An Operationalization of Stevenson's Conceptualization of Entrepreneurship as

Opportunity-Based Firm Behavior

Author(s): Terrence E. Brown, Per Davidsson and Johan Wiklund
Source: Strategic Management Journal , Oct., 2001, Vol. 22, No. 10 (Oct., 2001), pp. 953-
968
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094378

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3094378?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Strategic
Management Journal

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Strategic Management Journal
Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)
DOI: 10.1002/smj.190

AN OPERATIONALIZATION OF STEVENSON'S
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS
OPPORTUNITY-BASED FIRM BEHAVIOR
TERRENCE E BROWN,' PER DAVIDSSON2* and JOHAN WIKLUND2
Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship, Stockholm, Sweden
2Jonkoping International Business School, Jonkoping University, Jonkoping, Sweden

Stevenson (1983) holds that entrepreneurial management, defined as a set of opportunity-based

management practices, can help firms remain vital and contribute to firm and societal level
value creation. While his conceptualization has received much attention, little progress has been
made because of a lack of empirical tools to examine his propositions. This article seeks to
resolve this by describing a new instrument that was developed specifically for operationalizing
Stevenson's conceptualization. After two pre-tests, the instrument was tested full scale on a very
large (1200+ cases) stratified random sample of firms with different size, governance structure,
and industry affiliation. The results show that both in the full sample and in various sub-samples
it was possible to identify six sub-dimensions with high discriminant validity and moderate to
high reliability, which represent dimensions of Stevenson's theoretical reasoning. We label these
Strategic Orientation, Resource Orientation, Management Structure, Reward Philosophy, Growth
Orientation and Entrepreneurial Culture. We were further able to show that these dimensions
only partly overlap with 'Entrepreneurial Orientation', the hitherto best established empirical
instrument for assessing a firm's degree of entrepreneurship. Our instrument should open up
opportunities for researchers to further evaluate entrepreneurship in existingfirms. Copyright ?
2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION 2000b). In order to test theory, and thus dev

the entrepreneurship field further, we must h
Traditionally, entrepreneurship research hasto
access pri-
valid measures of key constructs. Unf
marily been concerned with the start-up of newfew validated measures of firm-l
tunately,
firms (Schendel, 1990; Sexton and Landstrom,
entrepreneurship exist today, which is a m
2000a). Recently, however, entrepreneurship
impedimenthas to such development.
to an increased extent become accepted as a firm-
Some useful work has been done in the area.
level phenomenon deserving scholarlyMiller attention
(1983) suggested that firms' degree of
(e.g., Zahra, Karutko, and Jennings, 1999). This
entrepreneurship could be seen as the extent to
is based on the understanding that entrepreneur-
which they take risks, innovate and act proactively.
ship is relevant to managers irrespectively
He alsoofdeveloped
the a scale to empirically mea-
size or age of their organization. As firm-level
sure these dimensions. The measurement instru-
entrepreneurship research is still in itsment
infancy it
has subsequently been further developed by
lacks solid, testable theory (Sexton and Landstrom,
Covin and Slevin (1986; 1988; 1989). Wiklund
(1998) identified no less than twelve empirical
studies based on their scales. The sheer number of
Key words: corporate entrepreneurship; operationaliza-
tion; Stevenson; opportunity-based studies applying this measure suggests that it is a
*Correspondence to: Professor Per Davidsson, Jonkbping Inter-
useful
national Business School, Jonkoping University, PO BOXinstrument
1026, for measuring important aspects
SE-5511 11 Jonkoping, Sweden. of entrepreneurship. Despite its popularity some

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 28 January 1999
Final revision received 22 January 2001

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
954 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

weaknesses of the instrument should be noted. The of entrepreneurship echoes classical definitions
instrument taps a mix of current attitudes and past such as Kirzner's (1973) "alertness to oppor-
behavior. Consequently, researchers find it hard totunity". More recently, Stevenson's opportunity-
determine what type of construct the scale really based view of entrepreneurship has received wide-
measures and the proper label of the scale (Wik-spread recognition and support in the literature (cf.
lund, 1999). In addition, careful assessment of itemreferences above). In summary, Stevenson has pro-
vided us with a conceptualization of entrepreneur-
content and factor structure suggests that the proac-
tiveness dimension is ambiguous (Lumpkin andship that places it within a broader management
Dess, 1996; 1997). framework and is coherent with classical as well
More importantly, while the instrument taps as contemporary definitions of entrepreneurship.
important aspects of firm-level entrepreneurship it Despite its recognition and intuitive appeal,
may not be comprehensive enough (Zahra, 1993).Stevenson's opportunity-based view of entrepre-
In particular, while addressing partly overlap- neurship has hitherto not been subject to sys-
ping aspects, the measure does not explicitly and tematic empirical testing. We find this to be a
directly address to what extent firms are involved major impediment to the further development of
in the recognition or exploitation of opportunity. entrepreneurship research given the importance of
Contemporary definitions of entrepreneurship tend entrepreneurship to a gamut of organizations and
to center around the pursuit of opportunity (e.g., the significance of opportunity-based definitions of
Brazael, 1999; Churchill and Muzyka, 1994; Shane entrepreneurship.
and Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman, 1997). In Consequently, the purpose of this article is
fact, Shane and Venkataraman (2000) define the to develop a measurement instrument to empiri-
domain of entrepreneurship research in terms of cally gauge Stevenson's conceptualization of entre-
opportunity recognition and exploitation. Unfortu-preneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior
nately, to our knowledge, no measurement instru- and to test it on a large sample of firms. The next
ment that gauges firm-level opportunity-based be-section outlines the eight dimensions of Steven-
havior exists today. Thus, while acknowledging theson's conceptualization. This provides the theo-
value of the Miller/Covin and Slevin instrument, retical domain for the measurement instrument.
we hold that the development of such an instru- Following this, we turn to a detailed description
ment is essential. of how the instrument was developed, revised
The opportunity-based conceptualization ofand empirically validated. This includes an exam-
entrepreneurship developed by the Harvard profes- ination of convergent validity through compar-
sor Howard Stevenson and collaborators providesisons with Covin and Slevin's (1989) widely used
an important point of departure for the develop-Entrepreneurial Orientation scale and an evalua-
ment of such an instrument. He has long arguedtion of our scale against established psychometric
that entrepreneurial value creating processes cancriteria. The following section discusses the use-
take place in any type of organization (Steven- fulness and possible extension of the scale we have
son, 1983; Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985; Steven-developed. We conclude with discussing the schol-
son and Jarillo, 1986; 1990). In established orga-arly and managerial implications of the scale.
nizations entrepreneurship is largely a manage-
ment question. As Stevenson notes: "Entrepreneur-
ship is more than just starting new businesses... STEVENSON'S OPPORTUNITY-BASED
entrepreneurial management may be seen as aVIEW OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
'mode of management' different from traditional
management" (Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990:25) Stevenson conceptualizes entrepreneurship
Stevenson defines entrepreneurship as "The pro- management approach that has at its heart a
cess by which individuals-either on their own orconsuming passion for the pursuit and explo
inside organizations-pursue opportunities with- tion of opportunity without regard to resou
out regard to the resources they currently control" currently controlled (Stevenson, 1983). He
(Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990:23). This definition trasts entrepreneurial behavior with admini
puts the focus on entrepreneurship as the pursuit of tive behavior. Along the spectrum of behav
opportunity irrespectively of organizational con-between these extremes, promoter firms are p
text. This opportunity oriented conceptualizationat the entrepreneurial end and trustees a
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 955

