Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

7th International Strategic Management Conference

Is There Any Linkage Between Entrepreneur Typologies and

Strategy Typologies?
Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincera, Mustafa Yildirima, Esra Dila*
a

Sakarya University, Esentepe Campus, Sakarya,54187 Turkey

Abstract
This study aims to explore whether if there is a linkage between entrepreneurship typologies and strategy typologies.
Entrepreneur portrays as having remarkable capacity to change the organization. Also strategy typology is a
significant component to determine firm performance. If there is a connection between entrepreneur and strategy
typologies, this paper has a modest contribution to shed light on this linkage. To research this connection we use
Dunkelberg & Coopers (1982) entrepreneurship typologies and Miles& Snows (1978) strategy typologies as
conceptual framework. We made 15 semi structured interview with entrepreneurs who work in different sectors and
own their firms which range in size to analyze entrepreneurship typologies and strategy typologies. The classification
of entrepreneur types contain: craftsman, growth-oriented and independent and strategy typologies contain:
prospector, defender, analyzer and reactor. In conclusion we discuss the linkage between these typologies and
possibility of further problematic.
th

Elsevier
Ltd.
Selection
and/or
peer-review
underunder
responsibility
of 7th 7
International
Strategic
2011
2011Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier
Ltd.
Selection
and/or
peer-review
responsibility
International
Management Conference
Strategic Management Conference

Keywords: Strategy Typologies, Entrepreneur Typologies, Strategic Preference of Entrepreneur

1. Introduction
The aim of the study is to explore the relationship between entrepreneur typologies and strategy
typologies. Entrepreneur has a considerable capacity to change organizations direction, and on the other
hand strategy is a determining element of the firm performance. Thus, it is remarkable to discuss the
linkage between strategy typology and entrepreneur typology. There are great numbers of classification
studies on entrepreneurship (e.g.: Yusuf,2005;Glancey& McQuait,2000; Chell et al.,1991; Woo et al,
1988; Dunkelberg & Cooper,1982) and strategy (e.g.: De Witt ve Meyer, 2002; Whittington, 1993;
Chaffee, 1985; Miler & Friesen,1978) in literature. But the studies which show the relation between
entrepreneur and strategy typologies are few in number. Therefore the problematic of this study is,
whether the entrepreneur typology defines/affect directly the strategy typologies or not. Here we have an
implicit assumption that, if we know the entrepreneur typology, we can predict the firms strategy type.
This connection can be considered as a modest contribution to the literature with a qualitative perspective
which gives a different point of view about entrepreneur as the determining actor of strategy in a firm. In
the spectrum ranging from individuals to the system, the subject/matter of individuals preferences effect
Corresponding author. Tel +90 264 295 62 95; Fax: +90 264 295 71 30
E-mail address: esradil@sakarya.edu.tr

18770428 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of 7th International Strategic Management Conference
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.061

