Dissertation Final Version With Signatures

PROFILE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURS IN SINALOA STATE
by
Alejandro Domínguez-Pacheco
University of Phoenix
December 2010
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management
UMI Number: 3480405
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3480405
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State ii
© 2010 by
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State iv
Abstract
As entrepreneurship increases and spreads wealth, creating and expanding firms
are the best ways to improve economic quality of living for low-income people in
Sinaloa. To improve entrepreneurship educators need to recognize which personal
characteristics are needed to become an entrepreneur. The purpose of this study, using a
Qualitative Delphi design, was to determine the important entrepreneurial characteristics
that allowed the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State to build up their
companies. The study explored three main aspects of entrepreneurial personality:
management skills, innovative abilities, and ethical behavior.
The study using the responses of the sample, built up a profile of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. This profile includes 14 personal characteristics
that were classified in social, emotional, and intellectual abilities. The study ends with
recommendations, especially for business schools and for educators in Sinaloa State.
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State v
Dedication
D. O. G.
“Qui potest capere capiat” (Mt, 19:12)

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State vi
Acknowledgments
First, I would like to acknowledge the participants in this Delphi study and thank
my mentor and committee members. The elaboration of this dissertation was only
possible through the generosity of Dr. Bruce Laviolette, my mentor. His accessibility to
talk whenever needed, and his work was inestimable. Dr. Betty Ahmed was a committee
member who provided valuable feedback along the learning path and Dr. Mark Allen,
who was the other committee member, always, enriched this work with new insights. I
would also like to acknowledge all my professors from the University of Phoenix. Their
high standards always pushed me to perform and work beyond expectations. I am also
deeply grateful to a lot of people who were my mates in the different cohorts that I had in
this complicate doctoral journey. I want to acknowledge a lot of people, who helped me
in this doctoral journey, especially my colleagues at Instituto Chapultepec and IPADE.
Finally, I am indebted to my family who received less time that they deserved in these six
6 long years. I am in your debt. You are all the best!

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State vii
Table of Contents
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study to Leadership .................................................................... 8
Nature of the Study .................................................................................................... 9
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 12
Research Question ................................................................................................... 15
Definition of Terms.................................................................................................. 15
Assumptions............................................................................................................. 16
Scope Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................... 16
Summary .................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................... 19
Documentation ......................................................................................................... 19
Brief History of Entrepreneurship ........................................................................... 19
Different Views of Entrepreneurship ....................................................................... 23
Definition of Entrepreneurship ................................................................................ 24
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development ....................................................... 26
Entrepreneurial Personality...................................................................................... 28
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State viii
The Entrepreneurial Mindset ............................................................................ 31
Entrepreneurship and Invention ........................................................................ 32
Entrepreneurship and Leadership Style ............................................................ 34
The Entrepreneurial Process .................................................................................... 35
Development of the Opportunity ...................................................................... 36
Evaluation of the Opportunity .......................................................................... 38
Development of the Entrepreneurial Plan......................................................... 40
Determination and Acquisition of the Required Sources ................................. 43
Management of the New Entrepreneurship Entity ........................................... 45
Entrepreneurs and Social Responsibility ................................................................. 47
Social Responsibility of the Business ............................................................... 48
Practical Principles of Ethical Behavior for Business ...................................... 50
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 54
Summary .................................................................................................................. 54
Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................. 56
The Delphi Method .................................................................................................. 57
The Delphi Method Background ...................................................................... 57
The Delphi Method Process.............................................................................. 58
Appropriateness of Design....................................................................................... 59
Research Design....................................................................................................... 61
Research Question ................................................................................................... 62
Population ................................................................................................................ 62
Sample...................................................................................................................... 62
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State ix
Informed Consent..................................................................................................... 63
Confidentiality ......................................................................................................... 64
Geographic Location ................................................................................................ 64
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 65
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 65
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 66
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 67
Summary .................................................................................................................. 68
Chapter 4: Results.................................................................................................. 69
Panelist Recruitment ................................................................................................ 69
Characteristics of the Sample................................................................................... 70
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 71
Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire ................................................... 71
Second questionnaire ............................................................................................... 75
Third questionnaire .................................................................................................. 77
Comparison between second and third questionnaires ............................................ 78
Summary .................................................................................................................. 82
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................. 84
Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire ................................................... 85
Analysis of the answers of the second questionnaire............................................... 86
Analysis of the answers of the third questionnaire .................................................. 87
Analysis of the comparison between second and third questionnaire ..................... 87
Classification of the personal characteristics ........................................................... 88

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State x
Implications.............................................................................................................. 89
Comparison with Literature Review ........................................................................ 91
Limitations ............................................................................................................... 92
Significance of Research.......................................................................................... 93
Significance of Findings to Leadership ................................................................... 93
Recommendations .................................................................................................... 94
Suggestions for Further Research ............................................................................ 95
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................................ 95
References ............................................................................................................... 97
Appendix A: First Questionnaire for the Delphi Study ................................... 123
Appendix B: Permission to Use Figure 2 ........................................................... 124
Appendix C: Invitación A Empresarios Exitosos ............................................. 125
Appendix D: Invitation to Successful Entrepreneurs ....................................... 127
Appendix E: Elements of Rigor, Their Definitions, and Evidence of Their
Presence in Studies ...................................................................................... 129
Appendix F: Second Questionnaire in Spanish Language ............................... 131
Appendix G: Second Questionnaire in Spanish ................................................ 133
Appendix H: Second Questionnaire in English ................................................. 136
Appendix I: Numeric Answers of The Second Questionnaire ......................... 138
Appendix J: Third Questionnaire in Spanish ................................................... 139
.Appendix K: Third Questionnaire in English .................................................. 141
Appendix L: Numeric Answers of the Third Questionnaire ........................... 142

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State xi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of the Mexican Republic. (Source: Enciclopedia
Universal en Español, 2009) ................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Two focuses of growing in entrepreneurial abilities. ............................... 15
Figure 3: Comparison between second and third rounds of Delphi study ............... 81
Figure 4: Profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State .................. 90

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State xii
List of Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample ..................................................................... 70
Table 2. Answers to question 1 in first questionnaire.............................................. 72
Table 6. Answers of the second questionnaire......................................................... 76
Table 7. Answers of the third questionnaire ............................................................ 78
Table 8. Numeric comparison between second and third round .............................. 80
Table 9. Personal characteristics found in literature review .................................... 91

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Entrepreneurship is a main contributor to the growth of an economy. The
Schumpeterian view of economics states that entrepreneurial dynamism is the key to
economic growth and innovation in: finding a new market, developing a new product, or
designing a new technology (Guzmán, 2006). A growing body of research also highlights
the role of entrepreneurs in developing a vibrant, small, or medium enterprise (Montanye,
2006).
The purpose of the current research was to study the personal profiles of the most
successful entrepreneurs who manage businesses in Sinaloa State, a state in northwest
México, to determine if they have common characteristics. Defining the characteristics is
the first step in identifying the possibility of commonality among profiles of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa and determining if it was possible to define the
profile of successful entrepreneurship and train people to achieve that profile.
Entrepreneurial activity usually increases economic development (Khalil, 2006). Training
in entrepreneurial activity may not only improve the state’s economy, but also enrich
future studies related to entrepreneurship in México and abroad.
Chapter 1 contains a definition of the problem to be investigated; it includes a
description of the method used and a justification of the research design, including an
explanation of the population group targeted for the study. The significance section
explains why the study is a unique approach to the problem researched, as well as who
will benefit from its completion, and how the project will offer an original contribution to
the field. The questionnaires and the theoretical framework precede the main definitions
and assumptions of this current research study at the end the chapter.
Background of the Problem
According to Samuelson and Nordhauss (2009), the greatest inequality (in which
conspicuous luxury appears alongside the most miserable poverty) occurs in middle
income countries, particularly those in Latin America. In 2007, the last official data on
the Gross National Product (GNP) for each person in the State of Sinaloa was $5412.4
USD (Sinaloa State Government, 2007). México had a GNP of $14,200 USD for each
person that year (CIA, 2009). One of the most frequent measures of wealth distribution is
the Gini coefficient or Gini index, which is a measure of statistical dispersion with values
between one and cero. A high Gini index indicates a good distribution; a low Gini
coefficient, a bad distribution. Complete inequality corresponds to a value of one, in
which only one person has all the possible wealth, while everyone else has none. Perfect
equality corresponds to a value of cero, everyone having exactly the same income
(Abdul-Sathar, Suresh, & Muraleedharan, 2007). According to the National Institute of
Geography and Statistics (INEGI, 2006), the gap between the wealthy and poor in
México remained almost constant from 1996 (0.4558, INEGI, 2006) to 2008 (0.4820,
INEGI, 2009). Because of the inequities, México —and specifically Sinaloa—need to
improve job opportunities and salaries (Vizcarra, 2006).
Since entrepreneurship improves and spreads wealth (Khalil, 2006; Nickels,
McHugh, & McHugh, 2005), creating and expanding ventures are the best ways to
improve economic quality of living for low-income people in Sinaloa (Esquer, 2008). A
new generation of entrepreneurs has emerged in the state; most are not working in
agriculture, which historically is the most important economic business in the state. The
new entrepreneurial tendency is changing the traditional industry in the State to new and
diverse business (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). The research for this study focused on
this new tendency and the reasons for emerging entrepreneurship in Sinaloa State. Figure
1 shows the geographical location of Sinaloa within the Mexican territory.
Hisrich, Peters, and Shepherd (2008) defended the belief that entrepreneurs think
differently from nonentrepreneurs; entrepreneurs have similar archetypes of
understanding and acting, regardless of their country of origin. The proposed research
will study whether the personal characteristics of the most successful entrepreneurs in
Sinaloa show all, or some, of those personal characteristics that Hisrich, Peters, and
Shepherd found in entrepreneurs of other countries.
Figure 1. Map of the Mexican Republic. (Source: Enciclopedia Universal en Español, 2009)
Although Sinaloa has been the topic of several socio-economic research projects,
there is an absence of material about the topic of entrepreneurs in this state. The focus of
the greater part of available research on this topic is on mature economic contexts
(Davila, in press). Most of the literature focuses on managers living in the United States,
Europe, or Japan. Davila defended that scholars have investigated little on management
for Latin America, and specifically on México (Davila, in press).
No economic research could be found on entrepreneurs in the state of Sinaloa.
According to Muñoz (2006), he is the only one who has written on present-day
entrepreneurship in Sinaloa State. His research, however, has a sociological and historical
perspective, rather than an economic one. Given this lack of regional literature, this study
relied on the works of investigators concerned with entrepreneurial environments in
developed nations, rather than emerging economies that may not necessarily be suitable
for Sinaloa.
Regions as diverse as the United States, the European Community, and Latin
America necessarily reflect unique and distinct human and economic characteristics that
may not transfer across national borders. North American researchers tend to use
empirical techniques (i.e., quantitative analysis of the reality studied) and, thus, build
their research models on assumptions (Davila, in press). European researchers generally
use different instruments, more sensitive to differences among nations and the
implication of those differences within the business (Welter, & Lasch, 2008).
Research on entrepreneurship has three distinct perspectives (Muhanna, 2007). The
first view is the institutional one, which focuses on the role of economic, political, and
legal institutions in developing or restricting entrepreneurship in various places at
different times. The institutional perspective studies the environmental role of the credit
market in financing entrepreneurs, providing the right incentives for business leaders.
The second perspective focuses on the sociological variables that shape entrepreneurship.
The sociological view researches the role of values and social networks. The research
study proposed in this paper will work in a third perspective, which highlights the
individual characteristics of entrepreneurs. The individual perspective may include risk
tolerance, personal need for achievement, perseverance, self-confidence, and the ability
to acquire general skills for application in business (Hisrich et al., 2008; Muhanna, 2007).
The research proposed for this study examined the knowledge of successful
entrepreneurs. Usually, part of this wisdom is not directly observable because it exists in
the minds of the entrepreneurs, and they rarely write about or explain this wisdom
(Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). This work explicitly reviewed this implicit knowledge.
Implicit knowledge is not accessible to others; explicit knowledge is accessible to other
people. This explicit knowledge may produce benefits to the society.
Statement of the Problem
The general problem is the lack of entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State to generate
wealth as quickly as the population grows (Vizcarra, 2006). To acquire or develop
entrepreneurial characteristics, people who want to succeed as entrepreneurs must first
know what specific characteristics they need to develop and how to acquire them. The
aim of this research was to identify the characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. In this
Delphi research, a selected panel of entrepreneurs of Sinaloa State was studied to identify
which personal characteristics have allowed them to succeed in the business field. With
those characteristics, the present research study generated a profile that summarized the
personalities of the entrepreneurs who manage the largest firms in Sinaloa State. The
profile showed which personal characteristics enabled these entrepreneurs to lead their
firms, manage employees, seek innovation, and take risks. The profiles also showed the
role that ethics played in their success.
The population of the study is the 40 top people on the list that appeared in the
magazine Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). These
entrepreneurs have started firms or increased their companies’ sizes both in numbers of
employees as well as in profits. A sample of 12 was studied (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002;
Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The qualitative study proposed for this research
used the Delphi method to explore the personal characteristics of these businesspeople.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study, using a Qualitative Delphi design, was to determine the
important entrepreneurial characteristics that allowed the most successful entrepreneurs
in Sinaloa State to build up their companies. The study explored three main aspects of
entrepreneurial personal characteristics that the literature review reported: management
skills, innovative abilities (Drucker, 1985; Grau, & Sotomayor, 2008; Hisrich et al., 2008;
Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004), and ethical behavior (Llano, 1997; Hisrich et al., 2008;
Senser, 2007). The aforementioned characteristics were the research variables of the
current research study. The proposed research generated recommendations to be used to
nurture and support more entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. The study employed a Delphi
technique to gain insights from a group of experts who are the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. The Delphi started by asking 12 successful entrepreneurs
for their personal characteristics. The sample of 12 entrepreneurs was taken from the top
40 in Sinaloa State, as identified in the publication Bien Informado in September 2009
(“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). The researcher sought them in the order in which they
appear on the list of Bien Informado. When one entrepreneur was not able to participate
in the study, the researcher skipped that person and contacted the next one on the list.
The Delphi qualitative research method was suitable for the research problem,
which sought to explore a complex human situation and gain new understanding
(Creswell, 2005). A quantitative study, which began with a hypothesis and then sought
evidence to support or refute the hypothesis, was inappropriate for this research problem.
The Delphi technique is a consensus approach that uses knowledge and experience to
lend credible expertise to the profile. The profile and research mention the essential
competencies, and settle the framework to measure and optimize entrepreneurial ability,
development, education, performance, and training. The Delphi method can set up
communication between experts that own the same general core of knowledge, without
merging knowledge or building consensus (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002).
The Delphi research study proposed herein used expert feedback from three
questionnaires, administered chronologically, to determine the personal characteristics of
the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa. Appendix A shows the first questionnaire.
The researcher developed a second questionnaire by using the responses of the first
round. The final questionnaire was elaborated using answers from the second
questionnaire.
In the first round, the panelists independently judged the assigned topic of
discussion, after which a content analysis distinguished the major themes generated by
the initial unstructured questionnaire. The second- and third-round data made use of a
shared list of responses, analyzed, and calculated with median and mean scores, using
ranking techniques within a Likert-type scale.

Significance of the Study
Every organization depends on the competence of its leaders (Tichy, & Cohen,
2001). Entrepreneurs are the first and most important leaders in organizations (Cherem,
2008; Rhodes, & Donnelly-Cox, 2008). Entrepreneurs are a scarce resource in México
(Tirado, 2006). It is, therefore, important to know how to increase their numbers, thereby
increasing the economic and social wellbeing that they provide (Casson et al., 2006). The
aim of the current research study was to explore the personal characteristics of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. Finding personal characteristics of most of the
entrepreneurs, allowed the development of a common profile of the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa. This profile offers a path for those who want to develop into
successful entrepreneurs.
The role of entrepreneurship in economic development involves more than
just increasing per capita output and income; it involves initiating and
constituting change in the structure of business and society. This change is
accompanied by growth and increased output, which allows more wealth
to be divided by the various participants (Hisrich et al., 2008, p. 14).
The current research study is important for Sinaloa State, as it offers a concrete
way to increase the number of entrepreneurs.
Significance of the Study to Leadership
Casson et al. stated that “the theory of entrepreneurship does not yet possess an
adequate typology of personalities” (2006, p. 28). The current research fills part of that
gap by determining common characteristics in the personalities of the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa. The research findings enriched the research community and
leadership literature with fresh insight into the characteristics of entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
State. The design of the study allowed its reproduction in other geographic areas,
especially throughout México, with the aim of contributing to the improvement of
entrepreneurial competences in this country. The entrepreneurs studied in this research
also benefit, for by the end of the work, their own organizations had additional
knowledge to disseminate more easily throughout the business.
Nature of the Study
According to Creswell (2005), qualitative research was the most appropriate
method for research studies because the researcher, not knowing which variables need to
be explored, must discover that information by exploration of the participants.
Quantitative investigation begins with a closed-ended posture, identifying variables, and
selecting tools before the study begins. Quantitative research, which was more suitable
for the present research study, questions; hypotheses do not change during the study.
Cooper and Schindler (2006) described four exploratory methods for qualitative
research. The methods include experience surveys; focus groups; and a secondary, two-
stage data analysis design. Cooper and Schindler suggest the employment of research
using experience survey techniques when information is unavailable in a specific area of
study, as with the personal characteristics of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
State. The authors recommend “profit by seeking information from persons experienced
in the area of study, tapping into their collective memories and experiences” (p. 154).
Two-stage design techniques are created to be used when “much about the problem is not
known” (p. 150), so these techniques were not suitable for the present research study.
Data analysis techniques were not appropriate for the present research study because
there are not published data that could be analyzed.
The Delphi approach is an experience survey system. The Delphi technique
generates consensus among a group of experts using the knowledge and experience of the
participants. The Delphi technique was appropriate because this approach agrees to
identify areas that the sample participants consider important vis a vis the studied topic
(Huth, 2006). In the Delphi technique, asynchronous interventions allow participants to
contribute where, and how, it is convenient for them. No one dominates the discussion,
and everyone has equal opportunity for direct participation, thereby relieving all the
participants of social and group-think pressures (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002). Focus group
technique requires a group of people working at the same time.
Qualitative research studies the opinions of 12 of the 40 most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2008), collecting information
using the Delphi method. The Delphi technique is a method that asks a group of experts
to discuss and reach consensus on a complex problem, gathering expert feedback for
distillation (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002; Sheridan, 2005). Given the profile of the
participants, the Delphi technique was not only useful, but also essential, because the
entrepreneurs interviewed have limited free time with strict time constrictions. Iteration
happens through a survey method designed to obtain the opinions of sharing experts and
to measure and develop agreement between them through successive questioning, or
encircling (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). Iteration allowed controlled feedback,
which happens between successive survey rounds. The investigator analyzes resulted
from each round and then returned answers to all participants. The participants viewed
the group’s responses before they begin the next round.
Additional qualitative research techniques were assessed and discarded. Those
options were the case study as well as historical, ethnographical, phenomenological, and
interactive techniques. “Case study research is a methodologically flexible approach to
research design that focuses on a particular case whether an individual, a collective or a
phenomenon of interest” (Rosenberg, & Yates, 2007, p. 447). This technique was
discarded because “the methodological flexibility ... can leave the novice researcher
uncertain of suitable procedural steps required to ensure methodological rigor”
(Rosenberg, & Yates, 2007, p. 447). Historical research aims to rebuild the past
methodically by gathering, synthesizing, and evaluating evident facts (Huth, 2006). The
historical research technique did not fit into the purpose of the current research study.
Ethnographical techniques did not apply for the current research study because
ethnography is a research technique that offers an approach to discovering the culture in
workplaces (Barton, 2008). In phenomenological research, the investigator looks for
interpretations and views of people regarding a particular phenomena or incident.
(Mastain, 2007) “With the interactive research method, the researcher serves as a
facilitator for problem solving or as a catalyst between the research findings and those
individuals most likely to benefit ... from the findings” (Huth, 2006, p 13).
The size of the sample was chosen using criteria from Skulmoski, Hartman, and
Krahn (2007), who defended that a sample within a homogeneous group of 10 to 15
people could offer sufficient results. Linstone and Turoff (2002) defended that, in fact-
finding questions, groups of 11 participants had the highest performance. The result of
this study is a list of characteristics that built the personal profile of the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa. Table 7 and Figure 3 provided the importance given to each
characteristic by members of the sample group, and the percentage of experts who gave a
specific mark to each characteristic in a Likert-scale.
Theoretical Framework
A theory is a set of systematically interrelated ideas, definitions, and propositions
offered to categorize observed data in consequential ways. Theories predict and explain
data, making sense of likenesses and differences (Cooper, & Schindler, 2006). The
theoretical framework that guides this Delphi study includes psychological theories of
leadership, management, entrepreneurial theory, and ethics.
Personality is a person’s way of behaving; the fruit of different feelings and
thoughts. It includes behavioral characteristics, both genetic and learned. Diverse
personalities distinguish one person from another. Personality is most clearly expressed
in interactions with other people and can be observed in an individual's relationship to the
social group. Personality is reflected in everyday behavior and includes opinions,
attitudes, and moods (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009).
A personal profile is a description that summarizes the main personal
characteristics of an individual’s personality (Oxford dictionary, 2008). Different theories
of entrepreneurship have diverse opinions regarding the personalities and profiles of
entrepreneurs (Casson et al., 2006; Khalil, 2006). Investigations of emotional intelligence
in entrepreneurs found that successful entrepreneurs have emotional intelligence levels
beyond the norm (Rhee &White, 2007). Timmons and Spinelli (2004) defended a
consensus on six dominant characteristics of entrepreneurship profile. These six

dominant themes, with their related attitudes and behaviors are: “(1) commitment and
determination; (2) leadership; (3) opportunity obsession; (4) tolerance of risk, ambiguity,
and uncertainty; (5) creativity, [autonomy, and the] ability to adapt; and, (6) motivation to
excel” (p. 250).
The proposed study fits into the framework of the entrepreneur using the two
focuses that IPADE (the business school of Universidad Panamericana) teachers, Grau
and Sotomayor (2008), identified as necessary for an entrepreneur. The first necessary
characteristic is the ability to manage a firm. The second characteristic is the capacity to
take risks when creating something new; that is, the dedication of energies, money, and
time while facing personal and social risks (Hisrich et al., 2008).
Note that Figure 2 illustrates the two abilities graphically. The vertical axis shows
the capacity for growth in management abilities; the horizontal axis shows innovation and
risk (Ruiz, 2008). The two focuses produce leaders with two different mindsets. One of
the main issues in entrepreneurial studies concerns finding people who have growth in
both of these diverse areas. (Stevenson and Gumpert (1985) stated that growth in two
directions simultaneously is not possible.)
The application of entrepreneurial character causes economic growth and
employment. Economic growth generation is the fruit of entrepreneurial innovation and
change. Transformations in the economy change the knowledge of society in a cyclical
process (Alvarez, 2005; Carree & Thurik, 2005; Hisrich et al., 2008; Metcalf, 2006).
Entrepreneurs need to find, evaluate, and develop an opportunity to create something
valuable and innovative, despite discouraging forces. Diverse authors divided the
entrepreneurial process into different steps (Casson et al., 2006; Hisrich et al., 2008;
Mankelow & Cunneen, 2007). In this study, the entrepreneurial process will be separated
into five phases:
1. Development of the opportunity
2. Evaluation of the opportunity
3. Development of the entrepreneurial plan
4. Determination and acquisition of the required sources
5. Management of the new entrepreneurship entity
Ethics is a concern in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs, as members of society
with rights, have obligations at the same time. As members of the society, they are
responsible for common interests. Businesses have the right to earn profits; however, that
right brings with it the responsibility and the duty of taking care of all the stakeholders.
The list of the stakeholders must include employees, suppliers, neighbors, customers, and
stockholders (Senser, 2007).
Rules are useful ways to promote ethical behavior in business; however, rules
cannot drive social responsibility without personal morality. The personal foundation of
ethics comes from the personal values of the entrepreneurs and the rest of the
stakeholders (Hemingway 2005; Llano, 1997). Entrepreneurial actions bring change, and
entrepreneurs must work in such a way as to protect and empower all affected by the
modifications.
Figure 2. Two focuses of growing in entrepreneurial abilities. (Source: Translated and adapted
with permission from Ruiz, C. (2008) in the preface of Emprender o dirigir [To instigate or to
manage]. J. Grau and J. M. Sotomayor p. 9. México. D. F.: Panorama editorial. Permission of the
author is in Appendix B.)
Research Question
What personal characteristics enable the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
to succeed?
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of definitions for terms used in this study.
Entrepreneur: A person who applies innovative and management abilities to a firm in
which s/he is the mayor stockholder (Grau & Sotomayor, 2008).
Entrepreneurship: “The process of creating something new with value by devoting the
necessary time and effort, assuming financial, psychic and social risk and
receiving the resulting reward of money and personal satisfaction and
independence” (Hisrich et al., 2008, p. 8).
Successful entrepreneurship in Sinaloa State: People whose names were listed in top 40
positions in the article Los 100 empresarios más importantes de Sinaloa [100
most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa] (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2008).
Profile: A description that summarizes the main personal characteristics of an
individual’s personality (Oxford dictionary, 2008).
Assumptions
Participants in this Delphi study characterize entrepreneurial experts in Sinaloa
State who were willing to share their notions of what makes them successful. An
assumption was that these contributing experts offered important insights into what
entrepreneurs need to develop firms successfully. Another supposition was that
developing innovation and management abilities for dealing with enterprises remain as an
integral objective for success. The final assumption was that the Delphi technique will
accurately interpret the findings.
Scope Limitations and Delimitations
The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State own and manage firms that
have branches or subsidiaries outside Sinaloa or México; however, the origin of the
business and main office of the company is in Sinaloa State. This Delphi study remains
limited in determining the concepts important for the personal characteristics of the
entrepreneurs and did not attempt to establish a definitive definition. The study
researched their personal characteristics only; other factors that could help them to
succeed (previous personal or familiar financial power, family relations, and specific
support from the government) were not studied. The study was also limited to the
asynchronous feedback gathered from a selected group of intercultural participants.
The data that supports the current research study was obtained from the expert
participants, so the success of the research relied on the honestly and good intentions of
the participants. A potential problem was the subjectivity of the expert entrepreneurs.
Although the methodology of the current study and the questionnaire placed in Appendix
A are a first step for further research in entrepreneurship, the conclusions of the current
research cannot be generalized to different groups of entrepreneurs, to other states of
Mexican Republic, or to other countries.
Summary
The purpose of Chapter 1 was to establish the research topic, to describe the
background, to present the problem and the purpose of the current study, to describe the
significance and the nature of the study, and to present a theoretical framework. Research
questions were highlighted and definitions were addressed. Chapter 1 identified the need
to conduct research to analyze the profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
(“Los 100 empresarios,” 2008) as a means to increasing the economic and social
wellbeing that entrepreneurs provide in this state within the Mexican Republic (Alvarez,
2005; Carree & Thurik, 2005; Hisrich et al., 2008; Metcalf, 2006).
A Delphi research methodology explored the personal characteristics that define
that profile, according to the experts’ entrepreneurs to be surveyed. The current study
explored three main aspects of entrepreneurial personal characteristics that literature
review reported: management skills, innovative abilities (Drucker, 1985; Grau &
Sotomayor, 2008; Hisrich et al., 2008; Timmons & Spinelli, 2004), and ethical behavior
(Hisrich et al., 2008; Llano, 1997; Senser, 2007). The study focused on the following
research question: What personal characteristics have promoted entrepreneurial success
to these successful entrepreneurs? Chapter 2 includes the background of this research and
reviews relevant theoretical and empirical literature.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
The proposed Delphi study of the most successful entrepreneurs in the State of
Sinaloa, México discovered common characteristics, indicating a common profile.
Chapter 1 introduced the research topic and defined the problem, purpose, significance,
limits, definitions of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter 2 comprises a study of
the literature related to the history of entrepreneurship, the different ideas prevailing in
current literature related to entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial process, and the social
responsibility of entrepreneurs. Creswell (2005) suggested reviewing the literature before
collecting information on social research projects.
Documentation
Preliminary searches (using the University of Phoenix Library Internet search
engine’s EBSCOhost database) discovered available resources for understanding the
personal profile of entrepreneurs, their leadership abilities, and the relation of ethics to
their success. Bibliographic and reference listings were also used from appropriate titles
for further literature searches, as a variety of university libraries accessed through
interlibrary loan services. Title searches that related specifically to issues surrounding
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship in México, and ethics were employed. The search also
included recently published books by leaders in entrepreneurship and leadership theory
(Acs & Audretsch, 2005; Bass & Bass, 2008; Casson et al., 2006; Crossan et al., 2005;
Davidsson, 2005; Grau & Sotomayor, 2008; Hisrich et al., 2008; Kaplan & Warren,
2007; Kotler & Keller, 2006; Llano, 2004; O’Neil, 2004; Patterson et al., 2008; Tichy &
Cohen, 2001; Timmons & Spinelli, 2004; Wren, 2005).
Brief History of Entrepreneurship

The practice of entrepreneurship started thousands of years before the birth of
Christ. Among the first significant economic organizations documented were the
Egyptians and the Mesopotamians near 3000 B.C. For these civilizations, religious and
physical strength were key elements in assuring control of their expanding businesses and
protecting their profits. Large business went along with politics and religion (Alvear,
2005). The Phoenicians started trade on a large scale with the first private organizations
(Holst, 2005). Although the Greeks did not have possessions in many countries, they
contributed to the ideas and practices of economic and social decision making (Trever,
2008).
Despite the influence of the Greeks, the Romans were the first entrepreneurs to
develop corporations that owned lands in different nations (Okoye, 2007). Some wealthy
families had productive lands in different parts of the Roman Empire and needed more
labor to work these holdings; thus, they used slaves and free servants to work all their
possessions. Barbarians invaded the Roman Empire, resulting in the fall of the empire
and, consequently, the companies of these families (Devlin, 2009; Heather, 2006).
In the High Middle Ages, Venetian entrepreneurs, bankers, and merchants
developed companies that pervaded much of Europe, and developed the ability to govern
remote branches of their companies (Dursteler, 2006). Entrepreneurs in 14th century
Toulouse, Southern France, developed corporate governance institutions that endured for
600 years. The French entrepreneurs developed a method for pooling their capital,
bringing high return on investments and spreading risks. These educated citizens created
the first public companies with methods for controlling employees, customers, suppliers,
and the veracity of stockholders, as well as a means to keep the government out of private
business (Markley, 2007).
The first worldwide empires appeared between the 16th and 18th centuries. Spain,
France, and England (upon the discovery of the Americas and coasts of Asia and Africa)
established colonies in new remote continents and fixed their economic importance (De
Vos, 2006; O’Rourke, & Williamson, 2009). International traders, especially the English,
developed large enterprises for trade. As the profits of trade enlarged, the old aristocracy
in England began to accept trade as a respectable activity. “The agricultural and industrial
revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries finally produced the modern multifaceted
image of the entrepreneur” (Ricketts, 2006, p. 37). According to Wren (2005), “Richard
Cantillon, appears to have been the first to use the word entrepreneur in an economic
sense” (p. 42). He lived in Paris in the beginning of the 18th century.
The industrial revolution started at the end of the 18th century and brought, for the
first time in history, many people working under the same roof in large factories (Mokyr
& Nye, 2007). The managers who ran these businesses focused on improving
productivity. Hiring, training, motivating, and disciplining workers in these factories
became new issues.
The industrial revolution caused large changes in the structure of the society;
entrepreneurs became a driving force in that transformation (Stearns, 2007; Vázquez,
Gómez, & Lugo, 2005). This change in the social structure produced large differences
between rich entrepreneurs and poor workers. These disparities caused intellectual
reactions against the entrepreneurs. Karl Marx was the main writer who lashed out
against entrepreneurs (Nickels, McHugh, & McHugh, 2005). In the late 19th and early
20th centuries, entrepreneurs were often not distinguished from managers. In these times
many authors defended the role of entrepreneurs, seeing them as the main sources of
economic development (Casson et al., 2006; Guzmán, 2006). The economic perspective
of entrepreneurship started in the middle of the 20th century (Casson et al., 2006).
The role of entrepreneurship in society changed drastically in the last half of the
20th century (Acs, & Audretsch, 2005). Entrepreneurship grew in a free environment
after World War II, a key element in the consolidation of the U.S. economy. The U.S.
became the most powerful country in the world, a position that was challenged during the
cold war by the Soviet Union (Gohmann, Hobbs, & McCrickard, 2008).
The globalization that has integrated the world into one common market began at
the end of the 20th century. The beginning of the 21st century posed large challenges for
entrepreneurs. Worldwide trade and transnational companies are common realities in the
first decade of the 21st century and investigators need to delve into those realities, their
causes, and their consequences (Holst, 2009; Patel, & Conklin, 2009; Terjesen,
Entrepreneurship needs continuing research to prevent gaps in the literature.
According to Grégoire, Noël, Déry, and Béchard (2006), the main topics that researchers
explored about entrepreneurship since 1981 can be classified in six groups:
1. “Social psychology of organizing” (p. 343)
2. “Theory of the growth of the firm” (p. 343)
3. “New venture formation” (p. 344)
4. “Competitive strategy” (p. 344)
5. “Venture capitalists ... and new-venture funding” (p. 344)
6. “The role of social networks in entrepreneurship” (p. 344)

Different Views of Entrepreneurship
Ricketts (2006) said Cantillon (1680–1734), an Irish economist, coined the term
entrepreneur. Cantillon defined an entrepreneur as a person who specializes in taking
risks. Knight (1885–1972), an American economist, refined this idea, distinguishing
between risk (recurrent events with a known probability) and uncertainty (events where
the probability is unknown). Knight said the judgment of men is more important for
achievement as entrepreneurs than the judgment of things, such as financial or technical
resources (Chamorro, Zapata, & Montenegro, 2008; Ricketts, 2006). Wren (2005) said
that Jean Baptiste Say (1767–1832), studying the agricultural entrepreneurs, provided a
better clarification of the entrepreneurial function. Say explained “entrepreneurship
requires judgment, perseverance, and knowledge of the world, as well as of business” (p.
42). Entrepreneurs must be adept in the art of superintendence and administration.
Entrepreneurs, at the same time, must provide work for a great deal of employees, buy
raw materials, find consumers, and give attention to economy and order.
In the 20th century, the Austrian school of economics viewed the entrepreneur as
an intermediator who found unexploited opportunities for trade. “Profit is not a return for
bearing uncertainty as much as reward for pure alertness” (Ricketts, 2006, p.48). From
this perspective, an entrepreneur's strength comes from the ability to assign resources and
the capacity to get and process information, creating needed knowledge to get and
distribute those resources.
Schumpeter (1883–1950) was the head of the Austrian school of economics. He
defined the entrepreneur as an innovator who precipitates revolutions in the economic
system. He said the entrepreneurs change the model of production by using a new idea or
by working an old concept in a new way. Entrepreneurs discover a pattern for selling
products or services and finding new sources of supplies. Schumpeter defended that the
economy of a country develops in business cycles by the innovation produced by these
individuals (Hospers, 2005). Other authors (Cordeiro, 2008; Montanye, 2006) focused
their studies on the risks involved in decision making, or resource availability within
organizations and society. These ideas expanded upon the entrepreneurial concept
introduced by Schumpeter half a century before (Ricketts, 2006). During the last years of
the second millennium, the divisions between different theories of entrepreneurship
narrowed (Khalil, 2006; Hebert & Link, 2006). Many economists working in this field
have shifted their focus to the conditions for entrepreneurial activities as governed by
social interaction, property rights, and cost transactions (Ricketts, 2006).
Definition of Entrepreneurship
Although many authors, such as Casson et al. (2006) and Davidsson (2005) noted
that entrepreneurship is not a concept that has a tightly agreed-upon definition, this study
needs to clarify this concept. The word entrepreneurship, etymologically, is derived from
the 17th century French word entreprendre, which significances to undertake. The
French word refers specifically to the individuals who “undertook the risk of new
enterprises” (Kaplan, & Warren, 2007, p. 5). According to Kaplan and Warren, an
entrepreneur is someone “who is willing and eager to create a new venture to present a
concept to the marketplace” (p. 400). This definition is too narrow for the perspective of
this dissertation.
Hisrich et al. (2008) wrote one of the definitions of entrepreneurship on which
many 21st century investigators agree (Visser, de Coning, & Smit, 2005). This definition
includes four main elements:
1. The creation of new process, products, or services with higher value than the
previous ones in a specific market;
2. The dedication of the necessary energies, effort, and time to achieve the endeavor;
3. The financial, psychic, emotive, and social risks of staring something new;
4. The personal rewards of satisfaction, independence, and money.
The advantage of this definition is that it does not limit the entrepreneurial process for
new ventures. Hisrich et al. said that improving the value of an existing firm requires
greater effort than starting a new company. They also state that expanding a firm is
helpful in developing the society.
This vision of the term entrepreneur is closer to the word empresario in the
Spanish language. The latest edition of the Real Academia Española (2006) [Royal
Spanish Academy Dictionary] defined empresario as the “titular propietario o directivo
de una industria, negocio o empresa” (p. 566) [official owner or manager of an industry,
business, or enterprise]. The Spanish idea of entrepreneur is in line with the scope of the
definition adopted for this work. According to this definition, all managers who own a
part of the business, manage the firm, and create new paths of development with new
value are entrepreneurs.
Two faculty of IPADE developed a useful frame to study entrepreneurship. Grau
and Sotomayor (2008) defined the personal profile of an entrepreneur using the axis of
growing. The first characteristic an entrepreneur must have is the ability to manage a
firm. The second characteristic is the capacity for innovation in the face of creating
something new. The innovation must have a value greater than the time, effort, and risks
involved in developing it. Figure 2 shows the two abilities graphically.
Entrepreneurship and Economic Development
Entrepreneurship is a key element in economic development to the degree that
entrepreneurs’ innovations change the structure of businesses and society by producing
economic growth (Buttress, & Macke, 2008; Kamien, 2008; Kor, Mahoney, & Michael,
2007; Nickels, McHugh, & McHugh, 2005). The changes in business and society channel
more wealth to various participants in the economic cycle (Hisrich et al., 2008). Carree
and Thurik (2005) found empirical evidence to support the idea that political systems that
promote and generate an entrepreneurial spirit produce economic growth and
employment. Hisrich et al. explained that entrepreneurship causes growth because it
generates change and innovation, and therefore, creates conduits for knowledge
spillovers.
Although almost all economists accepted these ideas, historically some theorists
disagreed. Well-known theorist, Karl Marx, developed a theory based on the assumption
that labor alone determines the value of the products or services, and that initiative does
not play a specific role in economic development. Marx developed his ideas searching for
the same income for all people. Different work needs different effort, diverse preparation,
and varied risks; thus, the reward of different incomes for the varying jobs and risks must
be diverse. Communism has another problem, this economical system does not encourage
people to work hard; in this social structure the government takes most of their earnings.
For that reason, in the beginning of 21st century, communism has almost disappeared
(Nickels, McHugh, & McHugh, 2005).
The production-evolution process, the course of action by which an entrepreneur
develops and commercializes an innovation, is the key element of entrepreneurial
activity. Its starting point is the technological area, and ends with services or products
available for selling in the market. The critical point in this production-evolution process
is the intersection of recognized social needs and the resources that can resolve them. In
this critical point, entrepreneurs need to concentrate their efforts in generating a
marketable innovation (Hisrich et al., 2008).
Entrepreneurs bet that their combination of heterogeneous resources of
technology, money, knowledge, and social relations can generate a production function at
a suitable cost. The cost is suitable when it is smaller than the price that the markets agree
to pay for that item or service (Ouyang & Rau, 2008). The insecurity of the production
function happens for two reasons: (a) the uncertainty of what the factors of production are
and how they interact, and (b) the unknown abilities of the entrepreneurs coordinating
these production factors (Alvarez, 2005).
Metcalf (2006) explained that economic growth always follows development by
changing economic structure. For this process, entrepreneurs create and implement
organizations with new activities, processes, or products that override the previous ones
and fill gaps in the market. These new activities emerge from innovation, which is the
key element, not for only developing new services or products for consumers, but also in
motivating venture interest in new activities. This new investment works both on the
supply- and demand-side of the growth process. That is, new resources on the supply-side
expand the capacity for growth, and the new expenses foster greater output and capacity
on the demand-side.
Entrepreneurial Personality
The word personality comes from the Latin persona, which means mask. The
Latin word derives from the Greek word prosopon, which has the same meaning.
Personality is a term that has had different meanings throughout the evolution of diverse
psychology schools. Encyclopedia Britannica (2009) explains “No definition of
personality has found universal acceptance within the field” (¶ 2). Although personality is
not a universal concept, in the present research study, it is understood as personal way of
behaving; the fruit of different feelings and thoughts. It includes behavioral
characteristics, both natural and learned. Diverse personalities distinguish one human
being from another. Personality is most clearly expressed in interactions with other
people and can be observed in a person’s relationship to the social group. Personality,
reflected in everyday behavior, includes opinions, attitudes, and moods (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 2009).
A profile is a description that summaries the personal characteristics of an
individual. A personal profile is a filter based on individual characteristics of the
personality. Psychologists develop profiles of people to show, at a glance, which
characteristics of the personality show strengths and which characteristics explain
weakness in different circumstances. Knowledge of a person’s profile explains quickly
the reason for the success or failure in specific tasks or professions (Oxford dictionary,
2008).
Hisrich et al. (2008) said that entrepreneurs have similar personalities, regardless
of their countries of origin. These authors explained that even throughout diverse national
cultures, they found cultural profiles that spanned national boundaries. At subcultural
levels, individuals who share a significant core of behaviors show similar personalities.
Entrepreneurs constitute a subcultural group in each country. The personalities of
entrepreneurs in different countries have common characteristics; the personalities within
countries have a specific uniqueness, congruent with the national culture and are, thus,
distinct. This distinction is observable upon examination at a finer level of granularity
(Hisrich et al., 2008).
Entrepreneurs need social skills that help them interact effectively with others.
Social capital built on a favorable reputation, direct personal contacts, and relevant
experience helps entrepreneurs gain access to potential customers, venture capitalists, and
valuable information. With polished social skills, entrepreneurs' relations can influence
their successes (De Carolis, & Saparito, 2006; Huang, Chou, & Sun, 2009). Specific
social skills, such as the ability to make favorable first impressions, to adjust to a broad
range of social situations, to understand others correctly, and to be convincing can
influence the quality of these contacts. Social skills (helping entrepreneurs to expand
their personal networks) may also contribute to their social capital (De Carolis &
Saparito, 2006; Downing, 2005; Mathews, 2008).
Law, Wong, and Song said authors define emotional intelligence using different
constructs. These authors said that emotional intelligence measures emotion-related
skills. They built a four-dimensional definition that measures:

(1) Individual’s ability to understand his or her deep emotions and to be
able to express emotions naturally. . . .
(2) Individual’s ability to perceive and understand the emotions of the
people around them. . . .
(3) The ability of a person to regulate his or her emotions, enabling a more
rapid recovery from psychological distress. A person with high ability in
this area would be able to return quickly to normal psychological. . . .
(4) The ability of a person to make use of his or her emotions by directing
them toward constructive activities and personal performance (2004, p.
484).
People with high emotional intelligence use knowledge to influence others
through emotional regulation and control (Trujillo, & Rivas, 2008). Rhee and White
(2007) studied emotional intelligence in entrepreneurs. In their surveys, they found that
successful entrepreneurs have an emotional intelligence level beyond the norm. Rhee and
White (2007) cited studies that participating entrepreneurs show “high levels of self-
confidence, trustworthiness, achievement orientation, service orientation, empathy,
change catalyst, teamwork and collaboration” (p. 421).
Successful entrepreneurs learn from business failure. Hisrich et al. (2008)
believed humankind learns more from failures than from success. Entrepreneurs show
their emotional intelligence in the grief recovery process that follows business failure.
Entrepreneurs recover from business grief because their personalities show proactive and
communicative attitudes against problems. According to Schermerhorn, Hunt, and

