BusinessPundit asks What Role Do Peers Play In Entrepreneurship?:
An interesting new research paper examines the role of peer influences on entrepreneurship. Since most entrepreneurs are employed in corporations before they go out on their own, the study examines how peers at those corporations effect perceptions of entrepreneurship and the likelihood of starting a business. It turns out that entrepreneurial attitudes build through feedback loops. The more entrepreneurs that come out of a place, the more likely the other employees are to become socialized to the idea, and to be more keen to market opportunities. This could explain why some businesses spin off many other startups, while others don’t.
Now, what’s that got to do with the subject matter of this blog? I’m thinking about the environments we cultivate in our church communities… one which encourages people to move on and replicate or one which continues to draw people together and collect them. One which releases people to function in and express their gifts, to live missionally… or one which functions attractionally, gathering them so that a few can function in and express their gifts ministering to the many. I’ve always equated entrepreneurs and church planters… both draw on much the same gifts expressed in different ways in different forums. What do you think — is this a valid connection? What does this tell us about the kind of environment we should be cultivating in our communities?
The Abbess, being a bit of an entrepreneur, believes that the “entrepreneurial spirit” is another manifestation of the “apostolic spirit”, as it were. And I concur that encouraging and supporting this spirit in one will tend to awaken it in others, while squelching it in one will often squelch it in others.
There are, however, always those “mavericks” who will move out with no support (I tend do be in this category) and build their case from scratch and then find ways to convince others of its merits. The “organizations” from which these mavericks come would not tend to reproduce more…and the maverick’s efforts may not necessarily reproduce others–unless they are successful at “reverse mentoring” (a phrase coined for my chapter in “Voices”) and encouraging others where they were not themselves encouraged.
I guess I would say that there are “group mentoring” environments and then mentor/apprentice environments. Group mentoring environments continue to “spontaneously” produce innovation and replication–what I would call “unconsciously competent” in that they don’t have to “think” about doing it. But there may or may not be any intentionality fostered either.
The mentor/apprentice environments, on the other hand, are ones that must begin very intentionally and must continue to build very intentionally so as to always seek to recognize, encourage and release the entrepreneurial spirit latent in others in and near the environment.
For disciples of Christ, this “apostolic” spirit must be recognized, encouraged and released as the Holy Spirit disperses it throughout the Body. And I would go so far as to say that the rest of the five-fold gifts must be treated in the same way. This is certainly part of the vision for CovenantClusters–which has risen from within a very “Christendom” environment and been recognized and encouraged by many over the past two years…and is hoping to be released very soon.
Thanks for the inspirational thoughts…I’ll have to copy my comment for inclusion over at The Abbey. ;^)
Blessings
I think the analogy is a good one, but for me it breaks down a bit in that I associate “entrepreneurs” with a solo CEO model of leadership. If the culture (of the business or church) is spawning that kind of entrepreneur/church planter, then very likely they are duplicating a system that is centered around the few exercising their gifts for the many. It doesn’t really produce a different kind of church structure in and of itself, and it will likely end up being growth by addition rather than multiplication.
For me the question is, who is being encouraged to move on and replicate? Too often it’s an individual cut from pretty much the same cloth as the pastor. On the other hand, I can imagine a culture where small groups and even people in twos and threes are empowered to go off and duplicate what they’ve experienced, without there having to be a “star player” among them.
I think it’s rare to have a person who is both an entrepreneur and a sustainer, if they have apostolic/catalyzer kinds of gifts.
Successful enterprising (church or business or community agency) takes a team effort that includes catalyzers and sustainers, where the two different ability-and-gift-mixes take prominence at different stages. I’ve experienced what happens when a catalyzer who should have gone off and started another business attempts to sustain the one they finished starting, and they end up starting to finish it off. I’ve also experienced what happens when a sustainer has the vision to multiply but not the gifts to catalyze, but won’t let catalyzers do their thing, and so that network wilted.
Ironic how either the “entrepretneurial spirit” or “sustainer stability” alone can quickly turn into overcontrol that kills an enterprise for the long run. They need to be moderated by/teamed with the other.
I suspect that training in skills for creativity, sustainability, and team building are all part of the resources that will help smoothify transitions between catalyzer and sustainer stages. These tend to be missing from most churches I’ve been in, and certainly haven’t been a prominent part of formal training programs that I’m aware of, which means, seminaries. Few church planting (or entrepreneurship) trainings seem to include them either. Which is perhaps why the results most often end up a one-man show.
So if churches are meant to be enterprise incubators, we’ve got to learn how to function as a Body where ALL giftings are valued – not just in the absolute/generic sense, but also in the relative/specific sense that some gifts are more necessary at specific stages of communal development. As with gender genetics in humans, an X or Y gene that is broken, missing, or doubled usually results in sterility.
P.S. For the past five years, I have participated in a team where catalyzing is consistently held in dynamic tension with sustaining. I have also tracked it for the purposes of writing a case study of it, so I’ve been careful to take extensive notes to interpret the stages of its unfolding. So, I didn’t make the above comments just as reactions to the negative-impact catalyze-OR-sustain-only situations, but out of witnessing the opposite in action.
I think this team does what you talk about for enterprising businesses that spin off entrepreneurs. This team/network has been growing organically for over a decade, and now has participants in Europe, North America, and Australia. It is not about catalyzing new projects or sustaining existing ones, it’s about teamwork that catalyzes sustainable projects through identifying, validating, empowering, equipping, and releasing others to carry the vision for sustainable-entrepreneurial Kingdom enterprises, and for seeing where their gifts fit into that development process. Think of it as a decentralized “theological field education” or series of mini-internships with individuals who serve as spiritual directors and connectors, and communities that serve as places of interning and learning, restoration and transformation. Its spin-offs include art exhibits and micro-businesses, human rights projects and community-based ministries, pilgrimage routes and prayer houses …
Maria,
For me, I don’t equate the entrepreneur and the CEO or the “cowboy.” There are elements, but there are also entrepreneurial partners or teams that share leadership effectively. I can see the association you make and why, but in my mind the pastoral-CEO model is not a good one though I can still urge an entrepreneurial spirit in church planting. But as Brad outlines, think teams.
Brad,
Good distinction between the catalyzer and the sustainer. Like the difference between the apostle and the pastor… both need each other, but neither admits it. Or something like that. And yes, as Peggy also mentioned, we do need to value the gifts more highly than we tend to.