Search results

In this essay, we challenge the present dominant emphasis in the Dutch Innovation Debate on the creation of technological innovations, the focus on a few core technologies, and the allocation of more financial resources. We argue that managerial capabilities and organizing principles for innovation should have a higher priority on the Dutch Innovation Agenda. Managerial capabilities for innovation deal with cognitive elements such as the capacity to absorb knowledge, create entrepreneurial mindsets, and facilitate managerial experimentation and higher-order learning abilities. These capacities can only be developed by distinctive managerial roles that enhance hierarchy, teaming and shared norms. Utilizing these unique managerial capabilities requires novel organizing principles, such as managing internal rates of change, nurturing self-organization and balancing high levels of exploration and exploitation. These managerial capabilities and organizing principles of innovation create new sources of productivity growth and competitive advantage. The dramatic fall back of the Netherlands in the league of innovative and high productivity countries of the World Economic Forum-Report can be mainly attributed to the present lack in the Netherlands of these key managerial and organizational enablers of innovation and productivity growth. We provide various levers for building unique managerial capabilities and novel organizing principles of innovation. Moreover, we describe the necessary roles that different actors have to play in this innovation arena. In particular, we focus on the often neglected but important role of strategic regulations that speed up innovation and productivity growth. They are the least expensive way to boost innovation in organizations in both the Dutch private and public sector. Finally, we discuss the implications for the Dutch Innovation Agenda. It should start with setting a challenging ambition, namely the return of The Netherlands within the WEF- league of the top-ten most innovative and productive countries of the world. Considering the under-utilization of available knowledge stemming from technological innovations, managerial and organizational determinants of innovation should receive first priority. These determinants have a high strategic relevance and should receive more public recognition. We suggest to organize an annual innovation ranking of the most outstanding Dutch firms, to develop an innovation audit that measures firms' non-technological innovation capacity, and to create an overall innovation policy for fast diffusion of new managerial capabilities and adequate organizing principles throughout the Dutch private and public sector. In conclusion, we add five new items to the Dutch Innovation Agenda: 1. Prioritize administrative innovations Investments in management and organization determinants of absorption of knowledge and its successful application (administrative innovation) should have a higher priority than investments in technological innovations. 2. Build new managerial capabilities and develop novel organizing principles For these administrative innovations to succeed, firms have to build managerial capabilities (broad knowledge-base, absorptive capacity, managerial experimentation, higher-order learning) and various management roles (hierarchy, teaming, shared norms) to increase the assimilation of external knowledge and the utilization for innovation. Moreover, they have to develop novel organizing principles that increase internal rates of change, nurture self-organization and synchronize high levels of exploration and exploitation. 3. Set levers of innovation by creating selection environments that favor innovation and by redefining the roles of key actors Management has to create a proper organizational context to foster entrepreneurship and innovation (internal selection environment). Governmental agencies have to focus on innovation and productivity enabling strategic regulations (external selection environment). Moreover, research institutes, business schools, and consulting firms should not only focus on technological knowledge, but also on managerial and organizational knowledge for innovation. In the end, private small and large firms and public institutions have to recognize that they all must contribute to the national goal of increasing innovation and productivity growth. 4. Create a new challenging national ambition: return of the Netherlands within the top-10 The Netherlands has to return to the top-ten most innovative and productive countries in the world as reflected in international rankings such as the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index. 5. Proliferate an awareness and passion for innovation: Create public awareness and recognition of the societal relevance of outstanding managerial capabilities and organizing principles to innovation and productivity growth: o Initiate a Dutch innovation ranking in terms of management and organization; o Develop proper assessment tools for innovations in management and organization; o Enhance reporting on the progress on managerial and organizational innovation as part of modern corporate governance and as part of outstanding annual reports. These issues may contribute to rethinking the fundamental sources of innovation, productivity growth and sustainable competitive advantage of the Dutch economy.

In 1991, Thurley and Wirdenius claimed that international companies operating in European countries could, and should, make a strategic choice whether or not to develop a "European" approach or style of management. After the acceptance of the Treaty of Maastricht, and with the new European Union preparing to absorb applicants from the European Free Trade Association, their claim is becoming even more important. Not surprisingly, a European style of management, or "European management," is an important topic for business, business schools, and academic research. While a growing number of publications have been written on this subject, a brief review of the literature on European management reveals a clear tension between "integration opportunity" and "constraining diversity" issues as a challenging problem for managers in Europe. This article investigates whether key characteristics of a European style of management can be discerned. To this end, a conceptual framework is developed for reconciling the observed tension and pinpointing a key common characteristic of a European style of management. No attempt is made here to show that national styles of management such as Swedish or British management (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1990) will disappear in the future. On the contrary, we maintain that national styles of management are and will remain part of Europe's diversity (Lessem and Neubauer, 1994). We aim to improve our understanding of how management relates to the European business environment as a contingency factor. In particular, we investigate ways of approaching the above-mentioned management problem in Europe. In a general sense, our research contributes to the challenging field of international management research (Earley and Singh, 1995) as well. We begin with a short overview of the literature and draw attention to the tension between integration opportunities and constraining diversity for managers in Europe. We then introduce a managerial perspective in describing various relevant forms of an important contextual variable of Europe--namely, diversity. After developing a conceptual framework for reconciling this tension, we describe how this framework can focus attention on a key characteristic of a European style of management. We use a case study of Unilever Foods Europe to illustrate the proposed conceptual framework. In discussing our findings, we touch upon some implications for developing the distinctive managerial skills required by a European style of management and suggest directions for future research.

Should 'government' be a fifth force in Michael Porter's model of the Competitive Advantage of Nations and, if so, what should be the appropriate level of analysis? In the strategic management literature, frameworks explaining the impact of the national environment, and more particularly of government, on firms and industries are still in their infancy. Michael Porter's 'The Competitive Advantage of Nations' proposes a new integrative framework consisting of four determinants (the so-called diamond) and aimed at a comprehensive analysis of the above-mentioned impact. After a short overview of the diamond model and a general critique, this paper will deal with the important question of whether government is adequately integrated into Porter's framework. Stated more precisely: whether government can be considered as a fifth determinant. Porter has already recognized the indirect role of government in creating competitive advantage, but denies a direct role. To demonstrate whether government does have a direct role and, if so, how large its influence is, is both a theoretical and empirical question. Although a definite answer upon this question is beyond the scope of this paper, we will contribute to this challenging question by focusing on two aspects.

Introduction: approaches to competitiveness In the last decade, the issue of competitiveness has captured an important position on the agenda of politicians and policymakers. The growing strength of Asian firms on the world market has been debated at some length in both the USA and in Europe. In the USA the focus of the debate was on the trade deficit and the weak performance of American firms compared to their Japanese competitors. In the European countries competitiveness became a buzzword in the discussions about rising unemployment. An increase in competitiveness was not only seen as a remedy against the lay-offs in mature industries but was believed to spur growth rates in new hightech sectors as well.