A case for comparative entrepreneurship: Assessing the relevance of culture
Anisya S Thomas, Stephen L Mueller. Journal of International Business Studies. Washington: Second
Quarter 2000.Vol.31, Iss. 2; pg. 287, 15 pgs
Copyright Journal of International Business Studies Second Quarter 2000
[Headnote]
As international entrepreneurship gains momentum as a significant and relevant held of research,
scholars need to address methodological issues that can facilitate the triangulation of research
results. In this paper, we examine the relationship between culture and four personality
characteristics com
[Headnote]
monly associated with entrepreneurial motivation. By demonstrating systematic variation in
entrepreneurial characteristics across cultures, we raise important questions about the boundaries
of international entrepreneurship research and the challenges of transcending them.
The study of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship has recently undergone a metamorphosis as
scholars from diverse fields such as sociology, anthropology and business strategy apply their
disciplinary concepts to the antecedents and consequences of new venture creation. Much of the
impetus has derived from the growing acceptance of the idea that entrepreneurship, both within
the context of existing firms as well as those of the start-up variety, spurs the expansion of
business, creates new employment potential and fuels economic growth. Inspired by phenomena
such as the explosion of growth in Silicon Valley and the attendant innovativeness and wealth
creation, entrepreneurship is now a vigorous field of inquiry not only in North America, but in
Europe, Asia, and South America as well.
However, the absence of a strong theoretical foundation has contributed to the fragmentation of
entrepreneurship research, often resulting in studies that examine the same or similar issues from
diverse disciplinary perspectives while ignoring others. It is only recently that scholars have
begun to address the need for integrative typologies and paradigms that can provide a coherent
platform for diverse research efforts [Hisrich, 1990; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Wortman, 1987].
Contemporary theoretical work in entrepreneurship exhibits a concerted awareness of the
necessity for frameworks that will facilitate the synthesis of existing research and the generation
of new studies that address the gaps [Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Van de Ven, 1992; West, 1997].
The study of entrepreneurs has recently been internationalized to include research on new
venture creation beyond the boundaries of a single country and the comparison of psychological,
societal, and economic factors that motivate or impede the start-up of new firms. In the research
domain of international entrepreneurship, the need for synthesis is even more critical.
Encompassing research over almost two centuries, the field has included both the study of rates
of entrepreneurship as well as the traits of entrepreneurs. The heritage of economics which can
be traced to Cantillion [circa 1700] and Schumpeter [1934] has investigated demand conditions
which increase the rates of entrepreneurship as well as the contributions made by entrepreneurs
to the economic development and vitality of a country. Another importaut stream of research
related to international entrepreneurship originated with the work of Weber [1904] and was
elaborated by McClelland [1961] who posited that the abundance of individual entrepreneurs is a
key supply condition leading to economic success in so-called achieving societies. Today,
however, expanding interest in international entrepreneurship highlights the need for
comparative studies which investigate both the demand and supply conditions that encourage
entrepreneurial activity in various countries or regions.
International comparative research is particularly relevant in light of the renewed interest in
entrepreneurship by government policy makers and business leaders worldwide. In the advanced
industrialized nations, increased entrepreneurial activity is seen as a means to revitalize
stagnating industries, to provide new jobs to compensate for employment problems created by
corporate restructuring and downsizing, and to generally enhance economic flexibility and
growth [Birch, 1979; Birley, 1986; Swain, 1985]. Furthermore, entrepreneurship has been
rediscovered as a catalyst for technological progress [Baumol, 1986; Hagen, 1962; Kilby, 1971;
Schumpeter, 1934] where entrepreneurial ventures are seen as incubators for product and market
innovation [Reynolds, 1987].
In less developed countries, entrepreneurial activity is often encouraged as an avenue to
stimulating economic growth [Harper, 1991], New ventures are seen as replacements for
crumbling state-owned enterprises, some of which are legacies of colonial rule. New ventures
also tend to be more labor intensive thereby creating job opportunities. In addition, new ventures
offer the promise of empowering marginalized segments of the population. Consequently,
national incentive and education programs designed to stimulate new venture development have
been instituted by the governments of a large number of Asian and Latin American countries as
well as the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe [Audretsch, 1991; Gibb, 1993].
A CASE FOR COMPARATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH
In the rush to stimulate entrepreneurial activity, policy makers often rely on the success stories,
anecdotes, and prescriptions documented in the literature. However, the lack of research in
diverse contexts has been a persistent problem in applying entrepreneurship theory
internationally. Most social science research generally, and recent entrepreneurship research in
particular, have been generated in the U.S. and Western Europe (e.g. Great Britain and
Scandinavia). Thus its transferability to contexts where the task and psychic environments may
be vastly different remains in question [Adler, 1991; Thomas, Shenkar and Clarke, 1994].
