences in the personality more concretely as by the six presented paradigms can be constituted human manners of behaviour and experience.

The hint of Burandt and Kanzek (2010:22) gives the suggestion that questions about differences in the personality, also have some importance for economic concerns: “Although, studies allow not complete homogeneous conclusions, either all clearly personality differences in the psyche of entrepreneurs are visible, comparing them with dependent employed persons”.

Beside personality differences in the sector of a) abilities and competences, there is to differ in b) the emotional cognitive sector and c) the sector of social behaviour (Weber and Rammsayer 2005:321 ff.).

This is necessary for designing a ‘picture’ of the personality on the fundament of the paradigm of the differential psychology, filtering out by this the perhaps ideal typical requirements, an entrepreneurial acting and with foresight equipped human should have. A difficult task in view of the fact of voices Caliendo et al. (2011:1) point out, by which the diversity of personality occurrences between entrepreneurs, is to judge bigger as this diversity between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.

3.1.1 Personality differences in the sector of abilities and competences

Personality differences in the sector of abilities and competencesare manifested in
discussion points as a) intelligence, b) creativity, c) wisdom, life-understanding and self-understanding, d) social competences, e) self-regulation and self-monitoring, f) stress handling. With these points, the frame was taken, as structured by Weber and Rammsayer (2005:321 ff.).

Intelligence

Intelligencemeans the ability, „1. Getting along in new situations reasoned by understanding, 2. Solving tasks by help of thinking, not based on experiences but by registration of correlations as the essential” (Neubauer 2005:323). Intelligence acts with the ability, tackling novel tasks on basis of existing knowledge and capabilities, by automating acquired abilities (Roth 2003:180). These are both competences which are necessary for acting entrepreneurial with success.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 7 structure of intelligence like Carroll (1993: no page) Source: similar Neubauer 2005:326

The structure of intelligence is differed into the intrinsically cogitation, named as fluid intelligence, serving to the knowledge acquisition – and resulting from this knowledge acquisition – the crystalline intelligence, in which acquired knowledge gets strengthened (Neubauer 2005:324). These two primary structural elements also were transferred - doing the research about intelligence - into the at Neubauer (2005:326) cited intelligence-structure-model from Carroll (1993: no page), which contains further structural characteristics of intelligence, as fig. 7 shows:

With “g” is signed the general intelligence, which then is divided in singular structural elements, which by themselves allow ‘refinements’. The plurality of different structural elements including their sub-elements show, in which broadness of variety human intelligence canappear, in which different intellectual partial abilities are standing in a moderate positive relation, by having a statistical view on it (Neubauer 2005:325 f).

Despite such moderate positive relations, it is divinable in which different spectrum the human personality only by the diverseness of intelligence can be characterized. This, in special by realizing that the different characteristics of intelligence are diversified in the figure in the by arrows signed level further on.

The figure also shows that intelligence and perception are related. And the ability for perception by itself is a very essential characteristic for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight.

And just concerning entrepreneurial action perhaps is important, what Neugarten (2006:897) explains as following: “Intelligence is thus about selective ignorance - knowing whatto ignore - which allows us to separate between foreground and background, between main and subsidiary, but it is also about being aware of what it is we are ignoring”.

The question remains for an answer, in what individual differences of intelligence have their reason. Reasons are supposed in genetic influences, but also in influences of the environment into the intelligence-development. Here, twin studies and adoption studies brought out a genetic fundament for intelligence of about 50 %, by environment caused influences of about 40%. 10% are declared as not explainable error of measurement (Neubauer 2005:329 f.). Other studies assume by research with 2000 twins, that the genetic percentage of intelligence for the personality has 2/3, whereas influences of the environment only have 1/3 (Schinwald 2008:6). As this statement indeed was given for the complete human personality, the statement may remain unanswered, having the same meaningfulness in special for the intelligence.

Differences in the intelligence are also manifested in the individual biopsychological fundament, being founded in the neural efficiency of cognitive activities. A higher neuronal efficiency, more intelligent persons have, can be explained by the activation of smaller cortical areas, and with this a less energy-use these humans have, doing their problem-solutions – in opposite to less intelligent humans. Bonded with this is a smaller uptake rate of ‘thinking energy’, whereby not bonded resources then are free for solutions in further problem-fields (Neubauer 2005:330). In the end, that are gene-polymorphisms which in connection with the neurotransmitter-systems let come off differences in the personality (and its intelligence) (Schinwald:82).

It remains to be reasoned, that intelligence with its integrative elements appropriate to figure 7 is different in humans, and so is influencing the ability for acting in the entrepreneurial functions and having entrepreneurial foresight.

Creativity

“Creativitymeans the ability, including into the problem-solving not only known possibilities or possibilities just thought about, but developing out of the network of individual and potentially relevant experiences always new situational solutions” (Koetz 2006:35).

Concerning creativity, Roth points to associative natures of the cortically meshwork, being associated with a synaptic plasticity, which is influenced by an increasing or decreasing by neurotransmitters and neuro-transmodulators. “For the brain, the difficulty obviously is, finding in action with these procedures the best proportion of synaptic plasticity; and this in special when the brain is confronted with novel problems” (Roth:2003 194 f.).

Thereby, creativity depends on the participating neuronal meshwork. Roth (2003:195) also points out the very often unconscious, intuitive preparation of creative solutions. Then, it can be concluded that creativity is varying anchored in the human personality. Thus, Roth (2003:195) writes: “It can be attended that creative humans have more convenient qualities of the involved meshwork; how these qualities are constructed, is not known”.

Creativity (Guilford 1950: no page) contains the ability of divergent thinking. There must be a sensitivity about the problem, which is accompanied by the fluid of thoughts, originality of thoughts as well as flexibility of thoughts (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:158). Concerning the personality of creative humans that means, they should be autonomous, self-steered, highly achievement motivated, thinking in step with actual practice, widely spread interested, having a high common intelligence, and having a bias for cognitive activity level (Roth 2003:191).

These are requirements, being well preferable having a business-economic view concerning successful entrepreneurial action. That are requirements which are - as written preceding - depending on what the ‘biology’ personally provides for the singular human, and thus, also for the entrepreneur. And by this, the different in the humans anchored creativity, surely also is an element of what, bringing out different entrepreneurial action and different entrepreneurial foresight.

Not in vain, Granig and Perusch (2012:42) can be cited: “The ideation begins after the problem analysis. The generation of new ideas needs manifold instruments, which are best used in a combined form. To this end, a certain degree of creativity must be present”. A creativity - so a hint of Roth (2013:32) - is a characteristic, depending only a little from the environment. Nevertheless, creative thoughts have an environmental connection, because that are norms and values, making creative insights exploitable or even not exploitable (Funke 2000:289).

Wisdom, view of life and self-knowledge

Wisdom, view of life and self-knowledgeis a further characteristic in the sector of abilities and competences, humans are differing in. Lombardo (2007:18) defines wisdom as the permanently growing capacity, capturing the big overall picture of life. Winning an understanding about what is important and meaningful, on the fundament of ethic and honesty, the possibility exists, improving the own situation of life as well as that of others.

According to this definition, Lombardo (2007:18) suggests, seeing wisdom as the highest degree of future-consciousness. Thereby, wisdom is a competence too, an entrepreneurial acting human should have available, opening to him the possibility for having foresight: “Wisdom by its very nature, has a future focus – it is the capacity to improve in the world and hence to create a good future”. And further on: “Wisdom is the highest expression of future consciousness – the holistic integration of those capacities necessary for flourishing in the future” (Lombardo 2013:63).

The reason for seeing wisdom as a distinctive feature of personalities in the sector of abilities and competences, has its origin in the fact that in the wisdom cognitive, affective, motivational, personal, ethical, and social dimensions are united.

Wisdom can be differed into self-referred wisdom (view of life) and common wisdom. Self-referred wisdom means the wisdom concerning the own life, the adaption, and the converting of also disagreeable self-referred information. Common wisdom refers to understandings and opinions in different situations of everyday life (Staudinger 2005:343).

As preceding described, intelligence and creativity again in a high measure are bonded on the biology of a human. Either this circumstance could made visible that a common wisdom and view of life underly to a changeability. “In an intervention-research could be demonstrated that the placement of a perspectives activating strategy of thinking leads to an enhancement of tolerance and of worth-relativism” (Staudinger 2005:346).

With this, there is the expectation that entrepreneurial acting and foresight-suitable humans, as competence (competence in the sense of personality differences - not in a business-economic sense) should have a general wisdom as well as a good view of life and self-knowledge. And there is also the expectation that wisdom -though biological anchored - can be seen in a changeable – that means developable – competence for entrepreneurial action. In this sense, Major and Cordey-Heyes (2000:414) cite wisdom as the basis for positive action.

Social competences

Social competencesrefer to the term of competence. By (psychological) competences, are described behavioural patterns of a person depending on concrete situations and the personal constitution, to which the person is able by its personality traits (Süß et al. 2005:351).

Social competence depends on the quality of the social behavior, a person has, winning and stimulating this by the summary of his/her knowledge, his/her abilities, and skills (Lang 2008:19). “In a specific situation, social competent behaviour supports the realization of own targets, preserving the same time the social acceptance of the behaviour” (Kanning 2009:15).

Social competence has two central dimensions inside, that are to say assertiveness and relationship skills (adaptability). Assertiveness means the ability of a person, following to own interests and preserving them in social interactions. Relationship skills contain the adaption of the person to the environment by learning processes. Thus, a social competent behaviour contains the ability for doing compromises between adaption and assertion. This is a process, allowing the assertion of own interests in social actions, by protecting the interests of other action partners; minimum hurting not the interests of others (Lang 2008:19). Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:159) evaluate an extremely high assertiveness as well as an extremely low one as a sign of social incompetence.

Even if the adaptability of a person on the environment something has to do with person’s learning processes, this is not allowed to hide the fact that the ability of adaptability is linked with the biology of the person. So, Roth (2013:98) gives the hint about the frame of the socialization of a person, as a by person’s genetically conditioned temperament and the manor of emotional conditioning: “An open-minded temperament und a positive emotional conditioning makes it easier for the social-educative influences, that a person will be in private as well as social pleasant and adaptable. Reverse, a positive social environment can effectuate only little if temperament and emotional conditioning are angled negative”.

Relating the company founder, Jacobsen (2003:64) demands that he/she besides creating a trustful, creative, and comprehensive clime and the ability for employee retention, also must be equipped with social competences directed on steering and imbuing: “In general, meanwhile the view has prevailed that a high social capital, an entrepreneur has, gives an easier entrance to persons, being important for his/her success and helping him or her”. The demand, Jacobsen has on the founder, of course also is guilty to the entrepreneur, who is just acting in die entrepreneurial functions in a running enterprise.

A different genetic determination and a different socialization, the person of the entrepreneur has, brings out different entrepreneurial action and behaviour; and thus, contribute that - as guilty for every human - also entrepreneurial social behaviour besides forms and relations to significant other persons, is leaded by mental imaginations about the own person (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:62).

Presenting and exploring here only the differencesof personality in the sector of abilities and competences there remains the assumption that the successful entrepreneur by fulfilling his entrepreneurial tasks, should have a certain quantity of social competence. Because the won information for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, the entrepreneur is not only creating from his inner, but also with the information from his social environment. And the knowledge about the dynamic of also this environment put the entrepreneur into the position, adjusting to new situations and requirements (Müller and Müller-Stewens 2009:1).

Self-regulation and self-control

The self-regulation (self-determination) and self-control as different forms of deliberately self-monitoring comprise the formulation of those targets, being congruent with the own needs, qualities and beliefs under the precondition, having knowledge about own targets and needs (self-regulation), and being a subject to the own will (self-control) (Koetz 2006:61 f.).

The competences of self-control and self-regulation can be impaired in their efficiency by a will inhibition and a self-locking. The will inhibition holds intentions overly long in the intention memory and so brings out the circumstance about a not finishing process of reflecting, reasons balancing and analyzing. In contrast, self-locking effects a limitation of the ability, creating targets and intentions (Koetz 2006:63 f.). Self-locking can entail output losses. “Who doesn’t sense the thoughts and feelings actually wanted by ‘oneself’, is not able, identifying or much less eliminating unwanted thoughts” (Koetz:2006:64).

Self-control goes hand in hand with the ability of target tracking, empowering humans, being sticky to set goals under the influence of internal or external barriers. The self-control takes the part, pushing goals and intentions - cognitive preferences - against emotional preferences, being existent in forms of impulses, needs and wishes. Thus, the self-control has a supporting function for the maintenance of tracking goal-purposes (Baumann and Kuhl 2005:363).

By the competence of self-control - also named I-control – a difference in the personality and the way how to act humans have, and with this, entrepreneurs too -, is given: “A lower degree of I-control signs humans, being not able to put off rewards, following to all impulses and impressing spontaneous their wishes and feelings. In opposite, by a high degree of I-control (up to forced control) humans are signed, suppressing their impulses, wishes and needs strictly, by following to made plans with target orientation and concentrated” (Baumann and Kuhl 2005:365).

Even if it is at this point ‘only’ about, working out differences in the human - and with this too, entrepreneurial - personality, minimum a guess is required, that the successful entrepreneurial person is not allowed to be one of the humans, having no competence for self-control. That also points out to a certain degree of conscientiousness, being demanded. “Conscientiousness is a kind of self-control, relating to planning, organisation and execution of tasks” (Braun et al. 2009:72).

Self-regulation acts about, constructing self-congruent goals. For this process of target creation, a good body-perception and self-perception is needed, bringing out as a self-regulatory competence the ability for making decisions: “A good body perception supports the decision-making competence and also plays an important role for the feedback about the result of self-wanted actions” (Baumann and Kuhl 2005:367).

By self-regulation, humans do not control only their own actions, but also reflect by themselves their own ‘functioning’ (Mummendey 2006:183). In the humans, are running widely unconscious, parallel working, intuitive-holistic moldings, which are underlying to neuroanatomic conditions, and thereby to the human biology (Baumann and Kuhl 2005:366 f.).

It is not possible to give an answer here, in how far the personal human ability for self-regulation despite the biologic origin as element of entrepreneurial action can be identified, being influenceable. But at all, there are indications about the competence having self-regulation, is different in persons. This fact is pointed out by the existence of questionnaires about self-regulation, by which metacognitive strategies are requested, in parts strategies about the personal handling with inner and outer resources and the motivation (Landmann et al. 2015:52 ff.). Such questionnaires evaluate the requested self-regulation with grades between “very well” until “very bad”. Because a “very bad”, then would mean an insufficient competence about the on the own needs-structure and about the own values and convictions-directed target definition. There must be given a by minimum adequate self-regulation for acting persons, and for entrepreneurial and foresight-oriented humans in special.

Coping with stress

The susceptibility to stress and possibilities of coping with stress are existent very different in the human personalities. Stress is an emotional lived situation, which effectuates increased demands on the motoric and cognitive system (Roth 2003:310).

“Coping with stress includes cognitive and behavioural efforts by handling external and internal demands which by the person can be seen as the own resources claiming or overwhelming” (Lazarus and Folkman 1984:141).

It is supposed that the ability for coping with stress, is in connection with the locus of control with a great extent. Thus, it seems that humans with a moderate internal locus of control better can handle the interaction of upcoming stress and stress reaction as those, underlying more to an external coping with stress. Investigations have confirmed that humans with a more external locus of control report more often about health impairment concerning the burdens with critical life events, than humans with a more internal locus of control (Kohlmann and Hock 2005:376 f.).

Roth gives the hint, that the ability enduring stress as grown up, can be sought prenatal by the events during the birth and the early mother-child relationship, ergo the early childhood bonding-experience. And more than this, he points out that the early childhood bonding-experiences have a special meaning for the personality-development of a human (Roth 2013:23). In bonding-styles, a central parameter for the accomplishment of stress and strains is seen (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:60). Furthermore, Roth (2013:85) points out that’s the neuro-modulatory systems (noradrenalin-, serotonin-, dopamine- and acetylcholine-systems), by which the registration about changes in environment and body lead to the triggering of behavioural adaption in unspecific arousals. By this, he states that by the household of noradrenaline, stress feelings are regulated. “We state, as just namely said, that positive and negative feelings are bonded constitutionally with the flow of certain substances in the brain” (Roth 2013:245).

Thus, all in all it remains to state, that the human ability handling stress depends beside genetic factors, on the early learnt stress-handling as an important role (Roth 2003:317).

That means for the entrepreneurial acting human that his handling of stress and coping with stress in a high measure is predestined, and that so stress and the action with stress is a factor for different entrepreneurial behavior and for the ability too, having entrepreneurial foresight.

In this context, Jacobsen (2003:62) signs out the high stress-resistance, entrepreneurs must have – as different researchers found out correspondent to this hint. Frese and Fay (2000:71) comment that persons with a high own initiative can handle stress-situations better than humans with a lower own stress-barrier. Stress is more tried to be done by action than less by passive, emotional strategies of coping.

By this, on a business-economic sight, there in special remains the demand for the in the entrepreneurial functions acting human, handling active with stress and stress coping.

But by the way, this demand only is one, in which entrepreneurial acting humans perhaps can be differed from not entrepreneurial acting humans. The diversity also gets as well visible in the other preceding different personality-differences. And hereby, it is to assume, that this diversity doesn’t exist only between entrepreneurs and not-entrepreneurs, but also is present in the group of entrepreneurial acting humans, and by just this diversity leads to different entrepreneurial action.

3.1.2 Personality differences in the emotional-cognitive sector

Until now, ‘only’ personality-differences in the sector of abilities and competences was reported about. This, without including those differences in the emotional-cognitive sector, as well as those differences in the social behaviour. These differences, also must be reported about, presenting them in interview statements. Only by looking on these sectors too, a basic understanding can be induced, why in their entrepreneurial functions acting people are not acting likewise and are not able for having entrepreneurial foresight in equal measure - and caused by this are having different results of success.

Personality-differences in the emotional-cognitive sector are fixed in terms like anxiety, anger inclination, stress, well-being, self-esteem, locus of control, self-efficacy, and optimism (Weber and Rammseyer (publisher) 2005:385 ff.).

That all are terms, having their locus as well as in every other human inside the entrepreneur too, influencing by this his entrepreneurial action. These terms are turning off to the situation that things, being perceived by the human body from inside or from outside, trigger emotional states.

Thus, Eagleman (2012:131) points out that the priority-classification of human - and with this entrepreneurial too - actions in the outside world (that means concerning the entrepreneur by doing the entrepreneurial actions) don’t get along without the human emotional meshwork: The emotional system makes the decision about the priority, performing certain actions.

This emotional system conflicts the human rational system, that means the analysis about the impressions from the world outside. Concerning the entrepreneur, this conflict has an important role for entrepreneurial foresight too. Because, as Eagleman (2012:136) says: “The emotional and the rational system yet do not struggle about immediately necessary moral decisions, but also in another very well-known situation: the future planning”. This, he justifies by the fact “[…] that we »discount» the future, how economists say. That means, that we ascribe a so much better worth to gains, the nearer they are to us” (2012:136 f.).

Concerning the entrepreneur, from this the question comes out about him - caused by his personal emotional meshwork -, he possibly prefers a shorter preview than doing long-term reflections. However, the answer will be: It becomes clear that the in the beginning listed terms for emotional-cognitive personality-differences like anxiety, anger inclination, etc. obviously specify and individualize human and entrepreneurial action, and therefore must be deeper focused on their basic approaches

Anxiety

Anxiety“names the intra-individual rather stabile, but inter-individual varying tendency, perceiving a situation as threatening, reacting on this with a higher degree of anxiety state” (Krohne et al. 2005:385).

On the one hand, anxiety is seen as an actual state, but on the other hand as a time outlasting personality trait. A distinction is made between an anxiety coming out of the self-worth and psychical threatening situations, situations of social interactions, and the review anxiety in situations, in which failure and the loss of self-worth must be worried about (Krohne et al 2005:385 f.).

Anxiety related stimuli are started by a stimulus of the amygdala. “The representation of the amygdala-activity in the working memory is an essential fundament for feeling anxious” (Jäncke 2013:690), because in the amygdala is happening the central information-interpretation - ergo the interpretation about the received perceptions. The amygdala is a part of the limbic system, so that part of the brain, being responsible for the processing of emotions. Anxious arises by subconscious processes in the brain and influences conscious actions (entrepreneurial action is made consciously), by the limbic system influencing emotional coloured human perceptions, beliefs, commemorations and planning of actions (Roth 2001:3f).

