Upload
bgcwkochadai
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
1/21
CHAPTER II
INTRODUCTION
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ENTREPRENEUR
THE THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES.
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
APPROACH TO THE STUDY
COMPETENCY THE CONCEPT AND COMPONENTS
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCY
1
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
2/21
ENTRPRENEURSHIP,ENTREPRENEUR, ENTRPRENEURIAL COMPETENCY
CONCEPTS AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship plays a vital role in the economic development of any country. Around the
world, economically developed countries like Japan, U.S.A., Germany, England and others
have the evidence that the significant advancements in their economies are the outcomes of
the very basic vibrant cause which is otherwise known as entrepreneurship. It can be as well
linked to economic growth and ultimately to the overall prosperity of any nation.
Entrepreneurship is a critical factor in social and economic development of a country has
been amply documented in the literature in development economics ( Baumol 1968 :
Harbison , 1956 : Harbison & Meyer, 1959 : Leibenstein,1968,
1987:Schumpeter,1934,1950),sociology(Cochran ,1971: Etzioni, 1987: Young, 1971),socialpsychology ( Mc Clelland , 1961: Schatz,!965),and strategic management ( Drucker ,1985.)
For example, Schumpeter (1934) viewed entrepreneurship as an engine of creative
destruction involving the carrying out of new combinations, including the introduction of a
new product in to the market, the introduction of a new method of production, the opening of
a new market for output, the discovery of a new source of raw materials, and the creation of
a new form of industrial organization. Despite this recognition of the role of
entrepreneurship in socio economic development, controversy abounds concerning how
entrepreneurship in the developing countries is (or should be) promoted, what is required for
its emergence and so on. Sociologists maintain that certain cultures are more effective in
promoting entrepreneurship (and in fostering socio economic progress) than others (Shapero
and Sokol, 1982: Young, 1971). They suggest a need for a national programme of social
enlightenment to promote entrepreneurial values and related sociological qualities among
non-traditional entrepreneurial classes.
Social psychologists, on the other hand, associate entrepreneurship with certain
psychological characteristics and traits that members of a society exhibit. These traits
include need for achievement (McClelland, 1961), propensity to take risk, and locus of
control (Brockhaus, 1982) and so on. Policy implications stemming from this view have
emphasized the provision of rigorous training to particular individuals in order to instill the psychological qualities necessary for entrepreneurial success. For example, McClelland
(1961) argued that the urge to achieve is the single most important psychological factor for
entrepreneurial success, and that contrary to the views of other psychologists, this trait could
be acquired through education and training. Accordingly, economic development might be
achieved through administering training progrommes that helps individuals to develop
entrepreneurial competency for business start ups in developing countries. The present study
2
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
3/21
is an attempt in this direction that entrepreneurship can be promoted across different social
groups subject to the condition that the members of such groups develop their
entrepreneurial competency.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Entrepreneurs are the key persons of any country for promoting economic growth. All such
efforts which are made by an entrepreneur is called entrepreneurship. The emergence of
entrepreneurship is directly related to the socio economic development of the society. The
growth of the modernization process, such as, industrialization, urbanization, migration and
the economic reforms initiated in India in 1991 further encourage it. Industrialization as well
as urbanization serve two purposes. First they provide greater opportunities for productive
employment and secondly they function as an instrument of social change. Similar is the
effect of migration. The socio economic development of the country is attained only when
the society creates large number of entrepreneurs from various strata of population,particularly among the socially and economically backward and disadvantaged groups.
Entrepreneurship is an area of interest which has different connotation and it is understood
differently by different people. Entrepreneurship does not need a well developed institutional
support for its emergence but it is also characterized by the conditions associated with
underdevelopment. Therefore the entrepreneur under this condition need not be an
innovator but can very well be an imitator who would imbibe for his enterprise the
organization, technology and products of the innovators in other developed regions.
His role as an imitator is likely to be guided and controlled by the various constraints and
conditions peculiar to his area of operation and the factors under which he conducts his
minimal modest entrepreneurial activity. Ultimately entrepreneurship can be referred to a
forth factor of production and a catalyst of development.
Early studies debate at length the question of how entrepreneurs should be defined. The
debate is not yet concluded and there are n numbers of working definitions and the
justification of which is rarely made clear. Now a day increasing attention is being paid to
entrepreneurship as a component of economic growth. The basis for defining entrepreneurs
has ranged from across the following: According to Cole (1964: 8), to study entrepreneur isto study the cultural figure in modern economic history. For East (1946: 16), to investigate
the role of entrepreneurs is to study the personal function in economic history and to
introduce the problem of the business man. The very definition of entrepreneurship is a
difficult problem. The term entrepreneur has been used not only to denote industrial owner
and manager but also to cultivator (Sayigh. 1962: 26), and educationist (Young. 1971: 147).
Singer (1972: 283) used the term to refer to a Minister of Industries in the Government of
3
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
4/21
Tamil Nadu. Traders are also entrepreneurs in the sense that they are combiners and
dispensers of resources .In fact the term entrepreneur was first used to refer to military
expeditions and it meant a person who brought and sold goods at varying prices (Cochran,
1968: 87).
The entrepreneur as a unique risk bearer was identified by Richard Cantillon in the
beginning of the 18th century (Cochran, 1968: 88). For him the most important aspect of an
entrepreneur was his readiness to take risk. Say (1816: 28-29) emphasize the role of
entrepreneur as coordinator and planner of productive resources. It is Schumpeter
(1947:151) who stressed the human element of entrepreneurial function as a major factor in
the process of economic growth. For him innovation was the criterion of entrepreneurship,
which is simply the doing of things that are already done in a new way. Schumpeter
(1947:74-75) calls the carrying out of new combinations asenterpriseand the individuals
whose function is to carry them out as entrepreneurs .These include not only independent
business man but also employees.
