' Academy o/M<ino|.a»iil fl«»ltw. IWH. Vol. ill. No. 4. B98.7M.

A Conceptual Franiewurk for DescriMiigthe PhenLOHieBon of New Venture Creation

WILLIAM B. GARTNERGfiorgetown University

A jfiview of the eintrBprenturship literature sugijests Jhat differencesatnong entwpreneurs and among their venitires are as gt«at as Ihevariation between entrepreneurs and nonenti^preneurs and betweennew firms ttnd established firms. A /rameu-ork for describing newventure 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 thenew venture, and the process by which tho new venture is started.

Tho major ihiust of most entrapreneurshipre.'5earch has been to provp thai entrepreneurs aredifferent 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). Thebiisic assumption underlyingthis research is thatall entrepreneurs and their new ventures aremuch the samo. Tho present paper suggests thatthi3 differences among entrepreneurs and amongtheir ventures are much greater than one mightexpect; in fact, tho diversity may be larger thantho differences between entrepreneurs and non>entrepreneurs and between entrepreneurial firmsand nonentrepreuaurlaifirnis. Once the diver-sity among entrepreneurs arid their ventures isnicogtiized, the necessity for finding a way toclassify them becomes appar<3nt. Groups sharing

The research leading to this paper was supported in part bya grant from the National Science Foundation and is basedon thn author's doctoral dissort^tion. Additional support wasprovided 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. Howare those groups revealed? Many different charac-teristics have been employed in past research todescribe entrepreneurs and their ventures. Do thecharacteristics themselves fail into gioups? Inother words, does one subset of characteristicsdescribo a single aspect of new venture creation,stich as the enviroiimBnt surrounding the newventure, or the features of the organization thatresults?

This paper attempts to organize the many vtiri-ables that have been used in past research todesoribe entrepreneurs and their ventures into acomprehensive framework. Far from being reduc-tive, this new view of the entrepreneurship litera-ture should provide valuable insights into theprocess of now venture creation by showing it tobe a complex and multidimensional phe-nomenon. Once a clear retrospective analysis ofthe literature is provided, future research can pro-ceed on more solid footing. Instead of many dif-ferent researchers palpating different parts of theelephant and reaching reductive conclusions, atleast all will know the name, if not the nature, ofthe 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 howentrepreneurs 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 theunidtmensional research being to prove how allthings entrepreneurial differ front all thingsnonentrepreneurial.) It has been consistentlypointed out, however, in reviews of literature onentrepreneurs, for example, (Brockhaug, 1982;Glueck & Mescon, 1980; McCain & Smith, 1981)that variables that are assumed to differentioteentrepreneurs from nonantrapreneurs (managers,for instance] frequently do not bear up underclose scrutiny. Yet the search for these elusivevariables continues, and entrepreneurs and pro-spective antrepreneurs are subjected to batteriesof psychological tasts in attempts to isolate thesingla spring that makes them tick differentlyfrom others. As with other aspects of naw ven-ture creation, attempts ara made to isolate keyvariables that separata entrepreneurial situationsfrom nonentieprenaurial onas. Pennings (19B0,1982a, 1982bJ has explored environments thatsupport 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 motivationfor rasearch only if the task of entreprenaurialresearch is taken to ba tha distinction of antrapra-neurs and things antrapranaurial from nonantra-preneurs and nonantrepreneurial situations. If amuch different perspective is taken, tha perspec-tive that there are many different kinds of antra-prenaur and many ways to ba ono and that thefirms thay craata vary enormously as do the envi-ronments they craata them in, than tha burdanshifts. How is Bach naw venture creation differ-ent from another? Rasaarchars naed to think interms of a combination of variables that make upeach naw venture creation (Van de Ven, Hudson,& Schroadar, 1984). The creation of a new ven-ture is a multidimensional phanomenon; eachvariable describes only a singla dimension of thephanomanon and cannot ba taken alone. Thereis a growing awareness that the process of start-ing a business is not a single well-worn routemarched along again and again by idi^ntical antra-prenaurs (Hartman, 1983), Naw venture creationis a. complex phanomanon: antrepreneurs and.their firms vary widely; the actions thay take ordo not taka and the environments they operate inand respond to ara equally di varse—and ail these

