Search results

This case is designed for an undergraduate entrepreneurship course dealing with the launch and growth of an entrepreneurial venture, including strategies for effective team building, especially with teams based in different countries.

This case has been used in 300 and 400 level entrepreneurship courses.

The case tells the story of John Lee (CEO) and Regina Adams (President), the founders of a new business called global loans in entrepreneurship (GLIE) based in Singapore. GLIE facilitates micro-loans for small business owners in the developing world and specifically targets entrepreneurial development projects for the poor. Many social enterprises start their operations on a shoestring budget. Typically, the deficit of cash pushes the leadership to use creative strategies to move things forward, including recruiting individuals who are willing to work in the startup phase without monetary compensation. This case sheds light on what can happen when founders recruit and rely on a volunteer for essential technology development, vesting the individual with substantial power, and creating the possibility for him/her to delay or purposefully hold up the launch of the company.

The case highlights the importance for someone on the founding team to have whatever core competencies are most critical to the firm. Additional themes are the importance of raising adequate funds at startup, the pitfalls of using volunteers in the wrong capacity, and the disastrous impact the wrong employee can have in a small firm setting.

Teaching note.

In 2004 and 2007, the Kauffman Foundation awarded 18 universities and colleges $3–5 million dollars each to develop radiant model entrepreneurship education programs and campus-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems. Grant recipients were required to have a senior level administrator to oversee the program who reported to the Provost, President, or Chancellor. Award recipients included Syracuse University (2007) and the University of Rochester (2004). Cornell was not a Kauffman campus. This chapter explores three case studies in the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education as deployed at Cornell University, The University of Rochester, and Syracuse University. The authors examine the history, accelerators, and challenges of the radiant model of university-wide entrepreneurship education.

Charitable Choice Policy, the heart of President Bush’s Faith‐Based Initiative, is the direct government funding of religious organizations for the purpose of carrying out government programs. The Bush presidential administration has called for the application of Charitable Choice Policy to all kinds of social services. Advocates for child‐abuse victims contend that the Bush Charitable Choice Policy would further dismantle essential social services provided to abused children. Others have argued Charitable Choice Policy is unconstitutional because it crosses the boundary separating church and state. Rather than drastically altering the US social‐policy landscape, this paper demonstrates that the Bush Charitable Choice Policy already is in place for childabuse services across many of the fifty states. One reason this phenomenon is ignored is due to the reliance on the public‐private dichotomy for studying social policies and services. This paper contends that relying on the public‐private dichotomy leads researchers to overlook important configurations of actors and institutions that provide services to abused children. It offers an alternate framework to the public‐private dichotomy useful for the analysis of social policy in general and, in particular, Charitable Choice Policy affecting services to abused children. Employing a new methodological approach, fuzzy‐sets analysis, demonstrates the degree to which social services for abused children match ideal types. It suggests relationships between religious organizations and governments are essential to the provision of services to abused children in the United States. Given the direction in which the Bush Charitable Choice Policy will push social‐policy programs, scholars should ask whether abused children will be placed in circumstances that other social groups will not and why.