Homework Help https://www.homeworkping.com/

Research Paper helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/

Online Tutoringhttps://www.homeworkping.com/

click here for freelancing tutoring sitesA Study Of Implications Of Changing Success Factors Of Entrepreneurship On The Role Of Organizational Development Programmes In Facilitating Organizational Learning. *Anurag Shrivastava,&**Vishal Chavan.

ABSTRACT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been a long debate between followers of the trait approach – looking for universal personality characteristics that predict entrepreneurial success – and supporters of contingency thinking that link the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur with the business environment and prevailing context of the enterprise (Aldrich 2000; Littunen 2000). It is, however, important to study how features of successful entrepreneurs are perceived by present and potential entrepreneurs in order to understand how the image of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship is transformed in the changing social context. Such research will also help to reflect the role models of entrepreneurs and the related expectations of potential entrepreneurs and employees that interact with entrepreneurs in the organisational development process. Social expectations towards entrepreneurs are among other important drivers of entrepreneurial behaviour. Culture and norms affect the way individuals perceive the social role of entrepreneurs and the formation of new ventures .

The paper addresses two main research questions. What features of entrepreneurs are perceived as success drivers in a small open economy, where the opportunities for entrepreneurship emerged 20 years ago and have gone through radical changes as part of the transition to a market economy and integration with the EU? How may changing perceptions of entrepreneurial success factors influence organisational learning and organisational development needs? In order to answer these questions, the paper at first provides an overview of some key concepts of entrepreneurship and organisational development that are later used to interpret the focus group results. The next section of the paper reviews earlier research into entrepreneurs in the transition economy in India. The results of the focus group are discussed within the framework of changing entrepreneurial success patterns in India and the changing focus of organisational development and organisational learning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Assistant Professor,Padmashree Dr.D.Y.Patil University Navi Mumbai.** Assistant Professor,Padmashree Dr.D.Y.Patil University Navi Mumbai.

Key Words: entrepreneurial success, market economy, organisational learning

Entrepreneurship and Organisational DevelopmentAn entrepreneur acts as an innovator, initiating changes and generating new opportunities that in the long run cause economic growth. The standard theory of the firm analyses repetitious decisions in an enterprise that already exists and is fully grown (Baumol 2005). Such a context does not fully reveal the role human resources play in creating new business opportunities. Peter Drucker (1985) has described entrepreneurs as individuals who exploit opportunities that changes create. New organizations create new jobs and broaden social mobility (Carroll and Hannan 2000).

The entrepreneur has been defined as someone who specialises in making judgemental decisions about the allocation of scarce resources (Casson 1982). Judgmental decisions may be more or less risky and can be innovative by nature. Schumpeter (1928) linked the role of the entrepreneur to creative destruction by transforming existing production systems.

Kirzner (1978) in his theory of entrepreneurship concluded that the entrepreneur is a driving force in the market due to his or her role in discovering unused opportunities in the marketplace, and the competitive behaviour of entrepreneurs is operational in restoring the equilibrium of the market. The innovative entrepreneur described by Schumpeter is more related to introducing creative business ideas that may change the nature of markets, whereas the entrepreneur described by Kirzner is more an opportunity seeker able to perceive market gaps and mistakes made by other entrepreneurs in the situation of incomplete information supply. Shane (2003) links Kirznerian entrepreneurial opportunities to equilibrating forces, to limited discovery of common and less innovative solutions that do not require radically new information, whereas Schumpeterian opportunities are disequilibrating, rare, innovative, involve creation and require new information. Scarce resources are not limited to finances, but often include human resources and knowledge. Entrepreneurs have also been characterised as individuals that believe something that nobody else believes (Witt 1998). Such differential beliefs open the way to use new business opportunities and new allocations of resources. Unique beliefs at the same time create the challenge of aligning the vision of the entrepreneur and his/her team with the help of the organisational development process.

A widely accepted definition of organisational development (Cummings and Worley, 1997) sees organisational development (OD) as a system-wide application of behavioural science knowledge for the planned development and reinforcement of organisational strategies, structure and processes for improving an organisation’s effectiveness. In general, definitions of OD tend to focus on incremental adjustments (Cacioppe and Edwards, 2005). Effective change is seen to proceed in small, incremental steps (Dunphy and Stace, 1988). The application of behavioural science and process consulting in OD programmes is focused on creating a unifying future vision and on building organisational consensus about strategic development priorities. OD efforts stress organisational efficiency and readiness to change, but also diminishing status differentials, sharing of responsibility, expression of feelings and needs, collaboration, constructive conflict feedback, flexible leadership, involvement and trust (Carnall, 2003). The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities and the business environment for creative destruction may in some cases support participative OD approaches, but there may be situations, where entrepreneurs prefer more individualistic business development practices.

The entrepreneurial personality is characterised by a self-motivation that makes overcoming risks possible and is driven by new business opportunities. Shaver and Scott (1991) have pointed out the achievement motivation as the only personality trait that in many studies has demonstrated convincing association with new venture creation. Rauch and Frese (2000) in their overview of psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success conclude that the most frequently studied personality characteristics during previous decades were the need for achievement, risk-taking and internal locus of control. Their meta-research of entrepreneurship studies stresses the need to take into consideration moderators of entrepreneurial success factors such as the life cycle of the venture, culture, and the hostility and dynamism of the business environment.

Cognitive heuristics have been studied in order to understand, for instance, the start-up decisions of entrepreneurs based on over-confidence and over-optimism biases (Wadeson 2006). An entrepreneur’s propensity to take risks has not distinguished them from non-entrepreneurs in all research results, and several studies have established a negative association between risk-taking and business success (Rauch and Frese 2000). The more differentiating factor has appeared to be risk underassessment in line with the general over-optimism of entrepreneurs (Sarasvathy et al., 1998). Visionary leadership, communication, delegating and performance facilitation have been identified as leadership factors positively related to the success of entrepreneurial companies (Eggers et al., 1996). Transformational change requires a dramatic shift in organisational vision and strategy (Sun and Alas, 2007). Transformational leaders encourage individual and group learning by motivating followers to question assumptions and to come up with creative observations (Bass, 1998), but Dysia and Crossan (2004) point out that both transformational and transactional leadership are needed for organisational learning. In the context of launching a new entrepreneurial venture an entrepreneurial vision may mean a business idea that is developed individually by an entrepreneur, transferred from best practices in more advanced markets or created via teamwork.

Entrepreneurship researchers have developed the entrepreneurship orientation constructs that integrate innovation, proactiveness and risk-taking (Morris and Paul, 1987) or the five dimensions: innovation, proactiveness, risk-taking, autonomy and

competitive aggressiveness (Lumkin and Dess 1996). The construct of a single entrepreneurial orientation can be further developed by differentiating several entrepreneurial orientations: imitative entrepreneurship, individual innovative entrepreneurship and co-creative entrepreneurship (Elenurm et al., 2007). Co-creative entrepreneurship is based on social networks and clusters as information dissemination mechanisms that facilitate entrepreneurship (Gompers et al., 2005). Business networks mean continuous exchange and the other co-operative relationships that a business organisation is engaged in with other organisations (Hǻkansson and Snehota 1995). The role of networking is especially important in building competencies for internationalization of entrepreneurs (Hinttu et al., 2004).

Entrepreneurs representing different entrepreneurial orientations and pursuing imitative or innovative business ideas face different organisational development needs and organisational learning challenges. Objective – The Objective of this paper is to reveal implications of changing success factors of entrepreneurs on the role of organisational development programmes in facilitating organisational learning.

Entrepreneurship in a changing economy A comprehensive overview of entrepreneurship and SME research in India is presented by Venesaar (2006). Several research projects have focused on changes in the economic environment and on the main problems facing entrepreneurs at different stages of economic transition, privatization and restructuring. At the beginning of the transition towards a market economy in the 1990s, an interview-based study conducted mainly among members of the Indian Association of Small Enterprises (EVEA) revealed that the changes in the society and emerging legislative framework were the main reason for entrepreneurial initiatives among more active people (Klaamann, 1992).