administrative end. The promoter's sole intent is the environment and not the resources that may
pursuing and exploiting opportunities regardless of be required to exploit them. As opportunities
resources controlled, while the trustee strives to drive strategy, almost any opportunity is rele-
make the most efficient use of its resources pool vant to the firm. Once an opportunity is identi-
(as "required" by fiduciary responsibility). Certain fied, resources to exploit it need, of course, to be
business and environmental factors pull individu- marshaled. Conversely, the trustee's strategy is to
als and firms towards entrepreneurial behavior or utilize the resources of the firm efficiently. The
towards administrative behavior. resources are the starting point and only opportu-
In his early work, Stevenson categorized the nities that relate to existing resources are relevant
management behavior of the promoter and trustee to the firm.
types along six dimensions: Strategic Orienta- The Commitment to Opportunity is similarly
tion, Commitment to Opportunity, Commitmentrelated to strategic action. The promoter is action-
of Resources, Control of Resources, Manage- oriented and able to commit and decommit to
ment Structure and Reward Philosophy (Steven-
this action rapidly. Trustees tend to be analysis-
son, 1983; Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985). He oriented and as a result of multiple decision
has developed his thoughts with slight varia-
constituents, negotiated strategies, and an eye
tions in a series of subsequent papers where hetoward risk reduction, their behavior tends to
more or less explicitly adds two more dimensions: be slow and inflexible. For a given opportunity,
Entrepreneurial Culture and Growth Orientationthe promoter is much more likely than is the
(Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985; Stevenson and Jar- trustee to pursue it. If the trustee chooses to pur-
illo, 1986; 1990). Table 1 summarizes Stevenson'ssue the given opportunity, it would be with a
conceptualization and the key characteristics firms much larger initial investment and the intention
are likely to exhibit at the entrepreneurial andof remaining in that line of business for consider-
administrative ends of the spectrum. The dimen- able time.
sions are elaborated below.

Commitment of resources and control of

Strategic orientation and commitment to resources

opportunity
For Stevenson an opportunistic resourc
tion consists firstly of a particular Co
These first two dimensions are strategic in nature.
Strategic Orientation describes what factors drive
of Resources. An entrepreneurially man
the creation of strategy. The promoter's strat-attempts to maximize value creation b
egy is driven by the opportunities that exist ing
in opportunities while minimizing th

Table 1. Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurial management

Entrepreneurial focus (promoter) Conceptual dimension Administrative focus (trustee)

Driven by perception of - Strategic orientation - Driven by controlled resources

opportunity
Revolutionary with short duration - Commitment to opportunity - Evolutionary with long duration
Many stages with minimal - Commitment of resources - A single stage with complete
exposure at each stage commitment out of decision
Episodic use or rent of required - Control of resources Ownership or employment of
resources required resources
Flat, with multiple informal - Management structure - Hierarchy
networks

Based on value creation - Reward philosophy - Based on responsibility and

seniority
Rapid growth is top priority; risk - Growth orientation - Safe, slow, steady
accepted to achieve growth
Promoting broad search for - Entrepreneurial culture - Opportunity search restricted by
opportunities resources controlled; failure
punished

Copyright ( 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
956 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

required, especially firm resources. In this effort

lines of authority, highly routinized work, systems
the firm may "test the waters" by committing small
designed to measure productivity, etc.
amounts of resources in a multi-step manner with How a firm's Reward Philosophy is organized is
minimal (risk) exposure at each step. This allows important to firm behavior. The promoter is inter-
the firm to stop and change direction at any step,ested in creating and harvesting wealth (value).
if and when circumstances deem necessary. The As a result, entrepreneurially managed firms tend
to base compensation on how individuals con-
accumulation of resources creates organizational
pressures that make it difficult to maintain this
tribute to value creation. The organization's struc-
type of commitment of resources. These pressuresture is conducive to this evaluation because it
is designed for independent action and account-
include the use of capital allocation systems, for-
mal planning systems, certain incentive systems, ability. Trustee firms, managed administratively,
tend to relate their compensation to the amount
attempts for managers to reduce their personal risk,
and managerial turnover. The trustee's commit- of resources under the individual's control (i.e.,
ment of resources, therefore, is characterized by assets and/or people) and with seniority. If the
a thorough analysis in advance with large, but lessindividual is successful, s/he is promoted to a
reversible, investments. position with even more resources under his/her
The second component of Stevenson's oppor-management.
tunistic view of resources maintains that promoter
firms further reduce the resources they own and
Growth orientation and entrepreneurial
use as much as possible. Promoters become skilled culture
at the use of other people's resources including
A closer reading of Stevenson's later work sug-
financial capital, intellectual capital, skills, com-
petencies, etc. (Starr and MacMillan, 1990). gests
In that in addition to the six dimensions included
this effort the firm is less concerned with own-in his charts, he also regards Growth Orientation
and Entrepreneurial Culture (Stevenson and Jar-
ing resources than it is with its ability to use,
illo, 1986:11; Stevenson and Jarillo, 1990:25) as
exploit and/or extract value from them. Stevenson
further explains that the process of determiningimportant dimensions of entrepreneurial manage-
which assets to own and which to rent, subcon-ment. As regards growth, it is assumed that pro-
moters desire rapid growth and that entrepreneurial
tract, outsource, etc. is "a time-phased sequence of
management will help create it. While the trustee
decisions" (1983:10) for the firm. Stevenson calls
may also desire growth, it must be slower, even,
this dimension Control of Resources. The trustee,
on the other hand, favors ownership control and of at a steady pace, because anything faster is
resources, and the management of these resourcesunsettling for the firm, i.e., it puts at risk the
tends to come into the focus of top management'sresources that have already been accumulated and
attention. the jobs of top management. Furthermore, trustees
believe that administrative management will help
create this type of growth.
Management structure and reward
The promoter firm encourages ideas, experimen-
philosophy
tation and creativity, thus developing an entre-
The Management Structure of the promoter orga- preneurial culture in which new ideas are valued
nization is organic (Burs and Stalker, 1961). It and sought out. As opportunity is the starting point,
is flat and made of multiple informal networks. a broad range of ideas is worth seeking and consid-
Because some of the resources that the promoter ering. Conversely, if currently controlled resources
uses may not be owned by the firm, and there- were the starting point, then only ideas that relate
fore fall outside of the formal organization, non- to these resources would be relevant. With this
traditional means of organizing are often needed. narrow span the flow of ideas judged worthy of
The promoter's organization is designed to coor- consideration would be much smaller even if ideas
dinate key non-controlled resources, to be flexible were actively sought for. Therefore, promoters
and to create an environment where employees are create a work environment that is full of ideas,
free to create and seek opportunity. The trustee's while trustees create a work environment with just
firm, on the other hand, is organized as a for- enough ideas to match the resources of the firm,
malized hierarchy, characterized by clearly defined or even a lack of ideas.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 957

