Define intrapreneurship and intrapreneur, and describe the key

challenges for intrapreneurship in large companies. Use case studies
or real-life examples to illustrate your answer. (400 words)

2. Discuss the differences between start-up entrepreneurship and
corporate entrepreneurship, using real-life examples to illustrate
your answer.

5. What problems does disruptive technology create for large
corporations? Use at least one example in your answer

Innovative corporate management style that encourages employees within an organization to
create new product ideas. If employee ideas are approved, management will finance research and
development of the product while sharing an equitable partnership arrangement with the
employee. Intrapreneurship is an independent and daring management concept and has worked
very successfully in small and new business organizations.
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 its work force as well. In fact,
small businesses, which originate as entrepreneurial ventures, are often 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, intrapreneuring is a
way to recapture the spirit that put them on the road to success in the first place, " observed
Nation's Business. "For smaller companies, it can be a way of maintaining the entrepreneurial
drive that gave them birth."
Intrapreneurship practices have developed in response to the modern world's rapidly changing
marketplace. "While businesses of varying sizes have long had internal units for development of
new products, many found such arrangements were inadequate in today's business environment,
" contended Nation's Business. "Creative young people chafed under corporate bureaucracies and
frequently left to develop their ideas as entrepreneurs. Their former employers lost not only
highly promising talent, but also a chance for profitable new lines. Intrapreneuring in its current
form represents the determination of such employers to solve their particular brain drain
problem. They are doing so by creating the environment—and providing the incentives—for
entrepreneurship within their existing business operations."
Internal corporate "incubators" are one innovative example of this trend. 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

3. Reward intrapreneurs. 4. and talented in a variety of areas. companies that establish a culture of innovation through: 1) formation of intrapreneurial teams and task forces. Ideally. 5. then. but they generally do not provide an environment that is conducive to intrapreneurial activity (and organizations that do not encourage creativity and leadership often alienate talented employees). Allow intrapreneurs to follow through. Support from ownership and top management. Other keys to instilling an intrepreneurial environment in your business include the following: 1. intrapreneurs tend to be creative. This support should not simply consist of passive approval of innovative ways of thinking. rather than have it be handed off to some other person or task force. the small business owner's own entrepreneurial experiences can be valuable to his firm's intrapreneurial employees if he makes himself available to them. If your small business is unable or unwilling to provide sufficient rewards. Since they are such important resources. 2) recruitment of new staff with new ideas. 2. " observed David Cuthill in Los Angeles Business Journal. "get the challenge—and the profits—of creating their own 'companies' with little of the risk they would face on their own. and 4) establishment of internal research and development programs are likely to see tangible results. Conservative firms are capable of operating at a high level of efficiency and profitability. 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. Indeed. Ensuring that the individual stays involved with the initiative makes sense for several important reasons. They are thus of significant value even to companies that do not feature particularly innovative environments. Entrepreneurialminded employees. Make sure that communication systems within the company are strong so that intrapreneurs who have new ideas for products or processes can be heard. 3) application of strategic plans that focus on achieving innovation. But as Erik Rule and Donald Irwin stated in Journal of Business Strategy. Intrapreneurs who think of a new approach or process deserve to be allowed to maintain their involvement on the project. Intelligent allocation of resources to pursue intrapreneurial ideas. All in all. it should also take the form of active support. For while intrapreneurs may not want to go into business for themselves. meanwhile. Recognition that the style of intrapreneurialism that is encouraged needs to be compatible with business operations and the organization's overall culture. Rigid and conservative organizational structures often have a stifling effect on intrapreneurial efforts. then it should be prepared to lose that intrapreneur to another organization that can meet his/her desires for professional fulfillment. The intrapreneur's creativity and emotional investment in the project can be tremendously . they should be rewarded accordingly (both in financial and emotional terms). such as can be seen in mentoring relationships.stem the loss of ambitious and talented employees to entrepreneurial ventures. 6. they still have a hunger to make use of their talents and a wish to be compensated for their contributions. Their importance is heightened. dedicated. to firms that do rely on intrapreneurial initiatives for growth.

