Question 1
Our enterprise, Hact, was created by recognising opportunities and potential customer needs, linking it to the UK market demand (Burns, 2007). We proposed a B2C application that shall provide users with awareness and accessibility to a diverse range of hobbies they can try on short notice for a discounted price. We were asked to create a business plan as part of a group to learn and understand the principles of entrepreneurship and team-working.
Referring to Belbin’s nine different roles, the group members were recommended to select team roles according to their characteristics (Belbin, n.d.). I was given two roles – monitor evaluator and shaper. Monitor evaluator provides a logical eye whereas, a shaper provides the necessary drive to ensure that the team keeps moving. Although I contributed to the business plan effectively, I feel that my performances would have improved if I had been given different roles. If given an opportunity again, I would have chosen to be the implementer and completer finisher considering my personality. Implementers are responsible for turning ideas into actions and are usually seen as conservative, disciplined people who work efficiently in a systematic manner. Completer finisher is most effectively used at the end of tasks to polish and scrutinise the work for errors (Belbin, n.d.). These roles would have suited me as I consider these characteristics as part of my personality and it would have ultimately lead to me working more effectively in the team.
I believe that instead of a Laissez-faire atmosphere in the group, a democratic leadership style would have been better suited to avoid confusions, arguments and delays. Laissez-faire leaders avoid making decisions giving members complete freedom to do their work and set their own deadlines (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012). If given another chance, I would improvise by implementing a democratic style of leadership as there was not a designated leader before leading to inefficiency. Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but include team members in the decision-making process (Amanchukwu, 2015). Researchers have found it to be most effective and leads to higher productivity, better contributions from group members and increased group morale (Cherry, 2016). Implementing this would have increased my authority and leadership skills leading to overall effectiveness from the team.
I felt the several delays during the process of creating the business plan were always affecting the next step. Given another chance, I would have improvised my time-management skills by creating a simple timetable on the first day indicating the tasks and the expected deadlines to avoid delays and maintain a rhythmic flow to the process. By taking control of my time, I would have been able to stay focused on the task at hand. This would have led to higher efficiency since there would have been no loss of momentum (Ryan, 2015). Laissez-faire atmosphere did not help the delegation process in the group. Effective delegation provides benefits in both directions. It should be done with regards to the abilities, strengths and weaknesses of group members and allocate work to them accordingly (Muir, 1995). Although there was equal contribution, I feel that allocating 2-3 people for one department/topic was not the best strategy as it led to confusion, arguments and unnecessary delays. It was like the proverb ‘too many cooks spoil the broth’. Given another chance, I would improve my delegation skills to increase the efficiency levels.
Team-working helps students develop skills that are increasingly important in the professional world (Caruso & Woolley, 2008; Mannix & Neale, 2005). The first thing I learnt was the part where each one of us were responsible for everyone in the group. I realised that the members of my group are the most valuable asset to the project because everyone depended on each other to complete the work to continue the progress and without them, nothing would have happened. Due to regular meetings, we were exposed to different viewpoints from other members. This helped widen our knowledge base and increase the openness to, and tolerance of, alternative viewpoints through the effective communication between members (Berry, 2007). Since all our group members were from a different part of the world, it let us understand the behavioural differences in different cultures and backgrounds. It made me realise that all four of us were not perfect and that we had to complement others by recognising their merits and to help them of their shortcomings.
Question 2
Schumpeter’s theory of economic development is closely tied to the philosophical and unsettling effects of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. This theory introduces the entrepreneur from a neoclassical perspective, as a risk bearer and creative innovator (McDaniel, 2005). He was broad ranging in his analysis of the forms of innovation that affect development (1934) which included:
Schumpeter defines entrepreneurship as “a creative activity”. Entrepreneurs should innovate by applying creative solutions to potential problems. He considered innovative entrepreneurship as the catalyst that disrupts the stationary circular flow of the economy and thereby initiates and sustains the process of development. He states that innovation and creativity activates the economy to a new level of development (Schumpeter, 1934). Schumpeter introduced innovation as a key factor in addition to assuming risks and organising factors of productions. He believed innovation is essential in creating new demand and thus new wealth. The introduction of innovations was responsible for both the progress and the instabilities of capitalism. Those instabilities he attributed to the principle of "creative destruction," a process in which new technologies, new kinds of products, new methods of production and new means of distribution make old ones obsolete, forcing existing companies to quickly adapt to a new environment or fail. Schumpeter calls this process “creative destructions” (Okpara, 2007; Tribune, 2000).
Understanding successful entrepreneurship is not easy, as the basic description of an entrepreneur is rather simple. I used a combination of successful entrepreneurs and Schumpeter’s theory to develop a good understanding of being a successful entrepreneur. Creative and innovative entrepreneurs stir things up, shake the world and get products into new, innovative territories. Good examples include Larry Page and Sergei Brin, undisputedly two of the best internet entrepreneurs the computing world has ever seen and Jeff Bezos for being the game-changer who pioneered e-commerce by creating Amazon. Joseph Schumpeter views innovation as the source of success in the market economy. I feel that to become a successful entrepreneur, they must encourage constant innovation, a view that is reinforced by today’s changing and competitive environment. Organisations that are not creative and innovative cannot survive in the market place. The reason behind Tesla’s success is that their founder Elon Musk constantly encourages innovation. He stated that Tesla will never stop innovating and the people are going to see major revisions every 12 to 18 months (Avalos, 2017). I feel this is a great way of sustaining the growth and becoming a successful entrepreneur in this unpredictable market.
