Having served as a board member for the Chicago Chapter of the MIT Enterprise Forum I learned many years ago that the key to balancing entrepreneurship, innovation, teaching, and research is through facilitating all of these without prioritizing one over the other.
Read the link in this blog and watch the accompanying video for more from MIT!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Intrapreneur and ways to “manage”
Author: Gilles
The intrapreneur is generally considered a person who has to be really motivated, be a good manager, and have good leadership skills. These three aspects are essential in order to achieve different objectives.
Clearly, the intrapreneur has to be motivated and the organisation has to make easier the way to undertake some inintiatives. With sufficient motivation people tend to be more innovative then making the organisation more competitive. People can be a real competitive advantage.
This kind of person needs to have a certain degree of freedom in order to lead his or her project and team properly. Other executive managers do not have to interfere in the intrapreneur’s decision-making. The internal environment has to encourage these kinds of employee activities. “The enemy of the entrepreneur is the market, whereas the enemy of the intrapreneur is the corporte culture” (David A. Kirby Entrepreneurship 2003).
As far as the Manager aspect is concerned, it means that the manager must have some skills and competencies in order to be able to work on different projects, manage his team and provide to them what they have to do. But for that he could use his power due to his status.
But I think that in order to manage properly his team and the project the intrapreneur has to use more of his leadership abilities than his power in order to avoid some difficulties as Sinetar underlined in 1985 “entrepreneurs have difficulty working as team members because they have to tend to alienate others by their drive, focus on pet projects”.
Good leadership, more than management, makes the project and outcome more effective. Because people who are working with leader intrapreneurs will know that they are working on a project which could fail, and in this way I reckon that they will feel that they are in collaboration rather that under the orders of the manager. People will really be committed and will more likely see this commitment in the results.
What do you think? Could we consider an Intrapreneur without leadership abilities?
References:
Kirby,David A. (2003) Entrepreneurship
The intrapreneur is generally considered a person who has to be really motivated, be a good manager, and have good leadership skills. These three aspects are essential in order to achieve different objectives.
Clearly, the intrapreneur has to be motivated and the organisation has to make easier the way to undertake some inintiatives. With sufficient motivation people tend to be more innovative then making the organisation more competitive. People can be a real competitive advantage.
This kind of person needs to have a certain degree of freedom in order to lead his or her project and team properly. Other executive managers do not have to interfere in the intrapreneur’s decision-making. The internal environment has to encourage these kinds of employee activities. “The enemy of the entrepreneur is the market, whereas the enemy of the intrapreneur is the corporte culture” (David A. Kirby Entrepreneurship 2003).
As far as the Manager aspect is concerned, it means that the manager must have some skills and competencies in order to be able to work on different projects, manage his team and provide to them what they have to do. But for that he could use his power due to his status.
But I think that in order to manage properly his team and the project the intrapreneur has to use more of his leadership abilities than his power in order to avoid some difficulties as Sinetar underlined in 1985 “entrepreneurs have difficulty working as team members because they have to tend to alienate others by their drive, focus on pet projects”.
Good leadership, more than management, makes the project and outcome more effective. Because people who are working with leader intrapreneurs will know that they are working on a project which could fail, and in this way I reckon that they will feel that they are in collaboration rather that under the orders of the manager. People will really be committed and will more likely see this commitment in the results.
What do you think? Could we consider an Intrapreneur without leadership abilities?
References:
Kirby,David A. (2003) Entrepreneurship
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Importance of Networking
Author: Colin
To the entrepreneur, networks help to develop relationships, make contacts, assemble resources and gain access to finance. Based on trust and respect networks can help entrepreneurs to gain credibility and establish a track record. (Burns, 2005) These are aspects that can prove invaluable when the entrepreneur is starting out, but how can larger organisations utilise networks to encourage intrapreneurial behaviour?
They must look the ways in which the entrepreneur utilise their networks, for example they may use them to make contact with venture capitalists. Larger organisations can mirror this by making sure that those responsible for funding are easily accessibly to employees with ideas or innovations.
Today entrepreneurs are often inventors and: “Gone are the days when lone inventors tinkering away in their attics and sheds could come up with path-breaking discoveries and innovations.” (Suarez-Villa, 2004, p80) It is often the case that entrepreneurs can turn to their peers or even their “rivals” for help and advice at the early stages of innovation. Larger organisations should bear this in mind if they want to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour in their staff. From an internal perspective; they should make sure different departments and divisions are networked, to allow for information and ideas to flow more easily throughout the organisation. They should discourage rivalry and promote understanding between different parts of the business, encouraging internal collaboration. Networks can make it easier for information to be shared more easily between different levels of the organisation; allowing for a better dialogue between the employees with ideas and other staff, after all: “Every intrapreneur needs colleagues to refine, repurpose, or just plain redraw his or her idea; marketing folks to help figure out exactly what the product is (or is not); and higher-ups who are willing to champion it, even if a return on investment is years in the making.” (Swearingen, 2008)
Organisations must also consider the importance of external networks. It is often a necessity for the entrepreneur to look out with their own organisations for assistance. It may be considered a “luxury” that larger organisations can often avoid this, but it would be unwise for them to totally discount working with external sources. Take the example of the Sony Playstation: “Ken Kutaragi was working in Sony’s sound labs when he bought his daughter a Nintendo game console. Watching her play, he was dismayed by the system’s primitive sound effects. He realized that a digital chip dedicated solely to sound would improve the quality of the games — and the product itself. Keeping his job at Sony, Kutaragi developed the SPC7000 for the next generation of Nintendo machines. Sony execs nearly fired him after discovering his sideline project, but then-CEO Norio Ohga realized the value of his innovation and encouraged Kutaragi’s efforts. With Sony’s blessing, Kutaragi worked with Nintendo to develop a CD-ROM-based Nintendo. But Nintendo decided not to go forward with it, so Kutaragi helped Sony develop its own gaming system, which became the PlayStation. The first PlayStation made Sony a major player in the games market, but the PlayStation 2 did even better, becoming the best-selling game console of all time. Kutaragi founded Sony Computer Entertainment, one of the Sony’s most profitable divisions.” (Swearingen, 2008) In this example we see an organisation allowing collaboration with an indirect competitor that gave them significant advantage when they came to be direct rivals.
