Another look at

Leadership
IN
ORGANIZATIONS

A new approach in defining Leadership in

organizations

By

Loredana Orhei and Joop Vinke

Romania/ the Netherlands

2009

1
Content
Content........................................................................................................2
Executive summary.....................................................................................3
The HBDI Model © ......................................................................................4
Not for profit organizations – definition and characteristics........................7
“Not for profit” as perceiving from the HBDI approach............................8
What leadership is or not!.........................................................................16
Defining entrepreneurship in non-profit organizations..............................21
Perceiving from the HBDI profile............................................................21
Conclusions...............................................................................................24
NEW DEFINITION..................................................................................24
Literature...................................................................................................26

2
Executive summary
The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of leadership. The authors will look at this
already famous concept and will try to redefine it.
In order to explore the concept and to find a way to define it, we will use a special
approach and we will make also use of the existing and own knowledge of the elements
that could help to define leadership, as seen from our perspectives.

Furthermore we will look what the result of this defining means if this can be identified in
organizations that belong to the category of “not for profit” or “non profit” organizations.
We have not the intention of developing in this paper a new model for making a
definition, nor do we want to give a final overall definition in relation to the concept of
leadership in non for profit organizations. Our intention is to identify possible differences
(if any are there) in the already used terms and definition of leadership as present in
different theoretical approaches and as used in several types of organization, with a
specific focus on “not for profit” and “non” profit organizations.

The structure of the paper and the argumentation and explanations used on this subject
is based on a specific approach and concept and therefore this will be explained in
chapter 1 of this paper.

The meaning of the specific way of writing this paper is consciously chosen to identify
and practice the theory and approach at the same time for readers of this paper. The
used conceptual model is the “HBDI thinking model”.1 One of the authors is “certificated
practioniser” of this HBDI profile.

In Chapter 2 we will explore some of the existing definitions and characteristics of “not
for profit organizations.” Here we will again use the new approach to get a better
understanding. To also get an impression of what leadership could mean in “not for
profit organizations” we will in Chapter 3 explain more in detail our vision on Leadership
and in chapter 4 explore this in a special way in the not for profit organizations.

Finally we will conclude all used arguments, theories and approaches in chapter 5 in a
specific definition in which we want to make clear the other approach that we see as the
basic of this paper. In this conclusion we will also make the link with the term “Social
leadership”

Timisoara- Romania / Zutphen – The Netherlands

November 2009
Loredana Orhei / Joop Vinke

1
http://www.hbdi.com/

3
The HBDI Model ©
People have different ways they perceive and assimilate information, make
decisions, and solve problems. These so called “thinking styles” can literally
change the way of working with people in an organization.
As organizations become more complex, understanding the thinking styles of the
people working in the organization and expanding them beyond their “regular”
preferences may not be a luxury, but a necessity.
When examining successful organizations over time, it shows usually that their
workforces have had to do many different tasks well, and have used a variety of
different thinking styles to accomplish these tasks.

A way of measuring these thinking styles can therefore help to improve the
awareness and therefore the outcome and results in an organization.
The Whole brain thinking model©

The Whole Brain Model© is scientifically designed to help people learn to think
better. The HBDI instrument is the instrument that
is developed to measure the thinking styles and can
therefore be used to focus on showing people how
to use their whole brain – not just the parts with
which they feel most comfortable.
The profile evaluates and depicts the degree of
preference individuals have for thinking in each of
four brain quadrants:

Rational - Blue /A / Upper left

Practical - Green /B / Lower left
Feeling - Red /C / Lower right
Experimental - Yellow /D / upper right

Research has shown that everyone is capable of changing to less preferred

thinking styles and learning the necessary skills to diagnose and adapt to the
thinking references of others.2

People are able to present information in a way that recognizes, respects, and is
compatible with different preferences This is crucial to meeting co-worker,
customer, and client needs and expectations..

This approach is developed by Ned Herrmann, founder of Herrmann International

and the originator of Whole Brain Thinking. He first pioneered the study of the
brain in the field of business while working as Manager of General Electric
Corporation’s Management Education.

Ned Herrmann wrote a widely acclaimed book, “The Creative Brain”, tracing the
scientific and historical roots of his innovative “Whole Brain Thinking” approach.

2
http://www.hbdi.com/Resources/research/index.cfm?key=Genesis-of-the-Whole-Brain-
Model&xobj=100021

4
In 1995, McGraw Hill published Herrmann’s next book: “The Whole Brain
Business Book”, creating a new benchmark in the hot arena of mind research
and its applications to business.

“THE “WHOLE BRAIN” IS THE SUM OF ITS PARTS”

The most common and widely recognized styles of thinking

are often illustrated as left-brained and right-brained
approaches to problem solving. The left-brained preference
is described as analytical, logical and sequential, while the
right-brained preference is described as intuitive, values-
based and nonlinear. The awareness of one’s own thinking
style and the thinking styles of others combined with the
ability to act outside of one’s preferred thinking style is
known as “Whole Brain Thinking.”

By taking advantage of this, organizations have already addressed issues

including leadership, creative problem solving, communication, productivity, and
more. Organizations who have applied the principles of Whole Brain Thinking,
like Microsoft, Coca- cola, Google and Shell have found that once employees are
aware of their own and others’ thinking preferences, they are much more likely
to want to improve their skills in less preferred quadrants or to make sure they
use other resources to “bridge the gaps.”

