The chief advantage of APN entrepreneurs is their independence, as they are able to operate without supervision or interference by upper management. As a result, they can make decisions that would not necessarily be approved in a larger organization. Opening up a practice in a rural location may be seen as an example, as a clinic may consider creating a branch there an unfeasible idea. At the same time, entrepreneurs also shoulder the risks of their idea failing, as they have no support beyond that which they are able to provide themselves. Moreover, as Joel (2017) notes, many states have policies that prevent APNs from working independently, which curbs their entrepreneurial opportunities. In these states, they have to operate as part of a larger organization, typically under the supervision of a physician, and struggle to establish any specific initiatives.
By contrast, intrapreneurs work within an existing organization, driving innovation within it with its backing. As such, they have the support of their facility in case they fail, which mitigates the risks that they are exposed to considerably. Additionally, per Joel (2017), they are typically given a large degree of independence from upper management so as to avoid it hindering their ideas. With that said, some ideas, such as that of rural practice as outlined above, cannot be executed while one remains part of a larger team. Moreover, Joel (2017) notes that, despite the attempts of upper management to reduce interference, organizations present substantial barriers and risks to the implementation of new ideas. First and foremost would be securing approval for work on the project to begin, which would require the APN to convince multiple superiors.
Overall, the position of the entrepreneur appears to be associated with higher risk but also better potential reward than that of the intrapreneur. While the former cannot rely on anyone but themselves, they also have full control over their pursuits and can adjust operations to suit their needs and those of the patients. On the other hand, the latter are provided with a safe environment but also have their abilities and control restricted to what is permitted within the confines of the organization. As such, while entrepreneurs try to improve the system by creating new approaches to healthcare, intrapreneurs instead focus on reforming old ones without disrupting the overall system excessively. Both roles are necessary, as, while the creation of new and contemporary approaches to healthcare is critical to maintaining and improving population health, modernization of old resources makes the process considerably smoother and safer.
The author would like to be an entrepreneur rather than an intrapreneur because of the increased freedom that the former option provides. Throughout their work at a medical facility as a nurse, they have experienced large amounts of organizational inertia. As such, they believe that an intrapreneur’s reform work would likely be slow and grueling, even if it ultimately results in considerable improvements. The author tends to create a number of improvement ideas as they work, most of which they would not be able to test in a medical facility’s environment. As such, they prefer the freedom afforded by the entrepreneurial approach and would choose to use it for their endeavors. They are aware of the risks but believe that they can be managed and minimized. As long as the core ideas are sound, the initiative will succeed and persevere throughout difficulties.
Reference
Joel, L. A. (2017). Advanced practice nursing: Essentials for role development (4th ed.). F.A. Davis.