Search results

The purpose of the paper is to emphasize the performance benefits of a long-term innovation and value creation perspective. This paper responds to the recent concept of the imagination premium method for valuing companies. It offers four key takeaways to create a long-term innovation-focused orientation for future value creation.

The research is based on both consulting experience and insight from several studies of executives that were supported by the U.S. Conference Board.

The research differentiates how high versus low innovators create long-term perspectives and value. High innovators have explicit processes that support innovation, leadership that focuses on long-term performance, resources committed to long-term projects and innovation and knowledge management systems that transfer knowledge throughout the organization.

The research offers strategic directives aimed at creating long-term value but acknowledges that there are other means to accomplish such objectives.

This paper offers strategies for executives to create an innovation-focused organizational culture that drives lasting long-term value.

Focusing on long-term innovation prioritizes larger social, environmental and business objectives over superficial short-term stock price changes, leading to greater value-creation.

This paper advocates that leadership play the long game and adopt a longer-term view of innovation due to its long-term competitive, employee engagement, sustainability and performance benefits.

The purpose of this paper is to offer an opinion of current strategic thinking in North American organizations. By doing so, the paper presents a strategic model organizations can use that focuses on clarity.

The opinion and strategic framework was informed by authors’ research and consulting experiences over the past 10 years with leading companies across a variety of sectors.

Many organizations struggle with the strategic tradeoff between control, agility and risk and end up with complicated bureaucratic strategies. The strategic framework of clarity poses five questions that provides clear guidance for achieving focus.

Business leaders can apply the clarity framework to their existing strategic processes. By doing so, they can re-assess strategy and optimize their actions and outcomes to re-focus their strategic thinking in light of the new economy.

The paper offers a fresh perspective and opinion on strategy using familiar examples to executives. The clarity strategy framework provides executives with a simple but focused alternative to avoid strategic traps and learn from success and failure examples.

This article aims to highlight the results of a Global Innovation Survey from 407 organizations representing 33 countries. This was the third of three surveys conducted by the researchers since 2011. Ten key insights were formulated to gauge the progress of innovation in organizations as well as the practice and success of nine innovation methods (data analytics, design thinking, innovation metrics, etc.) used to support innovation execution.

The survey data was bifurcated into two groups, high and low innovators, by analyzing their innovation scores using a K-means cluster analysis. This was followed by correlational analysis with the innovation practices by these groups. Qualitative survey data was also collected and used to interpret the results.

Overall innovation scores have improved over the decade. Organizations are still struggling with process drivers such as idea management and innovation measures. High innovators are pervasively using innovative methods to advance innovation execution much more than low innovators. The two methods that showed the highest correlation to an innovative culture were design thinking and open innovation.

Comparing the Global Innovation Survey to two other surveys, 2011 Canadian Executives (n = 605) and 2013 US Fortune 1000 (n = 1,203) that use the same innovation measurement scale, provides a unique longitudinal perspective. The nine innovation methods investigated in the Global Innovation Survey provide original insight into how high and low innovative organizations are using methods to advance innovation execution.

In an era where competitive landscapes are changing dynamically, traditional strategic approaches are no longer delivering the value required to support growth in many organizations. In response, many organizations have pursued an innovation agenda, but with mixed results. This paper offers five implementation “shifts” for more effective strategy execution.

Based on two recent global innovation studies, five strategy shifts were identified, permitting organizations to amplify their strategy without having to completely abandon current methods. These shifts were derived by analyzing the most polarizing differences between high innovative organizations and low innovative organizations in the global innovation studies.

The five strategy shifts include the engagement in innovation culture management, strategic external collaborations, advanced technologies, innovation methodologies, and measurement of innovation.

Examples of how organizations can operationalize strategy shifts are provided so executives can increase innovativeness and see how traditional strategic approaches fall short.

