Description
On this detailed paper pertaining to a conceptual franiewurk for descrimiig the phenlohiebon of new venture creation.
' Academy o/M<ino|.a»iil fl«»ltw. IWH. Vol. ill. No. 4. B98.7M.
A Conceptual Franiewurk for DescriMiig
the PhenLOHieBon of New Venture Creation
WILLIAM B. GARTNER
Gfiorgetown University
A jfiview of the eintrBprenturship literature sugijests Jhat differences
atnong entwpreneurs and among their venitires are as gt«at as Ihe
variation between entrepreneurs and nonenti^preneurs and between
new firms ttnd established firms. A /rameu-ork for describing new
venture creation integrates four maj'or perspectives in entrepre-
neufship." characteristics of the individuaJ(s) who start the venture,
the oi^nfzcition which they create, the oiivironment sitrrounding the
new venture, and the process by which tho new venture is started.
Tho major ihiust of most entrapreneurship
re.'5earch has been to provp thai entrepreneurs are
different from nonontrepreiieurs (Brpakhaua,
lesOfi, maobi Carluud, Hkjy, Boulton, & Garland,
1984; Collins & Moore, 1964; DaCarlo & Lyons,
1979! Hornadoy & Aboud, 1871; Howell, 1972;
Komives, 1972; Litzlngftr, 3965; McClelland,
19B1: MGCleliand & Winter. 1969; Palmer, 1971;
Sdirier, 1978; Shapero, 1975) and that entrapre-
neuria! firms ave different from nonentrepre-
neurial firms (Collins & Moore, 1970; Cooper,
1979; Smith, 1987; Thorne & Ball, 1981). The
biisic assumption underlyingthis research is that
all entrepreneurs and their new ventures are
much the samo. Tho present paper suggests that
thi3 differences among entrepreneurs and among
their ventures are much greater than one might
expect; in fact, tho diversity may be larger than
tho differences between entrepreneurs and non>
entrepreneurs and between entrepreneurial firms
and nonentrepreuaurlaifirnis. Once the diver-
sity among entrepreneurs arid their ventures is
nicogtiized, the necessity for finding a way to
classify them becomes appar<3nt. Groups sharing
The research leading to this paper was supported in part by
a grant from the National Science Foundation and is based
on thn author's doctoral dissort^tion. Additional support was
provided by the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Univer-
sity of Virginiii.
Requests for reprinlii should he sent ta William B. Oartner,
Center for EntreprenEursltip Studieii. School of Business Ad-
nnli,istratIon,Gaorgetiiwn University, Washington, D.C. 20057.
similar characteristics must exist within the uni-
vorsa of entrepreneurs and their ventures. How
are those groups revealed? Many different charac-
teristics have been employed in past research to
describe entrepreneurs and their ventures. Do the
characteristics themselves fail into gioups? In
other words, does one subset of characteristics
describo a single aspect of new venture creation,
stich as the enviroiimBnt surrounding the new
venture, or the features of the organization that
results?
This paper attempts to organize the many vtiri-
ables that have been used in past research to
desoribe entrepreneurs and their ventures into a
comprehensive framework. Far from being reduc-
tive, this new view of the entrepreneurship litera-
ture should provide valuable insights into the
process of now venture creation by showing it to
be a complex and multidimensional phe-
nomenon. Once a clear retrospective analysis of
the literature is provided, future research can pro-
ceed on more solid footing. Instead of many dif-
ferent researchers palpating different parts of the
elephant and reaching reductive conclusions, at
least all will know the name, if not the nature, of
the beast with which they are dealing.
Much past research han been unidimensionnl,
focusing on a single aspect of new venture crea-
tion, and its main purpose has been to show how
entrepreneurs or their firms differ from nonen-
trei^reneurs o; nonontrepreneurial firms. (In fact,
it might be said that unidimensional research goes
896
hand in hand with tho attitude that all entrepre-
neurs end thair firms are alike, the task of the
unidtmensional research being to prove how all
things entrepreneurial differ front all things
nonentrepreneurial.) It has been consistently
pointed out, however, in reviews of literature on
entrepreneurs, for example, (Brockhaug, 1982;
Glueck & Mescon, 1980; McCain & Smith, 1981)
that variables that are assumed to differentiote
entrepreneurs from nonantrapreneurs (managers,
for instance] frequently do not bear up under
close scrutiny. Yet the search for these elusive
variables continues, and entrepreneurs and pro-
spective antrepreneurs are subjected to batteries
of psychological tasts in attempts to isolate the
singla spring that makes them tick differently
from others. As with other aspects of naw ven-
ture creation, attempts ara made to isolate key
variables that separata entrepreneurial situations
from nonentieprenaurial onas. Pennings (19B0,
1982a, 1982bJ has explored environments that
support naw venture creation; Van do Ven (1980)
and Kimberly (1979) have focused on tha pro-
cess oi: venture creation.
This search for key variables is a motivation
for rasearch only if the task of entreprenaurial
research is taken to ba tha distinction of antrapra-
neurs and things antrapranaurial from nonantra-
preneurs and nonantrepreneurial situations. If a
much different perspective is taken, tha perspec-
tive that there are many different kinds of antra-
prenaur and many ways to ba ono and that the
firms thay craata vary enormously as do the envi-
ronments they craata them in, than tha burdan
shifts. How is Bach naw venture creation differ-
ent from another? Rasaarchars naed to think in
terms of a combination of variables that make up
each naw venture creation (Van de Ven, Hudson,
& Schroadar, 1984). The creation of a new ven-
ture is a multidimensional phanomenon; each
variable describes only a singla dimension of the
phanomanon and cannot ba taken alone. There
is a growing awareness that the process of start-
ing a business is not a single well-worn route
marched along again and again by idi^ntical antra-
prenaurs (Hartman, 1983), Naw venture creation
is a. complex phanomanon: antrepreneurs and.
their firms vary widely; the actions thay take or
do not taka and the environments they operate in
and respond to ara equally di varse—and ail these
elemants form nomplax and unique combinations
in tho creation of each liaw venture. It is not
onough for researohera to seek out and focus on
sorna concept of tha "average" antrapranaur and
the "typical" vantura creation. Naw organiza-
tional forms avolva through variation, and this
variation tn naw vantura creation nacils to ba
studied (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Fraaman, 1977;
Ffeffer & Salandk, 1978; Waick, 1979). This insis-
tence on variation can ba sean, for example, in
Vesper (1979), who posits 11 different kinds of
entrapranaur, and in a recant study by Coopar
and Dunkalbarg (19B1), which reveals that entre-
preneurs in certain industries can ba vary diffar-
snt from thosa in other industries.
Onca tha variation and complexity in naw ven-
ture creation is recognized, it than is necessary
to find a framework for systematically discovar-
ing and avaluating tha similarities and differancas
among new ventures (McKalvay, 1982). Onca it
is no longer assumed that all entrepranaurs and
thair ventures prasent a homogeneous population,
than other homogcmaous subsets within the antre-
pranaurial univarso must be sought out in order
that antraprenaurial research can produca mean-
ingful results. A primary value of tha framework
for describing new vanture creation presented
hara Is that it provides a systematic means of
comparing and contrasting complax ventures; it
provides a way to conceptualize variation and
complexity.
A Framework for Describing
New Venture Creation
Daflnitions of key words such as entrepreneur
ara oftan various and always a problem in tha
study of antreprimeurship (Brockhaus, 1980b;
Komives, 19139; Long, 1983). Because the entre-
preneur is only one dimension of this framework,
it saems mora important in this paper to define
tha term "naw venture creation." Such a defini-
tion can be outlined hare with lass trepidation, if
only because thara is less precedent.
New venture creation is the organizing (in the
Welckian sense) of new organizations. "To orga-
niza is to assambli) ongoing interdapandant ac-
tions into sensible :;aquances that ganarate sensi-
ble outcomes" (Weick, 1979, p. 3). The dafini-
tion of naw venture creation is synonymous with
8 9 /
the dofinition of the nqw organisation developed
by the Strategic Planning Institute (1978, p. t-2):
a new businesis venture launched as one of tha
following:
1. an independent entity
2. a new profit ceittar within a company which
has other iistabllshgd buslnessas, or
. :i, a joint venture which satisfies the foHoiving
criteria:
1. Us founders must'scquira expertise in pro-
ducts, process, maricet and/or technology.
?„. Kesults ere expncted beyond the year in
which thq ipveatment is mada.
:i. It is considered a new market entrant hy its
competitors.
•i. It is TRgardsd as a new source of supply by Its
potential customern.
The trnpartancD of this definition should not be
overlookod, because it recognizes the niuUidi-
niensional aspHcta of now venture creation. First,
it enriphasi^es that individuals with expertise are
a key element of the new viinture. At the same
time that it recognizes the new venture as an
organizational Eintity, it stresses that the new ven-
ture is not instnntaueously produced, but evolves
over time (beyond a year). The new venture is
seen further within the context of its environ-
njent: it is foitied to seek out resources, and it
competes in the rnarket place. Ait these aspects
of the new venture must be kapt in mind if it is to
be adequately described and classified.
Figure 1 presents a framework for describing
the creation of a new venture across four dimen-
sions; (a) individuals)—the i:H}rson(s) involved in
starting a new organization; (h) organization—the
kind of firm that is started; (c) environment—tho
situation surrounding and influencing the new
oruanization; and (d) new venture process—the
actions undertaken by the individual(s) to start
thij venture.
Any new venture is a gestalt (Miller, 1981.J of'
variables frurn the four dimensions. No new ven-
ture creation can be comprehensively described,
nor can its complexity be udequately accounted
for, unless all of its four dimensions ara investi-
gated and an attempt is made to discover how
variables from each dimension interact \vith vari-
ables from other dimensions.
This framework is tbe first to combine the four
dimensions of venture creation, though other
researchers have sought to combine two or more
of the dimensions. This "thinking across dimen-
sions" is especially apparent in the work of those
theorists and researchers who have developed
entrepreneurial clnssification schemes. Classifi-
cations of entrepreneurs themselves are often
based on two dimensions: individual characteris-
tics plus new venture process considerations —
tho word often used is "stylo." Danhoff (1949)
based his scheme on the entrepreneur's open-
ness to iimovation; Cole (1959) on the sophistica-
tion of the entrepreneur's decision making tools;
and Oailey (1971) according to bureaucratic or
entrepreneurial style. Smith (1967) divided entre-
preneurs by a stylistic orientation—craftsman or
opportunistic. Fiiley and Aldag (1980) used
management orientation- Vesper (1979,1980) in
two similar classifications differentiated among
ontropreneurs by the activities involved in busi-
ness formation and operation, and in another
scheme (1980) by competitive strategy. In Coo-
per (1979) entrepreneurs are linked to particular
environments, and, as cited previously. Cooper
and Dunkelberg'ii (1981) study matches different
entrepreneurs and their characteristics to the
types of firms they are likely to start. In Vesper's
(1979) classification tha entrepreneur's type of
firm is also a factor, es it is in several other
Giassificatlon studies (Braden, 1977; Pilley &
Aldagi 1980; Smith, 1987). Recently, Van do Ven
et di.'s (1984) erapirical study examined educa-
tional software) firms on the basis of three dimen-
SNDIVIDUAL{S!
