Deciding on an

Entrepreneurial Career:
A Test of the Pull and
Push Hypotheses Using
the Panel Study of
Entrepreneurial
Dynamics Data
1
Leon Schjoedt
Kelly G. Shaver
The Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics data were used to analyze if the potential for
increased life satisfaction pulls or job dissatisfaction pushes individuals toward an entre-
preneurial career. For life satisfaction, we found no signicant mean differences between
nascent entrepreneurs and the comparison group, whereas for job satisfaction, we found a
signicantly higher mean for the nascent entrepreneurs than for the comparison group. As
these results show little about nascent entrepreneurs being pulled into an entrepreneurial
career, the results have to be taken as strong evidence against nascent entrepreneurs being
pushed toward an entrepreneurial career due to low job satisfaction in their preentrepre-
neurial employment.
Introduction
Few will contest the importance of new venture creation and its desirable effects on
the economy. For example, out of the nascent entrepreneurs surveyed in the Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), 80% were expecting to create new jobs for other than
themselves within the next 5 years (Minniti & Bygrave, 2004). Further, since Birchs
(1979) study on job creation by small businesses, a considerable amount of research
has substantiated his ndings that small businesses are a major source of employment
growth (Birch, 1979, 1987; Kirchhoff, 1994; Reynolds & White, 1997). However, Acs,
Armington, and Robb (1999) found that there is a net loss of jobs among older businesses
Please send correspondence to: Leon Schjoedt, tel.: (309) 438-3627; e-mail: leon.schjoedt@ilstu.edu.
1. A previous version of this article was selected as a Best Paper Proceedings for the 2005 Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 510, 2005. A six-page abbreviated version of this
paper is included in the Proceedings of the Sixty-fth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD),
ISSN 1543-8643.
P T E
&
1042-2587
2007 by
Baylor University
733 September, 2007
whether small, medium, or large. This suggests that new ventures, not small businesses
per se, provide the principal force in creating new jobs.
Given the economic contributions of new ventures, the reasons entrepreneurs give for
starting businesses are of practical, as well as academic, interest. One prominent account
suggests that there may be factors that either pull individuals toward creating new ventures
or push them into it. Specically, e.g., according to the 2003 GEM report for the United
States, 9% of Americans between 18 and 64 years of age were starting new ventures to
pursue opportunities that could improve their conditions, and 1.7% were creating new
ventures due to lack of alternatives for employment (Minniti & Bygrave, 2004). These
data suggest that pull may be more important than push, but both ideas warrant closer
examination. For example, in one of the early empirical studies of the push idea,
Brockhaus (1980) found entrepreneurs to be less satised about their previous working
conditions than were managers in other business organizations. Recognizing the limits of
his convenience sample, Brockhaus also drew comparisons to the normative data
collected by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) in their book describing the development
of the job description index (JDI). It is, however, reasonable to wonder whether these
ndings25 and over 35 years old, respectivelywould be replicated today. Other
prominent models of the relationship between job satisfaction and entrepreneurial activity
such as Powell and Bimmerle (1980), Shapero and Sokol (1982), and even Herron and
Sapienza (1992) also predate the Internet and the World Wide Web, each of which has
helped to democratize the process of new venture creation.
In reexamining the issues today, one is confronted with the need to choose between
administering a long and detailed job satisfaction questionnaire to a nonrepresentative
convenience sample and using a much abbreviated measure on a nationally representative
sample. We have elected to take the second route, provided by data from the Panel Study
of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED).
The PSED was developed to overcome a series of problems that have plagued the
entrepreneurship literature (see Reynolds, 2000 for a review of these problems). The
primary objective of the PSED was to provide systematic, reliable data on the basic
features of the entrepreneurial or start-up process, and the second objective was to
provide reliable data on those factors or variables that would account for or explain or
predict the variation in these transitional events (Reynolds, 2000, p. 160). As these two
objectives illustrate, the focus of the PESD was to survey individuals in the process of
starting their business. In other words, the focus was to survey nascent entrepreneurs. As
part of the PSED, data were also collected from a comparison group not engaged in
starting a business. Both PSED subsamples are nationally representative, and the selection
procedures for the nascent entrepreneurs have ensured that problems like survival bias and
retrospective reporting would be avoided. Consequently, this study examines the PSED
data to determine whether job dissatisfaction pushes and/or the potential for increased life
satisfaction pulls individuals to pursue an entrepreneurial career.
Literature Review
Venture creation does not happen by accident; it requires directed effort exerted over
time. In other words, direction, effort, and persistence over time are the three pillars of
motivation (Spector, 1996). Motivation theory argues that individuals are either pulled or
pushed toward a career choice, such as becoming an entrepreneur, and that satisfaction is a
central factor in motivating behavior (Gartner, Bird, & Starr, 1992; Katzell & Thompson,
1990; Landy &Becker, 1987; Perry, 1993; Vroom, 1964; Wanous, Keon, &Latack, 1983).
734 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
For example, in their conceptual model, Shapero and Sokol (1982) suggest that negative
push factors (e.g., being red) and positive pull factors can direct an individual toward new
venture creation, or other career choices. Further, Powell and Bimmerle (1980) proposed in
their conceptual model of the venture initiation process that dissatisfaction with work or
nonwork was a contributing factor to newventure initiation. Similarly, Herron and Sapienza
(1992) presented a conceptual venture creation model in which type and level of satisfaction
were considered critical factors. Even though these researchers (Herron &Sapienza, 1992;
Powell & Bimmerle, 1980; Shapero & Sokol, 1982) argued for the importance of satisfac-
tion, they did not distinguish explicitly among types or levels of satisfaction that might pull
or push individuals toward creating newventures. Implicitly, however, these researchers do
suggest that an expectation of increased life satisfaction pulls individuals toward entrepre-
neurship, whereas possible reduction of job dissatisfaction pushes them toward it.
Improved Life Satisfaction as a Reason for New Venture Creation
A study by Kolvereid (1996) addressed the reasons for career preference. He used an
open-ended format to capture a wider range of reasons and sampled alumni from a 4-year
masters program in business administration in Norway. From the data, Kolvereid identi-
ed 11 reasons for preferring either self-employment or organizational employment based
on a representative sample of the alumni where 91% were not self-employed. Kolvereid
found that economic opportunity, authority, autonomy, challenge, self-realization, and
participation in the entire process were reasons for preferring self-employment, whereas
security, workload, and autonomy were the reasons the respondents provided for prefer-
ring organizational employment.