Further, with a few exceptions [Baum, Olian, Erez, Schnell, Smith, Sims, Scully and Smith,
1993; Huisman, 1985; McGrath, MacMillan and Schienberg, 1992; Shane, 1992], international
comparative studies of entrepreneurship are rare, hampered by barriers such as the difficulty in
gaining access to entrepreneurs in other countries, the expense involved, and the lack of reliable
published data.
Nonetheless, it should be recognized that the relevance and transferability of U.S. research to
non-U.S. contexts is not universal. For example, Kiggundu, Jorgenson and Hafsi [1983] assessed
the applicability of various North American management theories to developing countries. They
found that when there were differences in culture or in economic and political systems,
conventional theories could not explain observed effects and behaviors, particularly if interaction
with the environment was required. In closed systems, protected from external forces,
transferability of concepts and theories was more successful. Since entrepreneurship, by
definition, encompasses the initiation of a new venture, frequently outside traditional boundaries,
we would expect contextual factors to have significant impact.
Other authors have found that many organizational and behavioral models include underlying
assumptions about capitalism and the Protestant work ethic which are not applicable in many
countries [Jaeger and Kanungo, 1990; Kanungo, 1990]. Since the literature in entrepreneurship
largely stems from the work of Max Weber who wrote about the influence of the Calvanist ethic
on the `entrepreneurial spirit', as well as economists from the Austrian and German traditions,
the question of whether entrepreneurs are the same across cultures, is worth asking. In so doing,
the portability of entrepreneurship theory across cultural boundaries can be addressed.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND CULTURE
The assertion that there is a greater predisposition or propensity toward entrepreneurship in some
societies than in others points to the implicit role of culture in the theory of entrepreneurship.
Weber [1904] argued that at the society level, differences in entrepreneurial activity can be
explained by cultural and religious factors, specifically a society's acceptance of the Protestant
work ethic. In his opinion, the Puritan aspects of the Calvinist moral code led to the striving for
profit, and through reinvestment of profit, wealth accumulation. Building on Weber's work ethic
thesis, McClelland [1961] theorized that socialization factors such as parental influences
determine the need for achievement, which in turn generates an entrepreneurial propensity within
a society. He predicted that societies with cultures that emphasize achievement would exhibit
greater levels of entrepreneurship than societies that did not. In more recent work, Shane (1992)
linked individualism to the level of inventiveness in a society. Thus the potential for and
frequency of entrepreneurship has been shown to be associated to a greater or lesser extent with
the occurrence of certain culture specific variables.
Perhaps because of the influence of Weber and McClelland, the ideal profile of the entrepreneur
continues to reflect the characteristics of Protestantism and achievement, being primarily
developed and tested in U.S. settings. As a consequence, "the U.S. culture of individualism and
achievement has dominated the world view of entrepreneurship" [Peterson, 1988:1]. As
international interest in the phenomenon increases, the relevance and applicability of a special set
of "entrepreneurial" attributes across cultural contexts becomes an important line of inquiry.
Accordingly, the core issue driving this effort is the research question: "Are entrepreneurial
attributes universal or do they vary systematically across cultures?" If the prevalence of
entrepreneurial traits and attributes do indeed vary across cultures, then international
comparative research which uses a potentially culture-bound definition of the entrepreneur, may
not yield reliable results.
There are persuasive arguments for a universal as well as a contingency approach to defining
entrepreneurship. On one hand, the task of entrepreneurship seems to pose similar challenges
regardless of context. To form new ventures, entrepreneurs require foresight and energy, passion
and perseverance, initiative and drive. Some research suggests that entrepreneurs across various
cultures are more similar to each other than to their non-entrepreneurial counterparts in their own
countries. For example, Baum et al. [1993] found that differences between Israeli entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs in their attitudes toward achievement, affiliation, autonomy, and
dominance were greater than between Israeli and American entrepreneurs. Similarly, McGrath,
et al. [1992] found support for their hypothesis that entrepreneurs, regardless of nationality or
cultural background, share a predictable set of values that are different from those shared by
individuals who have followed a non-entrepreneurial trajectory. Despite this evidence, it is also
reasonable to expect that entrepreneurs, like their managerial counterparts, reflect the dominant
values of their national culture. Thus, while they might share some universal traits, others might
be more culture specific. For example, unlike the idealized American entrepreneur, characterized
by rugged individualism, there is growing evidence that Asian entrepreneurs rely on familial ties
in developing their business [Redding, 1980. This fact is illustrated by the expanding bamboo
network of overseas Chinese entrepreneurs in South East Asia and the numerous businesses
owned and operated by joint families among the Gujaratis, Parsees, and Marwaris in India.
In the following sections, the issue of systematic variance in the occurrence of an entrepreneurial
profile across various cultures is addressed through a comparative empirical investigation. First,
several key attributes of entrepreneurs are identified based on a review of the entrepreneurship
literature. The relative frequency of occurrences of these attributes are then tested on a
comparable sample of international business and economics students in nine countries. Results
are discussed and interpreted with a particular focus on the role and relevance of comparative
research within the domain of international entrepreneurship.
ENTREPRENEUTRIAL TRAITS
The term entrepreneur implies a configuration of psychological traits, attributes, attitudes, and
values of an individual motivated to initiate a business venture. Despite the argument that using
traits to characterize entrepreneurs may be inappropriate [Gartner, 1988], the literature
investigating the entrepreneurial profile is fairly consistent on the defining characteristics that
distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. In summarizing research on entrepreneurial
behavior, Hisrich [1988; 1990] notes that the entrepreneur is characterized as someone who
demonstrates initiative and creative thinking, is able to organize social and economic
mechanisms to turn resources and situations to practical account, and accepts risk and failure.
In this study, four separate traits are used to define the entrepreneurial profile: innovation, riskpropensity, internal locus of control, and energy level. These were chosen from a number of
alternative traits because they capture different facets of the entrepreneur as defined by the
literature. These specific traits do not necessarily represent a comprehensive or definitional
description of entrepreneurs. They do, however, appear repeatedly in economics, psychology,
sociology, and entrepreneurship research and are representative of the personal characteristics
necessary to meet the tasks and challenges of new venture creation.
Foremost among the traits that comprise the entrepreneurial profile is innovation [Fernald and
Solomon 1987; Hornaday and Aboud 1971; Martin 1984; McClelland 1987; Schumpeter 1966;
Timmons 1978]. Schumpeter [1966] argued that value creation was the fundamental role of
entrepreneurs in a free market system and hence defined entrepreneurs as individuals who
exploit market opportunity through technical and/or organizational innovation [Tiessen, 1997].
In defining the entrepreneur and distinguishing him or her from a small business owner, Garland,
Hoy, Bolton, and Garland observe that "the entrepreneur is characterized principally by
innovative behavior" [Garland, Hoy, Boulton, and Garland, 1984:358].
Closely associated with innovation is risk propensity and tolerance for ambiguity, traits that
appear in the work of Cantillion (circa, 1700) and to whom the concept of the entrepreneur is
credited. Many have argued that the act of venture creation necessarily includes some level of
personal financial and psychological risk [Kets de Vries, 1977]. A number of researchers have
found empirical evidence in support of the view of entrepreneur as risk-taker. Begley and Boyd
[1987], for example, found that business founders scored significantly higher than non-founders
on risk-taking propensity and tolerance of ambiguity. However, it has also been observed that in
most cases a greater propensity for risk is tempered by sound business judgment precluding risktaking in the extreme. Thus entrepreneurs are generally characterized as moderate risk takers
[Begley and Boyd, 1987; Bird, 1989; Brockhaus, 1982; Sexton and Bowman, 1983].
Another psychological trait linked to entrepreneurship is internal locus of control. Internals are
individuals who believe they have considerable influence over outcomes in their lives, while
externals feel dominated by outside forces such as luck, fate, or powerful others [Rotter, 1966].
Shapero [1975], for example, found that entrepreneurs tend to have a higher internal locus of
control orientation than non-entrepreneurs. In other studies as well, internal locus of control has
consistently been a distinguishing characteristic of entrepreneurs who were motivated by
independence to initiate new ventures [Ahmed, 1985; Brockhaus, 1982; Cromie and Johns,
1983]. Finally, entrepreneurs are typically described as having high energy levels, working the
long hours associated with the founding and management of new businesses [Begley and Boyd,
1987; Sexton and Bowman 1983].
To determine whether the entrepreneurial traits profile is applicable to other cultural settings or
are bounded by ethnocentric bias, we undertook to measure the degree to which these four
entrepreneurial characteristics, innovation, risk propensity, locus of control, and energy level, are
prevalent in other cultural settings. With the U.S. model representing the `ideal' entrepreneur
profile, systematic variation in the frequency of entrepreneurial traits was studied as cultural
distance from the U.S. increased. In other words, we sought to investigate whether the frequency
of the entrepreneurial traits varied systematically with cultural distance from the United States. If
indeed such a variation was observed, it would strengthen the argument that the definition of
entrepreneurs was culturally bound. If no systematic variance was evident, the case for universal
traits of entrepreneurs would be bolstered.1
METHODOLOGY
Sample
The sample used for this study was drawn from a data set containing approximately 1800
responses to a survey of third and fourth year students at universities in nine different countries.
