MARCUS: Not all business owners are entrepreneurs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Morton Marcus

Many years ago, Winslow Spoon decided he did not want to work for a big company. He did not like taking orders from people who knew less or had less vision than he did about the business. He felt he could do a better job, earn more for his family, and have less hassle in his life if he went out on his own.

Thus, Winslow started his own business with his own money and some borrowed from his parents and an aunt. He worked many hours to build the business, where he now has more than 20 employees. The business has survived the recent economic crisis and looks to be OK for the foreseeable future.

The Spoons live well, but not extravagantly, in southeastern Indiana. They see the Reds and the Bengals in Cincinnati from time to time and get to Indianapolis once or twice a year for shopping and entertainment.

Winslow thinks of himself as an entrepreneur, the rock upon which America is built. He fits the classic definition of an entrepreneur: a person who organizes, operates and takes the risks associated with an enterprise. Nonetheless, some say Winslow stopped being an entrepreneur many years ago. Today, they say, he is just a business owner and no longer an entrepreneur.

Winslow’s critics believe an entrepreneur is one who actively undertakes new efforts, a person who might be called a serial business innovator. The SBI often thrives on getting a business going, making it a success, then selling it off by taking the firm public, or selling it to private investors or to another firm. Often, the SBI turns around and starts another business, enjoying the challenges of a startup activity.

The SBI seeks to expand, to diversify and to accept new risks. The business owner, by contrast, often remains in the same place, doing the same thing year after year. While the SBI seeks new seas and new ports, the business owner lies at anchor, subject to the tides.

Winslow should not be thought of as an inferior person because he doesn’t venture into new businesses. He and other steady business owners are truly the rocks of our economy. We depend on them for our daily services. They provide distinctiveness for our communities. But rocks are fundamentally stable entities. Their importance is unquestioned, but they move and change only when subjected to earth-shaking events or the forces of persistent erosion.

The steady business owner may disregard opportunities and take too few risks. This behavior may deny society important gains. When the business owner shies away from expanding or diversifying, he or she may be under-using the resources, skills and knowledge already resident in the firm. This “prudence” may open the opportunities that SBIs seize.      

Serial business innovators, by contrast, may take too many risks and squander resources. But their failures may provide important information about opportunities and lessons for others to follow. If my attempts to sell stock tips as messages in fortune cookies fail, you might recognize that such an enterprise can easily crumble. Failure is not necessarily without value.

Our economy needs both content business owners (Winslow) and aggressive entrepreneurs. Should we, however, subsidize one or the other, or both? Because the mythology of small business is strong in this country, we have massive programs that aid and favor existing small and startup businesses. But do we have enough factual information to justify this favoritism? Or do we suffer from a Disney syndrome, in which everything small is considered cute and worthy of both our sympathies and protection?•


Marcus taught economics for more than 30 years at Indiana University and is the former director of IU’s Business Research Center. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mmarcus@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.