Osborn (2005), successful entrepreneurs begin, continue, and end the entrepreneurial
process believing in them.
The Entrepreneurial Mindset
“Although successful people in all fields share similar qualities that move them to
the top—desire, determination, and drive, for instance—they each have a different
approach that gives them a unique edge” (O’Neil, 2004, p. xiii). Entrepreneurs think
differently from nonentrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs have a specific mindset (Hisrich et al.,
2008; Kor, Mahoney, & Michael, 2007). These cognitive courses of thinking allow them
to assess opportunities and the perceptions of the risk that these conditions involve.
Wadeson (2006) defended the idea that entrepreneurial research should
acknowledge the criticisms and counterarguments made by psychologists. The dialogue
between entrepreneurial researchers and psychologists remains ongoing, because there
are topics about the entrepreneurial mindset on which these scientists do not agree.
However, both human sciences agree that most entrepreneurs have cognitive adaptability
mindsets. Entrepreneurs are dynamic, flexible, and self-regulated. Entrepreneurs produce
multiple-decision frameworks focused on sensing and processing changes in their
environments (Hisrich et al., 2008).
Differing opinions exist on the criteria for distinguishing between administrative
managers and entrepreneurs. Stevenson and Gumpert (1985) wrote that entrepreneurship
characterizes a way of running an existing company that is different from that of
traditional management. Metcalf stated, “The manager can live comfortably in an
equilibrium world whereas the entrepreneur cannot” (2006, p. 83). The entrepreneur
usually expects to face risk, whereas unimaginative managers try to avoid it (Metcalf,
2006). Stevenson and Gumpert support the idea that entrepreneurship is distinct from
traditional management in five specific dimensions. These dimensions are: “(a) strategic
orientation, (b) commitment to opportunity, (c) commitment of resources, (d) control of
resources, (e) management structure” (p. 85).
Opportunity drives the strategic orientation of entrepreneurs, whereas
administrative focus prefers to control resources. The commitment to opportunity moves
entrepreneurs’ behaviors, although managers usually keep calm and analyze before acting
(Hisrich et al., 2008). In the presence of an opportunity, people with an administrative
focus usually wait to build a hierarchical manager structure before acting, but
entrepreneurs do not stay calm, even though they could produce chaos inside the
organizations. Entrepreneurs usually base their reward philosophy on value creation,
while administrators prefer to recompense using criteria of responsibility and seniority.
Managers prefer that business grow in a safe, stable way, even if that means development
could be slow. Entrepreneurs choose to increase the size of the business as far as they
can, and they accept risk to achieve company growth. The administrative culture prefers
to avoid risk by controlling the entrepreneurial focus (Hisrich et al., 2008; Stevenson, &
Gumpert, 1985).
Entrepreneurship and Invention
Although the cultural, political, and social environment influences creativity in
science, art, and entrepreneurship, all innovative product or service comes from a single
concurrence of individual intellective skills (Llano, 2004). Studying creative
development Madjar (2008) found “significant relations between creativity and emotional
support from primary unit and other work related individuals and informational support
from primary unit and nonwork-related individuals” (p. 83).
An inventor is an individual who creates something for the first time, regardless
of monetary benefits. On the other hand, an entrepreneur creates the organization to do
something for the first time, searching for economical profits (Hisrich et al., 2008). The
focus of the inventor is the invention itself, whereas, the focus of the entrepreneur is the
survival and growth of the organization as well as the monetary regard of that growth
(Hisrich et al., 2008). People with entrepreneurial states of mind achieve; when
entrepreneurs start a project, they prefer to move forward inside the project instead of
considering new independent ideas (Kaplan, & Warren, 2007).
Enterprise is a persuasive action that changes the rules of economic decisions.
Innovative entrepreneurs generate the new rules of the game. Adaptive entrepreneurs
acclimatize organizations to those rules (Hisrich et al., 2008). Metcalf (2006) defines
entrepreneurship as the agency that changes the rules and affects their implementation in
an economic environment. Entrepreneurs are the leaders who carry out those changes.
Metcalf (2006) characterizes enterprise as the act of following those leaders successfully.
Baron and Ensley (2006) explained entrepreneurship as alertness to new opportunities
and the sequence of innovative actions that follow the discovery of such an opportunity.
Entrepreneurs with the greatest entrepreneurial abilities, especially decision skills, have
the highest probability of success in organization building and economic success (Koppl
2008).
Entrepreneurship and Leadership Style
The leadership style of entrepreneurs has a strong impact on the innovativeness
and the performance of the organization. Although the relationship between leadership
styles and entrepreneurial strategies is complex, researchers tried to determine if a
particular leadership style usually produces innovations, growth, and profitability. Results
of diverse investigations show that transformational leadership can sponsor a vigorous
entrepreneurial strategy (Gómez, 2008).
Transformational leadership encourages radical change. In a world with changes
in technology and international competition, more enterprises need the capacity and the
capability to enter into, and to compete in, world markets. The “transformational style has
a positive, direct impact on innovation, growth, and profitability” (Matzler, Schwarz,
Deutinger, & Harms, 2008, p. 37). Innovation positively influences growth and
profitability. As transformational leadership is a behavioral process, parents, teachers and
society must encourage in potential entrepreneurs those behaviors that are in accord with
this leadership profile; (Tarabishy, Solomon, Fernald, & Sashkin, 2005; Visser et al.,
2005).
Transformational leadership is a systematic personality that promotes change and
innovation. Transformational leaders encourage organizations with cultural values and
norms that reward innovation, development, change, and respect for the individual (Bass,
& Bass, 2008). Leaders move followers further than direct self-interests and elevate the
follower’s level of ideals and maturity as well as concerns for realization; self-
actualization; and the wellbeing of the organization, the environment, and the whole
society. These kinds of leaders influence and inspire others to imagine a desirable future.
Transformational entrepreneurs articulate for the organization the ability to reach the
foreseen goal. Leading the firm in the path to the future, the entrepreneurs set an example
with elevated values of performance, and show confidence and determination. Followers
desire to identify with such leadership. Leaders exhibit intellectual stimulation, helping
supporters to become more creative and innovative. Entrepreneurs display individualized
consideration, paying attention to the developmental requirements of followers, and
supporting and coaching the improvement of the followers. Transformational leaders
delegate assignments as opportunities for development (Bass, & Bass, 2008).
Patterson et al. (2008) defined leaders as people who have the ability to influence
others to change. These authors said that leaders first analyze the behaviors of people,
looking for the conduct that should change. Patterson et al. then explain how leaders can
change people’s minds, showing different methods such as changing expectations,
sharing personal experience, and using stories. Patterson et al. focused the second part of
the book on their strategic model, which works to master influence. They developed six
sources of influence—two personal sources, two social sources, and two structural
sources. The personal sources (a) make the undesirable desirable, and (b) surpass your
limits. The social sources are (a) harness peer pressure, and (b) find strength in numbers.
The structural sources are: (a) design rewards and demand accountability, and (b) change
the environment.
The Entrepreneurial Process
The entrepreneurial process is either a procedure that embodies a new venture, or
a process of creating something new with substantial value in a previously existing
organization. Entrepreneurs need to find, evaluate, and develop an opportunity by

prevailing over the forces that defy forming something innovative and valuable. Diverse
authors divided the entrepreneurial process into different steps (Casson et al., 2006;
Hisrich et al., 2008; Mankelow, & Cunneen, 2007). In this study, the entrepreneurial
process will be separated into five different phases:
1. Development of the opportunity
2. Evaluation of the opportunity
3. Development of the entrepreneurial plan
4. Determination and acquisition of the needed sources
5. Management of the new entrepreneurship entity
Development of the Opportunity
Entrepreneurs who “passionately seek new opportunities and are always looking
for the chance to profit from change and disruption in the way business is done” (Kaplan,
& Warren, 2007, p. 13) must be able to recognize a business occasion to succeed.
Entrepreneurs need knowledge and expertise to recognize these opportunities.
Knowledge and expertise come from a combination of an educational background and an
alertness or social capital (Hisrich et al., 2008). Baron and Ensley (2006), who studied the
importance of experience for entrepreneurs in identifying new business opportunities,
researched the cognitive frameworks that entrepreneurs use to connect unrelated trends or
events and find patterns in those connections to create new services or products. In
comparing novice and veteran entrepreneurs, Baron and Ensley found that the
the prototypes of experienced entrepreneurs were more clearly defined,
richer in content, and more concerned with factors and conditions related
to actually starting and running a new venture (e.g., generation of positive
cash flow) than the prototypes of novice entrepreneurs. (p. 1331)
Most entrepreneurs keep some “form of inventory of unexploited opportunities”
(Kaplan, & Warren, 2007, p. 13). Entrepreneurs make sure that they revisit often their
opportunities catalogs; however, they proceed only when occasions are suitable. They
invest only if the opportunity is competitive, ready to begin, and the environment is
attractive. Successful entrepreneurs follow only the best opportunities, keeping away
from exhausting their companies, following every available alternative. Most successful
entrepreneurs stay unfeelingly disciplined about restraining the quantity of projects they
pursue. “Even though many habitual entrepreneurs are wealthy, the most successful
remain ruthlessly disciplined about limiting the number of projects they pursue. They go
after a tightly controlled portfolio of opportunities in different stages of development”
(Kaplan, & Warren, 2007, p. 13).
Several authors (Drucker, 1985; Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004) focused on
entrepreneurial thinking in the importance of innovation as a means of forming
opportunities. Timmons and Spinelli noted that, “at the heart of the entrepreneurial
process is the innovative spirit” (2004, p. 10). Drucker, too, recognized that “innovation
is the specific tool of entrepreneurs” (1985, p. 19). Successful entrepreneurs pursue
opportunities with enormous discipline (Kaplan, & Warren, 2007), understanding that the
ideas could not arrive without effort. Intuition is not enough to produce wealthy
innovation.
Drucker (1985) said that entrepreneurs develop organized, rational innovation by
“the purposeful and organized search for changes and in the systematic analysis of the
opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social innovation” (p. 35). He
explained that rational innovation is the fruit of examining the “seven sources of
innovative opportunity” (p. 35). The first four sources, according to Drucker, lie within
the enterprise. The last three sources of innovative opportunities involve changes outside
the organization. These sources are:
1. “The unexpected—success, failure, or event
2. The incongruity between the assumed reality and actual reality
3. Innovation based on process need
4. Changes that catch everyone unawares in the structure of industry or
market
5. Demographics changes
6. Transformations in perception, mood, and meaning
7. New knowledge, both scientific and nonscientific.” (p.35)
Evaluation of the Opportunity
After an entrepreneur develops an idea that is a good business opportunity, the
market size becomes the main cause in deciding the risks and the rewards. Even if the
market is safe, there may be risks, such as competition from other firms or lack of
technology, capital, human resources, or suppliers. Diverse authors who proposed
different systems to evaluate risks and rewards studied only successful entrepreneurs in
characterizing a marketing perspective. Marketing entrepreneurship is an intellectual
discipline in which the best performance in a given market is the result of the marketing
mix (Carter, 2006).

Kotler and Keller (2006) defined the marketing mix as the different combinations
of product, price, promotion, and distribution offered to a market segment in a specific
moment. Market segments are parts of the market with the same needs or wants and the
same buying capacity. Marketing entrepreneurship offers entrepreneurs a group of tools
to enable success in competitive environments. Marketing uses positioning to
differentiate products, associating different ideas with diverse products. Marketing
research is a tool for finding customer tastes and preferences. Competitor analysis is a
tool used to understand competitor strengths and weakness. Finally, the analysis of the
marketing environment is a tool that tracks economic, technical, social, and political
trends (Carter, 2006).
Bishop and Nixon (2006) believed that evaluation of opportunities must be a cold
and systematic procedure. On the other hand, Naughton and Cornwal (2006) supported
the notion that entrepreneurial decisions depend on personal character. These authors
defended that, when taking risks, personal courage is fundamental. Another important
aspect in decision making is trust in the results. Most research takes “for granted that trust
has a mainly positive role to play in reducing the complexity of business. [Trust allows]
business relationships with strangers, in lowering transaction costs for business and in
facilitating network activity” (Welter, & Smallbone, 2006, p. 470).
Carlos Llano (2004) explained that entrepreneurs need the virtue of objectivity in
evaluating diverse opportunities. Vanity or selfishness can introduce subjectivity into
judgments. Personal ideas can be so exciting for entrepreneurs that they disregard real
obstacles to their plans. Another enemy of the plan is the pride of the entrepreneurs; they
must have enough humility to accept their own limits without hurt feelings over personal
capacities.
Development of the Entrepreneurial Plan
Crossan, Fry, and Killing (2005) and Hisrich et al. (2008) said that ideas and
plans come first in business. Meanwhile, Alvarez (2005) defends the opposite view.
These authors said that resources are more important than ideas. Alvarez, who based his
opinion on a study of the intersection between entrepreneurship and strategic
management, contended that entrepreneurial research emerges from an economic
perspective; whereas strategic research is the outcome of the management sciences. Even
though the entrepreneur has a general economic view of the market process,
entrepreneurs need to be familiar with the product or service, markets, and reasons
customers buy. At a minimum, the business plan must include an analysis of the
environment and the industry, and a description of the production, marketing, financial,
and organizational plans. This preparation must also evaluate risks as well.
Kozan, Öksoy, and Özsoy (2006) point out that, in general, intention predicts
behavior and, in business plays a crucial role in organizational growth. These intentions
must define the business plan. Thus, a successful plan needs entrepreneurial motivation
based on expected gains, such as financial profits, social capital, or independence. These
outputs must surpass the expected cost, monetary and nonmonetary (Cassar, 2007).
According to Llano (2004), the main virtues needed by entrepreneurs in this phase
are magnanimity and audacity. Aquinas explained in the Summa Theological (II–II, q.
129, a. 1) that magnanimity means stretching forth to great achievements. This classical
author divides this virtue into two types. The first type of magnanimity is proportional;
that is, one achieves great goals with small resources. The second type is absolute; one
searches for great targets, regardless of the resources needed. To reiterate, with
proportional magnanimity, an act is in accord with the resources; with absolute
magnanimity, the action is simply great because of the huge aim of its author.
Smith (1994) said that the principal impediment to designing a risky plan in the
mind or the entrepreneur, or inside organizations, is the paradigm. Smith explained that
paradigms are fruits of the culture. Smith defined culture as people's current beliefs,
including limits about what is achievable. Smith wrote that changing people's ideas about
the future might produce extraordinary achievements. Smith showed examples in
technical innovation, excellence management, customer service, and profitability. He
called this paradigm’s change the Merlin Factor, referencing the legendary magician
(Smith, 1994, p. 68). Merlin’s legend said that the magician lived backward in time.
Merlin knew the future because he had already lived it. According to Smith, choosing for
the future is more important than achievements and present talents.
Traditionally, business scholars defined strategy as the science and art of
employing the tools to achieve a good position in the market. Porter (1996) said that after
1996, positioning in the market—once the heart of strategy—was no longer its core.
Positioning “is too static for today's dynamic markets and changing technologies” (p. 61).
According to Porter, managers fail to distinguish between strategy and operational
effectiveness. Porter defended that strategic plans must include operational effectiveness;
however, outfitted success is not a strategy. “In confusing the two [essentials, leaders]
have unintentionally backed into a way of thinking about competition that is driving
many industries toward competitive convergence” (p. 78).

The entrepreneurial plan must clearly show how the firm will create value and the
advantage it has over its competitors. Companies create value in two ways, offering
products or services with features at relatively low prices and producing a product or
service with an unprecedented combination of materials and resources. To create
advantage, a firm must configure itself to do something unique and valuable (Davila, in
press).
Hamel and Prahalad (2005) encourage organizations to build up a portfolio of
innovative, competitive advantages that rivals cannot achieve. The advantages must be
completely new methods, not simply quality improvements. Hamel and Prahalad
explained that audacious plans are not the same as irrational plans. People and teams
should understand the plan, see its repercussions for their own tasks, and build up a
“competitor focus at every level through widespread use of competitive intelligence” (p.
153). Proper strategic planning has a large impact on the organization’s performance and
long-term value. By using a planning method that enables entrepreneurs to discover great
numbers of hidden strategic issues, companies open the door to many opportunities for
profitability and long-term growth (Mankins, & Steele, 2006). Information technology
can give a considerable, effective, competitive advantage to the company strategy.
Effective technology provides information about clients, competitors, and the economical
and social conditions of the business environment (Murov, & Staver, 2008).
A typical business plan includes a brief description of the proposed venture,
including the mission and the vision of the entrepreneur. In the business plan, the analysis
of the industry determines the marketing plan, the marketing goals, and marketing
objectives. The organizational plan must include the main profile of the primary positions
and operational plans. The financial plan must include an evaluation of risk assessments
(Maali, Orife, & Abel, 2008).
Determination and Acquisition of the Required Sources
Within the business plan, the entrepreneur needs to distinguish the resources that
are critical from the resources that are merely helpful. These critical resources can be
financial, human, technical, or knowledge resources. Entrepreneurs with high social
capital usually have greater success in finding the required resources. The next step is
gaining the resources on time. Entrepreneurs may have different options available, each
with a diverse expectation and requirement (Srinivas, 2009).
One of the most difficult problems in the new venture creation process is
obtaining financing (Hisrich et al., 2008). When entrepreneurs expand a firm, this
problem is usually easy to solve. For the financing requirements of the firm, theorists
divide financing options in two kinds: equity financing and debt financing. Equity
financing offers the investor some part of an ownership position in the company. The
investor shares in the profit of the venture and in disposition of the assets, according to
the percentage of the business owned. Debt financing obliges the entrepreneur to pay
back funds borrowed as well as a fee expressed in the interest rate. Debt financing also
offers a wide variety of sources, including loans from family and friends, commercial
banks, and government programs (Cressy, 2006; Hisrich et al., 2008).
Financing is also available in the form of internal funds. Internally generated
funds can come from several resources within the firm: accounts receivable, extended
payment terms, reductions in the working capital, sales of assets, and profits. Equity
financing alternatives can range from self-funding, personal sources of financing (i.e.,
money from family and friends), government funding sources, private investors or angel
contributions, and public offers of stock.
The best choice of financial resources for the entrepreneur depends on various
factors. Resource evaluation must include the amount of funding needed, the timing, the
availability of funds, the cost involved, the return time, and the amount of company
control lost (Kaplan, & Warren, 2007). In the start-up stage, entrepreneurs should try to
retain an ownership position as large as possible to keep control of management and to
implement their strategies successfully. When the company reports growth and
establishes a stable position, new options for growing emerge. Franchising, joint-
ventures, and mergers are good options of financing for a well-established company
(Hisrich et al., 2008).
Entrepreneurs need to be aware of creating diversity in the team. Grau and
Taracena (1999), researching Mexican organizations, found that entrepreneurs naturally
build up organizations by hiring people from their same cultures. Grau and Taracena said
that entrepreneurs feel better working with employees with the same background, and
unconsciously search for that kind of people. On the other hand, Grau and Taracena
added, when entrepreneurs hire people from different cultures, leaders change followers
because of the interaction between them, a view that is stated in the following Mexican
proverb, “cual es el rey tal es la grey” (p. 4) [as the king is, as his flock is].
Hisrich et al. (2008) suggested four strategies in hiring an effective team and
creating a positive organizational culture. First, the culture needed by the entrepreneurs
should match the business strategy. Second, the workplace must encourage
communication from the bottom up. Third, the leader of the organization must be flexible
enough to decide rapidly. Fourth, entrepreneurs need to dedicate extra time to the hiring
process.
LaRue et al. (2006) said that effective entrepreneurs develop action-learning
teams (ALT). La Rue defined an ALT as a unique type of team, designed to develop
specialized capabilities. The abilities developed by these teams must be strategic, and of a
form not created by other processes, like formal teaching. ALTs need to be cross-
functional, joining people “with highly specialized knowledge to collaborate on the
development and application of new forms of knowledge. ALTs rely on a particular form
of learning characterized by reflection in action” (p. 9). Acquiring skills by intellectual
initiative and effort, ALTs develop new knowledge and capacity within the organizations.
Management of the New Entrepreneurship Entity
Once a new entrepreneurial project has begun, entrepreneurs must manage the
entity until it reaches a stable phase. The direction of the firm must follow the strategic
intention of the entrepreneur. The intention should be concrete and coherent within the
framework of a systematic group of decisions and actions that primarily generate, and
eventually take advantage of, the new unit. The advantage is real when the unit is able to
maximize the benefits of the newness and minimize its cost. The success of this new
entity depends on customer needs and wants, competition, market, technology, and others
advantages within the new organization (Hisrich et al., 2008). The growth of the firm
depends on the existence of a favorable market environment (Carter, 2006). Successful
managers know when and where the environment is favorable for their companies and
build networks inside and outside the organization to place the organization inside that
environment (Thornton, & Flynn, 2005).

Llano (2004) defended that organizational leaders need to manage the entity using
three key virtues: constancy, confidence, and fortitude. Llano believed that people who
start a company can become good leaders in the firms’ next phases, if they acquire these
virtues. Hamm (2002) has an opposing view. Llano contended that the qualities that best
serve entrepreneurs in beginning businesses often lead them to malfunction as their
companies grow. Hamm argued that the entrepreneurial personality and the executive
personality are different. He explained his ideas by identifying four management
inclinations that may work well for small companies, but that become problematic when
applied to larger organizations. The first tendency is loyalty to friends. Although loyalty
is an asset at the initial phase, it may become a liability in managing a complex
organization (Hamm, 2002). The second is a perspective on task orientation. This
orientation is useful in the beginning of a company; however, disproportionate attention
to details can cause the businessperson to lose sight of long-term goals. The third
inclination, single-mindedness, is important in a visionary unleashing a revolutionary
service or product, but it can limit the company's potential as the organization increases
in size (Hamm, 2002). Lastly, working in isolation is the fourth tendency. Nevertheless,
working alone spells disaster for a manager whose expanding organization increasingly
relies on other people. Managers need to be leaders who can deal honestly with problems;
establish strategic priorities; and deal effectively with diverse employees, customers, and
external constituencies.
Managing the organization requires leadership abilities. Each entrepreneur has a
personal style of leadership; however, scholars agreed that the key word in leadership
effectiveness is adaptability (Kantor, Kram, & Sala, 2008). Marković (2008) predicted
“that the successful companies in the future will be the ones that have leaders wise
enough to adapt themselves and the full potential of the complete organization to the
rapidly changing global business environment” (p. 3).
Entrepreneurs and Social Responsibility
Most western authors credit the Greek philosophers, Socrates (469–399
B.C.), Plato (427–347 B.C.), and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) as providers of
the first philosophical writings upon which currently held ethical
conceptions are based. Much earlier writings pertaining to moral codes
and laws, however, can be found within Judaism (1800 B.C.) and
Hinduism (1500 B.C.). (Hisrich et al., 2008, p. 17)
Although some people see ethics as a group of negative rules that limit liberty,
most philosophers stated that this vision is incorrect. As Aristotle explained, ethics
teaches how to achieve virtues (Bragues, 2006). Virtues are the means to achieving the
ultimate universal goal of human life. Aristotle thought there was just one goal that was
final and common to humankind, and that was a good and happy life. Aristotle taught that
authentic leadership is the capability to recognize and work for the common good
(Bragues, 2006; Hadreas, 2005; Morris, 2006; Osborne, 2007). Van Krevelen (2005)
explained that Aristotle taught ethics as “values which enable the pursuit of happiness,
thanks to the victory of reason over chaos” (p. 35). Aquinas taught in his Summa
Theological that happiness “is something belonging to the soul” (II-II, q. 29 a. 1, ¶ 5) and
that the soul could not find rest if a person is acting against the rules of human nature.
Aristotle explained that humans are naturally social. In his book Politics he wrote
“man is more of a political animal than bees” (p. 11). Therefore, the ethical behavior of
man has two diverse branches, individual and social ethics (Perl et al. 2006). Men need to
learn how to achieve personal happiness, and how to create an environment that can
produce a happy society, which is the same as an ethical society.
Llano (1997) explained that the unique subject of ethics is the human being; that
is, only people can have good or bad behavior. Societies, organizations, and companies
do not have ethical behavior. The moral qualification of organizations, such as
governments, businesses, or families depends on the acts of their human elements.
Education is more than technical training. Education requires that moral reasoning be
integral to relationships with others throughout the society (Bennis, & O'Toole, 2005).
Social Responsibility of the Business
Ethics includes social behavior, which produces social responsibility. Nowadays
many authors claim the importance of social responsibility in doing business; however,
this concept is not new (Dahlin, 2007). In 1468, Johannes Nider developed certain rules
for ethical trade. This code of ethical conduct stated that goods should be lawful and
useful, the price of the goods should be fair, and the seller should be honest with the
buyer. In the 16th century, Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, analyzed
emerging agricultural capitalism and explained that the landowner has a responsibility to
the peasants who work for him. Much later, in 1891, Pope Leo XIII started the wide
tradition of Catholic social teaching with his letter Rerum Novarum (Marens, 2005).
In the 1920s, two books about business morals were milestones, summarizing
previous ideas. Oliver Sheldon (1923) wrote the book, A Philosophy of Management.
Sheldon’s basic philosophy of management was to service the community. He thought
that industry existed to provide the services and commodities necessary for a good life for
the community. Business must provide commodities and services at the lowest prices
compatible with an acceptable standard of quality. In 1926, Edgar Heermance wrote the
book, The Ethics of Business: A Study of Current Standards. Heermance’s book focused
on codes of business ethics as a way to promote ethical business behavior. By the late
1950s, several leading business schools began to offer courses in the social
responsibilities of businesses (Dahlin, 2007).
In the early 21st century, greed caused the large corporations in America and
Europe to betray morals. Enron, Anderson, WorldCom, Tyco, Xerox, Ahold, Parmalat
and a multitude of other firms have brought unethical activity in the business world to the
forefront again (Dahlin, 2007). Reacting to this unethical behavior, governments and civil
organizations launched, over the first years of the 21st century, many initiatives to
promote a more principled, ethical behavior within the field of business. The scandals in
large corporations reminded us of the important role that ethics plays in the business
environment. Authors such as Levin (2009), Starkman (2008) and Grumet (2008) found
that the lack of ethics in some financial organizations was the main reason for the
financial crisis in 2008. Ethics and social responsibility must ensure proper handling of
resources, aiming at reducing the trade in conflict of goods, encouraging conflict-
sensitive business practices, and offering corporate social responsibility (Turner, 2007; de
la Vega, 2009).
The initiatives within companies to produce ethical behaviors produce corporate
social responsibility (CSR). Mackey, Mackey, and Barney (2007) defined that corporate
social responsibility as “voluntary firm actions designed to improve social or
environmental conditions” (p. 818). Senser (2007) defined CSR as “the goal of
integrating the public interest into the corporation’s mission” (p. 77). Senser explained
that many people refused this idea, arguing that the proper keeper of community interest
is government and the role of business is monetary earnings. Senser supported his idea by
arguing that rights always have obligations. Businesses have the right to earn profits.
That right, however, brings with it the duties and responsibility of talking care of its
employees, suppliers, neighbors, and customers—not merely the interests of the owners
(Schaefer, 2008).
Hemingway (2005) and Llano (1997) said that, although regulations are useful in
promoting ethical behaviors in business, rules cannot drive social responsibility without
personal morality, which should stem from the personal values of the entrepreneurs and
employees themselves. To say that a person has value is to affirm that the individual has
a permanent regulatory or prospective belief that a particular manner of actions or end-
state of existence is preferred to a contrary manner of actions or end-state.
Entrepreneurial actions modify families, communities, and whole societies.
Entrepreneurs must work to protect and empower all affected by the change, especially
the nearest to their activity (de la Vega, 2009).
Practical Principles of Ethical Behavior for Business
Aristotle opposed Socrates’ idea that having a virtue is first a matter of knowing.
Socrates defended that knowing ethical principles is the main step of good moral
behavior. Aristotle highlighted character and virtue in concrete acts. Ethical principles are
a useful step toward ethical behavior. Knowing what is good is not enough to ensure
good behavior; nevertheless, this knowledge is a good start in acting ethically (Hartman,
2008).
Philosophers defined moral principles as directions for development contained in
the ideas of men (Llano, 1997). Philosophers from ancient times to the 21st century
developed different ideas of ethical principles. Karl Marx did not care about personal
dignity; he believed that collective goodness justifies all actions (Beyer, 2007). However,
there are some principles in which almost all people agree. Clifford Christians (2007)
argued that most religions concur in common ethical principles, the most common is
known as the golden rule "do to others as you would have them do to you” (Mt 7:12,
New American Bible), and is the first principle of social ethical behavior. Concrete rules
of ethics for specific people in precise situations are the results of principles. Other
ethical principles summarized by Llano (1997) for entrepreneurs are:
1. “Nunca deben emplearse medios moralmente malos aunque los fines sean
buenos” (p. 90) [Good goals never justify bad means].
This principle is Aristotle’s idea. Not all philosophers have agreed with him.
For example, Machiavelli (1469 - 1527) defended the opposite vision.
Machiavelli defended that humans are simply not willing to lose what they
have. He thought that people have the right to defend their possessions with
every means they have (Hadreas, 2005).
2. “No deben perseguirse fines buenos que tengan efectos resultantes
desproporcionadamente malos” (p. 90) [Even if the goals are good, one should
not attempt the goals if the acts needed to achieve them will have highly
negative effects].
This principle has a special relevance in a business environment, where some
entrepreneurs must limit their good goals of achieving profits and building up
an organization when their actions could have negative effects for the
community (Llano, 1997). Common examples of negative effects are
environmental pollution; low income for the employees; and fraudulent
behavior against the stockholders, the suppliers, the clients, or the
government.
3. “Ha de considerarse valioso todo aquello que contribuya al desarrollo del
hombre” (p. 93) [All that contributes to the personal development of
somebody has an intrinsic value].
A person is always a goal in and of him/herself. One person can never be
considered a means to another’s goal. The United Nations adopted and
proclaimed on December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. With this action, the members of the United Nations signed a
milestone in the history of human rights. The organization declared,
“Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of
all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world” (United Nations, 1948, ¶ 1). Men and women alike have
human dignity. Nobody should be denigrated by reason of race, age, religion,
or nationality. The dignity of everyone is always above the profits that
businesses can achieve. Societies and governments must especially protect
weak groups, such as children and immigrants.
4. “El bien común es preferible al bien privado si ambos son del mismo orden”
(p. 97) [When choosing between two good options of the same kind, one must
elect the common good over the personal one].

This principle is fruit of the Aristotelian idea of humanity. Aristotle
thought that ethical people must build a good society. This society provides a
way to reflect on the social conditions essential for realizing human life.
According to Aristotle’s ideas, society needs a state. This state must regulate
markets, audit public money, guard religion, and protect children and
marriage. Without these, it is impossible to foster the conditions of wellbeing
or enable a perfect and self-sufficient life, which is the purpose of a state
(Hadreas, 2005).
5. “Prohibir no es malo ni permitir es bueno, pues es malo prohibir lo bueno y
bueno prohibir lo malo” (p. 102) [To forbid is not always bad; to allow is not
always good. It is bad to forbid the good behavior, and it is good to forbid bad
behavior].
This principle states that liberty is not the only rule of ethics. Freedom is
valuable as a means of achieving goodness and development; however, it is
not a supreme value. Freedom implies responsibility, and the personal
freedom of one cannot infringe upon the liberty of others (Natoli, 2008). This
principle is against some economic theories of the consumer, which defended
personal freedom to hunt satisfaction as an indispensable condition and
personal satisfaction as its only purpose. According to Nixon’s (2007)
“consumer theory, viewed from this perspective, (freedom without
responsibility) leads to a reductionist and an existentially harmful view of
human beings. The maximization of individual satisfaction raises genuine
ethical issues when viewed as a moral political and religious value” (p. 39).
Conclusion
Although entrepreneurship is not a concept that has a tightly agreed-upon
definition (Casson et al., 2006; Davidsson, 2005), literature points that successful
entrepreneurs have some common personal characteristics. Ruiz, (2008) divided those
characteristics into two groups. The characteristics of the first group provide the ability to
manage a firm. The characteristic of the second group are the abilities needed for worthy
innovation (Ruiz, 2008). The personal characteristics of the entrepreneurs allow
enterprises to produce economic development generating innovations that change the
structure of business and society (Kor, Mahoney, & Michael, 2007). Hisrich et al. (2008)
said that entrepreneurs have similar personalities, regardless of their countries of origin.
Rhee and White (2007) defended that one of the characteristics of successful
entrepreneurs is an emotional intelligence level beyond the norm. Another personal
characteristic of successful entrepreneurs is a cognitive adaptability mindset.
Entrepreneurs are flexible, dynamic, and self-regulated. Entrepreneurs produce multiple-
decision frameworks focused on sensing and processing changes in their environments
(Hisrich et al., 2008). Entrepreneurs, as all people, desire to be happy; ethics teaches how
to achieve happiness (Hadreas, 2005). Personal ethical behaviors produce corporate
social responsibility (Hemingway, 2005). Review of the literature points to the need for
additional research by participating experts, both in general terms and specifically, in the
subject of this study, the prominent entrepreneurs in the State of Sinaloa.
Summary
Chapter 2 contains a review of the relevant concepts in the current literature
related to entrepreneurial abilities. The chapter examined several authors and gave a
general outline of the history of entrepreneurship (Wren, 2005), some key concepts for
understanding entrepreneurship (Hisrich et al., 2008) as the relation between
entrepreneurship and economic development (Casson et al., 2006), entrepreneurial
innovation (Drucker, 1985; Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004), and entrepreneurial personality
(Kor, Mahoney, & Michael, 2007; Metcalf, 2006; O’Neil, 2004; Stevenson, & Gumpert,
1985).
The chapter comprises a description of the five phases of the entrepreneurial
process: (a) development of the opportunity; (b) evaluation of the opportunity; (c)
development of the entrepreneurial plan; (d) determination and acquisition of the required
sources; and (e) management of the new entrepreneurship entity. The last part of the
review of the literature explained the social responsibility of entrepreneurs and offered
practical principles of ethical behavior for business (Hartman, 2008; Hemingway, 2005;
Llano, 1997). Chapter 3 contains a description of the research method, participants,
instruments, data collection, and data analysis procedures used to discover the personal
characteristics that define the personal profile of successful entrepreneurs.

Chapter 3: Method
The purpose of this study, which used a Qualitative Delphi design, was to explore
the personal characteristics of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. The
current study explored three main aspects of entrepreneurial personal characteristics that
literature review reported: management skills, innovative abilities (Drucker, 1985; Grau,
& Sotomayor, 2008; Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004), and ethical behavior (Llano, 1997;
Senser, 2007). The goal of this research is to generate recommendations that will be used
to nurture and support more entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. Hisrich et al. (2008) defined
entrepreneurship using four elements:
1. The creation of something new in a market;
2. The dedication of the necessary energies, effort, and time to achieve the new
concept;
3. The financial, psychic, emotive, and social risk;
4. The personal rewards of satisfaction, independence, and money.
Sinaloa State needs to improve the economic wellbeing of its inhabitants. In the
first half of the 20th century, the Austrian school of economics demonstrated that
entrepreneurial spirit by creating new economic values in addition to generating and
distributing wealth (Montanye, 2006). Chapter 2 provided a history of entrepreneurship,
key concepts for understanding entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial personality, the five
phases of the entrepreneurial process, and the social responsibility of entrepreneurs.
Chapter 3 contains the appropriateness of the research method and design, the population,
the sampling data collection procedure, the validity, and data analysis.
The Delphi Method
The Delphi Method Background
The first Delphi study, Project Delphi, was the name of a United States Air Force-
sponsored Rand Corporation research regarding the application of expert judgment. The
experiment was designed by Dalkey and Helmer in 1963. The goal of the original study
was to acquire the most consistent consensus of a team of experts by a series of rigorous
surveys, mixed with controlled feedback. Rand Corporation was studying how Soviet
military planners might target United States industry in an attack (Vazquez-Ramos,
Leahy, & Hernandez, 2007). In 1963, “Dalkey and Helmer replicated their study in an
article: An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. The
paper was important because at the time there was a dearth of long-range forecasting
tested techniques” (Champion, 2007, p. 80). The Delphi method is not associated with a
particular discipline. Moreover, since its beginning in the 1950s, different researchers
have used the Delphi method to gather data from experts in a wide array of fields.
In the beginning of the 21st century, researchers used the Delphi technique in
fields as diverse as education, information technology, health, organizational
development, and business. The Delphi method is a reputable study design involving
reiterative, systematic probing through individual questionnaires in rounds. This
technique avoids participants’ direct confrontation for predicting a future event or
outcome using polling expert opinion through a series of surveys (Champion, 2007;
Linstone, & Turoff, 2002; Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007).

The Delphi Method Process
“The process for each type of the Delphi is essentially the same; however, the
purpose of a study determines the type of Delphi used” (Bhagan, 2008, p. 50). The
present research work used the following phases suggested for Skulmoski, Hartman, and
Krahn (2007) in a typical Delphi process:
1. Buildup of the Research Question: The investigator reviews the literature.
2. Research Design: The investigator selects the Delphi method to assemble the
judgments of experts in a team decision-making scenario.
3. Selection of the research participants. Skulmoski, Hartman, and Krahn (2007)
defined four requirements that an individual must have in order to be
considered an expert: “i) knowledge and experience with the issues under
investigation; ii) capacity and willingness to participate; iii) sufficient time to
participate in the Delphi; and, iv) effective communication skills” (p. 4).
4. Development of Delphi Round One Questionnaire. This opinion poll usually
asks open-ended questions.
5. Creation of a pilot study (done occasionally). The aim of this study is to
develop great comprehension and to find possible problems of interpretation.
6. Application and analysis of the first questionnaire.
7. Development of a second questionnaire. This questionnaire is designed based
on the tendencies found in the answers from the first-round questionnaire. The
second questionnaire has close-ended questions.
8. Analysis and response of the second questionnaire. The second questionnaire
is released to the expert participants, who send back the survey for analysis.
The participants have the opportunity to verify that the first answers indeed
reflect their opinions. The participating experts answer their rankings using a
Likert-type scale.
9. Development of the third questionnaire. The answers of the second
questionnaire are the basis for development of this last questionnaire. This
questionnaire usually has further inquiries to validate the results, to delimitate
the boundaries of the study, and to determine if the outcomes can be extended.
10. Final round of analysis. The consensus in the answer of the participants
determines the finish of the round of questionnaires.
Appropriateness of Design
The choice of the proper research design for the study was the result of an
examination of Creswell’s methods of study. Creswell (2005) said qualitative research
was “best suited for research problems in which you do not know the variables you need
to explore ... and you need to learn more from participants through exploration” (p. 45).
Quantitative investigation begins with a close-ended posture, identifying variables and
selecting tools before the study begins. In quantitative research, “the research questions
and hypotheses do not change during the study” (Champion, 2007, p, 78).
Qualitative research, a more open-ended stance using questionnaires and
interviews is utilize and may change the phenomenon being studied or may
wait and see what emerges during the study that may cause the questions to
change based on the responses of the participants to determine the overall
opinions of the study’s population. (Champion, 2007, p, 78)

In quantitative investigation, the researcher seeks to measure differences and the
importance of those differences between two or more populations, comparing groups or
relating variables. In qualitative research, investigators try to find a deep understanding of
the vision of the researched group (Creswell, 2005). Thus, the current research study,
which is trying to find a deep understanding of the personal characteristics of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State, will be conducted using a qualitative approach.
The Delphi method allows the establishment of an agreement in situations where,
“knowledge about phenomena is incomplete” (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007, p.
12). The Delphi method does not need the participating experts to communicate face-to-
face, which encumbers survey participants with stringent time restrictions. The method
permits a select group of experts in a particular subject area to express individual ideas
and judgments and, through a systematic procedure, to address the critical issues of a
specific topic. The Delphi method allows the experts to provide subjective, expert
opinions anonymously where the problem does not lend itself to precise analytical
procedures, (Vazquez-Ramos, Leahy, & Hernandez, 2007).
Skulmoski et al. (2007) suggested that the Delphi technique was helpful for its
consensus-reaching and qualitative methodology. The asynchronous interaction in a
Delphi study permits the selected participating experts can change their opinions, where
and when relevant. The anonymity of the participating experts prevents professional
dominance or pressure. With its moderated structure, the Delphi method adds individual
contributions into a cooperative knowledge (Sheridan, 2005). A Delphi study is
acceptable when the problem does not appear easy to analyze, but could benefit from
collective and subjective knowledge, such as within the current research study. The
Delphi technique is also appropriate for this study because of its advantages in reducing
the effects of bias because group interaction providing controlled feedback to participants
(Duboff, 2007).
Research Design
This qualitative research study used Delphi process to determine the personal
profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa. Appendix A shows the first
questionnaire, which was build based on the main concepts found in the literature review.
Participants fit the Delphi’s criteria of expertise. The first round selected and enrolled the
participating experts in the current study. The experts receive, in an interview, an
explanation of the purpose and methodology of the study. The basis for selection of the
participating experts was their personal success running enterprises based in Sinaloa
State. In this first round, the questionnaire had open-ended questions. The entrepreneurs
participating in the current Delphi study had 5 minutes to answer each inquiry.
The second round involved sending out a second questionnaire to the same
experts and asking them to rank and comment on the priority issues that emerged from
the early feedback. As recommended by Skulmoski et al. (2007), the second
questionnaire had close-ended questions that the participating experts answered, ranking
the probability and magnitude of the effects of these issues. The participating experts
answered their rankings to the second questionnaire using a Likert-type scale. The third
round involved a third questionnaire that focused on re-ranking feedback statements,
given the results from the second round. The participating experts reviewed their
feedback from the second round and identified where they saw both convergence and
divergence of opinion. The conclusions emerged with the agreement, disagreement, and
uncertainty of these experts.
Research Question
What personal characteristics enable the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa to
succeed?
Population
The population for the current research study consisted of a population of 40
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State taken from a list published in Bien Informado in
September 2009. The entrepreneurs were a homogeneous group; all have lived all their
professional lives in Sinaloa, and this State was the headquarters of their companies. As
the entrepreneurial cluster in Sinaloa is not a large group, it was easy for them to share
experiences frequently. Since 1996, the most important entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have
shared their entrepreneurial vision though the Consejo para el desarrollo económico de
Sinaloa (CODESIN), [Economic council for development of Sinaloa State]; therefore, the
entrepreneurial ideas of these experts had some elements in common (CODESIN, 2008).
Sample
Linstone and Turoff (2002) defended that, in fact-finding questions, groups of 7
participants were easiest to work with, “followed by the groups with 9, 5, and 11
participants” (p. 306). In forecasting questions, the group with 11 participants had the
highest performance “followed by the groups with 9, 5, and 7 participants” (p. 306).
Skulmoski, Hartman and Krahn (2007) said a sample within a homogeneous group of
between 10 to 15 people could produce sufficient results.

