Entrepreneurship in teleology-the variety of the forms

Entrepreneurship in teleology:the variety of the formsIoannis N.KatsikisDepartment of Management Science and Technology,Athens University of Economics and Business,Athens,Greece,and Lida P.Kyrgidou International Hellenic University,Thessaloniki,Greece andDepartment of Economics,Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,Thessaloniki,GreeceAbstractPurpose –The purpose of the paper is to define a range of entrepreneurial concepts and provide a critical review of their content in order to map the forms of the entrepreneurial actions within their teleological context.Design/methodology/approach –Based on the authors’definition of teleology as the process of heading towards an end,entrepreneurship was categorized into a three-item typology,namely subject,process and object.The latter served as a platform for the analysis,which reveals some key qualities about research in entrepreneurship.Findings –The paper provides a categorization of entrepreneurship both at the distinction (subject,process,object)and the contextual level and the commonalities and differences among entrepreneurship’s different teleological approaches are analyzed and the potential is offered for further avenues of research to emerge.Additionally,it is demonstrated that the teleological approaches represent distinct approaches to interpret diverse aspects of the entrepreneurial phenomenon and provide insights into the way in which the entrepreneurial process itself unfolds.Originality/value –The paper provides an innovative categorization of entrepreneurship as subject,process and object while discussing a variety of various entrepreneurial forms through their teleological nature within each of the three categories.The paper is valuable to scholars seeking to further advance their understanding in the various fields of entrepreneurship,understand the function of the particular set of activities to be undertaken,the role of particular individuals/agents involved in the entrepreneurial process,the opportunity identification/exploitation process as well as the particular objective that each entrepreneurial form aims at fulfilling.Keywords Entrepreneurialism,Management techniquesPaper type Literature reviewIntroductionFew of the phenomena that have gripped the organizational and management world in recent years match the impact of entrepreneurship (Antoncic and Hisrich,2003;Davidsson,2005).A large variety of research work indicates there is consensus that entrepreneurship is a vital element of social,organizational and individual success (Antoncic and Hisrich,2003;Davidsson,2005).However,research on entrepreneurship has often been characterized as diverse,fragmented and in ferment (Shane and Venkataraman,2000).Over time,several forms of entrepreneurship have developed beyond the traditional,neoclassical or Schumpeterian notion of business/economic entrepreneurship,which on one hand justify the multidimensionality of the entrepreneurial domain,yet creates confusion as to their distinctiveness and theThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at/1355-2554.htmEntrepreneurship in teleology 209Received 10January 2008Revised 24April 2008Accepted 3November 2008International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &Research Vol.15No.2,2009pp.209-231q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1355-2554DOI 10.1108/13552550910944584Papertype: Literature reviewnecessity of their existence.Recently,Schildt et al.(2006)attempted to categorize different streams of entrepreneurship research based on Zahra’s (2005)argument that the lack of a widely accepted categorization of the different streams of entrepreneurship research inhibits the growth of entrepreneurship as a scholarly endeavor.Such entrepreneurial concepts refer to strategic entrepreneurship (Ireland et al.,2003;Hitt et al.,2001),social entrepreneurship (Peredo and McLean,2006;Weerawardena and Mort,2006),sustainable entrepreneurship (Dean and McMullen,2007;Cohen and Winn,2007;Katsikis and Kyrgidou,2007),environmental –ecological entrepreneurship (Schaltegger and Peterson,2001;Schaper,2002;Schaltegger,2002;Dean and McMullen,2007),intrapreneurship (Hitt et al.,2002;Guth and Ginsberg,1990;Miller,1983;Covin and Miles,1999;Stevenson and Jarillo,1990),institutional entrepreneurship (Augier and Sarasvathy,2004;Xu and Ruef,2004Boxenbaum and Battilana,2005),public entrepreneurship (Morris and Jones,1999;Bygrave,1989;Shockley et al.,2006;Kelman,2005;Feldman,2005;Roberts,1992),philanthropic entrepreneurship (Acs and Dana,2001),institutional entrepreneurship (Dorado,2005)and distributed entrepreneurship (Bureth et al.,2006).Each of the aforementioned notions refers to a specific objective as defined by its distinctive determining character (strategic,social,sustainable,etc),yet there is some confusion and lack of clarity as to entrepreneurship’s various manifestations.As well as to the particular set of activities employed in order to explore and exploit opportunities to realize entrepreneurial outcomes as well as to the subject (agent involved)of such activities.This paper contributes by attempting to legitimize the field of entrepreneurship at two successive