Intrapreneur: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Now you might wonder whether you are alone in sensing a smudge of [[cognitive dissonance]] about this. You are not. | Now you might wonder whether you are alone in sensing a smudge of [[cognitive dissonance]] about this. You are not. | ||
However imaginative they feel themselves to be, people who work in large organisations — and the [[JC]] speaks here from thirty odd years’ coalface experience, by the way — not only take ''no'' personal risk<ref>Well; one, as {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} has observed: an [[employee]] has one enormous [[tail risk]], which those who have found themselves clutching [[iron mountain]] boxes outside the premises of [[Enron]] and [[Lehman]] can tell you. But even that is the sudden discontinuation of your [[coupon]], rather rather than forteiture of your capital. </ref>but construct their entire professional trajectories around the singular objective of ''avoiding'' anything — ''anything'', however innocuous at first sight it may seem — which could, in any conceivable light, even ''resemble'' risk. To be sure, the organisation itself will take risks — it has to: there is no [[return]] without risks — but these will be gormlessly, unwittingly underwritten others in the firm: the laggards, the [[Boxer the Horse]] types, who loyally plough their furrows through land infested with mines, snakes, vermin and illness, inadvertently clearing a safe path through the valley of the shadow of death at their own cost, but to the exclusive benefit, should they be completed without ambush, immolation or catastrophe, of their [[intrepreneur]]ial colleages. | However imaginative they feel themselves to be, people who work in large organisations — and the [[JC]] speaks here from thirty odd years’ coalface experience, by the way — not only take ''no'' personal risk<ref>Well; one, as {{author|Nassim Nicholas Taleb}} has observed: an [[employee]] has one enormous [[tail risk]], which those who have found themselves clutching [[iron mountain]] boxes outside the premises of [[Enron]] and [[Lehman]] can tell you. But even that is the sudden discontinuation of your [[coupon]], rather rather than forteiture of your capital. </ref> but construct their entire professional trajectories around the singular objective of ''avoiding'' anything — ''anything'', however innocuous at first sight it may seem — which could, in any conceivable light, even ''resemble'' risk. | ||
To be sure, the organisation itself will take risks — it has to: there is no [[return]] without risks — but these will be gormlessly, unwittingly underwritten others in the firm: the laggards, the [[Boxer the Horse]] types, who loyally plough their furrows through land infested with mines, snakes, vermin and illness, inadvertently clearing a safe path through the valley of the shadow of death at their own cost, but to the exclusive benefit, should they be completed without ambush, immolation or catastrophe, of their [[intrepreneur]]ial colleages. | |||
[[Intrapreneur]]s are the organisation’s [[apex creditor]]s: they feed first, drink longest at the well, and manage their own private [[conflicts of interest]] — namely, to spend as little time at the well as possible, while drafting as much as is humanly possible from it — while the stockholders and actual workers stand by. | [[Intrapreneur]]s are the organisation’s [[apex creditor]]s: they feed first, drink longest at the well, and manage their own private [[conflicts of interest]] — namely, to spend as little time at the well as possible, while drafting as much as is humanly possible from it — while the stockholders and actual workers stand by. | ||
Revision as of 15:01, 29 November 2019
|
People Anatomy™
A spotter’s guide to the men and women of finance. 
|
So sayeth Wikipiedia, “Intrapreneurship is the act of behaving like an entrepreneur, while working within a large organisation.” Wikipedia also defines “entrepreneurship” as “the capacity and willingness to develop, organise and manage a business venture along with any of its risks to make a profit.”
Now you might wonder whether you are alone in sensing a smudge of cognitive dissonance about this. You are not.
However imaginative they feel themselves to be, people who work in large organisations — and the JC speaks here from thirty odd years’ coalface experience, by the way — not only take no personal risk[1] but construct their entire professional trajectories around the singular objective of avoiding anything — anything, however innocuous at first sight it may seem — which could, in any conceivable light, even resemble risk.
To be sure, the organisation itself will take risks — it has to: there is no return without risks — but these will be gormlessly, unwittingly underwritten others in the firm: the laggards, the Boxer the Horse types, who loyally plough their furrows through land infested with mines, snakes, vermin and illness, inadvertently clearing a safe path through the valley of the shadow of death at their own cost, but to the exclusive benefit, should they be completed without ambush, immolation or catastrophe, of their intrepreneurial colleages.
Intrapreneurs are the organisation’s apex creditors: they feed first, drink longest at the well, and manage their own private conflicts of interest — namely, to spend as little time at the well as possible, while drafting as much as is humanly possible from it — while the stockholders and actual workers stand by.
See also
References
- ↑ Well; one, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb has observed: an employee has one enormous tail risk, which those who have found themselves clutching iron mountain boxes outside the premises of Enron and Lehman can tell you. But even that is the sudden discontinuation of your coupon, rather rather than forteiture of your capital.