3 Entrepreneurial work style

The need for supportive, open and communicative policies, structures and cultures in effective entrepreneurial firms as the optimal crucible for successful innovations comes through very strongly from studies of innovation and successful entrepreneurship. However, the strong internal locus of control of successful entrepreneurs suggests there may be a difficulty in accepting the influence of others, powerful or not. And, the strong need for autonomy does not suggest a personality open to sharing of ideas or knowledge. Indeed, the popular image of a successful entrepreneur can sometimes be that of a determined autocrat who lets nothing stand in the way of success. How can these two conflicting pictures of successful entrepreneurship be reconciled? The answer is that, just as there is no one ‘entrepreneurial personality’ and people have different styles of learning, so too are there different management and leadership styles that vary between particular entrepreneurs, in their particular firms facing their own particular set of circumstances.

Looking more closely at learning styles based on the Lewin/Kolb experiential learning cycle (Figure 3) that underlies this unit, it is likely that individuals will be drawn more strongly to one of the four stages than to others. David Kolb's model (1973) suggests that entrepreneurial success should be mainly determined by the individual's ability to adapt and dominate continual changes in the business environment through exploring new opportunities and learning from past successes and mistakes. In the context of business, the cycle starts with a concrete experience (say, the launch of a new product, landing or losing a major customer, unexpected poor staff performance, a delivery failure, and so on); moves on to the stage of observation and reflection on what has happened and why; then onto making sense of what has happened in the form of a rule or guide for repeating successes or avoiding similar mistakes; and, finally setting up a new situation to test the new insights or rules (thus creating a new experience for the cycle to start again). In practice, Kolb observed that most people display skills along a ‘concrete – abstract’ dimension and an ‘action – reflection’ dimension. This suggested to Kolb that there were basically four learning styles (outlined in Figure 4).

Following the flow of the cycle, the learning style in upper right quadrant Kolb labelled the diverger. The diverger is able to see concrete experience from different perspectives and to pull different meanings from experience. Kolb saw people who tend to this style of learning as inventive and creative. This could include entrepreneurs in the creative industries such as design and the media. In the lower right quadrant, the assimilator is attracted to creating models and concepts, an approach that would be a strength in consultancies and marketing firms. The converger in the lower left quadrant has the learning style that prefers to apply rules and to test them. Kolb saw this as a style that appeals to engineers and technical people. It is also useful in innovations based on R&D. In the final quadrant accommodators are at ease in working with other people. They like to plan and carry out new activities. According to Kolb, accommodators are more prepared to accept risks and this may be the most entrepreneurial learning style. However, Kolb was at pains to point out that these are not pigeon-holes because people can move from one style to another depending on circumstances or context. Nevertheless, for many people there is a preferred dominant style.

Most definitions of the entrepreneur also stress the ability to organise and combine as the key distinguishing features. This would emphasise the converger's learning style, a conclusion that should find support from influential management writer Peter Drucker (1985). He maintains that innovation no longer results from chance activities but needs to be managed – whether in a big or small firm – as an organised and systematic process. This suggests that preferred learning styles will be directly related to the learning and skills needs perceived at the time and where they work in the enterprise value-cycle. Thus, learning styles are also likely to be linked to preferred management and leadership styles.

Generally, management-orientation can be described in terms of three very broad, but not mutually exclusive areas – structure (organisational and bureaucratic), people (social and motivational) and change (entrepreneurial and innovative) (Ekvall, 1991). Management styles reflect the influences of the management orientation (the requirements of where they manage in the value chain and individual personality). Very broadly, two main categories are often used to distinguish the main approaches – task-focused and people-focused – and the associated leadership styles contrast directive with participative styles. In fact, a basic two-way classification is far too simple. The brief discussion above suggests at least five broad management behavioural styles – structured (rules and procedures), delegative (happy for subordinates to take some direct responsibility for their own work) standards (set or agree quality and performance standards), merit (praise and reward good work) and supportive (helpful and enjoy the team's trust). Completing Activity 7 will automatically give you scores on each of these styles (with scores around 50 per cent representing the average, so that a score of above 60 per cent on ‘structured’ would indicate you like managing by rules or on ‘delegative’ shows you are comfortable in delegating responsibility).

To get a better understanding of the sort of management style that might be the most suitable for the business that is to launch your idea, we need to go beyond different types of management and look to the role of the entrepreneur as leader. Many managers are mainly administrators or specialists in bounded areas whereas one of the key functions of an entrepreneur is to motivate and coordinate the firm in achieving its goals. Accepting that the main management orientation of the entrepreneur must be to manage change and innovation, in some circumstances this means that the entrepreneur also has to be an extremely efficient manager of the day-to-day challenges of competition while, in other cases, administrative functions are delegated and the entrepreneur is required to be an ambassador and leader, with a longer-term perspective. Plotting against the other two management orientations task and people we can identify the five leadership styles in Figure 5.

The firm that best fits the focus of this course clearly has an innovative leadership style where there is a high focus on both people and tasks. The firm is generally seen as a team and is open to collaborating and sharing with external firms or sources of capabilities. However, research conducted over the years among small firm owners suggest that most like to see themselves in command (especially very small firms with, say, less than ten employees) and having a directive style. Interestingly, growth-oriented small firms that have a history of growth, and slightly larger small firms, are much more likely to see themselves as being ‘one happy family’ (paternalistic style) or having a participative style. The firms that are governed by external rules and procedures, have a comparatively low people and task focus and generally have a structured management style that does not encourage innovation (though in some professions there can be a strictly limited delegation).

In looking ahead to the launch of a successful entrepreneurial idea, we have already highlighted the importance of social process in innovation so it is important to avoid getting too fixated only on the role and capabilities of the entrepreneur. As Figure 2 (Entrepreneurial decision-making) in Section 2 implies, it is the overall capacity of firms, real and perceived, rather than just the individual abilities of their owners, managers or employees that determine the scope of their activities. Perceptions of their own and their staff's capabilities plus their perceptions of competitors’ capabilities has an important part to play in determining small firm owners’ expectations of success. However, there are also likely to be cultural factors of a more general nature which influence perceptions of desired abilities, resources and skills. Entrepreneurs may well be able to identify crucial skills and tasks more accurately than other small business managers. Entrepreneurs can also be defined in terms of their ability to perceive and to respond to these changes more quickly than other business managers. With reasonable feedback, it is relatively straightforward to discuss opportunities and to identify the gaps between reality and perception. However, customer and consumer needs are often ill defined, hidden from view and difficult to quantify Certainly, the perception of many lower level needs (either the needs of entrepreneurs or of customers) are even more strongly determined socially through broad cultural or more immediate occupational influences.

It seems reasonable to hold that effective business judgement reflects the correspondence of an individual's perceived capacities, opportunities and threats to their objective possibilities and the individual's ability competence) to act upon that information (as in Figure 2). It is not too difficult to then interpret the list of common entrepreneurial behavioural characteristics in Box 2 in terms of business competence. The successful entrepreneurial firm needs the right balance of competences in the team as a whole rather than seeking them in a single individual. Modern management theory is certainly moving in this direction and away from older hierarchical, scientific management or management-by-objectives models. In reality, your leadership and management styles will be determined by what you feel most comfortable with and what you feel is the norm in the circumstances (but remember that the people you are dealing with also have their feelings about what is a ‘normal’ management or communications style for the circumstances). By now we shall assume that you have worked out many of these issues to your own satisfaction but, if you need more help, the following activity on teamwork issues may help you consider them more systematically.