How to Spot an Entrepreneurial University? A Student-Focused Perspective on Competencies—The Case of Greece

Abstract

As universities increasingly work towards the adoption of their third mission—fostering entrepreneurship and innovation—the concept of the Entrepreneurial University (EntUni) emphasizes the need to cultivate a defined set of entrepreneurial competencies in students, such as opportunity recognition, risk-taking, perseverance, self-efficacy, and adaptability. The purpose of this study is to identify which entrepreneurial competencies are most critical for student readiness within the context of an Entrepreneurial University. However, limited consensus remains on which competencies are most essential. This study identifies the entrepreneurial competencies most critical for students within an Entrepreneurial University context through a mixed-methods approach. A student survey assesses self-perceived competencies; a stakeholder survey captures the perspectives of faculty, industry experts, and entrepreneurs; and qualitative interviews with industry professionals explore best practices for competency development. Findings reveal six core competencies that EntUnis should help students cultivate: proactiveness, perseverance, grit, risk propensity, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. Industry experts further highlight the importance of teamwork, ethical and sustainable thinking, and ambiguity tolerance—competencies often underdeveloped in academic environments. The study also identifies a disconnect between entrepreneurial education and practical application, with many students demonstrating high entrepreneurial intention but limited participation in start-up activities. These insights offer actionable implications for educators, policymakers, and university administrators. Overall, the study highlights the importance of experiential learning, academia-industry collaboration, and structured competency-building to enhance entrepreneurial readiness. By addressing these gaps, EntUnis can better equip students to drive innovation, economic growth, and societal impact.

1. Introduction

Universities have traditionally been recognized as serving the two core missions of teaching and research. However, the landscape of higher education is undergoing significant transformation as universities increasingly adopt their third mission: to become entrepreneurial hubs that drive innovation and economic growth (Etzkowitz, 2013; Fernández-Nogueira et al., 2018). This shift is driven by the need for universities to remain sustainable, competitive, and relevant in a rapidly evolving global economy (Cunningham & Miller, 2021; Pugh et al., 2022).

The emergence of the “Entrepreneurial University” acts as the starting point of our research. Over the past decades, the notion of the Entrepreneurial University (EntUni) has been widely studied, with scholars offering various definitions from different perspectives (Arroyabe et al., 2022; Etzkowitz, 2013; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Fernández-Nogueira et al., 2018; Guerrero et al., 2016). Garomssa (2024) seeks to clarify the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the EntUni concept by addressing the diverse and often overlapping definitions found in existing literature. Recent studies further highlight the evolving impact of Entrepreneurial Universities on youth employment and regional development, reinforcing their broader socio-economic role beyond new venture creation (Hahn et al., 2022).

All these contributions converge to the point that an EntUni goes beyond traditional education. Central to an EntUni is the development of a diverse set of competencies (Etzkowitz, 2013; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Guerrero et al., 2016). In this study, when we refer to competencies, we mean a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, as defined by Mulder et al. (2009). According to this definition, competencies are necessary to perform tasks, solve problems, and work effectively in a specific role, profession, or situation. An EntUni should help students cultivate a diverse set of entrepreneurial competencies such as opportunity recognition, problem-solving, risk-taking, resilience and perseverance, adaptability, self-efficacy and confidence. Beyond perseverance, grit is also increasingly recognized as a key component of entrepreneurial persistence. Grit reflects the tendency to sustain both effort and passion toward long-term goals, differentiating it from short-term perseverance (Credé, 2018). Research further indicates that grit overlaps conceptually with conscientiousness, as both encapsulate goal-directed behavior and self-regulation—traits that strongly influence entrepreneurial persistence and success (Roberts et al., 2014). Despite their growing recognition, there is no consensus on which competencies are most critical to be cultivated by universities in order to align with their entrepreneurial mission. Scholars continue to examine these competencies mostly independently and debate which ones matter most and how they interact (Cui et al., 2021; Fayolle et al., 2006; Liñán, 2008; Löbler, 2006; Souitaris et al., 2007; Ferreras-Garcia et al., 2021; Šokčević, 2022).

Taking a step forward, one of the biggest challenges universities face is ensuring that students develop such competencies in a meaningful way and through hands-on experiences (Fuller & Pickernell, 2018) and through effective education and training (Gieure et al., 2019). Research suggests that EntUnis should go beyond traditional classroom learning by incorporating incubators, mentorship programs, and extracurricular activities (Fuller & Pickernell, 2018) and their role in developing students’ entrepreneurial competencies and capabilities (Preedy & Beaumont, 2024), while adapting their entrepreneurial support mechanisms to align with industry needs (Gaspar Pacheco et al., 2024). Developing competencies is not straightforward, recognizing that traditional classroom learning alone is not enough (Taatila, 2010). An EntUni should prioritize action-based learning, providing students with opportunities to experiment, fail, and try again (Taatila, 2010). Extracurricular activities such as hackathons, startup competitions, business incubators, and mentorship programs provide students with hands-on experience, allowing them to develop all the competencies necessary to navigate the entrepreneurial journey effectively (Souitaris et al., 2007; Fernández-Pérez et al., 2019). Although several competency-based education models have been proposed (White et al., 2016), their implementation in higher education remains inconsistent and underexplored, despite recent efforts to model and assess entrepreneurial competence more systematically (Ferreras-Garcia et al., 2021; Lambarri Villa, 2025).

Universities need to bridge the gap between entrepreneurial education and real-world application by fostering key competencies through experiential learning. In this context, the present study empirically identifies the entrepreneurial competencies most critical to be cultivated in students within an EntUni setting. It directly examines which competencies are prioritized as well as how they can be effectively developed. Adopting a sequential mixed-methods approach, the study draws on insights from students, academic stakeholders, and industry experts to uncover both widely recognized and underexplored competencies. This design enables a more grounded and actionable understanding of how universities can align educational practices with their third mission.

Specifically, the research unfolds in three stages: a quantitative survey assessing students’ self-perceived competencies; a follow-up survey collecting evaluations from faculty, industry experts, and entrepreneurs; and qualitative interviews exploring best practices for competency development. Together, these phases address the central research question: What competencies should a Higher Education Institution cultivate in its students to be recognized as an Entrepreneurial University?

In addition to the central research question, this study also addresses the following sub-questions:

RQ1: How do students self-assess their entrepreneurial competencies within an EntUni context?

RQ2: How do academic and industry stakeholders evaluate the importance of these competencies for entrepreneurial readiness?

RQ3: What gaps emerge between students’ entrepreneurial mindset and their actual engagement in entrepreneurial activities?

In doing so, the study offers new insights into how EntUnis can operationalize their third mission by prioritizing the development of clearly defined, measurable student competencies. It contributes to both theoretical and practical understandings of how such institutions support student readiness, not merely by promoting an entrepreneurial mindset, but by systematically fostering specific competencies.

In particular, the study identifies six core competencies as critical to fulfilling an entrepreneurial mission: proactiveness, grit, perseverance, risk propensity, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. These findings provide actionable guidance for educators and policymakers seeking to design more targeted programs, curricula, and extracurricular initiatives that enhance student entrepreneurial capacity.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive literature review, focusing on the concept of the EntUni and the key competencies to be cultivated in its students. Section 3 details the research methodology, describing the mixed-methods approach and the three phases of the study. Section 4 presents and analyzes the results of the first quantitative phase, which assesses the identified competencies. Section 5 discusses the findings from the second quantitative phase, capturing diverse stakeholder perspectives on the importance of these competencies. Section 6 provides insights from the qualitative phase, highlighting best practices derived from industry experts. Finally, the Discussion and Conclusion section summarizes the key findings, discusses the study’s limitations, and offers recommendations for future research and practical applications in entrepreneurship education.

