A systemic approach to entrepreneurial learning: an exploration using storytelling

SystemsResearchandBehavioralScienceSyst. Res.21,3 1̂6 (2004)DOI:10.1002/sres.543

& ResearchPaper

A Systemic Approach to EntrepreneurialLearning: An Exploration UsingStorytelling

Lorraine Warren*

Loughborough University Business School, Loughborough, UK

The promotion of entrepreneurial activity is high on the educational agenda, reflectingeconomic and political interest and support. However, the study of entrepreneuriallearning is characterized by a diffuse and fragmented literature which spans policy,individual learning and business development, with conclusions based on a plethora ofmethodological approaches. In this paper, a systemic schema ismodified and developed toprovide a frame of reference for the study of entrepreneurial learning. The paper is basedon a study of women’s narratives of their experience as small/micro-enterprise owner/managers in the UK. Theoretical developments concerning the potential usefulness of theschema are discussed; practical implications for the design of entrepreneurshipdevelopment programmes are also presented. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords entrepreneurship; entrepreneurial learning; experiential learning; organizational learn-ing; narrative analysis

1. INTRODUCTION

The promotion of entrepreneurship as a driverfor economic change is high on the educationalagenda, reflecting political support at the highestlevel. The Interman Directory (Interman, 1991)identifies three main categories of entrepreneur-ship programme associated with entrepreneurialactivity, namely: orientation and awareness pro-grammes which focus on encouraging partici-

pants to think in terms of entrepreneurship as acareer; new enterprise creation programmes des-igned to develop competences which lead to self-employment; programmes which focus on com-petence training to support small businesssurvival and growth. Not surprisingly, entrepre-neurial learning has been the subject of muchacademic study. Although some useful conclu-sions can be drawn, the literature is somewhatfragmented in character, spanning policy, indivi-dual learning and business development, andderiving conclusions from a plethora of metho-dological perspectives. This fragmentation ref-lects the absence of integrated theoretical models

Received 3 September 2002Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 13 January 2003

* Correspondence to: Lorraine Warren, Loughborough UniversityBusiness School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leices-tershire LE11 3TU, UK.

and frameworks generally to guide research inthe broader small business/entrepreneurshipfield (Steyaert and Bouwen, 1997; Fuller andMoran, 2001). Until recently, the mainstream sys-tems literature has paid little systematic attentionto this area, except for occasional reports ofinterventions into small companies (Ragsdell andWarren, 1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Warren andRagsdell, 2002). The most notable exception tothis assertion has been Fuller and Moran’s (2001)integrative model, which is informed by com-plexity theory and attempts to provide concep-tual clarification for researchers in the field. Inthis paper, Fuller and Moran’s schema is used toprovide a frame of reference for the study ofentrepreneurial learning. The account below isbased on a study of women’s narratives of theirexperience as small/micro-enterprise owner-managers in the UK. The first section of thispaper introduces the schema and highlights itspotential value concerning research into entre-preneurial learning; the next section explains thechoice of narrative analysis as a methodologicalapproach to explore entrepreneurial learning.The fourth section presents the study, dataanalysis and discussion. Finally conclusions aredrawn as to the theoretical implications of themodel; practical implications for the design ofentrepreneurship development programmes arealso presented.

2. A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO SMALLBUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

2.1. The Enterprise as a Complex AdaptiveSystem

Small enterprises exist in complex interconnectedeconomic, social and political webs. Enterpriseowner-managers (OMs) are subject to (and the-mselves may impact on) a wide range of influen-ces, from close family members, to economic andpolitical events on a global scale. Such intercon-nectedness makes them difficult to research;however, the use of systems concepts such asholism, boundary management, feedback andcontrol clearly hold promise for the managementof such complexity. Fuller and Moran (2001),drawing on complexity theory, attempt to struc-ture that interconnectedness in systemic termsthrough a stylized schema of ontological layersrelating to entrepreneurship. It is argued that thelayers correspond to schools of thought in theentrepreneurship literature (Figure 1).

The basic systemic principle underlying themodel is that each layer can express emergentproperties which are, firstly, dependent on theexisting layer and, secondly, different in beha-viour from the supporting layers. Furthermore,the process works top-down as well as bottom-up, in that the emergent properties of networks,

Figure 1. Ontological layers in the entrepreneurship domain of knowledge (Fuller and Moran, 2001)

RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Copyright � 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Syst. Res. 21, 3 1̂6 (2004)

4 LorraineWarren

micro-economieswill shape individual cognitionsand so on. Central to the model is the under-standing of the enterprise as a complex adaptivesystem giving rise to emergent properties througha confluence of stakeholder actions. Each stake-holder is conceived as an actor or agent operatingtheir own instrumental strategies which arereflexively moderated by interaction with others.The most significant influence is exerted by thekey human agent in the system (the OM); ofcourse, the enterprise itself can then be under-stood as an agent in its wider containing system.

Clearly, such a model of increasing complexityhas a correspondence to Boulding’s hierarchy ofsystem complexity (Boulding, 1956). In a similarvein, Nair (2001) has proposed an analogoushierarchy for organizational learning, which interalia, proposes that organizations proceed fromless complex to more complex learning systemswhich incorporate the functions of those at thelower level. In principle, in systemic terms, thispaper could have been organized around adap-tations of either Boulding’s or Nair’s work; Fullerand Moran’s model was chosen because of itsexplicit focus on entrepreneurship and itsemphasis on the OM as the key human agent,although Nair is revisited later.

Fuller and Moran assert that the purpose oftheir model is not to establish a unifying theory,but to provide an interpretative and orientingdevice for entrepreneurship and small businessresearch. As yet, there is little in the literature totest the utility of this device; this paper isintended to explore the proposition and initiateacademic debate.

2.2. Entrepreneurial Learning

It has long been recognized in the entrepreneur-ship literature that while certain functional skillsets can be ‘taught’—elementary bookkeepingfor example—experiential learning is essential toentrepreneurial learning (for example, Gibb, 1987,1997; Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994, Gormanet al., 1997; Deakins and Freel, 1998). Rae andCarswell (2000) note that while this seems to be areasonable conclusion, there is as yet littleresearch on how successful entrepreneurs have

turned their experience into learning—essentialif effective education and training programmesare to be developed. Furthermore, although thereappears to be some consensus forming aroundthe importance and nature of experiential learn-ing for entrepreneurs, the literature reveals othertensions which, if we consider the enterprise as acomplex adaptive system, bring to mind bound-ary issues—between the OM, those directlyemployed by the enterprise, and a wider rangeof stakeholders.

Central to small company management is thehandling of transactional and other relationshipswith a network of customers, suppliers, bankers,accountants, solicitors, agents, marketing chan-nels, workers and regulatory authorities, as wellas acquaintances, friends and family (Gibb,1997). It has been argued (Gibb, 1997; Steierand Greenwood, 2000; Mitchell et al., 1997) thatthe ability of a small enterprise to survive is afunction of managing and developing suchdynamic networks (i.e. its interconnectedness)in conditions of uncertainty (Mitchell uses theconcept of the ‘stakeholder’ to frame suchrelationships). Gibb (1997) argues that learningis central to this process, and that for OMslearning should be a two-way process, wherethey not only learn from network members(including education/training providers), butalso facilitate the learning of network members,to enable them to meet current needs and toanticipate future threats and opportunities. Henotes that it is not unreasonable to question thelearning needs of those who interface directlywith small enterprises, such as the regulatoryand support agencies, those in large firms whodeal with the operational activities at the pur-chase and supply interface of large firms, bank-ers and so on.

In addition to the complexity presented by theentrepreneurial learning environment describedabove, further boundary perturbations betweenthe OM, the enterprise and the wider containingsystem may occur upon growth. Life cycletheorists (Greiner, 1972; Churchill and Lewis,1983) argue that OMs must adapt and change if abusiness moves into a growth phase, and thatthis can present crises of management whichmust be resolved if they are to be successful.

Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER


A Systemic Approach to Entrepreneurial Learning 5

Cope and Watts (2000) note that painful learningcrises can result if the process of personaldevelopment for the OM lags behind themanagerial requirements of a growing organiza-tion, concluding that there is a need for anintegrated perspective of personal and businessdevelopment. This is illustrated in traditionalsystemic terms, treating the enterprise as a‘standard’ organization in Figure 2.

Many early-stage entrepreneurs operate aloneor with very few direct employees, although theirsphere of business influence may be extensivethrough the management of a portfolio of formaland informal relationships. In a growth situation,this loose and dynamic system boundary (loose-coupled staff) may well ‘harden’, as growingnumbers of people become directly employed bythe organization, bringing with them their formalrequirement for legal and financial management,and their informal motivational expectations(tightly coupled staff). At such times, greatpressure is placed on the OM, which may at

times exceed their personal capacity to manage.Applying Fuller and Moran’s conceptualization,new ‘employee’ stakeholders exert their owncharacteristic strategies (and pressures on theOM), which may threaten the ability of the OM tomanage effectively (and indeed threaten thesurvival of the firm).

2.3. An Integrated Approach?

The systemic representation of growth presentedin Figure 2 is illustrative, but it is argued here thatthe application of Fuller and Moran’s schema ismore powerful in that it has the potential tointegrate understandings of policy and personaland business development, and in doing so allowfor the ‘two-way’ traffic envisaged by Gibb(1997). This is illustrated in Figure 3.

