48 PROMOTING YOUTH EMPOWERMENT THROUGH BUSINESS MENTORSHIP IN SOUTH AFRICA Anthony Kambi MASHA ¹ Elvin SHAVA 2* Tafadzwa MAMBIRAVANA 3 Patrick William BWOWE 4 ¹ Walter Sisulu University, Faculty of Economics and Information Technology Systems amasha@wsu.ac.za 2 University of Johannesburg, School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy, ellyshava@gmail.com , *Correspondent Author. 3 University of Fort Hare, Department of Sociology, tmambiravana5@gmail.com 4 Walter Sisulu University, Faculty of Economics and Information Technology Systems, pbwowe@wsu.ac.za Article history: Submission 11 December 2021 Revision 01 February 2022 Accepted 19 April 2022 Available online 30 April 2022 Keywords: Mentoring, Entrepreneurship, Youth Empowerment, Economic Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32936/pssj.v6i1.291 A b s t r a c t One of the setbacks in youth entrepreneurship is the unavailability of proper business knowledge and mentorship. In rural municipalities of South Africa, the absence of youth mentorship has widened the inequality gap and triggered deep youth poverty. This article reinforces the importance of youth mentoring in crucial business aspects such as writing business plans for entrepreneurial success. This study is premised on a positivist paradigm that uses a quantitative research design. The researchers administered twenty questionnaires to youth entrepreneurs in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa to examine whether mentoring the writing of business plans plays an essential role in their entrepreneurial ventures. The results for this article reveal that most youth entrepreneurs do not receive mentoring to boost their entrepreneurial ventures, even though mentoring has been identified as necessary. The report recommends that youth entrepreneurs be mentored to promote their businesses, which will create youth economic development and employment creation in BCMM. 1. Introduction Mentorship is not a new phenomenon in entrepreneurship and has been regarded as a panacea to mitigating challenges encountered by start-up entrepreneurs (Srivastava, 2013). Maluleke (2016) describes mentoring as an effective way of efficiently keeping entrepreneurs at the top. A mentor plays a critical role in an individual’s entrepreneurial development in this process. The mentor guides entrepreneurs from the start of their business to product development and expansion (Memon, Rozan, Ismail, Uddin & Daud, 2015). Mentors in entrepreneurial ventures act as a ‘sounding board’ as most have been through emerging entrepreneurs' experiences (Maluleke, 2016). Therefore, there is little doubt that good mentors are almost indispensable for an entrepreneur’s business success. The benefit of mentorship is that it allows one to develop and grow as an independent entrepreneur (Xiao & North, 2017). In light of this, St Jean & Audet (2012) emphasize the importance of mentorship in the development of young entrepreneurs and thus put: mentored youth develop high self-esteem, self-confidence, improved abilities for goal achievement, problem-solving skills, learning, dealing with change and doing business, enhanced contact network and knowledge and opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This assertion shows the importance of mentoring the youth in their entrepreneurial ventures to achieve entrepreneurship growth. The Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis, as advocated by several authors (Co, Groenewald et al. 2018; Ehlers & Lazenby, 2019), is crucial for identifying personal and career goals that help improve the visibility of the youth in various organizational situations. https://prizrenjournal.com/index.php/PSSJ/issue/view/11 mailto:amasha@wsu.ac.za mailto:ellyshava@gmail.com mailto:tmambiravana5@gmail.com mailto:pbwowe@wsu.ac.za https://doi.org/10.32936/pssj.v6i1.291 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9306-0042 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8721-4666 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7543-2989 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1023-2094 49 Further, SWOT can assist the youth in organizations to engage, reflect, self-evaluate towards understanding the basic entrepreneurial knowledge crucial to driving their businesses. Globally, mentorship in entrepreneurship receives high appreciation since it is a critical instrument and a driver of long- term economic growth through career advancement and employment creation (Ekpe, Razak, Ismail & Abdullah, 2016; Light & Bhachu, 2017). Global research (Ngatse-Ipangui & Dassah, 2019), highlights the importance of entrepreneurial mentorship and its role among youths (Oni, Agbobli & Iwu, 2019). The studies yield that this is predominant in Africa, where the continent's population continues to get younger while struggling to find employment opportunities. In South Africa, youth unemployment accounts for 73 percent of the total unemployment rate or 63.5 percent of the youth unemployment rate (StatsSA 2018). Youth unemployment in South Africa is a burden on the government’s budget that is already constrained (Motala, 2020). Owing to high unemployment South Africa, youth entrepreneurship development plays a critical role in formulating government policy (Shava & Maramura, 2017). According to the 2014-2015 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), South African youth entrepreneurship propensity is the lowest in Africa, at 23.3%, compared to 55.2% in Malawi and 55.4% in