ELSEVIER

CROSS-CULTURAL

RELIABILITY AND

VALIDITY OF A SCALE TO

MEASURE FIRM

ENTREPRENEURIAL

ORIENTATION

G A R Y A. KNIGHT Michigan State University

This study presents a foreign language version o f a popular scale for measur- E X E C U T I V E ing entrepreneurship and tests the instrument's utility in cross-cultural set- S U M M A R Y tings as a means o f validating it for use abroad. Entrepreneurship refers" to

the pursuit o f creative or novel solutions to challenges confronting the firm, including the development or enhancement o f products and services, as well as new administrative techniques and technologies for performing organiza-

tional functions. Entrepreneurship is a fundamental posture, instrumentally important to strategic innova- tion, particularly under shifting conditions in the firm's external environment, and is applicable to any firm, regardless o f its size and type. Scholars note that entrepreneurial activity is critical because it stimu- lates superior performance and may well be the key fundamental element in the procurement o f advan- tages relative to competitors.

Researchers have developed a popular scale for measuring entrepreneurship at the firm level, which has been found to be highly valid and reliable. This scale (the " E N T R E S C A L E " ) examines eight items reflecting the innovative and proactive disposition of management at a given firm. However, as the E N T R E S C A L E' s measurement properties have never been comprehensively assessed in a cross-eultural setting, the instrument lacks strong evidence of international validity and reliability. Accordingly, the cross-cultural correspondence between the E N T R E S C A L E and the construct it is supposed to measure is" unknown, as is" the extent o f its utility to international practitioners. This situation reflects a problem common to measuring instruments developed in the United States and is particularly troublesome for scales intended to measure foreign phenomena of interest in international business. The researcher who assumes that a scale developed at home will function with equal efficacy abroad is most likely asking

Address correspondence to Gary A. Knight, Department of Marketing and Logistics, Michigan State Univer- sity, N370 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122.

Journal of Business Venturing 12, 213-225 © 1997 Elsevier Science lnc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 1(1010

0883-91)26/97/$17.00 Pll S0883-9026(96 )01X165 - 1

214 G.A. KNIGHT

for trouble. There is a risk that such assumptions will lead to invalid inferences, an outcome potentially disastrous for the practitioner seeking to design appropriate strategies for international success.

Sound measures o f entrepreneurship are especially critical for managers attempting to understand the construct's' cultural dynamic, at both the organizational and country levels, within subsidiaries, agen- cies, and other such entities presently representing or offering to represent the firm's interests abroad. By understanding the entrepreneurial dynamic in foreign settings, the multinational firm may be able to structure operations in ways that better suit existing local conditions and thereby avoid potentially adverse consequences. Further, it is useful to discern, by means of national studies, the entrepreneurial characteristics o f management at firms, including existing or potential competitors, across entire countries.

As a means of addressing this issue, this study seeks' to test the measurement properties o f the E N T R E S C A L E using samples" o f English- and French-speaking managers. Results indicate that the scale performs well in terms o f both reliability and validity and possesses a unique factor structure. In concrete terms, this implies that the E N T R E S C A L E is suitable for measuring the entrepreneurship construct abroad. It is hoped that these results will: (1) contribute to improving future research endeavors" o f scholars studying the role o f entrepreneurship in the increasingly global environment o f business; (2) provide practitioners with a scale that can be used to measure the extent o f entrepreneurial orientation among main operations, subsidiaries, and (potential) partner firms in foreign lands; and (3) raise the standard by which measuring instruments" are designed and used for research in cross-cultural contexts'. © 1997 Elsevier Science Inc.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In the competitive environment of the increasingly global economy, innovation and pro- activeness can be the vehicles for firm survival and ultimate success (Covin and Slevin 1991; Porter 1990). These subconstructs, taken together, have often been used to define the general construct of firm entrepreneurial orientation or entrepreneurship (Covin 1991; Khandwalla 1977; Miller 1983). Entrepreneurship, as a characteristic attitude or process of organizations, is now recognized by many firms and scholars as a critical factor in company success (e.g., Davis, Morris, and Allen 1991; Miller and Friesen 1982).