ENVIRONMKNT.:?*- - • • ORGANIZATION
"PROCESS
Figure 2. A framework for describing new venture creation.
69a
sions: entrepreneurial—background character-
istics and psychological attributes of the found-
ing entrepnneuts; otganfzationBl—^planning And
organizational activities undertaken before and
after company startup; and ecological—support
and resources made available to influence the
development of the industry. These classlflca-
(ion schemes and frameworks are ways of Btep-
ping baGk to get an overall picturot a process like
tnodel-bullding, which involves integration and
synthesis.
IndtviduaKs)
Whether an ontrepreneur is viewed as a "cap-
lain of industry," a hard-headed risk bearer (Mill,
1846), risk taker (Palmer, 1971) or a "rapacious
risk avoider" (Webster, 1978): whether he merely
metamorphoses into an entrepreneur at certain
moments and is something else the rest of the
time (Danhoff, 1949), or whether his need for
achievement (McClelland, 1961) and capacity for
Innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) are always tick-
ing away; whether he is a "displaced persitn"
IShapero, 1979), something dose to a juvenile
delinquent (Gould. 1069), or a "man apart" (Liles,
1974) with an absolutely clear-headed (veridical)
pBrception of reality (Schrage, 1985), an aberrant
"artist" with an "innate sense of impending
change" {Hill, 1982); or whether he is, indeed,
that completely political animal, a community
builder (Schell & Davig, 1981), the entrepreneur
is overwhelniingly perceived to be different in
important wnys from the nonentrepreneur, and
m«ny researchers have believed these differences
to lie in Ihe background and personality of the
entrepreneur.
One often pursued avamie has been the attempt
to develop a psychological profile of the entrepre"
neur and to measure such psychological charac-
teristics as need for achievement (DeCarlo &
Lyons, 1979; Hornaday & Aboud, 1971; McCle-
lland, 1961; McClelland & Winter, 1969;
Schwartz, 1978). However, other researchers have
not found need for achievement useful in describ-
ing entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 19B0bi Litzingei,
1965; Schrage, 1965); still others hevo questioned
the value and validity of using psychological
characteristics of any kind to describe entra-
tironeuis (Broekhaus, 1982; Glueck & Mescon,
1980; Jenks, 19B5; Kilby, 1971; McCain & Smith,
1981; Van de Ven, 1080). However, the following
psychological cliaiacteriatics have been used in
many studies and may have some validity in dif-
ferentiating among t^'pes of entrepreneurs (Brock-
haus, 1982):
1. Need for achievemant
Z. Locus of contiol
3. Risk taking propensity
Some researchers have found it fruitful to look
at the entrepreneur's background, experience, and
attitudes. Somd individual characteristics that
may be of value in describing entrepreneurs are:
1. Job satisfaction (Collins & Moore, 1(170; Kom-
ives, 1972)
2. Previous work e>
erieni:e (Cooper, 1970; La-
ment, 1972; Susbauer, 1972)
3. Entiepreneuiial piucents (Collins & Moore, 1970;
Roberts & Wainer. 19B8; Schrier, 1975; Socrest,
1975; Siiapcro, 1(172; Susbauer, 1972)
4. Ago (Koinives, 1972; Liias, 1974; Roberts &
Wainer, 1960; Scicrest, 1975; Thome & Ball,
1981)
5. Education (Bcockhaus & Nord, 1979; Collins &
Moore, 1984; Howoll, 1972; Roberts, 1969;
Susbauer, 1989)
Process
In 1949 Danhoff wrote, "Entrepreneurship is
an activity or function and not a specific individ-
ual or occupation . . . the specific personal entre-
preneur is an unrenlistic abstraction" (p. 21).
Other theorists have pursued this idea of func-
tion and have tried to differentiate tho entre-
preneurial function from other more routine
functions such as tha managerial function (Bau-
mol. 1968; Cole, 1985; Hartmann, 1959; Lniben-
stffin, 1966; Schumpeter, 1934). This "dynamic"
aspect of the entrepreneur has been acknowl-
edged in the work of eight researchors who have
enumerated csrtain tictions that an entrepreneur
platforms in order to create a new venture. Except
for Peterson and Berger (1971), who described
tha entrepreneurial activities of record producers,
these studies were theoretical, that is, based on
general observation rather than systematic re-
ssEsrch. The similarities in their views are sum-
marized here; six common behaviors are listed
(the order does not imply a sequence of actions):
1. The entrepreneur locates a business opportu-
nity (Cole, lSBS; Kilby. 1971; Maidique, 1980;
Schumpater, 1934:; Vesper. 1980).
2, The entrepreneur accumulates resources (Cole,
1965; Kilby, 1971; Leibenstein, 1968; Peterson &
Berger, 1971; Schumpeter, 1934; Vesper, 1960).
699
9. The entrepreneur macketii products and ser-
¥lce» (Cola, iOfiSj Kilby. 1B71; LeibiHOtein,
lOea; Maidique, 1980; Peteraon & Be^er,
1971! SchumpatBr, 19345 Vesper. 1980).
4. The entrapreneur produces tho product (Kilby,
1971; Maidique, 1980; Peterson & Berger,
1971; Schumpeter. 1934; Vesper, 1980).
f i. The entrepreneur builds an. organization (Cole,
1965; Kilby, 1971; I^lbenttein, 1968; Schum-
peter, 1934).
a. The enttepieneur responds to sovarnmant and
society (Cole, 1865; Kilby. 1971).
Environment
Much of the current concern (Paters & Water-
man, 1982) over how to design organizations that
keup and encourage innovati\'e individuals is an
indirect acknowledgment that entrepreneurs do
no): operate in vacuums — they respond to their
onvironments. The existence of highly support-
tvE! regional entrepreneurial environments
(Cooper, 1970; Draheim, 1972; Pennings, 19a2b;
Susbauer, 1972) — including "incubator organi-
^slions"—can, from one perspijctive, be said actu-
ally to create entrepreneurs. "The idea of "pushes"
and "pulls" from the onvironinent has found its
way into many studies of entropreneurship
fShapero & Sokol, 1982).
!n organization theory literature, two different
views of the envirunment hava been developed.
One perspective, environmental determinism,
sees the environment as an outside set of condi-
tions lo which the organization must adapt
lAldrich, 1979; Aldrich & Pfefwr, 1976; Hannan
& Freeman, 1977). The other perspective, streta-
gic choice, sees the environmont as a "reality"
that organizations create via the selectivity of their
own perceptions (Child, 1972; Storbuck, 1976;
Weick, 1979). In the entrepreneurship literature,
both perspectives on the environment have been
taken. In the present paper those characteristics
Ihat are viewed as relatively fixed conditions
Imposed on the new venture Irom without are
cniled environmental variables. Variables over
which the organization has more control (strategic
choice variables) are more readily viewed as char-
acteristics of the organization itself and are treated
as such.
In an overview of 17 research papers on envi-
ronmental variables that Influenced new venture
creation, Bruno and Tyebjee (1982) found 12 fac-
loirs that they fudged stimulated entrepreneur-
ship;
1. Venture cetpltsl availability
2. Piesence d ej^erienced entiepreMure
3. Technically sMHed labor force
4. Accessibility of suppliers
5. Accessibility of customers or new markets
B. Governmental influences
7. Proximity of universities
8. Availability of land or facilitias
9. Accessiiility of transportetion
10. Attitude of the area population
11. Availability of supporting services
12. Living conditions
Another study of environmental influences on
new venture creation was Pennings' studies of
organization birth frequencies (1980, 1982a,
1982b). Pennings found that organization birth
rates were high in areas with: high occupational
and industrial differentiation; high percentages
of recent immigrants in the population; a large
industrial base; larger size urtian areas; and avail-
ability of financial resources.
Another fiuld of research has taken the deter-
ministic perspective regarding the environment
and new ventures; industrial economics. Oliver
Wiillamson (1975) oxplored the process by which
the failure of markets to coordinate efficiently
tha production and distribution of goods and ser-
vices often resulted in the start-up of organiza-
tions to coordinate the production function
through administration. Porter (1980) focused on
the competitive environment that confronts firms
in a particular industry. Porter's work provides
five environmental influences on organizations:
barriers to entry, rivalry among existing com-
petitors, pressure from substitute products, bar-
gaining power of buyers, and bargaining power
of suppliers.
Organization
Despite a bold early attempt by Stauss (1944)
to direct the focus away from the entrepreneur
and toward his created organization (by claiming,
somewhat tortuously, that the firm is tho en-
trepreneur), most subsequent studies of new ven-
ture creation have neglected to comment on or
even communicate certain characteristics of the
organizations on which they focused. The as-
sumption behind tbis seems to derive from two
other assumptions: (a) if ell entrepreneurs are
virtually alike and (b) they all go through the
same process to create their ventures, then (c)
the organizations they create must, like widgets,
not be of any interest in themselves.
700
Many research samples In entrepreneurship
studies are selected, for example, without regard
to type of firm (i.e., manufacturing, service, retail,
wholesale). Ot' the studies that have indicated
tha type of firm, Smith (1987), Cooper (1970),
Collins and Moore (1970), Susfaauer (1972), and
Braden (1977) studied manufacturing firms, and
most focused on high technology menufecturing
firms. Litzin,i^r (1965) studied motel firms, and
Mescon and Montanari (19B1) studied real estate
firms. However, researchers in these studies made
no attempts to compare tbe type of firm studied
to other typos of firm to determine what differ-
ence type of firm might make in the process of
new venture creation. Cooper and Dunkelberg
(1981), Gartner |19B2), and Van de Ven et al.
(19S4) have begun to link type of firm across
other dimensions, such as entrepreneurial back-
ground and response to environment.
The presence of partners is another firm char-
acteristic suggested by Timmons, Smollen, and
Dingee (1977) as a vital factor in starting certain
types of firm, and some research has mentioned
partners as a characteristif: of the firms studied
(Cooper, 1970; DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979).
Strategic choice variables are treated here as
characteristics of the organization. Porter (19B0)
identified three generic competitive strategies that
firms may "choose": (a) overall cost leadership,
(b) differentiation, and (c) focus. Vesper (1980)
identified 14 competitive entry wedges: the new
product or service, parallel competition, franchise
entry, geographical transfer, supply shortage, tap-
ping unutilized resources, customer contract,
becoming a second source, joint ventures, li-
censing, market rolinquishment, sell off of di-
vision, favored purchasing by government, and
governmental rule changes,
Conclusion
Listing each variable of new venture creation
under the appropriate dimension of the frame-
work illustrates the potential for a high degree of
complexity in the interaction of these variables
within the multidimensional phenomenon of
venture creation (Figure 2).
The four dimensional conceptual framework
can be seen as a kaleidoscope, as an instrument
through which to view the enormously varying
patterns of new venture creation. Past attempts
to differentiate the typical entrepreneur and his/
her typical creation from all nonentrepreneurs
and all nonnew ventures have, whether inten-
tionally or nut, advanced the notion that all entre-
preneurs are alike and all new venture crttatlon
is the same. However, there cl<aarly is a wide varia-
tion in the kinds of new ventures that are startud.
