Coaching Within Business Incubators:
Looking Beyond Semantics
ANDRIES HOMME BERGSMA University of Groningen Faculty of Economy and Business
MSc Business Administration: Small Business and Entrepreneurship April 2014
Address: Damsterdiep 110a 9713 EL Groningen Tel.: (06) 25274113
1
Abstract
2
Introduction
Entrepreneurship contributes to the economy in multiple ways, for instance by creating competition, enhancing rivalry, introducing variations and introducing innovations (Wong, Ho & Autio, 2005); however, nearly 39% of all new businesses will not survive the first four years of their existence (Fritsch & Noseleit, 2012). New firms usually suffer from what is called the „liability of newness‟. Liability of newness can be referred to as the high failure risk young firms face in the first years after the market entry, because they do not possess the resources they need to survive (Stinchcombe, 1965; Hannan & Freeman, 1984). Because entrepreneurship is important to the economy and due to the high failure rate of these new ventures, governments are actively supporting entrepreneurs (Gilbert, Audretsch & McDougall, 2004). One effective way to increase the chances of survival is by deploying business incubators (Ratinho, 2011). Business incubators (BIs) support entrepreneurs by exploiting their entrepreneurial opportunities. The main objective of BIs is to reduce the liability of newness for their tenants (Fergusson & Olofsson, 2004). Moreover, BIs support services have a superior potential to create jobs and wealth (EC, 2002).
3
otherwise not have survived under market conditions (Sternberg, 1992; Schwartz, 2009). This could lead to the effect that governments potentially support the wrong firms and thereby hamper the development of other, more efficient firms and indirectly harm economic growth (Strotmann, 2007). However, Schwartz (2009) assumed that BIs support is homogenous across tenants and does not change throughout the incubation period this assumption is found to be incorrect. Ratinho (2011) showed that some tenants within the same incubator receive more support than others, either in the number of services used or in the amount of problems for which support is sought and obtained. Moreover, it is found that companies that seek support in a BI and directly outside are more likely to solve their developmental problems. This proves that business incubation support has a positive effect on solving developmental problems of their tenants (Ratinho, 2011). Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of the fact that providing a comprehensive and adequate service portfolio to nascent companies is crucial for successful BI support and thus indirectly to successfully supporting the economy. Failing to provide this can lead to the negative effect of supporting the wrong firms and thereby indirectly hampering the economy. In order to provide such a service portfolio, a clear understanding of all aspects regarding business incubation is required.
Problem Statement
Though the importance of adequate business incubation is getting more widely acknowledged every day, not all facets of BIs have been researched extensively. Contemporary research is mainly focused upon differences in service portfolios (Hansen, Chesbrough, Nohria & Sull, 2000), differences in service portfolios between different generations of BIs (Ratinho, 2011) and differences in service portfolios by technical and non-technical incubators (Ratinho, 2011). Differences within services provided by BIs such as what do the provided services exactly entail and how do they contribute to the tenant‟s firm, have not been researched extensively.
4
Therefore, not surprisingly, research on the topic has become increasingly popular since the start of this century. However, what coaching exactly entails and how it is provided to the BI‟s tenants is not well understood (Sullivan, 2000; Pouls, 2011). One reason for this is that there is no consensus on a general definition of the concept, which makes it more difficult to measure and improve the effectiveness of coaching (Koopman, 2013). For example, some scholars make a distinction between coaching, mentoring and counseling (D‟Abate, Eddy & Tannenbaum, 2003), whereas others use these terms interchangeably as a synonym for coaching (Bergek & Norrman, 2008). Moreover it has not been researched which types of entrepreneurial coaching are employed in practice and whether different types of support have different results (de Haan & Burger, 2007; Koopman, 2013). From this can be derived that it is likely that there are opportunities for BIs to improve their coaching activities and thereby their service portfolio. This way entrepreneurs and the economy could benefit to a greater extent from the support of BIs. This thesis attempts to make a contribution to the current BI literature by further elaborating upon the crucial BI service of coaching.
Research Question
In order to get a more profound understanding of the coaching concept employed in practice, the different types of coaching used and its related effectiveness in a business incubation setting will be researched in this thesis. This leads to the following research question.
“Which types of entrepreneurial coaching are used in a BI and to what extent can this
coaching be considered as effective?”
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study is to get a more profound understanding of coaching services within BIs and to what degree these services are effective.
5
Outline
6
Theory
As stated before, the purpose of this study is to get a more profound insight in the coaching service provided by BIs. Before going into depth on coaching concepts and literature, it is necessary to delineate the environment in which this coaching occurs; the business incubator. Therefore, this chapter will start with defining business incubation and its dimensions. As was made clear in the introduction, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on the coaching concept; hence it is necessary to present an extensive literature review of the concept prior to further elaborations. Subsequently, other relevant concepts are described and elaborated on, after which, at the end of this section, all the relevant concepts and relations are graphically illustrated in a conceptual model.
Business Incubation
Defining Business Incubation
7
concept. A more comprehensive definition composed of commonalties in various definitions is proposed by Ratinho (2011), who defines BIs as property based initiatives, which provide their tenants a mix of services comprising infrastructure, business support services and networking. Table 1 provides an overview of different business incubation definitions.
Dimensions of Business Incubation
From prior research regarding differences between incubators, differences in provided service by incubators, and differences between definitions of business incubations becomes apparent that BIs are not by definition beneficial to firm survival and thus the economy. It is therefore necessary to elaborate the concept further in terms of different dimensions of business incubation. Business incubation occurs at three dimensions; infrastructure, access to networks, and business support (Ratinho, 2011). Infrastructure is the oldest form of business incubation. It refers to companies that are placed under the same roof, which provide the advantage of renting office space at reduced rates. Moreover, other infrastructural aspects are often shared as well, such as meeting rooms, a reception or car parking. This form of incubation can lead to advantages for the tenant firms due to creation of economies of scale and scope related to the established infrastructure (Panzar & Willig, 1977; Campbell, Kendrick & Samuelson, 1985).
The second dimension access to networks is related to the BI‟s ability of helping tenant firms to overcome their resource scarcity outside the incubator‟s context (Ratinho, 2011). Patton, Warren & Bream (2009) refer to this as access to external networks in other words, outside the incubator. Resource scarcity is one of the characteristic challenges that which new firms face (Stinchcombe, 1965). One way to overcome resource scarcity is by using social networks; for example, young firms often lack access to financial resources due to the fact that entrepreneurs often lack a track record and extensive network (Heuven & Groen, 2012). BIs can provide access to networks that can help overcome this problem, for instance in the form of providing access to a venture capitalist, which in turn can provide the required financial resources.
8
9
Author(s): Definition:
Aernoudt, (2004) Business incubation is an interactive development process where the aim is to encourage people to start their own business and to support start-up companies in the development of innovative products.
Bergek & Normann, (2008)
The concept of incubator is reserved for organizations that supply joint locations, services, business support and networks to early stage ventures.
European
Commision, (EC, 2002)
A business incubator is an organization that accelerates and systematizes the process of creating successful enterprises by providing them with a comprehensive and integrated range of support, including: incubator space, business support services, and clustering and networking opportunities. By providing their clients with services on a “one-stop-shop‟ basis and enabling overheads to be reduced by sharing costs, business incubators significantly improve the survival and growth prospects of new start-ups. A successful business incubator will generate a steady flow of new businesses with above average job and wealth creation potential. Differences in stakeholder objectives for incubators, admission and exit criteria, the knowledge intensity of projects, and the precise configuration of facilities and services, will distinguish one type of business incubator from another.
Hackett & Dilts, (2004)
A BI is a shared office space facility that seeks to provide its incubatees (i.e. tenants, clients) with strategic, value-adding intervention system of monitoring and business assistance.
Hansen et al., (2000)
Firstly, well designed incubators maintain a spirit of entrepreneurship i.e. incubatees remain the owner of the firms, in addition they ensure that incubatees are free from the strategic, bureaucratic, and organizational impediments that often prevent established enterprises from pursuing risky opportunities. Secondly, incubators offer preferred rates and terms from top-tier service providers, enabling member companies to enjoy certain economies of scale. Thirdly, incubators provide preferential access to a network of companies.
National Business Incubation Association (NBIA, 2007)
Business incubation is a business support process that accelerates the successful development of startup and fledgling companies by providing entrepreneurs with an array of targeted resources and services. These services are usually developed or orchestrated by
10 Organization for Economic Cooperation and development (OECD, 1997)
Technology incubators are a specific type of business incubator: property-based ventures which provide a range of services to entrepreneurs and start-ups, including physical infrastructure (office space, laboratories), management support (business planning, training, marketing), technical support (researchers, data bases), access to financing (venture capital funds, business angel networks), legal assistance (licensing, intellectual property) and networking (with other incubators and government services).
Patton et al., (2009)
Incubation can be perceived as an activity which links effectively, technology, capital and know-how to leverage entrepreneurial talent, accelerate the development of new companies, and thus speed the commercialization of technology.
Peters et al., (2004)
An incubator is an evolving innovative organizational form that is a vehicle for enterprise development. In addition to being merely a business center with office facilities, contemporary business incubators offer training, networking and consulting in all areas of expertise to startup firms. Along with their role changes, the incubators‟ business models have also expanded from one of non-profit to for-profit. Ratinho, (2011) BIs are property based initiatives and provide their tenants a mix of services comprising infrastructure, business support services and
networking.
11
Defining Coaching
12
mentoring. Other business support scholars tried to create theoretical clarity by providing other distinctions in developmental interaction concepts. For instance, Clarysse & Bruneel (2007) distinguish between active and passive coaching. Whereas the former refers to basic support towards the start-up in terms of financial, human, technological, and organizational resources, whereas the latter refers to the sounding board function each start-up needs.
Another group of authors use a different approach; these authors do not explicitly distinguish between coaching, mentoring and other personal support concepts, but use the terms more interchangeably. Wise & Voss (2002) state that a coach is a person who helps others develop their knowledge and skills and helps improve their performance through individual assessment and guidance. The ultimate goal of coaching is to help people learn more about themselves and to change their behavior. Other scholars use coaching as a synonym for mentoring (Chao, 1998) or focus on enlarging the coachee‟s professionalism by discussing the coach its own experiences and questions and therefore do not make a distinction between different support concepts and use coaching as a container concept (de Haan & Burger, 2007). It becomes apparent that it is difficult to propose a comprehensive and clear definition of the different support concepts. From the aforementioned definitions can be derived that coaching, mentoring and other described support concepts are highly interrelated and therefore it can be assumed that coaching and mentoring in practice are both sides of the same coin. In order to not get bogged down in definitions and to be able to analyze the effectiveness of personal support in practice, Koopman (2013) suggested that is interesting to create a framework that combines all personal support concepts according to their dimensions. De Haan & Burger (2007) created such a model. The coaching behavior model can be used to categorize and distinguish different coaching practices which would otherwise be more difficult to do, due to the abundance of different coaching i.e. personal support definitions (de Haan & Burger, 2007; Koopman, 2013). The coaching behavior model is depicted in figure 1 and elaborated on later.
13 Coaching
Authors: Definition: Distinction
Abiddin, (2006) Coaching is short-term oriented and narrower i.e. focusing on a specific skill or competence than mentoring. Yes Clarysse & Bruneel,
(2007)
Coaching can be active or passive. Active coaching implies a basic support towards the start-up in the field of
financial, human, technological and organizational resources. Passive coaching represents the sounding board function each start-up needs. The goal of passive coaching is to support and advice the start-up in strategic planning rather than assist the company in daily organizational decision making.
-
D'Abate et al.,(2003) Coaching is strongly associated with a specific object of development, with a short-term oriented compared to mentoring. Coaching is more concerned with goal setting, providing practical application, providing feedback, and teaching.
Yes
Deans & Oakley, (2006)
Coaching is primarily a short-term intervention aimed at performance improvement or developing a particular competence. Coaching is a process that enables learning and development to occur and thus performance to improve.
Yes Gray, et al.,(2011) Coaching can be defined as an experiential, individualized, leadership development process that builds a leader‟s
capability to achieve short and long-term organizational goals. It is conducted through one-on-one interactions, driven by data from multiple perspectives, and based on mutual trust and respect.
No
Haan & Burger, (2007)
The objective of coaching is to increase the coachee's professionalism through discussing the coach its own experiences and questions.
No International
Coaching Federation (ICF, 2010)
Partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.
Yes
Klofsten & Öberg, (2008)
Coaching and mentoring are strong tools, which enable young entrepreneurs to address various thoughts,
opportunities, ideas, and business-related issues in a personal way with a senior colleague. The relationship with a coach is to a larger extent scheduled, coaching is based on generalist competence. Coaching is more process-orientated than mentoring and should create a platform through guidance.
