Marian Mroziewski*
Management Styles as Intellectual Determinants
of a Company's Long-term Competitiveness. A normative and Evolutionary Approach
Introduction
Since the 1990s, the models for building competitive advantage have
placed emphasis on the special role played by intangible resources in the
process, namely: knowledge, experience and other intangible assets referred to
as intellectual capital. They enable a company to provide its clients with
added value of unique quality in comparison with market competitors.
In recognition of the significance of intellectual capital components in
the process of building competitive advantage, the author of this article has
attempted to discuss the multi-faceted role of management styles in the
process. Management styles are the primary and often the key factor which
determines a company's long-term competitiveness. They directly affect other
intangible asset components which determine the effectiveness of material
resources and – ultimately – a company's competitive edge. This conclusion has
been derived from an analysis of the relevant literature and the experiences of
businesses which have scored a market success in the course of decades.
The article presents the concept of a company's evolutionary ascent onto
the path of prospective competitiveness, as determined by the adopted models,
through the implementation of normative management styles which are identified
in view of the degree of entrepreneurship development in an organization.
1. Key models determining
corporate competitiveness
A company has a unique
competitive status [Stankiewicz 2002, p. 89] which is determined by its
competitive advantage in a given market segment relative to its competitors.
According to M. Gorynia [2000, pp. 48-50], corporate competitiveness accounts
for a company's competitive strategy, its competitive potential and competitive
market status. The above interpretation leads to the determination of two
competitiveness categories: ex post and ex ante. According to M.
Gorynia, ex post competitiveness is the company's present competitive
status which results from the implemented competitive strategy and the strategy
of its market rivals. Ex ante competitiveness is the company's future
(prospective) competitive status – it is the competitiveness level which can be
attained by building and deploying the company's competitive potential in line
with the adopted strategy. On the one hand, a competitiveness analysis requires
an evaluation of competitive instruments and a company's operations and
resources, while on the other – an assessment of the adapted competitive
strategy. This analysis indicates that every organization has a certain set of
attributes which support its competitive edge on the market.
In the theory and practice of management,
there are two predominant models for determining a company's competitive
advantage which follow from the assumptions made by classical economics or the
contradictory premises of evolutionary economics. The Anglo-Saxon approach to
classical economics postulates a hierarchical and mechanistic model of
shaping competitiveness. This model makes an assumption that managers have
access to comprehensive information, they behave rationally, make optimal
decisions, have the full freedom of running an enterprise and selecting,
acquiring and developing its resources. A competitive edge is built by
maintaining operating effectiveness and moving from lower to higher
quantitative and qualitative states in a smooth or breakthrough manner. The
organisztional structures of companies which develop their competitive
advantage based on the mechanistic model are usually rigid, hierarchic,
bureaucratic and oriented towards the attainment of short-term competitiveness.
Evolutionary economics gives rise to
the systemic evolutionary model[1] where the act of
building competitiveness is regarded as a continuous process. Companies which
rely on this model regard their enterprise as a heterogenic whole which
continues to perfect its operations. The knowledge, skills, competencies and
experiences of people and organizations grow cumulatively, i.e. subsequent
changes carry the system in the same direction as the first change, but with
greater force. Continuous change enables an organization to adapt to its
environment, thus turning it into a flexible system.
The indicated approaches set the
foundations for two groups of competitive strategies in an organization. R.
Griffin [2002, pp. 247-253] links the hierarchical and mechanistic model with M.
Porter's competitive strategies, and associates the systemic evolutionary
model with adaptation model strategies. The competitive strategies
popularized by Porter apply to the strategic analysis of industry and
competition. Three leading strategies are identified:
1)
differentiation strategy as part of
which the company develops a product which is perceived as unique by the
customers;
2)
cost leadership strategy as part of which the company takes advantage of economies of scale by
minimizing unitary costs and, consequently, the prices;
3)
segmentation strategy as part
of which the company focuses on products and services in selected target
markets in terms of geographic location or customer groups.