The model in Figure 3 is derived by simplify-ing that in Figure 2, by collapsing layers 1–6 intothree new layers corresponding to the individual

Figure 2. Systemic representation of crisis of growth for OMs



6 LorraineWarren

entrepreneur, the enterprise and the network.Conceptually, an analogy is then drawn to Nair’s(2001) hierarchy of organizational learning levels.Hence, it is suggested that entrepreneuriallearning takes place at the individual levels,originally layers 5 and 6, with the literaturesuggesting that mental models are shared on acontingency basis with a wide range of stake-holders. The learning processes of the OM mustbe effective in terms of personal development,and must also impact successfully on theenterprise if it is to adapt well and influence itsown wider containing system. Thus, it is arguedthat successful adaptation of the enterprise isinseparable from, and is to some extent anemergent property of, OM learning. In terms ofthe model, this suggests the sharing of mentalmodels at the organizational levels, originally,layers 3 and 4. There is an obvious analogy withorganizational learning here, but one that mustbe treated with care, given the somewhatambiguous nature of what is mean by ‘enter-prise’ and ‘boundary’, particularly at times ofgrowth, as explained above. Finally, originallayers 1 and 2, characterized here as networklearning, look to the sharing of mental modelsbetween organizations, as an emergent propertyof enterprise learning. Clearly, this includespolicy makers and support agencies as well as

other businesses. The challenge presented byFuller and Moran in using their model to frameresearch is not to focus on one particular layer (areductionist view), but to study the interactionsbetween layers, to establish how emergentproperties arise. The next section explores hownarrative analysis is used in this study to tracethese interactions in the context of entrepreneur-ial learning.

3. METHODOLOGY: NARRATIVE ANALYSIS

Until recently, traditions of positivist researchhave predominated in the entrepreneurship/small business management field, drawing onthe disciplines of science, business, economicsand (more recently) psychology. More recently,influenced by interpretive social science, therehas been a shift away from researching theentrepreneur as either a unit of economic activity,or as an ‘entity’ with implicit personality traits(Chell et al., 1991). There is an emerging con-sensus since Gartner (1989) that the study ofentrepreneurship as a complex, dynamic, livedexperience might yield richer insights thanthe somewhat reductionist perspectives whichhave gone before. This has led to increasinguse of narrative analysis in the study of

Figure 3. Systemic model of entrepreneurial learning




entrepreneurship generally (case for: Steyaertand Bouwen, 1997; example: Mallon and Cohen,2001) and more specifically for entrepreneuriallearning (Rae, 2000; Rae and Carswell, 2000; Copeand Watts, 2000) which, in itself, as indicatedearlier is seen as an extremely complex dynamicphenomenon. Cope and Watts (2000) argue thatthe articulation of the learning process may bevery difficult for entrepreneurs, given that muchof entrepreneurial learning has been character-ized as both unintentional and accidental (Mur-phy and Young, 1995), and that they may beunused to reflecting on such issues. Thus it isargued (Rae, 2000) that narrative analysis meth-odology can be used to generate new under-standings as to how entrepreneurial capability isdeveloped through learning.

Fuller and Moran (2001) themselves note thetrend towards reflexive and grounded theorybuilding in the entrepreneurship literature, andprovide support for the idea of actors taking partin the research process. In their model, theinterpretation is placed in a dynamical self-organizing network; narrative analysis affordsthe possibility of tracing interactions through thisnetwork.

These justifications are given further weight bythe experience of the author in interacting withthe client group prior to the research in socialsettings which had given insight into the richnessof experience that could be brought to bear to thestudy.

In summary, this study uses narrative analysisto gain understanding of the learning processesof individual entrepreneurs, and how that learn-ing then pervades a broader systemic environ-ment, to include those directly employed by theenterprise and a broader range of stakeholders.Such understanding may provide insight intotheorizing the entrepreneurship domain as anested hierarchy of systems and provide prac-tical insights into designing education andtraining programmes, and providing input topolicy makers. But as Plummer (1995) notes, thesocial processes of producing and consumingstories are not unproblematic. The stories hereare not presented as descriptions of ‘real’ events,but as sense-making devices which the story-tellers construct to support an interpretation of

past events in their lives. Nor are the storiescreated in isolation from the author, who has asilent presence in the stories, as consumer (aresearcher in a local university with a remit toput research outcomes into the public domain,albeit in confidential form), and as co-producer,through the structuring device of questions andareas to be covered. As such, they are texts to beinterpreted and understood (Atkinson, 1998) inthat context.

4. THE PROJECT

4.1. Background

This study is based on a project designed in thecontext of the government’s desire to encouragesuccessful entrepreneurial activity in the UKgenerally (the full report has appeared elsewhere;Warren, 2001). The rationale was to encouragecontinuous improvement in the quality andrelevance of management development provisionthrough close analysis of the needs of womenentrepreneurs in a rural county in the UK. It wassupported by the (then) Department for Educa-tion and Employment (DfEE) Business SchoolsProjects initiative, which is intended to facilitateknowledge transfer between university businessschools and the local business community. Theproject was carried out in collaboration withBusiness Link, through their associated Women’sNetwork (WN), which had been established toprovide women with an opportunity to sharecommon business problems and solutions, and todevelop an entrepreneurial spirit within theregion. The majority of members of the network(over 100 in total) fall into the category of femaleOMs of small/micro-enterprises and as suchcould be said to engage in entrepreneurialactivity. The project aims included, inter alia, theidentification of gaps in the provision of entre-preneurial skill sets and new opportunity areasfor management development.

4.2. The Study: Methods

The first stage of the research involved meetingthe women in a semi-formal setting during



8 LorraineWarren

the normal course of WN social events. The pur-pose of this stage was to gain some context toframe the collection of the narrative accounts.Three main issues arose from this stage:

(1) The term ‘entrepreneur’ was often perceivedvery negatively.

(2) There was a felt absence of role models.(3) Formal training courses were perceived as

being geared to the needs of larger SMEs, asdistinct from micro-firms/sole traders.

It was noted during these preliminary discus-sions that any mention of the word ‘learning’ ledto an association with, and somewhat closeddiscussion of, experiences with formal providersin the past, from schools through to supportagencies. In order to ‘tease out’ more informallearning experiences, a series of ‘life story’narratives were collected (Atkinson, 1998) from14 of the women who agreed to participate in theresearch; 11 came directly through advertise-ments in WN literature, the remainder bysnowballing. They were asked to trace theirbusiness activities through their life history, andto consider their motivations, perceptions anddevelopment at different stages in their lives.They were also asked to consider key decisionpoints and to consider where the business wasgoing next. To try and further draw out reflectionon experiential learning, the womenwere invitedto suggest what advice they would give to otherssetting out on a similar path. Of the 14 womenparticipants, 12 produced narratives in personaldialogue with the author in informal socialsettings, such as over lunch in a local restaurant.Transcripts were produced which were then sentto the women for amendment and confirmation;this was a two-way process, in that follow-upquestions could be asked, and the responsesnoted separately. Two women produced theirown written accounts and sent them to medirectly, as a fait accompli.

4.2. Analysis and Discussion

As Riessmann (1993) notes, it is difficult toseparate the telling of a story from its transcrip-tion, and indeed from its analysis; the process of

establishing trust with the actors in the research,the framing of questions through earlier dialo-gues and the further probing of draft accountsdraw the researcher into a circular process withthe storytellers. As a result, the ensuing narrativesare as much a vehicle for extended communica-tion, with associated note taking, as an end inthemselves. Thus, a creative theory-building pro-cess took place, where it is possible to examinehow the storytellers accounted for themselves inthis particular context, while bearing in mind thepresencing of the researcher in developing thoseaccounts. Echoing Rae (2000), the storytellerssought to structure their accounts around a seriesof historical life episodes in terms of developingtheir entrepreneurial careers—their family back-ground, early careers, first ventures, experiencinga venture, finding new opportunities (summar-ized in Table 1).

The table shows the diversity of activity in thegroup. All were women in the 35–50 age groupand all bar one had children, mostly of schoolage. All were in an ownership/management/decision-making role, with six working in anSME environment (>9 employees), the remainderoperating as micro-enterprises (<5 employees).Just two had a prior family business background,with the rest having had experience of mainlyprofessional work in large companies. One par-ticipant (N) ran a business support agency withina large organization, drawing parallels betweenher experience and that of the SME owner.Concerning reasons for joining or starting smallbusinesses, five were looking for a lifestylechange generally, six specifically wanted to fitaround the family, and just one had opted to doso by reason of redundancy. Ten of the 14 lookedto business growth in the future.

In developing their accounts, they drewmainly on four discursive themes:

(1) The discourse of self-reliance and control.(2) The discourse of personal development.(3) The discourse of business.(4) The discourse of technical proficiency.

Expressions of both experiential and formallearning were woven around these themesrepeatedly through the accounts, often in acircular manner as the women engaged with




Table 1. Analysis of narrative accounts: life stages

ID Business Background Start-up motivation Future

A Specialist writer/ Ex education manage- Redundancy Diversification (marketingspeaker/publisher ment for son’s computer(competitions) micro business, growth generally)

B Landscape gardener Textile degree, short Fashion design—on Growth or lifestyle?micro (ex fashion job history marriage; Gardening—designer, SME)/micro new interest; change in

business environment

C Freelance business College business Ex family business, desire Growth/lifestylesupport micro studies course, straight for change

to family business

D Homeopath and health Nursing Fit around family Maintain market leadercounsellor micro

E Office products (small) Health service More control, family Grow or sell?

