Print Version Email this article

Higher Ed Needs Both Leaders and Entrepreneurs

Dr. Margareta Smith Knopik

Motivated, visionary, energetic, hard working. Do these traits best describe leaders or entrepreneurs? What about creative, tough-minded, responsible and inspiring?

Though these actually characterize both groups, how leaders and entrepreneurs exhibit them differs significantly. With higher education increasingly asking its departments and colleges/schools to become more entrepreneurial, the differences are important.

Dr. Margareta Smith Knopik and Dr. Tamara Moerer set out to study the similarities and differences between leaders and entrepreneurs. Their objective was to “learn from one to teach the other” and to incorporate what they found into their classroom teaching.

Knopik, an associate professor in the department of business administration and technology at the University of Montana Western, teaches classes on entrepreneurship. Moerer is an assistant professor who directs the master’s program in organizational leadership at the College of St. Mary in Nebraska, an urban women’s college. They’ve collaborated at four different schools over the last 25 years.

Knopik and Moerer have more than a passing interest in entrepreneurship and leadership. Besides their academic careers, Moerer spent 10 years running her own marketing business. Knopik recently started an online knitting business with her mother; she admits, “I don’t have the focus to run a business. I just come up with the ideas.”

When their initial literature review uncovered some surprising findings, the pair conducted a primary research study to test the results. Their work formed the basis for their presentation at the University of Nebraska’s conference on Women in Educational Leadership in October. While aimed at students, their research can be applied to faculty, department heads and deans who are being asked to become more entrepreneurial in their quest to bring money into their units. “We don’t have enough good ideas to start with and I think departments need to learn how to do more than the status quo,” said Knopik. “Once you get ideas on the table, you need someone who can negotiate the system, which academics aren’t usually good at.”

Different priorities

Having reviewed and synthesized 30 years’ of studies on entrepreneurs and leaders early in their research, they formed a hypothesis. “We suspected that a true entrepreneur’s priorities were different from a leader’s priorities,” Knopik said.

Their suspicions proved correct. Most definitions of leadership say it “involves a process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one to others in an attempt to guide relationships,” said Moerer.

One model of leadership focuses on four basic elements: the leader, others, task and organization. An effective leader needed 11 essential traits: bonding of employees, managing change, thinking strategically, sharing the vision, influencing others, efficiency, learning and growth. The relationship between these factors determined the eventual outcome.

Entrepreneurs were seen as “doers.” They willingly undertook challenges while emphasizing the value of opportunities over the risk of threats.

Leaders and entrepreneurs also shared similarities. They both have a strong drive to achieve, exhibit a high degree of enthusiasm and creativity and have the ability to see opportunities and to set goals. They are courageous, take sensible risks, and are focused, competent and determined.

Different focus

The differences between the two groups concentrated on “focus” (internal or external) and the “context of the environment.” Leaders focus “out there and on them,” while entrepreneurs focus on themselves and their immediate environment, and have a relatively short span of attention.

Purpose played a role in identifying differences. A leader’s purpose is to include and inspire others while heading in the right direction. Entrepreneurs see their purpose as successfully realizing an idea that will result in desired outcomes. Entrepreneurs grudgingly admit that they often need others to help them to achieve their purpose.

Both groups share a visionary perspective, but for entrepreneurs, having a personal vision is their first priority, which they see as both innovative and a competitive advantage.

Entrepreneurs frequently manifest their vision with an “all about me” attitude. “The literature review shows that studies done on entrepreneurs make them sound like bullies,” said Knopik.

They define teamwork as explaining logistics and reviewing job completion. The organization’s mission involves successfully completing the business plan.

In contrast, leaders viewed their purpose as supporting the organization’s mission. They sought buy-in from the team through communication and motivation. In other words, they looked to “bring people along,” said Knopik.

Research on women

Based on the literature review, the pair later conducted a more qualitative primary research project to test their hypothesis. Using an online survey tool, they drafted 10 open-ended questions using words from their first paper to see if they were on target. For each question, the participants chose a word and then explained their answers.

They sent their survey to 46 selected women professionals who seemed to fit into both camps. “When we selected them, we knew these women were very savvy and would understand both leadership and entrepreneurship” and share characteristics of both types, they said.

The women came from entrepreneurial environments, corporations and nonprofits. Of the 27 (59%) who responded to the survey, 20 fell into the leaders category while seven were entrepreneurs.

Because the survey’s purpose was to validate their initial results, the first question forced respondents to make a choice. Select between “It’s important that people understand my vision” or “I know that I need people to help me, but it’s not important that they buy in.”

 “There were clearly two points of view among the women,” said Knopik. “They were entrepreneurs or leaders and their answers really reflected what we had found in the first paper.”

Five themes

Responses to the remaining questions fell into five themes: teamwork, traits, team choice, vision and motivation/priorities.

Teamwork: While both groups were goal-driven, their view of teamwork was similar to the findings in the literature review.

The leaders viewed teamwork as essential to the process. Collaboration and synergy were seen as critical factors and the process was valued even considering the “consequential conflict involved.” Motivating others was seen as a leader’s primary role.

Entrepreneurs saw teamwork as situational and based on specific projects or needs. Although they interacted or networked with others, entrepreneurs saw themselves as the ones who made things happen.

Entrepreneurs “are so focused on idea development that they forget to bring people along,” said Knopik. “I think they have to learn how to value other people for their contributions to the team.” And they need to learn patience. “Entrepreneurs weren’t that patient, while leaders were,” she added.

Traits: Leaders believed that having a vision is necessary, team orientation is essential and motivating others is their primary role.

Entrepreneurs saw their role as taking care of business and making things happen. Details mattered in getting jobs accomplished and every task was something that had to be done.

Team Choice: When asked whether insights or skills were more important for a team, leaders chose insights. “Insights are more thoughts while skills are more tools,” said Knopik. “Leaders said, ‘I value skills, but the ideas are important.’” Skills can be found anywhere, but insights resulted in the best solutions.

Entrepreneurs saw themselves using skills to make things happen. “You can’t take ideas to the bank,” said a respondent. And entrepreneurs admitted a preference toward working independently.

When it came to social capital, both groups believed in reaping what they sowed. But they had very different attitudes toward the benefits and use of social capital.

Leaders viewed it as relationship building that included sharing knowledge and information. Maintaining relationships and reciprocity were important components. “Leaders are all about reciprocity,” said Moerer. “What can I do to help you today and hope that I can come back later to use your social capital. 

Entrepreneurs used social capital for their development, new business and employee recruitment. They were willing to listen and act as sounding boards for others, but were unwilling to share information. Entrepreneurs use social capital to move their goals ahead. "They're very self-centered," she added.

“Leaders network as if they’re building a global team; they respect and value people,” said Knopik. “Entrepreneurs network solely to get the job done. We don’t waste time getting to know people who can’t help us,” one said.

Decision-making was affected by the way both groups operated. Entrepreneurs can move quickly because they neither collaborate nor ask for a lot of input. They are comfortable making a decision to move forward but need help in doing so. They “tell” rather than “ask.”

Leaders spend more time making decisions because of their emphasis on collaboration. But ideas and outcomes are stronger because of the time spent in reaching a solution and because of the additional minds that were tapped in getting there. “The team is more motivated because it’s an asking process rather than a telling process,” said Knopik.

Eventually “leaders, rather than being so collaborative, have to make a decision to move forward,” added Moerer.

Vision: While both groups reported that seeing the “big picture” was a critical part of the process, leaders saw their vision of leadership as “inspiring others to come along.”

Entrepreneurs defined it as the ability to visualize different outcomes and effects. They were able to see “how parts fit together” and what steps were necessary to reach a goal.

Motivation/priorities: Leaders saw the organization’s mission as driving priorities and motivating team members, plus team engagement and passion.

For entrepreneurs, their motivation and priorities came from a personal buy-in. Their definition of success was the satisfaction that they brought to their clients.

A function of age? One finding begs further research. The older women in the study—who had earned masters’ or PhD degrees— were more likely to identify themselves as leaders, while the younger women with less education saw themselves as entrepreneurs.

As we gain in experience, years and education, does the number of relationships we build affect our style? How do higher education and maturity factor into this? “Maybe we value social capital differently and perhaps we use it more appropriately,” Moerer mused.

Knopik has a different take. “I personally think it’s the higher education factor. The more education you get, the more you appreciate different viewpoints and learn how to collaborate on projects,” she said, suggesting that a mixture of both types of skills is best. “Good leaders are somewhat entrepreneurial, while really successful entrepreneurs have the ability to bring people along.”

Contact Knopik at
m_knopik@umwestern.edu
or 406.683.7205

Contact Moerer at
tmoerer@csm.edu
or 402.399.2604