In summary, Stevenson's view of entrepreneurial The sample

management puts opportunity-based behavior at
In order to generalize the results it is essen-
the center. Because these behaviors may be
tial to utilize a representative sample in scale
"critical to the long term vitality of our economy"
development (Robinson et al., 1991). However, a
(Stevenson. 1983:3), it is important to facilitate the
simple random sample of firms would be totally
empirical study of them. The remainder of this arti-
dominated by micro enterprises with fewer than
cle describes the development, reliability testing
ten employees. Such firms represent neither a large
and validation of a survey instrument intended to
share of economic activity nor what Stevenson
gauge Stevenson's view of entrepreneurial
had in mind when formulating his theory. Adher-
management.
ing to Stevenson' view of entrepreneurship as a
management approach relevant to many different
DEVELOPING THE MEASUREMENT types of firms, it was vital to obtain a diverse
INSTRUMENT sample with analyzable sub-groups. The primary
sampling frame consisted of 24 cells of approxi-
Writing the items mately 110 firms each. The sampling criteria were:
(a) industrial sector divided into four groups (man-
In the development of the scale to measure entre-
ufacturing, professional services, wholesale/retail,
preneurial management as conceptualized by
and other services); (b) employment size class
Stevenson, we followed the recommendations fortwo groups (10-49, 50-249, which is
divided into
scale construction and evaluation made by Robin-
the European Union's cutoff for small and medium
son, Shaver, and Wrightsman (1991). The sizedfirst
enterprises, respectively); and (c) corporate
step in scale construction is writing the items to
governance divided into three groups (indepen-
be included in the scale. This sometimes difficult
dent firms, members of company groups with
and time-consuming task was facilitated by the fewer that 250 employees, and members of com-
fact that Stevenson's conceptualization is relatively
pany groups with 250 employees or more). The
detailed. His eight dimensions of entrepreneurial total sampling frame consisted of 2455 firms. The
management provided guidelines for the relevant sample was obtained from Statistics Sweden (the
construct domain. In fact, he went so far as to Bureau of Census). The target respondent was
include some specific questions that would be the CEO.
asked by the promoter firm and by the trustee firm Data were collected in a two step manner. First,
(Stevenson, 1983; Stevenson and Gumpert, 1985). the firms were contacted and surveyed by tele-
We took these as the starting point for a first ver- phone yielding 2034 responses (82.9%). Second,
sion of the instrument. In addition to using those all firms interviewed were sent a mail survey. The
few questions more or less directly, they were questions of interest for this study were in the
used as prototypes for the other questions that we mail portion. We received mail responses from
developed. This helped establish the instrument's 1278 firms after two reminders. Given the formula
face validity. The questions were initially devel- provided by Dillman (1978), the response rate
oped in English and then translated into Swedish was 52.1%. This considerable response rate helped
by a team of native English and native Swedish safeguard against non-response bias. Excluding
speaking researchers. cases with severe internal non-response, we have
The items were of the forced choice type, with an effective sample of 1233 firms for the main
pairs of statements representing the opposite ends analysis.
of the promoter/trustee continuum. A ten-point
scale divided the two statements. The respondents
Testing and adjusting the scale
were asked to mark the number which best rep-
resented the view of their firm. In order to avoid The scale was subjected to extensive pretesting to
response set contamination, i.e., the tendency to assure that the wording of individual items was
respond to statements for reasons other than theirunderstandable, and that the different items devel-
content, the questions were arranged so that the oped to measure the same dimension indeed did so.
promoter statements and the trustee statements A total of 29 items were developed, two to six for
appeared on both the right and left sides (Robinson
each of Stevenson's dimensions of entrepreneur-
et al., 1991). ship. Twenty items are included in the final scales.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
958 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

and additions were made. The remainder of the full

The first version of the questionnaire was tested on
a convenience sample of 186 small and medium- sample received a 22-item version of the question-
sized firms-both independent and those that werenaire. When complete data had been collected it
part of company groups. The responding CEOsturned out that one resource item had a misloading
were approached with a cover letter and a mail on the Reward Philosophy factor and was dropped.
Another resource item loaded on two different fac-
questionnaire. The mailings resulted in 121 com-
pleted questionnaires after one reminder (65%tors at levels barely above 0.40. As a result, this
response rate). At this stage of the research we
item was also dropped. A copy of the 20 questions
that
hoped to develop reliable indices of the eight constitute our measurement instrument can be
dimensions of Stevenson's conceptualization, asfound in the Appendix (Table Al).
well as combining them into an overall index Factor analysis was run with the remaining 20
of entrepreneurial management. As they are all items using principal components extraction and
varimax rotation. The results are displayed in
assumed to be aspects of the same promoter/trustee
distinction it was uncertain, however, whether one,
Table 2. Each item has its highest loading on the
eight, or some other number of dimensions wouldfactor it conceptually belongs to, and no item has
be extracted in an orthogonal factor analysis. a loading of 0.30 or more on any other factor. A
The result from this pretest confirmed that thevast majority of the loadings are in the high 0.60s
items were relevant, although alterations of indi-
and up. Our conclusion from this analysis is that
vidual items were needed. The second pretest hadwe have successfully isolated six empirically dis-
the form of a 'rolling' test. Mailings were halted
tinct factors that represent important dimensions
when approximately 200 questionnaires had been of Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneur-
ship as opportunity-based business behavior. How-
sent out, and the target items were factor analyzed.
As a result of this analysis a few more deletions
ever, the number of factors is six rather than the

Table 2. Final factor analysis results for Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurial management (n = 1233)

Factor Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

(var. expl) (11.2%) (8.9%) (13.7%) (8.5%) (8.1%) (9.7%)

Variable
Strategic Orientation 1 0.79
Strategic Orientation 2 0.85
Strategic Orientation 3 0.82
Resource Orientation 1 0.56
Resource Orientation 2 0.80
Resource Orientation 5 0.72
Resource Orientation 6 0.49
Mgmnt Structure 1 0.75
Mgmnt Structure 2 0.80
Mgmnt Structure 3 0.68
Mgmnt Structure 4 0.67
Mgmnt Structure 5 0.65
Reward Philosophy 1 0.74
Reward Philosophy 2 0.66
Reward Philosophy 3 0.73
Growth Orientation 1 0.84
Growth Orientation 2 0.86
Entrepren Culture 1 0.82
Entrepren Culture 2 0.66
Entrepren Culture 3 0.84

Note: Respondents who did not com

as were respondents who skipped thi
substitution was employed. This co
which were introduced after the 'rol
'side loadings'. The displayed 'explai
Bartlett's test approx. Chi2 = 5214; d

Copyright ? 2001 John Strat.

