BY CHRISTOFF OOSTHUYSEN

I’m sharing these thoughts with other entrepreneurship programme designers and implementers who carry the responsibility of turning public, donor, or corporate investment into measurable outcomes for entrepreneurs and their businesses.

In recent programmes I lead in South Africa, our recruitment funnel looked healthy at first glance: thousands of entrepreneurs engaged through outreach and registrations, but on average fewer than 150 ultimately qualified through screening to proceed into the main learning journeys and on average nearly 100 were selected for full participation. By the programmes closed-out, on average just over 50 entrepreneurs had completed strongly enough to be recognised for successful completion of the programmes – that is just more than half of those that qualified. These are not “bad” results. They’re typical of what happens when you run real-world programmes with real-world constraints. But they underline a point that too many support initiatives still ignore: impact does not begin when the first workshop starts. It begins when you recruit.

When recruitment is treated like admin, programme teams spend the rest of the time compensating. Coaches waste time on basics that should have been screened for. Cohorts become uneven, with some entrepreneurs ready to implement and others not ready to participate. Teams confuse activity for progress. Funders see numbers, but struggle to see change. And then the programme gets “redesigned” again, when the core issue was selection and readiness all along.

Incentives pull entrepreneurs for the wrong reasons

Many entrepreneurship ecosystems across the globe, not only in Africa, now have a second complication: entrepreneurs have learned to shop for programmes. Some do this for a good reason. They’re searching for the right fit, especially when support offerings are fragmented, inconsistent, or poorly signposted. But in more than one ecosystem I’ve noted, programme teams share a familiar anecdote: entrepreneurs who apply to multiple programmes simultaneously, prioritise whichever offers a stipend or grant-linked benefit, and then disappear when the next opportunity arrives. Others can become highly skilled at “participating” without making business changes, collecting certificates and small benefits across different initiatives.

This is not a moral judgement. It’s an incentive problem. If a programme’s marketing emphasises “benefits” more than outcomes and expectations, it will recruit benefit-seekers. If the selection gate is low, it will attract opportunists. If the ecosystem has no referral logic, it will create programme hopping.

And the most painful part is this: once you’ve recruited the wrong cohort, you can’t “facilitate” your way out of it. Delivery quality matters, but delivery cannot replace fit.

What the evidence says about selection

The reports I could source and research findings available through a desktop search are blunt about two realities programme managers don’t always like hearing.

First, inclusive entrepreneurship schemes often generate important personal and job creation benefits, but business creation outcomes are not automatic. In an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report The Missing Entrepreneurs, a youth-focused evaluation example is summarised as follows: “the effect on entrepreneurship was found to be limited – only 3% of participants started a business and the intention to start a business decreased after the programme” (OECD, 2023a). That is a recruitment lesson, not a reason to abandon support. If a programme is trying to produce active entrepreneurs, selection needs to distinguish between those who are “curious about entrepreneurship” and those who are ready to act as entrepreneurs now.

Second, entrepreneurship policy evaluations repeatedly show mixed results for “soft” interventions such as training, mentoring, and advice when they are not targeted well. In the Framework for the Evaluation of SME and Entrepreneurship Policies and Programmes, the OECD summarises that 3 of 11 evaluations of purely “soft” programmes (based on training, advice, or mentoring) reported negative or no outcomes (OECD, 2023b).

Again, this does not mean training or mentorship are “bad”. It means “soft” support given to the wrong cohort is often ineffective.

Entrepreneurship ecosystem research reinforces the same message from a different angle. An Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) report on township youth entrepreneurship in South Africa highlights patterns that point directly back to recruitment and selection discipline: the “recycling” of the same visible entrepreneurs across programmes, weak pathways, and the need for more intentional sourcing approaches to reach entrepreneurs who are not already plugged into the usual support networks (Braithwaite, 2024).

Another ANDE landscape assessment of a country-specific business development support ecosystem argues for stronger pathways and coordination so entrepreneurs can “graduate” to the next type of support instead of bouncing around the system (Davidson, Shrestha and Munthamraksa, 2025). That is both an ecosystem coordination issue and a programme recruitment issue: when programme value propositions are vague and selection is inconsistent, entrepreneurs will keep shopping.

