Journal of Small Business Management 2002 40(2), pp. 85–97
Prospecting for Strategic Advantage:
The Proactive Entrepreneurial Personality
and Small Firm Innovation
by Jill Kickul and Lisa K. Gundry
Our study proposed and tested an entrepreneurial process model that examined the
interrelationships among a small firm owner’s personality, strategic orientation, and
innovation. In the first part of the model, it was posited that a proactive personality
would directly influence a prospector strategic orientation. This type of strategic
orientation would then be a key factor in determining the type of innovations
introduced and implemented within the business. Using a sample of 107 small business
owners, results revealed that the prospector strategy orientation mediated the relationship between proactive personality and three types of innovations: innovative
targeting processes, innovative organizational systems, and innovative boundary
supports. Implications for small business managers as well as future research directions are discussed.
In recent years, models of the entrepreneurship process have evolved to
depict the interactive nature of key variables influencing new venture success.
Researchers have proposed that entrepreneurship can only be understood
when the individual elements of the
phenomenon are combined. Gartner
(1985) was one of the first to propose that
four major dimensions of entrepreneurship be integrated: the founder’s characteristics, the organization’s characteristics,
the environment surrounding the firm,
and the process by which the new venture
is started. The attempt to form a more
complex, multi-dimensional theory of the
new venture process is not new. Historically, researchers have examined the individual traits of entrepreneurs, including
the need for achievement (McClelland
1961), autonomy (Hornaday and Aboud
1971), tolerance for ambiguity (Sexton
and Bowman 1984), and risk-taking propensity (Begley and Boyd 1986; Brockhaus
1980). A turning point occurred in the late
1980s, when Gartner (1989) defined entrepreneurship as a set of activities involved in the creation of an organization.
Dr. Kickul is assistant professor of management in the Charles H. Kellstadt Graduate School of
Business at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Her research interests include entrepreneurial
intentions and behavior, intrapraneurship and innovation, and entrepreneurial strategy and
growth.
Dr. Gundry is associate professor of management in the Charles H. Kellstadt Graduate School
of Business at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Her research focuses on the creative process
leading to innovations, and entrepreneurship strategy and growth.
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
85
Subsequently, research attention was
redirected towards identifying the behaviors towards further understanding the
influence of entrepreneurs’ perceptions
(Cooper, Woo, and Dunkelberg 1988) and
their intentions (Bird 1988) on their behavior (Shaver and Scott 1991). Several
behaviors have been found to influence
small firm performance.
One of these behaviors is opportunity
recognition, defined by Christensen, Masden, and Peterson (1989) as perceiving the
possibility to create a new business or to
significantly change or improve an existing
business. Stevenson and Jarillo-Mossi
(1986) suggested that entrepreneurs
create value by combining resources to
exploit an opportunity. Koller (1988)
extended this by suggesting that most entrepreneurs recognize (as opposed to
seeking) opportunities. Bhave (1994) distinguished between entrepreneurial behavior that was “externally stimulated”
(cases in which the decision to launch the
venture preceded opportunity recognition) and behavior that was “internally
stimulated” (when individuals engaged in
problem-solving and needs assessment
prior to deciding to start a business). Externally stimulated opportunity recognit i o n i s t h e o p p o r t u n is t ic s e a r ch
characterized by Cypert and March (1963).
Recently, Hills and Shrader (1998) uncovered fundamental opportunity recognition behaviors, including founding
companies, starting a major new part of
the business, and acquiring any new type
of business.
Considerable attention has also been
paid to the risk-taking behavior of entrepreneurs. Mullins and Forlani (1998)
found that entrepreneurs exhibit their
most risk-averse behavior when they are
either in control of their venture but lack
market skill, or without control of the venture but have technical skill. This corroborates Timmons’ (1994) assertion that
entrepreneurs are prudent managers of
risk. Das and Teng (1997) introduced and
tested a temporal framework for analyzing
86
entrepreneurs’ risk-taking behavior. This
contingency approach to entrepreneurials’ risk behavior proposed developing different entrepreneurial types (for example,
craftsman or opportunistic) by employing
their distinct risk-taking behavior in the
short- and long-term. The cognitionoriented approach to analyzing entrepreneurial risk behavior has been used
by Palich and Bagby (1995), who reported
that entrepreneurs do not necessarily
embrace risk-taking more than nonentrepreneurs; rather, they tend to view
risks more optimistically and are thereby
more willing to undertake entrepreneurial
efforts.