602

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

on organizations is remarkable for our perspective. The originality of this paper is the effort on linking
these two levels and detailing conceptual clarifying.
Prospector-Analyzer-Defender-Reactor strategy typologies of Miles and Snow (1978) and craftsman,
growth-oriented and independent entrepreneurship typologies of Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982) will be
our concepts when analyzing our problematic. In the literature there are various studies on entrepreneur
typologies and strategy typologies, but the reason we chose Miles and Snows and Dunkelberg and
Coopers concepts is their pioneering influence on the field. Yet there is an ambiguous relationship
between strategy and entrepreneur types. Related to this ambiguity the topic of the current study has some
constraints. Besides, the study has some other constraints like a specific sector is out of our frame, and all
our interviewees are from Turkey. Also we dont aim to generalize, but we want to thorough our
knowledge on the topic, and ask new questions for further studies. Thus for the future studies a scale can
be developed to see and to interpret the general context.
1.1. Literature Review
For the exploration of the relationship between entrepreneur typologies and strategy typologies, firstly
we need to define both of the concepts and their typologies. Thus, we can have conceptual tools to argue
the linkage between them. It is widely acknowledged that the field of entrepreneurship lacks a single
unified and accepted definition for the term entrepreneurship because of complexity of the notion. Even
the following definitions display the conceptual variation in the field ( Aydn, 2006):
"Entrepreneurs are undertakers engaged in market exchanges at their own risk for the purpose of
making a profit" (Cantilion, 1931)
"The creation of new enterprise" (Low and Macmillan, 1988)
"The process of creating something different with value by devoting the necessary time and effort;
assuming the accompanying financial, psychological, and social risks; and receiving the resulting rewards
of monetary and personal satisfaction" (Hisrisch & Peters, 1989).
The process by which individuals (either on their own or inside organizations) pursue opportunities
without regard to the resources they currently control (Stevenson and Jarilio, 1990)"
An entrepreneur is the person, who organizes and manages a business undertaking and who assumes
risk for the sake of a profit (Wheelen and Hunger,2000)
Briefly we can classify the definitions in two categories; i-what the entrepreneur is; as a particular
person or as the product of a particular environment, ii-or what the entrepreneur does; as the performer of
a particular role in society, or as a specific input to the economy, events and processes.
Diversity of entrepreneurship identification causes variety of different entrepreneurship typologies.
Such as Simith (1967)craftsman entrepreneurs and opportunistic entrepreneurs; Braden (1977)
caretakers and managers; Filley and Aldag (1978) craft , promotion and administrative
entrepreneurs ; Dunkelberg and Cooper
(1982)craftsman, growth-oriented and independent
entrepreneurs, Erikson (2001) the ready entrepreneur, the ready reluctant, the ready feasible, the ready
unconvinced; Ucbasaran et. al. (2004) Nave novice, Transient over-achiever novice, Long-term
novice, Transient novice, Biased habitual, Transient habitual, Routine habitual, Expert habitual. These
typologies have been developed to describe alternate perspectives of entrepreneurship and these efforts
generally focus on how various combinations of individual, organizational, and environmental factors
influence entrepreneurial posture.
These typologies, in most cases, delineate two or three primary types of entrepreneurs (/DQGVWU|m,
2005). In this study, we choose Dunkelberg and Coopers (1982) typology as a framework. Because

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

compared to other studies, classification of Dunkelberg and Cooper seems much more significant
concerning our problematic. Here are the typologies;
Growth-oriented, who were driven by a desire for substantial growth whose line of business, was
changing rapidly. They indicated a desire for growth over the following five-year period or more than
30%.
Independence oriented, who were strongly driven avoid working for others. These business owners
were more often found in agriculture and professional practice (such as dentists, engineers, and
accountants) compared to other groups of business owners, they more often purchased their firms.
Craftsman-oriented, who were strongly drawn toward doing a particular type of business, they tended
to have the least formal education and were more likely to have started their business themselves
(Dunkelberg & Cooper:1982, /DQGVWU|m, 2005)
Like entrepreneur definitions, the concept of strategy has various identifications in the field. The
perspectives on what is strategy? define the strategic approaches: eg: Mintzberg, 1967; Hamel &.
Prahalad, 1984; Andrews, 1987; Christensen et al. 1982; Ansoff ,1988; Porter, 1980,1985. Briefly; we can
classify the definitions as, i- what the strategy is; as a context matter, ii- or how the strategy formulation
is; as a process matter.
The variety of strategic typology is similar to entrepreneur typologies, but also we may mention the
existence of the strategic management schools thoughts (Minztberg, 1979). Generally scholars claimed
that actors in the strategic field affect their environment and they give priority to their claims in their field
(Miles & Snow, 1978), some of them emphasize the organizational strategy perspective (e.g. Snow &
Hambrick, 1980, Rumelt, 1979, Miles, Snow, Meyer, & Coleman,1978), strategy and structure relation
(Chandler, 1962). Also some scholars like Porter (1980,1985) emphasize the decisive impact on the
industry's strategy. Since the problematic of this study focused on the linkage between the
entrepreneurship typology and the strategy typology Miles and Snows concept is preferred rather than
typologies of others. Briefly in this study scholars made up four types of strategy.
Here are brief definitions of four strategy types (Hambrick, 2003; Peng et. al.. 2004):
Prospectors: These organizations tend to operate in volatile environments and are continually
searching for market opportunities. These organizations are often the creators of change to which
competitors must respond. Response to emerging trends is the primary focus of prospectors, through new
product research and development. Prospectors have a broad market domain, a focus on innovation and
change, and a flexible organizational structure headed by younger managers, while defenders and
prospectors reside at opposite ends of a continuum of strategic proactiveness.
Defender: These organizations tend to operate in a narrow and stable product-market domain,
customer group, established structure managed by older executives. Top managers are highly expert in
their organizations limited area of operation, but do not tend to search outside the domain for new
opportunities. Primary attention is devoted to improving efficiency of existing operations.
Analyzers: These organizations are between the extremes of prospector and defender, and thus exhibit
characteristics of each. They watch competitors closely, and then adopt the most promising new ideas
using their efficient research and production skills.

