Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 241 – 260

Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring

a cross-cultural construct
Vipin Guptaa,*, Ian C. MacMillanb, Gita Suriec
a
Department of Management, Seidman School of Business, Grand Valley State University,
456C Devos Center, 401 W. Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA
b
Department of Management, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
Vance Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
c
Department of Management, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Received 1 March 2001; accepted 1 November 2002

Abstract

In the increasingly turbulent and competitive environment business firms face today, a type of
‘‘entrepreneurial’’ leader distinct from other behavioral forms of leadership is required. This article
develops the construct of entrepreneurial leadership using the works on entrepreneurship and
leadership as a guide. It also proposes an empirical measure of the construct using data from the Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study on leadership consisting of a 62-
society cross-cultural sample of over 15,000 middle managers. Findings provide evidence of the
‘‘etic’’ or universal appeal of the construct of entrepreneurial leadership across cultures and some
preliminary insights on the factors contributing to societal differences in the perceived effectiveness of
entrepreneurial leadership.
D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cross-cultural; Entrepreneurial leadership; GLOBE study

* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: guptavi@gvsu.edu (V. Gupta), MacMillan@wharton.upenn.edu (I.C. MacMillan),
surie20@wharton.upenn.edu (G. Surie).

0883-9026/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5
24 V. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 241–260
2
1. Executive summary
In the increasingly turbulent and competitive environment business firms face today, a type of
‘‘entrepreneurial’’ leader is required who is distinct from the behavioral forms of leaders.
This article develops the construct of entrepreneurial leadership using the works on
entrepreneurship and leadership as a guide.
Entrepreneurship has been defined from various perspectives: pursuit of self-interest
(Smith, 1776), innovative combinations of available resources (Schumpeter, 1934), uncer-
tainty and risk-bearing activities (Kets de Vries, 1977), risk-avoiding- or -minimizing
behavior (Smith and Miner, 1985; Leibenstein, 1968), and proactive or opportunity-seeking
behavior (Miller, 1983; Stevenson, 1983). In this literature, entrepreneurship is viewed as a
discrete event based on the autonomous pursuit of innovative opportunities (Lumpkin and
Dess, 1996). However, a more integrative perspective is required when examining entrepre-
neurial thinking within existing organizations (Kanter, 1982).
McGrath and MacMillan (2000) recommend incorporating an ‘‘entrepreneurial mind-
set’’ as a core element of strategic management, particularly in high-velocity environments of
competition and change. Consequently, a focus on the concept of ‘‘entrepreneurial
leadership’’ is an important step in this direction. The objective of this article is to clarify the
concept and develop an empirical measure of entrepreneurial leadership. Drawing from past
research (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000; Kuratko and Hornsby, 1998; DuBrin, 1995; Slevin and
Covin, 1990), we define entrepreneurial leadership as ‘‘leadership that creates
visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize a ‘supporting cast’ of
participants who become committed by the vision to the discovery and exploitation of
strategic value creation.’’ This definition emphasizes the challenge of mobilizing the resources
and gaining the commitment required for value creation that the entrepreneurial leader faces,
which involves creating a vision and a cast of supporters capable of enacting that vision. The
two challenges of forging a vision and building a cast of competent and committed
supporters are interdependent since the former is useless without the latter. Thus, entrepreneurial
leaders envision and enact a proactive transformation of the firm’s transaction set
(Venkataraman and
Van de Ven, 1998).
After developing the construct of entrepreneurial leadership theoretically, we propose an
empirical measure using data from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Effectiveness (GLOBE) study on leadership consisting of a 62-society cross-cultural sample
of over 15,000 middle managers. Findings provide evidence of the ‘‘etic’’ or cross-
cultural universal nature of entrepreneurial leadership, and insights on factors contributing to
societal differences in the perceived effectiveness of entrepreneurial leadership.

2. Introduction
In the context of rising competition for critical resources (Santora et al., 1999; Pointer
and Sanchez, 1994) in complex and volatile environments, recent literature (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1998; Bettis and Hitt, 1995) observes that the escalating ineffectiveness of more
traditional approaches to strategy necessitates an entrepreneurial approach. This literature
suggests that organizations must be more entrepreneurial to enhance their performance, their
capacity for adaptation, and long-term survival.
Entrepreneurial effort refers to key challenges managers face and is related to the ‘‘extent
to which top managers are inclined to take business-related risks (the risk-taking dimension), to
favor change and innovation to obtain a competitive advantage for their firm (the innovation
dimension), and to compete aggressively with other firms (the proactiveness
dimension)’’ (Covin and Slevin, 1988, p. 218). However, balance is essential for effectiveness:
while pursuing innovation, attention to containing risk is also necessary. Similarly, while
proactive behavior may enhance competitiveness, a collaborative orientation may be required to
facilitate learning and speedy commercialization of innovations. Thus, the challenge is to
achieve growth and/or corporate renewal by fostering a culture of innovation (Brown, 1996)
through strategic mandate and resource commitments (Burgelman, 1984). However, making
parsimonious resource commitments calls for a ‘‘real options’’ mindset (McGrath,
1999), whereby one ‘‘tests the waters’’ by first committing small amounts of resources to
discover whether further investment is justified. In addition, firms can secure support and
resources through networking with others to reduce risk (Starr and MacMillan, 1990).
Some research studies indicate that entrepreneurial behavior in established firms (also
known as corporate venturing or intrapreneurship) is associated with superior performance
(Zahra and Covin, 1995) and that this superior performance is sustainable (Wiklund, 1999).
Such entrepreneurial behavior contributes to superior performance through strategic renewal
(Guth and Ginsberg, 1990) and indirectly through acquisition of knowledge about future
revenue streams (McGrath et al., 1994) and new capabilities that expand the firm’s absorptive
capacity (Levinthal, 1994).
The concept of entrepreneurial leadership involves fusing the concepts of ‘‘entrepreneur-
ship’’ (Schumpeter, 1934), ‘‘entrepreneurial orientation’’ (Miller, 1983; Covin and
Slevin, 1988), and ‘‘entrepreneurial management’’ (Stevenson, 1983) with leadership. It
emphasizes taking a strategic approach to entrepreneurship, so that the entrepreneurial initiatives
can support development of enhanced capabilities for continuously creating and appropriating
value in the firm. Thus, entrepreneurship can form a basis for competitive advantage and
technological growth in all types of firms that are oriented towards leadership and excellence
in the new global economy.
In this article, we first develop the construct of entrepreneurial leadership theoretically,
drawing on relevant literature on entrepreneurship and leadership. Next, we propose opera-
tional measures of the construct and test its validity. To do this, we draw from the GLOBE
database a subset of importance ratings of leadership attributes in terms of their contribution
to outstanding leadership outcomes by a 62-society cross-cultural sample of over 15,000
middle managers. These data were collected as part of the GLOBE program, with Robert
House as the principal investigator. Findings from the GLOBE study show that while some
leadership attributes are universally endorsed as effective or universally rejected as
ineffective for outstanding outcomes, others are culturally contingent (House et al., 1998;
Hartog et al., 1999). Finally, we investigate whether entrepreneurial leadership is
‘‘universally’’ endorsed as effective.
2.1. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship literature

Entrepreneurship has long been recognized as a leading driver of development in local,

regional, and national economies (Schumpeter, 1934) and can equally be considered an
important factor in the development of established firms increasingly beset by competition.
For intrapreneurship to flourish in such firms, an entrepreneurial orientation is critical—firms
with an entrepreneurial orientation adapt their capabilities to meet emergent competition through
flexible resource deployment, which allows the firm to ‘‘use or expand companies’
resources and thus raise long-term capacity (Kanter, 1982).’’ Entrepreneurially oriented firms
are capable of corporate transformation (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1996) by effectively translating
emergent options into platforms for continuous value creation. This allows them to move fast
to gain first-mover advantage in emerging new products or markets (Kuratko and Hodgetts,
1989).
The challenge for such firms is to build a capacity to continuously discover and exploit
new competitive opportunities. Neomanagerial theory (Boston et al., 1996) eschews the focus
on traditional analytical approaches (Ansoff, 1965) for competing in stable environments
and focuses on value creation through empowerment and decentralization (Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992; Peters, 1992; Light, 1997). Thus, it moves out of the confines of traditional
planning, organizing and controlling practices, and emphasizes more adaptive and
innovative action.
The entrepreneurship literature suggests at least four conditions that encourage entrepre-
neurial action in the firm.
The first condition is the presence and effective communication of an entrepreneurial
vision. Hitt et al. (1999) note the significance of ‘‘developing, communicating and emphasiz-
ing specific shared values among organization members’’ while Brazeal and Herbert (1999)
highlight the visionary role of top management in creating the context for transaction set-
altering changes.
The second condition for encouraging entrepreneurial initiative is processes that nurture
and support innovation, such as systems for rapid product design, development, and
commercialization (Quinn, 1985), or systems that encourage innovation champions,
allowing them to shape the success of new products and business ventures (Howell and
Higgins, 1990; Shane, 1994).
The third important condition is the presence of adequate processes to generate or secure
resources and expertise for entrepreneurial efforts (Daily and Dalton, 1993). The public
entrepreneurship literature stresses the need for processes to ‘‘alter the existing allocation of
scarce public resources in fundamental ways’’ (Lewis, 1980, p. 233) in addition to making the
organization more responsive to change through participative decision-making and trans-
parent communications (Morris and Jones, 1999).
The fourth condition is the capacity to facilitate continuous exploration and idea
generation (Jelinek and Litterer, 1995). Fostering experimentation and autonomous
initiatives in subordinates to promote ‘‘autonomous strategic decision-making’’
(Burgelman, 1990) helps generate commitment and higher levels of involvement, raises
morale and increases the capacity to address ambiguity by improving the ability to gain
access to required information through multiple channels. The process of idea generation is
enhanced if pressures to
continuously discover and create new opportunities from existing activities are institution-
alized (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). Such pressures generate initiatives that expand
existing resource bundles and enhance flexibility, resulting in the creation of new resources,
technologies, and work systems.
The entrepreneurial leader’s challenging task is to mobilize the capacity of the
organization and its stakeholders to do the above. We next examine the challenges they face
from the perspective of various theories of leadership.

2.2. Leadership literature

The basic challenge of entrepreneurial leaders (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000) is to

envision future possibilities and enable the organization to transform its current transaction
set (Venkataraman and Van de Ven, 1998). Moreover, such adaptation must be
accomplished without overstraining the unit’s resource endowments. In addition, this must
often be done in the face of conservative and risk-averse attitudes stemming from
followers’ lack of confidence in the gains from innovation in uncertain environments.
At its most general level, the vast literature on leadership literature focuses on the ability
of leaders to influence a group of followers and emphasizes the relations among three key
factors: the leader, the followers, and the landscape. While theories of leadership abound, in
this article, we focus on three cross-cultural, universal perspectives of leadership that have
emerged in recent years that are relevant to the context outlined above—leadership capable
of sustaining innovation and adaptation in high-velocity and uncertain environments.
First, the neocharismatic/transformational leadership perspective evolved in response to
limitations found in traditional transactional leadership theories, such as the path– goal theory
(House, 1971) and operant conditioning (Luthans and Kreitner, 1975; Podsakoff et al., 1982). In
these traditional theories, the leader’s role is instrumental rather than inspirational, is based on
the principal of exchange, and functions to provide the necessary incentives or disincentives
to obtain desired task outcomes. In contrast, the neocharismatic leadership perspective focuses on
how leaders evoke superordinate performance from followers through a transcendence of self-
interested behavior by appealing to higher needs for self-actualization, deeply held personal
values, and implicit motivations of followers (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985). As Burns (1978, p. 20)
observes, the act of leadership ‘‘binds leader and follower together in a mutual and
continuing pursuit of a higher purpose.’’
Entrepreneurial leadership has much in common with transformational leadership in that
the leader evokes superordinate performance by appeals to the higher needs of followers.
However, the entrepreneurial leader’s ability to evoke such performance is founded in the
context of the firm’s need to adapt to emerging environmental contingencies. Thus, the
basic challenge is to create a willingness in followers to abandon current conventional but
career- secure activities for creative, entrepreneurial action.
Second, team-oriented leadership theories, by focusing on the interactions between
leaders and group members, specifically emphasize the ability of leaders to elicit heightened
levels of group participation and involvement by team members. This view includes
leader– member exchange theory, which examines leadership from the perspective of role
theory and posits
that role development results in differentiated role exchanges between the leader and
subordinates within an organization (Graen and Cashman, 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bein,
1995). Support for this approach from field studies suggests that leader– member exchange
may predict outcomes such as team performance (Graen et al., 1982) and managerial progress
(Wakabayashi and Graen, 1984; see Graen and Uhl-Bein, 1995, for a review).
The similarity between team-oriented leadership and entrepreneurial leadership is that in
both cases the leader elicits high levels of participation and involvement by the group. Yet,
the difference is that entrepreneurial leaders must orchestrate constantly changing role
definitions driven by an uncertain organizational context, rather than negotiate based on
the more stable role exchanges characteristic of static environments.
Third, value-based leadership, a perspective elaborated by House and Aditya (1997)
suggests that leaders articulate a captivating vision or mission in ideological terms, show a
high degree of confidence in themselves and their beliefs, and set a personal example of
involvement in and commitment to the mission for followers to emulate. Leaders thus
appeal to a vision and mission derived from a set of superordinate values and behave in a
manner that reinforces the mission, communicating high expectations to followers, and
conveying confidence in their ability to meet such expectations (Conger and Kanungo,
1987; Shamir et al., 1993). In the business context, values-based leadership may be an
important source of advantage, since commitment, a resource that is difficult to imitate, can
be gained by affecting the values and beliefs that underlie individuals’ perceptions
(Ghemawat and del Sol, 1998).
The similarity between value-based and entrepreneurial leadership lies in the
leader’s capacity to build a high-expectation vision and to convey confidence in the
followers’ ability to accomplish that vision. Again, the difference stems from
organizational context—the leader cannot themselves demonstrate the extraordinary effort
needed to accomplish the entrepreneurial task, but, instead, must rely on the commitment of
followers to use their specialized skills to enable the accomplishment of the entrepreneurial
task.
In summary, specifically in the organizational context, components of transformational,
team-building, and value-based leadership that are relevant for entrepreneurial leadership are
those that enable the leader to mobilize the capacity to meet the entrepreneurial challenge.
This can only be done by a leader who can:

