Preparing for Business Start-up-“Pre-start” Activities in the New Venture Creation Dynamic

8/16/2019 Preparing for Business Start-up-“Pre-start” Activities in the New Venture Creation Dynamic

1/14

Preparing for business start-up:“pre-start” activities in the new

venture creation dynamicAndrew Atherton

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the activities and behaviours of potentialentrepreneurs as they move towards engagement in business start-up.Design/methodology/approach – Based on in-depth engagement with seven founders of newbusinesses, and informed by a review of the relevant literature.Findings – A series of transitions towards business start-up are identied, which in turn produced ave-step framework for examining and understanding the “pre-start” phase of preparation forentrepreneurship.Research limitations/implications – The case-based approach provided detailed andcontextualised insight into how a small group of founders prepared for business start-up. Theremay be a need to test the framework with a larger group of business founders to assess its widerrelevance and applicability.Practical implications – The pre-start framework identies how individuals progress towardsstart-up, and so could be used as the basis for a programme to encourage individuals to move througheach step towards engagement in business start-up. The movement from step to step can also be usedto assess overall levels of preparation for entrepreneurship within the wider population, and so has thepotential to be a useful indicator of overall levels of entrepreneurial orientation.Originality/value – The paper presents a process-focused model of the pre-start dynamic.

Keywords Business formation, Entrepreneurialism

Paper type Research paper

Introduction: why focus on entrepreneurial activities preceding businessstart-up?Levels of start-up of new businesses are considered by policymakers and in policystudies as a measure of overall entrepreneurial activity and potential within economies(Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; European Commission, 2003; Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998; Reynolds et al., 2000). In broadterms, the logic underpinning this policy interest is that business start-ups generatewealth and innovation as these entrants seek out and create new businessopportunities and activities (Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; EuropeanCommission, 2003). Raising levels of involvement in business start-up also increasesthe number of people directly involved in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialendeavours (Schram, 2004; Small Business Administration, 2002).

A preoccupation with encouraging higher levels of start-up as a means of generating greater wealth and economic activity, and in order to develop a morecompetitive economy, can be seen in recent policy thinking on new venture creation inEurope. The European Council of Ministers’ Lisbon Conclusions, in 2000, indicated aneed to stimulate entrepreneurship by “ . . .creating a friendly environment for starting

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

JSBED14,3

404

Journal of Small Business andEnterprise DevelopmentVol. 14 No. 3, 2007pp. 404-417q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1462-6004DOI 10.1108/14626000710773510


2/14

up and developing innovative businesses” (European Commission, 2000). TheEuropean Commission’s Green Paper on Entrepreneurship recognised the centralimportance of start-up to the development of entrepreneurship in Europe, noting thatEurope “needs more new and thriving rms” (European Commission, 2003). In the UK,successive White Papers have highlighted the importance of encouraging individualsto start businesses, and linked this with the broader development and encouragementof a culture of enterprise and entrepreneurship (Department of Trade and Industry,1998; Department of Trade and Industry, 2001).

Initiatives and programmes to stimulate higher levels of business formation havegenerated an extensive array of organisations providing funding, services andassistance to starters of new businesses via a broad portfolio of subsidised andstate-supported initiatives and institutions, albeit with noticeable variation by location(Austrian Institute for Small Business Research, 2002). There is a growing concernwith reducing the barriers to start-up, and in particular a growing focus on removingor reducing administrative and regulatory constraints (European Commission, 2002;HM Treasury, 2003). There also appears to be some recognition that wider cultural andsocial values inuence individuals’ propensities to engage in starting their ownbusiness (Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; European Commission, 2003).Levels of business start-up have been associated with the broader socio-culturalcontext, and in particular the extent to which an entrepreneurial culture exists andencourages entrepreneurs (Reynolds et al., 2000; HM Treasury, 2002).

The experiences of young people at school and college (Gibb, 1993), and among theirbroader social and kinship networks, can inuence their views of entrepreneurship andtheir likelihood to engage in business start-up: “ . . .all young people will need moreenterprising skills and attitudes, not just to set up businesses (or enterself-employment), but also to build their own careers and to stay employable”(Davies, 2002). Similar views are expressed in the European Commission’s Green Paper

on entrepreneurship, which stresses the importance of encouraging young people toengage in entrepreneurial activities and experiences and to interact with entrepreneurs(European Commission, 2003). There are indications, therefore, that a critical inuenceon the likelihood of or propensity for individuals to start a business are the personalexperiences of the starter prior to engagement in new venture creation. Some studiesindicate that individuals who have had previous experience of starting a business, orwho come from a family with a tradition of owner-management and entrepreneurship,have a broadly higher likelihood of setting up their own business (Schamp andDeschoolmeester, 1998; Scherer et al., 1989; de Vries, 1977; de Witt and van Winden,1989). It should be noted, however, that not all studies corroborate this nding. Storey(1994), when summarising previous studies, found that family business backgroundwas “not statistically signicant” as a factor affecting self-employment.

The notion of a phase of entrepreneurial development that precedes engagement inbusiness start-up builds on several sources, including: examinations of the early stagesof start-up activity (Gibb, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2000; Reynolds, 1997; Shane, 2000;Shaver et al., 2001); studies that focused on the start-up process (Gibb and Ritchie, 1982;Gartner, 1985; Bhave, 1994); policy reviews and summaries of research (Atherton, 2006;Atherton et al., 1997; Gavron et al., 1998); and evaluations of particular forms of assistance for new ventures (Meager et al., 2003). Analysis of this literature indicatedthat decisions to start a business, and hence to become involved in new venture

Preparing forbusiness start-up

405


3/14

creation, are a personal choice by individuals (Shaver et al., 2001), many of whomdisplay certain entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours (Begley and Boyd, 1987;Crant, 1996; Shaver and Scott, 1991). Such choices involve the development of awareness of, as well as interest in and motivation to explore, the possibility andpotential for business start-up (Gibb and Ritchie, 1982). These can be conceptualised asthe activities and processes that precede, and lead up to, the choice or decision to start abusiness, i.e. as movement from no involvement or consideration of business start-upto an initial stage of consideration and exposure to this possibility and on to anexploration of the process itself and its feasibility for the individual exploring thisoption.

This paper examines the dynamics of exploration into and decisions to commit tostart-up as a personal option. For the purposes of analysis, this is termed the “pre-start”phase of entrepreneurial development, in that it precedes and can be distinguishedfrom a “start-up” phase. The analysis focuses on the ways in which individuals whohave not yet committed to or become involved in starting a new business move fromconsideration and exploration of new venture creation to commitment to andinvolvement in start-up. A framework is developed that identies the primarycomponents of the “pre-start” phase of entrepreneurial development of future ventures.Application of this framework, and in particular its potential signicance for thepractice and policy of enterprise development and simulation of business start-upactivity, are considered within the paper.

Methodology and concept: steps in the development and testing of a“pre-start” frameworkA qualitative approach to data collection was adopted because it is an effective methodfor “nding out what others feel and think about their worlds” (Rubin and Rubin,

1995). Such approaches can generate a “ne-grained” understanding of phenomena, inthat they allow for detailed exploration of a particular phenomenon, the reasons for itsexistence and its component parts and aspects (Lechner and Dowling, 2003).Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis produce insight into, and help toclarify, the broader contexts and social dynamics within which actors operate(Atherton and Hannon, 2000). For this study, particular emphasis was placed onhearing and seeking to understand the experiences and views of individuals who hadrecently started or were in the process of starting a new venture, reecting theexploratory nature of the approach (Patton, 1999).

At the outset of the interview, the interviewee was asked to describe their ownexperiences and recollection of how, why and when they became interested initially instarting a business, and of how they moved from this point to starting a new venture.This was done in order to ensure that an account was provided that was not inuencedby the views and concerns of the interviewer or by the initial analysis of the literature.The interviewer then introduced the notion that pre-start involved exploration of start-up prior to commitment to creating a new venture to the interviewee fordiscussion and comparison with the interviewee’s account and recollection of theexperience. The interviewees were asked to comment on and assess the validity of thisnotion, and to describe their own experiences and the actions that led them to start anew venture.

JSBED14,3

406


4/14

In this way, an “action research” approach was used to engage the interviewees,making them active participants in the testing and preliminary application of apre-start framework. Action research is appropriate for use where “specic knowledgeis required for a specic problem in a specic situation” (Cohen and Manion, 1998). It issituational, contextually-sensitive and typically collaborative (Cohen and Manion,1998). The researcher operates as a “facilitator”, encouraging interviewees to “try outideas and learn more about the reasons for their own action, as well as learning moreabout the process of self-reection” (Carr and Kemmis, 1986).

Based on this approach, a qualitative assessment of the experiences of sevenstarters and recent starters of businesses was undertaken. Each interviewee had eitherrecently started (during the last 12 months) or was in the process of starting a business.The ages of the interviewees ranged considerably, from 22 to 40, with a mean age of 31years. All but two were educated to degree level or above, and ve of the seven hadprevious employment experience. Although not intended to be representative of allstarters, the range of ages, backgrounds and businesses provides sufcient variety tosuggest that common ndings and conclusions may be indicative of the broaderpre-start dynamic (see Table I).

Transitions in the pre-start modeltransition from no engagement in the possibility of starting a business to activeconsideration and exploration of business start-up was an iterative process for eachinterviewee, in that it was an unfamiliar and new experience (none had previouslystarted a business). Exploration of start-up as an option involved consideration of andreection on the possible implications of launching a business for the founder, as wellas assessments of what would be required to launch a new venture. In several cases,the period prior to explicit commitment to starting a business was drawn out overmany months. For each respondent, the transition from thinking about business

start-up as an option through to actively engaging in it was gradual, rather thanoccurring over a short period or instantly. A pre-start phase of entrepreneurialgestation, therefore, preceded actual engagement in starting a new business and, forthe individuals involved, culminated in a conscious decision to commit to a process of new venture creation.

The interviewees’ accounts of preparation for start-up indicated that this dynamicinvolved successive shifts in the attitude and propensity within the individualstowards a consideration of start-up as a viable and achievable option. Three specictransitions were reported during the interviews, each of which moved the putativebusiness founder from no or little engagement in start-up towards interest in,

No. Age Sex Education and employment background Business Stage1 39 F 1st degree; 8 years employment Women’s underwear Started2 23 M 1st degree Paintballing range Starting3 22 M 1st degree Volunteer trips to Africa Started4 29 M Masters degree; 7 years employment Gym Started5 36 F Certicate, diploma; 20 years employment Virtual ofce services Started6 40 M 1st degree; 15 years employment Music transcription Starting7 28 M Employed but duration unclear Occupational health services Starting

Table I.Summary of

characteristics of interviewed business

founders


407


5/14

engagement with, and then nally active commitment to new venture creation. Thesethree shifts in personal attitudes and convictions can be summarised as follows:

(1) Interviewees who had not previously thought about or considered starting abusiness were stimulated to do so by an event or inuence (such as a friend orcolleague starting a business, or losing a job), i.e. individuals moved from noawareness or interest in start-up to some awareness.

(2) Individuals who had thought about it in broad or general terms, but had notconsidered start-up as a genuine or realistic possibility, or had not explored theopportunity in detail, became more actively interested in starting their ownbusiness as an option, i.e. there was a shift from some awareness and interest toactively testing actual interest in and motivation to start a business.

(3) Those who had a strong desire or commitment to start a business and whowanted to explore how to undertake the start-up process and what is required,i.e. individuals moved from exploration to active commitment to starting abusiness.

Changes in the perceptions and attitudes of potential business foundersThese three transitions indicate that individuals moved from a state where they wereunaware of business start-up as an option through successive stages of increasingengagement in the idea of starting their own business, culminating in personalcommitment to start. This indicates that “pre-start” exploration of and the decision toengage in business start-up becomes “intentional” (Krueger et al., 2000), in that it isplanned behaviour based on exploration and assessment of the personal prospects andrequirements for starting a new venture. Figure 1 identies four specic states of individuals before they start their own venture that were identied from the interviewswith participating business founders, as follows:

(1) have not considered or recognised start-up as a personal option;(2) considering start-up as a potential option;(3) exploring start-up as a personal option; and(4) actively exploring start-up as a viable and realistic option.

These four states are based on, and link together, the three phases of transitionreported by the interviewees. For example, the transition from having no awareness orinterest in starting a business to some awareness or interest indicates that theindividuals moved from a state where they had not considered or recognised start-upas an option (1 above) to consideration of this possibility (2). The transitions, in otherwords, point to and establish the particular state of mind of an individual in relation tostarting a business, i.e. each transition is based on moving from a state where theindividual is less committed to start-up to another where commitment is greater.

