Entrepreneurial orientations of business students and entrepreneurs

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain the implications of different entrepreneurial orientations on business start‐up and development challenges.Design/methodology/approachThis research reflects surveys of 1,075 experienced entrepreneurs and business and entrepreneurship students in Estonia during the years 2005‐2010. An additional method is action learning and reflections of training focused on recognising new business opportunities during the economic crises.FindingsCombinations of co‐creative and innovative entrepreneurial orientations are more popular than the imitative entrepreneurial orientation. There is, however, an essential contradiction between stressing the principles of co‐creative orientation at the first stages of business opportunity identification and taking a more individualistic approach to innovation at later stages of the business development process and implementing the related changes. Potential entrepreneurs developing radically new innovative ideas in emerging economies should assess more realistically their existing core competences and search for opportunities to improve their competence base through cross‐border networking.Research limitations/implicationsSurveys that apply the self‐assessment tool do not comprise a representative sample of all Estonian entrepreneurs. These surveys have been conducted in training settings and support self‐development of trainees. Research results can be used for differentiating entrepreneurship training and education. An important opportunity for entrepreneurship education in the context of organisational change is to support the cross‐border exchange of entrepreneurial ideas between “blue ocean dreamers”, who sometimes lack entrepreneurship experience, and more experienced entrepreneurs, who may be trapped in some regionally‐limited business in a highly competitive domestic market.Originality/valueThe results of the research explain why entrepreneurship training has to take into consideration differences between imitative, individually innovative and co‐creative entrepreneurs.

Examining the Effects of Entrepreneurial Competencies on Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention

“…Santandreu-Mascarell, Garzon, and Knorr (2013) revealed that one way entrepreneurs contribute to economic development is through innovation involving the growth of new products, new processes, new supply sources, new market exploitation, and the development of new ways to organize business. In addition, there is another important feature of an innovator's competence, which is to know whether markets are ready for commercializing their innovative solutions (Elenurm, 2012). Literature on entrepreneurial intention also shows the positive effect of innovativeness on entrepreneurial attitude (Robinson et al, 1991).…”

A content and comparative analysis of strategic management research in the Baltic area

“…Entrepreneurship is largely rooted in the research of Mintzberg (1973), while the scales are mainly credited to Khandwalla (1977) and Lumpkin and Dess (1996). Some examples of studies on entrepreneurship orientation in the Baltic area are those of Elenurm andAlas (2009) andElenurm (2012).…”

What culture is your university? Have universities any right to teach entrepreneurialism?

“…In support of teaching entrepreneurial skills Gürol and Atsan (2006), not too surprisingly, recognise entrepreneurial traits to be higher in entrepreneurially inclined students when compared to their entrepreneurially non-inclined students' counterpart. They have higher risk-taking propensity, internal locus of control, higher innovativeness and higher needs for achievements (Elenurm, 2012;Iredale, 2010, 2014;Short et al, 2010). Meanwhile, many academics and scholars support innovation and entrepreneurial studies as a means to improving a nations prosperity (Hynes, 1996;Hytti and O'Gorman, 2004;Rae, 2007;Draycott and Rae, 2011;Beynon et al, 2014).…”