" Academy o/Management Review, 1988, Vol. 13, No. 3, 442-453.

Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas; The Case for Intention

BARBARA BIRD

Case Western Reserve University

Entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurs' states of mind that direct attention, experience, and action toward a business concept, set the form and direction of organizations at their inception. Subsequent organizational outcomes such as survival, development (including written plans), growth, and change are based on these intentions. The study of entrepreneurial intentions provides a way of advancing entrepreneurship research beyond descriptive studies and helps to distinguish entrepreneurial activity from strategic management. Entrepreneurs' ideas and intentions form the initial strategic template of new organizations and are important underpinnings of new venture development. Even though entrepreneurial ideasfor new products, new services, new social movementsbegin with inspiration, sustained attention and intention are needed in order for them to become manifest. Entrepreneurs' intentions guide their goal setting, communication, commitment, organization, and other kinds of work. Although behavior can result from unconscious and unintended antecedents, what is of interest here is a conscious and intended act, the founding of a firm. This article focuses less on the action itself than on the psychological precursors to that action. The study of entrepreneurial intentions opens new arenas to theory-based research. It directs attention toward the complex relationships among entrepreneurial ideas and the consequent outcomes of these ideas, and it directs attention away from previously studied entrepreneurial traits (e.g., personality, motivation, and demographics) and contexts (e.g., displacements, prior experience, markets, and economics). The model presented here is behavioral and not institutional; it does not provide a strategic map of how to start a venture or how to 442 succeed in business. Instead it guides attention to questions about how entrepreneurs create, sustain, and transform organizations, thus helping to distinguish entrepreneurship from strategic management.

Nature of Entrepreneurial Intentions

Intentionality is a state of mind directing a person's attention (and therefore experience and action) toward a specific object (goal) or a path in order to achieve something (means). As a psychological process, intention has been examined by a number of theorists and researchers. William James (1890/1950) construed will (a more general term which includes intention) as an independent faculty of the mind, operating through a person's attention (holding the intended image in the mind) and consent (inner dialog or selftalk which says, "Let it be so"). Research by other theorists, addressing the tension aspects of intention, shows that a person's intentions sustain value or effort despite interruptions (Zeigamik, 1927, cited in McClelland, 1985). Some psychoanalytic theorists have found that the process involves persistence, perseverance, and courage (Bugental, 1980; May, 1975). Some modern theorists describe intention as one variable within larger psychological models.

Miller, (Salanter, and Pribram (1960) include intentional control over those mental images and values which guide behavior as a factor in their cybernetic model of behavior. Cognitive theorists (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;Rokeach, 1960) have demonstrated the importance that intentional elements, such as expectation, attention, and belief, have on behaviorial outcomes. Others have focused on processes that build or define intention, suggesting that how individuals express promises and goals is important (Searle, 1970). Entrepreneurial intentions are aimed at either creating a new venture or creating new values in existing ventures. Katz and Gartner (1986) observed that intentions include a dimension of location: the entrepreneur's intention (internal locus) and intentions of other stakeholders, markets, and so forth (external locus). Another dimension of entrepreneurial intentions is that of rationality versus intuition. Figure 1 shows how personal and social contexts interact with rational and intuitive thinking during the formulation of entrepreneurial intentions. Certain personal history factors, such as having prior experience as an entrepreneur, personality characteristics, such as the need for achievement (McClelland, 1961) and the need for control (Brockhaus, 1982), and abilities, such as promoting ideas, predispose individuals to entrepreneurial intentions. Along with individual variables, social, political, and economic variables, such as displacement (Shapero & Sokol, 1982), changes in markets (Piore & Sabel, 1985), and government deregulation of industries (Farrell, 1985), create the context for entrepreneurship. First, a person's rational, analytic, and causeand-effect-oriented processes structure intention and action. These psychological processes underlie formal business plans, opportunity analysis, resource acquisition, goal setting, and most observable goal-directed behavior (Latham & Yukl, 1975; Locke, 1968). Goal setting, usually defined in an interpersonal context, involves hierarchically oriented behavior (i.e., goal setting between superior and subordinate, where subordinate control over
443

