This document discusses the search for a theory of entrepreneurship. It notes that economists currently lack an economic theory that fully explains the role of entrepreneurship in economic development. Prior studies have focused on identifying traits or personality patterns of successful entrepreneurs, but these have produced inconsistent results. The authors argue for developing a theoretical model that includes both an economic model showing how entrepreneurship contributes to the economic process, and an identification of critical entrepreneurial behaviors that lead to success in different economic environments. The document reviews literature on definitions of entrepreneurship and studies of entrepreneurial traits and personalities. It also discusses limitations of traditional economic theories in accounting for the role of entrepreneurship.

1. THE SEARCH FOR A THEORY OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Larry Short, The University of Louisiana at Monroe
Paul Dunn, The University of Louisiana at Monroe
ABSTRACT
A brief review of the
entrepreneurship literature suggests that
economists do not have an economic theory
that explains the role of entrepreneurship in
economic development and many of the past
studies of entrepreneurs have concentrated
on entrepreneurial traits and entrepreneurial
personality patterns. The authors speculate
that entrepreneurial success may be a
function of specific entrepreneurial
behaviors - not traits or personality patterns
- and different types of entrepreneurial
behaviors may be more effective in different
economic environments. Thus, the
development of a theoretical model of
entrepreneurship should include the
conceptualization of an economic model that
shows the role of entrepreneurship in the
economic process and an intensive study to
identify the critical entrepreneurial
behaviors that contribute to success in
various economic situations.
INTRODUCTION
McClelland (196 1) suggests that
entrepreneurship accounts for the rise in
civilization. Not external resources (that is,
markets, materials, trade routes, or
factories), but the entrepreneurial spirit that
exploits those resources. If this is true, then
the nurturing of entrepreneurship in a
society becomes critical to its economic
development
In the early 1960s, McClelland
postulated that a causal relationship exists
between a strong desire for achievement and
business activity. In plotting data for a 300-
year time span in England, McClelland
(1961) found two waves of economic
growth, a small one around 1600 and a
larger one around 1800. Each wave was
preceded by a wave of concern for
achievement as reflected in popular
literature. McClelland (1965) concluded that
the need for achievement was an essential
ingredient for entrepreneurial success and
that the need for achievement could be
taught to stimulate economic growth. The
belief that economic activity could be
increased through training of business
people was supported in programs in
Hyderabad, Bombay, and Kakinada, India
and Barcelona, Spain (McClelland, 1987).
Thus, the study of developing
business people as tools to aid economic
development began in earnest in the last half
of the 20th Century. In the United States the
belief that new ventures make significant
contributions to the economy has resulted in
a number of local, state, and federal
government sponsored programs to facilitate
the survival and growth of small start-up
businesses (Sherman, 1999). The National
Governor's Association has even announced
a proposal to discuss actions that governors
can take to encourage entrepreneurship on a
state-by-state basis (Leibowitz, 2000). And
following decades of experimentation with
various systems of state ownership and
control, many nations have adopted
privatization strategies as a centerpiece of
national policies. Privatization strategies are
being promoted for economic development
in emerging, developed and developing
countries (Shaker, Ireland, Gutierrez & Hitt,
2000). Thus, as we enter the 21st Century,
entrepreneurship is fully recognized as a
critical element in economic development
around the world.

