2009
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Master of Business AdministrationSpecialization of Small Business & Entrepreneurship First supervisor: Drs. A.B.W. Mintjes
Second supervisor: Drs. M.M. Kroese Internship at Maxwell Group / Square One Tim Velthuis Student number: 1323695 Willem barentzstraat 1 9718 BC Groningen M: 06 47 690 600 E: timvelthuis@gmail.com August 31, 2009
[
THE COACHING NEEDS OF A
STUDENT ENTREPRENEUR
]
Preface
Entrepreneurship and all the things that have to do with small and medium-sized organizations have always been of interest for me. This master thesis is the final step in completing my master course Business Administration - Small Business & Entrepreneurship at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. During my master I came into contact with Monique Kroese, a coach who is also the lecturer of Entrepreneurial Skills, one of the courses of the master. Her way of working inspired me along with my fellow students and increased my interest in coaching. Bernd Mintjes, an entrepreneur and also lecturer, offered me an internship at his organization called Maxwell Group. An organization that invests in entrepreneurs and offers training sessions, workshops and lectures for (student)
entrepreneurs. They also manage the investment fund Square One B.V., a fund especially for student entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands. In consultation with Bernd Mintjes the subject of coaching combined with student entrepreneurs was chosen. During the internship, Eelco Bakker, an employee of Maxwell Group, made me familiar with many entrepreneurs and gave me the opportunity to develop myself.
I studied literature of coaching and came in contact with student and alumni entrepreneurs for my research which helped me to understand how they operate, think and what motivates them. It is inspiring to see how these entrepreneurs work and motivated me in writing this thesis. Altogether, the seven months working for Maxwell Group and Square One B.V. have been interesting and have developed me.
I would like to use this preface to thank a number of persons that were (partially) involved in my research. Bernd Mintjes for his role as first supervisor from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen and as the owner of Maxwell Group were he gave me the freedom to develop myself and Eelco Bakker of Maxwell Group, who I have been working with intensively the past seven months in Groningen. We did several meetings and workshops together and he got me into contact with a lot of entrepreneurs and showed me how certain things work. Monique Kroese, my second supervisor from the
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, who is an inspiring coach that gave me the idea of this subject.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all the entrepreneurs and experts that contributed to this research for taking the time to provide me with useful information in the form of interviews or by filling in the online questionnaire specially made for this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends who supported me during this period.
I sincerely hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.
Content
Executive summary ... 7 1 - Introduction ... 9 1.1 Research objective ... 9 1.2 Problem statement ... 10 1.2.1 Main question: ... 10 1.2.2 Sub questions: ... 10 1.2.3 Goal thesis ... 10 1.2.4 Square One B.V. ... 111.2.5 Conditions and limitations... 11
2 - Theoretical background... 12
2.1 Coaching ... 12
2.1.1 General background ... 12
2.1.2 Difference coaching and mentoring ... 13
2.1.3 The coaching process ... 13
2.1.4 Types of coaching ... 14
2.1.5 Different ways of coaching ... 14
2.2.1.1 Administrative difficulty ... 20
2.2.1.2 Lack of resources ... 21
2.2.1.3 Fear of failure ... 21
2.2.1.4 Lack of idea ... 21
2.2.2 Barriers student entrepreneurs ... 22
2.2.3 Conclusion barriers entrepreneurship ... 22
2.2.4 Conceptual model ... 23
2.3 Methodology ... 25
2.3.1 Respondents and data collection ... 25
2.3.2 Procedure and instruments for measurement... 25
2.3.3 Questionnaire ... 25 2.3.4 Interviews ... 26 2.3.5 Limitations of research ... 26 3 - Research findings ... 27 3.1 Student entrepreneurs ... 27 3.1.1 General facts ... 27
3.1.2 Coaching student entrepreneurs ... 29
3.1.2.1 Type of coach ... 29
3.1.2.2 Ways of coaching ... 30
3.1.2.3 Conclusion coaching student entrepreneurs ... 31
3.1.3 Barriers student entrepreneurs ... 32
3.1.3.1 Reason barriers ... 33
3.1.3.2 Conclusion barriers student entrepreneurs ... 34
3.2 Alumni entrepreneurs ... 35
3.2.1 Background alumni entrepreneurs ... 35
3.2.2 Criteria student entrepreneurs ... 35
3.2.3 Criteria alumni entrepreneurs ... 36
3.2.4 Willingness to coach ... 36
3.2.5 Coach-pool ... 37
3.3 Coaching initiatives ... 38
3.3.1 Chamber of Commerce ... 38
3.3.2 VNO-NCW ... 38
3.3.3 TNO ... 38
3.3.4 Noordelijke Ontwikkelings Maatschappij (NOM) ... 39
3.3.5 LiveWIRE ... 39
3.3.6 Frisjes ... 39
4 - Conclusions & recommendations ... 40
4.1 Conclusions ... 41
4.1.1 Coaching in general ... 41
4.1.2 Coaching student entrepreneurs ... 41
4.1.3 Barriers student entrepreneurs ... 41
4.1.4 Alumni entrepreneurs ... 42
4.1.5 Definitive model student entrepreneurs ... 43
4.2 Recommendations... 44 4.2.1 Coaching ... 44 4.2.2 Barriers ... 44 References ... 45 Articles ... 45 Books ... 47 Other resources ... 47 Appendices ... 48
Appendix 1 – Questionnaire student entrepreneurs ... 49
Appendix 2 – Results questionnaire student entrepreneurs ... 56
Executive summary
Background
This master thesis is written to complete my master Business Administration with the specialization Small Business & Entrepreneurship at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The background of this master and an internship at Maxwell Group gave me the knowledge and inspiration to come to the subject of this thesis. Maxwell Group is the fund manager of Square One B.V., an investment fund for student entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands, and was interested in the coaching opportunities for these entrepreneurs. The growing interest in entrepreneurship and the possibilities students have regarding entrepreneurship make this research interesting for this party. Research is done in what ways of coaching are used by entrepreneurs in general, what student entrepreneurs favour and what alumni entrepreneurs can offer them. The barriers student entrepreneurs face, are also included in this research because this was an element often mentioned in combination with coaching. The main objective is coaching; the barriers of student entrepreneurs and what alumni entrepreneurs can offer them are objectives to give the thesis more in-depth information. The following main question has been formulated based on literature:
What are the needs of student entrepreneurs regarding coaching in the Northern Netherlands and what are their barriers; what are the criteria for alumni entrepreneurs to support them?
Seven questions were answered to come to a final answer for the main question.
Research methods
First, literature was used to give the reader an overview of the differences of coaching and mentoring, two terms that are often used for the same context but have different meanings. The ways of coaching entrepreneurs in general use and what they see as barriers for them are also derived from literature. After this, 25 student entrepreneurs have filled in an online questionnaire were they stated how they think about coaching and the barriers they face. Furthermore, four alumni entrepreneurs were
interviewed to gain insight in what they can offer their younger entrepreneurs and coaching initiatives were described to get an overview for the student entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands.
