Docstoc

The University as an Engine of Entrepreneurship

Document Sample
The University as an Engine of Entrepreneurship Powered By Docstoc
					Gerald Braun


The University as an Engine of Entrepreneurship


1. The Renaissance of Entrepreneurship in the Age of Neo-Liberalism


The current renaissance of entrepreneurship is neither accidental nor without reason.
There are three main developments that contributed to the revitalisation of an entre-
preneurial spirit, entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurship in itself in Germany:


    (1) With the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Neo-Liberal market model of capi-
        talism succeeded – and especially so in the former socialist economies of mid-
        dle and Eastern Europe. In the centre of this market model is, as we all know,
        the dynamic entrepreneur who, with his innovative behaviour sets off a proc-
        ess of “creative destruction” (J. Schumpeter), advancing economic develop-
        ment to the avant-garde level.


    (2) Logically, mass unemployment, lack of growth and technological backlogs in
        Germany will be attributed to the tying or even lack of a dynamic entrepreneu-
        rial class, as well as the lack of an innovative environment or entrepreneurial
        spirit in comparison to the pioneer enterprises of the U.S.A., Canada and Great
        Britain.


    (3) In fact, a series of empirical facts seem to prove the existence of an entrepre-
        neurial gap in Germany. In an international comparison the quota for self-
        employed people in Germany has one-third under the O.E.C.D. average.
        Therefore it is not only in the P.I.S.A. studies that Germany is in the bottom
        third of the competing knowledge-based societies. (Though it is to be men-
        tioned that the quota of self-employed people in the U.S.A. – often quoted as
        the ideal – has about 3% under the German quota).




                                               1
         •   Ever more so, the quota of self-employed has been declining since the
             Second World War. After being about 25% in 1948, it has been around
             11% since 1995 – the numbers in relative terms having more than halved.
         •   The entrepreneurial image is, especially in Eastern Germany, a negative
             one. Entrepreneurial values such as the willingness to take risks, boldness
             and self-employment have a low status in society. “The index for the area
             of the self-employed and self-initiative allocates results to Germany that
             are clearly under the average of all investigated countries.”1
         •   The German education system is doing considerably worse than the educa-
             tion systems of the competing nations when it comes to teaching entrepre-
             neurial competences.2 It is therefore no surprise that self-employment as
             an entrepreneur does not seem to be very attractive to pupils and students.
             “Less than 10% of all German students name self-employment as their ca-
             reer goal, while 60% of all American students do.”3 Four years after
             graduation 53% of all German university graduates work in the public sec-
             tor.



Germany does not nurture a culture of self-employment, but instead one of anti self-
employment.4




2. The University as an Engine of Entrepreneurial Competences – A Contradic-
    tion?


With the shift to a knowledge-based society it seems logical to make universities the
production places of entrepreneurial self-employment, especially in regard to the re-
search and workforce intensive branches of production. This seems particularly logi-

1
  Sternberg, R.; Bergmann, H.; Tamásy, Chr.: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht
  Deutschland 2001, Köln, November 2001, p. 25.
2
  cp. Sternberg, R.; Bergmann, H.; Lückgen, J.: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Länderbericht
  Deutschland 2003, Köln, March 2004, p. 31.
3
  Henzler, H.: Es fehlt an Gründermut, in: Rutz, M. (Edt.): Aufbruch in der Bildungspolitik, Munich
  1997, p.105.
4
  cp. Braun, G.: Auf der Suche nach einer Kultur der Selbständigkeit, in: Braun, G.;
  Diensberg, Chr. (Edt.): Unternehmertum. Eine Herausforderung für die Zukunft. Rostocker
  Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource Development Nr. 12, 1999.


                                                    2
cal as the intellectual technology of the 21st century is based upon the “axial princi-
ple” (D. Bell), the appliance of knowledge onto knowledge. To make colleges and
universities the engine for entrepreneurial competence development derives its logic
for three main reasons:


       (1) The new quality of international competition in this global age changes the
           role and function of the university systems dramatically. “If these do not be-
           come agents of innovation, entrepreneurial universities, they hamper ... na-
           tional development and international competitiveness.”5


       (2) The appliance of university research knowledge, meaning the transfer of in-
           ventions into innovations, depends mainly on ‘tacit knowledge’. As it is diffi-
           cult to transfer university generated knowledge, especially implicit knowledge,
           it seems logical to enable the knowledge workers of the universities (research-
           ers, developers, users) to become knowledge-based business founders and en-
           trepreneurs, and develop entrepreneurial competences. “To make this happen
           requires profound change in the training of students and scientists, especially
           in the realm of skills and competences to set up companies as carriers of inno-
           vation.”6


       (3) The transfer of university-generated knowledge through university entrepre-
           neurs has a strategic role also for the competitiveness of a region. Because of
           the immense role of regional growth- and knowledge networks, universities
           have a regional monopoly in mass training a highly qualified work force and
           therefore in the development of regional knowledge.


       So that universities can function as incubators of innovation, entrepreneurial spirit
       and entrepreneurship, the following discussion will show that:


           •    The members of universities - students, lecturers and staff - need to de-
                velop entrepreneurial competences and


5
    Röpke, J.: The entrepreneurial university, Marburg 2002, p. 3.
6
    ibid, p. 3.



                                                      3
        •    the university itself has to become an entrepreneurial organisation to en-
             able the development of these competences.



    These together are both necessary and sufficient conditions to make universities
    production places of entrepreneurial competences.




2.1 University versus Entrepreneurship


At the beginning of university-based entrepreneurial education the question needs to
be asked, how one can solve the paradox of future entrepreneurs forgetting what they
learned at university.7 To understand the entrepreneur as an innovator who introduces
a process of “creative destruction” (J. Schumpeter) who takes on risks and who is a
“gap-spotter” (D. Baecker) means to ask for the opposite of competences that univer-
sities teach today. The best universities aren’t an exception of this either. “I think,
about 70% of the courses of Harvard are useless. You know less when you finish than
when you started.”8
Studying at university is intended to give students the time to build up a steady, lec-
turer-generated systemic and systematised cognitive knowledge. Ideally, this knowl-
edge is presented in a curricular manner and cleared of all dimensions of not-knowing
“You learn what is there to know ...all difficulties with knowledge, all errors in the
presentation, all uncertainties in the foundation and formation are attributed to the
learner, and not to the knowledge itself. Last but not least it is implied that you can
become more intelligent, but not more stupid when you are learning.”9 Following this
the academic business administration and economic studies have so far eliminated10 ,
tamed and hindered the entrepreneur rather than encourage and support him. The en-
trepreneur is either reduced to being a coordinator of the factors of production (so it is
said in business administration11 ) or, even worse, he is held responsible for economic
imbalances in the process of creative destruction, imbalances that can’t be put in ele-

7
  cp. Baecker, D.: Organisation als System, Frankfurt a. Main 1999, p. 330.
8
  Gilder, G., quoted in: Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer, Marburg 2002, p. 307.
9
  Baecker, D.: Organisation als System ... l.c.., p. 336.
10
   cp. Barreto, H.: The entrepreneur in microeconomic theory, London – New York 1989.
11
   cp. Schneider, D.: Der Unternehmer – eine Leerstelle in der Theorie der Unternehmung?,
   in: ZfB. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 4/2001, pp. 1-19.


