1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
I wasn't really 'surprised' as I feel these chapters were a recap of what professor Pryor has lectured on this semester but in a different context.
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
The corporate entrepreneurship strategy was confusing. It discusses three core concepts and then goes into sub context about linkages. Considering corporate entrepreneurship strategy is not something I think about on a daily basis, I'm already working to grasp to true concept behind this. I've said this several times when discussing my reading but I truly believe it's the textbook that makes the topics more complicated than need be. Simplify the text and explanation. Why say 'entrepreneurial cognitions'? Why not say understanding or even comprehension? It feels like the author makes these lectures more difficult than need be.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
Do you believe it's absolutely necessary to share the vision of the leaders of the organization to truly create corporate entrepreneurship?
Do you believe there are certain circumstances when an organization should focus more on either radical or incremental innovation?
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
The author said it was necessary to share the vision of the leaders for the organization in order to develop corporate innovation. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. What if the vision of the organization isn't right? What if your innovation leads the organization to an even better place?
No comments:
Post a Comment