ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

Literature review of problems associated with entrepreneurship education and training programmes.

Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes:

A Review and Evaluation Part 1
Thomas N. Garavan and Barra OCinneide

There is now a wide acceptance within the European Union (EU) that future prosperity hinges on the creation of vibrant indigenous businesses that are deeply rooted in the local economy. For this to occur, there is a need to expand the pool of local entrepreneurial talent to develop and manage new business ventures. For the aspiration to become a reality, effective support structures are required to harness local initiatives and nurture new enterprises that are capable of creating sustainable employment. In the past, emphasis was (and continues to be) primarily placed on the corporate entity with the area of small business being largely ignored. There is much discussion about the possibility of developing entrepreneurs. Some biographies of successful entrepreneurs often read as if such people entered the world with an extraordinary genetic endowment. But there are almost as many counter stories of those who hit on the entrepreneurial jackpot without the benefits of genetics. It is clear that these traits and genetics do not fall into any sensible pattern for start-up successes. Banfe[1] suggests that there is a serendipity of unpredictable events that does not have much to do with family heritage. Successful new ventures are as much the result of a driving entrepreneur with an abundance of luck and timing. The literature suggests that, on balance, it is desirable to come from two learned, successful entrepreneurial parents; it is also beneficial to gain work experience and get adequate education. This scenario will substantially enhance the probability of success. So, many factors are unrelated to genetics and support the counter paradigm that entrepreneurs are often made, not born. The debate on whether entrepreneurs can be taught still rears its head from time to time. Not everyone has what it takes to be an entrepreneur but, then, our society does not need everyone to be an entrepreneur. While many of the aspects of entrepreneurship can be taught, it also requires a certain flair or attitude towards taking risks. There is, and always will be, a role for the gut feeling in entrepreneurship, and indeed that is what may mark out a successful entrepreneur from the unsuccessful one. That said, however, there is clearly a major role and need for entrepreneurship education and training. The responsibility for teaching entrepreneurship does not rest entirely with the educational world. Indeed, at public level there is a need for the creation of an atmosphere that will encourage entrepreneurship and recognize the reasons for entrepreneurial failures without immediately penalizing such failures. Failures themselves can be an essential part of a learning process[2]. This article aims to address some of the issues surrounding entrepreneurship education and training in Europe while at the same time reporting on specific

Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 18 No. 8, 1994, pp. 3-12 MCB University Press Limited, 0309-0590

Introduction
Entrepreneurship is in vogue. A wide range of factors have contributed to the revival of interest in entrepreneurship and small business in both Europe and the USA in the 1990s. In recent years, many industrialized countries have suffered from economic recession, high unemployment rates and fluctuation in international trade cycles to a degree not experienced since World War II. This situation has tended to increase the attention paid by policy makers and political decision makers to the potential role of entrepreneurs as a possible solution to rising unemployment rates and as a recipe for economic prosperity. Particular interest is being focused on the role of small business, both because of its ability to adapt to a changing environment and because its structure allows it to adjust itself to technical change at a rate fast enough for survival. Many countries have now recognized this and are preparing new policy measures to support small firms and entrepreneurship. Specific efforts are also being directed at promoting innovative activities and to improving innovative capabilities.

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,8

initiatives in five European countries. This article is divided into two parts. Part 1 considers some of the issues and difficulties highlighted in the literature on entrepreneurship education and training. Part 2 presents a comparative analysis of the design features of six entrepreneurship and training programmes conducted within the European Union. The outcomes of these programmes, in terms of projects, new ventures and employment potential are considered.

Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: Key Issues

Entrepreneurship Enterprise and Small Business Some Definitions The literature and practice illustrate much confusion between the terms entrepreneurship, enterprise and small business. Gibb[3] points out, for example, that the term entrepreneurship education is commonly used in Canada and the US but is much less commonly used in Europe. The preferred term in the UK and Irish context is enterprise rather than entrepreneurship education and it is primarily focused on the development of personal attributes. The term enterprise does not necessarily embrace the small business project idea or the entrepreneur. However, Gibb[4] suggests it is substantially linked with the developing notion of an enterprise culture. For the purposes of this article a clear distinction will be made between enterprise education and small business and entrepreneurship education and training. The major objectives of enterprise education are to develop enterprising people and inculcate an attitude of self-reliance using appropriate learning processes. Entrepreneurship education and training programmes are aimed directly at stimulating entrepreneurship which may be defined as independent small business ownership or the development of opportunity-seeking managers within companies[5]. Sexton and Bowman[6] suggest that a clear distinction can also be made between entrepreneurship and small business. Small businesses can vary widely from simple forms of self-employment, such as digging gardens, erecting fences, running a post office or corner shop, to the management of a high technology company on a scale which, relative to others in a particular sector, is small. It must not be forgotten that while all entrepreneurs are self-employed, not all self-employed persons are entrepreneurs. The move from self-employment to entrepreneurship as a career is conceptually and pragmatically different. Carland et al . (quoted in[6]) provide a useful conceptual distinction between entrepreneurs and small business owners; entrepreneurs are characterized by innovative behaviour and employ strategic management practices, the main goals being

