1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
Kuratko's take on failure in the endeavor of entrepreneurship stood out to me because he blatantly states that failure is inevitable. I didn't expect him to take such a negative outcome and turn it into something beneficial for the reader, as a key note to what happens on the norm and that it's okay. His perception is very humanistic, and this characteristic is what makes endeavors successful. It's like the process of trial and error; you learn from your past mistakes and grow on them.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I didn't find the reading too confusing, just very dense, especially in what he's trying to present the reader. Kuratko did give many definitions of entrepreneurship, but I understand that there are many angles to view entrepreneurship from. Kuratko wasn't very clear on solutions to problems he presented.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
Would it be better to take a micro or a macro approach to entrepreneurship? Or both? I would ask this just to gain a better business tactic.
Why is the entrepreneurial endeavor so prominent in the U.S. primarily, versus the global market? We have many competitors outside of the U.S. but what makes our country stand out?
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
I do not disagree with anything, rather, I have a more open-minded and broad outlook on entrepreneurship. Kuratko pointed out things that I wouldn't know without the prior knowledge, and I learned a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment