Entrepreneurship and Small Business Education: A ...

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Education: A Conceptual

Exploration

Allan Vazquez Arciniega, Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of

Technology,' Melbourne

Associate Professor Alex Maritz, Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Swinburne

University of Technology, Melbourne

Abstract Entrepreneurship education is a very important issue in the development entrepreneurship. The

purpose of this paper is to explore principles based on entrepreneurship and small business

research to build an entrepreneurship education program for potential entrepreneurs. Within this

paper, principles are identified that will assist potential entrepreneurs turn into practicing

entrepreneurs. Among the issues reviewed are learning, the entrepreneurial process,

entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. The paper concludes with a

proposition of what to teach to potential entrepreneurs and further research section suggests a

curricula and technology review based on the findings of this paper.

1. Introduction Entrepreneurship and small business education is seen by policy makers and international

organizations across the world as important and critical for developing entrepreneurial behaviors

and skills that are the basis for economic growth (Bager, 2011; Martfnez, Levie, Kelley,

SA:mundsson, & Sch(ltt, 2010; Volkmann et al., 2009). International organizations such as the

OECD, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the World Economic Forum have issued research

documents and reports that invite not only to improve the quality of entrepreneurship education,

but also to make it available to more and younger people (Estime, Murphy, ladegaard, Gang, &

Hall, 2004; Martfnez et al., 2010; Wilson & Volkman, 2009).

The literature about entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur is abound, there is also literature

about entrepreneurship education, but research in order to find the ideal curriculum for an

entrepreneurship education program has had limited attention (Moremong-Nganunu, 2009).

This paper attempts to determine what should be taught to potential entrepreneurs defined as

those individuals that do not have the intentions to become entrepreneurs or start a business yet,

as oppose to nascent entrepreneurs, defined as those individuals who are starting a new business

from scratch (Aisos & Kolvereid, 1998). Since many entrepreneurship education programs do not

93

"' " "·�· th .

, '''"""'''M;Broceedings of the 24 ·-Annual SEA:ANZ Confevencfc.<Arcfniigd.and Moritz

address the real needs regarding to content this research attempts to answer the question of what

should be taught that is specific to entrepreneurship (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2005). There are some

attributes, behaviours and skills that emerge from the literature review that become the main

principles a potential entrepreneur has to learn, The concept of entrepreneurial intentions and

self-efficacy are also keys in entrepreneurship education programs (Cox, 1996; Johansen &

Clausen, 2011); and the main component in this paper is the entrepreneurial process that plays a

central role in the discussion of this research.

There has to be a link between research and teaching and this paper attempts to close the gap

between both doing a literature review on the concepts that researchers consider to be the most

important in the discipline of entrepreneurship. From this review the most important concepts are

identified and proposed as the basis for an entrepreneurship education program for potential

entrepreneurs.

This paper is divided as follows: first a literature review which includes the purpose of an

entrepreneurship education program is conducted. Then a review of entrepreneurship education

is performed, This review includes a brief discussion on a recurrent question in this literature: can

entrepreneurship be taught? Next the review goes into the issue of learning before going deeply

into how entrepreneurs learn through life and in the university. This section finishes with an

examination about how potential entrepreneurs learn. The following section is about self-efficacy

one of the most important issues in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions which is

important for potential entrepreneurs. The literature review ends with entrepreneurship as

process and the six points of convergence for the entrepreneurial process,

Finally, there is a discussion which takes concepts from the literature review in order to propose

some principles to build an EEP for potential entrepreneurs.

2. Literature Review

2.1 The Purpose of Entrepreneurship Education Programs Entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) have a long history. Although the first course was

taught in 1947 at Harvard, the University of Southern California launched the first

entrepreneurship concentration within its Graduate Business Administration program in 1971

(Kuratko, 2005). Since then the number of educational institutions that offer courses related to

entrepreneurship has grown to up to 1,600 in the early years of this century (Katz, 2003).

Nevertheless, the lack of consensus on the basic theory of entrepreneurship makes it difficult to

determine a common purpose for EEPs. One of the authors in the literature proposed that these

programs should be built in a way that potential entrepreneurs be aware of the barriers of starting

a career as an entrepreneur and can formulate ways to overcome them (Ronstadt, 1987).

Alternatively, according to a survey of the top 15 entrepreneurship educators in the USA there are

two purposes of entrepreneurship education programs: to increase awareness and understanding

94

tl " "" ' . .

Proceedings of the 24 'Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

of the process of starting and managing a new business and to increase awareness of business

ownership as a serious career option (Hills, 1988). In contrast, research that evaluated six

entrepreneurship programs in Europe says that the most common purposes of these programs

include: to identify and stimulate entrepreneurial drive, talent and skills; to undo the risk-averse

bias of many analytical techniques; to develop empathy and support for all unique aspects of

entrepreneurship and to devise attitudes towards change.

Other authors believe that one of the most important purposes of an entrepreneurship education

program directed to the awareness and new venture creation stage of the entrepreneurial

development process is to increase intention and self-efficacy of the students regarding the

creation of new ventures (Cox, 1996). In other words, the final purpose at the awareness stage of

the process should be to increase students' intentions to become entrepreneurs (Cox, 1996); and

at the new venture creation stage of the process it should be to reflect reality (Solomon, 2007).

2.2 Entrepreneurship Education Can entrepreneurship be taught? is one of the main questions when the issue of entrepreneurship

education arises. This question is also addressed in the literature and there is consensus that at

least some aspects of entrepreneurship can be successfully taught (Henry et al., 2005; Kuratko,

2003). Hindle (2007) develops a discussion about whether entrepreneurship can be taught

concluding that it can. Actually, as any other discipline it can also be learned (Drucker, 1985). All

this discussion about teaching entrepreneurship naturally leads to the question: how do we teach

people to be entrepreneurs, how do we teach them to be entrepreneurial, how do we teach them

to create new ventures?

Researchers have been for several years in the quest of the answer to these questions (Kuratko,

2003). The literature goes from how entrepreneurs learn (Rae & Carswell, 2001) to even

suggesting different approaches to teach it within the University context (Sager, 2011}. It is also

important to notice that there is a difference between teaching entrepreneurship and teaching

about it (Hindle, 2007); and according to Jamieson (Jamieson, 1984) there are three categories of

entrepreneurship education: Education about enterprise, for enterprise and in enterprise.

Following there is a literature review that will help to understand how entrepreneurs learn, what

they learn and ultimately what to teach them.

2.2.1 Who should learn?

So far some of the purposes of an EEP and the question of whether entrepreneurship can be

taught have been explored. Nevertheless, there are some other questions that have to be

answered before conceptualizing an EEP to teach people how to be entrepreneurs. Hindle

mentions in his paper From the Wrong Building to the Right Philosophy (Hindle, 2007) seven

interrelated problems when teaching entrepreneurship as part of the business school -

entrepreneurship education paradox. These are related to teaching entrepreneurship in University

and whether entrepreneurship education belongs there or not. This paper does not deal with the

same paradox, nevertheless it is agreed that the first question to be answered is: can

entrepreneurship be taught? Which has already been addressed and another question should be:

who are we going to teach?

95

Proceedings of the 24'h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Moritz

When designing entrepreneurship education and training programs it is important to identify the audience to which the program is targeted (Maritz, Brown, & Shieh, 2011). Entrepreneurs' learning is different according to the stage of development where they are (Henry et al., 2005) and I would

add depending on the personal circumstances of each individual as well.

The objectives, subjects, pedagogies, length, etc. are different for each audience. More specifically the needs depend on the stage of development of the process: awareness, pre-startup, start�up, growth or maturity (Moremong-Nganunu, 2009).

It is very important to know your audience in order to really know what to teach and how to do so, because as mentioned before, not everyone has the same 'experience, expectations, knowledge, etc. Truls Erikson in his paper Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneuriol/earning experiences among

potential entrepreneurs (Erikson, 2003) analyses the factors that lead individuals to choose business venturing as a career path early in their careers. From his analysis he develops a taxonomy of entrepreneurial typologies based on ehtrepreneurial competence. This leads to eight typologies. More specifically his document explores how potential entrepreneurs may turn into nascent entrepreneurs, defined as those individuals who are starting a new business from scratch

(Aisos & Kolvereid, 1998).

Erikson argues that entrepreneurial behaviour determines the supply of entrepreneurs to the economy and that is why the flow of new entrepreneurs in the economy is important for his research. He explores the initial source of entrepreneurial supply and how potential entrepreneurs

may become nascent entrepreneurs.

2.2.2 Learning Before going into entrepreneurship education itself the first thing to know is how people normally learn. According to the education literature there are several theories about learning some of them are the following: behaviourist, cognitive and constructivist. The theory that best suits entrepreneurship education should be the constructivist theory of learning because there is a consensus that entrepreneurs learn by doing, in other words, entrepreneurs learn by experience

and discovery (Deakins & Freel, 1998; Gibb, 1987). Constructivist learning theory's basic principal is that the learner participates actively in its own learning. He takes information from different sources, experiences, current and past knowledge to construct his own understanding about an

idea; he builds the concept (Moremong-Nganunu, 2009).

2.2.3 Entrepreneurship Education through Life and Work Under the umbrella of the constructivist learning approach there is the need to understand how entrepreneurial capabilities are acquired and developed through life and work experiences. This is one of the issues treated on the research conducted by Rae and Carswell (2001). They performed a research that explores how people learn to act entrepreneurially and understand entrepreneurial learning as a way in which people construct new meaning through the process of recognising and action on opportunities and of organising and managing ventures.

96

Proceedings of the 241h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

Their research suggests that there is a close relationship between learning and entrepreneurial

achievement. They find that the needs for constant challenge, show sharpness, take good

decisions and have ownership are characteristics that lead to achievement. They also found that a

positive thought process is positively related to achievement and helps people's personal

motivation and setting goals.

Learning through life and work depends among other things on relationships. According to some

findings business practices and skills are learned through working relationships. Also skills and

knowledge in which people become confident through getting them right in repeated occasions

are the basis of their careers. This helps entrepreneurs understand their limitations and therefore,

look for people with complimentary skills.

Other concepts that explain how entrepreneurs learn include active learning, personal theory,

confidence and self-belief, all of which are findings of Rae and Carswell's (2001) research. These

are the ways entrepreneurs learn in practice and I think it could be taken into the classrooms.

2.2.4 Entrepreneurship education at University A more traditional view of entrepreneurship education can be fourid in Universities. Teaching

entrepreneurship at universities has also been discussed in the literature (Volkmann, C., Wilson, K.

E., Mariotti, 5., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, 5., & Sepulveda, A., 2009). According to Sager (2011)

policy makers want a change in the educational system specifically in universities because they

think entrepreneurship teaching and training will help them achieve their overall economic goals.

Sager (2011) provides a very interesting perspective on entrepreneurship education. He argues

that entrepreneurship education can be understood in a much broader way than only building

skills to start-up businesses. He states that universities take this narrow approach and that is why

their programmes are focused on three elements: entrepreneurship orientation and awareness,

new enterprise creation and the survival and growth of young businesses. They focus more on

building a company than developing the person.