Adding another dimension to the concept, Drucker (1985) defines entrepreneurship as
innovation in a business setting. Further, Oison (1985) states entrepreneurship as an
invention, an activity analogous to innovation as a primary entrepreneurial activity. Further,
Carland et al. (1984) proposes that innovation as the critical factor in distinguishing
entrepreneurs from managers and small business owners. Mc Clelland (1961) Hornaday and
Abound (1971) Timmons (1978) Brockhaus (1982) Carland et al. (1984) and Gartner (1990)
state that innovation remains a frequently identified functional characteristic of
entrepreneurs. Timmons (1978) suggested that creativity and innovation were conditions
inherent in the role of entrepreneurship.
Similarly McClelland (1961) conclude that a high need for achievement would influence
the self selection of an entrepreneurial position . Further evidences by Hornaday and
Banker ( 1970 ) Hornaday and Abond (1971) DeCarlo and Lyons (1979) Lachman ( 1980)
and Begley and Boyd ( 1986) show a positive relation ship between achievement
motivation and entrepreneurship. The most pertinent definition of entrepreneurship suitable
for developing countries like India has been provided by Erick and Longford (1997) who
define an entrepreneur as some one who created or seized his or her own business
The various definitions and characteristics of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship which
evolved in past came from the academicians of advanced countries. But the problem of the
third world countries did not receive so much of attention. These conditions were formulated
from the view point of developed countries. Modern scholars, however, have adopted a
practical approach in understanding the concept of entrepreneurship. It is very obvious that
the entrepreneurs of developing countries are facing specific problems such as, shortage of
4
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
5/21
capital and skilled labour, imperfect market and lack of other infrastructural facilities. The
entrepreneurs of such countries have to perform multiple functions to run enterprises
successfully. It seems for them only to concentrate on large scale manufacturing.
It is also important to note that the concept of entrepreneurship is not empirically delineated
in the right perspective and in fact, it is virtually a black box. With all these unresolved
issues, the economic show has been going on in every country of the world basically through
the revolutionary, change, agents called entrepreneurs.
ENTREPRENEUR
The word entrepreneur itself has an interesting history and it appeared first in French
according to Encyclopedia Britannica, long before there was any general concept of an
entrepreneurial function. By the early 16th century men engaged in leading military
expeditions were referred to as entrepreneurs. From this usage it was easy to move toapplying the word entrepreneur to other types of adventures. After 1700, entrepreneur
was a word which was frequently applied by the French to government road, bridge, harbor
and fortification contractors.
The term entrepreneur was first used by Richard Cantillon in his essay on The Nature of
Commerce (1755). According to him an entrepreneur was one who buys factor services at
certain prices in order to combine them to produce a product and sell it at uncertain prices at
the moment at which he commits himself to his costs. This analysis recognizes business
activity as a function and emphasizes the elements of direction and speculation which enter
into entrepreneurial activity. In other words an entrepreneur has the willingness to bear risk.
Cantillon viewed the term entrepreneur from the supply side and ignored the demand side.
Adam Smith (1776) regarded the entrepreneur as a capitalist undertaker (employer).The
undertaker provided his workers, capital and set them to work in order to make a profit, it
is only for the sake of profit that any man employs his capital in support of industry the
produce of which is likely to be of the greatest value, or to exchange (it) for the greatest
quantity either of money or other goods. Further he glorified the role of the capitalist-
employer by saying, By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society
more effectively than when he really intends to promote. Thus, Smith regarded theentrepreneur as promoting the interest of society at large, while advancing his own self
interest i.e. profit.
The term entrepreneur was later applied to architects. Seeing such activities as the
entrepreneurial function, Bernard f.de.Bolidor,Says and Hoselitz, defined it as buying labour
5
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
6/21
and material at uncertain prices and selling the resultant product at a contracted price.
(Gautam, 1979).
It can also be supplemented with Hoselitzs (1951) words. The word entrepreneur comes
from the French word entreprendre, which means to do some thing , and it was originally
used in the Middle Ages in the sense of a person who is active, who gets things done.
Vesper (1980) mentions that there are 11 types of entrepreneurs operating in the community.
However, all of Vesper's types are private sector related.
Ciastkowski and Vailey (1990) write: "It is of interest to note however that when
entrepreneurs are defined, they are rarely characterized by the pursuit of financial gain. Thus
persons who work in the public or social system might also be defined as entrepreneurs if the
entrepreneurial processes of searching for opportunities and accessing resources are applied
to this public or social role."
J B Say defined entrepreneur as the agent who combines the factors into a productive
organism. He described the entrepreneurs functional role as hiring the factors, combining
them, and overseeing them at work. Say explained that the entrepreneur shifts economic
resources out of an area of lower into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. J S
Mill, following Say, underlined specific entrepreneurial functions: direction, control,
superintendence, and risk bearing. The last function distinguished the entrepreneur from the
manger. For bearing the risk he was rewarded the residual value of the product, which was
termed as profit. He emphasized the function of direction in the productive process and
went on to say that very often it required no ordinary skill. Alfred Marshall, however,
treated profit as a single undifferentiated flow of income, and relegated entrepreneurship to
management, a special variety of brain-labour.
