Search

This paper suggests that entrepreneurship is the process of “emergence.” An organizational behavior perspective on entrepreneurship would focus on the process of organizational emergence. The usefulness of the emergence metaphor is explored through an exploration of two questions that are the focus of much of the research in organizational behavior: “What do persons in organizations do?” (we will explore this question by looking at research and theory on the behaviors of managers), and “Why do they do what they do?” (ditto for motivation). The paper concludes with some implications for using the idea of emergence as a way to connect theories and methodologies from organizational behavior to entrepreneurship.

The purpose of this study was to explore whether certain cognitive factors of potential entrepreneurs (as measured by a personal efficacy scale and the kinds of reasons people offer for their decision to undertake efforts to start a business) can be used to predict their subsequent persistence in business start-up activities and in new venture creation success. Two hypotheses were tested: 1. H1 : Potential entrepreneurs who offer internal and stable explanations for their plans for getting into business (e.g., “I have always wanted to own my own business”) should be more likely to persist in actions that lead to successfully starting a business. 2. H2 : Potential entrepreneurs with high personal efficacy scores should be more likely to persist in actions that lead to successfully starting a business. The beginning pool of subjects for this research consisted of 142 consecutive preventure clients (47 women, 95 men) of a Small Business Development Center between October 1990 and February 1991. As part of their initial consultation, these individuals were asked to explain their decision to enter business. These responses were coded on the basis of a detailed procedure derived from the attributional model (Weiner 1985). Potential entrepreneurs also responded to a locus-of-control questionnaire: Paulhus (1983) Spheres of Control Scale. In February 1992, all 142 people were sent a follow-up questionnaire designed to assess the extent of their new venture development activity in the intervening year. Responses from 85 individuals were available for this analysis. The follow-up questionnaire listed 29 separate activities involved in starting a business. These activities were grouped into five major categories: gathering market information, estimating potential profits, finishing the groundwork for the company, structuring the company, and setting up business operations. The measure of success at getting into business was operationalized by the question: “Have you completed the first sale (defined as having delivered the product or service and collected the payment from your customer)?” An analysis of the results found that HI (internal/stable attributions, e.g., “I have always wanted to be my own boss”) was supported for female potential entrepreneurs, whereas external/stable attributions (e.g., “I had identified a market need”) were significant for male potential entrepreneurs. SIC code classifications revealed no significant differences in the sorts of businesses being contemplated by women and men. H2 (personal efficacy) was not supported. Those activities that focused on setting up business operations (e.g., purchasing materials, hiring employees, producing the product/service, distributing the product) distinguished potential entrepreneurs who had started businesses from those who had not. We believe that one of the important features of this research is the use of a longitudinal research design. By measuring attributions before these potential entrepreneurs had started (or not started) their businesses, we can make stronger claims for a causal relationship between initial attributions and each individual's subsequent success or failure in business start-up. Given all of the events and activities that occur between an individual's attributions for getting into business and the actual start-up, the attributional findings about male and female potential entrepreneurs have important implications for future research and practice. Men and women do have different reasons for getting into business that appear to be significant indicators of their future ability to start a business successfully. We believe that the development of measures focusing on details of the attributional model (i.e., perceptions of skills, abilities, the difficulty of the task, luck, and the value of the opportunity) will likely lead to a more comprehensive and accurate conception of the factors that influence entrepreneurial persistence. We offer some suggestions for how the use of an attributional model might influence the selection, counseling, and training of potential entrepreneurs.

This article explores the characteristics of emerging organizations and suggests that emerging organizations can be identified by four properties: intentionality, resources, boundary, and exchange. These properties are defined and discussed. Suggestions are made for selecting samples for research on emerging organizations. Implications for research and theory on new and emerging organizations are discussed.

In this study we develop and validate an empirically grounded taxonomy of new business ventures (NBVs) using qualitative and quantitative data generated from interviews of and questionnaire responses from 106 entrepreneurs. The taxonomy describes eight different types (gestalts) of NBVs. These eight types are profiled across four dimensions: Individual: What kinds of background characteristics, abilities, skills, and motivations do these entrepreneurs have? Organizational: What kinds of competitive strategies and organization structures are used by NBVs? Environmental: What kinds of competitive environments are NBVs created in? Process: What kinds of activities are pursued, and how much effort is devoted to the activities that entrepreneurs undertake to create their NBVs? An NBV gestalt is an ideal type generated through cluster analysis. It is a composite summary of the case descriptions of the NBVs that fell into each particular cluster. Although each NBV gestalt is a complex combination of many different characteristics, a simplistic description of each NBV gestalt is outlined to provide an overall view of the taxonomy. Type 1: Escaping to Something New: Individuals who start these firms seek to escape from their previous jobs—jobs that from their perspective offer few rewards in terms of salary, challenging work, and promotion opportunities. The new venture is in a different industry and is a different type of work than the entrepreneur's previous job. This firm enters an established highly competitive market and offers goods/services similar to its competitors. Type 2: Putting the Deal Together: The concern of the entrepreneurs in this group is to assemble the different aspects of the business (suppliers, wholesale and retail channels, customers) into a “deal” in which each participant in the deal can be assured of winning. Contacts are a crucial factor. Type 3: Roll Over Skills/Contacts: Before the start-up the entrepreneur worked in a position using technical skills and expertise similar to those required in the new venture. He or she spends little time selling, marketing, or advertising because customer contacts from a previous position are used. This firm provides goods or services that are based on the owner's professional expertise and are usually generic services (e.g., auditing, advertising). The firm competes by offering better service than competitors. Type 4: Purchasing a Firm: Since this is a purchase, a great deal of time is spent acquiring capital for the acquisition. The venture is viewed as a turn-around situation from the previous owners. Upon acquisition a great amount of time is spent evaluating the firm's products and services. The firm competes by adapting to the changing needs of customers. Type 5: Leveraging Expertise: This entrepreneur is among the best in his or her technical field. The firm starts with the help of partners. The firm enters an established market and competes through flexibility in adapting to customer needs since the entrepreneur is keenly aware of changes in the environment. A great deal of time is devoted to sales. The environment is characterized by high technical change and complexity. Type 6: Aggressive Service: The firm is a very aggressive service-oriented firm, usually a consulting firm in a very specialized area. The environment requires that the entrepreneur have profes- sional or technical expertise of some kind. Knowing the right people in this industry is very important for making sales or for gaining access to those who influence which firms have the opportunity to make sales. Type 7: Pursuing the Unique Idea: The firm is created because of a new idea for a product or service that is not being offered. The products or services are not technically sophisticated or difficult to manufacture. Since this is the first firm in the marketplace to offer such products/services, there is some uncertainty as to whether customers can be found. Type 8: Methodical Organizing: The methodical aspect of the start-up is reflected in the entrepreneur's use of planning both in acquiring the skill venture. The firm's products or services are similar to those of other firms, but the firm has some new twist, either a slightly different way to manufacture the product or provide the service or by selling to a slightly different customer. The NBV taxonomy outlines a situation-based framework that may be useful for helping potential entrepreneurs match their skills, abilities, and interests to possible new venture types.

