Hühn, Ma hias P.; Da is, Zacha y G.
A icle
Lessons om eam en ep eneu ship esea ch o gene al
en ep eneu ship heo y
Adminis a i e Sciences
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
MDPI – Mul idisciplina y Digi al Publishing Ins i u e, Basel
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Hühn, Ma hias P.; Da is, Zacha y G. (2024) : Lessons om eam
en ep eneu ship esea ch o gene al en ep eneu ship heo y, Adminis a i e Sciences, ISSN
2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 11, pp. 1-13,
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci14110287
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/321093
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Ci a ion: Hühn, Ma hias P., and
Zacha y G. Da is. 2024. Lessons om
Team En ep eneu ship Resea ch o
Gene al En ep eneu ship Theo y.
Adminis a i e Sciences 14: 287.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci
14110287
Recei ed: 7 Augus 2024
Re ised: 8 Oc obe 2024
Accep ed: 22 Oc obe 2024
Published: 5 No embe 2024
Copy igh : © 2024 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
A icle
Lessons om Team En ep eneu ship Resea ch o Gene al
En ep eneu ship Theo y
Ma hias P. Hühn * and Zacha y G. Da is
Alex G. McKenna School o Business, Economics and Go e nmen , Sain Vincen College, La obe,
PA 15650, USA; zacha y[email p o ec ed]
*Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]
Abs ac : This pape sugges s ha he heo y o en ep eneu ship needs o be amended. This pape
i s shows how he phenomenon o en ep eneu ial eams has become es ablished in p ac ice and
in he li e a u e. Then he axioms o en ep eneu ship heo y a e discussed. This pape (wi h a
li e a u e e iew and GEM da a) a gues ha he e is an inconsis ency wi hin en ep eneu ship heo y:
in o de no o ha e o change he axioms o en ep eneu ship heo y, en ep eneu ial eams we e
assumed o consis o indi idual en ep eneu s. This pape explains how ha impedes ad ances in
heo y de elopmen and sugges s a new axonomy o en ep eneu s: he indi idual en ep eneu ,
he indi idual en ep eneu in a eam, and a socially minded ue eam en ep eneu .
Keywo ds: en ep eneu ial eams; en ep eneu ship heo y
1. In oduc ion
A e mo e han 80 yea s o esea ch on he phenomenon o en ep eneu ship, he-
o e ical ad ances ha e been slow in he pas 20 o so yea s. Many ecen pape s s ill
s uggle wi h he de ini ion o en ep eneu ship and ha o he en ep eneu . Tha is no
necessa ily a bad sign as i e lec s he openness o he academic deba e and he impo ance
and complexi y o he opic. In nuclea physics, he deba e be ween hose who a gue ha
sub-a omic pa icles always ha e a mass and hose who a gue he opposi e is no aba ing.
The In e na ional A omic Ene gy Agency’s (IAEA) logo s ill shows ha elec ons a e li le
sa elli es o bi ing he nuclea co e, al hough elec ons a e mo e a cloud-like o ce han
indi idual li le sphe es. So, in a way, i is good ha he e is s ill a lo o discussion ha
e ol es a ound wha an en ep eneu does as en ep eneu s a e indeed e y mul i ace ed.
Ye , he e is also a p oblem wi h his a bi a iness because i p e en s academics in he
ield om o ming clus e s a ound impo an sub-deba es and ha ing long, in ense and
deep discussions abou each. In en ep eneu ship, he e a e simply oo many con ended
issues and he deba es a e oo sho o gain dep h. O e he yea s, ha has led o a
agmen a ion o heo y and subsequen ly o an a i ude o “any hing goes“, which by now
has lead o he c ea ion o se ious epis emological p oblems, simply because he epis eme
( he es ablished/ag eed knowledge) is oo ague (Kobia and Sikalieh 2010). Donald Sex on
(1988, p. 6) c i icised his epis emological ana chy succinc ly by quo ing Robe B ockhaus’s
e o s in b inging he deba e in o ocus and adding igou o i :
In he la e 1970s, Bob B ockhaus sugges ed ha each esea ch pape begin wi h
he au ho ’s de ini ion o an en ep eneu and a de ailed desc ip ion o he sample
used in he esea ch. He epea ed his conce n in 1985, and in 1986 he es ablished
he “Manha an P ojec ” o de elop c i e ia o de ining he sample used in
esea ch s udies.