1. extract exceptional commitment and effort from organizational stakeholders,

2. convince them that they can accomplish goals,
3. articulate a compelling organizational vision,
4. promise their effort will lead to extraordinary outcomes, and
5. persevere in the face of environmental change.

2.3. Entrepreneurial leadership

Drawing on these ideas of leadership, we suggest that entrepreneurial leaders face two
interrelated challenges—first envisaging and creating a scenario of possible opportunities
that
can be seized to revolutionize the current transaction set, given resource constraints. We call
the first challenge scenario enactment. The second challenge is to convince both potential
followers and the firm’s network of stakeholders that the transformation of this transaction set
is possible by assembling resources (including recruiting additional cast) to accomplish the
objectives underlying the scenario. We call this challenge cast enactment—creating a cast of
characters—people endowed with the appropriate resources needed to execute the trans-
formation.
Scenario and cast enactment are interdependent since transforming the transaction set
through scenario enactment cannot be conceived without an appropriate cast and the cast
cannot be assembled until a convincing scenario is communicated. Both processes evolve
cumulatively and iteratively, much like the process of competence development involves the
parallel evolution of cognitive understanding and deftness in practice in project teams
(McGrath et al., 1995) or the complementary processes of concrete and abstract learning
(Brown et al., 1989).
In addition, entrepreneurial leadership (like neocharismatic and value-based leadership)
goes beyond organizational adaptation, which is the focus of population ecology (Hannan and
Freeman, 1977) or evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter, 1982). The actions that
entrepreneurial leaders precipitate in pursuit of their vision constitute proactive ‘‘enactment’’1
of new combinations of capabilities in the organization—reconfigured and focused to forge
an entirely reconstructed transaction set for the firm.
We suggest that the creation of these conditions calls for the execution of five specific
entrepreneurial leadership roles adapted and modified from McGrath and MacMillan (2000),
three of which are associated with scenario enactment and two with cast enactment.
First, by undertaking the role of ‘‘framing,’’ entrepreneurial leaders ‘‘frame a challenge
that will push the team to the limits of its abilities without pushing them over their
limits’’ (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000). Thus, entrepreneurial leaders balance the desire for
aggressive improvement with a pragmatic understanding of the capabilities of individuals
that will be involved in realizing the transformation. Framing the challenge calls for the
entrepreneurial leader to combine highly ambitious goals with insightful understanding of the
limits of what can be accomplished (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999). The result is discovery of a
vision ‘‘worthy of persistence’’ (Pinchot, 1994).
In their role of ‘‘absorbing uncertainty,’’ the entrepreneurial leader formulates a vision of
the future state to be enacted by the followers and, then, shoulders the burden of
responsibility for being wrong about the future. By absorbing the paralyzing effects of
uncertainty for followers, the entrepreneurial leader builds their confidence enabling them to
act as if it is possible to realize the vision. The role of product champions (Shane, 1994) is
well recognized for absorbing uncertainty to facilitate innovation.
In their ‘‘path-clearing’’ role, entrepreneurial leaders negotiate the internal and
external environments (Cyert and March, 1966; Thompson, 1983). They are able to
anticipate and

1
This is in contrast to Weick’s (1979) early notion of enactment, which is not proactive but primarily driven
by the processes of variation, selection, and retention. Our article builds on the recent constructionist use of the
term enactment in Weick (1993) and Weick and Roberts (1993).
dissolve potential resistance, obtain support from key stakeholders within the firm as well as
from external constituencies, and eliminate obstacles to the accomplishment of desired
goals. Critical resources and information are thereby made available (Daily and Dalton,
1993; Lewis, 1980).
The above three roles help to accomplish scenario enactment—the following two roles are
associated with cast enactment.
In ‘‘building commitment,’’ entrepreneurial leaders use their team-building skills to inspire
and mold a team that is highly committed to extending extraordinary energy and effort to
accomplish the scenario described by the leader (Bandura, 1970).
At the same time, there is a need to ‘‘specify limits’’ to hold and sustain commitment in the
face of contingencies and constraints on action. By decisively specifying limits, the leader
reshapes individuals’ perceptions of their own capabilities by eliminating self-imposed ideas of
limitation. Moreover, creativity flourishes when constraints are defined; Clark et al. (1985) find
that clearly specifying constraints yields breakthrough results in new product innovation.
Together, these five roles, subsumed under the two dimensions of enactment, provide the
theoretical framework for the construct of entrepreneurial leadership. In the balance of the
article, we empirically test this construct.

3. An empirical model for entrepreneurial leadership

We operationalize the construct of entrepreneurial leadership by identifying attributes
underlying the five roles that lead to scenario enactment and cast enactment using data and
measures of leadership effectiveness from the GLOBE survey (House et al., 1998).

