0363-9428-89-141 $1.50Copyright 1989 byBaylor University

Some Suggestions forResearch onEntrepreneurial Traitsand CharacteristicsWilliam B. Gartner

This article suggests that researchers submitting manuscripts on entrepreneurial traits andcharacteristics should: ground their studies in the context of previous research, articulatea specific theory about the nature of entrepreneurship and its relationship to the entrepre-neur, define key ideas and variables, conscientiously identify and select samples, and usecurrent social psychology and personality theory-based measurement instruments or pro-vide construct validity evidence for newly constructed measures.

his article stems from this reviewer's frustration at having to reject a number ofmanuscripts recently submitted to Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice on the topic ofentrepreneurial traits and characteristics. It is disheartening to review a manuscript thattook a considerable amount of time and effort to generate but that has, from my point ofview, obvious "fatal flaws" that should have been identified and eliminated before thestudy was undertaken. These articles were "bom to be rejected." My review of thesemanuscripts came too late in the research process. Any advice about the manuscriptcould not really help the researcher modify fundamental flaws in the study's theory andresearch design. My hope is that an article on common problems in research on entre-preneurial traits and characteristics, an "If You're Going to Do Trait Research . . .Please Consider" type of article, might save many individuals hundreds of hours ofeffort on research whose results have little possibility of getting published.

I offer these suggestions for improving research on entrepreneurial traits and char-acteristics with some trepidation. When submitting my own manuscripts, I have oftenexperienced what I thought were the reviewers' heavy-handed applications of theirpersonal views about what good research is or isn't. The frequent rejection letters I'vereceived have instilled a great deal of sympathy for anyone who attempts to publishscholarly work in entrepreneurship. Research on entrepreneurship, because the topic isinherently complex and multidisciplinary, is exceedingly difficult to do well. Whatfollows, then, are some modest suggestions for improving entrepreneurial trait andcharacteristic research, offered in the spirit of advice, rather than as dogma.

Some caveats. This article is not an exhaustive overview of legitimate researchmethodologies on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics or an articulation of specificorthodoxies about the defmition of entrepreneurship. It is also not a comprehensivecritique of all of the area's issues, studies, or methods. Much of what is suggested in thisarticle has been said, much better, before. Richard L. Daft's article "Why I Recom-mended 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 sciencemanuscripts. For a comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship research issues, readersshould refer to Low & MacMillan (1988). Many of the suggestions made in this articleabout research on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics are an affirmation and anextension of their general guidelines.

HAVE YOU READ THE LITERATURE?

On the basis of the manuscripts I have seen, most researchers do not seem to befamiliar with the published literature on personality traits and characteristics. Somestudies even seem to reinvent the wheel—celebrating themselves as pioneering studieson risk taking, tolerance of ambiguity, locus of control—never recognizing that thesetraits 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 anobligation to recognize the past. While we typically think of research as the forward-thinking process of "studious and critical inquiry and examination aimed at the discov-ery 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 ofre-searching: looking again at what has been looked at before. Entrepreneurship re-searchers cannot make important contributions to the field unless they know what al-ready has been contributed. Good scholarship in entrepreneurship requires that eachstudy be consciously connected to previous work done in the field. A working knowl-edge 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 familiarwith the studies cited in Brockhaus (1982) and Brockhaus & Horwitz (1986), twocomprehensive and in-depth overviews of entrepreneurial traits and characteristics. Ialso concur with suggestions made by Carsrud, Olm & Eddy (1986), who ask thatresearchers engaged in studies using psychological or sociological characteristics befamiliar with contemporary research in those areas. Entrepreneurship researchers havean obligation to extend their "re-search" beyond the traditional boundaries of entrepre-neurship and link their work to current research in other disciplines. An entrepreneurshipstudy of psychological traits is first and foremost a psychology study, and secondarily anentrepreneurship study. An entrepreneurship study of psychological traits must followthe same "rules of the game" as other studies of psychological traits found in themainstream of the discipline of psychology. Researchers must be familiar with the ideasand issues articulated in The Handbook of Social Psychology, II (Lindzey & Aronson,1985), as well as with recent theoretical and methodological developments in personalityand social psychology found in such journals as the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology and the Journal of Personality. Otherwise, the entrepreneurship area risksbecoming an intellectual backwater.

WHAT IS THE THEORY?