levels.First,at the distinction level,it provides an innovative categorization of entrepreneurship as subject,process and object.Second,it aims at mapping teleological approaches to the entrepreneurial phenomenon by defining the variety of entrepreneurial notions and providing a critical review.In this way,it goes beyond the categorization of the different streams of research,demonstrating under which of the three categories each entrepreneurial form falls,thus,providing insight at the contextual level as well.In addition,it sharpens understanding of entrepreneurship’s varying notions.In the following section,we provide an overview of the advancements of entrepreneurship theory as a stream of research.Drawing upon the two fundamental theoretical backgrounds of entrepreneurship,which serve as a platform for our analysis we review the literature and attempt to identify teleological approaches.Based on this review,we develop a theoretical schema,conceptualizing entrepreneurship as a subject,process and object,for better understanding the context of those approaches.At a second level,we systemize our research by providing a comprehensive categorization of our findings.Entrepreneurship theoryThe subject and the characteristics of entrepreneurshipBy and large,there is consensus that entrepreneurship with its emphasis on opportunity and wealth creation is a vital element of organizational and individual success (Antoncic and Hisrich,2003;Davidsson,2005).Traditionally,entrepreneurship has been linked to uncertainty,to risk-taking as well as to the efforts on the part of the individual (entrepreneur)who ventures to transform visions into business activities.IJEBR 15,2210These scholars have identified three distinct traditions in the development of entrepreneurial research:the German Tradition developed by Schumpeter and Von Thuenen,the Chicago Tradition by Knight and Schultz and the Austrian Tradition, based on Von Mises,Kirzner and Shackle.Schumpeterian theory views entrepreneurship as a disequilibrating phenomenon,rather than an equilibrating force and a theory of creative destruction has been proposed where newfirms with entrepreneurial characteristics displace less innovative incumbents thus leading to a higher degree of economic growth.Knight(1921)emphasizes the role of risk as central in the“uncertain”entrepreneurial environment.Finally,Kirzner(1979)places emphasis on the role of opportunities within entrepreneurship,and argues that the fundamental entrepreneurial activity involves“seeing”previously unnoticed opportunities for profit,referring to entrepreneurial alertness.Shane(2003)argues that the absence of a coherent and consistent conceptual framework for entrepreneurship is due to researchers considering only one part of the entrepreneurial process rather than all relevant aspects collectively.Thus,the question remains as to what entrepreneurship and its teleological forms are about.Essentially, entrepreneurship involves the study of sources of opportunities,the process of discovery,the exploitation of opportunities,and the characteristics of individuals in organizational settings who discover,evaluate,and exploit these opportunities(Shane and Venkataraman,2000).The most prevalent views of entrepreneurship focus on the perception of new economic opportunities and the introduction of new ideas in the market.Opportunity recognition,in particular,lies at the heart of entrepreneurship (Brown and Eisenhardt,1998;Eisenhardt and Martin,2000;McCline et al.,2000). Entrepreneurship scholars seek to answer questions such as why,when and how opportunities for the creation of goods and services come into existence;why,when and how some people and not other discover and exploit these opportunities;why when and how different modes of action are used to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities(Shane and Venkataraman,2000,p.218).A combination and synthesis of entrepreneurship’s varying in nature definitions in general terms agree to the positive effects that entrepreneurship poses onfirms’value creating efforts and the identify of common characteristics that construct the context of entrepreneurship as a process. Such characteristics pertain to risk taking since entrepreneurial efforts and activities take place within an uncertain environment,(Knight,1921;von Mises,1919),creativity and innovativeness(Schumpeter,1934),value and wealth creation(Ireland et al.,2003) as well as opportunity exploration and exploitation,through entrepreneurial alertness (Kirnzer,1979),new resource combinations(Schumpeter,1934;Shane and Venkataraman,2000)etc.In the following section we discuss the entrepreneurial phenomenon as perceived by classical and neo-classical paradigms of economic thought and then move to the Schumpeterian and evolutionary approaches.Since these theories of entrepreneurship have consistently been used for the development of contemporary entrepreneurial approaches,we briefly analyze their basic constituents and identify their primary characteristics.Such insight serves as a critical tool for our understanding of entrepreneurship as the primary construct and for further analysis of its various teleological forms.Entrepreneurshipin