According Zhara et al. (1999), different scholars use different terms to describe entrepreneurship (eg, entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, entrepreneurship position, orientation), but contrary to the variety of terms used to describe entrepreneurship, the consistency entrepreneurship in relation to the definition and measurement.
In general, enterprise-based research is generally focused on either the behavior or traits. Since the nineties, the behavior is based the vast majority of entrepreneurship research, the main reason for this is limited success in academics to reinforce the existence of common features that characterize entrepreneurs (Smart and Conant , 1994). Gartner (1988) argues that attention should focus on “what does the employer” and not “who is the employer.” Behavior-based research focused on the process of entrepreneurship through the activities of the employer, rather than referring to specific personal traits (Smart and Conant, 1994). Behavior-based entrepreneurship research is usually conducted at the employer, however, scholars argue that entrepreneurship is at the enterprise level and (CARLANDER et. H 1984, Naman and Slevin , 1993, Lumpkin and Dess, 1996, Wiklund 1999).
This article tries to establish a common base for defining firm level entrepreneurship. Naman and Slevin (1993) argues that the organization can be characterized and measured by the level of entrepreneurship demonstrated by the management. According to Covina and Slevin (1986), top managers in the entrepreneurial spirit of the company have a management style of entrepreneurship, which affect the strategic decisions and management philosophy.
In order to establish the definition of the firm’s levels of entrepreneurship, it is necessary to present the characteristics of behavior management used by scholars of the subject. Schumpeter (1934) argues that innovation is the only behavior that separates entrepreneurship entrepreneurship activities to non-activity of entrepreneurship. Innovation concerns the search of creative solutions through the development and improvement of services and products, and administrative techniques and technology (Davis et al., 1991). The innovation of the company reflects the tendency to support new ideas and procedures, which may end up as new products or services Lumpkin and Dess (1996).
In his book “Essai sur la Nature Commerce in General,” Richard Cantillon (1755) argues that the essence of entrepreneurship is a risky behavior. According to Lumpkin and Dess (1996), risk can range from relatively “safe” risk as deposit money in bank shares as too risky to invest in untested technology or launching new products to market. In its investigation, Miller and Friesen (1982) define a model of entrepreneurial innovation, this model for the company to innovate boldly and regularly while taking risks in its strategy.
Third dimension, which can be added to the innovation and risk taking, is proactive. According to Davis et al., (1991) is associated with an aggressive posture dynamics, relative to competitors in seeking to achieve business objectives by all means necessary rational. Lumpkin and Dess (2001) report that relate to the dynamic way in which the company is associated with business opportunities through the acquisition of market initiatives operating in.
Although other dimensions are used to define enterprise-level companies, the vast majority of studies using these three dimensions – innovation, risk taking and proactive (eg, Miller and Friesen, 1978; Covina and Slevin, 1986 1989, Naman and Slevin, 1993; Knight, 1993, Wiklund 1999).