Other behaviors that impact firm performance include strategic planning, harnessing resources, and innovation
(Stearns and Hills 1996). Entrepreneurial
behavior has also been described as vision
focused on innovations that meet market
needs more effectively (Gardner 1994).
Kirzner (1973) advocated a theory of entrepreneurial alertness, describing entrepreneurs’ ability to “see,” to discover and
exploit opportunities that others miss.
More recently, Busenitz (1996) suggested
that measures of entrepreneurial alertness
are of research interest and need further
development.
This integration of the key dimensions of the entrepreneurship process
has resulted in an interactionist perspective, providing a framework for examining the ways in which an entrepreneur’s
personal attributes interact with other
variables to ultimately affect the organization’s actions and performance. As
early as 1986, Miller and Toulouse found
that the personality of the CEO had a
strong influence on the strategies and
structure of the firm. Among the personality dimensions studied, CEO flexibility
had the most positive consequences for
small firm performance. Nicholson
(1998) identified several distinctive features of the entrepreneurial leadership
personality, including a single-minded
focus and resilience.
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
The purpose of the present study is to
examine the entrepreneur’s disposition
toward proactive behavior, known as proactive personality (Bateman and C r an t
1993), and its relationship to the firm’s
strategy and innovative posture. We postulate that the proactive entrepreneurial
personality will be associated with a
particular strategic orientation, which
mediates the personality–innovation relationship for the small firms sampled (see
Figure 1). Given the recent emphasis on
process models of entrepreneurship, as
discussed above, it is important to determine how psychological factors influence the outcomes of strategic thinking
in small organizations (Stewart et al.
1998).
TheProactiveEntrepreneur
and the Small Firm
The proactive personality is defined
by Bateman and Crant (1993) as the personality of one who takes action to influence environmental change. Proactive
personalities “scan for opportunities,
show initiative, take action, and persevere until they reach closure by bringing
about change” (Bateman and Crant
1993, p.105). According to these researchers, the proactive personality consistently exhibits these kinds of behavior
and is relatively unconstrained by situational forces in the daily environment.
The scale Bateman and Crant used to
measure proactive personality demonstrated convergent, discriminant, and
criterion validity. Their personality construct was found to be unrelated to measures of social desirability, locus of
control, and mental ability (Bateman and
Crant 1993; Crant 1995), whereas proactivity has been shown to be positively
associated with entrepreneurial intentions (Crant 1996) and transformational
leadership (Bateman and Crant 1993).
Studies are needed, however, to determine the link between proactivity and
entrepreneurial behaviors, which is the
focus of the present study.
Becherer and Maurer (1999) found that
company presidents who exhibited a
proactive disposition were inclined to
move their organizations to scan for more
business opportunities. In addition, Bateman and Crant (1993) contend that proactive individuals exhibit an array of
behaviors including problem-finding, idea
championing, and strategic prospecting.
They also have the ability to take it upon
themselves to direct the goals and direction of their organization in order to influence the overall mission and strategic
orientation of the business (Bateman and
Crant 1993). Thus, the effects of these
entrepreneurs’ personalities and dispositions on their behaviors and actions are
demonstrated in their strategic choices for
operating their businesses and competing
within their industries.