The
adaptation model described by
Adaptation model
strategies prompted R. Miles and Ch. Snow [Nowak-Far 2000, p. 45] to classify
business undertakings into four groups, subject to their innovative
responsiveness:
a) defender group
of companies which deploy the strategy of remaining in the market segment where
changes in technology and competitiveness take place very slowly or are even
indiscernible over a short period of time;
b) analyzer group of companies which are eager to
operate in segments that undergo significant change as well as segments which
are not subject to noticeable change;
c) prospector group of companies which target segments where
vast changes in technology and competition are observed; such companies often
provoke a response which alters the competition balance;
d) reactor group
of companies which avoid any attempts at undermining the existing paradigm in
the area of competition and technology.
Within the domain of
the new institutional economics, P. Di Maggio and W. Powell [Obłój
2002, p. 63] developed a typology of the three main mechanisms which regulate
organizational change and create the predominant operating style in an
institution:
1)
coercive isomorphism which results in the progressive
homogenation of companies which operate in a similar environment of formal and
informal pressure;
2)
mimetic isomorphism which
results from benchmarking, copying leaders and bringing own institutional rules
closer to the operations of other organizations, in particularly in an
environment marked by high uncertainty;
3)
normative isomorphism which
results from the observance of professional and structural standards in the
operating field in a manner which creates a generally acknowledged hierarchy of
statuses, flow of information and decisions, institutions.
Coercive and mimetic isomorphism patterns
are characterized by significant organizational inertia. The normative pattern
applies to two models of strategic decision logic which were referred to by N.
Siggielkow [Obłój 2002, pp. 64-65] as patch-to-patch and thin-to-thick.
The former means that the company starts with one strategic theme, idea,
concept or principle, and after it is well established, it experiments with new
themes and concepts. Under this process, the dominant logic develops over time
by adding new elements and rules, presumably those that helped the company to
become successful on the market. The latter pattern (thin-to-thick) is created
when the company sets out with a consistent set of strategic rules which are
only elaborated and reinforced over time. In this case, dominant logic exists
almost as a complete system from the very beginning of operation, it is refined
and reinforced with new experiences and meanings over time.
The normative patch-to-patch
concept is an approach which makes a reference to an organization which
"learns" and adapts to its environment in the process of shaping its
effectiveness and competitiveness. Organizations which adopt the thin-to-thick
concept, demonstrate – on the one hand – the achievement of competitive
advantage and the introduction of effective barriers against competitive
activity, while – on the other hand – they coin behavioral and product
patterns. They also reflect the role of decision-makers in hierarchical
structures who rely on a specific pattern to determine the company's
activities, introduce organizational order and who develop a set of criteria
for evaluating the new rules. In the author's opinion, the thin-to-thick
concept can be implemented with the use of the postulated management
principles. They are the decision-makers' guidelines for the selection of
behavioral norms which relate to: 1) the process of shaping the following
relationships: interpersonal relationships within an organization, the
relationship between an organization and its employees, and the relationships
between an organization and its environment; 2) the philosophy of power,
shaping the organizational structure, performing managerial functions which
focus on: planning, organizing, motivating, intervening and controlling, on a
company's path to long-term development based on intangible assets. Management
principles are the essence of management style. They can fulfill a creative
role if development is seen as a process [Co
czyni zasady...2001, p. 92].