goals is seen as employee participation) (Latham & Yukl, 1975; Locke, 1968; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). In traditional approaches, the person setting the goals has obvious "partial inclusion," a condition that is not apparent in new venture start-ups where the entrepreneur is fully invested and identifies with the venture. Thus, goal-setting concepts, as addressed in current literature, are too narrow to capture the unique aspects of initiating, directing, and organizing new ventures. Intentionality is the larger framework which includes not only goal setting but also a greater degree of freedom and expanded creativity for the entrepreneur (participation is total and usually not negotiated in start-ups except where partnerships are formed). Second, intuitive, holistic, and contextual thinking frames and structures an entrepreneur's intention and action. Inspired by vision, hunch, an expanded view of untapped resources, and a feeling of the potential of the enterprise, the entrepreneur perseveres.
Impact of Intentions

Entrepreneurial intentions have a significant impact on all organizations. In existing firms, executives' personal values have been found to affect corporate strategy (Guth & Tagiuri, 1965), intuition has been shown to play an important role in executive problem solving and planning (Isenberg, 1984; McGinnis, 1984), and the beliefs and perceptions of top managers have been found to directly affect the organizations they lead (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Walsh & Fahey, 1984). It follows, then, that the impact of the leader's intentions will be even greater at the birth of an organization, when the influences of external stakeholders, corporate structure, politics, image, and culture have not yet been established. There is some evidence that the ambitions and skills of the founder(s) determine the size and growth potential of the venture (Birley, 1985; Carland, Hoy, Boulton, & Carland, 1984; Filley & House, 1969; Hambrick & Crozier, 1985) and the culture that emerges (Schein, 1983). A good example is the development of culture at KoUmorgen Corporation, where the personal values of Robert and

Social, Political, & Economic Context

Personal History, Current Personality, & Abilities

Rational Analytical Cause-Effect Thinking

Intuitive Holistic Contextual Thinking

Intentionality

Actions

Figure 1. The contexts of intentionality.

Jim Swiggett influenced the firm's strategy and subsequent adjustments ("Jim Swiggett," 1987; Rhodes, 1984). The founder's intentions determine the form and direction of an organization at its inception. Subsequent organizational success, development (including written plans), growth, and change are based on these intentions, which are either
444

modified, elaborated, embodied, or transformed. Thus, intentions affect a venture's success, here defined as the firm's survival and growth.
Model Development

The model presented here is based on discovery-oriented inquiry (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through interviews with 20 entrepreneurs (seven

in service, eight in manufacturing, and five in publishing who had 2-40 years experience as entrepreneurs), distinct patterns of thought and behavior emerged. Subsequent analysis of transcripts and observer's notes suggests that these patterns are relatively consistent among entrepreneurs. The intentional process described below refines these patterns of how entrepreneurs implement ideas. The Intentional Process The intentional process begins with the entrepreneur's personal needs, values, wants, habits, and beliefs, which have their own precursors. Figure 2 depicts these five antecedents, three intrapsychic activities (creating and maintaining a temporal tension, sustaining strategic focus, and developing a strategic posture) which are at the core of intentional and behavioral outcomes which contribute to the creation of a new organization and, in turn, affect the entrepreneur's needs, values, wants, habits, and beliefs.

the psychological nature of the link between the present and the future of new venture developments has not been studied, although potential measurements have been developed (Daltry, 1982). Future Time Horizon The distance of that future time horizon is particularly important in creating and transforming organizations. In organizations, the time horizon is the "amount of time in the organizational future . . . [that one's] most important decision will affect the firm" (Levicki, 1984, p. 1). Related organizational constructs include the time span of feedback, which refers to the time lag between performance and results (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969), and the time span of discretion, which refers to the time between work reviews by hierarchical superiors (Jaques, 1976). Further, organizational roles appear to become future time-specialized, based on function and hierarchical level. Lawrence and Lorsch (1969) reported that different functions in an organization develop different time spans of feedback: Research and development generally develop longer time spans than marketing, which generally develops longer time spans than production. It is important to note that in certain circumstances, time lag in feedback actually improves performance (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). However, Levicki (1984) reported that functional groups differ more m terms of time span of discretion than in time span of feedback on decisions. Although research is limited, the existence of time span differences across functions seems a reasonable assumption.

