Runs , Pe ik; Thomä, Jö g
A icle
Pe sonali y ai s and he likelihood o sel -employmen : A
jou ney in o he c a s' way o doing business
Ge man Economic Re iew (GER)
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Ve ein ü Socialpoli ik / Ge man Economic Associa ion
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Runs , Pe ik; Thomä, Jö g (2025) : Pe sonali y ai s and he likelihood o sel -
employmen : A jou ney in o he c a s' way o doing business, Ge man Economic Re iew (GER), ISSN
1468-0475, De G uy e , Be lin, Vol. 26, Iss. 3, pp. 229-265,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/ge -2024-0033
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/331955
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ge 2025; 26(3): 229–265
Pe ik Runs and Jö g Thomä*
Pe sonali y T ai s and he Likelihood o
Sel -Employmen : A Jou ney in o he C a s’
Way o Doing Business
h ps://doi.o g/10.1515/ge -2024-0033
Recei ed Ap il 5, 2024; accep ed Feb ua y 2, 2025; published online Ma ch 3, 2025
Abs ac :Gi en he enewed schola ly in e es in he c a s, his pape explo es
he nuances o c a s en ep eneu ship h ough a pe sonali y-based app oach. Ou
findings alida e p io esea ch on he gene al influence o b oad and na ow pe -
sonali y ai s on sel -employmen . Howe e , ou analysis also sugges s ha ce ain
e ec s di e be ween c a s and non-c a s, mos no ably he ole o he Big Fi e
ai o conscien iousness – sugges ing ha he e is some hing ‘unique’ abou he
c a s’ way o doing business ha goes beyond fi m size. In his way, we p o ide
e idence ha pe sonali y may a ec sel -employmen di e en ly depending on he
sec o o field o en ep eneu ship.
Keywo ds: sel -employmen ; pe sonali y ai s; en ep eneu ship; c a s sec o
JEL Classi ica ion: L26; M13; D91
1 In oduc ion
In Ge many, 95 ades belong o wha is legally defined as he c a s sec o , which
comp ises a ound fi e million p o essionals, o abou 12.5 pe cen o he Ge man
labo o ce (see Ha e kamp, Wesling, and Seibe 2019;Mülle , Ma kwo h, and
Sönde mann 2011), cons i u es a co e segmen o he Ge man Mi els and (Pahnke
and Wel e 2019), and has been he subjec o a numbe o academic and policy
*Co esponding au ho : Jö g Thomä, Ins i u e o Small Business Economics, Uni e si y o Gö ingen
(i h), Hein ich-Düke -Weg 6, 37073 Goe ingen, Ge many,
E-mail: [email p o ec ed]goe ingen.de.h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-0300-1776
Pe ik Runs , Ins i u e o Small Business Economics, Uni e si y o Gö ingen (i h), Goe ingen,
Ge many; and Ins i u e o Ru al Economics (Thünen), B aunschweig, Ge many
Open Access. ©2025 he au ho (s), published by De G uy e . This wo k is licensed unde he C ea i e
Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License.
230 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
deba es in ecen yea s (e.g. A e z, G ego y, and A n z 2013;F ed iksen, Runs , and
Bize 2019;Runs and Thomä 2020;Runs and Wy wich 2023;Runs e al. 2019;
Schmi z 2019).
Economic ac i i y in he c a s has ecen ly ecei ed inc eased a en ion in
en ep eneu ship and managemen esea ch, wi h s udies examining he ypi-
cal compe i i e s a egies chosen by owne s o c a companies (Ca ani, Dunba ,
and Shapi a 2017;Sasaki, Nummela, and Ra asi 2021;Solomon and Ma hias 2020),
en ep eneu ial beha io in he c a s (P e and Cogan 2019); he oleo c a s
people’s sha ed iden i ies in wo k sa is ac ion and business success (Binde and
Blankenbe g 2022;Ma hias e al. 2018), he c a -specific app oach o wo k o ganiza-
ion and knowledge acquisi ion (e.g. Bell, Dacin, and To aldo 2021;Bell and Vachhani
2020;K oezen e al. 2021;Kuhn and Galloway 2015;Thomä and Zimme mann 2013),
and ela ed o ms o fi m-le el inno a ion (Runs and Thomä 2022;Thomä and
Zimme mann 2020).
The enewed schola ly in e es in he c a -based mode o compe i ion, wo k,
lea ning and inno a ion sugges s ha he e is some hing ‘unique’ abou he c a ’s
way o doing business ha goes beyond he small fi m sizes ypical o he c a
sec o . To gi e a ew examples: K oezen e al. (2021) concep ualize ‘c a ’ as “a ime-
less app oach o wo k ha p io i izes human engagemen o e machine con ol”.
Closely ela ed o his, he empi ical esul s o Binde and Blankenbe g (2022) imply
ha he s ong desi e among c a speople o wo k wi h hei own hands, apply-
ing hei skills and know-how in he c ea ion o p oduc s o se ices, is a sou ce
o indi idual p ide and occupa ional iden i y. The s udy by Solomon and Ma hias
(2020) sugges s ha business owne s in he c a s, due o hei s ong desi e o pe -
sonal independence, end o a oid being influenced by ex e nal s akeholde s – and
he e o e o en ha e a c i ical iew o business g ow h.
The aim o his pape is o ake a close look a wha makes he c a s unique
in empi ical e ms (no leas in compa ison wi h o he small fi ms) and he eby
shed ligh on he concep ual co e o he a ious s udies men ioned abo e. Follow-
ing Hoy e (2019), we a gue ha he undamen al specifici y o he c a s is closely
linked o he pe sonal cha ac e is ics o he business owne – o en ep eneu –,
as he o she has a o ma i e influence on all ope a ional ma e s in he mos ly e y
small c a en e p ises. In ac , he ‘c a s en ep eneu ’ ype has been concep u-
alized in he li e a u e as ha ing dis inc mo i a ions and goals (e.g. Coope and
Dunkelbe g 1986;Mine , Smi h, and B acke 1992;Smi h 1967;Smi h and Mine 1983;
Woo, Coope , and Dunkelbe g 1991).
This pape he e o e akes a pe sonali y app oach o explo e he po en-
ial uniqueness o c a s en ep eneu ship. We empi ically in es iga e he ela-
ionship be ween pe sonali y ai s and he likelihood o sel -employmen (as a
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —231
commonly used indica o o en ep eneu ship) in he c a s sec o using a ep e-
sen a i e panel da a se o Ge man indi iduals. By compa ing his wi h indi id-
uals who become sel -employed in non-c a s occupa ions, he pe sonali y ai
specifici ies o c a s en ep eneu ship a e examined – which con ibu es o he
ecen esea ch on he c a -based mode o doing business (e.g. Ca ani, Dunba ,
and Shapi a 2017;K oezen e al. 2021;Kuhn and Galloway 2015;P e and Cogan 2019;
Sasaki, Nummela, and Ra asi 2021;Solomon and Ma hias 2020).
B oad ( he Big Fi e; see Digman 1990;John, Donahue, and Ken le 1991;McC ae
and Cos a 2008) and na ow ai s o pe sonali y (locus o con ol, isk ole ance; see
Chell, Ha wo h, and B ea ley 1991;Ro e 1966) a e conside ed – which ep esen s
a common measu emen app oach o pe sonali y in he en ep eneu ship li e a-
u e (see e.g. B ands ä e 2011;Caliendo, Fossen, and K i ikos 2014;Leu ne e al.
2014;Obschonka and S ue ze 2017;Runs and Thomä 2023). In his way, he p esen
pape also aims o con ibu e o his gene al li e a u e by showing o he fi s ime
( o he bes o he au ho ’s knowledge) ha i is necessa y o dis inguish be ween di -
e en sec o s o fields o en ep eneu ship when analyzing he influence o pe son-
ali y ai s on sel -employmen decisions. Wi h his empi ical app oach, he p esen
pape goes beyond he concep ual pape o Hoy e (2019), who examines he pe -
sonali y pa e ns o a isan en ep eneu ship (as a subse o c a s en ep eneu -
ship, mainly ound in cul u al and c ea i e indus ies) om a pu ely heo e ical
pe spec i e.
The emainde o he pape is s uc u ed as ollows. Sec ion 2 discusses he
heo e ical backg ound o he ollowing empi ical analysis. Sec ion 3 p esen s he
da a se and desc ibes he me hodical p ocedu e, be o e he esul s a e de ailed in
Sec ion 4. Finally, Sec ion 5 summa izes he main con ibu ions and d aws conclu-
sions o policy and esea ch.
2 Concep ional Backg ound
2.1 The C a s En ep eneu
Acco ding o a widely used heo e ical ypology (e.g. Mine , Smi h, and B acke
1992;Solomon and Ma hias 2020;Woo, Coope , and Dunkelbe g 1991), which goes
back o Smi h (1967) and Smi h and Mine (1983), he e is a basic en ep eneu ial
ype ha can be expec ed o be closely associa ed o business ac i i y in he c a s.