The instrument administered to the students was designed to solicit responses indicative of their
attitudes and perceptions about free-markets, competition, and the contribution of entrepreneurs
to economic development. It also asked a series of questions designed to measure personal
values, beliefs, and aptitudes associated with an entrepreneurial orientation. Respondents were
additionally instructed to provide specific biographical background information so they could be
categorized by age, gender, and national origin.
The survey instrument was distributed during 1996 to students studying business, economics, ar
engineering and administered in a classroom setting by local professors who had agreed to
participate in the research project and administer the survey in exchange for access to the survey
data. In the United States, Canada, Ireland, and at schools in European countries where the
students' command of English was highly proficient, the survey was administered in English. In
the case of non-English speaking countries or regions where translations were required, the
instrument was translated and back-translated by bilingual professors at the local institutions
where the instrument was administered.
University students were selected as subjects for this study for several reasons. First, the
identification of a population of practicing entrepreneurs across a wide sample of countries is
difficult if not impossible. Not only is the definitional boundary between entrepreneurs and small
business owners blurred, many countries do not maintain records of new business starts.
Furthermore, many entrepreneurs do not ever register their businesses, especially in the
developing economies where they might be subjected to impediments that governmental
bureaucracies often impose. Second, we would argue that today's university students represent a
significant share of the pool of potential entrepreneurs in both the developed and developing
countries. As the demands of technology and global competition increases, the need for
university-trained entrepreneurs will become more evident and success in business will
increasingly be dependent upon the founder's education and training. Third, sampling only
students in business, economics, and engineering enhances cross-national comparability by
effectively controlling for important variables such as literacy, work experience, age, and
education. Finally, as a matter of practicality, student subjects are generally convenient,
accessible, and through the support of administering professors, it was possible to maintain some
degree of control over the testing environment.
Measures
Of the 62 items on the survey instrument, 34 were used to construct four scales which measure
specific motivational factors believed to discriminate between an entrepreneurial and a
nonentrepreneurial orientation. These four scales are: (1) innovativeness, (2) locus of control, (3)
risk-taking, and (4) energy level. Items and scales for innovativeness, risk-taking, and energy
level were adapted from the Jackson Personality Inventory [Jackson, 1994]. Items used for the
locus of control scale were adapted from Rotter's I-E scale [Rotter, 1966]. Each of the four scales
was subjected to reliability testing using data collected in this nine-country study. Reliability test
results indicate that Cronbach's alpha scores were in an acceptable range for each of the four
scales (generally in the range of .65 to .85) with minimal variance across country samples.
Innovativeness. The Jackson Personality Inventory Manual (
JPI) defines innovativeness as a
tendency to be creative in thought and action. Adjectives on the instrument used to describe
entrepreneurs which highly correlate with innovativeness include imaginative, inventive,
enterprising, original, resourceful, and farsighted [Jackson, 1994]. A high score on the
JPI
innovativeness scale indicates a preference for novel solutions to problems and an appreciation
for original ideas. For this study, 8 items were adapted from the
JPI innovativeness scale.
The eight items chosen were those which appeared to contain the least amount of potential
Anglo-American context bias.
Locus of control. Prior research has demonstrated that compared to nonentrepreneurs,
entrepreneurs tend to exhibit higher internal locus of control [Begley and Boyd, 1987;
Brockhaus, 1982]. In the current study, a modified Rotter I-E Scale, consisting of 10 items, was
used to measure internal locus of control [Rotter, 1966].
Risk-taking. Research has also shown that entrepreneurs tend to have a higher risk-taking
propensity than do non-entrepreneurs, but this risk-taking is tempered by judgement. The
Jackson Personality Inventory risk-taking scale considers four facets of risk-taking: physical,
monetary, social, and ethical was adapted for this study. Only the 8 items emphasizing the
monetary risk-taking facet were adopted. Individuals who score high on this scale are prone to
exposing themselves to situations having uncertain outcomes.
Energy Level. Many entrepreneurs are considered workaholics with a Type A personality, strong
work ethic, perseverance, and commitment [Begley and Boyd, 1987; Sexton and Bowman,
1983]. The Jackson Personality Inventory was used to measure energy level as well. According
to the
JPI manual, `energy level' is an individual's characteristic overall level of functioning
in carrying out day-to-day activities. Someone scoring high on this scale is expected to be
energetic in a variety of self-selected tasks and to demonstrate appreciable enthusiasm and
endurance. Other attributes which describe entrepreneurs and correlate highly with the energy
level construct include enterprising, initiative, energetic, persistent, and selfconfident [Jackson,
1994].