It is also argued that building personal dimensions requires not only a wider perspective view of

entrepreneurship - cross-disciplinary learning activities, building entrepreneurial mindsets and

strengthening university-business relationships- but also new ways to deliver the knowledge, new

alternative ways of teaching and learning. Behaviours, skills and attributes have to be taught with

pedagogies designed precisely for these proposes and exposure to experience are essential to

make people feel what is it like to be an entrepreneur.

The author seeks to discuss various aspects of entrepreneurship education and to link the narrow

and broad perspectives on entrepreneurship mentioned before. It also looks at how universities

can facilitate the formation of student start-ups.

Bager (2011) explores the main components of a comprehensive perspective of entrepreneurship

education in a university; he discusses what should be taught in a University. To do this the author

makes an important distinction between the inventor and the entrepreneur. According to him the

entrepreneur is the one that recognizes and evaluates the opportunity more than the former

97

Proceedings of the 24'h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz ·

does. Based on this the author mentions what he considers the core competences of an

entrepreneur are and \Nhat should be taught in an entrepreneurial university.

The first core competence is opportunity recognition and evaluation; in this learning context the

next steps for the entrepreneurs would be to follow through exploiting these opportunities and to

do so the entrepreneur has to build organizations, both considered as core competences as well.

Additionally, Bager (2011) recommends including in entrepreneurship education programmes the

traditional business school topics and practical training, as well as, teaching students to work

comfortably with chaos.

Another important distinction Bager (2011) makes is the way entrepreneurs and non

entrepreneurs approach situations and relates this difference to the entrepreneurial mindset. Not

only traditional knowledge is needed, personality also has a role to play in this educational set.

Entrepreneurial programs have to include the development of the mindset, behaviour and

intentions. Alertness of opportunities, self-confidence and overoptimism are components that

form an entrepreneurial mindset, which some consider to be one of the most important things to

teach in this field.

According to Bager (2011) entrepreneurial intention is underpinned by the effectuation theory of

Sarasvathy and is considered as the action oriented approach to entrepreneurship. This concept

demonstrates the difference in the way an entrepreneur approaches situations compared to a '

manager. Entrepreneurs start taking into account the resources they have and create an

achievable goal applying what Sarasvathy calls effectuational reasoning whereas managers do the

opposite, they set goals and then gather the resources needed to get there, this process is called

causal reasoning (Sarasvathy, 2001a).

Action, the author says, is not only about praxis is also about finding the way to create a new

venture. Entrepreneurial knowledge and experienced-based training have a positive effect on

building entrepreneurial intention because entrepreneurship competences make it easier the

entrepreneurial act. In other words, competence increases positive expectations and therefore the

likelihood to action.

2.2.5 How potential entrepreneurs learn? In order to achieve this objective Erikson (2003) does a literature review of entrepreneurial

competence and the determinants of entrepreneurial behaviour. After this review he concludes

that the focus should be the perception that the individual has of its entrepreneurial competence,

which determines entrepreneurial intentions and thus behaviour. This is to say that although

desire and feasibility are essential to develop intentions the most important factors to develop

intentions and behaviour should be the perception of competence and their determinants.

The author states that the three determinants of competence are mastery experience (practical

experience and repeated performance accomplishments), vicarious experience (observational

learning) and social experience (social influence) and that it is crucial to combine them to build

competence. Moreover, according to Wood and Bandura (1989) this is the most effective way to

98

" " Proceedings of the 24'h Annua!SEAANZ Conference"· Arciniega and Maritz

develop self"efficacy. Erikson (2003) identifies that positive enactive mastery experience, positive

vicarious experience and social entrepreneurial persuasion relate positively to perceived

entrepreneurial competence; and that the more complementary the entrepreneurial exposures,

the better the learning effect.

He then provides the implications cif the determinants of competence for the typologies of

entrepreneurs based in those mentioned by Westhead and Wrigth (1998): Novice, Parallel and

Serial to which Erikson includes the nascent and potential entrepreneur. By combining the three

typologies arid the determinants of competence he creates eight new typologies depending on

whether each has experienced one or a combination of the three types of the main learning

experiences. These new typologies are shown in the following table.

Table 1: Taxonomy of learning experiences for potential entrepreneurs.

The Complete The Sole The Sole Th�Sole The The

The Social The Yes or No Social

Inexperienced Observer Practitioner Socialiser loner Observer

Practitioner Experienced

Social N N N y N y y y

experience

Mastery N N y N y N y y

experience

Vicarious N y N N y y N y

experience

Source. (Enkson, 2003).

For example, the typology called The Complete Inexperienced is someone who has no social,

mastery or vicarious experience and The Experienced is someone who has all three main learning

experiences. In this way he structures a map that facilitates educators knowing where to

emphasize learning and how to transform a complete inexperienced person into an experienced

entrepreneur.

2.3 Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions During the literature review selfcefficacy has been a recurrent factor for entrepreneurship

learning. This is why this concept has to be defined and explained in the context of the

entrepreneurial process.

