Challenges in Measuring Readiness For Entrep

Management Decision
Challenges in measuring readiness for entrepreneurship

Jesus Ruiz Domingo Ribeiro Soriano Alicia Coduras
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jesus Ruiz Domingo Ribeiro Soriano Alicia Coduras , (2016),"Challenges in measuring readiness for entrepreneurship",
Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 5 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2014-0493
Downloaded on: 28 May 2016, At: 13:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 24 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Team coordination and organizational routines: Bottoms upand top down", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 5 pp.
-
Downloaded by Purdue University Libraries At 13:20 28 May 2016 (PT)
(2016),"Stakeholder management: a case of its related capability and performance", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 1 pp.
148-173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2015-0244
(2016),"Predicting entrepreneurial intentions from work values: Implications for stimulating entrepreneurship in UAE national
youth", Management Decision, Vol. 54 Iss 3 pp. 610-629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2015-0387
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:281668 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Challenges in measuring readiness for entrepreneurship
Introduction
Entrepreneurship continues to evolve as a key driver of innovation and job creation. Since the
late nineties, many elements have shaped this progress, exerting a major influence on the
academic entrepreneurship literature. Establishment of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM) and parallel initiatives has enabled measurement and characterization of
entrepreneurship on an international level.
The data collected in various studies (PSED, GEM and other particular investigations) carried
out by several authors and institutions cited in this research have allowed the study of many
facets of the entrepreneurial phenomenon. Scholars have made great progress defining
entrepreneurial activity and its variations (Harding, 2004; Davidsson, 2005; Koellinger, Minniti
and Schade 2007; Bager et al. 2010, Anokhin and Wincent, 2012). Researchers have studied the
relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development (Acs and Szerb, 2007, Acs,
2007), and have investigated entrepreneurial values, attitudes and aspirations (Arenius and
Minniti, 2005; Hessels, Van Gelderen and Thurik, 2008; Bosma and Schutjens 2009; Evald et
al. 2011). Finally, a popular stream of literature addresses national entrepreneurial framework
conditions (Bowen and De Clercq 2008; Hechavarria and Reynolds, 2009; Estrin and
Mickiewicz, 2011; Estrin et al. 2012). Scholars have also addressed many other
entrepreneurship topics. One of the numerous challenges yet to receive significant attention in
the literature reflects the subject of this article; namely, measuring and quantify readiness for
entrepreneurship.
Performing this type of measurement matters in contexts where fostering qualified

entrepreneurship is a priority. Practical applications of such measurements are numerous:
measuring students entrepreneurial orientation; investors (e.g., business angels or venture
capitalists) evaluation of entrepreneurial projects; granting bank credit or public funding;
offering unemployed people training in entrepreneurship; conducting research on the influence
of readiness for entrepreneurship on startup success or failure; and so forth.
Measuring readiness for entrepreneurship poses many challenges that should be addressed from
a multidisciplinary perspective. Thus, designers of a tool to perform this task must consider
numerous entrepreneurial profiles, as well as a wide range of psychological determinants. In
addition, designers of a tool of this type must resolve a lack of consensus on defining main
entrepreneurship concepts. Consequently, the approach must be grounded in a careful study in
several steps, the first of which must establish the meaning of readiness for entrepreneurship
and must identify the factors that determine this concept.
This paper establishes a theoretical framework to develop a tool for measuring readiness for
entrepreneurship. To do so, we addressed the research questions in Figure 1. The logic flow
described in Figure 1 indicates necessary steps to measure individuals entrepreneurial
readiness. We first defined the framework within which measurement should take place. Then,
we established the action for which individuals require this ability. Lastly, we defined this
ability, factors that determine this ability, and components required for its measurement.
1
In the following sections, we respond to all questions in Figure 1 by formulating proposals.
These proposals are based upon a comprehensive literature review.
1. What is entrepreneurship?
Preliminaries
Originally, entrepreneurship was linked to new business creation. Nowadays, entrepreneurship

and entrepreneurial orientation represent broader concepts that embody different
conceptualizations depending on processes, practices, and decisions underlying entrepreneurial
actions. Thus, McDougall and Oviatt (2000:903) pointed out that Entrepreneurship is an
activity and the attributes that establish this type of activity.
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity have become essential for measuring progress,
quality, and future expectations of any sector, economy, or nation. They currently play a
relevant role for economic development, which is why SME creation is crucial to establishing a
solid economic base (Goedhuys and Sleuwaegen, 2000). Entrepreneurships relevance,
however, is not restricted to SMEs and encompasses large companies and public administration
too. Furthermore, by helping to promote competitiveness and globalization, entrepreneurship
exerts an influence that extends beyond local markets to national and international markets.
Entrepreneurs act as catalysts for new economic activity. Business creation requires innovation,
which leads to job creation, wealth creation, and growth. Business creation contributes to
competition in developed economies and ensures social welfare in developing countries.
Imparting entrepreneurial knowledge is therefore vital to ensure progress in this scientific field
(Deakins et al., 2005).
Under Kuhns (1962) definition of a paradigm, the study of organizations is multiparadigmatic

(Fabian, 2000). Scholars have shown these paradigms to be incommensurable (Burrell, 1999;
Clarke and Clegg, 2000). We may therefore reasonably assume the existence of multiple
classifications for entrepreneurship.
Scientific field
The entrepreneurship research field has grown in recent decades (Cuervo, 2005). Research on
Entrepreneurship began after Professor Myles Mace used the term while teaching at Harvard
University in 1947 (Brush et al, 2003: 310). This event marked the beginning of the scientific
treatment of this discipline. Initial works were collated by Harvard Studies in Business History,
Journal of Business and Economics History, and Explorations in Entrepreneurial History. The
initial process culminated in 1958 with the creation of the Harvard Research Center in
Entrepreneurial History, managed by Arthur H. Cole.
Table 1 provides a timeline showing key developments in this scientific field. The United States
has played, and continues to play, a key role in entrepreneurship research. The USA was the
birthplace of entrepreneurship research, and later built a framework for its dissemination. Since
the mid-eighties, international business journals have incorporated entrepreneurship research
into their publications to a remarkable degree. Specific works and monographs have appeared in
major management journals such as Strategic Management Journal and Journal of Management
(Audretsch et al., 2005), Academy of Management Journal, Journal of International Marketing
(Coviello and Jones, 2004, p. 489) and Management Decision (Audretsch, 2012).
2
Recent years have seen the launch of new international journals whose main theme is
entrepreneurship, with the most notable journals listed in Table 1. Finally, conferences and
congresses have contributed heavily to the progress of this scientific field by creating discussion
forums, meeting places, and platforms for dissemination of results.
International publications containing the word entrepreneurship in their titles are numerous, and
demonstrate the breadth and multidisciplinary nature of this scientific field. Scholars have
studied entrepreneurship from various perspectives including business, management,
entrepreneurial orientation and processes, entrepreneurial leadership, and corporate
entrepreneurship. All approaches contribute to determining what constitutes entrepreneurship
and hence entrepreneurial behavior. Consequently, defining the field of entrepreneurship is
complex because of its close relation to other fields. Differentiating entrepreneurship from other
fields depends on the topic, project, and research questions (Bruyat and Julien, 2000, p. 172).
Busenitz et al. (2003, p. 286) described entrepreneurship as a field of study within the
management area. Conversely, Hitt et al. (2001, p. 480) reported that the fields of
entrepreneurship and strategic management have been developed independently of each other.
Bruyat and Julien (2000, p. 172), in contrast, claimed that the field of small business and
innovation in strategic direction is closely related to entrepreneurship. Regardless of these
differing views, our aim is not to determine whether entrepreneurship began as a discipline in
management or business strategy, nor whether it is a field created by authors and researchers
unable to frame their works elsewhere (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Shane and
Venkataraman, 2001). Instead, we wish to delimit the scope of entrepreneurship to establish a
framework for measuring readiness for entrepreneurship. Of the numerous theories that define
entrepreneurship as a scientific field, we have selected those attributed to Busenitz et al. (2003,
p. 296-297), Brush et al. (2003, p. 312), and Veciana (2007), who scientifically analyzed
entrepreneurship and the concept of the entrepreneur. Tables 2 and 3 summarize these authors
contributions.
Entrepreneurship and businesses
What makes an entrepreneur and what is entrepreneurship? These questions remain the subject
of continuous debate (Casson, 2005). For Cuervo et al. (2007) entrepreneurs main activity is
business creation, which can be studied on two levels: individual (including psychological
characteristics and non-psychological social characteristics) and environmental (specific and
general contexts). The individual level captures personal psychological characteristics to explain
entrepreneurial individuals nature. Characteristics of these individuals are a need for
achievement, controllability, power, tolerance for ambiguity, independence, and propensity for
risk taking. This level also considers non-psychological social variables such as education and
training, experience, professional network, and family background. The environmental
perspective encompasses variables that describe the general context. Such variables include
economic climate, market dimensions, availability of financing resources, taxes and
bureaucracy, regulatory framework, R&D transfer system, and sociocultural and institutional
background. The specific context view places emphasis on analyzing variables to do with
sector: productive processes configuration, technological changes, and the spatial dimension
(clusters and agglomeration economies). These two perspectives can be considered the pillars to
3
explaining entrepreneurial activity. According to Eckhardt and Shane (2003), they are not
mutually exclusive.
Lee and Peterson (2000:402) explained that entrepreneurship is generally defined as the process
of new firm creation. Previous definitions nevertheless highlight other defining characteristics.
Thus, Stevenson and Jarillo (1990:23) defined entrepreneurship as the process by which
individualsboth on their own and within an organizationpursue opportunities. This vision
facilitated the introduction of corporate entrepreneurship as a scientific research field. Timmons
(1994:7) described entrepreneurship as the process of creating or seeking an opportunity and
pursuing it regardless of available resources. McDougall and Oviatt (1997:293) defined
entrepreneurship as new innovative activities whose main objective is to create value and grow
business opportunities. Ultimately, following Schumpeters economic view, entrepreneurial
behavior is the search for growth through innovation, technology, or management, finding
opportunities through specific business structures or otherwise. These ideas are the essence of
both individual and corporate entrepreneurship.
More research is needed at all levels on how the entrepreneurship process unfolds and brings
about successful exploitation of opportunities. Certainly, however, the three aspects mentioned
aboveopportunity identification, desire to search, and confidence in chances of successare
key components in the process. Research in many fields sheds light on the entrepreneurship
process, but many questions remain unanswered.
So many definitions of entrepreneurship exist because the entrepreneurial process involves