Here are a few reasons why networks, both internal and external, can beneficial, but it is clear that organisations can learn from viewing networks from an entrepreneurial point of view.
References
Burns, P (2005) Corporate Entrepreneurship, Building an Entrepreneurial Organisation. 2nd ed (Palgrave MacMillan)
Suarez-Villa, L (2004) Technocapitalism and the New Ecology of Entrepreneurship, Rising Entrepreneurship in a Shrinking World: A Spatial Perspective, p78 – 103, p80
Swearingen J (2008) Great Intrapreneurs in Business History, Bnet [Online], http://www.bnet.com/2403-13070_23-196888.html Accessed 24 April 2008
To the entrepreneur, networks help to develop relationships, make contacts, assemble resources and gain access to finance. Based on trust and respect networks can help entrepreneurs to gain credibility and establish a track record. (Burns, 2005) These are aspects that can prove invaluable when the entrepreneur is starting out, but how can larger organisations utilise networks to encourage intrapreneurial behaviour?
They must look the ways in which the entrepreneur utilise their networks, for example they may use them to make contact with venture capitalists. Larger organisations can mirror this by making sure that those responsible for funding are easily accessibly to employees with ideas or innovations.
Today entrepreneurs are often inventors and: “Gone are the days when lone inventors tinkering away in their attics and sheds could come up with path-breaking discoveries and innovations.” (Suarez-Villa, 2004, p80) It is often the case that entrepreneurs can turn to their peers or even their “rivals” for help and advice at the early stages of innovation. Larger organisations should bear this in mind if they want to encourage entrepreneurial behaviour in their staff. From an internal perspective; they should make sure different departments and divisions are networked, to allow for information and ideas to flow more easily throughout the organisation. They should discourage rivalry and promote understanding between different parts of the business, encouraging internal collaboration. Networks can make it easier for information to be shared more easily between different levels of the organisation; allowing for a better dialogue between the employees with ideas and other staff, after all: “Every intrapreneur needs colleagues to refine, repurpose, or just plain redraw his or her idea; marketing folks to help figure out exactly what the product is (or is not); and higher-ups who are willing to champion it, even if a return on investment is years in the making.” (Swearingen, 2008)
Organisations must also consider the importance of external networks. It is often a necessity for the entrepreneur to look out with their own organisations for assistance. It may be considered a “luxury” that larger organisations can often avoid this, but it would be unwise for them to totally discount working with external sources. Take the example of the Sony Playstation: “Ken Kutaragi was working in Sony’s sound labs when he bought his daughter a Nintendo game console. Watching her play, he was dismayed by the system’s primitive sound effects. He realized that a digital chip dedicated solely to sound would improve the quality of the games — and the product itself. Keeping his job at Sony, Kutaragi developed the SPC7000 for the next generation of Nintendo machines. Sony execs nearly fired him after discovering his sideline project, but then-CEO Norio Ohga realized the value of his innovation and encouraged Kutaragi’s efforts. With Sony’s blessing, Kutaragi worked with Nintendo to develop a CD-ROM-based Nintendo. But Nintendo decided not to go forward with it, so Kutaragi helped Sony develop its own gaming system, which became the PlayStation. The first PlayStation made Sony a major player in the games market, but the PlayStation 2 did even better, becoming the best-selling game console of all time. Kutaragi founded Sony Computer Entertainment, one of the Sony’s most profitable divisions.” (Swearingen, 2008) In this example we see an organisation allowing collaboration with an indirect competitor that gave them significant advantage when they came to be direct rivals.
Here are a few reasons why networks, both internal and external, can beneficial, but it is clear that organisations can learn from viewing networks from an entrepreneurial point of view.
References
Burns, P (2005) Corporate Entrepreneurship, Building an Entrepreneurial Organisation. 2nd ed (Palgrave MacMillan)
Suarez-Villa, L (2004) Technocapitalism and the New Ecology of Entrepreneurship, Rising Entrepreneurship in a Shrinking World: A Spatial Perspective, p78 – 103, p80
Swearingen J (2008) Great Intrapreneurs in Business History, Bnet [Online], http://www.bnet.com/2403-13070_23-196888.html Accessed 24 April 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Pride Goeth Before a Fall
Author: Mark K.
There always needs to be a certain level of business etiquette. As communication is key and in most successful companies established as being so, it’s crucial that companies not only understand this concept but also encourage it within the parameters of the business structure.
For example, jealousy and pride are aspects of human behaviour, but effective management of behaviour within the structure of a business combats and minimises such problems.
Costea and Crump (1999) summarise this well, saying:
“Organisational behaviour is one of the most complex and perhaps least understood academic elements of modern general management, but since it concerns the behaviour of people within organisations it is also one of the most central… its concern with individual and group patterns of behaviour makes it an essential element in dealing with the complex behavioural issues thrown up in the modern business world”
Many companies overlook such aspects as they are not tangible and not seen as a considered driver of a business.
