Description
In this brief illustration related to the development of entrepreneurial competences entrepreneurship education in italian.
The development of entrepreneurial competences:
entrepreneurship education in Italian universities and firms’
organizational models
Sabrina Dubbini
a
, Donato Iacobucci
b
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Summary
The aim of the paper is to provide a preliminary analysis of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in
Italian universities and to compare them with the demand for entrepreneurial and managerial
competences in Italian firms. The analysis is based on a census of entrepreneurship courses and
curricula presently run by Italian universities. Entrepreneurship education in Italian universities is in its
infancy. Only a few universities have courses dedicated to entrepreneurship and the majority of them
deal with the development of the business plan. Courses and curricula are within business faculties
while very few exist in engineering faculties. This situation contrasts with the need for
entrepreneurship education in the Italian economy. On the one hand we need to stimulate start-up in
high-tech sectors; this requires the development of entrepreneurship courses in engineering curricula.
On the other hand we need to favour the growth process of small firms; this requires people who are
able to play an entrepreneurial role in existing firms. In both cases education should stress the
acquisition of competences rather than specific entrepreneurial skills.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, university courses, intrapreneurship, entrepreneurial
competences
1. Introduction
The economic and institutional transformations experienced by the main industrialised
countries during the last few decades have led to a re-evaluation of the entrepreneur’s
fundamental role in economic development.
There are several theories on entrepreneurship and on its role within the economy
(Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). Recent entrepreneurship literature has expanded the scope of
entrepreneurial studies; nevertheless they remain focused on two main issues: opportunity
recognition and new venture creation (Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright, 2001). Despite the
differences in definitions and theoretical models, the widespread feeling among researchers
and politicians is that entrepreneurship will play an increasing role in the development and
adaptation of economic systems at local and national level. Recent documents by the EU and
OECD have emphasized the importance of entrepreneurship for the development prospects of
a
S. Dubbini, Researcher at Department of Social Siences – Faculty of Economics, Università Politecnica
delle Marche - Piazza Martelli, 8, I-60121 Ancona (Italy); email: [email protected]
b
D. Iacobucci, Researcher, DIIGA, Faculty of Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via
Brecce Bianche, Monte Dago, I-60131 Ancona (Italy), Fax: +39 071 2204474; email: [email protected]
(corresponding author)
The research received financial support from the LabSel project (Leonardo). We thank Paolo Ferraro for
helping us to collect data about entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities.
their member countries (Commission of the European Communities, 2001; OECD, 2001).
Moreover, some researchers are convinced that the greater entrepreneurial “vitality” is one of
the factors explaining the superior performance of the USA economy in generating
innovation and employment when compared with that of European countries (Acs, Carlsson,
and Karlsson, 1999). It is a popular opinion that the recent changes in demand and
technology within the main industrialised countries have determined the transformation from
the “regulated” economy of the fifties and sixties, dominated by managerial firms to the
“entrepreneurial” economy of the eighties and nineties, dominated by small firms (Audretsch
and Thurik, 1999). Since the end of the seventies there has also been a shift in attitudes
towards the entrepreneurial role in society: “Connotation of the term ‘entrepreneur’ began to
shift from notions of greed, exploitation, selfishness, and disloyalty to creativity, job creation,
profitability, innovativeness, and generosity” (Vesper and Gartner, 1997).
As a result of these changes during the last 25 years there has been an explosion of
interest in the USA for the entrepreneurship field, that has resulted in the institution of
courses, research centres and degrees at several levels (undergraduate and graduate). The
spread of entrepreneurial courses and the institutionalisation of the field have also promoted
the creation of research centres, academic journals and associations. Most European countries
have followed the same trend, although with some delay. Courses about entrepreneurship
have grown steadily in all the main countries. Moreover, an increase in the presence of
entrepreneurial courses in university curricula has been advocated by several academic and
governmental studies (Beranger, Chabbal, and Dambrine, 1998; Department of Trade and
Industry, 1998).
In this context the Italian situation is rather “anomalous”, both with regard to research and
teaching activity. Until a few years ago there were no courses of entrepreneurship in Italian
universities or permanent positions in this field. In a comparison made in 1996 regarding the
chairs in entrepreneurship in the main European countries, Italy appeared with the number 0,
together with Denmark and Hungary, far from the first ones in the list: UK with more than 12
chairs, France and Finland with 11 (Frank and Landstrom, 1997). Moreover, while in quite all
the European counties the development of entrepreneurial courses has continued to growth in
the second half of the nineties, the Italian situation remained practically unchanged.
Nor is the situation different when we examine research rather than teaching. At present
there is only one research centre dedicated to the field (at the Bocconi University in Milan)
1
.
Apart from this centre, research in this field is carried out by individual researchers in a non-
systematic way. This is in marked contrast with the large number of studies by Italian
researchers on small firms and, specifically, on industrial districts. Although within these
studies some attention has also been paid to the phenomenon of firm start-up, the theme of
entrepreneurship has remained a marginal one. Indicators of this situation are the following:
1
Another has just been set up at the University of Castellanza (Varese).
a) the absence of specialised journals dedicated to the field of entrepreneurship; b) the
marginal presence of Italian scholars on the editorial boards of the main international journals
in the field; c) the scanty presence of articles by Italian researchers in the main
entrepreneurship journals.
Given this situation the aims of the paper are the following: a) to review the presence and
characteristics of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in Italian universities; b) to discuss
whether these courses and curricula match the need for entrepreneurial education in Italy. The
analysis seems particularly interesting, given the fact that since 2001 the Italian university
system has experienced a complete reorganization of students’ curricula.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on the presence of
entrepreneurial education at international level. Section 3 reports an empirical survey about
entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities. Section 4 discusses the features and needs for
entrepreneurship and management education in Italian firms. Section 5 draws the main
conclusions.
2. Trends in entrepreneurship education
One of the first reviews of entrepreneurial courses in the USA, made at the end of the
seventies, indicated that curricula with one or more entrepreneurial courses were around 130,
more than ten times the 1967 figure (Vesper, 1982). They were concentrated in the schools of
business and engineering. During the eighties and the nineties curricula with entrepreneurial
courses increased steadily: 250 in 1985, 370 in 1992, around 400 in 1995. At this final date
there were around 50 universities in the USA which offered 4 or more courses in
entrepreneurship, which allowed students to obtain degrees or to major in this field (Vesper
and Gartner, 1997). In 1997 there were 160 permanent chairs in the USA in the field of
entrepreneurship, an indication of the fact that it has emerged as a discipline on its own right.
This is also testified by the creation of research centres, academic associations and academic
journals dedicated to the field.
It has been stated that in the USA at the end of the nineties there was a “complete
educational infrastructure, consisting of more than 300 endowed positions, more than 100
centres, more than 40 refereed academic journals and more than a dozen professional
organizations” (Katz, 2003). The author believes that the “entrepreneurship education
industry” has entered its mature stage in business schools, while there is still scope for growth
in schools of engineering, agriculture and science. Other authors disagree with this
conclusion and feel that there is still scope for expansion even in American business schools
(Kuratko, 2003). Whatever the opinion about the “life cycle” state of entrepreneurship
education in the USA, researchers agree on the fact that it is still a growing field. Moreover,
they agree that the pace of development in the next few years will be higher in countries
outside the USA where entrepreneurship education started later.
Compared with the abundance of studies and research on the problems of
entrepreneurship education in the USA (Katz and Green, 1996; Vesper and Gartner, 1997;
Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002) there are only a few works dealing with the subject
outside the USA. This reflects the delay with which entrepreneurship education has
developed outside the USA and the fact that in no other country (with the possible exception
of Canada and the UK) it has reached a degree of development comparable to that observed
in the USA.
Citing previous surveys on the topic, Ibrahim and Soufani (2002) note that at the end of
the nineties there were 53 Canadian universities offering courses in entrepreneurship and
small business management. These surveys reveal that Canadian entrepreneurship courses
tend to focus more on the pre-venture creation process and less on management of established
small businesses. According to the authors, another weakness is the insufficient spread of
entrepreneurship courses in engineering schools, given the roles young engineers could play
in developing new technology firms.
