Evaluating the coaching process of the minor Entrepreneurship at the UvA
MSc Thesis BA – Track Entrepreneurship and Innovation (6314M0254) Student: C. der Kinderen
Student number: 10452400
Supervisor: dhr. drs. A.C.C. Gruijters Date: March 16, 2015
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Colette der Kinderen, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This research investigates the subject of coaching in the minor Entrepreneurship at the University of Amsterdam. The main goal of this research was to find out why some coaches are regarded better than others in coaching the students of the minor. In-‐depth interviews were conducted with students and coaches analysing coaching during the entrepreneurial process. Guidelines for the activities to be performed by coaches were formed, criteria for selection of coaches were formed and criteria for the matchup between coach and student group were formed. The results can be used to help stimulate enthusiasm for entrepreneurship amongst students in the
Netherlands.
Table of contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Minor Entrepreneurship provided by the University of Amsterdam 6 2.1 Goals of this research 9
3. Literature Review 10
3.1 Entrepreneurial process 10 3.2 Entrepreneurship in education 11
3.3 Coaching 13 3.3.1 Executive coaching 14 3.3.2 Sports coaching 15 3.3.3 Incubator coaching 15 3.3.4 Student coaching 16 3.4 Motivation 17 3.4.1 Feedback 18
4 Preliminary recommendations and need for further empirical research18
4.1 Selection 18
4.2 Fit 19
4.3 Guidelines 20
4.4 Need for empirical research 20
5. Method 21
5.1 Sampling 21
5.2 Data gathering 23
5.3 Data analysing 23
6. Analysis 25
6.1 Team 1: The PowerJuice Company 26 6.1.1 Introduction of the team and its members 26 6.1.2 Analysis of coaching in the entrepreneurial process 29
6.2 Team 2: UrbanCanvas 33
6.2.1 Introduction of the team and its members 33 6.2.2 Analysis of coaching in the entrepreneurial process 34 6.3 Team 3: Baardstaat 37 6.3.1 Introduction of the team and its members 37 6.3.2 Analysis of coaching in the entrepreneurial process 39
6.4 Results 42 7. Recommendations and discussion 46
7.1 Guidelines 47 7.2 Fit 50 7.3 Selection 51 7.4 Discussion 53 8. Conclusion 53 9. References 54
9.1 Articles and books 54
9.2 Websites 59
10. Appendices 59
10.1 Appendix 1: Survey 59 10.2 Appendix 2: Codes 63 10.3 Appendix 2: Transcript Interview 64 10.4 Appendix 3: Translated abridgement of interview 78
10.5 Appendix 4: Memos 80
1. Introduction
This study is about the coaching process in the minor Entrepreneurship at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) carried out at the request of Erik Boer, head of UvA-‐owned Amsterdam Center of Entrepreneurship (ACE).
Entrepreneurship is becoming more popular and more important in the ever faster moving world of today (Sarasvathy, 2001; Hitt, Keats & DeMarie ,1998). It is a general believe, if not a fact, that entrepreneurship stimulates economic growth (Wennekers & Thurik, 1999; Wong, Ho & Autio, 2005). It is also believed that (technological) innovation results in economic growth (Cameron, 1996; Rosenberg, 2004, Wong et al., 2005). With economic growth stagnating in many countries in recent years due to the financial crisis, focus is on stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation (OECD, 2005). The European Union stated in 2000 that their goal is to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world. It is stated that the European business climate should: ‘facilitating the rapid start-‐up of new enterprises; and creating an environment more supportive to businesses.’ (Kok, 2004).
Governments emphasize the stimulation of entrepreneurship and in order to do that there should be a focus on entrepreneurship in education (Wilson, 2004). The University of Amsterdam (UvA) together with the Amsterdam Centre of Entrepreneurship (ACE) initiated a Minor Entrepreneurship (ME) in 2007 and have successfully managed to continue to do so to this day. The number of students enrolling in this program increased over the years and the program is now offered twice a year. In this program of teaching entrepreneurship coaching plays a big role, so this can have a big influence on a students experience and it might be so that this experience will influence future motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activities.
