Entrepreneurial Ability
This question has been the focus of significant research and debate that is entrepreneurial ability inherent in all of us? Does it require some external shock to awaken it? Can we identify the traits and can they be taught?
Shane (2010) in his book “discusses how your genes influence your work interests, work values, decision making, risk taking, management style, approach to leadership, creativity, entrepreneurship and work performance.” Shane’s conclusions were primarily based on the findings of studies of the twins, which has long been the favoured method of separating hereditary traits from environmental influences. Sensation seeking, for example, is a personality trait believed to be related with entrepreneurship. Shane and his colleagues studied over 3000 twins in U.K. and found “between 37 and 42 percent of the variance in tendency of people to engage in entrepreneurship is accounted for by genetic factors……. between 31 and 46 percent of this variance was mediated by psychological traits of sensation seeking” (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas and Spector, 2008, p 16). These findings are not entirely surprising or new. Both popular beliefs and scientific evidences suggest biology plays a role what we become eventually. So are these studies show we are only the product of ‘nature’?
Dana (2001) argues that the Schumpeterian entrepreneur who creates an innovation is more likely to be born, whilst the Kinzrerian entrepreneur who simply identifies an opportunity can be taught. A common denominator between these two broader classifications of entrepreneurs is that the innovation, whether created or identified, is exploited for profit. As a consequence training has to be tailored to the needs of entrepreneurs. A survey identfying the training and development methods most adapted to Quebec entrepreneurs showed the need for both lecture and participation (77%) and favoured trade associations working with educational institutions (57%) (Garnier et al., 1985). Bill Bolton and
Shane (2010) in his book “discusses how your genes influence your work interests, work values, decision making, risk taking, management style, approach to leadership, creativity, entrepreneurship and work performance.” Shane’s conclusions were primarily based on the findings of studies of the twins, which has long been the favoured method of separating hereditary traits from environmental influences. Sensation seeking, for example, is a personality trait believed to be related with entrepreneurship. Shane and his colleagues studied over 3000 twins in U.K. and found “between 37 and 42 percent of the variance in tendency of people to engage in entrepreneurship is accounted for by genetic factors……. between 31 and 46 percent of this variance was mediated by psychological traits of sensation seeking” (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas and Spector, 2008, p 16). These findings are not entirely surprising or new. Both popular beliefs and scientific evidences suggest biology plays a role what we become eventually. So are these studies show we are only the product of ‘nature’?
Dana (2001) argues that the Schumpeterian entrepreneur who creates an innovation is more likely to be born, whilst the Kinzrerian entrepreneur who simply identifies an opportunity can be taught. A common denominator between these two broader classifications of entrepreneurs is that the innovation, whether created or identified, is exploited for profit. As a consequence training has to be tailored to the needs of entrepreneurs. A survey identfying the training and development methods most adapted to Quebec entrepreneurs showed the need for both lecture and participation (77%) and favoured trade associations working with educational institutions (57%) (Garnier et al., 1985). Bill Bolton and