I use the theory of planned behavior to develop a model of how an individual’s intention to grow his/her small business(es) affects subsequent business growth. I empirically test this model on a large longitudinal data set of small firms using hierarchical regression. Findings indicate that there is a positive relationship between an individual’s intention and realized growth, but a deeper understanding of this relationship is gained by considering the moderating role of resources and of the availability of opportunities. I also find that those with a high growth intention turn more to methods of growth other than within the existing small business entity, e.g., through the creation of another independent business.

People start and operate their own firms for a variety of reasons other than maximizing economic returns (Davidsson, 1989a; Delmar, 1996; Kolvereid, 1992; Storey, 1994). The fulfillment of non-economic personal goals, such as gaining independence or developing own ideas, is stated as primary reasons. Expanding a business could pose serious goal conflicts, because the changes implied by growth may run counter to the founder’s initial goals. Therefore, several small business managers are not motivated to expand their businesses, and motivational differences may explain, in part, the great differences in growth outcomes among small businesses (Davidsson, 1989a; Storey, 1994). Growth is also a function of the small business manager’s personal abilities, because both achieving and managing growth are demanding tasks requiring extensive skills and knowledge (Sexton & Bowman 1991).

Only four published studies investigating the link between motivation and growth were found (i.e., Bellu & Sherman, 1995; Kolvereid & Bullvåg, 1996; Miner, Smith, & Bracker, 1994; Mok & van den Tillaart, 1990). Each finds some support for a positive relationship, although generally not very strong. While these studies make significant contributions in this important area, they share two limitations. First, they rely on bi-variate analyses and do not consider the possible direct or moderating influence of other variables. As mentioned above, the ability of the manager is likely to also affect growth. Theories dealing with behavior under limited volitional control model behavioral outcome as a joint function of motivation and individual ability (Ajzen, 1991). Thus, a deeper understanding of the effect that motivation has on growth may benefit from the simultaneous consideration of the ability to achieve growth. In this paper, we take an important step in this direction by developing a model of the relationship between motivation and growth that also considers individual ability. Second, previous studies of motivation and growth have used the single business entity as the unit of analysis. Recent research shows that many individuals start and operate more than one business in parallel (Scott & Rosa, 1996; Westhead & Wright, 1998). Several avenues to expansion are open to growth-motivated individuals who can choose to build, merge with, and/or acquire other businesses. Therefore, we consider the expansion of all businesses controlled by the individual.

The theory of planned behavior developed by Ajzen (1988; 1991) is a well-established (Olson & Zana, 1993) and validated (Locke, 1991) psychological theory purporting to explain and predict specific actions in specific contexts. It is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), adding aspects of individual ability to incorporate behaviors over which people have incomplete volitional control (Ajzen, 1991). The ability of an individual is expressed in terms of behavioral control. Behavioral control, in turn, consists of the access to resources and opportunities relevant to the behavior of interest. Intentions are central to the theory. As a general rule, the stronger the intention to engage in a behavior, the more likely should be its performance (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). Intentions have together with the individual’s perception of behavioral control successfully predicted a range of behaviors. Relevant to my study, Kolvereid & Bullvåg (1996) generally found small positive relationships between growth intention and achieved growth. However, these authors did not consider the influence of behavioral control.

Ajzen’s model consists of the constructs: attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm, intention, perceived behavioral control and behavior. Attitude towards the behavior, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control predict intention, whereas perceived behavioral control and intention predict behavior. Attitudes and subjective norms have no direct effect on behavior. Therefore, as the purpose of the present study is the prediction of behavior, the consideration of intention and behavioral control would suffice. The theory of planned behavior is a “pure” psychological theory that relates a number of psychological constructs to each other. Therefore, perceived behavioral control rather than actual behavior control is included in the theory. Ajzen argues “The resources and opportunities available to a person must to some extent dictate the likelihood if behavioral achievement. Of greater psychological interest than actual control, however, is the perception of behavioral control and its impact on intentions and actions” (1991, p. 183, emphasis original). He then recognizes that: “prediction of behavior from perceived behavior control should improve to the extent that perceptions of behavioral control realistically reflect actual control.” (p. 185). As my intention is the prediction of growth and there is reason to believe that actual behavioral control plays a role in firm growth, we model the influence of actual behavioral control on growth. Behavioral control is likely to moderate the relationship between intentions and growth. As Ajzen (1991, p. 188) notes “past theory as well as intuition would lead us to expect an interaction between motivation and control.” Thus, the model tested in this paper contains the relationship between intentions and behavior, moderated by behavioral control. The antecedents of behavioral control and intentions are excluded for reasons stated above. Previous empirical research has found a direct positive relationship between motivation and growth (Bellu & Sherman, 1995; Kolvereid & Bullvåg, 1996; Miner, Smith, & Bracker, 1994; Mok & van den Tillaart, 1990). Similarly, direct effects of intention on behavior have been reported in tests of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992; Doll & Ajzen, 1992). I therefore first test the hypothesis that intention directly influences subsequent growth. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: Businesses controlled by managers with higher growth intentions achieve greater growth.

