WHATAREWE

TALKING ABOUT
WHENWE
TALK ABOUT
ENTREPRENEURSHIP?
WILLIAM B. GARTNER
Georgetown University

The purpose of this research was to explore the underlying meanings

EXECUTIVE researchers and practitioners have about entrepreneurship and to outline
SUMMARY some themes that characterize the major issues and concerns that constitute
the debate about entrepreneurship as a field of study.
The process used to identify the themes that characterize entrepre-
neurship took the form of a policy Delphi. This Delphi was constructed
as a series of three questionnaires to elicit dehnitions of entrepreneurship that were then analyzed
and evaluated. In theJirst phase, a one-page questionnaire asking for a definition of entrepreneurship
was sent to leading academic researchers in entrepreneurship, to business leaders, and to politicians.
The first questionnaire asked individuals: What is your definition of entrepreneurship? We received
44 responses (36 from academics, 8 from business leaders, and none from politicians) from the 280
individuals whom we invited to participate (a 16% response rate).
In phase 2, all of the entrepreneurship definitions from thehrst questionnaire were typed and
sent back with a second questionnaire to the 44 respondents. The second questionnaire was generated
through a content analysis of the entrepreneurship definitions. Ninety attributes were identi$ed from
the entrepreneurship definitions. The second questionnaire asked participants: How important is each
attribute to your definition of entrepreneurship? Participants ranked the attributes from very important
to unimportant. Of the 44 participants in phase 2, 41 responded to the second questionnaire (93%
response rate). The responses from the second questionnaire were then evaluated and factor analyzed.
The factor analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set offactors (themes). The eight-
factor solution was selected. The debate about what constitutes the nature of entrepreneurship can be
characterized by these eight themes.

Address correspondence to Dr. William B. Gartner, Old North Building, School of Business Administration,
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057.
A version of this paper was presented at the 1987 National Academy of Management meetings. The author
gratefully acknowledges all participants who offered definitions and responded to two lengthy surveys.

Journal of Business Venturing 5, 15-28 08X3-9026&W/$3.50

01990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co.. Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York. NY 10010

15
16 W.B. GARTNER

The Entrepreneur. The entrepreneur theme is the idea that entrepreneurship involves individuals
with unique personality characteristics and abilities.
Innovation. The innovation theme is characterized as doing something new as an idea, product,
service, market. or technology in a new or established organization.
Organization Creation. The organization creation theme described the behaviors involved in
creating organizations.
Creating Value. This theme articulated the idea that entrepreneurship creates value.
Profit or Nonprofit. The profitlnonprojit theme is concerned with whether entrepreneurship
involves projit-making organizations only.
Growth. At issue in this theme is the importance of growth as a characteristic of entrepreneurship.
Uniqueness. This theme suggested that entrepreneurship must involve uniqueness.
The Owner-Manager. This theme suggested that entrepreneurship involves individuals who are
owners and managers of their businesses.

The third phase of the Delphi asked the 41 participants to evaluate and comment on the eight
factors generated in the second phase. Of the 41 participants in phase 3, 34 responded to the third
questionnaire (83% response rate). Since no one agreed-upon definition of entrepreneurship appeared
to emerge from the Delphi process, the researcher undertook a cluster analysis of the responses to
the third questionnaire to uncover whether any similarities in viewpoints existed among the participants,
The data was cluster analyzed using both hierarchical (complete linkage and single linkage) and K-
means clustering techniques. Results from these analyses revealed two distinct clusters. The majority
(79%) of the participants were clustered in group I. The focus of this group seems to be on the
characteristics of entrepreneurship. Group I looked at what happened in the situation. This group
indicated that a situation was entrepreneurial if they could answer “yes” to these questions: Is there
an entrepreneur involved? Is there innovation? Is there growth? Is there uniqueness? The other group,
group 2, focused on the outcomes of entrepreneurship. Group 2 saw a situation as entrepreneurial
only if value was created or if someone gained.

R upon definition
ecent reviews of entrepreneurship research have indicated the lack of an agreed-
of entrepreneurship and, more basic, a concern over what entre-
preneurship constitutes as a field of study (Brockhaus 1987; Brockhaus and Horwitz 1985;
Carsrud et al. 1985; Low and MacMillan 1988; Ronstadt et al. 1986; Sexton and Smilor
1985; Wortman 1985). Behind this concern is the worry that entrepreneurship has become
a label of convenience with little inherent meaning. Labeling a research study as an entre-
preneurship study does not seem to identify what will be studied and why. For example,
the Entrepreneurship Division’s Call for Papers for the 1989 National Academy of Man-
agement meeting illustrates the field of entrepreneurship with these words: “the creation and
management of new businesses, small businesses and family businesses, and the character-
istics and special problems of entrepreneurs.” If we assume that all of these topics are
entrepreneurial in nature, then what are the commonalities that link family businesses, small
business management, and new ventures? Is entrepreneurship just a buzzword, or does it
have particular characteristics that can be identified and studied?
The purpose of this research was to explore the underlying meanings researchers and
practitioners have about entrepreneurship and to outline some themes that characterize the
major issues and concerns that constitute the debate about entrepreneurship as a field of
study.
The paper is divided into three sections. First, the Delphi process is outlined and the
results from the Delphi are presented. Second, the Delphi process and results are explained
and evaluated. Third, arguments are offered on the importance of continuing the discussion
 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS 17