The key I think is to understand the people you are working with whether it is people you are working with in a team, your managers or the people you are managing. By understanding your colleagues you can identify their strengths and weaknesses, their habits and tendencies by doing so you can utilize them to their full potential, create effective group cohesion and identify and prioritise what you superior’s needs and wants are.
Reference:
Costea, Bogdan and Crump,Norman (1999) "Introducing organisational behaviour: issues in course design". Education and Training, Vol 41, Issue 9: 403-415.
There always needs to be a certain level of business etiquette. As communication is key and in most successful companies established as being so, it’s crucial that companies not only understand this concept but also encourage it within the parameters of the business structure.
For example, jealousy and pride are aspects of human behaviour, but effective management of behaviour within the structure of a business combats and minimises such problems.
Costea and Crump (1999) summarise this well, saying:
“Organisational behaviour is one of the most complex and perhaps least understood academic elements of modern general management, but since it concerns the behaviour of people within organisations it is also one of the most central… its concern with individual and group patterns of behaviour makes it an essential element in dealing with the complex behavioural issues thrown up in the modern business world”
Many companies overlook such aspects as they are not tangible and not seen as a considered driver of a business.
The key I think is to understand the people you are working with whether it is people you are working with in a team, your managers or the people you are managing. By understanding your colleagues you can identify their strengths and weaknesses, their habits and tendencies by doing so you can utilize them to their full potential, create effective group cohesion and identify and prioritise what you superior’s needs and wants are.
Reference:
Costea, Bogdan and Crump,Norman (1999) "Introducing organisational behaviour: issues in course design". Education and Training, Vol 41, Issue 9: 403-415.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Innovation and Corporate Entrepreneurship: A few challenges
Author: Andrzej
Nowadays, as financial markets are integrated and international trade is flourishing, more and more companies become international.
As market competition grows, companies adapt quickly to the changes on the market and the tastes of consumers, requiring flexibility and openness from large companies. The problem is that not every managing board sees it, and still continues to conduct policy as if they owned majority market share. It cannot be denied that in some sectors there is still such a situation, but more and more country economies are developing. As a consequence the markets will still become more competitive.
These needs for change in managing the large companies gave birth to corporate entrepreneurship. In the end of twentieth some researches concentrated on CE as the factor which gives the enterprise the ability to develop the ability thanks to which the innovations can be created.
Kuratko (2007) quotes Zahra (1991) who says “corporate entrepreneurship may be formal or informal activities aimed at creating new businesses in established companies through product and process innovation and market developments. These activities may take place at the corporate, division, functional, or project levels, with the unifying objective of improving a company’s competitive position and financial performance.”
It is worth emphasising the role of innovation in CE due to the fact that all the changes which are introduced in large companies are cannot be included in “old policy box”, this does not work anymore. The key are innovative changes which bring enhancements to the structure of enterprise, logistics, products. As it is commonly known in 21 century technology stands in a very high level and the pace with which is keeps advancing is high, as a consequence the consumers get more and more demanding. This forces the companies to react very quickly and adapt new needs. Shepherd (2004) mentioned very important problem which is “ what are the main problems in managing/creating corporate innovation and entrepreneurship?”
A wide range of factors create obstacles--from inappropriate HRM through bureaucracy to the "stiffness" of a managing board which turns down all projects which might be successful. Shepherd (2004) outlines four problems:
1. Human problem because people and their organisations are focused on and exploit existing practices rather than pay attention to exploring new ideas . The more successful the company is in exploiting existing practices the harder is to convince the managing board finance exploring the new ideas or opportunities
2. The second problem is managing ideas into “good currencies” so new ideas which are innovative and entrepreneurial are implemented. The conceptions of new ideas might be individual but corporate innovation is a group achievement of pushing this idea until it will be put in this good currency.
3. Structural problem. It is very hard to build appropriate infrastructure within the company for entrepreneurship.
4. Various interest of internal and external constituents involved in corporate entrepreneurship.
Are these really the most important problems or are there anymore problems which are as significant as these?
References:
Kuratko, D., F., (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship. Available online. Accesses at 5/04/2008:
Katz, J., A., Shepherd, D.,A., (2004). Corporate Entrepreneurship. Available online. Accesses at 5/04/2008:
Nowadays, as financial markets are integrated and international trade is flourishing, more and more companies become international.
As market competition grows, companies adapt quickly to the changes on the market and the tastes of consumers, requiring flexibility and openness from large companies. The problem is that not every managing board sees it, and still continues to conduct policy as if they owned majority market share. It cannot be denied that in some sectors there is still such a situation, but more and more country economies are developing. As a consequence the markets will still become more competitive.
These needs for change in managing the large companies gave birth to corporate entrepreneurship. In the end of twentieth some researches concentrated on CE as the factor which gives the enterprise the ability to develop the ability thanks to which the innovations can be created.
Kuratko (2007) quotes Zahra (1991) who says “corporate entrepreneurship may be formal or informal activities aimed at creating new businesses in established companies through product and process innovation and market developments. These activities may take place at the corporate, division, functional, or project levels, with the unifying objective of improving a company’s competitive position and financial performance.”
It is worth emphasising the role of innovation in CE due to the fact that all the changes which are introduced in large companies are cannot be included in “old policy box”, this does not work anymore. The key are innovative changes which bring enhancements to the structure of enterprise, logistics, products. As it is commonly known in 21 century technology stands in a very high level and the pace with which is keeps advancing is high, as a consequence the consumers get more and more demanding. This forces the companies to react very quickly and adapt new needs. Shepherd (2004) mentioned very important problem which is “ what are the main problems in managing/creating corporate innovation and entrepreneurship?”
