1042-2587

© 2009 Baylor University

Commentary: On the
E T& Integration of Strategic

P Management and
Entrepreneurship: Views
of a Contrarian
G. Dale Meyer
“Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. Quid
enim est aetas hominis, nisi ea memoria rerum veterum cum superiorum aetate
contexitur? (To be ingorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain
always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it be woven into the life of
our ancestors by the records of history?)”
—Cicero: Oratur ad M. Brutum
A new generation now leads. President Barack Hussein Obama straddles what Tom Brokaw
called the “greatest generation” and the Baby Boomers (b. 1946–1964). Academia is now
populated by “Millenials” (b. 1980–2000) and increasingly led by Generation X (b. 1960–
1980). This Commentary purposively intends to create deeper conversation about the origins
and tendencies in the small but interesting academic discipline of entrepreneurship. I accept
my role as an aging curmudgeon and hope that you will also. My intent is to surface several
operative ideologies, reveal a few egoistic tendencies, and perfectly (quack, quack) predict
the future of academic entrepreneurship. Please place this Commentary in your 2039 tickler
file titled “foolhardy predictions from 2009.”

“One must be as humble as the dust before he can discover truth.”

—Mahatma Ghandi

I nitially, there was a laconic discussion on the relationship between strategic man-
agement (SM) and entrepreneurship. But the conversation rose to a high pitch after the
turn of the twenty-first century. An assiduous strategy was designed and implemented to
incorporate entrepreneurship as the province of SM. Baker and Pollock in 2007 argue the
fait accompli as follows:
It appears to us that strategy is succeeding in its takeover of the academic field of
entrepreneurship. It is doing this by acquiring entrepreneurship’s most important
assets—faculty members. . . Following on the heels of a popular edited volume titled
Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Mindset in 2002 (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, &
Sexton, 2002), the Strategic Management Society (SMS) announced a new journal

Please send correspondence to: G. Dale Meyer, tel.: 303-442-4319; e-mail: g_dalemeyer@yahoo.com.

January, 2009 85
 titled Strategic Entrepreneurship. . . Others have expressed outrage and argued for
establishing entrepreneurship as a research domain that is distinct from other social
sciences—especially strategy (e.g., Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Venkataraman,
1997). But we are less worried by such concerns and doubtful anyway that such hand
wringing, however theoretically nuanced, is likely to have much effect (Baker &
Pollock, 2007, pp. 297–298).
As the author Kurt Vonnegut said so often, “and so it goes.”
As mentioned by Baker and Pollock previously, the SMS earlier created a new
Strategic Entrepreneurship Division, the membership of which overlaps with the leader-
ship of the Strategy and Policy Division of the Academy of Management (AOM). The
articles for the first three volumes of the new Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal (SEJ) are
papers that were presented at an invited entrepreneurship research conference in May
2007 from which papers presented were chosen for the first three volumes of the SEJ in
2008. The first two issues have hit the academic mailboxes. Editors Schendel and Hitt
wrote the introduction to Volume One stating “In particular, the SEJ as a sister publication
of the SMJ [Strategic Management Journal], will use the same standards that have moved
the SMJ to the forefront of management publications” (Schendel & Hitt, 2007, p. 1). I
assume that these standards are the normal science-logical positivist paradigm.
My design for this essay is to place the SMS actions in a historical context and to
stimulate discussion on how the SMS “takeover” will affect the academic field of entre-
preneurship in the future. First, my antithetical essay will set the scene by highlighting
historical events and a few of the many courageous pioneers who have forged the
present academic entrepreneurship revolution. Obviously something of significant value
was created by pathfinding entrepreneurship scholars that motivated the current SMS
leadership to mobilize their “acquisition.” Next, I will elucidate the persistent strategies
that have been implemented by the SMS to “acquire” the domain of entrepreneurship.
Then, I will apply a dose of common sense to reason through what could be the para-
digmatic and epistemic outcomes of the SMS decisions. After that, I will present evi-
dence that in the past SM and entrepreneurship have shared several research and
teaching “intersections” (interfaces), but that integration has been the exception rather
than the rule. Finally, my crystal ball will be utilized to predict (perfectly, of course)
what the next 20 years of academic entrepreneurship teaching and research will
engender.