Research methodology – This explorative research is conducted as part of the E -World research programme focusing on international perspectives of entrepreneurship. Participants of Indian focus groups at first filled individual work sheets by answering questions about traits of successful entrepreneurs in India. Second, participants compared successful entrepreneurs in India in 90s and in 2007 in focus groups of 4-5 members and presented their common position, but also differences revealed in group discussions

In the context of identifying knowledge gaps among entrepreneurs facing the challenges of internationalization during the early stages of the transition process, research by Smallbone (1998) identified demand in SMEs for increasing access to information about international market opportunities, advice about international distribution and export promotion and also about export development grants and training courses.

Elenurm (2000, 2001) analyzed the export training needs of Indian SMEs and came to the conclusion that many entrepreneurs that started subcontracting for foreign clients did not pursue an active internationalization strategy, but were found by foreign entrepreneurial business people who visited India. Small entrepreneurs in wood, furniture and clothing industries saw finding additional foreign partners and legal issues in foreign trade as a top priority, but knowledge in fields such as export strategy, export

development planning and market research were seen as low priority due to the limited organisational and financial capabilities of such companies.

Finding markets was mentioned as the main business constraint by 42% of the respondents in a large-scale survey of 1912 SMEs conducted in 2002 in the context of preparations for joining the European Union (Smallbone and Venesaar 2006, pp. 19–46). Alas and Sharifi (2002) pointed out the importance of changes in enterprise mission and strategy in the transformation process of privatised Indian enterprises. The research project on entrepreneurial strategies and trust (Venesaar 2005) indicated that during the early stages of transition towards the market economy, personal trust was a key to successful business relationships. The role of institutional trust has increased during later stages of transition. It has been suggested that the regulatory and competitive environment of the EU will reduce the role of arbitrary entrepreneurship and will support knowledge-based entrepreneurship (Roolaht 2006).

Andrejevskaja (2006) concluded in her overview of empirical studies on entrepreneurship that the psychology and sociology of entrepreneurship has received less attention from Indian researchers than the environment of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship support measures or economic development via entrepreneurship. Earlier research has, however, revealed the role of active opportunity-seeking people in entrepreneurial initiatives in the early stages of the market economy. The importance of personal trust among business partners and the active search for new information has also been related to successful entrepreneurship in earlier studies of Indian entrepreneurs.

The concept of the learning organisation (Senge, 1990) has been popularized in India in the last 10 years. Mets and Torokoff (2007) have evaluated the state of the learning organisation in some Indian production companies and revealed differences between perceptions by managers and workers. We assume that in a rapidly changing economy, entrepreneurs are important stakeholders both in implementing the vision of the learning organisation and initiating OD programmes. It is essential to understand the perceptions of their success patterns in order to anticipate new organisational learning needs and challenges that OD practitioners may face when following their change agent ambitions.

Results of Focus Group DiscussionsAt this stage of the E-world research project, the aim of the focus groups was to develop new insights into the characteristics and behavioural patterns that are associated with successful entrepreneurs in order to provide input for the further more quantitative stages of cross-cultural research. Each focus group focuses clearly upon a particular topic and encompasses the interactive discussion among its participants (Carson et al., 2001).

We used the following procedure for conducting focus group discussions. First, participants spent 20 minutes filling in individual work sheets by compiling a list of at least 5 personality features that characterize successful entrepreneurs in India. Participants were also asked to describe the behaviour and other success factors of entrepreneurs currently operating in India. Second, participants were asked to compare successful entrepreneurs in India in the 90s with those in 2007 in 4-5 member focus groups, and after 30 minutes to present their common position, but also the differences revealed by their group discussion. The facilitator and members of other focus groups would then ask questions if some conclusions needed additional clarification. The Indian

sample consisted of 12 doctoral students from the Indian Business School (EBS), 32 EBS bachelor students majoring in entrepreneurship and 16 master students from the Indian Academy of Music and Theatre majoring in arts administration. Separate focus group sessions were conducted with these categories of participants.

