In a nutshell
We ask entrepreneurs to master everything at once. This study proposes that instead of one all-encompassing entrepreneurial mindset, there are four distinct ways of thinking about entrepreneurial action.
If you ever look at what is actually being asked of a budding entrepreneur, you’ll notice that it’s not just having a good idea and jotting it down on a napkin. It’s reading and understanding markets, handling finances, constantly building and expanding networks, pitching, getting rejected, staying motivated, managing others, solving problems… A never ending list of expectations and demands.
Entrepreneurship education often mirrors this overload. We introduce frameworks, methods, tools, competencies – consistently layering concept upon concept. We’re basically telling students that in order to succeed, they must possess everything the entrepreneurial mindset entails, and that the entrepreneurial mindset entails everything.
Alexandros Kakouris and Sotirios Bokeas suggest that this might be a problem. Instead of adding yet another framework, they return to one of the foundational ideas in entrepreneurship theory: the individual–opportunity nexus. In simple terms, entrepreneurship is often explained as the meeting point between a person and an opportunity. In teaching, this usually translates into two pillars: opportunity and knowledge. We train students to identify opportunities and to acquire the knowledge needed to act on them.
But the authors argue that this picture is still incomplete. If we say entrepreneurship is about opportunities, we’re already simplifying reality. Because not every venture starts with someone spotting a clear gap in the market; many start because someone has access to resources, funding, contacts, organisational backing, or simply encouragement to try. In other words, they start from support rather than from a perfectly articulated opportunity.
Publication year: November 2025
Authors: Alexandros Kakouris; Sotirios Bokeas
Institutions: University of the Peloponnese (Greece); University of Crete (Greece)
Study type: Conceptual / theoretical paper
Sample Size:Not applicable (theoretical analysis)
Research focus: Reconceptualising the entrepreneurial mindset for educational use through a dialectical analysis of the individual–opportunity nexus
Research Methodology: Philosophical and conceptual analysis drawing on Hegelian dialectics to reinterpret core constructs in entrepreneurship theory
Main findings: The dominant focus on opportunity and knowledge in entrepreneurship education presents an incomplete picture of entrepreneurial action. Each concept contains a dialectical counterpart: opportunity implies support, and knowledge implies ability. The interaction between opportunity/support and knowledge/ability produces four distinct entrepreneurial thinking styles. Entrepreneurship education may unintentionally privilege certain styles depending on its pedagogical emphasis. Recognising these underlying tensions can help educators reflect on how teaching shapes students’ entrepreneurial conceptualisations.
Citation: Kakouris, A., & Bokeas, S. (2025). Informing the entrepreneurial mindset: A dialectical approach for educational use. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. Link
The same goes for knowledge. Yes, knowledge matters. Understanding markets, finance, strategy – all of that helps. But entrepreneurial action also depends on ability: confidence, persistence, improvisation, leadership, tolerance of uncertainty. Plenty of ventures are built not because someone had superior knowledge, but because they were willing and able to act.
To make sense of this, the authors turn to Hegel’s idea of dialectics. Put simply, dialectics suggests that concepts come with built-in tensions. If we emphasise opportunity, we must also consider support. If we emphasise knowledge, we cannot ignore ability. Entrepreneurship unfolds in the tension between these pairs.
When these tensions are combined, four broad entrepreneurial styles emerge.
Some lean towards opportunity and ability: intuitive, alert, quick to act.
Some lean towards support and ability: building within existing structures and using resources at hand.
Some lean towards support and knowledge: relying on expertise and available means to create something steady.
And some lean towards opportunity and knowledge: combining formal expertise with the pursuit of scalable markets.
The point is not to sort students into neat boxes. It is to recognise that they do not all prioritise the same drivers of success. Depending on what we emphasise in the classroom, we may be strengthening one style while unintentionally sidelining others.
Seen this way, the problem with the entrepreneurial mindset is not that it asks too much. It is that it assumes there is only one coherent version of it. In reality, entrepreneurial thinking is structured around tensions that individuals resolve differently.
Rather than asking whether students “have” the entrepreneurial mindset, the authors encourage educators to recognise that students resolve its underlying tensions in different ways. Those differences matter for how entrepreneurship is taught and, perhaps most importantly, for the kinds of entrepreneurs education may ultimately produce.