The USA is the world’s largest economy, but is it a leading innovation nation? As economies mature and slow in growth, innovation will prove to be a key driver in maintaining transient advantage. This article presents a pulse on innovation in the USA as F1000 C-suite executives weigh in on their organization’s innovation health. It also compares the US score with proxy benchmark measures in other countries, and provides operational and strategic considerations to advance innovation platforms in US organizations. Managers will gain insight into common hurdles faced by some of America’s most prominent companies, as well as how to improve innovation practices in their own organization.

This current article reports on findings of innovation health in the USA based on responses from 1,127 F1000 executives (manager level and higher). F1000 executives report their innovation culture through completion of an innovation culture model survey developed by the authors. The F1000 is a listing created by Fortune magazine detailing the 1,000 largest companies in the USA based on revenues. This survey is considered one of the largest surveys on innovation culture in the USA to date.

One of the leading questions that this survey set out to answer is the current measure of innovation orientation amongst America’s largest organizations. Our findings suggest that US business is just beginning to catch the wave of innovation. Other major findings include: innovation amongst the F1000 is average at best; innovation is random and incremental; innovation strategy is missing in most organizations; there is an executive/employee innovation perception gap; innovation governance is missing; employees can not be blamed for a lack of innovation; and companies that fail to innovate will struggle even more.

There are a number of operational and strategic considerations presented to support the advancement of innovation in organizations. These include considerations around the leadership, resources, knowledge management and execution to strategically support innovation.

This is an original contribution in that it uses a scientifically developed model to measure innovation culture. It is the largest survey of innovation to date amongst the US Fortune 1000, and the finding present considerations to advance the innovation agendas of organizations.

This research surveys the recent surge of empirical studies on transfer pricing manipulation by multinational enterprises (MNEs), tax-motivated transfer pricing, particularly from the year 1990 to present. The review tackles transfer pricing income shifting behavior of MNEs from three different perspectives: taxation relationship with profitability, intrafirm trade, and foreign direct investment (FDI). There have been significant developments and contributions in this field, despite many limitations, mainly concerning the availability of micro-data in general, (specifically intrafirm trade data which allows capturing much of the heterogeneity which is dangling within inter-sectors), and the tax measurement issue. Yet, this area of study is still developing and promises more achievements.

Assists senior managers with generating new business models by mapping the competitive space occupied by knowledge intensive organizations and outlining strategic positioning options.

Provides a conceptual paper based on studies of knowledge intensive organizations.

Based on four strategic positioning characteristics, the authors identify three types of knowledge intensive organizations; diagnosis, search, and design shops. All knowledge intensive organizations are either pure types or combinations of these types.

While mapping the competitive space lets managers of knowledge intensive organizations pinpoint where they are relative to their rivals, strategy involves finding unique, profitable business models. To help managers detect potential opportunities, the paper outlines a full menu of competitive positioning options. Generating new business models in this manner should allow managers to enter existing, profitable niches or establish new, potentially profitable niches.

Few studies delineate the competitive terrain occupied by knowledge intensive organizations and then outline competitive positioning options for knowledge intensive organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how audit partner rotation impacts the negotiation strategies client management intends to use to resolve a financial reporting issue.

An experiment that manipulates between participants on whether the audit partner rotates from the prior fiscal year (rotation versus non-rotation) is conducted to test the theoretical implications of rapport. Participants with a high level of business and managerial experience indicate their intended use of 25 reliable negotiation tactics that client management may use to resolve a financial reporting issue with the external auditor. These tactics underlie three distributive (contending, compromising, conceding) and two integrative (problem solving, expanding the agenda) negotiation strategies.

The results of the study indicate that client management is less contentious and more concessionary (i.e. accommodating) to a newly rotated audit partner, as compared to an audit partner that has established rapport with client management. Further, client management is more willing to intend using integrative and compromising (i.e. co-operative) negotiation strategies when negotiating with an audit partner with established rapport in contrast to a newly rotated audit partner.

These findings underscore the merits and costs of audit partner rotation in auditor-client management (ACM) negotiations and document that partner rotation affects not only auditor behaviour, but also the behaviour of client management.

This paper is the first that considers how developing and maintaining rapport impacts ACM negotiations. The study provides empirical evidence to further inform debates over auditor rotation.