Who Is an Entrepreneur

Common/ contrastive aspects of the paper2 Conclusions6 References7 Who is an enterpriser? Introduction Who is an enterpriser? is a scruple that aroused umpteen controversies and debates. Among many holds that talks approximately the entrepreneur and the handle of entrepreneurship I ordain focus on cardinal phrases that time-tested to answer this question or demonstrate the uselessness of the question. Analyzing many different points of fool entirely in allow for conduct to a advance and deeper concord of the phenomena.Therefore, this is non an ex proceeding science, c ar for typesetters case mathematics or physics. It leads us oftentimes to interpretation, which means that, thither will always be a need of debate. Short Summary In the article Differentiating entrepreneurs from miserable ph mavin line Owners A Conceptualization, Carland et al. tries to answer the question by foc apply on the characteristics of an entrepreneur and they go further with compari ng him to a refined trade possessor. They assigntle a definition for all(prenominal) and then, they apply the main ideas to a larger scale and differentiate an entrepreneurial venture from a blue origin.Gartner criticize their point of view in his article Who is an entrepreneur? Is the vilify question and holds that it is improper to define the entrepreneur because it would mean that an entrepreneur fits a certain type of mortal, which is non true since the views are not homogenous. That is why Gartner involves a more than suitable approach for the excogitation, to analyze the entrepreneurs behavior. In the article Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth request, Carland et al. tries to respond to Gartners critique and in the end, he argues that indeed entrepreneurship is a complex and dynamic fantasy.Common/different aspects of the paper In the article Differentiating Entrepreneurs from scummy caper Owners A Conceptualization, Carland et al. , in terms of entr epreneur and sharp backing owner, focus on intentionality and characteristics. In their opinion, an entrepreneur purpose is service and obtainment and he is characterized as an ripe psyche who will work strategic management arranges, while a small business organisation owners purpose is furthering somebodyal goals, and to whom the business is the ancient blood line of in fall down which will consume almost all of his time.In terms of differentiating Entrepreneurial Ventures form depleted Business Ventures, they focus on the same ideas applied to a larger scale. However, this drive to define the impressions, and especially their arguments were hardly criticized by Gartner in his article Who Is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question. He brings into discussion the situation when an exclusive personal goal is to establish a business for profit and growth. He considers that Carland et al. are one shot, first by focusing on intentionality, instead of construct, and tri ce by focusing on the person instead of the act of entrepreneurship.He argues that, by referring only to intentionality rather than to concrete things same articulated strategies or observed behaviors, they increased even more the ambiguity. In my opinion, Carland et al. s attempt to define a small business owner as an mortal whose main characteristic is achieving its personal goals is a vague statement. To be more particular proposition, I will take as an example a farmer, who lives in the country, has no job, owns 10 hectares of vineyards, and decides to start a business in booze industry. For him, this will be the primary source of income.To help me set his goals, I will analyze Maslow pyramid. According to Abraham Maslow we will start from the base. Our farmers first goal will be to sell as much wine as to be able to keep on his physiological needs, like buying food, water and so one. After satisfying his basic needs, he will want to assure the need of safety and in that re spectfore, he will need to earn more money. So how can he do that? Growing his business and raising his earnings. This means that his goal will adjustment into growth and profit while his business remains his principal source of income. And so one, we can continue to higher stages in the pyramid.Therefore, I consider that, the desire of achieving its personal goals cannot be a specific characteristic for a small business owner. I connaturally believe that the two terms, entrepreneur and small business owner, are so close link that the transition between them can be made very leisurely and therefore I again dis assort with Carland et al. because of their attempt to totally rive the concepts. For instance, if we take the farmer, on the the first stage of Maslow pyramid, according to Carland et al. , he fits the exposition of a small business owner, by having his business as his primary source of income and furthering his personal goals.But, what if we add that he discovers a se cret rule of wine, a overbold type of product, and he is able to put it into practice? This last feature be broads to an entrepreneur therefore, the farmer will have some(prenominal) characteristics from a small business owner and an entrepreneur. So is he rattling a small business owner or he had wrick 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 researches in entrepreneurship, than trait approaches.He withal recognizes that trait approaches and behavioral trait approaches are two 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 ecesis. For instance, Arthur kale tries to take a behavioral viewpoint of an entrepreneur and then analyses his traits and s pecific characteristics (judgment, perseverance, knowledge of the world and business).Jenks and Kilby disagree with studying the personality of an entrepreneur and they advertise researchers to study the behaviors and activities of an entrepreneur. However here, I consider that we can analyze equally, two the traits and the behavioral of an somebody, because are strongly connected, and can be related in both ways, only if 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 most often takes hasty decisions he could be an madcap person.And second, if we analyze an individual characteristics, we can suppose that he will pay in a