Aula Invertida

3.9.1 Introduction

There is widespread recognition that entrepreneurs contribute to economic development by generating ideas, looking for opportunities, and translating these opportunities into commercial realities. Entrepreneurs have long been the subjects of intense scrutiny because of their wealth-generating capacity, and researchers have

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 87

focused on such questions as: Why do some individuals, and not others, against all odds and uncertainty, take risks and set up a new venture? Why do some people go to enormous lengths to convert their initial ideas and dreams into commercial reality? In other words, what are the differences between a successful entrepreneur and an unsuccessful one?

This researcher’s initial consideration of such questions led to a focus on personality attributes. Social science researchers have long attempted to explore ‘forces which shape the values, attitudes and approaches to life which lead certain people to take on the challenges of initiating, organising or developing which are generally associated with enterprise’ (Cannon, 1991, p. 6). Chell (1985) and Cannon (1991) used three models to explain these forces.

The first is called the Trait Model (associated with McClelland, 1961). Within this model there is an intelligent gene or a group of traits in a person’s personality that makes him or her enterprising. The ‘gene theory’ is supported by Andrews (1998), who suggested that ‘there is an entrepreneurial personality that is either written in the genes or imprinted in early youth’ (p. 24) without which an individual is unlikely to venture and succeed into business ownership. This model assumes a degree of permanency on the part of our personalities. In this regard, Eysenck (1965) suggested that human beings are endowed with two personality dimensions that correspond to motivation and emotion, and Woods (1998) proposed that genetics influences 75% of human personality while environmental factors influence the remaining 25% (Bolton and Thompson, 2000). McClelland (1961) argued that entrepreneurial traits cannot be developed. On the other hand, Shaver (1995) concluded that entrepreneurship involves psychological variables such as ‘attitudes towards independent business, interpersonal skills of self-presentation and negotiation, and ways of thinking about the social world’ (p. 21). These variables are not personality traits and they can be cultivated. Goleman (1995) argued that a manager’s ‘emotional intelligence’, which include confidence, curiosity, intentionality, relatedness, self-control, zeal and persistence, ability to motivate oneself, and capacity to communicate and co-operate

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 88

could be taught. Proof of successful training programmes to build these non- personality entrepreneurial traits is provided by Dainow (1988) and Gupta (1989). The second approach is known as the Psychodynamic Model (associated with Kets de Vries, 1977). The Psychodynamic Model suggests that an enterprising personality is a deviant behaviour arising from a deprived background, and entrepreneurship is a form of self-compensation for reducing dependence on others. The final approach is the Social Development Model (associated with Gibb and Ritchie, 1981). This approach states that a person’s enterprising personality is a reflection of domestic, social and occupational experiences.

In resource-scarce developing countries, a key issue for policy makers is the extent to which it is possible to develop the traits that lead to entrepreneurial success. Some researchers have concluded that entrepreneurial skills could be imparted to potential and existing entrepreneurs (Shaver, 1995; Richman, 1997). Others have argued that entrepreneurial traits could be developed through appropriate training. Stumpf, Dunbar, and Mullen (1991) suggested that ‘behavioural simulation technology, which has been successfully used to teach strategic and organizational processes and to diagnose and develop managerial skills, is appropriate for teaching entrepreneurship’ (p. 681). Similarly, Oneal (1993) and Kuratko and Hodgetts (2001) have stated that entrepreneurs are not born with certain personality traits and that entrepreneurship can be taught to interested people. The debate on whether entrepreneurs are born or created seems to be endless because many people with sound entrepreneurial education and training have failed, while others with little education or entrepreneurial guidance have demonstrated a record of achievement.

There is little doubt that some individuals possess ‘innate entrepreneurial flair, just as others have natural talents for mathematics or music’ (Echtner, 1995, p. 122). According to Loucks (1988), entrepreneurship appears to involve an appropriate mixture of innate enterprising traits and learned skills (Echtner, 1995). This theme was pursued by McMullan and Long (1990) who stated that entrepreneurship involves

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 89

a combination of ‘creativity and/or innovation, uncertainty and/or risk-taking, and managerial and/or business capabilities’ (Echtner, 1995, p.122). Of the items on the list, ‘innovation’ and ‘risk-taking’ may be considered as innate and thus difficult to cultivate or change. These two personality traits could, however, be helpful in screening potential entrepreneurs for training and development. The other two skills – ‘managerial’ and ‘business capabilities’ – could, however, be learnt through training and education programmes. In recent years, many innovative Fijians have experimented with entrepreneurship, but many have ultimately been unsuccessful, apparently because they lack the managerial and technical skills needed to operate a business.

3.9.2 Typologies of entrepreneurship

Typologies are important in entrepreneurial research because they assist in the ‘theoretical development of entrepreneurial behaviour and performance’ (Woo, Cooper, and Dunkelberg, 1988, p.165), and ‘draw attention to the essential

heterogeneity of entrepreneurs’ (Morrison and Rimmington et al., 1999, p. 30).

Hornaday (1990) suggested that the entrepreneurial concept be dropped from business research because of the difficulty in operationalising the word ‘entrepreneur'. Chell, Haworth and Brearley (1991), on the other hand, expressed the need for ‘entrepreneurial typologies’ to be applied to small business owners.

Starting a new business is a major decision in an individual’s life. Few people are born as entrepreneurs and relatively few new businesses are 'juvenile innovations', especially in the South Pacific. Research conducted in various parts of the world has shown that a majority of start-up ventures fold within a few years of operation (Wijewardena and Tibbits, 1999; Legge and Hindle, 1997). It has been reported that over 50% of the US business failures and bankruptcies during the 1980s occurred within five years of their establishment (Elmmuti and Kathawala, nd). Of those which

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 90

survive, some provide a livelihood for owners and employees and some develop subsequently into large enterprises.

With notable exceptions, indigenous start-up businesses in Fiji have been unable to expand into large enterprises. Many Indo-Fijian-owned businesses are also small. However family-owned businesses such as Punja and Sons Ltd, Motibhai and Company Ltd, Vinod Patel and Company, and the Tappoo Group of Companies started up as small business ventures and subsequently grew into multi-million dollar business empires. It may be noted that all these businesses belong to Gujeratis, though they constitute a minority category within the Indo-Fijian grouping. In India, Gujeratis live in the state of Gujarat, which is economically underdeveloped. But outside India Gujeratis have made considerable economic achievements, like in Uganda and Kenya, and have generated jealousy amongst the locals. The enormous success of Gujeratis in Uganda and their ‘isolationist’ lifestyle led President Idi Amin to expel a large number of them from Uganda in 1972.

The entrepreneurship literature has proposed a variety of entrepreneurship typologies. Braden (1977) has classified entrepreneurs into ‘caretakers’ and ‘managers’ (Das and Teng, 1997), while Smith (1967) grouped them into craftsman entrepreneurs and opportunistic entrepreneurs (Das and Teng, 1997). According to Smith (1967), craftsman entrepreneurs are exemplified by ‘mom and pop’ styles of store which do not sell new products and services and have a narrow education and training experience, low social awareness and involvement (Das and Teng, 1997). Opportunistic entrepreneurs have higher levels of education and training, and show greater levels of awareness and involvement (Das and Teng, 1997). They seek out hidden opportunities and introduce new products and services to the market. Kao (1989) divided entrepreneurs into product-oriented and technical or service-oriented entrepreneurs. These two types need different levels of education. Kao made a further distinction between creative and/or charismatic entrepreneurs who are ‘commercially innovative as well as entrepreneuring’ (p. 101). Kao’s entrepreneurs differ from

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 91

conventional entrepreneurs who own and expand their business with conventional ideas. Burch's (1986) model of entrepreneurship, shown in Figure 3.3, brings out the behavioural differences between entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs.

According to the model shown in Figure 3.3, the ‘Labourer’ is the least

entrepreneurial, while the ‘Bureaucrat’, the ‘Lender’ (bank officer), the ‘Professional’ and the ‘Manager’ tend to be non-entrepreneurial.

Figure 3.3: Tendencies towards entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial activities

Labourer Bureaucrat Lender Professional Manager Copycat Entrepreneur Opportunistic Entrepreneur Venture

Capitalist In novativ e Entrepreneur Inventrepreneur Non-entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Dependence-seeking……… ……….………..…..Independence-seeking Subsistence-seeking………..……….……… Wealth-seeking Averse to opportunity…………..…….………….……..…………...…Opportunity-seeking Noninnovative….……….………..Innovative Averse to venture……….………...………..Venture-seeking Averse to risk………..………..…………..Risk-accepting Analytic……...……….………. .Intuitive Source: Burch (1986, p. 16)

It is possible, however, for these individuals to exhibit streaks of entrepreneurship by introducing a new procedure, process or service. Copycat entrepreneurs imitate the products or services of others. Opportunistic entrepreneurs have a strong entrepreneurial disposition and are quick to exploit opportunities when they arise. Venture capitalists cannot be called entrepreneurs, for they are mostly sources of equity, while the innovative entrepreneur and the inventrepreneur exhibit strong entrepreneurial disposition. Many of Fiji’s ‘entrepreneurs’ appear to be of the 'copycat' type (including Indo-Fijian ‘entrepreneurs’).

T ende ncy Cal ibrato r

Chapter Three: Entrepreneurial development 92