Abstract
Purpose: In developing economies, the intention to engage in entrepreneurship has steadily increased. However, the failure rate of small and medium enterprises remains high. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a useful lens to study entrepreneurial support. This study aims to investigate the respective mechanisms and contributions of coaching and mentoring in developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy of early-stage, survival-driven entrepreneurs.
Design/methodology/approach: The study was exploratory and qualitative, and followed an inductive approach. Purposive sampling (N = 21) was used to collect data through semi-structured interviews with 12 survival-driven entrepreneurs, four coaches, four mentors and one entrepreneurial support provider. Data were analysed using inductive thematic content analysis.
Findings/results: Although there are similarities and overlaps between the outcomes of coaching and mentoring, the results indicate that coaching is used as an exploratory intervention to generate options for entrepreneurs and predominantly contributes to the development of self-regulatory processes. Mentoring is used in a more consulting and directive manner to guide the entrepreneurs towards business-related solutions and contributes to the development of entrepreneurial business management competencies.
Practical implications: This study provides guidelines to coaches and mentors of survivalist entrepreneurs on when to use which approach.
Originality/value: Currently the lines between coaching and mentoring to support and develop entrepreneurs are blurred. This study created a conceptual framework (based on Social Cognitive Theory and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy) that delineates the different mechanisms and contributions of coaching and mentoring to the development of the self-efficacy of survival-driven entrepreneurs.
Keywords: entrepreneurs; survival-driven entrepreneurs; coaching; mentoring; self-efficacy.
Introduction
Entrepreneurship has often been credited globally and in emerging economies as a driver of economic growth through innovation and job creation (Shi & Weber, 2020). The expectation for entrepreneurship aligns with global goals for economic prosperity through job creation. This is demonstrated, for example, by the South African government’s National Development Plan (NDP), launched in 2011, which envisions small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) providing employment to 90% of the workforce by 2030 (Republic of South Africa, 2011, p. 119). This goal marks a notable rise from 50% to 60% of the workforce employed by SMEs in 2022, as reported by McKinsey (Albaz et al., 2020), emphasising the necessity for entrepreneurial development and support to reach this objective. However, entrepreneurship is an intricate process that is influenced by the external environment (Matos & Hall, 2020), the behaviour of the entrepreneur (Kuratko et al., 2021) and the institutional environment (Estrin et al., 2022). For entrepreneurs to actively contribute towards economic growth, they require the necessary motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and behavioural and business management competencies (Botha et al., 2019) to successfully transition from the early stages of entrepreneurship to established business ownership.
While entrepreneurship encompasses various aspects, it can be categorised into two groups depending on the motivation behind individuals choosing to become: (1) opportunity-driven entrepreneurs and (2) necessity- or survival-driven entrepreneurs. Survival-driven entrepreneurs who have been ‘pushed’ into entrepreneurship without the required entrepreneurial competencies (Huang et al., 2023), may find themselves in situations where the demand for entrepreneurship exceeds their capabilities (Kuratko et al., 2021). Such situations during the early stages of entrepreneurship may ultimately lead to business failure (Bushe, 2019). It is therefore imperative to support and develop these survival-driven entrepreneurs, especially early on.
A useful theoretical lens through which to study entrepreneurial development is entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which is rooted in Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, is a multi-dimensional construct which is a combination of the entrepreneur’s self-confidence to execute certain tasks, as well as their ability to develop the required business and behavioural competencies to effectively function in the domain of entrepreneurship, particularly during the early stages of entrepreneurship (Baum & Locke, 2004; Drnovšek et al., 2010).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a learned competence that can be developed and improved (Florin et al., 2007; Mueller & Goic, 2002; Zhao et al., 2005), and both coaching and mentoring have been identified as individual-level ESE antecedents (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Newman et al., 2019). Coaching, which is underpinned by adult learning theories (Cox et al., 2018), adopts a custom-tailored, flexible and reflection-oriented approach (Bozer & Jones, 2018; Hunt et al., 2019) towards development which can be applied during any stage of the entrepreneurial process (Kotte et al., 2021). In comparison to coaching, mentoring, which is informed by developmental theories, learning theories and social theories (Dominguez & Hager, 2013), is more directive as the mentors guide and share their experiences with a novice (St-Jean & Audet, 2012). Coach and mentor’s one-on-one engagement with entrepreneurs is a unique and distinct feature in comparison to other individual-level antecedents of ESE. The individualised, person-centric nature of coaching and mentoring allows coaches and mentors to engage with entrepreneurs at a personal level (Gergen et al., 2001).
Research shows that coaching and mentoring can boost the ESE of survival-driven entrepreneurs (Baluku et al., 2020; Hunt et al., 2019). Despite their different origins, these terms are often used interchangeably in literature and practice (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Clutterbuck, 2008; Stokes et al., 2021). The lack of clear definitions complicates distinguishing between them (Clutterbuck, 2008; Garvey et al., 2018; Stokes et al., 2021). Confusion also arises from professions or organisations historically favouring one over the other. Stokes et al. (2021) noted that coaches and mentors blend elements from both approaches to find effective practices. Despite overlapping definitions, each has unique attributes aimed at specific outcomes, particularly for survival-driven entrepreneurs. The exact contributions of coaching versus mentoring to ESE development in early-stage entrepreneurs remain unclear. The question this study therefore asks is: What are the respective mechanisms and contributions of coaching and mentoring in developing the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of early-stage, survival-driven entrepreneurs? An answer to this question could provide insights into how coaching and mentoring can be applied more purposefully and consciously to support vulnerable survival-driven entrepreneurs. This knowledge could also inform support programmes and guide coaches and mentors on when to apply each method.
Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs grow small businesses and, therefore, the effect of entrepreneurship on the stimulation, development and growth of SMMEs cannot be underestimated (Botha et al., 2019). The contribution of entrepreneurship towards economic prosperity is even more significant in developing nations where entrepreneurs and SMMEs are important vehicles to eradicate unemployment while contributing to income distribution and employment creation (Zwane & Nyide, 2017). The 2022 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) report described the value of entrepreneurship as ‘an essential driver of societal health, wealth creation, and a formidable engine of economic growth’ (Bowmaker-Falconer & Meyer, 2022, p. 13). In South Africa, for example, there was an increase in entrepreneurial intentions from 11.9% in 2019 to 20% in 2021, which can be linked to the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This increase resulted from negative factors (push effects), such as losing formal employment or positive factors (pull effects), such as emerging opportunities because of changes in consumer behaviour and innovation (Bowmaker-Falconer & Meyer, 2022; Loan et al., 2021).
Individuals have different sources of motivation to engage in entrepreneurship. Shapero’s (1982) intention-based theory of entrepreneurship and Model of Entrepreneurial Event (MEE) posit that individuals engage in entrepreneurship as a result of either negative (push factor) or positive (pull factor) events which occurred during their normal way of life (Ndofirepi & Rambe, 2018; Shapero, 1982). Therefore, two types of entrepreneurs can be categorised, based on their motivation for embarking on the entrepreneurial journey, namely, those who are driven by opportunity and those who are driven by survival. Opportunity-driven entrepreneurs identify and exploit potential opportunities in the market. As entrepreneurs, they are motivated and driven to achieve success and create wealth (Shi & Weber, 2020). On the other hand, necessity- or survival-driven entrepreneurs pursue entrepreneurship out of a need to survive because of the lack of formal employment (Ddungu et al., 2023) or the absence of alternative sources of income (Weber et al., 2023). Survival-driven entrepreneurs are often extrinsically motivated as a result of being pushed into entrepreneurship (Huang et al., 2023). Survival-driven entrepreneurs often experience stress when the demand for entrepreneurship exceeds their entrepreneurial capabilities (Kuratko et al., 2021) which could result in lack of motivation and low confidence (Loan et al., 2021), and ultimately business failure (Bushe, 2019). Therefore, developing the entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial behaviour of the individual entrepreneur, specifically the survival-driven entrepreneur, could be positioned as one of the key factors in supporting entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a multidimensional domain-specific behaviour concept that refers to people’s belief in their entrepreneurial abilities and motivation to perform certain entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has an influence on entrepreneurial intentions and actions (Chen et al., 1998; Newman et al., 2019). The behaviourist Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as people’s beliefs in their capability to produce desired effects by their own actions. These beliefs influence how people feel, think, self-motivate, act and often operate collectively in the process of human functioning (Bandura, 1986; Baum & Locke, 2004). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is very relevant during the early stages of entrepreneurship when individuals have to decide and commit towards engaging in entrepreneurship as a potential career option (Drnovšek et al., 2010; McGee & Peterson, 2019). Bandura identified four sources of self-efficacy such as mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion and managing emotional states. According to Bandura, there are certain processes through which self-efficacy beliefs produce results and outcomes. These include cognitive processes, motivational processes, affective processes and selection processes (Bandura, 1986; Bandura et al., 1999). In the context of entrepreneurship, the contribution of these self-efficacy processes can be grouped into two categories (Newman et al., 2019) namely: (1) Individual-level outcomes (entrepreneurial behaviour), which refers to the entrepreneurs’ perceptions about their own capabilities and self-belief to handle given situations (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger et al., 2000) and (2) firm-level outcomes (entrepreneurial and/or venture performance such as revenue growth and financial performance), which are strongly affected by the characteristics of the top manager, especially in firms where ‘the founder and the organisation may essentially be the same’ (Hamburg & Mason, 1984 as cited by Newman et al., 2019, p. 412).
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be developed and improved (Florin et al., 2007; Mueller & Srecko, 2002; Zhao et al., 2005). Several ESE development options such as work experience, education and training (Zhao et al., 2005), role models (BarNir et al., 2011), mentors (St-Jean & Mathieu, 2015) and coaching (Hunt et al., 2019) exist. However, in developing economies like South Africa, where unemployment is above 35%, prior work experience is limited because of high levels of unemployment (Altman, 2022). Similarly, opportunities to develop entrepreneurial skills through education and training are also limited (Mutanda et al., 2021) and entrepreneurial education remains a challenge (Bowmaker-Falconer & Meyer, 2022). In many countries, coaching and mentoring are available forms of entrepreneurial support provided by public and private entrepreneurial development institutions. The delineation of coaching and mentoring, their mechanisms and respective outcomes in terms of developing self-efficacy in the context of the survival-driven entrepreneur during the early stages of entrepreneurship are however not well understood.
Coaching
Coaching can be linked to Socratic dialogue, in which a student is asked questions that force them to think about their preconceptions and assumptions before replying. Coaching offers a safe space where the coachee is encouraged to speak freely without fear of judgement (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Crompton et al., 2012; Garvey et al., 2018). The asking and answering of questions stimulate critical thinking and provide the coachee with the opportunity for reflection about limiting behaviours and the effect of such behaviours on themselves (Cox et al., 2014; Crompton et al., 2012), while developing a self-correcting ability to remove self-doubt (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Flaherty, 2006). Coaching can be positioned as a form of adult learning (Cox et al., 2018).
