The entrepreneurial movement in the Philippines gained steam, I’d say, only in the past 3 or so years (or maybe I was too busy with other things that I didn’t notice it). These days, you hear about entrepreneur groups and entrepreneur movements. There’s a school for entrepreneurs and an entrepreneur caravan. In other words, there’s an awakened movement towards entrepreneurship.

The trend towards branding everything “entrepreneur” is clear from the fact that successful businessmen are no longer businessmen — they’re referred to (or call themselves) as successful entrepreneurs. Maybe it’s just a matter of rebranding or maybe it’s a way to spark interest among the general population to pursue entrepreneurial endeavors. We should not lightly equate the concept of being a businessman with being an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is a businessman, and much more. But this is not the focus of this article.

The focus is about entrepreneur vs. employee. At first glance, the title of this article refers to the fact that in everyday working life, the interests of an employee is pitted against the entrepreneur or management. It is, of course, simplistic to assume that management is the same with the entrepreneur, because the entrepreneur — or the owner of the business — may not necessarily be involved in managing the business entity. Still, considering that management theoretically represents the owners of the business, we could say that the economic conflict is between the employees and the entrepreneurs.

However, as we already noted in a previous discussion, it could also refer to the entrepreneur-employee distinction. Not everyone is meant to be an entrepreneur. Some articles enumerate the differences in such a way that employees appear to be way less worthy than entrepreneurs. We have tried to soften this approach primarily because it is unfair, specially considering that the modern world has become a society of employees. As stated by Peter F. Drucker in his book “People and Performance” (Harvard Business School Press, 2007), today, “only one out of five is self-employed” and that the “employee of today is increasingly a midle-class person with a substantial formal education, holding a professional or management job requiring intellectual and technical skills.” These statements are made under the context that fifty years ago, being an employee means working as a factory worker or as a farmhand. Drucker is talking about the U.S., but the statistics most probably mirrors the Philippine setting.

Robert Kiyosaki (Rich Dad, Poor Dad) pointed to a paper entitled “A Perspective on Entrepreneurship,” written by Professor Howard Stevenson and published by the Harvard Business School. One of the differences between an entrepreneur and an employee that Mr. Kiyosaki found to be especially insightful, based on “A Perspective on Entrepreneurship,” is this: Employees are resource-oriented, while entrepreneurs are opportunity-oriented. This, of course, is only one of the major differences between an employee an an entrepreneur.

So, why can’t everyone be an entrepreneur? Why can’t those under the poverty line empower themselves and become entrepreneurs? What does it take to be an entrepreneur? Why can’t everyone be an entrepreneur? Let’s hear what you have to say. Your answers will synthesized later, for order’s sake. So, speak up now, or forever hold your peace.