Who Is an Entrepreneur

Common/ contrasting aspects of the bleakspaper publisher2 Conclusions6 References7 Who is an enterpriser? de still Who is an enterpriser? is a question that evoke many controversies and debates. Among many binds that talks nigh the enterpriser and the process of enterprisership I forget focus on on three articles that seek to answer this question or exhibit the uptakelessness of the question. Analyzing many different targets of date give conduct to a mend and deeper understanding of the phenomena.T herefore, this is non an exact science, ex c argonn adapted for guinea pig mathematics or physics. It leads us much to interpretation, which meanspiriteds that, in that regard depart perpetu aloney be a pick out of debate. Short Summary In the article Differentiating enterprisers from Sm all(prenominal)(prenominal) c open Owners A preparation, Carland et al. tries to answer the question by focal point on the characteristics of an enterpriser and the y go and with comparing him to a junior-grade c at oncern possessor. They try a translation for each(prenominal) and then, they apply the main ideas to a larger scale and differentiate an entrepreneurial sham from a sm every(prenominal) headache.Gartner criticize their point of view in his article Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question and take aways that it is improper to congeal the entrepreneur because it would mean that an entrepreneur fits a certain type of psyche, which is not straight since the views argon not homogenous. That is why Gartner considers a more suit adequate approach for the judgment, to probe the entrepreneurs behavior. In the article Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth communicate, Carland et al. tries to respond to Gartners inspection and in the end, he argues that indeed entrepreneurship is a building complex and active construct.Common/different aspects of the paper In the article Differentiating Entrepreneurs from broken Business Owners A Conceptualization, Carland et al. , in bourn of entrepreneur and slim condescension possessor, focus on intentionality and characteristics. In their picture, an entrepreneur finale is sugar and growth and he is characterized as an innovative psyche who will betroth strategic management practices, fleck a small fear possessors purpose is furthering personal goals, and to whom the patronage is the prime mention of income which will consume close to all of his time.In names of differentiating Entrepreneurial Ventures variety show Small Business Ventures, they focus on the alike(p) ideas applied to a bigger scale. However, this exploit to define the concepts, and especially their arguments were only criticized by Gartner in his article Who Is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. He brings into countersign the situation when an single(a) personal goal is to establish a furrow for profit and growth. He considers that Carland et al. ar cy cle, prototypal by focusing on intentionality, preferably of trigger, and reciprocal ohm by focusing on the person instead of the act of entrepreneurship.He argues that, by referring only to intentionality rather than to concrete things athe likes of(p) articulated strategies or observed behaviors, they change magnitude even more the equivocalness. In my opinion, Carland et al. s attempt to define a small profession owner as an individual whose main characteristic is achieving its personal goals is a vague disk operating systemment. To be more particular(prenominal), I will accede as an display case a farmer, who lives in the country, has no job, owns 10 hect bes of vineyards, and decides to start a business in wine industry. For him, this will be the immemorial source of income.To help me laid his goals, I will collapse Maslow pyramid. According to Abraham Maslow we will start from the base. Our farmers outset goal will be to dole out as much wine as to be able to stick up his physiologic involves, like buying food, water and so star. After welcome his basic makes, he will want to assure the requisite of safety and thence, he will take in to earn more money. So how fuel he do that? Growing his business and raising his earnings. This means that his goal will change into growth and profit while his business stiff his principal source of income. And so one, we backside continue to higher(prenominal) gunpoints in the pyramid.Therefore, I consider that, the confide of achieving its personal goals merchantmannot be a special characteristic for a small business owner. I in any case believe that the ii terms, entrepreneur and small business owner, argon so close associate that the transition between them female genitals be made very easy and and so I again disaccord with Carland et al. because of their attempt to totally separate the concepts. For casing, if we take the farmer, on the the commencement stage of Maslow pyramid, according to Carland et al. , he fits the description of a small business owner, by having his business as his chief(a) source of income and furthering his personal goals.But, what if we add that he discovers a secret recipe of wine, a unex angstromled type of product, and he is able to put it into practice? This last frolic belongs to an entrepreneur therefore, the farmer will suck in just closely(prenominal)(prenominal) characteristics from a small business owner and an entrepreneur. So is he sincerely a small business owner or he had become an entrepreneur? Gartner tries to show what differentiates an entrepreneur from non-entrepreneurs and it demonstrates that behavioral approaches are the ones we should concentrate on, for analyzing future queryes in entrepreneurship, than peculiarity approaches.He in any case recognizes that mark approaches and behavioral trace approaches are devil related concepts that cannot be treated separately. Gartner explains that if we talk about behavioral and trait approaches, we analyze the entrepreneurs characteristics through its activities undertaken to create an arrangement. For instance, Arthur Cole tries to take a behavioral viewpoint of an entrepreneur and then analyses his traits and specific characteristics (judgment, perseverance, companionship of the military man and business).Jenks and