Entrepreneurial coaching is a relatively novel concept (Kotte et al., 2021). There is an increasing demand for coaching in the entrepreneurial context as a reflective action-based method of entrepreneurial learning and development (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018). Coaching is a custom-tailored, active and reflection-oriented approach. It can therefore contribute to the personal growth and development of the entrepreneur, particularly during the early stages of establishing the venture (Crompton et al., 2012; Kutzhanova et al., 2009). The role of the coach is to facilitate learning and development by helping the entrepreneur develop the ability to step back from a situation and to think about the learning process, which is a requirement for critical reflection (Audet & Couteret, 2012; Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018). However, a potential limitation of coaching in the entrepreneurial context is the coach’s lack of entrepreneurial experience and lack of business and industry-specific expert knowledge (Kotte et al., 2021), which limit the ability and confidence of the coach to be directive and provide guidance in the entrepreneurial context. In summary, entrepreneurial coaching could lead to improved levels of ESE (Brinkley & Le Roux, 2018; Kotte et al., 2021; Kutzhanova et al., 2009). However, it is not clear what processes the coach should follow and how coaching contributes to ESE differently from mentoring.
Mentoring
The literature links mentoring with cognitive development, emotional development, leadership and social integration, all of which are rooted in an experiential learning philosophy. Mentoring’s one-to-one nature is an effective way of passing on knowledge in a trusting environment where the language is directly appropriate to the mentee and can lead to the most effective transmission of and creation of knowledge and experience (Lee, 2007; Memon et al., 2015). Despite the number of widely accepted definitions of mentoring, there is no such consensus with regard to the specifics of the term, ‘entrepreneurial’ mentoring. Since the context and circumstances of entrepreneurs are different from formally employed individuals, the definition of mentoring in the entrepreneurial context is influenced by the context and specific needs of the individual entrepreneur (Brodie et al., 2017). The phases of entrepreneurship, the experience of the entrepreneur and the personality traits of the entrepreneur will also influence and determine what type of mentorship is required. Consequently, the mentoring needs of nascent and novice entrepreneurs will be different from those of experienced entrepreneurs (Memon et al., 2015; St-Jean & Mathieu, 2015). Therefore, in entrepreneurial mentoring both mentor and mentee bring specialised knowledge to the relationship and in many cases the mentee sets the goals (Brodie et al., 2017).
In the context of entrepreneurship, the mentor can become a positive role model for the entrepreneur which allows the entrepreneur the opportunity to find inspiration through their mentor’s example (Laukhuf & Malone, 2015). The mentee observes the expertise of the mentor (Baluku et al., 2020), while the mentor acts as an adviser who shares experience, expertise, advice and wisdom with the mentee (Stout-Rostron, 2014). A possible limitation of mentorship is the importance attached to the skills, knowledge and experience of the mentor in the outcomes of the relationship (McKevitt & Marshall, 2015). Therefore, the expectation from the mentee for the mentor to provide an appropriate response could be challenging because of the many potential issues the survival-driven entrepreneur may face (Clutterbuck, 2005). In summary, mentoring is a form of social learning where an entrepreneur, through their engagement and observation of the mentor’s behaviour, can enhance their own entrepreneurial behaviour and performance (Kunaka & Moos, 2019; Laukhuf & Malone, 2015). However, it is not clear what processes are required for the entrepreneurial mentor to contribute to the development of the ESE of the survival-driven entrepreneur during the early stages of entrepreneurship and how this differs from coaching.
Methodology
The study was exploratory and qualitative, and followed an inductive approach. The methodology adopted for this study had to answer the research question: What are the respective mechanisms and contributions of coaching and mentoring in developing the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of early-stage, survival-driven entrepreneurs? The qualitative nature allowed the researcher the opportunity to explore the subjective experiences of the participants in order to answer the research question.
Population and sampling
This study employed a combination of purposive and theoretical sampling. Initial sampling was purposive (selecting the most likely and knowledgeable participants), while theoretical sampling (a deliberate process of finding new, relevant participants) later on allowed for the recruitment of additional participants who could contribute new insights to help ensure rich insights (Birks & Mills, 2012).
Participants were selected based on their suitability to answer the research question, founded on their experience with the phenomenon (Chun Tie et al., 2019; Cope, 2011). In this case, they were survival-driven entrepreneurs who had received coaching or mentoring, and coaches and mentors who had coached and mentored survival-driven entrepreneurs in South Africa during the early stages of entrepreneurship. The sample size was not determined a priori and was completed once data saturation had occurred. In total, 21 participants were recruited: 12 survival-driven entrepreneurs, four coaches, four mentors and one coaching and mentoring service provider. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the participants who were entrepreneurs. Table 2 provides details of the coaches, mentors and service providers included in this study.
| TABLE 1: Profile of entrepreneurs included in the study. |
| TABLE 2: Profile of coaches, mentors and service providers included in the study. |
Data collection
Primary data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews by the first author. The use of interviews as data collection methodology is relevant in studies that have individual people as units of analysis, which in this study applied to the survival-driven entrepreneurs as well as the coaches and mentors. The qualitative and open-ended nature of the interview guide encouraged the participants to describe their experiences in their own words and allowed the participants to contribute much detailed information. Examples of interview questions included: What motivated you to start the business? What challenges did you experience? What role did the coach or mentor play? What did the coach or mentor do to address your challenges and development needs? How did you feel after the session? The average duration of the interviews was 45 min for entrepreneurs and 60 min for coaches and mentors. Interviews were conducted virtually through Zoom. The availability and advancement of virtual communication options like Zoom provided a viable option for data collection for qualitative researchers (Irani, 2019). Each interview was transcribed by a professional transcriber by using the Zoom recording as source of data. The transcribed interviews per participant were captured on ATLAS.ti for the purposes of data analysis.
Data analysis
The data analysis followed a qualitative thematic analysis approach. Qualitative data analysis such as thematic analysis can be defined as an interpretative analysis of the textual data to describe and interpret the participants’ views of the phenomenon (Vaismoradi & Snelgrove, 2019). The principles of constant comparative analysis, which is an inductive and iterative process of coding and analysis, were applied to the data analysis process (Chun Tie et al., 2019). Figure 1 is a visual illustration of the data analysis process.
The 21 interviews generated 125 quotes which were converted into 24 codes through open coding. Open coding, which is also referred to as initial coding, was the first level of coding (Birks & Mills, 2012; Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). At the start of the analysis process, coding and comparison were conducted within the first interview by fracturing the data to compare incidents with each other as well as to identify similarities and differences (Chun Tie et al., 2019). The next step was to label each quote with a brief description that provided meaning to each quote (Chun Tie et al., 2019). In this study, the units of meaning, or quotes, were sentences, phrases and short paragraphs to capture the full extent and meaning of the participants as advocated by Linneberg and Korsgaard (2019).
Axial coding, or intermediate coding, was the second level of coding, which builds on the open coding phase (Williams & Moser, 2019) and the codes were grouped into four categories. During axial coding, codes with similar themes were organised into clear and logically constructed categories as a precursor to the final step in the coding process (Williams & Moser, 2019) which was to further reduce the categories into two themes. Themes can be described as the final step or final products in the content analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2008). The writing of reflective notes and memos during the data analysis process also helped to make meaning from the data (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). Figure 2 is an example of how the codes informed the categories and how the categories informed the themes.
The following themes emerged from this data analysis process: (1) development approach and (2) intervention outcomes.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Stellenbosch University Social, Behavioural and Education Research Ethics Committee (Project nr. 19507).
Results
The data analysis revealed that the differences between coaching and mentoring pertain to the approach adopted by the coach or mentor and the subsequent outcomes of the coaching and mentoring. Each of the findings will be discussed in the following section. Table 3 is a consolidated view of the themes and supporting categories and findings.
| TABLE 3: Themes and supporting categories. |
Theme 1: Development approaches adopted by the coaches and the mentors
The coaches adopted a self-directed learning approach whereas the mentors relied on their own knowledge and experience to guide the survival-driven entrepreneurs.
Coaching: Self-directed learning
The entrepreneurs had difficulty thinking beyond their current reality and had limiting beliefs about themselves and their businesses (E2, C2). Coaches created an introspective space where entrepreneurs had ‘to address the things you need to overcome’ (C1). The coaches asked questions to help entrepreneurs think about where they are going, to get clarity and to help them control their strategy (C2). According to E2, the exploratory and probing approach from the coach helped her ‘to open up my thoughts and I was learning about myself and about business’. With the help of the coach, the survival-driven entrepreneurs developed the ability to reflect on their own behaviour and performance which gave them better insight into their progress as entrepreneurs, ‘which helped me to see my growth’ (E8). The benefits of the exploratory process through coaching are captured through the comment below from C3:
‘They have an idea, but cannot always articulate it clearly, so you have to explore and help them to clearly describe the problem to find out what the actual or underlying problem is.’ (C3)
According to E2, the exploratory and probing approach from the coach helped her ‘to open up my thoughts and I was learning about myself and about business’. For E9, after coaching:
‘I have a clear vision, he helped me to distil it in a clear way and it feels like I am on my way to the vision.’ (E9)
Furthermore, the introduction of reflection by the coach played a significant role in raising their self-awareness by ‘thinking and reflecting on what they have achieved’ (C1) and how much they have grown their ‘confidence in their own abilities’ (C2):
‘As a coach I help them to understand how they think and we focus a lot on their mindset, including limiting beliefs.’ (C2)
Mentoring: Guidance and direction
Mentors focused on facilitating the competence development of survival-driven entrepreneurs. The competence development was primarily done through knowledge transfer from the mentor, which included recommendations, suggestions, sharing of knowledge and challenging their thinking. The mentors made the entrepreneurs think about the business and identify the small things that they can do to get success quickly as described by E3:
‘She always focused on solutions and suggestions to make things better – focusing on moving forward and the future.’ (E3)
For E1, the mentor helped to delve into the details:
‘[My mentor asked me] what my turnover and profit was, which made me think about my business and profitability. My mentor made me look at my quotes and increased my mark-up and since then the profit increased.’ (E1)
E6 appreciated that their mentor would ‘ask about my problems and then send a few suggestions to look into’ (E6). Furthermore, the mentors used their experience and knowledge to make recommendations:
‘She [mentor] always focused on solutions and suggestions to make things better.’ (E3)
Mentors provided direction and guidance by ‘sharing examples from other businesses’ (E6) and this led to (E4) trying ‘something new as she would guide me because she is more experienced as a businessperson’. The mentor’s experience and business successes enhanced their credibility amongst the survival-driven entrepreneurs as underpinned by M1, who stated, ‘I see myself as a guide drawing from my own experiences to help them’. The willingness to share their knowledge and experience further enhanced the competency development for the entrepreneurs:
‘The mentor was experienced in the field that I am in, so I realised that I could learn from her. She was open, and I could speak freely.’ (E2)
E1 liked the fact that their mentor ‘will tell you that you are good at what you are doing, but she will show the areas that you need to work on’ (E1). For E11, their mentor brought a new perspective:
‘The mentors put things in perspective and give you honest and direct feedback and give reasons as to why, so they are a great sound board with somebody with the same experience as you.’ (E11)
Theme 2: Intervention outcomes
The second theme captures the different outcomes of the coaching and mentoring interventions.