The innovation dimension of entrepreneurship refers to the pursuit of creative or novel solutions to challenges confronting the firm, including the development or en- hancement of products and services, as well as new administrative techniques and tech- nologies for performing organizational functions (e.g., production, marketing, sales, and distribution). Proactiveness is the opposite of reactiveness and is associated with aggres- sive posturing relative to competitors. The emphasis is on aggressive execution and fol- low through, driving toward achievement of the firm's objectives by whatever reason- able means are necessary (Davis, Morris, and Allen 1991; Khandwalla 1977). These dimensions combine to indicate the extent to which a given organization is entrepre- neurial.

Burgelman (1983) suggests that firms need both order and diversity in strategy for their ongoing viability. Whereas structure and planning provide order, it is entrepre- neurial activity that affords the required diversity. In companies with an entrepreneurial orientation, expansion of existing business and diversification through internal develop- ment are the means through which proactive opportunity-seeking and problem-solving behaviors are fulfilled. Further, entrepreneurial activity provides the means for ex- tending the frontiers of corporate capabilities and keeping up with or surpassing com- petitors. Mintzberg (1973, p. 168) views entrepreneurship from the perspective of the individual manager. The manager as entrepreneur is "responsible for the initiation and design of much of the controlled change in his organization. He continually searches

CROSS-CULTURAL RELIABILITY 215

for new opportunities and problems and he initiates improvement projects to deal with these."

Entrepreneurship is a fundamental posture, instrumentally important to strategic innovation, particularly under shifting conditions in the firm's external environment. The notion of entrepreneurial orientation is applicable to any firm, regardless of its size and type. As Covin and Slevin (1991, p. 9) note, entrepreneurial activity is critical be- cause it "stimulates general economic development as well as the economic perfor- mance of individual firms" and is the "key element for gaining competitive advantage and consequently greater financial rewards."

Research by McKee, Varadarajan, and Pride (1989) reveals that entrepreneurially oriented companies tend to outperform other organizational types in volatile environ- ments. Other studies suggest similarly that more adaptive or more entrepreneurially oriented firms tend to have higher performance than more conservative firms, particu- larly in turbulent settings (Bourgeois 1980; Covin and Slevin 1991: Miller and Friesen 1984; Peters and Waterman 1982; Snow and Hrebiniak 1980).

Khandwalla (1977) developed a popular 9-item scale for measuring corporate en- trepreneurship (the "ENTRESCALE"), which was subsequently refined by Miller and Friesen (1978) and by Covin and Slevin (1989). This scale, by measuring the subcons- tructs of innovation and proactiveness, renders an assessment of a given company's de- gree of entrepreneurship. The scale has been found to possess strong reliability and validity in numerous studies (e.g., Covin and Sievin 1989: Khandwalla 1977: Miles and Snow 1978).

Unfortunately, as with most scales developed in North America, the ENTRES- CALE lacks strong evidence of cross-cultural validity, reliability, and freedom from cul- tural bias. Indeed, no attempt has been made to thoroughly assess the scale's psychomet- ric properties in a cross-cultural study. Accordingly, the cross-cultural correspondence between this instrument and the entrepreneurship construct is unknown, as is the extent of the scale's utility to international researchers and practitioners. This situation reflects a problem common to measuring instruments developed in the United States and is particularly troublesome for scales intended to measure phenomena of interest in for- eign markets. There exists extensive literature in the domain of international business, which points to the importance of establishing cross-cultural reliability and validity of survey instruments before employing them to measure phenomena abroad (e.g., Davis, Douglas, and Silk 1981; Douglas and Craig 1983; Sekaran and Martin 1982). If reliability of measures varies across countries and cultures, then conclusions drawn from cross- cultural research will be suspect. The researcher who assumes that a scale developed at home will function with equal efficacy abroad is most likely asking for trouble. There is a risk that such assumptions will lead to invalid inferences, an outcome potentially disastrous for the practitioner seeking to design appropriate strategies for interna- tional success.

