Page 1
1
1
Why Orange doesn’t fit well inside Blue – can the corporate
entrepreneurship oxymoron be tamed? by David A Robinson, Mahesha Goleby and Neville Hosgood
For presentation at the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) 37th
Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Small Business (EISB) Conference – Ljubljana 12 -14
September 2007
Introduction
Paradigms are ontological orientations that influence the way we construct our realities.
Leadership paradigms therefore affect the way leaders go about defining their roles as
leaders and applying themselves to the responsibilities of leadership. Entrepreneurship
may be seen as one type of leadership orientation, namely that of leading a business
venture. As such, the entrepreneurial process relates to a particular leadership paradigm.
In addition, modern day business is underpinned by a particular set of values, which in
their turn are associated with ways of thinking, world views, or paradigms. The
intersection of the two paradigms – values and leadership – creates a psychological
‘space’ or ‘new paradigm’ in which entrepreneurship may be situated. The research
questions of this paper are:
1. In what ways does the entrepreneurial organization differ from a corporate one?
2. How does the entrepreneurial culture evolve and sustain?
This paper takes as its basis the ‘Personal and Corporate Values Journey’ chart
(Robinson, 1998), which is derived from the early work of Don Beck and Christopher
Cowan (1983) of the National Values Center, Texas, U.S.A, and follows after Graves’
seminal, though never published, ‘Emergent Cyclical Double Helix Model of Adult Bio-
Psycho-Social Behaviour’ (circa 1970). [Clare Graves was Professor Emeritus of
Psychology at New York University]. The Personal and Corporate Values Journey Chart
schematically represents the life journey of both the individual and the firm, wherein
creative tensions formed when dualistic teleological intentions of responsibility and
Page 2
2
2
autonomy intersect, result in synergies that are conducive to and characteristic of the
leadership paradigm known as entrepreneurship. The model integrates psycho-social
elements, such as conditioning, power, duty, dependence-independence-interdependence,
ethics and holism, thereby giving rise to a way of thinking about entrepreneurship in
terms of the values underpinning it and consequently also the leadership processes it
demands. The model also then provides a basis for developing appropriate managerial
processes and leadership practices that support and enhance an entrepreneurial culture.
The paper aims to position entrepreneurship within a leadership and values paradigm,
thereby providing a view of the emergent discipline that may be seen as complementary
to traditional economic models. It is envisaged that an increased understanding of the
psychological tensions that exist in entrepreneurial firms will equip emergent and nascent
entrepreneurs, corporate managers wishing to evoke a more entrepreneurial culture, and
academics who teach and research in the fields of entrepreneurship, with the ability to
nurture entrepreneurial talent.
Literature Review
While Kirzner’s (1997) study of environmental effects on entrepreneurship and Shaver
and Scott’s (1991) examination of entrepreneurial behaviour may have forged a tendency
toward emphasis on division, Vecchio (2003) recommended that research into
entrepreneurship development should be directed toward bridging the gap. Thus, this
paper attempts to do so by drawing on relevant literature concerning the psycho-social
development of the coping mechanisms suited to entrepreneurial leadership. The authors
borrow generously from the field of applied psychology. Cowan and Todorovic (2000),
in their theory of Spiral Dynamics emphasise the importance of the relationship between
values and strategic development. While an organisation’s purpose may be determined by
its leader, his behaviour may also establish the so-called ‘moral tone’ of the organisation
(Badaracco and Ellsworth, 1989:72; Hisrich, Peters and Shepherd, 2005). It is clear that
the values espoused by business leaders within organisations arise from the application of
their personal values within the business context.
Page 3
3
3
Three layers of values relevant to leadership have been identified, the most basic of
which are moral and behavioural (surface) values, followed by commitment to quality
and life-long learning (hidden), and finally the cognitive values (deep). Surface values
bind, and in some instances segregate, an organisation, while hidden values include the
ideologies that drive the organisation (Mintzberg, Lampel, Quinn and Ghoshal, 2003),
thereby affecting attitudes and activities of personnel at all levels, a commitment towards
life-long learning exists, or the level of commitment towards quality and service. It is
within the third values layer, deep values, that individual and organisational behavioural
systems emerge (Cowan and Todorovic, 2000:2).
Additionally, psychology has provided numerous theoretical models that explain personal
development, specifically: Beck and Cowan (1995), Maslow (1954), Kohlberg (1958),
McCleland (1961), Covey (1990), Egan (1997), Piaget (1965) and Alderfer (1969),
Rotter (1996) specifically listed below, then illustrated:
1. In 1995, Beck & Cowan developed a continual growth model using value stations
(building on Graves’ 1970 theory on levels of human existence). This forms the
foundation of Robinson’s (1998) Personal and Corporate Values Journey Chart.
2. The classic motivation theory, Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, illustrates a
seminal five step personal development path starting from the essential physiological
needs to the pinnacle of self-actualization. Robinson’s chart is not an alternative to
Maslow’s Hierarchy; indeed it implies that such a hierarchy of needs exists within
each of the identified value stations.
3. Kohlberg’s (1958) Stages of Moral Development dovetail perfectly with the value
stations of the chart. Kohlberg’s stages 1& 2 equate to purple & red, where people
have to learn the rules of society to advance; stages 3 & 4 are blue where rules are
enforced for long-term stability and safety; stage 5 is equivalent to the orange station.
The sixth stage looks at the ‘big picture’ requiring a substantially more relativistic
worldview, thus approximating the green and yellow stations of the Robinson chart.
Page 4
4
4
Kohlberg’s phases support another perspective of the ‘leaps of understanding’ as one
develops and are observed at the ethical and holistic divides included on the chart.
4. Similarly, early cognitive development work by Piaget (1965) likewise supports the
levels of thinking.
5. Egan’s (1997) work on natural mind development follows a similar linear approach to
cognitive growth, which supports the axis of rational conduct in Robinson’s chart.
Figure 2: Plotting various psychology theories of human development
As convincing and well-accepted as each of these theories may be, they remain staged
theories, which is limiting, as each provides only a fragmented perspective. The
Robinson chart (shown in Figure 2) integrates these separate psychology theories and
interlinks them using well-known applied management theories. For example, the
addition of a diagonal divide, matching Rotter’s (1996) locus of control distinction, helps
distinguish between the expressive value stations and the submissive – a differentiation
central in Graves’ original recorded findings. Robinson’s (1998) chart refers to it as the
dependency ravine. The chart also includes Covey’s (1990) three consecutive stages of
development, namely dependent, independent and interdependent.
Page 5
5
5
Alderfer (1969) recognised, that humans may simultaneously have, and indeed move
between, successive need levels. He also realised that people create reinforcing
behaviours (habits), which may ‘lock them in’ to a particular station, but that they might
regress to a previously inhabited station, if frustrated – a phenomenon also referred to by
Beck and Cowan (1995). The domain of business leadership as a management discipline
has been well-researched in the past. Kofman & Senge (1993) - the ‘systems thinkers’,
suggest that an innate tendency toward the quick-fix approach to life may have blinded
some managers to the bigger picture, that is to say that by looking with immediacy at
current situations, humans may gradually be losing their connection with the larger
worldview, such that humanity is becoming quite inept at dealing with long-term change
and threats, such as global warming. On a more down to earth note, new ventures need
organisational structure (Vinell and Hamilton, 1999) and founders of emerging
organisations are required to put forward a vision and define goals so as to provide
motivation for personnel to work toward specific outcomes (Baum, J., Locke, E. and
Kirkpatrick, S., 1998; Kirkpatrick, S., Wofford, J. and Baum, J., 2002), which demands
that they themselves are in touch with their world-view, goal-directed and able to manage
others.
According to the Personal and Corporate Values Journey chart (Robinson, 1998), six
value stations may be plotted. These refer to the propensity of individuals to mature along
two planes, concurrently. On one plane, they develop capacity for autonomy and personal
freedom; on the other, the capacity for rational and considerate conduct. If this journey is
plotted graphically, the two planes may be depicted as axes. Each of six value stations
can then be located, and is conveniently colour-coded for ease of identification. Since it is
practically impossible to develop in both directions simultaneously, what emerges is a
step-wise journey that depicts individuals being ushered intermittently along first one,
then the other axis. The journey is indicated in Figure 2.
