Global Entrepreneurial Orientation

CHAPTER 2
GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURIAL
ORIENTATION (GEO): AN
UPDATED, MULTIDIMENSIONAL
VIEW OF EO
G. T. Lumpkin and Robert J. Pidduck
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has emerged as a core concept in the field
of entrepreneurship. Yet, there continue to be questions about the nature of
EO and how best to conceptualize and measure it. This chapter makes the case
that EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimensional strategy
construct and that a new multidimensional version of EO is needed to capture
the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurial activity that are
now evident around the world – global entrepreneurial orientation (GEO).
Building on the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO set forth when
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) extended the work of Miller (1983) and Covin
and Slevin (1989, 1991), the chapter offers an updated definition of EO and a
fresh interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. Despite earnest efforts to
reconcile the different approaches to EO, in order to move the study of EO and
the theoretical conversation about it forward, we maintain that as a group of
scholars and a field, we need to acknowledge that two different versions of EO
have emerged. Given that, we consider original approaches to measuring EO,
evaluate formative measurement models, consider multiple levels of analysis,
call for renewed attention to EO configurations, and discuss whether there is a
theory of EO.
Entrepreneurial Orientation: Epistemological, Theoretical, and Empirical Perspectives

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Volume 22, 17–68
Copyright © 2021 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1074-7540/doi:10.1108/S1074-754020210000022002
17
18 G. T. LUMPKIN AND ROBERT J. PIDDUCK
Keywords: Entrepreneurial orientation; global entrepreneurial orientation;

GEO; multidimensional; measurement; theory
Considering its popularity and widespread use, entrepreneurial orientation (EO)

has emerged as a core concept in the field of entrepreneurship (Rauch, Wiklund,
Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). Even so, among EO researchers, there continues to be
some debate about the nature of the construct and ongoing efforts to specify its
use (e.g., George & Marino, 2011) or reconceptualize it (e.g., Anderson, Kreiser,
Kuratko, Hornsby, & Eshima, 2015). One question that persists is whether it is bet-
ter to assess EO as a unidimensional or a multidimensional concept. The unidimen-
sional approach, developed by Covin and Slevin (1986, 1989) based on a definition
set forth by Miller (1983), maintains that EO reflects a pattern of behaviors that
“comprise a basic, unidimensional strategic orientation” (Covin & Slevin, 1989,
p. 79). The multidimensional approach, which was set forth by Lumpkin and Dess
(1996) and built on Covin and Slevin (1989), Miller (1983), and others, draws atten-
tion to five dimensions that combine to form configurations of EO that are likely to
vary depending on their environmental and organizational context. Because there
are reasonable arguments in support of either approach, Covin and Lumpkin (2011)
concluded that “both conceptualizations of the construct can lead to theoretically
and practically significant contributions to the EO knowledge base” (p. 863).
Nevertheless, the scholarly conversation surrounding the unidimensional and
multidimensional concepts has led to competing perspectives about the nature
of EO and questions about whether the two approaches can be reconciled. In
a recent article, Wales, Covin, and Monsen (2020) noted that, “In its presently
divided state, research examining EO has proceeded in a confusing manner to
many scholars” (p. 2). Indeed, on the one hand, scholars have argued that the
multidimensional view constitutes a “radical shift” in how EO is understood
(Basso, Fayolle, & Bouchard, 2009) and that, because a different measurement
approach is needed to assess it, “this construct should not be labelled as EO as it
represents something quite different” (George, 2011, p. 1310). On the other hand,
there have been earnest efforts to reconcile the two perspectives including Wales
et al. (2020) who attempt to synthesize unidimensional and multidimensional
approaches1 through a multilevel analysis of EO.
Because studies based on a unidimensional conceptualization of EO far out-
number multidimensional studies (see, in this volume, White, Choudhary, &
Gupta, 2021), Wales, Gupta, Marino, and Shirokova (2019) concluded that the
unidimensional view is the “dominant design” (p. 96). Jeff Covin and others,
including editors of this Advances volume, through years of dedicated effort, have
championed the unidimensional approach and inspired hundreds of EO studies,
thus contributing to making it the dominant design. By contrast, the multidimen-
sional approach has been used in fewer studies and is, in some respects, concep-
tually underdeveloped. Thus, the original purpose of this essay was to elaborate
on the multidimensional approach, to explain and justify its use, and to offer a
defense of its merits.
Global Entrepreneurial Orientation (GEO) 19
Indeed, there are important advantages and numerous contexts, including

cross-cultural and non-corporate contexts, where we believe employing a mul-
tidimensional approach to assess EO has its merits. A key advantage of the
multidimensional view is its ability to provide a more nuanced and fine-grained
understanding of the role that each dimension of EO plays in a given context.
The flexibility afforded by the multidimensional approach enables researchers to
identify different entrepreneurial profiles – configurations of EO dimensions –
associated with different performance outcomes (McKenny, Short, Ketchen,
Payne, & Moss, 2018). These advantages are especially important in global con-
texts because entrepreneurial activity extends well beyond the contemporary cor-
porations of developed economies that are the setting for most extant empirical
EO research (Goktan & Gupta, 2015). With venues for entrepreneurship that also
include informal economies, planned economies and lawless regimes, and envi-
ronments that range from base-of-the-pyramid poverty to new-found extreme
wealth, we believe that widely differing settings provide a strong case for investi-
gating the entrepreneurial profiles that emerge when the different dimensions of
EO are combined into unique configurations.
It was 2011 when an author first observed that EO “is part of a body of knowl-
edge that continues to grow and continues to define what it means to be entrepre-
neurial” [emphasis added] (Lumpkin, 2011, p. 4). If EO is to continue reflecting
what it means to be entrepreneurial, it is clear that the concept needs to evolve to
accommodate the diverse manifestations and venues for entrepreneurship that are
now evident to a global community of researchers. In our view, the academic con-
ceptualization of what it means to “be entrepreneurial” encompasses a broader
content domain than is represented by the unidimensional conceptualization of
EO. In other words, the unidimensional approach only taps into a subset of what
being entrepreneurial means from a global perspective. Thus, as we worked on
this essay, it became more and more clear that the assumptions underlying the
unidimensional approach have limited its development.
First, proponents of the unidimensional view have consistently argued that
innovation is the pivotal EO dimension and, without it, the essence of EO is
missing (e.g., Covin & Miles, 1999; Covin & Wales, 2019). Across the world,
however, there are numerous examples of successful entrepreneurial enterprises
that exhibit little or no innovativeness – for example, through new market entries
based on imitation of product technologies (e.g., Minniti & Lévesque, 2010).
Second, the unidimensional approach assumes that entrepreneurial firms will
also exhibit high levels of two other EO dimensions – risk-taking and proactive-
ness (e.g., Anderson et al., 2015) – even though, in some environments, successful
enterprises may display only one of those attributes and yet still be regarded as
highly entrepreneurial. Third, most unidimensional-approach scholars consider
EO to be a type of strategic orientation (e.g., Covin & Wales, 2019; Wiklund &
Shepherd, 2003), an assumption that serves to subsume the field of entrepreneur-
ship within strategy and relegate it to a subfield rather than its own domain.
These concerns about the unidimensional conceptualization of EO are also
reflected in how it is measured. The unidimensional approach revolves around the
measure commonly referred to as the Miller/Covin & Slevin 1989 scale (M/C&S
scale – Brown, Davidsson, & Wiklund, 2001) which uses language tailored to
advanced economies and corporate settings such as “high-risk projects,” “tech-
nological leadership,” and “dramatic changes in product lines.”2 In other words,
it assumes behaviors that entrepreneurial enterprises may or may not engage in.
This is not to say that some entrepreneurial firms do not experiment, employ
technology, or expand, but many may do so in ways not represented by the lan-
guage and assumptions underpinning this scale.
This combination of assumptions associated with a unidimensional approach
to EO – a requirement that entrepreneurship always includes innovation; a scale
that is written primarily for corporate respondents; the belief that an EO is merely
a type of strategic orientation – are overly constraining EO and causing it to
fall short of representing all that it means to be entrepreneurial. There are other
significant differences as well that became more important as we compared the
unidimensional and multidimensional approaches – for example, whether the
EO measurement model should be reflective or formative; whether EO can be
employed at different levels of analysis. Thus, the essay took on a larger purpose:
to draw attention to the ways that EO seems trapped by its own history, to high-
light the wider world of entrepreneurship that EO has grown into, and to propose
fresh ideas for how to conceptualize and measure it.
In the end, we found that we could not go along with Wales et al.’s (2020)
belief that the two approaches could be synthesized. They are simply too differ-
ent. Although we acknowledge that there are contexts where it is best to model
and measure EO unidimensionally, there are many other settings and situations
where a new approach to EO is needed. EO needs a system upgrade, one that
gives it more functionality and makes it available to more users. It needs more
than a refresh – it needs a new version.
The result is a new approach to EO with an updated definition and a fresh
interpretation of why EO matters theoretically. The new version – global entre-
preneurial orientation (GEO) – builds on and extends the five-dimension multi-
dimensional view of EO set forth by Lumpkin and Dess (1996). In the remainder
of this chapter, therefore, we offer an explanation and justification for this new
approach, along with a little history to elaborate on why it is needed. By provid-
ing a version of EO that captures what it means to be entrepreneurial in many
diverse contexts, GEO presents a powerful and relevant framework for motivating
decision-making and achieving results in a wide array of entrepreneurial settings.
CLARIFYING THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF EO

To begin, it is important to ask why the idea of highlighting the component
dimensions of EO and analyzing the relationship among them arose in the first
place. It was spurred by several factors, including a key insight from an early
scholarly article on new venture creation:
The creation of a new venture is a multidimensional phenomenon; each variable describes only
a single dimension of the phenomenon and cannot be taken alone …. New venture creation
is a complex phenomenon: entrepreneurs and their firms vary widely; the actions they take or
do not take and the environments they operate in and respond to are equally diverse – and all
these elements form complex and unique combinations in the creation of each new venture.
(Gartner, 1985, p. 697)
Given the wide variety of settings in which entrepreneurship is likely to mani-

fest, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) speculated that “the dimensions of EO may vary
independently of each other in a given context” (p. 137). In terms of assessing
EO, this represented a departure from the way the EO scale had been used in
most previous research.3 Rather than summing the distinct dimensions of EO and
labeling the resulting score “entrepreneurial orientation,” the Lumpkin and Dess
approach favored evaluating each dimension of EO separately and investigat-
ing the relationships among the variables. In other words, the dimensions of EO
are akin to sub-constructs combined into unique entrepreneurial configurations,
consistent with Gartner’s (1985) insight. Covin and Wales (2019) referred to this
multidimensional approach “as a ‘profile construct’ – that is, EO is represented
by how the dimensions of the construct are combined into an overall profile”
(p. 4). This approach affords a more precise and fine-grained analysis of the rela-
tionships between the dimensions and various outcomes of interest (new entry,
financial performance, etc.). The dimensions of EO are sufficiently different that
in any given enterprise, there could be wide variation in item scores. Adopting
a multidimensional approach provides researchers with the analytical capability
and added specificity to delve deeper into the degree to which each dimension
influences a more nuanced range of variables across various and diverse contexts.
From the earliest uses of what would become the EO scale items (e.g., Miller,
1983; Miller & Friesen, 1978, 1982) to the widely cited EO meta-analysis (Rauch
et al., 2009), it has been asserted that the relationship between EO and various
success measures is contingent on the external environment and internal busi-
ness conditions. This concern is heightened when entrepreneurship is viewed as
a global phenomenon involving widely different types of businesses. Because
entrepreneurial firms across the globe vary in terms of age, size, goals, ownership
regimes, organizational structures, management practices, and so forth, and their
internal contexts present alternative conditions for entrepreneurial success, it fol-
lows that a multidimensional assessment of EO affords a more robust approach
to understanding how different entrepreneurial profiles are linked to performance
outcomes. This is why a broader conceptualization of EO than the unidimen-
sional approach provides is needed – because the many environments where
entrepreneurial beliefs and behaviors are practiced extend beyond the Western
developed economy contexts where the EO concept and scale were conceived.
Numerous scholars have shown empirically that a multidimensional conceptu-
alization can be especially important for understanding the contributions made
to performance by EO in different global settings and national cultures due to the
varied and often unique dynamics surrounding entrepreneurial activity around
the world. For example, Kreiser and colleagues modeled unidimensional, bidi-
mensional, and multidimensional versions of EO across national cultural con-
texts and found the strongest support for the multidimensional model (Kreiser,
Marino, & Weaver, 2002). Extending these findings, later research found, across
seven countries, that multidimensional models fit better than the unidimensional
model, leading the researchers to conclude that “… each of these dimensions

makes a unique contribution to the overall construct, and may vary indepen-
dently of one another” (Hansen, Deitz, Tokman, Marino, & Weaver, 2011, p. 72).
This suggests that the distinctive contribution of each EO dimension to perfor-
mance outcomes would potentially be lost by applying a singular EO measure
globally (Kreiser & Davis, 2010).
The importance of a multidimensional approach is not limited to research
focused on cross-cultural differences. Studies of EO in small businesses and fam-
ily firms have also made more fine-grained discoveries by focusing on individual
dimensions. For example, in exploring the dimensional roles of EO on perfor-
mance in early-stage technology businesses, Hughes and Morgan (2007) found
that proactiveness and innovativeness were particularly influential relative to the
other dimensions – a finding that a unidimensional approach would have been
unable to tease out. In family business research centered on entrepreneurial differ-
ences among family and non-family firms, dimensional findings have been fruitful
in contributing to understanding how family firms differ. For example, Short,
Broberg, Cogliser, and Brigham (2010) found that autonomy, proactiveness, and
risk-taking are influential for distinguishing the EO of family-owned firms from
their non-family counterparts. Naldi, Nordqvist, Sjöberg, and Wiklund (2007)
also found evidence that the risk-taking aspect of EO is exhibited to a lesser
extent among family firms and, perhaps most intriguingly, negatively related
to performance – providing key insights into what being entrepreneurial means
in family firms. The multidimensional approach has also been used to develop
family-level assessments of EO to capture nuances a unidimensional approach
might miss in understanding the essence of their entrepreneurial character from
a transgenerational business perspective (Zellweger, Nason, & Nordqvist, 2012).
These and other studies of EO in settings beyond the corporate and Western envi-
ronments where it is typically investigated suggest that evaluating EO as a multi-
dimensional construct holds wide potential for making substantive contributions
to new knowledge creation.
Redeploying the Five Dimensions of EO

The unidimensional approach to EO makes two assumptions that are either absent
from or at odds with a multidimensional approach. The first is that the three
dimensions associated with the unidimensional view – innovativeness, proactive-
ness, and risk-taking – are all clearly evident in assessments of the construct.4
Given a global view of entrepreneurship, we maintain that there are many situa-
tions where only low levels of any given dimension are evident and that none of
the dimensions in particular must be strongly evident to claim the presence of EO.
Second, as important as they are, innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking
are insufficient to capture the full range of what it means to be entrepreneurial.
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) argued that two additional dimensions are needed to
capture the full range of attributes associated with EO – competitive aggressive-
ness and autonomy. To advance understanding, in this section, we extend previ-
ous research (e.g., Lumpkin & Dess, 2001; Lumpkin, Cogliser, & Schneider, 2009;
McKenny et al., 2018) and offer new insights about the importance and nature of
these two EO dimensions.
Competitiveness is What Matters for Competitive Advantage, not Aggression

With regard to the competitive aggressiveness aspect of EO – previously defined
as “an intense effort to outperform industry rivals … characterized by a combative
posture or an assertive response aimed at improving position or overcoming a
threat in a competitive marketplace” (Dess & Lumpkin, 2005, p. 148) – we sub-
mit that competitiveness is critical for entrepreneurial effectiveness throughout
the life of a venture, from its earliest launch stages and on into periods of post-
founder ownership. Although it may not be as uniquely entrepreneurial as other
EO dimensions, there are few, if any, examples of effective, sustainable entrepre-
neurial success where competitiveness has not been an essential element. When
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) examined the research that converged to bring forth
their cohesive view of EO, there appeared to be clear evidence suggesting that
competitive aggressiveness represented a significantly different phenomenon
compared to the other three dimensions of EO. In some of the literature, the
notion of aggressiveness itself seems to be conflated with other dimensions – with
proactiveness (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1988; Merz & Sauber, 1995), and with risk-
taking in the M/C&S scale.5 The extent of this overlap with other dimensions
seemed to mute its uniqueness suggesting there was a clear case for identifying
competitive aggressiveness as a separate dimension.
Despite these arguments in favor of what seems to be an obvious choice –
to draw out competitive aggressiveness as a separate dimension – upon years of
reflection, it is questionable whether “competitive aggressiveness” is the right
term in the context of an updated, global view of EO. Although Lumpkin and
Dess’s (1996) arguments were built on Venkataraman’s (1989) insights, the word-
ing of M/C&S scale items, and assumptions by previous authors (e.g., Covin &
Covin, 1990; MacMillan & Day, 1987), the use of the word “aggressiveness,” in
retrospect, seems a poor choice. It is concerning in part because the term aggres-
siveness is often used in the organizational literature in a way that is synonymous
with its meaning in the psychological literature: a willingness and impulsivity
to inflict harm or engage in hostility toward others (Buss & Perry, 1992). Such
phrasing suggests a more malevolent construct and is not the kind of aggressive-
ness implied by EO. Other aspects of competitiveness – the assertive posturing
and willingness to take a stand in opposition to rivals or engage in a vigorous
challenge – remain essential aspects of what it means to be entrepreneurial, but
without the hint of malice implied by the term aggressiveness.
Given these factors, we recommend the dimension be labeled simply “com-
petitiveness” going forward. This more succinct approach retains the intensity of
the dimension but removes the antagonism. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) defined
competitive aggressiveness as “responsiveness, which may take the form of head-
to-head confrontation, for example, when a firm enters a market that another
competitor has identified; or reactive, for example, when a firm lowers prices in
response to a competitive challenge” (pp. 148–149) – a description that could apply
to the term competitiveness alone. What makes competitiveness “aggressive” in

practice and in the literature are qualifiers such as explosive (Venkatraman, 1989),
preemptive (MacMillan, 1983), offensive (Porter, 1985), and combative (Lumpkin
and Dess, 2001). Removing aggressiveness from the term removes the hostility,
but it leaves the importance of rivalry and outperforming contenders intact, and
that is critical for EO. Put another way, competitiveness retains the essential fervor
behind being entrepreneurial but discards the ferocity.
Viewing EO and entrepreneurship in a global context highlights the signifi-
cance of competitiveness as a dimension. In Western economies, the function of
competition is well understood, even if it is not always evident in practice. But
competitiveness as a force that fosters commerce by enhancing efficiency and
focusing attention on customer/market demands cannot be taken for granted.
Competitiveness requires knowledge of markets, technologies and other competi-
tors, responding rapidly, and being up-to-date with current conditions and trends.
Yet, competitiveness is about more than being on par with rivals; it is also about
continuously aiming to be better. It is only to the extent that a given firm remains
competitive relative to other firms that it will be able to survive and thrive over
time. For small businesses, family businesses, and even franchises, there may be
few EO dimensions that are more important than competitiveness.
As a final point, it is worth noting that, since 2001, the term competi-
tive aggressiveness has been co-opted by the competitive dynamics literature
(e.g., Ferrier, 2001, Nadkarni, Chen, & Chen, 2016), a fact that has tended to
blunt its distinctiveness as an EO dimension. The term competitive aggressive-
ness actually seems to be a better fit for competitive dynamics research because
of its emphasis on hostile actions aimed at wiping out or damaging the competi-
tive position of rivals. Competitiveness, by contrast, encompasses a more general
approach that may or may not include the hardball tactics found in competitive
dynamics research, and could even include collaboration or cooperation if those
are the actions that contribute most to a firm’s competitive advantages.
Given the new insights and evolution of thought surrounding this key dimen-
sion of EO, we advocate using the more straightforward term “competitiveness”
going forward and will do so henceforth in this chapter.
Autonomy: The Fifth Wheel of Entrepreneurial Orientation?

