1042-2587-01-262 
Copyright 2003 by 
Baylor University 

The Entrepreneurial 
Personality in the 
Context of Resources, 
Environment, and the 
Startup Process— 
A Configurational 
Approach 

Christian Korunka 
Hermann Frank 
Manfred Lueger 
Josef Mugier 

The goal of this interdisciplinary study is to analyze the entrepreneurial personality in the 
context of resources, environment, and the startup process based on a configurational 
approach. The study focuses on the startup process. A questionnaire was developed to 
measure the configuration areas of personality, personal resources, environment, and organizing 
activities. A representative sample of 1,169 nascent entrepreneurs and new business 
owner-managers was examined. Three startup configurations were found which reveal different 
patterns of personality characteristics. These patterns are interpreted in the context 
of aspects of the environment, the resources, and the startup process. 

X he creation of a new venture is a complex and dynamic process covering numerous 
preparatory activities and decisions. These events can be described as person-
environment interactions, which include the creation and refinement of the business 
idea. In our definition, the startup process begins with the first actions of the nascent 
entrepreneur (e.g., initial contact with a chamber of commerce or a bank) and ends with 
the first business activities ot" the new venture (e.g.. launching a product/service). 

This study is based on tbe configuration approacb {Miller. 1987, 1990). Wben this 
approach is applied, the personality of nascent entrepreneurs forms one configuration 
area, in addition to personal resources, environment, and organizing activities. 

Please send all correspondence to: Chrislian Korunka. Deparimenl of Psychology, University of Vienna. 
Liebiggasse 5. A-IOlO Vienna, Austria, email: Cliristian.korunka@univie.ac.al 

Fall. 2003 23 


While the importance of personality characteristics not only for startup decisions and 

entrepreneurial success but also for the management of the startup process for a new 

venture has been stressed by some authors, it has also been tbe subject of heavy criticism. 

The objective of tbis study is to analyze the significance of personality characteris


tics in the context of resources, the environment, and startup process characteristics using 

the configuration approach. 

Theory and Conceptual Framework 

The State of Research on the ^'Entrepreneurial Personality" 

in the relevant research, the personality characteristics investigated include classic 

traits as well as dimensions of attitude and motive. Our study is based on tbis broad 

definition of personality (Brockhaus & Horwitz., 1986; Rauch & Frese, 2000). On this 

basis, the discussion below focuses on the personality characteristics, which are fre


quently identified as relevant to startup processes in the relevant literature. 

Tbe history of research on the relationship between personality and entrepreneursbip 
shows noticeable parallels to the history of personality traits research in general and to 
tbe research on tbe relationship of personality traits to leadership (Naffziger, 1995). An 
earlier phase, characterized by some success in investigating personality traits in the field 
of entrepreneurship, was followed by a number of papers formulating a critical research 
perspective on the importance and measurement of personality. Newer research consists 
of refined theory development, the integration of research models, and, to some extent, 
a "comeback" of personality considerations (Rauch & Frese, 2000). 

The first optimistic research phase was characterized by a somewhat successful identification 
of the personality characteristics of entrepreneurs. From a number of studies 
investigating the differences between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs, as well as the 
potential predictors of entrepreneurial success, at least three relevant personality characteristics 
emerged (for an overview see Brockhaus, 1982): (I) high need for achievement 
(Begley & Boyd, 1986; Homaday & Aboud, 1971; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & 
Lowell, 1953; Rauch & Frese, 2000); (2) intemal locus of control (Brockhaus, 1982; 
Rotter, 1966); and (3) risk-taking propensity (Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Hull, Bosley, 
& Udell, 1980; Timmons, Smollen, & Dingee, 1985). 

Since the mid-1980s, a more critical perspective of the entrepreneurial personality 
has arisen in the literature (e.g., Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984; Gartner, 1985). 
This covers topics that vary from describing the search for personality characteristics 
in the entrepreneurial context as too narrow to a general critique of McClelland's 
theory (e.g., Bowen & Hisrich, 1986; Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Frey, 1984; Low & 
MacMiilan, 1988). Various interaction models fornew venture creation and new venture 
success have been presented (Gartner, 1985; Greenberger & Sexton. 1988; Herron & 
Sapienza, 1992; Learned, 1992), and an extension of the theoretical background has been 
suggested (Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Larson & Starr, 1993). 

A newer stream of studies again tries to confirm the importance of personality characteristics 
for entrepreneurial intentions and success. Some of these studies attempt to 
confirm the importance of personality characteristics simply by using broad measures of 
personality (Brandstatter, 1997) or by developing (weakly empirically confirmed) typologies 
of entrepreneurial success (Miner, 1997). 

Newer, more promising approacbes include the analysis of entrepreneurial intentions 
by applying the theory of planned behavior (Krueger, Jr. & Carsrud, 1993) and using 
action theory to explain successful entrepreneurial decisions (Frese, 2000). Further lines 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


of research analyze the importance of previously less-observed dimensions such as proactivity, 
(Bateman & Crant, 1993; Becherer & Maurer, 1999) action control (Frank & 
Korunka, 1996), mental health (Korunka, Frank, & Becker, 1993), and personal initiative 
(Frese, 1998). Other studies analyze the importance of entrepreneurial motivations 
for entrepreneurial success (Buttner & Moore, 1997) and investigate the relationship of 
"entrepreneurial attitude orientation" (Robinson, Stimpson. Huefner, & Hunt, 1991), a 
broadly defined personal construct, and performance (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). The latter 
construct clearly shows that the entrepreneurial personality could best be described as a 
specific pattern of more action-related characteristics. The unit of analysis in these newer 
approaches is the entrepreneurial personality, including action, choice, and process 
dimensions (see also Shaver & Scott, 1991). 

The Configuration Approach 

The results of research into the entrepreneurial personality underline its relevance in 
the process of new venture creation. However, the adoption of any isolated personality-
focused theoretical basis for the understanding of the startup process seems to narrow the 
perspective to one factor among several others. On the other hand, organization-focused 
theories (which are usually derived from experiences with larger and older organizations) 
do not adequately consider the effects of the entrepreneur's personality on the nascent 
organization and its environment (e.g.. Hoy, 1995). The environment can be seen as a 
(unidirectional) factor of the rather long-tenn influence on personality development and 
the rather short-term influence on organizing the startup process. The analysis of the 
entrepreneurial personality in the process of new venture creation should go beyond concepts 
of unidirectional causal relationships, which focus narrowly on one factor only. 