Basically, a theory offers reasons for conducting the research. A theory is not justa literature review; it takes the literature review one step farther by requiring researchersto 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 researcheffort by suggesting "where to look." A theory guides the researcher toward "see ing"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. AsDaft (1985) puts it, "Theory means explaining what the variables mean and why theyare related to one another in organizations" (p. 195). Or as Kerlinger (1973) moreformally defines it:

A theory is a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositionsthat present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among vari-ables, 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 infiu-enced by, other variables. A theory predicts by suggesting causality; that is, a theoryindicates which variables infiuence other variables. A theory offers a model of thephenomenon as well as definitions of all of the variables.

It would seem that any study on entrepreneurial traits and characteristics submittedfor review should have a theory. But this is usually not what I find in the manuscriptsI review. Most entrepreneurial trait and characteristic manuscripts do not state theirpurpose, offer a model, or define key variables. The typical a-theoretical entrepreneurialtrait and characteristic manuscript is a study that describes administering a questionnaireto two groups of people and then analyzing whether there are any statistically significantdifferences in the scores across each questionnaire item. The a-theoretical manuscriptoffers no reasons for why the study was conducted, why the study focuses on certaintraits and characteristics and not others, why and how these traits and characteristicsinfiuence 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. Amanuscript without theory is just number crunching.

Theoretical issues in entrepreneurial trait and characteristic research share the samefundamental concerns articulated in the person-situation debate in social psychology(Kenrick & Funder, 1988). Entrepreneurship researchers studying traits and character-istics seek to answer the question, "Why are some individuals entrepreneurial, whileothers are not?" The basic assumption of trait and characteristic research is that internaldispositions have an infiuence on behavior. At issue in the debate about traits andcharacteristics is the strength of these internal variables as predictors of behavior inparticular situations; that is, "do characteristics of the person or characteristics of thesituation determine a person's behavior?" Some very sophisticated theories and ideasabout the infiuence of person and situation variables (e.g., moderators, mediators) havebeen offered and evaluated in the social psychology literature (Bem & Allen, 1974;Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). Unfortunately, theories and ideas about entrepreneurialtraits 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 usingeither of two very simple conceptual frameworks as the bases for constructing theirtheories: (1) ideas about the differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs; or(2) ideas about the difference among types of entrepreneurs. A classic example of thefirst approach is Collins & Moore's (1964) comparison of the life histories of foundersof owner-managed manufacturing companies to the life histories of executives in large-scale business enterprises. An example of the second approach is Smith's (1967) inno-vative re-analysis of Collins & Moore's database, which resulted in his typology of twoentrepreneurial types—craftsman and opportunistic. Both studies analyze variance. Col-lins & Moore's (1964) study, which compares entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs, ex-plores 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 comparestypes of entrepreneurs, explores whether the between-group (craftsman versus opportu-nistic) 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 impliesthat entrepreneurs are different from non-entrepreneurs. In this model, certain entrepre-neurial traits and characteristics predispose entrepreneurs towards entrepreneurial activ-ities and these traits and characteristics make them different from non-entrepreneurs. Forexample, 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 (NewTechology Business functions)" (Martin, 1984, p. 269). All of the other factors in themodel serve to moderate the influence of the initial entrepreneurial predisposition. Usingthis 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 andcharacteristics do so. Collins & Moore (1964) clearly articulate this idea in the researchquestions they ask.

Our concern is with the actor in the entrepreneurial drama. What motivates him tostrike out on his own and set up a new business enterprise? Is he somehow different

Figure 1A Model of New Venture Initiation

Partial SocialAlienation:

Membership ofEntrepreneurial

MinorityImmigrant

Psychologicall PhysicalPre-disposition:

High n-AchInternal locus of

controlWilliamson factors

Demonstration Effects:

Incubater OrganizationExamples of othersMentors/Advisors

Parent Self-employed

PrecipitatingEvent:

Job frustrationLay-off

Dismissal

Free-ChoicePeriod

Family:

Supportive Spouseor

Single/Widowed/Divorced

Financial Support:

Personal/family capitalFriends/private capitalFinancial institutions

Suppliers' credit

Identificationof

Venture Opportunity

Supportive Environment:

Education/culturalAccounting/legal, etc.

ServicesGovt. advisory services

Labor, transportation, etc.Entrepreneurial climate

From Martin (1984), p. 269.

NewVentureStart-up

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 non-entrepreneurs is that their theories must specify which particular entrepreneurial traitsand characteristics will predict future entrepreneurial outcomes. Besides listing hypoth-eses, a manuscript should also present a model showing the causal links between thesecharacteristics and entrepreneurship.

