CREATING ENTREPRENEURIAL COMMUNITIES: EFFECTIVENESS OF COACHING

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: NRI COMPETITIVE GRANT
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 0219964
• Grant No.: 2009-35900-05935
• Proposal No.: 2008-02624
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2009
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2013
• Grant Year: 2009
• Program Code: [62.0]- Rural Development

Recipient Organization
MICHIGAN STATE UNIV
(N/A)
EAST LANSING,MI 48824

Performing Department
Agricultural, Food, & Resource Economics

Non Technical Summary
Rural leaders are seeking improved ways to support entrepreneurship in tight budget times. Michigan State University is creating a program to apply coaching techniques popular in business management circles to the problem of aligning community efforts around high need areas with respect to creating and sustaining local entrepreneurs. A head coach will engage communities and track their progress, the nature of their dialog over time, and effective techniques in balancing between consensus and action. Results can be used to help reduce the cost of technical assistance delivery in rural areas, both in support of entrepreneurship and in other areas where the communities must become more self-reliant.

Animal Health Component

100%

Research Effort Categories

Basic

(N/A)

Applied

100%

Developmental

(N/A)

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
608	6050	3010	100%

Knowledge Area
608 - Community Resource Planning and Development;

Subject Of Investigation
6050 - Communities, areas, and regions;

Field Of Science
3010 - Economics;

Keywords

rural entrepreneur

coaching communities

economic development

rural policy

Goals / Objectives
This integrated research and extension project will test an innovative method for increasing the ability of rural communities to create and sustain entrepreneurs. The project will also increase our understanding of the characteristics of effective change agent groups more generally, and methods for catalyzing local change groups through cost-effective "coaching" interventions. We will work with selected communities interested in increasing the performance of their economy by stimulating the supply, survival, and growth of local entrepreneurs. A conference will expose leaders to the basics of community-based entrepreneurship. A site visit and baseline assessment will identify community strengths and weaknesses in entrepreneurship, and community volunteers will make plans to address weaknesses. A campus-based head coach and more specialized coaches will work intensively with the communities for an extended period of time. A follow-up assessment will measure progress on 41 research based indicators. While the project focus is entrepreneurship, the coaching intervention style may allow delivery of a wide array of rural development capacity-building programs at a fraction of the cost of traditional Extension delivery models. Movement to a coaching model may help the Extension system thrive in spite of declining purchasing power, and competition from web-based information providers. A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods will increase understanding of community dynamics as leaders interested in enhancing entrepreneurial outcomes move through the various phases of a planned intervention. Analysis of the data will be continuous as the intervention progresses, with journal articles envisioned as communities pass certain milestones.

Project Methods
Nationally, rural leaders are looking for cost-effective strategies that help their communities become more supportive of entrepreneurship. More entrepreneurial communities support agricultural and natural resource-based activities in numerous ways. First, entrepreneurial individuals can foster more value-added activities from agricultural production or agricultural by-products. Second, entrepreneurs can become more efficient and effective suppliers of agricultural inputs. Third, an important dimension of Michigan's rural economy is tourism. The tourism industry in rural Michigan is dominated by small enterprises that rely on natural-resource based activities to draw customers. Enhanced tourism industries can help make rural communities become more inviting for long-term residents, stabilizing rural schools and land values. Entrepreneur clubs, microenterprise loan programs, youth business expos, and business coaching services are examples of strategic initiatives rural communities are exploring as alternatives to traditional economic development approaches. Such programs are most successful with strong community networking support, collectively recognizing the economic impact of a diversified set of local, small business ventures. Michigan State University Extension has a pilot, Creating Entrepreneurial Communities, in which selected communities participate in training, research, and coaching services. One of the program's strengths is that it fosters the growth and development of existing networks for entrepreneurial support, and it is therefore considerably less costly than popular economic development strategies. The research component of the proposal will use qualitative methods to explore the types of networking techniques that seem to be most effective in stimulating action and sustaining the network. Action and consensus can sometimes be conflicting group goals, depending on the political culture of the community. If we take the time needed to bring everyone on board, opportunities can pass. If we don't achieve consensus before taking action, disgruntled individuals may drop out of the network. How communities effectively manage the tradeoffs between dual goals of action and consensus will be an avenue that we explore in our research that goes well beyond the immediate goal of stimulating entrepreneurial development.

Progress 09/01/09 to 08/31/13

Outputs
Target Audience: Residents of eight Michigan communities participated in coaching activities to allow them to determine appropriate local goals for enhancing the birth,survival, and growthrate of local businesses. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? The project provided an opportunity for six undergraduates to engage in parts of the research. The project also engagedsix graduate students, two of whom completed dissertations related to the project. A third graduate student was co-author on one of the articles from the project. A fourth graduate student presented a conference paper related to the project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Some of the results were shared via new strategies injected into the coaching activities. There were also journal articles and conference presentations. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The major goals of the project were met. Volunteer teams from eight communities participated in a program to provide them with coaching services and research to track their progress as they moved through phases of identifying their goals and implementation. One community rapidly gained the knowledge it desired and completed the program. Another community dropped out and reconfigured their efforts. The other communities remained in the program for a longer period of time, and regularly participated in verbal interactions that were recorded and coded for the research. The knowledge gained through the interactions provided information for more quantitative studies to compelment the qualitative work, such that two dissertations and several journal articles were produced.

Publications

• Type: Conference Papers and Presentations Status: Published Year Published: 2011 Citation: Suljevic, Ajka, and Scott Loveridge. 2011. If We Offer it, Will they Come Determinants ofCounty‐Level Demand for Community‐Based Entrepreneurship Programming. Conference proceedings. What Works Entrepreneurship and Community Development in the Northeast. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Accepted Year Published: 2013 Citation: Komarek, Timothy, and Scott Loveridge. Too Big? Too Small? Just Right? An Empirical Perspective on the Debate about Local Firm Size Distribution and Economic Growth in US Counties and High Poverty Rural Regions. Economic Development Quarterly
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Loveridge, Scott, Stephanie Nawyn, and Lisa Szymecko. Conducting Virtual Facilitated Discussions. CD Practice. 19. Spring 2013. http://www.comm-dev.org/images/pdf/Conducting-virtual-facilitated-dicussions%20template-new%201.pdf
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Loveridge, Scott, Steven R. Miller, Timothy Komarek, and Thasanee Satimanon. Assessing Regional Attitudes about Entrepreneurship. J. Regional Analysis and Policy 43(3): 210-222. 2012.
• Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Loveridge, Scott, Steven Miller and Timothy Komarek. Residents Support Entrepreneurship but Policy Lags. Choices 27(2) 2012. Online at: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/pdf/cmsarticle_219.pdf
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2012 Citation: Komarke, Timothy. Three Essays in Regional Economic Development: Forecasting, Firm Sizes and Ethanol Plants. Ph.D. Dissertation, 2012. Michigan State University.
• Type: Theses/Dissertations Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Ivan, David John. Factors Influencing Success in Community Change Teams: A Theoretical and Observational Analysis. PhD Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: The community coaching (Extension) phase of the project has concluded. Eight communities received coaching services under the grant. Michigan State University Extension appointed an existing staff member, not paid under the grant, to continue working with the program participants. Thus the coaching will continue for another few months although under a different coach. The new coach was one of the program participants. Transcripts of coaching interactions and interviews of participants is nearly complete. Quantitative analysis of community-entrepreneurship interactions using secondary data is in process, with some analysis complte. David Ivan has elected to form his dissertation around data gathered in the course of the project. Mr. Ivan defended his dissertation proposal successfully earlier this year, and has completed several chapters for review by his advisor. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Each of the eight community teams adopted between 5 and 16 goals related to strengthening support for entrepreneurs in their area. Ongoing implementation was evident in 40 to 92% of the goals, depending on the team. Team goals could be assigned to the following broad categories. 1. Regular communications with the coach. 2. Regularly scheduled team meeetings. 3. Branding. 4. Program funding. 5. Monthly meet-up with entrepreneurs. 6. Formal input gathering. 7. Social media. 8. Youth entrepreneurship activities. 9. Incubators. 10. Library resource centers. 11. Agricultural related activities. 12. Improving government relations. 13. Tourism development. 14. Mentoring programs. 15. Minority entrepreneurship. 16. Awards programs. 17. Arts-related entrepreneurship. 18. Business plan competitions. 19. Scholarship programs. 20. Internships. 21. Microloan programs.

Publications

• Loveridge, Scott, Steven Miller and Timothy Komarek. 2012. Residents Support Entrepreneurship but Policy Lags. Choices 27(2).
• Suljevic, Ajka, and Scott Loveridge. 2011. If We Offer it, Will they Come Determinants ofCounty‐Level Demand for Community‐Based Entrepreneurship Programming. Conference proceedings. What Works Entrepreneurship and Community Development in the Northeast. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development.

Progress 09/01/10 to 08/31/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: The project coach, Marsha Madle, was hired on April 4, 2010. We then proceed to recruit communities into the program. Ten communities applied to the program and eight were accepted. The program was launched with a two and a half day bootcamp in late September, 2010. Data collection started with program applications and continued with transcriptions of recorded interactions with the coach and interviews of program participants (including the coach and the Co-PI/program manager). The data are partially coded, and preliminary results were presented at the Mid Continent Regional Science Association meetings in June 2011. Another paper on demand for this type of program was presented at the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development sponsored "What Works" conference in September, 2011. An invitation-only webinar on working with community economic development groups attracted 37 senior land grant professionals to receive and give input on coaching techniques. PARTICIPANTS: Scott Loveridge, PD Barbara Fails, Co-PD Marsha Madle, Coach Lisa Szymecko, Graduate Student Ajka Suljevic, Graduate Student Timothy Komarek, Graduate Student TARGET AUDIENCES: Community Leaders in Rural Michigan Program development staff in land grant universities PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
Participating communities (all located in rural Michigan) have been inspired to implement a number of local initiatives: -101 Conversations program (biz needs survey) -Tribal youth entrepreneurship program -Entrepreneur speakers bureau -Incubator feasibility study -Business idea contest -Expanded role for local library as business resource center -Business awards banquet

Publications

• No publications reported this period

Progress 09/01/09 to 08/31/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: This is year one of an integrated project to study interactions of communities striving to improve entrepeneurial outcomes and a coach. We recruited eight communities into the program. The communities represent a wide distribution of rural community types. PARTICIPANTS: Scott Loveridge (PI) provides overall direction and management for the project. He developed instruments. Barbara Fails (co-PI) provides leadership for the outreach/training components of the project. Marsha Madle is serving as the "coach" for the eight communities enrolled in the project. Dr. Stephanie Nawyn is providing assistance in qualitative research design and analysis. Sociology graduate student Pamela Pommerenke provided initial literature review on coaching. Community Agriculture, Recreationa and Resource Studies PhD candidate Lisa Szymecko is assisting with literature review, transcription, and analysis. Sociology undergraduate Michael Raley is assisting with transcription and community profiles. The eight participating community teams include: the Au Sable River Country (Iosco, Alcona, Crawford and Oscoda counties); Imlay City; City of Sturgis; St. Ignace and Les Cheneaux; the townships of Bath, Watertown and DeWitt; Barry County; Delta County; and the Tri-County Region (Manistee, Benzie and Mason counties). The teams committed to a multi-year effort. The initial three day training took place in September 2010. TARGET AUDIENCES: Leaders of rural communities interested in fostering greater capacity to support and develop entrepreneurs. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: The initial project called for a "coach" who was a part-time graduate student, and who would also analyze the team interactions. The individual identified to serve in this coach/analyst role at the time of proposal development was no longer available by the time the funds were received. Also, the USDA panel review comments suggested a division of the coaching role and the analysis. In consultation with the USDA program officer, we therefore divided the functions across a coach and a graduate research assistant.

Impacts
The eight communities participated in "boot camp" orchestrated by the coach. The participants learned basic entrepreneurship development tools and began to develop community-specific strategies.

Publications

• No publications reported this period