IntroductionWhile academics and practitioners agree that young and small firms suffer from a liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965), there are yet few satisfactory answers to the question of why some young firms become outstanding successes while the majority of startup companies sputter and die along the way. This is the fundamental question that gives rise to a further related question: If the role of the founder entrepreneur in the performance of startups is acknowledged to be important, what are those distinguishing factors that separate successful from unsuccessful founder-entrepreneurs?Research in the area of entrepreneurship has emphasized the critical role played by the entrepreneur in the performance of the new venture (Kets de Vries, 1977; Brockhaus, 1980; Mintzberg and Waters, 1982; Timmons, 1990). Early researchers in the area of entrepreneurship tried to study direct relationships between entrepreneurial characteristics and new venture performance. This yielded very few significant findings (Herron and Robinson, 1993). Recognizing that trait theories can make conclusions restricted only to the trait under study, and not the entrepreneur, and that a search for averages tends to ignore differences within the set of entrepreneurs that may be significant (Gartner, 1985), many researchers have tried to study the differences between entrepreneurs in a systematic way. Sarasvathy (2004: 707) suggests that we throw away our obsession with dividing the world into entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs and focus instead on categories within This leads to the stream of research, which tries to differentiate between types of entrepreneurs on the basis of some common, meaningful characteristics. Although policy makers and researchers agree on the importance of identifying different entrepreneurial types, no meaningful typology of entrepreneurs has emerged that has demonstrated a strong and consistent association with performance.One of the classifications most commonly studied in the '80s and '90s was the craftsmanmanagerial- opportunistic typology. Smith (1967) identified two types of entrepreneurs through detailed interviews with manufacturing entrepreneurs. Craftsman entrepreneurs were found to have a narrow education and training, and were less socially aware than opportunistic entrepreneurs, who exhibited greater breadth in education and training, and more confidence in their ability to deal with their immediate environment. Opportunistic entrepreneurs tended to be more flexible and better adapted to their environment and, consequently, had higher growth orientation. Moreover, firms founded and headed by craftsman entrepreneurs tended to be more rigid than those founded by opportunistic entrepreneurs. Although it was implicit in this categorization that the craftsman entrepreneur was technically skilled but relatively poor at skills, the concept of skills did not explicitly enter Smith's framework. Smith's (1967) original typology was developed to include an administrative type of entrepreneur, (Filley and Aldag, 1978), who are professional, rational builders, associated with skills and motivations that are normally referred to as managerial. Thus a three-way classification of craftsman-managerial-opportunistic entrepreneurs emerges from earlier literature, and later studies assume a priori a similar distinction (Lafuente and Salas, 1989; Cooper and Dunkelberg, 1986).However, careful reading of these studies revealed that they have operationalized the construct of the entrepreneurial type in different ways. It is suggested here and elsewhere (Agarwal and Chatterjee, 2007) that inconsistencies in operationalizing the basis for differences between entrepreneurs has been at least partly responsible for the inconsistent empirical findings in this area. For instance, Smith (1967) categorized entrepreneurs on the basis of their education, background and work experience. …
Read full abstract