F Software production Large computing firm Fit round family Update skillsmicro

G Farm/public house/ Chartered surveyor Fit round family Diversification, build onhotel/restaurant ex organic farmchildren’s wear p/tprofessional work(small)

H Animal husbandry and Straight into family Maintenance of family Growth, diversificationdecorative goods business traditionmanufacture/retailer(small)

I Specialist farm Ex forces Lifestyle change Growthproducts, micro

J Financial advisor Large company Fit round family Growth(small)

K Petfood/animal care Health service Desire for change Growthretailer (small)

L Specialist food source PA Move to husband’s Growth, spiritualand retail (small) business then set up development

offshoot to cope witheconomic change

M Hotel/tea room/ Large engineering Lifestyle change Maintenance untilshop, micro company supervisor retirement

N Support agency Public sector and private Continuation of career Growth, new opportunitiesdirector (SME within company experiencelarge organization)



10 LorraineWarren

the process of forming the narrative as a sense-making device for themselves. The discourse ofself-reliance and control was mainly concernedwith issues of starting a business or becomingself-employed, often in response to managingchild care arrangements and making the best useof family time:

E: . . . I used to work for a much larger companyin the office products area . . . but it was veryfrustrating in that you had no control over thefollow through on your work . . . so I felt and Icould and would like to run my own show.

J: You do have control over your own timetableand agenda, which gives you the flexibility todo other things in your life.

D: I had four children who definitely came firstand it was important that my job fittedaround them.

The discourse of personal development con-cerned issues of self-belief and confidence,reinforcement of personal identity, making a stepchange, making associations with role models (orcommonly, remarking on the absence of such:

D: There seems to be a lack of development inschools, or colleges or universities for thatmatter, around the idea of self-employment asa career option. It just doesn’t seem to be in ourpsyche, or in our national culture. I think that’ssomething that needs to change, even thoughyou do need to draw on other life and workexperience if you’re going to be successful.

B: I had an innate feeling that I could and wouldbe successful.

L: Many colleagues in [our] trade had failed andothers like us were in a weakened state. It take[sic] courage, boldness and daring to recoverand not take the easy route of giving up.

The discourse of business centred on the issuesconcerning a growing business—strategic plan-ning, management control systems, developingdifferentiated functions such as finance, market-ing, human resources:

M: Assess the business picture at least twice ayear, no good running up loads of turnover if

no profit is made, cut out the dead wood, aswe did with the Sunday lunches.

G: We should be taking on more of a manage-ment role—in theory!

F: Filing, invoicing and accounts and so on areall very niggly, but neglecting it can lead to aserious struggle. You can’t afford to developan emotional reaction to your bank account!

The discourse in technical proficiency was seenin the pride demonstrated by women in havingovercome short-term operational crises concern-ing, for example, orders, staffing and transporta-tion:

K: Eighteen months after I started, I moved intomy first warehouse, which had a bare concretefloor, breeze-block walls, no heating and nooffice . . . [we] put away 1536 cases by hand,and I was feeling pretty groggy as I had hadmy wisdom teeth removed the previous day-. . . but we managed!

Notably, two ‘other’ discourses which I specifi-cally raised as issues during the theory-buildingprocess were treated as relatively insignificant.Firstly, that of sexual discrimination was largelydismissed—not because it is absent, rather that itshould be dealt with as part and parcel of thechallenges of running a business. Secondly, inthe majority of cases, the discourse of entrepre-neurship was perceived as something to beavoided—associated with a ‘barrow boy’ cul-ture, ‘management speak’, or harsh economicallydriven thinking which militated against thehome and family.

It is useful at this point to focus the analysis by‘cutting across’ the interwoven discourses byapplying the concept of learning levels (Argyrisand Schon, 1978; Burgoyne and Hodgson, 1983).Although the subject of ongoing debate, putsimply:

* Level 1/single loop learning, applies to theassimilation of factual information of immedi-ate utility but no real long-term developmen-tal implications (corrective, relies on pastroutines).

* Level 2/double loop learning, changes takeplace which challenge deep-rooted assump-




tions and norms (corrective, routines arechanged).

* Level 3/triple loop learning, encourages indi-viduals to reflect on and question not onlytheir established ways of doing things, butalso the underlying values and assumptionswhich have led to the status quo.

