0363-9428-89-141 $1.50 Copyright 1989 by Baylor University
Some Suggestions for Research on Entrepreneurial Traits and Characteristics William B. Gartner This article suggests that researchers submitting manuscripts on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics should: ground their studies in the context of previous research, articulate a specific theory about the nature of entrepreneurship and its relationship to the entrepreneur, define key ideas and variables, conscientiously identify and select samples, and use current social psychology and personality theory-based measurement instruments or provide construct validity evidence for newly constructed measures.
his article stems from this reviewer's frustration at having to reject a number of manuscripts recently submitted to Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on the topic of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. It is disheartening to review a manuscript that took a considerable amount of time and effort to generate but that has, from my point of view, obvious "fatal flaws" that should have been identified and eliminated before the study was undertaken. These articles were "bom to be rejected." My review of these manuscripts came too late in the research process. Any advice about the manuscript could not really help the researcher modify fundamental flaws in the study's theory and research design. My hope is that an article on common problems in research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics, an "If You're Going to Do Trait Research . . . Please Consider" type of article, might save many individuals hundreds of hours of effort on research whose results have little possibility of getting published. I offer these suggestions for improving research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics with some trepidation. When submitting my own manuscripts, I have often experienced what I thought were the reviewers' heavy-handed applications of their personal views about what good research is or isn't. The frequent rejection letters I've received have instilled a great deal of sympathy for anyone who attempts to publish scholarly work in entrepreneurship. Research on entrepreneurship, because the topic is inherently complex and multidisciplinary, is exceedingly difficult to do well. What follows, then, are some modest suggestions for improving entrepreneurial trait and characteristic research, offered in the spirit of advice, rather than as dogma. Some caveats. This article is not an exhaustive overview of legitimate research methodologies on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics or an articulation of specific orthodoxies about the defmition of entrepreneurship. It is also not a comprehensive critique of all of the area's issues, studies, or methods. Much of what is suggested in this article has been said, much better, before. Richard L. Daft's article "Why I Recommended That Your Manuscript be Rejected and What You Can Do about It" (1985) is Fall 1989
27
an excellent overview of the major problems found in rejected organization science manuscripts. For a comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship research issues, readers should refer to Low & MacMillan (1988). Many of the suggestions made in this article about research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics are an affirmation and an extension of their general guidelines.
HAVE YOU READ THE LITERATURE? On the basis of the manuscripts I have seen, most researchers do not seem to be familiar with the published literature on personality traits and characteristics. Some studies even seem to reinvent the wheel—celebrating themselves as pioneering studies on risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity, locus of control—never recognizing that these traits have been studied many times before. Scholarship begins with the activity of learning what others have already found out. What differentiates a scholar from a reporter or a journalist is that scholars have an obligation to recognize the past. While we typically think of research as the forwardthinking process of "studious and critical inquiry and examination aimed at the discovery and interpretation of new knowledge" (from Webster's), the root word for research, "re-search," actually means: to go back and seek out. That is, research is the activity of re-searching: looking again at what has been looked at before. Entrepreneurship researchers cannot make important contributions to the field unless they know what already has been contributed. Good scholarship in entrepreneurship requires that each study be consciously connected to previous work done in the field. A working knowledge of the field sharpens ideas and can lead to new insights via more focused studies. At a minimum, entrepreneurial trait and characteristic researchers must be familiar with the studies cited in Brockhaus (1982) and Brockhaus & Horwitz (1986), two comprehensive and in-depth overviews of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. I also concur with suggestions made by Carsrud, Olm & Eddy (1986), who ask that researchers engaged in studies using psychological or sociological characteristics be familiar with contemporary research in those areas. Entrepreneurship researchers have an obligation to extend their "re-search" beyond the traditional boundaries of entrepreneurship and link their work to current research in other disciplines. An entrepreneurship study of psychological traits is first and foremost a psychology study, and secondarily an entrepreneurship study. An entrepreneurship study of psychological traits must follow the same "rules of the game" as other studies of psychological traits found in the mainstream of the discipline of psychology. Researchers must be familiar with the ideas and issues articulated in The Handbook of Social Psychology, II (Lindzey & Aronson, 1985), as well as with recent theoretical and methodological developments in personality and social psychology found in such journals as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and the Journal of Personality. Otherwise, the entrepreneurship area risks becoming an intellectual backwater.
