Posted on

Being entrepreneurial isn’t just for startups

An unusually hectic travel schedule this summer took me to four great cities in four weeks: London, Chicago, Dubai and Beijing. In each, I learned about at least one interesting organization. In London, I added to my knowledge about Unilever, the well-known consumer goods giant whose products range from soaps and shampoos to ice creams and soups, when I met the head of a unit called Unilever Foundry that engages with startups. In Chicago, I attended a Father’s Day event at Willow Creek, a non-denominational megachurch that averages over 25,000 attendees every weekend. In Dubai, I learned about Aramex, a company sometimes referred to as “the FedEx of the Middle East”, whose Chairman Fadi Ghandour was the recipient of the 2017 Academy of International Business (AIB) Executive of the Year award. Finally, in Beijing, I visited the Nasdaq-listed JD.com, China’s first internet company to be featured in the Fortune 500.

Four very disparate organizations, but all with an unexpected common thread that became quickly apparent to me in each case: entrepreneurial behavior. As a relatively young e-commerce retailer, JD.com was probably the most “obvious” candidate for being entrepreneurial – and from the various displays at its futuristic exhibition center it wasn’t difficult to perceive that the company was in no mood to rest on its laurels. But the hunger to stay relevant was evident at the other organizations as well. In the case of Unilever, it had quite deliberately stepped outside of its comfort zone to engage with non-traditional allies, specifically startups, in the pursuit of novel ideas and innovative solutions. In relation to Willow Creek Church, it had clearly added creative elements into its activities, borrowing from a very different template – showbiz – to infuse its worship services with a greater experiential appeal. And as for Aramex, here was a courier company that had fearlessly pursued opportunities in a volatile region which held little appeal (when it was created in the 1980s) to large international players.

Why do I describe these companies as entrepreneurial? Arguably, Unilever’s behavior can be described as proactive in that it took the initiative to add a new dimension to its partnering activities: working with startups. Willow Creek’s actions can be termed as being innovative in that, in order to enhance their efficacy, novel ideas were creatively incorporated into what some would view as boring activities. Aramex had demonstrated a propensity for risk-taking. Academics refer to these features – proactiveness, innovativeness and risk-taking – as dimensions of “entrepreneurial orientation”. Numerous studies suggest that higher levels of these specific characteristics in organizations yield better results and, as JD.com is clearly striving for, continuous strategic renewal. The important message here, then, is that being entrepreneurial isn’t just for startups in high-tech sectors; it is as relevant to large corporations like Unilever, non-profits like Willow Creek and firms in traditional industries like Aramex.

So what does it take for an organization to be entrepreneurial? Here are three lessons:

1. Recognize that it is a collective effort. It was evident to me that in all four cases, the leader at the very top was providing clear messages to organizational members, calling for creativity and dynamism. But that was not all. These organizations seemed to also have “middle managers” who had bought into the need to stay hungry, and they all implicitly or explicitly emphasized the need for attracting and retaining talent. Thus, while leaders matter, it’s not just about them. Everyone in the organization has a part to play.

2. Draw inspiration from your local environment. While there are broad similarities between these four organizations, the specifics in terms of being entrepreneurial perhaps reflect some inherently local characteristics. For instance, Unilever Foundry struck me as very global in its ethos and ambitions – not unlike London, the city in which it is headquartered. Willow Creek had “creative directors” on its staff whose passion for pushing the envelope reflected the creative edginess for which Chicago is known. Aramex’s resilience was congruent with that of Dubai’s. JD.com’s scale of ambition echoed that of Beijing’s.

3. Learn to be comfortable with contradictory ideas. All four organizations were addressing tensions. To illustrate, Unilever was exploiting its own assets (brands) and exploring new ideas via outsiders (startups). Aramex had to remain locally relevant to its core Middle Eastern base, yet also be international in its mindset and reach. Willow Creek was holding on to both the traditional and the modern. JD.com seemed focused not only on short-term competitive challenges but also on long-term strategic imperatives.

Clearly, none of these lessons is easy to put into practice. Being entrepreneurial is effortful, not effortless. It is unlikely that these organizations, or any others, always get it right. The key, however, is to strive continually.

Posted on

How “born globals” dance with gorillas to punch above their weight

For over a decade now I have been studying “born globals” i.e. new ventures that internationalize rapidly, and in particular how these firms leverage relationships with large multinationals to facilitate this process. My studies on this topic span China, India, UK and USA.

I recently published a book targeted at other academics, based on this research, titled Born Globals, Networks and the Large Multinational Enterprise, which was released during the Academy of International Business conference in Bangalore.