While individual performance improvement is also certainly important,

organizations are finding that the richest rewards come from the long-term
results they get when they apply this “approach” across their organization.
The most natural place to start applying this approach is to diagnose the brains
of the people that work in the organization. There exist several numbers of
different diagnostic tools and assessment instruments for measuring brain
dominance. Their proponents agree about these basic points:

Preferences cannot be labelled inherently good or bad. People can learn how to
act outside their preferred styles. Understanding others’ preferences supports
good communication and promotes collaboration
Scientific studies have shown that instruments that classify and describe how
people perceive and interact with the world around them can be powerful tools in
developing employees and achieving business objectives.

The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument® (HBDI®) and also the well-known
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator™ (MBTI™) are two of a number of assessment
systems that have earned scientific and experiential credibility. Both reveal
profiles to build self-awareness, self-esteem and performance.
By helping individuals understand why they “get” some people and not others,
the profiles encourage individuals to communicate and collaborate more
effectively.
The MBTI is a psychological profile tool to assess personality type, while the HBDI
specifically measures not only the preference of a person for right-brained
(intuitive) or left-brained (realistic) thinking, but also for (cognitive) upper or
(visceral) lower thinking.
The HBDI model is therefore more complex because it is based on scientific
research conducted specifically on thinking styles, and thus has applicability
beyond individual profiling. Because it is based on the way our brains are
organized, it is also intuitive and easy to remember.

5
In the HBDI, the different thinking preferences are categorized into four distinct
quadrants. A person who uses this process can easily learn the quadrant(s) for
which he or she has a preference and how those preferences may differ from
others they work with. Valuing different thinking preferences is the key to fewer
mixed messages, will improve working relationships, and gain advantage.

People who understand the non-judgmental differences between quadrant

preferences can expand the range of their own behaviours and work productively
outside their preferred styles of thinking.

APPLYING WHOLE BRAIN THINKING will IMPROVE THE BOTTOM LINE of every
organization.
To effectively put the strategies based on Whole Brain Thinking into practice, we
will write this paper sometimes in the four different thinking styles of the HBDI
model and in that way showing the specific elements of these styles and the
effects that it could have on you as reader of this paper. While doing this, you as
reader can also discover your own preferred thinking style.

6
Not for profit organizations – definition and
characteristics
“Not for profit”, “non-profit” or/ and “non-governmental “ organizations can be
defined as organizations that are perceived as having an ideal (social) mission
and vision, and their main purpose is perceived as reaching that ideal goal. Often
this will be by working on a “social” change or challenge.

We will use the term “not for profit” in this paper as a term in which we mean all
the before mentioned organizations.
In some approaches the not for profit organizations can be perceived as the
“main actor of the civil society” and lately even of the “social economy”. They
are even sometimes perceived as the ‘guardians’ of the human rights,
environmental protection, social equity or community welfare.

Due to the fact that there are no existing equal (international) legal regulations
for not for profit organizations, each country and culture has its own definition
and regulation, in accordance with its laws and correlated with the society’s
culture. Giving a strict and clear (international) definition for such an
organization on a broader approach would need many years and is according to
the authors hardly possible. Due to the multitude of definitions and
characteristics, the authors have chosen to look at the non-profit in a broad
perspective, looking at how non-profit organizations are or can be perceived.
This being said, the authors would just limit themselves in this part of the paper
to describe to people who have no real know-how about this types of
organizations some ideas about what it is and can be perceived. If we start to
describe the characteristics, then;

The first characteristic that could be perceived in most of the used definitions is
the not-for-profit status. This is most commonly understood as the organization
is not a business organization and is not allowed to make profit,

The second most common characteristic of these organizations is the perceived

social aim or ideal goal. Mostly non-quantitative, this “ideal” goal relates with
social welfare, development of communities or special target groups. All of them
leading to a “better” world.

A third characteristic is that these organizations usually are perceived as

addressing problems that other organizations are not able to do efficiently,
because of the high social cost or lack of funding... etc... In this matter, the non-
profit organizations can be perceived as the problem solver.

A fourth characteristic is that these organizations work on a volunteer term,

using the free time and the resources of people who want to do something for
the society and/ or for them self.

Along with the social aim/ideal goal, this last characteristic is perceived as the
basic for a non-profit organization.
It is important to mention that although this perceiving of the volunteer status of
the people involved in such an organization is essential it does not reject the
existence of paid employees. This will be discussed later on in the paper.

7
Because of all its characteristics, the unclearness of the legal status, the
different approaches and perceiving, we choose to approach these organizations
in another way: using the whole brain approach as mentioned in the first chapter
could lead to a description in terms of thoughts and concepts.

“Not for profit” as perceiving from the HBDI approach.

Blue quadrant.
Perceived from a Blue (facts) brain dominance (The “Facts” approach), a not for
profit organization exist and functions on a total different basis then the profit
organizations. It is essential to clarify the difference in terms usually used in the
existing literature: non-profit organizations, not for profit organizations and non-
governmental organizations. What all of these terms have in common is the
status of non-profit. In the case of non-governmental organization, the terms
describes the entities, not allowed by the legal status to make profit and are not
linked with any governmental involvement, in the way of having state
institutions as part of the board or “shareholders”
In the case of non-profit and non profit organizations, the difference is only in the
way authors chose to write the term, not in the essence of the meaning.

Both terms refer to organizations that have a legal form which does not allow
them to make profit and reward financially their “shareholders”, more exactly,
give dividends at the end of the financial year. What can be seen is that the
terms non-profit/not for profit organizations include also different governmental
entities. The authors have considered the subject of this paper all non-
governmental institutions, due to the fact that including the non-profit
governmental institutions brings could present the topic of a new paper.