John Warnock and Charles Geschke. Most importantly. "Intrapreneurship: Techie Turns System He Built for Former Employer into a Small Business. As employees of Xerox." Journal of Business Strategy. Shatzer. and Donald W." Business Quarterly. 1998. David. and Linda Schwartz. Moreover. 2000. A lot of companies are known for their efforts towards nurturing their in-house talents to promote innovation. 1998. "Managing Intrapreneurship. May-June 1988. Spring 1993. Huggins. and Intrapreneurship. Managing Corporate Culture. Rule. Millner. however. Marlon." Nation's Business. "Incubators: The Blueprint for New Economy Companies." Los Angeles Business Journal." Black Enterprise. May 1. Sheryl E." Washington Business Journal. June 1986. they usually possess the most knowledge and understanding of the various issues under consideration. March 27. Irwin. Howard W. Examples A classic case of intrapreneurs is that of the founders of Adobe. Further Reading: Carrier. The prominent among them is “Skunk Works” group at Lockheed Martin. They both were employees of Xerox. 1999." International Small Business Journal. Annual 1991. and E. they were frustrated because their new product ideas were not encouraged. Camille. They quit Xerox in the early 1980s to begin their own business. Carrier. April-June 1994.. Gifford.helpful in further developing the process or product for future use. Erik G. Intrapreneuring in Action: A Handbook for Business Innovation. "Intrapreneurship in Small Businesses: An Exploratory Study. "Intrapreneurship in Large Firms and SMEs: A Comparative Study. Pryor. October 1997 "Intrapreneurship: A Welcome Trend in the Business World. This group formed ." Management Decision. Lisa. "Fostering Intrapreneurship: The New Competitive Edge. Cutbill. "Growing the Business with Intrapreneurs. and Ron Pellman. Greenwood Press. Fall 1996. Adobe has an annual turnover of over $3 billion. Michael Shays. 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. Berrett-Koehler. Austin K. Oden." Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. "Internal Moonlighting: Use Your Day Job to Branch Out on Your Own. Camille. Pinchot.. Innovation. Currently.

when Miller published a cornerstone piece. a person who gave “14 rules of intrapreneurship”. as well as being instrumental to producing "impressive financial results"(p. Moreover. and process (represented by the facets of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument). the diffusion and adoption of corporate entrepreneurship by individuals within these corporate structures has positively affected organizations' performance. Hornsby et al. presented the Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI)--a survey instrument designed to help managers and leaders measure each of these factors. context (represented by the firm's memory and learning orientation). Adonisi. several have tried to isolate the organizational factors that promote CE. like knowledge. Our results indicated that contextual and process variables influenced corporate entrepreneurship while the individual characteristics did not.. 2003. 2003). & Covin. and uncertain (Ireland et al. and organizational boundaries. J Allard and team’s XBOX might not have been feasible without the Microsoft’s money and infrastructure. complex. 2003). .in 1943 to build P-80 fighter jets. Kelly Johnson was the director of the project. we tested a model of corporate entrepreneurship that is influenced by individual characteristics (represented by the five factor model of personality). Ireland. 2000). and Hornsby (2001) found that corporate entrepreneurship activities in a large firm resulted in diversified products and markets. facilitate and improve CE activities. and Morris (2006) argue that the CEAI provides a sound basis for managers to effectively manage. Hornsby. Accordingly. Several quantitative studies have further supported this claim. Moreover. Kuratko. established organizations have been termed corporate entrepreneurship. By synthesizing the literature.000 to these innovators to carry forward their projects. Ireland. Genesis Grant is another 3M intrapreneurial program which finances projects that might not end up getting funds through normal channels. and job satisfaction (e. linking corporate entrepreneurship to increased growth and increased profitability (Zahra & Covin. affective commitment. 69). In essence. Zahra & Garvis. The project required 100s of millions and quality talent to make the product. ********** Entrepreneurial activities and behaviors in larger. Genesis Grant offers $85.. rewards and reinforcement. From this. Using a sample of 151 employees from three government organizations. and performance. Not surprisingly. time availability. Kuratko. others have found that corporate entrepreneurship is positively linked to intangible outcomes. Kuratko. And. which put forth CE instrumentation (1). On the initial success of the project. 3M even funds it for further development. Kuratko. and Zahra (2002) identified five key factors that influence corporate entrepreneurship to include management support. This increase is largely because the area holds such great promise for firms competing in an environment that is increasingly dynamic. Ireland. the field of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) has developed rapidly since 1983. Robbie Bach. skill development. corporate entrepreneurship did mediate the relationship between these antecedents and job satisfaction.g. work discretion and autonomy. 1995. At “3M” employees could spend their 15% time working on the projects they like for the betterment of the company.