According to ACE director Erik Boer the organisation ‘has to this day been happy with anyone who showed some experience in coaching and/or entrepreneurship and was willing to do the job for free’. After 7 years of activity and gaining popularity the time is right to sharpen the rough edges. Therefore the interest of this paper is to find out how the quality of coaching is in the Minor Entrepreneurship at the UvA, with the goal to be able to form an advise about the
selection of the coaches, guidelines to provide them with during the program and the fit between students and coaches in the future.
From the findings in this study an advice will be formed for the future in order to let the Minor Entrepreneurship function to its maximum efficiency, so that it hopefully will help stimulating entrepreneurship in the Netherlands.
First the minor entrepreneurship and it’s goals will be laid out on the basis of an interview held with Erik Boer. Then a study of the literature on educating entrepreneurship and coaching will be carried out which will result in a clear, specific formulation of the problems and goals for this study. After that the method used for this research will be discussed and then an analysis of the assembled materials will follow. At last a conclusion will be formulated and limitation of this research will be discussed. An advice will be formed and suggestions for further research will be given.
2. Minor Entrepreneurship provided by the University of Amsterdam To start this research an analysis needs to be made of the minor Entrepreneurship in it’s current state. It’s goals and activities to get there will be specified in order to form objectives for the future.
“ The Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE) at the UvA offers an introduction to entrepreneurship education for a broad range of students via the Minor in Entrepreneurship (30 EC). During the Minor, students are introduced to entrepreneurship from an academic, theoretical perspective. However, at the heart of the program, students actively identify an entrepreneurial opportunity, with the semester-‐ending goal of setting up a private company with students from other disciplines. This is done under the guidance of experienced business coaches. Consultants of top-‐tier consultancy firms, Rabobank, and other companies provide workshops and guest lectures. Throughout the semester, teams craft and refine a business plan. At the end of the 21 weeks, teams give public presentations in front of a jury and a large audience. Electives are available to complement these theoretical and practical approaches to entrepreneurship.”
(“About the Minor Entrepreneurship” Unknown, Unknown. Retrieved from http://
www.minorentrepreneurship.com)
This is what is stated on the website of the UvA about the minor Entrepreneurship. But this is brief and sounds nice on paper, but how does this
actually work in practice? To get a clear image about the UvA’s motivation and attitudes towards the minor and it’s different aspects an interview was held with Erik Boer, director of the Amsterdam Centre of Entrepreneurship (ACE) and from the start closely related to the developments regarding the Minor Entrepreneurship. With ACE he is responsible for delivering the coaches and the initial funding for the minor. The interview was held with him, since he is responsible for selecting and guiding the coaches, which is the focus of this research.
Participating in the activities of a start-‐up is the biggest focus of the minor. Next to that the minor consists of 2 mandatory courses: Cases in Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurship in Practice; and 2 elective courses: Strategic management, Marketing or Accounting and Organisatie and Management (Dutch), Operations and Process Management and Financiering (Dutch). For the initial design when the program was first started, they looked at a similar program at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam (HvA). This program was adjusted to fit the academic standards of a university by adding the courses to make the minor theoretical as well as practical. A couple of changes have been made since the start of the program in 2007. The first is that the program became so popular that the decision was made to offer the minor two times a year, one in English, for international students, and one in Dutch. The second change was made when students turned out to be working on their business plan for too long and never getting to the part of putting it to practice. Therefore it was decided that the students had to finish their business plan within one month. Which would leave them with 3 months of practical experience. He described the goal of the minor is to “get students to learn and experience all that has to do with entrepreneurship. The goal isn’t to start a company, that is the mean”. To reach this goal, students need to work in a diverse group of people, teamwork is important, they need to come up with an idea and test whether it is viable in the market. Together with the KvK (Chamber of commerce), the Rabobank and the Belastingdienst (tax authorities) a package was composed that gives the students every possibility to be a real business and engage in the market. And lastly they receive a lot of workshops from professionals with a lot of practical experience.