A theoretical basis that promised to fulfill this requirement can be found in the con


figuration approach. "Configurations are inherently multidimensional entities in which 

key attributes are tightly interrelated and mutually reinforcing" (Dess, Newport, & 

Rasheed, 1993, p. 784). The configuration approach bas been developed to overcome the 

shortcomings of contingency theory, which focused primarily on the unidirectional influ


ences of (situational) diversified environments on organizations. Earlier configuration 

approaches emphasized the consistency and effectiveness of intraorganizational con


figurations (Mintzberg, 1979). Recent approaches emphasize patterns and interrelations 

within a broader set of configuration areas (Miller, 1987, 1990). Although originally 

developed for large organizations, the configuration approach has been adapted for 

smaller and entrepreneurial organizations (Covin& Slevin, 1991; Gartner, 1985; Mugier, 

1998; Snuif & Zwart. 1994). Tbese authors suggest the following structure of interrelated 

areas, which can be further separated into sets of aspects: characteristics of the (nascent) 

entrepreneurs, resources of the nascent entrepreneurs, environment, and organizing 

activities (management). 

The mutual effects of variables form and modify the configuration of the individual 

enterprise over time. The development of an organization can thus be reconstructed as a 

chain of configurations. In principle, configurations are unique, but similarities may allow 

us to create typologies or taxonomies of contigurations. Experience witb certain types 

of configurations can help to identify the strategic position of a new venture and to 

evaluate its prospects for further development. It can also help to find interventions to 

foster successful venture development. 

The important lesson of the configuration approach for the startup process is that it 

allows us to identify the configurations associated with successful and unsuccessful new 

ventures. The configuration approach thus allows a comprehensive and integrated anaiy


Fall,2003 25 


sis that provides a basis for effective interventions. In this context, personality is defined 
as a configuration area whose significance is always to be regarded in relation to the three 
other areas (resources, environment, and organizing activities). 

The focus of this study of entrepreneurship is on tbe startup process of small businesses. 
'"Nascent entrepreneurs" are defined as persons who are in the startup process of 
their planned ventures, beginning with initial startup activities, such as contact with a 
startup advising center or bank, development of a business plan, and so forth, and ends 
before market entry (realizing the first revenues). 

"New business owner-managers" are defined as owners of small businesses that have 
already started business activities (i.e., selling their products/services) and have not been 
in business for more than tbree years. 

Areas of the Configuration Analysis 
In order to attain the goal of the study, the configuration approach had to be adapted 
for the startup process of new ventures by means of a suitable selection of configuration 
areas (Woo, Daellenbach, & Nicholls-Nixon, 1994). The adaptation included the definition 
and specification of aspects describing personality, personal resources, environment, 
and organizing activities as configuration areas. Each startup process can therefore be 
described using a profile of aspects of these four configuration areas. 
In order to describe personality, we selected aspects that are identified as relevant 
to the entrepreneurial personality particularly often in the relevant research, or that 
have demonstrated constant (although sometimes relatively low) significance in metaanalyses 
(Rauch & Frese, 2000): Three personality characteristics are often described 
in the literature, including the entrepreneurs' need for achievement, intemal locus of 
control, and risk-taking propensity (e.g.. Rauch & Frese, 2000). Personal initiative 
(Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997), a construct closely related to proactivity 
(Becherer & Maurer. 1999; Crant, 1996). has often been found to be an important 
aspect of the entrepreneurial personality in newer literature and is tbus also included in 
our study. 
Personal motives affect both stanup decisions and tbe startup process (e.g., Birley & 
Westhead, 1994; Buttner & Moore, 1997). In this context, we focus on personal motives 
that show a characteristic because of their stability and at the same time tbeir high 
relevance in the startup process. Security is such a motive, since a startup process is 
accompanied by decisions in conditions of uncertainty. Beyond that, every startup process 
opens specific forming latitudes, allowing the nascent entrepreneurs" self-realization 
motive to be utilized. 
Similar to the aspects of personality, the dimensions of resources, environment, and 
organizing activities were selected on the basis of the relevant research. Tbe following 
are generally considered important as context dimensions. 
Resources in the startup process are mainly related to the personal resources of 
the nascent entrepreneur. These resources include the human capital of the nascent 
entrepreneur, that is, his/her education and/or previous occupational experience related 
to the new venture, as well as the nascent entrepreneur's financial position (income, 
financial independence, and bank backing) (Bird, 1993; Gbosh, 1993; Krueger Jr & 
Brazeal. 1994). 
The environment of the startup process includes both microsocial (e.g., family restrictions, 
support) and macrosocial (e.g., social networks based on earlier occupational 
experiences) aspects. Additional strong environmental influences could result in a push 
condition (e.g., Amit & Muller, 1996), defined as a specific, strong necessity to start a 

 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


new business, for instance, because of a previous job loss. Another environmental influence 
is the existence (or nonexistence) of role models, both in the microsocial (parents 
as entrepreneurs) and the macrosocial contexts (Bird, 1993). 

The organizing activities in the startup process include cognitive aspects (e.g., planning, 
decisions, failure considerations) and actions (e.g., resource acquisition). 

Since this study investigates the relatively new research field of the startup process 
of a new venture, it is necessary and appropriate to develop a typology of startup process 
configurations. In order to identify the relevance of these configurations for new venture 
success, the typology is evaluated by an empirically derived comparison with a configuration 
of successful new business owner-managers. 

The configuration approach, and an inductive research strategy in particular, makes 
great demands of empirical studies. Strictly speaking, such an approach could be realized 
only by means of longitudinal researcb designs. However, a cross-sectional approach 
to configuration analysis is a suitable research strategy when the sample is restricted to 
a defined state of organizational development (here, the startup process) and is at the 
same time representative in key variables with regard to the general sample population 
(Henselek, 1996). 

In order to attain the goal of the study, the nascent entrepreneur configurations have 
to be compared with a configuration of successful new business owner-managers, since 
this group incorporates a reasonable developmental goal for nascent entrepreneurs. Therefore, 
an empirical definition of success based mainly on objective criteria that show a 
high level of consensus in the literature on entrepreneurship is required (see Brush & 
Vanderwerf, 1992). 

Method 

Sample Strategies 

In order to reach the goal of the study, both a sample of "nascent entrepreneurs" and 
a sample of new business owner-managers, including a success subsample, had to be 
analyzed. 