                                                  4
gant, mathematic equilibrium models and whose social and economic implication cre-
ate worries (so it is said in neo-classical economics.12 ) “As Schumpeter has noted,
economics has traditionally shown a preoccupation with static equilibrium analysis.
By being concerned with equilibrium, economists neglect the forces that cause either
a movement to or from equilibrium. Entrepreneurship is such a force. By focusing on
equilibrium economists assume away entrepreneurship.”13


The university has however two comparative advantages for the development of en-
trepreneurial competences for competing educational institutions.


     (1) The university has knowledge that can be used for entrepreneurship education,
        “even though it has been used for the taming of the entrepreneur so far.”14 In
        fact, business administration with its leadership and strategy models that give
        structure and rationality to the erratic decisions of the entrepreneur has banned
        to a great extent the creative entrepreneur from its analysis. On the other hand
        there is no similar elaborated knowledge that would be able to model the com-
        plexity of entrepreneurial decision-making.15 Following this the ‘exiled’ dy-
        namic entrepreneur has to be put back into the models of economics to in-
        crease productivity and sense of reality – and to check what the entrepreneur
        can learn from it.


     (2) Entrepreneurship education at university is learning within an organisation
        how to behave in other organisations. The university has to react with its
        teaching and research methods to the substantially increasing demand of en-
        trepreneurial action within the organisation of economics, administration and
        non-profit institutions (‘Intrapreneurship’). “Nowadays, entrepreneurial action
        is also demanded of staff members and one takes on the paradox to having to
        instruct entrepreneurial action.”16


12
   cp. Barreto, H.: The entrepreneur in microeconomic theory … l.c.., pp. 5 – 50.
13
   Rabbior, G.: Elements of a Successful Entrepreneurship/Economics/Education Program, in: Kent, C.
  A. (Edt.): Entrepreneurship Education. Current Developments, Future Directions, New York –
  Westport, Conn. – London, 1990, p. 64.
14
   Baecker, D.: Organisation als System, Frankfurt a. M. 1999, p. 332. The following considerations
   are based on Baecker.
15
   ibid, p. 336.
16
   ibid, p. 332 (highlighted in the original).


                                                  5
2.2. Entrepreneurship Education as Container-Learning
2.2.1 Accumulation of Existing Business Knowledge


In traditional business administration, the academic leading discipline when it comes
to entrepreneurial competences and founding management, the overruling opinion17 is
that a specific form of training in entrepreneurial competences is not necessary. It is
assumed that everything that is necessary is taught in classical business administration
and has proven its worth. To counter the persuasive quality of this argument in an
ironic way is to argue that this ‘traditional’ operational training only produces a
minimum of business founders and entrepreneurs. In fact, its connections are more
complicated.
The accumulation of general business knowledge is practically not-learning, only the
maintenance of existing specialised knowledge. The entrepreneur does not learn any-
thing new, but only perfects the things he has already learned through constant prac-
tising and repetition.18 As a know-it-all he does not believe in having to learn any-
thing new or different.”If the entrepreneur limits himself to this routine learning, he
will meet difficulties as soon as he is confronted with disruptions that he can’t solve
within the context of this routine.”19
The entrepreneurial function corresponding to this routine learning is a routine entre-
preneur that moves as a “landlord” (J. Schumpeter) in a world of a stationary circle in
which “the economical subjects meet with always the same, fixed and only slowly
changing mentalities, with the same knowledge and experience, the same horizon, the
same methods of production, business handlings, favours and the same customers,
suppliers and competitors.”20 The routine entrepreneur corresponds to the ‘homo
oeconomicus’ of classical text books, who tries to use the given resources in given
societal conditions in an optimal way. He “has already learnt everything he needs to
reach or maintain this optimal condition and to perfect himself with given knowl-
edge”.21 The routine entrepreneur moves in a stationary world of non-development.


17
   cp. Schulte, R.; Klandt, H.: Aus- und Weiterbildungsangebote für Unternehmensgründer und
    selbstständige Unternehmer an deutschen Hochschulen. Forschungsberichte des BMBFT, Bonn
    1996, p. 108.
18
   cp. Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c.., p. 273.
19
   ibid, p. 273.
20
   Schumpeter, J.: Art. ‚Unternehmer’, in: Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Band VIII, Jena
  1928, p. 483.
21
   Röpke, J. : Der lernende Unternehmer … l.c.., p. 273.


                                                  6
Routine-learning of routine entrepreneurs does not change anything.




2.2.2 Acquisition of New Entrepreneurial Specialised Knowledge


In traditional university entrepreneurship education22 (which is offered as a special-
ised subject next to business administration), a potential entrepreneur acquires new
knowledge and/or uses familiar knowledge in new combinations. He innovates with
given skill.23 Conventional entrepreneurship education therefore aims for the acquisi-
tion and implementation of entrepreneurial knowledge with given competences; for
example to obtain the required knowledge to write a business plan – but always within
given competences this entrepreneurship education concept aims for a transition from
“less knowledge” to a condition of “more knowledge”. The potential entrepreneur is
like a container ‘filled-up’ with new knowledge. It is implied that through closing
knowledge gaps dynamic entrepreneurship is activated, innovative, daring and better
protected against errors.
In other words: This type of entrepreneurial learning refers to the gradual disposal of
not-knowing, (also: input logic). “If we close the knowledge gaps (capital gaps, tech-
nology gaps etc.) then we are rid of the problem, or at least on our way to get rid of
it.”24 Most of the university entrepreneurship education programmes up to this point
in time are based on this behavioural input-output paradigm of container learning.
These programmes are mechanic, economical and knowledge based and they tend to
think that only things that can be quantified are real. “If we put in more resources
(knowledge, management skills) we receive more output (meaning: entrepreneur-
ship).”25 The shown container model of entrepreneurial learning corresponds with the
neo-classical concept of bare factor accumulation in macro economics. For this it is
valid: more input, higher output or more knowledge, higher performance.

22
   cp. f.ex..: Erkkilä, K.: Entrepreneurial Education. Mapping the Debates in the United States,
   the United Kingdom and Finland, New York 2000 ; Kent, C.A. (Edt.) : Entrepreneurship Education.
   Current Developments, Future Directions, New York – Westport – London 1990; Klandt, H.:
   Entrepreneurship: Unternehmerausbildung an deutschen Hochschulen, in: Betriebswirtschaftliche
   Forschung und Praxis, H. 3, 1999, p. 241-255.
23
   cp. Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c...., p. 275. The following
   explanations are based on Röpkes excellent book.
24
   Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c.., p. 307.
25
   ibid, p. 276.


                                                  7
The entrepreneur is in this theoretical horizon reduced to a bare production function:
on the input side he acquires knowledge, on the output side he is the better-qualified
dynamic entrepreneur.
This point of view is – theoretically as well as empirically – highly questionable:
     •   The entrepreneur is no simple machine, which with increasing input produces
         higher output. Not only do inputs not produce any clearly fixed outputs. Em-
         pirical studies have also shown that increased ‘knowledge’-input might pro-
         duce less or even no entrepreneurial output.26
     •   Being `filled up` with knowledge – also with business-founding knowledge –
         demonstrates the limits of only knowledge-based entrepreneurship education.
         To know something does not mean necessarily to learn something and espe-
         cially not learning how to do new things with knowledge. To put it differently:
         “Entrepreneurship the same as swimming cannot be learned in a lecture
         hall.”27 “Neither a football player can describe how he scores, nor can a tennis
         player explain how he serves.”28
     •   The input-orientated learning paradigm prevents that a problem beyond simple
         learning – in the sense of knowledge accumulation – is realised or solved.
         “More knowledge might even increase insecurity and ignorance especially in
         an entrepreneurial context.”29
     •   Learning processes that are planned, organised and directed by the primate of
         Top-down instruction leave the learners in a passive state. Characteristics that
         make entrepreneurship – activity, own initiative and self-control – are not de-
         manded for and stay undeveloped.
     •   More so: They are – when analysing an ordinary university day (‘the univer-
         sity as a learning factory’) – even set back, an unintentional, negative side ef-
         fect of university teaching.30 ” … entrepreneurship education needs to remove
         some of the barriers that have eroded self-confidence and self-esteem, and

26
   For the relationship between entrepreneurship and the declining willingness for entrepreneurial self-
    employment compare also: Authors, J.: Entrepreneurship: Agreed definition eludes the academic
    community, in: Financial Times-Survey: Business Education, 25. January 1999, p. V.
27
   ibid, p. 276.
28
   Malik, F.: Führen – Leisten – Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit, Stuttgart
    – München 2000, p. 24.
29
   Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c…, p. 307.
30
   This is supported among other things by the fact that the number of students wanting to found a
   business declines with the number of semesters studied. cp. BMBFT (Edt.): Studierende und
   Selbständigkeit, Bonn, June 2002, p. 7.


                                                    8
         along with them, the spirit of adventure and the willingness to show initiative
         and take risks – the spirit of entrepreneurship.”31



Entrepreneurial container education as bare accumulation of knowledge has no entre-
preneurial function and does not have any evolutionary economic effect.




2.3. Entrepreneurship Education as Evolutionary Competence Development
2.3.1 Acquisition of Entrepreneurial Competences


The constructive learning paradigm of modern entrepreneurship teaching tries – on
the contrary to the input-output paradigm – not to teach routine action with given
knowledge or `only` extra new knowledge. Knowledge on its own does not make an
entrepreneur.
Evolutionary self-learning aims for:
     •   Acquisition of entrepreneurial competences and
     •   learning how to acquire new learning competences.
To learn entrepreneurship means to learn entrepreneurial competences on that level
and to do new things. It is about unfolding self-generated skills: with a given con-
sciousness, given self-reflectivity and entrepreneurial energy. “Learning (on this
level) is the relatively lasting acquisition of a new or changed and deepened compe-
tence that has already been acquired, the transfer from a condition with relatively low
into a condition with higher competence.”32
The starting point of constructive learning on this level is the interdisciplinary acquisi-
tion of competences on the basis of evolutionary learning and the initiation of self-
evolution. We subdivide the following types: a) subject-specific competences b) so-
cial competences c) methodical competences d) action competences.
A competence portfolio of all four sections is a necessary and a sufficient condition
for successful, entrepreneurial action, arranged in a vertical hierarchy of specialised
competence as an essential compulsory `tool` or even `action competence`. This en-


31
   Rabbior, G.: Elements of a Successful Entrepreneurship/Economics/Education Program, in: Kent,
   C.A. (Edt.): Entrepreneurship Education, New York–Westport, Conn.–London 1990, p. 53.
32
   Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ...l.c..., p. 276.


                                                  9
trepreneurial competence is the result of evolutionary action learning programmes that
put achievement motivation33 in the centre.34 The strengthening of entrepreneurial
characteristics and motivation “is considered a crucial input which enhances confi-
dence, positive thinking and self-awareness.”35 Specific personal entrepreneurial
competences36 arranged in three competence clusters are:
         •    Achievement competences: willingness to take risks, commitment, search-
              ing for chances on the market, persistence.
         •    Planning competences: set goals, systematic planning and controlling,
              well-aimed search for information and
         •    power competences: persuasive power, confidence, network-working.
The non-availability of these competence profiles is seen as one of the main reasons
for entrepreneurial failure, for innovative weakness of companies as well as whole
economies.37
In development theory, the competence model of constructive entrepreneurship
education      corresponds        with     the     evolutionary       entrepreneurial       function     of
Schumpeter’s; but only includes its structural dimension. It aims to provide
entrepreneurial competence acquisition with given functional specialisation, possibly
in the order of: routine, arbitrage, innovation.
                            knowledge - but no competence growth) but also innova-
Not only allocative systems (
tive systems (in the sense of Schumpeter’s process of creative destruction) have re-
productive character, as allocative systems reproduce and keep their balance, innova-
tive systems on the contrary reproduce themselves.
Two things have to be pointed out in the following connection:




33
   cp. also Miron, D.; McClelland, D.C.: The Impact of Achievement Motivation Training on
   Small Businesses, in: California Management Review, Vol. 24, 1979, p. 13ff.
34
   For details cp. Braun, G.: Von der Idee zum Erfolg. Partizipative Trainingskonzepte für
  Existenzgründer. Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource
  Development Nr. 8, 1997.
35
   Hartig, S.: Entrepreneurship Training. State of the art of training techniques for enhancing Industrial
  entrepreneurship. Workshop Paper, Berlin 1992, p. 1.
36
   Investigated empirically and supported theoretically especially by David McClelland.
   cp. McClelland, D.C.: The Achieving Society, Princeton 1961; McClelland, D.C.: N of
    Achievement and Entrepreneurship. A longitudinal study, in: Journal of Personality and Social
    Psychology, Vol. 1, 1965.
37
   Compare f.ex. Staudt, E.: Kompetenz zur Innovation. Defizite der Forschungs-, Bildungs-,
   Wirtschafts- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und
   Human Resource Development Nr. 5, 1996.


                                                    10
1. Traits-approach
The shown competence approach is based on the identification of personal entrepre-
                                                                              t
neurial characteristics (so-called traits) whose existence are necessary and a the same
time sufficient in order to perform any sub-functions successfully. However, the
number of identified entrepreneurial traits is hardly manageable. In 1984 Klandt38 al-
ready made out about 200 trait dimensions 39 and even more critically they are ‘mea-
surement without theory’. The traits-approach is highly controversial as it cannot es-
tablish a causal relationship between personal character traits and entrepreneurial suc-
cess, except for the performance motif. To put it in other words: “The traits-approach
is a process that is only based on frequency and so is no explanation in a scientific
sense.”40
2. Dominance of subject-specific competences
It was recorded empirically that subject-specific competences at recruitment, training
and promotion of entrepreneurial executives are still overrated, while social and emo-
                                             41
tional competences are underrated,                even though the importance of social compe-
tences increases and the subject-specific qualifications decline when an entrepreneur
climbs up in the executive hierarchy.42
Self-employed entrepreneurs, with outstanding professional branch- and subject- spe-
cific competences, often fail on their one-sided subject-specific know-how. “Many
businesses disappear because the founder-entrepreneur insists that he or she knows
better than the market.”43
In other words: Entrepreneurial action is primarily social action, the implementation
of innovations in a social context. Some authors even question the importance of sub-




38
   cp. Klandt, H.: Aktivität und Erfolg des Unternehmungsgründers. Eine emprische Analyse
   unter Einbeziehung des mikrosozialen Umfeldes, Bergisch Gladbach 1984, p. 119.
39
   There only seems to be a consensus on the four entrepreneurial characteristics: (1)
   Performance motivation, (2) Locus of control, (3) Ambiguity tolerance and (4) Risk taking. cp.
   Fallgatter, M.J.: Theorie des Entrepreneurship. Perspektiven zur Erforschung der Entstehung und
   Entwicklung junger Unternehmungen, Wiesbaden 2002, pp. 119.
40
   Neuberger, L.: Ausbildung zum Unternehmer, Stuttgart 2003, p. 61.
41
   based on incontestable subject-specific qualifications – Finance, technical Know-how,
   marketing competence – “one does not believe to be able to do anything wrong, only later one
   realizes that everything is going wrong because the chosen one failed as leader or scares off the
   students as teacher .“ Bennis, W.; O’Toole, J.: Der neue Firmenchef – hoffentlich ist er der Richtige,
   in: Harvard Business Manager, Heft 6, 2000, p. 95.
42
   cp. Bitzer, M.: Intrapreneurship – Unternehmertum in der Unternehmung. Zürich 1991, pp. 28.
43
   Drucker, P.: Flashes of Genius: Interview with Inc. online, Special Issue: State of Small business,
   quoted by Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c. .., p. 3.


                                                    11
ject-specific competences entirely:“A manager can live without objective and subject-
specific competences, but not without competences on an emotional level.”44




2.3.2. Acquisition of Entrepreneurial Learning Competences


The highest and most complex level of constructive entrepreneurial learning is learn-
ing as evolutive self-development. The aim is the acquisition of learning compe-
tences: Learning to acquire new competences and deal with them creatively, meaning
to deal with unmanageable, complex causal relations innovatively. Business compe-
tence (see paragraph 2.3.1.) is not to be seen as on the contrary to the bare acquisition
of entrepreneurial competence as a constant repertoire of a to-be-developed, but given
competence portfolio, but it is changing. “Entrepreneurial living is entrepreneurial
ability, life-long learning as an entrepreneur.”45 Precondition is the awareness of the
entrepreneur to know both what he knows and what he doesn’t. The one who does not
know about his entrepreneurial competence deficits – and has not learnt to reflect
upon them – won’t or will only too late recognise challenges. He won’t be able or
won’t learn to change.46 The skill to self-reflect about one’s own competence ‘portfo-
lio’, the identification of strengths and weaknesses and the insight into the relativity of
own skills is the basic competence of the entrepreneur/intrapreneur. Learning as “evo-
lutive self-development” (J. Röpke) is therefore the precondition for the acquisition
and development of specific entrepreneurial competence profiles. Only through self-
competence does the learner realise on what dimensions of his personality he has to
work on and where he misses subject-specific knowledge and specific entrepreneurial
competences. In other words: The learning of entrepreneurial learning competences –
on the meta level – aims to the inter-functional competence growth. Knowledge of
not-having-knowledge needs to meet action. Self-realisation, skill and action taken
together, result in the dynamic entrepreneur as a carrier of self-mobilised energy –
admittingly an ideal always sought for but hardly realised.


44
   Simon, F.B.: Radikale Marktwirtschaft, Heidelberg 1992, p. 104.
45
   Röpke, J.: Das lernende Unternehmen ... l.c. .., p. 5.
46
   ibid, p. 273. R. Berth traces the innovation weakness of German entrepreneurs back to their lack of
   admittance of mistakes and lack of the ability for self-reflection. compare Berth, R.:
   Analysierer, robuste Macher und Verlässlichkeitssucher, in: FAZ: Blick durch die Wirtschaft vom
  15.11.1996, quoted by Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c. .., p. 279.


                                                   12
In development theory, the evolution of entrepreneurship is more than the cyclic re-
production of innovations. It enables the evolution of innovative systems (learn-
theoretically: self-reflective learning or learning as evolutive self-development). The
entrepreneur is made a specialist for “functional mutation” (J. Röpke). Entrepreneurial
thinking, feeling and acting breaks the innovation circle and revolutionises the proc-
ess. In the theory of unbalanced growth47 evolutionary learning of entrepreneurial de-
cision logic is made the central shortness in the development process. The entrepre-
neurial skill to realise and put through innovations is the scarceness of all scarcities
that conditions all shortcomings: “We have identified the ability to make (develop-
ment) decisions as the scarce resource which conditions all other scarcities and diffi-
culties ...”48 This turns the conventional growth theory upside-down: the engine of
economic development is the implementation of new combinations or innovative ac-
tivity. And factors that offer the traditional theory as reasons for economic develop-
ment - capital accumulation, work power, infrastructure and technical advancements –
are the results of entrepreneurial actions..



“The creative spirit mobilises capital, work force, raw materials – and not vice
versa.”49




3. Models for Entrepreneurship Education in University Practises


The previously shown considerations about a constructive entrepreneurship education
need to have consequences in education and training – also in the universities. Train-
ing programmes that conventionally aim at the bare teaching of knowledge (container
learning) deny the specific conditions of evolutive entrepreneurial learning and waste
a great amount of the dynamics of entrepreneurship.50




47
   Hirschman, A.O.: The strategy of economic development, New Haven 1958, pp. 62.
48
   ibid, p. 27.
49
   Röpke, J.: Die unterentwickelte Freiheit, Göttingen 1982, p. 36.
50
   cp. also: Walterscheid, K.: Entrepreneurship Education als universitäre Lehre.
   Diskussionspapiere der Fernuniversität Hagen. Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 261, Hagen 1998.


                                                 13
How Entrepreneurs Learn

“Entrepreneurs learn differently. They learn faster and on their own. They learn more
slowly and trust less.
They can’t be lead on, not even by their peers, who claim they already know about all
things. They learn in a highly selective way, forget a lot of things immediately and a
lot of things never. They always try to keep the difference between what they know
and what they don’t know in mind and measure learning offers that they get not on an
intrinsic meaning of knowledge but on this very personal and idiosyncratic difference
between their own knowledge and the understanding of what they don’t know.
They know that you can become less intelligent through learning, because then you
don’t know anymore what you don’t know and forget what really matters: To not be
surprised by a lot but by a few things.”

Source: Baecker, D.: Organisation als System. Frankfurt a. Main. 1999. p. 336.




That puts the development of the creative spirit51 , or – to formulate it from the per-
spective of learning theory – the development of entrepreneurial self-competence in
the centre of entrepreneurship education. 52 Baecker calls this the “freeing of product
fantasies.... Entrepreneurial training is – keeping operational models and prevailing
organisational realities in mind – mainly to work on the possibility of concrete fanta-
sies. This is nothing romantic or dreamy, but the trial to put the restlessness back into
the clock of which the world believes it runs itself.” Sombart already stated in 1916:
“The business founder dreams of something enormous. He lives in a constant fever.
The exaggeration of his own ideas tempts him again and again and keeps him in con-
stant motion. The basic mood of his being is an enthusiastic lyricism.”53 Of course
entrepreneurial competence development is no easy thing. It is – on the contrary –
more demanding and laborious than conventional knowledge teaching. Entrepreneur-
ship education is – other than traditional MBA programmes (that aim for administra-
tion) • dependent on time ‚ interactive and ƒ co-evolutive.


