INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
6.1 To understand: three levels of analysis illuminating the relationship binding the entrepreneur to the organization which he or she runs
According to the Fiet’s point of view (2000a; 2000b) the theory dimension is very impor- tant in entrepreneurship teaching. A theory-based approach in teaching entrepreneurship must be in line with a clear definition of entrepreneurship as a field of teaching. That is the main reason why we propose in the next section our view on these questions.
Without accepting that a definition can constrain the multiple dimensions to which the entrepreneurial phenomenon refers, one can reasonably agree to see this as:
An initiative carried out by one or several individuals to create or seize a business opportunity (at least what is considered or evaluated as such), of which the profit is not inevitably of a monetary 100 Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education
order, by the impulse of an organization able to give birth to one or more entities, and to create new value (greater in the case of an innovation) for stakeholders to whom the project is addressed.
(Verstraete and Fayolle, 2005)
The matter gathers four dominant paradigms of the field: the creation of an organiza- tion, the business opportunity, innovation and the creation of value. Our approach falls under the paradigm of the creation of an organization, completely complementary and nonexclusive of the other paradigms. Indeed, when it comes to taking advantage of an opportunity (discovered or initiated), or creating value by innovating (in this last case, as Bruyat, 1993, specifies, the contribution of new value is then significant), in all cases the entrepreneur must consequently organize the various resources that he or she needs for the undertaking. We will see later that the programmes we coordinate aim precisely at pro- voking the training inherent in this organization. Knowing how to make it tangible leads the student to understand the concept of opportunity like that of creation of value, in particular when he or she must convince the owners of resources to adhere to the project and become stakeholders.3The organization is dynamic, in that when the students are sent to collect information, to interact with the environment of their business project, their impetus causes their vision of the business to become reality. The result of this dynamic leads, or should lead, to the creation of one or several entities which, when registered legally (that is, at the Chamber of Commerce), fulfil the criteria of property and respon- sibility. This allows them to protect and assert their rights and obliges them to respect those of others. Both the dynamic and the resulting entities call for the efficient manage- ment of the united, allocated resources.
Without entering here into the detail of the different theories guiding our teaching pro- grammes,4the following summary gives the conceptual base, in which three levels clarify the comprehension of the entrepreneurial phenomenon binding an entrepreneur (single or plural) to the organization that he runs. It should be understood that the theories guiding our programmes fall under the paradigm of the creation of an organization, and it is the relationship of the individual to the organization he or she runs that is necessary for us to teach to the student. Three levels, and their interactions, clarify this relation. As a whole, five elements make up the equation then lead to the entrepreneurial phenomenon (PhE):
PhE F[(C P S) (E O)] (6.1)
C (cognitive level), S (structural level) and P (praxeological level) are irreducible for analy- sis requirements, but are inextricable on a practical level; their interactions (the ‘’ in the model) also constitute research levels of analysis in entrepreneurship. To take an example that binds the cognitive level and the structural level in order to better understand the process of entrepreneurial socialization, it is possible to resort to culturalist theses to a limited degree as well as to theories such as that of conventions or that of social repre- sentations, which may constitute a relevant analysis prism when these theories are articu- lated with those of the identity.
Thus, the research contribution on the phenomenon relies on: the comprehension of the entrepreneur’s knowledge leading him or her to undertake (C); the singularity of the actions called upon by the act (P); the structure of the contexts in which the phenomenon emerges (S); the entrepreneur (E) as an individual, in particular his or her background Design of entrepreneurship study programmes 101
and other general aspects (dispositions, affectivity, emotions, and so on) allowing us to better know him; the organization (O). In other words, a research programme in entre- preneurship aims to bring knowledge on each dimension C, P, and S, on their interactions, and the relationships to which they apply, namely, the entrepreneur (or entrepreneurs) and the organization (E and O).