Cultural Distance. Culture measures for this study were derived from the work of Hofstede
(1980]. Of the 15 countries originally sampled in the survey, only nine were in the Hofstede
study. Therefore the analysis was limited to the United States, Singapore, Croatia, Slovenia,
Canada, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, and China. Each of these countries was scored using
Hofstede's four cultural indices denoted as pdi (power distance), uai (uncertainty avoidance), idv
(individualism), and mas (masculinity).
Following Kogut & Singh [1988], the concept of cultural distance was utilized to determine
whether systematic variation exists across cultures in each of the four entrepreneurial traits.
Using Hof stede's indices, a composite index was formed based on the deviation along each of
the four cultural dimensions of each country from the United States index. Giving equal weight
to each of the four dimensions, cultural distance for each country (j) was computed as follows:
Country level data including cultural distance from the United States, number of respondents,
breakdown by gender, and the frequency rate for each of the four entrepreneurial traits are
presented in summary form as Table 1.
RESULTS
Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to test the relationship between cultural
distance from the United States and prevalence of each of the four profile characteristics.
Logistic regression is similar to least-squares regression but is the appropriate method to use
when the dependent variable is binary, i.e.1 or 0, yes or no, high or low. Since in this case the
four dependent variables represent probabilities or propensities to be innovative, a moderate risktaker, etc., it was necessary to convert a respondent's score to a category variable in order to
obtain frequency measures at the country level. Respondent scores for the four traits ranged from
a maximum of 40 (60 for locus of control) to a minimum of 8 (10 for locus of control). A
frequency distribution of scores for each trait was used to determine a suitable breakpoint value
which separated the upper 50 percentile from the lower 50 percentile. In the case of the risktaking scale, two breakpoints were need to determine a "moderate" range of risk-taking with the
second quartile chosen as representing an entrepreneurial risk-taking level. In this manner, each
respondent's trait score was converted to a high (1) or low (0) value.
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
Results of the logistic regression analysis are summarized as Table 2. Cultural distance was
regressed independently on each of the four traits: innovativeness, internal locus of control, risktaking, and energy level. A dummy variable representing gender (Male=1 and Female=0) was
also included as a control variable in all four regression models.
The results of the regression analysis, as depicted in Table 2, indicate no statistically significant
difference in the likelihood of an innovative orientation as cultural distance from the United
States increases. This finding suggests that innovativeness, often considered to be one of the
most crucial characteristics of entrepreneurs, does not vary systematically with cultural distance
from the United States, perhaps attesting to its universality. The implication is that regardless of
culture, entrepreneurs are individuals who buck the institutional infrastructure to create new
ventures and need to be innovative, discover new needs in the market, and exploit niches in the
industry. These results are consistent with extant theory and prior research. In every definition of
entrepreneurship, innovation is inevitably a core component. In the same vein, Kolvereid and
Obloj [1994] in a comparison of Polish, British and Norwegian entrepreneurs, found innovation
to be a common motivation for the act of new venture formation.
The results also indicate that the likelihood of an internal locus of control orientation decreases
as the cultural distance from the U.S. increases. In other words, as cultural distance from the
United States increases, the degree to which a person feels in control of his or her destiny
diminishes. This finding implies that locus of control, long thought to be a distinguishing trait of
entrepreneurs, may in fact be a culture-specific quality related to the individualism dimension.
As the original Hofstede [1980] data show, the United States ranked highest on this dimension
followed by Great Britain and Australia, with Venezuela and Columbia ranking the lowest. As
cultures become less individualistic and more collectivist, people are more likely to identify with
the group to which they belong, diminishing the degree of control that they feel over their
environments, but not necessarily diminishing their entrepreneurial propensity. In high
individualism countries, having autonomy is more important, individual decisions are considered
superior, and individual initiative is socially encouraged. In collectivistic countries, security is
rated as more important, group decisions are considered better than individual ones, and
individual initiative is discouraged. In noting the relationship between individualism and
organizational science, Hofstede observed "The individualism-collectivism dimension is also
visible in normative organization theories coming from different countries. The United States is
the major exporter of modern organization theories, but its position of extreme individualism in
comparison to other countries makes the relevance of some of its theories in other cultural
environments doubtful" [Hofstede, 1980: 219].