3.1. Data

The GLOBE program surveyed a sample of more than 15,000 middle managers during
1995– 1997 in 62 societies worldwide, including those two levels above and below them in
subcultures with the highest commercial activity. At least three societies in each of the
following 10 major cultural clusters of the world were included in the sample: Latin
America, Latin Europe, Anglo, Nordic, Germanic, Eastern Europe, Southern Asia,
Confucian Asia, Middle East, and Sub-Sahara Africa. More than 900 different firms from up
to three industries (financial services, food processing, and telecommunications) were
included. Thus, both relatively stable conditions as in food processing and more volatile
environments, such as found in financial services and telecoms, were represented in the
study (for details on sample selection and validation procedures used in the two phases of
the GLOBE survey, see House et al., 1998).
We use GLOBE data from managerial respondents who rated 112 attributes of effective
leadership as impeding or facilitating outstanding leadership, measured on a seven-point
scale, ranging from 1 (substantially impedes) to 7 (substantially facilitates).
The enactment of entrepreneurial leadership depends on all levels of management—top,
middle, and lower, but in quite different ways. Top managers must play a leadership role of
sanctioning a strategic mandate for an entrepreneurial mindset at the middle manager level.
Middle level managers must perceive entrepreneurial leadership as conducive to organiza-
tional effectiveness for them to coach lower-level personnel in innovative behavior (Kuratko
and Hornsby, 2001). The middle managers are also responsible for ‘‘developing a strategic
vision and gaining the commitment and loyalty of subordinates’’ (Sayles, 1996, p. 424)
and for promoting strategic initiatives at operational levels of the organization (Burgelman,
1983).

3.2. Methods and results

3.2.1. Reliability of entrepreneurial leadership model

The 112 attributes of outstanding leadership in the GLOBE survey were scanned to
identify 19 attributes expected to load on the five roles that facilitate scenario enactment
and cast enactment. We first short-listed 23 leadership attributes in the GLOBE survey as
relevant for entrepreneurial behaviors in the established firms. Of these, we excluded four
attributes— risk-taking, autonomous, independent, and self-interested—from the construct
of entrepre- neurial leadership, because these leadership behaviors had low positive or
negative correla- tion with the remaining attributes. Evidently, taking risks, pursuing self-
interests, and acting independently and autonomously are behaviors that are deemed
effective only in some organizations and societies and are not part of a universal view of
entrepreneurial leadership. Based on our theoretical framework, we then classified the
remaining 19 attributes into five roles.
We split the GLOBE manager sample into two halves. Using the first half, we conducted
an exploratory factor analysis, in which only 2 of the 19 attributes did not load well onto their
predicted role factors. First, ex post, not surprisingly, extra insight (‘‘intuition’’) was more
relevant for framing the challenge, than for absorbing uncertainty. Second, more surprisingly,
leaders who seek continuous improvement (‘‘improvement-oriented’’) were more relevant
for building commitment than for framing the challenge. It may be that sustained leader-driven
pressure for improvement elicits a sense of commitment in the followers. The final attributes
underlying the five roles of entrepreneurial leadership construct are given in Table 1.
Thereafter, a confirmatory factor analysis on the second half of the sample supported our
results. Scales measuring each of the five roles had a composite reliability ranging from .49
to .61 at the individual level, which is acceptable for an individual-level cross-cultural
construct. In addition, the five role scales showed adequate composite reliability at
organization (range .66–.73, n=376) and society (range .71–.83, n=60) levels. Further, the
scales for scenario enactment and cast enactment and for the entrepreneurial leadership
construct had composite reliability of more than .70 at individual, organization, and society
levels, as shown in Table 2.

3.2.2. Validity of entrepreneurial leadership model

Construct validity of a scale comprises of two elements: internal and external validity.
Internal validity is of two types: convergent and discriminant.
Convergent validity of the scales is indicated if each factor loading for the scales is
statistically significant. This condition was satisfied for all the five roles, two subdimensions,
250 V. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 241–260
Table 1
Measures
Dimension Roles
Scenario enactment Framing the challenge
(specifying highly challenging
but realistic outcomes for the
cast of actors to accomplish)
Scenario enactment Absorbing uncertainty (taking
the burden of responsibility
for the future)
Scenario enactment Path clearing (negotiating
opposition and clearing the
path for scenario enactment)
Cast enactment Building commitment (building
an inspired common purpose)
Cast enactment Specifying limits (building a
common understanding and
agreement of what can and
cannot be done)
Attributes Explanation
Performance Sets high standards of
oriented performance
Ambitious Sets high goals, works hard
Informed Knowledgeable, aware of
information
Has extra insight Intuitive
Visionary Has a vision and
imagination of the future
Foresight Anticipates possible future
events
Confidence builder Instills others with
confidence by showing
confidence in them
Diplomatic Skilled at interpersonal
relations, tactful
Effective bargainer Is able to negotiate
effectively, able to make
transactions with others on
favorable terms
Convincing Unusual ability to persuade
others of his/her viewpoint
Encouraging Gives courage, confidence,
or hope through reassuring
and advising
Inspirational Inspires emotions, beliefs,
values and behaviors of
others, inspires others to be
motivated to work hard
Enthusiastic Demonstrates and imparts
strong positive emotions
for work
Team builder Able to induce group
members to work together
Improvement-oriented Seeks continuous
performance improvement
Integrator Integrates people or things
into cohesive, working
whole
Intellectually Encourages others to use
stimulating their mind—challenges
beliefs, stereotypes, and
attitudes of others
Positive Generally optimistic and
confident
Decisive Makes decisions firmly and
quickly
Table 2
Reliability of the entrepreneurial leadership construct
Individual level Organization level Society level
Exploratory Confirmatory Confirmatory Confirmatory
scale—I half scale—II half scale—full scale—full
sample: alpha sample: composite sample: composite sample: composite
reliability reliability reliability reliability
Entrepreneurial leadership .86 .82 .86 .85
Two subdimensions
Scenario enactment .80 .73 .81 .82
Cast enactment .79 .79 .77 .85
Five roles
Framing the challenge .64 .61 .73 .74
Absorbing uncertainty .64 .59 .72 .74
Path clearing .60 .50 .67 .71
Building commitment .65 .54 .66 .83
Specifying limits .61 .49 .71 .79
Approximate na 6798 6798 376 60
a
n for various scales varies slightly because of missing values.