The second idea, in which entrepreneurs are compared with each other, is: there aremany different types of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs, that is, E,̂ ) = U^(n))- Thevariation within the phenomenon of entrepreneurship is explained by the variation in thetypes of entrepreneurs who exist. Using this idea, researchers develop theories thatexplain why different types of entrepreneurs have different entrepreneurial traits andcharacteristics. For example. Smith's (1967) study of Collins & Moore's (1964) dataapproaches the phenomenon of entrepreneurship very differently from their study:

(Many writers assume that entrepreneurs are a homogeneous group and that whenthe term entrepreneur is used it refers to only one type of individual.) The problemfocus is the relationship between the type of entrepreneur (that is, the character ofthe 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, theycompare different types of entrepreneurs. A few examples are studies comparing suc-cessful versus average entrepreneurs (McClelland, 1987), independent versus franchiseentrepreneurs (Mescon & Montanari, 1981), minority female versus non-minority fe-male entrepreneurs (DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979), five types of university entrepreneurs(Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989), and eight types of independent entrepre-neurs (Gartner, Mitchell, & Vesper, 1989).

I believe that research studies that identify entrepreneurial types are similar to manysocial psychology models that suggest that particular traits have a limited infiuence onspecific people in specific situations (Amelang & Borkenau, 1986; Bem & Allen, 1974;Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Zuckerman et al., 1988, 1989). Both ideas about entrepre-neurship would benefit from recognizing the infiuence of environmental factors in mod-erating and mediating the effect of personality traits and characteristics on entrepreneur-ial behaviors. Researchers should give serious consideration to using complex models asframeworks for a contingency view of entrepreneurship (see Martin, 1984; also Figure1). Previous studies seeking answers to the quesion, "How are entrepreneurs differentfrom non-entrepreneurs?" have not generated a reliable or valid list of characteristicsthat are clearly "entrepreneurial" across all situations (Gartner, 1988). Researchers arelikely to generate important and useful insights about entrepreneurial traits by identifyingand studying situations in which types of entrepreneurship can be predicted for some ofthe people some of the time. Researchers should construct theories of entrepreneurshipbased on contingency type models that specify the infiuence of certain entrepreneurialcharacteristics 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 studymust provide definitions for entrepreneur, non-entrepreneur, and any trait and charac-teristic 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 researchersto clarify who and what will be studied. The entrepreneur label has been applied tobusiness founders (Collins & Moore, 1964), owner/managers (Cooper & Dunkelberg,1981), juvenile delinquents (Gould, 1969), CEOs (Hartman, 1959), middle-level man-agers (McClelland, 1961), university researchers (Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto,1989) and firms (Stauss, 1944). The obvious reason for providing definitions of keyterms is that it provides the reader with a clear sense of the study's specific researchfocus. In addition, valid and insightful comparisons among studies are more likely to bemade when reviewers are not confused about what type of entrepreneur the study isevaluating.

A good example of a study that offers definitions as part of its theory developmentis Collins & Moore, 1964. They base their ideas about entrepreneurs on those discussedby Cole (1959) and Harbison & Myers (1959) of entrepreneurship as the function oforganization building (p. 18). Collins & Moore discuss a number of different types ofentrepreneurs they could have studied and then they carefully limit their focus to onetype. They narrow the idea about entrepreneurship as organization building down to aspecific definition of the entrepreneur: "When we use the term entrepreneur, we shallmean the innovating entrepreneur who has developed an ongoing business activity wherenone existed before" (p. 20). Smith (1967) utilizes a similar definition in his study:"Following Cole's definition . . . of an entrepreneur: the individual who is primarilyresponsible 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 ideaspresented in a theory and the actuality of conducting research on a specific group ofindividuals. Both the Collins & Moore and Smith definitions serve to clarify the focusof the research. This is extremely important when selecting individuals for study.

One aspect of entrepreneurial trait and characteristic research that often receiveslittle attention is the concern for specifying who is a non-entrepreneur. Assuming thatnon-entrepreneurs are "everyone else who is not an entrepreneur" leads to significantproblems in controlling for and comparing the variance among and between the samplesof entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. In addition, failure to clearly articulate thenature of non-entrepreneurship often leads to problems in identifying the actual purposeof a study; that is, an ambiguity in defining non-entrepreneurship leads to confusionabout the type of theory utilized. For example, McClelland's recent research on entre-preneurs (McBer & Company, 1986; McClelland, 1987) appears to be an exploration ofthe characteristics of "successful" entrepreneurs versus non-entrepreneurs. In actuality,the study is an exploration of the differences between two types of small business ownersbecause the "non-entrepreneurial" group in these studies are samples of "average"entrepreneurs.

