prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm...

Journal of Small Business Management 2002 40(2), pp. 85–97

Prospecting for Strategic Advantage:The Proactive Entrepreneurial Personalityand Small Firm Innovationby Jill Kickul and Lisa K. Gundry

Our study proposed and tested an entrepreneurial process model that examined theinterrelationships among a small firm owner’s personality, strategic orientation, andinnovation. In the first part of the model, it was posited that a proactive personalitywould directly influence a prospector strategic orientation. This type of strategicorientation would then be a key factor in determining the type of innovationsintroduced and implemented within the business. Using a sample of 107 small businessowners, results revealed that the prospector strategy orientation mediated the rela-tionship between proactive personality and three types of innovations: innovativetargeting processes, innovative organizational systems, and innovative boundarysupports. Implications for small business managers as well as future research direc-tions are discussed.

In recent years, models of the en-trepreneurship process have evolved todepict the interactive nature of key vari-ables influencing new venture success.Researchers have proposed that en-trepreneurship can only be understoodwhen the individual elements of thephenomenon are combined. Gartner(1985) was one of the first to propose thatfour major dimensions of entrepreneur-ship be integrated: the founder’s charac-teristics, the organization’s characteristics,the environment surrounding the firm,and the process by which the new venture

is started. The attempt to form a morecomplex, multi-dimensional theory of thenew venture process is not new. Histori-cally, researchers have examined the indi-vidual traits of entrepreneurs, includingthe need for achievement (McClelland1961), autonomy (Hornaday and Aboud1971), tolerance for ambiguity (Sextonand Bowman 1984), and risk-taking pro-pensity (Begley and Boyd 1986; Brockhaus1980). A turning point occurred in the late1980s, when Gartner (1989) defined en-trepreneurship as a set of activities in-volved in the creation of an organization.

Dr. Kickul is assistant professor of management in the Charles H. Kellstadt Graduate School ofBusiness at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Her research interests include entrepreneurialintentions and behavior, intrapraneurship and innovation, and entrepreneurial strategy andgrowth.

Dr. Gundry is associate professor of management in the Charles H. Kellstadt Graduate Schoolof Business at DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois. Her research focuses on the creative processleading to innovations, and entrepreneurship strategy and growth.

KICKUL AND GUNDRY 85

Subsequently, research attention wasredirected towards identifying the behav-iors towards further understanding theinfluence of entrepreneurs’ perceptions(Cooper, Woo, and Dunkelberg 1988) andtheir intentions (Bird 1988) on their be-havior (Shaver and Scott 1991). Severalbehaviors have been found to influencesmall firm performance.

One of these behaviors is opportunityrecognition, defined by Christensen, Mas-den, and Peterson (1989) as perceiving thepossibility to create a new business or tosignificantly change or improve an existingbusiness. Stevenson and Jarillo-Mossi(1986) suggested that entrepreneurscreate value by combining resources toexploit an opportunity. Koller (1988)extended this by suggesting that most en-trepreneurs recognize (as opposed toseeking) opportunities. Bhave (1994) dis-tinguished between entrepreneurial be-havior that was “externally stimulated”(cases in which the decision to launch theventure preceded opportunity recogni-tion) and behavior that was “internallystimulated” (when individuals engaged inproblem-solving and needs assessmentprior to deciding to start a business). Ex-ternally stimulated opportunity recogni-t ion is the opportunist ic searchcharacterized by Cypert and March (1963).Recently, Hills and Shrader (1998) uncov-ered fundamental opportunity recogni-tion behaviors, including foundingcompanies, starting a major new part ofthe business, and acquiring any new typeof business.

Considerable attention has also beenpaid to the risk-taking behavior of entre-preneurs. Mullins and Forlani (1998)found that entrepreneurs exhibit theirmost risk-averse behavior when they areeither in control of their venture but lackmarket skill, or without control of the ven-ture but have technical skill. This corrobo-rates Timmons’ (1994) assertion thatentrepreneurs are prudent managers ofrisk. Das and Teng (1997) introduced andtested a temporal framework for analyzing

entrepreneurs’ risk-taking behavior. Thiscontingency approach to entrepreneuri-als’ risk behavior proposed developing dif-ferent entrepreneurial types (for example,craftsman or opportunistic) by employingtheir distinct risk-taking behavior in theshort- and long-term. The cognition-oriented approach to analyzing en-trepreneurial risk behavior has been usedby Palich and Bagby (1995), who reportedthat entrepreneurs do not necessarilyembrace risk-taking more than non-entrepreneurs; rather, they tend to viewrisks more optimistically and are therebymore willing to undertake entrepreneurialefforts.