The si ua ion has no go en be e since B ockhaus and Sex ons’ a emp s in pu ing
hei conside able weigh behind a mo e conce ed esea ch e o . Resea che s canno
ag ee on e y basic cons uc s. To gi e you a basic example o he size o he p oblem:
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci14110287 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 2 o 13
an en ep eneu is he ounde o a en u e, bu wha abou ano he pe son joining his
ounde a e he en u e has been o mally es ablished? In o he wo ds, while he ounding
o a en u e has o some ime now been conside ed a p ocess (D ucke 1985;Reynolds
and Whi e 1997, p. 7; Reynolds 2000, p. 159), he as majo i y o esea che s conside only
hose en ep eneu s who a e he e a a ce ain poin in ime. To make ma e s wo se: wha i
wo o mo e people c ea e a en u e and one con ibu es almos only inancially, he o he
h ough p o iding expe ise and he hi d h ough he p o ision o decisi e mo al suppo
bu is o he wise unin ol ed? How many en ep eneu s do we ha e? Well, he answe in
en ep eneu ship is, wha e e he esea che s de ine (Kalkan and Kaygusuz (1985) a gued
ha he en ep eneu is so many hings ha desc ip ion is di icul ); o en hey ski he
issues by no de ining he en ep eneu a all as B ockhaus lamen ed (Fo bes e al. 2006;
Vanaels e al. 2006;Bla 2009). While so much eedom is wonde ul (and o many o
us was he mos impo an eason o ha e become academic), i also makes i impossible
o compa e no es. S udies abou seemingly e y simila hings come o o ally di e en
esul s because hey ha e, in ac , looked a e y di e en ly de ined en ep eneu s. No mal,
you say? Yes, bu also less han op imal, we say.
The main hypo hesis o his pape is ha , o pu i in e ms o he abo emen ioned
physics me apho , he e a e en ep eneu s who a e independen sa elli es and he e a e
en ep eneu s who band oge he , in en ionally o subconsciously, and become mo e a
o ce han a g oup o semi-independen indi iduals. The e is a co olla y o his hypo hesis:
he e a e a leas wo ideal- ype en ep eneu s. Classical li e a u e ea s e e y en ep eneu
as an indi idual; howe e , we p opose ha he e is ano he , e y di e en , second en-
ep eneu ial ype: he en ep eneu who p e e s o ound he en u e in a eam and has
qui e di e en cha ac e is ics han he indi idual, “he o” en ep eneu . En ep eneu s, we
hink, can bes be unde s ood when placed along a con inuum ( anging om he classi-
cal, independen , o e -op imis ic and indi idualis ic en ep eneu o he eam-o ien ed
en ep eneu who only s a s a en u e i s/he is embedded in a g oup o o he eam-
o ien ed en ep eneu s). Maybe he e a e o he ideal ypes be ween he ex emes o he
con inuum, bu we belie e ha hese wo ypes a e a good s a ing poin o u he e-
sea ch. Wes (2007) seems o ag ee wi h us when he s a es ha esea ch on en ep eneu ial
eam collec i e cogni ion (ETTC) has w ongly ocused on indi idual cogni ion p ocesses
assuming ha hey can be agg ega ed. He a gues (p. 79) ha “ he me hodologies used o
examine indi idual-le el cogni ion ha e signi ican limi a ions when applied o eams”.
We ag ee and would a gue ha his exclusi e ocus on he classical indi idually minded
en ep eneu ial ype has hampe ed p og ess in all a eas o en ep eneu ship, no only in he
cogni i e ield. The esul s o Wes ’s s udy show clea ly ha “ oo much in eg a ion (highly
consis en iews) o oo much di e en ia ion (cons an ly iden i ying di e en op ions and
al e na i es) ad e sely a ec s he new en u e pe o mance” (2007, p. 95). In o he wo ds,
in en ep eneu ial eams, he classical en ep eneu canno pe o m and a mo e socially
minded ype o en ep eneu is mo e e ec i e.
