Entrepreneurial andprofessional CEOsDifferences in motive and responsibilityprofileEleni Apospori, Nancy Papalexandris and Eleanna GalanakiAthens University of Economics and Business, Athens, GreeceAbstractPurpose – To shed some light on the motivational profile of entrepreneurial as opposed toprofessional CEOs in Greece.Design/methodology/approach – Based on McClelland’s motivational patterns, i.e. power,achievement and affiliation, as well as responsibility; interviews with Greek entrepreneurial andprofessional CEOs were conducted. Then, interviews were content-analysed, in order to identifydifferences in motivational profiles of those two groups of CEOs.Findings – Achievement, motivation and responsibility were found to be the most significantdiscriminating factors between entrepreneurial and professional CEOs.Research limitations/implications – The current research focuses only on McClelland’s typology.Other aspects affecting entrepreneurial inclination are not studied in the current paper.Practical implications – One of the major implications deriving from the identified characteristicsof successful entrepreneurial and professional CEOs has to do with the preparation and training ofyoung leaders for both larger and smaller firms.Originality/value – This paper studies, for the first time, the leadership profile of CEOs in Greeceand identifies differences between professional and entrepreneurial ones. This is of great value in anSMEs dominated economy, such as Greece, where these research findings can be used for thedevelopment of entrepreneurship.Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Leadership, Responsibilities, Chief executives, GreecePaper type Research paperIntroductionThis paper examines possible differences in motives and responsibility betweenprofessional and entrepreneurial CEOs. The study draws on McClelland’s theory ofLeader Motive Profile (LMP) and has been conducted as part of GLOBE, a larger,cross-cultural research project. GLOBE, running currently in 60 countries, iscoordinated by Wharton Business School and examines the effects of diverse factors onleadership behaviour and organisational practices (House, 1998). Following a briefliterature review on differing motives among entrepreneurs and professionals, thepaper presents the results of a research conducted among a sample of Greekentrepreneurial and professional CEOs.Motives of entrepreneursRecent years have witnessed a rise in the research effort devoted to entrepreneurshipand entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is defined as a process of creating somethingdifferent with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming theThe Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htmEntrepreneurialand professionalCEOs141Received October 2003Revised July 2004Accepted September 2004Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol. 26 No. 2, 2005pp. 141-162q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0143-7739DOI 10.1108/01437730510582572accompanying financial, psychic and social risks, for rewards of monetary andpersonal satisfaction (Hisrich and Brush, 1985, p. 15). Given the important boost inGDP and employment created by entrepreneurs, both academics and governments areaiming at encouraging entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship symbolises innovation anda dynamic economy (Orhan and Scott, 2001). Which is the profile, however, of the“entrepreneuring” minds? Several theories and opinions have been expressedconcerning the motivation of the entrepreneur and several characteristics have beensaid to distinguish entrepreneurs from professionals.At one time, the entrepreneur was depicted largely in negative connotations. Theentrepreneurs were seen as “ruthless robber barons who exploited people andresources while rationalizing the necessity of progress” (Sexton and Bowman, 1985,p. 130), as well as “cunning, secretive, with strong exploitive, narcissistic andsadistic-authoritarian tendencies” (Maccoby, 1976 in Sexton and Bowman, 1985, p. 130)and “not remarkably likeable people” (Collins et al., 1964 in Sexton and Bowman, 1985,p. 130). Since the economists have recognised the vital role of entrepreneurs ineconomic and social growth, the entrepreneur was considered the catalyst fortransforming and improving the economy. Insights into the entrepreneur’s role underan economics perspective were provided by Cantillon (1931) (uncertainty-bearing roleof the entrepreneur), Jean- Baptiste Say (1845) (coordinating function), Marshall (1961),Knight (1921), Schumpeter (1934) (innovation function) and Kirzner (1981), Bosma et al.(2000), Sexton and Bowman (1985).Apart from economics, the entrepreneur has also been approached under the light ofdifferent perspectives. Since the beginning of the century, a research stream focused onthe role that the entrepreneur’s personal attributes may play in shaping entrepreneurialactivity. The personal attributes of the entrepreneur and the perspectives on whichresearch has been based are:The entrepreneur’s experiences and environment. Under this perspective, careerdissatisfaction or having parents who were entrepreneurs can be a strong motivator ofentrepreneurial activity (Cromie et al., 1992; Brockhaus, 1980a, 1980b; Gartner, 1989).The entrepreneur’s socialisation process. One of the classics in this perspective isMcClelland who hypothesized that some societies produce more entrepreneurs becauseof a socialization process that creates a high need for achievement (McClelland, 1961).The “push” and “pull” factors affecting the entrepreneur. “Pull” and “Push” factorsare now a common way of explaining different motivations to start a business (Orhanand Scott, 2001; Alstete, 2002). Push factors are elements of necessity such asinsufficient family income, dissatisfaction with a salaried job, difficulty in finding workand a need for a flexible work schedule due to family responsibilities. Pull factors relateto independence, self-fulfilment, entrepreneurial drive and desire for wealth, socialstatus and power. Entrepreneurs are driven by two opposite factors of choice andnecessity according to the relative importance of the “push” and “pull” factors.However, the situation is rarely a clear-cut selection of pull or push factors and thefactors are often combined (Alstete, 2002).Among the entrepreneurial motivations