SHOW ME THE MONEY! ASSESSMENTS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL SOCIAL COMPETENCE FROM TWO PERSPECTIVES
Manuela
N. Hoehn, Boston University
Candida G. Brush, Boston University
Robert A. Baron, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
In collaboration with Carrie McIndoe, Boston, MA
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
METHODOLOGY
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
CONTACT
REFERENCES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
Extensive research suggests that social competencies can positively affect outcomes in business settings. For this exploratory study we examine the perceptions entrepreneurs have about their own social competence and compare these perceptions to assessments of outsiders. The triangular research design assesses entrepreneurs’ social competence from two perspectives, that of the entrepreneur and that of outsiders. We obtained self-surveys from 66 entrepreneurs who sought funding from venture capitalists. These entrepreneurs were videotaped as they presented their business plans. The videotapes were viewed and evaluated for social competence by experts. We compared how entrepreneurs view their own social competence to outside evaluators’ assessments on the same dimensions. Results show entrepreneurs rated themselves more highly on persuasion and social skills than outside experts. Emotional expressiveness ratings did not differ significantly. Implications for entrepreneurs, educators and consultants assisting entrepreneurs are discussed.
Much of the previous research has focused on personality traits of entrepreneurs; however, results are inconclusive in explaining success or failure of new ventures (Shaver & Scott, 1991). Instead, a more promising approach focuses on understanding cognitive influences on entrepreneurial behavior (Bird, 1989; Shaver & Scott, 1991; Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Central to this process are social interactions—the engagements the entrepreneur has with resource providers, potential employees and other stakeholders (Baron & Markman, 2002).
An entrepreneur’s ability to interact effectively with others is based on discrete social skills, referred to as “social competence” (Baron & Markman, 2002). Social competence is comprised of persuasion, social adaptability, impression management and social perception (Baron and Markman, 2002). This summary term captures the combined effects of various social skills such as the ability to perceive others accurately, make a good first impression and persuade others to change their views or behavior (Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). One arena where social competence is critically important is the early phase of venture creation where entrepreneurs meet with potential investors to persuade them to provide financial capital. An entrepreneur’s presentation includes information about a new opportunity that effectively provides a signal to investors about his/her ability to successfully develop and manage a new venture (Feldman & March, 1981; Mason & Harrison, 2001). Creating a negative impression can result in failure to sell the business opportunity to investors, and limit investment potential (Mason & Harrison, 2001). Hence, the outcome of the social interaction in the entrepreneur’s efforts to secure financing involves two perspectives—what the entrepreneur thinks of him/herself and what the outside investor thinks of the entrepreneur.
Drawing from social and cognitive psychology theories, this paper explores the perceptions entrepreneurs have about their own social competence and compares these perceptions to assessments of outsiders. This comparative assessment and convergence of self-reports with independent observers is a methodology utilized in social psychology (Moskowitz, 1990), but is a unique approach in examining entrepreneurial behavior. Our work extends emerging research on social competence by Baron and Markman (2002) and has implications for ways that entrepreneurs can improve their chances of acquiring capital and other resources in the early phases of business start-up.
A social psychological perspective on new venture creation considers the social activity as a central feature of the process (Shaver & Scott, 1991). Cognitive heuristics are utilized to guide judgments and “make sense” of the process which is highly uncertain. These account for the ways in which the external environment is represented in the mind of the founder of a new venture (Shaver & Scott, 1991; Krueger, 2000). Further, cognitive influences guide the choices that entrepreneurs make in the venture creation process, and affect social interactions. The extent to which social competence enhances effective interaction with others (e.g. venture capitalists, employees, customers) is based on several research streams including the social psychology, cognitive psychology and venture capital literature.
Extensive research indicates that proficiency with respect to social skills strongly affects the outcomes experienced by individuals in many contexts, including important business settings (e.g. Segrin & Kenney, 1995). For instance, proficiency with respect to impression management, social perception and persuasiveness results in strong beneficial effects on the outcomes experienced by individuals in job interviews (Riggio & Throckmorton, 1988), yearly performance reviews (Wayne & Kackmar, 1991) and negotiations (Lewicki et al., 1997). A recent study shows that social competence is related to financial performance in self-employed entrepreneurial firms in the cosmetics industry (Baron & Markman, 2002).
Additional support for the view that social competence influences financial success comes from the venture capital literature. Hisrich and Jancowicz (1990) note that the personal chemistry, interpersonal style and skills of the entrepreneur can make a difference in funding outcome. Frequently the decision on initial screening is made on the basis of “investor fit” to the entrepreneur (Fried & Hisrich, 1994). Other work states that human capital is the single most important feature determining an investment decision, and, given vast differences in the ways venture capitalists assess the human capital, some sort of interviewing, social interaction or presentation is usually combined with job analysis, documentation analysis and other variables (Smart, 1999). In sum, the literature supports the notion that strong social competence would be related to likelihood of outside funding.
Since there is strong evidence that social competence is indeed related to the likelihood of outside funding, it is important to explore how social competence is perceived. In this study we explore evaluations of social competence from two perspectives—that of the entrepreneurs’ and that of outside evaluators. Because of personal biases we expect evaluations to differ between the two groups. Specifically, self-efficacy of entrepreneurs may affect their ability to execute a particular behavior (Bandura, 1986), while optimism may color perceptions of setbacks or outside threats (Seligman, 1998). Studies find that self-efficacy can increase proclivity for entrepreneurship (Chen et al., 1998), while over-optimism can lead to unwise decisions and affect firm performance (Mehta & Cooper, 2000). These studies suggest that in addition to individual background biases, cognitive factors may influence an entrepreneur’s perceptions of his/her ability to persuade others to provide resources.
We therefore raise the following four questions:
Research Question 1: How do entrepreneurs seeking capital assess their own social competence?
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in social competence assessments by entrepreneurs between those receiving and not receiving funding?
Research Question 3: How do outside experts view entrepreneurs’ social competence?
Research Question 4: To what degree does the assessment of outside experts vary from that of the entrepreneurs?
Sample and Data Collection
This research is part of a larger project investigating the combined effects of business plans and actual presentations by entrepreneurs of their ideas (i.e., the “pitch”) on likelihood of receiving venture capital funding. For the current exploratory study we utilized three types of data: 1) self-evaluations of the entrepreneurs’ social competence, 2) evaluations of the entrepreneurs’ social competence by outsiders—both business experts and social psychologists, and 3) follow-up surveys to assess funding outcome and business progress of the entrepreneurs’ ventures. We chose a triangulation method for our research design in order to ensure greater convergent validity (Jick 1979) for the construct of social competence. The entrepreneurs’ investor presentations were video-taped by a Boston Venture Capital Consulting Firm (BVCCF) that counsels entrepreneurs on business plans and presentations, conducts evaluations and due diligence, and connects entrepreneurs to venture capitalists and angel investors.
Entrepreneurs participating in this study had submitted business plans to BVCCF between 1999 and 2000. More than 500 plans were received by BVCCF during the 10-month period. Because of the owner’s networking within the local community and emphasis on women entrepreneurs, a slightly higher percentage of plans by women founders was received. Of these, 102 business plans (or 20%) met the two key requirements for consideration and follow-up: 1) ventures were based in New England, and 2) seeking between US$ 1–5 million investment. The sample selected out of the total pool of plans was completely random and 102 entrepreneurs were invited to participate in our project.
Approximately 10% refused to participate, and another 17 entrepreneurs changed their mind at a later point and were dropped from the sample. The final sample of entrepreneurs who participated fully in our study was 75. Each of the entrepreneurs signed a confidentiality release form, and completed a self-questionnaire assessing their social competence along key dimensions. The entrepreneurs were videotaped during an investor presentation at the office of the BVCCF. All entrepreneurs were asked the same question at the outset of the presentation which was “Tell me about your business idea.” While videotaped presentations are utilized in social psychology as a means to assess social skills (Riggio & Throckmorton, 1988), this type of media is rarely used in research on entrepreneurial behavior.
