
It is worth taking a close look at the results obtained from the group of entrepreneurs, because thanks to their participation in the project they found themselves in approximately the situation in which the students would like to see themselves. They have a business idea, and they have received financial and technical support and advice. The study tested their responses in terms of the level of COC in the extended version of Metaphor Questionnaire Version I. The results are given in the table below.
Question from the questionnaire |
% of responses |
Compare your company to a vehicle |
The consumer is a component of the vehicle/company |
0 |
|
The consumer is mentioned, but outside the vehicle / company |
14 |
|
There is no consumer |
86 |
|
The customer as part of the company does not appear in any of the entrepreneur responses, and only 14% cited it outside the company. Other answers do not allude directly to the customer. This is surprising when you take into account the fact that these are people who have started the process of running their own business. The analysis of responses to the question "What does the customer do in this vehicle?" provides more information on this topic.
Question from the questionnaire |
% of responses |
What does the customer do in this vehicle? |
Entrepreneur seeks contact with the customer |
27 |
|
Entrepreneur is passive, the customer actively seeks contact with him/her |
46 |
|
The customer remains on the outside and evaluates the entrepreneur |
27 |
|
In this group, the largest number of respondents (46%) displays an attitude of passively waiting for customer response. In this respect, they do not differ from the students planning to set up a business, while demonstrating the unrealistic attitude that the customer is waiting for them. In conjunction with the 27% of the group for whom the customer only assesses their operations, this gives a worrying signal that the studied individuals are not sufficiently customer-oriented. Only 27% of respondents could be classified as showing that the entrepreneur is set to proactively seek contact with the customer. This is definitely not enough to be confident that the majority in this group will be able to use the support offered them and effectively keep their company on the market, and thus that the funds allocated to the project will be used optimally. The analysis of the responses given below provides some clues as to the causes of this situation.
Only 19% of respondents listed the customer as someone who is with them in the vehicle (14%) or outside the vehicle (5%). The remaining 81% indicate other people, among whom the dominant group are by far family members or friends. It is worth looking closer at the fact that within the company there are close people, relations with whom are friendly or family. This suggests that respondents did not identify the rules of company operation based on market principles. They see it more as a community. According to Bolesta-Kukułka 1 the specific nature of this community is that the purpose of its existence is collective co-existence, to overcome the difficulties and obstacles that threaten survival, as is the case in the family. Among the members of the community there is a strong psychological bond and continuous and permanent relationships of obligation and entitlement. Whereas a profit-oriented company market should have the characteristics of an organisation that, as Bolesta-Kukułka writes 2 exists to implement goals already decided by someone else. The relationships existing within it are formalised and objectivised and not the result of mutual agreement and adaptation. If the entrepreneur treats the company as a way of meeting the needs of the family, they may lose the pro-customer perspective. This is because the customer is shifted to the wayside, external, and cognitively it is virtually impossible to focus on their needs. They are an external instrument in the "business as second family home". This misunderstanding of the rules of company operation, confusing them with communities, may be the cause of non-pro-effective decision-making and contribute to the loss of market position, even in the possession of professional knowledge in the field of entrepreneurship.
Question from the questionnaire |
% of responses |
Who else is with you in this vehicle? |
The customer is a component of the vehicle/company |
14 |
|
The customer is mentioned, but outside the vehicle / company |
5 |
|
There is no customer |
81 |
|
If this is the belief of those who participate in business schools, and the results clearly show that it is, this might be one of the sources of inefficiency in the teaching methods. With such a belief as to the reasons for the existence of a company, there is no way that formal knowledge can be used properly in the course of business activity. Candidates for entrepreneurs must therefore learn to think in terms of the market and, in accordance with its rules, modify their beliefs and ideas. Attempts to transfer formal knowledge alone may end up in the fact that it will be absorbed automatically and incorrectly applied.
J.C. Sánchez consistently suggests that “the instructors (academics, lecturers, and trainers) should receive training not only in how to teach entrepreneurship but also in how to change “hearts and minds”. 3
- 1455 reads