Yes
Knopp, (2007) Coaching can be defined as one-to-one tailored support initiatives to accelerate the tenants‟ learning curve and the development of skills.
No Wise & Voss, (2002) A coach is a person who helps others develop their knowledge and skills and improve their performance through
individual assessment and guidance. The ultimate goal of coaching is to help people learn more about themselves and to change their behavior.
No
14 Mentoring
Authors: Definition: Distinction
Abiddin, (2006) A mentor is identified as someone who teaches the student in a personal and close long-term relationship. This relationship facilitates another‟s personal growth and can also encourage and enable learning in order to maximize the mentee‟s
potential, develop their skills, improve their performance and become the person they want to be.
Yes
Chao, (1998) A mentor promotes professional growth by coaching, providing needed information and exercising organizational leverage. To serve the psychological function the mentor promotes personal growth through emotional support and guidance
No
D'Abate et al.,(2003)
Mentoring has a general objective of development, with a long term orientation compared to coaching. Mentoring is more concerned with modeling, counseling, supporting, advocating, introducing, and sheltering as exhibited behaviors.
Yes Deans &
Oakley, (2006)
The aim of mentoring is to help and support people to manage their own learning in order to maximize their potential, develop their skills, improve their performance and become the person they want to be.
Yes Klofsten &
Öberg, (2008)
Coaching and mentoring are strong tools, which enable young entrepreneurs to address various thoughts, opportunities, ideas, and business-related issues in a personal way with a senior colleague. The relationship with a mentor is more demand driven. Mentoring comes from a specialist. Mentoring is situation oriented and should transfer personal experiences of doing business and solve specific problems.
Yes
Counseling
Abiddin, (2006) Counseling addresses the employee‟s emotional state and the causes of personal crises and problems, and it
involves short- term interventions designed to remedy problems that interfere with the employee‟s job performance.
Yes
15
The Coaching Behavior Model
In this thesis the different types of coaching in a BI and the manner in which these different types of coaching affect the effectiveness of the coaching process will be researched. Due to the lack of consensus on a general definition of coaching, the high degree of interrelatedness among the different coaching approaches, and the fact that sometimes one approach cannot exist without the other because a coach responds to the individual needs of the client (Abiddin, 2006; Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006), it becomes clear that it is necessary to elaborate further on the different types of coaching. From the current literature regarding entrepreneurial coaching, two distinct dimensions arise (Koopman, 2013).
The first dimension revolves around the purpose or aim of the coaching relationship. This dimension varies from focusing on specific skills or being business oriented, to focusing on the personal development of the coachee (D‟Abate et al., 2003; Pouls, 2011; Koopman 2013). Clutterbuck (1998) refers to this dimension as “who determines what is discussed in the coaching sessions”. Fillery-Travis & Lane (2006) use the term agenda to describe the aim of the coaching relationship. Additionally, de Haan & Burger (2007) also stated that the behavior of the coach in this dimension ranges from suggesting to exploring. Whereas the first is related to whether the coach constrains the client‟s thought process and introduces its own thoughts to the client, the second refers to whether the coach follows the thought process of the client and liberates the client‟s thoughts and contributions.
The second dimension concerns the nature of the contribution of the coach (de Haan & Burger, 2007; Koopman, 2013). Clutterbuck (1998) refers to this dimension as the one that is in control of the coaching sessions. Fillery-Travis & Lane (2006) state that the coaching agenda or purpose is an underpinning concept which allows the development of coaching roles. The behavior of the coach in this dimension ranges from confronting to supporting. Confronting refers to focusing upon the weaknesses of the client, whereas supporting refers to elaborating the on the client‟s strengths and building further upon these strengths (de Haan & Burger, 2007).
16
17 Challenging Clarifying Liberating Empowering Solution-oriented Personalized Problem- solving Focus on Insight Confronting Supporting Resolution of Problems Individual Development Exploring Suggesting
Figure 1: The Coaching Behavior Model (adapted from de Haan & Burger, 2007; Pouls, 2011; Koopman, 2013)
Types of Coaching
In order to establish a solid theoretical foundation, it is necessary to elaborate further upon the different coaching types depicted in the coaching behavior model, and subsequently their degree of effectiveness. Entrepreneurial coaching can be further divided into four distinguishable coaching types illustrated by the four quadrants in the coaching behavior model, which in turn can be further refined by Heron‟s (2001) six coaching behaviors. First, the content level coaching types will be discussed, followed by personal level coaching types.
Skill and Business Oriented Coaching Problem-solving Coaching
18
to offer a different approach or framework to the coachee‟s problem. A coach who employs this approach will actively interfere with the client‟s thought process and contribute ideas and recommendations to the coaching relationship (de Haan & Burger, 2007).
Problem-solving coaching stems from directive coaching, which is also problem-solving in nature. The origin of directive coaching lies in the field of psychotherapy which emerged in the 19th century and has therefore the longest historical base (de Haan & Burger, 2007). The perspective of directive coaching is to improve the individual from the outside (de Haan & Burger, 2007).
Problem-solving coaching can be further clarified using a well-known and often used coaching method called the GROW model (Dembkowski & Eldridge, 2003; Palmer, 2007; Grant 2011). The GROW model stems from sport coaching and is developed by Graham Alexander and popularized by Whitmore (1992). The GROW model breaks a coaching session into four interrelated phases, which together form the acronym GROW (Whitmore, 2002; de Haan & Burger, 2007; Grant, 2011).
G stands for Goal setting for the coachee regarding its question and the session.
R stands for Reality checking regarding the current situation.
O stands for Options and alternative strategies or courses of action.
19
Solution-oriented Coaching
Solution-oriented coaching is, likewise to problem-solving coaching, also aimed at problem resolution. The difference with problem-solving coaching is that solution-oriented coaching is less confronting in nature. The coach tries to focus and build further upon the coachee‟s strengths (de Haan & Burger, 2007). Solution-oriented coaching can be defined as helping people identify preferred outcomes and specific goals so they have a clear idea about what they want to achieve. It is about helping them disengage from focused or problem-saturated thinking so that they can spend more time thinking about possible solutions and pathways to success, rather than ruminating on the causes of the problem (de Shazer, 1988). Grant (2011) defines solution-oriented coaching as helping people acknowledge, identify and then utilize a wide range of personal and contextual resources and personal strengths in the pursuit of their goals. From these definitions can be derived that solution-oriented is, in addition to problem-solving coaching, aimed at the development of specific skills and/or is organization oriented.