several concepts: identification and evaluation of opportunities (Amit and Muller, 1995),
decision on how to exploit or sell these opportunities, attracting and securing resources,
designing strategies, and organizing new business projects (Eckhardt and Shane, 2003). Hence,
entrepreneurship often appears under the guises of entrepreneurial factor, entrepreneurial
function, entrepreneurial behavior, entrepreneurial initiative, and even entrepreneurial spirit.
First, the entrepreneurial factor embodies new production factors that differ from classical
production factors of land, labor, and capital. which forces to explain its remuneration through
the entrepreneurs income linked to the shortage of people with readiness for entrepreneurship.
Second, entrepreneurship is the discovery and exploitation of opportunities, and business
creation. Third, entrepreneurial behavior refers to the skills needed to combine innovation, risk
taking, and proactivity (Miller, 1983). Fourth, entrepreneurial initiative covers creation, risk
taking, renewal, and innovation. Entrepreneurial initiative may arise within or outside an
existing organization because entrepreneurial initiative involves the ability to anticipate market
imperfections correctly and the capacity to utilize innovation to create a new combination of
products and approach to markets. Finally, what most characterizes the entrepreneurial spirit is
opportunities exploitation (more prevalent among managers) fostering exploration, search for
new opportunities, and innovation (more prevalent among potential entrepreneurs).
Conceptual delimitation
Language poses major problems for entrepreneurship scholars. Thus, whereas the terms
entrepreneurship and independent entrepreneurship describe efforts of individuals who operate
outside an existing organization, several terms are employed to describe efforts of individuals
who operate within an existing organization. Such terms include corporate entrepreneurship,
new corporate venturing, intrapreneurship, internal entrepreneurship, strategic renewal, and
new corporate activities. In the seventies, the concept of entrepreneurship meant the creation of
4
new business lines to commercialize innovative products or services whose production or
realization required new equipment, teams, or knowledge (Von Hippel, 1977:163; Biggadike,
1979:104). This definition, however, has evolved towards a broader concept that includes the
startup and consolidation phases (three and a half years) of any type of business, with or without
an innovative component, run either independently or within an existing firm (Reynolds, Hay,
Camp, 1999). The current definition of entrepreneurshipthe broadest and most complete to
dateis that which appeared in the first GEM Global Report in 1999 by Reynolds et al. (1999):
Any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment,

a new business organization, or the expansion of an existing business, by an
individual, a team of individuals, or an established business.
From 1999 onwards, new considerations deriving from modern entrepreneurship have
demonstrated that there is still room for this definition to grow. Thus, although entrepreneurship
seems to represent a single concept, societies are evolving towards developing an
entrepreneurial spirit. The concept hence extends beyond the frontier of business creation,
embracing areas such as work organization, strategic design, management, human resources
practice, and, ultimately, implementation of entrepreneurial spirit in any type of activity.
This paper develops a framework to measure readiness for entrepreneurship, and so it is

necessary to consider a wider definition of entrepreneurship that incorporates this recent
perspective. We thus formulate our first research proposition as follows:
Proposition 1:
Q1. What is entrepreneurship?
With the aim of creating a theoretical framework to measure readiness for entrepreneurship, we
define entrepreneurship as follows:
Entrepreneurship means an undertaking by an individual, a team of individuals, or an

established private or public entity in any of the following activities or areas. Any attempt at
new business or new venture creation such as self-employment, founding a new business
organization, or expanding an existing business. Any attempt at creating a new public initiative
such as a new public organism, or expanding an existing organism. Any attempt at innovation,
such as launching new products or services, new strategic development, new organization of
resources (including human), entering new markets (including internationalization), creating
new sectors, social development, or any other action that adds economic or social value.
The scope of this definition allows us to measure readiness for entrepreneurship in areas besides
capacities, knowledge, and skills needed to create new firms. The definitions scope is relevant.
It permits the inclusion of new facets never considered in entrepreneurship research. This allows
us to build a measurement tool able to establish individuals profiles. We can then use this data
to calculate these individuals readiness for entrepreneurship, and locate where these aspects of
their personalities reside.
Two further questions arise:
Q1.1. Is entrepreneurship a single concept or are there different types or categories?
Q1.2. If there are different types, what are these types and how can they be classified?
5
We therefore conclude that entrepreneurship is a single concept, albeit complex and dynamic.
Entrepreneurship comprises aspects that enable discussion about specific branches of
entrepreneurial activity such as independent or internal entrepreneurial activity, opportunity or
necessity entrepreneurial activity, entrepreneurial activity with or without innovative
components, and many more. Thus, one view is to consider the concept as a whole; another
view is to consider only its output or entrepreneurial activity, which can be categorized into
several types. These types are based on concepts like context, motivation, innovation, job
generation, and competition.
2. What do academics understand by entrepreneurial action?
Following the discussion in the previous section, three fundamental reasons explain the
emergence of entrepreneurial activity. First, entrepreneurial action is triggered by attributes
inherent to humans such as achievement needs (McClelland, 1961), aim to confront uncertainty
(Kihlstrom and Laffont, 1979), risk acceptance, and others. These attributes differentiate
entrepreneurs from other individuals in society. The second reason relates to economic
environment factors such as market dimension, technological change dynamics (Tushman and
Anderson, 1986), regulatory and demographic market structure (Acs and Audretsch, 1990) or
simple industrial dynamics. The third reason is linked to institutions, and cultural and social
norms (North, 1990, 2005).
Thus, entrepreneurship is not only linked to birth of organizations (Gartner et al., 1988) or self-
employment (Reynolds, 1991). According to research conducted by McClelland (1961) and
later by Stevenson (1990) entrepreneurship also embraces everything that allows proper
operation and development to add value to society. Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) reported that
entrepreneurship is not only a way to start new businesses, but that entrepreneurial management
is a way of managing different from the traditional direction. Entrepreneurial managers seek
ways of making their organizations entrepreneurial in several ways, although they are limited-
for strategic guidance for remuneration or incentive systems (Brown et al., 2001).
Furthermore, Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) highlighted a positive relationship between a

companys corporate entrepreneurship intensity and proper strategic analysis. In short,
entrepreneurs perform three basic functions essential to any enterprise: capitalist or financial
functions, policy functions, and stimulus functions fostering the implication of different types of
stakeholders and employees if they are (Guzmn and Santos, 2001).
From the perspective of readiness for entrepreneurship measurement, therefore, it is essential to

consider the existence of self-employees, owners of large and small businesses, and
entrepreneurial employees within organizations. For companies of all sizes to thrive in
competitive environments, entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are needed for several
reasons. Entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors contribute to company survival and
performance (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Lyon et al, 2000), enable understanding and adequate
management of companies; yield economic development, create wealth (Lounsbury and Glynn,
2001), and stimulate economic growth (Begley and Tan, 2001, Thomas and Mueller, 2000;
Zahra, 1991, 1993). Thus, Hitt et al. (2001:488) found that companies need to be both strategic
and entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship is not linked to an organizations size or age.
Generalizations about these issues are impossible because differences in background, culture,
and political or economic systems prevent conventional theories from explaining effects and
observed behaviors (Herron and Sapienza, 1992; Lee and Tsang, 2001; Zafirovski, 1999). That
6
is, entrepreneurs and the processes they engage in to start new ventures vary depending on
business line, region, and entrepreneurs origin (Littunen, 2000).
The above discussion leads to the second proposition, which defines entrepreneurial action so
that we may measure readiness for entrepreneurship.
Proposition 2:
Q2. What do academics understand by entrepreneurial action?
An entrepreneurial action is any initiative by an individual or team of individuals who pursue

the creation or development of a new business, enterprise, self-employment, or project in any
private or public sector, or the improvement or progress of strategy, organization, financing,
motivation, diversification, or any other aspect of development and management of a firm,
organization or existing entity.
Q2.1. Are there different types of entrepreneurial actions?
Regard this one, the answer is yes, evidence suggests that there are different types of
entrepreneurial actions.
The proposed definition of entrepreneurial action is so broad that it suggests the existence of
numerous types of actions. Their identification and classification is outside the scope of this
research. The literature nevertheless indicates at least three groups of factors that determine
these actions, so we can cite some examples. Examples of entrepreneurial actions derived from
human attributes are perceiving an opportunity, producing an idea, seeking information, taking
on risk to start a business or project, persuading others to participate or adopt an idea, pursuing
financing, and searching for a location. Examples of entrepreneurial actions derived from
context are innovating to compete, looking for new markets or niches, internationalization,
developing new strategies, implementing human resources practices, adopting technological
changes, and developing new technologies. Finally, from an institutional perspective,
entrepreneurial actions include changing the regulatory framework to foster entrepreneurship,
developing programs to facilitate women or youth integration into entrepreneurial processes,
introducing entrepreneurial education and training into the educational system, and promoting
tax benefits for informal investors. Ultimately, entrepreneurial actions can be classified
depending on scope, team, motivation, subject, and other criteria.
3. How can we define readiness for entrepreneurship?
In light of the literature review and our research aims, the following proposition defines
readiness for entrepreneurship of a person:
Proposition 3:
The readiness for entrepreneurship of individuals is defined as the confluence of a set of

personal traits (or features) that distinguish individuals with readiness for entrepreneurship as
7
especially competent to observe and analyze their environment in such a way that they channel
their high creative and productive potential so they may deploy their capability to dare and
need for self-achievement.
Further questions arise:
Q3.1. Can we build a single definition?
Q3.2. If so, what elements must the method capture to measure this concept?
We conclude that building a single definition is possible despite the complexity of the concept
of readiness for entrepreneurship. This single definition is essential for measuring readiness for
entrepreneurship. Measuring a poorly defined concept would be impossible. Another issue is

deciding which elements should appear simultaneously in the scale to capture a persons
readiness for entrepreneurship. We discuss this challenge in the next section to complete the
theoretical framework, showing that different groups of elements configure individuals
readiness for entrepreneurship: personal characteristics, economic conditions, and a large set of
psychological traits.
4. What factors determine the readiness of a person for entrepreneurship?
As a complex concept, entrepreneurship has an equally complex definition. Features that

determine peoples readiness for entrepreneurship are therefore numerous and diverse. Main
factors can nevertheless be identified from three areas of knowledge:
1. Sociology
2. Psychology
3. Business management
In the following subsections, we explain each areas contribution.
Sociologys contribution
Several studies have demonstrated that sociological variables have some influence on
entrepreneurial actions. These variables are therefore relevant when measuring peoples
readiness for entrepreneurship. Key sociological variables are gender (e.g., Sexton and
Bowman, 1990; Bruni et al., 2004; Minniti and Nardone, 2007), age (Davidsson and Honig,
2003; Arenius and Minniti, 2005), origin (Portes et al., 2002), habitat (Lafuente et al., 2007),
educational level (Pittaway and Cope, 2007), income level (Acs, 2007; Van Stel et al., 2007),
entrepreneurial antecedents (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), and work-status (Arenius and Minniti,
2005).
Psychologys contribution
According to Rauch and Frese (2000), all aspects of psychology are essentially involved in
determining an entrepreneurs profile. Psychological approaches to entrepreneurship have
recently experienced a revival because they straddle the border between work, organizational,
and market psychology. Nevertheless, although psychologists accept that entrepreneurial
8
behavior is a product of several influences, in psychological terms key determinants are
personality traits. In other words, exponents of psychological approaches deem that
entrepreneurs possess traits that predispose them to act entrepreneurially. Hence, the
relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial behavior has often been analyzed
thus in research on entrepreneurship. Undoubtedly, however, the literature reveals some
skepticism from scholars about the strength of this relationship. Although some authors have
reported a positive relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurship (Chell, Haworth,
& Brearley, 1991; Rauch & Frese, 2000), other studies have failed to show the existence of such
a relationship (Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Gartner, 1988; Low & MacMillan, 1988). Recent
meta-analysis has provided evidence for the predictive validity of personality traits (Collins,
Hanges, & Locke, 2004; Rauch & Frese, 2007, Stewart & Roth, 2001, 2004, Zhao & Seibert,
2006), suggesting the identification of contingencies that may affect the magnitude of this
relationship.
Assuming the existence of a relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial

behavior, the next step is to identify those personality traits. A review of the literature yields a
large number of personality traits related to entrepreneurship. Hornaday (1982), for example,
listed 42 traits associated with entrepreneurial personality, bringing into question whether any
individual really possesses all the traits associated with entrepreneurship. Therefore, for
practical reasons, we admitted only traits supported by strong scientific arguments.
Fortunately, literature is converging towards a specific group of traits upon which almost all
researchers agree to some degree. Thus, considering the works of representative authors (Covin
& Slevin, 1989; Cromie, 2000; Filion, 2003; Vecchio, 2003) and the common traits they
identify, we composed the following list of main features of entrepreneurial personality: locus
of control, self-efficacy, risk tolerance, and proactivity.
Locus of control relates to the belief that actions determine outcomes (Rotter, 1966). Locus of
control comprises two parts: internal and external. Individuals with a high internal locus of
control believe they are able to control outcomes so they devote more effort towards desired
outcomes, which helps business ventures succeed. In contrast, individuals with a high external
locus of control may be more passive. These individuals believe that if they are unable to
control outcomes, there is no reason to actively change their environment by starting a business.
Through a sample of nascent entrepreneurs, Korunka, Frank, Lueger, and Mugler (2003) found
that locus of control relates to other aspects of personality such as need for achievement and
personal initiative. Filion (2003) reported that internal locus of control is a trait often but not
always attributed to entrepreneurs because it is also found in successful people who are not
necessarily entrepreneurs. Finally, some authors (Hansermark, 2003; Peacock and Wong, 1996)
have pointed out that this trait can be learned.
Self-efficacy refers to an individuals belief that he or she can effectively organize and execute
actions required to produce an outcome (Bandura, 1997; Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998). That is,
self-efficacy is a persons self-evaluation of personal competence and control in a given
situation. Self-efficacy reflects perceptions of personal ability to perform a specific job or task.
Self-efficacy affects choice of action and effort expended, and it is the single biggest predictor
of career choice (Bandura, 1986). The relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurship is
justified for several reasons. First, because people avoid careers and environments they believe
exceed their capabilities and instead choose vocations they feel they are capable of doing
(Krueger & Dickson, 1994). Second, because entrepreneurship involves significant risks and
9
difficulties, entrepreneurs need high levels of self-efficacy. Third, because self-efficacy predicts
career choice, occupational interests, perseverance to cope with difficulties, and personal
effectiveness (Bandura, 1986; Krueger & Dickson, 1994), self-efficacy must also be related to
entrepreneurial activity. Finally, because incentive to act is greater when entrepreneurs believe
their actions have achievable outcomes, self-efficacy is an important determinant of successful
entrepreneurial behaviors (Sanchez Lanero, & Yurrebaso, 2005). From this line of reasoning,
several authors have shown that self-efficacy is more distinctive to entrepreneurs than to other
workers or to the general population (Markman, Balkin, & Baron, 2002; 2003). Similarly, other
empirical studies have linked entrepreneurial self-efficacy to personal and financial success,
usually measured in annual earnings (Markman et al., 2002).
Propensity to take risks is the trait that determines the tendency and willingness of individuals to
assume risks. In a risk tolerance test, individuals with high scores had an inclination towards
high-risk behaviors; that is, they considered the alternatives whose ultimate consequences could
get away from their frame of outcome expectations. Conversely, subjects with low risk
propensity, tend towards low-risk behaviors, and tend to avoid alternatives that may cause
outcomes to vary greatly from their expectations (Das & Teng, 2001). Risk propensity has been
associated with entrepreneurship. By definition, entrepreneurship involves taking risks. Indeed,
according to Covin and Slevin (1989), risk propensity is one of the three dimensionstogether
with proactivity and innovationthat make up entrepreneurial orientation. In this framework,
risk propensity refers to subjects willingness to make commitments despite chances of failure.
Surprisingly, however, entrepreneurial behaviors have been linked to both moderate levels of
risk taking (McCelland, 1961; Sexton & Bowman, 1985) and high levels of risk taking (Begley
& Boyd, 1987). Moderate risk taking is more common among owners and managers of existing
firms, whereas high levels of risk taking are more prevalent among independent entrepreneurs
starting new businesses. Some recent studies have found that tolerance and positive attitudes
towards risk are predictors of entrepreneurial intention (Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005).
Similarly, scholars have reported that risk propensity is positively associated with intentions of
self-employment. In this case, risk propensity acts through its influence on certain predictors of
intentions of self-employment such as self-efficacy (Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005), and a
positive attitude towards entrepreneurial behavior (Lthje & Franke, 2003).
Proactivity is the third dimension in Covin and Slevins (1989) definition of entrepreneurial
orientation. Proactivity refers to implementing the tools necessary to engage in entrepreneurial
behavior. It embodies features like perseverance, adaptability, and willingness to assume
responsibility for failure. Bateman and Crant (1993) defined the proactive personality as
individuals tendency to initiate and maintain actions that directly alter their environment.
Proactive individuals identify opportunities, act on these opportunities, show initiative, take
direct action, and persevere until they achieve significant change. Proactivity implies an
emphasis on anticipating and preventing problems before they occur. Proactivity also implies an
orientation towards action, including a creative interpretation of rules, and a high level of
persistence and patience to make changes. Studies linking entrepreneurship and proactivity have
confirmed relationships between proactive personality and entrepreneurial behaviorin both
existing firms and in the general population(Becherer & Mauer, 1999, Cox, & Jennings,
1995), and between business development and career success (Brown, 1996; Junehed &
Davidsson, 1998, Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Shapero
(1982) suggested that this personal propensity to act on opportunities is one factor that may
influence the intentionbehavior relationship by precipitating or facilitating the realization of
10
intentions. In entrepreneurship, Crant (1996) found that entrepreneurial intentions were
positively associated with having a proactive personality. Similarly, this guidance personality
type has been reported in the literature (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Shapero, 1982) as a precursor
of intentions and entrepreneurial potential.
Based on the literature review, we conclude that sociological variables to include in the
framework to measure readiness for entrepreneurship are locus of control, self-efficacy, risk
tolerance, and proactivity.
Business managements contribution
As mentioned earlier, research on entrepreneurship has progressed tremendously in the last two
decades. A major contribution of this research is the study of characteristics that form
entrepreneurial personality. Care must be taken, however, when drawing variables from the
business management field. Business management research on entrepreneurship is sometimes
difficult to distinguish from research employing approaches from psychology: the two fields
interact, blurring the boundary between them.
Ajzens (1991) studies are among the most cited works on entrepreneurial attitude, and these
studies constitute the basis for the theory of planned behavior. The theory of planned behavior
addresses the link between beliefs and behavior. It is one of the most predictive persuasion
theories, and it has been applied to studies of relations among attitudes, beliefs, intentions, and
behaviors in several fields including entrepreneurship. Ajzen improved the predictive power of
the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) by including perceived behavioral
control. The theory of planned behavior can cover peoples non-volitional behavior, a variable
that the theory of reasoned action fails to explain. The theory of planned behavior states that
attitude towards behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control together shape an
individuals behavioral intentions and behaviors.
According to Ajzens (1991) theory of planned behavior, entrepreneurs evaluations of firm

creation may be positive or negative. If positive, then an individual will have fulfilled one of
three determinants of intended action to become an entrepreneur. The second determinant for
business creation behavior is subjective norms that condition entrepreneurs perceptions of
social pressure to create a business. The third prediction of intention is perception of behavioral
control; that is, potential entrepreneurs perceptions about their entrepreneurial skills to create a
business. A self-evaluation by potential entrepreneurs can provide evidence of previous
experiences, prevent difficulties, and highlight issues to consider before undertaking
entrepreneurial actions (Shane et al., 2003). Entrepreneurial attitude is characterized by a
constant willingness to initiate and organize, taking into consideration available resources, to
achieve specific outcomes regardless of activity (Quintero, 2007).
Attitudes are evaluative judgments or statements of persons, objects, or events. Attitudes have
three components: cognitive, affective-emotional, and behavioral (Robbins & Judge, 2011). The
theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) described above relies more on the cognitive
component of attitudes than on personality traits (Epstein et al., 1984). For an overall
understanding of entrepreneurial behavior, however, studying personality traits, cognitive and
emotional factors, and social and environmental variables is necessary.
De la Vega suggested that business success depends on entrepreneurial teams possessing

entrepreneurial skills. Thus, according to De la Vega (2004), many cases have been reported of
11
the same business idea succeeding or failing depending on the founders. For some authors,
entrepreneurs are born, not made, so anyone with appropriate characteristics is practically
predestined to become an entrepreneur and eventually a businessperson (Bull and Winter,
1991). Furthermore, the context in which entrepreneurial initiatives take place, and the influence
of cultural, economic, sociological, and psychological factors play a part.
Building on the theory of planned behavior and analysis of hundreds of studies, Filion
performed a synthesis of entrepreneurs main characteristics. This research yielded 22 essential
features shown in Table 4. Recently, Koellinger et al. showed the importance of the perception
as a highly determinant factor in the decision to create a start-up. Their findings are consistent
with those of other authors (Cooper et al, 1988; Busenitz and Barney, 1997; Camerer and
Lovallo, 1999) regarding the role of self-confidence in decisions of this type. This research
approach is an alternative to conducting an objective baseline contrast between business
efficiency and real chance of success. Filions (1996) findings are complemented in Table 4 by
perceptual elements and other features cited by Koellinger et al. (2007) as relevant when
studying entrepreneurial personality.
Table 4 marks the end of the exhaustive literature review to determine the theoretical framework
for measuring peoples readiness for entrepreneurship.
We now address the final research question through the following proposition:
Proposition 4:
Q4. What factors determine a persons readiness for entrepreneurship?
Readiness for entrepreneurship is determined by a wide set of sociological, psychological, and