elemants form nomplax and unique combinationsin tho creation of each liaw venture. It is notonough for researohera to seek out and focus onsorna concept of tha "average" antrapranaur andthe "typical" vantura creation. Naw organiza-tional forms avolva through variation, and thisvariation tn naw vantura creation nacils to bastudied (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan & Fraaman, 1977;Ffeffer & Salandk, 1978; Waick, 1979). This insis-tence on variation can ba sean, for example, inVesper (1979), who posits 11 different kinds ofentrapranaur, and in a recant study by Cooparand 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 necessaryto find a framework for systematically discovar-ing and avaluating tha similarities and differancasamong new ventures (McKalvay, 1982). Onca itis no longer assumed that all entrepranaurs andthair ventures prasent a homogeneous population,than other homogcmaous subsets within the antre-pranaurial univarso must be sought out in orderthat antraprenaurial research can produca mean-ingful results. A primary value of tha frameworkfor describing new vanture creation presentedhara Is that it provides a systematic means ofcomparing and contrasting complax ventures; itprovides a way to conceptualize variation andcomplexity.

A Framework for DescribingNew Venture Creation

Daflnitions of key words such as entrepreneurara oftan various and always a problem in thastudy 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 definetha term "naw venture creation." Such a defini-tion can be outlined hare with lass trepidation, ifonly because thara is less precedent.

New venture creation is the organizing (in theWelckian 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 developedby the Strategic Planning Institute (1978, p. t-2):

a new businesis venture launched as one of thafollowing:

1. an independent entity2. 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 beoverlookod, because it recognizes the niuUidi-niensional aspHcta of now venture creation. First,it enriphasi^es that individuals with expertise area key element of the new viinture. At the sametime that it recognizes the new venture as anorganizational Eintity, it stresses that the new ven-ture is not instnntaueously produced, but evolvesover time (beyond a year). The new venture isseen further within the context of its environ-njent: it is foitied to seek out resources, and itcompetes in the rnarket place. Ait these aspectsof the new venture must be kapt in mind if it is tobe adequately described and classified.

Figure 1 presents a framework for describingthe creation of a new venture across four dimen-sions; (a) individuals)—the i:H}rson(s) involved instarting a new organization; (h) organization—thekind of firm that is started; (c) environment—thosituation surrounding and influencing the neworuanization; and (d) new venture process—theactions undertaken by the individual(s) to startthij 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 accountedfor, unless all of its four dimensions ara investi-gated and an attempt is made to discover howvariables from each dimension interact \vith vari-ables from other dimensions.

This framework is tbe first to combine the fourdimensions of venture creation, though otherresearchers have sought to combine two or moreof the dimensions. This "thinking across dimen-sions" is especially apparent in the work of thosetheorists and researchers who have developedentrepreneurial clnssification schemes. Classifi-cations of entrepreneurs themselves are oftenbased 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 orentrepreneurial style. Smith (1967) divided entre-preneurs by a stylistic orientation—craftsman oropportunistic. Fiiley and Aldag (1980) usedmanagement orientation- Vesper (1979,1980) intwo similar classifications differentiated amongontropreneurs by the activities involved in busi-ness formation and operation, and in anotherscheme (1980) by competitive strategy. In Coo-per (1979) entrepreneurs are linked to particularenvironments, and, as cited previously. Cooperand Dunkelberg'ii (1981) study matches differententrepreneurs and their characteristics to thetypes of firms they are likely to start. In Vesper's(1979) classification tha entrepreneur's type offirm is also a factor, es it is in several otherGiassificatlon studies (Braden, 1977; Pilley &Aldagi 1980; Smith, 1987). Recently, Van do Venet 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 Andorganizational activities undertaken before andafter company startup; and ecological—supportand resources made available to influence thedevelopment of the industry. These classlflca-(ion schemes and frameworks are ways of Btep-ping baGk to get an overall picturot a process liketnodel-bullding, which involves integration andsynthesis.

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 "rapaciousrisk avoider" (Webster, 1978): whether he merelymetamorphoses into an entrepreneur at certainmoments and is something else the rest of thetime (Danhoff, 1949), or whether his need forachievement (McClelland, 1961) and capacity forInnovation (Schumpeter, 1934) are always tick-ing away; whether he is a "displaced persitn"IShapero, 1979), something dose to a juveniledelinquent (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 impendingchange" {Hill, 1982); or whether he is, indeed,that completely political animal, a communitybuilder (Schell & Davig, 1981), the entrepreneuris overwhelniingly perceived to be different inimportant wnys from the nonentrepreneur, andm«ny researchers have believed these differencesto lie in Ihe background and personality of theentrepreneur.

One often pursued avamie has been the attemptto 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 havenot found need for achievement useful in describ-ing entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 19B0bi Litzingei,1965; Schrage, 1965); still others hevo questionedthe value and validity of using psychologicalcharacteristics 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 followingpsychological cliaiacteriatics have been used inmany studies and may have some validity in dif-ferentiating among t 'pes of entrepreneurs (Brock-haus, 1982):

1. Need for achievemantZ. Locus of contiol3. Risk taking propensitySome researchers have found it fruitful to look

at the entrepreneur's background, experience, andattitudes. Somd individual characteristics thatmay be of value in describing entrepreneurs are:

1. Job satisfaction (Collins & Moore, 1(170; Kom-ives, 1972)

2. Previous work e>:perieni: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 isan 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 routinefunctions 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 haveenumerated csrtain tictions that an entrepreneurplatforms in order to create a new venture. Exceptfor Peterson and Berger (1971), who describedtha entrepreneurial activities of record producers,these studies were theoretical, that is, based ongeneral 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 andsociety (Cole, 1865; Kilby. 1971).

EnvironmentMuch of the current concern (Paters & Water-

man, 1982) over how to design organizations thatkeup and encourage innovati\'e individuals is anindirect acknowledgment that entrepreneurs dono): operate in vacuums — they respond to theironvironments. 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 itsway into many studies of entropreneurshipfShapero & Sokol, 1982).

!n organization theory literature, two differentviews 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 adaptlAldrich, 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 theirown perceptions (Child, 1972; Storbuck, 1976;Weick, 1979). In the entrepreneurship literature,both perspectives on the environment have beentaken. In the present paper those characteristicsIhat are viewed as relatively fixed conditionsImposed on the new venture Irom without arecniled environmental variables. Variables overwhich the organization has more control (strategicchoice variables) are more readily viewed as char-acteristics of the organization itself and are treatedas such.

In an overview of 17 research papers on envi-ronmental variables that Influenced new venturecreation, Bruno and Tyebjee (1982) found 12 fac-loirs that they fudged stimulated entrepreneur-ship;

1. Venture cetpltsl availability2. Piesence d ej^erienced entiepreMure3. Technically sMHed labor force4. Accessibility of suppliers5. Accessibility of customers or new marketsB. Governmental influences7. Proximity of universities8. Availability of land or facilitias9. Accessiiility of transportetion

10. Attitude of the area population11. Availability of supporting services12. Living conditions

Another study of environmental influences onnew venture creation was Pennings' studies oforganization birth frequencies (1980, 1982a,1982b). Pennings found that organization birthrates were high in areas with: high occupationaland industrial differentiation; high percentagesof recent immigrants in the population; a largeindustrial base; larger size urtian areas; and avail-ability of financial resources.

Another fiuld of research has taken the deter-ministic perspective regarding the environmentand new ventures; industrial economics. OliverWiillamson (1975) oxplored the process by whichthe failure of markets to coordinate efficientlytha production and distribution of goods and ser-vices often resulted in the start-up of organiza-tions to coordinate the production functionthrough administration. Porter (1980) focused onthe competitive environment that confronts firmsin a particular industry. Porter's work providesfive environmental influences on organizations:barriers to entry, rivalry among existing com-petitors, pressure from substitute products, bar-gaining power of buyers, and bargaining powerof suppliers.Organization

Despite a bold early attempt by Stauss (1944)to direct the focus away from the entrepreneurand 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 oreven communicate certain characteristics of theorganizations on which they focused. The as-sumption behind tbis seems to derive from twoother assumptions: (a) if ell entrepreneurs arevirtually alike and (b) they all go through thesame 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 entrepreneurshipstudies are selected, for example, without regardto type of firm (i.e., manufacturing, service, retail,wholesale). Ot' the studies that have indicatedtha type of firm, Smith (1987), Cooper (1970),Collins and Moore (1970), Susfaauer (1972), andBraden (1977) studied manufacturing firms, andmost focused on high technology menufecturingfirms. Litzin,i^r (1965) studied motel firms, andMescon and Montanari (19B1) studied real estatefirms. However, researchers in these studies madeno attempts to compare tbe type of firm studiedto other typos of firm to determine what differ-ence type of firm might make in the process ofnew venture creation. Cooper and Dunkelberg(1981), Gartner |19B2), and Van de Ven et al.(19S4) have begun to link type of firm acrossother dimensions, such as entrepreneurial back-ground and response to environment.

The presence of partners is another firm char-acteristic suggested by Timmons, Smollen, andDingee (1977) as a vital factor in starting certaintypes of firm, and some research has mentionedpartners as a characteristif: of the firms studied(Cooper, 1970; DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979).

Strategic choice variables are treated here ascharacteristics of the organization. Porter (19B0)identified three generic competitive strategies thatfirms may "choose": (a) overall cost leadership,(b) differentiation, and (c) focus. Vesper (1980)identified 14 competitive entry wedges: the newproduct or service, parallel competition, franchiseentry, 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, andgovernmental rule changes,

ConclusionListing each variable of new venture creation

under the appropriate dimension of the frame-work illustrates the potential for a high degree ofcomplexity in the interaction of these variableswithin the multidimensional phenomenon ofventure creation (Figure 2).

The four dimensional conceptual frameworkcan be seen as a kaleidoscope, as an instrumentthrough which to view the enormously varyingpatterns of new venture creation. Past attempts

to differentiate the typical entrepreneur and his/her typical creation from all nonentrepreneursand all nonnew ventures have, whether inten-tionally or nut, advanced the notion that all entre-preneurs are alike and all new venture crttatlonis 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 thecreation 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 thesimilarities? What is the value of comparing thecreation 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 goalis not to smooth over any differences that mightexist among these new ventures or to throw thesevery different individuals into the saine pot inorder 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 canbe made.

First must come oereful description with aneye to variation. The search for key variables, forgeneral piinciplss, for universally applicablo lawsof entrepreneurship that has characterized muchof tho entrepreneui'ship literature betrays animpatience with the slow methodical process ofdescription. Attention to careful observation anddescription is the basis of good scientific research(McKelvey, 1982). In what does all this carefuldescription of new ventures result? A collectionof uniquely described ventures, each differentfrom all the others? Once good description isachieved, then good comparisons and contrastscan be made, and subsets of similar ventures canbe estabtished. Thests homogeneous populationsare needed before any general rules or theories ofnew venture creation can be postulated. The lackof such homogeneouii samples in the past has ledto 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 ofindividuals, organizations, environments, andprocesses that were investigated. One way inwhich the framework can be useful Is in identify-

701

SNDIVIOUALCS]

''NeedLocus of controlRisk taUtng propenslly]ob sstlsfacttonPrevious woTk oxpaiiencoEntrepreneuriai parentsAgeEducation

ENVIRONMENT

Venture capital avallabiUiyPresence of Bxperlanced entrepreneursTechnically skilled labor forceAccessibility of suppliersAccessibility of cuEtomer^ or now marketsCovernmental influencBSProximity of universitiesAvailability of land or facilitiesAccessibility of transport-itioiiAttitude of the area populationAvailability of supportinjj servicesLiving conditionsHigh occupational and industrial

diffarentintionHigh percentages of recent

immigrants in the populationi airga industrial basel arger stsse urban areasAvailability of financial resourcesOairiers to entryRivalry among existing competitorsPressure Irom substitute productsBargaining power of buyersBargaining power of suppliers

ORGANIZATION

Overall cost leadershipDifferentiationFocusThe now product or serviceParaliul competitionFranchiso entryGoogritphlcal transferSupply shortageTapping unutilized resourcesCustomer contractBecoming a second sourceJoint vonturpsLicensingMarket reilnquishmentSell off of divisionFavored purchasing by governmentGovernmental rule changes

PROCESS

The entrepreneur locates a business opportunityThe entteproneur accumulates resourcesThe entrsprensur inarkstis products and sorvicesThe entieproneur produces tho productThe entrepreneur buiids an organizationThs 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 maythen ba designed to account for these lauunae.For example, Brockhaus defines his sample ofentrepreneurs as:

Individuals who within three months prior to thestudy had ceased worldng for their employers andat tha time of the study owned as weil as manegodbushiBss ventures.... Ths businesses wliose own-ers served as participants were selected from thelisting 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 entrepreneurialfunction by interviewing his entrepreneurswithin a few months of the creation of theirventures, useful and necessary distinctionsamong the individuals and their now venturesare not made. One is not sure what types of firmswere studied (retail, service, manufacturing, etc.}or whether the St. Louis environment was iikoiyto influence certain types of individuals to createcertain types of firms. Is the process of starting aventure in St, Louis different, or is the processdifferent for certain types of businesses or cer-tain kinds of individuals? Accounting for type offirm, environment, and process in this studywould enhance comparison among the Individu-als in the study and individuals in other studies.

In analyzing results of research studies, a focuson differences in one of the four dimensionsmight explain conflicting results. For example,studies such as CoUins and Moore (1970) suggestthat individuals who start firms are social misfitswho do not fit into most organizfltions. Yet otherstudies such as Cooper (1970) stiggest that indi-viduals who start succossful firms arc good teamplayers. On closer examination it is seen thatCollins and Moore studied manufacturing firmsthat were more like job shops in the 1950s, andCooper studied high technology firms in the1980s. High technology industries might requiremore skills than one individual wouid be likelyto have, necessitating that individuals combinetheir abilities in teams in order to start an organi-zation successfully.

In addition to providing a means by which pastresearch can bo analyzed, the framework outlinesa format for future research methodologies andfor reporting such research. More careful atten-

tion must be paid to the research sample. Forexample, women ontreproneurs are a popularresearch topic. If similarities are discoveredamong women who start firms, are these similari-ties a result of similar environments? Can dif-ferences be attributed solely to psychological orbackground characteristics? What is the value ofresearch 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 theresearcher's attention to considerations inherentin each of the four dimensions, in order that con-chtsions regarding the virtual sameness of all themembers of the sample may not be made toohastily. For example, in a sample of new organi-zations in the micro-computer industry, a num-ber of considerations might be made. What is thevariation among the entrepreneurs in their workbackgrounds, education, age? Huw do competi-tive strategies used by those new organizationsvary? Are there regional or other subenvironmentsin the industry that cause variations in firms andstrategies? What is the variation in the venturecreation process: do all individuals devoto equaltime 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 comprehensiveanalysis and evaluiition of the entrepreneurshipliterature. For example, in a study of individualswho start firms, who are the Individuals? Are theindividuals in McCleiiand's samples (McCelland,1961; McCdIand & Winter, 1969) similar to thosein Brockhaus (1980a) or Schrage (196S)? Moreabout the similarities and differences within andamong past research samples needs to be known.There are many dimensions and variables acrosswhich these samples may be compared.

The framework also points up the importanceof interactions of variables among dimensions inunderstanding new venture creation. How docsan individual's background influence the type ofactivities undertaken to start an organization?Does the marketing individual devote his time tomarketing instead of manufacturing, and are theresome environment!! or firms that require moremarketing? Is the process of starting a retail store

703

aimllar to that of starting a steel miU? Are antiysttatofiies used by new oi|anh»tions in the robot"ics industry similar to those meA In the breweryindustry?

The frame%vork for describing new venture cre-ation provides the possibility of describing sub-sets wHUiti tiie unwieldy set of all entjrepreneursand all new ventures. Newly created venturesthat display meaningful similarities across thefour 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 newventure creation.

This paper does not purport to answer specific

qufii8t,ions about how new ventures are started orprovide specific developmental modela for newventure 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 isat pieeent. A great many more questions axe askedhere than are answered. However, Ihe paper pro-vides a means of making a fundamental shift inthe perspective on entrepreneurship; away fromviewing entrapreneurs and their ventures as anunvarying, 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.

ReferencesAldricb, 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 (MichiganBusiness Reports, No. 62). Ann Arbor: tJniversity ofMichigan.

