How can leaders create a culture of innovation
What is culture?
Culture is not an easily definable concept, so we can expect that defining organizational culture might be equally problematic. As A. Sulkowski has suggested, the concept of organizational culture generates many epistemological problems. Firstly, the terms used to describe organizational culture, its components, models, and typologies are ambiguous, unclear, and contradictory.
Secondly, there has not been any scholarly consensus regarding which interpretation of the term we should choose: literal or metaphorical? Thirdly, the suggested paradigm modes of description, upon which the theories of organizational culture have been developed, are highly varied. Lastly, different studies of organizational culture do not form a set of complementary views.[1] As Sukowski further suggests, organizational culture can be defined from many epistemological perspectives:
· organizational culture as the organization itself,
· organizational culture as one of the cultural circles,
· organizational culture as social "rules of the game",
· organizational culture as the identity of an organization,
· organizational culture as a system of accepted key meanings and values,
organizational culture as patterns of behavior [2].
E. Jacque's definition will be the most suitable for the purpose of this paper. In his consideration, a company's culture is a typical way of thinking and acting that is shared, learned, and assimilated at least partly among groups of employees and candidates (before they have been accepted by the organization) [3].
Hofstede cultural dimensions
According to Hofstede, five key cultural dimensions are influencing the shape of an organization's culture[4]:
1. Power distance. This dimension relates to the variable degree in which people are socially accepting the Inequalities in the distribution of power, which define the specificity and range of their submission. In low power distance cultures, members of the company are equal to each other - the power relations are democratic and employee-friendly. High power distance means hierarchical inequality - the leaders are entitled to act autocratically.
2. Uncertainty avoidance level. This aspect can be related to the tendency to take risks, accept change and perceive the future differently (as a chance or as a threat). In the case of cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, people tend to show a tendency to take more risks and tolerate the ambiguousness of Situations faced. High uncertainty avoidance means attributing high value to the notions of reliability and security.
3. Masculinity vs. femininity.
Masculine cultures are characterized by assertiveness, ambition fulfillment, and intense competition. Members of such cultures value material goods and career development. On the other hand, typical feminine values are the quality of life, cooperation, and a pleasant atmosphere at the workplace, as well as caring about others.
4. Individualism vs. collectivism. This dimension refers to the main and most important component of society - the tension between a group and an individual. This dimension defines the differences between cultures about the perceived role of an individual and therefore refers to whether the society values individuality and independence by focusing on the rights and obligations of the person and his/her obligations to himself or the social group to which the individual belongs, and to whom he/she has certain obligations.
Individualistic cultures are oriented on individual goals - employees take action in their interests and take responsibility for them. Unlike in collectivist cultures, here one puts the good of the individual over the good of the group. In collectivist cultures, employees identify emotionally with the organization, and the responsibility for the implementation of certain tasks is distributed between the people[5].
5. Confucian dynamism. Research conducted by M. Bond made it possible to isolate new - the fifth cultural dimension - a long-term orientation (LTO), called Confucian dynamism. It is characterized by the constancy of purpose, shaping relationships based on the status of the individual, frugality, thrift, and respect for tradition[6].
Herbig and Dunphy emphasize the importance of culture in the creation and adaptation of innovative technologies. They note that "cultural factors determine if, how, when and in what form innovation will be adapted"[7]. For instance, Poland is characterized by a relatively high rate of power distance and uncertainty avoidance and an average rate of individualism. As for the dimension of masculinity, Poland falls slightly above the average[8].
The results of research conducted by Sitko-Lutek are quite similar[9]. She states that the characteristics of Polish society include a high rate of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, task orientation, passive attitudes, and a high masculinity rate.
The history of capitalist industrial societies is largely the history of innovation. Innovation is widely recognized as one of the key factors fostering economic development. It is generally understood as a specific composition of personal traits. However, according to the academic literature regarding the subject, innovation is not only shaped by personal traits. The other side is shaped by the conditions inherent in the culture of a society that can stimulate or restrict innovation.
The article aims to focus on those cultural conditions and their implications for business, which lead to the formulation of questions and hypotheses regarding the differences between the cultures that support innovation The proposition put forward in this chapter is that innovation is culturally determined. Those national economies and societies that are open to all kinds of innovation and do not create artificial barriers to entrepreneurship are developing rapidly.