business management factors. Each of these disciplines provides measurable qualitative and
quantitative variables that have been linked in scientific research to entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial personality and behavior, and that must be considered in the theoretical
framework to develop a tool to measure readiness for entrepreneurship.
Q4.1. Can we classify these factors into different groups?
Q4.2. If so, what are these groups?
The answer to question 4.1 is yes; factors can be grouped into personal, emotional, perceptual,
cognitive, behavioral, and other groups identified during the literature review. Organizing these
factors into a framework to build a tool to measure the readiness for entrepreneurship, however,
falls outside this studys scope. Development of the framework will take place in the step of this
research: formalizing a proposal for the target tool.
Discussion, limitations, and future research
Building a tool to measure readiness for entrepreneurship should include items from three areas:
sociology, psychology, and business management. Research since the eighties has demonstrated
the relevance of all items included in the literature review in this work. Projects like PSED,
GEM, and other smaller endeavors have provided sufficient data to test the main hypotheses on
the relationship between these items and entrepreneurial personality. Nevertheless, scholars
12
have never designed a scientific tool that combines all perspectives discussed herein to yield
individual measures of readiness for entrepreneurship.
The greatest difficulty in meeting this challenge is the sheer number of variables from tools that
measure parts of the full concept. Single validated tests exist to measure: locus of control, self-
efficacy, risk propensity, creativity, self-confidence, capacity to perceive opportunities,
leadership, responsibility, and all other personal, cognitive, and perceptual entrepreneurial traits.
During entrepreneurships current resurgence, numerous tools that aim at measuring the
entrepreneurial capacity of persons continue to appear as online tests embedded in
entrepreneurship web pages. These tools are deficient, however, and lack scientific grounding
and rigorous validation.
This article demonstrates that to build a tool that effectively measures peoples readiness for
entrepreneurship, implementing and following a scientific process is paramount. This process
constitutes the next step of the current research. In the next step, we aim at continuing our
research to identify the most relevant tools to perform scientific measurements of essential
concepts composing peoples readiness for entrepreneurship. We then intend to summarize
these tools scientifically to build a unique test.
The process is long and complex because documentation on the subject is so extensive. Indeed,
analyzing all tools is impossible, and we have adhered to only the most relevant in each field.
Completing this process is undoubtedly necessary because society and entrepreneurship
stakeholders need scientific tools to give adequate guidance to potential entrepreneurs, to
channel students efforts towards entrepreneurship, and to foster entrepreneurial initiatives
based on sound decisions.
The excessive number of tests and tools for measuring entrepreneurial personality and capacity
poses a key limitation to this research. Additional limitations come from the complexity and
evolution of the concept of entrepreneurship. As the literature shows, entrepreneurship is a
dynamic concept that evolves with sociology, psychology, and business management. The
evolution of these scientific disciplines will mark changes in entrepreneurial personality. Any
entrepreneurship tool should therefore be subjected to periodic review based on the changing
importance of the phenomena it seeks to measure.
The business world, too, is rapidly changing because of new technological progress. Such
change will affect entrepreneurial personality. For example, no basic variable chosen in the
literature review measures peoples ability to operate in e-commerce and similar fields. This
could change drastically in a short time.
To conclude, we highlight the importance of contributions from disciplines that may initially
seem far removed from business management, but that are in fact highly related. This subject is
a multidisciplinary field, and specialists from different fields should collaborate to study
readiness for entrepreneurship.
References
Acs, Z.J. (2007), How is entrepreneurship good for economic growth?, Innovations,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 97-107.
Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (1990), Innovation and small firms. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
13
Acs, Z.J., Desai, S. and Klapper, L.F. (2008), What does entrepreneurship data really
show?, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 265-281.
Acs, Z.J. and Szerb, L. (2007), Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 2-3, pp. 109-122.
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179211.
Amit, R. and Muller, E. (1995), Push and pull entrepreneurship. Journal of small
Business and Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 64-80.
Anokhin, S. and Wincent, J. (2012), Start-up rates and innovation: a cross-country

examination, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Arenius, P. and Minniti, M. (2005), Perceptual variables and nascent

entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 233-247.
Artola, T., Ancillo, I, Mosteiro, P. and Barraca, J. (2004), PIC. Prueba de imaginacin
creativa. Madrid: TEA, Ediciones.
Audretsch, D.B., Castrogiovanni, G.J., Ribeiro, D. and Roig, S. (2005), Linking

entrepreneurship and management: welcome to the International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 5-7.
Audretsch, D.B. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5),

755-764.
Bager, T., Ottsson, H. and Schott, T. (2010), Intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs and spin-off
entrepreneurs: similarities and differences, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Bandura, A. (1986), Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of

perceived self-inefficacy, American Psychologist, Vol 41 No. 12, pp. 1389-1391.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Co.
Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.C. (1999), The relationship between corporate
entrepreneurship and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20
No. 5, pp. 421-444.
Begley, T.M. and Boyd, D.P. (1987), Psychological characteristics of associated with
performance in entrepreneurial firms and small businesses, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 2 No.1, pp. 79-93.
Begley, T.M. and Tan, W.L. (2001), The socio-cultural environment for
entrepreneurship: a comparison between East Asian and Anglo-Saxon countries,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No.3, pp. 537-553.
14
Becherer, R. and Maurer, G.J. (1999), The proactive personality disposition and
entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 54.
Bernardo, A.E. and Welch, I. (2001), On the evolution of overconfidence and

entrepreneurs, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10 No.3, pp.
301330.
Bhid, A. (1999). The origin and evolution of new businesses. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. (1998), What makes an entrepreneur?, Journal
of Labor Economics, Vol. 16 No.1, pp. 26-60.
Bosma, N.S. and Schutjens, V.A.J.M. (2009), Mapping entrepreneurial activity and
entrepreneurial attitudes in European regions, International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 191-213.
Bowen, H.P. and De Clercq, D. (2008), Institutional context and the allocation of
entrepreneurial effort, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp.
747-767.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-520.
Brockhaus, R.H. and Horwitz, P.S. (1986), The psychology of the entrepreneur. In
Sexton, A. and Smilor, R. (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 25-48).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Brown, T. (1996), Resource orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and growth: how

the perception of resource availability affects small firm growth. Thesis. New Jersey:
Rutgers University.
Brown, T.E., Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2001), An operationalization of

Stevensons conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm
behaviour, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No.10, pp. 953-968.
Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I.M., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J.A., Hitt, M.A.,
Alvarez, S.A., Meyer, G.D. and Venkataraman, S. (2003), Doctoral education in the
field of entrepreneurship, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 309-331.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.A. (2000), Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No.2, pp. 165-180.
Bruni, A., Gherardi, S. and Poggio, B. (2004), Doing gender, doing entrepreneurship:
an ethnographic account of intertwined practices, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol.
11 No. 4, pp. 406429.
Burrell, G. (1999), Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies

of analysis. In Clegg, S.R. and Hardy, C. (Eds.), Studying organization: theory and
method (pp. 388404). London: Sage.
15
Bull, I. and Willard, G.E. (1991), Towards a theory of entrepreneurship, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No.3, pp. 183-195.
Busenitz, L.W., West III, G.P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G.N. and
Zacharakis, A. (2003), Entrepreneurship research in emergence: past trends and future
directions, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 285-308.
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, Vol. 12 No.1, pp. 9-30.
Camerer, C.F. and Lovallo, D. (1999), Overconfidence and excess entry: an

experimental approach, American Economic Review Vol. 89, No.1, pp. 306-318.
Casson, M. (2005), Entrepreneurship. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. The

Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved on April 2nd, 2006 at

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Entrepreneurship.html
Chell. E., Haworth. J. and Brearley. S. (1991), The entrepreneurial personality.

