WHATAREWE

TALKING ABOUT
WHENWE
TALK ABOUT
ENTREPRENEURSHIP?
WILLIAM B. GARTNER
Georgetown

University

The purpose of this research was to explore the underlying meanings

researchers and practitioners have about entrepreneurship and to outline
some themes that characterize the major issues and concerns that constitute
the debate about entrepreneurship as a field of study.
The process used to identify the themes that characterize entrepreneurship took the form of a policy Delphi. This Delphi was constructed
as a series of three questionnaires to elicit dehnitions of entrepreneurship that were then analyzed
and evaluated. In theJirst phase, a one-page questionnaire asking for a definition of entrepreneurship
was sent to leading academic researchers in entrepreneurship, to business leaders, and to politicians.
The first questionnaire asked individuals: What is your definition of entrepreneurship? We received
44 responses (36 from academics, 8 from business leaders, and none from politicians) from the 280
individuals whom we invited to participate (a 16% response rate).
In phase 2, all of the entrepreneurship definitions from thehrst questionnaire were typed and
sent back with a second questionnaire to the 44 respondents. The second questionnaire was generated
through a content analysis of the entrepreneurship definitions. Ninety attributes were identi$ed from
the entrepreneurship definitions. The second questionnaire asked participants: How important is each
attribute to your definition of entrepreneurship? Participants ranked the attributes from very important
to unimportant. Of the 44 participants in phase 2, 41 responded to the second questionnaire (93%
response rate). The responses from the second questionnaire were then evaluated and factor analyzed.
The factor analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set offactors (themes). The eightfactor solution was selected. The debate about what constitutes the nature of entrepreneurship can be
characterized by these eight themes.

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

Address correspondence to Dr. William B. Gartner, Old North Building, School of Business Administration,
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057.
A version of this paper was presented at the 1987 National Academy of Management meetings. The author
gratefully acknowledges all participants who offered definitions and responded to two lengthy surveys.

Journal of Business Venturing

01990

Elsevier

5, 15-28

Science Publishing

Co..

08X3-9026&W/$3.50
Inc.,

655 Avenue

of the Americas,

New

York.

NY

10010

15

16

W.B. GARTNER

The Entrepreneur. The entrepreneur theme is the idea that entrepreneurship

with unique personality characteristics and abilities.

involves individuals

Innovation. The innovation theme is characterized as doing something new as an idea, product,
service, market. or technology in a new or established organization.
Organization Creation.
creating organizations.

The organization

creation theme described the behaviors involved in

Creating Value. This theme articulated the idea that entrepreneurship

creates value.

Profit or Nonprofit. The profitlnonprojit theme is concerned with whether entrepreneurship

involves projit-making organizations only.
Growth. At issue in this theme is the importance of growth as a characteristic of entrepreneurship.
Uniqueness.

This theme suggested that entrepreneurship

must involve uniqueness.

The Owner-Manager. This theme suggested that entrepreneurship

involves individuals who are

owners and managers of their businesses.

The third phase of the Delphi asked the 41 participants to evaluate and comment on the eight
factors generated in the second phase. Of the 41 participants in phase 3, 34 responded to the third
questionnaire (83% response rate). Since no one agreed-upon definition of entrepreneurship appeared
to emerge from the Delphi process, the researcher undertook a cluster analysis of the responses to
the third questionnaire to uncover whether any similarities in viewpoints existed among the participants,
The data was cluster analyzed using both hierarchical (complete linkage and single linkage) and Kmeans clustering techniques. Results from these analyses revealed two distinct clusters. The majority
(79%) of the participants were clustered in group I. The focus of this group seems to be on the
characteristics of entrepreneurship.
Group I looked at what happened in the situation. This group
indicated that a situation was entrepreneurial if they could answer yes to these questions: Is there
an entrepreneur involved? Is there innovation? Is there growth? Is there uniqueness? The other group,
group 2, focused on the outcomes of entrepreneurship.
Group 2 saw a situation as entrepreneurial
only if value was created or if someone gained.

R upon definition

ecent reviews of entrepreneurship

research have indicated the lack of an agreedof entrepreneurship
and, more basic, a concern over what entrepreneurship constitutes as a field of study (Brockhaus 1987; Brockhaus and Horwitz 1985;
Carsrud et al. 1985; Low and MacMillan 1988; Ronstadt et al. 1986; Sexton and Smilor
1985; Wortman 1985). Behind this concern is the worry that entrepreneurship
has become
a label of convenience with little inherent meaning. Labeling a research study as an entrepreneurship study does not seem to identify what will be studied and why. For example,
the Entrepreneurship
Divisions Call for Papers for the 1989 National Academy of Management meeting illustrates the field of entrepreneurship with these words: the creation and
management of new businesses, small businesses and family businesses, and the characteristics and special problems of entrepreneurs.
If we assume that all of these topics are
entrepreneurial in nature, then what are the commonalities that link family businesses, small
business management, and new ventures? Is entrepreneurship just a buzzword, or does it
have particular characteristics that can be identified and studied?
The purpose of this research was to explore the underlying meanings researchers and
practitioners have about entrepreneurship
and to outline some themes that characterize the
major issues and concerns that constitute the debate about entrepreneurship
as a field of
study.
The paper is divided into three sections. First, the Delphi process is outlined and the
results from the Delphi are presented. Second, the Delphi process and results are explained
and evaluated. Third, arguments are offered on the importance of continuing the discussion

ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS

17

on what constitutes the field of entrepreneurship.

