Research In Motion Corporate Social Resposability ABSTRACT Since Research In Motion's founding in 1984, company co-CEOs Michael Lazaridis

and Jim Balsillie have developed the company into a truly networked global operation. Following a brief company history an operational definition of global leadership is presented, and the team of Lazaridis and Balsillie are evaluated against this definition. By comparing company history and senior leadership practices to scholarly research and popular press reports, it is shown that the company's global leadership (Lazaridis and Balsillie) fit the definition of the global leader. A discussion of the art of Presencing and its relationship to entrepreneurship leads to an operational definition of entrepreneurial leadership. Following an illustration of Corporate Social Responsibility, it is shown that Lazaridis and Balsillie exhibit the qualities not just of entrepreneurs, but of social entrepreneurs. 1. INTRODUCTION Research In Motion (RIM) is a designer, manufacturer, and marketer of devices and connectivity for wireless mobile devices around the world. According to the company's website, RIM operates offices in North America, Europe, and in the Asian Pacific Rim. The company markets in at least 24 countries in Europe alone, and employs almost 5,000 people worldwide. RIM offers several products to businesses and to individuals for business and private use. The company's sole physical product is the "BlackBerry" line of mobile communication devices, which will be discussed in a later section. In addition to the BlackBerry the company offers software for wireless communication carriers such as T-Mobile in the US, and licenses other software for third-party applications and development. 2. COMPANY HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENT 2.1 BRIEF COMPANY HISTORY RIM was founded in Waterloo, Ontario in 1984 by Dr. Michael Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin (Carayannopoulos, 2005). Waterloo is not a large city, but it is home to two universities. This location appears to have been shrewdly chosen by the founders--the universities provide the company a source of young business and technical talent. In the beginning the co-founders focused on the technological aspects of developing wireless hardware and software. It was not long, however, before the company's efforts caught the attention of existing players in the nascent wireless communication industry. In 1991 Swedish company Ericsson contracted with RIM to provide software support for Ericsson's wireless modems--wireless communication was just beginning to make the jump from voice communication to data communication at that time. After a few years RIM found itself making wireless modems for all sorts of computer-driven devices in several industries.

In 1992 Lazaridis and Fregin hired Jim Balsillie as Chairman and co-CEO. Even though RIM was beginning to achieve success with its products, Balsillie was hired specifically because the original cofounders realized they didn't have the business acumen necessary to move their company onto the world stage. Today Lazaridis and Balsillie are RIM co-CEOs; for the purposes of this analysis, the pair will be considered RIM's Global Leaders. (Although Fregin is a cofounder, his role (by his own choice) has been to stay out of the top management tier.) In the early 1990s the leaders shaped RIM's focus on devices that could send and receive data. The primary audience was seen as people who would normally use either pagers or cell phones, but who needed the flexibility and discretion email provided. For example, pagers were not capable of sending data--only receiving it. Cell phones could of course send and receive voice transmissions but only short and fairly clumsy text messages. Lazaridis and Balsillie envisioned a device that could send and receive email messages instantly, displaying the messages on-screen. The company founders had observed the growth of email almost from the first days of RIM's existence, and sought to develop a product that would tie email functions to RIM's already successful wireless communication offerings. However, RIM lacked an important ingredient for success in any part of the wireless communication industry: the "bandwidth" on large computer networks that handled wireless communication traffic. To solve this bandwidth problem, RIM's leaders began developing an emotional network to help achieve their telecommunications goals, cultivating relationships with other wireless companies. For example, RIM contracted with BellSouth to purchase bandwidth, in exchange for licensing agreements. In 1999 RIM offered its first "BlackBerry" mobile wireless email device. The product was wildly successful by all industry accounts, and today is still responsible for the vast majority of the company's revenues. 2.2 RIM'S PRIMARY PRODUCT: THE BLACKBERRY RIM's signature product is the innovative BlackBerry wireless email messaging device. According to the company's website, the principal advantage of the BlackBerry (aside from its small form factor and ease of use) is that the BlackBerry system "pushes" emails to the handheld device automatically, rather than forcing the user to "pull" emails forward from an existing base email account. The difference between "push" and "pull" may be explained through a grocery store analogy. When one goes to a grocery store one is usually greeted by all kinds of produce and other food products just waiting for purchase on the shelves. When a shopper sees a particularly enticing melon, that shopper may pick up the melon and purchase it. This is exactly the sort of "push" system RIM uses with its BlackBerry--software in the user's existing email account automatically "pushes" emails to the handheld unit, so that those emails are waiting when the user wishes to see them. Likewise, when the user creates an email on the handheld unit, that email is immediately "pushed" to the user's existing email account and then sent through normal network channels wherever the user intended for it to go.

Prior to the introduction of the BlackBerry most messaging devices worked on a "pull" principle. Users had to invoke a series of commands to tell the handheld unit to seek any information (such as emails) from the base email system. If the handheld unit failed to make contact or failed to find any emails, the user was not able to look at whatever may have been lurking on that user's base account. The grocery store analogy would hold if one considered a situation where the shopper asked a clerk for a particular food product, and sent the clerk to look in a storage area for that product. If the clerk returns empty-handed the shopper must presume the product is not in the storage area--whether or not the product is, in fact, in storage.

By all computer industry accounts the 1990s were a period of explosive growth, both in terms of computing power and in terms of new means of communication via computer networks. One notable example is the growth of the internet during this period. It has been argued that the growth of computer and communication networking capabilities have enabled (or even precipitated) global business practices. Coupling this growth with the unprecedented popularity of email as a means of communication yields the notion that Lazaridis and Balsillie, with the BlackBerry device, positioned the company at a perfect confluence of technology, social development, and business need. This position caused RIM to reap the benefits of an increasingly global-themed marketplace, by offering devices that allowed people to operate in that same globally networked arena. The BlackBerry was a promising product for two main reasons--because western society as a whole was becoming increasingly mobile, and because developing societies have tended to seek the social networking value of the internet but do not have the infrastructure to build a "wired" system (Sugai, 2005). Even though there are challenges associated with each of these reasons, RIM appears to have developed "the right product at the right time" to become a world leader in wireless data communication. 3. GLOBAL LEADERSHIP AND RIM'S LEADERSHIP TEAM It is argued here that the combination of Lazaridis and Balsillie was the instrumental Global Management Team that has positioned RIM as a global communications leader. Lazaridis cofounded the company and created the original vision for global wireless communication. Balsillie, who earned an MBA from Harvard University in 1989, is widely credited with moving RIM to the global position it currently enjoys. Before discussing the individuals we introduce an operational definition of global leadership. 3.1 GLOBAL LEADERSHIP: AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION In order to create an operational definition of global leadership, the term "global" must be clearly defined. Regarding globalization, Malnight (1995) provided as good a definition as any when he wrote, "globalization (at the level of the firm) has been defined as the movement from traditional toward geocentric-type, or integrated network, models" (p. 122). He elaborated by stating that the focus should not be on where the firm operates--it should be on how the firm operates. In other words, "globalization" and "global executives" shouldn't be described in terms of where the work is done--the terms should be used to indicate how work is done. Therefore, defining global

