The question of “Are entrepreneurs born or made?” has been an interrogative sentence for long as both confronting propositions are bolstered by sophisticated theories. Regardless of the perpetual fierce debate, my standpoint is that entrepreneurs are both born and made as these seemingly opposing ideologies are in fact coexisting with each other. This essay will attempt to critically discuss the authenticity of the above stance.
The definition of “entrepreneurs”
Entrepreneurs are defined as innovative people who conceptualize new ideas and take risks to transform ideas into entrepreneurial opportunities so to accomplish extraordinary achievements (Hatten, 1997; HoHolt, 1992). Conspicuously, this startling ability of exploiting and innovating ideas into feasible opportunities (Piperopoulos, 2011) differentiates entrepreneurs from ordinary people. But in concrete, what fundamental factors account for these entrepreneurial traits?
A Brief introduction to parameters accounting for entrepreneurs’ distinctiveness
Chiefly, “Entrepreneurs’ character traits”, “Situational factors” and “Antecedent influences” are believed to have substantial influences on the entrepreneurs’ propensity for entrepreneurship practice (Piperopoulos, 2011:3). The details are shown on the diagram below (Piperopoulos, 2011):
With the acknowledgement of these dominating parameters affecting entrepreneurs’ behaviors, it is high time to critically evaluate the “made” and “born” factors of entrepreneurs.
The “made” factors for entrepreneurs
Conclusively, entrepreneurship can be classified into two components: “Science” and “Arts” part (Jack and Anderson, 1998). For the former one, it refers to “teachable” (Miller, 1987) theoretical business know-how like “Technical Management and Organizing skills” (Hisrich and Peters ,1998:20) or “Business management skills” including “planning to decision-making skills” (Hisrich and Peters ,1998:20) while for the latter one, it refers to “non-transferable” (Jack and Anderson, 1998) entrepreneurs’ attributes like “creativity”, “self-efficacy”(Goel and Karri, 2006) or “personal traits” etc. (Jack and Anderson ,1998). Doubtless, it is crucial for entrepreneurs to acquire teachable theories in that the profound theories constitute the “knowledge bank” for entrepreneurs to base upon in strategies formulation, which is inevitably incremental to business set-ups (Shepherd and Douglas, 1997). Yet, the transference of profound theoretical knowledge is only the first stage of entrepreneurial education as integrally; it can be viewed as a three-stage framework (Jamieson, 1984).
Alongside the implementation of the first stage teaching, concurrently, second stage and third stage, which aim at imparting tangible “practical skills” to students for business set-up (Jamieson, 1984), businesses’ pre-start phase, growth and future development (Piperopoulos, 2009), should also be implemented on account of entrepreneurship development is not only about the mastering of abstract theoretical knowledge.
Still, having possessed the profound knowledge or practical know-how only poses a foundation for entrepreneurship. To transform students’ knowledge into entrepreneurs’ instincts, students should apply their knowledge and the simulated business situations like “MANAGEMENT SIMULATIONS” or “STRUCTURED EXERCISES” (Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994) provide them the chance to do so and they can familiarize themselves with the decisional-making processes due to their actual engagement in decisional-making process in highly-alike simulated business situations. Further, students may even develop their own “entrepreneurial philosophies” as through their critical evaluation based on the outcomes from their decisions, they can know what business deeds best suited them.
Since creativity is constructed by the two complementary and inextricable...