A Selective Overview of Historical Events That Established

Entrepreneurship as an Attractive Takeover Target for the Strategic
Management Nobility
Entrepreneurship scholarship is not a recent phenomenon (examples, Cole, 1968;
Collins & Moore, 1970). The historical interest in entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship is
vast. This overview of the courage and dedication that established the foundation of
academic entrepreneurship exists in numerous documents available to all. My intention in
this section of my essay is to focus on the academic entrepreneurs who were the first
movers and who, while often jeopardizing their careers, persisted in nurturing the bounty
that SM scholars have allegedly “acquired.” My idealistic hope is that the SMS takeover
team will internalize Newton’s humble assertion “If I have seen further it is by standing
on the shoulder of giants.” I apologize in advance to those academic entrepreneurship
86 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
pioneers who are not mentioned in this essay. I respect each and every founder who made
Table 1
†
The Field of Entrepreneurship Over Time

Date Place Entrepreneurship leaders Comments

1932–1949 Harvard Joseph Schumpeter While at Harvard, wrote Business Cycles
(1939) and Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy (1942); expanded his theory of
entrepreneurship; students included
Samuelson, Tobin, Heilbroner
1942 Harvard Myles Mace First course in entrepreneurship in 1947
1953 New York University Peter Drucker Course in entrepreneurship and innovation
1956 Boulder, CO, University of Wilford White, Bill Boub, Founding of the National Council for Small
Colorado with Small Business Wendell Metcalf et al. Business Management Development
Institute (SBA) became the International Council for Small
Business, 1977
1958 SBA Same + others Commissioned Small Business Research
Series (98 studies), which led to the book
Organization Makers: A Behavioral Study
of Independent Entrepreneurs (1970) by
Collins and Moore
1970 Purdue John Komives, Ed Roberts First entrepreneurship research conference
(Massachusetts Institute of with 12 invited papers reporting work done
Technology), Al Shapiro, at MIT, Stanford Research Institute,
Arnold Cooper, Karl Vesper University of Texas, Silicon Valley, and
other university approaches to
entrepreneurship
1974 Academy of Management Karl Vesper Creation of the Interest Group on
(AOM) Entrepreneurship as a part of the Division
of Business Policy & Planning
1972 SBA created at Texas Tech Robert Justice, Dean Jack Steele Students consult with small businesses; by
University 1976, 398 universities participating; Small
Business Institute Directors Association
(SBIDA) association of professors founded
1973 First International Conference on Jeff Timmons, George Timmons was at Boston University;
Entrepreneurship Research in Kozmetsky, Dwight Baumann, Kozmetsky became Dean at Texas; Broehl
Toronto, Canada David Brophy, Wayne Broehl was at Dartmouth; Baumann at Carnegie
Mellon; Brophy at Michigan; a mailing list
of 42 members attempted to create the
Society of Entrepreneurship and
Application but it fizzled
1975 Cincinnati: International Jeffrey Susbauer Four-day conference with Al Shapiro of
Symposium of University of Texas, Patrick Lyles of
Entrepreneurship (230 in Harvard, David Berlew of Development
attendance) Research Associates, and Joseph Stepanek
Consultants of Boulder, CO as the keynote
speakers
1977 AOM Many people 12 papers submitted to the AOM Conference

†The Field of Entrepreneurship over Time: Cooper, Hornaday, and Vesper (1997). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College.

entrepreneurship the splendorous acquisition target for the SMS leadership. Table 1 is a
cursory overview of the prime movers and events that established the academic field of
entrepreneurship.
Katz (2003) developed a chronology and intellectual trajectory of entrepreneurship
education which provided some interesting facts. There are at least 44 journals in

