International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3): pp. 347-384.

© 2019, Senate Hall Academic Publishing.

Developing a Conceptual Framework of

Entrepreneurial Leadership: A
Systematic Literature Review and
Thematic Analysis
Catherine M. Clark1
University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise, Lanarkshire

Christian Harrison2
University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise, Lanarkshire

Stephen Gibb3
University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise, Paisley

Abstract. Entrepreneurial leadership is a relatively emergent paradigm. Whilst in its infancy it has
amassed a reasonable, yet fragmented literature base which has created limitations inciting
paradigmatic challenges including definitional disparity and an absence of a conceptual framework.
This paper addresses the challenges faced by entrepreneurial leadership through the systematic
review and thematic analysis of 112 papers. Eight themes of entrepreneurial leadership were
identified: the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship, the gendered approach, the
psychological approach, entrepreneurial leadership development, entrepreneurial leadership skills,
entrepreneurial teams, the context approach, and entrepreneurial leadership and performance. A
prominent finding from the thematic analysis was the influence of papers to multiple themes thus
illuminating relationships within the paradigm. A conceptual framework is presented which
identifies the influencing variables of entrepreneurial leadership and the relationships between
them. This framework aims to provide a theoretical foundation of entrepreneurial leadership on
which further research can be cogitated.

Keywords: entrepreneurial leadership, thematic analysis, entrepreneurship, leadership, systematic

literature review.

1. University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise, Lanarkshire, Hamilton
International Technology Park, Stephenson Place, South Lanarkshire, G72 0LH.
[Link]@[Link]
2. Lecturer, University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise, Lanarkshire,
Hamilton International Technology Park, Stephenson Place, South Lanarkshire, G72 0LH.
[Link]@[Link]
3. Senior Lecturer, University of the West of Scotland, School of Business and Enterprise,
Gardner Building, High Street, Paisley PA12BE. [Link]@[Link]

© 2019, Senate Hall Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved

348 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

1. Introduction

The study of the perceived commonalities in the development and exploration of

the established fields of entrepreneurship and leadership, and their points of
convergence, has led to the emergence of the entrepreneurial leadership (EL)
paradigm (Cogliser and Brigham, 2004). This development in leadership can be
considered a distinct paradigm given the early establishment of a “research
community” where there is a shared understanding of EL and an effort to develop
knowledge (Fossey et al., 2002., p. 718). EL is a relatively recent organisational
sciences phenomenon, with only 30 years since its inception (Lippitt, 1987). In
this limited time, EL has established a reasonable body of literature (Harrison et
al., 2016b; Röschke, 2018). However, this literature base is fragmented, due to the
range of foci and variables explored (Harrison et al., 2016b; Roomi and Harrison,
2011). This potentially hinders the development of EL as this wide range of
literature does not address the paradigm’s theoretical challenges: definitional
disparity and the absence of a conceptual framework (Harrison et al., 2016b;
Roomi and Harrison, 2011). Earlier reviews of EL have evaluated and categorised
the literature: Harrison et al. (2016b) identified EL attributes, whilst Röschke
(2018) quantitatively analysed literature to determine the evolution of EL
research. A key finding of Röschke’s (2018) study of EL literature between 2003
and 2014 is the shift in perspective of EL from studies which treated leadership
and entrepreneurship as distinct concepts to a more integrated view of EL. This
suggests that whilst still in a developmental phase, EL is establishing itself as a
distinct paradigm; notwithstanding its ongoing theoretical challenges. This paper
aims to assess EL literature utilising a systematic literature review (SLR) which
is justifiably the most appropriate assessment method given its rigorous and
replicable methodology which minimises researcher bias (Denyer and Tranfield,
2009).
Due to the fragmentation and dispersion of EL literature, an SLR conceivably
limits the exclusion of literature, whilst refining the focus to only pertinent
contributions. Acknowledging the shift in the field discussed by Röschke (2018),
this paper takes a holistic and exploratory approach to discovering existing
literature within the field. The findings of the SLR are reported in a quantitative
descriptive analysis and a qualitative thematic analysis. By moving beyond the
descriptive, as suggested by Röschke (2018), a conceptual framework was
developed from the recurring themes emerging from the literature and the
relationships between these themes. This conceptual model is intended to advance
the theoretical foundations of EL and address its theoretical challenges.
The paper starts with a brief background of entrepreneurial leadership,
followed by the three-stage methodology adopted by the SLR. The findings are
then presented and discussed after which the entrepreneurial leadership
conceptual framework developed is explained. The paper concludes by pointing
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 349

out its limitations, and then a compelling argument for future enlargement of
entrepreneurial leadership is made.

2. Background

Entrepreneurial leadership is an area of inquiry which is garnering increased

scholarly interest, which has led to multiple perspectives being engaged in its
exploration. Roomi and Harrison (2011) present four current perspectives of
entrepreneurial leadership, and further suggest that entrepreneurial leadership
development is an area of inquiry which is capable of advancing understanding
of this paradigm. The current perspectives identified by Roomi and Harrison
(2011) are: the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship; the psychological
approach; the context approach; and the holistic approach. However, there are
arguably further perspectives beyond Roomi and Harrison’s (2011)
conceptualisation which require exploration and the categories they identify can
also be contested.
The context approach does not adequately address the debate as to the
environment in which entrepreneurial leadership can emerge. There is an ongoing
debate as to whether entrepreneurial leadership is a new venture phenomenon, or
capable of enactment in various contexts including established firms (Kuratko,
2007; Kuratko and Hornsby, 1999; Vecchio, 2003). The intersection of
entrepreneurship and leadership can also be contested on the points of
convergence which have been identified (Carland and Carland, 2012; Cogliser
and Brigham, 2004). Psychological profiling of entrepreneurial leaders is
emerging as a varied and divergent perspective. Whilst Darling et al. (2007a)
identify the leadership values of charity, hope, joy and peace; Tarabishy et al.
(2005) identify the attributes of innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness.
There has not been a concentrated effort to consolidate these divergent
perspectives which may present an argument against the proposition of a holistic
approach at this developmental stage (Roomi and Harrison, 2011).
There is some support for Roomi and Harrison’s (2011) conceptualisation of
the entrepreneurial leadership paradigm. Comparisons can be drawn between
Roomi and Harrison (2011) and the earliest identified contribution of Lippitt
(1987), which is conceivably the natural starting point for any delineation of the
entrepreneurial leadership paradigm. Lippitt (1987) acknowledges enterprise,
which is analogous to context (Roomi and Harrison, 2011). The psychological
approach could include Lippitt (1987) who identified entrepreneurial leadership
characteristics. There is also further concurrence on the importance of
entrepreneurial leadership development (Lippitt, 1987; Roomi and Harrison,
2011). However, these two articles offer limited support for a holistic
understanding of entrepreneurial leadership. The present paper can be considered
to aid the development of a holistic perspective with the presentation of a
350 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

conceptual model which identifies both the themes of entrepreneurial leadership

and the relationship between them. However, the need for further research is also
recognised.
Our conceptual framework presents the identified themes as four factors
which influence the EL paradigm: theoretical development, internal variables,
external variables and outcomes of EL. The influence of these factors which
emerged from the literature is explored. Furthermore, as a paradigm in its
developmental stages, EL is recognised to have an emergent theoretical base
which can be developed through the growing body of empirical research.
Therefore, relationships between the variables and outcomes, and the theoretical
development of the paradigm are also explored.

3. Methodology

The purpose of an SLR is to “map and assess the existing intellectual territory”
whilst circumventing the potential bias and descriptive limitations of traditional
narrative literature reviews, typically associated with management research
(Parris and Peachey, 2013; Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 208). This evidence-based
review method is appropriate given the dispersion of EL literature. The three-
stage SLR methodology proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) has been utilised
within this study (Figure 1). To achieve replicability, the principles identified by
Denyer and Tranfield (2009) underpin this research: transparency, inclusivity,
explanatory and heurism.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 351

Figure 1: SLR Three Stage Methodology

PLANNING THE REVIEW

Establish Expert Develop Review

Prepare Proposal
Panel Protocol

CONDUCTING THE REVIEW

SOURCING LITERATURE
SCREENING LITERATURE
Search Strings
Research Protocol
Databases
Quality Assessment
Cross referencing
Extraction of Quantitative Data
Citation Search

REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

Publications Thematic Analysis
Citations NVivo
Origin Emerging Themes
Type of Articles

Source: Adapted from Denyer & Tranfield (2009) and Tranfield et al. (2003)

3.1. Stage One: Planning the Review

Stage one identifies three processes: establishing an expert panel, preparing a

proposal, and developing the review protocol. An expert panel of experienced
management scholars was convened as a forum for discussion and debate.
Through this, the necessity for an EL SLR was agreed and accompanying
352 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

research proposal and protocol developed. The rationale for this was developed
from a scoping study of existing literature, which facilitated the assessment of
“the relevance and size of the literature” (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 214).
The scoping study also informed the development of the research protocol
(Figure 2) which sets out the rationale for the review and develops transparency
through facilitating replicability (Pettigrew and Roberts, 2006). Grey literature
was excluded from this review, due to the perceived unreliability of its quality,
which could conceivably further confuse the already broad EL literature base
(Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Harrison et al., 2016b). Whilst this quality measure
was implemented it was not considered prudent to apply this stringently to
literature sources, given the wide publication of EL literature (Harrison et al.,
2016b), and the acknowledgement of the principle of inclusivity (Denyer and
Tranfield, 2009; Thorpe et al., 2005).

Figure 2: Review Protocol

Review What entrepreneurial leadership literature currently exists?

Questions What themes have emerged from these studies of
entrepreneurial leadership?
Are there research streams which require further
development?
Inclusion Criteria Papers should be in English,
Papers should address one or more of the review questions,
Papers must consider entrepreneurial leadership as a distinct
paradigm.
Exclusion Criteria Papers published prior to 1980,
Papers which are not published in peer‐reviewed journals,
Papers which use the term ‘entrepreneurial leadership’
without due consideration to the theoretical paradigm.

3.2. Stage Two: Conducting the Review

Articles were sourced through an extensive literature search of databases and

cross-referencing. Due to the median date of articles identified during scoping,
hand-searching was not considered an effective activity for this study. Several
databases were identified as appropriate given the wide distribution of EL
literature (Figure 3), and to counter any potential limitations of using only host
institution databases (Pittaway and Cope, 2007). This is demonstrated by the
exclusion of Kesidou and Carter (2018), which was not available on any of the
included databases and was too recent a publication to be identified through cross-
referencing. Search strings (Figure 3) developed from the scoping study and
informed by the salient factors identified by Lippitt’s (1987) early
conceptualisation of EL were applied and replicated in each database search. A
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 353

root search string was utilised to prevent a potentially unmanageable volume of

information being yielded from the abundant antecedent fields of leadership and
entrepreneurship (Parris and Peachey, 2013). Whilst this may be a controversial
practice in literature searches, there is a recognised benefit when conducting an
SLR, due to the abundance of literature gathered through the process (Pittaway et
al., 2004; Thorpe et al., 2005).