2. Background

2.1. The Concept and Scope of the Entrepreneurial University

The concept of the Entrepreneurial University (EntUni) represents a significant shift in the evolution of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), reflecting their transformation from traditional knowledge repositories to active agents of innovation and socio-economic development (Sam & Van Der Sijde, 2014; Thorp & Goldstein, 2013). As global challenges demand more engaged and impact-oriented universities, many HEIs are increasingly adopting entrepreneurial strategies across their core functions, such as education, research, and societal engagement, thus operationalizing what is widely referred to as the university’s “third mission” (Ahmed et al., 2019; Arroyabe et al., 2022).

Over the past decades, numerous definitions and conceptual frameworks have been proposed to articulate the nature, characteristics, and role of the EntUni. A common theme in the literature is that such institutions integrate entrepreneurship not merely as a peripheral activity but as a guiding institutional logic, influencing their governance structures, stakeholder relationships, educational offerings, and research agendas (Clark, 2004; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000; Jacob et al., 2003).

Several scholars view EntUnis as systemic intermediaries of knowledge transfer, facilitating bi-directional interaction between academia and the economy. Etzkowitz (2016), and Etzkowitz (2017) emphasize their capacity to create knowledge-based development regimes by combining forward linear research models (from fundamental science to innovation) with reverse models where societal and business challenges inspire academic inquiry. Similarly, Balconi et al. (2010) and Guerrero and Urbano (2012) highlight the EntUni’s role in shaping regional techno-economic spaces and influencing attitudes toward entrepreneurship and innovation.

Klofsten et al. (2019) further stress the institutional complexity of EntUnis, noting their pluralistic nature, internal diversity, and multi-layered decision-making, which reflect the need to balance academic autonomy with market responsiveness. Others, such as Jacob et al. (2003), focus on the development of internal support structures (e.g., incubators, TTOs, entrepreneurial education centers) as core enablers of entrepreneurial behavior within universities.

Over the decades, scholars have proposed a variety of definitions for the EntUni, each shaped by the specific context and focus of their studies.

Table 1. Existing Definitions of the EntUni in the Literature.

Entrepreneurial University Definition	Source
A university contemplating new funding sources such as patents, contract research, and partnerships with commercial businesses.	(Etzkowitz, 1984)
A university in which employees, professors, researchers and students create new enterprises.	(Chrisman et al., 1995)
A university that can develop a defined strategic direction, both in terms of academic aims and in terms of transforming knowledge generated inside the institution into economic and societal benefit.	(Etzkowitz, 2003b)
A university that preserves conventional academic duties such as social reproduction and knowledge expansion, but places them in a larger context as part of its new purpose of promoting innovation.	(Etzkowitz, 2003a)
A university with a diverse set of new infrastructural support mechanisms for developing entrepreneurship within the organization and packaging entrepreneurship as a product.	(Jacob et al., 2003)
An efflorescence of embryonic characteristics that exist potentially in any academic enterprise.	(Etzkowitz, 2004)
A university that has updated its strategies, management, and organizational structure in a variety of ways.	(Gulbrandsen & Slipersaeter, 2007)
A university that develops technological innovations and enables the distribution of technology via intermediaries such as technology transfer offices and the establishment of incubators or science parks that spawn new businesses.	(Rothaermel et al., 2007)
A university that may be regarded as a multifaceted institution having direct mechanisms to facilitate technology transfer from academia to industry as well as indirect mechanisms to support new business activities through entrepreneurship education.	(Guenther & Wagner, 2008)
A university that, via its culture, mission, and regional function, contributes to the transition to a knowledge-based society as a key actor in the formation of new technoeconomic conurbations.	(Balconi et al., 2010)
A university that aspires to be as free of governmental control as possible and to connect extensively with the market in order to acquire resources as well as meet society’s knowledge demands, therefore contributing to social progress.	(Mainardes et al., 2011)
A university that engages in partnerships, networks, and commercial activities with public and private enterprises and governments in order to find collaboration and interactions with the goal of connecting education, research, and activities with technological, social, and economic growth.	(Guerrero & Urbano, 2012)
A university that functions as a tool that not only offers a workforce and adds value via the development or transformation of information, but also changes individuals’ beliefs and attitudes toward these concerns.’	(Guerrero & Urbano, 2012)
A university that emerges as a result of the establishment of an ‘inner logic’ of academic progress that previously stretched the academic enterprise from a conservator to a generator of knowledge.	(Etzkowitz, 2013)
A university that incorporates the translation of ideas into actual action, the capitalization of knowledge, the organization of new entities, and the management of risks.	(Etzkowitz, 2013)
A university that strives to provide a supportive environment in which the university community may explore, assess, and capitalize on ideas that have the potential to become social and economic entrepreneurial initiatives.	(Guerrero et al., 2014)
A university with a complex social and economic framework that includes a wide range of conventional and modern activities. An essential feature of entrepreneurial universities is successful commercial activity aimed at assuring the inflow of diverse internal and external financial development resources.	(Kaleniuk & Dyachenko, 2016)
A university that ensures knowledge capitalization, transfer, and commercialization of innovative business initiatives of professors, researchers, students, and partners—organizations.	(Kaleniuk & Dyachenko, 2016)
A university that is seen as an institution with an entrepreneurial management style, with its members (faculty, students, and staff) operating entrepreneurially, and that interacts with its external environment (community/region) in an entrepreneurial fashion.	(Guerrero et al., 2016)
A university that improves research by combining a reverse linear dynamic that moves from issues in business and society to solutions in academia, to the standard forward linear model that produces fortuitous inventions from the meandering stream of fundamental research.	(Etzkowitz, 2017)
A university with diverse academic traditions, decision-making levels, research values, and sub-organizational cultures.	(Klofsten et al., 2019)

provides a summary of these key definitions as they have evolved in the literature.

2.2. Defining the Entrepreneurial University for This Study

Given the plurality of definitions, this study adopts a comprehensive yet operational definition that aligns with the objectives of our research. We define the EntUni as:

A university that strategically and systematically integrates entrepreneurial values, behaviors, and support mechanisms across its educational, research, and societal engagement missions, in order to generate economic and social value through the development of human capital, knowledge transfer, and venture creation.

This definition is grounded and highly affected by Etzkowitz’s (2003a, 2003b, 2013) work, which conceptualizes the EntUni as both an outcome of institutional transformation and a proactive agent of knowledge capitalization. It also incorporates perspectives from Guerrero et al. (2016), who emphasize entrepreneurial behavior at the individual level, and Baum et al. (2001), who link entrepreneurial action to the presence of relevant competencies and enabling environments.

2.3. Scope and Limits

In the context of this study, we do not treat the EntUni as a binary state (entrepreneurial vs. non-entrepreneurial), but rather as an evolving institutional orientation along a continuum. Our analysis focuses on one key mechanism through which this orientation materializes: the cultivation of entrepreneurial competencies among students. Thus, the study limits its scope to exploring how HEIs, particularly those aspiring to become EntUnis, can foster the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that underpin entrepreneurial intention and behavior.

We do not attempt to evaluate universities holistically against all possible dimensions of entrepreneurship (e.g., governance structures, funding mechanisms, intellectual property policies). Instead, we focus on the educational mission of EntUnis, specifically how they design and implement entrepreneurship education models and extra-curricular activities to cultivate entrepreneurial competencies in students (Hahn et al., 2022; Lyu et al., 2023).

2.4. Entrepreneurial Competencies: The Link to Institutional Mission

Entrepreneurial competencies refer to the set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that enable individuals to identify and act on opportunities, mobilize resources, and create value under conditions of uncertainty (Driessen & Zwart, 2007; Lahti, 1999; Stoof et al., 2000). This triadic definition is also echoed in the European Union’s framework on key competences for lifelong learning (EU, 2006).

Pioneering work by Chandler and Jansen (1992) and Chandler and Hanks (1994) introduced the notion of entrepreneurial competencies as critical drivers of venture performance. Later studies expanded on this by highlighting interpersonal and social competencies (Mullins, 1996; Baron & Markman, 2000), and by distinguishing between general and task-specific competencies (Baum et al., 2001). However, despite extensive research, there is no consensus on the most critical competencies for entrepreneurial success, especially in the context of educational interventions.

In response to this gap, this study identifies a set of well-established and interconnected competencies, derived from literature, and evaluates their relevance and applicability within the EntUni framework. Our goal is to offer HEIs a structured approach to embedding these competencies into curricula, pedagogical design, and institutional culture—thus aligning student development with the broader mission of societal impact through innovation and venture creation.

3. Research Methodology

This research uses a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a structured sequence. While qualitative research offers deep contextual insights, it lacks generalizability, whereas quantitative methods provide broader perspectives but may miss contextual nuances (Ridder, 2017; Runeson & Höst, 2009). Following established mixed-methods principles (Harrison & Reilly, 2011; Harrison et al., 2020; Venkatesh et al., 2016), this methodology ensures that findings are corroborated and enriched across the three stages.

3.1. Quantitative Phase 1: Student Competencies Assessment

The first phase involves a questionnaire survey designed to assess the development of specific competencies among students both in an EntUni as well as students from non-EntUnis. This survey captures students’ self-assessments of their competencies. The former set of participants in this phase are students from a department widely acknowledged as a leading example of an entrepreneurial academic unit in Greece. The total number of enrolled undergraduate students in the department at the time of data collection was approximately 650, with an annual intake of around 170 students. Therefore, the sample of 190 respondents represents a sufficiently large proportion of the accessible student population, improving the credibility of the results. In line with recommendations for exploratory research, descriptive analysis was adopted to identify patterns in competency development rather than testing predefined hypotheses (Hair et al., 2019). The primary purpose of this phase was to reveal indicative competency strengths and gaps within an EntUni context, while acknowledging that inferential analysis would require larger matched samples across institutions.

3.2. Quantitative Phase 2: Ecosystem Stakeholder Perspectives

The second quantitative phase broadens the scope by including a wider range of stakeholders within the EntUni ecosystem. This includes members of the faculty, industry experts, and start-up founders associated with the university’s incubator. A questionnaire survey was administered to these stakeholders to evaluate their views on the importance of cultivation of various competencies for students. This phase provides a multidimensional perspective on the competencies deemed essential for an EntUni to achieve its entrepreneurial mission.

3.3. Qualitative Phase 3: Expert Insights and Best Practices

To complement the quantitative findings, a qualitative phase involves semi-structured interviews with industry experts. These interviews aim to: provide a deeper explanation of the quantitative survey results; explore best practices for cultivating entrepreneurial competencies in students; identify practical approaches for aligning academic offerings with industry expectations.

Our overall research approach can be reviewed in Figure 1 (Overall Research Design).

3.4. Integration Across Phases

To build a comprehensive and triangulated understanding of entrepreneurial competencies, integrating the three phases was a deliberate and critical design choice. This sequential structure allows each phase to inform and enrich the others.

A key contribution of this study lies in how the three distinct, yet interrelated phases converge to provide a multi-faceted understanding of student entrepreneurial preparedness. Phase one identified high levels of entrepreneurial intention, proactiveness, and perseverance among students, alongside a gap in actual start-up engagement. Phase two corroborated these findings by revealing strong stakeholder consensus on the importance of those same competencies, while also surfacing divergences between academic and industry perspectives. Phase three added qualitative nuance, emphasizing overlooked but vital competencies such as teamwork, ethical and sustainable thinking, and ambiguity tolerance. Together, the three phases not only validate each other but also reveal important tensions and complementarities between mindset and practical readiness. The findings underline the need for EntUnis to adopt a holistic competency framework that fosters both attitudinal and experiential dimensions of entrepreneurship. This approach extends prior work by integrating three distinct stakeholder groups, namely students, academic ecosystem members, and industry practitioners, within a unified competency evaluation framework. Unlike most studies that investigate either student intentions or institutional strategies in isolation, our design connects competency assessment directly to the operational role of the entrepreneurial university, thereby offering a novel mechanism-based perspective on the third mission.

4. Quantitative Study: Assessing Competencies Among Students of an Entrepreneurial Department

4.1. Research Design

This study focused on assessing the self-reported competencies among students from the Department of Management Science and Technology (DMST) at the Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), recognized as a leading example of an entrepreneurial department in Greece. Its interdisciplinary curriculum, tech focus, and startup support made it an ideal case. In addition to DMST students, a comparative sample of non-EntUni students was surveyed to contextualize findings.

4.1.1. DMST as a Model of Entrepreneurial Excellence

The DMST exemplifies how a university can evolve into an entrepreneurial hub. Since its establishment in 1999, DMST has integrated management, technology, and organizational studies, evolving into a leading entrepreneurial hub. Admitting around 170 students annually, it is a top choice for those pursuing economic sciences and informatics. With 27 of 63 courses focused on entrepreneurship, innovation, and business, DMST prioritizes real-world application, fostering entrepreneurial talent and impact. The DMST’s success in fostering entrepreneurship is grounded in several key characteristics:

• Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Combining management, technology, and science, DMST equips students with theoretical and practical skills, fostering an entrepreneurial mindset.
• Innovation and Technology Focus: Aligned with global trends, DMST prepares students to launch startups, drive innovation, and leverage cutting-edge technologies.
• Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: Strong ties with incubators, accelerators, and investors provide students with networking, pitching, and real-world entrepreneurial opportunities.
• Startup Support: DMST offers mentorship, specialized courses, and resources, leading to successful student and faculty ventures.
• Entrepreneurship-Oriented Courses: Programs emphasize innovation, business modeling, and venture development.
• Alumni Success: Graduates have launched startups and held leadership roles in innovation-driven firms, proving DMST’s impact in shaping entrepreneurial talent.

4.1.2. Survey Design and Approach

Building on DMST’s role as a model EntUni, we developed a questionnaire to assess how well EntUnis cultivate key competencies. Using validated measurement tools from the literature, the survey evaluated a set of competencies, along with demographic and attitudinal data.

The survey targeted 190 DMST students, many engaged in entrepreneurial initiatives. To enable comparison, a convenience sample of non-EntUni students was included. Administered online with email invitations and reminders, the survey ensured scale reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.7). Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, percentiles) provided a detailed participant profile.

The questionnaire was structured to capture insights into key entrepreneurial competencies and attitudes toward entrepreneurship while also recording demographic information and previous entrepreneurial experience. More specifically, the questionnaire included the competences as defined in

Table 2. Definitions.

Construct	Definition	Adapted From
Entrepreneurial Competencies
Proactiveness	A personal disposition toward proactive behavior—the relatively stable tendency to effect change	(Bateman & Crant, 1993)
Positive Thinking	As expressed through Positive Affect—feeling enthusiastic, active, and alert	(Watson et al., 1988)
Personal Ambition	Being driven to succeed or to make a difference in the world	(Duckworth et al., 2007)
Grit	Perseverance and passion for long-term goals	(Duckworth et al., 2007)
Perseverance of Effort	Withstanding adversity and challenges while maintaining effort and courage to achieve their long-term desires	(Salisu et al., 2020)
Risk Propensity	Willingness to take risks, and being more comfortable dealing with situations of risk, in the context of one’s job	(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1989; Sitkin & Weingart, 1995)
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy	The degree to which students perceive themselves as having the ability to successfully perform the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship—such as opportunity recognition, evaluation and exploitation	(Hmieleski & Baron, 2008; Shook et al., 2003; Wickham, 2006)
Entrepreneurial Intention and Attitudes
Entrepreneurial Intention	The intention of students to start a business	(Souitaris et al., 2007)
Personal Opinion on Entrepreneurship	Positive opinion on entrepreneurship, and on entrepreneurs
Positive Attitude Toward Venturing	Beliefs that starting a new business is worthwhile, rewarding, and positive	(McGee et al., 2009)
Consistency of Interest	Continuously focusing on achieving long-term ambitions	(Salisu et al., 2020)
Previous Entrepreneurial Experience
Entrepreneurial Experience	Experience in new venture start-up, new market development, and new product development	(Zhao et al., 2005)
Nascent Entrepreneurship Activity	Involvement in evaluating a new business idea, and participation in trying to start a business for real—not just as part of an academic exercise	(Souitaris et al., 2007)
Entrepreneurial Extra-Curricular Activities	Attending activities such as a “start your own business planning” seminar/event/bootcamp, writing a business plan, putting together a start-up team, joining a business incubation scheme, developing a product or service, participating in an entrepreneurship and innovation competition, etc.	(McGee et al., 2009)
Start-up Activities	Participating in actual real-world entrepreneurial activity involving business planning, financing the new firm, and interaction with the external environment	(Souitaris et al., 2007)

, while

Table 3. Measurement Tools.