For a more factual description of the non for profit entities we have chosen as
reference the International Classification of Non-profit Organizations (ICNPO).
They use a classification system that is recommended in the UN Handbook on
Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts. The ICNPO system
groups organizations into 12 major activity groups. These 12 major activity
groups are further divided into 24 subgroups. Satellite account estimates are
published at the major group level.

These are categorized by the ICNPO as following:3

1. Culture and recreation

2. Education and research
3. Health
4. Social services
5. Environment
6. Development and housing
7. Law, advocacy and politics
8. Philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion
9. International
10.Religion
11.Business and professional associations, unions
12.Not elsewhere classified

3
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/13-015-x/2005000/4153701-eng.htm

8
More into detail this leads to the following descriptions:

Group 1: Culture and recreation

• Media and communications: Production and dissemination of information

and communication; includes radio and TV stations; publishing of books,
journals, newspapers and newsletters; film production; and libraries.
• Visual arts, architecture, ceramic art: Production, dissemination and
display of visual arts and architecture; includes sculpture, photographic
societies, painting, drawing, design centres and architectural associations.
• Performing arts: Performing arts centres, companies and associations;
includes theatre, dance, ballet, opera, orchestras, and chorals and music
ensembles.
• Historical, literary and humanistic societies: Promotion and appreciation of
the humanities, preservation of historical and cultural artefacts and
commemoration of historical events; includes historical societies, poetry
and literary societies, language associations, reading promotion, war
memorials and commemorative funds and associations.
• Museums: General and specialized museums covering art, history,
sciences, technology and culture.
• Zoos and aquariums:
• Sports: Provision of amateur sport, training, physical fitness and sport
competition services and events; includes fitness and wellness centres.
• Recreation and social clubs: Provision of recreational facilities and services
to individuals and communities; includes playground associations, country
clubs, men's and women's clubs, touring clubs and leisure clubs.
• Service clubs: Membership organizations providing services to members
and local communities, for example Lions, Zonta International, Rotary Club
and Kiwanis.

Group 2: Education and research

• Elementary, primary and secondary education: Education at elementary,

primary and secondary levels; includes pre-school organizations other
than day care.
• Higher education: Higher learning, providing academic degrees; includes
universities, business management schools, law schools, medical schools.
• Vocational/technical schools: Technical and vocational training specifically
geared towards gaining employment; includes trade schools, paralegal
training and secretarial schools.
• Adult/continuing education: Institutions engaged in providing education
and training in addition to the formal educational system; includes schools
of continuing studies, correspondence schools, night schools and
sponsored literacy and reading programs.
• Medical research: Research in the medical field; includes research on
specific diseases, disorders, or medical disciplines.
• Science and technology: Research in the physical and life sciences and
engineering and technology.
• Social sciences, policy studies: Research and analysis in the social
sciences and policy area.

Group 3: Health

9
 • Hospitals: Primarily inpatient medical care and treatment.
• Rehabilitation: Inpatient health care and rehabilitative therapy to
individuals suffering from physical impairments due to injury, genetic
defect, or disease and requiring extensive physiotherapy or similar forms
of care.
• Nursing homes: Inpatient convalescent care, residential care, as well as
primary health care services; includes homes for the frail elderly and
nursing homes for the severely handicapped.
• Psychiatric hospitals: Inpatient care and treatment for the mentally ill.
• Mental health treatment: Outpatient treatment for mentally ill patients;
includes community mental health centres and halfway homes.
• Crisis intervention: Outpatient services and counsel in acute mental health
situations; includes suicide prevention and support to victims of assault
and abuse.
• Public health and wellness education: Public health promotion and health
education; includes sanitation screening for potential health hazards, first
aid training and services and family planning services.
• Health treatment, primarily outpatient: Organizations that provide
primarily outpatient health services e.g., health clinics and vaccination
centres.
• Rehabilitative medical services: Outpatient therapeutic care; includes
nature cure centres, yoga clinics and physical therapy centres.
• Emergency medical services: Services to persons in need of immediate
care; includes ambulatory services and paramedical emergency care,
shock/trauma programs, lifeline programs and ambulance services.

Group 4: Social services

• Child welfare, child services and day care: Services to children, adoption
services, child development centres, foster care; includes infant care
centres and nurseries.
• Youth services and youth welfare: Services to youth; includes delinquency
prevention services, teen pregnancy prevention, drop-out prevention,
youth centres and clubs and job programs for youth; includes YMCA,
YWCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
• Family services: Services to families; includes family life/parent education,
single parent agencies and services and family violence shelters and
services.
• Services for the handicapped: Services for the handicapped; includes
homes, other than nursing homes, transport facilities, recreation and other
specialized services.
• Services for the elderly: Organizations providing geriatric care; includes in-
home services, homemaker services, transport facilities, recreation, meal
programs and other services geared towards senior citizens. (Does not
include residential nursing homes.)
• Self-help and other personal social services: Programs and services for
self-help and personal development; includes support groups, personal
counselling and credit counselling/money management services.
• Disaster/emergency prevention and control: Organizations that work to
prevent, predict, control and alleviate the effects of disasters, to educate
or otherwise prepare individuals to cope with the effects of disasters, or to

10
 provide relief to disaster victims; includes volunteer fire departments, life
boat services, etc.
• Temporary shelters: Organizations providing temporary shelters to the
homeless; includes traveller’s aid and temporary housing.
• Refugee assistance: Organizations providing food, clothing, shelter and
services to refugees and immigrants.
• Income support and maintenance: Organizations providing cash assistance
and other forms of direct services to persons unable to maintain a
livelihood.
• Material assistance: Organizations providing food, clothing, transport and
other forms of assistance; includes food banks and clothing distribution
centres.

Group 5: Environment

• Pollution abatement and control: Organizations that promote clean air,

clean water, reducing and preventing noise pollution, radiation control,
treatment of hazardous wastes and toxic substances, solid waste
management and recycling programs.
• Natural resources conservation and protection: Conservation and
preservation of natural resources, including land, water, energy and plant
resources for the general use and enjoyment of the public.
• Environmental beautification and open spaces: Botanical gardens,
arboreta, horticultural programs and landscape services; organizations
promoting anti-litter campaigns; programs to preserve the parks, green
spaces and open spaces in urban or rural areas; and city and highway
beautification programs.
• Animal protection and welfare: Animal protection and welfare services;
includes animal shelters and humane societies.
• Wildlife preservation and protection: Wildlife preservation and protection;
includes sanctuaries and refuges.
• Veterinary services: Animal hospitals and services providing care to farm
and household animals and pets.

Group 6: Development and housing

• Community and neighbourhood organizations: Organizations working

towards improving the quality of life within communities or
neighbourhoods, e.g., squatters' associations, local development
organizations, poor people's cooperatives.
• Economic development: Programs and services to improve economic
infrastructure and capacity; includes building of infrastructure like roads;
and financial services such as credit and savings associations,
entrepreneurial programs, technical and managerial consulting and rural
development assistance.
• Social development: Organizations working towards improving the
institutional infrastructure and capacity to alleviate social problems and to
improve general public well being.
• Housing associations: Development, construction, management, leasing,
financing and rehabilitation of housing.
• Housing assistance: Organizations providing housing search, legal services
and related assistance.

11
 • Job training programs: Organizations providing and supporting
apprenticeship programs, internships, on-the-job training and other
training programs.
• Vocational counselling and guidance: Vocational training and guidance,
career counselling, testing and related services.
• Vocational rehabilitation and sheltered workshops: Organizations that
promote self-sufficiency and income generation through job training and
employment.

Group 7: Law, advocacy and politics

• Advocacy organizations: Organizations that protect the rights and promote

the interests of specific groups of people, e.g., the physically handicapped,
the elderly, children and women.
• Civil rights associations: Organizations that work to protect or preserve
individual civil liberties and human rights.
• Ethnic associations: Organizations that promote the interests of, or
provide services to, members belonging to a specific ethnic heritage.
• Civic associations: Programs and services to encourage and spread civic
mindedness.
• Legal services: Legal services, advice and assistance in dispute resolution
and court-related matters.
• Crime prevention and public policy: Crime prevention to promote safety
and precautionary measures among citizens.
• Rehabilitation of offenders: Programs and services to reintegrate
offenders; includes halfway houses, probation and parole programs, prison
alternatives.
• Victim support: Services, counsel and advice to victims of crime.
• Consumer protection associations: Protection of consumer rights and the
improvement of product control and quality.
• Political parties and organizations: Activities and services to support the
placing of particular candidates into political office; includes dissemination
of information, public relations and political fundraising.

Group 8: Philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism promotion

• Grant-making foundations: Private foundations; including corporate

foundations, community foundations and independent public-law
foundations.
• Volunteerism promotion and support: Organizations that recruit, train and
place volunteers and promote volunteering.
• Fund-raising organizations: Federated, collective fundraising
organizations; includes lotteries.

Group 9: International

• Exchange/friendship/cultural programs: Programs and services designed

to encourage mutual respect and friendship internationally.
• Development assistance associations: Programs and projects that promote
social and economic development abroad.

12
 • International disaster and relief organizations: Organizations that collect
channel and provide aid to other countries during times of disaster or
emergency.
• International human rights and peace organizations: Organizations which
promote and monitor human rights and peace internationally.

Group 10: Religion

• Congregations: Churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, shrines,

monasteries, seminaries and similar organizations promoting religious
beliefs and administering religious services and rituals.
• Associations of congregations: Associations and auxiliaries of religious
congregations and organizations supporting and promoting religious
beliefs, services and rituals.

Group 11: Business and professional associations, unions

• Business associations: Organizations that work to promote, regulate and

safeguard the interests of special branches of business, e.g.,
manufacturers’ association, farmers’ association, bankers’ association.
• Professional associations: Organizations promoting, regulating and
protecting professional interests, e.g., bar association, medical
association.
• Labour unions: Organizations that promote, protect and regulate the rights
and interests of employees.

Group 12: not (yet) defined forms.

It is important to notice the wide variety of non-profit organizations and also to

add that due to differences in culture and legal frameworks, different or even all
categories presented above may not exist in all countries. We consider the
nature of the classification adequate enough for the present paper because of it
is a classification with and international status, a viable point of reference for
further discussion.
As far as the legal status is concerned, we have taken into consideration the
clarification of the European Commission on non-profit organizations, referred to
as the actors of the social economy: cooperatives, mutual societies, associations
and foundations and social enterprises. It is important to clarify in this paper
that that not all of these organizations are considered legally non-profit, the
exception being the social enterprise, seen by the up-mentioned as:
“organizations positioned between the traditional private and public sectors.

Although there is no universally accepted definition of a social enterprise, their

key distinguishing characteristics are the social and societal purpose combined
with an entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector. 4

After these “official “ structuring of different not for profit organization in a

factual and defining way, it is also possible to define them according to the
“perceiving” approach according to the other quadrants of the whole brain
model.