Outside North America, the UK is probably the country that has the highest number of
courses and programmes dedicated to entrepreneurship education. The relevance attached to
the issue is documented by the studies addressing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
courses and curricula (Carter and Collinson, 1999; Galloway and Brown, 2002).
Entrepreneurship courses and programmes are also present in most north European countries:
Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Ireland, etc. Some universities in these countries host
worldwide recognised entrepreneurship research centres and also PhD programmes in
entrepreneurship (like Vaxio and J ohn Hopkins in Sweden).
Interest in entrepreneurship education has increased considerably also among transitional
economies of East European (Mitra and Matlay, 2004) and Asian countries (Dana, 2001). In
general the design of business school curricula in these countries has followed the traditional
model, based on functional expertise (strategy, human resource management, marketing,
finance, etc.). Nevertheless, courses about entrepreneurship, new venture creation and
business planning have become more and more common in undergraduate and Master’s
curricula. China is a particularly interesting case given the exceptional growth rate of its
private sector in the last decade. It was not until the middle of the nineties that MBA courses
were introduced in Chinese universities. According to recent surveys there are 56 business
schools in China that run accredited MBA programmes (Li, Zhang, and Matlay, 2003). Like
MBA programmes in other countries, also in China courses tend to focus on functional skills.
Nevertheless, a recent survey conducted on 26 top business schools found that six of them
offered business venturing programmes and five more focused on entrepreneurship modules
(Li et al., 2003).
To assess the presence and characteristics of entrepreneurship education in Italian
universities we conducted a survey of courses and curricula on entrepreneurship presently
run. The survey is based mainly on data and information collected through Internet. In some
cases the Internet survey was supplemented by direct collection of material about the courses.
The Internet source is appropriate for the aim of the study as almost all Italian universities
supply information on their curricula and courses through Internet. Almost all of them give
information about the titles of courses on their website and most of them also supply detailed
information about the content of the courses. The information collected and analyzed refers to
the academic year 2003-2004.
3. Entrepreneurship education in Italian universities
As in other surveys about entrepreneurship courses, one of the problems is to separate
courses and curricula specifically devoted to entrepreneurship from those referring, more
generally, to small business or innovation. In the analysis we included only those courses
specifically referring to entrepreneurship (we then excluded courses about small business
management and courses about the economics of innovation). In some cases we retained
courses on the management of innovation because their content refers to entrepreneurship.
Looking at the contents of the courses, most of them are dedicated to the various aspects
of start-up: how to develop the business plan and how to raise finance. Two courses are
dedicated to the management of innovation in existing firms, with specific emphasis on the
development of new ventures. Only three courses deal with the general aspects of
entrepreneurship, from its role in the economy to the specificity of entrepreneurship as
opposed to management. Moreover, even these courses devote a significant amount of time to
business planning.
Only a few universities in Italy offer entrepreneurship courses. They are the universities
in which there are researchers interested in the field. Most of them (Bologna, Ancona,
Urbino, Modena and Reggio Emilia) are located in the so called “third Italy”, the part of Italy
dominated by the presence of small firms. The only university located in the south is the
University of Naples with a course on the management of innovation within the engineering
faculty. The only universities offering more than one course are Bologna and Urbino. This is
because these universities have curricula specifically dedicated to entrepreneurship or
innovation. In the case of Bologna it is a two year post-graduate course in management with a
curriculum called “Firm and innovation”. In the case of Urbino there is a specific curriculum
within a three year first degree called “Entrepreneurship and small firms”. In all other cases
courses are within curricula in general management.
Table 1 shows the list of entrepreneurship courses presently run in Italian universities.
Given the limited number of courses no statistics elaborations have been done, but only a
qualitative analysis of their content and of their position within the curriculum.
Table 1 – Italian Universities offering entrepreneurship courses
University Faculty Course title Curriculum Access Credits Tenure
Bocconi University Economics Business planning Several FD and PG curricula Optional 6 Professor
LIUC - Castellanza Free University Economics Entrepreneurship development FD in Management Optional 5 Professor
Polytechnic University of the Marche Economics Entrepreneurial dynamics and business projects PG in Management Compulsory 10 Professor
University of Bologna Economics Business plan PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Start-up and small firmmanagement PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Private equity and venture capital PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Management of innovation PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 Professor
University of Bologna Engineering Start-up lab* FD Management engineering Optional 6 External contract
University of Bologna (Forlì) Economics Entrepreneurship PG in Management Compulsory 4 Professor
University of Florence Economics Entrepreneurial start-up PG in Firm's governance Compulsory 6 Professor
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia Economics Start-up and development of firms PG in Management and consulting Compulsory 4 Professor
University of Perugia Economics Analysis of business start-up PG in Management of firm’s risks Compulsory 6 n.a.
University of Urbino Economics Entrepreneurship and small firms FD in Management (entrepreneurship and small firms) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Urbino Economics Business start-up FD in Management (entrepreneurship and small firms) Optional 5 External contract
University of Naples Engineering Management of innovation FD in Managerial engineering Optional n.a. Professor
FD =first degree (three year first degree or “Laurea”); PG =post-graduate degree (two year post-graduate degree course or “Laurea specialistica”)
* This is not a real course but a laboratory activity to assist students in developing a business plan
Table 2 – Universities offering a curriculum in entrepreneurship
University Faculty Curriculumtitle Level Students Starting year
Polytechnic University of the Marche Economics Entrepreneurship and management of innovation Master (one year) 15 (degree in management and engineering) 2003
University of Naples II Economics Entrepreneurship and innovation PhD programme (three years) 4 2002
Overall three aspects characterize entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities:
a) they are present almost only in economic and management faculties;
b) their main focus is the start-up of new business;
c) their main aim is to transfer knowledge and competences on the evaluation of new
businesses and on the development of the business plan.
Only two universities offer a specific curriculum in entrepreneurship.
The Polytechnic University of the Marche (Ancona) started a Master’s programme in
“Entrepreneurship and management of innovation” in 2003. It is addressed to students with a
first degree (three year course) in management or engineering. Although within the
curriculum there are some modules that address specific issues associated with
entrepreneurship (management of innovation, business planning), the Master’s is mainly
organized around traditional functional distinctions (strategy, marketing, finance, accounting,
etc.).
The PhD program in Entrepreneurship and innovation at the University of Naples II,
directed by prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, appears to be the only one specifically devoted to the
subject. Unfortunately, from the website it is not possible to have information on the research
programmes being carried out.
The limited presence of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in Italian universities does
not mean that the issue of entrepreneurship is completely neglected in their activities.
Recognising the importance of favouring entrepreneurship, several Italian universities have
started a number of extra-curricular initiatives dedicated to stimulating the start-up of new
firms, especially among students and researchers. The most widespread activity in this area is
the organization of business plan competitions. Within these competitions courses on
business planning are normally offered. In all cases these initiatives and courses continue to
be outside the official university curricula.
4. The concepts and needs for entrepreneurial and managerial education in Italian
firms
Research and investigations on the managerial models prevailing in Italian firms are
generally based on the acknowledgement of the dual nature of the managerial function
(Bower, 1983; Schèon, 1983). The basic idea is that management requires transversal
competences as well as specific competences. The first set of skills is related to the relational
and communication area and in general referred to the emotional and behavioural sphere; the
second group is connected, conversely, to business processes and the technical aspects of
organization, which are more correlated to the rational sphere of human action.
From empirical investigation on entrepreneurs and managers or Italian firms the
following aspects emerge about their vision of entrepreneurial and managerial competences.
- There is often confusion on the specific skills to be required by entrepreneurs and
managers in small and medium sized firms (SMEs).
