Ed 1

THE FOCUS OF
ENTREPRENEURIAL RESEARCH:
CONTEXTUAL
AND PROCESS ISSUES
Deniz Ucbasaran, Paul Westhead and Mike Wright

Institute for Enterprise and Innovation, Nottingham University Business School,
Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, England
Tel: +44 115 951 5257, Fax: +44 115 951 5204
1
University of Nottingham
Institute for Enterprise and Innovation
Investing in Creativity
The Institute for Enterprise and Innovation was established in 1999 with funding
from the Office of Science and Technology under the auspices of Science Enterprise
Challenge. The Institute is committed to undertake research at the highest level into a
wide range of subjects in the areas of entrepreneurship, enterprise and innovation.
The Institute has strong links with universities in the USA, Europe and the Far East
and welcomes opportunities for collaborative research and international
benchmarking.
For further information on the Institute and its activities go to

www.nottingham.ac.uk/enterprise.
Director UNIEI
Professor Martin Binks
2
THE FOCUS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL RESEARCH: CONTEXTUAL
AND PROCESS ISSUES
Deniz Ucbasaran, Paul Westhead and Mike Wright

Institute for Enterprise and Innovation, Nottingham University Business School,
Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, England
Tel: +44 115 951 5257, Fax: +44 115 951 5204
Abstract
Low and MacMillan (1988) suggested that research into entrepreneurial behavior
should consider contextual issues and identify the processes that explain rather than
merely describe the entrepreneurial phenomenon. Recent studies focusing upon
entrepreneurial behavior, especially heuristics, and differences between ‘types’ of
entrepreneurs are discussed in this review. The literature focusing upon opportunity
recognition and information search is examined. Further, the literature relating to the
organizational forms selected by entrepreneurs is discussed. Studies examining the
relationship between external environmental conditions and the nature of
entrepreneurial activity are reviewed. We conclude that additional research attention
should be directed towards gaining a greater understanding of the behavior of
different types of entrepreneur (i.e., nascent, novice, serial and portfolio
entrepreneurs) and the different organizational forms selected (i.e., corporate
venturing, management buy-outs and buy-ins, franchising and the inheritance of a
family firm) by entrepreneurs.
INTRODUCTION
The entrepreneurial process involving all the functions, activities, and actions
associated with the perception of opportunities and creation of organizations to pursue
them (Bygrave and Hofer, 1991) has generated considerable academic interest.
However, there is a lack of an agreed definition of entrepreneurship and a concern
over what entrepreneurship constitutes as a field of study (Gartner, 1990). Like many
other disciplines, there is growing concern that entrepreneurship as a discipline is
fragmented among specialists who make little use of each other’s work (e.g.,
researchers following the phenomenological paradigm rather than positivist
paradigm). Fragmentation hinders the full advance of knowledge, because it creates
parts without wholes, disciplines without cores (Johnston, 1991). Most notably, there
is concern whether the issue of wealth creation is being adequately explored. The
diversity of wealth creation is manifold. Our mission within academia is to describe
and account for that diversity. To achieve this mission, we must promote the study of
entrepreneurship and we must not constrain our definition of the context for
entrepreneurship. This raises the question of the focus of research in the field of
entrepreneurship. To encourage the advancement and propagation of knowledge in
the field of entrepreneurship, this paper develops the focus theme highlighted by Low
and MacMillan (1988) by reviewing studies that have considered the contextual and
process issues associated with a selected entrepreneurial phenomenon. In this paper,
contextual and process issues associated with entrepreneurship are highlighted to
integrate research focusing upon the entrepreneurial phenomenon. The aim of this
paper is to encourage additional research rather than providing an exhaustive review
3
of all themes worthy of debate in the field of entrepreneurship. We identify several
themes that we believe deserve more research attention.
Gartner (1985) presented a conceptual framework for describing the
phenomenon of new venture creation that integrated four major perspectives in
entrepreneurship: the characteristics of the individual(s) starting the new venture; the
organization they create; the environment surrounding the new venture; and the
process by which the new venture is created. This paper takes the approach that the
processes associated with the entrepreneurial phenomenon can be discussed with
regard to opportunity recognition and exploitation by entrepreneurs; ability based on
skills, competencies and knowledge; and ability to obtain resources and co-ordinate
scarce resources (Low and MacMillan, 1988; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). The
context of the entrepreneurial phenomenon for illustration can be discussed, not only
in terms of the creation of new independent firms, but also in terms of corporate
ventures (McGrath, Venkataraman and MacMillan, 1994), management buy-outs and
buy-ins (Wright and Coyne, 1985), franchising (Shane, 1996) and the inheritance and
development of family firms (Church, 1993).
The objective of the paper is to identify a set of themes that best illustrate
progress and developments in the focus of entrepreneurship research over the past ten
years (see Westhead and Wright (2000) for a critical review of the literature related to
selected themes). Following a review of existing literature surrounding these themes,
we identify several research gaps that need to be addressed. Key aspects of the
entrepreneurial process and context are highlighted in Figure 1. The exposition in the
paper follows the themes highlighted in the figure. First, we examine the changing
focus of the nature of entrepreneurship theory, and in particular the shift of emphasis
towards the examination of behavior. Second, we review studies focusing upon
different types of entrepreneur. Third, the process of entrepreneurship is examined in
terms of: (a) studies focusing upon opportunity recognition, information search and
learning, and (b) resource acquisition and competitive strategies selected by
entrepreneurs. Fourth, organizational modes selected by entrepreneurs are examined
with regard to corporate venturing, management buy-outs and buy-ins, franchising
and the inheritance of family firms. Fifth, the external environment for
entrepreneurship is discussed. Sixth, the outcomes of entrepreneurial endeavors are
analyzed. Finally, some conclusions are drawn and themes worthy of additional
research attention are identified based on the dimensions identified in Figure 1.
THEME 1: ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY

Within the study of entrepreneurship, a variety of approaches have been selected to
describe entrepreneurs (Cunningham and Lischeron, 1991). Studies focusing on
entrepreneurs’ personalities, backgrounds, early experiences (Carland, Hoy, Boulton
and Carland, 1984), and traits have been widely criticized and have generally
produced disappointing findings (Low and MacMillan, 1988; Gartner, 1990). More
recently, studies have increasingly focused upon the behavioral aspects of
entrepreneurs (Chell, Haworth and Brearley, 1991; Gartner, Bird and Starr, 1992;
Lumpkin and Dess, 1996).
The cognitive processes in the decision making reported by entrepreneurs
have also been explored (Manimala, 1992; Palich and Bagby, 1995, Baron, 1998). A
particularly promising research focus has been entrepreneurial cognition, the way
entrepreneurs think and the individual decision-making processes or heuristics
adopted by entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs regularly find themselves in situations that
tend to maximize the potential impact of various heuristics (Baron, 1998). Busenitz
4
and Barney (1997) have argued that the level of uncertainty entrepreneurs’ face is
substantially greater than that of managers of well-established organizations who have
access to historical trends, past performance, and other information that can usually
be readily obtained. Entrepreneurs often have to make decisions with little or no
historical trends, no previous levels of performance, and little if any specific market
information surrounding whether new products or services will be accepted.
However, entrepreneurs can gain new insights from interpreting new combinations of
information via unique heuristic-based logic. Simplifying heuristics may have a great
deal of utility in enabling entrepreneurs to make decisions that exploit brief windows
of opportunity (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974; Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985). We
develop below the implications of this approach for the understanding of
entrepreneurial behavior by different types of entrepreneur and within different
organizational forms.
THEME 2: TYPES OF ENTREPRENEURS

