Socio-Psychological Portrait of Russian IT Entrepreneur

Abramova O.A.
PhD candidate, Lecturer of School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), Moscow, Russia
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4845-3511
e-mail: oabramova@hse.ru

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english

Objectives: to reveal the socio-psychological, personal, and cultural characteristics of Russian IT entrepreneurs. Background. The digital transformation of the economy focuses on new technologies and involves more people. IT entrepreneurship is becoming a desired career of the younger generation in Russia. The country’s technological leadership depends on psychosocial and personality characteristics and attitudes of successful IT entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, research of Russian entrepreneurs in the IT sector is rare. Study design. Using qualitative research method the socio-psychological portrait of an IT entrepreneur is formed on the basis of socio-psychological and personal characteristics (internal locus of control, risk tolerance, achievement orientation), including value orientations: family, creativity, money, self-realization and cultural preferences. One research question and three hypotheses are considered. Participants. After a preliminary selection of respondents, the most characteristic representatives of the IT entrepreneurial social group were selected: 14 male entrepreneurs, 27—35 year old — IT businesses’ owners. Measurement. Thematic analysis of the theoretical type was used to classify the data collected from in-depth semi-structured interviews using a six stage algorithm of V. Braun and V. Clarke. Results. A portrait of the technological company’s founder is presented: nonconformity, independence from family values, high involvement in the work, strong desire to achieve business goals, low interest in cultural symbols and events are revealed. Differences of a Russian technological entrepreneur from an entrepreneur in Russia as a whole (family and material values), as well as differences from a new wave of Western entrepreneurs (nonconformity) are noted. All hypotheses were confirmed. Conclusions. Russian IT entrepreneur in our sample shares similar features with modern entrepreneurs in other countries. The distinguishing characteristics of Russian IT entrepreneur from Russian non-IT entrepreneurs include: low importance of money and material status, neutral attitude to family values.

Keywords: socio-psychological portrait, IT entrepreneur, leadership, value orientations, personality traits of entrepreneur, technological startup founder

Column: Non-thematic articles

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120312

Funding. The article is an output of a research project implemented as a part of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University).

For Reference

Abramova O.A. Socio-Psychological Portrait of Russian IT Entrepreneur . Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2021. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 188–204. doi:10.17759/sps.2021120312. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

Belanovskiy S.A. Glubokoye interv’yu [Deep interview]. Moscow: Nikkolo-Media, 2001. 320 p. (In Russ.).
Zhuravlev A.L., Poznyakov V.P. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya rossiyskogo predprinimatel’stva: Kontseptsiya psikhologicheskikh otnosheniy [Social psychology of the Russian business: Concept of the psychological relations]. Moscow: Institut psikhologii RAN, 2012. 480 p. (In Russ.).
Zhuravleva N.A. Dinamika tsennostnykh oriyentatsiy predprinimateley v usloviyakh makrosotsial’nykh preobrazovaniy [Dynamics of value orientations of entrepreneurs in the context of macro-social transformations]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal = Psychological journal, 2015, no. 1(36), pp. 46—60. (In Russ.).
Poznyakov V.P. Dinamika doveriya rossiyskikh predprinimateley k razlichnym organizatsiyam. In Kupreychenko A.B., Mersiyanova I.V. (eds.). Doveriye i nedoveriye v usloviyakh razvitiya grazhdanskogo obshchestva [The dynamics of the trust of Russian entrepreneurs in various organizations. Trust and distrust in the conditions of development of civil society]. Moscow: Publ. HSE, 2013, pp. 305—332. (In Russ.).
Poznyakov V.P. Itogi i perspektivy issledovaniya rossiyskikh predprinimateley s pozitsii kontseptsii psikhologicheskikh otnosheniy [Results and prospects of the study of Russian entrepreneurs from the perspective of the concept of psychological relations]. Problemy pedagogiki i psikhologii = Problems of Pedagogy and Psychology, 2014, no. 1, pp. 267—275. (In Russ.).
Poznyakov V.P. Tsennostnyye oriyentatsii predprinimateley s raznym psikhologicheskim tipom delovoy aktivnosti [Value orientations of entrepreneurs with different psychological types of business activity]. Znaniye. Ponimaniye. Umeniye = Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2015, no. 3, pp. 262—274. DOI:10.17805/zpu.2015.3.22 (In Russ.).
Filinkova E.B. Psikhologiya rossiyskogo predprinimatel’stva [Psychology of Russian entrepreneurship]. Moscow: Rector, 2007. 288 p. (In Russ.).
Astebro T. et al. Seeking the roots of entrepreneurship: Insights from behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2014. Vol. 28(3), pp. 49—70. DOI:10.1257/jep.28.3.49
Bagheri A. The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2017. Vol. 28(2), pp. 159—166. DOI:10.1016/j.hitech.2017.10.003
Baumeister R.F., Leary M.R. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1995. Vol. 117(3), pp. 497—529. DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.49
Beugelsdijk S., Noorderhaven N. Entrepreneurial attitude and economic growth: A cross-section of 54 regions. Annals of Regional Science, 2004. Vol. 38, pp. 199—218. DOI:10.1007/s00168- 004-0192-y
Bonardia J-Ph. et al. Special Issue on Strategic Leadership and Strategic Management. The Leadership Quarterly, 2018. Vol. 29(3), pp. 7—8. DOI:10.1016/S1048-9843(18)30306-0
Brandstätter H. Personality aspect of entrepreneurship: a look at five meta-analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011. Vol. 51(3), pp. 222—230. DOI:10.1016/j. paid.2010.07.007
Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006. Vol. 3(2), pp. 77—101. DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Britchenko I. et al. Transformation of entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century: prospects for the future. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 2018. Vol. 217. Atlantis Press: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on social, economic, and academic leadership (ICSEAL 2018).
Djankov S. et al. Who are Russia’s entrepreneurs? Journal of the European Economic Association, 2005. Vol. 3(2-3), pp. 587—597. DOI:10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.587
Gillet J. et al. Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011. Vol. 51(3), pp. 231—236. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.003
Goode W.J., Hatt P.K. Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw Hills, 1952. 386 p.
Haslam S. et al. The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence and power. New York: Psychology Press, 2013. 296 p. DOI:10.4324/9780203833896
Kelman H.C. Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1958. Vol. 2(1), pp. 51—60.
Kerr S. et al. Personality Traits of Entrepreneurs: A Review of Recent Literature. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2018. Vol. 14(3), pp. 279—356. DOI:10.1561/0300000080
Lazear E. Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 2005. Vol. 23(4), pp. 649—680. DOI:10.1086/491605
Liden R. et al. Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In David V. Day (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. New York, NY: Oxford Press, 2014, pp. 357—379. DOI:10.1037/t04900-000
Nemirovskii G., Grishaev S. A Social Portrait of the Young Entrepreneur. Russian Education and Society, 2000. Vol. 42(7), pp. 29—35. DOI:10.2753/RES1060-9393420729
Schwartz S.H. An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2012. Vol. 2(1). DOI:10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Tajeddini K., Mueller S. Entrepreneurial characteristics in Switzerland and the UK: A comparative study of techno-entrepreneurs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 2009. Vol. 7(1), pp. 1—25. DOI:10.1007/s10843-008-0028-4
Tajfel H., Turner J. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1986, pp. 7—24.
Rauch A., Frese M. Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: a meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2007. Vol. 16(4), pp. 353—385. DOI:10.1080/13594320701595438
Viinikainen J. et al. Born Entrepreneur? Adolescents’ Personality Characteristics and Self-Employment in Adulthood. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 2017. Vol. 8, pp. 9—12. DOI:10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.05.001
Yaffe-Yanai O. et al. High-Tech Entrepreneurs vs. Entrepreneurs in Traditional Industries: Similarities and differences in family portraits and passion quests. 2017 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.dorot.biz/en/high-tech-entrepreneurs-vs-entrepreneurs-traditional-industries-similarities-differences-family-portraits-passion-quests/ (Accessed 01.10.2019).
Zhao H., Seibert S. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006. Vol. 91(2), pp. 259—271. DOI:10.1037/0021- 9010.91.2.259