The entrepreneur said that he was still very good at acquiring different types of information, and appeared frustrated that the internal stakeholders could not see the opportunities. He gave an example of being able to connect the dots for a potential opportunity that no one else could see. IS 4 believed that the entrepreneur was the visionary and IS 1 was a businessman.
Entrepreneur
Yeah but the dots are damn obvious. That’s the issue. But, there’s not much I can do about that if people don’t see them.
The entrepreneur had the insight to know that one of their long-standing clients would withdraw from the UK market and appeared frustrated that the internal stakeholders could not see the same threat. In contrast, IS 1 argued that these predictions were difficult to achieve because the industry was so confidential.
And IS 4 argued that the loss of this client did not affect the organization because they “were still busy”.
IS 3 contradicted the entrepreneur’s thoughts and said that people do understand the importance to their ongoing revenue of the projects they were working on, and the financial implications of what they did.
IS 3
I think they understand their job role, definitely. And yes I think they understand what they are doing and that we quote projects based on how much time the projects cost. They understand that what they are doing makes money.
IS 4 was aware that there were deadlines for projects, profits and payments by clients, and believed that some employees did have the same awareness, which supported what IS 3 said, but contradicted the entrepreneur thoughts.
The entrepreneur confirmed his comments from the Set I interview, that he saw himself as an analytical thinker, and not an entrepreneur. IS 1 confirmed his Set I thoughts that the entrepreneur was no longer involved in decisions which affected the operational side of the business. IS 4 said that the entrepreneur was involved in overseeing the whole of the operations and business plan. IS 1, in support of the comments he made in Set I felt that the entrepreneur was inconsistent in the way he used the organization’s metric system for financial and operation purposes, and sometimes relied on his intuition.
BOX 8.7 THE RISK-AVERSE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THE INTERACTION
IS 2 confirmed what the entrepreneur had said, that he was still involved in finding opportunities to increase the size of the business and was always looking at the broader picture. She said that the entrepreneur was connecting the dots ahead of everybody else, and was focused on the detail of what he was doing.
She recognized that some internal stakeholders had difficulty combining detail thinking with strategic thinking in the way the entrepreneur did. For example, providing financial detail for a client’s proposal and being able to see the strategic benefits of the detail to the future of the organization.
IS 4 built on her Set I interview comments about the entrepreneur’s vision when he started the organization, and said that he made a decision irrespective of whether others followed him or not. She added that sometimes he made a decision and went ahead, but that he also did listen to others’ ideas.
The entrepreneur suggested that the recession brought opportunities such as restructuring the organization, but added that it needed to be done quickly in order for the organization to grow. The entrepreneur wanted to use the opportunity for the organization to move into sharing intellectual property and development work, rather than only working as a service provider. He confirmed his Set I interview comments that he was looking ahead three years at the new premises they would need.
The entrepreneur and IS 1 mentioned that regarding issue domain
‘Manufacturing’, they now had a license, which they didn’t have in Set I interviews. He said that after starting it, the entrepreneur was less involved in it
IS 1 felt that the entrepreneur’s risk-averse attitude to acquisitions was based on his perceptions, which IS 1 felt were not substantiated. He reinforced that this could negatively impact organizational growth, and that the entrepreneur was not open to new opportunities. .
now, but that he was still considering the strategic options. The entrepreneur’s reduced level of involvement was ratified by IS 2 and IS 3.
IS 2 went further and confirmed her Set I interview that the internal stakeholders did not share the entrepreneur’s vision for the manufacturing suite at the beginning, but that they were now operationally involved. IS 4, supporting her Set I comments felt that “they” were naïve about the profit the manufacturing suite would generate, and the time it would take to operationalize. However, she did see it as a part of the organization’s growth that would bring in further analytical work.
IS 1 was hopeful that they would receive their first client within a few months, but that people in the organization did not see it as a core part of the business. IS 1 saw it as generating 15% of their future growth, even though the manufacturing revenue might only be a small part of the overall client contract. He stated that some internal stakeholders did not see that picture.
The entrepreneur was concerned that he was not given the correct information by the internal stakeholders in terms of how profitable the manufacturing suite was going to be. At the stage of Set II interviews, he was still in the process of gathering the facts about it. IS 1 referred to the entrepreneur as making “blanket decisions”. He said that the entrepreneur didn’t realize that things had changed, and that the organization did things in a different way to the one he remembered.
