THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACTION LEARNING
PROGRAMME TO DEVELOP ENTREPRENEURIAL SKILLS
Dr. (Mrs.) ADEYEMI, Sidikat L.
Department of Business Administration,
Faculty of Business and Social Sciences,
University of Ilorin,
P. M. B. 1515,
Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria
E-mail: sidiadeyemi@yahoo.com
Tel: +234 8054451111
ABSTRACT
This paper outlines the rationale and structure of an action learning programme, designed to help
entrepreneurs/senior managers of small and medium Enterprises (SMEs) to develop a plan for
business expansion. The objectives of the programme was to take participants systematically
through a process in which they create, research, evaluate and implement a growth strategy for
their companies. The pedagogy of the programme relied heavily on the principles of Action
Learning. Since the programme design was very difficult from the usual courses and seminars
that participants would attend in Nigeria, the proposed course was test-marketed. The results
were very disappointing. Of 154 potential customers, who it was thought would benefit from the
programme, only two responded that the proposal would be useful to them. The designers
reviewd what they learnt from the experience and embedded that learning in a framework, which
contrast educators’ norms and assumptions about learning with those of entrepreneurs.
Implications for other training programme designs are outlined.
1
INTRODUCTION
Recently, a number of authors have suggested that those involved in entrepreneurship education
need to concern themselves with developing an activity-based or action learning pedagogy for
imparting entrepreneurial skills to their students. Gibb, (1993), has proposed that ‘students’ learn
by doing, and this by involving them in a small business. This echoes the importance which
Mcmullan and Long (1987) suggest should be placed on real world experience in allowing
students to get to grips with what it means to be an entrepreneur. They have gone further in
suggesting that entrepreneurship skills should be taught as clinical practice rather than in
traditional lecture settings. Ronstadt, (1985) goes on to suggest that without activity, learning can
remain as a surface knowledge, rather than the deep understanding and comprehension which
comes from practical experience.
It may be that the activity-based element of an entrepreneurship education programme does
allow students to put their theoretical knowledge into practice. However, Dana (1993) has
suggested that the need for action learning in educating entrepreneurs is based on their
physiological make-up. He argues that entrepreneurs’ thinking and behaviours are dominated by
the right-hemisphere functions of the brain, which emphasizes creativity, judgment, innovation
and action, whereas most entrepreneurship programme center to and analytic reasoning. Since
the pedagogy of many small business and entrepreneurship programme emphasizes analytical
and logical skills, they cannot encourage the development of imagination and innovation, which
are among the core competencies of an entrepreneur. Further, since there is a mismatch between
the preferred learning style of the entrepreneur and the pedagogy of the programme, Dana
suggests that many budding entrepreneurs may reject such programmes or find them of very
limited utility.
For a variety of reasons, then, a number of educators have suggested that action learning or
activity – based projects should be included into the design of the entrepreneurship programmes.
However, as Murphy (1992) points out, it is difficult to identify many entrepreneurship
programmes in which action learning has been incorporated into the design. This observation is
supported by Dana’s (1993) worldwide review of the curricula of business schools offering
courses in entrepreneurship or innovation. With notable exceptions, the majority of
2
entrepreneurship courses were of traditional design, with very little activity- based learning being
incorporated into the programme. In similar vein, when we asked successful entrepreneurs for
their views on how to convey entrepreneurial knowledge to students, there were overwhelming
supports for traditional classroom-based techniques. However, despite the support for traditional
pedagogical approaches from this samples, they also mentioned a number of innovative ways of
introducing real-world experiences into the curriculum. It seems that while the value of action
learning may have been reorganized both by some educators and entrepreneurs themselves, the
introduction of such elements into entrepreneurship programme has been limited. Perhaps the
reluctance to use more action learning techniques in entrepreneurship education stems from
programme designers not being aware of the techniques, or not understanding what it is all about
and how to capitalize on it.
WHAT IS ACTION LEARNING?