teleology211Classical and neo-classical perspectives Entrepreneurship initially was closely associated with capital where profit was perceived as the reward for risk taking rather than making strategic decisions.The French school (e.g.Cantillon,1755)viewed entrepreneurs as individuals seizing profit under conditions of uncertainty.Thus,a distinction was made between capitalists and entrepreneurs by identifying entrepreneurs as risk takers undertaking a level ofunpredictable risk.Classical economists viewed entrepreneurs as wealth creators.Therefore,the concept of risk emerged as a key element.In addition,according to this school of thought (Kirzner,1979)the role of the entrepreneur is influenced by the context from which he/she is bounded and thus entrepreneurial capability arises from the ability to identify opportunities and to make decisions in an existing set of circumstances (Pittaway,2005).Thus,Kirzner (1979)elaborates on the concept of entrepreneurial alertness to new opportunities in existing circumstances (Pittaway,2005).As Tang (2008)argues the importance of entrepreneurial alertness for explaining economic development and predicting opportunities discovered in the entrepreneurial process (Hills and Shrader,1998;Ko,2004)has been emphasized in the literature.The Austrian School (e.g.von Mises,1919;Kirzner,1979;Menger,1982)moving away from the mainstream economic paradigm,identified entrepreneurs as those who created economic change through decision-making.Menger (1982)argued that while entrepreneurs may face uncertainty,the element of risk is not essential.He identified a number of situations,whereby the activity isconsidered entrepreneurial but risk is absent.The German school (e.g.von Thu¨nen,1826;von Schmoller,1910)distinguished entrepreneurs from capitalists by viewing profit as the return for entrepreneurial risk;whereby entrepreneurs were viewed as both risk takers and innovators.The Neoclassical perspective views entrepreneurs as innovators and considers profit as the reimbursement for entrepreneurial services Marshall (1980).Knight (1921)extended the concept of risk to identify insurable and uninsurable risk,associating profit for uninsurable risk with rapid economic change.Thus,Knight (1921)views entrepreneurs as those with the ability to activate others under uncertain situations and the flexibility to act quickly.Profit,thus,represented both payment for ability and compensation for assuming risk.The Schumpeterian approachSchumpeterian theory can be considered as the key founding idea of entrepreneurship research (Gregoire et al.,2006).Coming from the Austrian tradition of economics,Schumpeter (1934)proposed a slightly different view of entrepreneurship,outside the scope of the general equilibrium model of the neoclassical economics,considering entrepreneurs as innovators,creating new activities and markets in order to disturb the “status quo”.Thus,it seems that economic theories of entrepreneurship are diverse and at times conflicting.Contrary to Kirzner’s (1979)perspective of the entrepreneur,Schumpeter argues that the role of the entrepreneur is to create those circumstances and context appropriate for new opportunities to occur.Thus,he attributes the “agency”role to entrepreneurial behavior arguing that entrepreneurs should be adept at creating their own circumstances,viewing entrepreneurship as a disequilibrating phenomenon.The Schumpeterian tradition is pursued in studies that focus on entrepreneurship as a way of describing and characterizing a firm’s actions.As Jones (2000)argues,IJEBR 15,2212Schumpeter was thefirst to view the role of entrepreneur as identifying potential markets and utilizing existing knowledge in order to develop existing products and services.Thus,in their quest for wealth creation,entrepreneurialfirms focus on innovative,proactive and risk-taking behaviors(Barringer and Bluedorn,1999) conducive to the formation of new business models,business logics and organizational forms(Sharma and Chrisman,1999).Within the entrepreneurial theory,it is also important to highlight the fact that obstacles and inefficiencies in the functioning of markets generates the ability to produce economic profit and gives birth to entrepreneurial opportunities.This evolutionary approach contrasts with classical and neo-classical economic theory,which support that environmental problems result from economic inefficiency. Therefore,based on the definitions by Shane and Venkataraman(2000)we define entrepreneurship as“the teleological process aiming at the achievement of development,by discovering,evaluating and exploiting opportunities and creating value at multiple levels”.In the following sections,entrepreneurship’s various teleological forms,which will be discussed and briefly analyzed,are based on the fundamental thinking of the above evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian approaches,which consider entrepreneurship as a teleological process.Before discussing these forms we elaborate on the notion of teleology itself to provide a better understanding of its association to the entrepreneurial domain.The different streams of research around entrepreneurship underlie the different key assumptions that each of these