Experiential learning evidenced within the nar-ratives is classified in accordance with theselevels in Table 2, although this categorizationshould not detract from the interwoven nature ofthe themes. The activities identified with level 3learning were classified as such, because in manycases such reflection was associated with stepchanges in the women’s lives—deciding whe-ther to start, expand or leave a business, forexample. Although business growth was animportant issue, as can be seen from theillustrative quotes concerning the discourse ofbusiness earlier, almost without exception theapproach to managing growth was somewhatpiecemeal, looking to ‘off-the-shelf’ solutions forfunctional areas, rather than taking a moreholistic standpoint—hence the association withlevel 2 rather than level 3 learning.

A summative tabulation for the participants isshown in Table 3.

The type of advice (or learning) selected forpassing on by the women to others is alsoclassified by learning level and the outcomespresented in Table 3. Significantly, eight of thewomen shared reflections concerning level 3type thinking, concerning step change, or trans-formational learning. Not surprisingly, 12 hadcomments to make on immediate businessissues, where hindsight had revealed that level

2 thinking could have avoided some immediatecrises. Notably, employees were sometimes seenas a burden and a risk, rather than as a resourceto share learning with. Staff training was some-times perceived negatively: ‘You spend all thattime and money and then they leave’ was asentiment echoed more than once.

Some illustrative quotes concerning level 3learning/advice:

B: Accept cycles of change, especially if you are ina creative business; recognize you can’t alwaysgo where you thought you wanted to go.

E: You really must have that burning feeling orcompulsion to do whatever it is you aredoing. Nothing stays the same in the businessenvironment and you are very susceptible towhat happens around you. Without thatcommitment and the drive to do it better thananyone else around, you won’t get far. Sayingthat, I can imagine myself doing other thingsat some stage!

C: Whenever you have moments of doubt,which everyone does, even if you’re a strongperson like me, ask the advice of sensibleexperienced people who will tell you thetruth, even if it is not what you want to hear.Even if you just need a boost to yourconfidence, it can work wonders. But thenask yourself, what do I really want to do withmy life? What makes me happy? Am Ienjoying this, and if not, what can I do tochange it?

L: The mid to late 1990s for me were a time ofsurvival, reflection and learning. I realizedthat my training as a PA in London was not

Table 2. Classification of experiential learning in accordance with learning level

Learning level Type of activity Where obtained

Single loop Technical/operational quick fixes Employment agencies, helplines, othercompanies

Double loop Often concerned with growth; strategic Support agencies such as Businessplanning, management systems, development Link, local colleges, consultants,of HR, IT, marketing functions commercial providers (such as banks)

Triple loop Identification of role models, resolution of work/ Friends, family, other businesswomenhome conflict, reinforcement of self/identity (may be formal)



12 LorraineWarren

sufficient to understand how to run a businessin a difficult economic climate. I also realizedthe problems of being involved in a familybusiness under financial strain with a grow-ing family. I began to search for a better wayof doing things.

4.3. Summary

* The outcomes of this study confirm the work ofearlier researchers in that entrepreneuriallearning is complex and interconnected, witha somewhat ad hoc approach to formal learningand a heavy reliance on experiential learning.

* The process of developing narratives with theresearcher in itself was said by the women toplay a useful role in developing critical

reflection (i.e. learning at the higher levels),as the accounts provided a vehicle for com-munication on a range of issues.

* Learning was taking place at levels 1, 2 and 3,with participation in the WN playing a vitalrole in supporting level 3 learning concernedwith transformation of self.

* A functional approach to business growth wasevident, with a piecemeal approach to dealingwith areas such as marketing or IT when theywere becoming critical to the survival of thebusiness.

* There was little evidence of individuallearning developing into organizationallearning.

In this group, intensive (and sometimes painful,in line with Cope and Watts, 2000) learning at all

Table 3. Analysis of narrative accounts: learning

ID Technical (Level 1) Business (Level 2) Personal (Level 3) Advice provided

A Self Business Link/self-help Original idea developed Level 1, 2, 3book from contact with journalist/WN

B Other business College Self-belief Level 3people/self

C Other business Enterprise Council/ WN/other business people Level 2, 3people/self College

D Self (pioneer in Enterprise Allowance WN/other business people Level 2, 3niche market)

E Other business people Family WN Level 2

F Other professionals Private training Self/family Level 1, 2

G Husband/family Business Link Women in farming network Level 1, 2(not specialist enough)

H Family/employees Family Family/WN Level 2, 3

I Other business Private training, banks, Friends/family/WN Level 2, 1people councils

J Staff/IT experts Self/husband WN Level 2, 1

K Self Self Self/WN Level 2, 3

L College/self MBA MBA Level 3

M Self Self Self Level 1, 2

N Self Self Self Level 2, 3(an advice provider)




three levels takes place at the individual layer(see Figure 3), with mental models of ‘doingbusiness’ shared with a range of stakeholders ona contingency basis. There is evidence of apowerful interaction with the network layer,which has a shaping effect in its provision ofcircumstances which support level 3 learning. Itis not unreasonable to expect that this is a two-way process, in that network learning emergesfrom interaction with these entrepreneurs. If orhow this occurs would be an interesting area forfurther research—what is the process, andcharacter, ofWN learning. The value of a supportnetwork to these women was clearly evident,even taking into account that they were, by andlarge, a self-selecting group, i.e. women who hadchosen to network. The value of networkingcould be enhanced for this group in that they arewomen (although they seek not to be defined bygender) and they live in geographically isolated(for the UK) small towns.

