a competency-based perspective on entrepreneurship education: conceptual and empirical insights

18
A Competency-Based Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education: Conceptual and Empirical Insights by Michael H. Morris, Justin W. Webb, Jun Fu, and Sujata Singhal Competencies necessary for entrepreneurial action are investigated. Building on structuration theory, competencies are approached as an outgrowth of the learning of scripts deriving from interactions between the individual and environment. Managerial and entrepreneurial compe- tencies are distinguished, with the latter helping to define the domain of entrepreneurship edu- cation. Employing a Delphi methodology, evidence is provided of a core set of 13 entrepreneurial competencies. Measures are then developed with a pilot study involving students in an interna- tional education program. Based on pre- and post-measures, findings demonstrate significant improvement on the competencies. Implications are drawn for the role of entrepreneurship edu- cation in competency development. Introduction The essence of entrepreneurship is action (McMullen and Shepherd 2006). From a process perspective, an opportunity is recog- nized, a business concept is formulated, resources are identified and acquired, a venture is launched, adjustments are made, and the founder eventually exits. These actions must be accomplished in a context that has been char- acterized as ambiguous, uncertain, stressful, intense, lonely, volatile, exhilarating, and frus- trating, among other descriptors (Krueger and Dickson 1994; Morris, Schindehutte, Kuratko and Spivack 2012). Arguably, the ability to launch and grow a sustainable enterprise under such conditions demands that an entrepreneur develop certain skills or capabilities. Although researchers have devoted consid- erable effort to identifying characteristics, traits, values, affective states, and cognitive styles that are associated with entrepreneurial success (Baron 2008; Gartner 1989), the particular com- petencies that support venture creation remain elusive. Determining such competencies is further complicated by a failure among scholars to distinguish business skills from entrepre- neurial skills. Both the academic literature and educational programs in entrepreneurship have tended to emphasize the need for competence at such general business functions as selling, producing, bookkeeping, supervising employ- ees, coordinating logistics, arranging financing, and pricing, among others (Barringer and Ireland 2011). Although such skills are vital for the day-to-day operations of a business, they do not address the unique requirements of the entrepreneurial context. It is our contention that a distinct set of competencies are critical for entrepreneurial Michael H. Morris is Professor and N. Malone Mitchell Chair in Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. Justin W. Webb is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. Jun Fu is a doctoral student in entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. Sujata Singhal is a Researcher in Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. Address correspondence to: Michael H. Morris, School of Entrepreneurship, Oklahoma State University, 104 Spears School of Business, Stillwater, OK 74078. [email protected] Journal of Small Business Management 2013 51(3), pp. 352–369 doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12023 JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 352

Upload: sujata

Post on 18-Dec-2016

214 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

A Competency-Based Perspective on EntrepreneurshipEducation: Conceptual and Empirical Insightsby Michael H. Morris, Justin W. Webb, Jun Fu, and Sujata Singhal

Competencies necessary for entrepreneurial action are investigated. Building on structurationtheory, competencies are approached as an outgrowth of the learning of scripts deriving frominteractions between the individual and environment. Managerial and entrepreneurial compe-tencies are distinguished, with the latter helping to define the domain of entrepreneurship edu-cation. Employing a Delphi methodology, evidence is provided of a core set of 13 entrepreneurialcompetencies. Measures are then developed with a pilot study involving students in an interna-tional education program. Based on pre- and post-measures, findings demonstrate significantimprovement on the competencies. Implications are drawn for the role of entrepreneurship edu-cation in competency development.

IntroductionThe essence of entrepreneurship is action

(McMullen and Shepherd 2006). From aprocess perspective, an opportunity is recog-nized, a business concept is formulated,resources are identified and acquired, a ventureis launched, adjustments are made, and thefounder eventually exits. These actions must beaccomplished in a context that has been char-acterized as ambiguous, uncertain, stressful,intense, lonely, volatile, exhilarating, and frus-trating, among other descriptors (Krueger andDickson 1994; Morris, Schindehutte, Kuratkoand Spivack 2012). Arguably, the ability tolaunch and grow a sustainable enterprise undersuch conditions demands that an entrepreneurdevelop certain skills or capabilities.

Although researchers have devoted consid-erable effort to identifying characteristics, traits,

values, affective states, and cognitive styles thatare associated with entrepreneurial success(Baron 2008; Gartner 1989), the particular com-petencies that support venture creation remainelusive. Determining such competencies isfurther complicated by a failure among scholarsto distinguish business skills from entrepre-neurial skills. Both the academic literature andeducational programs in entrepreneurship havetended to emphasize the need for competenceat such general business functions as selling,producing, bookkeeping, supervising employ-ees, coordinating logistics, arranging financing,and pricing, among others (Barringer andIreland 2011). Although such skills are vital forthe day-to-day operations of a business, they donot address the unique requirements of theentrepreneurial context.

It is our contention that a distinct set ofcompetencies are critical for entrepreneurial

Michael H. Morris is Professor and N. Malone Mitchell Chair in Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma StateUniversity. Justin W. Webb is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. JunFu is a doctoral student in entrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University. Sujata Singhal is a Researcher inEntrepreneurship at Oklahoma State University.

Address correspondence to: Michael H. Morris, School of Entrepreneurship, Oklahoma State University,104 Spears School of Business, Stillwater, OK 74078. [email protected]

Journal of Small Business Management 2013 51(3), pp. 352–369

doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12023

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT352

action, and that they must be developed inconcert with more general business competen-cies (Rasmussen, Mosey, and Wright 2011). Con-sider, for example, the need for entrepreneurs toact upon opportunities in the environment(Shane and Venkataraman 2000). The opportu-nities in question are often unobvious, complex,multifaceted, and emergent (Eckhardt andShane 2003; Webb et al. 2011). Accordingly, theabilities of the entrepreneur to recognize andaccurately assess opportunities would seemparamount. As a second example, Stevensonand Jarillo (1990) argue that the essence ofentrepreneurial behavior lies in pursuing oppor-tunity regardless of resources controlled. Theability of an individual who has little to noresources to exploit a given opportunity wouldseem dependent on particular skills, such asknowing how to leverage resources at hand(Baker and Nelson 2005; Sirmon, Hitt, andIreland 2007), bootstrapping (Winborg andLandstrom 2001), and guerrilla actions (Morris,Schindehutte, and LaForge 2002).

Our purpose in this research is to developfurther insights into the competencies that aremost critical for entrepreneurial success.Progress in identifying, defining, and measur-ing key competencies has valuable implicationsfor both the advancement of entrepreneurshipeducation and improving entrepreneurial prac-tice. Competencies directly correlate with jobperformance, can be measured against stan-dards, and can be improved with training(Bryant and Poustie 2001; Klarus, Tillema, andVeenstra 1999). As a result, they can have sig-nificant implications for what is taught in entre-preneurship courses and training programs,how it is taught, and how learning outcomesare assessed. As a case in point, entrepreneur-ship courses that focus heavily on teachingbusiness basics may be underemphasizing thedevelopment of critical capabilities in suchareas as opportunity identification, risk mitiga-tion, or resource leveraging. Further, theunique, action-based nature of entrepreneur-ship suggests that development of such com-petencies may require pedagogical approachesthat move beyond traditional lecture, discus-sion, and exam formats.

The research proceeds as follows. We firstestablish the theoretical and conceptual foun-dations for a competency-based approach.Building on structuration theory (Giddens1984), we view entrepreneurship as a processthat unfolds as individuals behave within and

interact with their environments. Environmentsprovide scripts that guide individual behaviorsand interactions, and education serves as animportant source of scripts within the individu-al’s environment. Individuals adopt and/orrevise scripts based on feedback and evaluationof their behavioral and interactional outcomes.Where scripts are successfully employed overtime, they can become the foundation for theindividual’s competencies.

Based on this foundation, a research meth-odology is implemented in which we utilize atwo-sample, three-round Delphi approach toidentify key competencies critical for entrepre-neurial performance. Following this, anapproach to measuring these competencies isproposed and tested using samples of Ameri-can and international students participating inan intense, six-week academic program under-taken in South Africa. Using pre- and post-measures, evidence is provided of studentimprovement on most of these competencies.

The Nature of CompetenciesThe notion of “competency” has received

considerable attention in recent years across adiverse mix of fields and domains, includingmedicine and health sciences, human resourcemanagement, education, psychology, strategicmanagement, and public policy, among others(e.g., Bergevoet and Van Woerkum 2006;Hartle 1995; Klein 1996; Shook et al. 2003). Acompetency refers to the knowledge, skills,attitudes, values, and behaviors that peopleneed to successfully perform a particular activ-ity or task, such as rewiring a house or per-forming a surgical procedure (Brophy andKiely 2002; Rankin 2004).

