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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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’.

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),

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.

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

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)

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].

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

23

23

Vinnell, R. & Hamilton, R. 1999. A historical perspective on small firm development.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(4):5-18.