In the individual work sheets, to summarise all categories of respondents, the following characteristics of successful entrepreneurs in India in 2007 were most often pointed out:

1. courage to take risks2. openness to new information3. flexibility4. creativity5. determination

However, bachelor students majoring in entrepreneurship, 54% of whom already had some practical entrepreneurial experience, stressed self-confidence and communicative skills more often than the others. Potentially conflicting personality characteristics such as egoism and empathy were pointed out by entrepreneurship students, whereas the students of arts administration mentioned trust and greediness. Such behavioural patterns as active involvement in networking and acquiring founding capital, but also selecting the right team and following agreements were especially described as ways to success by participants that had entrepreneurial experience. Other students most often highlighted innovative behaviour and the search for new knowledge.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the focus group discussions. In the focus group discussions additional behavioural patterns of successful entrepreneurs were identified. During focus group discussions, without any special guidance, the participants moved from general personality traits to more specific descriptions of success factors that tend to reflect the behavioural patterns. These behaviours are linked to features of the business environment; although, the majority of them are also enabled by personality characteristics.

Table 1. Summary of Focus Group Results: Main Differences of Entrepreneurial Success Factors at Different Stages of Market Economy Development

Success factors of an entrepreneur operating in India that were more important in the 90s than in 2007

Success factors of an entrepreneur operating in India that are more important in 2007 than in the 90s

1. Courage to take risks – act fast, think later. Short-term thinking.

2. Individualism and making almost all the decisions by himself

3. Access to privatization deals and friends in the public sector and early foreign investors, finding “holes” in relatively simple business legislation. Good relations with influential people of the same age cohort

4. Understanding the basics of market

1. Vision and long-term view that links innovation and business sustainability.

2. Team approach and sharing of responsibilities

3. Lobbying, knowing lawyers and already extensive business legislation, anticipating new trends in Indian and EU regulations.

4. Broader international network, skills to use internet

economy, basic foreign language skills

5. Questionable ethics, authentic personalities

6. Firm hand, coping with stress

7. Limited capital base, loans from friends

8. Finding empty market niches

9. Workaholic style, long working hours

10. Capability to redirect processes and to restructure the “ruins of the command economy”

as a networking tool for global business

5. Honesty and trust is stressed more, learning from the others’ mistakes

6. Analytical and communication skills, ability to process large amounts of information

7. Capability to link all types of resources in order to go international

8. Professional skills and specialization for competitive advantage

9. Balance between work and family

10. Bohemian creativity, open to innovative opportunities on a global scale

For instance, in the 90s, the courage to take risks is linked to short-term thinking that was sometimes inevitable as “windows of business opportunities” opened and closed rapidly in the changing legal environment and macroeconomic situation. Such interpretations are in line with the risk underassessment and over-optimism features of entrepreneurs that were identified by Sarasvathy et al. (1998) when they compared bankers and entrepreneurs in a more advanced market economy. In India, however, at the beginning of the 90s, founding commercial banks was also an important field of entrepreneurship. Vision and long-term view are seen as the success factors in present entrepreneurs assuming a link between innovation and business sustainability.

Friends in the public sector and among early foreign investors were already a success factor for entrepreneurs in the 90s, but in later stages the focus has moved towards more systematic lobbying in local state and municipal agencies, but also in international institutions without getting lost in the already extensive Indian business legislation and EU regulations. Basic foreign language skills served as a tool for finding initial foreign partners in the 90s, but networking among present successful entrepreneurs is seen as using the internet to facilitate global business connections in a much broader international network. A firm hand and coping with stress as key features of a successful entrepreneur in the 90s have become less important compared with analytical and communication skills that enable processing of large amounts of business information.

Changing focus of organisational development and organisational learning?Changes in management in the early stages of transition were mostly associated with the ability to redirect production processes and to restructure the “ruins of the command economy” by transferring solutions from advanced market economies, whereas Schumpeterian creative innovation has become a more important success factor in 2007. The image of the successful entrepreneur of the 90s can be more easily associated with Kirzner’s discovery of unused opportunities although at that time the marketplace was not especially demanding and business opportunities were often enabled by access to resources and by finding “loopholes” in laws and regulations. Entrepreneurs that at present manage to pursue innovative opportunities on a global scale are assumed to have a long-term vision, a broad international network and a team approach. Mobilizing

development ideas of other team members assumes more advanced dialogue in the OD process.