Concepts, cases and categories. London: Routledge.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), Does entrepreneurial self-
efficacydistinguish entrepreneurs from managers?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol.
13 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Clarke, T. and Clegg, S.R. (2000), Management paradigms for the new millennium,
International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4564.
Crant, J.M. and Bateman, T.S. (2000), Charismatic leadership viewed from above: the
impact of proactive personality, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp.
63-75.
Collins, C.J., Hanges, P.J. and Locke, E.A. (2004), The relationship of achievement
motivation to entrepreneurial behaviour: a meta-analysis. Retrieved on June 15th, 2013
at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/x
Cooper, A.C., Woo, C.Y. and Dunkelberg, W.C. (1988), Entrepreneurs perceived
chances for success, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3 No.2, pp. 97-108.
Cooper, A.C. (2002), Networks, alliances and entrepreneurship. In Hitt, M.A.,

Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.I. (Eds.). Strategic entrepreneurship (pp. 203-
222). Cornwall: Blackwell.
Coviello, N.E. and Jones, M.V. (2004), Methodological issues in international

entrepreneurship research, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No.4, pp. 485-508.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), Strategic management of small firms in hostile
and beningn environments, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No.1, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
16
Cox, C. and Jennings, R. (1995), The foundations of success: the development and
characteristics of British entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 4-9.
Cramer, J.S., Hartog, J., Jonker, N. and Van Praag, C.M. (2002), Low risk aversion
encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 48, pp. 29-36.
Crant, J.M. (1996), The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial

intentions, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 42-49.
Cromie, S. (2000), Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: some approaches and

empirical evidence, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9,
No 1, pp.7-30.
Cuervo, A. (2005), Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship,

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No.3, pp. 293-311.
Cuervo, A., Ribeiro, D. and Roig, S. (2007), Introduction. In Cuervo, A., Ribeiro,
D. and S. Roig, S. (Eds.) Entrepreneurship: concepts, theory and perspective (pp.
1-20). Berlin: Springer.
Davidsson, P. (2005), Paul D. Reynolds: Entrepreneurship research innovator,

coordinator, and disseminator, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 351-358.
Davidsson, P. and Honig, B. (2003), The role of social and human capital among
nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 301331.
Das, T.K. and Teng, B. (2001), Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: an
integrated framework. Organization Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 251-283.
DAveni, R.A. (1994), Hyper competition. Managing the dynamics of strategic

maneuvering. New York: Free Press.
Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I. and Wyper, J. (2005), Enterprise education: the
role of head teachers, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1
No.2, pp. 241-263.
De la Vega, I. (2004), El plan de negocio: una herramienta indispensable. Madrid:

Instituto de Empresa.
Dosi, G. and Lovallo, D. (1997), Rational entrepreneurs or optimistic martyrs? Some

considerations ontechnological regimes, corporate entries and the evolutionary role of
decision biases. In: Garud, R., Nayyar, P., Shapira, Z. (Eds.), Technological
Innovation: Oversights and Foresights (pp. 4168). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Einhorn, H.J. and Hogarth, R.M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic
inference, Psychological Review, Vol. 92 no.4, pp. 433-461.
Eckhardt, J.T. and Shane, S.A. (2003), Opportunities and entrepreneurship, Journal
of Management, Vol. 29 No.3, pp. 333-349.
17
Ellsberg, D. (1961), Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 75 No.4, pp. 643-669.
Epstein, R., Kirshnit, C.E., Lanza, R.P. and Rubin, L.C. (1984), Insight in the
pigeon: antecedents and determinants of an intelligent performance. Cambridge, MA:
Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University.
Estrin, S. and Mickiewicz, T. (2011), Institutions and Female Entrepreneurship, Small

Business Economics. Vol. 37 No.4, pp. 397415.
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J. and Mickiewicz, T. (2012), Which institutions encourage

entrepreneurial growth aspirations?, Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 28 No.4, pp.
564-580.
Evald, M.R., Klyver, K. and Christensen, P.R. (2011), The effect of human capital,
social capital, and perceptual values on nascent entrepreneurs' export intentions,

Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Fabian, F.H. (2000), Keeping the tension: pressures to keep the controversy in the
management discipline, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No.2, pp. 350371.
Filion, L. J. (1996), Partage de la vision: rflexions prliminaires. Cahier de recherche

N 1996-09-01. Montreal, Canada: HEC Montreal.
Filion, L.J. (2003), Entrepreneurs et propitaires-dirigeants de PME. In Filion, L.J.

(Ed.) Les PME: Bilan et Perspectives (chapter 2). Qubec, Canada: GREPME Presses
Inter-Universitaires.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, intention, and behavior: an

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forlani, D. and Mullins, J.M. (2000), Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs
new venture decisions, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No.4, pp. 305-322.
Gartner, W.B., Carland, J.W., Hoy, F. and Carland, J.A.C. (1988), Who is an
entrepreneur? Is the wrong question, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 11-33.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), What are we talking about when we talk about
entrepreneurship?, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Gartner, W.B. (1991), Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in

theory development, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, pp. 229-242.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S. and Lanwehr, R. (2003), The risks of autonomy: empirical
evidence for the necessity of a balance management in promoting organizational
innovativeness. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No.1, pp. 4149.
Goedhuys, M. and Sleuwaegen, L. (2000), Entrepreneurship and growth of

entrepreneurial firms in Cte dIvoire, The Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 36
No. 3, pp. 122-145.
18
Guzmn, J. and Santos, F.J. (2001), The booster function and the entrepreneurial
quality: an application to the province of Seville, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 13 No.3, pp. 211-228.
Hansemark, O.C. (2003), Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of
business start-ups: a longitudinal study, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 24
No.3, pp.301-319.
Harding, R. (2004), Social enterprise: The new economic engine, Business Strategy
Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 39-43.
Harper, D. (1998), Institutional conditions for entrepreneurship, Advances in Austrian

Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 241275.
Hechavarria, D.M. and Reynolds, P.D. (2009), Cultural norms & business start-ups:
the impact of national values on opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs, International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 417-437.
Herron, L. and Sapienza, H.J. (1992), The entrepreneur and the initiation of new
venture launch activities, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 49-
55.
Hessels, J., Van Gelderen, M. and Thurik, R. (2008), Entrepreneurial aspirations,

motivations, and their drivers, Small Business Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 323-339.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (2001), Guest editors
introduction to the special issue strategic entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial strategies for
wealth creation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No.6-7, pp. 479-491.
Hornaday, J.A. (1982), Research about living entrepreneurs. In: Kent et al. (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 20-34). Prentice-Hall.
Iyigun, M. and Owen, A. (1998), Risk, entrepreneurship and human capital

accumulation, American Economic Review, Vol. 88 No.2, pp. 454-457.
Jack, S. L. and Anderson, A.R. (2002), The effects of embeddedness on the

entrepreneurial proces, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17 No.5, pp. 467487.
Junehed, J. and Davidsson, P. (1998), Small firms and export success: development and
empirical test of an integrated model. Vaxjo, Switzerland. 10th Nordic Conference on
Small Business Research.
Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D. (1993), Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive
perspective on risk taking, Management Science, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 17-31.
Kihlstrom, R.E. and Laffont, J.J. (1979),General equilibrium entrepreneurial theory of

firm formation based on risk aversion, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 87 No.4, pp.
719-748.
Kirzner, I.M. (1973), Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.
19
Kirzner, I.M. (1979), Perception, opportunity, and profit. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Koellinger, P., Minniti, M. and Schade, C. (2007), I think I can, I think I can: a
study of entrepreneurial behavior, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 28 No.4, pp.
502-527.
Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Mugler, J. (2003), The entrepreneurial
personality in the context of resources, environment, and the startup processA
configurational approach, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp.
2342.
Krueger, N. and Brazeal, D. (1994), Entrepreneurial potential and potential

entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. Jr. and Dickson, P.R. (1994), How believing in ourselves increases risk
taking: perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition, Decision Sciences, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 385400.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y. and Rialp, J. (2007), Regional differences in the influence of
role models: comparing the entrepreneurial process of rural Catalonia. Regional
Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp.779-796.
Lee, S.M. and S.J. Peterson, (2000), Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global
competitiveness, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35 No.4, pp. 401-416.
Lee, D.Y. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2001), The effects of entrepreneurial personality,
background and network activities on venture growth, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 38 No.4, pp. 583-602.
Littunen, H. (2000), Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival

of new firm, Small Business Economics, Vol. 15 No.1, pp. 59-71.
Low, M.B. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), Entrepreneurship: past research and future
challenges. Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 139-161.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess. G.G. (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation
construct and linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No.1, pp. 135172.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess. G.G. (2001), Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientationto firm performance: the moderating role of environment and industry life
cycle, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 42951.
Lumpkin, G.T., Cogliser, C.C. and Schneider, D.R. (2009), Understanding and
measuring autonomy: an entrepreneurial orientation perspective, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 4769.
20
Lumpkin, G.T., Brigham, K.H. and Moss, T.W. (2010), Long-term orientation:
implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses,
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 22 No. 3-4, pp. 241-264.
Lthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), The making of an entrepreneur: testing a model of

entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, Vol. 33
No.2, pp. 135147.
Lyon, D.W., Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (2000), Enhancing entrepreneurial
orientation research: operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making
process, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No.5, pp. 1055-1085.
Markman, G.D., Baron, R.A., and Balkin, D.B. (2002), Inventors and new venture
formation: the effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 149165.
Markman, G.D., Baron, R.A. and Balkin, D.B. (2003), The role of regretful thinking,
perseverance, and self-efficacy in venture formation. In: Katz J. and Sheperd, D.A.
(Eds.), Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research (pp. 73-104). New York:
Elsevier.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (1997), International entrepreneurship literature in

the 1990s and directions for future research. In Sexton, D.L. y R.W. Smilor (Eds),
Entrepreneurship 2000 (pp.291-320). Chicago: Upstart Publishing.
McDougall, P.P. and Oviatt, B.M. (2000), International entrepreneurship: the

intersection of two research path, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No.5, pp.
902-906.
Miller, D. (1983), The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms,