This paper can only highlight some of the
information generated from the entire Delphi process. For a complete description of the
results please request the working paper An Entrepreneurial
Delphi from the author.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The process used to identify the themes that characterize entrepreneurship
took the form of
a policy Delphi (Turoff 1975). This Delphi was constructed as a series of three questionnaires
to elicit definitions of entrepreneurship
that were then analyzed and evaluated. An important
aspect of this Delphi was that each participant received feedback on what other participants
wrote before responding to the next round. Also, participants could shift their views as
additional information became available.
In the first phase, a one-page questionnaire asking for a definition of entrepreneurship
was sent to leading academic researchers in entrepreneurship,
to business leaders, and to
politicians. The 9 1 academics were identified through Babson Entrepreneurship
Research
Conference publications, Academy of Management proceedings, and individuals known to
the author. The 83 business leaders identified were from the mid-Atlantic region (one-half
were the founders of companies in a wide range of industries with sales of over $1 million,
and the other half were new venture development experts-lawyers,
CPAs, and venture
capitalists). The 109 politicians were members of the U.S. House and Senate who sat on
committees addressing issues relevant to new business creation. This list was by no means
exhaustive. The goal was to identify a broad spectrum of entrepreneurship
researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers so that many different views of the entrepreneurship
field
were likely to emerge.
The first questionnaire asked individuals: What is your definition of entrepreneurship?
A follow-up questionnaire (with the same question) was mailed to individuals who did not
respond to the first questionnaire.
We received 44 responses (36 from academics, 8 from
business leaders, and none from politicians) from the 280 individuals whom we invited to
participate (a 16% response rate). The response rate for academics, business leaders, and
politicians was 40%, lo%, and 0%, respectively.
In subsequent phone calls to selected
business leaders and politicians some reasons came to light for the poor response rate.
Business leaders felt that defining entrepreneurship
was not very practical and relevant to
them. As one business leader remarked, Why would I want to know what an entrepreneur
is? I am one. The politicians wanted information on what they should be doing to improve
policy on entrepreneurship,
regardless of how entrepreneurship
is defined.
In phase 2, all of the entrepreneurship
definitions from the first questionnaire were
typed and sent back with a second questionnaire to the 44 respondents. Some examples of
the entrepreneurship definitions from the first questionnaire are listed in Table 1. The second
questionnaire was generated through a content analysis of the entrepreneurship
definitions.
The definitions were broken down into separate attributes. For example this entrepreneurship
definition:
I most often define entrepreneurship
as concerned with those activities associated with
becoming an owner-manager of a new or small firm. This includes the starting of any
firm, regardless of whether it is innovative. It also includes the purchasing of an established
new or small firm. Entrepreneurship
can also be defined to include the starting of new
and typically innovative ventures within established organizations. This includes the
starting of innovative ventures within established corporations, as well as in nonprofit or
governmental organizations.

18

W.B. GARTNER

was segmented

into the following

Activities

associated

attributes:

with becoming

an owner-manager

of a firm

Creation of a new business

Innovative
Purchasing

an existing business

Starts an innovative

venture within an established

Creation of a not-for-profit

business

Creation of a government

organization

TABLE 1 Examples

of Entrepreneurship

organization

Definitions

We think of entrepreneurship as the starting of new ventures. We avoid any implication of small or large. We
view a new venture quite broadly. A new venture might be the buying of an old business: It is a new venture
for the buyer. We prefer to stress the creation of new economic enterprises-the
creation of wealth.
risk, and, perhaps more importantly, put their whole career
enterprise. Essentially, they become inextricably intertwined
with the new enterprise. In the early days of the new enterprise, the overall enterprise is not viable without
the entrepreneur.
The enterprise should be afor-profir business. It should be a new venture although not
necessarily a start-up. For example, a leveraged buy-out of a division of a large business is in most cases a
new venture (even though no new products or services are created), and the lead entrepreneur meets the
conditions of my definition of the entrepreneurial actor.
Entrepreneurs

