成功的企業家風險厭惡水平會比一般人低嗎？

雖然良好的判斷能力、或者合理的資產配置能夠降低企業風險，但是承擔風險仍是企業家日常工作非常重要的一部分。

那麼，相比較一般人企業家是否天生風險厭惡能力就比一般人低呢？

從媒體的宣傳，到身邊的傳說，企業家長期以來有一個鮮明的社會形象。

積極進取，敢於冒險，在一場場商業豪賭中走向成功，然後在功成名就後笑著告訴大家自己不愛錢，不喜女色，出身平凡，年輕人都要學著點。

是不是企業家都天生大膽呢？

劍橋大學的神經科學團隊曾經發表過一篇論文，研究了創業企業家和普通人的大腦活動。在神經科學領域，冒險精神一向被認為是一種躁鬱情緒失調（bipolar disorder），也就是說，傻大膽確實是一種精神疾病。

這位Barbara Sahakian教授找來了幾十位企業家，對比他們在做決定時的大腦反應。結果顯示，在沒有時間限制，能夠理性分析時，企業家的決策速度和風險偏好跟普通人沒有區別。但是，一旦事態緊急，需要依靠直覺馬上決策時，企業家們明顯更有攻擊性，更願意冒險。

所以，Sahakian教授的結論是，企業家比普通人更喜歡冒險，「特別是當他們有能力獨立解決問題的時候。」

那麼，我們想干大事，是不是一定要膽子夠大？

另一篇在《應用心理學》雜誌上發表的論文，給出了相反的結論。波蘭的研究團隊，用普通畢業生和一畢業就創業的兩組人來對比，發現兩組人並沒有明顯的風險偏好。這似乎又說明，企業家也不一定特別大膽。

其實，這兩個實驗並不矛盾，區別就在於「冒險精神」的定義上。

由於人的能力不同，見識不同，對風險的定義也大不一樣。比如，讓你馬上去徒手攀登懸崖，你只能選擇死亡，但是交給專業的攀岩運動員，風險就是可控的。

劍橋的研究對象是功成名就的企業家，他們的能力經受過考驗。因此，對待同一個事件，成功企業家所感受到的危險更小，也更有自信能解決問題。而波蘭研究里的初創企業家，還沒有在不斷的成功中培養出自信，所做的決策也就一如常人。因此，企業家的大膽並非天生。

華威大學的一個研究可以作為佐證。

這篇論文提出，企業家的基因中並沒有更願意冒險的成分，他們看似大膽的底氣是他們所擁有的先天條件：大多數創業成功者在初期都接受過家人的經濟援助。

這就像，當你身上綁著安全繩時，你踩鋼絲的動作就會更從容，不再那麼謹小慎微。最後你能如履平地，穩中帶皮的走過鋼絲，主要還是歸功於安全繩。

成功的創業往往建立在許多次失敗之上。那些起點高，有家人支持的創業者能夠有機會捲土重來，自然不害怕失敗。例如，美國大多數成功企業的創始人都來自中產以上家庭。這也是貧富差距加大的另一個因素，在這裡先不展開。

在面對選擇時，如果有反覆試錯的機會，就不會小心翼翼；如果是孤注一擲，那難免會反覆權衡。任何一個理性人，都會做出同樣的反應。

這跟愛情其實有些相似，看起來能把到妹是因為大膽，但其實還是因為有錢。。。

總結起來，一方面，成功的過程塑造了企業家自信的性格；另一方面，他們失敗的代價比一般人更小，所以看起來也就更加大膽。

也就是說，企業家的成長的過程和條件，塑造了他們「勇於冒險」的性格，但是這並不是他們成功的原因。這就像大家會喜歡我，絕不是因為我的才華。

References:

1. Ersche, K. D., Roiser, J. P., Clark, L., London, M., Robbins, T. W., Sahakian, B. J. (2005). Punishment induces risky decision-making in methadone-maintained opiate users but not in heroin users or healthy volunteers. Neuropsychopharmacology, 30(11), 2115-2124.
2. Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., Lundborg, P., Majlesi, K. (2015). On The Origins of Risk‐Taking in Financial Markets. The Journal of Finance.
3. Macko, A., Tyszka, T. (2009). Entrepreneurship and risk taking. Applied psychology, 58(3), 469-487.
4. Blanchflower, D. G., Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur?. Journal of labor Economics, 16(1), 26-60.
5. Wadhwa, V., Holly, K., Aggarwal, R., Salkever, A. (2009). Anatomy of an entrepreneur: Family background and motivation.