Management Science, Vol. 29 No.7, pp. 770-791.
Miller, A. and Camp, B. (1985), Exploring determinants of success in corporate

ventures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
Minniti, M. and Nardone, C. (2007), Being in someone elses shoes: the role of gender
in nascent entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No. 2-3, pp. 223-238.
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, institutional change and economic performance.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D.C. (2005), Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.
Quintero, C. (2007), Generacin de competencias en jvenes emprendedores. Retrieved

on May 2nd, 2011 at
http://www.usmp.edu.pe/facarrhh/primer_congreso_ippeu_boletin/ppts/Carlos_Quintero
s.pdf
21
Peacock, E.J. and Wong, P.T.P. (1996), Anticipatory stress: the relationship of locus of
control, optimism, and control appraisals to coping. Journal of Research in Personality,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 204222.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of

the evidence. International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
Portes, A., Guarnizo, L.E. and Haller, W.J. (2002), Transnational entrepreneurs: an
alternative form of immigrant economic adaptation, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 278-298.
Rauch, A. and Frese M. (2007), Lets put the person back into entrepreneurship
research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners personality
traits, business creation and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 16 No.4, pp. 353385.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T. and Frese. M. (2009), Entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestion for
the future, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 76181.
Reynolds, P.D. (1991), Sociology and entrepreneurship: concepts and contributions,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 47-71.
Reynolds, P.D., Hay, M. and Camp, S.M. (1999), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
executive report. LBS. Babson, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Robins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2011), Organizational behavior. Prentice Hall.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), General expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No.1, pp. 1-28.
Snchez, J.C.; Lanero, A. and Yurrebaso, A. (2005), Determinant variables of the

entrepreneurial intention in the university context, Revista de Psicologa Social
Aplicada, Vol. 15, n 1, pp. 1-24.
Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M. and Kraimer, M.L. (1999), Proactive personality and career
success, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 416-427.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Crant, J.M. (2001), What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 854-874.
Segal, G., Borgia, D. and Schoenfeld, J. (2005), The motivation to become an

entrepreneur, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1985), The entrepreneur: a capable executive

and more, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 129-140.
Sexton, D.L. and Bowman-Upton, N. (1990), Female and male entrepreneurs:

psychological characteristics and their role in gender-related discrimination, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
22
Shane, S.A. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field
of research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No.1, pp. 217-226.
Shane, S.A. and Venkataraman, S. (2001), Entrepreneurship as a field of research: a

response to Zahra and Dess, Singh, and Erikson, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 26 No.1, pp. 13-16.
Shane, S., Locke, E.A. and Collins, C.J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human
Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257-279.
Shapero, A. (1982), The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In Kent, C., Sexton,

D., and Vesper, H.K. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Simon, M., Houghton, S.M. and Aquino, K., (1999), Cognitive biases, risk perception,
and venture formation: how individuals decide to start companies. Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 15 No.2, pp. 113-134.
Stevenson, H.H. and Jarillo, J.C. (1990), A paradigm of entrepreneurship research:

entrepreneurial management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No.1, pp. 17-27.
Stewart, W.H. and Roth, P.L. (2001), Risk propensity differences between
entrepreneurs and managers: a meta-analytic review, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 14553.
Stewart, W.H. and Roth, P.L. (2004a), Data-quality affects meta-analytic conclusions:
a response to Miner and Raju (2004) concerning entrepreneurial risk propensity,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Stewart, W.H. and Roth, P.L. (2004b), A meta-analysis of achievement motivation and
entrepreneurial status. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference,
New Orleans.
Thomas, A.S. and Mueller, S.L. (2000), A case for comparative entrepreneurship:
assessing the relevance of culture, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31
No.2, pp. 287-301.
Timmons, J.A. (1994), New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the 21st Century.
Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P. (1986), Technological discontinuities and

organizational environments, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 No.3, pp. 439-
465.
Van Stel, A., Storey, D.J. and Thurik, R. (2007), The effect of business regulations on
nascent and young business entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics, Vol. 28 No.
2-3, pp. 171-186.
Veciana, J.M. (2007), Entrepreneurship as a scientific research programme. In Cuervo,

A., Ribeiro, D. and Roig, S. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: concepts, theory and perspective
(pp. 23-71). Berlin: Springer.
23
Vecchio, R.P. (2003), Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common
threads, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 303327.
Vesper, K.H. (1990), New venture strategies. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research. Retrieved
on July 28th, 2013 at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1496217
Von Hippel, E. (1977), The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, E.U. and Milliman, R.A. (1997), Perceived risk attitudes: relating risk
perception to risky choice, Management Science, Vol. 43 No.2, pp. 123-144.
Weinstein, N.D. (1980), Unrealistic optimism about future life events, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 806-820.
Zafirovski, M. (1999), Probing into the social layers of entrepreneurship: outlines of

the sociology of enterprise, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol. 11 No.4,
pp. 351-371.
Zahra, S.A. (1991), Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship:

an exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 6 No.4, pp. 259-285.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. A

critique and extension, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol.17 No. 4, pp. 5-21.
Zahra, S.A. (1995), Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance. The case of
management leveraged buyouts, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 10 No.3, pp. 225
247.
Zahra, S.A. (1996), Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship. The

moderating impact of industry technological opportunities, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 39 No.6, pp. 1713-1735.
Zahra, S.A. and Dess, G.G. (2001), Entrepreneurship as a field of research:

encouraging dialogue and debate, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No.1, p.
8-10.
Zajac, E.J., Golden, B.R. and Shortell, S.M. (1991), New organizational forms for
enhancing innovation. The case of internal corporate joint ventures, Management
Science, Vol. 37 No.2, pp. 170-184.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), The mediating role of self-efficacy in
the development of entrepreneurial intentions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90
No. 6, pp. 1265-1272.
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), The big five personality dimensions and
entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
91 No. 2, pp. 259-271.
About the authors
24
Jess Ruiz is a lecturer of Incorporation Studies in ADE and Human Resources at EDEM, a
university center affiliated with the University of Valencia. He is an associate professor of the
social psychology department at the University of Valencia, and has been a member of
IDOCAL (Institute for Research in Psychology of Human Resources, Organizational
Development, and Quality of Working Life) since 2011.
Domingo Ribeiro. Domingo Enrique Ribeiro-Soriano. IUDESCOOP and Management

Department of the Universitat de Valncia. Email: ribeders@uv.es. Numerous papers presented
at International congresses. Publications (and books) in international reviews including: Annals
of Public and Cooperative Economics, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
Managing Service Quality, International Small Business Journal, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, European Business Review, Service Industries Journal,
Journal of Small Business Management, Management Decision, Small Business Economics,
Group Decision and Negotiation, Journal of Business Research, International Journal of
Technology Management etc. Reviewer, guest editor and editor of international journals.
Website: www.domingoribeiro.com
Alicia Coduras is a lecturer of Statistics, Inference, and Econometrics at EDEM, a university

center affiliated with the University of Valencia. She manages the Entrepreneurship Chair at
Nebrija University. She has also been a member of the technical staff of the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor since 2007.
25
Figure 1. Logic flow to build a theoretical framework for measuring readiness for
entrepreneurship
Q1. What is entrepreneurship?
Q1.1. Is entrepreneurship a single concept or are there different types or categories?
Q2. What do academics understand by entrepreneurial action?
Q2.1. Are there different types of entrepreneurial actions?