WHAT IS THE THEORY? Basically, a theory offers reasons for conducting the research. A theory is not just a literature review; it takes the literature review one step farther by requiring researchers to place their studies in the context of past studies, whether that context is to confirm, extend, or even attempt to disprove past studies. A theory also helps direct the research effort by suggesting "where to look." A theory guides the researcher toward " s e e i n g " observations that were not noted in previous studies or those that would not be expected 28
ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
from "normal experience." A theory gives a study a specific purpose and a logic. As Daft (1985) puts it, "Theory means explaining what the variables mean and why they are related to one another in organizations" (p. 195). Or as Kerlinger (1973) more formally defines it: A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena (p. 4). Two words should be emphasized in the Kerlinger definition: explaining and predicting. A theory explains by giving reasons for why specific variables influence, or are infiuenced by, other variables. A theory predicts by suggesting causality; that is, a theory indicates which variables infiuence other variables. A theory offers a model of the phenomenon as well as definitions of all of the variables. It would seem that any study on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics submitted for review should have a theory. But this is usually not what I find in the manuscripts I review. Most entrepreneurial trait and characteristic manuscripts do not state their purpose, offer a model, or define key variables. The typical a-theoretical entrepreneurial trait and characteristic manuscript is a study that describes administering a questionnaire to two groups of people and then analyzing whether there are any statistically significant differences in the scores across each questionnaire item. The a-theoretical manuscript offers no reasons for why the study was conducted, why the study focuses on certain traits and characteristics and not others, why and how these traits and characteristics infiuence entrepreneurship, or why and how the two groups were selected for study. Theory gives a research manuscript meaning. Theory is the heart of a manuscript. A manuscript without theory is just number crunching. Theoretical issues in entrepreneurial trait and characteristic research share the same fundamental concerns articulated in the person-situation debate in social psychology (Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Entrepreneurship researchers studying traits and characteristics seek to answer the question, "Why are some individuals entrepreneurial, while others are not?" The basic assumption of trait and characteristic research is that internal dispositions have an infiuence on behavior. At issue in the debate about traits and characteristics is the strength of these internal variables as predictors of behavior in particular situations; that is, "do characteristics of the person or characteristics of the situation determine a person's behavior?" Some very sophisticated theories and ideas about the infiuence of person and situation variables (e.g., moderators, mediators) have been offered and evaluated in the social psychology literature (Bem & Allen, 1974; Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). Unfortunately, theories and ideas about entrepreneurial traits have not kept pace. I have suggested before, (Gartner, 1985), along with Vesper (1980), and Brockhaus & Horwitz (1986), that entrepreneurial trait and characteristic researchers are using either of two very simple conceptual frameworks as the bases for constructing their theories: (1) ideas about the differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs; or (2) ideas about the difference among types of entrepreneurs. A classic example of the first approach is Collins & Moore's (1964) comparison of the life histories of founders of owner-managed manufacturing companies to the life histories of executives in largescale business enterprises. An example of the second approach is Smith's (1967) innovative re-analysis of Collins & Moore's database, which resulted in his typology of two entrepreneurial types—craftsman and opportunistic. Both studies analyze variance. Collins & Moore's (1964) study, which compares entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs, explores whether the between-group (entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurs) variance is Fall 1989
29