I believe that living in a capitalist society, competition and innovation will force businesses to develop the ideal product or service. Hence, those who remain stagnant face failure and will reward thos
e who are able to plan and adapt around these revolutions. Thus, successful entrepreneurs and enterprises are flexible to respond to changing tastes and market conditions relevant to the customers, which is the purpose of every business (Okpara, 2007; Robinson, 2014). The success of Netflix is an excellent example of “creative destruction. It has negatively affected brick-and-mortar movie rental stores, as evidenced by massive store closings. Additionally, the low cost of these services is even causing consumers to reconsider the high costs of cable (Hoppock, 2017). These scenarios were bound to happen as the affected companies were reluctant to be flexible. According to Schumpeter (1934), entrepreneurs function in an unpredictable environment making their decisions quite risky. Interestingly, Niess and Biemann (2014) showed the potential existence of a relationship between risk taking and entrepreneurial success, as taking too much risk may be detrimental for business survival. This made me realise that entrepreneurs are not gamblers; successful entrepreneurship is all about calculated risks. Moreover, an opportunity might appear risky to outsiders but not to experienced entrepreneurs, as the latter possess more accurate knowledge and information to appropriately evaluate its risk thus emphasising on the experience levels too while understanding the aspects of being a successful entrepreneur (Chell, Haworth, & Brearley, 1991).
From my assessment, I believe that Schumepter’s theory of economic development provides a constellation of four important characteristics: innovation, creativity, risk-taking, and flexibility. This theory offers a meaningful perspective and certainly enhanced my understanding of being a successful entrepreneur.
Question 3
Despite decades of academic research, there is little agreement about the precise definition of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial leaders are described as risk-takers, innovators, bold opportunists or restless agents of change (Hooper, 2014). The idea that certain entrepreneurial traits – such as being able to spot opportunities, think differently and take risks – may be inherent has even led to a whole new area of genetic research (Tengroup, 2017).
However, there is no single entrepreneurship gene. But there are traits and experiences that make it more likely that an individual will choose the path of entrepreneurship and, crucially, succeed over the long term (EY, n.d.) Among a survey of 685 leading entrepreneurial leaders conducted for this report, more than half started their first company before the age of 30. More than half of the entrepreneurial leaders in the survey describe themselves as “transitioned” — meaning that they had some experience outside of the world of entrepreneurship before launching their ventures. But although many entrepreneurial leaders start at a reasonably young age, the experience they gain through education and time spent in a more traditional corporate environment is vital to their future success (EY, n.d.). Former Dragons' Den judge and founder of School for Startups Doug Richard also believes that nobody is ‘born’ an entrepreneur and that entrepreneurship can most definitely be taught. He states "If you give a group of people a violin, certain people will have a natural ability of course, but that becomes irrelevant if everybody is given a chance to learn and practice. We all need to do exactly that in whatever we choose to do professionally or otherwise (Mitchell, 2014).
I completely disagree with the statement ‘entrepreneurs are born, not trained’. Entrepreneurial mind-set is the sum of all our experiences and it is not something that we are born with (Mitchell, 2014). They are trained from their childhoods, life circumstances, obstacles, failures, and successes. And most importantly, they are trained from their past and present work experiences (Jones, 2012). Research conducted by Professor Kathryn Shaw of Stanford University has examined the records of 2.8 million small businesses from Texas which backs the theory that entrepreneurs are trained, not born (Preston, 2014). Entrepreneurship education can play a big part too, providing tools such as market research, business planning and negotiation techniques. Business schools provide some fundamental skills necessary to run a business, generate revenue, establish partnerships, manage people and generally avoid financial or legal issues. Professor Julian Lange found that taking two or more entrepreneurship elective courses positively affected students’ intention to become and their becoming an entrepreneur (Daley, 2013).
The business plan creation was a good reality check. It made me realise my strengths and weaknesses and let me self-analyse my potential of becoming a successful entrepreneur. The theories learnt in this module gave me a different perspective about entrepreneurship. The practical side of things like negotiations, building teams taught me a lot about myself. The experience has left me to believe that I am not ready to be an entrepreneur yet due to a lack of certain qualities needed to become a successful one. However, I am still positive about my potential to become an entrepreneur as I believe that if people have the passion and the belief in something, they can be taught and trained to become one.
I have several traits which can be deemed positive as I analyse my potential of becoming an entrepreneur. I felt that I was adaptable and flexible to changes and the setbacks occurred during the process of creating the business plan and relied on my creative ability to come out with unorthodox answers that worked for the team. I was always curious and craving to learn more which helped me to communicate more with the team and initiate conversations that led to good brainstorming sessions. However, on the down side, the main reason behind me considering myself not ready to be an entrepreneur is because I consider myself not to be a great leader yet. I have realised that my leadership qualities as of today are certainly not good enough to become an entrepreneur. I believe I have many qualities that might put me on the road to become an entrepreneur however, confidence and leadership qualities are missing. As I am in no hurry, cultivating myself to improve my confidence and leadership qualities through education, work and personal experiences hopefully helps me in realising my potential of being an entrepreneur.