The Leadership School of Entrepreneurship
An entrepreneur is often a leader who relies on people to accomplish purposes and objectives. The leadership school of entrepreneurship is a non-technical side of the management school, which suggests that entrepreneurs need to be skilled in appealing to others to "join the cause." A successful entrepreneur must also be a "people manager" or an effective leader/mentor who plays a major role in motivating, directing, and leading people. "Thus, the entrepreneur must be a leader, able to define a vision of what is possible, and attract people to rally around that vision and transform it into reality".
There are two "streams" of writings concerning entrepreneurial leadership. The first stream of development has been grouped within the "great person" school, and describes the writings which suggest that certain traits and personal characteristics are important for success. The "great person" school follows early leadership research which suggests that traits such as adaptability to situations, cooperativeness, energy and willingness to take responsibility are important aspects of success.
The most pervasive stream of the leadership school is concerned with how a leader gets tasks accomplished and responds to the needs of people. Two dimensions are important for the management of an enterprise--a concern for getting the task accomplished and a concern for the people doing the work. These two dimensions grow out of previous research which tried to describe the essential aspects of leadership (Hemphill 1959).
More recently, there have been suggestions that leaders should adjust their leadership style based on the situations facing them. Entrepreneurial leadership involves more than personal traits or style in relating to others. The role can be a focal point for change and inculcating values, and it can involve the skills of setting clear goals and creating opportunities. These include the skills of empowering people, preserving organizational intimacy, and developing a human resource system. This school describes a leader as the "social architect" or as one that is "primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values".
This school implies that leaders must be effective in developing and mentoring people. The leader is an experienced mentor by whom the protege is taught the "critical trade secrets." Because of the importance of the mentoring process, the entrepreneur is more than a manager, but also a leader of people.
There are two "streams" of writings concerning entrepreneurial leadership. The first stream of development has been grouped within the "great person" school, and describes the writings which suggest that certain traits and personal characteristics are important for success. The "great person" school follows early leadership research which suggests that traits such as adaptability to situations, cooperativeness, energy and willingness to take responsibility are important aspects of success.
The most pervasive stream of the leadership school is concerned with how a leader gets tasks accomplished and responds to the needs of people. Two dimensions are important for the management of an enterprise--a concern for getting the task accomplished and a concern for the people doing the work. These two dimensions grow out of previous research which tried to describe the essential aspects of leadership (Hemphill 1959).
More recently, there have been suggestions that leaders should adjust their leadership style based on the situations facing them. Entrepreneurial leadership involves more than personal traits or style in relating to others. The role can be a focal point for change and inculcating values, and it can involve the skills of setting clear goals and creating opportunities. These include the skills of empowering people, preserving organizational intimacy, and developing a human resource system. This school describes a leader as the "social architect" or as one that is "primarily an expert in the promotion and protection of values".
This school implies that leaders must be effective in developing and mentoring people. The leader is an experienced mentor by whom the protege is taught the "critical trade secrets." Because of the importance of the mentoring process, the entrepreneur is more than a manager, but also a leader of people.
The Intrapreneurship School of Entrepreneurship
The intrapreneurship school evolved in response to the lack of innovativeness and competitiveness within organizations. Intrapreneurs, to the limited extent that they possess discretionary freedom of action, are able to act as entrepreneurs and implement their ideas without themselves becoming owners. Alertness to opportunities is one dimension of intrapreneurial activity. Such strategic behavior provides the means for extending the organization's activities and discovering opportunities. This allows existing organizations to develop and diversify their activities in other areas. Intrapreneurship involves the development of independent units designed to create, market, and expand innovative services, technologies, or methods within the organization.
Some question arises as to why the intrapreneurship school should be considered a school of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial and administered (bureaucratic) activity have long been considered as polar opposites, although Schumpeter noted that successful entrepreneurial activity often leads to organization building and to entrepreneurs becoming managers (Schumpeter 1934).
The intrapreneurial school generally assumes that innovation can be achieved in existing organizations by encouraging people to work as entrepreneurs in semi-autonomous units. However, there are indications that large corporations have been unsuccessful in creating intrapreneurs or an entrepreneurial climate. Many managers involved in intrapreneurial ventures often leave the company, sometimes in frustration, to start their own entrepreneurial venture (Knight 1988). Their departure may indicate that entrepreneurial forces might be at odds with normal managerial activity, or that conventional organizations have not been able to use the intrapreneurship model to their best advantage. The success of the intrapreneurial model seems to depend on the abilities of operational level participants to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. It also depends on whether or not managers in the overall corporate structure see the need to exploit these opportunities.
The intrapreneurial school does not just provide a model for encouraging bureaucratic creativity. As a school, it is not merely an attempt to give freedom to a group of people so that they can be entrepreneurial. It also requires individuals to work with others in teams, much more than entrepreneurs do. When individuals work together in groups, they are better able to recognize the importance of political needs and understand how to implement their ideas. In this sense, intrapreneurship is a "team" model whereby individuals are asked to work together in solving problems and creating opportunities. Building a balanced "team" requires the ability to use people effectively in groups, where tasks require different input from team members.
Some question arises as to why the intrapreneurship school should be considered a school of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial and administered (bureaucratic) activity have long been considered as polar opposites, although Schumpeter noted that successful entrepreneurial activity often leads to organization building and to entrepreneurs becoming managers (Schumpeter 1934).
The intrapreneurial school generally assumes that innovation can be achieved in existing organizations by encouraging people to work as entrepreneurs in semi-autonomous units. However, there are indications that large corporations have been unsuccessful in creating intrapreneurs or an entrepreneurial climate. Many managers involved in intrapreneurial ventures often leave the company, sometimes in frustration, to start their own entrepreneurial venture (Knight 1988). Their departure may indicate that entrepreneurial forces might be at odds with normal managerial activity, or that conventional organizations have not been able to use the intrapreneurship model to their best advantage. The success of the intrapreneurial model seems to depend on the abilities of operational level participants to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. It also depends on whether or not managers in the overall corporate structure see the need to exploit these opportunities.
The intrapreneurial school does not just provide a model for encouraging bureaucratic creativity. As a school, it is not merely an attempt to give freedom to a group of people so that they can be entrepreneurial. It also requires individuals to work with others in teams, much more than entrepreneurs do. When individuals work together in groups, they are better able to recognize the importance of political needs and understand how to implement their ideas. In this sense, intrapreneurship is a "team" model whereby individuals are asked to work together in solving problems and creating opportunities. Building a balanced "team" requires the ability to use people effectively in groups, where tasks require different input from team members.
No comments:
Post a Comment