certain way, like if he is very assured in its believes he could assume more endangerments than a person who does not trust its own ideas. Still we have to analyze apiece person as a simple, because everyone is unique and behaves in its own way. Gartner uses researches that focuses on the person of the entrepreneur, and tries to settle 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, but if we port at the studies, we can see that few entrepreneurs employ the same definition, so the views are not homogenous. In the article Who is an entrepreneur? Is a question worth asking, after analyzing a compilation of Gartners studies of entrepreneurship, Carl et al. demonstrated the fruitlessness of his trait research.They considered that he used inconsistent definitions, samples that are not homogeneous or comparable and most important, he created an inconsistent entrepreneurial profile, which is often not significantly different from the rest of the population. Van de Ven find oneselfs it in any case 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 think why they have excluded it.According to Gartner, we cannot talk anymore about entrepreneurs in widely distributed 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 also 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 believes 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 in advance(p) behavior, and he brings up the problem of ident ifying if only the first firms in each industry are the groundbreaking ones and all other sequent 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 company in each industry is innovative, like Gartner believes.Even if two firms are competing on the same industry, the second firm appeared on the trade, could have products with the same utility and some similar characteristics, but the product can also contain an extra reinvigorated, special, different, and innovative characteristic. Like for instance when it appeared the beer with lemon, I consider that is was a result 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 vernal and different product.In this respect, Bhide, in his article The questions every entrepreneur must answer, con siders that in the same industry, the election that suits for one entrepreneurial venture can be completely irrelevant 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 intent as an example of entrepreneurship. On the one side, he manages to debar 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 restriction to innovation, organizational context, risk taking and others.He sees entrepreneurship on a small level, which has important effects on a bigger scale, because it sees the whole market. In addition, it is brought into discussion the problem o f differentiating a product from its similar product that constitutes innovation. Moreover, but not lastly we demo with the dilemma 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 creation 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 respect, Greiner (1972) and Steinmetz (1969) considers that any organization can survive on past its creation stage to all the possible stages like growth, maturity, and decline.Therefore, if we look at the process itself and analyze each stage, when the individual creates an organization he takes different roles like innovato r, manager, small business owner and many others and each is characterized by specific behaviors. But the gear up of these stages arent always 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 revolutionary product.To be more specific, if we take in consideration a company which produces take out, and it discovers a new product that havent existed before, lets suppose its butter, than the company will have to develop only some extra operations to make the revolutionary product. Therefore, 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 wonted(prenominal) 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 raise polemics, we can find on the article of Ucbasaran et al. , Does entrepreneurial experience influence opportunity identification? . After using data and research methodological analysis among individuals engaged in entrepreneurial acts, they conclude that, on the one side, there are some differences between inexperienced novice entrepreneurs and experienced accustomed 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. wizard 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 identification is different. They consider that one opportunity often leads to another bu t it can also bug out in connection with some problems.Experienced entrepreneurs are also convinced that it is of the essence(p) to obtain the necessary resources and capital to implement a good idea, and they emphasize the importance 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 best person for the right activity, based 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 environments.I believe that habitual entrepreneurs indeed find more easily business opportunities because of their experience in the changing of the market needs, and most important customers needs. They have a relegate understanding of the market mechanism and how vital is the spontaneity. They also unders tand 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 analyzed 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 organization, including start-ups), sensitivity to initial conditions and multiplicity to anterior variables.In my opinion, using mathematics or some other exact sciences offers us a less unobjective approach but if the model is not complex enough, we can also miss some details that could lead us to a rung conclusion or interpretation. Conclusions After analyzing opinions from several 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 common 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 measure the concept through statistics, all having the same aim, to understand deeper the concept. However, there will always be the need 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 vision 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 enormous risks in order to fulfill its goal and he is able to conciliate 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. & Hof er, 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)