There are significant disparities in income levels worldwide. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people live in extreme poverty (less than $1.25 per person per day)[10]. Many of these people live in countries where per capita income is less than $905 per year[11]. Currently, 53 countries are classified as low-income countries, 34 of which are located in sub-Saharan Africa. The distribution of wealth is unequal geographically and culturally.
The wealthiest 10% of adults in the world possess 85% of global household wealth. Among these people, almost half live in the United States and Japan[12]. This raises the following question: How can we explain the differences in income levels between countries? Researchers are convinced that the answer can be found in the way the "capitalist" system operates[13] (Baumol et al., 2007), especially regarding the level of innovation.
Many analysts confirm this claim. Acs and others believe that "business is increasingly regarded as an important tool for economic growth and innovation, regardless of the stage of economic development."[14]
There have been attempts to explain why innovation differs considerably among nations[15]. There is no acceptable conceptual framework for innovation. The popular view is that the national culture of a country has a great impact on organizational culture.
Hofstede argues that national culture constrains organizational culture[16]. National culture is a major component of the broader contextual imperative that constrains organizational culture. Multinational corporations usually have special preferences for workers that suit their needs and company culture. Newman and Nollen[17] using data from eighteen countries and Hofstede's national culture dimension, found support for the thesis that business performance is better when management practices are congruent with national culture.
Based on empirical evidence, Williams et al. al.[18] argue that culture powerfully shapes the character of national innovation. They supported the hypotheses that culture influences economic creativity, and economic creativity positively influences innovation implementation, which in turn positively influences national prosperity.
Work units managed consistently with the values of the external culture are more profitable than work units in which the fit is less well achieved. Therefore, management practices should be adapted to the local culture to be most effective. Gerhart[19] was also asked to what degree national culture likely acts as a key factor in the “contextual imperative”
The conceptual analysis and re-analysis of empirical evidence done by Gerhart do not support the hypothesized notion that national culture is a constraint on organizational culture. In his opinion, organizations may have more discretion in choosing whether to localize or standardize organizational culture and related management practices (influencing innovation) than is suggested by conventional wisdom.
Culture of innovation
Heads of organizations who want innovation in the cultures of their businesses should ensure that their employees are on the right track by requesting their input when decisions are to be made and guiding them through the creative thinking process. Additionally, to stimulate innovative ideas, employees at every level should be allowed to partake in the process of decision-making; this will make leadership development transformational for the organization.
When followers are given the freedom to make decisions by leaders, experimentation with ideas is enabled in the followers, as they feel safe in this environment. This way, they can think differently by challenging themselves. When employees are allowed to give their input to the work process, they start interacting in ways that support innovation and influence the business’s future.
A crucial feature of innovation is company-wide communication, which encourages information exchange and builds trust. An open communication culture (at all levels and departments) leads to employees, even those in entry-level positions, having the necessary tools to imagine better ideas.
With strong networking skills, people can effectively and successfully manage relationships with their customers, partners, and associates. Innovation requires flexible and agile people with emotional intelligence and social skills like self-awareness, fulfillment, and empathy. All this and traditional intelligence skills are important and required. This skill ensures open global communities for companies in both virtual and real life. These skills in innovation are essential for achieving breakthroughs.
There are many smart people outside your sphere of influence, both inside and outside the company. Quality ideas help organizations become more competitive and unpredictable through crowdsourcing and innovation.
Most companies ignore the ideas of their employees that are not highly placed, but these are usually the best of the best who moved from other companies or brilliant students that have just come out of college. The new ideas given by these new additions can develop the organization in ways never imagined by the seasoned workforce.
Employees who are left out of the chain of information exchange suffer from reduced creativity levels and may be less motivated. It is therefore vital that everybody in the company participate in communications. The culture that a company eventually develops is guided by its vision and mission.
The vision and mission should be a topic of daily communication and should promote open communication. Lots of companies only give lip service to open-door policies or open communication.
Consequently, a dismal level of creativity and a lack of trust develop within the organization's culture. The assertion that leadership has the solutions to everything and that the employees shouldn’t question them is a bureaucratic and stale ideology that doesn’t inspire innovative thinking.
Companies that aim to be more innovative need a vision and mission that actively seek contributions across all levels and from all departments and support their ideas. This will ultimately empower the workforce.
Empowerment and culture of innovation
An organization with a culture of excessive pride and confidence in its intellectual capabilities is unable to get opportunities and ideas from outside. A hubris state of mind will inevitably affect the thinking of people working in departments, and this hinders innovative thinking. Comments like this include “Those people over in the operations department are all dopes” or “Don’t ask Technical; they don’t know anything.” This type of mindset blocks innovation. Innovation in such an organization thus requires job rotation programs or like-minded initiatives to expand the mindset of the workers for business functions.
With open innovation, programs can reach customers and partners. It is important to understand that their failures provide opportunities to learn and a willingness to reward their efforts and ways of learning.
Failure is a phase that every company goes through. It is a fact of life, and thus, companies have continued to pursue innovation vigorously. The response of a leader has a great effect on a company’s culture and future projects. An organization can also embrace experimentation and the failure that accompanies it with an innovative culture.
A company will continually win if it makes the best use of internal and external ideas. That company does not necessarily need to own everything.
When employees are empowered to make decisions, they can think outside the box and lead the company in innovative ways. The power transfer should occur once the employee has been fully integrated and is canke sound decisions. The power to make decisions should be gradually given to employees to ensure that they maintain their creative energy. A huge potential is unlocked when employees are given the power to work in ways that they see fit. The momentum gained from a workforce that is empowered can set an organization that is fully committed to the course of constant improvement.
Empowerment needs to be a part of the organization’s culture and should start as soon as the employee is comfortable making decisions. Since people are the biggest asset of a company, the ideas of employees must be rewarded by applying those ideas to improve outcomes and work processes. After all, this is what they do every day, so they are in the best position to give ideas for improvement. The company will inspire the workforce to constantly look for ways to produce more, save time, and cut costs by validating progressive ideas. If employees think their ideas are not welcome, they’ll never share them. This culture should embrace and celebrate smart ideas, no matter who puts them forward.
Valued members of the workforce who provide the company with innovation will need options for personal development to move the change in culture towards innovation. It is advantageous to the organization to use the need for a job change and skill development of its younger employees to drive innovation all through the culture. Employees moving departments will transfer innovative ways of thinking from one department to another by applying them in their new roles.
The constant movement of employees from sector to sector will take innovation to a new level and reduce the time spent on instilling innovation in the entire workforce of the company. If younger, less experienced employees in the organization feel stifled or stagnant, they are less likely to stay.
A good solution to placate this appetite for knowledge is to make sure that leadership is devoted to helping followers learn new job descriptions and think in innovative ways about their present positions. When titles and departments change, employees will improve work processes and drive innovation forward with a profound understanding of the bigger picture.
Companies should profit from others. Companies should also invest in innovation and intellectual property if they wish to advance their goals. They also have to seek balance in their internal and external research and development departments.
External research and Development can create value in an organization, while internal Research and Development need to claim some of that value.
You can never overstate the value of innovation in your desire to defeat and be better than your competitors. Innovation is the way forward for any organization. Organizations should also be constructive around intellectual property related to innovation, and their legal teams can play offensive or ddefensivelyAn organization must adoptpt a constructive approach that supports its progress and its business development goals. A needed change in an organization is the existence of legal teams that impede progress and growth.
Open innovation requires open communication, and companies have to find a way to work around intellectual property and confidentiality issues if they want to build an environment built on trust.
Innovative progress is not only hindered by legal teams; it can also be hindered by traditional-thinking corporate communication teams. These teams hinder the flow of communications because they want to control the flow of information. Most corporate communication teams do not understand innovation, and this is a hindrance.
Corporate innovation teams must educate organizations on communicators about open innovation.
About Hofstede's indicators, an organization based on knowledge should share the following characteristics:
Low power distance: reducing differentiation and inequality between employees has a positive influence on the process of cooperation and knowledge sharing. Scholars say that intensified control over employees reduces their commitment to work and thus weakens the search for innovative solutions, the acquisition of new knowledge, and the willingness to share existing or newly acquired knowledge[20].
There is much evidence to support the fact that the formal organizational structure hurts knowledge management[21]. Effective organizations make the flow of knowledge possible, regardless of what function or role the employee represents[22]. This is achieved mainly by adhering to the decentralized power structure and allowing low-level employees to govern themselves.