Uganda. In addition, the GEM Report also highlights that South African youth entrepreneurship participation is the lowest in the African continent, with only 12.8% compared to other African countries. Even though the South African Government is committed to creating a favorable environment to nurture and support young entrepreneurs in the country, recent studies confirm that young entrepreneurs continue to face various challenges in establishing long-term business ventures (Din, Anuar, & Usman, 2016; Kickul, Griffiths, Bacq & Garud, 2018). Therefore, mentorship has positive benefits; these benefits can be linked to successful youth entrepreneurship. Herrington & Kew (2015-2016) noted that South Africa's economy is not growing compared to other Sub-Saharan countries due to different societal challenges such as poverty, high unemployment, and income inequality, among others. As stated by Nwajiuba et al. (2020), South Africa still ranks very low on start-ups when compared to other emerging market economies. Yet, as pointed out by several authors (Bamford & Bruton, 2019; Barringer & Ireland, 2019; Botha, 2021; Chimucheka, Chinyamurindi & Dodd, 2019), entrepreneurial activities have a favorable impact on economic growth. The data extracted from the 2015-2016 GEM report revealed that South Africa’s continually low level of Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) rated at 9.2%, which is half the regional average of Africa (Li, Isidor, Dau & Kabst, 2018; Du & O’Connor, 2018). It is vital to foster youth entrepreneurship because they are a vulnerable population group highly affected by unemployment (Herrington & Kew, 2015). Therefore, to solve the problem of escalating unemployment among youth, South Africa has since the late 1990s invested significant resources into growing the entrepreneurial capacities of its citizens, alongside understanding what is required to create an enabling environment for entrepreneurs (Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA), 2011). As noted by Lam, Leibbrandt & Mlatsheni (2008), South African policymakers have attempted to tackle youth unemployment through several mentorship interventions in the past decade. Shava & Chamisa (2018) affirm the various plights of youth entrepreneurs, including not being taken seriously, lack of enterprise culture, lack of access to finance/start-up, and lack of business connections. Despite legal frameworks such as the National Development Plan vision 2030, youth in South Africa still experience youth poverty and inequalities that threaten youth economic development. The absence of a vital mentoring institution negatively impacts youth; hence this study examines how mentoring in BCMM helps achieve youth growth in entrepreneurship. The article responds to the following questions: What is the purpose of mentoring? Do youth entrepreneurs in Buffalo City require mentoring in their entrepreneurial ventures? How does mentoring contribute to the effective entrepreneurial goals of youth entrepreneurs in Buffalo City? The article is structured as follows. The following section presents the theoretical framework followed by data and methodology. Section four presents the results, followed by a discussion. Finally, the conclusions, limitations and future guidelines are outlined. 2. Theoretical Framework 2.1. Mentor Relationship Theory The research employs the Mentor Relationship Theory, developed based on ground-breaking research by Kram (1983, 1985, 1996), who defined two types of mentor functions: professional and psychosocial. Mentoring was clarified thanks to this classification of mentor functions, which distinguished it from other types of interpersonal learning interactions. Career functions are operationalized as mentor behaviors that foster protégés’ career development and advancement, for example; sponsoring, coaching, enhancing visibility and exposure, protecting, and providing challenging assignments (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2007). Career functions help protégés learn organizational rules and culture and assist with planning, networking; and job searching mentors who perform career 50 functions with protégés; typically, model, coach and give feedback. Psycho-social functions are intended to foster protégés’ psychological and social development. Mentors perform psycho- social functions when they interact with protégés personally to enhance their self-efficacy, sense of identity and overall job comfort through emotional support (Johnson, 2014). In fulfilling psycho-social functions, mentors may model, counsel, show acceptance and provide confirmation (Ragins & Cotton, 1999); and they may actively listen, criticize constructively and encourage development (Nora & Crisp, 2008). Psycho-social functions are less well-explored than career functions; thus, their potential to support protégés’ development remains unrealized. But psychosocial processes are hypothesised to be essential for protégés’ career development (Clark, Harden & Johnson, 2000). Researchers (Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Ragins & Kram, 2007) have validated the distinction between career and psycho-social functions and their relevance to positive mentoring relationships and desirable protégé outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy, personal development, job knowledge). Other conceptualizations construe mentoring functions somewhat differently, but these perspectives are united in stressing the importance of functions. Scandura (1992), for example, modified Kram’s (1985) theory to emphasize protégés aspirations to become more like their mentors and identified role modeling as a third mentoring function. Kram's (1985) premise that protégés benefit from mentoring when mentors take professional and psychosocial duties seriously and do them well, is widely supported by research (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2007). The authors also employed the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) propounded by Albert Bandura. The theory is critically discussed below. 