Independent Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, and Social Entrepreneurship Essay

Abstract

This paper examines the similarities and differences of independent entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, and social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are similar in terms of persons and process, but vary significantly, when it comes to environment and outcome. Social and independent entrepreneurship both require the same type of person. However, their objectives and outcomes differ.

Introduction

Entrepreneurship has become a current trend in media and a common topic of discussion online since the rise of multi-billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. An entrepreneur is a person, who has the appropriate skillset and experience to identify the most lucrative business opportunities and assemble all the required resources to capitalize on them. Modern businessmen create ventures in the face of various risks and challenges in order to make a profit, which does not always imply financial incentives. Some entrepreneurs choose to accumulate as much individual wealth as they can, while others make efforts to add value to society. Each form of entrepreneurship has different objectives and requires unique competencies. Three of the most common entrepreneurial frameworks include independent entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, as well as social entrepreneurship. On the one hand, these forms seem similar to each other in terms of key dimensions of entrepreneurship. On the other hand, they have a lot of differences in certain aspects, including value creation and performance measurement. This paper aims to examine the differences and similarities of the aforementioned entrepreneurial forms and construct a distinct comparison.

The Main Concepts

Independent Entrepreneurship

Independent entrepreneurship refers to the entrepreneurial activities of private firms. It is valuable to the national economy since such firms provide a lot of job opportunities and participate in various social initiatives. Independent entrepreneurial process is the most prevalent in small private companies. Djafri (2018) defines refers to an independent entrepreneur as “a person who establishes creative and innovative acts by developing ideas and profits from human and natural resources” (p.364). The most common attributes of independent entrepreneurs are their sense of calm, self-confidence, and an ability to think fast. Companies often incorporate independent entrepreneurship management strategies, which can help organizations “in promoting innovation and cultivating creativity, improving human resources, and encouraging people to be independent in terms of entrepreneurs’ prosperity” (Djarfi, 2018, p. 365). By creating a culture that embraces independent entrepreneurship, managers ensure that every employee is future- and output-oriented, willing to take a risk, and not afraid of challenges. Independent entrepreneurs usually have positive mindsets since they understand that failures are inevitable (Djarfi, 2018). Therefore, this form of entrepreneurship fosters a professional environment, where employees are willing to take responsibility for their actions or the outcomes of their team’s work.

Intrapreneurship

Managerial frameworks established by Intrapreneurship encourage employees to innovate and generate original ideas by sharing their own opinions and suggestions with superiors. Intrapreneurship enables every employee to contribute to the launch of a new product or service by facilitating a creative work environment that inspires change and innovation. This entrepreneurial form encourages employees to act like entrepreneurs within their company. This way, workers are expect to be self-motivated, productive, and proactive. Intrapreneurs are action-oriented and not afraid to take initiative to pursue a new business endeavour. Intrapreneurship is one step toward entrepreneurship since it enables employees to reach their full potential and experience massive personal growth by encouraging them to their entrepreneurial skills for the benefit of an organization. In addition, this form of entrepreneurship requires self-confidence, leadership, and time management skills. Intrapreneurship is “the foundation for innovation and the subsequent competitive advantage of firms” since intrapreneurs “think across the boundaries of organizational units” (Blanka, 2019, p. 920). Intrapreneurs are entrepreneurially thinking individuals, who are characterized by their openness and conscientiousness (Woo, 2018). It is evident that intrapreneurship fosters autonomy and facilitates a working environment that values personal accountability, independence, and creativity.

Social Entrepreneurship

Non-governmental organizations, charities, and social enterprises engage in what is known as ‘social entrepreneurship.’ This term refers to an entrepreneurial approach such organizations utilize in order to solve a social issue. The scope of social entrepreneurship includes organizing a venture, collecting donations, and fighting for a cause. The main investors in such initiatives are philanthropists, who want these organizations to reach their primary objective of facilitating social change. Social entrepreneurs, like any other types of businesspersons, engage in for-profit activities. However, they measure the profitability of their efforts by critically assessing the effects of their work on social well-being. Entrepreneurs, who choose to participate in social initiatives, usually possess strong ethics and excellent people skills (Muralidharan, & Pathak, 2018). Common examples of social entrepreneurship include commercial projects that have the potential “to address societal problems, such as global warming, social inequality, environmental degradation, population explosion, poverty, illiteracy, and other sustainability challenges” (Muralidharan, & Pathak, 2018). Social entrepreneurship combine self-motivation with the desire to pursue global goals in order to benefit society as a whole, and not just themselves. Therefore, it is apparent that social entrepreneurship is a methodology that to solve societal issues while enhancing the organization’s benefits.