share financial risk, management

on the line in their pursuit of a nen, independent

I most often define entrepreneurship

as concerned with those activities associated with becoming an ownermanager of a new or small firm. This includes the starting of any firm, regardless of whether it is innovative.
It also includes the purchasing of an established new or small firm.
Entrepreneurship can also be defined
to include the starting of new and typically innovative ventures with established organizations. This includes
the starting of innovative ventures within established corporations,
as well as in nonprofit or governmental
organizations.
The definition of entrepreneurship
is a difficult one to achieve consensus on. Webster defines it as a profitmaking undertaking. My definition is as follows: An entrepreneur is a person who refines a creative idea and
adapts it to a market opportunity, gathers resources to provide potentially for self-employment and/or profit.
I feel that this definition addresses the original creative thought process.
Secondly, I dispute the idea that
it has to be a successful venture in order for one to be classified as an entrepreneur.
Lastly I feel strongly
that there is no profit motivation and at most perhaps the goal of self-employment.
. I do not necessarily
feel comfortable with equating innovation with entrepreneurship
since it does not always involve the same,
or as many, skills.
The key word for me is initiation and implementation.
I feel that a true entrepreneur
is always the initiator and the implementor. He/she is the person who puts it together and carries it off.
Entrepreneurship:
The creation
following characteristics:
l

An orientation

0 Innovative

of a new venture.

The new venture

strategy

possesses

one or both of the

toward significant and rapid growth

in product.

service,

technology,

or market

An entrepreneur is a leader who starts up his/her own profit or nonprofit enterprise. His/her most important
(most severely tested) personality trait is commitment, which is manifested as perseverance or persistence.
The entrepreneur is a risk taker-moderate,
he/she says. But he/she may view risk in an entirely different
light (according to different criteria) from the manager who take moderate risks.
I prefer the traditional definition of an owner-managed
business. It seems to me that ownership makes a
difference in the motivation and interests of the manager.
The personality trait approach to entrepreneurship is a hopeless direction for identification of succesful entrepreneurs. Although we may eventually be
able to identify traits appropriate to entrepreneurship,
we will not be able to predict success based upon these

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

TABLE 1

DEFINITIONS

19

(Continued)

traits. The reason is that human beings are capable of change in personality, and they do this when they are
subjected to trauma. There is no trauma greater than threat to income survival, so we can expect much
personality change to occur in the process of entrepreneurship.
In fact, it may be that this personality change
is exactly the phenomenon that underlies the assumption that owner-managers
are more effective than hired
managers. Existentialist philosophy is probably a better tool for understanding entrepreneurs than psychology.

8. Entrepreneurs are typically risk takers who have a vision that their need for achievement,

power, and control

over their life and enterprise can be best accomplished in a new environment under their direction and control.
A stubborn determination,
belief, and perseverance that they can and will achieve their goals and objectives
in the face of adversity seems to be a requirement for the successful entrepreneur; they must also have the
ability to challenge the common wisdom of logical intelligent advisors, friends, and associates who indicate
that they will be unable to achieve their goals and objectives.

9. The act of innovation for commercial

an internal venture subsidiary.

benefit within an autonomous

organizational

entity, be it a start-up,

or

10. Entrepreneurship
is the sum of the qualities and activities of a person who establishes, and assumes the risk
for, a new or innovative business venture. Entrepreneurs have special skills and talents, which include management skills and give them a sixth sense for business. Those personality traits and characteristics
listed
above, plus imagination, creativity, and long-term vision can probably be enhanced with experience, but I
dont believe they can be taught or learned.
Il.

Innovative activity in combining resources to exploit a new technology, invention, source of supply, outlet,
or consumer demand. The exercise of leadership to direct and inspire purposeful activity. The acceptance of
personal responsibility for results and the risk of loss or gain of personal cupifal. The assumption of control
over an enterprise as a whole.

12. Entrepreneurship

is the process of designing

and managing

dynamic

growth strategies

for an organization.

In this way, 90 attributes were identified from the entrepreneurship

definitions. The second
questionnaire asked participants: How important is each attribute to your definition of entrepreneurship? Participants ranked the attributes from very important to unimportant.
Of
the 44 participants in phase 2, 41 responded to the second questionnaire (93% response
rate). A summary of the attribute rankings is presented in Table 2.
The responses from the second questionnaire were then evaluated and factor analyzed.
The factor analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set of factors (themes).
The eight-factor solution was selected. A description of the eight factors is provided in Table
3.
The third phase of the Delphi asked the 41 participants to evaluate and comment on
the eight factors generated in the second phase. Of the 4 1 participants in phase 3,34 responded
to the third questionnaire (83% response rate). Table 4 presents a summary of the ratings,
rankings, and correlations among these eight themes.
Since no one agreed-upon definition of entrepreneurship
appeared to emerge from the
Delphi process, the researcher undertook a cluster analysis of the responses to the third
questionnaire to uncover whether any similarities in viewpoints existed among the participants. The data was cluster analyzed using both hierarchical (complete linkage and single
linkage) and K-means clustering techniques (Anderberg 1973; Sneath and Sokal 1973).
Results from these analyses revealed two distinct clusters (see Table 5). These clusters
represent what appear to be two major viewpoints on how entrepreneurship might be defined.

