Entrepreneurship in the global environment - Essay Example

Management Introduction The term Entrepreneurship deals with running a business organization from scratch. The person involved in the process is called an Entrepreneur. The term Entrepreneur not only deals with various attributes which can be found in a person which helps in enhancing business but also the threats that a person faces in the process of nurturing those attributes. This person is known as an Entrepreneur and he is continuously engaged in developing new ideas for a startup, innovating ways to ensure growth of a business, strategizing plans to survive in the market and designing tactics to mitigate challenges. There are many Entrepreneurs who start their own business venture and put their best efforts to ensure that their business reaches the initial breakeven point. The viability of the enterprise will be established at this stage. These Entrepreneurs takes all the responsibilities and ensure that all the business operations are carried out smoothly and issues are resolved with innovative solutions. It is their hard work and dedication that helps the business to sustain in the long run. The Entrepreneurs who join large business organizations have a different role. They operate in specialized areas and foster a business climate which would be favorable for innovation of new ideas (Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra, 2002). In this study, an attempt has been made to analyze the role of an Entrepreneur and his effectiveness in a business setting with regard to his ability to successfully deal with challenges. The analysis has been done by selecting two renowned Entrepreneurs who are then compared on the basis of their success and failure. For the purpose of the analysis, the study mainly focuses on the entrepreneurial policies of two companies namely Aston Martin and Starbucks. The selected Entrepreneurs are Lionel Martin and Robert Bamford of Aston Martin and Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl of Starbucks. Analyzing the overall entrepreneurial policies of these companies will certainly give an overview of the entrepreneurs in general. Entrepreneurial Profile Lionel Martin was a British Entrepreneur who co-founded Aston Martin which is a company that deals with luxurious cars. His love and passion for cars helped him to come up with a venture like Aston Martin. This was an important factor for his success as an Entrepreneur. The company was started with limited investment and Lionel soon realised that it would be challenging to develop ideas for a business that deals with luxury car with such low level of venture capital. An investor Robert Bamford was found and with his partnership, Lionel Martin officially started developing his ambitious plans for growing his business operations. Robert Bamford helped in manufacturing the first car for Aston Martin. The initial years of business was subject to unstable business climate due to the prevalence of the First World War. Manufacturing rate was slowed down due to external factors that hindered growth. Eventually with the advancement in time, the business operations paced up and reached its breakeven. However, soon after that, the company was faced with numerous hardships and a bankruptcy situation was experienced. This was mainly due to difference in opinions between Lionel Martin and Robert Bamford. Robert Bamford stopped his investments in the company. Thus, the business operations of Aston Martin were put under severe challenges and in such a situation Lionel Martin took help of other investors to carry on the operations and bring out the company from the bankrupt condition (Bain, 1969). It can be seen that there were presence of diverse business opinions in the same organization which led to a severe loss for the company. However, Lionel Martin played a vital role in such adverse conditions. His passion for cars helped him to come up with ideas that worked in the favour of the company. The company took part in several renowned races and the brand image of the company was enhanced. Nonetheless, the position of the company became worse with time. Lionel Martin soon transferred the company ownership into hands of other investors. The company profile of Aston Martin gives scope of critically analysing the entrepreneurial traits of the company and helps in understanding the reason behind the success and failures of the company (Greer and Hauptmeier, 2008). Starbucks was also founded by multiple entrepreneurs and the company’s business operations were influenced by the entrepreneurial activities of these individuals. The formation of the company was inspired by another coffee brewing company which was owned by a Dutch entrepreneur. The success of this company inspired Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl to come up with ideas that helped in the foundation of Starbucks. Zev Siegl was a History teacher and his interest in innovating new things led him to come up with ideas of opening up a coffee brewing company. Gordon Bowker, on the other hand, was an American Entrepreneur who started his career as a writer and then later on co-founded Starbucks which is a coffee brewer. Later on, he also co-founded Redhook Ale Brewery and Peet’s Coffee & Tea. He is an alumnus of the University of San Francisco. Gordon had a huge role to play in the success of Starbucks. Jerry Baldwin was an English teacher and he also helped in the foundation of Starbucks. However, Zev Siegl left the company after a period of time to fulfil other interests. Starbucks was then operated by Bowker and Baldwin (Schindehutte, Morris and Kocak, 2008). Eventually, Starbucks encountered a similar situation like Aston Martin. There were divergences in opinions when another investor called Schultz started investing. Finally, the company was sold to Schultz, who later on enhanced business operations (Flamholtz and Randle, 2012). Thus, Starbucks also had the presence of diverse entrepreneurial policies which led to some adversities. The formation of a company like Starbucks supports the fact that all the founders were driven by innovation which is essential for a business operation. However, at the same time, the profitability conditions and other issues in the company gives a chance to critically analyze the entrepreneurial traits of the founders and the company in general. There were various reasons why these founders who have other interests than business came up to be known as entrepreneurs. These factors need to be identified for critically analyzing the various entrepreneurial traits and their business strategies (Lichtenstein and Jones, 2004). Key Traits The concepts and models used in the module MGT6A3 helps us to recognize the reason why the selected individuals are classed as entrepreneurs. There are various key traits that we can generally find in entrepreneurs. Thus, these key traits set them apart from any other professionals and are essential for the growth of an entrepreneur in the long run. The study attempts to discuss the attributes of the entrpreneurs in details. Entrepreneurs must have the ability of starting something from the scratch. This can only be achieved if they have certain specialized skills and a thoughtful mind. The selected entrepreneurs show such qualities. They helped in starting big corporations from the scratch. It is their innovative thinking that helped in shaping up of a company that served people with innovative business ideas. They possessed the creativity to bring out ideas that would change life for people and their business operations would thus help them to differentiate them in the market. Apart from creativity, the presence of passion for the work is essential to flourish as an entrepreneur. This is evidential from the characteristics of the selected entrepreneurs. Their passion towards the idea they nurtured, helped them to set up a corporation of their own which is not a very easy task. It needs a lot of devotion and hard work. Entrepreneurs have the readiness to take risks but these risks are evaluated by them and are calculative in nature. The selected entrepreneurs reflected such traits. Their modesty for their work was also a driving force that helped in sustaining their company’s brand image among the customers (Duane Ireland and Webb, 2007). Entrepreneurs must also have the ability to raise capital for their start-up from various financial institutions and other potential investors. The persuasive skills of an entrepreneur thus, play a vital role in the incubation period of the business. The entrepreneur should draft an appropriate project report to attract investors. The selected individuals had these skills which helped in identifying them as entrepreneurs. They valued work ethics and thus, ensured that best efforts are taken in order to achieve their goals and objectives. The entrepreneurs have the capability of implementing innovative ideas or modifying established ideas in a way that added value to the existing operations. The selected individuals had similar traits and executed their ideas effectively (Hornsby, Kuratko and Zahra, 2002). The entrepreneurs always find innovative solutions to the issues faced and thus, overcome challenges and minimize risk. The solutions found by them are unique and this sets them apart from others. The selected individuals can be related with such traits as they helped their companies to come out of adversities by finding appropriate solutions. Innovative techniques were used by them in every functional division. The organisation they worked for encouraged a work culture that welcomed innovation. They also ensured that not only success but also failures were monitored and scrutinized for avoiding further risks. They were not discouraged by the failures. They designed appropriate solution to tackle the failures and they even transferred ownership to do so. This helped them to ensure that the brand they created continued its operations and kept serving consumers. Entrepreneurs generally do not plan out a single strategy. They have multiple plans and then they evaluate the plans on the basis of cost benefit analysis to check the viability of the plans. The strategies that have the potential to enhance growth are given proper attention. These strategies are highly driven by innovation. Otherwise surviving in the industry would certainly be difficult for an entrepreneur. The selected individuals had these unique traits which helped in classifying them as entrepreneurs. They continuously encouraged innovation in all its operations. For instance, Aston Martin as a car manufacturer had a comparative advantage because of its innovative research and development techniques. They offered cars that satisfied the luxurious needs of the consumers. The main features of the manufactured cars were not only the outstanding quality, but also the technicalities that were used during the production of the cars. The entrepreneurs also took innovative strategies to enhance brand image of the company by placing the car in various prestigious races which helped in attracting potential elite consumers. The exceptional design of the cars helped the company to set its own standards. This was helpful also in the long run. In time of great adversities, investors were attracted to invest in the company and help to mitigate such conditions. This was because, the investors valued the company’s innovative techniques and were certain about the fact that modifications in the technique would help to bring great results. Similarly, in case of Starbucks which was initially inspired by another coffer brewer, business techniques were modified in such a way that helped them to set unique objectives. The consumers’ acceptance for the company encouraged further innovations in its operations. Starbucks also carried on operations after the transfer of ownership from the main founders. This established the fact that the companies entrepreneurial policies emphasised on a long term business strategy. Failures were given equal importance as success. The entrepreneurs valued the sustenance of their ideas over in major organizational issues (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). The organizations discussed in this paper shows that they encouraged diversified business ideas. This was mainly due to the fact that the operations of the company were not headed by a single owner. The companies were founded by multiple owners and investments were also of varied scales i.e. the partnership within the company also did not come up with equal share. Yet, there were absence of conflicts, as the main objectives of the founders were to ensure the success of their companies even if that harmed their own pockets more than other investors. There was presence of diverse opinions which is essential for innovation. The founders also had openness towards new business policies and accepted any change in business climate sportingly. Thus, the overall entrepreneurial policies of the company gave us ample evidence to define the selected individuals as entrepreneurs. They played a vital role in their respective organizations even if they faced significant challenges during the process (Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray, 2003). Comparison in Entrepreneurial Policies There are various grounds on which the entrepreneurial policies followed by the selected individuals can be compared. These unique characteristics and entrepreneurial policies followed by the individuals have helped to compare them and analyze their attributes critically. The differences in entrepreneurial policies also arise, as the selected individuals operated in completely dissimilar markets and their customer base were poles apart (Kelley, Singer and Herrington, 2012). Aston Martin and Starbucks operated under two unrelated industries. The strategies adopted in both the industries thus differed extremely. Aston Martin serves the luxurious needs of its customers and operated in the automobile industry. The company manufactured cars which were used by the elite class and thus, use of such cars enhanced the status symbol of its customers. Starbucks on the other hand is a coffee brewing company and deals with products related to coffee. So the company serves the food and beverage industry. Starbucks initially started with small scale operations, and with time developed a premium pricing strategy. Initial investment also differed for both the companies. Aston Martin required huge venture capital as compared to Starbucks and the scale of return also differed for both the companies. Thus, the entrepreneurs in the respective companies had distinct psychological constructs. Their inclination towards entrepreneurial policies followed different path (Cromie, 2000). The entrepreneurs can be differentiated on the basis of their achievements and motivation. Lionel Martin was highly passionate about cars. His love for cars was the main motivation that led him to take up a business in the automobile sector. He was inspired by the success and achievements of this industry. Robert Bamford on the other hand was a typical investor who had a business mindset and was clear about the ideas and design which would enhance customer base in the market. Both the entrepreneurs operated under politically unstable conditions to bring up the company and ensure growth in the long run. On the other hand Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl came from different backgrounds and they had no connection with the business environment. They were creative personalities and this creativity and their drive to develop new ideas helped them to formulate strategies for making their own company. These entrepreneurs were not as passionate as Lionel martin as they could not relate themselves with the industry which eventually forced them to leave the industry and follow different paths. Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl were mainly inspired by an existing idea and its success encouraged them to adapt and modify the same idea to formulate their own company (Ardichvili, Cardozo and Ray, 2003). The entrepreneurs of Aston Martin and Starbucks can also be compared on the basis of their risk taking propensity. An individuals’ perception to risk differs with the market structure and the type of product that has to be marketed. Every product does not have the same risk return scenario. Aston Martin operated in the luxurious automobile industry and thus, they had high risk and high return. The cars were manufactured in a way which ensured that high quality standards were met. Thus, the cars were priced reasonably high. The initial investment i.e. the cost of manufacturing was also high. So a drop in sales resulted in heavy loss for the company. The cars also catered to a particular section of the population. The operation of the company also started during the First World War. The level of risks was quite high and the operations of the company were stagnated due to political forces that hindered growth. However, Lionel Martin and Robert Bamford’s appetite for risk was quite high. They used their skills and formulated strategies that helped them to establish their brand. There were also adverse situations when the company went bankrupt. Thus, the presence of risk in the company was quite high. Starbucks on the other hand operated in stable conditions and risk associated with the operations of this company was less as compared to Aston Martin. Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl did not have to face political uncertainties. However, they faced challenges in the form of market competition and creating a potential target market for their products (Bullough and Renko, 2013). Preference for innovation also differed across both the industries. The entrepreneurial policies were influenced by different factors and innovation was done according to the needs and requirements of the customers. The customer taste and preference was different for both the products and the different strategies had to be formulated to cater to customers. Innovation in products also differed due to the changing demands of the customers. Lionel Martin and Robert Bamford had to follow intensive innovation techniques. The manufacturing of products was based on exceptional research and development. The technicalities used in the production had to be innovative to set them apart from their rivals. The product design was thus, subject to numerous testing before the distribution in the market. Gordon