New business startups always take place in a certain social or societal context, with 

specific social and economic circumstances. For theoretical reasons—one essential 

strength of the configuration approach is found in its context-dependent analysis of 

configurations—a precise description of the context is necessary in order to answer 

the research question, which is aimed at context-based analysis of the entrepreneurial 

personality's significance. 

The strength of the configuration approach is due to the fact that these specific dif


ferences in typologies become visible because of its context-sensitive nature. 

The specific societal context selected is a European Union (EU) country (Austria), 

with special attention given to attaining a representative distribution of frequently used 

and significant startup characteristics. In addition, these characteristics were used in a 

comparison with a larger EU country (Germany) in order to confirm a higher level of 

international validity. 

The entire population of both nascent entrepreneurs and new business owner-

managers in Austria and numerous EU countries is not exactly known. It was thus im


possible for us to claim full sample representativity. In order to reach tbe goal of at least 

partial representativity for both samples, we contacted the support institutions where 

nascent entrepreneurs and young business owner-managers could be expected to go in 

various startup stages: 

Fall, 2003 27 


• At a "business startup information day" sponsored by Vienna startup support 
organizations, mainly nascent entrepreneurs in very early stages could be expected and 
contacted in person. 
• General support institutions for nascent entrepreneurs address a wide range of 
persons at the beginning of a startup process and in concrete realization steps up to the 
actual start of business operations. These persons can be reached directly through the 
support organization staff. 
• At financial suppon institutions, an address database including mainly new business 
owner-managers is available. This group can therefore be reached by a mail survey. 
Since membership in the Austrian Chamber of Commerce is obligatory for every new 

business owner-manager, and all the support institutions selected for the study are linked 

to the Austrian Chamber of Commerce, sample representativity at least for age, gender, 

and type of business can be expected. A significant stimulus to make use of tbe suppon 

services offered stem from the membership fee which has to be paid in any case. 

Additionally, a comparison with a German study, which aimed at minimizing the 

response bias shows similar results concerning age and gender (Brliderl, Preisendorfer, 

& Ziegler, 1996). Thus, there is a strong indication that the influence of a nonresponse 

bias in our study is negligible. 

Altogether, 5,983 questionnaires were distributed. Table 1 gives more details regard


ing the distribution mode, sample characteristics, and return rates. 

The survey was carried out between April and August 1998, and 1,169 surveys were 
returned. Thus the overall retum rate was 22.6 percent, lying in the typical range to be 
expected for such a survey and data collection procedure (see Table 1). 

Research Instrnment 
Statistically proven scales published in tbe German language were available for the 
personality aspects regarding the respondents' need for achievement, internal locus of 
control, risk-taking propensity, and personal initiative. For the security and self-
realization motive, it was necessary to develop a new scale, for which a careful development 
strategy (expert interviews, formulation of a pre-version, application and 
statistical analyses, scale improvement, and additional application and analyses) was 
implemented. In addition, factor and item analyses were carried out on the final data set. 
Therefore, all personality aspects were functionally implemented as reflective factors 
on the basis of classic test theory (Davidsson, 1989). 
For tbe other configuration areas (the personal resources, environment, and organizing 
activities), sum scores were calculated for individual items. The number of items and 
type of scaling (nominal/interval) depend on the breadth of content and complexity of 
each aspect. These functional implementations are to be regarded us formative factors 
because they are composed of individual indicators that do not necessarily show a high 
level of con-elation (Davids.son, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975); The interval scaled sum 
scores created in this way aim to integrate items of varying content for each aspect. Items 
were formulated as objectively as possible in order to minimize potential distortions due 
to response styles and subjective perceptions. For example, the sum score of the human 
capital aspect combines the number of educational levels completed, the duration of 
various types of work experience, and viirious steps in continuing education. 
Table 2 shows the scales and sum scores of the aspects used in the configuration 
analyses and their statistical properties. 

 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


c 

1— 

o

ddit: 

a 

leas 

inci 
turn 

< c o Sri 
UJ O .c 
Z ffl <d 
ui O 
z oa 
UJ O XI 
Z CQ < 
om ^ < 
NCO 
3 
ba. 
3 
p 
"MJ 
r-ilijZ 
_ 
O 
CO 
—. 
i= 
< 
OS 
1 
c -ci 
3 
= 
f2 1 -i "S 
3 f: .i2 
O 'C 
£.X -^ ^ Vr^ 
§ c 
3 S 
1 I s 3 s 
•^ s 
t/1 
a o 
<^ 
^
C8^
S;
.£ = ^ 
8-a •a. 
c £ 
5 ir g 
-a c = 
-3 :2 ii 
S G 
°° 
a ^ 
c " 
3 .E 
" S 
1! 
z 
& 
c; 
u 
B 
% 
•B 
u 
I. 
C 
:ssr 
-D E ^ 
t) (U W 

Fall 2003 29 


Table 2 
Areas for the Configuration Analyses, Statistical Properties 

Number 
Are a/Aspect Source or Sample Item of Items Properties 

PersnniiUty chiirttcterisius (rcjiectivc factors) 

Need for achievetnenl Modick(1977) 7 a = .72 
liiiL'mai L<iC' Kiampcn(l99l) 8 a =.68 
Risk propensity Frese (1998) 8 a = .70 
Personal iniliative Frese (1997) 7 a = .79 
Molive: security Protection of my occupational siiu;iiinii 3 a = .80 
Moiive: self-realization Realifulion of my own ideas 4 a = .73 

Personal resources {formative factors) 

Hum.in capital Further education and occupational 23 sum score 
experience 
Financial silualion Income, personal savings 2 sum score 

Einironmcnt (formativefactors) 

Family resiriclions Financial responsibilities, e.g.. for 6 sum score 
children: missing support from the 
partner 

Push Job loss, Ihreul of income loss 2 sum score 
Support (preparation phase) Evalu.iiion of different a-spects of 21 sum score 
support 
Network impiirtance Perceived importance of different 11 sum score 
occupational and privaie networks 
Positive role models Perceived influence of different role 5 sum score 
models 

Organizatitmul activities (formative factors) 

Organizational efforts Perception of diverse startup process 14 sum score 
activities as difficult 
U.se of intbrmalion U.se of different informational sources 17 sum score 

for startup activities 
C'on side rat ion of possible failure Intensity of failure thoughts 1 — 
Startup troubles Perception of difficulties in different 12 sum score 

areiis related to ihe startup process 

[n order to enable graphic representation of the configurations, all reflective and 
formative factor values were transposed onto an analogous scale (0-100). A strong 
deviation from the normal distribution was not observed in either of the aspects. 