For example, are there similarities between the
creation of a waterbod store by a 20-year old col-
lege student and the creation of a personal com-
puter company by three engineers? Are the differ-
ences between them more important than the
similarities? What is the value of comparing the
creation of a pet stora by two unemployed physl*
cal therapists to the creation of a 5,000-acre busi-
ness park by four real estate developers? The goal
is not to smooth over any differences that might
exist among these new ventures or to throw these
very different individuals into the saine pot in
order to extract the typical qualities of the typi-
cal entrepreneur. The goal is to identify the spe-
cific variables that describe how each new ven-
ture was created, in order that meaningful con-
trasts and comparisons among new venturos can
be made.
First must come oereful description with an
eye to variation. The search for key variables, for
general piinciplss, for universally applicablo laws
of entrepreneurship that has characterized much
of tho entrepreneui'ship literature betrays an
impatience with the slow methodical process of
description. Attention to careful observation and
description is the basis of good scientific research
(McKelvey, 1982). In what does all this careful
description of new ventures result? A collection
of uniquely described ventures, each different
from all the others? Once good description is
achieved, then good comparisons and contrasts
can be made, and subsets of similar ventures can
be estabtished. Thests homogeneous populations
are needed before any general rules or theories of
new venture creation can be postulated. The lack
of such homogeneouii samples in the past has led
to conflicts in the results of research studies.
The conceptual framework presented here pro-
vides a way of analyzing past research studies.
Each study can be broken down into the types of
individuals, organizations, environments, and
processes that were investigated. One way in
which the framework can be useful Is in identify-
701
SNDIVIOUALCS]
''Need
Locus of control
Risk taUtng propenslly
]ob sstlsfactton
Previous woTk oxpaiienco
Entrepreneuriai parents
Age
Education
ENVIRONMENT
Venture capital avallabiUiy
Presence of Bxperlanced entrepreneurs
Technically skilled labor force
Accessibility of suppliers
Accessibility of cuEtomer^ or now markets
Covernmental influencBS
Proximity of universities
Availability of land or facilities
Accessibility of transport-itioii
Attitude of the area population
Availability of supportinjj services
Living conditions
High occupational and industrial
diffarentintion
High percentages of recent
immigrants in the population
i^airga industrial base
l^arger stsse urban areas
Availability of financial resources
Oairiers to entry
Rivalry among existing competitors
Pressure Irom substitute products
Bargaining power of buyers
Bargaining power of suppliers
ORGANIZATION
Overall cost leadership
Differentiation
Focus
The now product or service
Paraliul competition
Franchiso entry
Googritphlcal transfer
Supply shortage
Tapping unutilized resources
Customer contract
Becoming a second source
Joint vonturps
Licensing
Market reilnquishment
Sell off of division
Favored purchasing by government
Governmental rule changes
PROCESS
The entrepreneur locates a business opportunity
The entteproneur accumulates resources
The entrsprensur inarkstis products and sorvices
The entieproneur produces tho product
The entrepreneur buiids an organization
Ths entrepreneur respondis to government and society
Figure 2. Variables in now venture creation.
702
ing those aspects of new venture creation neg-
lected by a particular study. New research may
then ba designed to account for these lauunae.
For example, Brockhaus defines his sample of
entrepreneurs as:
Individuals who within three months prior to the
study had ceased worldng for their employers and
at tha time of the study owned as weil as manegod
bushiBss ventures.... Ths businesses wliose own-
ers served as participants were selected from the
listing of businesses licensed by St. Louis County,
Missouri during tbe months of August and Sep-
tember, 1975 {1980a, p. 39).
Although Brockhaus. unlike othor researchers,
attempts to close in on the actual entrepreneurial
function by interviewing his entrepreneurs
within a few months of the creation of their
ventures, useful and necessary distinctions
among the individuals and their now ventures
are not made. One is not sure what types of firms
were studied (retail, service, manufacturing, etc.}
or whether the St. Louis environment was iikoiy
to influence certain types of individuals to create
certain types of firms. Is the process of starting a
venture in St, Louis different, or is the process
different for certain types of businesses or cer-
tain kinds of individuals? Accounting for type of
firm, environment, and process in this study
would enhance comparison among the Individu-
als in the study and individuals in other studies.
In analyzing results of research studies, a focus
on differences in one of the four dimensions
might explain conflicting results. For example,
studies such as CoUins and Moore (1970) suggest
that individuals who start firms are social misfits
who do not fit into most organizfltions. Yet other
studies such as Cooper (1970) stiggest that indi-
viduals who start succossful firms arc good team
players. On closer examination it is seen that
Collins and Moore studied manufacturing firms
that were more like job shops in the 1950s, and
Cooper studied high technology firms in the
1980s. High technology industries might require
more skills than one individual wouid be likely
to have, necessitating that individuals combine
their abilities in teams in order to start an organi-
zation successfully.
In addition to providing a means by which past
research can bo analyzed, the framework outlines
a format for future research methodologies and
for reporting such research. More careful atten-
tion must be paid to the research sample. For
example, women ontreproneurs are a popular
research topic. If similarities are discovered
among women who start firms, are these similari-
ties a result of similar environments? Can dif-
ferences be attributed solely to psychological or
background characteristics? What is the value of
research results that are based on such unex-
amined and possibly heterogeneous sample pop-
ulations?
Even in a narrowly selected research sample,
the framework might be useful in drawing the
researcher's attention to considerations inherent
in each of the four dimensions, in order that con-
chtsions regarding the virtual sameness of all the
members of the sample may not be made too
hastily. For example, in a sample of new organi-
zations in the micro-computer industry, a num-
ber of considerations might be made. What is the
variation among the entrepreneurs in their work
backgrounds, education, age? Huw do competi-
tive strategies used by those new organizations
vary? Are there regional or other subenvironments
in the industry that cause variations in firms and
strategies? What is the variation in the venture
creation process: do all individuals devoto equal
time to financing tho organization, hiring per-
sonnel, marketing? What differences exist be-
tween "new" and "old" firms in this industry?
The brief review of the literature provided ear-
lier is only a running start at a comprehensive
analysis and evaluiition of the entrepreneurship
literature. For example, in a study of individuals
who start firms, who are the Individuals? Are the
individuals in McCleiiand's samples (McCelland,
1961; McCdIand & Winter, 1969) similar to those
in Brockhaus (1980a) or Schrage (196S)? More
about the similarities and differences within and
among past research samples needs to be known.
There are many dimensions and variables across
which these samples may be compared.
The framework also points up the importance
of interactions of variables among dimensions in
understanding new venture creation. How docs
an individual's background influence the type of
activities undertaken to start an organization?
Does the marketing individual devote his time to
marketing instead of manufacturing, and are there
some environment!! or firms that require more
marketing? Is the process of starting a retail store
703
aimllar to that of starting a steel miU? Are antiy
sttatofiies used by new oi|anh»tions in the robot"
ics industry similar to those meA In the brewery
industry?
The frame%vork for describing new venture cre-
ation provides the possibility of describing sub-
sets wHUiti tiie unwieldy set of all entjrepreneurs
and all new ventures. Newly created ventures
that display meaningful similarities across the
four dimensions could be described and clsssi-
fied tagether (Gartner, 19B2). Sigaificant general-
izations legarding some or all new venture cre-
ations might emerge, genoralizations that do not,
however, attempt to mask the variation in new
venture creation.
This paper does not purport to answer specific
qufii8t,ions about how new ventures are started or
provide specific developmental modela for new
venture croation. No claim is made that the frame-
work or the list of variables is comprehonsive;
the claim is only that the description of new ven-
turea needs to be more comprehensive than It is
at pieeent. A great many more questions axe asked
here than are answered. However, Ihe paper pro-
vides a means of making a fundamental shift in
the perspective on entrepreneurship; away from
viewing entrapreneurs and their ventures as an
unvarying, homogeneous population, and to-
wards a recognition and appreciation of tho com-
plexity and variation that abounds in tho phe-
nomenon of new venture creation.
References
Aldricb, H. E. (1679) Organizoejons ond snvirontnents. Engle-
wood Cliffs, Nf: FrenUco-Kalt.
Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976) Environments of organiza-
tions. Annual BeWeiv of Sociology, 76-105.
Bauinoi, W. J. (ISSS) Entrepreneurship in economic theory.
American Bcosiomic Bevlstv, 56(2),
Braden, P. (1S77) TschnoJoijicot enlrepnineursfiip (Michigan
Business Reports, No. 62). Ann Arbor: tJniversity of
Michigan.
Brai:khau9, R. H. (t9B0a) The offect of job dissatisfaction on
ths decision to start a business, /ourn'il of Smalt Busirlsss
Monognment, 18(1), 37-43.
Broi:khaU!t. R. H. (1980b) Risk taking propensity of entre-
preneurs. Academy of Management loumal, 23, 509-SZO.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982) The psychology of tha entreprBneur.
In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), iticy-
chpedSa of eittrspraneursfijp (pp. 38-£'6). Englewood Cliffs
Nil Pruntice-Hall.
us. R. H., & Nord. W. R. (1979) An exploration of
factors nffectJng tbeentisprenaurial dedsioui Personal char-
ncteristics vs. onvironmentsl conditions. Praceedlngs Qf
Iha National Academy of Management, 364-'368.
Brunii. A. V., & "l^ebjee. T. T. (1982) l b s environmi^nt for
entrepraneurship. In C. A. Kant, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.), Bncyiopedia o/entrepreiteiirshlp (pp. 2ai!t-307).
Bniiluwood Cliffs, N|; Prontice-Hvll,
Carland, J. W., Hpy, F. Boulton. W. H., & Garland, J.A.C.|J9B4)
Oifferontiatlngantraprnneurs from smill busiiiass owners:
A conceptualization. Academy of Management RsvUw, 9,
354-359.
child, | . C1972) Oigaolzational structurii, oavicDnmant and
p«iformance: The rote at strategic choicv. Sociologf , S, i-ZZ.
Cole. A. H. (1959) Business enterprise in its social selling.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univsrsity I'ress.
Cole, A. H. (16&5) An approach to ths study of entreprs-
neurship: A tribute to Edwin P. Gay. In K.G.). Aitken (Ed.),
&p/oratloiis In enterprise (pp. 3(M4). Cambiidge. MA:
Harvard University Press.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1984) The enterprising man.
East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1970) The organization makers.
New York: Applston-Century-Crofts.
Cooper, A. C. (1970) The Palo Alto experience. Industrial
flesearch, 1Z(S), 58-Bl.
Cooper, A. 0. (1979) Strategic management: New ventures
and small business. In D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.),
Strategic management (pp. 318-327). Boston: Little, Brown.
Cooper, A. C, & Dunkelberg, W. 0. (1961) A new look at
business entry: Experiences of l , aos entrspieneurt. In K. H
Vespei (Ed.), Frontiers of sntrepreneurahip resuirch (pp.
1-ZO). Weilasley, MA: Babson CoUege.
Daily, C. A. (1971) Entrepreneurial management: Going all
out for rasuUs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
C. H. (1949) Observations on entrepreneurship in
agriculture. In A. H. Cola (Ed.), Changs and the entrepre-
neur(pp. Z0-Z4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
OeCarto,). F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979) A comparison of selected
personal characteristics of minority and non-minority
female entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Manoge-
mant, 17(4), 22-29.