profit and growth. Small business owners are people whose businesses consume most of their time and resources and provide most of their income. Unlike the entrepreneur, the small business owner is seldom engaged in innovative practices. Similarly, when it comes to education and training, the terms entrepreneurial education or training for entrepreneurship are widely used phrases, often intended to take on a generic meaning[7]. However, many small business education activities have little to do with promoting entrepreneurship in any strict sense. Bannock[8] concurs with this distinction and suggests that it is the marriage of ownership and control, and therefore exposure to complete responsibility and associated risk, that is the important ingredient of entrepreneurship. It is clear from the above discussion that many selfemployed scarcely match the populist entrepreneur image outlined earlier. While some people may innately demonstrate more entrepreneurial attributes than others, Gibb[4] argues that experience and circumstances can make very different demands on these attributes and can facilitate, or otherwise, their development. It is reasonable to assume that entrepreneurial attributes are likely to be stimulated by the nature of the task structure and other work circumstances in the owner-managed business, and developed by experience. The strength of the stimulus will be a function of the nature of the business and the environment in which it is operating. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the entrepreneurial minimum attribute threshold required to enter into, and survive in, business will vary in nature and extent, contingent on the type of business[4]. In particular, it will be contingent on a number of factors relating to the simplicity or complexity of the production and marketing environment in which the firm operates, and the degree of certainty or uncertainty it faces in the environment. Research on Entrepreneurship Education and Training Research on entrepreneurship education and training is sparse, with the development of the literature in the area only in the past two decades. While the field is expanding, most of the research has tended to be fragmented and with an exploratory, descriptive orientation. Sexton and Kasarda[9], commenting on this, suggest that most of the research questions tend to be germane to a particular programme and focus on the more immediate measures of effectiveness, i.e. participant interest and affect, participant knowledge acquisition, satisfaction with a particular instructor, programme content, etc. Others, such as Sexton and Bowman[6]; Hills[10]; McMullan and Long[11] and Vesper[12], have found that there is a lack of accepted paradigms or theories of entrepreneurship education and training. The lack of a clear consensus on the definition of an entrepreneur contributes to the confusion; it is therefore understandable that the content of entrepreneurship education and training programmes

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

varies according to the trainers personal preferences as to definition and scope. Some programmes stress practical application at the expense of conceptual development, while still others tend to emphasize planning issues. Other common problems, as cited by Sexton and Bowman[6], include the use of faculty members and trainers who are neither schooled, nor interested in entrepreneurship per se . Entrepreneurship, as an academic discipline, lacks an appropriate forum a number of articles presenting the results of entrepreneurial research frequently appear in journals but research related to curriculum development, programme content and problems associated with programme development, have, for the most part, gone unnoticed. Longitudinal research designs, using control groups to compare participants with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational experience, are needed to examine the lasting effects of entrepreneurship education and training interventions. Objectives of Entrepreneurial Education and Training That the entrepreneurial role can seemingly be culturally and experientially acquired[8] indirectly gives support to the view that it might also be influenced by education and training interventions. When education is linked with desirable behavioural outcomes, then this is where some very close parallels can be drawn between it and entrepreneurship. Ryle[13], for example, makes a widely accepted point concerning the importance of education in terms of results and behaviour, in particular in terms of reinforcing innovation, creativity, flexibility, capacity to respond to widely different situations, autonomy, selfdirection and self-expression. More recent commentators such as Raven[14] also support this view. Sexton and Kasarda[9] advance the notion that the two goals of most business education programmes are to prepare people for career success and to increase their capacity for future learning. Equally important is the learners personal fulfilment and contribution to society. The ultimate measure of entrepreneurship education and training is how well it fosters all these aspirations and leads to start-ups. While virtually every career in business involves some combination of knowledge, technique, and people skills, few involve the integration and combination of all functional knowledge and skills to the extent that entrepreneurial activities does. In entrepreneurship, however, commentators argue that, while there is a good deal of fundamental business knowledge required which can be taught in a classroom, there is not yet a guiding theory to assist the would-be entrepreneur in dealing with the uncertainties which surround any new business venture. And even if there were, the real test is performance under actual conditions, with all the realworld pressures over a period of several years.

Three major features of innovators and entrepreneurs are their knowledge, skills and attitudes. In most formal education situations, the first is treated thoroughly and in an analytical manner; the second receives sketchy attention and is harder to impart within formal educational systems; the third is hardly addressed at all. Yet this later topic of attitudes, the psycho-social forces of the individual and the cultural context, is of prime importance in influencing innovative and entrepreneurial behaviour patterns. If entrepreneurship education and training is to be effective, the contention is that it must be so not only through factual knowledge and the limited skills acquirable in the classroom, but also through the stimulation of new ventures, the success of those ventures and the increasing capacity of the entrepreneur to pursue even greater success. The following are the most commonly cited objectives of entrepreneurship education and training programmes: G to acquire knowledge germane to entrepreneurship; G to acquire skills in the use of techniques, in the analysis of business situations, and in the synthesis of action plans; G to identify and stimulate entrepreneurial drive, talent and skills; G to undo the risk-adverse bias of many analytical techniques; G to develop empathy and support for all unique aspects of entrepreneurship; G to devise attitudes towards change; G to encourage new start-ups and other entrepreneurial ventures. Such a multiplicity of objectives poses significant design problems which we will now consider.

Difficulties and Deficiencies with Entrepreneurial Education and Training

The history of entrepreneurship in Anglo-Saxon societies is replete with examples of the relatively poorly educated but successful entrepreneur. Sociological treatments of entrepreneurial activities, beginning with Webers work[15,16], continually stress the marginal position of groups and communities with high levels of entrepreneurial activity. Outsiders of whatever kind are hard to reach through conventional educational and training institutions. In the USA, where education for entrepreneurship has become highly developed in recent years, research by Vesper[12] illustrates that whatever merits such programmes might have, and these may be considerable, the promotion of entrepreneurship has probably not

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,8

been one. Even where programmes put great emphasis on participants producing new ideas for business ventures, the results are generally disappointing. Curran and Stanworth[7] develop this theme further and argue that many established programmes can point to participants who have subsequently generated highly successful and genuinely entrepreneurial businesses, but a hard-headed assessment might question the resource effectiveness of producing a few successes for the large throughput of participants usually involved. Additionally, they argue that the apparent rarity of the psychological and behavioural attributes which constitute entrepreneurship, the problems in establishing exactly what these attributes are (particularly at the psychological level) so that promotional strategies can be devised, plus the evidence that entrepreneurs may be apathetic towards education and training in most forms, all tell against entrepreneurial education and training interventions being resource effective. One also has to ask what can be taught that is specific to entrepreneurship per se ? There is no body of well researched and developed knowledge which might form the basis of such programmes, a fact which has been consistently emphasized in the literature[4,9]. If entrepreneurship is seen as a highly creative economic process, there may even be doubts that conventional forms of small business education are helpful or supportive. Management techniques tend towards order, rationality, predictability, tried and tested methods and the general depersonalization of economic endeavour. This emphasis appears difficult to integrate into the more charismatic approach of genuine entrepreneurs without damaging their special potential. Entrepreneurship education and training programmes are frequently of very short duration compared to other educational programmes concerned with helping people embark on a major career. Some researchers, such as Gibb[17], Sym and Lewis[18] and Curran and Stanworth[7], have found that most small business entrepreneurship programmes last as little as a few days, though a few extend over longer periods. On the face of it, the length of such programmes currently on offer seems absurd when set against the knowledge and complexities of the multifunctional task of successfully operating a small business which often involves considerable capital investment and responsibility for meeting the needs of customers and employees. While there is evidence that many of those on small business entrepreneurship education and training programmes are already highly committed to the ownermanager role and that trainers are successful in raising commitment even higher, as well as reducing doubts, there is parallel evidence to suggest that this mental preparation does not go nearly far enough and that, indeed, it represents one of the major weaknesses of