20

W.B. GARTNER

TABLE 2

Highest

and Lowest

Entrepreneurship

Definition

Attribute

Rankings

How important is each attribute to your dejkition of entrepreneurship?

3.48 The creation of a new business
3.34
New venture development
3.24 The creation of a new business that adds value
3.09 Integrates opportunities with resources to create product or service
3.09
Brings resources to bear on a perceived opportunity
3.07
Refines a creative idea and adapts it to a market opportunity
3.07
Innovative
1.91
1.97
I .95
1.92
1.90
1.87
1.82
1.68
1.63
1.58
1.56

Understands the government regulations influencing

Purchasing an existing business
A special talent that few have
Creation of a government organization
Destroys the status quo
The creation of a life-style business
The creation of a mom-and-pop business
Must be for-profit business
A leveraged buy-out
Extroverted
Egocentric behavior

the business

4: Very important

A most relevant point. First-order

3: Important

Relevant to the issue. Second-order

are treated.

priority.

2: Slightly important

Insignificantly

relevant.

priority.

1: Unimportant

No relevance.
consider.

No priority.

Third-order

priority.

No measurable

Has direct bearing on major issues

Significant

impact but not until other items

Has little impact.

effect. Should be dropped as an item to

DISCUSSION
Phase One
The generation of entrepreneurship definitions in the first phase of the Delphi process resulted
in a wide range of viewpoints on what constitutes the field of entrepreneurship. The definitions
in Table 1 were selected to show a diversity in viewpoints. Some definitions appear to be
very simple (e.g., l), while other definitions are more complex; that is, they identify many
different constructs in one definition (e.g., 5). Some definitions seem to be similar (e.g., 3
and 7), while other definitions seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum (e.g., 7 and 8).
No obvious agreement as to the meaning of entrepreneurship was apparent from reading the
definitions.
We had no expectations that participants would change their ideas about entrepreneurship when rating the 90 attributes in the second round. In many respects, the purpose
of a policy Delphi was to help surface diversity of viewpoints on a subject, rather than work
toward creating agreement. Our belief was that participants would see the results of the first
round (the listing of all 44 definitions) and come to greater appreciation of the diversity of
viewpoints. Yet, the participants probably would not change their views.

Phase Two
The analyses in the second phase of the Delphi were undertaken to determine specifically
what similarities and differences in entrepreneurship
definitions existed among the partici-

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

DEFINITIONS

21

pants. By having each participant rate the same attributes, a quantitative profile for each
participant could be constructed. These quantitative profiles could then be compared and
contrasted. The first analysis sought to discover which attributes received the highest and
lowest ratings by all of the participants (Table 2). The most important attributes describing
entrepreneurship
involved organization creation, innovation, and the acquisition and integration of resources. The least important attributes describing entrepreneurship
were nogrowth businesses, nonprofit businesses, and personality characteristics of the entrepreneur.
These results are different from those found in a survey of 63 researchers at the Babson
Entrepreneurship
Research Conference in 1986 (Ronstadt et al. 1986). The Babson survey
asked researchers to rank the top three areas according to highest interest. In both weighted
and unweighted rankings, entrepreneurial characteristics and traits received the highest number of votes. But when researchers were asked for their two areas of least interest, entrepreneurial characteristics and traits was ranked third. The Babson results present a very
mixed message on the importance of entrepreneurial
traits. The Babson survey suggested
that some members see the topic (entrepreneurial
traits) as relatively unproductive from a
research standpoint and not very useful to practitioners (p. xiv). In the Delphi ratings the
definition of entrepreneurship
seems to be a behavioral one (e.g., new venture development,
integrates opportunities with resources to create product or service, brings resources to bear
on a perceived opportunity) and not based on personality traits (e.g., egocentric behavior,
extroverted, a special talent that few have). The next analysis explored this issue in greater
detail.
The second analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set of factors
(themes). Many of the attributes were similar to each other (e.g., innovative, innovative
product, innovative market, meets market demand in a new way), and the factor analysis
sought to combine them. An eight-factor solution was chosen, which accounted for 67.3%
of the variance in the responses. The primary goal of the factor analysis was to uncover a
simple, parsimonious set of themes that articulated most of the basic ideas addressed in the
90 attributes. Statistical concerns were of secondary importance. The eight factors, the total
variance accounted for by each factor, the eigenvalues, the frequencies for each attribute,
and the correlations for the highest-loading
attributes for each factor are presented in Table
3. Each factor (theme) is a view of entrepreneurship
about which participants held strong
beliefs-pro
and con. When WC think about entrepreneurship,
our ideas center around these
eight principal ideas or themes. These eight themes, therefore, represent eight issues which
the participants strongly debated.

