Motivation Factors in Entrepreneurship

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between entrepreneurship and motivation. Based on research from academic journal reviews and leading business magazines (1) Entrepreneurs are natural leaders by definition of their profession who are driven by a variety of factors. (2) The motivation factors of an entrepreneur are similar yet separate from traditional types of motivation factors. (3) Young entrepreneurs and serial/seasoned entrepreneurs’ successes are closely tied to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors.

Entrepreneurship Organizational Theory

            Entrepreneurship is an emerging academic field of study. Over the past sixty years numerous researchers and business professionals have put forth efforts to establish principles and practices for the field of entrepreneurship. The development of organizational theory surrounding entrepreneurship is important for four reasons: (1) Entrepreneurship drives innovation and change in addition to breeding economic growth; (2) Supply and demand reach an equilibrium through the processes of entrepreneurship; (3) Entrepreneurship translates new knowledge into tangible products and services; and (4) the field of entrepreneurship is becoming more important to all economies and requires a clear understanding of the processes involved in the development of human and intellectual capital (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 259).”

For the purpose of this paper, entrepreneurship is defined as a “process that begins with the recognition of an entrepreneurial opportunity and if followed by the development of an idea for how to pursue that opportunity, the evaluation of the feasibility of the opportunity, the development of the product or service that will be provided to customers, assembly of human and financial resources, organizational design, and the pursuit of customers (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 275).”

Entrepreneurs: Born vs. Made

Entrepreneurship is reliant on human agency and the process is ignited by individuals who act on opportunities (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 259). Recently, the topic of nature versus nurture has risen as a launch point for debate within the entrepreneurial community. Some people argue that entrepreneurs are born with inherent traits that lead to success, while others argue that entrepreneurs can be taught.

Vivek Wadhwa argues that entrepreneurs are not born. Silicon Valley Venture Investors have been chastised for their lack of vision or complete avoidance of high potential entrepreneurs. “52% of successful entrepreneurs [are] the first in their immediate families to start a business (Wadhwa, 2010).” Mark Suster replies to the Wadhwa’s argument by stating that entrepreneurship is a combination of nature and nurture. According to Suster, a Venture Capitalist, “there are certain characteristics [displayed] as a child that makes you more pre-disposed to be a successful entrepreneur (Suster, 2010).” Although nurture has a role, Suster believes nature is stronger than nurture.

The nature versus nurture topic is most beneficial because it targets that heart of the entrepreneur. What motivates an entrepreneur? Business professionals and entrepreneurs agree that motivation, which is often called GRIT or stick-to-itiveness, is the driving force behind entrepreneurial success is the motivation; yet academic researchers believe motivations for entrepreneurship go beyond just GRIT.

Types of Motivations

            The success of an entrepreneur depends on an individual’s willingness to become an entrepreneur (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 257). Motivation is a force that compels someone to act. It is often considered to be the engine behind behaviors like working hard and success. The six traditional types of motivation include: incentives, fear, achievement, personal growth, power, and social factors. Entrepreneurship has nine motivational concepts.

There are six types of quantitative motivational concepts connected to entrepreneurship: Need for Achievement, Risk Taking, Tolerance for Ambiguity, Locus of Control, Self-Efficacy, and Goal Setting (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 263-267). Need for Achievement (nAch) is the engagement in activities with a high degree of individual responsibility to achieve specific goals/outcomes (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 263-264). Risk taking is a higher achievement motivation because it requires individuals to participate in activities that provide challenges (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 264). Tolerance for Ambiguity is a propensity to euphemize challenging situations as opportunities instead of threats (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 265). Locus of Control refers to a belief that an individual’s actions affect outcomes (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 266). Self-Efficacy is related to achievement- the individual has a belief in their own ability to implement different resources, skills, and competencies to achieve a desired result (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 267). Finally, goal setting is tied to incentives specifically financial performance (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 267).

These six motivational concepts were developed by approximately twenty-five different quantitative studies over the course of forty-four years. Another quantitative factor not mentioned in the study by Shane et. al is money (Ademyi, 2010). Contrarily  there are fewer types of qualitative motivational concepts connected to entrepreneurship: Independence; Drive; and Egoistic Passion (Shane, Locke & Collins, 2003, 268). Independence refers to freedoms in decision making and ability to be authoritative. Drive is closely related to the nAch, but is more broadly defined to include ambition, goals, energy, stamina, and persistence. Egoistic Passion is a deep commitment to the work with the ego being the central motive. Another qualitative factor found in a separate study by Humantelligence offers friendship as a motivational factor (Tracy, 2012).

The table below is not based on research but depicts a proposed relationship between the traditional types of motivation and entrepreneurship motivational factors.

	Internal Factors			External Factors
Traditional Motivation Factors	Achievement	Fear	Personal Growth	Power	Incentives	Social Factors
Entrepreneurship Motivation Factors	Need for Achievement	Risk-taking	Drive	Locus of Control	Goal Setting	Friendship
	Self-efficacy	Ambiguity Tolerance	Egoistic Passion	Independence	Money

Internal vs. External Motivation

             Humantelligence conducted a study to identify motivations factors of young entrepreneurs. The study reflects the attitudes and opinions of 250 business owners between the ages of 18 to 22 years old (Tracy, 2012). Based on the study, the majority of young entrepreneurs value the freedom presented by the field of entrepreneurship. The locus of control 64%  preferred work requiring creativity (thinking outside the box and breaking established rules) and 65% preferred work that required problem solving on a consistent basis (Tracy, 2012). Consistent with the nine types of quantitative and qualitative motivators identified by Shane, Locke, and Collins the report showed the group studies placed a high importance on “achievement, personal development, adventure, [and] creativity (Tracy, 2012).”

Another interesting case is the case of the serial entrepreneur. A serial entrepreneur is an individual who creates multiple businesses. Serial entrepreneurs tend to be more risk-averse than new entrepreneurs. One reason is because they have experienced more successes and failures than a younger entrepreneur. The secret to their “bullet-proof egos” lies within internal motivation – purpose (Berglass, 2010). While external motivation such as monetary gain continues to propel serial entrepreneurs to continue to create, it is the opportunity to make an imprint on the world that propels this unique group of individuals forward. “In psychiatry this attribute is known as generativity, a passion to improve the planet for successive generations (Berglass, 2010).” Comparing the results of the study on young entrepreneurs and the findings of a world-renowned psychiatrist and author on seasoned entrepreneurs, both groups seemed more inclined to accept internal motivators as the most influential. This is further supported by the study conducted by the Universiti of Putra Malaysia “which showed that personal initiative was one major key to success (Rose, Kumar & Yen, 2006, 14).”

Although internal motivators may be valued as the most influential motivator for entrepreneurs, it is important to recognize the role of external motivators. Dr. S.L. Adeyemi studied the motivations of Nigerian entrepreneurs. The study concluded that “internally motivated entrepreneurs are more likely to experience a high level of growth than externally motivated entrepreneurs [and] externally motivated entrepreneurs are more likely to achieve a high level of profitability than internally motivated entrepreneurs (Adeyemi, 2006, 11).” The study identifies two different types of success: Success is defined as profitability and/or growth (Adeyemi, 2006, 2).  “The most important external motivation factor in regard to explaining profitability is the factor ‘money’ [and] internal achievement was the most important factor in explaining growth (Adeyemi, 2006, 9-10).” Surprisingly, low internal motivation has a direct correlation to low-profitability and money had a negative effect on growth in this study.