These ndings are interesting in two ways. First, no explicit mentioning of (job or
life) satisfaction was cited as a reason for either type of employment despite the literature
on career choice and employee turnover suggesting that life satisfaction and job dissat-
isfaction are key factors in job choice (Gartner et al., 1992) and in employee turnover
(e.g., Mobley, 1977). Second, it is interesting that 40% of the sample preferred self-
employment despite the fact that only 9% were in fact self-employed. This suggests that
perhaps some of the respondents preferred self-employment, but other factors, like secu-
rity, were more important to them in considering their actual choice of employment. The
ndings appear suggestive of reasons that would pull (e.g., self-realization and, in turn, the
expectation of increased life satisfaction) the respondents toward self-employment
without considering any push factors (e.g., job dissatisfaction). Further, the sample
individuals with advanced degrees (mostly in accounting)is one that typically has good
employment opportunities. For this group, job dissatisfaction might not have been a force
acting to push the respondents into entrepreneurship.
A subsequent study by Noorderhaven, Thurik, Wennekers, and van Stel (2004)
addressed life satisfaction as a reason for new venture creation directly. More specically,
these researchers examined how life dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with the workings
of democracy inuence self-employment in 15 European countries using the Eurobarom-
eter surveys. Their results show that dissatisfaction with life and with the way democracy
works were both signicant and positively associated with the rate of self-employment.
Arguing that their measured variables were proxies for job dissatisfaction, Noorderhaven
et al. (2004) argued that their ndings indirectly pointed toward the importance of push
factors in entrepreneurship. On the other hand, it is reasonable to wonder how good the
proxies might actually be. Considering these proxies used by and the ndings found by
Noorderhaven et al., it seems pertinent to make some considerations about job satisfaction
and life satisfaction explicit.
735 September, 2007
Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction: Some Considerations
Locke (1976) provided a widely recognized denition of job satisfaction. Locke
dened job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of ones job or job experiences (p. 1300). In this denition, job satisfaction is
an attitude directly related to a persons work and work-related experiences. For example,
research has shown that the self-employed are more satised with their work, in part, due
to the autonomy they experience from being self-employed (Hundley, 2001). On the other
hand, life satisfaction is a global cognitive evaluation or judgment of ones satisfaction
with his or her life (Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004, p. 574). If life satisfaction is global,
then job satisfaction ought to be one of its subordinate components. Consistent with this
view, Johnson, Arthaud-Day, Rode, and Near (2004) reported that job satisfaction
accounted for 516% of life satisfaction. Further, research has shown that job satisfaction
takes on a more important role in a persons life satisfaction if the job is important to the
person (Near, Rice, & Hunt, 1978). For example, job satisfaction is a stronger factor in life
satisfaction for male executives (Judge, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1994) and for family business
CEOs (Daily & Near, 2000). Considering these ndings and assuming that a new venture
is very important to an entrepreneur, it is not surprising that the self-employed report
higher life satisfaction than employees in general (Blanchower & Oswald, 1998;
Blanchower, Oswald, & Stutzer, 2001). This said, some have also argued the reverse,
namely, that general affective states spill over into job satisfaction (Judge & Hulin,
1993; Judge & Locke, 1993; Staw & Ross, 1985; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Thus,
there may exist some reciprocal causality between job and life satisfaction. Addressing
this issue, Near (1984) found that job satisfaction accounted for more variance in life
satisfaction than life satisfaction accounted for in job satisfaction over a 5-year period. On
the other hand, Shapero and Sokol (1982) argued that research shows that individuals are
much more likely to take action upon negative information rather than positive, and the
data on company formations support that conclusion (p. 79). This is consistent with the
ndings of Kolvereid (1996) and Blanchower et al. (2001) that a substantial higher
number of people prefer self-employment than are actually self-employed. Whatever the
direction of causality may be, it is clear that job satisfaction and life satisfaction should be
treated as separate conceptual entities. Thus, we continue by considering job satisfaction
as a reason for new venture creation.
Job Dissatisfaction as a Reason for New Venture Creation
Based on the underlying logic that an individual can overcome job dissatisfaction by
becoming self-employed, job dissatisfaction has been offered as one reason for new
venture creation and for choosing an entrepreneurial career. Liles (1974) contended that
job dissatisfaction, or deterioration of satisfaction with the preentrepreneurial job, is a
fundamental factor that motivates an individual to become an entrepreneur. Further, the
turnover literature has consistently showed that job dissatisfaction is related to motivation
and intent to leave, actual turnover, and initiation of a search for alternatives (e.g., Mobley,
1977). Additionally, Rosse and Hulin (1985) found evidence indicating that job attitudes
(e.g., job satisfaction) underlie a spectrum of withdrawal or adaptive behaviors. Placing
this in the context of entrepreneurship, job dissatisfaction may lead an individual to
consider starting a part-time business venture as an adaptive behavior to reduce experi-
enced job dissatisfaction or to consider a full-time business venture to avoid the experi-
enced job dissatisfaction by leaving the employer.
Evidence of job dissatisfaction as a reason for new venture creation is also found in
the entrepreneurship literature. Hisrich and Brush (1986) examined the reasons and
736 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
motivations for minority entrepreneurs decisions to create new ventures. These research-
ers sent a survey to 1,000 randomly selected individuals listed in a government publication
of minority entrepreneurs; they received 217 responses. They found that achievement,
opportunity, and anticipated job satisfaction were the top three reasons for starting a new
venture. Additionally, they found that the top reasons citied for starting a new venture
were interest in the business area (58%) and frustration with an existing job (32%). The
third reason for starting a new venture was termination from a current job, which was cited
by 5% of the respondents. Unfortunately, the relatively low return rate and the retrospec-
tive nature of the study lead one to suspect that the issue is not entirely settled, even for
minority entrepreneurs.
Another study addressing entrepreneurs preentrepreneurial job dissatisfaction was
the Brockhaus (1980) study noted earlier. Brockhaus examined if dissatisfaction with a
previous job was what pushed entrepreneurs to create new ventures. Sampling 22 entre-
preneurs who had ceased their employment up to 3 months prior to the study, and two
groups of managers who had either been promoted within their organization (30 respon-
dents) or changed employer (31 respondents) within 3 months of the study, Brockhaus
found that entrepreneurs were more dissatised than the two groups of managers with all
aspects of their previous job with one exception: pay. Phrased differently, Brockhaus
found that job dissatisfaction in the previous job was a major reason that pushed indi-
viduals to become entrepreneurs.
