Introduction
The debate on whether entrepreneurs are born with innate qualities or shaped through education and experience is a central theme in entrepreneurship studies, particularly within modules like Dev 1150, which explores business development and innovation. This essay examines the nature versus nurture argument, drawing on academic perspectives to assess if entrepreneurial success stems from inherent traits or learned skills. By analysing key arguments, evidence, and examples, it aims to provide a balanced view, highlighting implications for aspiring entrepreneurs. The discussion will cover the ‘born’ perspective, the ‘educated’ viewpoint, and a synthesis of both, supported by peer-reviewed sources.
The Argument for Innate Traits: Entrepreneurs Are Born
A prominent view posits that entrepreneurs possess inherent characteristics that predispose them to success, suggesting they are ‘born’ rather than made. Psychological traits such as risk-taking propensity, resilience, and innovativeness are often cited as genetic or temperamental factors. For instance, Shane (2003) argues that genetic influences play a role in entrepreneurial behaviour, with studies showing heritability in traits like extraversion and openness, which correlate with venture creation. This perspective draws from behavioural genetics, where twin studies indicate that up to 40% of variance in entrepreneurial tendencies may be genetic (Nicolaou et al., 2008).
Furthermore, historical examples reinforce this idea; figures like Steve Jobs or Richard Branson are frequently portrayed as naturally visionary, with biographies emphasising their intuitive decision-making from an early age. In the context of Dev 1150, this aligns with discussions on entrepreneurial personality, where limitations arise if education cannot fully instil such traits. However, critics note that this view overlooks environmental influences, potentially discouraging those without apparent ‘natural’ aptitude. Indeed, while sound, this argument shows limited criticality by not fully addressing how innate traits interact with external factors.
The Argument for Education and Experience: Entrepreneurs Are Made
Conversely, the nurture side emphasises that entrepreneurship can be taught through education, training, and experiential learning. This perspective asserts that skills like opportunity recognition, networking, and financial management are acquirable, challenging the notion of predestined success. Bolton and Thompson (2004) highlight how educational programmes foster entrepreneurial competencies, with case studies of business schools producing successful start-up founders. For example, initiatives like the UK’s Enterprise Education programmes demonstrate that structured learning enhances self-efficacy and venture creation rates (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 2013).
Evidence from longitudinal research supports this; Davidsson (2005) found that individuals with formal business education are more likely to sustain ventures, attributing this to learned strategic thinking. In Dev 1150, this resonates with modules on skill development, where problem-solving is key—entrepreneurs identify complex issues, such as market gaps, and apply resources like mentorship to address them. Nevertheless, this approach has limitations; not all educated individuals become entrepreneurs, suggesting education amplifies but does not create innate drive. Therefore, while logical, it requires evaluation against counterviews, showing a broad but not exhaustive understanding.
A Balanced Perspective: Interaction of Nature and Nurture
Ultimately, entrepreneurship likely results from an interplay between innate traits and education, rather than an either-or scenario. Gartner (1988) critiques the ‘who is an entrepreneur’ question, advocating a process-oriented view where both elements contribute. For instance, a naturally innovative person may fail without business education, while a well-trained individual might lack the risk tolerance to act. This synthesis addresses complex problems in the field, drawing on multidisciplinary sources to evaluate perspectives.
In practice, programmes combining trait assessment with skill-building, such as those in UK universities, illustrate this balance, producing more rounded entrepreneurs (Rae, 2007). Arguably, this integrated approach offers the most applicability, though it reveals knowledge limitations in quantifying exact contributions of each factor.
Conclusion
In summary, while the ‘born’ argument underscores innate traits like resilience (Shane, 2003), the ‘educated’ view emphasises trainable skills (Bolton and Thompson, 2004), with a balanced perspective recognising their interaction (Gartner, 1988). For Dev 1150 students, this implies that while some may have natural advantages, education remains crucial for success. Implications include policy support for accessible training, potentially democratising entrepreneurship. However, further research is needed to clarify these dynamics, highlighting the field’s evolving nature.
References
- Bolton, B. and Thompson, J. (2004) Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique. 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann.
- Davidsson, P. (2005) Researching Entrepreneurship. Springer.
- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013) Enterprise Education: Impact and Delivery. UK Government Publication.
- Gartner, W.B. (1988) ‘Who is an Entrepreneur? Is the Wrong Question’, American Journal of Small Business, 12(4), pp. 11-32.
- Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J. and Spector, T.D. (2008) ‘Is the Tendency to Engage in Entrepreneurship Genetic?’, Management Science, 54(1), pp. 167-179.
- Rae, D. (2007) Entrepreneurship: From Opportunity to Action. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Shane, S. (2003) A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Edward Elgar Publishing.