greater than the variance within each group. Smith's (1967) analysis, which compares types of entrepreneurs, explores whether the between-group (craftsman versus opportunistic) variance is greater than the variance within each type. The first idea is, in its most simplistic form: entrepreneurs cause entrepreneurship, that is, E = f(e). Entrepreneurship (E) is a function of the entrepreneur (e). It implies that entrepreneurs are different from non-entrepreneurs. In this model, certain entrepreneurial traits and characteristics predispose entrepreneurs towards entrepreneurial activities and these traits and characteristics make them different from non-entrepreneurs. For example, even in a very sophisticated model of entrepreneurship, (e.g., Martin, 1984), the initial factor that sets into motion entrepreneurial activity is the psychological/ physical predisposition of the entrepreneur (Figure 1). Central to this model is the belief "that certain individuals have predispositions or readiness to initiate NTBF's (New Techology Business functions)" (Martin, 1984, p. 269). All of the other factors in the model serve to moderate the influence of the initial entrepreneurial predisposition. Using this framework, E = f(e), a researcher must specify which traits and characteristics "result" in entrepreneurship as well as offer reasons for why these particular traits and characteristics do so. Collins & Moore (1964) clearly articulate this idea in the research questions they ask. Our concern is with the actor in the entrepreneurial drama. What motivates him to strike out on his own and set up a new business enterprise? Is he somehow different
Figure 1 A Model of New Venture Initiation Partial Social Alienation: Membership of Entrepreneurial Minority Immigrant
Precipitating Event: Job frustration Lay-off Dismissal
Financial Support: Personal/family capital Friends/private capital Financial institutions Suppliers' credit
Psychologicall Physical Pre-disposition: High n-Ach Internal locus of control Williamson factors
Free-Choice Period
Demonstration Effects:
Family:
Incubater Organization Examples of others Mentors/Advisors Parent Self-employed
Supportive Spouse or Single/Widowed/ Divorced
Identification of Venture Opportunity
New Venture Start-up
Supportive Environment: Education/cultural Accounting/legal, etc. Services Govt. advisory services Labor, transportation, etc. Entrepreneurial climate
From Martin (1984), p. 269.
30
ENTREPRENEURSfflP THEORY and PRACTICE
from other leadership groups in our society? Is there a pattern of motives, values, and interests that can properly be identified as entrepreneurial? (p. 4). My advice to researchers exploring differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs is that their theories must specify which particular entrepreneurial traits and characteristics will predict future entrepreneurial outcomes. Besides listing hypotheses, a manuscript should also present a model showing the causal links between these characteristics and entrepreneurship. The second idea, in which entrepreneurs are compared with each other, is: there are many different types of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs, that is, E,^) = U^(n))- The variation within the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is explained by the variation in the types of entrepreneurs who exist. Using this idea, researchers develop theories that explain why different types of entrepreneurs have different entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. For example. Smith's (1967) study of Collins & Moore's (1964) data approaches the phenomenon of entrepreneurship very differently from their study: (Many writers assume that entrepreneurs are a homogeneous group and that when the term entrepreneur is used it refers to only one type of individual.) The problem focus is the relationship between the type of entrepreneur (that is, the character of the man) and the type of firm he builds and the growth of this firm. (Smith, 1967, p. 1) Many studies of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics follow this idea; that is, they compare different types of entrepreneurs. A few examples are studies comparing successful versus average entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1987), independent versus franchise entrepreneurs (Mescon & Montanari, 1981), minority female versus non-minority female entrepreneurs (DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979), five types of university entrepreneurs (Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989), and eight types of independent entrepreneurs (Gartner, Mitchell, & Vesper, 1989). I believe that research studies that identify entrepreneurial types are similar to many social psychology models that suggest that particular traits have a limited infiuence on specific people in specific situations (Amelang & Borkenau, 1986; Bem & Allen, 1974; Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). Both ideas about entrepreneurship would benefit from recognizing the infiuence of environmental factors in moderating and mediating the effect of personality traits and characteristics on entrepreneurial behaviors. Researchers should give serious consideration to using complex models as frameworks for a contingency view of entrepreneurship (see Martin, 1984; also Figure 1). Previous studies seeking answers to the quesion, "How are entrepreneurs different from non-entrepreneurs?" have not generated a reliable or valid list of characteristics that are clearly "entrepreneurial" across all situations (Gartner, 1988). Researchers are likely to generate important and useful insights about entrepreneurial traits by identifying and studying situations in which types of entrepreneurship can be predicted for some of the people some of the time. Researchers should construct theories of entrepreneurship based on contingency type models that specify the infiuence of certain entrepreneurial characteristics on certain types of entrepreneurs in certain types of environments.
HOW ARE KEY VARIABLES DEFINED? The articulation of a theory requires that key variables and ideas be defined. A study must provide definitions for entrepreneur, non-entrepreneur, and any trait and characteristic variable analyzed. Because a common definition of the entrepreneur remains Fall, 1989
31
elusive (Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Carsrud, Olm, & Edy, 1986; Sexton & Smilor, 1986; Wortman, 1986, 1987) and controversial (Gartner, 1988, 1989; Carland, Hoy, & Carland, 1988), a study of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics requires researchers to clarify who and what will be studied. The entrepreneur label has been applied to business founders (Collins & Moore, 1964), owner/managers (Cooper & Dunkelberg, 1981), juvenile delinquents (Gould, 1969), CEOs (Hartman, 1959), middle-level managers (McClelland, 1961), university researchers (Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989) and firms (Stauss, 1944). The obvious reason for providing definitions of key terms is that it provides the reader with a clear sense of the study's specific research focus. In addition, valid and insightful comparisons among studies are more likely to be made when reviewers are not confused about what type of entrepreneur the study is evaluating. A good example of a study that offers definitions as part of its theory development is Collins & Moore, 1964. They base their ideas about entrepreneurs on those discussed by Cole (1959) and Harbison & Myers (1959) of entrepreneurship as the function of organization building (p. 18). Collins & Moore discuss a number of different types of entrepreneurs they could have studied and then they carefully limit their focus to one type. They narrow the idea about entrepreneurship as organization building down to a specific definition of the entrepreneur: "When we use the term entrepreneur, we shall mean the innovating entrepreneur who has developed an ongoing business activity where none existed before" (p. 20). Smith (1967) utilizes a similar definition in his study: "Following Cole's definition . . . of an entrepreneur: the individual who is primarily responsible for gathering together the necessary resources to initiate a business" (p. 2). Definitions of key variables are a bridge between what often seem to be vague ideas presented in a theory and the actuality of conducting research on a specific group of individuals. Both the Collins & Moore and Smith definitions serve to clarify the focus of the research. This is extremely important when selecting individuals for study. One aspect of entrepreneurial trait and characteristic research that often receives little attention is the concern for specifying who is a non-entrepreneur. Assuming that non-entrepreneurs are "everyone else who is not an entrepreneur" leads to significant problems in controlling for and comparing the variance among and between the samples of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. In addition, failure to clearly articulate the nature of non-entrepreneurship often leads to problems in identifying the actual purpose of a study; that is, an ambiguity in defining non-entrepreneurship leads to confusion about the type of theory utilized. For example, McClelland's recent research on entrepreneurs (McBer & Company, 1986; McClelland, 1987) appears to be an exploration of the characteristics of "successful" entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurs. In actuality, the study is an exploration of the differences between two types of small business owners because the "non-entrepreneurial" group in these studies are samples of "average" entrepreneurs. Defining entrepreneurship, entrepreneur, and non-entrepreneur leads to a consideration for how samples of individuals representing these definitions are generated. In most respects, the "true" definition of these words is dependent on the nature of the samples selected to represent them.
WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE SELECTED FOR STUDY? Another critical issue for conducting research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics is in selecting appropriate samples that reflect both the type of theory to be explored and the major constructs of the model. Researchers have to recognize that their
32
ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
sample of entrepreneurs is their operational definition of the entrepreneur. The characteristics of a sample of entrepreneurs says more about the researcher's idea of entrepreneurship than any a priori definition offered. Most entrepreneurial trait and characteristic manuscripts show a general lack of concern about selecting appropriate samples. Most studies do not describe what variables specifically characterize the entrepreneur. Without some clear specification of how and why certain measures for selecting an appropriate sample represent the definition of the entrepreneur, a study becomes entirely tautological. The results from an analysis of the sample's characteristics are, in fact, the result of the characteristics of the sample. If the researcher doesn't specify why a particular group of individuals was chosen to represent a particular definition of the entrepreneur and non-entrepreneur, the characteristics of the samples become both the definitions and the results. For example, a study could compare the ages of new venture CEOs to the ages of established organization CEOs. If the researcher doesn't control for the infiuence of organizational size, type of industry, etc. when generating the two samples, any significant differences between the ages of the two groups are likely due to the samples themselves. The sample of new venture CEOs may have been selected from entirely different industries that were composed of organizations that were significantly smaller than the established organizations. A comparison of the traits and characteristics of established organization CEOs with those of new venture CEOs may be valid, or may be inappropriate. It all depends on the logic and process for selecting members of each sample. Without some logic for identifying appropriate samples and controls for ensuring that appropriate samples are gathered, the researcher could have just as well taken any group of individuals and placed one-half into the entrepreneur category and one-half into the non-entrepreneur category. The identification of appropriate samples is particularly important for studies that explore whether certain personality traits and characteristics can predict entrepreneurial behavior. For example, if a researcher defines entrepreneurship as "the creation of new enterprise" (Low & MacMillan, 1988), the study's sample of entrepreneurs should have been selected before they became involved in creating new enterprises. By evaluating these individuals' entrepreneurial traits and characteristics before the creation of a new enterprise, the study is more likely to show causality. For example, it is inappropriate to select a sample of individuals from a population of owner/managers of small firms that have been in business for five years for a test of the infiuence of certain personality traits on entrepreneurial behavior. By collecting personality data on an entrepreneur five years after the entrepreneurial event, the researcher makes an assumption that the entrepreneur's traits, attitudes, and beliefs did not change because of the entrepreneurial experience itself. The assumption that entrepreneurial traits are immutable and have some direct infiuence on entrepreneurial behavior can and should be empirically tested by selecting samples of individuals before they become involved in creating new enterprises, or specific assumptions about the immutability of these traits need to be made explicit. I gravitate toward a hardline perspective on personality-based characteristics (Mischel, 1968) which posits that individuals do not appear to demonstrate consistencies in their behavior across time and in diverse situations, and that personality traits are not very reliable predictors of whether a person will act in a particular way in a particular situation (Ajzen, 1988; Kenrick & Funder, 1988). A study to determine whether certain personality traits can infiuence (predict) entrepreneurial behavior needs to be designed so that causality can be clearly identified. Selecting samples of individuals before entrepreneurial activity occurs is the most convincing way of doing this. A good example of how a researcher thoughtfully selected samples of entrepreneurs
Fall, 1989
33
and non-entrepreneurs to test a particular entrepreneurial trait, risk-taking propensity, can be found in Brockhaus (1980). Brockhaus defined the entrepreneur as the major owner and manager of a business venture not employed elsewhere, and selected his sample of entrepreneurs from managers who had ceased working for their prior employers three months prior to his study and had at the time of the study owned and managed a business venture. His comparison group of non-entrepreneurs were of two types: managers who three months prior to the study had changed organizations, and managers who three months prior to the study had only changed positions within an organization. When Brockhaus explored the risk preferences of these three samples he found that their CDQ (Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire) score (Wallach & Kogan, 1959, 1961) were not significantly different. In this study, both the entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs had undergone a career change. Both groups were facing choices about what type of career to pursue—owner/manager or manager. The study could say something about whether risk-taking (as measured by the CDQ instrument) predicted whether individuals would be more likely to choose an owner/manager career or a manager career. Brockhaus found that risk-taking was not a good predictor. Careful selection of research samples of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs helps identify and control for variation. It is therefore crucial for the entrepreneurial trait and characteristic researcher to devote a great deal of effort to identifying what sample of individuals most appropriately represents the kinds of individuals the study seeks to analyze.