To be su e, we do no ha e he hub is o hink ha we can de ine wha he en ep eneu
is. Wha we will y, howe e , is o poin ou and colla e exis ing assump ions abou wha
ha s ange beas is by collec ing desc ip ions o which he as majo i y o esea che s
ag ee. These desc ip ions, we a gue, seem o poin owa ds he exis ence o a leas wo
e y di e en ypes o en ep eneu s, one o hem is he whi e elephan in he oom. While
we will mos ly a gue om he ai school poin o iew (McClelland 1961), we do no
eel bound o s ay wi hin hei logic. The da a we use d aw om he ollowing sou ces: a
li e a u e e iew, om a e y ough-and-di y analysis o he Fo une lis o he 500 bigges
co po a ions o he Uni ed S a es, and om he yea ly s udies, he Gene al En ep eneu ship
Moni o (GEM), in six big indus ialised coun ies. We ha e chosen he GEM Conso ium’s
da a because i is widely ega ded as being he mos inclusi e ( hey collec da a abou
en ep eneu ial ac i i y in o e 40 coun ies, om o e 100,000 in e iewees, and s a ed in
1997), and mos scien i ically igo ous (Au io 2005, pp. 11–12). I conside he ac ha we
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 3 o 13
did no ha e o do a deep s a is ical analysis as an ad an age a he han a p oblem: he
da a a e aw and he in o ma ion gained om i is he bes he e is: i is almos sel -e iden .
2. The Basic Assump ions in En ep eneu ship Theo y
Like he whole pape , we will keep he desc ip ion o he (classical) en ep eneu e y
simple and high-le el as we a e ying o make a e y basic poin . Based on my li e a u e
e iew, he e seems o be, by and la ge, a consensus ha en ep eneu s a e conside ed o
ha e he ollowing a ibu es:
•
They a e e y special people (assumed, bu a ely explici ly men ioned) (Byg a e 1997);
•They ound a en u e;
•
They a e s ong indi iduals who can handle a conside able pe sonal isk ( inancial and
emo ional) (Can illon [1755] 2010;Schumpe e 1934, pp. 54–56; Knigh 1967;D ucke
1970;Chell e al. 1991, pp. 18–19);
•
They a e c ea i e ( hey ha e ideas, isions) (Schumpe e 1934;Shackle 1979;Chell e al.
1991, pp. 23–27);
•
They a e ac ion-o ien ed and p agma ic ( o me he mos impo an ai because hey
ac ually make he i s s ep) (S e enson and Gumpe 1985, p. 88; Buseni z and Ba ney
1997;D ucke 1970, p. 10);
•They a e independen (Ke s de V ies 1977, p. 34; Collins and Moo e 1970, p. 45);
•
They a e in e es ed in de ails; hey a e inke e s (Min zbe g e al. 1998, p. 130; Ebne
2005, p. 259);
•
They a e oppo uni y-seeke s in he sense ha hey scan he en i onmen (some imes
hey e en c ea e oppo uni ies) (Ki zne 1973;Shane 2001;G ube e al. 2008);
•They a e ough and single-minded (Say 1803;Koolman 1971, p. 271);
•They a e success ul (we only s udy hose anyway) (Min zbe g e al. 1998, p. 131).
So a , so good? We hink his lis is one ha mos o us ha e li le di icul y ag eeing
o. We could ha e added o he ea u es, which a e o en men ioned, bu which a e, by
some a leas , s ongly con es ed. Cha isma ic was an a ibu e ha was men ioned in he
ea ly li e a u e bu academics ha e become a li le bi mo e ca e ul wi h ha e m and so
we ha e no included i .
3. A Discussion o Theo y and Reali y
Teaching en ep eneu ship is no easy o many easons. One eason is ha s uden s
o en come in o hei i s en ep eneu ship lec u e wi h wo hings in hei minds: he
lis abo e and he wish o be an en ep eneu co esponding o ha lis . Paedagogically,
ou i s job is o somehow explain o hem ha en ep eneu s a e no a di e en species
(Wagne 2004, p. 3, also denies his and poin s ou ha s a is ically he e a e millions o
hem wo ldwide), and ha he s uden s do no ha e o do iolence o hei cha ac e s in
o de o be in line wi h ha lis . I we would no y o achie e ha , e en ewe s uden s
would ake ha undamen al i s s ep owa ds c ea ing a en u e. While his lis is a
ai ly good desc ip ion o he ideal ype o an en ep eneu , i is also e y un ealis ic.
