Theme 3: support issues

A third major theme revealed through the study is perceptions about support issues and how these can have a significant effect upon the ability of staff to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Sub-themes identified within this section include the requirement for clear support pathways and the need for processes and procedures that deliver more than the more traditional university business of learning, teaching and assessment.

Throughout the majority of interviews, views were expressed that the case- study organization lacks a clear route through which staff can find out how to obtain support for entrepreneurial activities. Participant Seven summarized this perceived situation clearly:

“I think there is not a clear commercial pathway and a clear commercial policy. I think, and I could be wrong, every Faculty does it slightly differently. I don’t think there is [sic] any clear guidelines if you have an idea and you want to do something, how you do it?”

[Participant Seven]

Similarly, reflecting upon experiences when looking for support within the university, Participant Five reported that they go externally where possible, because it is perceived to be simpler than looking within the organization; stating their view of the situation “that’s not right” [Participant Five]. It was proposed by various participants that the university has ‘enclaves’, ‘silos’ and ‘pockets of knowledge’, with a view expressed that it can feel a constant battle to join up support areas. This is not to report that all participants felt there was a lack of support per se; rather that there is poor connectivity between them and considerable ambiguity regarding which support can be obtained locally within Faculties and which is available from central university professional services. To this end, it was suggested by four participants that once you know your way around the university system, make contacts and develop relationships, the support mechanisms could work effectively. This is particularly the case for those staff making use of such services relatively frequently, however for those setting out on the process of being entrepreneurial, the prospect of identifying and navigating an uncharted pathway was perceived to be somewhat daunting.

Concern was raised by participants that support departments are often

considered to be unsupportive and blocks to entrepreneurial activity, rather than being supportive of it. Two representative examples are as follows:

“Finance seems to be a block […] Instead of trying to work with us they will put a block there and they won’t move.” [Participant Two]

“There is none of that kind of atmosphere or culture [of support ] it is always what have you done; block, block, block rather than help, help, help."

[Participant Five]

A recurring sub-theme was a perception that systems and processes in the case study organization are not well aligned to supporting entrepreneurial activity, as summarized by Participant Twelve:

“The fact is that this is a very big organization that has long standing policies and practices and that is definitely not what entrepreneurial is supposed to be.” [Participant Twelve]

Participants explored the notion that the university has systems and processes that have been developed to support its core area of business, perceived to be teaching undergraduate students. Participant One went on to lament that support for entrepreneurship takes a secondary position because:

“We are set up as a university, I think, primarily to support the work of the Schools which is teaching students,

[student] recruitment, all that sort of thing.” [Participant One]

It emerged that such support systems can often be felt to be in tension with the requirements of sales and commercialization, with views expressed that there is too much rigidity to support innovation, flexibility and responsiveness to

opportunities as and when they arise. It was further reported that there is a perceived lack of appropriate administrative support for what are considered to

be key areas of university business such as learning, teaching and assessment. Participant Ten, for example highlights:

“In the [Faculty] academics are bogged down in far, far too much administration” before reporting that the university is “very bureaucratic.” [Participant Ten]

It was suggested that this administration and bureaucracy in itself affects entrepreneurialism, as academic colleagues who may have good ideas for exploitation cannot develop these fully through lack of discretionary time.

Participants’ views varied regarding whether the small organizational structures (Institutes) established to promote entrepreneurial activity within the study organization had a positive effect upon the support received or not. Some participants noted that because the structures are smaller and more focused on entrepreneurial types of endeavours they are more flexible, informal, supportive of individuals and less bureaucratic than other parts of the case study

university. This view was not however universal, with Participant Three observing wryly:

"I keep referring back to that Monty Python moment in the Life of Brian; what have the Romans ever done for us? What have the Institutes ever done for us?"

[Participant Three]

This theme regarding the importance of having systems and structures supportive of entrepreneurship was in many ways anticipated in the literature review when considering elements of organizational culture. What was perhaps emergent in these findings was that despite an organizational vision and plan for entrepreneurship, basic processes were perceived to be unsupportive of this rhetoric.