leadership entails working within this "global" framework to identify specific leadership concepts necessary to operationalize the definition. Synthesizing the work of others yields the following operational definition of global leadership: "Global Leaders" are people who influence others toward a common organizational goal, who possess a truly global mindset, who balance needs for uniformity and diversity, and who establish emotional connections across borders through empathy and shared understanding, all to create an environment whereby the firm successfully operates as a truly integrated, global network (Spreitzer, McCall & Mahoney (1997); Ayman, Kreicker & Masztal (1994); Yeung & Ready (1995); Gergerson, Morrison & Black (1998); Roberts, Kossek & Ozeki (1998)). It will be shown that RIM is part of an integrated social and technological network, beginning with a discussion of RIM's Michael Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie as global leaders based on this summary operational definition. 3.2 RIM LEADERSHIP: GENERAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES AND SKILLS Lazaridis and Balsillie are fundamentally different people, and their individual traits and skills seem to mesh to provide RIM with a composite "super CEO." Each will be discussed separately here, but it is important to note that Lazaridis and Balsillie have themselves spoken of the fact that one's skills complement the other's (Pratt (2001)). 3.2.1 MICHAEL LAZARIDIS In terms of helping RIM achieve global status, Lazaridis' chief trait appears to be innovative mental agility in the highly technical field of wireless communication. Numerous reports have attested to Lazaridis' intelligence and abilities in this regard (see, for example, Pratt (2001), MacInnis (2005), and Spangler (2001)). However, there are two noteworthy examples that directly impact RIM's continued success on a global scale. Those two examples are the fact that Lazaridis and his partner Doug Fregin figured out how to make small form-factor wireless communicators, and the zeal with which Lazaridis launched the Perimeter Institute. Regarding the first example, Pratt (2001) provides a description of the task facing RIM as it attempted to create the first-ever "pocket sized" wireless email device. Quoting a member of the association that oversees standardization efforts for wireless communication, she relates, "We knew how hard it was going to be to build radio modems, because some very large companies were having trouble doing it" (p. 18). Lazaridis appears to have a combination of an engineer's attention to detail, a scientist's inquisitiveness, and a tinker's heart. The combination, by industry accounts, led him not only to succeed with radio modems (a precursor to today's wireless communication devices), but to succeed on a scale that literally created the market in which RIM operates. The Perimeter Institute is the second example of Lazaridis' mental agility. He conceived the institute as an informal, collegiate academic network; it is a place where scientists and researchers could gather and discuss matters of physics and other "pure" sciences. Although Lazaridis dropped out of university during his last year (he was pursuing an electrical engineering degree at the time), he has remained keenly interested in "basic research" into the

fundamental aspects of space, time, and matter (Wells (2005), p. 40). Several RIM principals have donated money to start the Perimeter Institute, but Lazaridis is by far the largest founding contributor, having donated CDN$100 million to the enterprise. Lazaridis has other traits and skills that come to bear for the global organization. He appears to have a global mindset, indicated in no small part by his stakeholder philosophy to corporate governance. For example, The Economist (2006) reports that Lazaridis is known to take good care of his employees, and he especially understands the value of staying on excellent terms with suppliers. In fact, it can be argued that RIM's suppliers have helped the company enter several global markets in a better position than the company could have without those suppliers' knowledge and assistance. Such goodwill is priceless to a company, and it further highlights the value of developing a networked, social organization. Lazaridis' charitable contributions are well-known, giving the impression that his focus is not just on profits or wealth or business--but on developing a corporate, socially-responsible global community that includes RIM's products. Wells (2005) summarized Lazaridis' contributions, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars he has donated himself or leveraged through his company and his community. 3.2.2 JIM BALSILLIE Balsillie was hired into the RIM organization when it became apparent that the business and financial aspects of running a business were not the co-founders' talents. For his part, Balsillie has contributed several global leadership traits or skills; among them are his abilities as a global integrator and locally responsive organizer, and his skill at "successfully managed evolutions" (Pratt, 2001, p. 24). It seems apparent from the preponderance of literature on global business that the balance of global integration and local responsiveness is a crucial indicator of success (Kedia & Mukherji, 1999). Balsillie has used his prior experience in the telecommunications industry to make this balance a regular practice at RIM. For example, he devised and articulated the idea that the BlackBerry device isn't really a "competitor" for telecommunications money--rather, it is a "platform" for telecommunications providers to sell their own product which is airtime. Balsillie has created a social network of partnerships with about 50 carriers worldwide (Heinzl, 2003). These partnerships have not only given RIM a chance to sell more BlackBerries, they have also given the company a crucial foothold in countries they never could have entered as quickly and effectively as they did under the partnership arrangements. The partnerships have allowed RIM to tailor its offerings to individual markets, while still retaining a sense of global branding--striking that balance discussed in the literature. The local telecommunications providers have helped RIM identify local consumer trends and desires, allowing RIM to create products that appeal directly to target markets in dozens of countries. Balsillie's other primary skill is in managing "evolutions" within the company. Pratt (2001) concluded that Balsillie was primarily responsible not only for keeping the company focused on what needed to be done at a particular time, but also learning at those points what needed to be