many entrepreneurial education and training programmes. Curran and Stanworth[7] suggest that the vital element of any career education programme is what they describe as the affective socialization element. This is the inculcation of attitudes, values, psychological mind sets and strategies necessary for the subsequent taking on of the occupational role in question. Most educational programmes include a significant element of this kind of socialization the skilled manual worker is instilled with the values of craftsmanship, the accountant with high standards of financial probity and responsibility, the medical graduate acquires the psychological distancing that makes it possible to cope with human pain and death and to carry on delivering a high technical standard of medical care. They argue that the occupational socialization process of the would-be owner-manager should be a reflection of the exceptional demands the role makes on its occupants. It is, in the first instance, a highly isolated and only semi-structured role; ownermanagers typically work alone or with few partners and it is a role with an inherently high level of uncertainty. The owner-manager is a risk taker, a decision maker with few others to refer to and whose relations with others employees, customers, suppliers, etc. are often tension ridden[19]. It is also a role from which it is difficult to disengage. Unlike occupations with set hours and a sharp separation of work and non-work life, the owner-manager role can take over the whole of the holders waking hours, particularly in the early years of operation. Yet there is little indication that those who embark on small business ownership are properly prepared for the severe psychological exigencies of their future role. The perceived deficiencies of much of the available small business education, according to Curran and Stanworth[7], might be countered to some extent if follow-up programmes were widely available to help those already in business. There is widespread agreement that venture start-ups are characterized by a lack of predictability in the initial phases the opportunities are many but the goals are not well defined. There is also a well developed hypothesis which suggests that management skills are built up on a gradual basis, largely as a result of trial and error, and for those who make a success of the venture on the first attempt, there is a large element of luck involved. In a start-up situation, problems encountered tend not to be one-dimensional but highly integrated, incapable of being solved by a single expert. Many entrepreneurs are specialists within a particular field and tend to have a poor grasp of the intricacies of managing across the range of functions. It is in these situations that entrepreneurial skills are demanded, to work across boundaries on complex, interrelated problems requiring the ability to take a holistic view and exercise skills of analysis and synthesis.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

A Multiplicity of Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes

The recent literature highlights the existence of four main types of education and training programmes for entrepreneurs: Education and Training for Small Business Ownership As many new start-ups involve either replicating or acquiring an existing enterprise, small business education provides practical help in making the change from ordinary employment to self-employment. The help that start-ups need appears easy for business educators to provide instruction on how to raise finance, legal regulations, choosing premises, taxation, simple accounting, employing people, marketing problems, etc. Devising programmes and accompanying teaching strategies should present few problems those who come on to a programme of this kind are, after all, usually highly enthusiastic and receptive. The research by Gibb[17] highlights a number of problems which have emerged from the evaluation of such programmes. Three key problems are cited: G the differing perceptions of teachers and potential small business owners on what start-up programmes should ideally contain; G indications of deficiencies in many current start-up programmes; G the length of such programmes. Gill suggests that trainers often try to accommodate too wide a range of start-up businesses within a single programme. It is usual to group together people who are starting a diverse range of small businesses and to offer them a more or less common skills programme, plus some personalized tuition in preparing their individual business plans. These findings are also reflected by Sym and Lewis[18] who suggest that many of those taking these classes find them too general. More specifically, there are indications that trainers and small business owners disagree about the emphasis on particular aspects of running a business. For example, a US study of small business owners who had experienced various kinds of entrepreneurship training programmes placed budgeting and cash flow management, followed by people management, at the top of their priority list[20]. However, a parallel sample of small business programme directors, while agreeing on the importance of budgeting and cash flow management, ranked managing people seventh, slightly ahead of production and stock control which the small business owners ranked twelfth. Carswell[21] also found from a study of different industry sectors that, in the clothing and textile industry, ownermanagers felt that the areas of greatest management skill deficiency were in production. In the engineering sector, on the other hand, sales and marketing were seen as the management skills most in need of enhancement. An