A Low level of uncertainty avoidance can lead to acceptance of uncertainties associated with risky projects, which facilitates developing and implementing innovative solutions. According to Hofstede[23] societies with a high level of uncertainty avoidance are associated with intense stress, anxiety, and a sense of constant threat.
Societies with high rates of UAI are characterized by aversion to risk and lack of tolerance, a cautious approach to new products and technologies, striving for employment stability and rare attempts to change career paths, low levels of innovation, high legal and bureaucratic entrenchment, conservatism, and respect for the law and order.
A high level of uncertainty avoidance is an obstacle in the search for optimal organizational solutions. In societies with high levels of uncertainty avoidance, there is a tendency to adopt routine, formalized procedures[24].
Low levels of individualism allow teamwork and group learning. In the Polish case, we are dealing with collectivist-individualism, a specific feature of which is an individual desire to achieve personal goals by belonging to a group that facilitates the achievement of the goal. Stor states that Poles appreciate belonging to a group but, by all means, try to protect their own identity[25]. They will support the goals of the company, but only as long as they are consistent with their personal goals.
Gliska-Newe claims that Polish individualism manifests itself through individual goals or actions and decreased loyalty to the organization.
Martin[26] suggests that knowledge management processes should, e.g., connect knowledge employees, connect people with information, and facilitate the transfer of knowledge and its dissemination throughout the organization. To achieve these objectives, the organization must create processes to promote collective problem solving, improve and simplify the work, and increase productivity[27].
Trust and culture of innovation
Trust is one of the most important factors that determine whether knowledge management initiatives prove themselves efficient. Convincing people to share their knowledge not only requires new processes but also a new alliance between employers and employees and between employees themselves.
Employees need to be confident that after sharing their knowledge, they will still be valuable to their organizations[28]. The level of trust that exists in the organization has a significant impact on the amount of knowledge transferred.
Trust is a factor that can also influence knowledge management differently. As the report of the qualitative study reveals, in the "analysis of knowledge sources concerning the local labor market, some respondents use their own informal "market research", which usually means that they deeply analyze their local environment.
This phenomenon is more common for employers who resort to such research when there is a need to find a trustworthy employee. (...) Such discernments are not carried out regularly but under the influence of the needs of a company, especially when there are problems with the staff. Independent research gives an additional chance to get to know the problems of the local labor market, identify niche professions and determine the demand for certain specialists. "[29]
A High level of masculinity—both ambitious goals and the desire to compete—can drive innovation and progress. If the company wants to compete effectively in the global economy, its management must learn strategies for the successful implementation of new technologies. Cultures characterized by a high level of masculinity are more effective in the absorption and diffusion of new technologies in an organizational context[30].
Mikułowski-Pomorski[31] refers to the results of studies showing evidence of a low degree of masculinity in Polish society. However, this claim does remain unconfirmed because of the existence of differences in the roles of women and men in society, the persisting division of emotional (female) and material (men) responsibility, the emphasis on high salaries, perceiving homosexuals as a social risk, and seeing politics as a struggle with an enemy [32]. This is also confirmed through studies, from which we can judge that most managers identify professional success with higher pay [33].
Traditional reward systems did not recognize the factor of knowledge sharing. It is important for incentive systems to encourage employees to share their knowledge. To reward knowledge management through a formal system of remunerations, it is necessary to provide a flexible structure that would give managers the ability to reward those who have demonstrated effective acquisition, use, and sharing of knowledge. In such a system, these qualities would be subject to assessment:
acquiring new skills and knowledge,
undertaking new projects and responsibilities,
activities benefiting the community or the team,
facilitating the development of other employees [34].
An organizational culture based on knowledge may be studied from the perspective of effective learning and knowledge creation and the accumulation and dissemination of the values that are necessary for such organizations (such as holistic thinking, teamwork, cooperation, trust, efficiency, and commitment to excellence) [35].
We can say that Weber already argued that capitalism would not develop without a proper "spirit", which consisted mainly of cultural esteem for intense labor and spareness.[36] It must be taken into account by these companies, whose success is largely dependent on innovation not only in technology but also in management and marketing.