Brai:khau9, R. H. (t9B0a) The offect of job dissatisfaction onths decision to start a business, /ourn'il of Smalt BusirlsssMonognment, 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 CliffsNil Pruntice-Hall.

us. R. H., & Nord. W. R. (1979) An exploration offactors nffectJng tbeentisprenaurial dedsioui Personal char-ncteristics vs. onvironmentsl conditions. Praceedlngs QfIha National Academy of Management, 364-'368.

Brunii. A. V., & "l^ebjee. T. T. (1982) l b s environmi^nt forentrepraneurship. 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 andp«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. Industrialflesearch, 1Z(S), 58-Bl.

Cooper, A. 0 . (1979) Strategic management: New venturesand 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 atbusiness entry: Experiences of l ,aos entrspieneurt. In K. HVespei (Ed.), Frontiers of sntrepreneurahip resuirch (pp.1-ZO). Weilasley, MA: Babson CoUege.

Daily, C. A. (1971) Entrepreneurial management: Going allout for rasuUs. New York: McGraw-Hill.

C. H. (1949) Observations on entrepreneurship inagriculture. 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 selectedpersonal characteristics of minority and non-minorityfemale 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 growthsud 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 businessstartup, and Right entrepreneurial archetypes. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.

Glueck, W., & Mescon, T. (1980) Enfrepreneurshlp.- A Uiera-lute nnolysis 0/ concepts. Poper presented at the annualmeeting 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^ymodel of organiisaiions. American Journal 0/ l82.

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 contemporarymodel of entiepreneurial style. Small Business Instituii

i', 40-43.

Hattman, C. (1963) Who's running America's fastest growingcompanies? Inc., 5(8), 41-47.

Hnrtmaiin, H. (1959) Managers and entrepreneurs: A usefuldistinction? Admini.'itralivG Science Quarterly. 3.4Z9-457.

Hill, R. (t982) The antrepionsiur: An artist masquerading as abusinessman? international Monagement, 37(2}, 21-22,26.

Kttrnaday,).. & Abiiud, |. (1971) Characteristics o! successfulentrepraneuirs. 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. Academyof Management Journol, 22, 437-4S7,

Komives, J. L. (Ed.). (19B9) Karl A. Bostrum seminar in thesfudy of enteipri.<!8. Milwaukee, Wl: Center for VentureManagement.

Komives,). L. (1972) A protiminaty study of the personalvalues of high technology entrepreneurs. In A. C Cooper Si|. L, Komives (Eds.). Technical entrepreneurship: A sym-posium (pp. 231-242). Milwaukee, WI: Center for VentureManagement.

Lament, L. M. (1Q7Z) The role of marketing in l:achnicalerttropieneursiiip. 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 motolmanager. Academy 0/ Manogement Journal, B, zeB-281.

Long. W. (1983) The meaning of enirepreneurship. AmB.''icanJournal 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 somet)f their applications to social philosophy. London: |. W.Parker.

Miller, U. (1981) Towanl a new contingency approach: Thesearch for organization gestalts. Journal of ManagementStudies, IB, 1-26.

Palmer, M. (1971) The a|iplicatton of psychoiogical testing tottntrepTeneuriat 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 hiorganization!!: Evidence from the popular music industry.Administrative Science Quarterly, 16. 97-107.

PMfer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978) The exti'rnal control oforganizalinns. 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.), Fruntiersof 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 andBBttrptlsa 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 femslefrontiaf. [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 ofenttepreneurahlp. 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. Easttanning: 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 ofPoiiticol 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 fotmationproce.;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 theircompanies'. 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) Newventure crealion. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Van ds Vsn, A. H. (1980) Early planning, implemonlalionnnd 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: BabsonCollege.

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. InC 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: Adisclosure on rapacity and the independent entrepreneur.Academy of Managemont ReWeiv, 1(1), 28-:)7.

WeSck, K. E. (1979) The social psychology' o/ot^onlzing (2nded.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesiey.

Williamson, O. E. (1975) Markets and hierarcliies, analysisand antitrust imp!icaiions. Nmv York: Frea Press.

S. Gartner Is Assistant Professor of Businessand Cirectoro/lhnCenter/orEnirepreneurship Studiesin ihe School of Business Arfm(ni's(nition, GeorgetoivnUniversity.

708