Members Column Day: On intrapreneurship

FakeMike, it seems to me it would be highly beneficial for the company to breed real entrepreneuship. When you empower people to think on their own instead of following the rule book, big things can happen. Unfortunately, most corporations - CGI included - ignore this. Why do large corporations always put a cap on human spirit? Why is there this desire to alienate people? Felipe from Spain

Dear FFS, my experience at CGI and previously at Bell taught me that entrepreneurship can be a lethal disease when it spreads within the ranks of a well-managed and profitable corporation. Let's face it, entrepreneurs are not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. These deviants tend to quit to start their own company and next thing you know they want to invade your sandbox, steal your clients and put you out on the streets.

I know, I know, our founding fathers did just that in 1976 but that was for a good cause, look at where we are today. Today's entrepreneurs are not the same breed, it was different and nobler back then. Men were real men, not just shadows of a Facebook profile.

A company is about order, rules, consistency, and yes status quo. Status quo should be cherished, it is much more polite than saying no, and it gives a subtle hint that the situation may change 500 years from now, so status quo gives hope. Status quo gives plenty of time to weight all options. This is why most serious businesses - including ours - run on XP and Explorer 6. Change is a devil in a slutty red velvet dress, it looks enticing at first but underneath that nice exterior is one ugly beast oozing problems.

Overpaid management consultants have invented this incredibly great idea called "intrapreneurship" where people operate like entrepreneurs within all the existing rigid rules and red tape and by respecting status quo.

This is all bull of course, but it allows us to capture the energy and time of a few naive individuals who fall for this idea. We first create a trap by stating that individuals who want to "invest themselves" in the corporation are welcomed, this usually triggers a few people - usually rookies with rosy ideas about career management - to knock on the door. We assign them an open-ended project with a vague scope, no management support and of course no budget. After a few months and a few dozen unpaid hours, the "intrapreneur" understands the gimmick and abandons. The project is then picked up by the next gullible junior and the process repeats itself.

To sum up my answer, empowerment is all about trouble and pain, a top-down approach is always preferable. If a business can disguise unpaid hours into empowerment, that's a direction one must favor if this initiative does not impact the status quo and improves the bottom line.