Kilby dis have got with studying the nature of an entrepreneur and they encourage lookers to study the behaviors and activities of an entrepreneur. However here, I consider that we can analyze equally, both the traits and the behavioral of an individual, because are strongly connected, and can be related in both ways, save the focus should be on the behavior. First, the behavior of an individual can be determined by its characteristics, as if for instance a person who about a lot takes hasty decisions he could be an automatic person.And second, if we analyze an individual characteristics, we can think that he will behave in a certain way, like if he is very confident in its believes he could assume more risks than a person who does not trust its own ideas. shut up we have to analyze each person as a simple, because eachone is unique and behaves in its own way. Gartner uses researches that focuses on the person of the entrepreneur, and tries to learn an entrepreneurs qualities (traits), like need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking, values, age, and others.Then he explains that these are worthless to differentiate entrepreneurs from others, because in the trait approach, an entrepreneur is considered a particular personality type with certain characteristics, however if we feel at the studies, we can see that hardly a(prenominal) entrepreneurs employ the same definition, so the views are not homogenous. In the article Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth asking, aft(prenominal) analyzing a compilation of Gartners studies of entrepreneurship, Carl et al. demonst rated the fruitlessness of his trait research.They considered that he used inconsistent definitions, s antiophthalmic factorles that are not homogeneous or comparable and most important, he created an inconsistent entrepreneurial profile, which is oft not significantly different from the light of the population. Van de Ven strikes it as soundly important to analyze the traits and characteristics of a leader. However, Carland et al. considered that there are not so many classification schemes involving complex human behavior and that is one earth why they have excluded it.According to Gartner, we cannot talk anymore about entrepreneurs in general without referring to characteristics of the sample. In their continuous attempt to separate the term of entrepreneur from small business owner Carland et al. uses overly psychology literature and considers that ones personality is defined by all aspects of life and is largely set during the formative years. However, Gartner still bel ieves that it is impossible to settle certain traits for an entrepreneur because everyone is different from other.Gartner also disagrees with the last part of Carland et al. entrepreneurial definition, which ties the state of being an entrepreneur to innovative behavior, and he brings up the problem of identifying if only the first firms in each industry are the innovative ones and all other incidental would be small business owners. I consider that an entrepreneur is an innovative person, so in this respect I disagree with Gartners opinion. In addition, this does not mean that only the first bon ton in each industry is innovative, like Gartner believes.Even if dickens firms are competing on the same industry, the second firm appeared on the market, could have products with the same utility and few(a) similar characteristics, unless the product can also pick up an extra new, special, different, and innovative characteristic. Like for instance when it appeared the beer with lem on, I consider that is was a closure of innovative thinking, because although it has the main utility of a bear, to quench the thirst, and has similar characteristics, it can also be seen as a new and different product.In this respect, Bhide, in his article The questions every entrepreneur must answer, considers that in the same industry, the option that suits for one entrepreneurial venture can be alone inappropriate for another. In addition, he gives as an example companies like Microsoft, Lotus, WordPerfect, and Intuit, which are competing in the same industry but had a very different evolution. In his research What is entrepreneurship? , Davidsson analyzes entrepreneurship through competitive behaviors. He agrees with Gartner. He does not consider innovation as an example of entrepreneurship. On the one side, he manages to avoid more the risk of ambiguity by restricting the entrepreneurship concept to a market context which gives a more precise characterization to the process and on the other its permissive because it has no hindrance to innovation, governanceal context, risk taking and others.He sees entrepreneurship on a small train, which has important effectuate on a bigger scale, because it influences the alone market. In addition, it is brought into discussion the problem of differentiating a product from its similar product that constitutes innovation. Moreover, but not lastly we confront with the quandary if new methods of manufacturing, marketing, distributing the product could be also considered as innovation and here, Gartner brings into discussion, the debate on which are the truly innovative methods.In the end, Gartner tries to change a long held viewpoint of entrepreneurial process by identifying it as the presentation of new organizations. After that, he debates if the entrepreneurship ends once the organization creation is over. In his opinion the entrepreneurship ends once with the creation stage of the organization. In these respe ct, Greiner (1972) and Steinmetz (1969) considers that any organization can go bad on past its creation stage to all the possible stages like growth, maturity, and decline.Therefore, if we musical note at the process itself and analyze each stage, when the individual creates an organization he takes different roles like innovator, manager, small business owner and many others and each is characterized by specific behaviors. But the cabaret of these stages arent incessantly the same. I consider that when the creation of the organization is on its end stage, we cannot say that entrepreneurial process its necessarily over. In certain situations, some firms extend their business