Conclusion

Entrepreneurs are natural leaders by definition of their profession who are driven by a variety of factors.  The argument of nature versus nurture is irrelevant, except for the fact that it steers discussion toward motivation factors for entrepreneurs. Although GRIT is often cited as the primary motivational factor for entrepreneurs, there are nine identified motivational factors at work in the field of entrepreneurship. The motivation factors of an entrepreneur are similar yet separate from traditional types of motivation factors. Qualitative and quantitative motivation factors include: Need for Achievement; Risk Taking; Tolerance for Ambiguity; Locus of Control; Self-Efficacy; Goal Setting; Independence; Drive; and Egostic Passion. Young entrepreneurs and serial/seasoned entrepreneurs’ successes are closely tied to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Extrinsic motivation factors have a high correlation to increased profitability while intrinsic factors result in both higher-profitability and growth.

Bibliography

Adeyemi, S. L. (2006). Motivation and business success the relationship between entrepreneurs motivation and new business ventures success. Journal of Arid Zone Economy, 7(1), 122-131.

Berglas, S. (2010, August 03). Why serial entrepreneurs can't stop Forbes Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/02/serial-entrepreneurs-berglas-entrepreneurs-management-serial-startups-10-berglas.html?feed=rss_entrepreneurs

Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., & Yen, L. L. (2006). The dynamics of entrepreneurs’ success factors in influencing venture growth. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, II(3), Retrieved from http://www.asiaentrepreneurshipjournal.com/AJESII3Kumar.pdf

Shane, S., Locke, E. L., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 257-279. Retrieved from http://numerons.in/files/documents/6Entrepreneurial-motivation.pdf

Suster, M. (2010, March 01). Entrepreneurship: Nature vs. nurture?. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/entrepreneurship-nature-vs-nurture-2010-3

Tracy, A. (2012, February 16). What motivates tomorrow's great entrepreneurs?. Inc. Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.inc.com/abigail-tracy/what-motivates-tomorrows-great-entrepreneurs.html

Wadwwa, V. (2010, February 27). Techcrunch. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/27/can-entrepreneurs-be-made/

Financial Fuzziness of the Hybrid Models

Clouded by ambiguous legal structures and funding models, the world of social entrepreneurship is foggy at best. The relationship between business and social endeavors can be described numerous ways, but the “tension” or “conflict” surrounding them remain constant.

In 2007, Bill Gates delivered a commencement speech addressing the opportunities presented by the tension between business and social endeavors. Gates challenged the Harvard graduates to devise “a more creative capitalism[i]” to “stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities[ii].” The state of Vermont was the first to enact legislation to bridge the world of business and social impact investing together[iii]. In 2009, Michigan built legal framework within the state for social enterprises by becoming one of nine states with L3C legislation.

L3C is an acronym for Low-profit Limited Liability Company. This type of business entity is appealing because it offers legal and tax flexibility traditionally found in the LLC structure while also engaging nonprofit foundation investment funds. The L3C is “designed to qualify as a recipient of Program-Related Investments[iv]” (PRIs) which is beneficially for traditional investors, but more so for foundations. The L3C removes the difficulties and overpriced IRS requirements foundations once faced when investing in for-profit businesses that aligned with their organization’s purpose. Foundations already receive tax benefits from PRIs to other nonprofits, but the L3C’s primarily appeal lies in the potential of the investment to result in a reliable flow of capital. The L3C is a solution to numerous problems faced by social entrepreneurs, but this legal structure is not without problems.

The L3C defaults in focusing primarily on the legal framework and investment potential without much regard to measuring social impact or the frameworks’ ambiguity. There are three major problems created by L3Cs. The first is an issue of redundancy; the cycle of investment for low profits may not produce the flow of capital desired by the nature of an L3C. The second is deception. Despite its socially-conscious mission, L3Cs are not tax-exempt. L3Cs operate like standard LLCs for federal tax purposes. Stuart Levine states “L3C’s don’t work unless there is a change in federal tax law.  In other words, L3C’s are a little like Oreo-Tycin-Myacin - the wonder drug for which there is no known disease[v].”  The third issue highlights the natural tension between charity and business. Levine states “L3C’s raise difficult issues of fiduciary duty and the inherent conflict between ‘charitable’ purposes and ‘business’ purposes.  At the least, these conflicts cannot be dealt with via a quick-fix state statute[vi].”

