Crisis, innovation and change management: a blind spot for micro-firms?

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore how the owners of less competitive micro-firms (MFs) perceive the “crisis–innovation–change management” triangle. It examines whether their understanding of these overarching entrepreneurship theory principles is inadequate compared to the relevant scientific literature. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative analysis follows principles based on the inductive method and grounded theory, thickly describing the results from research conducted in a sample of 38 tertiary-sector MFs in the Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region – one of the least developed and competitive areas across Europe. It triangulates the data with 11 respective small firms. Findings MF owners perceive the crisis as an ostensibly exogenous phenomenon, innovation as something quasi-unattainable – although vaguely significant – and change management as a relatively unknown process. This understanding lies somewhat distant from the extant literature that examines the structural nature of crises, the innovational power to exit profound restructurings and the rebalancing requisite for building new overall organizational methods to survive this internal–external transformation. In essence, the triangle crisis–innovation–change management is a blind spot for the examined MF owners as they ignore its significance as an adaptation mechanism – contrary to several direct competitors. Social implications Based on the reluctance of these individuals to cultivate their systematic business knowledge, it seems unrealistic that they would seek to pay the necessary high price for business consulting in the future. An ideal solution would be to build public entrepreneurship clinics to provide these less dynamic and adaptable organizations with free preliminary or in-depth counseling. The Institute of Local Development-Innovation could aim to provide free consulting services to reinforce organizational physiology by coordinating different socioeconomic actors. Originality/value To the best of our knowledge, this empirical research is one of the first to test the comprehension of weaker MFs – less competitive and developed in organizational terms – to the triangle crisis–innovation–change management.

Public Support for Business, Intermediary Organizations, and Knowledge Transfer: Critical Development and Innovation Policy Bottlenecks

“…This study shows that most policies fail to support these firms adequately. Introducing the ILDIs, it proposes an integrated policy approach, as advocated by Vlados and Chatzinikolaou (2022), focusing on the microlevel through a holistic macromeso-micro framework.…”

“…This concept delineates policy initiatives tailored to each level: microlevel policies targeting firm-specific advancements, mesolevel efforts aimed at invigorating regional innovation, and macroinitiatives designed to enact extended economic and societal reforms. Integral to this policy architecture are the "Institutes of Local Development and Innovation" (ILDIs), a policy proposal designed to synergize efforts between local governance, education systems, and businesses to bolster regional entrepreneurship and reinforce less competitive firms through a strategic six-step cycle (Chatzinikolaou & Vlados, 2022). This cycle begins with establishing a diagnostic system of the socioeconomic environment and progresses through the collection and synthesis of data, dissemination of local expertise, fostering innovation, enhancing local entrepreneurial capabilities, and culminates in the ongoing assessment of development outcomes.…”

“…This cycle begins with establishing a diagnostic system of the socioeconomic environment and progresses through the collection and synthesis of data, dissemination of local expertise, fostering innovation, enhancing local entrepreneurial capabilities, and culminates in the ongoing assessment of development outcomes. Chatzinikolaou and Vlados (2022) detail how the suggested ILDIs can promote innovation through the "Stra.Tech.Man approach" (a blend of strategy, technology, and management), initially introduced by Vlados (2004). This approach compares firms to biological organisms, each with its unique "physiological" identity.…”

“…The mesolevel includes regional-local and sectoral dynamics, while the microlevel involves individual firms. It has been observed recently that actors and organizations that can contribute to business development remain quite uncoordinated, especially in less developed regional business ecosystems (Chatzinikolaou & Vlados, 2022;Rigg et al, 2021). These actors and organizations-which can be public, private, or mixed and arise from synergies among academic institutions, government interventions, and firms-include banks, business angels, venture capital firms, observatories, accelerators, technology transfer offices, coworking spaces, labor organizations, chambers of commerce, technology/science parks, incubators, and research centers (Bessière et al, 2020;Caird, 1994;Hackett & Dilts, 2004;Siegel et al, 2003).…”

“…Methodological divergence, as highlighted by Barbour (2017), has further exacerbated a fragmented understanding, with different levels often requiring distinct research approaches. Α seeming absence of integrative, "macro-meso-micro," 1 theoretical frameworks, as detailed by Zezza and Llambı́ (2002) and Mirzanti et al (2015), likely leads to a noticeable void in policymaking, particularly in addressing the specific needs of less competitive microfirms, as indicated by Chatzinikolaou and Vlados (2022).…”