As mentioned before the main task of the minor is initiating a start-‐up. Students participate in a boot camp of two days in the first week. Here they fill in forms about their background and personalities and start to initiate some ideas for a start-‐up. Then they need to form groups with students they preferably didn’t know before and are from different educational backgrounds, diversity is preferable. With this group they finalize one idea and this will be the idea that they will work on with that group for the rest of the minor. +/-‐ 30 groups of students are formed. They receive a list of 50 coaches with a short profile and the coaches receive a list of the student groups with their final idea. They both hand in a list of a top 5 of whom they want to coach or be coached by. The most ideal match is formed. When this match is made, the students start writing a business plan, a task that is in charge of the minor coordinator. The coach’s main task is to guide them through the practical process. Erik Boer describes a coach as someone who lets the students decide on the direction of their company, but someone who asks the right questions, who tries to be critical, who brings the students in contact with relevant people by opening up their network.
Today there are no specific criteria that the coaches should meet, only that they need experience in entrepreneurship and preferably some in coaching. What this entails exactly isn’t clear. But Erik admits that during the years they were happy with anyone who fitted that profile and who would be willing to do the job for free. But they are planning to become more selective with regards to the coaching skills and experience of the volunteers in the future. There are two issues they encountered with coaches so far. The first is that coaches who are entrepreneurs sometimes tend to take the lead. Instead of letting the students decide, they think: “I’m older, I have experience and I know better, let me decide.” And that doesn’t fit the goal of the minor. The second problem is that coaches turn out to actually not have the time to coach the students sufficiently.
Erik also points out some positive aspects of recent coaches, namely when they gave the students access to their network. Or when they help the students find their first customers or investments. What was also experienced as a positive point was when the coach was really strict in the commitment of the students to their tasks. When they are on top of things and ask questions when one of the students failed to perform the tasks they agreed on.
Nowadays the coaches are assigned to a group of students by mutual preference. Both the coaches as well as the start-‐up groups respectively present a top 5 of start-‐up group or coaches they would prefer. And then the minor coordinator will try to make the best matching option. Erik expressed that the ideal situation with the coaches in the future would be more similar to the activities at MIT. There would ideally be a diverse pool of about 50 coaches especially selected for ACE, each specialized in different subjects. When a group encounters a problem they could pick who to go to to get the right information to help them further.
The minor knows a coordinator that teaches and guides the students in the process of developing a business plan. This coordinator is an important factor in the minor as well.
2.1. Goals of this research
From this interview it becomes clear that the coaching process is a subject of improvement. After analysing what Erik Boer has told about the current situation it can be stated that there are three particular points with regards to coaching that need improvement.
Firstly there is the fact that the selection of the coaches is an issue. There are no real criteria for the selection of coaches nowadays. As Erik states they need some experience in entrepreneurship and preferably some in coaching. But what is the experience that has turned out to be really useful so far?
The previous question is related to the second issue of coaching activities as something that needs further investigation. Erik mentions some preferable activities, but also some issues still occur. Therefore Erik outs the desire to provide guidelines for the coaches in the future. What are the actual activities that a coach should engage in? And what not? What role should a coach play in the start-‐up activities of the students without compromising them?
And lastly there’s the issue of the fit between coaches and students. Nowadays coaches and students each hand in a list of their preferable matches. But what is that based on? And what are the best criteria to base this on? Is the plan to not assign one particular coach, but give access to a pool of coaches an improvement for the future?
In order to answer these questions a study of the current knowledge of the subjects is necessary. This study touches a few different subjects. First of all you have the aspect of entrepreneurship and the education in this field, then there is the coaching aspect, it’s activities and possible roles, and the start-‐up process. The existing literature will be studied to be able to form a more complete vision of these subjects.
3. Literature Review
In this section a study on existing literature will be done. First research will be done on entrepreneurship in education and what the UvA states about this. Then a closer look will be taken on available literature on coaching. After that some elaboration on motivation and feedback will follow.