Studies have made a distinction between nascent (i.e., individuals considering the
establishment of a new business), novice (i.e., individuals with no prior business
ownership experience as a business founder, an inheritor or a purchaser of a
business), habitual (i.e., individuals with prior business ownership experience), serial
(i.e., individuals who have sold / closed their original business but at a later date have
inherited, established and / or purchased another business), and portfolio
entrepreneurs (i.e., individuals who have retained their original business but a later
date have inherited, established and / or purchased another business) (Westhead and
Wright, 1998a; Wright, Westhead and Sohl, 1998; Delmar and Davidsson, 2000).
There is an increased awareness of the need for a greater understanding of the
processes and strategies selected by different types of entrepreneurs (Hornaday, 1990;
Rosa, 1998) to grow their ventures.
Studies have now begun to focus upon the pre-venture creation stage during
which individuals may be described as nascent entrepreneurs (Delmar and Davidsson,
2000). Reynolds (1997) found that nascent entrepreneurs are not homogeneous, with
the age of the entrepreneur and their previous employment status being important
discriminators. Carter, Gartner and Reynolds (1996) showed that the individuals
actually found to establish a business had undertaken more activities, including
gathering the necessary resources, to ensure that their business idea was tangible than
those who had given up. Longitudinal studies are important in order to provide
insights into the extent to which nascent entrepreneurs actually start businesses and
the processes that are involved. Additional research in this area might usefully
examine the links between pre-start-up activities and venture success rates. Studies
seem to be warranted that focus upon whether the difference between those
individuals who successfully start a business and those who give up is attributable to
the nature of the opportunity, to the commitment and expectations of the nascent
entrepreneur or to the level of resource availability in the external environment.
Alsos and Kolvereid (1998) have presented a study that begins to shed light on these
issues. They found that portfolio founders had a higher probability of venture
implementation than novice or serial founders.
Attempts have been made to identify the relevant characteristics of
entrepreneurs that may be linked to new venture success. Several studies have
suggested that entrepreneurs, whether involved in start-ups or buy-outs and buy-ins
(Robbie and Wright, 1996) can be divided into two broad types, namely, craftsmen or
opportunists with differing growth potential. Woo, Cooper and Dunkelberg (1991)
5
have challenged the usefulness of this dichotomy. They suggest that there may be
other types of entrepreneur that still have not been identified.
One dimension of the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial types, that has until
recently been neglected, is the possibility that entrepreneurs may be involved in more
than one venture. Dyer’s (1994) work on entrepreneurial careers, for example, is
couched very much in terms of an individual’s development within a growing
business over time. In contrast, an entrepreneur’s decision to exit from an initial
venture raises important issues about the factors that influence the subsequent
decision to exit completely from an entrepreneurial career or to own a further venture.
Ronstadt (1986) has provided an exploratory examination of ‘why’, ‘when’ and
‘how’ entrepreneurs end their entrepreneurial careers. It is widely believed that an
entrepreneur only starts another business when the first one fails (Dyer, 1994) but exit
from a venture may depend on an entrepreneur’s own threshold of performance
(Gimeno, Folta, Cooper and Woo, 1997). Using a real options perspective, McGrath
(1999) has argued that entrepreneurs may learn from the experience of owning a
business that ceased to trade (or failed) to avoid repeating mistakes in subsequent
ventures. Westhead and Wright (1998a, 1998b, 1999) have identified differing
characteristics and motivations of novice, serial and portfolio founders. Interestingly,
they found no significant differences between the performance of the surveyed firms
owned by habitual and novice founders but that a skewed pattern of absolute
employment growth was more prevalent in businesses owned by habitual
entrepreneurs (particularly, those located in rural environments) than by novice
founders.
A crucial, though relatively neglected, dimension of research on types of
entrepreneur has been in the area of entrepreneurial teams. Kamm and Shuman
(1990) reviewed several studies and noted that 50% of businesses were started by
entrepreneurial teams. Businesses owned by teams have generally more diversified
skills and competence bases to draw upon alongside a wider social and business
network, which can be used to acquire additional resources. Teams can also increase
the legitimacy of the business, particularly when trying to secure financial resources
(Fiet, Busenitz, Moesel and Barney, 1997). It is important to acknowledge that
entrepreneurial teams are not exclusive to start-ups. Wright and Coyne (1985) and
Baruch and Gebbie (1998), for example, have explored entrepreneurial teams in the
context of management buy-outs. However, there has been limited research
exploring the dynamics of entrepreneurial teams (Ensley, Carland, Carland and
Banks, 1999) such as the process of effectively assembling and maintaining
entrepreneurial teams (see Birley and Stockley, 2000 for a review of existing
literature).
It is clear from the above discussion that entrepreneurs are not a homogeneous
entity. Moreover, entrepreneurship is not necessarily a single-action event.
Entrepreneurs, among themselves, may display differing characteristics and patterns
of behavior that warrants research into different types of entrepreneurs. Alongside
the entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial process is also a crucial dimension of
entrepreneurship research. This dimension is highlighted in the following section.
THEME 3: THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS

This section examines two broad dimensions of the entrepreneurial process:
opportunity recognition and information search, and resource acquisition and business
strategies.
6
Opportunity Recognition and Information Search
While opportunity recognition (Kirzner, 1973) and information search are often
considered to be the first critical steps in the entrepreneurial process (Christensen,
Madsen and Peterson, 1994; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000), limited empirical
research has been conducted surrounding this process. Venkataraman (1997) argues
that one of the most neglected questions in entrepreneurship research is where
opportunities come from. ‘Why’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ certain individuals exploit
opportunities appears to be a function of the joint characteristics of the opportunity
and the nature of the individual (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Venkataraman
(1997) highlighted three main areas of difference between individuals that may help
us understand why certain individuals recognize opportunities while others do not:
knowledge (and information) differences; cognitive differences; and behavioral
differences.
The ability to make the connection between specific knowledge and a
commercial opportunity requires a set of skills, aptitudes, insights, and circumstances
that are neither uniformly nor widely distributed (Venkataraman, 1997). The extent
to which individuals recognize opportunities and search for relevant information can
depend on the make-up of the various dimensions / aspects of an individual’s human
capital. Kirzner (1973) asserted that the entrepreneur identifies opportunities by
being 'alert' to and 'noticing' opportunities that the market presents. The process of
search and opportunity recognition can be influenced by the cognitive behaviors of
entrepreneurs. Search behavior can be bounded by the decision-maker’s knowledge
of how to process information as well as the ability to gather an appropriate amount
of information (Woo, Folta, and Cooper, 1992). Entrepreneurs with limited
experience may use simplified decision models to guide their search, while the
opposite may be the case with experienced entrepreneurs (Gaglio, 1997). Experience
may not strictly enhance opportunity recognition ability. Habitual entrepreneurs
associated with liabilities (e.g., over-confidence, subject to blind spots, illusion of
control, etc.), resulting from their prior business ownership experience, may also
exhibit limited and narrow information search. Cooper, Folta and Woo (1995) found,
however, that novice entrepreneurs sought more information than entrepreneurs with
more entrepreneurial experience, but they searched less in unfamiliar surroundings.
Further, entrepreneurs having high levels of confidence sought less information.
Some experienced entrepreneurs may simply have had a fortuitous prior
business ownership experience and may subsequently have little idea about
identifying additional profitable projects. Over time, however, habitual entrepreneurs
are likely to acquire information and contacts that provides them with a flow of
information relating to opportunities. Consequently, habitual entrepreneurs may need
to be less proactive compared with novice entrepreneurs. Having earned a reputation
as a successful entrepreneur, financiers, advisers, other entrepreneurs and business
contacts may send proposals to previously successful habitual entrepreneurs.
The ability of entrepreneurs to learn from previous business ownership
experiences can influence the quantity and quality of information subsequently
collected (Gaglio, 1997). Previous entrepreneurial experience may provide a
framework or mental schema for processing information. In addition, it allows
informed and experienced entrepreneurs to identify and take advantage of dis-
equilibrium profit opportunities (Kaish and Gilad, 1991). This entrepreneurial
learning goes beyond acquiring new information by connecting and making
inferences from various pieces of information that have not previously been
connected. These inferences build from individual history and experience and often
7
represent ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking. Heuristics may be crucial to making these new
links and interpretations.
Some people habitually activate their mental schema for processing
information and can notice it in the midst of an otherwise overwhelming amount of
stimuli (Gaglio, 1997). This may explain why the pursuit of one set of ideas and
opportunities invariably leads entrepreneurs to additional innovative opportunities
that had not been previously recognized (Ronstadt, 1988). McGrath (1999) has
argued that entrepreneurs have access to numerous shadow options (i.e., opportunities
that have not been recognized). Over time, valuable information regarding the real
option can be made available or suitable venture opportunities emerge. Although
McGrath focused on the ability to learn from entrepreneurial failure, shadow options
may also arise with more successful entrepreneurs.
There is limited evidence surrounding the search behavior of habitual
entrepreneurs. Most notably, it is not clear whether ideas, projects and deals go to
habitual entrepreneurs or whether habitual entrepreneurs initiate them. Case studies
of habitual entrepreneurs have revealed that habitual start-up entrepreneurs were
likely to be more proactive than habitual buy-out / buy-in entrepreneurs with regard
to the search processes they adopted in subsequent ventures (Wright, Robbie and
Ennew, 1997; Ucbasaran, Wright, Robbie and Westhead, 1999).
Low and MacMillan (1988) suggested that networks are an important aspect
of the context and process of entrepreneurship. Subsequent studies have found that
networking allows entrepreneurs to enlarge their knowledge of opportunities, to gain
access to critical resources and to deal with business obstacles (Johannisson,
Alexanderson, Nowicki and Senneseth, 1994; Sapienza, Manigart and Vermeir, 1996;
Hills, Lumpkin and Singh, 1997; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999). Businesses owned
by teams of partners generally have wider social and business networks (Cooper,
Gimeno-Gascon and Woo, 1994) and more diversified skill and competence bases to
draw upon (Slevin and Covin, 1992). The creation of formal networks in the form of
innovative milieu (such as a Science Park) (Felsenstein, 1994; Westhead and
Batstone, 1999) can provide a context for entrepreneurs (and their firms) to acquire
knowledge and experience (Thrift, 1996). However, it is not clear how effective
these sponsored networks are in equipping entrepreneur’s and firm’s with the ability
to select effective strategies to secure scarce resources outside a sponsored
environment. Additional research is, therefore, warranted focusing upon this theme
(Flynn, 1993; Westhead and Storey, 1995; Westhead and Batstone, 1999).
Once the opportunity has been identified and information relevant to the
venture has been obtained, the next step for the entrepreneur (or the team of
entrepreneurs) is to acquire new resources or effectively manage existing resources,
in order to exploit the opportunity. Research developments in these aspects of the
entrepreneurial process are discussed in the following section.
Resource Acquisition and Business Strategies

Recent studies have attempted to examine entrepreneurs with respect to their resource
endowments and resource acquisition strategies. The owner(s) of a business is likely
to be its key resource (Storey, 1994; Westhead, 1995; Bates, 1998). Further, the
owner(s) may be the key constraint on resource acquisition (Brown and Kirchhoff,
1997). Resources and assets (both tangible and intangible) are accumulated
throughout entrepreneurial careers (Katz, 1994; Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997), for
example, human, social, physical, financial and organizational capital (Cooper,
Gimeno-Gascon and Woo, 1994; Greene and Brown, 1997; Hart, Greene and Brush,
8
1997). Numerous studies have attempted to detect a link between the human capital
of entrepreneurs and the probability of venture failure, survival and / or success
(Mosakowski, 1993; Chandler and Hanks, 1994; Westhead, 1995; Gimeno, Folta,
Cooper and Woo, 1997; Bates, 1998). Chandler and Hanks (1994) found that
ventures with higher levels and broader varieties of resources tended to grow faster
and were larger in size. Other studies have examined how the relative importance of
bundles of resources varies with the age of the venture (Brush, Greene, Hart and
Edelman, 1997; Chandler and Hanks, 1998).
Although resources are crucial to the performance of a venture, resources
alone are not sufficient to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. It follows
that entrepreneurs must develop skills and select competitive strategies to make better
use of the resources that are accessible to them. Based on the resource-based theory
of the firm, Chandler and Hanks (1994) suggested that businesses should select their
strategies to generate rents based upon resource capabilities. They argue that when
there is a fit between the available resources and the venture’s competitive strategies,
firm performance should be enhanced. Additional firm-level studies are required to
explore the relationship between entrepreneurial resources (and their acquisition and
management) and the competitive strategies pursued by organizations (Zahra,
Jennings and Kuratko, 1999).
THEME 4: ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS SELECTED BY ENTREPRENEURS

As noted earlier, the organizational form an entrepreneurial venture takes is a crucial
element of entrepreneurship research. However, as will be highlighted in the
following discussion, there is considerable heterogeneity among organizational modes
selected by entrepreneurs. In this section, four organizational forms the
entrepreneurial venture may take are discussed: corporate venturing; the purchase of
an existing organization through a management buy-out or buy-in; the purchase of an
existing organization through a franchise; and the inheritance and development of
family firms.
Corporate Venturing / Entrepreneurship

A hierarchy of terminology to describe the corporate entrepreneurship phenomenon
has recently been presented by Sharma and Chrisman (1999). Corporate
entrepreneurship is a process of organizational renewal and is associated with two
distinct but related dimensions (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990; Zahra, 1993; Zahra,
Kuratko and Jennings, 1999). The first dimension stresses creating new businesses
through market developments or by undertaking products, process, technological and
administrative innovations. The second dimension is associated with the redefinition
of the business concept, reorganization, and the introduction of system-wide changes
for innovation. Much of the research on corporate venturing has focused on large
firms (Block and MacMillan, 1993) with the examination of intrapreneurship in small
businesses needing to be based on different theoretical bases (Carrier, 1997).
It is possible to identify the antecedents to the development of corporate
venturing that are necessary to successfully combat bureaucratic processes and
procedures that are linked to organizational inflexibility in large corporations
(McGrath, Venkataraman and MacMillan, 1994; Greene, Brush and Hart, 1999; Hitt,
Nixon, Hoskisson and Kochhar, 1999; Russell, 1999). Several studies (Zahra, 1993;
Covin and Miles, 1999; Russell, 1999) have also shown that the characteristics of the
environment play an important role in executives’ pursuits of corporate
9
entrepreneurship and in the resultant performance. Zahra and Covin (1995) argue
that although there has been considerable theoretical discussion about the potential
benefits of corporate venturing, and extensive anecdotal evidence regarding its
impact, there has been little systematic analysis (also see Dess, Lumpkin and McGee
(1999)). Their longitudinal study concluded that corporate venturing was particularly
effective for enterprises operating in hostile environments and that its effects may
only fully emerge in the long-term.
Different conceptualizations of firm-level entrepreneurship need to be
explored (Zahra, Jennings and Kuratko, 1999). For example, different
conceptualizations of the link between entrepreneurial activities and company
performance are warranted. Large sample studies conducted in a wide range of
industrial, regional, national and cultural environments are required to explore the
interplay between environment, corporate entrepreneurship and financial
performance. Several studies have focused upon entrepreneurship as either an
independent or a dependent variable. It has been suggested (Zahra, Jennings and
Kuratko, 1999) that most firm-level studies have not examined the lag effect that
might exist between antecedent variables and entrepreneurship. Additional research
is, therefore, required focusing upon the causal sequences between entrepreneurship
and outcomes (e.g., firm-level performance). Corporate venturing has generally been
depicted as an antecedent of company performance. Future studies should explore the
link between company performance and subsequent corporate venturing behavior.
Longitudinal studies using quantitative as well as qualitative research methodologies
would provide insights into the important ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. In addition,
given the problems that may arise where corporations have perspectives which are too
short-term, and where there is inadequate continuing senior management support for
corporate venturing activities, there remains a need for additional studies to address
the barriers to corporate venturing.
Purchase of an Existing Organization: Management Buy-outs and Buy-ins

Management buy-outs, where incumbent management purchase an existing
organization in which they are employed, and management buy-ins, where outside
managers effect a purchase of an existing organization with institutional finance, can
both be considered as a form of corporate entrepreneurship. Studies have shown that
the most significant contribution to organizational performance improvements
emanate from managerial equity stakes rather than the commitment to servicing the
debt used to finance the purchase of a business (Denis, 1994; Phan and Hill, 1995).
This latter finding suggests that entrepreneurial activities are taking place in these
new organizational forms.
The transfer of ownership in an existing firm is typically accompanied by
entrepreneurial actions that reconfigure the way in which the firm operates (Malone,
1989), although buy-outs may not perform as well as owner-started businesses
(Chaganti and Schneer, 1994). Wright, Thompson and Robbie (1992) showed that
although there has been a dominant agency cost perspective concerning buy-outs
(Jensen, 1986), there is significant evidence of their entrepreneurial effects in the
form of new product development and capital investment that would not otherwise
have occurred. Zahra (1995) has also provided evidence of the entrepreneurial
impact of management buy-outs. Wright, Wilson and Robbie (1996), for example,
found that over a period of ten years following management buy-outs, new markets
and product development were reported to be the most important influences on sales
and profitability growth.
10
The cognition perspective developed by Busenitz and Barney (1997) has
opened up potentially interesting applications to the analysis of entrepreneurship in
management buy-outs. Although it is possible to extend agency theory to apply to the
design of incentives to encourage innovation in management buy-outs, this may be
limited to the case of more routine innovation where incumbent managers rely on
detailed information and systematic analyses in their decision-making. To achieve
more radical innovation, there may be a need for individuals with an entrepreneurial
cognition orientation to adopt heuristic-based decision-making. Arguably,
management buy-outs of divisions can occur where managers with an entrepreneurial
cognition perspective become frustrated. For example, managers can be pushed into
entrepreneurship by the bureaucratic decision-making process of a large diversified
parent firm that rejects investment proposals because of a lack of the appropriate
information to fit this process. Indeed, studies of management’s motivation for
buying out show the importance of being able to develop strategic opportunities that
could not be carried out under the previous owners (Wright, Thompson, Chiplin and
Robbie, 1991; Robbie, Wright and Albrighton, 1999), and to control their own
destiny (Baruch and Gebbie, 1998).
Further research is required to develop a clear theoretical and empirical
analysis of the entrepreneurial dimension of management buy-outs. Wright,
Hoskisson, Busenitz and Dial (2000) provide a step in this direction by developing a
theoretical model that synthesizes the agency cost approach to buy-outs with a
cognitive perspective. They argue that while the control and incentive mechanisms
typically used in buy-outs can produce enhancements to efficiency and limited
innovation, this will not lead to significant innovation, if the new-owner managers
possess only managerial cognition since entrepreneurial cognition is required. There
is a need to empirically confirm the processes discussed above in a variety of
industrial, national and cultural settings.
Purchase of an Existing Organization: Franchising