Work in a range of disciplines has demon-strated that proficiency in particular competen-cies is associated with higher levels ofperformance or productivity (e.g., Hartle 1995;Hayton and Kelley 2006; Shook et al. 2003).Hence, Klein (1996) refers to observable behav-iors that superior performers exhibit more con-sistently than average performers (Klein 1996).Others demonstrate that various competenciescontribute differentially to overall performanceof a given task (e.g., Leiba-O’Sullivan 1999).Implicit in these arguments is the notion that agiven competency can be measured againstsome sort of standard. Yet standards do notalways exist, and even where they do, theassessments are by definition subjective. Thechallenges of measurement have resulted in a

MORRIS ET AL. 353

range of assessment methodologies, eachhaving advantages and disadvantages in agiven context, such that the ability to producevalid and reliable indicators of one’s compe-tence can be elusive (Bird 1995; Cogbill,O’Sullivan, and Clardy 2005).

Although useful in bridging the gap betweenjob requirements and a person’s knowledgeand capabilities, competency remains a fuzzyconcept (Boon and van der Klink, 2003). Thisfuzziness is tied to various factors, most notablythe fact that the definition of a given compe-tency is not universal (Hayton and Kelley2006). Competence assessments are based onindividuals, whereas the definition of the com-petence concept tries to include the context aswell. As such, there can be considerable diver-sity in how a competence is defined dependingupon who is being assessed, who is doing theassessing, and the context in which the com-petence is being applied (Luken 2004).

Researchers have attempted to distinguish“stable” and “dynamic” competencies (Leiba-O’Sullivan 1999; Tannenbaum and Yukl 1992).Stable competencies, such as natural ability andemotional stability, are relatively fixed and mayconstrain one’s potential to develop a skill.Dynamic competencies are those that can beacquired and developed, such as self-efficacy,knowledge on a particular topic, or stress man-agement skills. Importantly, the implication fordynamic competencies is that they are subject tolearning and developmental processes and canbe improved with training and practice(Bergevoet and Van Woerkum, 2006; Bryant andPoustie 2001). Similarly, competencies areenhanced with practice, and can decline overtime without sufficient practice.

Ongoing experiential development of a com-petency is critical for ensuring one’s capabili-ties allow for flexibility in adapting to diverseand changing organizational demands (Garmanand Johnson 2006). Such flexibility is an impor-tant component of a competency.

Competencies inEntrepreneurship

It is well established in the literature that theentrepreneur/founder is one of a number ofkey factors that determine the performance ofnew ventures (Chawla, Pullig, and Alexander1997; Horne et al. 1992; Stoner 1987). Anemphasis on competencies as a means of cap-turing key aspects of the entrepreneur thatimpact venture performance is a relatively new

development, rooted in early work by Boyatzis(1982) on managerial competencies that impactperformance of larger firms. Bird (1995)endorses the application of the competencyapproach in an entrepreneurial context, con-cluding that competency can represent both abaseline standard for planning and launching aventure and a higher standard for achievingsustainability and growth. Others have stressedthat different competencies are necessary forventure success at different stages in their lifecycles (Colombo and Grilli 2005; Rasmussen,Mosey, and Wright 2011).

Importantly, work on competencies is quitedistinct from early research on entrepreneurialtraits and more recent work on cognitive styles.The former area, though controversial andinconclusive, has attempted to associate traitssuch as the individual’s need for achievement,tolerance of ambiguity, risk propensity, andlocus of control with entrepreneurial success(Gorman, Hanlon, and King 1997; Morris 1998).The latter area emphasizes the roles of suchvariables as information processing, counter-factual thinking, cognitive biases, and attribu-tional style (Baron 1998). Competencies may beinfluenced by both traits and cognition, buttranscend each in that they represent observ-able and measurable knowledge, behaviors,attitudes, and skills that are instrumental in taskperformance and that can be developed (Bird1995; Man, Lau, and Chan 2002).

At the same time, little consensus existsregarding the relative importance of particularcompetencies in an entrepreneurial context.Emphasis has been placed on social skills suchas interpersonal relations, communications,social adaptability (Hood and Young 1993;Vesper and McMullan 1988); functional busi-ness skills such as marketing and sales,finance and cash management, strategic plan-ning, and accounting (Freel 1999; Hofer andCharan 1984; Smith and Morse 2005); generalmanagerial skills such as goal setting, plan-ning, organizing and motivating people, coor-dination of work, allocation of resources,leadership and delegation (Chandler andJansen 1992; Colombo and Grilli 2005; Orserand Riding 2003); and entrepreneurial skillssuch as opportunity recognition and opportu-nity exploitation (Chandler and Hanks 1994;McMullan and Long 1990; Mitchelmore andRowley 2010). Of these, arguably the greatestemphasis has been placed on functional busi-ness and general management skills, with the

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT354

least insight provided on entrepreneurialskills.

Scholars have proposed competency taxono-mies, such as Winterton’s (2002) distinctionbetween cognitive (e.g., knowledge acquisi-tion), functional (e.g., budgeting), personal(e.g., communicating or acting ethically), andmeta competencies (e.g., ability to learn tocope with uncertainty). Man, Lau, and Chan(2002) argue for six major competency areas,which they term opportunity recognition anddevelopment, relationship building, conceptu-alizing, organizing, strategy formation, and per-sonal commitment. Although reflecting asynthesis of the literature, to date no empiricalevidence has been provided to validate thesecategorizations. The simplest and perhaps mostpromising distinction would appear to bebetween entrepreneurial and managerial com-petencies. Support for such a distinction hasbeen provided by Chandler and Jansen (1992),Chandler and Hanks (1994), Hood and Young(1993), and Lerner and Almor (2002). Yet nocomprehensive set of entrepreneurial compe-tencies has emerged from this distinction, withthe set of competencies typically limited tothree or four items. A recent example can befound in the work of Rasmussen, Mosey, andWright (2011), who examine case studies oftechnology commercialization within a univer-sity environment. They identify three compe-tencies: opportunity refinement, resourceleveraging, and championing. However, littleinsight on how to measure these competenciesis provided. Further, the general tendency is toassociate the entrepreneurial category withstart-up and the managerial category withachieving growth, though it would seem bothare needed to successfully establish and grow abusiness.

Developing Competencies:Theoretical Underpinnings

Penrose (1959) suggests that entrepreneurialability is a distinct resource to be considered inthe resource bundle that produces a sustainableenterprise. But how does this ability develop? Auseful lens can be found in structuration theory,which concerns the reciprocal interactionsbetween individuals and their environments(Giddens 1984). Environments provide structureto individuals’ behaviors and interactions, yetthe structure results from individuals’ pastbehaviors and interactions. These past develop-ments facilitate learning about the types of

behaviors that lead to desirable outcomes,thereby establishing values, norms, and rules forfuture behavior (Barley and Tolbert 1997). Suchbehaviors and interactions can take variousforms, including general experiences, experi-ences specific to unique circumstances, knowl-edge gained through education and practice,family guidance, and mentoring, among others.Values, norms, and rules conferred by the envi-ronment are essentially scripts defining how tobehave within specific contexts.

Individuals acquire a broad cache of scriptsfrom behaving in different situations, each ofwhich is available to guide them through asituation with which they are familiar (Feldmanand Pentland 2003; Lord and Kernan 1987).Through their own subsequent, idiosyncraticbehaviors and interactions, individuals deter-mine whether these scripts should be repli-cated or revised for future circumstances. Tothe extent that the scripts lead to desired out-comes, individuals are likely to replicate thescripts; if following scripts leads to unexpectedor undesired outcomes, they may revise orreplace scripts (Aldrich 1999).

As scripts are confirmed, they can serve asthe foundation for the development of compe-tencies, a development which generally occursover time (Nelson and Winter 1982). Althoughscripts serve to define how individuals shouldbehave within specific contexts, they areabsorbed from various sources and, because ofthis, may conflict in certain cases. Further,one’s own experiences in leveraging the scriptsacross different contexts might lead to varyingoutcomes. Therefore, the individuals do notnecessarily fully internalize or “retain” thescripts when first enacting the scripts (Giddens1984). Only through a complex array of inter-actions between individuals and others withwhom they interact can the individuals gatherfeedback, evaluate the efficacy of the scripts,and confirm whether the scripts lead to desir-able outcomes (Salvato 2009). Through greateruse of a given script, individuals gain expertise,understanding the specific contexts in whichthe script is effective and how the script may beleveraged in concert with other scripts, amongother important nuanced understandings. Overtime, through significant experience with thescripts and interactions with others, the indi-viduals can retain scripts, which have nowbecome competencies.

