The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurshi

The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771 799
Review
The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned

Claudia C. Coglisera,*, Keith H. Brighamb,1
a
University of Oklahoma, Price College of Business, 307 W. Brooks, Room 206, Norman, OK 73019, United States b Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University 15th and Flint Lubbock, TX 79409, United States
Abstract Leadership scholars are quite familiar with the often convoluted and problematic path that leadership theory has taken. Despite these challenges, leadership is currently considered a bmature fieldQ [Hunt, J.G., & Dodge, G.E. (2000). Leader Deja Vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 453458] even though this maturity has not been achieved without considerable growing pains. Similar to the path that leadership scholars have taken, those who study entrepreneurship also struggle with issues associated with a field in its early stages. This review examines the intersection between the fields of leadership and entrepreneurship with an emphasis on how the path taken by leadership research can inform entrepreneurship and possibly lessen this young fields growing pains. We first identify several areas where these fields theoretically converge (both in the models employed and the research questions addressed). Next, we take a historical perspective of leadership and entrepreneurship by identifying the life cycle stage of each construct or domain. Finally, we conclude with some thoughts on how the entrepreneurship field may avoid (or is avoiding) the pitfalls experienced by those who study leadership. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Leadership and entrepreneurship; Research life cycles; Philosophy of science Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772 773 776
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 405 325 3137; fax: +1 405 325 7688. E-mail addresses: cogliser@ou.edu (C.C. Cogliser)8 kbrigham@ba.ttu.edu (K.H. Brigham). 1 Tel.: +1 806 742 2133; fax: +1 806 742 2308. 1048-9843/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.004
772 2.
C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 777 778 778 779 779 780 780 782 784 786 787 787 788 789 790
Conceptual intersections between leadership and entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Historical comparison of leadership and entrepreneurship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Evolution of leadership and entrepreneurship: concept introduction and elaboration 3.2. Concept evaluation and augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Consolidation and accommodation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Can the entrepreneurship field avoid some of the pitfalls experienced by leadership? (Or is the field already doing this)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Definitional problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Process identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Levels-of-analysis challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction Leadership scholars are quite familiar with the often convoluted and problematic path that leadership theory has taken. Despite these challenges, leadership is currently considered a bmature fieldQ (Hunt & Dodge, 2000) even though this maturity has not been achieved without considerable growing pains. The concept of leadership can be traced back to ancient times, with leader traits, behaviors, and processes discussed in ancient writings of China, Egypt, Greece, India, Israel, Iraq, and Italy (Rindova & Starbuck, 1997a,b). However, systematic study is much more recent (from the 20th century on). The leadership field has faced conflicts over definitional issues (e.g., Avolio, Sosik, & Jung, 2003; Bennis, 1959; Yukl, 2002), theoretical adequacy (e.g., Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999; Wheatley, 1999), measurement problems (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977), levels-of-analysis confusion (e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995), model specification (e.g., Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003; Villa, Howell, Dorfman, & Daniel, 2003), legitimacy (e.g., Lieberson & OConnor, 1972; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), infighting (e.g., Koontz, 1961), and bacademic amnesiaQ (e.g., Sayles & Stewart, 1995). Such has been the confusion and inconsistency in the conceptualization and eventual practical application of leadership theory over the years, that Tosi (1982, p. 223) commented, There is a remarkable inconsistency in the logic which links the concept of leadership to its translation to research. The general definition of leadership is drawn from charismatic imagery, the measurement of leadership is undertaken with technique designed to study managers or military officers, and the stereotype which often dominates selection of leaders is rather Hollywood-like. Leadership is not unique in its problematic progression to maturity. Entrepreneurship is a relatively young field compared with its counterparts in management (Hitt & Ireland, 2000). It is in a very early stage of development from a conceptual and methodological perspective (Aldrich & Baker, 1997) and is currently viewed as being in a significant growth or emergent stage (Busenitz et al., 2003; Dean, Brown, & Bamford, 1998). The entrepreneurial phenomenon occurs at higher rates now than at any other time (Gartner & Shane, 1995; Thornton, 1999), with 4% of all adults attempting a start-up venture at any
C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799
773
given time (Reynolds & White, 1997). Further, the field is experiencing a concurrent growth in academe as evidenced by the increase of research centers, professional organizations, and journals specific to its study (Katz, 1991). Similar to the path that leadership scholars faced, those who study entrepreneurship also struggle with issues associated with a field in its early stages. Mark Twain has been credited with the observation that history may not repeat itself, but that it sometimes rhymes. While the life cycle of these two fields may not be isomorphic, we believe there are many parallels between them and that the experiences of both can be symbiotic. 1.1. Purpose The purpose of this article is to examine the intersection between the fields of leadership and entrepreneurship with an emphasis on how the path taken by leadership research can inform entrepreneurship and possibly lessen this young fieldTs growing pains. First, we identify several areas where these fields theoretically converge (both in the models employed and the research questions addressed); this is presented in Section 2 (and summarized in Table 1). Next, we take a historical perspective of leadership and entrepreneurship by identifying the life cycle stage (Reichers & Schneider, 1990) of each construct or domain (Section 3). Tables 24 list some examples of research in the two
Table 1 Conceptual overlap of leadership and entrepreneurship Construct Vision (followers/larger constituency) Leadership application Vision is the main component in inspiring followers toward exemplary performance or other goal-directed behavior as well as organizational performance (Baum et al., 1998; Kirkpatrick, Wofford, & Baum, 2002; Zaccaro & Banks, 2001) Entrepreneurship application Vision attributes (brevity, clarity, abstractness, challenge, future orientation, stability, and desirability or ability to inspire) and content (growth imagery) are related to new venture growth (Baum et al., 1998); followers need to be motivated through involvement, participation, and a professionally meaningful mission (Keller, 1997). Entrepreneurs not only see opportunities (understand the ways and means), but are able to marshal resources to carry out their vision. Use of rational persuasion and inspirational appeals (Gartner et al., 1992) are likely to be effective when the request is legitimate and in line with the entrepreneurs values and the constituencies needs. Entrepreneurial leadership should involve idea generation, idea structuring, and idea promotion (where idea generation is critical in the early stages of a venture and idea structuring and promotion are more important in latter stages). Entrepreneurs have a clear need for the mental simulation of future actions to anticipate potential biases in strategic choices (Busenitz & Barney, 1997).
Influence
A commonality across many of the various definitions of leadership is the ability to influence others toward a goal (Hunt, 2004). Rational persuasion is widely used for both upward, lateral, and downward influence (Yukl & Falbe, 1990)
Leading in the context of Innovation/Creativity
Leading creative people requires technical expertise and creativity, employing a number of direct and indirect influence tactics (Mumford et al., 2002b) In complex, dynamic environments where people must coordinate their activities, planning represents a key influence on performance (Mumford et al., 2002a)
Planning
774
domains traced through their various life cycles. We highlight some problems experienced in leadership throughout its history and how these may similarly plague those who study entrepreneurship. Finally, Section 4 presents some thoughts on how entrepreneurship may be able to bypass some of the problems its scholars have found themselves dealing with by utilizing comprehensive conceptual definitions of the focal domain of entrepreneurship, clearly identifying processes involved in the entrepreneurship phenomenon, and employing sophisticated research designs and methodology in its exploration. One caveat we need to make in our review is that we are looking at entrepreneurs and not entrepreneurship research in toto. Entrepreneurship focuses not only on the entrepreneur, but on the intersection of that enterprising person and lucrative or entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, p. 218). Some might argue that entrepreneurship is merely leadership in a special context (Czarniawska-Joerges & Wolff, 1991; Vecchio, 2003)a context defined as the discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of an opportunity to create future goods and services (Venkataraman, 1997). Schumpeter (1934) distinguished managers from entrepreneurs where managers control, guarantee discipline, and introduce order. His view was that entrepreneurship was a special case of leadership (social leadership) and was distinguished from other forms of leadership in terms of one who created a company rather than managing an existing one (Schumpeter, 1934). While the content of the comparisons are not the same, the contrast between managers and entrepreneurs is similar in form to the distinction others have made between managers and leaders (e.g., Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990; Zaleznik, 1977).
Table 2 Leadership and entrepreneurship models across life cycles: stage 1 Life cycle stage: introduction and elaboration What is a leader/ entrepreneur? Selected relevant leadership models Traits (e.g., Stogdill, 1948; Stogdill, 1974) Managerial motivation (e.g., McClelland, 1965) Consideration/Initiating Structure (e.g., Fleishman, 1953; Hemphill & Coons, 1957) Task-oriented/relations-oriented behavior (e.g., Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950; Likert, 1961) Managerial grid (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964) Managerial behavior (e.g., Luthans, Rosenkrantz, & Hennessey, 1985; Mintzberg, 1973) Pathgoal theory (e.g., House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) Contingency theory (e.g., Fiedler, 1971, 1978) Normative decision model (e.g., Vroom & Jago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973) Selected relevant entrepreneurship models
What does the leader/ entrepreneur do?
Locus of control (e.g., Pandey & Tewary, 1979; Venkatapathy, 1984) Need for achievement (e.g., McClelland, 1961) Risk-taking propensity (e.g., Brockhaus, 1980) Tolerance for ambiguity (e.g., Schere, 1982) Risk avoidant behavior (e.g., Miner, Smith, & Bracker, 1989) Strategic adaptation (e.g., Timmons, 1982) Venture creation behavior (e.g., Gartner, 1985, 1988)
In what context does the leader/entrepreneur operate?
Rates Approach (e.g., Aldrich, 1989, 1990; Aldrich & Mueller, 1982; Aldrich & Staber, 1988; Holmberg & Morgan, 2003) Life cycle (e.g., Hanks, Watson, Jansen, & Chandler, 1994; Kazanjian, 1988)
C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799 Table 3 Leadership and entrepreneurship models across life cycles: stage 2 Life cycle stage: evaluation/augmentation What is a leader/entrepreneur? Selected relevant leadership models Charismatic leadership (e.g., House, 1977; House et al., 1991) Leader flexibility (e.g., Kenny & Zaccaro, 1982; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991) Leadership motive pattern theory (e.g., McClelland, 1975) Managerial competencies (e.g., Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974) Romance of leadership (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985) Influence tactics (e.g., Yukl & Falbe, 1990) Transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985) Vertical dyad linkage/leadermember exchange (e.g., Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987)
775
Selected relevant entrepreneurship models Cognitive approach (e.g., Baron, 2000; Keh, Foo, & Lim, 2002; Mitchell et al., 2002) Psychological approach (e.g., Shaver & Scott, 2001) Entrepreneurial motivation (Naffziger, Hornsby, & Kuratko, 1994) Individual differences (Stewart et al., 1999)
In what context does the leader/entrepreneur operate?
Implicit leadership theory/leadership information processing (e.g., Lord & Maher, 1993) Leader/member attribution, (e.g., Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Mitchell, Larson, & Green, 1977; Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981) Strategic leadership (e.g., Hambrick, 1989; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996) Visionary leadership (e.g., Westley & Mintzberg, 1991)
Communication (e.g., Sapienza & Korsgaard, 1996; Witt, 1998) Entrepreneurial alertness (e.g., Gaglio & Katz, 2001) Opportunity recognition (e.g., Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001) Risk-taking/risk management (e.g., Busenitz, 1999) Serial and portfolio entrepreneurs (e.g., Westhead & Wright, 1998) Vision articulation (e.g., Baum et al., 1998; Hill & Levenhagen, 1995) Corporate entrepreneurship (e.g., Chung & Gibbons, 1997; Dess, Ireland, & Zahra, 2003; Sharma & Chrisman, 1999; Thornberry, 2003; Zahra, 1996) Cross-cultural entrepreneurship (e.g., Mitchell, Smith, & Seawright, 2000) General environment (e.g., Dess, Lumpkin, & Covin, 1997) Family business (e.g., Morris, Williams, Allen, & Avila, 1997)
Others see the entrepreneur and his/her context as more complex, viewing entrepreneurs with traits, skills, and behaviors related to but not the same as leaders (Baron, 2002). For the purposes of our review, we will use a definition provided by Shane and Venkataraman (2000) who define the entrepreneur as one who discovers, evaluates, and exploits opportunities for creating goods and services. However, we also are interested in the process of influence by the entrepreneur, and the context in which entrepreneurship occurs. That being said, we should note that we consider the definition of an entrepreneur to have substantial overlap with that of a leader (but one who leads in an extraordinary situation) and this overlap is the focus of our review.
776
Table 4 Leadership and entrepreneurship models across life cycles: stage 3 Life cycle stage: consolidation/accommodation What is a leader/entrepreneur? Selected relevant leadership models Cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence (e.g., Wong & Law, 2002) Managerial intelligence (e.g., Sternberg, 1997) Narcissistic leadership (e.g., Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985; Popper, 2002) Personality (e.g., Judge et al., 2002) Traits, skills, and competencies (e.g., Locke, 2003; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000) Authentic leadership (e.g., Luthans & Avolio, 2003) Dysfunctional leadership (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Townsend, Phillips, & Elkins, 2000; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002) Empowerment (e.g., Spreitzer, 1995) Ethical leadership (e.g., Trevino, Brown, & Hartman, 2003) Relational leadership (e.g., Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Uhl-Bien, 2003) Shared leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2000) Visionary leadership (e.g., Zaccaro & Banks, 2001) Complexity (e.g., Hooijberg et al., 1997; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001) E-leadership (e.g., Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2000) Leading creative people (e.g., Mumford et al., 2002b) Leading across cultures (e.g., Den Hartog, House, & Hanges, 1999; Ensari & Murphy, 2003; Russell, 2003) Selected relevant entrepreneurship models (Emerging)
(Emerging) Nascent entrepreneurs (Gartner, Shaver, Carter, & Reynolds, 2004)
In what context does the leader/ entrepreneur operate?
(Emerging)
We should also note that our review makes a distinction between leaders and leadership. The leader has often been the focus of leadership research, exploring the traits and behaviors that distinguish an individual leader from a non-leader. Leadership, on the other hand, is the process of influence (Hunt, 2004) and reflects a more complex and dynamic phenomenon than that of an individual actor. 1.2. Research questions We use a set of three research questions to inform our examination of conceptual overlap and historical progress of the two fields. We patterned our research questions on a typical presentation of leadership research (e.g., traits, behaviors, and a situational perspective, Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004a). While these three areas are not exhaustive of the major schools of leadership over a century of research, we believe that many leadership and entrepreneurship models can be subsumed under these three. First, we ask the questions bWhat is a leader?Q and bWhat is an entrepreneur?Q These research questions guided us in our review of models which use individual
777
difference factors to distinguish leaders from non-leaders or entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. Our next question focuses on leader or entrepreneur behaviors; that is, bWhat do leaders/ entrepreneurs do?Q Finally, we are interested in how both fields take context into account in terms of examining the phenomena of interest. We ask bIn what context does the leader/entrepreneur operate?Q The next two sections present a summary of how we believe these two fields converge and have traversed historically.
2. Conceptual intersections between leadership and entrepreneurship We posit that there are many similarities or overlap both in the nature of the research questions proposed as well as the theoretical premises on which these two fields are based. We now turn toward exploring specific areas of convergence that we feel will be of interest to both leadership and entrepreneurship scholars. We should note that two of our organizational behavior colleagues have provided excellent treatments of how organizational behavior and entrepreneurship research can be mutually beneficial in informing future research (Baron, 2002) and how both fields share common threads and trends (Vecchio, 2003). On the entrepreneurship side, Gartner, Bird, and Starr (1992) suggested that an integration of entrepreneurship, leadership, and organizational behavior research has much promise for the entrepreneurship field (and we feel that there is a reciprocity in benefits among the three disciplines). We extend their work by tracing the historical life cycles of both fields and by showing conceptual overlap from a trait, behavioral, and contextual perspective. We also want to draw close parallels between the problems both fields have faced as they have matured. They have each faced a myriad of definitional/conceptual problems (see Avolio et al., 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000 for reviews of leadership and entrepreneurship, respectively). Further, they have been beset with methodological challenges such as scale development inadequacies, inappropriate application of analysis tools, and levels-of-analysis confusion (Antonakis et al., 2004b; Low & MacMillan, 1988; Vecchio, 2003; Wortman, 1987). There have been arguments in the leadership literature both for and against the principle that leadership impacts organizational performance. Some have argued that the effect of leadership is swamped by environmental factors (Lieberson & OConnor, 1972; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), while others have argued otherwise (Koene, Vogelaar, & Soeters, 2002; Thomas, 1988; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). The underlying premise in entrepreneurship research is that it is the entrepreneur (that is, the leader) who makes the difference in new venture success, either through risk-taking propensity (e.g., Stewart & Roth, 2001; Stewart & Roth, 2004), need for achievement (e.g., Begley & Boyd, 1987; Stewart, Watson, Carland, & Carland, 1999), high self-efficacy (e.g., Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998), or the ability to recognize opportunities where others do not (e.g., Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001). Not all studies found results consistent with these propositions. For example, Busenitz (1999) reports that entrepreneurs regularly start ventures that are more likely to fail than succeed, despite the lack of differences in risk-taking propensity between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs (cf. Brockhaus, 1980). Table 1 presents areas of thematic overlap across leadership and entrepreneurship. The primary categories that we see as relevant are vision, influence (both of followers and of a larger constituency), leading innovative/creative people, and planning. Each of these will be further explained in the next four sections.
778
2.1. Vision Vision has been studied within the context of charismatic, transformational, and visionary leadership. However, the concept of vision has been given less attention in the entrepreneurial field despite its implications for new venture performance (Hellstroem & Hellstroem, 2002). Baum, Locke, and Kirkpatrick (1998) explored the role of vision in entrepreneurial venture growth, and found that the attributes of the vision (its brevity, clarity, abstractness, challenge, future orientation, and ability to inspire) as well as its content relative to growth of the venture was related to the ventures success. Vision is seen as the means by which the leaders goals are communicated in an inspirational fashion to followers, and the leader takes various actions intended to implement the vision (which provides a sensemaking component for followers). In the entrepreneurial environment, vision not only clarifies goals, but inspires constituents confidence in an uncertain future as well as marshalling resources at a discount (Bryant, 2004). This bdiscountingQ factor of required resources is especially relevant in the entrepreneurial setting, since it is unlikely that the startup could create the advantages necessary to launch and grow the venture were they to pay full price for resources (Bryant, 2004). Thus, bentrepreneurs must convince people to switch resources from known present outcomes to uncertain future onesat a near-term discountQ (p. 443). The vision mechanism communicates the significantly high long-term rewards to stakeholders. The role of vision is so central in entrepreneurship that Gupta, MacMillan, and Surie (2004) define entrepreneurial leadership as bleadership that creates visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize a dsupporting castT of participants who become committed by the vision to the discovery and exploitation of strategic value creationQ (p. 242). Future research employing vision in an entrepreneurial setting may focus not only on growth content, but also on content related to achievement motivation (McClelland, 1961). Another area where vision is relevant is within the context of collective vision (the commonly held mental model of the groups desired future state; Ensley, Pearson, & Pearce, 2003) and shared leadership (where a team shares in leadership behaviors such as motivating and directing team members; Ireland, Hitt, & Simon, 2003). Collective vision or bcorporate coherenceQ (Hambrick, 1997) is enhanced with shared leadership rather than that imposed from a hierarchical leader and is posited as an important predictor of new venture performance (Ensley et al., 2003). 2.2. Influence One commonality across the myriad leadership definitions is the concept of influenceinfluencing others toward a common goal (Hunt, 2004). The influence process occurs naturally within social systems, whereby leaders influence the choice of objectives and strategies to pursue, the motivation of organizational members to achieve those objectives, the learning and sharing of knowledge among followers, and the enlistment of support and cooperation from external constituencies (Yukl, 2002). In an entrepreneurial setting, not only does the entrepreneur need to recognize opportunities, but he or she needs to be able to marshal the resources necessary to reach the potential of that opportunity. Busenitz et al. (2003) raise questions of how an entrepreneur formalizes an opportunity into a new firm. How do venture capitalists secure financial capital? By what means are their ideas and vision communicated and accepted by others? What information is appropriate to share and what should remain protected?
779
The literature on influence tactics and leadership (eg., Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990; Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990; Yukl & Falbe, 1990, 1991) as well as the work on creative leadership, which has suggested that a number of direct and indirect tactics should be employed when leading creative people (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002b), may provide guidance in this vein. Within a corporate environment, Howell and Higgins (1990) found that champions used greater influence than non-champions. These champions were defined as those with an entrepreneurial spirit and actively and enthusiastically promote the progress of an innovation, often risking their position and prestige to ensure the innovations success (Achilladelis, Jervis, & Robertson, 1971; Schon, 1963). Dean (1987) found that champions utilized rational justification, repeated informal expressions of enthusiasm and confidence, and repeated sharing of information with stakeholders as influence tactics. The leadership field has looked at the differential expressions of upward-, lateral-, and downwardinfluence tactics and resultant success (e.g., Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl, 2002), although we did not find the entrepreneurship literature to delineate these tactics along the target of the influence tactic. The choice of tactics may also be different for the top management team in a new venture as compared with an established organization. Pearce (1997) suggested that joint ventures utilize more politically oriented influence tactics because of the various partners self-interest. It seems reasonable to extend this self-interest to that of the new venture or the entrepreneur seeking venture capital for his/her innovation. 2.3. Creativity One trait associated with successful entrepreneurs is creativity (Bolin, 1997) and entrepreneurial ventures are often characterized by a context of innovation (both in the products of these firms and of those who produce them). The work by Mumford and colleagues on leading creative people (Mumford et al., 2002b) suggests that technical expertise and creativity on the part of the entrepreneur is important to venture success. Further, entrepreneurial leadership should involve three main foci: (1) idea generation, (2) idea structuring, and (3) idea promotion (Mumford et al., 2002b). Of these three, idea generation is most important in the early stages of the venture formation, and idea structuring and promotion are more important in the latter stages. In concert with creativity, an entrepreneurial mindset, an entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial leadership, and the strategic management of resources are important dimensions for creating value in entrepreneurial ventures (Ireland et al., 2003). 2.4. Planning Lastly, we explored the conceptual overlap of planning across entrepreneurship and leadership. Planning has been one of the fundamental components of the managerial processplanning, organizing, directing/leading, and controlling (e.g., Kotter, 1982). However, it has not been until recently that the cognitive components of planning have been carefully delineated and related to leadership. Recent work by Mumford, Schultz, and Osborn (2002a) has shown the influence of planning in complex and dynamic environments on high performance. They outline a model emphasizing cognitive processes that can be applied in an entrepreneurial setting. Also, the strategic leadership/upper echelon models utilize planning (strategic planning in particular) as their primary focus (e.g., Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Mason, 1984).
780
Clearly, entrepreneurs have a strong need for careful planning in addition to the avoidance of biases identified in the cognitive phase of entrepreneurship research (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Specifically, the planning literature can provide information on how the mental simulations of future actions can help entrepreneurs anticipate potential biases in their strategic choices. What is complex about entrepreneurial process is that it involves simultaneous opportunity-seeking and advantage-seeking behaviors to result in superior firm performance. Yet, success in developing the competitive advantage to appropriate value from opportunities is more elusive in small, entrepreneurial ventures as compared with large, established organizations (Ireland et al., 2003).
3. Historical comparison of leadership and entrepreneurship After looking at some conceptual overlap between these two fields, we next wanted to explore the two from a historical perspective. As an organizing framework, we have used Reichers and Schneiders (1990) three-stage model for the evolution of constructs which was also employed by Hunt (1999) for outlining the historical sequences in the evolution of leadership theory. Each of the three stages is defined and discussed in the context of leadership and entrepreneurship in Sections 3.1 through 3.3. 3.1. Evolution of leadership and entrepreneurship: concept introduction and elaboration The first stage, concept introduction and elaboration, is characterized by attempts to establish legitimacy for the research domain. Research in the field focuses primarily on the domains definition, importance, and utility for explaining organizational phenomena with the purpose of educating the readership on these issues (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Leadership, as a single domain, has more models than any other area in the behavioral sciences (Hunt & Dodge, 2000). Research in this domain has been traced as far back as ancient civilizations (Peterson & Hunt, 1997), with leaders serving as symbols in the Old and New Testaments, the Upanishads, the classics of Greece and Rome, and the Icelandic sagas (Bass, 1997). It is since the 20th century, however, that leadership has enjoyed systematic scholarly attention. Accompanying the vast number of modern leadership models is the multitude of definitions for the phenomenon. Over 40 years ago, Bennis (1959, p. 259) discussed the complexity and bslipperinessQ of the leadership construct that had an endless proliferation of terms without any clear definition (where there are as many definitions of leadership as those who have studied it, Stogdill, 1974). Early scholars pulled the term bleadershipQ from the common vocabulary and used it to suit their particular purpose, often not clarifying its definition within their specific setting or construct domain (Bass, 1990). Some examples of these contexts are crowd leaders (e.g., LeBon, 1897), educational leaders (e.g., Harding, 1949), political leaders (e.g., Haiman, 1951), and organizational leaders (e.g., Bogardus, 1928; Weber, 1924/1947). The construct has also been variously labeled bpower, authority, management, administration, control, and supervisionQ as well as being defined with regard to btraits, behaviors, influence, interaction patterns, role relationships, and occupation of an administrative settingQ (Yukl, 2002, p. 2). As a result, bleadershipQ served as a vague and imprecise term, encompassing a wide range of settings with extraneous connotations, confounding prediction, and causing ambiguity in meaning (Janda, 1960). The convoluted and fragmented state of the field was such that Miner (1975) proposed that bwe simply
781
do not know what we want to knowQ (p. 198) and further that bthe concept of leadership itself has outlived its usefulnessQ (p. 200). Reviews of these definitional and conceptual challenges can be found in Avolio et al., (2003), Bennis (1959), Karmel (1978), Stogdill (1974), and Yukl (2002, 1992). At this stage in its life cycle, we are not encouraging more attention to developing new definitions of leadership, as there appear to be enough of these (e.g., 9 in Yukl, 2002 and 12 in Bass, 1990). Instead, there is an imperative that leadership scholars acknowledge that the purpose of their research and the nature of their research questions will have a strong impact on their choice of leadership definition (Hunt, 2004). Accordingly, leadership scholars should clearly articulate the way they define their focal leadership phenomenon (Schriesheim et al., 1999) and discuss the process and influence of leadership in their model (Hunt, 2004). Entrepreneurship has suffered the similar fate of a new field that lacks a unified body of knowledge based on generally accepted social science theories. Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p. 217) observed that the term bhas become a broad label under which a hodgepodge of research is housedQ. Others have considered entrepreneurship to be a bmultidisciplinary jigsawQ characterized by accumulative fragmentalism (Harrison & Leitch, 1996, p. 69) in a bchaotic pre-paradigmatic state of developmentQ (Aldrich & Baker, 1997, p. 396). This search for legitimacy and identity has derived, in part, from the three organizational sciences from which entrepreneurship has emerged: psychology, economics, and sociology (Thornton, 1999; Vecchio, 2003) as well as other social science domains (history, anthropology). Out of these various domains have developed two overriding perspectives on entrepreneurship. The first takes the supply-side perspective, which explores the availability of those with the right qualities to fill entrepreneurial roles, while the demand-side approach explores the number and nature of entrepreneurial roles to be filled, exploring the context of organizational foundings (Thornton, 1999). In this section, we introduce the initial perspectives that leadership and entrepreneurship have taken, respectively. We show in Table 2 how both domains focused on the individuals traits or skills that identified him or her as a leader or entrepreneur and distinguished the person from those who were not. The trait approach was the first systematic attempt to study leadership and reached its peak during the 1920s through 1950s (and has experienced a resurgence since the 1990s) (Antonakis et al., 2004a), At this point, the domain began to establish its legitimacy in the social sciences (House & Aditya, 1997). The focus was twofold: (1) what characteristics distinguished leaders from nonleaders and (2) what was the extent of those differences (see Bass, 1990 or Yukl, 2002 for reviews of the trait approaches). Some of the skills that were explored in these studies addressed social, interpersonal, communicative, administrative, and intellectual expertise (Bass, 1990). Differentiating traits (stable distinguishing features) from skills (acquired proficiencies), traits such as friendliness, task motivation, emotional balance, dominance, ethical behavior or personal integrity, creativity, courage, and task motivation were also identified in their relationship with leadership (Bass, 1990). In entrepreneurship, the trait studies focused mainly on identifying specific personality variables that would distinguish entrepreneurs from other groups and that were presumed to lead to the founding of new organizations. Examples of the variables examined in these types of studies include need for achievement (Ahmed, 1985; McClelland, 1967), locus of control (Brockhaus, 1982; Pandey & Tewary, 1979; Venkatapathy, 1984), risk-taking propensity (Ahmed, 1985; Begley & Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus, 1980), and tolerance for ambiguity (Dollinger, 1983; Schere, 1982; Sexton & Bowman, 1985). Both fields faced challenges looking exclusively at personality characteristics and other individual differences for predicting leader or entrepreneur emergence. The trait approach to leadership was
782
challenged in the mid-20th century with Stogdills (1948) critical review which questioned the universality of traits across leadership studies. Stogdills review launched the leadership fieldTs first major crisis while also providing the catalyst to move leadership from the focus on what leaders are to what leaders do (Antonakis et al., 2004a). The majority of the behavioral theories that developed from the 1950s through the 1980s focused on two categories of leader behavior: consideration and initiating structure (or their variants such as supportive vs. instrumental leadership or employee-centered vs. production-centered leadership). While there was a massive effort to explore the relationship of these leader behaviors with outcomes of leadership effectiveness, results continued to be weak or inconclusive (Antonakis et al., 2004a; Yukl, 2002). Thus, leadership faced its second big crisis (Antonakis et al., 2004a). A move toward a contingency approach as a means for explaining these equivocal findings ensued (this will be discussed in a following section). Similar to Stogdills (1948) pivotal piece, entrepreneurship also had a clear demarcation point from the trait to the behavioral approach. Gartners (1985, p. 696) review of the field concluded that bdifferences among entrepreneurs and among their ventures are as great as the variation between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs and between new firms and established firmsQ. He also called for a fundamental shift away from individual trait perspectives and towards a behavioral approach for the study of entrepreneurship (Gartner, 1985, 1988). Mirroring Stogdill, Gartner (1988) proposed that future exploration of the entrepreneur should move away from what he/she is toward what he/she does. Further reviews (e.g., Low & MacMillan, 1988) reinforced the need to adopt a behavioral approach. This was clearly a departure from asking the question, bWho is the entrepreneur?Q Looking merely at demographic characteristics and traits as predictors of entrepreneurial behavior or performance has largely been abandoned for more fruitful avenues of research (Herron & Robinson, 1993). However, the result is that many researchers completely abandoned the individual entrepreneur a prime example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fear of incorporating dimensions of the individual entrepreneur and being branded as a btraitsQ researcher persists in the field to this day. In an effort to reconcile the findings that were uncovered during the behavioral period of leadership research, leadership scholars moved toward exploring the context in which the leadership phenomenon occurred. Contingency theories dominated the leadership literature throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s (Antonakis et al., 2004a), but were also subject to measurement and conceptual weaknesses that hindered their utility for practicing managers and for furthering a systematic stream of research (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977). Similar to the progression in leadership, entrepreneurship began to move past focusing solely on the individual or environment. Gartner (1985) and Carsrud, Olm, and Eddy (1986) proposed frameworks for capturing contextual complexity and the interaction effects of demographic, psychological, organizational, and environmental variables on new venture creation. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) proposed one of the most well known contingency frameworks to explore the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. The prevalence of contingency approaches in entrepreneurship is addressed and discussed further in the next stage. 3.2. Concept evaluation and augmentation The weaknesses of the early dominant leadership approaches were a catalyst for the move into the next stage of the Reichers and Schneider (1990) modelconcept evaluation and augmentation. This stage was represented by the emergence of critical reviews of the leadership construct domain. In particular,
783
poor measurement, misuse or weak research methods, a lack of programmatic research, and conflicting or mixed results were identified by scholars during this stage (examples can be found in Antonakis et al., 2003; Dansereau & Dumas, 1977; Greene, 1977; Hunt & Larson, 1975; Miner, 1975; Schriesheim et al., 1999; Schriesheim, Cogliser, & Neider, 1995; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977; Triandis, 1966). To reconcile the mixed results, researchers began to explore more complex theoretical models such as those including moderating and mediating variables (e.g., Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Ahearne, 1995; Schriesheim & DeNisi, 1981), as well as expanding leadership research across multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Limitations of the work done in the previous stages were minimized and the nomological network of the construct began to be identified. For example, the vertical dyad linkage model (Dansereau et al., 1975) (which had its roots in role and exchange theories) evolved into the leadermember exchange perspective (Graen, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) as well as the individualized leadership model (Dansereau et al., 1995, 1998). Each of these models continues even today in their quest for refinement. Similarly, the strict trait or behavioral approaches were adapted to include situational factors, such that Stogdills (1974) latter review on leadership traits argued that both dispositional and situational factors were determinants of leadership. Several of the noteworthy leadership models exemplifying this stage are presented in Table 3. The models developed or expanded in this stage began to move away from the segmentation and narrow focus that prevailed in the earlier studies, taking a broader look at the way that traits, power, behavior, and the situation interact to determine leadership effectiveness (e.g., Avolio, 1999; Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997; Yukl, 1989). Following the call for attention to the inclusion of context in leadership research (House et al., 1995), micro- and macro-theories were occasionally integrated to provide insight into leadership phenomena (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Miller, Kets de Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, & Conway, 1975; Trice & Beyer, 1986), although there is still a deficit of attention to levels-of-analysis in leadership research (Antonakis et al., 2004b). It is our conclusion that the field of entrepreneurship has characteristics that would place it squarely in the concept and evaluation stage of the Reichers and Schneider (1990) model. The entrepreneurship literature has now been subjected to critical reviews of the field and domain (e.g., Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). This stage is also marked by refined empirical methods and more complex studies incorporating multiple levels of analysis and interactive and/or causal designs (e.g., Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001). Reviews of published entrepreneurship articles (e.g., Busenitz et al., 2003; Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Gregoire, Meyer, & DeCastro, 2002) have looked at citations, frequencies, the use of different dependent variables, types of data, analytic methods and levels of analysis. Some of these findings are discussed in more detail below and provide support for positioning the field in stage 2. In earlier reviews, both Wortman (1987) and Low and MacMillan (1988) called for greater attention to validity issues and more sophisticated research designs and analyses in entrepreneurship research. Wortman (1987) lamented on the lack of methodological sophistication, while Low and MacMillan (1988) called for the pursuit of causality over exploratory and non-theory driven cross-sectional designs. To examine if progress had been made in the field from the time of these earlier reviews, we focused on Chandler and Lyon (2001) who reviewed entrepreneurship articles published in nine different management and entrepreneurship journals from 1989 to 1999. Their findings provide a useful lens for examining the state of the field.
784
Of the 416 articles included by Chandler and Lyon, 70% were empirical (and 75% of these employed primary data). Regarding measures and validity, they reported that 40% of the 145 studies using questionnaires had multiple item scales and reported as or reliabilities. Of those, 18% used existing scales with established reliabilities and 53% employed their own or modified measures. Twenty-nine percent of the studies reported as below 0.70 for at least one-fourth of their measures. Twenty-five percent of the empirical studies reported using multiple data sources or multiple raters. To address the more complex questions in entrepreneurship requires more sophisticated research designs. One indicator of complexity is the levels of analysis employed. Chandler and Lyon (2001) reported that 89% of the studies in their sample focused on only one level of analysis. In particular, 53% of the empirical studies were at the firm level, 35% at the individual level, 9% at the industry level, 4% at the team level, and 2% at the project level. Additionally, 80% of the empirical papers were crosssectional in design and only 7% met their criteria for a longitudinal study. Further indicators of research complexity are the analytical techniques and research designs employed. Chandler and Lyon (2001) reported that of the empirical papers, 29% used multiple regression analysis, 20% correlations, 17% factor analysis, 13% t-tests, 9% ANOVA, 8% cross-tabs, 7% logistic regression, and 3% structural equation modeling. Chandler and Lyon (2001) proposed that, given the dynamic nature of entrepreneurship, one would expect to find the field dominated by contingency models. This would also parallel the prevalence of contingency models in leadership that was discussed earlier. Surprisingly, they reported that only 18% of the studies utilized and tested contingency frameworks. The fact that these were not more prolific in past published entrepreneurship research (combined with the measurement and simplistic analytic techniques) indicates that the field is still developing methodologically. It is important to note that Chandler and Lyons (2001) data are based on work published mainly through the 1990s and we would expect that a sample of more current work would show greater sophistication. Currently, within the field of entrepreneurship, there is a growing number of studies employing contingency and multiple level frameworks, longitudinal designs, and sophisticated measurement and analytical techniques. However, from a field level view, we would say that these findings support Aldrich and Bakers (1997) conclusions that entrepreneurship studies, in aggregate, are not as sophisticated methodologically as other, more established organizational disciplines. 3.3. Consolidation and accommodation The final stage, consolidation and accommodation, occurs when consensus is reached by the majority of those in the field with regard to the constructTs definition and operationalizations. The boundary conditions of the theories are clearly understood and the nomological network is well developed and refined. Hallmarks of this stage are meta-analyses, narrative reviews, and comprehensive books summarizing the constructs domain (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). Rather than argue over which definition is the bcorrectQ one, leadership scholars are beginning to recognize the complex, multifaceted nature of the construct and accordingly have used the various conceptualizations of leadership to design research that is relevant to the range of definitions (Hunt, 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). Numerous narrative and meta-analytic reviews have been conducted on various leadership phenomena such as leadership and gender (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995; Eagly, Makhijani, & G., 1992); the utility of pathgoal theory (Wofford & Liska, 1993) and transformational leadership (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996); and the relevance of
785
traits (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986), to name but a few. Further, several volumes summarizing the history, trends, and future directions for research on leadership have been written (e.g., Bass, 1990; Goethals, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004; Yukl, 2002). Occasionally, in stage 3, the field experiences a shock to the system that leads to a paradigm shift (Hunt & Dodge, 2000). This may be seen in several leadership models. One clear example is the resurgence of the trait approach to leadership, which has come full circle in recent years with the assumption that a certain number of traits are central to ones being perceived as a leader (e.g., Judge et al., 2002; Locke, 2003; Lord et al., 1986) (see Table 4). Another example of a paradigm shift in leadership research has been Wheatleys (1999) bnew scienceQ that explores leadership somewhat metaphorically within a systems context; Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) are in the scholarly forefront of the complex systems movement. Leadership scholars on the micro side (e.g., Waldman & Yammarino, 1999) are finally beginning to attend to lessons from the strategic leadership/upper echelon researchers (who reside generally on the strategy side of the management house, e.g., Boal and Hooijberg, 2000; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). We thought it might be useful to trace one of these shifts, using the progression of charismatic/ transformational/visionary leadership models as an example. Weber first integrated the concept of charisma with leadership (Weber, 1924/1947), but it did not gain noteworthy attention in the organizational sciences until work by Bass (1985), Burns (1978), and House (1977) drew attention to the construct. Burns (1978) contrasted transforming leadership behavior (aimed at raising followersT consciousness about ethical issues) with transactional behaviors (aimed at the followersT self-interest) in a political context. House (1977) outlined a series of attitudinal and behavior characteristics of charismatic leaders, and Bass (1985) developed a taxonomy of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles, outlining the multidimensional nature of the various styles. A shift away from these models was Conger and Kanungos (1987, 1998) view of charismatic leadership as an attributional phenomenon and Gardner and Avolios (1998) discussion of how individuals use impression management to create and maintain the image of a charismatic leader. Shamir and his colleagues (Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Shamir, 1992; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) looked at the followers perspective of the leader and the self-concept of both leaders and followers. What we find compelling about these models (often labeled New Leadership School or Neocharismatic/Transformational/Visionary) is that the scholars who study them have been relatively immune to ego in terms of taking criticism of their work. Generally speaking, we have seen this specific domain progress in a systematic fashion through the incremental work of all involved in the domain (the bcharismaQ researchers have learned from the btransformationalQ scholars who have informed and been informed by the bvisionaryQ group). There have been other models of leadership whose scholars have been less able to build on the criticism targeted at either theoretical, measurement, or levels-of-analysis confusion. We believe these theories have suffered as a result. Looking further at these evolutions in transformational leadership has been an integration of various elements of the model with positive psychology (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and positive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002) into a new model of bauthentic leadership developmentQ (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Positive psychology as a science seeks to understand positive emotions, experiences, hope, optimism, and altruism. Then, through authentic self-awareness of personal experiences and behaving in a fashion that is congruent with ones true self, well-being is enhanced (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
786
The connection with organizations is made by managing performance improvement through a movement away from the focus on employee weaknesses and instead toward employee strengths (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Luthans, 2002). Luthans and Avolio (2003, p. 243) define authentic leadership as a bprocess that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self developmentQ. The authentic leader is self aware and acts in accordance with his or her true self. Further, central to the authentic leader are the characteristics of confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience which are translated into behaviors which foster an environment that encourages follower performance excellence. Built into the model is an ethical component (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003), which has positive consequences of veritable, sustainable performance. One factor that distinguishes this leadership model from others is its strong reliance on literature outside the organizational sciences and attention to macro-oriented literature within the management field. Several have raised the criticism that too often leadership researchers rely too much on their psychology tradition and act as if the leader and follower operate in a vacuum (House & Aditya, 1997; Melcher, 1977). The authentic leadership model draws from elements of philosophy, cognitive and social psychology, ethics (which crosses multiple domains) as well as strategic leadership and other factors from the strategy domain. While we have proposed that the overall characteristics of entrepreneurship are more consistent with those of stage 2 (concept evaluation and augmentation), than stage 3 (consolidation and accommodation), there are some examples of research that would either fall in or be moving towards this final stage, as well as some bshocksQ such as those described above. Entrepreneurship has seen an increasing use of meta-analyses. One example is Stewart and Roth (2001) who looked at risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Based on their meta-analysis, they claimed that entrepreneurs have a higher risk propensity than managers and that risk propensity was a vital component in entrepreneurship. However, Miner and Nambury (2004) recently published results of their own meta-analysis (using fourteen additional articles) that suggest entrepreneurs are more risk avoidant than managers (which was then responded to by Stewart & Roth, 2004). The bottom line is that, despite the use of meta-analyses, there is still little agreement or consolidation on this issue. Unifying frameworks such as those presented by entrepreneurship scholars provide useful direction for future research to move into the more mature stage 3 (e.g., Busenitz et al., 2003; Mitchell et al., 2002; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000; Thornton, 1999). While there is still no overall agreement within the field, these frameworks have continued to address domain issues and refine components of what may develop into a more comprehensive and accepted framework.
4. Can the entrepreneurship field avoid some of the pitfalls experienced by leadership? (Or is the field already doing this)? In the previous section, we discussed the life cycles of leadership and entrepreneurship research, briefly highlighting some challenges experienced by leadership scholars throughout the fields life cycle (and how they may similarly be problematic for those who study entrepreneurship). This next section proposes some thoughts on how entrepreneurship may be able to avoid these pitfalls. We look at three problem areas specifically. First, we see utility in articulating comprehensive conceptual definitions of the focal domain of entrepreneurship. Next, clearly identifying processes involved in the entrepreneur-
787
ship phenomenon strengthens the nomological network and helps with the bblack boxQ problem. Last, we believe the field can benefit by taking levels-of-analysis into account and employing sophisticated research designs and methodology in its exploration. 4.1. Definitional problems As mentioned previously, the leadership field has been beset with conceptual or definitional challenges throughout its history. While we might lay the blame with leadership scholars, it is not entirely the fault of those who study leadership. As Hunt (2004) demonstrates in a stress-filled opening scenario to his chapter titled bWhat is leadershipQ, leaders in and of organizations are increasingly facing situations that are fast-paced and dynamic, where the leader is embedded within many different groups with a need to respond to various constituencies. Thus, the concept of leadership should be more expansive than has typically been employed. The good news for leadership scholars is that the scene is not as bleak as it was once viewed in the 1970s. Hunt (2004) emphasized that the way one studies leadership should be driven by its various contextual antecedents (see Hunt & Dodge, 2000; Hunt, 2004, for a description of the historical-contextual superstructure model for identifying bwhat is leadershipQ). Taking these paradigmatic, purpose, definitional, stakeholder, and level-of-analysis/temporality antecedents into account will drive the researchers questions, and can promote leadership research that reflects the complexity and dynamism of our field. Thus, Hunt (2004) reiterates that the context in which leadership is embedded (that of the broader organization or environment and effects) should be emphasized in the conceptualization (levelsof-analysis issues will be discussed in a following section). Currently, some leadership research attends to the issues that Hunt (2004) raises (see Table 4 for notable examples). Some models do indeed take context into account (e.g., Chen & Bliese, 2002; Cogliser & Schriesheim, 2000; Somech, 2003; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999), some are exploring the complex system in which leadership is embedded (e.g., Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001), some are exploring leadership distributed throughout the group or team (e.g., Pearce & Sims, 2000), while others are looking at how the relationship of individual factors of leadership (self awareness, self-regulation, positive psychological capital) influence follower development and engagement, which ultimately results in a profitable bottom line for an organization (e.g., Luthans & Avolio, 2003). As was mentioned in previous sections, entrepreneurship research is also hindered by conceptual and definitional challenges. Taking a more historical perspective and greater specificity with regards to samples, contexts, and research questions would be of benefit. One example where understanding embeddedness and context is relevant would be in the emerging study of family businesses. The goals and dynamics within family firms are often quite different from those of non-family start-ups. While definitions of family firms do and will probably always continue to vary, it is not necessarily the definition itself that is the problem. As long as researchers clearly define the sample and the context, they can get past the definitions and on to studying the interesting questions at hand. 4.2. Process identification What is the process of leadership? As Hunt (2004) points out, leadership involves both influence and process. Much work has been done explicating how a leader uses his or her influence on followers. Less has been done explaining why this influence works, or how a vision provides sensemaking for followers,
788
or the means by which followers and leaders develop reciprocity and social exchange in their relationship. Even less work has been done on leadership development with followers (Day, 2000). We know that leadership makes a difference (despite those few studies to the contrary), but we need more research on the mechanisms by which leaders influence, challenge, inspire, and develop followers. A means of addressing these processes could involve going back to our conceptual roots in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and other social sciences, in addition to listening to what our strategy (and perhaps entrepreneurship) colleagues have to say. A good example of a model that explores these various conceptual underpinnings and delineates the process of the leadership phenomenon of interest is outlined in Lord and Brown (2004) and their treatment of the process whereby followers create meaning from the leaders behavior and how this meaning helps followers self-regulate in specific contexts. While it took an entire book to spell out the process, this is one model where the process of leader and follower development is clearly identified. Another approach would be through qualitative methods that may yield novel or unanticipated findings (Bryman, 1984). A weakness of quantitative methods is that they a priori specify the relationships of interest, and thus may mask alternative process relationships because of the researchers preconceived mindset. A recent grounded theory study of leadership and change (Kan & Parry, 2004) was able to explore the process of leadership occurring in dynamic contexts. What is fascinating about this study was its inclusion of quantitative data in addition to the grounded theory method. Their study yielded incongruent results between the quantitative and qualitative data, resulting in further study to tease out the implications for leadership process. As a result, Kan and Parrys (2004) research was able to accomplish their goal of identifying leadership processes leading to both negative and positive perceptions of change efforts, a goal which may not have been achieved through a quantitative method alone. Entrepreneurship could continue to benefit by focusing on influence and process. Today, entrepreneurship researchers study concepts like opportunity recognition and vision. Also, researchers have identified the importance of networks and teams in new ventures. Further understanding of the dynamic processes at work within these concepts will only enhance the relevance and sophistication of the field. In addition, one perspective that has been gaining support in entrepreneurship research is the cognitive approach. Research based on this perspective focuses on how individuals think, process information, and ultimately make decisions in uncertain and often chaotic environments. The cognitive approach places a high emphasis on process issues and has been producing some interesting results (Katz & Shepherd, 2003). 4.3. Levels-of-analysis challenges For the last quarter-century, there have been numerous calls for theorizing and testing the levels of analysis at which leadership relationships are expected to operate (Dansereau et al., 1984; Klein, Dansereau & Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1985; Schriesheim et al., 1995). Merely a decade ago, scholars rarely conceptualized and tested leadership models at multiple levels of analysis (Castro, 2002; Schriesheim et al., 1995). Today, we are seeing much more attention to levels issues, in part because of a concentrated effort to draw attention to this. Examples of this effort can be found in The Leadership Quarterly 2002 special issue on levels of analysis in leadership, Dansereau and Yammarinos (1998, 2002) book series (on leadership in 1998 and the broader organizational domain in 2002), and Klein and Kozlowskis (2000) edited book on theory, research, and methods in organizations.
789
The importance of specifying the levels of analysis cannot be minimized for several reasons. First, organizations are inherently hierarchicalindividuals work in teams or groups, leaders lead followers (which can involve an individual, dyad, or group level-of-analysis), groups or teams are organized into departments or divisions, various divisions make up an organization, multiple organizations often become joint ventures as well as comprise an industry. This makes studying leadership extremely complicated because the leadership phenomena is not restricted to one levelit may operate on one, any, or all levels (Antonakis et al., 2004b). The failure to account for levels can falsely indicate or mask relationships (Castro, 2002; Schriesheim et al., 1995), resulting in berecting theoretical skyscrapers on foundations of empirical jelloQ (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & Yammarino, 2001, p. 516). One of the first leadership models to explore the level at which the focal relationship held was the vertical dyad linkage model (VDL, Dansereau et al., 1975), which differed substantially from the prevailing leadership theories at the time. The majority of leadership models assumed that a leader had a style which was similar across the group of followers (a between groups model). The VDL model was a within-groups model, assuming that a leader adopted a unique style with each follower; that is, the relationship between leadership and follower outcomes was theorized and tested at the dyadic level of analysis. Further refinement of the model has continued with the leadermember exchange approach (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), although the theory is bstill in the makingQ (House & Aditya, 1997, p. 430) as it continues to suffer from definitional, measurement, and analytical challenges (House & Aditya, 1997; Schriesheim et al., 1999). Similar to leadership, entrepreneurship is also a multi-level phenomenon. Yet, similar to much leadership research prior to the last decade, rarely do entrepreneurship scholars actually conceptualize and test entrepreneurship models at multiple levels of analysis. As presented earlier, only 11% of the entrepreneurship articles reviewed by Chandler and Lyon (2001) were cross-level designs incorporating multiple levels of analysis. Leadership clearly recognizes that continued advancement as a field requires more multi-level designs (recognizes but doesnt always carry out empirically). Entrepreneurship is increasing in sophistication and many popular approaches are inherently multi-level.
5. Conclusion Busenitz et al. (2003) delineated the conceptual domains of entrepreneurship as a field, and highlighted intersections and linkages among the various categories. Four domains were established: environments, individuals and teams, opportunities, and mode of organizing. Of relevance in this review is the intersection of individuals and teams with opportunities and modes of organizing. Over the years, there have been numerous calls for mid-level theories or meso-models in leadership research that not only study the leader, but the larger macro influences or the situation in which the leadership phenomenon is enacted. We believe this is exactly what Busenitz and colleagues are addressing in their article, such that entrepreneurship research can be advanced and legitimized by studying the nexus of the various dimensions. This review contributes to this concept of intersections by showing the theoretical and empirical overlap between leadership and entrepreneurship. Striking parallels can be seen both in the past development and future directions of both fields. There are numerous potential areas where entrepreneurship researchers might benefit from observing the challenges, continuing struggles, and successes of leadership researchers. We developed three of these areas that appear to be particularly
790
salient: (1) conceptual, definitional, and context challenges; (2) a focus on process; and (3) striving to incorporate multiple levels of analysis. Growing pains are inevitable, and just as with children, sometimes the only way to learn is through experience. Nevertheless, we believe that entrepreneurship research can avoid some of the fits and starts that leadership research has suffered by paying attention to the mistakes that the older (or more mature) field has made. Finally, we wrote our review from the perspective of what entrepreneurship researchers might learn from leadership. However, learning is often reciprocal. While entrepreneurship is a young field and is not as evolved as other management disciplines, it is a vibrant and rapidly growing area. Over the last 5 years, the entrepreneurship division has been the fastest growing division within the Academy of Management. While this article was somewhat critical of the overall fields sophistication, it is clear that there are a great deal of positive developments occurring in this area. As new, highly trained researchers continue to enter the field, methods should continue to improve. The rapid growth in entrepreneurship is due to many forces, but it may be in part to the fact that the field is in an earlier stage of development. Reaching a stage of consolidation and accommodation might be at the expense of addressing interesting research questions. Measures may be highly refined, but interest in the research question may be lacking. But this is a challenge that has also faced leadership, and we believe that leadership scholars continue to advance the field by questioning assumptions and exploring the complexity of the organizational world we study. We anticipate entrepreneurship scholars will do the same. References
Achilladelis, B., Jervis, P., & Robertson, A. (1971). A Study of Success and Failure in Industrial Innovation. Sussex, UK7 University of Sussex Press. Ahmed, S. U. (1985). nAch, risk-taking propensity, locus of control and entrepreneurship. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(6), 781 782. Aldrich, H. (1989). Dead theorists society? Vital signs from three perspectives on organizations. Paper presented at the Lancaster University Conference on New Directions in Organizational Theory, Lancaster, PA. Aldrich, H. (1990). Using an ecological perspective to study organizational founding rates. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), 7 24. Aldrich, H., & Baker, T. (1997). Blinded by the cites? Has there been progress in entrepreneurship research? In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship, vol. 2000 (pp. 377 400). Chicago7 Upstart Publishing. Aldrich, H., & Mueller, S. (1982). The evolution of organizational forms: Technology, coordination, and control. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 33 87. Aldrich, H., & Staber, U. H. (1988). Organizing business interests: Patterns of trade association foundings, transformations, and deaths. In G. R. Carroll (Ed.), Ecological models of organization Ballinger (pp. 111 126). Cambridge, MA7 Ballinger. Alvarez, S. A., & Busenitz, L. W. (2001). The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. Journal of Management, 27(6), 755 775. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor fullrange leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261 295. Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004a). Leadership: Past, present, and future. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3 15). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Antonakis, J., Schriesheim, C. A., Donovan, J. A., Gopalakrishna-Pillai, K., Pellegrini, E., & Rossomme, J. L. (2004b). Methods for studying leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 48 70). Greenwich, CT7 Sage. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615 668.
791
Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12 (pp. 277 307). New York7 John Wiley and Sons. Baron, R. A. (2000). Psychological perspectives on entrepreneurship: Cognitive and social factors in entrepreneurs success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(1), 15 19. Baron, R. A. (2002). OB and entrepreneurship: The reciprocal benefits of closer conceptual links. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 225 269). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier Science. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York7 Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership. New York7 Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1997). Concepts of leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership (pp. 3 23). Notre Dame, IN7 University of Notre Dame Press. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 43 54. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. (2001). A multi-dimensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 292 303. Begley, T. M., & Boyd, D. P. (1987). Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and small businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79 93. Bennis, W. G. (1959). Leadership theory and administrative behavior: The problems of authority. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 259 301. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York7 Harper and Row. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX7 Gulf Publishing. Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 515 550. Bogardus, E. S. (1928). World leadership types. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 573 599. Bolin, L. A. (1997). Entrepreneurial leadership: New paradigm research discovering the common characteristics and traits of entrepreneurs who have served successfully in leadership positions. Unpublished Dissertation, Walden University. Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. (1974). Formative years in business: A long term AT and T study of managerial lives. New York7 John Wiley. Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509 520. Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227 250. Bryant, T. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship. In G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorensen, & J. M. Burns (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Leadership, vol. 1 (pp. 442 448). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research. British Journal of Sociology, 35, 75 92. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York7 The Free Press. Busenitz, L. W. (1999). Entrepreneurial risk and strategic decision-making: Its a matter of perspective. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 325 340. Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 9 30. Busenitz, L. W., West, G. P., Shepherd, D., Nelson, T., Chandler, G. N., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285 308. Carsrud, A. L., Olm, K. W., & Eddy, G. G. (1986). Entrepreneurship: Research in quest of a paradigm. In D. L. Sexton & R. W. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship (pp. 153 168). Cambridge, MA7 Ballinger. Castro, S. L. (2002). Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, hierarchical linear modeling, r wg( j), within- and between-analysis, and random group resampling. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 69 93. Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101 113. Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295 316.
792
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 549 556. Chung, L. H., & Gibbons, P. T. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social capital. Group and Organization Management, 22(1), 10 30. Cogliser, C. C., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2000). Exploring work unit context and leadermember exchange: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 487 511. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637 647. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage Publications. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., & Wolff, R. (1991). Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and off the organizational stage. Organization Studies, 12(4), 529 546. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall. Dansereau, F., & Dumas, M. (1977). Pratfalls and pitfalls in drawing inferences about leader behavior in organizations. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University Press. Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13(1), 46 78. Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (1998). Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches, vol. 24. Stamford, CT7 JAI Press. Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). The many faces of multi-level issues. Stamford, CT7 JAI Press. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 413 450. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., et al. (1998). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The Multiple-Level Approaches, vol. 24 (pp. 363 405). Stamford, CT7 JAI Press. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581 613. Dean, J. W. (1987). Building the future: The justification process for new technology. In J. M. Pennings & A. Buitendam (Eds.), New Technology as Organizational Innovation (pp. 35 58). Cambridge, MA7 Ballinger. Dean, T. J., Brown, R. L., & Bamford, C. E. (1998). Differences in large and small firm responses to environmental context: Strategic implications from a comparative analysis of business formations. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 709 728. Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., & Hanges, P. J. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 219 256. Dess, G. G., Ireland, R. D., & Zahra, S. A. (2003). Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 351 378. Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm performance: Test of contingency and configurational models. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 677 695. Dollinger, M. J. (1983). Use of Budners intolerance of ambiguity measure for entrepreneurial research. Psychological Reports, 53(3), 1019 1021. Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 327 344. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233 256. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125 145. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3 22. Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(12), 52 66. Ensley, M. D., Pearson, A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Top management team process, shared leadership, and new venture performance: A theoretical model and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 329 346.
793
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128 148. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11. New York7 Academic Press. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. St. Paul, MN7 West Publishing. Fleishman, E. A. (1953). The description of supervisory behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37, 1 6. Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The psychological basis of opportunity identification: Entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Small Business Economics, 16, 95 111. Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32 58. 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. Gartner, W. B., Bird, B. J., & Starr, J. A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13 31. Gartner, W. B., & Shane, S. A. (1995). Measuring entrepreneurship over time. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 283 301. Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., Carter, N. M., & Reynolds, P. D. (2004). The Handbook of Entrepreneurial Dynamics: The Process of Organization Creation. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Goethals, G. R., Sorensen, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201 1245). Chicago, IL7 Rand-NcNally. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a Psychology of Dyadic Organizing, vol. 9 (pp. 175 208). Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leadermember exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219 247. Greene, C. N. (1977). Disenchantment with leadership research: Some causes, recommendations, and alternative directions. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University Press. Gregoire, D., Meyer, G. D., & DeCastro, J. O. (2002). The crystallization of entrepreneurship research dependent variables and methods in mainstream management journals. Babson Park, MA7 Babson College. Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 241 260. Haiman, F. S. (1951). Group leadership and democratic action. Boston7 Houghton Mifflin. Hambrick, D. C. (1989). Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 5 15. Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Corporate coherence and the top management team. Strategy and Leadership, 25(5), 24 29. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193 206. Hanks, S. H., Watson, C. J., Jansen, E., & Chandler, G. N. (1994). Tightening the life-cycle construct: A taxonomic study of growth stage configurations in high-technology organizations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5 27. Harding, L. W. (1949). Twenty-one varieties of educational leadership. Educational Leadership, 6, 299 302. Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (1996). Discipline emergence in entrepreneurship: Accumulative fragmentalism or paradigmatic science? Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Change, 5(2), 65 83. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268 279. Hellstroem, T., & Hellstroem, C. (2002). Time and innovation in independent technological ventures. Human Relations, 55(4), 407 427. Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement (pp. 6 38). Columbus, OH7 Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University. Herron, L., & Robinson, R. B. J. (1993). A structural model of the effects of entrepreneurial characteristics on venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(3), 281 294.
794
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057 1074. Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations, 43(3), 221 237. Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2000). The intersection of entrepreneurship and strategic management research. In D. L. Sexton & H. Landstrom (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of entrepreneurship. Oxford, UK7 Blackwell. Holmberg, S. R., & Morgan, K. B. (2003). Franchise turnover and failure: New research and perspectives. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 403 419. Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375 408. House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 338. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 207). Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University Press. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409 474. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Pathgoal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81 97. House, R. J., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 71 114). Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory to leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364 396. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 317 330. Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 88 102. Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismatic leaderships transformation of the field: An historical essay. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129 144. Hunt, J. G. (2004). What is leadership? In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 19 47). Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (2000). Leadership deja vu all over again. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 435 458. Hunt, J. G., & Larson, L. L. (1975). We march to the beat of a different drummer: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers. Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University. Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Simon, D. G. (2003). A model of strategic entrepreneurship: The construct and its dimensions. Journal of Management, 29(6), 963. Janda, K. F. (1960). Towards the explication of the concept of leadership in terms of the concept of power. Human Relations, 13, 345 363. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199 218. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765 780. Kan, M. M., & Parry, K. W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467 491. Karmel, B. (1978). Leadership: A challenge to traditional research methods and assumptions. Academy of Management Review, 3, 475 482. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. C. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann Arbor, MI7 Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Katz, J. A. (1991). The institution and infrastructure of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 85 102. Katz, J. A., & Shepherd, D. A. (2003). Cognitive approaches to entrepreneurship research. In J. A. Katz & D. A. Shepherd (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, vol. 6 (pp. 1 11). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier/JAI Press. Kazanjian, R. K. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 257 279.
795
Keh, H. T., Foo, M. D., & Lim, B. C. (2002). Opportunity evaluation under risky conditions: The cognitive processes of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 125 149. Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 539 545. Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1982). An estimate of the variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 678 685. Kets de Vries, M., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583 601. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intra-organizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting ones way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440 452. Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 139 150. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195 229. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass. Koene, B. A. S., Vogelaar, A. L. W., & Soeters, J. L. (2002). Leadership effects on organizational climate and financial performance: Local leadership effect in chain organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 193 215. Koontz, H. (1961). The management theory jungle. Journal of the Academy of Management, 3(4). Kotter, J. P. (1982). What effective general managers really do. Harvard Business Review, 60(6), 156 168. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York7 Free Press. LeBon, G. (1897). The crowd. New York7 Macmillan. Lieberson, S., & OConnor, J. F. (1972). Leadership and organizational performance: A study of large corporations. American Sociological Review, 37(2), 117 130. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York7 McGraw-Hill. Locke, E. A. (2003). Foundations for a theory of leadership. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership developmentx. Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahway, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum. Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402 410. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston7 Rutledge. Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139 161. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness of correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385 425. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21, 135 172. Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organization behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695 706. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241 258). San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler. Luthans, F., Rosenkrantz, S. A., & Hennessey, H. W. (1985). What do successful managers really do? An observational study of managerial activities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 255 270. Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389 418. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247 260. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York7 Free Press. McClelland, D. C. (1965). N-achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 389 392. McClelland, D. C. (1967). The achieving society. New York7 Free Press. McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York7 Irvington.
796
