Intrapreneurship is the act of behaving like an entrepreneur, except within a larger organization.

[edit]Definition In 1992, The American Heritage Dictionary acknowledged the popular use of a new word, intrapreneur, to mean "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". Intrapreneurship is now known as the practice of a corporate management style that integrates risk-taking and innovation approaches, as well as the reward and motivational techniques, that are more traditionally thought of as being the province of entrepreneurship. [edit]History The first written use of the terms intrapreneur, intrapreneuring, and intrapreneurship date from a paper[1] written in 1978 by Gifford & Elizabeth Pinchot. Later the term was credited to Gifford Pinchot III by Norman Macrae in the April 17, 1982 issue of The Economist.[2] The first formal academic case study of corporate entrepreneurship or intrapreneurship was published in June 1982, as a Master's in Management Thesis, by Howard Edward Haller, on the intrapreneurial creation of PR1ME Leasing within PR1ME Computer Inc. (from 1977 to 1981). This academic research was later published as a case study by VDM Verlag as Intrapreneurship Success:A PR1ME Example by Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language included the term 'intrapreneur' in its 3rd 1992 Edition, and also credited[3] Gifford Pinchot III as the originator of the concept. The term "intrapreneurship" was used in the popular media first in February 1985 by TIME magazine article "Here come the Intrapreneurs" and then the same year in another major popular publication was in a quote by Steve Jobs, Apple Computers Chairman, in an interview in the September 1985 Newsweekarticle,[4] where he shared, The Macintosh team was what is commonly known as intrapreneurship;only a few years before the term was coineda group of people going, in essence, back to the garage, but in a large company." [edit]Employee

Intrapreneur

"Intrapreneurship refers to employee initiatives in organizations to undertake something new, without being asked to do so." [5] Hence, the intrapreneur focuses on innovation and creativity, and transforms an idea into a profitable venture, while operating within the organizational environment. Thus, intrapreneurs are Inside entrepreneurs who follow the goal of the organization. Intrapreneurship is an example of motivation through job design, either formally or informally. (See also Corporate Social Entrepreneurship: intrapreneurship within the firm which is driven to produce social capital in addition to economic capital.) Employees, such as marketing executives[6] or perhaps those engaged in a special project within a larger firm, are encouraged to behave as entrepreneurs, even though they have the resources, capabilities and security of the larger firm to draw upon. Capturing a little of the dynamic nature of entrepreneurial management (trying things until successful, learning from failures, attempting to conserve resources, etc.) adds to the potential of an otherwise static organization, without exposing those employees to the risks or accountability normally associated with entrepreneurial failure.

[edit]Examples Many companies are famous for setting up internal organizations whose purpose is to promote innovation within their ranks. One of the most well-known is the "Skunk Works" group at Lockheed Martin. The group was originally named after a reference in a cartoon, and was first brought together in 1943 to build the P80 fighter jet. Because the project was to eventually become a part of the war effort, the project was internally protected and secretive. Kelly Johnson, later famous for Kelly's 14 rules of intrapreneurship, [7] was the director of this group. Another example could be 3M, who encourage many projects within the company. They give certain freedom to employees to create their own projects, and they even give them funds to use for these projects. (In the days of its founders, HP used to have similar policies and just such an innovation-friendly atmosphere and intrapreneurial reputation.) Besides 3M, Intel also has a tradition of implementing intrapreneurship.[8] Google is also known to be intrapreneur friendly, allowing their employees to spend up to 20% of their time to pursue projects of their choice[9]. [edit]See

also

So what are they? How do they differ from entrepreneurs? in-tra-pre-neur (Intre-pre-nur) n. 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 intra(corporate) + (ENTRE)PRENEUR.] -inftrapre-nouri-al adj. -intrapre-neuri-al-ism n. -in'trapre-neuri-al-ly adv. (The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edn., 1992

Businesses need intrapreneurs

Intrapreneurs are the powerhouses within companies that create new businesses, that keep a company or organisation moving forwards, they motivate colleagues and keep profits up. Intrapreneurial employees are energetic, enthusiastic, imaginative and inventive. They have ideas for creating new products or services often working on them in their own

time. They can see how savings can be made. How processes can be improved. So how do you encourage people to come forwards with their ideas? If you don't, they may move on to another company, or they may start their own business and become one of your competitors. Mini exercise What would encourage an employee to be intrapreneurial? Take 3 minutes in groups of 4 to brainstorm ideas. It might help to think about where you were last employed, what would have encouraged you to make suggestions? Remember no idea can be too wacky. Get a list together 10 points is good, 20 points is very good

Tactics to help a junior intrapreneur to succeed. (Pinochet and Pelman 1999)

Test ideas casually with friends who can point out basic flaws and ask challenging questions. Keep ideas from natural enemies as long as possible to avoid opposition. Promote ideas modestly and constructively. Test casually on potential customers to check the project is realisable and profitable. Accept suggestions gratefully. Always look to network the idea so it can be thought about from many aspects. Dont give up at the first sign of disappointment.