An alternative view was proposed by Stoner and Fry (1982), who stated that they were
aware of many entrepreneurs who report favorable evaluations of most of the dimensions
of their previous job (p. 39). Stoner and Fry (1982) examined if job dissatisfaction with
the previous job inuenced whether entrepreneurs started their ventures in a similar or
different industry. Their sample consisted of 76 entrepreneurs identied from Small
Business Assistance Center and Chamber of Commerce listings. They found that entre-
preneurs who experienced job dissatisfaction with their previous job were more likely to
start a new venture in an area different than their previous job. They also found that
entrepreneurs who had left their job to start a new venture in a similar area of work did so
for the opportunities and growth potential entrepreneurship provided. Thus, the results
provided by these researchers suggest that the promise of increased life satisfaction, via
the opportunities and growth potential, was pulling the individuals toward entrepreneur-
ship in the same industry. Also, Stoner and Frys results point out that new venture
creation provides an opportunity to get away from job dissatisfaction by creating the
new venture in another industry, which, in effect, means that job dissatisfaction pushes the
individual toward new venture creation in another industry.
There is, however, an overriding concern with many of these previous studies. Spe-
cically, most have examined entrepreneurs reasons for creating new ventures by gath-
ering data based on the entrepreneurs recollection. Thus, there is a need to examine
whether nascent entrepreneurs also cite satisfaction variables as reasons for starting new
ventures not yet off the ground.
Nascent Entrepreneurs Reasons for Venture Creation
One such study was carried out by Cromie and Hayes (1991), who found that
entrepreneurs, in aggregate, were relatively dissatised with their jobs they held prior to
founding their own business (p. 20). This study was a follow-up study to an initial study
by Cromie (1987). For the initial study, banks and six separate small business agencies
supplied the researchers with names of individuals who intended to start new ventures.
The researchers randomly selected almost 200 names from the lists and contacted them
737 September, 2007
via phone to determine if the individuals were in the process of launching their busi-
nesses or had been trading for six months or less (Cromie & Hayes, 1991, p. 19).
Thirty-ve men and 34 women were interviewed initially. Four years later, the researchers
returned to the initial sample for a follow-up study. Only 46 of the initial 69 ventures were
still active. For the follow-up study, the researchers added 22 ventures that matched the
surviving businesses in age, industry, and gender of the business owner, which resulted in
68 ventures for the follow-up study.
In the initial study by Cromie (1987), job satisfaction was measured using the Job
Satisfaction Scale developed by Warr, Cooke, and Wall (1979). In the follow-up study,
Cromie and Hayes (1991) used a single-item job satisfaction measure (What satisfaction
do you get from running your business?) as they found the Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr
et al., 1979) was inappropriate for the entrepreneurs in the post-founding stage. Cromie
and Hayes (1991) report that they computed the means and standard deviations for men
and women separately, which were compared with normative data provided in works of
Warr et al. (1979) and Clegg and Wall (1981). Cromie and Hayes (1991) found that
entrepreneurs, in aggregate, were relatively dissatised with their jobs they held prior to
founding their own business (p. 20). Further, Cromie and Hayes found mean scores for
men and women on the Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr et al., 1979) were very similar
(p. 20). Also, Cromie and Hayes (1991) noticed two main sources of job dissatisfaction
with the respondents preentrepreneurial job: promotion and issues associated with
superiorsubordinate relations. This clearly implicates job dissatisfaction (or lack of job
satisfaction) as a factor that pushes individuals toward entrepreneurship.
On the pull side, Cromie and Hayes (1991) also found that the feeling of freedom
that business ownership brings was a source of deep satisfaction for both men and
women (pp. 2122). Cromie and Hayes continued by pointing out that desire for
autonomy and control over ones life is a major motive for business founding, and it is
interesting to note that this emerges as the greatest source of satisfaction for the men and
women in this study (p. 22). As this illustrates, Cromie and Hayes suggest that increased
experience of life satisfaction is an important factor for entrepreneurs after having started
their new ventures. Thus, it seems reasonable that nascent entrepreneurs could be pulled
by the potential for increased life satisfaction and/or pushed by low levels of job satis-
faction toward entrepreneurship.
In summary, for more than 30 years, there has been the presumption that satisfaction
of one sort or another is related to entrepreneurial activity. Sometimes, the satisfaction
variable has been operationalized in global terms, with the presumption that the pull of a
better life leads people to create new ventures. Sometimes, the satisfaction variable has
been as highly specic as dissatisfaction with promotion potential in an organization, thus
presumably pushing a person out into the entrepreneurial realm. Many of the prior studies
have examined the retrospective recollections of people who have been in business for a
while, whereas others have restricted their samples to people who are new founders. Only
a few have tried to draw comparisons between their convenience samples and normative
data; none has done so within the context of the same research protocol. Across these
studies, there appears to be support for both pull and push, so ignoring its possible
limitations, the prior literature would lead us to propose that nascent entrepreneurs (1)
expectation of increased life satisfaction pulls individuals toward entrepreneurship and (2)
job dissatisfaction pushes individuals toward entrepreneurship. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Nascent entrepreneurs starting businesses express higher life satisfac-
tion than the comparison group.
738 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Hypothesis 2: Nascent entrepreneurs starting businesses express a lower level of job
satisfaction with their (former) organizational job than the comparison group.
Methodology
Sample
The data set from the PSED was used to test the hypotheses. Between July of 1998
and January of 2000, the PSED employed the Market Facts market research company to
screen a total of 64,622 households in the United States. The sample was drawn in
successive waves of 1,000 (500 females, 500 males, all over the age of 18) through a
random-digit dialing procedure described in detail elsewhere (Gartner, Shaver, Carter,
& Reynolds, 2004; Reynolds, 2000; Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, Greene, & Cox, 2002;
Shaver, Carter, Gartner, & Reynolds, 2001). Embedded within a survey on marketing
issues and consumer preferences, the PSED included two questions designed to identify
nascent entrepreneurs:

Are you, alone or with others, now trying to start a business?

Are you, alone or with others, now starting a new business or new venture for your
employer?
An afrmative answer to the rst question served to identify potential nascent entrepre-
neurs; an afrmative answer to the second question served to identify potential nascent
intrapreneneurs. Two additional items ensured that (1) the respondents were expecting
some degree of ownership in the new venture, and (2) that they had been active partici-
pants in the organizing process within the preceding 12 months.
The screening questions produced a pool of individuals who were offered a payment
of $25 to participate in a telephone interview to be conducted by the University of
Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory. At the conclusion of the telephone interview,
participants were offered an additional $25 to complete a mail questionnaire for the
project. Together, the telephone interview and mail questionnaire provided information on
a broad range of topics that might be related to success in organizing an entrepreneurial
business. These topics included such things as the sociodemographic characteristics of the
members of the start-up team, the relevant personal experiences of the potential entrepre-
neur, the individual psychological predispositions of the primary respondent, the work and
family context of the start-up team members, access to nancial resources and support
systems for the creation of new ventures, and the economic and competitive conditions
that might be facing the new rm. As the PSED was created by over a hundred entrepre-
neurship scholars from over 30 institutions in the United States and in nine other coun-
tries, the data set included some assessment of practically every variable that might be
involved in new venture creation. After the initial data collection, the project was trans-
ferred to the University of Michigans Institute for Survey Research (ISR), and a complete
description of the interview protocol, the mail questionnaire, and the 501-page codebook
for the project can be found at http://www.psed.isr.umich.edu/.
The numbers of respondents involved in every stage of the project have been
described in detail by Shaver et al. (2001), and will not be repeated here. The nal ISR
data set contains a total of 1,261 individuals (830 nascent entrepreneurs and 431
individuals selected for participation in a representative comparison group). Early exami-
nation of the data led the project directors to conclude that the screening question of
whether a respondent was organizing a business for your employer was less diagnostic
than was the issue of how much of the proposed company would be owned by the
739 September, 2007
respondent, or, more specically, the inverse: The percentage of the proposed company
would be owned by some entity that was not a person. More than 50% ownership by such
an entity would mean that the new company was effectively captive. Zero ownership
by such an entity means that the new company is a fully autonomous start-up. Entity
ownership between 1 and 50% means that the new venture is partially autonomous.
To date, nearly all research reports from the PSED have not used the entire pool of
1,261 respondents as there is a consensus among the primary investigators involved in the
PSED that an additional 45 respondents should be eliminated when the research topic
concerns individual factors (cf. Carter, Gartner, Shaver, & Gatewood, 2003; Shaver et al.,
2001). Specically, the interview procedure was designed to screen out individuals whose
businesses had produced positive cash ow for over 3 months, but the data set contained
six respondents who should have been excluded on this basis. We dropped those six. An
additional seven nascent entrepreneurs reported that more than 50% of their proposed
business would be owned by another business (technically, ownership by a nonperson),
resulting in exclusion of these seven people. Finally, 32 respondents in the comparison
groupwhich was supposed to represent people who were not entrepreneurswere
themselves business owners, and were eliminated to keep the comparison group as clear
as possible. Together, these 45 respondents were excluded from consideration in the study,
as with previous PSED research studies, reducing the pool of 1,261 respondents to a
sample of 1,216 respondents.
The initial sample for the present research was the total of 1,216 respondents (622
females, 594 males) shown in the rst panel of Table 1. The total of 1,216 respondents was
divided among the three groups (715 fully autonomous nascent entrepreneurs, 102 par-
tially autonomous nascent entrepreneurs, and 399 in the comparison group) also as shown
Table 1
Numbers of Respondents
Respondent group
Total
Nascent entrepreneurs
All nascent
entrepreneurs
Comparison
group
Fully
autonomous
Partially
autonomous
Total sample
Females 346 53 399 223 622
Males 369 49 418 176 594
Totals 715 102 817 399 1,216
Returned mail questionnaire
Females 245 41 286 173 459
Males 235 32 267 145 412
Totals 480 73 553 318 871
Answered life satisfaction and job satisfaction questions
Females 239 40 279 164 443
Males 228 30 258 144 402
Totals 467 70 537 308 845
740 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
in Table 1. As much attention in the entrepreneurship literature has been toward distin-
guishing between entrepreneurs and nonentrepreneurs regardless of ownership percent-
age, the distribution of female and male nascent entrepreneurs was 399 and 418,
respectively, as shown in Table 1. Finally, the comparison group consisted of 223 female
and 176 male participants.
As noted earlier, the PSED included both a telephone interview and a subsequent mail
survey. Because the dependent variables of interest for the present studylife satisfaction
and job satisfactionwere assessed only in the mail questionnaire, the effective sample
was limited to the 871 returned mail surveys (an overall return rate of 71.6%, wherein 459
were from female participants and 412 from male participants) as shown in the second
panel of Table 1. Of the 871 returned surveys, 553 surveys were from nascent entrepre-
neurs (480 from fully autonomous nascent entrepreneurs and 73 from partially nascent
entrepreneurs) and 318 were from respondents in the comparison group.
A small fraction of those who returned mail questionnaires failed to answer the job
satisfaction and life satisfaction items in the survey. The last panel of Table 1 shows that
845 people had answered both the job satisfaction and life satisfaction items, which was
69.5% of the initial sample of 1,216. Thus, the sample for the present study consists of a
total of 845 individuals (443 females and 402 males; 537 nascent entrepreneurs with 467
fully autonomous nascent entrepreneurs and 70 partially nascent entrepreneurs and 308
respondents in the comparison group).
The Variables of Interest: Job Satisfaction and Life Satisfaction
Despite the early work by Smith et al. (1969), current literature on job satisfaction
supports use of a single-item measure of the concept. For example, Scarpello and
Campbell (1983) found that support for single-item job satisfaction measures were more
inclusive of overall job satisfaction than measures based on summation of facet scores.
Further support for the use of single-item job satisfaction measures was provided by
Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) in their meta-analysis and, more recently, by
Oshagbemi (2005). In the PSED, the single-item job satisfaction measure was Qi8, asked
in the mail questionnaire (Johnson et al., 2004). Questions about the respondents job
history began with item Qi2, The last time you had a job working for someone else or in
an established organization, what was your job title? This rst item was followed by
questions about what the respondent did (Qi2), how many years (Qi4a) and months (Qi4b)
the respondent held the job, how many people were between the respondent and the CEO
(Qi5), how many people in all were in the organization (Qi6), and what type of organi-
zation it was (Qi7). Then, Qi8 asked How satised were you with this job? was scored
as a 5-point Likert-type scale, with response alternatives of very dissatised (scored as
1) to very satised (scored as 5).
Similarly to job satisfaction, the use of a single-item life satisfaction measure is well
established in the literature (Johnson et al., 2004, p. 165). In the PSED, life satisfaction
was assessed by a single-item I am very happy with my life overall (Ql1m [q-ell-
one-m]; Johnson et al.). This item was preceded by a stem that stated The following
statements can be used to describe most people. How accurately would they describe
you? Responses were scored on a 5-point scale from completely untrue (scored as 1)
to completely true (scored as 5).
Post-Sampling Stratication Weights
For researchers interested in entrepreneurial behavior, there are two primary advan-
tages to the data contained in the PSED. First, and most importantly, the data were
741 September, 2007
collected contemporaneously with the process of new venture organizing. Frequently, the
participants in entrepreneurship research are identied from directories, such as published
telephone listings. This results in retrospective reports that are affected by cognitive biases
such as the hindsight effect and by self-presentational concerns (cf. Schuman & Kalton,
1985). In contrast, when respondents are identied through random-digit dialing proce-
dures and questions are asked at the time of organizing/creating the new venture, selection
and reporting biases are reduced to a minimum. Second, an important aspect of the PSED
is that it allows generalizations to the United States as a whole. The demographic
characteristics of the respondents are compared to the demographic characteristics of the
U.S. population (using recent census data), then the respondents are given post-sampling
stratication weights that make the aggregate sample match the population in sex, race,
age, and education level. The weighting procedure also corrects for sampling biases built
into the data collection, and for differential nonresponse.
The post-sampling stratication weights created by the Institute of Social Research at
the University of Michigan were designed to take into account both the differential
selection probabilities inherent in the multiple samples and differences in likelihood of
nonresponse. ISR used the Census Bureaus Current Population Study to derive weights
based on a respondents sex, race, age, and education (the process is described in the
PSED website http://www.psed.isr.umich.edu/ at the link entitled CurtinComputation
of Weights). In general, the weights are to be used whenever the data are analyzed. For
example, any comparisons of men to women, or various nascent entrepreneur groups to
each other or to the comparison group, need to use weighted data. Even on a within-
subjects procedure such as a principal components factor analysis, weighted data should
be used (e.g., on the reasonable presumption that the factor structures for women may not
be identical to the factor structures for men). The ISR-created weights are normalized so
that they sum to 1,261. If the sample is reduced, either by elimination of particular
respondents, or by nonresponse to the mail questionnaire, the initial weights need to be
adjusted so that they sum to the number of respondents involved in each comparison.
Again, as a specic example from Table 1, the weights in our research were adjusted so
that the sum of weights for the fully autonomous nascent male group was 228 (the number
of such respondents who actually answered the questions of interest) rather than 369 (the
number of such respondents found in the initial sample of 1,216). Thus, all of the results
discussed here are based on weighted data, with weights recomputed when the basis of the
comparison changes.
Results
Because it has been noted that there are signicant differences between men and
women in relation to their reasons for career choice, in particular with an entrepreneurial
career (Carter et al., 2003), and that female entrepreneurs have reported a higher level of
satisfaction than male entrepreneurs (Cooper & Artz, 1995), gender (measured by the
biological variable sex: men and women) was included in all the analyses. Because
readers may be most interested in the more global comparison of all nascent entrepreneurs
(regardless of level of autonomy) to the comparison group, we begin with analyses in
which the fully autonomous and partially autonomous have been combined (thus creating
a 2 2 analysis of variance [ANOVA] design: Respondent sex Nascency). Next,
because fully independent start-ups may be different from start-ups in which business
organizations will be participating owners, we separate fully autonomous entrepreneurs
from partially autonomous entrepreneurs and from members of the comparison group
742 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
(thus creating a 2 3 ANOVA design: Respondent sex Nascent category). Finally, to
explore possible differences between responses that depend on which question is asked,
we treat life satisfaction and job satisfaction as repeated measures (thus creating a
2 3 2 ANOVA design: Respondent sex Nascent category Dependent variable).
Obviously, these are merely three different ways of describing the same data, not three
independent tests of the predictions. In all the ANOVAs used to test the hypotheses,
Levenes test for homogeneity of variances showed that for both job satisfaction and life
satisfaction, the error variances were signicantly different across the groups. As Maxwell
and Delaney (1990) note, however, with large sample sizes, this difference does little more
than raise the probability of type I error. Consequently, the criterion for signicant
differences was lowered to .01.
Hypothesis Tests
As we have noted, prior research on the relationship between satisfaction and entre-
preneurial behavior suggests that the lure of a better life may pull people into new venture
creation (the basis of hypothesis 1) at the same time that workplace dissatisfaction may
push people into starting businesses of their own (the basis of hypothesis 2). The present
study, however, represents the rst time that measures of both life and job satisfactions
have been taken from a nationally representative sample of nascent entrepreneurs and
compared within the same research protocol to scores of a nationally representative
sample of people who are not starting businesses.
Comparison Group versus All Nascent Entrepreneurs. Mean scores for both satisfac-
tion measures across respondent groups appear in Table 2, listed separately by sex of
respondent and by nascency category. Within each sex of respondent, the rst column in
Table 2 shows the mean scores for the comparison group of people not starting businesses.
The second column within each sex shows the mean scores for all nascent entrepreneurs
together, with the third and fourth column showing the means separately for nascent
entrepreneurs who were fully autonomous versus partially autonomous. As noted earlier,
the rst ANOVA we report is the 2 2 (Respondent sex Comparison/All nascent entre-
preneurs) for life satisfaction. This ANOVA showed no signicant results (means for
comparison group and nascent entrepreneurs were 4.04 and 3.99 for females, and 3.86 and
3.92 for males, respectively; all F values less than 1), thus providing no support for
hypothesis 1. For all respondents, scores on this item were relatively high (M = 3.96 on a
5-point scale), representing a response of mostly true to the statement I am very happy
with my life overall.
The 2 2 ANOVAon job satisfaction did reveal signicant differences, but not in the
direction anticipated by hypothesis 2. Specically, there was a main effect for nascency,
with members of the comparison group reporting less satisfaction with the organizational
job they still held than the nascent entrepreneurs reported for the last organizational job
they had held. The means for comparison group and nascent entrepreneurs, collapsed over
respondent sex, were, respectively, 2.22 and 3.56, F (1, 841) = 118.55, p < .000, eta-
squared = .12. This outcome casts serious doubt on the literatures expectation that job
dissatisfaction pushes people into becoming entrepreneurs. There was no signicant
difference based on respondent sex, nor was there a signicant interaction.
Comparison Group versus Separate Nascent Groups. The next set of ANOVAs split the
nascent respondents into those who were fully autonomous and those who were partially
autonomous. Not surprisingly, the 2 3 (Respondent sex Nascent category) ANOVAon
743 September, 2007
T
a
b
l
e
2
M
e
a
n
S
c
o
r
e
s
L
i
f
e
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
J
o
b
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
N
a
s
c
e
n
c
y
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
e
m
a
l
e
M
a
l
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
g
r
o
u
p
N
a
s
c
e
n
t
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
g
r
o
u
p
N
a
s
c
e
n
t
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
s
A
l
l
F
u
l
l
y
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
o
u
s
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
o
u
s
A
l
l
F
u
l
l
y
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
o
u
s
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
a
u
t
o
n
o
m
o
u
s
n
=
1
6
4
n
=
2
7
9
n
=
2
3
9
n
=
4
0
n
=
1
4
4
n
=
2
5
8
n
=
2
2
8
n
=
3
0
L
i
f
e
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
4
.
0
4
3
.
9
9
3
.
9
8
4
.
0
8
3
.
8
6
3
.
9
2
3
.
9
1
3
.
9
9
S
D
2
.
8
3
1
.
5
2
1
.
5
3
1
.
4
8
2
.
3
5
1
.