Given the increasing focus of entrepreneurship research on international business issues and the increasing appearance of entrepreneurship research in cross-cultural set- tings (Knight et al. 1995), the purpose of the present study is to assess the ENTRES- CALE's cross-cultural psychometric properties using samples of medium-sized firms located in French-speaking Quebec and the English-speaking remaining provinces of Canada. For the sake of methodological rigor, this article follows a scale-assessment approach consistent with that applied to the CETSCALE. an instrument created to

216 G.A. KNIGHT

measure consumer ethnocentrism across cultures (Netemeyer, Durvasula, and Lich- tenstein 1991).

It should be noted that, although officially a province of Canada, the first and only legal language of Quebec is French. French is so completely imbedded in Quebec cul- ture that most residents of the province do not speak fluent English. Furthermore, it is illegal in Quebec to circulate advertising written solely in any language but French. Moreover, values and other cultural factors in the province have been shown to differ substantially from those in English Canada (e.g., Maclean's 1996). Indeed, the cultural and linguistic differences between Quebec and the other Canadian provinces are so profound that Quebec is now engaged in attempting to separate from Canada to form its own country. Hence, it is reasonable to argue that, in cultural and linguistic terms, the Quebecois may be as different from English-speaking Canadians as, for example, the French are from the British.

PSYCHOMETRICS AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Psychometrics concerns the design and evaluation of quantitative scales for the mea- surement of intelligence, attitudes, behavior, and other such constructs that cannot be directly and perfectly measured with any one item. Valid measurement is a prerequisite for the successful study of concepts in business as well as science. Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument is truly measuring the construct it is supposed to measure (Peter 1981). A necessary condition for validity is that of reliability. Reliability, or inter- nal consistency, is essentially the degree to which instruments are free from error and thereby yield consistently accurate measures of the construct of interest (Churchill 1979; Peter 1979). To paraphrase Peter (1979), if research in business, by both scholars and practitioners, is ever to advance beyond its current condition, it is critical to devise mea- sures of important business constructs that are both reliable and valid.

Perhaps the most popular method for assessing measure reliability is Cronbach's alpha. Cronbach's alpha summarizes the extent to which a set of items, for example, the eight statements measuring entrepreneurship in the present study, are interrelated with each other (Churchill 1979; Peter 1979). Construct validity is the most salient indi- cator of measure validity and is commonly regarded as consisting of two aspects: conver- gent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is the degree to which multiple inde- pendent attempts to measure the same construct are in agreement. Discriminant validity is the extent to which measures of two or more different constructs are distinct (Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips 1991; Campbell and Fiske 1959; Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Peter 1981). The multitrait-multimethod approach for assessing construct validity of Camp- bell and Fiske (1959) has been largely supplanted in recent years by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in structural equations modeling (Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips 1991). CFA offers numerous advantages including the generation of measures of the overall fit of a given measurement model, useful information indicating how well convergent and discriminant validity are achieved, and methods for partitioning scale error components. Indeed, CFA is considered state of the art in the assessment of the psychometric proper- ties of measuring instruments (Gerbing and Anderson 1988).

In international studies, in addition to validity and reliability, it is also important to evaluate the dimensionality of scales in each of the foreign cultures of interest. If the scale is truly applicable abroad, its factor structure and pattern of factor loadings should be equivalent across all cultures. If the pattern of factor loadings is not consistent

CROSS-CULTURAL RELIABILITY 217

in each setting, then it is likely that different concepts are being assessed and conclusions drawn from cross-cultural research may not be valid (Netemeyer, Durvasula, and Lich- tenstein 1991). In this study, exploratory factor analysis is used to assess instrument dimensionality. The preceding discussion leads us to the following research hypotheses:

HI: The ENTRESCALE has a consistent factor structure across the two cultures.

H2: The ENTRESCALE's pattern of factor loadings is invariant across the two cultures.

H3: The internal consistency, or reliability, of the ENTRESCALE is high and equiv- alent across the two cultures.