603

604

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

Reactors: These are organizations in which top management perceives change and uncertainty but is
unable to cope with it. This strategy is not viable in the long term. Reactors have no consistent strategy
and do not belong to the continuum.
Here are some references on Miles & Snows model: Andrews et. al (2009) refine the Miles & Snows
model by distinguishing between strategy formulation and implementation, and applying it to 90 public
services organizations. Moores (2005) research extends the overall scope of the Miles & Snows
strategic typology to the domestic retail environment and provides insides into measuring and
understanding strategic types within the industry. Pearce and Robinson (1988) used strategy typologies in
their strategic management book. Also Hambrick (1983) has tested Miles and Snows (1978) strategic
typology in his study. His study based on a sample of businesses in the PIMS data base and explores the
effectiveness of the strategic types in different environments and the ways in which defenders and
prospectors differ in their functional attributes.
Hao et al (2006) examine business strategies of Chinese developers based on the strategy typologies.
In light of the classic SWOT framework, they examine the external and internal influences/constraints to
the firms business strategy formulations by adopting two perspectives, i.e. the strategic choice and the
resource-based view, in order to identify the antecedents of the business strategy types. Additionally,
Williams and Tse (1995) reports on a survey of entrepreneurs in the US restaurant sector in their article.
Its purpose was to test empirically Simith & Miners (1983) and Miles and Snows typology of strategy
as applied to the restaurant industry, in order to explore whether or not there is a relationship between
type of entrepreneur and type of strategy.
Regarding this literature review as we mentioned above we have limited sources on linkages between
strategy and entrepreneur types. Our study aims to be an exploratory research attempt to explain the
assumed linkage between entrepreneurship and strategy typologies. Details of methodology of the paper
are below:

1.2. Methodology Of The Research

Our study has a qualitative research perspective. Dunkelberg and Coopers (1982) classification on
entrepreneur typologies, and Miles and Snows (1978) quartet strategy typologies will be used as
conceptual tools in our work to interpret whether there is a linkage between these typologies. To provide
a holistic picture of the reality qualitative research methodology is fruitful for our research aim. Data
gathering technique of the study is semi structured interviews with entrepreneurs from different sectors.
Entrepreneurship stories of the interviewees give rich discursive materials in order to classify their
entrepreneur types. On the other hand, this data gathering technique provides thorough and detailed
knowledge on their strategy typologies. We reached 15 interviewees in total. We do not aim to generalize
our interpretation, for an exploratory research attempt the number of the interviewees is found adequate.
For preparing semi-structured interview form we used aforementioned conceptual framework. In the
course of interview firstly we asked questions about interviewee to find out his/her entrepreneur typology
in details. Then we tried to attain strategy typologies by asking about which strategy the firm conduct.
Thus, evaluation of the interview reports revealed whether similar entrepreneur types which perform in
different sectors, conduct/ tend to conduct similar strategies or not.
Unlike questionnaire, we aim to reach data in-depth. Thus, semi structured interview method seems a
methodological contribution to discuss this topic. As Williams and Tse (1995) did in their early work,
especially quantitative methods used to combine individual and organizational levels. Here in our
research, the effects of decisions of individual as entrepreneur actor on organization can be analyzed
thoroughly by qualitative techniques.