Construct	Measurement Tool
Proactiveness	Assessed using the Proactive Personality Scale (Bateman & Crant, 1993), a 17-item scale rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample item: “I am great at turning problems into opportunities.”
Positive Thinking	Measured via the I-PANAS-SF scale (Thompson, 2007), which includes 5 positive and 5 negative affect items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 7 = Always). Sample item: “Inspired” (positive affect).
Personal Ambition	Evaluated using the Ambition subscale of the Grit Scale (Duckworth et al., 2007), a 5-item scale rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not like me at all, 5 = Very much like me). Sample item: “I aim to be the best in the world at what I do.”
Perseverance	Measured with the Short Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), an 8-item scale assessing perseverance and passion for long-term goals, using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all like me, 5 = Very much like me). Sample items: “I finish whatever I begin.”
Risk Propensity:	Assessed using 6 items from Risk Propensity (Zhao et al., 2005) and Willingness to Take Risks (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1989) scales, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Sample item: “I enjoy the excitement of uncertainty and risk.”
Perceptions of Formal Learning on Entrepreneurship	Measured using Zhao et al. (2005)’s 4-item scale, assessing perceived learning from university studies. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very little, 5 = A great deal).
Adequacy of Entrepreneurship Formal Learning	Assessed with a single-item scale: “To what extent have your formal (university) studies prepared you to start a business?” Rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Completely).
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (ESE)	Evaluated using the 19-item ESE Scale (McGee et al., 2009) covering 5 dimensions: opportunity recognition, planning, networking, managing people, and financial management. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very little, 5 = Very much).
Previous Entrepreneurial Experience	Measured using a 3-item scale (Zhao et al., 2005), rating experience in new venture start-up, market development, and product development. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very little, 5 = A great deal).
Personal Opinion on Entrepreneurship	Assessed using a 2-item scale measuring general opinions on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs. Rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very negative, 5 = Very positive).
Nascent Entrepreneurship Activity:	Adapted from McGee et al. (2009), Souitaris et al. (2007), and Alsos and Kolvereid (1998) to measure engagement in: Extra-curricular activities; Start-up activities Responses recorded as (0) Not initiated, (1) Initiated, (2) Completed.
Attitude Toward Venturing	Measured using a 3-item scale (McGee et al., 2009), evaluating perceptions of starting a business (e.g., “Starting a business is… Worthwhile vs. Worthless”), rated on a 7-point Likert scale.
Entrepreneurial Intention	Measured using a 4-item scale (Zhao et al., 2005), assessing interest in starting or acquiring a business, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Not interested, 7 = A great deal interested).
Entrepreneurial Decision	Adapted from Chen et al. (1998), a 5-item scale assessing preparedness to start a business (e.g., “I am preparing to set up my own business.”). Rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree).
Seriously Trying to Start a Business	Assessed with 2 items (Souitaris et al., 2007), distinguishing between: Evaluating a business idea (Yes/No). Actively trying to start a business (Yes/No). Entrepreneurs who have already formally founded a business were considered as having made the entrepreneurial decision.
Demographics	Age, Gender, Education Level, Education Relevance to venture, and Years Working on Venture (categorized into: <1, 1–2, 3–4, etc.).

presents the measurement tools employed.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Sample Characteristics

The survey collected responses from 190 students, providing a detailed demographic profile. Most (53.9%) were aged 18–22, 27.3% were 23–27, and 18.8% were older. Gender distribution included 46.8% male, 34.2% female, and 18.9% undisclosed. Nearly half (49.4%) had not yet completed their first degree, while 26.6% held a university degree, 20.1% had a master’s, and 3.9% a doctorate. Notably, 67.9% reported that their academic background aligned with their entrepreneurial ideas. Additionally, 89% had been working on their ventures for less than two years, with 72.7% starting within the past year.

4.2.2. Descriptive Statistics

The analysis (see

Table 4. EntUni students’ personal and entrepreneurial competences (descriptive statistics).

	Scales	Reliability (α)	N	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation	% of Max Possible (POMP)
a. All Participating Students
Entrepreneurial Competencies	Formal Learning on Entrepreneurship	0.861	190	3.59	6.88	5.63	0.63	80.4%
	Positive Thinking	0.730	190	3.00	7.00	5.61	0.76	80.1%
	Personal Ambition	0.703	190	2.40	5.00	4.14	0.60	82.8%
	Consistency of Interest	0.818	190	1.00	5.00	2.57	0.89	51.4%
	Perseverance of Effort	0.616	190	2.50	5.00	4.15	0.57	83.0%
	Risk Propensity	0.757	190	2.00	7.00	5.17	1.00	73.9%
	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (Total)	0.899	190	1.58	5.00	3.71	0.58	74.1%
	Searching	0.723	190	2.33	5.00	3.92	0.66	78.4%
	Planning	0.752	190	1.00	5.00	3.42	0.76	68.4%
	Marshaling	0.623	190	1.67	5.00	3.98	0.68	79.7%
	Implementing People	0.848	190	1.50	5.00	3.89	0.71	77.7%
	Implementing Financial	0.908	190	1.00	5.00	3.23	1.08	64.5%
Demographics and Attitudes	Previous Entrepreneurial Experience	0.907	190	1.00	5.00	2.48	1.16	49.7%
	Personal Opinion on Entrepreneurship	0.649	190	2.00	5.00	4.38	0.62	87.5%
	Attitude Toward Venturing	0.851	190	0.00	6.00	5.11	0.95	85.1%
b. Subgroup of Students Participating in Entrepreneurial Programs
Entrepreneurial Intention & Practical Interest	Entrepreneurial Intention	0.877	136	1.00	7.00	5.65	1.36	80.7%
	Entrepreneurial Decision	0.909	136	1.00	7.00	5.45	1.42	77.9%
	Currently evaluating a new business idea	-	136	“No”	“Yes”	-	-	Yes = 58.8%
	Trying to start a business for real, as opposed to just evaluating as part of an academic exercise	-	136	“No”	“Yes”	-	-	Yes = 62.5%
Nascent Entrepreneurship Activity	Entrepreneurial Extra-Curricular Activities	0.726	137	0.00	6.00	3.00	1.90	50.0%
	Start-up Activities	0.899	137	0.00	27.00	6.78	6.44	25.1%

) confirmed the reliability of the survey scales, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.70. The internal consistency threshold followed conventional criteria, with values above 0.70 indicating acceptable reliability for exploratory studies (Cortina, 1993; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Results showed that EntUni students demonstrated strong entrepreneurial competencies, with proactiveness at 80.4%, positive thinking at 80.1%, ambition at 82.8%, and perseverance at 83.0%. Risk propensity was also high at 73.9%, reflecting the entrepreneurial mindset fostered by the EntUni environment. Entrepreneurial competencies scored notably well, including self-efficacy (74.1%), positive opinions on entrepreneurship (87.5%), and attitudes toward venturing (85.1%). However, formal learning on entrepreneurship was moderate (60.3%), and perceived adequacy of entrepreneurial education was lower (54.0%). Prior entrepreneurial experience stood at 49.7%, indicating limited exposure before engaging in university programs. Detailed descriptive statistics are available in the following table.