Page 6
6
6
Figure 2: The Personal and Corporate Values Journey Chart (Robinson, 1998)
Purple represents the basic level of maturity, where individuals cling together for safety.
Submissive behaviour is common among followers; correspondingly, a paternal
leadership style is associated with this value station. Red, signifying an egocentric, ‘dog
eat dog’ type culture, typified by aggressive in-fighting and power plays. It can be seen
from the chart that Red is a level higher along the autonomy axis, yet no further along the
social maturity axis. Residents of Red represent the type of people with a high need for
power, as first identified by McCleland (1961).
Social mores first emerge at Blue where absolute compliance and respect for procedure
and authority are evident in followers. Leadership at this level entails authoritarian,
procedure-bound, formal and centralised control. The Orange value station is
Page 7
7
7
characterised by materialism and affluence, demanding a corresponding opportunity-
driven leadership style. Again, it can be seen that, whereas Blue represents an
advancement over Purple/Red along the social maturity, Orange represents a step above
Blue in the direction of increased autonomy. Orange residents display a high need for
achievement (after McCleland, 1961).
Holistic thinking becomes apparent at the Green value station, where peace and harmony
are the ideals sought. This tends to generate accommodative behaviour in followers and
leaders therefore play a facilitative role. Green residents display a high need for
affiliation (after McCleland, 1961). Finally the Yellow value station, being the sixth and
ultimate level represents the ability to find inter-dependencies. Leadership is about
existential recognition of individual strengths, at whatever level of development or
station, and the ability to integrate and synergise with these. Again it is clear that Green
values have shifted laterally, while Yellow’s have lifted vertically on the chart.
It is thus clear that progress along the values journey is the result of accumulated
experience and knowledge, and that movement is intended ‘in the direction of greater
complexity’ (Beck and Cowan, 1996:62). Some individuals have limited mobility and/or
begin the journey with a predisposed bias, due to conditioning, as indicated below the X
axis in the Figure 2. Progress is marked by a degree of turbulence and uncertainty during
the transition from one value station to the next. (Cowan and Todorovic, 2000; Beck and
Cowan, 1996), as advancement is presented as a response to changes in the problems of
existence. Such “creative tension” (Senge, 1990:9) distinguishes the desired state from
the current reality. Followers may inhibit the transition between value states through
maladaptive or destructive patterns of behaviour (Beck and Cowan, 1996:61).
The relationship between follower and leader is critical during these transitional phases.
Badaracco and Ellsworth (1989) inform that leaders must be careful to espouse values
that followers are able to identify with. Correspondingly, leaders need to invoke a sense
of purpose, through a vision that energises and motivates followers towards the future
Page 8
8
8
(Bennis and Nanus, 1985:80). For this reason, it is advisable for leaders to be at least one
half station ahead of their followers, in order to effectively guide them along.
Consider, for example, the transition between Blue and Orange. In Blue, duty rules and
authority takes precedence, the deep values surrounding self-sacrifice and obedience to
rightful authority hold sway. However, questions surrounding ‘proper authority’ (Beck
and Cowan, 1996:238) present a potential for change. As the (constantly evolving)
conditions of existence change, a certain dissonance develops. The first recourse is
usually more of the same, but when that fails autonomy, independence and the need for
achievement take centre stage (Cowan and Todorovic, 2000). Senge (1990) associates
this transitional phase with leaders and organisations that display adaptive and ultimately
generative learning behaviours due to the creative tension generating from a paradigm
shift. Similar characteristics have been discovered in entrepreneurial behaviour
(Timmons, 1994).
We have incorporated psychology theories into Robinson’s Values journey, and now turn
our attention to entrepreneurship theories, believing that the Orange region (as shown in
Figure 2) represents an entrepreneurial paradigm that equates to known entrepreneurial
behaviours. In particular, this transitional ‘space’ has been found to be characterised by:
• The realisation that strong attraction to the ‘musts’ and ‘oughts’ dictated by
authorities is limiting to personal development.
• Realising there may be more than one right way – (not so sure what is absolutely
right – perhaps there are many ways, but there may still be ‘one best way’).
• Becoming frustrated by the rules, with a corresponding desire for more autonomy.
• Wanting to see some fruits of your success (in this lifetime).
• Wants to be seen as successful (not just as hard-working).
• Argumentative toward authority.
• Feelings of self-sufficiency or being larger than life.
• Accepting of some multiplicity, justifying the ‘bending’ of rules in the name of
‘expediency’.
Page 9
9
9
• A willingness to indulge in calculated risk-taking.
Karl Vesper (1980 in Hisrich & Peters 2002: 7) admits that entrepreneurs are seen
differently by the likes of economists, psychologists, businesspersons, and politicians.
The entrepreneurship field has therefore been and is often defined in various ways. First,
the entrepreneur as a risk bearer (Cantillon, 1730; in Outcalt, 2000; Hisrich & Peters
2002) is attributed with coining the term ‘entrepreneur’ and recognising their distinctive
risk-bearing behaviour (Red-Orange), i.e. they are different people to the owners of
capital (more Blue). In Frank Knight’s (1921) economics text, Risk, Uncertainty and
Profit, the entrepreneur is depicted as an economic functionary who undertakes the
responsibility of uncertainty (Red-Orange). Jean Baptiste Say (1830; in Outcalt, 2000)
describes entrepreneurs as organisers with the management functions of co-ordination,
organization and supervision (Orange-Yellow). An entrepreneur is thus one who
combines the land of one, the labour of another, and the capital of yet another, thus
producing a product. Considered by some the father of the study of entrepreneurs,
Schumpeter’s (1912/34) twin theories explain how innovation and technological change
originates. The earliest speaks of ‘wild spirits’ who “make things work” (Red-Orange).
His later (corporate) version suggests that those “who really move the innovation and
economy [are] the big companies which have the resources and capital to invest in
R&D” (Blue-Orange). Langlois (1987) believed that Schumpeter’s two perspectives of
entrepreneurs could coexist (i.e. they overlap in Orange). Casson (2005) further
characterises entrepreneurs as the decision makers who improvise solutions to problems
which cannot be solved by routine alone, which is to say they operate outside the
established rules (beyond Blue = Orange).
Hisrich & Peters (2002:66) suggest that the more successful entrepreneurs exhibit a
tendency toward higher internal locus of control than the general populace (i.e. Red,
Orange, Yellow). Similarly, Long (1983) considered that three distinct traits in
entrepreneurship, namely:
• uncertainty & risk (Red-Orange),
Page 10
10
10
• complementary managerial experience (Blue-Orange)
• creative opportunism (Orange-Yellow)
Researching the entrepreneur as a leader, R. B. Reich (1987) argued that management
ability (Blue-Orange), and leadership (Orange-Yellow), should be complimented by
team-building (Green-Yellow). He views the lead entrepreneur as one who creates
opportunity (Orange). Bygrave & Hofer (1991) describe the entrepreneurial process as
involving those functions, activities, and actions associated with grasping opportunities
and creating the organisational capability to pursue them” (Orange-Blue)
Sandberg (1992 in Outcalt 2000) adopts more of a systems perspective, which
corresponds to the Orange-Yellow paradigm. Robinson’s (2002) definition of the
entrepreneur incorporates both innovation (Orange-Yellow) and implementation (Blue-
Orange) - An entrepreneur is a person who creates something of value and assumes the
risk of building a business around it. Davidsson (2005) found traits for entrepreneurs are
generally unsubstantiated and that it is nigh impossible to profile a typical entrepreneur.
Anyone could be an entrepreneur under the right circumstances where idea, the
individual, and the environment meld. Melding would be a Yellow concept, and the
notion of some ideal matching of person, environment and situation would support the
paradigmatic discussion. In his investigation of processes relevant to the creation of
entrepreneurship, he suggests discovery (Red, Orange, Yellow) search methodologies &
exploitation (Blue-Orange). Recently, Casson (2005) broke the definition of
entrepreneurs into two approaches, the functional – entrepreneur is what entrepreneur
does (i.e Orange) – and indicative approaches - legal status, relation with other parties,
and position in society (Blue-Orange).
