BUILDING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Dušan Baran1, Rita Veličkaitė2

1
Department of Management, Slovak University of Technology,
Radlinskeho ulica 9, 81237 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, e-mail: dusan.baran@stuba.sk
2
Department of Management Theory, Mykolas Romeris University,
Ateities str. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania, e-mail: rita.velickaite@mruni.lt

Abstract. Lately many companies regard entrepreneurial behavior as essential if they perceive to survive in a
world increasingly driven by accelerating change. Both the academic and popular press suggests an inherently
positive influence of entrepreneurial activity on the performance of a company. In parallel a positive and robust
correlation between entrepreneurship and economic performance has been found in terms of growth, firm sur-
vival, innovation, employment creation, technological change, productivity increases and exports. Still the search
for an appropriate basis for understanding and describing the phenomenon creates challenging problem for entre-
preneurship researchers. Aiming to provide some clarification of the concept of entrepreneurship, its components,
entrepreneurial process and nexus between them, the theoretical framework, based on resent research in the field
of entrepreneurship, was built.
Keywords: entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship research dimensions, entrepreneurial process, components of en-
trepreneurship, nexus.

1. Introduction The goal of this paper is to provide some sys-

Rapidly growing companies have been the sub-
ject of studies for many years. Researches have tried
to overview and clarify the key factors that cause
some business to grow rapidly, while others remain
small or grow very slowly. Often studies have con-
centrated on the founder – his or her personality,
management skills, goals, and so forth. In academic
discussions, the question of entrepreneurial skills is
related to the debate on whether entrepreneurship can
be conceived as something teachable or not. Katz
(1991), for example, suggests that, most likely, there
are some skills that can be taught and some that can-
not. Some theories were developed that entrepreneurs
are born. Nevertheless experience has shown that
entrepreneurship can be taught, and that a positive
environment encourages entrepreneurial thinking,
promotes innovation, and leads to a higher degree of
social and economic sustainability.
The observed scientific problem exits within the
entrepreneurship research as generally accepted defi-
nition of entrepreneurship and related definitions,
such as entrepreneur, entrepreneurial team, corporate
entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, etc., cannot be
imposed or even assumed. In respect, the search for
an appropriate basis for understanding and describing
the phenomenon creates a challenging problem for
entrepreneurship researchers.
tematic clarification on the concept of entrepreneur-
ship, its components and related processes and to
build a theoretical framework, based on relevant re-
search in the field. The object of the research is entre-
preneurship, its components, processes and nexus
between them. On the purpose to reach the aim, scien-
tific literature analysis, comparison and systematiza-
tion methods were applied.
Entrepreneurship research has been paid by great
attention during the past for decades as ownership of
firms (Cuevas 1994), management of small businesses
(Scott and Bruce 1987), innovativeness (Schumpeter
1934, Hitt et al., 2001), networking (Larson and Starr
1993), organizing (Johannisson 1988), making the
ideas work even though the needed resources are not
under control (Stevenson and Jarillo 1990), all new
businesses (Acs et al., 2001), etc.
Because of the lack of a conceptual framework
that explains and predicts a set of empirical phenom-
ena not explained by conceptual frameworks already
in existence in other, related fields of research, the
distinctive contribution of the entrepreneurship field
is still difficult to identify [1, 2]. Many different views
about entrepreneurship were greatly worked out by
Gartner (1990), deservedly reputed as the leader in
entrepreneurship research.
Lately entrepreneurship research seems to focus
on two basic dimensions: individual or trait approach