2. WHAT IS AN ENTREPRENEUR?
One of the first problems in the study
of entrepreneurship has been definition of
terms. What is an entrepreneur? Richard
Cantillon (1697-1734) appears to have
introduced the term as meaning someone
who specializes in organizing business
activities and assuming the risks of business
in return for profits. John Stuart Mill
popularized the term in his 1884 book,
Principles of Political Economy. Joseph
Schumpeter (1883-1950) redefined the term
to mean someone who uses innovation to
destroy the existing economic order by
introducing new products and services, by
creating new forms of organization, and by
exploiting new raw materials.
More recently, scholars have played
with a number of definitions that portray the
entrepreneur in less economic oriented
terms. Bygrave (1997) provides a simple but
profound definition of an entrepreneur as
someone who perceives an opportunity and
creates an organization to pursue it.
Stevenson and Gumpert (1985) believe that
the entrepreneur may occupy one extreme
end of a continuum of managerial behavior -
at one end is the entrepreneur and the other
end is the administrator. In a Harvard
Business School colloquium in 1983,
participants agreed on the following
definition: Entrepreneurship is the attempt to
create value by an individual or individuals
(a) through the recognition of significant
(generally innovative) business opportunity,
(b) through the drive to manage risk-taking
appropriate to that project, and (c) through
the exercise of communication and
management skills necessary to mobilize
rapidly the human, material, and financial
resources that will bring the project to
fruition (Kao & Stevenson, 1984). Kao
(1989) has modified the colloquium's
definition and suggests that the entrepreneur
can be defined in terms of tasks: to see an
opportunity; marshal human and other
resources necessary to pursue it; and
transform the opportunity into a tangible
result. According to Kao (1989), an
entrepreneur's job description would include
creative, operational/managerial,
interpersonal, and leadership tasks.
Without agreeing to a precise,
common definition of an entrepreneur,
numerous studies have been conducted to
help better understand the entrepreneur.
Many of the current studies begin with the
assumption that entrepreneurs are born - or
at least conditioned in early childhood.
Thus, these studies try to identify the
essential characteristics of entrepreneurs
through the identification of entrepreneurial
traits or critical ingredients in an
entrepreneur's personality.
Study of Entrepreneurial Traits
A journalist for a national business
magazine conducted an interesting study
that predates most academic research on
entrepreneurship. Hill (1952), during the
first half of the 20th Century, spent over 25
years in studying more than 500 successful
men of that period. Hill's philosophy of
individual achievement attributed to be
Andrew Carnegie's formula of personal
achievement - was organized into a number
of principles that can be condensed into two
major ideas: an entrepreneur's internal
characteristics and an entrepreneur's
managerial proclivity. In the area of internal
characteristics, Hill believed the power of
the mind was the driving force to personal
achievement and that this could be
accomplished through desire, faith,
imagination, and persistence. Hill also felt
that the entrepreneur's proclivity toward
management impacted upon success and
identified the following as critical:
specialized knowledge, decision-making,

3. organized planning, and the use of support
groups.
Not surprisingly, academic
researchers later identified many of the same
traits recognized as important characteristics
of Hill's sample of 500 successful people.
Timmons (1985), in a review of 50
academic research studies, summarized the
most commonly identified entrepreneurial
traits as: commitment, drive, goal
orientation, initiative, problem solving,
realism, seeking and using feedback,
internal locus of control, risk-taking, low
need for status and power, and integrity and
reliability.
Personality Characteristics of Entrepreneurs
In a review of 11 empirical studies of
the entrepreneurial personality, Kets de
Vries (1977) concluded that the
psychological picture of an entrepreneur's
personality is sometimes conflicting and
confusing. Kets de Vries concludes that
entrepreneurs have a particularly high need
for achievement, but autonomy,
independence, and moderate risk taking are
also important. They appear to be inner
directed, present themselves as self-reliant,
and tend to de-emphasize or neglect
interpersonal relations. Entrepreneurs are
also anxious individuals, nonconformists,
poorly organized, and not a stranger to self-
destructive behavior. Finally some
entrepreneurs possess a higher than average
aesthetic sense, which may contribute to
innovativeness
Miner (1966) makes an interesting
argument that there are four basic types of
entrepreneurial personality patterns (i.e.,
personal achiever, super salesperson, real
manager, and expert idea generator) and
success comes only when an individual with
the right personality pattern is in the right
situation.
WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM
OTHERS
After a century of studying
entrepreneurs, we apparently still don't
know exactly what are the important traits
and/or personality patterns of a successful
entrepreneur. The authors suggest that a
more appropriate approach to the study of
"What is an entrepreneur?" may be found in
a perusal of leadership studies. Early
leadership studies also followed the general
pattern of entrepreneurial studies,
concentrating on identifying the traits that
differentiated leaders from non-leaders. For
example, a review of 20 studies by Geier
(1967) identified almost 80 leadership traits,
but only five traits were common to four or
more studies. After a review of 50 years of
the study of leadership traits, Yukl and Van
Fleet (1992) concluded that although some
specific leadership traits may increase the
likelihood of success of a leader, none of the
traits guarantee success.
The study of leadership shifted from
a trait approach to a behavioral approach.
Robbins (1996) suggests this shift may have
been for very practical reasons. If trait
research had been successful, it could only
serve as a basis for selecting the right leader.
If behavioral studies were successful, the
critical behavioral determinants of
leadership could be taught to people. Thus,
if the trait theory to leadership was valid,
then leadership was basically inborn or
developed in early childhood. If, however,
the behavioral theory of leadership was
valid, then the specific behaviors that
identified effective leaders could be
developed.
The Ohio State Studies began with
the study of over 1000 leadership
dimensions and eventually narrowed
leadership behavior down to two major
dimensions, initiating structure and
consideration (Stogdill & Coons, 195 1).

4. The University of Michigan studies
attempting to locate behavioral
characteristics of effective leaders identified
two dimensions of leadership behavior,
employee oriented and production oriented
(Kahn & Katz, 1960).
It soon became clear to those
studying the behavioral dimensions of
leadership that attempting to predict
effective leaders was more complex than
merely identifying leader behaviors. Studies
began to shift to determine the influence that
situations had upon effective leadership.
Fiedler's (1967) contingency model was the
first comprehensive model that attempted to
prove that leadership was related to
situations in the environment. In a study of
over 1200 groups of leaders in 8 categories
of situations, Fielder, Chemers & Mahar
(1977) concluded that relations oriented
leaders performed better in 3 of the
categories and task oriented leaders
performed better in 5 of the categories.
Thus, a number of models were
conceptualized and studies conducted to
attempt to discover the appropriate
relationship between leader behaviors and
situational influences. Hersey and
Blanchard's (1988) Situational Theory,
House's (1971) Path Goal Theory, and
Vroom and Jago's (1988) Leader-
Participation Model are among the more
popular such leadership models.
A major breakthrough in
understanding leadership occurred when
researchers recognized the importance of the
situation upon leader behaviors. Thus,
Miner's (1996) suggestion, that
entrepreneurial success may be a function of
a particular personality pattern and a specific
work environment, appears to be a move in
the right direction in entrepreneurship
studies.
UNDERSTANDING THE
ENTREPRENEURSHIEP ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
Classical Economic Theory
Economic theory attempts to explain
two basic societal issues. How does society
create wealth and how does society
distribute wealth among, its members?
Adam Smith developed classical capitalism
as an economic system in his book The
Wealth of Nations in 1776. Smith perceived
capitalists as owner-managers who
combined the basic resources of land, labor,
and capital into successful enterprises. The
classical capitalistic economic system, based
on the concept of private ownership of
property, assumed the creation and
distribution of wealth through the exchange
of goods and services through open,
uncontrolled markets open to all buyers and
sellers. Classical capitalism as an economic
theory, however, lacked the rigorous logical
framework and foundation for mathematical
description that would provide a predictive
characteristic to the model.
Neoclassical Economic Theory
In the late 19th Century Leon Walras
(1874) and Alfred Marshall (1890),
separately, developed similar models of
capitalist economics that incorporated a
logical framework capable of mathematical
analysis (Kirchhoff, 1997). The key concept
of the new models was that markets consist
of many buyers and many sellers who
interact so as to insure that supply equals
demand. Neoclassical theory was designed
to show that capitalism characterized by
perfect markets and unfettered by outside
interference - distributes wealth among
buyers and sellers and creates wealth in the
process. One of the central concepts of
neoclassical theory is economics of scale,

5. which assumes that as the size of the firm
increases, the cost of production per unit
decreases. Thus, neoclassical theory
suggests that large firms are more profitable
than small firms,
Neoclassical economics has been the
mainstream economic theory in the United
States for a century. Kirchhoff suggests that
America's adoption of neoclassical theory
and the domination of large firms after
World War 11 led many Americans to
believe that large corporations were the
source of wealth creation and distribution.
William Whyte's 1956 book, The
Organization Man, postulated that the
depression and military training in WW 11
created a behavioral norm of accepting
employment within and obedience to large
bureaucracies. This belief in large
corporations had become so predominant
that John Kenneth Galbraith, in his 1967
book The New Industrial State, expressed
the hypothesis that large corporations
working in coordination with big
governments and large labor unions would
run nations (Kirchhoff, 1997).
Problems with Traditional Economic Theory
Although the equilibrium concept of
neoclassical economics provided a solid
foundation for predictability, it achieved this
capability by eliminating the unpredictable
behavior of the entrepreneurial owner-
managers who assumed the risks of
uncertainty and thrived on upsetting market
activities by introducing innovative product
and services. Thus, a major problem with
neoclassical theory is its lack of recognition
of the role the entrepreneur plays in the
economic process of creating and
distributing wealth and producing new
demand in the economic system.
In the early part of 20th Century,
some economist began to question
neoclassical theory because it eliminated
entrepreneurship from the economic
process. Joseph Schumpeter (1934), one of
its early critics, saw innovation as the key
for creating new demand for goods and
services and entrepreneurs as owner-
managers who started new, independent
businesses to exploit innovation. To
Schumpeter, an entrepreneur was a person
who destroyed existing economic order by
introducing new products and services, by
creating new forms of organization, or by
exploiting new raw materials. Thus
entrepreneurs, through exploiting
innovations, destroyed the structure of
existing markets and caused established
firms with older products or services to
decline. An important aspect of
Schumpeter's theory was that innovations
create new demand and entrepreneurs bring
these innovations to the market. Thus,
entrepreneurs, Schumpeter would argue, are
major mechanisms of wealth creation and
distribution in capitalism.
The dynamic concept of creative
destruction of markets and companies by
entrepreneurs developing new products and
services is in sharp contrast to neoclassical
theory that relies on passive buyers and
sellers responding to price fluctuations to
adjust supply and demand and, thus, reach
equilibrium. Although neoclassical theory
had no explanation for the role entrepreneurs
played in the creation and distribution of
wealth, it had become the dominant theory
of 20th Century American economic thought
because of its logical framework and
predictive power.
By the end of the 20th Century,
however, neoclassical theory - with its
strong belief in market equilibrium and
economies of scale and its lack of
recognition of the impact of
entrepreneurship on economic development
- had come under greater scrutiny. In a study
of all US firms from 1969 through 1976,