Entrepreneurial self"efficacy (ESE) is one of the most important factors that helps to understand

entrepreneurial success and it is also a determinant factor on start"up and business growth

processes (Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994; Chen & Crick, 1998; Krueger, 2003;

Markman, Balkin, & Baron, 2002; Segal, Borgia, & Schoenfeld, 2005). There are different

definitions of ESE in the literature. Some authors define it as the entrepreneur's task"specific self"

confidence (Baron & Markman, 1999; Baum et al., 2001; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994), others define it as

the ability to master the necessary cognitive, memory processing, and behavioural facilities to deal

effectively with the environment (Chen & Crick, 1998; Segal et al., 2005). And according to

Drnovsek, Wincent and Cardon (2010) ESE is the individual's self"believe that he/she has the

99


capabilities and control cognitions for achieving success when taking challenging goals during the


2.3.1 Entrepreneurial intentions ESE is also very important to entrepreneurship education because it is related not only to success,

but also to start-up intentions (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). ESE is also a task-specific

construct that includes an assessment of confident beliefs an individual has about internal and

external constraints and possibilities and it is close to action and action intentionality (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). It is also a good predictor of startcup intentions (Krueger et al., 2000), a

determinant of new venture growth and personal success (Markman et al., 2002), and the best

predictor for entrepreneurial outcomes (Shane, Locke, & Collins, 2003).

In addition, the self-efficacy construct has also been closely linked not only to important

entrepreneurial outcomes such as start-up intentions (Krueger et al., 2000), but also to determine

the strength of entrepreneurial intentions and the likelihood that those intentions would result in

entrepreneurial actions (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Further analysing self-efficacy it has been found

that personal efficacy influenced the development of attributions of nascent entrepreneurs for

creating new businesses (Carter, Gartner, Shaver, & Gatewood, 2003; Gatewood, Shaver, Powers,

& Gartner, 2002; Shaver, Gartner, Crosby, Bakalarova, & Gatewood, 2001) and it also has been

associated with perceived feasibility and formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger et al.,

2000). An overall finding of self-efficacy is that individuals with higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy

have higher entrepreneurial intentions and are consequently more likely to believe they also have

an actionable idea.

Nevertheless, intentionality might not be enough despite behaviour, feasibility and desire are

present. Commitment to action has to occur in order to turn the choice of creating a new venture

into action. Entrepreneurial commitment is a process that forms the choice of creating a new

venture by a set of minor decisions taken by the potential entrepreneur; it is the result of a series

of almost irreversible actions that necessarily leads to more actions (Fayolle, Basso, & Tornikoski,

2011).

2.3.2 ESE and the entrepreneurial process ESE is a multidimensional construct that may include two beliefs: goal and control beliefs in the

context of the entrepreneurial process. Goal beliefs are assessments of an entrepreneur's

capabilities to engage in activities that will lead to successful task or outcome completions during

the business start-up process. Control beliefs are an entrepreneur's beliefs about his capabilities to

control negative thoughts and bolster positive thoughts during goal pursuit (Drnovsek et al., 2010).

This multidimensional definition of the ESE is relevant during the different stages or segments of

the entrepreneurial process. The success on each of the stages of the entrepreneurial process

depends on the individual dimensions of the ESE that each entrepreneur has at each stage. Some

will posses high levels of task self-efficacy and others high levels of outcome self-efficacy or sorne

will have both (Drnovsek et al., 2010). So, paying separate attention to the individual dimensions

100


of ESE that entrepreneurs hold at specific phase of the entrepreneurial process will help develop a

better EEP and therefore increase the entrepreneurial intentions of potential entrepreneurs.

2.4 Entrep1·eneurship as a Process

Researchers have studied entrepreneurship from a traits approach, a behaviour approach and also

from a process approach. This paper has reviewed several aspects about entrepreneurship

education, but in order to understand entrepreneurial success it is required that entrepreneurs

understand the entrepreneurial process (low & Ma·cMillan, 1988).

There are many proposals in the literature of different entrepreneurial processes, but what is

distinct and what is generic about all of them? This question is the one that Moroz and Hindle

attempt to answer in their paper Entrepreneurship as a Process: toward harmonizing multiple perspectives (Moroz & Hindle, 2012 forthcoming). This is a very comprehensive study in which the

authors analyse 32 models of entrepreneurial process. They examine peer-reviewed, published

entrepreneurial process models to find out whether there are factors that are at the same time

generic and distinct to the entrepreneurial process.

They mention that authors in general might not have considered the many concepts that already

exist in the literature and bring them altogether into a single whole entrepreneurial process. These

concepts or frameworks include the following:

• Establishment and usage of social networks (Birley, 1985; Jack & Anderson, 2002;

Johannisson, Alexanderson, Nowicki, & Senneseth, 1994; Slotte-Kock & Coviello, 2010).

• Concept of opportunity (Alvarez & Barney, 2007; Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001; Eckhardt & Shane, 2003; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000, 2001; Van de Ven & Engleman, 2004;

Venkataraman, 1997) .

• Cognitive processes and routines of successful entrepreneurs (Baron & Ward, 2004;

Mitchell et al., 2004; Sarasvathy, 2006).

• Environmental or contextual factors (Gartner, 1985; Gnyawali & Fogel, 1994) that create

incentives for economic agents to be entrepreneurs or not (leibenstein, 1968).

The authors carry out their research using a methodology that reviews what entrepreneurs do and

how they do so from a process approach of entrepreneurship. They compare and contrast models

of entrepreneurial processes by asking questions such as: "Do the extant models of

entrepreneurial processes suggest a convergence in identifying what entrepreneurs do and how

they do it?; Do any of the extant models attempt to answer or provide some insight into the focal

question 'what is both generic and distinct about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship' .... ?"

