Up to now the role of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture in economic and social development has been diluted. Nevertheless, over the years it has become obvious that entrepreneurship has grown in importance and that it indeed contributes to economic well being. Converting ideas into successful economic opportunities is the main essence of entrepreneurship. If we cast an eye over the past, the economic momentum has been substantially advanced by pragmatic individuals who are creative and innovative, able to utilize opportunities and willing to take risks. Whatever the definition of entrepreneurship, it is associated with creativity, literacy, innovation and change that are in turn vital for competitiveness in the wake of increasing globalization. Therefore preparing successful entrepreneurship means advancing the competitiveness of a business. SME and entrepreneurship development are two very important factors in reducing the poverty of any country. For many countries SME is the backbone of their economy. In the wake of rising importance of entrepreneurship, various disputes over it, have increased. One such dispute is weather the entrepreneurs are born or made. The primary objective of this work is to compare and contrast the two schools of thought and based on the research make a reasonable conclusion. Entrepreneurs: born or made?
Firstly it is worth to identify what actually entrepreneurship is. Generally talking, there are many definitions of entrepreneurship. Many authors are still struggling with relevant definition. Many recognize three important themes deriving from various definitions – namely, that entrepreneurship involves risk and uncertainty, managerial competence and creativity. According to Kent (1990) ‘entrepreneurship is drawing from a wide range of skills capable of enhancement to add value to a targeted niche of human activity. The effort expended in finding and implementing such opportunities is rewarded by income and independence as well as pride in creation’ It is worth to examine these specifications further. Author begins with ‘‘wide range of skills’’. He says that people often misjudge the role of entrepreneurs; that is they are usually perceived as ‘‘doers’’ rather than ‘‘thinkers’’. Indeed, we usually characterize entrepreneurs as working machines. Of course, unlike much of general population, entrepreneurs are prone to initiating action, but at the same time they also address enormous effort to figuring out the logic of their endeavours. This mixture is normal, since the research that works out the basic linkages of an activity vastly reduces the labour-intensive trials that are critical to identification and implementation of a process. Thus entrepreneurs instinctively direct their efforts according to these implications. However, casual observers are likely to typify entrepreneur’s tactics by observing the final, public stages of introducing the product instead. Due to their focus on final result, the average person most likely to conclude that ‘‘entrepreneurs are born, not made’’. Undoubtedly, such claims omit the sustained effort necessary to reach a rewarding level of mastery. As an old adage says ‘‘It only takes twenty years of hard work to become an overnight success’’ (Kent, 1990). Hence, in addition to discovering the specific information essential to create a new product, entrepreneurs also need specific skills tied to the activity. Like any other professions, entrepreneurs benefit to the extent to which they can apply their insights. Therefore, whatever their innate abilities, much of the success lay on the effort they put into developing skills. Further to understand entrepreneurship or entrepreneurial intentions we need a psychological approach. Crant (1986) empirically demonstrated that proactivity is associated with entrepreneurial intentions. A sample of 181 American students provided data for his study. Where one-half of the students were...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document