Sustaining Temporal Tension

In the Western world, time is conceived as irreversible movement along a straight line. The most obvious dimension of temporal tension among Western entrepreneurs involves linking the present (the way it is, the "way we do it around here") to the future, which is not yet manifest. The farther into the future that one has vision, the greater the uncertainty and the greater the temporal tension as one attempts to draw that future into the present. Common sense suggests that entrepreneurs do this. However,

^- Focusing on Spiecific Needs Values Wants Habits Beliefs

^ - Creating & Maintaining (1) Temporal tension (2) Strategic focus

* Choosing (3) Posture

Figure 2. Intention-direction. 445

Hierarchical time specialization in bureaucracies is based on the time span of discretion (Jaques, 1976). Time spans range from less than 3 months to more than 10 years, and they are related to both task and individual development (i.e., job satisfaction and performance are affected by the "match" between role demands and temporal capacity). Time span of discretion also correlates with perceptions of fair pay (more pay for longer time spans) (Richardson, 1971). Jaques proposed that operators (e.g., typists, machine operators, laboratory assistants) perform tasks that have a time span of less than 3 months, whereas those who design new methods, procedures, or policies operate in a 2-5 year time span, and chief executives of large organizations operate in a 5-10 year time span. Entrepreneurial Time. The entrepreneurial role does not fit neatly into the functional or hierarchical aspects of organizations. Entrepreneurs' functions are a mix of operations, management, promotion, and leadership activities, ranging from stuffing envelopes to running a machine, making sales calls, analyzing competition, meeting with bankers, and forming strategic alliances. In addition, the hierarchical position of the entrepreneur is less well established than that of traditional executives. Entrepreneurs, their partners, investors, and employees organize themselves, often in an ad hoc way, into "teams" that can be described as having flat or starshaped configurations, reflecting the centrality of the entrepreneur as well as his or her status. Because of their complex roles, entrepreneurs experience and manage time differently than those who have more specialized roles. As a result, they also experience temporal tension differently, in ways that uniquely energize them, color their perceptions, and cue their search for information. The future of the new venture is more salient for entrepreneurs than for others because of their personal financial and psychological investment. Likewise, because entrepreneurs are characterized by a higher need for control, they feel more responsible as the future unfolds into the present: They created this organization, and it is theirs.
446

Proposition 1: Entrepreneurs with greater personal, financial, and psychological investment in the new venture experience greater temporal tension. Proposition 2: Entrepreneurs with a higher need for control (greater perceptions of internal control) experience greater temporal tension.

(In this article, propositions refer to phenomena that already have been observed and have been subject to confirming observation; hypotheses have yet to be observed, Dubin, 1978.)
Time Complexity

Because entrepreneurs perform a wide variety of organizational functions and have relatively undifferentiated hierarchical positions, the following questions are posed. What happens to the time horizon when one person is involved at all levels of organizational implementation? What happens when one person is responsible for both operations and strategy? What is the entrepreneur's experience of future time? Entrepreneurs are markedly now-oriented people. They live in the present, plan rarely for the future (Bowen & Jones, 1985), and reflect minimally on the past (Bird, 1983). Although many entrepreneurs formulate strategies, and some conduct formal planning, overall, they believe that opportunities to create are vested in the present. Their time is best spent in doing, not in dreaming or retrospective sensemaking. Even though entrepreneurs are anchored in the here-and-now, they also envision what is to come. Like charismatic leaders, entrepreneurs use images to guide their organizations into the future, toward ideals and situations that do not yet exist. In a study of entrepreneurial executives, Rockey (1986) found that visualization played an important role in helping these executives to clarify the organization's purpose, to dispel the negative thoughts of others, to plan facilities, to hire employees, and so forth. The entrepreneur's visualization, together with his or her persistent efforts, are thought to sustain the new venture during its early vulnerable years (depending on the source, 30-50 percent of new ventures cease operations with the first five years) (Reynolds, 1987; Star & Massel, 1981).

