Why the Term "Serial Entrepreneur" Makes Me Want to Vomit

Is it bad that I dislike the term "Serial Entrepreneur?"  I consider myself an entrepreneur.  As such, I also consider myself a serial entrepreneur (I just threw up in my mouth a bit).

First of all, let's differentiate between small business owners and entrepreneurs.  This is a sticky point, and certainly one up for contention, but I don't believe that they're one in the same (nor am I the only one who thinks so).  My definitions:

Entrepreneur: One who leverages their ideas to create value and take advantage of new markets.

Small Business Owner: One who provides a sustainable product or service through their own business entity.

Entrepreneurs are most often also small business owners or part-owners, but many small business owners are not necessarily entrepreneurs. 

There are also a few key aspects of an entrepreneur that a small business owner doesn't share.  Entrepreneurs generally have a desire to innovate.  Second, they're looking for the big exit.  I don't believe that most small business owners have either of these ideas in mind.

The Successful Entrepreneur

Let's think about the idea of the big exit.  Once an entrepreneur's venture has succeeded, the entrepreneur does one of three things:

1. He/She hangs it up, taking their earnings and retiring to a beach in the Carribean.
2. He/She stay on with the company to help it succeed through retirement.
3. He/She starts another company.

I'm guessing that very few entrepreneurs actually choose the first option.  Most entrepreneurs are driven by a passion that isn't going to disappear once you succeed.  You might even try but my guess is that you'll come back to it some day.  Mark Cuban thought that he would just retire and drink everywhere he could.  Chances are you've heard of him since.

Image by niallkennedy via Flickr

That leaves us with #2 and #3.  I also don't think that there are many entrepreneurs that fall into the second category.  Bill Gates is the first one that comes to mind.  Guess what though: he started another company before Micro$oft.  He also had a better opportunity with Microsoft than he could have had anywhere else.  Furthermore, he has now moved into a role as more of a social entrepreneur. 

In the second case the entrepreneur continues to innovate, turning new ideas into better outcomes.  They just have more resources and less risk in doing so.   If you're someone who has managed to take their innovation to huge success and then decided to ride that success out, you are no longer an entrepreneur. You are a small business owner. You have lost the desire to innovate and were never looking for the exit in the first place.

The Serial Entrepreneur

Obviously, in the third case you're a "serial entrepreneur."  Here's the thing.  #1 doesn't exist and as far as I can tell #2 doesn't either. 

So if you're an entrepreneur, you're also a serial entrepreneur. 

Ok, so what about when a venture fails?  Well, either you start a new one and, once again, you're a "serial entrepreneur."  Or you give up.  I'll admit that this probably happens.  But I doubt it's by choice.  The passion that drives entrepreneurs doesn't die with their failed companies.  It's just not in their personalities.

So when someone introduces themselves to me as a serial entrepreneur, all I can think is: So... you're better than me?

Comments

[Tilney]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you view the term "entrepreneur" in a broader sense than simply actions: instead, it is a mindset or m.o. that is backed up by demonstrable actions. In that sense, I agree with your opinion that the phrase "serial entrepreneur" is cloyingly redundant and/or overreaching.

However, if you limit the sense to actions, adding "serial" is an acceptable and often even meaningful qualifier. Take, for example, the difference between the following statements:

1. He is a killer.
2. He is a serial killer.

Makes a difference, no? Unfortunately, here again we run the risk of conflating the qualification of the action (killing 1 or 1+n times) with a value-based appraisal of the overall mindset associated with either the 1 or 1+n magnitude of the action:

1. He is a killer. (He did a very bad thing one time.)
2. He is a serial killer. (He must be the spawn of satan, what with all the killing.)

Adding the "serial" seems to be a badge of honor to those who introduce themselves in that way, whether they're entrepreneurs or killers (or entrepreneur killers? - for your sake, Dale, let's hope not!). They don't want to be mistaken for one-trick ponies.

[tilney]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you view the term "entrepreneur" in a broader sense than simply actions: instead, it is a mindset or m.o. that is backed up by demonstrable actions. In that sense, I agree with your opinion that the phrase "serial entrepreneur" is cloyingly redundant and/or overreaching.

However, if you limit the sense to actions, adding "serial" is an acceptable and often even meaningful qualifier. Take, for example, the difference between the following statements:

1. He is a killer.
2. He is a serial killer.

Makes a difference, no? Unfortunately, here again we run the risk of conflating the qualification of the action (killing 1 or 1+n times) with a value-based appraisal of the overall mindset associated with either the 1 or 1+n magnitude of the action:

1. He is a killer. (He did a very bad thing one time.)
2. He is a serial killer. (He must be the spawn of satan, what with all the killing.)

Adding the "serial" seems to be a badge of honor to those who introduce themselves in that way, whether they're entrepreneurs or killers (or entrepreneur killers? - for your sake, Dale, let's hope not!). They don't want to be mistaken for one-trick ponies.