Figure 3: Search Strings and SLR Databases

ROOT SEARCH STRING

‘entrepreneurial leadership’

Behaviour OR Psychol*
Entrep* AND Leader*

SEARCH STRING 1

SEARCH STRING 2

SEARCH STRING 3

SEARCH STRING 4

SEARCH STRING 5
DATABASE

Develop*

Context*

Skills
EMERALD 5758 22 44 26 34 30
WEB OF 1680 59 44 21 29 17
SCIENCE
WILEY 47 31 43 33 36 34
SAGE 36 22 34 32 31 31
TAYLOR & 37 16 35 16 13 13
FRANCIS

SPRINGERLINK 2 2 2 1 2 2
SCIENCE 29 14 28 22 26 22
DIRECT
ABI/PRO- 2285 52 92 60 76 78
QUEST
TOTAL 9874 218 322 211 390 227

Irrespective of this perceived limitation a large volume of papers was

identified, which were screened utilising the research protocol. From this, 101
papers were evaluated as suitable for inclusion. Cross-referencing then yielded a
further 11 applicable articles. All papers were subject to a quality assessment,
which was developed to counter potential researcher bias whilst evaluating the
article (Pittaway et al., 2004). All identified papers were deemed to be of an
acceptable standard. At the conclusion of this literature search, 26 November
2018, 112 papers were identified as appropriate for inclusion.
354 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

3.3. Stage 3: Reporting and Dissemination

The findings of the SLR are detailed in a descriptive quantitative analysis and in
a qualitative thematic analysis with the intention of presenting a comprehensive
report (Tranfield et al., 2003). The descriptive analysis summarises and
categorises the articles quantitatively, with no intention to infer findings to the
wider EL paradigm. A thematic analysis was conducted utilising King and
Horrocks’s (2010) three-stage process: descriptive coding, interpretive coding,
and overarching themes. The process of conducting a thematic analysis allowed
for the rich qualitative data from the existing EL literature to be organised and
allow patterns to emerge whilst affording a degree of flexibility in which to
respond to the data (Boyatzis, 1998; Ellingson, 2011). Furthermore, it provides a
methodical and replicable method of coding and analysing the data collected
through the SLR (Attride-Stirling, 2001; Tuckett, 2005).

4. Findings

4.1. Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative analysis examined the literature’s origin; publication dates;

citations; and type of article including the methodology, data collection methods
and level of analysis. Findings of this descriptive analysis are detailed within
Table 1. As an iterative process with the qualitative analysis, the quantitative
descriptive analysis also includes the number of papers per theme identified
(Figure 4). This is to demonstrate the prominent areas of research focus.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 355

Table 1: Findings of the Descriptive Analysis

Origin Philosophy

UK 22.3% Positivism 33%

USA 37.5% Interpretivism 58%
Malaysia 12.5% Unknown 8%
Nigeria 2.7% Positivist-Realism 1%
Australia 3.6%
India 3.6%
Other 19.4% Type of Article

Distribution of Publication Dates

Empirical 65%
1985-1989 0.9% Conceptual 20%
1990-1994 0.9% Review 15%
1995-1999 5.4%
2000-2004 3.6%
2005-2009 23.2% Type of Empirical Study
2010-2014 39.3%
2015-Present 26.8%
Qualitative 56%
10 Most Cited Articles Quantitative 34%
Mixed Methods 10%

Gupta et al. (2004) 546

Vecchio (2003) 453 Data Collection Method
Jensen & Luthans 325
Prahbu (1999) 305
Cogliser & Brigham (2004) 278 Questionnaire 34%
Kuratko (2007) 274 Interviews 44%
Hmieleski & Ensley (2007) 217 Data Mining 15%
Chen (2007) 194 Observation 6%
Fernald et al. (2005) 169 Focus Group 1%
Kempster & Cope (2010) 164

10 Recurring Co-Citations Organisational Level of Analysis

Chen (2007); Gupta et al. (2004) 33

Gupta et al. (2004); Swiercz & Lydon (2002) 32 Private 62%
Cogliser & Brigham (2004); Fernald et al. (2005). 18 Public 35%
Chen (2007); Kuratko (2007) 18 Third 3%
Gupta et al. (2004); Kuratko (2007) 15
Gupta et al. (2004); Renko et al. (2015) 14
Gupta et al. (2004); Okudan & Rzasa (2006). 12
Mattare (2008); Okudan & Rzasa (2006) 11
Chen (2007); Surie & Ashley (2008) 10
Cogliser & Brigham (2004); Vecchio (2003). 10
Cogliser & Brigham (2004); Gupta et al. (2004). 10

There are some notable findings from the quantitative analysis which can be
considered to give superficial insights into the EL paradigm. This is an area of
enquiry dominated by Western studies. The US and the UK are the greatest
contributing nations, with 37.5 percent and 22.3 percent of contributions
respectively. However, Malaysia is also significant in its contribution of 14
articles; 10 of these which have been contributed by Bagheri and colleagues
(Bagheri and Pihie 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2013; Bagheri et al. 2013;
Pihie and Bagheri 2013; Pihie et al. 2014a, 2014b). The most cited article is
Gupta et al. (2004), by a significant extent; potentially due to its accessible
conceptualisation of entrepreneurial leadership. The citation search of Gupta et
al. (2004) identified 47 of the included articles as having cited it. Interestingly,
Vecchio (2003) is also highly cited, despite the challenges it presents to the
356 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

entrepreneurial leadership paradigm. Nevertheless, further highly cited articles

expand the understanding of EL. Jensen and Luthans (2006) explore the impact
of psychological capital on small firm performance, suggesting a potential link
between positive self-perceptions and firm performance. Whilst Prabhu (1999),
the fourth most highly cited, extends the discussion of EL beyond for-profit
organisations to consider its potential impact on social enterprise; thus,
challenging new or small firm limitations (Vecchio, 2003). Recurring co-citations
were also identified through the quantitative analysis. The greatest occurring co-
citation was Gupta et al. (2004) and Chen (2007) who were cited together 33 times
within the included literature; with Gupta et al. (2004) and Swiercz and Lydon
(2002) cited together 32 times. Cogliser and Brigham (2004) and Fernald et al.
(2005), and Chen (2007) and Kuratko (2007) were both co-cited 18 times within
the literature. As Gupta et al. (2004) is the most highly cited paper it is arguably
not surprising it also has a high number of co-citations, however this is not true of
Swiercz and Lydon (2002). Co-citations were generally spread across a variety of
leadership and entrepreneurship papers, potentially reflecting the theoretical
foundations of the EL paradigm.
The contribution of Gupta et al. (2004) arguably presents a very accessible
model of EL as it could be considered prescriptive in the expected behaviours of
an entrepreneurial leader particularly in relation to followers to facilitate
organisational performance. Chen (2007) furthers this exploration of the
relationship between the entrepreneurial leader and the follower in an exploration
of innovation. Conceivably this further develops the proposition of Gupta et al.
(2004), as this empirical study utilises primary data in establishing reciprocal
relationships between the entrepreneurial leader, followers and organisational
performance in terms of innovation (Chen, 2007). Gupta et al. (2004) also builds
on the contribution of Swiercz and Lydon (2002) who identified self-
competencies as one set of competencies required by the entrepreneurial leader
within an established organisation. The behaviours of cast and scenario enactment
(Gupta et al., 2004) are akin to those self-competencies identified by Swiercz and
Lydon (2002) yet broader and therefore more inclusive to those leaders who are
not in high profile organisations.
Vecchio (2003) which is the second most cited paper mainly focuses on the
treatment of entrepreneurship as a separate study. It is not surprising that it is
highly cited as it provides a controversial stance that entrepreneurship is indeed
leadership within a narrow context. Most researchers within the field of
entrepreneurship disagree with such perspective and believe that
entrepreneurship should be viewed as a distinct domain. Such debate has shaped
the way entrepreneurial leadership has been conceptualised. There remains a
question whether entrepreneurial leadership is a distinct type of leadership or is it
just leadership adopted by entrepreneurs? Or a more drastic view proposed by
Vecchio (2003) are all entrepreneurs automatically leaders?
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 357

Cogliser and Brigham (2004) is also a highly cited paper and is arguably one
of the most prominent profiling contributions in the EL paradigm, as influence,
creativity, planning and vision are identified. These are identified as being the
points at which leadership and entrepreneurship intersect. Fernald et al. (2005)
mimic this approach to profiling EL where eight characteristics were suggested
to form the intersection: able to motivate, achievement orientation, creative,
flexible, patient, persistent, risk-taker, and visionary. Whilst there is some
divergence in EL traits identified, there is commonality in vision, creativity, and
influence/ability to motivate (Cogliser and Brigham, 2004; Fernald et al., 2005).
Kuratko (2007) and Chen (2007) are mutually reinforcing in their recognition of
innovation, however they diverge on the type of organisation on which they
focus. Whilst Kuratko (2007) considered the established organisation, Chen
(2007) focused on small and medium sized organisations located within
technology incubators.
These co-citations and the multitude of findings and contributions from them
demonstrate that EL is a multifaceted and complex construct, with interrelated
variables. There is a clarion call for the development of structured paradigmatic
boundaries and definitional consensus. In addition, there is also a compelling
argument for developing a conceptual framework to provide a holistic
understanding of the dynamic entrepreneurial leadership paradigm. The
conceptual framework presented in this paper responds to this call by examining
the present state of EL and its complexities, whilst addressing the theoretical
challenges faced in the domain.
The papers identified in this SLR show a dominance in their national origin.
However, this is not reflected in their publication. EL articles included in this
review are published across 84 individual journals. Only six journals included
multiple EL articles: Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM) (8); Journal
of Leadership Studies (7); International Small Business Journal (ISBJ) (4); South
African Journal of Education (3); the Leadership Quarterly (3); and the
International Review of Entrepreneurship (3). Both the JSBM and the ISBJ have
published special issues on EL, which account for six and four of their total
articles respectively (Dean and Ford, 2017; Galloway et al., 2015; Harrison et al.,
2015; Henry et al., 2015; Leitch and Volery, 2017; Lewis 2015; McGowan et al.,
2015; Sklaveniti, 2017; Yousafzai et al., 2015). Both of these special issues were
published at a period which has seen increased interest in EL.
There is a reasonable empirical literature base, with 65 percent of included
articles being empirical studies. The predominant approach to studying EL is
qualitative studies, 56 percent; with 34 percent of studies quantitative and 10
percent employing mixed methods. This is reflected in the high use of interviews,
44 percent, and questionnaires, 34 percent. Further data collection methods
include data mining (15 percent), observations (6 percent), and only one percent
uses a focus group. This is further apparent in the philosophical position of the
studies with 58 percent of the research being interpretivist in approach, and 33%
358 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

taking a positivist stance. Papers which utilised a mixed methods research design
generally did not explicitly state their philosophical position, with only Arshi and
Viswanath (2013) representing the 1% of positivist-realist papers. This greater
emphasis on interpretivism is arguably reflective of the methodological and
philosophical trends within the wider leadership field. Leadership as a discipline
is historically founded on positivist quantitative approaches to empirical study,
however this has significantly shifted to a social-constructionist qualitative
approach, which is considered to be a consequence of greater recognition of
multiple variables (Parry et al., 2014). In contrast, McDonald et al. (2015) suggest
that positivist research is more prevalent in entrepreneurship research,
particularly in the form of surveys. Whilst there is some decline in positivist
research being published this is not indicative of increased social-constructionist
research but rather a shift to increased publications of conceptual papers
(McDonald et al., 2015). Therefore, it could be concluded that EL corresponds
more closely to leadership trends and thus EL can be considered a form of
leadership rather than a strategic approach to entrepreneurship (Kesidou and
Carter, 2018). If the perspective of EL as a leadership paradigm is accepted, then
the shift to qualitative approaches which explore multiple variables is conceivably
represented in the conceptual framework presented in this paper. In addition, EL
is a phenomenon which is mostly explored in the private sector, 62 percent, with
some interest in the public sector, 35 percent.
The thematic analysis identified eight themes in which EL literature can be
classified: the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship; the psychological
approach; EL development; entrepreneurial teams; EL and performance; the
gendered approach; context; and EL skills. Many of the articles contributed to
multiple themes, however for the purpose of description, they have been
classified within the quantitative analysis according to the theme which they are
most relevant (Figure 4).
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 359