In summary, Orange thinking persons appreciate success (including the illusion of
success) and all activities intended toward success (as epitomised by its ‘trappings’, i.e.
material wealth). The entrepreneurial band also incorporates a certain amount of Blue
thinking, in that Orange in effect supersedes Blue and thus builds on it, as well as
Yellow, in the sense personal accomplishment beyond the material and toward full
empowerment, flexibility and competence achieved through a lifetime of wise choices.
Page 11
11
11
There are three obvious examples of modern-day entrepreneurs that display these
characteristics: Jack Welch would be the archetypical Orange entrepreneur, with a strong
Blue base; Donald Trump displays Orange with some traces of Red (as evident in his TV
series ‘You’re Fired!’); Richard Branson would be the Orange entrepreneur stretching
into Yellow (as evident in his TV series, which is all about empowering others).
Economists generally agree that the emergence of entrepreneurs is an important
ingredient in any growing economy, therefore it is extremely useful to have a sense of
what an entrepreneur is in the broader sense of their values and leadership paradigm. This
being accomplished, it is now plausible to believe entrepreneurial talent can be nurtured
by paying attention to the underlying values and behaviours, through tailored educational
development and purposeful experiential learning. In terms of a life journey one can
confidently situate the entrepreneur in the Orange values and leadership paradigm. Thus,
if one can become Orange, then one can become an entrepreneur.
The Journey
The paper will now explore the route to Orange, with reference to Figure 3.
Figure 3: The Steps
Page 12
12
12
This step-wise progression is no ordinary journey. Robinson’s chart illustrates that the
development of values at work and within the organisation can be plotted. Accordingly, it
is possible to track the development of a firms maturing process as it progresses through
the identifiable value stations. The path is governed by its essential stepwise progression,
i.e. Purple – Red – Blue – Orange – Green – Yellow, as illustrated in Figure 3. Because
each step builds on the previous, to leave out any step is to create a vacuum in one’s
development that inevitably causes them to regress. Essentially, both Red and Blue
together, in equal measure, form the appropriate foundations for Orange. Similarly, both
Orange and Green are needed for Yellow. Where it may be possible for a person to leap
frog Blue and proceed directly from Red to Orange, one can accurately predict that such a
person will, in the absence of a Blue base, regress back to Red in a crisis, whereas it
would be eminently preferable for such a crisis to be dealt with from Blue.
It is important to note that not all people are going to reach Orange, and even fewer
Yellow, therefore not everybody will develop the intent or capability to become an
entrepreneur. Nevertheless, it is plausible to expect that an organisation can contain a
critical mass of thinking and practices that render it, on the whole, entrepreneurial. The
fact is that a firm is experienced as entrepreneurial when its day-to-day practices lie
predominantly in the Orange band. For convenience, Table 1 shows the six bands.
Dominant individual behaviours
Culture type
Typical organisational structure
Typical managerial orientation
Preferred management process
Typical response
Positive manifestations
Negative manifestations
Motivating need
World view
Instinctive self-denial
Submissive Tribal Obedience Parental Listen Pride Blind following
Belonging Tribal
Impulsive self-expression
Aggressive Mini-empire Task Tough paternalistic
Force Self-reliant Exploitive Independence
Egocentrist
Sacrificial self-denial
Compliant Passive hierarchy
procedural Authoritarian Conform Respect Rigid Security Absolutist
Rational self-expression
Progressive Active hierarchy
Results Entrepreneurial Initiate Affluence Manipulative Achievement Materialist
Accommodative self-denial
Harmonious Social network Relationships Facilitative Discuss Peace Indecisive Acceptance Relativist
Considerate self-expression
Integrative Functional access
Solutions Synergistic Consider Flexibility Non-directive Interdependence
Existential
Table 1: The Six Bands (Robinson, 1990)
Page 13
13
13
In a company where the dominant individual need is for achievement, the common form
of behaviour is rational self-expression, the culture is progressive, the organisation is
actively evolving, and the managerial orientation is toward results, will put in place
management processes that are entrepreneurial. The typical response to an operational
situation would be to analyse and take initiative. The positive manifestation of this
paradigm would be a degree of affluence among members, though they may be somewhat
manipulative in their dealings with each other. An important effect of all this is likely to
be a strongly materialistic world view. This example refers to the band corresponding to
the Orange value station and illustrates the concept of congruency in management,
whereby an alignment of day-to-day practices around a particular band is said to create
congruency and hence a critical mass of thinking and behaviours that are regarded as
acceptable within that company culture.
Culture Paradigms
If it is true that ‘hidden values are evidenced in the way in which authority is delegated’
(Mintzberg et al, 2003:301), then managerial practices hold the key to organisational
culture. A questionnaire, developed in 1990 by Dorfling and Robinson, facilitates the
tracking of current managerial practices that impact the day to day culture within a firm.
A second feature of the questionnaire was its solicitation of respondents views on how
their managerial practices must change in order to bring the company to what is regarded
by them as an ideal culture. Senior managers of 30 small and medium sized, owner-
managed firms agreed, without exception, that in order for the firm to become more
entrepreneurial, more Orange day-to-day managerial practices would be required. In
particular, the dominant culture can be discerned in terms of the six leader-follower
interactions listed in the table below, which illustrates the differences between three
cultural paradigms. [The interdependence paradigm is included as it depicts the next
logical progression beyond independence].
Page 14
14
14
Culture of Dependence
[Blue]
Culture of Independence
[Orange]
Culture of Inter-dependence
[Green-Yellow]
Culture Clues
Do Don’t Do Don’t Do Don’t Motivation Give praise
for hard work and loyalty
Single out individuals that achieve
more than the group
Place emphasis on
personal career
advancement
Cite inflexible
policy
Let intrinsic work interest
take precedence
over monetary reward
Encourage non-
functional status
symbols
Individual strengths
Use formalised standard operating
procedures
Show any bias Or
favouritism
Allow room for
negotiation
Let the person feel stifled or
dead-ended
Allow staff members to
use their competencies
Enforce rigid
structure or time-
constraints Team processes Encourage
employees to co-operate in small groups
Expect them to change the
status quo
Foster competition
and challenges
Treat everyone as
equals
Demonstrate empathy and
encourage interaction with others
Allow too much
unproductive participation
Communication & Policy
Consistently provide clear expectations
and clear policy
Be vague or uncertain or
expect flexibility
Provide structured ways to
make the most of business
opportunities
Enforce rigid policies
and adherence to procedures
Provide guidelines to
make the most of business
opportunities
Be limited by
existing or obsolete policies
Work environment
Make it functional
and formal a Use
formalised standard operating
procedures
Allow much individualism, or show any favouritism
Grant prestige to
high achievers and better perks for rank and seniority
Restrict personal
advancement
Provide a flexible work environment
with open access to
information
Demand immediate compliance or restrict
access
Compensation Base remuneration on seniority and loyalty with good
provision for retirement
Introduce personalised
salary packaging
Base reward on
achievement of results
Expect loyalty to
trump personal
advancement opportunities
Ensure that compensation is not biased,
discriminatory, or unfair in
any way
Allow reward and recognition
issues to destroy
interpersonal relations
Table 2: The Three Culture Paradigms
The authors draw attention to a feature of the Values Chart, which itself is further
evidence that entrepreneurship is indeed a values and leadership paradigm, namely the
values-based leadership algorithm, consisting of the following axioms:
Page 15
15
15
1. Since those possessing internal locus of control will most likely manage externals,
it follows that the expressive stations will almost always preside over the
submissive, i.e. Red will dominate over Purple, Orange will manage Blue and
Yellow will lead Green (the verbs’ idiosyncratic shades of difference are
relevant).
2. Since, as the Values Chart depicts, each successive value station represents a step
forward in development, persons residing at any station are best led by those
already at a higher station, because, having resided there previously, they retain
an understanding of the followers’ problems of existence and ways of coping .
Thus, Red will most likely accept Orange leadership, Orange will most likely
accept leadership from Yellow, Purple from Blue and Blue from Green.