HOW ARE THE TRAITS, CHARACTERISTICS, AND BEHAVIORS MEASURED? The selection of a particular instrument to measure personality traits, characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors may significantly influence the findings generated. For example, the CDQ instrument used by Brockhaus (1980) to measure risk-taking propensity has been found to be moderated by such variables as the respondent's defensiveness and test anxiety (Kogan & Wallach, 1964), and other findings suggest that the CDQ instrument may shift a respondent's perception of risk (Baron et al., 1971). Overall, when using a questionnaire, a researcher must be concerned about whether the instrument itself, and how it is administered, is a major source of the variation in the results. Researchers should be very concerned about reliability and validity issues when using newly developed or modified instruments. If a study does not use a questionnaire that has been previously tested with references to published reports on its reliability and validity (some good sources for information on the reliability and validity of many personality tests can be found in Tests in Print, III [Mitchell, 1983], The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook [Mitchell, 1985], and its supplements, and Tests, 2nd Ed. [Sweetland & Keyser, 1986]), I suggest that, at minimum, the manuscript be accompanied by a copy of the research instrument, an analysis of the internal consistency reliabilities, and any other evidence of the construct validity of the measures. While there are many sources for information on measurement issues in personality research. Personality Assessment via Questionnaires by Angleitner and Wiggins (1986) is a particularly insightful resource and guide. Researchers should also recognize that many other issues in operationalizing a theory about entrepreneurial traits need to be addressed. Problems with the appropriateness of certain designs for research studies, types of research (field studies, field experiments, ex post facto research, survey research, etc.), methods of observation, data collection, and data analysis techniques can also be major stumbling blocks to the generation of quality manuscripts. 34
ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
CONCLUSIONS I do not want to give the impression that the criteria offered here will make research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics so daunting that no one should attempt it. Any research project requires a significant commitment of time and effort. I see these suggestions as basic rules of the game for getting manuscripts published as well as guidelines for generating interesting and useful knowledge. Our publications are more likely to have greater impact if they are the products of a rigorous concern for theory and methodology. The phenomenon of entrepreneurship is inherently multidisciplinary (Gartner, 1985). For those of us not trained as psychologists, sociologists, social psychologists, etc., a useful strategy for acquiring expertise in the theories and methodologies of these disciplines is to collaborate with colleagues with those skills. Besides joint research efforts, I would hope that most individuals contemplating new research projects on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics will disseminate their theories and research designs to individuals familiar with current ideas and methods in social psychology before data collection. Most manuscripts could also benefit from informal pre-reviews before they are submitted to a journal for review. This article suggests that researchers submitting manuscripts on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics should: ground their studies in the context of previous research, articulate a specific theory about the nature of entrepreneurship and its relationship to the entrepreneur, define key ideas and variables, conscientiously identify and select samples, and use current social psychology and personality theory-based measurement instruments or provide construct validity evidence for newly constructed measures. Manuscripts that address these issues will successfully overcome the primary reasons for rejection.
REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, Amelang, M., & Borkenau, P, (1986), The trait concept: Current theoretical considerations, empirical facts, and implications for personality inventory construction. In A, Angleitner & J, S, Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires, pp. 7-34, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Angleitner, A., & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.) (1986). Personality assessment via questionnaires. Springer-Verlag.
Berlin:
Baron, R. S., Dion, K. L., Baron, P. H., & Miller, N. (1971). Group consensus and cultural values as determinants of risk taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 446-455, Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520. Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 230), 509-520. Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C, A. Kent, D, L, Sexton, & K, H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, pp. 39-56. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brockhaus, R. H., & Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship, pp. 25-48, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359.
Fall 1989
35
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J. C. (1988). "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is a question worth asking. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 33-39. Carsrud, A. L., Olm, K. W., & Eddy, G. G. (1986). Entrepreneurship: Research in quest of a paradigm. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. SmiIor(Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship, pp. 367-378. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Cole, A. H. (1959). Business enterprise in its social setting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1964). The enterprising man. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Cooper, A. C , & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1981). A new look at business entry: Experiences of 1805 entrepreneurs. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research: The proceedings of the Babson conference on entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 1-20. Daft, R. L. (1985). Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it. In L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost (Eds.), Publishing in the organizational sciences, pp. 193-209. Homewood, II: Richard D. Irwin. DeCarlo, J. F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979). A comparison of selected personal characteristics of minority and non-minority female entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management, 17, 22-29. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Managment Review, 10(4), 696-706. Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entreptreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), 11-32. Gartner, W. B. (1989). What do we talk about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing (in press). Gartner, W. B., Mitchell, T. R., & Vesper, K. H. (1989). A taxonomy of new business ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 169-186. Gould, L. C. 1969. Juvenile entrepreneurs. American Journal of Sociology, 74(6), 710-719. Harbison, F., & Myers, C. A. (1959). Management in the industrial world. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful distinction? Ai/mmmrar/ve Science Quarterly, 3, 429-457. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964). Risk taking. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (1985). The handbook of social psychology, II. New York: Random House. Louis, K. S., Blumentahl, D., Gluck, M. E., & Stoto, M. A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 110-131. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, 1. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139-162. Martin, M. J. C. (1984). Managing technological innovation and entrepreneurship. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.
36
ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE
McBer and Company (1986). Entrepreneurship and small-enterprise development, second annual report to the United States Agency for International Development, McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. (1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior 27(3) 219-233. Mescon, T., & Montanari, J. (1981), The personalities of independent and franchise entrepreneurs: An empirical analysis of concepts. Journal of Enterprise Management, 3(2), 149-159. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, Mitchell, J. V., Jr. (1983). Tests in print. III. Lincoln: University of Nebraska. Mitchell, J. V., Jr. (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Sexton, D, L,, & Smilor, R. W, (1986), Introduction, In D, L, Sexton & R, V^. Smilor (Eds), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Schumpeter, J, A, (1934), The theory of economic development. Translated by R. Opie, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Smith, N. R, (1967), The entrepreneur and his firm. East Lansing: Michigan State Universtiy f*ress. Stauss, J. H. (1944), The entrepreneur: The firm. Journal of Political Economy, 52(2), 112-127. Sweetland, R. C , & Keyser, D, J, (1986), Tests, 2nd Ed. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America. Vesper, K. H. (1980), New venture strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Wallach, M, A,, & Kogan, N, (1959), Sex difference and judgement processes. Journal of Personality, 27, 555-564. Wallach, M, A,, & Kogan, N, (1961), Aspects of judgement and decision-making: Interrelationships and changes with age. Behavioral Science, 6, 23-36. Wortman, M. S, (1986), A unified framework, research typologies, and research prospectuses for the interface between entrepreneurship and small business. In D, L, Sexton & R, W, Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship, pp, 273-332, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, Wortman, M, S, (1987), Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279, Zuckerman, M., Bemieri, F,, Koestner, R,, & Rosenthal, R, (1989), To predict some of the people some of the time: In search of moderators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 279-293, Zuckerman, M,, Koestner, R,, Beboy, T,, Garcia, T,, Maresca, B, C , & Sartoris, J, M. (1988), To predict some of the people some of the time: A reexamination of the moderator variable approach in personality theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 1006-1019.
William B. Gartner is an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, The author wishes to thank Barbara J. Bird, Alan L, Carsrud, Elizabeth Gatewood, and the Consulting Editor, Edward R. Kemery, for providing very helpful and constructive comments on earlier drafts.
Fall 1989
37
