Justification for My Choices

Having collected mountains of entrepreneurship literature, read widely, published and wrestled with the fundamental theoretical and practical issues in the field, taught dozens of entrepreneurship courses, advised thousands of entrepreneurs (and would-be entrepreneurs), and having behaved and practiced entrepreneurship myself; I've obviously accumulated a massive amount of information and notions on the subject. I started out working with entrepreneurs in the late 1970’s, because they needed help, and because I was committed to improving the local economy. It just seemed like the right thing for a management professor to do. Helping entrepreneurs was my way of giving something back to the community (the "service" component of being a college professor positioned me perfectly to help for free). Entrepreneurs subsequently sucked me deeper and deeper into the tangled web of the study and practice of entrepreneurship over the last twenty-five years. I have learned much about the topic from just being around entrepreneurs; but as an academician and educator, it was important for me to also know the theory of the field. A natural synergy between my service, my practice and scholarly activity grew as I consistently integrated the theory and application practice into my classroom, consulting and writing; and as I developed entrepreneurship courses and grew into an entrepreneurship scholar. Then I genuinely discovered the concepts and philosophies associated with “systems thinking” and began teaching and practicing entrepreneurship with a deeper appreciation of the more holistic perspectives, and fully embraced the ideologies of open systems theory.

Reviewing the literature is vital for any advanced theoretical undertaking. No sense in remaking the wheel, nor do we want to repeat past mistakes. In formal classes on entrepreneurship, I recommend intense review of the literature, but recognize that the experience will not be without pain. The process is really simple. It starts with assembling a representative compilation of writings and information on entrepreneurship. There’s a lot out there, so, what is representative is a subjective matter. In advanced classes, several comprehensive reviews are advisable and then dozens of articles and books are advisable. I’ve personally recommended hundreds of sources as basic to the serious student. The annotated bibliography associated with this book barely scratches the surface, and the hundreds of citations I use in this book may or not be truly representative. Needless to say, I encourage the true student to dig deeper and more exhaustively. I especially challenge my students to prepare themselves to debate the deepest theoretical and practical issues concerning the construct of entrepreneurship, itself, to sharpen their imagination for entrepreneurship.

The imprecise, overlapping, tangential and contradictory terms and models about what entrepreneurship is and how it works ultimately create much confusion in the most seasoned professionals, because the dimensionality of the concept is so uncertain. Even attempts at factor analysis by leading theorists in the field of entrepreneurship (e.g., Gartner (1990) who use the latest refining mathematical techniques, are not very precise or compelling. Yet, the pursuit of a tighter science compels the conscientious student and theorist to begin a search for the essence of entrepreneurship, a search Wilken likened to the search for the “Heffaclump.” Other modern authors have echoed similar sentiments, and the result has been an irregular path of knowledge development and theoretical integration.

To deal with the definitional conundrum and other nuances, controversies and contradictions I find it useful in my advanced classes to first go back in time and look at very early theoretical and anecdotal writings. This strategy allows students to see a larger picture of the concept that includes a broad spectrum of historic mental models, stereotypes and biases that have emerged, and evolved. For a while, I try to protect my serious students from becoming too involved in ideas from current textbooks; which tend to treat entrepreneurship uncritically and presumptuously, often delimiting entrepreneurship to narrow, practical concepts in highly restricted research settings, or to simple archetypes. Today’s academics really have to narrow their focus to achieve research methodologies that are rigorous and publishable. Professionals in the field also tend to narrowly focus so that they appear to be experts that are able to precisely consult, develop curriculum, or even run a maturing company. Unfortunately, too much focus by self-proclaimed leaders in the field of entrepreneurship doesn’t serve those trying to learn about the unique aspects of entrepreneurship or practice at the cutting edge of knowledge. Explorations that are too narrow soon lose power to systematically advance such an abstract field, even if it sells textbooks, journal articles and consulting work.

Early in my experiences of regularly teaching entrepreneurship courses (early 1990’s), I enjoyed using a textbook by Donald Sexton and Nancy Bowman-Upton (1991) entitled, Entrepreneurship: Creativity and Growth. I still use it as a valuable reference in my classes and research, even though I don’t fully agree with its limited definition of entrepreneurship, which is “successfully growing a venture.” They focus on a very special kind of entrepreneurship, which conforms to a popular assumption that entrepreneurs exist only in creative, growing enterprises (one very limited and specific kind of possible entrepreneurial system, as you will see). Sexton and Bowman-Upton’s entrepreneurs see opportunities and continually grow new ventures to take advantage of opportunity. Entrepreneurship for them is less a style and more of an outcome or result. I find their definition to be a useful approach because it captures much of the content of what might be termed pop-entrepreneurship; that outcomes are everything. It’s also in vogue to write about the promising start-ups. But this conceptualization of entrepreneurship does not capture the larger connotation inherent in entrepreneurial intentions, orientations, events and behaviors that I can imagine as a systems thinker. Their definition doesn’t capture the full aurora of the holistic nature of entrepreneurship. My students emphatically echoed such concerns. They too argued that a rather limited outcome orientation of firm creation did not fit their sense of the historical literature, and had low practical utility in many other kinds of organizations and structures to which they had career aspirations (e.g., large corporations, nonprofit organizations, government, and personal situations). Topological definitions like Sexton’s and Bowman-Upton’s are therefore simply too narrow to capture the full system of entrepreneurship interrelationships. Using such definitions keeps it pretty simple in an entry-level class or in uncritical conversation about the basics of start-up enterprise formation. However, as we seek to critically imagine an abstract management concept and explore the frontiers of management knowledge, which is necessary to truly develop entrepreneurial managers, organizations and events, we have to deal more with the broader as well as deeper aspects of the field. We have to move to the boundaries of knowledge, and that involves accepting and using a myriad of perspectives. Consequently, I like to start at the beginning, letting my students build their own mental models as they go. As my serious students go through the historical analysis process, they find a rich and entertaining abundance of literature that leads the imagination along many trails. Many threads are necessary to form a cohesive theoretical fabric, from which a framework for personally understanding and implementing entrepreneurship can be built. The past and its directly observable continuity with the present gives us a perspective on the evolution in the assumptions that most be advanced managers had to make about influencing the human condition, in their particular epoch and set of conditions. Furthermore, I personally believe that any management or organizational intervention, whether it is entrepreneurial or some other style, that proceeds without a deep sense of the complexities involved in managing the way we organize is doomed to folly.