2.2. Social Cognitive Theory Although many theories relate to mentorship (Haggard, Dougherty, Turban & Wilbanks, 2011), the Social Cognitive Theory situates behavior within a model of interaction and personal (cognitive; affective) behavioral and social or environmental factors. This model emphasizes the importance of proactively shaping one's thoughts, actions, and environments to achieve desired outcomes. This appears to be a dynamic process highly applicable to entrepreneurship mentoring, where practical skills and attitudes are required to effectively manage business ventures (Rasheed & Rasheed, 2004). Bandura (1986) postulated three aspects of self-regulation: self- observations, self-judgments, and self-reactions. Key self- regulation processes are goal setting, self-evaluations of progress, and self-efficacy, or beliefs about one’s perceived capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Individuals enter achievement situations with learning goals and a sense of self-efficacy for attaining them. Bisk (2002) supports these viewpoints by providing the factors that influence the learning process and business development skills - Self-worth, personal advice, value systems, and interpersonal relationships. According to Sullivan (2000), the latter aspect includes friendship, support and acceptance Although social cognitive theory stresses the social context of learning, researchers in this tradition have concentrated more on individual learning than how group members coordinate their self-regulated learning. The expanding educational emphasis on collaborative and peer learning aligns well with self-regulated group learning (Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo & Miller, 2003), mentoring theory and practice (Fletcher & Mullen, 2012). Most importantly, social cognitive theory explains different entrepreneurial behaviour situations based on Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour. Thus, according to this theory, individuals will show their entrepreneurial potential if they have confidence, ability, and social support. Therefore, it is required for society as a whole, and institutions in particular, to have positive views toward such an endeavor, for academics to believe they are capable of doing so, and for academic personnel to believe it is innately rewarding. 2.2.1. Key Imperatives in Coaching and Mentoring Coaching overlaps with mentoring and this not only make it difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two, it leads to a wide-spread misunderstanding and debate surrounding the terms mentoring as well as to definitional confusion regarding the definition of mentoring (Clutterbuck, 2012; Nel, Werner, Du Plessis, Ngalo, Poisat, Sono, Van Hoek & Botha, 2017; Van der Merwe, 2016). Some people use the two interchangeably and refer to coaching and mentoring as one process (Van der Merwe, 2016). Despite the reality that there is not only one definition for mentoring, but it has also been compared with other relational processes such as coaching, counselling, advising, and teaching. Van der Merwe (2016) emphasizes that understanding that the two processes are very different and complimentary. Where mentoring provides the mentee with a guide and advisor to look up to, coaching provides a platform for the individual to unlock their potential (Van der Merwe, 2016). Coaching, therefore, is not the same as mentoring (Kram, 1985). In defining the difference between mentoring and coaching, Clutterbuck (2008) believes that coaching deals with personal development while mentoring is associated with the mentee's much broader holistic career advancement. 51 3. Data and Methodology This study adopted a quantitative research method. The researchers opted for group-administered questionnaires by following the guidance of Denscombe (2017). This ensured a very high response, but the researchers could also explain the study's purpose, relevance, and importance and clarify any respondents' questions (Denscombe, 2017). Since there are no hard and fast rules in designing questionnaires (Wild & Diggines, 2015), this study used a 12-step model adapted from Masha (2014), who modified questionnaire design steps from different authors. Noting that researchers use relevant literature to plan and construct questionnaires (Johnson & Christensen, 2020), all questions in the administered questionnaire were linked to relevant literature of this study. Data were analyzed using the eight stages of data analysis proposed by Wild and Diggines (2015). The statistical information in this study was generated and tabulated visually using graphic representations, namely, bar charts. Simple descriptive statistics translated the raw data, giving significant insights (Wild & Diggines, 2015). To present findings, the text was used to explain the data since the reader has significance in conveying possible meaning (Du Plooy-Cilliers et al., 2019). 