Prahsim, K. P. (1972) Factors Influencing ths rate of forma-
tion of technical companies. In A. C. Coop6r k ) . L. Komives
(Eds.), Technical sntrepreneurship: A sympavfum (pp. 3-
37). Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
, A.C., & Aldag, R.). (1980) Oiganizational growth
sud types: Lessons from small institutions. In B. Staw & L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
Z, pp. 279-320). Greonwich, CT: jAI Press.
704
Gartner, W. B. (19&Z) An empirical madel 0/ t)ia business
startup, and Right entrepreneurial archetypes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.
Glueck, W., & Mescon, T. (1980) Enfrepreneurshlp.- A Uiera-
lute nnolysis 0/ concepts. Poper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit, MI.
Gould, h. C. (1969) luvcnile entrepreneurs. American lour-
nal 0/ Socicilogj'. 74. 710-719.
Hannan, M. T., & Freenian.). (1977) The population acoii^y
model of organiisaiions. American Journal 0/ l
82.
Maldique, M. A. (1980) !!ntreprenaurs, champlona and tech-
nological innovation. Sloan Management HeWew. 21(2),
g9-76.
Mt'Caln G., ft Smith, N. (1981, Summer) A contemporary
model of entiepreneurial style. Small Business Instituii
i', 40-43.
Hattman, C. (1963) Who's running America's fastest growing
companies? Inc., 5(8), 41-47.
Hnrtmaiin, H. (1959) Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful
distinction? Admini.'itralivG Science Quarterly. 3.4Z9-457.
Hill, R. (t982) The antrepionsiur: An artist masquerading as a
businessman? international Monagement, 37(2}, 21-22,26.
Kttrnaday,).. & Abiiud, | . (1971) Characteristics o! successful
entrepraneuirs. PKrsonnel Psychology, 24(2), 141-153.
Hdwell, R. P. (1972) Comparative profiles—Entrepreneurs ver-
sus thii hired exocutive: San Francisco Peninsula seniicon-
ductcr Industry, in A. C. Cooper & J. L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical cnlropreneurship: A symposium (pp. 47-82).
Milwaukee, Wi: Center for Ventura Management.
lortks, L. (IO&&) Approachfls to entrepreneurial pensonality.
to H. G.). Aitksn (Ed.). Bxplomtions in enlorprlse (pp. 80-
1)2). Cambridge. MA: Horvard University Press.
Kilby. P. (197t) Hunting the heffalump. In P. Kitby (Ed.).
Kntreprcneurship and economic development (pp. t-40).
Naw York: Fteu Press.
Kimberly,). R. (1979) Issufls in the creation of organizations;
Initiation, innovation, and institutibnailiiation. Academy
of Management Journol, 22, 437-4S7,
Komives, J. L. (Ed.). (19B9) Karl A. Bostrum seminar in the
sfudy of enteipri.<!8. Milwaukee, Wl: Center for Venture
Management.
Komives,). L. (1972) A protiminaty study of the personal
values of high technology entrepreneurs. In A. C Cooper Si
|. L, Komives (Eds.). Technical entrepreneurship: A sym-
posium (pp. 231-242). Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture
Management.
Lament, L. M. (1Q7Z) The role of marketing in l:achnical
erttropieneursiiip. In A. C. Cooper &). L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical enireproneurshlp: A symposium (|ip. 150-164).
Milwauksa, Wl: Cantor for Venture Management.
Lolbenstsin. H. (190B) Entraproneurship and development.
American Economic Hei'ieiv, 58(2), 72-83.
Liles, P. R. (1974) New business ventures and the entre-
preneur. Homuwood. IL: Irwin.
Lltzingcr. W. B. (HSBS) The motel entrepreneur and the motol
manager. Academy 0/ Manogement Journal, B, zeB-281.
Long. W. (1983) The meaning of enirepreneurship. AmB.''ican
Journal of Small Business, 8(2). 47-99.
McClelland, D. (19S1) 'i'he achieving society. Princeton, NJ:
Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D., & Winter, D. G. (1969) Motivating economi>:
achievement. New York: Free Press.
McKe!vey,B.(1982)Organizationalsystamatics—Taxonomy,
evolution, classl/ication. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Mescon, T.. & Monlanari. J. (1981) The personalities of inde-
pendent and franchise entrepreneurs: An empirical analy-
sis of concepts. Journal 0/ Enterprise Management, 3(2),
J49-159.
Mill,!. S. (1848) Principles of political uconomy ivjth some
t)f their applications to social philosophy. London: | . W.
Parker.
Miller, U. (1981) Towanl a new contingency approach: The
search for organization gestalts. Journal of Management
Studies, IB, 1-26.
Palmer, M. (1971) The a|iplicatton of psychoiogical testing to
ttntrepTeneuriat potential. California Management flevieiv,
13(3), 3Z-39.
Psnnings,). M. (1980) Environmental influences on the cre-
ation process. In). R. Kimberly & R. Miles (Eds.). The orga-
nization li/ecyclfl (pp. 135-lGO). San Francisco: )asiey Bass.
Pennings, ). M. (1982a) Organizational birth frequencies.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 27.120-144.
IPennlngs, J. M. (19B2b) The urban quality of life and entie-
pjreneurship. Academy of Managtimant Journal. ZS, 83-79.
Peters T.)., & Waterman. R. H. (1982) In search of excellence.
New York: Harper & Kow.
Peterson, R, A., & Bergor, 0. G. (1971) Entrepraneurship hi
organization!!: Evidence from the popular music industry.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16. 97-107.
PMfer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978) The exti'rnal control of
organizalinns. Naw York: Harper & Row.
Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive strategy: Techniques/or ana-
lyzing industries and competitors. New York: Fress Press.
Roberts, E. B. (1989) Entrepreneurship and technology, in W.
Qruber & D. Marquis (Eds.), Factors in the trons/er 0/ tech-
nology (pp. 219-237). Cambridge, MA: M.i.T. Press.
Roberts, E. B.. & Wainer, H. A. (19B8) New enterprise on Rte.
128. Science Journal, 4(12), 78-83.
Schell, D. W., & Davlg, VV. (1981) The community Infrastruc-
ture of enirepreneurship. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Fruntiers
of entrepreneurship research (pp. SS3-S80). Wellesley. MA:
Babson College.
Schrage, H. (196S) The R & D entrepreneur: Profile ol success.
Harvard Business Review. 43(6), 56-69.
705
Si!hrler,|.W.(197S)Entnpr«nBuriftlcltsractetIsUi» of women.
In}. W. Schj-lctt & ] . SatbauBt Pd8.]i EntreprsnaurahJp and
BBttrptlsa development: A worldwide penpectfvfl (pp. 66*
70). Milw«uk6e, Wl: Center for Ventura Management
Schiimpeter. J. A. (1934) Tiie fheoiy o/ economic devslop-
ment (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambtidge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Schwartz, E. B. (1976) Entrsprenourship: A now femsle
frontiaf. [ournal of Contemporary Business. 5,47-78.
Seciest, L. (1975) Texas entroproneurihip. In J. W. Schrior &
J. Susbauer (Eds.), Entraprensuiship and enierprise de-
vofopment.' A wotldwlda perspticflve (pp. 51-BS). Mii-
waukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
Shapero, A. (167?) The process of teciinicai company forma'
lion in a local Bcea. In A. C Cooptir & ], L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical entreprsnetirship: A symposium (pp. 63-95).
Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
Shapera, A. (1975) Tho displaced, uncomfotiabls entre-
preneur. Psychology Todoy. 9(6). 83-Ba.
Shapero. A., & Sokol, L>. (19S2) Tha social dimensions of
enttepreneurahlp. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.), Encyiclopedio o/antropraneurshlp (pp. 72-90).
Englewood ClKfs, NJ; Prentjcs-Hall.
Smitli. N. (taey) Ths entrepreneur and hfs/irm: The reiotion-
ship between type of man (ind type of company. East
tanning: Michigan State University.
Starbu«k, W. H. (197B) Otganizations and their environments,
in M. OunnettoiEd.), Handbook o/indiisirial ond organtza-
Jionai psychology (pp. 1069-1123). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Htausis, | . H. (1944) The entrepreneur: Tha firm, /auinaf of
Poiiticol Economy, 52(2), 112-127.
StciAegU: Planning Institute. (107S) The startup dota manual.
Unpublished nwnuscript. Cambridge, MA: Strategic Plan-
ning institute.
Susbauer, ). C. (1989) The tschnical company fotmation
proce.;s; A porticulorospect o/entnipreneurship. Unpub-
lished doctoral dlssertationi Unlveriilly of Texas, Austin.
Susbauer, ] . C. (1972) Tha technical fintrepianeurahip pro-
cess in Austin. Texas, (n A. C. Cooper & J. L. Komtvss (Eds.),
Technical entrepreneurship.' A symposium (pp. 28-46).
MUwaukee, Wl: Center for Venture Management.
Thorne, }. R.. & Bail, J. C. (1981) Entrepreneurs and their
companies'. Smaller industrial firms. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.)
FronfiBrs of enfrepreneurshlp teseareh (pp. 65-63).
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Tlmmons, | . A.. 6'mollen, E, & Dingee, A. Ii. M. (1977) New
venture crealion. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Van ds Vsn, A. H. (1980) Early planning, implemonlalion
nnd performance of naw organizations. In J. R. Kimberly &
R. Miles (Eds.), The organization life cycle (pp. 83-134).
San Francisco: Jossey Baa
.
Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. (1984)
Designing new business startups; EnCrepreiieuriB), organ-
izational, and ecological considerations, /ourno) of Man-
ogement. 10(1), 87-107.
Vesper, K. H. (1979) Commentary. In D. E. Schondel & C. W.
Hafar (Eds.), Stratiigic monogement (pp. 332-338). Boston:
Little, Brown.
Vesper, K. H. (19B0) New venture sirotegies. Hnglewood Cliffs,
N|: Prtinllce-Hall.
Vesper, K. H. (1B81) Scanning the frontier o! ontrepxoneur-
shlp reseaiTGh. In K. H. Vespsr (Ed.), FrontiBts o/entrcprs-
tieurship research (pp. vlt-xiv). Wellesley, MA: Babson
College.
Vesper, K. H. (lS8Za) Expanding ontraprenour»liip research.
tnK. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers o/entreprenourship research
(pp. vii-xx). Weltustey, MA: Babso.n Collcgo.
Vo'.per, K. H. (19B2b) Introduction and summary of sntropre-
neurship research. I nC A. Kent. 0. L.. Soxton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.). Encyclopedia cf enlropreneursliip (pp. xxxt-
xxxviii).
Webster, F. A. (1976) A model Jor new venture initiation: A
disclosure on rapacity and the independent entrepreneur.
Academy of Managemont ReWeiv, 1(1), 28-7.
WeSck, K. E. (1979) The social psychology' o/ot^onlzing (2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesiey.
Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and hierarcliies, analysis
and antitrust imp!icaiions. Nmv York: Frea Press.
S. Gartner Is Assistant Professor of Business
and Cirectoro/lhnCenter/orEnirepreneurship Studies
in ihe School of Business Arfm(ni's(nition, Georgetoivn
University.
708
doc_472235544.pdf
On this detailed paper pertaining to a conceptual franiewurk for descrimiig the phenlohiebon of new venture creation.