Work on structuration within entrepreneur-ship emphasizes the recursiveness of an entre-

MORRIS ET AL. 355

preneur’s interactions with the environment(Chiasson and Saunders 2007; Sarason, Dean,and Dillard 2006). For example, the entrepre-neur draws upon various situational cues, suchas prospective customers’ opinions of products,knowledge of technological or socioculturaltrends, and trade industry reports, to arrive atan understanding of opportunities (Kaish andGilad 1991). The entrepreneur’s existing scriptsguide activities in accessing these sources ofinformation, informing them regarding whatinformation is important, with whom theyshould talk, how to establish new ties, andother activities. In exploiting the opportunity,the entrepreneur can establish new marketexpectations (Eckhardt and Shane 2003), orscripts within the broader environment,thereby creating new values, norms, and rulesfor customers, competitors, and other stake-holders. Simultaneously, they receive feedbackfrom the environment that can further confirmor contradict their own scripts. As they evolvetheir scripts, entrepreneurs alter their behaviorsand potentially create new market expectationsyet again. This reciprocal interaction betweenentrepreneurs and their environments contin-ues until the entrepreneurs settle on a given setof scripts or terminate their venture activities(perhaps because they have failed to under-stand and/or effectively employ their scripts).

Specific entrepreneurship-oriented scriptsremain unspecified and understudied. Theemergence, rapid growth, and development ofentrepreneurship programs suggest, however,that entrepreneurship represents a unique dis-cipline encompassing a distinct body of scriptsthat can be imparted to students. Entrepreneur-ship education is an important channel throughwhich students, as prospective entrepreneurs,can learn scripts to guide their present and/orfuture entrepreneurial pursuits. Despite thegrowth and development of entrepreneurshipas a discipline, how entrepreneurship is taughtcontinues to share significant overlap withbroader business disciplines. A cursory exami-nation of entrepreneurship majors and leadingentrepreneurship textbooks finds studentslearning general business fundamentals, suchas introductory accounting, marketing, finance,and management principles, raising the ques-tion of whether entrepreneurship education isproviding students with the scripts needed tobe effective entrepreneurs.

There is a need, then, to better specify thenature of competencies that is unique to entre-

preneurial action in a start-up context. In thefollowing section, we describe a research studyconducted to distinguish entrepreneurial frommanagerial competencies, and attempt toisolate and then measure the entrepreneurialcompetencies.

Identifying the RelevantCompetencies

We first implemented a multiround Delphitechnique to construct a core list of entrepre-neurial competencies. The Delphi technique isa highly formalized method of soliciting ideasand subsequently gaining consensus amongindividuals considered to be experts in the fieldof interest (Chan et al. 2001; Preble 1983). Aparticular benefit of this method is its ability togarner multiple expert opinions without face-to-face interaction among the experts (Wilson,Averis, and Walsh 2003). Instead, interaction isfacilitated after an initial survey is distributed toindividuals from a chosen panel(s) of experts;in our case, we ask the participants to listentrepreneurial competencies. Based on theresults, a group of raters collate all of the ideasand in subsequent rounds panelists then getthe chance to see and respond to the ideas ofother panel members.

The study involved two distinct samples, apanel composed of 20 distinguished entrepre-neurs and the other composed of 20 leadingentrepreneurship educators. For our practitio-ner panel, we chose a set of 20 entrepreneurswho had successfully founded a venture andhad grown the business to include 100 or moreemployees. They represented a range of indus-tries and included technology, manufacturing,and service companies. Those chosen from aca-demia were seasoned full professors of entre-preneurship with at least 10 years ofexperience teaching entrepreneurship coursesand publishing scholarly work within the field.Each had received recognition for theirachievements as an entrepreneurship educator.The purpose of the study was explained asdetermining success factors in venture creation,and both groups agreed to participate throughmultiple rounds.

In Round One, members of each panelwere sent an initial survey asking whetherthey believe there are specific competenciesassociated with entrepreneurial success, and ifthey were learnable. Respondents were askedto generate a complete list of entrepreneurialcompetencies they believed were vital in

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT356

launching a venture, with a particular focus ondistinguishing entrepreneurial versus manage-rial competencies. A managerial competency isone that is more generic, applying to all man-agers or managerial contexts, whereas anentrepreneurial competency is one that isunique to and critical for the creation of a newventure. A total of 265 items were generated.The compilation included a number of itemsthat appeared to be similar, and others thatrequired more interpretation. Accordingly, wecollated the responses and asked four raters(two doctoral students and two entrepreneur-ship professors) to break down the list into acommon set of competencies. Each rater pro-duced a revised list of competencies thatranged from 17 to 30 items. We then took anyitems on which at least three of the fourraters agreed. This resulted in a set of 18competencies.

Round Two involved designing a secondsurvey around the 18 competency items fromthe first round. It was explained that therevised set was the result of the combinedinputs from the two panels. Respondents oneach panel were then asked to rate on a scalefrom 1 to 7 (1 = an unimportant competency,7 = an important competency, and 4 = neutral),the relative importance of each competency forsuccess in venture creation. They were alsoasked to indicate the extent to which each ofthe competencies was more an entrepreneurialor general management competency, where1 = more a managerial competency, 7 = morean entrepreneurial competency.

The data from Round Two were analyzed todetermine those items that received a meanimportance rating of 4.0 or better and that wererated as being more an entrepreneurial than ageneral management competency. Based onthe results, a new list of 14 competencies wasproduced. This revised list was sent to themembers of the two panels.

We then repeated the steps from the secondround using the revised list, asking respon-dents to again assess the importance andentrepreneurial/managerial nature of eachcompetency. Using the same selection criteria,a set of 13 competencies was produced fromthis third round (see Table 1). Lastly, these 13competencies were again sent to the panelists,asking if these were indeed the key entrepre-neurial competencies or if there were any theywould remove. There was a consensus aroundthis final set.

It is noteworthy that this set of competen-cies, although more detailed and comprehen-sive than that found in previous work, isconsistent with the areas emphasized acrossearlier studies (i.e., Chandler and Hanks 1994;Lerner and Almor, 2002; Man, Lau and Chan,2002; Mitchelmore and Rowley, 2010;Rasmussen, Mosey and Wright, 2011).

Developing and TestingCompetency Measures

To develop further insights on the use ofthese competencies in an educational context,an attempt was made to develop a set of mea-sures which could be employed to assessprogress in mastering a given competency. Theintent was to develop self-report measures ofthe 13 competencies that could be appliedbefore and after exposure to some sort of for-malized entrepreneurial training or experience.A questionnaire was developed consisting of141 items. Where possible, existing scales orsubscales were adopted, with original scalesdeveloped for three of the competencies. Thescale development process is summarized inTable 2, including the source of the scale,number of items, sample items, and publishedreliability scores, where available.

For the measures of 11 of the competencies,five-point Likert-type response scales were pro-vided (strongly agree–strongly disagree). Themeasures of building and using networksemployed a five-point scale capturing the fre-quency of reliance on a number of networking-related activities (quite frequently–not at all).Seven of the items assessing resource leveragingutilized a response scale capturing the degree towhich one was comfortable in his/her ability toengage in various leveraging activities (verycomfortable–not at all comfortable).

To test the scales, a pilot study was con-ducted using students involved in a rigorousexperiential engagement that unfolded over anumber of months. Our objective was to assessthe competencies in a context where subjectshad few distractions, their efforts were focusedon entrepreneurial activity, and they had tomeet challenging performance standards. More-over, we sought a learning context that hadcharacteristics associated with entrepreneurialbehavior, such as stress, uncertainty, ambigu-ity, and the need for hard work. For thesereasons, a unique study abroad program waschosen where students work with historically

MORRIS ET AL. 357

disadvantaged entrepreneurs for six weeks inthe impoverished townships surrounding CapeTown, South Africa.