3.1. Sampling The researchers sampled respondents using a census sampling technique to acquire data from every member of the targeted population (Johnson & Christensen, 2020). By gathering data from the niche group of respondents, we achieved a satisfactory response rate whereby there was the allowance of a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error = 5%. 3.2. Ethical Considerations After securing ethical clearance for this study, we secured informed consent from all the respondents before data collection could commence. We identified all risks and, through the principle of non-maleficence, did not harm the participants (Bartley & Hashemi, 2021). Since we dealt with people’s personal information, the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) (Act no 4 of 2013) required such information to be treated with respect and ethically. Still on the principle of non- maleficence, we assured all participants of their confidentiality and anonymity in the research study (Babbie, 2021). 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. The need for mentoring A Likert Scale was used in the questionnaire to establish the purpose of mentoring. According to Zikmund, Babin, Carr & Griffin (2019), with the Likert Scale, respondents indicate their attitudes by checking how strongly they agree or disagree with carefully constructed sentences, ranging from very negative to very positive attitudes towards some object. Therefore, to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements regarding the need for a mentoring programme for the success of entrepreneurial ventures, respondents were requested to respond by putting an ‘X’ on the appropriate number on a scale of 1-5; 5 strongly agree, 4 agree, 3 neutrals, 2 disagree, and 1 strongly disagree. The results are seen below. Figure 1. Results from the need for mentoring Figure 1 above shows that all (100%) of the participants agree (agree + strongly agree on each questionnaire item) on the need for mentoring. They all agree that mentoring: has a place in the success of entrepreneurial ventures; is different from coaching; enhances the satisfaction and commitment of entrepreneurs; provides entrepreneurs with a sense of belonging and engagement; increases entrepreneurs’ sense of empowerment; increases one’s sense of business satisfaction and personal 52 effectiveness; provides both learning and socio-emotional learning to the mentor-mentee relationship; offers role- modelling, confirmation, and friendship, which help the mentee develop a sense of business identity and competence; provides advice, business career planning and instruction in social- technical and management skills; provides mentees with business career-enhancing functions, exposure, and visibility; all which help the mentees to establish a role, learn the ropes and prepare for advancement. Closed-ended questionnaires are meant to analyses the results to yield only numbers in the form of percentages. However, respondents in closed-ended questionnaires cannot add their opinions about a particular issue raised by a question or item. Accordingly, this study’s questionnaire incorporated a few open- ended questions to gain additional insights. Results from both closed-ended and open-ended questions show that entrepreneurs are aware of the importance of mentoring and require mentoring. 4.2. Achieving Success in Youth Entrepreneurship This section aimed to test the quality of the features for successful youth entrepreneurship among respondents. According to Zikmund et al. (2019), a summated ratings Likert scale using poor, fair, neutral, good and excellent is used in such instances to measure quality. Therefore, to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement regarding their assessment of the quality of the features for successful youth entrepreneurship, respondents were requested to darken the circle with the appropriate number, on a scale of 1-5, 5 being excellent, 4 good, 3 average, 2 fair and 1 poor. The results are seen in figure 2 below. Figure 2. Successful youth entrepreneurship Figure 2 above shows that the majority (83%) of respondents have good features for successful youth entrepreneurship in the following areas: competencies, characteristics, personality, attitude, creativity, passion and customer care, while 33% of the participants have satisfactory features for successful youth entrepreneurship. The implications of the participants’ ratings on the above points are that respondents seem to be good in terms of the elements for successful youth entrepreneurship. 4.3. Mentoring on Requirements of Entrepreneurial Ventures In this section, the aim was to test the frequency at which entrepreneurs receive mentoring on the requirements of entrepreneurial ventures. According to Zikmund et al. (2019), a summated ratings Likert Scale; never used, rarely, sometimes (neutral), often, and very often; is used to measure the frequency of such occurrences. Therefore, to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements regarding the frequency of mentoring on running entrepreneurial ventures, youth entrepreneurs were requested to please tick ( ) the items below on a scale of 1-5; 5 being never, 4 rarely, 3 sometimes (neutral), 2 often and 1 very often. The results are seen in Figure 3 below. 