done for the next situation the company was bound to face. Balsillie seems to have a knack for "growing" large overall success from a series of smaller steps, and it is echoed in his own terms: "I don't think grandiose, easy plans are the route of many successful companies" (p. 24). 3.3 RIM GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN TERMS OF THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION It appears that RIM's top management team was thinking globally from the very beginning (see, for example, Carayannopoulos (2005)). The company was founded on aims of achieving a revolution in communication--enabling people to send and receive data in real-time, through a wireless network. The company's first large-scale contract was with Ericsson, a Swedish company. There followed, in rapid succession, formalized dealings with companies in other European countries and in Canada and the US. Lazaridis and Fregin hired Balsillie specifically because he had business experience (as opposed to their own technical experience), and because they recognized that their company's further growth depended on understanding the global business and social environment in which they was operating. As a company RIM has performed exceedingly well: since 2001 sales have grown more than 10,000% (St George, 2005). 3.3.1 OPERATING IN A TRULY GLOBALLY-NETWORKED CONTEXT From its inception RIM has pursued a social networking strategy. The company has not sought to compete with wireless carriers; rather, RIM has opted to sell its products through wireless carriers. There are benefits for both parties: the carriers are able to market a popular device that causes people to use more air-time, and RIM has enjoyed success in markets it never could have entered on its own. This networking strategy has worked on a global level. Harris (2006) reports that the company's strategy is to allow telecommunications partners around the globe to market BlackBerries locally: "Instead of having to learn about each global market, they're using the people who have the deepest level of market knowledge to do it for them" (no page number). RIM has also exploited the value in listening to customers as part of an informal research and development network. One notable example of perceiving customer needs, and then creating the right product to fill the need, is the company's partnership with Verizon to create the "World Edition" wireless device. Wildstrom (2007) reports that before RIM and Verizon partnered to introduce the device, world-traveling cellular telephone users (and BlackBerry users) had limited options for staying in touch with their communities. There are essentially two over-arching cellular "standards" in the world. When the user is traveling, the "World Edition" device seeks a Verizon network using the first standard, then it searches for the other over-arching standard, and then (presuming it doesn't find either standard) the unit turns on a radio transceiver that operates on the Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) standard. RIM's software "pushes" emails like it always has; this particular unit allows truly global connectivity with data and voice on the same device. 3.3.2 BALANCING NEEDS FOR UNIFORMITY AND DIVERSITY All BlackBerry devices do fundamentally the same thing, which is allow users to receive "pushed" emails wherever they may roam. The BlackBerry device is available in a few different styles, but for the most part RIM has created a uniform brand.

Another emphasis is on quality. Pratt (2001) quoted Larry Smith, an economics professor with whom the top management team worked in the early days of the company, saying that the founders impressed him with "commitment to quality for its own sake. (The team) understands that, pragmatically, quality sells" (p. 19). This type of intrinsic motivation, shown as a devotion to quality on its own merits, is manifested later in the team's intrinsic values demonstrated in their corporate social responsibility efforts. Although the basic BlackBerry function and quality are the same from model to model, the company has also accounted for differences in cultures, mainly in the areas of communication infrastructure and consumer habits. Communication infrastructure varies greatly in different regions of the world. In North America, for example, the communication infrastructure is a combination of wire-based equipment and wireless equipment. On the other hand, in parts of Europe there is not nearly as much wire-based equipment; in some developing nations there is no wire-based equipment whatsoever. This physical reality has had an interesting effect on consumers in these different regions: the less wire-based infrastructure is in place, the more consumers in such areas exploit features of wireless communication. Perhaps surprisingly, Sugai (2005) reports this phenomenon has been true on the other end of the spectrum as well: the more wire-based infrastructure is in place, the less consumers in such areas have exploited features of wireless communication. As such, consumers in the US (where wire-based infrastructure is everywhere) have been relatively slow to pick up on the features and convenience of wireless communication in general, as compared to their European and Asian counterparts. RIM has adjusted its product offerings accordingly: whereas it introduces extra features and capabilities in Europe and the Pacific Rim quite early, it has refrained from offering such things in the North American markets until the overall product idea has been established. RIM has used its social networking relationships with suppliers, telecommunications providers, and customers worldwide to understand where the industry is going and then provide the products that allow people to get the most out of what the wireless industry has to offer. On the global scale of telecommunications, there is the obvious complicating factor that what works in one area may not work in another. RIM seems to excel at figuring out how to develop solutions that work for consumers in specific cultures and areas of the world, epitomizing what Hall (2007) calls the "Think Globally, Experiment Locally" approach (p. 50). Hall uses this phrase, adapted from environmentalists' "think globally, act locally" credo, to argue that global firms should pay particular attention to research and development in local arenas, and not necessarily rush to use such developments in other local arenas. Hall's mantra to think globally while experimenting locally could be considered simply a "repackaging" of the balancing concept already discussed: either in Ayman, Kreicker, & Masztal's (1994) terms of uniformity and diversity, or in Kedia & Mukherji's (1999) parlance of global integration and local responsiveness. There are two facets of Hall's comments, however, that make them more interesting for the discussion at hand. First of all, Hall penned his words in 2007, thus validating and updating the earlier authors' work. Second, the words were written for the specific industry in which RIM is a major player. In essence, Hall's comments show that the concepts are still applicable today, in the very business arena in which RIM is competing.

3.3.3 EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS, SHARED UNDERSTANDING In an astoundingly short time, the BlackBerry device has achieved the type of household name status that has been conferred on the likes of Kleenex, Xerox, and Frisbee (each trademarked names). In just a few years the term "BlackBerry" has come to mean any mobile email messaging tool, much to the chagrin of RIM's competitors like Palm and Apple. Oprah Winfrey publicly professed her love of the device on her television show; those who freely admit their "addiction" to the devices call them "CrackBerries" (The Economist, 2006). RIM's top management team appears to have found a niche, in fact creating the market they inhabit, by offering a product that allows people to communicate easily, and constantly. This appeal may be to a fundamental human need that is one of the few that could be called universal: the need to be connected, socially, to others. There is no denying that RIM has been wildly successful. There is also ample support for the notion that the company is operating in a globally-networked environment. However, to stop at such conclusions doesn't address a very important aspect of the top management team: the pair has acted from the beginning as entrepreneurs, and the leaders have used their position (and success) to seek social change. In fact, Lazaridis and Balsillie transcend the model of the typical leader; they are, in reality, social entrepreneurs. 4. SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP ON A GLOBAL SCALE It has been shown that RIM is a global company, and that Lazaridis and Balsillie are global leaders. The rest of the story centers on the pair's efforts as social entrepreneurs, using their global company to advance personal social agendas in a morally correct way. By beginning with an intriguing discussion of "precognition" and tying that imaginative effort to the work of entrepreneurship, it will become clear that Lazaridis and Balsillie are clearly visionary entrepreneurial leaders. Finally, their philanthropic actions will underscore the tie between Corporate Social Responsibility and social entrepreneurship. 4.1 PRECOGNITION, OR BRINGING THE FUTURE TO THE PRESENT Typical treatments of organizational learning have focused on a reflection-based cycle, as described in Kolb (1984). In such a past-oriented cycle, organizations first experience an event, and then managers reflect on the circumstances of that experience. For example, managers may observe that a particular plan didn't work as well as intended; or they may observe that an environmental variable came to bear in an unexpected way. The next step of the reflection-based learning cycle is to make new plans based on the knowledge gained from this observation and reflection. Finally the managers and the organization act, and this action serves as the experience with which to repeat the cycle. 4.1.1 PRECOGNITION AND"PRESENCING" Scharmer (2000) contends that organizations hoping to succeed in the business environment of the 21st century must develop an entirely new cognitive capability--a completely new form of

organizational learning. This new capability might more appropriately be called precognition because it is based on mastering "the capacity to sense, enact, and embody the future as it emerges" (p. 4, emphasis in original). Scharmer's argument for moving from conventional learning to precognitive learning is simple: in the 21st century, previous experiences are not relevant to the challenges the organization will face next. The literature is rife with commentary about high-speed companies and the pace of organizational change in the 21st century; Scharmer has identified a new form of organizational learning that he says is required for organizations that wish to succeed in this new business environment. The logical question a curious person might ask is this: How, exactly, does a management team learn from a future that by definition hasn't happened yet? Scharmer argues that such learning begins not with rigorous study of the past, but by recognizing three levels of what he calls "cognition and social reality formation" (p. 15). In addition to these three levels, practitioners must first suspend the tendency of enacting old mental models and old ways of thinking. Upon suspension of old ways of thinking, the practitioner is then free to begin thinking in a whole new way, beginning with the level Scharmer calls reinterpretation. "Re-interpretation" begins simply by paying attention to what is happening around a person; it is closely related to the traditional step of reflection on phenomena and experiences. The difference is that such re-interpretation doesn't work by referring to old mental models; it works by adapting one's mental constructs to the situation as it is perceived. The next level of social reality formation is where Scharmer's model begins to operate in a thoroughly unique way; Scharmer calls the next step "imagination." He describes it as a way of seeing that is oriented not toward objects, but toward how those objects come to being (p. 16). From this effort of imagination comes the final level of precognitive learning: Presencing (pronounced /pre-SENSE-ing/). Presencing (or precognition) is probably seen by some as a Relativist philosophy, because the description invokes the idea of reality as a construction. Specifically, Scharmer describes Presencing as becoming aware that the mind and the world around the mind are not separate but are part of the same whole (p. 18). He argues that it is this "whole" that should be the focus of the learning organization, not simple objects or lessons from the past. Perhaps one of the most profound aspects of Scharmer's writing is the notion that Presencing is, at its simplest state, the act of releasing prejudicial thoughts, preconceived notions, and all manner of assumptions about what the world really looks like. When the manager does this, in essence surrendering selforiented thinking, the manager allows imagination and higher-order thinking to create the future in a cognitive way. In other words, Presencing is essentially the removal of all preconceptions that clutter the mind, thus allowing imagination and precognition to create a mental picture of the future. Presencing might be simply a quaint notion for Relativists to discuss, if it weren't manifest in a very real, very successful organization--RIM's top management team have demonstrated Scharmer's Presencing model in quite a convincing manner! 4.1.2 PRECOGNITION / PRESENCING AT RIM

RIM began as many small businesses do--the co-founders found something they liked to do and tried to figure out how to make money doing it. Very quickly, however, RIM's leaders realized that the company could be a part of a bigger "whole" (to use Scharmer's words), and let collective imagination drive technical creativity and thus form a future that hadn't yet existed. To parallel Scharmer's Presencing discussion, RIM moved from a traditional focus on structure and process, toward new thinking and new processes that resulted from leaders' imaginative efforts. For RIM's leadership, the question that sparked collective imagination was probably as simple as this: How can a person send and receive data (such as email) in a wireless environment, such that the data is available as soon as the person needs it? Following this imaginative effort, Lazaridis and Fregin (and, later, Balsillie) began to see their business and their collective imagination as part of a much larger whole --the "whole" of the telecommunications industry, where RIM now enjoys a very strong networking relationship. In fact, translating Scharmer into traditional business language is possible by looking at a company like RIM: research and development happens largely in the context of RIM's extensive network of customers, suppliers, and telecommunications partners. This collectivity-based R&D experience fuels a collective imagination that in turn spawns ideas that benefit the entire network--the entire "whole" of the telecommunications industry. Finally, it should be noted that RIM's performance provides a connection between Scharmer and the operational definition of global leadership given earlier in this paper: RIM has achieved the ability to create the future by operating as a truly integrated, global network.

4.2 RIM'S TOP MANAGERS AS ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERS 4.2.1 DEFINING ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP: BYGRAVE'S WORK In his work on entrepreneurial theory-building, Bygrave (1993) may himself have offered a premonition of Scharmer's (2000) work! Bygrave begins his discussion by describing why entrepreneurship should not be studied as if it were a positivist science or a mathematical concept. He shows how mathematical models are limited in their abilities to predict (or even explain) the wide variety of human action, but he also offers an enticing relationship between mathematical modeling and Scharmer's "Presencing" idea. In refuting the Population Ecology model for entrepreneurial business development, Bygrave uses the term "chaos" in its mathematical sense, describing it as occurring "when a tiny change in the initial conditions produces a big, unexpected change in the final outcome" (p. 262). He does not dismiss the utility of chaos theory outright; rather, he describes chaos as simply a metaphor for "real" entrepreneurial systems. In fact, Bygrave draws a beautiful parallel between mathematical chaos and empirical observations of entrepreneurial businesses when he describes the effort to "find 'regular' patterns in what appears to be 'irregular' data" (p. 273). Bygrave describes the mathematical process that can make sense of apparently random data--the search for "attractors" that, when introduced into the mathematical model, allow the system to "settle down" (p. 273). The Scharmerian connection is apparent here: Bygrave specifically suggests that this is what entrepreneurs do--they find those "attractors" that allow a complex future-oriented

system to "settle down," thus making the behavior of the system clear. It is important to note that for Bygrave this is happening even though this future behavior is apparent only in the wholeness of the entrepreneur's imagination or precognition. Could there be a better description, in an entrepreneurial context, of Scharmer's (2000) notions of imagining the future and experiencing wholeness of being within that imagination? While rejecting the notion that mathematics can ever accurately describe (much less predict) human endeavor, Bygrave asserts that chaos theory, which focuses on non-linear dimensions and unstable systems, may be much more appropriate than traditional linear thinking. He goes so far as to suggest that business schools should introduce non-linear differential equations into their curricula: At least if we do that, we might provide a useful counterpoise to the linear, incremental, reductionist thinking that permeates most MBA and DBA programs. That type of thinking may typify strategic managers--at least those with a trustee's mentality--but is not the hallmark of great entrepreneurs. They welcome the ambiguity of a turbulent world. (Bygrave, 1993, pp. 277-278) Synthesizing the work of Bygrave, Scharmer, and others, Entrepreneurial Leadership may be defined as the art and science of influencing others to achieve the common goal of creating a new organization, in an atmosphere of risk or uncertainty, in which the entrepreneurial leader may be expected to exercise unusual judgment and skill to mitigate or overcome such risk or uncertainty (Gartner (1988), Boyett (1997), Bygrave (1989), Cunningham & Lischeron (1991)). 4.2.2 ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP AT RIM Using Bygrave's (1993) terms, RIM's top management appears to have cultivated an ability to find "attractors" in the telecommunications world. It has been illustrated here that Lazaridis' technical competence and vision allowed him to develop a wireless architecture that had eluded others, and Lazaridis and Balsillie have created a future in an industry that is in many respects still trying to find its own identity. RIM's leaders believed in wireless data transmission before it was a reality. The team then created that reality, and introduced a receptive market to the reality they had created. Lazaridis, Fregin, and Balsillie essentially created not just a new organization but a new market-the market for wireless email and data transfer. They undertook their task in an atmosphere of large risk; in fact, few telecommunications industry experts believed that it was physically possible to create small-scale radio transceivers (required for all wireless products) that could effectively work with computer file traffic. Nevertheless, RIM's top management team used a combination of persistence, engineering skill, patient research, and marketing savvy to overcome the uncertainties that faced an entire industry. Lazaridis and Balsillie appear to have met the requirements of the operational definition for Entrepreneurial Leadership. The pair has certainly influenced others toward a common goal for the Organization--the essence of leadership. The atmosphere has been one of risk or uncertainty;

after all, RIM was first-to-market precisely because the company created the market for wireless data communication. Lazaridis and Balsillie have exercised unusual judgment and skill--through strategic partnerships with companies that could easily be competitors, the pair have solidified RIM's place in the market and have opened new markets that would have been very difficult for a small, young company to enter. This skill has allowed RIM to overcome initial risk and uncertainty to become the global leader in To call Lazaridis and Balsillie entrepreneurial leaders would be an accurate enough assessment; however, there is even more to the story than that. It appears, from the research and from popular press articles, that the pair has moved into the arena of social entrepreneurship. 4.3 RIM AS A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL ORGANIZATION Roberts and Woods (2005) present a concise description of the social entrepreneur: such a person uses a business as a driver for social change. The pair also argue that there is something more to the effort than driving social change, and call that additional attitude a "passion" for both the business and the social change that is being sought (p. 46). The pair summarizes their definition by stating, "social entrepreneurship could be defined as the construction, evaluation, and pursuit of opportunities for social change" (p. 49). It will be shown here that such a definition fits RIM's top management team well. 4.3.1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) may be defined by the terms provided in Aguilera, Rupp, Williams & Ganapathi (2007): CSR refers to "the firm's considerations of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social and environmental benefits along with traditional economic gains which the firm seeks" (pp. 836-837). The concept of CSR shares a strong bond with the concept of social entrepreneurship; in fact, it could be argued that corporate social responsibility informs aspects of social entrepreneurship. Perhaps not surprisingly, not-for-profit organizations have been traditionally socially-oriented firms that seek to make the world a better place--or at least a more comfortable place (Dees, 1998). To that end they might also be considered social entrepreneurial organizations, as they most likely fit the concept of innovators with a social agenda. One of the most important managerial mandates for the not-for-profit is finding money. Traditionally such organizations will write grant applications and seek donations (of materials and money). Recently, however, it has been noted in the research that more and more forprofit companies are touting their own CSR efforts. The notion of for-profit companies giving money for social causes raises an interesting proposition that is hotly debated among organization and management theorists: what ends, exactly, are served by a forprofit company's CSR efforts? Could such activity serve the community writ large, while doing disservice to the firm's owner/stockholders? Does corporate giving create an expectation, on the part of the public, of ever-higher corporate giving? Porter & Kramer (2002) describe this conundrum as a "no-win situation" where companies are caught

between social critics (who want companies to give more and more money), and investor/owners equally insistent that companies maximize profits. RIM's leaders have found what many may consider the correct path to assuage the social critics and pay heed to the company's investor/owners: rather than falling into the no-win situation by having the company make the contributions, RIM's employees make the contributions. This action is also perfectly in line with Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman's admonition that companies should allow stockholders to make funds decisions, rather than taking that decision from the stockholder (Porter & Kramer (2002), p. 58). A turn-of-phrase describes the action; rather than Corporate Social Responsibility, RIM's leaders demonstrate Personal Social Responsibility enabled by the company.

4.3.2 CSR AT RIM: PERSONAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Almost as soon as RIM's founders started making money, they started giving it away (Wells, 2005). Wells quoted Jim Balsillie as saying, "We're making a stupid amount of money and we want to do something constructive with it" (p. 40). The forum for the comment was a conference on how to spend RIM's managers' own money on socially important projects in the company's Waterloo hometown! RIM principals have donated over CDN$30 million of personal funds to start the Centre for International Governance Innovation, styled as a key meeting place for leading minds to work on improving world governance. Lazaridis, Fregin, and Balsillie have also donated a combined total of over CDN$120 million to start the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, attracting physicists and mathematicians from around the world who wish to consider the essence of time, space, and matter. There are other interests that have received funding from RIM's top management team, and all have very little to do with the company's day-to-day business. However, the team has stated that their goal is to make Waterloo and surrounding areas a world leader in technological development. In this regard RIM's principals appear to be using what Martin (2002) calls an intrinsic value system for CSR: top management makes the donations not for any self-serving interests but because they think it is simply the right thing to do (p. 7). The team's efforts seem to be working. John English is a former Member of Parliament for the area, and he wrote a history that concluded, in 1981, that the area was dying. At that time the primary industries were rubber and meat, both of which were in mortal suffering from competition elsewhere. However, in 1997 he revised his own history: "Unexpectedly, there was this flowering of new industries, things like RIM. It just transformed the community" (Wells, 2005, p. 42). It has been argued in some circles that Milton Friedman's seminal work on a stockholder-based theory of the firm essentially opens the doors for corporate irresponsibility (Barbee, 2005). Further, it may be suspected that small-business owners, with smaller revenues and tighter profit margins, may be more inclined to act in an irresponsible or immoral way. However, Barbee's research refutes that sentiment, and RIM itself seems to demonstrate that Barbee's research is