Within the framework of the entrepreneurial orientation concept (Lumkin and Dess 1996), the perceptions of focus group members about entrepreneurial success factors in the 90s stress risk-taking, proactiveness and autonomy. Innovation appears more as a rapid adjustment to external socio-economic changes and not hesitating to use “windows of business opportunities” in the local business environment even if these were temporary. In 2007, the focus has shifted to innovation that is based more on the systematic use of business opportunities in foreign markets and on the creative development of new ideas that have a chance of succeeding globally. The OD agenda of rapidly internationalising entrepreneurs should involve ways to share knowledge with foreign business partners and joint messages for lobbying in the EU structures.

The rapid moves for exploiting temporary business opportunities in order to earn short-term profit in the 90s did not leave much time for systematic analysis of business opportunities and using multi-stage OD processes as a tool for long-term strategic planning. If some elements of OD were used in practice, the main focus was to “sell” the change vision of the entrepreneur to enhance the team spirit of his subordinates. OD methods that draw more on intra-organisational dialogue (Coopey and Burgoyne, 2000) and apply creative thinking techniques are more relevant for the entrepreneur that follows innovative co-creative orientation. In a knowledge-based organisation even the talented entrepreneur cannot assume that he/she alone is the only source of creative business development ideas. The entrepreneur in such an organisation has to accept that among his subordinates there may be more competent experts than the owner-manager and OD tools can produce synergy between their ideas.

Organisational culture and memory are two central and interrelated aspects of collective learning (Berthon et al 2001). Organisational learning in a growing organisation has to support knowledge sharing between the core team and new employees. OD programmes have to link organisational learning and knowledge management. The capacity to deploy both tacit and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1995) and to re-use organisational memory is crucial in an innovative venture, where technology-driven ideas have to be matched with customer information from international markets. That assumes combining face-to-face strategy discussions with virtual discussion forums in OD processes, where earlier discourse can easily be retrieved and creative ideas that were not applicable when proposed, can be found and implemented when their time has arrived.

Zhang et al. (2006) have demonstrated by using data about owner-managers in England that learning processes in innovative firms were outward facing and regularly contacted with external knowledge providers compared to inward facing stable firms. Although the EU Community innovation survey indicated that 48.1% of Indian enterprises were involved in innovative activity in 2006 (Eesti Statistika, 2008), and networking between enterprises has become more intensive, the low level of co-operation between enterprises and universities is still a bottleneck. OD programmes that are not limited to a single organisation, but link R&D organisations with industrial enterprises and/or bring together other types of organisations in a value chain may broaden the scope of OD activities and transform intra-organisational learning into inter-organisational learning.

ConclusionsSome comparisons between entrepreneurial success factors in the 90s and in 2007 that have been presented by the focus groups may in reality be wishful thinking: the individualism, questionable ethics and workaholic style of the past in contrast with honesty and trust, balancing work and family of the present. But even if such comparisons are not always valid in real business life, they reflect social trends and the desires of the experienced and potential entrepreneurs that participated in the focus groups.

The image of the successful entrepreneur as a promoter of the long term-vision, a team player, a cross-border network developer, a person that integrates professional skills with creativity and manages to balance work and family is a socially desirable role model. In order to meet such expectations entrepreneurs can make more extensive use of OD tools that enhance the creativity of their management team, but also the participation of other employees in discussing long-term priorities.

The results of the focus groups reflect a trend towards innovative and co-creative entrepreneurship. In order to avoid disappointment in real business situations, prerequisites, and pluses and minuses of different entrepreneurial orientations have to be discussed in the training process by using self-assessment questionnaires to identify preferences towards different entrepreneurial orientations (Elenurm and Moisala 2007).

A universal challenge for entrepreneurs is to make and implement business decisions to combine and apply scarce resources, but the nature of these resources and the patterns of their mobilization are changing. Co-creation in a global value chain or co-operation between industry and R&D organisations assumes knowledge sharing readiness and inter-organisational learning communities. Inter-organisational OD programmes are essential for developing a knowledge-based network economy.

Transformational changes in the 90s were imposed on entrepreneurs by the institutional framework of India's transition to the market economy. In fact, the role of entrepreneurs as such did not exist in the institutional framework of the command economy. Although India is now a market economy, transition continues in the sense of searching for sustainable competitive advantages as a new EU member. Gaining competitiveness through higher added value instead of cheap labour assumes new transformational changes initiated by innovative entrepreneurs. Simple imitation of the best business practices from entrepreneurs operating in advanced market economies is not the main change driver of this new development stage. Broader synergy between innovative ideas inside the organisation and learning in inter-organisational networks is a challenge for transformational entrepreneurs and for change agents in OD programmes.