53 Figure 3. Results from the frequency of mentoring Figure 3 shows that the majority (83%) of the participants disagree (rarely + not at all) that they receive mentoring on requirements of entrepreneurial ventures, which include; business plans, business start-ups for youth entrepreneurial ventures, resource requirements, and legal aspects of an enterprise (Sole proprietor, partnership, companies, close corporations, and informal entrepreneurship). There was a strong emphasis on mentoring in writing business plans. 4.4. Discussion The study has found a strong need for entrepreneurial mentoring among the youth in BCCM, as it guides new entrepreneurs to start and develop their businesses. The mentoring process is critical for achieving Bandura’s (1986) essential aspects of social learning: self-regulation, self-observations, self-judgments, and self- reactions. These aspects are goal setting, self-evaluations of progress, and self-efficacy or beliefs about one’s perceived capabilities to learn or perform actions at designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Laukhuf & Malone (2015) support the above, providing the factors influencing the learning process and business development skills. These factors include: self-worth, personal advice, value systems and interpersonal relationships. Thus, these aspects are fundamental in developing and empowering the mentees toward their business goals. The study has also shown that the respondents have good features for successful youth entrepreneurship in the following areas: competencies, characteristics, personality, attitude, creativity, passion and customer care. These features are addressed by the Mentor Relationship Theory, which identifies two broad classes of mentor functions which are career and psycho-social (Kram, 1983, 1985, 1996). According to researchers such as Newman, Obschonka, Schwarz, Cohen & Nielsen (2019) and Baluku, Matagi & Otto (2020), these two mentor functions positively link positive mentoring relationships to desirable outcomes as personal development, self-efficacy and job development. The survey found a high level of interest in mentoring for entrepreneurial venture requirements such as business plans, company start-ups for junior entrepreneurs, resource requirements, and legal aspects of an enterprise. According to Nabi, Walmsley & Akhtar (2021), youth mentorship fosters knowledge development and socio-emotional functions such as entrepreneurial career development, specialist business knowledge, role model presence, and emotional support. As a result, St Jean and Audet (2012) underline the importance of mentorship in the growth of young entrepreneurs since it fosters self-confidence, self-esteem, goal attainment, enhanced abilities, and measures for dealing with business changes. Therefore, mentorship is essential for nurturing and developing youth interested in business. 5. Conclusions This research aimed to extend the knowledge on mentorship in youth in a metropolitan municipality. The results of the study indicate many factors affecting youth entrepreneurship in BCMM. These factors relate to the absence of business knowledge, low education levels, and limited platforms to expose youth to entrepreneurial skills and knowledge required to drive innovative ventures. The other question this study sought to respond to relates to mentoring and its usefulness in meeting the entrepreneurial goals of youth entrepreneurs in BCMM. The researchers found that many youths could become entrepreneurs if they had the proper guidance and funding to kick-start their businesses. The study found it imperative to develop entrepreneurial knowledge among the youth and entrepreneurial programs that link up youngsters with other business organizations such as the 54 Chamber of Commerce, South African United Business Confederation (SAUBC) and the Global Business Round Table to boost confidence and inspire youth to engage in various entrepreneurial ventures. These interactions also allow youth to experience first-hand the challenges successful entrepreneurs face. Thus, this research contributes to understanding mentoring and coaching as determinants for spearheading youth entrepreneurship in South African municipalities. 5.1. Managerial and Policy Making Directions This study was quantitative and premised on the Mentor Relationship Theory and Social Cognitive Theories. The analyses of the findings have shown a massive gap in skills mentoring for youth in Buffalo City Municipality. Mentoring youth in entrepreneurship was reiterated as the key to eradicating youth poverty and improving youth empowerment. Ensuring that youth acquire skills to write business plans and understand resource requirements and legal aspects is crucial to sustaining youth empowerment in Buffalo City. The findings of the study point to vital insights for local government officials and policymakers. Given the high unemployment in South Africa, supporting youth entrepreneurship remains a strategic and innovative method for promoting youth development and growth. The study has noted the eagerness of youth in BCMM to indulge in entrepreneurship; however, hindrances that emanate from limited business knowledge start-up capital, among others, adversely affect them. Policymakers are enlightened by a plethora of literature and evaluation reports on how they can help establish government institutions that offer start-up capital to youth. However, criteria must be set to determine those who deserve state support. Furthermore, policymakers would understand the need to promote enabling policies that foster youth entrepreneurship and growth as part of youth empowerment. 