All of these problems stem back to the essence of low-profit or nonprofit organizations and their social focus. Measuring social impact and profits is similar to comparing apples to oranges, while both may be fruit they offer different opportunities for impact. While it may seem plausible to conclude the L3C is a broken model, it is important to remember that the L3C is not a business or funding model. The L3C legislation provides a seemingly intentional ambiguous legal framework that can lead to business and funding models for these hybrid entities.

The Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) briefly chastised two hybrid funding models before excluding them from the list of the ten funding models for nonprofits and social organizations. The first model involves a nonprofit receiving support by a separate income generation venture. In this model, the profitable ventures are separate and distinct from the core-mission related activities. The second model, which correlates to the L3C model, is based on a B2B or consumer-direct fee-for-service model. This model is does not rely heavily on fundraising or government support. The SSIR supports these models as functioning, but withdraws its support for scalability within these models. Based on a 30 year study of 144 nonprofits that grew to $50 million a year or more in size during the course of the study, none of the nonprofit organizations represented functioned within these hybrid models[vii].

Inc. Magazine offers a third hybrid model the authors of the SSIR did not consider. The third hybrid model integrates the non-profit with the for-profit. The classic example is the relationship between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation. Create in 2005, Mozilla Corporation became the for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. In 2011, Mozilla Corporation brought in $104 million. The Mozilla Foundation is the sole shareholder to the Mozilla Corporation and brings more than $200,000 in charitable donations to the table[viii]. Other companies like Story Pirate and Parent Earth have emerged as the newcomers to watch in the high-growth arena of social entrepreneurship. Lapwosky offers three factors to support scalability within this proven functioning hybrid model.

1.      The nonprofits unrelated business income threatens its nonprofit status

2.      The for-profit needs help managing its philanthropy

3.      Each entity needs something offered by the other

The for-profit world has developed a sophisticated language to communicate funding strategies, while the non-profit world has maintained a poverty of language. Combining the business (for-profit world) with social endeavors (non-profit) world relies on the ability to both establish a common language between the two worlds and develop a new language for those social entrepreneurs who exist in the gray area. In non-profit organizations and social causes, the end user is rarely the buyer which makes identifying the economic engine a separate step. The issue of customer versus beneficiary continues to block potential communication between the two.

---

[i] Gates, B. (2007, June 7). www.news.harvard.edu. Retrieved October 3, 2012 from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/06/remarks-of-bill-gates-harvard-commencement-2007/

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Vermont Secretary of State: Corporations Division. Low-Profit Limited Liability Company. Low-Profit Limited Liability Company Retrieved October 3, 2009 from http://www.sec.state.vt.us/corps/dobiz/llc/llc_l3c.htm

[iv] Najarian, N. R. (2009). Michigan leads the way with a new corporate form – the l3c. Retrieved from http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/07/20/michigan-leads-the-way-with-a-new-corporate-form-the-l3c/

[v] The Nonprofiteer. (2011, March 17). “L3C” spells “caveat emptor”. Retrieved from http://nonprofiteer.net/2011/03/17/l3c-spells-caveat-emptor/

[vi] Ibid

[vii] Stanford social innovation review (provide full info)

[viii] Lapowsky, I. (2011, May 2). The Social Entrepreneurship Spectrum: Hyrbids.Retriveid from www.inc.com/magazine/20110501/the-social-entrepreneurship-spectrum-hybrids

Santorum Talks Economics, But It Doesn’t Matter

In every presidential election there are always two issues at the forefront: jobs and the economy. There is an established rule of thumb based on these issues. If the economy is good and the supply for jobs is higher than the demand, the current president will be re-elected. If this is not true, the current president cannot expect a second term without a fight.