Alternative Growth Patterns

Growth has typically been measured at the business level yet intentions are an individual-level construct. This transition between levels of analysis is an issue that requires attention. If growth opportunities within a certain line of business are restricted, then growth-motivated individuals may choose to expand through diversification (Kolvereid, 1992; Penrose, 1959). This diversification may take place within the existing business or result in the establishment of additional businesses whether that will be through organic growth, mergers, and/or acquisitions. It is an individual’s strategic choice whether to expand a single business or a series of parallel businesses. Therefore, alternative growth patterns, in additional to the growth of one single legal business, should be investigated in order to account for the growth of an individual’s total business activities. Further, while the method of diversification is a strategic choice, we propose that growth-motivated individuals are more likely to be involved in the above mentioned alternative growth activities. Thus:

Hypothesis 2: Managers with higher growth intentions are more involved in alternate growth activities (i.e., mergers, acquisitions, and the start-up and operation of additional businesses).

The Moderating Effect of Resources and Opportunities

The effect of intentions on behavior is a function of (a) the extent to which the individual can decide at will to attempt to perform the behavior and (b) the probability that attempting to perform the behavior will lead to a successful outcome. In other words, the individual’s control over the behavior affects the strength of the intention–behavior relationship (Ajzen, 1991; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992) by working as a moderator. Behavioral control, in turn, is influenced by the individual’s access to resources and opportunities to exert the behavior (cf. above).

The fact that the theory of planned behavior is context specific means that intentions and behavioral control must correspond to the particular behavior in focus. Therefore, in predicting firm growth it is important to assess to the specific resources and opportunities that may affect firm growth. The human capital of a small business manager gives him or her the ability of taking the measures necessary to achieve growth. That is, human capital provides the individual with the resources necessary to exert the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Greater human capital of the small business founder is likely to enhance organizational performance as it increases the chance that the manager makes correct decisions and conducts proper activities. The human capital of a manager consists of skills and knowledge that assists in running the business successfully (Snell and Dean, 1992). Such skills and knowledge can be obtained through education and experience. A distinction can be made between general and specific human capital (Becker, 1975). General human capital is not related to the ability of conducting a specific job and typically refers to years of education or years of work experience (Becker, 1975). A consistent finding for general human capital is that educated individuals are more likely to run faster-growing small businesses than those who are less educated (Storey, 1994). But previous research has not found that general work experience affects small business growth. Specific human capital is specific to the domain of operating a small business and consists of skills and knowledge of conditions, internal and external to the small firm, that help organize the business successfully, thus facilitating growth. Specific human capital, such as start-up experience, management experience, and experience of working in rapidly growing organizations, has been found to explain, in part, the growth of small firms (Birley & Westhead, 1994; Macrae, 1992; Van de Ven, Hudson, & Schroeder, 1984). Thus:

Hypothesis 3: The level of human capital will moderate the relationship between a manager’s growth intention and the level of growth achieved. Growth will increase with intention but at a faster rate for those with (a) more education, and (b) more related experience (experience with start-up, management, and rapidly growing organizations).

It is probable that lack of financial capital would restrict a manager’s possibility to take action. Many small business managers experience shortages of financial capital that limit their ability to pursue various initiatives (McGrath, Forthcoming). Financial capital can relatively easily be converted into other types of resources (Dollinger, 1999). Access to more financial capital facilitates the pursuit of resource-intensive growth strategies (Cooper et al., 1994) because slack resources can be used for experimentation with new strategies and practices, allowing the business to pursue new growth opportunities (Bourgois, 1981; Penrose, 1959). A recent review of the literature indicated that several studies have found that access to financial capital affects small business growth (Storey, 1994). In a longitudinal study, Cooper et al. (1994) confirmed that access to financial capital predicted growth. Thus:

Hypothesis 4: The level of access to financial capital will moderate the relationship between a manager’s growth intention and level of growth achieved. Growth will increase with intention but at a faster rate for those with greater access to financial capital.

Changes in the business environment offer growth opportunities for small and new firms (Drucker, 1988). These changes create dynamics in demand, opening up growth opportunities for firms, which can deliver products and services attuned to the changing demand. Such opportunities described above could be expressed as environmental dynamism. More specifically, dynamic environments are associated with high unpredictability of customers and competitors, and high rates of change in market trends and industry innovation (Miller, 1987). The shifts in demand and conditions typical of a dynamic environment are likely to generate opportunities from which the growth oriented business can take advantage (Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Covin & Slevin, 1991; Zahra, 1993). This leads to the following hypothesis concerning environmental dynamism:

Hypothesis 5: The level of environmental dynamism will moderate the relationship between a manager’s growth intention and level of growth achieved. Growth will increase with intention but at a faster rate with higher environmental dynamism.

Sample and Design

The sample frame was constructed from the CD-ROM database UC-Select, which contains information on the annual reports of all limited businesses registered in Sweden. 808 independent small businesses from knowledge intensive manufacturing, labor intensive manufacturing, professional services and retailing were sampled. Half the sample had 10 to 19 employees and half 20 to 49, corresponding to the EU definition of small businesses. In 1996, the Chief Executive Officers were contacted, and 630 participated in the survey. In 1999, these 630 CEOs were contacted again and 552 responded. It is important to track the individual and not the small business given that my unit of analysis is the individual’s growth intention. Therefore, 123 firms were removed from the study because the original CEO had been replaced. It is also important to include only those managers that have control over their strategic decisions (e.g., that the manager is not subservient to directions from the head office of a parent company). Another 103 CEOs were removed for this reason. The final sample is 326 (552 – 123 – 103) CEOs of small businesses, corresponding to 40% of the original sample. Telephone interviews were also conducted in years 1997 and 1998 to capture the dynamics of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers in these intervening years.

Variables and Measures

Growth. Growth in terms of sales and employment was calculated as the relative change in size from 1996 to 1999 in all businesses controlled by the respondent. Respondents were also asked to rate their sales and employment growth compared to competitors on five-point scales, as comparisons with competing businesses reveal important additional performance information (Birley & Westhead, 1994). Each of the variables were standardized and summed to an index. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of the scale was .91.

Growth Intentions. Four questions used in two previous studies (Davidsson, 1989a and Delmar, 1996) were used. Respondents were asked whether a 25% increase in the number of employees in five years would be mainly negative or mainly positive. A seven-point scale ranging from very negative to very positive was used to measure this item. A similar question was then asked for a 100% employee increase. At the extreme level of growth intention, individuals would score higher on the 100% than the 25% increase item (9.2% of the sample). These individuals’ responses were manually recoded to the highest value (seven) on the 25% scale. Two open-ended questions were also posed. Respondents were asked to report the ideal size of the business in five years in terms of sales and employees. These responses and the 1996 size figures were used to calculate intended growth rates of sales and employees and converted to seven-point scales. These four items were summed to a global index. The Cronbach’s Alpha value was .72.

Alternative Growth Patterns. A dummy variable was coded one for respondents who had started, acquired or merged with another business and zero for those that had not been involved in any of these activities.

General Human Capital (Education Level). Respondents were asked to state their highest level of completed education. This variable was then recoded into years of education.

Specific Human Capital (Experience). Three variables were utilized—start-up experience, management experience and experience of working in rapidly growing organizations (cf. above). As these three variables all represent different ways of gaining experience (i.e. specific human capital), they all measure a common experience construct and were summed to an index. Respondents were asked if they had started any other business, if they had ever managed another business or organization for more than a year and if they had worked as a manager in a rapid growth business (annual sales growth of at least 20%). If they had such experience, that variable was coded one, if not it was coded zero. The respondents’ total score on these three variables was summed into the experience index.

