Who_Is_an_Entrepreneur

According to Gartner, “Who Is an Entrepreneur'” Is the Wrong Question’. Drawing on the literature discuss why this might be the case. Introduction The question of ‘who is an entrepreneur'’ has fuelled research for many years, with various research methods and theories in order to identify the entrepreneur and their activities. Gartner believes that the question asked is the wrong one and states that we should be concentrating on what the entrepreneur does and not who the entrepreneur is. In this report we will look at both questions and the theory behind each, being the trait approach and the behavioural concept. Looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each research method giving detailed arguments concluding to whether Gartner’s proposition hold true. Yeats put the analogy across of “how can we know the dancer for the dance'” (Yeats, 1959), the same can be applied to entrepreneurship. How do we know the entrepreneur; if we took him out of the environment would he or she act the same. The actions of an entrepreneur has lead to why they act that way and ‘are there certain attributes'’ resulting in the question ‘Who is an Entrepreneur'’ This process is what Gartner believes to be the wrong approach. Trait approach This approach is based upon traits and personality characteristics of the entrepreneur. These are constant attributes that do not go away dependent on the environment the entrepreneur is in. There are both strengths and weaknesses to this theory and by weighing them up, there will be a view to whether the trait approach holds true. The entrepreneur is the basic unit of analysis, concentrating on the individual himself to decipher the makeup of what constitutes an entrepreneurial human being. The trait approach specifies that some people are born as entrepreneurs and that it doesn’t matter about the environment, that is the person them self that holds the key. Nine characteristics are said to be true in entrepreneurs according to David Robinson with the most important at the top: • A desire to achieve • Hard working • Nurturing quality • Acceptance • Reward Orientation • Optimism • Orientation of excellence • Organisation • Profit orientation The top two are said to the most important traits in an entrepreneur and according to Robinson “these two, basic character traits must be inborn if the entrepreneur is to succeed” (Robinson 1990 pg. 11) If this is true the trait theory holds the most important parts of the entrepreneurial mind at the top. This would result in research being highly likely to find people who possess the abilities through the correct criterion. All of the above traits are ones you would assume an entrepreneur to possess. It seems true that someone within these qualities would not seek to perform successfully under entrepreneurial conditions. The trait approach finds it very easy to link entrepreneurs being ‘special people’ who possess attributes that others cannot acquire. Gartner believes that this is incorrect and will lead to the wrong question as proposed. “Do entrepreneurs cause entrepreneurship'” (Gartner, 1988 pg. 2), not quite the chicken and the egg of which one comes first but more so of which one to concentrate research on in order to create the correct profile if there is to be one of an entrepreneur. It was stated above that the entrepreneur is always in the state of entrepreneurial activities however there has been significant argument against this factor from the likes of A.H Cole. The contradictory view is one that will be discussed below. The method(s) in which this trait theory has been constructed and acted out has come under scrutiny also, the research methods were said “not developed for or specifically intended to be used in the study of entrepreneurship” (Hornaday, 1987). Also personality traits are supposed to be used originally over a large range of situations, by pinpointing entrepreneurship it loses its effectiveness. Finally the gap between someone who is a well achieved manager and an entrepreneur is smaller than some may think. Could the characteristics of a manager be translated over to an entrepreneur and would the trait approach confuse the perception or categorise entrepreneurs into managers for a number of reasons. An Intrapreneur is someone who holds the attributes of an entrepreneur however they operate within a business. This would put constraints on the individual and lead to a reduced locus of control, adding barriers where the individual could potentially flourish. Resulting in certain people who could hold entrepreneurial success out of the criteria set by the Trait approach. Behavioural This theory concentrates more on what the entrepreneur does not what he is, in an attempt to see if it is the actions, not necessarily the trait he possess which lead to entrepreneurial activities. Cole who originally quoted Say (1816) suggests that the entrepreneur is an “economic agent” (Cole 1969) that is involved in the process of starting up a new business. The start up is only one stage of the business life cycle so contradicting the trait approach the entrepreneur is not in the same state forever, he will move on dependant on the environment of the business. This can be seen to be true, with the likes of the Dragons Den, yes they were entrepreneurs in their own rights however they now take on the role of ownership and figurehead. They may help new entrepreneurs start up however they have moved on from the original ‘process’ which made them their fortunes. Van de Ven stated that there is “no empirical evidence found to support the expectation that there are a finite number of characteristics or traits of leaders” (Van de Ven, 1980, pg 12). Taking this theory it makes its hard to therefore see the trait approach as the one to theorise. Every individual person is different and no two are the same, they may hold similar but not exact traits. So van de Ven stresses that you cannot categorise an entrepreneur into a specific set of characteristics. “When certain psychological traits are carefully evaluated, it is not possible to differentiate entrepreneurs from managers or from the general public populations based on the entrepreneurs supposed possession of traits” (Brockhaus 1980, Brockhaus & Nord 1979, Sexton & Kent 1981). Instead the behavioural approach seeks to determine “what situational factors or conditions moderate the effects” (Gartner 1988, pg 13) of an entrepreneurs’ behaviour & performance. This again puts emphasis on the environment and situation that facilitate the entrepreneurial activities. With looking at the behavioural theory it may hold too much emphasis on the nurture of the entrepreneur and suppress the fact that some individuals may hold entrepreneurial traits from an inborn perspective. Research has posed the question that why do some people flourish in similar environments to others that fail. Could it be that there is truth in entrepreneurs being born not made. A main concept by Gartner is that entrepreneurs are only so at certain points in a business process, this means that they are only entrepreneurs in their business life and do not seek any of these attributes in other walks of life. Would the individual not strive to succeed in every matter of their personal life also' Can they give a high amount of effort in work and also to their wife and kids' This leads to what the entrepreneur views as important, however it is not being suggested they do not value their family. Instead that can an entrepreneur separate their business life from social. Can it be said that an entrepreneur who could be classified as having such desire for success and locus of control be happy with sitting back being a manager. The desire within an entrepreneur is not easily harnessed by rules and regulations as described in ‘The Naked Entrepreneur’. Resulting in the view that these cannot easily be switched off in a person who seeks to achieve and control. Conclusion The two theories are obviously coming from different ends of the spectrum. The Trait approach specifies that there is a set list of characteristics that define an entrepreneur and looking at the individual. The behavioural approach suggests that it is not about the individual them self that there is an environment where entrepreneurs will be apparent. That they are part of the business creation process and there is not a set list of who is an entrepreneur, the emphasis is on what the entrepreneur does. Traits are as we know a set of characteristics to detect an entrepreneur, but is that all it achieves' You may be able to identify one out of a list with the proposed criteria however would that include all and would that actually answer the question or lead you onto more. It cannot be true that a set of attributes can detect all entrepreneurs; the list would have to be so large to incorporate every single candidate. Is it however part of a theory that should integrate a range of different perspectives in order to address the case of identifying if possible who the entrepreneur is and more importantly analysing what the entrepreneur does. The trait approach puts limitations upon the variety of entrepreneurship allowed within the set characteristics. As analysed above the characteristics set do not allow for all types of entrepreneurs to be counted for. With this barrier it does not allow for certain groups to be counted, a view point also discussed above with relation to sample. The intrapreneur described is one that has the potential and capability to succeed however has to operate under constraints of their business environment. Again asking for a different methodology into research in order to allow for a wider grasp of individuals possessing entrepreneurial qualities. The trait criteria on its own would lead to more questions and initially get you nowhere. “It is recognising this and building upon it that the future of a more positive approach to entrepreneurialism can be developed” (Robinson, 1990, pg. 111). This view is one that will help improve the future of entrepreneurship research. By using the building blocked given and moving forward integrating various sources and theories