Initially, individuals had not considered or recognised that they could start abusiness and so were unaware of this as a possibility. This was the case for individualswho had had little exposure to entrepreneurs and owner-managers, and were seekingout or had found stable employment. There was no substantive basis for theseindividuals to consider business start-up as an option, because they had littlemotivation to do so and few or no examples or stimuli to push them in this direction.The transition from no awareness or interest to some awareness or interest tended to

JSBED14,3

408


6/14

occur for several reasons, including: an encounter or interaction with a family member,friend or acquaintance who had started a business; loss of a job, which in turn pushedindividuals to explore and seek out alternative income generation opportunities;

dissatisfaction with a job, or paid employment more generally; identication of an ideaor business opportunity while working that provided the basis for exploring starting abusiness. These drivers towards business start-up reect previous research, whichidenties multiple reasons for starting, both positive and negative (Birley andWesthead, 1994; Korunka et al., 2003; Gartner, 1985).

Once this rst transition had taken place, individuals moved from no or littleawareness of start-up as an option to awareness and preliminary consideration of thisoption as a possibility. At this point, they considered business start-up as a possibleoption only, and were not necessarily aware that it might be a course of action that maybe open to them. There was no explicit commitment to starting a business at this stage,and the individuals perceived start-up as a general option rather than relating itdirectly to themselves, i.e. they tended to perceive start-up as an option available tomost people rather than one that was appropriate for them.

Over time, however, the business founders became more interested in starting abusiness, and so made the transition from awareness or interest to exploration of business start-up as a personal option. During this third transition in the pre-startprocess, the founders began to actively explore the desirability and feasibility of, aswell as the requirements for, starting their own business. They made the transition, inother words, from being generally aware that people start businesses to a state wherethey were actively considering whether and how they could start their own venture. In

Figure 1.A process ow model of

the pre-start stage of entrepreneurial

development


409


7/14

most cases, this transition occurred because the individual identied an opportunity oridea for a new venture. Through exploring the idea or opportunity, individuals wereable to imagine or anticipate what would be required to start a new venture and howthe business might function. They then moved from considering start-up as a possibleoption to seeing it as a probable and increasingly likely future outcome by exploringthe viability of the imagined venture.

Extending the model: integrating two key thresholds into the processThe framework (as summarised in Figure 1) points to a series of transitions, from no orlittle awareness of start-up as an option to active engagement in and commitment tostarting a new venture. Fundamental to pre-start therefore is a change in the ways inwhich an individual conceives of and perceives start-up as a personal option. Asignicant step in this process of movement towards engagement in business start-upwas a change in attitude from awareness of start-up to interest in starting a business.This shift converted generalised awareness that individuals start their own business toa more active and more personal interest in this as a potentially achievable option.Respondents also identied the transition from exploring to engaging in starting abusiness as a second major threshold. This was the point at which they moved fromconsidering starting a business as a possible, or even likely, option to actuallycommitting to starting the process of establishing a new venture. For the individual(s)concerned, the implication of this decision to seek to start a business was exposure tothe risk that the prospective venture may not work or may not start. As well as thelikely waste of resources and personal effort, such an outcome was seen as undesirablebecause it could lead to personal embarrassment and loss of credibility with others.

When these two key thresholds are integrated into the model, ve different levels of prior engagement with and movement towards start-up can be identied in thepre-start dynamic (Figure 2). The rst is no awareness of start-up as an option. The

second is awareness that start-up is an option for people (although perhaps not theindividual involved). This then became interest in starting a business as individualstranslated generalised awareness into personal interest. Interest then became

Figure 2.The extended pre-startmodel

JSBED14,3

410


8/14

exploration as a possible business proposition emerged. And when the potential forstarting appeared positive, this became active engagement in the process of starting abusiness (Figure 2).

