Like many people, I have heard the terms “growth mindset” and “fixed mindset.”
And, like many people, I equated “growth mindset” with being open-minded, curious, flexible, and tolerant.
On the flip side, I thought people with a “fixed mindset” were probably sticks in the mud, unwilling to try or even consider something new or a different perspective.
I was wrong.
Let’s start with the basics
My misunderstanding of what it means to have a fixed or a growth mindset is rooted in my lack of understanding of what these terms actually mean.
The fixed mindset is rooted in the belief that a human’s personal qualities are carved in stone. That, at birth, you were granted a certain amount of intelligence, morality, talent, etc. and that there is nothing you can do to develop more.
The growth mindset “is based on the belief that our basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts, your strategies, and help from others. Although people may differ in every which way — in their initial talents and aptitudes, interests or temperaments — everyone can change and grow through application and experience.”
Yep, I’ve got a growth mindset…or do I?
I was feeling quite good about myself until page 12. That’s where I hit the “Grow Your Mindset” quiz:
Read each statement and decide whether you mostly agree with it or disagree with it:
Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can’t change very much.
You can learn new things but you can’t really change how intelligent you are.
No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change quite a bit.
You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.
My answers were Yes, Yes, No, No.
(note, you can swap out “intelligence” for any personal quality — artistic talent, athletic ability, your personality)
Guess what, questions 1 and 2 are about the fixed mindset and questions 3 and 4 are about the growth mindset.
“I am a horrible person! I have a fixed mindset!” I thought just before collapsing onto the floor, ready to give up on my humanity. But then I rephrased the questions…
A person’s intelligence is something very basic about them that they can’t change very much.
A person can learn new things but they can’t really change how intelligent they are.
No matter how much intelligence someone has, they can always change quite a bit.
A person can always substantially change how intelligent they are.
This time my answers were No, No, Yes, Yes.
I wasn’t thrilled to realize that I had a “split mindset” but it did make sense.
When I think about myself, my capabilities, and my performance I tend to be a perfectionist (ok, I am a perfectionist) and ruminate endlessly on my mistakes (no kidding, I still vividly remember hitting the “hang-up” button instead of the “unmute” button on a conference call in 2010). I am terrified of feedback because I feel like it is a judgement against me. (Of course I ask for it and thank people when I get it but that’s just because these are the things we all agreed to say but none of us really mean. Right?)
But I don’t feel or think any of these things when it comes to other people. I genuinely believe that if you work hard enough and long enough, you can accomplish anything. I deeply believe that sometimes the best and only way to grow is to learn from mistakes. No one needs to prove anything to me and I love people who ask for feedback because it shows they care and that they’re trying and so I try to be as kind and helpful as possible.
I was a bit concerned that having a split mindset was one-step removed from having a split personality but it’s apparently not unusual at all.
People’s mindsets can change for all sorts of reasons — the context they’re in (e.g. work vs. home), who they’re with (e.g. the boss, their co-workers, their partner, friends, their kids, their parents), what they’re doing (e.g. math vs English, work vs a hobby), and any number of other variables. The key is to know when and where a change in mindset may occur.
There is hope!
“Mindsets are just beliefs. They’re powerful beliefs, but they’re just something in your mind, and you can change your mind.”
Thank you page 16.
I will now change my mind.
I had to get all the way to page 254 to figure out how.
Step 1 — Embrace your fixed mindset. > DONE!
Step 2 — Become aware of your fixed mindset triggers. Where does your fixed-mindset self show up. > I tried to answer this question with “life” but it was too general. So I tried being more specific. The list is LONG and still growing
Step 3 — Now give your fixed-mindset persona a name > In progress.
Step 4 — Educate your fixed-mindset persona, take it on the journey with you > I’d rather not as it’s quite an unpleasant travel companion, but fine.
Step 5 — Print out this graphic and tape it to your bathroom mirror > No thank you, it will never survive. But I will print out this one and hang it next to my computer.
Step 6 — At the start of each day, identify opportunities for learning and growth and create a tangible action plan to take advantage of each one. > I’m actually doing this. It’s helping (I think) but it also results in me taking a lot of deep breaths.