Figure 4: Number of Papers per Theme

PAPERS BY THEME

38

19
14 12 11
9
4 5

4.2. Thematic Analysis

The thematic analysis identified eight overarching EL themes through a three-

stage coding process (King and Horrocks, 2010). These codes are detailed in
Table 2. Whilst the coding process identified these eight overarching themes, it
did not provide a clear delineation in papers thus, several papers contribute to
multiple themes. In order to provide a classification, papers were categorised in
the theme to which they made the most significant contribution. Table 3 depicts
the papers by their predominant theme; however it should be borne in mind that
they do have a further reach than a single categorisation. The inability to neatly
delineate these papers could conceivably be considered a limitation of this
thematic analysis, yet instead it has allowed for the relationship between these
themes of EL to be explored.
360 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Table 2: Codes identified from the Thematic Analysis

Literature Coding (1/2)

Descriptive No. of
Overarching Theme No. Interpretive Papers % Papers
Intersection of leadership
& entrepreneurship 72 Development of capabilities 2 1.79%
Conceptual overlap & similarities 19 16.96%
Theoretical development 2 1.79%
Iterative influence 5 4.46%
Challenges 8 7.14%
Vision 9 8.04%
Influence 4 3.57%
Leading creativity 2 1.79%
Planning 2 1.79%
Impetus of EL 6 5.36%
New venture creation 3 2.68%
Gender 7 6.25%
Psychological approach 205 Innovation 34 30.36%
Proactiveness 21 18.75%
Risk taking 22 19.64%
Values 6 5.36%
Opportunity recognition 2 1.79%
Opportunity exploitation 2 1.79%
Motivation/influence 6 5.36%
Flexibility 3 2.68%
Unfavourable traits 2 1.79%
Knowledge 1 0.89%
Passion 2 1.79%
Patience 1 0.89%
Tolerance for ambiguity 3 2.68%
Persistence 3 2.68%
Autonomy 3 2.68%
Achievement orientation 3 2.68%
Social & environmental concern 3 2.68%
Cognitive ambidexterity 3 2.68%
Problem solving 2 1.79%
Communication 2 1.79%
Ethics 2 1.79%
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 361

Change agent 3 2.68%

Confidence 2 1.79%
Performance 33 Impact of EL 2 1.79%
Patents 1 0.89%
Organisational effectiveness 2 1.79%
School leadership 2 1.79%
Innovation 3 2.68%
Increased service users 1 0.89%
Political influence 1 0.89%
CEO leadership 2 1.79%
Engagement 1 0.89%
Consensus building 1 0.89%
Growth capability 2 1.79%
SME performance 2 1.79%
Change management 1 0.89%
Motivation 1 0.89%
Sales 1 0.89%
Customer satisfaction 1 0.89%

Literature Coding (2/2)

Descriptive No. of
Overarching Theme No. Interpretive Papers % Papers
Context 117 Existing organisations 14 12.50%
Family business 2 1.79%
Non-profit & social enterprise 8 7.14%
SMEs & new venture 15 13.39%
Food & drink manufacturing 1 0.89%
Education 14 12.50%
Tourism 2 1.79%
Developing & emerging economies 14 12.50%
Pharmacy 3 2.68%
Knowledge firms 2 1.79%
High tech firms 5 4.46%
EU politics 1 0.89%
Libraries 2 1.79%
Health care 6 5.36%
Gender 69 Lived experience 8 7.14%
362 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Business failure 3 2.68%

Constraints & barriers 3 2.68%
Identification 3 2.68%
Performativity 2 1.79%
Gender perceptions 4 3.57%
Masculine constructs 6 5.36%
Competing role demands 2 1.79%
Participant & environmental concern 3 2.68%
Gender as a social construct 4 3.57%
Research requirement 3 2.68%
Skills 49 Development capacity 2 1.79%
Influence 2 1.79%
Culture creation 2 1.79%
Interpersonal/human skills 8 7.14%
Technical skills 2 1.79%
Conceptual skills 4 3.57%
Business skills 3 2.68%
Entrepreneurial skills 1 0.89%
Research requirement 2 1.79%
Teams 31 Context 1 0.89%
Case of teams 4 3.57%
Shared vision 1 0.89%
Team innovation 4 3.57%
Challenges & barriers 2 1.79%
Shared leadership 3 2.68%
Lead EL 2 1.79%
EL Development 143 Experiential learning 11 9.82%
Capacity to develop 5 4.46%
Capability requirement 10 8.93%
Formal learning 12 10.71%
Barriers to learning 5 4.46%
Combined approach 5 4.46%
Networking/social capital 4 3.57%
Self-development 5 4.46%
Curriculum 4 3.57%
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 363

Table 3: Entrepreneurial Leadership Themes and their Classified Literature

INTERSECTION OF LEADERSHIP & ENTREPRENEURSHIP GENDERED APPROACH

Cogliser & Brigham (2004) Dean & Ford (2017)

Fernald et al. (2005) Galloway et al. (2015)
Harrison & Leitch (1994) Harrison et al. (2015)
Leitch & Volery (2017) Henry et al. (2015)
Middlebrooks (2015) Kakabadse et al. (2017)
Reid et al. (2017) Lewis (2015)
Tarabishy et al. (2005) McGowan et al. (2015)
Vecchio (2003) Mgeni & Nayak (2015)
Zimmerman (2014) Patterson et al. (2012a)
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH Patterson et al. (2012b)
Yousafzai et al. (2015)
Darling & Beebe (2007) ENTREPRENEURIAL TEAMS
Darling et al. (2007a)
Darling et al. (2007b) Carland & Carland (2012)
Greenberg et al. (2013) Chen (2007)
Gupta et al. (2004) Flamholtz (2011)
Harrison et al. (2016a) Oliver & Paul‐Shaheen (1997)
Haynes et al. (2015) CONTEXT
He et al. (2017)
Jensen & Luthans (2006) Abbas (2014)
McKone‐Sweet et al. (2011) Agbim et al. (2013)
Nicholson (1998) Arshi & Viswanath (2013)
Prieto (2010) Bagheri (2017)
Renko et al. (2015) Bagheri & Akbari (2017)
Surie & Ashley (2008) Ballein (1998)
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Barreto & Nassif (2014)
Brown (2009)
Ahmed & Ramzan (2013) Coyle (2014)
Ansari et al. (2014) Currie et al. (2008)
Bagheri & Pihie (2009) Freeman & Siegfried (2015)
Bagheri & Pihie (2010a) Guo (2009)
Bagheri & Pihie (2010b) Hansson & Mønsted (2008)
Bagheri & Pihie (2011a) Harrison et al. (2016b)
Bagheri & Pihie (2011b) Huang et al. (2014)
Bagheri & Pihie (2013) Hunter & Lean (2014)
Bagheri et al. (2013) Jawi & Izhar (2016)
Kempster & Cope (2010) Kansikas et al. (2012)
Leitch et al. (2009) Keddie et al. (2017)
Leitch et al. (2013) Kuratko (2007)
Okudan & Rzasa (2009) Kuratko & Hornsby (1999)
Pihie & Bagheri (2013) Mapunda (2007)
Pihie et al. (2014a) McCarthy et al. (2010)
Roomi & Harrison (2011) McDougall & McDavid (2014)
Siddiqui (2007) Newman et al. (2017)
Smith et al. (2017) Ng & Thorpe (2010)
Sundararajan et al. (2012) Pashiardis & Savvides (2011)
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP & PERFORMANCE Prabhu (1999)
Ruvio et al. (2010)
Agus & Hasan (2010) Santora et al. (1999)
Carpenter (2012) Sklaveniti (2017)
Chheda & Banga (2013) Strubler & Redekop (2010)
Choi (2009) Suyitno et al. (2014)
Swiercz & Lydon (2002)
D’Intino et al. (2008)
Tice (2005)
Hmieleski & Ensley (2007)
Van Zyl & Mathur‐Helm (2007)
Koryak et al. (2015)
Wang et al. (2012)
Mishra & Misra (2017)
Yusof (2009)
Mokhber et al. (2016)
Papalexandris & Galanaki (2009) ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP SKILLS
Pihie et al. (2014)
Van Assche (2005) Freeman (2014)
Harrison et al. (2018)
Jones & Crompton (2009)
Karol (2015)
Lippitt (1987)
364 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

5. Discussion: The Conceptual Framework

The SLR process was an inductive study which aimed to determine the current
conceptualisations of EL, which identified themes emerging from the synthesis of
literature and which extrapolates any future research potential. However, this
theory building approach has developed beyond the synthesis and description of
existing literature. As articles could not be clearly confined to one theme,
relationships began to emerge, which informed the development of a conceptual
framework of EL (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Entrepreneurial Leadership Conceptual Framework

INTERNAL VARIABLES:
The Psychological Approach

Entrepreneurial Leadership Skills

Entrepreneurial Leadership Development

OUTCOMES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL
ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP:

Entrepreneurial Leadership &

LEADERSHIP Performance
EXTERNAL VARIABLES:

The Context Approach

Entrepreneurial Teams
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT:
The Intersection of Leadership &
Entrepreneurship

The Gendered Approach

EL can be considered to be limited by its fragmented development (Roomi

and Harrison, 2011). This conceivably presented two options to advancing EL,
which can be derived from perspectives on the development of the antecedent
fields of leadership and entrepreneurship: develop an integrated model, as per
King’s (1990) position on leadership, or accept EL as a multifaceted paradigm
and respect it as such, as per Gartner’s (2001) position on entrepreneurship.
Indeed, there are various perspectives in which EL can be explored. EL has been
conceptualised as a new venture phenomenon, with Leitch et al. (2009, p. 244)
suggest equivalence in the concepts, terming the paradigm “entrepreneurial/SME
leadership”. Whilst Kuratko (2007) suggests EL to be capable of enactment in a
variety of context including large organisations, social enterprise and more
broadly society. Furthermore, Kesidou and Carter (2018) suggest the enactment
of EL shifts and develops depending on the lifecycle of the organisation and the
evolving role of the entrepreneurial leader. Indeed, EL has been proposed as the
link between entrepreneurship and strategic management, where it is considered
to be an entrepreneurial mindset which focuses on opportunity- and advantage-
seeking behaviours (Covin and Slevin, 2002). Vecchio (2003) counters this
proposition, considering EL to be a leadership approach given the over reliance
of entrepreneurship on the leadership field. However, Harrison et al. (2015)
recognise the interdisciplinary nature of EL, whilst acknowledging its lack of
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 365

consideration of gender. A key proposition of Harrison et al. (2015), as supported

by Röschke (2018) is a shift in EL literature to a more holistic perspective, which
is the position adopted within this paper.
The proposition of this paper is that EL is a multifaceted paradigm which
benefits from the various perspectives that have propelled its development. These
themes were categorised according to their influence on the EL construct as
theoretical development, internal variables, external variables and outcomes of
EL. The interrelationship between the categories has also been depicted in
recognition of the mutual benefit and influence experienced as research in the
paradigm advances. This allows for the synthesis of the multiple perspectives,
which could be considered as a theoretical limitation, to enrich the field through
their acceptance as mutually beneficial rather than competing.