Even though entrepreneurs are both noworiented and future-oriented, the past holds no attractions for them, not even for older, retired entrepreneurs (who presumably have more personal history than future). Most of the entrepreneurs interviewed by Bird (1983) stated that the interview process was the first time they had reviewed their business history or reflected on the chain of events that brought them to success. Of course, some reflection is necessary for the successful entrepreneur to learn from his or her mistakes and successes (Kolb, 1984). Based on this understanding about entrepreneurs, it is proposed that they have greater time complexity than operators, managers, and traditional leaders. Specifically, the present and future are equally important to an entrepreneur's success, and successful entrepreneurs are agile in moving from present to future and across different future horizons. Because entrepreneurs see the continuity between the here-and-now and what will be tomorrow, next month, and years from now, they have a wide range of future horizons that are coherently related to the present (Daltry, 1982). Moreover, entrepreneurs are expected to have a wider range of future time horizons and more time coherence than time-specialists, such as managers or operators.
Hypothesis 1: Successful entrepreneurs are likely to spend more time thinking about the future and present and less time thinking about the past than less successful entrepreneurs. Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurs will report a wider range of task time horizons than managers. Hypothesis 3: Successful entrepreneurs will score higher on measures of future time extension and future time coherence (Daltry, 1982) than less successful entrepreneurs.

they develop and the confidence to assume that missing elements of the pattern will take the shape they foresee. This early recognition enables them to get a jump on others in commitment to action. (Stevenson, 1985, p. 40) For entrepreneurs, there are four possible time lags: (a) time between environmental change and when information about the change is received by the entrepreneur; (b) time between the receipt of that information and when a decision is made; (c) time between decision and action; and (d) time between action and results, such as increased productivity, increased value of the firm, and better quality. Entrepreneurs apparently shorten the first three segments, adding speed to their responses through vigilance, updated expertise, and intuitive anticipation, or the ability to see beyond the present. Additionally, entrepreneurs in fast-changing markets, such as computer technology, biotechnology, defense contracting, and health services, are very sensitive to environmenfai music or outside timing. Entrepreneurs develop confidence that their "fast dancing" and new products will harmonize or synchronize with external conditions (e.g., being first into the market).
Proposition 3: Successful entrepreneurs exhibit greater vigilance and intuition than less successful entrepreneurs. Proposition 4: Successful entrepreneurs are more aware of the timing of business events (e.g., business cycles) than less successful entrepreneurs. Hypothesis 4: Successful entrepreneurs will be better at recognizing patterns than less successful entrepreneurs.

Sustaining Strategic Focus

Entrepreneurs' intentions tend to be directed toward goals, which are desired end-states, rather than toward means of conduct, although both ends and means can be intentional. An entrepreneur's goals are economicsurvival and growth of the organization (Churchill & Lewis, 1983), although personal wealth and organizational finances are often more a means of keeping score than highly valued ends in themselves (Timmons, 1978).
447

Fast Dancing Another aspect of entrepreneurial time is the necessity for entrepreneurs to make quick decisions in order to adjust to the environment (e.g., markets, government, labor). Because of familiarity with their chosen field, they have the ability to recognize patterns as

Means and Ends Orientations. Entrepreneurs tend to be opportunistic about how they reach goals such as breaking even, becoming profitable, and experiencing high business growth. They develop instrumental and transactional strategies to achieve goals, prefer renting resources and subcontracting work, rather than buying resources or hiring full-time workers, and prefer hiring employees to sharing the business with partners (Collins & Moore, 1964). "When it comes to the control of resources, the . . . [entrepreneurial mentalityj says, 'all I need from a resource is the ability to use it' " (Stevenson, 1985, p. 49). Although most entrepreneurs are endsoriented, some are means- or process-oriented. Process-oriented entrepreneurs choose self-employment (often this includes a few employees) as a means to achieve satisfying work and a comfortable life. Process-oriented entrepreneurs are "craftsman-entrepreneurs," those who begin ventures in order to use their technical skills autonomously. In contrast, "opportunistic-entrepreneurs" become entrepreneurs in order to build an organization which they can lead. As might be expected, opportunistic entrepreneurs develop larger and more complex organizations (Smith, 1967). A related type of means-oriented entrepreneur is the professional-turned-entrepreneur. "Most such professionals launch their start-ups without deciding whether they are in business to practice a profession or in a profession to build a business" (Richman, 1985, pp. 68, 70). Sometimes means-oriented entrepreneurs end up failing or bankrupt by becoming overly attentive to "image," and this has a negative impact on the credibility of the entrepreneur (Timmons, 1978; Welsh & White, 1983) and, thus, on the overall well-being of the enterprise.
Proposition 5: Entrepreneurs who have specific organizationally based goals are more opportunistic and instrumental, and they are more likely to devise strategies to achieve their goals than en trepreneurs who have less specific or life-style goals.