5.2. Limitations and Direction for Further Studies The study was limited by the reliance on surveys which could have left out some critical aspects in examining youth entrepreneurship. Therefore, the findings are generalizable to youth in BCMM who are confronted with challenges such as lack of business mentorship. However, other municipalities experiencing similar challenges can tap into the study recommendations. Therefore, future research on youth entrepreneurship can be qualitative, which is crucial for exploring detailed insights into the feelings of youth regarding mentorship in youth projects as part of poverty alleviation and empowerment. References 1. Aldrich, H.E., & Carter, M.N. (2004). Social networks. In Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G., Carter, N.M. & Reynolds, P.D. (Eds). Handbook of entrepreneurial dynamics. The process of business creation. California: Sage. 2. Amos, A., & Alex, K. (2014). Theory of planned behaviour, contextual elements, demographic factors and entrepreneurial intentions of students in Kenya. European journal of Business and Management, 6(15), 167-175. https://doi:10.1.1.829.5845 3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T 4. Babbie, E.R. (2021). The practice of social research. 15th Edition. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning. 5. Baluku, M.M., Matagi, L., & Otto, K., (2020). Exploring the link between mentoring and intangible outcomes of entrepreneurship: the mediating role of self-efficacy and moderating effects of gender. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01556 6. Bamford, C.E. & Bruton, C.E. (2019). Entrepreneurship: The art, science and process for success (3rd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. 7. Barringer, B.R. & Ireland, R.D. (2019). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures (6th Edition). London: Pearson. 8. Bandura, A. (1997). The anatomy of stages of change. American journal of health promotion: AJHP, 12(1), 8-10. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890- 1171-12.1.8 9. Bandura, A. (1997). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0813483900008238 10. Bartley, A. and Hashemi, L. (2021). Quantitative data analysis and interpretation. In Fouché, C.B., Strydom, H. and Roestenburg, W. J. H. Research at grassroots for the social sciences and human services professions. 5th ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik. 11. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson (ed). Handbook of the Theory of the Research for the Sociology of Education, California: Greenwood Press. 12. Bisk, L. (2002). Formal entrepreneurial mentoring: the efficacy of third-party managed programs. Career Development International, 7(5), 262-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430210440082 https://doi:10.1.1.829.5845 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01556 https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8 https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0813483900008238 https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430210440082 55 13. Botha, M. (2019). The entrepreneur. In Nieman, G. & Nieuwenhuizen, C. Entrepreneurship: A South African perspective (3rd Edition). Pretoria: Van Schaik 14. Clark., R.A., Harden, S., &. Johnson, B. (2000). Mentor Relationships in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Training: Results of a National Survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27(4), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2704_04 15. Clutterbuck, D. (2012). Next decade of coaching and mentoring. In Herholdt, J. Mentoring and coaching: Articles from human capital review. Johannesburg: Knowres. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC95940 16. Clutterbuck, D. (2008). What's happening in coaching and mentoring? And what is the difference between them? Development and Learning in Organizations, 22(4), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777280810886364 17. Chimucheka, T., Dodd, N., & Chinyamurindi, T. (2018). The Effect of the Use of Technology on the Performance of Immigrant-Owned Smmes in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(3), 1-12. 18. Co, M.J., Groenewald, J., Mitchell, B., Nayager, T., van Zyl, J., Visser, K., Train, W. & Emanual, B. (2018). Entrepreneurship: Fresh perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson. 19. Denscombe, M. (2017). The Good Research Guide for small scale social research projects. Berkshire: Open University Press. 20. Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) Development Fund Annual Report 2010/11. https://www.dbsa.org/sites/default/files/media/docum ents/2021- 09/DBSA%20and%20Development%20Fund%20An nual%20Report%202011%20.pdf 21. Din, B.H., Anuar, A.R., & Usman, M. (2016). The effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education program in upgrading entrepreneurial skills among public university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 117-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.413 22. Du Plooy-Cilliers, F. Research paradigms and traditions. In Du Plooy-Cilliers, F., Davies, C. & Bezuidenhout, R.M. (2019). Research matters. Claremont: Juta 23. Du, K., & O’Connor, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship and advancing national level economic efficiency. Small Business Economics, 50(1), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9904-4 24. Ekpe, I.U., Razak, R.C., Ismail, M., & Abudullar, Z. (2016). Entrepreneurial skill acquisition, psychosocial factors and youth’s self-employment in Malaysia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(1), 1-12. 25. Eresia-Eke, C., & Gunda, C. (2015). The entrepreneurial intentions of University of Botswana students. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 13(3),55-65. 26. Fatoki, O. O., & Chindoga, L. (2011). An Investigation into the Obstacles to Youth Entrepreneurship in South Africa. International Business Research. 4(2), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v4n2p161 27. Fletcher, S., & Mullen, C. A. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE 28. GEM (2014-15). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). (2014). The crossroads -a goldmine or a time bomb? Cape Town: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 29. Haggard, D. L.; Dougherty, T. W.; Turban, D. B.; Wilbanks, J. E. (2011). Who Is a Mentor? A Review of Evolving Definitions and Implications for Research. Journal of Management, 37(1), 280–304. https://doi/abs/10.1177/0149206310386227 30. Herrington, M., Kew, J., & Kew, P. (2015). 2014 GEM South Africa Report: South Africa: The crossroads – a goldmine or a time bomb? University of Cape Town, Cape Town South Africa. 31. Hustedde R.J. (2018). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in Rural America. In: Harley D., Ysasi N., Bishop M., Fleming A. (eds) Disability and Vocational Rehabilitation in Rural Settings. Springer, Cham. 32. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational Research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. 33. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. 34. Kickul, J., Griffiths, M., Bacq, S., & Garud, N. (2018). Catalyzing social innovation: is entrepreneurial bricolage always good?. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3-4), 407-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413771 35. Kirby, D.A. (2006). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to practice. The Journal of Technology https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2704_04 https://doi.org/10.1108/14777280810886364 https://www.dbsa.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-09/DBSA%20and%20Development%20Fund%20Annual%20Report%202011%20.pdf https://www.dbsa.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-09/DBSA%20and%20Development%20Fund%20Annual%20Report%202011%20.pdf https://www.dbsa.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-09/DBSA%20and%20Development%20Fund%20Annual%20Report%202011%20.pdf https://www.dbsa.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-09/DBSA%20and%20Development%20Fund%20Annual%20Report%202011%20.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.413 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9904-4 https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v4n2p161 https://doi/abs/10.1177/0149206310386227 https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413771 56 Transfer, 31(5),599-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T 36. Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview: Foresman. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392687 37. Kram, K.E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. The Academy of Management Journal, 26: 608–625. https://doi.org/10.5465/255910 38. Kram, K.E., & Hall, D.T. Mentoring in context of diversity and turbulence. In Kossek, E.E. & Lobel, S. (1996). Managing diversity: Human resources strategies for transforming the workplace. Cambridge: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420710754237 39. Klofsten, M., Fayolle, A., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., & Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social Change-Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004 40. Kuratko, D.F., Neubert, E., & Marvel, M.R. (2021). Insights on the mentorship and coachability of entrepreneurs. Business Horizons, 64(2), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004 41. Lam, D., Leibbrandt, M. and Mlatsheni, C. (2008) Education and Youth Unemployment in South Africa. A Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit Working Paper Number 22. Cape Town: SALDRU, University of Cape Town. 42. Lazenby, K. (2018). The Strategic Management Process. A South African Perspective (2 nd ed.). Van Schaik Publishers. 43. Laukhuf, R.L., & Malone, T.A. (2015). Women Entrepreneurs Need Mentors. International Journal of Evidence based coaching and Mentorship, 13(1),70- 86 44. Li, C., Isidor, R., Dau, L.A., & Kabst, R. (2018). The more the merrier? Immigrant share and entrepreneurial activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(5), 698-733. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1042258718795344 45. Light, I., Bhachu, P., & Karageorgis, S. (2017). Migration networks and immigrant entrepreneurship (pp. 25-50). Routledge. 46. Maluleke, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship 1010: Tackling the basics of business start-ups in South Africa. Johannesburg: Blackbird Books. 47. Masha, A.K. (2014). Assessing Eastern Cape public servants’ perceptions of supportive learning environments in short learning programmers at Fort Hare Solutions. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation. University of Fort Hare. South Africa. 48. Memon, J., Rozan, M.Z.A., Ismail, K., Uddin, M., & Daud, D. (2015). Mentoring an entrepreneur: Guide for a mentor. Sage Open, 5(1), 2158 2440. 49. Moos, M. (2014). Networking principles. In Nieman, G. & Nieuwenhuizen, C. Entrepreneurship: A South African perspective (3rd Edition). Pretoria: Van Schaik. 50. Motala, E. (2020). The state, education and equity in post-apartheid South Africa: The impact of state policies. Routledge. 51. Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., & Akhtar, I. (2021). Mentoring functions and entrepreneur development in the early years of university. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6), 1159-1174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665009 52. Nel P., Werner A., Du Plessis A., Ngalo O., Poisat P., Sono T., Van Hoek, L., & Botha, C. (2014). Human Resource Management (9th Edition). Cape Town. Oxford University Press. 53. Newman, A., Obschonka, M., Schwarz, S., Cohen, M., & Nielsen, I. (2019). Entrepreneurial self- efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 403-419. 54. Nora, A., & Crisp, G. (2009). Hispanics and higher education: An overview of research, theory, and practice. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 317-353. 55. Oni, O., Agbobli, E. K., & Iwu, C. G. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance of small business in Vryburg region North West province South Africa. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 63-71. 56. Ragins, B.R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529-550. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021- 9010.84.4.529 57. Ragins, B.R. & Kram, K.E. (2007). The Roots and Meaning of Mentoring, in The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice, eds BR Ragins & KE Kram, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles. 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T https://doi.org/10.2307/2392687 https://doi.org/10.5465/255910 https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420710754237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1042258718795344 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1665009 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529 57 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021- 9010.84.4.529 58. Rasheed, H.S. & Barbara, Y., & Rasheed, B.Y. (2015). "Developing Entrepreneurial Characteristics IN Minority Youth: The Effects of Education and Enterprise Experience" In Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structure and Process. Published online: 12 Mar 2015; 261-277. 59. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240–257. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022- 0663.95.2.240 60. Scandura, T., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2007). Workplace mentoring: theoretical approaches and methodological issues. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds). The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Malden: Blackwell. 61. Scandura, T.A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: an empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169–174 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130206 62. St-Jean, E., & Audet, J. (2012). The role of mentoring in the learning development of the novice entrepreneur. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 8(1), 119-14 63. Statistics South Africa, (2018). Quarterly labour force survey Q2:2018, 2018. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. 64. Srivastava, S.B. (2013). Network Intervention: A Field Experiment to Assess the Effects of Formal Mentoring on Workplace Networks. University of California, Berkeley Working Paper. 65. Shava, E., & Chamisa, S.F. (2018). Cadre deployment policy and its effects on performance management in South African local government: a critical review. Politeia, 37(1), 1-18. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-13c8ee1ae3 66. Shava, E., & Maramura, T. C. (2017). National Development Plan as an Entrepreneurial Mechanism for Rural Economic Development in South Africa. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 9(2), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v9i2(J).1664 67. Sullivan, R. (2000). Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 6(3), 160-175. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346587 68. Oni, O., Agbobli, E.K., & Iwu, C.G. (2019). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of Small Business in Vryburg Region North West Province South Africa. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 63-71. 69. Wild, J. & Diggines, C. (2015). Marketing research (2nd Edition). Cape Town: Juta. 70. Van Aardt, I. Hewitt, M., Bendeman, H. Bezuidenhout, S. Janse van Rensburg, L. Naidoo, P. Van der bank, J., & Visser, T. (2011). Entrepreneurship and new venture management (4th Edition). Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl011 71. Wild, J. & Diggines, C. (2013). Marketing research (2nd Edition). Cape Town: Juta. 72. Xiao, L., & North, D. (2017). The graduation performance of technology business incubators in China’s three tier cities: the role of incubator funding, technical support, and entrepreneurial mentoring. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 615-634. 73. Zikmund, Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C., & Griffin, M. (2019). Business research methods. South Western: Cengage Learning. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240 https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-13c8ee1ae3 https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v9i2(J).1664 https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550010346587 https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl011