A PROCLIVITY FOR

ENTREPRENEURSHIP:
A COMPARISON OF
ENTREPRENEURS, SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS, AND
CORPORATE MANAGERS
WAYNE H. STEWART, JR.
Clemson University

WARREN E. WATSON
University of North Texas

JOANN C. CARLAND
Western Carolina University
JAMES W. CARLAND
Western Carolina University

Despite intensive inquiry, relatively little is known about the entrepreneur,

EXECUTIVE the central figure in entrepreneurship. The question of how an individual
SUMMARY who operates his or her own business differs from a corporate manager re-
mains unanswered. In addressing this question, the primary purpose of this
study was to investigate the potential of psychological constructs to predict
a proclivity for entrepreneurship. The research model includes three classic
themes in the literature: achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation.
A survey of 767 small business owner-managers and corporate managers was assembled from a
20-state region, primarily the southeastern United States. The participants completed a questionnaire com-
posed of the Achievement Scale of the Personality Research Form, the Risk-Taking and Innovation Scales
of the Jackson Personality Inventory and questions pertaining to numerous individual and organizational
variables. Respondents were first divided into two groups, managers and small business owner-managers.

Address correspondence to Wayne H. Stewart, Jr., Department of Management, Clemson University, 101
Sirrine Hall, Clemson, SC 29634.
The contributions of William Luker and an anonymous reviewer are gratefully acknowledged.

Journal of Business Venturing 14, 189–214

 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. 0883-9026/99/$–see front matter
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0883-9026(97)00070-0
190 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Subsequently, due to the often cited variations in entrepreneurs, the owner-managers were further catego-
rized as either an entrepreneur or small business owner, using the widely cited Carland et al. (1984) theo-
retical definitions. Entrepreneurs are defined by their goals of profit and growth for their ventures and
by their use of strategic planning. Alternatively, small business owners focus on providing family income
and view the venture as an extension of their personalities. In this study, both groups of owner-managers
were simultaneously compared with managers using hierarchical set multinomial LOGIT regression.
The results indicated that the psychological constructs are associated with small business ownership,
but with some important caveats. As hypothesized, those labeled entrepreneurs were higher in achieve-
ment motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation than were both the corporate man-
agers and the small business owners. This profile of the entrepreneur as a driven, creative risk-taker is
consistent with much of the classic literature concerning the entrepreneur. Nonetheless, not all of the
owner-managers fit this profile. When compared with managers, the small business owners demonstrated
only a significantly higher risk-taking propensity. In terms of the constructs studied, the small business
owners were more comparable to managers than to entrepreneurs.
In addition to theoretical and methodological implications, the results presented here have impor-
tant implications for small business owner-managers of both types. A major issue is the connection be-
tween the owner’s psychological profile and the characteristics of the venture, including performance.
It would appear that psychological antecedents are associated with owner goals for the venture. Some
owners will be more growth oriented than will others, and performance should be assessed in light of
the owner’s aspirations for the venture. Moreover, owners should be aware of their own personality sets,
including risk preferences, which may be more or less suited to different venture circumstances, including
those with relatively high levels of risk.
Planning in small businesses appears to enhance venture performance. Research has demonstrated
the connections between psychological factors and planning behaviors in small businesses. Those labeled
entrepreneurs in this study have goals of profit and growth, and tend to engage in more planning. An
awareness of these psychological preferences and concomitant attention to planning behaviors have the
potential to improve the performance of the venture, irrespective of owner aspirations.
Venture teaming is becoming more popular among entrepreneurs. Balanced venture teams appear
to improve the chances of entrepreneurial success (Timmons 1990), but a common source of conflict
among venture team members is inconsistent or ambiguous motives for the new venture. Awareness of
venture partners’ psychological predispositions in areas such as risk-taking could be used to identify and
reconcile areas of potential conflict, and enhance the planning process in the small firm. In sum, an individ-
ual’s awareness of his or her psychological profile provides a number of advantages, not only to existing
entrepreneurs, but also to aspiring entrepreneurs who should assess their perceived entrepreneurial op-
portunities against the backdrop of their psychological proclivity for entrepreneurship.  1998 Elsevier
Science Inc.

INTRODUCTION
Despite intensive inquiry, we still know relatively little about the entrepreneur (Begley
and Boyd 1987a; Cunningham and Lischeron 1991), particularly how an entrepreneur
differs from a manager in a large organization (Gartner 1985; Ginsberg and Buchholtz
1989). Research has indicated that managers and entrepreneurs have different goals
(Litzinger 1965) and decision-making styles (Busenitz 1992; Carland 1982; Carland and
Carland 1992; Richard 1989; Smith et al. 1988), but beyond this, few studies have com-
pared entrepreneurs and managers (Greenberger and Sexton 1988), and the results of
those that have are inconsistent (cf. Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986; Perry 1990). Yet,
entrepreneurial behaviors are important (Gartner, Bird, and Starr 1992), and must be
distinguishable from managerial activities (Penrose 1968) in the process of learning
more about both the entrepreneur and the corporate manager.
The appropriate approach for studying entrepreneurial behavior remains conten-
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 191

tious (cf. Carland, Hoy, and Carland 1988; Chell 1985; Gartner 1988; Stewart 1996).
Clearly, situational factors and social function are integral components of the entrepre-
neurial process (e.g., Greenberger and Sexton 1988; Herron and Robinson 1993; Martin
1984; Shapero 1975; Van de Ven 1993), but not all people will become entrepreneurs
under comparable circumstances, suggesting that individual personality features are a
necessary (Cromie and Johns 1983), if insufficient, condition for the process of entrepre-
neurship. Therefore, psychological attributes should be an integral part of entrepre-
neurship research (Carland et al. 1984; Goldsmith and Kerr 1991; Johnson 1990), as
they are a significant element of a comprehensive theory of entrepreneurship (e.g.,
Greenberger and Sexton 1988; Herron and Robinson 1993; Martin 1984; Naffziger,
Hornsby, and Kuratko 1994; Sandberg 1986), but thus far, the role of psychological fac-
tors is unclear.
The lack of progress in personality research in entrepreneurship may be due to
the theories and methods used to identify those characteristics (Robinson et al. 1991;
Sexton and Bowman 1984, 1986). Definitional quandaries concerning the entrepreneur
(cf. Stewart, Carland, and Carland 1996) have also hampered theoretical development.
The resulting disharmony in the literature has initiated calls for additional research,
particularly comparative investigations, to definitively identify the salient features of
the entrepreneurial personality (Herron and Robinson 1993; Hoy and Carland 1983;
Johnson 1990; Sexton and Bowman 1983), but studies of that nature have been limited
of late (Chandler and Hanks 1994; Shaver and Scott 1991). This study is, in part, a re-
sponse to the challenge for additional inquiry concerning how entrepreneurs differ
from managers.
The central problem addressed in this study is to investigate selected psychological
predispositions of small business owner-managers and corporate managers to deter-
mine if there are significant differences. Recognizing that a wide range of owner-manag-
ers exists (Collins and Moore 1970; Dunkelberg and Cooper 1982; Filley and Aldag
1978; Smith 1967) wherein variation might limit inquiry (Gartner 1985), we also examine
two types of small business owner-managers. Carland et al. (1984) elucidated two dis-
tinct types of small business owner-managers: entrepreneurs and small business owners.
According to the authors, an entrepreneur capitalizes on innovative combinations of
resources for the principal purposes of profit and growth, and uses strategic manage-
ment practices. Alternatively, the small business owner operates a business as an exten-
sion of the individual’s personality to further personal goals and to produce family in-
come. The two types of owners differ in articulated venture strategies, personality,
cognitive orientation and behavior preferences (Carland et al. 1988), factors also associ-
ated with planning activities in small ventures (Carland, Carland, and Aby 1989). A
primary objective of our research is to investigate whether this definitional distinction
affords insight into the entrepreneurial psyche. Specifically, we pursue a three-way com-
parison of the psychological predispositions of corporate managers, entrepreneurs and
small business owners across a variety of contexts. Observed differences could have
important implications for theory development in a number of areas, including educa-
tion and assistance programs, teaming, planning and management style.

THE PRESENT STUDY

Sparked by the recognition of an opportunity (Stevenson and Jarillo 1990), the entrepre-
neur, through an act of volition (Bygrave and Hofer 1991) or intention (Bird 1988), is
192 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

the catalyst of the process of entrepreneurship. This research effort is focused on the
individual entrepreneur and is based on psychological theories that seek to explain why
people act in certain ways, specifically, entrepreneurially. In other words, individual psy-
chological factors may indicate a potential for entrepreneurship (Lachman 1980). There
is evidence that psychological traits are remarkably stable over time (cf. Epstein and
O’Brian 1985), influence behavior in relevant situations (Bem and Funder 1978), may
change situations (Rausch 1977) or be more easily expressed in certain situations
(Schutte, Kenrick, and Sadalla 1985), and may lead people to choose different situations
(Snyder and Ickes 1985). Therefore, psychological predispositions could be the anteced-
ents of entrepreneurial behavior, indicating a proclivity for entrepreneurship.
Whereas a host of psychological factors associated with entrepreneurship has been
studied, in evaluating a psychological predisposition for entrepreneurship we develop
a theoretical framework drawn from the three streams of research that are most com-
monly evident in descriptions of the entrepreneur (Bellu 1987; Carland et al. 1984; Long
1983): achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation.
Research has generally supported relationships between these three psychological con-
structs and the entrepreneur (Gasse 1982), but the results are inconclusive. The most
extensively researched of these characteristics is achievement motivation.

ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
Murray (1938) identified the need for achievement as a basic need that influences behav-
ior. McClelland (1961, 1965) established the construct in the entrepreneurship literature
by positing that a high need for achievement predisposes a young person to seek out
an entrepreneurial position to attain more achievement satisfaction than could be de-
rived from other types of positions (McClelland 1961, 1965; Meyer, Walker, and Litwin
1961). Alternatively, a manager tends to be high in need for power and lower in need
for achievement (McClelland and Winter 1969). McClelland’s methodology has been
questioned (Entwisle 1972; Frey 1984; Klinger 1966; Miner 1980), but moreover, these
studies did not actually link need for achievement with the founding or ownership of
a business, the classical hallmarks of the entrepreneur. Subsequent researchers have
analyzed achievement motivation vis-à-vis entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurs are more achievement oriented than the general population (Hor-
naday and Aboud 1971; Hornaday and Bunker 1970; Komives 1972), irrespective of
gender (DeCarlo and Lyons 1979). Although this conclusion is questioned (Schrage
1965), so is the validity of the inferences of the detractors (Wainer and Rubin 1969).
Resolution of these discrepancies is arduous because of differences in measurement
and limited statistical power. Cross-cultural research indicates that not only is the entre-
preneur higher in achievement motivation than the norm, but that the phenomenon
may not be significantly culturally circumscribed (Ahmed 1985; Nandy 1973; Perry, Mer-
edith, and Cunnington 1988).
The need for achievement may not be the most important variable for predicting
the likelihood of starting a business. Achievement motivation was not a significant factor
among students who intended to become entrepreneurs and those who did not (Borland
1974), nor between those who indicated entrepreneurial interest through the choice of
majors (Sexton and Bowman 1983). Yet, the question of whether students’ majors or
stated intentions are appropriate surrogates for business ownership arises. Potentially
more conclusive results based on alumni business ownership indicate that achievement
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 193

motivation does not signify the likelihood of starting a business (Hull, Bosley, and Udell
1980), but it appears to be a primary motivation for female entrepreneurs (Schwartz 1976).
Notably, few studies directly compare entrepreneurs and corporate managers on
achievement motivation, and the results of those that have are mixed. Evidence suggests
that entrepreneurs are higher in achievement motivation than are managers (Begley
and Boyd 1987a; Carland and Carland 1991; Lachman 1980; Ray 1981; Schere 1982).
One study found no differences for female entrepreneurs and managers (Waddell 1983),
whereas another study found female entrepreneurs higher in need for achievement than
female managers (Carland and Carland 1991). In general, the findings tend to support
the McClelland and Winter (1969) proposition that managers and entrepreneurs have
different priorities of needs.
Although the relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurship
has not been demonstrated (Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986), the inconclusiveness may
be a function of the samples, different operationalizations of the achievement motive,
and convergent validity problems in instrumentation (Johnson 1990). Moreover, high
achievement motivation may be correlated with venture performance (Begley and Boyd
1987b; Carsrud and Olm 1986; Morris and Fargher 1974; Smith and Miner 1983, 1984;
Wainer and Rubin 1969), suggesting that not only may the achievement motivation of
the entrepreneur influence the ownership decision, but it could also influence the viabil-
ity of the organization. Potentially, this is explained by entrepreneurs with high achieve-
ment motivation engaging in more entrepreneurial activity than those with lower moti-
vation (Durand and Shea 1974).
H1a: Entrepreneurs will demonstrate a greater need for achievement than will cor-
porate managers.
In studies of the small business owner-manager, both of the Carland et al. (1984)
types, entrepreneurs and small business owners, have generally been defined as entre-
preneurs. In fact, the most often used minimum for defining an entrepreneur is simply
the person who starts a business. Our purpose to test whether the definitional distinc-
tions offer insight. Intuitively, one might conclude that small business owners fall some-
where between entrepreneurs and corporate managers; however, the literature is inade-
quate in supporting such a conclusion due to a paucity of studies that explicitly test such
distinctions. lf distinctions between entrepreneurs and small business owners in the Car-
land et al. (1984) sense are unnecessary, the previous hypothesis should also apply to
small business owners.
H1b: Small business owners will demonstrate a greater need for achievement than
will corporate managers.
One of the primary differences between entrepreneurs and small business owners
in the Carland et al. (1984) definition is the goal for the business. The goals of profit
and growth that are associated with the entrepreneur may indicate a higher achievement
motivation than that of the small business owner, who focuses on family income. The
planning practices of entrepreneurs are also more extensive than those of small business
owners (Carland et al. 1989). Given that a higher degree of planning is associated with
greater achievement motivation (Carland et al. 1989), one could expect differences be-
tween achievement motivation for the Carland et al. (1984) types.
H1c: Entrepreneurs will display a greater achievement motivation than will small
business owners.
194 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

RISK-TAKING PROPENSITY
Risk-taking propensity can be effectively conceptualized as an individual’s orientation
toward taking chances in a decision-making scenario (Sexton and Bowman 1985). Stud-
ies generally support the notion that risk-taking is predispositional and not simply a
situational variable (Jackson, Hourany, and Vidmar 1972; Plax and Rosenfeld 1976),
and there is strong evidence for a propensity for risk-taking (Jackson et al. 1972). The
task roles of the entrepreneur and the manager both entail risk-taking, but entrepre-
neurs are generally believed to take more risks than do managers because the entrepre-
neur faces a less structured, more uncertain set of possibilities (Bearse 1982), and actu-
ally bears the ultimate responsibility for the decision (Gasse 1982; Kilby 1971; Knight
1921). Early empirical studies indicated that managers who are in entrepreneurial roles
prefer intermediate levels of risk (Litzinger 1963; McClelland 1961; Meyer, Walker, and
Litwin 1961). Subsequent investigations of owners have produced mixed conclusions.
Some studies have indicated no significant differences in the risk-taking propensit-
ies of entrepreneurs as compared with the general population (Brockhaus 1976; Brock-
haus and Nord 1979), or to managers (Brockhaus 1976; Brockhaus 1980a; Brockhaus
and Nord 1979). Furthermore, risk-taking propensity does not distinguish between suc-
cessful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs (Brockhaus 1980b). All of the aforementioned
studies used the Wallach and Kogan Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire (CDQ), which
has been criticized for low predictive validity of entrepreneurial risk-taking behavior
(Higbee 1971; Ray 1986; Shaver and Scott 1991), for failure to measure a unitary dimen-
sion (Cartwright 1971), and for ambiguity concerning scoring (Cartwright 1971). None-
theless, other researchers, using different measures of risk-taking, have supported the
supposition that entrepreneurs are not significantly different from managers in their
propensity for risk-taking (Litzinger 1965; Masters and Meier 1988) and that risk-taking
propensity has no bearing on entrepreneurial success (Peacock 1986).
Others have discovered a higher propensity for risk-taking among entrepreneurs
as compared with the general population (Broehl 1978; Liles 1974) and with managers
(Carland et al. 1995; Hull, Bosley, and Udell 1980), particularly when confronted with
business risk (Ray 1986), but moderated by business experience, age, education and
type of business (Schwer and Yucelt 1984). Colton and Udell (1976) proposed that risk-
taking, along with creativity and flexibility, is a better indicator of the likelihood of start-
ing a business than is achievement motivation, a conclusion substantiated in aspiring
entrepreneurs, as indicated by college major (Sexton and Bowman 1983, 1984, 1986).
Moreover, founders appear to show even higher risk-taking than owners not involved
in start-up (Begley 1995; Begley and Boyd 1987b; Hull et al. 1980). Also, entrepreneurial
attitudes toward risk in decision-making may not be bound by culture (McGrath, Mac-
Millan, and Scheinberg 1992).
The absence of a consensus in the literature regarding the risk-taking propensities
of entrepreneurs does not negate the rich conceptual discussions involving risk-taking
propensity. Moreover, because of the potential limitations associated with the use of
the CDQ in previous studies, a more rigorous examination of the issue is warranted.
H2a: Entrepreneurs will exhibit a higher risk-taking propensity than will corpo-
rate managers.

The majority of the aforementioned studies have included both entrepreneurs and
small business owners under the moniker of “entrepreneur.” As with entrepreneurs,
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 195

small business owners face a more complex, uncertain set of possibilities and bear the
additional risks of business ownership relative to corporate managers.
H2b: Small business owners will exhibit a higher risk-taking propensity than will cor-
porate managers.

Carland et al. (1984) suggested that the entrepreneur, because of the focus on
profits and growth, would be more likely to pursue new avenues for the business and
would engage in more extensive planning than would the small business owner. An en-
trepreneur’s focus on venture growth may entail extended risk relative to the small busi-
ness owner’s goal of meeting family needs as the entrepreneur plans for the growth of
the business. Perhaps this explains the Carland et al. (1989) finding that a higher propen-
sity for risk-taking is associated with more meticulous planning, implying the existence
of a difference in the two groups’ risk-taking propensity.
H2c: Entrepreneurs will exhibit a higher risk-taking propensity than will small busi-
ness owners.