and the overall entrepreneurial leadership scale at individual, organizational, and society
levels.
Discriminant validity can be tested using the chi-square test, comparing confirmatory
factor analysis model where correlation among the roles and between the subdimensions is
specified to be 1 versus where it is unconstrained (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982). Using the
chi-square test, the fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis at individual levels of
analysis deteriorated substantially when we forced the correlation to be 1. These results may,
however, be an artifact of large sample size, because of which even small changes in
correlation can have significant effects on the value of chi-square. Indeed, correlation among
the five roles ranged from .55 to
.65 ( P<.01) at the individual level, indicating that the effectiveness of various roles of
entrepreneurial leadership tends to go in tandem. Further, at the organization and society
levels of analysis, the five roles and the two subdimensions were not statistically
distinguishable ( P > .05). Therefore, effective entrepreneurial leadership must be seen
as an integrated construct, emerging based on joint effectiveness of the constituent roles
and subdimensions. The external validity of a construct is established if it is related with the
established cross- cultural scales in theoretically expected directions. Shane et al. (1995)
studied innovation championing in four multinational organizations using a 30-nation
employee sample. They found that in nations ranked high on Hofstede’s Power Distance
Index, innovators felt a greater need to obtain approval from the hierarchy (indicating a
constrained scenario enactment), and in nations ranked high on Hofstede’s Uncertainty
Avoidance Index, innovators felt more constrained by rules and regulations (suggesting
a constrained cast enactment). In another study, Shane and Venkataraman (1996) analyzed
data from six multinationals using a 28-nation employee sample and showed that a
preference for innovating outside existing organizational norms (indicating
entrepreneurial orientation)
25 V. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 241–260

was negatively correlated with Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index and positively
correlated with Hofstede’s Individualism Index. Further, Hofstede (2001, p. 362) asserts that
Long-Term Orientation has several key components: ordering relationships by status,
maintaining this order, and perseverance. Of these, perseverance supports ‘‘sustained efforts
of the entrepreneur in building a business’’ and ‘‘those of his or her workers in carrying out
their daily tasks’’ (Hofstede, 2001, p. 362). Therefore, one may hypothesize that entrepre-
Table 3
Clusterwise society-level entrepreneurial leadership scores
Eastern Europe Latin America
Hungary 6.11 Costa Rica 6.03
Russia 5.86 Venezuela 5.97
Kazakhstan 5.76 Ecuador 6.41
Albania 5.75 Mexico 5.86
Poland 5.97 El Salvador 6.17
Greece 6.14 Columbia 6.27
Slovenia 5.89 Guatemala 6.06
Georgia 5.82 Bolivia 6.19
Brazil 6.18
Latin Europe Argentina 6.16
Italy 6.09
Portugal 6.08 Southern Asia
Spain 6.09 India 5.99
France 5.30 Indonesia 6.17
French Swiss 6.09 Philippines 6.36
Israel 6.22 Malaysia 6.02
Thailand 5.98
Germanic Europe
Austria 6.15 Confucian Asia
Switzerland 6.09 Taiwan 5.77
Netherlands 6.19 Singapore 6.07
Germany: West 6.01 Hong Kong 5.87
Germany: East 6.01 South Korea 5.70
China 5.97
Nordic Europe Japan 5.73
Finland 6.19
Sweden 6.05 Middle East
Denmark 6.15 Qatar 5.24
Morocco 5.15
Anglo Turkey 6.10
UK 6.19 Egypt 5.74
Ireland 6.22 Kuwait 6.12
Australia 6.22
South Africa: White 6.13 Sub-Sahara Africa
Canada 6.28 Namibia 6.15
New Zealand 6.05 Zambia 6.10
USA 6.21 Zimbabwe 6.30
South Africa: Black 5.50
Nigeria 5.86
neurial leadership would be negatively correlated with Hofstede’s Power Distance Index
and Uncertainty Avoidance Index and positively correlated with Hofstede’s Individualism
Index and Long-Term Orientation. Indeed, entrepreneurial leadership construct is correlated
negatively with Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (r = .29, P<.05, n = 51) and
Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index (r = .18, P>.05, — n = 51) and correlated positively
—
with Hofstede’s Individualism Index (r = .16, P>.05, n = 51). However, correlation with
Long- Term Orientation is significantly negative (r = .36, P<.05, n = 31), which probably
indicates entrepreneurial leaders’ aversion to—ordered relationships and status. Overall, we
find that the entrepreneurial leadership construct is related to Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions in predictable ways, and therefore it carries prediction validity at least at the
society level.
As another test of construct validity, we refer to Weber’s (1930, p. 224) proposition that the
Protestant ethic was associated with leadership in entrepreneurship, because it emphasized
‘‘the sinfulness of the belief in authority, which is only permissible in the form of
an impersonal authority.’’ Following Weber, societies in the three Protestant clusters
(Anglo, Nordic, and Germanic) may be expected to score higher on entrepreneurial
leadership, than those from the other seven cultural clusters sampled in GLOBE.
Entrepreneurial Leadership scores for 60 societies across 10 cultural clusters are provided in
Table 3. Using one-way analysis of variance test, the contrast between the three Protestant
clusters and the other seven cultural clusters is .20 ( P<.01), confirming our expectation and
supporting the validity of the construct.

3.2.3. The universality of entrepreneurial leadership model

To establish the relevance of entrepreneurial leadership, an important question is whether,
on average, the managers universally endorse it as a characteristic of outstanding leadership.
As a preliminary test, we use the criteria proposed by Hartog et al. (1999) for assessing the
universality of the leadership attributes. These criteria hold that for a universal attribute
measured using a seven-point scale: (1) 95% of scores must be at least 5 and (2) the grand
mean score must be at least 6. Using the overall mean criteria, as shown in Table 4, we find

Table 4
Evaluating universality of entrepreneurial leadership construct
Grand mean 95% of n has Universality
scores of at least supported?
Individual level
Entrepreneurial leadership 6.02 4.75 partly
Valid n 13,626 13,626

Organization level
Entrepreneurial leadership 6.04 5.42 yes
Valid n 376 376

Society level
Entrepreneurial leadership 6.01 5.11 yes
Valid n 60 60
that managers in the GLOBE sample universally support the relevance of entrepreneurial
leadership (6.02). Yet, more than 5% of the sampled managers rate the effectiveness to be
less than 5.0, suggesting that not all managers may endorse entrepreneurial leadership as
effective. However, at the organization and society levels of analysis, entrepreneurial
leadership had a grand mean not less than 6.0 and 95% of scores were at least 5.0. Thus,
while entrepreneurial leadership appears to be a universal construct relevant for outstanding
results at the organization and society levels, there may be some individual managers who
hold a cautious view about such leadership.

4. Discussion
Our research developed a theoretical framework from three important streams of
leadership theory and from the entrepreneurship literature to develop and test the construct
of entrepreneurial leadership and to establish ‘‘etic’’ or universal support for the
effective- ness of entrepreneurial leadership. While we did not find support for the
discriminant validity of the five roles and two subdimensions of entrepreneurial leadership,
the overall construct of entrepreneurial leadership is related with Hofstede’s cultural
scales in predictable ways, suggesting its external validity. To confirm the discriminant
validity of the overall entrepreneurial leadership construct, we compare it with three major
alternative cross-cultural models of universal leadership: neocharismatic/transformational,
team-ori- ented, and value-based leadership, as operationalized in the GLOBE study (Hartog
et al., 1999).
As shown in Table 5, attributes such as intellectual stimulation, foresight, a positive and
decisive mindset, and a confidence-building approach are common to both neocharismatic/
transformational leadership and construct of entrepreneurial leadership. However, unlike
entrepreneurial leadership, neocharismatic leadership emphasizes heroic and extraordinary
personal attributes and can have costs or negative effects for followers (Yukl, 1998).
Harrison (1987) notes that people may lose perspective due to the focus on excellence
created by neocharismatic leaders. Unlike neocharismatic leaders, entrepreneurial leaders
require ambitious foresight and pattern recognition capabilities (Brown and Eisenhardt,
1998) for framing the challenge and absorbing uncertainty. They are ‘‘not looking for
convergence (at least not at first) but rather at creating entirely new patterns. The process
does not involve analysis of a reality that exists but enactment, that is, the creation of a new
reality’’ (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000, p. 235). Thus, the entrepreneurial leader may be
viewed as the antihero like the professional soldier Bluntschli in Arms and the Man (Shaw,
1894) whose emphasis on calculative action rather than on lofty ideals helps win the battle.
Both entrepreneurial leadership and team-oriented leadership require an ability to be
effective at bargaining and team building. However, while team-oriented leadership focuses
on effective coordination and communication, win– win problem solving, and
intragroup relationships, entrepreneurial leadership emphasizes path clearing for opportunity
exploita- tion and value creation. Intellectual stimulation and creativity are critical for
entrepreneurial
Table 5
Comparing entrepreneurial leadership and other universal leadership models
Neocharismatic Value-based Team-oriented
leadership leadership leadership
Universal attributes shared with Foresight Effective bargainer
entrepreneurial leadership Encouraging Informed
Positive Team builder
Confidence builder
Decisive
Universal attributes not shared Plans ahead Trustworthy Intelligent
with entrepreneurial leadership Dynamic Just Win – win problem solver
Motive arouser Honest Administratively skilled
Motivational Communicative
Excellence oriented Coordinator
Nonuniversal attributes shared Enthusiastic * Intuitive Diplomatic
with entrepreneurial leadership Convincing Integrator
Performance-oriented
Improvement-oriented
Inspirational
Visionary
Intellectually stimulating
Nonuniversal attributes unique Ambitious *
to entrepreneurial leadership
All the above attributes had national scores above midpoint 4, on a seven-point scale ranging from 1
(substantially impedes) to 7 (substantially facilitates) effective leadership; except for those marked with
asterisk that had scores both above and below 4. Universal attributes are those with country means of at least 6.0
and 95% national mean scores of at least 5.0. The table does not list nonuniversal attributes unique to the other
universal leadership models, which are available in the original source. Adapted from House et al. (1998) and
Hartog et al. (1999).

leadership since a key task is to specify limits through experimentation to take advantage of
emerging opportunities. The specification of limits is especially important since current
competencies arising from historical administrative and other functions often need to be
reconfigured to meet new challenges, as noted by McGrath and MacMillan (2000, p. 118) and
Bartlett and Ghoshal (1988).
Similarly, both value-based and entrepreneurial types of leadership emphasize the
importance of intuition. However, value-based leaders rely on morally uplifting their
followers by exemplifying values that followers espouse or are inspired by. In contrast,
entrepreneurial leaders do not focus on moral ideology. Instead, they emphasize building
commitment through active, creative, and discovery-driven engagement with the opportu-
nities presented by the environment, and make a virtue of focusing on customers, products,
achieving results, and wealth creation. They allocate ‘‘disproportionate attention, dispropor-
tionate resources, and disproportionate talent’’ to the creation of new business models, so that
they have a chance to take off, rather than be squeezed by the existing business (McGrath
and MacMillan, 2000, p. 304). Further, entrepreneurial leaders eschew conventional
perspectives and values to arrive at creative solutions, often the result of unorthodox thinking
(Amabile, 1996).
 In sum, entrepreneurial leaders focus on enacting an entirely emergent organizational task
and a transaction set to accomplish the task. The emphasis is on a discovery-driven approach
to specifying problematic limits, and mandating strategic commitment to new business
development so that team members feel that they have ‘‘not only the right but the obligation
to seek out new opportunities and to make them happen.’’ By setting the climate through
personal modeling of these behaviors ‘‘consistently, predictably, and relentlessly’’ entrepre-
neurial leaders ensure that others will emulate their behavior and ‘‘they will not change what
they do on the basis of words alone’’ (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000, p. 303). Moreover, the
entrepreneurial leader’s apparent ordinariness builds commitment by encouraging others to
experiment and learn for themselves. The intent is not only to get followers to be
supernormally motivated to work hard but also to help them develop a different perspective.
Further, the mechanism is not charisma, values, or team pressure, but a collective spirit of
conscious innovation.

5. Conclusions
In this article, we posited that entrepreneurial leadership involves two interlinked enact-
ment challenges accomplished through associated roles. Cast enactment involves assembling
a cast of individuals with the competence to accomplish required changes through the roles
of commitment building and specification of constraining limits, while scenario enactment
involves reorienting the business model through the roles of absorbing uncertainty, framing
the challenge, and path clearing.
Using data from the GLOBE project, we identified attributes of leadership associated
with these roles and demonstrated the validity of the construct of entrepreneurial leadership.
Our preliminary results confirm the universal and ‘‘etic’’ features of the entrepreneurial
leadership construct. While most organizations and societies endorse entrepreneurial
leadership as effective, some variations in the degree of perceived effectiveness do exist.
Cultures characterized by high power distance, such as the Middle Eastearn and Confucian
societies, are less likely to endorse entrepreneurial leadership than the Anglo and Nordic
societies, which are more egalitarian. Differences in access to knowledge, technology, and
finance may also create conditions that are either favorable or detrimental for the wider
emergence of entrepreneurial leadership, and so the manner in which such leadership is
enacted in different cultures could differ. Certainly, recent research on international human
resource management points towards such ‘‘emic’’ aspects of organizational and leadership
constructs (Teagarden and Von Glinow, 1997).
The findings that perceptions of individual managers about the effectiveness of
entrepreneurial leadership may vary across cultures are consistent with those obtained from
prior cross-cultural research. Child (1981), for instance, concluded that although firms in
different countries are becoming more alike, the behavior of individuals within these firms
continues to maintain its cultural specificity. Cross-cultural convergence in the effectiveness
of organizational variables tends to operate at the macrolevel (for example, at the firm or
society level) and reflects common knowledge about macrofactors such as structure and
technology used by firms across cultures. In contrast, the cross-cultural divergence in their
effectiveness is typical at the microlevel and reflects the varying needs, values, and beliefs
of people within firms and societies (Child, 1981). Thus, middle managers with a high need
for achievement (McClelland, 1961) may be more likely to endorse entrepreneurial
leadership.
Our research design has some limitations. It uses an instrument and database not
originally intended for developing the construct of entrepreneurial leadership. The items in
the instrument asked respondents to rate the degree to which each behavior contributes to
‘‘outstanding leadership behavior’’ in their organizations and societies. Further, the effective-
ness of entrepreneurial leadership attributes reflects the perceptions of the respondents rather
than performance data.
Nevertheless, despite its limitations, the GLOBE instrument is robust since it has been
extensively validated for the cross-cultural relevance of the leadership items included.
Moreover, the GLOBE sample is a useful heuristic sample because of the large number of
respondents from societies representing all regions of the world. Finally, the use of a
database not intended to measure entrepreneurial leadership can be viewed as a strength of
this research, given that the resulting construct is found related to the external cultural
dimensions in theoretically expected ways.
That entrepreneurial leadership is universally endorsed and that there are societal differ-
ences in its effectiveness suggest several promising areas of inquiry. Most importantly,
institutional support for entrepreneurial leadership may be lacking in some societies, as in
the erstwhile centrally planned economies of the Soviet Union. In addition, it is possible that
more strategic effort is needed for enacting entrepreneurial leadership in stable, protected
environments with limited competition, than in situations where hypercompetition and
turbulence are the norm, because the perceived need for entrepreneurial leadership in stable
environments may be lower (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998). The entrepreneurial leader with
a focus on mastering new models of value creation through inquiry in action (Torbert, 2000)
may be more effective in competitive, change-oriented situations. The construct of entrepre-
neurial leadership developed in this article is a preliminary step that attempts to initiate
further research in these directions, and to contribute to ongoing efforts to integrate the
fields of strategy, leadership, and entrepreneurship.