According to A P Usher, the ever-increasing division of labour necessitated a separate
entrepreneurial function, the essence of which lay in coordination of different economic
activities. This view reduced entrepreneurship to no more than a managerial function. J B
Clark in his Dynamic Theory defined profit as a residual payment and thereby
distinguished undertaker-cum-investor or risk-bearer from the manager. Profit was due to
the function of being a pioneer, of affecting changes in economic organizations, andadopting resources to them. Profit was, therefore, the excess of the earnings of the
undertaker over and above his possible alternative incomes interest and wages. This
excess income was due to a monopoly advantage over his rivals.
J A Hobson pointed out that, Profit is great or small according as (the undertaker) can buy
the other factors cheap and sell the produce dear. This is because of the fact that, the
6
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
7/21
number of competing entrepreneurs buying other factors is smaller than the number of
separate units of labour-power, capital, and land, which are competing to find buyers, and
the competition of the former is less keen, constant, and ubiquitous than the latter.
According to Prof. Cassel, profit is obtained due to a privileged position which the business
had secured in one or other respects. Profit must be regarded as a rent of position, and the
position, itself has a capital valuation which figures when the business is sold. In this
context, we may recall Clarks revealing statement: If competition rules without let or
hindrance, pure business profit would be annihilated as fast as it could be crated
entrepreneurs as such would never get and keep any income.
According to Maurice Dobb, monopoly was the Aladdins lamp to wealth. It was based on
property right, a right which bars others free access to scarce resources or markets. Further,
according to him, for the wealthy the marginal utility of money was less, and therefore
savings would be more, and the increased possession of wealth would increase the credit
worthiness, of utilizing the resources of others and thereby to enhance the monopoly power.
With Joseph Schumpeter, the term entrepreneur had attained a wider connotation. He
defined the entrepreneur as an inventor, and he included in innovation, introduction of new
products, new production methods, finding new markets, and building up of a new
organization of industry.
He said, The carrying out of new combinations we call enterprise; the individuals whose
function is to carry them out we call entrepreneurs, He attributed profit to innovations,
and once innovations cease capitalism is doomed. Schumpeter viewed development as a
deliberate and actively promoted process by some agency within the system and the agents
who provide economic leadership for initiating such changes are entrepreneurs. To Cole, an
entrepreneur is an individual who undertakes, to initiate, maintain, or aggrandize a profit-
oriented business unit for production, or distribution of economic goods and services.
Knight identified entrepreneur as recipient of pure profit as a reward for bearing the costs of
uncertainty. Uncertainty is identified with a situation where the probability of alternative
cannot be determined either by a priori reasoning or by statistical inference.
A F Barlett saw the entrepreneurs singleness of purpose as his most critical characteristicand ...this is not simply his determination to achieve his objective it is in fact a
concentration of his efforts and his resources on the critical factors that, in his view, create
the ultimate profit generation.
William J. Baumol, distinguishing between an entrepreneur and a manager, opined that, the
entrepreneur (whether or not, in fact, also doubles as a manager) has a different function. It
7
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
8/21
is the entrepreneurs job to locate new ideas and put them into effect. He must lead, perhaps
even inspire; and for him todays practice is never good for tomorrow, In short, he is the
Schumpeterian innovator, and something more, who exercises leadership. Baumol,
emphasizing the vital role of the entrepreneurial function in; economic growth, comments:
By ignoring the entrepreneur we are prevented from accounting full for a very substantial
portion of our historic growth.
Harvey Leibenstein defined entrepreneur as, An individual or group of individuals with for
major characteristics: he connects different markets, he is capable of making up for market
deficiencies (gap-filling), he is an input completer, and he creates or expands time-binding,
input-transforming entities (i.e., firms). While the role of Input completion involves
making available such inputs which improve the efficiency of existing production methods,
or facilitate the introduction of new ones, the gap-filling role is akin to the arbitrage
function. His special entrepreneur, in the less developed world, is one who performs most or
all these functions: search, discover, and evaluate economic opportunities, marshal thefinancial resources necessary for the enterprise, make time-binding arrangements, take
ultimate responsibility for management, be the ultimate uncertainty and /or risk bearer,
provide and be responsible for the motivational system within the firm, search and discover
new economic information, translate new information into new markets, techniques and
goods and provide leadership for the work group.
To sum up, an entrepreneur is described as a capitalist-employer seeking profit, a risk-
bearer, a monopolist, a decision-maker, an organizer, an innovator, and a manager. The
compound of all these attributes in operation may be termed as entrepreneurship
THE THEORITICAL PERSPECTIVES.
Entrepreneurship has developed in a systematic way since the beginning of industrial
revolution in Europe. The life-span of its development is a little more than two hundred
years. The data generated from various nationalities and societies have contributed largely
to the formation of various theoretical frame works for analyzing entrepreneurial
development. There has not been any monolithic approach towards theory building in the
field of entrepreneurial development. Various authors have taken multiple approaches to the
study of entrepreneurial development. No single factor therefore works as the onlydetermining variable for the phenomenon of entrepreneurship.
However, there have been efforts to bring out few variables to analyze entrepreneurship. For
instance, ethical values (Spirit) are said to be dominant factors for the growth of capitalism,
i.e., entrepreneurial behaviour (Max Weber). Minority group morale and status withdrawal is
said to be the cordial principle for entrepreneurial development (E. Hagen). Psychological
8
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
9/21
need for achievement motivation (David McClelland) is said to be responsible for
accomplishing industrial development. Boulding and Hoselitz argued that it is the political
system which determines the happening of entrepreneurship. For a few others exposure to
new ideas and opportunities (Tripathi and Sharma) explain the occurrence of
entrepreneurship. Thomas Tim berg and K.L. Sharma postulate the importance of family
background in the development of entrepreneurship. However, it must be said that the few
variables as have been suggested by various authors are not the only causative factors. The
stress is on the point that these variables are the important ones out of several variables.
