In the recent comedy She's Out of My League an awful ex-girlfriend of the central character attempts to shame him by stating that her new squeeze is an "Entrapener" (spelling error intended). To this, the central character incredulously retorts "he owns a Pizza-Hut franchise!"
Now, the blurred lines of franchise ownership vs. entrepreneurship aside, the scene both highlights and lampoons a prominent social trend , that being the romanticism placed on being an entrepreneur. Granted, as far as business trends go, particularly in the west, much importance is placed on the growth of entrepreneurs and the emergence of small business start-ups. This is rightfully so, particularly from a macro-economic perspective. As certain manufacturing and production costs increase in developed nations, larger and less encumbered firms will continually search for, and shift to, inexpensive location alternatives. For many regions in developed nations this leaves a commercial gap, a gap that many thinkers and leaders have identified as needing to be filled by empowered entrepreneurs and small business owners. Though this heralding of the socio-commercial heroics of entrepreneurship is not without its numerous truths, it does unfortunately obscure an (in many cases safer) alternative, Intrapreneurship.
Coined in the late 1970s by Gifford Pinchot III and Elizabeth Pinchot, intrapreneurship is essentially the translation of the same sort of risk-taking, ideation and project-management behaviours commonly associated with entrepreneurs, but into the boundaries of a larger organization. A popular outcome of intrapreneurial behaviour, but little known example, includes the creation of the Macintosh in the early 1980s, done by a project group working within Apple Computers. Of course, such intrapreneurial developments do not need to be technically inclined, nor directly responsible for a firms revenue. With many large organizations placing a greater emphasis on social-responsibility, they can also be socially beneficial developments and enterprises existent under the larger organization. An example of this can be seen in Nokia's "Nokia Life Tools" initiative, which aims to "brige the digital divide in emerging markets."
Not only does the notion of intrapreneurship minimize the risks commonly associated with entrepreneurship, it also minimizes the by-product noise inherent in a market made up of myriad small businesses, all struggling for their own recognition. An example can be seen in the microcosm of university campus environments, where in some cases over 250 student clubs exist (many similar in mandate), all fighting for the same captivated audience of students and pool of funding. Intrapreneurs can, and in many cases much more easliy, leverage pre-existing pools of resources, partners, and channels. Yet, it is also not without its failings. Organizations that are not horizontally structured, have myopic vision, or are overly possessive of information or employee creations might not only squelch potential intrapreneurial behaviour, but in-fact may prompt the departure of employees who would rather be entrepreneurs.
In a recent report on Intrapreneurship, Beyond Profit begged the question "Is it the future of social business? And if so, how do we make it the 'new sexy'?" In response to this, I would say that there are many ironies inherent in the idea of intrepreneurship, among them are the idea that in an increasingly individualistic world the idea of working for a larger organization could actually, once again be vogue. As well as the conflict of whether or not one can be truly, individually empowered under a larger organizational umbrella (no matter how horizontal its structure). Yet, perhaps the most prominent irony, and relevant to their question, is that despite the individual bend of intrapreneurship, it is not about "we," nor is it about the individual, but rather "them," and the idea that a firm would first need to enact large cultural shifts and relinquish much control before it can be truly, intrapreneurially attractive.
Photo by Me.
Now, the blurred lines of franchise ownership vs. entrepreneurship aside, the scene both highlights and lampoons a prominent social trend , that being the romanticism placed on being an entrepreneur. Granted, as far as business trends go, particularly in the west, much importance is placed on the growth of entrepreneurs and the emergence of small business start-ups. This is rightfully so, particularly from a macro-economic perspective. As certain manufacturing and production costs increase in developed nations, larger and less encumbered firms will continually search for, and shift to, inexpensive location alternatives. For many regions in developed nations this leaves a commercial gap, a gap that many thinkers and leaders have identified as needing to be filled by empowered entrepreneurs and small business owners. Though this heralding of the socio-commercial heroics of entrepreneurship is not without its numerous truths, it does unfortunately obscure an (in many cases safer) alternative, Intrapreneurship.
Coined in the late 1970s by Gifford Pinchot III and Elizabeth Pinchot, intrapreneurship is essentially the translation of the same sort of risk-taking, ideation and project-management behaviours commonly associated with entrepreneurs, but into the boundaries of a larger organization. A popular outcome of intrapreneurial behaviour, but little known example, includes the creation of the Macintosh in the early 1980s, done by a project group working within Apple Computers. Of course, such intrapreneurial developments do not need to be technically inclined, nor directly responsible for a firms revenue. With many large organizations placing a greater emphasis on social-responsibility, they can also be socially beneficial developments and enterprises existent under the larger organization. An example of this can be seen in Nokia's "Nokia Life Tools" initiative, which aims to "brige the digital divide in emerging markets."
Not only does the notion of intrapreneurship minimize the risks commonly associated with entrepreneurship, it also minimizes the by-product noise inherent in a market made up of myriad small businesses, all struggling for their own recognition. An example can be seen in the microcosm of university campus environments, where in some cases over 250 student clubs exist (many similar in mandate), all fighting for the same captivated audience of students and pool of funding. Intrapreneurs can, and in many cases much more easliy, leverage pre-existing pools of resources, partners, and channels. Yet, it is also not without its failings. Organizations that are not horizontally structured, have myopic vision, or are overly possessive of information or employee creations might not only squelch potential intrapreneurial behaviour, but in-fact may prompt the departure of employees who would rather be entrepreneurs.
In a recent report on Intrapreneurship, Beyond Profit begged the question "Is it the future of social business? And if so, how do we make it the 'new sexy'?" In response to this, I would say that there are many ironies inherent in the idea of intrepreneurship, among them are the idea that in an increasingly individualistic world the idea of working for a larger organization could actually, once again be vogue. As well as the conflict of whether or not one can be truly, individually empowered under a larger organizational umbrella (no matter how horizontal its structure). Yet, perhaps the most prominent irony, and relevant to their question, is that despite the individual bend of intrapreneurship, it is not about "we," nor is it about the individual, but rather "them," and the idea that a firm would first need to enact large cultural shifts and relinquish much control before it can be truly, intrapreneurially attractive.
Photo by Me.
No comments:
Post a Comment