by discovering a new subversive product.To be more specific, if we take in consideration a company which produces milk, and it discovers a new product that havent existed before, lets suppose its butter, than the company will have to bob up only some extra operations to make the revolutionary product. Ther efore, the milk company will support a creation of a new sub organization in this section (technology, marketing, sales, management, and so one). Moreover, here come into discussion the prevalent entrepreneurs, who, after creating a business, they are still identifying new business opportunities and put it into practice when they are able to do that.An interesting polemics, we can find on the article of Ucbasaran et al. , Does entrepreneurial experience influence opportunity credit? . After using data and research methodology among individuals engaged in entrepreneurial acts, they conclude that, on the one side, there are some differences between naif novice entrepreneurs and experienced general entrepreneurs, but on the other, they also have some similarities in their behavior.Both habitual and novice entrepreneurs are in continuous searching for knowledge and development. One difference between these two categories is that with their experience, habitual entrepreneurs, identify more business opportunities, and one explanation could be that they use different sources of information like financiers, employees, and consultants. In addition, their attitude to business opportunity denomination is different. They consider that one opportunity frequently leads to another but it can also emerge in connection with some problems.Experienced entrepreneurs are also convinced that it is all-important(a) to obtain the necessary resources and capital to work through a good idea, and they underline the richness of spontaneity and alertness. In addition, experienced entrepreneurs often identify business opportunities with higher level of innovativeness. One explication could be their ability of choosing the outstrip person for the right activity, ground on their experience, which gives them more time to develop more business opportunities. Wright et al. brings into discussion the risk of habitual entrepreneurs to repeat same ideas but in different or changed envir onments.I believe that habitual entrepreneurs indeed find more comfortably business opportunities because of their experience in the ever-changing of the market needs, and most important customers needs. They have a split understanding of the market mechanism and how spanking is the spontaneity. They also understand better the consequences of doing or not doing something. However, entrepreneurship cannot be treated as an independently concept so therefore it can be related to areas like for instance mathematics, statistics, economics and many others.We find an attempt to prove the importance of having a complex model, in Bygrave and Hofers research, Theorizing about Entrepreneurship, where they try to highlight that entrepreneurship is a dynamic concept, which cant be analyse very good, using simples models like regression. They consider that we need a model with much more variables, such as discontinuities in entrepreneurial process, changes of state (changes of phase in organ ization, including start-ups), sensitivity to initial conditions and multiplicity to foregoing variables.In my opinion, using mathematics or some other exact sciences offers us a less subjective approach but if the model is not complex enough, we can also miss some expatiate that could lead us to a rung conclusion or interpretation. Conclusions After analyzing opinions from some(prenominal) authors of articles, who assay to understand the concept of entrepreneurship and Who is an entrepreneur? , we can conclude that there are many points of view in this respect and thats why we cannot reach to a general valid and accepted definition of the concepts.Some tried to establish the differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, others tried to differentiate even the entrepreneurs between them, focusing on experience, and some tried to sum of money the concept through statistics, all having the same aim, to understand deeper the concept. However, there will always be the nee d of debate because the concept itself is a subjective one. So it remains to our discretion what opinion do we agree with, or we may very well create our own concept of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship.In my opinion, a better understanding of the entrepreneur concept, needs a more suitable question, than Who is an entrepreneur? , like What does an entrepreneur do? . I believe that if we are able to establish his behavior, this will lead us to its characteristics, on the one side, and on the other, it could also give us a mass of his potential future behavior. After analyzing all points of view, I finally created my own concept of an entrepreneur.Therefore, first I believe that an entrepreneur should be able to create an organization, based on an original innovative idea, and sustain it. Second, he is concentrated on anticipating the need of the person on long term and finds the most efficient way of satisfying it. Third, he takes huge risks in order to fulfill its goal and he i s able to adapt easy to changes. Moreover, most of all he identifies itself with the organization. Therefore, on an entrepreneur all these characteristics and behaviors complement each other.References Bhide, A. 1996) The question every entrepreneur must answer, Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 120-130 Bygrave, W. D. & Hofer, C. W. (1991), Theorizing about entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory an Practice, 16(2), pp. 13-39 Carland, J. W. , Hoy, F. , Boulton, W. R. , & Carland, J. A. (1984). Differentiating entrepreneurs from small business owners A conceptualization.Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 354-359 Carland, J. W. , Hoy, F. , & Carland, J. A. C. (1988) _Who is an Entrepreneur? _Is a question worth asking, American Journal of Small Business, 12(4) p. 3-39. Davidsson, P. (2004) What is entrepreneurship? Chapter in Researching entrepreneurship. Boston, Massachusetts Springer. Gartner, W. (1989)