assumption can therefore be made that a wider range of economic activities would reveal other patterns of perceived training needs among owner-managers. Some, such as Curran and Stanworth[7], agree that the essential aspects of many entrepreneurial education and training programmes content, teaching strategy and evaluation of their effectiveness remain largely unresearched. The one exception to this statement might be some start your own business programmes for the unemployed which are designed to help those with little work experience or skills, and with little or no capital. Such trainees are unlikely to have ready access to conventional sources of finance and may have low levels of self-confidence because of lack of previous success in the job market. Because such programmes are taught by trainers who use a down to earth approach and play down the academic aspect, many writers such as Kiesner[20], Clark et al.[22], Sym and Lewis[18] and Johnson[23] agree that this approach is frequently more successful because participants demand very practical and specific programmes. Entrepreneurial Education In terms of small business start-ups, entrepreneurship education, in the sense of focusing on the creation of new economic entities centred on a novel product/service, is very rare. While many social scientists have attempted to identify the conditions favourable to its occurrence, the connections remain largely unmade[15, 24-27]. The one notable exception to this argument might be modern technological entities where the creation of small new enterprise is based largely upon scientific know-how in areas such as electronics. Therefore, because entrepreneurship is a highly creative economic process, there may even be doubts that conventional forms of education are always helpful or supportive. If there is something about an entrepreneur which differentiates him/her from the rest of the population, and, if management techniques stress order, predictability, rationality, etc. then these emphases appear difficult to integrate into the more charismatic approach of genuine entrepreneurs without damaging their special potential. Continuing Small Business Education This is a specialist version of adult continuing education designed to enable people to enhance and update their skills. This form of training is available through many business schools in the form of one-day training modules. It is problematic from a number of perspectives. It is more difficult to organize than the conventional start-up programme which has the politically attractive possibility of adding to the new venture start-up population. Second, research suggests that marketing continuing small business education is an uphill struggle,

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,8

as many small business owners are very demanding and easily disappointed with what they regard as a programme too generalized for their needs. Small Business Awareness Education This form of education is aimed at increasing the number of people who are sufficiently knowledgeable about small business as an economic activity to consider it as a career alternative. This is the type of programme which is suitable for inclusion in secondary school syllabuses and undergraduate programmes. Such education has the objective of increasing awareness of industry and making participants more sensitive to the small firm. Vesper[12], reporting on the American situation, concludes that, despite the use of the term entrepreneur, most of the courses are actually aimed at increasing student awareness of the small firm and providing basic information on setting up and running a business. Others, such as Sym and Lewis[18], would also argue that many of the large number of introductory business ideas and brief start your own business programmes currently on offer are also awareness education. Many of the programmes rarely provide much more than a widening of the participants appreciation of both the opportunities and problems associated with starting a business. Serious training often only begins if the participant proceeds to some further and usually rather longer programme. Inappropriate Pedagogical Models in Entrepreneurial Education/Training The portfolio of skills of many entrepreneurs is relatively narrow. It is unusual to find breadth and depth of knowledge at the same time many tend to be specialists not general managers. It is probable that the typical entrepreneur would have in-depth knowledge in the production area whether product development, organization, design, or other, but this leaves a clear gap and need for consulting expertise in other aspects, i.e. finance and sales. The core skill which an entrepreneur requires is not necessarily a competence in production. The competence required is closely related to the ability to plan and to organize. The real entrepreneur is a person who can organize others and tap into the knowledge and expertise required on all aspects of establishment and start-up. Traditionally, management and entrepreneurship were treated as two very distinct disciplines. Whereas teaching and training within the management area has been changing and using more subtle methods like action learning and project management, it appears that entrepreneurship teaching has not undergone significant change. The paradigm behind the education and training of entrepreneurs is still basically of a technical nature, i.e. give a quick fix programme in those disciplines which the

participants are not familiar with from their work experience, i.e. accountancy, budgeting, marketing, law and personnel. Obviously these aspects are very important if totally unknown, but the education and training accomplishes little more than giving a basic insight in single disciplines to enable the entrepreneur to talk to experts in each field. The approach to teaching entrepreneurship skills takes no account of the reality that entrepreneurship has to do with the management of loosely coupled systems[27]. Gibb[4] suggests that the education system is emphasizing a set of values and abilities which is inimical to an entrepreneurial spirit. Davies and Gibb[29] go further and suggest that using traditional education methods to develop entrepreneurs could be interpreted as teaching to drive using the rear mirror. Some contrasts between a university/business school learning focus and that required in an entrepreneurial situation are presented in Table I. Table I illustrates the differences between the two approaches. The emphasis in many business schools is on understanding, feedback, critical judgement, analysis of large amounts of information, making assumptions about behaviour in order to develop models, and seeking correct answers, largely in the classroom setting with information from authoritative sources and with evaluation by written assessments. In contrast, the entrepreneur with limited resources is operating with gut feeling, trying to understand the filters through which information passes, recognizing the hidden agendas in terms of other peoples goals and, because of this, is making decisions on the basis of judgement of the trust and competence of those involved. Only some of his/her information is from authoritative sources. The rest is gleaned personally from any and everywhere, and success (evaluation) is by the judgement of others personally and/or by the marketplace. Moreover, the pressure is always there to find appropriate solutions quickly, and often under severe constraints, in contrast to the continued situation in solving of the business school programme. Moving from the left to right of Table I, that is moving from business school learning towards a more entrepreneurial focus, would involve changes in the way learning takes place, together with a greater concern about its utilization in practice, rather than in the context of learning itself. For example, in the business school, there is often a high degree of control in the classroom and dependence on authority and expert validation. In contrast, particularly in an entrepreneurial position, the individual must develop a new learning style in which deeper aspects of self, emotions and values are actively influencing the learning process. Thus, in the education system, Gibb[4] suggests that it should be possible, without abandoning some of the basic values, to move