3.1 Entrepreneurial process
To better understand what this research is focusing on it is helpful to look into the entrepreneurial process and the parts of it that this research is able to cover. By looking at the interview it can be concluded that the aim is not to actually start a business, but it is focused on the pre-‐start-‐up phase. Carrier (2007) provides an overview of conceptual models of the pre-‐start-‐up process. The most clear and simple model of the entrepreneurial process is that of Van Gelderen, Thurick and Bosma (2005), they mention four phases in the entrepreneurial process: the first phase entails the creation of the intention of starting a business; the second phase is about making the idea for the business concrete; the third phase is where the actual business will be created by gathering resources; the fourth and last phase is where the business will become active in the market. When looking at these phases with regards to the minor the first phase is completed when one subscribed to the minor. The second phase is what happens in the first month of roughly writing the business plan, but might be adjusted/perfected further in the time of the duration of the minor. The coach is already assigned to the students in this step, but the business plan is being written for the coordinator of the minor. The second and third phase blend into what the students are to do in the next 4 months after writing the business plan. The fourth step is an aim, but isn’t the main goal for the minor states Erik.
3.2 Education on entrepreneurship
First of all a general look at teaching methods in entrepreneurship will be described, since many different streams of thoughts have come and gone on teaching entrepreneurship. What is the minors right of existence and what should it aim to accomplish?
Carrier (2007) makes a good statement of what teaching entrepreneurship should entail in the business environment of today. He states it is twofold. Firstly teaching entrepreneurship needs to address the direct skills of being an entrepreneur; starting, growing and managing a business (Carrier, 2007). The minor focuses on the first part of this statement: starting a business. The timespan of the minor probably has an influence on this. Since growing and managing a business to experience the unpredictability of a business environment would take longer than 4 months. But next to that it needs to prepare students for the unpredictability of the business environment, which has become even more intense in the last decade (Hitt et al., 1998; Carrier, 2007). Neck and Greene (2011) describe three general ways of teaching entrepreneurship and their development over time; The Entrepreneur World, The Process World and The Cognition World. In The Entrepreneur World the traits and characteristics of the entrepreneur are central. It is argued that the personality traits of someone influence their entrepreneurial skills. With teaching this method it is an unavoidable risk that students will be discouraged before they’ve even started their entrepreneurial activities. In the Process World, entrepreneurship is seen as a set of different processes, which can be taught. Writing a business plan is one example of a popular subject within this world. Also case studying is an effective way of teaching in this method. But this method is static. What is pointed out as a downfall here is that entrepreneurship is taught to be a linear predictable process, whereas in real life, entrepreneurship is not. The Cognition World includes doing and thinking. It believes that people can learn entrepreneurial thinking. Based on the theories of this last World, Entrepreneurship as a Method evolved, which is opposite to Entrepreneurship as a Process.
Entrepreneurship as a Method is a way of teaching that helps students develop a skillset to think and act entrepreneurially in any situation. It strongly believes that entrepreneurship can be taught, but not in pre-‐determined steps, as with the process learning, but in teaching students a thinking method applicable in their own way and in any possible situation. Therefore teaching a student to own this method is the most popular goal in education nowadays. With the rapid changes in the business world nowadays it is very important you are able to handle your business in a flexible way (Carrier, 2007). Entrepreneurship as a Process is easy to teach, because it’s theoretical, but it is based on predictability and linearity, which aren’t characteristics of entrepreneurship. But Entrepreneurship as a Method will prepare one for the unpredictability of being an entrepreneur. A popular part of teaching this method has therefore become practical experience. It emphasizes on inductive learning (Carrier, 2007). The most obvious way to give students practical experience is by letting them start a business. As does the UvA. The UvA takes this last view on entrepreneurship as their guideline according to Erik Boer: ‘The UvA, as you can find in their official guidelines, finds it important that students learn to position themselves as entrepreneurial people and develop their entrepreneurial skills. It is mainly important to the UvA that their alumni are entrepreneurial students.’ In order for the minor to function in reaching this goal, one can imagine that it is important that the coaches adopt this view.