It is not difficult to imagine the importance of making the students aware of the ele- ments of this theory, according to which, to understand and represent the entrepreneur- ial phenomenon, it is possible to consider more precisely:
● A cognitive level (C). This is, obviously, the major part in the design of a teaching programme, since it aims at contributing knowledge that should serve both in con- trolling the entrepreneurial phenomenon as well as the undertaking of the candi- dates wanting to set up the company. This corresponds to the cognitive state that leads an individual to act, the entrepreneur’s knowledge and all that contributed to bring them this knowledge and to forge this cognitive state (including their inten- tions and attitudes). This results from a permanent reflexive exercise, learning situ- ations in which they were placed and from the strategic vision that they have of their business. When there are several individuals who join together to undertake a project, problems relating to conflicts which one could describe as ‘cognitive’ are likely to emerge and, for some, can take them as far as the courts. Conversely, the confrontation of various representations can be enriching, benefiting the project as much as the protagonists (but only when these divergences do not harm the con- structive interaction of those responsible for the project).
● A structural level (S). This corresponds to the context structure surrounding the acting entrepreneur. Without eliminating too easily the influence of the individuals, one should not neglect the weight of the structures on the other levels of the model.
It is important to understand the structural basics of the system, whether they be the rules, conventions, representations, or institutions with which the entrepreneur must manoeuvre to win the commitment of the stakeholders and to perpetuate the organization (at least, when that is the objective of the entrepreneur). Obviously, the entrepreneur can set up a conventional system in which the stakeholders will detect favourable conditions of exchange.
● A praxeological level (P). This integrates the fundamental actions undertaken.
These emanate, on the one hand, from the multiple positioning of the entrepreneur and the organization with respect to competitors and the various stakeholders and, on the other hand, from the configuration formed in order to produce the elements, which will allow the exchange, durable if possible, with these actors. Within this framework, the policies put in place (financial policies, political wage, and so on) aim to optimize the exchange relationships between the stakeholders. From the ped- agogical point of view, the praxeological level sends us back to the process arrang- ing the tasks and activities to be undertaken. Thus, the link is made with the process presented in section 6.2.
As for the relationship (E O) which makes it possible to explain the preceding levels and their interactions, it requires a true symbiosis5between one or more undertaking individuals:
102 Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education
● The entrepreneur(s) (E). Their personality (locus of control, tolerance to ambiguity, lifestyle, and so on), their motivations (in which one will discuss the logics of push or pull entrepreneurship), their leadership, their biography (origin, training, experi- ence, and so on) have to be considered to understand the singularity of entrepre- neurship. In an entrepreneurship training programme, ‘to know’ the entrepreneur allows those responsible for the project to identify with, and to project themselves into, this role that they are considering endorsing. Other actors of the environment interested in the entrepreneurship venture (for example, advisers, bankers, and so on), need to understand these undertaking individuals with whom they will have working relationships. In particular, the advisers, in their adequacy evaluation of the entrepreneurs and their creation project, will have to endorse the candidates whom they will support on the basis of the knowledge they have on this subject.
● Organization (O). The creation of an organization results in having to anticipate at the same time its future (in other words its strategy since, as the maxim of Sénèque says so well, ‘there is no favourable wind for him who does not know where he wants to go!’) and the resources that have to be obtained (and organized) to arrive at the desired future. It is then advisable for the entrepreneur to position him or herself with respect to resources owners who have to be convinced to become shareholders and to assemble the organizational structure making best use of these resources through the implementation of policies (purchase, wage, marketing, financial poli- cies, and so on) aimed at the optimization of the value exchange relationships. The organization is thus not only the entities emerging from the entrepreneurial phe- nomenon, but also all related organizational dynamics.
The theory summarized here is used as a common theme for the conceptual training of the students, and the third section of this chapter presents some illustrations. In this generic apprehension of the entrepreneurial phenomenon, the model considers time as a contextual variable (the concept of window of opportunity could be called upon here as an example). When it is a question of putting the students into action, by our use of the praxeological level of the model, the recourse to the concept of process places time as a contingent and experiential structuring variable.
6.2 To act: a process to mark out entrepreneurial training – from the idea to the