H4: The ENTRESCALE demonstrates high and consistent convergent validity, in measuring each of the subcconstructs, across the two cultures.

H5: The ENTRESCALE demonstrates high and consistent discriminant validity, in measuring each of the subconstructs, across the two cultures.

M E T H O D

Data for the study were collected through a mail survey sent to the presidents of 800 randomly chosen medium-sized firms in the textiles, clothing, electronic goods, and elec- trical parts industries located across Canada. The firms were identified and mailing lists obtained from Scott's Directories, the leading Canadian supplier of such data. The par- ticular industries were targeted in part because they are heavily concentrated in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Initially, an English language questionnaire was created which incorporated the E N T R E S C A L E as well as other measurement items intended to allow classification of responding firms.

The questionnaire was then translated, for the sake of firms in Quebec, into French using the method suggested by Douglas and Craig (1983). This involved original transla- tion, backtranslation, and extensive refinements until an instrument resulted that was equivalent to the original English version in all meaning contexts. The final English and French versions of the E N T R E S C A L E are provided in Appendix A. It should be noted that one item measuring proactive posture was dropped in the present instrument from the original E N T R E S C A L E in order to obtain a more parsimonious scale and because it is the one item shown in past research to possess relatively weak item-to-total correla- tion with the remaining scale items (Miles and Arnold 1991). It was felt that such a refinement would not impact the measuring ability of the E N T R E S C A L E in a signifi- cant way.

The questionnaire was mailed in three waves and included an endorsement letter from the Canadian Manufacturer 's Association. Three days prior to the initial mailing, a prenotification letter was sent to the president of each targeted firm. The result of this approach was that 258 usable questionnaires were returned, constituting an effective response rate of approximately 32%. Of this number, 50 of the returned questionnaires (roughly 20%) were in the French language, having been completed by executives in Quebec. Because many firms in Quebec are bilingual, and numerous companies in the Montreal area use primarily English, it was not possible to determine the precise re- sponse rate among French-speaking firms. Regarding responding firms, average number of employees was 351 and average annual revenues were between US$75 million and $750 million.

218 G.A. KNIGHT

TABLE 1 Results of Exploratory Factor Analyses: Varimax Rotated Factor Loadings

English French Quest ionnaire Quest ionnaire

Factor l Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

1. Product lines 2. Product changes 3. R&D leadership

4. New techniques 5. Competi t ive posture 6. Risk-taking proclivity 7. Environmenta l boldness 8. Decis ion-making style

0.818 0.784 0.849 0.787 0.612 0.776

0.492 0.496 0.534 0.751 0.764 0.751 0.774 0.765 0.878 0.807 0.717

Factor 1: Innovativeness. Factor 2: Proactiveness.

RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION

With a view to demonstrating that the responding French- and English-speaking firms were equivalent and that responses regarding E N T R E S C A L E usage in the French and English versions of the questionnaire were not influenced by differences in the firms, tests were conducted to assess the equivalence of companies on key organizational vari- ables. T-tests revealed no significant differences (p < .01 in most cases;p < .05 in others) between the two groups of French- and English-speaking firms on each of the following variables: annual growth rate in industry sales, annual company sales growth rate, num- ber of employees, relative position in industry (dominant versus minor), type of prod- ucts sold (consumer versus industrial), market shares in number one and number two largest volume product lines, average return on assets, average return on investment, profitability, and annual sales volume. The two groups of firms appear to be equivalent in major respects and, hence, responses regarding the E N T R E S C A L E are not expected to be affected by company differences in any significant way. An additional test was undertaken to compare the difference in aggregate scores of the E N T R E S C A L E itself. The scores for the English- and French-speaking firms were 4.67 and 4.55, respectively, and were not found to vary significantly (p < .01).