but to our knowledge the model's predictive validity has only been tested in a few settings (Adonisi. Finally. theoretical ambiguities still exist. And. 1990. 2003. 1999). Our model is depicted in Figure 1. corporate entrepreneurship involves enabling and promoting workers' abilities to innovatively create value within the organization (Covin & Slevin. Zahra (1993) does define CE as ". In press). and will likely be mitigated as researchers conduct additional empirical examinations (Zahra. and strategic renewal.. Kuratko. Holt... 1999). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) identified autonomy. proactiveness. We do this by. though there is considerable disagreement regarding the specific behaviors that represent corporate entrepreneurship. Similarly. we endeavor to put forth a more comprehensive individual-level model of CE. there remain vagaries surrounding CE.. Finally. Ireland. and risk taking. & Hudgens. For example. The breadth of these categories suggests that the concept of CE has yet to be defined clearly. 1989. first. Jennings. and competitive aggressiveness as a set of behaviors that reflect CE. 10). innovativeness. predict CE. 1993) have shared this perspective by specifying three components of CE: proactiveness. and Hornsby (2005) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship represents a set of internal behaviors "requiring organizational sanctions and resource commitments for the purpose of developing different types of value-creating innovations" (p. 2003. and Lane (2003) identify four types of CE: sustained regeneration. This is typical of a field in the relatively early stages of development. but is focused on directing individuals' action toward enhancing firm performance. 1987. This is an attractive feature in field application. & DeCastro. 700).While the works addressed above have moved the field forward empirically. Covin & Slevin. Ireland. and Morris (2006) hold that "Corporate entrepreneurship is a process through which individuals in an established firm pursue entrepreneurial opportunities to innovate without regard to the level and nature of currently available resources" (p. Second. empirically and independently testing the CEAI index put forth by Hornsby et al. Dean. proactiveness. Ireland et al. Wood. The factor structure they presented was robust in the original publication. by including context and individual personality variables. It is the general goal of this work to provide such an examination by submitting and testing a more comprehensive individuallevel. Here we adopt Covin and Slevin's (1989) conceptualization and measurement of CE. Reed. A hallmark of the field is its boundary spanning nature. Regardless of the specific behaviors. Accordingly. and risk taking among the members within a larger organizational context (Zahra et al." Miller (1983) and several others (Morris & Paul. 2001). a process of organizational renewal that has two distinct but related dimensions: innovation and venturing. Floyd. we examine possible mediating effects of CE on desired individual outcomes. risk taking. organizational rejuvenation. but becomes problematic when attempting to define and measure the construct. Zahra. Dess. CE inherently includes the individual. strategic renewal. and domain redefinition. that is. Kuratko. Janney. In a general sense. innovation. While the field is beginning to coalesce around a central understanding. we examine the extent to which the factors derived from the original tests presented by Hornsby et al. Meyer.. Ireland. theory-based model of CE. Covin. there has been some convergence--especially in empirical work--around the Covin and Slevin (1989) conceptualization of innovativeness. Individual-level Model of Corporate Entrepreneurship . Kuratko et al. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Definitional Issues in Corporate Entrepreneurship An important component in any study of CE is a review of definitional issues. & Kuratko.

openness. confident. 2006). work discretion. compliant. extraversion represents one's tendency to be sociable. 2004. 2006). the variables were selected because valid and reliable measures were available. context. Zhao & Siebert. and dependable. and faith based initiatives. 1992). including extraversion. the corporate entrepreneurship literature suggested a subset of variables that would be appropriate as a starting point for this exploratory investigation. conscientiousness. including job performance (e. finding significant differences between entrepreneurs and managers on four personality dimensions.g. this is a commonly accepted taxonomy of personality and is often termed the Big Five (Costa & McCrae.Figure 1 presents the integrated model of corporate entrepreneurship that guided this research effort and summarizes the constructs that were explored. In corporations employees are starving for a new direction to create a new economy and adapt. Instill corporate entrepreneurship by: . (2002) and included management support. Individual characteristics consisted of the facets of the five-factor model of personality. Process variables were those identified by Hornsby et al. rewards and reinforcement. Stewart & Roth. 2005). in an organizational setting. agreeableness. These specific traits are appropriate for testing the extent to which individual characteristics influence CE because they have been linked to a number of meaningful behaviors in organizational settings. Hofmann & Jones. these variables were included because there appeared to be some empirical relationship evident between a particular variable and entrepreneurship. we do not view it as simply an extension of individual entrepreneurship. Baer & Oldham. though we do view CE as an individual construct. and process variables that could be investigated. leadership (e. conscientiousness. 2002). and neuroticism (2). and inventive. Look at what information can be gathered from a Google search and now we can go directly to the consumer via Twitter and most importantly made our voices heard to produce positive change. Zhao and Siebert (2006) accumulated results across 23 studies. tense. and time availability. assertive. We examine each of these in more detail in the subsequent sections.. Corporations are largely responsible for more business transparency because of the push for information technology (IT) and access to relevant information. Consistent with Zhao and Siebert (2006). Conscientiousness represents one's tendency to be thorough. and active. and neuroticism (Costa & McCrae. While there were several individual. First.g. Snow. Based on this. openness. Contextual variables were memory and learning orientation (Hult. If you're in a corporation trying to catch the next trend. 1992. Intuition and anecdotal evidence lead us to suspect that.. Individual Characteristics Even though research on individual antecedents of individual entrepreneurship has been largely inconclusive. neuroticism represents one's tendency to be anxious. Bono. individual characteristics should have some impact on each person's propensity to act entrepreneurially as well. and insecure.g. we propose: Corporate entrepreneurship Corporations are a vital part of an economy. & Gerhardt. So are foundations. The five-factor model defines personality as broad factors that include extraversion. Judge. then see what you think of this approach. 2003). As noted. Agreeableness represents one's tendency to be trusting. government. Openness represents one's tendency to be imaginative. and creativity (e. we measured individual characteristics using the five-factor model of personality. there remains an interest in attempting to uncover such constructs (Miner &. For more practical reasons. Ilies. Finally. It should be noted that these variables were selected for both theoretical and practical reasons. It is important to note that.. unconventional. 2001). & Kandemir. In summary. and altruistic. agreeableness.