In general, normative management
principles should be formulated in reference to:
1) model enterprises which are
considered to be excellently managed;
2) model organizations which are
regarded as "healthy";
3) change trends in the management
philosophy;
4) management standards formulated by
management practitioners and theoreticians;
5) conclusions following from the
philosophy of a more extensive social and economic system;
A
normative approach, where the adopted pattern is reinforced through management
principles (management styles), is described by the author as the normative
evolutionary approach. This model makes a reference to the concept of a
holographic organization [Morgan 1997, p. 86-87] in the light of which,
successful institutional leadership will create a strategy, structure and
management style in an organization which will be adequately motivating, on a
daily basis, to inspire creative action and innovation, i.e. individual and
organizational entrepreneurship, based on corporate culture. The normative
evolutionary approach offers an indirect solution which ranks between the
hierarchical and mechanistic concept and the systemic evolutionary approach. It
takes into account the role of philosophy, as adapted by the entrepreneur,
which is understood as a set of values, beliefs, methods and goals of the
activities created by the management. They comprise standards which are recognized
by all members of the organization, and they set a reference model for their
activities. Philosophy is based on a shared recognition of the company's role
in the environment, its mission or purpose. The entrepreneur's intention, which
in the process of shaping long-term competitiveness evolves into a philosophy
of an organization and elements of corporate culture[2],
contains mainly teleological elements as well as management methods and
principles, in short – management styles. In the process of building long-term
competitiveness, the normative evolutionary approach recognizes the decisive
role of rational intelligence of the company's employees. They deliberately
aspire to attain an organizational form which is adequate not only in view of
the contemporary standards but also future demands. The prospective and
desirable organizational form of an enterprise is the main focal point of
management science and other social sciences. In the normative evolutionary
approach, corporate strategies are more oriented towards building an enterprise
than developing products, which is characteristic of strategic analyses of
market industries and competition, as well as the resources and competencies
approach. In view of R. Miles' and Ch. Snow's findings in the area of organization
typology based on response to innovation, the author of the normative
evolutionary concept identifies three core competitive strategies:
1) forming enterprise which would be adequate for the needs of defender organizations;
2) developing enterprise which is typical of analyzer organizations;
3) perfecting cultural enterprise which is typical of prospector organizations.
A strategy typical of
reactor organizations can be described as a stagnant strategy. It is not
covered by the adopted model because it does not postulate deliberate action in
the process of building long-term competitiveness through innovative change. In
this model, passive companies may only serve as a negative point of reference
in shaping competitiveness as the result of changes in organizational form.
In the author's
opinion, organizations which consciously subscribe to the normative evolutionary
model and aim to develop long-term competitiveness through a change of:
management style, organizational form, corporate culture, intellectual asset
components, subject to the adopted strategy, form a group of syntactic
companies[3].
There are two phases in the life of an enterprise: the phase of forming an
enterprise which is dominated by individual entrepreneurship, usually
associated with the proprietor; and the phase of shaping and reinforcing organizational
entrepreneurship based on the culture principle [Allaire, Firsirotu 2000, p.
314-315]. According to K. Cameron and R. Quinn [2006, pp. 14-15], successful
companies have developed a unique culture which dominates corporate strategy,
market presence or technological advantage.
2. The role of normative management styles in shaping long-term
competitiveness
According to L. Unruh [2006, p. 26],
management style is one of the most important intellectual factors which
enables a company to maximize the effectiveness of its strategy. Unruh claims
that a vital role in the process of shaping competitiveness is played by a
management style which fosters collaboration among employees at every organizational
level, including by providing them with the freedom to shape the organization's
structure subject to their level of competence.
Management styles [Mroziewski 2005, pp.
62-63] refer to the management's preferred and relatively stable management
techniques (methods) which have been reinforced in the company's management
system and which guarantee that the organization's social and technical
sub-systems are coordinated for the purpose of achieving strategic goals. As
regards functionality, they differ from leadership styles [Mroziewski 2005, p.
59] which can be identified as a broad set of relatively stable and deliberate
measures undertaken by a manager to elicit the performance of organizational
tasks from his subordinates. Management styles refer to an organization in a
subjective approach (an organization has to be managed), while leadership
styles concern interpersonal relations between the superior and subordinates
(subordinate employees need a leader). From the point of view of
competitiveness building, management styles play the dominant role and they can
determine leadership styles.
Management styles comprise mostly of the
reinforced methods, principles and institutions for creating, maintaining and
coordinating technical, technological, social and management order in an organization.
They are implemented with the use of various instruments, such as plans,
patterns, subjective norms, legal norms, regulations, procedures, standards and
institutions which support innovation, etc. The managers' propensity to deploy
given instruments and coordination methods, the approach to evaluating those
methods in view of their effectiveness and rationality, and theoreticians'
views on the main prerequisites for managerial success are often the main
criteria for classifying management styles.
In view of the above criteria, the author has identified the following
management styles [Mroziewski 2005, p. 128-129]:
1) personal-conceptual – these styles
have been identified on the assumption that the managers' individual traits and
their management tactics are the most important contributors to the company's
success;
2) doctrinal – this typology
reflects management styles postulated by the main theories of management, such
as formalistic, humanistic, social and political, situational, economic and
systemic IT management;
3) teleological – this style is
oriented towards the achievement of the set management goals through the
principle of management by concept (managing through: motivation, goals,
delegation, exceptions, results, system, values, procedures, etc.);
4) holding – as part of this
style, a central authority manages subordinate enterprises;
5) functional – the management
defines the scope of participation in managing a selected group of middle
managers in a given situation in an enterprise;
6) national – this management
style is based on the specific features of national cultures which affect the
method and effectiveness of management, the creation of a social and economic
order, management strategies and life strategies.
As regards
competitiveness development, management styles in the doctrinal, teleological,
holding and functional groups are related to the hierarchical and mechanistic
approach. Personal-conceptual and national styles are more reminiscent of the
systemic and evolutionary concept.
In the opinion of H. Stevenson
[Dyduch 2005, p. 10-13], entrepreneurship entails strategic management - it is
a process which motivates individuals to create added value. By identifying
differences in the level of entrepreneurship evolution in corporations, H.
Stevenson and J. Jarilloo were able to determine two main management styles: administrative
and entrepreneurial. In companies characterized by the entrepreneurial
style, individuals search for new opportunities on own accord or as part of an
organization regardless of the quantity of resources at their disposal; they
have a personal approach to entrepreneurship, namely they regard the managed
projects as if they were running their own microcompanies inside a larger
organization; opportunities are identified quickly and with great involvement;
the organization tries to maximize value by taking advantage of new opportunities
while minimizing the quantity of the required resources and taking a minor risk
at every stage of operation; the company has an organic structure; the
acquisition of key resources which are not at the company's disposal is
coordinated; employees have a sense of independence and responsibility
(including financial) for the project's success and the right use of the
presented opportunities; payroll as well as future budgets will be determined
by the project's success; the organization encourages employees to voice and
exchange their ideas, to experiment and be creative, thus creating an
entrepreneurial culture where new concepts are valued and are in high demand;
the organization looks for an environment which is filled with ideas and aims
to foster the rapid growth of new concepts.
In companies with an
administrative management style, decisions are made relatively more slowly and
cautiously; the employees' innovative or proactive approach is regarded as a
negative quality.
According to M. Ławrynowicz [2004, pp. 33-34], competitive
advantage (position) stems from the ability to combine skills, motives for
action and behaviors with an organization's system, structures and processes.
This view subscribes to Unruh's approach and shows that the management style
which is manifested in methods of coordinating a company's subsystems becomes
an important instrument in shaping the competitive advantage of every organization.
The discussion on the relationship between management styles and an
organization's competitive advantage illustrates that management styles:
penetrate and stimulate all areas of a company's activity; they affect the
organization as a whole: its structure, organizational climate, corporate
culture, working conditions and life styles of its members, methods of
coordinating activities and deploying functional and resource zones,
flexibility and adaptability to the environment. Management styles
significantly affect an organization's results: material and intangible
(external and internal), results which have a beneficial or adverse effect on
the environment and the organization. They can create a synergic effect or
produce barriers in the process of building the competitive potential of an
organization. Management styles also strongly influence the degree of organizational
asymmetry [Mroziewski 2006, pp. 15-18] which is observed in the functional,
competence, structural, cultural, distributional, emotional and motivational
dimension. Extensive and unaccepted organizational disparities are an obstacle
to building a community climate in an organization which, in the opinion of G.
Hamela [2006, pp. 63-64], triggers human creativity.
The
impact of a management style on competitiveness in a dynamic approach is
presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Impact of management style
on an organization's competitiveness
Source: Own research.
A company where moral standards and
entrepreneurial culture are formed, will develop an operating philosophy
claiming that it is the purpose of the organization, and not its strategy,
which is responsible for its existence
[Grudzewski, Hejduk 1997, p. 19]; visions and strategies are only the
by-products of its core values.
3. Normative management styles as an instrument
of competitiveness development
An organization needs
entrepreneurial culture to develop long-term competitiveness. The postulated
culture and community climate are found in the concept of integration culture
which has the following characteristics [Senior 2003, p. 394]: willingness to
extend beyond the acquired knowledge, the ability to combine ideas from
different sources, identifying a problem as a whole and as part of a bigger
whole, questioning commonly applied practice, acting on the verge of
competence, measuring own success in terms of future vision rather than past
standards, developing mechanisms which facilitate the exchange of information
and new ideas, recognizing and even supporting differences with a willingness
to cooperate, looking outside, searching for new solutions.
The process of shaping long-term
competitiveness is determined by four key factors [Praktyka kierowania 1994, pp. 584-586]: management style in an
enterprise, employees, organizational style and internal communication system.
Such an organization is split by a specific managerial dilemma which should be
solved at the management's discretion – namely the maintenance of an adequate
balance between activities oriented towards operating effectiveness and
activities which stimulate creative freedom, innovation and the use of new
opportunities. The evolution of a mechanistic (administrative) type of organization
into an organic organization with an integration culture is a long process and
it requires continued efforts which may be related to the use of normative
management styles. Those styles are determined mainly in terms of competition
strategy requirements which are identified for the needs of the normative
evolutionary model. The use of the identified styles may be restricted by
situational factors and organization's capabilities. In view of two main
criteria, including: 1) scope and rate of organizational changes; 2) group of
people who inspire and coordinate the postulated changes, three normative
management styles have been identified: stabilizing, stimulating development,
creative/entrepreneurial. The stabilizing and development-stimulating
styles are of administrative nature, while the entrepreneurial style is
characterized by the values indicated by H. Stevenson.
A general description of normative
management styles in reference to the stagnant style, which is not accepted in
the normative evolutionary model, is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. General characteristics of
normative management styles
|
Management
style |
Scope and rate of
organizational changes |
Change
navigators and coordinators |
|
|
administrative |
Stagnant |
Managers rely on previously
applied methods which were positively verified; new management styles are not
introduced. |
owners, management board members, managers of independent business units |
|
Stabilizing |
The company implements
changes which will improve and develop the applied and tested methods. |
||
|
Stimulating development |
The existing methods are
improved, including the determination of future goals and courses of action
as a logical extension of the accumulated experience. |
||
|
entrepreneurial |
Creative |
The company's operations are
characterized by continuous change. New solutions are preferred (including
solutions proposed by science, applied by leaders in the given market) which
creatively enhance and improve the adopted business model. |
owners, managers, employees,
external stakeholders |
Source: own research
Company's attempts to adapt the
principles of the entrepreneurial/creative model should incorporate
flexibility, innovation, creativity, openness and community climate into organizational
culture, setting foundations for the organization's future development. A
flexible organization is oriented towards movement, adaptation and guided
change which are consistent with the clients' and the community's future needs.
According to
4. Creative management style as the main
contributor to an organization's long-term success
The positive impact of an
entrepreneurial management style on building competitive advantage is widely
illustrated in business practice. I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi [Ziencik 2003, pp.
95-96] have identified two factors as the key determinants of the success
scored by Japanese companies: the first is the employee's involvement, their
identification with the corporation and its mission, while the second is the
organization's skill and proficiency in an "organizational generation of
knowledge" (the entire corporation's ability to generate and popularize
new knowledge and implement it in the company's products, services and
systems). The knowledge generation process implies continuous change throughout
the organization with the active involvement of all participants. The above
determinants of Japanese companies' success are related to the kaizen
effect [Sąpór 2004, pp. 91-92] which is characterized by: team
work, employees' participation in the improvement program, the identification
of their needs, personnel remuneration standards, self-improvement and
professional development of subordinate staff members (improvement of work
methods, qualifications and skills). When discussing the management principles
adopted by
-
production
philosophy;
-
focus
on personnel safety;
-
far-reaching
concept; the main venture point is the generation of value for the client, the
community and the economy. The company's every function is evaluated in view of
its ability to attain that goal. A deep sense of goal achievement overrides all
short-term decisions;
-
concept
of relying on technology; the goal of the applied technology is to support
people, not replace them;
-
attitudes
of Toyota leaders; Toyota leaders have to set a personal example by embodying
the company's mission and operating procedures; regardless of the management
level, a good leader has to have an insight into the detailed aspects of daily
operations to serve as the best teacher of the company's mission for the
employees; leaders are trained within Toyota;
-
expanding
the organization's knowledge resources through stability of employment, slow
promotion and carefully premeditated management succession planning;
-
learning
through standardization of best practices;
-
reflecting
(hansei) to be able to openly identify all defects upon project
completion, i.e. when successive milestones are reached. Devising remedies to
avoid the same mistakes in the future.
