The Antecedents to Habitual Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism and Educational Level

2.1 Habitual Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurs are able to identify and take advantage of multiple business opportunities (Parker 2014). Based on their business experience, prior literature underlines the existence of two categories of entrepreneurs: novice and habitual entrepreneurs. Novice entrepreneurs are individuals who create and manage their first venture (Politis 2008). Habitual entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are individuals who have firm ownership experience (Westhead and Wright 1998; Westhead et al. 2005). They represent a substantial portion of the entrepreneurial population and contribute to creating societal wealth (Pasanen 2003; Rerup 2005).

The literature on entrepreneurship generally investigates the differences between habitual and novice entrepreneurs, mainly focusing on the individual-level characteristics of the different types of entrepreneurs (Carter and Ram 2003; Fierro et al. 2018). Some studies try to create a profile of habitual and novice entrepreneurs. Habitual entrepreneurs are generally male, younger than novice entrepreneurs, and their parents are often unskilled employees; no significant difference is found considering the educational level of both types of entrepreneurs (Barnir 2014; Fierro et al. 2018; Politis 2008). Other studies focus more on behavioral and experiential differences. According to Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright (2009) the characteristics that differentiate habitual and novice entrepreneurs are related to different cognitive styles, behaviors, motivations, and past entrepreneurial experience. In detail, Gordon, Davidsson, and Steffens (2009) suggest that habitual entrepreneurs have different stimuli for firm creation, make different decisions during the process, and have different expectations about outcomes, compared to novices. In addition, Ucbasaran, Baldacchino, and Lockett (2014) show that habitual entrepreneurs are more skilled at identifying and pursuing opportunities, as well as acquiring and using resources. Regarding past entrepreneurial experience, different visions exist in the literature. Gottschalk, Greene, and Müller (2017) state that habitual entrepreneurs do not generally benefit from their experiential knowledge to develop a more viable firm, which places them on the same level as novice entrepreneurs. In contrast, Spivack, McKelvie, and Haynie (2014) identify several aspects of habitual entrepreneurs’ experience that cause them to be more addicted to entrepreneurship. These aspects are the physiological arousal resulting from operating in contexts characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity, the intensity of emotions related to various entrepreneurial activities and outcomes, and the identity ties between entrepreneurs and their firm. Rerup (2005) points out that mindfulness helps habitual entrepreneurs to better anticipate opportunities, cope with unexpected events, and efficiently use their prior entrepreneurial experience. Finally, Thorgren and Wincent (2015) suggest that obsessive passion is related to habitual entrepreneurship. This implies that habitual entrepreneurs have a continuous urge to create and start new firms only because they need to sustain their self-identity.

However, only a few papers emphasize the importance of personality traits in the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs. For example, Shane and Nicolaou (2015), analyzing a sample of serial entrepreneurs, a subcategory of habitual entrepreneurs, underline the importance of entrepreneurial creativity in identifying business opportunities and starting new firms. Furthermore, Caliendo, Fossen, and Kritikos (2014) show that openness to experience, extraversion, and emotional stability increase the likelihood of starting another firm.

Given the paucity of contributions to the field, there is a unanimous call for future studies investigating the explanatory power of individual differences in terms of personality traits, dispositional differences, and educational background (Hayward et al. 2010; Ucbasaran, Baldacchino, and Lockett 2014; Ucbasaran et al. 2010). This is the main objective of this paper; we will therefore focus on entrepreneurs’ narcissism and levels of education and how they affect the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs.

2.2 Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism

Narcissism refers to individuals who are self-centered, self-focused, and self-serving (Leonelli and Masciarelli 2020). Psychologists define narcissism as a personality dimension that can range between low and high levels and that, only in extreme cases, can be considered as a personality disorder (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006). In this paper, we focus on non-pathological narcissism, which includes many of the basic qualities of the narcissistic personality, such as self-admiration, arrogance, perceived entitlement, and hostility towards external criticism (Leonelli, Masciarelli, and Fontana 2022; Wales, Patel, and Lumpkin 2013). These individuals believe they deserve admiration, have high levels of confidence in their abilities, and a disregard for other peoples’ ideas and emotions (Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007; Leonelli, Di Pietro, and Masciarelli 2020). Narcissism, however, is not only a negative (i.e., destructive) trait, but it also has a constructive side. Narcissistic people, in fact, are motivated, motivating, competitive, charismatic, passionate, and persevering (Maccoby 2000, 2003).

Narcissism is sometimes confused with overconfidence and hubris, two different personality traits, because they actually have a few overlapping features (Engelen, Neumann, and Schmidt 2016). However, overconfidence is a cognitive bias whose effects only capture a small portion of individuals’ thought processes (i.e., only their behavior) (Galasso and Simcoe 2011), while narcissism encompasses the full spectrum of an individual’s thoughts, including emotions and behaviors, and, therefore, it is a personality trait (Leonelli and Masciarelli 2020). According to the literature on personality psychology, hubris has a distinct psychological orientation as compared to narcissism (Tang, Mack, and Chen 2018). Unlike narcissistic entrepreneurs, hubristic individuals do not need social attention and plaudits and they are not concerned with what people think of them because they are overly confident in their abilities (Petit and Bollaert 2012).

Narcissism is central to entrepreneurship (Leung et al. 2021; Navis and Ozbek 2016). In general, entrepreneurs are more narcissistic than non-entrepreneurs (Mathieu and St-Jean 2013). Previous studies posit that this personality trait affects every stage of the entrepreneurial project (i.e., opportunity identification, business plan drafting, resource acquisition, growth, and survival). In detail, Mathieu and St-Jean (2013) state that entrepreneurs characterized by high levels of narcissism are more likely to start new firms. Other authors show that narcissism influences entrepreneurial orientation and intention (Leonelli, Masciarelli, and Fontana 2022; Leung et al. 2021; Wales, Patel, and Lumpkin 2013), as well as opportunity recognition and exploitation (Leung et al. 2021; Navis and Ozbek 2016). Kollmann, Stöckmann, and Linstaedt (2019) argue that narcissism influences the business planning process because narcissistic people are generally more creative and idea-generating. Other studies show that entrepreneurs’ narcissism is essential to resource acquisition, especially when entrepreneurs use alternative fundraising methods, such as crowdfunding (Bollaert, Leboeuf, and Schwienbacher 2020; Leonelli, Di Pietro, and Masciarelli 2020). Numerous studies investigate the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and performance but they do not come to a univocal result; some of them show a positive relationship with firm performance (Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007; Ingersoll et al. 2019) and innovation and growth (Cragun, Olsen, and Wright 2020; Leonelli, Ceci, and Masciarelli 2019), while others reveal the existence of a negative one (Ham, Seybert, and Wang 2018). Finally, entrepreneurs’ narcissism is a barrier to learning from entrepreneurial failure (Liu et al. 2019).

2.2 Entrepreneurs’ Level of Education

Education represents the way through which people acquire knowledge and skills (Van Praag, van Witteloostuijn, and van der Sluis 2013). The educational process is a structured system of organizational and didactic measures to accomplish specific educational level requirements according to national laws (Barquero and Bosch 2015). In general, the educational process is composed of four stages: assessing the readiness to learn, setting learning goals, engaging in the learning process, and evaluating learning (Zachary 2005).

Empirical studies (e.g., Blundell et al. 1999; Wößmann 2003) often use education as a proxy for human capital. Human capital represents “the knowledge, information, ideas, skills, and health of individuals” (Becker 2002), and it is a driver of production and economic growth (Hanushek 2013). In the literature, education is considered an investment in human capital (Van Praag, van Witteloostuijn, and van der Sluis 2013).

Education plays a quintessential role in the specific context of entrepreneurship, both before entrepreneurs decide to start a business and during the management phases (Lackéus 2015). Throughout their educational journey, entrepreneurs acquire the abilities they need to tackle complex problems, obtain resources, and identify and exploit business opportunities (Arenius and De Clercq 2005; Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright 2008). Amaral, Baptista, and Lima (2011) show that people with higher educational levels are less prone to being entrepreneurs compared to people with lower educational levels. Parker (2004) shows that educational level and entrepreneurial experience have a significant effect on the entrepreneur’s choice to move out of an initial venture and enter into or create a new one. Passaro, Quinto, and Thomas (2018) provide evidence of a positive relationship between the educational level of student entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial intentions. Pena (2002) describes the central role of human capital in start-up success, explaining that the entrepreneur’s level of education is important for building a successful company, while experience and motivation are crucial for start-up growth and access to funding. Colombo and Grilli (2010) confirm that entrepreneurs having higher levels of education and work experience, especially in the same industry as the new venture, have greater entrepreneurial ability and more specific knowledge than other entrepreneurs. Therefore, they are in a better position to choose among new business opportunities and make effective strategic decisions that are essential to start-up success. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that consider the role of entrepreneurs’ education as a mediator of the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and habitual entrepreneurship.

