S7.~verY SELF-ACTUALIZATION: THE ZENITH OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP James W. Carland, Jr. Jo Ann C. Carland James W. (Trey) Carland, III Western Carolina University ABSTRACT This paper presents entrepreneurship literature which supports a treatment of entrepreneurial drive as a cominuum. Behavioral differences among entrepreneurs are presented and examinedin the light of Mas!ow's hierarchy of needs. The two perspectives are linked by a perspective of entrepreneurial activity as a vehicle which can support one' advancement through all levels of the hierarchy. This perspective is examined empirically with a database of 156 entrepreneurs, and the authors conclude that the respondentsin this study who displayed higher entrepreneurial drive did view their businesses as vehicles for achieving self esteem and self arxualization, Those respondents displaying lower entrepreneurial drive viewed their firms as vehicles for providing basic financial needs. INTRODUCTION What makes one person choose entrepreneurship and another person choose the corporate ladder? What makes one entrepreneur content with a neighborhood store while another takes the business public? These are questions which have fascinated researchers for decades. There are no definitive answers. In fact, there is no generally accepted deiiniuon of the words "entrepreneur" or "entrepreneurship." Without that basic level of agreement, the earlier questions seem unanswerable. DEFINITIONAL ISSUES The controversy over the definition of entrepreneurship and the identification of entrepreneurs has been played out in the literature (Gartner, 1988; Carland, Hoy and Carland, 1988). Since McClelland (1961) much of the controversy has centered on the individual who creates a venture. A plethora of articles focussing on personal characteristics has emerged (i.e., Pickle, 1964; Homaday & Aboud, 1971; Timmons, 1978; Brockhaus, 1980; Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1982; Brockhaus & Horwitz, 1986; Carsrud, Olm & Eddy, 1986; McClelland, 1987; Solomon & Winslow, 1988; Winslow &. Solomon, 1989; Carland &. Carland, 1991) and several attempts have been made to establish a definition of the term entrepreneur (Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984). Nevertheless, no consensus definition has emerged (Shaver & Scott, 1991). Researchers have been like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant. Some researchers think entrepreneurs are like ropes, others like trees, and still others like snakes. Many researchers have approached this absence of a consensus by positing types of emrepreneurs (i.e., Smith, 1967; Webster, 1977; DeCarlo & Lyons, 1979; Vesper, 1980; 63 Mescon &. Montanari, 1981; McClelland, 1987; Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck & Stoto, 1989; Gartner, Mitchell & Vesper, 1989). Other researchers have discussed the limitations inherent in such approaches (Wortman, 1987; Shaver & Scott. 1991) and some have attacked the validity of the approach entirely (Gartner, 1988). Some researchers seem to have totally abandoned the pursuit of a definition as impossible (Mitton, 1989) while others decry the need to shift focus from the individual to the entrepreneurial process (Bygrave & Hofer, 1991)and still others fear that even should one develop an understanding of the personality of an entrepreneur that would not be valuable since individual behavior is not consistent over ume nor can personality units predict behavior (Gartner, 1989). How is it that so many learned people can look at entrepreneurs and the process of venture crcauon and see so many different entities? Not only have resuhs been contradictory (i.e., Brockhaus, 1982; Gasse, 1982) but sometimes it has seemed that the individuals and issues under study were aberrant (i.e., Ket de Vries, 1985; Winslow & Solomon, 1987; 1989). Some researchers have suggested that the difference in vision occurs because of a difference in mcasurcment inswments (Sexton & Bowman, 1984; 1985). Others have posited that the groups of people under study differed significantly in characteristics and behavior (VanderWerf & Brush, 1989). Is it importam to pursue this issue of definitional conflict? These authors think that it is and so do many other researchers. The failure to establish definitions has disrupted the evolution of a framework for the enuepreneurship discipline (VanderWerf &. Brush, 1989; Bygrave & Hofer, 1991) and has resulted in efforts to examine the entrepreneurial process from social (Reynolds, 1991), anthropological (Stewart, 1991), economic (Kirchoff, 1991), svategic management (Sandberg, 1992) and other approaches. Ail of these approaches are valuable and greatly advance the field but the fact remains that entrepreneurship is unique among organizational and economic functions in that it is initiated by an act of human volition (Hofer & Bygrave, 1992). It is this intentionality that distinguishes the enuepreneur (Bird & Ielinek, 1988). If one wishes to understand the entrepreneurial process, one must understand the role of the individual in triggering that process (Carland, Hoy & Carland, 1988). Consider for a moment the tacit assumptions of the definitional debate. Virtually all of the empirical investigations assume that entrepreneurship is a discontinuous function. Many authors (i.e., McClelland, 1961; Mancuso, 1975; Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984) discuss entrepreneurs contrasted against other groups. Others (i.e., Webster, 1977; Dunkelberg, & Cooper, 1982; Vesper, 1980; 1990) categorize enuepreneurs as falling in one of several classificauons. The former school incorporates a tacit assumption that one either is, or is not, an entrepreneur: a dichotomous condition. The latter school is based on a tacit perspective that entrepreneurs describe a step function: a discontinuous disuit&ution. What if those axioms are invalid? Carland (1982) suggested that entrepreneurship might actually be a continuum. II't is, then much of the conflict in findings and many of the anomalies could be explained: the people under investigation in all of the studies shared entrepreneurial tendencies but not in the same intensity. Carland, Carland and Hoy (1992) presented an index of entrepreneurial drive which showed precisely that: entrepreneurship is a continuous function. The function is a personality trait or drive which is translated into a need to create or create and grow a business venture. If that perspective is correct, could it lead to answers to the earlier questions? 54 BEHAVIORAL ISSUES The real differences in entrepreneurs are behavioral in nature. A local hardware store with which the authors are familiar was owned and operated by the same man for 30 years. The store provided a comfortable income for the entrepreneur and his family, but it neither grew nor changed in 15 years. Now the second generation management is taking over the store and the new owner is phasing out lumber and changing the focus to lawn and garden care. Another business owner with whom we are familiar started with one convenience store 15 years ago. He now has a dozen convenience stores and has branched out into restaurants. These observations are not unique. Any student of entrepmneurship can recite a dozen stories about entrepreneurs who have kept their businesses small and under tight control and a dozen more who have pursued growth and expansion, sometimes at high cost. The time and energy which is required to govern a business expansion can take a toll on one's family and health. Why is the behavior so different? Talk to the entrepreneurs and some will describe the freedom which business ownership provides; freedom to pursue family life or hobbies. Others will talk about the challenges which business ownership offers; challenges against which one can measure one's ability. The first school seems to see the business as a means to an end. The second school seems to see the business as an end in itself. That is, some entrepreneurs pursue financial comfort while others pursue something more. Combining observations of entrepreneurial behavior with the perspective of entrepreneurial drive as a conunuum leads one to think that business owners at various points along the continuum seem to be motivated by different things. The psychology literature is rich in evidence of behavioral differences among people in different circumstances. In fact, ihat literature may hold the key to the behavioral differences among entrepreneurs. MASLOW'S HIERARCHY Mastow (1943, 1971)posited that individuals were motivated by a hierarchy of needs. At the lowest level are security needs, followed at increasingly higher levels by needs for social acceptance, then for self-esteem, culminating in needs for self-actualization. The hierarchy of needs suggests that individuals advance from basic needs like food, shelter and comfort, to higher levels of needs including social acceptance, self esteem and self actualimdon. This difference in motivation seems to hold promise for explaining behavioral distincuons among enuepreneurs. Entrepreneurial behavior is somewhat unique in human society in that it leads to the creation of a business venture. This venture has the potential to provide for ihe basic needs of the individual who establishes or operates the organization. Further, the business venture can also satisfy higher level needs of individuals, including the need for selt'-actualization. In fact, entrepreneurial activity seems to be ideally suited to support an individual's advancement through the entire hierarchy of needs. That is, cnvepreneurship can provide the financial means to achieve basic needs, but it can also provide a vehicle by which an individual can obtain social acceptance and self esteem by providing an opportunity to create a lasting and highly visible institution. Further, an individual could perceive his or her success in business as the zenith of self actualization. 55 Combining this perspective with the postulate of a continuum of entrepreneurial drive, the authors speculate that it may well be that the differences in observed behavior of entrepreneurs and the processes which they pursue in creating, managing and growing their ventures are a function of their vision of the venture and the purpose it serves in their personal pursuit of self actualization. Specifically, we hypothesize that entrepreneurs with weaker entrepreneurial drive will be more likely to view their businesses as vehicles for satisfying basic needs. Their behavior will be characterized by strategies which keep tight control over the business and translate into keeping it small and manageable. Other entrepreneurs, those with strong drive, will exhibit different behavior. They will view their businesses as devices which can provide a sense of self esteem and even self actualization. They will pursue strategies which are aimed at growth and expansion. Testing that hypothesis is the purpose of this research. THE EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION T~ThS i The authors prepared a survey which included demographic questions and an instrument which examined the strength of the entrepreneurial drive. The survey contained a second instrument which was designed to measure the hierarchical drives of each respondent in terms of his or her view of the business venture. A copy of this instrument, referred to as the Satisfaction Index, is displayed in Appendix A. The perspective was measured in terms of the Maslow hierarchy by examining the role of the business in each individual's pursuit of basic needs, social acceptance, self esteem and self actualization. The Carland Entrepreneurship Index was employed to identify the strength of an individual's entrepreneurial drive. The Index consists of 33 paiis of statements in a forced choice format. The instrument requires less than 10 minutes to complete, can be scored by untrained administrators, and results in a sealer score which can be interpreted as a representation of thc strength of onc's enuepreneurial drive. The test-retest correlation for the Entrepreneurship Index was .80 with a split-half, odd-even reliability of .73. The Kuder- Richardson test I'or validity was .73 indicating good reliability and validity statistics for the Index (Carland, Carland, sk Hoy, 1992). T~SS The survey was convenience based. The authors used students to distribute and collect questionnaires. Students approached business owners whom they knew or with whom they had some contact: present or former employers, relatives, friends, etc. Students collected information over semester breaks and holidays principally from their hometowns. Consequently, the data was collected over a period of three months primarily from people located in the Southeastern United States. Since the data was collected through personal approaches, there was a high level of participation. Fewer than 5% of those approached declined to participate. The result was that data was collected from individuals who might not have responded to a questionnaire by mail. Accordingly, nonresponse bias was virtually nonexistem. The resulting database contained 156 usable surveys. The sample of respondents was a convenience sample, however, it was sufficiently large as to eliminate most criticism 56 since the central limit theorem holds that larger samples approach representation of the population mean (Mason, 1982). Details of the demographics of the respondents are displayed in Table I. Every respondent was a full time manager of a business in which he or she was a principal owner. Every business was independently owned and operated. Further, each business was classified small according to the Small Business Administration guidelines. T~hA The first step of the analysis consisted of a factor analysis of the questions in the Satisfaction Index. The analysis used four principal components because the theoretical composition of the instrument involved questions on each of the four characteristics of Maslow's hierarchy. The matrix was rotated using the varimax procedure. The results are displayed in Table 2. As the table indicates, the original instrument performed well with the exception of four questions, one of which failed to load at the .4 level, and three of which loaded on more than one factor at the .4 level. Those questions were eliminated and the remaining groupings were examined to determine whether the questions were consistent in measuring one of the Maslow characteristics. Each of the questions remaining in the four groups were consistent in their theoretical orientation. Consequently, the questions were formed into four models, displayed in the Table, to establish a measure for each of the characteristics. The next phase of the analysis involved preparing a correlation of the entrepreneurship index which measures the strength of the entrepreneurial drive and the four Maslow models derived from the factor analysis. The results are displayed in Table 3. As the table shows, the basic needs model was inversely correlated with entrepreneurial drive. The social acceptance model was not significantly related to entrepreneurial drive. Finally, the self esteem and self actualization models were significantly correlated to the svength of entrepreneurial drive. The highest correlation occurred between the index and self actualization. CONCLUSIONS The authors conclude that the respondents in this study who displayed higher entrepreneurial drive did view their businesses as vehicles for achieving self esteem and self actualization. Those respondents displaying lower entrepreneurial drive viewed their lirms as vehicles for providing basic financial needs. The respondents did not view their businesses as a lens for social acceptance. Entrepreneurs are known to display internal locus of control (Borland, 1974). For such people social acceptance is less imponant than self esteem. The findings of this study are consistent with that perspective. 57 TABLE I DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 156 RESPONDENTS Type of Business Retail 46Vo Service 319o Wholesale 31o Construction 89o Manufamuring 10rg Other 19o Annual Sales $ 100,000 or less 35'yo $ 100,000 to $250,000 199o $250,000 to $500,000 14'yo $500,000 to $ 1,000,000 129a $ 1,000,000 to $5,000,000 10% $5,000,000 and over 79o Number of Employees 10 or less 7tyyo 11 to 50 199a 51 to 100 59o 101 or morc 49o Business Form Proprietorship 419o Partnership 159o Corporation 4tyyo Age of the Business 5 years or less 44Fo 5 to 10 years 249o 10 to 15 years I tyyo More than 15 years 239o Scx of Respondents Male 719o Female 299o Race of Respondents Majority 819o Minority 189o Agc of Respondents Under 30 years 169o 31 to 40 years 22'yo 41 to 50 years 369o 51 to 60 years 199o Over 60 years 69o Educauon of 12 years or less 269o Respondents 12 to 15 years 219o 16 years 319o more than 16 years 219o 58 TABLE 2 ROTATED LOADINGS FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS QUESTION NO, FACI'OR I FACIOR 2 FACI'OR 3 FACI'OR 4 4 .739 .224 .064 .072 5 -.646 .107 .135 .078 3 522 .134 .026 .395 16 -.153 .762 -.141 .176 ll .122 .698 .208 .006 10 .103 .610 .333 -.002 13 .091 566 —.213 .461 14 .347 307 .170 .198 1 .108 .239 .762 -.027 12 .389 —.248 $ 14 .246 6 .418 .097 .040 .703 8 -.073 .078 -.021 .688 7 .385 .164 .083 .650 9 -.255 -.031 .484 .447 15 .479 .171 .158 .330 2 -.283 .208 .385 -.143 Percent of Variance 14.34a 14.6% 9.69o 13.9% Explained MODFL DRAWN FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS BASIC NEEDS QUESTION I + 12 SOCIAL ACCEirfANCE QUESTION 3+ 4+ 5+ 15 SELF ESTEEM QUESTION 10 + 11 + 14 + 16 SELF ACI'UALllMllON QUESTION 7 + 8 Questions which failed to load at the .4 level (Quesuon 2) and questions which loaded on more than one factor at the .4 level (Questions 6, 9, and 13) were eliminated from the model. Remaining questions were grouped by loading factor. Factors were linked to the Maslow hierarchy by examining grouped questions to determine the appropriate Maslow characteristic. 59 TABLE 3 PEARSON CORRELATION MATRIX N = 156 INDEX BASIC SOCIAL SELF SELF NEEDS ACFfNCE ESTEEM ACTLZTON ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX 1.000 BASIC NEEDS -.229 1.000 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE .128 .286 1.000 SELF ESTEEM .190 .215 .361 1.000 SELF ACTUALIZATION .327 .177 .324 .244 1.000 BARTLETI'HI-SQUARE STATISTIC: 96.3, DF=10, PROBABILITY = .000 MATRIX OF PROBABILITIES INDEX BASIC SOCIAL SELF SELF NEEDS ACPTNCE ESTEEM ACI'LZTON ENTREPRENEURSHIP INDEX .000 BASIC NEEDS .004 .000 SOCIAL ACCEFFANCE .112 .000 .000 SELF ESTEEM .017 .007 .000 .000 SELF ACTUALIZATION .000 .027 .000 .002 .000 A MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP If one accepts that enaepreneurship is a drive which is stronger in some people and weaker in others, and that strongly driven entrepreneurs view their businesses as lenses for achieving self esteem and self actualirrttion, a model can be developed linking enaepreneurship to individual motivation. Consider that in some individuals the entrepreneurial drive is not strong enough to ever trigger thc establishment of a business venture. Such people will look to corporate employment or other forms of employment in order to satisfy their basic needs for security. These people may, or may not, see their carccrs as vehicles for ascending the hierarchy of needs. In other people the entrepreneurial drive may be strong enough to trigger involvement in business ownership if, and when, an opportunity presents iuelf; in sull others the drive may be so suong as to make business ownership inevitable. The strength 60 of the drive might dictate how stmng the circumstances surrounding an opportunity would have to be in order to trigger venture creation or entrepreneurial activity. Initially, all entrepreneurs may see their ventures as the vehicle for achieving the first level of need: security. The higher the entrepreneurial drive, the less important that need becomes and the more likely individuals are to perceive their ventures as devices for ascending the hierarchy of needs. Those individuals with the strongest drive see entrepreneurial activity as the mechanism for achieving self-actualization. This model is depicted in graphic form in Appendix B. The model explains that some entrepreneurs will be satisfied with simply providing family income while others will strive to take their ventures public and sull others will be consumed by the effort to achieve industry domination. The personal goals which an individual entrepreneur pursues will be a function of the suength of that individual's entrepreneurial drive. No two entrepreneurs will be alike nor is there any likelihood that they will operate their businesses in a similar fashion. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH lf the findings of this study are sustained by future research, they have the potential to lead to the establishment of a model of enuepreneurship which effectively links the role of individual initiative to the process of venture creation, management and growth. The results could end the debate between trait researchers and process researchers by providing a concrete and measurable link between the two. The results could explain the diversity of behavior which is observed among entrepreneurs and provide a vehicle for the more successful support and understanding of entrepreneurship in its various manifestations. This research suggests that entrepreneurs initiate ventures, institute management processes and growth strategies, in direct proportion to the strength of their entrepreneurial drive. This relationship derives its power from the propensity of more highly driven entrepreneurs to view their businesses as vehicles for achieving self esteem and self actualization. Entrepreneurs with lower levels of drive are more apt to view life outside their businesses as vehicles for self esteem and self actualization, thereby relegating their businesses to a less important role in their lives. h is this difference in perspective which translates into a dif(ercnce in process and behavior. 61 REFERENCES Bld,B.B.M.I II h. (1988) Th p I f p dig d,~ghi: T~hd P I, 13 (2), Wl . 21-36. 8 I d.C.(1974)l fC I ~ dp Ah) ~dE h).Q Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Brockhaus, R.H. (1980) Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academ of Mana emen Journal, 23(3), 509-520. Brockhaus, R.H. (1982) Psychology of the entrepreneur. In Kent, Sexton, Vesper (Eds), Enc clo ia of Entre reneurshi, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 39-57. Brockhaus, R.H. & P.S. Horwitx (1986) The psychology of the entrepreneur, In D.L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (eds.) The A d Science f Entre reneurshi, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 2548. Bfg, W.Q.B.C.W.B f (1991) Th ' g I p hip, E~hi ~Th d P, 16 (2). W «. 13-22. Carland, J.W. (1982) Enucprencurship in a small business setting: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia. Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Bouhon, W.R. & Carland, J.A, (1984) Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners. The Academ of Mana cment Review, 9(2), April, 354- 359. Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., & Carland, J.A. (1988) Who is an Emrepreneur? Is a Question Worth Asking. American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), Spring, 33-39. Carland, J.W. & Carland, J.A. (1991) An Empirical Investigation into the Distinctions Between Male and Female Entrepreneurs and Managers. International Journal of Small Business, 9(3), April-)une, 62-72. Carlan&l, J.W., J.A. Carland, & F. Hoy (1992) An entrcprcncurship index: An empirical validation, Paper prescntcd at the Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, Fontainebleau, France, July. Carsrud, A.L., K.W. Olm, & G.G. Eddy (1986) Entrepreneurship: Research in quest of a paradigm, In D.L. Sexton & R.W. Smilor (eds.) The Art and Science of8~hi . C 6 'dg . MA: Bdl g, 367-37)1. DeCarlo, J. & Lyons, P.R. Comparison of personal characteristics of minority and non-minority female entrepreneurs, Journal of Small Business Mana ement, 1979, Dcc, 22-29. Dunkelbcrg, W.C. & Cooper, A.C. (1982) Entrepreneurial typologies. In K. Vesper (Ed), Frontiers of Entre rcneurshi, Wellesley, Ma: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, 1-15.Q, W.B. (19(lg) "Wh 1. E p ." I«h W g Q, ~A ol'mall Business, Spring, 12(4), 11-32. Gartner, W.B. (1989) Some suggestions for research on enucpreneurial traits and characteristics, Entre rencurshi Theo and Practice, 14 (I), Fall, 27-38. Ganncr, W.B., T.R. Mitchell, & K.H. Vesper (1989) A taxonomy of new business ventures, Journal f B sin ss V nt rin, 4 (3), 169-186, Gassc, Y. (1982) Elaborations on the psychology of the entrepreneur, In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, & K.H. Vesper,(eds.) Enc clo iaof Entre rene rshi, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 57-71. 62 H f, C.W. 6 W.P. Byg . (1992) R hl ~ * p hip, ~ghi ~yh 6 P . 16 (3). Sp g. 91-1(6. Hornaday, J.A. &. Aboud, J. (1971) Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Personal P~hl, 24, 141-133. Ket de Vries, M.F.R. (1985) The darkside of entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review, 85 (6), 160-167. 6 hh ff. B.A. (1991) E p hip'6 . E~hi: T~hd P I, 16 (2), Wl, 93-112. Louis, K.SM D. Blumenthal, M.E. Gluck, &. M.A. Stoto (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists, Administrative Science uarterl, 34 110-131. Mancuso, J.R. (1975) The entrepreneurs'uiz, Entre ene rshi an Ventur MMM* * H gl ~:P«l -H II. Maslow, A.H. (1943) Behavior and motivation, Ps chosomatic Medicine, 5, 85-92. Maslow, A.H. (1971) The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: The Viking Press. Mason, R.D. (1982) Statistical Techni ues in Business and Economics (5th Ed). Homewood, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achievin Societ . Princeton: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D.C. (1987) Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Journal of Creative Behavior, 21, 219-233. Mcscon, T.S. & J.R. Montanari (1981) The personalities of independent and franchised entrepreneurs, Academ of Mana ement Proceedin s, 413-317. Miuon, D.G. (1989) The compleat entrepreneur, Entre reneurshi Theo and Practice, 13 (3), Spring, 9-20. Pickle, H.B. (1964) Personality and success: An evaluation of personal characteristics of successl'ul small business managers, Small Business Research Series No 4. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Reynolds, P.D. (1991) Sociology and entrepreneurship: Concepts and contributions, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 16 (2), Winter, 47-70. Sandberg, W.R. (1992) Strategic management's potential contributions to a theory of entrepreneurship, Enve reneurshi Theo and Practice, 16 (3), Spring, 73-90. Sexton, D.L. &. N.B. Bowman (1984) Personality inventory for potential entrepreneurs: Evaluation of a modified JPI/PRF/E test instrument, Paper presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Conference, Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Sexton, D.L. &. N.B. Bowman (1985) The entrepreneur: A capable executive and more, Journal of Business Venturin, I, 129-140. Shaver, K.G. & L.R. Scott. (1991) Person, process, choice: The psychology of ncw venture creation, Entre reneurshi Theo and Practice, 16 (2), Winter, 23-46. Smith, N. (1967) The Entre reneur and His Firm The Relationshi Between T of Man ~dy fC . E 6 g. Mlhlg S C I ly. Solomon, G.T. &. E.K. Winslow (1988) Toward a descriptive profile of the enuepreneur, Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 162-171. S .A.(1991) Ap p«h h p I gy f p hip. ~EWii:T~hP I . 16 (2) Wl, 71-92. Timmons, J.A. (1978) Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship, American Journal of Small Business, 3, 5-17. 63 VanderWerf, P.A. & C.G. Brush. (1989) Achieving empirical progress in an undelined field, Entre reneurshi Theo and Practice, 14 (2), Winter, 45-58. Vesper, K.H. (1980) New Venture Suate ies, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Webster, F.A. (1977) Entrepreneurs and Ventures: An Attempt at Classification and Clarification, Academ of Mana ement Review, 2(1), 54-61. Winslow, E.K. & G.T. Solomon (1987) Entrepreneurs are more than nonconformists: They are mildly sociopathic, Journal of Creative Behavior, 21(3), 202-213. Winslow, E.K. & G.T. Solomon (1989) Further development of a descriptive profile of entrepreneurs, Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 149-161. Wortman, M.S. (1987) Entrepreneurship: An integrating typology and evaluation of the empirical research in the field, Journal of Mana ement, 13, 259-279. 64 APPENDIX A SATISFACTION INDEX FOR BUSINESS OWNERS Circle CD if you completely disagree with the statement; CA if you completely agree; SD if you strongly disagree: SA if you suongly agree; D if you disagree; A if you agree; or NO for no opinion. I. I run this company to support myself and my family............................CD SD D NO A SA CA 2. I would sell my company if I could obtain a beuer paying job with another company ....,.....CD SD D NO A SA CA 3. I run this company because of the personal satisfaction I gct from my work .................CD SD D NO A SA CA 4. I run this company because I think it makes an important contribution to my community .........CD SD D NO A SA CA 5. My contributions to my community are not related to my company ...................CD SD D NO A SA CA 6. I enjoy what I am doing with my company..........CD SD D NO A SA CA 7. Owning this company gives me a sense of pride ........................CDSD DNOASACA 8. I would like to see my company grow and become dominam in its industry ...,...,,........CD SD D NO A SA CA 9. I would prefer to have complete oversight of the daily operations of my company ............CD SD D NO A SA CA 10. My reputation in the community is based on my ownership of this company................CD SD D NO A SA CA 11. My accomplishments are defined by my business ......................CD SD D NO A SA CA 12. My primary source of satisfaction is my family and/or friends ......CD SD D NO A SA CA 13. My primary goal is to achieve higher levels of success with my company ...,,,,........CD SD D NO A SA CA 14, Ownership of this company gives me feelings of security....................CD SD D NO A SA CA 15. I feel that my company is recognized as making a contribution........... CD SD D NO A SA CA 16. My business is my life . CD SD D NO A SA CA 65 APPENDIX B A MODEL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP Inputs Goals Outcomes Strength of Goal of Approach to Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Strategy Drive Activity Development Make the Venture High Self-Actualization Dominant in its Market or Industry Make the Venture Self-Esteem Grow and Become Highly Successful Make the Venture Low Security a Small and Stable Income Producer 66