' Academy o/M<ino|.a»iil fl«»ltw. IWH. Vol. ill. No. 4. B98.7M.
A Conceptual Franiewurk for DescriMiig
the PhenLOHieBon of New Venture Creation
WILLIAM B. GARTNER
Gfiorgetown University
A jfiview of the eintrBprenturship literature sugijests Jhat differences
atnong entwpreneurs and among their venitires are as gt«at as Ihe
variation between entrepreneurs and nonenti^preneurs and between
new firms ttnd established firms. A /rameu-ork for describing new
venture creation integrates four maj'or perspectives in entrepre-
neufship." characteristics of the individuaJ(s) who start the venture,
the oi^nfzcition which they create, the oiivironment sitrrounding the
new venture, and the process by which tho new venture is started.
Tho major ihiust of most entrapreneurship
re.'5earch has been to provp thai entrepreneurs are
different from nonontrepreiieurs (Brpakhaua,
lesOfi, maobi Carluud, Hkjy, Boulton, & Garland,
1984; Collins & Moore, 1964; DaCarlo & Lyons,
1979! Hornadoy & Aboud, 1871; Howell, 1972;
Komives, 1972; Litzlngftr, 3965; McClelland,
19B1: MGCleliand & Winter. 1969; Palmer, 1971;
Sdirier, 1978; Shapero, 1975) and that entrapre-
neuria! firms ave different from nonentrepre-
neurial firms (Collins & Moore, 1970; Cooper,
1979; Smith, 1987; Thorne & Ball, 1981). The
biisic assumption underlyingthis research is that
all entrepreneurs and their new ventures are
much the samo. Tho present paper suggests that
thi3 differences among entrepreneurs and among
their ventures are much greater than one might
expect; in fact, tho diversity may be larger than
tho differences between entrepreneurs and non>
entrepreneurs and between entrepreneurial firms
and nonentrepreuaurlaifirnis. Once the diver-
sity among entrepreneurs arid their ventures is
nicogtiized, the necessity for finding a way to
classify them becomes appar<3nt. Groups sharing
The research leading to this paper was supported in part by
a grant from the National Science Foundation and is based
on thn author's doctoral dissort^tion. Additional support was
provided by the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Univer-
sity of Virginiii.
Requests for reprinlii should he sent ta William B. Oartner,
Center for EntreprenEursltip Studieii. School of Business Ad-
nnli,istratIon,Gaorgetiiwn University, Washington, D.C. 20057.
similar characteristics must exist within the uni-
vorsa of entrepreneurs and their ventures. How
are those groups revealed? Many different charac-
teristics have been employed in past research to
describe entrepreneurs and their ventures. Do the
characteristics themselves fail into gioups? In
other words, does one subset of characteristics
describo a single aspect of new venture creation,
stich as the enviroiimBnt surrounding the new
venture, or the features of the organization that
results?
This paper attempts to organize the many vtiri-
ables that have been used in past research to
desoribe entrepreneurs and their ventures into a
comprehensive framework. Far from being reduc-
tive, this new view of the entrepreneurship litera-
ture should provide valuable insights into the
process of now venture creation by showing it to
be a complex and multidimensional phe-
nomenon. Once a clear retrospective analysis of
the literature is provided, future research can pro-
ceed on more solid footing. Instead of many dif-
ferent researchers palpating different parts of the
elephant and reaching reductive conclusions, at
least all will know the name, if not the nature, of
the beast with which they are dealing.
Much past research han been unidimensionnl,
focusing on a single aspect of new venture crea-
tion, and its main purpose has been to show how
entrepreneurs or their firms differ from nonen-
trei^reneurs o; nonontrepreneurial firms. (In fact,
it might be said that unidimensional research goes
896
hand in hand with tho attitude that all entrepre-
neurs end thair firms are alike, the task of the
unidtmensional research being to prove how all
things entrepreneurial differ front all things
nonentrepreneurial.) It has been consistently
pointed out, however, in reviews of literature on
entrepreneurs, for example, (Brockhaug, 1982;
Glueck & Mescon, 1980; McCain & Smith, 1981)
that variables that are assumed to differentiote
entrepreneurs from nonantrapreneurs (managers,
for instance] frequently do not bear up under
close scrutiny. Yet the search for these elusive
variables continues, and entrepreneurs and pro-
spective antrepreneurs are subjected to batteries
of psychological tasts in attempts to isolate the
singla spring that makes them tick differently
from others. As with other aspects of naw ven-
ture creation, attempts ara made to isolate key
variables that separata entrepreneurial situations
from nonentieprenaurial onas. Pennings (19B0,
1982a, 1982bJ has explored environments that
support naw venture creation; Van do Ven (1980)
and Kimberly (1979) have focused on tha pro-
cess oi: venture creation.
This search for key variables is a motivation
for rasearch only if the task of entreprenaurial
research is taken to ba tha distinction of antrapra-
neurs and things antrapranaurial from nonantra-
preneurs and nonantrepreneurial situations. If a
much different perspective is taken, tha perspec-
tive that there are many different kinds of antra-
prenaur and many ways to ba ono and that the
firms thay craata vary enormously as do the envi-
ronments they craata them in, than tha burdan
shifts. How is Bach naw venture creation differ-
ent from another? Rasaarchars naed to think in
terms of a combination of variables that make up
each naw venture creation (Van de Ven, Hudson,
& Schroadar, 1984). The creation of a new ven-
ture is a multidimensional phanomenon; each
variable describes only a singla dimension of the
phanomanon and cannot ba taken alone. There
is a growing awareness that the process of start-
ing a business is not a single well-worn route
marched along again and again by idi^ntical antra-
prenaurs (Hartman, 1983), Naw venture creation
is a. complex phanomanon: antrepreneurs and.
their firms vary widely; the actions thay take or
do not taka and the environments they operate in
and respond to ara equally di varse—and ail these
elemants form nomplax and unique combinations
in tho creation of each liaw venture. It is not
onough for researohera to seek out and focus on
sorna concept of tha "average" antrapranaur and
the "typical" vantura creation. Naw organiza-
tional forms avolva through variation, and this
variation tn naw vantura creation nacils to ba
studied (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Fraaman, 1977;
Ffeffer & Salandk, 1978; Waick, 1979). This insis-
tence on variation can ba sean, for example, in
Vesper (1979), who posits 11 different kinds of
entrapranaur, and in a recant study by Coopar
and Dunkalbarg (19B1), which reveals that entre-
preneurs in certain industries can ba vary diffar-
snt from thosa in other industries.
Onca tha variation and complexity in naw ven-
ture creation is recognized, it than is necessary
to find a framework for systematically discovar-
ing and avaluating tha similarities and differancas
among new ventures (McKalvay, 1982). Onca it
is no longer assumed that all entrepranaurs and
thair ventures prasent a homogeneous population,
than other homogcmaous subsets within the antre-
pranaurial univarso must be sought out in order
that antraprenaurial research can produca mean-
ingful results. A primary value of tha framework
for describing new vanture creation presented
hara Is that it provides a systematic means of
comparing and contrasting complax ventures; it
provides a way to conceptualize variation and
complexity.
A Framework for Describing
New Venture Creation
Daflnitions of key words such as entrepreneur
ara oftan various and always a problem in tha
study of antreprimeurship (Brockhaus, 1980b;
Komives, 19139; Long, 1983). Because the entre-
preneur is only one dimension of this framework,
it saems mora important in this paper to define
tha term "naw venture creation." Such a defini-
tion can be outlined hare with lass trepidation, if
only because thara is less precedent.
New venture creation is the organizing (in the
Welckian sense) of new organizations. "To orga-
niza is to assambli) ongoing interdapandant ac-
tions into sensible :;aquances that ganarate sensi-
ble outcomes" (Weick, 1979, p. 3). The dafini-
tion of naw venture creation is synonymous with
8 9 /
the dofinition of the nqw organisation developed
by the Strategic Planning Institute (1978, p. t-2):
a new businesis venture launched as one of tha
following:
1. an independent entity
2. a new profit ceittar within a company which
has other iistabllshgd buslnessas, or
. :i, a joint venture which satisfies the foHoiving
criteria:
1. Us founders must'scquira expertise in pro-
ducts, process, maricet and/or technology.
?„. Kesults ere expncted beyond the year in
which thq ipveatment is mada.
:i. It is considered a new market entrant hy its
competitors.
•i. It is TRgardsd as a new source of supply by Its
potential customern.
The trnpartancD of this definition should not be
overlookod, because it recognizes the niuUidi-
niensional aspHcta of now venture creation. First,
it enriphasi^es that individuals with expertise are
a key element of the new viinture. At the same
time that it recognizes the new venture as an
organizational Eintity, it stresses that the new ven-
ture is not instnntaueously produced, but evolves
over time (beyond a year). The new venture is
seen further within the context of its environ-
njent: it is foitied to seek out resources, and it
competes in the rnarket place. Ait these aspects
of the new venture must be kapt in mind if it is to
be adequately described and classified.
Figure 1 presents a framework for describing
the creation of a new venture across four dimen-
sions; (a) individuals)—the i:H}rson(s) involved in
starting a new organization; (h) organization—the
kind of firm that is started; (c) environment—tho
situation surrounding and influencing the new
oruanization; and (d) new venture process—the
actions undertaken by the individual(s) to start
thij venture.
Any new venture is a gestalt (Miller, 1981.J of'
variables frurn the four dimensions. No new ven-
ture creation can be comprehensively described,
nor can its complexity be udequately accounted
for, unless all of its four dimensions ara investi-
gated and an attempt is made to discover how
variables from each dimension interact \vith vari-
ables from other dimensions.
This framework is tbe first to combine the four
dimensions of venture creation, though other
researchers have sought to combine two or more
of the dimensions. This "thinking across dimen-
sions" is especially apparent in the work of those
theorists and researchers who have developed
entrepreneurial clnssification schemes. Classifi-
cations of entrepreneurs themselves are often
based on two dimensions: individual characteris-
tics plus new venture process considerations —
tho word often used is "stylo." Danhoff (1949)
based his scheme on the entrepreneur's open-
ness to iimovation; Cole (1959) on the sophistica-
tion of the entrepreneur's decision making tools;
and Oailey (1971) according to bureaucratic or
entrepreneurial style. Smith (1967) divided entre-
preneurs by a stylistic orientation—craftsman or
opportunistic. Fiiley and Aldag (1980) used
management orientation- Vesper (1979,1980) in
two similar classifications differentiated among
ontropreneurs by the activities involved in busi-
ness formation and operation, and in another
scheme (1980) by competitive strategy. In Coo-
per (1979) entrepreneurs are linked to particular
environments, and, as cited previously. Cooper
and Dunkelberg'ii (1981) study matches different
entrepreneurs and their characteristics to the
types of firms they are likely to start. In Vesper's
(1979) classification tha entrepreneur's type of
firm is also a factor, es it is in several other
Giassificatlon studies (Braden, 1977; Pilley &
Aldagi 1980; Smith, 1987). Recently, Van do Ven
et di.'s (1984) erapirical study examined educa-
tional software) firms on the basis of three dimen-
SNDIVIDUAL{S!
ENVIRONMKNT.:?*- - • • ORGANIZATION
"PROCESS
Figure 2. A framework for describing new venture creation.
69a
sions: entrepreneurial—background character-
istics and psychological attributes of the found-
ing entrepnneuts; otganfzationBl—^planning And
organizational activities undertaken before and
after company startup; and ecological—support
and resources made available to influence the
development of the industry. These classlflca-
(ion schemes and frameworks are ways of Btep-
ping baGk to get an overall picturot a process like
tnodel-bullding, which involves integration and
synthesis.
IndtviduaKs)
Whether an ontrepreneur is viewed as a "cap-
lain of industry," a hard-headed risk bearer (Mill,
1846), risk taker (Palmer, 1971) or a "rapacious
risk avoider" (Webster, 1978): whether he merely
metamorphoses into an entrepreneur at certain
moments and is something else the rest of the
time (Danhoff, 1949), or whether his need for
achievement (McClelland, 1961) and capacity for
Innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) are always tick-
ing away; whether he is a "displaced persitn"
IShapero, 1979), something dose to a juvenile
delinquent (Gould. 1069), or a "man apart" (Liles,
1974) with an absolutely clear-headed (veridical)
pBrception of reality (Schrage, 1985), an aberrant
"artist" with an "innate sense of impending
change" {Hill, 1982); or whether he is, indeed,
that completely political animal, a community
builder (Schell & Davig, 1981), the entrepreneur
is overwhelniingly perceived to be different in
important wnys from the nonentrepreneur, and
m«ny researchers have believed these differences
to lie in Ihe background and personality of the
entrepreneur.
One often pursued avamie has been the attempt
to develop a psychological profile of the entrepre"
neur and to measure such psychological charac-
teristics as need for achievement (DeCarlo &
Lyons, 1979; Hornaday & Aboud, 1971; McCle-
lland, 1961; McClelland & Winter, 1969;
Schwartz, 1978). However, other researchers have
not found need for achievement useful in describ-
ing entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 19B0bi Litzingei,
1965; Schrage, 1965); still others hevo questioned
the value and validity of using psychological
characteristics of any kind to describe entra-
tironeuis (Broekhaus, 1982; Glueck & Mescon,
1980; Jenks, 19B5; Kilby, 1971; McCain & Smith,
1981; Van de Ven, 1080). However, the following
psychological cliaiacteriatics have been used in
many studies and may have some validity in dif-
ferentiating among t^'pes of entrepreneurs (Brock-
haus, 1982):
1. Need for achievemant
Z. Locus of contiol
3. Risk taking propensity
Some researchers have found it fruitful to look
at the entrepreneur's background, experience, and
attitudes. Somd individual characteristics that
may be of value in describing entrepreneurs are:
1. Job satisfaction (Collins & Moore, 1(170; Kom-
ives, 1972)
2. Previous work e>
erieni:e (Cooper, 1970; La-ment, 1972; Susbauer, 1972)
3. Entiepreneuiial piucents (Collins & Moore, 1970;
Roberts & Wainer. 19B8; Schrier, 1975; Socrest,
1975; Siiapcro, 1(172; Susbauer, 1972)
4. Ago (Koinives, 1972; Liias, 1974; Roberts &
Wainer, 1960; Scicrest, 1975; Thome & Ball,
1981)
5. Education (Bcockhaus & Nord, 1979; Collins &
Moore, 1984; Howoll, 1972; Roberts, 1969;
Susbauer, 1989)
Process
In 1949 Danhoff wrote, "Entrepreneurship is
an activity or function and not a specific individ-
ual or occupation . . . the specific personal entre-
preneur is an unrenlistic abstraction" (p. 21).
Other theorists have pursued this idea of func-
tion and have tried to differentiate tho entre-
preneurial function from other more routine
functions such as tha managerial function (Bau-
mol. 1968; Cole, 1985; Hartmann, 1959; Lniben-
stffin, 1966; Schumpeter, 1934). This "dynamic"
aspect of the entrepreneur has been acknowl-
edged in the work of eight researchors who have
enumerated csrtain tictions that an entrepreneur
platforms in order to create a new venture. Except
for Peterson and Berger (1971), who described
tha entrepreneurial activities of record producers,
these studies were theoretical, that is, based on
general observation rather than systematic re-
ssEsrch. The similarities in their views are sum-
marized here; six common behaviors are listed
(the order does not imply a sequence of actions):
1. The entrepreneur locates a business opportu-
nity (Cole, lSBS; Kilby. 1971; Maidique, 1980;
Schumpater, 1934:; Vesper. 1980).
2, The entrepreneur accumulates resources (Cole,
1965; Kilby, 1971; Leibenstein, 1968; Peterson &
Berger, 1971; Schumpeter, 1934; Vesper, 1960).
699
9. The entrepreneur macketii products and ser-
¥lce» (Cola, iOfiSj Kilby. 1B71; LeibiHOtein,
lOea; Maidique, 1980; Peteraon & Be^er,
1971! SchumpatBr, 19345 Vesper. 1980).
4. The entrapreneur produces tho product (Kilby,
1971; Maidique, 1980; Peterson & Berger,
1971; Schumpeter. 1934; Vesper, 1980).
f i. The entrepreneur builds an. organization (Cole,
1965; Kilby, 1971; I^lbenttein, 1968; Schum-
peter, 1934).
a. The enttepieneur responds to sovarnmant and
society (Cole, 1865; Kilby. 1971).
Environment
Much of the current concern (Paters & Water-
man, 1982) over how to design organizations that
keup and encourage innovati\'e individuals is an
indirect acknowledgment that entrepreneurs do
no): operate in vacuums — they respond to their
onvironments. The existence of highly support-
tvE! regional entrepreneurial environments
(Cooper, 1970; Draheim, 1972; Pennings, 19a2b;
Susbauer, 1972) — including "incubator organi-
^slions"—can, from one perspijctive, be said actu-
ally to create entrepreneurs. "The idea of "pushes"
and "pulls" from the onvironinent has found its
way into many studies of entropreneurship
fShapero & Sokol, 1982).
!n organization theory literature, two different
views of the envirunment hava been developed.
One perspective, environmental determinism,
sees the environment as an outside set of condi-
tions lo which the organization must adapt
lAldrich, 1979; Aldrich & Pfefwr, 1976; Hannan
& Freeman, 1977). The other perspective, streta-
gic choice, sees the environmont as a "reality"
that organizations create via the selectivity of their
own perceptions (Child, 1972; Storbuck, 1976;
Weick, 1979). In the entrepreneurship literature,
both perspectives on the environment have been
taken. In the present paper those characteristics
Ihat are viewed as relatively fixed conditions
Imposed on the new venture Irom without are
cniled environmental variables. Variables over
which the organization has more control (strategic
choice variables) are more readily viewed as char-
acteristics of the organization itself and are treated
as such.
In an overview of 17 research papers on envi-
ronmental variables that Influenced new venture
creation, Bruno and Tyebjee (1982) found 12 fac-
loirs that they fudged stimulated entrepreneur-
ship;
1. Venture cetpltsl availability
2. Piesence d ej^erienced entiepreMure
3. Technically sMHed labor force
4. Accessibility of suppliers
5. Accessibility of customers or new markets
B. Governmental influences
7. Proximity of universities
8. Availability of land or facilitias
9. Accessiiility of transportetion
10. Attitude of the area population
11. Availability of supporting services
12. Living conditions
Another study of environmental influences on
new venture creation was Pennings' studies of
organization birth frequencies (1980, 1982a,
1982b). Pennings found that organization birth
rates were high in areas with: high occupational
and industrial differentiation; high percentages
of recent immigrants in the population; a large
industrial base; larger size urtian areas; and avail-
ability of financial resources.
Another fiuld of research has taken the deter-
ministic perspective regarding the environment
and new ventures; industrial economics. Oliver
Wiillamson (1975) oxplored the process by which
the failure of markets to coordinate efficiently
tha production and distribution of goods and ser-
vices often resulted in the start-up of organiza-
tions to coordinate the production function
through administration. Porter (1980) focused on
the competitive environment that confronts firms
in a particular industry. Porter's work provides
five environmental influences on organizations:
barriers to entry, rivalry among existing com-
petitors, pressure from substitute products, bar-
gaining power of buyers, and bargaining power
of suppliers.
Organization
Despite a bold early attempt by Stauss (1944)
to direct the focus away from the entrepreneur
and toward his created organization (by claiming,
somewhat tortuously, that the firm is tho en-
trepreneur), most subsequent studies of new ven-
ture creation have neglected to comment on or
even communicate certain characteristics of the
organizations on which they focused. The as-
sumption behind tbis seems to derive from two
other assumptions: (a) if ell entrepreneurs are
virtually alike and (b) they all go through the
same process to create their ventures, then (c)
the organizations they create must, like widgets,
not be of any interest in themselves.
700
Many research samples In entrepreneurship
studies are selected, for example, without regard
to type of firm (i.e., manufacturing, service, retail,
wholesale). Ot' the studies that have indicated
tha type of firm, Smith (1987), Cooper (1970),
Collins and Moore (1970), Susfaauer (1972), and
Braden (1977) studied manufacturing firms, and
most focused on high technology menufecturing
firms. Litzin,i^r (1965) studied motel firms, and
Mescon and Montanari (19B1) studied real estate
firms. However, researchers in these studies made
no attempts to compare tbe type of firm studied
to other typos of firm to determine what differ-
ence type of firm might make in the process of
new venture creation. Cooper and Dunkelberg
(1981), Gartner |19B2), and Van de Ven et al.
(19S4) have begun to link type of firm across
other dimensions, such as entrepreneurial back-
ground and response to environment.
The presence of partners is another firm char-
acteristic suggested by Timmons, Smollen, and
Dingee (1977) as a vital factor in starting certain
types of firm, and some research has mentioned
partners as a characteristif: of the firms studied
(Cooper, 1970; DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979).
Strategic choice variables are treated here as
characteristics of the organization. Porter (19B0)
identified three generic competitive strategies that
firms may "choose": (a) overall cost leadership,
(b) differentiation, and (c) focus. Vesper (1980)
identified 14 competitive entry wedges: the new
product or service, parallel competition, franchise
entry, geographical transfer, supply shortage, tap-
ping unutilized resources, customer contract,
becoming a second source, joint ventures, li-
censing, market rolinquishment, sell off of di-
vision, favored purchasing by government, and
governmental rule changes,
Conclusion
Listing each variable of new venture creation
under the appropriate dimension of the frame-
work illustrates the potential for a high degree of
complexity in the interaction of these variables
within the multidimensional phenomenon of
venture creation (Figure 2).
The four dimensional conceptual framework
can be seen as a kaleidoscope, as an instrument
through which to view the enormously varying
patterns of new venture creation. Past attempts
to differentiate the typical entrepreneur and his/
her typical creation from all nonentrepreneurs
and all nonnew ventures have, whether inten-
tionally or nut, advanced the notion that all entre-
preneurs are alike and all new venture crttatlon
is the same. However, there cl<aarly is a wide varia-
tion in the kinds of new ventures that are startud.