4.2.3. Subgroup Analysis: Students in Entrepreneurial Programs

A focused analysis of students in entrepreneurial programs showed strong intent (80.7%) and decision commitment (77.9%). Over half (58.8%) were evaluating a business idea, and 62.5% were actively starting a venture. While 50% engaged in extracurricular entrepreneurship, startup-specific involvement was low (25.1%), underscoring the need for more hands-on opportunities to apply entrepreneurial skills.

4.3. Key Insights

The survey results show that DMST students possess strong entrepreneurial competencies, with high levels of proactiveness (80.4%), positive thinking (80.1%), ambition (82.8%), perseverance (83.0%), and risk propensity (73.9%). Their entrepreneurial self-efficacy (74.1%) reflects confidence in identifying and pursuing business opportunities, highlighting the DMST environment’s effectiveness in fostering entrepreneurial talent.

Students also exhibited strong entrepreneurial attitudes, with overwhelmingly positive views on entrepreneurship (87.5%) and high venturing intentions (85.1%). Among those in entrepreneurial programs, entrepreneurial intention (80.7%) and decision-making (77.9%) were particularly strong. Many were already engaging in entrepreneurial activities, with 58.8% evaluating a business idea and 62.5% actively trying to launch a venture.

However, gaps remain between entrepreneurial education and practical exposure. While students demonstrated strong competencies, perceptions of formal entrepreneurship education were moderate (60.3%), and its adequacy rated even lower (54.0%). Prior entrepreneurial experience was also limited (49.7%), and while 50% participated in extracurricular entrepreneurship, only 25.1% engaged in real-world startup activities.

Among students in entrepreneurial programs, entrepreneurial inclinations were even stronger, yet the low engagement in startup activities (25.1%) highlights a disconnect between aspirations and practical application. These findings stress the need for universities to enhance support mechanisms, providing structured pathways that bridge entrepreneurial learning with real-world venture creation.

5. Confirmatory Quantitative Survey with Stakeholders of the Entrepreneurial University’s Ecosystem

5.1. Research Design

Building on the insights gained from students regarding their self-reported competencies, a supplementary quantitative study was conducted. This aimed to evaluate the significance of cultivating these competencies in students within the framework of an EntUni.

Survey Design and Approach

A structured online questionnaire was distributed to the participants, containing a predefined list of competencies identified in the previous phase, each accompanied by literature-backed definitions to ensure clarity. Participants were asked to express their opinion on how important it is for an EntUni to cultivate each of these competencies in their students (to be perceived as an EntUni) using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not important) to 4 (absolutely essential). In addition to their evaluations, participants provided demographic information, including their age, gender, academic or professional position, years of experience in academia or industry, and areas of expertise such as entrepreneurship, business, or innovation.

To ensure a common understanding on behalf of all the participants, for each of the competencies we provided a specific definition drawn from the literature. The definitions we employed can be reviewed in Table 2.

We decided to include four categories of stakeholders within the EntUni ecosystem in our first step. The participants in this phase were invited to provide an initial screening of the aforementioned competencies, evaluating their importance for an EntUni in cultivating entrepreneurial skills in its students. To ensure a balanced perspective, our study equally represents the following key stakeholder groups:

• EntUni Academic Experts: Faculty members employed within an EntUni who develop its curriculum and engage in entrepreneurial initiatives. They provide insights into the university’s entrepreneurial education and internal processes.
• Non-EntUni Academic Experts: Faculty from non-EntUnis who collaborate with EntUni through shared projects. As external observers, they offer an unbiased perspective on EntUni’s functioning and impact.
• Industry Experts: Professionals who actively participate in the design and delivery of EntUni’s extracurricular activities, bridging the gap between academia and the market. Their involvement ensures that entrepreneurial programs align with industry needs.
• Nascent Entrepreneurs: Students who have participated in EntUni’s intra-curricular and/or extracurricular activities, gaining firsthand entrepreneurial experience. They provide a practical perspective on the effectiveness of EntUni’s initiatives, offering insights into what has worked for them and how their acquired competencies have supported their entrepreneurial endeavors.

5.2. Results and Key Findings

5.2.1. Sample Characteristics

The sample consisted of 38 participants, distributed almost evenly across the four aforementioned categories to ensure a balanced perspective. Among them, 26.3% were industry experts, bringing insights from their direct involvement in bridging academia and the market. Similarly, 26.3% were entrepreneurs, providing firsthand experience of entrepreneurial education’s practical value. The remaining participants were split between academic experts within EntUnis (23.7%), who contribute to curriculum design and educational strategies, and academic non-experts (23.7%), who observe and collaborate externally, offering an unbiased viewpoint.

Regarding expertise, the dominant fields were entrepreneurship (28.9%), business (21.1%), and innovation (21.1%), reflecting the core themes of an EntUni. However, the sample also included individuals from diverse fields such as communication, decision-making, finance, psychology, engineering, and hydroclimatology, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurial education.

The majority (78.9%) of participants were based in Greece, with the rest representing countries including the United Kingdom, Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, and Ireland. This international presence provided a broader perspective on EntUni models. In terms of tenure, nearly 40% had been working in their respective organizations for up to five years, while the rest had careers spanning 6–30+ years, ensuring representation from both emerging and experienced professionals.

From a professional standpoint, more than half (52.6%) of the participants were university faculty members (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, or lecturers), while 23.7% identified as entrepreneurs, and the remaining 23.7% held roles such as analysts, CFOs, consultants, or innovation managers.

Gender distribution showed a predominance of male participants (71.1%), with 23.7% female participants, and 5.3% preferring not to disclose their gender.

5.2.2. Key Findings

The assessment of competencies, as rated by different categories of participants, provides critical insights into the key attributes that an EntUni should foster in its students. The results indicate that the majority of competencies were rated between “very important” and “absolutely essential”, with scores ranging from 3 to 4. Even the lowest-rated competencies were still considered at least important to very important, with average values consistently above 2.8 across all groups.

This consistency across participant categories (industry experts, nascent entrepreneurs, EntUni academic experts, and non-EntUni academic experts) suggests a broad agreement on the relevance of these competencies in preparing students for entrepreneurship.

However, industry experts and EntUni academic experts showed significant differences in their ratings of key entrepreneurial competencies. Industry experts, who play a direct role in shaping entrepreneurial education outside traditional coursework, rated entrepreneurial intention, self-efficacy, risk propensity, and grit as significantly more important than academic experts did. This highlights the industry’s emphasis on fostering a mindset of resilience and proactiveness, likely due to its direct experience with market demands.

Conversely, academic experts placed slightly higher importance on formal learning aspects such as structured education on external obstacles to entrepreneurship. While this suggests a more theoretical approach to competency development, it also underscores the need for a balanced integration of both structured learning and real-world adaptability.

Among the highest-rated competencies were:

• Entrepreneurial Intention: Recognized as a fundamental driver for students to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
• Proactiveness and Grit: Valued for fostering resilience and long-term commitment to entrepreneurial goals.
• Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: A key factor in determining whether students feel confident in launching ventures.
• Formal Learning on Entrepreneurship: Despite industry experts placing slightly less emphasis on formal education, all groups acknowledged its importance in providing a foundational knowledge base.

Competencies that received relatively lower, but still significant ratings included:

• Market Orientation: While recognized as essential, this competency was rated slightly lower than others, possibly due to the assumption that market awareness develops naturally through entrepreneurial activities.
• Venture Support Mechanisms: Industry experts saw these as less critical than personal traits like risk-taking and resilience, suggesting that while support is valuable, success depends more on individual characteristics.

Despite these differences, ANOVA testing revealed that variations in ratings across stakeholder groups were not statistically significant, meaning that while perspectives varied, there was broad consensus on the importance of these competencies.

Table 5. Assessed importance of cultivating students’ competencies in EntUni by experts and non-experts in the EntUni ecosystem (sorted by average total importance).

