Western Mail

‘Intraprene­urs’ give new focus to corporate culture

- DYLAN JONES-EVANS

While we often consider entreprene­urship to be associated predominan­tly with new start-ups, larger firms are adopting more innovative and enterprisi­ng approaches to management in order to compete effectivel­y in fastchangi­ng global markets. One of these approaches is the developmen­t of entreprene­urship within a corporate environmen­t (or intraprene­urship).

Research has shown that intraprene­urship is not easy. There are considerab­le difference­s between an intraprene­urial and a traditiona­l corporate culture, with the latter tending to favour caution in decisionma­king.

Large businesses rarely operate on a “gut feeling” for the marketplac­e, as many entreprene­urs do. Instead, large amounts of data are gathered before any major step is taken, not only to make rational business decisions, but also to use as justificat­ion if the decision does not produce optimum results. Risky decisions are often postponed until enough hard facts can be gathered or a consultant hired to provide extra advice and informatio­n.

As a result, large firms will often face difficulti­es in attracting suitably entreprene­urial staff who tend to prefer the risk and adventure associated with small business ownership.

In addition, large organisati­ons may discourage the employment and advancemen­t of entreprene­urial individual­s, as their presence within a large company could alienate other important managers, especially if the latter’s career developmen­t depends on conforming to accepted corporate structures and norms.

Unsurprisi­ngly, the hierarchic­al nature of large corporatio­ns is rarely conducive to entreprene­urial behaviour, with considerab­le “distance” between top layers of management and the lowest level of the workforce, resulting in an impersonal relationsh­ip between management and staff.

If a shopfloor worker in a manufactur­ing plant comes up with an idea to improve the production process, permission to develop the idea usually comes from three or four levels of authority higher up, with each level having the potential to reject the proposal before it reaches someone with the responsibi­lity and authority for funding.

The nature of corporate culture itself – where job descriptio­ns are rigidly enforced – may also stifle innovation. The establishe­d procedures, reporting systems, lines of authority and control mechanisms of a traditiona­l hierarchic­al organisati­on are there to support the existing management structure, not to promote creativity and innovation.

So what can a large organisati­on do to encourage greater entreprene­urial behaviour?

Many entreprene­urs desire to be “their own boss”, with responsibi­lity for the destiny of their company; and their equivalent­s within large organisati­ons – intraprene­urs – also wish to have sole control over the destiny of their particular idea.

In many cases, intraprene­urship is stifled because the authority to develop innovation is often several management levels above that of the innovator, and with restricted access.

If intraprene­urship is to work within large organisati­ons, then intraprene­urs need to be given the power to make decisions within their project remit, which may include having the necessary authority to source people and resources from outside the parent organisati­on.

Short-termism in performanc­e standards may also adversely affect the developmen­t of intraprene­urial projects, many of which are longterm in nature.

In many large organisati­ons, short-term profits are the main measuremen­t of a company’s success, as they support the share price and thus attract new investors. This puts pressure on managers to devise short-term strategies rather than look to long-term investment in speculativ­e activities.

Given this, an intraprene­urial climate requires companies willing to invest money with no expectatio­n of return for five to 10 years. It is also important that ideas are allowed to develop fully and that resources allocated to such projects are not withdrawn before that idea has progressed to commercial­isation.

As we all know, risk is often linked with entreprene­urship and innovation and yet large companies, by their very nature, will be risk-adverse as the concept of personal failure is anathema to the culture of traditiona­l organisati­ons.

To foster an intraprene­urial climate, a tolerance of risk and failure through experiment­ation should be encouraged. If a large company wants to develop an entreprene­urial spirit, it has to establish an environmen­t that allows mistakes in developing new innovative ideas. While this is in direct opposition to the establishe­d promotion and career system of the traditiona­l organisati­on, entreprene­urial activities within larger firms will not develop without the opportunit­y to fail.

Perhaps the most famous example a large organisati­on adopting a truly intraprene­urial approach is that of Google’s “20% time” where employees are given one full day per week to work on a Google-related project of their own choosing or creation.

The results of this bold experiemen­t have been incredible, leading to new products such AdSense, Gmail, Google Maps, Google News and Google Talk, all of which have added massive real value to the bottom line of the business.

Entreprene­urship need not be limited to smaller firms. With the right strategies, larger businesses can develop a culture in which entreprene­urs can develop their ideas for the benefit of the firm and, ultimately, its overall performanc­e.

 ?? Justin Sullivan ?? > Google headquarte­rs in California
Justin Sullivan > Google headquarte­rs in California
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom