Leadership and intrapreneurship
Leadership and intrapreneurship are two important concepts for any organization to understand and cultivate to achieve success. Leadership involves the ability to inspire, motivate, and direct a team toward a common goal, while intrapreneurship is an entrepreneurial approach that focuses on identifying opportunities within an existing organization.
In an ever-changing business world, corporate entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly important for leaders to understand and embrace. As the traditional job market continues to evolve, more people are turning to starting their own businesses as a means of financial security. Leaders must be aware of this shift to remain competitive in today's environment and ensure their organization remains successful.
The concept of entrepreneurship has been around for centuries, but it is only recently that leaders have begun to recognize its importance. Entrepreneurship involves taking risks and seizing opportunities to create something new and innovative. Leaders must understand the value of this type of thinking if they are to remain competitive in today's market. In addition, entrepreneurs can provide valuable insight into how markets are shifting and what potential customers need or want. This knowledge can be invaluable when making decisions about the future direction of an organization.
Leaders who embrace the idea of entrepreneurship will find themselves better equipped for success in a rapidly changing business world.
They will also become more attractive as employers because they demonstrate an understanding that innovation is essential for long-term growth and stability. Additionally, leaders who embrace entrepreneurship tend to attract talented individuals with creative mindsets; these employees often bring fresh perspectives on traditional ways of doing things, which can help organizations stay ahead of their competition.
What is entrepreneurship?
Entrepreneurship has constantly been a dominating force in the economy. It alters the way we communicate, the way we live, and the way we work. It breeds Innovation and improves the quality of services and goods.
It is also one of the most studied areas in business research and economics. Ever since the early 1980s, entrepreneurship has been a topic of mounting interest among many management scholars and social scientists[1].
The literature on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs stems from three major sources:
economic authors, who emphasize the entrepreneur’s role in the development of the economy.
Ø Business and social writers, who emphasize the impact of the business and social atmosphere on entrepreneurship
Psychologists concentrate on entrepreneurs’ personality traits[2].
Entrepreneurial initiative is the concept of creating, taking risks, renewing, or innovating within or outside an organization. The entrepreneurial spirit also emphasizes innovation, search, and exploration. This explains why entrepreneurship is defined in many different ways.
Entrepreneurship is an important component of economic development and demonstrates its fundamental significance in diverse ways:
Ø By identifying, evaluating, and taking advantage of business opportunities
Ø By building new firms or making existing firms more dynamic
Ø By using competence, job creation, and innovation to drive the economy,
by largely improving society’s well-being.
Entrepreneurship is at the core of the dynamics of the economy and has continued to gain momentum as a relevant and significant field of research.
In various countries, policymakers are in a rush to encourage entrepreneurship, and company owners are searching for entrepreneurial employees[3].
The attention now placed on entrepreneurship is spurred on by the massive popularity of high-tech start-up firms, the growth of venture capital funding, the triumphs of regional clusters (Silicon Valley), and crowdfunding possibilities. Social scientists and management scholars interested in entrepreneurship often concentrate on studying its metaphors.
Companies all over the world are finding it hard to identify new ways to achieve competitiveness, profitability, and growth. This has turned into a hard objective, taking into consideration the pressures of the global economy. Common ways to accomplish growth in a firm are joint ventures, acquisitions, and mergers. However, generating growth from within a firm is still a challenging goal.
Entrepreneurship affects all organizations, regardless of age or size, whether they are public or private bodies, and independent of their goals. Its significance in the economy is revealed in its noticeable growth as a subject matter of interest for both academic literature and the economic press. For this reason, it is a matter of interest to academics, businessmen, and governments the world over.
Most industries across the globe operate in a competitive landscape.
This landscape is rife with powerful competition amongst existing players and the rise of many competitors that target particular sectors of the market. Transformations in modern business emphasize that, as a necessity, more companies need to be more entrepreneurial, and organizations all over the world are trying to promote entrepreneurship so that business prospects can be recognized and exploited.