The insights for entrepreneurs from this research include the following:

Be proactive in recognizing the opportunity to harness globalization. More than at any point in history, multinationals are genuinely interested to engage with start-ups. It wasn’t always like this. When I started my research in 2002 I could barely find any multinational with a structured partnering program targeted at young companies at home or abroad. This changed over the next few years as multinationals recognized that they could not be self-sufficient in generating novel ideas, and that start-ups were great at doing this. Today many multinationals offer a range of start-up engagement mechanisms from mass partner programs to selective incubators.

Be discerning in order to leverage the right opportunity. Just because an opportunity exists does not mean that it is guaranteed to work out. Entrepreneurs have to be discerning in how they engage with multinationals. In one sense, discernment in this context entails figuring out which partner is most appropriate to its strategic intent. Another facet is ensuring that its interests are protected, which may call for clever cooptation of local allies (e.g. mentors from respected incubators or VC firms). Yet another aspect of this is learning as much about the partner as possible to have a realistic understanding of what is and isn’t likely to be feasible.

Be reflective to learn from, and become better at dancing with, gorillas. Gorillas i.e. large multinationals can be an effective source of new business opportunities and revenues – but typically there are limits to how helpful they can be in this way. In the long term, new ventures will accrue important benefits if they adopt a learning mindset and seek to learn new capabilities through observation of, and joint activity with, large multinationals. Also, partnering with multinationals is a skill, and ventures can become better at this over time – if they consciously make the effort to reflect on their partnering experiences and talk to mentors periodically.

Thus partnering with multinationals involves considerable skill and effort – but the payoff can be considerable for new ventures if they can pull it off. Such start-ups harness globalization to punch above their weight. It’s a worthy goal for ventures with high aspirations in terms of innovation and internationalization

“Dancing with gorillas” – what is it?

Dancing with gorillas refers to start-ups partnering with large companies, in particular multinational corporations. I have been studying how these very different types of companies engage with each other in both the West (especially the US and UK) and East (especially China and India) for about a decade now. At the early stages of my research, I once asked the late Professor C K Prahalad what he thought about the scope for start-ups to engage with large multinationals, and his immediate response was: “Many of these small companies have no choice but to learn to dance with big gorillas”. I immediately latched on to that phrase!

Source: An interview with Dr Shameen Prashantham available here

Posted on

How do new ventures succeed in globalizing?

The globalization of new ventures, be they from advanced or emerging economies, may sound like an oxymoron: how can a young firm with limited resources go global? Research by various academics, including my own for over a decade in India, UK, US and latterly China, shows that in many cases the answer is: by leveraging network relationships. Entering international markets typically entails building and leveraging network relationships because new ventures rarely have the wherewithal to internationalize exclusively on the basis of their own resources.


Internationalization activity in new ventures is often opportunistic and serendipitous. This is integral to the nature of entrepreneurial activity. New ventures can, and should, flexibly take advantage of unexpected opportunity. That said, the argument here is that new ventures are more likely to be effective at internationalizing entrepreneurially when they are also strategic. In particular, it pays to be strategic in relation to cultivating, nurturing and leveraging network relationships.

Being strategic entails three key partnering capabilities:

Leveraging relationships proactively. Relationships are widely recognized as being key to new ventures’ growth and success both in general and specifically in relation to internationalization. However a passive approach to relationships will result in suboptimal network benefits. All things being equal, firms that are proactive in cultivating and leveraging their network relationships are more likely to succeed on the global stage. Furthermore, they not only leverage their networks proactively, but they also broaden their original network portfolios. 

Leveraging relationships reflectively. It is important for entrepreneurs to recognize that while generating revenues through network relationships is important, a more sustainable benefit is gaining learning outcomes – learning new knowledge and capabilities through network relationships. This calls for deliberately devoting attention to knowledge transfer and acquisition, which can require even greater effort whilst dealing with dissimilar partners. Picking good “teachers” is important. Having the intent and patience to gain non-monetary benefits such as knowledge – which can in turn be monetized by applying it to enhance international business revenue – is crucial and may go against the natural tendency of new ventures to focus exclusively on business revenue outcomes via networks.

Leveraging relationships discerningly. Entrepreneurs must recognize that different types of networks are good for different things. This is important because certain relationships are easier to access than others, but their benefits may be limited to early stages of the internationalization process. For longer term success, new ventures will have to go beyond their comfort zone to build new types of relationships. Typically, forging relationships with other similar entities is easier to do, but it is necessary to build a portfolio that includes links with dissimilar actors too. That is, it is important to build a holistic portfolio of network relationships over time. To do so new ventures will need to, over time, go beyond easy-to-access network relationships both at the interpersonal level and the interorganizational level.

In sum, of all the special capabilities that new ventures to globalize arguably the most important is that of building and leveraging network relationships. This applies to both interpersonal relationships of the entrepreneur and interorganizational relationships of the venture as a whole. How well networks are managed can have a considerable influence of the pace and trajectory of new ventures’ internationalization.