Out of a large number of theories having a bearing on entrepreneurial characteristics,
behaviour and competency, a two-fold categorization has been made for the purpose of the
present study. In the first category are the theories which fall within the realm of
psychology and in the second category is the theories having sociological basis. Those
advocated psychological theories include J.A. Schumpeter, D.McClelland. E.Hagen and
John Kunkel. The theories having sociological orientation are postulated by Max Weber,Cochran, Frank Young and Hoselitz.
PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
J.A. Schumpeter has given a model of economic development. He has identified
entrepreneurial function as a distinctive function, which yields, separate returns, and
entrepreneurial gains as monopoly gains. His concept of innovation is more fundamental
than that of entrepreneurship. Though innovations are fundamental in the process of
economic development, the role of entrepreneurs is equally important. Schumpeter has
visualized innovative type of entrepreneurship in the process of industrialization. In fact,
Schumpeter has over emphasized the creative nature of innovations and creative
entrepreneurship in its strict sense, i.e. the entrepreneur is an innovator who is characterized
by potentialities of doing new things or doing things in a new way.
Thus, according to Schumpeter, an entrepreneur is a person who forces the opportunity and
tries to exploit it by introducing a new product, a new method of production, a new market, a
new source of raw material or a new combination of factors of production. By introducing
new ideas, new processes, new products and services, Schumpeterian entrepreneursultimately renew the economic activities not only of the firms and industries, but also those
of the region in which they are situated. When these entrepreneurial initiatives are
aggregated and evaluated in terms of economic impacts at a territorial level, it could mean
economic growth. Obviously, entrepreneurship is a kind of leadership which makes things
to happen in a way the leader decides rather than an ownership.
9
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
10/21
McClelland has explained a model of entrepreneurial development which is rather a
psychological perspective to understand the entrepreneurial growth.McClelland found high
correlation between the need for achievement motivation (n/ach) and successful economic
activities in his study of motivational orientation of American college students. His thesis
was further supported by data on principles of rearing boys who turned out to have high
degree of need for achievement motivation with the underlying motivational structure of
Puritans. To him a person who adds up a column of figures is not an entrepreneur; he is
simply following the established rules. In his theoretical assumption, an entrepreneur is a
man who decides to add a new line to his business; he cannot know in advance whether his
decision will be correct. The theory of entrepreneurship given by him can be seen as
development of Webers protestant Ethic in which an intermediary psychological motive, i.e.
the need for achievement, is introduced.
McClelland generalized the application of his thesis in analyzing entrepreneurial growth of
different communities and societies by interpreting it in the terms of ideologies reflected inliterature, art, history and religion, which according to him, generated the need for
achievement motivation. As Jains and Parsis progressed economically due to high degree of
their need for achievement motivation as a result of their child rearing practices.
McClelland does not differ from Weber and Hagen, because need for achievement
(McClelland) is more or less in the similar sense, as the terms, rationality or economic
rationality given by Weber and increased creativity by Hagen. There is no difference in
saying that the progress made by the Jains, is comparatively more, due to high degree of
n/ach or rationality or due to increased creativity. K.L. Sharma explains that
McClelland comes closer to Weber when he takes legends, child rearing practices and
ideologies as factors generating need for achievement motivation because these reflect
ethical values too. McClelland tries to relate motivation directly with entrepreneurship
assuming that it is the immediate cause of the entrepreneurship. The author more explicitly,
emphasizes the need for achievement or achievement orientation as the most relevant factor
for explaining economic behaviour. The high achievement is very much associated with
better performances which require some imagination, manipulation or new ways of putting
things together. Such people do better in a non-traditional way which requires some degree
of initiative or even inventiveness.
Evertt Hagens approach to entrepreneurial function has much in common withMcClellands conception of entrepreneurship. Hagens theory presents psychological
explanation and his concept of creative personality is also of an individual characterized
by a high need of achievement. This creative personality is interested in accelerating change
driven by a duty to achieve.
10
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
11/21
While describing the process of change in any society as the transition to economic growth
Hagen tries to find out the causes of transition. According to him the economic growth has
been very gradual and as such may or may not occur in the same generation but it is more
likely to be an inter-generational change.
Hagen develops the thesis that the disadvantaged minority group is mostly the source of
entrepreneurship. He gives a brief sketch of history of Japan. He indicates that Japan
developed sooner than any non-western society except Russia. He highlights two historical
forces: one, Japanese had been free from colonial disruption and another, the repeated long
continued withdrawal of expected status of Samurais from important groups in the Japanese
society. Hagen observes the child-rearing practices among the Samurais in giving a
particular shape to all the personalities. He argues that the forces of disruption against the
stability of traditional society should be equally powerful to have creative personalities. The
withdrawal of status respect may occur when a traditionally alike group is displaced by
force from its previous status by another traditional group, or when any superior groupchanges its attitude toward a subordinate group, or on migration to other place or a new
society.
Like Hagen, Park and Stonequist also have emphasized that technological innovations are
caused more by the culturally marginal persons than others. Jews and Greeks were such
races. The concept of marginal man is quite similar to the concept of disadvantaged
minority. Frayer also emphasized that Parsis could give lead in Indian entrepreneurship
because traditionally they had enjoyed prestige of which they were deprived later on. Their
strong desire and efforts to revive their lost prestige led them to successful entrepreneurship.