5.1. Theoretical Development

The EL conceptual framework depicts theoretical development as an

underpinning variable on which the paradigm is supported, including its
theoretical foundations, assumptions and parameters. Included in this are two
themes identified by the thematic analysis: the intersection of leadership and
entrepreneurship and the gendered approach. The intersection of leadership and
entrepreneurship is suggested to provide a theoretical basis to the EL paradigm
due to its prolificacy in literature, in particular Cogliser and Brigham (2004), from
which other research has developed. However, as this approach does not provide
a universally accepted definition of EL it also indicates the scope for
development. The gendered approach presents an argument and direction for the
advancement of EL through a feminist lens. However, as neither of these
perspectives asserts definitive definitions nor paradigmatic parameters of EL
there is ample scope in which it can develop.
EL is considered to have emerged from the intersection of entrepreneurship
and leadership (Cogliser and Brigham, 2004; Roomi and Harrison, 2011). Studies
of the comparable progression of leadership and entrepreneurship explored
shared concepts and developmental parity (Harrison and Leitch, 1994; Leitch and
Volery, 2017). From their study of leadership and entrepreneurship, Harrison and
Leitch (1994) suggested that there may be an iterative benefit to the convergence
of the fields which facilitated a more effective means of addressing organisational
challenges. Cogliser and Brigham (2004) also explored the similarities of
entrepreneurship and leadership, identifying four points of convergence: vision,
influence, creativity and planning. Whilst Cogliser and Brigham (2004) did not
intend to develop a definition of EL, they did inadvertently provide a theoretical
basis on which the paradigm has been developed (Fernald et al., 2005;
Middlebrooks, 2015; Roomi and Harrison, 2011; Tarabishy et al., 2005;
Zimmerman, 2014). The dynamism and changing demands of the external
366 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

environment is considered to have provided the impetus for this emerging

paradigm; where its value is thought to be derived from the identification of
successful EL practices to meet these challenges (Fernald et al., 2005;
Middlebrooks, 2015).
Whilst a theoretical basis can be suggested from the contribution of Cogliser
and Brigham (2004) as it provides “a basic working definition” of EL (Roomi and
Harrison, 2011, p. 186) it is limited. Although the premise of a conceptual overlap
has been accepted by others, the points of intersection are contested (Carland and
Carland, 2012). The development of EL profiles also frustrates this, as they lack
consensus and yet are derived from the same basis (Fernald et al., 2005; Tarabishy
et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2014). Arguably, a more pertinent challenge to the
theoretical basis of EL is presented by Vecchio (2003), who proposes that
entrepreneurship is too reliant on leadership to be considered a distinct field.
Indeed, this proposition that the close proximity of the conceptual similarities of
entrepreneurship and leadership arguably warrants the incorporation of
entrepreneurship within the leadership field (Vecchio, 2003). This is conceivably
supported by the definitional inconsistencies experienced by both
entrepreneurship and the emergent EL paradigm; which is potentially
symptomatic of the definitional limitations of leadership (Lippitt, 1987). Thus,
entrepreneurship, and EL, are restricted to a leadership style enacted within an
entrepreneurial setting (Vecchio, 2003). Furthermore, if entrepreneurship is to be
accepted as a style of leadership, EL is potentially indistinct.
The debate surrounding the theoretical basis of EL is conceivably not to its
detriment. The EL paradigm is still developing and therefore can arguably benefit
from a lack of rigidity in its foundations. Whilst definitional consensus or
proximal agreement may be a significant objective of the EL paradigm, presently
its absence conceivably facilitates its enlargement. The gendered approach aims
to achieve this through challenging inherently masculine constructs perpetuated
by EL’s antecedent fields (Galloway et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2015; Henry et
al., 2015; Patterson et al., 2012a, 2012b).
The exploration of gender is proposed to be a proactive response to the
arguably limiting inherently male constructs of leadership, which can be avoided
by EL through awareness of these perceived inadequacies (Galloway et al., 2015;
Harrison et al., 2015; Henry et al., 2015; Patterson et al., 2012a, 2012b). Within
this perspective there is a focus on the lived experience of female entrepreneurial
leaders and the barriers to female enactment; including identification, the socio-
cultural and religious influences and institutional arrangements of host countries
(Dean and Ford, 2017; Galloway et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2015; Lewis, 2015;
McGowan et al., 2015; Mgeni and Nayak, 2015; Patterson et al., 2012a, 2012b;
Yousafzai et al., 2015). As EL is still in a developmental stage, it may be a prime
opportunity to address potential gender bias in its theoretical development
(Patterson et al., 2012b). The application of feminist theory could advance the
paradigm through the denaturalisation of gender binaries and the recognition of
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 367

performativity (Galloway et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2015). This allows for a
range of masculine, feminine, agentic and communal behaviours to be included
and explored (Patterson et al., 2012b), which conceivably facilitates a multiple
stakeholder and societal leadership orientation (Kakabadse et al., 2018).
The inclusion of a feminist lens in the theoretical development arguably
challenges the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship as providing a
working definition of EL. If EL is accepted to have emerged as a reaction to the
increasing dynamism of the external environment (Fernald et al., 2005), it can be
proposed that merely developing a theoretical basis from existing established
fields is too simplistic. Alternatively, a more nuanced and composite approach is
required which reflects the complexity and instability of the external
environment. EL is well positioned to achieve this given its present infancy.
Furthermore, the working foundations provided by the intersection of leadership
and entrepreneurship facilitate the development of theoretical parameters and
definitional advancement whilst not limiting the scope of further research. The
mutual influence of the theoretical development of EL and further paradigmatic
influences depicts both the ability and opportunity of EL to develop holistically
whilst challenging pre-existing assumptions from earlier influencing fields.
Indeed, a triadic relationship between leadership, entrepreneurship and EL is
suggested to have emerged (Reid et al., 2018).

5.2. Internal Variables

The thematic analysis of EL identified themes which focused on the individual

entrepreneurial leader: the psychological approach, EL skills, and EL
development. These are proposed to be internal variables as they are specific to
the EL figure, and whilst may be mitigated by external variables comprise the
individual’s human capital or ability to develop human capital.
The psychological approach is closely related to the theoretical basis of EL.
This approach profiles EL characteristics, attributes, values or principles required
for its enactment (Darling and Beebe, 2007; Darling et al. 2007a; 2007b; Fernald
et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 2013; He et al., 2017; McKone-Sweet and
Greenberg, 2011; Roomi and Harrison, 2011; Tarabishy et al., 2005).
A notable facet of this psychological approach is its inclusion of values and
principles rather than solely focusing on inherent characteristics, unlike its
antecedent field of leadership (Clark and Harrison, 2018). Interestingly, this
deviation is most notable where there are conceptual overlaps with the leadership
field. Surie and Ashley (2008) present a conceptual model of EL, ethics and value
creation, with the intention of addressing the perceived incompatibility of wealth
creation and entrepreneurship. Jensen and Luthans (2006) consider the
development of psychological capital required for the enactment of authentic EL.
Whilst these contributions arguably have greater focus on other approaches to
368 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

leadership, given King’s (1990) assertions that leadership perspectives are

potentially iterative, these propositions have relevance to EL. This is further
demonstrated through the focus on EL development in existing literature. Despite
significant interest in the psychological approach there are still outstanding gaps
in understanding the complete entrepreneurial leader’s psychological profile in
terms of negative attributes, barriers to entry and the influence of context on
attributes (Haynes et al., 2015; Kuratko, 2007; Nicholson, 1998).
Arguably, the most prominent approach to profiling the entrepreneurial
leader focuses on behaviours (Gupta et al., 2004; Renko et al., 2015). Gupta et al.
(2004) identified two EL behavioural categories: cast enactment and scenario
enactment, using Global Leadership and Organisational Behaviour Effectiveness
Project (GLOBE) data. Given the lapse in time since the GLOBE project and the
recognition of environmental dynamism (Fernald et al., 2005), there is arguably a
challenge to its continued relevance and therefore a potential limitation of this
approach. Furthermore, its use arguably overemphasises the leadership influence
to the exclusion of entrepreneurship. This is a significant concern within the EL
paradigm as it is conceivably resonant of Vecchio’s (2003) reservations of
entrepreneurship which potentially creates the challenges to the paradigm. Whilst
these potential limitations did not hinder the advancement of this study, in a
comparison of transformational and transactional leadership (Papalexandris and
Galanaki, 2009), its omission of entrepreneurship’s influence on the paradigm did
draw criticism. Renko et al. (2015) further criticises the limitation of Gupta et al.’s
(2004) conceptualisation and its relegation of entrepreneurship’s influence,
particularly the exclusion of the behaviours; opportunity recognition and
exploitation. These behaviours are included in Renko et al.’s (2015)
ENTRELEAD measurement model of EL. This model is distinct in its ability to
measure EL based on an eight-item scale (Renko et al., 2015). This questionnaire
is based on the follower’s perceptions of their leader/manager, who is suggested
to assume the role model function (Renko et al., 2015). This is arguably
comparative to the cast enactment behaviours proposed by Gupta et al. (2004). A
further pertinent contribution of this paper is the assertion of EL as a leadership
construct which is capable of enactment in any organisational context. Yet, whilst
this model is capable of predicting future EL enactment, it is also considered to
be limited as it does not consider leadership origin or level of analysis (Prieto,
2010).
The psychological approach can be considered to advance EL through the
creation of profiles which generate debate. Furthermore, as a development of
leadership it is conceivably an unavoidable developmental stage. However, this
approach neglects to explore the development of associated human and
psychological capital. This is addressed by EL development. There is a mutuality
in dependence between these approaches as the psychological approach identifies
EL characteristics which allows for an exploration of how these were developed.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 369

Conversely, the development of entrepreneurial leaders may also inform the

inherent or pre-requisite characteristics which facilitate enactment.
EL development has been explored in both formal education institutions and
informal development opportunities (Ahmed and Ramzan, 2013; Bagheri and
Pihie, 2009; Kempster and Cope, 2010; … see Table 3). The formal opportunities
in which to develop EL are contextualised within educational institutions
(Bagheri and Pihie, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2013; Okudan and Rzasa,
2006; Pihie and Bagheri, 2013; Pihie et al., 2014a; Smith et al., 2017;
Sundararajan et al., 2012). Currently, empirical research of EL development is
somewhat limited by national context. To date EL development has been
explored in the US, Malaysia and the UK (Bagheri and Pihie, 2009, 2010a, 2010b,
2011a, 2011b, 2013; Bagheri et al., 2013; Okudan and Rzasa, 2006; Pihie and
Bagheri, 2013; Smith et al., 2017). Whilst these studies can provide insights into
formal EL development, they are limited in generalisability, thus, suggesting
further research is required in an array of contexts (Roomi and Harrison, 2011).
Smith et al. (2017) provide a link between formal and informal learning,
which has been suggested as significant in other studies (Ansari et al., 2014;
Leitch et al., 2013). The informal development opportunities available to
entrepreneurial leaders may be more significant in their continuous development
given the emphasis on environmental dynamism within the paradigm. Therefore,
it is conceivable that exploration of informal learning is more pertinent and
should be the research focus. Experiential learning was found to be significant in
the development of entrepreneurial leaders through action learning, extra-
curricular activities and networking (Ansari et al., 2014; Leitch et al., 2009, 2013;
Siddiqui, 2007; Smith et al., 2017). McGowan et al. (2015) suggested that
experiential learning is particularly important in the development of human and
social capital, however identified there are potential barriers to accessing this.
The limited prior experience of entrepreneurial leaders and difficulties in
fostering long-term network connections are suggested to create challenges to
informal learning access (Kempster and Cope, 2010). Yet, this may be mitigated
by context where the entrepreneurial leader is situated within a family firm
(Bagheri and Pihie, 2010a). Whilst there is an argument for further empirical
exploration to determine how entrepreneurial leaders develop the required
capabilities, there is also the question of EL skills. To fully examine the
developmental process, and consequently design appropriate learning
interventions, the skills requirement of entrepreneurial leaders has to be better
understood.
There is currently limited understanding of EL skills which conceivably
hinders the development of appropriate learning initiatives and the identification
of accurate characteristic profiles. Whilst the EL paradigm has received
increasing scholarly interest, there is presently only one empirical study which
examines the skills of the entrepreneurial leaders (Harrison et al., 2018). This
empirical study provides a comprehensive skills model of EL which specifically
370 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