As individuals moved from no awareness to awareness, and then to interest,exploration and engagement, personal commitment to business start-up grew. Thepropensity for individuals to establish a new venture increased as individuals movedthrough the pre-start process. Individuals were closer to engaging in business start-upafter they had actively explored a business proposition, for example, than when theyhad developed an awareness of business start-up as an option. As individuals movedthrough each stage in the pre-start process, and as they navigated the transitions fromstage to stage, they explored the possibility of start-up as a future option forthemselves, and then considered whether and how this could occur. The pre-startdynamic, in other words, entailed a shift from indifference towards, or ignorance of, thepossibility that individuals could start their own businesses to a point where theseindividuals decided and became convinced that they could establish their ownbusinesses.

This shift can be described as a change in the entrepreneurial orientation of theindividuals involved. As individuals navigated through each stage and transition inthe pre-start process, they learned what starting a business was likely to require,whether and how they might go about starting a business, and what would need to bedone. Typically, the scenarios developed by addressing these questions weresensemaking in nature (Weick, 1995), in that they were exploratory, speculative andhelped the individuals involved to discern patterns and possible outcomes viainterpretation and ordering of unfamiliar and new data, information and experiences.As more sense was made of business start-up as a future possibility, several specicquestions were raised and addressed (see Figure 3). These followed a sequence thatshifted an individual from becoming aware of start-up as an option (What is businessstart-up? What would it involve?) to testing whether it would be achievable (Whatwould it involve? Could I do it, in principle?). Once an individual had determined thatthey could potentially start their own business, for example because it is an attractive

Figure 3.Personal development

thresholds for individualsnavigating the pre-start

phase


411


9/14

option that their previous experience prepares them for (Could I do it in practice?), theythen explored what they would have to do (broadly rst, and then in more detail),before deciding whether or not to embark on the start-up process (Should I do it? Yes, Iam going to have a go).

The personalised experiences and steps towards engagement in start-up thereforewere made up of a series of questions and assessments that led individuals to a pointwhere they become convinced that they could start their own business. Each question,as summarised in Figure 3, is broadly sequential, in that those related to the transitionfrom no awareness to awareness precede those associated with the transition fromawareness to interest (and from interest to exploration, and exploration to engagementrespectively).

The pre-start framework indicates that individuals moved from little or noawareness of start-up as an option through successive steps and stages to a pointwhere they actively committed to and started to engage in the process of establishing anew venture. The growth in commitment to and orientation towards entrepreneurshipwas predicated on addressing and resolving a series of critical questions that helpedindividuals to determine what business start-up is, whether it is relevant to them, andhow and why they might be able to start a business. Movement through the pre-startprocess was not, however, seen as either inevitable or automatic. Instead, individualsexperienced periods, and encountered points in the process, where they debatedwhether or not to continue to seek to start their own business. Indeed, when one ormore questions prompted responses that suggested that start-up may not be anappropriate or achievable option, then disengagement from the pre-start process wasconsidered by several of the business founders (and then dismissed).

Movement through the questions and assessment points encountered during thepre-start process varied in terms of time as well. Some individuals moved relativelyquickly from no awareness to engagement; for example, when made redundant

unexpectedly and then discovering that securing new employment is more difcultthan expected. Others spent some time considering business start-up as a personaloption after becoming aware of it, but before committing to the process of setting up anew venture. Each respondent’s exposure to pre-start varied considerably: eachnavigated through pre-start at different speeds, and found different aspects more andless challenging. Some, for example, were aware of start-up as a general option forsome time before becoming personally interested in and exploring its feasibility.Others remained unaware that start-up was an option for a considerable period, andthen moved quickly to engagement in start-up once they became aware that this was arealistic option. This indicates that although the stages and transitions within pre-startwere present in all the individuals moving towards business start-up, how they wereexperienced and addressed, as well as how long this took, varied considerably from

case to case.

ConclusionsThe framework developed and presented in this paper arose from an in-depth analysisof a number of cases of individuals who had recently started or were in the process of starting their own business. These individuals highlighted the transitions and shifts inattitudes towards, and openness to, starting a business that occurred before actualcommitment to start-up. This indicates that there is a period of entrepreneurial

JSBED14,3

412


10/14

gestation prior to start-up, during which individuals become aware of, consider thefeasibility of, and prepare for engagement in the process of creating a new venture.Starting a business, therefore, entails preparation and gestation by individuals duringa pre-start phase of entrepreneurial emergence. The identication of a pre-start phaseof entrepreneurial gestation indicates that individuals do not decide to start their ownbusiness without some prior consideration of the possible ramications and likelyeffects of this decision.

Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the identication of a pre-start dynamicfor individuals who go on to start their own ventures. The rst is that this phase of entrepreneurial emergence entails attitudinal and experiential changes that move anindividual towards engagement in business start-up. During the pre-start phase, inother words, individuals “turn on” to the possibility that they could start their ownbusiness and then proceed to explore whether they could and should do this. Pre-startmoves individuals to a point where they could commit to starting a business, oralternatively to a view that this is not appropriate or not desirable. This in turn

indicates that decisions to start a new venture date back to experiences andconsideration during a period before the decision to engage in business start-up wasmade. The pre-start phase can be seen as a result as a period of entrepreneurialgestation and preparation, during which individuals become open to and movetowards engaging in starting a new venture.

As these individuals move through pre-start, there is extensive and ongoingexperiential learning and changes in the attitudes of those involved. At each stage inthe pre-start process, and during each transition, individuals explore the notion of starting a business and apply that future possibility to themselves. In doing so, theyacquire insight into what business start-up might entail, and how it might affect them.A second conclusion, therefore, is that pre-start entails consideration of the notion orprospect of starting a business, which in turn is likely to lead an individual to explorehow to go about engaging in new venture creation. As individuals move through apre-start stage, they learn about business start-up, in broad terms and more specicallyin relation to themselves, and in doing so assess their own capabilities and potential.This type of personalised, “hands-on” learning is part of pre-start, in other words, andit leads individuals to assess their own abilities to be entrepreneurial through businessstart-up. Pre-start therefore entails the identication, codication and acquisition of some of the skills, and attitudes, required to go about starting a business. It is a periodduring which individuals develop their own enterprise skills and capabilities.

The third conclusion that can be drawn from the pre-start model is that individualexperiences are not uniform but differ from case to case. Depending upon the previousexperiences and existing skills base of the individuals, prior knowledge and expertisevaried. The challenges and issues that were addressed and that were found to bedifcult to resolve by some founders were not encountered by others, or were seen asrelatively easy or simple to resolve. In addition, and as noted above, the pre-start periodvaried considerably between individuals, with some navigating rapidly through toengagement in start-up (from interest rather than awareness), and others taking moretime to explore this as a possibility. This indicates that entrepreneurial gestation, i.e.the time taken to move from awareness of and interest in the prospect of starting abusiness through to the point of actually starting, occurs at different rates for different


413


11/14

individuals. The transition towards engaging in start-up therefore is temporallyvariable, and so unpredictable across individual cases.

Implications for theory and further researchThe variability of the pre-start experience across the cases investigated in this paperindicates that entrepreneurial gestation is a plastic and variable dynamic. The timetaken by individuals to move to the point where they are committed to starting theirown venture as well as the issues and problems to be addressed will vary, because of prior experience, changes in attitudes towards start-up, and personal circumstances.Many of the drivers of variance in pre-start are personal and perceptual, therefore, andthe transitions towards business start-up are experiential. Pre-start movement towardsengagement in starting a business hinges on the individuals’ capacity to learn aboutthe conditions and requirements for start-up, and to learn how to go about starting anew venture. This suggests that the personalised acquisition of knowledge and insightthrough experiential learning will determine both whether they actually go on to start abusiness and how long it takes to move to that point.

Implications for further research and for theory development related toentrepreneurship are four-fold. Firstly, the tendency and propensity for individualsto start is based on, and shaped by, their experiences of and involvement in a pre-startphase of attitudinal and experiential preparation for start-up. Before the advent ordiscovery of a business idea or opportunity (Bhave, 1994; Shane, 2000; Venkataraman,1997), individuals are considering and priming themselves for the possibility of starting their own business. Start-up decisions and commitment, in other words, arebased on a pre-start stage of preparation for start-up. Secondly, the values of individuals and their predilection to starting a business will change as they movethrough the start-up process, with individuals becoming more likely to engage in this

activity the further along they are in the process. Propensity to start, in other words,can be predicted by stage in the pre-start process, with higher propensities beingdemonstrated in later stages. These changes in attitudes towards start-up, viaexperiences of pre-start preparation for new venture creation, provide a means of assessing the future likelihood that an individual will seek to become an entrepreneur.