Hagens analysis fails to give policy measures for backward countries which are striving for
economic development as he identifies status withdrawal as the causal factor in the
emergence of creative personality and status withdrawal. On the other hand, Hagens thesis
of disadvantaged minority group has its own limitations. There are many disadvantaged
minority groups such as the Catholics in England, Negroes in the United States and
Scheduled Casts, Scheduled Tribes and Most Backward Casts in India which have not
supplied a good number of entrepreneurs. McClelland modifies Hagens thesis to explain
such cases. The subordination of minority group may develop upon the initial level of
motivation. Such modification can be supported by empirical findings in India whereminority or the disadvantaged groups could not develop their business schemes due to the
lack of social support and the means of development.
John Kunkels theory of entrepreneurial supply is of behavioural model. He presents this
model in contrast to Youngs treatment of social values and psychic needs. Kunkel takes the
position reducing values and personality types to the behaviour patterns from which they are
11
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
12/21
inferred. The entrepreneurial behaviour according to Kunkel is a function of the social
incentives.
It is very clear from human economic history that entrepreneurs are not equally distributed in
the population, and the minorities, on the basis of religion, ethnic, migration or displaced
elites have provided most of the entrepreneurial talent but not all the minority groups are the
sources of entrepreneurship. Kunkel argues that the marginal situation is not the guarantee
for the growth of entrepreneurship. There must be some additional significant factors at
work. He further states that the Industrial entrepreneurship depends upon four structures
which are found within a society or community. These are: imitation structure, demand
structure, opportunity structure and labour structure.
According to Kunkel entrepreneurial growth depends on the existence and expends to which
these factors are found in a society and proposes the hypothesis that the incidence of
entrepreneurship depends on both the objective and perceived configuration of the fourstructures. Any discrepancy between objective structures and the actual incidence of
entrepreneurs will be due to inadequate or incorrect perceptions of the various structures.It
is evident, however, that entrepreneurship depends on rather specific combinations of
circumstances which are difficult to create and easy to destroy.
In all, Kunkels model suggests that entrepreneurial behavior is a function of the surrounding
social structure and it is influenced by manipulable economic and social incentives.
Therefore, his model is based upon experimental psychology but identifies sociological
variables as the determinants of entrepreneurial growth.
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Max Weber analysed religion and its impact on economic aspect of the culture. According
to him, religious beliefs are the driving force for generating entrepreneurial activity. The
beliefs play a very crucial role in determining the future course of action on the
entrepreneurs. Weber was perhaps the first of the social scientists who took the position that
entrepreneurial growth is dependent upon ethical value system of the society.
Weber observed that the spirit of rapid industrial growth depends upon a rationalizedtechnology, acquisition of money and its rational use for productivity and multiplication of
money. These elements denote the spirit of capitalism and are basis for industrial growth.
They depend upon a specific value orientation of individuals and are generated by ethical
values. Weber illustrates his theoretical formulation by the relationship that he found
between protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. He holds his thesis true about the other
communities also, e.g. Hindu, Jain and Juda. He argues that the Protestants progress fast in
12
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
13/21
bringing capitalism because their ethical value system provided them with rational economic
attitude, while the Jews and Jains fail to develop industrial capitalism because of their value
of Pariha, (i.e. restrictions on having contact of any type with other communities).
Although, Robert Kennedy and Yale also have the same opinion that entrepreneurship
develops faster in those societies where ethical values help to develop independent capacity
of decision making. But Webers stand is not accepted universally. Samuelson criticizes his
thesis and indicates that capitalism also develops in those societies where protestant ethic is
not prevalent. Hoselitz argues that even Protestants could not develop industries in France
because they were not given political security.
In the Indian context, Tripathi observes that the Jains ethic is more rigorous than the Hindu
ethic. It is this reason, Jains should have been economically less developed than Hindus. But
the position is rather reverse. The commercial development of Jains is not due to their ethic
but it is due to their emergence from Hindu Vaishya, i.e. the traditional commercial
community in India. Morris criticizes Weber strongly by pointing out his failure to note thatthere might be ideological unity in India but there is never a unified Hindu value system.
Hindu value system is so diversified that even Jains are influenced by it and there is no
conflict in the ethical and professional values of the people. He also disagrees that caste has
restriction on people of non-business strata to enter manufacturing as he observes that
several Brahmins have entered into manufacturing concerns.
Above all, Carroll makes the conclusion from an empirical investigation of Philippin,
manufacturing entrepreneurs that ethical values have some effect on entrepreneurial growth
but to consider them all in all would be unrealistic. In short, Webers model is not adequate
to explain or to analyse the entrepreneurship in Indian situation as it is developed from the
western social system.
Another sociological theory of entrepreneurship is of Thomas Cochran. His approach of
entrepreneurship is based on the key elements, which are: cultural values, role expectations
and social sanctions. According to him the entrepreneurs are the individuals who represent
model personality of a society. This is to be seen in reference to the prevailing child
rearing practices and schooling common to the culture. As a businessman the performance
of the individuals may be seen in reference to the individuals own attributes towards
occupation, role expectations held by sanctioning groups, social values and the sanctions arethe most important determinants of these factors in the performance of businessmans
entrepreneurial roles.
Frank Young shares Cocharans position as to the role of personality factor. He, in his
theory of entrepreneurship, differs with Cocharan. Cocharan focused on social values and
sanctions in shaping the entrepreneurial activity. But Youngs sole concern is on inter-
13
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
14/21
group relation. He does not accept the characteristic of the entrepreneur at the individual
level. He says that instead of individuals, one must find clusters, called entrepreneurial
groups with higher differentiation having the capacity to react. Youngs theory of
entrepreneurship is a theory of change based on societys incorporation of reactive sub-
groups. The reactive ness of a sub-group, if experiences low status in the larger society will
lead to entrepreneurial behaviour, particularly, if the group has better institutional resources
than others in the society at the same level. The model of entrepreneurship presented by
Young suggests creation of supporting institutions in the society as determinates of
entrepreneurship.
Young maintains that entrepreneurial activity is generated by the particular family
background, experiences as a member of certain kind of groups and as a reflection of general
cultural values. A group will become reactive, as per Youngs theory, when the three
conditions coincide: first, when a group experiences low status recognition; second, when
the denial of access to important social networks; and third, when the group has betterinstitutional resources, than other groups in the society at the same level, then the
entrepreneurship emerges.
There is a consensus among some of the sociologists that creative nature of innovations,
need for achievement motivation, disadvantaged minority group morale, ethical value
system, cultural value system, role expectations and social sanctions, and reactiveness of a
sub-group experiences low status in the larger society, etc. cannot fully explain the growth of
entrepreneurship. One should have to consider the political structure of society also.
Political structure of France and Russia was the decisive factor for the growth of
entrepreneurship in these countries. In France (before 1789) and Russia (before 1917)
entrepreneurship did not flourish as the property and power were in the hands of a few
pleasure loving and irresponsible aristocrats. The persons who had opportunities had no
creative ability while others were having no opportunities.
Hoselitz argues that France lagged behind economically as her social structure did not
provide sufficient incentives and security to entrepreneurs. The same thesis he found true
when she observed the case of Japan and India. While explaining the faster growth of small
scale entrepreneurship in Japan in comparison to India, Hoselitz gives two reasons: First,
that the units in Japan leaned towards sub-contracting form due to institutional factors,where as in India sub-contracting system did not evolve due to lack of support of the
institutional factors; and second, that Japanese dual economy persisted in its own impetus,
where as Indian dual economy did so due to deliberate efforts of the government. According
to him, Japanese entrepreneurship could find active expression and resulted in faster
economic progress because her political system properly integrated the industrial and
agricultural economy; large, small and handicraft industries, labour intensive and capital
14
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
15/21
intensive technology; traditional and modern social structure; and because of non-existence
of colonial disruption.
On the basis of historical study of entrepreneurial growth in India and a few case studies of
the Indian pioneering entrepreneurs, Tripathi observes that the common factors between
Parsi and Hindu entrepreneurs was not the religious values but their exposure to new ideas
and values. The role of social movement like Brahma Samaj and Arya Samaj, and
expansion of education are very significant in exposing the Indian entrepreneurs to western
ideas leading them to entrepreneurship. K.N. Sharma explains the process of entrepreneurial
spread by analyzing the differential responses of the social groups to the opportunities
provided by the commitment of the political system to industrialization. To explain the
differences in responses, the political and the cultural system were considered by him. He
stated that the Parsis gave a lead because their value system did not refrain them from
developing contacts with Britishers, while Hindu business community could not develop
contacts owing to their religious values, therefore, they lagged behind. Muslims, too, laggedbehind due to their hostile attitudes towards non-Muslims as a result of their religious
beliefs. Therefore, exposure to new ideas as well as opportunities remained very limited.
Tripathi and Sharma both agree on the thesis that exposure to new ideas leads to entry in
manufacturing and success therein. Both of them differed on emphasizing the traditional
collectivities and group affinities based on religion, region and caste (K.N. Sharma) and
formal education (Tripathi).
The impact of regional industrial climate on the growth of entrepreneurship is also an
important factor. Pundit laid stress on the industrial climate. While analyzing the studies of
the Gujarati, Marwari Vaishyas scholars highlight their respective religious values and
certain groups characteristics. But Pundit challenged this interpretation and she argued that
the dominance of Gujarati and Marwari Vaishyas might be explained not in the terms of
ethical values or group characteristics but in terms of the regional factor, i.e. industrial
climate in these regions. She began her study with the question Since Jains and Vaishyas
were in every corner of India, why was it that only Marwari and Gujarati Vaishyas and Jains
gave in entrepreneurship, mostly in Gujarat, and why was that even non-Vaishyas and non-
Jains emerged in entrepreneurship in that area? While interpreting the date she argued that
Gujarat had a climate favorable to business and industry, even the Parsis showed higher
entrepreneurship because they belong to Gujarat. While comparing the industrial climate oftwo cities Ahmedabad and Bombay, she attributes the greater success of Gujarati
entrepreneurs in Bombay than in Ahmedabad due to relatively better industrial climate of
Bombay. The entrepreneurs of Bombay were more pioneering than the entrepreneurs of
Ahmedabad. The arguments of Pundit seem to be more convincing, even then, the group
factors and political structure, too, cannot be ignored altogether.
15
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
16/21
APPROACH TO THE STUDY
Early research into entrepreneurship often focused on the psychological characteristics of
entrepreneurs. Trait approaches were often employed, and long lists of entrepreneurial traits
were identified.
Recently, it has been argued that we can identify the potential entrepreneur through the
examination of key attitudes and intentions (Carsrud and Krueger 1995; Krueger and Brazeal
1994; Krueger 1995). Empirical studies show that intention is the single best predictor of
human behavior (Ajzen 1991; Kim and Hunter 1993), and some argue that launching a new
venture should be regarded as intentional as well (Katz and Gartner 1988; Krueger and
Carsrud 1993). Because intentions and the attitudes behind them appear consistent across
cultures (McGrath and MacMillan 1992), formal models of intentions should be applicable
to the study of how people come to see themselves as entrepreneurs.