Put these threads together and the argument becomes clear. If programme owners want impact, they cannot treat recruitment as a poster, a social media push, or a partner email. Recruitment is the first intervention. It is where you decide who will be able to benefit, who will stay the course, and who will actually implement.

A recruitment checklist to protect impact

Here are practical recruitment moves I’ve found effective in programme design and delivery, especially when there are grant-linked incentives or when the ecosystem is crowded.

• Define “the right participant” in behavioural terms, and publish it clearly: Use digital tools to make the expectations unmistakable: a simple landing page that spells out time commitment, required outputs, and “who this is not for”, plus a short FAQ video. When entrepreneurs can self-screen properly, you reduce misfit applications and increase commitment.

• Use a two-step funnel with a digital “proof task” before selection: Build a short online pre-selection sprint where applicants must complete a small task and upload evidence: a customer interview summary, a basic offer statement, or a simple traction log. Use a form tool that timestamps submissions and requires an upload. The digital trail becomes your early readiness signal.

• Screen for capacity and competing commitments: Ask applicants to declare other programmes they’re in and the weekly hours they can commit, then have them select a time slot for an onboarding call via an online scheduler. If they cannot reliably show up at this early stage, it predicts later dropout. Digital scheduling and automated reminders reduce admin load and improve reliability.

• Design against incentive distortion with digital verification: If there are stipends, devices, vouchers, or grant opportunities, release benefits only after digitally verifiable milestones: attendance thresholds, assignment completion, and evidence uploads. Use a simple online checklist and a “milestone dashboard” visible to entrepreneurs, so expectations are transparent and benefits are earned through progress, not just presence.

• Verify key claims consistently through evidence: Replace “tell us” questions with “show us” evidence: a photo of a trading location, screenshots of product listings, invoice images, a bank-confirmation letter upload, or a short video explaining the offer. Keep it light, but standardise it. Digital verification reduces misrepresentation without turning selection into a compliance nightmare.

• Make selection criteria visible and scoreable: Use a simple rubric (readiness, traction signals, coachability, fit to outcomes, capacity to execute) and score in a shared digital tool so the process is consistent and auditable. Digital scoring sheets make moderation easier, reduce bias drift across reviewers, and improve fairness.

• Recruit beyond the usual networks: Go further than “a social post”. Use a mix of: targeted WhatsApp broadcast lists (with opt-in), short referral links for partner organisations, and geo/interest-targeted ads where appropriate. Track which channels generate applicants who complete the proof task and finish the programme. Digital tracking turns recruitment from guesswork into continuous improvement.

• Close the loop after every cohort with data, not opinions: Use a simple digital pipeline view of the funnel: enquiry, to application, to proof task, to verification, to onboarding, to early engagement, to completion, and ultimately leading to outcomes. Identify where drop-off happens and which selection signals predicted success. Then refine criteria and outreach. Digital M&E, even at a basic level, allows evidence-based iteration rather than reinventing the programme every cycle.

1.  

1.  

1.  

1.  

1.  

If your programme is missing its targets, and your first instinct is to redesign the curriculum, add more mentoring, or buy a better platform, it may be worth asking a sharper question first: did you recruit the right entrepreneurs for the outcomes you promised? Because if recruitment is weak, every other improvement is pushing uphill.

• • Christoff Oosthuysen is an entrepreneurial coach and the Founding CEO of the Entrepreneurial Planning Institute (EPI). His experience in designing and implementing entrepreneur support programmes in Africa spans over the past 30 years.

Sources

Braithwaite, S. (2024) Strengthening Youth Entrepreneurship in South African Townships. Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs. Available at: ANDE publication page.

Davidson, A., Shrestha, A. and Munthamraksa, J. (2025) Business Development Support in Fiji: Landscape Assessment and Recommendations based on Global Evidence (February 2025). Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs; Market Development Facility; Reserve Bank of Fiji.

OECD (2023a) ‘The effectiveness of inclusive entrepreneurship schemes: A spotlight on youth’, in The Missing Entrepreneurs 2023. OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2023b) Framework for the Evaluation of SME and Entrepreneurship Policies and Programmes 2023. OECD Publishing, Paris