Action Learning was originally a method of Management Education, which was devised by
Revans (1985) over half a century ago. It was designed in order to help managers to cope with
uncertainty and ambiguity, to deal with unpredictable situations for which there were no direct
and tested solutions. The central objectives of action learning therefore is to develop managers’
skills in dealing with uncertainty, making the best sense that they could, of the situation and
dealing with it. The vehicle for the learning was a project, usually a challenging problem or issue
that had to be resolved. One important learning process occurred when the managers were
required to reflect on their progress in solving the problems, and sharing those reflections with
other managers who were also working on their own projects.
Therefore, there is a difference between action learning and merely introducing a project or some
small business experience into the entrepreneurship curriculum, the principal difference being
the extent to which the participants are encouraged to learn from their attempts to solve the
problem of reflecting on their actions, and the consequences of those actions. In action learning,
they are required to surface their assumptions about the problems, test those assumptions out;
revise them as they gain insight into the problem and their own thinking about it. This process
goes on concurrently with solving the problem, in what Schon (1983) has described as a
“reflective conversation with the situation”. The emphasis on action learning therefore is equally
3
upon taking action, and as upon reflection. Without reflection there may be a lot of activity, but
not necessarily very much learning. In a paper presented at 1992 ENDEC conference, Beck
(1993) reviewed the characteristic of an action learning programme, and argued that this
approach was particularly appropriate for entrepreneurship education. The overall objective of
action learning programmes in preparing people to cope with uncertain and ambiguous events
seemed to be coherent with the needs of entrepreneurs, faced with the uncertainty of starting and
developing their business ventures. Of course, action learning does not meet all educational
needs of the entrepreneur. Revans (1985) distinguished between two types of learning, “P” and
“Q” learning. “P” learning involves the acquisition of existing facts, skill concepts, and problems
with known solutions, what Revans refer to as “programmed knowledge”. “Q” learning refers to
the acquisition of skills to ask new question of a problem or situation, to gain insight into the
nature of the problem and its solution. “Q” learning is essential in coping with new situations,
which do not have simple answers, based on programmed knowledge.
For entrepreneurs, the “P” element of any training or educational programme will include key
business skills, a conceptual knowledge of core business functions and an understanding of the
nature of small business, the process of innovation and business start-up and development. The
“Q” skills that the programme would aim to develop are in managing uncertainty, confronting
the problems faced by their business, testing out assumptions, revising them in the light of
experience, and seeing the problem through to solution. The key design principle for a course
which is aimed at developing entrepreneurship skills is to find an appropriate balance between
“P” and “Q” learning; between an emphasis on conceptual knowledge and business skills, and an
emphasis on giving participants the opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills to a practical
business project, and learning from that experience.
A further feature of action learning programme is the concept of the learning set. A learning set
is a group of managers all of whom are undertaking different action learning projects, who meet
regularly to discuss their progress under the guidance of a facilitator. Revans (1985) is adamant
that “managers learn best with and from each other”. The learning set can act as a source of ideas
on how the manager can deal with his project, it can challenge a manager who is reluctant to
tackle certain aspects of the project, and it can be a source of support, what Revans describes as
4
the “comradeship of adversity” of people facing similar but different problems. Perhaps in
similar vein, entrepreneurs might learn best with and from each other, as they tackle the
numerous problems that confront their business. One very valuable feature of an
entrepreneurship programme might be the creation of learning set of entrepreneurs. The set could
be a source of support, ideas, information and advise from other entrepreneurs who were facing
similar problem. However, the drawback is that entrepreneurs might be unwilling to discuss their
business and the problems they were facing in case they have their business ideas stolen.
Action learning therefore, when integrated into a traditional course on entrepreneurship or
innovation, seems to have a number of features, which could improve significantly the skills
required by an entrepreneur. There are some drawbacks, particularly where confidentiality might
be a problem, but on balance, the idea seems to be worth pursuing.
THE PROGRAMME
It was against this background of thinking of an appropriate pedagogy for developing
entrepreneurial skills that we began to design a training programme. The principles which
governed the design were first and foremost that entrepreneurs need both conceptual training in
order to develop the skills necessary for managing their business, and also an opportunity to
apply their skills to their own business and learn from that experience. So we decided to include
both elements in the programme design. Our concern was not only to get a good balance between
these elements but to integrate them into a coherent structure. The structure took the form of a
series of CONSULT-ACTION phases, in which participants were taken systematically through
the process of researching their business idea. Each phase would begin with a consultation
session, in which, in fairly traditional pedagogy format, the participants would receive expert
input on a business topic, e.g. researching the market for the product. This input would outline
what has to be done in such market research and how to go about it.
In that session, their results would be discussed, and particular attention would be focused on
problems they had encountered in conducting the research and how they overcome them. The
final part of the consultation session would be the input for the next action phase so that in a
series of “learning cycles”, the participants “do their homework” on their business proposals to
check whether their proposals made business sense.
5
The objectives of the programme were to get the potential entrepreneurs to make a decision,
based on their research of their business idea, on whether to proceed. The programme therefore,
would not take the entrepreneurs through the first difficult months of getting their business
established and on a sound footing. However, we did not intend to abandon the participants. It
was envisaged that if the participants had found the learning sets a useful learning device during
this course, then they may well have continued as a support group to help entrepreneurs during
the first year of their business operations.
In terms of content, the programme was designed to get the participants to create, research,
evaluate and think through the implementation of a business plan for their ventures. This
approach has been criticized by some entrepreneurship educators, who argue that most small
businesses do not need a detailed business plan. However, it was our view that entrepreneurs
need to have done their homework on their business idea. If the feasibility of their plan is not
checked, then the risk of failure is so much greater.
Another major objective of the programme was to develop skills, which the entrepreneur could
apply to other business ideas. The transferability of the skills was important, since, if the
participants, after researching their business ideas, decided that they were not viable and did not
go ahead with start-up, then they had developed a general approach to researching business ideas
which could be applied to other business ventures. The systematic approach and the model of
business development and the search and evaluation skills developed on the programme were
therefore generalized to other ventures.
Of course in terms of the issues covered in the course, and even the action phases when the
concepts were applied to the participants’ business ideas, this programme could be covered by a
series of private consultations between individual participants and the teaching staff. However,
we believed that learning sets facilitate learning from the action phase, and create a more
interesting and varied learning situation than a series of individual tutorials. The problem
identified earlier is secrecy in order to protect proprietary nature of the business idea from
exploitation by others. The secrecy we felt would inhibit the learning, particularly since we
could be dealing with a number of first-time entrepreneurs who might be very cautions about
revealing any aspect of their business idea. One way around this problem was to move the focus
6
away from first time entrepreneurs, and instead concentrate on established business, which were
considering various strategies for business growth. In essence, the problems for business growth
are very similar, if less severe than those of starting a new venture. Since we would be dealing
with businesses, which were more established, and because there are barriers to entry into that
industry, we thought that the participants might be more prepared to be open about their business
plans.
One final design issue was to try to make the programme as user-friendly to the participants as
possible.
The programme had to be convenient; to take into account the needs of busy
executives, and to give sufficient time for the participants to research their idea, but not so long
that the programme lost momentum. The final design involved ten evening sessions over an
eight-week period. The teaching staff had also agreed to telephone tutorial support to any
participant who called in with queries about their project work between the sessions.
TESTING THE MARKET
As Murphy (1992) has pointed out, very few programmes in entrepreneurship have been
designed with an action learning focus. As far as we were aware, this is the first time that such a
programme had been offered in Nigeria. The majority of management/business traditional
didactic format, which encourage a passive response from the participants rather than an active
one.
We were therefore concerned to see whether the action learning concept and consultation
programme situation would be marketable. Market research was carried out on Firms, selected
by industry, from the Nigerian Industrial Directory, NACCIMA, from the membership of the
Association of small and medium scale enterprises and from the mailing list of participants in
other entrepreneurship programmes. A description of the course in brochure form was produced,
together with a market research questionnaire. Firms were contacted and asked whether they
would agree to participate in the survey. For those who agreed, the course brochure and
questionnaire were mailed to them, 154 firms took part.
Of these only nine returned the
completed questionnaire. A follow up with the remainder ascertained that 65 were not interested
in participating in the programme, the rest were unable to respond since we could not get access
7
to the persons who were reviewing the brochures. Of the nine full questionnaires responded,
only two indicated that they would be interested in participating in the programme, the others
indicated no interest. The poor market response has meant that at the moment in Nigeria, plans
to offer the programme have been shelved. This has obviously been a disappointment for the
designers, but it has stimulated us to think of some of the reasons that entrepreneurship courses,
which incorporate action learning, might not be attractive to potential entrepreneurs.
BARRIERS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ACTION LEARNING
PROGRAMMES
Various types of resistance occur during any educational or training experience, although there
are many which are unique to action learning experience. One of the most basic reasons these
and other resistance will occur in introducing action learning experiences is that the assumptions
underlying the training may be at odds with the culture of those who might potentially be
involved in the training. Edgar Schein (1985) has identified culture as a common pattern of
basic assumptions developed by a group, over time. In turn, these assumptions give rise to
values, norms and behaviours and artifacts, which provide more tangible manifestations of the
culture. Different groups and professions portray unique cultural values and behaviours.
For instance, academics, doctors and lawyers are socialized into the norms of their professions
through extensive rites of passage. Many of these rites are similar across countries, with the
result that doctors, lawyers and other professionals tend to display similar norms, values and
behavious across countries and across time.
Among the barriers to the successful implementation of the programme, we believe is a “culture
clash” between “practitioner” and “educator” communities. Both of these communities have
developed basic assumptions about how the world works as a result of their patterns of
experience. Where there is a mismatch or gap between the assumptions made by both groups,
there is likely to be a mismatch between the other dimensions of culture as well, and this in turn
will lead to poor mutual understanding.
Traditional education might be thought of as the process and methods which allow people to
learn knowledge, values, skills, and strategy through methods of reading and listening. The
8
teaching activities are content oriented and include defining the content to be learned, setting
objectives, presenting content, and providing feedback related to standardized criteria. Learning
activities include: comprehending, assimilating the content, testing out skills and accepting and
responding to feedback. An action learning approach is based on the assumption that every
individual, in response to learning experiences, develops a model or framework, which
represents the meanings and values and principles for learning. The learner’s model is based on
his/her learning style, educational needs and goals.
The action learning orientation also
recognizes that each individual, in encountering the world, also encounters other persons. Social
interaction requires communication of a person’s model of reality and the willingness and ability
to understand the frameworks offered by others. The interaction is best facilitated through group
activities which encourage sharing and communicating. The teaching activities are process
oriented.
Certain strategic questions may need to be answered in introducing action-learning experiences
for training entrepreneurs and other groups who represent unique culture. In particular, one
should diagnose how the “cultures” of the entrepreneurial and education domains differ.
This can be done through contrasting the artifacts, behaviours, values and ultimately
assumptions, which both groups hold about learning, about the business environment, human
nature and human activity.
These and many other questions will occur in the process of introducing an action learning
process. Often, these questions are outlined as a series of choices. The next section presents a
series of dilemmas that training coordinators might have to confront in the design of action
learning experiences. The dilemmas are presented as extremes, but they are obviously not so
“black and white”. However, a manager or training coordinator will confront most of these gaps
in some form, and it may be useful to use them as a tool for assessment.
ARTIFACT AND BEHAVIORAL “GAPS”
Artifacts are the physical manifestations of a culture, they are its tangible products, and they
have meaning for the members of a particular culture. In addition, the language used by a group
and the behviours displayed by the members are also manifestations of culture.
9
Thus, we can contrast the two cultures and identify ‘culture gaps” between the entrepreneurial
domain and the educator domains by tracing the artifactual and behavioural difference
manifested in this programme.
Academic vs. Topical Language. There are a range of ideas which have captured management
attention over the last decade, ranging from management by objectives, zero-base budgeting,
strategic management, term building. It is the “age of the paperback manager, where many of
the topics of organizational interest are those, which are found on the airport newstands. Action
learning is not as “catchy” a term, and the materials propagating it do not have the direct and
immediate relevance to the manager. Typically these are embodied in physical products such as
books, papers and letters. The most important artifact produced for the programme was the
“flier” or sales document announcing the programme.
Two key dimensions emerge after reviewing the document. First, the major differentiating
component of the programme was titled “CONSULT-ACTION”. Whereas this had meaning for
the providers of the course, it had relatively little meaning for the target audience. In particular,
the phrase may have highlighted the fact that in a general programme, very little detailed
“consulting” could be delivered. Thus, the audience felt it would be a general programme, but
one with a difference which was relatively unimportant to them.
Behavioral.
The second major dimension is that the target audience was Nigerian SMEs,
however, all the course providers were identified as core academicians. It is possible that some
potential participants might have thought that this would inhibit understanding of the local
context, client’s concern and business practices.
Among the verbalized reasons for non-
attendance was the observation that the programme was “too demanding”. Given the design of
the programme, highly interactive and committed participant was required. The course design
was highly integrated and non-modular. Thus, the participants perceived a significant amount of
risk arising if absent at any single session. In addition, personal risks were perhaps seen as
significant. The CONSULT-ACTION design required participants to be open with each other
and with the course leaders. The revelation of business ideas, strategies and financing plans
were identified as being important and this may have inhibited involvement.
10
VALUE GAPS
These reflect the group’s social understanding of the “way things ought to be”. As such, the
values have a normative component, they express the common understanding of the group that
certain behaviours are desired, and by the same token that others are not desired. Among the
values, which differentiate, the course providers and the target audience revolve around the
“appropriateness” (normative) of various pedagogic devices and modalities to deliver the
education experience. As stated earlier, Ronstadt (1985) found that successful entrepreneurs felt
that the most appropriate vehicle to convey “entrepreneurial knowledge” was the traditional
classroom experience. This ran counter to the desiderata of the course providers.
The various sub-dimensions upon which Action Learning experiences differ from traditional
learning are discussed below.
General versus Specific Skills. One of the fundamental values that drove the design of the
programme was the desire to ensure that participants should develop skills in formulating
business ideas, designing business plans and appraising business ideas. Thus, the emphasis was
not placed on developing a specific content for any of these dimensions, but rather that
participants would develop meta-level skills in going through a systematic procedure for
developing and evaluating business ideas.
However, it is felt that participants, given
expectations about the nature of business courses were potentially more interested in
programmes, which should address more specific issues, such as entering new markets and
developing new products.
Top Down versus Bottom-up Training. Training experiences can be centrally planned from the
top or allowed to flow from clear ideas and defined content. Several considerations might
illustrate the dilemma of top-down versus bottom-up training. When change or unique directions
are initiated from trainers, there is the need to sell them to organizational participants, as people
rarely will make significant changes in their life plans on the basis of such experience. If ideas
come from the interactions with others, there is no guarantee that all people will learn the same
thing, and some may not learn anything at all. Top-down change may provoke less resistance if:
members of the audience are homogeneous and have common goals and values; if people do not
11
desire interaction and involvement; if there are serious costs from inaction, when tasks are
simple, similar, and defined; when the ideas do not threaten the basic values of the audience, and
if the trainers are unwilling or unable to handle change or diversity. An action learning approach
recognizes the needs of those in audience, but it also assumes a trainer’s position is much
stronger if people at lower levels are committed to the change.
This usually means that
managers and workers are more effective in joint problem solving.
Resolving Technical versus Process Problems. Is it more appropriate to focus on resolving
technical or process problems? Many entrepreneurs’ problems are more technical and involve
the appropriateness of the market, the choice of technology, or procedures for managing (such as
performance appraisals, planning, compensation). Process problems involve not only solving a
specific concrete example of the problem, but also learning how to solve similar problems in the
future. Process problems involve resolving conflicts, coping with feelings of frustration and
anger, dealing with miscommunications and developing the ability to see opportunities and take
action. In this programme, the “technical” problems would be addressed in the “P” learning
sessions, while the emphasized “Q” learning came in the homework and consult phases.