Defining entrepreneurship, entrepreneur, and non-entrepreneur leads to a consider-ation for how samples of individuals representing these definitions are generated. Inmost respects, the "true" definition of these words is dependent on the nature of thesamples selected to represent them.

WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE SELECTED FOR STUDY?

Another critical issue for conducting research on entrepreneurial traits and charac-teristics is in selecting appropriate samples that reflect both the type of theory to beexplored 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 charac-teristics of a sample of entrepreneurs says more about the researcher's idea of entrepre-neurship than any a priori definition offered.

Most entrepreneurial trait and characteristic manuscripts show a general lack ofconcern about selecting appropriate samples. Most studies do not describe what vari-ables specifically characterize the entrepreneur. Without some clear specification of howand why certain measures for selecting an appropriate sample represent the definition ofthe entrepreneur, a study becomes entirely tautological. The results from an analysis ofthe sample's characteristics are, in fact, the result of the characteristics of the sample. Ifthe researcher doesn't specify why a particular group of individuals was chosen torepresent a particular definition of the entrepreneur and non-entrepreneur, the charac-teristics of the samples become both the definitions and the results. For example, a studycould compare the ages of new venture CEOs to the ages of established organizationCEOs. If the researcher doesn't control for the infiuence of organizational size, type ofindustry, etc. when generating the two samples, any significant differences between theages of the two groups are likely due to the samples themselves. The sample of newventure CEOs may have been selected from entirely different industries that were com-posed of organizations that were significantly smaller than the established organizations.A comparison of the traits and characteristics of established organization CEOs withthose of new venture CEOs may be valid, or may be inappropriate. It all depends on thelogic and process for selecting members of each sample. Without some logic for iden-tifying appropriate samples and controls for ensuring that appropriate samples are gath-ered, the researcher could have just as well taken any group of individuals and placedone-half into the entrepreneur category and one-half into the non-entrepreneur category.

The identification of appropriate samples is particularly important for studies thatexplore whether certain personality traits and characteristics can predict entrepreneurialbehavior. For example, if a researcher defines entrepreneurship as "the creation of newenterprise" (Low & MacMillan, 1988), the study's sample of entrepreneurs should havebeen selected before they became involved in creating new enterprises. By evaluatingthese individuals' entrepreneurial traits and characteristics before the creation of a newenterprise, the study is more likely to show causality. For example, it is inappropriate toselect a sample of individuals from a population of owner/managers of small firms thathave been in business for five years for a test of the infiuence of certain personality traitson entrepreneurial behavior. By collecting personality data on an entrepreneur five yearsafter the entrepreneurial event, the researcher makes an assumption that the entrepre-neur's traits, attitudes, and beliefs did not change because of the entrepreneurial expe-rience itself. The assumption that entrepreneurial traits are immutable and have somedirect infiuence on entrepreneurial behavior can and should be empirically tested byselecting samples of individuals before they become involved in creating new enter-prises, or specific assumptions about the immutability of these traits need to be madeexplicit.

I gravitate toward a hardline perspective on personality-based characteristics (Mis-chel, 1968) which posits that individuals do not appear to demonstrate consistencies intheir behavior across time and in diverse situations, and that personality traits are notvery reliable predictors of whether a person will act in a particular way in a particularsituation (Ajzen, 1988; Kenrick & Funder, 1988). A study to determine whether certainpersonality traits can infiuence (predict) entrepreneurial behavior needs to be designed sothat causality can be clearly identified. Selecting samples of individuals before entre-preneurial 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 majorowner and manager of a business venture not employed elsewhere, and selected hissample of entrepreneurs from managers who had ceased working for their prior employ-ers three months prior to his study and had at the time of the study owned and manageda business venture. His comparison group of non-entrepreneurs were of two types:managers who three months prior to the study had changed organizations, and managerswho 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 theirCDQ (Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire) score (Wallach & Kogan, 1959, 1961) were notsignificantly different. In this study, both the entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs hadundergone a career change. Both groups were facing choices about what type of careerto pursue—owner/manager or manager. The study could say something about whetherrisk-taking (as measured by the CDQ instrument) predicted whether individuals wouldbe more likely to choose an owner/manager career or a manager career. Brockhaus foundthat risk-taking was not a good predictor.

Careful selection of research samples of entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs helpsidentify and control for variation. It is therefore crucial for the entrepreneurial trait andcharacteristic researcher to devote a great deal of effort to identifying what sample ofindividuals most appropriately represents the kinds of individuals the study seeks toanalyze.

HOW ARE THE TRAITS, CHARACTERISTICS, ANDBEHAVIORS MEASURED?

The selection of a particular instrument to measure personality traits, characteristics,attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors may significantly influence the findings generated. Forexample, the CDQ instrument used by Brockhaus (1980) to measure risk-taking pro-pensity has been found to be moderated by such variables as the respondent's defen-siveness and test anxiety (Kogan & Wallach, 1964), and other findings suggest that theCDQ 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 theinstrument itself, and how it is administered, is a major source of the variation in theresults. Researchers should be very concerned about reliability and validity issues whenusing newly developed or modified instruments. If a study does not use a questionnairethat has been previously tested with references to published reports on its reliability andvalidity (some good sources for information on the reliability and validity of manypersonality tests can be found in Tests in Print, III [Mitchell, 1983], The Ninth MentalMeasurements Yearbook [Mitchell, 1985], and its supplements, and Tests, 2nd Ed.[Sweetland & Keyser, 1986]), I suggest that, at minimum, the manuscript be accom-panied by a copy of the research instrument, an analysis of the internal consistencyreliabilities, and any other evidence of the construct validity of the measures. Whilethere are many sources for information on measurement issues in personality research.Personality Assessment via Questionnaires by Angleitner and Wiggins (1986) is a par-ticularly insightful resource and guide. Researchers should also recognize that manyother issues in operationalizing a theory about entrepreneurial traits need to be ad-dressed. Problems with the appropriateness of certain designs for research studies, typesof research (field studies, field experiments, ex post facto research, survey research,etc.), methods of observation, data collection, and data analysis techniques can also bemajor 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 researchon 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 thesesuggestions as basic rules of the game for getting manuscripts published as well asguidelines for generating interesting and useful knowledge. Our publications are morelikely to have greater impact if they are the products of a rigorous concern for theory andmethodology.

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 thesedisciplines is to collaborate with colleagues with those skills. Besides joint researchefforts, I would hope that most individuals contemplating new research projects onentrepreneurial traits and characteristics will disseminate their theories and researchdesigns to individuals familiar with current ideas and methods in social psychologybefore data collection. Most manuscripts could also benefit from informal pre-reviewsbefore they are submitted to a journal for review.

This article suggests that researchers submitting manuscripts on entrepreneurial traitsand characteristics should: ground their studies in the context of previous research,articulate a specific theory about the nature of entrepreneurship and its relationship to theentrepreneur, define key ideas and variables, conscientiously identify and select sam-ples, and use current social psychology and personality theory-based measurement in-struments or provide construct validity evidence for newly constructed measures. Manu-scripts that address these issues will successfully overcome the primary reasons forrejection.

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.), Person-ality assessment via questionnaires, pp. 7-34, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Angleitner, A., & Wiggins, J. S. (Eds.) (1986). Personality assessment via questionnaires. Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

Baron, R. S., Dion, K. L., Baron, P. H., & Miller, N. (1971). Group consensus and cultural values asdeterminants 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 forcross-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 fromsmall 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 UniversityPress.

Cooper, A. C , & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1981). A new look at business entry: Experiences of 1805 entre-preneurs. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research: The proceedings of the Babsonconference 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. InL. 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 andnon-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 ofManagment Review, 10(4), 696-706.

Gartner, W. B. (1988). Who is an entreptreneur? Is the wrong question. American Journal of SmallBusiness, 12(4), 11-32.

Gartner, W. B. (1989). What do we talk about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of BusinessVenturing (in press).

Gartner, W. B., Mitchell, T. R., & Vesper, K. H. (1989). A taxonomy of new business ventures. Journalof 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-situationdebate. 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: Anexploration 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 ofManagement, 14(2), 139-162.

Martin, M. J. C. (1984). Managing technological innovation and entrepreneurship. Reston, VA: RestonPublishing.

36 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY a n d PRACTICE

McBer and Company (1986). Entrepreneurship and small-enterprise development, second annual report tothe 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: Anempirical 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 andscience 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 andchanges with age. Behavioral Science, 6, 23-36.

Wortman, M. S, (1986), A unified framework, research typologies, and research prospectuses for theinterface between entrepreneurship and small business. In D, L, Sexton & R, W, Smilor (Eds.), The art andscience of entrepreneurship, pp, 273-332, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger,

Wortman, M, S, (1987), Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical researchin the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279,

Zuckerman, M., Bemieri, F,, Koestner, R,, & Rosenthal, R, (1989), To predict some of the people someof 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), Topredict some of the people some of the time: A reexamination of the moderator variable approach inpersonality 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 ConsultingEditor, Edward R. Kemery, for providing very helpful and constructive comments on earlier drafts.

Fall 1989 37