Mapping the aliran of the academic discipline of entrepreneurship: A ...

position that Schumpeter attributed to the entrepreneurial process was probably, in my
opinion, Schumpeter’s greatest contribution.
4.3.2.04 The ot her Austrian schoo l economists such as Hayek and von Mises I would
also place in the discipline of economics or the discourse of entrepreneurship. However I
believe that Kirzner [1973] (111) [1979] (48) with his high gravitas texts, ‘Compe tition
and entrepreneurship’ and ‘Perception, opportunity, and profit’ deserves a po sition in the
discipline. The aspects of risk and opportunity discussed by Kirzner are, in my opinion,
some of the significant aspects of the entrepreneurial process.
4.3.2.05 McClelland [1965] (14) also refers to entrepreneurial pos itions rather than using
‘the entrepreneur’ (despite the fact that it was the position that McClelland was referring to
rather tha n the type of person filling that pos ition). The de finitions used for such pos itions
may seem initially seem quaint compared to other later definitions, but may actually be
prescient, and cover both the business and management ontologies that were delineated in
section 4.1.4.
Entrepreneurial:
• Sales (except clerical sales)
• Real estate and insurance sales
• Operates own business (including family business if a key executive)
• Management consulting, fund raising, etc.
• Officer of a large company, assistant to the President of a large company, etc.
• For example, money management at lower levels is classified as
"nonentrepreneurial" (for example, establishing consumer credit), but Vice-
President of a large New York commercial bank in charge of credit is classified
as ‘entrepreneurial’ [McClelland, 1965, p390].
4.3.2.06 McClelland’s achievement motive orientation did not really attract a great
following in subsequent literature in the aliran except in Johnson’s [1990] (17) low
gravitas article ‘Toward a multidimensional model of entrepreneurship: The case of
achievement motivation and the entrepreneur.’ The interesting point about McClelland’s
[1965] (14) article is the lack of mention of inno vation, new vent ures and corpor ate
entrepreneurship, these ontologies are constructed later in the aliran as part of the
167