|
Pragmatism is probably the most obvious and most researched component of a philosophical entrepreneurship model, because it deals with the question of ‘how to implement?’. An entrepreneur is most distinctly characterized by his ability to practically implement a project rather then for meta-physical considerations. The actitudes of making decisions and experimenting are the two entrepreneurial practices most clearly related to pragmatism. Pragmatists are interested in practical consequences or real effects. They have their focus on the results rather then on the essence of a phenomenon. Refusing any kind of dogma, pragmatists believe that there is no absolute or objective reality, but rather that stress changes as the only constant. Hence, what is right is what functions (Poller, 2006). A pragmatist is not interested in the ideal solution, but always seeks a connection to the concrete problem at hand. Or as Wilhite (2006) differentiated: “Pragmatic decision makers adjust their view and their decisions to the state of the world. Ideological decision makers follow a guiding principle making decisions that do not change with circumstances”. While entrepreneurs do engage in entrepreneuring, envisioning ideal scenarios, they focus on realistic goal attainment rather than the pursuit of the ideal. In this context the notion of the entrepreneurial cybernetic is introduced.
Cybernetics is the science of steering any kind of system through adjusting practices, based on feedback information. Following this initial understanding, it is a classical post-hoc management approach as the cybernetician waits for feedback information to come in and than adjusts the system accordingly. In order to add the attributable entrepreneurial essence, the work of a cybernetician has to move pro-actively and employ human creativity (see 4.2.2.). An entrepreneurial cybernetician first creatively designs a system which pursues a specific telos and then continuously uses creative destruction in order to optimize the system to either adapt to new environment conditions, to improve performance, or to represent an amendment in finality.
One benefit the cybernetic perspective adds to the pragmatist aspect of this entrepreneurial  mindset is its practical functionality for the entrepreneurial project as a system with an input, an output, and feedback based on steering or decision-making. Another element expressed by the cybernetician perspective is the entrepreneur’s relation to control. While he can delegate responsibility and does not have to be omni-presently controlling all processes, an entrepreneur like a cybernetician needs to understand and know the status of the system in order to precipitate a decision about how the system is to function from now forward. Spender (2006, p. 10) adds an interesting argument highlighting the creative parts of steering a system: “Enlightenment philosophers assume all of us have imaginations, without which we could not make our way through the world, for it enables us to deal with the shortcomings of our knowledge about the world. Strategy is evidence of our imagination, not our reason, and to chase our tails endlessly looking for a positivist theory of strategy is to busy ourselves so much that we miss its essence. The knowledge view is useful because it helps us see strategizing is about the creation of knowledge, the process of dealing with knowledge absences rather than with knowledge assets”.
Following this tangent, the notion of an entrepreneurial cybernetician combines the traditional concept of the university as bureaucracy (a cybernetic automaton), with the entrepreneurial attitude of an adhocracy (an “organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results" (Waterman, 1990). Put differently, the pragmatist philosophy also enables the entrepreneur to accept ambiguity and live the paradox of emergence (i.e Deleuze’s becoming and the local independence of living organisms) and planning (of final the ends).
As already explained in the introductory section about hyper complexity and second order cybernetic, the universities act most obviously as entrepreneurial cybernetician in their interrelation with their policy environment. All investigated universities are observing the feedback that they receive from the corresponding government institutions and change their practice accordingly. (For more information on the theme of hyper-complexity see section. 4.2.2.1.)
Cross Case Analysis
At the LSE a pragmatic mindset shows when realistic goals are set for almost all stakeholders in a cascading fashion, and then even more so when strategic objectives are not held to rigidly but opportunistic practices and emergence are allowed to happen naturally when they are deemed beneficial to the school (see chapter 3 LSE section, 3.1.5.2 and 3.1.11). As such, the LSE is a good example for an entrepreneurial cybernetic institution.
At the FU pragmatism has to be dominant in its paraphrased nuance of pragmatic resource management: ‘reaching the most with what is available’ even though it is not enough ‘we make the best out of it’. The administrators speak of working in the realm of exigency (FU management 35) which is still today the dominant modus operandi. The single most stifling constraint to an adhocratic mindset unfolding at the FU is felt to be the “1/3 ballast” (FU management 12) of traditional state bureaucrats still employed at the university and anchoring and slowing creative movement.
A positive example of the new spirit is the example of the pragmatic support the FU entrepreneurship team gave to the initiators of the “Direct to the Chancellor” socio-political entrepreneurship (see chapter 3 FU section, 3.2.10.7.).
The UPC presented itself as an exemplary entrepreneurial cybernetic system using a sophisticated input-output-based feedback system for strategic steering (see chapter 3 UPC section, 3.3.7.2.). The UPC deploys a formal and cascading strategy process and allows generally little change to the strategy once it is approved (except for minor adjustments done by individuals without formal request). Following a technocratic paradigm, no humanist ideals are prevalent, but efficiency and effectiveness are the dominant evaluation criteria for most stakeholders. Even though the UPC presents itself in good institutional shape by embracing Clark’s entrepreneurial paradigm, it does not implement the dynamic flexibility of a true adhocracy but rather stays in the bureaucracy paradigm.
The UOC was born out of its founders desire to be able to pragmatically and un-bureaucratically decide strategy and lead a university (see chapter 3 UOC section, 3.4.2. and 3.4.5.). Subsequently, a system evolved in which one persons pragmatic understanding of the lateral option space dominated. Curiously enough, this led to a highly political decision making culture wherein every move of the stakeholders had to be auto-analysed and positioned in order to follow the leaders disposition. Today, the university is in a recuperation phase. But institutions meant to deliberate pragmatic ideas for improvements like a virtual suggestions box continue to be very little used (UOC management 12). This doesn’t suggest it is a hopeless cause, as one vice rector remarked, it takes time for the system to change (UOC management 40).
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