88 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

existence that focus on entrepreneurship and/or small business. Four of the top-rated
journals with their years in existence include Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (32
years), Journal of Business Venturing (23 years), Journal of Small Business Management
(46 years), and Small Business Economics (20 years). The field of entrepreneurship
education has grown from 16 courses in 1970 to over 2,200 courses in 1,600 universities.
The first annual Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference was organized by Karl
Vesper in 1981, and by 2008, all of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB) certified schools and all nationally ranked schools now teach entre-
preneurship and/or have entrepreneurship centers.
Personally, I know of many events and people who have also contributed to the
exciting academic entrepreneurship revolution. Perhaps a more comprehensive history has
been tabulated or will be in the near future. I certainly hope so.
Next, to provide a more complete perspective on the SMS takeover/acquisition strat-
egy, it seems appropriate to elucidate the “paradigm debate” that continues among SM
scholars within their own field of research and teaching. Obviously, there is more to this
ongoing conversation than I have space to elaborate herein. It is interesting that the
extension of the SMS to include entrepreneurship took place without resolving earlier
questions about what SM is and should be.

The Paradigm Debate in Strategic Management

The Special Issue of the SMJ published in summer 2004 was titled: Strategy: Search
for New Paradigms and the editors were C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel. Interestingly,
both Prahalad and Hamel are greatly in touch with reality through extensive high-powered
consulting engagements. The Editor-in-Chief of the SMJ, Dan Schendel, published the
introduction to this Special Issue 3 years before the SMS “acquired” entrepreneurship. It
should be noted that entrepreneurship has often been criticized for not possessing any
paradigm and that this marked the field as less than a legitimate academic discipline. So,
it is interesting that Schendel reminded the SMS coterie of its history in seeking its own
paradigm.
I find myself visiting familiar, old ground in writing an introduction to this special
issue on the search for a new paradigm in strategy. Before the time of this journal,
before the time the field known as “strategic managements,” probably, before the time
some of you began your work in this field, some of us were wondering about the
notion of paradigms, theoretical foundations, and just what this field is all about, even
what it should be called. The time was May 1977, the place was the University of
Pittsburgh, where 75 or so workers in our field, then widely known as Business Policy,
were gathered. I had envisioned the Pittsburgh conference ever since the days I had
chaired the Division of Business Policy and Planning [Academy of Management], as
it was known. The conference was titled, “Business Policy and Planning Research:
State of the Art.” Some 16 sessions comprised the three day conference, and papers
developed for that conference found their way into a volume, now out of print, entitled
Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning. . . The purpose
of the Pittsburgh conference and the subsequent book was to find new ways of
thinking about and addressing the field which I thought should be called “Strategic
Management.” I had introduced that name at Purdue in 1969 but it seemed a strange
name at the time to many who attended the conference.. . (Schendel, 1994. In
Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 1).
January, 2009 89
 Professors Schendel and Hofer (1979) were the conveners of the Pittsburgh Confer-
ence. They decided to utilize Thomas Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm and his view on
the philosophy of science to guide the Conference discussions. However, Schendel’ s
introduction to Prahalad and Hamel’s 1994 Special Issue on new paradigms presents a
provident position that certainly fits the SMS takeover strategy of the academic field of
entrepreneurship.
. . . the familiar, old ground of paradigm identification is also troubling to me. . . In
1991, in another special SMJ issue, followed by a recent book (Rumelt, Schendel, &
Teece, 1994, Fundamental Issues in Strategy) argued that there simply has been no
agreement on a paradigm for the field of strategic management. Why? We argued it
was because strategic management is fundamentally an interdisciplinary subject, a
field of practice and application, whose perspectives will shift and whose research
approaches will be incommensurable, rendering it unlikely that a single paradigm will
ever govern the field (Prahalad & Hamel, 1994, p. 2).

Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm for scholarly disciplines involved both a domain (norms
on appropriate topics) for research and teaching as well as an agreed upon epistemology
(research designs and methods). In the September 2007 issue of the Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, Rajiv Nag, Donald Hambrick, and Ming-jer Chen published an article on
the definition of SM from a large sample of strategy scholars with top-tier journal “hits”
(interesting term). The study utilized a form of semantic analysis to arrive at a consensus
definition of the SM field. Since the normal science—logical positivist opera is sung in
unity already, the domain statement furnished by Nag, Hambrick, and Chen is all that is
needed to finally settle on an agreed upon paradigm for the SM field. So, what did these
authors derive?