Entrepreneurial Focus Despite the need to be goal directed, entrepreneurs may have more difficulty in sustaining strategic focus than other organizational players. Like effective executives, successful entrepreneurs will make simple, clear statements about what they value and where they are headed, and they will follow through with resources. For example, Don Oberg, founder of Oberg Industries in Pennsylvania, dots his plant with signs such as "If it's almost right, it's wrong," "The biggest room in our company is the room for improvement," and other simple aphorisms that echo his philosophy. His follow-through is widely acknowledged within the organization (Fenn, 1985). However, entrepreneurs also have a reputation for being "tentative, uncommitted, or temporarily dedicated" (Stevenson, 1985, p. 45). Although this style may be opportunistic and tactically advantageous (Stevenson, 1985; Quinn, 1982, 1985), it creates uncertainty about the entrepreneur's commitment to a project, vision, or venture. The Entrepreneurial Zoom Lens. The apparent equivocality of focus found in entrepreneurs pertains to the complexity of their jobs. They move between operations (where details are important) and strategy (where the "big picture"/ vision is important). Likewise, in taking personal responsibility for the outcome of the organization, the entrepreneur moves from an inside view of the firm (e.g., operations, staffing) to an outside view (e.g., competition, customers). The effective entrepreneur responds to this complexity by developing a psychological, social, and strategic "zoom lens." Like the camera lens, the strategic zoom lens allows the entrepreneur to see both close-up and at a distance. The lens allows him or her to adjust the depth of field, or the amount of detail made visible. The zoom quality of the lens allows for a rapid shift in the framework of any specific decision or action, and it is one way of coping with the temporal tension previously 448

discussed. In this way, the lens makes visible both the details and the big picture. Importance of Tight Eocus. Entrepreneurs exercise considerable freedom in directing their organization's efforts. However, once they choose a direction, it is this direction that defines and funnels resources and channels opportunities. That is, the entrepreneur's vision precipitates decisions and activities which provide more detailed information about market, resources, technology, and talents and, in turn, feed into and constrain subsequent decisions. Through a series of such decisions and activities, resources are deployed in increasingly specific ways (Ouinn, 1982; Shotter, 1978). As resources are specifically applied and a business concept that includes identifiable products and markets is developed, the entrepreneur enters a corridor of costs and benefits, excluding many alternative concepts, products, and so forth. However, along with the narrower focus of the chosen business concept comes new opportunities, resources, and talents which were previously unseen (Ronstadt, 1984). Hands-on versus Hands-off. Entrepreneurs' preference for hands-on work is another indication of the importance of details and spegific focus in new venture development. Entrepreneurs want to be "where the action is," doing it, in contrast to managers with a "bias for action," who help others to do it (Peters & Waterman, 1982). The hands-on orientation results in global involvement, and he or she may bypass existing management structure, ignore corporate politics and individual egos, and violate bureaucratic procedures (Welsh & White, 1983). Although tight focus, attention to detail, and hands-on orientation are important for entrepreneurial success, it seems equally important that the entrepreneur be able to step outside operations and expand the focus, to "see the bigger picture," to find the right problems to solve, and to "think big." If the entrepreneur chooses to build a growth-oriented venture, the necessary delegation and empowerment of others requires a hands-off attitude, a letting-go of details, and 449

less involvement with operations and some decision making. Wider focus is especially important if organizational growth is a goal because new products, markets, resources, acquisitions, and possible partners must be identified. An entrepreneur's job requires complex focusing. The inability to develop cognitive complexity and flexibility may result in organizational standstill or the entrepreneur's exit from the central leadership position. Entrepreneurs who successfully lead growing new ventures have variable strategic focus, which allows them to shift their range of vision and the amount of detail in order to make the most of their ventures.
Proposition 6: Entrepreneurs who have clear, specific goals outperform those who have less clear goals. Proposition 7: Entrepreneurs who have characteristics such as flexibility, field independence, and cognitive complexity are more likely to develop the "strategic zoom lens" and are more likely to make their new venture a success than entrepreneurs who lack these qualities. Proposition 8: Entrepreneurs who have a "strategic zoom lens" are more likely to remain in control of a growing venture than those who lack such dynamic flexibility.