Fo he ‘c a s en ep eneu ’, he oppo uni y o sel -di ec ed wo k and pe sonal
au onomy cons i u es a p ima y mo i a ion o en u ing in o sel -employmen
(Binde and Blankenbe g 2022;B idge and O’Neill 2018;Ho naday 1990;Runs and
Thomä 2021). Acco ding o his concep , hese indi iduals a e less mo i a ed by
financial gains o he oppo uni y o build a la ge business o ganiza ion. Ins ead,
232 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
c a s en ep eneu s can be mo e succinc ly cha ac e ized by pe sonal goals such
as a desi e o independence, au onomy, and sel - ealiza ion h ough ac i e pa -
icipa ion in he p oduc i e and c ea i e p ocesses (Amin and Robe s 2008;Kuhn
and Galloway 2015;Smi h and Mine 1983;Solomon and Ma hias 2020;Woo, Coope ,
and Dunkelbe g 1991). They alue he ac o p ac icing a ade o occupa ion, and
hus he mas e y o knowledge and skills, i.e. he achie emen o c a smanship
(Binde and Blankenbe g 2022;Hoy e 2019;Noo eboom 1994;Senne 2008;Thomä
and Zimme mann 2020). On he o he hand, hey end o see adminis a i e and
managemen asks end o be pe cei ed as a necessa y e il o en ep eneu ial ac i -
i y (Das and Teng 1998;Smi h and Mine 1983;Woo, Coope , and Dunkelbe g 1991).
Acco dingly, people who op o sel -employmen in he c a s o en s i e o pe -
sonal compe ency and c ea i e p oblem-sol ing in he c ea ion o indi idualized,
non-mass-p oduced p oduc s and se ices. They o en do no ha e a well-de eloped
ma ke ing s a egy, and i hey do, i emphasizes he company’s epu a ion o deli -
e ing high quali y.
Since c a s en ep eneu s o en find pe sonal sel - ulfillmen in he acquisi-
ion o aci know-how in a specific echnical field, inno a ions conduc ed by c a s
en e p ises a e usually o a cus omized na u e and o en ake he o m o s ep-by-
s ep op imiza ion, u he de elopmen o adap a ion o exis ing p oduc s, se ices
and p ocesses (i.e. inc emen al inno a ions; Amin and Robe s 2008;Das and Teng
1998;Mine , Smi h, and B acke 1992;Runs and Thomä 2022;Thomä and Zimme -
mann 2020).
Mo eo e , c a s en ep eneu s end o s ick o ied and es ed ou ines (Das
and Teng 1998;Hoy e 2019;Mine , Smi h, and B acke 1992). In doing so, hey pe -
ec adi ional ways o wo king and doing in a conscien ious manne . When hey
make changes, hey do so less p oac i ely and a e less likely o c ea e no el ma -
ke s and in oduce undamen ally new p oduc s, p ocesses and se ices. Ins ead,
sel -employed people o c a s ype beha e ela i ely mo e eac i ely: hey end o
adap mo e slowly o changing condi ions and only do so o he necessa y ex en o
sa egua d hei exis ing business model, hus limi ing en ep eneu ial isk (B idge
and O’Neill 2018;Mine , Smi h, and B acke 1992). C a s en ep eneu s he e o e
o en un long-las ing businesses ha end o emain small, p e e ing s abili y o e
g ow h (Solomon and Ma hias 2020).
2.2 The Fo mal and In o mal Ins i u ional Backg ound o he
Ge man C a s Sec o
The Ge man T ade and C a s Code (TCC, Handwe kso dnung) defines and egula es
mo e han 90 c a s ades. In many o hese ades, he law equi es ad anced oca-
ional aining o be eligible o s a a business, i.e. he head o a c a s company
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —233
mus hold a so-called Meis e -deg ee.1In 2004, some ades ha e been pa ially
(e.g. bake s and bu che s) o ully (e.g. b ewe s, ins umen make ) de egula ed.
Howe e , some o hese e o ms ha e been e e sed in 2020. Acco ding o o icial
s a is ics (Fede al S a is ical O ice), he e we e 5.4 million ac i e c a speople in
Ge many in 2021. O hese, a ound 80 pe cen a e in c a s ades wi h en y es ic-
ions ha equi e he owne o employed manage o ha e a mas e c a smen’s
qualifica ion. I is he e o e easonable o assume ha o mos c a speople he
pa h o sel -employmen is a sequen ial one, s a ing wi h basic oca ional aining
(and he e o e wage employmen in he c a s sec o ) be o e po en ially mo ing
on o become a sel -employed business owne in he c a s sec o . Ne e heless, we
mus no lose sigh o al e na i e pa hs. Fo example, as a esul o he 2004 TCC
de egula ion, a ce ain sha e o indi iduals may mo e om wage employmen in
he non-c a s sec o o sel -employmen in he c a s sec o . Ano he mo e likely
po en ial pa hway is om c a s wage employmen o sel -employmen ou side he
c a s sec o .
In addi ion o he o mal ins i u ions o he Ge man c a s sec o , he in o -
mal ins i u ional backg ound o he c a s mus also be aken in o accoun . Fo
example, he esul s o Runs and Thomä (2021) p o ide empi ical e idence o he
assump ion ha he likelihood o being a ‘c a s en ep eneu ’ ype is conside -
ably highe among sel -employed indi iduals in he Ge man c a s sec o han in
non-c a s occupa ions, as delinea ed by he TCC. Based on da a om he IAB/ZEW
S a -up Panel – a ep esen a i e su ey o s a -up businesses in Ge many – hey
show ha he desi e o sel -de e mined wo k and he implemen a ion o a new
business idea a e he mos equen d i ing o ces o s a ing up a business, bo h
in he c a s and in he non-c a s. Howe e , he mo i e o ‘sel -de e mined wo k’
is significan ly mo e impo an among ounde s in he c a s han in non-c a s
occupa ions. This poin s o he singula mo i es and goals o he sel -employed in
he c a s, in line wi h he ‘c a s en ep eneu ’ desc ibed abo e, which a e d i en
less by he desi e o p ofi and g ow h han by he desi e o pe sonal au onomy,
sel - ealiza ion and expe ise in one’s own ade o occupa ion. In con as , he
implemen a ion o a new business idea is ela i ely less o en he cen al mo i e
o ounding a company in he Ge man c a s sec o – which in u n may indica e
a lowe pe sonal ocus on p ofi and g ow h.
1In o de o acqui e a Meis e -deg ee, a pe son mus comple e basic oca ional aining (which
las s abou h ee yea s) and become a Geselle. A e ha , he Geselle can he ake u he aining
and pass associa ed exams in o de o become a mas e c a sman.
234 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
2.3 B oad and Na ow Pe sonali y T ai s
The Big Fi e is a widely used model o pe sonali y ai s (Digman 1990;
John, Donahue, and Ken le 1991;McC ae and Cos a 2008). I s a es ha he main
ace s o human pe sonali y can be condensed in o fi e basic dimensions ha
emain mo e o less s able ac oss he li espan: ex a e sion, conscien iousness,
emo ional s abili y, openness o expe ience and ag eeableness. Ex a e sion indi-
ca es a p e e ence o social in e ac ions. I is also inc easingly associa ed wi h a
highe ewa d sensi i i y (see Cohen e al. 2005;Lucas e al. 2000). Ag eeable indi-
iduals y o a oid in e pe sonal conflic , o gi e o he s mo e easily, and a e mo e
hough ul in hei in e ac ions wi h o he s. They p e e coope a ion o e compe-
i ion. In addi ion, ag eeableness is associa ed wi h exp essing onesel ca e ully o
a oid upse ing o he s and showing a highe deg ee o empa hy. On he o he hand,
people wi h highe sco es o conscien iousness ac in a con olled and s uc u ed
way. They plan ahead and end owa ds pe ec ionism. A he same ime, hey show
a highe deg ee o accu acy, diligence, p ecision and de e mina ion. The ai o
emo ional s abili y indica es how well a pe son is able o deal wi h se backs and
s ess ac o s. High emo ional s abili y is associa ed wi h less se e e mood swings,
less anxie y, sadness, insecu i y o o he nega i e eelings. Openness indica es how
willing a pe son is o make new expe iences. Open-minded pe sons enjoy change
and a e mo e likely o be c ea i e, imagina i e and expe imen al, while hey also
ha e a s ong imagina ion.
The impac o he Big Fi e on he p obabili y o sel -employmen and ela ed
en ep eneu ial decisions has been ex ensi ely s udied. Ex a e sion and open-
ness in pa icula and – less clea – emo ional s abili y and conscien iousness
can ha e a posi i e influence on en ep eneu ial decisions (e.g. B ands ä e 2011;
Caliendo, Fossen, and K i ikos 2014;Runs and Thomä 2023;Zhao, Seibe , and
Lumpkin 2010). Ag eeableness shows no e ec s, apa om one pape finding
a posi i e impac on exi s om sel -employmen (see Caliendo, Fossen, and K i-
ikos 2014). Zhao, Seibe , and Lumpkin (2010) a gue ha ag eeableness should be
nega i ely ela ed wi h bo h en ep eneu ial pe o mance and s a -up in en ion,
al hough hei empi ical esul s canno suppo ei he hypo hesis.