As stated before, this type of coaching is less directing in nature than problem-solving coaching i.e. the process of coaching is more collaborative in nature. The coach does not take the position as the authoritarian expert who diagnoses the issues and then present the solution. Rather, the coach treats the coachee as an equal, recognizing that the coachee is the expert in the coachee‟s life and then works collaboratively with them to help them develop solutions (Jackson, & McKergow, 2002; Grant, 2013). From this becomes clear that the coaching relationship is less confronting as with a problem-solving coaching relationship.
20
Content Level Coaching Behaviors
- Challenging is a coaching behavior in which the coach acts confrontational to the coachee but is less critical in nature than liberating behavior (de Haan & Burger, 2007). The confrontation is aimed at the content level, i.e. how the coachee acts regarding a specific problem. Moreover, the purpose of the challenging coaching behavior is to provide feedback, to test underlying hypothesis, to stimulate self-reflection and to address defenses and excuses of the coachee (Heron, 2001; Pouls, 2011). This coaching behavior can therefore be placed in the upper left segment of the coaching behavior model.
- Suggesting or prescribing is a coaching behavior in which the coach suggests a specific approach and where the coach provides alternatives, suggestions and gives advice, directions, recommendations and instructions to the coachee. This style is directive in nature from the coach‟s perspective and the aim is to direct the behavior of the client usually outside the coaching relationship (Heron, 2001; de Haan & Burger, 2007; Pouls, 2011).
- Clarifying, also referred to as informative coaching, is aimed at providing and transferring new information and knowledge to the coachee (Heron, 2001). Characteristic clarifying coaching behavior includes presenting new perspectives, adding interpretations in order to eliminate ambiguity and answering questions regarding the topic of discussion. Therefore this coaching behavior can be perceived as coaching at the content level (Pouls, 2011).
Personal Development Coaching Focus-on-insight Coaching
21
leaves off; with clients who have a strong emotional or personal involvement in their issues and at first do not recognize their own involvement in their problem or latent problems underlying their prompted question or issue (Roth & Fonagy, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007). Focus-on-insight coaching is also known as analytical coaching and stems from the late 19th and early 20th century psychoanalytical work by Freud. The ground rule of this type of coaching relationship states that the coachee may bring in everything that comes into mind, neither without selectivity or censorship nor with judgment of the coach. However, the coach still directs the process (Freud in de Haan & Burger, 2007).
An effective method that illustrates this type of coaching is the ladder of inference (Argyris, 1990). This method starts with the admitting or the disclosure of coachee‟s barriers or defenses. Then the coach and coachee go back down the “ladder of inference” in order to understand the situation which lies behind the coachee‟s defenses and try to change the behavior from within (de Haan & Burger, 2007).
Personalized Coaching
The lower right quadrant is called personalized coaching. It refers to a type of coaching which can be described as supportive. The coach‟s behavior can be characterized as understanding towards the client. Furthermore, the aim of the personalized coaching relationship is on developing the individual rather than focusing on a specific skill which might be required in an organizational setting. This type of coaching originated in psychotherapy and is therefore highly related to psychotherapeutic change (de Haan & Burger, 2007).
22
that allow that tendency to flourish (Silberschatz, 2007; Goldfried, 2007). Moreover, Rogers (1957) states that in order to achieve personality change, which is the aim of this type of coaching, six conditions are required.
1. Two persons are in psychological contact.
2. The first, whom we shall term the client, is in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or anxious.
3. The second person, whom we shall term the therapist, is congruent or integrated in the relationship.
4. The therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client.
5. The therapist experiences an empathic understanding of the client‟s internal frame of reference and endeavors to communicate this experience to the client.
6. The communication to the client of the therapist‟s empathic understanding and unconditional positive regard is to a minimal degree achieved.
Coaches may adapt Roger‟s ideas for effective person-centered coaching. This form of coaching can be considered as counseling (de Haan & Burger, 2007); it tries to improve the individual by moving the focus to the inside. The client sets the agenda and the aim of the coaching relationship. The coach refrains from any form of direction and advice, and acts as a sort of partner and companion in the client‟s process of development. The aim of this approach is to observe the client closely and change the client from the inside (de Haan & Burger, 2007). This form of coaching is based upon and highly related to psychotherapeutic personal change, also known as counseling (Rogers, 1957; Rogers, 2007; de Haan & Burger, 2007).
Personal Level Coaching Behaviors
23
summarizes these feelings and invites the coachee to elicit different perspectives regarding the topic of discussion (Heron, 2001; Pouls, 2011).
- Exploring, or discovering, is less directional in nature from the coach‟s point of view (de Haan & Burger, 2007). The aim of the coaching relationship is on the personal level and seeks to elicit self-discovery, self-directed living, learning, and is aimed at the personal development of the client. Behavior regarding this type of coaching entails listening, reflecting on statements and emotions of the client, paraphrasing, summarizing and the coach invites the clients to new perspectives (Heron, 2001; Pouls, 2011).
- Empowering, or supportive coaching, focuses on affirming the worth and value of the client‟s person, qualities, attitudes and actions (Heron, 2001). Therefore, the aim of this coaching is at the personal level. Coaching behavior can be characterized by expressing appreciation, trust, availability, commitment and concern in order to enhance the degree of confidence of the coachee (Pouls, 2011).
Effective Coaching
Effectiveness of Skill or Business Oriented Coaching
24
findings are confirmed to a large extent by the results of Koopman (2013), who states that the vast majority of personal support literature can be categorized as problem-solving in nature, i.e. skill/business oriented and more confronting in nature. In a few cases the literature could be assessed as solution-oriented, whereas the other two quadrants are rarely mentioned (Koopman, 2013). Pouls (2011) found that in retrospect the coachees perceive their questions in 61.4% of the cases as business related. However, on the outcome indicator “learning results”, she found that only 37.5% could be considered as business related and 30% on both business and personal level learning outcomes. This implies that the focus of the coaching and the associated behaviors can change, similar to the relationship progresses.