The resulting data were analyzed using the reliability procedure (Cronbach's alpha) in SPSS and confirmatory factor analysis in EQS (Bentler 1992). Initially, explor- atory factor analysis was conducted to test the first two hypotheses. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. The first three variables in both the English and French E N T R E S C A L E versions load at greater than 0.60 on factor 1, which was named "inno- vativeness." Variables 5 through 8 load (in both the English and French versions) at greater than 0.70 on the second factor, which was named "Proactiveness." Variable 4 ("New Techniques") loads at 0.534 on the French questionnaire but is a double loader at 0.492 and 0.496 on factors 1 and 2 respectively on the English questionnaire. This result is curious because, in past studies, the variable has loaded definitively on the pro- activeness dimension. Overall, the scales demonstrate a consistent factor structure and a relatively invariant pattern of factor loadings across both questionnaires, lending sig- nificant support to hypotheses H1 and H2.

Next, the E N T R E S C A L E ' s internal consistency was tested using reliability analy- sis with Cronbach's alpha. As shown in Table 2, the English questionnaire achieved an

TABLE 2

C R O S S - C U L T U R A L R E L I A B I L I T Y 219

Results of Reliability Analysis, using Cronbach's Alpha, for the English and French Versions of the Questionnaire

Variable Item-to-Total Correlation Alpha if Item Deleted

English questionnaire 1. Product lines 0.490 2. Product changes 0.560

3. R & D leade r sh ip 0.512 4. New techniques 0.585

5. Competitive posture 0.455 6. Risk-taking proclivity 0.629

7. Environmental boldness 0.636

8. Decision-making style 0.666

Reliability coefficients: N of cases = 204 N of items Cronbach's alpha - 0.834

French questionnaire 1. Product lines 0.417 2. Product changes 0.437

3. R & D leade r sh ip 0.245 4. New techniques 0.463

5. Competitive posture 0.482 6. Risk-taking proclivity 0.573

7. Environmental boldness 0.655

8. Decision-making style 0.440

Reliability coefficients: N of cases - 49 N of items Cronbach's alpha = 0.764

~ 8

8

(t.826 0.816

0.822 0,812 (I.829

0.809

0.805 0.802

(I.748

0.744

0.775 0.739

0.736 0.718 0.704

0.744

alpha of 0.834 with the French version scoring at 0.764. The item-to-total correlations for all variables are significant and consistent across both English and French versions, exceeding 0.40 in all nearly cases. The one exception is variable 3 ("R&D Leadership") on the French questionnaire whose correlation comes in at just 0.245. It is difficult to interpret the meaning of this lower correlation, because bilingual translators earlier found the item to be completely equivalent in meaning across both languages. In any event, these findings, overall, provide substantial support for H3.

Finally, confirmatory factor analysis, using the structural equations modeling soft- ware EQS (Bentler 1992), was conducted to assess the construct validity of both the English and French versions of the ENTRESCALE. These results are shown in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. As with other structural equations programs such as LISREL, EQS provides a useful methodology for specifying, estimating, and evaluating hypothesized relationships among a set of constructs and their associated measurement variables. EQS generates a chi-square statistic, the Bentler-Bonett Normed and Non-normed Fit Indices, and the Comparative Fix Index (abbreviated NFI, NNFI, and CFI, respectively) as overall goodness-of-fit-indicators of the specified measurement models, as well as indicator-to-construct path coefficients and associated significance tests. Where the in- dices achieve a score of 0.90 or above, the associated measurement model is considered to fit well (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Bentler 1992). Separate measurement models, compris- ing causal relations among the E N T R E S C A L E items and theoretical constructs (gener- ated in the earlier exploratory factor analysis) in both English and French were created and tested. Both the English and the French models attained superior fit (X 2 = 24.5 and 13.9; df = 17 and 19; NFI = 0.99 and 0.98; NNFI = 1.00 and 1.00; and CFI = 1.00 and

220 G.A. KNIGHT

O

I. PRODUCT LINES

2. PRODUCT CHANGES

3. R&D L i.00

Entrepreneurial Orientation

4. NEW TECHNIQUES

e-

a _

5. COMPETITIVE POSTURE

6. RISK-TAKING PROC

7. ENVIRONMENTAL BOLDNESS

8. DECISION-MAKING STYLE

chi-square = 24.5 degrees of freedom = 17

NFI = .99 NNFI = 1.00

CFI = 1.00 No cross loadings

FIGURE 1 Confirmatory factor analysis measurement model: English questionnaire. Values shown: coefficient, standard error, t-value. Note: coefficients for variables 1 and 4 were set to 1 in order to set the scale of each construct; thus, statistical tests of fit were not applicable.