Social psychology and business graduate student volunteers at two independent east coast universities rated sets of these video clips of the entrepreneurs’ investor presentations along the dimensions outlined in the previous section of this paper. The order in which the videotapes were shown to both groups of evaluators was randomized in order to minimize routine bias.
Six months after the entrepreneurs’ initial self-assessment we contacted the entrepreneurs by telephone and asked them to complete a follow-up survey. These follow-up surveys provided information regarding funding success, business development, and whether they had met their sales/profit objectives.
For a video presentation to be included in this study, all three types of data—the self-questionnaire by the entrepreneur, the evaluations by outside experts, either psychologists or MBA students, and the follow-up survey—wererequired. Complete evaluator data and follow-up surveys were collected for 66 companies (although all 75 entrepreneurs completed self-questionnaires and submitted their business plans), thus giving us a total sample size of 66. The number of evaluations by outsiders ranged from three to one hundred and nine per company. A greater number of evaluators were used in order to minimize personal bias of each evaluator.
Measures
Entrepreneurs were asked to rate themselves on forty-four items designed to assess various social dimensions comprising social competence. These social dimensions are based on previously used measures and extend the work of Riggio (1986) and Baron and Markman (2002). Specifically, entrepreneurs were asked how they perceived themselves in certain social situations using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. The dimensions used for this item included social perception (7 questions), social adaptability (6 questions), persuasion (5 questions), impression management (5 questions), emotional expressiveness (5 questions), optimism (8 questions), and self-efficacy (8 questions). Multiple items per dimension were used following to previous research (Riggio, 1986; Baron & Markman, 2002). Prior to analysis an adjustment was made for reverse-coded items to ensure the same direction of measures, i.e. the higher someone scored on a given question, the more of the attribute measured the person possesses.
The outside evaluators assessed the entrepreneurs’ social competence along the similar dimensions: attractiveness, likableness, energy, cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence (EQ), social skills, persuasiveness, and overall quality of the idea along a five-point Likert scale. These items are based on the work of Baron and Brush (1999), and Baron and Markman (2002). Items for both questionnaires were tested for robustness during two pilot studies conducted with 182 undergraduate and graduate students at two different universities .
Techniques used to test our research questions were descriptive statistics, t-tests, and factor analysis. All tests were performed using SPSS software. Initial descriptive statistics reflect characteristics of the entrepreneurs, their ventures and the evaluators (see Table 1).
Characteristics of the entrepreneurs: As shown in Table 1 for 68.2% of the entrepreneurs the current venture was not the first entrepreneurial effort. Of those experienced entrepreneurs, 69.4% have had one to two previous ventures, with a range from one to 16 previous start-up experiences. More than half indicated that they worked in their current company for up to two years, with a range from one year to 40 years. Approximately 21.3% of entrepreneurs had presented their plan once, 31.2% 2–5 times, and 47.5% had presented their plan more than five times, up to 200 times.
Characteristics of the ventures: The ventures in our sample were founded between 1981 and 2000, as shown in Table 1. The median and mode sales figures showed that many ventures did not have sales at the time when entrepreneurs filled out their initial self-questionnaires. At the time of the six month follow-up, the majority of ventures (72.7%) were still operating, and 62.5% of the ventures had current sales, but of those about 53.8% were under projections, 35.9% were close to projections and only 10.3% were somewhat over projections. Not unexpectedly, only 14.8% were profitable six months later and of those 37.5% were under projections. Only one venture reported profits somewhat over projections. Lastly, 26.2% of the ventures received funding whereas 73.8% did not. The ventures ranged in type from retail (designer shoes, furniture), to dot.coms (hats, food service delivery, Asian gifts, computers), to manufacturing products (gauges, child care products), to business services (legal, fashion design).