Effectiveness of Personal Development Coaching
The focus-on-insight, also known as the analytical coaching approach, is the most thorough method to explore the client‟s problem. As stated before, this type of coaching is useful when the client sees himself not as a part of the problem and when problems are multi-layered. This type of coaching is related to the psychodynamic psychotherapy practice and analytical psychotherapy (Roth & Fonagy, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007). Focus-on-insight coaching is usually not the quickest and easiest type of coaching due to several reasons. One reason is because it is difficult and often time consuming to change an individual‟s behavior (St-Jean & Audet, 2009). Moreover, due to the multi-layered problem aspect, moving towards the following question or the next step can only be taken when the current issue is exhaustively investigated (Roth & Fonagy, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007). Because of these characteristics, literature on effectiveness of this type of coaching is sparse. From the related practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy becomes clear that this form of therapy is effective in treating personality disorders and depression (Roth & Fonagy, 2005). Therefore it is expected that focus-on-insight coaching in a BI can be useful when emotional dissonance or other issues arise during the entrepreneurial process.
25
Proposition 1: The majority of entrepreneurial coaching types will be problem-solving in nature (P1a), subsequently solution-oriented (P1b), followed by focus-on-insight (P1c) and lastly person-centered (P1d).
P2: Coaching on a business/skill level will be more effective than coaching on a personal level.
Defining Effective Coaching
As stated before, coaching is a crucial service provided by BIs to their tenants (Hansen et al., 2000; Clarysse & Bruneel, 2007; Knopp, 2007; Ratinho, 2011). However, literature on the effectiveness of the provided coaching is not ubiquitous, not to mention literature on effective entrepreneurial coaching. Despite the increase in popularity of the concept, research on effective coaching is scarce (de Haan, Duckworth, Birch & Jones, 2013). A reason for this is because it is costly and the requirements of a rigorous outcome study are cumbersome (de Haan et al., 2013) Moreover, because the majority of studies are conducted by the coaches themselves (Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001). Therefore the results of these studies have a direct impact on the quality of their own provided services. Consequently, results should be interpreted with prudence.
26
The above makes clear that effectiveness is generally measured by focusing on results regarding skill or business oriented coaching rather than on skill and personal development level coaching. This is an important distinction to make because the aim of this thesis is to investigate all entrepreneurial coaching styles as described in the coaching behavior model. The reason for this is that entrepreneurs differ from managers on several dimensions. For instance, being an entrepreneur is often perceived as a life style due to the personal risk involved, whereas being a manager is perceived as a role, i.e. being employed (Carter & Jones-Evans, 2006; Storey & Greene, 2010). This makes it assumable that entrepreneurial coaching is likely to affect the entrepreneur on both the content level and the personal level, instead of merely the content level. Therefore all types of coaching will be included in this thesis, illustrated by the coaching behavior model.
Pouls (2011) defined effective entrepreneurial coaching as coaching aimed at obtaining optimal coaching outcomes which include satisfaction with the coach and learning results. This definition is particularly applicable to this thesis because all coaching behaviors depicted in the coaching behavior model are included. Moreover, the research is conducted in a business incubation setting and is therefore on entrepreneurial coaching (Pouls, 2011). Other studies use the degree of satisfaction as well to measure coaching outcomes (Gegner, 1997 in Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999). Using client‟s perceptions, i.e. the degree of satisfaction, is a suitable indicator to measure effectiveness (Stiles, Barkham, Mellor-Clark & Connell, 2008; de Haan et al., 2013). Pouls (2011) also used satisfaction to measure effective coaching. The extent to which the coachee is satisfied with the coach is affected by several variables which can be summarized by coach characteristics, relationship characteristics and perceived changes accruing from coaching ( St-Jean & Audet, 2009).
27
coaching services within BIs are designed with similar ideas in mind (Peters et al., 2004). The entrepreneur, i.e. the coachee, initiates the coaching process by prompting a question or problem to the coach (van Beek & Tijmes, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007), which implies that the entrepreneur is able to direct their own learning process. Moreover, the problems or questions of the entrepreneurs are directly related to their life and are experience driven due to the fact they are participating in the BI program. Hence, entrepreneurial coaching is based on individual needs of the coachee (Winkler, 2002; Todorovic & Moenter, 2010; Pouls, 2011). From this can be derived that learning results and satisfaction regarding the coach are suitable indicators to measure the effectiveness of entrepreneurial coaching.
Conceptual Model
28
Method
To show the dynamic effects underlying the coaching process (Salisbury, 1994; van Beek & Tijmes, 2005), from the perspective of the entrepreneur (Davidsson, 2005), in the specific context in which the research has been conducted, a longitudinal case study approach has been chosen to answer the research question (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990; Yin, 2003). The case study is focused on a Dutch BI, which will be described below. In this particular BI, coaches and coachees, separately from each other, kept a weekly coaching diary to write down their coaching experiences and coaching-related experiences. This case study used these diaries to analyze and categorize different coaching types employed in the BI and how the outcomes of the coaching were perceived. Furthermore, both coach and coachee diaries were utilized in order to get the most comprehensive picture of coaching in a BI as possible. In addition to this, the end evaluation questionnaire of the BI has been used to assess to which extent the provided coaching could be considered as effective.
Case Description
29
The concept of this incubator is based upon 25 years of practical and academic research experience in business development support. The incubator combines the experience and networks of several institutes including multiple Universities, Universities of Applied Sciences, and knowledge institutes. The incubator is awarded on several occasions for their BI program.
Data Sources and Case Selection
In order to research the coaching processes in this particular incubator, multiple data sources have been used. These sources were summarized in table 4. The first step in constructing the case studies was selecting the participant groups which had the most complete and consistently recorded diaries. This way the consistency between the participants and the data quality was ensured. Two consecutive participant groups were selected from which ten participants were identified and selected with the most complete coach/coachee diary combinations, i.e. selecting coach/coachee diary combinations which had consistent weekly entries. The diaries focused on the coaching process itself or issues that were affected by coaching. Coachees were asked to keep a diary on their learning’s, results, issues and next
steps. Their coaches kept a diary on coachee issues, coachee requires help with and successes.
Subsequently, from the selected cases, the incubator participant testimonials have been used for further exploration. In addition to this, if available, the company websites have been used for similar purposes.