Twenty-five U.S. students were joined by 15South African students in a program that pro-vides hands-on consulting support to entrepre-neurs that have been in business for one to twoyears, are struggling to survive, but are com-mitted to the venture. Following a three-monthonline precourse that involved exposure to thesocial, economic, religious, cultural, and his-torical context, students traveled to SouthAfrica and were based on a local campuslocated near the townships. They worked inteams of four, with each team assigned to twoentrepreneurs. Teams were coached by fourU.S. and South African faculty members, with

classroom sessions in the mornings and field-work in the afternoons and evenings. Nomention of the competencies was explicitlymade in the classroom sessions, as the contentemphasized how to engage and assist theclients, with modules addressing consultingapproaches in the different functional areas ofthe venture. Students spent extensive time inthe ventures and interacting with clients, sup-pliers, competitors, and resource providers.Each team had to assess the venture, establishpriorities, and produce a minimum of eightdeliverables, four for each of their assignedclients. A deliverable was defined as a problemwithin the venture that was solved by theteams. Reflecting the intensity and high expec-tations of the program, the teams actually aver-

Table 1Entrepreneurial Competencies Identified from Delphi Study

1. Opportunity Recognition: the capacity to perceive changed conditions or overlookedpossibilities in the environment that represent potential sources of profit or return to aventure

2. Opportunity Assessment: ability to evaluate the content structure of opportunities toaccurately determine their relative attractiveness

3. Risk Management/Mitigation: the taking of actions that reduce the probability of a riskoccurring or reduce the potential impact if the risk were to occur

4. Conveying a Compelling Vision: the ability to conceive an image of a futureorganizational state and to articulate that image in a manner that empowers followers toenact it

5. Tenacity/Perseverance: ability to sustain goal-directed action and energy whenconfronting difficulties and obstacles that impede goal achievement

6. Creative Problem Solving/Imaginativeness: the ability to relate previously unrelatedobjects or variables to produce novel and appropriate or useful outcomes

7. Resource Leveraging: skills at accessing resources one does not necessarily own orcontrol to accomplish personal ends

8. Guerrilla Skills: the capacity to take advantage of one’s surroundings, employunconventional, low-cost tactics not recognized by others, and do more with less

9. Value Creation: capabilities of developing new products, services, and/or business modelsthat generate revenues exceeding their costs and produce sufficient user benefits to bringabout a fair return

10. Maintain Focus yet Adapt: ability to balance an emphasis on goal achievement and thestrategic direction of the organization while addressing the need to identify and pursueactions to improve the fit between an organization and developments in the externalenvironment

11. Resilience: ability to cope with stresses and disturbances such that one remains well,recovers, or even thrives in the face of adversity

12. Self-Efficacy: ability to maintain a sense of self-confidence regarding one’s ability toaccomplish a particular task or attain a level of performance

13. Building and Using Networks: social interaction skills that enable an individual toestablish, develop. and maintain sets of relationships with others who assist them inadvancing their work or career

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT358

Tab

le2

Sum

mar

yof

the

Mea

sure

sEm

plo

yed

toA

sses

sC

om

pet

enci

es

Com

pet

ency

No.

of

Item

sSourc

eSam

ple

Item

sR

elia

bilit

yin

Pre

vious

Res

earc

h

Opport

unity

Rec

ogn

itio

n10

Entr

epre

neu

rial

aler

tnes

ssc

ale

(Tan

g,K

acm

ar,

and

Buse

nitz

2010

)I

often

mak

enove

lco

nnec

tions

and

per

ceiv

enew

rela

tionsh

ips

bet

wee

nva

rious

pie

ces

of

info

rmat

ion.

0.71

and

0.91

Opport

unity

Ass

essm

ent

5Entr

epre

neu

rial

aler

tnes

ssc

ale

(Tan

g,K

acm

ar,

and

Buse

nitz

2010

)I

can

dis

tingu

ish

bet

wee

npro

fita

ble

opport

unitie

san

dnot

sopro

fita

ble

opport

unitie

s.W

hen

faci

ng

multip

leopport

unitie

s,I

amab

leto

sele

ctth

ego

od

ones

0.83

Ris

kM

anag

emen

t/M

itig

atio

n9

Dev

eloped

by

the

auth

ors

Iam

more

of

ari

skav

oid

erth

ana

risk

man

ager

.N

A

Conve

ying

aCom

pel

ling

Vis

ion

8D

evel

oped

by

the

auth

ors

Ifind

itdifficu

ltto

get

oth

ers

com

mitte

dto

my

visi

on

or

dre

ams.

NA

Ten

acity

21D

uck

wort

han

dQ

uin

n(2

009)

;H

mie

lesk

ian

dCorb

ett

(200

6)I

often

set

ago

albut

late

rch

oose

topurs

ue

adiffe

rent

one.

0.70

and

0.73

to0.

83

Cre

ativ

ePro

ble

m-S

olv

ing

12H

mie

lesk

ian

dCorb

ett

(200

6)an

dZam

pet

akis

and

Moust

akis

(200

6)I

amcr

eative

when

asked

tow

ork

with

lim

ited

reso

urc

es.

0.89

Res

ourc

eLe

vera

ging

15W

inborg

and

Landst

rom

,20

01;

Politis,

Win

borg

and

Dah

lstr

and

(201

1)Ther

eis

alw

ays

aw

ayto

obta

ina

reso

urc

eev

enif

you

cannot

affo

rdit.

0.68

to0.

73

Guer

rilla

Skills

2D

evel

oped

by

the

auth

ors

Ico

uld

quic

kly

iden

tify

thre

egu

erilla

idea

sto

hel

pa

star

t-up

ventu

re.

NA

Val

ue

Cre

atio

nth

rough

Innova

tion

15D

yer,

Gre

gers

en,

and

Chri

sten

sen

(200

8)N

ewbusi

nes

sid

eas

often

com

eto

me

when

dir

ectly

obse

rvin

ghow

peo

ple

inte

ract

with

pro

duct

san

dse

rvic

es.

0.74

and

0.78

Ability

toFo

cus

yet

Adap

t6

Hay

nie

and

Shep

her

d(2

009)

Ite

nd

tolo

ok

for

the

righ

tan

swer

,ra

ther

than

real

ize

ther

em

ight

be

multip

lew

ays

toge

tto

anen

dre

sult.

0.74

Res

ilie

nce

9Si

ncl

air

and

Wal

lsto

n(2

004)

Ibel

ieve

that

Ica

ngr

ow

inposi

tive

way

sby

dea

ling

with

difficu

ltsi

tuat

ions.

0.64

to0.

76

Self-e

ffica

cy11

Hodgk

inso

n(1

992)

Ica

nsh

ape

what

ever

envi

ronm

ent

inw

hic

hI

find

mys

elf

oper

atin

g.0.

82

Buildin

gan

dU

sing

Net

work

s18

Forr

etan

dD

ough

erty

(200

1)I

often

atte

nd

soci

alfu

nct

ions

for

purp

ose

sof

buildin

gpro

fess

ional

rela

tionsh

ips.

0.65

to0.

79

Note

:N

A=

Not

Applica

ble

.

MORRIS ET AL. 359

aged 13 deliverables across their two clients.Sample deliverables included designing andimplementing bookkeeping systems, helping togenerate sales, working with vendors to lowerprocurement costs, enhancing operational pro-cesses and flows, acquiring signage or equip-ment, modifying prices, and working with theentrepreneurs to prepare tenders and loanapplications. Yet to accomplish such tasks, theyhad to engage in activities associated with thecompetencies, such as recognizing new oppor-tunities in the marketplace, finding ways toleverage resources, and demonstrating resil-ience as their ideas were rejected or provedunworkable.

Each student completed the original 141-item survey prior to the start of the program,and again after program completion. Initialanalysis was performed to assess scale prop-erties. For the competencies employing estab-lished measures where multiple subscales areinvolved, a series of factor analyses were runto validate the scales. For the adapted scales,in all but one case the results were consistentwith those found by the original scaledevelopers.

Specifically, with “opportunity recognition,”two factors were generated, scanning/searchand association/connection. Subsequent reli-ability analysis on these two subscales pro-duced alpha scores of 0.79 and 0.87,respectively, both of which exceed Nunnally’s(1978) criterion (see Table 3). “Tenacity/perseverance” produced three subscales. Twoof these (consistency of interest and persever-ance of effort) were consistent with the originalwork of Duckworth and Quinn (2009), whereasthe items from Hmieleski and Corbett (2006)produced one subscale, which we labeledaction orientation and persistence. Reliabilityscores were 0.83, 0.95, and 0.73, respectively.With “creative problem-solving,” the factoranalysis of the original single scale provided byHmieleski and Corbett (2006) was confirmedwith seven items capturing producing creativesolutions, whereas the other items produced asecond subscale labeled serve as creative rolemodel, with reliability scores of 0.96 and 0.80,respectively. Consistent with Politis, Winborg,and Dahlstrand (2011), the “leveraging/ boot-strapping” measures resulted in three sub-scales, and these reflected creative approachesto leveraging, new uses of resources, and usingother people’s resources. Reliabilities for thesesubscales were 0.85, 0.86, and 0.76. The

“innovation/value creation” measures pro-duced three subscales labeled experimentation,observing customer usage, and challenge thestatus quo. Alpha scores for the scales were0.89, 0.76, and 0.90. The assessment of “resil-ience” resulted in two subscales, which Sinclairand Wallston (2004) call resilience coping andeffective use of social support, with reliabilitiesof 0.84 and 0.91. The items for “building net-works” resulted in three subscales with eightitems, labeled maintain contacts, participate incommunity events, and engage in professionalactivities, with reliabilities of 0.87, 0.97, and0.87.