3. In view of axiom 1, it is ineffective for a submissive station to attempt to lead an
expressive, thus Red cannot be managed by or from Blue and Orange cannot be
managed by or from Green.
4. Unhealthy leadership occurs when the leader regresses and the regression is to a
station behind that of the followers, e.g. An Orange-styled leader of Blue team
members regresses to Red (under extreme pressure), creating an untenable
situation in view of axiom 2.
Theses axioms are combined in the algorithm depicted graphically in Figure 4, which
illustrates whom can lead who, effectively.
Page 16
16
16
Figure 4: The Values–based Leadership algorithm
Referring to figure 4, it can be seen that each of the three upper (expressive) value
stations can provide leadership to people residing in the same or prior stations (both
upper and lower), while each of the three lower (submissive) value stations are only able
to provide leadership to their respective prior lower station.
It has previously been shown that the entrepreneurial paradigm is situated in and around
the Orange value station. Now Orange is an expressive station that, according to the
axioms, is capable of managing itself, blue and red. Armed with the algorithm, one might
develop a new empathy for the (Orange) entrepreneur’s frustration with a corporate
(Blue) environment, or when having to deal with sensitive human-relations issues
(Green). Similarly, it becomes clear why the intrepreneur (corporate entrepreneur) might
be successful in leading companies through certain transitions (i.e. Blue to Orange), but
not others (e.g. Red to Blue).
Conclusion
The notion of entrepreneurship as a values and leadership paradigm allows us to consider
its idiosyncracies in a new light. The Personal and Corporate Values Journey chart
Page 17
17
17
(Figure 2) locates the entrepreneurial paradigm within the journey of life, with the help of
theories borrowed from applied psychology and management theory. The route to
developing the essential world view and corresponding coping mechanisms that befit
successful entrepreneurial endeavour becomes clear when based on the steps (Figure 3)
and the six bands (Table 1). The tell-tale signs of entrepreneurial intent are explained as
the transitional ‘space’ between Blue and Orange. A leadership algorithm, consisting of
four axioms, is espoused and illustrated in Figure 4. The entrepreneurial paradigm is
shown to be in and about the Orange value station and the questions as to whether Orange
can fit well inside Blue is addressed by a deepening of our understanding of the relevance
of values and leadership in organizational culture.
Page 18
18
18
References
Alderfer, C. P. 1969, ‘An empirical test of a new theory of human needs’, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance. May: 142-175.
Baum, J., Locke, E. & Kirkpatrick, S. 1998. A longitudinal study of the notion of vision
and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(1):43-54.
Beck, D. 2002. Spiral Dynamics model. From “The never-ending quest - an interview
with Dr Don Beck” by Jessica Roemischer in What is Enlightenment Magazine, Issue 22:
viewed on 20 September 2006. Available online:
http://www.humanemergence.org/images/Spiral%20Dynamics%20model.pdf
Beck, D. E. & Cowan, C. C. 1996. Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and
Change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Badaracco, J. L. Jr. and Ellsworth, R. R. 1989. Leadership and the Quest for Integrity.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennis, W. & Nanus, B. 1985. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.
Cowan, C. C. & Todorovic, N. 2000. Spiral Dynamics: The layers of human values in
strategy. Strategy & Leadership, vol.28: Iss. 1, Jan/Feb
Burch, J. G. 1986, Business Horizons, September-October
Bygrave, W. D. & Hofer, C. W. 1991. Theorizing about entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol 16(2):13-22.
Cantillon, R. 1730. In Outcalt, C. 2000. The notion of entrepreneurship: historical and
emerging issues. CELCEE Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Page 19
19
19
Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education DIGEST. September, No. 00-4, Kansas
City, viewed 10 September 2006. Available online:
http://www.celcee.edu/publications/digest/Dig00-4.html.
Casson, M. 2005. Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm, Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 58 (2):327-348
Covey, S. R. 1990. An inside-out approach, Journal, vol. 7(10):3-4.
Davidsson, P. 2005. The types and contextual fit of entrepreneurial processes.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2(4). Senate Hall Academic
Publishing.
Dorfling, P & Robinson, D. A. 1990. Assessing Company Culture. Questionnaire booklet.
Pretoria: NPI.
Egan, K. 1997. The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. ,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Elkjaer, J. R. 1991. The entrepreneur in economic theory: An example of the
development and influence of a concept. History of European Ideas, 13(6):805-815.
Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. 2006. The moderating effect of
environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behaviour
and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 21:243–263.
Hisrich, R. D. & Peters, M. P. 2002, Entrepreneurship, 5e. Sydney: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P. & Shepherd, D. A. (2005) Entrepreneurship, 6e. New York:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Page 20
20
20
Hughes, R. L., Ginnet, R. C. and Curphy, G. J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the
Lessons of Experience, 5e. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kirkpatrick, S., Wofford, J. & Baum, J. 2002. Measuring motive imagery contained in
the vision statement. Leadership Quarterly, 13:139-150.
Kirzner, I. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and competitive market process: an Austrian
approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35:60-85.
Kofman, F. & Senge, P. M. 1993, Communities of commitment: The heart of learning
organizations. Special Issue on the Learning Organization. Organizational Dynamics, 5
(19) Autumn, vol. 22, no. 2.
Kohlberg, L. 1958. Iin Crain, W. C. 1985. Kohlberg's Moral Stages. Theories of
Development. 118-136. Prentice-Hall.
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C. & Hewer, A. 1983. Moral stages: a current formulation and a
response to critics. New York: Karger. Available online:
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment.
The Journal of Philosophy. Available online:
http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/Kohlberg.htm
Knight, F. H. 1921/61, Risk Uncertainty and Profit, 2e, Kelley.
Langlois, R. N. 1987. Schumpeter and the obsolescence of the entrepreneur. Department
of Economics, The University of Connecticut. Paper presented at the History of
Economics Society annual meeting, June 21, 1987, Boston. Circulating as Working
Paper: 91-1503, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, November 1991.
Long, W. 1983. The meaning of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business,
8(2):47-59.
Page 21
21
21
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
McGraw, T. K. 1991. Schumpeter ascending: Re-emerging intellectual interest in
entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development. The American Scholar, 60:
371-392.
McClelland, D. C. 1961. The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., Quinn, J. B. and Ghoshal, S. 2003. The Strategy Process:
Concepts Contexts Cases, 4e. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Outcalt, C. 2000. The notion of entrepreneurship: Historical and emerging issues. Cellcee
Digest, CELCEE Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, viewed on 5th
September 2006. Available online: http://www.celcee.edu/publications/digest/Dig00-
4.html
Piaget, J. 1965, The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press.
Reich, R. B. 1987. Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero. Harvard Business
Review, May/June.
Robinson, D. A. 1990. The Six Bands. Chart. Cape Town: NPI
Robinson, D. A. 1998. The Personal and Corporate Values Journey. Chart. Port
Elizabeth: PSI
Robinson, D. A. 2002. A phenomenological study of how entrepreneurs experience and
deal with ethical dilemmas. PhD thesis. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.
Page 22
22
22
Rotter, J. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, Whole No. 609:80.
Sandberg, W. R. 1992. Strategic management’s potential contributions to a theory of
entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(3):73-90.
Sarasvathy, S. D. 2001. What makes entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?
Working paper
Say, J. B. 1830 in Outcalt, C 2000. The notion of entrepreneurship: Historical and
emerging issues’, CELCEE Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education DIGEST, September, No. 00-4, Kansas
City, viewed 10 September 2006. Available online:
http://www.celcee.edu/publications/digest/Dig00-4.html.
Senge, P. 1990 The Leaders New Work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, vol. 32(1):7-23.
Shaver, K. & Scott, L. 1991. Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture
creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2):23-45.
Timmons, J. A. 1994. New Venture Creation: Entrepreeurship For The 21st Century,
revised 4th edition. Chicago: Irwin.
Vecchio, R. P. 2003. Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common
threads. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2):329-346.
Westley, F. & Mintzberg, H. 1989. Visionary Leadership and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 10:17-32.
Vesper, K. 1980. New venture strategies. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Edgewood Cliffs.
Page 23
23
23
Vinnell, R. & Hamilton, R. 1999. A historical perspective on small firm development.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4):5-18.