4
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/social_economy/soc-
eco_enterprises_en.htm

13
Green quadrant
Perceived from the Green dominance (The “Forms” approach) the “Not for profit”
organizations lack mostly detailed structure and control when compared with the
profit organizations. As far as the structure is concerned and aimed at the ideal
goal of the non-profit organizations there are mostly vague structures, flat
hierarchy, and no controlled use of functional departments. Although there are
many theories on how to set up step by step a not for profit organization.
Examples of this can be found in many books and internet sites. A very nice
example of this is the site
http://nonprofit.about.com/od/gettingstarted/tp/tipsstartup.htm in which all the
necessary parts are given to make the organization a real not for profit
organization. Although the existence of an ideal goal would make detailed
planning vague due to the fact that the goals are not measurable and tangible,
there is still a possibility to use the existing steps and plans for profit
organizations to make a good structural and planned definition of the not for
profit organization.

Red quadrant
Perceived from the Red dominance (The “Feelings” approach) we can see a non-
profit organization as an organization consisting of people with ideal goals and
“drives” let us call it motives of the people working in the organization, who are
ready to be involved in the community without any financial remuneration and
with no seeking of returns on investment for themselves.

The ideal goal existing at the foundation of non-profit organizations creates the
setting for both positive and negative feelings related to this type of
organization. Usually the positive feelings are related to the involvement in the
community in making things better or the opportunities to help people. The
negative feelings related to non-profit organizations have a lot to do with the
perception that non-profits are used for money laundering or cover-ups for
activities that is not in the good interest of the community or society. This is
mostly due to the ideal nature of the aim and goals, making it difficult to
measure it in quantitative indicators and this way giving opportunities for vague
presentations and uncertainty.

Yellow quadrant
Perceived from the Yellow dominance (The “future” approach) the challenge for
the future of the non-profit organizations becomes conceptual clear. The general
perception of unprofessionalism is most of the times due to the lack of
professional management, but this lack is of course due to the nature of the
“workers” in these organizations; the volunteers. Because the main reward for
the work done is not financially, the managing and working of such a not for
profit organization is a constant challenge for the people in charge and does not
run most of the time by any theories on management applicable to business and
the “profit” organizations sector.
This leads to the approaches that some existing not for profit organizations hire
professionals from the business to run the organizations. These professionals use
their management styles and approaches from the business to improve these
organizations. This could lead to clashes between the ideal goal and the profit
orientation of this kind of management. The “executive professional approach “.
In the yellow concept it is clear that there is a great challenge to develop
management styles and professionals that can adapt to the characteristics of
this kind of organization management.

14
15
What leadership is or not!
Or perhaps it is better to say: “Is there leadership?”
Of course we know that there are many definitions that are building up on this
phenomenon. Leadership is a “hot” topic; many Universities have included it in
their curriculum as a study subject in order to get the students closer to the topic
and closer to applying it, in theory. Such subjects on the Universities and in
training institutes are usually referred to as leadership skills or ledership
competencies.

Being a “leader” is part of several study programs. Many definitions can already
be found in various books and literature on topics associated with how to be a
leader and how to train leadership.
A quick view on terms related to the topic that exists so far reveals some known
definitions. We will present some briefly in order to give a broad overview of
what is already there.

• Great Man Theory

Leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a
great need.

• Trait Theory

People are born with inherited traits. Some traits are particularly suited to leadership.
People who make good leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination of traits

• Behavioral Theories
o Role Theory
o The Managerial Grid
• Participative Leadership
o Lewin's leadership styles
o Likert's leadership styles
• Situational Leadership
o Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership
o Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model
o House's Path-Goal Theory of Leadership
• Contingency Theories
o Fiedler's Least Preferred Co-worker (LPC) Theory
o Cognitive Resource Theory
o Strategic Contingencies Theory
• Transactional Leadership
o Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
• Transformational Leadership
o Bass' Transformational Leadership Theory
o Burns' Transformational Leadership Theory
o Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Participation Inventory

16
In his book: “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management”, Dr. P.C.
Pardeshi of Pune University, provides a theoretical source on this issue. In his
book, he first looks at the entrepreneur, as a person who undertakes risks,
organizes production, handles economic uncertainty and is a creative thinker.
Joseph Schumpeter5, one of the older and famous theoreticians on this field,
defines the entrepreneur as “an innovator who finds new combinations to initiate
and develop economic growth”. The basic word in this definition is innovation, in
forms like introduction of new goods, new methods of production, new market
openings. The use of new materials or new organization of an industry.

So far we can conclude like others before have done, that the most successful
business in the history of our societies have started as entrepreneurial initiatives
of some sort.
The effort to define the person behind the concept of entrepreneur has already
led to many classifications in relation to functions, origin, character, etc. It is not
the aim of our paper to bring all such information to the reader. Many before us
already did this so we will not develop these concepts further. The literature on
theories of the process, and the entrepreneurship will number thousands of
pages of statements and definitions on the matter.

We will mention briefly the major directions known so far and interested for our
approach:
• the economists’ view,
• the sociologists’ view and
• the psychologists’ view.

The first one, the economist’ view is advocated by J.R.Harris and G.F. Papanek6.
They consider the economic incentive as the drive for entrepreneurial activities.
Also seen as the “industrial entrepreneurship”; the possibility of gain and an
inter-incentive “cause” entrepreneurship.

The sociologists’ view sees entrepreneurship as a result of the society’s ethnic

values, customs, restrains and attitudes. This theory, developed by authors like
Peter Morris, Derossi, Cocharan and Horelitz says that every nation promotes its
own model of entrepreneurship due to the values in the society, or the position
on the social scale. In some cultures, groups with ambiguous positions have the
needed creativity to develop such a phenomena.