6. Birch (1987) discovered that small firms,
(firms with 100 or fewer employees) created
8 1 % of the net new jobs in the United
States. Since economists generally view net
new job creation as a measure of economic
growth, Birch's findings suggested that
small rather than large firms caused most
economic growth. The US Small Business
Administration (SBA) was so impressed
with Birch's findings that it established a
database that shows the creation of net new
jobs by small and large firms in the US.
Analysis of SBA data from 1969 through
1990 clearly shows that firms with 100 or
fewer employees are the primary job
creators in the United States. Recognition
that small firms create most of the economic
growth in the US over the long run brings
serious doubt to the completeness of
neoclassical theory. If small firms through
innovation rather than large firms through
economies of scale cause economic growth,
then Schumpeter's theory of creative
destruction offers a better description of
overall economic theory in a capitalistic
society than neoclassical theory.
Developing a Theory of Entrepreneurship
Economics
Many economists now recognize that
entrepreneurship is an important part of the
US economy. Therefore, the neoclassical
view of economic in the United States
leaves the understanding of the economic
process in theoretical confusion. The
neoclassical view of the economic process in
a capitalist society does not incorporate
entrepreneurs in its model of economics. Yet
it is widely recognized that entrepreneurship
plays a significant role in the creation and
distribution of wealth. A new theory of
capitalism is needed that can provide the
predictive characteristics of neoclassical
theory and that can accommodate the
creative market destruction of
entrepreneurship.
Kirchhoff (1994) suggests that
typology development is often an early step
toward the development of a new theory,
Typologies organize existing knowledge
into categories that help explain
relationships and guide the development of
theoretical models. Kirchhoff has developed
a "dynamic capitalism typology" that shows
the complex relationship between the rate of
innovation and the rate of firm growth. The
relationship between innovation and growth
is complex. High rates of innovation do not
necessarily lead all firms to high growth
rates, since not all innovations are
successful. Some innovations are far more
successful than others, which cause some
firms to grow faster than others. Kirchhoff s
recognizes that his typology matrix
represents a simplification of the real world,
because it deals only with extreme cases
registering either high or low on each scale.
Although most businesses are in the middle
ground, between the extremes, Kirchhoff s
typology matrix describes categories that
help us better understand entrepreneurship's
contribution to economic growth. Kirchhofrs
typology allows the identification of the
actual behaviors of firms that can indicate
the true ambitions and goals of the owners
and define their contribute to economic
growth.
Dirchhofrs matrix develops four
major classes of entrepreneurial firms based
on rates of innovation and growth. See
Exhibit 1.

7. Economic Core Firms
Economic core firms are the most
common form of entrepreneurship. These
are I low- innovation and low-growth firms.
These firms primarily satisfy the owner-
managers desire for independence while
fulfilling a specific need in a small market
and without obtaining significant growth.
Economic core firms achieve a degree of
growth initially, but once the firms reach a
size than can satisfy the owner-manager's
needs, growth stops.
Constrained Growth Firms
The growth of these firms is
constrained by the lack of resources. These
firms have high rates of innovation, but
lacking adequate resources, fail to grow.
Finns with high innovation but low growth
are easy prey to better financed competitors.
They find their products copied and markets
devoured by other entrepreneurs with
adequate resources. Constrained growth
firms fall into two classes: firms who
internally make decisions to constrain
growth and firms who are unable to acquire
the needed resources. The owner-managers
of internally constrained firms make
decisions not to acquire the resources
needed to support high growth. Although
these owner-managers often blame others
for the lack of key resources, in reality they
place such high demands on the suppliers of
resources that they are unable to acquire the
necessary resources. The owner-managers of
resource-constrained firms are willing to pay
the costs of resources, but are actually
unable to attract the capital needed to sustain
high growth.
Ambitious Firms
Some firms can achieve high growth
with only a limited number of innovations.
A single successful product or service can
sustain high growth for many years in a
large market like the United States. Since
markets do not remain stable, however, an
ambitious firms growth rate will eventually
decline if new products or services are not
introduced.
Glamorous Firms
High growth rates can only be
sustained over time with high rates of
innovation. In today's market, most firms in
this category are technology-based firms

8. producing products that lend themselves to
constant development. Kirchhoff calls these
firms "glamorous firms' because they often
attract high media attention and receive local
and national awards for their successes.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The study of entrepreneurship
reminds one of the fables of two blind men
describing an elephant. The first who is
holding the elephant's front leg says the
elephant is like a sturdy tree. The second
who is holding the elephant's tail describes
the elephant more like a snake. Like the
fable of the elephant, conclusions drawn
from the study of entrepreneurship depend
to a great extent upon the point of view of
the researcher. Three general findings,
however, appear to emerge from these
studies of entrepreneurship, which could be
beneficial in the development of future
research in entrepreneurship.
First, we do not have a commonly
accepted definition of an entrepreneur. To
some an entrepreneur is a risk taker, to
others an opportunist, to others a different
form of management, while others believe
an entrepreneur is a destroyer of the status
quo. The lack of a clear definition of an
entrepreneur can greatly complicate the
study of entrepreneurship. The authors
suggest that a definition that includes both
Cantillon's and Schumpeter's concepts of an
entrepreneur may provide a useful research
approach. That is, if we consider the
entrepreneur as both a risk taker and an
innovator that destroys the existing
economic order by introducing new products
and services, by creating new forms of
organization, and by exploiting new raw
materials, we may be able to agree on
entrepreneurial behavior that is more
conducive to research.
Second, we do not have a commonly
accepted economic theory of the role of
entrepreneurship in economic development.
Although classical economic theory
recognized the critical nature of the
entrepreneur in the economic process,
neoclassical economic theory is silent about
this very important element. Since
Schumpeter's definition of entrepreneurship
is focused on changing economic activity,
the use of his concept may also lead
researchers to a better understanding of the
theoretical nature of entrepreneurship in the
economic process. Although we are a long
way from defining a new model of
economics that includes the
entrepreneurship process, Kirchhoff s
typology matrix may prove an interesting
beginning. In Kirchhoff s matrix typology,
he has accommodated Schumpeter's concept
of product and service innovation and
market growth.
Third, most of our past studies of
entrepreneurs have concentrated on the
study of entrepreneurial traits and
entrepreneurial personality patterns. Since
traits and personalities are either inborn or
developed early in childhood, their
discovery leaves scholars with little useful
information. If these studies were perfected
and we could predict precisely who would
become successful entrepreneurs, what
important role would this play in society?
The study of the critical behavioral
characteristics of successful entrepreneurs
does not appear to have attracted the
research interest that the study of
entrepreneurial traits and personality
patterns has attracted. The authors suggest
that if entrepreneurial behavior studies were
pursued - as intensive as they were in the
study of leadership - and specific behaviors
of entrepreneurial success could be
identified, then these behaviors could be
taught to potential entrepreneurs.

9. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
In the study of entrepreneurs, many
scholars have hypothesized that
entrepreneurs are either born or conditioned
toward entrepreneurship in their early
childhood. If this hypothesis is correct, then
universities have no role in the development
of entrepreneurs. The authors take quite a
different view and hypothesize that:
(1) entrepreneurial success is a function
of specific entrepreneurial behaviors,
(2) a number of different economic
environments can exist in modem society,
and
(3) in different economic environments,
different types of entrepreneurial behaviors
will be effective.
That is, there are certain economic
environments that occur and researchers
may be able to identify the appropriate
behavioral characteristics that would guide
an entrepreneur toward success in those
environments. If a causal relationship can be
found between economic environments and
successful entrepreneurship, then different
styles of entrepreneurial behaviors may be
taught to individuals seeking to compete in
the different economic environments.
In the search for a theory of
entrepreneurship, two major avenues of
future research are evident from a review of
the current studies of entrepreneurship. First,
it is becoming apparent that an economic
model must be conceptualized that shows
the role entrepreneurs play in economic
development in modem society. The authors
would suggest that a good beginning for a
theoretical economic model, which
accommodates entrepreneurship, might rest
with Kirchhoff s typology matrix. Second,
intensive studies of successful
entrepreneurial behaviors are necessary to
identify the critical behaviors needed for
entrepreneurial success in particular
economic environments. The authors would
suggest a good start for this avenue of
research may be to define the entrepreneur
as a combination of Cantillon's concept as a
risk taker under conditions of uncertainty -
and Schumpeter's concept as an innovator -
through the introduction of new products
and services, by creating new forms of
organization, and by exploiting new raw
materials. Then the behaviors that are
critical to entrepreneurial success in specific
economic environments may be identified.
REFERENCES
Bygrave, W.D. (1997). The Portable
MBA in Entrepreneurship, 2nd Ed. New
York: John Willey & Sons.
Birch, D. (1987). Job Creation in
America. New York: The Free Press.
Casson, M.(1993). Entrepreneurship.
In DR. Henderson (ed.), The Fortune
Encyclopedia of Economics. New York:
Warner Books, Inc.
Fielder, F.E. (1967). A Theory of
Leadership Effectiveness. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Fielder, FE, Chemers, M.M. &
Mahar, L. (1977). Improving Leadership
Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept.
New York: Wiley.
Geier, J.G. (1967). A Trait Approach
to the Study of Leadership in Small Groups.
Journal of Communication, (December),
316-23.

10. Hill, N. (1952). Think and Grow
Rich. Cleveland, Ohio: Ralston Publishing
Company.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H.
(1988). Management of Organizational
Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, 5th.
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
House, R. J. (197 1). A Path-Goal
Theory of Leader Effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly,
(September), 321-38.
Kalm, R. & Katz, D. (1960).
Leadership Practices in Relation to
Productivity and Morale. In D. Cartwright &
A. Zander (eds.) Group Dynamics: Research
and Theory, 2nd. ed. Elmsford, NY: Row,
Peterson.
Kao, J.J. (1989). Entrepreneurship,
Creativity, & Organization. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kao, J.J. & Stevenson, H.H. eds.
(1985). Entrepreneurship: What It Is and
How To Teach It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1977). The
Entrepreneurial Personality: A Person at the
Crossroads. Journal of Management Studies,
(February) 34-57.
Kirchhoff, B.A. (1994).
Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Kirchhoff, B.A. (1977).
Entrepreneurship. In W.D . Bygrave, The
Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship. 2nd ed.
New York: John Willey & Sons.
Leibowitz, A. (2000). News: NGA
Policy Academy Entrepreneur Strategy.
Venture Capital Journal, (July 1).
McClelland, D.C. (1962). Business
Drive and National Achievement. Harvard
Business Review, (July-August), 99-112.
McClelland, D.C. (1965).
Achievement Motivation Can Be
Developed. Harvard Business Review,
(November-December), 6-24,178.
McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human
Motivation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Miner, J.B. (1996). The Four Routes
to Entrepreneurial Success. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.
Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational
Behavior: Concepts, Controversies,
Applications. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934). The Theory
of Economic Development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Shaker, A.Z., Ireland, R.D.,
Gutierrez, I., & Hitt, M.A. (2000).
Privatization and Entrepreneurial
Transformation: Emerging Issues and a
Future Research Agenda. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(3), 509-524.
Sherman, H.D. (1999). Assessing the
Intervention Effectiveness of Business
Incubation Programs on New Business
Start-ups. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, (Fall), 11733.

11. Stevenson, H.H. & Gumpert, D.E.
(1985). The Heart of Entrepreneurship.
Harvard Business Review, (March-April),
85-94.
Stogdill, R.M. & Coons, A.E. eds.
(1951). Leader Behavior: Its Description and
Measurement.
Research Monograph No. 88.
Columbus, Ohio State University, Bureau of
Business Research.
Timmons, J., et. al. (1985). A few
Venture Creation. Homewood, Ill.: Richard
D. Irwin.
Yukl. G. & Van Fleet, D.D. (1992).
Theory and Research on Leadership in
Organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M.
Hough, eds. Handbook of Industrial &
Organizational Psychology, 2nd. ed. (Vol. 3)
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (1988).
The New Leadership: Managing
Participation in Organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.