Cultures that are more inclined toward innovative solutions are characterized by:
high levels of individualism
readiness to take risks
Readiness to accept change
Long-term orientation
low power distance
Low uncertainty avoidance
openness towards new information
High mobility and extensive traveling
positive attitude towards learning
High esteem for education and its impact on the quality of life in society
Societies that are distrustful to institutions are characterized by low innovativeness.
This happens because, in otoome innovative, people must be convinced that they can influence their fate.
High-quality knowledge management and investing in research and development are prerequisites without which companies cannot cope in the turbulent environment of today's business world. Organizations need to realize how important this process is to the organizational culture and how crucial its impact is on all initiatives associated with knowledge management.
A culture of innovation is an approach that always looks to develop. An establishment should letitsr staff spend time concentrating on pondering, researching, playing, and debating.
As an alternative, to allow a culture of Innovation, we all, as front-runners, should create an atmosphere in which giving and not taking is valued, recompense those who build on the thoughts of others and whose concepts are built within the difficult network of communications, from which Innovation materializes. The specialists who hold onto knowledge are never heroes. Instead, it’s those who allow the cascade and flow of knowledge, who give their creativity and knowledge away, that assist in creating the cultural circumstances out of which Innovation originates.
Transform Your Leadership and Unlock Your Full Potential with Executive Coaching
Are you eager to take your leadership skills to the next level? Do you aspire to become an exceptional executive who drives meaningful change and achieves extraordinary results? Look no further than our transformative leadership coaching and executive coaching programs.
Culture of innovation bibliography and literature
[1] Ł. Sułkowski, Epistemologia w naukach o zarządzaniu, PWE, Warszawa, 2005
[2] Ł. Sułkowski, Epistemologia w naukach o zarządzaniu, PWE, Warszawa, 2005
[3] G. Nizard, Metamorfozy przedsiębiorstwa, PWN, Warszawa, 1998, s. 79.
[4] Hofstede, G. (2000). Kultury i organizacje: zaprogramowanie umysłu. Warszawa: Polskie Wydaw. Ekonomiczne, s. 46 i następne
[5] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. International Differences in Work–Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills-London-New Delhi 1984, s. 94.
[6] M. Szopski, Komunikowanie międzykulturowe, WSiP, Warszawa, 2005, s.63.
[7] Herbig, P., Dunphy, S. (1998) ‘Culture and Innovation’, in Cross-Cultural Management: An International Journal, 5(4): 13-21, s. 14
[8] Chmielecki M., Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania wiedzą, (Cultural Determinants of knowledge management). (Dobre praktyki zarządzania wiedzą przez instytucje rynku pracy w perspektywie zmiany gospodarczej, Ecorys, Warszawa, 2011
[9] A. Sitko-Lutek, Wpływ znajomości kulturowych uwarunkowań doskonalenia menedżerów na skuteczność procesów organizacyjnego uczenia się, [w:] Instrumenty i formy organizacyjne procesów zarządzania w społeczeństwie informacyjnym, Tom 2, red. A. Stabryła, Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, Kraków 2004, s. 154.
[10] Chen, S., and Ravallion, M. (2008). ‘The Developing World is Poorer than We Thought, but No Less Successful’. Washington, DC: World Bank.
[11] Naudé, W. A., and McGee, J. (2009). ‘Wealth Distribution, the Financial Crisis and
Entrepreneurship’. WIDER Angle. Available at http://www.wider.unu.edu/publications/newsletter/articles/en_GB/10-03-2008-feature-article/ and Naudé, W. A., Santos-Paulino, A. U., and McGillivray, M. (2008). Fragile States. United Nations University Research Brief 3. Tokyo: UNU.
[12] Davies, J. B. (ed.) (2008). Personal Wealth from a Global Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Naudé, W. A., Santos-Paulino, A. U., and McGillivray, M. (2008). Fragile States. United Nations University Research Brief 3. Tokyo: UNU.
[13][13] Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., and Schramm, C. J. (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[14] Acs, Z., Desai, S., and Klapper, L. (2008). ‘What Does “Entrepreneurship” Data Really Show?. Small Business Economics Journal, 31: 265.
[15] Porter, M. E. (1990): The Competitive Advantage of Nations. – The Free Press. – New York.