Access to Financial Capital. A subjective measure of “access to capital” was utilized and captured on a seven point scale anchored by “insufficient and a great impediment for our development” and “fully satisfactory for the business’s development.”

Environmental Dynamism. The construct “environmental dynamism” captures industry growth rates as well as other dimensions of increased environmental dynamism. I used Miller’s (1987) scale consisting of four items to capture this variable. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of the scale is .69.

Control Variables. As business size, business age and industry (i.e., manufacturing, service and retail) have been frequently investigated in previous research and may influence growth, they were included as control variables.

Descriptive statistics for the non-categorical variables are presented in Table 1.

Growth Intentions and Growth Activities

The tests of hypotheses 1, 3, 4 and 5 can be conducted in one analysis whereas hypothesis 2 requires a different analysis method. I therefore start my analysis with this hypothesis. To test whether entrepreneurs with high growth intentions are more likely to be involved in mergers, acquisitions, the start-up and operation of additional businesses (H2), an independent samples t-test was performed. A total of 57 small business managers were involved in alternative growth patterns while 256 were not. Those that pursued alternative growth patterns had a statistically significant higher growth intention (mean 18.5; p < 0.05) than those that did not (mean 16.6). This finding provides support for hypothesis 2.

Independent (Main) Effects Only Model

The remaining hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. The results are displayed in Table 2. The control variables were first entered in a base model reported in column two. This model fails to explain a statistically significant share of the variance of the dependent growth variable. In the next step, the independent (main) effects were entered. The results are reported in column three of the table. This model makes a significant contribution (DR²= 0.09, p < 0.05). Within the main effects model, the findings suggest that access to financial capital and growth intentions have a statistically significant positive influence on growth. Growth was higher for those with greater access to financial capital, and for those with a greater growth intention. The latter finding provides support for the hypothesis that greater growth intention is associated with higher business growth (H1). There was no evidence that experience, education or environmental dynamism had a main effect relationship with growth.

Full Model Including Interaction Effects

The hierarchical approach is necessary since an interaction effect exists only if the interaction term gives a significant contribution over and above the main effects (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). As displayed in the right column of the table, the addition of the interaction terms gives an explanatory contribution over and above that of the main effects. Explained variance increases by 0.15 to 0.27 and the increase is statistically significant at p < 0.001. This suggests that interaction effects are indeed present. Examining the regression coefficients of the interaction terms, it is evident that education, experience and environmental dynamism moderate the relationship between growth intentions and growth. To determine the nature of these interactions, each relationship was plotted on a y axis of growth and an x axis of intention at plus and minus one standard deviation from their mean, (cf. Baker & Cullen [1993] and Cohen & Cohen [1983]). The findings provide support for hypothesis 3a, 3b and 5. Growth increases with intention but at a greater rate for those with more experience, higher education, and those in more dynamic environments. The interaction with access to capital was not statistically significant and therefore hypotheses 4 was not supported.

I used the theory of planned behavior to develop a model of small business managers’ growth intentions and the level of growth achieved. Consistent with previous findings and others’ assumptions, I found that managers’ growth intentions are positively related to actual growth. However, the relationship between intention and growth appears more complex than stated. It depends on the level of education and experience of the manager as well as the dynamism of the environment in which the business(es) operates.

Interestingly, when only the independent effects were investigated, education level did not have a significant relationship with growth. I found, as hypothesized, it requires simultaneous consideration of the small business manager’s growth intention. It appears that higher education represents an important aspect of human capital, one that better equips the manager to achieve his/her intention. Growth, for those with higher education, appears to be more under volitional control, i.e., education facilitates growth for those who want their firms to grow. Our comparison of the main effect and contingent relationships suggest that the effect of education might remain hidden if only the main effect relationships are investigated. Simultaneous consideration of an individual’s growth intention provides an even deeper understanding of the relationship between education and growth.

I also argued that a manager’s experience is an important aspect of human capital. The results concerning experience were very similar to that of education. No direct relationship between experience and growth was found. Experience affected growth only when accompanied by growth intentions. Interpreted from the viewpoint of intentions, a manager constrained by a shortage of human capital, such as education and experience, is unlikely to achieve substantial growth regardless of their motivational level. In this respect, our findings reinforce the notion from the theory of planned behavior. Not only are intentions necessary for behavioral performance but so are resources. Research that fails to investigate interaction effects similar to the ones I have revealed here may jump to the premature conclusion that growth intentions have a very limited influence on subsequent growth.