The third dimension, risk-taking propensity, also varied systematically with cultural distance
from the U. S. As cultural distance from the U.S. increases, the likelihood of a moderate risktaking propensity decreases. This finding provides strong evidence to suggest that risk-tasking
propensity, a fundamental component of an American entrepreneurial profile in fact varies
systematically across cultures and may be related to the uncertainty avoidance dimension of
culture. Hofstede's initial study found that low uncertainty avoidance cultures are less
conservative, more achievement oriented, and manifest more willingness to take risk than high
uncertainty avoiding cultures. They also tend to have advanced modernization, older
democracies, and less legislation - all factors associated with entrepreneurship. Thus the question
of whether entrepreneurial behavior is associated with risk-taking, with deeper cultural values, or
with the infrastructures associated with these remains unresolved.
Similar to locus of control and riskpropensity, the likelihood of high energy level decreases with
cultural distance from the United States. This finding, somewhat harder to explain, may be
linked to the individualism dimension of culture and actually be an artifact of the manner in
which the questions are posed. In an early study, Converse [1972] compared the time use of
citizens in 12 countries and suggested that overall time use could be categorized broadly along
North-South dimensions which reflect the level of modernization in a society. He found that in
the more developed North countries, which in Hofstede's study are the more individualistic,
people spend more time watching TV, shopping, in personal care, in religious activities, and
reading papers. In contrast, in the South countries, or the more collectivist ones, time is spent
resting, cooking, tending animals, gardening, being outdoors, sleeping, and eating. However,
more research is needed to determine whether our finding on energy level is related to some
underlying work ethic (e.g. Protestant work ethic) or is simply an artifact of the type of questions
asked.
Gender was used as a control variable in all four regression models based on the findings of prior
research which suggest that, independent of culture, there are differences in psychological profile
between male and female entrepreneurs [e.g. Fernald & Solomon 1987]. However, no significant
differences were found between males and females on either locus of control orientation or
energy level. On the other hand, there were significant difference between males and females
with respect to innovativeness and risktaking indicating that males exhibit greater levels of
innovativeness and risktaking than their female counterparts.
DISCUSSION
In identifying the sixty two most prominent `writers on organizations', Pugh and Hickson note
that their list contained forty three Americans, twelve Britons, two Canadians, two Frenchmen,
two Germans and one Dutchman. In commenting on this the authors observe, "The Anglo
predominance is no surprise, since organization theory accelerated first in these societies, even
though its origin is attributed to Weber, one of two Germans and Fayol, one of two Frenchman.
Nor is it surprising that all are from the advanced industrialized societies of Western Europe
where research could be financed and freedom of ideas encouraged [Pugh and Hickson 1997:5].
The core question guiding this study is whether the prevalence of traits comprising the
entrepreneurial profile vary systematically across different cultures. In this study we found that
three traits associated with entrepreneurial potential, namely internal locus of control, moderate
risk-taking propensity, and high energy level decrease in frequency as cultural distance from the
United States increases. The frequency of an innovative orientation, however, does not appear to
vary with cultural distance.
Understanding cultural influences on the development of entrepreneurial potential is crucial to
the internationalization of entrepreneurship theory and the development and implementation of
policy initiatives to encourage entrepreneurship in various areas of the globe. By observing the
occurrence of specific entrepreneurial traits as cultural distance from the United States increases,
we sought to gain some insight to the relevance and applicability of the existing entrepreneurial
archetype in different cultural contexts. Although the use of students rather than entrepreneurs
does pose a limitation, it also facilitates the comparison of the frequency of appearance of each
of the four profile elements. The underlying logic is similar to the social legitimation or
supportive environment perspective put forth by Etzioni [1987]. The prevailing values and
beliefs among the relevant pool of potential entrepreneurs may make an individual more or less
inclined to go into business for herself or himself [Davidsson and Wiklund, 1997].
As anticipated, the results of this study raise more questions about similarities and differences in
entrepreneurship around the world than they answer. Most significant among these is the
fundamental issue of whether entrepreneurship and the defining characteristics of the
entrepreneur are perceived through an ethnocentric lens. In other words, does our conception of
the entrepreneur stem from our exposure to and experience with the American entrepreneur? If
so, is it possible that we do not have the language and the tools to identify and track
entrepreneurs in other cultural contexts? On the other hand, is it possible that McClelland and
Weber were accurate in suggesting that entrepreneurship is the domain of achieving societies
that adhere to the Protestant ethic? Perhaps an historically robust U.S. economy can be explained
by adherence to strong entrepreneurial values which are an integral part of its national culture.
The celebration of entrepreneurship and the concept that America is a country where anything is
possible continues to be an enduring attraction to immigrants from all over the world. As Hull,
Bosely, and Udell [19] observed, ". . . the American public has long regarded entrepreneurship as
a time tested way to realize the American dream." The third alternative is that the answer lies
somewhere in between the universal and culturally contingent extremes.