3.1 Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism and Habitual Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurs are not a homogeneous category,and they may behave differently according to their personality (Leonelli, Masciarelli, and Fontana 2022). Personality impacts entrepreneurial choices, distinctive approaches towards gathering and processing information, and decision-making based on that information (Arvonen and Pettersson 2002; Brigham and Sorenson 2008). These differences are critical factors in understanding why some entrepreneurs remain novice entrepreneurs while others become habitual entrepreneurs over time. Through an in-depth literature review, we have identified four mechanisms that have proven to be useful to explore the role of narcissism in the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs. These mechanisms are: (i) the achievement effect; (ii) the optimism effect; (iii) the independence effect; and (iv) the motivator effect. In detail, (i) the achievement effect refers to the tendency of narcissistic entrepreneurs to have a clear vision which is pursued at any cost (Sedikides and Campbell 2017). Narcissists see themselves as original, and often, superior to others, and use their business to satisfy their desires and preferences (Maccoby 2003). (ii) The optimism effect refers to the way narcissistic entrepreneurs look at the future and perceive opportunities (Maccoby 2000). Narcissistic entrepreneurs are incapable of forming coherent and realistic visions of reality, and may engage in risky business activities (Campbell, Goodie, and Foster 2004). When faced with firm failure, however, narcissistic entrepreneurs rarely blame themselves (Liu et al. 2019). (iii) The independence effect refers to the tendency of narcissistic entrepreneurs to act independently because they wish to break free from the rules and control of others (Chatterjee and Hambrick 2007). Finally, (iv) the motivator effect refers to the tendency of narcissistic entrepreneurs to become outstanding leaders having extraordinary abilities and generally attracting the acclaim of the crowd (Rosenthal and Pittinsky 2006).

Based on the dispositional theory and the upper echelon theory, we hypothesize that entrepreneur narcissism positively influences the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs. These theories underline the importance of personality traits and highlight their impact on entrepreneur behavior. The above mentioned mechanisms coexist in every narcissistic entrepreneur and describe the way they think and the forces that drive them to behave in a particular manner. Specifically, the achievement effect motivates narcissistic entrepreneurs to exploit innovative and original ideas and launch projects, taking risks, and facing difficulties to pursue their personal goals (Maccoby 2000). The optimism effect allows narcissistic entrepreneurs to cope with failure by finding the right way to react or survive in most cases (Leonelli, Ceci, and Masciarelli 2016). The independence effect pushes narcissistic entrepreneurs to continuously create new firms, as newness increases their psychological well-being and satisfies their desire for control and independence (Leonelli, Masciarelli, and Fontana 2022). Finally, the motivator effect drives narcissistic entrepreneurs to use their charisma to attract collaborators to satisfy their desire for power and fulfill their ambitious vision (Leonelli, Ceci, and Masciarelli 2019). In summary, these mechanisms lead narcissistic entrepreneurs to embrace habitual entrepreneurship. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Entrepreneurs’ narcissism and the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs are positively associated.

3.2 Entrepreneurs’ Narcissism and Education

The relationship between personality traits and educational level or motivation in pursuing an academic degree is sparsely discussed in the literature (Komarraju, Karau, and Schmeck 2009; Raza and Shah 2017). The common traits considered were the so-called big five personality traits (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). For instance, conscientiousness positively affects the motivation to learn (Colquitt, LePine, and Noe 2000) and to pursue an academic degree (Judge and Ilies 2002). Other studies, on the other hand, maintain that people who are open, extraverted, and conscientious show the strongest learning goal orientation (Ross, Rausch, and Canada 2003) and have the biggest academic motivation (Vedel and Poropat 2017). However, to the best of our knowledge, no one has investigated the role of narcissism or studied these dynamics within a sample of entrepreneurs. We hypothesize that narcissism negatively affects the choice to study and improve one’s own educational background.

