I too think it’s at the individual level, an implosion from the inside out. (kind of the difference between spirituality vs convincing people with religion).

There has to be a low barrier to entry and self interest for the employee, it has to make their day easy and more effective. In aggregate a culture develops naturally…they will start influencing each other.

The ROI has to be for the individual first, then hopefully these conditions spread….
http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2008/08/29/roi-for-the-knowledge-worker-is-roi-for-all-and-how-km-took-an-ironic-approach/

It seems we both agree on the fact that considering enterprise only as an economic entity often makes us forget there are people behind. Let me also add that, thinking this way makes us consider enterprise as its own purpose despite it’s just a mean to organize people to fulfill a mission (which, at the start, is an individual or collective goal set by human beings !).

Finally what I found interesting is that you may be pointing at a cultural issue. Maybe I’m wrong but as long as I can remember, when I read or listen to english speaking people, the word “enterprise” has always been used to designate an economic or legal structure. A quick search in the “Robert & Collins” confirmed it.

In french the economic use of enterprise is a restriction of a more global concept which is more about “project”. The verb “entreprendre” was born in the 15th century and meant “take in your hand”. So in french “une entreprise” can be any project people may have, with or without organization, business. We can “entreprendre” a soccer game with friends, going shopping… Making a trip to discover a country can be an “entreprise”, painting your living room alone or wth friends can also be an “enterprise”. So it seems to me that, when we use “entreprise” outside of the business organization context you say project or undertakinfg. And when we say “entreprendre” you say “start upon” or begin.

Perhaps the only point is, while changing language, the word “enterprise” lost his original french meaning which was about “things people decide to do…whatever the purpose is”.

Hope this will help you to feel more comfortable with the “E” word.

People certainly do behave differently in groups. But I think that the best way to bring about change is to work at the bottom of the org chart - not the top.

Perhaps, as @Jeremy said, we should focus more on those smaller groups of people. An overtly macro-level world view, which is the one that the C-level folk have, doesn’t help the problem. (Perhaps it’s a coincidence that the C-Level guys also seem to always hold the cheque-book… )

You can’t change the culture without winning people’s hearts and minds…

People behave in groups differently — their behaviour in one group is different from their behaviour in another. They adapt to the group. This is as much a law of nature as what you’re suggesting above. Organisations *do* have a culture that exists outside of and is independent of the people who make it up — like classes and instantations of same. Changing that abstract culture is part of the game — if we ignore it, as you seem to be suggesting, we’ll fail just as surely. Won’t we?