0363-9428/88/124$1.50 Copyright 1988 by the University of Baltimore Educational Foundation "Who is an Entrepreneur?" Is a Question Worth Asking James W. Carland Frank Hoy Jo Ann C. Carland This paper is a response to Gartner's critique of definitions posited by Carland, Hoy, Boulton and Carland (1984) for "entrepreneur" and small business owner." The paper concludes that both trait and behavioral approaches to research are neces- sary in order to understand the concept of entrepreneurship. It is incumbent upon scholars to define their terms as they conduct and report on their research. Is it also required that all researchers work from identical defi- nitions? If textbooks represent translations of research into practical instruction, the answer is obviously negative. Authors begin with definitions of their major constructs, e.g., "organization" or "management" or "leadership" or "entre- preneurship." Any working differences among authors modifies the definition being conveyed. Nevertheless, one principle of management text can generally be substituted for another, one introduction to marketing text for another, etc. THE CONCEPT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP Currently, no single definition of "entrepreneur" has been uniformly accepted in the literature. Schumpeter (1934) credits Mill (1848) with bringing the term into general use among economists, but the word was used much earlier than that. Cantillon, circa 1700, described an entrepreneur as a rational decision maker who assumes the risk and provides management for the firm (Kilby, 1971). Entrepreneur is derived from the French verb "entreprendre" which means to undertake, to attempt, to try in hand, to contract for or, to adventure, to try (Girard, 1962). Mill (1848) focused on risk bearing as the key differen- tiating factor between entrepreneurs and managers. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the Webster's New World Dictionary defines the term as one who organizes and manages a business and undertakes the risk for the sake of profit. Despite the long history of the term, scholars continue to disagree as to who is an entrepreneur (Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984). Carland et al. were concerned about the lack of precision in the entrepreneur- ship literature: authors typically failed to define their terms and collected data on Spring, 1988 33

diverse samples, most frequently owners of small, independent businesses. Are small business owners always entrepreneurs? If so, why are there two terms? And, if so, what are the implications for corporate entrepreneurship? Carland et al. posited that small business owners and entrepreneurs are not the same. They proposed that entrepreneurship can be distinguished from small business owner- ship by a venture strategy oriented toward growth and innovation. They subse- quently examined a sample of owners of small businesses and found that entre- preneurs could be differentiated based on articulated venture strategies and that the entrepreneurs were characterized by significantly different personality traits and behavioral preferences (Carland, Carland, Hoy & Boulton, 1988). By questioning the validity of asking "Who is the Entrepreneur," Gartner takes issue with Carland et al. on two fronts: 1) He argues that we are wrong to focus on intentionality while he is right to focus on creation, and 2) He contends that it is the act of entrepreneurship that warrants study, not who is engaged in the act. We should note that words are simply representations of concepts and are therefore frequently ambiguous. In this vein one is reminded of Aesop's fable concerning the blind men and the elephant, ln the case of enlrepreneurship scholars, the sense that is missing is not sight rather, it is the ability to perceive motives and cognitive processes. When scholars so handicapped approach the description of an entrepreneur, can it be any surprise that some will perceive a rope, others a snake and still others, a tree? Should the disagreement which re- sults force the discipline to forego a definition, permitting each researcher to establish his or her own description of the creature? Should the disagreement force scholars to abandon the quest by posing a different question? Since we don't know what it is, what does it eat? Of course not! The disagreement should promote deeper investigation into the concept itself, just as it has since the first humans disputed over the nature of tights in the night sky. THE TRAIT APPROACH: A MORIBUND SUBJECT FOR RESEARCH? Gartner presents a selective, but reasonably representative compilation of studies of entrepreneurship. Interestingly, his observations are not dramatically different from those of Carland in his original work (Carland, 1982): definitions are rare and inconsistent samples are neither homogeneous nor compaiable and entrepreneurial profiles are inconsistent and often not significantly different from the genera! population. Gartner and Carland draw different conclusions from these observations, however. They demonstrate to Gartner the fruitlessness of trait research. Alternatively, Carland saw the need for improving methodology before giving up. Might we leam something about the entrepreneur if we explic- itly define our terms and select more homogeneous samples and control groups? Gartner offers Yeats's (1956) question, "How can we know the Dancer from the Dance?" The essence of the pursuit of the heffalump is contained in that quotation. If one cannot discern the dancer from the dance then the two are inextricably bound and one cannot understand the one without the other. If more knowledge is desired about small business ventures, then one must leam more about the individuals who create and manage them, because the two are inextric- ably bound. ^'^ American Journal of Small Business