The different types of entrepreneurs and their fit
with firms and markets
By Marc van der Meulen
1.1 Introduction
Entrepreneurship is a very interesting subject for researchers these days. According to Stevenson (2006), the number of entrepreneurial ventures in the United States (US) doubled the last 10 years. He also states that there is a huge growth in the amount of capital that is flowing to young and new firms. For larger firms intrepreneurship is getting more interesting. Because of these facts it is important and interesting to find out what the important aspects of an entrepreneurial firm are. For example, research shows that business plans should be followed to get better results (Karlsson & Honig, 2009), entrepreneurs can create or discover opportunities (Alvarez & Barney, 2007) and that entrepreneurs can make use of causation or effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001). Another subject in the research about entrepreneurship is the personality of an entrepreneur. There are several reasons why it is important to know more about this phenomenon. First, it could benefit in finding potential entrepreneurs, that could be successful to start their own business. Second, it can help potential stakeholders to get clear whether they want to do business with an entrepreneur or not. Finally, it can reduce risk for banks and financial capitalists. That is why the focus of this research will be on the
personality of the entrepreneur.
1.2 Research goal
As stated before, entrepreneurship can be very broad and different. According to Miner (1997) every entrepreneur is different and has his own characteristics. However, not only entrepreneurs differ from one another. According to Miller (1983; 1987) firms and markets can also differ. He states that the potential of every type of entrepreneur is different. The potential of every type correlates with criteria like venture creation, economic growth and occupational success. There has to be a fit between the things an entrepreneur is capable of and the circumstances. He also concludes that successful entrepreneurship is not only growth or profit, but can also be the job itself and life satisfaction. This interesting fit, Miner talks about, is the focus of this research. Therefore, the main goal of this research is:
potential entrepreneurs to know which type of entrepreneurs fits in which situation. With the right information they can search for the right firm and market and create a good fit with their personality. It can also help existing entrepreneurs to get information about their pitfalls and which characteristics they need in their firms and markets. In this research we will use several theories to define three types of variables: type of entrepreneur, type of firm and type of market. Littunen (2000) writes that typical characteristics of successful entrepreneurs are the ability to take risks, innovativeness, knowledge and skills, and the ability to co-operate. However, this is a fairly broad definition of an entrepreneurial type. Therefore, this research will define several types of entrepreneurs and describe their differences. Each of these types has their own characteristics. The same thing will be done for types of firms and types of markets. To define these types we will make use of several theories of researchers in the past and present.
1.3 Research methodology
This research will be done in a qualitative way. According to Shiny (2013) this is a good way to describe the variables, to connect them with each other, and interpret them. This way we can explore the relations between types of entrepreneurs, firms and markets. The research question of this paper is open and broad. The qualitative way will give us more insight into the research goal. For a quantitative method we need more existing information about this subject. The fit we are investigating in this research is fairly new and therefore a quantitative method is hard to use. We will create a discussion where we will compare theory with practical information.
Through interviews with entrepreneurs we collect information about the type of firms and markets. With help of entrepreneurial scans we collect information about the type of entrepreneurs. The collected information will give an insight into which relations there are between the three variables. The results from the interviews and scans will be compared with our own insights from the literature. The entrepreneurial scan we use is the scan defined by Driessen and Zwart (2006). The interview is conducted by ourselves.
2. Theory
2.1 Types of entrepreneurs
In the following paragraph six theories will be used to explore the variable 'type of entrepreneur'. The authors are Smith (1967), Donkels and Frohlich (1991), Miner (1997), Muller and Gappisch (2005), Driessen and Zwart (2006) and Jung (1921).
Joseph Schumpeter (1934) was one of the first economists who investigated entrepreneurs, and looked to their characteristics. Although he did not distinguish different types of entrepreneurs, he already had the idea that entrepreneurs where different. Entrepreneurs are leaders and are driven by autonomy and have success, according to Schumpeter. After years, other economists like McCelland (1961) and Brockhaus (1982) started to investigate the entrepreneur and found out that entrepreneurs are willing to take risks, have a high need of achievement, locus of control and take responsibility for success or failure. Stevenson (2006) states that searching for one psychological profile is bound to fail. Building on this statement of Stevenson, several types of entrepreneurs will be described in this section. Each of these types will have their own characteristics. At the end, four types will be selected carefully which will be used for the variable 'type of entrepreneur'. The choice of four types is based on the fact that most of the theories describe four types and the more types you distinguish the harder it is to place entrepreneurs under the right type.
Smith
One of the first researchers that distinguished types of entrepreneurs was Smith in 1967. In the research of Smith we find 2 types of entrepreneurs. Through empirical analysis Smith conducted two ideal types: the craftsman entrepreneur and the opportunistic entrepreneur. The craftsman entrepreneur is more focussed on the present and past, is not really confident and hardly flexible. The opportunistic entrepreneur has more confidence and is really flexible. He also looks at the future and has social skills.
Donkels and Fröhlich
all-round type acts like a designer, accountant, salesman and foreman by himself. He is versatile, can do a lot of things by himself. The pioneer is the most creative of the four types. Innovation is important for this type of entrepreneurs. The routineer is the most careful entrepreneur of these types. He does not like risk and is therefore cautious. The organizer is mostly rational, organized and analytical. He can be seen as an administrative type. Figure 1 gives a complete overview:
Miner
Important research has also been done by Miner (1997). He did research to types of entrepreneurs and found some interesting things. Miner states that every entrepreneur is different and an individual that follows his own path. Someone who wants to start as an entrepreneur has to ask the question: do I have what it takes to become a successful entrepreneur. However, as Miner states, there is not just one kind of person who has the potential to succeed as an entrepreneur. Rather there are four types with all their own
improve products, following their intuition. The emphatic salesperson is interested in building relationships and creating commitment. They are communicatively strong and they know how to convince people. Most of the time these types of entrepreneurs are extravert. Figure 2 gives an overview.
Muller and Gappisch
A more recent research about types of entrepreneurs is the research of Muller and Gappisch (2005). They make use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Gartner and Martinko, 1996; Reynierse, 1997) and identify four entrepreneurial personalities: The extraverted, the intuitive, the tough-minded and the maladapted type. Extraverted types value interpersonal relations in the business environment, according to Muller and Gappisch. Employees, subordinates and customers are really important for those types. The intuitive type stands for innovation and creativity. They try to look for new techniques and products. Tough-minded types
communicate on an impersonal way, are analytical and objective. The last type is
Driessen and Zwart
Jung
From another perspective we introduce the color theory of Jung (1921) described by Cambell (2004). He is the founder of the analytical psychology. He created theories which divided people into four categories. His studies were not specifically on entrepreneurs but more on personalities of people. But the types he describes are interesting and useful for this research, because it has similarities with entrepreneurial types and it can help us to get a better view of a type of entrepreneur. Jung divides people into four categories: red, yellow, green, and blue. Each category has its own traits and pitfalls. The red type is full of energy, extravert, a fast thinker, rational, and competitive. Red people don't like to get their time wasted, they have no patience. They want to be in control. Yellow people are more enthusiastic and social.