The entrepreneurial style concept is
supported by the experience of companies surveyed by J. Collins and J. Porros.
In Built To Last in 1994, they formulated principles which should enable
an organization to maintain long-term competitive advantage over market rivals.
A decade later, the following conclusions are still valid [Weryfikacja tez ... 2005, pp. 24-28]: 1) the managers of leading companies do not
focus excessively on profit indicators; they place the greatest emphasis on the
observance of core values and continuous improvement to cater to changing
market needs, but without departing from their long-term vision. This strategy
automatically generates profits. The management searches for ideas to develop
the enterprise, and not the product; 2) despite previous successes, the organization
continuously researches the market for ambitious and, consequently, risky
goals; 3) the organization requires a certain collective thinking structure or
the observance of defined rituals. Departments or persons who are not at home
with this ideology should be eliminated; 4) to support organizational
transformations and to find inspiration for new projects, a company should take
advantage of its employees' ideas, choose the most promising concepts and test
them in practice; 5) the best enterprises can free themselves from the pressure
of "or or" dilemmas and attempt to combine elements which may
initially seem contradictory; 6) the candidates for top-management posts should
be selected solely from among the company's managers; their work record and
commitment to the core ideology have to be scrutinized; 7) the company has to
continuously strive for improvement, even if minor, in all areas of
operation.
The authors of Built To Last emphasized that the characteristic
feature of enterprises which have conducted operations for more than fifty
years is their conscientious adherence to an ambitious goal which may seem very
distant, which is a prerequisite of the normative evolutionary model.
The adverse consequences of the absence of an entrepreneurial style
underlie the reasons for the downfall of companies which have scored a marked
success in the period of formation, development and maturity. Companies which
initially demonstrated great efficiency and whose creation and development was
the lifetime work of great entrepreneurs fell to ruin. The main causes of their
downfall were the management errors of top managers who were initially regarded
as highly gifted; those errors resulted from [Co prowadzi do ruiny...2002, p. 28]: the entrepreneur's inability
to relegate responsibility to his/her subordinates; the managers' resilience to
the advice given by subordinates and stockholders, and the leaders' failure to
account for changes in the business environment.
Final
remarks
The analysis of literary sources and the long-term experience of
Japanese companies indicates that the philosophy of the entrepreneur and the
organization as well as the adopted management styles are the building blocks
to the success of companies which aim to maintain their competitive edge in the
long run. In the micro- and macro-economic perspective, they enable a company
to attain prospective competitiveness which is described by D. C. North
[Godłów-Legiędź 2005, p. 571] as adaptive effectiveness.
Adaptive effectiveness comprises a set of rules which determine economic growth
over time; this applies to the company's willingness to acquire knowledge,
learn, stimulate innovation, take risks, initiate creative solutions, solve
problems and eliminate obstacles to social development.
A problem which remains to be solved is the manner in which corporations
and economic systems, which lose their competitive advantage over time, can
join the group of organizations which maintain their competitiveness by
deploying a creative management style. To overcome that barrier, managers have
to demonstrate adequate skill and an innovative approach to choosing the right
management styles which cater to the needs of the environment and their organizations.
References:
Allaire Y., Firsirotu M., Myślenie strategiczne, PWN, Warszawa 2000. Cameron R., Quinn R., Kultura organizacyjna-diagnoza i zmiana,
Oficyna Ekonomiczna, Kraków
2006.
Co czyni zasady kierowania
skutecznymi, ,,Humanizacja
Pracy” 2001, nr 3-4.
Co prowadzi do ruiny
przedsiębiorstwa,
„Zarządzanie na Świecie” 2002, nr 9.