Q3. How can we define readiness for entrepreneurship?
Q3.1. Can we build a single definition?
Q3.2. If so, what should this definition be?
Q4. What factors determine a persons readiness for entrepreneurship?
Q4.1. Can we classify these factors into different groups?
Q4.2. If so, what are these groups?

Four tables:
Table 1. Milestones in the historical development of entrepreneurship as a scientific field
Year Event
1947 Professor Myles Mace: imparts first course on entrepreneurship
1958 Creation of the Harvard Research Center in Entrepreneurial History
1963 Research on the role of entrepreneurs: Journal of Small Business Management
1974 Academy of Management: creation of the Entrepreneurship Division
1977 First Congress on Entrepreneurship at Colorado University, organized by the National Council for
Small Business
1977 Creation of the International Council for Small Business
1981 First Congress in Babson College and publication of its minutes under the title Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research
1985 Research on the role of entrepreneurs: Journal of Business Venturing
1988 Research on the role of entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice
1989 Research on the role of entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice; Small Business
Economics
1995 Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) design and implementation
1997 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) design and implementation
Table 2. Outstanding contributions to the scientific field of entrepreneurship
Research lines identified by Busenitz et al. (2003)

1) Opportunities often evolve from interactions between markets and environments that involve the creation of new
means-ends relationships.
2) The individuals and teams category focuses on the characteristics of individuals and teams, the dynamic
processes associated with the development of intellectual or human capital by individuals and/or teams, and the
comparison of different types of entrepreneurs or of entrepreneurs to non-entrepreneurs.
3) The mode of organizing category includes management practices, the acquisition and deployment of resources,
and the development of systems, strategies, and structures that allow a discovered opportunity to be transformed into
a viable product or service.
4) The environments category is concerned with rates of startup at a population level and the cultural, economic or
market factors converging to create an environment that enhances or inhibits entrepreneurship.
Research lines identified by Brush et al. (2003)
1) Opportunity exploration processes, containing learning strategies.
2) Opportunity exploitation processes, containing resource acquisition and development, and growth intentions of
entrepreneurs.
3) Opportunity recognition, containing entrepreneurial orientation and opportunity recognition.
4) Venture creation, containing conditions and emergence, international entrepreneurship, venture creation process,
startup sequences, and organizational founding.
5) Component/Product creation, containing effect of strategy on technology, dominant design development, and
innovations and technology discontinuities.
6) Industry/Market creation, containing franchisor development, informal venture capital market, and new industry
emergence.
7) Wealth creation, containing venture capital investment and returns, resources and firm performance, strategies
and firm performance, and founding team strategy and growth.
Sources: Busenitz et al. (2003) and Brush et al. (2003)
Table 3. Theoretical approaches to the study of entrepreneurship
Approaches/Level Economic Psychological Sociocultural Managerial

of analysis Approach Approach Approach Approach
MICRO: individual -Entrepreneurial -Traits theory -Margination theory -Leibensteins x-
level functions as fourth -Psychodynamic -Role Theory efficiency theory
factor of production theory -Network Theory -Behavioral theory
-Theory of the of the entrepreneur
entrepreneurial -Modes of new
profit enterprise creation
-Modes to become
an entrepreneur
MESO: corporate Transaction cost -Network Theory -Modes of new
level theory -Incubator Theory enterprise success
-Evolutionary and failure
Theory -Corporate
entrepreneurship
MACRO: global- -Schumpeters Kirzners -Webers theory of
country level theory of economic entrepreneur theory economic
development development
-Theory of the -Theory of social
endogenous regional change
development -Population ecology
theory
-Institutional theory
Source: Veciana (2007, p. 35)
Table 4. Main characteristics associated with entrepreneurial personality from the business
management perspective
Filion et al. (1996) Other authors cited by Koellinger et al. (2007)

Self-confidence Creativity Alertness as the ability to perceive unexploited
opportunities (Kirzner, 1973, 1979; Shane and
Venkataraman, 2000)
Perseverance, Initiative Overconfidence (Kahneman and Lovallo, 1993)
determination, long-
term commitment
Energy Flexibility Idea generation (Vesper, 1990)
Talent Responsibility Organizational creation (Gartner, 2001),
Ability to take Independence Autonomy (Gebert, Boerner, and Lanwehr, 2003)
calculated risks
Need for achievement Prevision, Esteem (Robbins and Judge 2009)
anticipation
Tolerance to address Internalization Research and planning (Bhide, 2000)
ambiguity and
uncertainty
Leadership Dynamism Competitive aggressiveness (Miller and Camp 1985;
DAveni 1994)
Versatility, product Ability to treat Networks and alliances (Cooper, 2002)
knowledge, market, people
equipment, technology
Adaptation to critical Orientation towards
moments profit or gain
Optimism Non-conformity
Source: Filion, 1996; Koellinger et al., 2007.

Challenges in Measuring Readiness For Entrep

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Challenges in Measuring Readiness For Entrep

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Management Decision

Challenges in measuring readiness for entrepreneurship

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Performing this type of measurement matters in contexts where fostering qualified

Originally, entrepreneurship was linked to new business creation. Nowadays, entrepreneurship

Under Kuhns (1962) definition of a paradigm, the study of organizations is multiparadigmatic

Entrepreneurship and businesses

both individual and corporate entrepreneurship.

So many definitions of entrepreneurship exist because the entrepreneurial process involves

Any attempt at new business or new venture creation, such as self-employment,

This paper develops a framework to measure readiness for entrepreneurship, and so it is

Q1. What is entrepreneurship?

Entrepreneurship means an undertaking by an individual, a team of individuals, or an

Two further questions arise:

Q1.1. Is entrepreneurship a single concept or are there different types or categories?

2. What do academics understand by entrepreneurial action?

Furthermore, Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) highlighted a positive relationship between a

From the perspective of readiness for entrepreneurship measurement, therefore, it is essential to

Q2. What do academics understand by entrepreneurial action?

An entrepreneurial action is any initiative by an individual or team of individuals who pursue

organization or existing entity.

Two further questions arise:

Q2.1. Are there different types of entrepreneurial actions?

3. How can we define readiness for entrepreneurship?

The readiness for entrepreneurship of individuals is defined as the confluence of a set of

Further questions arise:

Q3.1. Can we build a single definition?

entrepreneurship. Measuring a poorly defined concept would be impossible. Another issue is

4. What factors determine the readiness of a person for entrepreneurship?

As a complex concept, entrepreneurship has an equally complex definition. Features that

In the following subsections, we explain each areas contribution.

Assuming the existence of a relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial

Business managements contribution

According to Ajzens (1991) theory of planned behavior, entrepreneurs evaluations of firm

De la Vega suggested that business success depends on entrepreneurial teams possessing

Q4. What factors determine a persons readiness for entrepreneurship?

Readiness for entrepreneurship is determined by a wide set of sociological, psychological, and

Two further questions arise:

Q4.1. Can we classify these factors into different groups?

Q4.2. If so, what are these groups?

Discussion, limitations, and future research

Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Anokhin, S. and Wincent, J. (2012), Start-up rates and innovation: a cross-country

Arenius, P. and Minniti, M. (2005), Perceptual variables and nascent

Audretsch, D.B., Castrogiovanni, G.J., Ribeiro, D. and Roig, S. (2005), Linking

Audretsch, D.B. (2012). Entrepreneurship research. Management Decision, 50(5),

Bandura, A. (1986), Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of

Bernardo, A.E. and Welch, I. (2001), On the evolution of overconfidence and

entrepreneurial attitudes in European regions, International Journal of

Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of

Brown, T. (1996), Resource orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and growth: how

Brown, T.E., Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2001), An operationalization of

Burrell, G. (1999), Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies

Camerer, C.F. and Lovallo, D. (1999), Overconfidence and excess entry: an

Casson, M. (2005), Entrepreneurship. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. The

Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved on April 2nd, 2006 at

Chell. E., Haworth. J. and Brearley. S. (1991), The entrepreneurial personality.

Cooper, A.C. (2002), Networks, alliances and entrepreneurship. In Hitt, M.A.,

Coviello, N.E. and Jones, M.V. (2004), Methodological issues in international

Crant, J.M. (1996), The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial

Cromie, S. (2000), Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: some approaches and

Cuervo, A. (2005), Individual and environmental determinants of entrepreneurship,

Davidsson, P. (2005), Paul D. Reynolds: Entrepreneurship research innovator,