This is a widely accep ed bu no ac ed upon assump ion. One o us wo ks a lo wi h
en ep eneu s, big and small. None o hem display cha ac e is ics which con o m o he
abo emen ioned lis and Pe e D ucke (1998, p. 149) opens his a icle on he en ep eneu
wi h he ollowing sen ence:
DESPITE much discussion hese days o he “en ep eneu ial pe sonali y”, ew o
he en ep eneu s wi h whom I ha e wo ked du ing he pas 30 yea s had such
pe sonali ies.
In ac , he as majo i y o hem ac ually clash wi h he majo i y o a ibu es because
hey a e eam en ep eneu s. Wha is mo e, many o he unsuccess ul ones (unsuccess ul un il
now, ha is) pe haps a e unsuccess ul because hey a emp ed o con o m o he lis and
he eby los hose ai s ha would ha e made hem success ul. These p oblems poin o
a law ei he in how en ep eneu ship is augh o he heo y o en ep eneu ship i sel .
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 4 o 13
As e y ew en ep eneu s ac ually ha e been o mally ained in en ep eneu ship, one
can su mise ha he p oblem lies mos p obably wi hin he heo y o en ep eneu ship,
especially in i s po ayal o he en ep eneu . In o he ields, academics ha e de eloped a
ange o ideal ypes; no so in en ep eneu ship—he e only one pheno ype is allowed.
This pape is conce ned wi h eam en ep eneu ship, which many s udies see as a e y
common, i no a mo e common, phenomenon han indi idual en ep eneu ship (Kamm
e al. 1990;Ga ne e al. 1994;Rue e al. 2003;Chowdhu y 2005). Many s udies ha e
a gued o qui e some ime ha eam en ep eneu ship is a end on he ise, especially in
he high- ech indus ies (Coope 1973;Coope and B uno 1977;Obe maye 1980;Teach e al.
1986). Figu e 1below shows he a e age numbe o owne s o en u es in he planning
s age (“Nascen Team Size”) and o New En ep eneu ial Ven u es ( om 3 up o 42 mon hs
in business) in six la ge economies. The GEM da a, he bigges longi udinal s udy on
en ep eneu ship, co obo a es he s udies men ioned abo e: he a e age eam size is
almos always abo e 1.6. Tha do e ails wi h my own ough analysis o he 50 la ges US
businesses in 2011 ( aken om he Fo une 500 lis ). When we could no ob ain in o ma ion
on he ounding eam size o a company (we only coun ed he ounde s a he ime o
he inco po a ion o he i s company), we eplaced he ones we we e unable o ob ain
in o ma ion on (o which we e go e nmen al companies) wi h he nex la ges company on
he lis so ha ou sample ended wi h Sa eway, which is ac ually no. 60 in he Fo une 500
o 2011. In his sample, 21 (42%) companies we e o mally inco po a ed by indi iduals
and 29 (58%) by eams.
Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 o 14
Figu e 1. Team sizes in six coun ies om 2001 o 2020.
3.1. Special Independen People
The i s classical assump ion abou he en ep eneu ha clashes wi h he eali y o
eam en ep eneu ship is ha en ep eneu s a e special people who ha e a s ong desi e
o independence. Maybe he mos in luen ial wo k on his was he empi ical s udy by
Collins and Moo e (1970) in which hey concluded ha he need o independence is he
single mos impo an ai and mo i a ion o people o become en ep eneu s. Jus how
impo an his ac o is can also be seen om he ac ha he mains eam li e a u e (and
GEM) diffe en ia es be ween en ep eneu s who olun a ily ound a business and hose
who a e d i en in o i by shee necessi y (Bosma and Ha ding 2007). This dis inc ion be-
ween necessi y and oppo uni y en ep eneu s is made because one wan s o il e ou
and subsequen ly d op necessi y en ep eneu s as i is o en implied ha hese people a e
lowe -quali y en ep eneu s (Block and Wagne 2007, o a leas so diffe en om “ eal”
en ep eneu s ha hey should be ea ed as a diffe en ideal ype (Se ie e 2010). The
Figu e 1. Team sizes in six coun ies om 2001 o 2020.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 5 o 13
The s udies men ioned abo e show a mo e p onounced end owa ds eam en-
ep eneu ship han he GEM da a suppo . Howe e , all da a show ha eam en ep eneu -
ship is a phenomenon, which is oo impo an o o e look. Mosakowski (1998, p. 630)
quo es Schumpe e (1942, p. 132), “. . . echnological p og ess is inc easingly becoming he
business o eams ained specialis s”, and he eby suppo s he iew ha , especially in
high- ech indus ies, eams o en ep eneu s ha e always exis ed. Whe he one- hi d o hal
o he new en u es ha e mo e han one ounde does no eally ma e o he hypo hesis
o his s udy. The GEM da a a e also less en husias ic abou a end owa ds mo e eam
en ep eneu ship. This is also no decisi e because he conse a i e GEM da a show ha
ounde eams we e qui e common in 2001 as well as in 2020. Team en ep eneu ship,
whe he i eally is on he ise (we hink he e migh ac ually be a sligh end owa ds
eam en ep eneu ship) o jus a s able phenomenon, is some hing ha heo y has o deal
wi h. As has been b ie ly ou lined be o e, we hink ha heo y has no kep pace wi h his
de elopmen , and wha is mo e, classical g ea man ( ha is, indi idual en ep eneu ship)
heo y is e y o en i ele an /w ong o ue eam en ep eneu s.