Relationships are important and they are very good at imagining things. Pitfalls of a yellow person are conversations that are impersonal and people that inhibit their creativity. Green personalities like informal things and are very relaxed. A good working climate is important. They can feel when something is wrong. Green personalities don't like to be in the spotlights, or being pushed. Last but not least, we have the blue people. Blue people are analytical and think before they make a decision. They take their time and think about everything. Blue people do not like it when people are late, or unorganized. It is also hard to deal with emotions for a blue person. An overview is shown in Figure 6.
background, but can form a good team with other employees in the business. Blue people work very precise and careful, and can take responsibility within a firm.
2.2 Creating type of entrepreneur variable
As stated above, there has been a lot of research to define types of entrepreneurs. In most of the theories the author distinguishes four types of entrepreneurs. There are a lot of similarities in the theories discussed above. According to Muller and Gappisch (2005), their four types can be compared to the four types of Miner. If we compare these types we see similarities between the types of both theories. The extraverted type of Gappisch and Muller has similarities with the empathic salesperson of Miner. Both are social, and build interpersonal relations. The intuitive type can be compared to the expert idea generator. They are creative, innovative and follow their intuition. The tough-minded type has characteristics from both the real manager and the personal achiever. All three, they are formal in their communication. The maladapted type is hard to compare, according to Muller and Gappisch.
Next, we add the model of Driessen and Zwart, to compare the pioneer, the salesman, the manager and the expert with the types we already discussed. The pioneer can been seen as the intuitive, expert idea generator type. 'Creative' and 'intuitive' are keywords for these three type that look like each other. The salesman looks like the extraverted, empathic salesperson. Keywords for this type are 'social' and 'building relations'. The expert has similarities with the tough-minded, personal achiever type. They are analytic, realistic and have self-confidence. The manager can be compared to the real manager. They like to organize things and are formal. We keep the maladapted type out of this comparison because it is hard to define and it cannot be placed right.
Donkels and Fröhlich (1991) have two types that fit perfectly into the types we already analysed. The pioneer can be placed at the same spot as the pioneer from Driessen and Zwart (2006). They are creative and innovative. The organizer can be compared to the expert, tough-minded, personal achiever type. They are all analytic and organized.
manager is all-round, which means he has a few aspects of all the colors. Green aspects like 'encouragement' and red aspects like 'determination' and 'strong will' are common.
2.3 Types of Firms
The following variable we describe is 'type of firm'. We make use of six theories, out of the research of Perrow (1967), Miles and Snow (1978),Mintzberg (1980), Miller (1983), Porter (1998) and Parnell (2006). The types of firms are distinguished based on several things. For example technology (Perrow), strategy (Miles and Snow) and structure (Mintzberg). In this paragraph these options will be discussed. Important to say is the fact that some
characteristics that are found in this paragraph can also be seen as characteristics of markets. A clear example is Parnell, which make use of market characteristics. We are aware of this fact and take it into account when we find results and draw conclusions.
Perrow
Perrow distinguishes 4 types: Routine, non- routine, craft and engineering. All types have their own characteristics. You can find routine tasks in a stable environment where technology is highly mechanized. On the other hand we have non routine tasks. These are changing all the time, uncertain and complex and the technology is not mechanized. Craft tasks are not very analysable but there are not many exceptions. It is hard to find the solutions for these few problems. Engineering tasks are variable but easily analysable. A good structure and standardisation helps to find the solution.
Miles and Snow
Miles and Snow (1978) classified firms in a different way. They looked at the strategy of the firms, looked which decisions they make. They designed a theoretical framework that deals with ways organizations define their product-market domains and the structure of the firm to use their strategy. The framework distinguishes 4 types of firms: defenders, prospectors, analysers and reactors.
• Defenders: Stability is the keyword for defenders. They stick to their plan, focussing on a narrow segment of the total market. They produce only a limited set of products. They act aggressive against competitors. With high quality products and competitive pricing they try to keep competitors out of their market segment. Innovation,
development and trends are not interesting for defenders when they are out of their segment. They keep focussing on their own segment.
• Prospectors: The prospector is in a lot of ways totally different from the defender. Instead of focussing on a few products and keep stable, the prospector tries to
innovate, find and explore new products and opportunities. Keeping their reputation as a good innovator is sometimes more important than profitability.
• Analysers: The analyser can be seen as a combination of the prospector and defender and an alternative for those two types. The analyser wants to minimize his risk while he is maximizing his profit. He tries to find balance between both types, copying the best things of both.
response mechanism so it is not pro-active with respect to their environment. Their respond is inappropriately.
Mintzberg
An important research in the area of organizations has been done by Henry Mintzberg in 1980. His focus is more on the structure of an organization. He started with five basic parts of an organization. These parts are: the operating core, the strategic apex, the middle line, the technostructure, and the support staff. With these parts a basic structure of an organization can be created. This is illustrated in figure 9:
Building on these basic parts Mintzberg defined 5 types of firms. In every type, one basic part has the most influence which leads to a type of firm:
• Simple structure type: The influence of the strategic apex in strong, which leads to centralization. The strategic apex has control over decision making.
• Machine bureaucracy: In this type the technostructure is leading. Limited decentralization and a lot of standardization.
• Professional bureaucracy: The operating core is in front, try to minimize influence of administrators, managers and analysers over their work. They like horizontal and vertical decentralization.
• Adhocracy: The support staff has the most influence in this type, not when it is autonomous but when its collaboration is called for decision making, owing to its expertise.
Miller
Miller did some research in 1983 to define organizations. He came with three types of firms: the simple firm, the planning firm and the organic firm. A simple firm is a small firm owned by an owner-manager. The power is centralized at the top of the firm. The firms is dealing with a homogeneous environment. These firms make strategy based on intuitive rather than analytical basis. Time is short, there is not much planning. The planning firm is totally different. Planning is important and leads to efficiency. Stability is important and one tries to ban uncertainty. In the organic firm 'environment' and 'structure' are key words for an
entrepreneur. The environment is dynamic, the market is a heterogeneous market and innovation is needed. To deal with this, the firm needs an organic structure. This is really important.
Porter
A more recent research is the research done by Porter (1998). Just like Miles and Snow he distinguished firms based on their strategy. He found three strategies which an organization can use. These three strategies are cost leadership, differentiation and focus. The cost leadership type asks the lowest price in the market, which is possible for the quality of the product. They can ask such a low price because they keep their costs very low. The differentiation type has a totally different strategy. This type tries to differentiate their products. The product is not price-sensitive. The firm has unique resources and capabilities that are hard to copy. The focus type is not a complete different strategy, it only shows whether a firm focuses on a complete market or just a niche. Thus, Porter actually describes two types (Cost leadership and differentiation) and the focus part tells on which market the focus is.
Parnell
Parnell (2006) reconceptualises the findings of Porter. He created a model with the
According to Parnell (2006), firms with their emphasis on market control are able to restrict entry of new competitors and/or they can prevent customers from switching to other
competitors. These firms are vulnerable when barriers drop or switching costs are minimized. The firms that have their emphasis on value deal with more competition, but try to offer more value than their competitors. Most of the time their size is not really large. The market is dynamic and competitive. The firms that have moderate market control and value are looking for a balance between these two options. This is common for stable organizations. Firms that deal with high market control and value are dominant. They even have control over their suppliers. The last category are firms that have a lack of emphasis on market value and control. Most of the time these firms perform poorly. They can only survive when the market is growing fast, so the firms cannot meet the demand.
2.4 Creating type of firm variable
To create the variable type of firm, we need to compare these theories. Let's start with
prospectors type: No mechanized work, innovation is important and it is flexible. The engineering type looks like the analyser type because both make use of a good structure and try to minimize risks. The craft type has similarities with the prospector type because they need flexibility and innovation to find solutions. But they have to deal with less exceptions so they can use things like stability and some mechanized work from the defender type. The reactor type of Miles and Snow is hard to compare with something, because it is performing poorly and it has no typical characteristics.
The differentiation and the cost leadership types of firms could be compared with the findings above. The routine, defender type and the engineering, analyser type can be seen as a cost leadership type. Standardisation is key for these types of firms. The focus for routine types is more on a niche and for the engineering type more on a complete market. The craft en non-routine type are more part of the differentiation type of Porter. Innovation and finding new solutions are important here. The focus for craft is on a niche and for non-routine on the complete market.
Let us add the structure types of Mintzberg. The routine, defender, cost leadership type needs a simple structure. Simple, stable and low complexity. The engineering, analyser, cost leader type needs more a structure of machine bureaucracy. They try to minimize risks through stability and structure to get to efficiency. The craft, differentiation type looks like the divisionalized form of Mintzberg. They need different divisions: some with stability, others with flexibility. The non-routine, prospector, differentiation type is dynamic, heterogeneous and innovation is needed. This is why the adhocracy is the best option to get to these things.
If we take a look at the types Miller distinguishes we see that the routine, defender type with a simple structure has similarities with the simple firm of Miller. Both have low complexity, and centralization. The engineering, analyser type with the structure of a machine bureaucracy looks like a planning firm: stability and efficiency is key here. The craft type looks a bit like an organic firm, but not as much as the non-routine, prospector type with an adhocracy structure. Both are complex and deal with uncertainty and innovation.
the two described above. The engineering, analyzer and the craft type can be found in this area.
As we can see, all these theories add something in the search to the variable 'type of firm'. Structure, focus, technology, and strategy are all discussed and have their own characteristics. However, they all have similar characteristics and therefore we now have defined four types of firms which we will use as variable for further research. The most important authors we used are Perrow, Miles and Snow and Miller. This way we use technology, strategy and structure, three key conceptions to define a type of firms. To avoid problems with similarities between the types we choose to define four types with clear characteristics. The first type is the simple defender: simple, stable and low risks. The second type is the planned analyser: structure and standardisation and minimize risk. The third type is the craft differentiator: divisionalized, more risky, needs innovation and flexibility at some level. The fourth and last type is the complex prospector: Needs flexibility and creativeness, dynamic and complex, non routine. A complete overview is given in figure 11:
Simple Defender Stable Simple Low risk level
Craft Differentiator Divisionalized Innovation Flexibility Planned Analyzer Structure Standardization Minimize risk Adaptive Complex Prospector Non-routine Organic Dynamic Risky
These types are clear and different from each other. Their characteristics are clear so a firm can be placed easily into the right category when the required data has been collected.
2.5 Types of markets
Dill
The research of Dill (1958) distinguishes no clear types of markets, but is still interesting to look at. Dill distinguishes three factors that can be characteristics of a market. These factors are diversity, change and uncertainty. Diversity can be seen as how complex the market is, and whether the market is heterogeneous or homogeneous. Change covers the degree of terms like turbulence, volatility and dynamism. The factor uncertainty shows whether the market is clear and predictable or not.
Duncan
Duncan (1972) also did a lot of research on market and environment. He makes a distinction between a complex environment and a static-dynamic environment. The simple-complex one is characterized by high analysability and high diversity. Decisions are simple but there is a high number of decisions to make. In the static-dynamic type things are more changing.
Sheth
Although this is a good way to classify markets, Sheth stated that this is rather an obsolete way to define markets. That is why he came with a new model. His new model is based on market and product differentiation and distinguished four types of markets with all their own characteristics: commodity markets, segmented markets, differentiated markets, and
fragmented markets. Figure 13 gives a schematic overview:
In commodity markets cost efficiency and economies of scale are really important. Entry barriers are low so everybody can enter. In this market a firm tries to get a good market share. The differentiated market is a market where needs can be satisfied in different ways.
Innovation is important, efficiency and economies of scale are less important. The segmented market is characterized by versatility. This versatility can be found in technology and
fragmented market. Specialization and niching are important. Focus and expertise can help to achieve this. Decentralization is also needed.
Miller
Miller (1987) investigates how structure and strategy correlate with the environmental market. In this research he made use of three types of markets. The first type of market was a dynamic one. This type of market can be described as a changing market with a lot of uncertainties. Innovation is needed, and a firm should react fast when opportunities appear. The
heterogeneity market asks for more diversity from a firm, to get more and different customers in different market segments. The hostility type is a market with a lot of competition. This can also be in different segments or dimensions.
Laughlin and Taylor
An interesting research has been done by Laughlin and Taylor (1991). They created a new model to identify industrial market segments. In their model, they make use of two
Teamwork can be operationalized on individual customer level. Close interaction and good salesmen are important in this market. Customers are willing to pay a higher price for the products that are delivered in this market. Hawking deals with more general products for few customers. Entry barriers are hard to create. Focus more on relationships and loyalty. For adapting markets flexibility is important, to offer specialized products to a broad group of customers. Flexibility is the key and price and advertising are important here. They want to keep the costs low. Hyping deals with products that need hyping to get from the ground. Advertising is important to differentiate and hype the products, just as keeping the costs low to offer a low price.
Blank
According to Steven Blank (2005) a market is a set of companies with common attributes. Blank divides markets by making distinction in the way a firm started in the market. So some firms start in a complete new market, where there is no information about customers or anything. A firm should do their own research. This is different in a existing market where everything is already running. Third you have the resegmented market. In this market you enter when you see a niche, a market share that has not fulfilled by other firms.
2.6 Creating type of market variable
To get the variable 'type of market' we now compare these theories described above. Two theories that can be compared very easily are the theories of Steth and Laughlin & Taylor. The dimensions they use look like each other. If we take a look at the adapting type, it has similarities with the fragmented type of Steth. Both deal with differentiated products and a heterogeneous market. Specialization, innovation and decentralization is important. The hawking type is more like the commodity type of Steth. A homogeneous product, for a homogeneous market. Entry barriers are low so efficiency is key to compete with other competitors. The hyping type looks like the segmented type because of their homogeneous products, but heterogeneous market. Versatility is the keyword for these two types. To achieve this, segmentation is really important. The last comparison is about the teamwork type and the differentiated type. Innovation is important to achieve quality. Customers are willing to pay more for a good product.
The hostile type can be seen as a hawking, commodity type: Homogeneous characteristics and a lot of competition. Entry barriers are really low.
The factors of Dill (diversity, change and uncertainty) can be added to these types. Very clear is that the dynamic, adapting fragmented type deals with high diversity, change and
uncertainty. The opposite of these type is the hostile, hawking commodity type which deals with low diversity, change and uncertainty. The heterogeneity, hyping, segmented type deals with high diversity but change and uncertainty is not that high. The teamwork, differentiated type deals more with change and uncertainty but not as high as the dynamic, adapting, fragmented types.
When we combine all these theories we distinguish four types which we will use for further research. The four types are: the fragmented adapting type, the commodity hawking type, the segmented hyping type and the differentiated teamwork type. As you can see, the chosen types are combinations of the theory of Steth and Laughlin and Taylor. Their characteristics have similarities that fit with each other. The other theories are used to add some
2.7 Conclusions
Now that we have defined the three variables, we can conduct a matrix. With this matrix we can do research on good and bad fits for types of entrepreneurs. On the vertical part of the matrix we will put the types of firms. The horizontal part will show the types of markets. This way we create sixteen cells which all refer to some kind of market and firm. Next, we will look which type of entrepreneur fits within these cells. The created matrix can be found in figure 16.
In this matrix we will choose 9 cells which we will further investigate. We choose nine cells, because this should be representative for the matrix and to avoid that cells are too similar to each other. The cells are marked in the matrix in figure 16. The cells 1, 4, 6 and 9 are chosen, because on the first hand we believe the combinations of firms and markets in these cells have a good connection with each other based on their characteristics. For example Cell 1, where we deal with a simple defender (stable and simple) and commodity hawking (stable and simple). Cell 2 and 8 are chosen because these look like a complex and interesting situation with a strange fit. Cell 3, 5 and 7 are chosen because we needed these cells to compare with the practical information.
Cell 1
The first situation we describe is that from a simple defender firm within a commodity hawking market. This market is a good match for the simple defender firm, because it has a lot of similarities and the market offers opportunities for the simple defender to achieve his goals. The simple defender can predict the market easily, because the market is stable and homogeneous. This way there is low risk and the simple defender can try to compete with other competitors to get a good production process with the lowest price. Knowing this, we state that this situation needs an entrepreneur that can lead the process to reduce production costs and can make the right decisions to improve this. The entrepreneur should be risk averse, because the market is stable and predictable and does not ask for risky moves. A good possibility for an entrepreneur to fit within this situation is the analyser type. With his
analytical skills and his rational and realistic view he can make the right decisions to lead this firm. Based on his calculations and statements he improves the process of the firm. A good alternative is the all-round manager. He is organized which can help to improve the
production process.
Cell 2
The second situation is more complicated. Is this situation we find a simple defender firm within a fragmented adapting market. This is complicated because the firm is characterized as a stable and simple firm, that tries to keep the risk level low. However, the market it has to deal with is dynamic, there is change and uncertainty and specialization, innovation and niching is important. To achieve this, focus and expertise can help. An entrepreneur that can possibly lead this firm in this hard situation should at least be creative to find solutions for this situation. The analyser is not an option because he is not creative and risk averse. The all-rounder is probably not creative enough to deal with this situation. Innovation is not his cup of tea. Because of that reason the salesperson is a good option. With his social skills he can form a right team to handle this situation. He is also creative enough to deal with the innovation that is asked in this market. The creative pioneer is also creative, can absolutely deal with the market, but his personality is hard for the stable defender type. He takes to many risks and trusts on his intuition instead of thinking about other options and opinions.
Conclusion: 1. Salesperson Cell 3
In this cell we deal with a craft differentiator within a commodity hawking market. On the first hand this does not look like a really good fit. The craft differentiator need innovation and flexibility. The commodity hawking type is really stable and simple, with a homogenous product and market. Innovation and flexibility is not needed, efficiency and low risk is more important. To deal with the market an analyzer is really good. But the innovation and flexibility of the firm is unnatural for this type. The creative pioneer can easily deal with the innovation and flexibility part, but the market asks for stability and efficiency and the pioneer cannot offer this. Leaves us with the salesperson and the all-round manager. The choice for one of these types depends on what is more important in this cell. When the firm is most important, so flexibility and innovation is needed, the salesperson is the right type. If the market is more important the all-round manager is better, to provide structure and efficiency.
Conclusion: 1. All-round manager 2. Salesperson Cell 4
The fourth situation looks like a good fit. Inside a segmented hyping market we see a craft differentiator. The craft differentiator firm is divisionalized and needs innovation and
and uncertainty is not that high. As the firm is divisionalized and flexible, it can easily deal with the circumstances within the market. The entrepreneur that fits within this situation has to deal with a flexible firm, and multiple divisions. Innovation is needed in some way and so a creative person is desired. A salesperson should be perfect for this situation. He can build bridges between the divisions, with his social skills. He is also creative enough to deal with the innovation part. The analyser will have problems with that, and the creative pioneer is a bit too much in this situation. The all-round manager is also a good option because of his diverse skills.
Conclusion: 1. Salesperson 2. All round manager Cell 5
In this cell the planned analyzer deals with a segmented hyping market. The planned analyzer asks for structure, standardization and minimal risk. The segmented hyping market is diverse, but change and uncertainty are not that high. This asks for an entrepreneur that can offer structure, but can also deal with the diversity of the market. The all-round manager seems perfect for this situation: he can offer structure and can ban risk, but can also deal with the diversity of the market because he is all-round. The salesperson can be a alternative according to the diversity, but he is not that good in keeping structure and minimizing risks.
Conclusion: 1. All-round manager 2. Salesperson Cell 6
The fourth situation is a planned analyser firm within a differentiated teamwork market. The planned analyser needs structure, standardisation and wants to minimize risks. The
Conclusion: 1. All-round manager 2. Salesperson Cell 7
This is a very complex situation. A really dynamic, risky and organic firm (complex prospector) is situated in a very stable, simple and risk averse market (commodity hawking market). To deal with this situation an entrepreneur must be creative, but also take into account that the market is not asking for lots of creativity. The analyzer is not creative enough, he cannot deal with the firm and the situation. Probably the all-round manager faces the same problems. The salesperson and pioneer seem like better options. They have the creativity to deal with this situation. Although they should have some affection with structure and efficiency. Therefore the salesperson is the best option, he can use his social skills to gather people to take care of this part of the situation. A creative pioneer is an alternative, but this pioneer needs to have some affection with efficiency and structure to deal with the market. Most of the time a pioneer does not have these skills, so the pioneer is not a really serious option.
Conclusion: 1. Salesperson Cell 8
If we change the firm type to a complex prospector firm and the market as a differentiated teamwork one, things will change. In this situation the complex prospector is dynamic and organic, and a risk is normal in this type of firm. In this firm an analyser and all-round manager will not fit. They need structure, and are not creative enough to deal with this situation. The creative pioneer and salesperson are creative enough to deal with this situation. They are creative and can deal with the market and firm. The choice depends on the amount of risk, uncertainty and dynamics. When these things increase, the option to choose for a creative pioneer will increase.
Conclusion: 1. Creative pioneer 2. Salesperson Cell 9
is the creative pioneer. He is a specialist in innovation, creation and dealing with risk and uncertainty. He seems perfect for this situation.
Conclusion: 1. Creative pioneer
Simple Defender 1 2
Craft Differentiator 3 4
Planned Analyzer 5 6
Complex Prospector 7 8 9
Cell Type of firm Type of Market Type of entrepreneur Alternative entrepreneur
1 Simple defender Commodity hawking Analyzer All-round manager 2 Simple defender Fragmented adapting Salesperson -
3. Methodology 3.1 Sample
To gather information, we approached 29 randomly selected small and medium firms. We define small and medium firms as firms that have less than 100 employees. The reason why we choose small and medium entrepreneurs (SMEs) is that in this kind of firms the
entrepreneur, most of the time, has more influence on the whole business than within large firms. As we are looking for a good fit between entrepreneur, firm and market it is important that the entrepreneur really has influence. The sectors of the firms are randomly chosen so we find different situations and therefore different fits.
3.2 Data gathering
In order to find the necessary information, we have conducted a questionnaire and we made use of the entrepreneurial scan of Driessen and Zwart (2006). The E-scan consists around 100 questions about the personality of the entrepreneur. The questionnaire consists 14 questions about the type of firm and market. Based on conceptions like flexibility, innovation, risk, stability, heterogeneity and uniqueness conclusions can be drawn, where to place the firms and in which market. The questionnaire can be found in appendix A.
As you can see, the E-scan does not assign one type to an entrepreneur. The results show percentages of how much each type correlates with the personality of the entrepreneur. In this research we will mainly use the highest percentage of the type of entrepreneur in combination with strong and weak points of the entrepreneur, which provide us with extra information to assign the entrepreneur. That way there are scans which provide results where no type really sticks out. In this case we will discuss the type briefly and use the strong and weak points to assign the entrepreneur.
The results of the questionnaire are summarized into a schedule. This way results can be easily shown and can be analysed. Each questionnaire has been screened individually after which the type of firm and market is assigned. The assignment of the types is based on characteristics that arise from the answered questions. By means of the answers we can see which characteristics are important for the firm and market. If it is not clear which type belongs to the firm or market, other information will be used. This information can be achieved from websites. The results of the questionnaire can be found in the paragraph with results.
3.3 Data analysing
The results of the E-scan and questionnaire shall be brought to the matrix we have conducted in the theoretical framework. In this matrix we have selected cells that we have practical information for. These cells will be compared with theoretical findings. We will analyse the theoretical information and the practical information and when this is done, conclusions will be drawn.
3.4 Validity and reliability
The validity of this research is pretty high. The E-scan is a proven attribute to measure the type of entrepreneur according to "www.ondernemerstest.nl". This is the hardest variable to define because only with the help of an entrepreneur you can distinguish the type of
entrepreneur. Define the type of firm and market is more easy, because a lot of information about sectors and the firm itself can be found on internet. The questionnaire adds specific information which helps us to define the types. The reliability could be better. The amount of scans and questionnaires is not that high and more depth interviews could also help to
4. Results
The responses have been obtained by email. The questions were explained broadly so entrepreneurs did not have any questions. The response rate can be divided into two categories. The questionnaire is answered by 7 people out of 29. This is a response rate of 24,7 %. The E-scan has been done by 10 people which leads to a response rate of 34,5%. As we can only use complete responses (questionnaire + E-scan) we can only use the people who filled in both. This were 7 people out of 29 which leads to a response rate of 24,7%. First we will show the results of the questionnaire. Then we will place the entrepreneurs into the right cells within the matrix. After that the results of the E-scan will be shown.
The entrepreneurs that responded had an age range from 27 to 58 years old. The amount of employees variated from 5 to 24. The average number of employees was 13.The sectors of the responding firms are driving school, art, manufacturing, construction, decoration, lease and the retail sector. Results of the questionnaire can be found in figure 20. Remarkable was the fact that some questions get the same answer from every entrepreneur. For example, almost every entrepreneur thinks innovation and flexibility is important for his firm. Although other concepts points at the fact that the firm is a price fighter with stability and structure, where innovation and flexibility is less important, they still think they need flexibility and innovation. Also the structure is simple at all firms. This could be because the amount of employees is not enough to get a divisionalized structure or complex structure. Finally, the level of competition: all responders answer that they deal with at least pretty much
competition. At least, this is how they feel.
Questionnaire
Let us take a closer look at the results. First, we will place the entrepreneurs in the right cell of the matrix, based on the information we collected from the questionnaire. This information is shown in figure 20, where you can see how entrepreneurs answered the questions about concepts of firms and markets. According to this concepts the firms and markets will be assigned.
Entrepreneur1
If we take a look at entrepreneur 1 we see that the type of firm of this entrepreneur is
variability is low. If we take a look at the type of market we see that the market is
homogeneous, there is a lot of competition and identical products. This points at a commodity hawking type. But the fact that there is pretty much change and stability is not that high, could also point at differentiated teamwork type. Further information shows us that we deal with a driving school. This market looks pretty stable and therefore we decide to assign this to the commodity hawking market.
Entrepreneur 2
This entrepreneur is really different. As the results show, flexibility and innovation is important. Furthermore it is a risky business, dynamic and based on quality. Tasks are really non routine. According to this characteristics we deal with a complex prospector type of firm. The market is dynamic with a lot of change and uncertainty. This is clearly a fragmented adapting type, with heterogeneous products and innovation and flexibility is important.
Entrepreneur 3
The following type is pretty easy to assign. Entrepreneur 3 has a simple defender type of firm: Stable, really simple structure, risk not that high and trying to be a cost leader. All these characteristics correspond to the simple defender type. The market is Commodity hawking: High competition, stable and predictable. Some characteristics can also be seen in the differentiated teamwork type.
Entrepreneur 4
For the fourth entrepreneur it is difficult to assign the firm. Based on the fact that most
products are different but easy to produce, a simple structure, we could place this firm into the planned analyzer type, but is also has some things of the craft differentiator. If we take a look at information about this firm we see we deal with a company that buys, sells and rents art to privates and businesses. This is not a risky business and standardization is possible.
According to this extra information we assign this firm to the planned analyzer type. The type of market is most likely the segmented hyping type: change and uncertainty are not that high and the market is heterogeneous.
Entrepreneur 5
Entrepreneur 6
The following entrepreneur is difficult to assign. The type of firm looks like a craft differentiator: Innovation and flexibility is needed, variability of the tasks is low and analysability is also not that high. The market is almost the same as entrepreneur 4:
segmented hyping. Change and uncertainty are not that high, and this entrepreneur deals with a heterogeneous market.
Entrepreneur 7
The seventh and last entrepreneur can be placed in the complex prospector type. This firm needs innovation and flexibility really badly and risk level is really high. In combination with the dynamic firm, this points at the complex prospector. The market is pretty clear. The fact that the market and product are homogeneous, with a lot of competition points to a
commodity hawking type. Only the change level does not correspond with the commodity hawking market. Still we assign this firm into the commodity hawking market.
E-scan
Now that we know the type of firm and type of market we can place the type of entrepreneur into the conducted matrix. This matrix is shown in figure 21.We can now take a look at the results of the E-scan (figure 22) and see which fit we find within the cells. A complete overview shows immediately that every entrepreneur is different. There are clear differences between the entrepreneurs and a nice result is that we find at least one of every type of entrepreneur.
Entrepreneur 1
This entrepreneur is clearly an all-round manager type: organized and formal. A result of 65% is really high. A remarkable result is that this manager is willing to take risks and is flexible. These are characteristics that are not really common for a manager.
Entrepreneur 2
Entrepreneur 3
For entrepreneur 3 we can exclude two types; the pioneer and the salesman. These two types have really low percentages. The other two types, analyzer and manager are both represented with 40%. So both types could be the type of this entrepreneur. To assign the entrepreneur we take a look at the strong points and weak points of this entrepreneur. This entrepreneur does not want to dominate other people, his social orientation is low, and his effectiveness could be higher. These characteristics points at a analyzer type which we assign him to.
Entrepreneur 4
The next entrepreneur is an interesting type. When we take a look at the type of entrepreneur we see that it is a mix of an analyzer and a pioneer. A not very common mix, as these types have really different characteristics, but maybe the type of firm and market could clarify more. This type works in the art sector, where creativity and risk is needed. Though to sell art, characteristics of an analyzer could be useful. Strong points of this entrepreneur are creativity and willingness to take risk. This is why we assign this entrepreneur to the creative pioneer type.
Entrepreneur 5
The fifth entrepreneur is also a combination of two types: the manager and salesperson type. Strong points are creativity and social orientation which leads us a little bit more to the salesperson type: building relationships and social skills. Although this entrepreneur has also manager-characteristics we assign him to the salesperson type based on the fact that creativity and social orientation are strong points of this entrepreneur.
Entrepreneur 6
This entrepreneur has a creative personality. The salesperson and the pioneer type have the biggest share. Social orientation and creativity are also for this entrepreneur strong points. Remarkable is that although this entrepreneur looks like a salesperson and pioneer, he is a bit risk averse. This is not very common for these types. Based on the fact that this entrepreneur does not like risk, a pioneer is maybe a bit too much for this personality. Therefore we assign this entrepreneur to the salesperson type.
Entrepreneur 7
this entrepreneur scores high on most characteristics of an entrepreneur and does not have much weak points.
Now that we have assigned all entrepreneurs, their firm and the market in which they operate we give a complete overview in figure 19.
Entrepreneur Type of firm Type of market Type of entrepreneur 1 Craft differentiator Commodity hawking All-round manager 2 Complex prospector Fragmented adapting Salesperson
3 Simple defender Commodity hawking Analyzer
4 Planned analyzer Segmented hyping Creative pioneer 5 Planned analyzer Differentiated
teamwork Salesperson
Concept Entrepreneur 1 Entrepreneur 2 Entrepreneur 3 Entrepreneur 4 Entrepreneur 5 Entrepreneur 6 Entrepreneur 7
Flexibility Important Important Important Important Important Important Really important Innovation Important Important Important Important Important Important Really important
Risk level Normal A lot of risk Normal Normal Normal Pretty much risk A lot of risk
Structure Simple Simple Really simple Simple Simple Simple Simple
Stability of firm Neutral Pretty dynamic Stable Pretty dynamic Pretty dynamic Stable Pretty dynamic Focus Quality Mostly on quality Mostly on price Mostly on quality Mostly on quality Neutral Neutral Product uniqueness Most is the same Every product is
different Neutral Most is different Most is different Most is the same
Every product is different Production process Neutral Extremely
complicated Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Pretty complicated
Market variability Pretty homogenous Heterogeneous Heterogeneous Pretty
heterogeneous Neutral
Pretty
heterogeneous Homogeneous Product compared to
competition Pretty identical Identical Identical Pretty identical Neutral Pretty identical Identical Level of competition A lot of
competition A lot of competition A lot of competition Pretty much competition Pretty much competition A lot of competition A lot of competition Stability of market Neutral Dynamic Pretty stable Pretty stable Pretty dynamic Pretty stable Pretty stable Change within market Pretty much A lot of change Not much change Neutral Neutral Neutral Pretty much
Type of Firm Craft differentiator Complex
prospector Simple defender Planned analyzer Planned analyzer Craft differentiator
Complex differentiator Type of Market Commodity
Hawking
Fragmented adapting
Commodity
hawking Segmented hyping
Differentiated
teamwork Segmented hyping
Simple defender Entrepreneur 3
Craft differentiator Entrepreneur 1 Entrepreneur 6
Planned analyzer Entrepreneur 4 Entrepreneur 5
Complex prospector Entrepreneur 7 Entrepreneur 2
5. Conclusion and discussion 5.1 Conclusions
Now let us compare our theoretical findings with the practical findings. To do this, we first take a look at the cells we found practical information for. For example, if we take a look at the cell where Entrepreneur 1 is in, this cell is similar to Cell 3 of the theoretical findings. So both cells deal with a craft differentiator within a commodity hawking market. We look if the entrepreneurial type is the same or different after which we draw some conclusions.
Entrepreneur 1 - Cell 3
In this cell we deal with a craft differentiator within a commodity hawking market. According to the theory the all-round manager or the salesperson are the best options. In theory we conclude that when the firm is most important, the salesperson is the best choice. When the market is most important to deal with, the all-round manager is a better choice. Practical information shows that the entrepreneur that operates in this cell is clearly an all-round manager (65%). His strengths are willingness to take risk and flexibility. This is interesting because this is exactly what he needs in combination with his all-round manager skills. Knowing this, we can conclude that theoretical and practical information both show that the all-round manager, who is flexible and wants to take risks, is a good fit for this situation.
Entrepreneur 2 - Cell 9
A complex prospector within a fragmented adapting market was easy to assign in theory. This has to be a creative pioneer: creative, flexible, take risks, innovative. But our practical
information is different. This entrepreneur was hard to assign: the percentages of the types were almost equal. His strengths (creativity and social orientation) made us assign him to the salesperson type. If we compare the theoretical and practical information we clearly see a difference. According to the theory the creative pioneer is the only option. The practical information shows that this entrepreneur is definitely not a creative pioneer. He lacks the willingness to take risks, and does not like uncertainty. So we can conclude that in this situation there is a difference between the theoretical fit and the practical fit.
Entrepreneur 3 - Cell 1
entrepreneur that exactly looks like the described entrepreneur in theory. Entrepreneur 3 is a mix of an analyzer and an all-round manager where the analyzer type is a bit stronger. So theoretical and practical information meet each other perfectly in this situation.
Entrepreneur 4 - Cell 5
A planned analyzer within a segmented hyping market asks for an all-round manager
according to the theory. He can offer structure and diversity, what is needed in this situation. The alternative is the salesperson, which is good for diversity, but offering structure is harder for this type. Is we look at the practical information we see that entrepreneur 4 is a creative pioneer. The two types he is definitely not, are: all-round manager and salesperson. That is interesting, because according to the theory these type are needed to deal with this situation. We can conclude that we do not find a match in this situation between practical and
theoretical information.
Entrepreneur 5 - Cell 6
In this cell the planned analyzer deals with a differentiated teamwork market. As the planned analyzer wants to minimize risks and asks for structure, and the market asks for innovation and quality, the all-round manager is in theory the best option here, but the salesperson is a good alternative. Looking at the practical information we see that this entrepreneur is a combination of an all-round manager and the salesperson. He is assigned as a salesperson, but also his manager skills are mentioned. So practical and theoretical information meet each other in this situation.
Entrepreneur 6 - Cell 4
Theoretical information tells us that when a craft differentiator is dealing with a segmented hyping market, the demand for innovation and flexibility is high. To deal with change and uncertainty the entrepreneur needs creativity. The best option in this case would be the salesperson. If we take a look at the practical information we see that entrepreneur 6 is assigned as a salesperson, and therefore has similarities with the theoretical information. Though the alternative (all-round manager) is not really a good match with the practical findings. Still, on the first hand, in this situation theoretical and practical findings meet each other.
Entrepreneur 7 - Cell 7
is changing, dynamic and innovative, but also can deal with the market that asks for more stability. The practical information about Entrepreneur 7 is really clear: this is a creative pioneer. Though theory concludes that the pioneer is not really an optio,n because he lacks skills to be effective and stable. There is no match between theory and practice in this situation.
Entrepreneur Theoretical Cell Situation (Firm - Market) Theoretical type of Entrepreneur Practical type of Entrepreneur Match 1 3 Craft differentiator - Commodity hawking All-round manager /
Salesperson All-round manager
2 9 Complex prospector -
Fragmented adapting Creative pioneer Salesperson
3 1 Simple defender - Commodity hawking Analyzer / All-round manager Analyzer 4 5 Planned analyzer - Segmented hyping All-round manager /
Salesperson Creative pioneer
5 6 Planned analyzer - Differentiated teamwork All-round manager / Salesperson Salesperson 6 4 Craft differentiator - Segmented hyping Salesperson / All-round manager Salesperson 7 7 Complex prospector -
According to the overview we can conclude that theory and practice do not always match with each other. There are theoretical situations which are really different in practice. Interesting is that we did not find a match for any situation with a complex prospector. The complex prospector firm is the firm with most non-routine tasks, and it is dynamic and organic. This could be why situations with a complex prospector are hard to predict, based on theoretical findings. Every situation could be really different and ask for a different
entrepreneur. Situations with a simple defender of a craft differentiator are more stable and predictable and we found more matches for these types. The more things get uncertain, changing and dynamic, the more mismatches we found.
We can also conclude that you cannot say that for every situation there is only one type of entrepreneur, only one fit. In the theoretical framework we already gave alternatives, for the best fit, so there were more options. The practical information confirmed this statement with findings that show there are more fits. In some situations we found three fits out of the possible four options. For example, the situation of Entrepreneur 4: a planned analyzer within segmented hyping market. This theoretical information gave two possible types of
entrepreneurs; the all-round manager and the salesperson. The practical information added the creative pioneer to the list of options. Therefore, we can conclude that every situation is different and there are more fits possible for every situation.
5.2 Discussion and limitations
Let us take a look at the whole research and the main goal of this research: 'Which types of entrepreneurs fit with which types of firms and types of markets?'. To find answers for this goal we created three variables ('type of entrepreneur', 'type of firm' and 'type of market') with all four types. In the theoretical part we created situations which we discussed and we assigned types of entrepreneurs to this situations, based on similar characteristics. After this we collected practical information, so we could compare the theoretical information with the practical information. As the results and conclusions showed, we cannot say that a specific type belongs to a specific situation. We can clearly see that for most situations we
We did not expect to find matches between the theoretical findings and the practical findings only and this expectation was a good one. In some situations there was a total mismatch, but there were also situations where theory and practice totally found each other. This was remarkable and unexpected. This could be coincidence, because of the low sample size, but it can also be plausible, because the characteristics of the types fit and this is the best fit.
We have to take into account that we only have investigate seven entrepreneurs. We cannot exclude that, if the quantity of investigated entrepreneur grows, we find even more fits. It is interesting to discuss that in some situations we can maybe exclude some types of
entrepreneurs instead of finding one fit. For example, if we have a simple defender within a commodity hawking market it is really unlikely to find a creative pioneer in this situation. The creative pioneer cannot put his creativity into this situation and won't start a business in this situation. The other way around, an analyzer will not fit into a situation with a complex prospector and a fragmented adapting market. In this situation the analyzer is not creative enough to deal with the change and uncertainty this situation deals with. So we state that some fits are really unlikely to find in extreme situations.
This research could add value to the results of the E-scan of Driessen and Zwart (2006). It could advise to entrepreneurs that filled in the E-scan, that some fits are bad to explore, according to their type of entrepreneur. This could help them to choose the right market. Also it could tell an entrepreneur what in theory could be a good fit, and show some practical examples.
References
Alvarez, S. A. & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11–26
Begley, T.M. & Boyd, D.P. (1987), Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 79-93.
Blank, G. (2005 2nd ed) The four steps to epiphany. Pp 1-11
Bourgeois, L. T. (1980). Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. The Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 25-39.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 39-57.
Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. C. (1984). Differentiating small business owners from entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 9, 354–359.
Cambell, C. (2004) Insights into Effective Communications, retrieved from http://www.cmi-opal.com/Insights%20into%20Effective%20Communication.pdf
Delmar, F. & Davidsson, P. (2000). Where do they come from? Prevalence and characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12, 1-23.
Dill, W. (1958). Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409-443.
Donkels, R. & Fröhlich, E. (1991). Are family businesses really different? European experiences from STRATOS. Family business review, 4(2), 149-160.
Driessen, M. P., & Zwart, P. S. (2006). The entrepreneur scan measuring characteristics and traits of entrepreneurs. (http://www.entrepreneurscan.co.uk/about-e-scan/science/)
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313-327.
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., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers. Journal of Management, 22, 45-83.
Karlsson, T., & Honig, B. (2009). Judging a business by its cover: An institutional perspective on new ventures and the business plan. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(1), 27-45.
Laughlin, J. L., & Taylor, C. R. (1991). An approach to industrial market segmentation. Industrial Marketing Management, 20, 127-136.
Lenz, R. T., & Engledow, J. L. (1986). Environmental analysis: The applicability of current theory. Strategic Management Journal, 7(4), 329-346.
Littunen, H. (2000). Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial
personality. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(6), 295-310.
McClelland, D. C. (1961) The achieving society. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman Jr, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. The Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546-562.
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770-791.
Miller, D. (1987). The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), 55-76.
Miner, J. B. (1997a). The expanded horizon for achieving entrepreneurial success. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 54-67.
Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5's: a synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322-343.
Parnell, J. A. (2006). Generic strategies after two decades: A reconceptualization of competitive strategy. Management Decisions, 44(8), 1139-1154.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for comparative analysis of organizations. American sociological review, 32(2), 194-208.
Reynierse, J. H. (1997). An MBTI model of entrepreneurism and bureaucracy: the
psychological types of business entrepreneurs compared to business managers and executives. Journal of Psychological types, 10, 3 - 19.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation. Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934) The theory of economic development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Sheth, J. N. (1985). New determinants of competitive structures in industrial markets. University of Southern California, 1-8.
Shiny, (2012). Kenmerken: Kwalitatief & Kwantitatief onderzoek. In Onderzoek. Retrieved from http://wetenschap.infonu.nl/onderzoek/106079-kenmerken-kwalitatief-kwantitatief-onderzoek.html
Smith, N. R. (1967). The Entrepreneur and His Firm: The Relationship between Type of Man and Type of Company. Occasional Papers, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan State University, Vol. 109.
Smith, N. R., & Miner, J. B. (1983) Type of entrepreneur, type of firm, and managerial motivation: implications for organizational life cycle theory. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 325-340.
Stevenson, H.H. (2006). A perspective on entrepreneurship. HBS Case.
Van der Laan, R., Driessen, M. P., & Zwart, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneur scan identifies potential fast growers.
Winter, D.G., Steward, A.J., John, O.P., Duncan, L.E. & Klohnen, E.C. (1998) Traits and Motives: Towards an Integration of Two Traditions in Personality Research, Psychological Review, 105, 2, 230-250.
Appendix A:
Beste meneer/mevrouw,
Allereerst hartelijk dank dat u bereidt bent om mij te helpen bij mijn onderzoek. Deze vragenlijst zal ongeveer 15 minuten duren. Alle vragen worden duidelijk uitgelegd en in de meeste gevallen hoeft u alleen maar een kruisje te zetten. Uiteraard zullen de resultaten van de vragenlijst anoniem blijven en zal ik hier zorgvuldig mee omgaan.
Algemene vragen:
Wat is uw naam: ... Wat is de naam van uw bedrijf: ... Wat is uw leeftijd: ... In welk jaar is uw bedrijf opgericht: ...
Hoeveel werknemers heeft het bedrijf: ... Kunt u kort omschrijven wat u bedrijf doet en waar het voor staat:
---
Type bedrijf:
In dit deel van de vragenlijst krijgt u vragen over u bedrijf op zich.
Flexibiliteit is een begrip wat voor bedrijven belangrijk kan zijn. Inspringen op kansen die voorbij komen, zich aanpassen aan veranderingen en voldoen aan bijzondere vragen van klanten zijn onderdeel hiervan. Andere bedrijven houden vast aan hun product/dienst, geloven in de kracht van dit product of dienst, en passen zich minder aan. In welke mate is flexibiliteit belangrijk voor uw bedrijf?
Totaal niet
belangrijk Niet belangrijk Neutraal Belangrijk
Heel erg belangrijk
Innovatie wordt gezien als het ontwikkelen van nieuwe producten/diensten of het