In entrepreneurship and small business research, a firms performance is often considered
the ultimate criterion in both empirical studies ( Barkham, 1994; Box et al., 1994; Dyke et
al., 1992; Ibrahim and Goodwin, 1986; Learner et al., 1997) and theoretical models (Herron
and Robinson, 1993; Keats and Bracker, 1987; Hofer and Sandberg, 1987). The
entrepreneurs demographic, psychological and behavioral characteristics, as well as his or
her managerial skills and technical know-how ( collectively known as his potentials ) are
often cited as the most influential factors related to the performance of an enterprise .
It has been seen in different studies that entrepreneurial potentials are not found with all
individuals (Learned 1992). Shapero (1981) introduced the notion of entrepreneurial
potential. According to him, potential entrepreneurs surface and take the initiative when an
attractive opportunity presents itself. Individuals perceive opportunities. For an opportunity
to be seized, someone must first recognize it as a personally viable opportunity. When
potential entrepreneurs and opportunities coincide, entrepreneurial behavior may take place,
and a new firm can be founded. Thus, the joint occurrence of two events is critical for the
emergence of entrepreneurship and as a result creation of a new firm. The first is the
presence of an opportunity suited for a new firm and the second is a person who is able and
willing to take advantage of an entrepreneurial opportunity. Hence, before there can be anentrepreneurship, there must be an individual who is competent for entrepreneurship,
whether in a community seeking to develop or in a large organization seeking to innovate
(Krueger and Brazeal 1994).
Measures of entrepreneurial potential often relate to various personality profiles and
demographic characteristics with minimal predictive validity (e.g. Carsrud et al. 1993). It is
16
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
17/21
surprisingly difficult to distinguish entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. It is even more
difficult to differentiate the potential entrepreneur, if we rely on personality or demographic
data. Although it has been claimed that personality factors have the least predictability, yet
there are good number of studies to prove that personality factors or characteristics or other
wise known as competency, could well be used to predict entrepreneurship in a given group.
The influence of an entrepreneur is addressed by the competency approach from a process or
behavioral perspective. Entrepreneurial competencies are considered a higher-level
characteristic encompassing personality traits, skills and knowledge, and therefore can be
seen as the total ability of the entrepreneur to perform a job role successfully.
The main advantage of using this approach is that it offers us a way to investigate
entrepreneurial characteristics that have long-term effects and closer links to organizational
performance. Twenty five major areas of entrepreneurial competencies are identified for the
present study which include : Concern for high quality, Self confidence, Locus of control,Dealing with failures, Tolerance for ambiguity, Self esteem, Performance, Initiative, Sees
and acts on opportunity, Persistence, Assertiveness, Need for achievement, Need for
autonomy / power, Risk taking, Drive and energy, Innovation, Creativity, Information
seeking ,Systematic planning, Problem solving, Persuasion, Goal setting & perseverance,
Communication ability, Technical knowledge and Social skills.
As the focus of the model is the central role of the entrepreneur in determining firms
performance, this model implies that developing entrepreneurial competencies is the most
important issue than directly providing more resources and a positive environment to theentrepreneur.
The competency approach is also a way of studying individual characteristics leading to the
accomplishment of a job role or organizational success. It has been widely applied to the
study of managerial performance since the work of Boyatzis (1982), and is increasingly used
in the field of entrepreneurial performance.
In other words, this approach is a response to the need for long-lasting individual
characteristics leading to success, rather than simply skills and abilities, in facing increasing
competition. Therefore, the use of the competency approach matches the long-termorientation characteristic of competitiveness.
While competency can be studied from its inputs (antecedents to competencies), process
(task or behavior leading to competencies), or outcomes (achieving standards of competence
in functional areas) (Mole et al., 1993), we currently emphasize the process or behavioral
approach to studying entrepreneurial competencies in order to be in line with the process
17
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
18/21
dimension of the competitiveness condition. This approach assumes that the mere possession
of competencies does not necessarily make an entrepreneur competent. Rather,
competencies can only be demonstrated by a persons behavior and action, which
correspond to the dynamic characteristic of competitiveness.
In terms of a casual relationship, behavior is closer to performance than other entrepreneurial
characteristics, such as personality traits, intentions or motivations (Herron and Robinson,
1993; Gartner and Starr, 1993). According to Bird (1995), competencies are seen as
behavioral and observable but only partly intrapsychic characteristics of an entrepreneur.
Consequently, competencies are changeable and learnable, allowing intervention in terms of
the selection, training and development of entrepreneurship. These natures allow
entrepreneurial competencies to indicate the controllability characteristic of competitiveness.
In sum, the characteristics of entrepreneurial competencies can be investigated from a
process perspective, reflecting the actual behavior of the entrepreneur. They fit into thelong-term orientated, dynamic, and controllable natures of some competitiveness. They can
be considered as higher-level characteristics, representing the ability of the entrepreneur to
perform a job role successfully (Lau et a;., 1999) and encompassing personality traits, skills
and knowledge, which are in turn influenced by the entrepreneurs experience, training,
education, family background and other demographic variables (bird, 1995; Herron and
Robinson, 1993). We have examined previous empirical studies in entrepreneurial
competencies in an attempt to categorize all of the identified competencies into relevant
activities or behavior in business start up and its sustenance. Consequently, the twenty five
competencies are identified for this study.
Moreover, the moderating or interactive relationships suggested imply that there should be a
balance between various competency areas in order to ensure long-term performance. The
approach also calls for a study in the form of qualitative investigations into these
competency areas with an inter industry; inter social groups comparisons and a statistical
validation.
COMPETENCY THE CONCEPT AND COMPONENTS
Literature review suggests that definitions of competency may be drawn from a domain of
knowledge, skill, attitude and performance indicators. The F. E. U define competency as
the possession and development of sufficient skills, knowledge, appropriate attitudes and
experience for success in life roles (F. E.U, 1984).
