The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm

JSBED
14,3

Preparing for business start-up:

pre-start activities in the new
venture creation dynamic

404

Andrew Atherton
University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine the activities and behaviours of potential
entrepreneurs as they move towards engagement in business start-up.
Design/methodology/approach Based on in-depth engagement with seven founders of new
businesses, and informed by a review of the relevant literature.
Findings A series of transitions towards business start-up are identified, which in turn produced a
five-step framework for examining and understanding the pre-start phase of preparation for
entrepreneurship.
Research limitations/implications The case-based approach provided detailed and
contextualised insight into how a small group of founders prepared for business start-up. There
may be a need to test the framework with a larger group of business founders to assess its wider
relevance and applicability.
Practical implications The pre-start framework identifies how individuals progress towards
start-up, and so could be used as the basis for a programme to encourage individuals to move through
each step towards engagement in business start-up. The movement from step to step can also be used
to assess overall levels of preparation for entrepreneurship within the wider population, and so has the
potential to be a useful indicator of overall levels of entrepreneurial orientation.
Originality/value The paper presents a process-focused model of the pre-start dynamic.
Keywords Business formation, Entrepreneurialism
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Small Business and

Enterprise Development
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2007
pp. 404-417
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/14626000710773510

Introduction: why focus on entrepreneurial activities preceding business

start-up?
Levels of start-up of new businesses are considered by policymakers and in policy
studies as a measure of overall entrepreneurial activity and potential within economies
(Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; European Commission, 2003; Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998; Reynolds et al., 2000). In broad
terms, the logic underpinning this policy interest is that business start-ups generate
wealth and innovation as these entrants seek out and create new business
opportunities and activities (Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; European
Commission, 2003). Raising levels of involvement in business start-up also increases
the number of people directly involved in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
endeavours (Schram, 2004; Small Business Administration, 2002).
A preoccupation with encouraging higher levels of start-up as a means of
generating greater wealth and economic activity, and in order to develop a more
competitive economy, can be seen in recent policy thinking on new venture creation in
Europe. The European Council of Ministers Lisbon Conclusions, in 2000, indicated a
need to stimulate entrepreneurship by . . .creating a friendly environment for starting

up and developing innovative businesses (European Commission, 2000). The

European Commissions Green Paper on Entrepreneurship recognised the central
importance of start-up to the development of entrepreneurship in Europe, noting that
Europe needs more new and thriving firms (European Commission, 2003). In the UK,
successive White Papers have highlighted the importance of encouraging individuals
to start businesses, and linked this with the broader development and encouragement
of a culture of enterprise and entrepreneurship (Department of Trade and Industry,
1998; Department of Trade and Industry, 2001).
Initiatives and programmes to stimulate higher levels of business formation have
generated an extensive array of organisations providing funding, services and
assistance to starters of new businesses via a broad portfolio of subsidised and
state-supported initiatives and institutions, albeit with noticeable variation by location
(Austrian Institute for Small Business Research, 2002). There is a growing concern
with reducing the barriers to start-up, and in particular a growing focus on removing
or reducing administrative and regulatory constraints (European Commission, 2002;
HM Treasury, 2003). There also appears to be some recognition that wider cultural and
social values influence individuals propensities to engage in starting their own
business (Department of Trade and Industry, 2001; European Commission, 2003).
Levels of business start-up have been associated with the broader socio-cultural
context, and in particular the extent to which an entrepreneurial culture exists and
encourages entrepreneurs (Reynolds et al., 2000; HM Treasury, 2002).
The experiences of young people at school and college (Gibb, 1993), and among their
broader social and kinship networks, can influence their views of entrepreneurship and
their likelihood to engage in business start-up: . . .all young people will need more
enterprising skills and attitudes, not just to set up businesses (or enter
self-employment), but also to build their own careers and to stay employable
(Davies, 2002). Similar views are expressed in the European Commissions Green Paper
on entrepreneurship, which stresses the importance of encouraging young people to
engage in entrepreneurial activities and experiences and to interact with entrepreneurs
(European Commission, 2003). There are indications, therefore, that a critical influence
on the likelihood of or propensity for individuals to start a business are the personal
experiences of the starter prior to engagement in new venture creation. Some studies
indicate that individuals who have had previous experience of starting a business, or
who come from a family with a tradition of owner-management and entrepreneurship,
have a broadly higher likelihood of setting up their own business (Schamp and
Deschoolmeester, 1998; Scherer et al., 1989; de Vries, 1977; de Witt and van Winden,
1989). It should be noted, however, that not all studies corroborate this finding. Storey
(1994), when summarising previous studies, found that family business background
was not statistically significant as a factor affecting self-employment.
The notion of a phase of entrepreneurial development that precedes engagement in
business start-up builds on several sources, including: examinations of the early stages
of start-up activity (Gibb, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2000; Reynolds, 1997; Shane, 2000;
Shaver et al., 2001); studies that focused on the start-up process (Gibb and Ritchie, 1982;
Gartner, 1985; Bhave, 1994); policy reviews and summaries of research (Atherton, 2006;
Atherton et al., 1997; Gavron et al., 1998); and evaluations of particular forms of
assistance for new ventures (Meager et al., 2003). Analysis of this literature indicated
that decisions to start a business, and hence to become involved in new venture