Wiley & Mgmt.
Sons, Ltd

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 959

eight that could have been anticipated on the basis entrepreneurial management is a "cohesive pat-
of the theoretical dimensions. At the first pretest tern of behaviors" (Stevenson, 1983:16) we would
we were unable to extract a separate Opportu- expect the six dimensions to be positively cor-
nity Orientation factor. The items intended to tap related. When summed indices were created on
that dimension dropped out of the analysis, and the basis of the factor pattern, moderately positive
we found it hard to develop new ones without correlations were generally found. Ten out of the
clear conceptual overlap with Strategic Orientation fifteen correlations were positive and significant
and/or Commitment of Resources. Further, the two (p < 0.001). The only two significantly negative
resource dimensions Commitment of Resources correlations occurred for the Growth Orientation
and Control of Resources merged into one factor, index. This may be because the survey was under-
which we label Resource Orientation. Our inter- taken immediately after a very severe recession,
pretation of the analysis is that our six empirical possibly demanding firms to find creative ways to
dimensions represent Stevenson's eight conceptual shrink rather than to grow in order to survive.
dimensions. As noted above, there is little reason To further assess the reliability of the indices,
a priori to expect Stevenson's dimensions to be Cronbach's Alpha and item-total correlation coef-
uncorrelated. Therefore, our extracting six orthog- ficients were computed (see Table 3). The results
onal factors actually indicates a higher discrimi- revealed that while for Strategic Orientation (a =
nant validity than expected. 0.82), Management Structure (a = 0.78), Growth
The fact that these dimensions could be extracted Orientation (a = 0.71), and Entrepreneurial Cul-
as orthogonal factors suggests that the dimensions ture (a = 0.68) the Cronbach's Alpha values were
are conceptually sound and that they need not above or approaching Nunnally's (1967) recom-
co-vary empirically. If Stevenson is correct andmended level, the Alphas for Resource Orientation

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and measurement reliability

Corrected
item-total
Index Mean S.D. Alpha correlation

Strategic Orientation 6.37 1.60 0.82

Item 1 6.31 2.10 0.64
Item 2 6.62 2.05 0.72
Item 3 6.16 2.16 0.65
Resource Orientation 5.72 1.47 0.58
Item 1 (reversed) 5.84 1.87 0.23
Item 2 (reversed) 5.14 2.32 0.54
Item 3 (reversed) 5.42 2.48 0.43
Item 4 (reversed) 6.62 1.94 0.27
Mgmnt Structure 6.71 1.60 0.78
Item 1 6.00 2.40 0.52
Item 2 6.94 2.01 0.66
Item 3 7.11 1.86 0.57
Item 4 6.79 2.15 0.52
Item 5 6.91 2.05 0.54

Reward Philosophy 6.35 1.45 0.58

Item 1 6.94 1.80 0.42
Item 2 5.25 2.23 0.34
Item 3 6.86 1.80 0.43
Growth Orientation 3.72 1.84 0.71
Item 1 (reversed) 4.25 2.25 0.56
Item 2 (reversed) 3.19 1.92 0.56
Entrepren Culture 6.53 1.67 0.68
Item 1 (reversed) 7.12 1.88 0.54
Item 2 (reversed) 6.08 2.44 0.39
Item 3 (reversed) 6.40 2.07 0.58

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 95

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
960 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

(a = 0.58) and Reward Philosophy (a = 0.58) did

groups) the results closely mirrored the full sam-
not quite reach that level. Corrected item-total cor-
ple results. There were six strong and clear factors
relations ranged from 0.23 to 0.66, the majority with no incorrect highest loadings and very few
being above 0.50. This indicated that all items side-loadings of substance. When the factor anal-
share a high degree of variance with their respec-ysis was done on the two sub-samples based on
tive constructs and that the addition of one or two
size (i.e., 10-49 employees and 50-250 employ-
items with similar measurement properties to the ees) the results again closely mirrored the results
problematic indices should have increased their of the full sample.
reliability coefficients considerably (Nunnally and Factor analysis of the four sub-samples repre-
Bernstein, 1994). senting the industrial sectors also yielded quite
strong results. The manufacturing results closely
Sub-sample validation mirrored the full sample. Knowledge-intensive ser-
vices had a minor deviation in the form of a
In a further attempt to examine the validity and
few 'side-loadings' above 0.30, while the whole-
reliability of these indices, sub-sample factor anal-
sale/retail had the only occurrence of a highest
ysis was performed. As stated above, the sampling
loading on the wrong factor (i.e., one out of 180
frame was stratified based on corporate gover-
[9 sub-groups times 20 items] loadings was wrong
nance (three groups), firm size (two groups), and
in this regard). However, the "other services" sub-
industrial sector (four groups). Therefore, while
the analysis was not done for each of the 24 cells sample produced our six factors plus an additiona
(which would have meant too small sub-samples), one (a split of the 'Resource Orientation' fac-
it was done for the nine partly overlapping groups tor). When the analysis was rerun forcing it to
representing the selection criteria. There is no six factors, the results were just one 'side-loading'
room here to give a full report on the results short of perfect. The variance explained was close
of these analyses. Table 4 summarizes the most to 60% with very little variation across analyses.
important information. Over all, the results of the sub-sample valida-
When the factor analysis was performed on tion were highly satisfactory. Taken together, the
the three sub-samples representing the governance sub-sample analyses suggest that the measurement
criterion (i.e., independent firms, firms in small instrument gauges entrepreneurial management in
company groups, and firms in large companydifferent organizational contexts.

Table 4. Stability of factor solutions across sub-samples

No. of incorrect
p of No. of factors Cum.
loadings
No. of Bartlett's with var. expl. by
Sub-sample cases KMO test Eigenval. >1 6 factors Type Ia Type IIb
Governance:
Independent 399 0.77 0.000 6 61.1% 0 1
Part of 'small' group 446 0.74 0.000 6 61.4% 0 2
(<250 empl.)
Part of large group 433 0.74 0.000 6 59.6% 0 1
(250 + empl.)
Size:
10-49 employees 655 0.77 0.000 6 59.8% 0 1
50-249 employees 623 0.76 0.000 6 61.2% 0 0
Industry sector:
Manufacturing 372 0.75 0.000 6 61.3% 0 1
Prof. services 366 0.77 0.000 6 61.5% 0 3
Retail/Wholesale 226 0.70 0.000 6 60.2% 1 4
Other services 314 0.75 0.000 7c 60.2% 0 1

Note: a) No. of occurrences that >0.30. c) highest

the The Resource loa
Orientation dimension split into two factors.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 961

Examining convergent validity through competitive clashes", taps competitive aggressive-

comparisons with entrepreneurial orientation ness rather than proactiveness as intended (Lump-
kin and Dess, 1996; 1997) and was therefore
The previous analyses established that the mea- dropped. Exploratory factor analysis of the remain-
surement properties of the scale are sound and that ing eight items revealed that the innovation item
this applies to different sub-groups of firms. How- concerning "emphasis on innovation versus mar-
ever, in order to establish the validity of the scale,
keting of tried and true products" formed a factor
i.e., if the scale really measures entrepreneurship, of its own. It was therefore removed as well.
construct (convergent) validity must be ascertained We then ran a factor analysis with all 27 items
(Robinson et al., 1991). To do so, we inves- (20 from the Entrepreneurial Management scale
tigated to what extent the results obtained byand seven from the revised EO scale) using prin-
our scale correspond to those obtained by the cipal components extraction and varimax rota-
most well-established scale for measuring firm- tion. We obtained an intriguing-and somewhat
level entrepreneurship (cf. the introduction), i.e., unexpected-result, which is displayed in Table 5.
the Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin (1986; We knew at this stage that the EM and EO
1988; 1989) entrepreneurial orientation (EO) scale global indices had a substantial positive corre-
To measure EO we chose Covin and Slevin's
lation. As we also already had six EM factors
(1989) version of the instrument. This scale was2), and because all the items are intended
(Table
included in our survey instrument and was com-
to capture some aspect of entrepreneurship we
pleted by the respondents. Although the scale that we would get mixed EM/EO fac-
suspected
was originally designed to tap three conceptu-
tors in this analysis. In contrast, nine factors were
ally distinct dimensions (innovation, proactive-
extracted using the conventional Kaiser criterion
ness and risk-taking) the EO scale is often used
(eigenvalue >1). These nine factors cleanly repre-
as one summed index. In order to compare our
sent the six sub-dimensions of the Entrepreneurial
measure with EO, we summed the score for all
Management index and the three sub-factors in the
20 items representing the six dimensions derived
EO measure. A vast majority of the loadings are
from Stevenson. We labeled this latter index Entre-
in the high 0.60s and up with no 'side-loadings'
preneurial Management (EM). above 0.30. This result for the full sample also
The results reveal that the reliability of Entre- holds up with high consistency in different sub-
preneurial Orientation (EO; a = 0.73 based on samples (similar to what was reported in Table 4).
seven items, see below), and Entrepreneurial Man- Due to space limitations, these results are not
agement (EM; a = 0.73) are above Nunnally's reported here.
(1967) recommended level. The correlation be- If all nine dimensions gauge some aspect of
tween the two indices is 0.43, suggesting that the entrepreneurship, they would all be positively cor-
correlation between the two underlying theoretical related. The fact that nine uncorrelated factors
constructs, corrected for measurement error, was were extracted indicates that this might not be
0.58 (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). This is important the case. Therefore, nine summed indices corre-
for two reasons. First, it demonstrates a sufficiently sponding to the factors were constructed. For the
high degree of correspondence between the two most part we find positive correlations between
constructs to warrant that our scale for measuring the nine indices (Table 6). This holds for indices
entrepreneurial management as defined by Steven- within the EM and EO groups as well as across
son is indeed a valid measure of entrepreneur- them. However, none of the correlations are very
ship. Secondly, it also demonstrates that while high. Taken together, the above results suggest, in
these two conceptualizations of entrepreneurship fact, that the 27 items represent nine dimensions
are positively related, they are only partly over- of entrepreneurship that are relatively distinct con-
lapping and gauge different and distinct aspects of ceptually and empirically. This suggests that the
entrepreneurship. aspects of entrepieneurship discussed by Steven-
As a second way of examining how the two son as well as Miller/Covin and Slevin are concep-
constructs are related we ran an exploratory fac- tually sound and empirically separable. Although
tor analysis using items from both sets of mea- positively correlated, the existence of nine iden-
sures. Previous research suggests that one of tifiable dimensions extracted from a set of items
the EO items, dealing with "seeking or avoiding which all are meant to capture some aspect of
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
962 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

and Slevin's entre-

Table 5. Final factor analysis for Stevenson's entrepreneurial management and Miller/Covin
preneurial orientation (n = 1216)

Factor Factor 3 Factor 5 Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 4 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Factor 9
(expl. var) (8.2%) (6.6%) (10.3%) (6.3%) (5.9%) (7.3%) (6.1%) (5.7%) (7.4%)

Variable
Strategic Orientation 1 0.78
Strategic Orientation 2 0.84
Strategic Orientation 3 0.81
Resource Orientation 1 0.55
Resource Orientation 2 0.80
Resource Orientation 5 0.72
Resource Orientation 6 0.50
Mgmnt Structure 1 0.74
Mgmnt Structure 2 0.80
Mgmnt Structure 3 0.68
Mgmnt Structure 4 0.68
Mgmnt Structure 5 0.65
Reward Philosophy 1 0.73
Reward Philosophy 2 0.66
Reward Philosophy 3 0.72
Growth Orientation 1 0.83
Growth Orientation 2 0.85
Entrepren Culture 1 0.81
Entrepren Culture 2 0.64
Entrepren Culture 3 0.84
EOlnnovation 2 0.88
EOJnnovation 3 0.84
EO_Proactiveness 1 0.85
EO-Proactiveness 2 0.82
EO_ Risktaking 1 0.68
EO-Risktaking 2 0.75
EO_Risktaking 3 0.77

Note: Respondents who did not

were respondents
who skipped eit
substitution was employed (cf.
loadings'. The displayed 'explain
Bartlett's test approx. Chi2 = 745

Table 6. Correlations for the

Index 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Strategic Orientation
2 Resource Orientation 0.10**
3 Mgmnt Structure 0.33** 0.04
4 Reward Philosophy 0.33** -0.02 0.36**
5 Growth Orientation -0.02 0.09** -0.14** -0.1 1**
6 Entrepren Culture 0.14** 0.15** 0.10** 0.10** 0.15**
7 EOJnnovation 0.23** 0.05 0.15** 0.17** 0.11** 0.34**
8 EO-Proactiveness 0.19** -0.05 0.13** 0.15** 0.09** 0.19** 0.26**
9 EO_ Risktaking 0.31** 0.07* 0.19** 0.20** 0.25** 0.26** 0.33** 0.26**