While he Big Fi e cons i u e b oad pe sonali y ai s, na ow pe sonali y ai s
a e also discussed in he li e a u e. The ou mos impo an na ow ai s associ-
a ed wi h en ep eneu ship a e achie emen mo i a ion, need o au onomy, isk
ole ance and locus o con ol (B idge and O’Neill 2018). Based on he a ailable da a
(see Sec ion 3), he influence o he la e wo o hese ai s on sel -employmen can
be examined. A pe son’s sel -e icacy belie o locus o con ol (LOC, Ro e 1966)
eflec s he con ic ion ha a pe son has con ol o e hei own li e. By con as ,
a pe son sco ing low on LOC belie es ha his o he li e is shaped by ex e nal
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —235
ac o s o e which he o she has no con ol. Fu he mo e, he deg ee o indi idual
isk ole ance (Chell, Ha wo h, and B ea ley 1991) is a na ow pe sonali y dimen-
sion ha is plausibly ela ed o en ep eneu ial decisions, since he ou comes o
sel -employmen a e o en unce ain. Mo eo e , humans ha e di e en isk p e -
e ences: some people p e e smalle , mo e secu e income s eams, while o he s
would a he choose la ge bu mo e unce ain ones. The e ec s o LOC and isk
ole ance ha e also been epea edly in es iga ed, suppo ing he hypo hesis o a
posi i e impac on he p obabili y o sel -employmen (see e.g. Caliendo, Fossen,
and K i ikos 2014).
2.4 Hypo heses
On he one hand, indi iduals who a e open o new expe iences a e mo e likely
o ecognize en ep eneu ial oppo uni ies han o he s, which should also be ue
o he c a s en ep eneu (Caliendo, Fossen, and K i ikos 2014). Fo example, in
he concep ual pape , Hoy e (2019) desc ibes he openness o a isan en ep eneu s
( ep esen ingasubsampleo c a speoplewhoa e oundin hecul u alandc e-
a i e indus ies) and hei willingness o pass on cul u al adi ions. On he o he
hand, he deg ee o openness may be less impo an o c a s en ep eneu s as hey
a e less ocused on g ow h, p ofi -making and adical inno a ion (see Sec ion 2.1). I
one’s p ima y goal is o p ac ice a ade and o gene a e inc emen al inno a ions in
esponse o si ua ional cus ome needs o ci cums ances, openness is less ele an
han, o example, in highly inno a i e en u es ha need o be cons an ly on he
lookou o new ends and de elopmen s. In he case o c a s, openness should
he e o e be less s ongly associa ed wi h sel -employmen han in he non-c a s
(Hypo hesis H1).
En ep eneu ship is always socially embedded (Sa as a hy 2001,2008;S o
2008), as en ep eneu s need o communica e and socialize wi h employees,
cus ome s, supplie s, financial ins i u ions and o he ex e nal pa ne s. Gene -
ally speaking, ex o e s a e mo e a ac ed o sel -employmen han in o e s
(Caliendo, Fossen, and K i ikos 2014). This e ec should be equally p onounced
among c a s en ep eneu s. O e all, ex a e sion is he e o e hypo hesized o be
a key d i e o sel -employmen wi hin and ou side o he c a s sec o (Hypo hesis
H2).
The ela ionship be ween he ai o conscien iousness and sel -employmen
is somewha ambi alen . On he one hand, highly conscien ious people who alue
ou ines may no be a ac ed o he unce ain ies o unning a business. On he
o he hand, he e iciency o ien a ion, de e mina ion and p ecision o conscien-
ious people may p omo e business pe o mance in he long un (B ands ä e 2011;
Zhao, Seibe , and Lumpkin 2010). O e all, he empi ical li e a u e does no p o ide
236 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
e idence o a clea link be ween conscien iousness and sel -employmen . Howe e ,
a posi i e e ec o conscien iousness can be expec ed in case o he c a s. The desi e
o sel - ealiza ion h ough he p ac ice o a ade, c a o occupa ion – which
is s ongly ancho ed in he c a s en ep eneu ype (see abo e) – and he asso-
cia ed high le el o acqui ed p o essional- echnical knowledge and skills sugges s
ha a highe le el o conscien iousness should posi i ely a ec sel -employmen
in case o he c a s (Hypo hesis H3). This hypo hesis is in line wi h he concep ual
p oposi ion by Hoy e (2019) on he po en ial ole o conscien iousness o a isan
en ep eneu ship in he cul u al and c ea i e indus ies. She s a es ha c a s-
based wo k equi es a high deg ee o conscien iousness no only o lea n a c a
bu also o p ac ice i con inuously h oughou one’s li e and pass i on h ough
gene a ions, hus o ming a common occupa ional iden i y.
Emo ional s abili y – in pa icula he abili y o make well-conside ed deci-
sions unde ime p essu e and deal wi h complex s ess ac o s – is likely o
be a gene al ad an age o sel -employed indi iduals (Zhao and Seibe 2006;
Zhao, Seibe , and Lumpkin 2010). Howe e , i can also be a gued ha less emo-
ionally s able indi iduals may p e e owning a business (mos likely a small one)
o being in paid employmen , as hey a e less likely o cope well as employees in a
challenging wo k en i onmen , e.g. cha ac e ized by s ess ul eam in e ac ions.
Thus, indi iduals sco ing low on emo ional s abili y migh engage in (necessi y)
en ep eneu ship because i o e s hem a chance o lea e wage employmen . In
summa y, he e ec o emo ional s abili y on sel -employmen is ambi alen , and
he e a e no specifici ies o be expec ed in he case o c a s en ep eneu ship.
The possible ole o ag eeableness also seems ambiguous: on he one hand,
en ep eneu s need a ce ain amoun o willpowe in di icul con e sa ions and
he abili y o ole a e such conflic s, while on he o he hand, a e y low le el o
owne ag eeableness may esemble s ubbo nness and has he po en ial o dis up
social in e ac ion o such an ex en ha employees may delibe a ely wi hhold hei
opinions and ideas. I owne s insis on hei own opinion wi hou conside ing and
including he hough s o o he s, i can se e ely dis up he business cul u e and
hinde he co-c ea ion o aluable new hings (Runs and Thomä 2022). The possible
influence o ag eeableness on sel -employmen is hus – as in he case o emo ional
s abili y – ambi alen , suppo ed by he mixed empi ical esul s on his ai in he
empi ical li e a u e ( o an o e iew, see B ands ä e 2011). In he case o c a s,
howe e , whe e p ac icing a ade o occupa ion in a small company (o en wi hou
employees) can be a p ima y mo i a ion o sel -employmen (see he discussion
abo e on he ‘c a en ep eneu ’), indi iduals wi h lowe ag eeableness sco es
may be pa icula ly inclined o s a a business. In his way, hey can ea n a li ing
and ealise hei ambi ion o accumula e skills and expe ience-based compe ence
in a pa icula ade o occupa ion wi hou he need o in e ac and coo dina e
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —243
e ec i e in e ms o pe o mance, i.e. whe he sel -employed pe sons wi h
co esponding ai s do be e on a ious measu es. We he e o e es ic ou sam-
ple o he sel -employed in c a s and non-c a s occupa ions and un a ious eg es-
sion models o he ollowing o m:
Successi =𝛼+𝛽C a si +𝛾T ai i +𝛿C a si ×T ai i +𝜃Xi +𝜀i (3)
Sel -employmen success is assessed using h ee di e en measu es: g ow h
(i.e. he numbe o employees, measu ed as an o dinal a iable wi h 7 ca ego ies),
wo k sa is ac ion (measu ed as an o dinal a iable wi h 11 ca ego ies) and he p ob-
abili y o exi . O de ed logis ic models a e used o g ow h and wo k sa is ac ion,
and a andom-e ec s panel eg ession model is used o he dependen a iable
on exi om sel -employmen . In con as o he fi s and second s ep eg essions,
he e ‘C a s’ is defined as an indica o o cu en economic ac i i y in he c a s
sec o . The coe icien o he co esponding c a s by ai in e ac ion he e o e cap-
u es he e ec o a pe sonali y ai on a measu e o sel -employmen success in
he c a s sec o .
4 Empi ical Resul s
4.1 Employmen s. Sel -Employmen in C a s Compa ed o
Non-c a s
The esul s o he mul inomial logi eg ession (model 1) a e shown in Table 2.
The coe icien s should be ead in ela ion o he base g oup o non-c a s wage
employmen . Mos impo an ly, columns (3) and (4) show he coe icien s o sel -
employmen in he non-c a and c a sec o s espec i ely. Ex a e sion is posi-
i ely associa ed wi h sel -employmen ega dless o he sec o . A one uni inc ease
in he ex a e sion sco e inc eases he mul inomial log odds o p e e ing sel -
employmen (o e non-c a wage employmen ) by 0.20–0.22, holding e e y hing
else cons an .10 A es o equali y be ween hese wo coe icien s canno be ejec ed
(see column 5, Table 2). The e ec is s a is ically significan a he 1 pe cen le el.
This is suppo ed by he ma ginal e ec s epo ed in Table 3. A one uni inc ease
in he ex a e sion sco e inc eases he absolu e p obabili y o being sel -employed
by 1.6 and 0.1 % espec i ely. Gi en he baseline p obabili ies o 9.4 % and 0.6 % o
alling in o he sel -employmen ca ego ies o non-c a s and c a s, he size o he
e ec should be conside ed o be la ge.
10 As men ioned in Sec ion 3, we use ac o sco es o he pe sonali y ai s ha a e s anda dized
o ha e a mean o app oxima ely 0 and a s anda d de ia ion o app oxima ely 1.
244 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Table 2: Mul inomial logi eg ession (dep. a iable: employmen s a us).
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Employed Sel -employed Tes Tes
Non-c a s C a s Non-c a s C a s (3) s. (4) (2) s. (4)
Ex a e sion −0.0431 0.2009∗∗∗ 0.2184∗∗∗ –∗∗∗
(0.0271) (0.0165) (0.0636)
Conscien iousness 0.1051∗∗∗ −0.0461∗∗ 0.1677∗∗ ∗∗ –
(0.0311) (0.0183) (0.0726)
Emo ional s abili y −0.0410 −0.0713∗∗∗ −0.2338∗∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗
(0.0291) (0.0174) (0.0661)
Openness 0.0273 0.3292∗∗∗ 0.1938∗∗∗ –∗∗
(0.0318) (0.0194) (0.0738)
Ag eeableness 0.0077 0.0219 −0.1156∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗
(0.0302) (0.0180) (0.0661)
Risk 0.0305∗∗∗ 0.1496∗∗∗ 0.1406∗∗∗ –∗∗∗
(0.0100) (0.0061) (0.0232)
LOC −0.0909∗∗∗ 0.2471∗∗∗ 0.2182∗∗∗ –∗∗∗
(0.0256) (0.0165) (0.0608)
C a s lag 4.0384∗∗∗ 0.5757∗∗∗ 4.2476∗∗∗
(0.0491) (0.0444) (0.1132)
Age −0.0526∗∗∗ 0.2189∗∗∗ 0.3946∗∗∗
(0.0186) (0.0133) (0.0547)
Age squa ed 0.0007∗∗∗ −0.0019∗∗∗ −0.0041∗∗∗
(0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0006)
Uni e si y −1.4938∗∗∗ 0.3839∗∗∗ −0.8283∗∗∗
(0.1117) (0.0319) (0.1869)
Voca ional aining −0.1933∗∗∗ −0.1101∗∗∗ 0.3078∗
(0.0618) (0.0309) (0.1690)
Lag pa - ime wo k −0.0420 −0.9215∗∗∗ −1.0440∗∗∗
(0.0682) (0.0423) (0.2410)
Female −0.6075∗∗∗ −0.2147∗∗∗ −0.9921∗∗∗
(0.0560) (0.0289) (0.1453)
Non-employed (lag) 1.3915∗∗∗ −0.0603 0.8312∗∗∗
(0.0717) (0.0607) (0.2287)
Fo eigne 0.3476∗∗∗ −0.0042 0.2781
(0.0709) (0.0513) (0.1904)
Wo k expe ience −0.0113∗∗∗ −0.0159∗∗∗ −0.0001
(0.0035) (0.0020) (0.0098)
Unemploymen 0.0141 0.0080 −0.0029
expe ience (0.0091) (0.0065) (0.0259)
High school −1.3116∗∗∗ 0.4990∗∗∗ 0.2748∗
(0.1100) (0.0316) (0.1587)
Disabili y −0.0046∗∗∗ −0.0109∗∗∗ −0.0171∗∗∗
(0.0017) (0.0013) (0.0057)
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —245
Table 2: (con inued)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Employed Sel -employed Tes Tes
Non-c a s C a s Non-c a s C a s (3) s. (4) (2) s. (4)
Fa he sel -employed 0.1141 0.5075∗∗∗ 0.8979∗∗∗
(0.0725) (0.0384) (0.1418)
Capi al_income −2.4934∗∗∗ 1.2230∗∗∗ 1.2964∗∗∗
(0.5621) (0.0799) (0.1636)
Region dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yea dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
N95,294 95,294 95,294 95,294
No es: Mul inomial logi eg ession; he coe icien s ep esen he change in he p obabili y o alling
in o a pa icula employmen ca ego y ela i e o he baseline ca ego y (employed non-c a s) in
esponse o a one-uni change in a pe sonali y sco e. S anda d e o s in pa en heses: ∗p<0.10, ∗∗ p<
0.05, ∗∗∗ p<0.01. Column (5) epo s he esul s o a es e alua ing he equali y o he coe icien s in
columns (3) and (4), column (6) es he equali y o (2) and (4).
Table 3: Mul inomial logi eg ession (dep. a iable: employmen s a us, ma ginal e ec s).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Employed Sel -employed
Non-c a s C a s Non-c a s C a s
Ex a e sion −0.015∗∗∗ −0.002∗∗∗ 0.016∗∗∗ 0.001∗∗∗
Conscien iousness 0.001 0.003∗∗∗ −0.004∗∗∗ 0.001∗
Emo ional s abili y 0.007∗∗∗ 0.000 −0.005∗∗∗ −0.001∗∗∗
Openness −0.026∗∗∗ 0.000 0.025∗∗∗ 0.001∗∗
Ag eeableness −0.002 0.000 0.002 −0.001∗
Risk −0.012∗∗∗ 0.000 0.011∗∗∗ 0.001∗∗∗
LOC −0.017∗∗∗ −0.004∗∗∗ 0.019∗∗∗ 0.001∗∗∗
Baseline p obabili y 0.854 0.046 0.094 0.006
Con ols Yes Yes Yes Yes
Region dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yea dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
N95,294 95,294 95,294 95,294
No es: This able epo s ma ginal e ec s o he mul inomial logi model in Table 2. They can be
in e p e ed as he change in he p obabili y o alling in o one o he ou ca ego ies in esponse o a
one-uni change in a pe sonali y ai . ∗p<0.10, ∗∗ p<0.05, ∗∗∗ p<0.01.
Nex , conscien iousness appea s o a ec sel -employmen in he opposi e
di ec ion in he non-c a s and c a s occupa ions. A one uni inc ease in he con-
scien iousness sco e educes he p obabili y o p e e ing sel -employmen o wage
246 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
employmen by 4.6 % in non-c a s bu inc eases i by 16.8 % in he c a s. Acco ding
o he ma ginal e ec s (Table 3), he o me e ec is a he small, while he la e
amoun s o a subs an ial one-six h inc ease compa ed o he baseline p obabili y.
In e es ingly, conscien iousness has a simila ly posi i e e ec on wage employmen
in he c a s sec o ( ela i e o non-c a wage employmen , Table 2), so i seems o
be an o e all c a s e ec . The co esponding equali y es be ween hese wo coe -
ficien s canno he e o e be ejec ed (see column 6, Table 2). Howe e , he ma ginal
e ec s in Table 3 sugges ha he size o his e ec is much s onge in c a s
sel -employmen han in c a s paid employmen , when compa ed o he baseline
p obabili y.
While he coe icien o emo ional s abili y is nega i e o sel -employmen in
bo h sec o s, i s size is economically significan only in he c a s, whe e a one uni
inc ease in he espec i e ac o sco e educes he baseline p obabili y by abou
one six h (see Tables 2 and 3). In con as , openness has a posi i e e ec on sel -
employmen in bo h c a s and non-c a s, and he e ec size is la ge in bo h cases.
The final BF cha ac e is ic, ag eeableness, is only s a is ically significan and neg-
a i e in c a s occupa ions (Table 2). Again, he ma ginal e ec s (Table 3) sugges
ha he co esponding e ec size is quan i a i ely meaning ul. Finally, he na ow
pe sonali y ai s a e simila ly associa ed wi h sel -employmen in all sec o s. An
inc ease in isk o LOC inc eases he likelihood o p e e ing sel -employmen in
he c a s and non-c a s o wage employmen .
O e all, hese esul s sugges ha some ai s a ec sel -employmen decisions
simila ly ac oss sec o s (ex a e sion, openness, isk and LOC), bu o he s seem o
be c a -specific, mos no ably conscien iousness, emo ional s abili y and ag eeable-
ness. We he e o e find suppo o hypo heses 2, 3, 4 and 5, while hypo heses 1
o 6 a e no confi med. On he basis o hese esul s, i is possible o imagine an
en ep eneu ial pe sonali y ha heo e ically maximizes he likelihood o becom-
ing sel -employed (in c a s o o he wise). A one-uni de ia ion inc ease o dec ease
in he sco es o he se en ai s examined he e can heo e ically double he base-
line p obabili y o being sel -employed in he c a sec o and almos double i in
he non-c a sec o . Thus, we conclude ha pe sonali y e ec s a e economically
significan .