Kutzhanova, Lyons & Lichtenstein (2009) come up with an interesting theory about entrepreneurial learning and end with some very clear advice for teaching entrepreneurship successfully. They base their theory on skill development. With skill being the ability to act in a certain way based on certain knowledge in a specific situation. They found that entrepreneurs actively learn their skills by experience and obtaining expertise. This principally means that entrepreneurship can be learned and one can be trained for success. An important factor in their entrepreneurial theory is the Emerging Skill Theory (EST) of Fisscher, Kenny and Pipp (1990). According to this theory the process of skill learning exists of two aspects. Both internal conditions, like motivations, and external conditions, like support and incentives, are necessary for someone to successfully master a skill.
But how entrepreneurs can best be assisted in learning and being successful is still an important issue and remains a challenge in entrepreneurship (Aldrich & Martinez, 2001; Kutzhanova et al., 2009). Moreover in this research the subject of investigation are not even entrepreneurs yet, but are students interested in and engaging in entrepreneurship, probably for the first time. In general most learning processes are based on a transactive approach (Wegner, 1987). DeSanctis, Fayard, Roach & Jiang (2003) define transactive learning as: ‘the process of sharing information about the capabilities and boundaries of knowledge that exist among members of a group’ (DeSanctis, et al., 2003, pp. 567). Kutzhanova et al. (2009) state that the way entrepreneurs learn deviates from the traditional transactive approach, but is based on experience by themselves. Therefore a different approach on teaching entrepreneurship is necessary. This is why it seems a good development that more and more teaching programs involve practical experience, like the start-‐up program of the minor at the UvA.
3.3 Coaching
After the looking into entrepreneurship in education, it is necessary to dive into the literature available on coaching. Hopefully it will be possible to make some first implications after this.
“Coaching is a process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop themselves and become more effective” (Peterson & Hicks, 1995, pp. 41 as quoted by Feldman & Lankau, 2005, pp. 830)
One of the most important services provided by entrepreneurial education programs is coaching. It is a crucial part of development in entrepreneurial skills (Sullivan, 2000; Regis et al, 2007). A coach can give a start-‐up guidance and reflexion, but whilst coaching is supposed to play an important role, oftentimes coaching initiatives miss their goal (Wyckham, Wedley, & Culver, 2001; De Faoute, Henry, Johnston, & van der Sijde, 2003; Kutzhanova et al., 2009).
In this research it is not entrepreneurs that are the subject of education, it is students interested in entrepreneurship. So how are the coaches in this minor to
handle that? By sharing their knowledge in a transactive way or pushing them to experience it themselves? It might be an interesting issue to find out what applies to these students of entrepreneurship.
There is also some debate about what role a coach should play. In the literature there is confusion about what is coaching and what is mentoring in training entrepreneurship (Klofsten & Öberg, 2008; Fletcher & Mullen, 2012). Coaching is part of mentoring according to Fletcher & Mullen (2012), but it operates more on the practical side than on the theoretical side of the scale. Klofsten and Oberg (2008) found that the differences between a coach and a mentor are: 1) the engagement level with the content of the program is much higher for a coach than a mentor, 2) the task of a coach is to develop a structure through guidance and of a mentor to solve specific problems and to transfer personal business experiences (Klofsten & Oberg, 2008). Clutterbuck (2008) sums that if there even is a difference, it is that coaching addresses a particular part of ones life or work, whereas mentoring takes a more holistic point of view on ones development or career progress. Starcevich (2009) states that a coaches’ task is to improve knowledge, skill and ability, where a mentors’ task has to do with broader life and career issues. From Erik’s interview it can be believed that what the minor wants is to improve knowledge, skill and ability on entrepreneurial activities, but with doing that a coach can be inspiring to a students broader life and career issues.
When looking for literature on coaching it became clear that most literature on coaching in general covers executive coaching and sports coaching programs, whereas literature on coaching in educating entrepreneurship is mostly focused on incubator programs. Nevertheless this information can all be relevant for this research though. With the scarcity of previous research on coaching students in entrepreneurship, some information might be distracted from these better-‐ known forms of coaching activities. So what are the main activities mentioned in these fields of coaching?
3.3.1 Executive coaching
A lot of research has been done on executive coaching activities or business coaching activities (Kilburg, 1996). And this has a wide range of process
descriptions and coaching activities as a result. A division can be made between articles that focus on the executives as coaches on the one hand and on the other hand articles that focus on consultants coaching the executive to improve organisational performance. Megginson (1988) describes an executives’ coaching tasks to be jointly identifying a problem, creating opportunities for development and reviewing these developments. Hall, Otazo and Hollenbeck (2000) state that a coach is essentially there to provide feedback on a performance, organizational and personal level and might become like a therapist. Also in executive coaching peer coaching and group coaching has been experienced to have a positive effect (Hall et. al., 2000). They describe a coach to work least well when he or she is being judgemental or impatient. According to them a coach works well when he or she is: connecting personally, recognizing where client is, a good listener, a sounding board, reflecting, caring, learning, demonstrating trial & error attitude, checking back, following up, committed to client success and good organizational outcome, demonstrating integrity, honesty, openness, initiative of client coaching, having good coach/client fit, knowing the “unwritten rules”, “pushing” the client when necessary.
3.3.2 Sports coaching
The process of sports coaching and previous research on it has been elaborated in 2006 by Cushion, Armour & Jones. Different tasks have been projected as important in sports coaching. Cushion et al. (2006) state that Fuoss and Troppmann (1981) and Carreiro da Costa and Pieron (1992) placed communication in the center of success. Some research specified this by focusing on quality of feedback (Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1979; Black & Weiss, 1992; Solomon, Striegel, Eliot, Heon, Maas & Wayda, 1996). Cushion et al. (2006) also describe Tinning (1982) to name instruction to be crucial and Chelladurai (1993) to focus on decision-‐making. All this different outcomes has left a lot of confusion as a result (Cushion et al., 2006). They also have critique on the oversimplification of the process by a lot of researchers.
Clear advice is formulated in the article of Kutzhanova et al., (2009) reads that it is important that attention is paid to the entrepreneurs’ skill level and is continuously done so, since this skill level is to be going up with the continuing of the coaching process. Secondly entrepreneurs tend to rather learn from their own experiences as compared to new information, therefore the success of a coach depended strongly on his/her knowledge and understanding of an entrepreneur’s background and previous experiences (Kutzhanova, et al., 2009). They state that personal and peer group coaching ‘transforms an entrepreneurs capabilities and addresses it’s actual needs’ (Kutzhanova, et al., 2009, pp. 208). An often-‐ mentioned problem is that the training provided doesn’t match the needs of the entrepreneurs (Wyckham et al., 2001; De Faoute et al., 2003). One explanation might be that the coaches fail to understand what the entrepreneur needs, because they lack experience in entrepreneurship themselves (Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2003). In line with this statement Peters, Rice, Sundararajan (2004) found that incubator programs are more successful when the objectives of the incubator match those of the tenants. De Faoute, Henry, Johnston & van der Sijde (2004) focused on the Netherlands especially and also discuss the issue of failure of coaching programs in addressing the personal background and needs of participating entrepreneurs. It is likely to be most important for coaches to spend time in getting to know the entrepreneur they are coaching in order to provide applied advise. It helps if a coach has proven experience in entrepreneurship or has proven successful in business coaching (Kutzhanova, et al., 2009). Lastly DeFaoute et al. (2004) found that an important part of learning is self-‐reflection (Loblich, 2006; Kutzhanova, et al., 2009). This can be helped by peer group coaching or team-‐on-‐team mentoring, which is believed to be a successful aspect, since entrepreneurs rather tend to believe the advice of their peers instead of the advice of external service providers (Fischer & Reuber, 2003; Carrier, 2007; Kutzhanova, et al., 2009).
3.3.4 Student coaching
What differentiates the case in this research is the fact that this is about students. Bolton (1999) did some research on student teamwork coaching. The article provides guidance on the matter of coaching student teams to make them
function optimal as a team. Students are forced to work in teams more and more in education, but what guidance do they need as a team? He names a coaches activities in this position to be: (a) help teams start off on the right foot, (b) help teams deal with conflict and diversity, and (c) help students learn from their teamwork experience (Bolton, 1999). This information might be the extra step necessary for the coaches in this minor on top of their entrepreneurial coaching activities. These important activities seems to be lacking to sound through in the activities for the coaches mentioned by Erik. What can be stated based on the research above, a coach’s task contains several different aspects. But what are the most important ones in this minor?