Research limitations – The research applies focus groups that highlight perceptions of changing success factors of entrepreneurs but does not involve a representative sample of Indian entrepreneurs. Research results can be used as an input for entrepreneurship training and organisational development programmes.

References

Alas, R., & Sharifi, S. (2002), “Organizational Learning and Resistance to Change in Indian Companies”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 313-331.

Aldrich, H. (2000), Organizations Evolving, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Andrejevskaja, J. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and Its Environment in India: an Overview of Recent Empirical Studies”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in India: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 297-404.

Bass, B. M. (1998) Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York.

Baumol, W. (2005), “Microtheory of Entrepreneurship: More Exists than is Recognized”, in: Vinig, G. T. Voort, R V. D. (Eds), The Emergence of Entrepreneurial Economics, Elsevier, Amsderdam, pp. 27-36.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., Ewing, M. T. (2001) “Corollaries of the collective: The influence of organizational culture and memory deployment on perceived decision-making context”, Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 (2), pp. 135-150

Cacioppe, R., Edwards, M. (2005), “Seeking the Holy Grail of organisational development”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 85-105.

Carroll, G.R., Hannan M.T. (2000), The Demography of Corporations and Industries, Princeton University Press, New York.

Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry C., Grønhaug, K. (2001), Qualitative Marketing Research, Sage, London.

Casson, M. (1982), The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory, Barnes and Noble, New York.

Cummings, T.G., Worley, C.G. (1997) Organizational Development and Change, West Publishing, St. Paul.

Drucker, P. F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principle, HarperBusiness, New York.

Dusya, V., Crossan, M. (2004), “Strategic leadership and organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 222-240.

Dunphy, D., Stace, D. (1988), “Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: beyond the OD model”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 317-334.

Eesti Statistika, Tööstusettevõtete uuenduslikkus on järjekindlalt kasvanud. Pressiteade. http://www.stat.ee/?id=29353&highlight=Innovatsiooniuuring, accessed 05.07.08

Elenurm, T. (2000), “Export-related Training Needs of Indian Companies in the Process of Internationalisation”, in: Proceedings of the University of Vaasa. Reports, Vol. 57, pp. 122-142.

Elenurm, T. 2001. “Development Needs of Indian Entrepreneurs and Managers for International Business”, in: 4th McGill Conference on International Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Vol.1, pp. 384-407.

Elenurm, T., Ennulo, J., Laar, J. (2007), “Structures of Motivation and Entrepreneurial Orientation in Students as the Basis for Differentiated Approaches in Developing Human Resources for Future Business Initiatives”, EBS Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 50-61.

Elenurm, T. Moisala, A. (2007), “Comparative Analysis of Entrepreneurial Orientations among Indian and Finnish Business Students”, in: The International Council of Small Business (ICSB) 52 World Conference Proceedings, Turku, Finland, CD.

García-Morales, V. J. Llorens-Montes, F. J., Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No 1, pp. 21-42.

Gompers, P., Lerner, J., Scharfstein D. (2005), “Entrepreneurial Spawing: Public Corporations and the Formation of New Ventures. 1986-1999”, Journal of Finance, Vol. 60, pp. 577-614.

Hǻkansson, H., Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge, London.

Hinttu, S., Forsman, M., Kock, S. (2004), “A Network Perspective of International Entrepreneurship”, in: Dana, L-P. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on International Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 715-731.

Kirzner, I. (1978), Competition and Entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Klaamann, V. (1992), “Entrepreneurship: Motivation and Environment”, in: 7th Nordic Conference on Small Business, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration.

Licht, A., Siegel, J. (2006), “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, in: Casson, M., Yeung, B, Basu, A. Wadeson, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp. 511-539.

Littunen, H. (2000), “Entrepreneurship and the Characteristics of the Entrepreneurial Personality”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research, Vol. 6, pp. 295-304.

Lumkin, G.T., Dess G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-172.