2
4
1
.
1
8
1
.
2
1
J
o
b
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
M
2
.
2
7
3
.
5
2
3
.
5
1
3
.
6
2
2
.
1
7
3
.
6
1
3
.
5
8
3
.
8
3
S
D
2
.
1
3
1
.
6
8
1
.
6
9
1
.
6
7
1
.
7
8
1
.
4
4
1
.
4
3
1
.
5
4
S
D
,
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
744 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
life satisfaction showed no signicant differences (collapsed over respondent sex, the
mean scores for the three nascent categories of comparison group, fully autonomous, and
partially autonomous were, respectively, 3.95, 3.95, and 4.01; all F values were less than
1). As before, the 2 3 ANOVA on job satisfaction showed a signicant main effect for
nascency category, F (2, 839) = 59.52, p < .000). Mean scores for the comparison group,
fully autonomous, and partially autonomous groups were 2.22, 3.54, and 3.71, respec-
tively. Post hoc multiple comparisons (not assuming equal variances) showed that scores
of the two nascent groups did not differ from one another, but that each differed from
the score of the comparison group (Dunnett C was 1.32 for the fully autonomous
comparison group difference, and 1.49 for the partially autonomouscomparison group
difference; both values signicant at the .000 level). Although the fully autonomous and
partially autonomous nascent groups may differ from one another on a variety of mea-
sures, their life and job satisfaction scores are virtually the same. And both groups are
more satised with their former organizational job than members of the comparison group
are with their current organizational job.
Relationships among Measures. At this point, it is clear that, despite prior literature
suggesting that life satisfaction pulls people toward entrepreneurship, there are no dif-
ferences across respondent groups in overall life satisfaction. It is also clear that, in
contrast to what would be predicted by prior literature, nascent entrepreneurs are actu-
ally more satised with their preentrepreneurial jobs than other individuals. The one
remaining idea suggested by prior literature is that life satisfaction and job satisfaction
are related. This notion can be examined in two separate ways. First, we can examine
the correlation between life satisfaction and job satisfaction. Given the other results,
this should probably be carried out separately for each nascent category. Among the
members of the comparison group (n = 308), the Pearson correlation between life sat-
isfaction and job satisfaction was r = .61, p < .000. For the fully autonomous group of
nascent entrepreneurs (n = 467), the correlation was r = .46, p < .000, and for the par-
tially autonomous group of nascent entrepreneurs (n = 70), the correlation was r = .57,
p < .000. So in each group of respondents, the higher the life satisfaction score, the
higher the job satisfaction score.
Next, we can examine whether the patterns of response to the two questions were
different based on a respondents group membership. This is carried out by treating the
two satisfaction items as a repeated measure in a 2 3 2 (Respondent sex Nascency
category Satisfaction measure) ANOVA. This analysis showed a signicant main effect
for satisfaction measure, with the overall mean for life satisfaction (M = 3.96) higher than
the overall mean for job satisfaction (M = 3.08), F (1, 839) = 93.26, p < .000, eta-
squared = .10. There was also a signicant interaction between nascency category and
satisfaction measure, F (2, 839) = 56.32, p < .000. Specically, for the nascent groups the
two satisfaction measures were essentially the same (the difference between life satisfac-
tion and job satisfaction was 0.42 for fully autonomous, 0.30 for partially autonomous),
but for the comparison group, the two satisfaction measures diverged substantially (the
difference was 1.73). Thus, for the comparison group alone, the level of job satisfaction
was lower than the level of life satisfaction, despite the fact (as noted earlier) that the two
scores were still positively correlated.
In summary, the results showed no differences whatever in expressed life satisfaction.
They also showed that nascent entrepreneurs were more satised with their preentrepre-
neurial job than the comparison group regardless of whether the nascent entrepreneurs
were female or male or whether their ownership in the new company would be full or
partial. Life satisfaction and job satisfaction were positively correlated in all subsamples,
745 September, 2007
although among the comparison group, the means for job satisfaction were signicantly
lower than those for life satisfaction.
Discussion
Not to put too ne a point on it, the results of this study challenge some long-standing
notions about the nature of entrepreneurial motivation. Past work led to the predictions
that (1) overall life satisfaction would show evidence of some form of pulling people
toward new venture creation, and (2) preentrepreneurial job satisfaction would show
evidence of some form of pushing individuals toward entrepreneurship. Neither of these
predictions was conrmed. Indeed, the job satisfaction results are precisely the opposite
of what would be expected on the basis of push hypothesis. Why might this have been the
case?
When the results of a research project contradict what we believe we already know,
we worry rst about the methodology of the new study. Were the variables operationalized
correctly? Were they scored in the proper direction? Were the analyses appropriate? One
of the real advantages of research conducted through the PSED is that readers can check
most of these alternative explanations on their own, without having to take our word for
it. First, with regard to operationalization of the two satisfaction variables, a full descrip-
tion of their development is provided by Johnson et al. (2004) in a chapter in the Hand-
book of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (Gartner et al., 2004). Johnson et al. cite other research
to support a single-item measure of life satisfaction, and to indicate that a single-item
assessment of job satisfaction is both reliable and valid. Had there been no differences at
all on either measure, it would be reasonable to wonder whether the measures might
simply not have been up to the task required of them. But there were the expected positive
correlations between the two, and there were between-group differences on job satisfac-
tion (just not in the direction one would expect). It is, of course, possible that life
satisfaction is just not a good proxy for pull and that job dissatisfaction is not a good
proxy for push. This criticism, however, would then have to be leveled at nearly all of
the prior research purporting to assess pull and push with measures of satisfaction.
As for the scoring of the variables, the data set is available online from the Institute of
Social Research at the University of Michigan. The life satisfaction item, Ql1m, is number
1104 in the variable listing of the data set; the job satisfaction item, Qi8, is number 1068.
Value labels for both clearly show that higher numerical scores represent greater degrees
of satisfaction. Finally, our selection of cases for inclusion and our method for weighting
cases both follow the procedures originally presented by Shaver et al. (2001), subse-
quently amplied by Reynolds and Curtin (2004), and used in other publications based on
PSED data (e.g., Carter et al., 2003).
Having ruled out method and data errors, we are left with no evidence for the pull
hypothesis and direct evidence against the push hypothesis. How can these ndings be
reconciled with prior work? Apart from prior conceptual cases made for the pull and push
hypotheses, the two major empirical studies undergirding the ideas are those by
Brockhaus (1980) and Cromie and Hayes (1991). Close examination reveals at least four
major differences between them and the present researchthe nature of the samples, the
sizes of the samples, the nature of the comparisons, and the time at which the research was
performed.