3.4 Motivation
After the first literature on coaching was processed it became clear that some extra information on the aspect of motivation might be necessary to analyse the interviews well. Because it became apparent that a difference in motivation of the participants must be taken into account, since the participators of an incubators program are expected to be more dependent on the salary of the start-‐ up, whereas students are not. And executives have a job for which they are paid by their employer who now asks them to get training, which is also a different situation from a student who is working to find a job later on, but right now doesn’t get paid for it.
A lot of research has been done on motivation for entrepreneurship as well as motivation with regards to students. Gartner (1985) provided a model for entrepreneurial motivation covering both types. EST of Fisscher, Kenny and Pipp (1990) shows that motivation plays an important role in entrepreneurial learning (Kutzhanova, et al., 2009). There are two different types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is the inherent enjoyment or interest in an action itself as a reason for doing something (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan & Stiller (1991) state that this is an important natural influence in education. Skinner (1953) states that intrinsic motivation is when the task itself is the reward, so focus should be on making the task interesting. Intrinsic motivation might find different offsprings. For example the cultural factors described by Hofsteede
(1981) or personal traits described by Brockhaus & Horwitz (1985) are often used to explain difference in intrinsic motivation for entrepreneurship.
Extrinsic motivation is when the reason for doing something is the separable outcome that comes from it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation has to do with the consequences of an action, the rewards and punishments.
3.4.1 Feedback
Feedback seems to be an important part of motivation and therefore coaching. It has been proven to have a significant effect on motivation in education. Deci & Ryan’s (1985) developed the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET). The model is based on the basic principal that positive feedback increases motivation (Deci, 1972; Harackiewicz, 1979; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) opposing to negative feedback, which turns out to work un-‐motivating instead (Deci & Cascio, 1972; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
4. Preliminary recommendations and need for further empirical research
From the literature light has been shed on different aspects of the issues encountered in the minor. From the evolvement in education in the field of entrepreneurship, creating this minor seems a good development, since from the literature it became clear that entrepreneurship is best learned by practical experience. Now what does this mean for the questions raised earlier on after the interview with Erik with regards to the subjects of a coaches activities, the fit between coach and student team and the criteria for coaches to be selected on?
4.3 Guidelines
While looking at the different disciplines where coaching plays a role, it became clear that coaching might mean different things to different people. Studying the literature formed an idea of the possible activities performed by a coach. From the information gathered about the minor the first impression was for the minor to need a coach in entrepreneurship, but this soon seemed to be more complicated, since the ones being coached aren’t in fact entrepreneurs, they are still only students who might be interested in becoming an entrepreneur. It is assumed that incubator coaching plays a big role in combination with student
coaching, because this covers both fields of coaching entrepreneurship and student coaching. From the literature on incubator coaching it can be stated that coaching is about matching the needs of, in the case of the minor, the students. But then it remains unclear what the needs of the students are and how these are met. It is assumed that the student coaching activities described by Bolton (1999) play an important role in the coaches’ tasks. Next to this, motivation is assumed to play an important role. A lot of research is done about motivation for entrepreneurship, but in the minor the ‘entrepreneurs’ are students acting like entrepreneurs and from the literature it can be assumed that motivation plays a different role with students than with entrepreneurs. On top of that it can be assumed that feedback plays an important role, since it has a great influence on motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Also some literature mentions the timing of certain activities, but not extensively and because of the lack of research on the combination of students and entrepreneurship no timeframe is mentioned about coaching in the entrepreneurial process.
These assumption are based on research in specific fields, empirical research is necessary to be able to form an advice about what activities should be performed by a coach of students in educating entrepreneurship. Empirical research is necessary to form a timeframe for coaches to base their activities on and the timing of those activities within the entrepreneurial process will form clear guidelines to the coaches of students in entrepreneurial education.