As a decision maker or non-decision maker are you involved in facilitated sessions or retreats to help decipher what your team really wants. improved a service or process to get work and get it done better? Are your employees excited like kids or dragging in with a bewildered look? Are you proactive in your industry or reactive? Do your employees even know what to do with an idea and how it flows through your organization? Are you finding the right partnerships to serve the marketplace in a unique and better way? Are you creating new relationships and do you really understand how to grow an idea and what it takes to germinate? 2. prioritize. Increasing your employees' mental motivation skills to learn at another new best level is the fastest way for performance improvement to grow. However. you're going on an all expenses paid trip to Hawaii. That's real good because you receive a return on investment. and incentize them to make your job easier and corporation more productive and profitable. It just takes investment of work. They are more interested in having serious fun at work hundreds of days a year versus the weeks of vacation they receive. they feel isolated and this disrupts their mindset by putting their thinking in a rut. distribute. and evolve. and produce goals and metrics? My research indicates that the majority of employees want to be on a team. You'll have more serious fun. boss. and employee. Spruce up your entrepreneurial spirit. the dynamics of a team are missing because they are not empowered to input for various reasons. Empowerment is not a buzzword. Find Your Entrepreneurial Spirit Answer the following questions: Have you created anything new. Maintain a Winning Mental Mindset Employees need to know and believe what they are doing really makes a positive difference. It is real and if you are willing to garner its creative force it will create the excitement you are looking for as a leader. Sure. More successes increases confidence and builds a foundation for mental motivation skills through confidence and acts as a resource to grab from to create more successes. of course. and leadership teamwork on a regular basis. Sure. 3. Work on instilling the mental motivation skills so your employees can be proud of the work they do to compete in a capitalistic marketplace. Put winning back into the workplace culture. Therefore. It will make the hundreds of days at work just as exciting as those vacation days unless. Use Leadership Teamwork The top down structure of leadership has been diminishing more and more and this will continue because of the will of the people and technology. You'll be surprised that instead of handling moral and attitude issues they will be forcing you to look at ways for you as a leader to grow. It's not a one shot deal. winning mental mindset. time. for every decision there is a decision maker or group of decision makers. .1. and money. profit. they can be fired but isn't the purpose of a corporation to develop and grow each employee as an individual with unique talents and skills as well as a teammate. Your clients will see the difference in your work and offerings.

The Innovator's Dilemma [3]. Christensen describes two types of technologies: sustaining technologies and disruptive technologies. disruptive technologies cause problems because they do not initially satisfy the demands of even the high end of the market. Christensen claims that large companies have problems dealing with disruptive technologies. and. frequently. This. simpler. Because of that. more convenient to use. describes companies whose successes and capabilities can actually become obstacles in the face of changing markets and technologies. according to Christensen. technologies that involve improving a product that has an established role in the market. eventually surpass sustaining technologies in satisfying market demand with lower costs. they can cause the failure of highly successful companies who are only prepared for sustaining technologies. When this happens. Disruptive vs. smaller.Disruptive technologies The Innovator's Dilemma In his book." Disruptive technologies occur less frequently." . Disruptive technologies are "innovations that result in worse product performance. These are technologies that most large companies are familiar with. Disruptive technologies. Sustaining technologies are technologies that improve product performance. however. but when they do. large companies choose to overlook disruptive technologies until they become more attractive profit-wise. outstanding firms can fail "by doing everything right. Sustaining Technologies As the above graph shows." They are generally "cheaper. Most large companies are adept at turning sustaining technology challenges into achievements." The Innovator's Dilemma. Professor Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School describes a theory about how large. at least in the near term. according to Christensen. large companies who did not invest in the disruptive technology sooner are left behind. is the "Innovator's Dilemma.

“markets that do not exist cannot be analyzed. develop and successfully market emerging. The key obstacle to success with this approach is the stigma of failure in many firms. procedures) hinder a quick response to disruptive technologies. and be willing to invest in what may be a potentially disruptive technology. training. These customers often ask for better versions of current products rather than completely new technologies. Customers are a substantial barrier to innovation. Identification of these disruptive technologies can be a daunting mission because. and should failure occur. . the value networks and organization structures of these firms make it an arduous process to complete. managers need to engage in discovery-driven planning. The chart below ties elements of the Innovator's Dilemma to Teradyne's Aurora Story.Large companies have certain barriers to innovation which make it difficult to invest in disruptive technologies early on. managers should leave room for failure in their planning. to put it simply. Finally. companies make decisions according to where they are in the market. This requires that the firm itself be willing to leave room from failure. Baggage from precedents (such as equipment. in which they operate on the assumption that new markets can not be analyzed and instead rely on learning by doing and real-time adjustment of strategy and planning." One cannot predict what the market or probability of success will be for these emerging technologies. wrap the lessons from the experience back into the firm as preparation for the next opportunity. companies make decisions according to their place in the value network--or. as described by the Innovator’s Dilemma. Large companies also have an established customer base whom they must be accountable to. Solving the Innovator's Dilemma The next logical question in light of the rather grim picture presented by the Innovator’s Dilemma is can a firm hope to succeed? The answer lies in firms being able to identify. In trying to solve the Innovator’s Dilemma. potentially disruptive technologies before they overtake the traditional sustaining technology. Being industry veterans means that they have set ways in approaching new technologies. However. as Christensen states. Therefore.

choose how much profit it needs to make. In short. and greater convenience. and most individual decision makers find it very difficult to risk backing a project that might fail because the market is not there. the only instances in which mainstream firms have successfully established a timely position in a disruptive technology were those in which the firms’ managers set up an autonomous organization charged with building a new and independent business around the disruptive technology. smaller size. this success results in the eventual obsolescence of other previously dominant technologies. more mobile firms while maintaining its core business. firms still must circumvent its hierarchy and bureaucracy that can stifle the free pursuit of creative ideas. firms must be prepared to accept the development of unsuccessful new technologies if they want to encourage the development of new technologies. they must find an appropriate market to target. encouraging the development and implementation of disruptive technology. "Discovering markets for emerging technologies inherently involves failure. Although these technologies may result in worse product performance initially. Human resource systems can significantly affect disruptive technology. The Innovator's Dilemma. Introduction Christensen (1997) describes an innovator's dilemma.Even after correctly identifying potentially disruptive technologies. which concerns the adoption of technologies so new and dramatically different they are characterized as disruptive technologies. Also. even if engineers successfully develop a working product. 1 . some of which may become disruptive technologies. “With a few exceptions. Also. These disruptive technologies change the nature of their industry and the viability of firms not using the disruptive technologies. and how to run its business. the firm must quickly develop the new technology to compete with smaller. Both the intended and unintended effects of specific human resource practices must be considered. Finally. simpler operation. Christensen suggests that firms need to provide experimental groups within the company a freer rein. they are associated with later successes due to advantages such as lower cost. there are many variables involved in solving the Innovator’s Dilemma with few lifelines along the way. a difficult task given the unpredictable nature of markets." -Clayton Christensen. rewarding employees for actions related to disruptive technology. These effects occur through identifying disruptive technology as an organizational goal. Furthermore. and providing an organizational climate that facilitates development of disruptive technology.”1 This autonomous organization will then be able to choose the customers it answers to. Competing firms may eventually fail without the relevant disruptive technology.

even when such firms have previously dominated their industry. Examples of such disruptive technologies include those seen when the production of personal desktop computers was introduced into the computer industry. . and production of small off-road motorcycles successfully challenged the market dominated by powerful over-the-road motorcycles (Christensen). which was dominated by firms focusing on mainframe computers. the transistor replaced vacuum tubes and transformed the electronics industry.