Other behaviors that impact firm per-formance include strategic planning, har-nessing resources, and innovation(Stearns and Hills 1996). Entrepreneurialbehavior has also been described as visionfocused on innovations that meet marketneeds more effectively (Gardner 1994).Kirzner (1973) advocated a theory of en-trepreneurial alertness, describing entre-preneurs’ ability to “see,” to discover andexploit opportunities that others miss.More recently, Busenitz (1996) suggestedthat measures of entrepreneurial alertnessare of research interest and need furtherdevelopment.

This integration of the key dimen-sions of the entrepreneurship processhas resulted in an interactionist perspec-tive, providing a framework for examin-ing the ways in which an entrepreneur’spersonal attributes interact with othervariables to ultimately affect the organi-zation’s actions and performance. Asearly as 1986, Miller and Toulouse foundthat the personality of the CEO had astrong influence on the strategies andstructure of the firm. Among the person-ality dimensions studied, CEO flexibilityhad the most positive consequences forsmall firm performance. Nicholson(1998) identified several distinctive fea-tures of the entrepreneurial leadershippersonality, including a single-mindedfocus and resilience.

86 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

The purpose of the present study is toexamine the entrepreneur’s dispositiontoward proactive behavior, known as proac-tive personality (Bateman and Crant1993), and its relationship to the firm’sstrategy and innovative posture. We pos-tulate that the proactive entrepreneurialpersonality will be associated with aparticular strategic orientation, whichmediates the personality–innovation rela-tionship for the small firms sampled (seeFigure 1). Given the recent emphasis onprocess models of entrepreneurship, asdiscussed above, it is important to deter-mine how psychological factors influ-ence the outcomes of strategic thinkingin small organizations (Stewart et al.1998).

TheProactiveEntrepreneurand the Small Firm

The proactive personality is definedby Bateman and Crant (1993) as the per-sonality of one who takes action to influ-ence environmental change. Proactivepersonalities “scan for opportunities,show initiative, take action, and perse-vere until they reach closure by bringingabout change” (Bateman and Crant1993, p.105). According to these re-searchers, the proactive personality con-sistently exhibits these kinds of behaviorand is relatively unconstrained by situ-ational forces in the daily environment.The scale Bateman and Crant used tomeasure proactive personality demon-strated convergent, discriminant, andcriterion validity. Their personality con-struct was found to be unrelated to meas-ures of social desirability, locus ofcontrol, and mental ability (Bateman andCrant 1993; Crant 1995), whereas proac-tivity has been shown to be positivelyassociated with entrepreneurial inten-tions (Crant 1996) and transformationalleadership (Bateman and Crant 1993).Studies are needed, however, to deter-mine the link between proactivity andentrepreneurial behaviors, which is thefocus of the present study.

Becherer and Maurer (1999) found thatcompany presidents who exhibited aproactive disposition were inclined tomove their organizations to scan for morebusiness opportunities. In addition, Bate-man and Crant (1993) contend that proac-tive individuals exhibit an array ofbehaviors including problem-finding, ideachampioning, and strategic prospecting.They also have the ability to take it uponthemselves to direct the goals and direc-tion of their organization in order to influ-ence the overall mission and strategicorientation of the business (Bateman andCrant 1993). Thus, the effects of theseentrepreneurs’ personalities and disposi-tions on their behaviors and actions aredemonstrated in their strategic choices foroperating their businesses and competingwithin their industries.

The Mediating Roleof Strategic Orientation

As asserted by Hettema (1989) and Bussand Craik (1980), personal dispositionsare summary labels of behavior rather thanintrapsychic causes. By initiating changesin the organization and its strategies,proactive entrepreneurs are behaviorallyacting upon their overall attitudes and be-liefs. In particular, the type of strategy thatis consistent with their attitudes and be-liefs is the prospector strategy (Miles andSnow 1978). Firms that adopt this type ofstrategy continually search the market-place for new products, services, and tech-nologies. Organizations with a prospectorstrategy are the creators of change in theirindustries and businesses. Prospectorsrely on high levels of environmental scan-ning and long-range forecasting to identifynew opportunities that are critical to theirsuccess (Miles and Snow 1978). Researchon organizations that follow a prospectorstrategy has found that these types of busi-nesses tend to invest more heavily in re-search and development as well as inmarketing and promotion (Hambrick1983). Additionally, McDaniel and Kolari