PREFERENCE FOR INNOVATION

Schumpeter (1934) hypothesized that innovation was the single constitutive entrepre-
neurial function, separating acts of entrepreneurship from more common managerial
activities that are nonentrepreneurial (Kilby 1971). Creativity and innovation are condi-
tions inherent in the role of entrepreneurship (Drucker 1985; Olson 1985; Timmons
1978) and separate entrepreneurs from managers (Carland and Carland 1991; Carland
et al. 1984; Swayne and Tucker 1973; Timmons 1990). Innovation remains a frequently
identified functional characteristic of entrepreneurs (e.g., Carland et al. 1984; Corman,
Perles, and Vancini 1988; Gartner 1990; Hornaday 1992; Kets de Vries 1977), but rela-
tively few studies have empirically investigated the proposed relationship.
Much of the literature in entrepreneurship is devoted to the entrepreneur’s ability
to innovate. For instance, Schumpeter (1934) described entrepreneurial innovation in
terms of introducing new products or methods of production, opening new markets or
new sources of supply, or reorganizing industries. These behaviors are indicative of a level
of creative ability possessed by entrepreneurs, as manifested by their strategic behavior.
Individuals, including entrepreneurs, however, not only differ in their relative ability to
create, but also possess different styles with which they prefer to innovate, suggesting that
individuals with comparable abilities to innovate might prefer widely different styles
of creativity (Goldsmith 1987; Kirton 1987, 1989). Therefore, creative ability and cre-
ative style are separate constructs, and low-to-moderate positive relationships are ex-
pected between measures of original style and creative ability (Goldsmith 1987).
In terms of Kirton’s (1987, 1989) Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Theory, entrepre-
neurship attracts people who tend to prefer a more innovative style in solving problems
and making decisions (Goldsmith and Kerr 1991), and entrepreneurs are more innova-
tive in their creative styles than are managers in large organizations, who tend to prefer a
more adaptive style of creativity (Buttner and Gryskiewicz 1993), even in other cultures
(Dewan 1982). In sum, even though the validity and factor structure of the KAI have
been questioned (Payne, 1987; Torrance and Horng 1980), these studies suggest a dis-
cernible prevalence of innovativeness in the psychological predisposition of entrepre-
neurs. Other studies provide concurring evidence.
196 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Entrepreneurship students are significantly higher in innovativeness than are gen-

eral business majors, differentiating the aspiring entrepreneur from his or her aspiring
corporate counterpart (Sexton and Bowman 1983, 1984). Theoretically, this could be
due to the fact that career patterns of entrepreneurs are circumscribed by opportunities
for creativity and innovation (Bendit 1970; Collins and Moore 1964). Alternatively,
managers’ careers tend to be anchored by competence and efficiency (Schein 1975).
Not only do entrepreneurs have a higher preference for innovation than do managers
(Robbins 1986), but founders of rapid growth firms are significantly higher in personal
innovation than are managers desiring innovative solutions to problems (Smith and
Miner 1983, 1984).
H3a: Entrepreneurs will display a higher preference for innovation than will corpo-
rate managers.

As discussed above, researchers have investigated the predisposition for innova-

tion of a wide range of business owner-managers, and there is little evidence for a defini-
tional distinction. Nonetheless, as indicated in the KAI literature, owner-managers, who
focus on effectiveness, prefer a creative style wherein, because of a lack of rules, there
is the potential to alter the context of the problem in devising new solutions. In compari-
son, managers, who focus more on efficiency, are more likely to prefer to work within
more structured decision-making environments with clear instructions.
H3b: Small business owners will display a higher preference for innovation than will
corporate managers.
Carland et al. (1984) theorized that entrepreneurs have a predilection for strategic
activities associated with innovative combinations of resources for profit and growth, a
hypothesis with empirical support that suggests the entrepreneur’s ability to establish a
distinctive competence for the firm (Carland et al. 1988). In so doing, the entrepreneur
has a higher preference for innovation than does the small business owner (Carland
et al.1988).
H3c: Entrepreneurs will display a higher preference for innovation than will small
business owners.

RESEARCH PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY

The Sample
To support the development of a large data base of respondents, which was necessary
for the research, to minimize nonresponse bias, and to procure thoughtful, considered
responses to the questions and to the personality instruments, we determined that a
data collection strategy different from traditional survey techniques would be required.
Therefore, we decided to utilize graduate business students to approach candidates and
solicit their participation. The rationale for this decision was that the students would
have contacts with a large number of people, and these relationships would increase
the likelihood of response to a lengthy survey and prompt more meticulous attention
to the questions.
Subsequently, over a period of 4 years, more than 200 graduate business students
from the authors’ classes were asked to locate and secure participants for this study.
These students were first exposed to issues of psychological and personality distinctions
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 197

TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondentsa

Characteristics Managers Owners
Gender Female 82 124
Male 157 304
Race White 326 410
Black 5 8
Other 8 10
Age Under 25 years 18 18
25 to 34 years 133 83
35 to 44 years 127 143
45 to 54 years 52 112
55 and over 2 72
Education Less than high school 6 27
High school graduate 63 130
Some college 62 93
College graduate 160 122
Graduate study 48 56
Organization Retail or wholesale 29 212
Manufacturing 169 24
Construction 5 28
Service 111 164
Employees Less than 10 37 339
10–50 27 55
51–100 20 14
101–250 25 8
Over 250 205 4
Sales Under $100,000 13 186
$100,000–$500,000 23 132
$501,000–$1,000,000 17 42
Over $1,000,000 247 55
a
Some numbers do not add to correct totals due to missing data points.

between entrepreneurs and managers. One class period was devoted to the discussion
of the research, the contents of the survey, and the requirements for participation in the
study. Moreover, each student in the class was required to complete the personality instru-
ments used in the research, and the results and implications of their scores were discussed.
Data collection was offered as one of several different term projects that students could
select. Consequently, students who elected to participate had an interest in entrepre-
neurship and felt that they had a network they could utilize to solicit participants.
There were no a priori lists for inclusion in the study. Students were instructed to
identify individuals who owned and actively managed small businesses and individuals
who were employed by large firms in managerial capacities. We monitored the data
collection process carefully and verified each respondent. As a result of student involve-
ment, the survey was administered to more than 800 owner-managers and corporate
managers. The final data set consisted of 767 individuals, containing respondents from
20 states. The majority, approximately 75%, of the respondents were from Georgia,
Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina and Virginia. All of the remaining
respondents, about 25%, came from the Northeast, Midwest and Southwest. The demo-
graphic characteristics of the data set are displayed in Table 1, which follows the discus-
sion of variables and instrumentation.
Although the sample is one of convenience, there are several benefits from this
198 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

sampling technique. First, the sample was not anonymous, and the data set was con-
trolled. Second, the rate of response was greater than that of the typical mail survey,
particularly for surveys of entrepreneurs that produce notoriously low response rates
(Aldrich 1992; Gasse 1982). Fewer than 5% of the individuals who were approached
refused to participate in the study, indicating less concern with nonresponse bias. Third,
the technique supported the generation of a large sample size. The central limit theorem
(Mason 1982) suggests that the level of confidence of a sample of this size approaches
that of a random sample. Furthermore, the size of the sample improves statistical power.
Using a conservative estimate of effect size, that labeled “small” by Cohen (1988), the
statistical power for this study is between 0.96 and 0.98 for an alpha level of 0.05, and
between 0.88 and 0.92 for an alpha level of 0.01.

The Variables and Instrumentation

Achievement Motivation
We used the Achievement Scale of the Personality Research Form (PRF) (Jackson
1967) to measure achievement motivation. The PRF is based on the 20 manifest needs
described by Murray (1938) and is designed with high content saturation to assess the
personality of an individual in a wide array of situations (Jackson 1967). Each scale
consists of 20 bipolar questions, 10 keyed “false” and 10 keyed “true” in order to reduce
response sets. The definition of achievement motivation used for this study is as follows:
Achievement motivation, or the need for achievement, is evident in an individual
who: aspires to accomplish difficult tasks; maintains high standards; works toward
the attainment of distant goals; responds positively to competition; or is willing to
put forth effort to attain excellence (Jackson 1967).

The PRF has been ubiquitously identified as a sound personality assessment instru-
ment (Anastasi 1972; Hogan 1978). In terms of reliability, both homogeneity (Jackson
1967) and stability (Bentler 1964; Jackson 1967) have been demonstrated for the PRF,
as has construct validity (Campbell et al. 1964; Edwards, Abbott, and Klockars 1972;
Jackson 1967, 1974; Jackson and Guthrie 1968; Jackson and Lay 1968; Kusyszyn 1968;
Mehrabian 1969; Vesper 1980). For the current study, the Cronbach alpha estimate for
achievement motivation was 0.72.

Risk-Taking Propensity and Preference for Innovation

We measured risk-taking propensity and preference for innovation with the Risk-Tak-
ing and Innovation Scales of the Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI) (Jackson 1976).
The construction and features of the JPI parallel those of the PRF. Both scales are com-
posed of 20 bipolar questions aimed at maximized content saturation and reduced re-
sponse bias. The Risk-Taking Scale of the JPI allows examination of four relatively inde-
pendent components of risk-taking: social, physical, monetary and ethical; however,
monetary risk is weighted most heavily (Jackson 1976). The following is a description
of the high scorer on the Risk Scale (Jackson 1976):
Enjoys gambling and taking a chance; willingly exposes self to situations with uncer-
tain outcomes; enjoys adventures having an element of peril; takes chances; uncon-
cerned with danger.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 199

The Innovation Scale of the JPI is a measure of the predisposition to be innovative

and is conceptually synonymous with creativity. The Innovation Scale is highly similar
to several personality-type indicators of creative personality style (Goldsmith 1987),
particularly the Originality subscale of the KAI (Goldsmith 1984). The following is a
definition of the high scorer on the Innovation Scale (Jackson 1976):
A creative and inventive individual, capable of originality of thought; motivated to
develop novel solutions to problems; values new ideas; likes to improvise.

Research has verified the reliability and validity of the JPI for measuring general-
ized risk-taking (Jackson 1977). Additional studies have supported the reliability (Beg-
ley and Boyd 1987b; Goldsmith 1987; Howell and Higgins 1990) and the validity (Jack-
son 1976; Jackson et al. 1972; Sexton and Bowman 1984) of the two scales of the JPI.
In both instruments, the careful attention to scale construction is justified by the weight
of contemporary writing (Dyer 1985), and the instruments possess sound psychometric
properties (Kaplan and Saccuzzo 1993). Moreover, both instruments are appropriate
for use in occupational settings (Sexton and Bowman 1984). Cronbach’s alpha reliability
estimates for risk-taking and preference for innovation in the current study were 0.76
and 0.77, respectively.

Control Variables
There is a potential for entrepreneurs to vary widely in different industries (Cooper
and Dunkelberg 1981). For example, risk-taking propensities vary by size and type of
business (Schwer and Yucelt 1984). Age (Cooper 1973; Howell 1972; Liles 1974; Mayer
and Goldstein 1961; Shapero 1971), education (Brockhaus 1982; Brockhaus and Nord
1979; Collins and Moore 1970; Cooper and Dunkelberg 1981, 1987; Howell 1972), gen-
der (Cuba, DeCenzo, and Anish 1983; DeCarlo and Lyons 1979; Hisrich and O’Brien
1981; Sexton and Bowman-Upton 1990) and race (DeCarlo and Lyons 1979; Feldman,
Koberg, and Dean 1991) may be important in the entrepreneurial event. Because of
the potentially confounding effects of individual and firm demographic factors, we in-
cluded age, education, gender, race, and type of business as control variables.

Dependent Variable
A panel of experts, composed of Drs. JoAnn and James Carland, collaborated on an
examination of the surveys returned by the respondents. They assigned individuals to
the owner-manager group if they were primary owners of a small business and active
in full-time management within that business. To be classified as small, a business had
to fit the most widely used definition of a small business (Peterson, Albaum, and Koz-
metsky 1986)—that provided by the Small Business Administration in evaluation for
assistance. All of the owner-managers had established and were managing a business.
The approach to establishing the business varied, but the Carland et al. (1984) definition
did not imply that a single approach to establishing a firm was required. In fact, the
use of the language in the two definitions suggests that the authors intended to incorpo-
rate all approaches to establishing a business, as only two types of owner-managers were
discussed. The remaining individuals were classified as managers if they had no owner-
ship stake in their firms and their positions involved: supervision of employees or officers
within the organization; responsibility for use, protection or conservation of assets of
200 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

the organization; responsibility for performance of a unit of the organization; or involve-

ment in planning for the organization. The panel omitted from the data set those individ-
uals who could not be determined to be members of either group. As a result of their
investigation, the panel identified 428 small business owner-managers and 342 managers
from the sample. The demographics of the final data set are comparable to the large
sample described by Cooper and Dunkelberg (1987) and are displayed in Table 1.
To facilitate the objective of explicitly addressing definitional distinctions, we
needed to partition the owner-managers into two groups, entrepreneurs and small busi-
ness owners, as proposed in the Carland et al. (1984) definition. We asked the panel
of experts to review the responses and to classify each owner-manager as an entrepre-
neur or a small business owner under the Carland et al. (1984) definition. The panel
reported that the questions concerning perception of the business, its relationship to
the family, goals in establishing the business, and the practice of strategic planning pro-
vided a basis for judging the respondents in all areas except innovative strategic behav-
ior. The open-ended questions concerning personal and business goals and objectives
helped to clarify the issue of family relationship. Finally, the panel used the respondents’
open-ended description of steps taken to establish a distinctive competency to evaluate
innovative strategic practices.
The panel independently examined each of the 428 owner-manager surveys and
classified the respondent as an entrepreneur or a small business owner. The examination
resulted in complete agreement for 90% of the cases, producing a Proportional Reduc-
tion in Loss reliability estimate (Rust and Cooil 1994) of 0.92. For the remaining respon-
dents, the experts conferred and arrived at a consensus as to classification. The result
was the classification of 101 respondents as entrepreneurs and 324 respondents as small
business owners. Three respondents did not provide enough information for a consensus
and were excluded from the analysis.

Data Analysis
We used hierarchical set multinomial LOGIT analysis to test the research model. An
adaptation of ordinary least squares regression, LOGIT produces a more efficient, inter-
pretable estimation of models with categorical dependent variables by estimating pa-
rameters using maximum likelihood estimation. In addition to the characteristics of the
data, the advantages of this form of analysis are numerous for this study, including the
use of natural logarithms, which reduces nonlinearity. Furthermore, the use of a hierar-
chical set approach allows for the partialling of variance with correlated predictors,
thereby reducing the likelihood of making a Type 1 error, and the technique extracts
maximal causal inference (Cohen and Cohen 1983). The analysis was constructed so
that the managers were the reference group, producing two equations. There is no sound
causal theory to guide the entry of the primary independent variables; therefore, we
analyzed six models that represent all possible orders of variable entry.

RESULTS
Means, standard deviations (SD), ranges and intercorrelations of the variables in the
study are presented in Table 2. Scores for the primary independent variables, achieve-
ment, innovation and risk-taking, were significantly correlated.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 201

TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrixa,b

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Age 40.8 11.2
2 Education 14.4 3.4 20.06
3 Race 1.0 0.3 0.05 20.01
4 Gender 1.7 0.4 0.11 0.02 0.06
5 Type of company 3.0 1.7 20.07 0.27 0.01 0.00
6 Achievement 12.8 2.7 20.01 0.03 20.08 0.01 20.03
7 Innovation 13.7 4.8 20.09 0.03 20.02 0.02 20.06 0.38
8 Risk taking 9.8 5.2 20.14 0.10 20.03 0.09 0.02 0.25 0.43
9 Entrepc 2.3 0.7 20.14 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.10 20.06 20.11 20.19
Correlations greater than 0.07 or less than 20.07 are significant at alpha 5 0.05.
a
b
The range for need for achievement is 0 to 16, and the ranges for risk-taking propensity and preference for innovation
are 0 to 20.
c
Dependent variable categorization where 1 5 entrepreneurs, 2 5 small business owners, and 3 5 corporate managers.

Model Determination and Predictive Efficacy

All of the LOGIT models were significant (a 5 0.05) overall, as were the steps that
included the covariates and the main independent variables. In Table 3, we present the
model that was most appealing from a theoretical and performance perspective, show-

TABLE E 3 Results of Hierarchical Set Multinomial LOGIT Regressiona

Step Group Variable(s) B SE t Rho2 G
1 Entrep Constant 21.07 1.22 20.87 0.036 d
54.9d
Age 0.01 0.01 1.13
Education 20.10 0.04 22.69b
Black 0.10 1.55 0.06
White 0.99 1.08 0.92
Gender 20.21 0.26 20.82
SBO Constant 0.39 0.69 0.56
Age 0.04 0.01 5.17d
Education 20.11 0.03 24.09d
Black 20.56 0.82 20.68
White 20.18 0.52 20.34
Gender 20.35 0.18 21.92
2 Entrep Wholesale 0.73 0.80 0.91 0.196d 247.9d
Manufacturing 22.00 0.66 23.02c
Retail 1.79 0.55 3.22c
Service 0.62 0.55 1.13
SBO Wholesale 20.01 0.58 20.01
Manufacturing 22.60 0.40 26.41d
Retail 1.17 0.37 3.20c
Service 0.16 0.35 0.46
3 Entrep Achievement 0.25 0.06 4.26d 0.213d 26.8d
SBO Achievement 0.01 0.03 0.20
4 Entrep Innovation 0.12 0.03 3.54d 0.223d 14.2d
SBO Innovation 0.02 0.02 0.97
5 Entrep Risk 0.14 0.03 4.86d 0.241d 27.9d
SBO Risk 0.08 0.02 3.78d
a
Final equations: Entrep 5 21.07 2 0.10(educ) 2 2.00(manuf) 1 1.79(retail) 1 0.25(nAch) 1 0.12(innov) 1 0.14(risk);
SBO 5 0.39 1 0.04(age) 2 0.11(educ) 2 2.60(manuf) 1 1.17(retail) 1 0.08(risk).
b
p , 0.05.
c
p , 0.01.
d
p , 0.001.
202 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

ing the multinomial LOGIT comparison between entrepreneurs and managers, and be-
tween small business owners and managers. This model was initiated by the introduction
of demographic characteristics in step 1, followed by the type of business in step 2. The
analysis continued with the introduction of need for achievement (step 3), preference
for innovation (step 4) and risk-taking propensity (step 5). Step 5 demonstrates that
the fully divided model was significant (Rho2 5 0.241, p < 0.001), indicating a very satis-
factory model because McFadden’s Rho2 tends to be much lower than the coefficient
of determination in ordinary least squares regression (Hensher and Johnson 1981). We
tested the steps for incremental significance using the G-Statistic and log likelihoods
(Hosmer and Lemeshow 1989), displayed in the last column of the table, and found
steps 1 through 5 significant in their predictive impact on the model.