Corporate venturing, according to Narayanan et al.[4] focuses on the laying down of processes and steps for building new businesses and incorporating them into the organization's general business portfolio. Chrisman and Sharma[5] affirm that corporate venturing can be separated into external and internal aspects. Internal business entails the formation of new businesses that usually reside within the organization.
Kuratko[6] states that pre-existing internal organizational structures could accommodate these new endeavors or that new organizational entities could be formed within the organization. However, the external involves organizations investing in early growth stages and young businesses formed by external parties; this includes joint ventures, acquisitions, licensing, and CVC (Corporate Venture Capital).
Secondly, as mentioned earlier, corporate entrepreneurship can perhaps embody a revitalization of activities that can improve a corporation’s capacity to take risks and compete, which might or might not entail adding new businesses to an organization. This facet of corporate entrepreneurship is defined as strategic entrepreneurship by Audretsch and Kuratko[7], and Morris et al.[8].
Also, it has been described[9] as involving the exploitation and identification of opportunities while simultaneously sustaining and creating a competitive advantage. It can entail organizational rejuvenation, business model reconstruction, sustained regeneration, domain redefinition, and strategic renewal[10]. In their review[11] however, they only focused on the last four of these. Activities in corporate entrepreneurship can occur at the project, corporate, functional, business, or spin-off venture levels[12]. Previous corporate venture research mostly focused its attention on the parent corporation rather than the spin-offs or venture levels[13].
To successfully implement entrepreneurship within their organizations, leaders should take a proactive approach toward identifying potential opportunities within their industry or sector and creating initiatives that align with those possibilities while still keeping costs low. Additionally, they should invest resources into researching emerging markets so that they can identify trends before anyone else does; this gives them a competitive edge over other companies by enabling them to capitalize on new ideas quickly before competitors catch up or even realize what’s happening in the first place!
Furthermore, successful entrepreneurs know how important it is for teams within organizations to work together effectively; thus, leaders must ensure there is strong communication between departments within their company so everyone understands each other’s goals and objectives clearly while also being aware of any potential conflicts that could arise from working too closely together (e.g., different ideas or strategies).
Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship
“Intrapreneurship” is entrepreneurship that occurs within a large corporation[14]. The term was coined by Pinchot & Pinchot[15] and these entrepreneurs were referred to as “intra-corporate entrepreneurs” or “intrapreneurs”. Large corporations soon recognized the advantages of exploiting the entrepreneurial spirit inside their organizations and embarked on maximizing the potential of their human capital. Pinchot[16] described “intrapreneurs” as creative thinkers who are directly responsible for the creation of innovation within a corporation. Initiatives by an organization’s employees to take on new business activities are referred to as “intrapreneurship”. Even though intrapreneurship is similar to corporate entrepreneurship, these are different concepts[17]. Corporate entrepreneurship is typically classified at organizational levels and is a top-down process (a strategy by management to cultivate initiatives by the workforce and their effort to develop innovative new businesses). Intrapreneurship, on the other hand, is about the proactive, bottom-up work-related initiatives of employees (individuals) at the individual level.
Consistent human resources management (HRM) practices reinforce one another so that their sum has a synergistic influence on desired employee behaviors[18]. Hornsby, Kuratko, and Montagno[19] identified five success factors linking HR practices to corporate entrepreneurship (CE). These include:
The appropriate use of rewards,
The provision of management support for innovation,
The availability of resources for innovation,
an organizational structure conducive to learning and cooperation,
Individual risk-taking
Research[20] has confirmed the empirical significance of these five dimensions of organizational environments in promoting corporate entrepreneurship. In another study, Morris and Jones[21] identified five sets of
HRM practices associated with corporate entrepreneurship
1. Performance appraisals: It is worth stressing that performance appraisals are oriented towards ends rather than means. They measure both individual and group performance. They reflect a tolerance for failure; their content includes innovation and risk-taking behavior.
2. Compensation: In entrepreneurial firms, base pay is lower and there is a greater amount of pay at risk. Entrepreneurial companies balance both long- and short-term performance and individual and group performance.
3. Orientation and training: Entrepreneurial firms invest more time and effort in orienting their new employees, and there is more group-oriented training.