In our research, we used a nationally representative sample. Even though our data
were derived from the mail portion of the PSED, our effective response rate was nearly
70% (845 out of 1,216). By contrast to our group of 537 entrepreneurs, the Brockhaus
746 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
(1980) sample contained 31 business owners (self-selected out of a convenience sample of
93 possibles), and the Cromie and Hayes (1991) sample consisted of 46 business owners
who had been interviewed for the rst time 4 years earlier (out of over 200 possibles) plus
22 rms that match the surviving businesses in age, industrial section, and gender of the
owners (p. 20). In both these instances, the business owners were already in business, not
in the process of organizing their new ventures, so their impressions might well have been
inuenced by their business success. Moreover, both studies employed convenience
samples based on lists, not representative samples derived from random-digit dialing of
households.
As we noted earlier, to their credit, both Brockhaus (1980) and Cromie and Hayes
(1991) attempted to compare their business samples to larger normative groups that had
previously been tested with the same instrument each researcher used. Brockhaus (1980)
used the Job Description Index (JDI; Smith et al., 1969) and comparison data originally
reported about 10 years earlier by Smith and colleagues (1969). Cromie and Hayes
(1991), as well as Cromie (1987), used the Job Satisfaction Scale (Warr et al., 1979) and
comparison data from a samplealso collected 10 years earlierof 576 men and 83
women employed at a single large engineering factory with approximately 2,500 employ-
ees in the North of England (Clegg & Wall, 1981). Although we applaud the attempts at
comparison, we would argue that there is ample reason to wonder whether either com-
parison group really captures what it was intended to capture.
Our nal suggestion about why our results might be different goes beyond the details
of methodology to the business and economic climate prevailing at the time the research
was performed. Most of the research addressing the push and pull hypotheses is pre-
Internet and preWorld Wide Web; some even predates the personal computer. The
barriers to business entry in todays world almost have to be lower than they were even
as recently as the early 1990s, and especially lower than they were in the late 1960s.
Moreover, if there ever was a lifetime job with a corporation in the United States, there
certainly is not one now. New employees of major rms are told upon entry that they need
to manage their own careers (a euphemism for upgrading their skills so that they will be
attractive to others if they are downsized). Against this backdrop, the creation of a new
venture does not appear to be nearly the stretch it might have been in the past. And with
lower barriers to entry, the need for either a pull or a push might simply be smaller.
Quite apart from the differences between our ndings and those of the past, what are
we to make of the fact that nascent entrepreneurs are more satised with their preentre-
preneurial employment? One reasonable explanation is that the entrepreneurs may simply
be more optimistic and positive people. Recent literature shows a number of ways in
which entrepreneurs appear to be more optimistic (not necessarily correctly so) about the
likelihood of success of their ventures (e.g., Busenitz & Barney, 1997). There is also
reason to believe they may be dispositionally more positive. The argument goes like this:
In view of the fact that (1) Staw and Ross (1985; Staw et al., 1986) found that attitudes,
i.e., job satisfaction, are stable over time; (2) Hulin (1990) noted that affect is correlated
with job satisfaction; (3) Isen and Baron (1991) pointed out that positive affect is asso-
ciated with job satisfaction; and (4) affect has been found to be dispositional (Arvey,
Carter, & Buerkley, 1991; Watson & Clark, 1984), it is plausible that individuals who
exhibit a dispositional positive affect are likely to experience higher levels of job
satisfaction.
In the context of our nding that the nascent entrepreneurs experienced higher
preentrepreneurial job satisfaction relative to the comparison group, and the ndings of
previous comparative job satisfaction studies that the self-employed are more satised
(e.g., Blanchower & Oswald, 1998; Bradley & Roberts, 2004; Eden, 1975; Katz, 1993;
747 September, 2007
Naughton, 1987), it appears that entrepreneurs may be more satised, relative to other
individuals, both before and after starting new ventures. In short, future research on
entrepreneurial motivation should attend to elements of the person, not merely to the
external opportunities (pull factors) or the characteristics of a preentrepreneurial job (push
factors). This said, it should also be noted that the entrepreneurial trait research has mostly
been atheoretical and methodologically problematic, which led Gartner (1988) to call
for an abandonment of trait approach. However, recent developments have advanced
the personality literature (Schmitt, Schjoedt, & Hoelscher, 2005). These advancements
provide a theoretical foundation for better understanding of entrepreneurs and their
behavior, as well as renewed attention to personality in entrepreneurship research. One
early example of using these recent advancements in the personality literature to better
understand entrepreneurship is a study of the big ve personality factors and venture
survival (Ciavarella, Buchholtz, Riordan, Gatewood, & Stokes, 2004) that show entrepre-
neurs conscientiousness is positively associated with venture survival. Thus, there is
opportunity for theory-based future research using the recent advancements in the per-
sonality literature.
The present study has a number of important implications. The ndings of the present
study, as well as the discussion on advancement in the personality literature, point out that
there are numerous opportunities for future research to advance our collective knowledge
of entrepreneurship. An implication for policy makers is the importance of knowing that it
is not job dissatisfaction, but other factors that drives new venture creation and the
associated job creation. For both researchers and practitioners, the key implication is
knowing what is valid. As shown by the literature reviewand discussion, there is a mistaken
belief that dissatised employees are pushed toward new venture creation. This fallacy is,
in part, due to empirical research based on convenience samples. Based on a nationally
representative sample of the United States fromthe PSEDdata set, the present study shows
that it is not the dissatised employees who leave their employment to start new ventures;
it is individuals who, despite being happy with their existing jobs, start new ventures. This
means that stakeholders, e.g., investors, may allocate their time and efforts toward satised
employees, not dissatised employees, in their facilitation of new venture creation.
REFERENCES
Acs, Z.J., Armington, C., & Robb, A. (1999, January). Measures of job ow dynamics in the U.S. economy.
Discussion paper CES99-1. Upper Marlboro, MD: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Center for Economic Studies.
Arvey, R.D., Carter, G.W., & Buerkley, D.K. (1991). Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situational inuences.
In C.L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology Vol.
6 (pp. 359383). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Birch, D.L. (1979, March). The job creation process. Unpublished report. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development Administration.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Birch, D.L. (1987). Job creation in America. New York: Free Press.
Blanchower, D.G. & Oswald, A.J. (1998). What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16,
2660.
Blanchower, D.G., Oswald, A., & Stutzer, A. (2001). Latent entrepreneurship across nations. European
Economic Review, 45, 680691.
748 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Bradley, D.E. & Roberts, J.A. (2004). Self-employment and job satisfaction: Investigating the role of
self-efcacy, depression, and seniority. Journal of Small Business Management, 42, 3758.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980). The effect of job dissatisfaction on the decision to start a business. Journal of Small
Business Management, 18, 3743.