Additional questions were included to collect basic socio-demographic information 
(age, gender) and additional information about the planned venture (size, line of business, 
and so forth). 

Data Analysis Strategies 

The contiguration analyses require an inductive data analysis strategy. In this context, 
cluster analysis was the method of choice. However, from both a content and methodology 
point of view, cluster analyses are not undisputed (e.g., Meyer, 1991; Thomas & 
Venkatraman, 1988); they have been criticized for a number of reasons, including subjective 
influences in determining the number of clusters and interpreting cluster profiles, and 
for a lack of appropriate test statistics. Ketchen and Shook (1996) recently showed that 
most of the studies based on cluster-analytical data analyses in the field of strategic inan


30 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


agement did not meet the methodological standards necessary for these types of statistical 
analyses. Based on their criticism, the authors developed a set of recommendations for the 
appropriate use of cluster analysis, which were used as guidelines for our data analysis. 

The analyses of our data called for a comparison of configurations of the startup 
process with a configuration of successful new business owner-managers. For these analyses, 
eifect sizes {Cohen, 1988; Glass, 1977) were calculated and presented in graphic form. 

The analysis of effect sizes yields several advantages. First, a comparison of each of 
the different configuration aspects is possible. Instead of a p-value, whicb depends mainly 
on the sample size, the basis for interpretation is a defined, standardized difference of 
means. In contrast to conventional significance testing, the analysis of effect sizes guarantees 
the interpretation of meaningful differences from a practical point of view. An 
effect size (d) is defined as the difference of two means related to their standard deviations. 
In the following analyses, the startup process configurations have to be compared 
with the configuration of successful new business owner-managers. Therefore, effect 
sizes were calculated with the standard deviations of the success configurations as the 
denominator. An effect size of 1 in one of the configuration aspects indicates a difference 
between the startup configuration and the success configuration in that particular aspect 
of one standard deviation in the success group. 

For interpretation purposes, a deviation of -I-/-.3 in effect size was defined as a 
minimum value to be considered significant in terms of content. In general, a negative 
deviation from the target value is especially relevant to interpretation, since it constitutes 
a potentially hindering deviation from the group of successful new business owners 
defined as the empirical ideal. In those cases where a negative deviation is to be interpreted 
as the opposite due to reversed polarity (e.g., in the family restrictions and push 
aspects), tbese circumstances are pointed out separately. 

Results 

Sample Characteristics 

The data sample (« - 1,169) consists of 341 nascent entrepreneurs. As expected, the 
nascent entrepreneurs differ strongly in various stages of the startup process. The differences 
range from "having a new idea for a venture witb the very first contact made to a 
support organization" (at least a first visit to a public business startup infonnation event) 
to "about to open the new venture." Six hundred eighty-two persons were new business 
owner-managers, having started their businesses in the two years prior to the survey. One 
hundred forty-six persons had abandoned the startup process of their planned ventures. 
The.se subjects were excluded from the statistical analyses presented here. 

Only those surveys in which all items were completely and obviously answered 
carefully were used for the statistical analyses (314 nascent entrepreneurs and 627 new 
business owner-managers; see Table I). 

The sample consists of 70.1 percent men and 29.9 percent women at a mean age of 

34.9 years (s.d. = 8.0) and covers a wide range of business areas, with the largest sub-
samples in services and trades, and only smaller subsamples in production fields. The 
two samples of nascent entrepreneurs and new business owner-managers did not differ 
in their structure regarding lines of business (x^ = 17.43, p =• .74), age (r = .27, p = .79), 
or gender distribution (%' - .24, p = .62). 
Table 3 shows sample indices of representativity. These indices were compared with 
other entrepreneurial studies. These studies have been carried out in German-speaking 
countries in recent years and are based on essentially representative data sets. 

Fall 2003 31 


Table 3 

Comparison of Sample Indices of Representativity of This Study with 
Comparable Studies Based on Representative Data Sets 

Study 1 Study 2 "Munich Na.scent 
Dimension This Study (Austria) (Austria) Entrepreneur Study" 

Line of business 23.4/69.2 25.8/74.2 35/65 Noi applicable 
(% irades/^i busincss/cnift.s) 
Siariup capilal (EUR) 18.000-36.00(J Nol in survey Not in survey 42,000 (mean) 

(median) 
Age of founder (years) 34-9 30.5 30-39 (median) 36 
Women (%) 29.9 37.9 29 32 
Collegc/universily degree (%) 20 Noi in survey N(il in survey 23 

Sotirces: 

Study 1 (Austria): Frank & WanzenbOck (1994). 
Sludy 2 (Austria): Wanzenbcick (19%). 
Munich .siutly: Briiderl. Preisendorfer & Ziegler (1996). 


Strong correspondence is found in the indicators of representativity in these studies. 
Therefore, sample representativity in these indicators can be assumed for both subsamples 
of this study. 

The Configuration of the Successful New Business Owner-Manager Group 

In contrast to the types of nascent entrepreneurs generated using cluster analysis, the 
group of successful new business owner-managers used here for comparison was defined 
as a subset of the 627 new business owner-managers on the basis of certain criteria. Based 
on these criteria "success" is empirically defined on four objective and two subjective 
criteria (see Brush & Vanderwerf, 1992), defining a sub.set of new business owner-
managers who have been able to start apparently viable, full-time businesses: 

(a) The business had to be opened within 24 months before the survey date 
(b) The business had to be the person's primary occupation 
(c) The business had to be the founder's first venture 
(d) Since the start of business activities, the number of employees in the business had to 
be at least constant or growing 
(e) 
A positive evaluation of the new business owner-manager regarding the future 
development of his/her small business ("I will go on as I have up to now" or "I am 
planning to expand my business") 
(f) 
A subjective perception of business success since the start of the venture ("I was 
successful" or "I was very successful") 
Of the 627 new business owner-managers, 153 persons fulfilled these success 
criteria. Figure 1 shows the configuration of this success group. 