Thus, in addi ion o he p oblem ha he e is li le ag eemen in en ep eneu ship
heo y abou he cen al cons uc , he en ep eneu , he change in a majo aspec o he
opic unde s udy (indi iduals/ eams) has added ano he laye o con usion o he deba e.
Wha we hink has happened is ha en ep eneu ial eams a e assumed o be made up o
pe sons con o ming o he (hazy) idea o he indi idual en ep eneu as ou lined in he
lis abo e. The e a e e y ob ious p oblems wi h such hinking ha we will discuss in he
ollowing pa ag aphs.
3.1. Special Independen People
The i s classical assump ion abou he en ep eneu ha clashes wi h he eali y o
eam en ep eneu ship is ha en ep eneu s a e special people who ha e a s ong desi e
o independence. Maybe he mos in luen ial wo k on his was he empi ical s udy by
Collins and Moo e (1970) in which hey concluded ha he need o independence is he
single mos impo an ai and mo i a ion o people o become en ep eneu s. Jus how
impo an his ac o is can also be seen om he ac ha he mains eam li e a u e (and
GEM) di e en ia es be ween en ep eneu s who olun a ily ound a business and hose
who a e d i en in o i by shee necessi y (Bosma and Ha ding 2007). This dis inc ion
be ween necessi y and oppo uni y en ep eneu s is made because one wan s o il e ou
and subsequen ly d op necessi y en ep eneu s as i is o en implied ha hese people a e
lowe -quali y en ep eneu s (Block and Wagne 2007), o a leas so di e en om “ eal”
en ep eneu s ha hey should be ea ed as a di e en ideal ype (Se ie e 2010). The
assumed dema ca ion c i e ion hus is he indi idual en ep eneu ’s need o independence
and ee choice. How can hose supe indi idualis ic people choose, a he same ime, o
wo k in a eam? Ei he he assump ion o he independen indi idual has o be d opped
o else amended in classical en ep eneu ship heo y o accommoda e he la ge numbe
o en ep eneu ial en u es ounded in eams, o he heo y o eam en ep eneu ship has
o be changed wi h ega d o he need o independence o all en ep eneu s. Necessi y
en ep eneu s and ou eam-o ien ed en ep eneu s a e no pushed in o en ep eneu ship
because hey need/seek independence. Ha pe (2008), a guing om a game heo e ic
pe spec i e, s a s down his oad bu s ops mid-way in his pape , Towa ds a heo y o
eam en ep eneu ship, and concludes ha eam en ep eneu ship only happens because
“pe cei ed s ong in e dependence a ising om common in e es s” (p. 613) comes oge he
and makes mo e o less unwilling indi iduals wo k oge he . His en ep eneu ial eam
membe is he a ional, sel -cen e ed homo economicus o a ional expec a ion heo y eco-
nomics. I s opposi e, he eam-o ien ed en ep eneu , would ha e comple ely changed he
esea ch agenda.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 6 o 13
3.2. Risk-Take s/Risk-Seeke s
Ano he a ibu e o he classical en ep eneu , which is o en also used as he dema -
ca ion c i e ion o non-en ep eneu s, is he abili y o he ue en ep eneu o cope wi h
much highe le els o isk/unce ain y o , indeed, o seek a eas o g ea unce ain y and
mo e whe e o he , mo e imid ac o s ea o mo e (McClelland 1961;McG a h e al. 1992;
Ca land e al. 1995). This heme o he he oic isk- ake is so cen al ha Buseni z (1999)
explained ha en ep eneu s a e simply o e ly op imis ic and do no pe cei e he isk as
being e y high, al hough i objec i ely is. When one o us s a ed ou in en ep eneu ship,
he assumed ha en ep eneu s a e, abo e all, unce ain y- educe s because hei h eshold
when unce ain y u ns in o de imen al anxie y is highe . McG a h e al. (1992) say ha
he e is a clea connec ion be ween ole ance o unce ain y and how en ep eneu ial a
cul u e is. In sho , he abili y o handle highe le els o unce ain y is o en po ayed as
he one ac o which is able o explain en ep eneu s in one nea dimension, also because
many o he ac o s can be di ec ly linked o i (ac ion-o ien a ion, op imism, independence).