For entrepreneurial action, and with this for the formation of entrepreneurial foresight, anxiety in so far can play a role, as there is the postulate that complex tasks are better solved by persons, having less anxiety than by more anxious persons (Krohne et al. 2005:387). The personal conditions for having anxiety, can be found in biological factors as well as in the learning-history of the corresponding person. With learning-history are meant “[…] demographical characteristics like gender, birth order, socio-economic and ethnic status of socialization-factors (parent-child relationship, educational style, school-experiences) …” (Krohne et al. 2005:390). By cognition-psychological paradigms could be shown that more anxious persons give a higher concentration to threatening stimuli, and are feeling ambiguous situations more threatening, than less anxious persons do (Krohne et al. 005:392).

Concerning the entrepreneur that means, that the personal (perhaps not influenceable) ability acting with anxiety let suppose impacts on from entrepreneur to entrepreneur different entrepreneurial action and different entrepreneurial behavioral patterns.

Anger inclination

People differ in the fact, how to feel anger and how to handle this. They have a different anger inclination. “Anger is an in the every-day life comparatively frequently experienced emotion, coming out in the predominantly majority of all cases by interactions with other people. Following to cognitive emotion-theories, anger is triggered by the perception, that another person deliberately or careless causes a damage, and by doing so violates existing rules by his/her attitude” (Vollmann et al. 2004:48).

Hodapp (2005:394) names anger as an ‘emergency response’ of the sympathetic nervous system, in order of preparing the organism on offence or conflict as counteractions. For those being affected with it, activator of anger, are arbitrarily and as consciously induced occasions, effectuating action blockades and target blockades, physical and verbal offences, provocations, criticism, belittlement, and defamation.

In addition, it should be noted that anger also represents an emotional state, being differed from anger as a disposition (trait). It is just this disposition, making persons different concerning their extensity or intensity of anger reactions. “Persons, having a distinct anger inclination, compared with persons having a lower anger inclination, assess a wider spectrum of situations being annoying or provoking, and react on this with a higher aggressivity” (Hodapp 2005:396).

Reactions, concerning anger influence humans and with this, entrepreneurial action too: these reactions can have an assertive character - removing the reasons of anger - , but also a defensive character – protecting against an active access. How the person behaves in an anger concerning situation, relies - as Hodapp says - on consistent person-related characteristics, that under the inclusion of specific target patterns of this person (Hodapp 2005:398).

But it’s to state – as well as there are in terms of anger high and low activity-scheduled persons -, that anger doesn’t bring out only negative impacts, but also provokes rational problem-oriented discussions, and by this having the possibility for the recognition of own mistakes (Hodapp 2005:398). In so far, for entrepreneurial action too must be stated that the personal ability handling anger has an influence on just this entrepreneurial action. Even if with this, anger can provoke a constructive entrepreneurial behaviour, this circumstance is not allowed hiding, that anger is an emotion, by this an affective frame of mind which is underlying as Averill (1982:15) says, to the human biological imperative and by this is interconnected with the human nervous system and in parts with the human genetics too. By this biological imperative, the question remains, in how far the ability acting with anger as an appearing fact is assessable for entrepreneurial action at all. Or if this ability is predisposed, making so differences in entrepreneurial acting personalities visible.

Stress

The examination of stress here takes place from the perspective about emotional-cognitive personality differences. That’s why, this is concerning the theoretical facts not a duplication, but an addition to the about the factor stress done considerations under the point of view about personality differences in the sector of abilities and competences.

In a recent research was found out, on the basis of a big main unit of entrepreneurs, that a high personal psychological capital let get visible lower feelings of stress: “And in fact, one recent study, found that among a large sample of entrepreneurs, the higher their psychological capital (as measured by a short questionnaire designed to assess this variable), the less stress they reported experiencing and the higher their feelings of subjective well-being” (Baron 2013:153). How to define stress (Roth 2003:310), just was preceding presented by looking about the personality-differences concerning abilities and competences. Besides, Roth (2003:317) points out the responsibility of genetic factors in stress-behavior of persons.

Entrepreneurs differ in the ability handling stress because they have a (by nature) different psychological capital (Baron 2013:165). The ability for enduring stress, is determined prenatal and by the ongoing during the birth (Roth 2013:23). This is a hint on the fact that psychological binding styles are a parameter for stress and coping with stress (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:60). Too, there is an interrelation between stress and the personal ‘neurotransmitter-household’. By this, Roth (2013:85) points out that an enhancement of the noradrenalin-emission brings out strong stress-feelings. Thus, stress has beside the genetical a further biological component too.

Stress is a remarkable factor for entrepreneurial action and is noticed as a foregrounded generating factor for the failure of young enterprises during the first five years of their existence (Egeln et al. 2010:III). According to this, Jacobsen (2006:62) concludes that stress resistance is an attribute of entrepreneurs, influencing their behavior. Stress comes out with a) hurtful environmental stimuli, b) stress disorder of the organism, c) the transactional proceedings, that means the interplay between a person and his/her environment (Salewski 2005a:402 f.). “Psychological stress is a particular relationship between a person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (Lazarus and Folkman 1984:19).

On the one hand, stress relevant personality characteristics and personality traits can be deduced from socio-demographic people features (gender, health, illness, socio-economic status, e.g.), but on the other hand from stress enlarging personal circumstances, as this shows the negative affectivity (Salewski 2005a:404 ff.). Negative affectivity incorporates those ‘states of emergency’, in which are coming out nervous behavior, depression, frustration, guilt feeling e.g. . Negative affectivity gets visible - bonded with irrational thinking - in a low control of impulses and ambitions as well as in a lower ability, coping tasks (McCrae and John 1992:195). Such ‘states of emergency’ lead to negative assessment-results, entailing in a ‘downward spiral’ further stress experience (Salewski 2005a:407).

In the contrary, humans with a positive affectivity - ergo humans, going through their life with enthusiasm, pleasure, energy, and mental alertness - have a better entrance to memory contents, a higher cognitive flexibility, a higher creativity and ability for innovation, as well as a higher effectivity solving problems. These people have a better deal with their personal resources, a better problem-solving orientation as people with a negative affectivity (Salewski 2005a:408 f.)

This description gives the assumption that the entrepreneurial acting human should better tend to a positive than to a negative affectivity, being able for activities in the entrepreneurial functions with success. In addition, it also gets visible that the preceding statement about ‘everybody can be an entrepreneur’, concerning the entrepreneurial success is limited by genetic/biologic factors, being inherent to stress behavior.

Well-being

Human personality differences in the emotional-cognitive sector also can be seen in the well-being (subjective well-being) of a person. That means, how the person is evaluating the own life concerning physical and psychical agreeable and disagreeable feelings and ratings (Lischetzke and Eid 2005:413).

Currently experienced subjective well-being must be delimited from habitual well-being, by which across situations long-term states of feeling are described, being firm for several years. Currently experienced well-being shows fluctuations around the value of habitual well-being, resulting from situational and time of the day dependent circumstances (Lischetzke and Eid 2005:413). By behavioural genetic research was found out that a genetic anchorage of personal differences in the habitual well-being can be assumed. This can be numbered with a heritage rate between 29% and 53% - identical with the estimated heritage rate for extraversion – a personality-dimension which must be reported later (Eid et al. 2003:324). It can be suspected that there are impacts of the genetic predisposition on the well-being by the dopapminergene system, which by the emission of the neurotransmitter dopamine is involved in the formation of emotions (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:59).

Concerning the human and with this the entrepreneurial acting too, well-being influences by the mood of the moment the human (and entrepreneurial) information-processes, the social behaviour, and the health. Flexibility of thinking and creativity depend on the particular mood. Concerning the habitual subjective well-being, a higher well-being is bonded with a higher creativity, a higher sociability, and a higher behaviour of health (Lischetzke und Eid 2005:420 f.).

It’s daring reckoning that the manor how the entrepreneur acts, also is influenced by his subjective well-being of the moment. But at all, naming the factors of the so called ‘Ryff-Scale’, which have been used, measuring well-being, then this assumption may be allowed. These are the factors: self-acceptance, control about the environment, positive relationship with others, existence of aims in life, personal increase und striving for autonomy (Ryff and Keyes 1995:723). These all are factors, being in a positive occurrence surely not deleterious, having successful entrepreneurial action. Besides, these are factors too, by which entrepreneurs can be differed correspondent to their individual personality.

Self-esteem

Concerning self-esteem, humans vary in their feeling and behavior. As some people let themselves hardly influence by actual occurrences, other people in their self-estimation are stabile over longer periods too. Kernis (2003:2) defines the self-esteem, the feeling of oneself: “Self-esteem is an important psychological construct because it is a central component of individual’s daily experience; it refers to the way that people feel about themselves, which reflects their ongoing transactions with their environment and the people they encounter in it”.

The deep outline of the facets of self-esteem, as presented in figure 8 (Shavelson et al. 1976:413) points out in how many elements of self-estimation humans and by this, entrepreneurs too, can differ – and caused by this must come to different personally conditioned action-results. The picture clarifies, that beside learnable and activity-related abilities of the academic self-concept, again emotional and physical factors play a role. That means those factors, being determined minimum in parts by the personal biology of the person. The self-assessment of the person, ergo his/her (emotional coloured) self-evaluation means singular facets, or even the overall assessment of his/her self-concept (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:140). That means - as preceding mentioned - the cognition of a person about his/her ‘self’.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 8: Hierarchic organisation of the self-concept Source: Shavelson et al.1976:413

The self-esteem evaluation is available by inner sources and from outside. Possible sources from outside are knowledge, attractivity, feelings of predominance, involvement in social relationships. A very solid source of self-esteem estimation, at all lies in an inner resource; namely the success dependent and from positive feedback dependent self-acceptance (Schütz and Schröder 2005:425)

For human – and of course entrepreneurial too – action in the entrepreneurial functions, the assessment of the self-esteem can play a role in so far, as a high self-esteem can bring out by an excessive focusing on the own abilities an overestimation of one’s own capabilities, so that feedback from outside (perceptions) will not be evaluated adequate (Schütz and Schröder 2005:427). This, then would have effects on the process of perception, being the fundament of entrepreneurial foresight and entrepreneurial action.

People with low self-esteem have doubts on their own abilities, they suffer more from fears of failure, they tend to be skeptical defining tasks and fulfilling them. And thus, they are binding cognitive capacities, which at all would be necessary for planning and doing the tasks. That brings out a bigger failure probability (Schütz and Schröder 2005:427).

By this, for entrepreneurial action, an expression of high self-esteem perhaps would be
desirable. This stabile self-acceptance is signed by perception of own weakness, reaction on successes and failures, taking hints seriously, having no fundamental self-doubts (Schütz and Schröder 2005:428).

Locus of control

A further essential element of personality-differences in the emotional-cognitive sector is the locus of control. The locus of control a person has, relates to person’s belief, initiating or moving something by own action under changing conditions (Brauckmann et al. 2008:13).

“Humans differ in finding the locus of control about their life inside themselves - that means internal - , or in finding this from outside of the own person - that means external” (Salewski 2005b:431). As preceding delineated, the locus of control is discussed too as a business-economic competence for entrepreneurial action. An external locus of control is more attached to the tendency to be timorous, aggressive, skeptical, unconfident, less efficiency-oriented, etc., than an internal locus of control is (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:96).

The development of the locus of control comes by repeated experiences between a behavior and the by this coming out consequences, and the development depends on the earlier made personal history of learning. By this, Salewski points out that specially earlier made experiences of learning in the family have a formative influence on a later internal or external of person’s locus of control. By parental warmth, support and age-appropriate requirements, in the human personality a more internal locus of control is constructed (Salewski 2005b:435).

Concerning the personality-expression there is an interdigitation with the preceding discussed self-esteem: “The self-esteem of a person depends on the evaluation of his/her generalized locus of control too. If a person concludes by made experiences that he/she can’t influence his/her environment, this supports a negative self-esteem” (Laskowski 2000:65).

It is suspected that for the entrepreneurial acting person, more an internal locus of control should be desired. Because higher degrees of internality, are followed by a better adaptability on situations and a higher effectiveness (Salewski 2005b:433).

Self-efficacy

Closely bonded with the locus of control is the concept of self-efficacy. “The personal evaluation of own success promising action possibilities is the central component of self-efficacy” (Jerusalem 2005:438). With this, self-efficacy is a very central component of human action. Because humans can only get active in actions, if their behaviour starts wanted effects, or can lead to them (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:100).

Braun et al. (2009:73) point out that humans with a comparative high self-efficacy can be supposed more successful concerning their entrepreneurial action than those humans with a lower expectance of self-efficacy. This, concerning the efforts by doing the own actions, the own aspiration level, the flexibility of problem-solving orientation and the own performance evaluation.

Seemingly, this assumption can be confirmed by empirical studies, so that just entrepreneurs have a higher self-efficacy concerning their entrepreneurial action, than employed persons have (Roth and Herft 2010:72). By this, Jacobson (2003:58) argues that the probability of the formation of an enterprise is bigger with persons having a high expectation of self-efficacy, than other persons have. In the same manner Baron (2013:104) writes: “Overall, entrepreneurs are indeed higher in self-efficacy than other groups. Perhaps more directly, this evidence also indicates that there is a strong link between self-efficacy and both the tendency to start new ventures and so to archive success in them”. As justification can be indicated that a high self-efficacy “[…] also supports the implementation of task-related and sustained behaviour, being necessary for the handling of antagonisms” (Roth and Herft 2010:72). Obviously, a high self-efficacy and the ability of target tracking, as well as the research for approaches are knotted with another

Self-efficacy arises by own experiences, by vicarious experiences and by linguistic convictions. Successful activities by own experiences encourage the self-efficacy; by negative results, this will be more devitalized. If there are no own experiences, on which self-effective action can be erected, falling back to experiences of others can increase the own self-efficacy. Furthermore, the expressed trust of others into the abilities of the own person can be increased by their encouragement (Jerusalem 2005:442 f).

According to that, successful entrepreneurial action, and entrepreneurial foresight most likely can be estimated from those persons, having not a lower level of own self-efficacy: “A person with low self-efficacy believes he is relatively powerless with respect to the future, whereas a person with high self-efficacy believes he has a high level of control or influence on the future” (Lombardo 2008:49).

Lombardo (2007:5) points out the entanglement between self-efficacy and optimism:
“Connected to the attitudes of optimism and pessimism are the psychological attributes of self-efficacy and perceived helplessness”.

Optimism

The ability for having optimism is a further emotional-cognitive element, humans are differing in. Optimism shows positive expectations concerning the trends in the future (Renner and Weber 2005:446).

Dispositional optimism as over the time stable expectations about results, makes possible, adhering on targets even by having problems with the target realization. This with the trial, reaching the targets with heightened efforts, more positive feelings, a higher perseverance of target tracking. At all, with dispositional optimism it is possible too, solving from targets earlier if they prove to be unrealistic. Earlier, as this is the case with more quickly pessimistic disponed persons (Renner and Weber 2005:449).

For entrepreneurial actions, an optimistic tenor in so far is important, as this optimistic tenor brings out more convenient cognitions, the ability for coping with stress, and all in all a higher efficiency (Renner and Weber 2005:451). Also, optimism can be considered as a factor (besides others) for the coping of crises and setbacks (Elbe 2015:22). However, an uncontrolled ‘overoptimism’ can hold the dangers inside itself, misjudging situations. There is also the fact to consider that ‘false optimism’ can lead to the situation, accepting tasks for themselves, from which Herz et al. (2013:2 f.) suppose: a high level of optimism – over-optimism - has an important influence on entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour; but at the same time holds dangers inside itself, that by over-optimism done business-activities do not bring out an economical success.

Thus, it can be supposed that successful entrepreneurial action and the ability having entrepreneurial foresight is supported too by an optimistic positive grounded tendency of the entrepreneur.

3.1.3. Personality-differences in the sector of social behaviour

Personality differences are existent in the sectors of prosocial behaviour (helping behaviour), empathy, aggressivity, profiling and social support (Weber and Rammseyer (publisher) 2005:457 ff.). This can be co-determining for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight.

The social behaviour comprises the interaction with others, it is marked by emotions and behavioral controlled by emotions. Emotions have - as mentioned before - a biological origin; that are neuro-biological processes, bringing out by help of so called neuromodulators (serotonin, dopamine, noradrenalin, acetylcholine) emotions supported by the limbic system (Roth 2008:7). Thus, emotions are a factor for a conscious planning and steering of behaviour, concerning the selection how to behave and having certain behavior (Roth 2003:291). More global, Amsteus (2008:54) formulates: „Contemporary theories of social behavior are based on the chiefly unquestioned assumption that human activity is determined by cognitive variables”.

Rammseyer and Weber (2010:62) point out that social behavior is leaded by “[…] mental imaginations of the own person, significant other persons and the forms of relationships”. The level of human’s social competence depends on the factor in how far they are able, bringing out thoughts about the own behavior and about the environment, by recognizing relations (Laskowski 2000:99).

Prosocial behaviour

Prosocial behaviorcontains a deliberately and intentional action which “[…] potentially or effectively supports the wellbeing of a recipient” (Bierhoff 2009:13). The goal of acting like that is, bonded with striving for even appreciation or willpower, doing something good for others or oneself (or both) (Bierhoff 2009:13 f.).

Caused by the existing relation between the individual temperament und the prosocial behavior, a genetic basis is supposed. Because to the temperament-factors a high genetic basis is written to. However, beside the genetics, the prosocial behavior is influenced by effects from the environment too (for example just by the parent-children- relationship). Prosocial positive predisposed humans, for other humans and their well-being have a with thoughts and actions care taking and supporting inclination (Bierhoff 2005:459 f.).

Concerning the entrepreneur, just this element of taking care for and around others, incorporates the aspect of social responsibility, acting entrepreneurial. This ‘taking care for others’ is bonded with ‘self-confidence into the own leadership skills’ and with ‘cognitions about fairness’ (Bierhoff 2005:462).

As acting in the entrepreneurial functions always includes the aspect of ‘taking care for others’ too (for example in the sector of human resource management), for the entrepreneurial foresighted acting person, a good level of positive prosocial action seems to be desirable - a quality, which seems not being completely learnable, caused by the genetic predisposition and in which entrepreneurs differ.

Empathy

„Empathymeans that an individual emotional participates on the experience of another person” (Friedlmeier and Trommsdorff 1992:138). On the one hand, empathy refers to an emotional component, but otherwise has a cognitive component too. This applies to the process of emotional realization that feelings of other people are witnessed, being not urgently the own ones (Steins 2005:46). So, empathy presumes the ability, registering and understanding the feelings of others cognitively. Ergo, intellectual performances then are the flash point for having own emotional reaction (Friedlmeier and Trommsdorff 1992:141).

There follows a ‘putting oneself inside’ an interaction partner with the trial, registering his momentary and prospective mental and emotional status – which can be reduced to limbic structures (Jäncke 2013:750). Thus, empathy is - in the widest sense - inhered in a biological structure. But empathy contains (dependent from the age) experienceable and learnable components. The ability and the readiness for having empathy varies a) with the attention giving to another person, b) the ability, recording emotional expressions of others, c) the degree of awareness about own emotional reactions and d) the shape-degree, the self-owned emotional reactivity has (Steins 2005:469). Besides, the ability and the preparedness for empathy varies with the quality of relationship to the person, one is interacting with. So, Steins (2005:471) points out the contagion-potential for empathy from dependent persons in opposite to those persons, from whom they are dependent.

Concerning entrepreneurial action, by the ability for empathy an emotional relationship to other economic actors will be created (Fülling 2009:359). So, von Bismarck (1996:10 f.) brings out the communicative qualification as a part of social competence, which in the business connections increasingly demands a higher level of empathy. In this sense, Seewald (2014:138) signs empathy as an entrance into a constructive and cherishing action in working-processes: “In special, in economical tense times, in conflicts of interest or in individual phases of crisis, in the gainful activities too, we depend on facing our interaction-partners - colleagues, disciplinarians, employees, clients - with empathy and appreciation; coming to good solutions and arrangements”. By empathy, personal and structural areas of conflict in economical processes can be resolved. And so, empathy can prepare the ground for rectified actions of all involved persons in an enterprise (Seewald 2014:139).

As persons differ in their empathy-ability, it is to assume that successful entrepreneurial action minimum should contain a certain level of this ability. Because, by knotting empathy with cooperation, innovation and the changeability of market-processes, the factor empathy can “[…] get the driving force of strategy, date-productivity, marketing, product- and program- development, the sales and finally the gain and the success” (Miyashiro 2013:35)

Aggressivity

Aggressivityis a further fact to show, by which humans differ concerning their social behavior. Aggressive behavior is a willful behavior with the goal, aggrieving another person (Krahé 2005:476).