This study alone does not provide a definitive answer to the question: Is the American
entrepreneurial archetype universal? Much more research is required. Case studies that permit
the induction of the entrepreneurial profile among various societies are necessary for the
development of typologies of international entrepreneurs that can parsimoniously capture
similarities and dif ferences. These can then be tested empirically using large samples of
entrepreneurs. Culture, representing the shared values and beliefs of a society, is an important
contextual factor affecting the number of potential entrepreneurs in a given community, region,
or country. Identifying the nature of the relationship between culture and entrepreneurship can
provide governments with information necessary for targeted programs intended to motivate new
venture creation and thereby increase employment and add to the nation's economic vitality and
flexibility. But motivational differences across cultures can be striking. As McGrath, MacMillan,
Yang, and Tsai observe: "People who are from `live to work' cultures respond to the excitement
and self-fulfilling aspects of entrepreneurship. People from `work to live' cultures respond better
to arguments that stress upward mobility [1992:454]. Clearly, rigorous comparative research in
the domain of international entrepreneurship can help develop better and more generalizable
theories of venture creation to guide public policy.
[Footnote]
NOTES
[Footnote]
1. In this paper cultural distance is used to measure differences in national culture across the nine
countries. However, it should be noted that the cultural dimensions used are also correlated with
other institutional, political and economic factors (e.g. see Hofstede, 1980).
[Reference]
REFERENCES
[Reference]
Adler, N.J. 1991. International dimensions of organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Kent
Publishing.
Ahmed, S.U. 1985. nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and entrepreneurship.
Personality and Individual Differences 6(6): 781-782.
Audretsch, D.B. 1991. The role of small business in restructuring Eastern Europe. 5th Workshop
for Research in Entrepreneurship. Vaxjo, Sweden.
[Reference]
Baum, J.R., Olian, J.D., Erez, M., Schnell, E.R., Smith, K.G., Sims, H.P. Scully, J.S., & Smith,
K.A. 1993. Nationality and work role interactions: A cultural contrast of Israeli and U.S.
entrepreneurs' versus managers' needs. Journal of Business Venturing 8: 499-512.
Baumol, W.J. 1986. Entrepreneurship and a century of growth. Journal of Business Venturing,
1:141-145.
Begley, T.M. & Boyd, D.P. 1987. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in
entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses, Journal of Business Venturing 2: 79-93.
[Reference]
Birch, D.L. 1979. The job generation process. Cambridge, MA: M.LT. Program on
Neighborhood and Regional Change.
Bird, B. 1989. Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Birley, S. 1986. The role of new firms: Births, deaths and job generation. Strategic Management
Journal, 7: 361-376.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1982. The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C.A. Kent, D.L.
[Reference]
Sexton, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Converse, P. 1972. Country differences in time use. In A. Szalai (Ed.), The use of time. The
Hague: Mouton.
Cromie, S. & Johns, S. 1983. Irish entrepreneurs: Some personal characteristics. Journal of
Occupational Behavior 4:317-324.
[Reference]
Davidsson, P. & Wilkund, J. 1997. Val-, ues, beliefs and regional variations in new firm
formation rates. Journal of Economic Psychology 18: 179-199.
Dunkelberg, W.C. & Cooper, A.C. 1982. Entrepreneurial typologies. In K.H. Vesper (Ed.),
Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Wellesley, MA: Bason College.
Etzioni, A. 1987. Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation. Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization 8: 175-189.
[Reference]
Fernald, L.W. & Solomon, G.T. 1987. Value profiles of male and female entrepreneurs. Journal
of Creative Behavior 21: 235-247.
Gartner, W.B. 1988. "Who is an Entrepreneur?" is the wrong question. American Journal of
Small Business 20: 11-32.
Gibb, A. 1993. Small business development in Central and Eastern Europe Opportunity for a
rethink? Journal of Business Venturing 8: 461-486.
[Reference]
Hagen, E.E. 1962. On the theory of social change: How economic growth begins. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.
Harper, M. 1991. The role of enterprise in poor countries. Entrepreneurship, Theory and
Practice, 15(4): 7-11.
Hisrich, R.D. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past, present, and future. Journal of Small Business
Management 26(4):1-4.
Hisrich, R.D. 1990. Entrepreneurship/ intrapreneurship. American Psychologist, 45(2): 209-222.
[Reference]
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
[Reference]
Hornaday, J.A. & Aboud, J. 1971. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personnel
Psychology 24: 141-153.
Huisman, D. 1985. Entrepreneurship: Economic and cultural influences on the entrepreneurial
climate. European Research 13(4): 10-17.
