Mentoring an Entrepreneur: Guide for a Mentor

Abstract

A mentor plays an important role in entrepreneurial development of an individual. He guides entrepreneurs from conception of business to product development and business growth. Previous literature on entrepreneurial learning is disseminated and not properly organized; it is difficult to even find pertinent and comprehensive articles on entrepreneurial learning. The research proposed in this article helps mentors to understand and find out what type of entrepreneurs need what kind of mentoring support. This article proposes a conceptual model for mentors and discusses that an entrepreneur may need different mentoring support and skills depending on the type of entrepreneurs, personality traits, or decision-making style and phase at which entrepreneurs are at that moment. This article will also help mentors in understanding what type of skills entrepreneurs need at each stage of mentoring relationship, that is, initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition stage.

Full text

SAGE Open
January-March 2015: 1 –10
© The Author(s) 2015
DOI: 10.1177/2158244015569666
sgo.sagepub.com
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/aboutus/openaccess.htm).
Article
Introduction
Different researchers define entrepreneurship differently.
Originally, the term entrepreneur is derived from the French
word Entreprendre, which means “to undertake” (Dana,
2011). In English, entrepreneur denotes the person who starts
a new business and takes all the responsibility and outcome.
According to Schumpeter (2000), entrepreneur is an innova-
tor. Entrepreneur innovates either for own satisfaction or for
economic independence. This innovation can result in a new
product or process and new organization or revitalize exist-
ing organization. Entrepreneur is bearer of uncertainty and
risk taker. When the novel market is created, it would be on
uncertain situation in terms of customer satisfaction and
added value. The entrepreneur is the one who takes risk and
bears all impacts of creating new venture. The frequent defi-
nition of entrepreneur was developed by McClelland (1973).
He believes that the successful entrepreneur is someone who
is high-orientated achiever, takes initiative, and shows high
degree of proactivity. According to him, the successful entre-
preneurs commit to others whether they are customers or
shareholders.
Literature Review
In today’s world, mentor describes a person with some
defined qualities, an expert who oversees and trains a
younger person. Young protégé benefits from guidance and
support of the mentor. Mentoring is different from other
related forms of discrete support such as teaching and coach-
ing; in case of mentoring, the mentor puts the mentees’ inter-
est as complete priority, not as part of a set of priorities
(Gibson, 2005). Mentoring can be accomplished in a variety
of forms, such as helping a disturbed youth. Also, a lot of
mentoring programs are established in large organizations
for psychological and professional development of employ-
ees. Aims of such mentoring packages are to encourage and
develop the protégé and also to create a better overall percep-
tion of the organizational culture
Dyadic Structure of Mentor–Protégé Relationship
The dyadic structure of mentor–protégé relationship refers to
the dimension of relationship that increases the probability
of meaningful and more frequent interactions, which is an
important feature of high-quality relationship (Allen, Eby, &
Lentz, 2006). Mentoring relationships are usually of static
nature, unlike relationships created by human beings for all
569666SGOXXX10.1177/2158244015569666SAGE OpenMemon et al.
research-article2015
1Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
2International Islamic University, Selangor, Malaysia
3University Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia
Corresponding Author:
Jamshed Memon, Department of Information Systems, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, N-28a, ISSI Lab, Johor Bahru, 81300, Malaysia.
Email: Jamshed.memon@gmail.com
Mentoring an Entrepreneur: Guide for a
Mentor
Jamshed Memon1, M. Z. A. Rozan1, Kamariah Ismail1,
Mueen Uddin2,3, and DzurllKanian Daud1
Abstract
A mentor plays an important role in entrepreneurial development of an individual. He guides entrepreneurs from conception
of business to product development and business growth. Previous literature on entrepreneurial learning is disseminated
and not properly organized; it is difficult to even find pertinent and comprehensive articles on entrepreneurial learning. The
research proposed in this article helps mentors to understand and find out what type of entrepreneurs need what kind of
mentoring support. This article proposes a conceptual model for mentors and discusses that an entrepreneur may need
different mentoring support and skills depending on the type of entrepreneurs, personality traits, or decision-making style
and phase at which entrepreneurs are at that moment. This article will also help mentors in understanding what type of skills
entrepreneurs need at each stage of mentoring relationship, that is, initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition stage.
Keywords
entrepreneurship, mentoring, protégé, lone rangers, daredevils, technopreneur

2 SAGE Open
of their faults and good qualities that change and develop
over time. Mentoring can be described as a dyadic “commu-
nication relationship” consisting of verbal and nonverbal
behaviors intended to offer or ask for help (Burleson,
MacGeorge, Knapp, & Daly, 2002). When engaged in dyadic
mentoring relationship, mentors elaborate and convey sup-
portive messages depicted as “specific lines of communica-
tive behaviour enacted by one party with the intent of
benefiting or helping another” (Burleson et al., 2002, p. 386).
