Entrepreneurship theory from an interdisciplinary perspective: Volume II.

We are pleased to present Volume II of our two-volume series aimed at furthering the development of theories of entrepreneurship. Earlier versions of the eight discipline-anchored papers in these two sets were presented in January 1991 at the University of Baltimore, which cosponsored with Baylor University an "Interdisciplinary Conference on Entrepreneurship Theory." (1) The original intention of the conference was to examine how various disciplines viewed entrepreneurship, how they examined it, what they contributed to it, and how the disciplines themselves have been affected by the intersection. During the process of the conference and the subsequent compilation of these volumes, we have found that each discipline has its own unique way of viewing entrepreneurship which remains relatively unaffected by the perspectives of other disciplines. We see, in other words, evidence that many "uni-" rather than one or more "multi-" disciplinary views of our field have been developed.

Volume I was introduced by an article on the present state and future possibilities of theorizing about entrepreneurship. It was followed by four papers anchored in disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, and economics) whose theoretical development predates, and hence contributes to, the building of theories of business organization and management. The emphasis in those four papers was the special perspective each discipline brings to our understanding of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial process.

Volume II examines the special contributions to entrepreneurship literature of views developed within the realm of business administration itself (organization behavior, marketing, finance, and strategic management), and concludes with an article on methodologies appropriate to the furthering of entrepreneurship research.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

In this very provocative and widely encompassing article, Gartner, Bird, and Start provide us with new perspectives on both entrepreneurship and organizational behavior. In most of the articles in these volumes, the central premise has been to look for similarities, or overlapping coverage between the topics, in the discipline of interest and entrepreneurial research. Gartner, Bird, and Starr, however, focus initially on a key difference between entrepreneurship and organizational behavior, and then ask how the topics should be interpreted in light of this difference.

What is this difference? They use the metaphor of emergence to help us understand. Entrepreneurship is defined as the process of organization creation so that the goal of entrepreneurship researchers is to "probe how and why organizations come into being," or emerge. What makes organizational behavior unique from its disciplinary roots (anthropology, sociology, and psychology) is that organizational behavior researchers define their boundaries by examining behaviors and motivations that take place within an organization--an existing organization. Entrepreneurship researchers examine emerging organizations--as-yet-unformed, or newly formed organizations.

They argue that the differences between emerging and existing organizations are not just incremental differences, but are quantum differences. Looking at entrepreneurship does not involve looking at small, new versions of existing organizations; it involves examining organizations that don't exist yet. A critical issue to address is equivocality. Emerging organizations are a complex set of equivocal realities. An entrepreneur's actions are equivocal; the roles to be played, the behaviors that are appropriate are not yet defined, nor limited. In existing organizations, behaviors and roles are specified; no choice reds. In addition to the uncertainty that is created from the role ambiguity, emerging organizations frequently occur in equivocal environments; the rules of the game, and the players may not be well specified. Their basic tenet is that, just as organizational behavior researchers make a topic "organizational" by placing it within the context of an organization, entrepreneurship researchers can look at any topic and make it "entrepreneurial" by placing it in the context of an emerging organization.

Gartner, Bird, and Starr give us two good examples. The first examines the managerial work research stream. They conclude that the researchers in this area are no further along in defining what is managerial, in differentiating managerial from non-managerial, or in linking good or bad managerial behavior to organizational performance than is the entrepreneurship literature in like regard. To see even more clearly the analogy between the two disciplines, replace "managerial" in the Sentence above with "entrepreneurial." The authors suggest, however, that we have a lot to learn from the variety of data-collection mechanisms employed by the managerial work researchers.

The next example that they address is motivation. They begin by slaying the "sacred cow" of entrepreneurship research, that of focus on the entrepreneur's motivation. Perhaps this is both the wrong question and the wrong person(s) to ask. They suggest instead that a more useful perspective would be to investigate how entrepreneurs motivate others to interact with them. They also suggest that motivation is not static but, since the organization is emerging, the motivation of the entrepreneur may change over time. Finally, they demonstrate how expectancy theory, an often overlooked theory in entrepreneurship research, could be used to better understand entrepreneurial behavior.

Overall, what useful connections exist between organizational behavior and entrepreneurial behavior? Gartner, Bird, and Starr suggest that we should use bold and wise borrowing of organization behavior theories, and that we should generously make use of qualitative methodologies available.

MARKETING

The parallels between the marketing discipline and entrepreneurship are so numerous that it is surprising that relatively little cross fertilization has occurred. Gerry Hills and Buddy LaForge do a masterful job of highlighting the interface between the two; in so doing they identify key tangencies and relevant sources, and selectively convey illustrative marketing knowledge.

Why is marketing important to entrepreneurship? Hills and LaForge identify several reasons: (1) the underlying philosophy is the same--both should be attuned to markets and customers; (2) marketing research methodologies are available to evaluate and identify opportunities; (3) marketing behavior and entrepreneurial behavior are similar; (4) marketing can offer insight into innovation; and (5) marketing is an important business function. It is only recently that marketing has paid attention to entrepreneurship but, after providing us with definitions of both marketing and entrepreneurship, they suggest that the study of entrepreneurship as a process could benefit greatly by examining the prior and current research in marketing.

The initial section of Hills and LaForge's paper addresses the various schools of thought that have guided the development of marketing theory. They describe the focus for nine of the twelve schools of thought identified by Sheth, Gardner, and Garrett (1988) and then identify the issues linking each of these schools with the entrepreneurial process. For example, the Institutional School of Marketing Thought focuses on the institutions and organization that evolve to carry out the marketing functions, e.g. new forms of distributors or retailers. Using this conceptual basis as a starting point, researchers in entrepreneurship might be concerned with to what extent entrepreneurs create these new institutions, or whether there are "entrepreneurship institutions," or what role current institutions play in facilitating or inhibiting entrepreneurship. It is quite clear that the various schools can offer a multitude of perspectives to stimulate questions about entrepreneurship.

The second major section of the paper takes a more in-depth look at both the "diffusion of innovation" literature (the macro side of knowledge creation and the acceptance of innovations throughout markets and societies) and the "buyer-behavior" model (the micro view of individual decision making about products), which are prevalent in marketing. A significant difference between marketing and entrepreneurship is that diffusion of innovation marketing research has been focused on individual products rather than on the diffusion of new ventures. Hills and LaForge review product characteristics that affect consumer acceptance of innovations. These include the relative advantage (the extent to which consumers view a new product as superior to an existing one), compatibility (the extent to which the product is consistent with their current values), complexity (the extent to which the product is difficult to understand), trial-ability (the degree to which customers can try a new product on a limited basis), observability (the extent to which the benefits can be easily seen), and finally, perceived risk. As Hills and LaForge say,

Although the importance of these product characteristics

borders on being intuitively obvious, systematic and creative

attention to these factors can be critical to the success of

designing effective marketing strategies for new ventures.