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78 102. Melcher, A. J. (1977). Leadership models and research approaches. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership the cutting edge (pp. 94 108). Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University Press. Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Toulouse, J. M. (1982). Top executive locus of control and its relationship to strategy making, structure, and environment. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 237 253. Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH7 Kent State University Press. Miner, J. B., & Nambury, R. S. (2004). Risk propensity differences between managers and entrepreneurs and between low- and high-growth entrepreneurs: A reply in a more conservative vein. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 3 13. Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1989). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the growth of technologically innovative firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 554 560. Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York7 Harper and Row. Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L. W., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. (2002). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial cognition: Rethinking the people side of entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2), 93 104. Mitchell, R. K., Smith, B., & Seawright, K. W. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and the venture creation decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 974 993. Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. (1981). An attributional model of leadership and the poor performing subordinate: Development and validation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3 (pp. 197 234). Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. Mitchell, T. R., Larson, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1977). Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 18(2), 254 268. Morris, M. H., Williams, R. O., Allen, J. A., & Avila, R. A. (1997). Correlations of success in family business transitions. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 385 401. Mumford, M. D., Schultz, R. A., & Osburn, H. K. (2002a). Planning in organizations: Performance as a multi-level phenomenon. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), The many faces of multi-level issues (pp. 3 65). Oxford, UK7 Elsevier. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002b). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership, 6. Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11 35. Naffziger, D. W., Hornsby, J. S., & Kuratko, D. F. (1994). A proposed research model of entrepreneurial motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 29 42. Pandey, J., & Tewary, N. B. (1979). Locus of control and achievement values of entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52(2), 107 111. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115 139. Pearce, R. J. (1997). Toward understanding joint venture performance and survival: A bargaining and influence approach. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 203 225. Peterson, M., & Hunt, J. G. (1997). International perspectives on international leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 203 232. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Ahearne, M. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the illusive moderators of leadership behavior. Journal of Management, 21(3), 423 470. Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 797 809. Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 5 27). San Francisco7 Jossey Bass. Reynolds, P. D., & White, S. (1997). The entrepreneurial process: Economic growth, men, women, and minorities. Westport, CT7 Quorum. Rindova, V. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1997a). Distrust in dependence: The ancient challenge of superior-subordinate relations. In T. A. R. Clark (Ed.), Advancements in Organization Behaviour: Essays in Honour of Derek Pugh. Aldershot, Hants7 Dartmouth Publishing.
797
Rindova, V. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1997b). Ancient Chinese theories of control. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 144 159. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 1 37). Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. Russell, J. E. A. (2003). Success for the new global manager: How to work across distances, countries, and cultures. Personnel Psychology, 56(4), 1057 1060. Salancik, G. R., Calder, B. J., Rowland, K. M., Leblebici, H., & Conway, M. (1975). Leadership as an outcome of social structure and process: A multidimensional analysis. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH7 Kent State University Press. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Constraints on administrative discretion: The limited influence of mayors on city budgets. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 12, 475 498. Sapienza, H. J., & Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). Procedural justice in entrepreneurinvestor relations. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 544 574. Sayles, L. R., & Stewart, A. (1995). Belated recognition for work-flow entrepreneurs: A case of selective perception and amnesia in management thought. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(3), 7 24. Schere, J. (1982). Tolerance of ambiguity as a discriminating variable between entrepreneurs and managers. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Schon, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41, 77 86. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leadermember exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63 113. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). On the folly of theorizing bAQ but testing bBQ: A selective level of analysis review of the field and a detailed leadermember exchange (LMX) illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 515 551. Schriesheim, C. A., Cogliser, C. C., & Neider, L. L. (1995). Is it btrustworthy?Q: A multiple-levels-of-analysis reexamination of an Ohio state leadership study, with implications for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 111 145. Schriesheim, C. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (1981). Task dimensions as moderators of the effects of instrumental leadership: A twosample replicated test of pathgoal leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(5), 589 597. Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246 257. Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of leadership: A critical appraisal of present and future directions. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9 45). Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University Press. Schumpeter, J. (1934). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, vol. 14. New York7 Harper and Row. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5 14. Sexton, D. L., & Bowman, N. (1985). The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more. The Entrepreneur: A Capable Executive and More, 85(1), 129 140. Shamir, B. (1992). Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of the leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 386 407. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 1 17. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217 226. Sharma, P., & Chrisman, J. J. (1999). Toward a reconciliation of the definitional issues in the field of corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 11 28. Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (2001). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23 46. Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1003 1018. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management, 38, 1442 1465. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Managerial intelligence: Why IQ isnt enough. Journal of Management, 23(3), 475 493.
798
Stewart, W. H., Jr., & Roth, P. L. (2004). Data quality affects meta-analytic conclusions: A response to Miner and Raju (2004) concerning entrepreneurial risk propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1). Stewart, W. H., Jr., Watson, W. E., Carland, J. C., & Carland, J. W. (1999). A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(2), 189 214. Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 145 153. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35 71. Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY7 Free Press. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178 190. Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 974 983. Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 388 400. Thornberry, N. E. (2003). Corporate entrepreneurship: Teaching managers to be entrepreneurs. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 329 344. Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 19 46. Timmons, J. A. (1982). New venture creation: Methods and models. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 126 138). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice-Hall. Tosi, H. J., Jr. (1982). Toward a paradigm shift in the study of leadership. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 222 233). Carbondale, IL7 Southern Illinois University. Townsend, J., Phillips, J. S., & Elkins, T. J. (2000). Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence of poor leadermember exchange relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 457 463. Trevino, L. K., Brown, M., & Hartman, L. P. (2003). A qualitative investigation of perceived executive ethical leadership: Perceptions from inside and outside the executive suite. Human Relations, 56(1), 5 37. Triandis, H. C. (1966). Notes on the design of organizations. In J. D. Thompson (Ed.), Approaches to organizational design (pp. 113 160). Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania7 University of Pittsburgh Press. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1986). Charisma and its introduction into social movement organizations. B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 8 (pp. 113 160). Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). Relationship development as a key ingredient for leadership development. In S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 129 147). Mahwah, NJ7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vecchio, R. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 303 328. Venkatapathy, R. (1984). Locus of control among entrepreneurs: A review. Psychological Studies, 29(1), 97 100. Venkataraman, S. (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editors perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT7 JAI Press. Villa, J. R., Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Daniel, D. L. (2003). Problems with detecting moderators in leadership research using moderated multiple regression. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 3 23. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice Hall. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania7 University of Pittsburgh Press. Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 266 285. Weber, M. (1924/1947). The theory of social and economic organization (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York7 Free Press. Westhead, P., & Wright, P. M. (1998). Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(3), 173 204. Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1998). Visionary leadership and strategic management. In J. Henry & D. Walker (Eds.), Managing innovation (pp. 40 53). Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science. (2nd ed.). San Francisco7 Berrett-Koehler. Witt, U. (1998). Imagination and leadershipThe neglected dimension of an evolutionary theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, 161 177.
799
Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Pathgoal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 19(4), 857 876. Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243 274. Wortman, M. S. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259 279. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human Relations, 43(10), 975 995. Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations. (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ7 Prentice-Hall. Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132 140. Yukl, G. A., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 416 423. Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 3 (pp. 147 197). Palo Alto, CA7 Consulting Psychologists Press. Zaccaro, S. J., & Banks, D. J. (2001). Leadership, vision, and organizational effectiveness. In S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders (pp. 181 218). San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 308 315. Zahra, S. A. (1996). Governance, ownership, and corporate entrepreneurship: The moderating impact of industry technological opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1713 1735. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67 78. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068 1076.

The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurshi

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Intersection of Leadership and Entrepreneurshi

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771 799

The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

Leading in the context of Innovation/Creativity

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

What does the leader/ entrepreneur do?

In what context does the leader/entrepreneur operate?

What does the leader/ entrepreneur do?

In what context does the leader/entrepreneur operate?

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

What does the leader/ entrepreneur do?

(Emerging) Nascent entrepreneurs (Gartner, Shaver, Carter, & Reynolds, 2004)

In what context does the leader/ entrepreneur operate?

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

C.C. Cogliser, K.H. Brigham / The Leadership Quarterly 15 (2004) 771799

También podría gustarte