on what constitutes the field of entrepreneurship. This paper can only highlight some of the
information generated from the entire Delphi process. For a complete description of the
results please request the working paper “An Entrepreneurial Delphi” from the author.

METHOD AND RESULTS

The process used to identify the themes that characterize entrepreneurship took the form of
a policy Delphi (Turoff 1975). This Delphi was constructed as a series of three questionnaires
to elicit definitions of entrepreneurship that were then analyzed and evaluated. An important
aspect of this Delphi was that each participant received feedback on what other participants
wrote before responding to the next round. Also, participants could shift their views as
additional information became available.
In the first phase, a one-page questionnaire asking for a definition of entrepreneurship
was sent to leading academic researchers in entrepreneurship, to business leaders, and to
politicians. The 9 1 academics were identified through Babson Entrepreneurship Research
Conference publications, Academy of Management proceedings, and individuals known to
the author. The 83 business leaders identified were from the mid-Atlantic region (one-half
were the founders of companies in a wide range of industries with sales of over $1 million,
and the other half were new venture development experts-lawyers, CPAs, and venture
capitalists). The 109 politicians were members of the U.S. House and Senate who sat on
committees addressing issues relevant to new business creation. This list was by no means
exhaustive. The goal was to identify a broad spectrum of entrepreneurship researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers so that many different views of the entrepreneurship field
were likely to emerge.
The first questionnaire asked individuals: What is your definition of entrepreneurship?
A follow-up questionnaire (with the same question) was mailed to individuals who did not
respond to the first questionnaire. We received 44 responses (36 from academics, 8 from
business leaders, and none from politicians) from the 280 individuals whom we invited to
participate (a 16% response rate). The response rate for academics, business leaders, and
politicians was 40%, lo%, and 0%, respectively. In subsequent phone calls to selected
business leaders and politicians some reasons came to light for the poor response rate.
Business leaders felt that defining entrepreneurship was not very practical and relevant to
them. As one business leader remarked, “Why would I want to know what an entrepreneur
is? I am one.” The politicians wanted information on what they should be doing to improve
policy on entrepreneurship, regardless of how entrepreneurship is defined.
In phase 2, all of the entrepreneurship definitions from the first questionnaire were
typed and sent back with a second questionnaire to the 44 respondents. Some examples of
the entrepreneurship definitions from the first questionnaire are listed in Table 1. The second
questionnaire was generated through a content analysis of the entrepreneurship definitions.
The definitions were broken down into separate attributes. For example this entrepreneurship
definition:
I most often define entrepreneurship as concerned with those activities associated with
becoming an owner-manager of a new or small firm. This includes the starting of any
firm, regardless of whether it is innovative. It also includes the purchasing of an established
new or small firm. Entrepreneurship can also be defined to include the starting of new
and typically innovative ventures within established organizations. This includes the
starting of innovative ventures within established corporations, as well as in nonprofit or
governmental organizations.
18 W.B. GARTNER

was segmented into the following attributes:

Activities associated with becoming an owner-manager of a firm

Creation of a new business
Innovative
Purchasing an existing business
Starts an innovative venture within an established organization
Creation of a not-for-profit business
Creation of a government organization

TABLE 1 Examples of Entrepreneurship Definitions

We think of entrepreneurship as the starting of new ventures. We avoid any implication of small or large. We
view a new venture quite broadly. A new venture might be the buying of an old business: It is a new venture
for the buyer. We prefer to stress the creation of new economic enterprises-the creation of wealth.

Entrepreneurs share financial risk, management risk, and, perhaps more importantly, put their whole career
on the line in their pursuit of a nen’, independententerprise. Essentially, they become inextricably intertwined
with the new enterprise. In the early days of the new enterprise, the overall enterprise is not viable without
the entrepreneur. The enterprise should be afor-profir business. It should be a new venture although not
necessarily a start-up. For example, a leveraged buy-out of a division of a large business is in most cases a
new venture (even though no new products or services are created), and the lead entrepreneur meets the
conditions of my “definition” of the entrepreneurial actor.

I most often define entrepreneurship as concerned with those activities associated with becoming an owner-
manager of a new or small firm. This includes the starting of any firm, regardless of whether it is innovative.
It also includes the purchasing of an established new or small firm. Entrepreneurship can also be defined
to include the starting of new and typically innovative ventures with established organizations. This includes
the starting of innovative ventures within established corporations, as well as in nonprofit or governmental
organizations.

The definition of entrepreneurship is a difficult one to achieve consensus on. Webster defines it as a profit-
making undertaking. My definition is as follows: “An entrepreneur is a person who refines a creative idea and
adapts it to a market opportunity, gathers resources to provide potentially for self-employment and/or profit.”
I feel that this definition addresses the original creative thought process. Secondly, I dispute the idea that
it has to be a “successful” venture in order for one to be classified as an entrepreneur. Lastly I feel strongly
that there is no profit motivation and at most perhaps the goal of self-employment. . I do not necessarily
feel comfortable with equating innovation with entrepreneurship since it does not always involve the same,
or as many, skills. The key word for me is initiation and implementation. I feel that a true entrepreneur
is always the initiator and the implementor. He/she is the person who “puts it together and carries it off.”
Entrepreneurship: The creation of a new venture. The new venture strategy possesses one or both of the
following characteristics:
l An orientation toward significant and rapid growth

0 Innovative in product. service, technology, or market

An entrepreneur is a leader who starts up his/her own profit or nonprofit enterprise. His/her most important
(most severely tested) personality trait is commitment, which is manifested as perseverance or persistence.
The entrepreneur is a risk taker-moderate, he/she says. But he/she may view risk in an entirely different
light (according to different criteria) from the manager who take “moderate” risks.

I prefer the traditional definition of an owner-managed business. It seems to me that ownership makes a
difference in the motivation and interests of the manager. The “personality trait” approach to entrepre-
neurship is a hopeless direction for identification of succesful entrepreneurs. Although we may eventually be
able to identify traits appropriate to entrepreneurship, we will not be able to predict success based upon these
 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS 19

TABLE 1 (Continued)

traits. The reason is that human beings are capable of change in personality, and they do this when they are
subjected to trauma. There is no trauma greater than threat to income survival, so we can expect much
personality change to occur in the process of entrepreneurship. In fact, it may be that this personality change
is exactly the phenomenon that underlies the assumption that owner-managers are more effective than hired
managers. Existentialist philosophy is probably a better tool for understanding entrepreneurs than psychology.

8. Entrepreneurs are typically risk takers who have a vision that their need for achievement, power, and control
over their life and enterprise can be best accomplished in a new environment under their direction and control.
A stubborn determination, belief, and perseverance that they can and will achieve their goals and objectives
in the face of adversity seems to be a requirement for the successful entrepreneur; they must also have the
ability to challenge the common wisdom of logical intelligent advisors, friends, and associates who indicate
that they will be unable to achieve their goals and objectives.

9. The act of innovation for commercial benefit within an autonomous organizational entity, be it a start-up, or
an internal venture subsidiary.

10. Entrepreneurship is the sum of the qualities and activities of a person who establishes, and assumes the risk
for, a new or innovative business venture. Entrepreneurs have special skills and talents, which include man-
agement skills and give them a “sixth sense” for business. Those personality traits and characteristics listed
above, plus imagination, creativity, and long-term vision can probably be enhanced with experience, but I
don’t believe they can be taught or learned.

Il. Innovative activity in combining resources to exploit a new technology, invention, source of supply, outlet,
or consumer demand. The exercise of leadership to direct and inspire purposeful activity. The acceptance of
personal responsibility for results and the risk of loss or gain of personal cupifal. The assumption of control
over an enterprise as a whole.

12. Entrepreneurship is the process of designing and managing dynamic growth strategies for an organization.

In this way, 90 attributes were identified from the entrepreneurship definitions. The second
questionnaire asked participants: How important is each attribute to your definition of en-
trepreneurship? Participants ranked the attributes from very important to unimportant. Of
the 44 participants in phase 2, 41 responded to the second questionnaire (93% response
rate). A summary of the attribute rankings is presented in Table 2.
The responses from the second questionnaire were then evaluated and factor analyzed.
The factor analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set of factors (themes).
The eight-factor solution was selected. A description of the eight factors is provided in Table
3.
The third phase of the Delphi asked the 41 participants to evaluate and comment on
the eight factors generated in the second phase. Of the 4 1 participants in phase 3,34 responded
to the third questionnaire (83% response rate). Table 4 presents a summary of the ratings,
rankings, and correlations among these eight themes.
Since no one agreed-upon definition of entrepreneurship appeared to emerge from the
Delphi process, the researcher undertook a cluster analysis of the responses to the third
questionnaire to uncover whether any similarities in viewpoints existed among the partici-
pants. The data was cluster analyzed using both hierarchical (complete linkage and single
linkage) and K-means clustering techniques (Anderberg 1973; Sneath and Sokal 1973).
Results from these analyses revealed two distinct clusters (see Table 5). These clusters
represent what appear to be two major viewpoints on how entrepreneurship might be defined.
20 W.B. GARTNER

TABLE 2 Highest and Lowest Entrepreneurship Definition Attribute Rankings

How important is each attribute to your dejkition of entrepreneurship?

3.48 The creation of a new business
3.34 New venture development
3.24 The creation of a new business that adds value
3.09 Integrates opportunities with resources to create product or service
3.09 Brings resources to bear on a perceived opportunity
3.07 Refines a creative idea and adapts it to a market opportunity
3.07 Innovative
1.91 Understands the government regulations influencing the business
1.97 Purchasing an existing business
I .95 A special talent that few have
1.92 Creation of a government organization
1.90 Destroys the status quo
1.87 The creation of a life-style business
1.82 The creation of a mom-and-pop business
1.68 Must be for-profit business
1.63 A leveraged buy-out
1.58 Extroverted
1.56 Egocentric behavior

4: Very important A most relevant point. First-order priority. Has direct bearing on major issues
3: Important Relevant to the issue. Second-order priority. Significant impact but not until other items
are treated.
2: Slightly important Insignificantly relevant. Third-order priority. Has little impact.
1: Unimportant No relevance. No priority. No measurable effect. Should be dropped as an item to
consider.

DISCUSSION
Phase One
The generation of entrepreneurship definitions in the first phase of the Delphi process resulted
in a wide range of viewpoints on what constitutes the field of entrepreneurship. The definitions
in Table 1 were selected to show a diversity in viewpoints. Some definitions appear to be
very simple (e.g., l), while other definitions are more complex; that is, they identify many
different constructs in one definition (e.g., 5). Some definitions seem to be similar (e.g., 3
and 7), while other definitions seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum (e.g., 7 and 8).
No obvious agreement as to the meaning of entrepreneurship was apparent from reading the
definitions.
We had no expectations that participants would change their ideas about entrepre-
neurship when rating the 90 attributes in the second round. In many respects, the purpose
of a policy Delphi was to help surface diversity of viewpoints on a subject, rather than work
toward creating agreement. Our belief was that participants would see the results of the first
round (the listing of all 44 definitions) and come to greater appreciation of the diversity of
viewpoints. Yet, the participants probably would not change their views.

Phase Two
The analyses in the second phase of the Delphi were undertaken to determine specifically
what similarities and differences in entrepreneurship definitions existed among the partici-
 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS 21

pants. By having each participant rate the same attributes, a quantitative profile for each
participant could be constructed. These quantitative profiles could then be compared and
contrasted. The first analysis sought to discover which attributes received the highest and
lowest ratings by all of the participants (Table 2). The most important attributes describing
entrepreneurship involved organization creation, innovation, and the acquisition and inte-
gration of resources. The least important attributes describing entrepreneurship were no-
growth businesses, nonprofit businesses, and personality characteristics of the entrepreneur.
These results are different from those found in a survey of 63 researchers at the Babson
Entrepreneurship Research Conference in 1986 (Ronstadt et al. 1986). The Babson survey
asked researchers to rank the top three areas according to highest interest. In both weighted
and unweighted rankings, entrepreneurial characteristics and traits received the highest num-
ber of votes. But when researchers were asked for their two areas of least interest, entre-
preneurial characteristics and traits was ranked third. The Babson results present a very
mixed message on the importance of entrepreneurial traits. The Babson survey suggested
that “some members see the topic (entrepreneurial traits) as relatively unproductive from a
research standpoint and not very useful to practitioners” (p. xiv). In the Delphi ratings the
definition of entrepreneurship seems to be a behavioral one (e.g., new venture development,
integrates opportunities with resources to create product or service, brings resources to bear
on a perceived opportunity) and not based on personality traits (e.g., egocentric behavior,
extroverted, a special talent that few have). The next analysis explored this issue in greater
detail.
The second analysis sought to cluster the 90 attributes into a smaller set of factors
(themes). Many of the attributes were similar to each other (e.g., innovative, innovative
product, innovative market, meets market demand in a new way), and the factor analysis
sought to combine them. An eight-factor solution was chosen, which accounted for 67.3%
of the variance in the responses. The primary goal of the factor analysis was to uncover a
simple, parsimonious set of themes that articulated most of the basic ideas addressed in the
90 attributes. Statistical concerns were of secondary importance. The eight factors, the total
variance accounted for by each factor, the eigenvalues, the frequencies for each attribute,
and the correlations for the highest-loading attributes for each factor are presented in Table
3. Each factor (theme) is a view of entrepreneurship about which participants held strong
beliefs-pro and con. When WC think about entrepreneurship, our ideas center around these
eight principal ideas or themes. These eight themes, therefore, represent eight issues which
the participants strongly debated.

The Entrepreneur
The entrepreneur theme is the idea that entrepreneurship involves individuals with unique
personality characteristics and abilities. Most of the attributes that described the entrepreneur
(e.g., risk taking, locus of control, autonomy, perseverance, commitment, vision, creativity)
correlated with this factor. It was not surprising that this theme captured 17% of the total
variance. As previously mentioned, the Babson survey ranked entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics as the topic of highest interest as well as the third least interesting. In both
definitions and rankings from the Delphi, respondents’ beliefs about the importance of the
entrepreneur as a major theme in a definition of entrepreneurship showed great contrast. For
example, definitions 7 and 10 in Table 1 showed respondents on opposite ends of the
spectrum. Respondent 7 believed that personality traits are a hopeless direction for entre-
preneurship, while respondent 10 believed that entrepreneurship was the special unteachable
TABLE 3 Entrepreneurship Factors

Factor 1 The Entrepreneur Factor 2 Innovation Factor 3 Organization Creation

17.4% V. 23.6 E 12.0% V, 10.0 E 6.6% V, 5.8 E

3 m g CORR UN
-- SI pJ -VI CORR
-UN

17 17 34 32 ,889 Assume management risk 15 29 41 15 ,878 Innovation service 05 20 37 38 ,744 Brings resources to bear
12 27 29 32 ,864 Assume financial risk 10 20 49 21 ,840 Meets market demand in on a perceived
15 17 32 36 ,847 Capacity for hard work a new way opporhmity
17 17 24 42 ,847 Requires perseverance 12 27 39 22 ,825 Innovative product 07 22 24 47 ,134 Integrates opportunities
17 10 34 39 ,840 Perseverance 12 32 37 19 .825 Innovative market with resources to
15 17 37 31 ,833 A risk taker 17 24 49 10 ,791 Innovative technology create product or
24 34 22 20 ,826 Assume social risk 12 10 37 41 .744 Refines a creative idea service
17 17 24 42 ,189 Requires commitment and adapts it to a 07 29 39 25 ,725 Gathers resources
24 30 24 22 ,766 Willingness to sacrifice market opportunity 20 20 29 31 ,716 Must add value
12 17 31 34 ,762 Risk taking 10 20 24 46 ,697 Innovative 05 22 46 27 ,676 Mobilizes resources
20 29 24 21 ,758 Assume psychological 07 27 37 29 ,680 Draws together resources 22 31 20 21 ,644 Creates incremental
risk in a new way wealth
21 24 29 20 ,689 Need for achievement 22 39 27 12 ,653 Can occur in older 00 15 37 48 ,639 New ventllre
32 22 37 09 ,622 Willingness to move organizations development
quickly without full 24 17 41 18 ,614 Starts an innovative 02 22 24 52 ,538 The creation of a
information venture within an business that adds
24 29 32 I5 ,621 Locus of control established value
22 20 37 21 ,621 Requires autonomy organization
27 20 34 19 .617 Risk career 17 32 37 14 ,524 Convinces others to join Factor 4 Creating Value
IO 24 34 32 ,608 Involves creativity (.475 the venture 5.9% V. 5.3 E
on factor 2) 32 32 29 17 ,517 Corporate gNgIMVI=
24 22 37 17 ,599 Someone who wants to entrepreneurship
be his/her own boss 22 34 29 15 ,503 Can occur in large 20 34 34 12 ,784 The transformation of a
22 20 32 26 ,576 Vision organizations business that adds
20 20 37 23 ,565 Ability to go out on value
one’s own 02 05 34 59 ,587 The creation of a new
41 22 24 13 .545 Self-assessment business
27 21 32 14 ,545 Creates self-employment 34 37 22 07 ,547 Manages a growth
strategy for an
organization
27 29 17 21 ,518 Process of breaking away
from traditional
procedures
46 27 17 10 ,513 Destroys the status quo
17 24 39 20 ,509 The creation of wealth
42 34 12 12 ,502 A special talent that few
have
TABLE 3 (continued)

Factor 5 Profit or Nonprofit Factor 7 Uniqueness Factor 8 The Owner-Manager

5.7% V, 4.9 E 8.7% V, 3.4 E 4.9% V, 3.1 E
IM
-- VI CORR
-UN g E E CORR
27 29 22 22 .-Ill Creation of a not-for-
profit business 27 34 22 17 ,651 A special way of 49 24 22 05 ,815 The creation of a mom-
51 15 24 10 .I61 Creation of a government thinking and-pop business
organization 12 29 34 24 ,623 A vision of 49 20 27 04 ,736 The creation of a life-
accomplishment for an style business
Factor 6 Growth enterprise 34 39 22 05 ,550 Purchasing an existing
6.1% V, 4.5 E 15 32 38 14 ,606 Creates a competitive business
advantage 20 37 24 19 .525 Activities associated with
yNg IM
-- VI CORR 07 22 49 22 ,587 Identifies a market becoming an owner-
17 34 32 17 ,587 Provides a concept of a manager of a firm
34 27 32 07 .738 Involves rapid growth product or service
20 22 44 14 ,685 A growth-oriented 15 41 24 20 ,566 Creates a unique
undertaking combination
29 34 32 05 .662 Creates profit 20 44 20 16 ,554 Understands the
63 12 17 08 ,618 Must be for-profit requirements to
business accomplish goals
56 29 10 05 ,617 A leveraged buy-out 22 32 29 17 ,530 Identifies others to join
56 32 12 00 ,540 Egocentric behavior the venture
12 20 34 34 .510 The creation of a 15 24 29 32 ,517 Ability to see situations
business growth intent in terms of unmet
on significant growth needs
39 29 27 05 ,506 Understands the
government
regulations influencing
the business

V, variance; E, eigenvalue; UN, % unimportant; SI, %, slightly important; IM, % important; VI, % very important; CORR, correlation.
24 W.B. GARTNER

TABLE 4 Ratings, Rankings, and Correlations of Themes

Score Correlations
on
Rating” Rankb Rank ENT INN RIA CV FP GRH UNQ OWN

ENT 3.00 4 4.09 1.00

INN 3.15 2 3.24 .42 I .oo
RIA 3.44 3 3.27 - .I5 - .I3 1.00
cv 3.29 1 3.08 -.I1 - .25 .07 1.00
FP 1.50 8 7.24 - .03 - .05 .I0 .23 1.00
GRH 2.35 7 5.24 .30 .23 - .I6 - .I6 - .I9 1.00
UNQ 2.55 6 5.00 .26 .61 - .24 - .21 - .13 .35 1.00
OWN 2.77 5 4.85 - .03 - .05 .22 .I8 .38 - .09 -.I8 1.00

ENT, The Entrepreneur: INN, Innovation: RIA. Organization Creation (Resource Integration and Acquisition); CV, Creating
Value; FP. For Profit: GRH, Growth: UNQ. Uniqueness; OWN, The Owner-Manager.
*Very important = 4. not lmpottant = I.
bHighest rank = 1. lowest rank = 8.

skills and talents of unique individuals. Almost 50% of the respondents rated characteristics
of the entrepreneur as not important to a definition of entrepreneurship; that is, an average
of the responses to the attributes listed in factor 1 (Table 3) found that 22% and 23% of the
respondents ranked these attributes as unimportant and slightly important, respectively.
Whether the entrepreneur is maligned and acclaimed, the entrepreneur theme has a prominent
place in our thoughts about entrepreneurship. This result further supports the suggestion
from the Babson survey that “perhaps the time may be ripe for debate on the subject”

TABLE 5 Summary Statistics for K-means Cluster Analysis

Between
Variable ss 4 Within SS 4 F ratio Probability

ENT 2.87 I 31.12 32 3.96 ,095

INN 6.54 1 21.72 32 9.63 ,004
RIA .66 1 21.72 32 .96 ,332
cv 4.39 1 18.67 32 7.53 ,010
FP 7.60 1 20.89 32 11.64 ,002
GRH 10.04 1 23.72 32 13.54 ,001
UNQ 8.59 I 33.78 32 8.13 ,008
OM 10.52 1 29.52 32 11.37 ,002

Cluster 1 Cluster 2

Variable Mean SD Mean SD

ENT 3.15 1.01 2.43 .73

INN 3.37 .82 2.29 .70
RIA 3.37 .87 3.71 .45
cv 3.11 .83 4.00 .OO
FP 1.26 .52 2.43 1.40
GRH 2.63 .87 1.29 .70
OM 2.48 1.03 1.57 .49
 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS 25

(Ronstadt et al. 1986: xiv). The question that needs to be addressed is: Does entrepreneurship
involve entrepreneurs (individuals with unique characteristics)?

Innovation
The innovation theme is characterized as doing something new as an idea, product, service,
market, or technology in a new or established organization. Attributes that described various
types of innovation correlated with this factor are listed in Table 3 (factor 2). The innovation
theme had respondents who were either pro (definition 9) or con (definition 4) on its im-
portance for defining entrepreneurship. It should be recognized that the attributes that de-
scribed corporate entrepreneurship and older, larger organizations were also correlated to
this factor. The innovation theme suggests that innovation is not limited to new ventures,
but recognized as something which older and/or larger organizations may undertake as well
(e.g., definition 3). Does entrepreneurship involve innovation?

Organization Creation
The organization creation theme described the behaviors involved in creating organizations.
This theme described acquiring and integrating resource attributes (e.g., Brings resources
to bear . . . , Integrates opportunities with resources . . . , Mobilizes resources, gathers
resources) as well as attributes that described creating organizations (New venture devel-
opment and The creation of a business that adds value). The results in Table 2 indicate that
participants ranked new venture development and the creation of a business that adds value
as the second and third most important attributes, respectively, of all the attributes describing
entrepreneurship. But some participants (e.g., definitions 9, 10, and 12) indicated that
organization creation was not necessary for entrepreneurship. Does entrepreneurship involve
resource acquisition and integration (new venture creation activities)?

Creating Value
This theme articulated the idea that entrepreneurship creates value. The attributes in this
factor indicated that value creation might be represented by transforming a business, creating
a new business growing a business, creating wealth, or destroying the status quo. Does
entrepreneurship involve creating value?

Profit or Nonprojt
The profit/nonprofit theme is concerned with whether entrepreneurship involves profit-making
organizations only. Respondents had very different viewpoints on this theme. The first
attribute correlated to this factor (Creation of a not-for-profit business) showed an even
distribution of responses: very important (22%), important (22%), slightly important (29%),
unimportant (27%). Most respondents felt that the second attribute (Creation of a government
organization) was not an important characteristic of entrepreneurship: very important (lo%),
important (24%), slightly important (15%), unimportant (51%). These ratings and some of
the definitions provided in Table 1 indicate that many people think that entrepreneurship
can only be a for-profit undertaking (definition 2). But others believe that organization
creation can be entrepreneurial whether it is for-profit or not (definitions 3 and 6). Does
entrepreneurship involve profit-making organizations only?
26 W.B. GARTNER

Growth
At issue in this theme is the importance of growth as a characteristic of entrepreneurship.
Most of the attributes in this factor described growth (e.g., Involves rapid growth, A growth-
oriented undertaking, The creation of a business intent on significant growth), although two
of the attributes described profits as well (Creates profits, Must be a for-profit business).
The attribute ratings showed mixed results. For example, more than half of the respondents
indicated that growth was not important to a definition of entrepreneurship by the ranking
of the first attribute (Involves rapid growth): very important (7%), important (32%), slightly
important (27%), unimportant (34%). Some definitions (e.g., 5 and 12) indicated that growth
was one of the major characteristics of entrepreneurship. Does entrepreneurship involve
growth-oriented organizations?

Uniqueness
This theme suggested that entrepreneurship must involve uniqueness. Uniqueness was char-
acterized by attributes such as a special way of thinking, a vision of accomplishment, ability
to see situations in terms of unmet needs, and creates a unique combination. Does entre-
preneurship involve uniqueness?

The Owner-Manager
The ownership and management of an ongoing business was the last theme generated from
the factor analysis. The four attributes correlated with this theme (The creation of a mom-
and-pop business, The creation of a life-style business, Purchasing an existing business,
Activities associated with becoming an owner-manager of a firm) point out that the man-
agement and ownership of an ongoing smaller organization is often tied to entrepreneurship.
Most of the respondents did not feel that mom-and-pop type organizations were entrepre-
neurial: very important (5%), important (22%), slightly important (24%), unimportant (49%).
But some of the definitions (e.g., 3 and 7) clearly identify the owner-manager as the most
important characteristic of entrepreneurship. Does entrepreneurship involve owner-managed
businesses?

Phase Three
The value of identifying these eight themes of entrepreneurship was that the diversity and
complexity on the original 44 definitions of entrepreneurship could be simplified to some
common concerns. The eight themes provided a way for individuals to reflect on their own
definitions of entrepreneurship. The third part of the Delphi asked participants to carefully
consider the importance of these eight themes to their ideas about entrepreneurship. One
benefit of this was that it asked individuals to consider themes that they might not have
brought up in their own definitions but that were articulated by others. As some of the
written definitions indicate, many respondents focused solely on innovation or growth,
without considering issues of uniqueness, value organization creation, profits, the entrepre-
neur, or the owner-manager. In addition, the questionnaire asked respondents to consider
why they believe what they believe. Why is creating value important? Why must a company
be innovative? Why must a company have growth? How important is the entrepreneur? Is
a theme important to the participant because it is supported in the entrepreneurship literature
 ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS 27

or by the individual’s experience? etc. Taking all of the participant’s scores in total, the
results from the rating and ranking of the eight themes (Table 4) appear to divide the themes
into a high rated/ranked group (the entrepreneur, innovation, organization creation, and
creating value), and a low rated/ranked group (for-profit, growth, uniqueness, and the owner-
manager). Yet the only theme that was clearly a low-ranking theme was for-profit. A
consensus from the participants appears to be that entrepreneurship can involve nonprofit
organizations.

Two Viewpoints on Entrepreneurship

A cluster analysis was undertaken to discover whether the participants could be grouped
together based on their rating of all eight themes; that is, whether the 34 participants
represented 34 distinct views on entrepreneurship or a smaller number of viewpoints. Exactly
the same two groups emerged from both the hierarchical clustering and the K-means clustering
(Table 5). Participants in each of these two groups did not rate the eight themes exactly the
same, but their ratings across the eight themes were more similar to participants in their
group than to participants in the other group. One theme that showed no significant difference
between the two groups was the resource acquisition and integration theme (new venture
creation activities). Both groups indicated high ratings for this theme (this theme received
the highest rating over the participants; Table 4). We might take from this result an indication
that organization creation is one important aspect of entrepreneurship. For some individuals,
it appears to be the only aspect of entrepreneurship, but for others, this theme is important
only in the context of some of the other themes. After reading over each groups’ written
responses to the eight themes, two major viewpoints on how to see entrepreneurship became
apparent.
The majority (79%) of the participants were clustered in group 1. The focus of this
group seems to be on the characteristics of entrepreneurship. Participants rated the entre-
preneur, innovation, growth, and uniqueness significantly higher than the other group. Group
1 looked at what happened in the situation. This group indicated that a situation was
entrepreneurial if they could answer “yes” to these questions: Is there an entrepreneur
involved? Is there innovation? Is there growth? Is there uniqueness? For this group, it appears
that situations without these characteristics are not entrepreneurial situations.
The other group, group 2, focused on the outcomes of entrepreneurship. Participants
ranked creating value, for profit, and owner-manager higher than the other group, while
ranking the other themes much lower. Group 2 saw a situation as entrepreneurial only if
value was created or if someone gained. For-profit and owner-manager were rated higher
because group members felt that situations in which the entrepreneur could experience
positive outcomes were likely to be entrepreneurial. For this group, it appears that situations
where no value is created, or where no one gains, are not entrepreneurial situations.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

We need to give serious consideration to articulating our beliefs about entrepreneurship and
to recognizing that these beliefs influence the kinds of questions we ask ourselves and others
about this topic. For example, researchers who believe that entrepreneurship requires in-
dividuals with special personality characteristics are probably going to do research that
explores these beliefs. Individuals who consider entrepreneurship to be the domain of owner-
managers are likely to do research that is very different from individuals who believe that
28 W.B. GARTNER

innovation and growth are important. Yet none of these domains are exclusive of the others,
and a concern about one theme probably will overlap another.
Entrepreneurship is a very complex idea. The eight themes describe many different
types of activities and states of existence. We need to be aware that when we talk about
entrepreneurship we carry around a wide range of beliefs. Some of us may believe that
entrepreneurship must involve risk-taking individuals who start new ventures that are in-
novative and experience rapid growth. Others may be concerned only about entrepreneurship
as starting new ventures. What we must all be concerned about is making sure that when
we talk about entrepreneurship we recognize that it has many different meanings attached
to it.
A definition of entrepreneurship has yet to emerge. The views on entrepreneurship
that have been articulated here reflect the robustness of a new field, budding with new ideas
and thoughts, all competing for a prominent place in some future orthodoxy. No one definition
of entrepreneurship need emerge. A definition of entrepreneurship that is so simple that it
fails to reflect the thing we are concerned about does not have to be created. But if no
existing definition can be agreed upon by most researchers and practitioners, then it is
important to say what we mean. If many different meanings for entrepreneurship exist, then
it behooves us to make sure that others know what we are talking about. The various themes
of entrepreneurship expressed here seem to reflect different parts of the same phenomenon.
The importance of this entrepreneurship Delphi is in helping us make explicit what we are
talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship. Only by making explicit what we believe
can we begin to understand how all of these different parts make up a whole.

REFERENCES
Anderberg, M.R. 1973. Cluster Analysis for Applications. New York: Academic Press.
Brockhaus, R.H. 1987. Entrepreneurial folklore. Journal of Small Business Management 25(3):1-6.
Brockhaus, R.H., and Horwitz, P.S. 1985. The Psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton and
R.W. Smilor, eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Carsrud, A.L., Olm, K.W., and Eddy, G.G. 1985. Entrepreneurship: Research in Quest of a paradigm.
In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, eds. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Low, M.B., and MacMillan, 1.C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal
of Management 14(2):139-162.
Ronstadt, R., Homaday, J.A., Peterson, R., and Vesper, K.H. 1986. Introduction. In R. Ronstadt,
J.A., Homaday, R. Peterson, and K.H. Vesper, eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Wellesley, MA: Babson College.
Sexton, D.L., and Smilor, R.W. 1985. Introduction. In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smilor, eds., The Art
and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Shapiro, A., and Sokol, L. 1982. The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L.
Sexton, and K.H. Vesper, eds., Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Sneath, P.H.A., and Sokal, R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.
Turoff, M. 1975. The policy Delphi. In H.A. Linstone and M. Turoff, eds., The Delphi Method.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wortman, M.S. 1985. A unified framework, research typologies, and research prospects for the
interface between entr :preneurship and small business. In D.L. Sexton and R.W. Smiler, eds.,
The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.