These implications point to two limitations, or qualiers that must be imposed onthis framework. The rst is that not all individuals who engage in pre-start will go onto start their own businesses. The pre-start stage therefore culminates in decisions notto start as well as to start a venture. Indeed, for many individuals pre-start is the stageat which they decide not to engage in entrepreneurship through business start-up.What is not apparent at this point is what proportion of people engaging in pre-start goon to start their own businesses. There is therefore a need to explore whether a primaryentrepreneurial transition is into pre-start or between pre-start and start-up.

A second limitation relates to the size of the sample. This study was deliberatelycase-based, and so involved only a small number of new businesses. This was so thatthe pre-start phenomenon could be explored in detail and because the concept of pre-start is under-developed in the literature. Given the small number of cases on whichthe model is based, there is a need to assess its relevance to a broader cross-section of individuals who go on to start their own businesses, and to identify whether this willlead to modications to the framework.

JSBED14,3

414


12/14

Implications for enterprise development policy and practiceThe inuence of the pre-start experience on likelihood and propensity to engage instart-up indicates that there is the potential to intervene before the business start-upstage to inuence people’s decisions about and ability to engage in new venture creation.A pre-start framework based on the ve steps outlined in Figures 2 and 3 offers thepotential for intervention to increase the number of people moving through each of thetransitions that individuals make towards engagement in start-up. Interventions couldbe designed to encourage individuals to move through the following transitions:

. from no awareness to awareness;

. from awareness to interest;

. from interest to exploration; and

. from exploration to engagement.

The impact and effectiveness of specic interventions could be measured by thenumbers of people moving from stage to stage. There may also be scope to usereductions in the gestation period as a measure of intervention efciency, particularlywhen individuals are seeking to move more rapidly through pre-start. Andinterventions could also be assessed, perhaps more qualitatively, in terms of howthey enable individuals to overcome and resolve problems and bottlenecks thatconstrain or prevent movement through the pre-start process.

The ve stages therefore provide an indication of the extent to which an individual isinterested and is likely to become engaged in entrepreneurship through start-up. Theyrecord changes in individuals’ attitudes and values towards entrepreneurship, and so canbe seen as a reection of increasing levels of overall engagement in enterprise.Progression from stage to stage, when surveyed across sample populations, has thepotential to function as an operational denition and description of enterprise culture.How many people are, rstly, aware of business start-up as an option, and then interestedin exploring and nally engaged in this activity provides a means of measuring overallsocietal and personal attitudes towards and engagement in entrepreneurship. It provides,as such, a qualitative measure of entrepreneurial propensity in the population at large.

ReferencesAtherton, A. (2006), “Should government be stimulating start-ups? An assessment of the scope

for public intervention in new venture formation”, Environment and Planning C:Government and Policy , Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 21-36.

Atherton, A. and Hannon, P. (2000), “Innovation processes and the small business: a conceptualanalysis”, International Journal of Business Performance Management , Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 276-92.

Atherton, A., Gibb, A. and Sear, L. (1997), Reviewing the Case for Supporting Business Start-Ups: A Policy Overview of Current Thinking on Business Start-Ups , Small Business Centre,Durham University Business School, Durham.

Austrian Institute for Small Business Research (2002), Austrian Institute for Small Business Research Support Services for Micro, Small and Sole Proprietors’ Businesses , EuropeanCommission, Enterprise Directorate General, Brussels.

Begley, T. and Boyd, D. (1987), “Psychological characteristics associated with performance inentrepreneurial rms and smaller businesses”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.


415


13/14

Bhave, M. (1994), “A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation”, Journal of BusinessVenturing , Vol. 9, pp. 223-42.

Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1994), “Taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact onrm growth and size”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 9, pp. 7-31.

Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical , The Falmer Press, Lewes.Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1998), Research Methods in Education , 4th ed., Routledge, London.Crant, J. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,

Journal of Small Business Management , Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 29-39.Davies, H. (2002), A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education , HM Treasury, HMSO,

London.de Vries, K. (1977), “The entrepreneurial personality”, Journal of Management Studies , February,

pp. 34-57.de Witt, G. and van Winden, F. (1989), “An empirical analysis of self-employment in

The Netherlands”, Small Business Economics , Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 93-101.Department of Trade and Industry (1998), Department of Trade and Industry Our Competitive

Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy , The Stationery Ofce PublicationsCentre, London.

Department of Trade and Industry (2001), Department of Trade and Industry Opportunity for All in a World of Change , The Stationery Ofce Publications Centre, London.

European Commission (2000), Presidency Conclusions: Lisbon Council of Minister , Bulletin EU3-2000 (en), Brussels.

European Commission (2002), European Commission Benchmarking the Administration of Start-Ups , Enterprise Directorate, Belgium.

European Commission (2003), Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe , COM (2003) 27 Final,Brussels.

Gartner, W. (1985), “A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venturecreation”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.

Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G. and Westall, A. (1998), The Entrepreneurial Society ,Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

Gibb, A. (1987), “Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-upprocess”, Journal of Education and Industrial Training , Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 24-32.

Gibb, A. (1993), “The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education andits links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals”, International Small Business Journal , Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.

Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1982), “Understanding the process of starting a small business”, European (now International) Small Business Journal , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-45.

HM Treasury (2002), Enterprise Britain: A Modern Approach to Meeting the Enterprise

Challenge, HMSO, London.HM Treasury (2003), Budget Report 2003: Building a Britain of Economic Strength and Social

Justice, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/bud_bud03/.Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Carsrud, A. (2003), “The entrepreneurial personality in the

context of resources, environment and the startup process – a congurational approach”, Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice , Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 411-32.

Krueger, N., Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 15, pp. 411-32.

JSBED14,3

416


14/14

Lechner, C. and Dowling, M. (2003), “Firm networks: external relationships as sources of growthand competitiveness of entrepreneurial rms”, Enterpreneurship & Regional Development ,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Meager, N., Bates, P. and Cowling, M. (2003), “Evaluation of business start-up support for young

people”, National Institute Economic Review , Vol. 186, pp. 59-73.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1998), Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development Fostering Entrepreneurship , OECD, Paris.Patton, D. (1999), Small Firms Training Impact Assessment – Phase One: Final Report , Small

Firms Enterprise Development Initative, Leeds.Reynolds, P. (1997), “Who starts new rms? Preliminary explorations of rms-in-gestation”,

Small Business Economics , Vol. 9, pp. 449-62.Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W. and Autio, E. (2000), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Executive

Report , Babson College, London Business School, Kauffman Foundation, London.Rubin, H. and Rubin, I. (1995), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data , Sage

Publications, New York, NY.

Shane, S. (2000), “Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities”,Organization Science , Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 448-69.Schamp, T. and Deschoolmeester, D. (1998), “Strategic and operational planning: attitudinal

changes and the survival and growth of business start-ups revisited”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research , Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 141-77.

Scherer, R., Adams, J., Carley, S. and Wiebe, F. (1989), “Role model performance effects on thedevelopment of entrepreneurial career options”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice ,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 53-71.

Schram, S. (2004), ““Building entrepreneurial economies”, Foreign Affairs , July/August,pp. 104-15.

Shaver, K. and Scott, L. (1991), “Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venturecreation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-45.

Shaver, K., Gartner, W., Crosby, E., Bakalarova, K. and Gatewood, E. (2001), “Attributions aboutentrepreneurship: a framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 5-32.

Small Business Administration (2002), Small Business Administration Small Business Economic Indicators for 2001 , Ofce of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration, Washington, DC.

Storey, D. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector , Routledge, London.Venkataraman, S. (1997), “The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research”, in Katz, J. (Ed.),

Advances in Entrepreneurship: Firm Emergence and Growth , Elsevier, Oxford.Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations , Sage, London.

About the author

Andrew Atherton is Pro Vice Chancellor Strategy and Business Development and Professor of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at the University of Lincoln. He is also chair of the EnterpriseResearch and Development Unit (ERDU), Lincoln Business School. Current research interestsinclude: enterprise in local and regional development; SME policy; entrepreneurship in China;learning, knowledge and cognition; spatial dimensions of enterprise; and new venture creation.He can be contacted at: [email protected]


417

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Preparing for Business Start-up-“Pre-start” Activities in the New Venture Creation Dynamic

Documents

Transcript of Preparing for Business Start-up-“Pre-start” Activities in the New Venture Creation Dynamic