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.001; n = 1211 - 1242

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 963

entrepreneurship indicates that entrepreneurship is to exemplary validity/reliability. The Cronbach's

a very broad and complex concept. Alpha value is on average 0.69. This meets a mod-
erate validity/reliability criterion (Robinson et al.,
Evaluation of the scale
1991). Average Cronbach's Alpha values above
0.80 are needed in order to be exemplary. In factor
In order to evaluate how well we have succeeded in
analysis, all items pertaining to the same dimen-
sion loaded on the same factor. This gives an
developing a valid and reliable measure of Howard
Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurialexemplary rating for this criterion. The test of
management, we compared our results with the the correlation with the entrepreneurial orienta-
evaluation criteria of new scales suggested by
tion construct suggests that the convergent validity
Robinson et al. (1991). These authors list thir- criterion is met to a moderate degree. In order
teen evaluation criteria as well as the require- to achieve an exemplary rating, a highly signifi-
ments needed to meet different ratings on these cant correlation with yet another related construct
criteria. These ratings range from exemplary (4), should also be established. The fact that clear fac-
indicating that the measures taken to achieve valid-tors were extracted in all factor analyses suggests
ity/reliability are impeccable over extensive (3), discriminant validity (cf. Barringer and Bluedorn,
moderate (2), and limited (1), to none (0), the lat-1999). To further establish discriminant validity,
ter indicating that the particular criterion has beenwe correlated the global EM index with six other
inadequately considered in developing the scale. dimensions of strategy, which were included in
The first criterion relates to theoretical develop-the questionnaire. None of these correlations came
ment/structure, which is rated based on the extentclose to the magnitude of the correlation between
to which prior research in the field is consideredEM and EO. These analyses taken together war-
and face validity established. In order to achieverant exemplary discriminant validity according to
an exemplary rating all relevant literature shouldRobinson's et al. (1991) criteria. Due to the cross-
be taken into account. In the present case, exem- sectional design, test-retest correlations could not
be calculated and assessed. To assess freedom
plary rating was relatively easily achieved as only
Stevenson's work needed to be considered, and from response set, joint analysis of two or mor
as he provided examples of typical questions. The studies would have been necessary. Our desig
next criterion is pilot testing and item develop- also restricted us from investigating known group
ment. The use of a convenience sample in addi-validity.
tion to a large random sample and the revision In order to make an overall evaluation of the
of some items give us a moderate rating. Toscale, the average score across all criteria can be
achieve a higher rating, a larger item pool andcalculated. The ten criteria considered on average
more extensive deletion of items would have been reach extensive validity/reliability. Three criteria
necessary. In order to determine the distribution were not considered; test-retest correlations, free-
of responses and thus the ability for the scale dom
to from response set and joint analysis of two or
discriminate between different responses, Robin- more studies. If, instead of excluding these from
son et al. (1991) hold that normative informa-the calculation, we instead conservatively assign
tion (e.g., means and standard deviations) should to them the lowest possible value (i.e., zero), the
be calculated. Means and standard deviations are average drops from extensive to moderate valid-
reported in Table 3. This gives us an exemplary ity/reliability.
These extensive examinations of the scale's
rating regarding this criterion. An exemplary sam-
ple of respondents would be a national random validity and reliability imply two things. First,
sample with a response rate over 60%. For rea- there is nothing in the evaluation to suggest
that the scale is invalid or unreliable. The scale
sons explained above, we chose a stratified rather
than a simple random sample. We do not quite received moderate to exemplary ratings for all
meet the response rate criterion (52.1%). There-
the reliability and validity tests it was subjected
to. Second, all tests of validity were not consid-
fore our rating is extensive rather than exemplary.
Robinson et al. (1991) suggest that inter-itemered
cor- in the evaluation. Although this should not
relations provide important information regard-restrict the application of the scale to empirical
research, further validation of the scale should be
ing internal consistency. On average these cor-
relations are well above 0.30, which corresponds
attempted.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
964 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

DISCUSSION assessed by the CEO's responses should accord

with EM based on other, informed respondents in
The purpose of this article was to develop a mea-
the firm. If both relationships hold, the CEO-based
surement instrument designed to tap Stevenson's measure would have both inter-respondent relia-
conceptualization of entrepreneurial management. bility and predictive validity. If inter-respondent
The result of this effort was a 20-item instrument reliability is high while predictive validity is low,
from which a global index with satisfactory relia- either the theory or the measure is flawed. Alter-
bility could be computed. Alternatively, the mea-natively, if inter-respondent reliability is low and
sure can be broken down into six factors or sub- predictive validity is high, EM would reflect an
dimensions of entrepreneurial management which individual characteristic of the leader that affects
we label Strategic Orientation, Resource Orienta- business behavior through a different mechanism
tion, Management Structure, Reward Philosophy, than the one originally assumed. Hence, both types
Growth Orientation, and Entrepreneurial Culture. of validity checks must turn out positive for CEO-
These dimensions could be confirmed for nine based EM to be interpreted as a valid assessment
partly overlapping sub-samples representing of dif-
firm-level entrepreneurial management.
ferent categories of firms. While the measures are Assuming that Stevenson's theory holds, a test
not yet perfected, we would hold that the elaborateof predictive validity should show that firms with
process behind their development and the clean higher scores on the EM index or its sub-indices
results, in particular the remarkably clear and exhibit
sta- more entrepreneurial behavior in terms of
ble factor pattern, would suffice for claiming thatresource recombinations and entry into new mar-
we have developed a useful operationalization ofor market segments. A test of predictive valid-
kets
Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurial ity could also measure business or societal level
management. It is our hope that this tool will helpoutcomes. A positive link between scores on our
move the study of entrepreneurship towards more instrument(s) and value creation would strengthen
rigorous research. the validity of the measure in the tested context.
For adequate application and further develop- However, entrepreneurial management may pay
ment it is important that the nature of this mea- off in some contexts but not necessarily in oth-
sure be understood. Stevenson theorizes about ers (Dess, Lumpkin, and Covin, 1997). It would
entrepreneurial management, which is whatthen ourbe advisable to select a testing ground where
instrument is designed to tap. Hence, it is a firm-there is strong theoretical reason to believe that
level measure. Further, it is not a direct measure opportunity-driven (as opposed to resource-driven)
of entrepreneurship if that is defined in terms strategies lead to superior performance. Failure to
of resource recombinations (Schumpeter, 1934; attain predictive validity in such contexts would
Moran and Ghoshal, 1999) or entry into invalidate
new the measure.
markets or market segments (Lumpkin and Dess, Further validation of the universality of the mea-
sure would also be valuable. First, we have shown
1996). Stevenson's argument is that entrepreneurial
management facilitates such processes by mak- that the measure holds across different types of
ing it possible for organizational members tofirms.
take Replicating these results, extending the mea-
entrepreneurial initiatives and by rewardingsure
suchto other categories of firms (Hubbard, Vetter,
efforts. and Little, 1998), would strengthen the validity of
These properties of the concept have implica- the measure and fine-tune its range of applicability.
tions for the further validation of our measure- Second, we have developed and tested our instru-
ment instrument. The fact that it is intended to ment on a Swedish sample in the Swedish lan-
be a firm-level measure makes our use of a sin- guage. Establishing that the results hold for other
gle respondent a potential limitation. Validating (business) cultures and in other languages is an
the use of the CEOs' responses as representa- important validation task that would increase the
tive for the firm involves two issues. First, the usefulness of our operationalization.
CEO's reported EM should have predictive valid- Further improvements of the measures may be
ity with respect to the prevalence within the firm advisable. It is unlikely that the reliability of the
of efforts to recombine resources and entry into global EM index would improve much by the addi-
new markets or market segments. Second, EM as tion or exchange of a few items (cf. Nunnally