Characteristics/Competencies		Experts				Non—Experts				All (n = 38)
		Industry (n = 10)		Academic (n = 9)		Entrepreneurs (n = 10)		Academic (n = 9)
		Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
1	Entrepreneurial Intention	3.80	0.42	2.89	1.27	3.10	0.88	3.00	0.71	3.37	0.67
2	Proactiveness	3.20	0.63	2.89	1.17	2.80	1.03	2.78	0.67	3.37	0.67
3	Positive Thinking	3.50	0.97	3.11	1.27	3.10	0.88	2.56	1.13	3.34	0.75
4	Personal Ambition	3.20	1.03	2.89	1.45	2.80	1.03	2.78	1.20	3.32	0.84
5	Grit	3.40	0.70	2.78	1.30	2.80	0.92	2.56	1.01	3.29	0.80
6	Consistency of Interest	3.30	0.48	3.11	1.36	2.70	0.82	2.33	1.12	3.21	0.91
7	Perseverance of Effort	3.20	0.79	2.89	1.36	3.10	0.57	2.56	0.88	3.21	0.70
8	Risk Propensity	3.30	0.82	2.67	1.32	3.00	0.82	2.67	1.22	3.11	0.92
9	Formal Learning on Entrepreneurship	3.30	0.82	3.11	1.27	3.50	0.53	3.33	0.71	3.11	0.86
10	Adequate Formal Learning in order to practice Entrepreneurship	3.40	0.70	3.44	0.73	3.60	0.52	3.00	0.71	3.08	1.08
11	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy	3.70	0.48	3.00	1.22	3.00	0.67	2.56	0.73	3.08	0.88
12	Entrepreneurial Experience	3.50	0.71	3.00	1.22	2.80	1.03	3.11	0.60	3.08	0.78
13	Personal Opinion on Entrepreneurship	3.20	0.63	2.78	1.20	3.00	1.05	2.56	1.01	2.97	0.85
14	Nascent Entrepreneurship Activity	3.10	0.74	2.67	1.32	2.80	1.14	3.00	0.71	2.95	0.93
15	Entrepreneurial Extra-Curricular Activities	3.50	0.71	3.44	0.88	3.20	0.92	3.00	0.71	2.95	0.90
16	Start-up Activities	3.60	0.70	3.22	1.09	3.30	0.67	3.22	0.44	2.92	0.88
17	Positive Attitude toward Venturing	3.30	0.67	3.33	0.71	3.10	0.88	2.67	1.12	2.92	1.15
18	Innovativeness	3.60	0.52	3.56	0.53	3.20	0.92	3.11	0.60	2.92	1.05
19	Market Orientation	3.50	0.53	3.22	0.83	3.20	0.79	2.89	0.60	2.92	1.10
20	Funding Opportunities	3.20	0.92	2.67	0.71	2.80	0.92	3.11	1.05	2.89	1.01
21	Venture support mechanisms	3.20	0.79	3.11	0.93	3.00	0.82	3.00	0.71	2.89	0.98
22	Adequate education on external obstacles to becoming an entrepreneur	2.80	1.03	3.11	0.93	3.10	0.74	2.89	0.78	2.89	0.98
23	Optimism, especially in view of unexpected difficulties or crises	3.30	0.95	2.78	0.97	3.20	1.03	2.33	1.32	2.89	1.09
24	Promoting the idea of self-employment vs. employed by an organization	3.00	1.15	2.78	0.67	3.00	1.33	2.78	1.20	2.87	1.02

presents the assessed importance of cultivating students’ competencies in EntUni by experts and non-experts in the EntUni ecosystem, while

Table 6. Difference between industry experts’ and academic experts’ opinion on the importance of cultivating students’ competences in EntUni (in decreasing order of magnitude).

Characteristics/Competencies		Experts
		Industry (n = 10)		Academic (n = 9)		Industry vs. Academic
		Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.	Δ	Δ%
1	Entrepreneurial Intention	3.80	0.42	2.89	1.27	0.91	31.5%
2	Risk Propensity	3.30	0.82	2.67	1.32	0.63	23.8%
3	Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy	3.70	0.48	3.00	1.22	0.70	23.3%
4	Grit	3.40	0.70	2.78	1.30	0.62	22.4%
5	Funding Opportunities	3.20	0.92	2.67	0.71	0.53	20.0%
6	Optimism, especially in view of unexpected difficulties or crises	3.30	0.95	2.78	0.97	0.52	18.8%
7	Entrepreneurial Experience	3.50	0.71	3.00	1.22	0.50	16.7%
8	Nascent Entrepreneurship Activity	3.10	0.74	2.67	1.32	0.43	16.3%
9	Personal Opinion on Entrepreneurship	3.20	0.63	2.78	1.20	0.42	15.2%
10	Positive Thinking	3.50	0.97	3.11	1.27	0.39	12.5%
11	Start-up Activities	3.60	0.70	3.22	1.09	0.38	11.7%
12	Proactiveness	3.20	0.63	2.89	1.17	0.31	10.8%
13	Personal Ambition	3.20	1.03	2.89	1.45	0.31	10.8%
14	Perseverance of Effort	3.20	0.79	2.89	1.36	0.31	10.8%
15	Adequate education on external obstacles to becoming an entrepreneur	2.80	1.03	3.11	0.93	−0.31	−10.0%
16	Market Orientation	3.50	0.53	3.22	0.83	0.28	8.6%
17	Promoting the idea of self-employment vs. being employed by an organization	3.00	1.15	2.78	0.67	0.22	8.0%
18	Consistency of Interest	3.30	0.48	3.11	1.36	0.19	6.1%
19	Formal Learning on Entrepreneurship	3.30	0.82	3.11	1.27	0.19	6.1%
20	Venture support mechanisms	3.20	0.79	3.11	0.93	0.09	2.9%
21	Entrepreneurial Extra-Curricular Activities	3.50	0.71	3.44	0.88	0.06	1.6%
22	Adequate Formal Learning in order to practice Entrepreneurship	3.40	0.70	3.44	0.73	−0.04	−1.3%
23	Innovativeness	3.60	0.52	3.56	0.53	0.04	1.3%
24	Positive Attitude toward Venturing	3.30	0.67	3.33	0.71	−0.03	−1.0%

presents the differences recorded between industry experts’ and academic experts’ opinion on the importance of cultivating students’ competences in EntUni.

Table 5 presents the mean scores of the 24 competencies across four stakeholder groups. All competencies received average importance ratings well above the midpoint of the scale (≥2.87 on a 0–4 Likert scale), indicating broad agreement that each competency plays a valuable role in preparing students for entrepreneurship. Among the highest-ranked competencies in the combined mean results were Entrepreneurial Intention (3.37), Proactiveness (3.37), and Positive Thinking (3.34), followed closely by Personal Ambition, Grit, and Perseverance. This suggests that stakeholders view motivational and action-oriented competencies as especially critical for student readiness in entrepreneurial contexts. At the same time, competencies such as Market Orientation, Venture Support Mechanisms, and Funding Opportunities received slightly lower, but still strong, ratings, indicating that stakeholders see these externally focused skills as important but potentially more context-dependent. Overall, the results support the idea that Entrepreneurial Universities must cultivate a balanced portfolio of competencies that strengthen student mindset, behavioral capability, and exposure to entrepreneurial processes.

Table 6 compares the importance ratings assigned by industry experts and academic experts to a range of entrepreneurial competencies. The results reveal notable differences in emphasis between the two groups. Industry experts place significantly greater importance on intention-to-act competencies, such as entrepreneurial intention, risk propensity, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which they view as essential for opportunity pursuit and venture creation. In contrast, academic experts rate these competencies lower, indicating a stronger orientation toward more foundational or knowledge-based aspects of entrepreneurship. These differences highlight an academia-industry gap in how entrepreneurial readiness is conceptualized, reinforcing the need for closer collaboration to align educational priorities with market and innovation needs.

6. Qualitative Round-Table Discussion with Industry Experts

This stage of the research aimed to further explore and interpret the findings from the quantitative study while also gathering best practices and expert insights on the development of competencies in an Entrepreneurial University (EntUni) students. The ultimate goal was to ensure that the found competencies also align with real-world market needs.

6.1. Research Design

Following the confirmatory quantitative survey involving various EntUni ecosystem members, we conducted a round-table discussion in the form of a focus group. The discussion followed established methodological guidelines (Gill et al., 2008; McLafferty, 2004) and sought to compare perspectives, enrich understanding, and highlight key differences in competency evaluation between industry and academic experts.

To maximize practical impact, we implemented the discussion in a semi-structured format, focusing exclusively on industry experts. The focus group methodology involved three industry experts, including two males and one female, all of whom were employed in large Greek organizations and possessed extensive experience in entrepreneurship and innovation, either as mentors, consultants, or organizers of entrepreneurship programs. The semi-structured protocol included questions such as: “Which competencies are most critical for students entering entrepreneurial environments?”, “Where do you perceive gaps between university training and market expectations?”, and “How should entrepreneurial competencies be cultivated in academic contexts?” Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive thematic coding by two independent researchers. Coding disagreements were resolved through discussion to ensure rigor and transparency in theme generation.

Participants first reviewed the quantitative results, particularly contradictions between industry experts’ and academic experts’ assessments. These contradictions were visually presented on discussion cards, and experts were prompted to analyze and discuss their implications. Specifically, we followed the procedure as such:

• Introduction to Research Aim: Establishing links between student competencies and an EntUni’s mission.
• Presentation of Key Findings: Experts reviewed figures illustrating competency importance rankings.
• Discussion of Contradictions: Experts debated competency gaps between industry and academia.
• Exploration of Additional Competencies: Experts suggested missing competencies or necessary curriculum changes.

6.2. Analysis and Discussion of Figures

During the discussion, three key figures were presented to support the dialog and analysis:

Figure 2 illustrated the mean importance score of competencies based on responses from all stakeholders as per the results of the quantitative studies already performed. Experts were asked whether they agreed with the “Top 10” competencies identified. While they largely agreed with the selection, they emphasized the lack of teamwork as a major omission, stating that it is and should be dealt as a fundamental entrepreneurial competency.

Figure 3 highlighted competencies that industry experts, during the quantitative stage, rated as at least 20% more important than academic experts did. Experts attributed this gap to the lack of collaboration between academia and industry, resulting in different perspectives on required skills. They suggested that closer engagement between universities and businesses could help bridge this gap.

Figure 4 highlights the competencies with notable differences in perceived importance between industry and academic experts. Industry experts placed stronger emphasis on competencies such as risk propensity and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, arguing that these capabilities are crucial for opportunity pursuit and practical entrepreneurial success. The figure visualizes the percentage-point differences between the two expert groups, grouped into four tiers of magnitude (≥20%, 15–20%, 10–15%, and <10%), enabling a clear comparison of which competencies industry prioritizes more strongly.

The round-table discussion provided valuable insights into competency gaps, barriers to academia-industry collaboration, and strategies for enhancing students’ entrepreneurial intent. Industry experts identified several critical entrepreneurial competencies that should be further developed in an EntUni setting, including: Teamwork and Collaboration; Hands-on Experiential Learning and Industry Exposure; Ethical and Sustainable Thinking; Risk Propensity; Self-Efficacy; Ambiguity Tolerance; Self-Control; Mobilizing Others, and Creativity. These findings emphasize the importance of integrating real-world business challenges into the university curriculum, fostering a risk-positive culture, and strengthening academia-industry collaboration to create truly EntUnis.

Table 7. Summary of Key Insights and Experts’ Quotes.

Theme	Key Insights	Verbatim Quotes
Importance of Teamwork	Experts emphasized that teamwork is often neglected in university training but is essential for entrepreneurship.	“We could have had a much better result and a much bigger impact if some teams worked together”/“Students find it hard to exist in teams. It takes them time to understand their role, what you give, what you take”
Lack of Hands-On Learning and Industry Exposure	Universities should integrate experiential learning opportunities to bridge the gap between academia and business reality.	“There is a need to connect academia with the business world. That’s where experience comes from”/“Mistakes will be made, but that’s how learning happens”/Through their training, students should gain experience. Which doesn’t exist and is what we generally say is missing”
Collaboration Between Academia and Industry	The disconnect between the two sectors leads to differing competency priorities. Experts suggested proactive collaboration.	“Academics see trends in science, but industry experts experience the market firsthand”/“The academic community should come closer to the industry and not be intimidated by partnerships”/”There are ways to get closer, as long as the academic community endorses it. I can’t say a specific suggestion for it, but it needs initiative from the academic community. I think the industry always has the will to come together”/“I think we’ve made a tentative start and we’re doing some things. We need to do them more methodically”
Risk Propensity	Universities should encourage students to take risks and shift from a failure-averse culture.	“We need to normalize risk-taking in universities. Failure should not be seen as punishment”/“Students are often too restrained. Universities should integrate risk-taking workshops”/“Your environment determines how easily you take your risks, so I think at a level of education, universities can show what risk-taking means. Show different risks you can take—some bigger, some smaller”/“As a university, you can teach theoretically why it is worth taking at least one risk in life!”/“A university can see how much students are doing experiments, whether they’re taking initiative on things knowing that the risk is there too. I can only think of one thing that can even slightly influence this part—specific workshops at a targeted point in the process”
Self-Efficacy	Experts emphasized building confidence in students through progressive skill development.	“As a soft skill, self-efficacy should be reinforced through structured learning.”/“A student must feel competent and empowered to operate in the real world.”/“Students should feel that they have the tools to be strong and the knowledge to operate.”/“It is something trainable—you start from not knowing anything and, through knowledge, begin to understand the powers you have and how far you can go.”
Ethical and Sustainable Thinking	Entrepreneurship education should include social responsibility and sustainability.	“There should be a logic of impact—not as social action, but as an entrepreneurial responsibility.”/“As an entrepreneur, I must be able to see and recognize the impact I have on society. Not to make the solution for the solution’s sake, but a solution for the whole”/“Training should emphasize sustainability in entrepreneurship endeavors”
Ambiguity Tolerance	Experts highlighted the need to teach students how to manage uncertainty and failure.	“Universities can’t only give students positive reinforcement. Teaching how to manage failure is crucial”/“I don’t know if that is or isn’t trainable. Management of failure should not conclude with ‘my idea didn’t work.’ Instead, it should be ‘it didn’t work, so let’s find another idea or solution”
Self-Control	Developing patience and self-discipline is crucial for entrepreneurial success.	“The ability to cultivate patience and self-control is one of the key skills that even companies look for, and it needs to be developed.”/“Self-control is an important trait that is lacking in our culture and in university training.”
Mobilizing Others	The ability to inspire and motivate others is fundamental for entrepreneurial leadership.	“Seeing people who motivate us and actually being inspired by them to do better for ourselves and those around us is very important. But normally the first thing to teach is not being selfish! It is a priority. To motivate yourself first, to show something better. So, accordingly, after that, regardless of what you’ve done first, affects the people you have around you.”
Creativity	An entrepreneurial university should aim for a culture of creativity and innovation over quick results.	“An entrepreneurial university should create a mindset of a group of people so that they can move a little bit more collectively and have in their minds more intensively the part of creation and not so much the quick result.”

summarizes the key themes and industry experts’ verbatim quotes.

7. Discussion

This study contributes to the growing discourse on EntUnis by providing an empirically grounded view of the competencies that define entrepreneurial student readiness. The integration of multiple perspectives—students, faculty, and industry—offers a more complete picture of the mindset, skills, and experiential gaps that must be addressed in higher education.