- Historically, the family entrepreneur used to concentrate on the two distinct sets of
competences: for transversal competences he used to adapt the ruling model of his
family (somewhat paternal or centralised), while for the technical ones he used to
develop them by self-learning and experience. Since increased size compels the
entrepreneur to delegate and move towards a managerial structure (Traù, 1999),
he/she selects managers on the basis of technical knowledge and specific functional
ability. This attitude may be explained by assuming that the owner, especially in
family-owned firms, aims at keeping in his own hands those functions that guarantee
control and centralized power.
- The terms “competence”, “entrepreneurship” and “managerial skills” are often used
in a very broad sense and not clearly outlined in the operative context, while they
can be considered key-concepts for analysis. “Competence” is defined as a
characteristic strictly related to personality (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer,
1993), and consequently must be considered a highly subjective variable influenced
by contextual factors. “Entrepreneurship” is often defined as “organizational skill”,
which means the ability to organize resources, means, people, information and
know-how. “Managerial Skills” is more often a general heading for different (or
slightly different) concepts:
1. organizational and leadership skills;
2. in depth knowledge of specialist and business-specific competences;
3. in depth knowledge and constant capacity to relate to the internal and external
context of the firm.
With a further specification (i.e. the ability to see, foresee and exploit business
opportunities) entrepreneurship can be also associated with the third concept: i.e. “managerial
skills”. In this sense, both entrepreneurship and managerial skills are intended as a set of
“horizontal” competencies transversal to technical and functional ones.
The following issues arise as a result of these different concepts of entrepreneurship:
- the consideration of entrepreneurship as a “subjective” variable makes it hard to
transform it into a standard variable which can be introduced into a formal learning
path or academic course;
- the definition of entrepreneurship in terms of organizational skill leads to the idea
that the demand for entrepreneurial training will be preferably oriented to the
disciplines of socio-organizational theory and business economics, already taught in
academic courses;
- by associating entrepreneurship with the concept of deep knowledge of business-
specific competences it could be said that any formal training would be nonsense if
not extremely specialised and adapted to the business sector of any specific firm.
The latter issue emphasises in-depth rather than basic know-how on the competence
updating and relational and leadership skills. With reference to these, in particular to
leadership, the debate is open as to whether they are teachable or not. Managerial literature
tends to conceive leadership skills as acquired with experience, resulting in the idea that they
are strictly determined by the personal gift of originality of the individual (Rebora, Minelli,
and Turri, 2003). He/she is able to build a personal and autonomous training path
2
. As with
the first consideration listed, even in this case entreprenuership emerges as a important
competence for managing and ruling organizations but inadequate for teaching in a codified
way or on a structured course.
Turning to the empirical evidence from Italian firms we find (Fondirigenti, 2001) that
entrepreneurs and managers, in general, consider knowledge of a set of specific competences
very important. Entrepreneurs who founded their firms show a proper and greater attitude for
the relational skills, while younger entrepreneurs combine relational and rational skills in a
more balanced way. Little importance is given to the competences and capabilities required
by internationalisation.
The model resulting from the survey appears focused on firm-specific and relational
competences rather than on general and rational ones:
SPECIFIC > GENERAL
RATIONAL > RELATIONAL
Moreover, the empirical results point out that specific competences are generally acquired
through direct work experience, while general competences are preferably transferred by
means of professional training. One of the most important practical skills emerging from the
research is the ability to integrate different competences.
2
In addition some recent studies on leadership converge on the opinion that the leader is a life long learner,
endowed with very good relational ability.
As a general result, Italian entrepreneurs appear to be “men of action”, where action is
often more instinctive than analytical and is strongly dedicated to establishing and keeping up
personal relationships, although mediated by the hierarchical structure. It may be observed
that according to these results the demand for general managerial competences is satisfied by
academic courses at graduate level.
At a more advanced level training is obtained through experience, and this is more
appreciated. Entrepreneurs and managers are interested in being acquainted with advanced
managerial training (relational competences) after their entry in the company.
It should be noted that in Italy the supply of professional courses and training activities
specifically aimed at the managerial class is highly developed: public institutions and private
associations offer professional courses for managers and recently Universities have started to
launch academic “Masters” on specific managerial skills (Human Resource Management,
Finance, etc...).
It may therefore be concluded that training on entrepreneurship is considered as an
advanced form of training for professionals.
The results of the empirical research on SMEs deserve a comment apart, given the
importance of SMEs in the Italian economy. These data indicate that the organizational and
managerial aspects of this particular “universe” are worthy of analysis. Evidence from small
Italian firms, most of which are characterized by family ownership, underlines the following
points (Di Tommaso and Dubbini, 2000):
- the founder’s productive competence, culture and values together with socio-
economic variables are significantly important for the firm’s evolution;
- the entrepreneur very often embodies the technical dimension and know-how of the
firm;
- the entrepreneur’s behaviour and decisions are more strongly influenced by social
and cultural factors compared with other firms;
- personal relationships and a paternal attitude play a fundamental role in the company
strategy and policy.
According to a social and political perspective (Bauer, 1997) the SMEs and family
entrepreneurs are greatly discouraged from enhancing entrepreneurship among their
managers as a positive competence for the sake and success of their firm.
The usual paternal style of management is rarely compatible with a high level of
entrepreneurship in their employees. Since entrepreneurship requires a wide range of
autonomy, responsibility and non-hierarchical means of control, the family founder of the
firm may fear the risk of suffering destabilization of the centralised and self- oriented
organizational model, and, therefore, be against it. The founder/entrepreneur considers
him/herself as the only entrepreneur in the firm: any other person with “entrepreneurial”
skills is seen as a competitor. A further reason for the family entrepreneur’s hostile attitude
towards increasing entrepreneurship in his/her company may be the dread of losing perfect
and total control and direction of management of his/her “professionals”.
Moreover some of these founders dislike any policy of company growth when increasing
business carries the risk of losing total control and power over it. Another observation refers
to the fact that the “pater familias” owner of the firm refuses any treatment aimed at
differentiating between his/her workers. The prospect, already mentioned with reference to
corporate entrepreneurship (Thornberry, 2003), “of seeing someone chosen as a corporate
entrepreneur with the potential to run their own businesses and get rewarded accordingly, can
create intense jealousy”. Competition between workers creates greater problems of
management and therefore any firm’s strategy in this direction doesn’t run out.
These considerations justify the low level of interest in entrepreneurial competences seen
as strategic “skills” of the workforce in the interest of the firm.
Individualism and competitive attitudes (being the traditional characteristics of Italian
entrepreneurs) are perhaps the major obstacle to the widespread demand for entrepreneurial
attitudes inside firms, and managers showing entrepreneurial attitudes are seen as potential
competitors, more dangerous than others since they are familiar with the esplicit and tacit
know-how of the firm. Research on SMEs in Italy has also put forward a difference between
the first and the second generation of entrepreneurs. Differently from their “parents”, younger
family members are endowed with a more balanced set of competences (relational and
rational). In any case, the family exercises a sort of protective behaviour over its members
and over their training, by favouring the development of specific and specialistic
competences (through experience) but at the same time transferring its “low-risk” attitude to
international and global markets. Finally, a particular stereotype of the entrepreneur must be
mentioned because it is common in Italian economic literature and culture, i.e. the “firm’s
captain”. This idealised figure is more appreciated for romantic unicity, courage and original
attitude to the economic business than for managerial skills and, to misquote Wilde, it may be
added that unicity, courage and originality more closely resemble divine gifts than scientific
competences which can be learned.
4. Conclusion
The analysis of entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities, and its comparison to the
entrepreneurial and managerial model prevailing in SMEs, raises two main issues:
a) the role of education as opposed to training;
b) the adequacy of university courses to address the long-term needs of the economic
system and the changes in entrepreneurial and managerial models.
With regard to point a) the large number of courses addressing business plan development
seems too short-term oriented: i.e. stimulating the start up of firms. As such, the courses seem
more oriented to training rather than education. For this reason they overlap with the
proliferating private and public initiatives dedicated to entrepreneurship training, that
typically focus on business planning skills.