Relying on the dispositional theory and the upper echelon theory, we provide support to our hypothesis by using the above mentioned four mechanisms. Regarding the achievement effect, narcissists see themselves as being superior to others (Maccoby 2003), and thus they think they are able to learn without any guidance. Additionally, to maintain their image of superiority, they will never admit to others that they do not understand or know something (Bergman, Westerman, and Daly 2010). Moreover, narcissists do not accept someone sharing new information because they feel threatened by being in a state of ignorance (Beck, Freeman, and Associates 1990). Through the optimism effect, narcissistic individuals believe they have the right competencies, abilities, and basic knowledge to succeed (e.g., Steve Jobs). However, if performance is inadequate, narcissists are often unwilling or unable to take responsibility for failure or inappropriate behavior. They externalize failure, and typically blame outside sources (e.g., illness, friends, family, professors), believing that others have no right to criticize them, while they feel entitled to criticize other people. The independence effect frees narcissists from strictly obeying rules and constraints. This implies that any constraints, even on an educational level, are seen by them as something to escape from. Furthermore, narcissists are hypersensitive to evaluation and unaccepting of potential negative feedback or criticism (Bergman, Westerman, and Daly 2010). Negative feedback can threaten their fragile self-concept, causing feelings of anger or shame, and resulting in aggressive or antisocial behavior (Leonelli, Masciarelli, and Fontana 2022). Finally, the motivator effect is linked to narcissists’ tendencies to become outstanding leaders because of their extraordinary abilities. This means that, due to their extreme ambition, they cannot spend their time on things they consider un-useful or time-consuming, such as formal education. To summarize, these mechanisms push narcissistic entrepreneurs to avoid achieving a high level of education. Hence, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurs’ narcissism and entrepreneurs’ level of education are negatively associated.

3.3 Entrepreneurs’ Education and Habitual Entrepreneurship

Previous research shows that entrepreneurs with higher levels of education have a significant ability to identify opportunities (Arenius and De Clercq 2005). More specifically, Arenius and De Clercq (2005) state that connections established with other ‘knowledgeable’ individuals during their educational path and maintained after school (i.e., the alumni network) might help identify entrepreneurial opportunities and raise funds quickly. In addition, well-educated individuals are better able to access all the information essential to discover opportunities (Arenius and De Clercq 2005). In contrast, other studies show a nonlinear or inverse relationship between levels of education and the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur or achieving success (Gimeno et al. 1997; Honig 1996; Reynolds 1997). For example, Davidsson and Honig (2003) suggest that the pursuit of identified opportunities may be less successful for well-educated individuals.

Only a few studies analyze the relationship between levels of education and habitual entrepreneurship, their results being quite contradictory (Birley and Westhead 1994; Wang and Poutziouris 2010). For instance, Barnir (2014) shows that well-educated women are four percentage points more likely to engage in habitual entrepreneurship, but this result is not significant for the male sample. Huovinen and Tihula (2008) illustrate that habitual entrepreneurs have higher educational levels as compared to family firm entrepreneurs. Ultimately, Ucbasaran et al colleagues (2006, 2008) state that habitual entrepreneurs do not exhibit higher levels of education than novice entrepreneurs or subcategories of habitual entrepreneurs (i.e., serial and portfolio entrepreneurs).

The lack of precise and univocal results in l previous studies has led us to hypothesize that entrepreneurs’ educational levels negatively affect the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs. The theoretical lenses we used are, as usual, the dispositional and upper echelon theories, and three reasons lie behind our hypothesis. First, overinvestment in higher education may discourage risk-taking, while lower levels of education may encourage it (Davidsson and Honig 2003). This means that entrepreneurs who decide to become habitual entrepreneurs need a sort of “lack of knowledge” to avoid being blocked by the fear of risks. Second, the time and effort invested in education can affect the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs because highly educated entrepreneurs know how difficult it is to manage two or more firms simultaneously. In their educational path, they learn that the problems that might affect one firm might also jeopardize the others, and therefore, they prefer avoiding habitual entrepreneurship. Finally, a broad knowledge base may lead to market myopia and difficulties in ‘unlearning’ the existing behavior (Prahalad and Bettis 1986). Moreover, entrepreneurs might be trapped in more complex reasoning, which leads to the activation of rational rather than instinctual skills (Altinay and Wang 2011). As a result, entrepreneurs could be blocked from thinking outside the box and finding innovative ideas or opportunities to create new firms, thus giving up on becoming habitual entrepreneurs.