Figure 1Model of the Consequences of Proactive Personality

88JO

UR

NAL

OF

SMALL

BU

SINE

SSM

ANAG

EM

EN

T

(1987) found that prospectors tend to fo-cus more on new product developmentand market research. Finally, prospectorsalso tend to place emphasis on forecastdata and budgetary goals and to closelymonitor business outcomes (Simons1987).

More research, however, is needed toexamine the prospector strategy and itsinfluence on small business innovation.Since prospector organizations are con-stantly searching for new ideas and pro-cesses, they would be inclined to introduceinnovations that improve and enhance theirproduct or service, their operation andproduction methods, marketing tactics,organizational structure, informationtechnology, and financing methods. Thisstudy will focus on these multiple types ofinnovation to determine how a small firmwith a prospector strategy can affectchange and integrate novel ideas andprocesses within its competitive operatingenvironment.

MethodologySample

The sample for this study consistedof 107 small business owners located inthe U.S. Midwest. Names were obtainedthrough contact information collected bya state agency that gives technical andmanagerial assistance to owners andtheir respective ventures. Approximately52 percent of the businesses were women-owned and 26 percent were minority-owned. Over 45 percent of the ownersheld a college degree and 30 percent hadpreviously owned or managed a businessbefore launching their venture. The busi-nesses surveyed came from a variety ofindustries: 15 percent from retailing,14 percent from general services, 12 per-cent from professional services, 11 percentfrom manufacturing, four percent fromconstruction, and three percent fromfinance, insurance, and real estate. Thebusinesses had average revenues of$267,000, with an average of four employ-

ees. Seven percent of the firms also utilizedindependent contractors.

Overview and ProcedureAll information was gathered over a

three-month period through telephone in-terviews with the small business owners.Participants were told that we were con-ducting research to better understandsome of the factors associated with startingand growing a business. In addition toanswering a series of demographic ques-tions on personal (educational level, priorbusiness experience, ethnicity, etc.) andbusiness (employment, sales revenue,etc.) characteristics, the owners wereasked to provide information regardingtheir personality, the types of innovationsimplemented in their organization, andthe overall business strategy and goals oftheir venture.

MeasuresProactive Personality. To assess proac-

tive personality, we used five items fromBateman and Crant’s (1993) scale: (1) “Ienjoy facing and overcoming obstacles tomy ideas”; (2) “Nothing is more excitingthan seeing my ideas turn into reality”;(3) “I excel at identifying opportunities”;(4) “I love to challenge the status quo”; and(5) “I can spot a good opportunity longbefore others can.” Participants rated theseitems on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 =strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Bateman and Crant (1993) report inter-nal reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) rangingfrom .87 to .89 for their 17-item scale. Thefive items selected for this study had someof the highest factor loadings as indicatedin Bateman and Crant’s scale developmentand validation research. The internal reli-ability of these items on our sample was.95. To demonstrate that we were measur-ing proactive personality, we also exam-ined the correlation between our shortform and the original scale on a separatesample of 322 employees from a variety oforganizational settings. The correlationbetween the two forms was .90, thereby


providing support that the five items areindeed measuring the proactive personal-ity construct.

Strategic Orientation. In order to de-termine the strategic orientation of thesmall business, we asked the participantsto describe their business strategy andgoals . Each descr ipt ion was thencontent- analyzed and the firm wasclassified as being either “prospector”or “non- prospector,” based on Miles andSnow’s (1978) depiction of a prospectorstrategy. Because this study is interestedin examining the role of the prospectorstrategy as a mediator in determiningsmall business innovations, Miles andSnow’s three other business strategycategories (defenders, analyzers, and re-actors) were not used.

The authors and a research assistantcoded each of the strategy descriptions,and then assessed the inter-rater reliabil-ity. From the 107 respondents’ businessstrategy descriptions that were analyzed,the inter-rater reliability was computedto be 82 percent. In cases where com-plete agreement was not reached, discus-sion ensued regarding how each raterhad determined the type of strategy, anda decision was reached. The 82 percentreliability rate was calculated by dividingthe number of agreements by the totalnumber of agreements plus disagree-ments (Miles and Huberman 1984).Miles and Huberman note that oneshould not expect greater than 70 per-cent inter-rater reliability at first. Basedon this criterion, our inter-rater reliabil-ity is quite high.