Characteristics of the evaluators: Approximately 54% of evaluators were MBA or Executive MBA students and 46% of evaluators were social psychology graduate students. Because we were interested in the aggregate opinion of evaluators for each entrepreneur and also across entrepreneurs, we computed averages for the groups to obtain a “representative” evaluator per entrepreneur. We ran a frequency analysis and compared variances among the different groups in order to assess inter-rater reliability (Finn, 1970; Light et al., 1990). Although there was slight variation within and among the 66 entrepreneurs, we reasoned that an aggregate measure for all 66 groups of evaluators would give us a matched pair to use for our comparison of central tendency analysis: an aggregate pool of 66 entrepreneurs and an aggregate pool of 66 outsiders’ evaluations.
Research Question 1: How do entrepreneurs seeking capital assess their own social competence?
Descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis provided results for this research question. Overall self-rankings of the entrepreneurs’ social competence measures were quite high, with most means well above the neutral point 3. The highest rankings were those on the questions capturing self-efficacy (means ranging from 4.4462 to 4.7385), followed by questions assessing social adaptability (means ranging from 4.2576 to 4.5303) and questions assessing optimism (means ranging from 3.6615 to 4.1212); entrepreneurs rated themselves lowest on questions assessing emotional expressiveness (means ranging from 2.7692 to 3.1061).
In order to determine whether the items on the questionnaire assessed distinct aspects of social competence, we performed a principal axis factor analysis with Varimax rotation on the total sample of entrepreneurs (n=66). It should be noted that principal axis, rather than principal component, factor analysis was used because it highlights the variances between groups (Cooper, 1983), and is therefore appropriate for small sample sizes. Because our study is exploratory in nature, we still employed the factor analysis despite our small sample size. An initial check of the communalities showed that the average was above 0.5 and we could therefore proceed in our analysis. Kaiser’s Eigenvalue greater than 1.0 rule suggested that we should retain fourteen factors. However, an examination of the scree plot, as described by Hair et al. (1995), suggested that the appropriate number of factors to keep was six (see Table 2).
Upon examining the six factors in the rotated component matrix, it became clear that four factors could indeed be combined into two, which left us with four readily interpretable factors. As shown in Table 2, items on these four factors loaded highly (factor loadings >.40 on a single factor and no cross-loadings >.25). These four factors were labeled as persuasiveness, self-efficacy, social adaptability, and emotional expressiveness. Discrete factors did not appear for either social perception, impression management, or optimism.
As a next step we tested reliability of the measures produced by the factor analysis. Three of the four measures easily passed the acceptable threshold of .70 for reliability (Nunnally 1979); Cronbach’s Alphas were .8581, .8190 and .7473 respectively. The fourth factor, although lower with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .6535, passed the benchmark of .60 for exploratory research (Robinson et al., 1991), so we retained this factor as well for subsequent analysis. Factor scores were created for all four factors using weighted measures for all items that loaded on one of the four factors.
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in social competence assessments by entrepreneurs between those receiving and not receiving funding?
Our next research question explored the differences in perceptions of social skills among those entrepreneurs who eventually received funding as compared with those who did not receive funding. T-tests reveal that there was no significant difference in perceptions (See Table 3).
Research Question 3: How do outside experts view entrepreneurs’ social competence?
Descriptive statistics explored this research question. Overall outside evaluators gave entrepreneurs lower ratings on social competence measures than the entrepreneurs gave themselves. Ratings by outsiders were right around or slightly below the neutral point 3. Since different instruments were used for the entrepreneurs’ self-assessments and the outsiders’ evaluations, only the measures present in both instruments were considered in this analysis. Outsiders’ evaluations of entrepreneurs’ emotional intelligence and social skills were only a little more positive than neutral (means of 3.0829 and 3.06096 respectively), and outsiders’ ratings of the entrepreneurs’ persuasion skills were slightly negative (mean of 2.9096).
Research Question 4: To what degree does the assessment of outside experts vary from that of the entrepreneurs?