Bowker, Jerry Baldwin and Zev Siegl also believed in continuous innovation but it could not be applied in the production techniques. Instead, they had to concentrate on efficient marketing strategies and enhance product quality by using outstanding raw materials (Schindehutte, Morris and Kocak, 2008). Starbucks also had a social motive as a part of their mission unlike Aston Martin whose operations were based on the objective of maximizing profit and revenue. Thus, the entrepreneurs had different strategies that helped them to operate in the business climate (Acs, et al, 2004b). Conclusion The module studied for the analysis of the global entrepreneurship situations helped in identifying and understanding key concepts related to the specific topic. The structure of the study was methodical and was effective in making a clear understanding of the essential entrepreneurial methods and techniques. The study primarily focussed on, identifying entrepreneurs who have successfully made start-up plans and implemented them to come up with their own corporations. This part of the study helped in recognizing established brands and critically analyzing their backgrounds and overall entrepreneurial policies. The individuals selected for assessment gave a clear picture of their style of entrepreneurship and the policies that they intensively encouraged. They were hardworking individuals driven by passion and dedication. However, they encountered failures in the process which were challenging and difficult to overcome. The companies eventually survived under the leadership of other investors and this was mainly due to the strong base that was set up by the founders. The study of two different companies and entrepreneurs helped in critically comparing their skills and potentials with which they approached any challenge or opportunities. There was difference in perspective among the entrepreneur which set them apart from each other. The key traits were however, similar for all entrepreneurs and they highly encouraged innovation. The critical analysis arises from the fact that the process of innovation and the way of implementation differed for the entrepreneurs and the entire process was not flawless at every stage. There was a need for modifications in approach and techniques. The study helped to classify entrepreneurial attributes which are essential for the growth of an enterprise. It is the hard work of the entrepreneurs that help a company to sustain growth in the long run. Thus, the entrepreneurs’ involvement in the business operations becomes imperative (Acs, et al, 2004 a). The module attempts to create a learning experience that guides and helps an individual to initiate his own ideas and implement them in order to start up a venture. The business plan would be shaped by considering the factors studied. The concepts in the module will help in building strategies which would be viable in the long run. The whole process would thus be more effective as it would be based on a learning outcome. The overview of the entrepreneurial policies would help in solving issues by following set examples. However, the entrepreneurial policies can influence individuals to take the right path for ensuring success but it should be kept in mind that the attributes of an entrepreneur cannot be reflected in a person only by studying them. The characteristics are present uniquely in some individuals and one can nurture them to get outstanding results. The entire process is based on rationale learning through dedicated practice and hard work. Successful study of the issues that are addressed in the module would help in understanding the business climate and identifying the key factors that governs the successful operation of a business. The study is an attempt to analyze the feasibility situation of a business. Thus, it can be critically reflected that the learning outcomes from this module would prove beneficial in the long run (Birkinshaw, 2000). Reference List Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M. and Minniti, M., 2004. Global entrepreneurship monitor. Executive Report, London Business School, Babson. Acs, Z. J., Arenius, P., Hay, M. and Minniti, M., 2004. Social entrepreneurship. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., and Ray, S., 2003. A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business venturing, 18(1), pp. 105-123. Bain, J. S., 1969. Survival-ability as a test of efficiency. The American Economic Review, pp. 99-104. Birkinshaw, J., 2000. Entrepreneurship in the global firm: Enterprise and renewal. London: Sage. Bullough, A., and Renko, M., 2013. Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Business Horizons, 56(3), pp. 343-350. Cromie, S., 2000. Assessing entrepreneurial inclinations: Some approaches and empirical evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), pp. 7-30. Duane Ireland, R. and Webb, J. W., 2007. Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation. Business Horizons, 50(1), pp. 49-59 Flamholtz, E. G. and Randle, Y., 2012. Growing pains: Transitioning from an entrepreneurship to a professionally managed firm. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Greer, I. and Hauptmeier, M., 2008. Political Entrepreneurs and Co‐Managers: Labour Transnationalism at Four Multinational Auto Companies. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), pp. 76-97. Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F. and Zahra, S. A., 2002. Middle managers perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of business Venturing, 17(3), pp. 253-273. Kelley, D. J., Singer, S. and Herrington, M., 2012. The global entrepreneurship monitor. 2011 Global Report, GEM 2011, 7. Krueger, N. F. and Brazeal, D. V., 1994. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 18, pp. 91-91. Lichtenstein, B. B. and Jones, C., 2004. A Self-Organization theory of radical entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Proceedings .Vol. 2004, No. 1, pp. 1-6. Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., and Kocak, A., 2008. Understanding Market‐Driving Behavior: The Role of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), pp. 4-26. Read More