The sample was 12 participants, who placed among the first 40 in the list of the
most successful entrepreneurs published in the magazine Bien Informado in September
2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). The panelist were invited directly by the researcher,
in some cases using the support of the Consejo para el desarrollo económico de Sinaloa
[Counsel for economic development in Sinaloa] (CODESIN, 2008). The aim of the
researcher was to work with the first people in the list; however, some of them were not
able to work in the current research study. Thus, if one person was not able to participate,
the next person on the list was invited and so on.
Panel participants are individuals with recognized knowledge and high-quality
experience in entrepreneurship topics. The success of the Delphi method stems from
informed opinion, expertise, and experience (Hsu, & Sandford, 2007). The participants
run huge companies that were either started by them, or were taken over by them and
have multiplied in size from one to hundreds in number of employees and profits under
their leadership.
Informed Consent
Research has the obligation to safeguard participant rights. The process of
gathering data must was designed to ensure that the respondents do not suffer physical
damage, pain, discomfort, humiliation, or loss of privacy. To that end, the following three
rules were applied: explain research benefits, explain respondent protections and rights,
and obtain a written informed consent (Cooper, & Schindler, 2006).
The panelists were contacted in a telephone call, or by electronic mail, in which a
personal interview was requested. In that interview, which was conducted in a private
place, the researcher explained the goal of the present study and its benefits, the panelist’s
rights, and acquired a signed informed consent form, which appears in Appendix C.
(Appendix D shows a translation to English of the same consent form.)
In that personal interview, before beginning the first questionnaire, the
participants granted their consent by signing the consent form. In order to guarantee the
unidentified identity of the expert participants in the second and third questionnaires,
which were delivered electronically, the experts received a pseudonym/user name and
password. The researcher is the only person who handled the consent forms, which were
saved in a locked cabinet in the personal office of the researcher.
Confidentiality
Responses to the current Delphi research study were strictly confidential. Due to
the anonymous nature of the Delphi method, nobody is able to identify another
participant. The participants received a group summary of responses, which prevents
such identification. All data remained confidential. The information was saved in a secure
place, in a locked cabinet in the personal office of the researcher. No data was shared
with anyone during the process. “During data collection, you must view the data as
confidential and not share it with other participants or individuals outside of the project”
(Creswell, 2005, p. 171). No names were used in the final study report. Upon publication
of the current study results, all data will be deleted by shredding.
Geographic Location
The selected participants reside in Sinaloa State. Sinaloa is a State in northwest
Mexico. The last official statistics on Sinaloa’s population showed 2,608,422 inhabitants
(INEGI, 2005). Figure 1 shows the geographical location of Sinaloa within the Mexican
territory.
Data Collection
Three rounds of surveys comprise the Delphi method of study (Skulmoski et al.,
2007). In the first round, communication with the expert entrepreneurs was by face-to-
face interviews with the researcher. In the first interview, the experts were asked to
answer the first questionnaire. In the second and third rounds, the expert entrepreneurs
received an e-mail with the questionnaires attached, which allowed them to participate
and interact without any required face-to-face communication (Linstone, & Turoff,
2002). Entrepreneurs returned the answered questionnaires by email to the researcher.
The series of surveys evoked opinions and views that express the experience and
expertise of those on the panel. The opportunity for the experts on the panel to revise
their judgments through the survey process allowed feedback and measures to protect the
anonymity of individual contributions. The feedback from the survey rounds provided
reasons one expert’s response might differ from that of another. This feedback produced
a range of different visions about the profile of success in the entrepreneurs in Sinaloa.
Data were collected from the panel experts by adopting a repetitive approach to data
collection through surveys and feedback (Duboff, 2007).
Instrumentation
The experts answered the first-round questions in an interview in which they were
informed about the intentions and scope of the current research study. The first-round
questionnaire is in Appendix A. The questions were extracted from the main ideas of the
theory studied in the review of the literature. Questions were open-ended for free and full
comment by the Delphi experts. After that, the questions generated data were coded and
categorized to generate the second round questionnaire (Hsu, & Sandford, 2007). The
second round provided an opportunity to understand how the group viewed the initial
issues; these issues were arranging in random order. The participants provided data
through closed-ended questions, through a Likert-type scale (Holey, Feeley, Dixon, &
Whittaker, 2007). The second-round questionnaire was administered by email. Some
participants answered the mail in the following days; however others had not replied in a
few weeks, thus the researcher looked for them and asked them in a face-to-face
interview. In some cases the participants answered the questionnaire using the telephone.
The third round questionnaire was similar to the second survey; the questions for this
questionnaire were generated by data provided in the second round. The third
questionnaire was delivered email too. Some participants answered it quickly; others did
not answer, so after waiting week the researcher asked them to answer it by telephone.
Validity and Reliability
The intent of this study, using a Qualitative Delphi design, was to explore the
personal characteristics of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. Using a
Delphi design, a panel of 12 experts was investigated and reached consensus regarding
their personal characteristics. Holey, Feeley, Dixon, and Whittaker (2007) suggested
Delphi technique as an effective way to measure and gain group consensus. According to
these authors, a Delphi study is valid when the study presents the following three
conditions: (a) the research has an evolution of consensus increasing conformity
proportion; (b) the study shows decrease in the amount of observations made, and (c) the
study shows a convergence of range within standard deviations of the answers of the
experts. Appendix E enlists elements of validity and reliability that Nicholas, Globerman,
Antle, McNeill, and Lach (2006) identified for a Delphi panel of experienced qualitative
researchers. All these elements were guaranteed in the present research study.
Data Analysis
The current research study used a qualitative conceptual content analysis of the
answers from the first questionnaire. The aim of the analysis was to find cognitive themes
and common patterns in the answers of the experts (Bhagan, 2008). The analysis used the
following sequential steps for thematic and pattern examination:
1. Indentified and catalog cognitive information.
2. Combined related patterns and data into significant units according to
interconnected concepts.
3. Maintained an holistic view of the data, ignoring small conceptual units and
irrelevant information
4. Formulated pattern reports to be tested in further questionnaires (Bhagan,
2008; Busch, et al., 2009).
5. Used a list of responses analyzed (from second round and third round data)
and calculated with mean scores using ranking and rating techniques with a
Likert-type scale (Simon, 2006). Consensus was defined using Scheibe,
Skutsch, and Schofer criterion (2002). These authors said “consensus is
achieved when a percentage of the votes fall [within] an interquartile range,
[which] is no larger than two units on a ten-unit scale.” (p. 271)
The researcher compared the mean ranks of the top 16 concepts that emerged
from the second and third questionnaires to build up a consensus mean ranking,
comparing graphically the mean ranks. The analysis provided information during each
round of surveys.
Summary
The research used the Delphi method to compile qualitative data from a sample of
12 participants, who placed in the top 40 in the list of the most successful entrepreneurs
published in the magazine Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,”
2009). The Delphi method allowed the establishment of consensus in situations in which
knowledge about phenomena is incomplete (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). This
technique did not need the experts to interact face-to-face (Vazquez-Ramos, Leahy, &
Hernandez, 2007). The method allowed a select group of experts in a particular subject
area to express individual ideas and judgments and to address the critical issues of a
specific topic (Linstone, & Turoff, 2002). Three rounds of surveys comprised the present
research study (Skulmoski et al., 2007), in which the successful entrepreneurs explained
their personal characteristics.
The validity of the present study (Holey, Feeley, Dixon, & Whittaker, 2007)
depended on the evolution of consensus, the decrease of observations, and the
convergence of range within standard deviations of the answers of the experts. The
analysis of the answers in the three rounds included an attempt to find cognitive themes
and common patterns in the answers of the experts (Bhagan, 2008). Through the
application and analysis of questionnaires and their feedback, the final aggregation of
data produced results answering the proposed research question. Chapter 4 will show the
detailed findings of the research and these procedures.

Chapter 4: Results
Chapters 1, 2, and 3 presented the research questions and developed the
theoretical foundation and methodology of this qualitative Delphi research study. Chapter
4 presents the results from the survey of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
State. The sample of 12 entrepreneurs was taken from the top 40 in Sinaloa State, as
identified in the publication Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,”
2009). The Delphi technique allowed the entrepreneurs to express the personal
characteristics that have helped them to succeed in business. The goal of the study was to
present a framework to investigate the personal characteristics of the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State through a Delphi method of surveys. The study describes
the entrepreneurs’ vision. The results of the study may offer educational ideas that
promote more entrepreneurial abilities.
A review of the literature served several purposes. First, it served as the basis for
the theoretical framework, the development of the survey instrument, and a resource for
the remainder of the study. The questions in the interview, placed in Appendix A were
developed to explore this area of study. These guiding questions served as a framework
for the panel of experts’ initial inquiry to explore the personal characteristics of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. The participants in the Delphi study remained
anonymous to one another throughout the study.
Panelist Recruitment
The sample was 12 participants, who placed among the first 40 in the list of the
most successful entrepreneurs published in the magazine Bien Informado in September
2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). The researcher invited each panelist in a telephone
call. Some telephone numbers were gathered previously, in some cases using the support
of the Consejo para el desarrollo económico de Sinaloa [Counsel for economic
development in Sinaloa] (CODESIN, 2008). The aim of the researcher was to work with
the first people in the list; however, some people could not participate. Thus, when some
person could not be found, the next person on the list was invited and so on.
Characteristics of the Sample
Each entrepreneur received a coded, which is letter. Working with these codes is
an essential element in keeping the name of the participant entrepreneurs anonymous. All
the entrepreneurs placed among the first 40 in the list of the most successful
entrepreneurs published in the magazine Bien Informado in September 2009 are male
(“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009). Table 1 shows son characteristics of the sample.
Concrete age and others characteristics of the sample are not revealed to assure the
anonymity of the sample.
Table 1
Characteristics of the sample
Entrepreneur Age Business
A 65-70 commerce
B 60-65 diverse
C 50-55 building
D 55-60 diverse
F 50-55 food
G 45-50 commerce
H 45-50 farm
I 50-55 farm
J 50-55 farm
K 70-75 commerce
L 45-50 industry
M 50-55 building
Data Collection
In the phone call the researcher asked for a personal interview. In that dialogue
the investigator explained the goal of the present study, its benefits, and the panelist’s
rights. All meeting were in a private place. The panel participants signed an informed
consent form, which appears in Appendix C (Appendix D shows a translation to English
of the same consent form).
In that interview, the panelist received a pseudonym/user name and password to
guarantee the unidentified identity of the expert participants in the second and third
questionnaires, which were delivered electronically. The researcher was the only person
who knew the identity of the panelists. The consent forms were saved in a locked cabinet
in the personal office of the researcher. In those interviews the entrepreneurs responded
to the open questions of the first questionnaire, which is in Appendix A. The audios of
the interviews were recorder for the posterior analysis of the answers. The interviews
took place in different cities of Sinaloa State between April 13 and June 2, 2010.
Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire
After the interviews, a concept analysis of the answers was made. The main
concepts in the answers were classified in an affinity diagram, each for each question.
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the different answers for each question gathered in the concept
that they represent. In some cases the entrepreneurs answer 4 characteristics; in those
cases all the information was included.

Table 2
Answers to question 1 in first questionnaire
1. What are the three most important personal characteristics that enabled
you to succeed in entrepreneurship? Why?
Concept Entrepreneurs who Frequency

answered
1 High emotional intelligence D, D, E, E, E, F, F, G 9
2 Capacity of effort and work F, H, I, J, J, J 6
3 Honesty B, H, I 3
4 Clarity in objectives C,C, I 3
5 Capacity of innovation A, E, K 3
6 Leadership G, G, L 3
7 Austerity A, E 2
8 Love to own work A, K 2
9 Awareness at opportunities C, L 2
10 Generate confidence H, L 2
11 Financial focus B 1
12 Likes to think profoundly B 1
13 Short and long run Balance A 1
14 Working with a defined K 1
system
Table 3
2. Do you think is it possible to describe a common profile of most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State? Why?
Concept Entrepreneurs Frequency

who answered
Yes, they have a large risk capacity C, E, G, H, I
5
Yes, they have a large effort and work F, J, L
capacities 3
Yes, they have a large capacity of L

organization 1
Yes, they have a large capacity for K

innovation 1
Yes, they have a large vision of their L

business 1
No, they are in different industries B, D

2
No, their companies grew in different A
times 1
Table 4
3. According with Grau and Sotomayor (2008), the entrepreneur must grow
in two directions, ability to manage a firm and capacity to innovate and
take risks. What direction is more important for you? Why?
who answered
To innovate; although sometimes the focus F, G, H, I 4
most be in management
To innovate and take risks, management could A, C, J 3
be delegated
To innovate, because my business niche has B, L 2
large opportunities
To innovate, competition requires innovation B, E 2
To innovate, I started a new industry K 1
To management, in my industries cost are very D 1
relevant
Table 5
4. Has ethics played some role in your entrepreneurial work? Why?
who answered
A key role, entrepreneurs must take care of all B, C, E, F, G, 6
the stakeholders K
An important role, ethics generates confidence D, H, K 3
An important role, long run success is G, J, K 3
impossible without ethics
A key role, nothing could be over human I 1
dignity
An important role, although many people do A 1
not like that
A very important role, my family, my religion L 1
and my school taught me that
Second questionnaire
Using the analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire for the Delphi study,
the questions for the questionnaire 2 were generated. The questions included the concepts
that were in the answers of at least a frequency of 2 responses. The participants received
a list of definitions before the questions to offer the context of the terms used in the
interviews. The document, which was sent to the entrepreneurs, was written in Spanish;
the file protected by a password (see Appendix F). Appendix G is the translation into
English. The appendix includes a copy of the mail that was sent to the entrepreneurs.
The mails with the second questionnaire were sent to the participants on June 2,
2010. Some participants answered the mail in the following days; however others did not
reply within a few weeks. Thus the researcher looked for them to ask them face-to-face
interview. In some cases the participants answered the questionnaire using the telephone.
The second round finished on June 23, 2010.
A revision of the consistency between the first and second questionnaires showed
that the answers had consistency in the concepts showed in the different rounds. The
issues to which they responded in the opened questions usually received the highest
values in the closed answers. Only one answer in the second questionnaire did not make
sense to the researcher, so a phone call was made to verify the answer. The participant
entrepreneur confirmed his answer of the second round. Table 5 shows the average and
standard deviation of results of the second questionnaire. The questions are in order
starting with the ones with the highest values. If the values are the same, the ones with
the lower standard deviations appear first. The numerical answers received from the
entrepreneurs are in Appendix H.

Table 6
Answers of the second questionnaire.
Standard
Question Average Deviation
The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
8 have a great love to their own work. 4.67 0.65
4 have high clarity in their firm’s objectives. 4.42 0.79
2 have a high capacity of effort. 4.33 0.65
6 are leaders that employees usually follow. 4.17 0.72
11 have a large risk capacity. 4.17 0.72
9 are people who usually have large awareness
at opportunities. 4.17 0.83
10 are usually trust-worth people; their
stakeholders have confidence in them. 4.00 0.60
18 are concerned with ethics because they believe
long term success is impossible without ethics. 4.00 0.85
16 are concerned with ethics because they feel
responsible to all the stakeholders. 3.83 0.72
7 are people who usually reject personal and
corporative pretentiousness. 3.75 0.45
1 have a high emotional intelligence. 3.75 0.75
17 are concerned with ethics, because ethics
generate stakeholders’ trust. 3.75 0.87
In order to have time for innovation, the most
13 successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa usually
delegate management work. 3.58 0.79
15 usually innovate because their firms have
large opportunities in their business niches 3.50 0.90
3 always follow ethics rules in business. 3.42 0.90
Standard
Question Average Deviation
5 have a high capacity for innovation. 3.25 0.75
would like to have more innovation, although
12 sometimes they need to focus in management
work. 2.75 0.87
Even though competition forces them, the
most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa do
14
not like to innovate, because innovation
generates risk. 2.58 1.08
Average 3.78
Standard deviation 0.55
Third questionnaire
Using the analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire for the Delphi study
the questions for the questionnaire 3 were generated. The list of definitions provided are
the same that was used in questionnaire 2 because both questionnaires used similar
concepts. The difference between these rounds is that in the second round the experts
were asked about the other entrepreneurs and in the third one they were asked the
questions are about themselves. As questionnaire 2 involved different questions about
innovation, questionnaire 3 has two fewer questions.
The third questionnaire is in Appendix I, a translation into English is in Appendix
J. The appendix includes a copy of the mail that was sent to the entrepreneurs. The mails
with the questionnaires were sent to the entrepreneurs on June 26, 2010. Some
participants answered it quickly; others did not answer. So after waiting week, the
researcher asked them to answer it by telephone. The last answers, gathered in a
telephone call were on July 4, 2010.

Table 6 shows the average and the standard deviation results of the second
questionnaire. The questions are in order starting with the ones with the highest values. If
the values are the same the ones with the lower standard deviations appear first. The
numerical answers are in Appendix K.
Table 7
Answers of the third questionnaire.
Standard
# Average Average deviation
3 Capacity to follow ethics rules in business. 4.83 0.39
15 Feeling responsible to all the stakeholders. 4.67 0.49
To be trust-worth people, their stakeholders have
10 confidence in them. 4.50 0.52
8 To love your own work. 4.42 0.67
1 High emotional intelligence. 4.25 0.62
16 Abilities for thinking in long term. 4.25 0.62
2 Capacity of effort. 4.25 0.75
4 Capacity of clarify firm’s objectives. 4.25 0.75
11 Risk capacity. 4.25 0.97
6 Leadership. 4.17 0.58
9 To be awareness at opportunities. 4.17 0.72
13 Abilities for delegating management work. 4.17 0.94
7 Reject personal and corporative pretentiousness. 4.17 1.03
Abilities for defeat competition within the same
14 industry 4.08 0.67
5 Capacity for innovation. 3.92 0.67
12 Management abilities. 3.50 0.67
average 4.24
Comparison between second and third questionnaires
Table 7 and Figure 3 present comparison between second and third
questionnaires. In some cases one question in the third questionnaire corresponds to two
or more questions in the second questionnaire. In those cases the average of the
correspondent questions in second questionnaire are calculated. In other cases the ability
were not asked explicitly in second questionnaire. The second questionnaire referred to
others opinion; in the third round the answers were self opinions. Numeric analysis of
both questionnaires shows that all personal characteristic fit into consensus criteria.
Consensus was defined using Scheibe, Skutsch, and Schofer criterion (2002). These
authors said consensus is achieved when a percentage of the votes fall within an
“interquartile range, [which] is no larger than two units on a ten-unit scale” (p. 271). In
this case standard deviation is higher than one in a five-unit scale.

Table 8
Numeric comparison between second and third round
absolute value of difference between

average of the standard deviation
average in both questionnaires
2nd and 3rd round

Others Self
opinion 2nd opinion
round 3rd round
question number
standard deviation
standard deviation
average
8 To love your own work 4.67 0.65 average

4.42 0.67 4.54 0.66 0.25
4 Capacity of clarifying firm’s objectives 4.42 0.79 4.25 0.75 4.33 0.77 0.17
2 Capacity of effort 4.33 0.65 4.25 0.75 4.29 0.70 0.08
Feeling responsible to all the
15 stakeholders 3.83 0.90 4.67 0.49 4.25 0.70 0.83
11 Risk capacity 4.17 0.72 4.25 0.97 4.21 0.84 0.08
10 To be trust-worthy people 3.88 0.60 4.50 0.52 4.19 0.56 0.63
6 Leadership 4.17 0.72 4.17 0.58 4.17 0.65 0.00
9 To be awareness at opportunities 4.17 0.83 4.17 0.72 4.17 0.78 0.00
Capacity to follow ethics rules in
3 business 3.42 0.90 4.83 0.39 4.13 0.65 1.42
16 Abilities for thinking in long term 4.00 0.72 4.25 0.62 4.13 0.67 0.25
14 Abilities for defeat competition 4.08 0.67 4.08 0.67
1 High emotional intelligence 3.75 0.75 4.25 0.62 4.00 0.69 0.50
7 Reject pretentiousness 3.75 0.45 4.17 1.03 3.96 0.74 0.42
Abilities for delegating management
13 work 3.58 0.79 4.17 0.94 3.88 0.87 0.58
5 Capacity for innovation 3.25 0.75 3.92 0.67 3.58 0.71 0.67
12 Management abilities 3.50 0.67 3.50 0.67
average 4.24 4.24 4.24
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
To love your own work.

Capacity of clarify firm’s objectives.
Capacity of effort.
Feeling responsible to all the…
Risk capacity.
To be trust-worthy people
Leadership.
To be awareness at opportunities.
Capacity to follow ethics rules in business.
Abilities for thinking in long term.
Abilities for defeat competition
High emotional intelligence.
Reject pretentiousness.
Abilities for delegating management work.
Capacity for innovation.
Management abilities.
average
Figure 3: Comparison between second and third rounds of Delphi study

questionaries
average in both
Self opinion 3rd round
Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State
Others opinion 2nd round

81
Summary
This chapter presented the data collection procedure and results of a three-round
Delphi method research study. The first round was conducted in personal interviews with
a sample of 12 of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. The sample was
taken from the top 40 in Sinaloa State, as identified in the publication Bien Informado in
September 2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009).
In the first round open ended questions were asked. The questionnaires for the
second and the third round were generated by a content analysis of the themes that
emerged in the answers of the first round. The second and the third round were
questionnaires to be respond in a Likert-type scale; some entrepreneurs responded to
them by mail. In the second round other entrepreneurs answered the questionnaire in a
face-to-face interview. In the third round other participants answered the questionnaires
in telephonic calls.
According with this study the 12 major personal characteristics that generate the
profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State are:
1. Love to own work
2. Capacity of clarify firm’s objectives
3. Capacity of effort
4. Acceptance of responsibility to all the stakeholders
5. Risk capacity
6. To be a trust-worth people
7. Leadership
8. Awareness of opportunities
9. Capacity to follow ethics rules in business
10. Abilities for thinking in long term
11. Abilities for defeat competition
12. High emotional intelligence
13. Rejection of pretentiousness
14. Abilities for delegating management work
15. Capacity for innovation
16. Management abilities

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this study, using a Qualitative Delphi design, was to determine the
important entrepreneurial characteristics that allowed the most successful entrepreneurs
in Sinaloa State to build up their companies. The study explored three main aspects of
entrepreneurial personal characteristics that the literature review reported: management
skills, innovative abilities (Drucker, 1985; Grau, & Sotomayor, 2008; Hisrich et al., 2008;
Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004), and ethical behavior (Llano, 1997; Hisrich et al., 2008;
Senser, 2007). The study employed a three round Delphi technique to gain insights from
a group of participants. The sample of 12 entrepreneurs was taken from the top 40 in
Sinaloa State, as identified in the publication Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los
100 empresarios,” 2009). The researcher sought them in the order in which they appear
on the list of Bien Informado. When one entrepreneur was not able to participate in the
study, the researcher skipped that person and looked for the next one on the list.
Chapter 5 will explain the findings of the Delphi study, analyzing the answers in
the three rounds. From the analysis of the answers and their classification the profile of
the most successful entrepreneurs will be generated. This profile was compared to the
characteristics of the entrepreneurs discussed in Chapter 2: literature review. After that
Chapter 5 covered limitations and the significance of the current study.
Recommendations for the participant entrepreneurs and for others who are concerned
with entrepreneurship and suggestions for further research were placed before the
summary and conclusions of chapter 5.

Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire
The first round had open-ended questions. Thus the opinions could reflect more
characteristics that the ones that were asked, three in the first question and one in the
other questions. In the first question of round one the expert participants gave their
opinion on what they considered to be their personal characteristics that enable them to
success in entrepreneurship. They expressed 39 opinions, which fitted in 14 different
personal characteristics. The 10 personal characteristics that received a frequency greater
than one were: high emotional intelligence, capacity of effort and work, honesty, clarity
in objectives, capacity of innovation, leadership, austerity, love to own work, awareness
at opportunities, and capacity of generating confidence.
In the second question of round one they were asked their opinion about the
possible describe of a common profile of most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State.
14 opinions were received, 11 that agreed upon a common profile and 3 that expressed
that a common profile could not be descript. The opinions that supported the idea of a
common profile were personal characteristics, the answers that reject the idea supported
their opinions in concepts that were not personal characteristics; they were that most
successful entrepreneurs runs firms that are in different industries, and their companies
grew in different times. The personal characteristics that emerged from their opinions and
received a frequency greater than one were: large risk capacity, large capacities for effort
and work, large capacity of organization, large capacity for innovation, and large vision
of their business.
In the third question of round one they were asked if their growth as entrepreneurs
was the fruit of the ability to manage a firm or the ability capacity to innovate and take
risks (Grau & Sotomayor, 2008). 13 concepts emerged from this question and only one
entrepreneur responded that management skills were more important; his argument was
that costs are very relevant in his industries. The other ones answer that to innovate and
take risks were more important, although four of them add that sometimes the focus must
be in management. Three participants opined that management could be delegated. Two
other reasons to innovate emerged, both of them with a frequency of two opinions: large
opportunities in the business niche, and competition requires innovation. However these
reasons were not fruit of personal characteristics, they resulted from the environment;
thus the present research study does not consider them.
In the forth question of round one the role that ethics had played their
entrepreneurial work was asked. All participants answered that ethics played an important
role in their entrepreneurial success. The reasons with a frequency larger that one were:
entrepreneurs must take care of all the stakeholders, ethics generates confidence, and long
run success is impossible without ethics.
The 16 personal characteristics answered at these four questions that received a
frequency of two of higher value generated the profile of the sample. Rounds two and
three studied the value that the participants gave to those characteristics in themselves
and in the other successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State.
Analysis of the answers of the second questionnaire
In the second round, the panelist ranked the personal characteristics of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State that were generated form round 1. They
assigned grades from 1 to 5 to the characteristics in a Linker-type scale. In round 2 the
average of the values were: love to own work, 4.67; capacity of clarify firm’s objectives,
4.42; capacity of effort, 4.33; risk capacity, 4.17; leadership, 4.17; to be awareness at
opportunities, 4.17; abilities for thinking in long term, 4; to be trust-worthy people, 3.88;
feeling responsible to all the stakeholders, 3.83; high emotional intelligence, 3.75; reject
pretentiousness, 3.75; abilities for delegating management work, 3.58; capacity to follow
ethics rules in business, 3.42; and capacity for innovation., 3.25
Analysis of the answers of the third questionnaire
In the third round the panelist evaluated themselves on the characteristics that
emerged from questionnaire one, the results were: capacity to follow ethics rules in
business, 4.83; feeling responsible to all the stakeholders, 4.67; to be trust-worthy people,
4.50; love to own work, 4.42; capacity of clarify firm’s objectives, 4.25; capacity of
effort, 4.25; risk capacity, 4.25; abilities for thinking in long term, 4.25; high emotional
intelligence, 4.25; leadership, 4.17; to be awareness at opportunities, 4.17; reject
pretentiousness, 4.17; abilities for delegating management work, 4.17; abilities for defeat
competition, 4.08; capacity for innovation, 3.92; and management abilities., 3.50
Analysis of the comparison between second and third questionnaire
To refine the value of the characteristics, the average of the values in second and
third round were calculated. The results were: love to own work, 4.54; capacity of clarify
firm’s objectives, 4.33; capacity of effort, 4.29; feeling responsible to all the
stakeholders, 4.25; risk capacity., 4.21; to be trustworthy people, 4.19; leadership, 4.17;
to be awareness at opportunities, 4.17; capacity to follow ethics rules in business, 4.13;
abilities for thinking in long term, 4.13; abilities for defeat competition, 4.08; high
emotional intelligence, 4.00; reject pretentiousness, 3.96; abilities for delegating
management work, 3.88; capacity for innovation, 3.58; management abilities, 3.50
Classification of the personal characteristics
The personal characteristics were classified in three different categories:
emotional, social, and intellectual abilities. The emotional characteristics were: high
emotional intelligence, capacity of effort, reject pretentiousness, love to own work, and
risk capacity. 4.20 was the mean of the emotional characteristics. The social abilities had
a mean of 4.12 and were the following characteristics: feeling responsible to all the
stakeholders, to be trust-worthy people, leadership, capacity to follow ethics rules in
business and, abilities for delegating management work. The intellectual characteristics,
which mean value was 3.97 were: capacity of clarify firm’s objectives; to be awareness at
opportunities, abilities for thinking in long term, abilities for defeat competition,
management abilities and, capacity for innovation. According with this information, the
sample had succeeded as entrepreneurs in first place for their emotional aptitudes, after
for the social abilities and finally for their intellectual skills.
Studying the difference of questionnaires two and three the greater differences is
finding in capacity to follow ethics rules in business, which numeric value is 1.42 in a
five points Linker-scale. This result showed that the sample had greater concern in ethics
that the importance of that they found in the business environment. It is logic; the
entrepreneurs who are willing to collaborate in academic studies are usually more
concern in ethics and they recommend others people concern in ethics to collaborate with
the present research study. The second higher value of the differences between second
and third questionnaires was 0.83 and was received by another ethical principle: feeling
responsible to all the stakeholders. Collaborating in an academic study is a manifestation

of responsibility with the community; this characteristic is more often in the sample than
in the people who reject to participate in the present research study.
Implications
The present study concludes that, according to the responses of the sample, a
profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State could be built up. The profile
is shown graphically in Figure 4. The profile is the sum of all the personal characteristics
found in the present research study, and summarizes the personality of these
entrepreneurs. The profile could be built because there was consensus in the importance
that the participants, gave to the grade of each characteristic. All standard deviation in the
average of the questionnaires were less than one point in a five points Linker scale.
This profile could be a useful tool in developing an educative plan to promote
new entrepreneurs who could improve and spread wealth (Khalil, 2006; Nickels,
McHugh, & McHugh, 2005), creating and expanding ventures are the best ways to
improve economic quality of living for low-income people in Sinaloa (Esquer, 2008).
The profile is useful for diverse industries; not only to work in agriculture, which
historically is the most important economic business in the state.

Figure 4: Profile of the most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State

Comparison with Literature Review
Table 5 shows the personal characteristics in the profile of the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State, their classification, and the references in the literature
review in which they were found. The profile has three personal characteristics that the
literature review did not report; in those cases the box literature in that row is empty.
Table 9
Personal characteristics found in literature review
Characteristic Literature
Love of your own work Emotional
Capacity of effort Emotional
Risk capacity Naughton & Cornwal (2006); Hisrich Emotional
et al. (2008); Stevenson, & Gumpert
(1985); Smith (1994)
High emotional intelligence Rhee and White (2007) Emotional
Rejection of pretentiousness Emotional
Capacity of clarify firm’s objectives Llano (2004); Hamm (2002) Intellectual
Awareness of opportunities. Baron & Ensley (2006); Kaplan & Intellectual
Warren (2007)
Abilitiy to think in the long term. Hamm (2002) Intellectual
Abilities for defeat competition Davila (in press); Porter (1996); Hamel Intellectual
& Prahalad (2005)
Capacity for innovation. Hisrich et al. (2008); Baron & Ensley Intellectual
(2006); Drucker (1985); Timmons, &
Spinelli (2004)
Management abilities. Bishop & Nixon (2006); Hisrich et al., Intellectual
(2008)
Feeling responsible to all the Social abilities
stakeholders. Llano (1997); Schaefer (2008)
To be trust-worthy people Welter & Smallbone (2006) Social abilities
Leadership. Gómez (2008); Bass, & Bass (2008) Social abilities
Capacity to follow ethics rules in Senser (2007); Mackey, Mackey, & Social abilities
business. Barney (2007); Hemingway (2005);
Llano (1997); de la Vega (2009)
Abilities for delegating management Social abilities
work. Hamm (2002)
The profile has 16 personal characteristics. Thirteen characteristics are in the
literature review of the present study. The profile has three personal characteristics that
the literature review did not report these are: capacity of effort; rejection of
pretentiousness, and love to for one’s own work. These three characteristics are in
emotional abilities group. This fact agree with the idea expressed by Rhee and White
(2007) emotional abilities is a topic that is higher attention in research; however this kind
of research has seldom by applied to entrepreneurship.
Rhee and White (2007) added that 20th century research is focusing on the
“differential ability of individuals to exploit objective opportunities” (p. 410). These
kinds of abilities fit the skills in the profile that have been classified as intellectual
characteristics. Table 5 showed that all the intellectual characteristics were found in the
literature review, and all cases more than one reference studied that characteristic. Only
the abilities for thinking in the long-term were studied in only one reference.
Social abilities of entrepreneurs is a topic that research has studied in the 20th
century. Ethics is especially an area in which researches have deep after the great
scandals of Enron, Anderson, WorldCom, Tyco, Xerox, Ahold, Parmalat and other firms.
Table 5 showed that all the social abilities were present in the literature review, and all
cases with more than one reference researched that characteristic. Only the abilities
delegating management work were studied in only one reference.
Limitations
The scope of this Delphi study focused on the profile of the top 40 entrepreneurs
in Sinaloa State, as identified in the publication Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los
100 empresarios,” 2009). This was an investigative process with the primary concern of
accurately determining this profile. This Delphi study remained limited to determining
the concepts that were important for the profile of the entrepreneurs. The data that
supports the current research study was obtained from the expert participants, so the
subjectivity of the expert entrepreneurs could produced some bias. The study researched
their personal characteristics only; other factors that could help them to succeed (previous
personal or familiar financial power, family relations, and specific support from the
government) were not studied. The study also remained limited to the asynchronous
feedback gathered from the selected group of participants. One final limitation remained
the restricted timeframe in which the Delphi study occurred.
Significance of Research
This Delphi study appears to be the first research on entrepreneurship in Sinaloa
State. This showed that the Delphi technique does not require participating experts to
interact in face-to-face communications, which made the method useful in conducting
surveys with qualified participants who had high time restrictions. Davila (in press)
determined that most entrepreneurship literature focused the United States, Europe, or
Japan whereas this Delphi study encompassed feedback from entrepreneurs from a State
in Mexico.
Significance of Findings to Leadership
The study of entrepreneurship categorized into various disciplines, including
economics, psychology, and others. Although there is value in studying entrepreneurship
in every one of these science: leadership. Understanding the characteristics of
entrepreneurs provides a foundation on which future inquiry is possible; these are natural
actions by those who want to have a foundational view of leadership. Entrepreneurs are a
specific kind of leader. The understanding of the profile of the entrepreneurs in Sinaloa
State adds a concrete knowledge to the literature of leadership. This knowledge has a
special value because leadership and especially entrepreneurial leadership in Mexico
have almost not been studied (Davila, in press).
Recommendations
The first recommendation is for the participant entrepreneurs. They already know
the grades that they receive a grade that was not five in their questionnaires, if they try to
improve those personal characteristics they will become better persons and better
entrepreneurs. The knowledge of which characteristics have been in average more
importantly provides the value of each characteristic in the strength of acquiring them.
The grades in the sample reflect that emotional and social abilities have a greater
importance in entrepreneurship than intellectual skills. Part of the mission of business
schools is to prepare their students to be entrepreneurs. Thus business schools need to
focus their efforts primarily in emotional and social abilities, and after that in intellectual
abilities. According to Bennis and O'Toole (2005) and Ghoshal, S (2005) business
schools are focus on intellectual abilities and that is one of the reason by which they have
“lost their way” (Bennis & O'Toole, 2005, p.1).
Educators in Sinaloa need to focus their work in the importance of futures
entrepreneurs. The profile generated in the present research study is a tool that could
focus the parents and teachers to educate young people to have those abilities in the
future. If the amount of people with entrepreneurs’ abilities increases, the number and
size of firms in Sinaloa will improve. Entrepreneurship increases and spreads wealth
(Khalil, 2006; Nickels, McHugh, & McHugh, 2005)

Suggestions for Further Research
To determine the profile of the entrepreneurs in other states of Mexico, and the
profile of the entrepreneurs in whole country it is recommended to conduct additional
research using the Delphi method. Knowing the difference in the entrepreneurs in
different parts of Mexico could help to understand the reasons of the different economic
development in the diverse areas of this country.
The sample of the present research study only covered the first 40 entrepreneurs
in Sinaloa State, as identified in the publication Bien Informado in September 2009 (“Los
100 empresarios,” 2009), it is recommend that the rest of this list be studied. These
studies could show if the profile of the first 40 entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State is the same
profile of the rest of the list. Studies on further lists in this publication, and other lists that
could appear of the most important entrepreneurs in Sinaloa could show if this profile
changes with time.
As the population of the present research only include male, it is recommend the
study of a large population in order to include women. The list in Bien Informado in
September 2009 (“Los 100 empresarios,” 2009) includes seven women. Other
recommendation is to use a sample of the most successful women as entrepreneurs in
Sinaloa State and compare them with the sample used in the study.
Summary and Conclusion
The present study concludes doing the contribution search in the purpose
statement: to determine the important entrepreneurial characteristics that allowed the
most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State to build up their companies. These
characteristics were summarized in the profile shown in figure 4 in the discussion of that
section. The study explored three main aspects of entrepreneurial personal characteristics
that the literature review reported: management skills, innovative abilities (Drucker,
1985; Grau, & Sotomayor, 2008; Hisrich et al., 2008; Timmons, & Spinelli, 2004), and
ethical behavior (Llano, 1997; Hisrich et al., 2008; Senser, 2007). The aforementioned
characteristics were the research variables of the current research study.
Chapter 5 explained the findings of the Delphi study, analyzing the answers in the
three rounds. From the study of the responses and their categorization, the profile of the
most successful entrepreneurs was generated. This profile was contrast with the
characteristics of the entrepreneurs discussed in Chapter 2: literature review. After that
Chapter 5 presented the limitations and significance of the current study.
Recommendations for the participant entrepreneurs and for others who are concern in
entrepreneurship was placed before suggestions for further research and the summary and
conclusions of Chapter 5.
References
Abdul-Sathar, E., Suresh, R. P., & Muraleedharan, K. R. (2007). A vector valued
Bivariate Gini index for truncated distributions. Statistical Papers, 48(4), 543-
557. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=108187
Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (2005). Handbook of entrepreneurship research. New York:
Springer.
Alvarez, S. (2005). Resources and hierarchies: Intersections between entrepreneurship
and strategy. In Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. (2005). Handbook of entrepreneurship
research (pp. 247–263). New York, NY: Springer.
Alvear, C. (2005). Manual de historia de la cultura. [Manual of history of culture].
México D.F.: Limunsa.
Aquinas, T. (c. 1270). Whether peace is the same as concord? Summa Theological. II–II.
q. 29. a. 1. Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/summa
Aquinas, T. (c. 1270). Whether magnanimity is about honors? Summa Theological. II–II.
q. 129. a. 1. Retrieved from www.newadvent.org/summa
Aristotle. Politics. Retrieved from
http://usuarios.lycos.es/politicasne/documentos/politica.pdf
Baron R. A., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Opportunity recognition as the detection of
meaningful evidence from comparisons of novice and experienced entrepreneurs.
Management Science, 52(9), 1331–344. doi 10.1287

Barton, T. D. (2008). Understanding practitioner ethnography. Nurse Researcher, 15(2),
7-18. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?
vid=5&hid=7&sid=5390ca97-ec92-4d1a-ab2f-8ba9f1596316%40sessionmgr11
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bennis, W. G., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard
Business Review, 83 (5), 96–104. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2005/05/how-
business-schools-lost-their-way/ar/1
Beyer, G. J. (2007). A theoretical appreciation of the ethic of solidarity in Poland twenty-
five years after. Journal of Religious Ethics, 35(2), 207–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9795.2007.00304.x
Bhagan, S. (2008). A chief executive officer and chief information officer consensus
decision-making model for information technology investments. (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Phoenix, 2008), Dissertation Abstracts International,
AAT 3333901
Bishop, K., & Nixon, R. (2006). Venture opportunity evaluations: Comparisons between
venture capitalists and inexperienced pre-nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of
Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 19–33. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=106
&sid=7bcffa3a-17f6-4aae-ba74-
d77ff97551e2%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3
d#db=bth&AN=24566085
Bragues, G. (2006). Seek the good life, not money: The Aristotelian approach to business
ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 341-357. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-
9026-4
Buttress, S. & Macke, D. (2008). Energizing entrepreneurs. Economic Development
Journal, 7(4), 20-25. Retrieved from http://www.iedconline.org
Busch, C., De Maret, P. S., Flynn, T., Kellum, R. Le, S., Meyers, B., Saunders, M.,
White, R., & Palmquist, M. (2009). Content analysis. Writing@CSU. Colorado
State University Department of English. Retrieved from
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/content/
Carree, M. A., & Thurik, A. R. (2005). The impact of entrepreneurship on economic
growth. In Z. Acs, & D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship
Research. New York, NY: Springer.
Carter, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship and marketing. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, &
N. Wadeson (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 114–137).
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Cassar, G. (2007). Money, money, money? A longitudinal investigation of entrepreneur
career reasons, growth preferences and achieved growth. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 19(1), 89–107. Retrieved from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/08985626.asp
Casson, M., Yeung, B., Basu, A., & Wadeson, N. (2006). The Oxford handbook of
entrepreneurship. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Successful Entrepreneurs In Sinaloa State100
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2009). The world factbook. Retrieved November 26,
2009 from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/mx.html
Champion, P. A. (2007). Equity vs. excellence: A Delphi study examining the future
ramifications of NCLB on gifted education (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Phoenix, 2007), Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3277191
Chamorro, E., Zapata, J. A., & Montenegro (2008). Knight y sus aportes a la teoría del
emprendedor. [Knight and his contributions to the entrepreneur theory]. Estudios
Gerenciales, 24(106), 83-98. Retrieved from
http://www.icesi.edu.co/estudios_gerenciales/previous_editions_starting_at_66th.
php
Cherem, S. (2008). Al grano. Vida y visión de los fundadores de Bimbo. [To the grain.
Life and vision of Bimbo’s founders]. México, D.F.: Khalida editors.
Christians, C. (2007). Non-violence in philosophical and religious ethics. Javnost-The
Public, 14(4), 5–17. Retrieved from
&sid=ce2e2cfb-865e-45a4-bd8f-
6c0b69f1829f%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3
d#db=a9h&AN=28513889
CODESIN (2008). Consejo para el desarrollo económico de Sinaloa. Retrieved
November 29, 2008, from codesin.org.mx
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). Boston,
MA: Irwin.
Cordeiro, W. P. (2008). Entrepreneurial business ethics: a special case or business as
usual? Review of Business Research, 8(4), 43–52. Retrieved from
&sid=ce2e2cfb-865e-45a4-bd8f-
6c0b69f1829f%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3
Cressy, R. (2006). Venture capital. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Wadeson.
(2006). The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship. (pp. 353–386). Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Crossan, M. M., Fry, J. N., & Killing, J. P. (2005). Strategic analysis and action (6th ed.).
Toronto, CA: Prentice-Hall.
Dahlin, L. (2007). Where have all the ethics gone? Business ethics and corporate social
responsibility through the years. Proceedings of the Northeast Business &
Economics Association, 360–366. Retrieved from
vid=5&hid=108&sid=23c59c30-9799-4fba-917e-
1ecef0b95400%40sessionmgr113
Davidsson, P. (2005). Researching Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
Davila, J.A. (in press). New venture growth beyond the small business threshold: The
case of México.
De Carolis, D. M., Saparito, P. (2006). Social capital, cognition, and entrepreneurial
opportunities: A theoretical framework. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
30(1), 41–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00109.x
de la Vega (2009). Carlos Llano en resumen [Carlos Llano in summary]. México, D.F.:
Ediciones Ruz.
Devlin, Z. L, (2009). Barbarian migrations and the Roman west 376–568. Early Medieval
Europe 17(4). 462-464. Retrieved from
http://www.reprintsdesk.com/landing/dl.aspx?o=421760&r=842236492
De Vos, P. (2006). The science of spices: Empiricism and economic botany in the early
Spanish empire. Journal of World History, 17(4), 399–427. Retrieved from
vid=14&hid=108&sid=23c59c30-9799-4fba-917e-
1ecef0b95400%40sessionmgr113
Downing, S. (2005). The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic
processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, 29(2), 185–204. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00076.x
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Duboff, R. (2007). The wisdom of (expert) crowds. Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 28.
Retrieved from
&sid=4d9f5de9-0c28-406c-988a-
99023541031a%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3
Dursteler, E. (2006). Venetians in Constantinople: Nation, identity, and coexistence in the
early modern Mediterranean. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Empresario in Diccionario esencial de la lengua española [Essential dictionary of the
Spanish language]. (2006). Real Academia Española. Madrid, Spain: Espasa-
Calpe.
Enciclopedia Universal en Español (2009). [Universal Encyclopedia in Spanish].
Retrieved from
http://www.spanish.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ee/atlas?id=18346&x=7&
y=4
Esquer, S. (2008). El reto: Ser más competitivo. [The challenge: To be more
competitive]. In Carrillo, A. (2008). Avanza Sinaloa 5 lugares en competitividad.
[Sinaloa increases its competitively 5 places], Bien Informado, 290, 70–80.
Gohmann, S. F., Hobbs, B. K., & McCrickard, M. (2008). Economic freedom and service
industry growth in the United States. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
32(5), 855–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00259.x
Ghoshal, S (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. Retrieved from
&sid=4d9f5de9-0c28-406c-988a-
Grau, J., & Sotomayor, J. M. (2008). Emprender o dirigir. [To instigate or to manage].
México, D. F.: Panorama editorial.
Grau, J., & Taracena, E. (1999). La estrategia de negocio aterrizada en refranes
populares [Business strategy concreted in popular adage]. México, D.F.:
McGraw-Hill.
Grégoire, D. A., Noël, M. X., Déry, R., & Béchard, J. P. (2006). Is there conceptual
convergence in entrepreneurship research? A co-citation analysis of frontiers of
entrepreneurship research, 1981–2004. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
30(3), 333-373. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00124.x
Grumet, L. (2008). The only real mistakes…. CPA Journal, 58(12), 7. Retrieved from
&sid=4d9f5de9-0c28-406c-988a-
Gómez, R. A. (2008).El liderazgo empresarial para la innovación tecnológica en las
micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas. [Entrepreneurial leadership for micro,
small and medium entreprises] Pensamiento & Gestión, (24), 157-194. Retrieved
from
vid=12&hid=108&sid=4d9f5de9-0c28-406c-988a-
99023541031a%40sessionmgr112
Guzmán, J. (2006). El rol del entrepreneurship en el proceso del crecimiento económico.
[The role of entrepreneurship in the economic growth process]. Estudios de

Economía Aplicada, 24(2). Retrived from http://www.revista-
eea.net/documentos/24221.pdf
Hadreas, P. (2005). Aristotle and Machiavelli interviewed on Wall Street Week Review.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3), 223–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8608.2005.00405
Hamel, G., Prahalad, C. K. (2005). Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review, 83(7),
148–161. Retrieved from
8&sid=4d9f5de9-0c28-406c-988a-
Hamm, J. (2002). Why entrepreneurs don't scale. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 110–
115. Retrieved from
99023541031a%40sessionmgr112
Hartman, E. (2008). Socratic questions and Aristotelian answers: A virtue-based
approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 313–328. doi:
10.1007/s10551-006-9337-5
Heather, P. (2006). The fall of the Roman Empire: A new history of Rome and the
barbarians. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Hebert, R. F., & Link, A. N. (2006). Historical perspectives on the entrepreneur.
Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 2(4), 261-408. Retrieved from

99023541031a%40sessionmgr112
Hemingway, C. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233–249. doi:
10.1007/s10551-005-0132-5
Hisrich, R., Peters, M., & Shepherd, D. (2008). Entrepreneurship. (7th ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Holey, E, Feeley, J. L., Dixon, J., & Whittaker, V. J. (2007). An exploration of the use of
simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC
Medical Research Methodology, 7, 52-61. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-52
Holst, S. (2005). Phoenicians: Lebanon's epic heritage. Los Angeles, CA: Cambridge &
Boston Press.
Holst, H. P. (2009). Cultural perspectives on the development of the retail trade, East and
West. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15(1), 137-149. doi:
10.1080/13602380802399452
Hospers, G. J. (2005). Joseph Schumpeter and his legacy in innovation studies.
Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18(3), 20–37. Retrieved from
vid=3&hid=106&sid=3e199c38-ba3b-458c-88bb-
caff6c5c55c1%40sessionmgr104
Hsu, C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10). Retrieved from
http://pareonline.net/pdf/v12n10.pdf
Huang K., Chou, C. J, & Sun, C. (2009). The effect of social capital on human capital: A
resource acquisition perspective. International Journal of Organizational
Innovation, 2 (2), 6-21.
vid=5&hid=106&sid=3e199c38-ba3b-458c-88bb-
caff6c5c55c1%40sessionmgr104
Huth, K. D. (2006). Leadership competencies for financial healthcare executives in the
U.S. air force. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Phoenix, 2006), Dissertation
Abstracts International, AAT 3209247
INEGI (2005). Instituto Nacional de Geografía y Estadística. [National Institute of
Geography and Statistics] Número de habitantes en el estado de Sinaloa,
Retrieved from
http://cuentame.inegi.gob.mx/monografias/informacion/sin/poblacion/default.aspx
?tema=me&e=25
INEGI. (2006). Instituto Nacional de Geografía y Estadística. [National Institute of
Geography and Statistics] Coeficiente de Gini para el ingreso corriente total,
Retrieved from
http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/rutinas/ept.asp?t=ming01&c=33
13
INEGI. (2009). Instituto Nacional de Geografía y Estadística. [National Institute of
Geography and Statistics] Coeficiente de Gini para el ingreso corriente total,
Retrieved from
http://www.inegi.gob.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/Boletines/Boletin/Com
unicados/Especiales/2009/julio/comunica3.doc
Kaiser, R., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations.
American Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110. doi: 10.103710003-066X.63.2 96
Kantor, S., Kram, K. E., & Sala, F. (2008). Change factor: Making the case for executive
adaptability. Leadership in Action, 27(6), 8–12. Retrieved form
vid=4&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
69d8149b12cb%40sessionmgr104
Kaplan, J. M., & Warren, A. C. (2007). Patterns of entrepreneurship. (2nd. ed.). John
Wiley electronic book.
Kamien, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship by the books. Journal of Economic Education, 39
(3), 245-250. Retrieved from
vid=7&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Khalil, E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic theory. Munich Personal RePEc
Archive, Paper No. 501. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/501/
Koppl, R. (2008). Computable entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
32(5), 919–926. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00262.x

Kor, Y. Y., Mahoney, J. T., & Michael, S. C. (2007). Resources, capabilities and
entrepreneurial perceptions. Journal of Management Studies, 44(7), 1187–1212.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00727.x
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management (12th ed.). New York, NY:
Person: Prentice Hall.
Kozan K., Öksoy, D., & Özsoy O. (2006). Growth plans of small businesses in Turkey:
Individual and environmental influences. Journal of Small Business Management,
44(1), 114–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2006.00157.x
LaRue, B., Childs, P., & Larson, K. (2006). Leading organizations from the inside out:
Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Law, K. S., Wong, Ch., & Song, L. J., (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483-496. Retrieved from
vid=12&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Levin, R. (2009). Staying true. Journal of Financial Planning 22(4), 28-30. Retrieved
from
vid=6&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications.
Retrieved from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf
Llano, C. (1997). Dilemas éticos de la empresa contemporánea. [Ethical dilemmas of
contemporary business] México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura económica.
Llano, C. (2004). Humildad y liderazgo. [Humility and leadership] México, D.F.:
Ediciones Ruz.
Los 100 empresarios más importantes de Sinaloa [The 100 most important entrepreneurs
in Sinaloa] (2009). Bien Informado 301.
Maali H. A., Orife, J., & Abel, I. (2008). Business plans: Are they relevant to venture
capitalists? Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 21(4), 381–391.
Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13691066.asp
Mackey, A, Mackey, T., & Barney, J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of
Management Review, 32(3), 817–835. Retrieved from
vid=8&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and
employee creativity. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,
81(1), 83–100. Retrieved from
vid=8&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Mankelow, D. J., & Cunneen G. J. (2007) Towards a process model of independent
growth firm creation. Small Enterprise Research, 15(1), 90-105. Retrived from
vid=8&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Mankins, M., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans, start making decisions. Harvard
Business Review, 84(1), 76–84. Retrieved from
vid=8&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Marens, R. (2005). Timing is everything: Historical contingency as a factor in the impact
of Catholic social teaching upon managerial practices. Journal of Business Ethics,
57(3), 285–301. doi: 10.1007/s10551-004-2778-9
Markley, M. (2007). Modern lessons from ancient internal controls. Accounting Today,
vid=8&hid=110&sid=588f0f6a-8c81-47d8-8506-
Marković, M. R. (2008). Managing the organizational change and culture in the age of
globalization. Journal of Business Economics & Management, 9(1), 3–11.
Retrieved from
vid=3&hid=119&sid=8852c2ad-4c22-4051-b912-
0ff13d6516c7%40sessionmgr110
Mastain, L. (2007). A phenomenological investigation of altruism as experienced by
moral exemplars. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 38(1), 62-99. doi:
10.1163/156916207X190247
Mathews, J. (2008). Entrepreneurial process: A personalistic-cognitive platform model.
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 33(3) 17–34. Retrieved from
vid=4&hid=119&sid=8852c2ad-4c22-4051-b912-
Matzler, K., Schwarz, E., Deutinger, N., & Harms, R. (2008). The relationship between
transformational leadership, product innovation and performance in SMEs.
Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 139–151. Retrieved from
vid=5&hid=119&sid=8852c2ad-4c22-4051-b912-
Metcalf. J. S. (2006). Entrepreneurship: An evolution. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A. Basu,
& N. Wadeson. (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp. 59–90).
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Montanye, J. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship. Independent Review, 10(4), 547–569.
Retrieved from
vid=7&hid=119&sid=8852c2ad-4c22-4051-b912-
Mokyr, J., & Nye, J. (2007). Distributional coalitions, the industrial revolution, and the
origins of economic growth in Britain. Southern Economic Journal, 74 (1), 50-70.
Retrieved from
vid=7&hid=119&sid=8852c2ad-4c22-4051-b912-
Morris, T. (2006). If Harry Potter ran General Electric: Leadership wisdom from the
world of the wizards. New York, NY: Doubleday Business.
Muhanna, E. (2007). Conceptual analysis of determinants of entrepreneurship: A South
African perspective. Problems & Perspectives in Management, 1, 95–102.
Muñoz, J. H. (2006). Empresarios y personajes sinaloenses. Culiacán, Sin, México.
Murov, V., & Staver, A. (2008). IT strategy, as the effective tool of achievement
competitive advantages of the company. Economics & Management, 129.
Retrieved July 9, 2008, from EBSCOhost database. Retrieved from
vid=4&hid=110&sid=9ff147dd-87c7-42c3-92b4-
98dc7e358526%40sessionmgr104
Nickels, W, McHugh, J., & McHugh, S. (2005). Understanding business. (7th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill electronic version.
Natoli, G. (2008). Augustinian moral consciousness and the businessman. Journal of
Business Ethics, 78(1), 97–107. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9531-0

Naughton, M. J., & Cornwall, J. R. (2006). The virtue of courage in entrepreneurship:
engaging the Catholic social tradition and the life-cycle of the business. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 16(1), 69–93. Retrieved from
New American Bible, Retrieved from
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm
Nicholas, D.B., Globerman, J., Antle, B.J., McNeill, T, & Lach, L.M. (2006). Processes
of metastudy: A study of psychosocial adaptation to childhood chronic health
conditions. IJQM 5 (1). Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/PDF/NICHOLAS.PDF
Nixon, M. (2007). Satisfaction for whom? Freedom for what? Theology and the
economic theory of the consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(1), 39–60. doi:
10.1007/s10551-006-9078-5
Okoye A. (2007). Corporations and corporate governance: What do these concepts mean
for multinational corporate power and social responsibility? International Journal
of Liability and Scientific Enquiry, 1(1), 29-49.
http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&ba
ckto=issue,4,17;journal,5,5;linkingpublicationresults,1:120796,
O’Rourke K. H., &. Williamson J. G. (2009). Did Vasco da Gama matter for European
markets? Economic History Review, 6 (3). 655–684 Retrieved from
http://www.reprintsdesk.com/landing/dl.aspx?o=421759&r=455521951
O’Neil, W. J. (2004). Business leaders & success. 55 top business leaders & how they
achieved greatness. New York: McGraw Hill electronic book.
Osborne, C. (2007). Happy lives and the highest good: An essay on Aristotle's
Nicomachean ethics – Gabriel Richardson Lear. Philosophical Investigations,
30(1), 92–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9205.2007.00309_3.x
Ouyang, B. C., & Rau, H. (2008). An economic production lot size for continuous
decrease in unit production cost. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research,
Patel, P. C., & Conklin, B. (2009). The balancing act: the role of transnational habitus
and social networks in balancing transnational entrepreneurial activities.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(5), 1045-1078. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2009.00334.x
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfiled, D., McMillan, R., & Switzer, A. (2008). Influencer.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Perl, J: M., Stone, G. B., Bok, S., McCall, T., Gubar, S., & Colegate, I. (2006). Unsocial
thought, uncommon lives: Part 1. Common Knowledge, 12(2), 214–218. Retrieved
from
Personality in Encyclopedia Britannica (2009). Retrieved January, 7, 2009, from
http://www.search.eb.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/eb/article-9108533
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
Retrieved from
Pretentiousness in Diccionario esencial de la lengua española [Essential dictionary of the
Spanish language]. (2006). Real Academia Española. Madrid, Spain: Espasa-
Calpe.
Pretentiousness in American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2009)
Retrieved from http://www.wordnik.com/words/pretentious
Profile in Oxford dictionary. (2008). Oxford, U.K. Retrieved from
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/profile?view=uk
Rhee, K. S., & White, R. J. (2007). The emotional intelligence of entrepreneurs. Journal
of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 409–425. Retrieved from
Rhodes, M. L., & Donnelly-Cox, G. (2008). Social entrepreneurship as a performance
landscape: The case of “front line.” Emergence: Complexity & Organization,
10(3), 35-50. Retrieved from
Ricketts, M. (2006). Theories of entrepreneurship: Historical development and critical
assessment. In M. Casson, B., Yeung, A. Basu, & N. Wadeson. (2006).The
Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, (pp. 33–58). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press.
Rosenberg J. P. & Yates P. M. (2007) Schematic representation of case study research
designs. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(4), 447-452. Retrieved from
Ruiz, C. (2008) in the preface of Emprender o dirigir [To instigate or to manage]. Grau,
J. & Sotomayor, J. M. México. D. F.: Panorama editorial.
Samuelson, P., & Nordhauss, W. (2009). Economics (19th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Schaefer, B. (2008). Shareholders and Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,
81(2), 297-312. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9495-0
Scheibe, M., Skutsch, M., & Schofer, J. (2002). Experiments in Delphi methodology. In
H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and
applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Retrieved from
http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch4c.pdf
Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational behavior (9th ed.)
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley electronic book.

Senser, R. A. (2007). Corporate social responsibility. Dissent, 54(1), 77–82.
Sheridan, E. (2005). Intercultural leadership competencies for U.S. business leaders in the
new millennium. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, 2005).
Dissertations Abstracts International, AAT 3172360
Sinaloa State Government (2007). Economic statistics. PIB per capita 2007. Retrieved
from http://laip.sinaloa.gob.mx/NR/rdonlyres/745ED749-DDAD-442A-B0A8-
3D16F0229B87/0/Pibpercapita.xls
Simon, M. K. (2006). Dissertation & scholarly research: Recipes for success – A
practical guide to start & complete your dissertation, thesis, or formal research
project. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt
Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate
research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from
vid=3&hid=111&sid=a8ffe6f9-1ac6-4181-a129-
3686f41ba518%40sessionmgr112.
Smith, C. E. (1994). The Merlin factor: Leadership and strategic intent. Business Strategy
Review, 5(1), 67–85. Retrieved from
3686f41ba518%40sessionmgr112
Srinivas, S. (2009). Effective performance management. Journal of Business Logistics,
30 (2), 85-100. Retrieved from
Starkman, D. (2008). Boiler room. Columbia Journalism Review, 47(3), 48–53. Retrieved
form
Stearns, P. (2007). The industrial revolution in world history. Cambidge, MA: Westview
Press.
Stevenson, H., & Gumpert, D. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business
Review, 63(2), 85–94. Retrieved from
Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald L. Jr., & Sashkin, M. (2005). The entrepreneurial
leader's impact on the organization's performance in dynamic markets. Journal of
Private Equity, 8(4), 20–29. Retrieved from
Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2009). Transnational entrepreneurs' venture internationalization
strategies: A practice theory approach. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,
33(5), 1093-1120. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00336.x

Thornton, P., & Flynn, K., (2005). Entrepreneurship, networks and geographies. In Z.
Acs, & D. Audretsch (Eds.). Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research. New York,
NY: Springer.
Tichy, N. & Cohen, E. (2001). Why are leaders important? The Jossey-Bass reader on
educational leadership. San Francisco, Ca: John Wiley electronic book.
Timmons, J., & Spinelli, S. (2004). New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st
Century. New York: McGraw-Hill electronic book.
Tirado, R. (2006). El poder en las cámaras industriales de México. [The power of
industrial chambers in Mexico]. Foro Internacional 184, (2), 197-226. Retrieved
from http://revistas.colmex.mx/revistas/7/art_7_1146_8735.pdf
Trever, A. A. (2008). A history of Greek economic thought. BiblioLife.
Trujillo, M. M., & Rivas, L. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence model for directors of
research centers in México. Estudios Gerenciales, 24(106), 13–30. Retrieved
from
Turner, M. (2007). Society must be protected. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Summer
(26), 85–99. Retrieved from
United Nations. (1948). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The
Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm
Van Krevelen, L. (2005). Truth and heresy: The ethics of publishing in the 21st century.
Publishing Research Quarterly, 20(4), 35–40. Retrieved from
Vázquez, M. L., Gómez, C., & Lugo, C. (2005). Historia de la cultura. [History of
culture]. México, D.F.: Thomson.
Vazquez-Ramos, R., Leahy, M., & Hernandez, N. E. (2007). The Delphi method in
rehabilitation counseling research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(2), 111-
118. Retrieved from
Visser, D. J., de Coning, T. J., & Smit, E. (2005). The relationship between the
characteristics of the transformational leader and the entrepreneur in South
African SMEs. South African Journal of Business Management, 36(3), 51–63.
Retrieved from
vid=5&hid=111&sid=29645106-27ef-4601-8478-
99a365a37e83%40sessionmgr114
Vizcarra, J. (2006). Sinaloa necesita mejores empleos y mejor pagados [Sinaloa needs
better employments and higher paid]. Noroeste. Retrieved from
http://www.noroeste.com
Wadeson, N. (2006). Cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship. In M. Casson, B. Yeung, A.
Basu, & N. Wadeson. (2006). The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship (pp.
91–113). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2006). Exploring the role of trust in entrepreneurial activity.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(4), 465–475. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2006.00130.x
Welter, F. & Lasch, F. (2008). Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Taking stock and
looking forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 32(2), 241-248. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00224.x
Wren, D. A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons electronic version.

Appendix A: First Questionnaire for the Delphi Study
1. What are the three most important personal characteristics that enabled you to
succeed in entrepreneurship? Why?
2. Do you think is it possible to describe a common profile of most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State? Why?
3. According to Grau and Sotomayor (2008), the entrepreneur must grow in two
directions, ability to manage a firm and capacity to innovate and take risks. What
direction is more important for you? Why?
4. Has ethics played some role in your entrepreneurial work? Why?
Appendix B: Permission to Use Figure 2

Appendix C: Invitación A Empresarios Exitosos
Estimado señor:
Mi nombre es Alejandro Domínguez Pacheco. Estoy realizando mi tesis doctoral

para obtener el grado de Doctor en la Universidad de Phoenix. El título de la disertación
es “perfil de los empresarios sinaloenses más exitosos”. Las personas a estudiar, en base a
los cuales se obtendrá el perfil, serán empresarios que aparecieron en primeros 40 lugares
en la lista publicada en la revista Bien Informado en el número de septiembre de 2009.
El estudio se elaborará en tres rondas de cuestionarios. La primera una entrevista

personal en la que se explican los alcances del estudio. En las otras dos en cuestionarios
mandados vía correo electrónico. Las dos últimas rondas servirán para delimitar y
precisar los hallazgos de la primera entrevista.
Al firmar la presente carta usted accede a participar en las tres rondas del estudio
que se llevará a cabo utilizando el método Delhi. Las normas de la ética de investigación
garantizan la privacidad y confidencialidad del estudio. La tesis, fruto de la presente
investigación será archivada en el acervo de la Universidad de Phoenix. Usted tendrá
acceso a una copia de la publicación. La identidad de los participantes y la información
proporcionada permanecerán anónimos.
Atentamente,
Alejandro Domínguez Pacheco

Estudiante de la Universidad de Phoenix en línea.
alejandrodp@email.phoenix.edu
(667) 7164369
Culiacán, Sin. México
Firma (a mano) Fecha
Yo, ______________________________ acepto participar como panelista en el estudio

Delhi que se llevará a cabo para determinar el perfil personal de los empresarios más
exitosos del estado de Sinaloa. Mi firma indica que participo en estudio voluntariamente,
que soy mayor de edad. Si en algún momento decido abandonar el estudio lo haré
sabiendo que no habrá ningún problema al hacerlo. Soy consciente de que los resultados
del estudio serán publicados, pero mi nombre y mi identidad permanecerán anónimos.
Al fimar esta forma, reconozco que entiendo la naturaleza de este estudio, el
riesgo potencial que tengo como participante y los medios que se pondrán para que mi
identidad permanezca confidencial. Mi firma en esta forma indica también, que soy
mayor de 18 años, y que voluntariamente autorizo a ser utilizado como participante en el
estudio arriba descrito.
Firma del Participante: (a mano) ___________________________________
Nombre del Participante (Letra de molde) ___________________________
Fecha: ______________________
Appendix D: Invitation to Successful Entrepreneurs
Greetings,
My name is Alejandro Domínguez Pacheco.

I am currently conducting a doctoral study in the University of Phoenix. The title of the
dissertation is “Profile of the most important entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State”. The
research will obtain the profile studying entrepreneurs who appeared in the first 40 places
in the list published in the magazine Bien Informado in September 2009.
The study will have three rounds of inquiry questionnaires. In the first one, the
researcher will interview you personally, explaining the aim of study. The other two
questionnaires will be sent by electronic mail. The two last rounds will serve to set the
limits of the findings of the first interview.
By signing this letter, you are agreeing to participate in the three rounds of
questionnaires via the Delphi technique for this study. The ethical norms of investigation
guarantee the privacy and confidentiality of the study. The library at the University of
Phoenix will file the resulting dissertation. You will have access to a copy of the
publication. The identity of the participants and the proportionate information will remain
anonymous.
Kindly,
Alejandro Domínguez Pacheco
University of Phoenix Online Faculty.
alejandrodp@email.phoenix.edu
(667) 7164369
Culiacán, Sin. México
Signature of Panelist (in ink) Date
I, ____________________________ agree to participate as a panelist in the

Delphi study that will be carried out to determine the personal profile of the most
successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. My signature below indicates that I voluntarily
desire to participate in this study, and that I am at least 18 years of age or older. If I
choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, I can do so without
penalty or loss of benefit to myself. I am aware that the results of the study will be
published, but my name and my identity will remain anonymous.
“By signing this form I acknowledge that I understand the nature of the study, the
potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my identity will be kept
confidential. My signature on this form also indicates that I am 18 years old or older and
that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.”
Participant’s Signature: (in ink) ___________________________________
Participant’s Name (Please Print) ___________________________
Date: ______________________
Appendix E: Elements of Rigor, Their Definitions, and Evidence of Their Presence
in Studies
Element of Rigor Definition of Evidence “Indicator” of Rigor within

Each Element an Article
Face validity Work resonates • Addresses the substantive area it
with itself, indicated it would; consistency and
addresses what logical flow of arguments—can follow
is indicated the story
Trustworthiness Credibility • Prolonged engagement: engages in
culture of participants—aware of
participants
• Persistent observation—interviews of at
least 1 hour or interviews over time
• Referential adequacy—tapes,
transcriptions
• Negative case analysis—search for
opposites or disconfirming situations,
data, and/or literature
• Member checking—researcher went
back to participants with findings
• Peer debriefing—coding and analysis
discussed with others
• Confirmability—quotes used
Transferability • Sample size explained and justified;
purposive sampling explained
• Findings presented appropriately, e.g.,
percentages not used incorrectly; does
not overgeneralize (sticks to data)
• Thick description—detailed description
of sample and context; saturation
addressed
Dependability/ • Articulation of who collected data,
confirmability when data were collected, and who
analyzed data
• Form of data collection identified
• Explanation of method
• Audit trail: (a) record of memos; (b)
can draw a picture of what researchers
did, i.e., decisions made, processes
Triangulation • Findings contrasted to other
literature/data; variety of data collection
methods, sources, or types of data; more
than one person reviewed data
Element of Rigor Definition of Evidence “Indicator” of Rigor within

Each Element an Article
Reflexivity Subjectivity, • Self-awareness, bias, perspective of
cultural review researcher articulated; reflexive
journaling
Authenticity • “Voice” is articulated, i.e., who speaks
and for whom
• Stakeholders are involved in the
project, e.g., advisory committee;
participant is a “true” participant in the
research process
Fairness • Respect for/reciprocity with
participants/stakeholders demonstrated
• All stakeholders have equal access to
research process/benefits
Note: From Processes of Metastudy: A Study of Psychosocial Adaptation to Childhood
Chronic Health Conditions by D. B. Nicholas, J. Globerman, B. J. Antle, T. McNeill, and
L. M. Lach, 2006, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1)
Appendix F: Second Questionnaire in Spanish Language
Estimado Señor:
A continuación presentamos 18 preguntas fruto de las respuestas que ustedes, los
empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa expresaron en el primer cuestionario. Para ayudar a
la claridad en las respuestas comenzamos con algunas definiciones que ayudan a
precisar algunos términos:
1. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa: personas que posen la mayoría de las
acciones y participan en el nivel más alto de la dirección de empresas que
venden al menos 800 millones de pesos al año.
2. Inteligencia emocional, capacidad personal que implica cuatro habilidades:
1) La habilidad individual de entender las propias emociones y la capacidad de
mostrarlas adecuadamente.
2) La habilidad individual de percibir y entender las emociones de la gente
alrededor.
3) La habilidad de una persona de regular sus emociones, capacitándola para una
rápida recuperación de un daño psicológico.
4) La habilidad de una persona para hacer que sus emociones se dirijan hacia
actividades positivas (Law, Wong & Song, 2004, p. 484).
3. Ética, acuerdo con Aristóteles, ciencia que enseña cómo adquirir virtudes. Las
virtudes, al producir buenos comportamientos, son el medio para alcanzar el fin
último de la vida humana (Bragues, 2006).
4. Pretensión: actitud presumida de una grandeza o posición de distinción o mérito,
especialmente cuando es injustificada. Es la actitud opuesta a la austeridad y la
modestia.
Favor de calificar de 1 a 5 las siguientes oraciones. 1 implica el Respuestas
desacuerdo total y 5 estar completamente de acuerdo con la frase
indicada.
1 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen una gran inteligencia 1 2 3 4 5
emocional
2 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen una gran capacidad de 1 2 3 4 5
esforzarse al trabajar
3 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa siempre siguen las normas 1 2 3 4 5
éticas en su trabajo
4 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen muy claros sus 1 2 3 4 5
objetivos empresariales
5 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen gran capacidad para la 1 2 3 4 5
innovación
6 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son líderes habitualmente 1 2 3 4 5
seguidos por sus empleados
7 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa habitualmente rechazan la 1 2 3 4 5
presunción tanto personal como corporativa
8 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les gusta mucho su trabajo 1 2 3 4 5
9 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son personas que usualmente 1 2 3 4 5
están alerta para conseguir oportunidades de negocios
Favor de calificar de 1 a 5 las siguientes oraciones. 1 implica el Respuestas

desacuerdo total y 5 estar completamente de acuerdo con la frase
indicada.
10 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son personas en las que 1 2 3 4 5

usualmente se pude confiar, generan seguridad en las personas
relacionadas con ellos
11 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen una gran capacidad de 1 2 3 4 5
riesgo
12 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les gustaría dedicarse más a 1 2 3 4 5
innovar, pero en ocasiones tienen que dedicarse más al trabajo
administrativo
13 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa usualmente delegan el trabajo 1 2 3 4 5
administrativo, para poder dedicarse a innovar empresarialmente
14 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa no les gusta innovar, pues 1 2 3 4 5
la innovación genera riesgos; sin embargo la competencia los fuerza a
hacerlo
15 Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa usualmente innovan, pues sus 1 2 3 4 5
compañías tienen grandes oportunidades en los nichos de industria en
donde operan
16 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les importa la ética, pues se 1 2 3 4 5
sienten responsables de todos los relacionados con la empresa como
clientes, proveedores, empleados, accionistas, vecinos, etc.
17 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les importa la ética, porque 1 2 3 4 5
el comportamiento ético genera confianza en todas las personas
implicadas en la operación de la empresa
18 A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les importa la ética porque 1 2 3 4 5
ellos piensan que no es posible alcanzar el largo plano sin ética.
Appendix G: Second Questionnaire in Spanish
Estimado Señor:
A continuación presentamos 18 preguntas fruto de las respuestas que ustedes, los
empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa expresaron en el primer cuestionario. Para ayudar a
la claridad en las respuestas comenzamos con algunas definiciones que ayudan a precisar
algunos términos
Definiciones:
Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa: personas que posen la mayoría de las
acciones y participan en el nivel más alto de la dirección de empresas que venden al
menos 800 millones de pesos al año.
La inteligencia emocional es una capacidad personal que implica cuatro habilidades:
1) La habilidad individual de entender las propias emociones y la capacidad de mostrarlas
adecuadamente.
2) La habilidad individual de percibir y entender las emociones de la gente alrededor.
3) La habilidad de una persona de regular sus emociones, capacitándola para una rápida
recuperación de un daño psicológico.
4) La habilidad de una persona para hacer que sus emociones se dirijan hacia actividades
positivas (Law, Wong & Song, 2004).
La ética, acuerdo con Aristóteles, es la ciencia que enseña cómo adquirir virtudes. Las
virtudes, al producir buenos comportamientos, son el medio para alcanzar el fin último de
la vida humana (Bragues, 2006).
Pretensión: actitud presumida de una grandeza o posición de distinción o mérito,
especialmente cuando es injustificada. Es la actitud opuesta a la austeridad y la modestia.
Favor de calificar de 1 a 5 las siguientes oraciones. 1 implica el desacuerdo total y 5 estar

completamente de acuerdo con la frase indicada.
Respuestas
nada
todo
1. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen una 1 2 3 4 5
gran inteligencia emocional
gran capacidad de esforzarse al trabajar
3. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa siempre 1 2 3 4 5
siguen las normas éticas en su trabajo
4. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen muy 1 2 3 4 5
claros sus objetivos empresariales
5. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa tienen gran 1 2 3 4 5
capacidad para la innovación
6. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son líderes 1 2 3 4 5
habitualmente seguidos por sus empleados
7. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa habitualmente 1 2 3 4 5
rechazan la presunción tanto personal como corporativa
8. A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les gusta 1 2 3 4 5
mucho su trabajo
9. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son personas 1 2 3 4 5
que usualmente están alerta para conseguir oportunidades de
negocios
10. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa son personas 1 2 3 4 5
en las que usualmente se pude confiar, generan seguridad en
las personas relacionadas con ellos
gran capacidad de riesgo
12. A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les gustaría 1 2 3 4 5
dedicarse más a innovar, pero en ocasiones tienen que
dedicarse más al trabajo administrativo
13. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa usualmente 1 2 3 4 5
delegan el trabajo administrativo, para poder dedicarse a
innovar empresarialmente
14. A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa no les gusta 1 2 3 4 5
innovar, pues la innovación genera riesgos; sin embargo la
competencia los fuerza a hacerlo
15. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa usualmente 1 2 3 4 5
innovan, pues sus compañías tienen grandes oportunidades
Respuestas
nada
todo
en los nichos de industria en donde operan
16. A los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa les importa 1 2 3 4 5
la ética, pues se sienten responsables de todos los
relacionados con la empresa como clientes, proveedores,
empleados, accionistas, vecinos, etc.
la ética, porque el comportamiento ético genera confianza en
todas las personas implicadas en la operación de la empresa
la ética porque ellos piensan que no es posible alcanzar el
largo plazo sin ética.
Appendix H: Second Questionnaire in English
Definitions:
1. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa: people that run firms that sell more
than 800 millions of Mexican pesos each year
2. Emotional intelligence implies four constructs: “1) Individual’s ability to
understand his or her deep emotions and to be able to express emotions naturally.
(2) Individual’s ability to perceive and understand the emotions of the people
around them. (3) The ability of a person to regulate his or her emotions, enabling
a more rapid recovery from psychological distress. (4) The ability of a person to
make use of his or her emotions by directing them toward constructive activities
and personal performance” (Law, Wong & Song, 2004, p. 484).
3. As Aristotle explained, ethics teaches how to achieve virtues. Virtues, producing
good behavior, are the means to achieving the ultimate universal goal of human
life (Bragues, 2006).
4. Pretentiousness: To show off greatness or a position of distinction or merit,
especially when unjustified. This attitude is the opposite of austerity and modesty.
(Diccionario esencial de la lengua española [Essential dictionary of the Spanish
language] 2006; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
2009).
Disagree agree
1. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have a high emotional
intelligence. 1 2 3 4 5
2. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have a high capacity
of effort. 1 2 3 4 5
3. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa always follow ethics
rules in business. 1 2 3 4 5
4. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have high clarity in
their firm’s objectives. 1 2 3 4 5
5. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have a high capacity
for innovation. 1 2 3 4 5
6. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa are leaders that
employees usually follow. 1 2 3 4 5
7. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa are people who
usually reject personal and corporative pretentiousness. 1 2 3 4 5
8. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have a great love to
their own work. 1 2 3 4 5
9. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa are people who
usually have large awareness at opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5
10. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa are usually trust-
worth people, their stakeholders have confidence in them. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa have a large risk
capacity. 1 2 3 4 5
Disagree agree
12. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa would like to have
more innovation, although sometimes they need to focus in 1 2 3 4 5
management work.
13. In order to have time for innovation, the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa usually delegate management work. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Even though competitions force them, the most successful
entrepreneurs in Sinaloa do not like to innovate, because innovation 1 2 3 4 5
generates risk.
15. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa usually innovate
because their firms have large opportunities in their business niches 1 2 3 4 5
16. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa are concerned with
ethics because they feel responsible to all the stakeholders. 1 2 3 4 5
ethics, because ethics generate stakeholders’ trust. 1 2 3 4 5
ethics because they believe long term success is impossible without 1 2 3 4 5
ethics.
Appendix I: Numeric Answers of The Second Questionnaire
question
average
deviation
G
K
C
D
A
E
B
L
F
J
I
8 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4.67 0.65
4 4 4 5 3 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 3 4.42 0.79
2 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4.33 0.65
6 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4.17 0.72
11 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 3 4 4.17 0.72
9 4 3 5 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 4.17 0.83
10 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 0.60
18 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 0.85
16 4 3 5 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.83 0.72
7 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3.75 0.45
1 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 5 3 3.75 0.75
17 4 3 5 2 4 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3.75 0.87
13 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3.58 0.79
15 2 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 2 3 4 3 3.5 0.90
3 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3.42 0.90
5 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 3.25 0.75
12 3 3 3 1 4 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 2.75 0.87
14 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 4 2.58 1.08
Av 3.83 3.67 4.33 2.78 4.17 4.17 4.06 3.72 3.33 3.89 3.83 3.61 3.78
sd 0.86 0.84 1.03 1.00 0.51 0.92 0.94 0.57 0.91 0.90 0.79 0.78 0.55
Appendix J: Third Questionnaire in Spanish
De acuerdo con los cuestionarios anteriores, usted, como uno de los empresarios más
exitosos de Sinaloa tiene en su personalidad los atributos abajo mencionados. Señale con
un 1 si no tiene el atributo señalado y ni siquiera se ha planteado conseguirlo; o 5 si lo
tiene habitualmente o usualmente trata de adquirirlo.
Definiciones:
1. Los empresarios más exitosos de Sinaloa: personas que posen la mayoría de las
acciones y participan en el nivel más alto de la dirección de empresas que venden
al menos 800 millones de pesos al año.
2. La inteligencia emocional es una capacidad personal que implica cuatro
habilidades: 1) La habilidad individual de entender las propias emociones y la
capacidad de mostrarlas adecuadamente. 2) La habilidad individual de percibir y
entender las emociones de la gente alrededor. 3) La habilidad de una persona de
regular sus emociones, capacitándola para una rápida recuperación de un daño
psicológico. 4) La habilidad de una persona para hacer que sus emociones se
dirijan hacia actividades positivas (Law, Wong & Song, 2004, p. 484).
3. La ética, acuerdo con Aristóteles, es la ciencia que enseña cómo adquirir virtudes.
Las virtudes, al producir buenos comportamientos, son el medio para alcanzar el
fin último de la vida humana (Bragues, 2006).
4. Pretensión: actitud presumida de una grandeza o posición de distinción o mérito,
especialmente cuando es injustificada. Es la actitud opuesta a la austeridad y la
modestia.
Favor de calificar de 1 a 5 las siguientes oraciones. 1 implica el desacuerdo total

y 5 estar completamente de acuerdo con la frase indicada.
Respuestas
nada todo
1. Inteligencia emocional. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Capacidad de esfuerzo. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Capacidad de actuar éticamente en los negocios. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Capacidad de clarificar los objetivos empresariales. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Capacidad de innovación. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Liderazgo organizacional. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Austeridad. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Amor al propio trabajo. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Capacidad de estar alerta a las oportunidades. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Generar confianza a los demás accionistas, empleados, 1 2 3 4 5
clientes y proveedores.
11. Capacidad de riesgo 1 2 3 4 5
12. Habilidades administrativas. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Habilidad para delegar el trabajo administrativo 1 2 3 4 5
14. Habilidades para vencer a la competencia en la misma 1 2 3 4 5
industria
15. Sentimiento de responsabilidad de los accionistas, 1 2 3 4 5
empleados, clientes proveedores y la comunidad en
general.
16. Habilidad de pensar en el largo plazo. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix K: Third Questionnaire in English
Definitions:
1. The most successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa: people that run firms that sell more
than 800 millions of Mexican pesos each year
2. Emotional intelligence implies four constructs: “1) Individual’s ability to
understand his or her deep emotions and to be able to express emotions naturally.
(2) Individual’s ability to perceive and understand the emotions of the people
around them. (3) The ability of a person to regulate his or her emotions, enabling
a more rapid recovery from psychological distress. (4) The ability of a person to
make use of his or her emotions by directing them toward constructive activities
and personal performance” (Law, Wong & Song, 2004, p. 484).
3. As Aristotle explained, ethics teaches how to achieve virtues. Virtues, producing
good behavior, are the means to achieving the ultimate universal goal of human
life (Bragues, 2006).
4. Pretentiousness: To show off greatness or a position of distinction or merit,
especially when unjustified. This attitude is the opposite of austerity and modesty.
(Diccionario esencial de la lengua española [Essential dictionary of the Spanish
language] 2006; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
2009).
According with the previous rounds, you, as one of the most successful entrepreneurs in
Sinaloa, have this attributes in your personality. Mark with 1 if you do not have the
attribute mentioned or you have not consider achieving it; or 5 if you usually try to
achieve it.
Disagree agree
1. High emotional intelligence. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Capacity of effort. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Capacity to follow ethics rules in business. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Capacity of clarify firm’s objectives. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Capacity for innovation. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Leadership. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Rejection personal and corporative pretentiousness. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Love your own work. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Awareness of opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Trustworthy people, their stakeholders have confidence in 1 2 3 4 5
them.
11. Risk capacity. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Management abilities. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Abilities for delegating management work. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Abilities for defeat competition within the same industry 1 2 3 4 5
15. Feeling responsible to all the stakeholders. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Abilities for thinking in long term. 1 2 3 4 5
Appendix L: Numeric Answers of the Third Questionnaire
question
average
deviation
Standard
G
K
C
D
A
E
B
L
F
J
I
3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4.83 0.39
15 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4.67 0.49
10 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4.5 0.52
8 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 4.42 0.67
1
4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 5 4.25 0.62
16 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 4 5 4 4.25 0.62
2 5 3 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 4.25 0.75
4 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4.25 0.75
11 4 5 5 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 3 4.25 0.97
6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4.17 0.58
9 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4.17 0.72
13 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 3 2 4 5 4 4.17 0.94
7 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 2 4 4.17 1.03
5 4 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 4.08 0.67
14 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 5 4 3.92 0.67
12 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 3.5 0.67
Average 4.4 4.2 4.8 4 4.13 4.5 4 4 3.6 4.6 4.63 4.1 4.24

Dissertation Final Version With Signatures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dissertation Final Version With Signatures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROFILE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURS IN SINALOA STATE

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

As entrepreneurship increases and spreads wealth, creating and expanding firms

Sinaloa. To improve entrepreneurship educators need to recognize which personal

Qualitative Delphi design, was to determine the important entrepreneurial characteristics

companies. The study explored three main aspects of entrepreneurial personality:

management skills, innovative abilities, and ethical behavior.

successful entrepreneurs in Sinaloa State. This profile includes 14 personal characteristics

“Qui potest capere capiat” (Mt, 19:12)

in this doctoral journey, especially my colleagues at Instituto Chapultepec and IPADE.

6 long years. I am in your debt. You are all the best!

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xi

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem ....................................................................................... 2

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 5

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 6

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study to Leadership .................................................................... 8

Nature of the Study .................................................................................................... 9

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 12

Research Question ................................................................................................... 15

Scope Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................... 16

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................... 19

Brief History of Entrepreneurship ........................................................................... 19

Different Views of Entrepreneurship ....................................................................... 23

Definition of Entrepreneurship ................................................................................ 24

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development ....................................................... 26

The Entrepreneurial Mindset ............................................................................ 31

Entrepreneurship and Invention ........................................................................ 32

Entrepreneurship and Leadership Style ............................................................ 34

The Entrepreneurial Process .................................................................................... 35

Development of the Opportunity ...................................................................... 36

Evaluation of the Opportunity .......................................................................... 38

Development of the Entrepreneurial Plan......................................................... 40

Determination and Acquisition of the Required Sources ................................. 43

Management of the New Entrepreneurship Entity ........................................... 45

Entrepreneurs and Social Responsibility ................................................................. 47

Social Responsibility of the Business ............................................................... 48

Practical Principles of Ethical Behavior for Business ...................................... 50

Chapter 3: Method ................................................................................................. 56

The Delphi Method .................................................................................................. 57

The Delphi Method Background ...................................................................... 57

The Delphi Method Process.............................................................................. 58

Research Question ................................................................................................... 62

Geographic Location ................................................................................................ 64

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 65

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................ 66

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 67

Panelist Recruitment ................................................................................................ 69

Characteristics of the Sample................................................................................... 70

Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 71

Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire ................................................... 71

Second questionnaire ............................................................................................... 75

Third questionnaire .................................................................................................. 77

Comparison between second and third questionnaires ............................................ 78

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................. 84

Analysis of the answers of the first questionnaire ................................................... 85

Analysis of the answers of the second questionnaire............................................... 86

Analysis of the answers of the third questionnaire .................................................. 87

Analysis of the comparison between second and third questionnaire ..................... 87