Coaching: Intangible and subjective skills development
The outcome of the coaching resulted in improved ‘planning capacity’ (E4) of the survival-driven entrepreneurs. This led to improved focus: ‘I now have my vision and clarity on where I am going’ (E8). The coaching sessions helped E2 to plan, and for E8 to become more effective and focused and more structured, which improved their effectiveness. E7 was ‘more organised and worked smarter’, while E11 had ‘a clear mind and more focused and better priorities’. Improved planning and a more structured approach made them feel that they were ‘in control of their plan and their strategy’ (C1) which ‘increased their confidence’ (E4, C3, SP) about the future of their business. The coaching also contributed to the development of skills like communication and public speaking (E12), how to ask for help (E10), communicating with clients and employees (SP), and dealing with stress and uncertainty (E12). The coaching helped E11 to ‘cope as a person in business’. Coping was especially useful for E12:
‘[My coach] helped a lot during COVID-19 when the coach helped me with coping techniques which allowed me time to focus and work on my business.’ (E12)
By building their self-confidence C2 ‘started believing and backing themselves and increased confidence often translates to business success’ (C2). Similar to self-confidence, the coaching improved their levels of motivation. The coaching ‘motivated me to remain steadfast’ (E4) and ‘I was motivated and wanted to work harder after each session with the coach’ (E2). The contribution of the coaching also extended beyond that of the venture as described by E7:
‘… [T]he coaching helped to balance things in order to get more time for myself and not to neglect your personal life at the expense of the business. He helped me to become more effective, less hours but better results.’ (E7)
Mentoring: Tangible and observable skills development
The most significant outcome of the mentorship interventions was the tangible contribution the mentor made to the survival-driven entrepreneur’s business. The overall ‘business performance improved’ (E1) as a result of ‘the improved profitability of my business’ (E3). Practically for E6 this meant:
‘I reduced my manufacturing time and improved my pricing; the mentor helped me to calculate the cost per unit.’ (E6)
Improved financial skills and knowledge assisted some participants:
‘… [B]y making less use of my bookkeeper, I can now do more myself.’ (E1)
‘I had a fear to look at my finances. Although I still struggle with that, it is much better.’ (E3)
Overall, the mentorship resulted in improved business strategies and planning in terms of marketing and the operational management of the business. Improved business processes further enhanced the overall business performance, for example:
‘… [A]dmin procedures which helped me to deal with my staff better, we now have fixed processes in place.’ (E1)
‘… [W]e are using other tools (online) and better planning the daily routine, more organised.’ (E12)
The marketing skills of the survival-driven entrepreneurs also benefited from their engagement with mentors:
‘She gave me a list of people to contact as new clients.’ (E4)
‘[My mentor] helped me to advertise.’ (E10)
‘[My mentor] refined my unique offer.’ (E2)
‘It felt like a new business. I now have 400 kids and we are better after COVID.’ (E5)
The mentors encouraged and motivated the entrepreneurs to persist by challenging them and making them think about themselves and the future of their ventures. The mentors built a sense of confidence by validating ideas (M3), which boosted morale (E6). The aim of the mentorship was captured by (M4) and M3:
‘I want them to think about the business and think about small things that they can do to get success quickly.’ (M4)
‘[My purpose is to] help them to understand the commercial aspects to build confidence.’ (M3)
Discussion
The overall aim of this study was to investigate the respective mechanisms and contributions of coaching and mentoring in developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy of early-stage, survival-driven entrepreneurs. The findings in relation to coaching and mentoring are now discussed in more detail.
Coaching approach and outcomes
In terms of coaching approaches, the development of the survival-driven entrepreneur was facilitated through exploratory questions by the coach, reflective practice by the survival-driven entrepreneur and experiential learning. The exploratory questions are consistent with coaching’s exploratory nature (Mansoori et al., 2019). Moreover, the exploratory nature of the coaching helped the survival-driven entrepreneur to generate options they were not previously aware of which is congruent with Flaherty’s (2006) notion of self-generation through coaching. This ability to self-generate could lead to learning which enables the entrepreneur to repeat the behaviour in future in the absence of the coach (Minniti & Bygrave, 2001). Similarly, the reflective dialogue between the coach and the survival-driven entrepreneur is consistent with the evolutionary coaching approach advocated by Mansoori et al. (2019). Reflective practice helps the survival-driven entrepreneur to take ownership of their development and contribute to their development by creating knowledge through the transformations of the experience as defined by Kolb’s Experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984).
