13th Annual International Management Conference Proceeding

More documents

Recommendations

Info

There are similarly many questions about what the psychological and social traits of entrepreneurs are. The same traits shared by two individuals can often lead to vast different results; successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs can share the characteristics commonly identified. As well, the studies of the life paths of entrepreneurs often show decreasing 'entrepreneurship' following success, which tends to disprove the centrality of character or personality traits as a sufficient basis for defining entrepreneurship Bird (1989). Kigundu (2002) sums up that both negative and positive correlates may lead to entrepreneurial success. See the correlates listed in Table 2: Table 2 Negative and Positive Correlates That Lead to Entrepreneurial Success Positive correlates Negative correlates which could sometimes be positive depending on other factors a) Achievement orientation a) Systemic corruption b) Risk taking propensity b) Community leadership c) Hard work and high energy c) Industry/sector d) Technical and managerial skills d) Sources of capital e) Business acumen e) Octopus f) Innovativeness f) Training g) Necessary infrastructure g) Consultancy h) Corporate governance h) Subsidies i) Competitiveness i) Social capital j) Political representation Source: Kigundu (2002) The focus of study in the field of entrepreneurship has shifted over the years. Increasingly there has been more focus on examining entrepreneurship from an organisational perspective. Corporate entrepreneurship, corporate venturing and intrapreneurship are all terms that are used to classify entrepreneurial activities within organisations. Viewing entrepreneurship from an organisational perspective is consistent with the views of Schumpeter (1942), who argues that entrepreneurship will eventually be dominated by firms that are capable of devoting more resources to innovation. Schumpeter (1942) presents some interesting reasoning for why a firm should increase its entrepreneurial activity. He points out that a single entrepreneur creates new profitable avenues. As a result, he indicates that more entrepreneurs innovating are good for the economy as a whole. Applying these ideas to the firm level, the more sources of entrepreneurial activity within the firm, the more the opportunity is created for the firm. Schumpeter (1942) also proposes that entrepreneurial-driven economic activity leads to higher levels of income and that this relationship does not suffer from diminishing returns. This paper adopts the definition by Hirsh and Peters (2002), that entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new with value by devoting the necessary time and effort, assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, and social risks, and receiving the resultant rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence. Further, Bird’s (1989) definition of entrepreneurial behaviour will be adopted: “entrepreneurial behaviour is opportunistic, value-driven, risk accepting, creative activity where ideas take the form of organisational birth, growth or transformation” (pg 5). 2.2 The Concept of Intrapreneurship The word ‘intrapreneur’ or ‘intrapreneurship' has evolved over the last decade or so into ‘business English’. It is coined from the word ‘entrepreneur’ and represents the practice of the intrapreneur. The American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines the intrapreneur as a person within a large corporation who takes direct responsibility for turning an idea into a profitable finished product through assertive risk-taking and innovation. The intrapreneur is the one who comes up with new ideas, who pushes for change, who develops creative responses in the organisation, who takes full advantage of opportunities. S/he should have moved from an 'administrative mode’ to an ‘entrepreneurial mode’. 45
The intrapreneur is really the corporate equivalent of the entrepreneur. We could also call him the corporate or internal entrepreneur. The intrapreneur could be the non–owner manager, business unit manager, Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer. He could be the Chief Information Officer who transforms his unit from being an information technology (IT) <strong>Management</strong> Support Unit to being a Strategic Business Unit, offering IT based products and services on a commercial basis in – house and to third parties. Intrapreneurship is entrepreneurship within an existing organisation. It can be defined as a process by which individuals inside organisations pursue opportunities without regard to the resources they currently control, and as doing new things and departing from the customary to pursue opportunities (Vesper, 1990). Intrapreneurship can also be conceptualised in terms of the pursuit of creative or new solutions to challenges confronting the firm, including the development or enhancement of old and new products and services, markets, and administrative techniques and technologies for performing organisational functions. In this context, changes in strategy, organisational structures and systems, and methods of dealing with competitors may all be seen as innovations in the broadest sense of the term. Intrapreneurship means bottom-up business building, spearheaded by people who yesterday were working as line managers or employees. It is inconsistent with reengineering, downsizing, and other efficiency methodologies. Intrapreneurship has been classified by its characteristics into four dimensions: (a) new business venturing, (b) innovativeness, (c) self-renewal, and (d) proactiveness (Hisrich and Peters, 2002). New business venturing is the most salient characteristic of intrapreneurship since it can result in new business creation within an existing organisation by redefining the company's products or services and/or by developing new markets. In large corporations, it could also