          According to Voice of America (voanews.com), during the final quarter of 2004 “the U.S. economy registered stronger than expected growth in the final three months of the year, taking the 2004 growth rate to 4.4 percent, the best showing in five years.” This is consistent with the rule of thumb. According to Kiplinger (http://www.kiplinger.com), the US economy is expected to grow by 2.3%, which is greater than the 1.7% trod in 2011.If this holds true and the rule of thumb holds, the current presidential incumbent may see an easy re-election. However nothing is free nowadays, so the fight as previously mentioned comes down to two important issues: economy and job outlook.

It is becoming more apparent that Romney and Santorum will become the last Republican candidates standing, before a final one is chosen to represent the Republican Party. The table below highlights this assumption by showing the latest stats on the Republic primaries are provided by the Huffington Post (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/) with updates provided every five minutes.

	Romney	Santorum	Gringrich	Paul
States Won	4	4	1	0
Delegates	123	72	32	19
Votes	1,183,384	569,830	836,885	337,787
GOP Endorsements	100	3	12	4
Fundraising	$63,650,764	$6,698,440	$18,320,430	$31,083,281
PAC Support	$2,217,278	$3,611,937	$7,562,619	$3,683,027
PAC Attacks	$5,557,001	$2,535,187	$17,411,757	$133,332

Michigan has become a battle ground for these two potential candidates, while Paul and Gringrich’s appearances in Michigan remain with little or no mention in the media. An article from Pennlive.com discussed Rick Santorum’s visited Muskegon to talk about economics. He promised to “revive manufacturing, cut taxes, and shrink government.” Everyone applauded but this is not that statement’s first time in the election road show. If the current economy and job outlook will play the most important role in the election, it doesn’t matter which candidate will be selected as the Republican candidate or what their economic plan is. According to a quote from the New York Times article “Through an Economic Lens, an Election Too Close to Call” written by Jeff Sommer, C. Fair - the Yale economics professor – predicts Obama can expect “50.17 percent of the vote, giving him a margin so small that it falls within the 2.5 percent “standard error” of the equations.’
"Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections" published in the Journal of Politics serves as a forecast for how political parties should spend their money. The article operates with the assumption that” ranking assumption concerning dependencies across U.S. states.” This assumption was tested and proved valid in the 2004 Presidential election and the 2006 Senate election. If valid, the political parties should focus all of their money on a few states. This was done in the 2004 election.

Michigan ranks 8^th concerning the number of electorate votes the state holds, but Michigan happens to have voted Democratic consistently since 1992. Discussions surrounding the other candidates’ lack of presence in Michigan have begun to rise in the local news. If the theories asserted by "Interpreting the Predictive Uncertainty of Elections" and “Through an Economic Lens, an Election Too Close to Call” hold true, the update from Pennlive.com is essentially a waste of time. Despite the role of the economy and job outlook, all the the pre-candidates should focus advertising dollars in Michigan. Michigan is considered to be a medium sized state but it can be a competitive state. Prior to 1992, Michigan was a Republican state for a few years. More importantly, no Republican candidate will win if the economy holds steady. So, the campaigns are sure to be negative in the upcoming months if the economy remains healthy.


Inspiration for this blog is from the MLive article "Presidential Hopeful Rick Santorum, in Muskegon, Outlines Differences with Obama, Romney. (www.mlive.com). Photo credit is also given to the source.

Kellogg's to Buy Pringles: A Quick Glance at the Snack Industry Market Structure

One of the top cookie and cracker makers in the country is planning an acquisition of another favorite American snack food item: chips. Earlier this morning food giant Kellogg and Procter & Gamble (P&G) announced the newest expansion to Kellogg’s snack division. P&G will sell its Pringles product line to cereal-maker Kellogg for $2.7 billion. Kellogg’s was able to snag the deal after the original deal with Diamond Foods feel apart because of accounting problems and changes in executive leadership.

The deal between P&G and Diamond Foods was announced in April of 2011 to be a $1.5 billion deal. With speculation on the deal rising and the replacement of Diamond Foods CEO and CFO following an investigation of improper payment accounting for walnut growers, Diamond stocks their ability to finance the deal slid through the cracks. However, it seems the worst is not over for Diamond Foods. If the deal had occurred it would have not only made Diamond Food’s the largest snack maker in the nation following PepsiCo Inc. but it would have also been the company’s largest acquisition. Instead, Diamond Foods might have to pay a $60 million breakup fee to Procter & Gamble, up to $6 million in related costs, as well as restating two years of financial results in relation to the results of the investigation.

P & G publically disinvested in the deal last week as it stated the Pringles was "attract[ing] considerable interest from other outside parties." Because snacks account for about 30% of Kellogg's sales, it makes sense for Kellogg’s to take advantage of this failed deal. Kellogg’s purchase of Pringles will complement its growing snacks division, which includes Keebler, Cheez-it, and Special K crackers. With PepsiCo under criticism for moving away from its soda line toward healthier snacks like Quaker granola bars and baked Frito-Lays potato chips and Kraft increases its snack markets, it is a great time for Kellogg’s to take advantage of the market growth. "Pringles has an extensive global footprint that catapults Kellogg to the number two position in the worldwide savory snacks category, helping us achieve our objective of becoming a truly global cereal and snacks company," Kellogg President and CEO John Bryant said in a statement.

There are millions of buyers and sellers in today’s marketplace. In economics there are four types of market structures: perfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. The three market structures most often seen in the U.S. are monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly.

If one product is too expensive, a buyer can choose to get another product. The cereal industry is a great example of this premise in action. The Kellogg’s deal in reference to the emerging growth of snack industry is best seen as monopolistic competition. There are many firms, products are heterogeneous, barriers to entry/exit are low, and the information in the industry are good. While PepsiCo, Kellogg’s, and Kraft are recognized brands they do not exclusively hold market shares. If these three companies continue to acquire others the snack industry will quickly move to an oligopoly.

Sugar Tax? : An economically conscious consumers point of view

More than 35 million deaths each year result from non-communicable diseases, including diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The greatest influences of these deaths are given to tobacco, alcohol and diet. Tobacco and alcohol are government regulated, but diet is not. The goal of a sugar tax is ultimately to discourage the consumption of added sugar. The plan would include a sugar tax, fast-food outlets and convenience store zoning ordinances in low-income communities and around schools, drinking age requirements for sports drink and sugary beverages, limiting or banning television commercials for sugar enhanced products, and the removal for fructose from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s list of items recognized as safe products which would force sugar enhanced products to seek FDA review.

In the book “Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity” there are four criteria listed that justify government regulation: It’s unavoidable in society, its toxic, it can be abused, and it’s bad for society. According to Lustig sugar meets that entire criterion and needs government regulation. “The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization says that in 2007, Americans consumed more than 600 calories' worth of added sugar each day.” The argument made by Lustig suggests that can no longer be seen as a supplier of empty calories. Metabolic syndrome is the main reasoning behind Lustig’s call for government regulation on sugar. Figure 1 shows the percentage of adults who had metabolic syndrome diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. “20% of obese people don’t have these diseases, but 40% of normal-weight people do.” Based on these figures, Lustig believes the sugar is to blame.

Figure 1: Percentage of Adults with Metabolic Syndrome Diseases in 2007

The sugar tax is coined the “Possible Dream” instead of the “Pipe Dream” because it has been implemented abroad. Canada and some countries in Europe already have sweet taxes, and Denmark is starting to focus on a sugar tax after creating a fat tax. “For both alcohol and tobacco, there is robust evidence that gentle ‘supply side’ control strategies which stop far short of all-out prohibition – taxation, distribution controls, age limits – lower both consumption of the product and the accompanying health harms,” the Lustig’s UCSF trio writes. “Consequently, we propose adding taxes to processed foods that contain any form of added sugars.”

Karen Kaplan author of the article from Los Angeles Times argues that a sugar tax is a good idea. However, I do not believe sugar tax is the solution. The food industry has numerous issues with product quality and price, but it will never have an issue with demand. Because food is a commodity, it is viable to solicit government regulation. Government regulation serves two purposes: to discourage certain activities and to create revenue. Discouraging sugar use is the benefit to the citizens, but potential tax revenue might be a good incentive as budget cuts are becoming a familiarity. If a sugar tax is implemented, it will most likely be subject to tax increases like cigarettes and alcohol. This will be counterproductive for the benefits government may reap because tax increases ultimately decrease the transactions surrounding the good. So doubling the excise tax rate on a good or service won’t double the amount of revenue collected. 

Pillars of Social Entrepreneurship

Social Entrepreneurship is an interesting emerging field. While Sneakers & Speakers is not exclusive to topics on Social Entrepreneurship it is one of few motivations for beginning this blog. I hope you will enjoy the month of February as I explore the field social entrepreneurship.

Fact #1: I am not an expert. I am an explorer.

With that said, I like to think I know a few things and one of them is the power of individual opinion. So, I'm currently working out the kinks of Social Entrepreneurship pillars. Currently, I'm operating under the notion of five pillars: Culture, Community, Funding, Real Estate, and Technology.

Culture 

Culture focuses on creating an identity and entertainment for the city. Culture defines the pulse of the city. It is what provides meaning to the lives of residents through events, programs, or services designed to bring people together.

Community

The difference between community and culture is found in the level of necessity. Community innovates new ways to address basic community needs such as healthcare.

Funding

Funding focuses on the monetary capital available to social entrepreneurship. This includes but is not limited to crowd funding, grants, donations, competitions, and incubators/accelerator programs.

Real Estate

Real Estate focuses on the living, working, and retail spaces available to city residents. Innovations in design, layout, and materials as well as rehabilitated spaces are part of the social entrepreneurship ecosystem.

Technology

Technology focuses on the use of technology to deliver culture and/or community. It is a separate category because of industries like biotech and cleantech. Also, the rise of the internet and integration requires this to be a separate category for inclusion.

So, let me know what you think.

Social Entrepreneurship Curriculum Study

Social Entrepreneurship Curriculum Study

________________________________________________

Area of Focus

The area of focus in this social entrepreneurship curriculum study includes Midwest, Southeast, and Eastern universities with strong brands of entrepreneurship and academia. The following institutions were excluded: institutes branded as Ivy League universities, institutions tripling the representations from individual states, institutions similar to sampled institutions, and institutions with enrollment numbers or academic vision incomparable to Grand Valley State University.

The following universities are the samples institutions for this study: Babson College, Baruch College, Northwestern University, Notre Dame University, Rowan University, Rutgers University, Tulane University, University of Chicago, and the University of Michigan. Four institutions were supplied by USASBE for consideration (Tulane, Rutgers, Rowan, and Notre Dame).

University Name	Location	U#	G#	Type of courses
Babson College	Babson Park, MA	7	3	Only electives offered
Baruch College	New York, NY	4	6	Only electives offered
Northwestern University	Evanston, IL	39	0	Social Entrepreneurship Major
Notre Dame University	Notre Dame, IN	1	1	Only electives offered
Rowan University	Glassboro NJ	1	0	Only electives offered
Rutgers University	Newark, NJ	2	2	Only electives offered
Tulane University	New Orleans, LA	3	3	Mostly Independent study
University of Chicago	Chicago, IL	3	0	Only electives offered
University of Michigan	Ann Arbor, MI	4	0	Only electives offered

As the Program Coordinator for the Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation, I randomly get the opportunity to do a little research. Recently, I was asked to do some research on Universities that offer courses in social entrepreneurship. Education in social entrepreneurship is buzzing around the nation and has provided motivation for consistent blogging here on my new blog. Below you will find a glimpse into the study I conducted. I hope you enjoy February's lens on Social Entrepreneurship. - The Urban Voice