18
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
19/21
Competencies are sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities of a person to meet a need such
as effective job performance. Boyatzis' (1982) performed a comprehensive study of over
2000 managers and he identified and assessed over a hundred potential competencies. Other
theorists have presented models of leadership and management that reveal general
agreement with Boyatzis' (1982) configuration (Locke et al. 1991; Yukl, 1989).
Competency shall be defined as a set of knowledge, skill and personality variables that are
linked with competent behaviour in a designated field. Confusion surrounds this definition.
Usage of the term competency varies and sometimes skills are called competencies which is
a broader term which encompasses knowledge, personality and behavioral variables as well.
This arises for each of the attributes of competency.
A competency also refers to a behavior or set of behaviors that describes excellent
performance in a given context. It does not refer to those behaviours which do not
demonstrate excellent performance. Therefore, they do not include knowledge, but doinclude applied knowledge or the behavioral application of knowledge that produces
success. In addition, competencies do include skill, but only the manifestation of skills that
produce success. Finally, competencies are not work motives, but do include observable
behaviors related to motives.
In fact competency is a wider concept which embodies the ability of a person to transfer his
skills and knowledge to new situations within the occupational area. It encompasses
organization and planning or work, innovation and coping with non-routine activities.
Definitions of competency may vary in terms of whether personality variables are viewed as
contingency or integral factors of competency. A competency may depend on a set of
personality precursors (Raven, 1984, P96). Furthermore, the works of McBer & Company
have found the soft skills (Personality variables) can be identified to predict performance
in more than 50 professions. This finding followed on from work that found at a series of
soft skills predicted competency in Foreign Service Officers e. g., non-verbal empathy (See
Spencer, 1983). The relation complicated with the suggestion that a competency may be a
feeling that is linked with motivation and high level performance (Arnold, 1988).
However there is some variation concerning what components are included as integral tocompetency. Competent performance may consider being the result of competency, equal to
competency or as a component of competency. It can be suggested that performance is a
result of competencies when it presents separate lists of competencies and performance
indicators (Training Agency, March 1989, 3).
19
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
20/21
It appears to be important to recognize the various components of competency. Personality,
knowledge, skill and performance variables need to be considered in any study of
competency. It is important for definitional purposes to clarify how these variables interact
to form a competency.
The profile of entrepreneurs, when we see, reveals that some of them run their business
successfully while others do not. Then the question arises naturally as to what makes the
entrepreneurs successful. In other words, what are the characteristics or qualities of the
successful entrepreneurs?
The possession of certain knowledge ,skill or personality profile called Entrepreneurial
Competency or Traits help the entrepreneurs perform well .In simple words , competency is
an underlying characteristics of a person which leads to his / her effective or superior
performances in a job .A job competence is a good combination of ones knowledge , skill ,
motive etc., which one uses to perform a given job well.
It is important to mention that the existence of these underlying characteristics may or may
not be known to the person concerned. This implies that the underlying characteristics
possessed by an entrepreneur which result in superior performance are called entrepreneurial
competency.
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPETENCY
Entrepreneurial competency refersto the sum of the entrepreneurs requisite attributes forsuccessful and sustainable entrepreneurship (Kiggundy, 2002). According to Kiggundy,
these attributes include attitudes, values, beliefs, knowledge, skills, abilities, personality,
wisdom, expertise (social, technical, and managerial), mindset, and behavioral tendencies.
Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) identified six schools of thought on entrepreneurship that
explain what constitutes an entrepreneur. Of the six schools, three assert that entrepreneurial
traits are innate and cannot be developed or trained in the classroom. The other three schools
of thought hold that entrepreneurial skills and competencies can be acquired through formal
training
Responding to the need to produce people with the necessary entrepreneurial competencies,training academies like EDI Ahamadabat provide work-based learning programs in order to
simulate an environment in which these competencies can be developed.
There are suggestions in the literature that entrepreneurial attributes are associated with high
level performance and perceived competence (Arnold, 1985). This study showed that
perceived competency is related to intrinsic motivation and a high level of performance
20
8/6/2019 Chapter II 25-8-2010
21/21
when causes for competency are attributed to personal factors (Arnold, 1985). Freedman &
Phillips also maintain the relevance of internal locus of control to the ability to maintain
stronger feelings of competence and self-determination (Freedman & Phillips, 1985).
Entrepreneurial attributes of motivation and internal locus of control appear to be very
relevant to a perception of competency. Pay rewards, for instance, appear to have no effect
on perceived competence, causal attribution of competence, motivation or performance
(Arnold, 198e). This study suggests that highly competent performance may be cultivated
by developing motivation. Motivation depends on perceiving that one is competent and
attributing this competence to personal ability and personality (Arnold, 1985).
The relation between enterprise and competence is further supported by Raven (Raven,
1984). He claims that competent behavior is dependant on many enterprise attributes.
These attributes refer to the motivation and ability to take the initiative and responsibility
(Raven, 1984, P96). Competence also depends on the understanding of concepts of risk-taking, efficiency, leadership, responsibility, accountability, communication, participation
and wealth (Raven, 1984, ap96).
It appears that there is some overlap between the attributes associated with competence and
enterprise. However, Ravens claim implies that one cannot be competent without being
enterprising.
It is important to consider methods of identifying competencies in the context of an activity
or job, given the abstract nature of competency. It has been argued that the assessment of
competency has better predictive validity than intelligence testing for predicting job success
(McClelland, 1973). Furthermore, a study of professional competence revealed that it is
more related to superior performance than amounts of knowledge (Klemp, 1977).