For example, are there similarities between the
creation of a waterbod store by a 20-year old col-
lege student and the creation of a personal com-
puter company by three engineers? Are the differ-
ences between them more important than the
similarities? What is the value of comparing the
creation of a pet stora by two unemployed physl*
cal therapists to the creation of a 5,000-acre busi-
ness park by four real estate developers? The goal
is not to smooth over any differences that might
exist among these new ventures or to throw these
very different individuals into the saine pot in
order to extract the typical qualities of the typi-
cal entrepreneur. The goal is to identify the spe-
cific variables that describe how each new ven-
ture was created, in order that meaningful con-
trasts and comparisons among new venturos can
be made.
First must come oereful description with an
eye to variation. The search for key variables, for
general piinciplss, for universally applicablo laws
of entrepreneurship that has characterized much
of tho entrepreneui'ship literature betrays an
impatience with the slow methodical process of
description. Attention to careful observation and
description is the basis of good scientific research
(McKelvey, 1982). In what does all this careful
description of new ventures result? A collection
of uniquely described ventures, each different
from all the others? Once good description is
achieved, then good comparisons and contrasts
can be made, and subsets of similar ventures can
be estabtished. Thests homogeneous populations
are needed before any general rules or theories of
new venture creation can be postulated. The lack
of such homogeneouii samples in the past has led
to conflicts in the results of research studies.
The conceptual framework presented here pro-
vides a way of analyzing past research studies.
Each study can be broken down into the types of
individuals, organizations, environments, and
processes that were investigated. One way in
which the framework can be useful Is in identify-
701
SNDIVIOUALCS]
''Need
Locus of control
Risk taUtng propenslly
]ob sstlsfactton
Previous woTk oxpaiienco
Entrepreneuriai parents
Age
Education
ENVIRONMENT
Venture capital avallabiUiy
Presence of Bxperlanced entrepreneurs
Technically skilled labor force
Accessibility of suppliers
Accessibility of cuEtomer^ or now markets
Covernmental influencBS
Proximity of universities
Availability of land or facilities
Accessibility of transport-itioii
Attitude of the area population
Availability of supportinjj services
Living conditions
High occupational and industrial
diffarentintion
High percentages of recent
immigrants in the population
i^airga industrial base
l^arger stsse urban areas
Availability of financial resources
Oairiers to entry
Rivalry among existing competitors
Pressure Irom substitute products
Bargaining power of buyers
Bargaining power of suppliers
ORGANIZATION
Overall cost leadership
Differentiation
Focus
The now product or service
Paraliul competition
Franchiso entry
Googritphlcal transfer
Supply shortage
Tapping unutilized resources
Customer contract
Becoming a second source
Joint vonturps
Licensing
Market reilnquishment
Sell off of division
Favored purchasing by government
Governmental rule changes
PROCESS
The entrepreneur locates a business opportunity
The entteproneur accumulates resources
The entrsprensur inarkstis products and sorvices
The entieproneur produces tho product
The entrepreneur buiids an organization
Ths entrepreneur respondis to government and society
Figure 2. Variables in now venture creation.
702
ing those aspects of new venture creation neg-
lected by a particular study. New research may
then ba designed to account for these lauunae.
For example, Brockhaus defines his sample of
entrepreneurs as:
Individuals who within three months prior to the
study had ceased worldng for their employers and
at tha time of the study owned as weil as manegod
bushiBss ventures.... Ths businesses wliose own-
ers served as participants were selected from the
listing of businesses licensed by St. Louis County,
Missouri during tbe months of August and Sep-
tember, 1975 {1980a, p. 39).
Although Brockhaus. unlike othor researchers,
attempts to close in on the actual entrepreneurial
function by interviewing his entrepreneurs
within a few months of the creation of their
ventures, useful and necessary distinctions
among the individuals and their now ventures
are not made. One is not sure what types of firms
were studied (retail, service, manufacturing, etc.}
or whether the St. Louis environment was iikoiy
to influence certain types of individuals to create
certain types of firms. Is the process of starting a
venture in St, Louis different, or is the process
different for certain types of businesses or cer-
tain kinds of individuals? Accounting for type of
firm, environment, and process in this study
would enhance comparison among the Individu-
als in the study and individuals in other studies.
In analyzing results of research studies, a focus
on differences in one of the four dimensions
might explain conflicting results. For example,
studies such as CoUins and Moore (1970) suggest
that individuals who start firms are social misfits
who do not fit into most organizfltions. Yet other
studies such as Cooper (1970) stiggest that indi-
viduals who start succossful firms arc good team
players. On closer examination it is seen that
Collins and Moore studied manufacturing firms
that were more like job shops in the 1950s, and
Cooper studied high technology firms in the
1980s. High technology industries might require
more skills than one individual wouid be likely
to have, necessitating that individuals combine
their abilities in teams in order to start an organi-
zation successfully.
In addition to providing a means by which past
research can bo analyzed, the framework outlines
a format for future research methodologies and
for reporting such research. More careful atten-
tion must be paid to the research sample. For
example, women ontreproneurs are a popular
research topic. If similarities are discovered
among women who start firms, are these similari-
ties a result of similar environments? Can dif-
ferences be attributed solely to psychological or
background characteristics? What is the value of
research results that are based on such unex-
amined and possibly heterogeneous sample pop-
ulations?
Even in a narrowly selected research sample,
the framework might be useful in drawing the
researcher's attention to considerations inherent
in each of the four dimensions, in order that con-
chtsions regarding the virtual sameness of all the
members of the sample may not be made too
hastily. For example, in a sample of new organi-
zations in the micro-computer industry, a num-
ber of considerations might be made. What is the
variation among the entrepreneurs in their work
backgrounds, education, age? Huw do competi-
tive strategies used by those new organizations
vary? Are there regional or other subenvironments
in the industry that cause variations in firms and
strategies? What is the variation in the venture
creation process: do all individuals devoto equal
time to financing tho organization, hiring per-
sonnel, marketing? What differences exist be-
tween "new" and "old" firms in this industry?
The brief review of the literature provided ear-
lier is only a running start at a comprehensive
analysis and evaluiition of the entrepreneurship
literature. For example, in a study of individuals
who start firms, who are the Individuals? Are the
individuals in McCleiiand's samples (McCelland,
1961; McCdIand & Winter, 1969) similar to those
in Brockhaus (1980a) or Schrage (196S)? More
about the similarities and differences within and
among past research samples needs to be known.
There are many dimensions and variables across
which these samples may be compared.
The framework also points up the importance
of interactions of variables among dimensions in
understanding new venture creation. How docs
an individual's background influence the type of
activities undertaken to start an organization?
Does the marketing individual devote his time to
marketing instead of manufacturing, and are there
some environment!! or firms that require more
marketing? Is the process of starting a retail store
703
aimllar to that of starting a steel miU? Are antiy
sttatofiies used by new oi|anh»tions in the robot"
ics industry similar to those meA In the brewery
industry?
The frame%vork for describing new venture cre-
ation provides the possibility of describing sub-
sets wHUiti tiie unwieldy set of all entjrepreneurs
and all new ventures. Newly created ventures
that display meaningful similarities across the
four dimensions could be described and clsssi-
fied tagether (Gartner, 19B2). Sigaificant general-
izations legarding some or all new venture cre-
ations might emerge, genoralizations that do not,
however, attempt to mask the variation in new
venture creation.
This paper does not purport to answer specific
qufii8t,ions about how new ventures are started or
provide specific developmental modela for new
venture croation. No claim is made that the frame-
work or the list of variables is comprehonsive;
the claim is only that the description of new ven-
turea needs to be more comprehensive than It is
at pieeent. A great many more questions axe asked
here than are answered. However, Ihe paper pro-
vides a means of making a fundamental shift in
the perspective on entrepreneurship; away from
viewing entrapreneurs and their ventures as an
unvarying, homogeneous population, and to-
wards a recognition and appreciation of tho com-
plexity and variation that abounds in tho phe-
nomenon of new venture creation.
References
Aldricb, H. E. (1679) Organizoejons ond snvirontnents. Engle-
wood Cliffs, Nf: FrenUco-Kalt.
Aldrich, H. E., & Pfeffer, J. (1976) Environments of organiza-
tions. Annual BeWeiv of Sociology, 76-105.
Bauinoi, W. J. (ISSS) Entrepreneurship in economic theory.
American Bcosiomic Bevlstv, 56(2),
Braden, P. (1S77) TschnoJoijicot enlrepnineursfiip (Michigan
Business Reports, No. 62). Ann Arbor: tJniversity of
Michigan.
Brai:khau9, R. H. (t9B0a) The offect of job dissatisfaction on
ths decision to start a business, /ourn'il of Smalt Busirlsss
Monognment, 18(1), 37-43.
Broi:khaU!t. R. H. (1980b) Risk taking propensity of entre-
preneurs. Academy of Management loumal, 23, 509-SZO.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982) The psychology of tha entreprBneur.
In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), iticy-
chpedSa of eittrspraneursfijp (pp. 38-£'6). Englewood Cliffs
Nil Pruntice-Hall.
us. R. H., & Nord. W. R. (1979) An exploration of
factors nffectJng tbeentisprenaurial dedsioui Personal char-
ncteristics vs. onvironmentsl conditions. Praceedlngs Qf
Iha National Academy of Management, 364-'368.
Brunii. A. V., & "l^ebjee. T. T. (1982) l b s environmi^nt for
entrepraneurship. In C. A. Kant, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.), Bncyiopedia o/entrepreiteiirshlp (pp. 2ai!t-307).
Bniiluwood Cliffs, N|; Prontice-Hvll,
Carland, J. W., Hpy, F. Boulton. W. H., & Garland, J.A.C.|J9B4)
Oifferontiatlngantraprnneurs from smill busiiiass owners:
A conceptualization. Academy of Management RsvUw, 9,
354-359.
child, | . C1972) Oigaolzational structurii, oavicDnmant and
p«iformance: The rote at strategic choicv. Sociologf , S, i-ZZ.
Cole. A. H. (1959) Business enterprise in its social selling.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univsrsity I'ress.
Cole, A. H. (16&5) An approach to ths study of entreprs-
neurship: A tribute to Edwin P. Gay. In K.G.). Aitken (Ed.),
&p/oratloiis In enterprise (pp. 3(M4). Cambiidge. MA:
Harvard University Press.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1984) The enterprising man.
East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1970) The organization makers.
New York: Applston-Century-Crofts.
Cooper, A. C. (1970) The Palo Alto experience. Industrial
flesearch, 1Z(S), 58-Bl.
Cooper, A. 0. (1979) Strategic management: New ventures
and small business. In D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.),
Strategic management (pp. 318-327). Boston: Little, Brown.
Cooper, A. C, & Dunkelberg, W. 0. (1961) A new look at
business entry: Experiences of l , aos entrspieneurt. In K. H
Vespei (Ed.), Frontiers of sntrepreneurahip resuirch (pp.
1-ZO). Weilasley, MA: Babson CoUege.
Daily, C. A. (1971) Entrepreneurial management: Going all
out for rasuUs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
C. H. (1949) Observations on entrepreneurship in
agriculture. In A. H. Cola (Ed.), Changs and the entrepre-
neur(pp. Z0-Z4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
OeCarto,). F., & Lyons, P. R. (1979) A comparison of selected
personal characteristics of minority and non-minority
female entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Manoge-
mant, 17(4), 22-29.