Czerska M., Zmiana
kulturowa w organizacji, Difin, Warszawa 2003.
Dyduch W., Pomiędzy
administracyjnym a przedsiębiorczym stylem zarządzania w polskich
organizacjach, „Zarządzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi” 2005 nr 1.
Godłów-Legiędź J., Główny nurt
współczesnej ekonomii: od formalizmu do nowego instytucjonalizmu,
[w:] Landreth H., Colander D. C.,
Historia myśli ekonomicznej, PWN, Warszawa 2005.
Gorynia M., Luka
konkurencyjna w przedsiębiorstwach a przystąpienie Polski do Unii
Europejskiej, „Gospodarka Narodowa”
2000, nr 10.
Grudzewski W.M., Hejduk I., Koncepcje kreowania organizacji inteligentnej w przedsiębiorstwach,
„Organizacja i Kierowanie” 1997, nr 4.
Hamel G., Innowacje
w sferze zarządzania: cele, powody i sposoby, ,,Harvard Business
Review Polska” 2006, kwiecień.
Liker J., Droga Toyoty. 14 zasad zarządzania wiodącej firmy
produkcyjnej świata, Wydawnictwo MT Biznes, Warszawa 2005.
Ławrynowicz M., Ujęcie zasobowe zarządzania zasobami ludzkimi a przewaga
konkurencyjna i wyniki działalności firmy, „Zarządzanie
Zasobami Ludzkimi” 2004, nr 1.
Morgan G., Obrazy
organizacji, PWN, Warszawa 1997.
Mroziewski M., Style kierowania i zarządzania. Wybrane
koncepcje, Difin, Warszawa 2005.
Mroziewski M., Asymetria organizacyjna a style
zarządzania, „Przegląd Organizacji” 2006, nr 1.
Müller U., Zmiana
warty w zarządzaniu, Agencja Wydawnicza ,,Placet”, Warszawa 2000.
Nowak-Far A., Globalna
konkurencja. Strategiczne zarządzanie innowacjami w
przedsiębiorstwach wielonarodowych, PWN, Warszawa-Poznań 2000.
Obłój K., Dominująca logika działania jako strategia firmy: studium
polskich przedsiębiorstw, ,,Organizacja i Kierowanie” 2002, nr 4.
Praktyka
kierowania: jak kierować sobą, innymi i firmą, Red. D. M. Stewart , PWE, Warszawa 1994.
Sąpór A., Kaizen – filozofia ciągłego doskonalenia organizacji
„Organizacja i Kierowanie” 2004, nr 4.
Senior B., Zmiana
w organizacji i rozwój organizacji, [w:] Psychologia pracy i organizacji, Red. N. Chmiel, Gdańskie
Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne, Gdańsk 2003. Stankiewicz J. M., Konkurencyjność
przedsiębiorstwa. Budowanie
konkurencyjności przedsiębiorstwa w warunkach globalizacji, Dom
Organizatora, Toruń 2002.
ŚwitalskiW., Innowacje i konkurencyjność, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego, Warszawa 2005.
Unruh L., A New style of leadership, „Practical
Accountant”, lipiec.
Weryfikacja tez bestsellera o zarządzaniu sprzed
10 lat, „Zarządzanie na
Świecie” 2005, nr Ziencik P., Wiedza w przedsiębiorstwie,
„Ekonomika i Organizacja Przedsiębiorstwa” 2003, nr 3.
Abstract
The
author discusses the premises of the new model for building long-term
competitiveness which is referred to as the normative evolutionary concept. The
proposed solution is an intermediate concept which combines elements of the
hierarchical and mechanistic approach and the systemic evolutionary approach.
In the normative evolutionary model, the main prerequisite for building
long-term competitive advantage is the development of individual and organizational
enterprise. Development strategies, policies supporting innovation and
creativity rely mainly on the adopted management principles and styles which
are characteristic of the normative approach. This group of styles comprises:
the stabilizing style, the development-stimulating style and the creative
style. A company will be able to maintain long-term competitiveness by
implementing the principles of the entrepreneurial/creative management style.