Innovation Scales. We developed10 items to investigate the different typesof innovations implemented by the busi-ness owners. Some of these innovationsincluded the introduction of new or im-proved products, new channels of distri-bution, new information technology, andnew methods of organization. Participantswere asked to indicate which of these in-novations they had incorporated into theirorganizations.

The data were submitted to factoranalysis using principal components ex-traction and varimax rotation. A three-factor solution resulted, as indicatedthrough our interpretation of the screeplot and the eigenvalues greater than 1.0.Although the first factor accounted for47.7 percent of the variance, the remainingtwo factors accounted for an additional25.8 percent. As shown in Table 1, Factor 1(five items) was labeled innovative target-ing processes; it measures those innova-tions related to having new or improvedproducts, venturing into new markets, orutilizing new channels of distribution.Factor 2 (two items) was innovative or-ganizational systems; it assesses internalchanges within the organization such asnew methods of organization or newmethods of management. Finally, Factor 3(three items), innovative boundary sup-ports, measures whether new methods offinancing or new information technologyhave been integrated into the organiza-tion. Cronbach’s alpha scores (internal reli-ability) of these three factors were: .78, .95,and .74, respectively.

Statistical AnalysesThe mediated regression approach rec-

ommended by Baron and Kenny (1986)was used to test our proposed model. Inthis approach, three separate regressionequations are estimated. First, the media-tor (prospector strategy) is regressed onthe independent variable (proactive per-sonality). Second, the dependent variable(separate innovation processes) is re-gressed on the independent variable. Inthe last equation, the dependent variableis regressed simultaneously on both theindependent and mediational variable.Mediation is indicated when the follow-ing conditions are met: 1) the inde-pendent variable affects the mediator inthe first equation; 2) the independentvariable affects the dependent variable inthe second equation; 3) the mediatoraffects the dependent variable in thethird equation; and 4) assuming that all of


these conditions are in the proper direc-tion, the effect of the independent variableon the dependent variable is less in thethird equation than in the second equa-tion. Full or perfect mediation is sup-ported when the independent variable hasno significant effect when the mediator iscontrolled, while partial mediation is indi-cated if the effect of the independent vari-able is reduced in magnitude but stillsignificant when the mediator is controlled(Baron and Kenny 1986).

ResultsDescriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, zero-order correlations, and reliabilities forour constructs are reported in Table 2.The reliabilities of the measures usedwere all at or over the .70 minimum estab-lished by Nunnally (1978). Proactive per-sonality was related to prospector strategyas well as to the three innovation pro-cesses. Prospector strategy was also asso-ciated with the innovation processesidentified in this study.

Tests were also conducted to determinewhether the assumptions for the multipleregression analyses were met. Residualswere examined for magnitude, linearity,independence, normality, and homogene-ity of variance (Cohen and Cohen 1983).No violations of these assumptions wereidentified.

Analysis of the Proposed ModelTable 3 presents the results for the

mediated regression analysis for each ofthe three dependent variables (innovativetargeting processes, innovative organiza-tional systems, and innovative boundarysupports). In the first equation, the media-tor “prospector strategy” was regressed onthe independent variable “proactive per-sonality” and produced significant results.In the second equation, each dependentvariable was regressed on the independentvariable (proactive personality); this alsoyielded significant results for each of thedependent variables. Finally, the dependentvariable was simultaneously regressed onboth proactive personality and prospectorstrategy. In this last equation, prospector

Table 1Results of Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation

Items Innovative Innovative InnovativeTargeting Organizational BoundaryProcesses Systems Supports

New or improved products .79New production methods .77New markets .73New marketing or sales methods .61New channels of distributionion .49New methods of organization .93New methods of management .92New or improved services .84New methods of financing .74New information technology .74

Eigenvalue 4.78 1.57 1.01Percentage of Variance 47.70 15.70 10.17


Table 2Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Proactive Personality 4.35 2.55 (.95)2. Innovative Targeting

