Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

S.

Gedeon (2007) A Lexicon for Entrepreneurship


Abstract This article applies the domains of classical logic and taxonomy to propose a lexicon of entrepreneurship terms. A conceptual hierarchy structure is created to determine the genus of entrepreneurship and differentiate it from nearest neighbor concepts such as management, innovation, and leadership. Alternative aspects or dimensions of entrepreneurship are used to create a classification taxonomy that clarifies and differentiates the sub-domain concepts (e.g. corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and opportunity entrepreneurship) into a consistent lexicon of terms.

Keywords: definition, lexicon, taxonomy, concepts, logic, entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, mind, genus, classification, terminology, management, innovation, leadership, value creation, differentiation

The field of entrepreneurship lacks a well-accepted definition (e.g. Carsrud, Olm, & Eddy, 1986; Sexton & Smilor, 1986; Gartner, 1989; Mitton, 1989; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991; Cunningham & Lischeron, 1991; Bull & Willard, 1993; Venkataraman, 1997; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000 and many others). Furthermore, there is the belief that entrepreneurship has become a label of convenience with little inherent meaning (Gartner, 1990: 16). To put it more forcefully: it is clear that the word [entrepreneurship] is normally used by analysts to mean whatever they like (Hart, 1975: 6; Stewart, 1991: 73). Good science begins with good definitions (Bygrave and Hofer, 1991). If the extent or limits of a definition are ambiguous or too broad, then its referents in reality are unclear. As a result of this lack of definition clarity, subject populations in different entrepreneurship studies have included: small business owners, R&D companies, real estate brokers, middle level managers, mom and pop businesses, manufacturing firms, and non-profit organizations (e.g. Gartner, 1989). If the definition of entrepreneurship is so broad as to encompass all of these disparate subject populations, our research will show conflicting results about the nature of entrepreneurship and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for entrepreneurship scholars to build upon the works of their predecessors (Collins, Locke, & Shane, 2003). A definition is a statement that conveys the fundamental character of a concept in order to make it clear and distinct from other concepts and to articulate the extent or limits of the term (condensed definition from AHDEL, 2000).

Any attempt to build a lexicon (or vocabulary) for entrepreneurship must thus clarify the distinction between entrepreneurship and nearest neighbor concepts such as management, innovation, leadership, and strategy. Once this is accomplished, a taxonomy (or classification system) may be designed so that a lexicon of entrepreneurship terms may be created to clarify the distinction between sub-domain terms such as social entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, small business entrepreneurship, necessity entrepreneurship and opportunity entrepreneurship. LITERATURE REVIEW In order to develop a classification taxonomy, we must enumerate the most important dimensions or aspects of entrepreneurship that give rise to the lexicon of terms. Fortunately, there have been many articulate and well-referenced literature reviews previously provided by entrepreneurship scholars and historians (e.g. Soltow, 1957; Knight, 1964; Kent, 1982; Hebert & Link, 1988; Gartner, 1989, 1990; Bygrave et al., 1991; Cunningham et al., 1991; Shaver & Scott, 1991; Bull et al., 1993; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; Ripsas, 1998; Casson, 2003; Jackson, Gaster, & Gaulden, 2004). In the absence of a widely accepted definition of entrepreneurship or lexicon of accepted entrepreneurship terms, scholars are forced to create their own stipulative definitions that stipulate entrepreneurship to be equal to that particular aspect of entrepreneurship that they are presently studying. Alternatively, scholars are forced to create either a denotative definition by enumerating the entrepreneurial characteristics under consideration (e.g. risk-taking, decisionmaking, innovating), or a connotative definition by saying that they are studying something that is entrepreneurial (i.e. they are studying something that bears some resemblance to some aspect of entrepreneurship). The result is an array of different types of definitions (i.e. stipulative, denotative and connotative) as well as different substantive positions on what entrepreneurship entails (e.g. new venture formation vs. new combinations vs. opportunityspotting vs. risk-taking). Table 1 provides a compilation of the major historical definitions of entrepreneurship reviewed in this article. In analyzing these historical roots of our field, we are seeking to identify some of the essential dimensions of entrepreneurship (embodied in these various prior definitions) that can be used to form a classification taxonomy. Note that the dimensions described in the following literature review appear in the third column. TABLE 1 Summary of the Major Definitions that Provide Alternative Dimensions of Entrepreneurship Author
Cantillon (1755) in Thornton (2005)

Definition or aspects of a definition


The entrepreneur is the bearer of risks inflicted by changes in market demand. Entrepreneurs purchase inputs at a given price to produce and sell later at an uncertain price. The entrepreneur brings prices and production into line with demand. Profit is what is left after interest, insurance, and management wages. This residual profit consists of Payment for risk and the extra productivity of the managers labor due to the fact that he

Dimensions
residual profit risk dimension dynamic dimension residual profit risk dimension ownership

Hufeland (1807) Thunen (1826) in Knight (1964)

Say (1816)

Walras (1877) in Ripsas (1998) Marshall (1890) Weber (1958) Jackson, et al. (2004) Clarke (1899, 1907)

is working for himself, his sleepless nights when he is planning for the business. The residual profit that arises from this extra productivity is termed Unternehmergewinn the entrepreneurs profits. The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. The agent who unites all means of production and who finds in the value of the products. the re-establishment of the entire capital he employs, and the value of the wages, the interest and the rent which he pays, as well as the profits belonging to himself. The entrepreneur is described as a coordinator and arbitrager.

residual profit dynamic dimension

Hawley (1907:106-107)

The entrepreneur is a charismatic leader, a superior laborer, has leadership abilitiessome young man would change his marketing methods would take details into his own hands, would personally solicit customerswould introduce low prices. An invention makes it possible to produce something more cheaply. It first gives a profit to entrepreneurs and this profit is an elusive sum, which entrepreneurs grasp but cannot hold. [It] slips through their fingers and bestows itself on all members of society. Were it not for that interval, entrepreneurs as such would get nothing, however much they might add to the worlds productive power. Risk taking is the essential function of the entrepreneur. Proprietorship is the essence of entrepreneurship. the profit of an undertaking, or the residue of the product after the claims of land, capital, and labor are satisfied, is not the reward of management or coordination, but of the risks and responsibilities that the undertaker subjects himself to. profit is identified with the reward for the assumption of responsibility, especially, though not exclusively, that involved in ownership. The carrying out of new combinations we call enterprise; the individuals whose function it is to carry them out we call entrepreneurs. The person or group of persons who assume the task and responsibility of combining the factors of production into a business organization and keeping this organization in operation he commands the industrial forces, and upon him rests the responsibility for their success or failure. the driving force of the market process is provided neither by the consumers nor by the owners of the means of productions land, capital goods, and labor but by the promoting and speculating entrepreneurs Profit-seeking speculation is the driving force of the market as it is the driving force of production. Entrepreneurs very broadly defined are those who organize, manage, and actively control the affairs of the units that combine the factors of production for the supply of goods and services. The not very tidy assumption can be made that

residual profit dynamic dimension dynamic dimension

residual profit dynamic dimension

residual profit risk dimension ownership

Schumpeter (1934: 74) Ely and Hess (1937)

dynamic dimension new venture

Mises (1949)

residual profit Austrian School

Evans (1949)

Behavior School Behavior

Sawyer (1958)

Soltow (1968)

Cole (1959)

Hartman (1959)

McClelland (1961)

Litzinger (1965)

Baumol (1968)

Hornaday and Bunker (1970) Hornaday and Aboud (1971) Palmer (1971) Draheim (1972) Howell (1972)

entrepreneurship comprises a more or less continuous set of functions running from the purely innovative toward the purely routine, performed within business firms or other agencies at many levels of initiative and responsibility, wherever significant decisions involving change are made affecting the combination and commitment of resources under conditions of uncertainty. The purposeful activity (including an integrated sequence of decisions) of an individual or group of individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain, or aggrandize a profit-oriented business unit for the production or distribution of economic goods and services. A distinction between manager and entrepreneur in terms of their relationship to formal authority in the industrial organization The entrepreneur may justify his formal authority independently or he may describe it as delegated from others, notably from the stockholders. But within the organization he alone is the source of all formal authority. Management is defined residually as not being the source of all authority. The border between the entrepreneur and the manager is thus relatively precise. Entrepreneurial activity involves (a) risk-taking, (b) energetic activity, (c) individual responsibility, (d) money as a measure of results, (e) anticipation of future possibilities, and (f) organizational skills. The distinction is drawn between entrepreneurs who are goal and action oriented as contrasted to managers who carry out polices and procedures in achieving the goals Owners of mom and pop motels appear as the entrepreneurial type who have invested their own capital and operate a business. The entrepreneur (whether or not he in fact also doubles as a manager) has a different function. It is his job to locate new ideas and put them into effect. He must lead, perhaps even inspire he is the Schumpeterian innovator and more. He is the individual who exercises what in the business literature is called Leadership. And it is he who is virtually absent from the received theory of the firm. The successful entrepreneur was defined as a man or woman who started a business where there was none before, who had at least 8 employees and who had been established for at least 5 years. The entrepreneurial function involves primarily risk measurement and risk taking within a business organization. Entrepreneurship the act of founding a new company where none existed before. Entrepreneur is the person and entrepreneurs are the small group of persons who are new company founders. The term is also used to indicate that the founders have some significant ownership stake in the business (they are not only employees) and that their intention is for the business to grow and prosper beyond the self-employment stage. An entrepreneur is a decision-maker whose entire role arises out of his alertness to hitherto unnoticed opportunities. An entrepreneur is defined as a major owner and manger of a business venture not employed elsewhere.

School

Behavior School

Behavior School

Traits School

Behavior School ownership dynamic dimension Behavior School

new venture

risk dimension new venture ownership

Kirzner (1973) Brockhaus (1980)

Austrian School ownership

Hull, Bosley, and Udell (1980) Lachman (1980) Mescon and Montanari (1981) Vesper (1982) Casson (1982, 2003) Drucker (1985)

A person who organizes and manages a business undertaking assuming the risk for the sake of profit. The entrepreneur is perceived as a person who uses a new combination of production factors to produce the first brand in an industry. Entrepreneurs are, by definition, founders of new businesses. The overall field of entrepreneurship is loosely defined as the creation of new business enterprises by individuals or small groups. An entrepreneur is someone who specializes in taking judgmental decisions about the coordination of scarce resources. this defines entrepreneur and entrepreneurshipthe entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity. Entrepreneurs innovate. Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurs. Innovation can be defined the way J.B. Say defined entrepreneurship, as changing the yield of resources.

risk dimension new venture dynamic dimension new venture new venture Behavior School dynamic dimension

Hebert and Link (1988)

Roles of the entrepreneur in the history of economic theory include: 1) assumes risk associated with uncertainty, 2) supplies capital, 3) innovator, 4) decision maker, 5) leader, 6) manager, 7) organizer and coordinator, 8) owner, 9) employer of factors of production, 10) contractor, 11) arbitrager, 12) allocator of resources. Entrepreneurship is the process by which new organizations come into existence. Entrepreneurship is the process by which individuals pursue opportunities without regard to resources they currently control. An Entrepreneur is someone who perceives an opportunity and creates an organization to pursue it. Increased consensus has been attained on the concept of entrepreneurship as the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources (human and capital) or the location of the entrepreneur in a new or existing company The essential act of entrepreneurship is new entity. An EO [Entrepreneurial Orientation] refers to the processes, practices, and decision-making activities that lead to new entry. Entrepreneurship is the ability to amass the necessary resources to capitalize on new business opportunities. The term is frequently used to refer to the rapid growth of new and innovative businesses and is associated with individuals who create or seize business opportunities and pursue them without regard for resources under their control. They build something from practically nothing and usually reinvest earnings to expand their enterprise or to create new

risk dimension dynamic dimension Behavior School new venture Behavior School Behavior School new venture dynamic dimension Behavior School new venture Behavior School new venture Behavior School

Gartner (1989) Stevenson and Jarillo (1990: 23) Bygrave and Hofer (1991) Churchill (1992)

Lumpkin and Dess (1996) Kayne (1999) Kauffman Center

enterprises.

The Residual Profit Dimension The earliest historical references to entrepreneurship come from the field of theoretical economics and inquiries into the nature and sources of profit. All economic value was thought by the classical economists to arise fundamentally from some combination of Land, Labor and Capital (e.g. Smith, 1776). Profits were obtained if a good was purchased at a market value that exceeded the intrinsic value of the Land, Labor and Capital that went into producing and bringing it to market. The neoclassical economists started from this foundation and derived their economic theories by assuming perfectly competitive market equilibrium between the intrinsic and market value. Thus, they considered any residual profit in excess of the market rate of return on Land, Labor and Capital to be temporary until the state of static equilibrium returned (e.g. Schumpeter, 1934). While this theory provides sound mathematical insights into phenomena such as the effects of supply and demand on price, its assumption of no residual profit means that neoclassical theory presents a view of the market which has no room for the entrepreneur (Casson, 2003). Cantillon (1755) is generally credited with first coining the term entrepreneur to describe the farmer or merchant who helped bring non-equilibrium economic situations back into equilibrium by bearing the risks inflicted by changing market demand. He recognized that entrepreneurs purchase inputs at a given price to produce and sell later at an uncertain price (Cantillon, 1755 in Thornton, 2005). Thunen (1826) also observed the fact that certain individuals earned the residual profit after the payment of interest on capital, insurance, rent and wages. He called these residual profits the unternehmergewinn the undertakers profits which has been translated as entrepreneurial profits (Hufeland, 1807 and Thunen, 1826 in Knight, 1964). Entrepreneurship became associated with all activities that create residual profits in excess of the rate of return for Land, Labor and Capital (e.g. Schumpeter, 1934; Mises, 1949; Kirzner, 1973; Moschandreas, 1994; Ripsas, 1998; Glancey & McQuaid, 2000; Matley, 2005). The original concept of entrepreneurship derives from the economic theory of profit. Since the entrepreneurs profit was associated with the residual profit that is left over after all other payments have been made (rent, wages, and interest on capital), entrepreneurship became synonymous with all non-land, non-labor, and non-capital sources of profit. The Risk Dimension, Ownership and New Venture Formation To probe further into the economists discussion of profits, there arose two opposing theoretical views: the risk theory of profit and the dynamic theory of profit (Knight, 1964). These opposing theories, not surprisingly, led to opposing views and definitions that can be viewed as alternative dimensions of entrepreneurship that must be incorporated into our lexicon. Whereas many of the earlier economists clearly embed the assumption of risk in the concept of entrepreneurship, Hawley (1907) is the first to articulate vigorously that this is the most 6

essential function of the entrepreneur and that the rewards of enterprise primarily accrue to the owner due to the assumption of responsibility and risk. Hawley states that enterprise is the only really productive factor and that land, labor and capital are merely means of production. While both the risk theory and the dynamic theory define entrepreneurial profit as residual income, Hawley contends, in essence, that temporary dynamic profits due to innovation are a source of management wages whereas proprietorship is the source of the entrepreneurs profits. Whereas good managers can create profits due to incremental innovation, unless they also assume the risk of ownership, managers are not entrepreneurs (Hawley, 1907 in Knight, 1964). Knight (1964) provides a detailed review of the risk theory of profit but incorporates a distinction between risk and uncertainty. He also states that dynamic change alone cannot create profit, unless this dynamic change also brings about ignorance of the future (i.e. uncertainty). Brockhaus (1980) showed that entrepreneurs have a preference for managing risks, but that their risk taking propensity is not significantly different from the general population. Regardless of the entrepreneurs risk taking propensity, an array of stipulative definitions (as shown in Table 1) embed ownership in entrepreneurship and many also include new venture formation as the means by which entrepreneurs obtain their ownership. Certainly, the popular medias depiction of the entrepreneur starting up a new company and becoming a millionaire by virtue of his or her stock ownership has become strongly associated with the publics understanding that entrepreneurship is linked to new venture formation. The emphasis on new venture formation also arises from the fact that a significant proportion of new wealth creation in the economy comes from new companies (e.g. Soltow, 1957; Kent, 1982; OECD, 1998; Acs, Carlsson, & Karlsson, 1999; Acs, Arenius, Hay, & Minniti, 2004; Reynolds, Hay, & Camp, 1999; and Wennekers & Thurik, 1999. In fact, given the tax codes and legislation in most countries, an incorporated entity is normally required for tax reasons as well as reduction in personal liability. In stark contrast to the neoclassical economists proposal of a static equilibrium market, entrepreneurs are now seen as significantly increasing the size of the pie rather than merely extracting pieces of a given-sized pie to generate profits for themselves (e.g. Kirzner, 1997). Because entrepreneurship contributes a significant proportion of all new growth, jobs, and wealth, governments are keenly interested in discovering how to stimulate entrepreneurship in order to grow their economies. Consequently, governments provide significant funding to support scholars engaged in research related to entrepreneurship, innovation, and commercialization. This has also stimulated scholarly interest from other disciplines in contributing to the literature related to entrepreneurship. This focus on new company formation dramatically simplifies the collection of data from government statistics and has also allowed cross-pollination from the field of population ecology in research attempts to understand the factors affecting company birth and death rates in the economy. Classifying entrepreneurship in terms of new venture formation provides a

very simple and clear tool with high discriminatory power. This is one reason why the largest cross-national assessment of entrepreneurship in the world, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which includes over 150 scholars in 34 countries, creates measures of entrepreneurship activity based on the prevalent rate of new venture formation and degree of ownership involved (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1999; Acs et al., 2004). An essential dimension of entrepreneurship that arises from the risk theory of profit is the degree to which new venture formation and/or ownership is involved. The Dynamic Dimension The dynamic theory, in contrast, starts with neoclassical economic theory and proposes that profits arise as a result of dynamic change from the static equilibrium state of perfect competition (e.g. Hayek, 1937). Whereas the Austrian School views the entrepreneur as bringing the market back into equilibrium, Schumpeter and others view entrepreneurs as being a source of disequilibrium (creative destruction). An array of definitions has arisen from the dynamic dimension, depending on the means by which entrepreneurs enact or respond to dynamic change (e.g. by shifting resources, creating new combinations, innovating, speculating, or being alert to opportunities). The Austrian School of Entrepreneurship defines the entrepreneur as the driving force of the dynamic market process (e.g. Kirzner, 1997). According to Von Mises (1949) the entrepreneur sees opportunities for profit and uses them to bring the market back into equilibrium by promoting and speculating, not necessarily by innovation or control over resources. Kirzner (1973) also saw the adjustment of price as the main role of the entrepreneur (Casson, 2003, 2003). Accordingly, the distinguishing feature of the entrepreneur is alertness to disequilibrium, or asymmetry of information, in order to create profitable opportunities (e.g. Shane, 2000; Shane et al., 2000)). In contrast to the Austrian School, J.B. Say (1816) viewed the entrepreneur as creating dynamic change by shifting economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. Clark (1899, 1907) took the theory a step further and claimed that entrepreneurs are those individuals who invent means to produce new things or to make things more cheaply. This inventive behavior or ability to combine resources more efficiently creates a temporary profit for the entrepreneur. As competitors learn to duplicate this activity, profits reduce until they return to zero under perfect competition when equilibrium is reestablished. Any such dynamic change thus produces a temporary profit that initially goes to the entrepreneur, and then slips through their fingers and bestows itself on all members of society (Clark, 1899, 1907: 405 in Knight, 1964: 34). According to Clark (1899, 1907) the reward of risk-taking accrues to the capitalist, and the profit of the entrepreneur is a species of monopoly gain arising in connection with their causing dynamic disturbances. The dynamic theory of profit leads directly to Schumpeters seminal theory of creative destruction and his well-known definition of the entrepreneur as the individual whose function it is to carry out new combinations. In his theory of creative destruction, entrepreneurs create disequilibrium. Schumpeter broadened the definition of entrepreneurship significantly beyond

independent businessmen in an exchange economy to include employees, managers, board directors, financiers and promoters (Schumpeter, 1934). Later scholars moved beyond the historical roots of entrepreneurship in economic theory and applied the concept to innovative opportunity-seeking activity regardless of whether that activity is profit seeking or whether it takes place in large organizations, non-profit organizations, universities or governments (Drucker, 1985). This extension to the traditional domain has led, for example, to the sub-domain term social entrepreneurship (e.g. Dees, Haas, & Haas, 1998; Thompson, Alvy, & Lees, 2000). An essential dimension of entrepreneurship that arises from the dynamic theory of profit and the Austrian School of Economics is the manner in which value is created (e.g. by causing equilibrium or disequilibrium through innovation, creating new combinations, shifting resources, speculating, arbitrage, or alertness to information asymmetries). Another important aspect of entrepreneurship that arises from the dynamic dimension includes the application of entrepreneurship outside the realm of profit-seeking business activities into other fields. We are now confronted with a serious historical disagreement over the proper domain and definition of entrepreneurship. Whereas the risk theory of profit clearly demands that entrepreneurs are owners and that new venture formation is central to the concept, the dynamic theory just as clearly states that entrepreneurs can be employees and managers and that they are not necessarily even permanently connected with the firm, much less owners. Extending the dynamic theory, entrepreneurs are not necessarily even engaged in business or profit-seeking. The risk and dynamic dimensions appear to be mutually exclusive. For example, an advocate of the dynamic theory might state that a small business owner who starts his or her own company is not an entrepreneur unless the manner in which they exploit the opportunity is also innovative (e.g. Drucker, 1985). Clearly, our lexicon must integrate both dimensions of entrepreneurship if it is to serve the field. The Traits School McClelland (1961) acknowledged that there was no consensus on the definition of entrepreneurship from economic theory and instead shifted the focus to the personal characteristics and cultural values of those who engage in entrepreneurial role behavior. In other words, he defined an entrepreneur as someone engaged in any aspect of business or economic enterprise who behaved like an entrepreneur or in an entrepreneurial way. He identified these characteristics as (a) risk-taking, (b) energetic activity, (c) individual responsibility, (d) money as a measure of results, (e) anticipation of future possibilities, and (f) organizational skills. It should be noted that many of these essential characteristics incorporate elements from both sides of the risk/dynamic theory controversy. McClelland thus uses a denotative approach to creating a definition, by simply listing (or denoting) the characteristics embodied by the referent group rather than resolving the fundamental underlying theoretical conflicts. This emphasis on the individual characteristics of entrepreneurs became known as the traits school of entrepreneurship (e.g. Pickle, 1964; Hornaday & Aboud, 1971; Timmons, 1978;

Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1982; McClelland, 1987; Solomon & Winslow, 1988; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Shaver et al., 1991). The traits schools emphasis on the individual entrepreneurs character and goals enabled research and survey instruments from the more developed field of psychology to be applied to the new field of entrepreneurship and the field appeared to blossom for some time as a result. The traits school has been criticized, however, for the underlying assumption that all entrepreneurs should exhibit certain universal characteristics, when studies seem to show that entrepreneurs are as different from one another as they are from non-entrepreneurs (e.g. Brockhaus, 1980; Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Carsrud et al., 1986; Shaver et al., 1991). According to Low and MacMillan (1988: 148), It seems that any attempt to profile the typical entrepreneur is inherently futile. One issue to arise from the traits school of entrepreneurship is the recognition that the founders characteristics, goals, and social and cultural environment can affect the characteristics, performance and goals of the companies created. For example, managers tend to new the market environment as somewhat constrained, whereas entrepreneurs view access to the market as unconstrained. Various studies have classified entrepreneurial ventures on the basis of the founders characteristics, goals, social network and environment (e.g. Woo, Cooper, & Dunkelberg, 1991; Cooper, 1993; Birley & Westhead, 1994). The Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial Studies explicitly uses the founders goals in order to determine whether or not a company falls under its definition of entrepreneurship. It specifically includes small businesses, but excludes lifestyle small businesses whose primary goal is not necessarily monetary profit, thus illustrating that the goal of the business is a critical dimension of entrepreneurship (Kayne, 1999). Another aspect to arise from the traits school is the issue of whether the unit of analysis is the individual founder, the entrepreneurial team, or the firm. The issue of who is being entrepreneurial leads to sub-domain lexicon terms such as team entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship. An essential dimension of entrepreneurship that arises from the traits school is that the entity being entrepreneurial and its environment, characteristics and goals are important taxonomy tools used to classify different aspects of entrepreneurship. The Behavioral School In contrast to the traits school, the behavioral school argued that the process involved in creating a new venture, not the personality of the founder, should be fundamental to the definition of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1989, Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990). The so-called behavioral school of entrepreneurship focuses on the skills involved in the entrepreneurial process such as identifying opportunities, marshalling resources, forming, leading and growing companies. The behavioral schools emphasis on the management processes enabled research from the more developed field of business management to be applied to entrepreneurship and this too has led to a rich proliferation of publications in the field. The behavioral schools focus on the process of pursuing opportunities led to articulating the various stages of entrepreneurial activity including emergent, newness and transformation (e.g.