To assess possible differences between self-evaluations of the entrepreneurs and the evaluations of outsiders, t-tests were run on the three items measured by both instruments (See Table 4). The matches between the items are not exact, but the description used to explain the terms was similar. Also, prior theory suggests that these items do indeed measure approximately the same construct even though they are being measured by different methods, referred to as structural validity. In this case, the measures are within theoretically relevant limits on the consistency of characteristics (Moskowitz, 1990). In this context, emotional intelligence (EQ) and emotional expressiveness can be compared as can social skills and social adaptability; the wording for persuasion was consistent in both instruments. Results suggest that entrepreneurs and outsiders do indeed differ significantly in their assessments of the entrepreneurs’ social skills (See Table 4). Entrepreneurs believe they are stronger in both social skills and persuasion (p <.000) than outside experts while EQ and emotional expressiveness ratings do not differ significantly.
This study builds on previous work examining dimensions of social competence—social adaptability, self-efficacy and emotional expressiveness—and financial performance (Baron & Markman, 2002). Our results found no differences in self-perceptions between those entrepreneurs receiving and those not receiving funding. We suspect that these results may reflect the fact that the criteria applied by venture capitalists to determine funding include those other than what we measured (Mason & Harrison, 1999). Further, the biases that entrepreneurs bring to their assessments may also be reflected here. Indeed it may be that entrepreneurs have an “over-inflated” or overly optimistic view of their abilities and competencies (Seligman, 1998).
Results showed distinct differences in the ratings of entrepreneurs and outside evaluators. In particular, entrepreneurs rated themselves more highly on persuasion and social skills than outside experts. It is not clear if the entrepreneurs made unrealistic assessments about their capabilities in these areas; however, if they do exaggerate their perceived capabilities this may explain why some entrepreneurs are unable to obtain needed resources. Biases in self- perceptions and errors in judgment allow entrepreneurs to undertake new economic activity in the face of uncertainty (Sarasvathy, 2000). On the other hand, it is possible that outside experts were more “critical” having been educated and trained to identify social behavior. No difference was perceived between entrepreneurs and outside experts with regard to emotional intelligence.
This study also shows that the raters who watched the videotapes perceived differences between entrepreneurs’ presentations on all dimensions even though the tapes averaged two minutes in length. This follows previous research on social perception indicating that much useful and reasonably accurate information can be acquired about others from brief encounters (Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997). Moreover, this supports the notion that first impressions are made quickly. We found in the video evaluations that some evaluators were able to make a determination as to social competence before the two-minute videos were completely played. While this may suggest bias on the part of evaluators, we used multiple evaluators, from which we took an average, lessening the influence of individual biases on interpretation of the data.
This exploratory study is limited by its small sample size and the fact that the actual funding providers did not make the evaluation of the entrepreneur. While having actual funding decision makers’ evaluations would be desirable, it was not practical at this time. Further, we utilized multiple evaluators of the social competence in our study, hence we would speculate that the overall assessments would not vary significantly from funding providers. A next step is to have our videotapes assessed by venture capitalists based on the same dimensions used by outside experts. Finally, we did not consider the “content” of the presentation in this analysis which clearly is important to the venture funding decision. These data were collected and will be analyzed in the future.
Entrepreneurs who learn to be socially competent may gain benefits of acquiring more information or knowledge about their business opportunity, and be more likely to convince others to share the beliefs about what the emerging business can be. Extensive research suggests that social competence can positively affect an entrepreneur’s outcomes in business settings. For this exploratory study, we examined the differences in perceptions of social competence between entrepreneurs and outside evaluators. Results show entrepreneurs rated themselves more highly on persuasion and social skills than outside experts. Emotional expressiveness ratings did not differ significantly. This paper extends research on social competence by Baron and Markman (2002) by testing similar measures on a sample of aspiring entrepreneurs seeking venture capital.
We believe that this type of triangulated design combining qualitative and quantitative data using video footage is unique in the entrepreneurship area and therefore presents a new exploratory approach for understanding entrepreneurial behavior. The self-evaluation survey combined with outside evaluations presents an opportunity for researchers to compare what entrepreneurs think they can do to what others believe is possible. Identification of successful social skills and interactive behaviors offers opportunities for entrepreneurial education. Social competence can be learned. For example, providing training and workshops to develop competencies and mastering entrepreneurial skills in a context of strong psychological and emotional support (e.g. mentoring and coaching) in order to increase self-efficacy might be appropriate (Krueger, 2000). Alternatively, providing developmental experiences designed to strengthen competencies such as in presenting business plans or negotiating for funding can be accomplished through formal entrepreneurship courses.
CONTACT: Manuela Hoehn, Boston University, School of Management, Commonwealth Avenue, Boston MA 02215; (T) 617-353-7057; (F) 617-353-5003; mhoehn@bu.edu
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. & G.D. Markman. (2002) “Beyond social capital: The role of entrepreneur’s social competence in their financial success.” Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.
Baron, R. & C.G. Brush. (1999) “The Role of Social Skills in Entrepreneurs Success: Evidence from Videotapes of Entrepreneurs’ Presentations.” In Reynolds, P.D., Bygrave, W.D., Manigart, S., Mason, C., Meyer, G.D., Sapienza, H., & Shaver, K. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Proceedings of the Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, 45–57.
Bird, B. (1989) Entrepreneurial Behavior. Glenview, ILL: Scott Foresman.
Busenitz, L. & J. Barney. (1997) “Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making.” Journal of Business Venturing, 12:1, 9–30.
Chen, C.C., P.G. Greene & A. Crick, A. (1998) “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?” Journal of Business Venturing. 9:4, 331–350.
Feldman, M.S. & J.G. March. (1981) “Information as a signal and symbol.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 26: 171–186.
Finn, R. H. (1970) “A note on estimating the reliability of categorical data.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 30: 71–76.
Fried , V. & R.D. Hisrich. (1994) “Toward a model of venture capital decision-making.” Financial Management. 23:3, 28–37.
Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham & W.C. Black. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hisrich, R.D. & A.D. Jancowicz. (1990) “Intuition in venture capital decisions: An exploratory study using a new technique.” Journal of Business Venturing. 5:1, 49–62.
Jick, T. (1979) “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602–611.
Krueger, N. (2000) “The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence.” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 3: 91–104.
Lewicki, R.J., D.M. Saunders & J.W. Minton. (1997) Essentials of negotiation. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Light, R. J., J., D. Singer, & J. B. Willet. (1990) By Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mason, C. & R. Harrison. (2000) “Auditioning for Money: what do investors look for at the initial screening stage?” In Hisrich, R.D. & Hacker, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Entrepreneurial Finance Workshop, Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School, 155–176.
Mehta, S.R. & A. Cooper. (2000) “Optimism as a predictor of new firm performance.” Paper presented at the Babson Kauffman Conference on Entrepreneurship Research, Jonkoping, Sweden.
Moskowitz, D.S. (1990) „Convergence of self-reports and independent observers: dominance and friendliness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 598: 1096–1106.
Nunally, J.C. Jr. (1979) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Riggio, R.E. & B. Throckmorton. (1988) “The relative effects of verbal and nonverbal behavior, appearance, and social skills on valuations made in hiring interviews.” Journal of Applied Psychology. 18: 331–348.
Riggio, R.E. (1986) “Assessment of basic social skills.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51: 49–66.
Robinson, J.P., P.R. Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman. (1991) In Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. & Wrightsman, L.S. (Eds.) Criteria for Scale Selection and Evaluation. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sarasvathy, S. (2000) “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency.” Academy of Management Review, 26:2, 243–264.
Segrin, C. & T. Kenney. (1995) “Social skills deficits among the socially anxious: Rejection from others and loneliness.” Motivation and Emotion. 19: 1–24.
Seligman, M.E. (1998) Learned Optimism. New York: Pocket Books.
Shaver, K. & L. Scott. (1991) “Person, process, and choice: The psychology of new venture creation.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (16) 2: 23–46.
Smart, G. (1999) “Management assessment methods in venture capital: An empirical analysis of human capital valuation.” Venture Capital. 1:1, 59–82.
Wayne, W.J. & K. Kacmar, K. (1991) “The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58: 70–88.
2002 Babson College. All Rights Reserved. Last Updated March 2003.