groups suggests with respect to entrepreneurship. In particular,with respect to the role of entrepreneurs as actors and their actions,the process of opportunity identification and exploitation and consequently to the entrepreneurial outcomes that emerge.We aim at providing a clarification as to the exact relationship of entrepreneurship and its defining elements/aspects involved.This difference in perspectives between classical/neoclassical economists and the Schumpeterian tradition brings forth the distinction of entrepreneurial perception as a matter of creation versus a matter of discovery.This same distinction has been reinforced by a number of consequential entrepreneurial studies.Barney and Alvarez (2007)focus on the creation/discovery theory and bring forth the notion of teleology and teleological approaches as a hermeneutical mechanism of human action.The following section is dedicated to the analysis of the notion of teleology with the aim of providing insight as to entrepreneurship’s varying teleological approaches.The notion and the role of teleology in entrepreneurshipTeleology is the study of ends,purposes and goals.The word teleology is derived from the ancient Greek word:“telos”,meaning“end”,target or purpose.The term“teleology”has been entailed within the“creative view”of entrepreneurial opportunities as analyzed by Sarasvathy et al.(2003),which is considered as teleological in that actors are implicitly expected to seek wealth creation(Sanz-Velasco,2006).Additionally, teleology or purposiveness as a domain suggests the philosophical study of design, purpose,directive principle,orfinality both in nature and human creations.It is traditionally contrasted with philosophical naturalism which views nature as of lacking design or purpose.As opposed to this,teleology argues that there is afinal cause or“purposiveness”inherent in all beings and human actions(Jakee and Spong, 2003).Entrepreneurshipin teleology213In philosophy,it is the doctrine that attempts to explain the nature and existence in terms of ends or final causes.Teleology therefore is grounded on the fundamental idea that the universe (cosmos)has a purpose of existence.Historically,teleology may be identified with Aristotelian philosophy and the scholastic tradition in philosophy,again,made central to speculative philosophy by Hegel (Marcuse,1987).According to Aristotle’s teaching (Johnson,2005),the justification for a phenomenon or process is tobe found not only in the immediate purpose or its cause but also mostly in its “final cause”(telos).This may also explain the reason for which the phenomenon exists or was initially created.Moreover,in Christian theologies,teleology often represents a basic argument proving the existence of God,in that the order,the complexity and the efficiency of the natural world cannot be accidental (Paley,1802).Thus,this hypothesis suggests that if the world design is intelligent,an ultimate Designer must therefore exist.When it comes to human actions,teleological approaches explain human behaviors in terms of the impact of that behavior on individuals’ability to accomplish their purposes (Alvarez and Barney,2007).Teleological approaches argue that behavior that facilitates the accomplishment of one’s purposes is more likely to occur than behaviour that does not (Parsons and Shils,1962).As Alvarez and Barney (2007)argue teleological theories of human action explain “human behaviour in terms of the impact that behaviour on the ability of individuals to accomplish their purposes”(2007,p.12).The same authors highlight examples of teleological theories in the social science,which include motivation theory in psychology (Herzberg,1976;Maslow,1943),functional theory in anthropology (Lesser,1935),and institutional theory in sociology (DiMaggio and Powell,1983;Scott,2001).Alvarez and Barney(2007)argue that all teleological theories of human action make three critical assumptions about the nature of:(1)human objectives;(2)individuals;and(3)the decision-making context within which individuals operate (Bergmann,1957;Nagal,1961;Parsons and Shils,1962).The same authors argue that different predictions about human behavior usually turn on one or more differences in these three critical assumptions (Parsons and Shils,1962).In this paper,we use the above mentioned assumptions as the foundation for the creation of categories in order to analyze teleological approaches of entrepreneurship.The assumptions about the nature of human objectives help in formulating the “object”category,the assumptions about the nature of individuals form the “subject”,and the assumptions about the nature of the decision making “process”category.This effort enables us to better understand the nature of the entrepreneurial phenomena,while raising important questions,such as:“who is involved in the process?”(subject),“how are they intending to get there?”(process),“what is their measure of success?”