The Entrepreneur
The entrepreneur theme is the idea that entrepreneurship
involves individuals with unique
personality characteristics and abilities. Most of the attributes that described the entrepreneur
(e.g., risk taking, locus of control, autonomy, perseverance, commitment, vision, creativity)
correlated with this factor. It was not surprising that this theme captured 17% of the total
variance. As previously mentioned, the Babson survey ranked entrepreneurial
traits and
characteristics as the topic of highest interest as well as the third least interesting. In both
definitions and rankings from the Delphi, respondents beliefs about the importance of the
entrepreneur as a major theme in a definition of entrepreneurship
showed great contrast. For
example, definitions 7 and 10 in Table 1 showed respondents on opposite ends of the
spectrum. Respondent 7 believed that personality traits are a hopeless direction for entrepreneurship, while respondent 10 believed that entrepreneurship
was the special unteachable

29
37

32
37
34
34

37

32
37

24
32

24
22

29
20
20
24

22

20
20

22
21

21
32

24
22
27
IO

24

22
20

41
27

13
14

26
23

17

I5
21
19
32

20
09

32
32
36
42
39
31
20
42
22
34
21

.545
,545

,576
,565

,599

,621
,621
.617
,608

,689
,622

Assume management risk

Assume financial risk
Capacity for hard work
Requires perseverance
Perseverance
A risk taker
Assume social risk
Requires commitment
Willingness to sacrifice
Risk taking
Assume psychological
risk
Need for achievement
Willingness to move
quickly without full
information
Locus of control
Requires autonomy
Risk career
Involves creativity (.475
on factor 2)
Someone who wants to
be his/her own boss
Vision
Ability to go out on
ones own
Self-assessment
Creates self-employment

34
29
32
24
34
37
22
24
24
31
24

17
27
17
17
10
17
34
17
30
17
29

17
12
15
17
17
15
24
17
24
12
20

,889
,864
,847
,847
,840
,833
,826
,189
,766
,762
,758

CORR

-UN

Factors

The Entrepreneur
17.4% V. 23.6 E

Entrepreneurship

Factor 1

TABLE 3

17

24

22
34

32

39

22

32

20
27

10
07

32

27
32
24
10

12
12
17
12

17

29
20

15
10

Factor 2

29

29

37

41

27

24
37

39
37
49
37

41
49

15

17

14

18

12

46
29

22
19
10
41

15
21

,503

,517

,524

,614

,653

,697
,680

,825
.825
,791
.744

,878
,840

Innovation service
Meets market demand in
a new way
Innovative product
Innovative market
Innovative technology
Refines a creative idea
and adapts it to a
market opportunity
Innovative
Draws together resources
in a new way
Can occur in older
organizations
Starts an innovative
venture within an
established
organization
Convinces others to join
the venture
Corporate
entrepreneurship
Can occur in large
organizations

Innovation
12.0% V, 10.0 E

22

02

37

29

27
24
34

27

46
17
42

05

34

34

02

20

gNgIMVI=

Factor 4

15

29
20
22
31

07
20
05
22
00

22

20

07

05

17
39
12

17

22

34

34

10
20
12

21

07

59

12

52

48

37
24

25
31
27
21

47

39
29
46
20

24

38

37

Brings resources to bear

on a perceived
opporhmity
Integrates opportunities
with resources to
create product or
service
Gathers resources
Must add value
Mobilizes resources
Creates incremental
wealth
New ventllre
development
The creation of a
business that adds
value

,513
,509
,502

,518

,547

,587

,784

The transformation of a
business that adds
value
The creation of a new
business
Manages a growth
strategy for an
organization
Process of breaking away
from traditional
procedures
Destroys the status quo
The creation of wealth
A special talent that few
have

Creating Value
5.9% V. 5.3 E

,538

,639

,725
,716
,676
,644

,134

,744

CORR

-VI

pJ

UN
--

SI

Organization Creation
6.6% V, 5.8 E

Factor 3

29
32
20

56
56
12

05
00
34

05
08

,617
,540
.510

.662
,618

41
44

32
24

29

20

22
15

39

22
34

07
17
15

32

29

34

15

12

27

-UN

Factor 7

27

29

29

20

24

49
32

38

34

22

05

32

17

16

20

22
17

14

24

17

,506

,517

,530

,554

,566

,587
,587

,606

,623

,651

CORR
A special way of
thinking
A vision of
accomplishment for an
enterprise
Creates a competitive
advantage
Identifies a market
Provides a concept of a
product or service
Creates a unique
combination
Understands the
requirements to
accomplish goals
Identifies others to join
the venture
Ability to see situations
in terms of unmet
needs
Understands the
government
regulations influencing
the business

Uniqueness
8.7% V, 3.4 E

37

24

22

39

34
20

27

22

20

24

49

49

Factor 8

V, variance; E, eigenvalue; UN, % unimportant; SI, %, slightly important; IM, % important; VI, % very important; CORR, correlation.