correct. Barbee's Baylor University colleagues studied entrepreneurial firms over the course of 20 years, beginning in the 1980s. They found that the majority of entrepreneurs "strive to achieve the highest standards of truthfulness, fairness, and trustworthiness in their business relationships" (p. 43). Further, the Baylor researchers also suggested a reason for this phenomenon: entrepreneurs are not just working for a business, they are working in something that is part of their lives. In the words of one researcher, "Their businesses aren't just what they do, but it's who they are" (p. 44). RIM's management team have demonstrated this integrity and fairness in what some may consider an odd way--by their actions following a financial scandal. Recently Jim Balsillie stepped down as Chairman of RIM's Board, following an investigation into the practice of backdating stock options. The event shows that even the best intentions sometimes run afoul of good sense and fair dealing, but it also shows that RIM's principals haven't lost their principles.

4.3.3 THE STOCK OPTIONS MISTAKE--INTEGRITY AFTER A FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP In March 2007, RIM publicly admitted to back-dating stock options grants, and as of the summer of 2007 was under investigation by authorities in the United States for these actions (Annett, 2007). The practice of back-dating stock options grants is quite easy to understand--the registered date of issue of the grant is stated as a date earlier than the actual date of issue, usually with the intention of picking a date where the company's stock price was relatively low. The action has the effect of making the option worth more for the person redeeming the option, and it is seen in the investment community as a morally incorrect act. It is important for the discussion that the action is seen as a morally incorrect act: the back-dating action is not technically against the law, unless it can be shown that any laws (such as insidertrading laws or tax laws) were broken in the process. However, it seems to violate the tenets of fair play by manipulating data for personal gain. This sets up a bit of a dilemma for any company: it is possible to award an options grant for any amount of stock; if the effort is to put more money in the pockets of an employee, why not just award more stock rather than artificially deflating the issuing price? This is, perhaps, why the practice itself is not illegal on its own: there are different legal means to achieve the same ends. Nevertheless, Balsillie and Lazaridis admitted that every stock option granted before February 2002, and roughly two-thirds of options granted after February 2002, used back-dated issue prices (Masters & Simon, 2007). However, while taking responsibility as the company's top management, the pair also offered explanations that suggest the situation to be an unhappy circumstance of RIM's good fortune. Specifically, Balsillie stated that, at the time, the company was growing so quickly that top management didn't have time to thoroughly research its actions and decisions, and only after being told they were violating good business practices were the team aware of the problem. (Balsillie also stated for the record that he was personally responsible for reviewing and approving almost every stock option grant during the period.) Furthermore, Balsillie offered that the specific dates that were eventually used for the grants were the dates

that employees verbally committed to the company, rather than an official date when that employee actually came to work. This reasoning seemed logical at the time, according to Balsillie, but from regulators' viewpoints may not excuse the action.

The aftermath of this incident is perhaps the most interesting from a corporate ethics perspective. There are two main areas to consider--investor reaction and RIM's own "housekeeping" as a result of the public admission of culpability. First, investor reaction was widely indifferent! The company's stock price dipped briefly, and since the end of March 2007 the stock has been trading as briskly as ever, on solid performance. This reaction is a bit of a surprise to some investment analysts. Although there is no apparent reason to suggest that RIM has other skeletons in its corporate closet, the tenor of the reports seems to be that analysts believe if this issue has come to light, then there are probably other issues of a more serious or illegal nature that will probably eventually come to light as well (see, for example, Masters & Simon (2007), Gray (2007), and Vascellaro (2007)). RIM's corporate "housekeeping" amounted to altering corporate governance structures in a manner that corporate ethicists probably would have suggested anyway. According to RIM's 2007 annual report, before the back-dating issue came to light, Balsillie was co-CEO and Chairman of the Board. As a result of the scandal he stepped down as Chairman and retained his co-CEO status with Lazaridis. Two other "inside" members of the board voluntarily resigned their board positions; in addition, RIM hired two outside board members. The net effect was to raise RIM's board strength to 9, with 4 "outside" members. Finally, the company established a board oversight committee to take a more active hand in reviewing board (and, presumably, top management team) actions. All of these efforts have had the effect of "opening up" RIM's board and making them more independent of top management team whims. One last action is worthy of note: both Lazaridis and Balsillie voluntarily paid CDN$5 million each back to the company, from their own pockets. Balsillie's explanation was straightforward: "We're CEOs and we're responsible" (Gray, 2007, 9). Depending on whom one chooses to believe, the back-dating event happened because the company was growing quickly in a hyper-competitive market, and wanted to attract good talent. In essence, Balsillie pleaded that his decisions were based on perceived needs and urgencies of the moment, and only later did he come to understand that the actions were wrong. Investors on Wall Street and on the Toronto Stock Exchange appear to be pardoning the young company's team, and this is due in large part to the company's sterling performance in the global marketplace. 5. CONCLUSION Research In Motion is a Canadian company that has quickly become a world leader in wireless data communication. The company was founded in 1984 to develop wireless hardware and software, and has since come to dominate the industry it created by both working on a global

scale and offering products and services that appeal on a local scale. Its most notable product is the BlackBerry, a device that capitalizes on the company's "push" email architecture. RIM has experienced a growth vector that is the envy of any company, not just those engaged in high-technology. It has survived the worldwide downturn in technology stocks during the "internet bubble burst" in the late 1990s; it is currently the leading supplier of wireless data communication capability, in spite of the fact that it is not the leading telecommunications provider or even the most well-known manufacturer of devices. Company co-CEOs Michael Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie have demonstrated the operational definition of global leadership. They influence others toward a common organizational goal; they possess a truly global mindset; they balance needs for uniformity and diversity; and they establish emotional connections across boards through empathy and shared understanding, all to create an environment whereby RIM successfully operates as a truly integrated, global network. Further, it has been shown that Lazaridis and Balsillie transcend this definition: they are in fact global social entrepreneurs. RIM has succeeded largely because of the vision and passion of its entrepreneurial leadership team. The pair has exercised entrepreneurial spirit by creating a new organization in an atmosphere of uncertainty, exercising unusual judgment and skill to overcome this uncertainty. The men are considered social entrepreneurs because they use their passion and their business as drivers for social change--both globally and locally, in the company's hometown.