The last view, the psychologists ’view is perhaps the most interesting point of
view, according to us, for this paper. In this view it is considered that societies
which promote individuals with particular psychological characteristics are
creating the set-up for the emergency of such a process. Among such particular
characteristics the theories have put forward leadership, creativity, risk-
orientation, self-confidence, etc.

As a conclusion of these three broad views we conclude that different views

bring different arguments, all aiming at the one phenomenon: entrepreneurship.
Taking all of the views into account can only underline the idea in the beginning
5
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Schumpeter.html
6
Kilby Peter -“Entrepreneurship and economic development, New York, Free Press
(1971),

17
of this chapter: “There is no true or correct definition possible for what we call
“entrepreneurship”.

This being said, we could end this paper...

We will not, because it is just for us a new challenge to find out what in fact then
an entrepreneur is before we will use the term in other terms or indications that
are defined the last years for this approach. Therefore we have chosen another
and perhaps complete different approach;

First of all in our opinion, entrepreneurship does not exist as in something that a
person can or has to do or in acts. Many definitions begin with that and point at
that. If we would refer to as the perceiving of process of starting a new
organization, then the term “start up” would leave no second guessing in regard
to the content of the term. The description we would like to build up is more
related with HOW it is perceived by others.

This way of approaching to define gives immediately a total new sight on the
definition…..What if we define an entrepreneur not in what he or she intends to
do, or in how to do it? What if we only focus on the way he or she is perceived
by others?
In this perceiving view, somebody can only be defined as an entrepreneur if
someone is perceived or seen by others as that. If that is not the case, then
there IS not an entrepreneur.
We use here the same view and approach as the one that could be done with
defining the term “leadership “.

Leadership is an interesting subject for many people and organizations.

The term refers to a familiar scene of a powerful,

heroic individual with a group of followers
returning home after winning a national
championship or a war against the evil enemy.
They all march through town surrounded by a
crowd waving flags.

Or it refers for us to an enthusiastic person

delivering an energetic speech, hands waving in
the air, to thousands of people gathered on a big
square. All this may be because of the impact that leadership has on everyone's
life. Stories of heroic leadership go back thousands of years: Moses delivering
thousands of Hebrews from Egypt or Alexander the Great building a great
empire. Why were certain leaders able to inspire and mobilize so many people,
and how did they achieve what they achieved? There are so many questions to
which we want answers, but many remain as puzzling as ever.

In recent decades, many researchers have undertaken a systematic and

scientific study of leadership. Leadership is defined in so many different ways
that it is hard to come up with a single working definition. Leadership is not just a
person or group of people in a high position.

Understanding leadership is not complete without understanding interactions

between a leader and his or her followers. Neither is leadership merely the ability
or static capacity of a leader. It is better to look into the dynamic nature of the

18
relationship between leader and followers. In these social dynamics, all the
parties involved attempt to influence each other in the pursuit of goals.

Putting all these remarks into a comprehensive

statement this can lead to the following:

“Leadership is a process in which a person attempts to

influence other people in order to accomplish goals,
whether they are organizational goal, missionary goals
or personal one. “

In order to accomplish the goal, the leader exercises his or her power to
influence people. That power is exercised in earlier stages by rewarding
follower’s motives to get the job done and in later stages by rewarding or
punishing those who do or do not perform to the level of expectation. Leadership
is a continuous process, with the accomplishment of one goal becoming the
beginning of a new goal.

If this is the comprehensive statement of leadership, then can somebody be a

leader if is not perceived this way? Does a leader not need followers to be a
leader? And being perceived as leader to be followed? ……. The answer can be
filled in by you as reader.
The same counts in the view of the authors for an entrepreneur and
entrepreneurship.
One of the many definitions is the one in which an entrepreneur is defined as
“Someone who starts up an own business.” If this is entrepreneurship, then it is
quite easy to define it…….. “Start an own business and you will be seen as an
entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is there…!”

There is a contradiction coming up when we look at

the other terms associated with entrepreneurship,
such as risk taking, challenge, innovation. If the
organization that has just been set up is in a safe
environment and known market, with the same
technology already existing, not bringing something
new to the consumer, just another competitor on an
existing niche of products. Is that new starter of the
organization still an entrepreneur?

19
 Perceiving from the HBDI profile

Relating the before given description with the ‘perceiving” approach, according
to the whole brain model we use the four different brain dominances again to
approach entrepreneurship:

Blue quadrant
When we look from of the perceiving in the Blue (The “What?”) quadrant it is a
fact that there must be a proven fact that a business has started. Only the idea
or the trying to start up does not make someone an entrepreneur on its own.
Entrepreneurship is only there if there is a business started and running. The one
who runs it is the entrepreneur.

Green quadrant
In the Green (The “How?”) quadrant there is another way of perceiving it. The
planning. The whole process in time related steps must be visible and clear for
everyone. Every single action taken to come further in the structure of making
the things come true according to planned steps and timetable of the business
plan, market research, analysis, especially the risk analysis are all part of the
project and structure to be an entrepreneur. Every step according to the plan is
part of the entrepreneurship and of being an entrepreneur.

Red quadrant
In the Red (The “Who?”) quadrant we perceive in other terms. The person behind
the idea, his or her qualities is involved in the whole situation. His or her
competencies, feelings related to the taking of the risks, the chances.
The person makes the entrepreneur. In this quadrant the word entrepreneur is
valued. It even delivers already feelings when talking about an “entrepreneur”. It
sounds great, challenging and especially….. “It” gives a good feeling if we are
perceived by others as an entrepreneur.