51
   Baecker, D.: Organisation als System, Frankfurt a. Main 1999, p. 335.
52
   cp. Braukmann, U.: Zur Entwicklung und programmatischen Ausrichtung einer
   Gründungsdidaktik an Hochschulen, in: Euler, D.; Jongebloed, H.-C.; Sloane, F. E. (Edt.):
   Sozialökonomische Theorie - sozialökonomisches Handeln. Konturen und Perspektiven der
   Wirtschafts- und Sozialpädagogik. Festschrift für Martin Twardy for his 60th birthday, Kiel 2000,
   pp. 231. und Vesper, K. H.; Gartner, W. B.: Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education, in:
   Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, 1997, pp. 403.
53
   Sombart, W.: Der moderne Kapitalismus, Band I, Berlin 1969, S. 876 (unchanged reprint of the
   2nd edition from 1916).


                                                   14
     1) Time-dependent development of entrepreneurial competences means an
         early child hood development of these competences, e.g. at home and in the
         family (where children of self-employed entrepreneurs and freelancers seem to
         have comparative socialisation advantages.54 ) In kindergarten and in school
         (where pupil – or junior firms can be interesting models for an early entrepre-
         neurial training). This means for the university that (self) learning processes,
         which aim to the development of entrepreneurial competences, should not
         only apply to graduates, scientific members of staff and lecturers. If a potential
         entrepreneur is planning to go into entrepreneurial practise, “then most of the
         time the only thing left is the “filling up” with data and information”55 Entre-
         preneurship education is more successful if (a) it is taught early in the basic- or
         bachelor studies56 (b) also includes so-called losers (c) is to be understood as a
         university interdisciplinary competence (as entrepreneurial general studies),
         that are not only taught in a single faculty. However, up to this moment classi-
         cal education systems train to obey57 and search for dependent employment.
     2) Educational interaction means the conscious creation of situations with great
         surprises and high changing potentials during the learning process. “You can
         only change yourself. The one who wants to ‘construct’ entrepreneurs must
         encourage entrepreneurial socialisation, basically create a non-entrepreneurial
         children’s room and try pedagogically to work against anti-entrepreneurial
         education and negative evolution in school and university”58 .
     3) Self-socialisation for entrepreneurship is to be expected especially when train-
         ing and education are designed in an entrepreneurial manner and where a
         learning environment is created that enables entrepreneurial competence de-
         velopment. To put it in other words: Entrepreneurial competence development
         asks for co-evolution. A co-evolutive learning environment requires an “entre-



54
   The consensus in the traits research is that professional self-employment in the family background
    has a positive effect on professional self-employment. cp. Brüderl, J.; Preisendörfer, P.; Ziegler, R.:
    Der Erfolg neugegründeter Betriebe, Berlin 1996, p. 85.
55
   Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c..., p. 257.
56
   Another possibility are ‚kids-Unis’, like they were introduced in 2002 by the University of
   Tübingen, but are up till now limited to traditional lecturing.
57
   Amos, T.L.; Maas, G.: Developing Entrepreneurial Students: A Proposal of the What and How, in:
  Nieuwenhuizen, C.; Klandt; H. (eds.): IntEnt2001. Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education
   and Training, Kruger National Park, S.A. 2001, p. 29.
58
   Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer ... l.c., p. 257.


                                                     15
         preneurial university” – with a leading motif, culture, organisation and per-
         sonal competence.59
With the radical “reduction of complexity” (N. Luhmann) we can ideally subdivide
two approaches of entrepreneurship education at university: the conventional know-
ledge–approach (container learning) and the evolutionary competence approach (con-
structive learning). They differ fundamentally in their goals, methods and learning
arrangements (compare table 1)
Conventional entrepreneurial training is primarily based on the teaching of knowledge
ex cathedra. Supply-orientated basics in law, business administration, credit approach
and promotion are taught in front desk teaching by ‘all-knowing’ instructors.
On the contrary to this the evolutionary competence approach aims demand-orientated
on entrepreneurial motivation and competence development, accompanied by facilita-
tors. The strengthening of entrepreneurial competence “is considered as a crucial in-
put which enhances confidence, positive-thinking and self-awareness.”60 The centre-
      i
piece s the development of entrepreneurial soft skill character traits and achievement-
motivation processes about the organisation of participating learning processes. They
are controlled by the participants through action learning. Action learning means to
                                                                             nstead
turn the known learning paradigm at schools of higher education upside down. I
university container learning – “tell-know-do”, the message is “do-know-tell”.




59
   compare: Braun, G.: Die Universität als Produktionsstätte unternehmerischer Selbständigkeit, in:
   Gründerflair MV (Hrsg.): Entrepreneurship Education in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Rostock 2004,
   pp. 51.
60
   Hartig, S.: Entrepreneurship Training. State of the art of training techniques for enhancing industrial
   entrepreneurship, Working Paper, Berlin 1992, p. 1.


                                                    16
Table 1: Container Education versus Evolutionary Entrepreneurship Education




            Aspect                    Container Education             Evolutionary Education


    1.   Approach                   Content Driven                   Process Driven
    2.   Focus                      Teacher-led                      Student-centred
    3.   Emphasis                   Knowing that                     Knowing how
    4.   Role of teacher            Expert                           Facilitator/Fellow learner
    5.   Student Activity           Working alone                    Working in small groups
    6.   Student’s role             Passive/Receptive                Active/Generative
    7.   Student’s Expectation      Dependence                       Independence
    8.   Student’s discretion       Limited                          Wide
    9.   Ethos                      Competitive                      Collaborative
    10. Lessons                     Programmed                       Flexible, opportunist
    11. Topic                       Imposed                          Negotiated
    12. Mistakes                    Not to be made                   Are to be learned from
    13. Assessment                  Exams/tests                      Profiles, results
    14. View of the world           Right-wrong                      Uncertainty, shades
    15. Determined by               Exam boards                      Local needs
    16. Staffed by                  Subject experts                  Cross Curriculum team
    17. Aim                         Practice into theory             Theory into practice



Source: after Shresta, B.K.: A Trainer as a Moderator in CEFE, in: Kolshorn, R. (ed.): brainstorm
Vol. 1, Eschborn 1992, p. 13.


This approach is similar to the ROXI entrepreneurship education programme devel-
oped and run by the International Baltic Centre for Entrepreneurship at Rostock Uni-
versity (for details see paragraph 5). Similar entrepreneurship education programmes
are also developed by the Canadian Foundation of Education (compare table 2)




                                               17
Table 2:            Criteria of an Effective Entrepreneurship Education Program



1.    Do not focus on ‘right answers’ – a single answer should not be sought or expected.
2.    The program should be designed so that it is highly participatory with a ‘hands on’ fo-
      cus. It should be activity based.
3.    The program should be goal- and achievement oriented.
4.    The program should focus on challenges to the status quo.
5.    The program should have a community integration focus.
6.    The program should utilize a variety of approaches and teaching styles.
7.    The program should have elements that surprise the student and present the unexpected.
8.    The program should present familiar information in unfamiliar contexts.
9.    The program should be easily amended and augmented by each individual teacher.
10.   The program should provide focus for entrepreneurial ventures and initiatives – not
      only small business start-ups.
11.   The program should be fun and exiting.
12.   The program should enable frequent and unanticipated feedback.
13.   The program should entail approaches and activities that seek to build self-confidence
      in the students.
14.   The program should enable students to apply their knowledge and skills to a particular
      endeavour.
15.   The program should build to a potential “launch point”.
16.   The program should enable and encourage group and team activities.
17.   The program should alert students to the common pitfalls and reasons for failed initia-
      tives.
18.   The program should place a heavy emphasis on “opportunities” which give rise to
      them, how to identify them, and how to evaluate them.
19.   The program should expect the teacher to be entrepreneurial.
20.   The program should link entrepreneurship to innovation.
21.   The program should focus on the consideration and examination of ‘disequilibrium’ as
      apposed to ‘equilibrium’.
22.   The program should provide direction and guidance regarding the design of a condu-
      cive learning environment. The traditional learning environments will be inappropriate.
23.   The program should utilize case studies that are varied in terms of the nature of the en-
      trepreneur, the type of initiative and the degree of success.
24.   The program should address behavioral dimensions of learning as opposed to just con-
      tent.

These criteria are not prioritised.

Source: Rabbior, G.: Elements of a Successful Entrepreneurship/Economics/Education Program, in:
Kent, C.A. (ed.): Entrepreneurship Education. Current Developments, Future Directions, New York –
Westport, Conn. – London 1990, pp. 56.




                                               18
All differences aside in their details people seem to agree to the following insights:


     1) Dynamic entrepreneurs do not accept that there is a “right” answer, but look
        for new and better answers. This view of the world should also be the bases
        for an entrepreneurial training of students. But: University learning aims to-
        wards linear thinking and “right” answers. “It is crucial to establish a program
        that shifts away from linear and from the focus of right answers. Not only is it
        appropriate to promote an attitude of looking for “new” right answers, but it
        also creates a new learning arena and which all students may come to feel that
        they stand on a level playing field – or at least not on an educational Mount
        Everest.”61
     2) Entrepreneurs are decision- and action-oriented. Through organisation and the
        implementation of innovation they head the way to a permanent process of
        creative destruction, destroy old things through creating new things. Entrepre-
        neurship education needs to meet this function of the entrepreneur through
        freeing the student from his role as a passive-receptive learner, creating an ac-
        tive and designed role for him in the development, planning and implementa-
        tion of new ideas and new business sectors.
     3) The crucial aim of entrepreneurship training is to motivate a heterogenic group
        of students to develop a new view of the world and to change their learnt be-
        haviour. “We are looking to motivate and inspire them to turn on creative
        powers and change their energy.”62 The stimulation of an entrepreneurial spirit
        is hardly possible through monotonous didactic teaching, on the contrary, the
        development of entrepreneurial spirit needs a variety of didactic methodical
        processes, techniques and learning arrangements to motivate and inspire future
        entrepreneurs – but also to prepare them that entrepreneurship is a high-risk
        “hardship-job”63 .



61
   Rabbior, G.: Elements of a Successful Entrepreneurship... l.c..., pp. 56.
62
   ibid, p. 58.
63
   For details cp. Kadler, S.: Das Gründerflair-Basis -Curriculum. Konzeptentwurf zu einer
 Entrepreneurship-Lehre an den Hochschulen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns, in: Reichert, A.; Wilde, K.
 (Edt.): Entrepreneurship Education – Konzeptionelle und didaktische Herausforderungen. Rostocker
 Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource Development Nr. 23,
 Rostock 2004, pp. 47.


                                                19
     4) Finally facilitators of entrepreneurship training themselves, need to embody
         entrepreneurial characteristics, lead an enterprise or be successful as intrapre-
         neurs. Out of experience students are inspired by successful role models to be-
         come entrepreneurs. There are no faster available and effective role models
         than the ones of the entrepreneurial trainers, who pass on new and innovative
         (business) ideas.
Despite all shown insights and advances: The Lackmus-test can only be passed by
entrepreneurship training programmes, if there is scientific proof available about their
success.64 Especially about the actual impact of entrepreneurial training only vague
assumptions exist rather than actual insights.65 Contrary to the long-in heat success
index “the more participants the training has, the more successful it is” (head count) is
the total economic/social impact of the training important, for additional founding
rates, jobs, income and value added for example. Strictly scientific surveys need to
establish comparable control groups without training, need to function on an intercul-
tural comparative level and need to work with long-term based surveys with tracer
studies. Even ‘weak’ surveys are hardly available so that – in Popper’s words – our
ignorance about the effects of entrepreneurial training is almost unlimited. Until then
we have to rely on the hope that entrepreneurial training has a worth in itself.


4. Entrepreneurship Training at Universities: Lessons
     Learned



Over the last few years, entrepreneurship education developed into a pedagogic
growth industry, even at German universities “a great deal has gone into the education
of entrepreneurs”66 . Of the competing entrepreneurship education approaches the evo-
lutionary competence approach appears to be superior to the conventional container
approach. That is also the reason why the ROXI model (Rostock’s business founding



64
   cp. Garavan,Th. N.; O’Cinneide, G.: Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A
   Review and Evaluation, Part 1 + 2, in: Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18, Nr. 8, pp. 3.
65
   For details cp. Braun, G.; Diensberg, Chr.: Evaluation und Erfolgsbewertung
  internationaler Entrepreneurship-Trainingsprogramme, in: Reichert, A.; Wilde, K. (Edt.):
  Entrepreneurship Education ... l.c... , pp. 155.
66
   Robinson, P.B.; Sexton, E.A.: The fact of education and experience on self-employment success, in :
   Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, 1985, p. 142.


                                                    20
initiative) at the International Baltic Centre for Entrepreneurship / University of
Rostock67 is based on the competence approach:


The ROXI model
     •   It is selective and works from contributions of the participants in cash and
         kind. Before admission to the business founder training a careful assessment
         of participants is carried out (business idea, personal SWOT analysis). The
         participants also have to make financial contributions to the training.
     •   It is inexpensive and slim meaning it can work without lecture chair for entre-
         preneurship/business founding research and without corresponding financial
         means (that are built in some faculties and studies)68 .
     •   It is laid out for the needs of future entrepreneurs and is offered three or four
                                                              nd
         times a year including a crash course in term break a can therefore be used
         exactly when students want to found their enterprises.
     •   It is interdisciplinary and open to all members of the university, of all facul-
         ties, and also to graduates.
     •   It is minimalist as only absolute essentials to found a business are being
         taught, completed by participant-orientated extra modules (development of
         ideas, creativity training, consequential problems).
     •   It is based on the practise (development and implementation of a business
         plan), directed and accompanied by entrepreneurs, consultants and economists
         with business founding experiences.
     •   It is individualistic, experienced practitioners take a central role in single
         coaching for example
     •   Finally: it works with a variety of processes, methods and techniques of
         achievement motivation training69 and action learning.


67
   For details cp. essays by Kerstin Wilde and Anke Reichert, in Rostocker
   Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource Development Nr. 23, Rostock 2004,
   pp. 71.
68
   cp. also: Weißbach, H.-J.; Emgee, H.: Das Frankfurter Modell für Existenzgründer – eine Zwischen-
   evaluation, December 2001. http://www.frankfurter-odell.de/html/evaluationdesfrankfurtermod.html,
   26.11.2003. The excellent evaluation is matching in major parts with our own experiences..
69
   The concept of Achievement Motivation-Training (AMT) was originally developed by
   TECHNONET Asia: Achievement Motivation Training: Trainer’s ‚Guide and Handbook of Exe r
  cises’, Singapore 1984, modified, extended and implemented in developing countries by the German
  Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). see GTZ/CEFE-International (= Competency based
   economies through formation of Enterprise): cp. CEFE-Compendium I and II, Eschborn o. J.