Prahsim, K. P. (1972) Factors Influencing ths rate of forma-
tion of technical companies. In A. C. Coop6r k ) . L. Komives
(Eds.), Technical sntrepreneurship: A sympavfum (pp. 3-
37). Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
, A.C., & Aldag, R.). (1980) Oiganizational growth
sud types: Lessons from small institutions. In B. Staw & L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
Z, pp. 279-320). Greonwich, CT: jAI Press.
704
Gartner, W. B. (19&Z) An empirical madel 0/ t)ia business
startup, and Right entrepreneurial archetypes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.
Glueck, W., & Mescon, T. (1980) Enfrepreneurshlp.- A Uiera-
lute nnolysis 0/ concepts. Poper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Detroit, MI.
Gould, h. C. (1969) luvcnile entrepreneurs. American lour-
nal 0/ Socicilogj'. 74. 710-719.
Hannan, M. T., & Freenian.). (1977) The population acoii^y
model of organiisaiions. American Journal 0/ l
82.
Maldique, M. A. (1980) !!ntreprenaurs, champlona and tech-
nological innovation. Sloan Management HeWew. 21(2),
g9-76.
Mt'Caln G., ft Smith, N. (1981, Summer) A contemporary
model of entiepreneurial style. Small Business Instituii
i', 40-43.
Hattman, C. (1963) Who's running America's fastest growing
companies? Inc., 5(8), 41-47.
Hnrtmaiin, H. (1959) Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful
distinction? Admini.'itralivG Science Quarterly. 3.4Z9-457.
Hill, R. (t982) The antrepionsiur: An artist masquerading as a
businessman? international Monagement, 37(2}, 21-22,26.
Kttrnaday,).. & Abiiud, | . (1971) Characteristics o! successful
entrepraneuirs. PKrsonnel Psychology, 24(2), 141-153.
Hdwell, R. P. (1972) Comparative profiles—Entrepreneurs ver-
sus thii hired exocutive: San Francisco Peninsula seniicon-
ductcr Industry, in A. C. Cooper & J. L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical cnlropreneurship: A symposium (pp. 47-82).
Milwaukee, Wi: Center for Ventura Management.
lortks, L. (IO&&) Approachfls to entrepreneurial pensonality.
to H. G.). Aitksn (Ed.). Bxplomtions in enlorprlse (pp. 80-
1)2). Cambridge. MA: Horvard University Press.
Kilby. P. (197t) Hunting the heffalump. In P. Kitby (Ed.).
Kntreprcneurship and economic development (pp. t-40).
Naw York: Fteu Press.
Kimberly,). R. (1979) Issufls in the creation of organizations;
Initiation, innovation, and institutibnailiiation. Academy
of Management Journol, 22, 437-4S7,
Komives, J. L. (Ed.). (19B9) Karl A. Bostrum seminar in the
sfudy of enteipri.<!8. Milwaukee, Wl: Center for Venture
Management.
Komives,). L. (1972) A protiminaty study of the personal
values of high technology entrepreneurs. In A. C Cooper Si
|. L, Komives (Eds.). Technical entrepreneurship: A sym-
posium (pp. 231-242). Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture
Management.
Lament, L. M. (1Q7Z) The role of marketing in l:achnical
erttropieneursiiip. In A. C. Cooper &). L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical enireproneurshlp: A symposium (|ip. 150-164).
Milwauksa, Wl: Cantor for Venture Management.
Lolbenstsin. H. (190B) Entraproneurship and development.
American Economic Hei'ieiv, 58(2), 72-83.
Liles, P. R. (1974) New business ventures and the entre-
preneur. Homuwood. IL: Irwin.
Lltzingcr. W. B. (HSBS) The motel entrepreneur and the motol
manager. Academy 0/ Manogement Journal, B, zeB-281.
Long. W. (1983) The meaning of enirepreneurship. AmB.''ican
Journal of Small Business, 8(2). 47-99.
McClelland, D. (19S1) 'i'he achieving society. Princeton, NJ:
Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D., & Winter, D. G. (1969) Motivating economi>:
achievement. New York: Free Press.
McKe!vey,B.(1982)Organizationalsystamatics—Taxonomy,
evolution, classl/ication. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
Mescon, T.. & Monlanari. J. (1981) The personalities of inde-
pendent and franchise entrepreneurs: An empirical analy-
sis of concepts. Journal 0/ Enterprise Management, 3(2),
J49-159.
Mill,!. S. (1848) Principles of political uconomy ivjth some
t)f their applications to social philosophy. London: | . W.
Parker.
Miller, U. (1981) Towanl a new contingency approach: The
search for organization gestalts. Journal of Management
Studies, IB, 1-26.
Palmer, M. (1971) The a|iplicatton of psychoiogical testing to
ttntrepTeneuriat potential. California Management flevieiv,
13(3), 3Z-39.
Psnnings,). M. (1980) Environmental influences on the cre-
ation process. In). R. Kimberly & R. Miles (Eds.). The orga-
nization li/ecyclfl (pp. 135-lGO). San Francisco: )asiey Bass.
Pennings, ). M. (1982a) Organizational birth frequencies.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 27.120-144.
IPennlngs, J. M. (19B2b) The urban quality of life and entie-
pjreneurship. Academy of Managtimant Journal. ZS, 83-79.
Peters T.)., & Waterman. R. H. (1982) In search of excellence.
New York: Harper & Kow.
Peterson, R, A., & Bergor, 0. G. (1971) Entrepraneurship hi
organization!!: Evidence from the popular music industry.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16. 97-107.
PMfer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978) The exti'rnal control of
organizalinns. Naw York: Harper & Row.
Porter, M. E. (1980) Competitive strategy: Techniques/or ana-
lyzing industries and competitors. New York: Fress Press.
Roberts, E. B. (1989) Entrepreneurship and technology, in W.
Qruber & D. Marquis (Eds.), Factors in the trons/er 0/ tech-
nology (pp. 219-237). Cambridge, MA: M.i.T. Press.
Roberts, E. B.. & Wainer, H. A. (19B8) New enterprise on Rte.
128. Science Journal, 4(12), 78-83.
Schell, D. W., & Davlg, VV. (1981) The community Infrastruc-
ture of enirepreneurship. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.), Fruntiers
of entrepreneurship research (pp. SS3-S80). Wellesley. MA:
Babson College.
Schrage, H. (196S) The R & D entrepreneur: Profile ol success.
Harvard Business Review. 43(6), 56-69.
705
Si!hrler,|.W.(197S)Entnpr«nBuriftlcltsractetIsUi» of women.
In}. W. Schj-lctt & ] . SatbauBt Pd8.]i EntreprsnaurahJp and
BBttrptlsa development: A worldwide penpectfvfl (pp. 66*
70). Milw«uk6e, Wl: Center for Ventura Management
Schiimpeter. J. A. (1934) Tiie fheoiy o/ economic devslop-
ment (R. Opie, Trans.). Cambtidge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Schwartz, E. B. (1976) Entrsprenourship: A now femsle
frontiaf. [ournal of Contemporary Business. 5,47-78.
Seciest, L. (1975) Texas entroproneurihip. In J. W. Schrior &
J. Susbauer (Eds.), Entraprensuiship and enierprise de-
vofopment.' A wotldwlda perspticflve (pp. 51-BS). Mii-
waukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
Shapero, A. (167?) The process of teciinicai company forma'
lion in a local Bcea. In A. C Cooptir & ], L. Komives (Eds.),
Technical entreprsnetirship: A symposium (pp. 63-95).
Milwaukee, WI: Center for Venture Management.
Shapera, A. (1975) Tho displaced, uncomfotiabls entre-
preneur. Psychology Todoy. 9(6). 83-Ba.
Shapero. A., & Sokol, L>. (19S2) Tha social dimensions of
enttepreneurahlp. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.), Encyiclopedio o/antropraneurshlp (pp. 72-90).
Englewood ClKfs, NJ; Prentjcs-Hall.
Smitli. N. (taey) Ths entrepreneur and hfs/irm: The reiotion-
ship between type of man (ind type of company. East
tanning: Michigan State University.
Starbu«k, W. H. (197B) Otganizations and their environments,
in M. OunnettoiEd.), Handbook o/indiisirial ond organtza-
Jionai psychology (pp. 1069-1123). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Htausis, | . H. (1944) The entrepreneur: Tha firm, /auinaf of
Poiiticol Economy, 52(2), 112-127.
StciAegU: Planning Institute. (107S) The startup dota manual.
Unpublished nwnuscript. Cambridge, MA: Strategic Plan-
ning institute.
Susbauer, ). C. (1989) The tschnical company fotmation
proce.;s; A porticulorospect o/entnipreneurship. Unpub-
lished doctoral dlssertationi Unlveriilly of Texas, Austin.
Susbauer, ] . C. (1972) Tha technical fintrepianeurahip pro-
cess in Austin. Texas, (n A. C. Cooper & J. L. Komtvss (Eds.),
Technical entrepreneurship.' A symposium (pp. 28-46).
MUwaukee, Wl: Center for Venture Management.
Thorne, }. R.. & Bail, J. C. (1981) Entrepreneurs and their
companies'. Smaller industrial firms. In K. H. Vesper (Ed.)
FronfiBrs of enfrepreneurshlp teseareh (pp. 65-63).
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Tlmmons, | . A.. 6'mollen, E, & Dingee, A. Ii. M. (1977) New
venture crealion. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Van ds Vsn, A. H. (1980) Early planning, implemonlalion
nnd performance of naw organizations. In J. R. Kimberly &
R. Miles (Eds.), The organization life cycle (pp. 83-134).
San Francisco: Jossey Baa
.Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. M. (1984)
Designing new business startups; EnCrepreiieuriB), organ-
izational, and ecological considerations, /ourno) of Man-
ogement. 10(1), 87-107.
Vesper, K. H. (1979) Commentary. In D. E. Schondel & C. W.
Hafar (Eds.), Stratiigic monogement (pp. 332-338). Boston:
Little, Brown.
Vesper, K. H. (19B0) New venture sirotegies. Hnglewood Cliffs,
N|: Prtinllce-Hall.
Vesper, K. H. (1B81) Scanning the frontier o! ontrepxoneur-
shlp reseaiTGh. In K. H. Vespsr (Ed.), FrontiBts o/entrcprs-
tieurship research (pp. vlt-xiv). Wellesley, MA: Babson
College.
Vesper, K. H. (lS8Za) Expanding ontraprenour»liip research.
tnK. H. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers o/entreprenourship research
(pp. vii-xx). Weltustey, MA: Babso.n Collcgo.
Vo'.per, K. H. (19B2b) Introduction and summary of sntropre-
neurship research. I nC A. Kent. 0. L.. Soxton, & K. H. Ves-
per (Eds.). Encyclopedia cf enlropreneursliip (pp. xxxt-
xxxviii).
Webster, F. A. (1976) A model Jor new venture initiation: A
disclosure on rapacity and the independent entrepreneur.
Academy of Managemont ReWeiv, 1(1), 28-
7.WeSck, K. E. (1979) The social psychology' o/ot^onlzing (2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesiey.
Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and hierarcliies, analysis
and antitrust imp!icaiions. Nmv York: Frea Press.
S. Gartner Is Assistant Professor of Business
and Cirectoro/lhnCenter/orEnirepreneurship Studies
in ihe School of Business Arfm(ni's(nition, Georgetoivn
University.
708
doc_472235544.pdf