The exploratory and reflective approaches adopted by the coaches can be linked to ESE through the four sources of self-efficacy as defined by Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986): mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion and managing emotional states as follows. In terms of mastery experiences, the coaches encouraged and challenged the survival-driven entrepreneur to experiment and apply new behaviours and skills like long-term planning and adopting a more structured approach to the business without any external support (Cramer et al., 2009). Vicarious learning was facilitated by learning from the coach’s personal failures and successes and observing the coach’s behaviour as a source of self-efficacy (BarNir et al., 2011). Social persuasion was done by the coach acknowledging good performance of the survival-driven entrepreneur (Bandura & Wood, 1989) and encouraging and motivating them to persist, particularly when they have applied new skills and competencies (Lent et al., 2017). Finally, managing emotional states was promoted by the coach being available during times of uncertainty, particularly during COVID-19 and when the business performance was causing stress and anxiety. From a theoretical perspective, the outcomes of the coaching can be linked to the activation of predominantly self-regulation processes in survival-driven entrepreneurs, such as motivation, taking ownership and dealing with uncertainty. These processes can be connected to human agency as part of Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). We therefore conclude that by creating a reflective, non-directive exploratory environment, coaches are able to help develop ESE in survival-driven entrepreneurs.
Mentoring approach and outcomes
Mentors helped survival-driven entrepreneurs with competence development through experience and knowledge sharing, and by providing suggestions and guidance. These actions of the mentors are aligned with the findings of Stout-Rostron (2014), that the mentor acts as an adviser who shares experience, expertise, advice and wisdom with the mentee. Similarly, Laukhuf and Malone (2015) found that the mentee observes the expertise of the mentor and that the mentor can be a role model and source of inspiration or comparison for the mentee (St-Jean & Mathieu, 2015).
Similar to coaching, the approaches adopted by the mentors can be linked to Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and ESE. The mentor as a role model can be linked to vicarious learning as a source of self-efficacy. Role modelling develops self-efficacy when the observer, in this context, the survival-driven entrepreneur, reproduces the behaviour of the model, in this context, the mentor. The experience and knowledge of the mentor develop the competence of the survival-driven entrepreneur by sharing targeted and relevant business advice (Mason et al., 2022). Mastery experience is enacted by the mentor helping the survival-driven entrepreneur to implement plans and suggestions which improves self-efficacy. In the context of entrepreneurship, mastery experiences build confidence by using past performances to influence future performances in a similar domain (Lent & Brown, 2019). Social persuasion as a source of self-efficacy was enacted when the mentor provided positive feedback on progress and business results. Social persuasion in the context of entrepreneurship can be seen as a source of push motivation to encourage the entrepreneur to start the process, or pull motivation to encourage the entrepreneur to continue what they are doing (Liñán & Chen, 2009). Similar to the coaches, the mentors also provided support and guidance to the survival-driven entrepreneur during times of uncertainty, particularly during COVID-19, which can be linked to managing emotional states as a source of self-efficacy. Helping entrepreneurs cope during difficult times can be linked to entrepreneurial resilience as an outcome of entrepreneurial mentorship (Kunaka & Moos, 2019). Therefore, mentoring’s directive approach towards skills transfers and sharing of experience contributes predominantly to the development of tangible (transactional) skills (Cope, 2005; Harvey & Evans, 1995), which can be linked to the activation of predominantly cognitive processes as defined by Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory.
In summary, the study’s findings suggest that both coaching and mentoring can enhance the confidence and self-belief of survival-driven entrepreneurs, helping them navigate challenges in the early stages of entrepreneurship. Coaching, with its exploratory approach, supports the transformational development of entrepreneurs by altering their self-perceptions, aligning with an evolutionary coaching relationship. In contrast, mentoring relies on the mentor’s skills and experiences, using a directive communication style where the mentor’s knowledge serves as the primary learning resource. The results show that coaching mainly aids the development of self-regulatory processes, such as affective and motivational aspects, while mentoring primarily fosters cognitive processes. Figure 3 is a conceptual framework that delineates the respective approaches and contributions of coaching and mentoring towards the ESE development of survival-driven entrepreneurs.
 |
FIGURE 3: Conceptual framework of coaching and mentoring approaches to entrepreneurial self-efficacy development. |
|
Contributions
On a theoretical level, this study contributes to entrepreneurial theory by highlighting the distinct, possible contributions of coaching and mentoring towards the development of ESE amongst survivalist entrepreneurs. Using Social Cognitive Theory as the foundation for understanding ESE, the findings demonstrate that coaching and mentoring could potentially activate ESE through its four sources: mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion and the regulation of emotional states – each through different approaches and resulting in different outcomes. Coaching fosters intangible and subjective skills through self-directed learning while mentoring emphasises guidance and direction to develop tangible business skills. These findings extend both the concept of ESE development and its application within the framework of Social Cognitive Theory.
Practically this study provides clarity to coaches and mentors about the approaches they should follow, how to engage with the sources of ESE and the outcomes they should aim for. Entrepreneurial coaches should predominantly follow an exploratory and reflective approach to achieve ESE development in entrepreneurs by facilitating a process of self-management and self-directed learning. Entrepreneurial mentors should rely on their experience and knowledge to contribute to the ESE development of the survival-driven entrepreneur, by providing information, support, guidance and role modelling.
Limitations and future research
The findings are specific to the context and entrepreneurial phase. The aim of the study was to focus on a specific type of (survival-driven type) entrepreneur during a specific (early-stage) phase of the venture life cycle to develop an understanding of how coaching and mentoring contribute to a specific behavioural construct (ESE). Therefore, the findings exclude the perspectives of other types of entrepreneurs, such as opportunity-driven entrepreneurs or those who have transitioned from early stages to business maturity. Consequently, the transferability of the findings from the present study is a possible limitation.