The Mediating Role
of Strategic Orientation
As asserted by Hettema (1989) and Buss
and Craik (1980), personal dispositions
are summary labels of behavior rather than
intrapsychic causes. By initiating changes
in the organization and its strategies,
proactive entrepreneurs are behaviorally
acting upon their overall attitudes and beliefs. In particular, the type of strategy that
is consistent with their attitudes and beliefs is the prospector strategy (Miles and
Snow 1978). Firms that adopt this type of
strategy continually search the marketplace for new products, services, and technologies. Organizations with a prospector
strategy are the creators of change in their
industries and businesses. Prospectors
rely on high levels of environmental scanning and long-range forecasting to identify
new opportunities that are critical to their
success (Miles and Snow 1978). Research
on organizations that follow a prospector
strategy has found that these types of businesses tend to invest more heavily in research and development as well as in
marketing and promotion (Hambrick
1983). Additionally, McDaniel and Kolari
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
87
88
Figure 1
Model of the Consequences of Proactive Personality
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
(1987) found that prospectors tend to focus more on new product development
and market research. Finally, prospectors
also tend to place emphasis on forecast
data and budgetary goals and to closely
monitor business outcomes (Simons
1987).
More research, however, is needed to
examine the prospector strategy and its
influence on small business innovation.
Since prospector organizations are constantly searching for new ideas and processes, they would be inclined to introduce
innovations that improve and enhance their
product or service, their operation and
production methods, marketing tactics,
organizational structure, information
technology, and financing methods. This
study will focus on these multiple types of
innovation to determine how a small firm
with a prospector strategy can affect
change and integrate novel ideas and
processes within its competitive operating
environment.
Methodology
Sample
The sample for this study consisted
of 107 small business owners located in
the U.S. Midwest. Names were obtained
through contact information collected by
a state agency that gives technical and
managerial assistance to owners and
their respective ventures. Approximately
52 percent of the businesses were womenowned and 26 percent were minorityowned. Over 45 percent of the owners
held a college degree and 30 percent had
previously owned or managed a business
before launching their venture. The businesses surveyed came from a variety of
industries: 15 percent from retailing,
14 percent from general services, 12 percent from professional services, 11 percent
from manufacturing, four percent from
construction, and three percent from
finance, insurance, and real estate. The
businesses had average revenues of
$267,000, with an average of four employ-
ees. Seven percent of the firms also utilized
independent contractors.
Overview and Procedure
All information was gathered over a
three-month period through telephone interviews with the small business owners.
Participants were told that we were conducting research to better understand
some of the factors associated with starting
and growing a business. In addition to
answering a series of demographic questions on personal (educational level, prior
business experience, ethnicity, etc.) and
business (employment, sales revenue,
etc.) characteristics, the owners were
asked to provide information regarding
their personality, the types of innovations
implemented in their organization, and
the overall business strategy and goals of
their venture.
Measures
Proactive Personality. To assess proactive personality, we used five items from
Bateman and Crant’s (1993) scale: (1) “I
enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to
my ideas”; (2) “Nothing is more exciting
than seeing my ideas turn into reality”;
(3) “I excel at identifying opportunities”;
(4) “I love to challenge the status quo”; and
(5) “I can spot a good opportunity long
before others can.” Participants rated these
items on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.
Bateman and Crant (1993) report internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) ranging
from .87 to .89 for their 17-item scale. The
five items selected for this study had some
of the highest factor loadings as indicated
in Bateman and Crant’s scale development
and validation research. The internal reliability of these items on our sample was
.95. To demonstrate that we were measuring proactive personality, we also examined the correlation between our short
form and the original scale on a separate
sample of 322 employees from a variety of
organizational settings. The correlation
between the two forms was .90, thereby
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
89
providing support that the five items are
indeed measuring the proactive personality construct.
Strategic Orientation. In order to determine the strategic orientation of the
small business, we asked the participants
to describe their business strategy and
goals. Each description was then
content- analyzed and the firm was
classified as being either “prospector”
or “non- prospector,” based on Miles and
Snow’s (1978) depiction of a prospector
strategy. Because this study is interested
in examining the role of the prospector
strategy as a mediator in determining
small business innovations, Miles and
Snow’s three other business strategy
categories (defenders, analyzers, and reactors) were not used.
The authors and a research assistant
coded each of the strategy descriptions,
and then assessed the inter-rater reliability. From the 107 respondents’ business
strategy descriptions that were analyzed,
the inter-rater reliability was computed
to be 82 percent. In cases where complete agreement was not reached, discussion ensued regarding how each rater
had determined the type of strategy, and
a decision was reached. The 82 percent
reliability rate was calculated by dividing
the number of agreements by the total
number of agreements plus disagreements (Miles and Huberman 1984).
