by Kitty Ussher, Managing Director at Tooley Street Research and Nida Broughton, Chief Economist at the Social Market Foundation
This article first appeared on the Social Market Foundation’s blog. Reposted with permission.
Advances in technology, the professionalisation of the skills base, the economic shake-up that was precipitated by the recession, the desires of many to work in a way that suits them: all of these factors have caused the numbers of self-employed and owner-managers to soar in recent years. Government figures show most of the new companies created in the last decade are micro-businesses.
But this is only the tip of the entrepreneurial iceberg. Previous academic research suggests that people who create the innovative new companies that contribute most to economic growth tend to be higher-paid graduates who choose to leave employment to do so. Right now, there is a lot of interest amongst this group: new data released today by the Social Market Foundation think-tank shows around half of higher-paid graduate employees would like to start their own business.
The economic problem we face is that this cohort disproportionately feels that they aren’t in a position to do so. Despite being, on the surface of it, fairly financially secure, 62 per cent of higher earners say that their current financial situation is prohibitive to starting a business: the risk to household income and the fear of losing their place on the career ladder are the dominant barriers.
This is a missed opportunity. If these barriers were overcome, Britain could experience a supply-side revolution. There’s space to catch-up with other countries: rates of entrepreneurship of the kind that is driven by opportunity is 50 per cent higher in Sweden for example. And there’s a gender opportunity: if women in Britain pursued new business opportunities at the same rate as men, the amount of opportunity-driven entrepreneurial activity would also rise by 50 per cent.
So what can be done? We need a change in mindset amongst policy-makers. Building on the new vogue of behavioural and nudge economics, the focus should shift towards how to reduce the risk in the mind of the potential entrepreneur at the moment of decision.
We propose three specific changes to this end. The first is to abolish non-compete clauses in employee contracts (you can pay someone to go on gardening leave, but don’t prevent competition without pay). In the US, states that have done this have a far more dynamic private sector. The second is to champion the use of the new right to flexible working to start a business – and be vigilant for bias in the way such rights are granted. The third is to legislate for a time-limited “right to return” to a previous job for employees leaving to start a business – similar to the right to return to a job after parental leave. And, as a quid pro quo to employers we also propose the reinstatement of tax reliefs for corporate venturing, which of course they are free to use to invest in the talents of their own people.
Taken as a package, these measures would help unleash an army of potential entrepreneurs to shake things up, spur competition and so boost innovation, productivity and economic growth. The right to flexibility in employment would come to be seen as an economic opportunity not a burden. And most importantly Britain could seize its own economic opportunity at a critical time.
From the Social Market Foundation
Venturing Forth: Increasing high value entrepreneurship
Download the report
It is not just the state holding back entrepreneurs.
Employers are notoriously parochial about employees, and allowing them a sabbatical this way will be completely foreign to many who still rule by the pervasive and persuasive old command and control methods.
Only the most enlightened employers will get that their top employees will benefit from taking time out of the corporate environment, and come back refreshed, reinvigorated and ready to rejoin the corporate workforce.
And let’s remember, building a startup is not just a simple three month exercise. It can take years, especially without a rapid learning curve about the do’s and don’ts of building your own business, and the considerable need to learn the complete breadth of skills needed to be an effective CEO, even at startup level.
There will be much less resistance from employers if the legal change allowed “periodic sabbaticals”, of a term and frequency to be agreed between the employer and the employee. It will still be possible to “out” non-conformer employers. We now live in the social media age, such news will out, and we will in short order move into a period where public perception of corporates is co-ordinated and centralised for us, and then prospective employees can see everything they need to know before joining a corporate permanently.
Great post, thanks for prompting those that need to think differently.