To summarize, higher levels of education might reduce the appetite for risk and the ability to think outside the box, as well as reducing the desire to become a habitual entrepreneur. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3: Entrepreneurs’ level of education and the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs are negatively associated.

Based on the above relationships, we propose that entrepreneurs’ narcissism, along with their educational level, influences the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs:

Hypothesis 4: Entrepreneurs’ education mediates the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and the intention to become habitual entrepreneurs.

4.1 Sample and Procedure

This study utilizes survey data on start-up entrepreneurs. We define an entrepreneur as the most influential member (i.e., decision-maker) in the firm, being its founder and/or principal owner (Parker 2014). The database consisted of start-ups located in China, Italy, France, Denmark, and the US. These countries were selected because some of them are representative of high entrepreneurial cultures (i.e., China, Denmark, and the US) while others embody low entrepreneurial cultures (i.e., Italy and France). According to Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010), France and Italy are high uncertainty-avoidance cultures^[1] with a medium-term orientation,^[2] thus providing an example of low entrepreneurial cultures (Autio, Pathak, and Wennberg 2013; Wach 2015). In contrast, China, Denmark, and the US are low uncertainty-avoidance cultures, which increases their propensity to develop entrepreneurial ideas (Autio, Pathak, and Wennberg 2013; Wach 2015). This reasoning is also supported by the Cultural and Social Norms Index (CSNI),^[3] an indicator from the GEM survey that explores the link between cultural and social norms and national entrepreneurial culture: the higher the index, the greater the national entrepreneurial culture. Based on the statistics from the 2007 to 2017 interval, results show that the US, China, and Denmark have higher levels of CSNI than Italy and France, which are well below the mean value.

Furthermore, different cultural values might have a strong impact on entrepreneurs’ personality traits and related behavior (Church 2016). According to Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010), the US, Denmark, Italy, and France are characterized by high-medium levels of individualism,^[4] a cultural value associated with high levels of narcissism (Cai, Kwan, and Sedikides 2012).

Regarding the sampling strategy for Italy, we selected 250 start-ups included in the Italian Chamber of Commerce register. The analysis is restricted to firms enrolled in the special section of ‘innovative start-ups,’ which includes start-ups meeting the Italian Chamber of Commerce innovation criteria (e.g., the entrepreneur is the depository or licensee of a registered patent or the owner of a registered software). The French sample included 250 start-ups listed on the “myfrenchstartup” website; the Chinese sample included 250 start-ups listed on the “angel.co” website; and the US and Danish samples respectively included 125 start-ups listed on the “angel.co” website. All the start-ups selected were founded between 2007 and 2017. In total, the initial sample included 1000 firms (i.e., 500 for high entrepreneurial cultures and 500 for low entrepreneurial cultures), and we received 343 responses (i.e., 95 for high entrepreneurial cultures and 248 for low entrepreneurial cultures – response rate 19 and 49.6%, respectively). Although we reported a ‘low’ response rate in the high entrepreneurial cultures, we may argue that it is higher compared to other studies based on real entrepreneur surveys (Block, Sandner, and Spiegel 2015; Cardon et al. 2013).

4.2 Survey Characteristics

The surveys were administered between January 2016 and April 2017 and consisted of two sections. The first section included the 16 questions to measure entrepreneurs’ narcissism (Ames, Rose, and Anderson 2006); the second section asked respondents for personal details such as entrepreneur’s age, gender, and number of firms owned. The questionnaire and the scale to measure entrepreneurs’ narcissism were in English. We administered the questionnaire in English (for the US and Denmark^[5]), Italian (for Italy), and French (for France). In addition, we allowed Chinese entrepreneurs to choose between the Chinese or English version. In order to translate the questionnaire into Italian, French, and Chinese, we employed a rigorous back-translation technique (Brislin 1980). We used Google Survey tools as our survey platform. Due to the restrictions of the Chinese territory in using Google, we administered the questionnaire there trhough the WebSurveyCreator tool.