Traditional teaching emphasizes “P” type learning alone, and this may be attractive to
entrepreneurs who have “concrete” problems. However, the intrinsic value underlying Action
Learning is that both types of learning are required, and that the Q-type learning best occurs by
reflecting on a learning experience within a social network of individuals grappling with similar
problems. This principle suggests that the process of creating the design of the new programme
should contribute to the individual’s and organization’s capacity to deal with similar problems in
the future and in addition, prevent future problems from occurring.
ASSUMPTION GAPS
As groups evolve and develop solutions to problems, many behaviours which succeed repeatedly
take on the status of values, and as repeated success occurs they become taken-for-granted, tacit
assumptions about how the world works.
All groups make basic assumptions about their
environments, human nature and the nature and importance of the task, which the group
undertakes. Both the value and artifact contrast emerge from the difference in assumptions about
learning which the course providers and the target audience have. The fundamental distinction
12
between the programme as designed and the programme as perceived by the target audience is
best captured by the contrast in learning styles assumed to present.
Learning by Doing versus Learning by Note Taking. Every entrepreneur has his/her own
individualistic style of processing information and for learning. Each style dictates how the
person might best learn and develop. While adults enter learning experience with preferred styles
and tend to relish experience that fit their styles, they will also use other styles albeit less
productively. In this sense, learning is cyclical with each learner moving through a series of
cognitive and learning experiences contributing to his/her overall learning. Some of the activities
may be more preferred than others; some will be avoided. Even though individual have preferred
styles where they are more comfortable, an integrated learning experience involves all aspects of
learning, such as observing, experiencing, conceptualizing, and application. David Kolb’s
learning theory provides an understanding of how a manager’s learning style relies on
experience, observation, conceptualization and practice. In this, learning is thought of as a four
stage cycle where immediate concrete experience is the basis for observation and reflection.
Concrete experiences describe a person’s “feelings” and “reaction” to events. Observations are
the way that people see and hear these events or issues. The process of experiencing and
observing goes hand in hand and it is sometimes difficult to separate them. For this reason, some
people may find it easier to describe their experiences before they seek to understand their
feelings and reactions while, for others, it is a rather easy to “get in touch” with feelings.
Scanlon (1980) has identified four dominant learning styles. The converger’s learning abilities
are Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE). Convergers like
practical ideas and like problems, which have explicit answers. They like to focus on specific
problems and prefer to deal with tangible things rather than feelings or emotions. They tend to
specialize in jobs like engineering, accounting, nursing, or other jobs, which are technical and
specific. The diverger is the polar opposite of converger. Divergers like concrete things, but they
also more observing then active. They are best at both at Concrete Experience (CE) and Active
Experience (AE). A diverger likes to imagine things and to take a look at a problem from a
number of perspectives.
13
This person likes to brainstorm and generate ideas, is generally interested in people, and tends to
be creative and imaginative. He/she tends to specialize in fields such as history, political science,
English, and psychology, or people in the humanities and liberal arts. The assimilator is high on
abstract conceptualization (AC) and reflective observation (RO). The major strengths and
interests of the assimilator are in building abstract models or theories, which require them to
integrate ideas from a variety of sources. This person would tend to be a good mathematician,
systems analyst or information systems professional. On the other hand, the accommodator is
strong on concrete experience (CE) and active experience (AE) and has a preference for the
doing things to see how they turn out, rather than talking about them. The style is very typical of
managers, businessmen and also entrepreneurs.
Differences in learning style create problems for entrepreneurial education. This is, the learner
(entrepreneur) may be more inclined to accept and like certain learning orientations more than
others. Facing a learning situation, which is not congruent with a person’s learning style, is
somewhat of a culture shock such as most engineers would face in a fines arts class. The same
culture shock is often felt by business people who attend classes which are very theoretical.