Preparing for
business start-up

405

JSBED
14,3

406

creation, are a personal choice by individuals (Shaver et al., 2001), many of whom
display certain entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours (Begley and Boyd, 1987;
Crant, 1996; Shaver and Scott, 1991). Such choices involve the development of
awareness of, as well as interest in and motivation to explore, the possibility and
potential for business start-up (Gibb and Ritchie, 1982). These can be conceptualised as
the activities and processes that precede, and lead up to, the choice or decision to start a
business, i.e. as movement from no involvement or consideration of business start-up
to an initial stage of consideration and exposure to this possibility and on to an
exploration of the process itself and its feasibility for the individual exploring this
option.
This paper examines the dynamics of exploration into and decisions to commit to
start-up as a personal option. For the purposes of analysis, this is termed the pre-start
phase of entrepreneurial development, in that it precedes and can be distinguished
from a start-up phase. The analysis focuses on the ways in which individuals who
have not yet committed to or become involved in starting a new business move from
consideration and exploration of new venture creation to commitment to and
involvement in start-up. A framework is developed that identifies the primary
components of the pre-start phase of entrepreneurial development of future ventures.
Application of this framework, and in particular its potential significance for the
practice and policy of enterprise development and simulation of business start-up
activity, are considered within the paper.
Methodology and concept: steps in the development and testing of a
pre-start framework
A qualitative approach to data collection was adopted because it is an effective method
for finding out what others feel and think about their worlds (Rubin and Rubin,
1995). Such approaches can generate a fine-grained understanding of phenomena, in
that they allow for detailed exploration of a particular phenomenon, the reasons for its
existence and its component parts and aspects (Lechner and Dowling, 2003).
Qualitative methods of data collection and analysis produce insight into, and help to
clarify, the broader contexts and social dynamics within which actors operate
(Atherton and Hannon, 2000). For this study, particular emphasis was placed on
hearing and seeking to understand the experiences and views of individuals who had
recently started or were in the process of starting a new venture, reflecting the
exploratory nature of the approach (Patton, 1999).
At the outset of the interview, the interviewee was asked to describe their own
experiences and recollection of how, why and when they became interested initially in
starting a business, and of how they moved from this point to starting a new venture.
This was done in order to ensure that an account was provided that was not influenced
by the views and concerns of the interviewer or by the initial analysis of the literature.
The interviewer then introduced the notion that pre-start involved exploration of
start-up prior to commitment to creating a new venture to the interviewee for
discussion and comparison with the interviewees account and recollection of the
experience. The interviewees were asked to comment on and assess the validity of this
notion, and to describe their own experiences and the actions that led them to start a
new venture.