The field of strategic management deals with the major intended and emergent
initiatives taken by general managers on behalf of owners , involving utilization
of resources, to enhance the performance of firms in their external environments
(Nag, Hambrick, & Chen, 2007, pp. 942–943).

Nag et al.’ s article shows what the domain of SM has actually practiced in the past. If
this new domain statement is now recognized by the SMS clan, then entrepreneurship will
be changed momentously as a field of study within the SMS patronage. The common
definitions of the highlighted words in the previously mentioned domain are greatly at
variance with what traditional entrepreneurship scholars focus upon. General managers
reporting to owners fits corporate activity but not entrepreneurs nor entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurs and their top team members wear multiple hats and formality is minimal.
Furthermore, “performance” to strategy scholars is measured by ROI, ROA, and ROS,
etc. The SM competitive advantage mantra in actuality calls for developing strategies to
exploit the supra-normal returns of oligopoly “rents.” Study of oligopolies does not fit any
important meaning of entrepreneurship except what is labeled “corporate entrepreneur-
ship” and this is a diminutive segment of traditional entrepreneurship research. Corporate
entrepreneurship attracts only a few of the present entrepreneurship scholarly contingent.
The domain statement proffered in the Nag et al.’s study supports the SM status quo
leaving most of the entrepreneurship research for those who actually know the territory. A
more likely scenario is that the domain of SM will be engaged in what Schendel (1994)
labeled as a “shift” in the field.

90 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

 A Few Observations on the Words Integrate and Inferface
(or Intersections)
Hitt et al. (2002) staked out their claim to the word “integration” during their well-
conceived strategy discussions leading to the implementation of the planned takeover/
acquisition of entrepreneurship. It is illuminating to examine the definition of the word
integration.

• To unite or combine into one system

• To meld and become a part of a dominant culture
• To put together parts or elements and combine them into a whole
• “The conquest rounded and integrated the glorious empire.” (Thomas de Quincy)
Meyer, Neck, and Meeks (2002) authored the first chapter of the popular book edited by
Hitt et al., Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating a New Mindset. Our chapter was icono-
clastic because we presented a pertinacious view as indicated by the title The
Entrepreneurship-Strategic Management Interface (emphasis mine). The editors were
kind in their introduction of the book but in precursor invited Conference discussion
after papers were presented and it was clear that the word interface did not fit the norms
of the groupthink that was in control. Yet, in the editors’ introductory comments in the
aforementioned book they did state that “Entrepreneurship and strategy are complemen-
tary, not interchangeable” and cited both Meyer and Heppard (2000) and McGrath
and MacMillan (2000) as authorities on this “complementarity.” But when the 10
themes for the SEJ were created, the first one listed was “Strategy vs. Entrepreneur-
ship.” One must be reminded that “words are not pebbles in alien juxtaposition”
(Supreme Court Justice Cardoza). Why the word “versus”? I present a glimpse of the
meaning of this word next.
• Against: as in a court of law or sports contest; in contrast to
• In opposition to
• In contrast with
Neither “integration” nor “versus” appears friendly or complementary with the mean-
ings of interface or intersection. Perhaps Baker and Pollock’ s (2007) use of “takeover”
and “acquisition” are in fact borne out in the aforementioned analysis.
The Meeks–Meyer Venn diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the historic interfaces between
entrepreneurship and SM. In another paper soon to be published, we provide empirical
support for this diagram. After studying this, it becomes apparent that there exists a serious
problem in labeling these intersections as integration. The Venn diagram and the research
that supports it are historical as is the Nag et al. (2007) article. What is clear is that in the past
there were two mostly distinctive fields of research. What unfolds post-acquisition will be
interesting to follow. More than likely, in some form, the research activity of SM will change
rather definitively away from the obsession with corporate bureaucracies into the work
previously undertaken by true entrepreneurship scholars. If this is so, the normal-science,
logical-positivist dogma will also further dominate entrepreneurship research. The essence
of beyond three sigma entrepreneurial phenomena will be lost in this process. This
insistence on database dances will integrate with new databases being developed by the
powerful influence of the Kauffman Foundation. The ideology of the powerful gatekeepers
of manuscripts that make it past the first cut in top-tier SM-acceptable journals will be the
final forces who “academize” entrepreneurship research. Thus, the issue of integration will

January, 2009 91
Figure 1

The Meeks–Meyer Illustration of the Strategic Management and

Entrepreneurship Historical Interfaces (or Intersections).

Large
Business A

Corporate
Entrepreneur Large
Business

CEP

Strategic
Strate E’l Managem
Entrepreneur gic Strate ent D
ship B gy
5

NVP
6
Small
NV Business
Creation Performan

Small
Business C

CEP, corporate entrepreneurship performance; NVP, new venture performance

fall into place for the new tenure-seeking entrepreneurship professors. Many of the SMS
guilds are the keepers-of-the-coin in academic personnel decisions.
The viewpoint presented in Figure 1 was developed to facilitate conversation
between both the pioneering entrepreneurship and neophyte strategic entrepreneurship
scholars.

A Few Predictions About the Unknown World of 2039 C.E.

The next 20 years will bring unorthodox, awakened, and stirring changes in the
research and teaching of entrepreneurship. My prediction is that the “takeover” will turn
out to be overstated and perhaps downright silly. Yet, I do believe that significant change

92 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

is on the horizon. One colleague wrote that this whole “takeover-acquisition speak” is a
“red herring.” He also argues that the AOM Entrepreneurship Division Research Excel-
lence Initiative “will quietly prevail.” My position is that the normal-science, logical-
positivist paradigm will prevail and entrepreneurship research will continue to be
peripheral to actual entrepreneurs and small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners.
However, more entrepreneurship scholars will receive tenure.
SM scholars will continue to search for their ultimate paradigm with many Schendel
“shifts.” However, entrepreneurship scholars will join the strategy scholars in embracing
the normal-science, logical-positivist ideology and the latest cabalistic data analysis
techniques will be much more prevalent due to more available government databases.
Entrepreneurship research will become even less relevant to practice.
Entrepreneurship education will progress into variations on virtual reality games but
the business plan, whether truly relevant or not, will dominate coursework. Metrics for the
value of entrepreneurship education will continue to be neglected. Many new varieties of
“contests” will emerge and the value of these events will simply be assumed and serve
as part of the public relations reputation game. Many other disciplines will develop
entrepreneurship programs just as engineering schools have done to date. As with the SM
field in 2007, others will “follow the money” per Deep Throat’s advice. Entrepreneur-
ship will be “academized” just as other new fields in the past (e.g., organizational
behavior, business policy, etc.). However, a new breed of entrepreneurship professors akin
to clinical medical professors will be developed by new Schools and/or Colleges of
Entrepreneurship.
The great breakthroughs will be the product of intellectual but real-world oriented
professors, sophisticated iconoclasts in the social sciences, and humanist book-writing
biographers and storytellers. Just as Babson created a new type of engineering in the Olin
School, some courageous academic leaders with financial support from a wealthy entre-
preneur will create the first School/College of Entrepreneurship. Others will follow. The
faculty will be an interesting salmagundi of scholars who are not confined to Plato’s Cave.
The bombastic “armchair” theory makers, who are blinded by their own entrepreneurship
nescience, will be safely ensconced in their sandboxes.
Finally, a few entrepreneurship scholars will escape the straitjacket of academic
egoism and logical positivism to pursue research that is meaningful to society. Training to
teach people the practicalities of starting SMEs will become a large movement of 2-year
community colleges with significant financial support by the federal government. And
some of us who are presently in the “check-out lane” will depart this world hoping that
wiser folks will prevail.

Addendum for Dialogue Between the Traditional Strategic Management

and “Acquired” Entrepreneurship Scholars—Random Quizzicality from
the Whilom World
• Are we deluded if we believe that the normal-science, logical-positivist model
using the “epistemocracy” of the Gaussian distribution will work with entrepreneurs who
operate beyond three sigma? Or does the “bell curve satisfy the reductionism of the
deluded?” (Taleb, 2007).
• Why is it that SM with ties to industrial organization (IO) economics has trans-
formed the original IO focus of developing effective antitrust policy criteria to advising
corporate oligopolies how to sustain monopoly profits in the name of competitive advan-
tage? Are strategy scholars actually paid apologists for corporate and executive greed
January, 2009 93
while assuming away the efficiency of societal wealth creation through the purely com-
petitive model?
• Since the SMS has succeeded in its “takeover” of entrepreneurship, and since many of
the leaders of the SMS are also leaders in the Academy of Management should the
AOM Entrepreneurship Division fold into the Business Policy and Strategy Division?
Some would argue that the true original catalyst for the “integration” was the AOM
Entrepreneurship Division in 1996 and 1997 when at the annual meetings there were two
very visible 1.5-hour sessions; the first labeled “Entrepreneurship as Strategy” and the
second, after the first session ideas were digested, “Strategy as Entrepreneurship.” Finally,
is it well known where the very first Ph.D. program actually labeled “Strategy and
Entrepreneurship” was founded and by whom?
• Since the Kauffman Foundation has successfully lobbied for more government
databases on entrepreneurship and small business to be created, will this reinforce and
apotheosize the database dances so common in SM and therefore depersonalize
entrepreneurship?
• In their classic book in 1970, The Organization Makers: A Study of Independent
Entrepreneurs—1943–1958, Collins and Moore studied and wrote biographies of 100
entrepreneurs. SM is often criticized by its most senior scholars for having eliminated
“management” from strategic management. Will the SMS takeover succeed in taking
“entrepreneurs” out of entrepreneurship? Will we ever see entrepreneurial biographic
studies from academics or are these not acceptable rigorous academic research?
• If entrepreneurship is everything, then maybe it is nothing. True or false? (Pozen, 2008).
• Are there cutting edge research technologies that should be explored for research in
entrepreneurship (e.g., latent semantic analysis using Watt’s concordance program to
study comparative documents in successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurial ventures;
functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to compare corporate executives and
founding entrepreneur values and thinking processes; DNA studies to compare entrepre-
neurs and bureaucrats)?
• Is there a non-science mystical (not “occult” stuff) aspect of entrepreneurship that might
be examined? Does study of entrepreneurial “intuition” fit this mystical viewpoint?
• What are the values and perennial wisdom traditions utilized by entrepreneurs
compared with corporate executives and do these affect society as well? (e.g., do studies
of entrepreneurs really show that money is low on their lists of goals and are corporate and
financial service executives really driven by greed?)
• Productive conversation beyond the page limits of the Commentary can be spawned
by the following astute authors:
Richard A. Bettis (1991)
“I accept the assertion that research in strategic management should have relevance to
understanding actual managers, actual strategic decisions, actual business units, actual
firms, and actual industries as they exist today or are likely to exist in the future” (p. 315).
How does this assertive statement fit entrepreneurship research?
Brush et al. (2003)
In 2001, as Chair of the AOM Entrepreneurship Division I created a task force on doctoral
education in entrepreneurship that produced a report that was published in the Journal of
Strategic Management. How does this report align or disjoin with the stated domain of the
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal?
Gartner (2006)
Compare Gartner’s “A ‘Critical Mess’ Approach to Entrepreneurship Scholarship” to the
SMS “takeover” talk.

94 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

Hambrick (2004)
Don Hambrick wrote an article on “the disintegration of strategic management.” How can
a disintegrated field of study acquire another established and growing scholarly discipline
(entrepreneurship)?
Hambrick & Chen (2008)
This article is a must read for scholars in both academic fields of strategic management
and entrepreneurship. It examines the factors that contribute to the rise of an academic
field. The authors carefully develop 10 propositions that are fundamental to the outcome
of the present “acquisition” debate. Are we in an “admittance-seeking social movement”
or an “antagonistic and rebellious” confrontational contest? Don Hambrick and Ming-Jer
Cehn do not mention the SM and Entrepreneurship conversation but their careful analysis
can predict outcomes.
Ireland et al. (2001) and Ireland (2007)
In the title of the Ireland et al. article in Academy of Management Executive, one finds the
purposeful use of the “integration” of SM and Entrepreneurship. Then, in Ireland’s
“moderator comments” made in the maiden issue of the Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal he labels them “strategy versus entrepreneurship.” “Words are not pebbles in alien
juxtaposition” (Learned Hand, NLRB v Federbrush Co. 121F 2d, 304). What are the
meanings of “integration” and “versus” as used by SM scholars and the “acquisition” of
entrepreneurship?

REFERENCES
Baker, T. & Pollock, T. (2007). Making a marriage work: The benefits of strategy’s takeover of entrepreneur -
ship for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 297–312.

Bettis, R.A. (1991). Strategic management and the straightjacket: An editorial essay. Organization Science,
3, 3 15–319.

Brush, C.G., Duhaime, I., Gartner, W.B., Stewart, A., Katz, J.A., Alvarez, S., et al. (2003). Doctoral education
in the field of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29, 309–331.

Cole, A.H. (1968). Introductory remarks of special forum on the entrepreneur. American Economic Review,
58, 60–63.

Collins, O. & Moore, D.G. (1970). The organization makers: A study of independent entrepreneurs, 1943–
1958. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

Cooper, A.C., Hornaday, J.A., & Vesper, K.H. (1997). The field of entrepreneurship overtime. In W. Bygrave
(Ed.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (Postscript). Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Gartner, W.B. (2006). A “Critical Mess” approach to entrepreneurship scholarship. In A. Lundstrom & S.
Harvarsson (Eds.), Entrepreneurship research: Past perspectives and future prospects (Vol. 2, pp. 73–82).
Hanover, MA: Now Publishing.

Hambrick, D.C. (2004). The disintegration of strategic management: It’s time to consolidate our gains.
Strategic Organization, 2(1), 91–98.

Hambrick, D.C. & Chen, M.-J. (2008). New academic fields as admittance seeking social movements: The
case of strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 32–54.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D. (2001). Strategic entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial
strategies for wealth creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(Special issue).

January, 2009 95
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M., & Sexton, D.I. (2002). Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new
mindset. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Ireland, D. (2007). Moderator comments: Strategy versus entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 1, 7–10.

Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Camp, S., & Sexton, D.I. (2001). Integrating entrepreneurship and strategic
management actions to create firm wealth. Academy of Management Executive, 15(1), 49–63.

Katz, J.A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876–
1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 283–300.

McGrath, R.G. & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Meyer, G.D. & Heppard, K.A. (2000). Entrepreneurship as strategy: Competing on the entrepreneurial edge.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, G.D., Neck, H.M., & Meeks, M.D. (2002). The entrepreneurship-strategic management interface. In
M.A. Hitt & R.D. Ireland (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 19–44). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management really? Strategic Management
Journal, 28(9), 935–955.

Pozen, D.E. (2008). We are all entrepreneurs now. Wake Forest Law Review, 43, 283–240.

Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Strategy: Search for new paradigms. Strategic Management
Journal, 15(Special issue).

Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E., & Teece, D.J. (Eds.). (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.

Schendel, D. (1994). Introduction to the summer 2004 special issue—“Strategy: Search for new paradigms.”
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 1–4.

Schendel, D. & Hitt, M. (2007). Comments from the editors: Introduction to Volume 1. Strategic Entrepre-
neurship Journal, 1(1), 1.

Schendel, D.E. & Hofer, C.W. (Eds.). (1979). Strategic management: A new view of business policy and
planning. Boston: Little Brown.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 2 17–226.

Taleb, N.N. (2007). The bell curve, that great intellectual fraud. The black swan: The impact of the highly
improbable (Chapter 15, pp. 229–252). New York: Random House.
Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus
(Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship,firm emergence, and growth (Vol. 3, pp. 119–138). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

G. Dale Meyer is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado–Boulder (UCB). He was
the founder of the entrepreneurship program and the Deming Center for Entrepreneurship at UCB. Presently
he is the Senior Chairman of Western Partners Worldwide Foundation (Wp/Wf) that focuses on unemploy -
ment particularly among working-age youth.

January, 2009 96