Rather than developing specific skills for business start-up, entrepreneurship education in
universities, especially at first degree level, should pursue the following objectives:
a) to enhance knowledge about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and its role in the
economic system and on society as a whole;
b) to favour a positive attitude to entrepreneurship and, in turn, to promote
entrepreneurship as a useful and respectable career prospect for graduates
(Kolvereid and Moen, 1997);
c) to develop those competences, like relational and leadership competences, that can
contribute to the development of entrepreneurship.
Specifically, by referring to J ohannisson’s taxonomy (1991), educational programmes on
entrepreneurship should aim at developing the following levels of learning:
- entrepreneurial attitudes, values and motivations;
- ability to develop networks and relational skills in general;
- creativeness and intuition;
- knowledge of institutional facts about entrepreneurship.
In a more general perspective entrepreneurship education should help students increase
their “entrepreneurship awareness” and enlarge their perception and vision of social and
institutional facts. At a more advanced level (Master and postgraduate courses) students can
acquire the technical abilities (use and scope) for the evaluation of new business
opportunities and for new venture creation.
At present only a few courses reflect these contents and aims.
Besides creating a more clear-cut distinction between education and training,
entrepreneurship education should be aware of the long-term needs of the economic system
(point b). Recent surveys have demonstrated that Italian entrepreneurship is characterized by
the following weaknesses (Minniti, 1999):
a) although the start-up rate is among the highest in Europe, new businesses are
concentrated in traditional sectors while there are too few start-ups in high-tech sectors;
b) after start-up firms tend to remain small, rather than pursuing rapid grow. This is also
the result of the pervasive family ownership and control in small firms.
One of the ways to stimulate start-up in high-tech sectors could be the spread of
entrepreneurship courses in engineering and science faculties. Even in this case they should
not exclusively be focused on business plan development (entrepreneurship skills) but rather
on enhancing entrepreneurship attitudes and awareness among students. The aim of
stimulating start-up in high-tech sectors could be better fulfilled by postgraduate training
programmes and structures, which can be addressed to more specific targets and be focused
on more specific fields.
Nevertheless we are convinced that entrepreneurship education should be primarily
addressed to change the entrepreneurial attitudes and cultures in Italian small firms, given
that the main aim is to favour growth and innovation.
At the moment evidence from entrepreneurship courses reveals that they fail to develop
transversal competences (relational competences) while focusing on technical skills. One of
the transversal competences which should be largely developed to solve the problem of the
“dimensional trap” of small Italian firms is the psychological attitude toward innovation and
growth.
The entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities seem more oriented to stimulate self-
employment by students rather than to propose a social and economic role for the
entrepreneur. A modification in the latter direction will be helpful in two ways: a) it would
contribute to the long-term change in the cultural attitude of entrepreneurs; b) it could
develop a pro-active attitude of managers and employees within existing firms.
A further reason for the scarce presence of entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities
and for their orientation towards self-employment could be related to fact that
entrepreneurship is not considered as a learnable skill but rather as a personality trait, and
therefore impossible to transfer by teaching.
Empirical research shows that managerial competences (not associated with functional
skills) are acquired through experience, where informal mechanisms, long-term relationships
and firm-specific competences prevail. In this context entrepreneurship education, and
managerial education as well, should be focused on psychological, behavioural and relational
competences oriented to growth and innovation rather than self-employment and start-up.
5. References
Acs, Z. J ., Carlsson, B., and Karlsson, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises and the Macroeconomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Audretsch, D. B., and Thurik, A. R. (1999). "La nuova organizzazione industriale. Dalla
economia gestita all'economia imprenditoriale." L'industria, XX(4), pp. 637-656.
Bauer, M. (1997). Tra impresa e famiglia. Trasmissione e successione nelle piccole e medie
imprese, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Roma.
Beranger, J ., Chabbal, R., and Dambrine, F. (1998). Report concerning entrepreneurial
training of engineers, Ministère de l'Economie, Finance et Industrie, Paris.
Bower, J . L. (1983). The two faces of management : an American approach to leadership in
business and politics, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager : a model for effective performance, Wiley,
New York.
Carter, S., and Collinson, E. (1999). "Entrepreneurship education: Alumni perceptions of the
role of higher education institutions." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 6(3), pp. 229-239.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Creating an entrepreneurial Europe. The
activities of the European Union for small nad medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Bruxelles, EU.
Dana, L. P. (2001). "The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia." Education and
Training, 43(8/9), pp. 405-415.
Department of Trade and Industry. (1998). Our Competitive Future: Building the knowledge
driven economy, The Stationery Office. Command Paper 4176, London.
Di Tommaso, M. R., and Dubbini, S. (2000). Towards a theory of the small firm: theoretical
aspects and some policy implications.Unpublished manuscript, Santiago (Chile).
Fondirigenti. (2001). Indagine nazionale sui dirigenti delle aziende industriali e dei
servizi.Unpublished manuscript, Rome.
Frank, H., and Landstrom, H. (1997). "Entrepreneurship and small businesses in Europe -
economic background and academic infrastructure." In H. Landstrom, H. Franck and
J . M. Veciana (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in Europe (pp.
1-13). Aldershot: Avebury.
Galloway, L., and Brown, W. (2002). "Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in
the creation of high growth firms?" Education and Training, 44(8/9), pp. 398-405.
Ibrahim, A. B., and Soufani, K. (2002). "Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada:
a critical assessment." Education and Training, 44(8/9), pp. 421-430.
J ohannisson, B. (1991). "University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach."
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(1).
Katz, J . A. (2003). "The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876–1999." Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), pp. 283-300.
Katz, J . A., and Green, R. P. (1996). "Academic Resources for Entrepreneurship Education."
Simulation and Gaming, 27(3), pp. 365-374.
Kolvereid, L., and Moen, O. (1997). "Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a
major in entrepreneurship make a difference?" Journal of European Industrial
Training, 21(4/5), pp. 154-160.
Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrepreneuship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the
21st century, Coleman Foundation White Paper Series.
Li, J ., Zhang, Y., and Matlay, H. (2003). "Entrepreneurship education in China." Education
and Training, 45(8/9), pp. 495-505.
Minniti, M. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. National Entrepreneurship
Assessment: Italy.
1999 Executive Report.Unpublished manuscript, Babson College, Babson Park (MA).
Mitra, J ., and Matlay, H. (2004). "Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training:
lessons from Eastern and Central Europe." Industry and Higher Education, 18(1), pp.
53-62.
OECD. (2001). Drivers of growth: information technology, innovation and entrepreneurship
(Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Special edition). Paris, OECD.
Rebora, G., Minelli, E., and Turri, M. (2003). Profili di management e leadership nelle
aziende italiane.Unpublished manuscript.
Schèon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action, Basic
Books, New York.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., and Tarabishy, A. (2002). "The State of Entrepreneurship
Education in the United States: a Nationwide Survey and Analysis." International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), pp. 1-22.
Spencer, L. M., and Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work : models for superior
performance, Wiley, New York.
Thornberry, N. E. (2003). "Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be
entrepreneurs." Journal of Management Development, 22(4), pp. 329-344.
Traù, F., (a, cura, di). (1999). ""La ""questione dimensionale"" nell'industria italiana "."
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2001). "The Focus of Entrepreneurial
Research: Contextual and Process Issues." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
25(4), pp. 57-80.
Vesper, K. H. (1982). "Research on education for entrepreneurship." In S. D. L. Kent C.A.,
Vesper K.H. (ed.s) (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ :
Prentice-Hall.
Vesper, K. H., and Gartner, W. B. (1997). "Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship
Education." Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), pp. 403-421.
Wennekers, S., and Thurik, R. (1999). "Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth."
Small Business Economics, 13, pp. 27-55.
doc_921624624.pdf
In this brief illustration related to the development of entrepreneurial competences entrepreneurship education in italian.