These people will search for more concrete information and be rather reluctant to offer ideas and
information. Should we design our teaching methods to respond to individuals who have unique
learning styles? probably not. Learning relies on the ability to experience a range of learning
experiences. People who find the most difficulty with other learning styles are those who are
likely to be more looked into one style. The task then might be to design learning experience to
respond to as many facets of a learning experience as possible. That is learning relies on feelings,
observing, thinking, and action. Our programme was design to deliver this range of experiences.
This assumption gave rise to the values, which underlay the design of the programme as
articulated in the flier. It is apparent that our approach did not “fit” the learning styles of the
participants.
DISCUSSION
The failure discussed is mostly attributable to gap in expectations. It would be logical to expect
that the best way to resolve these difficulties hinge on the ability to develop a shared
commitment. Trainers need to be aware of the reasons why people resist if they are to respond
14
appropriately. The research literature offers a range of suggestions on activities, which facilitate
the process of change, and we fell that two are particularly important.
First, it may be difficult to motivate people to change when they are satisfied with the status quo.
On the other hand, dissatisfactions, tensions, or pressures to change may enhance the possibility
a change will be successful. Resistance will be less if people perceive that a change will lead to
desirable outcomes. What motivates people to accept or resist change is self-interest. This
includes the desire to personal power, prestige, income, or security. Before people react to any
change, they may consciously or unconsciously make a calculation of how their interests are
affected. People are more ready for change when there are external pressures such as a loss of
competitiveness or internal pressures from high rates of turnover or absenteeism, high grievance
rates, sabotage, complaints and hostility, and so forth. In Nigerian context, an unstable
government, depressed economy provides an unfavourable environment for enterprise, and hence
entrepreneurs may not be willing to commit any resources for such programme.
Second, a skilled leader, consultant, or internal facilitator is often necessary to assist in bringing
about a change. Not all change agents are equally acceptable to a given client, and initial feelings
of mistrust and incompatibility are likely to result in strained relationships. Credibility depends
on a number of variables such as past experiences within that system, customs, values, norms,
and expectations. This is not always related to the formal leadership, nor whether a person is an
insider or an outsider. Some studies have emphasized the importance of contacts between the
researcher and practioners at all stages of a study. This translates into more energetic methods of
contact and to more consequential use of the findings. In the entrepreneurship domain, this may
require developing early contact with the target groups to develop feeling of mutual trust and
confidence, before embarking on the programme design.
REFERENCES
Beck , J. (1993). “Action Learning and the Education of Entrepreneurs” Paper presented
at the World Conference on Entrepreneurship, August Singapore.
Dana, L.P. (1993). Does a Strategic Interventionist Approach Foster Entrepreneurship. An
15
Experiment in Austria, processing of 4th ENDEC World Conference on
Entrepreneurship, July, Singapore, 401 -408
Gibb, A. A. (1993). Small Business Development in Central and Eastern Europe –
Opportunity for a Rethink. Journal of Business Venturing 8, Page 461 -686.
Mumullan, W.E. and Long W.A. (1987). Entrepreneurship Education in the nineties. Journal
of Business venturing 2 (3) 261-275
Murphy Margaret (1992) “Interns and Mentorship in Entrepreneurship Education
Programme” Paper delivered at the Conference on Entrepreneurship in Economic
Widener University,
March 11
Revan R.J. (1985) “New Development in Entrepreneurial Education” in J.A. Hornaday, E.B.
Shils. J.A. Timmons and K.H. vesper (Eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Babson College Wellestey. M.A. pp. 77-84
Ronstadt, R. 1983, The Educated Entrepreneurs –A new Era of Entrepreneurial Education is
Beginning American Journal of Small Business, Vol. 10 No. 3.
Scanlon, Thomas .J. elal (1980), Entrepreneurship Education. Springfield. Llinois State
Board of Education, Department of Adult Vocational and Technical Education
Schein, Edgar (1985), “Organization Culture and leadership” Jossey Bass.
Schon, D. (1983). The Rethective Practitioner: How Professional Think in Action. Basic
Books, New York.
16