1.Desire for responsibility.
Entrepreneurs feel a deep sense of personal responsibility for the
outcome of ventures they start. They prefer to be in control of their resources, and they use
those resources to achieve self-determined goals. Deborah Sullivan, a lifelong serial entrepreneur
realized at the age of 16 that she did not want to spend her life working for others.
“You’re stuck by all of these different rules [when you work for someone else],” she says.
“I wanted to create something for myself.” Sullivan has been an entrepreneur since she
was 22 years old, when she launched a hair salon and spa in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2012, at
the age of 60, Sullivan started Consign Werks, a consignment shop in Greenville, South
Carolina, which she says has been the most gratifying of her entrepreneurial ventures
perhaps because she knew almost nothing about the business until she spent months
researching and learning everything she could about consignment shops.13
2. Preference for moderate risk.
Entrepreneurs are not wild risk takers but are instead calculated
risk takers. Lee Lin, who left his job at a large investment bank to start RentHop, an online
service that helps renters find the ideal apartment in New York City, says that entrepreneurs
who risk everything typically do not stay in business very long. Lin says that to minimize risk,
he manages his company’s finances carefully and focuses on profitable growth opportunities.14
A study of the founders of the businesses listed as Inc. magazine’s fastest-growing companies
found no correlation between risk tolerance and entrepreneurship. The common belief that entrepreneurs
prefer taking big risks is a myth.
3.Self-reliance.
Entrepreneurs must fill multiple roles to make their companies successful,
especially in tDesirehe early days of a start-up. Because their resources usually are limited, they
end up performing many jobs themselves, even those they know little about. Yet, entrepreneurs
demonstrate a high level of self-reliance and do not shy away from the responsibility
for making their businesses succeed. Perhaps that is why many entrepreneurs persist in
building businesses even when others ridicule their ideas as follies.
4. Confidence in their ability to succeed.
Entrepreneurs typically have an abundance of
confidence in their ability to succeed and are confident that they chose the correct career
path. Entrepreneurs’ high levels of optimism may explain why some of the most successful
entrepreneurs have failed in business—often more than once—before finally succeeding.
 |
| entrepreneurial profile |
5. Desire for immediate feedback.
Entrepreneurs enjoy the challenge of running a business,
and they like to know how they are doing and are constantly looking for feedback. The
feedback they receive from their businesses drives them to set higher standards of performance
for their companies and themselves.22
6. High level of energy.
Entrepreneurs are more energetic than the average person. That
energy may be a critical factor given the incredible effort required to launch a start-up
company. Long hours and hard work are the rule rather than the exception, and the pace can
be grueling. According to a recent survey by Bank of America, 72 percent of small business
owners work more than 40 hours per week.
7. Future orientation.
Entrepreneurs have a well-defined sense of searching for opportunities.
They look ahead and are less concerned with what they did yesterday than with what
they might do tomorrow. Not satisfied to sit back and revel in their success, real entrepreneurs
stay focused on the future.
Intrapreneurship is a contemporary issue with pressing relevance for corporate managers. Antoncic and Hisrich conclude that Intrapreneurship has a positive impact on organisational growth and profitability. Organisations that build structures and embed values to support Intrapreneurship are consequently more likely to have a high Intrapreneurial Orientation and are more likely to grow than organisations with a low Intrapreneurial Orientation. Intrapreneurial organisations are more innovative, they continually renew and this proactive approach leads to new business venturing. Interestingly, their findings indicate that Intrapreneurship could be particularly beneficial for transition economies.
Antoncic & Hisrich find that good quality open communications together with a formal structure and supported by environmental scanning and management support will help an organisation become more intrapreneurial. Barringer at al support this assertion and describe the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. They found that the following variables can influence the organisation: Scanning Intensity, Planning Flexibility, Planning Horizon, Locus of Planning and Control Attributes. McKinsey’s survey supports the view that organisations with a formal process report higher success rates.
In general, the academic approach to Intrapreneurship is predominantly based on the company wide re-organisation required to foster intrapreneurship. By contrast, the corporate view is often that innovation is the means, rather than the end. This is described in Capozzi et al.) where the driver for innovation is identified as the strategic need to grow the core business. Thus, there is often a difference in the vocabulary used with academics preferring intrapreneurship and practitioners talking of innovation.
Practicing managers looking to increase their organisation’s Intrapreneurial Orientation, or their organisation’s capacity for innovation could familiarize themselves with Altringer’s "New model for innovation"; this relies on successful entrepreneurs facilitating innovation sessions. This pragmatic approach relies on timely interventions to generate innovative ideas, rather than a company wide cultural change requiring organisational re-design. Another approach to bridging the gap between practitioners and academia is the model proposed by Anthony et al. The Minimum Viable Innovation System (MVIS) is an attempt to take the essence of academic models and demonstrate how organisations can implement a MVIS within 90 days.Courtesy of wikipedia....
Depth descripition
Why is Intrapreneurship a contemporary issue and how do practitioners apply the knowledge?Intrapreneurship is a contemporary issue with pressing relevance for corporate managers. Antoncic and Hisrich conclude that Intrapreneurship has a positive impact on organisational growth and profitability. Organisations that build structures and embed values to support Intrapreneurship are consequently more likely to have a high Intrapreneurial Orientation and are more likely to grow than organisations with a low Intrapreneurial Orientation. Intrapreneurial organisations are more innovative, they continually renew and this proactive approach leads to new business venturing. Interestingly, their findings indicate that Intrapreneurship could be particularly beneficial for transition economies.
Antoncic & Hisrich find that good quality open communications together with a formal structure and supported by environmental scanning and management support will help an organisation become more intrapreneurial. Barringer at al support this assertion and describe the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. They found that the following variables can influence the organisation: Scanning Intensity, Planning Flexibility, Planning Horizon, Locus of Planning and Control Attributes. McKinsey’s survey supports the view that organisations with a formal process report higher success rates.
In general, the academic approach to Intrapreneurship is predominantly based on the company wide re-organisation required to foster intrapreneurship. By contrast, the corporate view is often that innovation is the means, rather than the end. This is described in Capozzi et al.) where the driver for innovation is identified as the strategic need to grow the core business. Thus, there is often a difference in the vocabulary used with academics preferring intrapreneurship and practitioners talking of innovation.
Practicing managers looking to increase their organisation’s Intrapreneurial Orientation, or their organisation’s capacity for innovation could familiarize themselves with Altringer’s "New model for innovation"; this relies on successful entrepreneurs facilitating innovation sessions. This pragmatic approach relies on timely interventions to generate innovative ideas, rather than a company wide cultural change requiring organisational re-design. Another approach to bridging the gap between practitioners and academia is the model proposed by Anthony et al. The Minimum Viable Innovation System (MVIS) is an attempt to take the essence of academic models and demonstrate how organisations can implement a MVIS within 90 days.Courtesy of wikipedia....
No comments:
Post a Comment