Sunday 15 May 2011
Saturday 14 May 2011
the cat burgary of warne
The cat burglary of Shane Warne
"... the spinners will go to Sri Lanka, the quicks to South Africa and the rest to the Champions League"© Getty ImagesTuesday, May 10th
The plot has thickened in Rajasthan. Someone or something, though more likely someone, told the chaps in electric blue that they had to play on pitch A and not pitch B. Just a few short hours later, they lost to Chennai. Coincidence? Probably. Chennai are better. But Warney reckons strange things are afoot. The BCCI say no team can choose which pitch to play on. Who’s telling the truth? Who knows? Who cares?
The plot has thickened in Rajasthan. Someone or something, though more likely someone, told the chaps in electric blue that they had to play on pitch A and not pitch B. Just a few short hours later, they lost to Chennai. Coincidence? Probably. Chennai are better. But Warney reckons strange things are afoot. The BCCI say no team can choose which pitch to play on. Who’s telling the truth? Who knows? Who cares?
Let’s be honest, the great Jaipur pitch switch is a bit disappointing; the Delhi Daredevils of conspiracy theories. But it is a cunning way of explaining a Rajasthan thrashing. Warne is the cat burglar of excuses, pretending to be at a society party, whilst all the time Twittering his way over silent rooftops, slipping quietly through a window and leaving a card marked “The Blame” on the Jaipur groundsman’s pillow.
Wednesday, May 11th
Mr Ijaz Butt has spoken. In an interview with the Complacent Administration Monthly he announced that he had succeeded in eradicating “Player Power” - an undesirable state of affairs in which players have too much influence in Pakistan cricket, and has instituted “Butt Power” - an altogether more satisfactory arrangement in which a benevolent, grey-haired leader rules over the sport forever.
Mr Ijaz Butt has spoken. In an interview with the Complacent Administration Monthly he announced that he had succeeded in eradicating “Player Power” - an undesirable state of affairs in which players have too much influence in Pakistan cricket, and has instituted “Butt Power” - an altogether more satisfactory arrangement in which a benevolent, grey-haired leader rules over the sport forever.
He also revealed that the PCB are planning to cash in on the sudden popularity of a small area of northern Pakistan. The Abottobad Premier League will feature franchises made up of locals, sightseers and journalists. Keiron Pollard has already signed up to play for two of the teams.
Thursday, May 12th
In unsurprising news today, Pope Benedict XVI made a statement confirming that he was still a strong adherent of the Catholic faith; the Forestry Commission announced the complete success of their campaign to encourage bear defecation in deciduous woodland; the earth was noted to have rotated once on its axis and Kevin Pietersen lost his wicket to a left-arm spinner.
In unsurprising news today, Pope Benedict XVI made a statement confirming that he was still a strong adherent of the Catholic faith; the Forestry Commission announced the complete success of their campaign to encourage bear defecation in deciduous woodland; the earth was noted to have rotated once on its axis and Kevin Pietersen lost his wicket to a left-arm spinner.
Friday, May 13th
After research commissioned by Cricket Australia revealed that South Africa is not the same as Sri Lanka, Greg Chappell has announced a radical new selection policy. This year the selectors will be picking different squads for different tours, according to the prevailing conditions. Personally I think they’ve gone for the right option.
After research commissioned by Cricket Australia revealed that South Africa is not the same as Sri Lanka, Greg Chappell has announced a radical new selection policy. This year the selectors will be picking different squads for different tours, according to the prevailing conditions. Personally I think they’ve gone for the right option.
Those other options in full:
1. Pick the same squad for both tours regardless (“The Hilditch Option”)
2. Pick different squads for different tours but get them the wrong way round
3. Fail to pick a squad for either tour.
2. Pick different squads for different tours but get them the wrong way round
3. Fail to pick a squad for either tour.
Wednesday 11 May 2011
pakistan crickets alerts
Afridi downplays PCB notice
ESPNcricinfo staff
May 11, 2011
| |||
Related Links News : PCB seeks explanation from Afridi News : Cracks appear in Afridi-Waqar relationship Players/Officials: Shahid Afridi Teams: Pakistan | |||
Shahid Afridi has downplayed the PCB's decision to seek an "explanation" from him for the comments he made on Sunday after returning to Pakistan from the Caribbean.
