We're in a new Dragon's Den economy

Employers need to realise this.

As the new series of Dragons’ Den starts, creative ideas and business innovations are once again entering our living rooms every Sunday night. From the genius to the outright insane, budding entrepreneurs pitch for their business and battle in the den to get that all important investment. But this process is not just confined to our TV sets, it is happening all over the UK. With the government investing more money into its Start-Up Loans scheme, the prospect of starting your own business and becoming an entrepreneur is increasingly stronger.

At this year’s World Economic Forum, entrepreneurship was regarded as a major factor that will improve economic prosperity and employment figures. Economic studies from around the globe frequently link entrepreneurialism with rapid job creation, GDP growth, and long-term productivity increases. However, it is not just start-ups, new business ideas and government funding that should lead and support such initiatives; existing organisations, particularly larger global enterprises must also encourage entrepreneurial spirit within in order to succeed in today’s challenging economic and trade environment.

Currently, businesses face two dilemmas: they need to make their operations as efficient and cost-effective as possible to run better, while embracing and investing in innovative technologies and processes to drive growth and run differently. These are intrinsically linked, as savings from operational improvements are essential to fund investments in new areas. And, as leading business heads and political figures agree, it is people who will help overcome these problems and boost the economy.

But where does a business begin to tackle these challenges? Firstly, they need to carefully assess the wealth of creative talent throughout their organisation across all geographies. They can do this by having a strong performance management process in place that monitors and records employee progress, key successes and areas for improvement. Organisations can use such information to map specific skills to certain projects, while identifying top performers.

Secondly, it is about being more proactive. Promoting innovation and an entrepreneurial culture internally is imperative; from suggesting new product lines and innovative business ideas to identifying new niche markets to target or ways to foster greater teamwork, employees should be able to share and voice their opinions and work with the right people to develop them.

One way of enhancing this entrepreneurial spirit is to try and maintain a start-up culture – decentralised and proactively pushing opportunities and accountabilities further down the organisation (otherwise known as a bottom-up approach). This will help encourage new and existing talent to stay within the company long-term. If they can spot opportunities to really make a difference and be adequately rewarded then they are likely to flourish, much like the winners in the Den.

Adopting and promoting this type of culture is really the way forward. You can not manage talent centrally; you have to give employees the reins to run with specific projects and ideas. For example, businesses could create their own Dragons’ Den by running competitions and projects for individuals or teams to brainstorm new ideas and then present them to the Board. Good ideas can come from anyone within the organisation - it shouldn’t be confined to senior management. However, it is important to remember and make clear that entrepreneurship and innovation does not necessarily need to be the next big idea that will completely change the business. It can be a small incremental change, which is revolutionary and undoubtedly creative in its own right.

Ambitious individuals can also be given the chance to develop their own businesses within the larger enterprise – a model that has worked incredibly well at Cognizant. We restructured our business along three new horizons – traditional service lines, more recent service lines and entirely new areas we wanted to invest in. In forming the latter, we encouraged employees to develop business plans for new products and services, many of which we are now funding. While Cognizant’s process does not make for as good viewing as Dragons’ Den and there are not large piles of cash in the meeting room, it provides the entrepreneurs the opportunity to present ideas and secure investment. This strategy gives them the opportunity to adopt an entrepreneurial role and the freedom to launch and grow a part of the business by themselves. For employees, having this type of empowerment while benefiting from the existing support, client base and infrastructure of the wider business is hugely appealing. They can gain the satisfaction that their ideas and management processes have impacted the business in a positive way, and they have an opportunity to develop and grow their ideas themselves but do not need to put their livelihood on the line by starting an entirely new venture.

Business leaders need to create a work environment that prides itself on its people and skills and uses them to best effect to innovate, increase growth and compete in challenging economic times. If employers limit the opportunities for entrepreneurial talent, employees are likely to take their ideas elsewhere or even start their own businesses. Undoubtedly, more start-ups will boost the economy, but I believe existing companies can really contribute further by encouraging innovation within their organisations. They just need to make sure the entrepreneurial culture is shared and understood by everyone. It is a case of encouraging employees to declare "I’m in", rather than "I’m out".

James Caan. Photogaph: Getty Images

Sanjiv Gossain is the SVP & Managing Director at Cognizant

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The UK press’s timid reaction to Brexit is in marked contrast to the satire unleashed on Trump

For the BBC, it seems, to question leaving the EU is to be unpatriotic.

Faced with arguably their biggest political-cum-constitutional ­crisis in half a century, the press on either side of the pond has reacted very differently. Confronting a president who, unlike many predecessors, does not merely covertly dislike the press but rages against its supposed mendacity as a purveyor of “fake news”, the fourth estate in the US has had a pretty successful first 150-odd days of the Trump era. The Washington Post has recovered its Watergate mojo – the bloodhound tenacity that brought down Richard Nixon. The Post’s investigations into links between the Kremlin and Donald Trump’s associates and appointees have yielded the scalp of the former security adviser Michael Flynn and led to Attorney General Jeff Sessions recusing himself from all inquiries into Trump-Russia contacts. Few imagine the story will end there.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has cast off its image as “the grey lady” and come out in sharper colours. Commenting on the James Comey memo in an editorial, the Times raised the possibility that Trump was trying to “obstruct justice”, and called on Washington lawmakers to “uphold the constitution”. Trump’s denunciations of the Times as “failing” have acted as commercial “rocket fuel” for the paper, according to its CEO, Mark Thompson: it gained an “astonishing” 308,000 net digital news subscriptions in the first quarter of 2017.

US-based broadcast organisations such as CNN and ABC, once considered slick or bland, have reacted to Trump’s bullying in forthright style. Political satire is thriving, led by Saturday Night Live, with its devastating impersonations of the president by Alec Baldwin and of his press secretary Sean Spicer by the brilliant Melissa McCarthy.

British press reaction to Brexit – an epic constitutional, political and economic mess-up that probably includes a mind-bogglingly destructive self-ejection from a single market and customs union that took decades to construct, a move pushed through by a far-right faction of the Tory party – has been much more muted. The situation is complicated by the cheerleading for Brexit by most of the British tabloids and the Daily Telegraph. There are stirrings of resistance, but even after an election in which Theresa May spectacularly failed to secure a mandate for her hard Brexit, there is a sense, though the criticism of her has been intense, of the media pussy-footing around a government in disarray – not properly interrogating those who still seem to promise that, in relation to Europe, we can have our cake and eat it.

This is especially the case with the BBC, a state broadcaster that proudly proclaims its independence from the government of the day, protected by the famous “arm’s-length” principle. In the case of Brexit, the BBC invoked its concept of “balance” to give equal airtime and weight to Leavers and Remainers. Fair enough, you might say, but according to the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, it ignored a “near-unanimous view among economists that Brexit would hurt the UK economy in the longer term”.

A similar view of “balance” in the past led the BBC to equate views of ­non-scientific climate contrarians, often linked to the fossil-fuel lobby, with those of leading climate scientists. Many BBC Remainer insiders still feel incensed by what they regard as BBC betrayal over Brexit. Although the referendum of 23 June 2016 said nothing about leaving the single market or the customs union, the Today presenter Justin Webb, in a recent interview with Stuart Rose, put it like this: “Staying in the single market, staying in the customs union – [Leave voters would say] you might as well not be leaving. That fundamental position is a matter of democracy.” For the BBC, it seems, to question Brexit is somehow to be unpatriotic.

You might think that an independent, pro-democratic press would question the attempted use of the arcane and archaic “royal prerogative” to enable the ­bypassing of parliament when it came to triggering Article 50, signalling the UK’s departure from the EU. But when the campaigner Gina Miller’s challenge to the government was upheld by the high court, the three ruling judges were attacked on the front page of the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”. Thomas Jefferson wrote that he would rather have “newspapers without a government” than “a government without newspapers”. It’s a fair guess he wasn’t thinking of newspapers that would brand the judiciary as “enemies of the people”.

It does seem significant that the United States has a written constitution, encapsulating the separation and balance of powers, and explicitly designed by the Founding Fathers to protect the young republic against tyranny. When James Madison drafted the First Amendment he was clear that freedom of the press should be guaranteed to a much higher degree in the republic than it had been in the colonising power, where for centuries, after all, British monarchs and prime ministers have had no qualms about censoring an unruly media.

By contrast, the United Kingdom remains a hybrid of monarchy and democracy, with no explicit protection of press freedom other than the one provided by the common law. The national impulse to bend the knee before the sovereign, to obey and not question authority, remains strangely powerful in Britain, the land of Henry VIII as well as of George Orwell. That the United Kingdom has slipped 11 places in the World Press Freedom Index in the past four years, down to 40th, has rightly occasioned outrage. Yet, even more awkwardly, the United States is three places lower still, at 43rd. Freedom of the press may not be doing quite as well as we imagine in either country.

Harry Eyres is the author of Horace and Me: Life Lessons from an Ancient Poet (2013)

This article first appeared in the 20 July 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The new world disorder