21
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
and process or behavioral approach, mostly conclud-
ing on the outcome – new value creation that fuels
economic growth (Maes, 2003; Thoren, 2007). But
before going in the analysis of these approaches, defi-
nitional problems should be reviewed.
2. Definitional problems of entrepreneurship
and related issues
The existence of the many different views about
entrepreneurship became particularly apparent in the
study of Gartner (1990), when in a first phase of a
policy Delphi he asked 283 respondents (academics,
business leaders and politicians) to define entrepre-
neurship. The research discerned no less than 90 dif-
ferent attributes of entrepreneurship in the answers of
the 44 respondents. Such attributes include new busi-
ness creation, purchasing an existing business, bring-
ing resources to bear on a perceived opportunity, de-
stroying the status quo, refining a creative idea and
adapting it to a market opportunity. Gartner recog-
nized that main problem currently occurring in entre-
preneurship scholarship is for many scholars to import
a theory from another discipline and then go in search
of facts to support it [3]. At Gartner’s approach it is
necessary to devote substantially more time to collect-
ing and being “mindful” of facts about entrepreneur-
ship, before identifying a theory to find causal link-
ages among these facts. Gartner is curious about the
study of all things that seem to be about entrepreneur-
ship, as a phenomenon. He takes to the study of en-
trepreneurship the “critical mess” idea, that is less of a
coherent methodology for studying entrepreneurship,
and more of a nuance towards the kinds of facts and
theories that one might use for understanding what
“entrepreneurship, itself,” actually is, or might be [3].
2.1. Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship
Ten years ago Scott, Rosa and Klandt (1998)
stated, that “so far we have only gathered experiences
on various case studies and now there is a need to
focus on the basic dimensions and concepts” [4]. The
problem of defining “entrepreneur” and establishing
the boundaries of entrepreneurship research has not
been solved yet [2, 5, 6]. In parallel some confusion
still exists regarding the definition of entrepreneur-
ship. Kirzner (1997) according to his entrepreneurship
research came out to a much wider definition and
stated that entrepreneurship is about alertly recogniz-
ing and exploiting market and understanding these to
be opportunities for business [7]. Muzyka, de Koning,
and Churchill (1995) stated that “entrepreneurship is a
process that takes place in different environments and
circumstances and causes changes in the economy
through innovations, which are created by individuals
recognizing economic opportunities creating value
both to these individuals and societies” [8]. The defi-
nition by Christensen et al. (1994) is close to the
above, explaining that entrepreneurship is opportunity
driven, with an ability to make rapid commitment to
22
opportunities that arise in a multi-stage decision
mode, often using other people’s resources, managing
through networks of personal relations, with the ex-
pectation that one will be rewarded in direct propor-
tion to the new value created [9]. Matley (2006) no-
ticed, that in practice entrepreneurship (corporate
entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship) is also presented
in well-established large and small organizations,
being an important element of their organizational and
economic development [10]. Entrepreneurship in this
study is defined as a process that take place in differ-
ent environments and circumstances and causes
changes in the economy through innovations, which
are created by individuals recognizing economic op-
portunities creating value both to these individuals
and societies. An entrepreneur in various sources of
scientific literature is most often defined as someone
who is highly responsive to change, who sees oppor-
tunities that others may not see, and who mobilizes
resources to make new things happen. In this study
entrepreneurs are individuals who carry out entrepre-
neurial actions.
2.2. Corporate entrepreneurship and intrapre-
neurship
As mentioned above, entrepreneurship has long
been seen as a synonym for establishing new small
firms as a suitable vehicle for entrepreneurial en-
deavor [11]. Maes (2003) found a parallel strand in
literature that was developed stressing the importance
of entrepreneurship for and within existing corpora-
tions. A widely accepted label for this branch in en-
trepreneurship theory aiming at bewildering existing
companies with an entrepreneurial spirit is corporate
entrepreneurship.
Corporate entrepreneurship research develop-
ment are most likely to be related to observed weak-
nesses of the traditional methods of corporate man-
agement that lead companies onto a bureaucratic or
administrative pathway, often ignoring the need for
change and smoldering innovative initiatives. Tradi-
tional corporate management methods, such as strict
hierarchy, short term focus, premeditation with cost
minimization and cutting slack, narrowly defined
jobs, etc., tend to be destructive as disappointed en-
trepreneurial-minded employees and executives tend
to leave a company managed by strict bureaucratic
rules and regulations [2, 12, 13, 14]. Oppositely, cor-
porate entrepreneurship is thought of as rejuvenating
and revitalizing existing companies. That is why cor-
porate entrepreneurship is brought into practice as a
tool for business development, revenue growth, prof-
itability enhancement and pioneering the development
of new products, services and processes [14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19].
Inrapreneurs are defined as those who possess
certain striking personal qualities [20]. Researchers
have pointed out that successful entrepreneurs prac-
tice three basic principles:
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
a) they learn and practice the fundamentals of
professional management;
b) they adopt an entrepreneurial behavioral style
that transcends bureaucracy and encourages an inno-
vative climate;
c) they are also seen to encourage innovation
and intrapreneurship among their employees.
Kirby (1997) described intrapreneurship as a pe-
culiar mix of skills that combine attributes of the en-
trepreneurs with those of corporate managers. Saeed
and Gazdar (2003) states, that some scholars similarly
define intrapreneurship in terms of corporate entre-
preneurship, signifying complete redevelopment of
traditional corporate strategies and intrepreneurial
thinking [20].
Concluding the review of corporate entrepre-
neurship and intrapreneurship definitions, construct
and features inside them, it could be seen that corpo-
rate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship refers to a
similar set of skills and actions. As Thoren (2007)
observed, entrepreneurship in established firms is
commonly referred to as “new business creation”,
“corporate venturing”, “corporate entrepreneurship”,
“corporate innovation”, “strategic entrepreneurship”
or “intrapreneurship” [21]. Thus corporate entrepre-
neurship and intrapreneurship will be used as syno-
nyms in this study, using the term “corporate entre-
preneurship” as having in mind that corporate