4. Recruitment and career development: entrepreneurial firms emphasize the external labor market and offer a variety of career paths.
5. Job design: Job designs tend to be less structured and more complex, offering more discretionary authority and freedom[22].
Evidence of a correlation between certain HR practices such as selection, training, performance management, rewards, and career development that encourage entrepreneurial behaviors and corporate entrepreneurship was presented by Twomey and Harris[23]. There is one common thread in studies of human resources management practices and corporate entrepreneurship. This states that there is a need for human resources systems to support informal employee contributions, encourage cooperation, and avoid unnecessary bureaucratic constraints on behavior[24].
Idea generation, opportunity perception, recombination of resources, designing new products, persuading management, internal coalition building, planning and organizing, and resource acquisition are major activities in entrepreneurship. Risk-taking, taking charge, personal initiative, out-of-the-box thinking, active information search, championing, voicing, and finding a way is key behavioral aspects of entrepreneurship.
Research on metaphors is well-recognized in the field of entrepreneurship. Charteris-Black (2004) stresses that metaphor comprises meanings of transfer. The use of metaphors allows individuals to map out a schema that is familiar to them in a new domain and evaluate the suitability of the relationships amongst variables[25]. This facilitates the understanding of abstract and complex ideas[26], like entrepreneurship. Metaphors are famous for capturing emotions and experiences more than literal discourse[27].
Scholars have researched the metaphors used by entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs[28]) for entrepreneurship[29]. Numerous scholars have studied the metaphors used by the media to portray entrepreneurs[30]. Also, the application of metaphors for sense-giving and sense-making among entrepreneurs is another research subject[31].
Entrepreneurship analogies and metaphors
Where an entrepreneur’s past experiences are limited to entrenched words or references to certain isolated features of an industry and not the entire industry, the entrepreneur can project these features but should ensure that they are aligned with the provisional representation of the industry before any inferences can be made or derived[32].
In cases like this, analogical inferences arise in the discursive elaboration of comparison, where features of the source and the target source are first aligned before any inferences are made from the source to the target[33]. This analogical reasoning is known as the alignment-first model, as entrepreneurs will discursively project and align features of the source (ventures in a known industry) and target (a novel venture in a novel industry), and because the results can be used to project and elaborate on additional features of the source. This can lead to inferences when features are discursively blended with the target or make additional features salient[34].
When entrepreneurs lack proper analogies to give because of a lack of experience in that industry, they face a clear sense-making imperative[35] and can therefore be forced to draw meaning from entrenched idiomatic words or expressions that they will metaphorically extend to the new venture situation as a way of creating understanding[36]. Lacking directly related experiences and observations, entrepreneurs will reduce their use of metaphors due to their liking of language and the pressure of adapting to a limited inventory of conversational units and ever-changing situations that require idiomatic expression[37].
Therefore, depending on the entrepreneur’s experience in the field, they can use specific analogies or metaphors in their communications to give a structure some understanding and thus increase predictability. Linking their communication to past experiences with the same venture can be analogically thought of as a way of strengthening trust in a venture in a novel industry, thereby creating predictability.
Zott and Huy[38], and Martens et al.[39], all report on how entrepreneurs communicate their analogical links between novel ventures and their past achievements. Entrepreneurs can also draw analogous links with other organizations and industries to predict issues and how they might affect certain situations.
But when there is a lack of direct links and direct parallels that can be drawn, the entrepreneur is likely to use metaphors to make others understand the venture and therefore enhance predictability. Weber et al[40] analyzed how entrepreneurs in a ‘grass-fed’ environment (agricultural and food products) mainly create new markets through their use of idioms such as ‘living soil’ and ‘heritage breed’ cattle. This resonates well with the broader value orientations of the stakeholders.
There are no common analogical parallels to draw on the production side, as opposed to established commitments around local, sustainable, and slow food consumption. The entrepreneurs, therefore, resorted to using idiomatic expressions that resonated with the familiar cultural understandings of the people involved in sustainability and the natural environment. In turn, this created a solid rationale for the venture.
