上週，倫敦最成功的一位餐廳老闆向我講述了他最初是如何進入餐飲業的。與很多故事一樣，這是一個機緣巧合的故事。他是師範畢業，但他不喜歡這種工作，於是當起了酒吧招待，從那裡他學會瞭如何招待客人，接著管理一家餐廳。如今，他擁有6家餐廳，生意很​​是興隆。
所有企業傳記最吸引人的章節是我所說的“成長階段”(formative phase)，也就是一名企業家決定進入哪個行業以及最初獲得機會之時。很多時候完全屬於機緣巧合，沒有任何遠大的計劃，沒有任何職業規劃。更多的是一次偶然的失足，然後開始看到一線機會，而那些注定成為企業家的人抓住了這個機會。
很多職業的正規教育由一系列有序的步驟構成，按部就班。我承認，對於很多行業而言，這都是完全必要的。但對於創業而言，沒有教學大綱，也沒有學位。這是自學成才的旅程。
學者不太理解企業家的原因是，企業家的生活與多數教授們的不同。知識分子和企業創始人之間幾乎完全沒有關聯。
這種疏離是一種雙重悲劇。首先，這意味著，我們不能充分​​了解財富創造者的心理和個性，這讓人們較難制定出培育企業家的政策。
其次，我們很多最優秀的人才有意避開初創企業，他們認為，他們更適合大學校園的寧靜生活，而非市場的忙碌。我確定，這種看法是錯誤的。在矽谷的發展歷程中，來自斯坦福大學(Stanford University)和麻省理工(MIT)等院校的優秀人才作出了大量重要貢獻。
另外，在某些例子裡，上述規律並不適用。在我擔任倫敦藝術大學(University of the Arts London)董事時，我得知該校有數百名教職員工都是個人創業，因此他們對那些希望擁有自己的時裝公司或數碼設計工作室（比方說）的畢業生更有好感。創業才能即使在學術環境中也能培養出來，這二者不應是互相排斥的。
但我覺得，我們的高等教育機構往往不能發現創業人才。就算它們注意到了這類人才，也幾乎不會給他們提供任何幫助。
或許，大學只是不適合指導這種特立獨行的人才。我記得，我的醫學導師曾對我追求建立各種不同的企業感到困惑，不過我想他現在應該明白了。
我堅信，有許多具有創業才能的人被主流工作“困住”了手腳，如果他們受到推動、鼓勵並得到指點，他們也會去創業。他們可能是律師、建築師、公務員或醫生。這些職業都很重要，但在所有領域，發明創造總是多多益善，而在大型機構，實施這些開創性舉措極其困難。創新者最好是置身於這種等級制度之外，並在合適時與這些制度合作。
人們可能辯稱，培養教師、醫生、牙醫和護士與資本主義無關，因為幾乎所有人都在公共部門工作，至少在英國如此。但未來幾年，教育和醫療領域將進行改革。傳統的教室和醫院的創造性不夠，私營部門的技術和投入在這方面會起到作用。我們需要更多醫學和教育領域的企業家。
在我們的學生時代和20多歲時，我們的方向就確定了，成見也形成了。趁他們年輕時引導這些人才，儘早釋放出他們的創業精神，他們可能會有更大的作為。所有的大學都應勸說身為企業家的校友們為大學生提供指導。大學應在捐贈者中尋找天使投資者來支持學生的創意。大學應鼓勵導師創建衍生企業。為什麼不建立“孵化室”培育初創企業呢？
企業家永遠會自己開拓道路。發現偶然機遇的能力並不是在一個規定的框架下就能輕易教會的。但營造一個讓剛剛萌生的想法和計劃得以良好發展的環境能夠有所幫助。教育學家應注意到這些可能性。
注：本文作者管理著一家名為Risk Capital Partners的私人股本公司，同時還擔任英國皇家藝術學會(Royal Society of Arts)的主席。
譯者/梁艷裳

Leave the ivory tower for a life of enterprise

By Luke Johnson

 

Last week one of London’s most successful restaurateurs described to me how he started in the catering trade. Like so many, it is a tale of chance. He trained to become a teacher, but hated it, and so fell into bartending – and from there graduated to waiting tables, and then managing a restaurant. Now he has half a dozen, and his business is booming.

The most fascinating chapter of every business biography is what I call the “formative phase”: the moment when an entrepreneur decides which industry to enter and gets the early breaks. So often it is pure serendipity – there is no grand plan, no career map. It is more of a haphazard stumble, and then a dawning sense of opportunity that is seized upon by those destined to become entrepreneurs.
A formal education for so many professions means an ordered sequence of steps. I accept that this is entirely necessary for many walks of life. But for entrepreneurship there is no syllabus, no degree. It is a journey in self-education.
The reason academics understand entrepreneurs so poorly is that they lead lives so removed from those of most professors. There is an almost complete disconnect between the intellectual class and business founders.
This alienation is a double tragedy. First, it means we don’t know enough about the psychology and character of wealth creators, which makes it harder to frame policy so as to foster more of them.
Second, many of our brightest minds shun the world of start-ups, believing that they are more suited to the serenity of the university campus than the hustle of the market place. I am sure this perception is false – the history of Silicon Valley is crowded with the vital contributions of highly qualified staffers migrating from institutions such as Stanford University and MIT.
Moreover, this rule doesn’t apply in certain cases. When I was governor of the University of the Arts London, I learnt that hundreds of their faculty staff were self-employed, and so were more empathetic to graduates who wanted to own fashion houses, say, or digital design studios. Entrepreneurial instincts can be cultivated even in scholarly surroundings – the two should not be mutually exclusive.
But my sense is that too many of our higher educational establishments often fail to spot entrepreneurial talent. And if they do notice them, they have almost nothing to offer.
Perhaps colleges are simply unsuited to guide such independent, unconventional minds. I recall that my medical tutor was baffled by my pursuit of various early enterprises, although I think he sees the point nowadays.
I firmly believe there are more entrepreneurs out there, stuck in mainstream jobs, who, if pushed, encouraged and advised, could build new businesses. They might be lawyers, architects, civil servants or doctors. These professions all matter greatly, but every field of endeavour could always benefit from more invention – and carrying out such pioneering stuff is incredibly hard within large organisations. Better that innovators work outside the hierarchies and partner with them when it makes sense.
It might be argued that training teachers, doctors, dentists and nurses is nothing to do with capitalism, since almost all toil within the public sector, at least in Britain. But education and healthcare will be transformed in the coming years. Traditional classrooms and hospitals are not productive enough, and private sector technology and input can help this process. We need more entrepreneurs in medicine and learning.
Directions are taken and prejudices formed in our student years and 20s. Grab people young and unleash those enterprising spirits early, and they are likely to have more impact. All universities should be persuading entrepreneur alumni to mentor undergraduates. They should seek angel investors among their donors to back student ideas. Tutors should be encouraged to create spinout companies. And why not found incubators to nurture early-stage businesses?
Entrepreneurs will always carve their own paths. An ability to identify a fortuitous opening is not something that can be easily taught within a prescribed structure. But surroundings that allow those stirrings and initiatives to flourish can help. Educationalists should be alive to the possibilities.
The writer runs Risk Capital Partners, a private equity firm, and is chairman of the Royal Society of Arts