Developing an Intentional Posture

An intentional posture involves the position of the individual in relation to both his or her values, needs, and so forth, and the outer world. Two variables considered here are valuable to the entrepreneur. Alignment Alignment is a configuration of parts such that all parts are contributing to a single purpose and direction (Harrison, 1983). Intrapsychically, in terms of intention, this means that our many inner "voices," which reflect different and conflicting needs, values, memories, and wishes, need to agree on one direction. A lack of psychological alignment prevents focused intention. A conflict in values, such as work versus family or control versus growth, can slow.

stop, and even divert intended action; this is what James (1890/1950) called "obstructed will" and Freud (1895/1955) called "abulia." Perhaps one can distinguish entrepreneurs from potential entrepreneurs who are serious about venturing but never take appropriate action (Ronstadt, 1984) by examining how key concepts align. Those who implement a new venture are more likely to have concepts of career, work, risk, rewards, and family that align with the venture concept. Synergy is a social and organizational level of alignment which is reflected in terms such as differentiating, controlling, persuading, and changing (Harrison, 1986). When individuals work toward common goals, there is excitement as well as progress, and when they work at crosspurposes, conflict and stonewalling are possible (Bedew, 1984). For entrepreneurs, aligning individuals on the entrepreneurial team and the early staff can be an important and difficult leadership task (Lewis, Sewell, & Dickson, 1961; Timmons, 1975). Not organizing and aligning team members (e.g., partners and employees) results in inefficient communication, inconsistent decisions, and counterproductive conflict, thereby contributing to the vulnerability of the venture. Hypothesis 5: Entrepreneurs who are able to align their needs, values, beliefs, and so forth, with the new venture concept will be more likely to launch a successful venture than those who have less alignment. Hypothesis 6: Entrepreneurs who have a low level of intrapersonal role conflict (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) will be more successful than entrepreneurs who have a high level of role conflict. Hypothesis 7: Entrepreneurs who develop skills in team building and who reward collaboration among employees will achieve greater alignment within the firm and will be more successful than entrepreneurs who lack these skills. Attunement Attunement is the readiness to send and receive information, influence, or meaning from other sources, and it requires vigilance, openmindedness, extroversion, and the ability to learn from mistakes. As previously discussed, at the 450

simplest level, attunement allows entrepreneurs to make economically rational adjustments to environments. Another form of attunement involves the entrepreneur's networking with external team members such as bankers, venture capitalists, lawyers, accountants, and consultants in order to gain key resources for the new venture. The content of networking, the activity involved, and the history behind the networking are associated with the creation of new ventures and, subsequently, how profitable they will be (Aldrich, Rosen, & Woodward, 1987). Attunement is also characteristic of visionary entrepreneurs, who pursue both noneconomic and economic values. Noneconomic attunement is less frequently recognized by organizational and entrepreneurship researchers, although it is often dramatically enacted in some new ventures. It involves the personal values and beliefs of the founder/owner and the impact these values and beliefs have on the founder's organizing capabilities (Guth & Tagiuri, 1965) and high performance (Garfield, 1986). Thus, some entrepreneurs use their organizations and resources to foster peace (Willens, 1984), philanthropy (Buchsbaum, 1984), or a certain ideology (Critser, 1986). Harrison (1986) uses verbs such as "yielding," "giving," "nurturing," "listening," and "appreciating" to distinguish attunement postures. Proposition 9: Entrepreneurs who have networking skills achieve greater attunement in their ventures and are more successful than entrepreneurs who lack these skills. Proposition 10: Entrepreneurs who are active learners and who are able to learn quickly from their experiences are more likely to succeed than those whose learning style is more reactive. Hypothesis 8: Qualities of vigilance and openmindedness will distinguish successful from less successful entrepreneurs. Personal and organizational alignment are clearly important to entrepreneurial intentions, and an entrepreneur's intrapsychic and interpersonal alignment can result in more effective new ventures. Moreover, entrepreneurs' a.ttunement

to the environment and to a mission enables them to be effective, even when the mission is not economic. These postures not only prepare entrepreneurs to accept the luck of the draw, but also put them in the position to seize unexpected opportunities or to deal immediately with setbacks, making their ventures more likely to succeed than those whose founders assume other postures.

Implications
The model of intentionality presented here advances entrepreneurship research in three ways. First, it addresses a psychological base of venture development which helps to differentiate entrepreneurship from strategic management. If entrepreneurial intentions can be examined with regard to temporal tension, strategic focus, and posture, a deeper insight into the creative pro-

cess of venture development can be achieved. Second, the propositions and hypotheses set forth allow the impact that entrepreneurial intentions have on organizational direction, survival, growth, and form to be studied in ways that are consistent with, and contribute to, existing theories of leadership, organizational development, and organization theory. Such research moves the existing theory of entrepreneurial behavior beyond descriptive and bivariate analyses. Third, because the creating, structuring, and sustaining of organizations are based on entrepreneurs' personal ideas and experiences, rather than formal theories of management and organization, these entrepreneurs create organizational theories that later may be discovered and analyzed. Through this model the intrapsychic and social organization, which both precedes and structures entrepreneurial organizations and theories, can be studied.

References
Aldrich, H., Rosen, B., & Woodward, W. (1987) The impact of social networks on business founding and profit: A longitudinal study. Papier presented at the Babson Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Malibu, CA. Berlew, D. (1984) Leadership and organizational excitement. In D. Kolb, I. Rubin, & J. Mclntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: Readings on human behavior in organizations (pp. 410-423). Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice-Hall. Bird, B. J. (1983) Intentional maps of entrepreneurs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Birley, S. (1985) The small firmset at the start. In R. Ronstadt, J. Homaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1986 (pp. 267-280). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Bowen, M. G., & Jones, A. S. (1985) Informal strategic nonplanning for survival in start-up ventures. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Proceedings: Discovering entrepreneurship (pp. 2-7). Orlando, FL: First Biennial Conference, U.S. Affiliate, International Council for Small Business. Brockhaus, R. (1982) The psychology of the entrepreneur. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 39-57). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenUce-Hall. Buchsbaum, S. (1984, June) Tea and sympathy. Inc., pp. 97, 99, 100. Bugental, J. (1980) The far side of dispair. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 20, 49-68. Carland, J. W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W. R., & Carland, J. A. C. (1984) Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners: A conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 9, 354-359. Churchill, N. C , & Lewis, V. (1983) The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 30-50. Collins, O. F., & Moore, D. G. (1964) The enterprising man. East Lansing, MI: MSU Busmess Studies, Michigan State University. Crister, G. (1986, August) The est factor. Inc., pp. 69-72, 74, 76. Daltry, M. (1982) The development and evaluation of a future time perspective instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Colorado, Boulder. Dubin, R. (1978) Theory building. New York: Free Press. Farrell, K. (1985, February) There's no stopping now. Venfure, 41-48. Fenn, D. (1985, November) The lord of discipline. Inc., pp. 82-88, 95. Filley, A. C , & House, J. R. (1969) Managerial process and organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