Transform Your Leadership and Unlock Your Full Potential with Executive Coaching
Are you eager to take your leadership skills to the next level? Do you aspire to become an exceptional executive who drives meaningful change and achieves extraordinary results? Look no further than our transformative leadership coaching and executive coaching programs.
Entrepreneurship literature and bibliography
[1] Cooper, A. 2003. Entrepreneurship: The Past, the Present, and the Future. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Vol. 1. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[2] Deakins, D. (1999). Entrepreneurship and small firms London: McGraw-Hill.
[3] Chmielecki M., Active listening skills in crisis negotiations, Spoeczna Akademia Nauk, ód 2013.
[4] Narayanan V., Yang Y., and Zahra S., Corporate venturing and value creation: a review and proposed framework, Research Policy, forthcoming, 2009.
[5] Sharma P., Chrisman J.J., Towards Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 24(1), 1999.
[6] Kuratko D., Corporate Entrepreneurship: Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, Cambridge, 2007.
[7] Kuratko D., Audretsch D., Strategic Entrepreneurship: Exploring Different Perspectives of an Emerging Concept, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 33, 2009, pp. 1–17.
[8] Morris M., Kuratko D., and Covin J., Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Thomson/South-Western Publishers, Mason, OH. Q., 2008.
[9] Ireland R.D., Hitt M.A., and Sirman D.G., A model of strategic entrepreneurship: the construct and its dimensions, „Journal of Management”, No. 29(6), 2003, pp. 963–989.
[10] Covin J., Miles M., Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 23, 1999, pp. 47–63.
[11] Dess G.G., Ireland R.D., Zahra S.A., Floyd S.W., Janney J.J., Lane P.J., Emerging issues in corporate entrepreneurship, „Journal of Management”, No. 29/3, 2003, pp. 351-378.
[12] Zahra S., Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: an exploratory study, Journal of Business Venturing”, No. 6, 1991, pp. 259–285.
[13] Narayanan V., Yang Y., and Zahra S., Corporate venturing and value creation: a review and proposed framework, Research Policy, forthcoming 2009.
[14] Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D., Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept, „Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2003, pp. 7–24.
[15] Pinchot G., Pinchot E., Intra-Corporate Entrepreneurship, 1978, < intrapreneur.com.
[16] Pinchot G., Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur, Harper & Row, New York, 1985.
[17] Antoncic B., Hisrich R.D., Clarifying the Intrapreneurship Concept, „Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2003, pp. 7–24; Sharma P., Chrisman J.J., Towards Reconciliation of the Definitional Issues in the Field of Corporate Entrepreneurship, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 24(1), 1999.
[18] E.g., Delery J.E., Doty D.H., Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Test of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance patterns, „Academy of Management Journal”, No. 39, 1996, pp. 802–825.
[19] Hornsby J.S., Kuratko D.F., and Montagno R.V., Perception of internal factors for corporate entrepreneurship: A comparison of Canadian and U.S. managers, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, 24(2), 1999, pp. 9–24.
[20] Hornsby J. S., Naffziger D.W., Kuratko D.F., and Montagno R.V., An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 17(2), 1993, pp. 29–37.
[21] Morris M.H., Jones F.F., Human resource management practices, and corporate entrepreneurship: An empirical assessment from the USA, „International Journal of Human Resource Management”, No. 4(4), 1993, pp. 873–896.
[22] Hayton J.C., Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research, „Human Resource Management Review”, No. 15, 2005, pp. 21–41.
[23] Twomey D.F., Harris D.L., From strategy to corporate outcomes: aligning human resource management systems with entrepreneurial intent, „International Journal of Commerce and Management”, Vol. 10, Iss. 3/4, 2000, pp. 43–55.
[24] Chmielecki M., Development of Corporate Entrepreneurship in the Context of Human Resource Management and Organizational Culture in Polish Organizations: Research Results, Przedsibiorczo i Zarzdzanie, No. 14.9, Zarzdzanie zasobami ludzkimi, 2013, pp. 101–116.