不一定，人本身分為風險愛好者和風險厭惡者。兩者沒有誰成功率更高一說。固然愛冒險的人更容易獲得機遇與先機，但不愛冒險的人可以照抄前者，避免大坑啊。

舉個例子，騰訊就是個不愛冒險的公司。這麼大的公司沒什麼研發部門，全都是誰火抄誰，誰火買誰，自己從不探坑。你能說馬化騰不是成功的企業家嘛？

Intuitively, one would say: Yes, the risk appetite must be higher, risk aversion lower.

"Entrepreneur" comes from the French word "entreprendre" which means to undertake something. And any undertaking has a risk of failure.

I am entrepreneur myself since ~12 years, after 6 years in Germany"s largest engineering company, Siemens.

In the German language, we have the ironic phrase "If you do something, you can make mistakes, if you don"t do anything, you can"t make mistakes. And the one who does not make any mistakes is promoted to be boss".

That off course describes the situation an an employee in an existing company, where one might hope to be promoted with time and absence of mistakes alone.

For those who aim higher, they have to take more risks than that.

Not only as entrepreneurs, but also as employees. As employee you might have to take on more risky assignments like building up a new unit or restructuring a struggling business. Now the risk of failure is real, and can destroy a corporate career. On the other hand, rewards in form of promotions are also more likely.

Myself, I decided to change from the corporate risk to the entrepreneurial risk. I was in the inhouse-consulting of Siemens (a strategic management consultancy working only for Siemens). I always considered management consulting to be a training camp for entrepreneurs: After all, we would help others how to run their businesses better. In the beginning, this was true, learning about different business types (like product business, or project business, or service business, or software business), and all the situations such a business can be in (like cost cutting and restructuring, or organizing growth, integrating an acquisition etc.).

Over time, I realized that is was becoming more a training camp how to become a manager in a large organization, not an entrepreneur. So I decided to quit.

Many colleagues called this step very "risky". Many called me "brave" and said they felt "respect".

I couldn"t really understand their thinking:

Yes, off course, I was leaving behind a good and safe salary. But I could have found a similar job at any moment. Foregone salary was my biggest investment into my own company, which also offers professional services, so I did not need to invest into RD, fixed assets like machines, stock etc.

Ok, I would now have to bear the full responsibility for my actions alone. But on the other hand, that is exactly what made me feel more SAFE, running LOWER RISK. The risk I saw at that moment was the risk of staying part of a larger organization, with quite limited possibility to influence where it was heading. That to me seemed risky.

It"s like standing on the deck of a super tanker. If you see a cliff in the distance, it might already be too late to veer around. And even if it would not be too late yet, you would first have to alert the rest of the crew, they would have to believe you, and start taking action. By that time, it might well be too late, if you are heard at all.

On the other hand, my own business is like a small sailboat: Small, low power etc. Apparently unsafe. But is it really? I am at the helm. I know how to operate the sails. I can veer around in very short time and distance. I am in full control. As long as I am vigilant, I might actually be safer. At least, I feel much safer, knowing that I have in principle the possibility to react to whatever happens.

Another thought is that if people are willing to take a risk depends on their alternatives, and what is happening around them.

In 2000 I worked at Ford Motor Company in the USA. I lived in the student town Ann Arbor, home to Michigan State University and University of Michigan. Among the students, becoming "the next Bill Gates" was the common dream, everybody wanted to work in a start up, or create one. This was before the Dot-Com bubble burst, off course. They would ask me, why on earth I worked in the "old economy" automotive.
So here, the positive wave of successful start ups made people become entrepreneurs.

Later, when I created my business in 2005/6 in Germany, the effects of the Dot-Com Bubble burst could still be felt in the "real" economy. At that time, finding good jobs was not so easy, and many founders I met were actually forced to create a company out of necessity. They would simply not find a job, so they created one.
So a negative pressure can also lead to entrepreneurship. However, the success rate is much lower, and as soon as the economy picked up again in Germany, many of those start ups disappeared.

What I want to say here: The genes of people, responsible for risk appetite or risk aversion, are far from the only influencing factor. The economic situation, role models etc. also play a big role.
And even what risk really is, depends on the personal preference, as in my case.