include formation of more formally autonomous or semiautonomous units or firms. For all organisations regardless of size, the new business-venturing dimension refers to the creation of new businesses that are related to existing products or markets regardless of the level of autonomy. In contrast, the innovativeness dimension refers to product and service innovation with emphasis on development and innovation in technology. The third dimension, self-renewal, reflects the transformation of organisations through the renewal of key ideas on which they are built. This has strategic and organisational change connotations that include the redefinition of the business concept, reorganisation and the introduction of system wide changes for innovation, new strategic direction and continuous renewal of the organisation. The final dimension, proactiveness, is related to aggressive posturing and leadership relative to competitors, risk-taking, initiative taking and boldness and aggressiveness in pursuing opportunities. The impact of intrapreneurs can be felt on the corporate level or within their business unit. They go beyond being manager. They may not be partly or wholly owners of the business but get a benefit [usually in the short – term] for their performance. They should be rewarded appropriately through a performance based bonus plan i.e. tied to the bottom – line. They should have positions of authority and be decision – makers. Like wise, Intrapreneurship has been operationalised in empirical research in many diverse ways. Some of the variables used to model intrapreneurship are as follows: Innovativeness/innovation; risk taking; proactiveness; competitive aggressiveness; prior venture experience; slack resources/ resource availability; autonomy; rewards and sanctions; centralisation of decision making; specialisation; organisational support; time availability; organisational structure; organisational communication; environmental scanning; organisational values/culture; self renewal; new business venturing and ownership (Maes, 2003, Antoncic and Hisrich, 2001; Kuratko et al, 1990, Zahra 1995, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995). These variables refer to practices or circumstances that can in some degree be controlled by the organisation. Studies on intrapreneurship by Zahra (1991and 1999) focused on the manufacturing corporations in the USA and found that internal organisational characteristics impact on intrapreneurship. The paper also found that intrapreneurship improves performance. This paper was confirmed by Rusell and Rusell (1992) in a study of 77 strategic business units in the USA and Antoncic and Hisrich (1998) in a study of Slovenian firms. In addition, improved organisational results, usually in terms of growth and profitability, are thought to be a result of intrapreneurship (Zahra, 1991; Zahra and Covin, 1995; Antoncic and Hisrich, 1998). Smart and Conant (1994) captures not only the dynamic process in dimensions of innovation, risk-taking 46
Page 1 and 2: Gender diversity on the Board, Inte
Page 3 and 4: its own. Relationship-based assets
Page 5 and 6: Boards, for example, enable the fir
Page 7 and 8: H7: Firms with diverse boards are i
Page 9 and 10: 29. Johnson, J., Daily, C., and Ell
Page 11 and 12: population in Kenya especially in a
Page 13 and 14: John Adair highlighted the importan
Page 15 and 16: PRACTICAL ANALYSIS TO RESOLVING KEY
Page 17 and 18: SUB-THEME : SOCIO-CULTURAL ISSUES A
Page 19 and 20: ecognize and nourish their capabili
Page 21 and 22: threatened by increased dynamism in
Page 23 and 24: 2.0 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK At the ro
Page 25 and 26: 2.1 Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Dev
Page 27 and 28: FIGURE I: THE ROLE OF KENYA INSITIT
Page 29 and 30: 4.2.3 Researches Services This is a
Page 31 and 32: Source: GOK, Central Bureau of Stat
Page 33 and 34: with regard to training, research a
Page 35 and 36: REFERENCES 1. Balunywa Waswa, (2004
Page 37 and 38: APPENDIX I: SCHEDULED PROGRAMMES RU
Page 39 and 40: economy activities that include one
Page 41 and 42: III. SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE (S
Page 43 and 44: two professors used a survey questi
Page 45 and 46: V. RECOMMENDATIONS : ADDRESSING THE
Page 47 and 48: 16. International Finance Corporati
Page 49 and 50: DEVELOPING INTRAPRENEURSHIP IN SMAL
Page 51: � Innovators � Leaders � Inde
Page 55 and 56: Figure 1 The Model of Intrapreneurs
Page 57 and 58: 1. Leadership - Any organizational
Page 59 and 60: to (Kolveried and Amo, 2002). This
Page 61 and 62: REFERENCES 1. Antoncic, Bostjan and
Page 63 and 64: 39. Kibas, Peter B. and George O. K
Page 65 and 66: 75. Whitehead Martin (2004). Rescue
Page 67 and 68: Perceived desirability Perceived fe
Page 69 and 70: experience empathy is a social entr
Page 71 and 72: ATTITUDES (Behavioral beliefs x Out
Page 73 and 74: Sociologists and organizational the
Page 75 and 76: accountability. They assess their p
Page 77 and 78: DETERMINANTS OF AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT
Page 79 and 80: The Objective of the study The obje
Page 81 and 82: A production function portrays an i
Page 83 and 84: But, Y � ax j i i bi xj b ui je .
Page 85 and 86: Land Land size and land fragmentati
Page 87 and 88: Agricultural Extension Because of l
Page 89 and 90: REFERENCES: 1. Chambers R. (1983) R
Page 91 and 92: The training approach to small ente
Page 93 and 94: Topic of Training No. of Respondent
Page 95 and 96: Key to Figure A - More capital inve
Page 97 and 98: Conclusion programmes were implemen
Page 99 and 100: Bibliography 1. Abrahamson, R and H
Page 101 and 102: whether those trained start their o
Page 103 and 104:
Changes were also noted in business
Page 105 and 106:
Conclusions From the findings, ther
Page 107 and 108:
References 1. Baldwin, T. T., & For
show all

13th Annual International Management Conference Proceeding

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?