The Overview Of Entrepreneurship Commerce Essay Example

School sees entrepreneurs as organizers and managers of their economic ventures. They have a propensity for taking risks and are mainly concerned with organizing, owning, and managing resources. This particular group of individuals can be trained and developed in various essential aspects of leadership such as planning, organizing finances, and managing people.

The Leadership School asserts that entrepreneurs are leaders who achieve their objectives through others (followers) by providing guidance,motivation,and taking charge.They can adapt their leadership styles according to the needs of their team members.

Finally,the Cunningham & Lischeron (1991) study introduced The Intrapreneurship approach as the last perspective.The Intrapreneurship approach emphasizes entrepreneurship within existing organizations where employees exhibit entrepreneurial behavior in driving innovation and growth.This approach suggests that complex organizations can use entrepreneurial skills to establish and develop new independent units for growth. According to this perspective, incorporating entrepreneurial behaviors within these organizations helps them thrive in rapidly changing environments. Similarly, Kobia & Sikalieh (2010) observed that researchers have made efforts to define entrepreneurship through traits, behavioral, and opportunity identification approaches. The traits approach falls under psychological and personality research and proposes that individuals display entrepreneurial behavior due to specific attributes that differentiate them from others (Shane, 2007). Consequently, a significant amount of research has aimed at addressing questions regarding the characteristics and behaviors of entrepreneurs compared to individuals facing similar circumstances but are not entrepreneurs. Several traits and personality characteristics have been identified and linked with entrepreneurs, receiving substantial research attention. These traits include a desire for achievement, an internal locus of control, and a propensity for risk-taking. In contrast, the behavioral approach focuses on the actions taken by entrepreneurs rather than their personal attributes.

This approach examines entrepreneurship based on creating a business venture while placing less emphasis on personality traits.The opportunity identification approach sees entrepreneurship as the connection between opportunities and enterprising individuals. According to Shane and Venkataraman (2000) and Shane (2012), entrepreneurship is the process of identifying, evaluating, and exploiting new business opportunities through establishing new ventures. This definition is widely accepted by researchers (Aldrich & Cliff, 2003). Additionally, entrepreneurship can be seen as entering a market, recognizing opportunities, generating ideas, etc. According to Shane (2003), it involves activities like recognizing opportunities, launching and developing new ventures. It's the process of turning ideas into products or services and creating a venture to bring them to market. Entrepreneurship can also be understood through its qualities such as risk-taking, innovativeness, and pro-activeness (Sandhu et al., 2011). However, since its inception three centuries ago, there have been multiple definitions of entrepreneurship. Fortner (2006) has compiled these definitions in the following table. Therefore, entrepreneurship lacks a universal definition and can be defined in various ways depending on the perspective of the definer.Cantillon (1755) defined entrepreneurship as any form of self-employment. Say (1803) described it as the combination of factors for production. Schumpeter (1934), credited with reviving the concept, defined entrepreneurship as the execution of new combinations that disrupt market equilibrium and are driven by innovation. Cole (1968) defines entrepreneurship as the purposeful activity to originate, keep, and develop a profit-oriented concern. Leibenstein (1969) states that entrepreneurship involves activities necessary to make or transport on an endeavor where not all markets are well-established or clearly defined and/or in which relevant parts of the production map are not wholly known. Kirzner (1973) describes

entrepreneurship as the exploration of opportunities with the ability to correctly anticipate where the next market imperfections and instabilities will be. Ronstadt (1984) defines entrepreneurship as the dynamic process of creating incremental wealth. Hisrich (1989) defines entrepreneurship as the process of creating something different with value by giving the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychological, and social risks, and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction. Vesper (1986) refers to entrepreneurship as new venture creation.Stevenson, Roberts, and Gousbeck (1985) define entrepreneurship as a process by which individuals, either on their own or inside an organization, pursue opportunities without respect for the resources they currently control.

Gartner (1989) describes entrepreneurship as the creation of new organizations.

Low & MacMillan (1988) define entrepreneurship as the creation of new venture.

Stevenson and Sahlman (1989) define entrepreneurship as the serious pursuit of opportunity without regard for resources currently controlled.

Stoner and Freeman (1992) define entrepreneurship as the process of combining resources to produce goods or services that promote economic growth, increase productivity, and create new technologies, products, and services.

Bygrave and Timmons (1992) describe entrepreneurship as the process of creating or seizing an opportunity and pursuing it regardless of the resources currently controlled.

Drucker (1995) defines innovation as the effort to create meaningful, focused change in an enterprise's economic or social potential.

Harvard Business School (2002) describes entrepreneurship as a way of managing opportunities over time involving continuous identification and pursuit of opportunity, marshaling organization of resources to address evolving opportunities ,and ongoing review needs context changes over time.Frotner (2006) explores the concept of entrepreneurship and acknowledges the lack of a universally accepted definition for entrepreneurs or entrepreneurship.

The term "entrepreneur" originated from French, meaning to undertake. Richard Cantillon, an Irish-French entrepreneur and economist from the 18th century, played a significant role in shaping this concept (Davis, 2006). According to Cantillon's definition cited by Baycan-Levent & Kundak (2009), an entrepreneur is someone who purchases factors of production at specific prices and combines them into a product with the intention of selling it at uncertain future prices.

Schumpeter (1950) describes an entrepreneur as an individual who possesses both the willingness and ability to transform new ideas into successful innovative inventions. He argues that entrepreneurship leads to what he refers to as "creative destruction" in different markets and industries, resulting in the creation of new products and business models. Schumpeter believes that this creative destruction driven by entrepreneurs influences industry dynamism and long-term economic growth (Baycan-Levent & Kundak, 2009).

In summary, entrepreneurs are individuals who are self-employed while also being employers. They prefer being their own bosses, originating ideas, initiating them, launching ventures, and nurturing their development. Some view entrepreneurs as inventors or creators of new ideas while others see them as explorers or implementers of existing concepts.According to Carsrud & Brannback (2011), some may define an entrepreneur as someone who is attentive to the market and takes action to fill a gap or fulfill a need. Being an entrepreneur requires confidence and the ability to identify opportunities and turn them into reality. The term "entrepreneur" refers to an individual who owns and manages a business, taking initiatives, accepting risks and failures, and using resources to create value for customers (Hisrich and Peters, as cited in Omar, 2011). Casson & Wadeson (2007) propose four approaches to defining

entrepreneurs: functions they perform (e.g., innovation, risk-taking), roles they play (e.g., business ownership, management, self-employment), characteristics they possess (attitude, optimism, confidence, culture), and their behavior (e.g., taking initiative, making critical decisions, demonstrating commitment and leadership). Mitchell et al.(2002) argue that researchers have used various approaches such as economy analysis,
personality traits assessment,and strategy examination in attempting to understand entrepreneurs
and their venture formation. However,constantly argued by Mitchell et al., these approaches have limitations despite contributing significantly towards understanding this phenomenon.

Entrepreneurship Education

Although some highly successful entrepreneurs did not attend or dropped out of universities, many others have had their education significantly impact their entrepreneurial journey. It is important to understand that acquiring knowledge and developing skills are crucial for transforming ideas into successful projects. These qualities can be nurtured through education, similar to how managers and leaders refine their abilities.

Universities and other institutions of higher learning provide a valuable platform for students to gain the necessary knowledge and skills required from the initial stages of idea generation to its execution. Just as entrepreneurship is viewed from different perspectives, entrepreneurship education follows suit.

Neck & Greene (2011) have identified three world views utilized in teaching entrepreneurship and proposed a fourth one. Currently, the three world views used separately or in combination in entrepreneurship education are: the entrepreneur world view, which portrays entrepreneurs as individuals with exceptional traits; the process world view; and the knowledge world view.The traits approach to identifying entrepreneurs was initially introduced through McClelland's need for achievement. According to Brockhaus and Horwitz (1986), various traits such as a drive for achievement, an internal locus of control, high risk-taking propensity, and tolerance for ambiguity have been linked to entrepreneurs.

Although these traits are still considered significant and relevant, they are no longer the sole means of identifying entrepreneurs (Neck & Greene, 2011).

In entrepreneurship education, students are often presented with entrepreneurs as role models in order to inspire them to emulate their actions (O'Connor, 2012). This approach typically involves using entrepreneurial assessments and introspections to evaluate if students possess the necessary qualities.

Another perspective in entrepreneurship education is the "process perspective," which views entrepreneurship as a process that begins with recognizing opportunities and continues through implementation and evaluation. The process perspective takes an analytical approach by teaching tasks such as opportunity evaluation, feasibility analysis, business planning, and financial forecasting (Neck & Greene, 2011). It assumes that engaging in these tasks makes entrepreneurial outcomes more predictable (Neck & Greene, 2011; O'Connor, 2012).

The third perspective in entrepreneurship education is the knowledge model. This model focuses on either the entrepreneur or the entrepreneurial team.This perspective acknowledges the potential of acquiring an entrepreneurial mindset and highlights thinking and decision-making as vital elements for successful entrepreneurs. Students gain knowledge about the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs, including their thinking patterns, decision-making approaches, and action-taking strategies through case studies and simulations. Building a strong foundation means students need to discover and comprehend these aspects in order to become entrepreneurs themselves.

Neck and Greene (2011) propose another perspective called the "entrepreneurial method" perspective alongside the three perspectives mentioned earlier. This viewpoint shares similarities with the process perspective as it involves identifying opportunities, evaluating resources, planning actions, and implementing them. However, Neck and Greene argue that entrepreneurship cannot be entirely planned ahead of time. Instead, they view "entrepreneurial method" as a set of skills or techniques

that can be taught.

Therefore, educating students on entrepreneurship entails assisting them in understanding, developing, and practicing the necessary skills and techniques for successful entrepreneurship (Neck & Greene, 2011). This approach involves placing students in the role of entrepreneurs so they can learn through hands-on experience.Teaching entrepreneurship involves several approaches, including starting a business, learning venture principles, participating in games and simulations, and promoting reflection. The four perspectives on entrepreneurship education are Entrepreneur World, Firm World, Process World, and Method World. Universities play a crucial role in shaping students' attitudes and perceptions towards entrepreneurship. Studies have shown that education has a positive impact on students' attitudes towards entrepreneurial activity. For example, in Egypt, support and encouragement from universities were highly valued by aspiring entrepreneurs. In Turkey, higher education was found to be linked to higher entrepreneurial intentions among students with a greater level of education.The findings from Ertuna & Gurel (2011) showed that students who are more inclined to take risks have even higher entrepreneurial intentions when combined with education. A similar study in Malaysia also found a positive relationship between university education and entrepreneurial disposition, supporting the idea that universities promote entrepreneurship. To cultivate an entrepreneurial culture among students, it is essential for universities to provide an entrepreneurially-friendly environment (Keat, Selvarajah, & Meyer, 2011). Furthermore, a qualitative study conducted in Poland explored the intentions, attitudes, and motivations of students towards entrepreneurship education (Jones et al., 2008). The results indicated that entrepreneurial instruction can positively impact student attitudes towards pursuing an entrepreneurial career in developing countries like Poland. Wilson et al. (2007) suggested that targeted instruction such as entrepreneurship education can help develop skills and increase

confidence among students. This particular study involved two different groups of students.The text discusses the results of two studies on entrepreneurship education and its impact on students' self-efficacy, entrepreneurial aspirations, and intent to start a business. The first study involved middle and high school students as well as MBA students from various American schools, with over five thousand participants. It found that entrepreneurship education significantly enhances self-efficacy and entrepreneurial aspirations, particularly among females. Yun (2010) conducted another study involving undergraduate management students to empirically demonstrate the effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intent mediated by self-efficacy. This study identified three benefits of entrepreneurship education: learning, inspiration, and access to resources for starting a business. The findings indicate that learning and inspiration have a significant influence on the intention to become an entrepreneur through the mediation of self-efficacy, while resources directly impact intentions. Another survey conducted by Omran (2012) examined the role of entrepreneurship instruction in developing necessary skills for business ventures. The study included 170 respondents who were current or prospective entrepreneurs in the United States. The findings strongly support the importance of entrepreneurship instruction and training in achieving success in business ventures.
The complexity of the motivation for entrepreneurship involves various interacting factors (Nabi, Holden, & Walmsley, 2006). Previous research focused on identifying unique personality traits that distinguish entrepreneurs from others but lacked reliability. Instead, research shifted towards studying entrepreneurial purpose to understand the connection between thoughts and actions (Carsrud & Brannback, 2011). The literature emphasizes that entrepreneurial purpose plays a significant role in the decision to start a business (Linan & Chen, 2009). Entrepreneurship is viewed as a gradual process with the first step

being having entrepreneurial purpose. This conscious and voluntary decision is part of the evolving process of entrepreneurship (Gartner, Shaver, Gatewood, & Katz, 1994). Understanding how entrepreneurial purposes are formed is crucial for comprehending entrepreneurial behavior better (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000).

The intention to start a venture is seen as a necessary precursor for entrepreneurial action and considered the best predictor of behavior (Fayolle et al., 2006; Kolvereid, 1996b; Ajzen, 1991). Entrepreneurial purpose refers to someone's self-acknowledged belief that they will start a new business venture and consciously plan to do so in the future (Thompson, 2009,p.687).Research on entrepreneurial purpose in relation to university graduates has been widely utilized due to its predictive power regarding entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000). Numerous studies have been conducted in university settings to gain a better understanding of students' intentions to start their own businesses (e.g. Davey, Plewa, & Struwig, 2011; Iakovleva, Kolvereid, & Stephan, 2011; Krueger et al., 2000; Linan & Chen, 2009; Linan Urbano,& Guerrero,
2011; Tkachev & Kolvereid (1999)). Tkachev and Kolvereid (1999) have developed several theoretical models to explain entrepreneurial intent and their influences (Fitzsimmons & Douglas,
2011; Paco et al., 2011). Guerrero et al. (2008) have presented six models that explain entrepreneurial intent: the Entrepreneurial event model (Shapero,
1982), which suggests that starting a business is an event resulting from factors such as initiative,
skills, management, freedom,and risk;
the Theory of planned behavior(Ajzen ,1991),which predicts intent based on attitudes subjective norms,and perceived behavioral control .The text discusses the Entrepreneurial attitude orientation (Robinson et al., 1991), which examines attitude anticipation through sub-scales including achievement, self-esteem, personal control, and innovation. It also introduces three theoretical models that explore the relationship between

attitudes and entrepreneurial purposes: Krueger and Carsrud's intentional basic theoretical account (1993), Krueger and Brazeal's entrepreneurial potential theoretical account (1994), and the Davidsson model (1995). These models are based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Entrepreneurial Event Model. A comparison by Krueger et al. (2000) revealed that both models effectively predict entrepreneurial purpose, with an adjusted R2 of 0.350 for the Theory of Planned Behavior and 0.408 for the Entrepreneurial Event Model. The components within these purpose ancestors related to attitude/desirability and sensed behavioral control/feasibility were found to be stronger in predicting entrepreneurial purpose. These components can be seen as similar to attitude pertaining to desirability and feasibility considered as sensed behavioral control (Gelderen et al., 2008). Both models have garnered support from various studies and will be utilized in this study to gain a better understanding of entrepreneurial purpose among Yemeni students.The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), introduced by Ajzen in 1991, is widely recognized as a highly applicable theory for understanding human intentions (Armitage & Conner, 2001). It takes a social cognitive approach and suggests that behavior is influenced by intentions. When deciding whether to engage in an action, individuals typically have prior planning and intention (Ajzen, 2002).

Both TPB and its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), were developed with the primary goal of explaining and predicting human behavior. These theories have been applied to various situations such as weight loss anticipation, job seeking behavior, engagement and voting in elections, consumer behavior, attending classes, cheating and lying, and employment choices (Ajzen, 1991).

TPB was created to address the limitations of TRA. TRA proposes that intention solely influences human behavior and is

seen as the immediate determinant of action. It also includes two factors that shape intention: attitude towards behavior and subjective norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to TRA's perspective on intention as a motivating factor with predictive power for determining behavior performance.The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) states that the evaluation of a behavior and the perceived societal pressures to perform that behavior are the main factors influencing intention. If individuals have a positive evaluation of a behavior and believe that important people in their lives think it should be performed, they are more likely to do so. However, TRA is limited to volitional behaviors and does not consider external factors beyond an individual's control. To address this limitation, perceived behavioral control was added to the theoretical framework through the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Perceived behavioral control refers to beliefs about enabling and hindering factors and how much control individuals have over them when performing a behavior. This directly affects both intention and actual behavior. TPB also includes attitude toward behavior and subjective norms as independent factors determining behavioral intention. Attitude toward behavior represents an individual's overall evaluation of the behavior in question.Individuals typically assess their preferences and evaluations before forming an intention. According to TPB, attitudes are shaped by the beliefs connecting behavior with different outcomes and attributes. Subjective norms, another factor, involve individuals' perception of how significant others view engagement in the behavior. The final predictor is perceived behavioral control, which relates to people's perception of the level of ease or difficulty involved.