Who should play Robin to an

Entrepreneur’s Batman?

Michael Boot
M.D.Boot@tue.nl
Student number: u 2939 1 4
Program: Executive MBA Tilburg
Module: Organizational Behavior & HRM
Lecturer: Dr. P.R. Gillies DBA
Date of submission: February 21st , 2015
Word count: 1927

INTRODUCTION
One of the greater fears in high-tech venture capital circles is that the entrepreneur will not
willingly relinquish control of operations in a timely fashion to a more experienced CEO once
the startup grows into a mature company. For evidence that this transition is not always
smooth, one could study the history of Apple. Undoubtedly, a young startup requires a
visionary with innovative ideas that can change the world; Steve Jobs pur sang. In 1981,
Apple went public and, recognizing the company needed an experienced CEO to bring order
to the soon after Fortune 500 company, Jobs recruited the then head of PepsiCo, John Sculley.
Things, however, did not fare well for Jobs in the ensuing power struggle, when the board
ultimately sided with Sculley (Thomas, 1996). While the former wished to continue designing
innovative, but resource depleting products, the latter wanted to focus on older, but still profit
making ones. A decade and a half later, not long after Jobs successfully took Pixar public, he
returned as interim CEO to Apple, which was by then spiraling to its demise (Deutschman,
2001). A reinvented Apple subsequently launched a series of innovative products that now
make of Apple the world’s most valuable company by market capitalization.

Considering thus that the ideal managerial style has a dynamic rather than static character, the
objective of this paper is to define the requisite leadership traits as a function of stage of
company development. Leadership treats will be evaluated by means of the Jungian-based
(Jung, 1923) Myers-Briggs type indicator or MBTI (Myers, 1985). Organization growth will
be modelled according to the Venture Capital Method (Scherlis & Sahlman, 1989). This
theoretical background will be used to predict which personality type is should be the
principal decision maker in the various stage of development of high-tech startup companies.

JUNG´S PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPES

Although the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) questionnaire was first published in 1962,
its theoretical framework leans heavily on earlier work by Jung on psychological types (Jung,
1923). Eight in all, each Jungian type consists of two parts, one concerning attitudes and one
pertaining to functions. Jung argued that one’s preferred attitude towards the world is either of

1
an Introvert or Extrovert nature. In the former and latter case, an individual is either
programmed more towards thoughts and ideas (i.e., inner world) or the more material world
of people, places and things (i.e., outer world), respectively.

With respect to the functions, there are two sets of opposite behavioral preferences. The first
set, referred to as perceiving functions, relates to how one digests information. According to
Jung, dissemination can occur either via Sensing or iNtuition. While sensing relies on our
more straightforward five senses, intuition involves more subtle sixth one, extrapolating
meaning beyond the range of sensory data. Mental functions, the second set or judging
functions, are comprised of the psychological types of Thinking and Feeling. In the former
typology, information is processed objectively, while in the latter this occurs more
subjectively. As each of the four functions can be executed in either an introvert or extrovert
flavor, eight combinations in total can be constructed thus.

MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR

MBTI theory goes one step further by introducing a fourth dimension, reflecting one’s
preferred orientation towards the outside world, being either of a Judging or Perceiving
nature. The P variety means that others observe an individual’s preferred perceiving function
(i.e., S or N). Alternatively, the J variant of said dimension unveils one’s proclivity towards T
or F. Out of the four dichotomies, the sixteen possible outcomes of an MBTI questionnaire
can be composed. Summarized below is an overview of the purported attributes per
psychological type (adopted from Gardner & Martinko, 1996).

Table 1: Purported attributes per psychological type (Gardner & Martinko, 1996)

Types Focus Preferences Strengths Weaknesses

Extraversion Wide and on the Interactive; enthusiastic; Easily distracted;
material sociable; confident; proactive intrusive

Introversion Narrow and on the Reflective; Personal interaction; Out of touch with
immaterial concentrated calm; focused; ideas real world; reserved

Sensing Facts; data Practical; Pragmatic; sensible; Lacks vision; rejects

present oriented stable; precise innovative ideas

iNtuition Meanings; Theoretical; Imaginative; holistic Unrealistic; bored by

possibilities future oriented; perspective; routine

Thinking Analysis Impersonal; Rational; assertive; Suppresses feelings;

logic and reason firm but fair cold; critical

Feeling Values Trust; harmony; Persuasive; warm; Overly sensitive; no

compassion; loyal critical feedback

Judging Goals Structure; Plan; organize; Inflexible; intolerant;

closure; routine reliable; decisive jumps to conclusions

Perceiving The pending Laissez-faire; Flexible; open- Impulsive

tentative minded; adaptable; disorganized;

2
MANAGERIAL BEHAVIORAL PREFERENCE
There are several types of managers and, as will be demonstrated later, the unique attributes
of which are most befitting to certain stages of organization growth. Two main managerial
types will be evaluated, defined here as professional managers, who have worked their way
up the corporate ladder, and entrepreneurial managers, who lead the companies they founded.
Interestingly, the former type fought their way to the top intentionally, while most
entrepreneurs grudgingly accept managerial tasks as collateral damage in their pursuit to
follow their dreams.

When reviewing the literature on MBTI evaluations of managers, however, it quickly became
evident that entrepreneurs is too broad a category and should be split up into the subclasses of
small business owners (e.g., hair dresser, restaurant) on the hand and tech entrepreneurs (e.g.,
Google, Apple) on the other (Table 2).