In addition to the coaching diaries, end evaluation questionnaires have been used to research the effectiveness of cases‟ received coaching services. Effective coaching was measured by satisfaction and learning outcomes. The former has been researched according the aforementioned indicators of St-Jean & Audet (2009); the diaries regarding coach- and coaching relationship characteristics and the end evaluation questionnaires in which the coachees graded their coaches on the following indicators: “supporting your personal
30
End Evaluation Questionnaire
Case No. Coach Diary Coachee Diary BI Testimonial Company Website Personal Development Support Business Development Support Overall 1 x x x x x x x 2 x x x x x x x 3 x x x x x x x 4 x x x NA x x x 5 x x x x NA x x 6 x x x NA x x x 7 x x x x x x x 8 x x x NA x x x 9 x x x x NA NA x 10 x x x x x NA x
Table 4: Data Sources (NA = Not Available)
Analysis
31
32
Confronting Supportive
1 2 3 4 5
Control Supervisor Helping Encouraging Delegation Act as CEO Learning Parental Discussion Jolly time
Paternalistic Teaching Training Talking Inverse knowledge creation Instruction Advising Working together Reflecting
Injecting Guide Cheer Participate Assistance Providing Training Support
Table 5: Keywords Style of Coaching Focus on Business/skill Development Focus on Personal Development 1 2 3 4 5
Expertise Providing knowledge Intellectual capital Start thinking Self-efficacy Strategic choices Experience Social capital Develop thoughts Personal Company growth Planning Resilience Growth Specific skills Management Team building Satisfaction Job performance Develop leadership Personal
relationships
Finance Network Law Business plan Accounting Business models
Market
Handle a problem Human resources
Product development
33
Results
In this section the results of the empirical research will be presented. This section starts with describing an exemplary case from a more general point of view. Subsequently, the findings of the study are presented and elaborated on in more detail, using the representative case as example.
Example Case: Case 5
The case description presented here will serve as an illustrative example of the coaching process and the BI experience as a whole from a participant and coach point of view. It provides insight in the experiences and struggles of being an entrepreneur. Moreover, it offers insight in the data and functions as an illustration for analyzing the data.
This specific case, case 5, is about an entrepreneur whose age is somewhere in the mid-forties. The entrepreneur is co-owner of an engineering company which specializes in advising production companies about lubricating their production machines. The company was founded in 2000 by the entrepreneur and the entrepreneur‟s spouse; the latter of whom brought the technical expertise into the organization. The entrepreneur in this case did not have previous entrepreneurial or business experience. The company is a typical „small and medium sized enterprise‟ (SME) and consisted of six employees at the time of incubation. At the start of the business incubation period, the organization had existed for ten years. Approximately ten years after its organizational birth, the goal was to make the company grow from a typical start-up to a more structured organization in which the spouse changed from an entrepreneur into a manager. Put in their own words „I need to realize that I am not
the company‟. At the time of the incubation, the organization was working on an innovation,
which required the organization to change along with this innovation. The entrepreneur kept a coaching diary for 43 weeks. In this diary the participant‟s „learnings or results‟, „issues‟ and how the entrepreneur was going to „work on those issues‟ are described. The coach kept a parallel coaching diary as well; however, he focused on „issues‟, „coachee needs help with‟ and „successes‟.
34
the company. Therefore, at the start of the incubation period, the focus was on developing entrepreneurial business skills, also at a personal entrepreneurial level. This becomes clear from the first and second coachee diary entry in which the participant stated: “[b]y working
on my own competences, I could play a better part in my own organization,” and “[g]ot insight in entrepreneurial characteristics. Which characteristics are required for being an entrepreneur?” Four months inside the incubator program the participant stated: “I am not an entrepreneur and I have also no ambition to become one!” This final statement is an example
of the contemplation process of the entrepreneur in which the participant realizes that being an entrepreneur is more a lifestyle which also requires development on a personal level instead of merely adopting a business role with specific skills. At the time of this diary entry, the entrepreneur was struggling with the „standard‟ personal requirements of an entrepreneurial lifestyle which is described in entrepreneurial literature, instead of struggling with acquirement of business skills.
In the beginning of the coaching process, the aim of the coaching relationship was mainly focused upon business modeling and related topics e.g. goal clarification, creating a business plan, creating strategic clarity. The coaching process started by clarifying what the participant objectives and goals were; what is their strategy, mission and vision, what is their business model, how are they going to exploit their business opportunity and so on. The entrepreneur stated: “[t]he strategy and mission to realize our goals should be clear to our employees.
However, I experienced this week that this is not even clear to me. I need to clearly formulate our mission, vision and strategy”. That same week, the coach wrote in his diary: “[t]hey do not have a clear picture about where they are standing now and how they want to grow. They started with formulating a mission, vision and strategy.” The following eleven weeks, the
coach and coachee wrote in their diaries that they continued working on clarifying and refinement of these issues. However, the actual writing of their business plan did not get much priority. In the meantime, the coachee continued with regular work and followed trainings and lectures. The participant tried to develop regular business skills such as networking. In case of coaching on the personal level, it is often somehow related to something which occurred in their business; this can be illustrated with the following diary entry: “I need to contact our
35
in business settings. However, before these people can help me, they need to know what I am seeking help for.” From the diary becomes evident that the coachee realized that next to
developing a skill for example networking, he/she needs to develop on a personal level as well, for instance by being more extraverted.
In week eighteen, the participant finished their first business plan. The entrepreneur stated:
“[t]he first concept business model is put on paper! The panel presentation worked as a deadline to finish it. It is necessary to refine the business model further and derive from the business model our strategy including a time path.” After presenting their business model to
the incubator business panel, the main focus of the coaching relationship shifted towards operationalizing the strategic business model. The coach stated: “[t]hey finished their
business model, business plan and roadmap. They need to make clear how they capture value. Moreover, hours, product and services should be separately valued. This is now clearer.”
Changing the start-up into a more structured organization was one of the initial goals of the entrepreneur. However, making this transition in practice was found to be difficult and time consuming. In week 29 the coachee stated: “[t]his week we started discussing managing the
organization in a more structured fashion. This proceeds very slowly and is difficult. The reason for this is that the discussion gets stuck into details. But the other people in the organization clearly need this level of detail.” From this becomes apparent that
operationalizing the business model on paper was making progress but that the transition into practice was difficult and time consuming.
The following weeks the entrepreneur continued working on operationalizing their business in a more structural and formal entity. During this period the entrepreneur experienced difficulties with the creation of the business plan. In addition, the entrepreneur struggled on a personal level as well, which was a direct effect of the difficulties regarding the business plan creation. The entrepreneur stated: “I literally took a time-out. I am sitting at home because I
do not have the energy anymore to work on company. I will call the coach if he wants to talk with the co-founder about our issues.” The coach added a week later: “I am worried about their internal organization. Moreover, there are no clear directions towards the employees.”
36
not an organization, but it’s the business of the entrepreneur. We agreed on having weekly meetings regarding the business plan. The organization is ready for further development; we are waiting for the co-founder to start with this. I am really positive about the future. Our company is going to make it. The business plan will be finished!!!! However this requires some time!!!!” From these last coachee entries, it becomes clear that the coachee and their
organization made progress on a business, skill, and personal level during the incubation period. The entrepreneur is positive about the future and the future of the company. At the moment of writing the company still exists.
Findings
The first proposition of this thesis refers to the different types of coaching that are employed in a BI setting. The results regarding this proposition are summarized in table 7 and 8; moreover, the results are graphically depicted in figure 3, 4 and 5. The second proposition refers to the extent to which the different coaching types are effective. The results of the end evaluation questionnaires and the diaries are presented in table.
37 Coaching
Style/Level Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10
Total Style/Level Percentage 1,1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 6 1,05% 2,1 3 3 2 19 5 10 8 24 8 9 91 15,94% 3,1 1 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 7 0 14 2,45% 4,1 1 7 9 11 3 4 10 6 14 3 68 11,91% 5,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% 1,2 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 4 0 12 2,10% 2,2 6 8 15 16 18 23 11 28 15 8 148 25,92% 3,2 1 5 6 2 0 4 1 3 5 2 29 5,08% 4,2 8 10 13 12 6 12 9 17 13 11 111 19,44% 5,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% 1,3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% 2,3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,18% 3,3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,35% 4,3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0,18% 5,3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% 1,4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0,18% 2,4 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 4 1 12 2,10% 3,4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0,35% 4,4 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 3 15 2,63% 5,4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0,18% 1,5 3 0 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 13 2,28% 2,5 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 8 1,40% 3,5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0,18% 4,5 5 4 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 12 35 6,13% 5,5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,00% Total Per Case 36 39 50 68 47 65 50 91 73 52 571 571 100,00%
38
Coaching Type Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10 Average
Problem-solving 30,56% 36,54% 42,50% 55,88% 54,26% 60,00% 44,00% 60,99% 47,95% 34,62% 46,73% Solution-oriented 27,78% 51,92% 50,50% 36,76% 20,21% 28,46% 41,00% 26,92% 45,21% 28,85% 35,76% Focus-on-insight 16,67% 0,64% 2,50% 2,94% 19,15% 7,69% 8,00% 1,10% 5,48% 7,69% 7,19% Person-centered 25,00% 10,90% 4,50% 4,41% 6,38% 3,85% 7,00% 10,99% 1,37% 28,85% 10,32% Skill Level 58,33% 88,46% 93,00% 92,65% 74,47% 88,46% 85,00% 87,91% 93,15% 63,46% 82,49% Personal level 41,67% 11,54% 7,00% 7,35% 25,53% 11,54% 15,00% 12,09% 6,85% 36,54% 17,51% Confronting style 47,22% 37,18% 45,00% 58,82% 73,40% 67,69% 52,00% 62,09% 53,42% 42,31% 53,91% Supporting style 52,78% 62,82% 55,00% 41,18% 26,60% 32,31% 48,00% 37,91% 46,58% 57,69% 46,09%
39
Figure 4: Aggregated Results: Types of Coaching by Percentage
40 Satisfaction Case No Support Business Development (1-10) Support Personal Development (1-10) Overall Grade (1-10) Coach Switch Case 1 6 4 5 Yes Case 2 8 8 8 Yes Case 3 8 6 8 No Case 4 8 7 7 No Case 5 8 NA 8 No Case 6 8 9 9 No Case 7 8 7 8 No Case 8 7 7 7 Yes Case 9 NA NA 5 Yes Case 10 NA 9 8,5 No Average Grade 7,63 7,13 7,35
Table 9: Effective Coaching - Satisfaction Results
Learning Outcomes
Case No # Business # Personal Percentage Business or Skill Percentage Personal
Case 1 13 10 56,52% 43,48% Case 2 22 2 91,67% 8,33% Case 3 15 1 93,75% 6,25% Case 4 41 4 91,11% 8,89% Case 5 11 7 61,11% 38,89% Case 6 23 1 95,83% 4,17% Case 7 21 5 80,77% 19,23% Case 8 64 7 90,14% 9,86% Case 9 32 2 94,12% 5,88% Case 10 20 16 55,56% 44,44% Average Percentage 81,06% 18,94%
41
Interpretations
Types of Coaching Used
First, the results regarding the first proposition and four sub-propositions will be interpreted. Proposition 1 states: The majority of entrepreneurial coaching types will be problem-solving in nature (P1a), subsequently solution-oriented (P1b), followed by focus-on-insight (P1c) and lastly person-centered (P1d). The proposition refers to what extent different types of coaching are employed in a BI. As mentioned before, two distinct dimensions arise from contemporary coaching literature; the aim or purpose of the coaching relationship, also referred to as content level or “level of coaching” and nature of the contribution of the coach, also referred to as “style of coaching”
42
Table 8 illustrates that there are individual differences between the analyzed cases regarding the two dimensions of the coaching behavior model. Firstly, regarding the business or skill development level of coaching. 58.33% of case 1‟s coaching could be labeled as coaching regarding the skill or business level whereas 93.15% of case 9‟s coaching is related to this level. Case 1‟s coaching needs were moderately related to the personal level in the early stages of the incubation program. Half-way inside the program the entrepreneur stated: “I
have an issue with my personality. A lack of balance that I have been unaware of until now.”
After the entrepreneur became aware of this, his coaching needs shifted more towards the personal level. The entrepreneur needed to develop on a personal level simultaneously with his business skills in order to be effective in his entrepreneurial endeavors. Case 9‟s coaching was to a great extent aimed at developing business related skills. From the diary becomes clear that the coach assisted or even participated in developing the entrepreneur‟s business or skills. The entrepreneur stated: [t]he coach is actively trying to arrange a meeting with City X,
which appear to be interested” and “[t]he coach had a meeting in City X with a specific key individual who expressed interest in the concept and is expected to arrange a meeting”. The
entrepreneur‟s personal side in this particular case was less prioritized compared to business and related skills development. The focus of the coaching relationship is clearly different in these two cases; however, the coaching styles appear to be less differentiated (case 1: confronting, 47.22%; case 9: confronting, 53.42%.)
Regarding the coaching style dimension, the range in individual differences appears to be smaller than the differences compared to the level of coaching. The coach in case 5 was most confronting in his style; 73.40% could be considered as confronting in nature. An exemplary coach diary entry in this particular case is: “[t]he co-founder still runs too much a
one-man-show. This results into a time shortage which in turn negatively affects writing and documenting other things. We made a clear agreement regarding this problem.” From this
43
the topic for discussion in two subsequent weeks; moreover, the coachee takes initiative in the discussion; the coach adds new ideas and perspectives. The coach relationship in this particular case is more collaborative in nature compared to the nature of the coaching relationship in case 5.