Hull, D. L., Bosely, J. j., and Udell, G. G. 1985. Renewing the hunt for the heffalump:
Identifying potential entrepreneurs by personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business
Management 22: 10-18.
Jackson, D.N. 1994. Jackson Personality Inventory - Revised Manual. Port Heron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems, Inc.
[Reference]
Jaeger, A.M. & Kanungo, R.N. 1990. Introduction: The need for indigenous management in
developing countries. In A.M. Jaeger and R.M. Kanungo (Eds.), Management in Developing
Countries. New York: Routlege.
Johnson, B.R. 1990. Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of
achievement motivation and the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice 14: 39-54.
Kanungo, R.N. 1990. Work: Western models, Eastern realities. In A.M. Jaeger and R.M.
Kanungo (Eds.), Management in Developing Countries. New York: Routlege.
[Reference]
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. 1977. The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads. journal
of Management Studies 14(1): 34-57.
Kiggundu, M.N., Jorgenson, j.J. & Hafsi, T. 1983. Administrative theory and practice in
developing countries. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 6684.
[Reference]
Kilby, P. 1971. Hunting the Heffalump. In P. Kilby (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Economic
Development. New York: Free Press.
Kogut, B. & Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal
of International Business Studies 20: 411-432.
Kolvereid, L. & Obloj, K. 1994. Entrepreneurship in emerging versus mature economies: An
exploratory survey. International Small Business Journal 12(4): 14-27.
[Reference]
Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review 21(1):135-172.
Martin, M.J.C. 1984. Managing technological innovation and entrepreneurship. Reston, VA:
Prentice-Hall.
McClelland, D.C. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[Reference]
McClelland, D.C. 1987). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Journal of Creative
Behavior 21: 219-233.
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, LC., & Scheinberg, S. 1992. Elitists, risk-takers, and rugged
individualists? An exploratory analysis of cultural differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 7: 115-135.
[Reference]
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, LC., Yang, E.A., & Tsai, W. 1992. Does culture endure, or is it
malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing 7:
Pugh, D.S. & Hickson, D.J. 1997. Writers on organizations, 5u` edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publication.
Redding, S.G. 1980. Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes:
An exploratory
[Reference]
view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management Studies 17(2): 127-147.
Reynolds, P.D. 1987. New firm's societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal of
Business Venturing 2: 231246.
[Reference]
Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80, Whole No. 609.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1965. Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In Aitken, H.G.J. (Eds.),
Explorations in Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[Reference]
Sexton, D. L. & Bowman, N.B. 1983. Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of students:
Preliminary results. In J.A. Hornaday, Timmons, J.A. & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA:
Babson College.
Shane, S.A 1992. Why do some society invent more than others? Journal of Business Venturing
7: 29-46.
Shapero, A. 1975. The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today 9(6): 83-88.
[Reference]
Swain, F.S. 1985. The "new entrepreneur": An old answer for today's marketplace. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson Col
[Reference]
lege Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 400-408.
Thomas, A.S., Shenkar, O., & Clarke, L.D. 1994. The globalization of our mental maps:
Evaluating the geographic scope of JIBS coverage. Journal of International Business Studies
25(4): 675-686.
[Reference]
Tiessen, J.H. 1997. Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for
international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing 12: 367-384.
Timmons, J.A.1978. Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of
Small Business 3: 5-17.
Van de Ven, A.H. 1992. Longitudinal methods for studying the process of entrepreneurship. In
D.L. Sexton & J.D. Kasarda (Eds.) The State of the Art in Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 214242.
[Reference]
Weber, Max. 1904. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills,
translated and edited (1948). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
[Reference]
West, P. 1997. Frameworks for research and theory development in entrepreneurship. Academy
of Management Proceedings, pp. 113-117.
Wortman, M.S. 1987. Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical
research in the field. Journal of Management 13(2): 259-279.
[Author Affiliation]
Anisya S. Thomas*
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Stephen L. Mueller**
FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
[Author Affiliation]
*Dr. Anisya Thomas is Associate Professor of Management and International Business at Florida
International University. Her research interests include international strategic management and
entrepreneurship.
**Dr. Stephen Mueller is Assistant Professor of Management and International Business at
Florida International University. His research interests include international comparative
management issues and entrepreneurship.
A previous version of this paper was awarded the Best Empirical Paper award at the 1998
USASBE meetings and appears in its Proceedings. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
contributions of Professor Jan Luytjes who was instrumental in initiating the cross national
collaborative team that gathered the data used in the project. We are also grateful to our
collaborators in the various countries whose effort and cooperation were essential to the
completion of this project. We also thank No Zander and the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful and helpful comments.