I wish the journey from fixed to growth mindset was as easy as simply checking off steps 1 through 6 but it’s not. It’s a daily process that can be frustratingly slow. But I think it’s worth it.
If only so that I can one day get to the point when I say “Thank you for the feedback” and actually mean it.
Other random nuggets of wisdom
In between page 16 and page 254 there was a lot of great stuff about how the mindsets come into play in business, parenting, and coaching. Here’s a sample:
FIXED MINDSET
“The fixed mindset creates an internal monologue that is focused on judging.”
“Effort is for those who don’t have the ability.”
“The fixed mindset is so very tempting. It seems to promise children a lifetime of worth, success, and admiration just for sitting there and being who they are.”
“However, lurking behind the self-esteem of the fixed mindset is a simple question: If you’re somebody when you’re successful, what are you when you’re unsuccessful?”
“The minute a leader allows himself to become the primary reality people worry about, rather than reality being the primary reality, you have a recipe for mediocrity, or worse.” — Jim Collins, Good to Great
“When bosses become controlling and abusive, they put everyone into a fixed mindset. This means that instead of learning, growing, and moving the company forward, everyone starts worrying about being judged. It starts with the bosses’ worry about being judged but it winds up being everybody’s fear about being judged. It’s hard for courage and innovation to survive in a companywide fixed mindset.”
GROWTH MINDSET
“You aren’t a failure until you start to blame.”
“…even when you think you’re not good at something, you can still plunge into it wholeheartedly and stick to it.”
“Just because some people can do something with little or no training, it doesn’t mean that others can’t do it (and sometimes do it even better) with training.”
“A growth mindset helps people to see prejudice for what it is — someone else’s view of them — and to confront it with their confidence and abilities intact.”
“True self-confidence is ‘the courage to be open — to welcome change and new ideas regardless of their source.’”
In business “taking on challenges, showing persistence, and admitting and correcting mistakes are essential.”
“Not only do those with a growth mindset gain more lucrative outcomes for themselves, but, more important they also come up with more creative solutions that confer benefits all around.”
If you want to read Mindset: The New Psychology of Success it’s probably in your local library or you can buy it at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or (hopefully) your local independent book seller.
“I don’t know how I got into the program. I’m not innovative.”
For nearly two years, I’ve been the Dean of the Intrapreneurship Academy, a program I created in partnership with The Cable Center to help the industry’s rising stars learn how to be more effective innovators. Over the course of four cohorts, we’ve taught nearly 100 people from all over the world (US, India, Honduras, Panama, Columbia…just to name a few) the tools and mindsets of successful intrapreneurs and supported them as they did the hard work of making innovation happen in their companies.
And in every single cohort, a significant number of people pull me aside and say, “I don’t know how I got into the program. I’m not innovative.”
To which I respond, “The fact that you don’t think you are an innovator but someone in your company does means that you are.”
Why is this? Why do so many people have a misperception about whether or not they’re innovative? Why do people see others as innovative even if they don’t see themselves that way? While we’re on the subject, what makes someone an “innovator” to begin with?
What is an Innovator?
According to Dictionary.com an Innovator is “a person who introduces new methods, ideas, or products.”
That’s a perfectly good definition but it also means that when my husband says, “I have an idea, let’s install new lighting in my home office,” that he is an innovator and I’m just not willing to concede that (plus he usually chooses to sit in the dark so I’m not sure why he needs new lighting).
A better definition is rooted in my preferred definition of “innovation” and would be something like, “A person who does something new or different that creates value.” The last two words in that definition are critical because they differentiate invention (something new or different) from innovation (something new and different that create value) and therefore inventors from innovators. And, since I’m not convinced that new lighting will create value, gets me out of having to agree with my husband’s claim that his idea was innovative.
How NOT to spot an Innovator
Before we get into how to spot an innovator, I think it’s important to dispel a few myths that often lead to people being misidentified as innovators.