Busenitz, L.W. & Barney, J.B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large
organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making. Journal of Business Venturing, 12,
930.
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., & Gatewood, E.J. (2003). The career reasons of nascent entre-
preneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 1339.
Ciavarella, M.A., Buchholtz, A.K., Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D., & Stokes, G.S. (2004). The big ve and
venture survival: Is there a linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 465483.
Clegg, C.W. & Wall, T.D. (1981). A note on some new scales for measuring aspects of psychological
well-being at work. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54, 221225.
Cooper, A.C. & Artz, K.W. (1995). Determinants of satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10, 439457.
Cromie, S. (1987). Similarities and differences between women and men who choose business proprietorship.
International Small Business Journal, 5, 4360.
Cromie, S. & Hayes, J. (1991). Business ownership as a means of overcoming job dissatisfaction. Personnel
Review, 20, 1924.
Daily, C.M. & Near, J.P. (2000). CEO satisfaction and rm performance in family rms: Divergence between
theory and practice. Social Indicators Research, 51, 125170.
Eden, D. (1975). Organizational membership vs. self-employment: Another blow to the American dream.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 7994.
Gartner, W.B. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business,
12, 1132.
Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J., & Starr, J.A. (1992). Acting as if: Differentiating entrepreneurial from organiza-
tional behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16, 1331.
Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M., & Reynolds, P.D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of entrepreneurial
dynamics: The process of business creation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heller, D., Watson, D., & Ilies, R. (2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical
examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574600.
Herron, L. & Sapienza, H.J. (1992). The entrepreneur and the initiation of new venture launch activities.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 4955.
Hisrich, R.D. & Brush, C. (1986). Characteristics of the minority entrepreneur. Journal of Small Business
Management, 24, 18.
Hulin, C.L. (1990). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 445506). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Hundley, G. (2001). Why and when are the self-employed more satised with their work? Industrial relations,
40, 293316.
749 September, 2007
Isen, A.M. & Baron, R.A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. In L.L. Cummings &
B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 13 (pp. 153). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Johnson, K.L., Arthaud-Day, M.L., Rode, J.C., & Near, J.P. (2004). Job and life satisfaction. In W.B. Gartner,
K.G. Shaver, N.M. Carter, & P.D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of
business creation (pp. 163170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Judge, T.A. & Hulin, C.L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reection of disposition: A multiple source causal
analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388421.
Judge, T.A. & Locke, E.A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective-well being and job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 475490.
Judge, T.A., Boudreau, J.W., & Bretz, R.D. (1994). Job and life satisfaction of male executives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 767782.
Katz, J.A. (1993). How satised are the self-employed: A secondary analysis approach. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 17, 3551.
Katzell, R.A. & Thompson, D.E. (1990). An integrative model of work attitudes, motivation, and perfor-
mance. Human Performance, 3, 6385.
Kirchhoff, B.A. (1994). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capitalism: The economics of business rm formation
and growth. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Organizational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice inten-
tions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21, 2331.
Landy, F.J. & Becker, W.S. (1987). Motivation theory reconsidered. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 138). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Liles, P.R. (1974). New business ventures and the entrepreneur. Hornewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 12971349). Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company.
Maxwell, S.E. & Delaney, H.D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison
perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W. (2004). National entrepreneurship assessment: United States of America. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor. Available at http://www.gemconsortium.org/
Mobley, W.H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237240.
Naughton, T.J. (1987). Quality of working life and the self-employed manager. American Journal of Small
Business, 12, 3340.
Near, J.P. (1984). Relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction: Test of a causal model. Social
Indicators Research, 15, 351367.
Near, J.P., Rice, R.W., & Hunt, R.G. (1978). Work and extra-work correlates of life and job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 21, 248264.
Noorderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S., & van Stel, A. (2004). The role of dissatisfaction and per capita
income in explaining self-employment across 15 European countries. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
28, 447466.
750 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE
Oshagbemi, T. (2005). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple-item measures? Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 14, 338403.
Perry, L.S. (1993). Effects of inequity on job satisfaction and self-evaluation in a national sample of
African-American workers. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 565573.
Powell, J.D. & Bimmerle, C.F. (1980). A model of entrepreneurship: Moving toward precision and complex-
ity. Journal of Small Business Management, 18, 3336.
Reynolds, P.D. (2000). National panel study of U. S. business startups: Background and methodology. In J.A.
Katz (Ed.), Advances in entrepreneurship, rm emergence, and growth (pp. 153227). Stamford, CT: JAI
Press.
Reynolds, P.D., Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Greene, P.G., & Cox, L.W. (2002). The entrepreneur new door:
An executive summary of the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center
for Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Reynolds, P.D. & Curtin, R.T. (2004). Appendix C: Examples of analysis: Work le preparation, comparisons,
and adjustment of weights. In W.B. Gartner, K.G. Shaver, N.M. Carter, & P.D. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
entrepreneurial dynamics: The process of business creation (pp. 495540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Reynolds, P.D. & White, S.B. (1997). The entrepreneurial process. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Rosse, J.G. & Hulin, C.L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee health, withdrawal, and
change. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 36, 324347.
Scarpello, V. & Campbell, J.P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel Psychology, 36,
577600.
Schmitt, M.L., Schjoedt, L., & Hoelscher, M.L. (2005, January). Entrepreneurs and personality: Relating
recent developments from the personality literature to entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the 19th Annual
National Conference of USASBE, Indian Wells, CA.
Schuman, H. & Kalton, G. (1985). Survey methods. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 635697), New York: Random House.
Shapero, A. & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A. Kent, D.L. Sexton, &
K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 7290). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., & Reynolds, P.D. (2001, June). Who is a nascent entrepreneur?
Decision rules for identifying and selecting entrepreneurs in the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics.
Paper presented at the Babson College Kauffman Foundation Entrepreneurship Research Conference,
Jnkping, Sweden.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Spector, P.E. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. NewYork: John Wiley
& Sons.
Staw, B.M. & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469480.
Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E., & Clausen, J.A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime
longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 5677.
Stoner, C.R. & Fry, F.L. (1982). The entrepreneurial decision: Dissatisfaction or opportunity? Journal of
Small Business Management, 20, 3944.
751 September, 2007
Vroom, J. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wanous, J.P., Keon, T.L., & Latack, J.C. (1983). Expectancy theory and occupational and organizational
choices: A review and test. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 6685.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., & Hudy, M.J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item
measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247252.
Warr, P.B., Cooke, J.D., & Wall, T.D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects
of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129148.
Watson, D. & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional
states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465490.
Leon Schjoedt is Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Illinois State University.
Kelly G. Shaver is Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at the College of Charleston.
We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
752 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE