An outlook of entrepreneurial orientation in Public Sector University: a descriptive view Dr Wasim

Abbas Awan1 , Hina Amin2

Summary:

This case study emphasizes the crucial role of entrepreneurship in driving economic
growth, technological innovation, and addressing unemployment challenges,
particularly in developing countries like Pakistan. Despite the recognition of
entrepreneurship's importance, the study notes slow progress in its development in
such nations, attributing it to factors like a turbulent business environment, inadequate
attention to youth skillsets, low entrepreneurial intentions, and limited knowledge of
entrepreneurship. To tackle these issues, both public and private Pakistani universities
have initiated programs to foster entrepreneurship among students through courses,
incubators, and support for student start-ups. However, the study reveals variations in
students' entrepreneurial desires and orientations, with factors like gender, academic
background, and exposure to entrepreneurial curricula influencing these differences.

The research specifically explores entrepreneurial desires, understanding of the business

environment, and entrepreneurial orientation among university students. Findings
indicate that overall entrepreneurial desires among students are above average, with a
nuanced gender difference. While students demonstrate a good understanding of the
business environment, variations in preferences and risk-taking behaviors are evident.
Notably, students with prior entrepreneurial experience exhibit higher entrepreneurial
desires and orientation. Gender differences suggest that females express greater
entrepreneurial desires but may face challenges in terms of business acumen compared
to their male counterparts. The study concludes by recognizing its limitations and the
need for further research, highlighting the potential for shaping entrepreneurial acumen
among university students.

1. General Understanding:
 Why is entrepreneurship considered crucial for economic growth in
developing countries?
 Entrepreneurship stimulates economic activities, leading to job creation,
technological innovation, and increased competitiveness, essential for
sustained economic growth in developing countries.
 What challenges does Pakistan face in promoting entrepreneurial
development?
  Challenges include a turbulent business environment, inadequate
attention to youth skill sets, low entrepreneurial intentions, and limited
knowledge of entrepreneurship.
 How have public and private universities in Pakistan been contributing to
fostering entrepreneurship among students?
 Universities offer courses, establish incubators, and promote student start-
ups, collectively improving students' skill sets, entrepreneurial intentions,
and orientation toward self-employment.
2. Research Objectives and Questions:
 Outline the three main objectives of the study as mentioned in the text.
 The study aims to analyze entrepreneurial desires, examine the
understanding of the business environment, and understand
entrepreneurial orientation among university students.
 What specific questions does the study aim to answer regarding university
students' entrepreneurial desires, understanding of the business
environment, and entrepreneurial orientation?
 The study seeks to determine if students with different genders have
different entrepreneurial desires, entrepreneurial orientation, and
perceptions of the business environment.
3. Entrepreneurial Orientation:
 Define entrepreneurial orientation as described in the text.
 Entrepreneurial orientation is characterized as a company's attitude
toward starting a new business, involving activities like planning, analysis,
decision-making, innovation, risk-taking, and pro-activeness.
 How does the study measure entrepreneurial orientation among university
students?
 The study measures entrepreneurial orientation using four dimensions:
innovation, pro-activeness, risk-taking, and networking.
 Discuss the dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation mentioned in the
text.
 The dimensions include creativity, risk-taking, initiative (pro-activeness),
and networking, with a focus on a company's engagement in product-
market innovation and relatively hazardous ventures.
4. Methodology:
 What research methods were employed in the study, and why?
 The study used a quantitative research method, specifically a survey, to
collect data from business administration students at Karachi University.
Convenience sampling was used, and data analysis involved descriptive
statistics.
  Explain the sampling technique used in the study.
 Convenience sampling was employed, with three research assistants
distributing 730 questionnaires, resulting in 221 usable responses (30.27%
response rate).
 Describe the data collection process and the instruments used for collecting
data.
 Data was collected using a survey method with pen and paper. The
questionnaire included items on entrepreneurial desires, entrepreneurial
orientation, and business environment understanding, measured using a
five-point Likert scale.
5. Empirical Results:
 Summarize the key findings regarding entrepreneurial desires,
understanding of the business environment, and entrepreneurial orientation
among university students.
 Students exhibit above-average entrepreneurial desires and orientation,
with a slightly lower score in risk-taking. The business environment
understanding is above average, indicating eagerness for entrepreneurship
despite less favorable current conditions.
 Analyze the differences in entrepreneurial orientation between students
with and without prior entrepreneurial experience.
 Students with prior entrepreneurial experience show higher
entrepreneurial desires, orientation, and better understanding of the
business environment, with significant differences in pro-activeness and
risk-taking.
6. Gender Differences:
 Highlight the gender differences observed in entrepreneurial desires,
orientation, and understanding of the business environment.
 Female students show greater entrepreneurial desires but lack
understanding of the business environment. Males have better overall
understanding, higher pro-activeness, while females exhibit greater
innovativeness.
 Discuss the implications of these gender differences for entrepreneurship
development.
 The findings challenge stereotypes, suggesting that females in South-East
Asian countries have higher entrepreneurial motivation. Understanding
these differences is crucial for fostering entrepreneurship among both
genders.
7. Discussion and Conclusion:
  Explain the significance of the study's findings in shaping entrepreneurial
acumen among university students.
 The study highlights significant gender differences in entrepreneurial
attributes, providing valuable insights for shaping entrepreneurial
development programs tailored to the diverse needs of male and female
students.
 What are the limitations of the study, and how might they impact the
interpretation of results?
 Limitations include a focus on one university department, potential bias in
convenience sampling, and a cross-sectional design. Interpretations should
consider these limitations.
 Propose potential areas for future research based on the study's limitations.
 Future research could explore entrepreneurial intentions, conduct a
longitudinal study, compare public and private universities, and investigate
entrepreneurial orientation among students from various departments.

Profit non profit:

Summary:

The case study explores the dilemma faced by mission-driven start-ups in choosing between
for-profit and nonprofit structures. Historically clear distinctions have blurred, and founders
must make an explicit, early choice that significantly influences the organization's long-term
trajectory. The decision is challenging to reverse once the strategy is established. Four key
factors—market readiness, customers' willingness to pay, capital availability, and access to
resources—influence this decision. The timing of the decision is crucial, ideally before seeking
substantial external resources to avoid conflicts. The study provides insights into how these
factors played out in the decisions of various social enterprises, emphasizing the need for a
systematic approach in navigating this foundational dilemma.

Questions:

1. What are the key factors that should inform the choice between being for-profit
or nonprofit for mission-driven start-ups?
 The key factors are market readiness, customers’ willingness to pay, capital
availability, and access to talent and other resources.
2. How has the distinction between for-profit and nonprofit organizations blurred in
recent decades, especially in the context of social entrepreneurship?
  The blurring of lines is attributed to nonprofits providing competitive products or
services and for-profit start-ups making a social impact, often backed by impact
investors.
3. What is the foundational dilemma faced by mission-driven start-ups when
deciding whether to be for-profit or nonprofit?
 The foundational dilemma involves making an explicit, early choice between for-
profit and nonprofit structures, which is difficult to reverse once the strategy,
culture, and scaling process begin.
4. Why is it crucial for founders to make the decision between for-profit and
nonprofit structures before seeking substantial external resources?
 Making this decision before seeking substantial resources avoids potential
conflicts with donors or investors if the organization later decides to switch its
legal form.
5. What are the four factors that should guide the choice between for-profit and
nonprofit structures, according to the authors?
 The four factors are market readiness, customers’ willingness to pay, capital
availability, and access to talent and other resources.
6. How does the nature of the market influence the decision to choose a for-profit or
nonprofit structure?
 Market factors include assessing market size, growth rate, competition, and
barriers to entry to determine if market conditions support a for-profit approach.
7. What role does customers' willingness to pay play in deciding between for-profit
and nonprofit structures?
 Entrepreneurs must assess customers' ability and willingness to pay to determine
if the organization can sustain a for-profit model or if remaining nonprofit is
more appropriate.
8. Why is it essential for social entrepreneurs to conduct hard-nosed analyses similar
to for-profit founders in assessing capital needs and cash flow?
 Social entrepreneurs need to understand the capital needed for scaling and
potential returns, recognizing that relying solely on philanthropic funding or
impact capital may not be sufficient.
9. What challenges might social ventures face when deciding between for-profit and
nonprofit structures in terms of attracting talent?
 Challenges include the ability to attract talent willing to work at below-market
salaries in nonprofit ventures, especially if the compensation gap with for-profits
is significant.
 3. Why startups fail:
3. SUMMARY:
The case study examines the failures of two startups, Quincy Apparel and Triangulate.
Quincy Apparel, despite having a good idea to address an unmet customer need, faced
challenges due to the founders' lack of industry experience, slow manufacturing
partners, and insufficient funding. Triangulate, on the other hand, struggled because of
false starts—skipping customer discovery and MVP testing, leading to multiple pivots
and unsustainable business models.

In Quincy's case, the founders' decision-making and the contribution of various

stakeholders, including investors, played a role in the venture's collapse. Triangulate's
failure was attributed to pursuing the wrong opportunity and neglecting crucial steps in
the lean startup approach, such as customer discovery.

The study underscores the importance of industry expertise, thorough research, and
adherence to startup methodologies to avoid common pitfalls that lead to startup
failures.

1. Question: What was the main problem that led to Quincy Apparel's failure?
 Answer: Quincy Apparel faced operational challenges, including production issues,
slow manufacturing partners, and insufficient funding, ultimately leading to cash
flow problems and closure.
2. Question: How did the founders of Quincy Apparel address their lack of industry
experience?
 Answer: The founders hired apparel industry veterans, expecting them to handle
various tasks. However, the lack of flexibility in these employees and a failure to
outsource the entire design and production process contributed to the venture's
downfall.
3. Question: In what ways did the investors contribute to Quincy's demise?
 Answer: The founders aimed to raise $1.5 million but secured only $950,000.
Insufficient funding limited Quincy's ability to prove its pivot, and pressure from
investors for rapid growth led to building excessive inventory, exacerbating the
cash flow problem.
4. Question: Why did Triangulate face challenges despite having a strong team and
funding support?
  Answer: Triangulate faced issues due to pursuing the wrong opportunity. The
company failed to conduct proper customer discovery and MVP tests before
launching its product, leading to multiple pivots and unsustainable business
models.
5. Question: How did the false starts contribute to the failure of Triangulate?
 Answer: Triangulate skipped the crucial steps of customer discovery and MVP
testing, resulting in false starts. The lack of upfront research wasted feedback
cycles, and rushing to launch a fully functional product without understanding
market needs proved detrimental.

Entrepreneurs and the truth:

4. SUMMARY

This case study explores the prevalence of deception among entrepreneurs and its impact on
the start-up culture. It highlights reasons why entrepreneurs may bend the truth, such as
abundant opportunities, high stakes, and information asymmetry. The study identifies three
rationalizations entrepreneurs use to justify deception, emphasizing their invalidity. To address
this issue, the article proposes guidelines for entrepreneurs, including transparently showing
evidence and assumptions and surrounding themselves with virtuous influences. The case study
underscores the need to balance being compelling and forthright in communication, promoting
ethical behavior in the entrepreneurial realm.

Q1: Why do entrepreneurs sometimes bend the truth according to the article?

Entrepreneurs often bend the truth due to several reasons:

 Opportunities: Entrepreneurs have many opportunities to bend the truth, and the
norms of entrepreneurship encourage them to be hustlers and evangelists for their
companies.
 Stakes: Entrepreneurs have a lot on the line, with the potential for great wealth, but
failure can have significant personal and financial consequences.
 Information Asymmetry: Entrepreneurship involves a great deal of information
asymmetry, making it relatively easy for entrepreneurs to get away with deception,
especially in privately held companies.

Q2: What are the three rationalizations that entrepreneurs use to justify bending
the truth, and why are they considered invalid?
 The three rationalizations are:

1. "It's for the greater good": Justifying deception by claiming that the end result
justifies the means, following a utilitarian perspective. However, this falls apart as the
outcomes are uncertain, and stakeholders may suffer from incomplete or false
information.
2. "I'm protecting my people": Entrepreneurs may argue that they bend the truth to
protect their team and stakeholders. However, this rationalization is flawed as the
consequences of deception are unpredictable, and it can harm those it was meant to
protect.
3. "Everybody does it": Entrepreneurs may believe that bending the truth is a common
practice in the business world. This rationalization suggests that deception is part of the
game. However, this reasoning is insufficient as it doesn't justify unethical behavior, and
ethical standards should apply across all domains of life.

Q3: According to the article, why is entrepreneurship particularly prone to

deception, and what is the impact of deception on the start-up culture?

Entrepreneurship is prone to deception due to:

 Numerous Opportunities: Entrepreneurs have many opportunities to bend the truth,

being constantly "on."
 High Stakes: The potential for great wealth is unevenly distributed, and failure can have
significant personal and financial consequences.
 Information Asymmetry: Entrepreneurs often operate in an environment of
information asymmetry, making it easier to get away with deception.

The impact of deception on the start-up culture includes market inefficiencies,

prolonged existence of doomed ventures, and difficulty for investors and employees to
make informed decisions. Deception can also lead to stress for founders and can have
personal and financial consequences.

Q4: What are the suggested guidelines for entrepreneurs to be both successful and
honest, according to the article?

The suggested guidelines for entrepreneurs to be both successful and honest are:

1. Show Your Evidence and Assumptions: Entrepreneurs should transparently present

evidence and assumptions supporting their vision, providing a clear basis for
stakeholders to evaluate.
2. Surround Yourself with Virtuous Influences: Entrepreneurs should surround
themselves with people, especially investors, who will help them become their best
selves. Wise investors can offer valuable guidance and moral perspectives.

These practices aim to foster virtue in all aspects of life, promoting ethical behavior in
the professional realm.

Q5: How does the article propose entrepreneurs can balance being compelling and
forthright in their communication?

The article proposes a "conclusion sandwich" approach where entrepreneurs:

 Begin and End with Conclusion: Start and finish with the compelling vision or
extrapolation of what could be.
 Present Evidence and Assumptions in the Middle: Insert evidence and assumptions in
the middle of their presentation to provide transparency and truthfulness.

This approach allows entrepreneurs to be persuasive while also offering stakeholders

the opportunity to critically examine the evidence and form their own conclusions.

Is lemonade enough:

SUMMARY 5:

In this case study, the author reflects on their entrepreneurial journey, drawing parallels
between their first venture, a successful lemonade stand turned souvenir shop, and their
later experience managing Focus Creative Concepts, a family premiums-manufacturing
business. The author discusses the challenges of diversifying their business by targeting
a new market, sharing insights from their decision to enter the private-label personal
care products sector. The case study explores the consequences of simultaneously
implementing changes in the core business and introducing a new venture, emphasizing
the importance of timing, resource allocation, and understanding barriers to entry. The
author contemplates the lessons learned and seeks advice on whether to reload and
face barriers again or explore alternative expansion options.

Q1: What inspired the author's first entrepreneurial venture, and how did
it succeed?
The author's first venture was a lemonade stand set up at a local marina. They
observed a demand for souvenirs among tourists and diversified their
offerings, crafting souvenirs advertised as "made by local children." The
business thrived, making $75 a day, leading to a buyout by the marina owner.

Q2: How did the author approach the decision to diversify Focus Creative
Concepts, and what market did they target?

The author believed in diversifying Focus Creative Concepts by expanding

beyond consumer products companies. They aimed to manufacture non-
consumable goods for a broader market and eventually narrowed their focus
to retailers with private-label personal care products.

Q3: What challenges did the author face when implementing the
diversification plan for Focus Creative Concepts, and how did it impact
the business?

The author faced challenges with timing, resource allocation, and barriers to
entry. Implementing changes in the core business while introducing a new
venture created confusion and a wary staff. The lack of sufficient resources
resulted in both arms of the business not flourishing.

Q4: What barriers to entry did Focus Creative Concepts encounter in the
private-label manufacturing market, and how did it affect negotiations
with buyers?

In the private-label manufacturing market, the author faced high barriers to

entry dominated by a few importers. Buyers evaluated suppliers solely on
price, limiting negotiation power. The market lacked differentiation among
retailers, presenting a significant challenge for Focus Creative Concepts.

Q5: What is the author's dilemma at the end of the case study, and what
options are they considering for the future of Focus Creative Concepts?

The author is contemplating whether to reload and face barriers again or

explore alternative expansion options. They are considering leveraging their
understanding of barriers and crafting a positioning for Focus that highlights
industry differentiation while maintaining economies of scale. The author
seeks advice on the best strategy for the future.

Local Entrepreneurship:
SUMMARY 6:

The case study explores the challenges and outcomes of entrepreneurship-driven efforts aimed
at revitalizing impoverished communities, focusing on the experiences of two organizations,
ACCEL and GREEN, in Detroit. ACCEL, a traditional business accelerator, emphasized rapid
expansion through venture capital investment, often leading to short-lived local impact. On the
other hand, GREEN, an alternative incubator, encouraged "scaling deep" by leveraging local
resources and addressing specific community issues, resulting in ventures deeply embedded in
the Detroit ecosystem. The study suggests that the Silicon Valley model, with its emphasis on
scaling up quickly, may not be suitable for impoverished areas. Instead, fostering ventures that
grow by deepening local embeddedness can have a more sustained and meaningful impact on
local communities, challenging the conventional focus on rapid financial growth. The findings
advocate for a mindset shift in both entrepreneurs and policymakers towards supporting
ventures that address urgent local problems by repurposing and recombining local resources.

Q1: What were the key differences between the approaches of ACCEL and GREEN
in revitalizing Detroit through entrepreneurship?

A1: ACCEL focused on rapid expansion through venture capital investment, while
GREEN adopted a "scaling deep" approach, leveraging local resources and addressing
specific community issues. ACCEL's ventures tended to leave Detroit for broader growth,
whereas GREEN's ventures remained embedded in the local ecosystem.

Q2: How did ACCEL's emphasis on scaling up affect the impact of its ventures on
the local community?

A2: ACCEL's ventures achieved explosive but short-lived local impact, creating
employment opportunities initially but ultimately leaving Detroit for access to larger
funding rounds. The focus on rapid expansion led to a decoupling of their success from
the well-being of their home regions.

Q3: What is meant by "scaling deep" and how did GREEN implement this
approach?
A3: "Scaling deep" refers to growing ventures by deeply embedding them in the local
community, addressing specific local problems and leveraging existing resources.
GREEN encouraged entrepreneurs to repurpose local resources and build rich
relationships, resulting in ventures with lasting impact on Detroit, even though they
didn't expand beyond the city.

Q4: What implications does the study suggest for policymakers supporting the
entrepreneurial ecosystem in impoverished areas?

A4: Policymakers should shift focus from prioritizing ventures that maximize financial
returns through rapid scaling to supporting ventures that "scale deep." This involves
nurturing ventures that repurpose local resources and provide novel solutions to urgent
local problems, fostering sustained self-reliance in impoverished places.

Q5: How does the study challenge the conventional view of entrepreneurship-
driven local development?

A5: The study challenges the idea that maximizing growth in terms of scale, often
associated with venture-capital-backed rapid expansion, is the only way for
entrepreneurship to drive local development. Instead, it advocates for viewing
entrepreneurship as collaborative platforms that leverage local resources to address
specific local issues, promoting a mindset of "scaling deep."