Whereas competitive aggressiveness was part of the EO origin story and the term
aggressive is distributed across early definitions of EO (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1988)
and the M/C&S scale, autonomy was perceived to be a more offbeat addition
by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) to the dimensions of EO. Originally defined as
“independent action by an individual or team aimed at bringing forth a business
concept or vision and carrying it through to completion” (Dess & Lumpkin, 2005, p.
148), autonomy is historically the least investigated EO dimension (Wales, Gupta, &
Mousa, 2013). A few scholars have questioned its suitability as a part of EO arguing,
for example, that it seems to already be captured by the risk-taking dimension
(Basso et al., 2009) or that it perhaps enables entrepreneurship but is itself not very
entrepreneurial (George & Marino, 2011). As such, autonomy has sometimes been
thought of as a “fifth wheel,” that is, “an unnecessary and unwelcome addition to the
scene” (urbandictionary.com, 2019). Nonetheless, in this section we will argue that
autonomy, understood more broadly, is vitally important to entrepreneurship and
central to a multidimensional approach to EO. Indeed, without some degree of
autonomy, as we will explain, enterprises cannot be entrepreneurial.
It is true that in the management field, some autonomy research focuses on
organizational arrangements such as work scheduling, work methods, and team
design aimed at supporting flexibility and decision latitude (Breaugh, 1999;
Gulowsen, 1972). Organizations with a “top-down” approach attempt to foster
autonomy by creating an entrepreneurial climate that stems from the top and per-
meates most aspects of the company including structural arrangements and incen-
tive systems (Birkinshaw, 1997; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008). Apple,
Google, 3M, and W. L. Gore are examples of companies that grant employees
autonomy to promote innovative thinking and explore business opportunities
(Lumpkin et al., 2009).
Although structural autonomy can help promote independent decision-
making, it is strategic autonomy (Hart, 1991) that is vital to EO because it enables
an individual or team “to operate outside normal organizational constraints
in addressing what it will accomplish and how it will achieve its objectives”
(Lumpkin et al., 2009, p. 50). The insights and research commonly associated
with autonomy in an EO context – primarily that of Burgelman (1983, 2002)
and Hart (1991, 1992) – involve “bottom-up” initiatives undertaken in the face
of existing structures and norms. Autonomous individuals from the grass roots
of an organization and product champions who carry forth fledgling ideas are
what make some organizations entrepreneurial by being sources of creativity
and initiative (Brock, 2003; Burgelman, 1983; Greene, Brush, & Hart, 1999).
Organizations that promote autonomy do so to foster fresh perspectives and new
insights by giving employees the freedom to operate outside established routines
and norms.
Yet, despite its strategy-making process roots and obvious fit in the context
of corporate entrepreneurship (CE), the autonomy described in Lumpkin and
Dess’s (1996) EO article was never intended to apply exclusively to corporate
settings. Autonomy from an EO perspective refers to the willingness and ability to
work independently, make decisions, and take actions aimed at bringing forth a business concept
or vision and carrying it through to completion … autonomy in an EO context is clearly a vital
aspect of entrepreneurial value creation. (Lumpkin et al., 2009, pp. 62–63)
As such, the term also encompasses the kind of autonomy needed by startup
entrepreneurs to launch a new venture and explains, in part, the emphasis on
new entry as the essential entrepreneurial act. Although it is a small difference,
Lumpkin and Dess (1996) were careful to define entrepreneurship as entering
markets for the first time, and not necessarily entering new markets (see Dess,
Lumpkin, & McGee, 1999). This language was intended to focus on startups and
launch, acts that require the independent action and initiative of autonomy.
This dual approach to autonomy in an EO context corresponds to the “two dis-
tinct but related processes – breaking free and breaking up” identified by Rindova
and colleagues in the autonomy section of “Entrepreneuring as Emancipation.”

Citing Sarasvathy, Dew, Velamuri, and Venkataraman (2003, p. 115) they write,
“while breaking free suggests the desire to make one’s own way in the world,
breaking up draws attention to the ‘striving to imagine and create a better world’”
(Rindova, Barry, & Ketchen, 2009). The type of autonomy that Burgelman and
others argued was essential for entrepreneurship involves breaking up – disrupt-
ing old patterns, championing new ideas, redefining strategic objectives, and
embracing change. Equally important to entrepreneurship is the autonomy of
entrepreneurial founders who are driven to break free and achieve self-sufficiency
by taking independent action and launching ventures (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
Research and analysis into EO-based autonomy reveals that both approaches
to EO can be found in the literature. Studies assessing organizational-based,
“top-down” autonomy find that it can enhance performance by enabling units or
individuals within an organization to depart from bureaucratic constraints and
act more independently. For example, Pearce, Fritz, and Davis (2010) examined
EO-based autonomy in church congregations and found that the more highly
autonomous congregations had more strategic and operational flexibility to devi-
ate from official denominational structures and respond to local needs – thus
enhancing attendance and donations. In a study examining autonomy through
a configurational lens, Yu, Lumpkin, Parboteeah, and Stambaugh (2019) found
that, among family firms in performance-oriented cultures, autonomy enhanced
performance in dynamic industries. This aligns broadly with McKenny et al.
(2018) who also found that autonomy plays an influential entrepreneurial role in
specific contexts such as growing yet stable industries.
Studies investigating more “bottom-up,” individual-centric forms of autonomy
provide further evidence that EO-based autonomy is important. For instance, Li,
Huang, and Tsai (2009) surveyed founding entrepreneurs in Taiwan and found
that autonomy was associated with higher firm performance because it stimulated
the knowledge-creation processes of the entrepreneurs. Recent studies of project
manager behavior (e.g., Martens, Machado, Martens, & de Freitas, 2018) suggest
that their EO-based autonomy is influential for new project performance, high-
lighting the key role that freedom provides to pursue entrepreneurial opportuni-
ties without supervisory oversight. In summary, whether autonomy is manifest
as freedom from constraints, or freedom to pursue new initiatives, the empirical
research to date points to its importance in understanding what it means to be
entrepreneurial across a range of contexts.
Clearly, autonomy has a vital role to play in entrepreneurial pursuits. Rather
than seeing it as an “unnecessary addition” in the pejorative sense of a fifth wheel,
we see autonomy as an essential fifth wheel which is the name given to a highly
functional coupling hitch used by campers and semi-trailers to promote freedom
of movement and flexibility. The fifth wheel enables pivoting which, according to
Rindova and colleagues, helps explain how entrepreneurs maneuver between creat-
ing changes and discovering opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Rindova et al.,
2009). Autonomy, like fifth wheels, facilitates a wide range of movement and action,
without which companies cannot be entrepreneurial. Autonomy is also crucial for
the essential act of entrepreneurship – new entry. We turn to that in the next section.
Table 1. The Five Dimensions of a Multidimensional Model of EO.

Dimension Definitions and Keywords
Autonomy • Having the freedom and flexibility to take independent action, outside of
established norms and routines; being willing to assume responsibility and
champion new ideas.
• Independence, self-sufficiency, initiative
Proactiveness • Being alert and scanning for possibilities; anticipating and envisioning the
future; being willing to act on opportunities ahead of future demand.
• Opportunity-seeking, forward-looking, trailblazing
Innovativeness • Being inventive and experimental; using fresh insights, novel thinking, and new
knowledge to create or improve products, services, and processes.
• Creative, original, resourceful
Competitiveness • Being willing to directly challenge rivals; being assertive in response to threats
and changing conditions; being vigorous in efforts to continuously improve and
maintain high standards.
• Advantage-seeking, achievement-oriented, fervent
Risk-taking • Making judgments and decisions and taking action under conditions of
uncertainty; some initiatives may involve making substantial resource
commitments in the process of venturing forward.
• Enterprising, courageous, bold
Adding autonomy and competitiveness to the original three EO dimensions

proposed by Miller (1983) – innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking –
yields a robust set of dimensions. See Table 1 for updated definitions of the five
EO dimensions.
TWO VIEWS OF EO: A BRIEF HISTORY

The need for a new version of EO has emerged because of a combination of
factors including advances in thinking and empirical insights, as well as efforts to
preserve the original version and justify its relevance. In the interest of explaining
some of the conceptual arguments, underlying assumptions, and fresh insights
that have guided our analysis, in this section we trace some of the thinking and
developments in the history of the EO construct.
New Entry: A Long and Winding Road

New entry, that is, launching enterprises or entering markets for the first time, is
more closely linked to autonomy than to any other EO dimension. Innovativeness
and proactiveness are important for exploring whether a new venture concept is a
novel and attractive opportunity; risk-taking is important for assessing how big a
leap a new entrant may need to take and how it will be paid for; competitiveness
addresses what is needed to be viable in the marketplace. But without some degree
of autonomy – the independence, flexibility, and willingness to act – no amount
of analyzing, innovating, or strategizing will result in new entry.
Note that new entry may manifest in many different ways depending on the
conditions surrounding it, a point accounted for in Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996)
description of it as “entering new or established markets with new or existing

goods or services” (p. 136). As such, there are different types of new entry. Wales,
Wiklund, and McKelvie (2015) conceptualize new entry as comprising three
broad areas: launching a new product, entry into a new market, and establishing a
new venture. The impetus for launching a new product, for example, is innovative
new product development that may or may not require high levels of autonomy
to advance, but may require autonomy to originate, depending on the culture
of the existing organization. Additionally, entering markets for the first time –
such as bringing existing products into untapped global markets or introducing
new services that threaten incumbent competitors – involves varying degrees of
proactive opportunity search and competitive risk-taking, but does not happen
unless the autonomy to act is present. Finally, the freedom and willingness to take
autonomous action is vital for the new entry associated with establishing a new
venture.
New entry is a defining feature of entrepreneurship (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996).
As such, the term “new entry” resonates as a way to describe entrepreneurship and
the term “new entrant” is a clear way to distinguish entrepreneurs. As a “thumb-
nail” definition of entrepreneurship, new entry stands in contrast to familiar con-
cepts from strategy and economics such as threat of new entrants from Porter’s
(1985) five forces model and barriers to entry used by Bain and other industrial
organization (IO) economists (e.g., Fee, Mialon, & Williams, 2004). Relative to
other strategic players, it is the entrepreneurs that the barriers are trying to keep
out, and it is often entrepreneurs who impose threats on incumbent firms.
The overarching problem Lumpkin and Dess were trying to address by using
the term new entry was to separate EO as a process from entrepreneurship as
action that flows from the process. Miller (2011) highlights the importance of this
distinction by noting that, since his 1983 article,
there has been a careful attempt to distinguish entrepreneurship from EO – that is, the content
of a new entry from the process of pursuing that entry (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) … This is an
important advance as it separates the “what” from the “how” [emphasis added]. (Miller, 2011,
p. 875)
Drawing attention to the EO–Entrepreneurship relationship was a useful way

to distinguish between process and content issues – the how and the what – in
entrepreneurship research. However, it now appears that the research implica-
tions of this distinction have become muddled.
First, there is the observation that, even though Lumpkin and Dess (1996)
argued that “EO refers to the processes, practices, and decision-making activi-
ties that lead to new entry” (p. 136), few studies have attempted to examine the
relationship between EO and new entry (Wales et al., 2015). In their 1996 article,
after highlighting new entry, it is unclear why Lumpkin and Dess went on to make
financial performance rather than new entry the dependent variable (DV) in sub-
sequent models and discussions. This is a fair question, one that slipped past the
authors and the half dozen AMR reviewers and editors who worked on the paper.
It is perhaps a testimony to how deeply the thinking around EO was grounded in
the strategy literature where, at the time of publication, it was taken for granted
that financial performance was the most salient DV.
Second, some EO researchers raised concerns about the implications of

claiming new entry to be EO’s primary outcome variable. George and Marino
(2011), for example, argued that, because Lumpkin and Dess (2011) “linked the
construct solely to new entry” (p. 990), then those entrepreneurial behaviors that
do not lead to new entry could not be classified as EO. They added that naming
new entry as EO’s DV is,
in contrast to the definition proposed by Covin and Slevin, which suggests that EO is a strategic
posture reflecting the decisions and processes of the firm, but not explicitly limited to those that
lead to new entry. (George & Marino, 2011, p. 992)
Third, perhaps most confusing are recent attempts to argue that new entry is
part of EO rather than separate from it, in effect overturning the process-content
distinction that had been hailed as an important advance, and ignoring the critics
of new entry as an inappropriate DV. This idea was first suggested by Covin and
Miller (2014) who concluded that, “entrepreneurial entities (individuals, firms,
or other units of analysis) can only truly be known as such if they engage in
entrepreneurial acts; that is, acts of new entry” (p. 15). This statement is actu-
ally consistent with Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) original perspective about the
importance of new entry and was subsequently affirmed by Covin and Wales
(2019) who argue that EO exists to the degree that it reflects sustained patterns of
“proactive new entry.”
The problem arises because the authors also claim that new entry is not distinct
from EO but part of it because it is present in the M/C&S scale. Covin and Miller
(2014) argue that the EO scale item which asks, “How many new lines of products
or services has your firm marketed in the past 5 years?” is a measure of new
entry. Based on that, they assert that, “the most widely employed EO scale – the
M/C&S scale – includes new entry in the operationalization of the EO construct”
(Covin & Miller, 2014, p. 15). Later, in Wales et al.’s (2015) study of new entry,
a second item from the M/C&S scale is identified as a new entry measure. But if
EO and new entry are conceptually distinct and stand in relation to each other
theoretically, how can they both be in the same scale?
The confusion lies in the distinction between innovation and innovativeness.
This small but important difference sheds new light on the claim that new entry is
already included in the M/C&S scale. The early EO thinking that was inspired by
Miller and advanced by Covin and Slevin used product-market innovation, a term
from the strategy literature, as a frame of reference. Innovation is defined as “the
act of introducing something new” (American Heritage Dictionary), a usage that
clearly suggests the “what” of new entry. From this perspective, it is possible to
understand how a scale item that includes language such as “Is very often the first
business to introduce new products/services” might support equating innovation
with new entry.
It is interesting to note that, with very few exceptions, the term “innovativeness”
does not appear in the early history of EO. Miller and Friesen (1978, 1982) used
it a few times and Ginsberg, who appears to have coined the term “entrepre-
neurial orientation,” used it in 1985 (Ginsberg, 1985). But it does not appear in
Miller (1983) or in EO-related work by Covin and Slevin (1986, 1988, 1989, 1991).
By contrast, Lumpkin and Dess used the word innovativeness 48 times and it
can be said that doing so was an innovation of their 1996 article. It shifted the
focus to the innovation process – the “how” – and away from outcomes such as
product-market innovations. As noted, a key aim of the 1996 article was to clarify
whether EO should be classified as process or content, a topic that was ambigu-
ous in prior research (Miller & Freisen, 1982, 1983). Indeed, the explicit sepa-
ration of EO from new entry in particular, and from content and performance
variables in general, was new. The separation had not been emphasized in prior
EO-related work6 and doing so shifted perceptions about the EO construct. To a
great extent, the 1996 article led to the unidimensional versus multidimensional
debate that persists to this day and contributed to the confusion over innovation
versus innovativeness.
Whatever the explanation, the confounding of EO and new entry highlights
two issues about the current status of EO research. First, with “proactive new
entry” becoming a central component of the unidimensional approach to EO,
it now appears innovation in all its forms has been likened to new entry: “new
entry is used in reference to product, service, technological, market, or business
model innovation” (Covin & Wales, 2019, p. 5). Given the equivalence between
innovation and new entry suggested by this framing, it also implies that innova-
tion is the primary aim of EO. That perception is overly narrow, in our view,
and, as we explain, among the key reasons why the new GEO version of EO is
needed.
Second, and perhaps more concerning, it seems the primary justification for
embracing new entry is not theoretical but because it is already accounted for in
the M/C&S scale. Clearly, there is a risk in using the language of a scale to define
the meaning of a construct rather than the other way around. In the next section,
we elaborate further on current uses of the M/C&S scale.
Untangling Process Versus Content from Dispositions Versus Behaviors