Yellow quadrant
In the Yellow (the “Why?”) quadrant the other part of the person behind the
entrepreneur, related with the environment comes in the perceived way. The
“playing” part begins. “Entrepreneuring” sounds as … and is a game for players.
It is a very challenging game. Regardless the feeling! There is not so much to win
or to loose in this game... The entrepreneurs is a real player he does it for the
playing and is perceived that way by others, by the society, by the business: The
self-made man or woman.
It is all about the gaming, the playing and winning is a second outcome.
Everything is aimed at the future. Te future is unpredictable and the player takes
that as the challenge.

20
Defining entrepreneurship in non-profit
organizations
In an earlier paper delivered by one of us, that was aimed at looking at social
entrepreneurship, in terms of what the term “social entrepreneurship” could
refer to, a definition was made in reference to how entrepreneurship in
nongovernmental organizations could be defined. It was formulated as follows:

“Entrepreneurship in non-governmental organizations is the process of

engaging in economical activities as well as having an entrepreneurial
attitude towards the activity they develop as a non-profit7”.

This definition was used in the before mentioned paper as a so called “end
definition” to describe and identify the aspects related to a social process in
which the activity of an entrepreneur is a part of that process. The authors of this
paper consider on the base of the before mentioned approaches and theories to
give a more “whole brain” definition. In order to achieve this, we have looked
again at the given definition again with the use of the HBDI whole brain
approach.

Perceiving from the HBDI profile

Using this HBDI model we think that a definition has to be build upon the four
questions / concepts of the whole brain quadrants.
This means it has, according to us, to consist of the answers on or relation with:

• “What?” or “Facts” (Blue),

• “How?” or “Forms”(Green),
• “Who?” or “Feelings”(Red), and
• “Why?” or “Future” (Yellow),

All parts have to be in it to make a “whole brained“ definition that can be

perceived by all people.

Looking at the used work definition as stated in the beginning of this chapter,
this does not seem to combine all quadrants. Analyzing the definition according
to the four quadrants of the HBDI model the following aspects can be seen:

Blue quadrant.
Parts that are measurable and tangible or based on existing and proven theories
are not stated in this mentioned definition. This makes factual that no blue
quadrant related “What?” are present.
(Of course we realize that this is contradicting with the meaning of a definition.
The author had probably the intention to describe the ‘what?” clear. At the same
time the use of the terms and words in this definition make this “what” more
unclear.)

Green quadrant.

7
Bibu, Nicolae Aurelian and Orhei, Loredana; Social Entrepreneurship in the Context of
Romania's European Integration (July, 07 2008). The Annals of the University of Oradea,
Section Economic Sciences, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1156425

21
There is no existing green quadrant related part in the definition. No structure or
planned steps are visible and explained. There is no detailed explanation of the
“How?” part. This becomes more clearly in the use of “they”, which seems more
related with the red quadrant and is in the definition not explained who are
meant by this.

Red quadrant.
Most of the used terms and words in the definition seem clearly related with the
Red quadrant. As seen in the explanation of the HBDI model the use of the
words and terms; “engaging” and “having an entrepreneurial attitude towards”
are approaches and elements of the red quadrant and are related with
interpersonal actions. The “Who” and the “Feelings” parts are described in words
and terms that are clearly related with values The use of the word “activity‘
makes this even more clear as “an action” done by people/ persons.

Yellow quadrant.
The yellow part in this definition is harder to explain. Clear is (perceived from a
yellow approach) that the makers of the definition based their definition on a
conceptual approach. The use of the word “the process” gives an indication that
the definition is related with a concept of an existing process. Also the use of the
term “economical activity” is a broad view that only can be seen from the yellow
part in the whole brain approach.

After this explanation we define the definition as a red/ yellow dominant

definition. In the HBDI whole brain profile this is called a double dominant “right
brained” approach.
The whole brain model mentions very clear that there is no good or bad and no
wrong or right profile. So it is not a judgment of this definition.
Our only use of the conceptual model of the HBDI profile is to be aware of the
perceiving by others and their explanation according to their brain dominance. In
this case the definition seems to be made by authors with clear red / yellow brain
dominance and can be perceived and understood by people with the same brain
dominance as a very clear and understandable definition.
It is not the intention of us to devaluate the intention and meaning of used
definitions, but more as a possibility to use this approach and to make the
definition even better by putting in other elements that are related with other
brain dominances to broaden the understanding of the subject
Based on this a new definition for the presented topic: entrepreneurship in not
for profit organizations can be made. Looking back at description given in
chapter 3, when we talked about entrepreneurship, we could formulate the
following

Entrepreneurship in not for profit

organizations is the perceiving of
the set-up of a new business,
inside or related to the entity
referred to as a non-profit
organization (blue quadrant).
This setting-up of the new
business would also need a
perceiving of a detailed market
research, a business plan and
the strategic plan that will make

22
the new product or service brought on by the not for-profit organization work.
(green quadrant).
Of course we talk about a perceived involved person or a group of persons who
have a clear ideal (social) goal aimed at helping others. (red quadrant)
The person with the initiative, the perceived entrepreneur, will have to be seen
as the one who take the lead into the matter and bring change into the
organization that he or she has been volunteering for and develop him or her
into a real player (yellow quadrant).

When looking back at the description of the not for profit organization from the
four HBDI quadrants, organizations are already social because of the perceived
aim. The term “social” entrepreneurship is in fact already entrepreneurship.

This is a good opportunity to clear up some terms in relation to the existing

concepts. Looking at the process of perceiving the setting up of an organization
with the not for profit aim, this process could be the perceiving of start-up a not
for profit or social goal. Referring to developing new services and products that
are aimed to solve the social aims that the not for profit relate to, we will call
them as perceived innovative services and products for the beneficiaries of the
not for profit.