Analysis of Predictors
The predictors are of interest as they are entered into the model (Cohen and Cohen
1983). Step 1, introducing demographic variables into the model, shows that entrepre-
neurs exhibited a significantly lower education level when compared with managers (t 5
22.69, p 5 0.007). Step 1 also demonstrates that small business owners were significantly
less educated (t 5 24.09, p < 0.0001) and older than managers (t 5 5.17, p , 0.0001).
There were no other significant differences in the demographics.
In step 2 we introduced the type of business into the model. It shows that both
entrepreneurs (t 5 3.22, p 5 0.001) and small business owners (t 5 3.20, p 5 0.001)
are significantly more likely to be involved in retail organizations than are managers.
Conversely, managers are significantly more likely than either entrepreneurs (t 5 23.02,
p 5 0.002) or small business owners (t 5 26.41, p , 0.0001) to be involved in manufac-
turing. Steps 3, 4 and 5 test the research hypotheses.

Hypotheses Tests
Differences between Entrepreneurs and Managers
Hypotheses 1a, 2a and 3a posited that entrepreneurs would exhibit higher scores on
need for achievement, risk-taking propensity and preference for innovation, respec-
tively, than would corporate managers. In Table 3, t-tests on comparisons between en-
trepreneurs and managers are provided for need for achievement (t 5 4.26, p , 0.0001)
in step 3, preference for innovation (t 5 3.54, p , 0.0001) in step 4, and risk-taking
propensity (t 5 4.86, p , 0.0001) in step 5. In all three tests, entrepreneurs scored signifi-
cantly higher than managers, supporting hypotheses 1a, 2a and 3a.

Differences between Small Business Owners and Managers

Hypotheses 1b, 2b and 3b posited that small business owners would exhibit higher scores
on need for achievement, risk-taking propensity and preference for innovation, respec-
tively, than would corporate managers. Table 3 displays t-tests on comparisons between
small business owners and managers for achievement motivation (t 5 .20, p . 0.10)
in step 3, preference for innovation (t 5 .97, p . 0.10) in step 4, and risk-taking propen-
sity (t 5 3.78, p , 0.0001) in step 5. The results support only one hypothesis. Small busi-
ness owners tend to exhibit a higher risk-taking propensity than do corporate managers.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 203

TABLE 4 Wald Tests of Differences between Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners
Step Variables v2 p
1 Age 5.75 0.016a
Education 0.10 0.754
White 0.68 0.408
Black 0.15 0.695
Gender 0.03 0.859
2 Wholesale 1.04 0.308
Manufacturing 0.19 0.666
Retail 0.77 0.379
Service 0.43 0.511
3 Need for achievement 10.75 0.000c
4 Preference for innovation 9.56 0.002b
5 Risk-taking propensity 2.19 0.020a
a
p , 0.05.
b
p , 0.01.
c
p , 0.001.

Differences between Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners

Hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c predicted that entrepreneurs would exhibit higher scores on
need for achievement, risk-taking propensity and preference for innovation, respec-
tively, than would small business owners. The testing of these hypotheses requires a
comparison of the two groups through a series of Wald tests, run on the same model
as presented above, to compare the two previous LOGIT regressions, and are displayed
in Table 4.
As illustrated in Table 4, when compared with small business owners, entrepre-
neurs scored significantly higher on all three indices; need for achievement (x2 5 10.75,
p , 0.001), risk-taking propensity (x2 5 2.19, p , 0.05), and preference for innovation
(x2 5 9.56, p , 0.01). These findings provide support for hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c. It
should be noted that the magnitude of statistical significance for risk-taking propensity
is not as strong as for the other two constructs. We show the elasticities of the variables
in Table 5, which are useful for determining the practical significance of the effect sizes,
particularly for risk-taking.

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

Many of the expectations conveyed in the hypotheses were supported. In terms of the
entrepreneurs, the findings were consistent with the majority of our rationale. Our por-

TABLE 5 Average Individual Variable Elasticities for Significant Variablesa

Step Variable(s) Entrepreneurs Small Business Owners Managers
1 Age 20.249 0.847 20.653
Education 20.523 20.644 0.838
2 Manufacturing 20.018 20.047 0.457
Retail 0.416 0.106 20.054
3 Achievement 2.723 20.455 20.312
4 Innovation 1.318 20.125 20.217
5 Risk taking 0.866 0.133 20.302
a
Indicates the percentage change in the probability of being classified in the given group for every percentage change
in the value of the given independent variable.
204 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

trait of an entrepreneur is an individual who is highly driven to succeed, a motivation

that is also connected with a higher propensity for risk-taking. Concomitantly, the entre-
preneur sparks innovation by altering the economic characteristics of products, markets
or industries. Decades of research and theorizing about the entrepreneur indicate the
confluence of these factors in distinguishing entrepreneurs from their corporate coun-
terparts. The results of this study reinforce this conceptualization of the entrepreneur
as an achieving, creative risk-taker.
Notably, this profile of those generally labeled as entrepreneurs is not consistent
across both of the types of small business owner-managers. Small business owners pres-
ent a different portrait. It is with the small business owners, who were expected to be
more like the entrepreneurs than like the managers, where inconsistencies are apparent.
The only characteristic that differentiated the small business owners from the managers
was small business owners’ relatively higher propensity to take risks. Overall, this out-
come suggests that, more than any other factor, it is risk-taking that distinguishes the
small business owner-manager from the corporate manager. There is a measure of riski-
ness inherent in business ownership that is not necessarily present in the managerial
role. This propensity to take more risks appears to delineate the choice of business own-
ership from the choice to assume a managerial position.
The differences exhibited between the small business owners and the entrepre-
neurs provide interesting outcomes of the research. Not only did the entrepreneurs dif-
fer dramatically from managers, but they also differed from small business owners.
Small business owners are less risk oriented and are not as highly motivated to achieve
as are entrepreneurs. Small business owners also lack the same degree of preference for
innovation. Given the relative significance of innovativeness in entrepreneurs, it would
appear that creativity necessitates extended risk, because it entails coping with the po-
tential outcomes that are associated with untried venues. Small business owners appear
to lack this coalition of creativity and risk-taking.
These findings logically coincide with the differences in the goals of small business
owners and entrepreneurs. Psychological antecedents appear to be associated with en-
trepreneurial aspirations. Both types of owner-managers have goals that are related to
their personalities. Entrepreneurs exhibit the psychological profile that is consistent
with their goals of growth and profit, and with the use of systematic planning. It is intu-
itively appealing that relatively high achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity
and preference for innovation are coupled with an emphasis on profit and growth. Alter-
natively, the psychological predispositions and actions of small business owners are
more attuned to their personal goals and family income. The small business owner ap-
pears to be a conceptual link between the entrepreneur and the manager, exhibiting
characteristics that are likened more to the manager than to the entrepreneur. Poten-
tially, this may explain some of the inconsistencies of the findings in previous research
where differences within samples of “entrepreneurs” were not examined. The results
presented here indicate significant differences in the two types of owners’ proclivity to-
ward entrepreneurship, suggesting that caution is necessary with operational definitions
and sampling frames. It appears likely that a sample of entrepreneurs is likely to contain
individuals with a wide array of psychological predispositions, goals and planning behav-
iors. Inattentiveness to these differences may render sampling, replication and compari-
sons of findings problematic.
Although the purpose of this research was primarily to test theory, the results have
important implications for theory development in entrepreneurship. The findings rein-
force the differentiation that is made between small business management and entrepre-
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 205

neurship, where firms headed by entrepreneurs tend to be larger with concomitant

higher risk and profit potential than the conventional small business (Luchsinger and
Bagby 1987). Achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity and preference for inno-
vation appear to represent a constellation of psychological antecedents that are associ-
ated with entrepreneurial behavior. In this study, those labeled entrepreneurs, with their
higher entrepreneurial motivation, willingness to be creative in permutations of eco-
nomic activity, and their concomitant risk postures, seem specially poised to recognize
and capitalize on entrepreneurial opportunities in the Schumpeterian tradition of car-
rying out new combinations. Combined with this proclivity are goals of profit and growth
and the use of strategic planning, which may clarify and enable entrepreneurial activity.
Small business owners, while willing to assume the risks of business ownership, do not
appear to have the same predisposition. A propensity for risk-taking in the absence of
achievement motivation and creativity would appear to link small business owners with
organizations that are relatively more static, given the owners’ goals and planning
practices.
The entrepreneurs and small business owners in this study had entered their busi-
nesses through a variety of modes, including start-up, franchising, purchase and inheri-
tance. The results emphasize the importance of an entrepreneurial proclivity in the po-
tential for value creation, not just new venture creation. Subsequently, the concept of
value creation may be an important element in a theory of the entrepreneur. Overall,
a psychological proclivity for entrepreneurship may be the foundation for a willingness
to act entrepreneurially, and may be a key component of the individual considerations,
which, combined with processes and choices (Shaver and Scott 1991), may present a
more holistic view of the phenomenon of entrepreneurship. We believe that this per-
spective presents a significant opportunity for the refinement and extension of a theory
of entrepreneurship where linkages might be drawn between these psychological con-
structs and other important elements of entrepreneurship, including goal setting, ven-
ture formation, strategic planning and performance.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The limitations of primary concern are those inherent in a survey design and the con-
comitant reliance on self-report data. Foremost among these limitations is the lack of
control with a cross-sectional, correlational design, presenting rival hypotheses worthy
of consideration. As always, there are also potential limitations associated with a non-
random sample. Also, the study deals with psychological factors that indicate intentions
to engage in a particular type of business role. Intentions do not automatically transfer
into a specified behavior. All individuals who exhibit the psychological profile of the
entrepreneur will not necessarily behave entrepreneurially. Furthermore, it is possible
that being in business has contributed to the magnitude of the psychological constructs.
Nonetheless, we are comfortable that the potential limitations do not inhibit the use-
fulness of the research.
The results of this study suggest a host of areas for additional research. One of
the interesting outcomes of this study is the variation between entrepreneurs and small
business owners. Some have questioned the validity and usefulness of identifying types
of entrepreneurs, but this study suggests that the development of entrepreneurial taxon-
omies could be useful in more fully understanding owner-managers of all types. More-
over, the results also intimate the value of studying the confluence of psychological char-
acteristics and behaviors. Although the focus here was on identifying the significance
206 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

of personality constructs, the implicit inclusion of goals and planning practices links the
psychological antecedents with behavior. It appears that situation-trait interaction ap-
proaches to understanding entrepreneurship might be fruitful. Beyond these theoretical
and methodological considerations, the results presented here emphasize the impor-
tance of several topic areas for additional inquiry.
Much attention has been devoted to managerial issues associated with the progres-
sion of an organization through the organizational life cycle and the perceived need for
displacement of the entrepreneur by a capable manager (Timmons 1990). Organizations
may indeed require different managerial styles as they grow, and the entrepreneur may
need to undergo a style change or be replaced by a manager more capable of dealing
with a given organizational stage. Given their psychological predispositions, however,
there may be potential difficulties in adopting new managerial styles. A more complete
understanding of psychological correlates of organization behavior and of the differ-
ences between managers and owner-managers could be used to investigate the interface
between the entrepreneurial business and its organizational growth.
Interest in intrapreneurship, or corporate entrepreneurship, has escalated, al-
though some consider entrepreneurship to be the opposite of corporate management
(Vesper 1985). Although intrapreneurship was outside the scope of this study, it is im-
portant to learn more about how intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs are psychologically
similar or diverse. How do similarities and differences lead them to choose and deal
with different situations? How do the environments in which they operate influence
the outcomes of psychological predispositions? Can managers be made more entrepre-
neurial? These questions suggest research that links the fields of entrepreneurship and
corporate management, which some believe is important to the continued development
of both fields (Stevenson and Jarillo 1990).
Potentially the most important topic in this line of research is the effects of psycho-
logical characteristics on performance, which, to date, have been inconclusive (Perry
1990). Robinson and Pearce (1984) noted that planning in small businesses, its anteced-
ents and outcomes, was not well understood. Yet, formal planning appears to improve
performance in small firms (Schwenk and Shrader 1993). Planning in small firms is domi-
nated by the owner-manager, and evidence suggests that the characteristics of the
owner-manager influence planning (Carland et al. 1989). By definition, those labeled
entrepreneurs in this study engaged more extensively in strategic planning than did the
small business owners. It is important to learn more about how psychological factors
influence the process and outcomes of strategic thinking in small organizations. If entre-
preneurs are more strategic in their planning than are small business owners, much is
to be learned about the process of planning in these organizations, and about the con-
comitant effects on performance. Performance should be assessed in light of the owner’s
aspirations for the venture. Also, balanced venture teams appear to improve the likeli-
hood of entrepreneurial success (Timmons 1990). More knowledge concerning venture
partners’ psychological predispositions may help explain team member conflict and
could assist in enhancing venture team planning and performance. Such inquiry could
produce fruitful research in both entrepreneurship and strategic management.

CONCLUSION
If indeed the individual entrepreneur is the most salient unit of analysis in entrepreneur-
ship research and theory (Herron and Sapienza 1992; Lachman 1980), then a more com-
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 207

plete understanding of the entrepreneur is a necessary condition for the development

of a refined understanding of the process of entrepreneurship. The differences exhibited
in this study, not only relative to managers, but also illustrated between entrepreneurs
and small business owners, suggest that a psychological proclivity toward entrepreneur-
ship is an important consideration. The more these two groups of owner-managers are
understood, the more likely it is that we will be able to meaningfully circumscribe the
areas of entrepreneurship and small business management, and to more constructively
address the needs of each in a rigorous, robust model of the entrepreneurial process.

REFERENCES
Ahmed, S.U. 1985. nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and entrepreneurship. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences 6:781–782.
Aldrich, H.E. 1992. Methods in our madness? Trends in entrepreneurship research. In D.L. Sex-
ton and J.D. Kasarda, eds., The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: PWS-
Kent Publishing Company, pp. 191–213.
Anastasi, A. 1972. Personality research form. In O.K. Buros, ed., The Seventh Mental Measure-
ment Yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press, p. 901.
Bearse, P.J. 1982. A study of entrepreneurship by region and SMSA size. In K. Vesper, ed., Fron-
tiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 78–112.
Begley, T. 1995. Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth rate as the basis for distin-
guishing entrepreneurs from managers of smaller businesses. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing 10:249–263.
Begley, T., and Boyd, D. 1987a. A comparison of entrepreneurs and managers of small business
firms. Journal of Management 13(1):99–108.
Begley, T., and Boyd, D. 1987b. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in en-
trepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing 2:79–93.
Bellu, R.R. 1987. Towards a theory of entrepreneurial behavior. Doctoral dissertation, The Union
for Experimenting College and Universities, Saratoga Springs, NY.
Bem, D.J., and Funder, D.C. 1978. Predicting some of the people more of the time: Assessing
the personality of situations. Psychological Review 85:485–501.
Bendit, R.L. 1970. Working with the entrepreneur. Periodic Report #47. The Vernon Psychologi-
cal Lab, Vernon, NY. pp. 2–5.
Bentler, P.M. 1964. Response variability: Fact or artifact? Doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer-
sity, Palo Alto, CA.
Bird, B.J. 1988. Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 13:442–453.
Borland, C. 1974. Locus of control, need for achievement and entrepreneurship. Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Texas at Austin.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1976. Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the Academy of
Management, pp. 457–460.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1980a. Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Jour-
nal 23:509-520.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1980b. Psychological and environmental factors which distinguish the successful
from the unsuccessful entrepreneur: A longitudinal study. Proceedings of the Academy of
Management, pp. 368–372.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1982. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, and K. Vesper,
eds., Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 39–57.
Brockhaus, R.H., and Horwitz, P.S. 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D. Sexton and
R. Smilor, eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger,
pp. 25–48.
208 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Brockhaus, R.H., and Nord, W.R. 1979. An exploration of factors affecting the entrepreneurial
decision: Personal characteristics vs. environmental conditions. Proceedings of the Acad-
emy of Management, pp. 364–368.
Broehl, W.G. 1978. The Village Entrepreneurs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Busenitz, L.W. 1992. Cognitive biases in strategic decision–making: Heuristics as a differentiator
between managers in large organizations and entrepreneurs. Doctoral dissertation, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Buttner, E.H., and Gryskiewicz, N. 1993. Entrepreneurs’ problem-solving styles: An empirical
study using the kirton adaptation/innovation theory. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment 31(1):22–31.
Bygrave, W.D., and Hofer, C.W. 1991. Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 16(2):13–22.
Campbell, D.T., Miller, N., Lubetsky, J., and O’Connell, E.J. 1964. Varieties of projection in trait
attribution. Psychological Monographs 78:592.
Carland, J.W. 1982. Entrepreneurship in a small business setting: An exploratory study. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia.
Carland, J.A., and Carland, J.W. 1991. An empirical investigation into the distinctions between
male and female entrepreneurs and managers. International Small Business Journal
9(3):62–72.
Carland, J.W., and Carland, J.A. 1992. Managers, small business owners, and entrepreneurs: The
cognitive dimension. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 4(2):55–62.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A., and Aby, C.D. 1989. An assessment of the psychological determi-
nants of planning in small businesses. International Small Business Journal 7(4):23–34.
Carland, J.W., III, Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A., and Pearce, J.W. 1995. Risk-taking propensity
among entrepreneurs, small business owners, and managers. Journal of Business and Entre-
preneurship 7(1):15–23.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R., and Carland, J.A. 1984. Differentiating entrepreneurs
from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review
9:354–359.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., and Carland, J.A. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is a question worth
asking. American Journal of Small Business 12(4):33–39.
Carsrud, A., and Olm, K. 1986. The success of male and female entrepreneurs: A comparative
analysis of the effects of multidimensional achievement motivation and personality traits.
In R.W. Smilor and R.L. Kuhn, eds., Managing take-off in fast-growth companies. New
York: Praeger, pp. 147–162.
Cartwright, D. 1971. Risk-taking by individuals and groups: An assessment of research employing
choice dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20:361–378.
Chandler, G.N., and Hanks, S.H. 1994. Founder competence, the environment, and venture per-
formance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(3):77–89.
Chell, E. 1985. The entrepreneurial personality: A few ghosts laid to rest? International Small
Business Journal 3(3):43–54.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behav-
ioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, O.F., and Moore, D.G. 1964. The Enterprising Man. SMU: University Business Studies,
Dallas, TX.
Collins, O.F., and Moore, D.G. 1970. The Organizational Makers: A Behavioral Study of Indepen-
dent Entrepreneurs. New York: Meredith.
Colton, R., and Udell, G. 1976. The national science foundation’s innovation center—An experi-
ment in training potential entrepreneurs and innovators. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement 21(3):11–20.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 209

Cooper, A.C. 1973. Technical entrepreneurship: What do we know? Research and Development
Management 3:59–64.
Cooper, A.C., and Dunkelberg, W.C. 1981. A new look at business entry: Experiences of 1,805
entrepreneurs. In K H. Vesper, ed., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,
MA: Babson College, pp. 1–20.
Cooper, A.C., and Dunkelberg, W.C. 1987. Entrepreneurial research: Old questions, new answers
and methodological issues. American Journal of Small Business 11(3):11–23.
Corman, J., Perles, B., and Vancini, P. 1988. Motivational factors influencing high-technology
entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management 26(1):36–42.
Cromie, S., and Johns, S. 1983. Irish entrepreneurs: Some personal characteristics. Journal of
Occupational Behaviour 4:317–324.
Cuba, R., DeCenzo, D., and Anish, A. 1983. Management practices of successful female business
owners. American Journal of Small Business 8(2):40–46.
Cunningham, J.B., and Lischeron, J. 1991. Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business
Management 29(1):45–61.
De Carlo, J., and Lyons, P. 1979. A comparison of selected personal characteristics of minority
and non-minority female entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management
17(4):22–29.
Dewan, S. 1982. Personality characteristics of entrepreneurs. Doctoral dissertation, Institute of
Technology, Delhi, India.
Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
Dunkelberg, W.C., and Cooper, A.C. 1982. Entrepreneurial typologies: An empirical study. In
K. Vesper, ed., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College,
pp. 1–15.
Durand, D., and Shea, D. 1974. Entrepreneurial activity as a function of achievement motivation
and reinforcement control. Journal of Psychology 88:57–63.
Dyer, C.O. 1985. Jackson personality inventory. In D.J. Keyser and R.C. Sweetland, eds., Test
Critiques, vol. 2. Kansas City, MO: Westport Publishers, pp. 369–375.
Edwards, A.L., Abbott, R.D., and Klockars, A.J. 1972. A factor analysis of the epps and prf per-
sonality inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement 32:23–39.
Entwisle, D.R. 1972. To dispel fantasies about fantasy-based measures of achievement motiva-
tion. Psychological Bulletin 77:377–391.
Epstein, S., and O’Brian, E.J. 1985. The person-situation debate in a historical and current per-
spective. Psychological Bulletin 98:513–537.
Feldman, H.D., Koberg, C.S., and Dean, T.J. 1991. Minority small business owners and their paths
to ownership. Journal of Small Business Management 29(4):12–27.
Filley, A.C., and Aldag, R.J. 1978. Characteristics and measurement of an organizational typol-
ogy. Academy of Management Journal 21:578–591.
Frey, R.S. 1984. Need for achievement, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A critique of
the McClelland thesis. Social Science Journal 21:125–134.
Gartner, W.B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation. Academy of Management Review 10:696–706.
Gartner, W.B. 1988. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business 12(4):11–32.
Gartner, W.B. 1990. What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal
of Business Venturing 5:15–28.
Gartner, W., Bird, B., and Starr, J. 1992. Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organi-
zational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(3):13–31.
Gasse, Y. 1982. Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, and
K. Vesper, eds., Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
pp. 57–71.
210 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Ginsberg, A., and Buchholtz, A. 1989. Are entrepreneurs a breed apart? A look at the evidence.
Journal of General Management 15(2):32–40.
Goldsmith, R.E. 1984. Personality characteristics associated with adaption-innovation. Journal
of Psychology 117:159–165.
Goldsmith, R.E. 1987. Creative level and creative style. British Journal of Social Psychology
26:317–323.
Goldsmith, R.E., and Kerr, J.R. 1991. Entrepreneurship and adaption-innovation theory. Tech-
novation 11(6):373–382.
Greenberger, D.B., and Sexton, D.L. 1988. An interactive model of new venture initiation. Jour-
nal of Small Business Management 23(3):1–7.
Hensher, D., and Johnson, L.W. 1981. Applied Discrete Choice Modelling. London: Croom Helm.
Herron, L., and Robinson, R.B. 1993. A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial charac-
teristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing 8:281–294.
Herron, L., and Sapienza, H.J. 1992. The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch
activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(1):49–55.
Higbee, K. 1971. The expression of “Walter Mitty–ness” in actual behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 20:416–422.
Hisrich, R.D., and O’Brien, M. 1981. The woman entrepreneur. In K. Vesper, ed., Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 21–29.
Hogan, R. 1978. Personality research form. In O.K. Buros, ed., The Eighth Mental Measurement
Yearbook. Highland Park: Gryphon Press, p.1009.
Hornaday, J. 1992. Thinking about entrepreneurship: A fuzzy set approach. Journal of Small
Business Management 30(4):12–23.
Hornaday, J., and Aboud, J. 1971. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychol-
ogy 24:141–153.
Hornaday, J., and Bunker, C. 1970. The nature of the entrepreneur. Personnel Psychology
23:47–54.
Hosmer, D.W., and Lemeshow, S. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wi-
ley & Sons.
Howell, R.P. 1972. Comparative profiles: Entrepreneurs versus the hired executive: San Francisco
peninsula semiconductor industry. Technical Entrepreneurship: A Symposium. Milwaukee,
WI: Center for Venture Management.
Howell, J.M., and Higgins, C.A. 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly 35:317–341.
Hoy, F., and Carland, J.W. 1983. Differentiating between entrepreneurs and small business own-
ers in new venture formation. In J. Hornaday, J. Timmons, and K. Vesper, eds., Frontiers
of Entrepreneurship Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 180–191.
Hull, D., Bosley, J., and Udell, G. 1980. Reviewing the heffalump: Identifying potential entrepre-
neurs by personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business Management 18(1):11–18.
Jackson, D.N. 1967. Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psycholo-
gists Press.
Jackson, D.N. 1974. Personality Research Form Manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psycholo-
gists Press.
Jackson, D.N. 1976. Personality Inventory Manual. Goshen, NY: Research Psychologists Press.
Jackson, D.N. 1977. Reliability of the Jackson personality inventory. Psychological Reports
40:613–614.
Jackson, D.N., and Guthrie, G.M. 1968. Multitrait-multimethod evaluation of the personality re-
search form. Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association 3:177–178.
Jackson, D.N., Hourany, L., and Vidmar, N.J. 1972. A four-dimensional interpretation of risk-
taking. Journal of Personality 40:433–501.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 211

Jackson, D.N., and Lay, C. 1968. Homogenous dimensions of personality scale content. Multivari-
ate Behavior Research 3(3):321–338.
Johnson, B. 1990. Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of achieve-
ment motivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 14(3):39–54.
Kaplan, R.M., and Saccuzzo, D.P. 1993. Psychological Testing, 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole Publishing.
Kets de Vries, M. 1977. The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. Journal of
Management Studies 14:34–57.
Kilby, P. 1971. Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. New York: The Free Press.
Kirton, M.J. 1987. Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory Manual. Hatfield, England: Occupa-
tional Research Centre.
Kirton, M.J. 1989. A theory of cognitive style. In M. J. Kirton, ed., Adaptors and Innovators:
Styles of Creativity and Problem-Solving. London, England: Routledge, pp. 1–36.
Klinger, E. 1966. Fantasy need achievement as a motivational construct. Psychological Bulle-
tin 66:291–308.
Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
Komives, J.L. 1972. A preliminary study of the personal values of high technology entrepreneurs.
In A.C. Cooper and J.L. Komives, eds., Technical Entrepreneurship: A Symposium. Mil-
waukee, WI: Center for Venture Management, pp. 231–242.
Kusyszyn, I. 1968. A comparison of judgmental methods with endorsements in the assessment
of personality traits. Journal of Applied Psychology 52:227–233.
Lachman, R. 1980. Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies. Management Interna-
tional Review 20(2):108–116.
Liles, P.R. 1974. New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Litzinger, W. 1963. Entrepreneurial prototype in bank management: A comparative study of
branch bank managers. Academy of Management Journal 6:36–45.
Litzinger, W. 1965. The motel entrepreneur and the motel manager. Academy of Management
Journal 8:268–281.
Long, W.L. 1983. The meaning of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business
8(2):47–57.
Luchsinger, V., and Bagby, D.R. 1987. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: Behaviors, com-
parisons, and contrasts. Advanced Management Journal 52(3):10–13.
Martin, M. 1984. Managing Technological Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Reston, VA: Res-
ton Publishing.
Mason, R.D. 1982. Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics, 5th ed. Homewood, IL:
Irwin.
Masters, R., and Meier, R. 1988. Sex differences and risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs.
Journal of Small Business Management 26(1):31–35.
Mayer, K.B., and Goldstein, S. 1961. The First Two Years: Problems of Small Firm Growth and
Survival. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
McClelland, D.C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NY: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D.C. 1965. Need achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 1:389-392.
McClelland, D.C., and Winter, D.G. 1969. Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: The
Free Press.
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C., and Scheinberg, S. 1992. Elitists, risk–takers, and rugged individ-
ualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and non-
entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 7:115–135.
Mehrabian, A. 1969. Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment 29:445–451.
Meyer, H., Walker, W., and Litwin, G. 1961. Motive patterns and risk preferences associated
with entrepreneurship. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63:570–574.
212 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Miner, J.B. 1980. Theories of Organizational Behavior. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Morris, J.L., and Fargher, K. 1974. Achievement drive and creativity as correlates of success in
small business. Australian Journal of Psychology 26(3):217–222.
Murray, H.A. 1938. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., and Kuratko, D.F. 1994. A proposed research model of entrepre-
neurial motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(3):29–42.
Nandy, A. 1973. Motives, modernity, and entrepreneurial competence. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy 91:127–136.
Olson, P. 1985. Entrepreneurship: Opportunistic decision-makers. Journal of Small Business
Management 11(2):25–31.
Payne, R.L. 1987. Individual differences and performance of R&D personnel: Some implications
for management development. R&D Management 17:153–161.
Peacock, P. 1986. The influence of risk-taking as a cognitive behavior of small business success. In
R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, and K. Vesper, eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 110–118.
Penrose, E.T. 1968. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Perry, C. 1990. After further sightings of the heffalump. Journal of Managerial Psychology
5(2):22–31.
Perry, C., Meredith, C.G., and Cunnington, H.J. 1988. Relationship between small business
growth and personal characteristics of owner/managers in Australia. Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management 26(2):76–79.
Peterson, R.A., Albaum, G., and Kozmetsky, G. 1986. The public’s definition of small business.
Journal of Small Business Management 24(3):63–68.
Plax, T., and Rosenfeld, L. 1976. Correlates of risky decision-making. Journal of Personality As-
sessment 40:413–418.
Rausch, M.L. 1977. Paradox, levels, and junctures in person-situation systems. In D. Magnusson
and N.S. Endler, eds., Personality at the Crossroads. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum, pp. 287–304.
Ray, D.M. 1981. An empirical examination of the characteristics and attributes of entrepreneurs,
franchise owners and managers engaged in retail ventures. Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Ray, D.M. 1986. Perceptions of risk and new enterprise formation in Singapore: An exploratory
study. In R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, and K. Vesper, eds., Frontiers of Entrepre-
neurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 119–145.
Richard, J.C. 1989. A comparison of the social characteristics, personalities, and managerial styles
of managers and entrepreneurs. Doctoral dissertation, University of Windsor, Windsor, On-
tario, Canada.
Robbins, N.E. 1986. Entrepreneurial assessment: Characteristics which differentiate entrepre-
neurs, intrapreneurs, and managers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, MN.
Robinson, R.B., and Pearce, J.A. 1984. Research thrusts in small firm strategic planning. Academy
of Management Review 9:128–137.
Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., and Hunt, H.K. 1991. An attitude approach to
the prediction of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(4):13–31.
Rust, R.T., and Cooil, B. 1994. Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications.
Journal of Marketing Research 31:1–14.
Sandberg, W.R. 1986. New Venture Performance: The Role of Strategy and Industry Structure.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Schein, E. 1975. Presentations on career anchors. Paper presented at the Adult Development
Forum, Boston, MA.
Schere, J.L. 1982. Tolerance for ambiguity as a discriminating variable between entrepreneurs
and managers. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, pp. 404–408.
Schrage, H. 1965. The R&D entrepreneur: Profile of success. Harvard Business Review 43:56–69.
 PROCLIVITY FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP 213

Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Schutte, N.A., Kenrick, D.T., and Sadalla, E.K. 1985. The search for predictable settings: Situa-
tional prototypes, constraint, and behavioral variation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 49:121–128.
Schwartz, E.B. 1976. Entrepreneurship: A new female frontier. Journal of Contemporary Busi-
ness 5:47–76.
Schwenk, C.R., and Schrader, C.B. 1993. Effects of formal strategic planning on financial perfor-
mance in small firms: A meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 17(3):53–64.
Schwer, K., and Yucelt, U. 1984. A study of risk-taking propensities among small business entre-
preneurs and managers: An empirical evaluation. American Journal of Small Business
8(3):31–40.
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman, N.B. 1983. Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of students:
Preliminary results. In J. Hornaday, J. Timmons, and K. Vesper, eds., Frontiers of Entrepre-
neurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 213–232.
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman, N.B. 1984. Personality inventory for potential entrepreneurs: Evalua-
tion of a modified JPI/PRF–E test instrument. Proceedings of the Babson Entrepreneurship
Research Conference, pp. 513–528.
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman, N.B. 1985. The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. Journal
of Business Venturing 1:129–140.
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman, N.B. 1986. Validation of a personality index: Comparative psycholog-
ical characteristics analysis of female entrepreneurs, managers, entrepreneurship students
and business students. In R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson, and K. Vesper, eds., Fron-
tiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 40–57.
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman-Upton, N. 1990. Female and male entrepreneurs: Psychological char-
acteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination. Journal of Business Ventur-
ing 5:29–36.
Shapero, A. 1971. An Action Program of Entrepreneurship. Austin, TX: Multi-Disciplinary Re-
search.
Shapero, A. 1975. Entrepreneurship and economic development. Entrepreneurship and Enter-
prise Development: A Worldwide Perspective. Milwaukee, WI: Proceedings of Project
ISEED.
Shaver, K.G., and Scott, L.R. 1991. Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture cre-
ation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(2):23–45.
Smith, N.R. 1967. The Entrepreneur and His Firm: The Relationship between Type of Man and
Type of Company. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Smith, N.R., and Miner, J.B. 1983. Type of entrepreneur, type of firm, and managerial motivation:
Implications for organizational life cycle theory. Strategic Management Journal 4:325–340.
Smith, N.R., and Miner, J.B. 1984. Motivational considerations in the success of technologically
innovative entrepreneurs. In K.H. Vesper, ed., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College, pp. 488–495.
Smith, K., Gannon, M., Grimm, C., and Mitchell, T. 1988. Decision-making behavior in smaller
entrepreneurial and larger professionally managed firms. Journal of Business Venturing
3:223–232.
Snyder, M., and Ickes, W. 1985. Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson,
eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 883–948.
Stevenson, H.H., and Jarillo, J.C. 1990. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal 11:17–27.
Stewart, Jr., W.H. 1996. Psychological Correlates of Entrepreneurship. New York: Garland.
Stewart, Jr., W.H., Carland, J.C., and Carland, J.W. 1996. Empirically defining the entrepreneur.
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 8(1):1–18.
Swayne, C., and Tucker, W. 1973. The Effective Entrepreneur. Morristown, NJ: General Learn-
ing Press.
214 W.H. STEWART ET AL.

Timmons, J. 1978. Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of

Small Business 3(1):5–17.
Timmons, J. 1990. New Venture Creation: Entrepreneurship in the 1990s, 3rd ed. Boston,
MA: Irwin.
Torrance, E.P., and Horng, R.G. 1980. Creativity and style of learning and thinking characteristics
of adaptors and innovators. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly 5:80–85.
Van de Ven, A. 1993. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing 8:211–230.
Vesper, K.H. 1980. New Venture Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vesper, K.H. 1985. A new direction, or just a new label?. In J.J. Kao and H.H. Stevenson, eds.,
Entrepreneurship: What It Is and How to Teach It. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Waddell, F.T. 1983. Factors affecting choice, satisfaction, and success in the female self-employed.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 23:294–304.
Wainer, H.A., and Rubin, I.M. 1969. Motivation of research and development entrepreneurs:
Determinants of company success. Journal of Applied Psychology 53:178–184.