In this perspective, mentors need to constantly adjust their
communications to meet the needs of their protégés, which
demands a “deep understanding of their own communication
styles and a willingness to objectively observe the behaviour
of the mentee” (Radu Lefebvre & Redien-Collot, 2013).
There are different aspects of dyadic structure, which
increases the likelihood of frequent interactions in a mentor–
protégé relationship. Memon, abd Rozan, Uddin, Shah, and
Dzurllkanian (2013) described 13 different aspects, which
were categorized into objective and subjective qualities a
mentor should posses as shown in Table 1.
The qualities of mentor mentioned in Table 1 are subjec-
tive in nature, and every protégé’s perception about these
qualities is different. To form a good dyadic structure of
mentor–protégé relationship, protégé should find a mentor
who matches with the qualities he or she is looking for. These
qualities may be from those listed in Table 1 or may be
different.
Stages of Mentoring
An effective mentoring relationship will pass through four
definite stages of mentoring (see Table 2). The time spent at
each of these stages differs from relationship to relationship,
but all relationships come across four of these stages of men-
toring (Kram, 1983; B. R. Ragins & Kram, 2007). This
research, which is vastly citied by other researchers,
described four discrete stages of mentoring, namely, initia-
tion, cultivation, termination, and redefinition stage.
Initiation Stage
At Initiation Stage 2, individuals informally enter into a
mentoring relationship. The relationship is not formal as
the mentor and mentee choose to initiate relation on their
own, and there is no third party between the mentor and
mentee to dictate the relationship. At this stage, both mentor
and mentee discuss and clarify their common goals, shared
values, and dreams. There may be lack of communication at
Table 1. Qualities of a Mentor.
Objective control Author Subjective control Author
Age Finkelstein, Allen, and Rhoton (2003) Experience Rose (2003)
Gender St-Jean (2012) Interpersonal competency Johnson (2003)
Lockwood (2006) Watson (2009)
Thomas (1990)
Brickson (2000)
Race/ethnicity Kalbfleisch and Davies (1991) Trust Cull (2006)
Santos and Reigadas (2002) Botha (2014)
Sánchez, Colón, and Esparza (2005)
Language Feldman, Folks, and Turnley (1999) Attitude Malewicki (2005)
Stanek (2001) Beaunae (2009)
Accessibility Lavin Colky and Young (2006)
Up-to-date Rose (2003)
ICT competency Mutton, Mills, and McNicholl (2006)
Network Ozgen and Baron (2007)
Shared values Hiemstra and Brockett (1998)
Source. Memon, abd Rozan, Uddin, Shah, and Dzurllkanian (2013).
Note. ICT = information and communications technology.
Table 2. Stages of Mentoring (Kram, 1983; B. R. Ragins & Kram, 2007).
Initiation Cultivation Separation Redefinition
Engagement phase Active phase Ending phase Friendship phase
Establishing identity of dyad as entity Confirmation of role Physical and emotional separation Supportive colleagues
Forging attachment to one another Mutuality of self-disclosure Obtaining closure Possible friendship
Clear relational boundaries
Information sharing

Memon et al. 3
this stage as both individuals try to know each other at this
stage, and there is still lack of trust between them. Trust
starts to develop as the mentor and mentee get to know each
other, start meeting often, and discuss professional and per-
sonal life (Scandura & Williams, 2001). Once trust is devel-
oped, they may enter into a formal relationship and decide
terms and conditions of the relationship including monetary
terms.
Formal mentoring programs work differently. Here, a
third party manages the matching process of the mentor and
mentee instead of letting them initiate relationships on their
own (B. Ragins & Cotton, 1991). Good matching programs
are dependent on demographic variables as well as common
professional interests. Mentee assignment to a mentor in a
formal program varies greatly as mentors and mentees go
through a match-making process. Both mentors and mentees
may review profiles of each other and select each other, or
program managers may match mentors and mentees
(Weinberg & Lankau, 2010). Irrespective of the process, a
good formal mentoring program would require both parties
to discover the relationship and assess the suitability of the
mentor–mentee match.
Cultivation Stage
Once trust has been established between mentors and men-
tees, cultivation is the first stage of entrepreneurial learning
and development. Mentors and mentees create a contract for
their relationship. The contract outlines entrepreneurial and
social goals along with a legal contract, which may include
equity in the mentees’ business or other monetary terms. The
pair may assess their progress, success, and failures after
agreed time period and reaffirm or redesign their goals.
These goals of mentees must be their own goals, not the
goals set by mentors for mentees. The cultivation phase com-
prises the period between 2 and 5 years into the mentoring
relationship. In this phase, communication increases, form-
ing a deeper, more friendly link between the mentor and the
mentee (Briones & Janoske, 2013). Mentors and mentees
realize the worth of their relationship as the purposes of
entrepreneurial development and psychosocial support grow
exponentially. There is also a better mutual interaction
between both parties, as the mentee has developed to be
more informed and capable in his or her role, leading to the
mentee’s improved and distinct growth.