to have a multi penetrating approach. This leads on to the final point, by integrating the two concepts is draws the thought that are there both natured and nurtured entrepreneurs. Some more intuitive to the process of entrepreneurship than others, those needing a more nurturing environment in order to succeed. If we accept that both exist then it may hold that both original approaches are correct however they have both been researching inaccurately. With both being true and apparent in results in the need for the proposed integrated research method that would best suit the proposed situation. The need to distinguish how and entrepreneur does what he or she does or who they are is important to many different settings. If entrepreneurs are born then schools, home and work life should be suited to highlight these individuals in order to facilitate the environment where they can best succeed and not to suppress the unique and diverse approach they bring. If it is to be nurtured however the environment created would not be to facilitate but to create and foster the people that respond to the situation, knowing that they can grow into people with entrepreneurial assets. The drawback to either method if it is possible to detect an entrepreneur or potential is that it eradicates the population who are not set out to be entrepreneurs. It can almost certainly be known that some would activity wish not be in the process or circumstances. A final thought is also the why implication, there are also demographic theories, the background to the individual that could shape who they are and influence why they make choices, a question that seems to have been left out. It cannot simply be who is an entrepreneur, it is also what, where, when, why and how. By looking at all these factors it will help to gain multi-conceptual viewpoint with greater efficiency in trying to specify the nature of an entrepreneur and what the concept of entrepreneurship actually means. Concluding it seems that the question asked as to who is the entrepreneur is not the right question but not necessarily the wrong one. It is far more complex and through the analysis it seems as though there needs to be a complex and thorough review of the perspective that researchers take before they embark on the task of investigating activities of entrepreneurial state. The human mind and how it works is a complex part of the human body. There is no easy way to decipher the ways in which it operates; it is true to say that some entrepreneurs operate in similar ways however not all. The human brain can learn and adapt to any situation placed upon it especially early on when learning is at its peak. The result is that the concept of entrepreneurship needs to be researched from all angles with a structured and precise approach that is developed for entrepreneurship not a transfer from psychology theories and methods. By then analysing the correct environment which again needs to be defined as to where entrepreneurs gather in a sense this will all lead to a high quality research into the entrepreneurial field. Who is an Entrepreneur is not the wrong question; it is just the beginning, incorporating into a new re-structured approach investigating with the right principles view and methods to obtain a more accurate true picture of entrepreneurship. Word count: 2245 Reference Brockhaus, R. H. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 2J(3). 509-520. Brockhaus, R. H. & Nord, W. R. (1979). An exploration of factors affecting the entrepreneurial decision: Personal characteristics vs. environmental conditions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Publisher unknown. Cole. A. H. (1969). Definition of entrepreneurship. In J. L. Komives (Ed.), Karl A. Bostrom Seminar in the Study of Enterprise. Milwaukee: Center for Venture Management, 10-22. Gartner, W.B, (1988) “Who is an Entrepreneur'” Is the Wrong Question University of Baltimore: Educational Foundation. Hornaday, R.H, (1971) Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs’ Personnel Psychology, 24 (2), 141 -153. Robinson, D. (1990) The Naked Entrepreneur, Say, J. A. (1816). A Treatise on Political Economy. London: Sherwood, Neeley and Jones. Sexton, D. L. & Kent, C. A. (1981). Female executives versus female entrepreneurs, ln K. H. Vesper (Ed.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research: The Proceeding of the J98I Babson Conference on Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley. Mass.: Babson College, 40-45. Van de Ven, A. H. (1980). Early planning, implementation and performance of new organizations. In J. R. Kimberiy & R. Miles (Eds.), The organization life cycle. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 83-134. Yeats, W. B. (1956). Among school children. In The collected poems of W. B. Yeats. New York: Macmillan. Bibliography Kanungo, R. N. (1998) Entrepreneurship Innovation. London: Sage Publications Swedberg, R. (2000) Entrepreneurship. New York: Oxford University Press Deakins, D., Freel, M. (2006) Entrepreneurship and Small Firms, (4th ed). Maidenhead: McGraw.