Results
The ways of coaching entrepreneurs in general use are Socratic coaching, solution-focused coaching, executive coaching and provocative coaching. All ways require a certain personality of the client. Other ways of coaching are hardly used by entrepreneurs, because the methods do not work or are not suitable for them. Barriers of entrepreneurship are lack of ideas, fear of failure, lack of resources and administrative difficulties. These barriers prevent people to start up their own organization or prevent entrepreneurs to grow their organization the way they want.
sessions are not suitable for them due to lack of time. Solution-focused and executive coaching are used often by student entrepreneurs, they indicated that the short sessions they have to search for a solution on their own and develop their management skills have their priority. The four barriers in the literature can be reduced to two barriers for student entrepreneurs. Only the lack of resources and administrative difficulties are seen as barriers by the respondents. None of them stated that fear of failure or the lack of ideas is a barrier.
Conclusions & recommendations
Conclusions regarding coaching are that student entrepreneurs favour solution-focused and executive coaching. This is a contradiction comparing the literature about entrepreneurial coaching. The reasons for this are lack of time and lack of management skills, which can best be combined with these two ways of coaching. Student entrepreneurs do not share the same barriers entrepreneurs in general face. Fear of failure and the lack of ideas are not common among student entrepreneurs. The lack of resources, like financial assets or employee shortages, and administrative difficulties are the barriers that hinder student entrepreneurs. The government and the Chamber of Commerce are working minimize the last barrier.
1 - Introduction
The importance of entrepreneurship is widely recognized, on a regional and national level the
influence of entrepreneurship must not be underestimated. Start-ups in particular have been a popular research topic since Birch (1979) concluded that small organizations create more new jobs than large firms. Nowadays, entrepreneurship is an important issue. At one level, enterprise creation is
recognised as important for employment growth and effecting structural change. At another level, there is concern to encourage existing firms to become more entrepreneurial as a means of enhancing international competitiveness. Especially the part of employment growth is an often heard motivation to stimulate the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector.
Facilitating the growth of starting SMEs is something that is more important than the absolute increase in start-ups and can have a positive influence on the economy of a country (Schutjens & Wever, 2000). In The Netherlands the emphasis lies on increasing the chances of survival of start-ups by facilitating them and that it is a fact that many start-ups only persist for a short time. Within five years, about half of all initiatives suffer a quiet death and the initiatives which do survive, few offer a
substantial number of jobs (VNO, 1994). This is in contrast of what Birch (1979) concluded. A policy to increase the survival rate of start-ups via a well-targeted strategy of information and guidance seems to be appropriate.
Guidance in the form of coaching is one of the most popular ways of trying to make a start-up more successful. The Chamber of Commerce and other government-related parties offer free coaching for entrepreneurs to become a successful organization. Coaching can help entrepreneurs to prevent difficulties and complement them in areas in which they lack expertise or experience. In this thesis the meaning of coaching will be dealt with as well as which ways of coaching can be used best for
entrepreneurs.
When trying to influence the survival rate of start-ups, researchers often try to retrieve success factors of new organizations. Numerous papers have dealt with the success factors in specific branches or markets. Fewer have described the barriers which confronted these organizations with problems. This thesis will discuss the barriers (student) entrepreneurs face during their first years in business.
Important to mention is that the thesis is not done in cooperation with a general group of
entrepreneurs, but with student entrepreneurs. A specific geographical area is used, namely the three Northern provinces of The Netherlands, Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe. This is a relatively underdeveloped region in The Netherlands where many initiatives were started to stimulate entrepreneurship the past few years.
1.1 Research objective
1.2 Problem statement
1.2.1 Main question:
What are the needs of student entrepreneurs regarding coaching in the Northern Netherlands and what are their barriers; what are the criteria for alumni entrepreneurs to support them?
1.2.2 Sub questions:
Coaching:
1) What is coaching and what are the differences between mentoring and coaching? 2) Which types of coaching are business related and which methods are used?
3) Which ways of coaching are used most and how do they differentiate from each other?
Student entrepreneurs:
4) Which ways of coaching do student entrepreneurs prefer and have they used? 5) What kind of barriers do student entrepreneurs face during their first years of
entrepreneurship?
Overall:
6) What can alumni entrepreneurs offer student entrepreneurs regarding coaching, i.e. a coach-pool?
7) Do similar coach initiatives already exist or start in the near future and are there other initiatives that support student entrepreneurs?
1.2.3 Goal thesis
First, based on literature, the term coaching will be explained. What is the difference between coaching and mentoring? Two terms often used interchangeably, but with a different meaning. Next, which forms of coaching can be used best for entrepreneurs will be explained. Second, also based on existing literature, the most common barriers entrepreneurs in general face will be selected en explained.
After that, the results of a questionnaire, which was given to student entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands about coaching and experienced barriers, will be analysed. These results will be compared with results that can be found in the literature. The most interesting results and comments will be discussed more detailed and recommendations will be given.
1.2.4 Square One B.V.
This thesis is executed in behalf of Square One B.V. (SQ1). The author of this thesis has worked seven months for this organization and Maxwell Group, which is co-owner of SQ1 and is the fund manager of SQ1. Square One B.V. is an investment fund that helps student entrepreneurs by providing them venture capital and is only for student in the Northern Netherlands That is why the questionnaire for the student entrepreneurs is only for those in the provinces Groningen, Friesland and Drenthe. SQ1 invests in student organizations with the intention to exit after three to five years and participates as a shareholder. It uses its expertise and its network to coach the student entrepreneurs. More information about SQ1 and Maxwell Group and other parties who invest in student entrepreneurs can be read in the thesis of Eelco Bakker ‘Square One: the first step towards a home run’ (2008).
1.2.5 Conditions and limitations
Conditions and limitations provide insights in the feasibility of this thesis. The author has to take into account the demands of Square One as well as the demands from the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The conditions and limitations are:
1) The research for this thesis has a maximum duration of seven months, starting from February 1st until August 31st 2009.
2) The thesis must meet the demands of Square One B.V. concerning further help in starting student entrepreneurs regarding coaching.
3) The thesis must meet the demands provided by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
4) Coaching is a very broad concept which the author is not very familiar with. Because of the broad concept, it may be possible that not everything is treated completely.
2 - Theoretical background
2.1 Coaching
‘People constantly face changes wave after wave and in order to deal with these changes, they engage in the process of sense making. The sense making process assists the individual in making sense of changes and also to integrate new experiences into existing frames of reference. The processes used within a coaching approach are particularly powerful in assisting the individual with their sense making activities. In essence coaching acts as the catalyst through which an individual or group makes sense of the ever changing environment’ (Du Toit, 2006).