Franchising can be considered as an alternative start-up method and selected by some
entrepreneurs concerned with minimizing uncertainty and risk. Several studies have
focused upon the potential for co-operation versus conflict between the franchisee and
the franchisor. Spinelli and Birley (1996) have presented an entrepreneurship
perspective surrounding franchising that provides insights into the informal
governance of the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. Also
focusing on relationship issues, Gassenheimer, Baucus and Baucus (1996) detected
that participative communication generally enhanced franchisees’ freedom to take
entrepreneurial actions.
It has been suggested that an entrepreneur taking up a franchise is more likely
to be associated with a firm that survives than an entrepreneur establishing a new
independent firm (Shane, 1996). In marked contrast, Bates (1998), concluded that
franchisees starting by purchasing the ongoing franchise unit from a previous owner
were riskier than franchisees starting from scratch, and indeed than de novo start-ups,
since poor firm performance often lay behind the reason for the sale of the firm.
Additional research surrounding the performance of outlets purchased by franchisees
compared with other business ownership forms is warranted given conflicting
empirical evidence.
The control by the franchisor over the way franchisees organize their business
(Felstead, 1994) raises issues about the ability of franchisees to engage in
entrepreneurial actions. Despite growing recent interest in franchising, there appears
11
to have been a general neglect of entrepreneurial issues associated with this context
for entrepreneurship. Further research is required that considers the entrepreneurial
attributes of individuals purchasing franchises, their search and opportunity
recognition processes and the entrepreneurial actions they undertake.
Inheritance of an Existing Organization: Family Firms

Although there is no widely accepted family firm definition (Westhead and Cowling,
1998), several studies have detected that family firms differ from otherwise similar
organizations because of the critical role that family members play in business
processes at many levels (Davis and Harveston, 1998; Chua, Chrisman and Sharma,
1999). While the founding of a family firm fits with conventional definitions of
entrepreneurship, the inheritance of an existing family firm raises issues about
whether the inheritors engage in entrepreneurial behavior.
Despite the importance of succession to the continuity of a family firm it is
surprising to note that many issues of theoretical impact have not been explored in
large-scale empirical studies (Davis and Harveston, 1998). Effective succession may
be influenced by the objectives pursued by the family owning the business.
Somewhat paradoxically, emphasis on the maintenance of a particular life-style
objective (Westhead and Cowling, 1997) which involves family dominance in
management (Daily and Dollinger, 1993) and ‘family agendas’ (Church, 1993), can
adversely affect a firm’s ability to adapt and survive in the long term. Quality of
management may suffer (3i, 1995), captive boards may not bring the necessary
pressure to change (Hoy and Verser, 1994), and there may be a reluctance to bring in
outsiders who would contribute equity finance and monitoring (Westhead, 1997).
The survival of family firms has been assisted by the development of management
buy-outs where next-generation family owners are either not available or unwilling to
take on the running of the business (Wright and Coyne, 1985). However, the
frequent failure of family firms to develop professional non-family managers has
meant that new outsiders may need to be brought in as the new owner-managers,
creating a management buy-in (Robbie and Wright, 1996). Inheritors can also rid
themselves of their burdens and responsibilities by the clean division of a family
business into two or more separate independent businesses (Lansberg, 1999). On the
other hand, the reported stronger commitment to long-term investments, greater focus
upon the quality of their products or services (Westhead, 1997), and investment in
employee and management training and / or research (Church, 1993; for a dissenting
view see Westhead, 1997) may exert a positive influence on succession.
Lansberg (1999) has recently presented a conceptual distinction between three
types of succession transitions (i.e., succession transitions that recycle the business
form; evolutionary successions that involve fundamental changes in the authority and
control structure leading to a more complex family firm system; and devolutionary
successions that lead to a more simpler family firm system). Further conceptual and
rigorous empirical research on the entrepreneurial attributes of family firms facing
succession issues is warranted. Given the lack of consensus as to what defines a
family firm, additional studies need to examine carefully the entrepreneurial
implications of succession in family and non-family firms. The succession issue
clearly raises an urgent need for more longitudinal studies of family firms (Hoy and
Verser, 1994). Additional research is required focusing upon the true complexities of
the succession process in the family firm (i.e., the three intertwined systems of the
family, management and ownership) as well as the overlap between entrepreneurship
and family business.
12
The above discussion highlights that entrepreneurship may manifest itself in
various organizational forms. There is a clear need to investigate the nature of
entrepreneurial behavior within these different organizational settings. Furthermore,
entrepreneurial actions and certain organizational forms may be considered more
favorable in certain environments and cultural contexts (Shane, 1993). It follows,
therefore, that investigation of the entrepreneur and the organizational forms adopted
(i.e., the entrepreneurial process), must be viewed in the context of the external
environment. In the following section, the relationship between external
environmental conditions and the nature of entrepreneurial activity is discussed.
THEME 5: EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Van de Ven (1993) has argued that the study of entrepreneurship is deficient if it
focuses exclusively on the characteristics and behaviors of individual entrepreneurs
and treats the social, economic, and political infrastructure for entrepreneurship as
externalities. He asserted that a social system perspective that considers external
environmental conditions is appropriate for explaining the process of
entrepreneurship. A recent and growing body of research has focused upon venture
creation and the relationship between environmental conditions and the nature of
entrepreneurial activity (for a summary see Gnyawali and Fogel, 1994). Studies have
explored the relationship between environmental conditions and new venture creation
(Keeble and Walker, 1994; Reynolds, Storey and Westhead, 1994), business survival
(Romanelli, 1989; Stearns, Carter, Reynolds and Williams, 1995), business closure
(Keeble and Walker, 1994; Westhead and Birley, 1994), the competitive strategies
pursued by organizations (Romanelli, 1989; Zahra, 1996) and business performance
(Covin and Slevin, 1990; Vaessen and Keeble, 1995; Westhead and Wright, 1999).
Resource dependence and population ecology theory have been used to guide
research and provide explanations as to how the environment affects new firm
formation rates. Resource dependence theorists view the environment as a pool of
resources with organizations entering into transactional relationships with
environmental factors because they cannot generate all necessary resources internally
(Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). This theory suggests that differentiation and
diversification encourage organizational survival and growth. The resource
dependence perspective is different from the population ecology perspective in that
the organization is looked upon as more active in attempting to ‘adapt’ to the
environment. Adherents of the population ecology perspective suggest that the
processes of carrying capacity, density, legitimation and competition play a
determining role in the size of organizational populations (Hannan and Carroll, 1992).
Within the evolutionary perspective, Aldrich (1990) suggests that the founding of
new organizations can be influenced by intra-population, inter-population and
institutional factors.
The predictive limitations of the population ecology perspective with regard to
types of organizations established and their performance have been widely discussed
(Romanelli, 1989; Aldrich, 1990; Bygrave and Hofer, 1991) and they still need to be
addressed. In response to this research gap, Specht (1993) combined the population
ecology and the resource dependence perspectives and presented a model of the
relationship between organizational formation and environmental munificence and
carrying capacity. Specht’s novel model needs to be tested in a variety of
environmental settings. Further, Specht has suggested that studies are required which
focus upon intervention methods to increase new formation rates in environments
when munificence and carrying capacity are declining.
13
Whilst not discounting internal managerial factors, Covin and Slevin (1989)
explored the relationship between an organization’s overall strategic orientation, its
competitive tactics and the organizational attributes of firms in hostile and benign
environments. Covin and Slevin’s study needs to be replicated in a variety of
industrial and national settings beyond their sample of high performing small
manufacturing firms. A longitudinal research design should be considered to unravel
the business practices and organizational responses selected by entrepreneurs (and
their firms) in hostile and benign environments. Further, the important ‘why’ and
‘how’ questions need to be explored using multivariate statistical techniques and
qualitative methodologies. Additional research will provide useful evidence
surrounding the causes of subsequent behavior reported by entrepreneurs competing
in different types of external environments.
Despite the contributions discussed above, Gnyawali and Fogel (1994) have
argued that an integrated, theoretically driven and comprehensive framework is not
available for studying the environmental conditions conducive for entrepreneurship.
Moreover, they asserted that a conceptual framework is needed that integrates
existing literature on external environments for entrepreneurship. Additional studies
focusing upon this theme is, therefore, still warranted.
THEME 6: OUTCOMES
The entrepreneurial process may lead to numerous outcomes. Most studies exploring
the outcomes of entrepreneurship have focussed on firm-level survival and / or
financial performance. Focusing on firm-level aspects, while important, may be
insufficient to understand fully the outcomes associated with the entrepreneurial
phenomenon. It is possible to identify two additional dimensions of the
entrepreneurial outcome: performance of the entrepreneur and firm exit issues. It is
crucial, therefore, that any study exploring the outcome(s) of the entrepreneurial
process is clear on the unit of analysis being used.
To date, the majority of empirical work has used various ‘objective’ financial
and non-financial yardsticks to measure firm-level growth and performance (Birley
and Westhead, 1990a; Chandler and Hanks, 1993; Cooper, 1993; Bridge, O’Niell and
Cromie, 1998). Entrepreneurial performance, however, may be a much more
subjective concept, depending on the personal expectations, aspirations and skills of
the individual entrepreneur.
Whilst several studies have focused upon the personality and traits of
entrepreneurs, the performance of entrepreneurs (i.e., the entrepreneur rather than the
firm as the unit of analysis) has received limited research attention. Given the
heterogeneous nature of entrepreneurship in terms of motivational diversity, different
types of entrepreneurs and organizational forms, measuring entrepreneurial
performance is inevitably a challenging task. Davidsson and Wiklund (this issue) and
Venkataraman (1997) suggest that in order to distinguish what is truly attributable to
the individual entrepreneur from the idiosyncrasies of the particular opportunity, the
individuals must be studied across several new enterprise efforts. Rosa (1998) has
called for a measure of entrepreneurial performance in which aggregate value is
assessed over all businesses owned by the entrepreneur, not just any single existing
firm under study. Most notably, the performance of portfolio entrepreneurs should be
assessed with reference to all the businesses they currently have an ownership stake in
(Birley and Westhead, 1993a; Westhead and Wright, 1998a). Similarly, Davidsson
and Wiklund (this issue) suggest that ‘entrepreneurial career performance’ in terms of
the number and proportion of successful new enterprise processes or the total net
14
worth created, may be an effective means of avoiding the mismatch between
independent and dependent variables (common in much entrepreneurship research).
Many studies fail to appreciate the diversity of entrepreneurs and
organizations owned by entrepreneurs. Consequently, very few studies have focussed
upon which ‘type of organization’ and ‘which type of entrepreneur’ may influence
several outcomes (Birley and Westhead, 1990a; Westhead, 1995). This diversity
raises opportunities for entrepreneurship research in that there is a need to learn more
about how type of entrepreneur or type of organization acts as a moderator in
influencing relationships between predictors and performance (Chandler, 1996).
Furthermore, to understand and separate the contribution of individual entrepreneurs
(as well as teams of entrepreneurs) to the entrepreneurial process and entrepreneurial
performance, qualitative approaches may be more appropriate.
A final important outcome of the entrepreneurial process is the issue of firm
exit (Birley and Westhead, 1990b). Defining organizational closure or ‘failure’ is a
major problem and a variety of definitions have been utilized (Keasey and Watson,
1991). There is no universally accepted definition of the point in time when an
organization can be said to have closed (or ‘failed’). For example, the development
of management buy-outs of companies in receivership suggests that although a firm
may have failed in terms of one configuration of resources, it may be possible to
resurrect it in another form (Robbie, Wright and Ennew, 1993). A detailed review of
the small firm failure prediction literature by Keasey and Watson (1991) found that
statistical models using firm-level data were able to predict the probability of firm
closure better than human decision-makers using the same information sets. They
believe that there may be a need to develop specific models for different types of firm
failure. The major problem, however, is being able to obtain appropriate and
representative samples of failed and non-failed firms. Brüderl, Peisendorfer and
Zeigler (1992) examined the contribution of human capital theory and organizational
ecology explanations of new firm failure. Their analysis suggests that variables
reflecting the latter approach, such as number of employees, capital invested and
organizational strategies, are the most important determinants of firm survival.
However, characteristics of the founder, notably years of schooling and work
experience were also found to be important determinants.
As noted earlier, the entrepreneur’s decision to exit from the current business
may not strictly be the result of ‘failure’ or poor financial / economic performance.
Ronstadt (1986) noted that 43% of businesses in his sample were exited due to
liquidation. Interestingly, he found that 46% of the entrepreneurs in the sample
exited by selling their businesses. Firm survival depends on an entrepreneur’s own
threshold of performance which is determined by human capital characteristics such
as alternative employment opportunities, psychic income from entrepreneurship and
the switching costs involved in moving to other occupations. (Gimeno et al., 1997).
If economic performance falls below this threshold, the entrepreneur may exit the
firm but continue in business if performance is above this threshold. However, if we
accept the perspective that entrepreneurship relates largely to the recognition and
exploitation of opportunities, it follows that opportunities may emerge at any time
and in various forms. The option to exit from a firm may also be viewed as the
exploitation of a strategic window of opportunity by the entrepreneur. Hence, the
entrepreneur may choose to sell a firm if an attractive offer is put forward.
Alternatively, the entrepreneur may choose to exit a firm if a more appealing venture
(i.e., opportunity) is accessible. There is a need, therefore, for additional research to
explore the various reasons for exiting a firm and the ‘modes’ of exit selected by
entrepreneurs (Birley and Westhead, 1993b).
15
CONCLUSIONS AND THEMES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This paper has highlighted that the focus of research into entrepreneurship has been
extended over the last decade. Most notably, several studies have recently given
greater consideration to entrepreneurial behavior, search processes selected by
different types of entrepreneur, the differing organizational forms through which
entrepreneurial behavior is expressed and the importance of the external environment.
The focus of future research should increasingly gather more information on wealth
creation and the behavior of entrepreneurs and the patterns exhibited by entrepreneurs
and their organizations in a variety of industrial, regional, national and cultural
settings. As highlighted by Low and MacMillan, there is a continued need for studies
to explain the contexts and processes associated with entrepreneurial behavior. The
following themes and links between themes are worthy of additional research as well
as policy-maker and practitioner attention.
1. The theoretical antecedents explaining entrepreneurial behavior remain quite

disparate (Theme 1 in Figure 1). Studies are required that attempt to integrate the
inter-disciplinary nature of entrepreneurship. Although complete integration may
be unrealistic, recognition of the multi-disciplinary dimensions of
entrepreneurship could add to our understanding of the phenomenon.
2. There is a growing appreciation of different types of entrepreneurs (i.e., nascent,

novice, serial and portfolio entrepreneurs) as well as contrasting organizational
forms selected (i.e., corporate venturing, management buy-outs and buy-ins,
franchising and family firms) by entrepreneurs. Despite recent progress,
additional studies are required that focus upon the identification of different types
of entrepreneurs (Theme 2). With respect to the links with theoretical
antecedents, there is still a need to examine the heuristics adopted by different
types of entrepreneurs with regard the differing contexts for entrepreneurship.
For example, to what extent do novice entrepreneurs display different heuristics
than serial and portfolio entrepreneurs (i.e., link between Themes 1 and 2)?
Furthermore, depending on the heuristics and cognitive patterns displayed by
entrepreneurs, the learning experiences from their ventures may be quite different
(i.e., link between Themes 1 and 3).
3. Alongside the need to examine the heuristics of different types of entrepreneurs,

there is scope to examine the cognitive behaviors of subgroups of entrepreneurs.
For example, while habitual entrepreneurs may be different from novice
entrepreneurs, habitual entrepreneurs among themselves may differ in terms of
the number and quality of ventures they engage in (Theme 2). Further research is
warranted that focuses upon the characteristics and motivations of those habitual
entrepreneurs who appear to be ‘addicted’ to entrepreneurship through their
involvement in large numbers of ventures. To encourage best business practice,
the skills accumulated and learnt by successful habitual entrepreneurs need to be
identified and disseminated to nascent entrepreneurs as well as practicing
entrepreneurs.
With respect to the neglected area of entrepreneurial teams, there is a need for
studies to explore the extent to which they can facilitate the acquisition and
leveraging of resources. Further, given the diversity among entrepreneurs, studies
should investigate whether certain contexts are more likely to be associated with a
16
significantly lower probability of firm ownership and control in the hands of a
single entrepreneur rather than a team of entrepreneurs. The following questions
need to be carefully explored. What does each individual entrepreneur look for
when they join a consortium of entrepreneurs to establish or purchase a business?
What are the assets and liabilities provided by each entrepreneur involved in a
business consortium? Do novice entrepreneurs tend to establish or purchase
businesses with additional entrepreneurs as a means of overcoming their
individual limited experience? Do habitual entrepreneurs make use of their broad
networks to build better, more effective firm ownership teams or do they over-
rely on their own individual past experience? Are consortiums of entrepreneurs
who establish new businesses different from consortiums of entrepreneurs who
strategically select to purchase existing businesses? What are the problems and
challenges facing each entrepreneur involved in a business consortium? How
does the composition and dynamics of ownership teams change in start-up
ventures compared with purchased and inherited ventures? How does the
composition and dynamics of ownership change in the successive ventures
engaged in by habitual entrepreneurs?
4. Several studies have explored the opportunity recognition and information search
processes exhibited by different types of entrepreneurs (Theme 3). Limited
research has, however, been conducted focusing on how entrepreneurs use the
knowledge they have acquired. For example, the learning issues embedded in the
search behavior of serial and portfolio entrepreneurs are poorly understood (i.e.,
link between Themes 2 and 3). Research is needed to answer ‘why’, ‘when’ and
‘how’ certain individuals are able to identify and exploit opportunities, while
others cannot or do not do so. For a number of entrepreneurs, one opportunity
may present a whole array of shadow options (i.e., other potential opportunities).
There is, therefore, scope to explore the extent to which certain types of
entrepreneurs may adopt such an approach in evaluating opportunities (i.e., link
between Themes 2 and 3).
5. There is further scope to examine the resource acquisition strategies selected by

different types of entrepreneur (Theme 3). Studies are required that focus on
‘how’ entrepreneurs leverage personal resources in order to create or acquire
resources to diversify their firm’s resource base. Limited research has been
conducted exploring the selection of appropriate competitive strategies by
different types of entrepreneurs (and organizations) located in hostile and benign
environments (i.e., link between Themes 2, 3 and 5). Studies need to be
conducted that explore how different types of entrepreneurs may adopt different
business related strategies. Research is also needed to examine the causal
relationships between resources, strategies and organization and entrepreneur
performance (i.e., link between Themes 2, 3 and 6). The resource-based view of
the entrepreneur (and the firm) should be considered to guide studies in this area.
6. Additional studies are required that explore entrepreneurial behavior displayed in