We contacted entrepreneurs using various online channels (i.e., LinkedIn, Facebook, Viadeo, email address) since they were located in different parts of the World, and they are generally time constrained. In this way, they were free to answer our questions whenever they had time and wherever they wanted. The preferred online channel was LinkedIn because it is the largest professional network on the web and is useful to connect and strengthen professional relationships. Entrepreneurs who did not have a LinkedIn account were contacted via Facebook, Viadeo, or their email address. We followed two steps. First, with our personal LinkedIn profile, we invited entrepreneurs to join our personal network, briefly outlining the project. Second, when entrepreneurs accepted our invitation, a detailed project overview was sent to them with a link to the online survey. In order to increase the response rate, we promised entrepreneurs who filled out the questionnaire that we would send them a personalized report. Three follow-up reminder emails were sent at intervals during the survey administration period.

4.3 Measures

5.1 Adequacy of the Measurement Model and Assessment of the Structural Model

In order to measure the adequacy of our statistical model, we calculated the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), the squared Euclidean distance (d_ULS), and the geodesic distance (d_G), which are useful values to check the model fit (Benitez et al. 2020). However, there is considerable debate in the literature about the clarity and correct use of these measures, as they are in their early research stage (Hair et al. 2016). The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) allows for the evaluation of the average magnitude of discrepancies between observed and expected correlations, and it is considered an ideal measure to check model fit and avoid misspecification. In our model, the SRMR score is 0.083, and values below 0.1 indicate an acceptable model fit (Henseler et al. 2014). In order to calculate the exact model fit, the squared Euclidean distance (d_ULS) and the geodesic distance (d_G) should be considered. These original values should be lower than the upper bound of the confidence interval (i.e., HI₉₅) created by carrying out the Bollen-Stine bootstrapping procedure. In our model, both d_ULS and d_G are lower than the HI₉₅ (0.818 < 0.901 and 0.245 < 0.300, respectively) indicating that the model has a good fit.

After that, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the narcissism scale. Table 3 reports the reliability, convergent validity, and factor loadings of our variable. Cronbach’s Alpha, used to explain the internal consistency reliability of the constructs, assumed the value of 0.834, which is higher than the required value of 0.700 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The Rho_A and Composite Reliability (CR) values, both of which measure internal consistency reliability, confirmed this result. Rho_A considers the construct’s weights and not its loading (Dijkstra and Henseler 2015), while CR considers the variances and covariances in the composite by dividing this sum by the total variance in the composite. The Rho_A coefficient of the narcissism variable assumed the value of 0.860, while CR assumed the value of 0.864, whiche were both well above the accepted value of 0.700 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Finally, to assess the convergent validity of the narcissism scale, we evaluated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), a measure of the variance of a construct in relation to the variance to the measurement error. AVE’s value is 0.419, below the required value of 0.500 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). In sum, since the AVE is below the desired value of 0.500 and CR is above 0.700, the convergent validity and reliability of our construct is adequate (Shrestha 2021).

We checked for multicollinearity and common method bias using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The values of all our variables range from 1 to 2.697.^[6] According to Kock (2015), VIF values below 3.300 indicate the absence of both pathological collinearity and common method bias in our model. In addition, we also assessed common method bias by using the partial correlation method (Podsakoff and Organ 1986), which implies adding the highest factor from the principal component factor analysis to the PLS model as a control variable over the dependent variable. Adding this factor did not significantly change the variance explained in our dependent variable, again suggesting no substantial common method bias.

Finally, we reported the factor loadings of the narcissism items, which represent the correlation between the indicator and the corresponding emergent variable, and the weights showing the relative contribution of each indicator to the emergent variable (Benitez et al. 2020).

Table 3 reports the means, standard deviations, and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) Correlation values. HTMT correlation values are used to check for discriminant validity. HTMT confidence intervals were extracted through the Bollen-Stine bootstrapping procedure. Our HTMT values were all inside the confidence interval, meaning that no discriminant validity affected our variables.

5.2 Hypothesis Testing

Table 4 shows the highlights of path analysis. Hypotheses are tested following three steps. The first step considers the direct effect between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and habitual entrepreneurship, and the impact of the control variables on this relationship. The second step focuses on the total effect caused by including in this model the entrepreneurs’ education variable from the previous model. Finally, the third step considers the indirect effect, showing the mediating effect of entrepreneurs’ education on the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and habitual entrepreneurship.