Processes 0.09 0.20 .23* (.78)3. Innovative Organizational

Systems 0.08 0.27 .19* .47*** (.95)4. Innovative Boundary

Supports 0.07 0.20 .18^ .44*** .32** (.74)5. Prospector Strategy 0.68 0.47 .21* .39*** .26** .31** (.82)

Note: Internal consistency reliabilities are provided along the diagonal in parentheses.***p < .001**p < .01*p < .05

^p < .10

Table 3Mediated Regression Analysis

Equation Summary DependentVariables

Innovative Innovative InnovativeTargeting Organizational Boundary

Processes (β) Systems (β) Supports (β)

(1) Proactive Personality → .21* .21* .21*Prospector Strategy

(2) Proactive Personality → .23* .19* .18^

Dependent Variable(3) Proactive Personality → .15 .15 .13

Dependent Variable,Prospector Strategy → .35*** .23** .29**Dependent Variable

R2 .18 .09 .11F 10.15*** 4.77** 6.05**

Note: The R2 and F value results are for the last equation in the test for mediation.***p < .001**p < .01*p < .05

^p < .10


strategy was significant, while proactivepersonality was no longer significant.

The results in this last step indicatefull—not partial—mediation. Thus, pros-pector strategy mediates the relationshipbetween proactive personality and each ofour three innovation processes. This typeof strategic orientation functions as a criti-cal link among small business owners’proactive personalities and the ways theyengage in innovative targeting processes,develop innovative organizational sys-tems, and import innovative boundarysupports.

DiscussionandConclusionsOverall, the empirical results of our

study demonstrate that a small businessowner’s proactive personality is linked toa strategic orientation for the small firmthat permits flexibility and change in re-sponse to surrounding business condi-tions. By employing a prospector strategy,these proactive owners have a direct im-pact on the goals and direction of theirorganizations. Moreover, this strategic ori-entation can also influence the types ofinnovations developed and implementedwithin the internal and external frame-work of the small business environment.

Our research suggests that organiza-tions with a prospector strategy are notonly more likely to identify opportunitiesfor developing new products or markets,but are also willing to make internalchanges and transformations within theirorganizational structure that facilitate fur-ther growth and success. Instead of merelyreacting to changes within the market andindustry, these proactive owners employ astrategy consistent with many of their be-liefs and behavioral intentions in seekingout new opportunities and engaging innew business processes and innovations(see Figure 2). This research builds onprevious work related to the opportunityrecognition behaviors of entrepreneurs(Bhave 1994; Christensen, Madsen, andPeterson 1989; and Hills and Shrader

1998) by delineating the strategic innova-tions and organizational transformationsthat entrepreneurs consequently under-take. Proactive owners are opportunistic,as characterized by previous research.

However, more research is needed tofurther investigate the link between proac-tive personality and opportunity recogni-tion behaviors. Busenitz (1996) has notedthat more empirical work should be un-dertaken to develop measures of en-trepreneurial alertness (Kirzner 1973). Areproactive entrepreneurs more “alert” toopportunities, and therefore more likelyto recognize them? And if so, what is theimpact on the number of successful busi-ness launchings, as well as on the effective-ness of their innovative behaviors?

Many of the new processes and innova-tions undertaken may be essential to thefuture growth and sustainability of thesmall firm. The ability to arrive at newmethods to target customers through newpromotional and distribution channels aswell as developing boundary supportsmay allow the business to add value byincreasing brand awareness and levels ofefficiency. The implementation of a team-based design, for example, can help a ven-ture sustain its flexibility to create as thebusiness grows and matures. Althoughmore work is required to refine and vali-date our innovation factors, we believethat we have made an important first stepin identifying specific dimensions of inno-vative behavior associated with and foundinside small firms.

While this study was able to uncovermultiple dimensions of innovations imple-mented by small firms, future researchshould investigate the effects of theseideas and solutions on the long-termgrowth and profitability of the business.More specifically, the introduction ofnew products or marketing methods mayassist the organization in fulfilling manyof its short-term goals and objectives. Thereorganization of its internal structure andchanges in its boundary support services,however, may become more salient as the


Figure 2Final Model of the Consequences of Proactive Personality

94JO

UR

NAL

OF

SMALL

BU

SINE

SSM

ANAG

EM

EN

T

business matures and tries to maintain itsentrepreneurial spirit and enthusiasm.Additional longitudinal work is needed toassess how innovations, over time, canaffect the performance of the small firm asit progresses through the entrepreneuriallife cycle.

Although identifying opportunities inthe market is a key component and firststep towards innovation, future researchshould examine how small businesses gar-ner the resources and capabilities neces-sary to turn their ideas into actualsolutions. Research should address thevarious types of investments and resourcesthese businesses have used to stimulatecreativity and innovation. In summary,more research is needed to investigate thelink between proactive personality and en-trepreneurial behaviors such as opportu-nity recognition, resource allocation, andthe subsequent implementation of crea-tive and innovative ideas aligned with thefirm’s strategy.

One of the limitations of this study isthat the relationship among the predictor(proactive personality), the mediator (stra-tegic orientation), and outcomes (innova-tion processes) included common methodvariance. The measures used to tap each ofthese constructs were taken from onesource (the small business owner). Theseassociations could, therefore, be attrib-uted to a response bias. Moreover, al-though the study was cross-sectional, thehypothesized model and relationshipssuggest causal direction. Causal inferencesmade from cross-sectional designs are onlyinferences (Spector 1981). Future re-search should examine many of the samerelationships in our study with longitudi-nal data to assess causality.

As small business owners carve out theircompetitive niche in their industries, it isimportant to investigate how their atti-tudes and beliefs influence major changesin their organization’s mission, objectives,and strategies. It is also necessary to exam-ine how the organization’s strategic orien-tation can affect the advancement and

implementation of creative solutions es-sential to small business success. Thisstudy offers support for the process bywhich proactivity can serve as a criticalantecedent of strategy development anddemonstrates how the direction of thesmall firm can serve as a motivating forcein determining a broad array of organiza-tional and market innovations. As moresmall businesses strive for a measurablestrategic advantage in their industries, oneof the keys to success may reside in theentrepreneur’s visionary focus in aligningthe firm’s strategy with its innovative prow-ess, thereby introducing revolutionarynew ideas into the venture itself and intothe marketplace.

ReferencesBateman, T. S., and J. M. Crant (1993).

“The Proactive Component of Organ-izational Behavior: A Measure and Cor-relates,” Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 14, 103-118.

Begley, T.M., and D.P. Boyd (1986). “Psy-chological Characteristics Associatedwith Entrepreneurial Performance,”Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Re-search. Ed. R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday,R. Peterson, and K. Vesper. Wellesley,Mass.: Babson College Center for En-trepreneurial Studies.

Becherer, R.C., and J.G. Maurer (1999).“The Proactive Personality Dispositionand Entrepreneurial Behavior amongSmall Company Presidents,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 37(1),28–36.

Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny (1986). “TheModerator-Mediator Variable Distinc-tion in Social Psychological Research:Conceptual, Strategic, and StatisticalConsiderations,” Journal of Personal-i ty and Social Psychology 51,1173–1182.

Bhave, M.P. (1994). “A Process Model ofEntrepreneurial Venture Creation,”Journal of Business Venturing 9(3),223–242.


Bird, B. (1988) “Implementing En-trepreneurial Ideas: The Case for Inten-tion,” Academy of Management Review13, 442–453.

Brockhaus, R.H. (1980). “Risk Taking Pro-pensity of Entrepreneurs,” Academy ofManagement Journal 23, 509–520.

Busenitz, L.W. (1996). “Research on En-trepreneurial Alertness,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 34(4),35–44.

Buss, D., and K. Craik (1980). “The Fre-quency Concept of Disposition: Domi-nance and Prototypically DominantActs,” Journal of Personality 48,379–392.

Christensen, P.S., O.O. Madsen, and R.Peterson (1989). Opportunity Identifi-cation: The Contribution of Entre-preneurship to Strategic Management.Denmark: Aarhus University Institute ofManagement.

Cohen, J., and P. Cohen (1983). AppliedMultiple Regression/Correlation Analy-sis for the Behavioral Sciences.Hillsdale, Ill.: Erlbaum.

Cooper, A.C., C.Y. Woo, and W.P. Dunkel-berg (1988). “Entrepreneurs’ PerceivedChances for Success,” Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 3(2), 97–108.

Crant, J.M. (1995). “The Proactive Person-ality Scale and Objective Job Perform-ance among Real Estate Agents,”Journal of Applied Psychology 80,532–537.

——— (1996). “The Proactive PersonalityScale as a Predictor of EntrepreneurialIntentions,” Journal of Small BusinessManagement 34(3), 42–49.