Every type of aggressivity gets started by a this aggressivity stimulating effect, generated by a whatever natured ‘attack’, a received answer, and/or other neuronal supported mechanisms (Averill 1982:38). But aggressive behavior can be traced back too to genetic and prenatal reasons, to early childhood experiences, the damage of cognitive and emotional functions, as well as early processes of socialization (binding-experiences, lac of appreciation in the nonfamiliar environment) (Lück et al. 2005:7f.). Roth (2003:352) points out that studies about aggressive behaviour find the anchorage of this in the determination of child’s personality during the first five years of life. The aggression-motive belongs to a group of motives “[…] which are existent during the whole life of humans, influencing their actions” (Laskowski 2000:87). Thus, the readiness for aggression can be assumed as an assimilable stabile disposition (personality disposition), as the intelligence is (Krahé 2005:477).

Beside this over the time and across situations stabile and for humans different - named trait-aggressivity - personality disposition with the core-components of physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and animosity, there must be regarded too aggression-relevant tendencies like impulsiveness and pondering (Krahé 2005:476). By this, Krahé (2005:477 f.) points out that dependent from their impulsiveness-level in persons by provocation and infuriation excitements can be triggered; and that persons with a more pronounced excitability have a bigger tendency for aggressive behavior. The same is guilty to persons - more than for other persons -, assembling aggression-potentials by pondering, they have after an aggression starting occurrence.

It’s difficult, making an ‘allowance’ concerning the behavior of aggression, how aggressive the successful in the entrepreneurial functions acting entrepreneur ideally should be. Much more it is necessary, getting the knowledge that entrepreneurs too are different in their personal aggressivity-potential; and that they will too (besides all the other the personality differing factors) direct their entrepreneurial action correspondent to this individual potential of aggressivity. By this reason, it may be legitimated making for the in the entrepreneurial functions acting person an assumption about an aggressivity-level correspondent to that of an average person – just as assumed for dimension of intelligence. However, Frese and Rauch (2001:4554 f.) point out that an entrepreneurial orientation (and with this entrepreneurial action too) must include a competitive aggressivity, being successful on the market.

Self-presentation

As a further aspect of personality differences in the sector of social behavior must be seen the self-presentation. “»Self-presentation« (not to mix with »self-representation«)
means self-portrayal and signs the behavior of an individual in front of other persons or in the public, by which the individual in a certain measure influences the impression, other humans have about him/her” (Mummendey 2006:77). The function of the self-presentation can be seen in a) a medium of interpersonal exercise of influence, b) the upgrading of the identity and increase of self-esteem, c) the formation of positive emotions (Daig 2006:42); but in the needs for appreciation, influence and potency too (Laux and Renner 2005:486)

An important position the self-monitoring (self-regulation) has concerning the behavior of self-presentation. Persons with a high tendency for self-monitoring, control and regulate their behavior correspondent to the (however) got hints from their action partners. Thus, with this self-control about oneself is knotted an action competence. Those people have a better ability, noticing information from interaction partners, than persons with a weaker self-monitoring tendency have (Laux and Renner 2005:488). In studies was found out a connection between self-monitoring and the ability for having expressive control, as well as the ability, deciphering nonverbal signals (Laux and Renner 2005:488). From this, the hypothesis is deduced, that the behavior of those who control themselves expressive, is more sensitive in situational changes of required performances (Gangestad and Snyder 2000:531).

„Strict self-surveillants are in special skillful, noticing the mental state of other persons und harmonizing the own self-presentation with this. They quickly find out which form of self-presentation is most likable in which situation” (Laux and Renner 2002:130). A lower animus of authenticity is bonded to this (Laux and Renner 2005:490). In the opposite, the animus of authenticity is high for people with a weak developed tendency of self-surveillance with a then lower acquisitive caused behavior and a lower self-protecting behavior (Laux and Renner 2005:490): “In opposite to this, persons with a weaker animus of self-surveillance tendencies prove themselves to be less alert to information, concerning the suitability of self-presentation in different situations” (Laux and Renner 2002:130).

About the entrepreneur, perhaps here can thus be deduced that the entrepreneur should own a higher tendency of self-surveillance, because linked up to this is the ability for having action-competences.

More than this, the way of self-presentation a person owns, doesn’t influence only how this person is noticed by interaction partners, but also the fact how this person is seeing him/herself. Thus, changes in the way of self-presentation can effectuate a change in the self-concept (Laux and Renner 2005:491). With this, for entrepreneurial action and behavior here perhaps is something like an ‘adjusting screw’ which can be ‘adjusted’ by social feedback and the from them following perception of the own behavior.

Social support

Coming from relationships in social networks, social support is meant as such an action-intent, by which based on own action to an action-recipient is given assistance in a form that the action-recipient or the actor realizes the intent of support (Klauer 2005:493). The conviction being able to receive social support is seen as a stabile cognitive person-attribute, being linked with other variables of personality (for example locus of control and anxiety) and having a protective effect on characteristics of the physical and mental healthiness (Klauer 2005:493 ff.). Thus, the trust in social support is a resource on which humans orient their expectations regardless of objective facts (Martin 2011:23).

It is believed that also persons with a distinct trust in their own possibilities of action and influence - so to say persons with a high internal locus of control - accept and use social support with appreciation (Klauer 2005:497). Concerning the entrepreneur, that can give a meaning to the ability, seeking and accepting social support. This ability can so support the process of entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions; in special in social networks based on reciprocity too. The ability for constructing social networks has an entrepreneurial importance, because these networks bring out a protection against crisis and problems; reasoned by the fact that social support satisfies social needs, and so gives an orientation-possibility in stress situations and an orientation-possibility in complex social situations (Reithmayr 2008:14).

3.1.4. Supposed psychological requirements to the with foresight acting entrepreneur on basis of the presented personality differences

The multiplicity in the preceding named differences of human personality in the sector of abilities and competences, the emotional-cognitive sector and the sector of social behavior shows the largeness of the spectrum, in which entrepreneurs are individual represented by their own personal behavior patterns; and how manifold by this - as the interview partners document - also the entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions can be.

At once gets visible, which immense diversity is hidden behind this, which Schneider (1995:31) with the term ‘individual other capabilities’ includes in his prescribed terminology, he determines with, who an entrepreneur is. This diversity, having explanations not in the business economics, but in an interdisciplinary field of research, perhaps makes understandable why Schneider leaves this term ‘individual other capabilities’, and doesn’t open this term – pictorial understandable as a door - not wider.

And at all, the diversity of the term ‘individual other capabilities’ with the differences in the personality - as tried to present preceding - is not completely in all facets described, but - as can be shown further on – minim to complete with thoughts about personality traits and the nearer to explain self-concept.

Of course, the question comes up how the entrepreneur in the singular personality differences must be ‘constructed’, doing the entrepreneurial tasks foresight-afflicted with success in the entrepreneurial functions. How to define the success of the enterprise in singular, surely depends on the entrepreneurial parameters on which this success is directed. Selected parameters can be those, as listed in the following in picture 9 (Koetz 2006:21).

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig 9: scheme about selected parameters of enterprise-success Source: Koetz 2006:21

Bringing the multiplicity of samples in the scheme of picture 9 for success-indicators into a connection with the multiplicity of the presented factors in which humans - and with this, entrepreneurs too - differ, the formulation of demands is hard, how the entrepreneur in which of the presented personality differences should be psychological ‘constructed’, getting suitable to which indicator of success in a positive sense.

By this reason, here a more generalized reflection of the personality will be necessary, making it possible, allocating to the human (entrepreneurial) personality characteristics based on personality differences. Thus, perhaps an answer is possible how the entrepreneurial acting and foresight having person should be ‘constructed’ under an interdisciplinary-psychological point of view. That’s why the preceding inspection of personality differences is important, working out by this inspection elementary factors, by which a personality can be characterized best of all(Roth 2013:16).

Making in a nutshell with the preceding comments about personality differences the trial, to find out how the with foresight-ability equipped entrepreneur psychological ‘should be’ - concerning these differences -, so this is only a tabular deduction from the till now presented theoretical indications, to which practical comments by the statements of the three interview-partners were attached. In so far, the tabular presentation can only show a substantiate assumption, which concerning a scientific relevance needs a lot (not in this script done) of empirical research for examination. Nevertheless, this step is risked here, omitting not possible points of view, psychological contouring an ideally, being successful in the entrepreneurial functions and with foresight animated entrepreneur.

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 1: personality-differences in abilities and competences

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 2: personality-differences in the sector of emotional-cognitive characteristic

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 3: personality-differences in the sector of social behavior characteristics

3.2 Personality as flow of personality educating determinants

As just mentioned, the term personality is understood as the sum of human’s personality traits, being presented in his/her regular characteristics of behavior and experience (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:2). That are as well physical as psychical aspects too, under which the personality of a person can be found out. This from the sectors: a) morphology (by features), b) physiology (inner bodily processes of life), c) needs (constant preferences for certain conditions) d) interests (constant preferences for activities) d) attitudes (constant positions and meanings in social affairs, e) appropriateness (abilities for certain activities), f) temperament (tendency-related personality characteristics) (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:14 f.).

Thus, the human personality is not only directed on its contemplation in the psychology, but also on factors of anthropology, somatology, biology, sociology and genetics, being realized principal by the entrance into social relationships as ‘personality’. “The personality is not pre-existent, but rather will be created by the communication with the environment” (Simon (publisher) 2006:10 f.).

This statement is coincident with the preceding presented projections about the dynamic-interactionistic paradigm, by which the behavior-organisation of an individuum relating to the organisation of his/her environment is seen indeed as temporally stabile, but changeable in the long term, giving so a space for change-processes between the individuum and the environment et vice versa (Brauckmann et al. 2008:6). That perhaps will play an influential role concerning the question, in how far the human (entrepreneurial) personality in the basic structure and by the environment is modifiable.

Here, the psychological approach is standing in the focus of the interest, by which the personality (the entrepreneurial personality) concerning his/her personality-traits (and not his/her personality-differences) is contoured. Because this can be an approach, by which the entrepreneur concerning his actions and his ability having foresight – developing entrepreneurial foresight - and the ability acting with not quantifiable insecurities can be nearer explained and described.

Thus, Koetz (2003:13) refers to the just 1921 by Frank Knight in his oeuvre ‘Risk, Uncertainty and Profit’ formulated definition of the entrepreneur. So, personality traits will be in the focus, ergo over the time and trans-situational rather stable criterions, being grounded in the behavior and the self-evaluation a person is ascribed to (Mummendey 2006:251), and by which personality-characteristics are manifested in differences of experiences and behavior.

Thus, it is about the presentation of possibilities, describing persons in general, and the person of the entrepreneur in special in characteristics which are anchored in their personality, being important for entrepreneurial action. So, it is no longer about the meaning and the importance (for entrepreneurs too) of existing differences in the personality, but about the target-oriented description and registration of the entrepreneurial personality by his/her personality-traits.

For this description, the projection of the ‘Big-Five-Concept’ gives a possibility, being able on basis of the current literature and the current state of knowledge, indicating the human personality. It is this a concept by which besides the habitual behaviour-orientations concerning the interpersonal contact of humans, personal differences in the very personal sectors about attitudes, experience and motivation are registered too (Gerlitz and Schupp 2005:2).

Subsequently, then must be added to the bricks ‘personality-differences’ and ‘personality-traits’ for the characterization of ‘personality’ still considerations about the person-related - and so the entrepreneurial too - self-concept. This, before then a - not as preceding tried only by personality differences - contouring of the psychological anchored entrepreneurial personality can arise.

The discussion about the self-concept is important, because by this also process-related changing results of interaction-processes are captured, which are not underlying to an outlasting structure like personality-traits (Mummendey 2006:15). The self-concept is understandable as the “[…] entirety of the on the own person related assessments” (Mummendey 2006:25).

3.2.1 Psychological personality-traits on basis of the ‘Big-Five’ personality-dimensions

Similar preceding Mummendey, also Borghans et al. (2011:3) describe in citation with Roberts (2009:140) personality traits abstractly and comprehensive: “Personality traits are the relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect the tendency to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances”. In this process, there is a focus on the stability of behavior patterns including stabile thoughts and feeling patterns as well as action and reaction (Borghans et al. 2011:3f).

Thus, the description of the personality is done in the sum of its characteristics (traits) by the analysis of the interaction of longer lasting allurement-constellations and behavior patterns: “The behavior or rather the reaction of the individuum on certain situations are depending on individuum’s traits, building at the same moment his/her behavior-dispositions” (Brauckmann et al. 2008:6 f.).

That’s why, it’s about capturing the human behavior-traits. A today trait-theoretical allowed and often used approach, describing the personality, is the 5-factor-model ‘Big Five’. This is an approach which by means of many experts best characterizes a personality.

The approach contains the factors (description-dimensions of personality): neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness(for experiences) (Roth 2013:17 f.). These are personality-traits, “[…] being in parts caused genetical or by the development of the brain, in other parts patterned early infantile, and being stabilized in their individual specificity early” (Roth 2013:32).

The 5-factor-model (Big Five) is named as one of the mostly used model of classification for personality-traits (Braun et al. 2009:72). Caliendo et al. (2011b:3) point out that these factors are helpful explaining the entrepreneurial development. Furthermore, there are research about relationships between the ‘Big Five’ and the survival of enterprises, the labour-performance and the income (Markgraf and Löbler 2007: no page).

The course of action, finding out those preceding named five personality- dimensions stands on the ground of own-evaluation and external-evaluation of persons by test-persons (probands) based on presented terms (wordlists describing interindividual differences). The result of this evaluation after scoring by factor-analysis could be summarised to even the named dimensions of personality-description (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:233). At the same time, to each of the describing-dimensions (neuroticism,extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness) on a high level of abstraction are allocated several more specific personality traits, being compounded by as well positive as negative single-features (Roth 2013:17).

Asendorpf and Neyer (2012:106) explicate: “With the lexicographical entry, the complete lexicon of a language is reduced step by step to a manageable number of trait-descriptions. Herewith, are done self-assessments and assessments by acquaintances with many persons; the resulting correlative similarity structure then by factor-analysis is concentrated to only a few preferably independent factors”. The result of this concentration - that means, which more specific personality traits then can be allocated to the 5 dimensions - remains for an explication step by step.

Even if describing the personality, the ‘Big-Five’ approach comes from a lexicographical entry, it must not be forgotten that behind the terms describing the personality-dimensions are hidden differences in the human (entrepreneurial) personality, as presented preceding.

This hint perhaps refutes the demur that with a composition of ‘words’ to the superordinate concept of the ‘Big -Five’, in the end perceptions of laypersons on basis of all-days psychological monitoring formulate this concept (Lang and Lüdtke 2005:31). Because: it is not allowed, ignoring the strong genetical conditionality of the human personality. And to this conditionality, by researches a relationship between genetical influences and the ‘Big-Five’ could be proved. The heritability of the ‘Big-Five’ was on the average identified with 50%. In singular: neuroticism 48%, extraversion 54%, agreeability 45%, conscientiousness 49% and openness for experiences 57% (Bouchard and McGue 2003:23).

Furthermore, is to say: “[…] that genetical factors explain an eminent part on the individual variability of most of the behavior characteristics, and that the relationship between aspects of environment and characteristics of behavior in parts is genetical anchored” (Pinquart and Silbereisen 2007:19).

With this, the describing-dimension of the ‘Big-Five’ probably have the potential capacity, describing similarity-dimensions between characteristic traits reliable. This, even if such a reliability of deduction of the five personality traits out of neuronal respectively physiological parameters of the brain-functions is not yet coherently proved (Lang and Lüdtke 2005:31). However, in this context must be considered “[…] that diverse polymorphism in genes – coded for cytokines - regulate these cytokines in their concentration and activity, and those cytokines again have influence on the neurotransmitter systems, which for her part give distinction to personality traits …” Schinwald 2008:28).

The entrepreneur must - as described – make decisions under insecurity. For doing this, he needs beside his professional abilities and a certain tolerance of risk also by his personality-structure influenced abilities (Caliendo et al. 2011b:4). It must be not overlooked that these by entrepreneur’s personality-structure purported abilities, influence the entrepreneurial action concerning the information, reaching the entrepreneur from inside of his enterprise, from the markets, from environmental and political influences etc. by perception.

Even if the ‘Big-Five’ - ergo these 5 in the following to present and to prove on basis of the interviews with the entrepreneurs of this scripture - elements of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness seem to describe the (entrepreneurial) personality-structure well, Caliendo et al. (2011b:7) point out with a critical voice: It seems being problematic, reducing the many singular sub-traits contained in the five personality-dimensions on just these five big personality-dimensions. The difficulty is reasoned in the fact that singular in the respective dimensions integrated sub-traits could be contrary to another, and by this information about the effective personal traits of a person could got lost. That’s why it would be more revealing, really looking on the singular sub-traits of personality the entrepreneurial acting person has, instead of bringing these traits under the roof of such a broad taxonomy, as the ‘Big-Five’ taxonomy is.

Also, must be considered that the ‘Big-Five’ taxonomy perhaps mirrors not all, what a
personality and his/her action is. Because in the lexical approach can only be personality-factors for which terms were considered. That’s perhaps why Caliendo et al. (2011a:4) argue that entrepreneurial activities by the five-factor-model are not explainable sufficiently. So, for example, there is the argument that factors like risk-preference and emotionalism are not contained in the ‘Big Five’ (Ruf 2009:11). And specially, the factor risk-preference must be evaluated as significant for entrepreneurial behavior.

Furthermore, the ‘Big Five’ as the time outlasting behavior patterns do not include such variables, being less stabile over the time. That are variables, to which preceding by describing personality differences was given some relevance for entrepreneurial action: locus of control, sense of self, self-efficacy (Markgraf and Löbler 2007: no page).

Despite such - critical too - comments, the ‘Big Five’ give a help making entrepreneurial development and entrepreneurial action comprehensible: “With respect to the Big Five approach, in particular the traits ‘openness to experience’ and ‘extraversion’ and to a lower extent ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’ help to explain entrepreneurial development” (Caliendo et al. 2011b:0).

“Personality traits and their registration in the appropriateness-diagnostic play a central role” (Ruf 2009:13). There is no reason, that this for the appropriateness-diagnostic of entrepreneurial action should be otherwise; particularly entrepreneurs too are underlying to biologic/genetic factors in the same measure, as every other person does.

That’s why it makes a sense, describing the supposed ‘potential of requirement’ on a person who is doing the entrepreneurial functions and must have entrepreneurial foresight, a little bit nearer concerning the personality traits in the ‘Big Five’ dimensions, adding to this the interview statements of the three interviewed entrepreneurs.

Concerning such a trial of interview-evaluation is to state: The interview statements of the three entrepreneurs give an impression related to the practice that about, what can be inside the theoretical fundament of the ‘Big Five’ dimensions. The interview citations - just as looking on the examination of personality differences preceding - will not be concretely evaluated concerning the presented entrepreneurs (because, then surely not well-grounded). For this, the reason is that a correlation of singular interview statements to singular in the ‘Big Five’ dimensions anchored personality traits, at every time is underlying to the subjectivity of the singular observer. But at all, the interview statements give an impression about, how different entrepreneurs sense and evaluate action-formative situations and react on them.

Presenting the interview statements of the three entrepreneurs, it comes to several multiple citations of singular interview-passages, having a reason in the failing selectivity between the singular examined ‘attributes’; but in the fact too, that the context of singular interview statements means umpteen ‘attributes’, each characterising the five personality dimensions in a describing way.

3.2.1.1 Neuroticism

High value-expressions of neuroticism (emotional stabile versus emotional labile) point on persons, being in terms of their own control of needs and the ability reacting adequate to stress more problematic, than persons with lower value-expressions of neuroticism (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:234).

Negative stamped, with the factor neuroticism are characteristics described like “[…] excited, anxious, nervous, cranky, worried, sensitive, raspy, fearful, self-pitying, instable, discouraged and quailed” (Roth 2013:17). Persons with high neuroticism-expressions earlier worry about their healthiness und tend to unrealistic ideas (Weller and Matiaske 2008:3). In the positive-examination, neuroticism is bonded with characteristics like stability, calmness and contentedness, but also serenity, sovereignty, low emotionality, effectivity, hardihood and self-content (Caliendo et al. 2011a:3). Under the personality-dimension neuroticism by the presented characteristics by Braun et al. 2009:72) was done a recording about emotional stability versus emotional lability. Research about the changeability of the personality found out that for women in opposite do men neuroticism decreases in the age (Srivastava et al. 2003:1045).

Concerning the entrepreneur, Caliendo et al. (2011b:5) point out that a neuroticism-expression directed on emotional stability or emotional lability influences definitively his/her entrepreneurial action. They argue this by the fact that emotional stabile persons by assertiveness, being unstressed and tolerance in stress-situations are able, to manage the pressure to perform, the retention of optimism and of social relationships. That’s why they write: “Therefore, it is possible to derive as hypothesis that the higher individuals score on emotional stability, the higher the probability that they will become an entrepreneur, be an entrepreneur, and survive as an entrepreneur” (Caliendo et al. 2011b:5).