(object)concerning the interpretation and analysis of the entrepreneurial activity.Table I exhibits the relation among assumptions,categories,and the relevant research questions.Thus,the synthesis provides insight as to the context within which these teleological approaches unfold.Their employment also sharpens understanding of the entrepreneurial forms,pinpointing similarities and differences among them.In Figure 1,we distinguish between three categories at the distinction level,according to the agent of change (subject),the mean (process)and the end resultIJEBR 15,2214(object).As forms of entrepreneurship we define and characterize the different and thus distinctive processes that enable entrepreneurship to reach its teleology by fulfilling specific and distinctive objectives.Figure 1can be interpreted in a dual way.First,horizontally,at the distinction level,we identify the linear process of entrepreneurship beginning with the subject of the entrepreneurial action who adopts a specific mean/process/set of activities in order to achieve a final object/outcome.At the context level,we categorize the theoretical streams of entrepreneurship according to their nature –content,setting off from the main discipline of economic –business entrepreneurship as a point of departure.Therefore,we view the means/process and the object/purpose or end-result of those actions.This study attempts to offer a better understanding into the very essence that is the “telos”of the above-mentioned approaches.Thus,in the following section we analyze teleological approaches to the entrepreneurial phenomenon,while providing a comprehensive overview in terms of definitions,objectives and contributors of the respective fily,we analyze concepts such as:strategic entrepreneurship,social entrepreneurship,intrapreneurship,public entrepreneurship,environmental and ecological entrepreneurship,sustainable entrepreneurship,philanthropic entrepreneurship,institutional entrepreneurship and distributed entrepreneurship.Our intention is to provide an extensive review of existing available teleological approaches to entrepreneurship,which will later be categorized in three distinctive groups (subject,object or process)according to their similarities or differences.Teleological approaches to entrepreneurshipScholars and practitioners alike are increasingly interested in studying and understanding corporate entrepreneurship (CE)(Ireland et al.,2002).CE is perceived as the driver of new businesses within established organizations through the employment of internal innovation,joint ventures,strategic renewal (Hitt et al.,2002),product/process innovations (Covin and Miles,1999).It has been defined as deliberate and intentional activity leading to innovations in large,established organizations (Hitt Figure 1.The categories ofentrepreneurial forms ofactionAssumptionsCategories Research questions Assumptions about the nature ofhuman objectivesObject “Who is involved in the process?”Assumptions about the nature ofindividualsSubject “What is their measure of success?”Assumptions about the nature of thedecision-making context within whichindividuals operate Process “How are they intending to get there?”Table I.Teleological categorization in entrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship in teleology 215et al.,2002)that affect organizational survival,growth and performance (Kazanjian et al.,2001).Hornsby et al.(2002)argue that there is little empirical research as to the understanding of managers’contribution in the context of corporate entrepreneurship,while Hitt et al.(2001,2002)have been at the forefront of attempts to integrate corporate entrepreneurship with strategic management (Jones,2005).Literature has focused on the link between corporate entrepreneurship and organizationalperformance (Georgellis et al.2000),although current research does not provide evidence of unambiguous links between CE and performance.Kuratko et al.(2001)suggest that financial results can be attributed to entrepreneurial actions and to top management behavior that fosters entrepreneurial behavior among employees (Kuratko et al.,2001).As Dess et al.(2003)highlight,the focus of CE research has been mostly on established global companies since more research has been published on that level than within new ventures.Strategic entrepreneurship (SE),has emerged as a core concept of the new entrepreneurial paradigm and refers to firms’pursuit of superior performance through the simultaneous use of entrepreneurial (opportunity-seeking)and strategic (advantage seeking)activities (Ireland et al.,2003).It has been developed as a response to the inefficiencies of the traditional paradigm in the field of strategy in explaining and predicting firm behavior in volatile,and turbulent environments,where increasing stakeholder expectations demand innovation more than optimization.Firms develop and implement new business models within which entrepreneurial opportunities are identified and exploited through the application of a strategic discipline to create wealth (Hitt et al.,2001).Firms seek to create wealth through the exploitation of competitive advantages they possess and the identification of ideas that can potentially create advantages,thus improving performance in the long run (Ireland and Webb,2007).In this vein,SE involves maintaining a balance between opportunity and advantage-seeking behaviors (Ireland et al.,2003).Opportunity seeking appears a central element stemming from the firm’s ability to