[25] Wickman S.A., Daniels M.H., White L.J., and Fesmire S.A., A „primer” in conceptual metaphor for counselors, „Journal of Counseling & Development”, No. 77, 1999, pp. 389–394.
[26] Dunford R., Palmer I., Metaphors in Popular Management Discourse: The Case of Corporate Restructuring, [In] Grant D., Oswick C. (Ed.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 95–109.
[27] Dunford R., Palmer I., Metaphors in Popular Management Discourse: The Case of Corporate Restructuring, [In] Grant D., Oswick C. (Ed.), Metaphor and Organizations, Sage, London 1996, pp. 95–109.
[28] Korainen M., North European metaphors of entrepreneurship and an entrepreneur, [In] Bygrave W.D., Birley S., Churchill N.C., Gatewood E., Hoy F., Kecley R.H., Wetzel W.E. (Ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Waltham, „P and R Publications”, 1995.
[29] Dodd S., Metaphors and Meaning: A Grounded Cultural Model of US Entrepreneurship, „Journal of Business Venturing”, No. 17, 2000, pp. 519–535; Hyrsky K., Entrepreneurial Metaphors and Concepts: An Exploratory Study, „International Small Journal”, No. 18(1), 1999, pp. 13–34.
[30] Nicholson L., Anderson A., News and nuances of the entrepreneurial myth and metaphor: Linguistic games in entrepreneurial sense-making and sense-giving, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 29, 2005, pp. 153–172.
[31] Hill R.C., Levenhagen M., Metaphors and mental models: sensemaking and sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities, „Journal of Management”, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1995, pp. 1057–1074.
[32] E.g. Baker T., Nelson R.E, Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage, Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 50, 2005, pp. 329–366, Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C., Metaphor is like analogy, [In] Gentner D., Holyoak K.J., and Kokinov B.N. (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge 2001, pp. 199–253; Haunschild P.R., Miner A.S., Modes of Interorganizational Imitation: The Effects of Outcome Salience and Uncertainty, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 41, 1997, pp. 47–500; Terlaak A., Gong Y., Vicarious learning and inferential accuracy in adoption processes, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 33, 2008, pp. 846–868.
[33] E.g., Fauconnier G., Mappings in Thought and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997; Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C., Metaphor is like Analogy, [In] Gentner D., Holyoak K.J., Kokinov B.N. (ed.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge 2001, pp. 199–253.
[34] Fauconnier G., Mappings in Thought and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997; Fauconnier G., Turner M., Conceptual Integration Networks, „Cognitive Science”, No. 22.2, 1998, pp. 133–187; Gentner D., Bowdle B., Wolff P., Boronat C., Metaphor is like Analogy, [In] Gentner D., Holyoak K.J., Kokinov B.N. (ed.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, MIT Press, Cambridge 2001, pp.
[35] Robichaud D., Giroux H., and Taylor J.R., The Metaconversation: Recursivity of Language as a Key to Organization, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 29, 2004, pp. 617–634; Sarasvathy S.D., Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency, „Academy of Management Review”, No. 26, 2001, pp. 243-288; Sarasvathy S.D., Making it Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm Design, „Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice”, No. 28, 2004, pp. 519–531.
[36] Goldberg A.E., Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1995; Lakoff G., The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, [In] Ortony A. (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (second edition), Cambridge: At the University Press, 1993.
[37] Langacker R.W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume II, Descriptive Applications, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991.
[38] Zott C., Huy Q.N., How entrepreneurs use symbolic management to acquire resources, „Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 52, 2007, pp. 70–105.
[39] Martens M.L., Jennings J.E., Jennings P.D., Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition, „Academy of Management Journal”, No. 50, 2007, pp. 1107–1132.
[40] Weber K., Heinze K., and DeSoucey M., Forage for Thought: Mobilizing Codes in the Movement for Grass-Fed Meat and Dairy Products, Administrative Science Quarterly”, No. 53, 2008, pp. 529–567.
We invite you to explore our leadership blog and tune in to our insightful leadership podcast to elevate your leadership skills and achieve your professional goals. Stay tuned for regular updates and enriching content that will empower you to lead with confidence and excellence.