INTRODUCTION
Intrapreneurs are employees who work within a business in an entrepreneurial capacity, creating innovative new products and processes for the organization. Intrapreneurship is often associated with larger companies that have taken notice of the rise in entrepreneurial activity in recent years; these firms endeavor to create an environment wherein creative employees can pursue new ways of doing things and new product ideas within the context of the corporation. But smaller firms can instill a commitment to intrapreneurship within their workforces as well. In fact, small businesses, which often originate as entrepreneurial ventures, are ideally suited to foster an intrapreneurial environment, since their owners have first-hand knowledge of the opportunities and perils that accompany new business initiatives. For larger companies, nurturing an environment of intrapreneurship is a way to recapture a dynamic spirit while for smaller companies, it can be a way of maintaining the entrepreneurial drive from which they began. Intrapreneurship practices have developed in response to the modern world's rapidly changing marketplace. Businesses of all sizes have long had internal units dedicated to research and development and new product development. Nonetheless, the task of maintaining a creative environment in which innovative ideas may be nurtured is not an easy one and the larger the organization the more difficult that may be. As an organization grows it naturally becomes more bureaucratic and for people of a creative bent a bureaucratic environment can be stifling. Frequently, organizations loose creative people as they grow. Intrapreneuring in its current form represents the determination of employers to solve the resulting brain drain. They are doing so by creating the environment and incentives for entrepreneurship within their existing business operations. Small businesses have a natural advantage in terms of establishing such an environment, although it may not come naturally even for a smaller business. Internal "incubators" are one innovative example of the trend towards intrapreneurship. In these programs, employees can use the company's resources (including their already established name and reputation, as well as management experience, financial assistance, and infrastructure) to build and promote their own new business ideas. These and similar arrangements enable companies to stem the loss of ambitious and talented employees to entrepreneurial

ventures. Entrepreneurial-minded employees, meanwhile, "get the challengeand the profitsof creating their own 'companies' with little of the risk they would face on their own," observed David Cuthill in Los Angeles Business Journal.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT ENCOURAGE INTRAPRENEURSHIP

The single most important factor in establishing an "intrapreneur-friendly" organization is making sure that your employees are placed in an innovative working environment. Rigid and conservative organizational structures often have a stifling effect on intrapreneurial efforts. Conservative firms are capable of operating at a high level of efficiency and profitability, but they generally do not provide an environment that is conducive to intrapreneurial activity. Some keys to instilling an intrapreneurial environment in a business include the following: 1. Support from ownership and top management. This support should not simply consist of passive approval of innovative ways of thinking. Ideally, it should also take the form of active support, such as can be seen in mentoring relationships. Indeed, the small business owner's own entrepreneurial experiences can be valuable to his firm's intrapreneurial employees if he makes himself available to them. 2. Recognition that the style of intrapreneurialism that is encouraged needs to be compatible with business operations and the organization's overall culture. 3. Make sure that communication systems within the company are strong so that intrapreneurs who have new ideas for products or processes can be heard. 4. pursue intrapreneurial ideas. Intelligent allocation of resources to

5. Reward intrapreneurs. All in all, intrapreneurs tend to be creative, dedicated, and talented in a variety of areas. They are thus of significant value even to companies that do not feature particularly innovative environments. Their importance is heightened, then, to firms that do rely on intrapreneurial initiatives for growth. Since they are such important resources, they should be rewarded accordingly (both in financial and emotional terms). For while intrapreneurs may not want to go into business for themselves, they still have a hunger to make use of their talents and a wish to be compensated for their contributions. If your small business is unable or unwilling to provide sufficient rewards, then it should be

prepared to lose that intrapreneur to another organization that can meet his/her desires for professional fulfillment. 6. Allow intrapreneurs to follow through. Intrapreneurs who think of a new approach or process deserve to be allowed to maintain their involvement on the project, rather than have it be handed off to some other person or task force. Ensuring that the individual stays involved with the initiative makes sense for several important reasons. The intrapreneur's creativity and emotional investment in the project can be tremendously helpful in further developing the process or product for future use. Moreover, they usually possess the most knowledge and understanding of the various issues under consideration. Most importantly, however, the small business enterprise should make sure that its talented and creative employees have continued input because not allowing them to do so can have a profoundly morale-bruising impact.

Fall, 1978 Gifford and Elizabeth Pinchot write up their thoughts about the intra-corporate entrepreneur while attending The School for Entrepreneurs in Tarrytown, New York.

April 17, 1982 In an article in the Economist, Norman Macrae gives credit to Gifford Pinchot as the inventor of the word "intrapreneur".

1985, the landmark book Intrapreneuring is published by Harper & Row - order a copy here

March 1987 - Almost three years after the book is published Gifford Pinchot writes to R&D in an article forResearch Management and what to do about the shortage of intrapreneurs

1992 - The American Heritage Dictionary adds Intrapreneur to dictionary

The Intrapreneur's Ten Commandments

1. Build your team, intrapreneuring is not a solo activity. 2. Share credit widely. 3. Ask for advice before you ask for resources. 4. Underpromise and overdeliver -publicity triggers the corporate immune system. 5. Do any job needed to make your dream work, regardless of your job description. 6. Remember it is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. 7. Keep the best interests of the company and its customers in mind, especially when you have to bend the rules or circumvent the bureaucracy. 8. Come to work each day willing to be fired. 9. Be true to your goals, but be realistic about how to achieve them. 10. Honor and educate your sponsors.

What is Intrapreneurship? Difference, Features and Examples of Intrapreneurs

Posted by Amitabh Shukla on June 3, 2009 in Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is the practice of embarking on a new business or reviving an existing business by pooling together a bunch of resources, in order to exploit new found opportunities. What is Intrapreneurship?: Intrapreneurship is the practice of entrepreneurship by employees within an organization. Intrapreneur is a term coined by Macrae (1982) and developed by Pinchot (1985), of course they invented the word, not the concept, which has been around for a long time. According to Pinchot Intrapreneurs are "dreamers who do," those who take hands-on responsibility for creating innovation of any kind within an organization. Innovation is the introduction of something new - an idea, process, product or method. All organizations, large and small, from multi million corporations to charity and social groups cannot rely on their past achievements to continue their success in the future. Successful companies and organizations look to develop and to mange change creatively, so that the business grows, renews and develops. Really good organizations see innovation as a core competence in management. For lots of examples, mainly from big business see Pinchot and Pellman (1999) Or Takahashi, D. (2000) this is much more relaxed magazine article that draws heavily on Pinchot. You might enjoy the more recent tale of Seamus Blackley who dreamt up the ideas for the X-Box and persuaded his bosses at Microsoft to run with it. Little obstacles like the then-president Steve Ballmer yelling, "You're going to lose the company a lot of money!" followed. In this case Blackley reached a stage where as he said I let go of my baby" and stayed with the technical team, because he knew he didn't have the skills to run the entire business. So although he started the project and stayed involved he didnt head it up all the way. He also is quoted as saying that Microsoft's culture allowed him to

speak his mind and then, if he had the best evidence and most reasonable argument, proceed with his plan. and I think I succeeded because I had nothing to lose. I had no baggage. So this is an example from a big company where innovation is possible at the large scale

Intrapreneurial activity by you as fairly new / young member of a group or company could include: Spotting ways to improve a service, saving time or money, or just making life easier. Seeing the scope for variations on current products, or a new product. Realising that there are other ways the company or group can communicate with and respond to their audience or customers Understanding how a job could be done smarter Seeing how the quality of a service or product could be enhanced Reducing the time it takes to do something Finding ways to do background administration more smoothly, is data sought and held in the most efficient way Finding ways to enhance the workplace atmosphere / sociability / working day to the advantage of staff and employers.

Difference between an entrepreneur and an intrapreneur: An entrepreneur takes substantial risk in being the owner and operator of a business with expectations of financial profit and other rewards that the business may generate. On the contrary, an intrapreneur is an individual employed by an organization for remuneration, which is based on the financial success of the unit he is responsible for. Intrapreneurs share the same traits as entrepreneurs such as conviction, zeal and insight. As the intrapreneur continues to expresses his ideas vigorously, it will reveal the gap between the philosophy of the organization and the employee. If the organization supports him in pursuing his ideas, he succeeds. If not, he is likely to leave the organization and set up his own business.