[16] G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede, Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede BV, 2005
[17] K. L. Newman and Stanley D. Nollen, Culture, and Congruence: The Fit Between Management Practices and National Culture; Journal of International Business Studies (1996) 27, 753–779
[18] Williams L. K., McGuire S. J. (2010), Economic creativity and innovation implementation: the entrepreneurial drivers of growth? Evidence from 63 countries, Small Business Economics, 34, pp. 391–412.
[19] Gerhart, B. (2008), How Much Does National Culture Constrain Organizational Culture?, Management and Organization Review 5:2, pp. 241–259.
[20] Chmielecki M., Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania wiedzą, (Cultural Determinants of knowledge management). (Dobre praktyki zarządzania wiedzą przez instytucje rynku pracy w perspektywie zmiany gospodarczej, Ecorys, Warszawa, 2011
[21] D.W. De Long, P. Seeman, Confronting Conceptual Confusion and Conflict in Knowledge Management. Organizational Dynamics, 29 (1), 2000, s. 33-44.
[22] G. Symon, Information and Communication Technologies and the Network Organization: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73 (4), 2000
[23] G. Hofstede, G. J. Hofstede, Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind, Geert Hofstede BV, 2005.
[24] A. Glińska-Neweś, Kulturowe uwarunkowania zarządzania wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie, Towarzystwo Naukowej Organizacji i Zarządzania, Stowarzyszenie Wyższej Użyteczności „Dom Organizatora”, Toruń 2007, s. 203.
[25] M. Stor, Kulturowa interpretacja problemów kadrowo-organizacyjnych w korporacjach międzynarodowych w Polsce - wyniki badań empirycznych, [w:] Koncepcje zarządzania kapitałem ludzkim we współczesnych organizacjach, red. J. Stankiewicz, Uniwersytet Zielonogórski, Zielona Góra 2008, s. 3.
[26] B. Martin, Knowledge Management within the Context of Management: An Evolving Relationship. Singapore Management Review, 22(2), 2000, s. 17-37.
[27] C.H. Bixler, Plan—Build—Manage, a Strategy for Implementing Successful KM, KMWorld Magazine, 10(10), 2001; M. Blosch, The New Knowledge Management Supermodel: How Process Maps Trigger Knowledge Transfer. Knowledge Management Review, May/June (7), 1999, s. 22-25.
[28] C. Hubert, Knowledge Management: It's About Engaging Your Culture, Not Changing It. White Paper, 2002; R. Cross, L. Baird, Technology Is Not Enough: Improving Performance by Building Organizational Memory. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 2000, 69-79.; P.N. Rastogi, Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital - The New Virtuous Reality of Competitiveness. Human Systems Management, 19(1), 2000, s. 39-49.
[29] Report from the qualitative study, pp. 15-16
[30] B.L. Kedia, R. S. Bhagat, Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations: Implications for research in international and comparative management, Academy of Management Review, vol 13, No 4, 1998, s. 559-571.
[31] J. Mikułowski-Pomorski, Jak narody porozumiewają się ze sobą w komunikacji międzynarodowej i komunikowaniu medialnym, Universitas, Kraków 2007, s. 352.
[32] W. Nasierowski, M. Bogusz, Cultural Dimensions of Polish Managers: Hofstede’s Indices, Organization Studies, No 19., 1998.
[33] K. Kubik, Przedsiębiorczość determinantą sukcesu współczesnego menedżera, [w:] Kształtowanie przewagi konkurencyjnej przedsiębiorstwa, red. M. Cisek, Wydawnictwo Akademii Podlaskiej, Siedlce, 2006, s. 138.
[34] S. Brelade, C. Harman, Using Human Resources to Put Knowledge to Work, Knowledge Management Review, 3, (1), 2000, s. 26-29.
[35] B. Mikuła, Kultura organizacji inteligentnej, [w:] Podstawy zarządzania przedsiębiorstwami w gospodarce opartej na wiedzy, red. B. Mikuła, A. Pietruszka-Ortyl, A. Potocki, Difin, Warszawa 2007, s. 158.
[36] M. Weber, Etyka protestancka a duch kapitalizmu, Lublin 1994.
We invite you to explore our leadership blog and tune in to our insightful leadership podcast to elevate your leadership skills and achieve your professional goals. Stay tuned for regular updates and enriching content that will empower you to lead with confidence and excellence.