several contrasting organizational contexts (Theme 4). Studies are required to
carefully examine, using multivariate statistical techniques as well as qualitative
techniques, whether individuals involved in corporate entrepreneurship,
management buy-outs and buy-ins, franchising or family firms exhibit different
heuristics and cognitive behaviors from founders of independent start-up
businesses or conventional managers (i.e., link between Themes 1 and 4).
17
7. Limited research has been conducted surrounding the search processes selected by
purchasers or inheritors of businesses as well as individuals engaged in corporate
venturing (i.e., link between Themes 3 and 4). Additional research is required to
explore whether entrepreneurs in a management buy-out situation exhibit reactive
behavior or do they proactively select a buy-out option after considering start-up
and buy-in options. Studies should also explore whether certain types of
organizational form create further profitable commercial opportunities for
entrepreneurs.
8. Despite recent progress, the development and testing of an integrative model of

the links between entrepreneurship and external environmental conditions is still
required (Theme 5). Studies need to appreciate that contrasting environmental
conditions exist for entrepreneurship. The emergence of market economies from
former centrally planned economies, in particular, raises research possibilities for
the study of entrepreneurial heuristics and opportunity search processes in
environments where entrepreneurship has previously been difficult, if not illegal.
The change in environment to one in which the institutions of a market economy
are either undeveloped or are missing, introduces the issue of whether
entrepreneurship is either destructive (for example, organized crime and
corruption) or constructive (Baumol, 1990). Moreover, studies need to focus on
how to channel entrepreneurial talent and vision into more productive (i.e.,
constructive) activities rather than criminal and destructive activities.
9. The outcomes associated with the entrepreneurial process and context can be
examined in terms of organizational or entrepreneurial performance (Theme 6).
An expanding literature exists on organizational performance, for example, in
terms of firm-level survival as well as sales, profits and employment growth.
Unfortunately, this literature fails to adequately identify factors that explain
subsequent firm-level performance, particularly the performance of independent
start-ups businesses (Cooper, 1993; Storey, 1994). Additional studies are still
urgently required focusing upon the relationships between the entrepreneur, the
organization, the external environment and organizational performance in terms
of financial and non-financial indicators (i.e., links between Themes 2, 3, 4, 5 and
6). For example, do successful entrepreneurs subsequently become more reactive
with regard to the search for opportunities or markets? Moreover, are successful
entrepreneurs more likely to purchase rather than establish a subsequent business?
Research exploring whether franchises are more likely to survive than
independent start-up businesses are warranted. Studies need to recognize the
importance of being consistent in terms of the unit of analysis being used, hence
avoiding a mismatch between the independent and dependent variable (Davidsson
and Wiklund, this issue). Further careful quantitative as well as qualitative
studies of large longitudinal data-sets of entrepreneurs as well as organizations
will enable researchers to shed greater light on the performance of different types
of ventures. They will also provide policy-makers and practitioners with relevant
information to develop more fine-tuned instruments to promote new firm
formation and business development. Several studies have highlighted that some
entrepreneurs own more than one business and have entrepreneurial careers.
Additional research is warranted focusing upon the performance of entrepreneurs
with regard to the portfolio of businesses that they own over time. The
performance of novice as well as habitual entrepreneurs should be measured with
18
regard to their personal wealth, the quantity and quality of the businesses they
own as well as the levels of satisfaction they report (i.e., link between Themes 2
and 6). Triangulation is required here to validate, revise and refine measures of
entrepreneur-level as well as firm-level entrepreneurship.
10. Surprisingly, the process of venture exit reported by entrepreneurs has only been
tentatively explored (Birley and Westhead, 1990b, 1993b; Murray, 1994; Wright,
Robbie, Thompson and Starkey, 1994) (Theme 6). There is a need for studies to
focus on the ‘opportunity recognition’ aspects of venture exit reported by
different types of entrepreneurs (i.e., link between Themes 3 and 6). Researchers
need to explore whether the venture exit process is proactive or reactive. In
addition, studies need to identify the extent to which entrepreneurs engage in a
detailed information search for the optimum exit mode.
The themes highlighted above represent a considerable research agenda. It is

clear that there is a need for further focus in entrepreneurship research surrounding
context and process issues. These need to be examined in a far wider context than
initially envisaged by Low and MacMillan. The emergence of newer entrepreneurial
organization forms, together with an appreciation that entrepreneurs may engage in
more than one venture, takes the focus of future entrepreneurship research beyond the
founding of new firms by first time entrepreneurs. Furthermore, examining the
behavior of entrepreneurs through a cognitive and heuristic-based model is likely to
aid our understanding of the entrepreneurial process.
The themes discussed above suggest that future studies should focus on more
precisely defined entities (e.g., a particular category of entrepreneurs), contexts and
relationships. This perspective is likely to provide useful insights into particular
groups of entrepreneurs, within a particular organizational context. While this
approach is likely to conflict with the "desire for common definitions and a clearly
defined area of inquiry" (Low and MacMillan, 1988, p.141), from a pragmatic
perspective, it may allow researchers to provide more specific advice and applications
for policy-makers, practitioners and entrepreneurs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A version of this paper was presented at the Tenth Global Entrepreneurship
Conference, March 2000. The insightful comments of Howard Aldrich and Ted
Baker and two anonymous referees are warmly acknowledged. All opinions (and
errors) are the authors alone.
19
References
Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using An Ecological Perspective to Study Organizational

Founding Rates. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 7-24.
Alsos, G. A., and Kolvereid, L. (1998). The Gestation Process of Novice, Serial and
Parallel Business Founders. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22, 101-114.
Baron, R. A. (1998). Cognitive Mechanisms in Entrepreneurship: Why and When
Entrepreneurs Think Differently Than Other People. Journal of Business
Venturing, 13, 275-294.
Baruch, Y., and Gebbie, D. (1998). Cultures of Success: Characteristics of the UK’s
Leading MBO Teams and Managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 423-
439.
Bates, T. (1998). Survival Patterns Among Newcomers to Franchising. Journal of
Business Venturing, 13, 113-130.
Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship, Productive, Unproductive and Destructive.
Journal of Political Economy, 98, 893-921.
Birley, S. J. and Stockley, S. (2000). Entrepreneurial Teams and Venture Growth. In
D. L. Sexton and H. Landström (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of
Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Blackwell.
Birley, S. J., and Westhead, P. (1990a). Growth and Performance Contrasts Between
‘Types’ of Small Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 535-557.
Birley, S., and Westhead, P. (1990b). Private Business Sales Environments in the
United Kingdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 349-373.
Birley, S., and Westhead, P. (1993a). A Comparison of New Businesses Established
by 'Novice' and 'Habitual' Founders in Great Britain. International Small
Business Journal, 12, 38-60.
Birley, S., and Westhead, P. (1993b). The Owner-Managers Exit Route. In H.
Klandt (Ed.). Entrepreneurship and Business Development, Avebury: Gower,
123-140.
Block, Z., and MacMillan, I. C. (1993). Corporate Venturing: Creating New
Businesses within the Firm. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bridge, S., O’Neill, K., and Cromie, S. (1998). Understanding Enterprise,
Entrepreneurship & Small Business. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Brown, T. E., and Kirchhoff, B. A. (1997). Resource Acquisition Self-Efficacy:
Measuring Entrepreneur’s Growth Ambitions. In P. D. Reynolds, W. D. Carter,
P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, and P. McDougall (Eds.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship Research 1997, Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College, 59-
60.
Brüderl, J., Preisendörfer, P., and Ziegler, R. (1992). Survival Chances of Newly
Founded Business Organizations. American Sociological Review, 57, 227-242.
Brush, C. G., Greene, P. G., Hart, M. M., and Edelman, L. F. (1997). Resource
Configurations Over the Life Cycle of Ventures. In P. D. Reynolds, W. D.
Carter, P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, and P. McDougall (Eds.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship Research 1997, Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College,
315-329.
Busenitz, L. W., and Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences Between Entrepreneurs and
Managers in Large Organizations: Biases and Heuristics in Strategic Decision-
Making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 9-30.
Bygrave, W. D., and Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing About Entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 13-22.
20
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., and Carland, J. AC. (1984). Differentiating
Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners. Academy of Management Review, 9,
354-359.
Carrier, C. (1997). Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study.
Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., and Reynolds, P. D. (1996). Exploring Start-Up
Event Sequences. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 151-166.
Chaganti, R., and Schneer, J. A. (1994). A Study of the Impact of Owner’s Mode of
Entry on Venture Performance and Management Patterns. Journal of Business
Venturing, 9, 243-260.
Chandler, G. N. (1996). Business Similarity as a Moderator of the Relationship
Between Pre-Ownership Experience and Venture Performance. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 20, 51-65.
Chandler, G., and Hanks, S. H. (1993). Measuring the Performance of Emerging
Businesses: A Validation Study. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 391-408.
Chandler, G., and Hanks, S. H. (1994). Market Attractiveness, Resource-Based
Capabilities, Venture Strategies and Venture Performance. Journal of Business
Venturing, 9, 331-349.
Chandler, G., and Hanks, S. H. (1998). An Examination of the Substitutability of
Founders Human and Financial Capital in Emerging Business Ventures. Journal
of Business Venturing, 13, 253-369.
Chell, E., Haworth, J. M., and Brearley, S. A. (1991). The Entrepreneurial
Personality: Concepts, Cases and Categories. London: Routledge.
Christensen, P. S., Madsen, O. O., and Peterson, R. (1994). Conceptualising
Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition. In G. E. Hills (Ed.), Marketing and
Entrepreneurship: Research Ideas and Opportunities. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books, 61-75.
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., and Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the Family Business
by Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 19-37.
Church, R. (1993). The Family Firm in Industrial Capitalism: International
Perspectives on Hypotheses and History. Business History, 35, 17-43.
Cooper, A. C. (1993). Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance. Journal of
Cooper, A. C., and Dunkelberg, W. C. (1986). Entrepreneurship and Paths to
Business Ownership. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 53-68.
Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., and Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial Information
Search. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 107-120.
Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., and Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial Human and
Financial Capital as Predictors of New Venture Performance. Journal of
Covin, J. G., and Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of
Competitive Advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 47-63.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic Management of Small Firms in
Hostile and Benign Environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
Cunningham, J. B., and Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining Entrepreneurship. Journal of
Small Business Management, 29, 45-61.
Daily, C. M., and Dollinger, M. J. (1993). Alternative Methodologies for Identifying
Family- Versus Nonfamily-Managed Businesses. Journal of Small Business
Management, 31, 79-90.
21
Davidsson, P., and Wiklund, J. (2000). Level of Analysis in Entrepreneurship
Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, forthcoming.
Davis, P. S., and Harveston, P. D. (1998). The Influence of Family on the Family
Business Succession Process: A Multi-Generational Perspective.
Delmar, F., and Davidsson, P. (2000). Where Do They Come From? Prevalence
and Characteristics of Nascent Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, 12, 1-23.
Denis, J. (1994). Organizational Form and the Consequences of Highly Leveraged
Transactions: Kroger’s Recapitalization and Safeway’s LBO. Journal of
Financial Economics, 36, 193-224.
Dess, G, G., Lumpkin, G. T., and McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking Corporate
Entrepreneurship to Strategy, Structure, and Process: Suggested Research
Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 85-102.
Dyer, W. G. Jr. (1994). Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Careers.
Ensley, M. D., Carland, J.C., Carland, J. W. and Banks, M. (1999): Exploring the
Existence of Entrepreneurial Teams. International Journal of Management, 16,
276-286.
Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-Related Science Parks - ‘Seedbeds’ or ‘Enclaves’
of Innovation? Technovation, 14, 93-110.
Felstead, A. (1994). Shifting the Frontier of Control: Small Firm Autonomy Within
a Franchise. International Small Business Journal, 12, 50-62.
Fiet, J, Busenitz, L., Moesel, M., and Barney, J. (1997). Complementary Theoretical
Perspectives on the Dismissal of New Venture Team Members. Journal of
Floyd, S. W., and Wooldridge, B. (1999). Knowledge Creation and Social Networks
in Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Renewal of Organizational Capability.
Flynn, D. M. (1993). A Critical Exploration of Sponsorship, Infrastructure, and New
Organizations. Small Business Economics, 5, 129-156.
Gaglio, C. M. (1997). Opportunity Identification: Review, Critique and Suggested
Research Directions. In J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm
Emergence and Growth. Connecticut: JAI Press, 3, 139–202.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of
New Venture Creation. Academy of Management Review, 10, 696-706.
Gartner, W. B. (1990). What Are We Talking About When We Talk About
Entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 15-28.
Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., and Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating
Entrepreneurial from Organizational Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 16, 13-31.
Gassenheimer, J., Baucus, D., and Baucus, M. (1996). Cooperative Arrangements
among Entrepreneurs: An Analysis of Opportunism and Communication in
Franchise Structures. Journal of Business Research, 36, 67-79.
Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., and Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the
Fittest? Entrepreneurial Human Capital and the Persistence of Underperforming
Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 750-783.
Gnyawali, D. R., and Fogel, D. S. (1994). Environments for Entrepreneurship
Development: Key Dimensions and Research Implications. Entrepreneurship
22
Greene, P. G., and Brown, T. E. (1997). Resource Needs and the Dynamic
Capitalism Typology. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 161-173.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., and Hart, M. M. (1999). The Corporate Venture
Champion: A Resource-Based Approach to Role and Process. Entrepreneurship
Guth, W. D., and Ginsberg, A. (1990). Guest Editors’ Introduction: Corporate
Entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 11 (special issue), 5-15.
Hannan, M. T., and Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of Organizational Populations:
Density, Legitimation and Competition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hart, M., Greene, P. G., and Brush, C. G. (1997). Leveraging Resources: Building
and Organization on an Entrepreneurial Resource Base. In P. D. Reynolds, W.
D. Carter, P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, and P. McDougall (Eds.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship Research 1997. Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College,
347-348.
Hills, G. E., Lumpkin, G. T and Singh, R. P (1997). Opportunity Recognition:
Perceptions and Behaviors of Entrepreneurs. In P. D. Reynolds, P. W. D. Carter,
P. Davidsson, W. B. Gartner, and P. McDougall (Eds.). Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship Research 1997, Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College,
330-344.
Hitt, M. A., Nixon, R. D., Hoskisson, R. E., and Kochhar, R. (1999). Corporate
Entrepreneurship and Cross-Functional Fertilization: Activation, Process and
Disintegration of a New Product Design Team. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23, 145-167.
Hornaday, R. W. (1990). Dropping the E-words from Small Business Research.
Journal of Small Business Management, 28, 22-33.
Hoy, F., and Verser, T. G. (1994). Emerging Business, Emerging Field:
Entrepreneurship and the Family Firm. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
19, 9-23.
Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance and
Takeovers. American Economic Review – Papers and Proceedings May, 76, 326-
329.
Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, O., Nowicki, K., and Senneseth, K (1994). Beyond
Anarchy and Organization: Entrepreneurs in Contextual Networks.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 6, 329-356.
Johnston, R. J. (1991). A Question of Place: Exploring the Practice of Human
Geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaish, S., and Gilad, B. (1991). Characteristics of Opportunities Search of
Entrepreneurs Versus Executives: Sources, Interests, General Alertness. Journal
Kamm, J. B., and Shuman, J. C. (1990). Entrepreneurial Teams in New Venture
Creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14, 7-24
Katz, J. A. (1994). Modelling Entrepreneurial Career Progressions: Concepts and
Considerations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19, 23-39.
Keasey, K., and Watson, R. (1991). The State of the Art of Small Firm Failure
Prediction: Achievements and Prognosis. International Small Business Journal,
9, 11-29.
Keeble, D., and Walker, S. (1994). New Firms, Small Firms, and Dead Firms:
Spatial Patterns and Determinants in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 28,
411-427.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
23
Lansberg, I. (1999). Succeeding Generations: Realizing the Dream of Families in
Business. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Low, M. B., and MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and
Future Challenges. Journal of Management, 35, 139-161.
Lumpkin, G. T., and Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation
Construct and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21,
135-172.
Malone, S. (1989). Characteristics of Smaller Company Leveraged Buyouts.
Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 349-359.
Manimala, M. J. (1992). Entrepreneurial Heuristics: A Comparison Between High
PI (Pioneering-Innovative) and Low PI Ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,
7, 477-504.
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling Forward: Real Options Reasoning and
Entrepreneurial Failure. Academy of Management Review, 24, 13-30.
McGrath, R. G., Venkataraman, S., and MacMillan, I. C. (1994). The Advantage
Chain: Antecedents to Rents from Internal Corporate Ventures. Journal of
Mosakowski, E. (1993). A Resource-Based Perspective on The Dynamic Strategy-
Performance Relationship: An Empirical Examination of the Focus and
Differentiation Strategies in Entrepreneurial Firms. Journal of Management, 19,
819-839.
Murray, G. (1994). The Second Equity Gap: Exit Problems for Seed and Early
Stage Venture Capitalists and their Investee Companies. International Small
Business Journal, 12, 59-76.
Palich, L. E., and Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using Cognitive Theory to Explain
Entrepreneurial Risk-Taking: Challenging Conventional Wisdom. Journal of
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A
Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Phan, P., and Hill, C. (1995). Organizational Restructuring and Economic
Performance in Leveraged Buyouts: An Ex Post Study. Academy of Management
Review, 38, 704-739.
Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Who Starts New Firms? - Preliminary Explorations of
Firms-in-Gestation. Small Business Economics, 9, 449-462.
Reynolds, P. D., Storey, D. J., and Westhead, P. (1994). Cross-National
Comparisons of the Variation in New Firm Formation Rates. Regional Studies,
28, 443-456.
Robbie, K., and Wright, M. (1996). Management Buy-Ins: Active Investors and
Corporate Restructuring. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Robbie, K., Wright, M., and Ennew, C. (1993). Management Buy-outs from
Receivership. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 21, 519-
530.
Robbie, K., Wright, M., and Albrighton, M. (1999). High Tech Management Buy-
outs. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 1,
219-240.
Romanelli, E. B. (1989). Environments and Strategies of Organization Start-Up:
Effects on Early Survival. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 369-387.
Ronstadt, R. (1986). Exit, Stage Left: Why Entrepreneurs End Their Entrepreneurial
Careers Before Retirement. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 323-338.
Ronstadt, R. (1988). The Corridor Principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 31-
40.
24
Rosa, P. (1998). Entrepreneurial Processes of Business Business Cluster Formation
and Growth by ‘Habitual’ Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
22, 43-61.
Russell, R. D. (1999). Developing a Process Model of Intrapreneurial Systems: A
Cognitive Mapping Approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 65-84.
Sapienza, H. J., Manigart, S., and Vermeir, W. (1996). Venture Capitalists
Governance and Value Added in Four Countries. Journal of Business Venturing,
11, 439-469.
Shane, S. (1993). Cultural Influences on National Rates of Innovation. Journal of
Shane, S. A. (1996). Hybrid Organizational Arrangements and their Implications for
Firm Growth and Survival: A Study of New Franchisors. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 216-234.
Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field
of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-226.
Sharma, P., and Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a Reconciliation of the Definitional
Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 23, 11-27.
Slevin, D. P., and Covin, J. G. (1992). Creating and Maintaining High-Performance
Teams. In D. L. Sexton and J. D. Kasarda (Eds.) The State of the Art of
Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 358-386.
Specht, P. H. (1993). Munificence and Carrying Capacity of the Environment and
Organizational Formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 77-86.
Spinelli, S., and Birley, S. (1996). Towards a Theory of Conflict in the Franchise
System. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 329-342.
Stearns, T. M., Carter, N. M., Reynolds, P. D., and Williams, M. L. (1995). New
Firm Survival, Industry, Strategy, and Location. Journal of Business Venturing,
10, 23-42.
Stevenson, H. H., and Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The Heart of Entrepreneurship.
Harvard Business Review, 63, 85-94.
Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge.
3i. (1995). The 3i / Mori Survey of Key Independent Businesses in Britain. London,
3i.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial Formations. London: Sage Publications.
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics
and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., Robbie, K., and Westhead, P. (1999). Habitual
Entrepreneurs: A Resource-Based View. Paper presented at the Ninth Global
Entrepreneurship Conference, New Orleans, April 1999.
Vaessen, P., and Keeble, D. (1995). Growth-Orientated SMEs in Unfavourable
Regional Environments. Regional Studies, 29, 489-505.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1993). The Development of an Infrastructure for
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 211-230.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In
J. A. Katz (Ed.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth.
Connecticut: JAI Press, 3, 139–202.
Westhead, P. (1995). Survival and Employment Growth Contrasts Between Types
of Owner-Managed High-Technology Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 20, 5-27.
25
Westhead, P. (1997). Ambitions, 'External' Environment and Strategic Factor
Differences between Family and Non-Family Companies. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 9, 127-157.
Westhead, P., and Batstone, S. (1999). Perceived Benefits of a Managed Science
Park Location for Independent Technology-Based Firms. Entrepreneurship and
Regional Development, 11, 129-154.
Westhead, P., and Birley, S. (1994). Environments for Business Deregistrations in
the United Kingdom, 1987-1990. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
6, 29-62.
Westhead, P., and Cowling, M. (1997). Performance Contrasts Between Family and
Non-Family Unquoted Companies in the UK. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 3, 30-52.
Westhead, P., and Cowling, M. (1998). Family Firm Research: The Need for a
Methodological Rethink. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23, 31-56.
Westhead, P., and Storey, D. J. (1995). Links Between Higher Education
Institutions and High Technology Firms. Omega, International Journal of
Management Science, 23, 345-360.
Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (1998a). Novice, Portfolio, and Serial Founders: Are
They Different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 173-204.
Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (1998b). Novice, Portfolio, and Serial Founders in
Rural and Urban Areas. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22, 63-100.
Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (1999). Contributions of Novice, Portfolio, and Serial
Founders Located in Rural and Urban Areas. Regional Studies, 33, 157-173.
Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2000). Introduction. In P. Westhead and M. Wright
(Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship. Volume 1, xi-xcvi. Aldershot: Edward
Elgar Publishing Ltd, (forthcoming).
Woo, C. Y., Cooper, A. C., and Dunkelberg, W. C. (1991). The Development and
Interpretation of Entrepreneurial Typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 6,
93-114.
Woo, C. Y., Folta, T., and Cooper, A. C. (1992). Entrepreneurial Search:
Alternative Theories of Behavior. In N. C. Churchill, S. Birley, W. D. Bygrave,
D. F. Muzyka, C. Wahlbin, and W. E. Wetzel (Eds.) Frontiers in
Entrepreneurship Research 1992, Wellesley, Massachusetts: Babson College, 31-
41.
Wright, M., and Coyne, J. (1985). Management Buy-outs. Beckenham: Croom
Helm.
Wright, M., Hoskisson, R., Busenitz, L., and Dial, J. (2000). Entrepreneurial
Growth Through Privatization: The Upside of Management Buy-outs. Academy
of Management Review, forthcoming.
Wright, M., Robbie, K., and Ennew, C. (1997). Venture Capitalists and Serial
Entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 227-249.
Wright, M., Robbie, K., Thompson, S., and Starkey, K. (1994). Longevity and the
Life-cycle of Management Buy-outs. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 215-
228.
Wright, M., Thompson, S., Chiplin, B., and Robbie, K. (1991). Management Buy-
ins and Buy-outs: New Strategies in Corporate Management. London: Graham &
Trotman.
Wright, M., Thompson, S., and Robbie, K. (1992). Venture Capital and
Management-Led, Leveraged Buy-Outs: A European Perspective. Journal of
26
Wright, M., Westhead, P., and Sohl, J (1998). Habitual Entrepreneurs and Angel
Investors. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22, 5-21.
Wright, M., Wilson, N., and Robbie, K. (1996). The Longer Term Effects of
Management-led Buyouts. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Small Business
Finance, 5, 213-234.
Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and Outcomes of Corporate Entrepreneurship: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 259-285.
Zahra, S. A. (1993). Environment, Corporate Entrepreneurship, and Financial
Performance: A Taxonomic Approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 319-
340.
Zahra, S. A. (1995). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Financial Performance: The
Case of Management Leveraged Buy-Outs. Journal of Business Venturing, 10,
225-247.
Zahra, S. A. (1996). Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining
the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment. Journal of
Zahra, S. A., and Covin, J. G. (1995). Contextual Influences on the Corporate
Entrepreneurship - Performance Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis. Journal
Zahra, S. A., Jennings, D. F., and Kuratko, D. F. (1999). The Antecedents and
Consequences of Firm-Level Entrepreneurship: The State of the Field.
Zahra, S. A., Kuratko, D. F., and Jennings, D. F. (1999). Entrepreneurship and the
Acquisition of Dynamic Organizational Capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 23, 5-10.
27
Type of Learning
Entrepreneur
- nascent
- novice
- serial
- portfolio
Theme 2
Process Outcomes
Theoretical - opportunity recognition - entrepreneur &
Antecedents & information search organization performance
- resource acquisition & growth
Theme 1 & business strategies - venture exit
Theme 3 Theme 6
Type of
Organization
- start-ups
- corporate venturing
- MBOs / MBIs
- franchising
- inheritance
Theme 4
External Environment Theme 5
Figure 1: The Focus of Entrepreneurship Research