They have a “look.” For a period of time in the early aughts, if you wore a black turtleneck you were likely to be labeled an “innovator” and, as a result, have everyone stare at you with eager anticipation of your next brilliant world-changing idea. Then the magic uniform became a hoodie and flip-flops, or thick-black rimmed hipster glasses ideally paired with a flannel shirt and ankle-length jeans. Hate to break it to you but, unless you live in the Marvel Universe, clothes do not imbue in their wearers with special super-powers, so don’t assume that someone is innovative just because they’re wearing the outfit du jour.
They use innovation words all the time. Just because you can say a word doesn’t mean you know what it means, let alone that you can act on it. I can say “Python” and “Pandas” and “Numpy” (pronounced num-pie) and maybe even use those words in a sentence but I can’t define them for you and I sure as heck can write a program in Python or explain how and why pandas and numpies would be useful in such a program (my husband can, it’s what he does in his home office with the supposedly poor lighting). So if someone is always using terms like “disrupt” or “business model” or “lean start-up” or “design thinking,” ask them to define those terms AND explain how to put them in practice. If they can’t accurately do that, they’re not true innovators.
They tell you that they’re innovative. One of my favorite quotes is by Margaret Thatcher who said, “Being in power is like being a lady…if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” The same thing is true for Innovators. If someone goes around telling people that they’re an innovator or that they’re an “ideas person,” you can be confident that they are not.
How to Spot an Innovator
Now that we know how to spot pretenders, here’s how to spot the real thing:
They ask questions AND they listen to the answers. Lots of people ask questions but Innovators ask questions rooted in curiosity and a selfless desire to make things better. They say things like, “Why are we doing it this way?” and “What if we tried it that way?” and “I know we’ve always done it this way but what if…?” When you give them an answer, they listen and incorporate the new information into their thinking and their ideas.
They’re not afraid to try doing things differently. Maintaining the status quo is safe and no one ever got fired for following the rules. But playing safe and following the rules doesn’t move us forward, it keeps us where we are (and maybe even causes us to fall behind). But doing something different involves taking a risk and that can be scary. Innovators are willing to take on that risk because helping others by improving or creating things is more important to them than their own comfort.
They’re more interested in Doing than Talking. Let’s be honest, it’s fun to talk about innovation. It’s energizing to be part of a brainstorming session with brightly colored sticky notes flying around. It’s exciting to get together a small team to come up with an idea and pitch that idea to a Shark Tank. It’s fun to go on field trips to incubators and accelerators. But innovators don’t stop there, they don’t view those activities as signs of innovation success. They push to prototype and test the best idea from the brainstorming session, they demand dedicated funding and resources to bring their Shark Tank winning idea to life, and they do the hard slow work of applying their field trip lessons to foster a culture of innovation within the organization.
The innovators I teach and work with do all of the 3 things listed above and doing those things come so naturally to them that they don’t realize how uncommon, difficult, and important doing these things is. And yes, some of them also wear black turtlenecks or hoodies or hipster glasses (or all three at the same time!) but they don’t do wear these things because they’re innovators. They wear these things because they’re comfortable. And comfort is of the utmost importance when you’re doing the hard work of innovation.
Part 1 was all about the experience of working in Corporate Innovation so, naturally, Part 2 has to be about one of the biggest areas where time in a said career is spent: meetings.
After nearly pulling/spraining/breaking an ankle/wrist/elbow/shoulder/knee trying to navigate “The Fact of the Matter” (aka experiencing a career in innovation), I looked forward to the safety of the next installation.
Instead I walked into “The Differential Room”, aka every meeting a corporate innovator has to endure captured in a series of chalkboards.
The first team meeting
“Point Point Line” (2015) from “The Differential Room” (2018) by William Forsythe
Kinda weird, kinda fun.
Just like your first meeting as a member of the Innovation team.
This is the moment when you realize you’re in a very different world. Instead of working on things that exist, that can be touched or experienced, that are known and explainable, you are now in an abstract and intangible world that is relying on you to define it, make it tangible, and explain it.
