All over the world people agree that entrepreneurs are job creators and that they develop new products and services which benefit the whole society. Yet, the image of entrepreneurs has declined in the past two years. 54% of all Europeans believe that entrepreneurs only think about their own wallet and 49% believe that entrepreneurs exploit other peoples work. In 2007, the figures  were clearly lower (45% and 42%).

The status of entrepreneurs varies greatly between different countries. In the Scandinavian countries it is very positive (e.g. 83% of Danes and 78% of Finns had a favourable opinion about entrepreneurs) whereas in Eastern Europe the entrepreneurs' reputation is generally lower (only 26% of Hungarians and 33% of Poles have a favourable opinion about them). Yet, in comparison with other professions, entrepreneurs are considered in a rather positive way: 49% of all Europeans declare having a good opinion about entrepreneurs. Only the liberal professions (lawyers, doctors, architects etc.) enjoyed greater esteem (58%). Significantly lower is the regard for civil servants (35%), top-managers (28%), bankers (25%) or politicians (12%).

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/eurobarometer/





Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요




Talent is a public good, not private good. 
(재능은 공공재 이다.) 

References: 

Is Education a Public Good?



Higher Education for the Public Good: Emerging Voices from a National Movement (Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education) 



Is Education a Public Good? If So, How Should It Be Funded?



Public Goods: 
In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Non-rivalry means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and non-excludability that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.[1] In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful 

Talent development: 

Part of human resource development, is the process of changing an organization, its employees, its stakeholders, and groups of people within it, using planned and unplanned learning, in order to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage for the organization. Rothwell notes that the name may well be a term in search of a meaning, like so much in management, and suggests that it be thought of as selective attention paid to the top 10% of employees, either by potential or performance.[1][2]

While talent development is reserved for the top management it is becoming increasingly clear that career development is necessary for the retention of any employee, no matter what their level in the company. Research has shown that some type of career path is necessary for job satisfaction and hence job retention. Perhaps organizations need to include this area in their overview of employee satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_development


On the Sources of Entrepreneurial Talent: Tacit vs. Codified Knowledge


Daniela Federici, University of Cassino - Department of Economics

Francesco Ferrante, University of Cassino - Faculty of Economics - Department of Economics (DIPSE)

Domenico Vistocco, University of Cassino


Abstract:      

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=1301289


Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요

  1. jisu 2011.12.18 01:07  댓글주소  수정/삭제  댓글쓰기

    좋은말 덕분에 많이 배워가네요. 감사합니다





Management and leadership complement each other, and 'both'  are necessary for the success of an organization. 


리더십과 경영관리는 서로 다르면서도 상호 보완적이므로, 조직이 장기적으로 성공하기 위해서는 양자의 균형과 조화가 이루어져야 한다. 

Source1: Lee, Seungjoo(2006), Strategic Leadership. page14.  
Source2: Kotter (1990), Bennis & Nanus (1997). 

Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요




Differences in firm performance comes less from differences in what firms know, but more from their ability to translate knowledge into action.
 
회사의 성과가 각기 다른 것은 각 회사마다 "아는 것이 다른 점" 보다는, 그 회사의 "아는 것을 행동으로 옮기는" 능력에 따라 다른 것이다.

Source: Pfeffer and Sutton (1999), Knowing what to do is not enough: turning knowledge into action. California Management Review 42 (1), 83-108.

Book: "The Knowing-Doing Gap"



Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요



Research on characteristics of entrepreneurs has generally focused on personality traits and demographics. Less attention has been devoted to behavioral characteristics of entrepreneurs. Corporate entrepreneurs need to develop a personal style or approach to the entrepreneurial process, and their styles are likely to include a number of behavioral characteristics. In a study in which start-up entrepreneurs were compared to corporate managers, Busenitz and Barney (1997) demonstrate that entrepreneurs are more liekly than corporate managers to employ certain biases and heuristics when making decisions. Two specific biases and heuristics emphasized by entrepreneurs follow:

Overconfidence:
The tendency for a decision-maker to be overly optimistic in their initial assessment of a situation, and to be slow to subsequently incorporate additional information about a situation into their assessment because of their initial overconfidence.

Representativeness:
A willingness to generalize about a person or phenomenon based on only a few attributes of that person or only a few observations of a specified phenomenon. In effect, small, non-random samples of data are being relied upon. The unreliability inherent in such limited data is ignored or underestimated by the decision-maker.

These short cuts allow the entrepreneur to decipher lots of inputs efficiently and make quick decisions under conditions of uncertainty. As corporate entrepreneurs deal with much of the same uncertainty, they might be expected to rely on some of the same biases and heuristics. At the same time, reliance on them makes the corporate entrepreneur vulnerable to attack from within, as the corporate environment typically places a premium on systematic data collection and conservative interpretation of information.

Source: For the complete study, see Busenitz, L and J. Barney. 1997. "Difference Between Entreprneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Baises and Hueristics in Strategic Decision-Making," Journal of Business Venturing 12, No. 1: 9-30.

Original source: Morris and Kuratko (2002). Corporate Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Development within Organization, Thomson south-Western. (page 334, Table 16.1)






Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요



"They [leaders, managers] know that the most time-consuming step in the process is not making the decision but putting it into effect. Unless a decision has 'degenerated into work' it is not a decision; it is at best a good intention."

어떤 일을 함에 있어서 가장 시간 낭비가 많은 것이 '결정은 하지않고, 무턱대고 밀어붙이는 것' 임을 리더나 매니저들은 잘 알 것이다. 만약 결정을 실행함에 있어 퇴보되거나, 나빠지는 것이 있다면 그것은 결정이 아니다. 아무리 좋게 보아도, 그것은 제대로 된 결정이 아니라 '좋은 의도' 정도이다.

Drucker, P.F. (1966), "The effective decision", Harvard Business Review, January-February.


Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요



Sense Making is "Structuring Unknown. "
What is good for
sensemaking is a good story."

Sense making 은 "모르는 것을 구조화 하는 것이다." Sensemaking 에 좋은 것은 바로 "좋은 이야기" 이다.

Kark Weick (1995), Sensemaking in Organization.



Sense Making Framework: Karl Weick's Decision Making

1. Retrospection
2. Cues
3. Ongoing sensemaking
4. Social Sensemaking
5. Plausibility
6. Identity construction
7. Enactment
8. Projection

Source: Jean Helms Mills (2009), Understanding Organizational Change. pp.16~18.



Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요



'If you aren't part of the solution, you could be part of the problem'

'만약 그대가 문제 해결의 편에 서지 않는다면, 당신은 문제 그 자체일 수도 있습니다'


source: Jean Helms et al (2009), Understanding Organizational Change (p. 37)


Posted by Jeonghwan Choi

댓글을 달아 주세요