Giuliana Battisti and Alfonsina Iona
This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors.
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to contribute to the debate on the drivers of the productivity gap that exists between the UK and its major international competitors.
Design/methodology/approach
From the macro perspective the paper explores the quantitative evidence on the productivity differentials and how they are measured. From the micro perspective, the article explores the quantitative evidence on the role of management practices claimed to be a key determinant in promoting firm competitiveness and in bridging the UK gap.
Findings
This study suggests that management practices are an ambiguous driver of firm productivity and higher firm performance. On the methodological side, qualitative and subjective measures of either management practices or firm performance are often used. This makes the results not comparable across studies, across firms or even within firms over time. Productivity and profitability are often and erroneously interchangeably used while productivity is only one element of firm performance. On the other hand, management practices are multi‐dimensional constructs that generally do not demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables. To assume that they are the only driver of higher productivity may be misleading. Moreover, there is evidence of an inverse causal relationship between management practices and firm performance. This calls into question most empirical results of the extant literature based on the unidirectional assumption of direct causality between management practices and firm performance.
Research limitations/implications
These and other issues suggest that more research is needed to deepen the understanding of the UK productivity gap and more quantitative evidence should be provided on the way in which management practices contribute to the UK competitiveness. Their impact is not easily measurable due to their complexity and their complementary nature and this is a fertile ground for further research.
Originality/value
This paper brings together the evidence on the UK productivity gap and its main drivers, provided by the economics, management and performance measurement literature. This issue scores very highly in the agenda of policy makers and academics and has important implications for practitioners interested in evaluating the impact of managerial best practices.
Details
Keywords
Edwin Alexander Henao-García and Raúl Armando Cardona Montoya
The main purpose of this review is to enhance the understanding of intellectual structure and outlook of management innovation research as an interesting and growing research…
Abstract
Purpose
The main purpose of this review is to enhance the understanding of intellectual structure and outlook of management innovation research as an interesting and growing research field.
Design/methodology/approach
This systematic literature review examines the question, what is the relationship of management innovation with the performance of companies and with other types of innovation? The work also pursues to summarize theories, contexts, characteristics of the papers and methodologies with the purpose of facilitating further development and opportunities and priorities for future research.
Findings
The results suggest that management innovation is an interesting and growing research field; in its relation to different types of innovation and performance, it is a field explored with theoretical approaches, contexts and methodologies that begin to form a consolidated body of knowledge. However, through a critical analysis, this review highlights the gaps in the literature and provides suggestions for future studies to further explore the field. This revision contributes to the literature on management innovation summarizing the findings and contributions of research published in the field and its relationships with innovation and performance. It then identifies three comprehensive research streams, namely, future research on conceptualization, definitions and measurements; research on the level of analysis; and future research on management innovation drivers, antecedents and use as mediator/moderator variables.
Originality/value
Management innovation is an emerging research field that is characterized as a branch of research long ignored by more orthodox lines dedicated to technological innovation and topics in product and service development research.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this study is to examine how different disciplines and sectors approach creativity, and how to improve cross-domain collaboration efficiency. Creativity is one of…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to examine how different disciplines and sectors approach creativity, and how to improve cross-domain collaboration efficiency. Creativity is one of the most important factors that hugely contributes to the growth of economy, and the key to the modern organisation’s survival. There are considerable differences between disciplines regarding how they approach creativity since each discipline has a methodology which is designed to develop new ideas. Specialisation of disciplines can create difficulties when they start to interact in collaborations. Differences between sectors (Industry, Academia, Arts and Public) in definition of creativity, creativity measurement, management and collaboration motivators can hinder cross-sector collaboration efficiency.
Design/methodology/approach
A questionnaire was distributed over the Internet, and statistical tests were performed to find differences between groups how they view various dimensions of creativity.
Findings
By analysing various disciplines, the study revealed significant differences between the reward system, the creativity measurement, the required management support and the way how various disciplines solve complex problems. Sector analysis revealed significant differences in creativity quantification, personal traits, sensitivity to idea ownership, composition and size of the ideal team, communication and incentives to increase creativity.
Research limitations/implications
In this study, only Internet users were sampled, and the majority of respondent were from Europe working in academic environment.
Practical implications
Misalignment of forces between disciplines causes inefficient cross- and multi-disciplinary collaborations, while inter-sector misalignment results in unproductive inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary teamwork. Special emphasis has to be placed on external factor, creativity measurement and collaboration motivator adjustment that were the most misaligned across the analysed groups.
Originality/value
The study indicates that to increase collaboration, efficiency factors that were scrutinised in this project have to be aligned across disciplines and sectors.