To evaluate and test the mediation models, we used the bootstrapping method (Hayes 2009). Bootstrapping is a non-parametric re-sampling procedure employed in the analyses of both simple and multiple mediation. The present case required 5000 bootstrap samples with replacement.

The direct effect of entrepreneurs’ narcissism on the choice to be habitual entrepreneurs is positive and not statistically significant (β = 0.009, p > 0.1), not supporting Hypothesis 1. However, the relationship between age, gender, and country (i.e., our control variables) and habitual entrepreneurship is interesting. In detail, the higher the age, the higher the propensity to be habitual entrepreneurs (β = 0.216, p < 0.001); men (β = −0.156, p < 0.001) and Chinese entrepreneurs (β = 0.195, p < 0.001) (i.e., entrepreneurs belonging to high entrepreneurial cultures) are more inclined to be habitual entrepreneurs.

The total effect column shows that the direct effect of entrepreneurs’ narcissism on habitual entrepreneurship is negative and not statistically significant (β = −0.018, p > 0.1), which again did not support Hypothesis 1. Regarding the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and education, results showed a negative and significant relationship (β = −0.251, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 2; while regarding the relationship between entrepreneur’s education and the choice to be a habitual entrepreneur, results showed a negative and significant relationship (β = −0.150, p < 0.01), thus supporting Hypothesis 3. Also in Step 2, the control variables follow the same paths as in Step 1.

Finally, in order to analyze the mediating effect, the indirect effect should be considered. Results show the existence of a significant indirect effect between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and the choice to be habitual entrepreneurs through the mediation of entrepreneurs’ education (β = 0.038, p < 0.05), thus demonstrating the existence of a full mediation and supporting Hypothesis 4.

6.1 Theoretical Contributions

The present study investigates the antecedents to the decision to become a habitual entrepreneur, thus making significant contributions to the research field.

First, based on the dispositional theory and the upper echelon theory, the study intends to ascertain the importance of personality traits in shaping entrepreneurs’ human capital and decision-making choices. These theories enclose durable patterns of cognitions, beliefs, and choices affected by entrepreneurs’ personalities and backgrounds. Given the many potential dispositions that influence entrepreneurial decisions (such as the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs), it becomes essential, both theoretically and empirically, to recognize the constraints and effects of entrepreneurs’ personality traits and human capital. Thus, this study intends to add to the theoretical development by integrating these two theories with entrepreneurs’ narcissism and how it fosters their level of education and the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs.

Second, the paper makes a novel contribution to the research on entrepreneurial personality, and particularly narcissism, by applying the personality trait of narcissism in the context of habitual entrepreneurship. Building on past studies for a more thorough explanation of the relationship between psychological traits and entrepreneurship domains (Deprez et al. 2021; Navis and Ozbek 2016; Spivack, McKelvie, and Haynie 2014), the present findings suggest that narcissism is truly important for understanding the essence of entrepreneurship and all the processes surrounding it. Specifically, our findings indicate that entrepreneurs’ narcissism and their educational levels act as individual pressures towards the engagement in habitual entrepreneurship activities. When discussing entrepreneurship motivators, it is therefore relevant to acknowledge the importance of the entrepreneur’s personality and, among the various personality traits, of narcissism. In this paper, we also offer a call to action for future research on the antecedents to entrepreneurs’ behaviors in order to improve firm governance, and thus foster sustained excellence within organizations. In agreement with Seijts et al. (2019), the literature on strategy and governance usually underestimates the importance of the personality of entrepreneurs/CEOs. Previous studies emphasize the beneficial role played by personality in terms of effectiveness and board governance. However, this approach is not commonly investigated in workplaces and board conversations.

Third, by examining the negative relationship between entrepreneurs’ educational levels and their choice to become habitual entrepreneurs, we contribute to the literature on decision making and human capital. The lack of consistency among previous studies allows this paper to push knowledge forward underlining a new relationship between human capital facets and decision-making processes. Prior studies show that the educational level of entrepreneurs is not dissimilar across different types of entrepreneurs (i.e., novice or serial and portfolio) (Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright 2006; Ucbasaran, Paul, and Wright 2008). Traditionally, habitual entrepreneurs have been considered to have a higher education level than other entrepreneurs because they are apt to demonstrate stronger knowledge acquisition, assimilation, and transformation capability, which facilitates the generation of entrepreneurial initiatives and understanding of business strategic operations. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have fully supported this reasoning. The paper contributes to this stream of research by pointing out that the higher the entrepreneurs’ levels of education, the lower their likelihood of becoming habitual entrepreneurs. This is because, in well-educated individuals, the rational side prevails over the instinctive side, thus reducing the appetite for risk and the ability to think outside the box.