The configuration of this group, as defined by the success criteria stated above is 
characterized by the personality aspects of a strong need for achievement, a strong internal 
locus of control, strong personal initiative, and a medium risk-taking propensity 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY an d PRACTICE 


Figure 1 

Configuration pattern of the success sample of new business owner-managers 
(n = 153) serving as model for further analyses. Transformed raw values 
(new range: 0-100) are presented 

-•- success sample: mean 

90 
-o success 
sample; s.d. 
80 
70 
60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
PERSONALITY : RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZING 
10 CHARACTERISTICS > i * t <-
ACTIVITIES 
0 

(Figure 1). This concurs with existing meta-analytical research (Rauch & Frese, 2000). 
The self-reahzation motive seems to predominate over the security motive. Resources 
were in the middle range of the respective scales. Both family restrictions and push conditions 
seemed to be relatively less important environmental influences. At the same time, 
support in the preparation phase was perceived to be relatively low. Positive role models 
were not strongly present, although the network of the new business owner-manager was 
perceived to be comparatively important. The organizing activities of the startup process 
are characterized by a relatively small number of troubles, by organizational efforts 
perceived as acceptable, and by a limited and selective use of startup intormation. At 
the same time, a noticeable number of failure considerations were observed. 

Most of the standard deviations in personality aspects are small. The sample of successful 
new business owner-managers seems to consist of a relatively homogenous group 
of people with similar intemal perceptions. 

A Typology of Startup Process Configurations 

Before the cluster analyses were performed, the sample was carefully checked for 
outliers in one or more of the scales representing the configuration aspects. Since the 
results of cluster analyses using the WARD algorithm are strongly affected by outliers, 
rigorous criteria had to be applied. The cluster analyses were therefore performed with a 
reduced data set of the nascent entrepreneur sample {n = 287). 

Fall, 2003 33 


The internal locus of control was found to be strongly related to other personality 
aspects, including the need for achievement (r = .47) and personal initiative (/• = .49). It 
was therefore niled out in the cluster analyses. All other aspects were included in these 
analyses. Only four of the 120 bivariate correlations were found to be larger than r = .25 
(need for achievement/personal initiative: r = .54; support (preparation )/information use: 
r= .46; support (preparation)/network importance: r= .35; information use/information 
importance: r= .30). Therefore, multicollinearity could be widely excluded. 

First, a hierarchical cluster analysis (WARD algorithm, squared Euclidean distances) 
was performed. The number of clusters was determined by visual inspection of the 
Dendrogram and by visual examination of the graph showing the agglomeration coefficient 
by number of clusters. Both graphs clearly indicated a three-cluster solution. In 
addition, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed with standardized configuration 
a.spects (j-transfonTiations) as input variables. As expected, this analysis led to a similar 
result, since the configuration aspects were previously transposed to similar ranges and 
show widely homogenous standard deviations. 

In the next step of analysis, a nonhierarchical cluster analysis (algorithm: K-means; 
squared Euclidean distances) was performed. Three clusters were found using the cluster 
centroids of the nonstandardized hierarchical cluster solution as starting points for the 
initial clusters (Kelchen Jr. & Shook, 1996). The similarity of the nonstandardized and 
standardized hierarchical cluster solutions and the correspondence between the cluster 
solutions of the hierarchical and nonhierarchical cluster analyses (correspondence in each 
of the three clusters: Cl = 83%, C2 = 63%, C3 = 66%; Cohen's Kappa = .57) indicated 
sufficient reliability in the nonhierarchical three-cluster solution. 

Figure 2 shows the configuration profiles of the nonhierarchical three-cluster solution, 
depicted as deviations from the sample of successful new business owner-managers 
(d = (.v(nascent entrepreneurs) - .v(successful new business owner-managers))/s.d. (successful 
new business owner-managers)). 

In light of the smallest subsample size of n = 83 and the use of /-testing for statistical 
comparison, highly significant differences (p < .01) and a statistical power of >.8O 
(Cohen, 1988) are guaranteed. Interpretations based on an eifect size ofd> ±.3 will indicate 
at least some importance from an application perspective. 

Cluster Cl: Nascent Entrepreneurs against Their Will. The differences between this 
nascent entrepreneur contiguration and the configuration of successful new business 
owner-managers could be described by a pattem indicating a number of problems in the 
startup process. These nascent entrepreneurs can be described as having a comparatively 
low need for achievement, low internal locus of control, and low personal initiative. A 
reduced security motive, combined with unfavorable personal resources, can be observed 
to some extent. A strong push factor, combined with comparatively little social support 
and little perceived network importance, describes the environment of this group. The 
organizing activities in the startup process are characterized by an underestimation of 
organizational efforts and low use of information. Altogether, this contiguration seems 
to be a fatal combination of individual factors. Apart from the pressure expected to 
result from the enhanced push factor, there is no single factor that actively supports the 
realization of the founding project. 

Cluster C2: The "Would-Be** Nascent Entrepreneurs. The second cluster also shows 
noticeable features from the perspective of startup support. But there is a strong self-
realization motive and a strong perception of positive role models. Additionally, an 
enhanced internal locus of control can be observed. On the other hand, the most impor


 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


Figure 2 

Configuration of three clusters of the startup process. The figure shows effect 
sizes, based ontbe means and statidard deviations from the success sample 
(see Figure 1) 

1.2 
1,0 [effect size] 
-• -
Osuccessful 
entr, (n= 153) 
"against will" (n = 109) 
0,8 
-O-
D - 
"would be" (n = 95) 
risk avoidance (n = 83) 
0,6 
0,4 
0,2 
0,0 
-0,2 
-0,4 
-0,6 
•0.8 
-1.0 
PERSONALITY 
CHARACTERISTICS 
ORGANIZING 
ACTIVITIES 
-1,2 

e -^ 

S E 

tant single factor on the negative side is the unfavorable financial situation, combined 
with an enhanced security motive. It is therefore expected that increased organizational 
efforts in the startup process are perceived, presumably resulting from the additional 
activities necessary to estabhsh a financial basis tor the new venture. All in all, this 
configuration shows a somewhat ambivalent pattem, which could also be regarded as an 
explanation for the increased organizational effort. 

Cluster C3: The Networking Nascent Entrepreneurs with Risk Avoidance Patterns, 

The most striking personality aspect in the third cluster is the reduced risk-taking propensity, 
which could also be an explanation of the high failure considerations. The configuration 
pattem indicates a favorable position in the startup process. These nascent 
entrepreneurs perceive their environment as strongly supportive, indicated both by high 
values in support and network importance. The organizing activities in the startup process 
are characterized by an intense use of infomiation, few troubles, and low organizational 
effort. A resource situation far above average seems to be one element in the background 
of the favorable environment and organizing activities perceptions. From that point of 
view, the reduced risk-taking propensity indicates more (promoting) careful appraisal 
than (inhibiting) procrastination. AU in all, this profile is characterized by good precon-

Fall, 2003 35 


ditions for the startup process. The creation of the new venture takes place from a position 
of security, with strong resources and little outside pressure. 

Clear interpretability serves as an initial confimiation for cluster validity (Everitt, 
1977). A further confirmation of cluster validity can be obtained by a comparison of 
sociodemographic indicators and the characteristics of the planned ventures in the three 
clusters. 

No significant differences were found in the age of the nascent entrepreneurs in the 
three clusters (.v:Cl = 34.5 years; C2 -32.9 years, C3 -35.0 years; f" = 1.93,/? -.15), 
although a higher proportion of women was found in the second cluster (Cl = 22.9% 
women, C2 = 39% women, C3 = 25.3% women: x = 7.07, p = .03). 

The three clusters differ significantly also in the uncertainty of the size of the planned 
businesses (Size not known at present: Cl = 
== 50.4%; C2 = 36.8%, C3 = 45.8%) and in 
the planned .size of the businesses (More than one employee: Cl = 7.3%, C2 = 20.0%, 
C3 = 13.3%). indicating both a smaller business size and more uncertainties for cluster 
Cl (nascent entrepreneurs against their will: x' = 9.92. p = .04). Additionally, the cluster 
Cl showed the highest proportion of planned ventures as secondary occupations (CI = 
20.2%, C2= 11.6%, C3= 16.9%). It also showed the highest proportion of founders who 
had not decided whether their business was to be a primary or secondary occupation 
(Cl -27.5%. C2= 12.6%, C3= I2.i%:x'-15.7./J = .02). 

The subjective perception of the probability of finally starting business activities was 
found to be lowest in the cluster of the nascent entrepreneurs against their will (Cl = 
73.3%. C2 = 81.6%, C3 = 79.5%: F = 3.26. p = .04). 

These results are additional signs of cluster validity. The results of cluster Cl's 
(nascent entrepreneurs against their will) configuration were not surprising. This cluster 
was found to be most problematic regarding successful new business. The nascent entrepreneurs 
in the three clusters did not differ significantly in their perceptions of their 
current stage of the startup process (beginning/middle/end: %' = 8.30. p -.08). Despite 
this, the nascent entrepreneurs in cluster Cl stated the strongest uncertainties about the 
type of their planned business and the lowest probability of starting their businesses. 

The higher number of women in cluster C2 ("would-be" nascent entrepreneurs) is in 
accordance with the configuration of limited financial resources and few family restrictions. 
The lower level of family restrictions can be explained by the fact that more of the 
women were either still single or divorced than the men. This confirms similar results 
found in other studies focusing on women as entrepreneurs (e.g.. Carter & Allen, 1997; 
Hisrich, 1986; Parasuraman. Purohit, & Godshalk, 1996). 

Discussion 

The goal of this study was to analyze the influence of the personality of nascent entrepreneurs 
in the startup process based on the configuration approach. A typology of nascent 
entrepreneurs was compared to an empirically defined configuration of successful new 
business owner-managers. The latter configuration showed a personality pattern characterized 
by a high need for achievement, high internal locus of control, and medium risk-
taking propensity. This confirms the outcome of earlier research. 

Possible study limitations could re.sult from potential threats to internal validity, i.e., 
social desirability influences, a common method variance bias, and the cross-sectional 
data approach (see Cook & Campbell. 1979). We carefully tried to minimize such artifacts 
by using sum scores by means of neutrally worded items. The results will be discussed 
carefully with this limitation in mind. Furthermore, configuration patterns were 

ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


interpreted not as independent entities but in relation to a defined reference configuration. 
From that perspective, the interpretation focus is transferred from an interpretation 
of an absolute value in the configuration aspects to an interpretation of differences compared 
to the reference configuration, therefore at least partly excluding a common method 
variance bias. Moreover. less emphasis is placed on single configuration aspects than on 
a pattem of organizational configurations. 

Since all comparisons are related to a reference configuration of successful new business 
owner-managers, we will begin with a closer look at this specific configuration. Only 
about 25 percent of the total sample of the new business owner-managers met the defined 
success criteria, indicating that the reference configuration represents a relatively strictly 
defined success group. Since the success configuration is based on previously defined 
success criteria, it is possible that this configuration represents mean values of different 
types of new business owner-manager success (i.e., different success configurations). 
From this standpoint, it is interesting to note that a large standard deviation (and at the 
same time a low mean value) was especially observed in the push aspect. This could be 
an indication that the success configuration consists of some new business owner-
managers who founded their businesses out of strong necessity. However, standard deviations 
were found to be relatively low in the personality aspects, suggesting that the new 
business owner-manager success configuration represents a relatively homogenous personality 
configuration pattem. 

The pattern of a high need for achievement, strong internal locus of conurol, and 
medium risk-taking propensity confirms to some extent the '"classic" personality characteristics 
of an entrepreneur for the success sample (Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986). The 
high value found in personal initiative also confirms our expectations regarding successful 
entrepreneurs (Frese, 1998). 

The nascent entrepreneurs showed a typology of three clearly distinguishable types. 
The sizes of the three configurations were similar, mainly for methodological reasons (a 
WARD cluster algorithm tends to produce similar cluster sizes). These types are the 
nascent entrepreneurs against their will, the "would-be" nascent entrepreneurs, and the 
networking nascent entrepreneurs with risk-avoidance pattems. 

Two of these configurations show strong similarities to a startup pattern described in 
sociological entrepreneurial literature as the "economy of necessity" versus the "economy 
of self-realization" (e.g., Bogenhold, 1989). The findings also confirm a typology derived 
by Pleitner (1995), indicating that these patterns appear to be crucial factors for the 
passage into entrepreneurship and dominating pattems in the startup process itself. 

As a negative side effect of increasing economic pressure, it seems reasonable to 
expect a noticeable (and ever-increasing) number of persons planning to start a new 
venture out of economic necessity, which forms the "nascent entrepreneurs against their 
will" configuration in our sample. Our analyses of sociodemographic variables confirmed 
that about one-third of the people in the startup process sample were unemployed. From 
that perspective, personality characteristics are only one of the unfavorable aspects in the 
"necessity configuration." in addition to poor resources, deficits in environment utilization, 
and organizing deficits. The specific unfavorable situation of this configuration is 
also retiected by the lower perceived startup probability and the increased uncertainty 
regarding the characteristics of the planned businesses. Overall, the picture of the startup 
process that emerges is not very dynamic. 

The " 'would-be* nascent entrepreneurs" configuration shows an interesting combination 
of self-realization motives and positive role models, suggesting an influence of 
role models on self-realization motives. Another interesting fact is the comparatively high 
proportion of female nascent entrepreneurs in this cluster. The insufficient financial 

Fall, 2003 .


resources of female nascent entrepreneurs seem to make an essential contribution to this 
configuration pattem. On the other hand, female nascent entrepreneurs seem to have 
fewer family restrictions (Parasuraman. Purohit, & Godshalk, 1996), and. as our data 
suggests, have a better chance of realizing their expectations compared to their male 
counterparts (see also Buttner & Moore. 1997). In general, this yields an image of an 
active startup process guided by positive expectations that are hindered by financial 
bottlenecks. 

The most .striking feature of the "networking nascent entrepreneurs with risk 
avoidance patterns" configuration is a reduced risk pattem, which is indicated by the 
personality characteristics of the nascent entrepreneurs, by their resources, their process 
cognition, and by advantageous environmental conditions. This pattem clearly shows the 
complex interrelations of the personality with resources, environment, and organizing 
activities areas in the startup process. Overall, this creates the image of an active but 
cautiously guided startup process. 

In total, the three configuration pattems show that the startup process is a decidedly 
heterogeneous occurrence, which is also highly dependent on the context in which it takes 
place. This becomes especially clear in the "'nascent entrepreneurs against their will" configuration, 
which reflects economic circumstances in which people are released into the 
labor market and then forced into self-employment. 

However, we can assume that the two configurations of the "networking nascent 
entrepreneur with risk avoidance patterns" and the "'would-be' nascent entrepreneurs" 
are characterized by a greater degree of voluntary activity in startup decisions and are 
thus less dependent on environmental infiuences. When the configuration analysis process 
described is transposed onto other economic contexts, we can expect the last two patterns 
to be replicable, while additional types can be found depending on the respective 
economic circumstances. Such types can then be interpreted as indicators of strong contextual 
influences, especially extemal forces. 

The typology can thus be regarded as an expression of significant socio-economic 
trends among developed economies in which forced self-employment startups are 
increasing due to increased streamlining pressure (especially in times of recession) and 
in which increasing opportunities arise due to economic policy decisions, such as 
deregulation measures, and due to technological developments, thus making startups an 
attractive and desirable career option. 

The results of this study show that investigating the isolated effects of the personality 
characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs and new business owner-managers on success 
turns out to be inappropriate from a configuration perspective. Instead of searching for 
the "mono-causal" effects of personality on the success of new small businesses, it would 
be more rewarding to gain a deeper understanding of the common action patterns underlying 
the different nascent entrepreneur configurations. 

REFERENCES 


Amit. R. & Muller, E. (1996). "Push"—und "Pull"—Untemehniertum. Internationale.^ Gewerbearchiv, 
44(2). 90-103. 

Bateman, T.S. & Crant. J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of 
Organizational Behavior. 14. 113-118. 

Becherer. R.C. & Maurer. J.G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior 
among small company president.s. Journal of Small Busine.ss Management, 37(1). 28-36. 

 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE 


Begley, T.M. & Boyd. D.P. (1986). Psychological characteristics associated wiih entrepreneurial performance. 
In R. Ronstadt. R. Hornaday, R. Peterson. & K.H. Vesper (eds.). Frontiers of entrepreneurship 
research, 145-156. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. 

Bird. B.J. (1993). Demographic approaches to entrepreneurship: The role of experience and background. In 

J.A. Katz & R.H. Brockhaus. Sr. (eds.). Advances in Entrepreneurship. Firm Emergence and Growth, vol. 
I, 11-48. Greenwich: JAl Press. 
Birley, S. & Westhead. P. (1994). A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on firm growth 
and size. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 7-31. 

Bogenhoid, D. (1989). Die Berufspassage in das Unternehmertum. Theoretische und empirische Befunde 
zum sozialen Proze^ von FirmengrCindungen. Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 18(4), 263-281. 

Bowen, D.D. & Hisrich, R.D. (1986). The female entrepreneur: A career development perspective. Academy 
of Management Review, 11(2), 393-407. 

Brandstatter, H. (1997). Becoming an entrepreneur—a question of pwrsonality structure? Journal of 
Economic Psychology. 18, 157-177. 

Brockhaus, R.H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper 
(eds.). Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, 39-71. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Brockhaus. R.H. & Horwitz, P.S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor 
(eds.). The art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger. 

Briiderl, J., Preisendorfer, P, & Ziegler, R. (1996). Der Erfolg neugegriindeter Betrlebe. Berlin: Duncker & 
Huinblol. 

Brush, C.G. & Vanderwerf, P,A. (1992). A comparison of methods and sources for obtaining estimates of 
new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(2), 157-170. 

Butlner. H. & Moore, D.P. (1997). Women's organizational exodus to entrepreneurship: Self-reported 
motivations and correlates with success. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 34—46. 

Carland, J.W., Hoy, E, Boulton. W.R.. & Carland, J.A.C. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small 
business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359. 

Carter, N.M. & Allen, K.R. (1997). Size determinants of women-owned businesses: Choice or barriers to 
resources? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 9, 211-220. 

Chandler. G.N. & Hanks, S.H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. 
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. 18(3), 77-89. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates. 

Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentations: Design and analysis issues for field settings. 
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Covin, J.G. t& Slevin, D.P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship 
Theory & Practice. 16(1), 7-25. 

Crant, M.J. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of 
Small Business Management, 34(3), 42-49. 

Davidsson. P. (1989). Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth. Stockholm: The Economic 
Research Institute. 

Dess, G., Newport, S.. & Rasheed, A. (1993). Configuration research In strategic management: Key issues 
and suggestions. Journal of Management, 19(4). 775-795. 

Fall, 2003 v'


Everitt, B.S. (1977). Cluster analysis. In A. O'Muircheartaigh & C. Payne (eds.). The analysis of survey data. 
Exploring dam structures, 63-68. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 

Fishbein. M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and 
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Frank, H. & Korunka, C. (1996). Zum Entscheidungsverhalten von Untemehmen.sgrlindeni. Der Beitrag von 
Handlungskontrolle 7,ur Erklarung des Griindungserfolgs. Zeitschrift fiir Betrieb.swirtschaft. 66(8), 947-963. 

Frank. H. & Wanzenbock, H. (1994). Insolvenzquoten und Entwicklungslinien von gefdrderten 
Unternehmensgrundungen. In J. Mugier (ed.), Materialien des Institutes fUr BWL der Klein- und Mittelbetriehe 
an der WU Wien. Wien: WU-Eigendmck. 

Frese, M. (ed.). (1998). Erfoigreiche Unternehmenxgrunder: Psychologische Analysen und ptaktische 
Anieitungen fur Untemehmer in Ost- und Westdeutschtand. Gottingen: Hogrefe. 

Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurship. European Journal of Work <6 Organizational 
Psychology, 9(1), 128. 

Frese. M., Fay, D.. Hilburger, T, Leng, K.. & Tag, L. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operalionalization, 
reliability, and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational & Occupational 
Psychology, IQ, 139-161. 

Frey, R.S. (1984). Need for achievement, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: A critique of the McClelland 
thesis. Social Science JournaL 21(2), 125-134. 

Gartner, W.B. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. 
Academy of Management Review. 10(4), 696-706. 

Ghosh, A. (1993). Entrepreneurship attributes as related to certain psychological and background variables. 
Psychological Studies. 38(1), 10-14. 

Glass, G.V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 
351-379. 

Greenberger, D.B. & Sexton, D.L. (1988). An interactive model of new venture initiation. Journal of Small 
Business Management. 26(3). 1-7. 

Henselek. H.F. (1996). Das Management von Untemehmenskonfigurationen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher 
Universitatsverlag. 

Herron, L. & Sapienza, H.J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities. 
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(3), 49-55. 

Hisrich, R.D. (1986). The woman entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (eds.), The art and science 
of entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Ballinger. 

Hornaday, J.A. & Aboud. J. (1971). Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology, 24, 
141-153. 

Hoy. F. (1995). Researching the entrepreneurial venture. In J.A. Katz & R.H. Brockhaus ied&.). Advances in 
Entrepreneurship. Firm Emergence, and Growth. 145-174. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Hull. D.L.. Bosley, J.J., & Udell, G.G. (1980). Renewing the hunt for the heffalump: Identifying potential 
entrepreneurs by personality characteristics. Journal of Small Business, 18(1), 11-18. 

Ketchen, D.J., Jr. & Shook, CL. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: 
An analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441-458. 

Korunka, C, Frank, H.. & Becker, P. (1993). Personlichkeitseigenschaften von Untemehmensgriindem— 
Erfolgsfaktor oder vemachlassigbare Restgrope in der Theorie der Untemebmensgrtindung? Internationales 
Gewerbearchiv, 4 \0), 169-188, 

 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY an d PRACTICE 


Krueger, N.F., Jr. & Brazeal, D.V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepre


neurship Theory <6 Practice, 18(3), 91-104. 
Krueger, N.F., Jr. & Carsrud, A.L. (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned 
behaviour Entrepreneur.ship & Regional Development, 5, 315-330. 


Larson. A. & Starr, J. (1993). A network model of organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory & 


Practice, \1{1), 5-15. 
Learned, K.E. (1992). Whai happened before the organization? A model of organization formation. 
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 17(1), 39-55. 


Low. MB. & MacMiilan, I.C. (1988), Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of 


Management, 14. 139-161. 
Lumpkin, G.T. & Dess, G.G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to 
perfonnance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172. 


McClelland, D.C, Atkinson, J.W., Clark. R.A.. & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: 
Appleton-Century-Crofts. 
Meyer, A.D. (1991). What is strategy's distinctive competence? Journal of Management. 17. 821-833. 
Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configuration. Academy of Management Review, 12, 686-701. 
Miller, D. (1990). Organizational configurations: Cohesion, change, and prediction. Human Relations. 43(8), 


771-789. 
Miner. J.B. (1997). A psychological typology and its relationship to entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship 
& Regional Development, 9, 319-334. 


Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 


Mugier, J. (1998). Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Klein- und Mittelbetriebe. Band I, 3rd ed. Wien, New York: 
Springer. 
Naffziger, D. (1995). Entrepreneurship: A person based theory approach. In J.A. Katz & R.H. Brockhaus 


(eds.). Advances in entrepreneurship. firm emergence atid growth, 2, 21—40. Greenwich, CT: JAl Press. 

Parasuraman, S., Purohit, Y.S., & Godshalk, V.M. (1996). Work and family variables, entrepreneur career 
success, and psychological well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48, 275-300. 
Pleitner. H.J. (1995). Der gewerbiiche Untemehmer zwischen Tradition und Modeme. In J, Mugier & K.-H. 


Schmidt (eds.), Klein- und Mittelunlemehmen in einer dynamischen Wirtschafi, 75-89. Berlin: Duncker & 


Humblot, 
Rauch, A. & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and 
an overview of findings, in CL. Cooper & l.T. Robertson (eds.). International Review of Industrial and 
Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley. 


Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C, & Hunt, H.K. (1991). An attitude approach to the prediction 
of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory tS Practice, 15(4), 13-31. 
Rotter. J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for intemal versus extemal control of reinforcement. 


P.sychological Monographs, 609. 

Shaver, K.G. & Scott, L.R. (1991). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. 
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(1), 23-45. 

Snuif, H.R. & Zwart, P,S. (1994). Modeling new venture development as a path of configuralions. In J.J. 
Obrechl & M. Bayad (eds.). Smalt business and its contribution to regional and internatiotial development. 
Proceedings of the 39th ICSB World Conference, 263-274. Paris. 

Fall 2003 41 


Thomas, H. & Venkatraman, N. (1988). Research on strategic groups: Progress and prognosis. Joumal of 
Managemeni Studies, 25, 537-555. 

Timmons, J.A., Smollen, L.E.. & Dingee. A.L.M. (1985). New Venture Creation, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: 
Irwin Publishing. 

Wanzenbock. H. (1996). Uberlebensquoten und WachstumsverlSufe von Untemehmensgrundungen. In 

J. Mugier (ed.), Materialien des Institutes fiir BWL der Klein- und Mittelbetriebe an der WU Wien. Wien: 
WU-Eigendruck. 
Woo, C.Y, Daellenbach. U.. & Nicholls-Nixon. C. (1994). Theory building in the presence of "randomness': 
The case of venture creation and performance. Joumal of Management Studies, 31(4). 507-524. 

Christian Korunka is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Vienna, Austria. 

Hermann Frank is a professor in the Department of Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship at 
the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. 

Manfred Lueger is a professor in the Department of General Sociology and Economic Sociology at the Vienna 
University of Economics and Business Administration. 

Josef Mugier is a professor in the Department of Small Business Management & Entrepreneurship at the 
Vienna University of Economics & Business Administration. 

 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY an d PRACTICE