1.00, respectively). All of the path coefficients for both models had high t-values, significant at the .01 level, indicating superior convergent validity and thereby lending strong support to H4. To establish discriminant validity, Lagrangian multiplier tests were conducted (Bentler 1992). As no item was found to load significantly on a measure for which it was not intended, satisfactory discriminant validity was also con- firmed for both models, strongly supporting H5.

To provide more robust support for the validity of the English and French versions of the E N T R E S C A L E , additional tests were conducted using correlation analysis. To the extent that the E N T R E S C A L E is related to other constructs in ways predicted by theory, the confirmation of such relationships provides additional evidence of construct validity (Campbell 1960; Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Peter 1981). Accordingly, an ag- gregate score for both language versions of the E N T R E S C A L E was compared in corre- lation analysis (Spearman's correlation coefficient) to a measure of R&D expenditures, two separate measures of risk-taking in the pursuit of new markets, and two separate measures of new product development. Entrepreneurship theory predicts that these measures should be significantly and positively associated with entrepreneurship (Covin 1991; Dickson and Giglierano 1986; Miller and Friesen 1984). Results of correlation tests revealed that, for both the English and French scale versions, these constructs were indeed correlated, in the expected directions, with the E N T R E S C A L E at the 0.05 level (0.01 for R&D investment), thereby lending additional support to the construct validity of both language versions of the E N T R E S C A L E .

1. PRODUCT LINES

CROSS-CULTURAL RELIABILITY 221

N Cl

2. PRODUCT CHANGES

3. R&D LEADERSHIP 2. 73

Entrepreneurial Orientation

4. NEW TECHNIQUES

o

5. COMPETITIVE POSTURE

6. RISK-TAKING PROC

7. ENVIRONMENTAL BOLDNESS

8. DECISION-MAKING

chi-squared = 13.9 degrees of freedom = 19

NFI = .98 NNFI--=- 1.00

CFI= 1.00 No cross loadings

FIGURE 2 Confirmatory factor analysis measurement model: French questionnaire. Values shown: coefficient, standard error, t-value. Note: coefficients for variables 1 and 4 were set to 1 in order to set the scale of each construct; thus, statistical tests of fit were not applicable.

All in all, the E N T R E S C A L E was found to per form well in both English and French with regard to consistency and pat tern of factor structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity. In concrete terms, this means the E N T R E S C A L E would seem to be suitable for measuring entrepreneurship in settings in which French is the prevailing language of commerce. There are approximately 40 countries in Africa, Europe, the Americas, and Asia in which this is the case.

It is hoped that these results will: (1) contribute to improving future research en- deavors of scholars studying the role of entrepreneurship in the increasingly global envi- ronment of business; (2) provide practitioners with a scale that can be used to measure the extent of entrepreneurial orientation among main operations, subsidiaries, and (po- tential) par tner firms in foreign lands; and (3) raise the standard by which measuring instruments are designed and employed for research in cross-cultural contexts.

Sound measures of entrepreneurship are especially critical for practitioners at- tempting to understand the construct 's cultural dynamic, at both the organizational and country levels, within subsidiaries, agencies, and other such entities presently represent- ing or offering to represent the firm's interests abroad. By understanding entrepreneur- ship in foreign settings, the multinational firm may be able to structure operat ions in ways that bet ter suit existing local conditions and thereby avoid potentially adverse con- sequences. Further, it is useful to discern, by means of national studies, the entrepre- neurial characteristics of management at firms, including existing or potential competi- tors, across entire countries.

222 G.A. KNIGHT

Hills and LaForge (1992) have emphas ized the impor tance of conduct ing entrepre- neurship research in internat ional contexts. For example, they note that historic re- search opportuni t ies , to assess the role of en t repreneursh ip in firm per formance , exist in Eas te rn and Central E u r o p e due to the dramat ic shifts of those economies f rom so- cialism to marke t -based systems. Yet such research cannot p roceed with methodologica l r igor unless the inst ruments used in their conduct are verified with respect to cross- cultural reliability and validity. Thus, to the extent that the E N T R E S C A L E is univer- sally applied, it is hoped that scholars and pract i t ioners can build on the findings in a manne r that enhances the efficiency and robustness with which en t repreneursh ip theory and practice are advanced.

R E F E R E N C E S Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science 16(Spring):74-94. Bagozzi, R.P., and Yi, Y., and Phillips, L.W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational re-

search. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(September):421-458. Bentler, P.M. 1992. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical

Software, Inc. Bourgeois, L. 1980. Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management

Review 5(January):25-39. Burgelman, R. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a process

study. Management Science 29(December):1349-1364. Campbell, D. 1960. Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait or discriminant

validity. American Psychologist 15(August):546-553. Campbell, D., and Fiske, D. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod

matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(March):81-105. Churchill, G.A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of

Marketing Research 16(February):64-73. Covin, J. 1991. Entrepreneurial versus conservative firms: A comparison of strategies and performance.

Journal of Management Studies 28(5):439-462. Covin, J., and Slevin, D. 1989. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments.

Strategic Management Journal 10(January):75-87. Covin, J., and Slevin, D. 1991. A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneur-

ship Theory and Practice 16(Fa11):7-25. Davis, D., Morris, M., and Allen, J. 1991. Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected

entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19(1):43-51.

Davis, H., Douglas, S., and Silk, A. 1981. Measure unreliability: A hidden threat to cross-national mar- keting research? Journal of Marketing 45(Spring):98-109.

Dickson, P., and Giglierano, J. 1986. Missing the boat and sinking the boat: A conceptual model of entrepreneurial risk. Journal of Marketing 50(July):58-70.

Douglas, S.P., and Craig, C.S. 1983. International Marketing Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren- tice-Hall.

Gerbing, D., and Anderson, J. 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidi- mensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25(May):186-192.

Hills, G., and LaForge, R. 1992. Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship the- ory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 16(Spring):33-59.

Khandwalla, P. 1977. The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Knight, G., Omura, G., Hills, G., and Muzyka, D. 1995. Research in marketing and entrepreneurship:

An empirical analysis and comparison with historic trends. In G. Hills, D. Muzyka, G. Omura,

CROSS-CULTURAL RELIABILITY 223

and G. Knight, eds., Research at the Marketing/Entrepreneurship Interface. Chicago: University of Illinois.

Maclean's. 1996. Can Canada survive? Maclean's CBC news poll. January 1:14-33.

McKee, D.O., Varadarajan, P.R., and Pride, W.M. 1989. Strategic adaptability and firm performance: A market-contingent perspective. Journal of Marketing 53(July):21-35.

Miles, M., and Arnold, D. 1991. The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15(Summer):49-65.

Miles, R.E., and Snow, C.C. 1978. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D. 1983. The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science 29(7):770-791.

Miller, D., and Friesen, P. 1978. Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science 24(9): 921-933.

Miller, D., and Friesen, P. 1982. Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal 3(January-March):l-25.

Miller, D., and Friesen, P. 1984. Organizations: A Quantum View. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row.

Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S., and Lichtenstein, D. 1991. A cross-national assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research 28(August):320-327.

Peter, J.P. 1979. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 16(February):6-17.

Peter, J.P. 1981. Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Market- ing Research 18(May):133-145.

Peters, T., and Waterman, R. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.

Porter, M.E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review 68(March- April):73-93.

Sekaran, U., and Martin, H. 1982. An examination of the psychometric properties of some commonly researched individual differences, job, and organizational variables in two cultures. Journal of International Business Studies 13(Spring/Summer):51-65.

Snow, C., and Hrebiniak, L. 1980. Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 25(June):317-336.

