RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceOn Friday, Feb. 19, two classmates and I drove to Google’s office in Washington, D.C., to attend a conference about education run by TED and the Ashoka Foundation. I namedrop only to highlight that we were in an ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
While not a completely new topic, this is refreshing after all the columns on grade deflation and sexual consent.
You present a very optimistic view that only takes into account individual people's ability and will to innovate. However, one major reason innovators choose to found their own institutions rather than try to change existing ones is that all existing institutions tend to inherently resist change. People who are in charge of existing institutions, either for a selfish desire of control or just from the fact that not everyone is extremely openminded, usually don't listen to someone who just got hired. Those people with new ideas find it easier, then, to start their own organizations which they have complete control over, rather than fight existing cultures or practices in established organizations.
(yes, I led both the marching band and debate team in high school and, miraculously, was never beat up — though I did accrue some good stories at band camp).
What?
Fantastic article. I had always operated as an intrapreneur, spending most of my Princeton extracurricular time on organizations that needed a jumpstart and moving on once they were strong and self-sufficient, but had no idea that there is a name for that type of leadership style.
Awesome job, Haley! Great to see someone take a broader perspective on what we do at Princeton in a Prince column, and to try to apply it to something we can do better or differently.
While I somewhat agree with your analysis, there is plenty of economic literature that describes why it may be difficult to be entrepreneurial in the work place and why it’s more beneficial to start your own company. For example, the bureaucracy of established organization makes it difficult for ideas to brought to production in them, and the rewards of entrepreneurship outweigh the rewards on intra-preneurship. On the other hand, there is economic literature that suggests that big innovations are done in large corporations – the most famous proponent of that idea is Joseph Schumpeter.
I agree with a lot of this. If there had been an organization doing environmental justice solutions in the South Bronx when I was getting started in the 90's, i absolutely would have joined instead of starting SSBx.org. After 2 decades of unprecedented levels of philanthropic giving in the US, income disparity, public health, education, prison recidivism, and mal-nutrition in the US have all grown worse. The stats you bring up on the number of 501c3's started each year (yikes) suggest that the lack of success in the social justice industry may be due in part to an inability of people to work with each other - compelled to start new orgs rather than get behind established ones, saving overhead and learning curve costs of building new orgs. I like innovation, but c'mon...