4.2 D i e s o Sel -Employmen in Gene al
Table 4 shows he di e en ial impac o he pe sonali y ai s on he likelihood o
being cu en ly sel -employed ( ega dless o sec o ) o hose who ha e been eco-
nomically ac i e in he c a s sec o in he las h ee yea s and hose who ha e
no (column 1, Table 4). In addi ion, a dis inc ion is made acco ding o he num-
be o employees o he sel -employed in o de o ob ain mo e de ailed in o ma ion
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —247
Table 4: Panel eg ession (dep. a iable: likelihood o sel -employmen , en y).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Sel -employed
gene al
Solo
sel -employed
Sel -employed 1
o 5 employees
En y
C a s lag 0.0068 −0.0008 0.0025 0.0008
(0.0062) (0.0055) (0.0039) (0.0033)
Ex a e sion 0.0051∗∗∗ 0.0049∗∗∗ 0.0025∗∗ 0.0009
(0.0016) (0.0012) (0.0010) (0.0007)
Ex a e sion ×c a s lag 0.0045 0.0054 0.0016 0.0018
(0.0043) (0.0035) (0.0029) (0.0019)
Conscien iousness −0.0053∗∗∗ −0.0037∗∗∗ −0.0018∗∗ −0.0009
(0.0015) (0.0013) (0.0009) (0.0007)
Conscien iousness ×c a s lag 0.0119∗∗ 0.0114∗∗∗ 0.0038 0.0060∗∗∗
(0.0047) (0.0036) (0.0036) (0.0020)
Emo ional s abili y 0.0001 0.0011 0.0004 0.0011
(0.0015) (0.0012) (0.0009) (0.0007)
Emo ional s abili y ×c a s lag 0.0003 −0.0014 −0.0007 0.0002
(0.0040) (0.0035) (0.0024) (0.0018)
Openness 0.0081∗∗∗ 0.0061∗∗∗ 0.0027∗∗∗ 0.0045∗∗∗
(0.0016) (0.0014) (0.0009) (0.0008)
Openness ×c a s lag −0.0001 −0.0005 0.0016 −0.0041∗∗
(0.0036) (0.0032) (0.0023) (0.0017)
Ag eeableness 0.0008 0.0012 −0.0004 −0.0002
(0.0016) (0.0013) (0.0010) (0.0007)
Ag eeableness ×c a s lag −0.0093∗∗ −0.0080∗−0.0011 −0.0014
(0.0047) (0.0043) (0.0029) (0.0022)
Risk 0.0026∗∗∗ 0.0015∗∗∗ 0.0009∗∗∗ 0.0014∗∗∗
(0.0004) (0.0003) (0.0002) (0.0002)
Risk ×c a s lag 0.0001 0.0013 −0.0001 0.0007
(0.0010) (0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0006)
LOC 0.0062∗∗∗ 0.0033∗∗ 0.0030∗∗∗ 0.0006
(0.0018) (0.0015) (0.0011) (0.0008)
LOC ×c a s lag 0.0006 0.0034 −0.0009 0.0007
(0.0038) (0.0033) (0.0025) (0.0018)
Age 0.0096∗∗∗ 0.0066∗∗∗ 0.0049∗∗∗ 0.0021∗∗∗
(0.0013) (0.0010) (0.0008) (0.0005)
Age squa ed −0.0001∗∗∗ −0.0001∗∗∗ −0.0000∗∗∗ −0.0000∗∗∗
(0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000) (0.0000)
Uni e si y 0.0246∗∗∗ 0.0132∗∗ 0.0021 0.0082∗∗∗
(0.0068) (0.0054) (0.0043) (0.0030)
Voca ional aining −0.0067 −0.0021 −0.0040 0.0013
(0.0053) (0.0047) (0.0035) (0.0022)
Lag pa - ime wo k −0.0232∗∗∗ −0.0133∗∗∗ −0.0103∗∗∗ −0.0015
(0.0030) (0.0025) (0.0017) (0.0015)
248 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Table 4: (con inued)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Sel -employed
gene al
Solo
sel -employed
Sel -employed 1
o 5 employees
En y
Female −0.0268∗∗∗ −0.0151∗∗∗ −0.0154∗∗∗ −0.0066∗∗∗
(0.0044) (0.0037) (0.0030) (0.0018)
Non-employed (lag) −0.0186∗∗∗ −0.0131∗∗∗ −0.0075∗∗∗ 0.0168∗∗∗
(0.0030) (0.0028) (0.0016) (0.0021)
Fo eigne −0.0029 −0.0032 −0.0016 −0.0027
(0.0058) (0.0054) (0.0031) (0.0023)
Expe ience wo k 0.0008∗∗∗ −0.0002 0.0010∗∗∗ −0.0002∗
(0.0003) (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0001)
Expe ience unempl. −0.0013∗∗ −0.0002 −0.0006∗∗ −0.0003
(0.0006) (0.0005) (0.0002) (0.0003)
High school 0.0593∗∗∗ 0.0376∗∗∗ 0.0298∗∗∗ 0.0121∗∗∗
(0.0061) (0.0051) (0.0041) (0.0027)
Disabili y −0.0002∗∗ −0.0002∗∗ −0.0001∗−0.0000
(0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0001) (0.0000)
Fa he sel -employed 0.0444∗∗∗ 0.0202∗∗∗ 0.0210∗∗∗ 0.0063∗∗
(0.0067) (0.0054) (0.0047) (0.0028)
Capi al_income 0.0226∗∗∗ 0.0087∗∗ 0.0162∗∗∗ 0.0033
(0.0061) (0.0041) (0.0059) (0.0024)
Region dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yea dummies Yes Yes Yes Yes
N111,559 107,204 105,110 102,168
No es: Random e ec s panel eg ession. The coe icien s can be in e p e ed as he change in he
likelihood o being sel -employed (o en e ing sel -employmen , col. 4). S anda d e o s in
pa en heses: ∗p<0.10, ∗∗ p<0.05, ∗∗∗ p<0.01.
on he possible o igin o he c a -specific e ec s iden ified in he p e ious sec ion
(columns 2 o 4, Table 4). As a obus ness es , a u he specifica ion uses en y as an
al e na i e dependen a iable. This measu es whe he en y in o sel -employmen
ook place in he cu en pe iod (column 5, Table 4).
In line wi h he mul inomial logi esul s, he ai ex a e sion is gene ally
posi i ely associa ed wi h sel -employmen , howe e , he e is no e idence o a
s onge impac in he c a s. In line wi h he p e ious se o esul s, we find a nega-
i e associa ion o conscien iousness and sel -employmen in gene al bu a posi i e
one in he c a s sec o . The la e is mainly due o he g oup o solo sel -employed,
whe e he e is a posi i e associa ion wi h he ai conscien iousness (column 2,
Table 4). A he same ime, he c a -specific conscien iousness e ec is confi med
when en y is used as dependen a iable (column 5). A his poin , he ques ion
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —249
could be asked whe he he c a s-specific conscien iousness e ec migh simply
compensa e o he nega i e e ec in he non-c a s sec o , and hus only ha e a
ela i e e ec . Howe e , an addi ional es o check he o al (o absolu e) e ec by
pe sonali y ai s on sel -employmen in he c a s sec o shows ha conscien ious-
ness has a posi i e o al e ec on sel -employmen in he case o solo sel -employed
and in he case o en y (see Table A3 in he Appendix).
The e is no gene al e ec o emo ional s abili y on he dependen a iable. In
line wi h he mul inomial logi esul s, he e seems o be some nega i e impac in
he c a s sec o , bu i is no s a is ically significan . Openness is posi i ely ela ed o
sel -employmen in gene al. In he case o he c a s he e is a weake ela ionship
only o solo sel -employed and o en y, al hough his is only significan in he
la e case.
The las BF ai , ag eeableness, gene ally has no posi i e e ec on sel -
employmen . Howe e , as wi h he mul inomial logi esul s, he e is an addi ional
nega i e e ec in he c a s sec o , mainly due o being a solo sel -employed. The
wo na ow ai s, isk ole ance and LOC, a e gene ally posi i ely ela ed o sel -
employmen and he e a e no addi ional e ec s due o being in he c a s sec o .
O e all, he esul s o he second s ep o he empi ical analysis a e simila o he
mul inomial logi esul s p esen ed abo e, despi e he sligh ly di e en modelling
app oach and he sligh ly di e en esea ch ques ion unde lying bo h models:
Once again we see a posi i e e ec o conscien iousness and a nega i e e ec o
ag eeableness in he c a s case, bo h pa icula ly o he solo sel -employed. Thus,
hypo heses 3 and 4 a e again suppo ed by he empi ical e idence. As wi h he
mul inomial logi esul s, emo ional s abili y shows a nega i e ela ionship (again
s onges among he solo sel -employed), bu his is now no s a is ically significan .
4.3 Sel -Employmen Success
Table 5 shows he eg ession esul s on se e al indica o s o sel -employmen
success. As men ioned abo e, we examine whe he he iden ified c a -specific
pe sonali y ac o s (no ably conscien iousness and ag eeableness) also a ec he
pe o mance o c a speople once hey a e sel -employed. Fi s , we conside he
dependen a iable ‘numbe o employees’, which we in e p e as an indica o
o he g ow h o ien a ion o a sel -employed pe son. The esul s o an o de ed
logis ic eg ession show ha ex a e sion is gene ally posi i ely ela ed, while
openness and ag eeableness a e nega i ely ela ed o he numbe o employees
a sel -employed pe son has (column 1, Table 5). In con as o ag eeableness (and
emo ional s abili y), conscien iousness is again confi med as a specific pe sonali y
ac o in c a s en ep eneu ship: The e is a nega i e ela ionship wi h he g ow h
o ien a ion o he c a s sel -employed (Table 5). The ma ginal e ec s a each le el
250 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Table 5: Panel eg ession (dep. a iable: success indica o s).