In this way, an action research approach was used to engage the interviewees,
making them active participants in the testing and preliminary application of a
pre-start framework. Action research is appropriate for use where specific knowledge
is required for a specific problem in a specific situation (Cohen and Manion, 1998). It is
situational, contextually-sensitive and typically collaborative (Cohen and Manion,
1998). The researcher operates as a facilitator, encouraging interviewees to try out
ideas and learn more about the reasons for their own action, as well as learning more
about the process of self-reflection (Carr and Kemmis, 1986).
Based on this approach, a qualitative assessment of the experiences of seven
starters and recent starters of businesses was undertaken. Each interviewee had either
recently started (during the last 12 months) or was in the process of starting a business.
The ages of the interviewees ranged considerably, from 22 to 40, with a mean age of 31
years. All but two were educated to degree level or above, and five of the seven had
previous employment experience. Although not intended to be representative of all
starters, the range of ages, backgrounds and businesses provides sufficient variety to
suggest that common findings and conclusions may be indicative of the broader
pre-start dynamic (see Table I).

Preparing for
business start-up

407

Transitions in the pre-start model

transition from no engagement in the possibility of starting a business to active
consideration and exploration of business start-up was an iterative process for each
interviewee, in that it was an unfamiliar and new experience (none had previously
started a business). Exploration of start-up as an option involved consideration of and
reflection on the possible implications of launching a business for the founder, as well
as assessments of what would be required to launch a new venture. In several cases,
the period prior to explicit commitment to starting a business was drawn out over
many months. For each respondent, the transition from thinking about business
start-up as an option through to actively engaging in it was gradual, rather than
occurring over a short period or instantly. A pre-start phase of entrepreneurial
gestation, therefore, preceded actual engagement in starting a new business and, for
the individuals involved, culminated in a conscious decision to commit to a process of
new venture creation.
The interviewees accounts of preparation for start-up indicated that this dynamic
involved successive shifts in the attitude and propensity within the individuals
towards a consideration of start-up as a viable and achievable option. Three specific
transitions were reported during the interviews, each of which moved the putative
business founder from no or little engagement in start-up towards interest in,
No. Age Sex Education and employment background

Business

Stage

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Womens underwear
Paintballing range
Volunteer trips to Africa
Gym
Virtual office services
Music transcription
Occupational health services

Started
Starting
Started
Started
Started
Starting
Starting

39
23
22
29
36
40
28

F
M
M
M
F
M
M

1st degree; 8 years employment

1st degree
1st degree
Masters degree; 7 years employment
Certificate, diploma; 20 years employment
1st degree; 15 years employment
Employed but duration unclear

Table I.
Summary of
characteristics of
interviewed business
founders

JSBED
14,3

408

engagement with, and then finally active commitment to new venture creation. These
three shifts in personal attitudes and convictions can be summarised as follows:
(1) Interviewees who had not previously thought about or considered starting a
business were stimulated to do so by an event or influence (such as a friend or
colleague starting a business, or losing a job), i.e. individuals moved from no
awareness or interest in start-up to some awareness.
(2) Individuals who had thought about it in broad or general terms, but had not
considered start-up as a genuine or realistic possibility, or had not explored the
opportunity in detail, became more actively interested in starting their own
business as an option, i.e. there was a shift from some awareness and interest to
actively testing actual interest in and motivation to start a business.
(3) Those who had a strong desire or commitment to start a business and who
wanted to explore how to undertake the start-up process and what is required,
i.e. individuals moved from exploration to active commitment to starting a
business.
Changes in the perceptions and attitudes of potential business founders
These three transitions indicate that individuals moved from a state where they were
unaware of business start-up as an option through successive stages of increasing
engagement in the idea of starting their own business, culminating in personal
commitment to start. This indicates that pre-start exploration of and the decision to
engage in business start-up becomes intentional (Krueger et al., 2000), in that it is
planned behaviour based on exploration and assessment of the personal prospects and
requirements for starting a new venture. Figure 1 identifies four specific states of
individuals before they start their own venture that were identified from the interviews
with participating business founders, as follows:
(1) have not considered or recognised start-up as a personal option;
(2) considering start-up as a potential option;
(3) exploring start-up as a personal option; and
(4) actively exploring start-up as a viable and realistic option.
These four states are based on, and link together, the three phases of transition
reported by the interviewees. For example, the transition from having no awareness or
interest in starting a business to some awareness or interest indicates that the
individuals moved from a state where they had not considered or recognised start-up
as an option (1 above) to consideration of this possibility (2). The transitions, in other
words, point to and establish the particular state of mind of an individual in relation to
starting a business, i.e. each transition is based on moving from a state where the
individual is less committed to start-up to another where commitment is greater.
Initially, individuals had not considered or recognised that they could start a
business and so were unaware of this as a possibility. This was the case for individuals
who had had little exposure to entrepreneurs and owner-managers, and were seeking
out or had found stable employment. There was no substantive basis for these
individuals to consider business start-up as an option, because they had little
motivation to do so and few or no examples or stimuli to push them in this direction.
The transition from no awareness or interest to some awareness or interest tended to

Preparing for
business start-up

409

Figure 1.
A process flow model of
the pre-start stage of
entrepreneurial
development

occur for several reasons, including: an encounter or interaction with a family member,
friend or acquaintance who had started a business; loss of a job, which in turn pushed
individuals to explore and seek out alternative income generation opportunities;
dissatisfaction with a job, or paid employment more generally; identification of an idea
or business opportunity while working that provided the basis for exploring starting a
business. These drivers towards business start-up reflect previous research, which
identifies multiple reasons for starting, both positive and negative (Birley and
Westhead, 1994; Korunka et al., 2003; Gartner, 1985).
Once this first transition had taken place, individuals moved from no or little
awareness of start-up as an option to awareness and preliminary consideration of this
option as a possibility. At this point, they considered business start-up as a possible
option only, and were not necessarily aware that it might be a course of action that may
be open to them. There was no explicit commitment to starting a business at this stage,
and the individuals perceived start-up as a general option rather than relating it
directly to themselves, i.e. they tended to perceive start-up as an option available to
most people rather than one that was appropriate for them.
Over time, however, the business founders became more interested in starting a
business, and so made the transition from awareness or interest to exploration of
business start-up as a personal option. During this third transition in the pre-start
process, the founders began to actively explore the desirability and feasibility of, as
well as the requirements for, starting their own business. They made the transition, in
other words, from being generally aware that people start businesses to a state where
they were actively considering whether and how they could start their own venture. In

JSBED
14,3

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

410
Extending the model: integrating two key thresholds into the process
The framework (as summarised in Figure 1) points to a series of transitions, from no or
little awareness of start-up as an option to active engagement in and commitment to
starting a new venture. Fundamental to pre-start therefore is a change in the ways in
which an individual conceives of and perceives start-up as a personal option. A
significant step in this process of movement towards engagement in business start-up
was a change in attitude from awareness of start-up to interest in starting a business.
This shift converted generalised awareness that individuals start their own business to
a more active and more personal interest in this as a potentially achievable option.
Respondents also identified the transition from exploring to engaging in starting a
business as a second major threshold. This was the point at which they moved from
considering starting a business as a possible, or even likely, option to actually
committing to starting the process of establishing a new venture. For the individual(s)
concerned, the implication of this decision to seek to start a business was exposure to
the risk that the prospective venture may not work or may not start. As well as the
likely waste of resources and personal effort, such an outcome was seen as undesirable
because it could lead to personal embarrassment and loss of credibility with others.
When these two key thresholds are integrated into the model, five different levels of
prior engagement with and movement towards start-up can be identified in the
pre-start dynamic (Figure 2). The first is no awareness of start-up as an option. The
second is awareness that start-up is an option for people (although perhaps not the
individual involved). This then became interest in starting a business as individuals
translated generalised awareness into personal interest. Interest then became