You’ve been given tools (fingers that make “points”) like customer research, access to people in the company, maybe even a bit of money and you’re expected to connect them together to something (a line). It’s up to you what form it takes, whether it is a product, a service, a process (e.g. how long the line is, whether it’s vertical or horizontal or diagonal).
You find that it’s rather fun to play around with options, to imagine what’s possible and, eventually, you actually begin to see what you’re creating.
People walk by and give you strange looks. Some stop to ask what you’re doing. You respond, “I’d make a business (line)! See! Isn’t it cool?” And they back away slowly, shake their heads, and return to their business.
Meeting with the Innovation Team Leader
It’s been fun designing the business (line) but you can’t stay there forever. It’s time to move on, to go deeper into the process.
It’s time to meet with your boss.
“Standing on One Leg (1st Act)” (2018) from “The Differential Room” (2018) by William Forsythe
You know you have to be a bit more buttoned up and that you have to show her the option that you think is best (not all the lines you made, and tested, and discarded). So you prepare a presentation, excited to talk about lines
Yes, the meeting feels a bit like a performance, but that’s what meetings are. You’re surprised that, after presenting your business, your boss tells you that in addition to working on your business (line), you need to talk to this person in finance (stand on one leg), that person in legal (raise the heel of the standing foot), and these 3 people in supply chain (hop) AND do this all on the same deadline with no extra funding (not expressing exhaustion) BUT don’t let anyone know what you’re doing because that will slow you down (not…drawing any attention to yourself).
The Innovation Council Meeting
You’re now exhausted from hopping but you’ve successfully concealed that exhaustion and you can still make a line so it’s time to move deeper into the process and move one more rung up the ladder.
You and your boss prepare another presentation and you go to meet the Innovation Council — 5 people all one-level up from your boss and not involved in the team’s day to day work but definitely interested, somewhat supportive, and with budget to keep funding the work.
“Starting at Any Corner” (2018) from “The Differential Room” (2018) by William Forsythe
More of a performance than the last meeting but, again, to be expected.
For some reason, they think your business (line) should be an app-based service (bench) that bolsters the revenue of an existing business instead of being a new source of revenue. They ask you to prototype the app (walk around the bench), share the prototype with the existing business team (walk alternately backwards and forwards), revise the prototype based on the existing business team’s feedback (complete turn alternately left or right), and model out a 5 year NPV (alternately accelerating or decelerating).
You should have known there would be numbers involved.
The C-Suite Meeting
It took you several attempts to complete the wishes of the innovation council and took much longer than you thought. Your business idea (line) is a distant memory, you now have an app-based service (bench) that seems far more complicated than it needs to be but makes the existing business team happy, and a financial model that, if you’re honest, has great numbers because you used Goal Seek.
Time to move on, right to the end of the installation and the top of the organization!
“Without the Use of the Arms” (2018) from “The Differential Room” (2018) by William Forsythe
Before you could even start your presentation (performance), the questions and feedback started coming at you.
Some of the requests were understandable (lie flat on your back for thirteen counts, sit upright in thirteen counts) but then they slashed your budget (without the use of arms) while still expecting you to do what they asked.
Then they asked if you could launch in 2 months instead of 12 months (increase the angle of the leg to torso to one hundred eighty degrees) and get to $500M revenue in 12 months (keeping the elbows by the ribs, move the hands under the shoulders counting aloud to thirteen).
At some point you stopped listening because it all sounded like nonsense. What they were asking for was impossible.
You went in with an app-based service (bench) that everyone liked and looked good on paper and now you have…..what?
And BTW, the customer research (points) say that people want the business you designed 9 months ago (line)!
The “Planning for Next Year” Meeting
You’ve given up trying to understand, let alone act on, the last meeting. But you are no quitter. You carry on to the next installation. To the next meeting, the one in which the team is planning for next year, requesting the resources it will need to move faster and build bigger businesses.
“Towards the Diagnostic Gaze” (2013) by William Forsythe
“Looks like next year is going to be a down year for the company so they really need us to step up, do more, and generate at least $100M revenue. That said, they also have to cut our budget 75% and our team size in half.”