Example of intrapreneurship: A classic case of intrapreneurs is that of the founders of Adobe, John Warnock and Charles Geschke. They both were employees of Xerox. As employees of Xerox, they were frustrated because their new product ideas were not encouraged. They quit Xerox in the early 1980s to begin their own business. Currently, Adobe has an annual turnover of over $3 billion. Features of Intrapreneurship: Entrepreneurship involves innovation, the ability to take risk and creativity. An entrepreneur will be able to look at things in novel ways. He will have the capacity to take calculated risk and to accept failure as a learning point. An intrapreneur thinks like an entrepreneur looking out for opportunities, which profit the organization. Intrapreneurship is a novel way of making organizations more profitable where imaginative employees entertain entrepreneurial thoughts. It is in the interest of an organization to encourage intrapreneurs. Intrapreneurship is a significant method for companies to reinvent themselves and improve performance. In a recent study, researchers compared the elements related to entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial activity. The study found that among the 32,000 subjects who participated in it, five percent were engaged in the initial stages of a business start-up, either on their own or within an organization. The study also found that human capital such as education and experience is connected more with entrepreneurship than with intrapreneurship. Another observation was that intraptreneurial startups were inclined to concentrate more on business-to-business products while entrepreneurial startups were inclined towards consumer sales. Another important factor that led to the choice between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship was age. The study found that people who launched their own companies were in their 30s and 40s. People from older and younger age groups were risk averse or felt they have no opportunities, which makes them the ideal candidates if an organization is on the look out for employees with new ideas that can be pursued. Entrepreneurship appeals to people who possess natural traits that find start ups arousing their interest. Intrapreneurs appear to be those who generally would not like to get entangled in start ups but are tempted to do so for a number of reasons. Managers would do well to take employees who do not appear entrepreneurial but can turn out to be good intrapreneurial choices. Examples of Intrapreneurs: A lot of companies are known for their efforts towards nurturing their in-house talents to promote innovation. The prominent among them is Skunk Works group at Lockheed Martin. This group formed in 1943 to build P-80 fighter jets. Kelly Johnson was the director of the project, a person who gave 14 rules of intrapreneurship. At 3M employees could spend their 15% time working on the projects they like for the betterment of the company. On the initial success of the project, 3M even funds it for further development.

Genesis Grant is another 3M intrapreneurial program which finances projects that might not end up getting funds through normal channels. Genesis Grant offers $85,000 to these innovators to carry forward their projects. Robbie Bach, J Allard and teams XBOX might not have been feasible without the Microsofts money and infrastructure. The project required 100s of millions and quality talent to make the product.

Intrapreneurship and Corporate Strategy

Intrapreneurship can be defined as a tactic employed by people to ensure that others, especially employees, are making the most out of their commercial or industrial talent. When this is done, employees are better facilitated to work to their best capacity and therefore ensure that the company develops better and more successful products. Corporate strategy is the art of examining current business factors as well as those anticipated in the future based on customer relations and competitors in an effort to make the business better and to develop it. It involves visualizing other effective roles the company can play to ensure that it reaches its targets and goals, while at the same time ensuring that customers and employees are happy and satisfied. According to research, most successful business people started their careers as employees who put an effort in their work and further developed their skills by getting creative and helping their employer. However, a person cannot realize their potential unless the employer supports and facilitates the entire process. When a company uses intrapreneurial techniques as their corporate strategy, they encourage their employees to take initiative and therefore give them a sense of decision making. When an employee is given this responsibility, they treat it with respect and try their best to ensure that they do not let down the firm. The firm encourages this and therefore empowers its employees to bring forth new ideas and facilitate theirimplementation. When creating a corporate strategy, firms should create an environment where employees are not afraid to bring good ideas to the table. Once the ideas have been brought forth, decisions should be made to ensure that no good idea is ignored or lost. The company should be willing to spare resources to ensure that ideas from employees are discussed and considered. Therefore, one of the most important factors to consider is creating an environment where employees are free to bring forth good

business ideas and ensuring that the ideas, if viable, are implemented and incorporated into the running of the business. Another important factor to consider is the process of decision making. This should be expedited to ensure that ideas do not wear off before they are implemented. Employers should set aside resources to ensure that all good ideas are implemented. Other than that, the company should be willing to break tradition and embrace new ideas that might change the work environment for the better. Research shows that intrapreneurship thrives more on freedom and initiative as opposed to traditional policies. When this is done, companies are more open to new business ideas and therefore business growth and development. When supporting intrapreneurship, it is very important to understand where to draw the line. Some businesses fail because they embrace every idea that comes their way before conducting thorough research on the effect of that idea into the business. Before implementing a new business idea, a firm business case should be presented and all the pros and cons discussed to find out what that business idea will do to the company. After consultations and research, a final decision should be made for the good of the company.

INTRAPRENEURSHIP: TURNING ENTREPRENEURSHIP INSIDE-OUT

POSTED BY ADRIENNE VILLANI ON MAY 14, 2010

The

truth

of

the

matter

is

that

entrepreneurship is hard. Its really hard. Venturing out on your own. No steady stream of income. No way to know that your idea will be the one that works, not the one that fails. No stability. No demarcation between life and work. People constantly questioning your progress. You get the picture. Its not an easy life. Despite this, entrepreneurship, and particularly social entrepreneurship, is in vogue. Entrepreneurs are fashionable, and entrepreneurship is romanticized by many. In the individualistic world of the West, where everyone has the chance to get ahead, entrepreneurship is the holy grail of individuality, of being your own person, of choosing your own path. Everyone wants a piece of the action. What is cooler than chasing your dreams and having a social impact? No one is ever going to accuse you of selling out to the machine, of being a slave to the man. Instead, you are going to sit with yourMacBook, in your Ray-Bans and Birkenstocks, eating organic dried fruit, and bring affordable drip irrigation to 5 million Indian farmers in the next three years. Yep, that is what you are going to accomplish. No sweat. Yet it is increasingly becoming clear that charting this path on your own is not the only answer. Yes, its a great story to tell, but it doesnt need to be the only story being told, or the only story applauded. Instead, in our newly flat world, we should be open to broader definitions of entrepreneurial activity. It doesnt have to be the preconceived notion alone in a room with only your mind and computer, toiling day and night to make ends meet, and then making it (and making it big, in a few cases). Often, it is less risky for someone to be an entrepreneur within a company and intrapreneur. And we should acknowledge the value in that activity. Becoming a leader within an already-formed enterprise structure, within a corporate environment. India is the perfect case study here, an incredibly entrepreneurial country. Yet Indian entrepreneurs, generally running their family businesses, have rarely had the privileges of higher education. For that matter, most entrepreneurs, except in America over the last generation or two, have not had those privileges. It seems that business schools are often seminaries for the multi-national corporations (to use the phrase of a late Harvard economist). None of us are simple beings, aiming for one thing, but the fact is that MBAs often deploy themselves to the corporate world post-graduation. Often bearing the burden of immense student loans, they dont want to chance the entrepreneurial life of

instability.

Instead,

they

want

security

and to

join

the

most

lucrative

firms

Deutsche

Bank, Goldman Sachs, ICICI Bank. Their families will be happy because they will be professionals, something to brag about back home. No Indian mother wants to say My sons an entrepreneur (or even worse, a social entrepreneur). She wants to say My sons a banker/doctor/lawyer/engineer. This is the reality. So, how do we resolve these seeming inconsistencies, this problem of instability, without thwarting creativity? With more than half a billion people under the age of 25, India is sitting atop a powerhouse of intellectual and physical energy with the ability to change the world. As with any hurdle, we must approach it from multiple angles, using multiple lenses. Not everyone has to be an entrepreneur. To my mind, in this situation, intrapreneurship is the answer, becoming a sustainability leader within your company. And it provides a safety net for those who take risks. Better yet, to my excitement, we are seeing this growing movement everywhere, especially in social entrepreneurship. After launching the worlds cheapest car, Tata launched the Swach, one of the worlds most affordable safe drinking water purifiers. And where was it developed? At Tata Chemicals, within the confines of one of the oldest, largest, and most successful Indian family businesses. Or what about Nokia Life Tools, a fast and easy way to get up-to-date local information on agriculture, education, and entertainment. Globalization and intrapreneurship at its finest an enormous Finnish mobile phone manufacturer developing products for developing markets. If these examples can be taken as indicators of a wider shift, intrapreneurship is a key element to the future and ongoing sustainability of companies. Innovation is indeed happening inside, and it begs the question: Is intrapreneurship the future of social business? And how do we make it the new sexy?

IS INDIA REALLY A HOTBED FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISE?

POSTED BY LINDSAY CLINTON ON OCTOBER 27, 2010

Beyond Profit is proud to announce a new partnership with GOOD Magazine to report on social enterprise in South Asia. Below is our first article.

If you know anything at all about social enterprise, you are probably familiar with the fact that many of the case studies cited as successful are Indian in origin. Case in point:Aravind Eyecare, Jaipur Rugs, Barefoot College, d.Light. It makes you wonder: Is India better at producing social entrepreneurs than other countries? Is there something in the water? And if India really has cornered the social enterprise market, how did they do it? First, lets look at what we know. India is massive. Its bursting at the seams with people, and because one out of every six people on the planet is an Indian, we are statistically more likely to stumble upon Indians anywhereand some of those people are bound to be social entrepreneurs, right? Of course, a big pile of people does not explain why social enterprises often thrive in India, and the policy environment certainly doesnt help: There are no freebies for social enterprise, no special legal structures (like the L3C in the US or the CiC in the U.K.), and few policies that help enterprises get funding. In fact, some might say that Indian social enterprises have succeeded in spite of policy, not because of it. What about funding? Most Indian social entrepreneurs would tell you that they have just as much trouble as the next guy. There are only a handful of social or social/commercial funds in India, and while there is a frenzy of interest in India from foreign investors, many of them ride on the coattails of domestic funds, investing only after a trusted Indian social investor has made the first move. So, what makes India different? India has had a long, rich love affair with nonprofit organizations. A recent survey commissioned by the Indian government found that there is one non-governmental organization for every 400 peoplewhich means there are about 3.3 million NGOs. Regardless of how great each NGOs impact is, the sheer number of them is symbolic of a culture that favors trying to help those in need. However, many have seen that these NGOs are not always accountable, transparent, or sustainable. Stemming from this tryst with NGOs is a graduation to sustainable social enterprise. Second, with over 40 percent of people on the subcontinent living on less than U.S. $1.25 a day, there is plenty of need for social enterprise. With such a large population in need, theres plenty of

opportunity to test things out. Because of a lack of regulation and oversight, it is possible to get in there, run pilots, and figure out what works. Third, the currency of language cannot be underestimated. One of Indias national languages is English, and many people, rich and poor, speak it. Even if social entrepreneurs in Romania or Ecuador or Cte dIvoire have great ideas, they may be held back in their ability to spread those ideas, enter international business competitions, or get funding from English-speaking Western countries. Fourth, never underestimate the power of the Indian family. Indian families are tight, complex webs of people who you know and love, and people who you dont know, but who you call cousin and uncle even if they have absolutely no relation to you. These networksclose and extendedtranslate into resources for social entrepreneurs. They are the building blocks of most start-up businesses, and these enable enterprises that would not otherwise have a chance, to get off the ground. Lastly, and perhaps most important, there is a certain ethos in India which makes it possible for social enterprise to thrive. You cant manufacture this attitude; it is something that only comes from living and working in India. This attitude, a mix of confidence, perseverance, and cant-touch-this, known as jugaad, is an Indian way of getting things done using any means, against the odds. This ethos gets social entrepreneurs, once they put their minds to something, to figure out how to make broken systems work, to close gaps in service delivery, and to change the status quo. So, combine a whole bunch of people who have an unstoppable attitude, an incredible combination of personal resources, a population in need, and a propensity towards helping othersand what do you get? A hotbed for social enterprise. What do you think? Are you drinking the KoolAid?

Great Intrapreneurs in Business History

These classic examples from the big leagues of product innovation began with an intrapreneur an employee who convinced his or her company to chart a new course. Often with no more than a kernel of an idea, these employees went on to create changes in companies as varied as Sun Microsystems and 3M. In each case, it took more than one person to launch the product. Every intrapreneur needs colleagues to refine, repurpose, or just plain redraw his or her idea; marketing folks to help figure out exactly what the product is (or is not); and higher-ups who are willing to champion it, even if a return on investment is years in the making.

Post-it Notes
Intrapreneurs: Spencer Silver and Art Fry Company: 3M Year Launched: 1980 The Post-it, now as indispensable to the typical office worker as a chair and desk, might never have made it to market without 3Ms longstanding bootlegging policy. The companys program allows employees to spend up to 15 percent of their time at work developing their ideas. Thats how 3M scientist Spencer Silver invented a light, repositionable adhesive in 1968, although he was unsure how best to use it. He gave seminar after seminar, explaining the advantages of his adhesive to co-workers, but he was unable to drum up much enthusiasm for his not-so-sticky stickum. Five years later, Art Frey, one of Silvers colleagues, noticed his bookmarks were constantly falling out of his hymnals during choir practice. He remembered Silvers seminars, and in that Eureka moment, the Post-it was born. The product languished until a marketing manager, Bill Shoonenberg, designed a campaign called the Boise Blitz to drive sales and blanketed the state of Idaho in Post-its. The sticky notes went national in 1980 and quickly became an office-supply and household standard.

Sony PlayStation
Intrapreneur: Ken Kutaragi Company: Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. Year Launched: 1994 Ken Kutaragi was working in Sonys sound labs when he bought his daughter a Nintendo game console. Watching her play, he was dismayed by the systems primitive sound effects. He realized that a digital chip dedicated solely to sound would improve the quality of the games and the product itself. Keeping his job at Sony, Kutaragi developed the SPC7000 for the next generation of Nintendo machines. Sony execs nearly fired him after discovering his sideline project, but then-CEO Norio Ohga realized the value of his innovation and encouraged Kutaragis efforts. With Sonys blessing, Kutaragi worked with Nintendo to develop a CD-ROM-based Nintendo. But Nintendo decided not to go forward with it, so Kutaragi helped Sony develop its own gaming system, which became the PlayStation. The first PlayStation made Sony a major player in the games market, but the PlayStation 2 did even better, becoming the best-selling game console of all time. Kutaragi founded Sony Computer Entertainment, one of the Sonys most profitable divisions.

Java Programming Language

Intrapreneurs: Patrick Naughton, James Gosling, Bill Joy Company: Sun Microsystems Year Launched: 1995 The circuitous route Java took to market began when Patrick Naughton, a 25-year-old, up-and-coming programmer, told Sun CEO Scott McNealy he was leaving the company. McNealy asked Naughton to give him an assessment of what Sun was doing wrong, and the programmer responded that Sun, then known for its business workstations, was missing out on the fast-growing PC consumer market. His 12-page e-mail quickly became a rallying cry to change Suns direction. Naughton stayed, and Sun set up a group dedicated to breaking into the consumer market. Group member James Gosling created an elegant object-oriented programming language called Oak (renamed Java), which Sun initially hoped would be used by Time Warner in its cable set-top boxes. When that deal fell through, it looked like the language would be abandoned. It took Bill Joy, a Sun co-founder, to champion the project. Joy realized that with the explosion of the Web, a programming language like Oak could be used across different platforms computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more. Joy also understood that the key to making Java a cross-platform linchpin was to give the language and development kit away. By the end of 1996, Java had nearly 100 licensees and had attracted 6,000 developers.

Digital Light Processing Technology

Intrapreneur: Larry Hornbeck Company: Texas Instruments Year Launched: 1996 TI researcher Larry Hornbeck had been tinkering for a decade with technology using tiny mirrors to redirect photons when his team developed the Digital Micromirror Device in 1987. DMD initially was used to print out airline tickets, but the governments Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency initiated research in high-definition video and awarded TI and other manufacturers a multi-million dollar contract to work on the issue. TI execs started an internal venture called the Digital Imaging Venture Project and tapped Hornbeck to lead it. At the time, video projectors weighed 40 to 50 pounds and cost $15,000 to $18,000. Hornbeck realized DMD technology could greatly shrink the size and cost of a digital projector. Digital Light Processing quickly became an industry standard, dominating the market in projectors less than five pounds. The technology also has revolutionized the movie theater business and allowed Texas Instruments to compete in the HDTV market. Hornbeck received an Emmy for Outstanding Achievement in Engineering Development in 1998.

ELIXIR Guitar Strings

Intrapreneurs: Dave Myers and John Spencer Company: W.L. Gore Year Launched: 1997 W.L. Gore, known primarily as the maker of Gore-Tex rain gear, encourages employees to develop new ideas through its dabble time policy: Ten percent of a work day can be devoted to personal projects. In 1995, the company was experimenting with ePTFE, a chemical cousin to Teflon, to coat push-pull cables for use in animatronics. Dave Myers, an associate in the companys medical unit, thought the coating might be good for guitar strings and recruited both marketing and manufacturing personnel to work on the project. Myers team originally believed that the coatings appeal would be in making strings more comfortable to use. But extensive market research, piloted by John Spencer,

and more than 15,000 guitar-player field tests led the team to realize their real selling point: better sound. The coated strings were only nominally more comfortable than non-coated strings, but they kept their tone longer than conventional guitar strings. W.L. Gore launched them under the brand name ELIXIR Strings, now the No. 1 seller of acoustic guitar strings and the overall No. 2 seller in the guitar string market.

Abstract
The problem this article is concerned with is the failure ofmany large organizations in formerly socialist countries and inpublic sectors of market economies to make effective, peaceful,and ethical transformation from command to market responsiveorganization and privatization. There are at least threeimportant behavioral causes of this problem. First, organizationtransformation is blocked because the organization tries tochange "all at once" before the organization has learned how toact successfully in a new for the organization environment as amarket responsive instead of a command organization (Churchman,1971; Quinn, 1980; Nystrom and Starbuck, 1984; Mintzberg andWaters, 1985; Mintzberg, 1994; Goldman, 1994). Second,organization transformation is blocked because "all at oncechange" stimulates so much fear and political opposition thatchange is politically not possible (Argyris and Schon, 1974;Argyris, 1990; Goldman, 1994; Sachs, 1992). Third, organizationtransformation is blocked because the "guardian" ethics syndromeof command organization is less appropriate for market responsiveorganization than a "commercial" ethics syndrome (Jacobs, 1992;Harris, 1995). Gradual intrapreneurship (Burgelman, 1983; Nielsenet al., 1985) can serve as a peaceful and ethical transitionstrategy. Intrapreneurship can help bridge some of thecontradictions between "commercial" vs. "guardian" ethicssyndromes (Jacobs, 1992; Nielsen, 1996).

Fulltext Preview

Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. Camille Carrier In the context of increasing market globalization and free trade, firms must innovate constantly to improve their flexibility, competitiveness, and reactivity. Many authors have highlighted the importance of intrapreneurship its a stimulus to innovation in organizations. Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) even spoke of an intrapreneurial school of entrepreneurship. However, there is a certain amount of ambiguity around the concept of intrapreneurship and this may even lead to questions about the difference between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. It is therefore important, before introducing the object of our research, to look more closely at the concept on which intrapreneurship is based and to the main trends in the research on intrapreneurship. CONCEPT OF INTRAPRENEURSHIP As Wortman (1987) pointed out, it is still difficult to agree on a generally accepted definition of entrepreneurship. The current emphasis on corporate entrepreneurship serves only to heighten the complexity. Since Schumpeter (1934), who first associated entrepreneurship with innovation without raising the question of formal individual ownership, views have changed considerably. New definitions of the concept have emerged introducing new aspects such as risk taking and the creation of independent units. Gartner (1985) analyzed the various definitions and defined entrepreneurship as "the creation of new organizations." In such a perspective, entrepreneurship necessarily ends when the venture creation stage is complete. However, entrepreneurship as a source of innovation is not the exclusive province of new venture creation. Increasingly turbulent markets, technological complexity, free trade, and a growing awareness of the sclerotic nature of many traditional management practices are putting tremendous pressure on organizations seeking to pursue growth. As Stevenson and Jarillo (1990) pointed out, intrapreneurship has grown in importance over recent years because large firms wishing to compete have sought out the characteristics of flexibility, growth, and innovation more generally associated with entrepreneurship. What essentially distinguishes intrapreneurship from entrepreneurship in most works, if not all, is first and foremost the context in which the entrepreneurial act takes place. Entrepreneurs innovate for themselves, while intrapreneurs innovate on behalf of an existing organization. This difference in context generates a number of other differences for the actors concerned, with regards to autonomy, type of risk, and anticipated rewards. Entrepreneurs select themselves, while intrapreneurs must be selected or, in some cases, be recognized by or impose themselves on the organization.
by

As Zahra (1991, p. 260) observed, "authors use many terms to refer to different aspects of corporate entrepreneurship: intrapreneurship (Pinchot, 1985), corporate venture (Ellis & Taylor, 1987) and internal corporate venture (Burgelman & Sayles, 1986). Regardless of the label, corporate entrepreneurship refers to the process of creating new business within established firms to improve organizational profitability and enhance a company's competitive position." Interestingly, the terms "intrapreneurship" and "corporate entrepreneurship" have almost always been used implicitly to describe a situation occurring in a very large organization. However, to say that intrapreneurship is entrepreneurship within an existing organization does not imply that the organization has to be large. Indeed, as we will see in the next section, many have emphasized the need for intrapreneurship in small and medium sized businesses. Despite the lack of a clearly accepted definition of the term, an analysis of the literature on intrapreneurship reveals two main trends in the research (see Carrier, 1993). The first of these trends is concerned principally with the individuals who implement innovations in the firms that employ them. The authors who subscribe to this approach fall into two groups. The first group presents intrapreneurship as a set of psychological characteristics and personal attributes. Examples include Carbone (1986), Gasse (1989), Bordeaux (1987), Luchsinger and Bagby (1987), Pinchot (1985), and Ross and Unwalla (1986). Although it is not always explicit in their work, many of these authors seem to believe that the psychological profiles of intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs are fairly similar, even though the contexts in which they act are different. The second group - Ronen (1988), Lessem (1987), Knight (1987), d'Amboise and Verna (1993), Lee and Zemke (1985), and Ellis (1985) - concentrates on the roles and functions of intrapreneurs, and presents them as visionaries, change agents, corporate entrepreneurs, and "champions of innovation." The second main trend identified in the intrapreneurship literature is concerned with the intrapreneurial process, the factors leading to its emergence, and the conditions required. Some of the authors using this approach present intrapreneurship as an organizational mode, characterized by the factors of freedom and autonomy, allowing employees to innovate. The works of Pinchot (1987), Haskins and Williams (1987), Covin and Slevin (1991), Brandt ...