Also, they indirectly hint out that neuroticism from the point of view of failing emotional stability is bonded with an external locus of control (Caliendo et al. 2011b:14). To this is to say that concerning the entrepreneurial necessary potential, just looking on the preceding differences in the personality, brought out a more internal locus of control as a better preferable demand. This finds a confirmation with Caliendo et al. (2011b:15): “The self-employed exhibit a higher internal and a lower external locus of control, score higher on trust, and are less patient and more impulsive than the remainder of the population”.

High value-expressions of neuroticism (emotional stabile versus emotional labile) point on persons, being in terms of their own control of needs and the ability reacting adequate to stress more problematic, than persons with lower value-expressions of neuroticism (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:234).

Negative stamped, with the factor neuroticism are characteristics described like “[…] excited, anxious, nervous, cranky, worried, sensitive, raspy, fearful, self-pitying, instable, discouraged and quailed” (Roth 2013:17). Persons with high neuroticism-expressions earlier worry about their healthiness und tend to unrealistic ideas (Weller and Matiaske 2008:3). In the positive-examination, neuroticism is bonded with characteristics like stability, calmness and contentedness, but also serenity, sovereignty, low emotionality, effectivity, hardihood and self-content (Caliendo et al. 2011a:3). Under the personality-dimension neuroticism by the presented characteristics by Braun et al. 2009:72) was done a recording about emotional stability versus emotional lability. Research about the changeability of the personality found out that for women in opposite do men neuroticism decreases in the age (Srivastava et al. 2003:1045).

Concerning the entrepreneur, Caliendo et al. (2011b:5) point out that a neuroticism-expression directed on emotional stability or emotional lability influences definitively his/her entrepreneurial action. They argue this by the fact that emotional stabile persons by assertiveness, being unstressed and tolerance in stress-situations are able, to manage the pressure to perform, the retention of optimism and of social relationships. That’s why they write: “Therefore, it is possible to derive as hypothesis that the higher individuals score on emotional stability, the higher the probability that they will become an entrepreneur, be an entrepreneur, and survive as an entrepreneur” (Caliendo et al. 2011b:5).

Also, they indirectly hint out that neuroticism from the point of view of failing emotional stability is bonded with an external locus of control (Caliendo et al. 2011b:14). To this is to say that concerning the entrepreneurial necessary potential, just looking on the preceding differences in the personality, brought out a more internal locus of control as a better preferable demand. This finds a confirmation with Caliendo et al. (2011b:15): “The self-employed exhibit a higher internal and a lower external locus of control, score higher on trust, and are less patient and more impulsive than the remainder of the population”.

Thus, the preceding statements concerning the in the entrepreneurial functions with foresight acting person under a psychological view allow the following assumption:

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 4: neuroticism: emotional stabile versus emotional labile

3.2.1.2 Extraversion

The personality-dimension of extraversionhas more positive occurrences as
well as more negative ones. Extraversion is specified by the poles ‘extraverted’ and
‘introverted’. Extraverted persons connect themselves with activity, commu-nicativeness, sociality, heartiness as well as optimism. The introverted opposite pole is signed by detachment, contact avoidance, silence and self-effacement (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:234). Sociability, mindlessness, assertiveness and adventurousness have a relation to extraverted persons too (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:225).

Caused by behavior-genetical studies, the dimension of extraversion has got noticed as strong genetical determined on the one hand, but on the other hand dependent from respectively specific influences of the environment too (Eid et al. 2003:324). Alike to the dimension of neuroticism, extraversion decreases for women getting elder, but this is not guilty for men (Srivastava et al. 2003:1046).

About the entrepreneur, there is the supposition that the possibilities of a person getting an entrepreneur, acting as an entrepreneur, and ‘surviving’ as an entrepreneur is dependent from the particularly existing ‘amount’ of extraversion (Caliendo et al. 2011 b:5). Extraversion also means flexibility, openness for new things, the striving for changes, the ability for creating social networks. These are abilities, the entrepreneurial personality should have (Blake and Saleh 1992:24). For inventors (concerning foresight) too, was confirmed the ownership of extraversion on basis of a high emotional stability (Braun et al.: 2009:69).

About the assumption that the personality of an innovative entrepreneur should be more extraverted than introverted, there are however carefully exhorting voices too: “For the dimension of extraversion too, the previous research couldn’t find distinct results, even if the existing studies, majoritarian point out a positive effect of extraversion on innovation performance” (Potočnic and Anderson 2013:195). So, in spite of research showing correlations about the success of entrepreneurial acting persons with extraversion, there are introverted founders of enterprises too, being extremely innovative. As sample are named Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Steven Spielberg (Satow 2012.5 f.).

Thus, on a psychological point of view, there is the following assumption for the in the entrepreneurial functions acting person, concerning the preceding made discussion:

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 5: extraversion: extraverted versus introverted

3.2.1.3 Agreeability

The dimension of agreeabilityas a dimension describing the personality, has two
poles. “In the positive sense, the factor of agreeability names the characteristics of being sympathetic, likable. admiring, cordial, soft-hearted, warm, generous, trustful, helpful, forgiving, kind, cooperative and sensitive; and in the negative sense the characteristics of cold, unkind, dissentious, hard-hearted, cruel, ungrateful and penny-pinching” (Roth 2013:17). The abilities for altruism, neediness for harmony and modesty are contained too in the dimension of agreeableness (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:234).

Different from temperament-characteristics (like neuroticism and extraversion), the
agreeableness is not temperament-linked, but directed on social needs, interests and motives. Thus, agreeableness means an interpersonal behavior, by which a high amount of agreeableness as mentioned by prescribing its characteristics is bonded with high levels of cooperativity, compliancy, harmony needs; and low levels are standing for an egocentric behavior (Braun et al. 2009:72).

The importance of the factor agreeableness can pictorial be seen in the fact that – although agreeableness doesn’t correlate with performance – an agreeable candidate probably will be preferred to an irreconcilable candidate (Satow 2012:6). Thus, to the personality dimension agreeableness are referred influences about entrepreneurial action too: “In special, a lower agreeableness, a more distinct sense of self and the preceding experiences in a branch and with enterprise-founding have a significant positive influence on financial success” (Markgraf and Löbler 2007: no page).

That is why more lower levels of the factor agreeability are bonded with entrepreneurial success (Caliendo et al.2011a:3). However, here Caliendo et al. (2011b:7) differentiate more by pointing out that the factor agreeability has no influence on the founding-decision of an enterprise. Thus, there is perhaps the reason for the assumption that first with the beginning ‘struggle for survival’ in the entrepreneurial daily routine the entrepreneurial success can be connected with lower levels of agreeability. Concerning innovative results, existing levels of agreeability are not significant connected with (Potočnic and Anderson 2013:159).

On this basis, the preceding explanations allow the following assumption on a psychological perspective, concerning the with foresight acting person in the entrepreneurial functions:

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 6: agreeability :agreeable versus irreconcilable

3.2.1.4 Conscientiousness

“The factor of conscientiousnessnames in its positive form the characteristics of being organised, accurate, planning, effective, responsible, reliable, exact, practical, careful, reflected and conscious; and in the negative form means unmindful, disorderly, lightheaded, irresponsible, unreliable and forgetful” (Roth 2013:17). With this, the personality-dimension conscientiousness has the opposite poles of hard working, straight, structured people and careless, chaotic and tardy people (Rammsayer and Weber 2010:234).

For entrepreneurial acting, conscientiousness in so far is a point of view to look at, as by conscientiousness concerning the active planning-process as well as planning, organizing and processing tasks, something like a self-control is done (Braun et al. 2009:72). In relation with founding an enterprise, the personality-dimension of conscientiousness is named too: “Persons with a positive founding-predisposition are more extraverted, agreeable and conscientious. But too, they are better stabile with emotionality and have higher amounts in the sector of intellect and imagination” (Markgraf and Löbler 2007: no page).

However, at another source is pointed out that there are no homogeneous results about effects between conscientiousness and innovative performances – in case of meaning with imagination (ingenuity) theses performances (Potočnic and Anderson 2013:158). By this statement can be concluded that a less conscientious entrepreneur too can be able, having entrepreneurial foresight and acting entrepreneurial. Just as Caliendo et al. argue (2011b:6): “[...] we expect that different scores of the factor conscientiousness do not influence entrepreneurial decisions”.

However, even if the duteousness in the sense of conscientiousness so for the entrepreneur perhaps is not so grave, as long as he is doing at the right time at the right place the right thing: thus, that doesn’t mean at all that for a ‘vision’ by its verification and/or work off conscientiousness isn’t needed again either all (Menzenbach 2012:29).

Seeing conscientiousness as an entrepreneurial goodness aside such virtues like for example diligence, sense of duty, reliability, and sense of order (virtues which are anchored in the conscientiousness), this conscientiousness will be demanded from the entrepreneur in a certain extent. Because, doing the entrepreneurial functions, the entrepreneur has the function of an ideal for his staff (Roth 2013:299) and other involved persons. That is a function as ideal he needs for effectuating the entrepreneurial success. And entrepreneurial success grows – minimum measured on the monthly financial income - with growing conscientiousness and extraversion (Satow 2012:25).

Thus, the preceding arguments allow from a psychological point of view for the with foresight in the entrepreneurial functions acting person the following assumption:

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 7: conscientiousness :conscientious versus unconscientious

3.2.1.5 Openness (for new experiences)

The factor opennessoften is named as openness for experiences. “Finally, the factor openness in a positive sense incorporates the characteristics bridely interested, imaginative, visionary, intelligent, original, thirsty for knowledge, intellectual, artistically, clever, innovative, ingenious and wise; and in the negative sense undistinguished, unilateral interested, simple, without draft and unintelligent” (Roth 2013:17f.).

Openness and the opposite pole closeness belong to the more complex personality
characteristics, by which genetical and developmentally environmental influences are mixed in a special way (Roth 2013: 21 f.). High values of openness beside being eager for knowledge and a manifold cultural interest for people, support independence in human’s opinion too (Ramseyer and Weber 2010:234). Also, a high creativity finds its entrance into high amounts for openness (Weller and Matiaske 2008: 3). Thus, openness for experience by Braun et al. (2009:72) is signed as one of the most important traits in the creativity-research.

A hint on the fact that openness for experience should be owned by a foresight-oriented entrepreneur, perhaps results from the observance that inventors besides extraversion are qualified by a high openness for experiences (Braun et al. 2009:69). This is caused by the fact that high openness for experiences in a special degree allows the perception of own feelings and inner states, supports the interest on new knowledge and new experiences, and serves to the own opinion making. (Braun et al. 2009:72). Just perception is something, the in the entrepreneurial functions acting human needs; being - like preceding shown - absolute necessary for foresight-oriented entrepreneurial action.

Braun et al. (2009:76) include the readiness to assume risks as a factor of success too into the dimension of openness for experiences, and they combine the dimension with an increased tolerance for financial and ethical risks.

If resourcefulness and creativity are anchored in the personality-dimension of openness, so in this perhaps is lying the key for a fundamental (foresight promoting) innovation-openness, which contributes to the diminishment of uncertainty and the by this given requirements (Elbe 2015:23). And uncertainty is - like described preceding- one of the facts by which entrepreneurial action is influenced.

A direct reference between openness - named by him broad mind, open-mindedness - is done by Lombardo (2008:34) who argues: “Open-mindedness is a relative quality of thinking and is another significant cognitive dimension for future consciousness. Critical thinking and open-mindedness are connected processes and mutually support each other within future consciousness. Open-mindedness, in fact, is an essential element of critical thinking. From a critical thinking perspective, nothing is taken for granted. Ideas are not simply accepted as unequivocally true or demised as unequivocally false”. Thus, openness serves to the (entrepreneurial) management of knowledge which has the aim “[…] using knowledge optimal, developing it and realizing it with new products, processes and business-fields” (North 2005:3), thus making an opening to his ‘inside’ but also to ‘outside’ possible for the entrepreneur.

Under this point of view, the assumption of Caliendo et al. (2011a:3) gets comprehensible. The assumption, that the personality-dimension of openness for experiences has an essential influence on the fact about person’s ability being entrepreneurial active.

Thus, by a psychological perception, the preceding arguments allow the following assumption, concerning the in the entrepreneurial functions with foresight acting person:

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 8: openness: open versus closed

The ‘Big-Five’ dimensions besides the in chapter 3.1 shown and commented personality-differences make visible an enormous scope of personal entrepreneurial behaviour. They show with the in the annex A presented interview statements, why entrepreneurs -by the personal behaviour they own - must come to different entrepreneurial results. Thus, the ‘Big-Five’ dimensions represent a level of observation about thatperson, willing for founding an enterprise or to proceed in an enterprise - just doing the entrepreneurial functions -, which can’t be delivered by a business plan – how positive however this is.In so far, each in a business-economic manifested business plan about a business-idea postulates that these for an entrepreneur as necessary supposed behavioral character-ristics are simply existing (like spoken about the miscellaneous abilities, Schneider speaks about).

3.2.2 The self-concept and its meaning

The self-concept means “[…] the entirety of evaluation concerning the own person”
(Mummendey 2006:25). The entirety of these evaluations is created by the sum of perceptions about oneself (Laskowski 2000:15). “The self-concept is a dynamic inner structure and authority of regulation, by which many intra-personal processes like somehow motivation or emotion as well as inter-personal processes like social percep-tion and decisions are interpreted and communicated between” (Daig 2006:29).

That are made experiences under the consideration of body-related, emotional and social aspects, determining the self-concept of a person (Daig 2006:29). Thus, it’s about the sum of cognitive representations, a person about him/herself saves in the memory (König 2006:72). The self-concept can be differed into a cognitive-evaluative component and an affective component. The cognitive-evaluative component means a self-description of the own person, the affective component contains self-evaluations - evaluated cognitions -, and so that, being named as self-esteem (König 2006:72). The self-esteem of a person is the sum of the by the person self-evaluated self-rating on the ground of his/her made experiences in the preceding mentioned fields.

By the self-concept, a person is drawing a picture about him/herself. By this self-perception is indicated person’s appearance with his/her action in his/her environment (Laskowski 2000:15). It depends to the self-concept of a person, how the person interprets his/her perceptions and then is acting with them (Laskowski 2000:15).

As entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions and entrepreneurial foresight
correspondent to the preceding given definition postulates perception, it can be concluded that just too the action in the entrepreneurial functions depends on the self-concept of the acting entrepreneur. That’s caused by the fact that the self-concept has a selective impact on the perception: about oneself made evaluations are seen for the present as evidence and anchor-point as facts. This, being able at all, to range new experiences; and to evaluate by perception upcoming follow-up-expectations (Laskowski 2000:22 f.) “New information, being well suited to the already built concept, is particularly noticed; whereas irreconcilable circumstances are - if possible - avoided, ignored, devalued as not true, or interpreted in a form, then being able to get integrated into the existing concept however” (Laskowski 2000:23). Thus, the human self-concept - and with this the entrepreneurial self-concept too - can bring out a bias of reality, caused on the fact that by in the past made experiences and by in the past built judgements, situations are noticed in a ‘coloured’ way (Laskowski 2000:26).

The way of (self-) perception influences the self-assessment and with this, the self-esteem. Humans are able, developing a positive self-esteem as well as a negative one. So, a positive self-esteem explains success with the own good competences, whereas a negative self-concept (self-esteem) explains success more with fortunate circumstances. Correspondent, a positive self-esteem will look for failures in bad circumstances; a negative self-concept on the other hand in a lack of competences (Laskowski 2000:23 f.). The self-assessment of a person can be seen change-resistant and touches by the assessment-process of perceptions person’s sentimental value. Concerning its process, the self-assessment depends on the by the person experienced, or however self-chosen principles (Laskowski 2000:52 ff.).

Important elements, being observed in the sector of the self-concept, self-assessment and self-esteem - which have relevance for entrepreneurial behavior and action too - can be summarised in its positive/negative patterns like here following in table 9 – deduced from the statements, Laskowski (2000:23 ff.) made. Later, these elements are reconciled with the statements of the three interview-partners.

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 9: self-concept/self-evaluation/self-esteem

As consequence, it can be supposed that positive self-assessment persons in a difficult situation lets be more successful as a lower self-assessment does. Because a high self-esteem is bonded with “[…] stability, assertiveness, companionableness, open-mindedness; but conceitedness, self-arrogance, pride and exorbitant self-assuredness too” (Naudascher 1980:91). In this context, a positive self-concept is associated with more internal than external locus of control (Laskowski 2000:28)

As, concerning entrepreneurial capability-assumptions, for the entrepreneur a more internal locus of control is supposed - bonded with the so higher adaptability on situations and higher efficiency like supposed by discussing the differences in the personality -, this is congruent to the preceding by Braun et al. (2009.73) cited relationship between self-concept and locus of control. There is pointed out that a positive self-concept supports the own efficiency of entrepreneurial action.

Even if - like written preceding - the self-worth evaluation of a person can be seen like resistant to change, so self-concepts either all “[…] are considered as process-related changing results of interaction-processes and not as a formation with an outlasting structure” (Mummendey 2006:15). These interaction-processes are the fundament of relevant social standards; they give comparisons by which a person perceives him/herself. “By a reciprocal affectation between the individual and its environment, the individual gives to the fellow human being concrete impressions about oneself, and so functionalizes the social interaction-partner, forming his/her self-image” (Mummendey 2006:79).

By this comparing process of perception persons are able to, learning which occurrences are linked to the upcoming of other occurrences, and which consequences result from which behavioural patterns. So, they can construct a horizon of expectations about that what could happen in the future, controlling and steering their behavior by that (Mummendey 2006:55). This statement can be valued as a further hint that foresighted entrepreneurial action depends on the specificity of the self-concept, the entrepreneurial acting person has.

A context too can be postulated between the ‘Big-Five’ personality dimensions and the self-esteem: High estimation of self-esteem corresponds to lower neuroticism values and higher values of extraversion. For people having lower self-esteem feelings, an instable estimation of self-esteem connects with higher values of neuroticism and lower values of agreeableness and conscientiousness. So, instability of self-esteem for people having a lower self-esteem, comes out by emotional more difficult behavioural patterns. On the other hand, people having a high self-esteem stability, compensate alternating self-esteem feelings by trying to get control over the situations, they are surrounded with (Mummendey 2006:147).

Seemingly, it is important that not only the presented differences in the human personality and the registration of human behavioural predisposition in personality dimensions - like ‘Big-Five’ must be looked on; but that for setting action-targets and for the action-processes and their experience, the subjective assessment of own possibilities plays a role (Laskowski 2000:8), just the self-concept. And on this, the entrepreneur too with his personal possibilities of perception, of action, of foresighted target-recognition is bonded, just because he is a human.

So, there is the deduction that the entrepreneur should have a more positive self-concept for doing his tasks in the right way – almost all equal, if about his daily action in the entrepreneurial actions or by foresighted planning as a foresight-process. Because: entrepreneurs (humans) with a positive self-image (self-concept) start their actions more target oriented, by the fact that troubling influences by fear of failure, self-doubts probably will be lower than for people being tainted with a more negative self-concept (Laskowski 2000:8 f.). “Ergo, it is assumed that the imagination humans develop about themselves (self-concepts), have an important influence on the henceforward self-perception and the humanly action-constitution” (Laskowski 2000:9).

More purposeful on the entrepreneur, Rövekamp (2011:338 f.) points out that in the
entrepreneurial self-concept an entrepreneurial ‘self’ must be anchored and that this demand is to be seen more important for the economic success than business-economical insights and experiences. This entrepreneurial ‘self’ comes out then, when the entrepreneurial action is done in accordance with the personal moral concept, so that business problems get the own problems (Menzenbach 2012:77).

A cutback of this demand for a self-concept with a personal high self-esteem, Herz et al. (2013:2) name by the hint that - like confirmed by experimental data – an exceeding self-trust (self-esteem) has a more negative effect on entrepreneurial innovative activities. So, in a project the hypothesis was made that “[…] judgmental overconfidence is associated with suboptimal business strategies which lead to both, lower overall profits as well as lower maximum per-period profits” (Herz et al. 2013:2).

Despite this confining note, a high (positive) self-concept with a high (positive) assertiveness and a by this resulting high (positive) expectation of self-efficacy perhaps may be an indication, having the ability for successful entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight. The self-concept comes out on the ground of perceptions, and so enables for a feeling which occurrences paired with other occurrences can appear caused by entrepreneurial actions; and which expectations - with positive as well as negative consequences - can so be deduced for the future.

“Subjective expectations thus play a dominant for thinking ahead, the anticipation and planning as well as practicing behavior patterns” (Mummendey 2006:55). Lombardo (2008:46) too points out that the self-confidence - who we are - contains elements about the human (entrepreneurial) future-awareness. Furthermore, he makes a connection to optimistic versus pessimistic perception and thinking: “Pessimists believe they are impotent and feel depressed about the future; optimists believe they have power to positively affect the future and feel hopeful about the future” (Lombardo 2008:49). Further on he says that humans, looking for change, encourage their self-consciousness and their self-trust (Lombardo 2008:50).

As important remains that the human (entrepreneurial) self-concept by its participation on steering the behavior is one core area for the explanation of human - and thus entrepreneurial too - action. This, just because action-impulses result from self-experienced cognitions, which are influencing the personal debate with oneself and the given facts from the environment (Daig 2006:31 f.).

This means that human behavior is not explainable from alone by - like presented - differences in the personality and the personality-traits - like for example argued with the ‘Big-Five’ -, but that in a concrete behavior manifold psychical processes of evaluation, classification, weighting, feelings, conclusions, etc. are integrated. “It is this complexity, and that are the actions of the psychical system with its specific demands on the environment, which are responsible, why a ‘simple’ theory of personality - restricted on the identification of typical personality-traits - cannot be successful” ( Martin 2011:190)

3.3 The convertibility of the (entrepreneurial) person

The presented three entrepreneurs and their enterprises, as well as the preceding shown theoretical fundaments about the for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight relevant psychological sectors - differences in the personality, personality traits of the ‘Big-Fife’ dimensions and the self-concept - have been worked out by the interview statements of the entrepreneurs just in the sense of a hermeneutic procedure. Thus, comparisons and underpinnings of the in the three sectors preceding outlined theoretical fundaments could be marked out. This is the reason for the structure of annex A correspondent to the theoretical background of chapter 3.

By this, it became clear that these three entrepreneurs in their - by Schneider (1995:31) so named – (psychological) ‘individual other capabilities’ differ significant; and that this ‘individual other capabilities’ out of a psychological - but genetical and biological energized too - point of view, obviously have a not irrelevant influence on the way, how and with which success the entrepreneur under the aspect of foresight is acting in the entrepreneurial functions The three interview statements show that by individual entrepreneurial actions, obviously are written individual success-stories, this caused in the individual entrepreneurial personality. This gets in results visible in Annex A.2 .

From this comes the question about the possibilities, the entrepreneur on the background of his psychological personality has, influencing this ‘success-story’. The core of the question is caused by the shown importance of the psychological entrepreneurial personality: if and how the entrepreneur can change his psychological personality, getting another action-appearance und so getting more successful for acting in the entrepreneurial functions - however he will define this success for himself - , and how these entrepreneurial actions then can get an input of entrepreneurial foresight.

The question about the convertibility of the psychological personality is interesting for the fields of business-economics too; this related to the entrepreneur and entrepreneurial action. Just this, because Schneider (1995:31) besides the manpower and the body of knowledge – preceding shown by the psychological point of view - ‘the other individual capabilities’ includes into his business-economic definition about the entrepreneur. Even if the entrepreneurial functions in principle can be done by everybody, in normal the success of the enterprise will arise only, if the in the entrepreneurial functions acting person has the on the business goal directed abilities (and that are besides knowledge and manpower the ‘other individual capabilities’).

For the period from 2014 until 2018, the ‘Institut für Mittelstandsforschung’ (institute for small firms and traders-research) for 3540 by families managed enterprises found out, that the question of succession is expected. In 54% of these cases, the succession will be regulated internal inside the families (Kay and Suprovič 2013:8,19). These family-internal successions minimum allow the question, if the succeeding persons have the in their personality anchored capabilities, doing the entrepreneurial functions with success in the sense of the goals of the enterprises. And if not, in how far these entrepreneurial capabilities can be reached by a change of the personality for those persons, who will succeed with doing the entrepreneurial functions. In the same way, this question comes up for people, having indeed a brilliant idea with good chances for success at the market; but being not able by their own structure of personality to realize this idea by themselves.

The answer on the question about the convertibility of the psychological personality, doesn’t give much space for changes possible. That is why potential possibilities for change are determined by four determinates: “[…] namely by the individual genetical equipment, the idiosyncrasy of the individual (mostly prenatal and early after birth) development of the brain, the prenatal and early after the birth made experiences (in special the infantile binding-experiences), and finally the psychosocial influences during the years of childhood and youth” (Roth 2013:13 f.).

So, that are profound genetical (biological) determined (molecular-genetical and neuroscience paradigm) and by the early development caused natures, constructing the nucleus of the personality, the temperament (Angleitner and Spinath 2005:244). With the term ‘temperament’ are related characteristics from the sectors of affect, activation and concentration (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:53). That are these characteristics, by which attributes are shown like vivaciousness, tenacity, selectivity of the senses, emotional reactivity, endurance and activity (Angleitner and Spinath 2005:248).

To this nucleus are affiliated the personality traits, being assigned to the ‘Big-Five’-dimensions. These personality traits get stabilized in their individual forming, and they are in parts genetical or by brain development caused, but in other parts too by the infantile forming (Roth 2013:32).

Thus, that are genetical and by the development formed factors, determining besides the
prenatal and infantile influences of the environment the personality (Roth 2013:32).

There is no discussion however about influences, by which the personality is determined in the adulthood. Genes and brain development define by about 50% the personality, the formative early influences of the first years of life fix about 30% of the personality. And only at a later age of childhood and youth, as a further the personality determining component, socializing processes are added: “”Our conscious personalityalways is a socialized personality; being developed especially in the later childhood, during the puberty and in the early years as adult …” (Roth 2013:1105). This socialization is implemented by the influential forces in the frame of genetical disposition, brain development and prenatal/infantile development, showing the remaining ca. 20% of the personality (Roth 2013:105).

So, Roth (2003:411) points out, “[…] that a person in his/her personality rather ‘mature’, than having a change in their nucleus; looking (or constructing) rather to a for him/her emotional convenient environment, than adapting oneself to an environment”.

As the personality obviously is seen as relative stable for the complete time of life, there appears this semblance that the ability for foresighted entrepreneurial action is essentially fixed very early. By this, perhaps the assumption appears: A person who is not pre-disposed by specific features and a suitable socialization until latest in the early adulthood, later as an adult can’t be entrepreneurial active with success.

However, the reality shows something different by the fact, that indeed the personality traits are seen stable over the time; but that it is assumed nevertheless, that in the context of the entrepreneurship-education an assumption about the learnability of the personality-related characteristics exists, an entrepreneur must have (Bijedic 2012:11)

Thus, by developing entrepreneurial action-competences, the appropriateness for entrepreneurial action and thinking can be fostered: “Core competences, being relevant for a self-employment can be gained, trained or improved by professional experiences. They are an important link between more over the time stable personality characteristics on the one hand, and concrete entrepreneurial behaviour patterns on the other hand” (Müller 2007:386, cited at Bijedic 2013:55).

Besides professional competences and method-competences, there it is about the advancement of social competences and self-competences. This advancement serves to a stabilization of affective, motivational, cognitive and social abilities of the person; and thus has an influence on the emotional stability, motive power, internal locus of control, readiness to assume a risk, problem-solving orientation, tolerance for uncertainty and assertiveness (Bijedic 2013:57). Anyhow, such an advancement doesn’t represent a change in the basic structure, being particularly anchored in the personality of the entrepreneur.

Perhaps it is risky, carefully bringing this idea on top, that a with foresight-ability in the
entrepreneurial functions, and by regard to the goals of the enterprise acting person, is
predisposed in his/her personality; but can be fostered with his/her entrepreneurial competences by learning effects. However, every further guess would go beyond the scope of this script. This careful thought is also found in a hint of Roth (2013:226): “By the development of a lifestyle, genetical dispositions, adaptability and habituation work together; whereat the extent of the adaptability and habituation are genetically determined. Concluding by this, that humans would not be modifiable, would be unreasonable. Only the degree of convertibility is much less, than it was thought - and in parts is thought till today - under the influence of the behaviorism and its »education-optimism«”.

Indeed, changes of human action are possible by changes of the self-concept; this by biological caused variations, by variation of the environmental conditions, and by variations which are done by the person him/herself. These self-done variations are induced for example by made experiences, by conscious decisions, etc. (Mummendey 2006:88).

„In the course of human development, on the one hand at every time, new and other fields,

themes, subjects can be adopted into the self-concept, or can get a personal importance. And other themes can stay back or get less important …” (Mummendey 2006:89). But in the age of an adult, a ‘new construction’ of the self-concept will happen more seldom. The reason is, that during a lifecycle, there are less and less new themes which must be experienced newly – themes, to which an idea in the existing self-concept doesn’t exist (Laskowski 2000:150).

4 Entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight on a common economical and interdisciplinary basis

Entrepreneurial foresight and entrepreneurial action are directly linked. This gets visible with the argument that foresight contains the human (entrepreneurial) competence, ‘handling actively with the future’, and is not seen as a future directed prediction only (Tiberius 2011:49).

This argument means that by doing the entrepreneurial functions, uno actu there is a little bit of foresight too. There are not only meant the big visionary plans about a new project-development in the future, the capture of until now unknown markets, etc. Much more, every action of planning, triggers at once a step into a just not happened future – an action, just being bonded on human competences and abilities. Hayward and Voros (2005:3) point out this interaction between entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight: “The central interest of those promoting foresight as an approach is not merely that we should think about the future. Rather, and more importantly, we should act with the future in mind”.

Pointed from this, can be deduced that everybody, being able to act in the entrepreneurial functions, at the same time should have the ability, doing entrepreneurial foresight, or even has this. With this, not a statement is done about the ‚amount‘ of the entrepreneurial success and about the magnitude of existing foresight-ability; merely a correlation is done.

Thus, it gets visible that entrepreneurial action indeed is done by inclusion (on the fundament) of entrepreneurial foresight. Because without a - however constructed - foresight, there would be no action; and every entrepreneurial action must always be followed by new foresight; this to provoke new actions.

So, perhaps the correlation between foresight an entrepreneurial action is comparable to this philosophical question: what was first, the hen or the egg. Thus, foresight and entrepreneurial action condition each other. That sounds understandable, because entrepreneurial action as well as entrepreneurial foresight are tied up to the process of perception as a common basis. Without perception and it’s agglomeration to information with outcoming insights, there would be no action, and no foresight too.

If the business-economics work with terms like for example ‘corporate foresight’, economy foresight’, ‘open foresight’, ‘strategic foresight’, technology foresight’ etc., then, with this cannot be meant that, by which the appearance of foresight really is shown. Namely the human ability having perception, and the ability to work on basis of this perception. Much more, these terms merely can be ‘tools’, stimulating the process of perception, but being needy for the person who perceives. So it’s ok, understanding for example ‘strategic foresight’ as “[…] an instrument, serving to the preparation of strategic deciders for an unknown future” (Müller and Müller-Stevens 2009:V). However, such a preparation of strategic deciders is only possible in the case of their ability to perceive. So, developing foresight on the ground of perception.

Thus, by the process of perception, entrepreneurial action as well as entrepreneurial foresight in the same way are bonded on the preceding shown interdisciplinary - the personality constructing - factors, by which the entrepreneurial personality is determined - ‘other abilities’.

But so knotting entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight on the human biology and human psyche, there is no statement done about, that both - action and foresight - always must be underly to the same personality traits. A possibly appearing discrepancy between the abilities of entrepreneurial action and the foresight-oriented human can’t be cleared in the context of this script. Not in vain, Braun et al. (2009:69) point out that innovators - and an innovator perhaps is a person with a special foresight-talent - are a mostly unresearched area: “Psychological studies with innovators are nearly not existing”.

That means, that by the anchorage of the foresight-ability inside the entrepreneurial personality, minimum in the business-economic assessment must be assumed, that the foresight-ability as well as successful entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions is indicated by the in chapter 3.4.1 discussed (probably not concluding) business-economic competences. This minimum as long, until new insights get visible. And this business-economic personality can be contoured on basis of the in chapter 2.4.1 preceding named and in the business-economic sciences presented competences.

Indeed, here can be done now a more specific entry, making an adjustment between these business-economic competences with the facts, found in the interdisciplinary fields of personality-emergence. So, perhaps it is possible to show, which characteristics (traits) the entrepreneur must unify inside himself, having for example motive power. On basis of such an approach, perhaps this door to the manifold named ‘other abilities’ in the sense of Schneider (1995:31) can be pushed open; filling so these ‘other abilities’ with interdisciplinary given topics.

In this way, business-economic competence-demands can be allocated to personality-characteristics, being convenient - with all precaution in the conclusions – to prognosticate successful entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions on basis of entrepreneurial foresight.

So too, it’s possible, having a look, if eventually interdisciplinary facts concerning the contouring of the entrepreneur must be paid heed to, which are up to now not inside the business-economic competences. At first, when the trial of such a calibration is done, a carefully specification is possible, what the entrepreneur besides his/her work-power and his/her knowledge as ‘other abilities’ must bring in, doing the entrepreneurial functions foresight-based with success.

It is also important to note, that an interdisciplinary method of approach of the personality by including business-economic propagandized entrepreneurial competences, certainly will not deliver a homogeneous exemplary picture about THEprobably successful entrepreneur. This is caused by the fact, that different business goals have different expectations on the ‘construction’ of the entrepreneurial personality. So, an entrepreneur in a charitable on social welfare directed organisation, probably must have other entrepreneurial characteristics, a on profit-maximization oriented entrepre-neur on the operations side needs. And despite different entrepreneurial personality-characteristics, both entrepreneurs can be successful in their different enterprises, being those, acting in the entrepreneurial functions.

4.1 Business-economic competences and interdisciplinary contents about the personality on a common platform

The basis is the preceding - like in chapter 2.4.1 discussed - list of competences, by which a ‘business-economic’ entrepreneurial personality can be described: risk tolerance, locus of control, motivational force tolerance of ambiguity, striving for independence, assertiveness, adaptability, problem-solving orientation, emotional stability, resilience and strength of striving (Brauckmann et al. 2008:13 ff.). This, with the as following supposed characteristics for a successful action in the entrepreneurial functions:

- a high degree of motivational force

- a particularly high degree of internal locus of control

- an above-average striving for independence

- a above-average strength of striving

- a particularly high ability to work under pressure

- an average till above-average problem-solving orientation

- a minimum moderate till higher risk appetite

- a tolerance for uncertainty a little bit above the average

- an increased assertiveness

- a social adaptability a little bit above average

- a high emotional stability.

To do justice to these characteristics, it is to suppose as necessary, correspondent to the preceding findings - out of the interdisciplinary field of research:

About the in chapter 3.1 presented differences in the personality:

- a minimum middle intelligence

- a higher creativity

- a higher wisdom, view of life and self-knowledge

- high social competences

- a high ability for self-regulation (self-determination) and self-control

- a high ability for coping with stress

- a not too high anxiety

- a middle anger inclination

- a high subjective well-being

- a high self-esteem

- a high internal locus of control

- a high self-efficacy

- a positive optimistic tendency

- a positive prosocial behaviour

- a high empathy ability

- a middle aggressivity

- a high potential for self-presentation

- a high potential to give social support

About the in chapter 3.2.1 shown personality traits of the ‚Big Five ‘- dimensions:

- a high emotional stability

- a more extraverted than introverted behaviour

- a better lower than higher measure of agreeableness

- a better higher measure of conscientiousness

- a high openness for new experiences

About the reflections concerning the self-concept in chapter .2.2: a positive self-concept.

Seemingly, notor only indirectly, in the interdisciplinary field of research can be found the by the business-economics demanded moderate till higher risk appetite. The readiness to assume a risk contains the abilities and readiness, being risky in a certain measure (Brauckmann et al. 2008:13); and must be included by doing entrepreneurial actions. The readiness to assume a risk is seen as an important potential capacity of entrepreneurial action (Koetz 2006:28), because by this readiness, the behaviour of persons in insecure decision-situations is influenced. “Without any risk, entrepreneurial action will not happen” (Koetz 2006:34).

However, risks are processed by entrepreneurs in a cognitive specific way. That possibly bears the situation, that by other persons as risk felt circumstances, by the entrepreneur are not perceived as those; whereat the risk acceptance is not bigger as for other persons too (Koetz 2006:35). The assumption of Caliendo et al. (2011b:8) is, that entrepreneurial success is not strictly linked with the willingness to carry a risk: “[…] the probability of entrepreneurial success is not correlated in a strictly positive way with risk attitudes”.

A critic about the absence of readiness for risk in the ‘Big Five’ - taxonomy (Ruf 2009:11) can be weaken in that way, that obviously the presence of readiness for risk in the interdisciplinary field of research can be linked with creativity. Reasons for this are, that […] in psychological processes, being responsible for creative solutions, earlier risky than carefully reflected strategies are done” (Brain et al. 2009:72 f.). Nevertheless, Braun et al. (2009:73) plead that the five-factor-model (‘Big Five’) should be completed by a sixth, bridely defined dimension about the readiness for risk.

The importance of the competence about readiness for risk is underlined by the fact, that by looking over a big number of evaluated exits from the market, as reason a smaller readiness for risk as needed for leading an enterprise, was named (Egeln et al. 2010:V). A for the entrepreneur business-economical wished more moderate till higher readiness for risk can be argued by the fact, that - linked with the business-economical demanded high achievement motivation - seemingly not realistic goals are refused by the fact that these goals can be reached only with luck (Frahm 2003:23).

It means, that entrepreneurial risk awareness under the consideration of a present sense for the reality is linked with a thinking of feasibility. And a positive thinking about the feasibility, on the other hand runs across to the interdisciplinary settled and necessary entrepreneurial traits of personality’s emotional-cognitive patterns, namely the internal locus of control.

Out of the perspective ‘what would be if’ can be made the trial to show, which consequences a non-acceptance as true, the preceding interdisciplinary supposed personality patterns would have for the personality of the entrepreneur in the business-economic shown entrepreneurial competences. This, concerning the in chapter 3.1 discussed differences in the personality. Doing so, that are very circumspective done considerations and assumptions, which must be looked on more exactly in a further (then surely not business-economic directed) research. The same thing is guilty for the afterwards following reflections about the ‘Big-Five’-dimensions, as well as the self-concept.

Caused by the complexity of the correlations, this can only be a trial, absolutely having not the claim to be something like a however natured modelling. Thus, only thought-provoking impulses can be given here, by which perhaps - then in a deeper academic-oriented research - a modelling of entrepreneurial action as well on a business-economic platform as on an interdisciplinary fundament can be done.

4.1.1 The balance about differences in the personality with business-economical postulated demands on the successful and foresight-oriented entrepreneur

The following considerations are done on the ground of the in chapter 3.1 done theoretical remarks about differences in the personality as an indication for different human (entrepreneurial) action:

Consideration and assumption 1: A minimum middle intelligence-occurrence is not available.

In this case, there is a lack of flexibility concerning the adaptability of neuronal circuits, for learning the necessary abilities (Eagleman 2012:86). Even if by the earning of knowledge and abilities with an increasing age a self-stabilization of the intelligence comes out, this cannot hide the fact about a strong genetical conditionality of the intelligence. If in special, there are no good abilities in the fields of commemoration and learning, perception and imaginativeness existent, this must have consequences on the business-economic shown competences. So, failing intelligence is a very general indicator, being not able to act with success in the entrepreneurial functions with entrepreneurial foresight.

For humans, willing to act entrepreneurial, there can be a relatively independence of the self-concepts about the own abilities from the in fact measured intelligence (Laskowski 2000:9). Thus, by a misjudgment about the own person, an entrepreneurial failure can arise. Because: these persons feal their own abilities different (higher), as they are perceived from outside.

Consideration and assumption 2: A certain extent of creativity is not present:

Creativity by the ‚Big Five’-factor of openness for experience (Braun et al. 2009:72) touches the business-economic competences about problem-solving orientation and risk appetite. By a failure of a bride interest, resourcefulness, originality, thirst for knowledge and inventiveness, both competences perhaps would not exist in such an extent, as it is necessary for the successful action in the entrepreneurial functions and for having entrepreneurial foresight.

Also, creativity is brought into a connection with the business-economic demanded motivation for efforts (Ebner 2002:629). A same connection can be linked up to the tolerance of ambiguity, a business-economic competence-demand too: “The ambiguity-tolerance associates - in the opposite to a strong bondage on norms - a certain pleasure for experimentation, and so is in close connected to the creativity” (Brauckmann et al. 2008:14). Koetz (2006:36) points out studies about entrepreneurs who had difficult parent-child relationships.

This in the context with a strong ambiguity-tolerance, “[…] which for the entrepreneurs then supports resourcefulness and creativity, leading to entrepreneurial success”.

In a nutshell it’s to say, that a too less or failing creativity, negatively influences just several competence-demands, being business-economically assumed for a successful action in the entrepreneurial functions.

