"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
Monday, March 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