Four Key Dimensions

In order to navigate various forms of entrepreneurship and assess their unique characteristics, it is crucial to understand what makes different types of entrepreneurship similar to and different from each other. There are four theoretically defined dimensions of entrepreneurship, including environment, person (entrepreneur), process, and outcome (organization). The most prominent actor is an entrepreneur, who can be examined in terms of personal characteristics, primary motives, and a working style unique to them. When it comes to the environment of entrepreneurship, its characterization depends on a number of political, economic, social, technological, legal, and cultural factors (Shtal et al., 2018). A thorough description of an entrepreneurial environment helps to identify a business’ potential for innovation, dynamism, and self-promotion by dissecting the institutional arrangement (Rusu & Roman, 2016). Process refers to all the activities related to launching and growing an enterprise, which include operational management, risk mitigation, funding, investment planning, and even marketing. The last dimension is the outcome of the business venture, which implies different measures of performance and profitability.

Comparing Three Forms of Entrepreneurship

Similarities and Differences

Firstly, it is important to compare the concepts of intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship (both social and independent) in order to move further in the analysis. In terms of persons, these entrepreneurial frameworks are similar because both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs are innovative, independent, and creative. However, while intrapreneurs are risk-averse individuals, entrepreneurs are usually risk-tolerant (Smith et al., 2016). Intrapreneurs have a safety net since they experience a separation between individual and organizational risks. When it comes to the process, intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship are similar in terms of value creation and undertaking risks. On the other hand, there are distinct differences between the two related to environment and outcome. Even though both intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship focus on innovation and the creation of new products/services, intarpreneurial activity has a restoring character, while entrepreneurial initiatives are creative in nature (Smith et al., 2016). Objectives of intrapreneurship are often interconnected with those of an organization, while entrepreneurship (independent or not) is ‘selfish.’ Despite the similarities, entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship usually face different obstacles (Dentchev et al., 2016). While the first one is constantly challenged by the internal culture, the second one views the market as the main obstacle.

Examples for Visualization

An example of intrapreneurship would be the organized work of individuals, who act like entrepreneurs within a company. The top engineers at tech companies create new products and generate new ideas, which occurs mostly independently. A perfect example of entrepreneurship would be the same ‘star’ engineer starting his own enterprise and gathering a team of like-minded individuals around them. The objectives of their work may be the same (to create a new product), but the outcomes differ because of the organizational boundaries of intrapreneurship (Smith et al., 2016). When it comes to social and independent forms of entrepreneurship, they have some similarities due to a shared ‘entrepreneurship’ aspect. Effective social and independent entrepreneurs both possess the necessary skillset of a leader, including an ability to inspire, persuade, and organize. These two forms of entrepreneurial activities are similar in terms of process since the framework remains the same for everyone.

However, the environments and outcomes of social and independent entrepreneurs are different. An example of independent entrepreneurship would be a small private firm that specializes in fashion retail. On the other hand, a for-profit recycling company that encourages sustainability in clothing is an example of social entrepreneurship. Despite sharing an industry, these two fictional organizations have different objectives, performance, and profitability measures (Dentchev et al., 2016). When it comes to social entrepreneurship, there are often no quantifiable measures of performance such as financial indicators, customer satisfaction rates, and quality, which characterize intrapreneurship and independent entrepreneurship.

Conclusion

To sum it up, entrepreneurship has evolved over the past decades and facilitated the creation of a system of different forms, types, and interpretations of business ventures. Intrapreneurs possess the qualities of an independent business owner, but choose to take less risks by remaining a part of an organization. Social entrepreneurs aim to create change in the world, while simultaneously making profits. The purpose of independent entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is maximizing profits using tangible and quantifiable measures of performance.

References

Blanka, C. (2019). An individual-level perspective on intrapreneurship: a review and ways forward. Review of Managerial Science, 13, 919-961.

Dentchev, N., Baumgartner, R., Dieleman, H., Jóhannsdóttir, L., Jonker, J., Nyberg, T., Rauter, R., Rosano, M., Snihur, Y., & Bart van Hoof, X. T. (2016). Embracing the variety of sustainable business models: social entrepreneurship, corporate intrapreneurship, creativity, innovation, and other approaches to sustainability challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 1-4.

Djarfi, N. (2018). The strategy of independent entrepreneurship management. European Research Studies Journal, 21(3), 362-370. Web.

Muralidharan, E., & Pathak, S. (2018). Sustainability, transformational leadership, and social entrepreneurship. Sustainability, 10(2), 1-22.

Rusu, V.-D. & Roman, A. (2016). Characteristics of the entrepreneurial environment in European Union countries: a comparative analysis. EIRP Proceedings (European Integration – Realities and Perspectives), 11, 369-378. Web.

Shtal, T., Buriak, M., Ukubassova, G., Amirbekuly, Y., & Toiboldinova, Z. (2018). Methods of analysis of the external environment of business activities. Espacios, 39(12). Web.

Smith, L., Rees, P., & Murray, N. (2016). Turning entrepreneurs into intrapreneurs: Thomas Cook, a case-study. Tourism Management, 56, 191-204.

Woo, H. R. (2018). Personality traits and intrapreneurship: the mediating effect of career adaptability. Career Development International, 23(2), 145-162.