Since Lumpkin and Dess (1996) highlighted it and Miller (2011) hailed it as
an important advance, contrasting process and content in EO research has
sharpened our understanding. The process-content distinction is especially
useful for conceptualizing the EO–Entrepreneurship relationship as a relation-
ship between an independent variable (IV) and DV where EO/process is the IV
and Entrepreneurship/content is the DV. Applying Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996)
insight, in this framing, entrepreneurship is conceived of as a discrete act of new
entry such as launching a venture or introducing a new product. An important
question then becomes, what is the nature of the EO process?
In their discussion of organizational development and change, Van de Ven
and Poole (1995) identify four different change processes that capture the pro-
gression of events over time that lead to change. From this perspective, pro-
cesses operate as “conceptual motors” for bringing about change. The processes
can be explained by theories, one of which is teleology which implies working
toward a goal or desired future state through purposeful enactment. The empha-
sis in teleology is on the end state but it is often reached by processes that are
emergent, novelty-seeking, and unpredictable – much like EO. Applied to the

EO–Entrepreneurship relationship, it suggests that EO is the process, that is, the
complex and iterative means by which change happens, and entrepreneurship in
the form of new entry corresponds to the end or goal.
This perspective is useful, we believe, for reconciling another issue that is
linked to the unidimensional versus multidimensional conversation surround-
ing EO: dispositions versus behaviors. Covin and Lumpkin (2011) suggest
that the issue of whether EO is a dispositional or behavioral construct is “a
recurring question” among EO scholars. Broadly speaking, the unidimensional
approach emphasizes behavior as the primary indicator that EO is taking place
(e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1991) and defines EO in terms of “a sustained pattern
of entrepreneurial behavior” (Covin & Wales, 2019). The multidimensional
approach emphasizes the dispositional aspects of EO and EO as a belief or
mindset – a “propensity … a willingness … a tendency…” (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996, p. 137). Whereas dispositions suggest an attitude or inclination, behaviors
refer to taking action. Given that, is it reasonable to conclude that EO refers to
one but not the other?
In our view, the answer is no. We submit that few scholars would argue that EO
is either purely dispositional or purely behavioral. How, then, can EO account
for both dispositions and behaviors? We believe the answer lies in recognizing
that EO itself is a complex, iterative change process in which both elements are
critical. In other words, dispositions and behaviors are both essential to the EO
process. Dispositions and behaviors are highly interactive and how they interact
is critical for specifying what EO is and how it operates. Conceptualizing EO as
a complex process reflects Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) teleology-based process
view which includes a willingness to experiment, a propensity to adapt, and a
belief in iterating (dispositions) as well as conscious movement toward ends and
determined effort (behaviors).
Indeed, viewing the EO process as encompassing both dispositions and
behaviors naturally raises new questions about how to operationalize EO.
Effectively measuring both dispositions and behaviors may create challenges for
researchers, but it also affords fresh opportunities for new knowledge creation.
However, the idea of explicitly differentiating yet integrating dispositions
and behaviors has rarely been addressed largely because, in the M/C&S scale
which dominates EO studies, dispositions and behaviors are combined rather
than separate. That is, there are scale items that express dispositions – “the top
managers of my firm believe that…” or “have a strong proclivity” – alongside
items that indicate behaviors – my firm “typically initiates actions…” or “Is very
often the first business to introduce…” The practice of mixing dispositions and
behavior items together in the same scale is questionable from the standpoint of
scale development. It suggests that the conceptual domain of the scale may not
have been carefully specified (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011) which
many consider contrary to good practice. It is debatable whether mixing two
types of items is a problem for sound measurement, but also concerning that a
primary justification for doing so seems to be because it is already in the M/C&S
scale that way (Covin & Lumpkin, 2011).
In sum, even though the distinctions between these two pairs – process versus
content and dispositions versus behaviors – are minor, they have served different
purposes in the history of EO. By untangling process versus content from dispo-
sitions versus behaviors, our intent is to show that they both have important but
significantly different roles in how EO is conceptualized and operationalized. The
process-content distinction is useful for gaining a clearer conceptualization of EO
and for understanding the EO–Entrepreneurship relationship; the dispositions-
behaviors contrast acknowledges that fresh approaches are needed to operation-
alize both dispositions and behaviors with measures that capture the breadth and
complexity of the EO process. Such efforts also need to acknowledge and inte-
grate the implications of different EO measurement models. We turn to that next.
Reflective Versus Formative EO Measurement Models

Following the publication of Lumpkin and Dess (1996), several researchers set out
to examine whether EO was unidimensional or multidimensional (e.g., Hansen
et al., 2011; Kreiser et al., 2002) and to test the claim that, “the dimensions of
EO may vary independently of each other in a given context” (Lumpkin & Dess,
1996, p. 137). The idea that the EO dimensions might vary independently was not
intended to be a challenge to the M/C&S scale per se, but because it was used in
empirical tests of that assertion, it drew attention to the scale and its nine items.
At the same time, it became clear that there were theoretical and methodological
implications related to the “vary independently” approach to conceptualizing
EO that made it problematic given extant measurement techniques. Several
researchers examining the M/C&S scale and testing unidimensional versus
multidimensional approaches have highlighted the need to align EO methods
with the assumptions underlying each approach (e.g., George & Marino, 2011;
Kreiser, Marino, Dickson, & Weaver, 2010; Runyan, Ge, Dong, & Swinney, 2012).
In particular, questions about the relationship between EO and its dimensions
have focused attention on reflective versus formative measurement models.
A key insight came from George (2011) who concluded, broadly speaking,
that the unidimensional approach assesses EO using a reflective measurement
model whereas the multidimensional view is more closely aligned with formative
measurement models.7 Although in practice, both measurement techniques have
been used to assess EO, most scholars agree that the M/C&S scale is intended
to measure EO as a reflective construct (e.g., Covin & Wales, 2012; George &
Marino, 2011). In setting up his study of reflective versus formative conceptual
models, George (2011) made two important observations. He noted first,
In a reflective second-order model, only the common variance is attributed to the multidimen-
sional8 construct … Since the subdimensions are reflective of the multidimensional construct,
whether there are three or five subdimensions is irrelevant. (p. 1296)
Second, about formative models he writes,

In this type of model, EO is defined by its subdimensions and does not exist except as a
combination of these dimensions. Therefore … including all of the relevant dimensions of
EO is critical in a formative model to ensure that the domain of EO is adequately captured.
(George, 2011, p. 1299)
In our view, these two insights are rather ironic in light of the EO debate
that was sparked by Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) introduction of two additional
dimensions. On the one hand, proponents of the M/C&S scale-based unidimen-
sional approach had argued that there is no room for extra dimensions because
that doesn’t fit with Miller’s (1983) definition of EO upon which the whole history
of EO rests. It turns out, according to George (2011), if the M/C&S-based view
of EO is measured as a reflective model, it does not matter how many dimen-
sions it has (as long as no two dimensions are highly correlated). On the other
hand, Lumpkin and Dess (1996), in suggesting that the EO dimensions likely
varied independently, implied that a firm could be entrepreneurial, even if some
of the dimensions were not operating at all, a theme that was picked up by other
researchers (e.g., Hughes & Morgan, 2007). This view has been decried for open-
ing EO up to an “anything goes” perspective that leaves the construct too under-
specified and ambivalent. As it turns out, if the multidimensional view of EO is
measured as a formative model, it is all important which dimensions are used to
define it and imperative that they all be measured, a point that informs the defini-
tion of EO advanced later in the chapter.
There is extensive research on the implications of reflective versus forma-
tive measurement models (e.g., Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005), some of which we return to later in the chapter. An
in-depth analysis of these techniques is beyond the scope of this chapter. Both
approaches call for greater precision and clearer assumptions when conducting
EO research than has sometimes been evident in past research (Covin & Wales,
2012; George, 2011). Nevertheless, the differences in measurement models and
the cumulative insights that have arisen from studies comparing the unidimen-
sional and multidimensional approaches to EO are among the key reasons why
the need to chart two different future paths to conceptualizing EO has emerged.
These measurement considerations also highlight how important it is to clarify
the definition of EO. The new view of EO presented here, in comparison to the
original view of EO, provides a fresh opportunity to specify the definition of EO
and to link it more carefully to a measurement model. Doing so has important
theoretical implications and will shape subsequent methodological considerations.
As George (2011) noted,
the theoretical definition of the construct lies at the heart of the debate around the nature of the
EO construct and is of critical importance for determining the appropriate research questions,
developing theoretical linkages and determining the appropriate measurement model. (p. 1311)
The New Entry View of EO Versus The Being Entrepreneurial View of EO

Along with the concerns related to the M/C&S scale and differences in the meas-
urement models, there are theoretical assumptions underlying the unidimensional
and multidimensional approaches that are difficult to reconcile. It was to chal-
lenge one of these assumptions, namely, the claim that to be entrepreneurial,
an enterprise must exhibit elevated levels of innovativeness, proactiveness, and
risk-taking (e.g., Anderson et al., 2015), that Lumpkin and Dess (1996) brought
forward the idea that the dimensions of EO might vary independently. A related
assumption is the idea that innovativeness should be a common feature among all
firms that are considered to be entrepreneurial (e.g., Covin & Miles, 1999).
From our perspective, it is important to acknowledge that founding business
owners and entrepreneurial enterprises may not score highly on every dimension
of EO. In various contexts across different global settings, the combinations of
EO dimensions that manifest are likely to vary independently and when that is so,
it does not mean the enterprise is not entrepreneurial, only differently entrepre-
neurial. In one case, a founder might launch a business that to him is the scariest
most independent thing imaginable (risk-taking and autonomy) but do so with
only a modicum of innovativeness. Can we really conclude that that does not
reflect an EO? Elsewhere, the child of royalty with a scientific flair may launch
a highly innovative new product in an undefined market without assessing the
nature of the opportunity, and with little concern for the financial risk because of
her family’s wealth. Does her enterprise lack EO because of her low proactiveness
and low risk-taking scores?
With regard to innovativeness as the “single common manifestation of entre-
preneurial behavior” (Covin, Green, & Slevin, 2006), this claim seems most
reasonable when applied to corporate contexts. In fact, innovation is a central
component of most definitions of CE (e.g., Sharma & Chrisman, 1999). But if
EO is viewed in a global context, it has to allow for non-corporate and other
situations where innovativeness, or any of the dimensions, could have a low score
and thus a negligible influence on what it means to be entrepreneurial in a given
setting. Solo enterprises, small businesses, and franchises,9 for which the most
salient EO dimensions are typically autonomy, risk-taking, and competitiveness,
often do not rely on innovativeness to thrive. We share the view, therefore, that
in many cases, including even corporate settings, a high level of innovativeness is
not always necessary, “because organizational creation or renewal can occur in
the absence of innovation” (Sharma & Chrisman, 1999, p. 18).
In fact, if we were to advocate for a single common manifestation of EO,
it would be important to consider risk-taking consistent with recent research
that investigated how the dimensions of EO relate to each other. For example,
Anderson et al. (2015) advocated for risk-taking to be the sole attitudinal aspect
of EO – with innovativeness and proactiveness comprising the combined behav-
ioral facet. Further, recent research revealed that although all dimensions of EO
are influential for firm performance, risk-taking plays arguably the most crucial
role as it is not only directly related to performance but also mediates the role
of proactiveness on performance (Putnins & Sauka, 2019). As such, we see risk-
taking as pivotal in accordance with Stevenson and Gumpert’s (1985) view that
“pursuing opportunities,” which they identified as the heart of entrepreneurship,
was primarily a reference to risk-taking. That being said, we also acknowledge
empirical research which finds that attitudes toward risk are correlated with sub-
sequent entrepreneurial action, but not perfectly (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002),
implying that the other four dimensions of EO also play an essential role.
The original formulation of the EO construct – based on Miller’s (1983)
definition, developed by Covin and Slevin (1986, 1989, 1991), and measured
with the M/C&S scale – has carried EO forward with remarkable success.
The unidimensional version of EO with its simple, summable scale is the reason
EO “is widely considered to be a cornerstone of the literature on firm-level
entrepreneurship” (Wales, Gupta, et al., 2013, p. 357). Yet, this approach to EO
has changed very little from its initial framing as a firm-level strategic posture,
with one important exception: it has adopted new entry as its defining behavior.
As we have argued, doing so has constrained the scope of EO and sometimes
required convoluted logic and questionable interpretations of the M/C&S scale.
Considering that the unidimensional version of EO is now defined in terms of
“a sustained pattern of entrepreneurial behavior reflecting incidents of proactive
new entry” (Covin & Wales, 2019), we believe it can now best be described as “the
new entry view of EO.”
By contrast, the five-dimension multidimensional view of EO refers to more
than a strategic posture or category of strategy and encompasses more outcomes
than new entry to capture a more wide-ranging expression of what it means to be
entrepreneurial. The GEO view of EO is global, that is, it takes into account the
many forms entrepreneurship can take and the many contexts in which it occurs.
With its five dimensions, it expresses a more comprehensive view of EO. This new
approach we are advancing is “the being entrepreneurial view of EO.”
The new entry view of EO is corporate, that is, it applies to strategic behavior
by established firms. According to Covin and Miller (2014),
new entry is evidenced through new market development activity, new product development
activity, or new product-market development activity (aka, new business activity or diversification),
as traditionally defined in the strategic management literature. (p. 15)
Although this definition accounts for entering new markets, it does not include
startups entering markets for the first time, that is, when a first-time entrepre-
neur or entrepreneurial team launches a new venture. In their study of new entry,
Wales et al. (2015) limited their investigation to three types of new entry by exist-
ing firms and did not consider entry by entrepreneurs creating new enterprises.
The small number of new firm launches reported in the study were launched by
existing firms. The types of new entry that have been the focus of the new entry
view of EO are primarily corporate. Moreover, the language of the M/C&S scale
is not suited for the pre-launch realms of entrepreneurship.
The being entrepreneurial view of EO applies to existing firms but also to
the pre-organizational phases of entrepreneurship – as such, it encompasses EO
at the individual level. One of the key defining features of entrepreneurship as
a field of study is that it addresses the beliefs and behaviors, the activities and
processes that happen before a startup is ever launched, before an enterprise is
ever formed. So much of the research that emerges from business school scholars
pertains to existing organizations. Yet, entrepreneurship is the one domain where
knowledge is created about the forces, processes, and actions that precede firm
existence. Scholars who study opportunity recognition, firm birth, and nascent
entrepreneurship have taken up the topic of what happens prior to and during
firm formation. EO needs to be part of that conversation as well.
The new entry view of EO remains closely allied with CE and strategy, and
the M/C&S scale was developed in the context of existing corporations. In fact,
years after the first known uses of the term “entrepreneurial orientation” (Covin
& Slevin, 1988; Ginsberg, 1985), versions of the M/C&S scale were used in studies
that referred to the items as a CE scale (e.g., Barrett & Weinstein, 1998; Morris,
Davis, & Allen, 1994). The Anderson and colleagues reconceptualization of EO,
a serious attempt to demonstrate how EO is a mix of behaviors and attitudes, has
as one of its goals to make EO more acceptable and useful to strategy researchers
(Anderson et al., 2015). We believe such goals hold EO back from a larger audi-
ence and make it a captive of the field of strategic management.
As an aside, it is a curious artifact of the way that entrepreneurship developed
as a scholarly field out of the management field that entrepreneurship continues
to be perceived by some as a subfield, especially of strategic management. Never
mind that the two leading entrepreneurship journals have higher impact factors
than the leading strategic management journal,10 even though the latter is on nearly
every Business School’s list of “A” journals. And what about the fact that there are
now not just Schools of Entrepreneurship11 but a College of Entrepreneurship.12
A Google search reveals no Colleges of Strategic Management.
Historians know what business school academics rarely admit: that entrepre-
neurship preceded strategic management as both a practice and a field of study.
Strategy may have been important historically for war, but until entrepreneurs
started building ever-larger corporations, it was not highlighted as important
in business. In fact, it was Alfred Chandler, a father of strategic management,
who taught that the creation of the multidivisional enterprise and the profes-
sional administrators who ran them – strategic managers – was an entrepreneurial
response to the conditions surrounding modern corporations after World War I
(Supple, 1991). Strategic management itself is an entrepreneurial solution.
Strategy emerged because of entrepreneurship, not the other way around. That is
why Collins and Moore (1970) called entrepreneurs, “The Organization Makers.”
Business policies and strategies are needed to manage the actions and initiatives
of entrepreneurs. Even today, strategic managers would have little to work on if
it was not for the challenges and opportunities associated with being entrepre-
neurial. Alas … we digress.
The point is, there is no reason why EO, which has become one of the most
dominant constructs in the field of entrepreneurship, should be subsumed within
the field of strategy. But the new entry view of EO and the wording and under-
lying assumptions and uses of the M/C&S scale have tended to keep it there.
Many EO scholars routinely refer to EO as a strategic orientation. Covin and
Wales (2019) refer to EO as a “strategic-level construct” and caution research-
ers to beware of gathering information about EO from strategically unaware
informants such as individuals who are acting autonomously or innovatively.
Why should we think of EO as merely strategic? Why should we think of EO
as a special case of strategic orientation? EO needs to get out of the shadow of
strategic management.
A being entrepreneurial view of EO accomplishes that. It moves EO beyond its
historical confines and brings it into greater contextual richness. This is particu-
larly timely given the field of entrepreneurship’s drift away from decontextualized
(i.e., narrow) assumptions about what “being entrepreneurial” means, to incor-