A wide range of factors create obstacles--from inappropriate HRM through bureaucracy to the "stiffness" of a managing board which turns down all projects which might be successful. Shepherd (2004) outlines four problems:
1. Human problem because people and their organisations are focused on and exploit existing practices rather than pay attention to exploring new ideas . The more successful the company is in exploiting existing practices the harder is to convince the managing board finance exploring the new ideas or opportunities
2. The second problem is managing ideas into “good currencies” so new ideas which are innovative and entrepreneurial are implemented. The conceptions of new ideas might be individual but corporate innovation is a group achievement of pushing this idea until it will be put in this good currency.
3. Structural problem. It is very hard to build appropriate infrastructure within the company for entrepreneurship.
4. Various interest of internal and external constituents involved in corporate entrepreneurship.
Are these really the most important problems or are there anymore problems which are as significant as these?
References:
Kuratko, D., F., (2007). Corporate entrepreneurship. Available online. Accesses at 5/04/2008:
Katz, J., A., Shepherd, D.,A., (2004). Corporate Entrepreneurship. Available online. Accesses at 5/04/2008:
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Entrepreneurial Characteristics
Author: Victoria
Many people may ask: “what does it take to be an entrepreneur?”….I often ask myself the same question. Is it as easy as saying you must be this, that or the next thing or is it about crossing the bridge when you come to it and being prepared for success or failure none the less…….
Many academics believe entrepreneurs are born not bred, however according to Burns (2005:19) “entrepreneurs are both born and made”. These individuals are born with qualities that can be adapted throughout their lives in terms of family background, culture of the society, life experiences and so on. It is obvious to many that entrepreneurial activity can be encouraged in some countries more than others with France as an example where the culture does not encourage individuals to take risks. Risk taking is something of great importance when one is an entrepreneur.
Burns believes entrepreneurs should have a number of character traits which include:
• Independence – Being able to work as an individual without depending on anyone or anything.
• Achievement goals – Looking at goals in the future and working towards them over a period of time is important as it identifies the will power of the entrepreneur. Achieving one goal means moving onto the nest goal.
• Control – Being able to control yourself, the organisation, stock, inputs/ outputs etc.
• Able to take risks – If you do not take risks you are remaining in the ‘comfort zone’ and not working to the potential of the business which may mean missing out on potential success. It is important to be prepared for the risk at all costs whether that being failure or success.
• Innovative – According to Burns (2005) “the ability to innovate is the second most important distinguishing feature of entrepreneurs”. It is a tool they use to target market opportunities.
• Confident – Confidence can reflect on the organisation and even if there is a small issue, a confident smile can show the worst has not happened.
• High Energy – High energy can also reflect the organisation and the workforce and can portray an image of the company.
• Self- motivated – Knowing when to make changes.
• Sense of vision – Similar to achieving goals.
A series of interviews conducted with distinguished entrepreneurs identified a number of characteristics they felt were essential to success as an entrepreneur. The findings included:
• Good health - Many entrepreneurs refuse to be sick and work extended periods of time when everyone has went home.
• Self – Control – The belief that no one can do the job better than them and refuse someone having authority over them means they have a sense of control over what is to be done and when and preventing procrastination. Being able to work under pressure is important.
• Self – Confidence – It is essential that self confidence is present as doubt can often lead to failure. If you believe you can do something the chances are you can do it. Any doubt in your mind can affect your performance.
• Realism – Speak the truth and change when change is needed.
• Awareness – Being aware of changes and situations means they are prepared in advance. Last minute panic will not do the company any justice.
• Sense of urgency – Constantly acting upon opportunities and ready for the nest step.
• Interpersonal relationships – Avoid personal relationships but focus on their achievement instead of how they feel.
• Emotional stability – The ability to accept pressure and not fall at the first hurdle. A strong individual can mean a strong business.
(BusinessTown.Com 2008)
Points made from Burns and the findings from the study by Business Town appear to relate to each other. So is this all you need to be an entrepreneur or is there other factors which should have been included?
It is evident that entrepreneurship is being promoted more than previously with schools beginning to introduce it to kids as young as 10 years old. Entrepreneurship week has also raised awareness with 52 countries participating.
So if an entrepreneur is born not bred, what is the point in activities like entrepreneurship week etc? Surely that is just teasing individuals into seeing what they cannot have due to their culture or upbringing (which they had no say in).
If, on the other hand, like Burns (2005) says: “entrepreneurs are both born and made”, then the previous statement is ludicrous.
Do you agree with Burns???
Many people may ask: “what does it take to be an entrepreneur?”….I often ask myself the same question. Is it as easy as saying you must be this, that or the next thing or is it about crossing the bridge when you come to it and being prepared for success or failure none the less…….
Many academics believe entrepreneurs are born not bred, however according to Burns (2005:19) “entrepreneurs are both born and made”. These individuals are born with qualities that can be adapted throughout their lives in terms of family background, culture of the society, life experiences and so on. It is obvious to many that entrepreneurial activity can be encouraged in some countries more than others with France as an example where the culture does not encourage individuals to take risks. Risk taking is something of great importance when one is an entrepreneur.
Burns believes entrepreneurs should have a number of character traits which include:
• Independence – Being able to work as an individual without depending on anyone or anything.
• Achievement goals – Looking at goals in the future and working towards them over a period of time is important as it identifies the will power of the entrepreneur. Achieving one goal means moving onto the nest goal.
• Control – Being able to control yourself, the organisation, stock, inputs/ outputs etc.
• Able to take risks – If you do not take risks you are remaining in the ‘comfort zone’ and not working to the potential of the business which may mean missing out on potential success. It is important to be prepared for the risk at all costs whether that being failure or success.
• Innovative – According to Burns (2005) “the ability to innovate is the second most important distinguishing feature of entrepreneurs”. It is a tool they use to target market opportunities.
• Confident – Confidence can reflect on the organisation and even if there is a small issue, a confident smile can show the worst has not happened.
• High Energy – High energy can also reflect the organisation and the workforce and can portray an image of the company.
• Self- motivated – Knowing when to make changes.
• Sense of vision – Similar to achieving goals.
A series of interviews conducted with distinguished entrepreneurs identified a number of characteristics they felt were essential to success as an entrepreneur. The findings included:
• Good health - Many entrepreneurs refuse to be sick and work extended periods of time when everyone has went home.
• Self – Control – The belief that no one can do the job better than them and refuse someone having authority over them means they have a sense of control over what is to be done and when and preventing procrastination. Being able to work under pressure is important.
• Self – Confidence – It is essential that self confidence is present as doubt can often lead to failure. If you believe you can do something the chances are you can do it. Any doubt in your mind can affect your performance.
• Realism – Speak the truth and change when change is needed.
• Awareness – Being aware of changes and situations means they are prepared in advance. Last minute panic will not do the company any justice.
• Sense of urgency – Constantly acting upon opportunities and ready for the nest step.
• Interpersonal relationships – Avoid personal relationships but focus on their achievement instead of how they feel.
• Emotional stability – The ability to accept pressure and not fall at the first hurdle. A strong individual can mean a strong business.
(BusinessTown.Com 2008)
Points made from Burns and the findings from the study by Business Town appear to relate to each other. So is this all you need to be an entrepreneur or is there other factors which should have been included?
It is evident that entrepreneurship is being promoted more than previously with schools beginning to introduce it to kids as young as 10 years old. Entrepreneurship week has also raised awareness with 52 countries participating.
So if an entrepreneur is born not bred, what is the point in activities like entrepreneurship week etc? Surely that is just teasing individuals into seeing what they cannot have due to their culture or upbringing (which they had no say in).
If, on the other hand, like Burns (2005) says: “entrepreneurs are both born and made”, then the previous statement is ludicrous.
Do you agree with Burns???
Monday, March 17, 2008
ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room
"A story about people--a human tragedy"...
What happens in a corporation, in management, in personnel, that can lead to a multi-billion corporation's going bankrupt in just 24 days?
This 1 hour and 49 minute video is available online for a fee, but you can watch a one-hour conversation between Charlie Rose and his guests, Kurt Eichenwald of the New York Times and Alan Sloan of Newsweek magazine, about the crisis:
ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room
What happens in a corporation, in management, in personnel, that can lead to a multi-billion corporation's going bankrupt in just 24 days?
This 1 hour and 49 minute video is available online for a fee, but you can watch a one-hour conversation between Charlie Rose and his guests, Kurt Eichenwald of the New York Times and Alan Sloan of Newsweek magazine, about the crisis:
ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Questioning the role of the intrapreneur
Author: Stuart
In past decades, corporate entrepreneurship (innovation) has been considered vital for the economy of the major worldwide countries to continue to generate their current levels of gdp per capita. However in recent times the number of SME’s not only starting up in business but growing and making higher profits is increasing causing problems for the corporate organisations.
The government in the UK are continuing to back the start up of SME’s showing that the small businesses are successful In creating jobs in the UK. The success of these companies has shown corporate organisations that they are not flexible enough to compete with SME’s who can adapt and change their full operation system much sooner than larger rivals.
The way in which corporate organisations can solve this problem is via intrapreneurs.
Burns states that, "The term intrapreneurship is now generally used to describe the individual charged with pushing through innovations within a larger organisation in an entrepreneurial fashion. They are entrepreneurs in larger organisations."
(Burns, 2005:134)
In other words there are entrepreneurs which work on behalf of a larger firm, taking the control of ensuring that SME's do not gain advantage over the corporate firm.
There are many problems when considering the factors involved in this process. In corporate business the intrapreneur is not the individual who created the idea as described by Burns:
"Rarely the inventor of the product, they work with teams to cut through the bureaucracy of the organisation to develop it for the market place as quickly as possible"
(Burns, 2005, pg 134)
Therefore there is a contradiction by Burns as he states that firstly, an intrepreneur is an entrepreneur but in a larger organisation. However secondly he arrives at the conclusion that the intrapreneur is not the individual who created the innovative idea but who in fact is given the task of ensuring that the product reaches the market place as quickly as possible.
Considering these observations is it correct to say that the reason is due to the uncertainty of the role of the intrapreneur in larger corporate environments as opposed to the innovative and successful role of the entrepreneur within an SME.
Remembering that SME's are continuing to grow in size and stature would it not make sense for the corporate business to hire entrepreneurs and give them full control of their innovation and product development like an SME does??
As opposed to crediting one individual for creating an idea, before passing that idea on to an intepreneur to help it reach the market place, surely it would be simpler to allow one indivdual to take charge of the whole process?
Is this an example of a corporate organisation making processes much more complex than they really ought to be?
References:
Burns, P. (2005) Corporate Entrepreneurship: Building the Entrepreneurial Organisation. Palgrave Macmillan
In past decades, corporate entrepreneurship (innovation) has been considered vital for the economy of the major worldwide countries to continue to generate their current levels of gdp per capita. However in recent times the number of SME’s not only starting up in business but growing and making higher profits is increasing causing problems for the corporate organisations.
The government in the UK are continuing to back the start up of SME’s showing that the small businesses are successful In creating jobs in the UK. The success of these companies has shown corporate organisations that they are not flexible enough to compete with SME’s who can adapt and change their full operation system much sooner than larger rivals.
The way in which corporate organisations can solve this problem is via intrapreneurs.
Burns states that, "The term intrapreneurship is now generally used to describe the individual charged with pushing through innovations within a larger organisation in an entrepreneurial fashion. They are entrepreneurs in larger organisations."
(Burns, 2005:134)
In other words there are entrepreneurs which work on behalf of a larger firm, taking the control of ensuring that SME's do not gain advantage over the corporate firm.
There are many problems when considering the factors involved in this process. In corporate business the intrapreneur is not the individual who created the idea as described by Burns:
"Rarely the inventor of the product, they work with teams to cut through the bureaucracy of the organisation to develop it for the market place as quickly as possible"
(Burns, 2005, pg 134)
Therefore there is a contradiction by Burns as he states that firstly, an intrepreneur is an entrepreneur but in a larger organisation. However secondly he arrives at the conclusion that the intrapreneur is not the individual who created the innovative idea but who in fact is given the task of ensuring that the product reaches the market place as quickly as possible.
Considering these observations is it correct to say that the reason is due to the uncertainty of the role of the intrapreneur in larger corporate environments as opposed to the innovative and successful role of the entrepreneur within an SME.
Remembering that SME's are continuing to grow in size and stature would it not make sense for the corporate business to hire entrepreneurs and give them full control of their innovation and product development like an SME does??
As opposed to crediting one individual for creating an idea, before passing that idea on to an intepreneur to help it reach the market place, surely it would be simpler to allow one indivdual to take charge of the whole process?
Is this an example of a corporate organisation making processes much more complex than they really ought to be?
References:
Burns, P. (2005) Corporate Entrepreneurship: Building the Entrepreneurial Organisation. Palgrave Macmillan
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Rewarding outcome, not behaviour
Paul Burns cites the likes of Birkinshaw (2003) to discuss the guidance and control of entrepreneurial action in his newest edition of Corporate Entrepreneurship: Building the Entrepreneurial Organization (Burns 2008).
Whilst Burns acknowledges that management must certainly not lose sight of the responsibility of a company to the shareholders in terms of how resources are put to use, he also suggests that there are ways to encourage performance through "awarding outcome rather than behaviour" (p. 185).
Burns is not advocating that badly "behaved" individuals permeate the corporation for the sake of outcome, he is instead saying that in addition to traditional forms of morale and team building *, leadership should encourage positive environments where intrapreneurs can propose and develop new products and/or services that may actually lead to improved sales and happier shareholders.
This kind of work environment is not an easy one to balance. It must allow mistakes to be made, but must still set limits on "creativity" for the sake of a company's financial survival. Moreover, those limits are perceived by leadership both emotionally and pragmatically. Ultimately the balance is therefore driven through risk managment where "risk" becomes relative to the nature of the company, the product and/or service it provides, and the personality and perceptions of leadership. And, as always, risk has a cozy relationship with Lady Luck.
References:
Birkinshaw, J. (2003) "The Paradox of Corporate Entrepreneurship", Strategy and Business, 30.
Burns, P. (2008) Corporate Entrepreneurship: Building the Entrepreneurial Organization. Palgrave Macmillan.
* The link to this YouTube video does not reflect an endorsement of Sabre Development nor of their strategies.
Whilst Burns acknowledges that management must certainly not lose sight of the responsibility of a company to the shareholders in terms of how resources are put to use, he also suggests that there are ways to encourage performance through "awarding outcome rather than behaviour" (p. 185).
Burns is not advocating that badly "behaved" individuals permeate the corporation for the sake of outcome, he is instead saying that in addition to traditional forms of morale and team building *, leadership should encourage positive environments where intrapreneurs can propose and develop new products and/or services that may actually lead to improved sales and happier shareholders.
This kind of work environment is not an easy one to balance. It must allow mistakes to be made, but must still set limits on "creativity" for the sake of a company's financial survival. Moreover, those limits are perceived by leadership both emotionally and pragmatically. Ultimately the balance is therefore driven through risk managment where "risk" becomes relative to the nature of the company, the product and/or service it provides, and the personality and perceptions of leadership. And, as always, risk has a cozy relationship with Lady Luck.
References:
Birkinshaw, J. (2003) "The Paradox of Corporate Entrepreneurship", Strategy and Business, 30.
Burns, P. (2008) Corporate Entrepreneurship: Building the Entrepreneurial Organization. Palgrave Macmillan.
* The link to this YouTube video does not reflect an endorsement of Sabre Development nor of their strategies.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Entrepreneurship and Culture
Author: Francois
When we speak about the determinants of one country’s level of entrepreneurship, the first thing which comes to my mind is the state intervention. Indeed the state, with the aim of fostering entrepreneurship, can establish a more or less favourable entrepreneurial climate with for example a low rate of taxation, a flexible labour market or an easy access to capital.
But surprisingly, when we compare two countries such as France and the USA which both try to foster entrepreneurship through state intervention, it’s quite amazing to see that the results of those policies are very different. Indeed the USA have the highest rate of business ownership in the total workforce and the highest TEA (Total Entrepreneurial Activity) among the OECD countries with 10%, whereas on the opposite France’s TEA is lower at around 4%.
Thus the state intervention isn’t the only determinant of entrepreneurship, albeit it is very important.
So, what else can influence entrepreneurship? What else can drive people to start their own business?
Maybe it’s people themselves! Indeed one country’s culture can partly explain the level of entrepreneurship. Thus, if we still compare France and the USA, we can understand why there is such a different TEA. The US culture claims to encourage risk-taking. Failure is considered as a step for the success, whereas in France, the culture does not encourage risk-taking, and French are afraid of failure. A quite impressive figure confirms this: for 50% of French, the fear of failure is a barrier for starting a new business. Whereas in the USA, entrepreneurs are considered an important part of the economy’s foundation. In France they are not; they are even sometimes considered no better than thieves.
Finally, it emerges from this that even if the state intervention is important for determining the level of entrepreneurship, culture plays a huge role. Thus it can be interesting for France and its president Nicolas Sarkozy to think about trying to change the negative perception of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs and be inspired by the American model where “entrepreneurship is woven into the fabric of North American Society” (Alison Morrison).
When we speak about the determinants of one country’s level of entrepreneurship, the first thing which comes to my mind is the state intervention. Indeed the state, with the aim of fostering entrepreneurship, can establish a more or less favourable entrepreneurial climate with for example a low rate of taxation, a flexible labour market or an easy access to capital.
But surprisingly, when we compare two countries such as France and the USA which both try to foster entrepreneurship through state intervention, it’s quite amazing to see that the results of those policies are very different. Indeed the USA have the highest rate of business ownership in the total workforce and the highest TEA (Total Entrepreneurial Activity) among the OECD countries with 10%, whereas on the opposite France’s TEA is lower at around 4%.
Thus the state intervention isn’t the only determinant of entrepreneurship, albeit it is very important.
So, what else can influence entrepreneurship? What else can drive people to start their own business?
Maybe it’s people themselves! Indeed one country’s culture can partly explain the level of entrepreneurship. Thus, if we still compare France and the USA, we can understand why there is such a different TEA. The US culture claims to encourage risk-taking. Failure is considered as a step for the success, whereas in France, the culture does not encourage risk-taking, and French are afraid of failure. A quite impressive figure confirms this: for 50% of French, the fear of failure is a barrier for starting a new business. Whereas in the USA, entrepreneurs are considered an important part of the economy’s foundation. In France they are not; they are even sometimes considered no better than thieves.
Finally, it emerges from this that even if the state intervention is important for determining the level of entrepreneurship, culture plays a huge role. Thus it can be interesting for France and its president Nicolas Sarkozy to think about trying to change the negative perception of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs and be inspired by the American model where “entrepreneurship is woven into the fabric of North American Society” (Alison Morrison).
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Entrepreneurship and the academy
Author: Charles
According to Francois, entrepreneurship is partly explained by culture and I think that he offers a good example in his article to prove this trend: “the USA have the highest rate of business ownership in the total workforce and the highest TEA (Total Entrepreneurial Activity) among the OECD countries with 10%, whereas on the opposite France’s TEA is lower at around 4%.“ We find this same trend in the way entrepreneurship is taught in school. The teaching of entrepreneurship is not the same in France as it is in the USA, or for that matter in other countries in Europe such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. According to Ingrid Verheula, Niels Bosmaa, Fonnie van der Nol and Tommy Wong, to create one's own business is encouraged earlier in the USA than in France and American teachers tackle this topic also at high school. In fact high school students have classes and projects about entrepreneurship. In France it is not true, French students begin to tackle the question of entrepreneurship only in the university or in business school. Moreover, this teaching varies depending on whether the student is in a particular component of the French education system. It emerges from many studies on this topic that the entrepreneurship teaching in France is not structured or only a few. Indeed it stays the most of the time the work of solitary teachers and without results on the students. Actually, the entrepreneurship’s teaching in France lacks recognition and it is not regards as real matter. So I do not know if you have the same opinion as me but I think that if we introduce as early as possible the entrepreneurship’s teaching in the education system, that will change student’s mentality, their aversion to the risk and we could see come out a whole new generation of entrepreneurs ready to create and to set up new businesses. What do you think about that?
According to Francois, entrepreneurship is partly explained by culture and I think that he offers a good example in his article to prove this trend: “the USA have the highest rate of business ownership in the total workforce and the highest TEA (Total Entrepreneurial Activity) among the OECD countries with 10%, whereas on the opposite France’s TEA is lower at around 4%.“ We find this same trend in the way entrepreneurship is taught in school. The teaching of entrepreneurship is not the same in France as it is in the USA, or for that matter in other countries in Europe such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. According to Ingrid Verheula, Niels Bosmaa, Fonnie van der Nol and Tommy Wong, to create one's own business is encouraged earlier in the USA than in France and American teachers tackle this topic also at high school. In fact high school students have classes and projects about entrepreneurship. In France it is not true, French students begin to tackle the question of entrepreneurship only in the university or in business school. Moreover, this teaching varies depending on whether the student is in a particular component of the French education system. It emerges from many studies on this topic that the entrepreneurship teaching in France is not structured or only a few. Indeed it stays the most of the time the work of solitary teachers and without results on the students. Actually, the entrepreneurship’s teaching in France lacks recognition and it is not regards as real matter. So I do not know if you have the same opinion as me but I think that if we introduce as early as possible the entrepreneurship’s teaching in the education system, that will change student’s mentality, their aversion to the risk and we could see come out a whole new generation of entrepreneurs ready to create and to set up new businesses. What do you think about that?
Friday, February 15, 2008
European SMEs and their markets
Author: Jeremie
I strongly believe that SMEs have an important role to play in the European economy. In fact, they are a significant source of growth, jobs and innovation. The European Union seems to share my point of view as Erkki Liikanen, European Enterprise Commissioner stated in 2002: “SMEs are the backbone of EU economy”.
Thus how can the European Union create a friendly environment for SME?
The European Union has implemented many directives and recommendations to foster SMEs development over the past few years. In fact, the EU tries to improve the access to finance for SME, to reduce bureaucracy, to protect their innovation…
Regulatory environment aside, can SMEs not find useful help from large companies that used to be small?
SMEs face some difficulties in accessing markets because they are too risky, too weak and experience a lack of visibility. By offering a part of their contracts to SMEs, large scale companies and public procurement agencies could give a chance to SMEs that would like to grow, innovate and prove what they are able to do. This is called the 2005 European SME pact, first implemented in France.
This pact is directly inspired by the US Small Business Act which stated that a given share of public procurement has to be reserved for SME. Although the European SME pact is claimed to be more ambitious and broader than the American one, I think that it may have some weaknesses. The SME pact deals with large scale companies and public procurement agencies whereas the American Small Business Act only deals with the latter one. However, the American Small Business Act is mandatory and public procurement agencies have to offer a given share of their contracts to US SME. This is not the case for the SME pact which is based on the willingness of these two previous agents to offer contracts to European SMEs. So I think the US Small Business Act may be more efficient than the SME pact.
But for its second year of activity, the SME pact has seduced 30 French large companies and 1200 SMEs.
The monitoring of the impact of the programme is done though several indicators such as the number of contracts awarded by SMEs and SME share in the public procurement.
To my mind, these two ways of monitoring are quiet good and relevant as it will be easy to set objectives and compare the success of the SME pact over the years. The number of contracts issued by large companies and public procurement agencies and awarded by SMEs is easily accountable.
Only the next couple of years will let us know if the SME pact proves to be as successful as the American Small Business Act.
I strongly believe that SMEs have an important role to play in the European economy. In fact, they are a significant source of growth, jobs and innovation. The European Union seems to share my point of view as Erkki Liikanen, European Enterprise Commissioner stated in 2002: “SMEs are the backbone of EU economy”.
Thus how can the European Union create a friendly environment for SME?
The European Union has implemented many directives and recommendations to foster SMEs development over the past few years. In fact, the EU tries to improve the access to finance for SME, to reduce bureaucracy, to protect their innovation…
Regulatory environment aside, can SMEs not find useful help from large companies that used to be small?
SMEs face some difficulties in accessing markets because they are too risky, too weak and experience a lack of visibility. By offering a part of their contracts to SMEs, large scale companies and public procurement agencies could give a chance to SMEs that would like to grow, innovate and prove what they are able to do. This is called the 2005 European SME pact, first implemented in France.
This pact is directly inspired by the US Small Business Act which stated that a given share of public procurement has to be reserved for SME. Although the European SME pact is claimed to be more ambitious and broader than the American one, I think that it may have some weaknesses. The SME pact deals with large scale companies and public procurement agencies whereas the American Small Business Act only deals with the latter one. However, the American Small Business Act is mandatory and public procurement agencies have to offer a given share of their contracts to US SME. This is not the case for the SME pact which is based on the willingness of these two previous agents to offer contracts to European SMEs. So I think the US Small Business Act may be more efficient than the SME pact.
But for its second year of activity, the SME pact has seduced 30 French large companies and 1200 SMEs.
The monitoring of the impact of the programme is done though several indicators such as the number of contracts awarded by SMEs and SME share in the public procurement.
To my mind, these two ways of monitoring are quiet good and relevant as it will be easy to set objectives and compare the success of the SME pact over the years. The number of contracts issued by large companies and public procurement agencies and awarded by SMEs is easily accountable.
Only the next couple of years will let us know if the SME pact proves to be as successful as the American Small Business Act.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
New business ventures
In May 2002, Peter Drucker wrote the Foreward to Vijay Sathe's 2003 textbook called Corporate Entrepreneurship: Top Managers and New Business Creation. Said Drucker: "New business creation must be considered the most important task of the senior executive in the existing enterprise, especially the larger one. Without it the enterprise is unlikely to survive, let alone do well, in a period of rapid transition such as the one we live in and are likely to live in for the foreseeable future. . .Without it all developed countries face serious economic and social dislocation. Without it too, the existing leading economies are most likely to be overtaken by new competitors--the countries in which executives are not preoccupied with maintaining a glorious past and with defending yesterday."
This blog is intended principally for students of entrepreneurship at the University of the West of Scotland, but as is the nature of blogs, it may re-invent itself as time passes. The purpose of the blog is to encourage the open dialogue between students, practioners and researchers on the subject of new venture and new product development within existing enterprises--be they internal ventures or external ventures.
AS a matter of initial inspiration, enjoy some of the video stories featured online at Financial Times: Enterprising Britain
Feel free to enter your comments, thoughts, experiences, and advice.
This blog is intended principally for students of entrepreneurship at the University of the West of Scotland, but as is the nature of blogs, it may re-invent itself as time passes. The purpose of the blog is to encourage the open dialogue between students, practioners and researchers on the subject of new venture and new product development within existing enterprises--be they internal ventures or external ventures.
AS a matter of initial inspiration, enjoy some of the video stories featured online at Financial Times: Enterprising Britain
Feel free to enter your comments, thoughts, experiences, and advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