(1) (2) (3)
Numbe o employees Wo k sa is ac ion Exi
C a s lag −0.1604 −0.0075 −0.0162
(0.1569) (0.1672) (0.0296)
Ex a e sion 0.0622∗∗ 0.1193∗∗∗ −0.0023
(0.0296) (0.0282) (0.0066)
Ex a e sion ×c a s lag −0.1643∗∗ 0.0878 0.0087
(0.0665) (0.0811) (0.0178)
Conscien iousness 0.0291 0.2383∗∗∗ −0.0066
(0.0339) (0.0314) (0.0065)
Conscien iousness ×c a s lag −0.2169∗∗∗ 0.1923∗∗ 0.0008
(0.0751) (0.0950) (0.0166)
Emo ional s abili y −0.0274 0.4837∗∗∗ −0.0006
(0.0319) (0.0313) (0.0064)
Emo ional s abili y ×c a s lag 0.1437∗0.0806 0.0080
(0.0738) (0.0831) (0.0128)
Openness −0.1296∗∗∗ 0.1322∗∗∗ 0.0033
(0.0337) (0.0345) (0.0071)
Openness ×c a s lag 0.0094 0.0576 −0.0189
(0.0971) (0.1053) (0.0190)
Ag eeableness −0.0922∗∗∗ 0.1742∗∗∗ −0.0015
(0.0318) (0.0326) (0.0062)
Ag eeableness ×c a s lag 0.0832 0.0995 0.0246∗
(0.0783) (0.0887) (0.0147)
Risk −0.0005 0.0213∗0.0002
(0.0106) (0.0110) (0.0019)
Risk ×c a s lag −0.0192 −0.0086 −0.0009
(0.0269) (0.0297) (0.0046)
LOC 0.1340∗∗∗ 0.4345∗∗∗ −0.0184∗∗∗
(0.0282) (0.0299) (0.0064)
LOC ×c a s lag −0.0432 −0.0388 0.0050
(0.0691) (0.0787) (0.0151)
Reg ession Type O de ed logi O de ed logi Panel eg ession
Con ols Yes Yes Yes
Region dummies Yes Yes Yes
Yea dummies Yes Yes Yes
N9,345 9,359 9,519
No es: The dependen a iable is he numbe o employees (column 1), measu ed on a Like -scale
ha anges om 0 o 6. Simila ly, wo k sa is ac ion (column 2) is measu ed on a scale om 0 o 10.
The bina y a iable exi (column 3) is equal o one i he indi idual was sel -employed in pe iod −1
bu is no longe sel -employed in pe iod . S anda d e o s in pa en heses; ∗p<0.10, ∗∗ p<0.05,
∗∗∗ p<0.01.
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —251
o he o dinal ca ego ies o he dependen a iable a e p esen ed in Figu e A1.I
ei e a es he ole o he solo sel -employed: Once a sel -employed pe son s a s
o hi e employees in his o he c a s en e p ise, he e ec o conscien iousness
becomes nega i ely significan . This e ec diminishes as fi m size inc eases, bu
always emains nega i ely significan .
In con as , he esul s in column 2 o Table 5 sugges ha wo k sa is ac ion is
gene ally a ec ed by pe sonali y cha ac e is ics. All BF ai s a e posi i ely associ-
a ed wi h wo k sa is ac ion as well as LOC, and o some ex en his is also ue o
isk. In line wi h ou heo e ical ou line abo e, we find an addi ional conscien ious-
ness p emium in he c a s, i.e. highe le els a e posi i ely ela ed o wo k sa is ac-
ion among sel -employed c a speople (Table 5,seealsoFigu e A2). Thus, in line
wi h he abo e findings on he p obabili y o sel -employmen , conscien iousness
can be singled ou as a ai specific o he c a s.
Finally, we find no e idence o pe sonali y e ec s on he likelihood o exi ,
excep o wo ai s: Highe le els o LOC gene ally ha e a nega i e e ec on exi ,
highligh ing he a o able influence o his ai on sel -employmen success. The e
is also a posi i e e ec o ag eeableness in he case o he c a s sel -employed,
which is in line wi h he abo e findings on he e ec o ag eeableness in he c a s
sec o .
O e all, he e o e, he mul i-s ep analysis ha has been ca ied ou p o ides
a conclusi e pic u e, pa icula ly wi h ega d o he ai o conscien iousness
(Hypo hesis H3). In he heo e ical discussion o he ‘c a en ep eneu ’, we hypo h-
esized ha conscien iousness in he c a sec o co esponds o he desi e o many
sel -employed o ealize hemsel es on he basis o hei expe ience-based skills
and compe ences and, o his eason, o delibe a ely keep hei own fi m small
in o de o a oid being o e bu dened wi h he managemen and o ganiza ional
asks ha au oma ically go hand in hand wi h inc easing fi m size (Hypo hesis H3).
The empi ical esul s suppo his hypo hesis by showing ha conscien iousness
is a c a -specific d i e ha has a posi i e e ec on he decision o become sel -
employed in he c a s sec o . Indeed, i is associa ed wi h lowe g ow h o ien a ion
and, a he same ime, highe wo k sa is ac ion among c a s sel -employed.
4.4 Addi ional Speci ica ions
To check he obus ness o ou esul s, as men ioned in Sec ion 3.1, we epea he
mul inomial logi eg ession wi h an a isan sample (see Table A4 in he Appendix).
The esul s a e mos ly simila o hose in Sec ion 4.1, wi h wo excep ions. The e is
no longe a s a is ically significan posi i e openness e ec o sel -employed c a s-
men, al hough he coe icien is s ill posi i e. Ins ead, we find a highe openness o
employed a isans. Mo eo e , while he ag eeableness coe icien is s ill nega i e in
252 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
he case o sel -employed a isans, bu i is no longe s a is ically significan . Tak-
ing in o accoun he significan ly educed numbe o obse a ions, we he e o e
conclude ha hese esul s a e consis en wi h he abo e findings.
We also un he andom e ec s panel eg ession o Sec ion 4.2 wi h he a isan
sub-sample (Table A5 in he Appendix). Again, we find simila esul s as be o e, wi h
wo no able excep ions in he case o solo sel -employed. In con as o he o al
sample o c a speople, openness and LOC ha e a posi i e e ec on he decision o
become a solo sel -employed. This seems plausible gi en he a is ic and c ea i e
na u e o a isans. O he esul s show he same coe icien signs, o example in he
case o ag eeableness, bu a e no s a is ically significan . Again, he smalle sample
size mus be aken in o accoun .
Finally, he sensi i i y o he abo e esul s o he influence o he con ol a i-
ables is analyzed. Table A6 in he Appendix shows he mul inomial logi eg ession
o he o al sample om Sec ion 4.1 wi hou con ols. The posi i e e ec o consci-
en iousness is again e iden o sel -employmen in he c a s sec o . A he same
ime, he posi i e e ec s o openness and isk and he nega i e influence o ag ee-
ableness a e confi med. Ex a e sion, emo ional s abili y and LOC a e no longe
significan , al hough he signs o he coe icien s a e in he expec ed di ec ion. Wi h
ega d o he c a s-specific e ec s (especially conscien iousness), ou esul s om
Sec ion 4.1 a e hus confi med. The same applies o he andom e ec s eg ession
om Sec ion 4.2. The main esul s a e confi med in he no-con ol specifica ion
(Table A7 in he Appendix): In he case o solo sel -employed, belonging o he c a s
sec o has a posi i e conscien iousness e ec on sel -employmen , while in he case
o ag eeableness i has a nega i e e ec .
5 Conclusions
The enewed schola ly in e es in he c a -based mode o compe i ion, wo k, lea n-
ing and inno a ion sugges s ha he e a e some unique aspec s o he c a s’ way
o doing business. This pape explo es his issue u he by examining he pe son-
ali y pa e ns o c a s en ep eneu ship. Using a ep esen a i e panel da a se o
Ge man indi iduals, we in es iga e he ela ionship be ween b oad (Big Fi e) and
na ow (locus o con ol, isk ole ance) pe sonali y ai s and sel -employmen in
c a s ades. By compa ing his wi h sel -employed people om non-c a s occu-
pa ions, we empi ically iden i y he specifici ies o c a s en ep eneu ship a he
undamen al le el o human pe sonali y.
Ou esul s confi m p e ious s udies ha an indi idual’s pe sonali y influences
he likelihood o sel -employmen , bu hey also show ha ce ain ai s ha e a di -
e en e ec in he case o c a s han in he non-c a s case – a finding ha fi s well
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —259
Table A6: Mul inomial logi (dep. a iable: employmen s a us, wi hou con ols).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Employed Sel -employed
Non-c a s C a s Non-c a s C a s
Ex a e sion −0.0884∗∗∗ 0.0904∗∗∗ 0.0642
(0.0200) (0.0149) (0.0562)
Conscien iousness 0.2003∗∗∗ −0.0935∗∗∗ 0.3006∗∗∗
(0.0239) (0.0164) (0.0677)
Emo ional s abili y 0.0399∗0.0335∗∗ −0.0325
(0.0220) (0.0157) (0.0590)
Openness −0.0868∗∗∗ 0.4019∗∗∗ 0.1185∗
(0.0242) (0.0177) (0.0665)
Ag eeableness −0.1142∗∗∗ −0.0283∗−0.3446∗∗∗
(0.0224) (0.0162) (0.0579)
Risk 0.0622∗∗∗ 0.1564∗∗∗ 0.1679∗∗∗
(0.0075) (0.0054) (0.0206)
LOC −0.2737∗∗∗ 0.3089∗∗∗ 0.0902
(0.0195) (0.0150) (0.0550)
N104,363 104,363 104,363 104,363
No es: This able epo s he coe icien s o a mul inomial eg ession wi hou con ol a iables, egion
o yea ixed e ec s. The coe icien s ep esen he change in he p obabili y o alling in o a
pa icula employmen ca ego y ela i e o he baseline ca ego y (employed non-c a s) in esponse
o a one-uni change in a pe sonali y sco e. S anda d e o s in pa en heses; ∗p<0.10, ∗∗ p<0.05,
∗∗∗ p<0.01.
260 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Table A7: Panel eg ession (dep. a iable: likelihood o sel -employmen /en y, wi hou con ols).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Sel -employed
gene al
Solo
sel -employed
1 o5
employees
En y
C a s lag 0.0033∗∗ 0.0041∗∗∗ 0.0019∗0.0005
(0.0017) (0.0013) (0.0011) (0.0004)
Ex a e sion 0.0090 0.0011 0.0029 0.0011
(0.0062) (0.0054) (0.0037) (0.0026)
Ex a e sion ×c a s lag 0.0038 0.0045 0.0006 0.0011
(0.0043) (0.0035) (0.0029) (0.0013)
Conscien iousness −0.0043∗∗∗ −0.0029∗∗ −0.0015∗−0.0015∗∗∗
(0.0016) (0.0013) (0.0009) (0.0004)
Conscien iousness ×c a s lag 0.0127∗∗∗ 0.0118∗∗∗ 0.0046 0.0038∗∗
(0.0046) (0.0035) (0.0035) (0.0015)
Emo ional s abili y 0.0023 0.0020 0.0015 0.0001
(0.0015) (0.0013) (0.0009) (0.0004)
Emo ional s abili y ×c a s lag 0.0013 −0.0005 −0.0006 0.0012
(0.0040) (0.0036) (0.0023) (0.0014)
Openness 0.0082∗∗∗ 0.0060∗∗∗ 0.0028∗∗∗ 0.0041∗∗∗
(0.0016) (0.0014) (0.0010) (0.0005)
Openness ×c a s lag −0.0005 −0.0007 0.0016 −0.0041∗∗∗
(0.0037) (0.0031) (0.0023) (0.0016)
Ag eeableness −0.0013 0.0002 −0.0012 0.0007
(0.0017) (0.0014) (0.0010) (0.0004)
Ag eeableness ×c a s lag −0.0085∗−0.0072∗−0.0015 −0.0016
(0.0046) (0.0043) (0.0027) (0.0015)
Risk 0.0025∗∗∗ 0.0015∗∗∗ 0.0007∗∗∗ 0.0013∗∗∗
(0.0004) (0.0003) (0.0002) (0.0001)
Risk ×c a s lag 0.0005 0.0014 0.0004 −0.0000
(0.0010) (0.0009) (0.0006) (0.0005)
LOC 0.0085∗∗∗ 0.0045∗∗∗ 0.0036∗∗∗ 0.0005
(0.0018) (0.0015) (0.0011) (0.0004)
LOC ×c a s lag −0.0006 0.0020 −0.0015 0.0006
(0.0037) (0.0032) (0.0024) (0.0013)
N122,864 118,036 115,811 122,864
No es: Random e ec s panel eg essions wi hou con ol a iables, egion o yea ixed e ec s.
S anda d e o s in pa en heses; ∗p<0.10, ∗∗p<0.05, ∗∗∗p<0.01.
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —261
Figu e A1: Conscien iousness and he numbe o employees (a e age ma ginal e ec s). No e: The
o dinal eg ession on which he g aph is based is epo ed in Table 5, column 1. The dependen
a iable is he numbe o employees, measu ed on a Like -scale ha anges om 0 o 6. The main
explana o y a iable o in e es is he in e ac ion o he pe sonali y ai conscien iousness and
whe he an indi idual belongs o he c a s sec o . The g aph displays he ma ginal e ec s a each
le el o he o dinal ca ego ies o he dependen a iable. The ma ginal e ec coe icien s a e
s a is ically signi ican a he 5 % le el (no signi ican ) o each ou come in he case o c a s
(non-c a s).
262 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Figu e A2: Conscien iousness and wo k sa is ac ion (a e age ma ginal e ec s). No e: The o dinal
eg ession on which he g aph is based is epo ed in Table 5, column 2. The dependen a iable is
wo k sa is ac ion is measu ed on an 11-poin Like scale om low (ou come =0) o high
(ou come =10). The main explana o y a iable o in e es is he in e ac ion o he pe sonali y ai
conscien iousness and whe he an indi idual belongs o he c a s sec o . The g aph displays he
ma ginal e ec s a each le el o he o dinal ca ego ies o he dependen a iable. The ma ginal e ec
coe icien s a e s a is ically signi ican a he 1 % le el (no signi ican ) o each ou come in he case o
c a s (non-c a s).
Re e ences
Amin, A., and J. Robe s. 2008. “Knowing in Ac ion: Beyond Communi ies o P ac ice.” Resea ch Policy
37: 353−69..
A e z, B., T. G ego y, and M. A n z. 2013. “The Minimum Wage A ec s Them All: E idence on
Employmen Spillo e s in he Roo ing Sec o .” Ge man Economic Re iew 14: 282−315..
Bell, E., and S. J. Vachhani. 2020. “Rela ional Encoun e s and Vi al Ma e iali y in he P ac ice o C a
Wo k.” O ganiza ion S udies 41: 681−701..
Bell, E., M. T. Dacin, and M. L. To aldo. 2021. “C a Imagina ies −Pas , P esen and Fu u e.”
O ganiza ion Theo y 2.
.
Binde , M., and A.-K. Blankenbe g. 2022. “Iden i y and Well-being in he Skilled C a s and T ades.”
Kyklos 75: 184−235..
B ands ä e , H. 2011. “Pe sonali y Aspec s o En ep eneu ship: A Look a Fi e Me a-Analyses.”
Pe sonali y and Indi idual Di e ences 51: 222−30..
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —263
B idge, S., and K. O’Neill. 2018. Unde s anding En e p ise: En ep eneu s and Small Business,5 hed.
London: Palg a e.
Caliendo, M., F. Fossen, and A. S. K i ikos. 2014. “Pe sonali y Cha ac e is ics and he Decisions o
Become and S ay Sel -Employed.” Small Business Economics 42: 787−814..
Caliendo, M., F. Fossen, and A. S. K i ikos. 2022. “Pe sonali y Cha ac e is ics and he Decision o Hi e.”
Indus ial and Co po a e Change 31 (3): 736−61..
Ca ani, G., R. L. M. Dunba , and Zu Shapi a. 2017. “How Commi men o C a smanship Leads o
Unique Value: S einway & Sons’ Di e en ia ion S a egy.” S a egy Science 2: 13−38..
Chell, E., J. Ha wo h, and S. B ea ley. 1991. “The Sea ch o En ep eneu ial T ai s.” In The
En ep eneu ial Pe sonali y. Concep s, Cases and Ca ego ies, edi ed by E. Chell, J. M. Hawo h, and
S. A. B ea ley, 29−53. London: Rou ledge.
Cobb-Cla k, D. A., and S. Schu e . 2012. “The S abili y o Big-Fi e Pe sonali y T ai s.” Economics Le e s
115: 11−5..
Cohen, M. X., J. Young, J.-M. Baek, C. Kessle , and C. Rangana h. 2005. “Indi idual Di e ences in
Ex a e sion and Dopamine Gene ics P edic Neu al Rewa d Responses.” Cogni i e B ain
Resea ch 25: 851−61..
Coope , A. C., and W. C. Dunkelbe g. 1986. “En ep eneu ship and Pa hs o Business Owne ship.”
S a egic Managemen Jou nal 7: 53−68..
Das, T. K., and B.-S. Teng. 1998. “Time and En ep eneu ial Risk Beha io .” En ep eneu ship Theo y and
P ac ice 22: 69−88..
Digman, J. M. 1990. “Pe sonali y S uc u e: Eme gence o he Fi e-Fac o Model.” Annual Re iew o
Psychology 41: 417−40..
F ed iksen, K., P. Runs , and K. Bize . 2019. “Mas e ul Meis e s? Volun a y Ce i ica ion and Quali y in
he Ge man C a s Sec o .” Ge man Economic Re iew 20: 83−104..
F i sch, M. 2013. S epping Fo wa d: Pe sonali y T ai s, Choice o P o ession, and he Decision o Become
Sel -Employed. SOEP Pape s on Mul idisciplina y Panel Da a Resea ch. Be lin: DIW Be lin.
Hahn, E., J. Go schling, and F. M. Spina h. 2012. “Sho Measu emen s o Pe sonali y −Validi y and
Reliabili y o he GSOEP Big Fi e In en o y (BFI-S).” Jou nal o Resea ch in Pe sonali y 46: 355−9..
Ha e kamp, K., M. Wesling, and H. Seibe . 2019. Zu Abg enzung de Ausbildungs- und E we bsbe u e
des Handwe ks in de KldB 2010. FDZ-Me hoden epo 03/20219 DE. Nü nbe g: Ins i u ü
A bei sma k -und Be u s o schung (IAB).
Ho naday, R. V. 1990. “D opping he E-Wo ds om Small Business Resea ch: An Al e na i e
Typology.” Jou nal o Small Business Managemen 28 (4): 22−33.