Effective oral and written communication is principal of
the success of the mentor–protégé relation (Allen & Poteet,
1999). Being the very first source of support and challenge
for protégés, mentors have the responsibility for effective
communication, because the protégés are likely to be younger
than the mentors and may possibly be different in culture,
ethnicity, and gender. In this case, the mentors must know
about the values and culture of the protégé so that communi-
cation and attitude of the protégé can be interpreted.
Closure/Separation Stage
This stage generally defines the end of a mentoring relation-
ship. The relationship may end because of different reasons.
 There is nothing left to learn.
 The mentee has redefined his or her goals, and the
mentor may become irrelevant for new goals.
 The protégé wants to have an individual identity.
 The mentor wants the protégé to learn on his or her
own and to not become dependent.
It is the obligation of both mentor and mentee to make
sure that the end of the relationship is happily accepted by
both the mentor and protégé; if not, then this stage can turn
sour with either party unwilling to accept the breakup
(Merkel, Cole, & Wesson, 2012). Usually, problems between
the mentor and protégé increase when one of both wants to
end the relationship, and the other person is not ready for it
yet. Mentees may feel abandoned, deceived, or unprepared
in case of any premature separation. Mentors might feel
deceived or used if protégés do not consult mentors or seek
guidance anymore.
Redefinition Stage
While redefining the relationship, both mentors and mentees
confess that their relationships can carry on (Johnson, 2003).
To have a successful redefinition of the mentoring relation-
ship, there must be successful termination of the relation-
ship. The protégé should feel a sense of achievement,
knowing that while in mentoring relationship, desired goals
were achieved successfully. There are more chances of redef-
inition of relation if the relationship was formed naturally
and evolved over time before termination. If the relationship
was formal and part of a mentoring program, it is less likely
to be redefined. Because in formal mentoring programs,
many of the entrepreneurs usually come from different back-
ground and challenging situations, they feel that they are
abandoned by mentors at the end of the already agreed term
(Barker, 2006). Once the relationship is redefined, it is likely
to last longer and will be turned into a friendship. Unlike the
cultivation stage, now the motivation of the relationship will
no longer be the professional development of the protégé.
The former mentor may have found new mentoring relation-
ships with another protégé and vice versa.
Problem Background
While working on a paper (Memon et al., 2013), which is a
guide for protégés who are seeking a mentor, it was realized
that the part of this guide that can guide a mentor to “Mentor
The Right Protégé” or mentee was missing. Although in a
previous article, objective and subjective qualities of an ideal
mentor were highlighted, it was not enough. It was just

4 SAGE Open
protégés’ perspective of an ideal mentor. Prior to mentoring,
a mentor needs to know the answers of the following
questions:
1. What is the type of the entrepreneur?
2. What is the decision-making style of the
entrepreneur?
3. What is the phase the entrepreneur is going through
at that moment?
4. What to do when entering formal/informal mentoring
relationship?
Proposed Conceptual Model
The proposed model consists of three building blocks that
play critical role in mentoring entrepreneurs. These building
blocks include the type of entrepreneurs (Andersson, Curley,
& Formica, 2010), entrepreneurial decision making (Gibcus,
2004), and entrepreneurial phase (Sullivan, 2000) as shown
in Figure 1. These are the factors that a mentor needs to con-
sider while mentoring an entrepreneur at any stage of men-
toring (Kram, 1983; B. R. Ragins & Kram, 2007). The
proposed framework shows that an entrepreneur needs dif-
ferent mentoring support throughout the career. Entrepreneurs
can be at 1 of 150 different possible stages, which are derived
using 3 factors that include type, decision making, and phase,
and when all these factors are correlated, they form 150 pos-
sible stages (5 × 5 × 6 = 150).
Types of Entrepreneurs
It is hard to say how many types of entrepreneurs exist in the
world, as most researchers describe that there are various
types of entrepreneurs (Gustafsson, 2006; Westhead,
Ucbasaran, & Wright, 2005). However, Thomas Andersson
(Andersson et al., 2010) categorized entrepreneurs into
five categories, which are described in the following
sections.
Creative Entrepreneur
Dare Devil
Conception
Creative Entrepreneur
Dare Devil
Survival
Creative Entrepreneur
Dare Devil
Stabilization
High Expectation
Entrepreneur
Busy Bees
Resource Maturity
Entrepreneurial
Conception
Survival
Stabilisation
Growth Orientation
Rapid Growth
Resource Maturity
Decision Making
Dare Devil
Lone Ranger
Doubtful Mind
Informer’s Friend
Busy Bees
Type of Entrepreneur
Creative Entrepreneur
Technopreneur
Knowledge Entrepreneur
Entrepreneurial Scholar
High Expectation
Entrepreneur
Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Memon et al. 5
Creative Entrepreneurs
Creative entrepreneurs unearth novel industry that needs
resources, either financial or human capital, such as knowl-
edge and skills to offer solutions to problems of customers.
There is need for a strong commercialization culture to sup-
port creative entrepreneurship. Once a new idea is devel-
oped, it must be validated before creation of prototype.
Prototype then needs to be tested and refined after feedback
and turned into a product. A creative entrepreneur should
create a business plan and look for investors. These entrepre-
neurs think out of the box as compared with their competi-
tors and are most likely to be found in high-tech industries
with significant emphasis on R&D. These entrepreneurs are
also called innovation leaders and are classified as those who
 produce their own process innovation and
 bring a new innovative product into the market
(Reinstaller & Unterlass, 2011).
Technology-Based Entrepreneurs
(Technopreneurs)
The word technopreneur is of modern origin. It was first
used in Singapore to highlight the need to produce more
entrepreneurs in the technology sector. A technology entre-
preneur is an individual who successfully uses talent and
ventures capital, innovative ideas, and managerial skills for
either commercial production of effective and viable techno-
logical innovations or effective leverage of innovations using
technology. Technopreneurs need to attain managerial com-
petencies for survival of technology-based ventures (Foo &
Foo, 2000).
Technopreneurs deal with all aspects of integrating tech-
nological issues into business decision making and new
product development process. What differentiates a techno-
preneur from a conventional entrepreneur is the way of doing
business (Milton-Smith, 2003; Verburg, Ortt, & Dicke,
2006). A technopreneurial firm is usually marked with a high
growth potential and high leverage of knowledge and intel-
lectual property. Technopreneurs are technically conversant
and able to spot opportunities in high-tech or high–value
added products and processes. Like a typical high-tech firm,
technopreneurs tend to emphasize invention and innovation
in their business strategy, deploy a significant percentage of
their financial resources to R&D, use a relatively high per-
centage of scientists and engineers in their workforce, and
compete worldwide (Mohannak & Matthews, 2011). A study
by Marvel and Lumpkin (2007) shows that technical knowl-
edge is a pre-requisite for technopreneur to spot the opportu-
nity to innovate a business or process.
Knowledge Entrepreneurs
A knowledge entrepreneur is capable of producing and using
intellectual assets of self for the growth of new start-up or
services that can later guide entrepreneurs to prosperity and
wealth creation of community and provide better and supe-
rior services. The knowledge entrepreneur must have enough
intellectual capital that can help to create value wealth by
using that knowledge (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2001).
Knowledge entrepreneurship is all about the acquisition
of information and knowledge-related opportunities to
develop, expand, and circulate a domain-related knowledge
base and pursue new ventures related to this knowledge base
(Davidson & Vaast, 2010). According to Skrzeszewski
(2006), knowledge entrepreneur is “someone” who has com-
mand on creating and using intellectual assets of self for the
development of new ventures that will eventually lead to
public, personal, or community development and wealth cre-
ation. There must be sufficient knowledge to make differ-
ence through the use of that knowledge. Consultants,
journalists, academics, and pundits can be potential knowl-
edge entrepreneurs (Wang & Ramiller, 2009). For example,
an academician who establishes a research journal for the
purpose of development and promotion of knowledge base is
a knowledge entrepreneur (Senges, 2008). Knowledge entre-
preneurs may need access to social networks to disseminate
and access information. The social network has transformed
the circumstances of knowledge entrepreneurs by transform-
ing the channel through which information flows and by
allowing for wider circulation of information and ideas to
larger audience. For example, we can say that Ariana
Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post website, is a
knowledge entrepreneur. Ariana relies inevitably on her
social network, on technical advances (e.g., blogging), and
on the ad revenues generated by the growing readership of
her website to pursue knowledge-based opportunities
(Davidson & Vaast, 2010).
Entrepreneurial Scholars
Entrepreneurial scholars are least exploring the breed of
entrepreneurs to date. These scholars turn into intellectual
venture capitalists by founding knowledge-driven compa-
nies. Entrepreneurial scholars are typically but not necessar-
ily scientists. They work on curiosity-driven research and
have strong belief that their research will lead to a successful
commercial outcome or research-based spin-off (Muster et
al., 2006). Over the time, research of entrepreneurial scholars
develops into business- and goal-oriented work (Carayannis
& Formica, 2006). Entrepreneurial scholars are not driven by
monetary profit, but rather, they focus on prospects with the
aim to improve the product via research. Entrepreneurial
scholars are relatively clearer about the success of the com-
mercial outcome of their product than traditional business
entrepreneurs. That is because product of entrepreneurial
scholars is based on curiosity-driven research, and the prob-
ability of another researcher working on exactly the same
research is very low.
Minniti and Lévesque (2010) describe entrepreneurial schol-
ars as research-based entrepreneurs because they commercialize

6 SAGE Open
their technological discoveries after extensive R&D. Minniti
described the rest as imitative entrepreneurs as their products
do not incur any R&D cost. Building on Gancia and Zilibotti
(2005), Minniti and Lévesque (2010) offered an analytical
model and set of conditions to describe the economic growth.
It was established that economic growth can be achieved if
the number of research-based initiatives or imitative initia-
tives or both are increased. China is being seen as one of the
examples of imitative entrepreneur growth where technology
was developed elsewhere but used in China for economic
growth (Yao, 2006). However, U.S. and European economic
growth was due to large expenditures on R&D, which
resulted in the establishment of private multinational corpo-
rations in the field of pharma, ICT, defense, and so on.
High-Expectation Entrepreneurs
Once the entrepreneurs attain advancement in technology,
market innovations are formed over time, and then, these
innovations evolve into high-expectation ventures, and start-
up firms are created by entrepreneurs with high expectations
and with the purpose of developing their companies signifi-
cantly and rapidly. Contribution of high-expectation entre-
preneurs is usually higher in the economic growth at the
macro level than entrepreneurs in general (Stam, Suddle,
Hessels, & van Stel, 2009). It can be said that high-expecta-
tion entrepreneurship is in fact high-impact entrepreneurship
that energizes the growth of technology industries. High-
impact entrepreneurship is one of the factors that help to
form the economy as an open, complex adaptive system.
Entrepreneur Decision Making
Strategic decisions made by entrepreneurs make or break the
small and medium-sized business and can therefore be con-
sidered vital for economic development. Very little is known
about the decision-making process of entrepreneurs who are
in charge of these small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Gilmore and Carson (2000) maintained that decision-making
process of entrepreneurs is different. Therefore, existing stra-
tegic decision-making models, which are largely applicable
on large multinational organizations, cannot be applied on
entrepreneurial decision making. Gibcus (2004) developed a
typology of entrepreneurial decision making based on experi-
ments. Gibcus maintained that every entrepreneur’s decision-
making style is different from others, so it is important to
understand how different entrepreneurs take decisions based
on their nature or personality. Gibcus (2004) divided entre-
preneurs into five different groups, namely, daredevils, lone
rangers, doubtful minds, informers’ friends, and busy bees.
Daredevils
High amount of risk-taking ability distinguishes daredevils
from others. They are considered experienced decision makers
because of the number of decisions they have taken in the
past. Daredevils are innovative and have got more alternative
options than others. According to Gibcus (2004), daredevils
are biggest spenders along with busy bees. It is mainly
because of their high risk-taking abilities but that does not
make them a blind risk taker. They are quite aware of the
potential problems and bottleneck, but that simply does not
influence their abilities to take risk. Daredevils’ decision
usually involves taking over other firms, innovations, and
cooperation with other firms. These decisions often require
significant investment (Vermeulen & Curseu, 2010).
Lone Rangers
These types of entrepreneurs work independently and dislike
asking for any advice or support in decision making. These
entrepreneurs usually know what to do and how to do, and
they usually do it their own way. Thus, they do not see any
bottleneck, which may mess up their plans, or seek any kind
of assistance (Vermeulen & Curseu, 2010). Lone rangers are
more reserved when it comes to cooperation with other firms.
Therefore, one would need to use a different approach to
reach out to lone rangers than daredevils or others (Gibcus,
2004). A research conducted by Gibcus, Vermeulen, and De
Jong (2009) ranked lone rangers last in list of five in decision
making related to organizational change. It is mainly the
nature of these types of entrepreneurs that probably makes
them self-confident.
Doubtful Minds
A doubtful mind is not at all sure about his or her decisions
unlike a lone ranger. They are most unconventional when it
comes to considering the alternative options. They usually
go through many alternatives before arriving at a decision. It
is probably because they think that they might not be able to
pull it off (Vermeulen & Curseu, 2010). These kinds of entre-
preneurs are less experienced and usually search for informa-
tion to support their process of decision making (Gibcus et
al., 2009). Gibcus (2004) thinks that economic condition of
doubtful minds is also one of the reasons that these entrepre-
neurs usually avoid taking risk and seeking alternative
options (Gibcus, 2004).
Informers’ Friends
Entrepreneurs in this category are modest in their frequency
of decision making. They are all influenced by other persons.
Their ability to consider alternatives is below average, and
only few of them perceive risk. Usually, the help of other
person, which, in this case can be considered as mentor,
friends, family, acquaintances, seems to be enough to make a
definitive decision while reducing perceived risk (Gibcus,
2004). This may be the reason why informers’ friends do not
perceive risks (Vermeulen & Curseu, 2010).

Memon et al. 7
Busy Bees
When it comes to decision making, busy bees are considered
above average. It is because they are more experienced and
often take many strategic decisions in a single year (Gibcus,
2004). They are juggling many ideas for future strategic
changes at any point in time. Busy bees are more social and
do not hesitate to throw ideas back and forth like informers’
friends, but unlike them, busy bees are not dependent on oth-
ers’ advice to take decision. They often throw new ideas,
which are often innovative and bring added quality of service
(Vermeulen & Curseu, 2010). Daredevils and busy bees are
the biggest spenders, which is due to their risk-taking ability.
According to Gibcus et al. (2009), a survey of small busi-
nesses revealed that busy bees were the highest spenders in
expense threshold of 500,000 to 2.5 million Euros, whereas
they were the lowest in 25,000 to 100,000 Euros (Gibcus
et al., 2009; Gibcus, 2004).
Entrepreneurial Process
Different researchers describe entrepreneurial process differ-
ently. All researchers talk about same phases but use different
terminologies to describe those phases. Morris and Kuratko
(2002), Sullivan (2000), and Timmons and Sapienza (1992)
came up with a framework of entrepreneurial life cycle. The
number of phases and time it take in each phase vary depend-
ing on type of industry they are applied (Roberts & Dowling,
2002). Information technology (IT) and Internet-based com-
panies usually take short time in start-up, whereas biotech-
nology companies take long time because of testing and
evaluation of products. Figure 2 shows different entrepre-
neurial lifecycles.
 At pre-start-up or conception phase, the company has
not been formed yet. This is the time when entrepre-
neurs start thinking about a business idea and write a
business proposal to arrange finances. Entrepreneurs
need to test and evaluate their business plan.
Entrepreneurs often need money at this stage usually
between $10,000 and $25,000 for developing proto-
type, arranging road shows, and collecting market
information (Clarysse & Bruneel, 2007). At the end of
the phase, the decision of whether to start a business
or not takes place.
 During survival phase, the company has been formed,
and the product is in market. The entrepreneur meets
basic challenges by the market, particularly establishing
Figure 2. Entrepreneurial lifecycles.

8 SAGE Open
acceptability, overcoming obstacles and surviving,
and showing business management skills. The com-
pany needs to generate enough cash to pay for employ-
ees and other expenses and break even (Sullivan,
2000). The business should continue to grow at stable
pace.
 During the early growth phase, the entrepreneur starts
hiring and building a team. If one looks at the success-
ful start-ups today, although it is the entrepreneur who
gets all the attention, there is a hard-working talented
team behind him or her, so it is important for the
entrepreneur to have skills to select the best team
around. Maintaining cost is also the key, as a wrong
decision may push the entrepreneur back into the sur-
vival phase (McGowan, 2012).
 During maturity phase, it is essential to understand
that unlike the traditional growth perception, the com-
panies are still growing during the maturity phase.
Many companies at this stage are on the brink of going
big. The key challenges a company faces are regard-
ing expenditure control, efficiency, and search for
growth opportunities (Scott & Bruce, 1987).
 During harvest phase, it is established that company is
growing fast and now entrepreneur want to go public.
Entrepreneurs need to be very careful when going
public and must study the market first. They need to
check the pricing of initial public offering and also
have a look at the rate of return venture capitalists
(Petty, Shulman, & Bygrave, 1994).
Conclusion
This article proposes a conceptual entrepreneur framework,
which highlights the factors and skills required for a mentor
to know in advance before he or she enters a mentoring rela-
tionship. These factors have a positive effect to improve
mentor–protégé relationship. For example, a “technopre-
neur” who is at the “conception” phase and is a “lone ranger”
might not need entrepreneurial mentoring because he or she
takes decisions on his or her own and does not seek guid-
ance. He or she might need a psychological mentor. An
“informers’ friend” whose decision making is influenced by
friends/colleagues/mentor’s advice can be mentored at each
phase, but if that “informers’ friend” is an “entrepreneurial
scholar,” then he or she might be compatible with a mentor
who is related to R&D. This article will help mentors in
understanding that each entrepreneur is different and needs
different mentoring support and skills. It will help mentors in
creating a long-lasting relationship with their protégé by pro-
viding them the support they need.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behav-
iors and mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring
programs: Closing the gap between research and practice. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 567-578.
Allen, T. D., & Poteet, M. L. (1999). Developing effective mentor-
ing relationships: Strategies from the mentor’s viewpoint. The
Career Development Quarterly, 48, 59-73.
Andersson, T., Curley, M. G., & Formica, P. (2010). Knowledge-
driven entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer.
Barker, E. R. (2006). Mentoring—A complex relationship. Journal
of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 18, 56-61.
Beaunae, C. (2009). Teachers’ perceptions of interpersonal men-
toring relationships in one early childhood mentoring pro-
gram. University of Florida, Gainesville.
Botha, H. (2014). How mentorship is perceived to contribute to
the well-being of an employee in an explosives manufacturing
organisation. North-West University, South Africa.
Bouchikhi, H., & Kimberly, J. R. (2001). “It’s difficult to inno-
vate”: The death of the tenured professor and the birth of the
knowledge entrepreneur. Human Relations, 54, 77-84.
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individ-
ual and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse
settings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82-101.
Briones, R., & Janoske, M. (2013). Mentoring 2.0: How PR educa-
tors use social media to create and maintain relationships with
students. International Journal of Continuing Engineering
Education and Life Long Learning, 23(1), 18-32.
Burleson, B., MacGeorge, E., Knapp, M., & Daly, J. (2002).
Supportive communication. Handbook of interpersonal com-
munication (3rd ed., pp. 374–424). London, England: SAGE
Carayannis, E. G., & Formica, P. (2006). Intellectual venture
capitalists: An emerging breed of knowledge entrepreneurs.
Industry & Higher Education, 20(3), 151-156.
Clarysse, B., & Bruneel, J. (2007). Nurturing and growing inno-
vative start-ups: The role of policy as integrator. R&D
Management, 37, 139-149.
Cull, J. (2006). Mentoring young entrepreneurs: What leads to suc-
cess? Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring,
4(2), 8-18.
Dana, L. (2011). World encyclopedia of entrepreneurship.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Davidson, E., & Vaast, E. (2010). Digital entrepreneurship and its socio-
material enactment. In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC: IEEE.
Feldman, D. C., Folks, W. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Mentor–
protege diversity and its impact on international internship
experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 597-611.
Finkelstein, L. M., Allen, T. D., & Rhoton, L. A. (2003). An exami-
nation of the role of age in mentoring relationships. Group &
Organization Management, 28, 249-281.
Foo, C.-T., & Foo, C.-T. (2000). Socialization of technopreneur-
ism: Towards symbiosis in corporate innovation and technol-
ogy strategy. Technovation, 20, 551-562.

Memon et al. 9
Gancia, G., & Zilibotti, F. (2005). Chapter 3 horizontal innova-
tion in the theory of growth and development. Handbook of
Economic Growth, 1, 111-170.
Gibcus, P. (2004). Strategic decision-making in small firms:
Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial decision-makers
(XVIII RENT Conference). Copenhagen, Denmark: European
Institute for Advanced Studies in Management.
Gibcus, P., Vermeulen, P., & De Jong, P. J. (2009). Strategic deci-
sion making in small firms: A taxonomy of small business
owners. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 7, 74-91.
Gibson, S. K. (2005). Whose best interests are served? The distinc-
tion between mentoring and support. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 7, 470-488. doi:10.1177/1523422305279678
Gilmore, A., & Carson, D. (2000). The demonstration of a method-
ology for assessing SME decision making. Journal of Research
in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 2, 108-124.
Gustafsson, V. (2006). Entrepreneurial decision-making:
Individuals, tasks and cognitions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
Hiemstra, R., & Brockett, R. (1998). From mentor to partner:
Lessons from a personal journey. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1998(79), 43-51.
Johnson, W. (2003). A framework for conceptualizing competence
to mentor. Ethics & Behavior, 13, 127-151.
Kalbfleisch, P., & Davies, A. (1991). Minorities and mentor-
ing: Managing the multicultural institution. Communication
Education, 40, 266-271.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 608-625. doi:10.2307/255910
Lavin Colky, D., & Young, W. H. (2006). Mentoring in the virtual
organization: Keys to building successful schools and busi-
nesses. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14,
433-447.
Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do
college students need same-gender role models? Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30, 36-46.
Malewicki, D. (2005). Member involvement in entrepreneur net-
work organizations: The role of commitment and trust. Journal
of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 10, 141-166.
Marvel, M. R., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2007). Technology entrepre-
neurs’ human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 807-828.
McClelland, D. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for
“intelligence.” American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.
McGowan, C. T. (2012). A critical investigation into how indepen-
dent and incubate entrepreneurs perceive their role and per-
formance success (Doctoral dissertation). The University of
Northampton, UK.
Memon, J., abd Rozan, M. Z., Uddin, M., Shah, A., & Dzurllkanian.
(2013). Selecting a mentor: Guide for a protégé. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 24, 732-738.
Merkel, K., Cole, J., & Wesson, S. (2012). The mentor–mentee
relationship: The devil is in the details. In Dermatoethics (109-
112). London, England: Springer.
Milton-Smith, J. (2003). Developing technopreneurs in Asia: A
strategic management research perspective (Working Paper
Series 2005, No. 2003:1). School of Management, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Minniti, M., & Lévesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial types and
economic growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 305-314.
Mohannak, K., & Matthews, J. (2011). Managing specialised knowl-
edge in technopreneurial firms: Evidence from Australian
SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(4),
1-10.
Morris, M. H., & Kuratko, D. F. (2002). Corporate entrepreneur-
ship: Entrepreneurial development within organizations.
Dallas, TX: Harcourt College.
Mutton, T., Mills, G., & McNicholl, J. (2006). Mentor skills in a
new context: Working with trainee teachers to develop the use
of information and communications technology in their subject
teaching. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 15, 337-352.
Ozgen, E., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Social sources of information in
opportunity recognition: Effects of mentors, industry networks,
and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing, 22,
174-192.
Petty, J., Shulman, J., & Bygrave, W. (1994). Mergers and acquisi-
tions: A means of harvesting the venture. Managerial Finance,
20(1), 43-52.
Radu Lefebvre, M., & Redien-Collot, R. (2013). “How to do things
with words”: The discursive dimension of experiential learning
in entrepreneurial mentoring dyads. Journal of Small Business
Management, 51, 370-393.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. (1991). Easier said than done: Gender
differences in perceived barriers to gaining a mentor. Academy
of Management Journal, 34, 939-951.
Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (2007). The handbook of mentoring
at work: Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Reinstaller, A., & Unterlass, F. (2011, April). Sectoral innovation
modes and the distance to the technological frontier. Paper pre-
sented at the DIME Final, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputa-
tion and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic
Management Journal, 23, 1077-1093.
Rose, G. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal
mentor scale. Research in Higher Education, 44, 473-494.
Sánchez, B., Colón, Y., & Esparza, P. (2005). The role of sense
of school belonging and gender in the academic adjustment
of Latino adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34,
619-628.
Santos, S., & Reigadas, E. (2002). Latinos in higher education: An
evaluation of a university faculty mentoring program. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 1, 40-50.
Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2001). An investigation of
the moderating effects of gender on the relationships between
mentorship initiation and protégé perceptions of mentoring
functions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 342-363.
Schumpeter, J. (2000). Entrepreneurship as innovation. In R.
Swedberg (Ed.), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View
(pp. 51-75). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Scott, M., & Bruce, R. (1987). Five stages of growth in small busi-
ness. Long Range Planning, 20(3), 45-52.
Senges, M. (2008). Entrepreneurial learning in the networked age.
Paradigms Journal of the Catalan Ministry of Innovation,
Universities and Enterprise.
Skrzeszewski, S. (2006). The knowledge entrepreneur. Lanham,
MD: Scarecrow Press.

10 SAGE Open
Stam, E., Suddle, K., Hessels, J., & van Stel, A. (2009). High-
growth entrepreneurs, public policies, and economic growth.
In R. Baptista & J. Leitao (Eds.), Public policies for fostering
entrepreneurship (pp. 91-110). New York, NY: Springer.
Stanek, M. (2001). Global mentoring programs: Business rela-
tionships beyond traditional borders. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 13, 66-73.
St-Jean, E. (2012). Mentoring as professional development for
novice entrepreneurs: Maximizing the learning. International
Journal of Training and Development, 16, 200-216.
Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour &
Research, 6, 160-175.
Thomas, D. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences
of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorship):
An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11, 479-492.
Timmons, J., & Sapienza, H. (1992). Venture capital: The decade
ahead. In D. L. Sexton & J. Kasarda (Eds.), The state of the
art of entrepreneurship (Vol. 402, p. 437). Boston, MA: PWS
Kent.
Verburg, R., Ortt, J., & Dicke, W. (2006). Managing technology
and innovation: An introduction. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Vermeulen, P. A. M., & Curseu, P. L. (2010). Entrepreneurial stra-
tegic decision-making: A cognitive perspective. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Wang, P., & Ramiller, N. (2009). Community learning in informa-
tion technology innovation. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 33, 709-734.
Watson, G. (2009). A situational analysis of entrepreneurship men-
tors in South Africa. Business Management, University of
South Africa, Muckleneuk Ridge, Pretoria.
Weinberg, F. J., & Lankau, M. J. (2010). Formal mentoring pro-
grams: A mentor-centric and longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Management, 37, 1527-1557.
Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Decisions,
actions, and performance: Do novice, serial, and portfolio
entrepreneurs differ? Journal of Small Business Management,
43, 393-417.
Yao, S. (2006). On economic growth, FDI, and exports in China.
Applied Economics, 38, 339-351.
Author Biographies
Jamshed Memon is a PhD fellow at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
and holds a BSc degree and an MSc degree in computer science from
Isra University, Pakistan, and an MSc degree in computer systems
and networking from the University of Greenwich, London. He is the
author of 10 international research publications, and his research
interests include entrepreneurial mentoring, technopreneurship, and
green IT. He has 6 years of industrial experience at various levels.
M. Z. A. Rozan is a senior lecturer at the Department of Information
Systems at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Malaysia. He
holds a BSc (Hons) degree in physics and computer with education
and an MSc degree in IT from UTM. He has a doctorate of engi-
neering (DEng) in information science and control engineering
from Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan. His research inter-
ests are IT project management, profiling, and data mining utilizing
multivariate approach and technopreneurship.
Kamariah Ismail associate professor Dr. Kamariah Ismail has
extensive experience in research commercialisation and is heavily
involved in establishing various University spin-off companies in
Malaysia. She is actively supporting innovation in SMEs and tech-
nology entrepreneurship-based research activities. In her current
role as the director to the UTM Technology Entrepreneurship
Center (UTMTEC), she manages University research commerciali-
sation matters and instils an entrepreneurship culture within the
University. To date, she has published more than 80 research and
conference papers on research management, commercialisation,
research and innovation and University research patents.
Mueen Uddin is a senior lecturer at Universiti Malaysia Pahang.
He completed PhD from UTM in 2012. His research interests
include green IT, energy-efficient data centers, green metrics,
global warming effects, virtualization, and cloud computing. He
has a BSc and an MSc degree in computer science from Isra
University, Pakistan, with a specialization in information networks.
He has published more than 30 international journal papers.
Dzurllkanian Daud is currently an associate professor in the
Faculty of Geo Information and Real Estate. He studied property
management at Heriot-Watt University. His research interests
include database management and modernization of real estate.