Table 2: Literature review on managers’ behavioral preference. NB shaded sections signify the absence of data,
while a dash reflects an absence of preference in the data

Behavioral preference
MBTI dimension Professional Small business Tech- Study
manager owner entrepreneur
E/I - - - Carland & Carland (1992)
S/N S S N
T/F - - -
J/P J J P
E/I - - Hurst (1989)
S/N S S
T/F T T
J/P - -
E/I - Hoy & Hellriegel (1982)
S/N J
T/F T
J/P -
E/I - - Ginn & Sexton (1990)
S/N S N
T/F T T
J/P J -
E/I - Gardner & Martinko (1996)
S/N -
T/F T
J/P J
E/I - Roberts (1989)
S/N N
T/F T
J/P P

From the literature data in Table 2 a number of commonalities can be distilled. First, all
researchers report no significant preference in the E/I dimension or Jungian attitude. Second,
professional managers and small business owners have quite similar personalities, both
leaning towards an *STJ, or supervisor/inspector (Keirsey & Bates, 1984) personality.

3
Alternatively, tech-entrepreneurs, are likely to be an *NTP, or inventor/architect (Keirsey &
Bates, 1984).

MANAGERIAL FOCUS PER GROWTH STAGE

Coming back to the objective of this paper, it is interesting to reflect on which of the two
managerial types is best suited to be in the lead as the tech startup develops. To this end, one
first needs to define the primary temporal and organization focus per growth stage. Those put
forward in the Venture Capital Method (Scherlis & Sahlman, 1989) will be used here as well
(Table 3).

Table 3: Managerial focus per growth stage according to the Venture Capital Method (column 1 -4) and
proposed managerial preference in this study (column 5)

Stage Goal Temporal focus Organization focus Managerial

preference
Seed Idea exploration, Future Innovation *NTP
recruitment of key
management, writing
business plan
Startup Commence Future/Present Innovation/structure *NTP/*STJ
operations
1st phase First marketing Present Structure *STJ
activities, product
enhancements,
product line
expansion, hire sales
and support
personnel
2nd phase Growth, product Present/Future Structure/innovation *STJ/*NTP
diversification,
acquisitions
Bridge/IPO Initial Public Future Innovation *NTP
Offering (IPO)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Managers, as may be inferred from Table 2, are most likely to be one of two flavors, being
either an *STJ when in a corporate and small business settings, or an *NTP in the case of a
tech entrepreneur. The former type focuses on existing realities (S) and has a natural
preference for structure and planning (J). Conversely, the entrepreneur prefers to envision
future possibilities (N) and is more adaptable and spontaneous, typically keeping all options
open (P). It is noteworthy to point out that in both cases managers tend to act rationally,
driven by logic and reason (T).

It can be argued that a vision for the future and associated innovation to create said future are
critical prerequisites to justify the founding a tech startup (*NTP). As the startup grows, a
shift of leadership is needed to transform the organization from its dreamy, laissez faire roots
to a more professional, present oriented structure in order to survive long enough to actually
see those dreams come to fruition (*STJ).

4
However, once edging towards an IPO, a tech startup must once again radiate a sky’s the limit
image to the outside world in to attract new breeds of investors who generally value a
company based on hopes for future riches, rather than on today’s earnings. Amazon’s stellar
performance on the stock market in the absence of any noteworthy profit is prime example of
just how detached an enthusiastic investor can become with reality. Actually realizing profit
(growth) will require significant additional innovation, enter again the *NTP.

Frank Miller, the author of The Dark Knight Returns, a 1986 four-issue comic book
miniseries starring Batman, once stated that “the entire point of Robin is to bring Batman
back down to earth after a period of having too much fun with his crime-fighting”.
Interestingly, Bruce Wayne (Batman) is a billionaire tech entrepreneur or *NTP. Conversely,
Dick Grayson (Robin), who studied law at the fictional Hudson University, is as a would-be
lawyer most likely an *STJ (Richard, 1993). Accordingly, one could argue that, taken also
into account aforementioned cyclicity in managerial preference, tech companies should have
an alternating Batmanian and Robinian style leader at the helm in order to thrive…

REFERENCES

Carland, J. W., & Carland, J. A. (1992). Managers, small business owners and entrepreneurs: the cognitive
dimension. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 55-66.

Churchill, C. and Lewis, V. L. (1983). The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review,
61(3), 30-50.

Deutschman, A. (2001). The second coming of Steve Jobs. Crown Business

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers -Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A
literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(1), 45-83.

Ginn, C. W., & Sexton, D. L. (1990). A comparison of the personality type dimensions of the 1987 Inc. 500
company founders/CEOs with those of slower-growth firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 313-326.

Hoy, F., & Hellriegel, D. (1982). The Kilmann and Herden model of organizational effectiveness criteria for
small business managers. Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), 308-322.

Hurst, D. K., Rush, J. C. and White, R. E. (1989), Top management teams and organizational renewal. Strat.
Mgmt. J., 10: 87–105.

Jung, C.G. (1923). Psychological types or the psychology of individuation . Harcourt Brace.

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character & temperament types. Prometheus Nemesis.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., & Most, R. (1985). Manual, a guide to the development and use of the Myers-
Briggs type indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Richard, L. (1993). The lawyer types. ABA Journal, 79(7), 74-78.

Roberts, E. B. (1989). The personality and motivations of technological entrepreneurs. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 6(1), 5-23.

Scherlis, D. R., & Sahlman, W. A. (1989). A method for valuing high-risk, long-term investments: The "Venture
Capital Method". Harvard Business School Publishing.

5
Thomas, A. S., & Ramaswamy, K. (1996). Matching managers to strategy: further tests of the Miles and Snow
typology. British Journal of Management, 7(3), 247-261.