Posted on

China and India: Rivals and friends?

The tone set by the Prime Minister’s visit suggests that the two countries can be both, with India being an equal partner

Narendra Modi found himself marking a year as Prime Minister neither in his home state of Gujarat nor in New Delhi, but in the bustling metropolis of Shanghai.

The final engagement of his three-day visit to China (May 14-16) was a speech to the expatriate Indian community. I was there and I doubt I shall forget the spectacle. Nor could one argue with his refrain: vaqt badal raha hai (the times are changing).

modi-l5Becoming visible

When I first arrived in China from the UK in 2011, I was struck by how few Indians could be seen there. This impression was compounded by discovering how limited the flight options between China and India were, in great contrast to the daily (often multiple) flights between China and the UK and other more distant destinations. Although business school academics in Shanghai brought together leading practitioners, diplomats and experts to reflect on Sino-Indian business activity, it seemed that neither nation saw the other as much of a priority.

But a lot can (and does) happen in four years. The Modi show in Shanghai certainly suggests progress has been made since I first set foot in China: in the emergence of a new style of foreign relations in India, in the willingness of China and India to engage with each other, in the ability of the Indian community in China to cohere.

As I reflect on this event I am encouraged and cautious in equal measure about China-India relations in general and Sino-Indian business activity in particular, for three reasons.

Prior experience to go with the charisma. My biggest source of encouragement stems from the fact that although this was Modi’s first visit as Prime Minister, it was far from being his first experience of China. Indeed, the one bright spot in my early dismal assessment of China-India dealings was Modi’s visit as Gujarat chief minister in November 2011 — and that had been his fourth such visit.

I teach international strategy in a business school, and I emphasise to my students the importance of prior experience in helping entrepreneurs and managers succeed in foreign markets knowledgably. Modi’s China experience of the past augurs well for what India can achieve in China, and may well make a big difference to whether his visit ends up yielding incremental advances in business opportunities for Indian businesses in China and vice versa — or representing a genuine inflexion point that heralds the next substantial wave of Indo-Chinese commercial activity.

Honest self-reflection

Honesty about problems helps, but doesn’t fix them. My biggest source of caution arises from the fact that the honest acknowledgement of problems is a necessary but insufficient condition for solving them. Modi has been justifiably commended in the Indian press for being frank about the need for tackling vexing issues such as border disputes, and his Chinese counterpart has reciprocated the candour. This helps, but the proof of the pudding will become apparent only as the interfaces established on this visit are utilised for continued dialogue.

Business veterans in China, including some from India, often comment on the need for commitment, patience and persistence in cracking the Chinese market. Surely, this holds for Sino-Indian diplomacy as well.

The Indian community in China exists! Whatever the actual outcomes of Modi’s visit for Sino-Indian business, the event has already made history in bringing together far-flung expats of Indian origin in China on an unprecedented scale. The significance of this might not be easy to grasp for those living amongst numerous people of Indian origin in the US, UK, South Africa, West Asia and Down Under.

In China, however, the sight of Indian restaurants and other signs of a thriving Indian community is not commonplace outside of the large metropolises (or Yiwu, the city with the largest contingent from outside Shanghai at the event).

So to have nearly 5,000 people of Indian origin under one roof was truly remarkable. As a colleague commented: “I have always wondered where all those Indians travelling with me on Air India flights to China went, because I’ve never seen them afterwards. Now I know!”

Quo vadis?

Several years ago, when I was a newly minted lecturer at Glasgow University, I was invited to an Indian community reception in London for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. My recollections of that event in London are of low-key dignity and a profound sense of history. Shanghai was high-octane celebration and a profound sense of anticipation.

So, where to from here? India has to be honest and understand that although China and India are spoken of in the same breath, in reality it is a distant second as an economy. The interest that Modi has generated in China, therefore, acquires even greater significance. To his credit he has come across in the media, both in China and India, as one who wouldn’t settle for anything but treatment as an equal. But it does not mask the fact that India and China are great rivals. That said, I would aver that the debate as to whether China and India are (or should be) friends or rivals represents a false dichotomy.

Rivalry between the two most populous nations in the world, widely regarded as the two largest economies of the future, is virtually inevitable. But what is not inevitable is whether this rivalry is friendly or bitter.

An important understanding I have acquired is that often the Chinese deal with dilemmas differently from their western counterparts — they tend to opt for ‘both…and’ rather than ‘either…or’. This may be a good way to go because neither nation can afford not to be rivals — or to destroy friendship over their rivalries. What China and India should work out is how to be rivals and friends at the same time.

Blog Post  by Dr. Shameen Prashantham, Associate Professor in international business and strategy at Nottingham University Business School, China