| Unleashing Human Creativity in Organizations: The Bureaucratic versus the Entrepreneurial Mindset |
| | Meyer, G. Dale | U. of Colorado, Boulder | g.meyer@colorado.edu | 303-492-5962 |
| | Corbett, Andrew Coleman | U. of Colorado, Boulder | andrew.c.corbett@colorado.edu | (303) 938-9323 |
| | The fundamental premise of this paper is that creativity is the genesis of entrepreneurial activity and bureaucracy is the mortal enemy of creative processes. Wherever and whenever the bureaucratic mind prevails over the creative mind, entrepreneurship is chilled or driven underground. It is therefore critical that institutions and organizational structures and policies are established to enhance creativity in order for entrepreneurship to thrive. This paper suggests propositions for ways in which organizations can reduce bureaucracy and foster a more entrepreneurial mindset. A conceptual model is also presented that could be used to identify sources of bureaucracy and/or assist in reducing bureaucracy within organizations. |
| | Keywords: bureaucracy; creativity; entrepreneurship |
| Quality Practices for Enabling Change: A Survey of Small Firms |
| | Goodale, John C. | Ball State U. | jgoodale@bsu.edu | (765) 285-5323 |
| | Hornsby, Jeffrey S | Ball State U. | jhornsby@bsu.edu | (765) 285-5306 |
| | Kuratko, Donald F. | Ball State U. | kuratko@sbe.nova.edu | 765-285-5327 |
| | This exploratory study examines the quality practices used in small and entrepreneurial firms. The current literature defines one of the primary competitive priorities for small firms as flexibility. The competitive priority flexibility addresses the dynamic nature of the marketplace in which small and entrepreneurial firms compete. We develop an exploratory proposition that relates the characteristics of quality systems used by small firms, and their value, to this competitive priority. The classification scheme for the quality systems used in this paper is consistent with the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award (MBNQA) performance criteria. A survey of 184 small firms found that systematic collection of business performance information (Information and Analysis Category), and measurement of customer satisfaction and service quality (Customer and Market Focus Category) are widely used and valuable. Formal quick-response programs (Process Management Category) were identified as a strategy or tool with high value, however it was not widely used in these small firms (<20%). The results support the proposition that small firms tend to employ quality practices that enable change and position the firm to pursue flexibility as a competitive priority. The paper concludes with a discussion of the insights generated by our findings and the directions for research and practice. |
| | Keywords: Quality; Entrepreneurship; Baldridge Award |
| Responding to innovations in marketing and service: The strategies of independent retailers |
| | Rubach, Michael J. | U. of Central Arkansas | mrubach@mail.uca.edu | (501)-450-5341 |
| | Jeffrey, McGee M. | U. of Texas, Arlington | jmcgee@uta.edu | (817)-272-3868 |
| | Mass merchandisers and discount chain stores are changing the retail industry through innovations in marketing and service. Driven
by this increased competition and discriminating customers, small independent retailers are searching for ways to gain and sustain
competitive advantage. Past competitive behaviors that concentrated on a single, discrete business strategy may no longer be
capable of delivering the value which customers seek. Competitive advantage will likely come from the adoption of a combination
strategy encompassing both low cost/low price leadership and differentiation. This study examines the competitive behaviors and
performances of 236 small independent retailers. Using cluster analysis, the study identifies four generic retailing types. Its findings
indicate that retailers that follow a low cost/low price leadership strategy were most successful. However, retailers that followed a
combination strategy were also successful. Retailers that adopted a differentiation strategy or had no clearly defined strategy were
the worst performers. The findings suggest that the success enjoyed by differentiators may be eroding, and that successful retailers
of the future will need to be equally effective at cost reduction and competitive pricing. |
| | Keywords: small business; strategies; retail |