10

Gartner, 2004). The behavioral schools focus on the activities performed by the entrepreneur naturally led to the creation of an array of alternative definitions, included in Table 1, that includes denotative elements such as initiate, maintain or aggrandize (Cole, 1959), taking judgmental decisions (Casson, 1982, 2003), combining the factors of production, goal and action oriented (Litzinger, 1965), decision-maker (Kirzner, 1973), organize, manage and actively control (Evans, 1949) and, perhaps the broadest level term, leadership (Weber, 1958; Baumol, 1968). In many cases entrepreneurship was defined primarily in terms of being non-management (e.g. Hartman, 1959; Litzinger, 1965; Watson, 1995; Bustenitz & Barney, 1997). In order to integrate the concepts of corporate management and entrepreneurship, Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) defined entrepreneurship as pursuing opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control (i.e. entrepreneurs access other peoples resources). They saw entrepreneurship as a spectrum of activities that take place during all stages of an organizations creation and growth as well as all stages of an individuals lifetime, from traditional entrepreneurship to corporate entrepreneurship. The sub-domain term corporate entrepreneurship has been created to encompass not only new venture formation within companies, but also transformation of on-going organizations through strategic renewal (e.g. Katz & Shepherd, 2004). An essential dimension of entrepreneurship that arises from the behavioral school is that the stage in the process of venture emergence, newness or transformation is important, as well as the activities involved. Entrepreneurship and management are seen as a continuum of behaviors that take place during the lifecycle of a venture. Our literature review shows that different theories and schools define alternative aspects or dimensions of entrepreneurship that must be accounted for when creating a lexicon. Table 1 assigns one or more of these dimensions to each of the major historical definitions of entrepreneurship. Before creating the lexicon of sub-domain terms within the field of entrepreneurship, we must first place the overall term entrepreneurship in the proper context within the lexicon of other business terms or nearest neighbor concepts. CONCEPTUAL HIERARCHY AND NEAREST NEIGHBOR CONCEPTS As shown by classical logicians, the proper methodology for constructing a definition is by stating its genus and differentia from nearest neighbor concepts (e.g. Copi & Cohen, 2000, Kemerling, 2001). Identifying the nearest neighbor concepts as management, leadership, innovation, and strategy is relatively simple. But what is the genus of entrepreneurship? The classical economists believed that there were three fundamental sources of value: Land, Labor, and Capital. According to the neoclassical economists, management was considered to be the science associated with controlling Land, Labor and Capital to maximize profits (e.g. Knight, 1964; Kirzner, 1973; Baumol, 1993). However, because under perfect competition and

11

market equilibrium these profits diminish, management was never listed alongside Land, Labor and Capital as a fundamental source of value (Kirzner, 1973). As distinct from management, entrepreneurship arguably came to be understood as the fourth fundamental source of value, thus creating residual profit in excess of normal market rates after paying rent, wages and interest (e.g. Schumpeter, 1934; Mises, 1949; Kirzner, 1973; Moschandreas, 1994; Ripsas, 1998; McQuaid & Glancey, 2000; Matley, 2005). If management is not on the same conceptual hierarchical level as Land, Labor and Capital, one might imagine that the term is properly a sub-concept under the genus Labor. However, Labor has traditionally been synonymous in economic theory with the payment of wages to employees who are directed by management and thus management is clearly distinct from Labor. Management therefore does not fall under the genus of Labor, nor is it a genus (source of value) in itself. The basic theoretical conflict arises from the fact that entrepreneurship has been used as the catchall term for all non-land, non-labor and non-capital factors associated with creating residual profits and this places entrepreneurship on the wrong level in a conceptual hierarchy. To use the terminology applied by classical logicians and taxonomists, it would be akin to confusing the conceptual hierarchy of mammal and horse or reptile and snake (i.e. confusing Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species when classifying organisms). A horse is one of many kinds of mammal and entrepreneurship is one of many ways to achieve residual profits. In fact, the entire neoclassical assumption that markets approach static equilibrium is nullified by the goal of strategic management theory, which is to create a sustainable competitive advantage (and thus above average profits) in the face of continuous change and uncertainty. In contrast to classical and neoclassical economic theory, the modern management toolkit includes innovation, leadership and strategy as important tools for sustaining non-equilibrium rates of profitability and growth. The striking affinitive feature of all these value-creating skills (management, entrepreneurship, strategy, innovation and leadership) is their dependence on the power and creativity of the human mind. Thus a new genus must be designated to stand alongside Land, Labor and Capital as a fourth fundamental source of value. I term this new genus, Mind. Entrepreneurship thus falls hierarchically under the genus Mind. A definition of entrepreneurship must differentiate between nearest neighbor concepts related to skills that are primarily dependent on the power and creativity of the human mind to create value such as management, strategy, innovation, and leadership. The proposed hierarchical relationship between these concepts is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, Land, Labor, Capital and Mind are the four fundamental sources of value and each will generate its market rate of return, namely rent for Land, wages for Labor, and interest for Capital with all remaining residual profits going to those who create value using Mind.

12

Entrepreneurship and Management both fall hierarchically under Mind and may be differentiated from each other by their relationship to the other three sources of value. FIGURE 1 Conceptual Hierarchy of Terms

Land
(Rent)

Labor
(Wages)

Capital
(Interest)

Mind
(Residual Profit)

Fundamental Sources of Value

<< Continuum of Behaviors >> Management - Intrapreneurship - Entrepreneurship Incremental Innovation --Bureaucratic Leadership --Strategic Planning --Market Testing --Building Brand Equity --Mass Marketing Long Meetings Quarterly Planning Sessions Large Buildings Corporate Memos ----------Radical Innovation Charismatic Leadership Vision Opportunity-Spotting Building Legitimacy Guerilla Marketing Quick Decision Making Weekly Business Plans New Companies Impassioned talks

Control over Resources

Value-Creating Tools of Mind

Sensory Observations

The range of human actions under the genus Mind is represented in Figure 1 by a continuum from pure entrepreneurs who have no or few resources (i.e. they are in the emergent stage, have observed an entrepreneurial opportunity, and are just starting to acquire the resources required for their new venture) to pure managers who have complete control over most their required resources. Between these extremes there is a continuum of behaviors from entrepreneurs who acquire resources and begin to manage them, to those who start with the resources of a firm and spin-off new ventures, to corporate entrepreneurs who start as managers with the resources of the firm and engage in corporate transformation and strategic renewal. (This continuum will be discussed in more detail later in this article.) As described by Kirzner (1973: 47), Purely entrepreneurial decisions are by definition reserved for decision-makers who own nothing at all. At the other extreme of this continuum, he describes a type of manager in control of all the required resources as a Robbinsian economizer who maximizes outputs under existing ends-means relationships.

13

The proposed conceptual hierarchy shown in Figure 1, representing the relationship between entrepreneurship and management as a continuum based on the ability to access resources, has its theoretical basis in the resource based view of the firm (e.g. Penrose 1959, Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990), which is rooted in classical and neo-classical economic theory. As described by Alvarez and Busenitz (2001), entrepreneurship theory and resource theory can be combined if the cognitive ability of individual entrepreneurs (e.g. their Mind resources) are viewed as heterogeneous resource inputs, along with Land, Labor and Capital in order to create heterogenous outputs through the firm that are strategically competitive. Thus managers have access to the resources of Land, Labor and Capital, whereas entrepreneurs pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control (Stevenson & Jarillo, 1990: 23). The entrepreneur essentially must create value starting with nothing but his or her own Mind and acquire all the other resources (recognizing of course that nothing takes place in a vacuum and the entrepreneurs background, social network and environment play important roles). Regardless of their access to resources, both entrepreneurs and managers must use their minds to create value (and in a business context earn their residual profits). These value-creating Tools of Mind are represented in the figure as being one level lower in the conceptual hierarchy. The various value-creating Tools of Mind traditionally associated with entrepreneurship include the concepts of innovation and leadership as well as arbitrage, speculating, alertness to new opportunities, etc. However, these Tools of Mind are increasingly associated with good management (even if managers are simply being told to act entrepreneurially). For completeness, various value-creating Tools of Mind traditionally associated with good management, to create above market rates of residual profit over time, include the concepts of strategy and leadership as well as branding, agility and others. Again, a continuum of behaviors between entrepreneurs and managers can be seen from radical innovation often taking place outside companies to systematic innovation or incremental innovation often taking place within large firms (e.g. Drucker, 1985; Baumol, 2004). The different behaviors involved during different stages of firm emergence, newness and transformation have been well documented (e.g. Gartner, 2004). The primary Tools of Mind used thus tend to change over time as entrepreneurs obtain more resources and begin to act more like managers from alertness to opportunities to innovation to leadership to strategy to branding as the company and its sphere of influence grows. Epistemologically, in order to properly tie these higher-level concepts back to metaphysical reality and complete the conceptual hierarchy, the conceptual framework in Figure 1 must ground the higher level concepts in sensory observations in reality. For example, we cannot directly observe the concept friendship what we see in reality are things like people hugging, shaking hands, smiling, and offering help. Friendship is the higher level abstraction that is rooted in these sensory observations.

14

It is difficult for someone to observe a person acting entrepreneurially. What we sense with our eyes and ears (or government statistics) is the presence of new things in reality (such as a legal document when a new corporate entity is brought into existence) or specific actions (such as those used in various historical definitions of entrepreneurship including initiating, taking judgmental decisions, or combining the factors of production). This is one reason why defining entrepreneurship (or friendship) has been so difficult and controversial the term is so abstract and thus removed from sensory observations. Both managers and entrepreneurs can be seen going to a lot of meetings, calling people on the phone, and writing letters. However, here too we may find a range of behaviors with entrepreneurs tending to act more quickly, revise business plans more frequently, exhibit more agility, expound more on the vision of the company, use guerrilla marketing and be more passionate. Again, managers are told to exhibit more of the positive behaviors of entrepreneurs, thus blurring the line between what we observe when looking at managers and entrepreneurs. TAXONOMY FOR CREATING A LEXICON FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP The proposed conceptual hierarchy in Figure 1 may be used to differentiate between entrepreneurship and its nearest neighbor concepts such as management, leadership, and innovation. This enables us to place the concept of entrepreneurship properly in the overall lexicon of business terms. However, in order to create a lexicon of sub-domain terms within the field of entrepreneurship, we must create a taxonomy that incorporates the alternative dimensions described in the literature survey. What were previously viewed as contradictory historical definitions or theories can be seen to articulate complementary viewpoints or dimensions of entrepreneurship that may be used to form the taxonomy classification structure for creating a lexicon. Rather than considering any of the prior definitions in Table 1 to be false, we may instead extract the essential elements of truth that most contain. Building on the main questions posed by Stevenson and Jarillo (1990), a classification taxonomy for our lexicon can be provided by exploring dimensions that answer the questions posed by the various lenses: what (the field of entrepreneurial activity), who (the entity or capacity in which the entity is acting), how (the manner in which the value is being created), why (the goals of the entity involved) when (the stage of venture emergence, newness or transformation), and where. What: the resource based view of the firm, classical economic theory and neoclassical economic theory show that entrepreneurship is a value-creating activity based on the creativity and power of the human Mind. The dynamic theory expanded the definition beyond the historical roots in profit seeking business activity and into the non-profit sector and other fields of human activity. Lexicon terms following from this taxonomy structure would include the field of activity and what types of values are created including business entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship and academic entrepreneurship. Who: the traits school demonstrated that entrepreneurship involves individuals with certain behavioral skills, who engage in entrepreneurial activity. The behavior school expanded the definition beyond independent individuals to groups as well as employees

15

and companies. An additional dimension that arises from this taxonomy could include the unit of measure (such as individual, team, firm, sector, region, cluster or nation). Lexicon terms following from this taxonomy structure would include intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, team entrepreneurship and family business entrepreneurship as well as additional terms such as immigrant entrepreneurship and national entrepreneurship. How: an essential dimension of entrepreneurship that arises from the dynamic theory of profit and the Austrian School of Economics is the manner in which value is created and/or the market is moved toward or away from equilibrium. Lexicon terms following from this taxonomy structure would include innovative entrepreneurship, imitative entrepreneurship, adaptive entrepreneurship, speculative entrepreneurship, and high tech entrepreneurship. Why: as demonstrated by the traits school, the goals of the founders are an important dimension of entrepreneurship. Lexicon terms following from this classification lens include: necessity entrepreneurship, opportunity entrepreneurship, high-expectation entrepreneurship and lifestyle entrepreneurship. When: the risk theory shows that new venture formation is an important dimension and the behavior school shows that the stages of emergence, newness (or startup) and transformation are important aspects of entrepreneurship. Lexicon terms following from this classification lens could include: nascent entrepreneurship, emergent entrepreneurship, startup entrepreneurship, and small business entrepreneurship. Where: the environment has a powerful effect on the entrepreneur, the entrepreneurial process, the resources available and the markets involved. No lexicon would be complete without this taxonomy classification lens. International entrepreneurship is an obvious lexicon term that arises from this taxonomy structure, but other terms could potentially include local entrepreneurship, indigenous entrepreneurship and diaspora entrepreneurship.

Table 2 summarizes a partial lexicon of single level sub-domain terms that arises from this taxonomy classification structure, the applicable theoretical lenses involved and potential impinging fields of research from other disciplines. TABLE 2 A Partial Lexicon of Entrepreneurship Terms Lexicon Terms (Adjectives)
Business Entrepreneurship Social Entrepreneurship Academic Entrepreneurship Independent Entrepreneurship Intrapreneurship Corporate Entrepreneurship Team Entrepreneurship Family Business Entrepreneurship Immigrant Entrepreneurship Innovative Entrepreneurship Imitative Entrepreneurship

Taxonomy
What Who

Dimension Involved
Dynamic Dimension Traits School Behavior School Cultural Dimension

Associated Fields of Research


Economics Sociology Praxeology Psychology Organizational Behavior Change Management Agency Theory

How

Dynamic Dimension Austrian School

Innovation Creativity

16

Adaptive Entrepreneurship Acquisitive Entrepreneurship Speculative Entrepreneurship Arbitrage Entrepreneurship High Tech Entrepreneurship Necessity Entrepreneurship Opportunity Entrepreneurship High-expectation Entrepreneurship Small Business Entrepreneurship Lifestyle Entrepreneurship Emergent Entrepreneurship Nascent Entrepreneurship Startup Entrepreneurship Transformation Entrepreneurship International Entrepreneurship Local Entrepreneurship Indigenous Entrepreneurship Diaspora Entrepreneurship

Why

Traits School

Cognitive Science Engineering Technology Knowledge Management Strategic Management Psychology Sociology Economics Praxeology Goal Setting Population Ecology

When

Risk Dimension Behavior School

Where

Environmental Dimension Cultural Dimension

Economics Political Science Sociology Social Network Theory

Monotonic Relationship between Lexicon Terms A proper lexicon must exhibit a monotonic relationship between its terms, meaning that the referent set of a sub-domain term must be completely referenced within the higher level term (Denecker, 2000). This may necessitate the creation of seemingly new lexicon terms for greater clarity. Venn Diagrams may be used to illustrate the issue. If we define entrepreneurship solely in terms of business activity that generates profit and social entrepreneurship in terms of activity that does not necessarily generate a profit, then the set of referents under social entrepreneurship are not fully included in the set of referents under entrepreneurship, violating the requirement for monotonicity as shown in Figure 2. One option would be to declare that social entrepreneurship is not really a type of entrepreneurship and thus does not fall under the same genus. However, the goal of our lexicon is to be inclusive and accordingly this solution is unsatisfactory. FIGURE 2 Venn Diagram Showing the Problem of Non-Monotonic Referent Sets

Entrepreneurship

Social Entrepreneurship

17

Figure 3 shows the correct lexicon structure that ensures monotonicity. As can be seen, the definition of entrepreneurship must be broader than its historical roots in the economic and business literature and so a new sub-domain lexicon term such as business entrepreneurship would need to be created to differentiate between profit-seeking behavior and non-profitseeking behavior such as social entrepreneurship or academic entrepreneurship. FIGURE 3 Venn Diagram Showing How Proper Monotonic Hierarchy of Referent Sets is Achieved by Coining the Term Business Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship

Business Entrepreneurship

Social Entrepreneurship

Monotonicity would similarly require us to create a new sub-domain lexicon term to prevent a violation between entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship. A possible candidate lexicon term used to describe an individual or cohesive entity assembling resources from outside an organization to create a new venture would be independent entrepreneurship. A monotonic lexicon would not use two alternative terms to describe a single concept. For example, the terms intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably (e.g. Antoncic & Hisrich, 2001). If this were the case, then we should eliminate one term from the lexicon to reduce confusion. While defining these terms may be as controversial as defining entrepreneurship itself, there appears to be consensus that there are two distinct concepts involved (e.g. Kuratko, Ireland, & Hornsby, 2004). As stated by Van de

18

Ven and Engleman (2004: 47) Corporate entrepreneurship is typically defined as new business creation within an existing organization as well as renewal and innovation of the organization. If there are two terms and two distinct concepts, then we should apply one term to each concept. Thus, to reduce confusion and ensure monotonicity, we may apply the term intrapreneurship to the act of creating a new spinoff venture from within an organization and apply the term corporate entrepreneurship exclusively to the aspect of organizational renewal and transformation essentially creating a new organization from the ashes of the old. The entrepreneurship-intrapreneurship-management continuum in Figure 1 may thus be clarified and differentiated using a lexicon of sub-domain terms. Independent entrepreneurship involves an individual or cohesive entity assembling resources from outside an organization to create a new venture. Intrapreneurship involves an employee or cohesive team of employees assembling resources from within one organization to create another new venture (which could be a stand-alone division or a new company as defined by Gartner, 1985). Corporate entrepreneurship involves the entire company being involved in transforming an old company into a new company from within. Finally, corporate management would be the skill, craft or art involved in controlling resources to sustain or create value within an existing organization (with the extreme being the so-called Robbinsian economizer as described by Kirzner, 1973). Finally, monotonicity would apply to any potential referent sets of further sub-domain terms. For example, a new term such as innovative social entrepreneurship must be fully contained within the higher domain terms of innovative entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship as well as entrepreneurship. Monotonicity allows researchers to subdivide, define and clarify their subject population referent sets quickly and efficiently. Thus terms such as imitative necessity entrepreneurship may be readily differentiated from innovative opportunity entrepreneurship. APPLYING THE LEXICON OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP TERMS The lexicon is applied by adding adjectives (such as social or innovative) to the noun entrepreneur using the proposed monotonic structure and classification taxonomy. Table 3 shows sample lexicon terms obtained by successive additions of adjectives. TABLE 3 Example Applications of the Lexicon
Where When Why How Who What Business entrepreneur Social entrepreneur Business entrepreneur Business entrepreneur Business entrepreneur Business entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur

High Expectation Opportunity

Innovative Imitative Adaptive (Innovative)

Independent Corporate Team Family (Independent) (Independent) Corporate (Independent) (Independent)

19

Necessity Nascent Startup Transformation (Transformation) Nascent Startup Opportunity Necessity

(Imitative)

International Local International Local

(Innovative) (Imitative) Innovative Imitative

(Independent) (Independent) (Independent) (Corporate) (Corporate) (Independent) Corporate Family

(Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur (Business) entrepreneur Social entrepreneur Business entrepreneur

(Note that the terms in parentheses are often omitted or assumed in certain contexts.) As shown in the first example, the most fundamental adjective is the what adjective. Entrepreneurship, as described in most of the literature, either explicitly or implicitly, would be classified in the proposed lexicon as business entrepreneurship. Historically, unless the author has explicitly deviated from this assumption by applying a what adjective in Table 3 such as social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs, as described in the literature, have generally been profit-seeking business entrepreneurs. Similarly, unless authors specifically applied a who adjective in Table 3 such as corporate entrepreneurship, team entrepreneurship or family business entrepreneurship, most scholars have, either explicitly or implicitly, described independent entrepreneurship. Historically, the vast majority of scholars have used the term entrepreneurship instead of the more precise lexicon term independent business entrepreneurship. The proper use of a lexicon, however, will omit adjectives only if that dimension is unspecified. Thus, if we are researching social entrepreneurs we are stating that the sample population may include independent entrepreneurs, team entrepreneurs, and/or corporate entrepreneurs since the who adjective is unspecified. It is important that other researchers know whether an adjective has been dropped because it is implied or because it is unspecified. In order to share results and build on the work of their colleagues, researchers need to know whether or not the sample population for innovative entrepreneurs has merely implied independent business entrepreneurs or whether the sample population also includes social entrepreneurs, team entrepreneurs, and corporate entrepreneurs since the what and who adjectives are unspecified. Thus, we can apply the how adjective to contrast innovative independent business entrepreneurs from imitative independent business entrepreneurs. If we are researching innovative entrepreneurs we are stating that the sample population may include team entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, and/or corporate entrepreneurs as well as independent business entrepreneurs. The additional clarity and precision derived from the proper use of a lexicon comes at the apparent cost of tediously cumulating adjectives. However, the enhanced precision may help resolve important disagreements among disparate entrepreneurship schools, theories or viewpoints.

20

The contradistinction between Schumpeterian-disequilibrium and Austrian-equilibrium approaches to entrepreneurship could potentially be resolved by applying the how adjective and comparing the roles of innovative entrepreneurs and imitative entrepreneurs. Namely, it is possible that innovative entrepreneurs cause creative destruction and market movements away from perfect competition and static equilibrium, whereas imitative entrepreneurs may drive the market back toward equilibrium as described in the Austrian School. Moving to the why adjective in Table 3, the GEM survey classifies entrepreneurs as high expectation entrepreneurs, necessity entrepreneurs or opportunity entrepreneurs but does not specify the other dimensions. As one of the largest and most comprehensive databases in the world on entrepreneurship, other researchers have attempted to use the underlying data to understand, for example, the effect of these different types of entrepreneurs on the economy. Valliere and Peterson (2006) showed that high expectation entrepreneurs had a more pronounced positive impact on the economies of developed countries. However, they concluded that the specific mechanism by which these entrepreneurs achieve this effect could be better understood if the underlying data provided additional information. Such additional information could be enhanced if entrepreneurs were further classified to include the other taxonomy dimensions such as how the entrepreneurs create value. It may be reasonable, for example, to imply that high-expectation entrepreneurs are innovative and that necessity entrepreneurs are imitative, and thus affect the economy through different mechanisms, but this linkage cannot be established with the existing data. Similarly, when applying the when adjective in exploring the process of new venture formation and growth (from nascent to emergent to startup through growth and transformation) it is important to specify the other adjectives to prevent confusion and potential contamination of the survey population if databases are shared between researchers. For example, as shown in Table 3, many nascent entrepreneurship studies may imply independent business entrepreneurs and not control for whether these nascent entrepreneurs have high expectations or are innovative (even though these dimensions may affect the behavior of these different types of entrepreneurs). In contrast, studies of transformation entrepreneurship may imply corporate entrepreneurship instead of independent entrepreneurship. When applying the where adjective, studies may assume that international entrepreneurs have been in business many years and are transforming themselves and being innovative by going international. In reality, some international entrepreneurs start up being international ventures and/or may not be innovative (e.g. an import-export business). To illustrate why the application of social psychology to entrepreneurship is difficult unless the appropriate additional lexicon adjectives are applied, consider the following examples. On one hand, we imagine Sir Richard Branson considering whether to use profits from one division of his Virgin Group to assist a certain social cause. On the other hand we see a recent immigrant starting up a new laundry business in collaboration with his family. Although both may be considered entrepreneurs, there is no reason to expect them to have the same traits, skills, beliefs, attitudes, or cognitive processes. They may not belong in the same sample population. When we understand that Sir Richard Branson in this example is acting as an international, nascent, opportunity, innovative, corporate social entrepreneur and that the recent immigrant

21

is acting as a local, startup, necessity, imitative, immigrant family business entrepreneur we can apply social psychology to different entrepreneurship sample populations in a more accurate and meaningful way. Discussion The purpose of the lexicon is twofold. First, it provides scholars with a clear, consistent, integrated set of highly differentiated terms so that other scholars will clearly understand the relevant referent set. An adjectival term may be appended from each element of the taxonomy to add incremental levels of specificity. Thus, one researcher may have surveyed international, nascent, high-expectation, innovative, independent business entrepreneurs whereas another has studied local, emergent, lifestyle, imitative, independent business entrepreneurs. If certain dimensions have not been controlled for, then the less specific terms would apply (e.g. high expectation business entrepreneurs vs. necessity business entrepreneurs in the GEM surveys). The ability to specify clearly the referent set may help researchers establish the broader principles or theories involved in entrepreneurship and/or resolve disagreements. For example, one may argue that scholars are unable to state, Entrepreneurs have higher nACH than managers. However, it may become possible to state, International, emergent, highexpectation, innovative, independent business entrepreneurs have higher nACH than local, lifestyle, imitative, established family business entrepreneurs. Once such a level of specificity is established, it may become possible to discern that some types of entrepreneurs have high nACH while others have lower nACH such that overall, entrepreneurs, as a group, have similar average scores as managers. The ability to specify clearly the referent set using a lexicon also enables researchers to use the data obtained by other researchers and/or share databases more easily. Ideally, each subject in each study would be tied directly to these classification attributes using a standardized set of classification survey questions (asked along with other common survey questions such as age, gender and country). Secondly, a taxonomy and lexicon provide structure to a field and encourage inquiry along the boundaries between lexicon terms. For example, if we were to graph Social vs. Business (two aspects of the what dimension), we could identify companies that actively seek the creation of both economic values (profits) and social values potentially espousing the stakeholder model of corporate governance. We could identify companies who seek only the creation of economic values potentially espousing the shareholder model of corporate governance. We could find non-profit organizations primarily devoted to creating social values, but that also create new economic values (generating residual surplus over expenses) that they reinvest in their primary mission. Finally, we could find companies that seek economic values while actively destroying social values (such as companies that illegally pollute). By graphing two dimensions against one another (e.g. how vs. who) we may explore the differences between innovative independent entrepreneurs, innovative intrapreneurs and

22

innovative corporate entrepreneurs and imitative independent entrepreneurs, imitative intrapreneurs and imitative corporate entrepreneurs. Future Work The proposed lexicon was created as an aid to understanding how the apparently contradictory historical dimensions of entrepreneurship can be related to one another under a single classification methodology. It is hoped that, using this tool, researchers can revisit the literature and better understand how different types of entrepreneurs are understood by different theories or schools (e.g. innovative entrepreneurs may validate the Schumpeterian-disequilibrium approach and imitative entrepreneurs may validate the Austrian-equilibrium approach). The proposed lexicon is not meant to articulate comprehensively every sub-domain term within entrepreneurship. New terms will undoubtedly be coined and/or clarified by future researchers. It is the authors hope that a standardized survey instrument will be created to classify accurately survey populations. If different researchers use such a set of standardized questions, then it will become easier for scholars to share databases and/or build upon prior databases, create longitudinal studies, and build on each others works. SUMMARY Historically entrepreneurship has become a label of convenience with little inherent meaning (Gartner, 1990: 16). If the definition of entrepreneurship is so broad as to encompass too many disparate subject populations, our research will show conflicting results about the nature of entrepreneurship and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for entrepreneurship scholars to build upon the works of their predecessors (Collins et al., 2003). This paper applies the domains of classical logic and taxonomy to propose a lexicon of entrepreneurship terms to help address these problems. A conceptual hierarchy structure is created to determine the genus of entrepreneurship and differentiate it from its nearest neighbor concepts. This places entrepreneurship within the overall lexicon of business terms. Both entrepreneurship and management are placed under the genus Mind, a new term created to stand alongside Land, Labor and Capital as the fourth fundamental source of all human value. Value-creating tools associated with entrepreneurship such as innovation, leadership, opportunity-spotting and risk-taking fall one level lower in the conceptual hierarchy. With an understanding of where entrepreneurship fits in the conceptual hierarchy of nearest neighbor concepts, what were previously viewed as contradictory historical definitions can be seen to articulate complementary viewpoints or dimensions of entrepreneurship that may be used to form the taxonomy classification structure for creating our lexicon. Rather than considering prior definitions to be false, we may instead understand the essential elements of truth that most contain. The dimensions that arise from alternative entrepreneurship schools and theories derived from classical and neoclassical economics, the resource theory of the firm, risk theory, dynamic

23

theory, the Austrian school, traits school and behavior school are used to create a classification taxonomy (what, who, how, why, when and where) to articulate the various sub-domain concepts such as social entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, necessity entrepreneurship and opportunity entrepreneurship and create a consistent lexicon of terms. The requirement for monotonicity among lexicon terms is explained and, as an outcome, the new terms business entrepreneurship and independent entrepreneurship are coined. Entrepreneurship is differentiated from management along the entrepreneurship-management continuum to clarify the sub-domain lexicon terms independent entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship and corporate management. Finally, the application of the lexicon is described by adding successive adjectives (such as social or innovative) to the noun entrepreneur to illustrate the use of the lexicon with various examples. It is hoped that the proposed conceptual hierarchy and lexicon successfully integrates the historical context and the needs of scholars from multiple disciplines to contribute to a shared foundational terminology for the field of entrepreneurship.

REFERENCES
Acs, Z., Arenius, P., Hay, M., & Minniti, M. 2004. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2004 Executive Report. Babson Park MA and London UK: Babson College and London Business School. Acs, Z., Carlsson, B., & Karlsson, C. 1999. Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises and the Macroeconomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. AHDEL. 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fourth ed. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Aitken, H. G. J. 1965. Entrepreneurial Research: The History of an Intellectual Innovation Explorations in Enterprise: 3-19. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Alvarez, S., & Busenitz, L. 2001. The Entrepreneurship of Resource-based Theory. Journal of Management 27: 755-775. Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. 2001. Intrapreneurship: Construct Refinement and Cross-Cultural Validation. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5): 33. Baumol, W. 1968. Papers and Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. Paper presented at the Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory The American Economic Review.

24

Baumol, W. 2004. Entrepreneurial Enterprises, large Established Firms and Other Components of the Free-Market Growth Machine. Small Business Economics, 23: 9-21. Baumol, W. J. 1993. Formal entrepreneurship theory in economics: Existence and bounds. Business Venturing 8: 13. Birley, S., & Westhead, P. 1994. A Taxonomy of Business Start-Up Reasons and their Impact on Firm Growth and Size. Business Venturing, 9(1): 24. Bolton, W., & Thompson, J. 2000. Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. Oxford UK: Butterworth Heinemann. Branden, P. L. 1977. Technological Entrepreneurship. Ann Arbor MI.: University of Michigan. Brockhaus, R. 1980. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management, 23: 11. Brockhaus, R., & Horwitz, P. 1986. The psychology of the entrepreneur. Cambridge MA: Ballinger. Bull, I., & Willard, G. 1993. Toward a theory of entrepreneurship. Business Venturing 8(3): 12. Bustenitz, L., & Barney, J. 1997. Differences Between Entrepreneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Biases and Heuristics in Strategic Decision-Making. Business Venturing, 12(1): 21. Bygrave, W., & Hofer, C. 1991. Theorizing about Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2): 9. Cantillon, R. 1755. Essai Sur la Nature du Commerce en General (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General). London: Macmillan. Carsrud, A., Olm, K., & Eddy, G. 1986. Entrepreneurship: Research in quest of a paradigm. In D. Sexton, & R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge MA: Ballinger. Casson, M. 2003. The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Churchill, N. 1992. Research issues in entrepreneurship. In D. Sexton, & J. Kasarda (Eds.), The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship: 579-596. Boston MA. Clark, J. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth. New York, NY: Macmillan Company. Clark, J. 1907. Essentials of Economic Theory. New York, NY: Macmillan.Company.