FML
In Summary…
To be fair, not all companies are like this. But, to be honest, I’ve had 6 conversations THIS WEEK that were some variation of this. Conversations with clients in VERY different industries and at VERY different companies that all said almost the same thing:
It is really really hard to do something new or different in a big company. It’s also really important to try but I am frustrated and exhausted and I’m starting to wonder it’s worth it. Or if it’s even possible.
I know that it pains them to say that. It pains me to hear it.
Making innovation happen in large organizations is about more than putting in place processes, structures, and KPIs (all necessary, but not sufficient, for success).
It’s about leaders learning how to think, act, and react in ways that are different from what is usually required when managing the existing business.
It requires a level of optimism, resilience, and belief in purpose that can be difficult for people to sustain in the face of ever more constrained resources, shorter timelines, and waning organizational patience.
So, when our belief wavers we do the only things we can: we share our experiences with others in similar situations, laugh about the nonsense, and take a deep breath or a small rest before we continue.
After all, the next room was filled with eighty hanging swinging pendulums that we have to dodge to continue through the exhibit.
I am not a soccer fan but my husband is. So why, as a non-soccer fan, would I watch so many World Cup games?
I could spin a high-minded tale about the importance of diverse experiences in driving empathy and creativity and that “getting out of your comfort zone” and experiencing new things can be as simple as watching a new channel or program.
I could go all business guru and pratter on about the fact that sports tend to produce wonderful case studies of what to do and not to do in the areas of leadership, teaming, and all other things management
But the truth is that I spent most of June sick in bed with something that exactly mirrored Whooping Cough (it wasn’t) and, during the Group Phase, I didn’t have the energy to commandeer the remote control and change the channel. By the time we got to the knock-out phase, however, I had a bit more energy, had adopted several teams as my own (Sweden, Denmark, and England) and was peppering my husband with questions about players, teams, rules, and all other things soccer.
So, with the Final match scheduled for Sunday, thought I would share what I’ve learned about leadership and innovation from watching 40 soccer games.
#1: Teams need Leaders, not managers
Argentina’s coach, Jorge Sampaoli, yelling from the sidelines (SOURCE: Getty — Contributor)
Untold books have been written on this subject and it played out for the world to see during Argentina’s World Cup run.
Argentina was considered one of the top contenders for the World Cup, having come in 2nd during the 2014 World Cup. The country has some of the world’s greatest players and perhaps none are greater than “The Magician,” Lionel Messi. With such a dominant line-up, it would seem that the coach’s job would be relatively easy — win the trust and respect of the team’s stars, inspire them to play well together as a team and then get out of the way.
But Argentina’s coach, Jorge Sampaoli, couldn’t seem to do that.
During Argentina’s first game, three top players were inexplicably benched and the game, which Argentina should have won easily, ended in a tie (more on that in the next lesson). For the next game, Sampaoli “went with a bizarre 3-man backline” (I don’t know exactly what that means but “bizarre” is never a word you want associated with your starting line-up) and the “disconnect between Aguero, Messi, and the others was apparent from the first minute.”
The result? Argentina lost to Croatia 0–3 and the players staged a coup, holding a meeting with the Argentine FA chiefs (basically the “front office” of the team) to demand that Sampaoli and the entire coaching staff be fired as part of a “pact for life” because “the players want to build a team.”
The coup failed. Sampaoli was allowed to keep his job (but was told he would be fired at the end of the competition). And the players, having no confidence or respect for the coach, resisted, fielding their own starting line-up for the third and final game of the Group Stage, a 2–1 victory over Nigeria.
Argentina struggled in the lead-up to the World Cup and underperformed during its first two games because it didn’t have a Leader (someone the team respects and wants to follow), it had a Manager (someone who demands obedience based on a title or organization hierarchy). When leaders finally rose up, it was too late — Argentina barely qualified for the Knock-out stage and promptly lost 4–3 to France.
#2: Don’t get hung up on job titles. Hire for skills.
Lionel Messi takes his shot at Iceland’s goalie
In the first game of the Group Stage, Iceland, the smallest country ever to qualify for the World Cup, found itself playing Argentina. As if that were not challenging enough, in the 64th minute of a tied game, Argentina was granted a penalty kick and Lionel “The Magician” Messi stepped to the line. All he had to do was send the ball past Iceland’s goalie and his team would have a 2–1 lead.
He missed.
To be more specific, one of the greatest soccer players of all time, one who makes 76% of his penalty kicks, had his kick blocked by a goalie who is better known for directing a Coca-Cola commercial than for playing soccer. When asked how he achieved such an impossible feat, Hannes Halldorsson, a former filmmaker turned goalie, attributed his success to “film study.”
Sure, Halldorsson has soccer skills (basic job requirements) but kudos to Iceland’s coach for seeing value in non-traditional experience and to Halldorsson for using them to prepare for the big game.
#3: If you’re going to talk smack, you better be able to back it up
Denmark’s goalie, Kasper Schmeichel, is PUMPED
Sticking with the theme of Nordic goalies, let’s talk about Denmark’s Kasper Schmeichel. If there were such a thing as Danish soccer royalty, it would be the Schmeichels.
Peter Schmeichel, the family patriarch, was voted world’s best goalkeeper in 1992 and 1993, captained Denmark to a championship in the 1992 UEFA World, AND captained Manchester United to the 1999 Champions League title and the Treble (it’s like the Triple Crown but for English soccer and it happens about as frequently…which is rarely). His son, Kasper made his World Cup debut this year and promptly beat his father’s record of most playing minutes (533 to be exact) for Denmark without conceding a goal.
So yeah, if Kasper talks smack to opposing players, daring them to try to get the ball past him, it’s pretty certain that he can back it up.
Until he can’t.
In Denmark’s match against Australia, Schmeichel came out of the goal to get in the face of a Mile Jedinak while the player was lining up for his penalty kick. Trash talk is nothing new in sports (in fact, I’d argue that it has been honed to a fine and humorous art form) but whatever Schmeichel said apparently went too far for commentators on social media, in the press, and even game officials who warned him about getting too close to the Australian.
A few seconds later, the ball went screaming past Schmeichel, scoring the tying goal for Australia and ending Schmeichel’s record.
#4: Don’t be afraid to experiment (and don’t let anyone tell you that you’re experimenting too much)
Mexico’s Tinkerer-In-Chief, Juan Carlos Osorio
Juan Carlos Osorio, Mexico’s coach, has the highest winning percentage of any Mexican national coach in the past 80 years. So why were 85,000 fans shouting “Fuera!” (Out!) at him during the team’s 1–0 victory over Scotland during a World Cup warm-up game in June?
Because he took the field with a new starting line-up.
It was his 48th different starting line-up in his 48 games as a national coach. That is a new line-up Every. Single. Game.
His tinkering continued into the World Cup where a new line-up beat defending World Cup Champions Germany only to be replaced by a new new line-up for game 2’s match-up against South Korea (which Mexico also won).
In his 52nd game as Mexico’s coach, Osorio changed tactics and did NOT change his line-up. They lost 3–0 to Sweden.
#5: Your performance, not your reputation, matters most
German players Mario Gomez (23) and Mats Hummels (5) react to losing to South Korea and their elimination from the tournament
Speaking of Germany, 2014’s World Cup champs came into the tournament ready to defend their title, ranked #1 in the world by FIFA, and with a 10–0 record in qualifying rounds.
They didn’t even make it out of the Group Stage.
How shocking was this? I think The Guardian summed it up nicely:
This, then, is how the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper. There are certain events so apocalyptic that it feels they cannot just happen. They should be signalled beneath thunderous skies as owls catch falcons and horses turn and eat themselves. At the very least there should be a sense of fury, of thwarted effort, of energies exhausted. And yet Germany went out of the World Cup in the first round for the first time in 80 years on a pleasantly sunny afternoon with barely a flicker of resistance. There was no Sturm. There was no Drang.
Sports, business, heck, even life, is tough. Past performance should count for something and it usually does — it earns an opportunity. But it’s what you do with that opportunity that determines whether you win or lose.
#6: When all else fails, have a signature hairstyle
After watching 40 games, I have concluded that (1) hair is a big deal in soccer and (2) players must have access to hair product that the general public doesn’t because their hair maintains its original style of 90+ minutes of intense exercise. Some cases in point…
Brazilian star Neymar debuts his World Cup hairstyle against Switzerland. For the next game, delighted fans responded by gluing raw clumps of ramen noodles to their foreheads in support of this style choice (SOURCE: Getty Images)
French player Olivier Giroud’s hair defies gravity. Seriously, this is his hair at the END of a game! How is this even possible?!?!
OK, I know that Portuguese star Christian Ronaldo’s hair doesn’t look as crazy as some others but it’s no less important. Prior to their World Cup match against Uruguay, the story of a 2010 match re-surfaced in which one of Uruguay’s players was asked how the team planned to stop Ronaldo. Plan A was to take him out with a tackle. If that didn’t work, Plan B was to “ruffle his hair to annoy him.” Plan A was enacted in the 6th minute of the game and didn’t work, so Uruguay when with Plan B. Ronaldo responded so furiously he was almost kicked out of the game. In the post-game press conference, Marcelo “Hair Ruffler” Sosa commented with amusement that Ronaldo seemed “more upset by me messing up his hair than the foul!”
There you have it. Every business/innovation/leadership/personal style lesson I learned from watching the World Cup. Now it’s off to the hair salon…
A few weeks ago, a friend sent me an HBR Online article that argued that there is no such thing as a Corporate Entrepreneur because people who are trying to innovate within big companies don’t take on the same level of personal or financial risk as “real” entrepreneurs.
Having spent time as a Corporate Entrepreneur launching Swiffer at P&G, I had a pretty strong NSFW reaction to the article. But, in an uncharacteristic fit of maturity, instead of ripping off a response, I decided to send the article to friends who are currently Corporate Entrepreneurs and ask for their thoughts. What I received back was also NSFW.
But it got me thinking….are we even debating the right thing?
What is an Entrepreneur?
There are lots of definitions floating around but the one I have heard used most often is from Professor Howard Stevenson, referred to as “the godfather of entrepreneurship studies” at Harvard Business School:
Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity beyond resources controlled
There it is. No mention of where the entrepreneur is working (start-up vs. corporation). No mention of the level of personal or financial risk taken on. No mention of the pace of work or the degree or politics and bureaucracy endured. An Entrepreneur is simply someone who recognizes an opportunity and pursues it even though they do not currently have all the resources they need.
Why should we care?
Great, we have a common definition of Entrepreneur. So what? Isn’t this just some theoretical debate best left to academics?
Not really. Defining what an Entrepreneur is (and is not) is important because if the label is applied too broadly then it risks becoming devalued. A buzzword said while rolling your eyes and discussing your weird unemployed cousin.
Entrepreneurship is hard work and it’s understandable that the people who pursue it want to be known by a term that communicates the effort and sacrifices required and that commands respect.
So we need to draw a line between the ingroup (Entrepreneurs) and the outgroup but we need to be sure that line is drawn appropriately and not based purely on what makes us feel special.
Beware the Wantrepreneurs!
Entrepreneurs PURSUE opportunities. They take action. They DO something new (innovation). They make things (innovation) happen.
Wantrepreneurs talk about opportunities. They go on field trips to Silicon Valley and create innovation spaces painted in bright colors and filled with beanbag chairs. They got to pitch competitions and lurk around at meet-ups. They host ideation sessions and share photos of all the post-its notes on the walls. They create and parade around shiny objects that get people excited but that have no chance of ever generating the measurable and meaningful impact required to be an innovation. They pretend to be Entrepreneurs. And they are everywhere — founding start-ups, in start-ups, and in companies.
Bottom line…
The line defining who is an entrepreneur and who isn’t should not be drawn based where they work or how the work gets done.
The line should be drawn based on what gets done. The should divide the Entrepreneurs who PURSUE opportunities and the Wantrepreneurs who PRETEND to innovate.