Miles and Huberman note that one
should not expect greater than 70 percent inter-rater reliability at first. Based
on this criterion, our inter-rater reliability is quite high.
Innovation Scales. We d e velo pe d
10 items to investigate the different types
of innovations implemented by the business owners. Some of these innovations
included the introduction of new or improved products, new channels of distribution, new information technology, and
new methods of organization. Participants
were asked to indicate which of these innovations they had incorporated into their
organizations.
90
The data were submitted to factor
analysis using principal components extraction and varimax rotation. A threefactor solution resulted, as indicated
through our interpretation of the scree
plot and the eigenvalues greater than 1.0.
Although the first factor accounted for
47.7 percent of the variance, the remaining
two factors accounted for an additional
25.8 percent. As shown in Table 1, Factor 1
(five items) was labeled innovative targeting processes; it measures those innovations related to having new or improved
products, venturing into new markets, or
utilizing new channels of distribution.
Factor 2 (two items) was innovative organizational systems; it assesses internal
changes within the organization such as
new methods of organization or new
methods of management. Finally, Factor 3
(three items), innovative boundary supports, measures whether new methods of
financing or new information technology
have been integrated into the organization. Cronbach’s alpha scores (internal reliability) of these three factors were: .78, .95,
and .74, respectively.
Statistical Analyses
The mediated regression approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986)
was used to test our proposed model. In
this approach, three separate regression
equations are estimated. First, the mediator (prospector strategy) is regressed on
the independent variable (proactive personality). Second, the dependent variable
(separate innovation processes) is regressed on the independent variable. In
the last equation, the dependent variable
is regressed simultaneously on both the
independent and mediational variable.
Mediation is indicated when the following conditions are met: 1) the independent variable affects the mediator in
the first equation; 2) the independent
variable affects the dependent variable in
the second equation; 3) the mediator
affects the dependent variable in the
third equation; and 4) assuming that all of
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Table 1
Results of Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation
Items
Innovative
Targeting
Processes
New or improved products
New production methods
New markets
New marketing or sales methods
New channels of distributionion
New methods of organization
New methods of management
New or improved services
New methods of financing
New information technology
Eigenvalue
Percentage of Variance
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The means, standard deviations, zeroorder correlations, and reliabilities for
our constructs are reported in Table 2.
The reliabilities of the measures used
were all at or over the .70 minimum established by Nunnally (1978). Proactive personality was related to prospector strategy
as well as to the three innovation processes. Prospector strategy was also associated with the innovation processes
identified in this study.
Innovative
Boundary
Supports
.79
.77
.73
.61
.49
.93
.92
.84
.74
.74
4.78
47.70
these conditions are in the proper direction, the effect of the independent variable
on the dependent variable is less in the
third equation than in the second equation. Full or perfect mediation is supported when the independent variable has
no significant effect when the mediator is
controlled, while partial mediation is indicated if the effect of the independent variable is reduced in magnitude but still
significant when the mediator is controlled
(Baron and Kenny 1986).
Innovative
Organizational
Systems
1.57
15.70
1.01
10.17
Tests were also conducted to determine
whether the assumptions for the multiple
regression analyses were met. Residuals
were examined for magnitude, linearity,
independence, normality, and homogeneity of variance (Cohen and Cohen 1983).
No violations of these assumptions were
identified.
Analysis of the Proposed Model
Table 3 presents the results for the
mediated regression analysis for each of
the three dependent variables (innovative
targeting processes, innovative organizational systems, and innovative boundary
supports). In the first equation, the mediator “prospector strategy” was regressed on
the independent variable “proactive personality” and produced significant results.
In the second equation, each dependent
variable was regressed on the independent
variable (proactive personality); this also
yielded significant results for each of the
dependent variables. Finally, the dependent
variable was simultaneously regressed on
both proactive personality and prospector
strategy. In this last equation, prospector
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
91
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
1. Proactive Personality
2. Innovative Targeting
Processes
3. Innovative Organizational
Systems
4. Innovative Boundary
Supports
5. Prospector Strategy
4.35
2.55
(.95)
0.09
0.20
.23*
0.08
0.27
.19*
.47*** (.95)
0.07
0.68
0.20
0.47
.18^
.21*
.44*** .32** (.74)
.39*** .26** .31** (.82)
(.78)
Note: Internal consistency reliabilities are provided along the diagonal in parentheses.
***p < .001
**p < .01
*p < .05
^p < .10
Table 3
Mediated Regression Analysis
Equation Summary
Dependent
Variables
Innovative
Innovative
Targeting
Organizational
Processes (β)
Systems (β)
(1)
(2)
(3)
R2
F
Proactive Personality →
Prospector Strategy
Proactive Personality →
Dependent Variable
Proactive Personality →
Dependent Variable,
Prospector Strategy →
Dependent Variable
Innovative
Boundary
Supports (β)
.21*
.21*
.21*
.23*
.19*
.18^
.15
.15
.13
.35***
.23**
.29**
.18
10.15***
.09
4.77**
.11
6.05**
Note: The R2 and F value results are for the last equation in the test for mediation.
***p < .001
**p < .01
*p < .05
^p < .10
92
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
strategy was significant, while proactive
personality was no longer significant.
The results in this last step indicate
full—not partial—mediation. Thus, prospector strategy mediates the relationship
between proactive personality and each of
our three innovation processes. This type
of strategic orientation functions as a critical link among small business owners’
proactive personalities and the ways they
engage in innovative targeting processes,
develop innovative organizational systems, and import innovative boundary
supports.
Discussion and Conclusions
Overall, the empirical results of our
study demonstrate that a small business
owner’s proactive personality is linked to
a strategic orientation for the small firm
that permits flexibility and change in response to surrounding business conditions. By employing a prospector strategy,
these proactive owners have a direct impact on the goals and direction of their
organizations. Moreover, this strategic orientation can also influence the types of
innovations developed and implemented
within the internal and external framework of the small business environment.
Our research suggests that organizations with a prospector strategy are not
only more likely to identify opportunities
for developing new products or markets,
but are also willing to make internal
changes and transformations within their
organizational structure that facilitate further growth and success. Instead of merely
reacting to changes within the market and
industry, these proactive owners employ a
strategy consistent with many of their beliefs and behavioral intentions in seeking
out new opportunities and engaging in
new business processes and innovations
(see Figure 2). This research builds on
previous work related to the opportunity
recognition behaviors of entrepreneurs
(Bhave 1994; Christensen, Madsen, and
Peterson 1989; and Hills and Shrader
1998) by delineating the strategic innovations and organizational transformations
that entrepreneurs consequently undertake. Proactive owners are opportunistic,
as characterized by previous research.
However, more research is needed to
further investigate the link between proactive personality and opportunity recognition behaviors. Busenitz (1996) has noted
that more empirical work should be undertaken to develop measures of entrepreneurial alertness (Kirzner 1973). Are
proactive entrepreneurs more “alert” to
opportunities, and therefore more likely
to recognize them? And if so, what is the
impact on the number of successful business launchings, as well as on the effectiveness of their innovative behaviors?
Many of the new processes and innovations undertaken may be essential to the
future growth and sustainability of the
small firm. The ability to arrive at new
methods to target customers through new
promotional and distribution channels as
well as developing boundary supports
may allow the business to add value by
increasing brand awareness and levels of
efficiency. The implementation of a teambased design, for example, can help a venture sustain its flexibility to create as the
business grows and matures. Although
more work is required to refine and validate our innovation factors, we believe
that we have made an important first step
in identifying specific dimensions of innovative behavior associated with and found
inside small firms.
While this study was able to uncover
multiple dimensions of innovations implemented by small firms, future research
should investigate the effects of these
ideas and solutions on the long-term
growth and profitability of the business.