7.1. Toward a Competency-Based Definition of Entrepreneurial Universities

The findings of this study demonstrate that students in EntUnis tend to display consistently higher levels of entrepreneurial competencies compared to their peers in more traditional academic environments. Specifically, they score highly in proactiveness, positive thinking, ambition, perseverance, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Despite this, a significant gap persists between their entrepreneurial mindset and their actual engagement in hands-on start-up activities, highlighting the need for more experiential training and real-world exposure.

These results underscore a broader insight: the entrepreneurial orientation of a university cannot be fully captured through institutional infrastructure or program offerings alone. Rather, it must also reflect the systematic development of entrepreneurial competencies in its students. Drawing from the perspectives of students, ecosystem stakeholders, and industry experts, this study argues that competencies such as risk propensity, teamwork, ethical and sustainable thinking, and ambiguity tolerance should be treated as integral to how EntUnis are conceptually understood.

While we do not propose a formal redefinition of the EntUni, our evidence-based analysis supports the view that future definitions must place competency development at the core of the EntUni mission. These competencies are not peripheral outcomes but rather central mechanisms through which universities fulfill their third mission of fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and societal impact.

7.2. The Profile of EntUni Students

Quantitative analysis revealed that EntUni students scored highly on competencies such as perseverance (83.0%), positive thinking (80.1%), and proactiveness (80.4%). Entrepreneurial competencies, including entrepreneurial self-efficacy (74.1%) and positive attitudes toward venturing (85.1%), were also significantly higher. However, practical engagement in start-up activities was relatively low (25%), indicating a need for stronger practical applications.

7.3. Enhancing Competency Development

Our study underscores the necessity for EntUnis to strengthen experiential learning opportunities that bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world application. Experts emphasized that teamwork and collaboration, risk-taking, ethical and sustainable thinking, and ambiguity tolerance are critical areas for improvement in entrepreneurial education. This highlights the importance of incorporating startup simulations, internships, and industry partnerships into curricula to provide students with more direct exposure to entrepreneurial challenges.

Existing entrepreneurial learning practices within universities often include startup simulations, hackathons, entrepreneurship bootcamps, and industry-driven project courses, which create structured environments for experimentation, failure, and iteration (Souitaris et al., 2007; Preedy & Beaumont, 2024). To further enhance their effectiveness, these initiatives can be complemented with explicit competency-building components such as risk-management workshops, reflective learning logs that reinforce self-efficacy, and cross-disciplinary team challenges that mirror real venture creation dynamics. Moreover, integrating incubation support directly into curricular pathways can ensure that students who progress from ideation to prototyping do not lose momentum due to administrative or resource barriers.

Furthermore, the study reveals that despite high entrepreneurial intention and competencies, students’ engagement in practical entrepreneurial activities remains relatively low. This suggests a need for universities to establish stronger pathways for students to transition from entrepreneurial learning to actual venture creation. Such pathways could include business incubators, mentorship programs, and structured startup support mechanisms that encourage real-world entrepreneurial engagement.

To support practical implementation, universities may adopt targeted interventions that connect competency development to real entrepreneurial outcomes. Such strategies include embedding startup creation into coursework, offering structured mentorship with entrepreneurs-in-residence, enabling interdisciplinary team formation, and strengthening pathways to venture incubation and funding. These approaches ensure students not only develop entrepreneurial mindsets but also gain the capabilities and resources required to initiate real entrepreneurial activity.

7.4. Addressing the Academia-Industry Gap

A discrepancy between academic and industry perspectives on the importance of certain competencies was observed. Industry experts rated entrepreneurial intention and risk propensity as more critical than academic experts did. This gap underscores the need for closer collaboration between academia and industry to align educational outcomes with market needs. Proposed strategies include co-developing curricula, expanding mentorship programs, and creating dynamic feedback mechanisms.

It is also important to recognize that entrepreneurial competencies are not static. Economic, technological, and societal changes continuously redefine which capabilities are most relevant for entrepreneurial success. Therefore, competency frameworks within EntUnis should remain adaptive, as well as periodically updated through feedback mechanisms within both industry and society, ensuring alignment with the ever-evolving entrepreneurial landscapes (Kuratko, 2017; Lyu et al., 2023).

8. Conclusions

This study reaffirms the pivotal role of EntUnis in cultivating student competencies that align with innovation and societal needs. While our findings validate a core set of entrepreneurial competencies, such as proactiveness, perseverance, self-efficacy, grit, risk propensity, and entrepreneurial intention, they also reveal important gaps in real-world application, particularly in students’ limited engagement with startup activities.

More importantly, the study contributes to the operationalization of the EntUni’s third mission by grounding it in measurable student-level outcomes. It emphasizes that competency development should not be treated as an implicit byproduct of entrepreneurial education but rather as a strategic priority embedded in both curricula and institutional support mechanisms.

While this study focused on a defined set of entrepreneurial competencies, we recognize that other concepts referenced in the theoretical framing, such as creativity, opportunity recognition, and market orientation, were not empirically examined within our scope. These dimensions remain highly relevant and offer valuable directions for future research, particularly in understanding how they interact with the core competencies identified here.

By emphasizing student competency development as a mechanism for institutional transformation, this study offers both a practical roadmap and a conceptual contribution to how EntUnis can more effectively fulfill their third mission.

8.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions

This study significantly advances the competency-based perspective of EntUnis by emphasizing the pivotal role of specific competencies and attitudes in shaping entrepreneurial behavior. The findings confirm the essential nature of six key competencies: proactiveness, grit, perseverance, risk propensity, and self-efficacy, alongside entrepreneurial attitudes that foster resilience and opportunity recognition. These elements serve as the foundation for entrepreneurial action, reinforcing their critical role in equipping students with the skills necessary for navigating dynamic entrepreneurial landscapes.

Building on the six entrepreneurial competencies identified in this research, we propose the inclusion of teamwork, ethics and sustainability, and risk management as essential elements of a holistic approach to entrepreneurial education.

• Teamwork enhances collaboration, enabling individuals to leverage diverse skills and solve complex challenges effectively.
• Ethics and Sustainability promote responsible entrepreneurship by integrating environmental and social considerations alongside business goals.
• Risk Management equips students with the ability to navigate uncertainty, assess challenges, and make informed decisions.

By integrating these priorities, the study provides a more comprehensive framework for EntUnis to develop their students’ capabilities, aligning theoretical insights with the practical demands of entrepreneurial ecosystems. This enriched understanding can inform both academic and practical applications, enhancing the strategic development of EntUni curricula and activities.

These findings have several practical implications:

• Curriculum Design: Universities can implement competency-based educational frameworks that balance theoretical knowledge with practical, hands-on learning opportunities. These frameworks should include real-world scenarios, case studies, and experiential learning activities, ensuring students gain both academic and practical expertise.
• Selection Criteria for Programs and Resources: Identified entrepreneurial competencies can serve as objective benchmarks for selecting students to participate in specialized entrepreneurial programs, such as incubators, accelerators, and innovation contests. These criteria can also help universities allocate resources more effectively to nurture high-potential individuals.
• Policy and Funding Decisions: Governments and funding organizations can use these competencies as measurable indicators to assess and support EntUnis. By adopting these benchmarks, policymakers can ensure targeted funding reaches institutions demonstrating a commitment to cultivating entrepreneurship at the student level.

8.2. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The research was conducted within the context of a single EntUni in Greece and while studying the results stemming from an entrepreneurial department of that EntUni, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other cultural or institutional settings. Future research should explore diverse institutions across different geographical regions and contexts to validate and expand upon these results. Additionally, longitudinal studies tracking the development of entrepreneurial competencies over time and their impact on students’ post-graduation entrepreneurial outcomes could provide deeper insights into the long-term value of EntUni education.

This study reaffirms the crucial role of EntUnis in cultivating entrepreneurial competencies that align academic goals with societal and economic needs. By addressing gaps in experiential learning, enhancing academia-industry collaboration, and providing practical entrepreneurial opportunities, EntUnis can further their impact as catalysts for innovation and economic development. Moving forward, universities must continue evolving their educational frameworks to nurture the next generation of entrepreneurial leaders.