Definitely, something that relates to that is Culture Shock, a book by Will Mcinnes who describes how to build collaborative cultures for 21st century organisations so this is less of a problem. http://willmcinnes.com/book-culture-shock/
metrics for disruption : )
Great question! Most intraprenuers seem to thrive in environments where they have creative autonomy. This, unfortunately, doesn't always bode well for the longevity or inclusiveness of what they're doing. When I was at Google I certainly could attest to this dilemma.
Here are a couple ways to tackle the issue, though:
1. Map out a strong, 30,000 ft vision
2. Refrain from executing on anything and, instead, engage a cohort of people around you. This ensures the vision is enact but that you are engaging other people as co-creators and co-owners to bring it to fruition.
3. Delegate core responsibilities of the initiative to others, establishing trust and a degree of dependance
4. Create a template for the initiative that can easily be handed off to the next group (account for key learnings and best practices so you're lessening the learning curve)
Democratizing ownership of an idea/venture requires guts! I've also witnessed the need for the orginiator to be secure in themselves and in thier funding model. This is true both within and outside corporate communities. \
maybe in the future all products will be "citizen-driven" and corporations will cease to exist as we know it...
I agree. Another interesting insight is the book: The Social Organisation releasing the collective genius of employees and customers. It probably isn't the holy grail answer but it does try to steer organisations away from 'provide and pray' to more considered and strategic collaboration.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Social-Organization-Collective-Customers/dp/1422172368
i think the hand-off is key and something that few think about very strategically. how do you package something to replicate and spread?
I agree, Alexa, adoption and and the degree of co-ownership is the most true sign of intrapreneurially success.
yeah, agree, so many ego issues at play. it's funny the folks that are the best at this seem to recognize the rather existential notion that ideas are only ours to witness - not something we "invent" and have propriety over.
I usually use the Kettering Foundation/ National Issues Forums Institute modal with three distinct different approaches to discuss and weigh the costs and benefits of implementing.
It's one of those communication balancing acts again: being clear enough to spread the message, but vague/open-ended enough that your collaborators feel like they can participate, add their personal point of view on something, and project their own aspirations into it. Then it feels like a true collaboration and not a command and control kind of situation.
Easier said than done.
As per Arthur's 4 point map, there are guidelines which are replicable - but they stay in the generic. And if we knew the ansewer, this very dialogue would be shorter and less interesting :)
so true. we recently hosted a dinner in london called "alice" which is about creating an anonymous leadership voice for women. but part of the effectiveness of our invitation was that it was vague enough to allow others to project their needs and desires onto it. i never would have thought about ambiguity as a tactic before : )
Diane, great question. One that I think if we answered we could be very popular and end short-termism! The challenge is that the value of these behaviours is a case of 1 + 1 = 3. Currently what doesn't get measured or attached with a price or time figure is hard. This raises the question for me about how do we revalue our impact both quantitatively and qualitatively and be able to demonstrate it?
OK, let's move onto the third question:
Q3. What sorts of systemic collaborations are you witness to - for example, between social intrapreneurs and socialentrepreneurs or between social intrapreneurs and their counterparts in other corporations? How does this alliance building happen?
Yes, i think this is key. If we can operate from the point that ideas are ours to witness (or some variation of that notion), then fostering democratization and/or co-creation or even handing it over entirely becomes much easer. This is the nub of the issue within companies, as ideas are ladened with the expectation of value-creation. Thus, the potential of the value-creation attached to a new idea is harder means it is harder to allow others so share/co-evolve. In otherwords, because there is the expectation of financial (or other types of corproate) value implicite for intrapreneurs, it's harder to remember its really not one's own idea.
this is such a good question. and one intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs are constantly asking. intrapreneur often has more scale. but change can be very slow. i think a lot of it depends on the personality of the individual. depending on the scale you want to work at as well as your comfort in institutions vs. in having your own freedom and self-direction. there is also a 3rd option as my Dad likes to call out 'the extrapreneur.' see: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rise-of-extrapreneur-cross-sector-collaboration
Metrics for the misfit economy ;)
This links to my latest comment about the implicit expectation that ideas create values for corporate... and that this potential makes it harder to democratize the ideation..