The measurement of “risk management/mitigation” employed scales developed by theauthors. The factor analysis identified threefactors explaining 62 percent of the variance.These subscales were labeled risk understand-ing (two items), risk management (two items),and risk avoidance (two items), with reliabili-ties of 0.83, 0.71, and 0.62. Factor analyses onthe remaining measures produced single-factorscales, as expected. These included a three-item scale for “opportunity assessment” (coef-ficient alpha = 0.94); a three-item scale for“conveying a compelling vision” (coefficientalpha = 0.67); two items measuring “guerrillaskills” (coefficient alpha = 0.75); six itemsassessing “ability to maintain focus yet adapt”(coefficient alpha = 0.88); and four items mea-suring “self-efficacy” (coefficient alpha = 0.89).

Based on a final set of 78 items, meanscores were calculated for each of the 13 com-petencies using the data from the administra-tion of the survey before and after theprogram. Table 4 summarizes these results.Positive improvements were observed for all13 competencies. t-Tests were then run todetermine if the improvements were statisti-cally significant. The differences betweenpretest and posttest mean scores were signifi-cant for nine of the entrepreneurial compe-tency scales at the 0.05 significance level (seeTable 4). These included opportunity recogni-tion, risk management/mitigation, tenacity/perseverance, creative problem solving, re-source leveraging/bootstrapping, guerrillaskills, value creation/innovation, resilience,and networking skills. The results were con-sistent across the sample of students, with nodifferences in terms of the improvement onthe competencies based on student major(business versus nonbusiness), enrollmentstatus (undergraduate versus graduate), or

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT360

country of origin (United States versus SouthAfrica).

These results lend initial support to thehypothesis that competencies can be enhancedbased on exposure to an entrepreneurshipprogram, in this case one that was centeredboth on the classroom and intense experientiallearning. When placed in a context that centers

on experiencing and performing real tasks thatsupport entrepreneurial outcomes, studentsappear to get better at demonstrating specificcompetencies. For the nonsignificant results, itmay be that the particular competenciesremained stable in spite of the activity, or thetasks required of the students did not influencedevelopment of these particular competencies.

Table 3Reliabilities for the 13 Competency Scales

Competency No. of items Reliability(Cronbach’s Alpha)

Opportunity recognitionScanning/Search 4 0.794Association/Connection 2 0.867

Opportunity Assessment 3 0.943Risk Management/Mitigation

Risk Understanding 2 0.826Risk Management 2 0.713Risk Avoidance 2 0.615

Conveying a CompellingVision/Seeing the Future 3 0.673

Tenacity/PerseveranceConsistency of Interest 6 0.828Perseverance of Effort 2 0.951Persistence in Action 2 0.730

Creative Problem SolvingProducing Creative Solutions 7 0.968Serving a Creative Role Model 2 0.803

Resource Leveraging/BootstrappingCreative Approach to Leveraging 4 0.854New Uses of Resources 3 0.863Using Resources of Others 2 0.759

Guerrilla Skills 2 0.752Value Creation with New

Products, Services, Business ModelsExperimentation 2 0.898Observing Customer Usage 2 0.761Challenge Status Quo 3 0.904

Ability to Maintain Focus Yet Adapt 6 0.878Resilience

Resilience Coping 2 0.914Use of Social Support 3 0.841

Self-Efficacy 4 0.895Building and Using Networks

Maintain Contacts 4 0.867Participate in Community Events 2 0.973Engage in Professional Activities 2 0.867

MORRIS ET AL. 361

DiscussionThe purposes of this research have been to

determine competencies that are core to theentrepreneurship discipline and provide mea-sures for examining the extent to which thesecompetencies can be developed through edu-cation. Despite the increasing prevalence ofentrepreneurship education programs in uni-versities throughout the world, significant vari-ance remains in the content across theseprograms and how this content is taught, withmany programs continuing to emphasize moregeneral business competencies over specificentrepreneurial competencies (Hills 1988;Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy 2002). Weundertook a Delphi study to identify moreclearly what competencies are unique to theentrepreneurial context and should be inte-grated into the curriculum. Further, the pro-posed measurement approach may beespecially relevant given the growing scrutinyby accrediting bodies and other stakeholderson assessment of outcomes within educationalinstitutions.

Our Delphi study identified 13 competenciesunique to the entrepreneurship discipline. Ourfindings point to behavioral competencies,such as opportunity recognition, opportunity

assessment, resource leveraging, and develop-ing business models, as well as attitudinal com-petencies, including resilience, self-efficacy,and tenacity. These unique competencies canhelp to define the content of entrepreneurshipeducation programs going forward. Moreover,the various forms of competencies that weidentify in this study highlight the complexityof entrepreneurial action and, congruent withthe calls of other scholars (Cope 2003; Higginsand Elliot 2011), suggest a need for a strongeremphasis on experiential learning in educationprograms. This point is further reinforced bythe degree to which the competencies demon-strate strong, positive intercorrelations.

Research evidence suggests that entrepre-neurship education can produce a range ofdesired outcomes, from increased entrepre-neurial intentions to students becoming self-employed to students starting growth-orientedbusinesses (Dickson, Solomon, and Weaver2008; Hamidi, Wennberg, and Berglund 2008;Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino 2007). Althoughwe also hope that education serves as a plat-form for transforming students into entrepre-neurs, we believe that a more desirableoutcome should be the transformation of stu-dents into successful entrepreneurs thatembody key entrepreneurial competencies.

Table 4Results for Pre- and Posttest Differences

Competency Pretestx

Posttestx

T-statistic Significance

Opportunity Recognition 4.02 4.13 7.21 .0003*Opportunity Assessment 3.33 3.48 1.40 .197Risk Management/Mitigation 3.92 4.18 10.35 .0007*Conveying a Compelling Vision/Seeing

the Future3.65 3.79 2.29 .074

Tenacity/Perseverance 3.43 3.63 3.27 .005*Creative Problem Solving 3.58 4.02 11.35 .0001*Resource Leveraging/Bootstrapping 3.05 3.61 6.6 .0001*Guerrilla Skills 3.00 3.90 42.97 .007*Value Creation with New Products, Services,

Business Models3.50 3.93 5.52 .0007*

Ability to Maintain Focus Yet Adapt 3.24 3.32 1.19 .143Resilience 3.72 4.12 6.53 .001*Self-Efficacy 3.58 3.82 1.14 .168Building and Using Networks 2.95 3.29 6.52 .0002*

*Significance < .05.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT362

Although educational programs can produceentrepreneurial intentions, it is less clearwhether entrepreneurship education in itscurrent form increases perceived behavioralcontrol within this context (Fayolle, Gailly, andLassas-Clerc 2006). Creating successful entre-preneurs requires a shift from studying inten-tions and business formation alone to actuallystudying successful business development andgrowth as desired outcomes of education. Tosupport such a shift, in addition to identifyingidiosyncratic entrepreneurial competencies, wehave sought to provide scholars with measuresto determine competency development. We uti-lized a key experiential learning task in whichstudents consulted with micro-entrepreneurs inan impoverished setting to demonstrate themeasurement efficacy of these scales in a learn-ing context.

To provide a basis for our research and withthe aim of providing a theoretical foundationfor entrepreneurship education research goingforward, we integrated competence researchwith structuration theory. A key assertionunderlying our study is that competencies aredeveloped (rather than bestowed) over time.Education can play an important role in thedevelopment process by providing the keybuilding blocks or scripts (i.e., norms, values,and rules guiding desirable behaviors) and con-structing experiences through which studentscan employ these scripts, gain feedback,confirm or disconfirm their assumptions andunderstandings, and mold their attitudes andbehaviors into competencies. Structurationtheory provides a lens through which to under-stand competency development by establishinga framework that captures the recursiveprocess and explains how scripts develop intocompetencies and the factors that can facilitateor impede this development.

Structuration research has distinguishedamong three broad categories of scripts: signi-fication, legitimation, and domination (Giddens1984). Signification scripts influence how indi-viduals search for environmental change, legiti-mation scripts influence how individualsinterpret and evaluate this change, and domi-nation scripts influence how individualsrespond to this change (Giddens 1984). Inter-estingly, our study identifies particular compe-tencies that fall within each of these categories.For example, we found signification scripts inthe form of opportunity recognition and vision-based competencies, which are key tasks

associated with searching for environmentalchange. Supporting the development of thesecompetencies, professors might have studentsperform entrepreneur interviews to understandhow established entrepreneurs recognized theirown opportunities, which in turn might lead tothe development of signification scripts in theform of reading trade journals, staying abreastof industry trends, and establishing industrymentors. Similarly, opportunity assessment andcreative problem-solving competencies are sup-ported by legitimation scripts, in which studentsmight be taught about and tasked with devel-oping business models/plans or feasibilityanalyses. Finally, domination scripts supportthe development of resource leveraging, valuecreation, or guerrilla marketing skills throughwhich entrepreneurs respond in tangible waysto their environments. To convey these domi-nation scripts to students, professors mayemploy elevator pitches, business plan presen-tations, or construct mock entrepreneurial tasksor simulations. Importantly, by conveying thesedifferent scripts, professors provide studentswith the building blocks for what to expect inand how to respond to their entrepreneurialexperiences.

Entrepreneurs can identify, interpret, andthen respond to environmental change inthe process of recognizing and exploitingopportunities (Chiasson and Saunders 2007). Indoing so, however, the environment of stake-holders can then respond to the entrepreneurs’own actions, providing feedback that may leadentrepreneurs to either confirm or adjust theirscripts. The uncertainty of the entrepreneurshipcontext can create ambiguity and stress regard-ing whether opportunities were really identi-fied, the solution created to address theopportunity was effective, or the routinesthrough which the entrepreneurs mobilizedresources appropriately addressed marketneeds. Of note, our findings identifying tenac-ity, resilience, and self-efficacy as attitudinalcompetencies would seem to have implicationsfor how signification, legitimation, and domi-nation scripts are taught. In this regard, profes-sors might construct tasks that are extremelydifficult for students to perform, which canthen introduce intentional failures that providethe professors with opportunities for teachingthe students how to respond to these setbacks,how to diagnose what caused the setbacks, andultimately about the need to persevere to reachlofty goals.

MORRIS ET AL. 363

We have identified a set of competenciesupon which educators can focus in develop-ing pedagogical approaches within entrepre-neurship education. Scholars can providestudents with the appropriate scripts that canserve as the foundation for the developmentof these competencies and subsequently drawupon the measurement tools highlightedherein to determine their teaching effective-ness. It should be noted that this research hasidentified general entrepreneurship competen-cies, yet research has recently shown thatentrepreneurship is manifested differentlyacross contexts (e.g., in for-profit versus non-profit environments, or within domesticmarkets versus across particular internationalborders, or at the new venture level versusthe institutional level) (Morris, Webb, andFranklin 2011). Although some scripts may berelevant across contexts, such as the scriptsthat guide entrepreneurs’ opportunity recogni-tion, entrepreneurs may need to developentirely new scripts for certain contexts. Forexample, entrepreneurs in the nonprofitcontext often rely on a certain level of dona-tions as funding to support their organiza-tional activities. Seeking to scale their benefitsacross broader markets or to address abroader set of needs, these entrepreneurs mayneed to develop specific scripts to supporthow they interact with stakeholders to gener-ate donations while resolving conflicts thatmay surface because these stakeholders donot wholly agree with the direction of thenonprofit (Morris, Webb, and Franklin2011).

Research has also indicated that individualdifferences lead to variation in how a student isinfluenced by entrepreneurship education(Dickson, Solomon, and Weaver 2008; Wilson,Kickul, and Marlino 2007). For example,Wilson, Kickul, and Marlino (2007) find that anentrepreneurial concentration in an MBAprogram can increase entrepreneurial self-efficacy more for women than men, which inturn can increase entrepreneurial intentions(Boyd and Vozikis 1994; Krueger and Carsrud1993). Entrepreneurship education could helpwomen overcome gender stereotypes that clas-sify entrepreneurship as a more masculinecareer option (Gupta, Turban, and Bhawe2008). Whether caused by gender, race, or cul-tural biases/differences, the presence of indi-vidual differences suggests that the scripts thatprofessors convey and how they convey these

scripts might need to be adapted to effectivelyinfluence a breadth of individuals.

One key objective of entrepreneurship edu-cation has been to create general awareness ofwhat entrepreneurship entails (Hills 1988;Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy 2002). As theobjective of entrepreneurship educationincreasingly translates into creating actualentrepreneurs (Solomon 2007), we believe ourresearch presents a foundation for guiding thedevelopment of entrepreneurship curricula.Courses can be tailored to developing specificcompetencies within students, such as wheretheory is integrated with experiential learningto not only provide scripts but also allow stu-dents to leverage those scripts in meaningfulways. We foresee a standardization of scriptsand experiential learning exercises acrossentrepreneurship programs as a fruitful goal forthe discipline going forward.

Although we have proposed one approachfor attempting to assess student progress ondevelopment of competencies, others certainlyexist and need further development. Asexamples, a faculty member might give stu-dents an entrepreneurial scenario at the end ofa semester or program and require them todescribe what opportunities they can identify,or how they would go about mitigating risks inthat scenario, and this is then rated by theinstructor. Yet another approach might find theinstructor relying on external evaluators, suchas entrepreneurs and investors who listen tostudents present venture concepts and, follow-ing a discussion with the student, rate them onhow well they appear to have mastered particu-lar competencies. Students could also beencouraged to maintain a competency log,where they record competency-related actionsover a semester. Each time they identify anopportunity, leverage a resource, or engage insome guerrilla action, they would capture it inthe log.

A number of limitations should be kept inmind when interpreting our results and con-clusions. In the Delphi study, in addition topractitioners, we drew upon a group of well-established scholars to identify and narrowdown a specific set of entrepreneurial compe-tencies. To the extent that these scholars drawupon the same core sets of entrepreneurship-related theories to guide their cognitive mind-sets, they might have overlooked keyentrepreneurial competencies that would havebeen identified if employing other theories. As

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT364

a second limitation, we tested the efficacy ofthe measurement scales following an intensive,albeit single entrepreneurial task. We do notexpect that all experiential learning tasks willlead to development of all competencies.Instead, we encourage scholars to pursue worklinking development of particular competen-cies to a range of different teaching pedago-gies. Further, the reliance upon self-reportmeasures raises the potential for subjectivebiases in judging one’s abilities, especiallywhere instructors emphasize the importance ofcompetencies throughout a course. Finally, itshould be noted that our study focuses onentrepreneurship competencies in general. Wefully expect that more specific competenciesmight be relevant within social entrepreneur-ship (i.e., balancing commercial and socialobjectives), corporate entrepreneurship (i.e.,politicking), international entrepreneurship(i.e., understanding cultural and institutionalnuances), and other contexts.

ConclusionIs entrepreneurship a unique discipline, or is

it merely an amalgamation of other businessdisciplines? We assert that entrepreneurshipimposes requirements that are distinct fromthose faced by other business professionals,and as such, represents a unique disciplineencompassing a specific domain of competen-cies. As the process through which individualsrecognize, evaluate, and exploit opportunities(Shane and Venkataraman 2000), entrepreneur-ship is characterized by uncertainty in that theoutcomes of entrepreneurs’ actions areunknown and uncontrollable (Alvarez andBarney 2005). Unlike managers, accountants,marketers, and other business professionalswho are assigned specific roles and responsi-bilities, entrepreneurs face complex, emergent,multifaceted problems in resolving uncertaintyand exploiting an opportunity (Busenitz andBarney 1997). Whereas general businesspeople work within existing organizations,guided by existing routines and structures,entrepreneurs create new organizations and areresponsible themselves for establishing whatthe routines will be, how the organization willbe structured, how resources will be allocated,from where such resources will come, andmyriad other decisions.

As prominent entrepreneurship scholarscontinue to debate the legitimacy of entrepre-neurship as a discipline (Katz 2008; Kuratko

2005), it would seem such legitimacy hinges ondefining the unique body of knowledge thatentrepreneurship scholars study and convey tostudents. We have integrated competencyresearch and structuration theory to addressthis gap by identifying competencies that areunique to the entrepreneurship discipline, andby identifying and developing scales thatenable entrepreneurship scholars to measurethe effectiveness of their education programs.In doing so, we provide a foundation for schol-ars to construct educational programs thatmore accurately deliver scripts through whichstudents develop attitudinal and behavioralcompetencies to support their entrepreneurialendeavours. We hope our study (1) stimulatesfuture research examining the role of entrepre-neurship education in supporting students’structuration of key competencies, and (2)informs the development of effective entrepre-neurship programs.

ReferencesAldrich, H. (1999). Organizations Evolving.

London: Sage Publications.Alvarez, S. A., and J. Barney (2005). “How

Entrepreneurs Organize Firms under Condi-tions of Uncertainty,” Journal of Manage-ment 31(5), 776–793.

Baker, T., and R. Nelson (2005). “CreatingSomething from Nothing: Resource Con-struction through Entrepreneurial Brico-lage,” Administrative Science Quarterly 50,329–366.

Barley, S., and P. Tolbert (1997). “Institutional-ization and Structuration: Studying the Linksbetween Action and Institution,” Organiza-tion Studies 18, 93–117.

Baron, R. (1998). “Cognitive Mechanisms inEntrepreneurship: Why Entrepreneurs ThinkDifferently than Other People,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 13, 275–294.

Baron, R. A. (2008). “The Role of Affect in theEntrepreneurial Process,” Academy of Man-agement Review 33, 328–340.

Barringer, B. R., and R. D. Ireland (2011).Entrepreneurship: Successfully LaunchingNew Ventures, 4th ed. Boston: Prentice Hall.

Bergevoet, R. H. M., and C. Van Woerkum(2006). “Improving the EntrepreneurialCompetencies of Dutch Dairy Farmersthrough the Use of Study Groups,” Journalof Agricultural Education and Extension12(1), 25–39.

MORRIS ET AL. 365

Bird, B. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Entrepre-neurial Competency,” in Advances in Entre-preneurship Firm Emergence & Growth. Ed.J. Katz. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 52–72.

Boon, J., and M. R. van der Klink (2003). “Com-petencies: Triumph of a Fuzzy Concept,”International Journal of Human Resources,Development and Management 3, 125–137.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The CompetentManager—A Model for Effective Perfor-mance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Boyd, N., and G. Vozikis (1994). “The Influenceof Self-Efficacy on the Development ofEntrepreneurial Intentions and Actions,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19(1),63–77.

Brophy, M., and T. Kiely (2002). “Competen-cies: A New Sector,” Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training 26, 165–176.

Bryant, J., and K. Poustie (2001). “Competen-cies Needed by Public Library Staff,” Guter-loh: Bertelsmann Foundation. Available at:http://www.uflibjobcompetencies.pbworks.com/f/PubLibComp.pdf (accessed July 10,2012).

Busenitz, L. W., and J. B. Barney (1997). “Biasesand Heuristics in Strategic Decision Making:Differences between Entrepreneurs andManagers in Large Organizations,” Journalof Business Venturing 12, 9–30.

Chan, A. P. C., E. H. K. Yung, P. T. I. Lam, C. M.Tam, and S. O. Cheung (2001). “Applicationof Delphi Method in Selection of Procure-ment Systems for Construction Projects,”Construction Management and Economics19, 699–718.

Chandler, G. N., and S. H. Hanks (1994).“Founder Competence, the Environment andVenture Performance,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 18(3), 77–89.

Chandler, G. N., and E. Jansen (1992). “TheFounder’s Self-Assessed Competence andVenture Performance,” Journal of BusinessVenturing 7(3), 223–236.

Chawla, S. K., C. Pullig, and F. D. Alexander(1997). “Critical Success Factors from AnOrganizational Life Cycle Perspective: Per-ceptions of Small Business Owners from Dif-ferent Business Environments,” Journal ofBusiness Entrepreneurship 9(1), 47–58.

Chiasson, M., and C. Saunders (2007). “Recon-ciling Diverse Approaches to OpportunityResearch Using the Structuration Theory,”Journal of Business Venturing 20, 747–767.

Cogbill, K., P. O’Sullivan, and J. Clardy (2005).“Residents’ Perception of the Effectivenessof 12 Evaluation Methods for MeasuringCompetency,” Academic Psychiatry 29(1),76–81.

Colombo, M. G., and L. Grilli (2005). “Start-upSize: The Role of External Financing,” Eco-nomics Letters 88(2), 243–250.

Cope, J. (2003). “Entrepreneurial Learning andCritical Reflection: Discontinuous Events AsTriggers for Higher-Level Learning,” Man-agement Learning 34, 429–450.

Dickson, P. H., G. T. Solomon, and K. M.Weaver (2008). “Entrepreneurial Selectionand Success: Does Education Matter?”Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment 15, 239–258.

Duckworth, A. L., and P. D. Quinn (2009).“Development and Validation of the ShortGrit Scale (Grit-S),” Journal of PersonalityAssessment 91, 166–174.

Dyer, J. H., H. B. Gregersen, and C. Christensen(2008). “Entrepreneur Behaviors, Opportu-nity Recognition, and the Origins of Innova-tive Ventures,” Strategic EntrepreneurshipJournal 2(4), 317–338.

Eckhardt, J. T., and S. Shane (2003). “Opportu-nities and Entrepreneurship,” Journal ofManagement 29, 333–349.

Fayolle, A., B. Gailly, and N. Lassas-Clerc(2006). “Assessing the Impact of Entrepre-neurship Education Programmes: A NewMethodology,” Journal of European Indus-trial Training 30, 701–720.

Feldman, M. S., and B. T. Pentland (2003).“Reconceptualizing Organizational RoutinesAs a Source of Flexibility and Change,”Administrative Science Quarterly 48,94–118.

Forret, M., and T. Dougherty (2001). “Corre-lates of Networking Behavior for Managerialand Professional Employees,” Group andOrganization Management 26, 283–311.

Freel, M. S. (1999). “Where Are the Skills Gapsin Innovative Small Firms?” InternationalJournal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour andResearch 5(3), 144–154.

Garman, A. N., and M. Johnson (2006). “Lead-ership Competencies: An Introduction,”Journal of Healthcare Management 51(1),13–17.

Gartner, W. B. (1989). “ ‘Who Is an Entrepre-neur?’ Is the Wrong Question,” Entre-preneurship Theory and Practice 13(4),47–68.

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT366

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gorman, G., D. Hanlon, and W. King (1997).“Research Perspectives on EntrepreneurshipEducation, Enterprise Education and Educa-tion for Small Business Management: A Ten-Year Literature Review,” International SmallBusiness Journal 15(3), 56–79.

Gupta, V., D. Turban, and N. Bhawe (2008).“The Effect of Gender Stereotype Activationon Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal ofApplied Psychology 93, 1053–1061.

Hamidi, D. Y., K. Wennberg, and H. Berglund(2008). “Creativity in Entrepreneurship Edu-cation,” Journal of Small Business andEnterprise Development 15, 304–320.

Hartle, F. (1995). How to Re-Engineer Your Per-formance Management Process. London:Kogan Page.

Haynie, J. M., and D. A. Shepherd (2009). “AMeasure of Adaptive Cognition for Entrepre-neurship Research,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 33(3), 695–714.

Hayton, J. C., and D. J. Kelley (2006). “ACompetency-Based Framework for Promot-ing Corporate Entrepreneurship,” HumanResource Management 45, 407–427.

Higgins, D., and C. Elliot (2011). “Learning toMake Sense: What Works in EntrepreneurialEducation? “ Journal of European IndustrialTraining 35, 345–367.

Hills, G. E. (1988). “Variations in UniversityEntrepreneurship Education: An EmpiricalStudy of An Evolving Field,” Journal of Busi-ness Venturing 3, 109–122.

Hmieleski, K. M., and A. C. Corbett (2006).“Proclivity for Improvisation As a Predictorof Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 41(1), 45–63.

Hodgkinson, G. P. (1992). “Development andValidation of the Strategic Locus of ControlScale,” Strategic Management Journal 13,311–317.

Hofer, C. W., and R. Charan (1984). “The Tran-sition to Professional Management: MissionImpossible?” American Journal of SmallBusiness 9(1), 1–11.

Hood, J., and J. Young (1993). “Entrepreneur-ship’s Requisite Areas of Development: ASurvey of Top Executives in SuccessfulEntrepreneurial Firms,” Journal of BusinessVenturing 8(2), 115–135.

Horne, M., P. Lloyd, J. Pay, and P. Roe (1992).“Understanding the Competitive Process: AGuide to Effective Intervention in the Small

Firms Sector,” European Journal of Opera-tional Research 56(1), 54–66.

Kaish, S., and B. Gilad (1991). “Characteristicsof Opportunity Search of EntrepreneursVersus Executives: Sources, Interests, andGeneral Alertness,” Journal of Business Ven-turing 6, 45–61.

Katz, J. A. (2008). “Fully Mature but Not FullyLegitimate: A Different Perspective on theState of Entrepreneurship Education,”Journal of Small Business Management 46,550–566.

Klarus, R., H. Tillema, and J. Veenstra (1999).“Beoordelen: Met Competentieprofielen ofKwalificatiestructuren: Onderwijs en Bedr-ijfsleven Staan Weliswaar nog ver vanElkaar af in de Wijze Waarop zijBeoordelen, Maar Groeien Meer en Meernaar Elkaar toe in Denken over en Kiezenvan de Wijze van Beoordeling vanMedewerkers,” Opleiding and Ontwikkeling12(11), 15–26.

Klein, A. L. (1996). “Validity and Reliability forCompetency-Based Systems: Reducing Liti-gation Risks,” Compensation and BenefitsReview, (Jul/Aug), 31–39.

Krueger, N., and P. R. Dickson (1994). “HowBelieving in Ourselves Increases RiskTaking: Perceived Self-Efficacy and Oppor-tunity Recognition,” Decision Sciences 25,385–400.

Krueger, N. F., and A. Carsrud (1993). “Entre-preneurial Intentions: Applying the Theoryof Planned Behavior,” Entrepreneurship andRegional Development 5, 316–323.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). “The Emergence ofEntrepreneurship Education: Development,Trends, and Challenges,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice 29(5), 577–598.

Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1999). “The Distinctionbetween Stable and Dynamic Cross-CulturalCompetencies: Implications for ExpatriateTrainability,” Journal of International Busi-ness Studies 39(4), 709–725.

Lerner, M., and T. Almor (2002). “Relationshipsamong Strategic Capabilities and the Perfor-mance of Women-Owned Small Ventures,”Journal of Small Business Management40(2), 109–125.

Lord, R. G., and M. C. Kernan (1987). “Scriptsas Determinants of Purposeful Behavior inOrganizations,” Academy of ManagementReview 12, 265–277.

Luken, T. (2004). “Are Competences Measur-able? Dilemma and Escape in Operationaliz-

MORRIS ET AL. 367

ing the Competence Concept,” TijdschriftVoor Hoger Onderwijs 22, 38–53.

Man, T. W. Y., T. Lau, and K. F. Chan (2002).“The Competitiveness of Small and MediumEnterprises: A Conceptualization with Focuson Entrepreneurial Competencies,” Journalof Business Venturing 17, 123–142.

McMullan, W. E., and W. A. Long (1990). Devel-oping New Ventures. San Diego, CA: Har-court Brace Jovanovich.

McMullen, J., and D. Shepherd (2006). “Entre-preneurial Action and the Role of Uncer-tainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur,”Academy of Management Review 31, 132–152.

Mitchelmore, S., and J. Rowley (2010). “Entre-preneurial Competencies: A LiteratureReview and Development Agenda,” Interna-tional Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviourand Research 16(2), 92–111.

Morris, M. H. (1998). Entrepreneurial Intensity:Sustainable Advantages for Individuals,Organizations, and Societies. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Morris, M. H., M. Schindehutte, D. Kuratko, andA. Spivack (2012). “Framing the Entrepre-neurial Experience,” EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 36(1), 11–40.

Morris, M. H., M. Schindehutte, and R. LaForge(2002). “Entrepreneurial Marketing: A Con-struct for Integrating Emerging Entre-preneurship and Marketing Perspectives,”Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice10(4), 1–19.

Morris, M. H., J. W. Webb, and R. Franklin(2011). “Understanding the Manifestation ofEntrepreneurial Orientation in the NonprofitContext,” Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 35(5), 947–971.

Nelson, R. R., and S. G. Winter (1982). AnEvolutionary Theory of Economic Change.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Orser, B., and A. Riding (2003). ManagementCompetencies and SME Performance Crite-ria: A Pilot Study. Ottawa: Small BusinessPolicy Branch, Industry Canada.

Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growthof the Firm. New York: John Wiley.

Politis, D., J. Winborg, and A. Dahlstrand(2011). “Exploring the Resource Logic ofStudent Entrepreneurs,” International SmallBusiness Journal 30(4), 659–683.

Preble, J. F. (1983). “Public Sector Use of theDelphi Technique,” Technological Forecast-ing and Social Change 23, 75–88.

Rankin, N. (2004). “The New Prescription forPerformance: The Eleventh CompetencyBenchmarking Survey,” Competency & Emo-tional Intelligence Benchmarking Supple-ment 2004/2005. London: IRS.

Rasmussen, E., S. Mosey, and M. Wright (2011).“The Evolution of Entrepreneurial Compe-tencies: A Longitudinal Study of UniversitySpin-Off Venture Emergence,” Journal ofManagement Studies 48, 1314–1345.

Salvato, C. (2009). “Capabilities Unveiled: TheRole of Ordinary Activities in the Evolutionof Product Development Processes,” Orga-nization Science 20, 384–409.

Sarason, Y., T. Dean, and J. F. Dillard (2006).“Entrepreneurship as the Nexus of Indi-vidual and Opportunity: A StructurationView,” Journal of Business Venturing 21,286–305.

Shane, S., and S. Venkataraman (2000). “ThePromise of Entrepreneurship as a Field ofResearch,” Academy of Management Review25, 217–226.

Shook, C. L., D. J. Ketchen, C. S. Cycyota, andD. Crockett (2003). “Data Analytic Trendsand Training in Strategic Management,”Strategic Management Journal 24, 1231–1237.

Sinclair, V. G., and A. K. Wallston (2004). “TheDevelopment and Psychometric Evaluationof the Brief Resilient Coping Scale,” Assess-ment 11, 94–101.

Sirmon, D., M. Hitt, and R. D. Ireland (2007).“Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Envi-ronments to Create Value: Looking Insidethe Black Box,” Academy of ManagementReview 32, 273–292.

Smith, B., and E. Morse (2005). EntrepreneurialCompetencies: Literature Review and BestPractices. Ottawa, Canada: Small BusinessPolicy Branch.

Solomon, G. (2007). “An Examination of Entre-preneurship Education in the United States,”Journal of Small Business and EnterpriseDevelopment 14, 168–182.

Solomon, G. T., S. Duffy, and A. Tarabishy(2002). “The State of Entrepreneurship Edu-cation in the United States: A NationwideSurvey and Analysis,” International Journalof Entrepreneurship Education 1, 65–86.

Stevenson, H. H., and J. C. Jarillo (1990). “AParadigm of Entrepreneurship: Entrepre-

JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT368

neurial Management,” Strategic Manage-ment Journal 11, 17–27.

Stoner, C. R. (1987). “Distinctive Competenceand Competitive Advantage,” Journal ofSmall Business Management 25(2), 33–39.

Tang, J., K. M. Kacmar, and L. Busenitz (2010).“Entrepreneurial Alertness in the Pursuit ofNew Opportunities,” Journal of BusinessVenturing 27, 77–94.

Tannenbaum, S. I., and G. Yukl (1992). “Train-ing and Development in Work Organiza-tions,” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 399–441.

Vesper, K. H., and W. E. McMullan (1988).“Entrepreneurship: Today Courses, Tomor-row Degrees?” Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice 13(1), 7–13.

Webb, J. W., R. D. Ireland, M. A. Hitt, G. M.Kistruck, and L. Tihanyi (2011). “Where Isthe Opportunity without the Customer? AnIntegration of Marketing Activities, theEntrepreneurship Process, and InstitutionalTheory,” Journal of the Academy of Market-ing Science 39, 537–554.

Wilson, A., A. Averis, and K. Walsh (2003). “TheInfluences on and Experience of Becoming

Nurse Entrepreneurs: A Delphi Study,” Inter-national Journal of Nursing Practices 9,236–245.

Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino (2007).“Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, andEntrepreneurial Career Intentions: Implica-tions for Entrepreneurship Education,”Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31(4),387–406.

Winborg, J., and H. Landstrom (2001). “Finan-cial Bootstrapping in Small Businesses:Examining Small Business Managers’Resource Acquisition Behaviors,” Journal ofBusiness Venturing 16, 235–254.

Winterton, J. (2002). “Entrepreneurship:Towards a Competence Framework forDeveloping SME Managers,” paper pre-sented at United States Association for SmallBusiness and Entrepreneurship Conference,Reno, NV, January.

Zampetakis, L. A., and V. Moustakis (2006).“Linking Creativity with EntrepreneurialIntentions: A Structural Approach,” Interna-tional Entrepreneurship and ManagementJournal 2(3), 413–428.

MORRIS ET AL. 369