absorb and integrate new and existing knowledge.Two additional pillars of SE pertain to an appropriate managerial mindset within the firm (Ireland et al.,2003)and to the continuous flow of innovations (Ireland and Webb,2007).The goal of SE is to continuously create competitive advantages that lead to maximum wealth creation,thus,creating balance between opportunity identification and exploitation and achieving sustainable competitive advantage (Ireland et al.,2003).The examination of social entrepreneurship’s definitions over time reveals (Boschee,1998;Thompson et al.,2000)the problem solving nature of social entrepreneurship and the corresponding emphasis on developing and implementing initiatives that produce measurable results in the form of changed social outcomes and/or impacts.Success in social enterprises is assessed through the amount of distributed capital and the range of individuals and societies that benefit from their economic performance rather than considering profitability rates (Ridley-Duff,2008).Profits are desirable to the extent that they can be channeled towards the collective needs of socially excluded groups.This perspective provides a “redistributive”character to the concept of social enterprise.Social entrepreneurship aims at conducting business while achieving socially purposeful objectives,serving an upper mission that in general aims at obtaining sustained,positive effects on society.Therefore,social entrepreneurship concerns the discovery of new means to achieve positive and constructive socialIJEBR 15,2216change;social entrepreneurs are those individuals who configure resources in order to achieve socially purposeful objectives(Dees,1998).Social entrepreneurship’s primary objective is extended beyond simply enriching its stakeholders’interests,to benefiting large communities and to achieving transformational effects on its clients(Peredo and Chrisman,2006).Moreover,social entrepreneurs aim to create value with long-lasting social changes and are usually well aware of the needs and values of the individuals, groups and regions they aid(Catford,1998).While entrepreneurs in both traditional and social entrepreneurship invest in resources to generate value deprived of these resources it is the entrepreneurial discovery process that differs between the two in important ways.Social value leads to the creation of jobs and revitalization of disadvantaged sectors of society on levels that surpass those of the largestfirms (Kuratko,2005).The above analysis reveals the socially oriented character of this form of entrepreneurship,which examines the entrepreneurial discovery phenomenon in a socially purposeful business context.While social entrepreneurial activities are similar to traditional ones,they are targeted towards the generation of value that can be used to alleviate poverty,ignorance or hunger.The notion of public entrepreneurship has only recently appeared in the mainstream entrepreneurship literature and it is defined by Morris and Jones(1999)as“the process of generating value for citizens by bringing together unique combinations of public and/or private resources to exploit social opportunities”(1999,p.74).While Bygrave (1989)claims that entrepreneurship is the process of identifying opportunities and preparing for their exploitation,taking and managing risk,organizing and coordinating resources,in order to create competitive advantages to foster the opportunity exploitation process(Kelman,2005;Feldman,2005).Public Entrepreneurship focuses on the delivery of more efficient services to citizens. Approaches regarding the applicability of an entrepreneurial approach to the public context have been conflicting over time.For instance,Terry(1993)argues that the fundamental differences between the private and the public sector logic do not allow the adoption of the entrepreneurship model into public organisations(Zerbinati and Souitaris,2005).In addition,the public sector context is characterized by predetermined roles regarding the way in which various tasks and jobs are accomplished;therefore,specific boundaries are set as to possible strategic and entrepreneurial initiatives and actions(Kelman,2005;Feldman,2005).According to Zerbinati and Souitaris(2005),the reverse argument is that the compatibility between the actions of public entrepreneurs and the democratic values of the organisation can be secured if public entrepreneurs act as“civic-regarding”entrepreneurs.This,in turn, places emphasis on the motives that drive public entrepreneurs to take their political authority seriously,follow the principles of democratic theory leading them to the adaptation of moreflexible and innovative structures,closer to the new public management(NPM)approach.This perspective refers to the adaptation of strategies by public organizations,associated with entrepreneurial management in the private sector.Scholars such as Curtis(2008)view NPM as a shift in the way in which governments guide and direct bureaucratic administration to the encouragement of entrepreneurial forms of service delivery.Thus,the focus within Public Entrepreneurship again lies on the role of individuals that should act as agents of change.Entrepreneurshipin teleology217。