Figure 2.
The extended pre-start
model

exploration as a possible business proposition emerged. And when the potential for
starting appeared positive, this became active engagement in the process of starting a
business (Figure 2).
As individuals moved from no awareness to awareness, and then to interest,
exploration and engagement, personal commitment to business start-up grew. The
propensity for individuals to establish a new venture increased as individuals moved
through the pre-start process. Individuals were closer to engaging in business start-up
after they had actively explored a business proposition, for example, than when they
had developed an awareness of business start-up as an option. As individuals moved
through each stage in the pre-start process, and as they navigated the transitions from
stage to stage, they explored the possibility of start-up as a future option for
themselves, and then considered whether and how this could occur. The pre-start
dynamic, in other words, entailed a shift from indifference towards, or ignorance of, the
possibility that individuals could start their own businesses to a point where these
individuals decided and became convinced that they could establish their own
businesses.
This shift can be described as a change in the entrepreneurial orientation of the
individuals involved. As individuals navigated through each stage and transition in
the pre-start process, they learned what starting a business was likely to require,
whether and how they might go about starting a business, and what would need to be
done. Typically, the scenarios developed by addressing these questions were
sensemaking in nature (Weick, 1995), in that they were exploratory, speculative and
helped the individuals involved to discern patterns and possible outcomes via
interpretation and ordering of unfamiliar and new data, information and experiences.
As more sense was made of business start-up as a future possibility, several specific
questions were raised and addressed (see Figure 3). These followed a sequence that
shifted an individual from becoming aware of start-up as an option (What is business
start-up? What would it involve?) to testing whether it would be achievable (What
would it involve? Could I do it, in principle?). Once an individual had determined that
they could potentially start their own business, for example because it is an attractive

Preparing for
business start-up

411

Figure 3.
Personal development
thresholds for individuals
navigating the pre-start
phase

JSBED
14,3

412

option that their previous experience prepares them for (Could I do it in practice?), they
then explored what they would have to do (broadly first, and then in more detail),
before deciding whether or not to embark on the start-up process (Should I do it? Yes, I
am going to have a go).
The personalised experiences and steps towards engagement in start-up therefore
were made up of a series of questions and assessments that led individuals to a point
where they become convinced that they could start their own business. Each question,
as summarised in Figure 3, is broadly sequential, in that those related to the transition
from no awareness to awareness precede those associated with the transition from
awareness to interest (and from interest to exploration, and exploration to engagement
respectively).
The pre-start framework indicates that individuals moved from little or no
awareness of start-up as an option through successive steps and stages to a point
where they actively committed to and started to engage in the process of establishing a
new venture. The growth in commitment to and orientation towards entrepreneurship
was predicated on addressing and resolving a series of critical questions that helped
individuals to determine what business start-up is, whether it is relevant to them, and
how and why they might be able to start a business. Movement through the pre-start
process was not, however, seen as either inevitable or automatic. Instead, individuals
experienced periods, and encountered points in the process, where they debated
whether or not to continue to seek to start their own business. Indeed, when one or
more questions prompted responses that suggested that start-up may not be an
appropriate or achievable option, then disengagement from the pre-start process was
considered by several of the business founders (and then dismissed).
Movement through the questions and assessment points encountered during the
pre-start process varied in terms of time as well. Some individuals moved relatively
quickly from no awareness to engagement; for example, when made redundant
unexpectedly and then discovering that securing new employment is more difficult
than expected. Others spent some time considering business start-up as a personal
option after becoming aware of it, but before committing to the process of setting up a
new venture. Each respondents exposure to pre-start varied considerably: each
navigated through pre-start at different speeds, and found different aspects more and
less challenging. Some, for example, were aware of start-up as a general option for
some time before becoming personally interested in and exploring its feasibility.
Others remained unaware that start-up was an option for a considerable period, and
then moved quickly to engagement in start-up once they became aware that this was a
realistic option. This indicates that although the stages and transitions within pre-start
were present in all the individuals moving towards business start-up, how they were
experienced and addressed, as well as how long this took, varied considerably from
case to case.
Conclusions
The framework developed and presented in this paper arose from an in-depth analysis
of a number of cases of individuals who had recently started or were in the process of
starting their own business. These individuals highlighted the transitions and shifts in
attitudes towards, and openness to, starting a business that occurred before actual
commitment to start-up. This indicates that there is a period of entrepreneurial