4.2 Fit
Another interesting issue is the matchup between student groups and coaches. It now happens from a preference they each express. When looking for information regarding ‘fit’, there are many aspects to be taken into account and many possible situations that it can apply to. But what we see in the literature on coaching is that within the incubators territory it is most important for the coach to match the needs of the tenants. In the literature on executive coaching it is important that the coach and the coached person connect personally. So this can still mean different things. Experience in the field, practical knowledge, network, team building skills, and so on. How does this work in the minor? When the match is made from paper, how does that work out? And does ones look at
entrepreneurship in education make a difference on teaching methods, etc.? Empirical research is necessary to be able to draw conclusions about this subject.
4.1 Selection
The last interesting issue in the current situation of the minor is the selection of coaches. From the literature some early assumptions can be formed about the criteria to base the selection of coaches on. Peters et al. (2003) state that in case of incubators, coaches should match the needs of its’ tenants. Henry et al. (2004) elaborate on this matter by stating that sometimes coaches aren’t able to match these needs, because they lack experience in entrepreneurship. Is it then entrepreneurial experience that is most important and that coaches should be selected on in the minor? On the other hand Hindle (2007) states that egocentric view is a risk when working with experienced entrepreneurs. In line with this Hindle (2007) also talks about teaching entrepreneurship and who should do it and he mentions the distinction between pouvoir and savoir; most sports coaches cannot perform at the level of their apprentices, but they do know how to guide them to a new level. Because the minor is meant for students, who still need to learn an egocentric view of a coach is not desirable, therefore it is assumed that in the case of the minor entrepreneurial experience is not the most important aspect for a coach to be selected on. To be able to form an advice on what is important, empirical research is necessary.
4.4 Need for empirical research
All these implications still leave a lot of questions regarding the issues that need solving in the minor. Therefore it is necessary to take a closer look at the minor by complementing the literature study with empirical evidence. The case under investigation is slightly different from the theory that was found and described earlier, since the subject of investigation is the Minor Entrepreneurship at the UvA it is about students, not sportsmen, executives or real-‐life entrepreneurs, therefore empirical research on the case is needed. The main goal of the research is to find out what activities of a coach make a coach be regarded better than others in coaching the students of the minor. The qualitative data will be used to explain the coaching process in order to help understand causes and
consequences of the coaching activities. These coaching activities will be placed in the entrepreneurial process to structure the information. From this information it will be attempted to form an advice on the three aspects that were discussed. Firstly an advice will be formed as to what activities a coach should perform and when. Secondly an advice will be formed as to what makes a coach the right fit for a student team. And lastly an attempt will be made to identify criteria to base the selection of coaches on for the minor program. These recommendations about coaching in combination with students and entrepreneurial education will add to the existing literature about coaching and educating entrepreneurship.
5. Method
In this section the research method and design will be elaborated. The approach of this study was based on the ‘Grounded Theory’ approach by Corbin and Strauss (2014); data collection and analysis continue in a cycle during the research process and data is analysed by constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). It was found to suit this case, because it is open and flexible in its use. A clear strength of qualitative research is that the study can be adjusted as the study evolves and new subjects of interest appear. Although the goal is defined clearly, the study can be adjusted to unanticipated issues (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls & Ormston (Eds.), 2013). It provides in-‐depth, detailed information (Gephart, 2004).
5.1 Sampling
A set of appropriate students and coaches needed to be selected. To obtain this a survey was sent to all participants of the minor entrepreneurship since the beginning of the program. This survey was set out in the name of ACE (Amsterdam Centre of Entrepreneurship), the leading force behind all entrepreneurship education at the UvA, but with a full explanation of the purpose. This survey asked the alumni students about the coach that helped them during the minor program and about their career development after finishing the minor and whether or not they felt that their coach has had an influence on their life choices (Appendix 1). From the interview of Erik Boer it was derived that ending the minor ‘successfully’ meant having clearly experienced what it was like to be an entrepreneur. And since the aim of the study is to know what exactly is it that