Finally, Michael Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie appear to actively exercise the Presencing effort of imagining the future through precognition, allowing the company to create that future without being impeded by a past-oriented viewpoint. This has allowed the company to work with its extensive network to develop the whole of the telecommunications industry through innovation and new ways of thinking. Such "new thinking" may come from odd places, if one considers the suggested outside-the-box thinking odd. However, history has a way of showing the world that at RIM, as at other visionary global companies, what is odd to the rest of the world is simply a goldmine waiting to be developed. REFERENCES: Aguilera, Ruth V., Rupp, Deborah E., Williams, Cynthia A., and Ganapathi, Jyoti, "Putting the S Back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations," Academy of Management Review, XXXII(3), 2007, 836-863. Annett, Tim, (2007, March 5). "The Evening Wrap: Sore Thumbs Up? Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), March 5, 2007. Ayman, Roya, Kreicker, Noel A., and Masztal, Jaci J., "Defining Global Leadership in Business Environments," Consulting Psychology Journal, Vol. XLVI(1), 1994, 64-77. Barbee, Beth, "Ethics of ... Entrepreneurship," Baylor Business Review, XXII(2), 2005, 42-44.

Boyett, Inger, "The Public Sector Entrepreneur--A Definition," International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, IX(2), 1997, 36-51. Bygrave, William D., "The Entrepreneurship Paradigm (I): A Philosophical Look at its Research Methodologies," Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, XIV(1), 1989, 7-26. Bygrave, William D., "Theory Building in the Entrepreneurship Paradigm," Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 1993, 255-280. Carayannopoulos, Sofy, "Research In Motion: A Small Firm Commercializing a New Technology," Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, XXIX(2), 2005, 219-232. Cunningham, J. Barton, and Lischeron, Joe, "Defining Entrepreneurship," Journal of Small Business Management, XXIX(1), 1991, 45-67. Dees, J. Gregory, "Enterprising Nonprofits," Harvard Business Review, LXXVI(1), 1998, 55-67. The Economist. (2006, September 23). Mr. BlackBerry sends a message. 380(8496), 34-37. Retrieved May 6 2007 from ABI/INFORM Global database. Gartner, William B., "'Who is an entrepreneur?' is the Wrong Question," American Journal of Small Business, XII(4), 1988, 11-39. Gray, John, "Research In Trouble," Canadian Business, LXXX(6), 2007, 9-10. Gregerson, Hal B., Morrison, Allen J., and Black, J. Stewart, "Developing Leaders for the Global Frontier," Sloan Management Review, XL(1), 1998, 21-32. Hall, Mark, "Think Globally, Experiment Locally," Computerworld, XL(21), 2007, 50. Harris, Rebecca, "Innovative Icon," Marketing Magazine, CXI(38), 2006, 19-20. Heinzl, Mark, "Growing BlackBerries Overseas: Research In Motion Looks Abroad to Expand Use of E-Mail Tool," Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), Nov 13, 2003, page B.3. Kedia, Ben L., and Mukherji, Ananda, "Global Managers: Developing a Mindset for Global Competitiveness," Journal of World Business, XXXIV(3), 1999, 230-251. Kolb, David A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1983. MacInnis, Patricia, "Top 30: Canada's IT Movers and Shakers," Computing Canada, XXI(13), 2005, 4-14. Malnight, Thomas W., "Globalization of an Ethnocentric Firm: An Evolutionary Perspective," Strategic Management Journal, XVI(2), 1995, 119-141.

Martin, Roger, "The Virtue Matrix: Calculating the Return on Corporate Responsibility," Harvard Business Review, LXXX(3), 2002, 5-11. Masters, Brooke, and Simon, Bernard, "BlackBerry Chief Drops Dual Role Amid Options Scandal," Financial Times (London 1st Edition), March 6, 2007, 19. Porter, Michael E., and Kramer, Mark R., "The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy," Harvard Business Review, LXXX0(12), 2002, 56-69. Pratt, Laura, "Persistence In Motion," Profit, XX(3), 2001, 18-28. RIM, 2007 Annual Report. Roberts, Dave, and Woods, Christine, "Changing the World on a Shoestring: The Concept of Social Entrepreneurship," University of Auckland Business Review, VII(1), 2005, 45-51. Roberts, Karen, Kossek, Ellen E., and Ozeki, Cynthia, "Managing the Global Workforce: Challenges and Strategies," The Academy of Management Executive, XII(4), 1998, 93-106. Scharmer, Claus O., "Presencing: Learning From the Future as it Emerges: On the Tacit Dimension of Leading Revolutionary Change," Paper presented at the Conference On Knowledge and Innovation, May 25-26, Helsinki, Finnland [sic], 2000. Spangler, Todd, "Fruit Loot: Why BlackBerry is Still Going Strong," Interactive Week, VIII(29), 2001, no page numbers given. Spreitzer, Gretchen M., McCall Jr., Morgan W., and Mahoney, Joan D., "Early Identification of International Executive Potential," Journal of Applied Psychology, LXXXII(1), 1997, 6-29. St George, Ardelle, "RIM CEO Agrees to Speak," Mergers and Acquisitions, XL(2), 2005, 1011. Sugai, Philip, "Mapping the Mind of the Mobile Consumer Across Borders: An Application of the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique," International Marketing Review, 22(6), 2005, 641-647. Vascellaro, Jessica E., "RIM Sets Restatement, Shake-Up on Board in Backdating Fallout; Profit Could Be Reduced up to $250 Million; Balsillie Out as Chairman," Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), March 6, 2007, p. A.3. Wells, Paul, "A Small Place to Think Big," MacLean's, 118(16), 2005, 40-42. Wildstrom, Stephen H., "Verizon's Global BlackBerry," Business Week Online, May 18, 2007, no page numbers given.

Yeung, Arthur K., and Ready, Douglas A., "Developing Leadership Capabilities of Global Corporations: A Comparative Study in Eight Nations," Human Resource Management, 34(4), 1995, 529-547. Anthony M. Faaborg, Capella University / United States Air Force, USA Marilyn E. Harris, Capella University, USA Toni B. Greif, Capella University, USA

------------

Research In Motion (RIM) is a designer, manufacturer, and marketer of devices and connectivity for wireless mobile devices around the world. According to the company's website, RIM operates offices in North America, Europe, and in the Asian Pacific Rim. The company markets in at least 24 countries in Europe alone, and employs almost 5,000 people worldwide. RIM offers several products to businesses and to individuals for business and private use. The company's sole physical product is the "BlackBerry" line of mobile communication devices. RIM was founded in Waterloo, Ontario in 1984 by Dr. Michael Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin (Carayannopoulos, 2005). In 1992 Lazaridis and Fregin hired Jim Balsillie as Chairman and co-CEO. Even though RIM was beginning to achieve success with its products, Balsillie was hired specifically because the original cofounders realized they didn't have the business acumen necessary to move their company onto the world stage. Today Lazaridis and Balsillie are RIM co-CEOs; for the purposes of this analysis, the pair will be considered RIM's Global Leaders. (Although Fregin is a cofounder, his role (by his own choice) has been to stay out of the top management tier.)

The Perimeter Institute is the second example of Lazaridis' mental agility. He conceived the institute as an informal, collegiate academic network; it is a place where scientists and researchers could gather and discuss matters of physics and other "pure" sciences. Several RIM principals have donated money to start the Perimeter Institute, but Lazaridis is by far the largest founding contributor, having donated CDN$100 million to the enterprise.

Lazaridis has other traits and skills that come to bear for the global organization. He appears to have a global mindset, indicated in no small part by his stakeholder philosophy to corporate governance. For example, The Economist (2006) reports that Lazaridis is known to take good care of his employees, and he especially understands the value of staying on excellent terms with suppliers. In fact, it can be argued that RIM's suppliers have helped the company enter several global markets in a better position than the company could have without those suppliers' knowledge and assistance. Such goodwill is priceless to a company, and it further highlights the value of developing a networked, social organization. Lazaridis' charitable contributions are well-known, giving the impression that his focus is not just on profits or wealth or business--but on developing a corporate, socially-responsible global community that includes RIM's products. Wells (2005) summarized Lazaridis' contributions, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars he has donated himself or leveraged through his company and his community.

4.3 RIM AS A SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURIAL ORGANIZATION Roberts and Woods (2005) present a concise description of the social entrepreneur: such a person uses a business as a driver for social change. The pair also argue that there is something more to the effort than driving social change, and call that additional attitude a "passion" for both the business and the social change that is being sought (p. 46). The pair summarizes their definition by stating, "social entrepreneurship could be defined as the construction, evaluation, and pursuit of opportunities for social change" (p. 49). It will be shown here that such a definition fits RIM's top management team well. 4.3.1 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) may be defined by the terms provided in Aguilera, Rupp, Williams & Ganapathi (2007): CSR refers to "the firm's considerations of, and response to, issues beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm to accomplish social and environmental benefits along with traditional economic gains which the firm seeks" (pp. 836-837). The concept of CSR shares a strong bond with the concept of social entrepreneurship; in fact, it could be argued that corporate social responsibility informs aspects of social entrepreneurship. Perhaps not surprisingly, not-for-profit organizations have been traditionally socially-oriented firms that seek to make the world a better place--or at least a more comfortable place (Dees, 1998). To that end they might also be considered social entrepreneurial organizations, as they most likely fit the concept of innovators with a social agenda. One of the most important managerial mandates for the not-for-profit is finding money. Traditionally such organizations will write grant applications and seek donations (of materials and money). Recently, however, it has been noted in the research that more and more forprofit companies are touting their own CSR efforts.

The notion of for-profit companies giving money for social causes raises an interesting proposition that is hotly debated among organization and management theorists: what ends, exactly, are served by a forprofit company's CSR efforts? Could such activity serve the community writ large, while doing disservice to the firm's owner/stockholders? Does corporate giving create an expectation, on the part of the public, of ever-higher corporate giving? Porter & Kramer (2002) describe this conundrum as a "no-win situation" where companies are caught between social critics (who want companies to give more and more money), and investor/owners equally insistent that companies maximize profits. RIM's leaders have found what many may consider the correct path to assuage the social critics and pay heed to the company's investor/owners: rather than falling into the no-win situation by having the company make the contributions, RIM's employees make the contributions. This action is also perfectly in line with Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman's admonition that companies should allow stockholders to make funds decisions, rather than taking that decision from the stockholder (Porter & Kramer (2002), p. 58). A turn-of-phrase describes the action; rather than Corporate Social Responsibility, RIM's leaders demonstrate Personal Social Responsibility enabled by the company.

4.3.2 CSR AT RIM: PERSONAL SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Almost as soon as RIM's founders started making money, they started giving it away (Wells, 2005). Wells quoted Jim Balsillie as saying, "We're making a stupid amount of money and we want to do something constructive with it" (p. 40). The forum for the comment was a conference on how to spend RIM's managers' own money on socially important projects in the company's Waterloo hometown! RIM principals have donated over CDN$30 million of personal funds to start the Centre for International Governance Innovation, styled as a key meeting place for leading minds to work on improving world governance. Lazaridis, Fregin, and Balsillie have also donated a combined total of over CDN$120 million to start the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, attracting physicists and mathematicians from around the world who wish to consider the essence of time, space, and matter. There are other interests that have received funding from RIM's top management team, and all have very little to do with the company's day-to-day business. However, the team has stated that their goal is to make Waterloo and surrounding areas a world leader in technological development. In this regard RIM's principals appear to be using what Martin (2002) calls an intrinsic value system for CSR: top management makes the donations not for any self-serving interests but because they think it is simply the right thing to do (p. 7). The team's efforts seem to be working. John English is a former Member of Parliament for the area, and he wrote a history that concluded, in 1981, that the area was dying. At that time the primary industries were rubber and meat, both of which were in mortal suffering from competition elsewhere. However, in 1997 he revised his own history: "Unexpectedly, there was this flowering of new industries, things like RIM. It just transformed the community" (Wells, 2005, p. 42).

Further, it has been shown that Lazaridis and Balsillie transcend this definition: they are in fact global social entrepreneurs. RIM has succeeded largely because of the vision and passion of its entrepreneurial leadership team. The pair has exercised entrepreneurial spirit by creating a new organization in an atmosphere of uncertainty, exercising unusual judgment and skill to overcome this uncertainty. The men are considered social entrepreneurs because they use their passion and their business as drivers for social change--both globally and locally, in the company's hometown.