Skam, España

This Critical Narrative is constructed even more between the lines than the three first narratives, as the actors constructing this narrative are most likely also co-constructing one or two of the others. The Critical Narrative is an underlying figure in the incubation industry, like the little devil on someone’s shoulder whispering that;

incubating activities do not make a difference - that the basic support format is wrong – that the design ought to be different - that the selection process should be changed – and that Denmark’s immature ventures do not have the potential we think they do!

The Critical Narrative is a collection of critical voices in the field, and it contains at least two strong and irreconcilable plots. The first plot paraphrases a criticism of support initiatives as something that disturbs the natural forces of entrepreneurial creation and destroys the natural ecosystem of entrepreneurship and the marketplace in general. Entrepreneuring actors who cannot imagine that a pre-designed programme can satisfy the needs of their unique venture support this view. The second plot is a phrase that I have heard quite often in my fieldwork, especially in conversations with experienced advisors but also from less experienced and more model-based advisors or entrepreneurs who believe that there is one right way to teach entrepreneurs or work with them, and that it is not the way that is used in public intervention programmes.

The two plots of the Critical narrative can be summed up to this;

Plot: ‘Keep out – entrepreneur at work’

(Inferred by entrepreneuring actors who do not want to participate in public programs or investors who do not believe that entrepreneurship can be taught and is arguing against artificial support)

Plot: ‘My take on this is…’

(Inferred by advisors who ‘know a thing or two,’ and who do not believe entrepreneurship can be taught, but have instead developed their own favourite consultation approach to mentoring).

The themes of the narrative can be summed up to;

• ‘We did not follow the official programme – and that was really good!’

• Value for time

• The natural order of the entrepreneurship system

The critical stance of this narrative is demonstrated well in the following – in a somewhat reluctant example of participation.

6.10.1. Empirical demonstration: ‘We did not follow the official programme – and that was really good!’

This excerpt is from a double interview with two founders of a company. It is our second meeting, which takes place 6 months after they completed the programme. The conversation clearly illustrates their scepticism towards the advice paradigm with pre-defined schemes, again reflecting a fear of not being seen as unique and special but just as another start-up with pre-defined needs.

Interviewer: And were there any meetings with industry, customers or others set up?

Entrepreneur respondent 1: Yes – we visited a couple of factories – and yes, there was actually a lot of that. Everything that had to with the product was definitely evaluated. We did not follow the Accelerator programme very strictly. We sat one on one with the advisor and agreed upon what was really important to our company. And he helped us enormously with the things we needed. And then we probably did not follow the official programme as much as the others. And that was really good, because if we had, I’m not sure we would have gained much from it. And then we probably would have quit; because we couldn’t spend time on something we weren’t going to benefit from. But we benefited a lot, because the advisor helped us with those things.

Entrepreneur respondent 2: It was a great strength of the advisor that he dared to go beyond the programme. Compared with an advisor who might just say, ‘We have to follow this – fill out these forms.’ For us it was very important to get something out of it to be able to really take it seriously (Com04R5).

To some extent, these respondents distance themselves from the programme and were positively surprised by the contributions of their advisor, saying that they were reluctant about committing to the official programme.

They see their advisor in opposition to the programme structure – almost like a rebel who dares to do what is necessary to make a difference to their particular venture. They accepted him and through dialogue and relationship building they let him in to help and guide them. They want customization, and that seems to come from dialogue. Note that this type of customization on the advisors side of performing the programme support provides a problem of assessing the programme as a training session. In chapter 8 I return to the subject of dialogue as a remedy for respect and openness between advisor and participants.

In other support or service industries (transport, accommodation, entertainment), customers are not slow to complain if they do not receive the standard package – or what they have been promised. Nevertheless, this is the same story as we listened to in the entrepreneurial narrative that these respondents cannot imagine a standardised package being appropriate and valuable to them. This illustrates a clash between the working

practice of support between advisor and participants, and the incubator management’s ambition of delivering standardised services.

The quotes also illustrate a calculating orientation (Gergen 2009, 22) to the relationship, as the advisor is viewed as an instrument to provide value and bring access to networks. The participants use their advisor for knowledge and network access and are grateful to him, but it is not necessarily a relationship based on trust and mutual obligation. This became obvious from my second meeting with the same respondents, where I asked them whether they were still in contact with their programme advisor – to which they replied that they were not, as they had gotten from him what he had to offer, and now they had to move on.

As referred to earlier, the first three narratives imply a strong need for meaning-making, which makes it hard to discuss issues such as form, content, didactics and goals of support, as the initiatives are described as the road to prosperity and growth. Critical voices are silenced with a ‘So you might have a better idea of how to save society?’ by policy makers when someone is asking about effects and results, or when someone suggests an alternative approach – such as a learning objective – it is silenced with a ‘How are you going to measure that?’ by incubating managers. Obviously, such suppression to criticism leads to small talk by the water cooler, as advisors, entrepreneuring actors and researchers try to channel their doubts and frustration into something else – that often ends up signifying a form of distance to programmes and support. This distancing is expressed when advisors say that they have a different idea about how to perform the services of the programme, when politicians say that entrepreneurship cannot be taught and argue that we should just lower the taxes, when entrepreneurs says that useful advice can only come from other entrepreneurs, and when academics says that incubating activities are making entrepreneurs passive, since true entrepreneurs will make it on their own, as that is what entrepreneurship is about.

6.10.2. Empirical demonstration: Value for time

The participants of the incubating programme enter the programme with a feeling of investing a great deal of time and energy in the programme, and they are constantly considering whether they might have spent this time better elsewhere. They are, so to speak, calculating the alternative cost: how much they could have sold in a day spent instead on incubating activities. During the selection process they have pitched, submitted lengthy applications with confidential knowledge and signed various kinds of contracts with the programme.

They feel vulnerable, not in control, that time is money, and that now is the time for the programme/advisor and experts to bring some value to the venture. If that does not happen, the participants are frustrated, as the following excerpt from a post-programme interview reveals:

Interviewer: What has been the most challenging part of being in the programme?

Respondent: When you’re really busy, you don’t want to listen to people who are incompetent. They have to go! All the participating companies have plenty to do, and spending a half a day on something meaningless makes you very frustrated.

Interviewer: What could have been better?

Respondent: I would say a little less and a little better and making sure that everything is high quality. Also with regard to the network they bring in. You need to be sure that they are good people. It’s better to get one good advisor than three poor ones. Sometimes I felt that the advisor and the rest of the team felt that they had to provide a certain number of industry experts, and that doesn’t work (…) I think they have to make sure not to waste our time and to respect our time. Sometimes, I did not have that feeling (Com01R5).

This sceptical attitude is important to note, both for a researcher of entrepreneurial processes and definitely for an advisor of entrepreneuring actors. This respondent from the above quote is very concerned about not wasting his time – much alike most participants. Other participants, as demonstrated from the following conversation express that they feel that the advisors and industry experts are holding back information and not really exploring their network as the participants had expected;

Interviewer: What about industry experts and relevant contacts and network opportunities, how much of this was presented to you?

Were there established any new contacts?

Entrepreneur respondent: There were not … not any relevant industry experts at least - I do not think we had a delivery on that part. The Connect Denmark Springboard was good, but again we had selected the committee ourselves. But the Accelerator part - nothing came out of this. Our experience with our advisor was that he was hiding his good advice for a time after the programme, so he could be hired as an external advisor. It was clearly our feeling that there were some things, where he would say -”I know a product similar to yours, and I can find the documentation that you need, but we can talk about that in September”. It was my very clear perception, also based on his later reactions that this was about getting into a well-paid consultancy job afterwards, where he could deliver. He seemed to be conscious that as advisor you can only sell your knowledge once, and when you have emptied your bag - it is empty. And he had no plans of emptying this bag during the programme, but would rather hide it for the period after. So, things we thought we would get from the programme as marketing plans and such things – we did not get, and this was actually what I thought an advisor consultant to help make, or at least help make drafts.

Interviewer: I am sorry and surprised of what you tell me. It is role of the advisor to share their knowledge and network during the 5 months of the programme, and most of them also do that”

Entrepreneur respondent: That might be so, but for us it appeared as something we could get afterwards, when the official programme had ended (PCom10R5).

This is an example of a bad experience with the advisor and a process that has not endured trust and respect, but mistrust in the advisor and the programme relevance, and as it appears from the quote he is quite angry about the performance of his advisor. The respondent did not ‘get’ what he expected from the programme or the advisor – and has left the programme with a feeling of having been too early in the programme and having wasted time, which could have been spent better on developing the product. He says that during the participation he felt that the development of their product was sat on hold;

”I have been a feeling as if I was taken away from development, and that I did not move our development project in that half year we did the programme. In any case not enough in relation to the conditions that I knew that it was necessary in order to begin the serious customer dialogue.” (PCom10R5).