He went further and declared that the entrepreneur used his intuition about the length of time and turnover the manufacturing suite would generate, rather than using factual information. IS 1 commented that he had also used his intuition in making decisions about the manufacturing suite without providing enough financial detail.
IS 2 acknowledged that the manufacturing suite was not making any money, and IS 3 confirmed that they were not manufacturing anything yet. IS 3 said that the process of developing a product with a client was presently happening and he believed it would improve.
8.4.2 Temporality (Q2 And CF)
The entrepreneur confirmed his thoughts from Set I interviews that the organization took too long to develop, and it should have happened sooner than 20 years. He felt that this slow development of 15-20% a year was not fast enough for investors and therefore the organization could not attract investment.
IS 2 said that the entrepreneur was relaxed and didn’t stress or rush, but was always quick with regard to invoicing clients, IS 3 mentioned that the timing of the issue domain ‘Manufacturing’ did not go according to the predicted plan and was a month behind schedule. IS 4 confirmed that the manufacturing suite had taken longer than people had anticipated, but that she, because of her previous manufacturing experience, had predicted this outcome.
8.4.3 Sensegiving (Q4)
IS 2 said that the entrepreneur was good at giving sense to people at all levels of the organization from board level to the people on the floor in the laboratory, but confirmed what the entrepreneur said, that people at lower levels of the organization did not want to know the financial details of what was going on. IS 3 felt that the entrepreneur trusted him to run the laboratory, and he reinforced what IS 2 said, that the entrepreneur wanted to do the best for people in the organization. IS 3 believed that the entrepreneur challenged convention, and did not accept things being done the same way all the time.
IS 4 confirmed her Set I comments that the entrepreneur was good at explaining things and asking for her opinion.
8.4.4 Interactions (Q1 and CF)
The entrepreneur’s interactions had changed since Set I interviews: he felt that he did not understand how to make people see the obvious.
Entrepreneur
I’ve given up on that and I’m now more interested in the differences in people as opposed to the similarities if you know what I mean. Accepting the differences as well, and different talents that people have. I’m not sure you can make people see something that they can’t see.
He said that if people could see the things he did, they would not be working for his organization but they would be doing it themselves.
BOX 8.8 THE FLOW OF INFORMATION
He admitted that he did not know what people thought, but believed that the link between the client and their salaries was too remote. He felt that because of the large size of the company, people did not understand that the client paid their salaries. Even though he felt this, according to IS 1 he still looked after everybody in the organization.
The entrepreneur reinforced his Set I views, that he could not communicate his vision to people, and that he always saw the company as this size and bigger. He commented that the success of the organization was no surprise to him. He went further and reinforced his Set I interview, that some internal stakeholders did not understand profit even though he communicated to them what it meant at every meeting.
IS 2 confirmed her Set I thoughts that the entrepreneur did not push people into making decisions, but would use his influence until they got to the decision he intended them to.
He confirmed his Set I comments, that people do not want to know about figures, or to take risks in the business, that they wanted an “easy life” and thus that he limited the flow of information to internal stakeholders.
IS 2
I’ll argue with him in that way whereas perhaps people are a bit more reticent but he’s usually quite open to people’s ideas, but if he thinks he has the best idea he will try and persuade them to come round to that way of thinking.
IS 2 confirmed her Set I interviews that the entrepreneur always tried to get people on board with what was going on, and that his interactions with people for the manufacturing suite involved several presentations.
IS 3 interactions with the entrepreneur were less frequent as the entrepreneur was trying to reduce his day-to-day activities. IS 3 contacted him via email if he needed to speak to him about a technical challenge, and found that the entrepreneur’s solution would be the same one he had arrived at. He admitted that he thought the entrepreneur worked differently with him than he did with others.
Although IS 1 was the new MD, IS 3 revealed that the entrepreneur’s level of technical experience was more suited to answer his questions in more detail than IS 1, who would analyze the problem from a Business Development perspective.
IS 1’s role and responsibilities therefore involved him engaging with IS 3 on performance and operational issues. In terms of issue domain ‘Succession’, IS 1 and IS 4 felt that the entrepreneur’s mentoring role was being reduced because he was out of the office for longer periods.
Both IS 3 and IS 4 believed that they could understand the entrepreneur’s thought process. IS 4 confirmed her Set I comments, that the entrepreneur bounced ideas off her because she was able to understand what he was saying, and could generally develop his idea.