Acknowledgements
We thank Venkataraman and two anonymous reviewers of Journal of Business
Venturing for their insights in improving this article. The article was presented at the Global
Entrepreneurial Conference in Lyon in April 2001 and at the Academy of Management
meeting in Denver in August 2002 and benefited from the comments of the reviewers and
the participants. We thank Prof. Robert House, GLOBE Principal Investigator, for allowing
us to use GLOBE leadership data for the purposes of this study and we acknowledge the
contribution of about 150 country coinvestigators who collected the data in their respective
societies.
References
Amabile, T., 1996. Creativity in Context. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Ansoff, H.I., 1965. Corporate Strategy. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bagozzi, R.P., Phillips, L.W., 1982. Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic construct. Adm.
Sci. Q. 27, 459 – 489.
Bandura, A., 1970. Principles of Behavior Modification. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Bartlett, C., Ghoshal, S., 1988. Organizing for worldwide effectiveness: the transnational solution. Calif. Manage.
Rev. 31 (1), 54 – 74.
Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York.
Bettis, R.A., Hitt, M.A., 1995. The new competitive landscape. Strateg. Manage. J. 16, 7 – 19 (special issue).
Boston, J., Martin, J., Pallot, J., Walsh, P., 1996. Public Management: The New Zealand Model. Oxford Univ.
Press, New York.
Brazeal, D.V., Herbert, T.T., 1999. The genesis of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 23 (3), 29 – 45.
Brown, T., 1996. Resource orientation, entrepreneurial orientation and growth: how the perception of resource
availability affects small firm growth. Unpublished dissertation, Rutgers University.
Brown, S.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., Duguid, P., 1989. Technology and the design of degenerative learning environments.
Educ. Technol. 31 (5), 34 – 40.
Burgelman, R.A., 1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Adm. Sci.
Q. 28 (2), 223 – 243.
Burgelman, R.A., 1984. Designs for corporate entrepreneurship. Calif. Manage. Rev. 26, 154 – 166.
Burgelman, R.A., 1990. Strategy making and organizational ecology: a conceptual framework. In: Singh, J.V.
(Ed.), Organizational Evolution. Sage, CA, pp. 164 – 181.
Burns, J.M., 1978. Leadership. Harper & Row, New York.
Child, J.D., 1981. Culture, contingency, and capitalism in the cross-national study of organizations. In: Cum-
mings, L.L., Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3. JAI Press, Stamford, CN, CT,
pp. 303 – 356.
Clark, K.B., Hayes, R.R., Lorenz, C., 1985. The Uneasy Alliance. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., 1987. Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational
settings. Acad. Manage. Rev. 12, 637 – 647.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P., 1988. The influence of organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top
management style. J. Manag. Stud. 25 (3), 217 – 259.
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G., 1966. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R., 1993. Board of directors leadership and structure: control and performance implica-
tions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 17 (3), 65 – 81.
DuBrin, A.J., 1995. Leadership: Research, Findings, Practice and Skills. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Ghemawat, P., del Sol, P., 1998. Commitment versus flexibility. Calif. Manage. Rev. 40 (4), 26 – 42.
Ghoshal, S., Bartlett, C.A., 1996. Rebuilding behavioral context: a blueprint for corporate renewal. Sloan Manage.
Rev. 37 (2), 23 – 36.
Graen, G.B., Cashman, J.F., 1975. A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmen-
tal approach. In: Hunt, J.G., Larson, L.L. (Eds.), Leadership Frontiers. Kent State Univ. Press, Kent, OH,
pp. 143 – 165.
Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bein, M., 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader –
member (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
Leadersh. Q. 6 (2), 219 – 247.
Graen, G.B., Novak, M., Sommerkamp, P., 1982. The effects of leader – member exchange and job design
on productivity and satisfaction: testing a dual attachment model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 30, 109 –
131.
Guth, W.D., Ginsberg, A., 1990. Corporate entrepreneurship. Strateg. Manage. J. 11, 5 – 15.
Hannan, M.T., Freeman, J., 1977. The population ecology of organizations. Am. J. Sociol. 82, 929 – 964.
Harrison, R., 1987. Harnessing personal energy: how companies can inspire employees. Organ. Dyn. (Autumn)
4 – 21.
Hartog, J., House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., et al., 1999. Emics and etics of culturally-endorsed
implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?
Leadersh. Q. 10 (2), 219 – 256.
Hitt, M.A., Nixon, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E., Kochhar, R., 1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and cross-functional
fertilization: activation, process and disintegration of a new product design team. Entrep. Theory Pract. 23
(3), 145 – 167.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Sage, CA.
House, R.J., 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 16, 321 – 338.
House, R.J., Aditya, R.N., 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? J. Manage. 23 (3), 409 –
473. House, R.J., Hanges, P., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta, V., et al.,
1998. Cultural influences on leadership and organization: the GLOBE project. In: Mobley, W. (Ed.), Advances in
Global Leadership, vol. 1. JAI Press, Stamford, CN, CT, pp. 171 – 233.
Howell, J.M., Higgins, C.A., 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 317 – 341.
Jelinek, M., Litterer, J.A., 1995. Toward entrepreneurial organizations: meeting ambiguity with engagement.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 19 (3), 137 – 168.
Kanter, R.M., 1982. The middle manager as innovator. Harvard Bus. Rev. 60 (4), 95 – 105.
Kets de Vries, M., 1977. The entrepreneurial personality. J. Manag. Stud. (14), 34 – 57.
Kuratko, D.F., Hodgetts, R.M., 1989. Entrepreneurship. Dryden Press, Chicago, IL.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., 1998. Corporate entrepreneurial leadership for the 21st century. J. Leadersh. Stud.
5 (2), 27 – 39.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S., 2001. Corporate entrepreneurship and middle managers: a model for corporate
entrepreneurship behavior. Paper presented at February 2001 USASBE Annual National Conference. Orlando.
Leibenstein, H., 1968. Entrepreneurship and development. Am. Econ. Rev. 38 (2), 72 – 83.
Levinthal, D., 1994. Surviving schumpeterian environments: an evolutionary perspective. In: Baum, J.A.C., Singh,
J.V. (Eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 195 – 217.
Lewis, E., 1980. Public Entrepreneurship: Toward A Theory of Bureaucratic Power. Indiana Univ. Press, Indian-
apolis, IN.
Light, P.C., 1997. The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work 1945 – 1995. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven,
CT. Lumpkin, G.T., Dess, G.G., 1996. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to
perform-
ance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 21 (1), 135 – 172.
Luthans, F., Kreitner, R., 1975. Organizational Behavior Modification. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.
McClelland, D.C., 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York.
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C., 2000. The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
McGrath, R.G., Venkataraman, S., MacMillan, I.C., 1994. The advantage chain: antecedents to rents from internal
corporate ventures. J. Bus. Venturing 9, 351 – 369.
McGrath, R.G., Venkataraman, S., MacMillan, I.C., 1995. Defining and developing competence: a strategic
process paradigm. Strateg. Manage. J. 16 (4), 251 – 276.
McGrath, R., 1999. Falling forward: real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Acad. of Manage. Rev.
24, 13 – 30.
Miller, D., 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manage. Sci. (29), 770 – 791.
Morris, M.H., Jones, F.F., 1999. Entrepreneurship in established organizations: the case of the public sector.
Entrep. Theory Pract. 24 (1), 71 – 91.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.J., 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., 1992. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector, from School-
house to Statehouse, City Hall to the Pentagon. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
260 V. Gupta et al. / Journal of Business Venturing 19 (2004) 241–260

Peters, T., 1992. Liberation Management: Necessary Disorganization for the Nanosecond Nineties. A.A. Knopf,
New York.
Pinchot, G., 1994. Entrepreneurial leadership. Executive Excellence 11 (11), 15 – 18.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Skov, R., 1982. Effect of leader contingent and non contingent reward and punish-
ment behaviors on subordinate performance and satisfaction. Acad. Manage. J. 5, 810 – 821.
Pointer, D.D., Sanchez, J.P., 1994. Leadership: a framework for thinking and acting. In: Shortell, S., Kaluzny, A.
(Eds.), Health Care Management: A Text in Organization Theory and Behavior, 3rd ed. Delmar Publishers,
New York, pp. 99 – 132.
Quinn, J.B., 1985. Managing innovation: controlled chaos. Harvard Bus. Rev. 63, 7 – 23.
Santora, J.C., Seaton, W., Sarros, J.C., 1999. Changing times: entrepreneurial leadership in a community-based
nonprofit organization. J. Leadersh. Stud. 6 (3/4), 101 – 109.
Sayles, L.R., 1996. Middle managers to ‘‘do things right’’. In: Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B. (Eds.), The Strategy
Process: Concepts, Contexts and Cases, pp. 422 – 427.
Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Shamir, B., House, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self concept
based theory. Organ. Sci. 4, 577 – 594.
Shane, S.A., 1994. Cultural values and the championing process. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18 (4), 25 – 41.
Shane, S.A., Venkataraman, S., 1996. Renegade and national championing strategies. J. Manage. 21, 931 – 952.
Shane, S.A., Venkataraman, S., MacMillan, I.C., 1995. Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies.
J. Manage. 21, 931 – 952.
Shaw, G.B., [1894] 1955. Arms and the Man. Penguin Books, Baltimore, MD.
Slevin, D.P., Covin, J.G., 1990. Juggling entrepreneurial style and organizational structure: how to get your act
together. Sloan Manage. Rev., Winter, 43 – 53.
Smith, A., 1776. An Enquiry Into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan, London.
Smith, N., Miner, J., 1985. Type of entrepreneur, the type of firm, and management motivation. Strateg. Manage.
J. 4 (4), 325 – 340.
Starr, J., MacMillan, I., 1990. Resource cooptation via social contracting for new ventures. Strateg. Manage. J. 11,
79 – 92.
Stevenson, H., 1983. A perspective on entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School Working Paper 9-384-131.
Teagarden, M.B., Von Glinow, M.A., 1997. Human resource management in cross-cultural contexts: emic prac-
tices versus etic philosophies. Manage. Int. Rev. 37 (1), 720.
Thompson, P., 1983. The Nature of Work. Introduction to Debates on the Labor Process. Macmillan, London.
Torbert, W.R., 2000. Transforming social science: integrating quantitative, qualitative, and action research. In:
Sherman, F.T., Tobert, W.R. (Eds.), Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Venkataraman, S., Van de Ven, A.H., 1998. Hostile environmental jolts, transaction sets and new business
development. J. Bus. Venturing 13 (3), 231 – 255.
Wakabayashi, M., Graen, G., 1984. The Japanese career study progress: a seven-year follow up. J. Appl. Psychol.
69, 603 – 614.
Weber, M., 1930. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. Allen & Unwin, London.
Weick, K., 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, MA.
Weick, K., 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster. Adm. Sci. Q. 38 (4),
628 – 653.
Weick, K., Roberts, K.H., 1993. Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm. Sci.
Q. 38 (3), 357 – 382.
Wiklund, J., 1999. The sustainability of the entrepreneurial orientation– performance relationship. Entrep. Theory
Pract. 24 (1), 37 – 48.
Yukl, G., 1998. Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zahra, S., Covin, J., 1995. Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship– performance relationship: a
longitudinal analysis. J. Bus. Venturing 10, 43 – 58.