The findings of this study contribute to highlighting the differences between coaching and mentoring, specifically, the approaches adopted by coaches and mentors and their subsequent outcomes. However, the findings do not suggest or prescribe a specific coaching or mentoring model or theory that could contribute to the ESE development of the survival-driven entrepreneur. To further enhance entrepreneurial development through coaching and mentoring, additional research should be conducted to explore specific coaching or mentoring models and theories in a more prescriptive framework, which could increase the contribution of coaching and mentoring to the entrepreneurial development of the survival-driven entrepreneur.
Conclusion
Entrepreneurship is viewed as a significant contributor to economic growth and social development. Within the emerging economies and South African context, the successful transitioning from the early stages of entrepreneurship to an established business remains a challenge as is evident in the high failure rate of businesses. Entrepreneurial success and progress are even more challenging for the survival-driven entrepreneur, who often lacks the entrepreneurial skills and confidence to successfully transition from the early stages of entrepreneurship to established business owners. The conceptual framework that clarifies the respective approaches and outcomes of coaching and mentoring for the ESE development of survival-driven entrepreneurs offers guidance for coaches and mentors to enhance their contribution to entrepreneurial development.
Acknowledgements
This article is partially based on the author J.P.C.’s doctoral dissertation entitled ‘Exploring the contribution of an integrated coaching and mentoring framework to develop entrepreneurial self-efficacy in survival-driven entrepreneurs’, towards the degree of Doctor of Business Management in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, with supervisor Prof. Nicky Terblanche and co-supervisor Dr Marietjie Theron-Wepener, received December 2024. It is available here, https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/b00ba1a5-d114-43d1-9c7a-cf14881fa044/content.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
J.P.C. contributed to the conception, writing original draft and editing as part of this PhD study. N.T. and M.T-.W. supervised the research and contributed to the reviewing and editing of the paper.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of confidentiality and are available from the corresponding author, N.T., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Albaz, A., Dondi, M., Rida, T., & Schubert, J. (2020, July 07). Unlocking growth in small and medium-size enterprises. McKinsey. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/unlocking-growth-in-small-and-medium-size-enterprises
Altman, M. (2022). Trajectories for South African employment after COVID-19. South African Journal of Science, 118(5–6), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2022/13289
Audet, J., & Couteret, P. (2012). Coaching the entrepreneur: Features and success factors. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(3), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626001211250207
Baluku, M.M., Matagi, L., & Otto, K. (2020). Exploring the link between mentoring and intangible outcomes of entrepreneurship: the mediating role of self-efficacy and moderating effects of gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01556
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Freeman, W.H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.805
BarNir, A., Watson, W.E., & Hutchins, H.M. (2011). Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial attitude and role models. International Conference on Management Science and Engineering – Annual Conference Proceeding(pp. 129–134). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSE.2011.6069954
Baum, J.R., & Locke, E.A. (2004). The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.587
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2012). Grounded theory: A practical guide (1st ed.). Sage.
Botha, M., Carruthers, T.J., & Venter, M.W. (2019). The relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and the recurring entrepreneurial intention and action of existing entrepreneurs. Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v11i1.191
Bowmaker-Falconer, A., & Meyer, N. (2022). Fostering entrepreneurial ecosystem vitality, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor South Africa (GEM SA) 2021/2022 report. Retrieved from https://gemconsortium.org/report
Bozer, G., & Jones, R.J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(3), 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1446946
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brinkley, M.-L., & Le Roux, I. (2018). Coaching as a support function for potential entrepreneurs. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v10i1.99
Brodie, J., Van Saane, S.H., & Osowska, R. (2017). Help wanted: Exploring the value of entrepreneurial mentoring at start-up. Industry and Higher Education, 31(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422217691666
Bushe, B. (2019). The causes and impact of business failure among small to micro and medium enterprises in South Africa. Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review, 7(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v7i1.210
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927
Clutterbuck, D. (2005). Establishing and maintaining mentoring relationships: An overview of mentor and mentee competencies. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 3(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v3i3.70
Clutterbuck, D. (2008). What’s happening in coaching and mentoring? And what is the difference between them? Development and Learning in Organisations, 22(4), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777280810886364
Cope, J. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(4), 373–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2005.00090.x
Cope, J. (2011). Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 604–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.06.002
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.). (2014). The complete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.), Sage.
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (Ed.s). (2018). The complete handbook of coaching (3rd ed.). Sage.
Cramer, R.J., Neal, T.M.S., & Brodsky, S.L. (2009). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical distinctions and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal, 61(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017310
Crompton, B.M., Smyrnios, K.X., & Bi, R. (2012). Measuring the influence of business coaching on fast-growth firms. Small Enterprise Research, 19(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.5172/ser.2012.19.1.16
Ddungu, C., Manirankunda, L., Meudec, M., Van Landeghem, E., Vanhamel, J., Katsuva, D., & Nöstlinger, C. (2023). Sub-Saharan African communities’ experiences and engagement with COVID-19 and the related control strategies in Antwerp, Belgium. International Journal for Equity in Health, 22(1), 53–53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01867-w
Dominguez, N., & Hager, M. (2013). Mentoring frameworks: Synthesis and critique. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(3), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-03-2013-0014
Drnovšek, M., Wincent, J., & Cardon, M.S. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and business start-up: Developing a multi-dimensional definition. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 16(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011054516
Estrin, S., Korosteleva, J., & Mickiewicz, T. (2022). Schumpeterian entry: Innovation, exporting, and growth aspirations of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 46(2), 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720909771
Flaherty, J. (2006). Coaching: Evoking excellence in others (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier.
Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An attitudinal approach. Journal of Management Education, 31(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905282023
Garvey, B., Stokes, P., Megginson, D., & Kullar, E. (2018). Coaching and mentoring: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Sage.