10
12
34

32
17

34
12

Involves rapid growth

A growth-oriented
undertaking
Creates profit
Must be for-profit
business
A leveraged buy-out
Egocentric behavior
The creation of a
business growth intent
on significant growth

29
63

.738
,685

32
44

27
22

34
20

07
14

CORR

VI

.I61

Creation of a not-forprofit business

Creation of a government
organization

IM
--

10

.-Ill

yNg

24

22

22

Growth
6.1% V, 4.5 E

15

51

VI

IM
--

Profit or Nonprofit
5.7% V, 4.9 E
CORR

(continued)

Factor 6

29

27

Factor 5

TABLE 3

19

05

04

05

.525

,550

,736

,815

The creation of a momand-pop business

The creation of a lifestyle business
Purchasing an existing
business
Activities associated with
becoming an ownermanager of a firm

The Owner-Manager
4.9% V, 3.1 E

24

W.B. GARTNER

TABLE 4

Ratings,

Rankings,

Rating

Rankb

3.00
3.15
3.44
3.29
1.50
2.35
2.55
2.77

4
2
3
1
8
7
6
5

ENT
INN
RIA
cv
FP
GRH

UNQ
OWN

and Correlations

of Themes

Score
on
Rank

Correlations
ENT

INN

RIA

CV

FP

GRH

UNQ

4.09
3.24
3.27
3.08
7.24
5.24
5.00
4.85

1.00
.42
- .I5
-.I1
- .03
.30
.26
- .03

I .oo
- .I3
- .25
- .05
.23
.61
- .05

1.00
.07
.I0
- .I6
- .24
.22

1.00
.23
- .I6
- .21
.I8

1.00
- .I9
- .13
.38

1.00
.35
- .09

1.00
-.I8

OWN

1.00

ENT, The Entrepreneur: INN, Innovation: RIA. Organization Creation (Resource Integration and Acquisition); CV, Creating
Value; FP. For Profit: GRH, Growth: UNQ. Uniqueness; OWN, The Owner-Manager.
*Very important = 4. not lmpottant = I.
bHighest rank = 1. lowest rank = 8.

skills and talents of unique individuals. Almost 50% of the respondents rated characteristics
of the entrepreneur as not important to a definition of entrepreneurship;
that is, an average
of the responses to the attributes listed in factor 1 (Table 3) found that 22% and 23% of the
respondents ranked these attributes as unimportant and slightly important, respectively.
Whether the entrepreneur is maligned and acclaimed, the entrepreneur theme has a prominent
place in our thoughts about entrepreneurship.
This result further supports the suggestion
from the Babson survey that perhaps the time may be ripe for debate on the subject

TABLE 5

Summary

Statistics

for K-means

Cluster

Analysis

Between

Variable
ENT
INN
RIA
cv
FP
GRH

UNQ
OM

ss

Within SS

F ratio

Probability

2.87
6.54
.66
4.39
7.60
10.04
8.59
10.52

1
1
1
1
1
I
1

31.12
21.72
21.72
18.67
20.89
23.72
33.78
29.52

32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32

3.96
9.63
.96
7.53
11.64
13.54
8.13
11.37

,095
,004
,332
,010
,002
,001
,008
,002

Cluster

Cluster 2

Variable

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

ENT
INN
RIA
cv
FP
GRH
OM

3.15
3.37
3.37
3.11
1.26
2.63
2.48

1.01
.82
.87
.83
.52
.87
1.03

2.43
2.29
3.71
4.00
2.43
1.29
1.57

.73
.70
.45
.OO
1.40
.70
.49

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

DEFINITIONS

25

(Ronstadt et al. 1986: xiv). The question that needs to be addressed is: Does entrepreneurship
involve entrepreneurs (individuals with unique characteristics)?

Innovation
The innovation theme is characterized as doing something new as an idea, product, service,
market, or technology in a new or established organization. Attributes that described various
types of innovation correlated with this factor are listed in Table 3 (factor 2). The innovation
theme had respondents who were either pro (definition 9) or con (definition 4) on its importance for defining entrepreneurship.
It should be recognized that the attributes that described corporate entrepreneurship
and older, larger organizations were also correlated to
this factor. The innovation theme suggests that innovation is not limited to new ventures,
but recognized as something which older and/or larger organizations may undertake as well
(e.g., definition 3). Does entrepreneurship
involve innovation?

Organization Creation
The organization creation theme described the behaviors involved in creating organizations.
This theme described acquiring and integrating resource attributes (e.g., Brings resources
to bear . . . , Integrates opportunities with resources . . . , Mobilizes resources, gathers
resources) as well as attributes that described creating organizations (New venture development and The creation of a business that adds value). The results in Table 2 indicate that
participants ranked new venture development and the creation of a business that adds value
as the second and third most important attributes, respectively, of all the attributes describing
entrepreneurship.
But some participants (e.g., definitions 9, 10, and 12) indicated that
organization creation was not necessary for entrepreneurship.
Does entrepreneurship
involve
resource acquisition and integration (new venture creation activities)?