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 965

and Bernstein, 1994:300). However, a twenty-item alternative firm-level measure of entrepreneur-

scale may be too long in some situations and it isship, Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO). This has
conceivable that it can be shortened without much important research implications. First, there are
loss of information. If the intention is to carry some problems with the EO measure. Its items
out a more elaborate test of Stevenson's theory, gauge a mix of attitudes and self-report of past
or to further investigate some specific aspect of behaviors and some of them do not conceptu-
entrepreneurial management, further development ally or empirically fall into their supposed dimen-
of the sub-indices is advisable. This is particu- sions. However, after dropping a couple of items,
larly true for the Resource Orientation index. The the three EO dimensions appeared in our analy-
Reward Philosophy index also had a less than sat- sis as distinct dimensions. In previous studies, EO
isfactory reliability. To a lesser extent this applies has been shown to meaningfully relate to busi-
also to the Entrepreneurial Culture index. This ness contexts and outcomes. Our results suggest
could probably be solved by adding one or two that EM cannot be used in its stead without the
more items as these latter sub-dimensions have not loss of information. Turning the argument around,
been problematic in other ways. the results imply that if our instrument represents
a valid indicator of opportunity seeking behavior
and/or value creation outcomes, then EO is also an
SCHOLARLY AND MANAGERIAL incomplete assessment of firm-level entrepreneur-
IMPLICATIONS ship. The conclusion is that in order to get a
complete assessment researchers should use both
Given that our operationalization holds up well This breadth and multi-dimensionality
instruments.
in further validation efforts, our resultscould
haveprovide
sev- researchers with rich opportunities
eral implications for future research. for It appears
conducting innovative research. On the other
that we now have a useful operationalization of
hand, including as many as 27 items in order
the entrepreneurial management of firms.
to Impor-
assess firm-level entrepreneurship is a problem
tantly, the measurement instrument appears
from appli-
a practical point of view.
cable across many different types of firms. This entrepreneurship is encouraged
At present,
is advantageous because it is truly difficult to the economy (Dess et al., 1997)
throughout
and many managers are looking for ways to
develop a unified direct measure of entrepreneurial
behavior. The specific manifestations of opportu-
make their organizations more entrepreneurial. Our
nity seeking may vary for firms in industries of dif-
findings thus far indicate that the entrepreneurial
management
ferent maturity, technology and market structure. It of a firm involves many different
is therefore difficult to compare relativeaspects,
levels ranging
of from overall strategic orientation
entrepreneurship across contexts, or totostudy
rewardthe
systems. While several firms may be
causes and effects of entrepreneurshipentrepreneurial
in mixed in one or a few respects, few
samples of firms. Assuming that it canarebeentrepreneurial
shown throughout the spectrum. It
is conceivable
across contexts that entrepreneurial management is that in many situations a firm
would have to excel along all or most of these
positively related to the relevant, context-specific
opportunity seeking behaviors, researchers are nowin order to achieve the ability to create
dimensions
equipped with a tool that greatly facilitates their
superior value. It is also conceivable, however,
research. The antecedents and effects of entre- that it suffices to focus on a smaller set of
preneurship can be studied across contexts, using
management issues. The latter would indicate th
entrepreneurial management as a substitute therefor are many different routes to achieve hig
opportunity seeking behaviors. Further, researchers
entrepreneurial performance. Further empiri
can examine the important question of whether research is needed in order to determine whether
entrepreneurial management is generally positively
the outcome effects of different specific aspects of
related to business outcomes, or if such effects are
entrepreneurial management are linear and additive
restricted to particular contexts or time frames.or if they also involve interactions and diminishing
Our results show that our operationalization returns. Clarifying the nature of these relationships
of entrepreneurial management (EM and its sub-is an important task that should be carried out
indices) only partly overlaps with the established
before drawing further normative conclusions.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
966 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bygrave WD, Carter NM, Davidsson P, Gartner WB,

Mason CM, McDougall PP (eds). Frontiers of Entre-
preneurship Research, Babson College: Wellesley,
We would like to express our gratitude to the
MA; 47-58.
Knut and Alice Wallenberg FoundationMiller
andD.to
1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in
the
three types of firms. Management Science 29(7):
Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation
770-791.
in Research and Higher Education for financial
Moran P, Ghoshal S. 1999. Markets, firms, and the pro-
support. cess of economic development. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 24(3): 390-412.
Nunnally JC. 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill:
New York.
REFERENCES
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory
(3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.
Barringer BR, Bluedor AC. 1999. The relationship Robinsonbet-
JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS. 1991. Criteria
ween corporate entrepreneurship and strategic for man-
scale selection and evaluation. In Measures of Per-
agement. Strategic Management Journal 20(5): sonality and Social Psychological Attitudes, Robin-
421-444. son JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (eds). Academic
Brazael DV. 1999. The genesis of entrepreneurship. En- San Diego, CA; 1-16.
Press:
trepreneurship Theory and Practice 23(3): 29-45. Schendel D. 1990. Introduction to the special issue on
Burs T, Stalker GM. 1961. The Management of Innova- corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management
tion. Tavistock: London. Journal, Summer Special Issue 11: 1-3.
Churchill NC, Muzyka DF. 1994. Defining and conceptu- Schumpeter JA. 1934. The Theory of Economic Develop-
alizing entrepreneurship: a process approach. In Mar- ment. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
keting and Entrepreneurship, Hills GE (ed.). Quorum Sexton DL, Landstrom H. 2000a. Introduction. In The
Books: Westport, CT; 11-23. Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Sexton
Cohen J, Cohen P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/ DL, Landstrom H (eds). Blackwell: Oxford, UK;
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd xix-xxiv.
ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.Sexton DL, Landstrom H. 2000b. Remaining issues and
Covin JG, Slevin DP. 1986. The development and testing research suggestions. In The Blackwell Handbook
of an organizational-level entrepreneurship scale. In of Entrepreneurship, Sexton DL, Landstrom H (eds).
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Ronstadt R, Blackwell: Oxford, UK; 435-443.
Horaday JA, Peterson R, Vesper KH (eds). Babson Shane SA, Venkataraman S. 2000. The promise of entre-
College: Wellesley, MA; 628-639. preneurship as a field of research. Academy of Man-
Covin JG, Slevin DP. 1988. The influence of organiza- agement Review 25: 217-226.
tion structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top
Starr JA, MacMillan IC. 1990. Resource co-optation via
management style. Journal of Management Studies 25: social contracting: resource acquisition strategies for
217-234. new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, Sum-
Covin JG, Slevin DP. 1989. Strategic management merof Special Issue 11: 79-92.
small firms in hostile and benign environments.Stevenson
Strate- HH. 1983. A perspective on entrepreneurship.
gic Management Journal 10(1): 75-87. Harvard Business School Working Paper 9-384-131.
Dess GG, Lumpkin GT, Covin JG. 1997. Entrepreneurial Stevenson HH, Gumpert D. 1985. The heart of entre-
strategy making and firm performance: tests of contin- preneurship. Harvard Business Review 63(2): 85-94.
gency and configurational models. Strategic Manage- Stevenson HH, Jarillo JC. 1986. Preserving entrepreneur-
ment Journal 18(9): 677-695. ship as companies grow. Journal of Business Strategy
Dillman D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys. Wiley: 6: 10-23.
New York. Stevenson HH, Jarillo JC. 1990. A paradigm of entre-
Hubbard R, Vetter DE, Little EL. 1998. Replication in preneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strategic
strategic management: scientific testing for validity, Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 11:
generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Manage- 17-27.
ment Journal 19(3): 243-254. Venkataraman S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entre-
Kirzner I. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Uni- preneurship research. In Advances in Entrepreneur-
versity of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL. ship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Katz J, Brock-
Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. 1996. Clarifying the entre- haus J (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT; 119-138.
Wiklund J. 1998. Small Firm Growth and Performance:
preneurial orientation construct and linking it to per-
formance. Academy of Management Review 21(1): Entrepreneurship and Beyond. Jonkoping International
135-172. Business School: Jonkoping.
Lumpkin GT, Dess GG. 1997. Proactiveness versus com- J. 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial
Wiklund
petitive aggressiveness: teasing apart key dimension orientation-performance relationship. Entrepreneur-
of an entrepreneurial orientation. In Reynolds ship PD, Theory and Practice 24(1): 37-48.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 An Operationalization of Stevenson's Entrepreneurship 967

Zahra S. 1993. A conceptual model of entrepreneur- Zahra SA, Karutko DF, Jennings DF. 1999. Guest edito-
ship as firm behaviour: a critique and extension. rial: entrepreneurship and the acquisition of dynamic
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16 (Summer): organizational capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory
5-21. and Practice 23(3): 5-10.

APPENDIX

Table Al. Translated items used for the operationalization of Stevenson's conceptualization of en

Strategic Orientation
1. As we define our strategies, our 12345678910
major As we define our strategies, w
concern is how to best utilize the driven by our perception of
resources we control. opportunity. We are not cons
by the resources at (or not at
2. We limit the opportunities we pursue 12345678910 Our fundamental task is to pu
on the basis of our current resources. opportunities we perceive as
and then to acquire the resou
exploit them.
3. The resources we have significantly 12345678910 Opportunities control our busi
influence our business strategies. strategies.
Resource Orientation
1. Since we do not need resources to 12345678910 Since our objective is to use our
commence the pursuit of an resources, we will usually invest
opportunity, our commitment of heavily and rapidly. (R)
resources may be in stages.
2. All we need from resources is the 12345678910 We prefer to totally control and own the
ability to use it. resources we use. (R)
5. We like to employ resources that we 12345678910 We prefer to only use our own resources
borrow or rent. in our ventures. (R)
6. In exploiting opportunities, having the 12345678910 In exploiting opportunities, access to
idea is more important than just money is more important than just
having the money. having the idea. (R)
Management Structure
1. We prefer tight control of funds and 12345678910 We prefer loose, informal control. There
operations by means of sophisticated is a dependence on informal relations.
control and information systems.
2. We strongly emphasize getting things 12345678910 We strongly emphasize getting things
done by following formal processes done even if this means disregarding
and procedures. formal procedure.
3. We strongly emphasize holding to 12345678910 We strongly emphasize adapting freely
tried and true management principles to changing circumstances without
and industry norms. much concern for past practices.
4. There is a strong insistence on a 12345678910 Managers' operating styles are allowed
uniform management style throughout to range freely from very formal to
the firm. very informal.
5. There is a strong emphasis on getting 12345678910 There is strong tendency to let the
line and staff personnel to adhere requirements of the situation and the
closely to their formal job personality of the individual dictate
descriptions. proper job behavior.
Reward Philosophy
1. Our employees are evaluated and 12345678910 Our employees are evaluated and
compensated based on their compensated based on the value they
responsibilities. add to the firm.

(Continued overleaf)

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
968 T. E. Brown, P. Davidsson and J. Wiklund

Table Al. (Continued)

2. Our employees are usually rewarded 12345678910 We try to compensate our em

by promotion and annual raises. devising ways so they can be
from the increased value of the firm.
3. An employee's standing is based on 12345678910 An employee's standing is based on the
the amount of responsibility s/he has. value s/he adds.

Growth Orientation

4. It is generally known throughout the 12345678910 Growth is not necessarily our top
firm that growth is our top objective. objective. Long term survival may be
at least as important. (R)
5. It is generally known throughout the 12345678910 It is generally known throughout the
firm that our intention is to grow as firm that steady and sure growth is the
big and as fast as possible. best way to expand. (R)
Entrepreneurial Culture
1. We have many more promising ideas 12345678910 We find it difficult to find a sufficient
than we have time and the resources number of promising ideas to utilize
to pursue. all of our resources. (R)
2. Changes in the society-at-large often 12345678910 Changes in the society-at-large seldom
give us ideas for new products and lead to commercially promising ideas
services. for our firm. (R)
3. We never experience a lack of ideas 12345678910 It is difficult for our firm to find ideas
that we can convert into profitable that can be converted into profitable
products/services. products/services. (R)

Items that were dropped after pre-testing or as a result of initial factor analysis results are not listed above. Items marked (R) are
reversed; i.e., a higher value suggests a lower level of entrepreneurship

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 22: 953-968 (2001)

This content downloaded from

105.158.117.167 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:38:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms