A quest for global entrepreneurs: the importance of cultural intelligence on commitment to entrepreneurial education

A quest for global entrepreneurs: the importance of cultural intelligence on commitment to entrepreneurial education
Marilyn M. Helms; Raina M. Rutti; Melanie Lorenz; Jase Ramsey; Craig E. Armstrong
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2014) pp. 385 – 404
This article extends the management construct of cultural intelligence (CQ) to the entrepreneurship literature by examining CQ in the context of commitment to entrepreneurial education as a proxy for entrepreneurial intentions. Using a convenience sample of students enrolled in an entrepreneurship class, we investigated the relationships of international experience, CQ and commitment to entrepreneurial education. Our findings suggest international experience is positively related to CQ (H1) and CQ is positively related to commitment to entrepreneurial education (H2). Additionally, CQ mediates the relationship between international experience and commitment (H3). This research demonstrates the usefulness of CQ within the entrepreneurial context in the expanding global economy. Discussion and areas for future research focus on further testing of the proposed relationships in other entrepreneurial populations. Also, implications for entrepreneurial training and education related to increasing CQ through study and travel/living/working abroad should be explored.

Go to Source

m4s0n501
Tags: , , , ,

Corporate governance, value and performance of firms: new empirical results on convergence from a large international database

This article aims to revisit the link between corporate governance, value, and firm performance by focusing on convergence, understood as the way that non-US firms are adopting US best practice in terms of corporate governance, and the implications of this adoption. We examine theoretical questions related to conventional models (agency theory, transaction cost economics, and new property rights theory), which tend to suggest rational adoption of best practice, and contributions that alternatively consider country- and firm-level differences as possible barriers to convergence. We contribute to the empirical literature by using a large international database to show how non-US firms’ adoption of US best practice is having an impact on performance.

Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

How Decisions Can Be Organized – and Why It Matters

Recent theoretical advances allow organizational designers and managers to better understand how decision processes can be improved. These advances allow managers to address a number of critical questions about the structure and process of decision making, issues that are relevant for any kind of organization be it social, political, or economic. Can we add another employee somewhere in the decision process to increase economic performance? Can we add or eliminate a channel of communication to raise the quality of decisions? What level of skill is worth paying for when we hire a decision maker? Is it a good idea to push decision makers beyond their current capacity if doing so increases their error rate by five percent? Where does the injection of inexperienced decision makers hurt the least? We describe an organizational design approach that provides answers to such questions, and we offer specific guidelines that managers can use to improve decision making in their organizations.

Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

The Role of Top-Down Management in Enterprise Innovation

Running a successful enterprise innovation management program can be a challenging mission. Multiple factors have to be considered,each of which affect potential outcomes. One key aspect is the level of support an innovation program receives from an organization’s management. Connecting the needs of top-down management with the strategy and architecture of an innovation program will always lead to greater levels of success.
Go to Source

Tags: , ,

Basecamp’s Strategy Offers a Useful Reminder: Less Is More

Unless you follow tech companies, you might have missed the startling announcement by collaboration and communications software maker 37signals that it has decided to refocus the entire company on a single core product.

“Refocusing” might be an understatement.  37signals has developed a dozen different products and services since its founding in 1999. They will now be a “one product company” focused on Basecamp, its popular project management software.  To emphasize the point, the company is also changing its name to Basecamp.  So instead of following the conventional wisdom about growth through diversification, CEO and founder Jason Fried is doubling down on one successful area and putting all of his resources in one basket.

Basecamp is a small company. Even with more than 15 million users, it still has less than 50 people on its payroll.  So it’s somewhat audacious strategy might not be a model for everyone.  But regardless of your company’s size, there’s a lot to be said for the power of pruning and the importance of maintaining focus.  For many companies, in fact, the strategy of “less is more” has been a powerful driver of success.  For example, one of the secrets to Trader Joe’s profitability (which is one of the highest in its industry) is that they only carry 4,000 stock keeping units (SKU’s) per store vs. the typical 50,000 at other grocery chains.  They also open a limited number of stores each year, trading off rapid growth for insuring the quality of their brand.  Similarly, Apple has maintained the dominance of the iPhone partly by resisting the urge to create multiple product variations with different functions and features, in stark contrast to their competitors.

Keeping a business focused on a limited number of products, customers, or capabilities is not a new idea.  In the 1950’s, Peter Drucker emphasized that business strategy needs to include “purposeful abandonment,” i.e. deciding what not to do. Similarly, Peters and Waterman’s 1982 classic, In Search of Excellence, reported that successful companies were those that could “stick to their knitting” and not get sidetracked.

Despite all of this advice, the kind of radical focus exhibited by 37signals (now Basecamp) is difficult for managers who often act like kids in a candy store. Instead of focusing on doing a few things well, they try to go after too many customer segments, too many adjacencies, and too many new technologies.  Witness the struggles of financial services firms that become too big to control effectively; or large pharmaceutical companies that place bets on so many therapeutic areas that they don’t end up winning in any of them.

It’s a natural human tendency to want to do more.  Most of us have trouble walking away from tempting opportunities, whether it’s at the dinner table, or at work.  So we end up with indigestion at home and overload at work.  That’s why it takes a great deal of discipline, and even courage, to slim down, both physically and strategically.

A case in point is Google’s recent sale of Motorola Mobility to Lenovo.  The original purchase was probably a tempting opportunity that was viewed as too good to miss; but when it became clear that the telecommunications hardware business was not in their sweet spot, Google’s senior executives made the tough decision to sell, despite the financial consequences.  And in the long run, avoiding distraction and dilution of focus will probably be worth the cost.

Most of us of course are not in the position to buy and sell companies or even rationalize our product lines.  As managers however, we can make sure that our teams stay focused on the few critical strategies and projects that will make the most difference.  We also can ask Drucker’s question about what we should stop doing; and we can push back on others when we’re asked to do things that might be distractions from the core mission of our group.  None of this is easy in the midst of day-to-day pressures.  But in the long run, it’s very likely that we’ll reap higher rewards by doing less.


Go to Source

Tags: , , ,

Health Care Opens Up

An article in the Huffington Post website noted that open innovation is not new, but it is relatively new to health care, igniting a broad cross-section of challenges, hackathons, and competitions that seek to identify breakthrough solutions to solve for our health and our health care. By applying the best practices of the leading tech accelerators, these programs accelerate the speed at which new solutions are developed, companies are formed, and jobs are created.

Click here to read the full article.

Image via Flickr.

Go to Source

Tags: , ,

Will Your Bad Boss Make You a Bad Boss, Too?

One of the best predictors of whether a person will become an abusive parent is if he or she was abused as a child. On the face of it, this is puzzling. Certainly, as children, these people did not say to themselves, “This is how I want to treat my kids.” To the contrary, our guess is that they said to themselves, “I am definitely not going to treat my children the way I have been treated.”   And yet they did; they did not escape the influence of that terrible role model.

This got us to wondering whether there might be a leadership analogy to this sad phenomenon. That is, we wondered, “Do people who work for terrible leaders turn out to be terrible leaders themselves?”

In our research we’ve demonstrated that a great leader can have powerfully positive effects on an organization: decreasing turnover of team members and greatly increasing customer satisfaction, profitability, employee engagement, sales revenue, and even workplace safety—virtually every business outcome that’s measureable.  In those studies, we’ve looked primarily at the relationship between individual leaders and their groups of direct reports. Recently, we’ve become fascinated by the question, “How much impact does a great or poor leader have at the next level down—on those who work for those direct reports?”

When we ask individuals about how their bosses influence their own leadership styles, they often respond that they are their own persons. Whether working for a great boss or a nightmare one, they feel that they are in control of themselves and the situation. If there’s a bad boss above, they serve as a buffer.

When we look at three levels of our 360 evaluations of the leadership effectiveness, correlating the scores of executives and their direct reports with those of the teams of those direct reports, we find some truth in this: we do see some leaders performing substantially better than their bosses. But we also see influences, good and bad, cascading down the line.

For this study we matched up data from 6,094 leaders (whom we will arbitrarily label “alpha leaders”) with their direct reports who were also leaders (whom we’ll call “beta leaders”) and the beta leaders’ direct reports. We assessed the overall effectiveness of each leader and the engagement level of that person’s direct reports.

First off, examining the best (top 10%) and worst (bottom 10%) of the alpha leaders (as assessed by the beta leaders who work for them), we were able see a substantial difference in the engagement levels of the beta leaders (as assessed by their direct reports)Not surprisingly, beta leaders who worked for the worst alpha leaders suffered; their engagement was abysmal, averaging in the 24th percentile.  Meanwhile, the average engagement level of the betas who worked for the best alphas was at the robust 82nd percentile. This mirrors our global study of these same variables with over 30,000 leaders.

One level down, the effect is similar, but not as strong in either direction: Engagement levels of teams headed by beta bosses laboring under horrible alphas average in the 39th percentile while those of teams headed by betas working for the best alphas are only at 61th percentile, considerably lower than their bosses.

If alpha leaders had no effect on beta leaders, we’d have expected the average beta leader engagement scores to be at the 50th percentile, since with this large a sample, the good and bad leaders would balance each other out. So clearly, it’s not easy to be a buffer: a bad boss is a drag on a leader’s effectiveness. In fact, teams rated the leadership effectiveness of the beta leaders who worked for the worst alphas 11 percentile points below average, while teams rated the betas working for the best alphas 11 percentile points above average.  The symmetry here is striking.

Still, our data show that it is possible to work for one of the worst leaders and yet be rated as one of the best yourself. While 14% of beta leaders working for the worst alphas fell themselves in the bottom 10% in leadership effectiveness, 7% of those harried betas were rated by their direct reports as among the top 10% of leaders. At the same time, fully 24% of beta leaders working for the best alphas were themselves also in that top group, while only 7% of them fell in the bottom 10%.

Is Your Boss Protecting You From His Boss? Chart

What are we to make of this?  First, we’d argue that our data show, happily, that great leaders do more good than poor leaders do harm. And to those who say their destiny is in their own hands, we’d say they could be right — the cycle of poor leadership can be broken.

On the other hand, we’d argue that good leaders are expending a lot of energy they could be using more productively when they have to manage and buffer a bad boss. This should be blindingly obvious. And yet, so often in our practice senior leaders ask us to “fix” the leaders below them. The reality is our job would be much easier if the leaders at the top were as highly committed to fixing themselves first.


Go to Source

Tags: , , , ,