porating the full spectrum of contexts we see in practice around the world today
(Welter, Baker, & Wirsching, 2019). The EO construct can now be found across
settings and literatures outside of strategy and entrepreneurship – such as public
higher education institutions (e.g., Felgueira & Rodrigues, 2012) and pharmacy
schools (Hermansen-Kobulnicky & Moss, 2004) – as well as in many manifes-
tations of entrepreneurship evident today – such as necessity entrepreneurship
(Block, Kohn, Miller, & Ullrich, 2015; Dencker, Bacq, Gruber, & Haas, 2019),
base-of-the-pyramid entrepreneurship (Webb, Kistruck, Ireland, & Ketchen,
2010), entrepreneurship by very small firms which constitute the vast majority
of entrepreneurial businesses (Blackburn & Smallbone, 2008), self-employment
(Parker, 1997, 2004), “digital nomads” (Cook, 2020; Müller, 2016) and, impor-
tantly, the pre-launch activities that comprise entrepreneurship and constitute an
individual or firm’s “initiating endeavors” which are fundamental to being entre-
preneurial (Shepherd, Wennberg, Suddaby, & Wiklund, 2019). When those set-
tings and others are taken into account, it is clear that EO has come to represent
more than just a type of strategic orientation.
These two perspectives on EO – the new entry view and the being entrepre-
neurial view – encompass, yet go beyond, the unidimensional versus multidi-
mensional debate about the construct. The two views address issues of context,
stage of development, level of analysis, dimensionality, and other points of
difference. The new entry view is the current evolution of the original Miller
(1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991) approach. The being entrepreneurial
view recognizes that EO has become far more universal and portable across
contexts, and now represents – to the field of entrepreneurship and beyond –
much more than a type of strategic orientation. EO now has utility and cachet
in many arenas, and among many types of enterprises and multiple levels of
analysis (e.g., Mrabure, Ruwhiu, & Gray, 2018; Mthanti & Ojah, 2017; Zainol &
Daud, 2011).
Table 2 presents areas of contrast between the two perspectives, including
some that are discussed later in the paper. Given that the new entry view reflects
a corporate perspective where incumbent firms engage in practices aimed at pre-
serving their strategic viability, we suggest a new acronym for the unidimensional
view of EO: CEO – corporate entrepreneurial orientation.
The being entrepreneurial view of EO has profound implications for how EO
is understood and defined and used in research. To move the study of EO and
the theoretical conversation about it forward, we need as a group of scholars and
as a field, to acknowledge that we are now talking about two different versions
of EO. Whether that new reality propels scholars to call for splitting up EO and
making a clean break between the two approaches, or for seeing EO as a growing
family of related constructs (George & Marino, 2011), the EO construct is at a
crossroads. We advocate the latter and, in the remainder of this chapter, take up
the cause of the newer family member – the being entrepreneurial GEO version
of EO. We offer a theoretical justification for it, propose a new definition, and
suggest approaches to operationalizing it and empirically testing it.
Table 2. A Comparison of the CEO and GEO Views of EO.

Corporate EO (CEO) Global EO (GEO)
The “New Entry” View of EO The “Being Entrepreneurial”
View of EO
Definition An attribute of an organization that The autonomous, proactive,

exists to the degree to which that innovative, and competitive
organization supports and exhibits a risk-taking beliefs and behaviors
sustained pattern of entrepreneurial needed to create new value
behavior reflecting incidents of under conditions of uncertainty
proactive new entry
Number of dimensions 3 5
Dimensionality Unidimensional Multidimensional
Measurement model Reflective Formative
Causal inference Shared variance Unique, configurational
Level of analysis Firm/SBU Universal
Setting Corporate Multiple
Focus of dimensions Primarily on behaviors Primarily on beliefs
Focal DV New entry New value creation
THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF EO:

A NEW DEFINITION
The being entrepreneurial view of EO warrants a fresh look at how EO is defined. The
preceding discussion suggests that EO has evolved into something different than its
extant definitions convey. That is both true and false. It is false in the sense that
EO’s background clearly informs its meaning, even now. Strategy and the strategy-
making process roots of EO are undeniable and the common understandings
researchers share about the meaning of the construct are built on that history.
But it is true in the sense that nearly all the definitions of EO found in the litera-
ture are built on common assumptions about what EO is – its component parts,
its ties to strategy, its level of analysis, and so forth. Those assumptions emerged,
to a great extent, because scholars of a certain era observed the characteristics of
firms in mostly corporate situations in Western society settings and labeled them
“entrepreneurial” (e.g., Miller, 1983).
The Lumpkin and Dess (1996) approach to EO clearly built on its Miller
(1983) and Covin and Slevin (1989, 1991) origins, and advanced a narrative about
EO that was consistent with its roots. But the article also challenged some of the
taken-for-granted assumptions, spurred new empirical questions, and propelled
the EO conversation to where it is today. The result is a need for a new version of
EO that extends EO beyond its roots and embraces a global view of entrepreneurship.
To start that conversation, we begin with new definitions.
An Updated View of How EO Relates to Entrepreneurship

To frame the discussion about an updated definition of EO, before proceeding,
it is important to extend and clarify the definition of entrepreneurship itself.
By setting forth “new entry” as the essence of entrepreneurship, Lumpkin and
Dess (1996) were able to provide a useful contrast that helped illustrate the nature
of EO and spurred conversations about the EO–Entrepreneurship relationship.
While the brevity of “new entry” is appealing, the implications of entrepreneurship-
as-new-entry were underdeveloped which contributed to some of the confusion that
emerged in subsequent EO research. New entry is a core component in the defini-
tion of entrepreneurship, but it is insufficient to capture the breadth of this far-
reaching phenomenon.
EO can best be explained and understood in the context of a more compre-
hensive view of entrepreneurship. We define entrepreneurship as a multifaceted
new value creation process that includes (a) launching enterprises and/or entering
markets for the first time; (b) the beliefs and behaviors associated with launch-
ing enterprises and entering markets; and (c) creating the ownership regimes that
bestow agency on those who launch enterprises and enter markets.
Within this three-part definition, the first part is an expansion of the notion
of new entry. This aspect of entrepreneurship parallels the content aspect of the
process-content dichotomy because it addresses the “what” questions associated
with decisions about which markets to enter and what products or services to
introduce. This basic task was referred to as “the entrepreneurial problem”
by Miles and Snow (1978) and represents one of the major challenges that all
enterprises face to some degree – locating and cultivating new product and market
opportunities. The three types of new entry identified by Wales et al. (2015) –
launching a new product, entry into a new market, and establishing a new venture
– suggest different modes of new entry.
This part of the definition also refers to the firm founding and launch activi-
ties that are central to one of entrepreneurship’s unique features: the transition
from a pre-organizational state, where no entity yet exists, to the creation of a
new organization. We prefer the term enterprises rather than organizations even
though our intent is to express the same new venture creation concept as Gartner
(1988) when he stated, “entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations” (p. 11).
The term enterprise is intended to capture a wider range of startups, from the
kind of one-person venture that might be launched by a self-employed entrepre-
neur13 to the kind of large, forward-thinking initiative that might be started by
a technology entrepreneur or social venture. The UK government, for example,
uses the word “enterprise” as an umbrella term for the full range of legal forms a
social venture can take when registering for tax purposes (cf. Bhattarai, Kwong, &
Tasavori, 2019). Launching enterprises and entering markets are indeed the
essence of entrepreneurship.
The second part of the entrepreneurship definition – the beliefs and behaviors
associated with launching enterprises and entering markets – is where EO enters
the picture. It corresponds to the process or “how” part of the process versus
content distinction. As noted, we view processes broadly as complex and itera-
tive change mechanisms. The entrepreneurship literature is filled with examples
of processes which could be applied to this conceptualization of entrepreneur-
ship including, for example, effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001), bricolage (Baker &
Nelson, 2005), entrepreneurial learning (Politis, 2005), oscillating improvisation
(Bingham, 2009), creation and discovery processes (Alvarez & Barney, 2007), and
others. We submit that in all of these cases, it is the interplay between the beliefs
and behaviors of key actors endeavoring to create new value through entrepre-
neurship that accounts for how different forms of new entry take place.
In the case of EO, we have argued that it is important to move beyond EO’s
roots as a style or posture and recognize that it is a developmental change pro-
cess that unfolds over time. It is a process that consists of interactions among
the dispositional and behavioral features of the dimensions of EO – autonomy,
proactiveness, innovativeness, competitiveness, and risk-taking. In the EO pro-
cess, entrepreneurial actors explore, experiment, evaluate, adapt, and venture into
markets or launch enterprises. The notion of beliefs and behaviors corresponds
readily to the dispositional and behavioral components of the EO process. What
has been missing from the EO conversation, in our view, is a robust theoretical
discussion and empirical explorations about the relationship between disposi-
tions and behaviors. We submit that important insights and new knowledge can
come from investigating how EO beliefs and EO behaviors are related to each
other, a topic we will take up later in the chapter.
The third part of the definition is included here because ownership is a
vitally important but commonly overlooked aspect of entrepreneurship. If
entrepreneurship as a domain includes the processes and events that precede
firm launch and organizational formation, then the ownership implications of
founding, acquiring, or investing in a business are fundamental concerns of the
field. Entrepreneurship gains its significance as an engine for wealth creation by
providing a vehicle for gathering resources and capabilities into an entity that can be
owned. That is, ownership in its various forms provides both the legal means and the
motivation to make entrepreneurial efforts efficient, competitive, and gainful. It is
not the case that ownership-related issues are not discussed in the entrepreneurship
literature – venture capital funding and topics such as valuation, equity splits,
buy-out provisions, residual rights and so forth are important entrepreneurship
research topics. Product launches and other forms of new entry often include new
ownership arrangements such as joint ventures or strategic alliances. But these
issues are typically discussed in terms of the agency concerns of proxy ownership
and rarely in terms of the risks and rewards of direct ownership by families or
privately held enterprises (e.g., Wiggins, 1995).14 The issue of creating ownership
regimes as a central element of entrepreneurship is beyond the scope of the chapter.
But it deserves attention here in part because it is pivotal for understanding why
autonomy and competitiveness need to be included as dimensions of EO.
Enterprise ownership can take many forms. The form it takes has a major influ-
ence on how much autonomy a founder or business owner has.15 Having greater
autonomy is one of the primary motivations for becoming an entrepreneur. It cor-
responds to the “breaking free” impetus underlying autonomy – seeking to be inde-
pendent and self-sufficient (Rindova et al., 2009). Research shows that the major
reasons entrepreneurs launch businesses include being able to work for themselves,
not having a boss, and the drive to make decisions independently without oversight
(e.g., Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003). This freedom from the traditional constraints
of paid employment allows for greater satisfaction in venturing (Lange, 2012).
Moreover, studies suggest that the extent to which people value the intrinsic goal of
autonomy in their future career is more influential in forming entrepreneurial inten-

tions than the allure of purely economic incentives (De Clercq, Honig, & Martin,
2013; Pidduck, Shaffer, Zhang, & Clark, 2020). Hence, autonomy is inescapably
linked to the ownership regimes that are created by entrepreneurial activity.
For autonomy to endure, owners have a responsibility to preserve their enter-
prises as financially viable going concerns by developing business models and
operations that are effective and sustainable. For that, competitiveness is needed.
Underlying economic theories in which the function of competition is crucial for
explaining market dynamism is the assumption of owned firms (Foss & Klein,
2010; Hayek, 1948). As a practical matter, unless owners are aware of this dynamic,
they may not pay attention to pricing, margins, customer/market demand, alter-
native sources of supply, and the other avenues of competitive advantage that
foster profitability and sustainability. Small businesses and franchises may rely
on competitiveness more than any other EO dimension. In parts of the world
where entrepreneurship is defined primarily in terms of ownership, without com-
petitiveness, the inexperienced or undisciplined owner may not be able to sustain
success. Given the role of ownership in motivating beliefs and behaviors that are
competitive, it is clear that competitiveness is vital to the EO process.
An Updated Definition of Entrepreneurial Orientation

We have argued that a multidimensional view of EO is one that includes autonomy
and competitiveness along with the original three dimensions – innovativeness,
proactiveness, and risk-taking. Scores on these five dimensions may vary across
different types of entrepreneurial enterprises and, when combined, form different
EO profiles. Although the score on one or more of these dimensions may be low
for any given entity, it is this combination that shapes its EO.
The multidimensional approach reflects the being entrepreneurial or GEO
version of EO. Since Lumpkin (2011) first noted it, many have concurred that
EO is best understood as a way to express what it means to be entrepreneurial
(e.g., Anderson et al., 2015). Covin and Wales (2019) note that scholars agree “with
the accepted position that EO is an organizational attribute reflecting what it means
to be entrepreneurial” (p. 8). Even so, there is ambivalence about what it means to
be entrepreneurial. To move the field forward, we believe that both researchers and
practitioners need a more straightforward declaration about what being entrepre-
neurial means. Given that our approach to defining EO is based on the being entre-
preneurial view we have set forth, then that forms the basis of our definition. We
submit that being entrepreneurial means being an autonomous, proactive, innovative,
and competitive risk-taker. This view of being entrepreneurial, we submit, is univer-
sal. That is, it is occurring all over the world in widely different contexts, and it can
be applied to individuals, family firms, social enterprises, franchises, and many types
of entities ranging from microbusinesses to multinationals.
To further clarify this assertion and address some of the ambiguity that has
surrounded the definition of EO, we go a step farther and make, arguably, a bolder
theoretical claim, one that goes beyond merely adding autonomy and competi-
tiveness but is essential for setting forth how the construct will be modeled and
investigated: no additional dimensions are needed to define EO. In other words,

autonomy, proactiveness, innovativeness, competitiveness, and risk-taking consti-
tute a comprehensive and exhaustive set representing what it means to be entrepre-
neurial. In terms of assessing the level of EO exhibited by a firm or other entity,
these five dimensions are necessary16 and sufficient.
There are important conceptual and methodological implications that flow
from this approach to framing EO and we will get to these issues shortly. But
first, equally important for arguing in favor of these five dimensions is explain-
ing why no other dimensions are necessary. It is sometimes written that there are
other features or characteristics that should be included in the list of EO dimen-
sions. Resilience, for example, is often mentioned (Korber & McNaughton, 2018).
Leadership and intentionality are also considered important (Engelen, Gupta,
Strenger, & Brettel, 2015). While there are certainly situations where dimensions
such as these can be found among entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial enterprises,
these characteristics are not unique to EO. That is, they are qualities that may be
evident and important in many other walks of life. Resilience and intentionality,
for example, are valuable qualities for athletes and soldiers and medical doctors,
etc. – they are not unique to entrepreneurship. It is also the case that scholars
have attempted to add dimensions based on empirical findings.17 For example,
networking (Taatila & Down, 2012), learning (Bolton & Lane, 2012; Wang,
2008), reciprocity (Runyan, Huddleston, & Swinney, 2006), persistence (Syrjä,
Puumalainen, Sjögrén, Soininen, & Durst, 2019), and work ethic (Hermansen-
Kobulnicky & Moss, 2004), have all been suggested as candidates for new EO
dimensions. Such variables may be important moderators or antecedents or even
outcomes in studies examining EO, but because they do not reflect the essence of
EO, they are outside its theoretical boundaries.
A counter to the above argument might be that some of the five EO dimen-
sions cannot be said to be unique to EO either. Clearly, risk-taking happens every
day in many arenas of life. And competitiveness is not just an entrepreneurial
thing – it applies to sports, politics, sibling rivalries, etc. Why, then, are these the
dimensions that define EO? The answer lies in what could be considered the most
basic entrepreneurial problem: how to make decisions about launching enter-
prises and/or entering new markets under conditions of uncertainty.
Entrepreneurship involves making judgments in the face of uncertainty.
Knight (1921) argued that, when making decisions, entrepreneurs do not know
the outcomes of entrepreneurial action, nor do they have the information to cal-
culate probable outcomes. Given that, and given that entrepreneurs nevertheless
make judgments that lead to action, what tools and information do they draw
on to do so? What is the process? We submit that the dimensions of EO, operat-
ing together in a complex process, provide the knowledge and impetus needed to
make entrepreneurial decisions and take entrepreneurial action under conditions
of uncertainty. It begins with having the willingness and freedom to take action
(autonomy) and includes opportunity-seeking, foresight, and opportunity rec-
ognition (proactiveness). Opportunities may emerge from inventing or exploring
technologies or problem-solving, then need refining through experimentation and
elaboration (innovativeness). Disciplined effort in light of market knowledge and
in the face of marketplace rivals (competitiveness) is then combined with resource

commitments and decisive action (risk-taking). Although this description suggests
a sequence, the process is iterative and equifinal consistent with the teleological
view of change processes.
For entrepreneurship to happen, given the conditions of uncertainty that sur-
round it, there has to be a mechanism that informs decisions and spurs action,
otherwise, entrepreneurship would never occur. EO is that mechanism. It is an
uncertainty-bearing and uncertainty-interpreting process where the amount of
EO that is needed is typically a function of the level of uncertainty in the sur-
rounding conditions. We submit that entrepreneurship only happens in the pres-
ence of these dimensions and does not happen without them. Stated differently,
the dimensions of EO are qualities that cannot be separated from entrepreneur-
ship. As such, EO reflects the essence of what it means to be entrepreneurial.
To move the conversation forward, we offer an updated definition of EO that
links it to the new value creation objective from our definition of entrepreneur-
ship and makes it more universal and context-free. Building on our definition of
being entrepreneurial, we define EO as: the autonomous, proactive, innovative, and
competitive risk-taking beliefs and behaviors needed to create new value under con-
ditions of uncertainty. Cleary, this conceptualization has major implications for
theorizing, modeling, and measuring. We turn to those topics next.
IMPLICATIONS
Along with the arguments and explanations that preceded the EO definition, the
choices underlying the decision to define EO as we have were guided by a combi-
nation of factors. In this section, we elaborate on some of those choices. We also
hope the remainder of the chapter will spur new efforts to model and measure
EO more effectively.
Modeling and Measuring EO as Formative