This is just one of the many descriptions of coaching which states what coaching is all about. Despite the growth in popularity, a general definition of coaching remains an enigma. Often, coaching and mentoring are used interchangeably and mixed together what makes it inconvenient for the general public. One must be aware of the differences between coaching and mentoring.
Therefore, a general description will be given to get a clear view on what the major differences are between coaching and mentoring. Coaching will be described more in-depth because of its relevance in this research. First, coaching in general will be described followed by the differences between coaching and mentoring. Second, the coaching process in general will be handled. Then the two general types of coaching will be dealt with and in the end, different ways of coaching will be described.
2.1.1 General background
“You get the best effort from others not by lighting a fire beneath them, but by building a fire within.” (Bob Nelson, business coach).
Getting your client inspired and motivated are two of the most important aspects coaches want to achieve, but coaching is so much more. A common theme or philosophy amongst the different coaching approaches is a passion for the growth of people, assuming responsibility for possibilities and nurturing and exploiting talent (Stern, 2004). According to Chapman et al. (2003), coaching is both a science and an art because as it can be described as a craft.
Coaching is perceived as playing a major role in maximizing the competitiveness of an organization. Furthermore, it was also perceived as, “the most powerful strategic and tactical weapons open to business today” (O’Shaughnessy, 2001). Coaching has become a significant tool in the development of senior management and particularly the important skill of managing people. Coaching is not a passive methodology, but is based on active, experiential learning. According to Chapman et al. (2003), experiential learning equips a participant with an ability to give and receive feedback, which ensures sustained learning. A major benefit of coaching is that it provides the client with the
The success of coaching depends on certain abilities, the ability to adapt, explore, learn and grow at both an individual and organizational level makes coaching successful according to Giglio et al. (1998). Coaching is not to tell people what to do, but instead is concerned with assisting and facilitating people in their sense making activities, enabling them to deal with and to remove the blocks that may be preventing them from moving from one state to another (Du Toit, 2006). Although there is no genuine description of coaching, theorists generally agree about the essence of coaching. Thach (2002) describes the essence of coaching as ‘liberating the full potential of the individual or team of individuals’. Other theorists often use other words, but mention the same as Thach. One of the most valuable gifts a coach has to offer a client is the ability to step away from the day-to-day business and reflect on the possible routes and choices available to the client.
2.1.2 Difference coaching and mentoring
A lot of people use the terms coaching and mentoring interchangeably. Even theorists are using them in the wrong context. A reason for this is that coaching and mentoring have grown to each other. Having a mentor in an organization is very popular these days, managers and other employees are willing to work with a mentor who can help them in a work related environment. The role of a coach has made a shift from external coaches, who were external advisors or retired managers, to an internal coach from the organization itself. According to De Haan & Burger (2004) the most important difference between a mentor and a coach is that a mentor is a professional who uses his own expertise and implements this during the mentor relation. Where a coach does not bring in knowledge, but stimulates and develops the knowledge of the client. Furthermore, a mentor relies on the development of relationships of which all parties benefit from the feedback given. A coach is more client-orientated with a focus on client-learning instead of both learning from the process.
2.1.3 The coaching process
Many books and articles have been written about the coaching process and vary from three to six steps (Cunningham, 1991; Koonce, 1994). There are lists of coaching methods and techniques which range from 360 feedback to training, confrontations, simulations and role playing, to name just a few. In general, however, the process of coaching includes the following three phases (Thach, 2002):
1) Contracting 2) Data collection 3) Coaching
In the contracting phase, the coach and the client have to agree with the coaching contract. This contract includes the goals, resources, time, possible methods and the costs. Often planning conversations are held in order to come to an agreement.
The last phase, the coaching phase, generally consumes the largest amount of time. The coach and client spend time analyzing the results of the data generated by the coaching methods and design a so called plan of action to overcome the identified issues. The length of this phase depends on how the client reacts to the feedback.
The more open-minded a client is, the less time it will cost to come to solutions or results. Thach & Heinselman (2000) state that if a client is hard to convince, ‘confrontation techniques’ may be required in order to help the client recognize and accept responsibility for the issues. Something often forgotten to mention is that the coaching phase also includes follow-up meetings to assess progress, offer advice and eventually, after evaluating the results of the coaching process, end the relationship.
2.1.4 Types of coaching
Looking on the Internet and in literature, the amount of types of coaching seems endless, but theorists saw that a lot of these types can be coincided into two major types of coaching. Their literature delineates between two major types of coaching (Koonce, 1994; Thach & Heinselman, 2000). The first type of coaching can be described as performance based and focuses on practical and specific business issues. Goal setting or project management are examples of this type of coaching. This type of performance-based coaching is generally more short-term in nature and can consist of one or several meetings between the coach and the client. The second type of coaching can be defined as in-depth coaching. This can be more psychoanalytical in approach, exploring personal values,
motivations and even family issues. This type of coaching generally lasts longer and is more costly. Regardless of the type of coaching used, both are focused on helping the person to achieve goals which will enhance productivity (organizational level) and satisfaction (personal level).
2.1.5 Different ways of coaching
Next, four different ways of coaching will be explained, namely executive coaching, Socratic coaching, solution-focused coaching and provocative coaching. These forms are the most common forms of coaching used by entrepreneurs. Other ways of coaching, like personal coaching, are irrelevant for this thesis and are therefore not mentioned.
2.1.5.1 Executive coaching
‘In the last decade, executive coaching combined with 360 feedback has been one of the fastest growing executive development options within companies. It has even become “trendy” to have one’s own executive coach’ (Goldsmith et al., 2000).
The literature is filled with numerous articles on executive coaching. Goldsmith et al. (2000) state that, especially the last decade, more and more organizations have hired an executive coach to improve the organization on the highest level. Killburg (1996) defines executive coaching as ‘a helping
executive coaching is to improve the professional performance and the personal satisfaction of the client to improve the effectiveness of his organization.
O’Neill (2007) outlines four phases of executive coaching, contracting, planning, live action coaching and debriefing, which is in different then the coaching process of Thach (2002), especially when one looks more into the details. Therefore, all phases will be briefly explained next.
Phase 1: Contracting
Phase one, contracting, is in many ways the most important phase. Both parties, the coach and the client, need to build a relationship and the coach needs to establish credibility. Together they must establish the goals for the coaching relationship and set expectations that drive the remaining phases. Important steps in contracting are:
1) Coach must familiarize himself with the challenge of the client 2) Coach must test the ability of the client to own his part of the issue 3) Coach must give immediate feedback to the client
4) A contract must be established together with measurable goals
Phase 2: Planning
Planning is all about helping the client to identify a next step with specific actions that has to be taken. What does the client want to accomplish during this relationship, what would be achievable results in what specific time frame? What team behaviors need to change to accomplish the results? All these questions help the coach and the client to get a clear overview what must be done in a specific amount of time. This helps both parties because they know what to expect from each other.