The words we use to talk about entrepreneurship influence our ability to think about this phenomenon, and subsequent to these thoughts, direct our actions towards research that might be conducted on this topic. This paper offers some words to be included in a lexicon on organizational emergence: being, circumstance, emerge, emergence, emergency, emergent evolution, equivocal, found, founder, genesis, and variation. These words are discussed and directions for research on organizational emergence are offered.

This study examined three types of factors: (1) the characteristics of the lead entrepreneur, (2) startup processes undertaken during the founding of the firm, and (3) firm behaviors after start-up, including management practices and strategic behaviors, associated with new venture success and failure. The research involved a field study of 26 small, young firms; 13 successful and 13 less, successful (or failed), each engaged in the distribution of fresh juices in eight metropolitan centers (about 30% of the total market) in the United States. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected through field work at each firm location. A statistical analysis of data collected in a structured questionnaire was the primary method for testing the factors. Case studies of all of the firms were developed to provide qualitative support for the quantitative findings of the study. Results from these analyses indicated significant differences between successful and unsuccessful firms in all three categories. Lead entrepreneurs in successful firms were more likely to have been raised by entrepreneurial parents, have had a broader business and more prior startup experience, and believed they had less control of their success in business, than unsuccessful entrepreneurs. Successful entrepreneurs seek to reduce risk in their businesses. They work long hours, have a personal investment in the firm, and are good communicators. Successful firms were those initiated with ambitious goals. Lead entrepreneurs had a clear broad business idea which provided the adaptive torque required to overcome adversity, confrontation, and often, a troubled financial condition. Effective startup or purchase required broad planning efforts that considered all aspects of the industry and firm. Successful firms spent more time planning (237 hours) than unsuccessful firms (85 hours). The use of outside professionals and advisors for help in solving specific problems during startup was important for success as well as the advice and information provided by other industry participants, particularly customers and suppliers. Most ventures did not have written business plans. Nearly all purchased firms failed. Buyers of competitively troubled firms were negatively displaced, generally unemployed managers who lacked broad management experience, and while often well educated, had no prior experience in purchasing a business. Successful firms were found to be more flexible, participative, and adaptive organizations. These firms had employees who could perform the work duties of others and were likely to be managed in a way that provided these workers with the flexibility to modify their jobs to adapt to changing industry and organizational conditions. Lead entrepreneurs of successful firms were likely to spend more time communicating with partners, customers, suppliers, and employees than the lead entrepreneurs of unsuccessful firms. Successful firms sought to become larger firms and embarked upon sales to broad sectors of the market. Successful firms achieved high market shares; with market shares came higher financial returns. Less successful firms were restricted to narrow market sectors consisting of smaller customers and those more difficult to service. While customer service remained an important concern, the commodity nature of fresh juices failed to support differentiation, and the narrowly focused firm was typified by high product costs and unprofitable operations.

Entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations. What differentiates entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs is that entrepreneurs create organizations, while non-entrepreneurs do not. In behavioral approaches to the study of entrepreneurship an entrepreneur is seen as a set of activities involved in organization creation, while in trait approaches an entrepreneur is a set of personality traits and characteristics. This paper argues that trait approaches have been unfruitful and that behavioral approaches will be a more productive perspective for future research in entrepreneurship.

This study explores the label ‘opportunity’ in the strategic issue literature as a point of departure for offering an attributional framework for categorizing opportunities entrepreneurs offer as they undertake efforts to start businesses. The strategic issue literature broadly labels opportunities as being positive and controllable and involving potential gain. We demonstrate that this is similar to an attribution theory approach. In preparing this article, the authors analyzed open-ended questions from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED). Entrepreneurs were more likely to offer attributions about their opportunities that can be categorized as dependent on their abilities (internal and stable attributions) and efforts (internal and variable attributions). Copyright © 2009 Strategic Management Society.