451

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. New York: Addison-Wesley. Freud, S. (1955) Frau Emmy von N. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 2, pp. 48-105). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published in 1895) Garfield, C. A. (1986) Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York: Morrow. Glaser, B. & Straus, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Guth, W. D., & Tagiuri, R. (1965) Personal values and corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 43(5), 123-132. Hambrick, D. C , & Crozier, L. M. (1985) Stumblers and stars in the management of rapid growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 31-45. Hambrick, D. C , & Mason, P. A. (1984) Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206. Harrison, R. (1983) Strategies for a new age. Human Resource Management, 22, 209-235. Harrison, R. (1986) Integrity, organization culture and the quality of service. Paper presented to the Symposium on Functioning of Executive Integrity. Case Western Reserve University, Department of Organizational Behavior, Cleveland, OH. Dgen, D., Fisher, C , & Taylor, M. (1979) Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371. Isenberg, D. J. (1984) How senior managers think. Harvard Business Review, 62(6), 81-90. James, W. (1950) The principles of psychology: Vol. 2. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1890) Jaques, E. (1976) A general theory of bureaucracy. London: Heinemann. Jim Swiggett. (1987, February) Inc., pp. 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44. Katz, J., & Gartner, W. (1986) Organization level perspectiveson organization creation. Working paper #619, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Management, Wharton School, Philadelphia. Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975) A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 824-845. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1969) Organizafion and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Levicki, C. J. (1984) Functional differentiation and organizational integration. Working paper 85.4, Cranfield School of Management, Bedford, England. Lewis, I. L., Sewell, C. H., & Dickson, C. L. (1961)/denfi/icafion and evaluation of problems and needs of small manufacturing management. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, Industrial Development Branch, Engineering Experiment Station. Locke, E. A. (1968) Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N.,Saan, L M., & Latham, G. P. (1981) Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152. May, R. (1975) The courage to create. New York: Norton. McClelland, D. C. (1961) The achieving society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C. (1985) Human motivation. Glenview, L: Scott, Foresman. McGinnis, M. A. (1984) The key to strategic planning: Integrating analysis and intuition. Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 4S-52. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) Piansand (he sfrucfure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 8 f Winston. Peters, T. ]., & Waterman, R. H. (1982) In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1985, September) The second industrial revolution. Inc., pp. 25-30, 34-48. Ouinn, ]. B. (1982) Managing strategies incrementally. Omega, 10, 613-627. Ouinn, J. B. (1985) Managing innovation: Controlled chaos. Harvard Business Review, 63(3), 73-^4. Reynolds, P. D. (1987) New firms: Societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 231-246. Rhodes, L. (1984, April) The passion of Robert Swiggett. Inc., pp. 121-126, 131-134, 139. Richardson, R. (1971) Fair pay and work: An empirical study of fair pay perception and time span of discretion. London: Heinemann. Richman, T. (1985, April) Personal business. Inc., pp. 68-72. Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970) Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Rockey, E. H. (1986) Envisioning new business: How entrepreneurs perceive the benefits of visualization. In R.

452

Ronstadt, ]. Homaday, R. Peterson, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 1986 (pp. 344-360). Wellesley, MA: Babson College. Rokeach, M. (1960) The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books. Ronstadt, R. C. (1984) Entrepreneurship. Dover, MA: Lord. Searle, J. R. (1970) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Schein, E. H. (1983) The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13-28. Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982) The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90). Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice-Hall. Shotter, J. (1978) Action, joint action and intentionality. In M. Brenner (Ed.), The structure of action (pp.28-65). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Smith, N. R. (1967) The entrepreneur and his firm: The relationship between type of man and type of company. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Bureau of Business and Economic Research.

Star, A. D., & Massel, M. Z. (1981) Survival rates for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 57(2), 87-97. Stevenson, H. H. (1985) A new paradigm for entrepreneurial management. In J. J. Kao & H. H. Stevenson (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: What it is and how to teach it (pp. 30-61). Boston: Harvard Business School. Timmons, ). A. (1975) The entrepreneurial team: An American dream or nightmare? Boston: Northeastern University. Timmons, J. A. (1978) Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business, 3(1), S-17. Walsh, I. P., & Fahey, L. (1984, June) The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making. Working paper, Dartmouth College, Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Hanover, NH. Welsch, J. A., & White, J. F. (1983) The entrepreneur's master planning guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenbce-Hall. WiUens, H. (1984) The trimtab factor: How business executives can help solve the nuclear weapons crisis. New York: Morrow.

Barbara J. Bird (Ph.D., University of Southern California) is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Case Western Reserve University. Correspondence regarding this article can be addressed to her at: Department of Organizational Behavior, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106. The research leading to this paper was supported by grants from the Office of Naval Research and the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. The article is based on the author's dissertation completed at the University of Southern California and additional research conducted while at Case Western Reserve University. The author thanks Suresh SrivasP/a, Bill Pasmore, Mariann Jelinek, Michael Manning, David Kolb, and Jim Zimmerman for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

453