More specifically, the introduction of
new products or marketing methods may
assist the organization in fulfilling many
of its short-term goals and objectives. The
reorganization of its internal structure and
changes in its boundary support services,
however, may become more salient as the
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
93
94
Figure 2
Final Model of the Consequences of Proactive Personality
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
business matures and tries to maintain its
entrepreneurial spirit and enthusiasm.
Additional longitudinal work is needed to
assess how innovations, over time, can
affect the performance of the small firm as
it progresses through the entrepreneurial
life cycle.
Although identifying opportunities in
the market is a key component and first
step towards innovation, future research
should examine how small businesses garner the resources and capabilities necessary to turn their ideas into actual
solutions. Research should address the
various types of investments and resources
these businesses have used to stimulate
creativity and innovation. In summary,
more research is needed to investigate the
link between proactive personality and entrepreneurial behaviors such as opportunity recognition, resource allocation, and
the subsequent implementation of creative and innovative ideas aligned with the
firm’s strategy.
One of the limitations of this study is
that the relationship among the predictor
(proactive personality), the mediator (strategic orientation), and outcomes (innovation processes) included common method
variance. The measures used to tap each of
these constructs were taken from one
source (the small business owner). These
associations could, therefore, be attributed to a response bias. Moreover, although the study was cross-sectional, the
hypothesized model and relationships
suggest causal direction. Causal inferences
made from cross-sectional designs are only
inferences (Spector 1981). Future research should examine many of the same
relationships in our study with longitudinal data to assess causality.
As small business owners carve out their
competitive niche in their industries, it is
important to investigate how their attitudes and beliefs influence major changes
in their organization’s mission, objectives,
and strategies. It is also necessary to examine how the organization’s strategic orientation can affect the advancement and
implementation of creative solutions essential to small business success. This
study offers support for the process by
which proactivity can serve as a critical
antecedent of strategy development and
demonstrates how the direction of the
small firm can serve as a motivating force
in determining a broad array of organizational and market innovations. As more
small businesses strive for a measurable
strategic advantage in their industries, one
of the keys to success may reside in the
entrepreneur’s visionary focus in aligning
the firm’s strategy with its innovative prowess, thereby introducing revolutionary
new ideas into the venture itself and into
the marketplace.
References
Bateman, T. S., and J. M. Crant (1993).
“The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: A Measure and Correlates,” Journal of Organizational
Behavior 14, 103-118.
Begley, T.M., and D.P. Boyd (1986). “Psychological Characteristics Associated
with Entrepreneurial Performance,”
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Ed. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday,
R. Peterson, and K. Vesper. Wellesley,
Mass.: Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Becherer, R.C., and J.G. Maurer (1999).
“The Proactive Personality Disposition
and Entrepreneurial Behavior among
Small Company Presidents,” Journal of
Small Business Management 37(1),
28–36.
Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny (1986). “The
Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:
Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations,” Journal of Personali ty a nd S o c i a l Ps y c h ol og y 5 1 ,
1173–1182.
Bhave, M.P. (1994). “A Process Model of
Entrepreneurial Venture Creation,”
Journal of Business Venturing 9(3),
223–242.
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
95
Bird, B. (1988) “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Intention,” Academy of Management Review
13, 442–453.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980). “Risk Taking Propensity of Entrepreneurs,” Academy of
Management Journal 23, 509–520.
Busenitz, L.W. (1996). “Research on Entrepreneurial Alertness,” Journal of
Small Business Management 34(4),
35–44.
Buss, D., and K. Craik (1980). “The Frequency Concept of Disposition: Dominance and Prototypically Dominant
Acts,” Journal of Personality 4 8 ,
379–392.
Christensen, P.S., O.O. Madsen, and R.
Peterson (1989). Opportunity Identification: The Contribution of Entrepreneurship to Strategic Management.
Denmark: Aarhus University Institute of
Management.
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen (1983). Applied
Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, Ill.: Erlbaum.
Cooper, A.C., C.Y. Woo, and W.P. Dunkelberg (1988). “Entrepreneurs’ Perceived
Chances for Success,” Journal of Business Venturing 3(2), 97–108.