gestation prior to start-up, during which individuals become aware of, consider the
feasibility of, and prepare for engagement in the process of creating a new venture.
Starting a business, therefore, entails preparation and gestation by individuals during
a pre-start phase of entrepreneurial emergence. The identification of a pre-start phase
of entrepreneurial gestation indicates that individuals do not decide to start their own
business without some prior consideration of the possible ramifications and likely
effects of this decision.
Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the identification of a pre-start dynamic
for individuals who go on to start their own ventures. The first is that this phase of
entrepreneurial emergence entails attitudinal and experiential changes that move an
individual towards engagement in business start-up. During the pre-start phase, in
other words, individuals turn on to the possibility that they could start their own
business and then proceed to explore whether they could and should do this. Pre-start
moves individuals to a point where they could commit to starting a business, or
alternatively to a view that this is not appropriate or not desirable. This in turn
indicates that decisions to start a new venture date back to experiences and
consideration during a period before the decision to engage in business start-up was
made. The pre-start phase can be seen as a result as a period of entrepreneurial
gestation and preparation, during which individuals become open to and move
towards engaging in starting a new venture.
As these individuals move through pre-start, there is extensive and ongoing
experiential learning and changes in the attitudes of those involved. At each stage in
the pre-start process, and during each transition, individuals explore the notion of
starting a business and apply that future possibility to themselves. In doing so, they
acquire insight into what business start-up might entail, and how it might affect them.
A second conclusion, therefore, is that pre-start entails consideration of the notion or
prospect of starting a business, which in turn is likely to lead an individual to explore
how to go about engaging in new venture creation. As individuals move through a
pre-start stage, they learn about business start-up, in broad terms and more specifically
in relation to themselves, and in doing so assess their own capabilities and potential.
This type of personalised, hands-on learning is part of pre-start, in other words, and
it leads individuals to assess their own abilities to be entrepreneurial through business
start-up. Pre-start therefore entails the identification, codification and acquisition of
some of the skills, and attitudes, required to go about starting a business. It is a period
during which individuals develop their own enterprise skills and capabilities.
The third conclusion that can be drawn from the pre-start model is that individual
experiences are not uniform but differ from case to case. Depending upon the previous
experiences and existing skills base of the individuals, prior knowledge and expertise
varied. The challenges and issues that were addressed and that were found to be
difficult to resolve by some founders were not encountered by others, or were seen as
relatively easy or simple to resolve. In addition, and as noted above, the pre-start period
varied considerably between individuals, with some navigating rapidly through to
engagement in start-up (from interest rather than awareness), and others taking more
time to explore this as a possibility. This indicates that entrepreneurial gestation, i.e.
the time taken to move from awareness of and interest in the prospect of starting a
business through to the point of actually starting, occurs at different rates for different

Preparing for
business start-up

413

JSBED
14,3

414

individuals. The transition towards engaging in start-up therefore is temporally

variable, and so unpredictable across individual cases.
Implications for theory and further research
The variability of the pre-start experience across the cases investigated in this paper
indicates that entrepreneurial gestation is a plastic and variable dynamic. The time
taken by individuals to move to the point where they are committed to starting their
own venture as well as the issues and problems to be addressed will vary, because of
prior experience, changes in attitudes towards start-up, and personal circumstances.
Many of the drivers of variance in pre-start are personal and perceptual, therefore, and
the transitions towards business start-up are experiential. Pre-start movement towards
engagement in starting a business hinges on the individuals capacity to learn about
the conditions and requirements for start-up, and to learn how to go about starting a
new venture. This suggests that the personalised acquisition of knowledge and insight
through experiential learning will determine both whether they actually go on to start a
business and how long it takes to move to that point.
Implications for further research and for theory development related to
entrepreneurship are four-fold. Firstly, the tendency and propensity for individuals
to start is based on, and shaped by, their experiences of and involvement in a pre-start
phase of attitudinal and experiential preparation for start-up. Before the advent or
discovery of a business idea or opportunity (Bhave, 1994; Shane, 2000; Venkataraman,
1997), individuals are considering and priming themselves for the possibility of
starting their own business. Start-up decisions and commitment, in other words, are
based on a pre-start stage of preparation for start-up. Secondly, the values of
individuals and their predilection to starting a business will change as they move
through the start-up process, with individuals becoming more likely to engage in this
activity the further along they are in the process. Propensity to start, in other words,
can be predicted by stage in the pre-start process, with higher propensities being
demonstrated in later stages. These changes in attitudes towards start-up, via
experiences of pre-start preparation for new venture creation, provide a means of
assessing the future likelihood that an individual will seek to become an entrepreneur.
These implications point to two limitations, or qualifiers that must be imposed on
this framework. The first is that not all individuals who engage in pre-start will go on
to start their own businesses. The pre-start stage therefore culminates in decisions not
to start as well as to start a venture. Indeed, for many individuals pre-start is the stage
at which they decide not to engage in entrepreneurship through business start-up.
What is not apparent at this point is what proportion of people engaging in pre-start go
on to start their own businesses. There is therefore a need to explore whether a primary
entrepreneurial transition is into pre-start or between pre-start and start-up.
A second limitation relates to the size of the sample. This study was deliberately
case-based, and so involved only a small number of new businesses. This was so that
the pre-start phenomenon could be explored in detail and because the concept of
pre-start is under-developed in the literature. Given the small number of cases on which
the model is based, there is a need to assess its relevance to a broader cross-section of
individuals who go on to start their own businesses, and to identify whether this will
lead to modifications to the framework.