Fourth, we contribute to the literature on human capital by investigating the mediating role played by the entrepreneur’s level of education in the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and habitual entrepreneurship. In detail, we explain the mechanisms through which entrepreneurs’ narcissism affects the choice to become habitual entrepreneurs. Previous studies emphasize the need to investigate the effect of human capital on discovery and creation (Alvarez and Barney 2014; Marvel, Davis, and Sproul 2016). Our results show that the entrepreneur’s educational background fully mediates the above relationship, playing a crucial role. In detail, without considering the education variable, the relationship between entrepreneurs’ narcissism and habitual entrepreneurship is not significant. This means that education and, in general, human capital strongly affect entrepreneurial opportunity discovery, creation, and exploitation.

Finally, this paper is one of the first to investigate the narcissism of real entrepreneurs. Previous studies generally used secondary data (i.e., business reports or interviews) or primary data related to samples of students.

6.2 Practical Contributions

The present paper also offers practical implications for investors, academia, and policymakers.

Angel investors, venture capitalists, and banks should consider personality, prior experience, and educational background as proxies for firm founders because they underlie entrepreneurial competence. Investors can expect how entrepreneurs might react when faced with risk or pressured to think outside the box, through surveys investigating entrepreneurs’ personality and human capital.

Regarding the academic world, we call for more investment in entrepreneurship education to make students more aware of the decision to become entrepreneurs, and more specifically, habitual entrepreneurs. As we saw through our literature reviews, more educated entrepreneurs are generally aware of and avoid risks and are discouraged from pushing their boundaries of knowledge. Therefore, in their courses, academics should focus more on the entrepreneurial idea and the welfare that this idea might generate than on mere profit or risk. Courses should be developed to increase creativity and problem-solving skills, to improve innovative thinking and the ability to cope with difficulties. This would encourage students to envision a more flexible way of creating new firms, eventually becoming habitual entrepreneurs, without being scared of risks and the future.

Finally, as far as policymakers are concerned, our contribution is twofold. First, policymakers generally provide direct support to nascent entrepreneurs to help them develop and implement their business ideas. However, previous research shows that habitual entrepreneurs create a higher proportion of jobs and economic growth than novice entrepreneurs (Fierro et al. 2018). Thus, this paper invites policymakers to also direct their resources and support to habitual entrepreneurs by investing in initiatives (e.g., education programs or practical support to cope with bureaucracy) that break down barriers to the development of firms founded by experienced entrepreneurs. Second, to obtain resources and support, policymakers should require habitual entrepreneurs to submit questionnaires about their personality traits in addition to application letters, business plans, and other bureaucratic papers. In fact, by analyzing entrepreneurs’ personalities, policymakers can anticipate how entrepreneurs will behave and the strategic choices they will make.

6.3 Limitations and Future Research

The present study has some limitations that suggest directions for further research. One is related to the data, which do not provide information on the duration of the entrepreneur’s involvement in the previous new firm(s). Temporal permanence could be used to measure entrepreneurial seriality and as a proxy to check whether personality or human capital are associated with permanence. We also lack information on the composition (personality traits and human capital characteristics) of the top management team. It would be interesting to investigate the relationships existing within the management team, and whether the personality and skills of certain individuals influence the team’s strategic choices. In line with Gottschalk, Greene, and Müller (2017), the skills and competencies of team members may encourage mutual learning and open thinking but, in the presence of overly strong or weak personalities, this might lead to uniformity of thinking, which could ultimately endanger the firm. Another limitation of our study is the composition of the sample. Future work could include entrepreneurs from other areas, such as Africa, to check for the effect of culture on the choice to be habitual entrepreneurs. Finally, through an in-depth literature review, we have identified four mechanisms that supported our reasoning through hypothesis development. Still, we could not separately test these mechanisms in our model. Therefore, we hope that future studies can work on developing a new survey that will allow for a more in-depth exploration of these mechanisms.