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

Table I. University/Business School versus Entrepreneurial Education/Training Focus

University/business school learning focus Critical judgement after analysis of large amounts of information Understanding and recalling the information itself Assuming goals away Seeking (impersonally) to verify absolute truth by study of information Understanding basic principles of society in the metaphysical sense Seeking the correct answer with time to do it Learning in the classroom Gleaning information from experts and authoritative sources Evaluation through written assessment Success in learning measured by knowledge-based examination pass Source: Gibb[3] Entrepreneurial education/training learning focus Gut feel decision making with limited information Understanding the values of those who transmit and filter information Recognize the widely varied goals of others Making decisions on the basis of judgement of trust and competence of people Seeking to apply and adjust in practice to basic principles of society Developing the most appropriate solution under pressure Learning while and through doing Gleaning information personally from any and everywhere, and weighing it Evaluation by judgement of people and events through direct feedback Success in learning by solving problems and learning from failure

more flexibly towards encouraging students to cope in new ways with the real world by, for example: G learning by doing; G encouraging participants to find and explore wider concepts relating to a problem from a multidisciplinary viewpoint; G helping participants to develop more independence from external sources of information and expert advice, and to think for themselves thus giving ownership of learning; G encouraging use of feelings, attitudes and values outside of information; this, in general, will place greater emphasis on experience-based learning; G providing greater opportunity for building up of networks and contracts in the outside world linked with their learning focus; G helping participants to develop emotional responses when dealing with conflict situations, and encouraging them to make choices and commitments to actions in conditions of stress and uncertainty. Thus, the major challenge of entrepreneurship in relation to education and training is the appropriateness of

curricula and training programmes for preparation for learning in the outside world. Gibb suggests that the inadequacy of many of the existing approaches has already been challenged by providers of training in the management arena. Learning Styles Issues and Entrepreneurial Education and Training To be effective, the entrepreneur, like any other learner, needs to employ different learning styles concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation[28]. For example, a deficiency in concrete experience may lead to an inability to formulate plans, and a deficiency in active experimentation may lead to an inability to implement the plans. Given the personality characteristics of the entrepreneur within the framework of Kolb et al.s[29] learning style model, what can be inferred about the learning style preference of an entrepreneur? Table II presents a grid of learning styles and pedagogical techniques. On the active experimentation/reflective observation dimension, our understanding of entrepreneurial behaviour indicates a primary preference for action.

10

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,8

Table II. Conceptual Grid of Learning Styles and Pedagogical Techniques

Concrete experience III Active-applied Changes in skills and attitudes Role plays Management simulation Processing discussion T-groups/encounter groups Learning diaries Field projects Management of learning groups Counselling Active experimentation IV Active-theoretical Changes in understanding Focused learning groups Argumentative discussions Experiments/research Suggested readings Analysis papers Workshops Monitoring Coaching II Reflective-applied Changes in application Motives Applied lecture Limited discussion Cases Role plays Problem-oriented exams Programmed instruction with emphasis on skills Reflective observation I Reflective-theoretical Change in knowledge Theory lectures Required readings Handouts Programmed instruction with emphasis on concepts Theory papers Content-oriented exams

Abstract conceptualization Source: adapted from Randolph and Posner[30]

Opportunities and innovative ideas must be followed through to activate entrepreneurship. Thus, an entrepreneur would be expected to favour active experimentation rather than reflective observation. It should be noted, however, that action in the absence of reflection precludes learning[29]. On the abstract conceptualization/concrete experience dimension, the preference of the entrepreneur is not so distinct. In fact, the conflict between concrete experience and abstract conceptualization leads to what Kolb et al.[29] refer to as creative tension. To be creative, one must be free of the constraining focus of abstract concepts in order to experience anew. Schrage[31] found that an accurate awareness of the environment was more important than either achievement or power motivation in distinguishing the successful entrepreneur from others. McMullan[32] describes the creative process as a synthesis of the concrete process of problem solving and the abstract process of insight. A creative person is able to co-ordinate each of the two models of learning. Thus, both abilities are important for entrepreneurs, with the balance between them dependent on whether problem finding or problem solving is more important for innovation. The entrepreneur as presented in Table II is someone who prefers one of the active learning styles, whether that of

the accommodator or converger. The findings of a number of researchers, including those of Borland[33], Brockhaus[34], Rapsey[35], and Sexton and Bowman[6], indicate that individuals who express entrepreneurial intentions exhibit psychological traits which differ from those of other individuals and are characteristic of entrepreneurs. Therefore, such individuals would be expected to have similar learning style preferences. The pedagogical methods which are best suited to an entrepreneurial learning style are those presented in quadrants III and IV of the learning grid. In practice, however, in the typical educational and training situation, the future entrepreneur is most likely to encounter the reflective style depicted in quadrant I[36]. This traditional teaching approach focuses on developing a participants mastery of various abstract concepts which can be integrated into a framework for a given business discipline[37]. Performance is evaluated by testing the participants ability to recall various abstract concepts. The rational approach performs its intended purpose well, i.e. the acquisition of knowledge on the part of the participant. Participant participation, however, is solely reflective. The traditional approach does not reach for the more complex outcomes associated with

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMMES

11

experiential learning, i.e. application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation[36]. The entrepreneurial-directed alternative to the traditional teaching approach is one which requires the instructor to become a learning process facilitator. Such an approach entails extensive use of learning exercises such as role playing, management simulations, structured exercises or focused learning feedback situations in which the participant must take an active role. The traditional listen and take notes role of the participant is minimized. After participating in the learning exercises, participants reflect on their experience and develop generalizations through small discussion groups. The discussion groups develop hypotheses, based on their learning experiences, which are further tested with additional learning exercises. In this way, all four learning abilities are eventually used and developed, much as they would be in the typical entrepreneurial situation. Trainers may hesitate to experiment with such an entrepreneurial-directed approach for the following reasons: G This approach takes more of the trainers time in the initial stages, dealing with performance evaluation expectations. Continual feedback to the participant is an integral part of the learning/education process, through all four stages of learning. The trainers challenge is in establishing the validity of the performance evaluation process which may be perceived to be subjective. G Significant institutional resources are needed for both the trainer and participant, across a wide range of disciplines, to undertake an entrepreneurial-directed approach since it may require smaller class size and/or place greater demands on the physical facilities than the more traditional approach. However, research by Sexton and Upton[38] suggests that many of these problems can be surmounted. Clearly, just as Kolbs model does not favour one learning style over others, neither is there one best pedagogical approach for all programmes. Randolph and Posners[30] contingency decision-tree approach is useful for evaluating which of the four pedagogical techniques is best under a given set of circumstances.
References 1. Banfe, C., Entrepreneur From Zero to Hero , Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991. 2. Murray, T.A. and White, A., Education for Enterprise An Irish Perspective , National Council for Education Awards and the Industrial Development Authority of Ireland, Dublin, 1986.

3. Gibb, A.A., The Enterprise Culture and Education. Understanding Enterprise Education and its Links with Small Business Entrepreneurships and Wider Educational Goals, International Small Business Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, 1993. 4. Gibb, A.A., Enterprise Culture Its Meaning and Implications for Education and Training, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 2, 1987. 5. Colton, T., Enterprise Education Experience. A Manual for School Based Inservice Training, CA SDEC, 1990. 6. Sexton, D.L. and Bowman, N.B., Entrepreneurship Education Suggestions for Increasing Effectiveness, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, April 1984. 7. Curran, J. and Stanworth, J., Education and Training for Enterprise: Some Problems of Classification, Evaluation, Policy and Research, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, January/March 1989. 8. Bannock, G., The Economics of Small Firms: Return from the Wilderness, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1981. 9. Sexton, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D., The State of the Art of Entrepreneurships , P.W. Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA, 1991. 10. Hills, G.E., Variations in University Entrepreneurship Education: An Empirical Study of an Evolving Field, Journal of Business Venturing, No. 3, 1988, pp. 109-22. 11. McMullan, W.E. and Long, W.A., An Approach to Educating Entrepreneurs, The Canadian Journal of Business, Vol. 4 No. 1, 1983, pp. 32-6. 12. Vesper, K.H., Research on Education for Entrepreneurship in Kent, C.A. et al. (Eds), Encyclopaedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982. 13. Ryle, G., The Concept of the Mind, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1963. 14. Raven, J., Competence in Modern Society, H.K. Lewis Publishing, London, 1983. 15. Weber, M., The Protestant Work Ethic and the Sport of Capitalism, Allen & Unwin, London, 1965. 16. Weber, M., Economy and Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1978. 17. Gibb, J., Factors Affecting the Survival and Growth of the Smaller Company, Gower, Aldershot, 1985. 18. Sym, L.A. and Lewis, J.W., Educational Needs of Small Business Start-ups: An Investigation of Short Course Revision, paper presented to the 10th National Small Business Policy and Research Conference, Cranfield, November 1987. 19. Gumpert, D.E. and Boyd, D.P., The Loneliness of the Small Business Owner, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62, November/December 1984. 20. Kiesner, W.F., Small Business Course Content, Training and Other Critical Factors in the Success of Small Business Training Courses, paper presented to the 30th Annual World Conference of the International Council for Small Business, Montreal, Canada, June 1985. 21. Carswell, M., Management Training Needs of Small Firms. A study of the Engineering, Clothing and Textile Industries, paper presented to the 10th National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference, Cranfield, 1987.