Interactions concerning the enterprise layerare rather more problematic. There is littleevidence of enterprise learning emerging fromentrepreneurial learning. The participants hereseem far more willing to share learning withothers who in some instances could be consid-ered to be competitors, rather than to buildeffective learning systems which function at theirown enterprise level. This is unfortunate, giventhe expressed desire of many of the participantshere to grow their organizations. One reason forthis could be that ‘classical’ models for organiza-tional learning, while claiming to support flex-ibility and innovation, are based on assumptionsof fairly stable, mature organizations, and maynot suit the needs and capabilities of the growingsmall enterprise. This presents another interest-ing question and possible challenge for theacademic community. By extension, furtherstudy of the potential emergence of networklearning from organizational learning might beuseful, but was not a significant process identi-fied in this study.

Another influence could be the shaping effectof the network level, in that many business andtraining providers and support agencies stillprovide functionally based packages which donot support a holistic view of the enterprise,

thereby not providing OMs with the skills tobuild effective learning systems within theirenterprises. More extensive application of sys-tems thinking into the small company arenacould improve this situation, as early effortsby a few have indicated (Ragsdell and Warren,1999; Taylor et al., 2001; Warren and Ragsdell,2002), with more consideration of shiftingboundary conditions as organizations seek togrow.

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Practical Implications

The WN played a significant role in providingrole models to support step change transforma-tions. The success of these informal relationshipssuggests that formal mentoring relationshipsmight benefit the group, although the questionof time (many running a family and a business)and distance (geographic) would militate againstthis. However, the analysis presented here mayform a basis of understanding as to best practice(a preliminary discussion of this aspect may befound in Warren and Headlam-Wells, 2002).

Networks and/or mentors/role models couldmake use of the life history technique in devel-oping critical reflection techniques in individualsand informing prospective business venturers, asseveral of the women in this study remarked thatthey really enjoyed their business lives, but hadfallen into it rather reactively, rather than makinga proactive choice. It may be more effective to useorganic metaphors of entrepreneurship whichemphasize family and community, rather thanmore war-like economic metaphors.

Finally, support networks and other educationand training providers could seek to strengthenthe understanding of holistic approaches tobusiness growth, particularly with regard to staffdevelopment and the establishment of learningsystems within enterprises. Such courses need toreflect the needs of the growing micro-firmrather the more established medium-sized busi-nesses which might have up to 250 employees—particularly as informal organizations becomeincreasingly formalized.



14 LorraineWarren

5.2. Theoretical Implications

Several approaches in the literature highlight theinterconnectedness of entrepreneurial activity(generally) and entrepreneurial learning (speci-fically) (Gibb, 1997; Steier and Greenwood, 2000;Mitchell et al., 1997; Rae, 2000). Such approachesemphasize modelling the network, emphasizingits complexity and its dynamic qualities. Fullerand Moran’s conceptualization goes further, inthat it orders the network in systemic, hierarchicalterms, and seeks through that ordering toidentify and understand emergent properties.Thus, the situation of the entrepreneur and theenterprise and their contribution to society arebetter understood, and the ability of the entre-preneur and the enterprise to function as a betteradaptive system in its environment is improved.Further, as an integrating concept, it should aidthe connection of different areas of research andidentify gaps for future study. In this study, adeveloped version of the model has been appliedto trace the interactions between entrepreneuriallearning, enterprise learning and policy concern-ing the support for such learning. Clearly, this isa relatively small study and further researchneeds to be carried out, notably with thoseenterprise owners less involved in formal net-working).

In conclusion, the relationship between entre-preneurial learning and enterprise learning iscomplex, yet of vital importance to educatorsand policy makers. A systemic approach to und-erstanding that relationship appears to havevalue for providing a more coherent frameworkfor better understanding that complexity, in thatuse of the model identified a systemic gap andsuggested strategies to bridge that gap, thusenabling future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge thesupport of the (then) DfEE’s Business SchoolsInitiative, Development Projects Developing Ent-repreneurship and Leadership, contract numberT28TSS.0121/2000, variation number T28TSS.0121/2001/01, in supporting this work.

REFERENCES

Argyris C, Schon DA. 1978. Organizational Learning: ATheory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley: Read-ing, MA.

Atkinson R. 1998. The Life Story Interview. Sage: Thou-sand Oaks, CA.

Boulding K. 1956. General systems theory: the skeletonof science. Management Science 2(3): 197–208.

Burgoyne JG, Hodgson VE. 1983. Natural learning andmanagerial action: a phenomenological study in afield setting. Journal of Management Studies 20(3):387–399.

Chell E, Harworth J, Brearley S. 1991. The Entrepre-neurial Personality: Concepts, Cases and Categories.Routledge: London.

Churchill NC, Lewis VL. 1983. The five stages of smallbusiness growth. Harvard Business Review No. 3:30–50.

Cope J, Watts G. 2000. Learning by doing: an explora-tion of experience, critical incidents and reflection inentrepreneurial learning. International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 6(3): 104–124.

Deakins D, Freel M. 1998. Entrepreneurial learningand the growth process in SMEs. Learning Organisa-tion 144–155.

Fuller EC,Moran P. 2001. Small enterprises as complexadaptive systems: a methodological question?Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 13(1):47–63.

Garavan TN, O’Cinneide B. 1994. Entrepreneurshipeducation and training programmes: a review andevaluation—Part 1. Journal of European and IndustrialTraining 18(8): 3–12.

GartnerW. 1989.Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrongquestion. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 11(3):11–34.

Gibb AA. 1987. Enterprise Culture: Its Meaning andImplications for Education and Training. MCB Uni-versity Press: Bradford.

Gibb AA. 1997. Small firms training and competitive-ness: building up the small business as a learningorganisation. International Small Business Journal 15(3):13–29.

Gorman G, Hanlon D, King W. 1997. Some researchperspectives on entrepreneurship education, enter-prise education and education for small businessmanagement: a ten year literature review. Interna-tional Small Business Journal 15(3): 56–77.

Greiner LE. 1972. Evolution and revolution as organi-zations grow. Harvard Business Review July/August:37.

Interman. 1991. Profiles of Entrepreneurship DevelopmentProgrammes. International Labour Office: Geneva.

MallonM, Cohen L. 2001. Time for a change?Women’saccounts of the move from organizational careers toself-employment. British Journal of Management 12:217–230.




Mitchell RK, Agle BR,Wood DJ. 1997. Toward a theoryof stakeholder identification and salience: definingthe principle of who or what really counts. Academyof Management Review 22(4): 853–886.

Murphy HJ, Young JD. 1995. Management self-devel-opment and small business: exploring emergentissues. Management Learning 26(3): 319–330.

Nair KU. 2001. Adaptation to creation: progress oforganizational learning and increasing complexityof learning systems. Systems Research and BehavioralScience 18(6): 505–521.

Plummer K. 1995. Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Changeand Social Worlds. Routledge: London.

Rae D. 2000. Understanding entrepreneurial learning:a question of how? International Journal of Entrepre-neurial Behaviour and Research 6(3): 145–159.

Rae D, Carswell M. 2000. Using a life story approach inresearching entrepreneurial learning: the develop-ment of a conceptual model and its implications inthe design of learning experiences. Education andTraining 42(4/5): 220–227.

Ragsdell G, Warren L. 1999. Learning from Beer: usingthe viable system model for organizational design.OR Insight 12(4): 16–23.

Riessmann CK. 1993. Narrative Analysis. Sage: Thou-sand Oaks, CA.

Steier L, Greenwood R. 2000. Entrepreneurship andthe evolution of Angel Financial Networks. Organi-zation Studies 21(1): 163–192.

Steyaert C, Bouwen R. 1997. Telling stories ofentrepreneurship: towards a narrative contextualepistemology for entrepreneurial studies. In Entre-preneurship and SME Research, Donckels R, MiettinenA (eds). Ashgate: Aldershot; 47–62.

Taylor MJ, Reading M, Mullany M, Sheehan JF. 2001.Soft issues in small scale network development andimplementation: a case study in an SME. SystemicPractice and Action Research 14(3): 239–249.

Warren L. 2001. Lincolnshire Business Women: Encoura-ging Entrepreneurship. DfEE—Business School Pro-jects 2000–2001.

Warren L, Headlam-Wells J. 2002. Mentoring womenentrepreneurs: a better approach. Organizations andPeople 9(2): 11–17.

Warren L, Ragsdell G. 2002. Improving systems inte-rvention in SMEs: reflection on systems boundariesin practice. UK Systems Society Conference, 7–10 July2002, University of York; 97–104.



16 LorraineWarren

Documents

A systemic approach to entrepreneurial learning: an exploration using storytelling