Consideration and assumption 3: A higher wisdom, view of life and self-knowledge doesn’t exist.

Like preceding by discussing the wisdom mentioned, Lombardo (2007:8) suggests, looking at wisdom as the highest degree of future-conscientiousness. So, wisdom is connected too with the ability for having entrepreneurial foresight. Wisdom, view of life and self-knowledge touches the intelligence, creativity and openness for experiences (Staudinger 2005:345); but ethical and social dimensions too. And so are influenced the business-economic propagandized entrepreneurial competences in the fields of motivation for efforts, tolerance of uncertainty, problem-solving orientation and risk appetite. As consequence, it can be supposed that a too little or failing wisdom, view of life and self-knowledge counters a successful and foresight tainted entrepreneurial action; because cognitive, affective, motivational, personal, ethical and social dimensions do not find entrance with an adequate extent into the entrepreneurial action.

Consideration and assumption 4: Failure of high social competences.

Social competences touch the assertiveness and the relationship skills (adaptability) (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:159). Both are competences, demanded too from the business-economic contoured entrepreneur. A missing or deficient assertiveness leads to the fact that the own interests in social situations are not or not adequate pursued and preserved. Caused by a failing adaptability, social signals from the environment are not transferred by learning processes into an adaption of the person on the situation (Lang 2008:20). It can be assumed that both, minimum has a negative influence on the entrepreneurial functions about coordination and arbitrage. Because the internal communication flow with internal partners of the company, as well as the communication flow with market-participants from the external sector will be incommode.

Consideration and assumption 5: Lack of ability for self-regulation and self-control.

A missing ability for self-regulation and self-control, hinders the process, constructing self-congruent goals and die ability of target-control. If entrepreneurial working people are not surveillants, controllers and agents about their own action, they are not able too, controlling and reflecting their own functioning (Mummendey 2006:183). In the extreme case, these persons are not able to act in the entrepreneurial functions, because they have a deficit of the power concerning the effort-motivation, an internal locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity and striving for independence.

Consideration and assumption 6: Lack of the ability, coping with stress.

Stress stands in connection with nervous behaviour, depressions, frustration, guilt feelings, little abilities to tackle tasks, etc. Stress “[…] is provoked and correspondent to this, realized by higher demands on the motor skills and the cognitive system” (Roth 2003:310). Thus, it is to assume that the postulated business-economical high emotional stability can be negative influenced by stress. By a lower ability tackling tasks, the work-capacity and the ability to work under pressure will get in deficit too. Besides, a failing ability coping with stress, indicates a more external than an internal locus of control (Kohlmann 2005:376); and is so not compatible to the business-economic entrepreneurial competence of a high internal locus of control.

Consideration and assumption 7: Existence of too high anxiety.

As the anxiety is placed in the emotional-cognitive sector, having a too high anxiety let assume rather emotional instability than stability; and so is not convenient to a for the entrepreneur propagandized high emotional stability. In addition, there must be a hint on the connection between high anxiety and a more external locus of control (for the entrepreneur is demanded a high internal locus of control), as well as a hint to the insecurity, which is hindering the for the entrepreneur better higher demanded risk tolerance. Also, caused by a high anxiety connected to a rather external locus of control, under just this anxiety the problem-solving orientation and the force of effort-motivation suffers in the for the entrepreneur supposed extent.

Consideration and assumption 8: Existence of a too high or too low specificity of anger inclination.

A too high anger inclination stands in a connection with blockades of actions and goals (Hodapp 2005:349); by which the business-economical supposed average until above-average problem-solving orientation can be influenced negative. However, by a ‘constructive’ anger inclination, rational and problem-directed discussions can be provoked (Hodapp 2005:398), so that in this case a - then more positive - influence on the problem-solving orientation can got visible. In how far the peculiarity of anger inclination influences the business-economical high degree of assertiveness too, is - at least on the ground of this script - not documented. So, merely the assumption remains, that a perhaps a too little anger inclination - also by a connectivity with more lower personality patterns of aggressivity - brings out a rather lower assertiveness. It’s
also to think about that anger is an emotion, and with this touches the emotional stability.

Consideration and assumption 9: Lack of subjective well-being.

Well-being can be found out by factors of measurement, namely the self-acceptance, the control about the environment, positive relationships to other, the existence of life-targets, personal growth and the striving for autonomy (Ryff and Keyes 1995:723). If there is a lack on these factors of measurement, just several of the in the business economics supposed competences for a successful action are touched: lower emotional stability, a lower common motivational force, lower striving for independence. By the existence of lower life-targets, there is also a lower force for effort-motivation; by a lower control about the environment and a slower self-acceptance, there I a lower internal locus of control too; and by this also a lower assertiveness.

Consideration and assumption 10: Lack of a high self-esteem.

If a high self-esteem is not existing, there are doubts on the own abilities, a skepticism by defining and working out tasks. Here, consequences can be assumed on the force of effort-motivation, on the degree of the internal locus of control, the striving for independence, the ability to work under pressure, the problem-solving orientation and the assertiveness. In how far, there can be made a connection to the readiness to assume risks too, may be unanswered. Because this last competence only is indirectly located in the presented differences in the personality.

Consideration and assumption 11: Lack of an internal, that means a rather external locus of control.

As a failing internal locus of control lets miss the ability, having the consequences of actions under the own control (Asendorpf and Neyer 2012:184), can be assumed that this has effects on the business-economical in special high supposed degree of an internal locus of control too. With a lower or failing internal locus of control, also the belief on the own motivation for efforts sinks down, as well as the ability, striving for independence and problem-solving orientation. Because the belief on the suggestibility of occurrences in the entrepreneurial life is not given on an adequate level. As well can be assumed, that with a failing or lower internal locus of control, a lower assertiveness goes along. This, because the action is rather strange than by oneself influenced. At the same time, the connection between the locus of control and the self-esteem must be seen (Laskowski 2000:65).

Consideration and assumption 12: Failing high self-efficacy .

Here can be referred to the arguments about self-esteem because self-efficacy and self-esteem are connected.

Consideration and assumption 13: Having not a positive optimistic tendency.

A missing optimistic tendency has a negative influence on the efficiency (Renner 2005:451), and by this, on the achievement motivation as well as the strength to act. By the failing tenacity in following to targets - being correlated with a failing positive optimistic tendency – moreover can be assumed, that the as business-economic demanded competence of motive-power can suffer, having a failing or lower optimistic tendency.

Consideration and assumption 14: Lower or failing prosocial behaviour.

As the prosocial behaviour by the ‘concern to others’ is connected to the ‘self-confidence into the own action-competences’ and ‘cognitions about fairness’ (Bierhoff 2005:462) , a connection can be assumed with the business-economic competence of an internal locus of control. A lower or failing prosocial behaviour by a lack of trust into the own action-competences, in addition would negatively touch the business-economic competence of social adaptability. Because then, the demanded social-communicative competences would not – or on a lower level - exist; and the access to discussion partners and contact partners would stay closed (Brauckmann et al. 2008:15).

Consideration and assumption 15 : Failing or lower empathy.

As the empathy is emotional anchored, it can be supposed that a lower or lacking empathy has a negative impact on the business-economical competence of a high emotional stability. Because this emotional relation is directed on the sympathies to the experiences of others (Friedlmeier and Trommsdorff 1992:138), also the competence of the social adaptability is touched. Lacking empathy as a lacking entrance to a constructive and cherishing action in work-processes just means, that perhaps with interaction partners, good arrangements and solutions cannot be found. And so, by a lack of empathy, the business-economic competence of problem-solving orientation can be impaired.

Consideration and assumption 16: A lower or failing aggression potential , or an aggression potential too high.

As well as the inclination towards anger, a lacking potential of aggression can influence the business-economical competences of assertiveness and problem-solving orientation negatively. A too high aggressivity points out a more external locus of control and a lower performance orientation (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:96), which again influences the strength of effort-motivation.

Consideration and assumption 17: Failing ability for self-expression

Here can be gone back to the consideration and assumption 5 about a failing ability for self-regulation and self-control.

Consideration and assumption 18: Failing high qualification for giving social support.

A failing qualification for giving social support, points out a lower more internal locus of control (persons with a high internal locus of control accept social support from outside appreciating, using the support (Klauer 2005:497) ). Also, the lack of having a high competence for giving social support, touches the business-economical competence of social adaptability because the ability to create networks on basis of mutuality can be impacted.

The preceeding thoughts point out, on which high level differences in the humanpersonality effect differences in the entrepreneurial personality too, and so too have effects on the entrepreneurial behaviour, action and the ability, having entrepreneurial foresight. Although, the dependences between differences in the personality and the presented business-economical competences surely are not shown completely; being merely assumptions in the form of thoughts, concerning the shown dependences.

With this, the problem is, that such assumptions then only would be a pure statement about a dependency between - only to name a sample - the business-economic demanded competence of a high internal locus of control and the personality-differences found out in the sector of self-regulation and self-control. Such an assumption would not give an answer about, ‘how much of an internal locus of control’ is possible to lack, so that the person is just again able, acting with success in the entrepreneurial functions. Not to mention the question, in how far such a ‘deficit’ of internal locus of control eventually can be balanced by other in the personality characteristics anchored positive ‘indications’, being necessary for a successful entrepreneurship. Thus, if for the entrepreneur the as sample named business-economical high internal locus of control is demanded, the question about ‘how high’ must remain open.

The into an interdisciplinary approach included complexity may get visible with the following summarizing chart once again.

As the most important result is to say, that the entrepreneurial personality and the in the business economics demanded entrepreneurial competences cannot stand alone, but are needy for an interdisciplinary entry, giving an explanation about an entrepreneurial - with foresight tainted - action. And it is to say that for a successfulentrepreneurial action, just not that person is an entrepreneur, who is doing the entrepreneurial functions; but only that person, who at the same timeholds inside him/herself the interdisciplinary substantiated necessary competences.

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 10:combination of business-economical competences with differences in the personality

By an aggregation in fig. 10, concerning the preceeding 18 considerations and assumptions, it gets visible on which business-economical competences, caused by differences in the interdisciplinary personality, is got access to. Thus, the chart merely shows schematic references, being assumed between psycho-logical/genetical differences in the personality and business-economical competences. With this, it is important again, underlining the ‘character of assumptions’ this chart has, to which the statements of this paper can’t go beyond, caused by the existing complexity.

Fig. 10 shows (and with this, at the same time it is shown how to read it), that for example the psychological ability for self-regulation and self-control on the business-economical platform touches the competences of (1) strength of effort motivation, (2) internal locus of control, (3) striving for independence, as well as (8) the tolerance for uncertainty. Or as a further sample, on the business-economical platform, the creativity is brought into a connection with (1) strength of effort motivation, (6) problem-solving orientation, (7) risk appetite and (8) tolerance for uncertainty.

4.1.2 Business-economical competence-demands and the dimensions of personality (‘Big Five’)

As well as the five-factor-model of personality in the sector of the personality-psychology has reached a position of hegemony (Ruf 2009:6), it is exposed to the criticism, having a too high degree of generality, and basing to a large extent on an atheoretical, descriptive approach (Ruf 2009:12). Exactly this high degree of generality bears the difficulty, allocating the five factors - neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness for experiences – to the singular business-economical shown competences, the successful and foresight-suitable entrepreneur must have.

This difficulty also then is not basically brought away, by underlying the description of the singular dimensions – as done preceeding -, trying then, to relate singular description-elements of the particular ‘Big Five’-dimension to singular business-economical competences. This is a very daring experiment, which in the end has for deduce no academical approach; being merely fed by the ‘guess of everyday’. The only reason being allowed to proceed in this way, perhaps can be seen in the genetical heritability of the ‘Big Five’-factors with about between 40% and 60% (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:236), by which then a connection to the better explainable differences in the personality and their adjustment with business-economical competence-demands for the successful entrepreneur is done.

The existing difficulty here as sample is shown, using the ‘Big Five’-dimension of neuroticism; by which psychological based for the with success in the entrepreneurial functions acting person a better high, than a low emotional stability can be attended.

Trying now to produce a correlation with business-economical entrepreneurial competences, using a negative-reference - emotional lability - by the describing adjectives, a failure will happen, as the following table 10 shows.

Tables are not included in the reading sample.

Table 10: Trial to relate singular elements of the ‘Big Five’-dimension neuroticism with business-economical entrepreneurial competences

A presentation like in table 10 namely cannot bring out more than a pure (high-handed) assumption, which in no way corresponds to an academic grounded statement; but is at most created by the normal feeling of the people. In the same way, similar unsatisfactory this trial of a comparison on behalf of the trait-patterns would be for the remaining four dimensions of the ‘Big Five’-approach.

By this reason, it makes a sense, staying here with more undifferentiated statements: A person reasoned by his personality correspondent to the ‘Big Five’-model possesses 1. a high emotional stability, 2. a more extraverted than introverted behaviour, 3. a better too low than too high degree of agreeableness, 4. a better higher degree of conscientiousness, 5. a high openness for new experiences. To this person are attributed the presented business-economical competences, being able for a successful entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions and for having foresight. Namely: a) a specially high degree of effort-motivation, b) a high degree of internal locus of control, c) a striving for independence above the average, d) a common motivation strength above the average, e) a in specially high ability to work under pressure, f) a problem-solving orientation on the average up to above the average, g) a tolerance for uncertainty a little bit above the average, h) an increased assertiveness, j) a high emotional stability.

A special role is given to the as for the entrepreneur demanded business-economical competence of a risk appetite above the average. This is contained, like preceeding just presented, not directly - but at all, indirectly - in the ‘Big Five’- dimensions. But at all, this statement seems not to be universal confirmed. So, for example, Fehr (2006:119) integrates the risk appetite into the dimension of extraversion.

Important is, that the ‘Big Five’-dimensions merely mirror behaviour-tendencies, how a person in concrete situations tends to show a certain behaviour (Fehr 2006:123). Thus, of sure for the entrepreneurial behaviour in the singular business-economic compe-tences, can’t be made a prediction. But merely, a presumption about the entrepreneurial behaviour can be done.

Besides, for the entrepreneurial behaviour, an inappropriate evaluation for one of the ‘Big Five’- dimensions does not at the same time mean, that the evaluated person is not able to be entrepreneurial active. As a sample Fehr (2006:124) notes, that an entrepreneurial profile with a lower emotionality (dimension of neuroticism) can be compensated by higher degrees in the dimension of agreeableness (et vice versa).

A profile must always be rated and interpreted as a whole – and that of course then is guilty too for the connection between the ‘Big Five’-dimensions and the presented business-economical entrepreneurial competences. That means, “[…] to consider the individual different strong patterned dimensions between mutual reactions and interdependences, differentiated; whereby a psychological-understanding perception gets possible” (Fehr 2006:124). By this holistic demand of rating for the dimensions, then the preceeding course of action is reasoned, knotting not singular contents of the particular ‘Big Five’-dimensions (as shown in table 10) concretely with business-economical competences.

4.1.3 Business economical competence-requirements and the self-concept

A positive self-concept about the own efficiency, can be considered as an essential factor of entrepreneurial action (Braun et al. 2009:73). That this is not only so for the business-economical competence of effort-motivation, is possible to conclude by the hint that persons with a positive self-concept, are brought into a conjunction with stability, assertiveness, companionableness and open-mindedness (Laskowski 2000:28).

That all are factors, just being convenient to a successful entrepreneurial action. However, it must not be kept secret that a high self-concept can be accompanied by vainness, self-arrogance, pride and exaggerated self-assurance (Laskowski 2000:28). That are factors, to which in case of a distinct appearance, a more negative impact on a successful entrepreneurial action can be supposed. Finally, the built self-concept dictates the organisation and the interpretation of person’s perception (Laskowski 2000:22).

Because the process of perception - as pointed out - is the urgently necessary premise for entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial functions and for the foresight-process, the developed self-concept can only be a positive one, leading to entrepreneurial successful action and entrepreneurial success.

An entrepreneurial ‘self’ must be integrated into the self-concept: “That is why a self-concept into which an entrepreneurial ‘self’ is integrated, is more fundamental for the economic success, than business-economical insights and experiences” (Rövekamp 2011:338 f.). Besides, the enhancement of the self-concept is seen as an element of a visionary business management (Menzenbach 2012:52).

The entrepreneurial self-concept must be high. Because a lower self-concept gives to the people more unfavorable expectations about the own competences; supports anxiety, and so has an influence on the way, a person acts in situations with. “Furthermore, still can be accepted that those, with the unfavorable self-concept will behave less self-reliant, being more pessimistic and self-critical, feeling themselves more culpable or incapable; feeling the world as more difficult and dangerous as those persons with a convenient self-concept” (Laskowski 2000:27).

That for the fulfilment of the business-economical postulated entrepreneurial competences a high self-concept is necessary, gets visible in case of a confrontation of these competences with the demands for a positive self-concept (fig. 11).

Figures are not included in the reading sample.

Fig. 11: Comparison of business-economic competences with the of the self-concept

Similar as done for the differences of the personality preceeding, here too a negative consideration is possible. But there is a danger - minimum in this script - that there is no academic substantiation of such a negative-consideration; and that so such a consideration only is grounded in the subjective ‘people-feeling’ of an all-days-psychology. So for example, a person, being not convinced into the own good qualities, probably would have a lack of internal locus of control. With this, there would be a lack of assertiveness, problem-solving orientation a probably a general motivation-strength too. Similar, a person liking not the action with new tasks, probably would have a lack of strength of effort-motivation, a lack striving for independence and a failing problem-solving orientation. These two samples may be enough, marking off possible interdependences between business-economical competences and the self-concept. But this with the background, that these are only speculative predications, being needy for an academic verification or falsification.

So, it must be enough, that besides the statements carved out concerning the personality-differences and the demands of the ‘Big Five’- personality dimensions, supplemental to this by a view from the business-economical side too, there must exist a positive (high) self-concept; giving to the entrepreneur the ability to act with foresight in the entrepreneurial functions.

4.2 The foresight-factor inside the entrepreneurial personality

As carved out, foresight is ‘only’ one aspect of perception, on which entrepreneurial action in the entrepreneurial function in total is grounded. That is why, foresight is interdisciplinary anchored in the entrepreneurial personality with the described biological, social and psychological components. And much more, foresight can be connected too with the preceding outlined and demanded competences.

By this reason, the argument must be right, that every entrepreneur is a person, having foresight too. Because: as correspondent to the business-economic statement everybody, being active in the entrepreneurial functions, is an entrepreneur; with this, everybody being active in the entrepreneurial functions must have foresight too. Thus, there is just as much or as less said about, how good or how bad a person with foresight-talent may have a look into the future; as well as the quality of entrepreneurial action, has nothing to do with the basic principle, being an entrepreneur.

Thus, the wished entrepreneurial foresight-ability, to translate things previewing into entrepreneurial action, remains an in the literature manifold stated thing. This, without offering methods of resolution, how this factum comes into the world; or just in the sense of a then ‘better’ entrepreneurial action is influenceable. With this, the literature with the following statements shows demands into the right direction; but these statements are not appropriate, to grasp the problem about entrepreneurial foresight with the roots:

“Improving our understanding of the pathways to foresightful action, or to entrepreneurial action, are therefore useful only so far as a better understanding of the means increases the promotion of the ends” (Hayward and Voros 2005:3).

“The entrepreneurs, like the foresight practitioner, need ways of seeing or perceiving which broaden and deepen awareness of what is in our environment that we are currently blind to” (Hayward and Voros 2005:14).

“Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of vision, change, and creation. It requires the
application of energy and passion towards the creation and implementation of ideas and creative solutions” (Morrow 2006:607).

“The idea that holding a vision of what is possible, forms the link between foresight and
entrepreneurship …” (Morrow 2006:607)

“Wisdom is the highest expression of future consciousness – the holistic integration of those capacities necessary for flourishing in the future” (Lombardo 2013:63).

“In the conceptualization, the foresight inherent in the entrepreneurial activity can be explained as a process and not as a matter of rational choice or entrepreneurial prescience” (Fuller and Warren 2006:957).

“Foresight is a key business skill and as part of the ‘knowledge economy’ has links with other ‘knowledge’ business areas such as innovation. Foresightedness is a combination of developing and understanding of possible futures for an organization and acting upon that” (Horton 1995:5).

“Entrepreneurs will not act unless they can imagine succeeding, and they cannot truly be entrepreneurs unless they believe they can enact a unique vision of the future in which their product or services is important for a particular group of customers. In this respect, entrepreneurs are made, not born” (Collwell and Narayanan 2010:299).

“The future cannot be ”predicted” but alternative futures can be “forecasted” and preferred futures “envisioned” and “invented” – continuously” (Kuosa 2011:331).

The list above is resumable. For a business-economical action, the request for foresight by the statements above becomes clear; but the way to attain a real foresight inside the person of the entrepreneur, the doctrine of the business-economics does notshow. To this, at all the existing foresight-concepts like for example ‘strategic foresight’, are not allowed to fool over.

It is the near interconnection of the foresight-factor to the entrepreneurial personality which doesn’t arise with its actions from the business-economic competences, but out of its genetics, its psychology, its self-concept, its environment, etc.

A strong incitement, by which - contoured by just these not business-economical caused determining factors - the entrepreneurial personality is actuated, is the uncertainty. This, on the one hand enlarges by its clearance scopes of action and action-possibilities; but on the other hand, at the same time with the clearance is shrinking innovations (foresight): “The more uncertainty is eliminated; the bigger is the possibility that innovations are restricted; and instead of an innovation, merely a continuation or lower modification of just existing and known facts happens” (Böhle 2011:20).

The foresight-ability of an entrepreneur ist grounded in an interdisciplinary approach, the business-economical sciences merely can use as a fundament; then developing further hypothesis, theories, concepts, etc. This, without the duty to explain the nucleus of the origin, the entrepreneurial personality and foresight have.

But probably it is thinkable, requesting singular components of a personality by special
psychological tests: “To the in the diagnostic practice presently used questionnaires about the personality belongs the Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FPI-R) (Fribourg Personality Inventory), as well as two methods to measure the five dimensions of the five-factor model, NEO-five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI), and a differentiated version – the NEO-personality inventory similar Costa and McCrae” (Rammseyer and Weber 2010:204).

If by such tests information could be won, then perhaps a calibration of these information with the business economical competences for having business-economical successful entrepreneurial action, may be possible. If then, from such tests also predictors for a special measure of entrepreneurial foresight can be deduced, the practice must show.

The in the business-economics so interesting question, how entrepreneurial action and
entrepreneurial foresight comes into the world (the in the introduction to this script outlined question), only allows a singular general answer: Entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight arise from the human (entrepreneurial) ability, being able to percept. As this ability as shown by the interdisciplinary factors - is anchored in the individual personality of the person (entrepreneur); also, the origin of the ability for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight in each singular case, can only be explained out of the person and his/her personality-profile, which is looked on. Explainable are merely (in the form of assumptions) such facts, leading to an individual, personal entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight.

5 In a nutshell: Final Comments

„The role, the ‚entrepreneur‘ in the ‘singular-economic theory’ plays, gets the name: practicing the entrepreneurial functions ” (Schneider 1995:32). So, everybody is an entrepreneur, being active in the entrepreneurial functions. Insofar, in this script, there is a complete consensus with the presently dominating opinion in the business-academic sciences. But with Schneider’s preceding statement, at all nothing is said about, if the entrepreneur is able for a successful action in the entrepreneurial functions; and how this success must be defined.

Doing the entrepreneurial functions, the entrepreneur must make a big number of rapid
decisions under insecurity. Being able to do that, besides a professional, specialized expertise, he needs a lot of attributes and abilities, which are grounded in his/her personality (Caliendo et al. 2011b:4).

By doing the entrepreneurial functions and making decisions, the entrepreneur acts. And a consciously ‘not acting’ is an action too. He does his actions and decisions solely in the present, “[…] at which their consequences inevitably are lying in the future. Thus, the action in business-economic affairs, always is a problem, concerning the future” (Tiberius 2011:91). That is why, every entrepreneurial action is an action concerning the future, for which (with which extent however) entrepreneurial foresight is necessary. Thus, entrepreneurial foresight is a part of entrepreneurial action.

The very necessary requirement for entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight, is the process of perception. A process, which occurs different inside the people (entrepreneurs), being interconnected with their personality: “It is to be assumed, that humans being less able for recognizing correlations, make themselves much less thoughts about the own behaviour and their environment. Correspondent to this, the consequence will be, being informed about their environment worse. Their possibility, planning things in advance and taking precautions, will be restricted; because they are not able, converting perceptions into expectations” (Laskowski 2000:99).

How people (entrepreneurs) act, essentially depends on their genetical blueprint: “They inherit a genetical blueprint and are born into a world, on which they have during the crucial years no influence. That is the reason, why each of us is seeing the world with other eyes, has a different personality, and makes different good decisions” (Eagleman 2012:252).

Thus, the appearance of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight - what at least is necessary for an action in the entrepreneurial functions with success, however the success is defined -, fundamental not depends on business-economic factors. Much more, that are factors from the genetics and biology, researched facts from the psychology. That are the factors, by which statements about the human (entrepreneurial) personality can be done.

If so, the business-economics claim competences, an in the entrepreneurial functions acting person should have, the explanatory statement for these competences - as preceeding mentioned (Schneider 1997:18) - the business economics can’t provide by themselves, but rather formulate from the basis of a lived and observed practice.

By this reason, the question how entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight comes into the world, only can have an interdisciplinary answer: Namely by making a link between that, by which a genetical/biological/psychological explainable entrepreneurial personality is constructed, and those facts, being proposed by the business-economics as entrepreneurial competences for (successfully) doing the entrepreneurial functions.

That means, that indeed business-economical competence-demands give a sort of skeletal structure for a successful action in the entrepreneurial functions, but that indeed this structure is supplied by interdisciplinary factors.

The assumption is nearby, that the appearance of entrepreneurial action and entrepreneurial foresight for every in the entrepreneurial functions acting person, is something completely person specific.

However, something like an ‘if-then’ entanglement can be built: If the entrepreneur possesses this or that personal characteristics - however they are caused by their origin - , then he can fulfil these or those business-economical wished entrepreneurial competences, or he just can’t. Thus, the constructed interdisciplinary correlations may have something like a predictor-position, by which the bias of an in the entrepreneurial functions acting person concerning their actions and their foresight-ability can be supposed.

So, for the business-economic doctrine, there is an interdisciplinary tool which allows, making judgements not only - for example - on basis of business plans for founding new enterprises, or for the judgement about managing persons in the company, etc. Much more, there arises the possibility, to integrate soundly grounded person-related assessment criteria about the person, being demanded to act in the entrepreneurial functions. This in the sector of the ‘carrying capacity’-judgements about business ideas and new enterprise-establishments, as well as in the sector of decisions, concerning the succession in the company.

And that surely is not only true in the assessment of persons, doing the entrepreneurial functions in big companies - or are demanded to do that – but perhaps just in special makes a sense for smaller and middle-ranged companies; because: “The smaller the company is, the more the entrepreneur is the medium of the entrepreneurial core-competences, and with this bonded into the daily business” (Felden und Zumholz 2009:8).

To this person-relation, the emergence of entrepreneurial foresight must be subdued too. There exists - coming back to the in the preface of this script mentioned entrepreneurial gene - just not such an entrepreneurial gene. There also doesn’t exist a foresight-gene, by which people get the ability, having previewing ideas and concepts. Merely, there exists the human, having (or having not) by reasons of his/her very personal ability the chance, to act in the entrepreneurial functions with foresight.

Reference list

Abreu J.L. 2010. Neuroeconomics: A basic review. Daena: International journal of good conscience5(1):175-184. ISSN 1870-557X [online] http://www.daena-journal.org Zugriff 12.12.2016

Amsteus M. 2008. Managerial foresight: concept and measurement.Foresight10(1): 53 – 66

Angleitner A., Riemann R. 2005. Eigenschaftstheoretische Ansätze. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 93 – 103

Angleitner A., Spinath F.M. 2005. Temperament. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeits-psychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 244 – 250

Asendorpf J. B., Neyer F. J. 2012. Psychologie der Persönlichkeit. 5. Aufl., Springer: Berlin

Averill J.R. 1982. Anger and aggression. An essay on emotion. Springer: New York

Bardmann M. 2011. Grundlagen der Allgemeinen Betriebswirtschaftslehre . Gabler/Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden

Baron R. A. 2013. Enhancing entrepreneurial excellence . Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham

Baumann N., Kuhl J. 2005. Selbstregulation und Selbstkontrolle. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H. Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 362-373

Beckert J.1996. Was ist soziologisch an der Wirtschaftssoziologie? Ungewissheit und Einbettung wirtschaftlichen Handelns. Zeitschrift für Soziologie25(2):125- 146

Beckmann L, Müller S-A. 2011. Unsicherheit, Ungewissheit, Risiko. Die aktuelle wissenschaftliche Diskussion über die Bestimmung von Risiken. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik SWP-Zeitschriftenschau . 2:1-8

Benedikter R., Giadorno J., Fitzgerald K. 2010. The future of the selfimage of the human being in the age of transhumanism, neurotechnology and global transition. Futures 10(42):1102-1109

Bierhoff H.-W. 2005. Prosoziales Verhalten. Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 457-466

Bierhoff H.-W. 2009. Psychologie prosozialen Verhaltens. Warum wir anderen helfen. 2. Aufl. Kohlhammer-Urban: Stuttgart

Bijedic T. 2012. Förderung unternehmerischer Persönlichkeitspotentiale. In: Unternehmensgründung und Persönlichkeit . Fröhlich W. (Hrsg.). Rainer Hampp: München, 5 – 20

Bijedic T. 2013. ‘Unternehmerisch handeln macht Schule‘. Voraussetzungen und Ergebnisse einer Entrepreneurship Education in der Sekundarstufe II. Zeitschrift für ökonomische Bildung (ZföB) 1: 44-72

Blake C.G. Saleh S.D. 1992. A model of entrepreneurial venture performance. Journal of small business and entrepreneurship 9(4):19-26

Böhle F. Management der Ungewissheit – ein blinder Fleck bei der Förderung von Innovationen. In: Enabling Innovation: Innovationsfähigkeit – deutsche und internationale Perspektiven . Jeschke S., Isenhardt I., Hees F., Trantow S. (Hrsg.), Springer: Berlin, 17 – 3

Borghans L., Bart H.H., Heckmann J., Humphries J.E. 2011. Identificationproblems in personality psychology. Schriftenreihe METEOR/Maastricht research school of economics of technology and organisations, 11/025, Maastricht

Bouchard T.J. Jr., McGue M. 2003. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology 54:4-45

Brauckmann U., Bijedic T., Schneider D. Unternehmerische Persönlichkeit - eine theoretische Rekonstruktion und normaldefinitorische Konturierung. Schumpeter discussion papers 2008- 03. Bergische Universität Wuppertal: Wuppertal

Braun A., Mieg H.A., Neyer F.J.2009. Sind Erfinder anders als es die psychologische
Forschung erwarten lässt? Wirtschaftspsychologie1:69-79

Briedle H., Vrieling A., Cardillo M., Araya Y., Hinojosa L. 2013. Preparing an interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early-career researchers. Futures53:22-32

Brockhaus R.H. 1982. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In: Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Kent C.A., Sexton D. Vesper H. (Hrsg.), Englewood Cliff/New Jersey, S. 38-57

Brown V.A. 2015. Utopian thinking and the collective mind: Beyond,transdisciplinarity. Futures65:209-216

Brühwiler B., Romeike F. 2010 Praxisleitfaden Risikomanagement . Erich Schmidt: Berlin

Brülisauer B. 2008. Was können wir wissen? Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart

Brüll M. 2010. Akademisches Selbstkonzept und Bezugsgruppenwechsel. Hogrefe: Göttingen

Burandt M.-D., Kanzek T. 2010. Unternehmertum – Psychologische Aspekte eines volkswirtschaftlichen Themas. In: Psychologische Expertise für erfolgreiches Unternehmertum in Deutschland. Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (Hrsg.), Deutscher Psychologen Verlag: Berlin, 20 – 33

Caliendo M., Fossen F., Kritikos A. 2011a. Selbständige sind anders: Persönlichkeit beeinflusst unternehmerisches Handeln. Wochenbericht des DIW 11/2011: 2-8. DIW: Berlin

Caliendo M., Fossen F.M., Kritikos A.S. 2011b. Personality Characteristics and the decision to become and stay self-employed. SOEP papers on multidisciplinary panel data research 369, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung DIW: Berlin

Camerer C. F. 2003. Strategizing in the brain. Science 300:1673-1675

Caroll J.B. 1993. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge University press: Oakley. Zitiert bei: Neubauer A.C. 2005: Intelligenz. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen

Ciompi L. 2005. Die emotionalen Grundlagen des Denkens . 3. Aufl., Vandenhoeck @ Ruprecht: Göttingen

Colwell K, Narayanan V. K. 2010. Shaping the institutional context for entrepreneurial innovation. Futures42: 295 – 303

Cuhls K. 2011. Schnittstellen von Foresight und Innovationsmanagement. In: Zukunftsorientierung in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre . Tiberius V.(Hrsg.) 1. Aufl., Gabler: Wiesbaden; 189 – 199

Daig I. 2006. Male gender role dysfunction - Selbstdarstellung, Geschlechtsrollenstress und Gesundheitsrisiko bei Männern im Altersvergleich. Dissertation. Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften und Psychologie FU Berlin : Berlin

Dehne M., Schupp, J. 2007. Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP) – Konzept, Umsetzung und empirische Eigenschaften. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, research notes 26 , DIW: Berlin

Eagleman D. 2012.Inkognito, die geheimen Eigenleben unseres Gehirns. Campus: Frankfurt a.M.

Ebner A. Unternehmerfunktion und Innovationssysteme. 2002 In: Perspektiven des Wandels: evolutorische Ökonomik in der Anwendung . Lehmann-Waffenschmidt M (Hrsg.), Metropolis: Marburg, 611-661

Egeln J., Falk U., Heger D., Höwer D., Metzger G. 2010. Ursache für das Scheitern junger Unternehmen in den ersten fünf Jahren ihres Bestehens . ZEW Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH, ZIS Zentrum für Insolvenz und Sanierung der Universität Mannheim e.V., Creditreform: Mannheim und Neuss

Elbe M.2015. Führung unter Ungewissheit. Zehn Thesen zur Zukunft der Führung . Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden Eid M., Riemann R., Angleitner A., Borkenau P. 2003. Sociability and positive emotionality: genetic and environmental contributions to the covariation between different facets of extraversion. Journal of personality71(3): 319 – 346

Fallgatter M. 2007. Junge Unternehmen. Charakteristika, Potenziale, Dynamik. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart

Fehr T.2006. Big Five: Die fünf grundlegenden Dimensionen der Persönlichkeit und ihre 30 Facetten. In: Persönlichkeitsmodelle und Persönlichkeitstests . Simon W. (Hrsg.), Gabal: Offenbach, 113-135

Felden B., Zumholz H. 2009. Managementlehre für Familienunternehmen: Bestandsaufnahme der Forschungs- und Lehraktivitäten im deutschsprachigen Raum. Working Papers of the Institute of Management Berlin Nr. 48.Berlin School of Economics and Law (HWR Berlin): Berlin

Fiedler D. 2011. Foresight defined as a component of strategic management. Futures 43(5):540-544

Fontela E., Guzmán J., Pérez M. Santos F.J. 2006. The art of entrepreneurial foresight. Foresight8(6):3-13

Frahm I. 2003. Die Person des Unternehmers als wesentliche Determinante des Erfolges einer Unternehmensgründung. Diplomarbeit 1999 Universität Lüneburg. Diplomica: Hamburg

Franz S. 2004. Grundlagen des ökonomischen Ansatzes: Das Erklärungskonzept des Homo Oeconomicus. In: Working Paper 2004-02 International Economics, Institut für
Makroökonomik, Fuhrmann W. (Hrsg.), Universität Potsdam: Potsdam

Freiling J. 2006. Entrepreneurship. Vahlen, München

Freiling J., Gersch M., Goeke C. 2006. Notwendige Basisentscheidungen auf dem Weg zu einer Competence-based Theory of the Firm. In: Neue Perspektiven des strategischen Kompetenz-Managements . Burmann C., Freiling J., Hülsmann M. (Hrsg.). 1. Aufl. DUV: Wiesbaden, 4-34

Freiling, J. 2008. Unternehmerfunktionen und Gründungsmanagement. In: Entrepreneurship. Theorien und Fallstudien zu Gründungs- Wachstums und KMU Management . Kraus S., Fink M. (Hrsg.), Facultas: Wien, 37-51

Freiling J., Wessels J. 2010. Das Scheitern junger Unternehmen im Spiegel der Entrepreneurship- Theorie. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter , 57(3):315 – 332

Frese M., Rauch A. 2001. The psychology of entrepreneurship. In: Encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences . Smelser N.J., Baltes P.B. (Hrsg.),12:4552-4556, Elsvier: Amsterdam

Frese M., Fay D. 2000. Entwicklung von Eigeninitiative: Neue Herausforderung für Mitarbeiter und Manager. In: Welge M.K., Häring, K, Voss, A. (Hrsg.); Management Development. Praxis, Trends und Perspektiven . Schäffer-Poeschel: Stuttgart, 63-79

Friedlmeier W., Trommsdorff G. 1992. In: Finger G., Steinebach C. (Hrsg.), Frühförderung. Zwischen passionierter Praxis und hilfloser Theorie . Kambertus: Freiburg i. Br.: 138-150

Fülling C. 2009. Moralische Bildung als Basis einer gerechteren Wirtschaft: der Beitrag einer christlichen Wirtschaftsethik der Empathie als Bildungsauftrag im normativen Diskurs von Ökonomie und Religion. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik10(3):358-368

Fuller T., Warren L. 2006. A complex social network perspective in organisational foresight. Futures38:956-971

Funke J. 2000. Psychologie der Kreativität. In: Kreativität . Holm-Hadulla R.M. (Hrsg.), Springer: Heidelberg; 283-300

Gangestad S.W., Snyder M. 2000. Self-monitoring: appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological bulletin126(4):530-555

Gerlitz J.-Y., Schupp, J.2005. Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Research Notes 4, DIW Berlin , Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: Berlin

Gleißner W. Die Psychologie unternehmerischer Entscheidungen. Wirtschaftspsychologie aktuell. Heft 2/2003:69-74

Granig P., Perusch S. 2012. Innovationsrisikomanagement im Krankenhaus. Identifikation, Bewertung und Strategien. Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden

Graw J. 2010. Genetik.5. Aufl., Springer: Berlin

Grümer K.-W. 1974. Beobachtung. Teubner: Stuttgart

Guilford J.P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist , 5:444-454. Zitiert bei: Asendorpf J.B., Neyer F. J. 2012. Psychologie der Persönlichkeit. 5. Aufl., Springer: Berlin

Hadfield L. 2005 . Hindsight and the delusion of control. Foresight7(4) S. 3-7

Hayward P., Voros J. 2005. The perspective of the entrepreneur. In: Proceedings of Regional Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2005, the 2nd Annual AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 10-11 February2005. Australian graduate school of entrepreneurship, Swinburne university of technology: Melbourne, 1 – 17

Hébert R. F., Link A. N. 1989. In: Search of the Meaning of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics1(1): 37 – 49

Heckman J. 2011. Integrating personality psychology into economics. IZA Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, discussion paper Nr. 5950 , IZA: Bonn

Heinen E. 1971. Der entscheidungstheoretische Ansatz der Betriebswirtschafts-lehre. In: Wissenschaftsprogramm und Ausbildungsziele der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Tagungsberichte der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft e.V. Band 1. Bericht von der wissenschaftlichen Tagung in St. Gallen vom 2 – 5 Juni 1971. Verbandsvorstand durch den Tagungsleiter von Kortzfleisch G. (Hrsg.) Duncker und Humblodt: Berlin; 21 -38

Helm R., Meckl R., Sodeik N. 2007. Systematisierung der Erfolgsfaktoren von Wissensmanagement auf der Basis der bisherigen empirischen Forschung. ZfB Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft77(2): 211 – 241

Hering T., Vinceti A.J.F. 2008. Unternehmerische Grundfunktionen. In: Theorien und Fallstudien zu Gründungs- Wachstums- und KMU Management . Kraus S, Fink M. (Hrsg.), Facultas: Wien, 26-36

Herz H., Schunk D., Zehnder C. 2013. How do judgemental overconfidence and overoptimism shape innovative activity? Working paper series. Department of economics 106. Universität Zürich: Zürich. [online] www. econ.uzh.ch/static/wp/econwp106.pdf Zugriff: 25.08.2016

Hodapp V. 2005. Ärgerneigung. In: Handbuch der Persölichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 394-401

Horn E. 2010. Der Anfang vom Ende. Worst – Case –Szenarien und die Aporien der
Voraussicht. In: Archiv für Mediengeschichte, Nr. 9: Gefahrsinn. Insitut für Germanistik, Universität Wien: Wien

Horton A. 1999. A simple guide to successful foresight. Foresight1(1): 5-9

Ingruber H. 1994. Krankenhausbetriebslehre: Grundlagen für modernes Krankenhausmanagement. Göschel: Wien

Jacobsen L.K. 2003. Bestimmungsfaktoren für Erfolg im Entrepreneurship. Dissertation. Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften FU Berlin : Berlin

Jäncke L. 2013. Kognitive Neurowissenschaften. Huber, Hogrefe: Bern

Jerusalem M. 2005. Selbstwirksamkeit. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 438 – 445

Kanning P. U. 2009. Diagnostik sozialer Kompetenzen . 2. Aufl., Hogrefe: Göttingen

Kay R., Suprinovič O.2013. Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland 2014 bis 2018 . Daten und Fakten Nr. 11. Institut für Mittelstandsforschung: Bonn

Kernis M.H. 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry 14(1):1-26

Kirchgässner G. 2013. Homo Oeconomicus. 4. ergänzte und erweiterte Aufl., Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen

Klauer T. 2005. Soziale Unterstützung. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 493-50

König J. 2006. Sekundarschulen als differenzielle Entwicklungsmilieus? Dissertation. FU Berlin, Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften und Psychologie

Koetz E. 2006. Persönlichkeitsstile und unternehmerischer Erfolg von Existenzgründern. Dissertation. Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften, Lehreinheit Psychologie, Universität Osnabrück. Osnabrück

Kohlmann C.-W., Hock M. 2005. Stressbewältigung. In: Handbuch der Persölichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 374-382

Kolbe A. 2009.Grundwissen Psychologie, Soziologie und Pädagogik. 2. Aufl., Kohlhammer: Stuttgart

Kornmeier M. 2007.Wissenschaftstheorie und wissenschaftliches Arbeiten. Physica: Heidelberg

Krahé B. Aggressivität. 2005. In: Handbuch der Persölichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 476-485

Kreditschutzverband von 1870 . Insolvenzursachen 2015: Jedes zweite Unternehmen scheitert an der Chefetage. Kreditschutzverband von 1870: Wien https://www.ksv.at/insolvenzursachen-2015 [online] Zugriff: 17.11.2016

Krohne H.W., Egloff B., Schmuckle S.C. 2005. Ängstlichkeit. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 385-393

Krug H. 2013. Die Integration von tiefer Hirnstimulation in das Selbstkonzept. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem neurobiologischen Menschenbild anhand von Patientenerfahrungen. In: Abschied vom Seelischen? Erkundungen zum menschlichen Selbstverständnis . Rüegger H.-U., Dueck E., Tietz S. (Hrsg.), Reihe Züricher Hochschulforum, Bd. 51: 235-250 VDF Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zürich: Zürich

Kuosa T.2011. Evolution of futures studies. Futures 43(3):327-336

Landmann M., Perels F., Otto B., Schnick-Vollmer K., Schmitz B. 2015. Selbstregulation und selbstreguliertes Lernen. In: Pädagogische Psychologie . Wild E., Müller J. (Hrsg.). 2. Aufl., Springer: Berlin, 45-67

Lang D.S. 2008. Soziale Kompetenz. Zusammenhänge zwischen sozialer Kompetenz und den Big Five der Persönlichkeit bei jungen Erwachsenen. Dissertation. Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau

Lang F.R., Lüdtke O. 2005. Der Big Five-Ansatz der Persönlichkeitsforschung: Instrumente und Vorgehen. In: Persönlichkeit: eine vergessene Größe der empirischen Sozialforschung , Schumann S. (Hrsg.), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden

Laskowski A. 2000. Was den Menschen antreibt. Entstehung und Beeinflussung des Selbstkonzepts. Campus: Frankfurt

Laux L., Renner K.-H. 2005. Selbstdarstellung. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 486 – 492

Laux L., Renner K.-H. 2002. Self-Monitoring und Authentizität: Die verkannten Selbstdarsteller. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 23(2):129-148.

Lazarus R.S., Folkman S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping . Springer: New York. Zitiert bei: Kohlmann C.-W., Hock M. 2005. Stressbewältigung. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 374-382

Lazarus R.S., Folkman S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping . Springer: New York. Zitiert bei: Salewski C. Stress. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 402 – 412

Lehmann-Waffenschmidt B. C., Roth G., Thießen F. 2008. Die innere Logik des Entscheidens: Zur neurobiologischen Fundierung ökonomischer Entscheidungen. Dresden discussion papers series in economics . 12/08S. 1-27

Lischetzke T., Eid M., 2005. Wohlbefinden. In: Handbuch der Persölichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammseyer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 413 – 422

Lombardo T.2007. The evolution and psychology of future consciousness. Journal of future studies. 12 (1): 1-24

Lombardo T. 2008. The Evolution of Future Consciousness . Author-House: Bloomington

Lombardo T. 2013. Minds toward the future: evolving the wise cyborg. Educause Review 48(6):62-63

Lück M., Strüber R., Roth G. 2005. Psychobiologische Grundlagen aggressiven und gewalttätigen Verhaltens. Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg Delmenhorst Band 5. Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg BIS: Oldenburg

Major E., Cordey-Heyes M. 2000. Knowledge translation: a new perspective on knowledge transfer and foresight. Foresight2(4):411-423

Major E., Asch D., Cordey-Heyes M. 2001. Foresight as a core competence. Futures33:91 – 107

Mandl H., Hense J.2004. Lernen unternehmerisch denken: Das Projekt Tatfunk. Forschungsbericht 169. Institut für Pädagogische Psychologie, Lehrstuhl Prof. Dr. Heinz Mandl , Ludwig-Maximiliansuniversität: München

Martin A. 2011. Handlungstheorie. Grundelemente des menschlichen Handelns . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt

Markgraf D., Löbler H. 2007. Persönlichkeit und wirtschaftliche Orientierung als Einflussgrößen auf den Unternehmensgründungsprozess. Schriftenreihe: Universität Leipzig – Lehrstuhl für BWL insb. Marketing – Veröffentlichungen. http://www.econbiz.de/Record/persönlichkeit- und-wirtschaftliche-orientierung-als einflussgrössen-auf-den-unternehmensgründungsprozess-markgraf-daniel/10005867850. [online] Zugriff: 30.08.2016

McClelland D.C., Winter D.G. 1971. Motivating economic achievement . Free Press: New York

McCrae R.R., John O.P. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60 (2): Issue 2, 175 – 215

Menzenbach J. 2012. Visionäre Unternehmensführung . Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden

Mishra B. C.2016. Psychology. The study of human behavior . A.K. Ghosh, PHI Learning Private Limited, Rinjhim House: Delhi

Miyashiro M.R. 2013. Ein Wettbewerbsvorteil für Teams und Organisationen. Jungfermann: Paderborn

Morrow, R. (2006). Hope, entrepreneurship and foresight. Regional frontiers of entrepreneurship research: Compilation of papers of the third AGSE international entrepreneurship research exchange [CD]. Melbourne: Swinburne University, 606-618.

Mueller S.L., Thomas A.S. 2001. Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing16 (1), S. 51 – 75

Müller A. W. 2008. Foresight-Prozesse strategischer Trend- und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen. Dissertation Nr. 3521, Universität St. Gallen, Hochschule für Wirtschafts-, Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Druckereizentrum Universität Zürich: Zürich

Müller A. W., Müller-Stewens G. 2009. Strategic Foresight. Trend- und Zukunftsforschung in Unternehmen – Instrumente, Prozesse, Fallstudien. Schäffer- Poeschel: Stuttgart

Müller G.F., Garrecht M., Pikal E., Reedwisch N. 2002. Führungskräftemit unternehmerischer Verantwortung. Selbstständigkeitsrelevante Persönlichkeitsaus-prägungen im Vergleich zu anderen führungsgeeigneten Angestellten und freien Unternehmern oder Selbstständigen. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie1:19 – 26

Müller F. 2007 Berufliche Selbständigkeit. In: Moser K. (Hrsg.) Wirtschaftspsychologie. Springer: Berlin, 379-398. Zitiert bei: Bijedic T. 2013. ‘Unternehmerisch handeln macht Schule‘. Voraussetzungen und Ergebnisse einer Entrepreneurship Education in der Sekundarstufe II. Zeitschrift für ökonomische Bildung (ZföB)1: 44-72

Müller G.F. 2010. Unternehmerische Eignung – Impuls – und Erfolgsfaktoren für eine erfolgreiche berufliche Selbständigkeit. In: Psychologische Expertise für erfolgreiches Unternehmertum in Deutschland . Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (Hrsg.), Deutscher Psychologen Verlag: Berlin, 66-71

Mummendey H.D. 2006. Psychologie des ‚Selbst‘. Theorien, Methoden und Ergebnisse der Selbstkonzeptforschung. Hogrefe: Göttingen

Naudascher, B. 1980. Das übergangene Selbst. Pädagogische Perspektiven zur Selbstkonzeptforschung. Campus: Frankfurt a.M.

Neubauer A.C. 2005. Intelligenz. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 321 -332

Neugarten M.L. 2006. Foresight – are we looking in the right direction? Futures38:894-907

Neumer J. 2009.Neue Forschungsansätze im Umgang mit Unsicherheit und Ungewissheit in Arbeit und Organisation. Studie im Rahmen des Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramms „Arbeiten – Lernen – Kompetenzen“ im Projekt „Inter-nationales Monitoring“ (IMO) München. [online]http://www.internationalmonitoring.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Experten/
Expertisen/Expertisen_neu/Expertise_Neumer.pdf. Zugriff: 17.08.2016

Neumer J. 2012. Entscheiden unter Ungewissheit. Von der bounded rationality zum situativen Handeln. In: Management von Ungewissheit . Böhle F, Busch S. (Hrsg.), Transcript: Bielefeld; 37- 67

North K. 2005. Wissensorientierte Unternehmensführung. Wertschöpfung durch Wissen. 4. Aufl., Gabler: Wiesbaden

Pillkahn U. 2007. Trends und Szenarien als Werkzeuge zur Strategieentwicklung. Der Weg in die unternehmerische Zukunft. Siemens AG Berlin und München (Hrsg.), Bublicis Corporate Publishing: Erlangen

Pinquart M., Silbereisen R.K. 2007. Verhaltensgenetische Beiträge zur Identifikation von Kontexteffekten auf die Entwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen: Ein State-of-the-Art Bericht. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung 1:11-22

Potočnic K., Anderson N. 2013. Innovationsotientierte Personalauswahl. In: Kreativität, Innovation und Entrepreneurship, Krause D.E. (Hrsg.). Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, 155 – 173

Probst G., Raub S., Romhardt K. 2012. Wissen Managen: Wie Unternehmen ihre wertvollste Ressource optimal nutzen. 7. Aufl. Springer Gabler © Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden

Raab, J.2022. Entrepreneurial Education. Eine theoretische Fundierung zugehöriger Maßnahmen unter Einbezug von Blended Learning . Universität Duisburg-Essen IDE Kompetenzzentrum für Innovation und Unternehmensgründung

Rammsayer T., Weber H. 2010. Differentielle Psychologie. Persönlichkeitstheorien. Hofgrefe: Göttingen

Reckenfelderbäumer M. 2001. Zentrale Dienstleistungbereiche und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Analyse auf der Basis der Lehre von den Unternehmerfunktionen. Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden

Reithmayr K. 2008. Soziale Unterstützung - ein Erfolgsfaktor für den beruflichen Wiedereinstieg nach einer beruflichen Rehabilitation? Dissertation. Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Köln : Köln

Renner B., Weber H. 2005. Optimismus. In: Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie. Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 446-453

Rese M. 2000. Eine marktprozesstheoretische Sicht auf das Phänomen der Markttransaktion. Working Paper No. 1 Oktober 2000, Universität Paderborn , Department of business administration: Paderborn

Roberts B.W. 2009. Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality development. Journal of research in personality 43:137-145

Rövekamp C. 2011. Was unterscheidet erfolgreiche von weniger erfolgreichen Gründerinnen?: qualitaitve Längsschnittuntersuchung von Kleinstunternehmer/-innen. Dissertation. Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaft und Psychologie, FU Berlin : Berlin

Robinson E. 2001. Dreaming reality: a map for seeing the future. Foresight3(6): 553-562

Roth G. 2001. Wie das Gehirn die Seele macht. 51. Lindauer Psychotherapiewochen 2001. Hauptvortrag. http://home.arcor.de/eberhard.liss/hirnforschung/roth-gehirn+seele.htm [online] Zugriff: 24.08.2016

Roth G. 2003. Fühlen, denken, handeln. Wie das Gehirn unser Verhalten steuert. 1.Aufl., Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a.M.

Roth G. 2008. Homo neurobiologicus – ein neues Menschenbild? In: Hirnforschung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 44-45/2008, 27. Oktober 2008. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung ‚Das Parlament‘: 6-12

Roth G. 2013. Persönlichkeit, Entscheidung und Verhalten. Warum es so schwierig ist, sich und andere zu ändern. 8. Aufl.. Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart

Roth L., Herft C. 2010. Zur Bedeutung von Selbstführung und beruflicher Selbstwirksamkeit für den Erfolg von Unternehmern. In: Psychologische Expertise für erfolgreiches Unternehmertum in Deutschland . Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (Hrsg.): Berlin

Ruf A. 2009. Die Bedeutung des Fünf-Faktorenmodells als umfassendes Persönlichkeitsmodell für die Eignungsdiagnostik. Grin: München

Ryff C.D., Keyes C.L.M. 1995. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 69(4):719 – 727

Saladaňa-Lugo. M.F., 2023. Lean Foresight. In: Frese M., & Gielnik, M. (2023), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship: Action and Processes. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, (10)1, 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055646

Salewski C. 2005 a. Stress. In: Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und der differentiellen Psychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen, 402 – 412

Salewski C. 2005 b. Kontrollüberzeugungen. In: Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und der differentiellen Psychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen, 431 – 437

Satow L. 2012. Big-Five-Persönlichkeitstest (BT5). Test- und Skalendokumentation. URL:http://www.drsatow.de . Hier: https://www.zpid.de/pub/tests/PT_9006357_B5T_Forschungsbericht.pdf . [online] Zugriff: 30.08.2016

Scharfetter C.2002. Allgemeine Psychopatholohie. 5. Aufl., Thieme: Stuttgart

Scharmer C. O. 2013. Theorie U - Von der Zukunft her führen. Presencing als soziale Technik. 3. Aufl., Carl Auer: Heidelberg

Scheffer D., Loerwald D. 2009. Messung von impliziten Persönlichkeitssystemen mit Hilfe der visuellen Testmethode des Visual Questionnaire ViQ. Arbeitspapiere der Nordakademie 2009-2 . Nordakademie: Elmshorn

Schilke O., Reimann M. 2007. Neuroökonomie: Grundverständnis, Methoden und betriebswirtschaftliche Anwendungsfelder. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft(JfB) 57 :247-262

Schinwald N.C. 2008. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang zwischen Polymorphismen in zytokingenen und schizophrenieartigen Persönlichkeits-eigenschaften bei gesunden Personen. Dissertation. Klinik und Polyklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Ludwig- Maximilians -Universität : München

Schneider D.1995. Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Band 1: Grundlagen . 2. Aufl., Oldenbourg: München

Schneider D. 1997. Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Band 3: Theorie der Unternehmung. Oldenbourg: München

Schneider D. 2011. Betriebswirtschaftslehre als Einzelwirtschaftstheorie der Institutionen. Gabler/Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden

Schreyögg G., Kliesch M.2005. Organisationale Kompetenzen und Möglichkeiten ihrer Dynamisierung: Eine strategische Perspektive. In: Individuelle und organisationale Kompetenzen im Rahmen des strategischen Managements. QUEM-Report: Schriften zur beruflichen Weiterbildung; Analysen – Diskussionen – Empfehlungen . Arbeitsgemeinschaft QUEM, Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In: Zusammenarbeit mit der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung e.V. Bochum und dem Förderkreis für Personalentwicklung, Weiterbildung und Neue Medien e.V. Schwerin (Hrsg.), 94:3-49

Schreyögg G, Kliesch M. 2005. Dynamic Capabilities and the development of organizational competencies. Discussion Papers des Instituts für Management, Freie Universität Berlin 25/05: Berlin

Schütz A., Schröder M. 2005. Selbstwertschätzung in: Handbuch der Persölichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Weber H., Rammseyer T. Hrsg.), Hogrefe: Göttingen, 423 – 430

Seewald C. 2014. Empathie in der Wirtschaft: Verstehen und Verständigung. Gesprächspsychotherapie und personzentrierte Beratung 3:138-141

Shavelson R.J., Hubner J.J., Stanton G.C. Self-concept: validitation of construct interpretations. Review of educational research 46(3):407-441

Simon W. (Hrsg.) 2006. Persönlichkeitsmodelle und Persönlichkeitstests. Gabal: Offenbach

Slaughter R. A. 1999. A new framework of environmental scanning. Foresight1(5):441-451

Staudinger U.M. 2005. Weisheit, Lebens- und Selbsteinsicht. In: Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und der differentiellen Psychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen, 342-349

Srivastava S., John O.P., Gosling S.D., Potter J. 2003. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster of persistent change? Journal of personality and social psychology 84(5):1041-1053

Steins G.Empathie. 2005. In: In: Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.). Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und der differentiellen Psychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen, 467-475

Suddendorf T., Corballis M. C. 2007. The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30: 299-351

Süß H.-M., Weis S., Seidel K. 2005. Soziale Kompetenzen. In: Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.) Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und differentiellen Psychologie . Hogrefe: Göttingen, 350-361

Szczęk J. 2015. Absageschreiben auf Bewerbungen. Eine pragmalinguistische Studie. Frank & Timme: Berlin

Teece D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal 28:1319 – 1350

Thraen M.I. 2011. Entrepreneurship und das Scheitern von Jungunternehmen. Diplomica: Hamburg

Tiberius V. 2011. Grundzüge der Zukunftsforschung. In: Zukunftsorientierung in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Tiberius V. (Hrsg.) 1. Aufl., Gabler: Wiesbaden;11 – 87

Van Asselt M. B. A., Mesman J., Van’t Klooster S. A. 2007. Dealing with prognostic uncertainty. Futures37:669-684

Vanberg V. 2002. Rationalitätsprinzip und Rationalitätshypothesen: Zum methodologischen Status der Theorie rationalen Handelns. Freiburg discussion papers on constitutional economics 02,5 . Institut für allgemeine Wirtschaftsforschung, Abteilung für Wirtschaftspolitik: Freiburg i.Br.

Van Reedt M., Voordijk H., Dewulf G. 2014. ) Making sense of future uncertainties using realoption and scenario planning. Futures 55: 15 – 31

Vollmann M., Weber H., Wiedig M. 2004. Selbstwertgefühl und ärgerbezogenes Verhalten. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie 25(1): 47-56

Von Bismarck K.E. 1999. Zum Einfluß berufsbezogener und persönlicher Wertpräferenzen auf den unternehmerischen Erfolg. Eine empirische Studie über deutsche, amerikanische und asiatische Führungskräfte. Dissertation. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät der Universität Göttingen: Göttingen

Von Lingen T. 1993. Marktgleichgewicht oder Marktprozess. Perspektiven der Mikroökonomie. DUV: Wiesbaden

Vossenkuhl W. 1999. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil interdisziplinärer Forschung und Lehre. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung (bzh) 1:51-60

Wang C. L., Pervaiz K. A. 2007. Dynamic Capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 9(1):31 – 51

Weber H., Rammsayer T. (Hrsg.) 2005. Handbuch der Persönlichkeitspsychologie und der differentiellen Psychologie. Hogrefe: Göttingen

Weinert F.E. 2002. Vergleichende Leistungsmessung in Schulen – eine umstrittene Selbstverständlichkeit. In: Leistungsmessungen in Schulen . Weinert F. E. (Hrsg.) 2. Aufl. Beltz: Weinheim

Weller I., Matiaske W. 2008. Gütekriterien einer deutschsprachigen Version des Mini-Markers zur Erfassung der Big Five. Werkstatt für Organisations- und Personalforschung e.V.: Berlin

Wesseling E.1991. Individuum und Information: die Erfassung von Informationen und Wissen in ökonomischen Handlungstheorien. Mohr: Tübingen

Westerfeld K.2004.Förderung persönlichkeitsbezogener unternehmerischer Kompetenzen im Rahmen der Existenzgründungsqualifizierung an Hochschulen. Entrepreneurship education Bd. 1, Brauckmann U. (Hrsg.), Eusl: Paderborn

• Auteur: Dr. Wolfgang Schenk (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2024
• Pages: 123
• N° de catalogue: V1471471
• ISBN (PDF): 9783389020043
• ISBN (Livre): 9783389020050
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: interdisciplinary, origin, entrepreneurial, action, foresight, big five, personality differences, neurotransmitter, self-concept, functions, entrepreneurship, genes, psycholog, biology, Dr. Wolfgang Schenk