As noted earlier, we concur with those EO researchers who have concluded that
the appropriate measurement model for a multidimensional, aggregated approach
to EO is formative (e.g., Anderson et al., 2015; George, 2011). In this section,
we elaborate on some of the key implications of using a formative measurement
model as applied to the GEO version of EO. Despite the strong critiques of form-
ative modeling that can be found in the management literature (e.g., Edwards,
2011) and the cautions associated specifically with modeling EO as formative
(e.g., Covin & Wales, 2012), we believe it is the most straightforward and defensible
method for empirically investigating the GEO version of EO.
While there are numerous considerations and implications related to using
formative measures that are beyond the scope of this chapter and which we hope
other scholars will take up, there are a few aspects of a formative approach that
need highlighting. The first is related to the measurement items that are needed
to assess EO using a formative measurement approach. In fact, one of the issues
that caused EO scholars to focus on formative versus reflective modeling was that
researchers were using reflective model scale items but conducting analysis as if the
items were intended for formative measurement modeling (e.g., George, 2011). The
two types of items are not meant to be interchangeable, according to good prac-
tice (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The items in the M/C&S scale, which were
developed to be used with a reflective measurement model, focus on shared variance
because the items are intended to measure the same underlying construct. With
reflective models, highly correlated items are preferred. By contrast, with formative
measurement modeling, where the items are combined to form indices (rather than
scales), highly correlated items are removed because each item is intended to contrib-
ute uniquely to a range of attributes. With a formative index, therefore, multicollinear-
ity can become problematic. A key implication of this difference is that new measures
are needed to investigate the multidimensional GEO version of EO.
Second, formative measurement models that are multidimensional are higher-
order measurement models with at least two levels of analysis (Diamantopoulos,
Riefler, & Roth, 2008). As such, the multidimensional GEO version of EO is a
mixed model where the indicators are reflective of the first-order latent variables
of autonomy, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitiveness, and risk-taking, but
those latent variables then combine to form, rather than reflect, the second-order
construct, GEO. This approach to EO measurement assumes that EO is a compos-
ite, to use Miller’s (1983) term, of the dimensions that define it. An implication of
that assumption is that the scores of all five dimensions will be aggregated (Edwards,
2011). As noted earlier, a requirement of formative measurement is that all relevant
dimensions be included in assessments of the construct (Bollen & Lennox, 1991), a
point that guided the wording of our updated definition of EO and our claim that
all five dimensions of EO are necessary. According to George (2011),
failure to account for the potential effects of each dimension of EO would leave our theoretical
models deficient as they would fail to take into account all facets of the construct in developing
theoretical hypotheses. (p. 1299)
Aggregating the scores of EO dimensions, however, is one of the challenges

of formative measurement models. Because different combinations of scores can
yield the same total score, “the use of a summated scale cannot adequately rep-
resent the construct and will lead to biased estimates of structural relationships
involving the construct” (George, 2011, p. 1299). In other words, because EO is
an aggregate of its dimensions, a summated score of 20 where autonomy = 2,
innovativeness = 7, proactiveness = 5, competitiveness = 3, and risk-taking = 3
is equivalent to a score of 20 where autonomy = 7, innovativeness = 1, proactive-
ness = 2, competitiveness = 6, and risk-taking = 4. Clearly, this example suggests
two different EO profiles but these differences would be lost if the scores were
simply summed. Because of this, formative measurement models are best used
to create EO profiles based on configurations of scores on the five dimensions, a
topic we return to in the future research section. Depending on the context, differ-
ent profiles will emerge as more effective as a function of surrounding conditions.
To accumulate knowledge, similar profiles, rather than overall EO scores, could
then be compared.
A technique identified by George (2011) and employed by Anderson et al.

(2015) that is intended to improve the utility of formative measurement and
address some of its challenges is related to the requirement that two independ-
ent paths need to emanate from the model to address identification problems.
This can be achieved, separately and unrelated to the items used to assess EO, by
incorporating into the study “a global item that summarizes the essence of the
construct that the index purports to measure” (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer,
2001, p. 272). Doing so facilitates managing measurement issues that can arise
when composite variables with causal indicators are used (MacCallum & Browne,
1993). Hardly any EO studies include such items; exceptions include Morris and
Paul (1987) who asked respondents “to rate the overall entrepreneurial orienta-
tion of their firm on a 7-point scale” (p. 252) and Anderson et al. (2015) who
suggest using global reflective indicators such as, “overall, I would consider my
firm to be entrepreneurial” (p. 1585). One of the things this method accomplishes
is to address the criticism of the formative measurement approach that revolves
around the problem of model interpretational confounding (Howell, Breivik, &
Wilcox, 2007).
Another concern when considering EO model measurement is related to the
view that it is inappropriate to study individual dimensions or a subset of the
dimensions and call it an EO study (George & Marino, 2011). The argument is
that, if all five dimensions are included in the definition of EO, then when using a
formative measurement model, all five dimensions must be included in the assess-
ment of EO, even if the scores on some dimensions are low. An implication is that
any study that precluded dimensions or focused on only one dimension would
be simply that: a study of one or a few constructs. In other words, it would be
something other than EO. We concede that, strictly speaking, it would be inac-
curate to call such a study an investigation of the EO construct. Even so, it seems
reasonable that a researcher might point out that such a study is associated with
EO or draws on EO insights. As an example, in a recent autonomy study, Yu et al.
(2019) wrote,
In an entrepreneurial context, autonomy refers to “the freedom and flexibility to develop and
enact entrepreneurial initiatives” (Lumpkin et al., 2009, p. 47). Because of its importance to new
venture development and entrepreneurial value creation (Burgelman, 1983, 2002), Lumpkin
and Dess (1996) argued that it is a “crucial” dimension of EO…. (p. 141)
The authors investigated autonomy in family businesses and different cultures

and made other references to EO, but it was clearly focused only on autonomy,
not EO generally.
Beyond this example, however, it seems likely there are countless situations
where studies of one dimension of EO or a configuration of a subset of the
dimensions could generate new knowledge that informed the EO conversation
generally. Indeed, when discussing the Hughes and Morgan (2007) EO scale,
Covin and Wales (2012) stated, “we believe that separately assessing EO’s sub-
dimensions using individual reflective-types scales is a reasonable measurement
approach” (p. 696). A recent study that focused on patterns of EO dimensions
using a configuration approach concluded that,
the five strategic EO dimensions are not equally important to performance across contexts
(i.e., industry and time). In fact, the more successful configurations tend to focus on one or a few
key dimensions rather than give equal attention to them all, as traditional views and measures of
EO might assume. (McKenny et al., 2018, p. 515)
The authors go on to suggest that the EO dimensions be thought of as a

“family of constructs” manifesting in different configurations, and to varying
extents, across a variety of settings and with different outcomes. Given the
widespread use of EO evident across numerous scholarly domains, it seems there
should be no problem with including studies of individual dimensions or groups
of dimensions as part of the EO family of constructs.
EO’s Levels of Analysis

Throughout this chapter, we have argued that EO needs to be viewed more univer-
sally and available to the wide-ranging manifestations of entrepreneurship evident
around the world. An important implication of that perspective relates to EO’s level
of analysis. We have tried to demonstrate that EO has grown to represent and evoke
so much more than firm or SBU levels of analysis. As such, it seems impractical to
continue limiting EO to the firm level because doing so no longer reflects reality – the
term is used now to refer to individuals, teams, nations and more (e.g., Bolton & Lane,
2012; Goktan & Gupta, 2015; Kurniawan et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Brouthers,
2012). The recent analysis by Wales et al. (2020) argues that the CEO version of EO
can engage different levels of analysis. The updated definition of the GEO version of
EO offered earlier was written to be used across different levels of analysis. Consider,
for one thing, the EO that happens prior to organization formation. Because of that,
we need to be able to assess EO beliefs and behaviors engaged in by individuals dur-
ing the pre-organizational phases of founding, prior to launching. Similar arguments
could be made about the presence of EO in dominant coalitions and teams, or in
nonprofits and social businesses, or in major corporations – any of these entities
could be autonomous, proactive, innovative, and competitive risk-takers.
We acknowledge, of course, that there are important epistemological and
methodological considerations involved with making the leap to other levels of
analysis. Researchers should not underestimate the challenges associated with
developing good measures (e.g., Diamantopoulos et al., 2008). But those chal-
lenges are insufficient to keep researchers from taking on the work of fostering
more global and useful applications of EO. Can we really look a student or entre-
preneur in the eye and say we cannot talk to them about their individual innovative-
ness or personal proactiveness because EO only applies to firms? Innovativeness
and proactiveness and all the other dimensions of EO happen across many levels
of analysis. Adaptations to the way EO is measured will need to address issues
such as compositional similarity across levels and the nomological network of
the context. Doing it well will require thoughtful and systematic effort. It is our
hope that scholars who are attracted to scale development and measurement
challenges will take stock of extant efforts to create new EO measures intended
to tap into alternative levels of analysis (e.g., Covin et al., 2020; Kraus, Breier,
Jones, & Hughes, 2019) and help advance EO research by developing new valid
and reliable EO measures. We believe that enhancing researchers’ ability to assess

EO at different levels of analysis represents a massive opportunity to advance EO
research that will lead to a deeper understanding and new knowledge creation in
the field of entrepreneurship.
Beliefs and Behaviors

Endeavoring to understand the EO process more deeply presents researchers with
some new measurement challenges. As noted, we believe that the beliefs-related
aspects of EO are central to understanding it; EO reflects a mindset, an atti-
tude, an inclination to view the world through a certain lens. It is also crucial to
acknowledge that meaningful manifestations of EO need to encompass entre-
preneurial behaviors. The challenge is to find new ways to assess and account for
both beliefs and behaviors (Miller, 2011).
To begin, note that we have made a conscious choice to pivot from the “dis-
positions and behaviors” framing used earlier and in prior EO research to the
“beliefs and behaviors” language from our definition of entrepreneurship. We
selected “beliefs” as a way to suggest attitudes and dispositions for several rea-
sons. Beliefs are often described as ideas one holds internally to be true, whereas
attitudes are the external applications of beliefs (Richardson, 1996). Although
one’s attitudes may differ from one’s beliefs, we view beliefs as more core and
hence more relevant to capture. Dispositions are quite similar to beliefs and can
include both attitudes and beliefs. Overall, however, we consider beliefs to be a
more comprehensive term than dispositions and the better choice for representing
both attitudes and dispositions. Beliefs also tap into the cognitive aspects of EO
which may enable researchers to gain insights into more deeply held underlying
assumptions (Cools & den Broeck, 2007; Ferreira, Marques, Bento, Ferreira, &
Jalali, 2015; Sadler-Smith, 2012). Finally, beliefs play a key role in the context
of opportunity recognition by helping entrepreneurs “to overcome ignorance
and escape doubt,” thus clearing the way for entrepreneurial action (Shepherd,
McMullen, & Jennings, 2007, p. 77).18
A primary reason for suggesting that both beliefs and behaviors be considered
more carefully when assessing EO is so that the relationship between beliefs and
behaviors can be evaluated. Simply combining beliefs and behaviors in the same
index assumes that what entrepreneurs “believe” or “favor” or have a “proclivity”
to do actually results in behaviors such as introducing a new product or service.
In practice, it is highly likely that there are cases and research settings where EO
beliefs do not align with EO behaviors and new knowledge could be generated
by investigating such situations. Likewise, there could be a great deal to learn
from investigating the performance implications of strong versus weak alignment
between beliefs and behaviors. Questions of how beliefs relate to behaviors might
be especially important for assessing EO at different levels of analysis. For exam-
ple, at the individual level, a nascent entrepreneur might take dozens of concrete
EO-based steps toward launching a venture well before she has a strong belief
that the venture is viable in the marketplace or that her proactiveness will pay off.
By contrast, a nonprofit leader might be convinced that some enlightened inno-

vativeness and a dose of risk-taking will transform the effectiveness of his social
organization, but never engage in the behaviors necessary to test that hypothesis.
These kinds of questions open up many possible research avenues regarding how
and to what extent EO beliefs are related to EO behaviors.
Does this mean that every EO study should be one that compares EO beliefs
with EO behaviors? We think not. Clearly, there are countless potential research
questions where it would serve little or no purpose to make the belief–behavior
relationship a concern of the study. Still, as noted, because the EO process
involves both beliefs and behaviors and neither by itself is sufficient to represent
EO, we maintain it is important to account for both in assessments of the EO
construct. With that in mind, the remainder of this section will address possible
approaches to measuring beliefs and behaviors and implications for investigating
and operationalizing EO.
There are many different measurement approaches and data gathering tech-
niques – both quantitative and qualitative – that could be employed to assess
EO. One alternative would be to create two different indices, one for beliefs and
one for behaviors. This would enable researchers to make the kinds of beliefs
versus behaviors comparisons we are advocating. Given that there are five EO
dimensions and a minimum of three items would be needed for each dimension,
the result would be two indices with 15+ items each, one for beliefs and one for
behaviors. The data generated from the indices could be used for dimension-by-
dimension comparisons, or for comparing a respondent’s EO beliefs profile with
their EO behaviors profile.
Some important new knowledge has been created recently by EO scholars con-
ducting multilevel analysis, for example, investigating how individual-level behav-
iors affect firm-level EO (e.g., Wales, Patel, & Lumpkin, 2013). An advantage of
separating beliefs and behaviors would be to enable cross-level EO comparisons,
for example, how firm-level EO behaviors affect individual-level EO beliefs or vice
versa. It is worth noting, however, that if different EO indices are developed for
different levels of analysis, as we advocated in the last section, it could lead to a
proliferation of EO measures.
With that in mind, we are also considering an alternative approach to meas-
urement that builds on the idea that the GEO version of EO has a universal
quality to it. Our conjecture is that EO beliefs, like our definition of EO, can be
expressed in terms that are relatively context-free and applicable across different
units of analysis. Table 3 includes broadly construed belief statements for each
of the five dimensions that could be assessed using Likert-type agree–disagree
measures. We propose that, regardless of the level of analysis – individual, team,
firm, etc. – the belief statements would remain the same, such as in the universally
worded format found in Table 3. In other words, the belief statements are asser-
tions about each EO dimension that would be valid across various manifestations
of entrepreneurship, and thus remain constant.19
By contrast, the behavior statements would be context-dependent, that is, they
would reflect the details that are salient to a given unit of analysis. For example, a
business owner and a nonprofit manager could both be asked to score the extent to
Table 3. Entrepreneurial Orientation Beliefs.a

Dimension Belief Statements
Autonomy • Freedom to act is essential for entrepreneurship.

• Being willing to take independent action is crucial for pursuing opportunities.
• Breaking free from norms and conventions clears the way for new insights and
fresh ideas.
• Independent decision-making inhibits entrepreneurship. [r]b
• Disrupting old patterns and embracing change is vital for making progress.
Proactiveness • Recognizing opportunities ahead of others fosters pioneering actions.
• Acting in anticipation of market demand creates opportunities.
• Entrepreneurship requires a bias for action.
• Being a first mover in introducing products and services leads to success in business.
• A willingness to pivot to avoid obstacles or respond to market changes is needed
to stay ahead of rivals.
Innovativeness • Investments in research and development (R&D) reveal new opportunities.
• Experimenting with new technologies leads to breakthrough products.
• Introducing novel products and new services is the essence of entrepreneurship.
• Thinking “outside the box” rarely leads to practical results. [r]b
• Creative problem-solving is critical for identifying process improvements and
breakthrough ideas.
Competitiveness • Competition improves productivity and helps enterprises use resources more
efficiently.
• Defending gains and protecting advantages is critical for sustaining success.
• Understanding how prices, costs, margins, services, delivery, quality, market
position, etc. compares to rivals is an essential business practice.
• Staying up-to-date with state-of-the-art practices and technologies is a key feature
of a winning strategy.
• Rapidly responding to competitor’s actions and changing market conditions is a
vital capability
Risk-taking • Without taking some chances, it is not possible to accomplish goals.
• Making expenditures and investments that may never be recovered is a normal
part of entrepreneurship.
• With enough planning and research, the riskiness of a business venture can be
reduced to zero. [r]b
• The idea that high risks result in high returns is a fundamental fact of business.
• Owing to the nature of the business environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are
necessary to achieve objectives.
a
In creating this list, neither the names of the dimensions themselves, nor the terms “entrepreneurial” or
“orientation” were used. Also, as much as possible, belief statements were written to be universal and
not reflect a particular level of analysis.
b
Items designated as “[r]” are reverse coded, that is, negatively worded or worded to suggest the opposite
of the intended direction.
which they agree or disagree with the proactiveness belief, “Acting in anticipation
of market demand creates opportunities.” The context for assessing EO behaviors,
however, would likely differ depending on the concepts and nomological network
of interest to the study. For the business owner, the proactiveness behavior, “My
firm is very often the first to introduce new products and operating technolo-
gies” might best reflect the context; for the nonprofit manager, the more relevant
proactiveness behavior might be, “My social enterprise is very often the first to
introduce new services and administrative efficiencies.” This approach would, in
effect, hold the beliefs constant across studies and limit scale proliferation to the
behavioral aspect. This approach has other advantages as well including allowing
for comparisons of EO beliefs across different types of respondents.
One of the many advantages of this approach – the ability to separate beliefs
from behaviors yet ground them in the five dimensions – is that it opens the door
for incorporating other valuable streams of research into the EO domain including
the entrepreneurial mindset literature (Haynie, Shepherd, Mosakowski, & Earley,
2010; McGrath & MacMillan, 2000; Pfeifer, Šarlija, & Zekić Sušac, 2016). The
entrepreneurial mindset notion has garnered numerous definitions, ranging from
“a growth-oriented perspective through which individuals promote flexibility, crea-
tivity, continuous innovation, and renewal” (Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003, p. 967),
to a situated metacognitive construct (Haynie et al., 2010), to a way of thinking
about business that focuses on and captures the benefits of uncertainty (McGrath
& MacMillan, 2000). Although some efforts have been made to link EO with dif-
ferent forms of an entrepreneurial mindset (e.g., Krauss, Frese, Friedrich, & Unger,
2007), research formally integrating the two remains limited. We believe the GEO
version of EO outlined in this chapter could provide a fruitful path for explicitly
integrating research on entrepreneurial mindsets with EO beliefs and behaviors.
Clearly, there is much more that could be said about the empirical techniques
and methodological possibilities that could be brought to bear on the challenge
of assessing beliefs and behaviors separately and comparing and analyzing the
results. The overarching point is that there is a lot to learn from a more fine-
grained analysis of the beliefs and behaviors associated with EO. We invite the
community of EO scholars to join in proposing and testing empirically sound
approaches that advance understanding and contribute to the EO conversation.
Is there a Theory of EO?

In light of the new version of EO proposed in this chapter, a final consideration is
whether, going forward, EO should continue to be viewed principally as a construct
or if there is a coherent theory of EO? Early treatments of what became EO such
as Miller (1983) and Covin and Slevin’s (1991) classic discussion of entrepreneurial
behavior treated EO primarily as a construct. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) may
have moved the needle slightly toward theory with their EO–performance boxes
and arrows, but their “clarifying the construct” title kept the focus on EO as a
construct. Further, across hundreds of EO publications, EO has been used as an
IV (e.g., Stam & Elfring, 2008), a moderator (e.g., Richard, Barnett, Dwyer, &
Chadwick, 2004), a mediator (e.g., Wales, Gupta, et al., 2013) and even a DV
(e.g., Engelen, Flatten, Thalmann, & Brettel, 2014). Given its history, there is
little doubt that EO has a healthy future as a construct.
Yet, EO scholars routinely mention theory building and theory testing when
referring to EO. For one thing, researchers often highlight the broad number of
different theoretical foundations from which EO emerged (e.g., Cogliser, Brigham, &
Lumpkin, 2008). Moreover, in the context of the unidimensional versus multidi-
mensional debate, researchers have often argued from a theoretical standpoint
stating, for example, “that the real questions for researchers are theoretical rather
than empirical … The answer to these theoretical issues will instruct researchers
as to the appropriate conceptualization of EO” (George, 2011, p. 1307). It is in

part because of these concerns expressed by George and others that we have
endeavored to make strong claims about the dimensions of EO, and to conceptu-
alize and define EO in a way that comports with a formative measurement model.
A closer look at the research that emphasizes EO theory-building finds that
much of it focuses on measurement theory, in particular, the measurement
implications of alternative definitions and conceptualizations of EO. The work
of George (2011) and George and Marino (2011), which has been enormously
valuable in writing this chapter, has drawn attention to critical measurement
issues with EO research – the psychometric integrity, nomological network, and
consistent measurement of the EO construct. Anderson et al.’s (2015) reconcep-
tualization of EO, which asks how, really, the dimensions of EO are related to
financial performance, makes a fresh argument about the relationships among the
EO dimensions but it is primarily concerned with the measurement implications.
They state, “Drawing from measurement theory, we based our EO reconceptu-
alization on conceptual grounds, consistent with Covin and Lumpkin’s (2011)
observation that questions of EO’s ontology are fundamentally theoretical in
nature” (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 1586).
As noted, most of the measurement-related EO research has been highly
important and relevant in advancing the study of EO and making it more
impactful (Covin & Wales, 2019). Across many of those studies, a great deal
of attention has been given to addressing what it means to be entrepreneurial.
Yet, most of the research that addresses building or perfecting EO theory stops
short of clearly addressing two key questions: The first is, why is it that these
five dimensions – autonomy, proactiveness, innovativeness, competitiveness, and
risk-taking – are the components of EO? The second question is, what is EO for?
That is, for what purpose and to what extent would an enterprise invest in or
commit to being entrepreneurial? Although the answer to this second question
may seem obvious, it is based on an underlying assumption about the inherent
merits of being entrepreneurial that is not often articulated. The answer to both
questions, we believe, revolves around the fact that entrepreneurship requires
decision-making and action under conditions of uncertainty.
It has been said that proposing a theory is itself a perilous thing to attempt
(cf. Sutton & Staw, 1995). Still, by drawing on elements of our updated definition
of EO and the definition of entrepreneurship proposed earlier, it would seem
we have the elements needed to set forth the “what” and “how” that Whetten
(1989) describes as the basic building blocks of theory development. Regarding
the choice of dimensions, we argued earlier that the five dimensions are explicitly
attuned to addressing the uncertainty conditions entrepreneurs face. This is con-
sistent with the views of other writers who have suggested that it is uncertainty
that makes the financial rewards of entrepreneurship possible if entrepreneurs
are willing and able to follow a deliberate approach, such as the EO process,
to vetting, developing, and pursuing opportunities (Knight, 1942; McGrath &
MacMillan, 2000; Shepherd et al., 2007). Thus, building on the idea that the aim
of entrepreneurship is new value creation (Bruyat & Julien, 2001; McMullen,
Ingram, & Adams, in press), our first proposition for a theory of EO is, the more
autonomous, proactive, innovative, and competitive risk-taking beliefs and behaviors

that founders and enterprises engage in, the more new value is created.
As for the second question – why be entrepreneurial, that is, why engage in the
EO process – the answer also depends on the uncertainty conditions surround-
ing the opportunity. Entrepreneurship is a worldwide phenomenon that looks
very different depending on where in the world it is occurring. It follows that the
uncertainty level evident among the many different conditions suggested by such
breadth will vary widely. In other words, some situations will involve very low
uncertainty, other situations will be extremely uncertain, and many situations will
involve middling levels of uncertainty. We submit that the amount of EO that is
needed in any given situation will depend on how uncertain the condition are.
For example, most franchises systematize operations and routinize aspects of
marketing, production, supply chain management, etc. The primary aim of a busi-
ness format franchise is to reduce uncertainty. Under such conditions, we would
hypothesize that only low levels of EO are needed to succeed. By contrast, com-
mercializing complex new technologies is fraught with uncertainty. It is a situation
that calls for a high degree of EO – thorough market analysis and testing, exten-
sive experimentation and refinements, large resource commitments, and so forth.
Whether efforts to bring forth a venture based on such technologies will succeed in
the market and payoff depends on how deeply its founders engage in the EO process.
This, then, leads to our second theoretical proposition. Again, taking into con-
sideration the overarching aim of new value creation, we propose that, when launch-
ing enterprises and/or entering markets, the more uncertain conditions are, the more
EO is needed to create new value. In other words, the reason to be entrepreneurial
is to enable entrepreneurs to decipher and deal with the uncertainty surround-
ing founding conditions or the conditions associated with new entry. Further, the
amount of EO that is needed is typically a function of the level of uncertainty.
Although there are other important theoretical claims worth considering, we
believe there are convincing arguments and solid empirical evidence to support these
two theoretical propositions in the hundreds of articles that have been written about
the contribution made by EO to the performance and success outcomes that create
new value. Those arguments found support in Rauch et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis
which found a “moderately large” effect of EO on performance, and in dozens of
studies since 2009. Alas, however, there is little room left in this chapter to offer a com-
prehensive explanation and justification for why greater EO creates more new value
as the conditions surrounding market entry and launch become more uncertain.
Although the EO theoretical statements we have proposed – that higher EO
is associated with greater new value creation; and, the more uncertain condi-
tions are, the more EO is needed to create new value – are limited in the sense
of being underdeveloped, as statements, they are rather broad in scope. That is,
they have broad implications that cannot readily be supported or falsified in a
single empirical study. Therefore, to advance the theory conversation, it is useful
to consider middle-range theories that zero-in on an aspect of the larger theo-
retical claim. A middle-range theory addresses a specified number of variables
that “are in between a working hypothesis and an all-inclusive effort of a unified
grand theory” (Frese, 2006, p. 85) and thus, have limited assumptions and high
problem specification. Wales et al. (2020), who acknowledge the “theoretical plu-
rality deeply embedded in the EO literature” (p. 3), identified three such theories
in their recent synthesis of EO perspectives. The first addresses top management
styles and the “situations, problems, or opportunities that lead to a top manage-
rial embrace of entrepreneurship as a dominant logic and focal firm objective”
(Wales et al., 2020, p. 14). Since top managers are the primary decision-makers,
how they interpret events, perceive firm resources, and interact with factors in the
business environment will have a strong influence on how EO manifests.
The second theoretical manifestation that Wales et al. (2020) highlight –
organizational configurations – corresponds to a key premise of this chapter,
namely, that EO is expressed in unique configurations of the five dimensions in
combination with key contextual factors. To investigate such configurations more
thoroughly, they call for new measures that “capture organizational culture, as
well as key processes, routines, and structural elements” (Wales et al., 2020, p. 14).
This corresponds to the Lumpkin and Dess (1996, 2001) view of EO and their
call to examine EO in contingency and configurational frameworks. It was also
a major conclusion of the Rauch et al. (2009) meta-analysis: to more thoroughly
understand the EO–performance relationship, more studies that test moderator
effects and consider contextual factors are needed.
The third EO manifestation Wales et al. (2020) identify is “new entry initiatives.”
This indicator emphasizes research on different types of new entry – products
and service launches, foreign market entry, deploying new technologies as a form
of entry, etc. The authors suggest asking, “In what contexts are different forms
of new entry more (or less) strongly linked to firm performance?” (Wales et al.,
2020, p. 14). An implication of this question is that some new entry activities
may not create new value or create only low amounts of new value, even though
their intent is to create high levels of new value. Thus, investigating the new entry
initiative–new value creation relationship represents an important question for
understanding entrepreneurship theoretically.
Another theoretical consideration revolves around the different manifestations
of new value creation that might be observed. The most common is financial per-
formance, especially profitability, which is used as a proxy for new value creation
in dozens of EO studies. Other financial indicators such as sales growth might
also be linked to new value creation though researchers need to use caution in
their assumptions about whether growth activities actually add value (Davidsson,
Steffens, & Fitzsimmons, 2009). New value creation may also take numerous other
forms including attracting investors, increases in licensing activity, higher profit
margins, and the creation of new non-pecuniary value such as alliance formation,
increases in knowledge capital, and psychological rewards (Shepherd et al., 2019).
Finally, there are two other middle-range considerations that could be important
in research aimed at supporting or falsifying the EO theoretical propositions. The
first relates to the possibility that extremely high levels of EO could, under certain
circumstances, be negatively related to new value creation outcomes such as financial
performance. From the earliest days of EO, researchers have warned that excessive
expenditures on R&D or other forms of innovation, or investments in unproven mar-
kets or other forms of risk-taking could be associated with declining performance
(e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1991; Miller, 1983). As such, identifying optimal levels of EO
engagement and the configurations of EO dimensions most likely to add new value
in different contexts is an important topic for future research. A related consideration
comes from studies that have probed the nonlinear relationships between EO and per-
formance across multiple national settings (e.g., Tang, Tang, Marino, Zhang, & Li,
2008). This research has challenged the linearity assumptions of EO and argued that
a more nuanced cultural understanding can be gleaned by assessing possible curvi-
linear effects at the dimensional level. Such effects may not only apply at the national
level but also at other levels of analysis. More research is needed to investigate the
implications of these findings, and empirically test other aspects of EO theory.
DISCUSSION
EO has become a touchstone for researchers seeking to comprehend and express
what it means to be entrepreneurial. The EO ideas expressed in this chapter – that
EO requires five dimensions to be fully specified, that those five dimensions are nec-
essary and sufficient to fully define EO, that the five dimensions might manifest in
different configurations, that those configurations might vary significantly because
of the context, that the five dimensions apply to every stage of development including
prior to founding and launch, that manifestations of EO should not be limited to one
level of analysis, that EO manifests as both beliefs and behaviors, that EO represents
what it means to be entrepreneurial, and that the reason to engage in EO is because
it enables entrepreneurs to bear uncertainty and fosters new value creation – these
are the insights that support a new version of EO. This chapter clarifies, extends, and
updates what was intended by Lumpkin and Dess (1996) when the term EO was
brought forward and linked to previous work by Miller, Covin, and others.
Since its inception, EO has grown beyond its roots as a firm-level unidimen-
sional strategy construct. After being developed primarily for corporate settings, it
was soon being used in studies of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It
has been used more recently to study entrepreneurship in family businesses, inter-
national settings, and different types of social enterprises, including nonprofits. In
this chapter, we have argued in favor of assessing the EO of the self-employed, and
in pre-launch situations, to analyze the EO of individuals and teams on the brink
of new entry. Finally, as a handful of researchers have done, we believe EO can be
used to investigate entrepreneurial beliefs and behaviors in regions and nations.
We applaud efforts to reconcile the multidimensional approach to EO with the
original unidimensional conceptualization (Wales et al., 2020). Yet, we believe the
being entrepreneurial version of EO expressed in this chapter is something quali-
tatively different. As such, we are embracing the conclusion reached by Covin
and Lumpkin (2011), “that the unidimensional and multidimensional concep-
tualizations of EO are fundamentally different constructs that require separate
definitions and measurement models” (p. 863). We also acknowledge the concern
expressed by George and Marino (2011), that the definition of EO has traveled
and stretched so much since 1996 that it runs the risk of being overly diffuse
and unclear because EO is being used to refer to too many things. To make a
clean break, therefore, we propose GEO – global entrepreneurial orientation – the

autonomous, proactive, innovative, and competitive risk-taking beliefs and behaviors
needed to create new value under conditions of uncertainty.
The use of “global” and “GEO” is expressly intended to have multiple mean-
ings. GEO, of course, refers to the earth and evokes the idea of being entrepre-
neurial as a worldwide phenomenon. By “global” we also mean a comprehensive
and far-reaching set of factors that account for what it means to be entrepreneur-
ial across the diverse range of contexts that entrepreneurship encompasses – both
geographically (i.e., not simply US-centric) and in terms of size and scope (i.e.,
not simply corporations or high-growth ventures). The GEO view is also univer-
sal enough to accommodate more than one level of analysis and enterprises with
different missions (i.e., not simply commercial businesses). GEO is the Olympic
rings version of EO.
Upon reflection, however, we wonder if we really need to make a clean sepa-
ration to appropriately distinguish between the two views of EO. We are keenly
aware of George’s (2011) warning that, “if we fail to distinguish between the two
conceptual models, we will be unable to successfully build a body of knowledge
around either” (p. 1309). But do GEO and CEO really need to get a divorce? For
one thing, a handful of other name-extended EO spinoffs have now been pub-
lished including international entrepreneurial orientation (IEO20 – e.g., Covin &
Miller, 2014), social entrepreneurial orientation (SEO – e.g., Hu & Pang, 2013),
regional entrepreneurial orientation (REO – e.g., Pownall & Lawson, 2005),
family entrepreneurial orientation (FEO – e.g., Zellweger et al., 2012), and even
pharmacy student entrepreneurial orientation (PSEO – Hermansen-Kobulnicky &
Moss, 2004). Instead of a break-up, therefore, we advocate embracing the various
manifestations of EO as a family of constructs, as others have suggested, and
seek ways to keep the family together.
Future EO Research
In this chapter, we have already advocated for many different avenues of future
research that can enrich our understanding of EO and how and why it relates to
new value creation and other variables of interest. One of the most important
future research areas that remains to be discussed is organizational configuration
research because, “examining configurations allows researchers to move beyond
examining variables’ independent effects to examine how multiple variables inter-
act in potentially complex and nonlinear ways to influence firm performance”
(McKenny et al., 2018). Configuration research is especially important for inves-
tigating the GEO version of EO.
The reason a multidimensional approach to analyzing EO is important is
because of the strong likelihood that, across different settings, the EO dimensions
will manifest in unique configurations depending on the organizational and
environmental context. This insight is the root of the “vary independently”
claim set forth by Lumpkin and Dess (1996). At the time of that article, many
researchers were focusing on ideal organizational types and moving beyond simple
contingency frameworks which fell short of explaining complex relationships
among a firm’s routines, processes, structure, and culture. In fact, Miller (1983),
the source of the founding definition of EO, was itself a study of different
organizational configurations and how, “the nature, and especially the correlates
of entrepreneurship – the aggregate index now, not simply the components –
would vary depending on the organizational context in which it occurred” (Miller,
2011, p. 875). Miller (1983) found that the entrepreneurial profiles, which were
based on the original dimensions of EO, did vary across three different types of
firms as predicted. Thus, the idea of identifying profiles of EO dimensions and
investigating EO configurations has its roots in the very beginning of EO research.
Considering the case we have made about the wide variety of contexts in
which entrepreneurship is occurring and the arguments we have made about the
need for EO profiles to gain more fine-grained understandings, it follows that
configuration research needs to be a priority in GEO-based EO research going
forward. For one thing, information about high-performing EO configurations
would have enormous practical value. Being able to report which EO profiles
are most effective in different organizational and environmental settings could
inform owners or top managers how they might shift or upgrade elements of
their EO to improve performance. Configuration studies will also benefit future
EO scholarship. Researchers who study configurations suggest that the constel-
lations of elements that are likely to emerge in a given context tend to fall into
coherent patterns that allow for creating typologies and taxonomies (Meyer,
Tsui, & Hinings, 1993). These common configurations lend themselves to com-
parative analysis and cumulative insights about important differences and perfor-
mance implications.
Various methods have been used to study configurations. Typologies derived
from observation, insights, and expertise were among the original applications of
configuration research (e.g., Miles, Snow, Meyer, & Coleman 1978). Empirically
derived taxonomies using methods such as cluster analysis and profile analysis
remain especially useful for such analysis (Miller, 2018). More recently, QCA
approaches (e.g., McKenny et al., 2018) use “set theoretic configurational meth-
ods based on Boolean algebraic techniques to determine which combinations of
attributes are necessary or sufficient to produce particular outcomes” (Miller,
2018, p. 458). All of these approaches have strengths and weaknesses but they can
each be employed to develop rich insights about EO profiles and their configura-
tions. For guidance on choosing among methods, see Miller (1996, 2018) and
Polites, Roberts, and Thatcher (2012).
Along with configurational research, there are a host of EO-related future
research topics that warrant consideration and attention. First, as noted, developing
new EO measures is long overdue. There has been some progress in this area – CATA
measures (Short et al., 2010); secondary data measures (Miller, 2011); and new
EO scales (Hughes & Morgan, 2007). However, given the updated theorizing pro-
posed here and the need for a fresh approach to EO, new measures and meas-
urement techniques, especially measures that distinguish between beliefs and
behaviors, are essential for the future development of EO research. Another topic
of interest is the temporal stability of EO. There is an underlying assumption in
some EO research that EO changes very little over time and is essentially stable
(cf. Pearce et al., 2010). Given the dynamism of technologies, global economies,
and other environmental components, this may be an untenable assumption.
Wales, Monsen, and McKelvie (2011) suggest that, an “important considera-
tion from a temporal perspective is how and why the distribution of EO and the
degree to which it is manifested across a firm may change over time” (p. 906). To
gain a deeper understanding of EO, empirical research into the stability versus
dynamism of EO over time could be highly insightful and add new knowledge
that informs EO configuration questions and other EO issues. Longitudinal stud-
ies, panel data research, and event history studies could also help answer these
questions and help take EO research to another level (Miller, 2011).
EO Writ Large
In this chapter, EO has been defined in the context of a larger conceptualization
of entrepreneurship. In other words, we have addressed EO in relation to many
forms of business, commerce, and economic growth. We have also asserted that
the beliefs that are core to our entrepreneurship-linked EO perspective are evi-
dent across multiple levels of analysis even though the behaviors at different levels
will vary because of context-specific features. Yet, by referring back to the “being
entrepreneurial” statement that forms the basis for our EO definition – being
entrepreneurial means being an autonomous, proactive, innovative, and competitive
risk-taker – it is clear that that description could readily apply to situations out-
side the strictly business realm of entrepreneurship. In other words, these five
qualities, in this combination, constitute a frame of reference or action perspec-
tive that could be employed in many settings. EO can be seen as a lens through
which to view beliefs and behaviors more generally – as a sort of worldview. This
is consistent with Lumpkin’s (2011) call to think about entrepreneurship more
broadly:
[W]e need to be applying knowledge that is unique to the domain of entrepreneurship to help
understand decisions, actions, and environments outside of the domain. In other words, rather
than asking how life or life experiences inform entrepreneurship, let’s start asking how entre-
preneurship informs life … shouldn’t we be asking how entrepreneurial qualities make a person
or organization more resilient, more persistent, better leaders, and stronger performers? … we
need to be asking how entrepreneurial knowledge can contribute to understanding goal accom-
plishment and human achievement generally. (p. 5)
To make EO more applicable, it needs to be lifted out of the strictly business