APPENDIX A

Original ENTRESCALE in English

How many new lines o f products or services has your firm marketed since 1989?

No new lines of products or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 services

Changes in product or service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lines have been mostly of a minor nature

In general, top managers in my firm f a v o r . . .

A strong emphasis on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 marketing of tried and true products or services

Very many new lines of products or services

Changes in product or service lines have usually been quite dramatic

A strong emphasis on R&D, techno- logical leadership, and innovations

Continued

224 G.A. KNIGHT

A P P E N D I X A Continued

Original ENTRESCALE in English

In dealing with competitors, my firm . . .

Is very seldom the first business 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to introduce new products/ser- vices, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.

In dealing with competitors, my firm . . .

Typically seeks to avoid corn- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 petitive clashes, preferring a "live-and-let-live" posture

In general, the top managers at my f i r m . . .

Have a strong proclivity for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 low-risk projects (with normal and certain rates of return)

In general, the top managers at my f i r m . . .

Believe that, owing to the na- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ture of the environment, it's best to explore it gradually via careful, incremental behavior

Is very often the first business to in- troduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.

Typically adopts a very competitive, "undo-the-competitors" posture

Have a strong proclivity for high- risk projects (with chances of very high returns)

Believe that, owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm's objectives

When confronted with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, my f i r m . . .

Typically adopts a cautious, "wait-and-see" posture in order to minimize the probability of making costly decisions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Typically adopts a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities

ENTRESCALE in French

Combien de nouvelles gammes de produits ou de services votre enterprise a-t-elle mises en march~ depuis 1989?

aucune nouvelle gamme de 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 produits ou de services

les transformations des gammes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 de produits ou de services ont 6t6 surtout mineures

un tr~s grand nombre de nouvelles gammes de produits ou de services

les transformations des gammes de produits ou de services ont 6t6 gEn6ralement radicales

En g~n~ral, les cadres sup~rieurs dans mon entreprise accordent beaucoup d'importance. . .

la commercialisation de 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 /a la recherche-d6veloppement, ~ ~tre produits ou de services qui sont h la fine pointe de la technologic et 6prouv6s et des valeurs ~ures de l ' innovation

Con~nued

CROSS-CULTURAL RELIABILITY

APPENDIX A Continued

225

ENTRESCALE in French

Face ~ la concurrence , m o n en trepr ise . . .

est tr~s rarement la premiere lancer des nouveautEs en mati~res de produits, services, techniques de gestion, tech- niques etc.

M o n e n t r e p r i s e . . .

cherche gEnEralement ~t Eviter les heurts avec la concurrence, choisissant la cohabitation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

est trbs souvent la premi6re ~ lancer des nouveautEs en mati6res de produits, services, techniques de gestion,techniques d'exploitation, d'exploitation etc.

adopte gEn6ralement un comporte- merit trbs comp6titif destine dEmolir la concurrence

En g(n~ral , les cadres s u p ( r i e u r s dans m o n e n t r e p r i s e . . .

ont une forte propension ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ont une forte propension ~ choisir choisir les projets h risques les projets ~ risques Elev6s (avec un rEduits (taux de rendement rendement potentiellement trbs 61evE) satisfaisant et assur6)

En g~n~ral, les cadres sup~r ieurs dans m o n entrepr ise . . .

croient que, en raison de la 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 croient que, en raison de la nature nature du milieu des affaires, du milieu des affaires, des gestes il vaut mieux explorer ce milieu audacieux ~ grande portEe sont petit ~a petit, de fa~on prudente nEcessaires afin d'atteindre les et graduelle objectifs de l 'entreprise

Face ~ une s i tuat ion off il f a u t p r e n d r e une d~cis ion d o n t les r~sultats ne s o n t pas garantis , m o n en trepr ise a d o p t e g ~ n ~ r a l e m e n t . . .

un comportement prudent et 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 un comportement audacieux et fonceur passif afin de minimiser les afin de maximiser les possibilities possibilitEs de d6cisions d 'exp|oiter des occasions potentielles cofiteuses