605

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

There are also some constraints in our study; we could only reach entrepreneurs in Turkey particular
region. Our interviewees are male; we couldnt reach any female entrepreneurs.
2. Analysis
Here is brief identifier information about entrepreneurs:
Entrepreneur 1: He is 33 year old restaurateur. High school graduated. He has 15 years business
experience from 4 different sectors.
Entrepreneur 2: He is 34 year old restaurateur. High school graduated. He has 15 years business
experience from 3 different sectors.
Entrepreneur 3: He is 65 year old goldsmith/jeweler. Primary school graduated. He has 52 years
business experience from different sectors more than 15.
Entrepreneur 4: He is 49 year old building contractor. Primary school graduated. He has 36 years
business experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 5: He is 49 year old general director of a pyrotechnic. High school graduated. He has 12
years business experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 6: He is 55 year old confectioner. He is mechanical engineer. He has 42 years business
experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 7: He is 45 year old shoe store owner. High school graduated. He has 28 years business
experience from different sectors.
Entrepreneur 8: He is 66 year old cotton weaving factory owner. High school graduated. He has 46
years business experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 9: He is 61 year old general director of feed machinery factory. He is mechanical
engineer. He has 38 years business experience from different sectors.
Entrepreneur 10: He is 56 year old dairy farmer. High school graduated. He has 44 years business
experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 11: He is 63 year old general director of electro mechanic factory groups. He is electro
mechanic engineer. He has 40 years business experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 12: He is 47 year old leather goods producer. University dropout. He has 27 years
business experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 13: He is 48 year old caf owner. High school graduated. He has 36 years business
experience from different sectors.
Entrepreneur 14: He is 43 year old bag manufacturer. University dropout. He has 24 years business
experience from the same sector.
Entrepreneur 15: He is 50 year old publishing firm owner. High school graduated. He has 30 years
business experience from the same sector.

2.1. Analysis of Entrepreneurship Typologies

In the course of interview we asked for some personal information like; age, education, work and
management experience, seeing opportunity, taking risk, and innovation perspective, decision-making
process from participants to differentiate the typology of entrepreneurship. After gathering these data
from our participants we made classification for our study such as:
Table 1:Distribution of Entrepreneur Typologies According to Interviewees
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
craftsman
xx
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
x
xx
xx
Growth oriented
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
independent
xx
x
* Double entrepreneur characteristics have shown in two columns, the dominant characteristic indicated with xx.

15

606

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

According to our result entrepreneur types varies, but some of entrepreneurs show double
characteristics like growth and independent oriented. Almost half of the entrepreneurs displayed two
different entrepreneur typologies characteristics. So we described their typologies as dominant and
recessive. Term of dominant refers to the category, within which entrepreneurs take part majority and
recessive minority in personal information dimensions. In our research we found 6 craftsmen, 1
independent, 6 craftsmen-growth oriented, 1 independent-growth oriented and 1 growth orientedindependent entrepreneurs.
The reason of double characteristics in entrepreneurship may be based on the age factor of
entrepreneurs. After a certain age entrepreneurs display double entrepreneurship characteristics; while
environment observation skill has increased, their risk taking tendency has decreased, thus their main
entrepreneur characteristics become varied.
As we mentioned above, growth-oriented, who were driven by a desire for substantial growth in their
business. They indicated a desire for growth over the following five-year period or more than 30%. The
priority for independent entrepreneurs is to work for themselves and they usually prefer to choose
professional field. For Craftsman-oriented, who wants strongly drawn toward doing a particular type of
business, master-apprentice relationship is important to build their job career besides formal training. The
dimension of growth is significant for doubled-character entrepreneurs. For them there is a general
tendency to grow in their proficiency.
According to age variable, which ranges between 33-66, much of entrepreneurs stated that they have
been studying from 12 years old in business. Together with formal education their business education
consists of master-apprentice relationship that determines their route of career. Education level of
entrepreneurs has varied between elementary school graduations to university graduation such as: 8 high
school, 3 university, 1 elementary, 1 secondary school graduated and 2 university abandonments. Except
one engineer, two of them have working in their proficiency.
When we evaluated in terms of labor and management experience, it is seen that entrepreneurs learned
their business from their master since early times of their career. However, 9 participants decided to start
their own business even though in the same field and 6 participants have made many initiatives in
different sectors.
The study revealed that, entrepreneurs who have not thought to change their job less inclined to take
risk than others. Though the ability of perceiving the opportunity in their environments, its seen that
they do not take risk because of their capital cases, lack of work teams and other related factors.
Perceiving opportunities is a common feature for all entrepreneurs, but risk taking tendency determines
the responding change and innovation in the field.
Some of the dimensions such as; seeing opportunity, taking risk, and innovation perspective, decisionmaking process, will be explained in the strategy part because of their direct relation with strategy
typology.