In conclusion, the results indicate that the majority of the coaching relates to the problem-solving quadrant, followed by solution-oriented, person-centered and lastly by focus-on-insight. In the cases where the coaching is relatively focused on the personal level, the coachee developed the related coaching needs over time. Regarding the coaching style, the results indicate that to a small extent, coaches are inclined towards using a more confronting style instead of a supportive style.
Effectiveness of Coaching
Proposition 2 refers to the effectiveness of coaching in a BI. In order to analyze the effectiveness of the coaching service in an incubator setting, the satisfaction of the coachees was studied with regard to their coaches and their learning outcomes. Firstly, the results regarding satisfaction with the coach indicate that the coachees are reasonably satisfied. Table 9 shows that coachee satisfaction regarding business related coaching is slightly higher than regarding personal related coaching; with averages of respectively 7.63 and 7.13. Another interesting result concerning coachee satisfaction can be derived from the coaching diaries; in four out of the ten analyzed cases, the entrepreneurs substituted their coach for another coach sometime during the incubation program. These coach substitutions either originated from coach characteristics or coaching relationship characteristics. In case 1 and 9 the substitution was caused by coach characteristics. For example, in case 9, the coachee switched to another coach due to the fact that the new coach was better suited for the needs of the coachee. The entrepreneur stated: “[f]rom this week on, a new coach will follow me”. In the corresponding coach diary entry declared: “[w]e have helped the participant a bit further in the new coach’s
network”. In case 2 and 8, the coaching relationships caused the coach substitutions. In both
cases the participants were not satisfied with the relationship. In one illustrative diary entry is stated by the entrepreneur regarding case 8: “[t]his week again a coach meeting. I have told
44
results appear to contradict the end evaluation questionnaire results in a certain degree. A possible explanation for this fact could be that the entrepreneurs evaluated their new coach and coaching relationship instead of the old coach and corresponding relationship in the end evaluations.
When examining the learning outcomes, it becomes clear that the majority of learning outcomes relate to the business or skill level. Table 10 shows that on average 81.06% of the learning outcomes can be related to this level. These results correspond in a high extent with the findings presented in table 7, in which all diary entries, including the coach entries, were incorporated; 82.49%.
45
Discussion and Conclusion
This study explores the types of coaching being used within a business incubation setting. Moreover, the effectiveness of the provided coaching is examined by coachee satisfaction regarding the coaching process and learning outcomes.
Discussion
Types of Coaching
The first proposition stated: The majority of entrepreneurial coaching types will be
problem-solving in nature (P1a), subsequently solution-oriented (P1b), followed by focus-on-insight (P1c) and lastly person-centered (P1d).
46
entrepreneur. The coaching style regarding the focus-on-insight type is aimed at reducing psychological barriers and anxious emotions. Coach behavior can be characterized as active listening, summarizing the coachee‟s feelings and eliciting new perspectives.
One possible explanation for this result might be that the characteristics of entrepreneurial coaching in a BI correspond with the characteristics of focus-on-insight coaching to a small degree. Firstly, one personality trait associated with entrepreneurs is a high internal locus-of-control, which can be defined as the individual‟s perceived ability to influence events encountered in the person‟s life. Multiple scholars illustrate that this personality trait relations to action orientation, pro-activeness, high information processing abilities and a tendency towards complex and unstructured tasks (Carland, Hoy, Boulton & Carland, 1984; Lee & Tsang, 2001; Wijbenga & Witteloostuijn, 2007). Another frequently associated entrepreneurial trait is need-for-achievement, which can be described as being pro-active and committed to others, like to take responsibility, desire feedback on their performance (McClelland, 1961; Carland et al., 1984; Parker, 2009). The starting point of focus-on-insight coaching can be described as a strong emotional personal involvement of the coachees in their issues and to which the coachees first do not recognize their own involvement in these issues or latent problems underlying their prompted question or issue (Roth & Fonagy, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007). These characteristics appear to correspond with characteristics associated with a high internal locus-of-control and need-for-achievement to a minor extent, which are frequently associated with entrepreneurs. In contrast to this, the perspective of the other coaching type referring to the personal development level; person-centered coaching, characteristics regarding this type of coaching are likely to fit the entrepreneurial coaching situation to a larger extent. This becomes clear from the underlying characteristics associated with person-centered coaching, which can be described as the fundamental assumption that humans have a self-actualizing tendency and that it is crucial for the therapist to create conditions that allow that tendency to flourish (Rogers, 2007; Silberschatz, 2007; Goldfried, 2007). Therefore, focus-on-insight coaching may be less applicable and person-centered may be more applicable to entrepreneurs with a high internal locus-of-control.
47
which are addressed using this type of coaching, are often multi-layered. Therefore moving to the next question or coaching issue, can only take place if the current issue is investigated exhaustively (Roth & Fonagy, 2005; de Haan & Burger, 2007). These characteristics are likely to impose difficulties in addressing focus-on-insight issues adequately in a BI coaching setting, which, in this particular case, is nine months.
Thirdly, from the related practice of psychodynamic psychotherapy becomes clear that this form of therapy is effective in treating personality disorders and depression (Roth & Fonagy, 2005). Furthermore as previously mentioned, issues regarding focus-on-insight coaching are often multi-layered and are usually severe in nature. If these severe issues surface, entrepreneurial coaching might not be sufficiently adequate in addressing these issues. In two cases this situation emerged; two entrepreneurs required additional personal therapy form a psychologist. This might have affected the extent to which focus-on-insight was employed.
Effectiveness of Coaching
The second proposition refers to the effectiveness of the provided coaching. This proposition is measured using coachee satisfaction and learning outcomes. From the results becomes clear that coachees are reasonably satisfied with their coaches. However, the relatively high amount of coach substitutions appears to contradict this: four out of ten cases ended the coaching relationship prematurely. The results indicate that the reasons for substituting a coach are either related to coach characteristics or to coaching relationship characteristics. A possible explanation for this may lie in the manner in which the end evaluation questionnaires are conducted. The coachees might have evaluated the new i.e. the current coach at the time of filling in the questionnaire. This last result is not statistical proven. However, it does provide an explorative indication, which might affect the degree of satisfaction and therefore the effectiveness of the entrepreneurial coaching process. Moreover, it may be an interesting lead for further research.
