College  In-­Corporation:  

A  Model  for  the  Future  of  Corporate  Entrepreneurship  

 

We   are   at   the   start   of   a   millennium   that   is   increasingly   being   defined   by   global   connectivity,  

breakthrough   innovations   and   a   fast   changing  world.   Instrumental   to   leading   these   changes   and  

progress   are   the   large  multi-­‐national   companies.   They   have   the   extensive   reach   beyond   national  

boundaries  and  capabilities  to  create  products  and  services  that  are  already  setting  the  pace  for  a  

competitive  and  vibrant  economy.  

In  this  new  competitive  era,  qualities  such  as  adaptability  and  innovative  minds  are  key  to  survival  

and  these  can  be  found  in  an  “entrepreneur”.  In  1934,  Schumpeter1  explained,  “…entrepreneurs  are  

prime   movers   of   economic   change”.   Undeniably,   today’s   powerhouse   corporations   were   once  

created   by   individual   entrepreneurs   such   as   Steve   Jobs   of   Apple   and   Thomas   Edison   of   General  

Electric.   As   these   companies   grow,   the   concept   of   spreading   the   founders’   entrepreneurial   spirit  

across  the  entire  company  and  through  time   is  hard  to  conceive.   Indeed,   to   those  who  view  large  

companies  as  being  bureaucratic  and  risk  adverse  in  nature,  the  term  “corporate  entrepreneurship”  

is  an  oxymoron  and  a  huge  challenge.      

Despite  the  obvious  challenges  for  large  companies,   it  would  also  be  a  great  misconception  to  say  

that   these  organisations  are  not  at  all  capable  of  being  entrepreneurial.   In   fact,  a   large  company’s  

reputation,  human  capital  and  existing  technologies  can  empower  their  employees  to  innovate  and  

create  at  a  much  faster  pace  and  at  a  greater  complexity.  For  example,  it  would  be  nearly  impossible  

for  an  individual  entrepreneur  to  build  the  Airbus  A380.  So,  when  we  think  of  a  large  company  with  

the  right  people,  process  and  corporate  positioning,  entrepreneurship  can  thrive  and  lead  the  pace  

of   innovation   globally.   Today,   the   revolutionary   Post-­‐it   Notes   have   colourfully   filled   our   office  

spaces  and  it  is  fondly  attributed  to  Art  Frye,  an  “intrapreneur”  from  3M.    

Any  entrepreneurial  organization  geared  up  to  make  changes  and  innovations  must  above  all  be  a  

learning   organisation.   Senge2   once   explained,   “As   the   world   becomes   more   interconnected   and  

business   becomes   more   complex   and   dynamic   …   it   is   no   longer   sufficient   to   have   one   person  

learning   for   the   organisation”.   What   we   call   a   learning   organisation   surely   has   its   roots   in  

                                                                                                               1 Schumpeter,  J.  A.  (1934).  The  Theory  of  Economic  Development.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press. 2 Senge,  P.  (1990).  The  Fifth  Discipline:  The  Art  and  Science  of  the  Learning  Organisation,  New  York:  Currency  Doubleday.

something   we   all   have   experienced   –   our   education   in   colleges.   We   were   old   enough   to   be  

independent  and  yet,  free  enough  to  lead  initiatives  that  allowed  us  to  imagine  the  impossible.  This  

culture   of   exploration,   learning   and   collaboration   has   in   fact   become   a   birthplace   of   not   only  

research  and  education,  but  also  many  business  ideas.  It  is  hardly  surprising  that  companies  such  as  

Google,  Yahoo,  SUN,  Cisco  Systems  and  HP  were  once  a  start-­‐up  from  the  Stanford  University,  one  of  

the  leading  learning  organizations  in  the  world.  

 

Hence,  the  learning  and  innovative  culture  of  colleges  can  be  incorporated  within  large  companies.  