"I have received a letter from the Board and will send my reply tomorrow," Afridi told the News. "It's all the result of misunderstanding and I'm sure the matter will be resolved soon."
Afridi all but confirmed to reporters that there had been differences between him and the team management over selection issues during the five-match ODI series that Pakistan won 3-2, when he said, "Although the differences in team management are not such which could not be solved, I feel everyone should do his job and need not interfere in other's work."
Though he didn't take anyone's name specifically, it was coach Waqar Younis he was referring to, growing differences between the pair a fact which PCB officials confirmed to ESPNcricinfo last week.
The board took exception to the statement Afridi made and served him a notice on Monday to explain to the board what he has said, stating that he had violated the Code of Conduct by making such statements publicly.
Afridi however said that he had made a few general comments and that he "didn't say anything that I haven't said before."
Afridi is no stranger to board notices and his public straight-talking ways have often landed him up at board headquarters with some explaining to do. Late last year, he criticised his team publicly after a Twenty20 loss to New Zealand and the fall-out was that he was almost removed from the limited-overs captaincy after a number of players grew unhappy with his comments.
BY KAMRAN NABI
| The Marketing-Entrepreneurship Interface | |
MARKETING and entrepreneurship are different and yet similar in that while their focusmaydiffer, both need to co-exist in a firm and economy as they complement and overlap each other. However, the extent of the overlap depends on several contextual issues. It is important to examine such an interface to determine the extent and depth of these linkages. If the interfaces are more complementary than in opposition, marketing may well be the home of the entrepreneurial process.
However, the reverse may also be true as entrepreneurship may well be part of marketing process. From the practical viewpoint, companies may find that the informalities and unstructured elements of entrepreneurship may become a natural and desirable part of management philosophy and development.
The extent of marketing-entrepreneurship interface depends on many variables in a given context at any point of time. Entrepreneurial success might depend on marketing in certain types of situations at different periods in a country's economic development. Other variables might include, the economic system operating at the time, the stage of the economic development, nature of the entrepreneurial activity, and strategic orientation of the firm. These dimensions are represented in Figure 1.
However, the reverse may also be true as entrepreneurship may well be part of marketing process. From the practical viewpoint, companies may find that the informalities and unstructured elements of entrepreneurship may become a natural and desirable part of management philosophy and development.
The extent of marketing-entrepreneurship interface depends on many variables in a given context at any point of time. Entrepreneurial success might depend on marketing in certain types of situations at different periods in a country's economic development. Other variables might include, the economic system operating at the time, the stage of the economic development, nature of the entrepreneurial activity, and strategic orientation of the firm. These dimensions are represented in Figure 1.
| Figure 1: Model of Marketing-Entrepreneurship Interface  |
It can be argued that the type of economy might produce different types of entrepreneurs in terms of the different entrepreneurial ventures pursued, entrepreneurial behaviour, and motivations. For example, because of the nature of centrally planned economies, entrepreneurs in such economies are confronted with far more constraints in terms of infrastructure, funding, and information availability compared to free market economies.
In free market economies, the free play of market forces means that information and knowledge about the market and opportunities are far more readily available to entrepreneurs. On the other hand, competition tends to be more severe and consumers are likely to be faced with a wider array of choices. As consumers also have access to information and can thus make informed choices, this could have an impact on entrepreneurs.
The problem with classifying the types of economies, however, is that it presents immediately two broad difficulties. First, is there a clear demarcation separating the two extremes? Second, is one extreme better than the other in promoting economic development and entrepreneurship?
Economic and other social conditions at a particular time in an economy could bring about different types of entrepreneurs. Although entrepreneurs need to be opportunistic in general, the way in which they exercise opportunistic behaviour may differ across different contexts.
In a situation where demand exceeds supply, entrepreneurs might develop different priorities and approach opportunities from different perspectives. In such an economy, entrepreneurs might be interested only in the acquisition of resources. These entrepreneurs are likely to thrive in monopolistic situations and are unlikely to see the need to be market oriented.
The concept of customer sovereignty has no impact on the activities of such entrepreneurs. In this environment, consumers generally do not have wide choices or the purchasing power and the necessary information to make reasoned decisions. Competition is also less likely to be intense and it can be argued that in such an environment, marketing might be less crucial.
On the other hand, entrepreneurs operating in a market economy are more likely to respect consumer sovereignty in the marketplace. In such situations, it is imperative for entrepreneurs to be more market-oriented and to remain not only competitive, but also relevant to their customers. Market forces dictate that only the most competitive will survive.
Entrepreneurs in such an economy need to be more nimble and effective in gathering and using market intelligence. Those who are most efficient and effective in meeting market needs are more likely to succeed. Marketing is much more crucial in this instance.
When a different set of economic and social conditions evolve in a different era, a new type of entrepreneurs may also emerge. For example, the entrepreneurs who thrive in a well-developed economy probably differ from those in an economy at its early stage of development. The same entrepreneurs who succeeded in the economy at its early stage of development with a particular orientation could not succeed as well in a later stage of development while still adopting that same orientation.
The key issue is not which economic system provides the best system for the marketing-entrepreneurship interface. Rather, it is that under capitalism, marketing and entrepreneurship might take different forms compared to command economies. For example, entrepreneurship in the capitalist economy might be more marketing-oriented than entrepreneurship in the command economy.
The very nature of the market economy is such that market forces often prevail and the most competitive will survive and thrive while the least competitive will not. This implies that in the market economy, both marketing and entrepreneurship will be the engines that drive efficiency. On the other hand, in a command economy, the priorities are completely different. Therefore, marketing and entrepreneurship may be less likely to thrive in a command economy.
Defining economic development is not as simple as it seems. Narrow definitions are synonymous with economic growth. Yet economic growth and economic development are often considered complementary. It is suggested that narrow definitions are no longer acceptable and broader definitions emphasising the nature of growth are more useful. After all, economic development entails more than just economic growth and growth without development is quite possible.
Marketing per se might not be applicable in all circumstances. In situations where the role of the marketer and the producer are vested in the same person, conflicting goals result, as the needs of the market could make way to those of the producer. Indeed, the effectiveness of marketing in a poor or developing economy is uncertain because of several obstacles like poor infrastructure, lack of entrepreneurial talent, inadequate aggregate supply and demand, poor savings and investment, poverty, trade deficits, balance of payment problems, bribery, and corruption.
The lack of entrepreneurial talent in a poor or developing economy could imply that people might be more concerned with satisfying their basic needs in the absence of purchasing power and consumer information. On the other hand, entrepreneurial talent may be less noticeable as it might be displayed in various other forms. These include less sophisticated types of trading like barter and small cottage businesses that are not organised.
Clearly, in a situation where there is excess demand over supply, the need for marketing may not be as critical. Entrepreneurial efforts would still be required to co-ordinate resources and raise output, though these may not particularly be directed towards marketing.
In terms of the negative attitudes toward marketing, this would have much to do with a lack of marketing education in such economies, as the pressing needs would be in the areas of agricultural or technical education. Also, in a poor and developing economy, the role of middlemen who buy and sell and offer credit facilities, often squeezing the poor customers unable to keep up with payments, probably give middlemen a bad name.
Marketing's role in the economic development of a country takes several forms. Marketing plays a vital role as an engine of economic development. One role involves fostering the development of entrepreneurial and managerial skills. Marketing acts both as a catalyst for economic development and a response to it. It has the potential to improve business performance, to stimulate economic development, and facilitate the process of economic reform.
Thus, marketing can be seen as playing a significant role in the economy by helping bring out the entrepreneurial spirit. However, the degree of such a marketing-entrepreneurship interface is very much dependent on socio-economic conditions prevalent at a given time. In an economy that is still developing, the conditions for marketing to be fully exploited are likely to exist.
Entrepreneurship is also about meeting the needs of the marketplace. In this connection, an understanding of the marketing-entrepreneurship interface is useful as it illustrates how both contribute to overall business success. However, two related issues can arise from this observation: does entrepreneurship require marketing and does marketing require entrepreneurship?
As the economy develops, various economic infrastructures are likely to develop in tandem. These improvements can help entrepreneurs compete more effectively but could also indicate that the marketplace can become more competitive since other entrepreneurs are likely to surface too.