Hoy e, C. 2019. “A isan En ep eneu ship: A Ques ion o Pe sonali y S uc u e?” In e na ional Jou nal
o En ep eneu ial Beha io & Resea ch 25: 615−32..
John, O. P., E. M. Donahue, and R. L. Ken le. 1991. The Big-Fi e In en o y-Ve sion 4a and 54.Be keley:
Be keley Ins i u e o Pe sonali y and Social Resea ch, Uni e si y o Cali o nia.
K oezen, J., D. Ra asi, I. Sasaki, M. Żeb owska, and R. Suddaby. 2021. “Con igu a ions o C a :
Al e na i e Models o O ganizing Wo k.” The Academy o Managemen Annals 15: 502−36..
Kuhn, K. M., and T. L. Galloway. 2015. “Wi h a Li le Help om My Compe i o s: Pee Ne wo king
Among A isan En ep eneu s.” En ep eneu ship Theo y and P ac ice 39: 571−600..
Lang, F. R., D. John, O. Lüd ke, J. Schupp, and G. G. Wagne . 2011. “Sho Assessmen o he Big Fi e:
Robus ac oss Su ey Me hods excep Telephone In e iewing.” Beha io Resea ch Me hods 43:
548−67..
Leu ne , F., G. Ahme oglu, R. Akh a , and T. Chamo o-P emuzic. 2014. “The Rela ionship be ween he
En ep eneu ial Pe sonali y and he Big Fi e Pe sonali y T ai s.” Pe sonali y and Indi idual
Di e ences 63: 58−63..
264 —P. Runs and J. Thomä
Lucas, R. E., E. Diene , A. G ob, E. M. Suh, and L. Shao. 2000. “C oss-cul u al E idence o he
Fundamen al Fea u es o Ex a e sion.” Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology 79: 452−68..
Ma hias, B. D., A. Huyghe, C. J. F id, and T. L. Galloway. 2018. “An Iden i y Pe spec i e on Coope i ion
in he C a Bee Indus y.” S a egic Managemen Jou nal 39: 3086−115..
McC ae, R. R., and P. T. Cos a J . 2008. “The Fi e-Fac o Theo y o Pe sonali y.” In Handbook o
Pe sonali y. Theo y and Resea ch, edi ed by O. P. John, R. W. Robins, and L. A. Pe in, 159−81. New
Yo k: Guil o d P ess.
Mine , J. B., N. R. Smi h, and J. S. B acke . 1992. “De ining he In en o -En ep eneu in he Con ex o
Es ablished Typologies.” Jou nal o Business Ven u ing 7: 103−13..
Mülle , K., S. Ma kwo h, and M. Sönde mann. 2011. The C a and T ade Sec o in he Cul u e and
C ea i e Indus ies. Consolida ed Repo . Gö ingen, Bonn: i h Gö ingen.
Noo eboom, B. 1994. “Inno a ion and Di usion in Small Fi ms: Theo y and E idence.” Small Business
Economics 6: 327−47..
Obschonka, M., and M. S ue ze . 2017. “In eg a ing Psychological App oaches o En ep eneu ship:
The En ep eneu ial Pe sonali y Sys em (EPS).” Small Business Economics 49: 203−31..
Pahnke, A., and F. Wel e . 2019. “The Ge man Mi els and: An i hesis o Silicon Valley
En ep eneu ship?” Small Business Economics 52: 345−58..
P e , T., and A. Cogan. 2019. “A isan En ep eneu ship: A Sys ema ic Li e a u e Re iew and Resea ch
Agenda.” In e na ional Jou nal o En ep eneu ial Beha io & Resea ch 25: 592−614..
Ramms ed , B., and O. P. John. 2007. “Measu ing Pe sonali y in One Minu e o Less: A 10-i em Sho
Ve sion o he Big Fi e In en o y in English and Ge man.” Jou nal o Resea ch in Pe sonali y 41:
203−12..
Ran anen, J., R.-L. Me säpel o, T. Feld , L. Pulkkinen, and K. Kokko. 2007. “Long- e m S abili y in he
Big Fi e Pe sonali y T ai s in Adul hood.” Scandina ian Jou nal o Psychology 48: 511−8..
Ro e , J. B. 1966. “Gene alized Expec ancies o In e nal e sus Ex e nal Con ol o Rein o cemen .”
Psychological Monog aphs: Gene al and Applied 80: 1−28..
Runs , P., and J. Thomä. 2020. “Does Occupa ional De egula ion A ec In-Company Voca ional
T aining? −E idence om he 2004 Re o m o he Ge man T ade and C a s Code.” Jah buche
ü Na ionalokonomie und S a is ik 240: 51−88..
Runs , P., and J. Thomä. 2021. “Empi ische Hinweise zum G ündungs- und Übe gabegeschehen im
Handwe k.” In Selbs s ändigkei im Handwe k. Po enziale, He aus o de ungen, Lösungsansä ze,
edi ed by G. F iedl, M. Glasl, and B. T a , 19−53. München: Ludwig-F öhle -Ins i u .
Runs , P., and J. Thomä. 2022. “Does Pe sonali y Ma e ? Small Business Owne s and Modes o
Inno a ion.” Small Business Economics 58: 2235−60..
Runs , P., and J. Thomä. 2023. “Resilien En ep eneu s? — Re isi ing he Rela ionship be ween he
Big Fi e and Sel -Employmen .” Small Business Economics 61: 417−43..
Runs , P., and M. Wy wich. 2023. “Poo Soil as a Fe ile B eeding G ound: The Role o His o ical
Ag icul u al Specializa ion o he Pe sis ence o Regional Di e ences in C a s.” The Annals o
Regional Science 71: 575−600..
Runs , P., J. Thomä, K. Ha e kamp, and K. Mülle . 2019. “A Replica ion o “En y Regula ion and
En ep eneu ship: A Na u al Expe imen in Ge man C a smanship”.” Empi ical Economics 56:
2225−52..
Sa as a hy, S. D. 2001. “Causa ion and E ec ua ion: Towa d a Theo e ical Shi om Economic
Ine i abili y o En ep eneu ial Con ingency.” Academy o Managemen Re iew 26: 243−63..
Sa as a hy,S.D.2008.E ec ua ion: Elemen s o En ep eneu ial Expe ise (New Ho izons in
En ep eneu ship). Chel enham: Edwa d Elga Publishing.
Pe sonali y and Sel -Employmen in he C a s —265
Sasaki, I., N. Nummela, and D. Ra asi. 2021. “Managing Cul u al Speci ici y and Cul u al
Embeddedness when In e na ionalizing: Cul u al S a egies o Japanese C a Fi ms.” Jou nal o
In e na ional Business S udies 52: 245−81..
Schmi z, S. 2019. “The E ec s o Ge many’s S a u o y Minimum Wage on Employmen and Wel a e
Dependency.” Ge man Economic Re iew 20: 330−55..
Senne , R. 2008. The C a sman. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess.
Smi h, N. R. 1967. The En ep eneu and His Fi m: The Rela ionship be ween Type o Man and Type o
Company. Eas Lansing: Michigan S a e Uni e si y.
Smi h, N. R., and J. B. Mine . 1983. “Type o En ep eneu , Type o Fi m, and Manage ial Mo i a ion:
Implica ions o O ganiza ional Li e Cycle Theo y.” S a egic Managemen Jou nal 4: 325−40..
Solomon, S. J., and B. D. Ma hias. 2020. “The A isans’ Dilemma: A isan En ep eneu ship and he
Challenge o Fi m G ow h.” Jou nal o Business Ven u ing 35: 106044..
S o , V. H. 2008. “The Ma ke as a Social Space: On he Meaning ul Ex aeconomic Con e sa ions ha
Can Occu in Ma ke s.” The Re iew o Aus ian Economics 21: 135−50..
Thomä, J., and V. Zimme mann. 2013. “Knowledge P o ec ion P ac ices in Inno a ing SMEs.”
Jah buche ü Na ionalokonomie und S a is ik 233 ((5)+(6)): 691−717..
Thomä, J., and V. Zimme mann. 2020. “In e ac i e Lea ning — he Key o Inno a ion in
Non- &d-in ensi e SMEs? A Clus e Analysis App oach.” Jou nal o Small Business Managemen 58:
747−76..
Woo, C. Y., A. C. Coope , and W. C. Dunkelbe g. 1991. “The De elopmen and In e p e a ion o
En ep eneu ial Typologies.” Jou nal o Business Ven u ing 6: 93−114..
Wo man, J., R. E. Lucas, and M. B. Donnellan. 2012. “S abili y and Change in he Big Fi e Pe sonali y
Domains: E idence om a Longi udinal S udy o Aus alians.” Psychology and Aging 27: 867−74..
Zhao, H., and S. E. Seibe . 2006. “The Big Fi e Pe sonali y Dimensions and En ep eneu ial S a us: A
Me a-Analy ical Re iew.” Jou nal o Applied Psychology 91: 259−71..
Zhao, H., S. E. Seibe , and G. T. Lumpkin. 2010. “The Rela ionship o Pe sonali y o En ep eneu ial
In en ions and Pe o mance: A Me a-Analy ic Re iew.” Jou nal o Managemen 36: 381−404..