The development of entrepreneurial competences:
entrepreneurship education in Italian universities and firms’
organizational models
Sabrina Dubbini
a
, Donato Iacobucci
b
Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Summary
The aim of the paper is to provide a preliminary analysis of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in
Italian universities and to compare them with the demand for entrepreneurial and managerial
competences in Italian firms. The analysis is based on a census of entrepreneurship courses and
curricula presently run by Italian universities. Entrepreneurship education in Italian universities is in its
infancy. Only a few universities have courses dedicated to entrepreneurship and the majority of them
deal with the development of the business plan. Courses and curricula are within business faculties
while very few exist in engineering faculties. This situation contrasts with the need for
entrepreneurship education in the Italian economy. On the one hand we need to stimulate start-up in
high-tech sectors; this requires the development of entrepreneurship courses in engineering curricula.
On the other hand we need to favour the growth process of small firms; this requires people who are
able to play an entrepreneurial role in existing firms. In both cases education should stress the
acquisition of competences rather than specific entrepreneurial skills.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, university courses, intrapreneurship, entrepreneurial
competences
1. Introduction
The economic and institutional transformations experienced by the main industrialised
countries during the last few decades have led to a re-evaluation of the entrepreneur’s
fundamental role in economic development.
There are several theories on entrepreneurship and on its role within the economy
(Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). Recent entrepreneurship literature has expanded the scope of
entrepreneurial studies; nevertheless they remain focused on two main issues: opportunity
recognition and new venture creation (Ucbasaran, Westhead, and Wright, 2001). Despite the
differences in definitions and theoretical models, the widespread feeling among researchers
and politicians is that entrepreneurship will play an increasing role in the development and
adaptation of economic systems at local and national level. Recent documents by the EU and
OECD have emphasized the importance of entrepreneurship for the development prospects of
a
S. Dubbini, Researcher at Department of Social Siences – Faculty of Economics, Università Politecnica
delle Marche - Piazza Martelli, 8, I-60121 Ancona (Italy); email: [email protected]
b
D. Iacobucci, Researcher, DIIGA, Faculty of Engineering, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via
Brecce Bianche, Monte Dago, I-60131 Ancona (Italy), Fax: +39 071 2204474; email: [email protected]
(corresponding author)
The research received financial support from the LabSel project (Leonardo). We thank Paolo Ferraro for
helping us to collect data about entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities.
their member countries (Commission of the European Communities, 2001; OECD, 2001).
Moreover, some researchers are convinced that the greater entrepreneurial “vitality” is one of
the factors explaining the superior performance of the USA economy in generating
innovation and employment when compared with that of European countries (Acs, Carlsson,
and Karlsson, 1999). It is a popular opinion that the recent changes in demand and
technology within the main industrialised countries have determined the transformation from
the “regulated” economy of the fifties and sixties, dominated by managerial firms to the
“entrepreneurial” economy of the eighties and nineties, dominated by small firms (Audretsch
and Thurik, 1999). Since the end of the seventies there has also been a shift in attitudes
towards the entrepreneurial role in society: “Connotation of the term ‘entrepreneur’ began to
shift from notions of greed, exploitation, selfishness, and disloyalty to creativity, job creation,
profitability, innovativeness, and generosity” (Vesper and Gartner, 1997).
As a result of these changes during the last 25 years there has been an explosion of
interest in the USA for the entrepreneurship field, that has resulted in the institution of
courses, research centres and degrees at several levels (undergraduate and graduate). The
spread of entrepreneurial courses and the institutionalisation of the field have also promoted
the creation of research centres, academic journals and associations. Most European countries
have followed the same trend, although with some delay. Courses about entrepreneurship
have grown steadily in all the main countries. Moreover, an increase in the presence of
entrepreneurial courses in university curricula has been advocated by several academic and
governmental studies (Beranger, Chabbal, and Dambrine, 1998; Department of Trade and
Industry, 1998).
In this context the Italian situation is rather “anomalous”, both with regard to research and
teaching activity. Until a few years ago there were no courses of entrepreneurship in Italian
universities or permanent positions in this field. In a comparison made in 1996 regarding the
chairs in entrepreneurship in the main European countries, Italy appeared with the number 0,
together with Denmark and Hungary, far from the first ones in the list: UK with more than 12
chairs, France and Finland with 11 (Frank and Landstrom, 1997). Moreover, while in quite all
the European counties the development of entrepreneurial courses has continued to growth in
the second half of the nineties, the Italian situation remained practically unchanged.
Nor is the situation different when we examine research rather than teaching. At present
there is only one research centre dedicated to the field (at the Bocconi University in Milan)
1
.
Apart from this centre, research in this field is carried out by individual researchers in a non-
systematic way. This is in marked contrast with the large number of studies by Italian
researchers on small firms and, specifically, on industrial districts. Although within these
studies some attention has also been paid to the phenomenon of firm start-up, the theme of
entrepreneurship has remained a marginal one. Indicators of this situation are the following:
1
Another has just been set up at the University of Castellanza (Varese).
a) the absence of specialised journals dedicated to the field of entrepreneurship; b) the
marginal presence of Italian scholars on the editorial boards of the main international journals
in the field; c) the scanty presence of articles by Italian researchers in the main
entrepreneurship journals.
Given this situation the aims of the paper are the following: a) to review the presence and
characteristics of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in Italian universities; b) to discuss
whether these courses and curricula match the need for entrepreneurial education in Italy. The
analysis seems particularly interesting, given the fact that since 2001 the Italian university
system has experienced a complete reorganization of students’ curricula.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on the presence of
entrepreneurial education at international level. Section 3 reports an empirical survey about
entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities. Section 4 discusses the features and needs for
entrepreneurship and management education in Italian firms. Section 5 draws the main
conclusions.
2. Trends in entrepreneurship education
One of the first reviews of entrepreneurial courses in the USA, made at the end of the
seventies, indicated that curricula with one or more entrepreneurial courses were around 130,
more than ten times the 1967 figure (Vesper, 1982). They were concentrated in the schools of
business and engineering. During the eighties and the nineties curricula with entrepreneurial
courses increased steadily: 250 in 1985, 370 in 1992, around 400 in 1995. At this final date
there were around 50 universities in the USA which offered 4 or more courses in
entrepreneurship, which allowed students to obtain degrees or to major in this field (Vesper
and Gartner, 1997). In 1997 there were 160 permanent chairs in the USA in the field of
entrepreneurship, an indication of the fact that it has emerged as a discipline on its own right.
This is also testified by the creation of research centres, academic associations and academic
journals dedicated to the field.
It has been stated that in the USA at the end of the nineties there was a “complete
educational infrastructure, consisting of more than 300 endowed positions, more than 100
centres, more than 40 refereed academic journals and more than a dozen professional
organizations” (Katz, 2003). The author believes that the “entrepreneurship education
industry” has entered its mature stage in business schools, while there is still scope for growth
in schools of engineering, agriculture and science. Other authors disagree with this
conclusion and feel that there is still scope for expansion even in American business schools
(Kuratko, 2003). Whatever the opinion about the “life cycle” state of entrepreneurship
education in the USA, researchers agree on the fact that it is still a growing field. Moreover,
they agree that the pace of development in the next few years will be higher in countries
outside the USA where entrepreneurship education started later.
Compared with the abundance of studies and research on the problems of
entrepreneurship education in the USA (Katz and Green, 1996; Vesper and Gartner, 1997;
Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002) there are only a few works dealing with the subject
outside the USA. This reflects the delay with which entrepreneurship education has
developed outside the USA and the fact that in no other country (with the possible exception
of Canada and the UK) it has reached a degree of development comparable to that observed
in the USA.
Citing previous surveys on the topic, Ibrahim and Soufani (2002) note that at the end of
the nineties there were 53 Canadian universities offering courses in entrepreneurship and
small business management. These surveys reveal that Canadian entrepreneurship courses
tend to focus more on the pre-venture creation process and less on management of established
small businesses. According to the authors, another weakness is the insufficient spread of
entrepreneurship courses in engineering schools, given the roles young engineers could play
in developing new technology firms.
Outside North America, the UK is probably the country that has the highest number of
courses and programmes dedicated to entrepreneurship education. The relevance attached to
the issue is documented by the studies addressing the effectiveness of entrepreneurship
courses and curricula (Carter and Collinson, 1999; Galloway and Brown, 2002).
Entrepreneurship courses and programmes are also present in most north European countries:
Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Ireland, etc. Some universities in these countries host
worldwide recognised entrepreneurship research centres and also PhD programmes in
entrepreneurship (like Vaxio and J ohn Hopkins in Sweden).
Interest in entrepreneurship education has increased considerably also among transitional
economies of East European (Mitra and Matlay, 2004) and Asian countries (Dana, 2001). In
general the design of business school curricula in these countries has followed the traditional
model, based on functional expertise (strategy, human resource management, marketing,
finance, etc.). Nevertheless, courses about entrepreneurship, new venture creation and
business planning have become more and more common in undergraduate and Master’s
curricula. China is a particularly interesting case given the exceptional growth rate of its
private sector in the last decade. It was not until the middle of the nineties that MBA courses
were introduced in Chinese universities. According to recent surveys there are 56 business
schools in China that run accredited MBA programmes (Li, Zhang, and Matlay, 2003). Like
MBA programmes in other countries, also in China courses tend to focus on functional skills.
Nevertheless, a recent survey conducted on 26 top business schools found that six of them
offered business venturing programmes and five more focused on entrepreneurship modules
(Li et al., 2003).
To assess the presence and characteristics of entrepreneurship education in Italian
universities we conducted a survey of courses and curricula on entrepreneurship presently
run. The survey is based mainly on data and information collected through Internet. In some
cases the Internet survey was supplemented by direct collection of material about the courses.
The Internet source is appropriate for the aim of the study as almost all Italian universities
supply information on their curricula and courses through Internet. Almost all of them give
information about the titles of courses on their website and most of them also supply detailed
information about the content of the courses. The information collected and analyzed refers to
the academic year 2003-2004.
3. Entrepreneurship education in Italian universities
As in other surveys about entrepreneurship courses, one of the problems is to separate
courses and curricula specifically devoted to entrepreneurship from those referring, more
generally, to small business or innovation. In the analysis we included only those courses
specifically referring to entrepreneurship (we then excluded courses about small business
management and courses about the economics of innovation). In some cases we retained
courses on the management of innovation because their content refers to entrepreneurship.
Looking at the contents of the courses, most of them are dedicated to the various aspects
of start-up: how to develop the business plan and how to raise finance. Two courses are
dedicated to the management of innovation in existing firms, with specific emphasis on the
development of new ventures. Only three courses deal with the general aspects of
entrepreneurship, from its role in the economy to the specificity of entrepreneurship as
opposed to management. Moreover, even these courses devote a significant amount of time to
business planning.
Only a few universities in Italy offer entrepreneurship courses. They are the universities
in which there are researchers interested in the field. Most of them (Bologna, Ancona,
Urbino, Modena and Reggio Emilia) are located in the so called “third Italy”, the part of Italy
dominated by the presence of small firms. The only university located in the south is the
University of Naples with a course on the management of innovation within the engineering
faculty. The only universities offering more than one course are Bologna and Urbino. This is
because these universities have curricula specifically dedicated to entrepreneurship or
innovation. In the case of Bologna it is a two year post-graduate course in management with a
curriculum called “Firm and innovation”. In the case of Urbino there is a specific curriculum
within a three year first degree called “Entrepreneurship and small firms”. In all other cases
courses are within curricula in general management.
Table 1 shows the list of entrepreneurship courses presently run in Italian universities.
Given the limited number of courses no statistics elaborations have been done, but only a
qualitative analysis of their content and of their position within the curriculum.
Table 1 – Italian Universities offering entrepreneurship courses
University Faculty Course title Curriculum Access Credits Tenure
Bocconi University Economics Business planning Several FD and PG curricula Optional 6 Professor
LIUC - Castellanza Free University Economics Entrepreneurship development FD in Management Optional 5 Professor
Polytechnic University of the Marche Economics Entrepreneurial dynamics and business projects PG in Management Compulsory 10 Professor
University of Bologna Economics Business plan PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Start-up and small firmmanagement PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Private equity and venture capital PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Bologna Economics Management of innovation PG in Management (firmand innovation) Compulsory 5 Professor
University of Bologna Engineering Start-up lab* FD Management engineering Optional 6 External contract
University of Bologna (Forlì) Economics Entrepreneurship PG in Management Compulsory 4 Professor
University of Florence Economics Entrepreneurial start-up PG in Firm's governance Compulsory 6 Professor
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia Economics Start-up and development of firms PG in Management and consulting Compulsory 4 Professor
University of Perugia Economics Analysis of business start-up PG in Management of firm’s risks Compulsory 6 n.a.
University of Urbino Economics Entrepreneurship and small firms FD in Management (entrepreneurship and small firms) Compulsory 5 External contract
University of Urbino Economics Business start-up FD in Management (entrepreneurship and small firms) Optional 5 External contract
University of Naples Engineering Management of innovation FD in Managerial engineering Optional n.a. Professor
FD =first degree (three year first degree or “Laurea”); PG =post-graduate degree (two year post-graduate degree course or “Laurea specialistica”)
* This is not a real course but a laboratory activity to assist students in developing a business plan
Table 2 – Universities offering a curriculum in entrepreneurship
University Faculty Curriculumtitle Level Students Starting year
Polytechnic University of the Marche Economics Entrepreneurship and management of innovation Master (one year) 15 (degree in management and engineering) 2003
University of Naples II Economics Entrepreneurship and innovation PhD programme (three years) 4 2002
Overall three aspects characterize entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities:
a) they are present almost only in economic and management faculties;
b) their main focus is the start-up of new business;
c) their main aim is to transfer knowledge and competences on the evaluation of new
businesses and on the development of the business plan.
Only two universities offer a specific curriculum in entrepreneurship.
The Polytechnic University of the Marche (Ancona) started a Master’s programme in
“Entrepreneurship and management of innovation” in 2003. It is addressed to students with a
first degree (three year course) in management or engineering. Although within the
curriculum there are some modules that address specific issues associated with
entrepreneurship (management of innovation, business planning), the Master’s is mainly
organized around traditional functional distinctions (strategy, marketing, finance, accounting,
etc.).
The PhD program in Entrepreneurship and innovation at the University of Naples II,
directed by prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, appears to be the only one specifically devoted to the
subject. Unfortunately, from the website it is not possible to have information on the research
programmes being carried out.
The limited presence of entrepreneurship courses and curricula in Italian universities does
not mean that the issue of entrepreneurship is completely neglected in their activities.
Recognising the importance of favouring entrepreneurship, several Italian universities have
started a number of extra-curricular initiatives dedicated to stimulating the start-up of new
firms, especially among students and researchers. The most widespread activity in this area is
the organization of business plan competitions. Within these competitions courses on
business planning are normally offered. In all cases these initiatives and courses continue to
be outside the official university curricula.
4. The concepts and needs for entrepreneurial and managerial education in Italian
firms
Research and investigations on the managerial models prevailing in Italian firms are
generally based on the acknowledgement of the dual nature of the managerial function
(Bower, 1983; Schèon, 1983). The basic idea is that management requires transversal
competences as well as specific competences. The first set of skills is related to the relational
and communication area and in general referred to the emotional and behavioural sphere; the
second group is connected, conversely, to business processes and the technical aspects of
organization, which are more correlated to the rational sphere of human action.
From empirical investigation on entrepreneurs and managers or Italian firms the
following aspects emerge about their vision of entrepreneurial and managerial competences.
- There is often confusion on the specific skills to be required by entrepreneurs and
managers in small and medium sized firms (SMEs).
- Historically, the family entrepreneur used to concentrate on the two distinct sets of
competences: for transversal competences he used to adapt the ruling model of his
family (somewhat paternal or centralised), while for the technical ones he used to
develop them by self-learning and experience. Since increased size compels the
entrepreneur to delegate and move towards a managerial structure (Traù, 1999),
he/she selects managers on the basis of technical knowledge and specific functional
ability. This attitude may be explained by assuming that the owner, especially in
family-owned firms, aims at keeping in his own hands those functions that guarantee
control and centralized power.
- The terms “competence”, “entrepreneurship” and “managerial skills” are often used
in a very broad sense and not clearly outlined in the operative context, while they
can be considered key-concepts for analysis. “Competence” is defined as a
characteristic strictly related to personality (Boyatzis, 1982; Spencer and Spencer,
1993), and consequently must be considered a highly subjective variable influenced
by contextual factors. “Entrepreneurship” is often defined as “organizational skill”,
which means the ability to organize resources, means, people, information and
know-how. “Managerial Skills” is more often a general heading for different (or
slightly different) concepts:
1. organizational and leadership skills;
2. in depth knowledge of specialist and business-specific competences;
3. in depth knowledge and constant capacity to relate to the internal and external
context of the firm.
With a further specification (i.e. the ability to see, foresee and exploit business
opportunities) entrepreneurship can be also associated with the third concept: i.e. “managerial
skills”. In this sense, both entrepreneurship and managerial skills are intended as a set of
“horizontal” competencies transversal to technical and functional ones.
The following issues arise as a result of these different concepts of entrepreneurship:
- the consideration of entrepreneurship as a “subjective” variable makes it hard to
transform it into a standard variable which can be introduced into a formal learning
path or academic course;
- the definition of entrepreneurship in terms of organizational skill leads to the idea
that the demand for entrepreneurial training will be preferably oriented to the
disciplines of socio-organizational theory and business economics, already taught in
academic courses;
- by associating entrepreneurship with the concept of deep knowledge of business-
specific competences it could be said that any formal training would be nonsense if
not extremely specialised and adapted to the business sector of any specific firm.
The latter issue emphasises in-depth rather than basic know-how on the competence
updating and relational and leadership skills. With reference to these, in particular to
leadership, the debate is open as to whether they are teachable or not. Managerial literature
tends to conceive leadership skills as acquired with experience, resulting in the idea that they
are strictly determined by the personal gift of originality of the individual (Rebora, Minelli,
and Turri, 2003). He/she is able to build a personal and autonomous training path
2
. As with
the first consideration listed, even in this case entreprenuership emerges as a important
competence for managing and ruling organizations but inadequate for teaching in a codified
way or on a structured course.
Turning to the empirical evidence from Italian firms we find (Fondirigenti, 2001) that
entrepreneurs and managers, in general, consider knowledge of a set of specific competences
very important. Entrepreneurs who founded their firms show a proper and greater attitude for
the relational skills, while younger entrepreneurs combine relational and rational skills in a
more balanced way. Little importance is given to the competences and capabilities required
by internationalisation.
The model resulting from the survey appears focused on firm-specific and relational
competences rather than on general and rational ones:
SPECIFIC > GENERAL
RATIONAL > RELATIONAL
Moreover, the empirical results point out that specific competences are generally acquired
through direct work experience, while general competences are preferably transferred by
means of professional training. One of the most important practical skills emerging from the
research is the ability to integrate different competences.
2
In addition some recent studies on leadership converge on the opinion that the leader is a life long learner,
endowed with very good relational ability.
As a general result, Italian entrepreneurs appear to be “men of action”, where action is
often more instinctive than analytical and is strongly dedicated to establishing and keeping up
personal relationships, although mediated by the hierarchical structure. It may be observed
that according to these results the demand for general managerial competences is satisfied by
academic courses at graduate level.
At a more advanced level training is obtained through experience, and this is more
appreciated. Entrepreneurs and managers are interested in being acquainted with advanced
managerial training (relational competences) after their entry in the company.
It should be noted that in Italy the supply of professional courses and training activities
specifically aimed at the managerial class is highly developed: public institutions and private
associations offer professional courses for managers and recently Universities have started to
launch academic “Masters” on specific managerial skills (Human Resource Management,
Finance, etc...).
It may therefore be concluded that training on entrepreneurship is considered as an
advanced form of training for professionals.
The results of the empirical research on SMEs deserve a comment apart, given the
importance of SMEs in the Italian economy. These data indicate that the organizational and
managerial aspects of this particular “universe” are worthy of analysis. Evidence from small
Italian firms, most of which are characterized by family ownership, underlines the following
points (Di Tommaso and Dubbini, 2000):
- the founder’s productive competence, culture and values together with socio-
economic variables are significantly important for the firm’s evolution;
- the entrepreneur very often embodies the technical dimension and know-how of the
firm;
- the entrepreneur’s behaviour and decisions are more strongly influenced by social
and cultural factors compared with other firms;
- personal relationships and a paternal attitude play a fundamental role in the company
strategy and policy.
According to a social and political perspective (Bauer, 1997) the SMEs and family
entrepreneurs are greatly discouraged from enhancing entrepreneurship among their
managers as a positive competence for the sake and success of their firm.
The usual paternal style of management is rarely compatible with a high level of
entrepreneurship in their employees. Since entrepreneurship requires a wide range of
autonomy, responsibility and non-hierarchical means of control, the family founder of the
firm may fear the risk of suffering destabilization of the centralised and self- oriented
organizational model, and, therefore, be against it. The founder/entrepreneur considers
him/herself as the only entrepreneur in the firm: any other person with “entrepreneurial”
skills is seen as a competitor. A further reason for the family entrepreneur’s hostile attitude
towards increasing entrepreneurship in his/her company may be the dread of losing perfect
and total control and direction of management of his/her “professionals”.
Moreover some of these founders dislike any policy of company growth when increasing
business carries the risk of losing total control and power over it. Another observation refers
to the fact that the “pater familias” owner of the firm refuses any treatment aimed at
differentiating between his/her workers. The prospect, already mentioned with reference to
corporate entrepreneurship (Thornberry, 2003), “of seeing someone chosen as a corporate
entrepreneur with the potential to run their own businesses and get rewarded accordingly, can
create intense jealousy”. Competition between workers creates greater problems of
management and therefore any firm’s strategy in this direction doesn’t run out.
These considerations justify the low level of interest in entrepreneurial competences seen
as strategic “skills” of the workforce in the interest of the firm.
Individualism and competitive attitudes (being the traditional characteristics of Italian
entrepreneurs) are perhaps the major obstacle to the widespread demand for entrepreneurial
attitudes inside firms, and managers showing entrepreneurial attitudes are seen as potential
competitors, more dangerous than others since they are familiar with the esplicit and tacit
know-how of the firm. Research on SMEs in Italy has also put forward a difference between
the first and the second generation of entrepreneurs. Differently from their “parents”, younger
family members are endowed with a more balanced set of competences (relational and
rational). In any case, the family exercises a sort of protective behaviour over its members
and over their training, by favouring the development of specific and specialistic
competences (through experience) but at the same time transferring its “low-risk” attitude to
international and global markets. Finally, a particular stereotype of the entrepreneur must be
mentioned because it is common in Italian economic literature and culture, i.e. the “firm’s
captain”. This idealised figure is more appreciated for romantic unicity, courage and original
attitude to the economic business than for managerial skills and, to misquote Wilde, it may be
added that unicity, courage and originality more closely resemble divine gifts than scientific
competences which can be learned.
4. Conclusion
The analysis of entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities, and its comparison to the
entrepreneurial and managerial model prevailing in SMEs, raises two main issues:
a) the role of education as opposed to training;
b) the adequacy of university courses to address the long-term needs of the economic
system and the changes in entrepreneurial and managerial models.
With regard to point a) the large number of courses addressing business plan development
seems too short-term oriented: i.e. stimulating the start up of firms. As such, the courses seem
more oriented to training rather than education. For this reason they overlap with the
proliferating private and public initiatives dedicated to entrepreneurship training, that
typically focus on business planning skills.
Rather than developing specific skills for business start-up, entrepreneurship education in
universities, especially at first degree level, should pursue the following objectives:
a) to enhance knowledge about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and its role in the
economic system and on society as a whole;
b) to favour a positive attitude to entrepreneurship and, in turn, to promote
entrepreneurship as a useful and respectable career prospect for graduates
(Kolvereid and Moen, 1997);
c) to develop those competences, like relational and leadership competences, that can
contribute to the development of entrepreneurship.
Specifically, by referring to J ohannisson’s taxonomy (1991), educational programmes on
entrepreneurship should aim at developing the following levels of learning:
- entrepreneurial attitudes, values and motivations;
- ability to develop networks and relational skills in general;
- creativeness and intuition;
- knowledge of institutional facts about entrepreneurship.
In a more general perspective entrepreneurship education should help students increase
their “entrepreneurship awareness” and enlarge their perception and vision of social and
institutional facts. At a more advanced level (Master and postgraduate courses) students can
acquire the technical abilities (use and scope) for the evaluation of new business
opportunities and for new venture creation.
At present only a few courses reflect these contents and aims.
Besides creating a more clear-cut distinction between education and training,
entrepreneurship education should be aware of the long-term needs of the economic system
(point b). Recent surveys have demonstrated that Italian entrepreneurship is characterized by
the following weaknesses (Minniti, 1999):
a) although the start-up rate is among the highest in Europe, new businesses are
concentrated in traditional sectors while there are too few start-ups in high-tech sectors;
b) after start-up firms tend to remain small, rather than pursuing rapid grow. This is also
the result of the pervasive family ownership and control in small firms.
One of the ways to stimulate start-up in high-tech sectors could be the spread of
entrepreneurship courses in engineering and science faculties. Even in this case they should
not exclusively be focused on business plan development (entrepreneurship skills) but rather
on enhancing entrepreneurship attitudes and awareness among students. The aim of
stimulating start-up in high-tech sectors could be better fulfilled by postgraduate training
programmes and structures, which can be addressed to more specific targets and be focused
on more specific fields.
Nevertheless we are convinced that entrepreneurship education should be primarily
addressed to change the entrepreneurial attitudes and cultures in Italian small firms, given
that the main aim is to favour growth and innovation.
At the moment evidence from entrepreneurship courses reveals that they fail to develop
transversal competences (relational competences) while focusing on technical skills. One of
the transversal competences which should be largely developed to solve the problem of the
“dimensional trap” of small Italian firms is the psychological attitude toward innovation and
growth.
The entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities seem more oriented to stimulate self-
employment by students rather than to propose a social and economic role for the
entrepreneur. A modification in the latter direction will be helpful in two ways: a) it would
contribute to the long-term change in the cultural attitude of entrepreneurs; b) it could
develop a pro-active attitude of managers and employees within existing firms.
A further reason for the scarce presence of entrepreneurship courses in Italian universities
and for their orientation towards self-employment could be related to fact that
entrepreneurship is not considered as a learnable skill but rather as a personality trait, and
therefore impossible to transfer by teaching.
Empirical research shows that managerial competences (not associated with functional
skills) are acquired through experience, where informal mechanisms, long-term relationships
and firm-specific competences prevail. In this context entrepreneurship education, and
managerial education as well, should be focused on psychological, behavioural and relational
competences oriented to growth and innovation rather than self-employment and start-up.
5. References
Acs, Z. J ., Carlsson, B., and Karlsson, C. (1999). Entrepreneurship, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises and the Macroeconomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Audretsch, D. B., and Thurik, A. R. (1999). "La nuova organizzazione industriale. Dalla
economia gestita all'economia imprenditoriale." L'industria, XX(4), pp. 637-656.
Bauer, M. (1997). Tra impresa e famiglia. Trasmissione e successione nelle piccole e medie
imprese, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Roma.
Beranger, J ., Chabbal, R., and Dambrine, F. (1998). Report concerning entrepreneurial
training of engineers, Ministère de l'Economie, Finance et Industrie, Paris.
Bower, J . L. (1983). The two faces of management : an American approach to leadership in
business and politics, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager : a model for effective performance, Wiley,
New York.
Carter, S., and Collinson, E. (1999). "Entrepreneurship education: Alumni perceptions of the
role of higher education institutions." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 6(3), pp. 229-239.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Creating an entrepreneurial Europe. The
activities of the European Union for small nad medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Bruxelles, EU.
Dana, L. P. (2001). "The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia." Education and
Training, 43(8/9), pp. 405-415.
Department of Trade and Industry. (1998). Our Competitive Future: Building the knowledge
driven economy, The Stationery Office. Command Paper 4176, London.
Di Tommaso, M. R., and Dubbini, S. (2000). Towards a theory of the small firm: theoretical
aspects and some policy implications.Unpublished manuscript, Santiago (Chile).
Fondirigenti. (2001). Indagine nazionale sui dirigenti delle aziende industriali e dei
servizi.Unpublished manuscript, Rome.
Frank, H., and Landstrom, H. (1997). "Entrepreneurship and small businesses in Europe -
economic background and academic infrastructure." In H. Landstrom, H. Franck and
J . M. Veciana (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in Europe (pp.
1-13). Aldershot: Avebury.
Galloway, L., and Brown, W. (2002). "Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in
the creation of high growth firms?" Education and Training, 44(8/9), pp. 398-405.
Ibrahim, A. B., and Soufani, K. (2002). "Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada:
a critical assessment." Education and Training, 44(8/9), pp. 421-430.
J ohannisson, B. (1991). "University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach."
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 3(1).
Katz, J . A. (2003). "The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876–1999." Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), pp. 283-300.
Katz, J . A., and Green, R. P. (1996). "Academic Resources for Entrepreneurship Education."
Simulation and Gaming, 27(3), pp. 365-374.
Kolvereid, L., and Moen, O. (1997). "Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a
major in entrepreneurship make a difference?" Journal of European Industrial
Training, 21(4/5), pp. 154-160.
Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrepreneuship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the
21st century, Coleman Foundation White Paper Series.
Li, J ., Zhang, Y., and Matlay, H. (2003). "Entrepreneurship education in China." Education
and Training, 45(8/9), pp. 495-505.
Minniti, M. (1999). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. National Entrepreneurship
Assessment: Italy.
1999 Executive Report.Unpublished manuscript, Babson College, Babson Park (MA).
Mitra, J ., and Matlay, H. (2004). "Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training:
lessons from Eastern and Central Europe." Industry and Higher Education, 18(1), pp.
53-62.
OECD. (2001). Drivers of growth: information technology, innovation and entrepreneurship
(Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Special edition). Paris, OECD.
Rebora, G., Minelli, E., and Turri, M. (2003). Profili di management e leadership nelle
aziende italiane.Unpublished manuscript.
Schèon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action, Basic
Books, New York.
Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., and Tarabishy, A. (2002). "The State of Entrepreneurship
Education in the United States: a Nationwide Survey and Analysis." International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), pp. 1-22.
Spencer, L. M., and Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work : models for superior
performance, Wiley, New York.
Thornberry, N. E. (2003). "Corporate entrepreneurship: teaching managers to be
entrepreneurs." Journal of Management Development, 22(4), pp. 329-344.
Traù, F., (a, cura, di). (1999). ""La ""questione dimensionale"" nell'industria italiana "."
Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., and Wright, M. (2001). "The Focus of Entrepreneurial
Research: Contextual and Process Issues." Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
25(4), pp. 57-80.
Vesper, K. H. (1982). "Research on education for entrepreneurship." In S. D. L. Kent C.A.,
Vesper K.H. (ed.s) (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ :
Prentice-Hall.
Vesper, K. H., and Gartner, W. B. (1997). "Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship
Education." Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), pp. 403-421.
Wennekers, S., and Thurik, R. (1999). "Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth."
Small Business Economics, 13, pp. 27-55.
doc_921624624.pdf