2.2. Analysis of Strategy Typologies

In the course of interview we asked i-organizational information like; size, structure, hierarchy,
decision-making process, organizational history, activity period in the sector ii- strategic perspective iiifuture expectations for organization to differentiate the typology of strategy. Here are some interview
notes for justification of the classification by quoting from participants expressions:

607

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

Entrepreneur 1: I do not desire to stay in the same sector for entire of my life. I always search how to
involve in different sectors. For this job, I also plan to do something new.
Entrepreneur 8: I would go on this occupation to the last drop of my blood. I never think about reducing
the quality. I always think about how to be the best, and never think about how to change our profession
to different areas.
Entrepreneur 9: In 70s when investment and feasibility studies were not known in Turkey, we occupied
with these areas.
Table 2: Distribution of Strategy Typologies According to Interviewees
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
prospector
x
x
x
analyzer
x x
defender
x
x
x
x
x
x
reactor

12

13

14

15
x

*We do not see the positions as rigid. We mainly categorize according to their closeness to the identified typologies.

According to our result strategy types varies, but none of the firms conduct reactor strategy type.
Respectively 6 firms are defender, 5 of them are analyzer, 4 of them prospector. To be successful in long
term, as Miles and Snow (1978) referred, there is no chance for reactor ones. It can be deduced from this
situation, the entrepreneurs manages well their firm in turbulent environment. Accordingly, it can be
interpreted as the participants of our research are successful.
According to firm size, all the firms are SMEs, but comparatively big firms follow prospector strategy
typology rather than others. Structure, hierarchy, decision-making process depend upon firm size in our
sample. There is no substantive interpretation for these dimensions on strategy typologies.
Activity period in the sector relates directly with the typology of strategy for old firms. The oldest
firms conduct defender strategy type without any exception. When we evaluated future expectations of
the firms, there was no significant differentiation between strategy typologies. Also it is important that,
how long is the firm/ entrepreneur acts in the same sector. We realize that, defenders tend to act in the
same sector.

2.3. Is There Any Linkage?

It is seen that craftsman ones are tended to be defender. After come analyzer, and later prospector.
It is seen that growth oriented ones are tended to be analyzer. After come prospector and later
defender.
It is seen that independent ones are tended to be prospector. After comes analyzer.
According to these entrepreneurs typologies, none of them is reactor.
Table 3: Cross Table of Typologies According to Interviewees
prospector
analyser
defender
reactor
craftsman
9,11
2,12,13,14
4,5,6,7,8,10
Growth oriented
3,9,11
1,2,13,14
5
independent
3,15
1
-

608

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

Since it is seen that the participants who have double entrepreneur typology characteristics primarily
are craftsman and after that they are growth oriented, it is also seen that the ones who are craftsman are
tended to be defender.
When we check the distribution of entrepreneur typology and strategy typology, the ones who dually
are craftsman and defender, growth oriented and analyzer, independent and prospector are high in
number. This distribution shows that there is an implicit link between entrepreneur typology and strategy
typology.
We have previously stated that we attributes some roles to participants as decision making and
directing actor in terms of linkage between entrepreneur typology and strategy typology. And
accordingly, there will be a reflection in their strategy. In this context, participant's tendency of seeing
opportunities, taking risk, innovation perspectives give us opinion about their strategy tendency.
In the light of our problematic, our implicit argument is, if we know the entrepreneur typology, we can
predict the firms strategy type. Because we are concerned about whether entrepreneur typology
defines/affect directly the strategy typologies or not ? Here our research explore that, it is hard to make a
direct linkage between entrepreneur typology to strategy typology. But it is possible to construct linkages
between dimensions of entrepreneurship to strategy typology, or strategy typology dimensions to
entrepreneur type. For instance in our case; the age of entrepreneurs has a linkage between strategy
typology. All the youngest entrepreneurs are analyzer, or vice versa the oldest firms are defender.

3. Conclusion
The implicit assumption of this research is, there is an interactive relationship between
entrepreneurship typologies and strategy typologies of the firms. In decision making the entrepreneur is
an active actor in our perspective. Thus his/her decision will affect the preferred strategy typology
directly or indirectly. We did not aim to categorize entrepreneurs and their strategies accurately, but we
tried to reveal if there is any direct relation between entrepreneurs types and their strategies. Therefore,
we can discuss the possibility of differentiated strategy typologies by looking their owner entrepreneurs
typologies. This study did not aim to generalize the results, but tried to detail the interaction. Here are
some significant results:
As an active actor of decision making process the entrepreneurship typologies have a significant
effect on strategy typologies of the firms, but it is not clear which entrepreneurship dimensions are more
influential.
Our interviewees classified in three kinds of entrepreneur types, but none of them chose reactor
strategy type for their firm.
Craftsman types tend to prefer defender strategy rather than prospector or analyzer. It is
prospective situation, because the defenders prefer to defend their position in the market by focusing their
proficiency.
Growth-oriented types tend to prefer reactor strategy rather than defender or analyzer. To
maximize their market share, it is possible to interpret this, to find the niches and to see the opportunities
in the market is very important matter. Reactor focuses this point; this brings growth of the firm as a
result.
It is hard to interpret the connection of prospector strategy with entrepreneurship types. We need
to detail our investigation in further studies.
Young entrepreneurs firms are analyzer in strategy type.
The oldest firms are defender in strategy type.

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

As a conclusion we can say there is an implicit linkage between entrepreneurship typologies and
strategy typologies. Specifically craftsmen and defenders have a direct relation in our case. But we need
further explanations to clarify the relations between other types of entrepreneurs and strategies. We have
some problematic suggestions for further studies:
Which entrepreneurship dimensions are related to strategy typology directly? How can we
measure it?
Is sexuality variable matter significant for this relation?
How can a new methodological contribution be possible?

References
Alfred D. Chandler (1962) Strategy and Structure:Chapter in the history of the Industrial Enterprise, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Andrews Rhys et. al. (2009), Strategy,Structure and Process in Public Sector: A Test Of The Miles And Snow Model Public
Administration, Vol.87, No.4, P.(732-749).
Aydn , . (2006) European Innovation And Entrepreneurship Strategy: Implications For Turkey. T.C. Yeditepe University,
Institutde Of Social Science, BA Master Thesis.
Braden, P.L. (1977), Technological Entrepreneurship The Allocation of Time and Money in Technology-based Firms, Michigan
Business Reports No. 62, University of Michigan, MI.
C.R. Christensen, K.R.Andrews, J.L. Bower; G.Hamermesh ve M.E. Porter(1982) 5. Bask, Business Policy:Text and Cases
Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Cantillon R.. "F.ssai sur la nature du commerce en general". Macmillian. 1931. London
Chaffee, E.E. (1985), Three Models Of Strategy, Academy of Management Review, Cilt. 10, No. 1: 89-98.
Chandler, A. D., Jr. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1962.
De Wtt, B. ve R. Meyer (2002), Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage, London:
International Thomson Publishing.
Dunkelberg, W.C. and Cooper, A.C., Entrepreneurial typologies: an empirical study, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research,
Proceedings of the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Wellesley, MA, 1982, pp. 1-15.
Erikson, T. (2001). Revisiting Shapero: A taxonomy of entrepreneurial typologies. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 4,9
15.
G. Hamel Ve C. K. Prahalad (1984)Competing for The Future, Boston: HarvardBusiness School Pres
Glancey, K.S. & R.W. McQuaid (2000). Entrepreneurial economics. London: MacMillan PressChell,
E. , Haworth, J. and Brearley, S. (1991) The Entrepreneurial Personality: Concepts, Cases and Categories Routledge , London &
New York
H. Igor Ansoff (1988)The New Corporate Strategy, New York: Wiley.
H. Mintzberg (1967) The Science of Strategy-Making, Industrial Management Review. 8 (2), 71 81.
Hambric. Donald C. (2003) On the staying power of defenders, analyzers, and prospectors,Academy of Management Executive, ,
Vol. 17, No. 4
Hambrick, D. C. 1983. Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of Miles and Snow's strategic types. Academy of
Management Journal, 26(1): 5-26.
Hisrisch R.D. & Peters M.P., "Entrepreneurship: starting, developing and managing a new enterprise", Homewood, 1989
http://www.prres.net/Proceedings/..%5CPapers%5CTan_Applying_Miles_and_Snow_to_China.pdf Hao Tan, Rae Weston and
Yiming Tang, Applying the Miles and Snow's Business Strategy Typology to China's Real Estate Development Industry: A
Research Framework
K.R. Andrews (1971, 1980 ve1987 basklar) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
/DQGVWU|m, H., Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research,Series: International studies in entrepreneurship, Publisher:
New York : Springer, 2005.
Low M.B. & Mac Millan I.C., "Entrepreneurship: past research and future challenges", Journal of Management (14), 1988, p. 139161
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hil