Implications for enterprise development policy and practice

The influence of the pre-start experience on likelihood and propensity to engage in
start-up indicates that there is the potential to intervene before the business start-up
stage to influence peoples decisions about and ability to engage in new venture creation.
A pre-start framework based on the five steps outlined in Figures 2 and 3 offers the
potential for intervention to increase the number of people moving through each of the
transitions that individuals make towards engagement in start-up. Interventions could
be designed to encourage individuals to move through the following transitions:
.
from no awareness to awareness;
.
from awareness to interest;
.
from interest to exploration; and
.
from exploration to engagement.
The impact and effectiveness of specific interventions could be measured by the
numbers of people moving from stage to stage. There may also be scope to use
reductions in the gestation period as a measure of intervention efficiency, particularly
when individuals are seeking to move more rapidly through pre-start. And
interventions could also be assessed, perhaps more qualitatively, in terms of how
they enable individuals to overcome and resolve problems and bottlenecks that
constrain or prevent movement through the pre-start process.
The five stages therefore provide an indication of the extent to which an individual is
interested and is likely to become engaged in entrepreneurship through start-up. They
record changes in individuals attitudes and values towards entrepreneurship, and so can
be seen as a reflection of increasing levels of overall engagement in enterprise.
Progression from stage to stage, when surveyed across sample populations, has the
potential to function as an operational definition and description of enterprise culture.
How many people are, firstly, aware of business start-up as an option, and then interested
in exploring and finally engaged in this activity provides a means of measuring overall
societal and personal attitudes towards and engagement in entrepreneurship. It provides,
as such, a qualitative measure of entrepreneurial propensity in the population at large.
References
Atherton, A. (2006), Should government be stimulating start-ups? An assessment of the scope
for public intervention in new venture formation, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 21-36.
Atherton, A. and Hannon, P. (2000), Innovation processes and the small business: a conceptual
analysis, International Journal of Business Performance Management, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 276-92.
Atherton, A., Gibb, A. and Sear, L. (1997), Reviewing the Case for Supporting Business Start-Ups:
A Policy Overview of Current Thinking on Business Start-Ups, Small Business Centre,
Durham University Business School, Durham.
Austrian Institute for Small Business Research (2002), Austrian Institute for Small Business
Research Support Services for Micro, Small and Sole Proprietors Businesses, European
Commission, Enterprise Directorate General, Brussels.
Begley, T. and Boyd, D. (1987), Psychological characteristics associated with performance in
entrepreneurial firms and smaller businesses, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 79-93.

Preparing for
business start-up

415

JSBED
14,3

416

Bhave, M. (1994), A process model of entrepreneurial venture creation, Journal of Business

Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 223-42.
Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1994), Taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on
firm growth and size, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9, pp. 7-31.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986), Becoming Critical, The Falmer Press, Lewes.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1998), Research Methods in Education, 4th ed., Routledge, London.
Crant, J. (1996), The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 29-39.
Davies, H. (2002), A Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education, HM Treasury, HMSO,
London.
de Vries, K. (1977), The entrepreneurial personality, Journal of Management Studies, February,
pp. 34-57.
de Witt, G. and van Winden, F. (1989), An empirical analysis of self-employment in
The Netherlands, Small Business Economics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 93-101.
Department of Trade and Industry (1998), Department of Trade and Industry Our Competitive
Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, The Stationery Office Publications
Centre, London.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001), Department of Trade and Industry Opportunity for All
in a World of Change, The Stationery Office Publications Centre, London.
European Commission (2000), Presidency Conclusions: Lisbon Council of Minister, Bulletin EU
3-2000 (en), Brussels.
European Commission (2002), European Commission Benchmarking the Administration of
Start-Ups, Enterprise Directorate, Belgium.
European Commission (2003), Green Paper on Entrepreneurship in Europe, COM (2003) 27 Final,
Brussels.
Gartner, W. (1985), A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture
creation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 696-706.
Gavron, R., Cowling, M., Holtham, G. and Westall, A. (1998), The Entrepreneurial Society,
Institute for Public Policy Research, London.
Gibb, A. (1987), Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up
process, Journal of Education and Industrial Training, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 24-32.
Gibb, A. (1993), The enterprise culture and education: understanding enterprise education and
its links with small business, entrepreneurship and wider educational goals, International
Small Business Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 11-34.
Gibb, A. and Ritchie, J. (1982), Understanding the process of starting a small business,
European (now International) Small Business Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26-45.
HM Treasury (2002), Enterprise Britain: A Modern Approach to Meeting the Enterprise
Challenge, HMSO, London.
HM Treasury (2003), Budget Report 2003: Building a Britain of Economic Strength and Social
Justice, available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/bud_bud03/.
Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M. and Carsrud, A. (2003), The entrepreneurial personality in the
context of resources, environment and the startup process a configurational approach,
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 411-32.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000), Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, pp. 411-32.

Lechner, C. and Dowling, M. (2003), Firm networks: external relationships as sources of growth
and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms, Enterpreneurship & Regional Development,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Meager, N., Bates, P. and Cowling, M. (2003), Evaluation of business start-up support for young
people, National Institute Economic Review, Vol. 186, pp. 59-73.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1998), Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development Fostering Entrepreneurship, OECD, Paris.
Patton, D. (1999), Small Firms Training Impact Assessment Phase One: Final Report, Small
Firms Enterprise Development Initative, Leeds.
Reynolds, P. (1997), Who starts new firms? Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 449-62.
Reynolds, P., Bygrave, W. and Autio, E. (2000), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Executive
Report, Babson College, London Business School, Kauffman Foundation, London.
Rubin, H. and Rubin, I. (1995), Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data, Sage
Publications, New York, NY.
Shane, S. (2000), Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities,
Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 448-69.
Schamp, T. and Deschoolmeester, D. (1998), Strategic and operational planning: attitudinal
changes and the survival and growth of business start-ups revisited, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 141-77.
Scherer, R., Adams, J., Carley, S. and Wiebe, F. (1989), Role model performance effects on the
development of entrepreneurial career options, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 53-71.
Schram, S. (2004), Building entrepreneurial economies, Foreign Affairs, July/August,
pp. 104-15.
Shaver, K. and Scott, L. (1991), Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture
creation, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-45.
Shaver, K., Gartner, W., Crosby, E., Bakalarova, K. and Gatewood, E. (2001), Attributions about
entrepreneurship: a framework and process for analyzing reasons for starting a business,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 5-32.
Small Business Administration (2002), Small Business Administration Small Business Economic
Indicators for 2001, Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration, Washington, DC.
Storey, D. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
Venkataraman, S. (1997), The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research, in Katz, J. (Ed.),
Advances in Entrepreneurship: Firm Emergence and Growth, Elsevier, Oxford.
Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, London.
About the author
Andrew Atherton is Pro Vice Chancellor Strategy and Business Development and Professor of
Enterprise and Entrepreneurship at the University of Lincoln. He is also chair of the Enterprise
Research and Development Unit (ERDU), Lincoln Business School. Current research interests
include: enterprise in local and regional development; SME policy; entrepreneurship in China;
learning, knowledge and cognition; spatial dimensions of enterprise; and new venture creation.
He can be contacted at: aatherton@lincoln.ac.uk
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Preparing for
business start-up

417