identifies 17 skills required for success. Only one further study can be considered
to empirically contribute to the EL paradigm. Jones and Crompton’s (2009) study
of authentic EL does provide some empirical findings, yet this is limited due to its
focus on authentic leadership. Nevertheless, the assertion of opportunity
recognition as an important skill is conceivably transferable to EL (Jones and
Crompton, 2009), particularly given the identification of opportunity
identification within the EL skills model (Harrison et al., 2018). These empirical
studies do provide a basis on which to further develop empirical research on EL,
however in themselves they are limited by context (Harrison et al., 2018) and
focus (Jones and Crompton, 2009). There is also conceptual literature which can
aid the development of skills-based research (Freeman, 2014; Karol, 2015;
Lippitt, 1987). The empirical deficiency within EL skills is perplexing and
arguably negligent, given its significance. At its inception, Lippitt (1987)
distinguished skills as a substantial consideration. Yet, despite efforts to develop
psychological or behavioural profiles of entrepreneurial leaders (Gupta et al.,
2004; Renko et al., 2015), there has been limited effort to profile the vital EL
skills. Nevertheless, the recent development of Harrison et al.’s (2018) skills
model of EL, may mark an increased interest in EL skills, where significant
advancement can be made.
The deficit of EL skills literature is potentially symptomatic of its early
developmental stages and not through negligence. Similar to the antecedent field
of leadership, an increased focus on skills may emerge as the paradigm progresses
through stages of maturity (King, 1990). However, there is also an argument that
if EL is to avoid the difficulties experienced by earlier fields (Patterson et al.,
2012b), then acknowledging empirical deficits which have an impact on other
approaches and addressing these challenges may enable a fluid development.
The internal variables of EL are those which influence and comprise the
individual EL figure, their human and social capital, and their ability to develop
attributes necessary for enactment of EL. Three themes which emerged from the
thematic analysis are suggested to be internal variables: the psychological
approach, EL development, and EL skills. There is a close relationship between
these themes with iterative influence of the development of each approach. Skills
has been found to be notably lacking in empirical study which arguably limits the
development of both psychological profiling and EL development, whilst
conversely the psychological predisposition of entrepreneurial leaders may
influence their preference to developmental opportunities and skills development.
These internal variables are significant; however, they are not the only
consideration within the paradigm. EL is proposed to be a response to the external
environment, therefore it is important to recognise its influence both on internal
variables and the paradigm.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 371

5.3. External Variables

Two approaches emerged from the thematic analysis which can be considered
external variables: entrepreneurial teams and context. These are suggested to be
external to the EL due to the limited control or influence the entrepreneurial
leader is capable of asserting over these factors. Instead, the entrepreneurial
leader may have to simply respond or adapt to these factors. Yet, entrepreneurial
teams may be considered to bestride internal variables and external variables, as
there is an outside influence, however the development of social capital or the
leadership of a team also engages the individual agency of the entrepreneurial
leader.
Entrepreneurial teams is a further approach which is limited by its literature
base (Carland and Carland, 2012; Chen, 2007; Flamholtz, 2011; Oliver and Paul-
Shaheen, 1997), yet warrants further attention. There is a significant emphasis on
teams by Carland and Carland (2012) as they are suggested to be a point of
intersection which can inform the theoretical basis of the paradigm. Furthermore,
Gupta et al. (2004) place an emphasis on teams through the identified EL
behaviour of cast enactment.
The entrepreneurial teams approach presents a shift in perspective of the
leader-follower relationship, as the follower construct is arguably contested by
the proposition of their active participation in the leadership role, through a
“cross-pollination” of ideas creating organisational synergies and advancement
(Carland and Carland, 2012, p. 77). Oliver and Paul-Shaheen (1997, p. 746) echo
this notion regarding the “weaving” of ideas in innovative policy
entrepreneurship. This may be considered a challenge to the EL position,
however they are still credited with venture creation and developing a conducive
team culture (Flamholtz, 2011; Oliver and Paul-Shaheen, 1997). Furthermore, it
implies a benefit to the entrepreneurial leader in terms of their development of
social capital, through interaction with the team with a mutual benefit.
Chen (2007) explored this iterative and intertwined relationship and found a
positive correlation between EL and team performance. Team creativity was
mitigated by the entrepreneurial leader demonstrating the associated capabilities
of pro-activeness, risk-taking, and innovation (Chen, 2007; Newman et al., 2018;
Tarabishy et al., 2005). Conversely, entrepreneurial team creativity was required
to facilitate the entrepreneurial leader’s positive influence on organisational
innovation (Chen, 2007). However, a greater influence may be attributed to the
entrepreneurial leader when team composition is considered. Gupta et al. (2004)
proposed the EL behaviour of cast enactment, which conceivably includes the
selection, development and mobilisation of the team. Furthermore, the
opportunity and advantage seeking behaviour identified as being EL attributes is
potentially extended to the acquirement of human resources (Cogliser and
Brigham, 2004), to facilitate the development of an entrepreneurial team.
However, this should not only be considered in terms of followers, as the
372 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

development of an effective leadership team with shared responsibilities has also

been considered to positively impact organisational performance (Flamholtz,
2011).
Roomi and Harrison (2011) suggested that teams are a contextual concern,
specifically in relation to organisational learning. Whilst entrepreneurial teams
have been differentiated from context through the thematic analysis, it is
recognised that situation may dictate the extent to which teams influence EL.
Although there is limited literature on this conceivably situational variable, there
is a wealth of literature which explores context with a range of foci. Context has
proven to be the most studied variable within the EL paradigm (Abbas, 2014;
Arshi and Viswanath, 2013; Ballein, 1998; … see Table 3). Yet, there is disparity
in findings and a continuing debate as to the context in which EL is capable of
enactment.
Arguably the most pertinent debate within the paradigm emerges from the
assertion that EL is a reserve of new venture creation (Leitch et al., 2009, 2013;
Vecchio, 2003). Thus, the implication is that EL cannot be enacted in established
organisations. This proposed contextual parameter is a significant consideration
in the exploration of EL, particularly given the high proportion of qualitative
interpretivist studies which are shaping the paradigm. Leitch et al. (2013, p. 355)
acknowledge the impact of context on the EL paradigm due to the iterative
relationship between individuals and their environment in enacting EL, “both
shapes and is shaped by this domain”. There is a reasonable body of literature
which focuses on small organisations, and therefore supports this assertion
(Barreto and Nassif, 2014; Freeman and Siegfried, 2015; Huang et al., 2014;
Hunter and Lean, 2014; Kansikas et al., 2012; Kempster and Cope, 2010; Leitch
et al., 2009; Ng and Thorpe, 2010; Sklaveniti, 2017). However, there are also
challenges to this narrow focus (Kuratko, 2007; Kuratko and Hornsby, 1999). A
range of established organisations provide the context of empirical studies
including high-tech firms (Strubler and Redekop, 2010; Swiercz and Lydon,
2002), pharmacies (Harrison et al., 2016a; Tice, 2005), and libraries (Carpenter,
2012; Jawi and Izhar, 2016). Furthermore, D’Intino et al. (2008) present a case
study of an aviation firm where growth to an established firm and industry
influencer was enabled by EL practices beyond the departure of the initial
entrepreneurial leader. This presents an argument that EL can be retained beyond
new venture creation. Indeed, Kuratko (2007, p. 5) explicitly states
“entrepreneurial leadership now permeates the strategies of larger established
organisations”. A further challenge to Vecchio’s (2003) assertion is the
implication of EL being restricted to for-profit venture creation. This is a
perspective supported by Lippitt (1987, p. 264) who states an entrepreneurial
leader “possess[es] an economic orientation”. Yet, the phenomenon is empirically
studied in non-profit and social entrepreneurship contexts (Brown, 2009; Currie
et al., 2008; McDougall and McDavid, 2014; Newman et al., 2018; Prabhu, 1999;
Ruvio et al., 2010; Santora et al., 1999). This is not to suggest that an economic
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 373

orientation is not to the advantage of non-profit organisations, however it does

challenge the assumption of a profit motive. Instead McDougall and McDavid
(2014) suggest that social entrepreneurial leaders can be characterised by their
driving force, freedom to fail, and global perspective.
The lines of demarcation between for-profit and non-profit organisations
becomes more complex in relation to educational and health institutions (Ballein,
1998; Bagheri and Akbari, 2017; Coyle, 2014; Currie et al., 2008; Guo, 2009;
Hansson and Mønsted, 2008; Keddie et al., 2018; Oliver and Paul-Shaheen, 1997;
Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011; Pihie et al., 2014b; Pihie and Bagheri, 2013;
Suyitno et al., 2014; Yusof, 2009). The institutional arrangements of the nation
state will mitigate the extent of profit motive within these organisations, and
potentially present more complex situational variables which influence the
enactment of EL (Yousafzai et al., 2015). Whilst national context has been
utilised as a level of analysis (Abbas, 2014; Agbim et al., 2013; Choi, 2009;
Harrison et al., 2016a; Mapunda, 2007; McCarthy et al, 2010; Van Assche, 2005;
Van-Zyl and Mathur-Helm, 2007; Wang et al., 2012), they do not explore
institutional arrangements in depth. Arguably, those conducted within developed
economies are further limited by their narrow focus on niche sectors and are
therefore incapable of generalisation to the wider context in which they are
situated (Arshi and Viswanath, 2013; Choi 2009; Mapunda, 2007; Van Assche,
2005).
The influence of external variables is significant within the EL paradigm,
however there is arguably a debate as to the causality of this emphasis. It can be
argued that the research focus on this area has created prominence. Conversely,
the impact of context can be argued to have attracted the research focus.
However, the debate as to the pre-requisite conditions for the enactment of EL
could also have generated this interest. Akin to the contested theoretical basis of
EL, the flexibility afforded by a lack of rigid conceptual parameters allows for the
enlargement of EL and the investigation of its impact in a range of situations. If
the proposition of Fernald et al. (2005) is to be accepted that EL is a response to
the increased dynamism of the external environment, then context can be argued
as the foremost variable of interest. Yet, the examination of context alone may not
be sufficient in understanding EL in current competitive climates. There is a
credible proposition that the strategic intent and anticipated outcomes of the
organisation also has to be considered, as does the role of EL in facilitating this.

5.4. Outcomes of Entrepreneurial Leadership

If the impetus for the enactment of EL is its ability to meet the challenges of an
increasingly competitive external environment (Fernald et al., 2005), then
evidence to substantiate this claim has to be presented. Substantiating the impact
of EL on organisations where it is enacted is complex given the range of contexts
374 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

in which it is potentially practised, as demonstrated through the discussion of

external variables. Nevertheless, there has to be a concerted effort to identify
potential organisational benefits in order to justify its relevance to contemporary
organisations. Given the assertion of Fernald et al. (2005) the outcomes of EL are
arguably best measured by performance outcomes.
Growth has been a particular focus within existing literature (D’Intino et al.,
2008; Hmieleski and Ensley, 2007; Koryak et al., 2015), with EL conceivably
being the source of growth through competitive advantage (Chheda and Banga,
2013). This focus is potentially a consequence of Vecchio’s (2003) assertion that
EL is a new venture phenomenon, as is the focus on SMEs. A range of proxies for
performance, which are incapable of assimilation, were utilised in the study of
SMEs, customer satisfaction, innovation, and leader characteristics (Agus and
Hassan, 2010; Bagheri, 2017; Chheda and Banga, 2013; Hmieleski and Ensley,
2007 Koryak et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2018). Some EL characteristics were
proposed as influential in the achievement of growth, innovativeness, pro-
activeness, continuous improvement, and resource allocation (Chheda and Banga,
2013). However, an alternative perspective is conceivably that it is the
entrepreneurial leader’s ability to embed flexibility and adaptability in their
behaviour in order to facilitate a responsiveness to external challenges (Fernald et
al., 2005; Hmieleski and Ensley, 2007).
If Vecchio’s (2003) restriction of new venture creation is rejected, then a
wider range of contexts can be explored, and performance indicators accepted as
outcomes of EL, as demonstrated in D’Intino et al.’s (2008) case study of Boeing
Aircrafts and wider industry growth. Similarly, Choi’s (2009) study of the
Japanese textile industry also explored the growth and evolution relationship to
EL. Furthermore, Harrison et al. (2018) enlarge the context in which EL can be
enacted through the identification of business creation, business
commercialisation and business management as potential outcomes of EL, with a
successful business as the decisive outcome. The achievement of business success
cannot be restricted to new venture creation, akin to the proposed EL outcome of
organisational effectiveness (Mishra and Misra, 2017). Whilst business success
and organisational effectiveness may be considered questionable measures of EL
by their vagueness (Harrison et al., 2018; Mishra and Misra, 2017), it is
conceivable that this ambiguity actually fortifies their use as performance
measures. If EL requires flexibility to meet the challenges of an increasingly
unstable external environment (Fernald et al., 2005; He et al., 2017), then there is
arguably a requirement to recognise the self-determined performance measures of
organisations, irrespective of the complexities this may present to the academic
study of the paradigm.
The outcomes of EL are not restricted to identifying a range of performance
indicators which can be attributed to growth. EL as a response to environmental
demands was also suggested to aid the implementation of a change agenda which
cultivated innovation (Carpenter, 2012). Van Assche (2005) also explored the
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 375

influence of EL in the achievement of political goals, at an individual level.

However, there is an alternative perspective to the study of outcomes. Rather than
consider these performance indicators as a measure of EL impact, they could be
perceived as evidence of EL’s presence. Articulation of vision, and focusing on
team performance, has been considered an indication of EL (Gupta et al., 2004;
Papalexandris and Galanaki, 2009). Although this may be hypothetically
possible, the conceptual parameters of EL may have to be more firmly established
to provide an appropriate basis on which to evaluate the presence of EL. This
presents the paradigm a potential quandary, as further empirical research is
required to provide evidence on the impact of EL which can then inform its
theoretical base, however this in turn would require further empirical research to
validate it.

5.5. The Relationship of Variables

Given the early developmental stage of EL, it can be considered a paradigm

which is somewhat in flux. Whilst in its infancy, EL has developed a fragmented
and diverse literature base, prior to establishing a stable and robust theoretical
foundation. However, this is not necessarily to its detriment, and alternatively can
be considered advantageous. The theoretical foundations and conceptual
parameters of EL can be enriched and fortified by the findings and development
of research sub-streams. The mutually informative relationship of the variables
which influence EL have been depicted in the conceptual model presented
(Figure 5). Furthermore, it allows for the continued mutually beneficial influence
of the antecedent leadership and entrepreneurship fields (Reid et al., 2018).
EL’s internal variables were recognised as those which influence the
individual EL figure. Findings from research which seeks to better understand the
central figure of the paradigm will aid the development of a theoretical basis by
providing pre-requisite attributes which are capable of validation. Whilst there is
no current widely accepted definition of EL or entrepreneurial leaders, there are
some consistencies beginning to emerge. Lippitt (1987, p. 264) suggested that the
entrepreneurial leader “is able to release the energy of others and self to achieve
goals going beyond the prescribed and expected”. This is comparable to cast
enactment (Gupta et al., 2004) and implies innovation which Tarabishy et al.
(2005) suggested to be an EL characteristic – one which is being explored in
empirical research (Chen, 2007; Bagheri, 2017; Bagheri and Akbari, 2017;
Huang et al., 2014; Mokhber et al., 2016). Furthermore, the points of intersection
identified by Cogliser and Brigham (2004) included creativity, which is
analogous to innovation, and vision which can be associated with scenario
enactment (Gupta et al., 2004). Whilst these contributions can be considered to
provide some consensus as to some of the potential attributes of the
entrepreneurial leader, they do not identify the process of becoming an
376 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

entrepreneurial leader or how these attributes are obtained. This suggests that EL
development still has to identify this process and consequently inform the
theoretical basis of EL. Furthermore, there is potential for EL development to
exert some influence over the debate of new venture creation as a paradigmatic
parameter (Vecchio, 2003). If the process of becoming an entrepreneurial leader
can be illuminated, it could provide evidence of becoming an entrepreneurial
leader through the course of experiential learning in establishing a new venture,
or otherwise. Yet, the exploration of EL development and its potential to inform
its theoretical base raises the question of skills. EL skills is a research stream
which requires development, yet its importance cannot be understated given
Lippitt’s (1987) early identification of skills as significant. Arguably, EL skills is
the sub-stream which has the ability to link the individual EL figure to the
enactment of practices and the achievement of desired outcomes, as proposed by
Harrison et al.’s (2018) EL skills model. Fernald et al. (2005) suggested it was the
successful EL practices which were capable of meeting the diverse challenges
presented by the external environment, therefore there has to be an understanding
of the means through which the individual achieves this. The behaviour identified
by Gupta et al. (2004) of cast enactment does not fully explain how this is
achieved, and the means through which team performance is facilitated by the
entrepreneurial leader. As skills provides a link from the individual to enactment,
the processes and pre-requisites required to engage a team may be better
understood, thus a clearer conceptualisation of the entrepreneurial leader can
emerge and be validated by further empirical study. The interpersonal and
conceptual skills identified by Harrison et al. (2018) provide a basis on which this
research can further develop.
Given the impetus for EL, the external variables have to be recognised as
fundamental to developing the theoretical basis and parameters of EL. This is
compounded by the debate over new venture creation, and if this can be
considered the pursuit of new opportunities within established organisations
(Kuratko, 2007; Vecchio, 2003). There is an iterative relationship between the
theoretical development of EL and empirical research which explores context.
The assertions which form the debate over new venture creation may inform the
unit of analysis in empirical study, whilst findings from research has substantiated
both of these conflicting perspectives (Chen, 2007; Chheda and Banga, 2013;
Nicholson, 1998; Papalexandris and Galanaki, 2009). Furthermore, empirical
research within non-profit organisations and social enterprises potentially
expands the theoretical boundaries of EL (Brown, 2009; Newman et al., 2018;
Ruvio et al., 2010; Santora et al., 1999), from the economic orientation proposed
early within the paradigm’s development (Lippitt, 1987). However, external
variables are not limited to context and the influence of entrepreneurial teams on
the theoretical development of EL should also be considered. As a proposed point
of intersection (Carland and Carland, 2012), entrepreneurial teams conceivably
should have garnered more interest than its current literature base. There is
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 377

currently no empirical research to validate Carland and Carland’s (2012)

proposition regarding these points of convergence. However, even if this was to
be rejected there is still a potentially notable influence of teams within the EL
construct. Internal variables were suggested to influence the development of an
entrepreneurial leader construct yet were recognised as being limited in
explaining enactment. Entrepreneurial teams could be informative as they are the
channel in which entrepreneurial leaders can action successful practices (Gupta
et al., 2004; Fernald et al., 2005; Lippitt, 1987), which Kakabadse et al. (2018, p.
164) suggest could be considered a “co-developmental activity”.
The outcomes of EL provide a critical influence on its theoretical
development. In addition to providing a rationale for the application of EL, by
acknowledging the outcomes of its enactment, a link between the individual
entrepreneurial leaders and the associated practices and the organisational benefit
of EL can be established. This can aid the development of conceptual parameters
and potentially inform practice through facilitating the identification of EL. A
potential challenge to current empirical research of EL is arguably the ability of
external researchers to identify the entrepreneurial leader. Proxies of EL have to
be utilised (Chen, 2007; Tarabishy et al., 2005). However, if the ongoing
empirical research of organisational performance is included in the development
of the paradigm’s theoretical base, accepted criteria of EL outcomes can be
developed. This may aid the assimilation of future performance-based research,
where there are accepted relationships between organisational performance and
EL. Nevertheless, this may be an on-going process as the paradigm matures.

6. Conclusion and Limitations

EL has been recognised as an emergent paradigm with a reasonable yet

fragmented literature base through the systematic review of literature. This
extensive SLR applied a robust and replicable methodology in order to produce a
transparent and comprehensive review. Yet, there are potential limitations. Grey
literature was excluded, and the search focused on peer-reviewed literature; thus,
potentially eliminating some insights into EL. However, this did facilitate a
manageable body of literature which successfully passed the quality assessment,
which grey literature may not have done. Furthermore, the search was limited to
the utilised databases, although a wide range of databases were utilised to counter
this. The search yielded 112 EL papers which were then subjected to a
quantitative and qualitative analysis. Yet, as an active area of inquiry, EL research
is continuously being produced. This limits this SLR to those articles published
before the completion date of 26th November 2018.
From the SLR and thematic analysis findings a conceptual framework was
developed, which depicts the resultant themes according to their influence on the
EL construct. The discussion of the conceptual framework aimed to illuminate
378 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

the current state of EL and its complexities, whilst addressing the theoretical
challenges created through the fragmentation of literature. Research opportunities
have emerged from this exploration, particularly with respect to the relationship
between variables and with respect to current paradigmatic challenges. These are
presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Future Research Opportunities

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION EL COMPONENT
Further exploration of the EL paradigm through a feminist lens, which will allow Theoretical Development
for a more in depth understanding of masculine, feminine, agentic and communal
behaviours.
An exploration of the influence of entrepreneurial leadership on the antecedent Theoretical Development
field of leadership and entrepreneurship, and the mutual impact they have on
each other.
Investigate the effect of formal and informal entrepreneurial leadership Internal Variables
development opportunities on the enlargement of entrepreneurial leadership
skills.
Exploration on the congruence of various psychological profiles of Internal Variables
entrepreneurial leadership, to establish if the principles and values identified can
co-exist with the proposed attributes.
Further exploration of negative entrepreneurial leaders to develop full Internal Variables
entrepreneurial leadership psychological profiles.
Greater exploration of entrepreneurial leadership skills across a variety of Internal Variables
contexts.
Further exploration on the relationship between entrepreneurial leaders and their External Variables
teams.
Investigation of the role of entrepreneurial teams within innovative External Variables
organisations.
Exploration of strategic intent in the enactment of entrepreneurial leadership. External Variables
Investigation of indicators of entrepreneurial leadership. Outcomes
Exploration of the skills level of entrepreneurial leaders and the influence that Relationships of Variables
has on followers.
The establishment of a set of criteria for entrepreneurial leadership outcomes. Relationships of Variables

This conceptual framework can also facilitate a basis on which to enlarge the
flourishing EL field, which requires a greater empirical contribution. It is
irrefutable that there are promising research opportunities and more progress to
be made within the paradigm, however there is a debate as to how it should be
advanced. Whilst there may be an argument for the development of structured
paradigmatic boundaries and definitional consensus, there is also a compelling
argument for further enlargement of EL prior to establishing conceptual rigidity.
The flexibility afforded by the latter could illuminate further considerations and
provide nuance to a dynamic paradigm.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 379

References:

Abbas, M.K. (2014), “The challenges of entrepreneurial leadership in Nigeria”, Journal of

Leadership and Management Studies, 1(1): p 52-59.
Agbim, K.C., Oriarewo G.O., and Owutuamor, Z.B. (2013), “An exploratory study of the
entrepreneurial capabilities in Anambra State, Nigeria”, Journal of Business Management and
Social Science Research, 2(9): p 68-75.
Agus, A., and Hassan, Z. (2010), “The structural influence of entrepreneurial leadership,
communication skills, determination and motivation on sales and customer satisfaction”,
International Journal of Business Development, 2(1): p 109-130.
Ahmed, A., and Ramzan, M. (2013), “A learning and improvement model in entrepreneurial
leadership”, Journal of Business and Management, 11(6): p 50-60.
Ansari, S., Bell J., Iver B., and Schlesinger P. (2014), “Educating entrepreneurial leaders”, Journal
of Entrepreneurial Education, 17(2): p 31-51.
Arshi, T., and Viswanath, S. (2013), “Entrepreneurial leadership and innovation: An empirical
study on organisational leadership characteristics and entrepreneurial innovation intensity”,
American Journal of Social Issues and Humanities, 3(5): p 234-243.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001), “Thematic networks: An analytical tool for qualitative research”,
Qualitative Research, 1(8): p 385-405.
Bagheri, A. (2017), “The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behaviour and
opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs”, Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 28(2): p 159-166.
Bagheri, A., and Akbari, M. (2017), “The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on nurses’
innovation behaviour”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 50(1): p 28-35.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2009), “An exploratory study of entrepreneurial leadership
development of university students”, European Journal of Social Science, 11(1): p 177-190.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2010a), “Entrepreneurial leadership learning: In search of missing
links”, International Conference on Learning Diversity, 7: p 470-479.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2010b), “Role of family in entrepreneurial leadership development
of university students”, World Applies Science Journal, 11(4): p 434-442.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2011a), “On becoming and entrepreneurial leaders: A focus on the
impacts of university entrepreneurial programs”, American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(9):
p 884-892.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2011b), “Entrepreneurial leadership: Towards a model for learning
and development”, Human Resource Development International, 14(4): p 447-463.
Bagheri, A., and Pihie, Z.A.L. (2013), “Role of university entrepreneurship programs in developing
students’ entrepreneurial leadership competencies: Perspectives from Malaysian
undergraduate students”, Journal of Education for Business, 88(1): p 51-61.
Bagheri, A., Pihie, Z.A.L. and Krauss, E. (2013), “Entrepreneurial leadership competencies among
Malaysian university student entrepreneurial leaders”, Asia Journal of Education, 33(4): p
493-508.
Ballein, K.M. (1998), “Entrepreneurial leadership characteristics on SNEs emerge as their role
develops”, Nursing Administration Quarterly, 22(2): p 60-69.
Barreto, J.C., and Nassif, V.M.J. (2014), “Entrepreneurial leaders and the dissemination of the
entrepreneurial orientation”, Review of Business Management, 16(51): p 180-198.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information, London: Sage.
Brown, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial leadership and cultural change in a faith-based organisation”,
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 10(2): p 125-135.
Carland, J.C., and Carland, J.W. (2012), “A model of shared entrepreneurial leadership”, Academy
of Entrepreneurship Journal, 18(2): p 71-81.
Carpenter, M.T.H. (2012), “Cheerleader, opportunity seeker, and master strategist: ARL directors
as entrepreneurial leaders”, College and Research Libraries, 73(1): p 11-32.
Chen, M. (2007), “Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Creativity in entrepreneurial
teams”, Entrepreneurial Leadership and New Ventures, 16(3): p 239-249.
380 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Chheda, K., and Banga, C. (2013), “Impact of entrepreneurial leadership on performance of small
and medium enterprises in India”, Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 11(2):
p 34-69.
Choi, E.K. (2009), “Entrepreneurial leadership in the Meiji cotton spinners’ early conceptualisation
of global competition”, Business History, 51(6): p 927-958.
Clark, C.M. and Harrison, C. (2018), “Leadership: The complexities and state of the field”,
European Business Review, 30(5): p 514-528.
Cogliser, C.C., and Brigham, K.H. (2004), “The intersection between leadership and
entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned”, Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): p 771-799.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (2002), “The entrepreneurial imperatives of strategic leadership”, in:
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Camp, S.M. and Sexton, D.L. (Eds.), Strategic Entrepreneurship:
Creating a New Mindset, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, p 309-327.
Coyle, P. (2014), “How entrepreneurial leadership can engage university staff in the development
of an entrepreneurial culture”, Industry and Higher Education, 28(4): p 263-269.
Currie, G., Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D., and McManus, S. (2008), “Entrepreneurial leadership
in the English public sector: Paradox or possibility?”, Public Administration, 86(4): p 987-
1008.
D’Intino, R.S., Boyles, T., Neck, C.P., and Hall, J.R. (2008), “Visionary entrepreneurial leadership
in the aircraft industry: The Boeing Company legacy”, Journal of Management History, 14(1):
p 39-54.
Darling, J.R., and Beebe, S.A. (2007), “Enhancing entrepreneurial leadership: A focus on
communication priorities”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 20(2): p 151-167.
Darling, J., Gabrielsson, M. and Seristö, H. (2007a), “Enhancing contemporary entrepreneurship: A
focus on management leadership”, European Business Review, 19(1): p 4- 22.
Darling, J.R., Keeffe, M.J. and Ross, J.K. (2007b), “Entrepreneurial leadership strategies and
values: Keys to operational excellence”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
20(1): p 41-54.
Dean, H. and Ford, J. (2017), “Discourses of entrepreneurial leadership: Exposing myths and
exploring new approaches”, International Small Business Journal, 35(2): p 178-196.
Denyer, D., and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in: Buchanan, D.A. and
Bryman, A. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, London: Sage,
p 671-689.
Ellingson, L.L. (2011), “Analysis and representation across the continuum”, in: Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage, p 595-610.
Fernald, L.W., Solomon, G.T. and Tarabishy, A. (2005), “A new paradigm: Entrepreneurial
leadership”, Southern Business Review, 30(2): p 1-10.
Flamholtz, E.G. (2011), “The leadership molecule hypothesis: Implications for entrepreneurial
organizations”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 9(3): p 159-182.
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F. and Davidson, L. (2002), “Understanding and evaluating
qualitative research”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6): p 717-732.
Freeman, D. (2014), “Entrepreneurial leadership across contexts: Unique challenges and skills”,
Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3): p 40-41.
Freeman, D., and Siegfried, R.L. (2015), “Entrepreneurial leadership in the context of company
start-up and growth”, Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4): p 35-39.
Galloway, L., Kapasi, I. and Sang, K. (2015), “Entrepreneurship, leadership, and the value of
feminist approaches to understanding them”, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3): p
683-692.
Gartner, W.B. (2001), “Is there an elephant in entrepreneurship? Blind assumptions in theory
development”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4): p 27-39.
Greenberg, D., McKone-Sweet, K. and Wilson, H.J. (2013), “Entrepreneurial leaders: Creating
opportunity in an unknowable world”, Leader to Leader, 2013(67): p 56-62.
Guo, K.L. (2009), “Core competencies of the entrepreneurial leader in health care organisations”,
The Health Care Manager, 28(1): p 19-29.
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I.C. and Surie, G. (2004), “Entrepreneurial leadership: Developing and
measuring a cross-cultural construct”, Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2): p 241-260.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 381

Hansson, F., and Mønsted, M. (2008), “Research leadership as entrepreneurial organising for
research”, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3): p 693-670.
Harrison, R.T., and Leitch, C.M. (1994), “Entrepreneurship and leadership: The implications for
education and development”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6(2): p 111-125.
Harrison, R., Leitch, C. and McAdam, M. (2015), “Breaking glass: Towards a gendered analysis of
entrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3): p 693-713.
Harrison, C., Burnard, K. and Paul, S. (2018), “Entrepreneurial leadership in a developing
economy: A skills-based analysis”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
25(3): p 521-548.
Harrison, C., Paul, S. and Burnard, K. (2016a), “Entrepreneurial leadership in retail pharmacy:
Developing economy perspective”, Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3): p 150-167.
Harrison, C., Paul, S. and Burnard, K. (2016b), “Entrepreneurial leadership: A systematic literature
review”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, 14(2): p 235-264.
Haynes, K.T., Hitt, M.A. and Campbell, J.T. (2015), “The dark side of leadership: Towards a mid-
range theory of hubris and greed in entrepreneurial contexts”, Journal of Management Studies,
52(4): p 479-505.
He, L., Standen, P. and Coetzer, A. (2017), “The perceived personal characteristics of
entrepreneurial leaders”, Small Enterprise Research, 24(2): p 97-119.
Henry, C., Foss, L., Fayolloe, A., Walker, E. and Duffy, S. (2015), “Entrepreneurial leadership and
gender: Exploring theory and practice in global contexts”, Journal of Small Business
Management, 53(3): p 581-586.
Hmieleski, K.M., and Ensley, E.D. (2007), “A contextual examination of new venture performance:
Entrepreneur leadership behaviour, top management team heterogeneity and environmental
dynamism”, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 28(7): p 865-889.
Huang, S., Ding, D., and Chen. Z. (2014), “Entrepreneurial leadership and performance in Chinese
new ventures: A moderated mediation model of exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation and environmental dynamism”, Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(4): p
453-471.
Hunter, L., and Lean, J. (2014), “Investigating the role of entrepreneurial leadership and social
capital in SME competitiveness in the food and drink industry”, Entrepreneurship and
Innovation, 15(3): p 179-190.
Jawi, A.I.M., and Izhar, T.A.T. (2016), “Entrepreneurial leadership capabilities and innovativeness
in academic libraries: A research model”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 6(1): p 28-38.
Jensen, S.M., and Luthans, F. (2006), “Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’
attitudes”, Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 27(8): p 646-666.
Jones, O., and Crompton, H. (2009), “Enterprise logic and small firms: A model of authentic
entrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(4): p 329-351.
Kakabadse, N.K., Tatli, A., Nicolopoulou, K., Tankibayeva, A. and Mouraviev, N. (2018), “A
gender perspective on entrepreneurial leadership: Female leaders in Kazakhstan”, European
Management Review, 15(2): p 155-170.
Kansikas, J., Laakkonen, A., Sarpo, V. and Kontinen, T. (2012), “Entrepreneurial leadership and
familiness as resources for strategic entrepreneurship”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 18(2): p 141-158.
Karol, R.A. (2015), “Leadership in the context of corporate entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(4): p 30-34.
Keddie, A., Gobby, B. and Wilkins, C. (2018), “School autonomy reform in Queensland:
Governance, freedom and the entrepreneurial leader”, School Leadership and Management,
38(4): p 378-394.
Kempster, S., and Cope, J. (2010), “Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 16(1): p 5-34.
Kesidou, E. and Carter, S. (2018), “Entrepreneurial leadership: An exploratory study of attitudinal
and behavioural patterns over the business life-cycle”, International Review of
Entrepreneurship, 16(1): p. 63-88.
King, A.S. (1990), “Evolution of leadership theory”, Vikalpa, 15(2): p 43-54.
King, N. and Horrocks, C. (2010), Interviews in Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
382 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Koryak, O., Mole, K.F., Lockett, A., Hayton, J.C., Ucbasaran, D. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2015),
“Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth”, International Small Business
Journal, 33(1): p 89-105.
Kuratko, D.F. (2007), “Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st Century”, Journal of Leadership and
Organisational Studies, 13(4): p 1-11. st
Kuratko, D.F., and Hornsby, J.S. (1999), “Corporate entrepreneurial leadership for the 21
Century”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2): p 27-39.
Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T. (2009), “Leadership development in SMEs: An
action learning approach”, Action Learning: Research and Practice, 6(3): p 243-263.
Leitch, C.M., McMullan, C. and Harrison, R.T. (2013), “The development of entrepreneurial
leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital”, British Journal of
Management, 24(3): p 347-366.
Leitch, C.M., and Volery, T. (2017), “Entrepreneurial leadership: Insights and directions”,
International Small Business Journal, 35(2): p 147-156.
Lewis, K. (2015), “Enacting entrepreneurship and leadership: A longitudinal exploration of
gendered identity work”, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3): p 662-682.
Lippitt, G.L. (1987), “Entrepreneurial leadership: A performing art”, The Journal of Creative
Behaviour, 21(3): p 264-270.
Mapunda, G. (2007), “Entrepreneurial leadership and indigenous enterprise development”, Journal
of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 3(3): p 1-16.
McCarthy, D.J., Puffer, S.M. and Darda, S.V. (2010), “Convergence in entrepreneurial leadership
style: Evidence from Russia”, California Management Review, 52(4): p 48-72.
McDonald, S., Gan, B.C., Fraser, S.S., Oke, A. and Anderson, A.R. (2015), “A review of research
methods in entrepreneurship 1985-2013”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
and Research, 21(3): p 291-315.
McDougall, H.R., and McDavid, S.L. (2014), “Go global, innovate! Training social entrepreneurial
leaders”, Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3): p 46-51.
McGowan, P., Cooper, S., Durkin, M. and O’Kane, C. (2015), “The influence of social and human
capital in developing young women as entrepreneurial leaders”, Journal of Small Business
Management, 53(3): p 645-661.
McKone-Sweet, K.E., and Greenberg, D. (2011), “A giving voice to values approach to educating
entrepreneurial leaders”, Journal of Business Ethics Education, 8(1): p 337-342.
Mgeni, T.O., and Nayak, P. (2015), “Impacts of entrepreneurial leadership style on business
performance of female-owned SMEs in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania”, Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Management, 4(2): p 39-50.
Middlebrooks, A. (2015), “Introduction – entrepreneurial leadership across contexts”, Journal of
Leadership Studies, 8(4): p 27-29.
Mishra, P., and Misra, R.K. (2017), “Entrepreneurial leadership and organisational effectiveness: A
comparative study of executives and non-executives”, Procedia Computer Science, 122: p 71-
78.
Mokhber, M., Tan, G.G., Vakilbashi, A., Zamil, N.A.M. and Basiruddin, R. (2016), “Impact of
entrepreneurial leadership on organisational demand for innovation: Moderating role of
employees’ innovative self-efficacy”, International Review of Management and Marketing,
6(3): p 415-421.
Newman, A., Neesham, C., Manville, G. and Tse, H.H.M. (2018), “Examining the influence of
servant and entrepreneurial leadership on the work outcomes of employees in social
enterprises”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(20): p 2905-2926.
Ng, W., and Thorpe, R. (2010), “Not another study of great leaders: Entrepreneurial leadership in a
mid-sized firm for its further growth and development”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 16(5): p 457-476.
Nicholson, N. (1998), “Personality and entrepreneurial leadership: A study of the heads of the UK’s
most successful independent companies”, European Management Journal, 16(5): p 529-539.
Okudan, G.E., and Rzasa, S.E. (2006), “A project-based approach to entrepreneurial leadership
education”, Technovation, 26(2): p 195-210.
Oliver, T.R., and Paul-Shaheen, P. (1997), “Translating ideas into action: Entrepreneurial
leadership in state health care reforms”, Journal of Health Politics, 22(3): p 721-788.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, Article #1611, 17(3) 383

Papalexandris, N., and Galanaki, E. (2009), “Leadership’s impact on employee engagement:

Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs”, Leadership & Organisation
Development Journal, 30(4): p 365-385.
Parris, D.L., and Peachey, J.W. (2013), “A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory
in organisational context”, Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3): p 377-393.
Parry, K., Mumford, M.D., Bower, I. and Watts, L.L. (2014), “Qualitative and historiometric
methods in leadership research: A review of the first 25 years of The Leadership Quarterly”,
Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): p 132-151.
Pashiardis, P., and Savvides, V. (2011), “The interplay between instructional and entrepreneurial
leadership styles in Cyprus rural primary schools”, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(4): p
412-427.
Patterson, N., Mavin, S., and Turner, J. (2012a), “Unsettling the gender binary: Experiences of
gender in entrepreneurial leadership and implications for HRD”, European Journal of
Training and Development, 36(7): p 687-711.
Patterson N., Mavin, S. and Turner, J. (2012b), “Envisioning female entrepreneurship: Leaders
anew from a gender perspective”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(6): p
395-416.
Pettigrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006), Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical
Guide, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Pihie, Z.A.L., Asimiran, S. and Bagheri, A. (2014a), “Entrepreneurial leadership practices and
school innovativeness”, South African Journal of Education, 34(1): p 1-11.
Pihie, Z.A.L., Bagheri, A. and Asimiran, S. (2014b), “Entrepreneurial leadership behaviour among
school principals: Perspectives from Malaysian secondary school teachers”, Pertanika Journal
of Social Sciences and Humanities, 22(3): p 825-843.
Pihie, Z.A.L., and Bagheri, A. (2013), “The impact of principals’ entrepreneurial leadership
behaviour on school organisational innovativeness”, Life Science Journal, 10(2): p 1033-1041.
Pittaway, J., and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurial education: A systematic review of the evidence”,
International Small Business Journal, 25(5): p 479-510.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. and Neely, A. (2004), “Networking and
innovation: A systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of Management
Review, 5/6(3&4): p 137-168.
Prabhu, G.N. (1999), “Social entrepreneurial leadership”, Career Development International, 4(3):
p 140-145.
Prieto, L.C. (2010), “Proactive personality and entrepreneurial leadership: Exploring the
moderating role of organisational identification and political skill”, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 16(2): p 107-121.
Reid, S.W., Anglin, A.H., Baur, J.E., Short, J.C. and Buckley, M.R. (2018), “Blazing new trails or
opportunity lost? Evaluating research at the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship”,
The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1): p 150-164.
Renko, M., Tarabishy, A.E., Carsrud, A.L. and Brannback, M. (2015), “Understanding and
measuring entrepreneurial leadership style”, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1): p
54-74.
Roomi, M.A., and Harrison, P. (2011), “Entrepreneurial leadership: What is it and how should it be
taught?” International Review of Entrepreneurship, 9(3): p 183-226.
Röschke, A. (2018), “The concept and evolution of entrepreneurial leadership: A bibliometric
analysis”, in: Harrison, R.T. and Leitch, C.M. (Eds.), Research Handbook on
Entrepreneurship and Leadership, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, p 37-64.
Ruvio, A., Rosenblatt, Z. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010), “Entrepreneurial leadership vision in
non-profit vs. for-profit organisations”, Leadership Quarterly, 21(1): p 144-158.
Santora, J.C., Seaton, W. and Sarros, J.C. (1999), “Changing times: Entrepreneurial leadership in a
community-based non-profit organisation”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3/4): p 101-
109.
Siddiqui, A. (2007), “An empirical study of traits determining entrepreneurial leadership – an
educational perspective”, Skyline Business Journal, 4(1): p 37-44.
384 Developing a Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Leadership

Sklaveniti, C. (2017), “Processes of entrepreneurial leadership: Co-acting creativity and direction

in the emergence of new SME ventures”, International Small Business Journal, 35(2): p 197-
213.
Smith, S., Kempster, S. and Barnes, S. (2017), “Up the ANTe: Understanding entrepreneurial
leadership learning through actor-network theory”, Industry and Higher Education, 31(2): p
132-139.
Strubler, D.C., and Redekop, B.W. (2010), “Entrepreneurial human resource leadership: A
conversation with Dwight Carlson”, Human Resource Management, 49(4): p 793-804.
Sundararajan, M., Sundararajan, B. and Henderson, S. (2012), “Role of meditative foundation
entrepreneurial leadership and new venture success”, Journal of Spirituality, Leadership and
Management, 6(1): p 59-70.
Surie, G., and Ashley, A. (2008), “Integrating pragmatism and ethics in entrepreneurial leadership
for sustainable value creation”, Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1): p 235-246.
Suyitno, S., Sonhadji, A., Arifin, I. and Ulfatin, N. (2014), “Entrepreneurial leadership of vocational
schools principals in Indonesia”, International Journal of Learning and Development, 4(1): p
1-20.
Swiercz, P.M., and Lydon, S.R. (2002), “Entrepreneurial leadership in high-tech firms: A field
study”, Leadership and Organisational Development Journal, 23(7): p 380-389.
Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald, L.W. and Saskin, M. (2005), “The entrepreneurial leader’s
impact on the organisation’s performance in dynamic markets”, The Journal of Private Equity,
8(4): p 20-29.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., MacPherson, A. and Pittaway, L. (2005), “Using knowledge within small and
medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence”, International Journal of
Management Review, 7(4): p 257-281.
Tice, B.P. (2005), “Advancing pharmacy through entrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of the
American Pharmacists Association, 45(5): p 546-553.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, 14(3): p 207-222.
Tuckett, A.G. (2005), “Applying thematic analysis theory to practice: A researcher’s experience”,
Contemporary Nurse, 19(1/2): p 75-87.
Van Assche, T. (2005), “The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on EU high politics: A case study
of Jacques Delors and the creation of EMU”, Leadership, 1(3): p 279-298.
Van Zyl, H.J.C., and Mathur-Helm, B. (2007), “Exploring a conceptual model, based on the
combined effects of entrepreneurial leadership, market orientation and relationship marketing
orientation on South Africa’s small tourism business performance”, South African Journal of
Business Management, 38(2): p 17-24.
Vecchio, R.P. (2003), “Entrepreneurship and leadership: Common trends and common threads”,
Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): p 303-327.
Wang, C.L., Tee, D.D. and Ahmed, P.K. (2012), “Entrepreneurial leadership and context in Chinese
firms: A tale of two Chinese private enterprises”, Asia Pacific Business Review, 18(4): p 505-
530.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Saeed, S. and Muffatto, M. (2015), “Institutional theory and contextual
embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurial leadership: Evidence from 92 countries”, Journal
of Small Business Management, 53(3): p 587-604.
Yusof, M. (2009), “Entrepreneurial leadership and academic entrepreneurship in Malaysian public
research universities”, Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(3): p 63-83.
Zimmerman, J. (2014), “Toward a hypothesis connecting leadership and entrepreneurship”,
International Journal of Management and Information Systems, 18(4): p 291-298.