Cypert, R.M., and J.G. March (1963). ABehavioral Theory of the Firm. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Das, T.K., and B.S. Teng (1997). “Time andEntrepreneurial Risk Behavior,” En-trepreneurship: Theory and Practice22(2), 69–88.

Gardner, D.M. (1994). “Marketing/En-trepreneurship Interface: A Conceptu-a l izat ion,” in Marketing andEntrepreneurship: Research Ideas and

Opportunities. Ed. G.E. Hills. Westport,Conn.: Quorum Books, 35–54.

Gartner, W.P. (1985). “A Conceptual Frame-work for Describing the Phenomenonof New Venture Creation,” Academy ofManagement Review 10(4), 696–706.

——— (1989). “Who is an Entrepreneur?Is the Wrong Question,” Entrepreneur-ship Theory and Practice (Summer),47–68.

Hambrick, D.C. (1983). “Some Tests of theEffectiveness and Functional Attributesof Miles and Snow’s Strategic Types,”Academy of Management Journal26(1), 5–26.

Hettema, P.J. (1989). Personality and En-vironment: Assessment of Human Ad-aptation. New York: Wiley.

Hills, G.E., and R.C. Shrader (1998). “Suc-cessful Entrepreneurs’ Insights into Op-portunity Recognition,” Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,Mass.: Babson College.

Hornaday, J., and J. Aboud (1971). “Char-acteristics of Successful Entrepre-neurs,” Personnel Psychology 24,141–153.

Kirzner, I.M. (1973). Competition and En-trepreneurship. Chicago, Ill.: Universityof Chicago Press.

Koller, R.H. (1988). “On the Source ofEntrepreneurial Ideas,” Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,Mass.: Babson College.

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The AchievingSociety. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.

McDaniel, S.W., and J.W. Kolari (1987).“Marketing Strategy Implications of theMiles and Snow Strategic Typology,”Journal of Marketing 51(4), 19–30.

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman (1984).Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source-book of New Methods. Beverly Hills,Calif.: Sage.

Miles, R.E., and C.C. Snow (1978). Organ-izational Strategy, Structure, andProcess. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D., and J.M. Toulouse (1986).“Chief Executive Personality and Cor-porate Strategy and Structure in Small


Firms,” Management Science 32(11),1389–1409.

Mullins, J.W., and D. Forlani (1998). “Dif-ferences in Perceptions and Behavior:A Comparative Study of New VentureDecisions of Managers and Entrepre-neurs,” Frontiers of EntrepreneurshipResearch. Wellesley, Mass.: BabsonCollege.

Nicholson, N. (1998). “Personality and En-trepreneurial Leadership: A Study ofthe Heads of the U.K.’s Most SuccessfulIndependent Companies,” EuropeanManagement Journal 16(5), 529–539.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palich, L.E., and D.R. Bagby (1995). “UsingCognitive Theory to Explain En-trepreneurial Risk-Taking: ChallengingConventional Wisdom,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 10(6), 425–438.

Sexton, D.L., and N.B. Bowman (1984).“The Effects of Pre-Existing Psychologi-cal Characteristics on New Venture In-itiations,” paper presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Man-agement, Boston, Mass.

Shaver, K.G., and L.R. Scott (1991). “Per-son, Process, Choice: The Psychology ofNew Venture Creation,” Entrepreneur-ship: Theory and Practice 16(2), 23–45.

Simons, R. (1987). “Accounting ControlSystems and Business Strategy: An Em-pirical Analysis,” Accounting, Organi-zations, and Society 12(4), 357–374.

Spector, P.E. (1981). Research Designs.Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Stearns, T. M., and G.E. Hills (1996). “En-trepreneurship and New Firm Develop-ment: A Definitional Introduction,”Journal of Business and Entrepreneur-ship 8(1), 1–18.

Stevenson, H.H., and J.C. Jarillo-Mossi(1986). “Preserving Entrepreneurshipas Companies Grow,” Journal of Busi-ness Strategy 7, 10–23.

Stewart, W.H., W.E. Watson, J.C. Carland,and J.W. Carland (1998). “A Proclivity forEntrepreneurship: A Comparison of En-trepreneurs, Small Business Owners,and Corporate Managers,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 14, 189–214.

Timmons, J.A. (1994). New Venture Crea-tion. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.


prospecting for strategic advantage: the proactive entrepreneurial personality and small firm...

Documents