entrepreneurship is a peculiar mix of skills and ac-
tions that combine attributes of the entrepreneurs and
corporate managers within a firm as rejuvenating and
revitalizing tools in existing companies.
3. Finding entrepreneurship dimensions
Lately entrepreneurship research [2, 21] focus on
two basic dimensions: individual (trait) approach and
firm (behavioral) approach, mainly concluding on the
outcome as a new value creation that fuels economic
growth.
3.1. Individual (trait) approach
For many years academic debate have performed
in the origins of entrepreneurial behavior. Many stud-
ies tried to identify an “entrepreneurial personality” as
a specific set of traits that distinguished entrepreneurs
from general population [22]. This branch of research
was mainly interested in the “why?” question: “why
do certain individuals start firms when others, under
similar conditions, do not?” [23]. As review of scien-
tific literature shows, that many authors have an-
swered this “why” question with “who” [2]. Broadly
this approach is known as the “trait approach” as the
entrepreneur’s traits are seen as the key to explain the
entrepreneurship phenomenon. Thus at this approach
the individual is the primary level of analysis.
Still, there is a substantial amount of disagree-
ment concerning the concept of the entrepreneurial
personality. Some scholars, such as Drucker (1985)
believe that individuals can be taught to be entrepre-
23
neurs, while others consider this is impossible [24].
Oneal (1993) contradicts to Drucker: “While he’s
[Drucker’s] probably right that nuts and bolts of en-
trepreneurship can be studied and learned, the soul of
an entrepreneur is something else altogether. Entre-
preneur can be a professional manager, but not every
manager can be an entrepreneur” [22]. Whether entre-
preneurial tendencies exits at birth or are developed as
a person matures, certain traits are usually evident in
those who enjoy success. Some researchers describe
these basic traits of entrepreneurs: a passion for the
business, tenacity despite failure, confidence, self-
determination, management of risk, changes and op-
portunities, a tolerance for ambiguity, initiative and
need for achievement, detail-orientation and perfec-
tionism, perception of passing time, creativity, the big
picture, motivating factors. But in scientific literature
among most often mentioned specific entrepreneurial
traits are the locus of control, the need for achieve-
ment, risk taking, the personal value system and age
[2].
Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) distinguished
two schools of thought belonging to the trait ap-
proach: the great person school and the psychological
characteristics school (Fig 1).
TRAIT APPROACH –
one dimensional approach
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL THE GREAT
Specific entrepreneurial PERSON
traits: SCHOOL
• locus of control; Henry Ford, J.D. Rocke-
feller,
• need for achievement; Enzo Ferrari
• risk taking;
• personal value system;
• age.
Begley & Boyd, 1987;
Hornaday and Aboud, 1971;
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Gartner, 1989; Lee & Tsang, 2001; CHARACTERISTICS
Littunen, 2000 SCHOOL
Fig 1. One-dimensional trait approach [2, 23, 25]
The great person school is built around snip-
pets of the life story of inspirational individuals such
as Henry Ford, J.D. Rockefeller or Enzo Ferrari [25].
Central to this line of thinking is the intuitive ability
of “great” individuals to recognize an opportunity and
make the appropriate decision, suggesting that they
are endowed with certain qualities or traits. The great
person school as such is an extreme case of the psy-
chological characteristics school [2]. Gartner (1989)
has well documented the trait approach, but despite
the attention this approach has received in research
and literature, the trait approach still seems to be un-
able to capture the entrepreneurship phenomenon to
the full extent [23]. The basic weakness of trait ap-
proach is one-dimensional view, focusing solely on
the person of the entrepreneur. It could be observed
that many authors use very vague definitions of the
entrepreneur in their research and only few studies use
more or less the same definition. Thus the accumula-
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
tion of knowledge in this area of research threatens
seriously. As Gartner (1989) noticed, the research
findings of this approach provide a psychological
profile so full of traits and characteristics that the
entrepreneur would have to be a sort of generic
“everyman”. Nevertheless the trait approach still re-
mains a very popular view as even the most recent
issues of scientific journals contain articles belonging
to this approach [26]. This does support the idea that
any entrepreneurship research can mislead with this
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
point of view to more psychological than business
issues. At the same time entrepreneurial traits also
cannot be excluded from entrepreneurship research.
3.2. Organizational (behavioral) approach
The observed weaknesses of the trait approach
have widened the area of entrepreneurship research to
the behavioral approach, were entrepreneurship is
seen as the process of creating new organizations
[23]. The primary level of analysis is the organization
being created or “the project”. The main objective is
to gain understanding why the entrepreneurial
achievement has come into existence, but not to find
out “who is the entrepreneur”. The behavioral view
stresses the contextual nature of the creating process
[2]. The most important point at this approach is that
the entrepreneurial organization is seen as an outcome
of a complex processes with many influences. Hereby
the role of individual boils down to a series of actions
or behavior undertaken to enable the creation of the
organization, bur personal characteristics are consid-
ered only ancillary to the behavior. Following behav-
ioral view on entrepreneurship phenomenon the
increase of complexity could be observed as entrepre-
neurship in behavioral approach is generally accepted
as a multidimensional construct as well as the nexus
of several dimensions or process components that can
be distinguished, but not separated from each other.
Still the conceptualization of entrepreneurship phe-
nomena remains confused as two (related) main
points of differing views remain:
a) defining entrepreneurship;
b) the number of process components constituting
the entrepreneurship construct.
Maes (2003) notice, that there seems to be con-
siderable variation on the locus of entrepreneurship
(where entrepreneurship is taking place): only newly
forming business, only existing firms, or both newly
forming and existing businesses (Fig 2).
Also the object of pursuit in the process of entre-
preneurship varies considerably. The formation of a
new organization or venture is the ultimate aim of
entrepreneurship for Gartner (1985; 1989), Kouriloff
(2000) and Low (2001) and entrepreneurship ends
once the formation process is finished. Gartner’s
(1989) view support that innovation only serves to
increase the ambiguity in what already is a defini-
tional dilemma. Oppositely Miller (1983), Kanter
(1985) and Schuler (1986) relate entrepreneurship to
innovation explicitly [2].
24
BEHAVIORAL APPROACH –
multidimensional approach
LOCUS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Newly forming businesses Existing businesses
Gartner (1985; 1989), Miller (1983),
Kouriloff (2000), Low (2001) Jones and Butler (1992)
Newly forming and existing businesses
Kanter (1985), Krueger and Brazeal (1994),
Schuler (1986), Shane and Venkataraman (2000),
Stevenson and Jarillo (1990)
OBJECT OF
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PROCESS
The ultimate aim of entrep- Explicit relate: ent-
reneurship: new business repreneurship
formation & innovation
Gartner (1985; 1989), Miller (1983),
Kouriloff (2000), Kanter (1985),
Low (2001) Schuler (1986)
Entrepreneurship: noticing and pursuing of oppor-
tunities
Jones & Butler (1992), Krueger & Brazeal (1994),
Shane & Venkataraman (2000),
Stevenson & Jarillo (1990)
Fig 2. Multidimensional behavioral approach [2]
The last group of entrepreneurship researchers
chose to avoid this discussion and put forward that
entrepreneurship concerns the noticing and pursuing
of opportunities [1, 27, 28, 29]. Maes (2003) found
that the views about what constitutes entrepreneurship
vary considerably. Thus even the behavioral approach
does not bring unanimity among researchers about
what constitutes entrepreneurship. In the absence of a
universally accepted definition, it is the responsibility
of every author to state clearly what is meant when
the term entrepreneurship is used [2].
4. The theoretical framework of entrepreneur-
ship
As the presented research shows, from the be-
havioral view entrepreneurship is accepted as a multi-
dimensional construct, as a nexus of multiple compo-
nents. Thus study of entrepreneurship requires taking
into account many various components. However,
there seems to be no agreement as to the number of
components involved.
4.1. The minimum and maximum approaches to
the number of entrepreneurship components
Scholars’ views with regard to the essence or de-
scription of the different components differ. For in-
stance, Bruyat and Julien (2001) acknowledge that
any organized living body can act as an entrepreneur
[5]. Gartner (1985) and Bygrave and Hofer (1991) on
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
the other hand only recognize the individual entrepre-
neur [30, 31]. Still, the varying views on the essence
of the “individual” component are equally applicable
to the other process components. Maes (2003) found
that, as far as the number of components is concerned,
there seems to be a minimum and a maximum ap-
proach (Fig 3). Some researchers represent the mini-
mum approach [5, 23, 30]. They see entrepreneurship
as the nexus of two components, i.e. the individual
and the entrepreneurial process or project. The maxi-
mum approach considers entrepreneurship to be the
combination of four components, i.e. the individual,
the creating process, the organization and the envi-
ronment [31].
MINIMUM APPROACH MAXIMUM APPROACH
Entrepreneurial ENVIRONMENT
process
or Organization
project
Creating process
INDIVIDUAL INDIVIDUAL
Fig 3. Minimum and maximum approach to the number of
entrepreneurship components [5, 23, 30, 31]
As it can be observed from the minimum and
maximum approaches of entrepreneurship, the maxi-
mum approach, as Maes (2003) noticed, is the most
promising view for several reasons.
At first, the above made analysis shows that the
behavioral approach views entrepreneurship as a se-
ries of actions or behavior undertaken to enable the
creation of the entrepreneurial project. As this behav-
ior (opportunity recognition, resource assembling,
etc.) can come in many diverse forms [1], some of
which may not be specified at this point in time, the
maximum approach is more likely to fulfill this re-
quirement as it is less likely to exclude as-yet-
unspecified entrepreneurial behavioral forms. While
excluding such important components as the envi-
ronment and the organization from a framework de-
scribing the entrepreneurship field and concerning on
the minimum approach, an inexcusable loss of entre-
preneurial diversity would imply.
Secondly, as Gartner (1989) has warned entre-
preneurship researchers about the persistence of the
trait approach and about the merging of behavior and
trait issues in real life entrepreneurship research [23],
the minimum approach is more likely to end by entre-
preneurial traits rather that behavior. The complexity
of four components supports behavioral view on en-
trepreneurship.
25
Third, as the primary purpose is to obtain a good
description of the entrepreneurship field, that would
allow building theories and carrying out effective
empirical research in order to enhance the understand-
ing of the phenomenon [5], following the model of
evaluation of the impact of corporate social capital on
the operation of enterprise developed by Macer-
inskiene and Vasiliauskaite [32] and trying to map
the social complexity of the entrepreneurial resource
provider it becomes, as Maes (2003) stated, clear
enough that the “project” or “opportunity” dimension
is itself a nexus of multiple components, encompass-
ing the environment and/or the organization [2]. Try-
ing to find on overall understanding of the entrepre-
neurship phenomenon as it is possible such signifi-
cantly influenced components as organization and
environment should not be a priori excluded from the
description of the entrepreneurship domain.
Finally, the maximum approach is more likely to
be acceptable to most researchers since most will find
a place for the research topic they are interested in.
The reasons explored above leads to take the
maximum approach as the basis for building the
framework of entrepreneurship. But the maximum
approach that we would like to put forward is slightly
different form the approach suggested by Gartner [23,
31] and Maes [2]. As described above, Gartner’s view
encompasses four components: the individual, the
creating process, the organization being created and
the environment. Instead of looking upon entrepre-
neurship as the creation of an organization, Maes
proposed to see entrepreneurship as the process of
creating new value by incorporating the creator, the
creating process, new value creation, the close envi-
ronment and the remote environment and elucidate
entrepreneurship as a nexus of these multiple compo-
nents.
What we are trying to do, is to build up an over
holding entrepreneurship framework, incorporating
basic entrepreneurship components, highlighted in
recent entrepreneurship research [2, 21, 32, 33, 34], to
explore the interactions between these components
and to clarify the position of each component in the
overall entrepreneurship phenomena, willing suggest
a basis for future research in the field. We agree with
Maes’ view to see entrepreneurship as the process of
creating new value, instead of Gartner’s look upon
entrepreneurship as the creation of an organization, as
new value creation could lead to a new organization,
but does not necessarily has to do so. Thus, our theo-
retical entrepreneurship framework basically focuses
on six components (Fig 4):
• entrepreneur (individual);
• entrepreneurial team (group);
• organization;
• creative/entrepreneurial process (value creation);
• close environment;
• remote environment.
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

ECONOMIC GROWTH
Social rewards: Consumer satisfaction; Community well-being

OUTPUT: PERCEIVED REWARDS

Entrepreneurial organization A Organization B

Application of External corporate social capital
human and Creative / entrepreneurial process
social capital to
PROCESS: VALUE CREATION

Internal corporate social capital

Internal corporate social capital

Corporate entrepreneruship
resource OPPORTUNITY
capital:

Corporate management

Remote environment
Entrepreneurial Group
Close environment

Financial team
TRUST
OBLIGA-
Technological TIONS

Material Entrepreneur NET-

sc NORMS, INDIVIDUA
WORKS SANC- L
TIONS
Labor
INDIVIDUAL MOTIVATION ABILITY - Human
- Human capital capital (inter-
Physical mate- (internal) nal)
rials + +
- Social capital - Social capital
(external) Personal rewards (external)
- Financial reward;
- Recognition
- Power

INPUT: PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITY

Market demand: more effective, efficient use of resources

SOCIAL-POLITICAL-ECONOMIC STRUCTURES, CULTURAL DYNAMICS

Fig 4. The theoretical framework of entrepreneurship

In order to compare the interaction between en- in the figure presents the fundamentals of formation
trepreneurial organization and the environment with of social capital: social networks, trust and the
ordinary organization and the environment, we put framework of shared values/believes norms and sanc-
entrepreneurial organization and ordinary organiza- tions [32]. Opportunity, motivation and ability are the
tion in parallel with its components. three prerequisites that stimulate the generation of
corporate social capital. Social networks can be initi-
4.2. The entrepreneur ated and maintained at all three levels: individual,
group and corporate, but the policy and culture of
Most of the researchers agree on the starting organization determine how successfully individual
point of entrepreneurship – an entrepreneur. As it social capital would be employed in the operation of
could be seen in the figure, both entrepreneurial or- organization. Neace (1999) states, that relatively high
ganization and ordinary organization have an individ- level of trust or the creation of trust by the entrepre-
ual component. Thus the individual is a primary level neur can be viewed as essentials for sustainable suc-
of analysis. An ordinary individual can be character- cess [33]. That is that only in existing conditions of
ized as having a combination of two basic recourses: trust and high level of motivation individual avail his
human capital (internal) and social capital (external). scope of individual human capital and social capital
Human capital refers to the stock of productive skills and perceives opportunity with entrepreneurial behav-
and technical knowledge embodied in labor. Many ior. This fuels to start creative entrepreneurial process.
early economic theories refer to it simply as labor,
one of three factors of production and consider it to be 4.3. Entrepreneurial team
a fungible resource – homogeneous and easily inter-
changeable. Other conceptions of labor dispense with As Cooney (2005) observed, one of the great
these assumptions. Nevertheless human capital has myths of entrepreneurship has been the notion of the
long history of research as applied to entrepreneurs entrepreneur as a lone hero, battling against the
(e.g. Becker, 1975) and generous quantities of human storms of economic, government, social, and other
capital are very important, Neace (1999) states that it environmental forces before anchoring in the harbor
is insufficient for success [33]. Thus human capital as of success [34]. Blackford (1991) suggested that small
such itself does not necessitate entrepreneurial behav- business owners are revered because of their symbol-
ior as both ordinary individual and entrepreneur can ism of self-reliant personal independence [35]. That
gain it through education and experience. The triangle seems to be close to the Great person school (trait