Phase 3: Live action coaching
During this phase the actual coaching process begins. Depending on requirements this can be a mixture of face to face, telephone and email sessions. The coach provides live action coaching and gives advice while the executive and the team are conducting real work. In this phase the coach encourages and stimulates a stronger relationship between the executive and the team.
Phase 4: Debriefing
The last phase, debriefing, is all about encouraging the client to self assess the results of his actions. The coach gives supportive and challenging feedback to the client and helps the client to identify specific next steps. Finally, the coach invites the client to give feedback on the effectiveness of his coaching.
360 feedback
According to Goldsmith et al. (2000) and Judge & Cowell (1997) executive coaching combined with 360 feedback gives the best results for both parties. Research has confirmed that the use of 360 feedback is one of the best methods to promote increased self-awareness of skill strengths and
deficiencies in managers (Judge & Cowell, 1997) and is therefore recommended by executive coaches. An issue with 360 feedback is the absence of a clear implementation purpose on the part of the
2.1.5.2 Socratic coaching
Socratic coaching is based on Socratic questions and different techniques used from Rational Emotional Training (RET). First, some answers will be given how Socrates handled questions 2500 years ago. After this, RET and the Socratic traps will be explained which together form the foundation of Socratic coaching (Veraart-Maas, 2006).
The Socratic Method is named for Socrates, a philosopher who lived in Athens around 470 B.C. Socrates gained fame for frequently engaging others in conversations that attempted to define broad ideas such as beauty, justice, courage and friendship by discussing their ambiguities and complexities. During his conversations, Socrates placed himself in the position of student, forcing his respondents to act in the role of teacher (Veraart-Maas, 2006).
Rational Emotional Training is used as the basis of Socratic coaching and therefore must be explaining in order to understand the way a Socratic coach works. RET is interested in, or at least will settle for, symptom removal, it primarily strives for deep seated emotional and behavioral change, it creates a new outlook for the client (Ellis, 1980). This new outlook for which RET strives includes clients' acquiring philosophies of self-interest, self-direction, tolerance of self and others, acceptance of uncertainty, flexibility, scientific thinking, risk taking, and commitment to vital interests. One can say it tries to change the client on all possible levels.
During Socratic coaching, the coach takes a subordinate role, one of seeking knowledge. It is very important to create an environment that allows the coach and respondent speak freely and openly. The method relies on the modesty in the questioner. Shared goals keep the coach and the respondent from becoming opponents.
Socratic coaching begins with the questioner asking the respondent a question, the questioner then asks the respondent a series of purposeful questions that lead the respondent to reply with an answer that proves their original answer false. Once the respondent becomes aware that their original answer is invalid, the questioner asks the question again removing the respondent’s confidence (Greenberger & Padesky, 1995).
The true purpose of the Socratic Method is not to define beauty, or justice, or any other complex subject, but rather to improve human beings by increasing their understanding (Nelson, 1949). The method uses the respondent’s words to convince him or her that they know less than they originally thought. When less sure, they are forced to open their mind to various possibilities they had not considered.
2.1.5.3 Solution-focused coaching
‘Coaching is a collaborative, solution-focused, result-orientated and systematic process in which the coach facilitates the enhancement of work performance, life experience, self-directed learning and personal growth of individuals from normal (i.e., non-clinical) populations.’ (Greene & Grant, 2003).
Solution-focused coaching is all about brief sessions instead of long session between the coach and the client. The specific form of the conversation has the purpose to support the client and to give them a proper start to work out a solution for the problem. Furthermore, the coach helps the client to keep their goals in mind and after the conversation the client, when appropriate, can solve the problems without support of the coach. Another difference compared to other forms of coaching is that solution-focused coaching uses the input of clients, their skills, ideas and other tools, to come to a solution, whereas the other forms of coaching use the shortages of clients to find solutions as their approach.
Solution-focused coaches take into account the following presumptions (Berg & Szabó, 2005): 1) If something works, do not change it; the coach must find out what works for the client. This
may not be the best way according to the coach, but the coach must not try to fix something that works for the client.
2) If something had effect, try to do it more often; this rule is very simple to apply to coaching. The client must find out what was effective in practice and must repeat this.
3) If something does not work, try something different; both parties have to acknowledge that something has to change or no solution will be created to solve the problem.
4) Change is constant and inevitable; especially in business environments nothing is constant and the client, as well as the coach, has to be aware of that. Even the client and the coach
themselves will change over time.
5) Small solutions that lead to big changes; in general people think that a large, difficult and complex problem demands large changes that take a lot of time but this does not have to be the case. Something small can have effect on many different things that together change something big, the so called ‘snowball effect’.
A method often used by solution-focused coaches is asking scale questions (Berg & Szabó, 2005). Scale questions are questions where the client must state on which level he or she is and what it takes to get to the next level. By stating what it takes for the client to get to the next level both parties learn. Other coaches also use these scale questions because it gets good results, the coach asks the client what the solution may be. That is what solution-focused coaching is all about, or as De Shazer (founder of solution-focused coaching) stated:
2.1.5.4 Provocative coaching
Provocative coaching can be seen as a radical but very effective way of coaching. In contrast to former methods of coaching, provocative coaching is more to the point, more confronting than traditional coaching. A provocative coach approaches the client on a completely different way which will vary depending on the situation.
The following presumptions are taken into account by provocative coaches (Hollander & Wijnberg, 2006):
That what is most personal can be seen as general People are more resilient than the look
It is healthy to be a little bit suspicious People laugh more quickly than one suspects Challenges connect people
Someone will begin to structure the process, this can be the coach but also the client Sidetracks and detours lead to the core of the problem
A provocative coach takes these presumptions in mind to work more effectively and more important, without these presumptions the provocative style of coaching would not work. It also depends on the client who must be comfortable with this way of coaching. It is in contrast with the traditional forms of coaching who state that the emotions of every individual is unique, that the client must trust their coach completely and that targeted questions lead to the core of the problem. If the client thinks these presumptions suits him or her, provocative coaching will not work.
Where Socratic coaching uses the RET technique as a solid base to help the client, provocative coaching uses the Farrelly-factors to come to a solution (Fry, 1992). These seven factors are used when the coach knows the problem of the client and can be uses independently. The seven Farrelly-factors are:
1) Not expected behavior of the coach; physical contact, humor and provocation form the basis of provocative coaching. The coach does things, like refusing to help the client in the middle of the conversation, to get a reaction.
2) Conditional reactions; the coach tries to hit the emotions of the client by reacting congruent when talking about the trauma of the client.
3) General provocative tools; interrupting the client, dramatizing the story or using slogans help the coach to get reactions from the client.
4) Provocative reactions towards problems; the coach gives absurd solutions or explanations. 5) Provocative reactions on the self-image of the client; exaggerating the negative sides of the
self-image will get the right reactions to come to the core of the problem.
6) Strategic provocative patterns; by demanding the client to be amusing or to reacting crazier than the client, the provocative coach gets the attention.
7) The provocative coach uses inner processes; the coach can be in a laughing mood or can react very warmly whereas the previous session the coach was reacting very cold.
2.1.6 Limitations of coaching
So far the origin of coaching, styles of coaching and the difference between coaching and mentoring have been discussed, but coaching has his limitations that may not be underestimated. Clients can have questions or problems where it may be better to initiate another learning activity or refer someone else. Hollander & Wijnberg (2006) indicate that this is the case when:
1) The client has a question which has one optimal solution that only can be found with the right expertise. In this case it is better to hire an expert associated to that specific are.
2) The client has an organizational or team problem. Coaching can enforce individuals how to deal with organizational or team questions, but that may not be the solution to that problem. In this case it is better to hire an advisor who works on the organizational level.
3) The client has a problem which occurs both in the working situation as well as in their private life. This is a difficult problem to solve because it can have many different indications like a twist in the self-image, tensions that lead to fear or rage or strong independent behaviour. The coach will indicate very quickly that something is wrong with the client the coach cannot do anything about. Referring a therapist is the right thing to do in such a situation.
2.1.7 Conclusion coaching
Looking at the essence of coaching, liberating the full potentials of the individual or team of
2.2 Barriers entrepreneurship
‘Of the 670 young organizations, 73% had to deal with barriers on one or more levels that hampered the organization to grow. A problem that costs the economy millions of Euros every year’ (Hulshoff et al., 2001).
Reducing the barriers for entrepreneurs is one of the top issues of the Dutch policy regarding entrepreneurship and innovation. When the market fails, because of the presence of barriers, the government may react in a legitimate manner (Timmermans, 2008). Well-known barriers which concern entrepreneurs are finding financial assets to start up the organization or to finance innovations, difficulties in finding the right employees who are needed to grow, developing and implementing innovations and the administrative difficulties regarding law and regulations (Hulshoff et al., 2001).
2.2.1 Barriers in general
According to Hulfshoff et al. (2001) the most common barrier overall for entrepreneurs is the administrative difficulty, whereas technology organizations have to overcome employee shortages as their major barrier. Klapper et al. (2006) agree on this fact, but their research mentions additional barriers that have to be dealt with. Lack of time due to working with hard deadlines, unfair
competition due to illegal employment and from the countries who maintain low wages are barriers that cannot or hardly be solved but nevertheless may not be underestimated by entrepreneurs. Other barriers mentioned by numerous theorists are lack of resources (knowledge, finance and premises), lack of ideas and fear of failure. All these barriers will be explained next.
2.2.1.1 Administrative difficulty
‘The administrative aspect can be seen as one of the most important barriers for entrepreneurs to grow or even to start up their own organization’ (Robertson et al., 2003).
In one sentence Robertson et al. (2003) describe the impact of a major barrier that confronts
2.2.1.2 Lack of resources
Lack of resources is a barrier which is mentioned often by the ‘would be entrepreneurs’ as Volery et al. (1997) mention it. They often recognize themselves that do not master the necessary skills in marketing, management and finance. These personal deficiencies are further worsened by a lack of information on start-ups. Finance and suitable premises are two other types of resources which constitute an additional barrier. Barber et al. (1989) also indicate that the lack of resources is a constraint on start-ups and on the growth of small organizations. The long-standing issue of the alleged gap between the needs of small organizations and the willingness of holder of capital to meet these needs is also mentioned by Barber et al. (1989). This makes it more difficult for the entrepreneur to finance his growth or even an innovation which could lead to major advantages for the organization. Another resource that can form a barrier is the employee resource. Klapper et al. (2006) indicate that finding the right employees is a problem for entrepreneurs who want to grow in the near future, that cannot be denied. The technological and highly specialized organizations in particular state that not finding adequate personnel is limiting their growth options. Another point stated by organizations in the research of Klapper et al. 2006) is that the candidate for a specific vacancy did not fit in the culture of the organization. All these factors make the lack of resources a very high barrier for both starting and growing entrepreneurs.
2.2.1.3 Fear of failure
Harding (2004), the author of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, did research in the United Kingdom asking people why they would not become an entrepreneur. 32,9 percent of all the
interviewees stated that fear of failure is the major barrier for them. It did not matter if the person was male of female or was rich or poor. In Germany and in France the percentage is even higher,
respectively 47,7 and 50,0 percent. These numbers are very high and therefore cannot be avoided. Arenius & Minniti (2005) confirm that the fear of failure denies people from starting up their own organization. Especially when one lives in countries where entrepreneurship is less accepted like Japan or Belgium were the percentage of entrepreneurs is almost ten times less than in the United States, 1,5 percent against 11 percent. The fear of failure can be a culture driven barrier according to these theorists.
2.2.1.4 Lack of idea
‘Someone can have the entrepreneurial skills, but without an idea that person will not become an entrepreneur’ (Henderson & Robertson, 1999).
2.2.2 Barriers student entrepreneurs
Is this also the case for student entrepreneurs? Are the barriers for them the same as for entrepreneurs in general? Hardly any specific research is done in the barriers confronting student entrepreneurs. Turnbull et al. (2001) has done research in what the motivations and barriers for student entrepreneurs are and came to the following conclusions. Major motivations were the opportunity to take risks, freedom, financial gain and security of employment but more important, the barriers perceived by students were lack of funds, aversion to stress and the fear of failure. Henderson & Robertson (1999) complement these barriers with the aversion of risk, hard work and time commitment and the lack of an idea.
What is striking is that only the lack of funds barrier is a non-personal barrier, all the other barriers can be overcome by changing the way a student thinks or acts or work with someone who has an idea. Lack of skills is also a common barrier for student entrepreneurs, because they are inexperienced. Because of their young age, student entrepreneur do not have the feeling that they are taken seriously by other parties. The fear of losing from a more experienced, older entrepreneur is also an important barrier not to start (Cowling, 2003). In general, the barriers confronting student entrepreneurs are the same any entrepreneur faces.
2.2.3 Conclusion barriers entrepreneurship
The literature about entrepreneurship shows many barriers that can be divided into the following main barriers, the lack of resources, the lack of ideas, the fear of failure and the administrative difficulty. All these barriers make it more difficult or even impossible for people to start up their own organization. For entrepreneurs who want to grow, the lack of resources is the major barrier to eliminate. Finding adequate employees can be very difficult, especially when the organization is highly specialized and qualified people are needed. Although barriers like fear of failure and the lack of ideas are personal, the government and other authorities can help eliminate most of the barriers. Reducing the amount of paperwork will help entrepreneurs in several ways. First, they can fill in the paperwork themselves instead of hiring someone who would see their personal information. Second and most important, the so called ‘would be entrepreneurs’ will start their own organization because the paperwork does not prevent them. Fear of failure can be reduced or eliminated by hiring a coach, but this is up to the person who sees this as a barrier for entrepreneurship.
2.2.4 Conceptual model
Overview conceptual model
2.3 Methodology
2.3.1 Respondents and data collection
The goal of this thesis is to provide more insight in what student entrepreneurs prefer regarding coaching and to find out what barriers confront them during their entrepreneurship. All the research is done in the Northern Netherlands, because that is the area Square One B.V. is focusing on. The qualitative questionnaire (see appendix 1) is made of questions regarding coaching and barriers and are formulated as explained by Emans (2004). The interviews (see appendix 3) with the alumni entrepreneurs are done in order to get an overview of if they are willing to help student entrepreneurs. Here Emans (2004) is also used, but the questions were broader in order to get the right results that cannot be biased by the author. Both the questionnaire and the interviews are in Dutch to prevent misunderstandings by both the author and the interviewees.
Furthermore, articles that were given during the Master Small Business and Entrepreneurship on the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen were used as well as additional literature sources based on the formulated research questions. Desk research is not sufficient to answer all the questions that arise; therefore, field research is needed to answer questions that cannot be solved on the basis of literature. By questioning the student entrepreneurs the specially phrased questions and interviewing the alumni entrepreneurs, a good overview can be generated. All four interviewees will have the same questions, so no biased or unnecessary questions and answers will be given.
2.3.2 Procedure and instruments for measurement
By using literature and their definitions and linking them to the questions, a well structured and understandable questionnaire can be made. A mix of open and closed questions is used for specific reasons. Closed questions push the student entrepreneurs who fill in the questionnaire in a certain direction so they do not give any unnecessary information. in case of uncertainty, open questions are needed to provide us the information necessary (Emans, 2004). The interviews will be in Dutch because for both the author and interviewee Dutch is their native language. No electronic instruments will be used to record the interviews; all what is said will be written down during the interview.
2.3.3 Questionnaire
The questionnaire (see appendix 1) starts with some general questions like the name of the
2.3.4 Interviews
The interviewer writes down statements made by the interviewee, which is always related to cognition because they describe the ideas of the interviewee and not the facts and behaviors. A next step is to record this answer one way or another, making it a two-step process. Both these steps endanger the objectivity of the outcomes and need to be looked at by the interviewer (Emans, 2004). In order to create a proper interview, the interviews are held at the office of the interviewee to create a
comfortable environment and the questions will be open to create space for more specified questions. The interview with the alumni entrepreneur will begin by first asking about their background (study, year of starting their organization). After these questions, the criteria student entrepreneurs must meet will be asked as well as the willingness of alumni entrepreneurs. What do alumni entrepreneurs expect from student entrepreneurs and what do they expect in return for their help? Last, their vision
regarding a coach-pool is asked. What are the points of discussion when joining a coach-pool for student entrepreneurs? At the end of the interview, the alumni entrepreneur has the opportunity to say something he or she thinks can be of importance for the thesis.
The answers of the interviews (see appendix 3)have been filled in for every subject and are reviewed and linked to the conceptual model in a number of steps:
1) The relation of the different subject questions.
2) The specific results of the subjects, linked to the theory.
3) Comparison of the answers from the different respondents, are there major differences? 4) A conclusion per subject.
5) Relations between subjects and the links to the conceptual model.
2.3.5 Limitations of research
The limitation of this research is that the interviewees may give biased answers, both with the
questionnaire and the interviews. The questions of both the questionnaire and the interviews are based on the theoretical background and written in the way Emans (2004) states is the best way to perform an interview and to acquire the best answers. By having the interviews at an informal location and dividing all the main subjects properly the interviewer has tried to minimize this. The results of both researches can be found in the appendices.
3 - Research findings
This part of the thesis deals with the empirical research that is executed under student entrepreneurs and alumni entrepreneurs. It starts with the research held under the student entrepreneurs who are asked in which market they are active, what they think of coaching and what they see as barriers for entrepreneurship. Next, the results of the interviews with the alumni entrepreneurs will be analyzed. At the end of this chapter, an overview of coaching initiatives will be described in the Northern Netherlands. This gives the reader an idea where student entrepreneurs can find support.
3.1 Student entrepreneurs
The empirical research within the student entrepreneur population is executed by means of an online questionnaire. Student entrepreneurs were contacted via Internet, on meetings and via other (student) entrepreneurs to fill in the questionnaire via a special link created by thesistools.com. By asking them first some general questions and later some more in-depth questions, the interviewees will not be surprised which should give the best answers according to the guidelines of Emans (2004). The online questionnaire used can be found in appendix 1 and the results of this questionnaire can be found in appendix 2.
The results are given in the following order. First, some general facts will be described to get an idea what kind of student entrepreneurs filled in the questionnaire. Questions regarding size, age and the sector they operate in are given. Second, facts about coaching are given, followed by barriers they experienced. Last, some facts will be given about what student entrepreneurs would like qua support. The support questions were some broad questions that indicate where there is room for improvement.
3.1.1 General facts
A total of 25 student entrepreneurs have filled in the online questionnaire. All three provinces of the Northern Netherlands are included. Some general facts of these entrepreneurs will be given first. The average age of the organizations is between two and three years. Of the 25 organizations eight started in 2006 and five in 2007. A number of extremes can be identified; the youngest organization is five months old, whereas the oldest organization is created in the spring of 2004. One respondent even stated to have an organization that was not established in any year, but this was solved after emailing this person. Of all the entrepreneurs, nine indicated that they are part-time entrepreneur and nine indicated that they are working without employees. What can be seen as deviating is that two student entrepreneurs have taken over an existing organization; this is not something one would expect from a student entrepreneur in general.
The average size of the organizations is 2.64 employees including the entrepreneur. Here, extremes can be identified again. Four organizations have 5 employees, three organizations have 4 employees and one organization has 11 employees which makes this organization twice as large as the runner ups.
did this within two years after finishing their study, which is one of the requirements of Square One B.V. to invest in an entrepreneur. Two people did not fill in any answer, why is not clear.
Asking the student entrepreneur in what kind of environment they work gives very clear results. About half, 13 out of 25, state that they work in an incubator. This result can be partially explained. The universities and academies in the Northern Netherlands try to stimulate students to start their own organization and offer them workspace in the form of incubators. The relatively low rent will also attract entrepreneurs. Eight entrepreneurs work in their own home, which makes it the second best result. Striking is that only one entrepreneur bought his own office and that only two rent their own office. The other entrepreneur stated he is looking for a suitable office that he can rent, buying is no option.
The branch in which the 25 student organizations operate is given in table 1. Noticeable is that three branches dominate this table. The results of the questionnaire indicate that IT, personal services and business consultancy are by far the most popular branches in the Northern Netherlands. An unusual organization is a wholesaler in Shisha (water pipes for smoking) which is becoming more and more popular in The Netherlands. This organization has the exclusive rights to sell Shisha in The
Netherlands.