And   this   inverted   pyramid   framework   is   what   I   term   as   the   “College   In-­‐Corporation”   of   3   Ps   –  

People,   Process,   and   Positioning.   The   people   of   the   company   are   the   fore-­‐runners   of   the  

corporation  just  like  the  students  in  colleges,  the  process  or  systems  within  the  business  are  much  

like  education  curriculum  that  makes  things  fall  into  place  and  finally,  the  faculty  or  the  corporate  

positioning  provides   the   leadership  support  and  vision   for   the  company’s   future.  The  rest  of  my  

essay  will  detail  how  large  companies  can  utilise  the  3Ps  to   inculcate  corporate  entrepreneurship  

within  their  organisation.  

 

 

PEOPLE  

 

The   framework   of   “College   In-­‐Corporation”   places   the   people   at   the   top   of   the   pyramid.   Any  

college’s  ultimate  pride  is  the  student  body  and  similarly  any  company’s  pride  must  ultimately  be  

their  employees  because  they  are  the  ones  creating  the  products  and  systems  that  further  expand  

Figure  1:  The  framework  of  College  In-­‐Corporation  

the   company’s   vibrancy   and   expertise.   Richard   Branson3,   the   CEO   of   Virgin   Group   beautifully  

explained  the  importance  of  employees.  He  said,  “Convention  dictates  that  a  company  should  look  

after  its  shareholders  first,  its  customers  next  and  last  of  all  worry  about  its  employees.  Virgin  does  

the   opposite.   For   us,   our   employees  matter  most…   if   you   start   off   with   a   happy,   well-­‐motivated  

workforce,   you’re   much   more   likely   to   have   happy   customers.   And   in   due   course   the   resulting  

profits  will  make  your  shareholders  happy.”  Hence,  once  the  focus  is  on  the  people,  their  sense  of  

belonging  and  pride  automatically  contributes  to  the  productivity  and  a  healthy  innovative  culture  

in  the  organisation.    

One  obvious  factor  linked  to  the  employees  is  time.  The  workaholic  world  of  corporations  is  viewed  

to   be   fixated  with   “9   to   5   jobs”   and   endless   overtime.   This   hardly   leaves   room   for   any   play   and  

experimentation.   If   a   company   is   serious   about  making   innovation  and  having  new  products   and  

ideas   as   part   of   their   culture,   “time”   is   a   resource   they  must   free   up   for   their   employees.   In   the  

“Time-­‐Pressure/Creativity  Matrix”4  as  shown  below,  the  high  likelihood  of  creative  thinking  occurs  

when  there  is  a  low  time  pressure5.    

Corporations   such  a  Google  and  3M  have  already   realised   this   importance  of   time.  Google  allows  

their   engineers   20%   of   their   time   to   work   on   own   projects,   build   prototypes,   share   their  

experiments   and   collaborate  with   other   teams.   It   is   hardly   surprising   that   50%   of   Google’s   new  

products  originate   from  this  20%  time6.  Creativity  and  experimentation   is  at   the  heart  of  all  new  

products  and  this  can  only  be  done  if  the  employees  are  left  to  be  free  for  a  period  of  time  just  to  

explore  ideas.    

 

                                                                                                               3  Branson,  R.  (2005).  Losing  My  Virginity:  The  autobiography.  Three  Rivers  Press.  4  Teresa  M.  Amabile,  Jennifer  M.  Mueller,  William  B.  Simpson,  Constance  N.  Hadley  Steven  J.  Kramer  and  Lee  Fleming.  (2002).  Time  pressure  and  Creativity  in  Organisation:  A  longitudinal  Field  Study.  Harvard  Business  School.    <  http://www.hbs.edu/research/facpubs/workingpapers/abstracts/0102/02-­‐073.html>  5  Teresa  M.  Amabile,  Constance  N.  Hadley,    Jennifer  M.  Mueller,  Steven  J.  Kramer.  (2003).    Harvard  Business  Review  on  the  Innovative  Enterprise  –  Article  on  Creativity  under  the  Gun.  United  States  of  America:  Harvard  Business  School  Press.  6  Mayer,  Marissa,  Google's  Vice-­‐President  of  Search  Products  and  User  Experience.  "MS&E  472  Course:  Entrepreneurial  Thought  Leaders  Seminar  Series."  (An  audio  link:  http://www.stanford.edu/group/edcorner/uploads/podcast/mayer060517.mp3).  ETL  Seminar  Series/Stanford  University.  17  May  2006.    

Figure  2:  The  Time-­‐Pressure/Creativity  Matrix  

The   second  most   important   people   factor   is   diversity.   Remember   the   times   in   college   when   we  

made  many   friends   across   different   faculties,   projects   and   co-­‐curricular   activities?   This   diversity  

creates  a  tremendous  exchange  of  ideas.  It  stimulates  our  minds  to  rethink  our  perspectives  as  we  

mix   with   different   people.   In   large   companies,   the   chance   to   meet   different   people   is   plenty.   If  

companies  can  implement  systems  that  make  the  employees  reorganise  frequently  on  project  basis,  

without   the  need   to  engage   in   the   inconveniences  of  moving  and   transfer,   it  will   ensure  a  mix  of  

ideas   that  will  pave   the  way   for   innovation.  Three  surest  way  of  creating  diversity   is   to  allow   for  

fluid  movement  of  people  across   teams,  bring   in  outsiders  and  create  diverse   teams  with  various  

expertise   and   talents.   For   example,  Proctor  &  Gamble   continuously   forms  multifunctional  project  

teams  to  run  the  multi-­‐product  company.    

Finally,  if  a  company  truly  believes  in  the  importance  of  its  people,  it  must  also  understand  that  it  is  

impossible   to  have  every  one  of   its  employees   ingrained  with  the  qualities  of  an  entrepreneur.   In  

fact,  the  company  must  recognise  it  does  not  need  only  entrepreneurial  employees.  As  a  new  idea  

or  product  goes  through  its  phases  of  birth  to   implementation,   it  will  need  champions  to  start  off  

the  idea,  technologists  to  build  the  product,  implementers  to  execute  the  project,  quality  control  for  

product   certification   and   finally   marketers   to   publicise   the   product.   This   shows   that   an  

organization  should  be  holistically  entrepreneurial  and   this  by  nature  will  have  places   for  people  

who  have  different  talents  for  different  tasks  and  positions.    

 

 

PROCESS  

 

The  second   layer   in   the  pyramid  of   “College   In-­‐Corporation”   is   the   second  P  of  Process.  With   the  

employees  at  the  forefront  of  execution,  there  have  to  be  proper  channels  and  systems  in  place  to  

guide   them   and   make   it   easy   for   ideas   to   sieve   through   the   organisation.   Corporate  

entrepreneurship  must  be  backed  by  processes  that  make  innovation  a  common  part  of  the  culture.  

Furthermore,  they  should  allow  all  ideas  an  easy  avenue  to  be  expressed  and  above  all,  ideas  from  

all   sources   must   be   equally   encouraged.   I   will   go   onto   to   explain   how   this   already   being   done  

through  the  different  processes.  

 

First  and  foremost,  any  process  linked  to  “corporate  entrepreneurship”  must  become  a  norm  of  the  

company   culture.   Being   innovative   and   creative   must   be   part   of   daily   business   operations   and  

should  not  be  seen  as  something  extraordinary.  Hence,  no  extra  importance  should  be  given  to  the  

culture  of  creativity  just  like  the  company’s  culture  of  safety  assurance,  risk  management  or  project  

execution.   Once   innovation   and   creativity   become   part   of   daily   operations,   these   small   seeds   of  

“normal  changes”  will  start  to  create  ripples  of   initiatives  within  the  organisation.  This  process  of  

being   “normal”   is  what  Drucker7  calls     “systematic  abandonment  policy  at  all   times,   sloughing  off  

the  past  so  that  resources  are  available  for  the  future”.    Companies  have  to  put  processes  in  place  to  

maintain  this  constant  engagement  in  creativity  and  innovation  as  part  of  their  normal  operations.  

 

Secondly,   there  must  be  processes   in  place  to  allow  the  expression  of   ideas  at  the   inception  stage  

and  these  must  reach  the  top  management  quickly.  In  the  daily  operations  of  large  companies,  the  

demands  of  current  product  deliverables  and  customer  requests  can  kill  off  a  new  idea  before  it  can  

reach   the  right  people  and  stage  of  development.  To  combat   this,   companies  can   implement  both  

internal   and   external   sharing   systems   to   constantly   engage   in   the   recognition   and   expression   of  

these   ideas.   IBM’s   Alpha  Works8   is   one   such   platform   that   allows   the   engineers   to   put   up   their  

emergent   technologies   for   any   worldwide   developers   to   download   and   collaborate   on   the  

possibility  of  a  commercial  product.  This  type  of  an  open  platform  allows  ideas  to  reach  the  right  

people  and  opens  the  doors  to  new  business  ventures.  

 

The   last   touch   in   the  process   of   innovation   is   the   encouragement  of   all   types  of   ideas  within   the  

company.  No  company   should  have   the  view   that   the   innovation   responsibility   lies  only  with   the  

R&D   department   and   its   engineers.   Research   and   ideas   on   new   business   practices   are   just   as  

important   as   research   on   new   technologies.   In   fact,   new   ways   of   working   within   various  

departments   like   human   resource,   audit   and   finance   can   synergize   with   the   new   products   to  

improve  the  company’s  culture  and  performance.  A  2006  CEO  Survey9   found  that  companies   that  

spent   more   on   business   operation   innovations   tend   to   outperform   their   peers.   Hence,   every  

employee   in   any   department   has   an   equal   role   to   play   to   increase   the   innovative   scale   of   the  

company.  

 

 

                                                                                                                 7  Drucker,  P.  F.  (1980).  Managing  for  Tomorrow:  Managing  in  turbulent  times.  Industry  Week,  20(1),  54-­‐64.    8  IBM’s  online  database  for  emergent  technologies:  http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/  9  2006  CEO  Survey  by  IBM  Global  Business  Services  (“Expanding  the  Innovation  Horizon”)  PDF  Link:  http://www-­‐935.ibm.com/services/de/bcs/pdf/2006/ceostudy_engl.pdf  

POSITIONING  

 

The  bottom  layer  of  the  pyramid  of  “College  In-­‐Corporation”  is  the  third  P  of  Positioning.  It  occupies  

the  least  area  on  the  inverted  pyramid  and  yet  it  is  responsible  for  the  strategic  overview  and  the  

focus  of  the  company.  

 

For   any   corporate   entrepreneurship   to   be   successful,   the   CEO   and   the   senior  management  must  

champion  it.  Gone  are  the  days  where  the  senior  management  goes  on  a  retreat  for  a  few  days  and  

comes   back   with   the   magic   strategic   formula   for   the   company.   The   leadership   of   the   company  

should  engage  the  subordinates  to  formulate  the  strategic  and  long-­‐term  direction  of  the  company,  

and   provide   continuous   support   for   employee   endeavors.   This   leadership   in   effect   will   set   the  

company  in  the  path  of  corporate  entrepreneurship.  

 

The  next  step  for  the  leaders  is  to  provide  autonomy  for  its  employees.  The  larger  the  company,  the  

greater  is  the  complexity  of  tasks.  At  this  stage,  as  Morris  and  Kurato10  explained,  it  becomes  even  

more  important  for  managers  to  “give  up  control  to  gain  control”.  This  can  be  implemented  through  

“cellular”   units   of   independent   teams.   Miles,   Snow,   Mathew,   Miles   and   Coleman11   borrowed   the  

term   “cellular”   to   further   detail   that   each   cell   has   similar   characteristics   of   the   larger   organism.  

However,  when  the  cells  are  combined,  the  synergy  and  interaction  with  other  cells  create  a  richer  

and   vibrant   culture.   Similarly,   companies   must   implement   the   support   for   teams   that   are   self-­‐

resourcing  and  self-­‐managing  to  lead  their  own  entrepreneurial  ventures.    

 

The  final  aspect  of  corporate  positioning  is  the  portfolio  balance  of  new  and  existing  products.  An  

entrepreneurial   firm  typically  has  more  risky  and  new  products  than   its  peers.  This  phenomenon  

can  be  noted  in  3M,  where  a  quarter  of   its  annual  revenues  are  generated  from  products  that  are  

less  than  5  years  old.  Similarly,  at  any  time  Google  has  70%  of its products supporting  the  company’s  

core  business,  20%  are  emerging  technologies  and  the  remaining  10%  are  speculative  experiments.  

James  March12  refers  to  this  concept  as  “exploiting  the  present  and  exploring  the  future”.    

 

 

                                                                                                               10  Morris,  M.  H.  and  Kurato,  D.F.  (2002).  Corporate  Entrepreneurship,  Fort  Worth:  Harcourt  College  Publishers.  11  Miles,  R.E.,  Snow,  C.,  Mathews,  J.,  Miles,  G.,  &  Coleman,  H.,  Jr.  (1997).  Organising  in  the  knowledge  age:  Anticipating  the  cellular  form.  Academy  of  Management  Executive,  11(4),  7-­‐20.  12  March,  J.  (1991).  Organisation  Science.  Article  on  “Exploitation  and  Exploitation  in  Organisational  Learning.  

CONCLUSION  

 

Today,   the   concept   of   “corporate   entrepreneurship”   is   thankfully   not   a   new  one   for   the  world   of  

business.  By  the  mid-­‐1980s,  the  singular  model  of  creativity  and  research  taking  place  only  within  

the  R&D  labs,  were  no  longer  accepted  as  companies  started  to  realise  the  importance  of  innovation  

in  every  division  of   the   company.  Many  companies  already   started   to  have   innovation   initiatives.  

For  example,  DuPont  has  Business  Builders,  Cisco  has  EMTG  (Emerging  Market  Technology  Group)  

and  IBM  has  Emerging  Business  Opportunities.    

 

As  we  head   into   the   future,  more  companies  are  engaging   in  business  ventures  and  research   into  

the  policies  of  corporate  entrepreneurship.  This  awareness  of  “College  In-­‐Corporation”  will  spread  

and   lead   global   change,   innovation   and   growth.   The   concept   of   future   innovation   will   definitely  

have  its  inception  in  what  we  call  the  “corporate  entrepreneurship”.    

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:    

[1] Harvard  Business  Review  on  The  Innovative  Enterprise,  (HBR  Publishing,  2003)    [2] Birkinshaw,  Julian.  Entrepreneurship  in  the  Global  Firm.  (Sage  Publications,  2000)  

 [3] Meyer,  Heppard.  Entrepreneurship  as  Strategy,  (Sage  Publishing  Inc,  2000)  

 [4] Wolcott,  Lippotz.  Grow  From  Within  –  Mastering  Corporate  Entrepreneurship  and  

Innovation.  (McGraw-­‐Hill,  2010)    

[5] Burns.  Corporate  Entrepreneurship  –  Building  The  Entrepreneurial  organisation,  (Palgrave  Macmillan,  2005)  

 [6] Sathe.  Corporate  Entrepreneurship  –  Top  Managers  and  New  Business  Creation.  

(Cambridge  University  Press,    2003)    

[7] MacMillan,  Block.  Corporate  Venturing  –  Creating  New  Businesses  within  the  Firm.  (Harvard  Business  School  Publishing,  1993)  

 [8] Chesbrough.  Open  Business  Models  –  How  to  Thrive  in  the  New  Innovative  Landscape.  

(Harvard  Business  School  Press,  2006)    

[9] Hitt,  Ireland,  Camp,  Sexton.  Strategic  Entrepreneurship  –  Creating  a  New  Mindset.  (Blackwell  Publishers,  2002)  

(2088  words)