In the following section, a conglomerate of meta-physical dispositions is developed based on phenomenological action-research and feedback based system optimization. The philosophical themes are thereby understood to be strange attractors influencing the construction of the entity’s  Persona as well as the concrete practices of the entity (Figure 4.3). In universities the codification of the persona happens through mission, vision and strategy statements.
Figure 4.3 - Philosophical Model of an Entrepreneurial mindset
Following Faltin (2007), an entrepreneur needs to have a “creative mindset” in contrast to a businessman who needs to deal with creating order, through controlling administrating practices. The result of the phenomenological action-research is a life-philosophy based model of entrepreneurship, which is not based on a materialistic-mechanical world and science view, but rather contributes a position to what Durkheim felt to be the achievement of modernity: “The possibility to dynamically differentiate and elaborate values” (Welsch, 1998). Thereby, as is customary in life-philosophy, the creative and initiative aspects meant to create meaning are given central stage in a holistic (or totalitarian) approach.
Allow me to recount Sloterdijk to elaborate on the intention of the approach deployed. He says regarding the role of philosophy [i]: “Philosophy is stylizing the human being with the practice of terminological gene-technology (‘begrifflicher gentechnologie’), thereby developing new taxonomies of human existence” (Sloterdijk, 1999). He further explains that philosophy creates meta-physical concepts of human beings and their condition, which serve as archetypical development paradigms when perceived and internalized. One example given by Sloterdijk, is Freud’s creation, or the meta-physical engineering of the Oedipus complex. The proposed philosophical model of an entrepreneurial mindset is meant to contribute such a typology.
Naturally, the question regarding the embodiment of a collective mindset comes to mind. It has already been dealt with (in general) in the section about the fractal perspective (Chapter 1 section 1.2.3) so allow me to delve on quickly into Erikson’s (1974) analysis of group-identities and what he calls a life-plan. He recounts the example of American Indians, who were meant to undergo a reeducation process meant to imbue a modern ‘life-plan’ which aimed for a house and a richness expressed by filled bank account. Erikson writes that the Indians’ collective historic identity as buffalo hunters was oriented around such fundamentally different reasons/goals that even communication about the divergent ‘life plans’ was itself difficult.
Two methods for the transmission of a life-plan seem possible: Firstly, a role model (the individual knowledge entrepreneur) can explore new goals and practices which are then imitated (see section on Apprenticeship and Imitation 5.1.1.6.); or the collective can communicate and discursively develop an ‘organizational persona’ represented through a mission/vision statement, long-term strategic goals, role and process definitions, etc; this is accomplished by continuously and critically reviewing and creatively destructing the organizational information and communication environment. For this process, conditions and practices suggested in Habermas’ communication theory might serve as normative guide, as has been discussed e.g. by Heng and de Moor (2003).
There is a double relation between the institution embodying an entrepreneurial mindset and its entrepreneurial performance. Firstly, an institution with an entrepreneurial philosophy will set entrepreneurial goals and strategies as a whole, but maybe even more importantly, it will foster an entrepreneurial milieu, allowing each entity to pursue emergent opportunities (see Emergence, and fractality). In short, philosophy leads to a climate which in turn causes values which lead to practice.
Hence, this research complements such works Hutchin’s “Cognition in the wild” (1995), who analyzes a whole team of naval navigators as the cognitive unit or as computational system. There are also parallels to the emerging field of ‘collective intelligence’ (e.g. (Zara, 2004)) and exploiting the ‘Wisdom of the crowds’ (Surowiecki, 2005) of stakeholders . Zara notes that since collective reflection is more explicit, discursive and conversational it therefore needs a good Gestell – especially when it comes to information and communication technology.
Cross Case Analysis
Organisations have an amazingly well functioning social communication system, a.k.a. bush telegraphs (FU management 14), when it comes to ‘gossip’ and creating the internal mythology of the organisation. These (sometimes real) stories about circumstances or people have very concrete influence on the attitudes of the stakeholders and subsequently on their practices. This becomes most obvious in the case of the reputation of, or the myth about, how the leader and his team are in actuality. At the LSE it was a wide spread myth that ‘the new boss is a manager’; the same is true for the FU. At the UPC, the former leadership team has been described as both socialists and syndicators. And, at the UOC, everybody ‘knew’ about the strong leadership characteristics of the old rector; they knew what was possible and what not, whose word was influential and whose wasn’t. A defined mythology had developed. Now within the new leadership, these myths are still forming. But one message with mythical potential has already been sent out: “She wants to transform the UOC into a real university”
These claims might be true, but what is important is that it becomes an influential in-direct attractor even for actors who never deal with the leadership directly.
------------------------------------------------
[i] Which beautifully corresponds to this research’s perspective outlined under “Mechanics of existence and constructed reality”.
Users' Comments (10) 
|
|
|