25

Cole, A. 1959. Business Enterprise in its Social Setting. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Collins, C., Locke, E., & Shane, S. 2003. Entrepreneurial Motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 23. Cooper, A., & Dunkelberg, W. 1986. Entrepreneurship and Paths to Business Ownership. Strategic Management 7(1): 15. Cooper, A. 1993. Challenges in Predicting New Firm Performance. Business Venturing, 8(3). Copi, I., & Cohen, C. 2000. Introduction to Logic (10 ed.). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall Inc. Covin, J., & Slevin, D. 1991. A Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship as Firm Behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1): 8. Cunningham, J., & Lischeron, J. 1991. Defining Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 29(1): 45-61. Dees, J., Haas, M., & Haas, P. 1998. The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City Missouri. Denecker, M. 2000. Extending Classical Logic with Inductive Definitions, Vol. 2007. Draheim, K. 1972. Factors Influencing the Rate of Formation of Technical Companies. In A. Cooper, & J. Komives (Eds.), Technical Entrepreneurship: A Symposium: 24. Milwaukee: Center for Venture Management. Drucker, P. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Dunkelberg, W., & Cooper, A. 1982. Entrepreneurial typologies. In K. Vesper (Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1- 15. Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Ely, R., & Hess, R. 1949. The Entrepreneur and Economic Theory: A Historical and Analytical Approach. Paper presented at the The American Economic Review. Evans, J. G. 1949. The Entrepreneur and Economic Theory: A Historical and Analytical Approach, The American Economic Review, Vol. 39: 336-348. Gartner, W.B. 2004. Achieving Critical Mess in Entrepreneurship Scholarship. In J. Katz, & D. Shepherd (Eds.), Corporate Entrepreneurship Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth Vol. 7: 199-216. Elsevier: Oxford UK. Gartner, W. B. 2001. Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 12. Gartner, W. B. 1985. A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Formation. Academy of Management Review 10(4): 696- 706.

26

Gartner, W. B. 1989. Who Is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 13(4): 21. Gartner, W. B. 1990. What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Entrepreneurship? Business Venturing, 5(1): 13. Glancey, K., & McQuaid, R. 2000. Entrepreneurial Economics. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave. Harbison, F. 1956. Entrepreneurial Organization as a Factor in Economic Development. Quarterly Journal of Economics: 364-379. Hart, K. 1975. Public Benefactor? The Entrepreneur in his Community. In J. Goody (Ed.), Changing Social Structure in Ghana. London: International African Institute. Hartman. 1959. Managers and Entrepreneurs: A Useful Distinction? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 429- 457. Hawley, F. 1907. Enterprise and the Productive Process. New York, NY: Putnam. Hayek, F. v. 1937. Economics and Knowledge. Economica, 4(1): 33-54. Hebert, R., & Link, A. 1988. In Search of the Meaning of Entrepreneurship. Hornaday, J., & Aboud, J. 1971. Characteristics of Successful Entrepreneurs. Personnel Psychology 24: 141-153. Hornaday, J., & Bunker, C. 1970. The Nature of the Entrepreneur. Howell, R. 1972. Comparative Profiles: Entrepreneurs Versus the Hired Executive: San Francisco Peninsula Semiconductor Industry. In A. Cooper, & J. Komives (Eds.), Technical Entrepreneurship: A Symposium. Milwaukee: Center for Venture. Hufeland. 1807. Neue Grundlage der Staatswissenshaft Giessen. Hull, D., & Bosley, J. 1980. Reviewing the Heffalump: Identifying Potential Entrepreneurs by Personality Characteristics. Small Business Management, 18: 7. Jackson, W., Gaster, W., & Gaulden, C. 2004. The Continued Saga of Searching for the Entrepreneur: A Historical Perspective, Vol. 2005. Katz, J. A., & Shepherd, D. 2004. Corporate Entrepreneurship. Oxford UK: Elsevier. Kayne. 1999. State Entrepreneurship Policies and Programs. Kauffman Center publication, Nov. Kansas City, Missouri. Kemerling, G. 2001. Definition and Meaning, 2005. Kent, C. 1982. Entrepreneurship in economic development. In D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Vol. xxxi. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

27

Kirzner, I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I. 1997. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Economic Literature, 25(1): 60- 85. Knight, F. 1964. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York, NY: Augustus M. Kelley. Kuratko, D., Ireland, R., & Hornsby, J. 2004. Corporate Entrepreneurship Behavior among Managers: a Review of Theory, Research, and Practice. In J. Katz, & D. Shepherd (Eds.), "Corporate Entrepreneurship" Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth: 7-45. Elsevier: Oxford UK. Lachman, R. 1980. Toward Measurement of Entrepreneurial Tendencies. Management International Review, 20(2): 8. Lavington, F. 1922. Trade Cycle: An Account of the Causes Producing Rhythmical Changes in the Activity of Business. London: P.S. King. Litzinger, W. 1965. The Motel Entrepreneur and the Motel Manager. Academy of Management Journal, 8: 13. Low, M. 2001. The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): 8. Low, M., & MacMillan, I. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management 14(2): 139-116. Lumpkin, G., & Dess, G. 1996. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135- 172. Marshall, A. 1890(1961). Principles of Economics (Ninth (variorum) ed.). London: Macmillan and Company. Matley, H. 2005. Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: what is entrepreneurship and does it matter? Education and Training, 47(8/9): 665-677. Mescon, T., & Montanari, J. 1981. The Personalities of Independent and Franchise Entrepreneurs: An Empirical Analysis of Concepts. Journal of Enterprise Management, 3(2): 10. McClelland, D. 1961. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. 1987. Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 21: 14. McQuaid, R., & Glancey, K. 2000. Entrepreneurial Economics. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave. Mises, L. V. 1949. Human Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

28

Mitton, D. 1989. The Complete Entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(3): 11. Moschandreas, M. 1994. Business Economics. London: Routledge. OECD. 1998. Fostering Entrepreneurship. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Palmer, M. 1971. The Application of Psychological Testing to Entrepreneurial Potential. California Management Review, 13(3): 7. Penrose, E. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Frim. NewYork: John Wiley. Pickle, H. 1964. Personality and success: an evaluation of personal characteristics of successful small business managers. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Reynolds, P., Hay, M., & Camp, S. 1999. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Ripsas, S. 1998. Towards an Interdisciplinary Theory of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 10: 12. Rocha, H. O. 2004. Entrepreneurship and Development: The Role of Clusters. Small Business Economics, 23(5): 47. Ronstadt, R. 1986. Exit, Stage Left: Why Entrepreneurs End Their Entrepreneurial Careers Before Retirement. Business Venturing, 1(3): 15. Sandberg, W. 1992. Strategic Managements Potential Contributions to a Theory of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3): 17. Say, J. 1816. A Treatise on Political Economy. London: Sherwood, Neeley and Jones. Schumpeter, J. 1976. The Process of Creative Destruction, In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: 81-86. London: George Allen and Unwin. Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sexton, D., & Smilor, R. 1986. Introduction. In D. Sexton, & R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Cambridge MA: Ballinger. Shane, S., Locke, E., & Collins, C. 2003. Entrepreneurial Motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 257-279. Shane, S. 2000. Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organization Science, 11(4): 448-468.

29

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. 2000. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226. Shaver, K., & Scott, L. 1991. Person, Process, Choice: the Psychology of New Venture Creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16: 22. Smith, A. 1776. The Wealth of Nations (2003 ed.). New York, NY: Bantam Dell. Solomon, G., & Winslow, E. 1988. Toward a descriptive profile of the entrepreneur. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22: 9. Soltow, J. 1968. The Entrepreneur in Economic History. The American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 58(2): 8. Soltow, R. 1957. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics: 18. Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. 1991. A New Entrepreneurial Paradigm. In A. Etzioni, & P. Lawrence (Eds.), Socioeconomics: Toward a New Synthesis: 185- 208. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. 1990. A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal 11: 10. Stewart, A. 1991. A Prospectus on the Anthropology of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2): 20. Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. 2000. Social entrepreneurship a new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision 35(5): 328-338. Thornton, M. 2005. The origin of economic theory: a portrait of Richard Cantillon (16801734). Thunen. 1826. ?? Der Isolirte Staat appeared in 1826. Timmons, J. 1978. Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business, 3: 5- 17. Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. 2006. Exploring entrepreneurship and growth in emerging and developed countries, Emerging Entrepreneurship conference. India: ISB Hyderabad. Vesper, K. 1982. Introduction and Summary of Entrepreneurship Research. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship: xxxi-xxxviii. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Ven, A. V. d., & Engleman, R. 2004. Central Problems in Managing Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship. In J. Katz, & D. Shepherd (Eds.), Corporate Entrepreneurship

30

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth Vol. 7: 47-72. Oxford UK: Elsevier. Venkataraman, S. 1997. The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, 3: 119- 138. Watson, T. 1995. Entrepreneurship and Professional Management: A Fatal Distinction. International Small Business Journal, 13(2): 12. Weber, M. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Scribners. Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. 1999. Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, 13: 27-55. Woo, C., Cooper, A., & Dunkelberg, W. 1991. The Development and Interpretation of Entrepreneurial Typologies. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(2): 18.

31