[tilney]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you view the term "entrepreneur" in a broader sense than simply actions: instead, it is a mindset or m.o. that is backed up by demonstrable actions. In that sense, I agree with your opinion that the phrase "serial entrepreneur" is cloyingly redundant and/or overreaching.

However, if you limit the sense to actions, adding "serial" is an acceptable and often even meaningful qualifier. Take, for example, the difference between the following statements:

1. He is a killer.
2. He is a serial killer.

Makes a difference, no? Unfortunately, here again we run the risk of conflating the qualification of the action (killing 1 or 1+n times) with a value-based appraisal of the overall mindset associated with either the 1 or 1+n magnitude of the action:

1. He is a killer. (He did a very bad thing one time.)
2. He is a serial killer. (He must be the spawn of satan, what with all the killing.)

Adding the "serial" seems to be a badge of honor to those who introduce themselves in that way, whether they're entrepreneurs or killers (or entrepreneur killers? - for your sake, Dale, let's hope not!). They don't want to be mistaken for one-trick ponies.

[Dale Beermann]

Good point Tilney. I should revise my definition to "One who ASPIRES to leverage their ideas to create value and take advantage of new markets."

In that respect, if I were a serial killer and I was to introduce myself as such to an aspiring but not yet accomplished killer, I am showing them disrespect for their lack of experience. Maybe killers have an easier time giving it up than entrepreneurs though. I can only hope.

[Andrew]

I was trying to find a 'catch-all' phrase that summed up my condition. Fortunatly, the connotation of 'serial entrepreneur' does not make me barf - even a little! Now I have a new title for my next business card!

Overall I found this to be a great piece about a hard-to-define job category in today's cookie-cutter world. Maybe a bit general in logic, but I found several relevant points in your article. Thanks!

[praveen]

Confusing article. There are two flawed deductions

1. An entrepreneur is one who starts more than one company.
2. Anyone who starts one company and stays with it throughout retirement (or death) either doesn't exist or is a small-business owner, not an entrepreneur.

Many counter examples come to my mind. The most prominent being the founders of HP who founded it (the only company they founded) in 1939 and stayed with it until retirement/death. Also, Andy Grove of Intel. Walt Disney, Sam Walton (WalMart), google founders (so far), yahoo founders (so far), Larry Ellison (Oracle), Narayan Murthy (Infosys), Ajeem Premji (Wipro). Locally, founding CEOs of Promega and Epic Systems. By any definition, they are/were not small-business owners and labeling them as such may have vomit-inducing effect on some.

There are serial entrepreneurs and there are entrepreneurs who are/were enterprising enough (or lucky enough) to continue to innovate and tap into new markets with one company they founded.

[Dale Beermann]

Praveen: I was wondering when someone would make this comment. You're right, there are examples of people who haven't moved on from their original company. But, they still embrace the entrepreneurial spirit through innovation. As I said in the article, they have just found a way to do so with more resources and less risk. Had Gates started Microsoft in the first place, chances are he wouldn't have ever started another company either.

My frustration is really with those who introduce themselves as serial entrepreneurs. The examples that you listed are all incredibly successful people. My guess is that some tiny percentage of entrepreneurs fall into this category (your #2). You're right, they aren't small business owners, nor are they serial entrepreneurs. Would I introduce myself as a serial entrepreneur to one of them? Probable not, because I respect their accomplishments and labeling myself a serial entrepreneur seems egotistical.

In regards to the first deduction you list, I do believe that entrepreneurs are typically those who aspire to start more than one company, as I mentioned in my comment to Tilney. As she stated, it is not so much entrepreneurs' actions that define them, but their mindset.

[Gideon]

In my experience, lots of people choose option 4:

Become an angel investor, and provide other startup companies with both funds and guidance to help them succeed.

In your book, does this qualify as entrepreneurial activity?

[Dale Beermann]

Gideon,

This is a great point, and not one that I address in my post. I'd love to be in this position myself.

I am curious though: As an angel investor having started just one successful company, would you be doing it full-time? I don't know many angel investors who don't have a regular job as well. I do think that angel investors have found another way to embrace the entrepreneurial spirit though, without directly starting several companies themselves. However, they are certainly in a very similar role.

To answer your question: I think it depends on the investor. Some are very hands off, others aren't. My guess is that an entrepreneur who moves into that role would have more involvement in the company, still engaging in entrepreneurial activity.

[Rochelle DeLong]

Fascinating thought stream. I see much of it as leadership as compared to management.

Leaders are concerned with the vision of the future and can see the big picture. Many entrepreneurs are also very good at the fine detail of getting something done. Vision, creativity, and adaptability are their forte. Not necessarily focus.

Managers are concerned with the vision of the day, can see some of the picture but not all of it. I translate your "small business owners" to this category. They are somewhat good at the detail, but mid-level thinking and management is their forte. Focus and measurement are key to their skill set.

Thanks for the post, Dale!

[Dale Beermann]

Rochelle,

I had never thought of it quite that way but i agree. It does seem that there is a difference between how narrow your vision is and whether or not you can see the big picture. I think that this ties into innovation: you can't really innovate if you don't understand the big picture.

Thanks for the comment.