Crant, J.M. (1995). “The Proactive Personality Scale and Objective Job Performance among Real Estate Agents,”
Journal of Applied Psychology 8 0 ,
532–537.
——— (1996). “The Proactive Personality
Scale as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial
Intentions,” Journal of Small Business
Management 34(3), 42–49.
Cypert, R.M., and J.G. March (1963). A
Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Das, T.K., and B.S. Teng (1997). “Time and
Entrepreneurial Risk Behavior,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice
22(2), 69–88.
Gardner, D.M. (1994). “Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface: A Conceptua l i z a t i o n , ” in M a r k et in g an d
Entrepreneurship: Research Ideas and
96
Opportunities. Ed. G.E. Hills. Westport,
Conn.: Quorum Books, 35–54.
Gartner, W.P. (1985). “A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon
of New Venture Creation,” Academy of
Management Review 10(4), 696–706.
——— (1989). “Who is an Entrepreneur?
Is the Wrong Question,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (Summer),
47–68.
Hambrick, D.C. (1983). “Some Tests of the
Effectiveness and Functional Attributes
of Miles and Snow’s Strategic Types,”
Academy of Management Journal
26(1), 5–26.
Hettema, P.J. (1989). Personality and Environment: Assessment of Human Adaptation. New York: Wiley.
Hills, G.E., and R.C. Shrader (1998). “Successful Entrepreneurs’ Insights into Opportunity Recognition,” Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,
Mass.: Babson College.
Hornaday, J., and J. Aboud (1971). “Characteristics of Successful Entrepren e u rs,” Personnel Psychology 2 4 ,
141–153.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, Ill.: University
of Chicago Press.
Koller, R.H. (1988). “On the Source of
Entrepreneurial Ideas,” Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,
Mass.: Babson College.
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The Achieving
Society. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.
McDaniel, S.W., and J.W. Kolari (1987).
“Marketing Strategy Implications of the
Miles and Snow Strategic Typology,”
Journal of Marketing 51(4), 19–30.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman (1984).
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage.
Miles, R.E., and C.C. Snow (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and
Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, D., and J.M. Toulouse (1986).
“Chief Executive Personality and Corporate Strategy and Structure in Small
JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Firms,” Management Science 32(11),
1389–1409.
Mullins, J.W., and D. Forlani (1998). “Differences in Perceptions and Behavior:
A Comparative Study of New Venture
Decisions of Managers and Entrepreneurs,” Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Wellesley, Mass.: Babson
College.
Nicholson, N. (1998). “Personality and Entrepreneurial Leadership: A Study of
the Heads of the U.K.’s Most Successful
Independent Companies,” European
Management Journal 16(5), 529–539.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palich, L.E., and D.R. Bagby (1995). “Using
Cognitive Theory to Explain Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking: Challenging
Conventional Wisdom,” Journal of
Business Venturing 10(6), 425–438.
Sexton, D.L., and N.B. Bowman (1984).
“The Effects of Pre-Existing Psychological Characteristics on New Venture Initiations,” paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, Mass.
Shaver, K.G., and L.R. Scott (1991). “Person, Process, Choice: The Psychology of
New Venture Creation,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 16(2), 23–45.
Simons, R. (1987). “Accounting Control
Systems and Business Strategy: An Empirical Analysis,” Accounting, Organizations, and Society 12(4), 357–374.
Spector, P.E. (1981). Research Designs.
Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Stearns, T. M., and G.E. Hills (1996). “Entrepreneurship and New Firm Development: A Definitional Introduction,”
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship 8(1), 1–18.
Stevenson, H.H., and J.C. Jarillo-Mossi
(1986). “Preserving Entrepreneurship
as Companies Grow,” Journal of Business Strategy 7, 10–23.
Stewart, W.H., W.E. Watson, J.C. Carland,
and J.W. Carland (1998). “A Proclivity for
Entrepreneurship: A Comparison of Entrepreneurs, Small Business Owners,
and Corporate Managers,” Journal of
Business Venturing 14, 189–214.
Timmons, J.A. (1994). New Venture Creation. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
KICKUL AND GUNDRY
97