contexts that are the subject of this chapter and recalibrated in more general terms.
Table 4 identifies principles and practices that extend the five dimensions beyond
the realms of business entrepreneurship and sets forth principles for applying EO
as a mechanism for “goal accomplishment and human achievement.”
Viewing EO from this perspective highlights an important insight that is a
key implication of this chapter: you don’t have to be an entrepreneur to have an
EO. While most of this chapter has focused on thinking about and using EO in
business and organizational contexts, viewing EO as a sort of creed or philoso-
phy for approaching challenges or engaging the world significantly enhances its
usefulness. Can educators and administrators, doctors and nurses, high schoolers
Table 4. EO-based Principles and Practices.

Dimension Principles and Practices
Autonomy • Independence.
• Being willing and able to act freely.
• Accepting responsibility for one’s own decisions and actions.
• Achieving self-sufficiency and “standing on your own two feet.”
Proactiveness • Making things happen rather than waiting for them to happen.
• Taking initiative before problems arise.
• Being the first to act, a trailblazer.
• Alertness to changes, trends, and opportunities.
Innovativeness • Creative problem-solving.
• Being inventive and resourceful.
• Willingness to experiment, imagine new combinations, and test hypotheses.
• Recognizing that original thinking and new ideas fuel the engines of progress.
Competitiveness • Driven to succeed and motivated to win.
• Ability to bounce back and stay in the game.
• Willingness to be challenging or challenge others if necessary.
• Willingness to confront one’s own assumptions and defeat bad habits if they are
impeding success/progress.
Risk-taking • Willingness to take chances and try new things.
• Deciding and acting under conditions of uncertainty.
• Embracing the belief that higher risks lead to higher returns.
• Understanding that feelings of hope sometimes need acts of courage to be realized.
and homemakers, athletes, and soldiers “be entrepreneurial” in the way that they
go about their work and life? That is, can they, to varying degrees in their daily
life, when making decisions and meeting challenges, be more effective by employ-
ing beliefs and behaviors that are autonomous, proactive, innovative, competitive,
and risk-taking? Yes, we believe they can.
In our view, it is not too much of a stretch to think of EO in this way. Not only does
EO provide a framework for becoming and remaining economically strong through
entrepreneurship, but it also offers general criteria for asking what more could be
done to achieve a goal or think about tackling a challenge – whether by an individual
or a family, a neighborhood committee or nonprofit, a service organization or local
government, or others. Different dimensions of EO, or different combinations of
dimensions, will of course be highlighted or matter more depending on the context or
the nature of the challenge. But, in general, we are confident that the principles and
practices of EO transcend business settings and can indeed “inform life.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, many ideas for future research and the practical implications of
this new version of EO have been expressed throughout this chapter. We recog-
nize that many of the ideas are controversial and constitute a challenge to the way
EO has been viewed for dozens of years and across hundreds of studies. There
is little doubt, for example, that the M/C&S scale has enhanced EO’s popularity
and contributed greatly to its widespread use. We also acknowledge that we are
proposing a more complicated approach to measuring EO, along with suggesting

that it needs two additional dimensions. Still, whether readers agree or disagree,
we hope they will join the conversation about the issues raised here – separating
beliefs and behaviors, adding more levels of analysis, EO measurement as forma-
tive versus reflective, the independence of entrepreneurship from strategy, EO as
a family of constructs, and so forth.
This chapter started as a send-up of the multidimensional approach, an affir-
mation of why we need five dimensions of EO and a call to move beyond the
corporate settings that have dominated prior EO research. As the thinking and
writing about that carried forward, it became evident that some EO researchers,
including advocates of the multidimensional perspective, had become a bit too
comfortable with some of the assumptions that were built on Miller’s (1983) unin-
tentional foundation. Indeed, contemplating the issues and digging deeper into the
literature made us question our own assumptions: Why does competitive aggres-
siveness need to be aggressive? Why is EO a strategic orientation and not an orien-
tation in its own right? If beliefs and behaviors are both crucial for understanding
EO, why not create measures to capture them both? Why wouldn’t we apply EO to
individuals? Or regions? Why isn’t there a theory of EO? After a while, these and
other questions took center stage and led to the GEO version of EO.
We recognize that some of our ideas are not new, that some of our recom-
mendations will prove untenable, that some of our claims will not be empirically
supported, and that some of our arguments will be expertly countered. But that
is normal, and worth it if we can stand up a new and more robust version of EO
that moves the field forward and keeps the conversation going. Entrepreneurship
is happening everywhere. We need a version of EO that can be used anywhere. We
respectfully submit that this is it.
NOTES
1. As will be shown, the “unidimensional vs multidimensional” framing of the debate
between the two approaches is somewhat misleading because, in both cases, the constructs
are comprised of multiple dimensions. The difference is in how they are conceptualized and
measured. Covin and Slevin’s (1989) unidimensional approach consists of three dimensions
whose scores are summed to create a single EO score, hence the label “unidimensional.”
Lumpkin and Dess’s (1996) multidimensional approach consists of five dimensions whose
indices are combined to form unique EO configurations or profiles.
2. The M/C&S scale, which uses a semantic differential format, includes this language
on the high end of the scale for this item: “Changes in product or service lines have usually
been quite dramatic.”
3. The unidimensional EO scale was originally developed and popularized by Khand-
walla (1977), Miller and Friesen (1978, 1982), and Covin and Slevin (1986, 1989). It was
originally referred to as a type of strategic posture before it became associated with the
term “entrepreneurial orientation.”
4. Covin and Wales emphasize the shared variance among the three dimensions and
note that, “Miller conceived of EO as a construct composed of three subdimensions –
innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness – that must positively covary in order for an
EO to be manifested … In the absence of covariation … the presence of an EO … should
not be claimed” (Covin & Wales, 2012, p. 680). Anderson and colleagues remind us that
when EO is specified using a reflective measurement model, “because the indicators are all
observable manifestations of the same underlying latent phenomenon, we a priori expect

the indicators to covary” (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 1581). While some investigations (e.g.,
Lomberg, Urbig, Stöckmann, Marino, & Dickson, 2017) have probed the unique variance
among pairs of these three dimensions, the Lumpkin and Dess (1996) multidimensional
approach emphasizes the salience of effects deriving from each of the five dimensions dis-
tinctly and in unique combinations.
5. Item 9 in the M/C&S scale states, “When confronted with decision-making situations
involving uncertainty, my firm … typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture in order to
maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities.”
6. Knight (1997), for example, equates the two in the same sentence making reference to,
“the construct of firm entrepreneurial orientation or entrepreneurship … as a characteris-
tic attitude or process of organizations” (p. 214).
7. Reflective measurement models are those in which causality is assumed to flow from
the latent construct to the indicators. As a result, indicators are correlated as they reflect the
same underlying construct. Reflective models are the most common in psychological-based
research. Conversely, formative measurement models are those in which the causality flows
from the indicators to form the underlying construct. As a result, indicators do not have
assumptions of intercorrelation. Formative models are more common in economics-based
research (Coltman, Devinney, Midgley, & Venaik, 2008).
8. As a reminder, George (2011) notes that both the unidimensional and multidimensional
approaches have multiple dimensions. This quote is an example of why the “unidimensional
vs multidimensional” framing is not the optimal way to compare the two approaches.
9. Entrepreneurship scholars have long debated whether franchising is entrepreneurial
(Ketchen, Short, & Combs, 2011). If innovation is viewed as an important but not neces-
sarily essential component of entrepreneurship, then franchising as a type of venturing
through private ownership seems quite entrepreneurial. The popular business format fran-
chise typically lacks the need to be innovative and minimizes risk-taking. But one reason
it works is because many of the mechanisms of competitiveness – up-to-date customer
knowledge, market-based pricing, efficient supply, affordable technology, and so forth – are
built into the business model.
10. Journal Citation Reports (JCR) reported the following 1-year and 5-year impact fac-
tors for 2018: Journal of Business Venturing (1-yr = 6.33, 5-yr = 10.79); Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice (1-yr = 6.19, 5-yr = 9.55); Strategic Management Journal (1-yr = 5.57,
5-yr = 8.36).
11. Oklahoma State University, Drexel University, and University of St. Thomas to
name a few.
12. In 2019, Florida State University, an R-1 university, launched the Jim Moran Col-
lege of Entrepreneurship.
13. In the field of entrepreneurship, there are two distinct ways to think about individual
entrepreneurs. On the one hand, they are individuals who, as in organizational behavior
research, can be understood in terms of individual differences in areas such as cognition,
personality, intentions, alertness, careers, and many other individual-level characteristics. On
the other hand, in entrepreneurship, individuals who are self-employed or launch one-person
companies are viewed as business entities or organizations and are analyzed as such. Lump-
kin and Dess (1996) noted that, historically, “… the individual entrepreneur is regarded as
a firm. The small business firm is simply an extension of the individual who is in charge” (p.
138). This thinking applies not just to firms but to enterprises generally, that is, “units of eco-
nomic organization or activity” (merriam-webster.com). In these cases, even when only one
person is involved, the enterprise is the unit of analysis rather than the individual.
14. The family business literature, which addresses private ownership and includes owner-
ship itself as a central component of its dominant paradigm (Moores, 2009), is an exception.
15. Private ownership of a controlling interest by founders or owners who manage their
own enterprises bestows a great deal of autonomy on them. In situations where founders
forfeit control by trading away majority ownership, they also typically give up a good deal
of autonomy.
16. We acknowledge, consistent with our previous arguments, that there are situations
where the score on one or more of the EO dimensions may be very low. In claiming that
all five dimensions are necessary, we are primarily asserting that the five dimensions all
need to be assessed consistent with formative measurement model procedures that call for
measuring all relevant dimensions (George, 2011). We make no assumption, however, that
the score on any of the dimensions will meet a minimum threshold level, only that, for
assessing a given EO profile, every dimension needs to be accounted for.
17. Too often, scholars have argued that the findings of a single study constitute grounds
for adding another EO dimension. Perhaps this occurs because of the absence of a strong
definition of EO or ambiguity over its conceptualization. Whatever the explanation, such
claims provide only minimal support for tinkering with the theoretical grounding of EO
and typically are not compelling enough reasons to redefine the construct as Covin and
Lumpkin (2011) reminded: “Unfortunately, too much EO research has proffered responses
to the question of how many dimensions EO has based on the results of data-collection
efforts. The problem here is that EO’s dimensionality is fundamentally a theoretical matter,
not an empirical matter … it is inappropriate to employ empirical data for the purposes of
defining or refining how EO ought to be conceptualized” (p. 866).
18. Although our treatment of beliefs in this paragraph is suggestive of an individual level
of analysis, it is our view, consistent with the universal nature of our definition of EO, that the
beliefs concept holds true at other levels as well - teams, firms, communities, nations and so forth.
19. We acknowledge that there is research which suggests that individual beliefs can
change in the face of feedback or new information. As such, there could be circumstances
as a result of learning or experiences that alter beliefs about whether different dimensions of
EO matter for new value creation. But with regard to what those beliefs are – the content of
EO beliefs – we believe it is reasonable to expect that they will remain relatively stable.
20. Several EO researchers have also recently used “IEO” as an acronym for “individual
entrepreneurial orientation” including Covin et al. (2020) and Kollmann, Stöckmann, Meves,
and Kensbock (2017).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely thank the editors of the Advances in Entrepreneurship volume on
Entrepreneurial Orientation – Andrew Corbett, Patrick Kreiser, Lou Marino, and Bill
Wales. Their support, guidance, and patience have been vital for bringing this work
forward. We are grateful to all of those who graciously provided advice and shared
concerns on earlier versions of the manuscript including Sophie Bacq, Keith Brigham,
Justin Craig, Brad George, Benyamin Lichtenstein, Aaron McKenny, Marcus Wolfe,
and Andy Yu. The chapter also benefited greatly from the insightful discussions
that emerged during presentations at the 2020 Rocky Mountain Entrepreneurship
Research Conference at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial
action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(2), 11–26.
Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015). Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1579–1596.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through
entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
Barrett, H., & Weinstein, A. (1998). The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(1), 57–70.
Basso, O., Fayolle, A., & Bouchard, V. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation: The making of a concept.
The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(4), 313–321.
Bhattarai, C. R., Kwong, C. C., & Tasavori, M. (2019). Market orientation, market disruptiveness
capability and social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom.
Journal of Business Research, 96, 47–60.
Bingham, C. B. (2009). Oscillating improvisation: How entrepreneurial firms create success in foreign
market entries over time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(4), 321–345.
Birkinshaw, J. (1997). Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: The characteristics of subsidiary
initiatives. Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 207–229.
Blackburn, R. A., & Smallbone, D. (2008). Researching small firms and entrepreneurship in the UK:
Developments and distinctiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(2), 267–288.
Block, J. H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., & Ullrich, K. (2015). Necessity entrepreneurship and competitive
strategy. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 37–54.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation
perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305.
Bolton, D. L., & Lane, M. D. (2012). Individual entrepreneurial orientation: Development of a
measurement instrument. Education+ Training, 54(2/3), 219–233.
Breaugh, J. A. (1999). Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 13(3), 357–373.
Brock, D. M. (2003). Autonomy of individuals and organizations: Toward a strategy research agenda.
International Journal of Business and Economics, 2, 57–73.
Brown, T. E., Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). An operationalization of Stevenson’s conceptualization
of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 22(10),
953–968.
Bruyat, C., & Julien, P.-A. (2001). Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(2), 165–180.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2), 223–244.
Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63(3), 452–459.
Cogliser, C. C., Brigham, K. A., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) research:
A comprehensive review and analyses of theory, measurement, and data analytic practices. Paper
presented at the Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley, MA.
Collins, O. F., & Moore, O. G. (1970). The organization makers: A behavioral study of independent
entrepreneurs. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crafts.
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective
measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business
Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.
Cook, D. (2020). The freedom trap: Digital nomads and the use of disciplining practices to manage
work/leisure boundaries. Information Technology & Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-
020-00172-4
Cools, E., & den Broeck, V. (2007). The hunt for the Heffalump continues: Can trait and cognitive
characteristics predict entrepreneurial orientation? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(2), 23–42.
Covin, J. G., & Covin, T. J. (1990). Competitive aggressiveness, environmental context, and small firm
performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(4), 35–50.
Covin, J. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on
a needed construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 855–872.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive
advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63.
Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual considerations,
research themes, measurement issues, and future research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 38(1), 11–44.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1986). The development and testing of an organizational-level
entrepreneurship scale. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1(3), 628–639.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organization structure on the utility of an
entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.
Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1), 7–26.
Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The measurement of entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677–702.
Covin J. G., & Wales W. J. (2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some
suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3–18.
Covin, J. G., Green, K. M., & Slevin, D. P. (2006). Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial
orientation–sales growth rate relationship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 57–81.
Covin, J. G., Rigtering, J. C., Hughes, M., Kraus, S., Cheng, C. F., & Bouncken, R. B. (2020). Individual
and team entrepreneurial orientation: Scale development and configurations for success.
Davidsson, P., Steffens, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Growing profitable or growing from profits:
Putting the horse in front of the cart? Journal of Business Venturing, 24(4), 388–406.
De Clercq, D., Honig, B., & Martin, B. (2013). The roles of learning orientation and passion for work in
the formation of entrepreneurial intention. International Small Business Journal, 31(6), 652–676.
Dencker, J., Bacq, S., Gruber, M., & Haas, M. (2019). Reconceptualizing necessity entrepreneurship:
A contextualized framework of entrepreneurial processes under the condition of basic needs.
Academy of Management Review, in press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0471
Dess, G. G., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2005). The role of entrepreneurial orientation in stimulating effective
corporate entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 147–156.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & McGee, J. E. (1999). Linking corporate entrepreneurship to strategy, structure,
and process: Suggested research directions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 85–102.
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management,
17, 263–282.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An
alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.
Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial
intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 81–90.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2),
370–388.
Engelen, A., Flatten, T. C., Thalmann, J., & Brettel, M. (2014). The effect of organizational culture on
entrepreneurial orientation: A comparison between Germany and Thailand. Journal of Small
Business Management, 52(4), 732–752.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm
performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of
Management, 41(4), 1069–1097.
Fee, P. R., Mialon, H. M., & Williams, M. A. (2004). What is a barrier to entry? American Economic
Review, 94(2), 461–465.
Felgueira, T., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation and
performance of teachers and researchers in public higher education institutions. Public Policy
and Administration, 11(4), 703–718.
Ferreira, F. A., Marques, C. S., Bento, P., Ferreira, J. J., & Jalali, M. S. (2015). Operationalizing
and measuring individual entrepreneurial orientation using cognitive mapping and MCDA
techniques. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2691–2702.
Ferrier, W. J. (2001). Navigating the competitive landscape: The drivers and consequences of competitive
aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 858–877.
Foss, N. J., & Klein, P. G. (2010). Entrepreneurial alertness and opportunity discovery: Origins,
attributes, critique. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), The historical foundations of
entrepreneurship research (pp. 98–121). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Frese, M. (2006). Grand theories and mid-range theories: Cultural effects on theorizing and the attempt
to understand active approaches to work. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in
management: The process of theory development (pp. 84–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696–706.
Gartner, W. B. (1988). “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the wrong question. American Journal of Small
Business, 12(4), 11–32.
George, B. A. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation: A theoretical and empirical examination of the
consequences of differing construct representations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6),
1291–1313.
George, B. A., & Marino, L. (2011). The epistemology of entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual
formation, modeling, and operationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5),
989–1024.
Ginsberg, A. (1985). Measuring changes in entrepreneurial orientation following industry deregulation:
The development of a diagnostic instrument. In G. B. Roberts (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Council of Small Business (Vol. 50, p. 57). Marietta, GA: International Council
of Small Business.
Goktan, A. B., & Gupta, V. K. (2015). Sex, gender, and individual entrepreneurial orientation: Evidence
from four countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(1), 95–112.
Greene, P. G., Brush, C. G., & Hart, M. M. (1999). The corporate venture champion: A resource-based
approach to role and process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 103–122.
Gulowsen, J. (1972) A measure of work-group autonomy. In L. E. Davies & J. C. Taylor (Eds.), Design
of jobs (pp. 374–390). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hansen, J. D., Deitz, G. D., Tokman, M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2011). Cross-national
invariance of the entrepreneurial orientation scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 61–78.
Hart, S. L. (1991). Intentionality and autonomy in strategy-making process: Modes, archetypes, and
firm performance. Advances in Strategic Management, 7(3), 97–127.
Hart, S. L. (1992). An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management
Review, 17(2), 327–351.
Hayek, F. A. (1948). The meaning of competition. In F. H. Hayek (Ed.), Individualism and economic
order (pp. 92–106). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Haynie, J. M., Shepherd, D., Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2010). A situated metacognitive model of
the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 217–229.
Hermansen-Kobulnicky, C. J., & Moss, C. L. (2004). Pharmacy student entrepreneurial orientation: A
measure to identify potential pharmacist entrepreneurs. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 68(1–5), 1–10.
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Is formative measurement really measurement? Reply
to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 238–245.
Hu, Y., & Pang, X. (2013) Social entrepreneurial orientation and performance of nonprofit
organizations: An empirical study in China. Journal of Applied Science, 13(19), 3989–3994.
Hughes, M., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial
Marketing Management, 36(5), 651–661.
Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Sirmon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The
construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963–989.
Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Short, J. C., & Combs, J. G. (2011). Is franchising entrepreneurship? Yes, no, and
maybe so. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(3), 583–593.
Khandwalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York, NY: Harper.
Knight, F. H. (1942). Profit and entrepreneurial functions. The Journal of Economic History, 2, 126–132.
Knight, G. A. (1997). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm entrepreneurial
orientation. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(3), 213–225.
Kollmann, T., Stöckmann, C., Meves, Y., & Kensbock, J. (2017). When members of entrepreneurial
teams differ: Linking diversity in individual-level entrepreneurial orientation to team
performance. Small Business Economics, 48, 843–859.
Korber, S., & McNaughton, R. B. (2018). Resilience and entrepreneurship: A systematic literature
review. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1129–1154.
Kraus, S., Breier, M., Jones, P., & Hughes, M. (2019). Individual entrepreneurial orientation and
intrapreneurship in the public sector. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
15(4), 1247–1268.
Krauss, S. I., Frese, M., Friedrich, C., & Unger, J. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation: A
psychological model of success among southern African small business owners. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315–344.
Kreiser, P. M., & Davis, J. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The unique impact
of innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship,
23(1), 39–51.
Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural influences on
entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in
SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959–984.
Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K. M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of
the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A multi-country analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 26(4), 71–93.
Kurniawan, J. E., Setiawan, J. L., Sanjaya, E. L., Wardhani, F. P. I., Virlia, S., Dewi, K., & Kasim,
A. (2019). Developing a measurement instrument for high school students’ entrepreneurial
orientation. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1564423.
Lange, T. (2012). Job satisfaction and self-employment: Autonomy or personality? Small Business
Economics, 38(2), 165–177.
Li, Y. H., Huang, J. W., & Tsai, M. T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The
role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 440–449.
Ling, Y. A. N., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). Transformational leadership’s role
in promoting corporate entrepreneurship: Examining the CEO–TMT interface. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(3), 557–576.
Lomberg, C., Urbig, D., Stöckmann, C., Marino, L. D., & Dickson, P. H. (2017). Entrepreneurial
orientation: The dimensions’ shared effects in explaining firm performance. Entrepreneurship
Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). From legitimacy to impact: Moving the field forward by asking how
entrepreneurship informs life. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(1), 3–9.
Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring autonomy:
An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1),
47–69.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking
it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm
performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16(5), 429–451.
MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure
models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 533.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model
misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 710–730.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS
Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.
MacMillan, I. C. (1983). Preemptive strategies. The Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 16.
MacMillan, I. C., & Day, D. L. (1987). Corporate ventures into industrial markets: Dynamics of
aggressive entry. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(1), 29–39.
Martens, C. D. P., Machado, F. J., Martens, M. L., & de Freitas, H. M. R. (2018). Linking entrepreneurial
orientation to project success. International Journal of Project Management, 36(2), 255–266.
McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. (2000). The entrepreneurial mindset. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
McKenny, A. F., Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Payne, G. T., & Moss, T. W. (2018). Strategic entrepreneurial
orientation: Configurations, performance, and the effects of industry and time. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(4), 504–521.
McMullen, J. S., Ingram, K., & Adams, J. (in press). What makes an entrepreneurship study
entrepreneurial? Toward a unified theory of entrepreneurial agency. Entrepreneurship Theory &
Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720922460
Merz, G. R., & Sauber, M. H. (1995). Profiles of managerial activities in small firms. Strategic
Management Journal, 16, 551–564.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175–1195.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York, NY:
Mc-Graw-Hill.
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J., Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure,
and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science,
29(7), 770–792.
Miller, D. (1996). Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 505–512.
Miller, D. (2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the
future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.
Miller, D. (2018). Challenging trends in configuration research: Where are the configurations? Strategic
Organization, 16(4), 453–469.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1978). Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 921–933.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models
of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1–25.
Minniti, M., & Lévesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial types and economic growth. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(3), 305–314.
Moores, K. (2009). Paradigms and theory building in the domain of business families. Family Business
Review, 22(2), 167–180.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., & Allen, J. W. (1994). Fostering corporate entrepreneurship: Cross-cultural
comparisons of the importance of individualism versus collectivism. Journal of International
Business Studies, 25(1), 65–89.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in
established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247–259.
Mrabure, R. H. O., Ruwhiu, D., & Gray, B. (2018). Indigenous entrepreneurial orientation: A Māori
perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.43
Mthanti, T., & Ojah, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO): Measurement and policy implications
of entrepreneurship at the macroeconomic level. Research Policy, 46(4), 724–739.
Müller, A. (2016). The digital nomad: Buzzword or research category? Transnational Social Review,
6(3), 344–348.
Nadkarni, S., Chen, T., & Chen, J. (2016). The clock is ticking! Executive temporal depth, industry
velocity, and competitive aggressiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1132–1153.
Naldi, L., Nordqvist, M., Sjöberg, K., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial orientation, risk taking,
and performance in family firms. Family Business Review, 20(1), 33–47.
Parker, S. C. (1997). The effects of risk on self-employment. Small Business Economics, 9, 515–522.
Parker, S. C. (2004). The economics of self-employment and entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pearce, J. A., Fritz, D. A., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the performance
of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 34(1), 219–248.
Pfeifer, S., Šarlija, N., & Zekić Sušac, M. (2016). Shaping the entrepreneurial mindset: Entrepreneurial
intentions of business students in Croatia. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 102–117.
Pidduck, R. J., Shaffer, M. A., Zhang, Y., & Clark, D. R. (2020). Unpacking the emergence of born
global founders: A careers perspective. Journal of Small Business Management. Forthcoming.
Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. (2012). Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs:
A review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 22–48.
Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining competitive advantage. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Pownall, I., & Lawson, V. (2005). A regional entrepreneurial orientation (REO) model for a northern
English town? Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(4), 295–331.
Putnins, T. J., & Sauka, A. (2019). Why does entrepreneurial orientation affect company performance?
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1325
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business
performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship
Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm
performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(2), 255–266.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of Research on
Teacher Education, 2, 102–119.
Rindova, V., Barry, D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2009). Entrepreneuring as emancipation. Academy of
Management Review, 34(3), 477–491.
Runyan, R. C., Ge, B., Dong, B., & Swinney, J. L. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in cross-cultural
research: Assessing measurement invariance in the construct. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 36(4), 819–836.
Runyan, R. C., Huddleston, P., & Swinney, J. (2006). Entrepreneurial orientation and social capital
as small firm strategies: A study of gender differences from a resource-based view. The
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(4), 455.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Entrepreneurial cognition, entrepreneurial orientation and firm capability in
the creative industries. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 415–432.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic
inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., Velamuri, S. R., & Venkataraman, S. (2003). Three views of entrepreneurial
opportunity. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research
(pp. 141–160). Boston, MA: Springer.
Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource
Management Review, 13(2), 257–279.
Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of definitional issues in the field of
corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(2), 11–27.
Shepherd, D. A., McMullen, J. S., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). The formation of opportunity beliefs:
Overcoming ignorance and reducing doubt. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 75–95.
Shepherd, D. A., Wennberg, K., Suddaby, R., & Wiklund, J. (2019). What are we explaining? A review
and agenda on initiating, engaging, performing, and contextualizing entrepreneurship. Journal
of Management, 45(1), 159–196.
Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010). Construct validation using
computer-aided text analysis (CATA): An illustration using entrepreneurial orientation.
Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347.
Stam, W., & Elfring, T. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The
moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal,
51(1): 97–111.
Stevenson, H. H., & Gumpert, D. E. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review,
85(2), 85–94.
Supple, B. (1991). Scale and scope: Alfred Chandler and the dynamics of industrial capitalism. The
Economic History Review, 44(3), 500–514.
Syrjä, P., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Soininen, J., & Durst, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation
in firms with a social mission – A mixed-methods approach. Cogent Business & Management,
6(1), 1602016.
Taatila, V., & Down, S. (2012). Measuring entrepreneurial orientation of university students. Education
Training, 54(8/9), 744–760.
Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., & Li, Q. (2008). Exploring an inverted U-shape relationship
between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese ventures. Entrepreneurship
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality,
and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.
Wales, W. J., Covin, J. G., & Monsen, E. (2020). Entrepreneurial orientation: The necessity of a multilevel
conceptualization. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1344
Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., Marino, L., & Shirokova, G. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation:
International, global and cross-cultural research. International Small Business Journal, 37(2),
95–104.
Wales, W. J., Gupta, V. K., & Mousa, F. T. (2013). Empirical research on entrepreneurial orientation:
An assessment and suggestions for future research. International Small Business Journal, 31(4),
357–383.
Wales, W. J., Monsen, E., & McKelvie, A. (2011). The organizational pervasiveness of entrepreneurial
orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 895–923.
Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2013). In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism,
entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance variance. Journal of Management Studies,
50(6), 1041–1069.
Wales, W. J., Wiklund, J., & McKelvie, A. (2015). What about new entry? Examining the theorized role
of new entry in the entrepreneurial orientation–performance relationship. International Small
Business Journal, 33(4), 351–373.
Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, and firm performance.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657.
Webb, J. W., Kistruck, G. M., Ireland, R. D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2010). The entrepreneurship
process in base of the pyramid markets: The case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment
organization alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 555–581.
Welter, F., Baker, T., & Wirsching, K. (2019). Three waves and counting: The rising tide of
contextualization in entrepreneurship research. Small Business Economics, 52(2), 319–330.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review,
14(4), 490–495.
White, J. V., Choudhary, S., & Gupta, V. K. (2021). Measurement of entrepreneurial orientation: A
systematic critical synthesis of the empirical literature. In A. Corbett, P. Kreiser, L. Marino,
& W. Wales (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and growth, volume 22:
Entrepreneurial orientation epistemological, theoretical, and empirical perspectives (pp. 223–245).
Wiggins, S. N. (1995). Entrepreneurial enterprises, endogenous ownership, and the limits to firm size.
Economic Inquiry, 33(1), 54–69.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the
performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13),
1307–1314.
Yu, A., Lumpkin, G. T., Praveen Parboteeah, K., & Stambaugh, J. E. (2019). Autonomy and family
business performance: The joint effect of environmental dynamism and national culture.
International Small Business Journal, 37(2), 153–185.
Zainol, F. A., & Daud, W. N. W. (2011). Indigenous (“Bumiputera”) Malay entrepreneurs in Malaysia:
Government supports, entrepreneurial orientation and firms performances. International
Business and Management, 2(1), 86–99.
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). From longevity of firms to transgenerational
entrepreneurship of families: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Family Business
Review, 25(2), 136–155.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Brouthers, K. D. (2012). Gender heterogeneity, entrepreneurial orientation and
international diversification. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 20–43.

Global Entrepreneurial Orientation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Entrepreneurial Orientation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 2

Entrepreneurial Orientation: Epistemological, Theoretical, and Empirical Perspectives

Keywords: Entrepreneurial orientation; global entrepreneurial orientation;

Considering its popularity and widespread use, entrepreneurial orientation (EO)

Indeed, there are important advantages and numerous contexts, including

CLARIFYING THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF EO

Given the wide variety of settings in which entrepreneurship is likely to mani-

model, leading the researchers to conclude that “… each of these dimensions

Redeploying the Five Dimensions of EO

Competitiveness is What Matters for Competitive Advantage, not Aggression

to the term competitiveness alone. What makes competitiveness “aggressive” in

Autonomy: The Fifth Wheel of Entrepreneurial Orientation?

and colleagues in the autonomy section of “Entrepreneuring as Emancipation.”

Table 1. The Five Dimensions of a Multidimensional Model of EO.

Adding autonomy and competitiveness to the original three EO dimensions

TWO VIEWS OF EO: A BRIEF HISTORY

New Entry: A Long and Winding Road

description of it as “entering new or established markets with new or existing

Drawing attention to the EO–Entrepreneurship relationship was a useful way

Second, some EO researchers raised concerns about the implications of

Untangling Process Versus Content from Dispositions Versus Behaviors

emergent, novelty-seeking, and unpredictable – much like EO. Applied to the

Reflective Versus Formative EO Measurement Models

Second, about formative models he writes,

The New Entry View of EO Versus The Being Entrepreneurial View of EO

(i.e., narrow) assumptions about what “being entrepreneurial” means, to incor-

Table 2. A Comparison of the CEO and GEO Views of EO.

Definition An attribute of an organization that The autonomous, proactive,

THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW OF EO:

An Updated View of How EO Relates to Entrepreneurship

autonomy in their future career is more influential in forming entrepreneurial inten-

An Updated Definition of Entrepreneurial Orientation

investigated: no additional dimensions are needed to define EO. In other words,

in the face of marketplace rivals (competitiveness) is then combined with resource

Modeling and Measuring EO as Formative

Aggregating the scores of EO dimensions, however, is one of the challenges

A technique identified by George (2011) and employed by Anderson et al.

The authors investigated autonomy in family businesses and different cultures

The authors go on to suggest that the EO dimensions be thought of as a

EO’s Levels of Analysis

and reliable EO measures. We believe that enhancing researchers’ ability to assess

Beliefs and Behaviors

By contrast, a nonprofit leader might be convinced that some enlightened inno-

Table 3. Entrepreneurial Orientation Beliefs.a

Autonomy • Freedom to act is essential for entrepreneurship.

Is there a Theory of EO?

as to the appropriate conceptualization of EO” (George, 2011, p. 1307). It is in

autonomous, proactive, innovative, and competitive risk-taking beliefs and behaviors

clean break, therefore, we propose GEO – global entrepreneurial orientation – the

To make EO more applicable, it needs to be lifted out of the strictly business

Table 4. EO-based Principles and Practices.

proposing a more complicated approach to measuring EO, along with suggesting

observable manifestations of the same underlying latent phenomenon, we a priori expect

Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship

You might also like