By the same token, consumers are likely to have better access to information to enable to make better decisions. The increased consumer purchasing power that usually comes with economic development could also mean that entrepreneurs would require more marketing to meet consumer needs beyond the basic necessities. As an economy becomes more developed, entrepreneurs operating in the new circumstances would require more marketing.
The nature of entrepreneurial activity can be influenced by a number of factors. The three broad categories of influences include the environmental infrastructure, the level of the environmental turbulence and the personal environmental experiences of society's members.
At the macro level, socio-economic conditions might well produce different types of entrepreneurs. As discussed earlier, in a command economy, entrepreneurs are less likely to be marketing-oriented since the need might not be there because the economy is centrally planned and resources are centrally allocated. Under such circumstances, the common tag line used in marketing: "The customer is king", may not apply.
Entrepreneurs in such an environment might perform more of the procurement and supply function rather than the marketing function. Product quality and performance are also likely to be driven by the state's control rather than dictated by the marketplace. The competitive element is also likely to be absent which in turn may produce entrepreneurs with different orientations and outlook. The lack of intense competition and intense rivalry might also mean that entrepreneurs need not have a high degree of customer and service orientation to remain in business. The motivation for a marketing-orientation may be non-existent.
On the other hand, in some cases, the deprivation of basic needs might trigger innovativeness on the part of some entrepreneurs. That could well mean that such entrepreneurs who have an innovative outlook and a marketing orientation are likely to succeed compared to those who are not so.
Entrepreneurship might be fostered by the increasing turbulence of the environment. It plays a key role in such an environment as it produces an opportunistic approach to environmental change and thus a steady stream of new products, services, and processes. In such a situation, entrepreneurs effectively create new markets and customers are led rather than followed in what might be described as expeditionary marketing.
The terms "strategic orientation" and "competitive strategy" can be considered synonymous. Strategic orientation refers to how an organisation uses strategy to adapt and/or change aspects of its environment for a more favourable alignment. An entrepreneurial orientation suggests that organisations must constantly seek to exploit the dynamics of their macro-environment and task environment. It provides an excellent basis for the appropriate strategic response to organisational crises created by environmental turbulence.
There are five salient dimensions of an entrepreneurial orientation, namely, autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, pro-activeness, and competitive aggressiveness. Entrepreneurial orientation refers to the entrepreneurial process, that is, how entrepreneurship is undertaken—the methods, practices, and decision-making styles in acting entrepreneurially.
A firm that acts independently (autonomy), encourages experimentation (innovativeness), take risks, take initiative (pro-activeness), and aggressively compete in markets, has a stronger entrepreneurial orientation. Conversely, firms that lack any of these have a weaker entrepreneurial orientation. Marketing orientation and the entrepreneurial orientation might thus be similar in that both appear to represent strategic responses to the changing environment faced by firms.
Patterns in the way organisations might act to adapt themselves to the forces of change exist. Although the exact possible combinations of the three areas can be infinite, the patterns of behaviour which might emerge can be reduced to four archetypes, three of which may be considered successful (defenders, prospectors, analysers) and one which is the unsuccessful type (reactors).
Defenders are those who attempt to create a stable domain by developing a highly cost-efficient core technology. The aim of defenders is to corner a narrow segment of the total potential market. Such managers are highly expert in the business's limited scope and do not scan beyond the present domain for new opportunities. They prefer to grow through market penetration and over time retain a market niche which competitors might find difficult to penetrate.
Prospectors are proactive and tend to go for innovation over efficiency. They constantly search for new opportunities and experiment with developing trends. They are creators of change forcing competitors to respond to the changes they create. They are flexible and tend to opt for less formalities and more decentralised control.
Analysers are followers who retain a core base of traditional products and customers. They tend to rely on stable technologies, more formalised structures and processes. At the same time, they are likely to attempt to seek and exploit new product and market opportunities using more flexible technologies and structures.
Reactors are those who can perceive changes and uncertainty in the environment but are unable to respond effectively to such forces. This could be due to a lack of a clear strategy or inflexible structure and processes that cannot be adapted to fit a new strategy in a changed environment.
Defenders, prospectors and analysers in the organisations display both entrepreneurial and marketing orientations to some extent. They are entrepreneurial in that they all have the tendency to seek new opportunities beyond their familiar domain. At the same time, they are conscious of the need for new products and markets to remain competitive and thus in that respect they all display a sense of marketing.
The notable exception to this entrepreneurial-marketing paradigm are the reactors who are caught in a situation in which they can exercise neither entrepreneurial nor the marketing outlook necessary for future renewal and survival of the organisation. What this implies is that both the human element as well as the situation or context in which decisions are made could be strong determinants of the marketing-entrepreneurial orientation.
The extent of the marketing-entrepreneurship interface is highly dependent on several key variables. To what degree marketing needs entrepreneurship and vice versa is highly contextual. For economies undergoing transition like those of Singapore and other countries, understanding such an interface is highly relevant. Singapore is a good example of a mixed economy that has shown remarkable economic progress since its independence.
However, conditions have changed dramatically in the last 41 years. The challenges are more global in nature and a small, open economy like Singapore's is particularly vulnerable to changes in the global environment. However, what remains relatively unchanged appears to be the hard-headed approach by the political leadership to take quick remedial measures throughout the phases of Singapore's economic growth since independence.
The other observation is the willingness to discard an unworkable or outmoded model of economic growth and to adopt alternative approaches where necessary. The push to reduce government controls and various schemes to foster local and foreign entrepreneurship are among the many examples of such a pragmatic approach and a change in mindset. The current emphasis on a marketing orientation is obvious, as evident by the government's determination to forge a single brand for Singapore. The manner in which the marketing-entrepreneurship interface has evolved in Singapore is an interesting phenomenon to observe.
In free market economies, the free play of market forces means that information and knowledge about the market and opportunities are far more readily available to entrepreneurs. On the other hand, competition tends to be more severe and consumers are likely to be faced with a wider array of choices. As consumers also have access to information and can thus make informed choices, this could have an impact on entrepreneurs.
The problem with classifying the types of economies, however, is that it presents immediately two broad difficulties. First, is there a clear demarcation separating the two extremes? Second, is one extreme better than the other in promoting economic development and entrepreneurship?
Economic and other social conditions at a particular time in an economy could bring about different types of entrepreneurs. Although entrepreneurs need to be opportunistic in general, the way in which they exercise opportunistic behaviour may differ across different contexts.
In a situation where demand exceeds supply, entrepreneurs might develop different priorities and approach opportunities from different perspectives. In such an economy, entrepreneurs might be interested only in the acquisition of resources. These entrepreneurs are likely to thrive in monopolistic situations and are unlikely to see the need to be market oriented.
The concept of customer sovereignty has no impact on the activities of such entrepreneurs. In this environment, consumers generally do not have wide choices or the purchasing power and the necessary information to make reasoned decisions. Competition is also less likely to be intense and it can be argued that in such an environment, marketing might be less crucial.
On the other hand, entrepreneurs operating in a market economy are more likely to respect consumer sovereignty in the marketplace. In such situations, it is imperative for entrepreneurs to be more market-oriented and to remain not only competitive, but also relevant to their customers. Market forces dictate that only the most competitive will survive.
Entrepreneurs in such an economy need to be more nimble and effective in gathering and using market intelligence. Those who are most efficient and effective in meeting market needs are more likely to succeed. Marketing is much more crucial in this instance.
When a different set of economic and social conditions evolve in a different era, a new type of entrepreneurs may also emerge. For example, the entrepreneurs who thrive in a well-developed economy probably differ from those in an economy at its early stage of development. The same entrepreneurs who succeeded in the economy at its early stage of development with a particular orientation could not succeed as well in a later stage of development while still adopting that same orientation.
The key issue is not which economic system provides the best system for the marketing-entrepreneurship interface. Rather, it is that under capitalism, marketing and entrepreneurship might take different forms compared to command economies. For example, entrepreneurship in the capitalist economy might be more marketing-oriented than entrepreneurship in the command economy.
The very nature of the market economy is such that market forces often prevail and the most competitive will survive and thrive while the least competitive will not. This implies that in the market economy, both marketing and entrepreneurship will be the engines that drive efficiency. On the other hand, in a command economy, the priorities are completely different. Therefore, marketing and entrepreneurship may be less likely to thrive in a command economy.
Defining economic development is not as simple as it seems. Narrow definitions are synonymous with economic growth. Yet economic growth and economic development are often considered complementary. It is suggested that narrow definitions are no longer acceptable and broader definitions emphasising the nature of growth are more useful. After all, economic development entails more than just economic growth and growth without development is quite possible.
Marketing per se might not be applicable in all circumstances. In situations where the role of the marketer and the producer are vested in the same person, conflicting goals result, as the needs of the market could make way to those of the producer. Indeed, the effectiveness of marketing in a poor or developing economy is uncertain because of several obstacles like poor infrastructure, lack of entrepreneurial talent, inadequate aggregate supply and demand, poor savings and investment, poverty, trade deficits, balance of payment problems, bribery, and corruption.
The lack of entrepreneurial talent in a poor or developing economy could imply that people might be more concerned with satisfying their basic needs in the absence of purchasing power and consumer information. On the other hand, entrepreneurial talent may be less noticeable as it might be displayed in various other forms. These include less sophisticated types of trading like barter and small cottage businesses that are not organised.
Clearly, in a situation where there is excess demand over supply, the need for marketing may not be as critical. Entrepreneurial efforts would still be required to co-ordinate resources and raise output, though these may not particularly be directed towards marketing.
In terms of the negative attitudes toward marketing, this would have much to do with a lack of marketing education in such economies, as the pressing needs would be in the areas of agricultural or technical education. Also, in a poor and developing economy, the role of middlemen who buy and sell and offer credit facilities, often squeezing the poor customers unable to keep up with payments, probably give middlemen a bad name.
Marketing's role in the economic development of a country takes several forms. Marketing plays a vital role as an engine of economic development. One role involves fostering the development of entrepreneurial and managerial skills. Marketing acts both as a catalyst for economic development and a response to it. It has the potential to improve business performance, to stimulate economic development, and facilitate the process of economic reform.
Thus, marketing can be seen as playing a significant role in the economy by helping bring out the entrepreneurial spirit. However, the degree of such a marketing-entrepreneurship interface is very much dependent on socio-economic conditions prevalent at a given time. In an economy that is still developing, the conditions for marketing to be fully exploited are likely to exist.
Entrepreneurship is also about meeting the needs of the marketplace. In this connection, an understanding of the marketing-entrepreneurship interface is useful as it illustrates how both contribute to overall business success. However, two related issues can arise from this observation: does entrepreneurship require marketing and does marketing require entrepreneurship?
As the economy develops, various economic infrastructures are likely to develop in tandem. These improvements can help entrepreneurs compete more effectively but could also indicate that the marketplace can become more competitive since other entrepreneurs are likely to surface too.
By the same token, consumers are likely to have better access to information to enable to make better decisions. The increased consumer purchasing power that usually comes with economic development could also mean that entrepreneurs would require more marketing to meet consumer needs beyond the basic necessities. As an economy becomes more developed, entrepreneurs operating in the new circumstances would require more marketing.
The nature of entrepreneurial activity can be influenced by a number of factors. The three broad categories of influences include the environmental infrastructure, the level of the environmental turbulence and the personal environmental experiences of society's members.
At the macro level, socio-economic conditions might well produce different types of entrepreneurs. As discussed earlier, in a command economy, entrepreneurs are less likely to be marketing-oriented since the need might not be there because the economy is centrally planned and resources are centrally allocated. Under such circumstances, the common tag line used in marketing: "The customer is king", may not apply.
Entrepreneurs in such an environment might perform more of the procurement and supply function rather than the marketing function. Product quality and performance are also likely to be driven by the state's control rather than dictated by the marketplace. The competitive element is also likely to be absent which in turn may produce entrepreneurs with different orientations and outlook. The lack of intense competition and intense rivalry might also mean that entrepreneurs need not have a high degree of customer and service orientation to remain in business. The motivation for a marketing-orientation may be non-existent.
On the other hand, in some cases, the deprivation of basic needs might trigger innovativeness on the part of some entrepreneurs. That could well mean that such entrepreneurs who have an innovative outlook and a marketing orientation are likely to succeed compared to those who are not so.
Entrepreneurship might be fostered by the increasing turbulence of the environment. It plays a key role in such an environment as it produces an opportunistic approach to environmental change and thus a steady stream of new products, services, and processes. In such a situation, entrepreneurs effectively create new markets and customers are led rather than followed in what might be described as expeditionary marketing.
The terms "strategic orientation" and "competitive strategy" can be considered synonymous. Strategic orientation refers to how an organisation uses strategy to adapt and/or change aspects of its environment for a more favourable alignment. An entrepreneurial orientation suggests that organisations must constantly seek to exploit the dynamics of their macro-environment and task environment. It provides an excellent basis for the appropriate strategic response to organisational crises created by environmental turbulence.
There are five salient dimensions of an entrepreneurial orientation, namely, autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, pro-activeness, and competitive aggressiveness. Entrepreneurial orientation refers to the entrepreneurial process, that is, how entrepreneurship is undertaken—the methods, practices, and decision-making styles in acting entrepreneurially.
A firm that acts independently (autonomy), encourages experimentation (innovativeness), take risks, take initiative (pro-activeness), and aggressively compete in markets, has a stronger entrepreneurial orientation. Conversely, firms that lack any of these have a weaker entrepreneurial orientation. Marketing orientation and the entrepreneurial orientation might thus be similar in that both appear to represent strategic responses to the changing environment faced by firms.
Patterns in the way organisations might act to adapt themselves to the forces of change exist. Although the exact possible combinations of the three areas can be infinite, the patterns of behaviour which might emerge can be reduced to four archetypes, three of which may be considered successful (defenders, prospectors, analysers) and one which is the unsuccessful type (reactors).
Defenders are those who attempt to create a stable domain by developing a highly cost-efficient core technology. The aim of defenders is to corner a narrow segment of the total potential market. Such managers are highly expert in the business's limited scope and do not scan beyond the present domain for new opportunities. They prefer to grow through market penetration and over time retain a market niche which competitors might find difficult to penetrate.
Prospectors are proactive and tend to go for innovation over efficiency. They constantly search for new opportunities and experiment with developing trends. They are creators of change forcing competitors to respond to the changes they create. They are flexible and tend to opt for less formalities and more decentralised control.
Analysers are followers who retain a core base of traditional products and customers. They tend to rely on stable technologies, more formalised structures and processes. At the same time, they are likely to attempt to seek and exploit new product and market opportunities using more flexible technologies and structures.
Reactors are those who can perceive changes and uncertainty in the environment but are unable to respond effectively to such forces. This could be due to a lack of a clear strategy or inflexible structure and processes that cannot be adapted to fit a new strategy in a changed environment.
Defenders, prospectors and analysers in the organisations display both entrepreneurial and marketing orientations to some extent. They are entrepreneurial in that they all have the tendency to seek new opportunities beyond their familiar domain. At the same time, they are conscious of the need for new products and markets to remain competitive and thus in that respect they all display a sense of marketing.
The notable exception to this entrepreneurial-marketing paradigm are the reactors who are caught in a situation in which they can exercise neither entrepreneurial nor the marketing outlook necessary for future renewal and survival of the organisation. What this implies is that both the human element as well as the situation or context in which decisions are made could be strong determinants of the marketing-entrepreneurial orientation.
The extent of the marketing-entrepreneurship interface is highly dependent on several key variables. To what degree marketing needs entrepreneurship and vice versa is highly contextual. For economies undergoing transition like those of Singapore and other countries, understanding such an interface is highly relevant. Singapore is a good example of a mixed economy that has shown remarkable economic progress since its independence.
However, conditions have changed dramatically in the last 41 years. The challenges are more global in nature and a small, open economy like Singapore's is particularly vulnerable to changes in the global environment. However, what remains relatively unchanged appears to be the hard-headed approach by the political leadership to take quick remedial measures throughout the phases of Singapore's economic growth since independence.
The other observation is the willingness to discard an unworkable or outmoded model of economic growth and to adopt alternative approaches where necessary. The push to reduce government controls and various schemes to foster local and foreign entrepreneurship are among the many examples of such a pragmatic approach and a change in mindset. The current emphasis on a marketing orientation is obvious, as evident by the government's determination to forge a single brand for Singapore. The manner in which the marketing-entrepreneurship interface has evolved in Singapore is an interesting phenomenon to observe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)