En ep eneu s a e, acco ding o Joseph Schumpe e (1934, p. 74; 1942, p. 83), people who
combine exis ing means o p oduc ion o c ea e some hing new: hey con inuously c e-
a i ely des oy. Wi h he mode n ounde o en ep eneu ship (we hink ha Schumpe e ’s
heo y was so appealing because he combined wo schools, he ai school o “who is
he en ep eneu ?”, wi h he economic school, “wha do en ep eneu s do?”) de ining
en ep eneu s as hose who do no ea o c ea i ely des oy, i.e., do no ea newness, i is
a small wonde ha his ac o is conside ed as being ex emely impo an . When o one us
came o wo k wi h mo e and mo e en ep eneu s, his con idence in he isk-seeking ai o
en ep eneu s became smalle wi h each en ep eneu he me . E en se ial en ep eneu s
did no con o m o his ideal—only one s udy (Ke nelgo 1985) co obo a ed he iew ha
en ep eneu s become mo e isk-a e se as hey gain mo e expe ience. Wha is mo e, hose
who p o essionally inance en ep eneu s ( en u e capi alis s) also seem o be e y wa y o
he isk- ake . Building on Baumol’s (1968) sugges ion, we ha e eplaced his image o he
isk- ake wi h he image o someone who akes ha c ucial i s s ep owa ds ounding
a en u e and who hen is d awn u he in o he en u e and becomes mo e calcula ing,
a he han being a isk- ake . Tha is no o say ha he isk- aking en ep eneu does
no exis —we jus hink s/he is less equen han he ype who basically s umbles in o
ounding a en u e.
In managemen heo y, he eam is ega ded as a e y impo an way no only o
mi iga e he ac ual isk, bu , mo e impo an ly, in ou iew, he eam is assumed o bu e
he eam membe s (en ep eneu s) om he el isk. Simply by he e being a eam, he
h eshold le el whe e dys unc ional anxie y s a s o kick in is aised. A mies disco e ed
ha wo soldie s a e as ly mo e e ec i e in s ess si ua ions han indi idual soldie s;
special o ces uni s a ound he wo ld use he ou -man eam as he basic uni because i
maximises edundan abili ies as well as c ea es a eeling o sa e y. Humans a e social
animals and simply eel sa e in g oups and, because hey eel sa e , hey a e mo e e ec i e.
Founding an o ganisa ion is an ex emely unce ain p ocess and wha is mo e na u al
han o seek emo ional suppo om a eam in such a si ua ion? I many en ep eneu s
consciously o subconsciously aim o educe he el isk and c ea e en u es in a eam, hen
he classical isk- aking en ep eneu is no iden ical wi h he eam en ep eneu : he e a e
a leas wo ideal- ype en ep eneu s. Thus, also in his espec , classical en ep eneu ship
heo y would need o be changed o amended.
We also belie e ha many indi idual en ep eneu s only become inc easingly indi-
idual (less willing o lis en o hose a ound hem) a e hey ha e success ully ounded
and es ablished a en u e. This means ha he s ong indi iduali y assigned o he ypical
en ep eneu is no p esen in he beginning—and is hus no an impo an a ibu e o he
success ul en ep eneu —bu de elops a e wa ds. One o us once came in o con ac wi h
one o he mos success ul mode n Ge man en ep eneu s, Di k Roßmann, he ounde
o Rossmann, he la ges Ge man d ugs o e chain wi h an annual u no e o o e EUR
14 billion. P e y much om he beginning, Roßmann had a us ed ad iso , ye as Ross-
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 7 o 13
mann g ew, ad ice om anyone, including he almos -co ounde , was only eluc an ly
accep ed, i a all. The imp ession was ha Di k Roßmann did no unde s and why his
d ugs o e chain was so success ul and a ibu ed i o some hing in his pe sonali y. E e y
ime Roßmann was ad ised o s a using a managemen ool (one o us wi nessed he
a emp o u ilise ca ego y managemen ), he e used. We belie e i was he in luence o he
idealised en ep eneu image and he ea ha sys ema ic managemen p ac ices would
d i e his “pe sonali y” ou o Rossmann, and he eby des oying he basis o he en u e’s
success, ha was behind his u e e usal o employing such ools.
3.3. Indi idual C ea i i y
Pe e D ucke , who p opaga ed a e y sys ema ic app oach o en ep eneu ship and
s essed he need o an en ep eneu ial eam o be pu in place as ea ly as possible, said
ha he g ea idea is s ill he mos impo an spa k which s a s en u es (D ucke 1985).
Na u ally, he idea comes om an indi idual and no a eam. I eam en ep eneu ship is
he ule a he han he excep ion, why do we s ill p op up he idea ha indi idual c ea i i y
is an all-impo an a ibu e o he en ep eneu ? This concep is so deeply ing ained
ha many pape s on eam en ep eneu ship ac ually y o p o e ha an en ep eneu ial
eam should always ha e a “lead en ep eneu ” (Ensley e al. 2000;Chen 2007;Chung
2009). To us, i is ob ious ha we need o change he heo y so ha we can make oom
o eam c ea i i y/en ep eneu ship beside he c ea i e indi idual. Fi s , he idea ha
en ep eneu ship is abou a speci ic poin in ime needs o change: ounding a en u e,
being an en ep eneu is a p ocess—whe he i is an indi idual o a g oup o people.
Secondly, when i comes o gene al managemen heo y, we mos ly ag ee ha g oups a e
mo e c ea i e. When i comes o en ep eneu ship heo y, howe e , he assump ion seems
o be ha one pe son is mo e likely o ha e ha one g ea idea. Despi e acing an empi ical
and a heo e ical inconsis ency—we a e blind on bo h eyes—we e use o adap heo y.
I he ounding o a en u e would be unde s ood mo e as a p ocess and we we e o
d op he assump ion ha i always has o be one pe son who has he g ea idea, we migh
ha e a be e basis o unde s and en ep eneu ial eali y—a leas o hose ins ances whe e
a en u e is ounded by a g oup o people.
3.4. Ac ion O ien a ion
The ac ion o ien a ion is an a ibu e o en ep eneu s ha we pe sonally also ind
e y use ul o unde s anding en ep eneu ial beha iou . The ypical en ep eneu ial
o ganisa ion (Min zbe g 1979,1983,1989) is highly cen alised and his c ea es a e y
impo an ad an age: en ep eneu ial en u es a e as -mo ing, in e nally and ex e nally
adap able o ganisa ions i he ounde is lexible. I is a well-documen ed obse a ion
ha in en u es which a e ounded by g oups o people, decision making is hampe ed
by p o ac ed con lic s amongs he ounding eam membe s (Ensley and Pea son 2005;
Foo 2011). Ob iously, we a e no sugges ing ha we d op he ac ion o ien a ion a ibu e
because we ind i an impo an aspec o indi idual and eam en ep eneu s. Howe e , he
g owing p e e ence o ounding a en u e in a eam, despi e he nega i e consequences,
also poin s o he need o ha e di e en analy ic ools o di e en si ua ions. En ep eneu s
who ade o being able o ac as o he ad an ages o a eam ha e o ha e easons o
doing so, and he ac ha many make his ade-o makes i necessa y o amend classical
heo y. One possible explana ion is ha he emo ional h eshold o make di icul decisions
om wi hin he secu i y o a eam is lowe . In o he wo ds, he ue eam en ep eneu s
ade o speed o quali y in decision making. Tha , o cou se, clashes wi h he independen
ai ha is so impo an in classic en ep eneu ship heo y.
4. Th ee Di e en En ep eneu ial Ven u es—Th ee Di e en Theo ies
We hink we ha e made i easonably plausible ha he e is some hing w ong wi h
he heo e ical amewo k o en ep eneu ship; he mos impo an a gumen s o classical
en ep eneu ship heo y a e a odds wi h each o he when common eam en ep eneu ship
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 287 8 o 13
is aken in o conside a ion. Tha p e en s en ep eneu ship om mo ing o wa d and
o ces i o epea edly igh old ba les.
Wha we p opose is a so and simple solu ion: ins ead o o cing a big deba e abou
he gene al heo y o en ep eneu ship, we sugges ha he e a e h ee di e en si ua ions
in which en u es a e ypically ounded and ha we need h ee (o maybe only wo)
di e en heo ies o look a hese h ee si ua ions. Adding one o wo ideal ypes o ou
phenomenological unde s anding o he en ep eneu a oids ha ing o dilu e he ( e y
use ul) adi ional desc ip ion. We can, hus, keep he classical ideal and simply add o he
ideal ypes.
4.1. The Classical Si ua ion: One Indi idual En ep eneu
Fi s , we ha e he si ua ion whe e one pe son ounds a en u e. As men ioned abo e,
o he op 50 o he Fo une lis o he bigges US companies, 42% we e inco po a ed by
indi iduals (poin -in- ime iew) and 58% had mo e han one ounde . I one akes he
median yea (1944) and looks a he igu es be o e and a e his median yea , he numbe s
emain ema kably s able: 40% o he companies ounded a e 1944 we e inco po a ed by
indi iduals and he numbe o he companies ounded be o e ha da e is 42.5%. These
igu es a e somewha as ounding in he ligh o mains eam heo y s essing he he oic
indi idual en ep eneu . A no poin in mode n ime we e indi idual ounde s he majo i y.
Ne e heless, gene a ions o ounde s ha e been aised in he belie ha only a s ongly
indi idualis ic pe sonali y is likely o be a success ul en ep eneu . Again, in his pape we
a e no a guing in a ou o ge ing id o he classical s e eo ype, which is in all likelihood
a e y impo an and common phenomenon. Howe e , we a e a guing ha his classical
s e eo ype does no (s a is ically) ep esen he ypical en ep eneu (e en i we assume
ha he e a e indi idually minded en ep eneu s among he eam en ep eneu s). This
means ha he iew o he en ep eneu has o be al e ed.
4.2. Two o Mo e Classical En ep eneu s
The second ounding si ua ion is ha o wo o mo e indi idual ounde s who come
oge he ou o necessi y. The ounde s mo e o less con o m o he classical pa adigm, i.e.,
hey a e indi iduals. The cu en esea ch on eam en ep eneu ship assumes ha all eams
all in o his ca ego y because hey a e en ep eneu s and en ep eneu s con o m o he
c i e ia p esc ibed in he classical school (see lis abo e). I no , all esea ch which has aken
place in his ield has o be e-e alua ed as many o he s udies would ha e s a ed om
w ong assump ions abou ounde s and ha e d awn aul y conclusions.
4.3. Two o Mo e Team-O ien ed En ep eneu s Found a Ven u e
The las ounding si ua ion is he one ha we belie e is as common as ha o he
indi idually minded en ep eneu , wi h he po en ial o soon becoming he mos common.
He e we ha e ounde s who eam up because hey p e e ounding a en u e in a g oup. This
may happen as conscious ac , d i en by he subconscious need o be pa o a g oup, o
may jus happen because hey a e long- e m iends, mee by chance and ha e an idea
collec i ely, o else o o he easons which a e di icul o ca ego ise. This is he g oup o
which we sugges ha he p e ense o assuming ha hey a e jus indi idual en ep eneu s
who happen o o m he en u e in a eam is w ong. These people a e e y di e en om
he classical en ep eneu as we ha e discussed abo e: hey a e no ex eme indi idualis s
seeking unce ain y who a e c ea i e des uc o s wi hou ea ing he consequences o hei
bold ac ion, and hink hey alone ha e wha i akes o be success ul. Ra he , hey a e much
so e , maybe e en comple ely di e en , e sions o ha ideal o he classical en ep eneu .
They also go agains he publicly held image o he supe human en ep eneu , an image
ha is s eng hened by he classical school.
Possible examples o en ep eneu s o he second ype (Ga es/Allen, Jobs/Wozniak,
Hewle /Packa d) abound in p ac ice bu ha e no ound hei way in o heo y simply be-
cause en ep eneu ship esea che s ea o comple ely lose he al eady spu ious ag eemen