Gergen, K.J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F.J. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7–8), 679–707. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-100104770
Harvey, M., & Evans, R. (1995). Strategic windows in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00037-9
Huang, Y., Li, P., Chen, L., & Wang, J. (2023). Opportunity or necessity entrepreneurship? A study based on the national system of entrepreneurship. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100448
Hunt, C.M., Fielden, S., & Woolnough, H.M. (2019). The potential of online coaching to develop female entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Gender in Management, 34(8), 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2019-0021
Irani, E. (2019). The use of videoconferencing for qualitative interviewing: Opportunities, challenges, and considerations. Clinical Nursing Research, 28(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773818803170
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Kotte, S., Diermann, I., Rosing, K., & Möller, H. (2021). Entrepreneurial coaching: A two-dimensional framework in context. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 518–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12264
Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0
Kunaka, C., & Moos, M.N. (2019). Evaluating mentoring outcomes from the perspective of entrepreneurs and small business owners. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v11i1.214
Kuratko, D.F., Fisher, G., & Audretsch, D.B. (2021). Unraveling the entrepreneurial mindset. Small Business Economics, 57(4), 1681–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00372-6
Kutzhanova, N., Lyons, T.S., & Lichtenstein, G.A. (2009). Skill-based development of entrepreneurs and the role of personal and peer group coaching in enterprise development. Economic Development Quarterly, 23(3), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242409336547
Laukhuf, R.L., & Malone, T.A. (2015). Women entrepreneurs need mentors. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.24384/IJEBCM
Lee, A. (2007). How can a mentor support experiential learning? Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12(3), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104507078455
Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.D. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest, choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.06.004
Lent, R.W., Ireland, G.W., Penn, L.T., Morris, T.R., & Sappington, R. (2017). Sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations for career exploration and decision-making: A test of the social cognitive model of career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Linneberg, M.S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice data. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
Loan, L.T., Doanh, D.C., Thang, H.N., Viet Nga, N.T., Van, P.T., & Hoa, P.T. (2021). Entrepreneurial behaviour: The effects of the fear and anxiety of Covid-19 and business opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(3), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2021.090301
Mansoori, Y., Karlsson, T., & Lundqvist, M. (2019). The influence of the lean startup methodology on entrepreneur-coach relationships in the context of a startup accelerator. Technovation, 84–85(6/7), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2019.03.001
Mason, D.P., Chen, L.W., & Lall, S.A. (2022). Can institutional support improve volunteer quality? An analysis of online volunteer mentors. Voluntas, 33(3), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00351-9
Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2020). An exploratory study of entrepreneurs in impoverished communities: When institutional factors and individual characteristics result in non-productive entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 32(1–2), 134–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2019.1640476
McGee, J.E., & Peterson, M. (2019). The long-term impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on venture performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(3), 720–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12324
McKevitt, D., & Marshall, D. (2015). The legitimacy of entrepreneurial mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 21(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2014-0089
Memon, J., Rozan, M.Z.A., Ismail, K., Uddin, M., & Daud, D.K. (2015). Mentoring an entrepreneur: Guide for a mentor. SAGE Open, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015569666
Minniti, M., & Bygrave, W. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(3), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870102500301
Mueller, S.L., & Goic, S. (2002). Entrepreneurial potential in transition economies: A view from tomorrow’s leaders. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(4), 399–414.
Mutanda, M., Lekhanya, L.M., & Moyo, S. (2021). A lateral view on entrepreneurship literacy and the role of tertiary institutions: A case study of South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 1–15. Retrieved from https://www.abacademies.org/articles/a-lateral-view-on-entrepreneurial-literacy-and-the-role-of-tertiary-institutions-a-case-study-of-south-africa-10463.html
Ndofirepi, T.M., & Rambe, P. (2018). A qualitative approach to the entrepreneurial education and intentions nexus: A case of Zimbabwean polytechnic students. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 10(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajesbm.v10i1.81
Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110(2017), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012
Republic of South Africa. (2011). National development plan 2030: Our future – Make it work. Retrieved from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/ndp-2030-our-future-make-it-workr.pdf
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). sSelf-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Shapero, A. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. Kent, D. Sexton, & K. Vesper (Eds.), The encyclopedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Prentice-Hall.
Shi, W., & Weber, M. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurs’ prior experience and communication networks on perceived knowledge access. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1406–1426. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2020-0365
St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0130-7
St-Jean, É., & Mathieu, C. (2015). Developing attitudes toward an entrepreneurial career through mentoring: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 42(4), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314568190
Stokes, P., Fatien Diochon, P., & Otter, K. (2021). Two sides of the same coin? Coaching and mentoring and the agentic role of context. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14316
Stout-Rostron, S. (2014). Leadership coaching for results: Cutting-edge practices for coach and client (2nd ed.). Knowledge Resources Publishing.
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
Vaismoradi, M., & Snelgrove, S. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 20(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3376
Weber, C., Fasse, A., Haugh, H.M., & Grote, U. (2023). Varieties of necessity entrepreneurship: New insights from sub Saharan Africa. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 47(5), 1843–1876. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587221111737
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–72. Retrieved from http://www.imrjournal.org/uploads/1/4/2/8/14286482/imr-v15n1art4.pdf
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E., & Hills, G.E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265
Zwane, B.K., & Nyide, C.J. (2017). SMME attitudes towards financial bootstrapping: A perspective from a developing economy. Business and Economic Horizons, 13(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.15208/beh.2017.25
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