The authors set up a methodology to identify and classify models of entrepreneurial process. The

methodology is based on the evaluation of the following:

101

·. ·=·�·�··. ,, ,,,,,,,, ·'"' .. c·Proceedings of the 241h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

They classify the models of process in one of the following groups according to Phan (2004) and

Van de Ven (1992): Stage Model (Divide into stages tasks or phases a priori); Static Framework (No

examination of the sequence of activities, process oriented, but no dynamic, limited set of

variables connected by speculative causal links); Process Dynamics (Examine variations in context

and process outcomes employing qualitative methods); Quantification Sequence (Based on a

historical sequence approach of new venture creation process) and Other (All models that do not

fit with the above parameters).

They also evaluated the primary frameworks of the process models assessing key components,

events or stages; and variables, factors and actions. Classification also depended on the approach

or method used to generate the model process; whether the processes are contextually focused

on entrepreneurship: narrowly specific, broadly specific, mixed general, general, generic and

distinct; and on the explanatory power: low (no specific explanation of factors), medium

(significance of factors to process) or high (interrelationships between factors and processes).

Process models were also analysed taking into account the unit of analysis. Here they focused on:

individual, group or team, organization, meso-environment community or multiple if there are

models that use more than one of these units of analysis.

2.4.1 The four models of entrepreneurial process The findings of this analysis yield 32 models focused on the entrepreneurial process. Most of them

have a static design or a stage model design. There was little uniformity in the key category

(components, events, stages), and only 7 models stated practical implications for their research, of

these only 5 have a high explanatory power. In summary, only 4 process models were considered

to have generic and distinct factors. These models are the following:

• Gartner's static framework model of new venture emergence (Gartner, 1985).

• Bruyat and Julienne's model of entrepreneurial process (Bruyat & Julien, 2001).

• Sarasvathy's dynamic model of effectuation (Sarasvathy, 2001b; Sarasvathy, 2006}

• Shane's model of the entrepreneurial process (Shane, 2003).

2.4.2 The six points of convergence Finally, after analysing each of these four process models of entrepreneurship the authors found

six points of convergence:

• The relationship between individuals and opportunities is crucia.l.

• The need to critically assess the transformative and disruptive value of knowledge.

• Evaluation of ways to create value through new business models in contrast to optimizing

existing business models.

• Time is important regarding opportunity and market receptiveness.

102

Proceedings of the 24'h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

• The process is not complete unless action is taken. Planning is not enough .

• A process response to incentives generated by its context. Context has to be understood .

The authors conclude their paper making a call for a harmonized model of entrepreneurial

process. The following section discusses how the concepts reviewed previously can be used to

understand how entrepreneurship can be taught to potential entrepreneurs.

3. Discussion In order to design an effective and efficient program (Maritz et al., 2011) and following the

framework for an EEP proposed by Alberti (2004) the purpose of this kind of programs should be

to increase the awareness and understanding of the entrepreneurial process and to increase the

self-efficacy and intentions of potential entrepreneurs to become entrepreneurs some time in the

future. This can be achieved giving them the tools they need (attributes, behaviours and skills) so

that they are able to design their own entrepreneurial process and to increase their self-efficacy

that will allow them to achieve the goals and perform the tasks included at each point of

convergence of the entrepreneurial process.

The second component of an effective EEP (Alberti et al., 2004) is the audience. In this case the

target of the program will be potential entrepreneurs defined as those individuals that do not

have the intentions to become entrepreneurs or start a business yet, as oppose to nascent

entrepreneurs, who are those individuals who are starting a new business from scratch (Aisos &

Kolvereid, 1998).

Taking this into account in the previous sections of the document a literature review has been

carried out. This review had insights in the ways. entrepreneurs learn in work and life, what to

teach at university, how potential entrepreneurs learn, self-efficacy and intentions, and the

entrepreneurial process. Since many entrepreneurship education programs do not address the

real needs regarding to content this review attempts to answer the question of what should be

taught that is specific to entrepreneurship itself (Henry et al., 2005). Now, this section discusses

how to put the findings of the literature review together in order to establish some basic principles

that could be used to design an EEP.

3.1 Attributes, behaviours and skills It is known that entrepreneurs go through an entrepreneurial process but how do they learn to get

through that process? I believe that the attributes, behaviours and skills of an entrepreneur are

what help them go through the process regardless of the way this process looks like. And as stated

by Moremong-Nganunu (2009) entrepreneurial instruction "needs to inform behaviour, enhance

certain attributes, and develop specific skills".

In order to determine what potential entrepreneurs should be taught we take the attributes,

behaviours and skills mentioned by the authors in the literature review and classify them

according to the following: attributes, defined as a trait or characteristic that is inherent to a

103

Proceedings of the 241h Annual SEAANZConjerence: Arciniega and Maritz

person; behaviours, which can be described by an action taken by a person; and skills defined as

knowledge acquired by an individual that is demonstrated with an action. (Moremong-Nganunu,

2009).

They found the following behaviours: the decision making process, active learning (Rae & Carswell,

2001), opportunity recognition, evaluation and exploitation, alertness of opportunities, building

organizations (Bager, 2011); attributes: motivation, need of achievement, self-efficacy, self

confidence, a positive thought process and goal setting attributes (Erikson, 2003; Rae & Carswell,

2001), working comfortably with chaos, overoptimism (Bager, 2011); and skills: networking

(relationships), personal theory (Rae & Carswell, 2001).

104

Proceedings of the 24'h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz "

Figure 1: Attributes, behaviours and skills from the literature review

Attributes

•f·A otfvation ..

•N�e.d ofacl1fev�ment

•Self-confidence.

•.A positive thought process (overoptimism).

•G oa l setting-attdbuffes.

•Working comfortably wtth cha·os.

•Cre:ativitry.

Behaviours

•Oppmtunity recognttion, evaluation and exploitation;

•Creation of a nevJ a:rganisation.

•Decision making. •Act�ve l.eamfng.

•Commitment to action.

Skills

•tnmovation.

•N �tw ol'ldng. •Persc.naltheory,

Mastery Expenence- Vtcanous expenence- Soctai expenence

Source: Developed for this project.

The table above includes the attributes, behaviours and skills taken from the literature review.

Additionally, this table includes other factors that will help entrepreneurs with some specific

points of the process: creativity and innovation (Moremong-Nganunu, 2009) will be needed for the

evaluation of ways to create value through new business models; and commitment to action will

help entrepreneurs with The process is not complete unless action is taken. Planning is not enough. At the bottom of the table there are the ways in which the Complete Inexperienced potential

entrepreneur will be transformed into the Complete Experienced potential entrepreneur.

3.2 The Entrepreneurial Process Based on the literature review I believe the following can be argued. One of the basic principles

anyone has to learn is the entrepreneurial process. The entrepreneurial process is the road an

entrepreneur goes through in order to ultimately become an entrepreneur. But now the question

would be what the most appropriate (in the sense that is distinct and generic) entrepreneurial

process model to teach is?

As reviewed in a previous section there is a significant number of processes in the

entrepreneurship literature; however, from the 32 entrepreneurial process models classified and

analysed by Moroz and Hindle (2012 forthcoming) only four were found to have distinctive and/or

generic factors of an entrepreneurial process, So, there is no model of entrepreneurial process

that can be considered to be the most appropriate to be included in an entrepreneurship

education program.

3.2.1 Points of Convergence Nonetheless, this paper will take the six points of convergence from this exhaustive taxonomy and

analysis of entrepreneurial process models as a first set of principles that have to be included in an

EEP for potential entrepreneurs. These six points of convergence are factors that all entrepreneurs

have to go through at certain point in time during his way to becoming an entrepreneur.

105

, __ - , -� ,, , -Proceedings of the 241�Annual SEAANZ Conference,- Arciniega and Maritz

Regardless of their background, age, industry, etc. they will have to run through each of these

points.

Figure 2: Points of convergence of the models of entrepreneurial processes.

But even if students know these six points they need to have a set of attributes, behaviours and

skills that will help students connect these six points and go all the way through the

entrepreneurial process. On the one hand, we might not have a model of entrepreneurial process

that adequately satisfies being generic and distinct (Moroz & Hindle, 2012 forthcoming) in the

entrepreneurship literature that can be taught and as quoted by Moroz and Hindle "Many of the

extant models contain too little generality in a way that makes them not models of

entrepreneurial process but models of how to do some very particular thing in a very particular

way."(Moroz & Hindle, 2012 forthcoming).

On the other hand, if we take into consideration that behavioural intention is based not only on

rational and intuitive thinking, but also social and personal contexts interact in the process of

structuring intentions; in other words different types of experiences and personal capabilities

predispose individuals towards entrepreneurial behaviour (Erikson, 2003). Then, this same

principle can be applied to entrepreneurship education and argue that each individual will connect

the six points of. the entrepreneurial process in different ways depending on their own experiences

and personal capabilities; their attributes, behaviours and skills; and their multidimensional self

efficacy.

3.3 The means to the entrepreneurial process What it is argued here is that personal experiences and personal capabilities, which are unique to

each person, .and in particular attributes, behaviours and skills are the tools that will help

106

Proceedings of the 241hAnnual SEMNZ Conference: .Arciniega andMaritz

entrepreneurs connect these six points and create or design their own entrepreneurial process

which sometimes will be unique, some other times will have similarities and other times will be

exactly the same.

Figure 3: Connecting the six points of convergence of the entrepreneurial process models.

We do not know when or how these points are going to be connected, but taking a constructivist

approach it can be assumed that each entrepreneur will be able to build its own process based on

the attributes, behaviours and skills needed to walk through the path of its own built


The best way to do this is through mastery experiences or opportunities to act entrepreneurially

and exposure to real life entrepreneurs and including different purposes according to the stage of

the process in which the entrepreneur is (Cox, 1996). In other words through mastering

experience, vicarious experience and social experience is the best way to develop the

entrepreneurial competence needed at each point of convergence of the entrepreneurial process

and transform the Complete Inexperienced potential entrepreneur into the Complete Experienced

potential entrepreneur.

107

Proceedings of the 241hAnnual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

Figure 4: Multidimensional self-efficacy, attributes, behaviours and skills, and the six

points of convergence of the entrepreneurial process.

MultidimensionatSelf-efficacv IJ<oal and control beliefs}

AttrihutP�

•Motivation. •Need of achievement. •>elr-conuoence. •A 'fu:':'rith.rt:� thought

process( overoptimism). •!.:>oal settlng-annoutes. •\M nrk-h1g: rru,"'fnrt':lhfv

with chaos. •Lre3t1VIty.

Source: Developed for this project.

Rph;:winurs

•Oooortunitv recognition, evaluation .end eHpf-o!i:itti¢h.

•Creation ofa new organisation.

-Deeh::i.on Moklng.

•Active learning. •Commitment to action.

Skllls

•I nnovation. •Networking . •l'ersonal meory.

Finally, the success on each of the six points of convergence depends on two factors: the

attributes, behaviours and skills of the entrepreneur and the individual dimensions of the ESE that

each entrepreneur has in each point. Some will posses high levels of task self-efficacy, others high

levels of outcome-self-efficacy and some will have a combination of both (Drnovsek et al., 2010).

4. Conclusion

What should be taught to entrepreneurs has been an issue that has not been addressed broadly in

the literature. Doing research in order to find the ideal curriculum for an entrepreneurship

education program has had little attention (Moremong-Nganunu, 2009). It is not an easy issue to

write about because there is so much to be learned, so many concepts and issues that go in

108

',,:ccProceedings of the 24'" Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

different directions. One very good example of this is the variety of entrepreneurship process

models there are in the literature.

Teaching entrepreneurship intends to guide people to be entrepreneurs, thus to have companies

being entrepreneurial. To achieve this they have to create organizations, to create them they need

attributes, behaviours and skills to either design or follow a process.

From a trait point of view an entrepreneur is a set of personality traits and characteristics, from a

behavioural approach the entrepreneur is seen as a set of activities involved in creating an

organization (Gartner, 1988), and the process approach is a description of the path they follow to

create value. Therefore, this paper concludes that in order to teach potential entrepreneurs, an

entrepreneurship education program should consider principles related to trait approaches,

behavioural approaches, skills and entrepreneurial processes.

Finally, combining the six points of convergence of the entrepreneurial processes with attributes,

behaviours, skills and multidimensional self-efficacy that could be used to design an

entrepreneurship education curriculum is one of the contributions of this paper.

5. Future research

This paper has reviewed some of the principles that an EEP should include when intending that

students become entrepreneurs sometime in their life. Nevertheless, there is still much work to do

in order to transform these principles into a proper curriculum that can be delivered in a

classroom to potential entrepreneurs.

As commented before during the paper it is not only what to teach, but also how to teach it. So,

one of the future paths of research related to this paper could be to develop a curriculum based

on these principles and to find the proper pedagogy to deliver such a curriculum. In this regard, a

blended learning approach has been proposed by Maritz (Maritz et al., 2011) which will suit an

EEP. It is also important to perform an exhaustive research on all the new technologies for

education and develop the curriculum and pedagogies that will suit the use of these new

technologies in the classrooms.

Another path to further this research could be to conduct a curriculum review in order to find out

whether the principles of the curricula that is actually being taught to potential entrepreneurs

matches with the proposal of this research. This could help to close the breach between theory

and practice in order to create a more effective EEP for potential entrepreneurs. Finally, another

suggestion for further research could be to empirically prove the suggestions made in this paper in

a group of potential entrepreneurs taught with a curriculum designed on the basis of the

propositions of this paper.

109

Proceedings of the 24'h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Maritz

6. References

Sager, T. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and new venture creation; a comprehensive approach. In K. Hindle & K. Klyver (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New Venture Creation: 386. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. Martfnez, A. C., Levie, J., Kelley, D. J., SJEmundsson, R. J., & Sch¢tt, T. 2010. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Special Report: A Global Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education and Training; 65: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Volkmann, C., Wilson, K .. E., Mariotti, S., Rabuzzi, D., Vyakarnam, S., & Sepulveda, A. 2009. Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century. In N. Tranchet & D. Rienstra (Eds.), A Report of the Global

Education Initiative World: 184. Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Estime, M.-F., Murphy, M., Ladegaard, P., Gang, Z., & Hall, C. 2004. Promoting entrepreneurship and innovative SMEs in a global economy; Towards a more responsible and inclusive globalisation. Istanbul, Turkey; OECD. Wilson, K. & Volkman, C. 2009. Educating the Next Wave of Entrepreneurs; Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st Century, A Report af the

Global Education Initiative: World Economic Forum. Moremong-Nganunu, T. 2009. Entrepreneurship education in developing countries: evaluation of

the start and improve your business program in Botswana. Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. Alsos, G. A. & Kolvereid, L 1998. The Business Gestation Process of Novice, Serial, and Parallel Business Founders. Entrepreneurship: Theory& Practice, 22(4): 101-114. Henry, c., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. 2005. Entrepreneurship education and training; can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education and Training, 47(2); 98-111. Cox, I. W. 1996. The goals and impact of educational interventions in the early stages of

entrepreneur career development. Paper presented at the lnternatlonalising Entrepreneurship Education and Training Conference, Arnhem. Johansen, V. & Clausen, T. H. 2011. Promoting the entrepreneurs of tomorrow; entrepreneurship education and start-up intentions among schoolchildren. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13{2): 208-219. Kuratko, D. F. 2005. The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education; Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5); 577-598. Katz, J. A. 2003. The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2): 283-300. Ronstadt, R. 1987. The educated entrepreneurs; A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small Business, 11(4): 37-53. Hills, G. E. 1988. Variations in univrersity entrepreneurship education; an empirical study of an evolving field. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1); 109-122. Solomon, G. 2007. An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of

Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2): 168 - 182. Kuratko, D. F. 2003. Entrepreneurship education; emerginng trends and challenges for the 21st Century. In C. F. W. P. Series (Ed.); 39. Muncie, IN; U.S. Association of Small business & Entrepreneurship.

110


Hindle, K. 2007. Teaching entrepreneurship at university: from the wrong building to the right philosophy. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education: 104-126. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar. Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row. Rae, D. & Carswell, M. 2001. Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Develoopment, 8(2): 150-158. Jamieson, I. 1984. Education for enterprise. In A. G. Watts & P. Moran (Eds.): 19-27. CRAC, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. Maritz, A., Brown, C., & Shieh, C. J. 2011. A blended learning approach to entrepreneurship education. Paper presented at the 8th AGSE International Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Melbourne, Australia. Erikson, T. 2003. Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Develoopment, 10(1): 106-112. Deakins, D. & Freel, M. 1998. Entrepreneurial Learninig and the Growth Process in SMEs. The Learning Organization, 5(3): 144-155. Gibb, A. 1987. Entrerprise Culture -Its Meaning and Implications jar Education and Training. Bradford: MCB University Press. Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001a. What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial? far submission to Harvard Business Review. Wood, R. & Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organisational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 361-384. Westhead, P. & Wright, M. 1998. Novice; Portfolio, and Serial Founders in Rural and Urban Areas. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 22(4): 63-100.

·

Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Smith, K. G. 2001. A multidemensional model of venture growth. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2): 292-304. Boyd, N. G. & Vozikis, G. S. 1994. The Influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 1S(4): 63-90. Chen, C. C. & Crick, A. 1998. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4): 295-316. Krueger, N. F. 2003. The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Z. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurial research: 105-140. London: Kluwer Law International. Markman, G. D., Balkin, D. B., & Baron, R. A. 2002. Inventors and new venture formation: the effects of general self-efficacy and regretful thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(2): 149-166. Segal, G., Borgia, D., & Schoenfeld, J. 2005. The motivation to become an entrepreneur. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 11(1): 42-57. Baron, R. A. & Markman, G. D. 1999. Cognitive mechanisms: potential differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship research 1999.

Drnovsek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, M. S. 2010. entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business startup: developing a multi-dimensional definition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(4): 329-348. Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. 2000. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6): 411-432. Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. 2003. Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management review, 13(2): 257-279. Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. 2003. The career reasons of nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1): 13-40. Gatewood, E. J., Shaver, K. G., Powers, J. B., & Gartner, W. B. 2002. Entrepreneurial expectancy, task effort, and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(1): 187-207.

Ill

Proceedings of the 241h Annual SEAANZ Conference: Arciniega and Moritz

Shaver, K. G., Gartner, W. B., Crosby, E., Bakalarova, K., & Gatewood, E. J. 2001. Attributions about

entrepreneurship: a framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(2): 28-33.

Fayolle, A., Basso, 0., & Tornikoski, E. T. 2011. Entrepreneurial commitment and new venture

creation: a conceptual exploration. In K. Hindle & K. Klyver (Eds.), Handbook of Research on New

Venture Creation: 386. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.

Low, M. B. & MacMillan, I. C. 1988. Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges.

Journal of Management, 14(2): 139-161.

Moroz, P. & Hindle, K. 2012 forthcoming. Entrepreneurship as a process: Toward harmonizing

multiple perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.

Birley, S. 1985. The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of business Venturing,

1: 107-117.

Jack, S. & Anderson, A. 2002. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process Journal

of Business Venturing, 17(5): 467-487.

Johannisson, B., Alexanderson, 0., Nowicki, K., & Senneseth, K. 1994. Anarchy and Organization:

Entrepreneurs in Contextual Networks. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 6(3): 329-356.

Slotte-Kock, S. & Coviello, N. 2010. Entrepreneurship Research on Network Processes: A Review

and Ways Forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(1): 31-57.

Alvarez, S. & Barney, J. 2007. Discovery and Creation: Alternative Theories of Entrepreneurial

Action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2): 11-26.

Davidsson, P. & Wiklund, J. 2001. Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current

Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4):

19.

Eckhardt, J. T. & Shane, S. A. 2003. Opportunities and Entrepreneurship. Jorunal of Management,

29(3): 17.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. 2000. THE PROMISE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS A FIELD OF

RESEARCH. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217-226.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. 2001. Entrepreneurship As a Field of Research: A Response to Zahra

and Dess, Singh, and Erikson. Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 13-16.

Van de Ven, A. & Engleman, R. 2004. Event- and outcome-driven explanations of

entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3): 343-358.

Venkataraman, S. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor's

perspective. In J. Katz & R. Brockhaus (Eds.), Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence, and

growth, Vol. 3: 119-138. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.

Baron, R. A. & Ward, T. B. 2004. Expanding Entrepreneurial Cognition's Toolbox: Potential

Contributions from the Field of Cognitive Science, Vol. 28: 553-573.

Mitchell, R. K., Busenitz, L., Lant, T., McDougall, P. P., Morse, E. A., & Smith, J. B. 2004. The

Distinctive and Inclusive Domain of Entrepreneurial Cognition Research, Vol. 28: 505-518.

Sarasvathy, S. 2006. Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham: Edward

elgar.

Gartner, W. 1985. A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture

Creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4): 696-706.

Gnyawali, D. R. & Fogel, D. S. 1994. Environments for Entrepreneurship Development: Key

Dimensions and Research Implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 18(4): 43-62.

Leibenstein, H. 1968. Entrepreneurship and Development. American Economic Review, 58(2): 72.

Phan, P. H. 2004. Entrepreneurship theory: Possibilities and future directions. Journal of Business

Venturing, 19(2): 617-620.

Ven, A. H. V. d. 1992. Suggestions for studying strategic process: A research note. Strategic

Management Journal of Business Venturing, 13(Summer): 169-191.

112


Bruyat, C. & Julien, P.-A. 2001. Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Venturing, 16{2): 165-180.

Sarasvathy, S. 2001b. Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic

inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26{2): 243.

Shane, S. 2003. A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus.

Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. 2004. Entrepreneurship Education: Notes on an Ongoing Debate,

14th Annual IntEnt Conference. Italy.

Gartner, W. B. 1988. "Who is an entrepreneur?" Is the wrong question. American Journal of Small

Business, 12{4 {Spring)): 11-32.

113

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Education: A ...

Documents

Transcript of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Education: A ...