The independent effects model found no relationship between environmental dynamism and growth. The lack of significance is due to insufficient acknowledgement of the complexity of the relationship. Environmental dynamism does indeed play a role—it magnifies the influence that intentions have on growth. This reinforces the notion from the theory that not only are intentions necessary for behavior but so are opportunities, but is also consistent with contemporary theorizing on entrepreneurship which suggests that entrepreneurship research should be concerned with the interaction of the individual and the quality of the opportunity (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

The findings also suggest that growth motivated individuals more often use alternate growth methods. It appears that the value-creating activities of the individual and those of the business do not necessarily overlap (cf. Scott & Rosa, 1996). Growth intention is an individual level construct and can be achieved through internal (organic) growth or by alternate methods that may not be integrated into the original business entity. This suggests that when investigating the relationship between an individual’s intention and growth, scholars may need to expand their growth measures beyond a single business unit—care must be taken in the choice of both the measure of growth and the unit of analysis.

The hypothesized interaction of access to financial capital and intentions was not supported. Instead I found that access to financial capital had a direct effect on growth. This suggests that small businesses with access to more financial capital grow more, intentions aside. A plausible interpretation is that access to slack financial resources allows the pursuit of new opportunities (Bourgois, 1981; March & Simon, 1963). This finding suggests that more people than the top manager are active in the business and influence its development. While the intentions of the manager, in interaction with other variables, play a crucial role in the growth of the small business, it is not the only factor influencing its growth.

Limitations

Results may be generalizable to small businesses outside Sweden, but care must be taken in assessing country effects such as culture. Only a small fraction of all businesses grow to substantial size in most countries, but a larger share of businesses become larger in e.g. the UK (Storey, 1994) and the US (Birch, 1977) than in Sweden (Davidsson et al., 1994). Such differences may stem from individual differences in growth intentions, perceived opportunity, resource structures or some combination of these.

The measurement of resources and opportunities are relatively course-grained. Experience in management, start-ups, and with growing businesses is better captured as a continuous variable (i.e., number of years). Consideration of both the number of years of experience and the quality of that experience would likely produce stronger and more significant results. The measurement of “access to financial capital” should also be strengthened by a multi-item operationalization. However, this being said, we should also note that it is not possible to establish predictive validity unless a measure is reliable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The fact that our variables largely had a significant influence on growth in the hypothesized direction would suggest that they are (predictively) valid.

Future Research and Implications

For those interested in a psychological approach to entrepreneurship, intentions is probably one of the more useful concepts. Intentions as conceptualized in the theory of planned behavior have successfully explained various types of behaviors (cf. Ajzen, 1991; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1992; Olson & Zana, 1993). This context specific theory probably predicts entrepreneurial behavior better than theories aiming at predicting behavior on the basis of general attitudes, values or traits. In the model used here, growth intentions explain a significant share of actual growth and various types of intentions could probably be effective in explaining other types of entrepreneurial behavior.

A natural extension of this study is to examine heterogeneity of growth intentions among small business managers. The theory of planned behavior offers a theoretical framework for such investigations. It should be possible to build on previous work on the antecedents of growth motivation (e.g. Davidsson, 1989b; Kolvereid, 1992; Wiklund et al., 1997) in assessing how attitude towards the behavior, perceived behavioral control, and social norms influence intention. A detailed examination of the interplay between growth and growth intentions may be particularly interesting. Ajzen (1991) admits that feedback loops probably are present in his model. Feedback from growth to growth intention is likely. Growth may be an “acquired taste” i.e. managers of expanding firms may experience the benefits of expansion and larger size and thus become more motivated to grow their firm(s). In other words, experience of realized growth may affect future growth intentions.

The practical implications of this paper’s findings are numerous. First, small business managers with greater growth intentions are more likely to realize growth. This suggests that there is an opportunity for economic growth if managers’ growth intentions can be increased. Second, education plays an important role in enabling growth intentions to be realized. Governments and others wishing to grow an economy need to emphasize the importance of education. Finer grained research that investigates which aspects of education are most important to growth would be valuable for educators. Third, the motivations of managers are important but so is the macro environment. Environments that produce or allow the pursuit of opportunities enable growth intentions to be realized. Therefore, governments need to focus on both the education of individuals and vibrant markets. Fourth, scholars interested in the intentions or motivations of small business managers need to consider their level of analysis and consider alternate growth mechanisms rather than focusing solely on the individual’s intentions linked to the growth of one single business entity.

This study takes an important step towards an increased understanding of a small business manager’s growth intention and realized growth. While there is a relationship between the intention and actual growth, the relationship is more complex—it depends on the educational level and experience of the manager as well as the level of environmental dynamism. Both education, experience and environmental dynamism appear to magnify the effect that intention has on growth. This is consistent with the theory of planned behavior and the importance of resources and access to opportunities in realizing intentions. This is an important step but there is considerably more to learn about managers’ intention and growth. Given the importance of small businesses to most economies, such research has important practical implications.

CONTACT: Johan Wiklund, Jönköping International Business School, P.O. Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden; (T) (+46) 36 157553; (F) (+46) 36 16 10 69; johan.wiklund@jibs.hj.se

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, J. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). An examination of the etiology of the attitude-behavior relation for goal-directed behaviors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27(4), 601–634.

Baker, D.D., & Cullen, J.B. (1993). Administrative reorganization and configurational context; The contingent effects of age, size and change in size. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1251–1277.

Becker, G. S. (1975). Human Capital. (2 ed.). Chicago: Chicago Unversity Press.

Bellu, R. R., & Sherman, H. (1995). Predicting business success from task motivation and attributional style: A longitudinal study. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 349–363.

Birley, S., & Westhead, P. (1994). A comparison of new businesses established by “novice” and “habitual” founders in Great Britain. International Small Business Journal, 12(1), 38–60.

Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder competence, the environment, and venture performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 77–89.

Child, J. 1972. Organization structure, environment, and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6: 1–22.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. (2 ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. J., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as business behaviour. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice(Fall), 7–25.

Davidsson, P. (1989a). Continued Entrepreneurship and Small Firm Growth. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.

Davidsson, P. (1989b). Entrepreneurship—and after? A study of growth willingness in small businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 211–226.

Delmar, F. (1996). Entrepreneurial Behavior and Business Performance. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.

Doll, J., & Ajzen, I. (1992). Accessibility and stability of predictors in theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 754–756.

Dollinger, M. J. (1999). Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. Uper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolvereid, L. (1992). Growth aspirations among Norwegian entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 7, 209–222.

Kolvereid, L., & Bullvåg, E. (1996). Growth intentions and actual growth: The impact of entrepreneurial choice. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 4(1), 1–17.

Locke, E. A. (1991). Introduction to special issue. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 50, 151–153.

Macrae, D. J. R. (1992). Characteristics of high and low growth small and medium sized businesses. Management Research News, 15(2), 11–17.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. 1963. (Reprinted in 1993.) Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Miller, D. (1987). The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 55–76.

Miner, J. B., Smith, N. R., & Bracker, J. S. (1994). Role of entrepreneurial task motivation in the growth of technologically innovative businesses: Interpretations from follow-up data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 627–630.

Mok, A. L., & van den Tillaart, H. (1990). Farmers and small businessmen: A comparative analysis of their careers and occupational orientation. In R. Donckels & A. Miettinen (Eds.), New Findings and Perspectives in Entrepreneurship . Aldershot, VA: Avebury.

Olson, J. M., & Zana, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117–154.

Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott, M., & Rosa, P. (1996). Opinion: Has business level analysis reached its limits? Time for a rethink. International Small Business Journal, 14(4), 81–89.

Sexton, D. L. (1997). Entrepreneurship research needs and issues. In D. Sexton & R. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000 . Chicago, IL: Upstart Publishing Company.

Sexton, D., & Bowman-Upton, N. (1991). Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Shane, S. A., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.

Storey, D. J. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge.

Van de Ven, A. H., Hudson, R., & Schroeder, D. (1984). Designing New Business Startups: Entrepreneurial, Organizational, and Ecological Considerations.

Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio, and serial founders: Are they different? Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 173–204.

Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., Delmar, F., & Aronsson, M. (1997). Expected consequences of growth and their effect on growth willingness in different samples of small firms. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research . Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Zahra, S. (1993). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as business behaviour: A critique and extension. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(Summer), 5–21.