609

610

Mustafa Abdl Metin Dincer et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011) 601610

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J., Jr. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of
Management Review, 1978, 3, 546-563.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H., Archetypes of strategy formulation, Management Science, Vol. 24, 1978, pp. 294-316.
Mintzberg, H. (1979) Strategy Formation: Schools of Thought, Editrler: J. Frederickson, Perspectives on Strategic Management,
Harper & Collins.
Moore, M. (2005),Toward a confirmatory model of retail strategy types: an empirical test of Miles& Snow, journal of business
research, volume 58, P. 686-7004
Pearce, J.A. and Robinson, R.B., Strategic Management, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1988.
Peng, M. W., Tan, J., & Tong, T. W. 2004. Ownership types and strategic groups in an emerging economy. Journal of Management
Studies, 41(7): 1105-1129.
PORTER, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industry andCompetitors, The Free Press.
PORTER, M. (1985) Competitive Advantage, The Free Press.
Porter, Micheal E. (1980) (1998, 2nd edition), Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analysing Industries and Competitors, The
Free Press, New York. Trke Basm Sistem Yaynclk,stanbul.
Rumelt, R. P. Evaluation of strategy: Theory and models. In D. E. Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic management: A new
view of business policy and planning. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979, 196-212.
Smith, N. (1967). The entrepreneurship and his firm: The relationship between type of man and type of company. Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
Smith, N.R. and Miner, J.B., Type of entrepreneur, type of firm, and managerial motivation: implications for organisational life
cycle theory, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4, 1983, pp. 225-40.
Snow, C. C., & Hambrick, D. C. Measuring organizational strategies: Some theoretical and methodological problems. Academy of
Management Review, 1980, 5, 527-538.
Stevenson H.H. & Jarillo J.C., "A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management", Strategic Management Journal,
1990, p. 17-27
Ucbasaran, D., Daniels, K., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2004). A cognitive typology of entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the
BabsonKauffman Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Glasgow,Scotland.
Wheelen T.L. & Hunger J.D., "Strategic management and business policy: entering 21st century global society", Prentice Hall - 7th
edition. London 2000, p.284
Whittington, R. (1993), What is Strategy and Does it Matter?, London: Routledge.
Williams, C. E., & Tse, E. C. (1995). The relationship between strategy and entrepreneurship: The U.S. restaurant sector.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7, 22-26.
Woo, C.Y., Dunkelburg, W.C. and Cooper, A.C. (1988), Entrepreneurial typologies: definition and implications, Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Centre for Entrepreneurial Studies, Wellesley, MA, pp. 165-76.
Yusuf, J.E.,( 2004) Putting Entrepreneurship In Its Rightful place: A Typology For Defining Entrepreneurship Across Private,
Public And Nonprofit Sectors ,Academy Of Entrepreneurship Journal, Volume 11, Number 2