Exhibit I-5: The EBOQ for Time Period One

Entrepreneurial Behavior Orientation Questionnaire (for the target manager, to what extent does entrepreneurship appear at three levels: interest to do, intention to do, and actual behavioral occurrences. Target individual goes through questionnaire twice (interest and intentions). An observer goes through and answers independently assess behavior. In addition, this questionnaire should be administered for different phases in the life cycle of the firm.

Low High

1 2 3 4 5

Trustee Bureaucrat Gen. Mgr Promoter Entrepreneur

Take Risk

Show Creativity

Have Position Power

Explore Opportunity

Encourage Growth

Show Leadership

Financially Accountable

Share Profit

Third, we must be able to assess the extent that there is an interpersonal system of entrepreneurial orientations and behaviors (a team). One particular phenomena that we need to address is the degree entrepreneurial participants act unilaterally (there is always some autonomy; but, no man is an island in most growing organization).

1. Individual versus collective entrepreneurship is important to understand. Is this a traditional unilateral drive, or is it more of a sharing or collectively-oriented experience taking place in an organization? How much room is there for outside stakeholder influence? Studies on the affect of the presence of stockholders, investors, regulators and so forth during start-up, show that the character of the entrepreneurial event changes with the configuration of partners, managers and other stakeholders. The team members’ attributes determine how the individuals play the game, and their capability to adapt the play. The three partners at Cherryhill Manufacturing were able to feed off of each other and they jointly inspired confidence in those around them. Sole proprietors seldom can do this because they are invariably too busy working "in" the business rather than "on" it. Is there a collective culture of growth and learning driving the individual styles? It is also valuable to measure the degree managers try to serve the enterprise's interest (e.g., as in intrapreneurship), the individual’s interest (self-interest) or society's interest (social responsiveness) or the system’s interest (stewardship)?

Footnote: We also need measures that can differentiate and profile the types of entrepreneurs: the dreamer, the small business owner, the venture entrepreneur, the intrapreneur, the philanthropist, the black marketer and so forth?

Finally, as a part of a systems perspective we need to assess and measure the degree there are calculated, strategic judgments to "match" the conscious entrepreneurial acts (internal organization) with the external environment. The best entrepreneurial managers will have an environmental equation (often tacit and informal) that researchers should be able to articulate and measure. Some ideas include:

1. Type of environment perceived is important (we might want to assess risk perception by looking at how the entrepreneur(s) perceive things like Duncan’s two key factors, complexity and turbulence; or we might assess uncertainties or ambiguities that they perceive relating to the market, product/service, customer, suppliers or other stakeholders, measuring the perceived ambiguity of an environment in terms of how free, competitive, concentrated and large the market is, or how it is perceived to be. All of these perceptions would be valuable to understanding how style and environment interact). The internal organization environment needs to be addressed, too. Questions such as the following are also important. Is the entrepreneurial style strong or weak? Is it coming from top management, middle, lower, rank-and-file? Is the culture supportive and committed? Also, there needs to be an assessment of perceptions about the boundaries (between the environment and the organization). Attitudes and behaviors may be more or less intense in different boundary situations (e.g., are there variations in the level of entrepreneurship between departments, functions, markets, etc). Again, the dynamics are also relevant (across contexts and times).

2. Intensity and resolve of style is also important. What is the urgency of intent, the sense of delays, lead-times, metabolisms and so forth? What growth trajectory is being targeted and perceived by the manager?

3. Consistency of entrepreneurship over time is also important. What kind of variability, on all dimensions of thought and effort exists through time? Imagine a graph with intensity and purity of the entrepreneurial condition on Y-axis and time on X-axis that illustrates this point (I present one in chapter 3). This idea presents entrepreneurship not as a steady state, but as a metering out of strategic resources, as needed, for rapid growth (vis-à-vis other forms of management to produce strategic forces for stability, retrenchment, etc). Also, interesting is whether or not the intended pattern and the actual pattern math-up, and what is done if they don’t. The vision and mission are important, but the actual patterning of implementation actions and events across time is also important and often shows the true realities of the whole system.

D. Whether the entrepreneurial behaviors and intentions are having an impact (environmental outcomes) is also important to measure. For instance, is competition responding to retard the entrepreneurial effect, and how are certain boundaries changing relative to changes in rivalry? We also need to measure the degree of freshness in the larger environment in order to get a full picture of the system (its newness, rate of change, momentum and so forth.) New products can have more intense impacts on markets than product modifications, for instance.

Furthermore, I believe that a valid entrepreneurship measurement instrument must be able to distinguish the changes in the style and orientation of the entrepreneur in diverse industries such as the nuclear weapons industry and the fad toy industry. I further believe any measurements you take are likely to be short-lived, relative to validity. The “true” entrepreneurship event evolves rapidly, at least personally, as the organization grows and the dynamics within the environment change. We are likely to only get glimpses of entrepreneurship that decay towards mere management in extremely rapid fashion.