12

JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN INDUSTRIAL TRAINING 18,8

22. Clark, B.W., Davis, C.H. and Harnish, V.C., Do Courses in Entrepreneurship Aid in New Venture Creation, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, 1984. 23. Johnson, R., The Business of Helping the Entrepreneur, Personnel Management, March 1987. 24. McClelland, D.C., The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1981. 25. McClelland, D.C., Achievement Motivation can be Developed, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 43, November/December 1965. 26. Jones, T. and McEvoy, D., Ethnic Enterprise: The Popular Image in Curran, T. et al. (Eds), The Survival of the Small Firm, Gower, Aldershot, 1986. 27. Ward, R., Ethnic Entrepreneurs in Britain and Europe, in Coffee, R. and Scape, R. (Eds), Entrepreneurship in Europe, Croom Helm, London, 1987. 28. Davies, L.G. and Gibb, A.A., Recent Research in Entrepreneurship, The Third International EIASM Workshop, Gower, 1991. 29. Kolb, D., Rabin, M. and McIntyre, J.M., Organisational Philosophy: An Experiential Approach , Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974. 30. Randolph, W.A. and Posner, B.Z., Designing Meaningful Learning Situations in Management: A Contingency Decision Tree Approach, Academy of Management Review, July 1979, pp. 459-67. 31. Schrage, H., The R & D Entrepreneur; Profile of Success, Harvard Business Review , November/ December 1982, pp. 404-8. 32. McMullan, W.E., Creative Individuals Paradoxical Personages, The Journal of Creative Behaviour, fourth quarter, 1976, pp. 265-275.

33. Borland, C., Locus of Control Need for Achievement and Entrepreneurship, Phd thesis, University of Texas, 1978. 34. Brockhaus, R.H., IE Locus of Control Scores as Predictions of Entrepreneurial Intentions, Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1975, pp. 443-45. 35. Rapsey, R.H., Entrepreneurial Potential and Assessment, Phd thesis, Pepperdine University, 1978. 36. Chikering, A.W., Experiential Learning Change , Magazine Press, New York, NY, 1977. 37. McMullan, W.B. and Cahoon, A., Integrating Abstract Conceptualism with Experiential Learning, Academy of Management Review, July 1979, pp. 453-667. 38. Sexton, D.L. and Upton, N.B., Evaluation of an Innovative Approach to Teaching Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, January 1987, pp. 35-43. Further Reading Gibb, A.A. and Ritchie, J.R., Entrepreneurship Part I: Entrepreneurialism as a Social Process, Durham University Business School/Shell UK Ltd, 1981. Gibb, A.A. and Ritchie, J.R., Entrepreneurship Part II: Understanding the Start-up Process, Durham University Business School/Shell UK Ltd, 1981. Gibb, A.A. and Ritchie, J.R., Understanding the Process of Starting Small Businesses, European Small Business Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-45, 1982. Herlau, H., Lindved, K. and Momsted, M., Ivorr Hsoellerimitiateur 1 , Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Copenhagen, 1988. Lessman, D., Start a New Business: Start a New Life, Journal of Enterprise Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, 1981.

Thomas N. Garavan is Lecturer in Employee Development and Barra OCinneide is Professor of Marketing, both at the University of Limerick, Ireland.