Creating Value
This theme articulated the idea that entrepreneurship
creates value. The attributes in this
factor indicated that value creation might be represented by transforming a business, creating
a new business growing a business, creating wealth, or destroying the status quo. Does
entrepreneurship
involve creating value?

Profit or Nonprojt
The profit/nonprofit theme is concerned with whether entrepreneurship involves profit-making
organizations only. Respondents had very different viewpoints on this theme. The first
attribute correlated to this factor (Creation of a not-for-profit business) showed an even
distribution of responses: very important (22%), important (22%), slightly important (29%),
unimportant (27%). Most respondents felt that the second attribute (Creation of a government
organization) was not an important characteristic of entrepreneurship:
very important (lo%),
important (24%), slightly important (15%), unimportant (51%). These ratings and some of
the definitions provided in Table 1 indicate that many people think that entrepreneurship
can only be a for-profit undertaking (definition 2). But others believe that organization
creation can be entrepreneurial
whether it is for-profit or not (definitions 3 and 6). Does
entrepreneurship
involve profit-making organizations only?

26

W.B. GARTNER

Growth
At issue in this theme is the importance of growth as a characteristic of entrepreneurship.
Most of the attributes in this factor described growth (e.g., Involves rapid growth, A growthoriented undertaking, The creation of a business intent on significant growth), although two
of the attributes described profits as well (Creates profits, Must be a for-profit business).
The attribute ratings showed mixed results. For example, more than half of the respondents
indicated that growth was not important to a definition of entrepreneurship
by the ranking
of the first attribute (Involves rapid growth): very important (7%), important (32%), slightly
important (27%), unimportant (34%). Some definitions (e.g., 5 and 12) indicated that growth
was one of the major characteristics of entrepreneurship.
Does entrepreneurship
involve
growth-oriented organizations?

Uniqueness
This theme suggested that entrepreneurship
must involve uniqueness. Uniqueness was characterized by attributes such as a special way of thinking, a vision of accomplishment,
ability
to see situations in terms of unmet needs, and creates a unique combination.
Does entrepreneurship involve uniqueness?

The Owner-Manager
The ownership and management of an ongoing business was the last theme generated from
the factor analysis. The four attributes correlated with this theme (The creation of a momand-pop business, The creation of a life-style business, Purchasing an existing business,
Activities associated with becoming an owner-manager
of a firm) point out that the management and ownership of an ongoing smaller organization is often tied to entrepreneurship.
Most of the respondents did not feel that mom-and-pop type organizations were entrepreneurial: very important (5%), important (22%), slightly important (24%), unimportant (49%).
But some of the definitions (e.g., 3 and 7) clearly identify the owner-manager as the most
important characteristic of entrepreneurship.
Does entrepreneurship
involve owner-managed
businesses?

Phase Three
The value of identifying these eight themes of entrepreneurship
was that the diversity and
complexity on the original 44 definitions of entrepreneurship
could be simplified to some
common concerns. The eight themes provided a way for individuals to reflect on their own
definitions of entrepreneurship.
The third part of the Delphi asked participants to carefully
consider the importance of these eight themes to their ideas about entrepreneurship.
One
benefit of this was that it asked individuals to consider themes that they might not have
brought up in their own definitions but that were articulated by others. As some of the
written definitions indicate, many respondents focused solely on innovation or growth,
without considering issues of uniqueness, value organization creation, profits, the entrepreneur, or the owner-manager.
In addition, the questionnaire asked respondents to consider
why they believe what they believe. Why is creating value important? Why must a company
be innovative? Why must a company have growth? How important is the entrepreneur? Is
a theme important to the participant because it is supported in the entrepreneurship literature

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

DEFINITIONS

27

or by the individuals experience? etc. Taking all of the participants scores in total, the
results from the rating and ranking of the eight themes (Table 4) appear to divide the themes
into a high rated/ranked group (the entrepreneur,
innovation,
organization creation, and
creating value), and a low rated/ranked group (for-profit, growth, uniqueness, and the ownermanager). Yet the only theme that was clearly a low-ranking theme was for-profit. A
consensus from the participants appears to be that entrepreneurship
can involve nonprofit
organizations.

Two Viewpoints on Entrepreneurship

A cluster analysis was undertaken to discover whether the participants could be grouped
together based on their rating of all eight themes; that is, whether the 34 participants
represented 34 distinct views on entrepreneurship or a smaller number of viewpoints. Exactly
the same two groups emerged from both the hierarchical clustering and the K-means clustering
(Table 5). Participants in each of these two groups did not rate the eight themes exactly the
same, but their ratings across the eight themes were more similar to participants in their
group than to participants in the other group. One theme that showed no significant difference
between the two groups was the resource acquisition and integration theme (new venture
creation activities). Both groups indicated high ratings for this theme (this theme received
the highest rating over the participants; Table 4). We might take from this result an indication
that organization creation is one important aspect of entrepreneurship.
For some individuals,
it appears to be the only aspect of entrepreneurship,
but for others, this theme is important
only in the context of some of the other themes. After reading over each groups written
responses to the eight themes, two major viewpoints on how to see entrepreneurship
became
apparent.
The majority (79%) of the participants were clustered in group 1. The focus of this
group seems to be on the characteristics of entrepreneurship.
Participants rated the entrepreneur, innovation, growth, and uniqueness significantly higher than the other group. Group
1 looked at what happened in the situation. This group indicated that a situation was
entrepreneurial
if they could answer yes to these questions: Is there an entrepreneur
involved? Is there innovation? Is there growth? Is there uniqueness? For this group, it appears
that situations without these characteristics are not entrepreneurial
situations.
The other group, group 2, focused on the outcomes of entrepreneurship.
Participants
ranked creating value, for profit, and owner-manager
higher than the other group, while
ranking the other themes much lower. Group 2 saw a situation as entrepreneurial
only if
value was created or if someone gained. For-profit and owner-manager
were rated higher
because group members felt that situations in which the entrepreneur could experience
positive outcomes were likely to be entrepreneurial.
For this group, it appears that situations
where no value is created, or where no one gains, are not entrepreneurial
situations.

IMPLICATIONS

AND CONCLUSIONS

We need to give serious consideration to articulating our beliefs about entrepreneurship

and
to recognizing that these beliefs influence the kinds of questions we ask ourselves and others
about this topic. For example, researchers who believe that entrepreneurship
requires individuals with special personality characteristics
are probably going to do research that
explores these beliefs. Individuals who consider entrepreneurship to be the domain of ownermanagers are likely to do research that is very different from individuals who believe that

28

W.B.

GARTNER

innovation and growth are important. Yet none of these domains are exclusive of the others,
and a concern about one theme probably will overlap another.
Entrepreneurship
is a very complex idea. The eight themes describe many different
types of activities and states of existence. We need to be aware that when we talk about
entrepreneurship
we carry around a wide range of beliefs. Some of us may believe that
entrepreneurship
must involve risk-taking individuals who start new ventures that are innovative and experience rapid growth. Others may be concerned only about entrepreneurship
as starting new ventures. What we must all be concerned about is making sure that when
we talk about entrepreneurship
we recognize that it has many different meanings attached
to it.
A definition of entrepreneurship
has yet to emerge. The views on entrepreneurship
that have been articulated here reflect the robustness of a new field, budding with new ideas
and thoughts, all competing for a prominent place in some future orthodoxy. No one definition
of entrepreneurship
need emerge. A definition of entrepreneurship
that is so simple that it
fails to reflect the thing we are concerned about does not have to be created. But if no
existing definition can be agreed upon by most researchers and practitioners,
then it is
important to say what we mean. If many different meanings for entrepreneurship
exist, then
it behooves us to make sure that others know what we are talking about. The various themes
of entrepreneurship
expressed
here seem to reflect different parts of the same phenomenon.
The importance of this entrepreneurship
Delphi is in helping us make explicit what we are
talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship.
Only by making explicit what we believe
can we begin to understand how all of these different parts make up a whole.

REFERENCES
Anderberg,

M.R. 1973. Cluster Analysis for Applications.

New York: Academic

Press.

Brockhaus, R.H. 1987. Entrepreneurial folklore. Journal of Small Business Management 25(3):1-6.
Brockhaus, R.H., and Horwitz, P.S. 1985. The Psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton and
R.W. Smilor, eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Carsrud, A.L., Olm, K.W., and Eddy, G.G. 1985. Entrepreneurship: Research in Quest of a paradigm.
In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, eds. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Low, M.B., and MacMillan, 1.C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal
of Management

14(2):139-162.

Ronstadt, R., Homaday, J.A., Peterson, R., and Vesper, K.H. 1986. Introduction. In R. Ronstadt,
J.A., Homaday, R. Peterson, and K.H. Vesper, eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Sexton, D.L., and Smilor, R.W. 1985. Introduction. In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, eds., The Art
and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Shapiro, A., and Sokol, L. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship.
In C.A. Kent, D.L.
Sexton, and K.H. Vesper, eds., Encyclopedia
of Entrepreneurship
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.
Turoff, M. 1975. The policy Delphi. In H.A. Linstone and M. Turoff, eds., The Delphi Method.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wortman, M.S. 1985. A unified framework, research typologies, and research prospects for the
interface between entr :preneurship and small business. In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smiler, eds.,
The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.