Branch Number of organizations
IT 6 organizations
Personal services 6 organizations Business consultancy 5 organizations Automation services 2 organizations
Wholesale 1 organization
Facility services 1 organization Retail non-food 1 organization
Transport 1 organization
Other industry 2 organizations
3.1.2 Coaching student entrepreneurs
Student entrepreneurs were asked if they have used a coach or if they intent to make use of a coach, before asking them about the experiences they have. 12 out of 25 (48%) respondents answered they have made use of a coach. This is a relatively high percentage compared to results found in literature where the percentages lay between 20 and 30 percent (Robertson et al., 2003). The entrepreneurs used these coaches during the start-up phase, but remained in contact during other phases. Looking at the results concerning the quality of the coach, the coaches in the Northern Netherlands must be of high quality. Only one student entrepreneur was dissatisfied with the coach who helped him starting up the organization. The reason he gave was that they were thinking on different levels; there was connection between them. If this answer is about quality is the question, but for the respondent it was the reason to give a negative answer.
3.1.2.1 Type of coach
Asking the student entrepreneur what type of coach they use (or have used) must not be confused with the two types of coaching described in chapter 2.1.4, were the performance-based and the in-depth types of coaching were explained. In the questionnaire the respondents could fill in if they used a coach from a certain organization, from their educational institute or someone who is an entrepreneur himself. Figure 2 shows the results of this question in percentages.
Figure 2 – Coaches student entrepreneurs (N=16)
Two types of coaches definitely have the preference in the eyes of the student entrepreneur. The first one is a coach made available by the Chamber of Commerce. This organization facilitates free coaches for organizations who indicate they need support in a certain area. ‘Student entrepreneurs do not have
a lot of money, what makes this coach popular among students’, stated one of the respondents. This can be an explanation why this coach is popular among student entrepreneurs. More of this initiative by the Chamber of Commerce will be explained in chapter 3.3 about coaching initiatives.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Coach Chamber of Commerce Coach from educational institute
Professional coach An entrepreneur from their network
Other coach
Another coach that is popular among student entrepreneurs is another entrepreneur they know from their network. There experience is of great value for the student entrepreneurs and their network helps them to get in contact with other people. One of the reasons asking another entrepreneur to coach is because they act in the same entrepreneurial environment. ‘Student entrepreneurs like to listen to
someone who knows how their market works’ is stated by a student entrepreneur who only made use of an entrepreneur as coach. Remarkable is that one student entrepreneur made use of three coaches, a coach from an educational institute during his study and right after his study he made use of an entrepreneur as a coach and hired a professional coach to help him with certain issues. The results indicate that making use of a coach is common sense and that it depends on the student entrepreneur if and what type of coach he or she uses.
Another point of interest is the answer of the student entrepreneurs concerning the use of a coach a second time. Only two entrepreneurs state they will not use a coach a second time. All the other entrepreneurs would make use of a coach again and the majority is prepared to pay for a coach. This is in contrast with the results given in figure 1 where the coach of the Chamber of Commerce is free and the professional coach is ranked third. This gives an indication that entrepreneurs who have passed the start-up phase are more willing to invest in things like coaching and maybe other aspects. Two
entrepreneurs state that it depends on the situation of their organization, or are willing to pay for a coach if the first sessions are free and experienced as useful.
3.1.2.2 Ways of coaching
The four ways of coaching have been explained in detail in chapter 2.1.5. Socratic coaching,
provocative coaching, solution-focused coaching and executive coaching are the most common ways of coaching used by an entrepreneur in general. In the questionnaire the respondent had the option to fill in their preferred coach, a coach who listens to their stories (Socratic coach), a coach who provokes the client, a solution-focused coach, an accompanying coach (executive coach). The result are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 – Ways of coaching student entrepreneurs (N=25) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Socratic coach Provocative coach Solution-focused coach
Executive coach Other coach
Clearly, the student entrepreneurs do not like to be provoked given the fact none of them chose provocative coaching as the best way of coaching for them. This way of coaching is popular amongst people who think that confronting them is the best solution. The 25 student entrepreneurs state other ways of coaching suit them better. Where provocative coaching can be eliminated as a way of coaching, solution-focused coaching is the clear winner. Having brief conversations and helping the entrepreneur to keep their goals in mind is what student entrepreneurs like. Solution-focused coaching uses the input of clients, their skills, ideas and other tools, to come to a solution and that is what the entrepreneurs want to see and hear from a coach. A respondent made clear why he had not chosen for Socratic coaching but instead for solution-focused coaching. ‘My time schedule is already tight, so I
want a coach who can help me in a short amount of time instead of very long sessions’.
Executive coaching is another way of coaching the respondents favour. Having a coach that can guide them and help them streamline the organization is an important aspect for them. There is a link between the respondent that have chosen executive coaching and their workforce. All the respondents who chose this way of coaching have employees. Executive coaching is about improving the
professional performance and the personal satisfaction of the client to improve the effectiveness of the organization, but student entrepreneurs think it can help improving their leadership over their
employees. This should improve the effectiveness of the organization and remove or diminish barriers that can arise in an organization.
Three respondents have used Socratic coaching and two respondents stated another way of coaching would fit them best; unfortunately they did not give their best way of coaching. These numbers are too small to take into account.
3.1.2.3 Conclusion coaching student entrepreneurs
Coaching can be seen as an accepted way of guidance in a student organization. It is certainly not a shame to hire a coach who can help improve the aspects an entrepreneur lacks skills. During the start up the coach of the Chamber of Commerce is a good option for a student entrepreneur, because this is a free service offered by this institute. What will be seen more often is guidance during the study, made possible by educational institutes. Another important coach for student entrepreneurs is the entrepreneur they know from their network. These coaches know what is going on in the market and that is something student entrepreneurs favour.
Looking at the ways of coaching they prefer, two clearly distinguish themselves from the rest.
3.1.3 Barriers student entrepreneurs
Before asking the student entrepreneurs what they think are difficult aspects, they were asked how satisfied they are with their organization and on what aspects they can or need to improve. This is done to see if there is a link between what entrepreneurs find difficult and see as barriers for
entrepreneurship. Only one entrepreneur stated to be unsatisfied with the current situation against 17 (very) satisfied entrepreneurs, the rest was both satisfied and unsatisfied on different matters. On what aspects they can or should improve the student entrepreneurs could fill in multiple answers which they all did. One entrepreneur filled in all the aspects given in the survey and stated: ‘if an entrepreneur
does not improve himself, he will fall behind’. The results are given in figure 4 in percentages. All the aspects like the financial aspect, image and development of product or service are all mentioned often. The organizational aspect is the aspect that needs to improve in most student organizations, which is striking because this is something the entrepreneur can do himself.
Figure 4 – Aspects for improvement student entrepreneurs (N=50)
The barriers student entrepreneurs face during their starting and growth phase show some interesting results. These must be seen as indications and not as facts. In the questionnaire the student
entrepreneurs could fill in numerous answers to give a proper indication what they think are barriers. These barriers have been put in broader categories, like administrative difficulties and lack of
resources that are mentioned in chapter 2.2.1, when possible. The figure containing all the barriers can be found in appendix 2. In figure 5, the broader categories are mentioned in percentages.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 5 – Barriers student entrepreneurs (N=68)
Interesting is the fact the lack of idea is not seen as a barrier by student entrepreneurs, none of the 25 entrepreneurs has marked this as a barrier, whereas the literature often stated this as a prime barrier for entrepreneurs. This indicates that all entrepreneurs had a clear idea what kind of organization to start. This is also the case regarding fear of failure; none of the entrepreneurs state that fear of failure is a barrier to start their organization. A reason given by an entrepreneur is that during the period of being a student, the costs of maintaining yourself are relatively low which reduces the risks and the financial aspect when one should go bankrupt.
Another extreme is that lack of resources is the major barrier, of the 68 given barriers by entrepreneurs 32 can be placed in this barrier. This makes it by far the highest barrier for student entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands. Eleven of the given barriers have to do with administrative difficulties where nine of them have to do with taxes. Handling all the barriers individually, tax regulation is the number one barrier which indicates that there is much room for improvement on this aspect. As mentioned in chapter 2.2.1.1, the government wants to reduce the amount of paperwork with 25 percent which is needed according to the entrepreneurs that filled in the questionnaire. Other barriers that are given are automation (four times), convincing clients / network (three times) and uncontrollable developments from outside their environment (three times), the rest is too small to mention as a barrier for student entrepreneurs and must be seen as individual barriers.
There cannot be found a clear link between the result in figure 4 (the aspects that need improvement) and figure 5 (the barriers of student entrepreneurs). Student entrepreneurs do not indicate barriers as aspects they need to improve in. The barriers cannot be minimized by them, but by larger bodies like the government or other services linked to the government.
3.1.3.1 Reason barriers
The next interesting question is the reason why entrepreneurs see these aspects as a barrier. Five reasons were given by them, namely the lack of experience, knowledge, finance and coaching and not having a network are in line with the barriers except for experience. The explanation given by one of
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
the entrepreneurs is that some clients are not taking them seriously because of their age, and in
combination with their age, their experience. Knowledge, financial assets and not having a network are also reasons that can be related to the age of the entrepreneur and can be solved over time. Lack of coaching is something an entrepreneur can solve by hiring a coach, by getting support of a coaching initiative or by asking someone they know who can help them.
3.1.3.2 Conclusion barriers student entrepreneurs
Looking at the results given in the literature and the results from the questionnaire, some major differences can be seen. Again, the number of student entrepreneurs that filled in the questionnaire is too small to give conclusions, but indications can be given on the aspects handled in the research.
Lack of resources
Lack of resources is the major barrier for student entrepreneurs and this is also the case in a lot of researches done by theorists who looked at the entrepreneur in general. These resources consist of employee shortages, lack of finance, lack of time, etc. None of them are easy to solve and may require rigorous changes by the entrepreneur and the organization. A possible solution may be hiring a coach or find cooperation with a business angel or venture capitalist. These parties can help the entrepreneur with advice, can streamline the organization and can assist on the financial aspect.
Administrative difficulty
Paperwork regarding taxes is one of the major barriers for student entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs have to fill in all kinds of forms and often do not know which forms. The tax collection agency is their major concern. The number of forms is large what makes it unclear which form to fill in and also the form itself is difficult in their eyes. Reducing the number of forms would benefit most of the
entrepreneurs who do not want to hire someone to fill in their private information. Also the finance issue is one of the reasons not to hire an accountant. Only two entrepreneurs had problems regarding licenses handed out by the government so this may not be seen as a barrier.
Fear of failure and lack of ideas
Fear of failure and lack of ideas are barriers that are often mentioned in the literature, but are never indicated by student entrepreneurs. Explanations are having little capital and no property that can be confiscated when going bankrupt. This makes it easier for a student to start up an organization and reduces the fear of failure. Another explanation could be that becoming an entrepreneur is much more accepted nowadays. A lot of initiatives stimulate entrepreneurship and more and more educational institutions offer studies or guidance in entrepreneurship. Even special trajectories are created so students can combine their study with their organization, something that was impossible not a decade ago.
Other barriers
3.2 Alumni entrepreneurs
The research concerning alumni entrepreneurs is done by interviewing these persons face to face. During the period working for Square One B.V., the author came in contact with a lot of
entrepreneurs. Of these entrepreneurs a few graduated in the past five years, which is the limitation for this research. By asking them during meetings and via mail, four suitable alumni entrepreneurs were chosen who all work in different areas. This minimizes the same way of thinking and therefore getting the same answers. The interview with the alumni entrepreneur will begin by asking them about their background (study, year of starting their organization). After this question, the criteria student
entrepreneurs must meet will be asked as well as the willingness of alumni entrepreneurs to help them. Last, their vision regarding a coach-pool is asked. During these main questions other questions will arise which gives the interviews the depth they need to have. The interviews are written down with the main answers of the alumni entrepreneurs in appendix 3.
3.2.1 Background alumni entrepreneurs
The author has chosen for four alumni entrepreneurs who work in different markets to get proper indications regarding their view about the coach-pool and student entrepreneurs. The four markets in which they operate are legal advice (Aecius), marketing (Studio Pak), business services (YEAH! Incubator) and privacy advice (IT’s Privacy). Two alumni entrepreneurs, Aecius and IT’s Privacy, have done the same study, but their organizations cannot be seen as competitors. They work and help each other when necessary and during the interviews it became clear that alumni entrepreneurs often help each other with certain issues. The reason they became an entrepreneurs is for all four different. One stated it saw the opportunity after working for a large organization (IT’s Privacy, whereas another stated it was dragged into the world of entrepreneurship by some friends (YEAH! Incubator).
The alumni entrepreneurs all work in Groningen and also graduated at an educational institution in Groningen. This will not bias the research because of their different working areas. Their results will give an indication of what alumni entrepreneurs in the Northern Netherlands think about certain aspects regarding student entrepreneurs. They all gave their opinion and some differences will be highlighted in the next paragraphs. In one thing they are all the same, during the interviews their enthusiasm and energy was noticeable. They were willing to be interviewed and all asked if they could get the results of this thesis.
3.2.2 Criteria student entrepreneurs
Asking the alumni entrepreneurs about the criteria a student entrepreneur must meet, gave very clear answers. Remarkable was that none of the alumni entrepreneurs began by saying that the student entrepreneur must have a business plan or must be active in the same market. They all started with some personal aspects the student entrepreneurs must meet. ‘A student entrepreneur must have passion