23
Conclusions
We have tried to approach the term “Entrepreneurship in not for profit
organizations” in a new and different way. To give a conclusion of the written
arguments, theories and approaches in the chapters before we would like to use
all these parts to develop a NEW definition for entrepreneurship in not for profit
organizations. Therefore we make again use of the HBDI approach as given in
the first chapter. Furthermore we will include the approaches given in the
description of not for profit organizations in chapter 2 and the parts related with
the defining of entrepreneurship in chapter 3 and 4. And we will use the already
existing definitions given by several authors.

This all is intent to develop a new definition in which all elements will be
mentioned and, most important, can be perceived and understood by everyone.
We are aware of the fact that the brain dominance of a person not means that
this will be the only approach of this person and that all parts of the brain will be
“triggered”. The new definition is only meant to reach a bigger amount of
readers from the start of the reading.

NEW DEFINITION
Entrepreneurship in not for profit can be defined as

• A vague and factual non existing description of an activity. Theoretically

there are existing definitions of “social” and “entrepreneurship”. Both
terms are not tangible and measurable.

• A structured process, consisting of a basic structure in which, making use

of several steps in a plan clear goals can be reached. These goals are
described in detail and clear for everybody and can be reached. The goals
are measurable, accepted by the persons, realistic and time related. They
will be defined as social and / or ideal goals. The use of the word ‘social”
before the term “entrepreneurship” makes this clear. The
“entrepreneurship” is the term for the process that the entrepreneur
shows. And this has to be perceived on the criteria of a clear project plan.

• The process in which persons engage in activities and want to develop on

the base of their motivation a goal. Their attitude is aimed on the realizing
of the ideal or social goal as a feeling and motivational based target. The
intension is based in an intrinsic motivation

24
 • The meta approach of several intangible concepts that are put together to
integrate and synthesize several economic, social and environmental
issues. It makes clear the broad approach that is needed to include all
these intangible parts in a strategic way

As shown in this four different dominant brain approaches the definition of

entrepreneurship is a complicated one. When we use the “perceiving” part as
mentioned in chapter 3 we have to start the definition in the following way:

“Entrepreneurship in non-profit can be defined as the term used to

describe the perceiving by an individual person of …………………………

This sentence eliminates the parts of the intention and the actions that are
wanted by the other “sender”. Only the perceiver can define an action or activity
as “entrepreneurship”.

It makes clear that the communication about this phenomenon is up to the

perceiver. The valuing of social entrepreneurship is done by the perceiver and
makes it tangible and measurable. It also makes clear that there is always social
entrepreneurship if it is perceived that way. Even if it is not mentioned that way
or if the intention is not there.

According to us the short version of the definition would therefore be:

“Entrepreneurship in not for profit can be defined as a process which is

perceived by somebody else as clearly entrepreneurial and aimed at a
social or ideal goal in which the entrepreneur clearly for the perceiver
attempts to establish and accomplish a goal or goals. “

( As mentioned before we can also add that entrepreneurship in not for profit
organizations is social entrepreneurship)

Although the last part is mostly seen as the most important, we think that in our
approach not the intention is leading, but the fact that it is perceived as
entrepreneur-ship makes the use of the term acceptable.

We are fully aware of the fact that this way of defining is a very different one
then normally is done in theoretical papers. We are making use of the theory of
the gyroscopic management as can be read in the separate paper that is written
about this8. In short this means that this paper is meant to trigger the thinking of
the reader in a way that the answer will be formulated by the reader itself
instead of us giving the answer to the reader.

We hope we have reach this stadium now and leave it up to the reader to define
for him or herself their own definition of “(Social) entrepreneurship in not for
profit organizations”

Romania/ the Netherlands

July 2009

8
http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%20wetenschappelijke
%20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf

25
Literature
Dr. P.C. Pardeshi; “Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management”,
Publisher Nirali Prakashan, ISBN9380064012, (pages 11 – 28), e-book on
www.books.google.com

Blanchflower, David G., and Andrew J. Oswald; “What Makes an

Entrepreneur?” Journal of Labor Economics 16, no. 1 (1998): 26–60.

Kilby Peter; “Entrepreneurship and economic development”, New York,

Free Press (1971)

Bibu, Nicolae Aurelian and Orhei, Loredana; “Social Entrepreneurship in the

Context of Romania's European Integration”, (July, 07 2008). The Annals
of the University of Oradea, Section Economic Sciences, 2008, Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1156425

Joop Vinke, Frank Vonk; HRQM and colliding gyroscopes, and alternative
way of looking at value creation in organizations.” Available at
http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Publicaties%20HAN/Joop%20Vinke%20-
%20Frank%20Vonk.pdf

Joop Vinke; “don’t try to motivate people, just try to reward their
motives”, Master thesis SHRM, 2001; available by author.

Toine Sterk, Joop Vinke, Frank Vonk, “Motivation: culture and ethics”,
Available at http://www.frankvonk.femplaza.nl/Artikelen%20en%
20wetenschappelijke% 20publicaties/Gyroscopic%20Self%20management.pdf

xxx http://www.hbdi.com/ - The Hermann Brain Dominance

Instrument® (HBDI®)
xxx http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/13-015-x/2005000/4153701-eng.htm -
UN Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of
National Accounts.
xxx http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/craft/social_economy/
soc-eco_enterprises_en.htm - European Commission website on
Social Economy
xxx http://nonprofit.about.com/od/gettingstarted/tp/tipsstartup.htm - 7
Essential Tips for Starting a Nonprofit
xxx http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Schumpeter.html - The concise
encyclopedia of economics, Joseph Alois Schumpeter

26