                                                 21
First success of the ROXI Entrepreneurship Education seems to be visible in the fol-
lowing areas:
     •   The provisional results of the accompanying research show – on a personal
         level – positive effects on motivation and entrepreneurial characteristics (in-
         creasing self-confidence, creativity, initiative, the spread of risk-taking, more
         active organisation of ones life, and a decline of ones fears of thresholds).
     •   The business-founding rates one to six months after the training vary – de-
         pending on the situation and context – between 33% and 66%.
     •   Most of the business founding’s take place in the customer service sector, in
         training, in further education and in the trade usually because of the low capi-
         tal demand the sectoral and regional economic structure in the region of
         Rostock and high percentage of women etc.
     •   The business foundings are usually small businesses and micro-enterprises
         with knowledge-intensive workface, niche strategy and regional market orien-
         tation.
     •   With a temporal distance (longevity) and increasing qualifications (awarded
         doctorate, scientific staff) increase business founding rates.
     •   Statements about the longevity of the business foundings are not possible as
                                                               ustainable, if an enter-
         the ILO-norm can’t be reached (a business founding is s
         prise exists for more than five years) because of the short-time of ROXI run-
         ning.



The ROXI concept in an National Ranking

The up-to-date successes are appreciated by national rankings of business founding
programmes. In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) ranking of 2003 “From a
student to an entrepreneur: What university provides the best chances?” Rostock Uni-
versity came second (after TU Karlsruhe) in ranking part three “Stimulating and pro-
moting programmes” followed by Hohenheim, Dresden, Jena, Stuttgart, Wuppertal
and Munich (LMU). “The biggest progress was made by Rostock University (from
position 51 to 2). There are programmistic activities which apart from the already
established ROXI programme are to be traced back to extra initiatives of the Exist-
transfer-project ‘Gründerflair’.”70

70
  Schmude, J.; Uebelacker, St.: Vom Studenten zum Unternehmer. Welche Universität bietet die
 besten Chancen? FAZ-Ranking 2003, Frankfurt a. Main 2003, p. 17.


                                                22
Where there is light, there are also shadows:


The development and implementation of entrepreneurship training programmes need
Intrapreneurship, also at the universities. Even if there are intrapreneurs, the activation
of their entrepreneurial potentials is influenced by several intervening variables such
as organisation culture, the extent of freedom and the existence of sponsors and per-
sonal support (within and out of the university).
Beside subject specific promoters power promoters are needed in order to provide a
lasting implementation of educational innovations.71
     1) Schools of Higher Education are not in their function and culture predestined
        for innovative entrepreneurship education. Universities are – historically –
        specialised in conveying knowledge of the highest standard for dependent
        (employed) work (=input-output-learning). Entrepreneurship education aims
        for the complete opposite: Evolutionary competence development for self-
        employment. The therefore necessary change of functions and values at the
        universities is a long, historic process that can’t be shortened.
     2) Universities are bureaucratic, big organisations with a high resistance to inno-
        vation. All innovation hurdles that are there for private entrepreneurs72 also
        occur at university, but in more compressed shapes and forms as universities
        have not to face competition and can allow themselves a certain resistance to
        innovation. The assurance of system structures, which lead to communication
        barriers, department egoism and keeping resources, narrow the autonomy and
        action scopes of the university staff. Even more so: The introduction of educa-
        tional innovations (new studies, interdisciplinary projects) depends on a vari-
        ety of bureaucracies, university committees and jurists a lot more than on the
        innovators themselves.73



71
   Interesting organisational models contains: Beer, H.: Hochschul-spin-offs im High-Tech-
  Wettbewerb, Hamburg 2000, pp. 187. See also: Hills, G. E.: Variations in University
  Entrepreneurship Education, in: Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 109.
72
   cp.: Bitzer, M.: Intrapreneurship – Unternehmertum in der Unternehmung, Zürich 1991,
   pp. 13.
73
   The analogy to the private economy would be Volkswagen asking the Ministry of Economic Affairs
   for permission to launch the new Golf.


                                                23
     3) Entrepreneurship education at universities is a rather ‘unloved’ child. The mo-
         bilisation of university intern support for entrepreneurship education can be
         compared to the “persistent drilling of thick blocks of wood” (M. Weber). The
         university executives can hardly succeed with entrepreneurship education. In
         the near future no increase in student’s number or financial support can be ex-
                                            i
         pected, which are the new “success ndicators” of the ranked university: “Col-
         leagues look rather suspicious before becoming multipliers. It is difficulty to
         integrate them. The argumentation line runs from “we are already teaching
         that” to “that has not got a place at university”.74 Generally, the academic staff
         sway between personal concerns and risk-free euphemism. Overweight at first
         pity or lack of understanding, the more successful the training programme ap-
         pears on the outside the more we can see envy. 75
                                          ith
     4) Students see no core competences w the university when it comes to entre-
         preneurship education. Students want firstly to finish their academic studies
         successfully and receive a university certificate, and not found a business. In
         this third phase of their socialisation entrepreneurship education either comes
         to early (one has not got any exams or professional experience yet) or too late
         (the interest to found a business is in popular professions higher before one
         starts studying). Furthermore, the university world is ruled by theory, convey-
         ing knowledge ex cathedra and unreal economy. Self-employment is hardly
         ever lived and therefore hardly ever experienced. Students that want to be-
         come self-employed expect support from a lot of institutions but not from their
         own university.


Among the described conditions, successful entrepreneurship education at universities
is an exception, not the rule and therefore a theoretically to be explained case. Teach-
ers and students that decide for an entrepreneurship education – no matter of what
origin – act system-irrational; this will at least be the case until the traditional alma
mater mutates into an enterprising university.76 Still one can like Galileo Galilei ex-
clamate: “and she really does move”. Few professors teach entrepreneurship educa-
tion for students that lives up to the international standard. Few students found and


74
   Weißbach, H.-J.; .; Emgee, H.: Das Frankfurter Modell für Existenzgründer ... l.c., p. 4.
75
   ibid.
76
   Williams, G.: The enterprising university: reform, excellence and equity, Buckingham 2003.


                                                   24
lead their businesses successfully. This is where the nucleus for entrepreneurial spirit
lies – even at university.




                                          25
Literature


Almus, M.; Nerlinger, E. A.: Wachstumsdeterminanten junger innovativer Unterneh-
men – empirische Ergebnisse für Westdeutschland, in: Jahrbuch für Nationalökono-
mie und Statistik, Heft 3/4 1999.

Amos, T.L.; Maas, G.: Developing Entrepreneurial Students: A Proposal of the What
and How, in: Nieuwenhuizen, C.; Klandt; H. (Edt.): IntEnt2001. Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Kruger National Park, S.A. 2001.

Authors, J.: Entrepreneurship: Agreed definition eludes the academic community, in:
Financial Times-Survey: Business Education, 25. January 1999.

Baecker, D.: Organisation als System, Frankfurt a. Main 1999.

Barreto, H.: The entrepreneur in microeconomic theory, London-New York 1989.

Bennis, W.; O’Toole, J.: Der neue Firmenchef – hoffentlich ist er der Richtige, in:
Harvard Business Manager, Heft 6, 2000.

Berth, R.: Analysierer, robuste Macher und Verlässlichkeitssucher, in: FAZ: Blick
durch die Wirtschaft vom 15.11.1996.

Bitzer, M.: Intrapreneurship – Unternehmertum in der Unternehmung, Zürich 1991.

Braukmann, U.: Zur Entwicklung und programmatischen Ausrichtung einer Grün-
dungsdidaktik an Hochschulen, in: Euler, D.; Jongebloed, H.-C.; Sloane, F. E. (Edt.):
Sozialökonomische Theorie – sozialökonomisches Handeln. Konturen und Perspekti-
ven der Wirtschafts- und Sozialpädagogik. Festschrift für Martin Twardy zum 60.
Geburtstag, Kiel 2000, pp. 231.

Braun, G.: Auf der Suche nach einer Kultur der Selbstständigkeit, in: Braun, G.;
Diensberg, Chr. (Edt.): Unternehmertum. Eine Herausforderung für die Zukunft. Ros-
tocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource Development
Nr. 12, 1999.

Braun, G.: Von der Idee zum Erfolg. Partizipative Trainingskonzepte für Existenz-
gründer. Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource
Development Nr. 8, 1997.




                                           26
Braun,     G.;    Diensberg,   Chr.:     Evaluation   und    Erfolgsbewertung   internationaler
Entrepreneurship-Trainingsprogramme, in: Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschafts-
entwicklung und Human Resource Development Nr. 23, Rostock 2004.

Braun, G.: Die Universität als Produktionsstätte unternehmerischer Selbständigkeit,
in:     Gründerflair   MV      (Edt.):    Entrepreneurship    Education   in    Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, Rostock 2004.

Brüderl, J.; Preisendörfer, P.; Ziegler, R.: Der Erfolg neugegründeter Betriebe, Berlin
1996.

Drucker, P.: Flashes of Genius: Interview with Inc. online, Special Issue: State of
Small business.

Erkkilä, K.: Entrepreneurial Education. Mapping the Debates in the United States, the
United Kingdom and Finland, New York 2000 ; Kent, C.A. (Edt.) : Entrepreneurship
Education. Current Developments, Future Directions, New York – Westport – Lon-
don 1990.

Fallgatter, M.J.: Theorie des Entrepreneurship. Perspektiven zur Erforschung der Ent-
stehung und Entwicklung junger Unternehmungen, Wiesbaden 2002.

Garavan,Th. N.; O’Cinneide, G.: Entrepreneurship Education and Training Pro-
grammes: A Review and Evaluation, Part 1 + 2, in: Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 18, Nr. 8, pp. 3.

Gerber, M.E.: The E-myth: Why most small businesses don’t work and what to do
about it, New York 1995.

Hartig, S.: Entrepreneurship Training. State of the art of training techniques for en-
hancing industrial entrepreneurship, Working Paper, Berlin 1992

Henzler, H.: Es fehlt an Gründermut, in: Rutz, M. (Edt.): Aufbruch in der Bildungspo-
litik, München 1997.

Hills, G. E.: Variations in University Entrepreneurship Education, in: Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 109.

Hirschman, A. O.: The strategy of economic development, New Haven 1958.

Kadler, S.: Das Gründerflair-Basis-Curriculum. Konzeptentwurf zu einer Entrepre-
neurship-Lehre an den Hochschulen Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns, in: Rostocker Ar-



                                               27
beitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resource Development Nr. 23,
Rostock 2004.

Klandt, H.: Aktivität und Erfolg des Unternehmungsgründers. Eine empirische Analy-
se unter Einbeziehung des mikrosozialen Umfeldes, Bergisch Gladbach 1984.

Klandt, H.: Entrepreneurship: Unternehmerausbildung an deutschen Hochschulen, in:
Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung und Praxis, H. 3, 1999.

Malik, F.: Führen – Leisten – Leben. Wirksames Management für eine neue Zeit,
Stuttgart – München 2000.

McClelland, D.C.: The Achieving Society, Princeton 1961.

McClelland, D.C.: N of Achievement and Entrepreneurship. A longitudinal study, in:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 1965.

Miron, D.; McClelland, D.C.: The Impact of Achievement Motivation Training on
Small Businesses, in: California Management Review, Vol. 24, 1979.

Neuberger, L.: Ausbildung zum Unternehmer, Stuttgart 2003.

Priddat, B. P.: Nachlassende Bildung, Marburg 2002.

Rabbior, G.: Elements of a Successful Entrepreneur-ship/Economics/Education Pro-
gram, in: Kent, C. A. (ed.): Entrepreneurship Education. Current Developments, Fu-
ture Directions, New York – Westport, Conn. – London, 1990.

Reichert, A. : Der Trainer in der Gründerqualifizierung, in: Reichert, A.; Wilde, K.
(Edt.): Entrepreneurship Education – Konzeptionelle und didaktische Herausforde-
rungen. in: Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und Human Resour-
ce Development Nr. 23, Rostock 2004.

Robinson, P.B.; Sexton, E.A.: The effect of education and experience on self-
employment success, in : Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, 1985.

Röpke, J.: Der lernende Unternehmer. Zur Evolution und Konstruktion unternehmeri-
scher Kompetenz, Marburg 2002.

Schmude, J.; Uebelacker, St.: Vom Studenten zum Unternehmer. Welche Universität
bietet die besten Chancen? FAZ-Ranking 2003, Frankfurt a. Main 2003.




                                            28
Schneider, D.: Der Unternehmer – eine Lehrstelle in der Theorie der Unternehmung?,
in: ZfB. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 4/2001.

Schulte, R.; Klandt, H.: Aus- und Weiterbildungsangebote für Unternehmensgründer
und selbstständige Unternehmer an deutschen Hochschulen. Forschungsberichte des
BMBFT, Bonn 1996.

Schumpeter, J.: Art. ‚Unternehmer’, in: Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4.
Aufl., Band VIII, Jena 1928.

Simon, F.B.: Radikale Marktwirtschaft, Heidelberg 1992.

Sombart, W.: Der moderne Kapitalismus, Band I, Berlin 1969 (unchanged reprint of
the second edition from 1916).

Staudt, E.: Kompetenz zur Innovation. Defizite der Forschungs-, Bildungs-, Wirt-
schafts- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik. Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwick-
lung und Human Resource Development Nr. 5, 1996.

Vesper, K. H.; Gartner, W. B.: Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education, in:
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, 1997, pp. 403.

Walterscheid, K.: Entrepreneurship Education als universitäre Lehre. Diskussionspa-
piere der Fernuniversität Hagen. Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 261, Hagen 1998.

Weißbach, H.-J.; Emgee, H.: Das Frankfurter Modell für Existenzgründer – eine Zwi-
schenevaluation, Dezember 2001, Download unter: http://www.frankfurter-
modell.de/html/evaluationdesfrankfurtermod.html, 26.11.2003.

Wilde, K.: Ein Curriculum für handlungsorientiertes Existenzgründungstraining, Rei-
chert, A.; Wilde, K. (Edt.): Entrepreneurship Education – Konzeptionelle und didakti-
sche Herausforderungen. Rostocker Arbeitspapiere zu Wirtschaftsentwicklung und
Human Resource Development Nr. 23, Rostock 2004.




                                              29