26
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
approach), overviewed above. The reality is that suc-
cessful entrepreneurs either built teams about them or
were part of a team throughout [34]. Still, it seems
that entrepreneurial team is not a very popular part in
entrepreneurship research as many scholars eliminate
this component from their research. These circum-
stances have stimulated to involve entrepreneurial
team into entrepreneurship framework as a compo-
nent of entrepreneurship phenomena.
Team entrepreneurship research had begun with
Cooper and Bruno (1977) which suggested that firms
founded by entrepreneurial teams were more likely to
achieve fast growth than firms founded by lone entre-
preneurs. In-depth qualitative research by Grant
(1993) offered evidence to support the notion that
commercial prosperity was optimized when the lead
entrepreneur and the venture team possessed a variety
of financial, experiential, mental, and emotional re-
sources. A number of other writers as Harrison and
Leitch (1995), Kamm and Aldrich (1991), Vesper
(1990) have also discussed the advantages of combin-
ing talents to create and advance an enterprise. These
benefits included pooling financial and physical re-
sources, spreading risk and anxiety, increasing the
stock of skills and expertise available, and compensat-
ing for individual weaknesses [34].
These conditions are most acceptable in our en-
trepreneurship framework as we see that solely entre-
preneur himself can’t solve all the problems concern-
ing application of human and social capital to
resource capital: financial, technological, material,
labor, physical materials, etc. Having a perceived
opportunity entrepreneur could get the best result
from creative entrepreneurial process combining the
human and social capital resources with entrepreneu-
rial team, not eliminating the view that he is a lead
entrepreneur. We think that this component cannot be
eliminated in entrepreneurial organization, especially
keeping in mind not the new business creation, but the
creation of new value. Positive entrepreneurial team
environment and spectrum of entrepreneurial team
resources create better conditions for entrepreneurial
process.
4.4. Entrepreneurial organization
Focusing on the firm as the unit of analysis, the
underlying idea of this research stream is that firms
can be entrepreneurial to varying extents, and that this
is an important aspect of the firms’ behavior [21]. It
could be observed that large portion of the research
stream relies on quantitative methods to gauge the
level of entrepreneurial behavior in firms. The estab-
lished measures for corporate entrepreneurship in-
clude entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial
management. Thoren found that by applying multi-
variate techniques, several studies investigate how the
entrepreneurship constructs relates to performance
according to Wiklund (1998) and Zahra (1995), re-
source self-efficacy and growth in Brown and
27
Kirchhoff (1997) works, and to the influence of the
environment or other mediating or moderating vari-
ables in Kreiser, Marino and Weaver (2002), Zahra
and Garvis (2000) research [21].
Most likely to be observed that there are several
environmental conditions that tend to stimulate corpo-
rate entrepreneurship, such as dynamism and hetero-
geneity (i.e. change and variance) in the environment,
as well as technological intensity and industry life
cycle stage. Findings imply that the lack of stability in
product solutions and business models (e.g. in early
industry life cycle stages) makes firms score higher
on corporate entrepreneurship indicators. Further,
environmental hostility appear to influence the rela-
tionship between entrepreneurship and financial per-
formance positively and also stimulates innovation.
Thus organization stands as an intermediary in rela-
tion between entrepreneur, entrepreneurial team and
other organizations and structures. It is also a basic
component in creating conditions of trust and high
level of motivation for entrepreneur to avail his scope
of individual human capital and social capital in order
to enforce creative entrepreneurial process and new
value creation.
4.5. Creative/entrepreneurial process and new
value creation
Creative or entrepreneurial process we see as the
combination of several steps. As we explained above,
positive conditions of trust, motivation and combina-
tion of human and social capital enforces individual to
start taking entrepreneurial actions. Maes (2003)
states, that the process starts with discovery and rec-
ognition of business opportunities and information
search [2]. The main role in this process is more likely
to be devoted to one person. Maes observed that op-
portunity recognition seems to be a function of the
joint characteristics of the opportunity and the recog-
nizer. Individual elements playing a prominent role in
the process are knowledge differences (different
stocks of information), behavioral differences and
cognitive differences (different mental schemas pro-
viding a framework for recognizing new information)
if comparing an ordinary individual with entrepre-
neur. The next step in the creation process is the deci-
sion to exploit the opportunities discovered followed
by the acquisition and accumulation of resources [1;
6; 31]. From our view, entrepreneurial team plays the
most significant role in this stage while planning the
allocation of resources. Choosing the mode of exploi-
tation [1] and developing a business strategy [6] com-
plete the creating process. Gartner (1985) further de-
tails the development of business strategy, listing
behaviors such as marketing products and services,
producing the product or service, building an organi-
zation and responding to government and society
[31]. In all its stages, the creating process is character-
ized by uncertainty [27].
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
There is slight difference distinguishing entre-
preneurial process and new value creation, as the
notion of new value creation and innovation in entre-
preneurship research is not an easy one. We agree
with Maes’ position to use the label “new value crea-
tion” instead of innovation. Gartner (1989) issues a
warning not to correlate entrepreneurship with inno-
vation, however intuitively appealing this might be. In
his view, correlating both constructs would lead to the
almost unsolvable problem of identifying which firms
in an industry are innovative and which are not, in-
creasing the ambiguity in a field already confronted
with a definitional dilemma [2; 23]. The new value
creation label is less likely to result in confusion be-
tween innovation and invention when confronted with
the many different definitions of innovation existing
in literature. The main point is that it stresses the fact
of new value creation being a result of series actions
in order to adopt a process, product or service new to
the organization and is approached from a behavioral
point of view. As it can be observed in various
sources of literature, entrepreneurial process and new
value creation process are characterizes with alike set
of actions, thus we suggest to keep it as integral proc-
ess in entrepreneurship framework.
4.6. Close environment
It is accepted by entrepreneurship researchers
that entrepreneurs (creators) may come in many forms
and the creating process requires several choices to be
made such as mode of exploitation, business strategy,
etc. The decision process is a combination of the pre-
ceding steps in the decision process connected to the
entrepreneur to creating process to new value crea-
tion. Hereby nexus between all these components
create an environment for the subsequent parts of the
decision process. That is that the structure created
constrains the further development of the project [5].
Gartner (1985) suggests that entrepreneurial back-
ground, including family, experience, education, etc.,
is considered to influence the choice for a certain type
of firm, e.g. manufacturing, service or other [31]. And
the type of firm chosen for may then affect the mode
of exploitation, the resource acquisition, the develop-
ment of the business strategy and so on. Summarizing
the structure of close environment, should be stated,
that it includes all the conditions and forces that are
directly related to the nexus of entrepreneurial process
components. Seeing entrepreneurial process from this
perspective, some important elements could be de-
fined, e.g. while dealing with an entrepreneurial team
or an existing organization setting up an entrepreneu-
rial project, the close environment becomes more
complex, including relationships within the team,
organization structure, culture, procedures and so on.
So we can agree with Maes’ conclusion that the close
environment, seen as the inside set of conditions,
originating from within the nexus, the entrepreneurial
process has to respond to, is dynamic in its varying
28
complexity [2]. The initial degree of complexity var-
ies with the type of the entrepreneurial project. And in
the course of the entrepreneurial process the complex-
ity is continuously increased since the close environ-
ment expands and evolves.
4.7. Remote environment
As it is seen in the figure, the entrepreneurial
process is highly affected with social, political, eco-
nomic structures and cultural dynamics. Thus it also
has to respond to and interact with a vast set of condi-
tions originating from outside its nexus, called here
according to Maes’ [2] as remote or general environ-
ment. The remote environment includes forces, condi-
tions and institutions having infrequent or long-term
impacts on the entrepreneurship/new value creation
process. One way policymakers can promote entre-
preneurship is to include specific strategies and goals
in overall development strategies. Typically, these
strategies lay out broad principles that guide all eco-
nomic development policy-related activities in a state
[36]. Maes states, that only a condition resulting from
outside the nexus can belong to the remote environ-
ment [2]. Following the idea, all different entrepre-
neurial projects can have different close and remote
environments. In this sense, the availability of venture
capital can be an element of the remote environment
for a single, individual entrepreneur. But in the case
of an existing large corporation with an internal ven-
ture fund, the availability of venture capital is likely
to be a close environmental characteristic. In practice
we can address both state and supranational political
environment as a remote environment, as it can tend
to create an environment that encourages entrepreneu-
rial growth: improving access to capital, providing
technical assistance, streamlining securities regula-
tion, improving state regulatory licensing environ-
ments, implementing regulatory reform, building
intellectual capacity at state universities, creating
industry clusters, improving state tax environments,
improving entrepreneurship education, reaching out to
entrepreneurs, and recognizing entrepreneurial achie-
vement [36]. As performed analysis suggests, these
action in the remote environment could help to create
more attractive climate to entrepreneurship process
and new value creation, but scarcely can enforce indi-
viduals to take entrepreneurial actions.
Summarizing the elaborated framework of en-
trepreneurship from the combination of individual and
behavioral view, some important things should be
emphasized. At first, the framework composes three
aspects of entrepreneurship: input, process and output.
Most of researchers accept the process and output, but
the input seems to be mentioned vaguely. We suggest
that the input could consists of entrepreneur’s per-
ceived opportunity, observed by exploiting the com-
bination of human and social capital in existing condi-
tions of trust and high level of motivation. The input
circumstances depend on market demand conditions
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
and entrepreneur’s ability to perceive the opportunity.
Secondly, all components and actions that exist within
the organization, including entrepreneur, entrepreneu-
rial team, entrepreneurial process, human and internal
social capital seems to be the area of corporate entre-
preneurship. And finally, it is important, that the en-
trepreneurial process over cross organizational bor-
ders, as it comes with an output to both close and
remote environment with personal and social rewards.
Such social rewards as consumer satisfaction and
community well-being creates better conditions for
economic growth.
5. Conclusions
Lately entrepreneurship research focus on two
basic dimensions: individual (trait) approach and firm
(behavioral) approach, concluding on the outcome –
new value creation that fuels economic growth. The
trait approach support the individual as the primary
level of analysis, whether at the behavioral approach
the organization is the primary level of analysis. Two
schools belong to the trait approach: the great person
school and the psychological characteristics school.
Meanwhile from the behavioral view there could be
the minimum and maximum approach that consists of
different number of components, taken into account.
This study focuses on the some kind of variation
of a maximum approach, taking into account six com-
ponents: entrepreneur (individual), entrepreneurial
team (group), organization, creative/entrepreneurial
process (value creation), close environment and re-
mote environment. In order to compare the interaction
between entrepreneurial organization and the envi-
ronment with ordinary organization and the environ-
ment, these two types on organizations were taken as
starting point in building the entrepreneurship frame-
work.
The framework supports that only in existing
conditions of trust and high level of motivation indi-
vidual avail his scope of individual human capital and
social capital and perceives opportunity with entre-
preneurial behavior. This fuels to start creative entre-
preneurial process. Entrepreneurial team was taken
into the framework as positive entrepreneurial team
environment and spectrum of entrepreneurial team
resources create better conditions for entrepreneurial
process. Organization stands as an intermediary in
relation between entrepreneur, entrepreneurial team
and other organizations and structures. It is also a
basic component in creating conditions of trust and
high level of motivation for entrepreneur to avail his
scope of individual human capital and social capital in
order to enforce creative entrepreneurial process and
new value creation. Entrepreneurial process and new
value creation process are characterizes with alike set
of actions, thus it is suggested to keep it as integral
process in entrepreneurship framework. Descriptive
entrepreneurship framework encompasses two com-
29
ponents of a more contextual nature: the close and the
remote environment.
A complete behavioral model for the purpose of
describing entrepreneurship of whatever nature, e.g.
corporate entrepreneurship, should include all six
components in some degree. After all, the maximum
approach is, as mentioned, the most appropriate ap-
proach to develop a descriptive framework for the
entrepreneurship domain. While the full framework is
necessary to describe or model the entrepreneurship
phenomenon and research field, the isolated nexus
might be more appropriate to work towards a defini-
tion of entrepreneurship shared by the research field.
The three components: entrepreneur, entrepreneurship
process and created new value (reward), that can be
distinguished but not separated from each other, form
the true nexus or core of entrepreneurship considered
from a behavioral or process point of view. This
nexus is the actual object studied in the field of entre-
preneurship, having in mind that the environmental
components cannot be disregarded. Thus, the two
contextual factors are important to study, model or
describe the practice of entrepreneurship in all its
forms.
References
1. SHANE, S.; VENKATARAMAN, S. The Promise of
Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of
Management Review, No 25(1), 2000, p. 217–226.
2. MAES, J. The Search for Corporate Entrepreneurship:
a Clarification of the Concept and its Measures.
Working paper Steunpunt OOI: September 2003,
[Electronic resource] – Read 06 January 2008 -
http://www. ondernemerschap.be/nl/online_output/
stooi/documents/
2002/search_for_corporate_entrepreneurship.pdf
3. GARTNER, W. B. A “Critical Mess” Approach to
Entrepreneurship Scholarship. The FSF-NUTEK
Award Winner Series 2005, [Electronic resource] –
Read 11 January 2008 - http://www.fsf.se/fsf-nutek-
award/papers/Paper_Gartner.pdf.
4. SCOTT, M. G.; ROSA, P.; KLANDT H. Educating
Entrepreneurs for Wealth Creation. Ashgate, Alder-
shot, 1998. 270 p.
5. BRUYAT, C.; JULIEN, P. Defining the Field of Re-
search in Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, No 16(2), 2001, p. 165–180.
6. UCBASARAN, D.; WESTHEAD, P.; WRIGHT, M.
The Focus of Entrepreneurial Research: Contextual
and Process Issues. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, No 25(4), 2001, p. 57–80.
7. KIRZNER, I. Entrepreneurial Discovery and the
Competitive Market Process: an Austrian Approach.
Journal of Economic Literature, No 1(35), 1997,
p. 60–85.
8. MUZYKA, D.; DE KONING A.; CHURCHILL N.
On Transformation and Adaptation: Building the En-
trepreneurial Corporation. European Management
Journal, No 4(13), 1995, p. 346–362.
9. CHRISTENSEN, P. S.; MADSEN, O. O.; PETER-
SON, R. Conceptualizing Entrepreneurial Opportunity
Identification. Marketing and Entrepreneurship: Re-
 ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT
search Ideas and Opportunities. Westport, CT: Green-
wood Press, 1994.
10. MATLAY, H. Critical Perspectives on the Interna-
tionalisation of SMEs. Bradford, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, 2006.
11. ROTHWELL, R.; ZEGVELD, W. New Ventures and
Large Firms. The Search for Internal Entrepreneur-
ship. Innovation and the Small and Medium Sized
Firm: Their Role in Employment and in Economic
Change. London: Pinter, 1982.
12. HAYES, R. H.; ABERNATHY, W. J. Managing Our
Way to Economic Decline. Harvard Business Review,
No 58(4), 1980, p.67–77.
13. KANTER, R. Supporting Innovation and Venture
Development in Established Companies. Journal of
Business Venturing, No 1(1), 1985, p. 47–60.
14. KURATKO, D. F.; MONTAGNO, R. V.;
HORNSBY, J. S. Developing an Intrapreneurial As-
sessment Instrument for Effective Corporate Entre-
preneurial Environment. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, No 11 (special issue), 1990, p. 49–58.
15. LUMPKIN, G. T.; DESS, G. G. Clarifying the Entre-
preneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Per-
formance. Academy of Management Review, No
21(1), 1996, p. 135–172.
16. MILES, M. P.; COVIN, J. G. Exploring the Practice
of Corporate Venturing: Some Common Forms and
Their Organizational Implications. Entrepreneurship:
Theory & Practice, No 26(3), 2002, p. 21–40.
17. ZAHRA, S. A. Predictors and Financial Outcomes of
Corporate Entrepreneurship: an Exploratory Study.
Journal of Business Venturing, No 6(4), 1991, p. 259–
285.
18. ZAHRA, S. A.; COVIN, J. G. Contextual Influences
on the Corporate Entrepreneurship-performance Rela-
tionship: a Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Business
Venturing, No 10(1), 1995, p. 43–58.
19. ZAHRA, S. A.; NIELSEN, A. P.; BOGNER, W. C.
Corporate Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, and Compe-
tence Development. Entrepreneurship: Theory &
Practice, No 23(3), 1999, p. 169–189.
20. SAYEED, O.B.; GAZDAR, M.K. Intrapreneurship:
Assessing and Defining Attributes of Intrapreneurs.
Journal of Entrepreneurship, No 12(1), 2003, p. 75–
89.
21. THOREN, K. Corporate Entrepreneurship as a Busi-
ness Development Strategy. Doctoral Thesis. Stock-
holm, Sweden 2007. [Electronic resource] – Read 11
December 2007 - http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/get
Document?urn_nbn_se_kth_diva-4536-2__fulltext.
pdf
30
22. LAMBING, P.; KUEHL, CH. R. Entrepreneurship.
Prentice hall, 2006. p.336.
23. GARTNER, W. B. “Who is an entrepreneur?” is the
Wrong Question. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Prac-
tice, No 13(4), 1989, p. 47–68.
24. DRUCKER, P. F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985.
25. CUNNINGHAM, J. B.; LISCHERON, J. Defining
Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, No 29(1), 1991, p. 45–61.
26. ARDICHVILI, A.; GASPARISHVILI, A. Russian
and Georgian Entrepreneurs and Non-entrepreneurs.
A Study of Value Differences. Organization Studies,
No 24(1), 2003, p. 29–46.
27. JONES, G. R.; BUTLER, J. E. Managing Internal
Corporate Entrepreneurship. An Agency Theory Per-
spective. Journal of Management, No 18(4), 1992,
p. 733–749.
28. KRUEGER, N. F.; BRAZEAL, D. V. Entrepreneurial
Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur-
ship: Theory & Practice, No 18(3), 1994, p. 91–104.
29. STEVENSON, H.; JARILLO, C. A Paradigm of
Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Management. Stra-
tegic management Journal, No 11, 1990, p.17–27.
30. BYGRAVE, W. D.; HOFER, C. W. Theorizing about
Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Prac-
tice, No 16(2), 1991, p.13–22.
31. GARTNER, W. B. A Conceptual Framework for
Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Crea-
tion. Academy of Management Review, No 10(4),
1985, p. 696–706.
32. MAČERINSKIENĖ, I.; VASILIAUSKAITĖ J. The
Model of Evaluation of the Impact of Corporate So-
cial Capital on the Operation of Enterprise. Engineer-
ing Economics, No 4(54), 2007, p. 53–60.
33. NEACE, M. B. Entrepreneurs in Emerging Econo-
mies: Creating Trust, Social Capital, and Civil Soci-
ety. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Politi-
cal and Social Science, No 1(565), 1999, p. 148–161.
34. COONEY, T. M. Editorial: What is an Entrepreneu-
rial Team? International Small Business Journal,
No 3(23), 2005, p. 226–235.
35. BLACKFORD, M. G. A History of Small Business in
America. UNC Press, 2003, p. 272.
36. RUBEL, T; PALLADINO, S. Nurturing Entrepreneu-
rial Growth In State Economies. National Governors’
Association, Washington, 2000. [Electronic resource]
– Read 14 January 2008-http://www.nga.org/
Files/pdf/ ENTREPRENEUR.PDF