Morris, M.H., Paul, G.W. (1987), “The Relationship between Entrepreneurship and Marketing in Established Firms”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2 No3, pp. 247-259.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rauch, A., Frese, M. (2000), “Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: a General Model and Overview of Findings”, in: Cooper, C.L., Robertson, I.T. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 101-142.

Roolaht, T. (2006), “Entrepreneurial Approach to Explaining the Internationalization of Indian Small and Medium Enterprises”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in India: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 92-115.

Sarasvathy , D. , Simon, H., Lave, L. (1998), “Perceiving and Managing Business Risks: Difference between Entrepreneurs and Bankers”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, Vol. 33, pp. 207-226.

Schumpeter, J. 1928. “The Instability of Capitalism”, Economic Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 361-386.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House, Sydney.

Shane, S. (2003), A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity Nexus, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Shaver, K., Scott, L. (1991), “Person, Process, Choice: the Psychology of New Venture Creation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, pp. 23-45.

Smallbone, D. (1998), Internationalization, Inter-firm Linkages and SME Development in Central and Eastern Europe. Final report, CEEDR. Middlesex University, London.

Smallbone, D., Venesaar, U. (2006), “Indian SMEs in the Context of an Enlarged Europe”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in India: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 19-46.

Sun, W., Alas, R. (2007), “Changes in Chinese Organizations from the Institutional Perpective”, EBS Review, No 23 (2), pp. 37-48.

Torokoff, M., Mets, T. (2007), “Patterns of learning organisation in Indian companies”, Trames, Vol. 11 No, 61/56, pp. 139-154.

Venesaar, U. (2005), “Emergence of and Changes in Trust in SMEs in India”, in: Höfmann, H-H., Welter, F. (Eds.) Trust and Entrepreneurship. A West-East Perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 176-196.

Venesaar, U. (2006), “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research in India: an Overview”, in: Mets, T, Andrejevskaja, J., Venesaar, U., Kolbre, E. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in India: Policies, Practices, Education and Research, Tartu University Press, Tartu, pp. 270-294.

Wadeson, N. (2006), “Cognitive Aspects of Entrepreneurship”, in: Casson, M., Yeung, B, Basu, A. Wadeson, N. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, pp. 91-113.

Witt, U. (1998), “Imagination and Leadership – The Neglected Dimension of an Evolutionary Theory of Firm”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, Vol. 35, pp. 161-177.

Zhang, M., Macpherson, A., Jones, O. (2006), “Conceptualizing the Learning Process in SMEs”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 299-323.

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to reveal implications of changing success factors of entrepreneurs on the role of organisational development programmes in facilitating organisational learning.Design/methodology/approach – This explorative research is conducted as part of the E -World research programme focusing on international perspectives of entrepreneurship. Participants of Indian focus groups at first filled individual work sheets by answering questions about traits of successful entrepreneurs in India. Second, participants compared successful entrepreneurs in India in 90s and in 2007 in focus groups of 4-5 members and presented their common position, but also differences revealed in group discussions.Findings - courage to risk, openness to new information, flexibility, creativity and determination were the features of successful entrepreneurs in India most often pointed out be all categories of respondents. Focus groups stressed some success factors of an entrepreneur operating in India that in the year 2007 were more important than in 90-ies of the 20th century: broad world view, wide social network, innovativeness and creativity, lobbying in EU-related structures.

Research limitations/implications – The research applies focus groups that highlight perceptions of changing success factors of entrepreneurs but does not involve a representative sample of Indian entrepreneurs. Research results can be used as an input for entrepreneurship training and organisational development programmes.Originality/value The results of the research explain why organisation development tools in the present environment of organisational changes in a new EU member state have to stress creativity and support inter-organisational networking, whereas in the 90s “selling” the vision of an entrepreneur that was driven by best practices from advanced market economies was often the main focus of organisational development programmes. Keywords entrepreneur, success factors, organisational change, organisational development, learningPaper type Research paper

Homework Help https://www.homeworkping.com/ Math homework helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Research Paper helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Algebra Helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Calculus Helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Accounting helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Paper Helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Writing Helphttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Online Tutorhttps://www.homeworkping.com/ Online Tutoringhttps://www.homeworkping.com/