28

Ed 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ed 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FOCUS OF

Deniz Ucbasaran, Paul Westhead and Mike Wright

For further information on the Institute and its activities go to

Deniz Ucbasaran, Paul Westhead and Mike Wright

THEME 1: ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY

THEME 2: TYPES OF ENTREPRENEURS

THEME 3: THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS

Resource Acquisition and Business Strategies

THEME 4: ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS SELECTED BY ENTREPRENEURS

Corporate Venturing / Entrepreneurship

Purchase of an Existing Organization: Management Buy-outs and Buy-ins

Purchase of an Existing Organization: Franchising

Inheritance of an Existing Organization: Family Firms

THEME 5: EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP

1. The theoretical antecedents explaining entrepreneurial behavior remain quite

2. There is a growing appreciation of different types of entrepreneurs (i.e., nascent,

3. Alongside the need to examine the heuristics of different types of entrepreneurs,

5. There is further scope to examine the resource acquisition strategies selected by

6. Additional studies are required that explore entrepreneurial behavior displayed in

8. Despite recent progress, the development and testing of an integrative model of

The themes highlighted above represent a considerable research agenda. It is

Aldrich, H. E. (1990). Using An Ecological Perspective to Study Organizational

External Environment Theme 5

Figure 1: The Focus of Entrepreneurship Research

You might also like