The sociological theory of isomorphism, which refers to the similarity of the processes or structure of one organisation to those of another, proves useful in explaining this homogeneity. Di Maggio and Powell (1983:150) identified three mechanisms through which institutional isomorphic change occurs, each with its own antecedents: (1) Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and informal pressures exerted on organisations by other organisations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organisations function. (2) Mimetic isomorphism results from uncertainty that encourages imitation. When technologies are not clearly understood, goals are ambiguous, or when the environment creates uncertainty, organisations may model themselves on other organisations. (3) Normative isomorphism results primarily from professionalisation, which is the collective effort of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work and to establish a cognitive base and ligitimation for their occupational autonomy.

Due to my involvement in higher education, and more specifically in MBA education, I am naturally inclined to consider the role management education plays in contributing to normative isomorphism which, among others, has to do with establishing a cognitive base for management practice. Di Maggio and Powell (1983:152) contests that the resting of formal education and of legitimation in a cognitive base produced by educational specialists is an important source of isomorphism.

Management educators are important centres for the development of organisational norms. Generally speaking, however, most providers of management education draws from the same management theories to create a cognitive base. Although the principles and methods of instruction vary, the theoretical foundation is largely similar.

My submission is that the existing cognitive base has the potential to create a pool of almost interchangeable individuals who occupy similar positions across a range of organisations and possess a similarity of orientation and disposition. But is this necessarily negative? I propose, as far as, for example, business ethics, social responsibility, corporate governance and emotional intelligence is concerned, it is most definitely beneficial. However, when the similarity of orientation and disposition may override innovation in management principles and processes that might otherwise shape organisational behaviour, I regard it as negative.

So, what can management educators do to not get trapped in normative isomorphism? Well, for starters I propose including philosophy into the methods of instruction and readings; philosophy addresses the “big questions” which do not fall into other disciplines, i.e. how we should act (ethics), what exists (metaphysics), how we know what we know (epistemology), and how we should reason (logic) (Anissimov, 2011). Philosophy’s goal is nothing less than a systematic world view. Other fields study particular kinds of things; philosophy asks how it all fits together (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2011). Coetzee (2011) also argues that philosophy is what is required to break the glass-ceiling of MBA education.

Next I propose more emphasis on innovation in management principles and processes. According to Hamel (2006:75) a management innovation can be regarded as a marked departure from traditional management principles, processes, and practices or a departure from customary organisational forms that significantly alters the way the work of management is performed. Put simply, management innovation changes how managers do what they do, and can create long-lasting advantage.

Thirdly, I propose enforcing the uniqueness principle; in terms of the uniqueness principle of Nadler and Hibino’s (1998) breakthrough thinking theory, one should not copy a solution or use a technique from elsewhere just because the situation may appear to be similar. We can’t clone others’ successes; copying what others do or have done doesn’t necessarily produce the same results. No two situations are alike; to begin with, people in each situation are different.

In the quest to ensure that graduates are equipped to meet the challenges of contemporary global business and capable of managing in environments marked by constant change, management educators should take note of the benefits and disadvantages of normative isomorphism as a result of the cognitive base produced by them. Build on the benefits and seriously reflect on addressing the disadvantages… we owe it to commerce and industry.

I think instinctively mankind desires to “make meaning,” to “create value,” to “satisfy needs and wants” in response to the stimuli of our physical environment. From the invention of the wheel around 8000 BC to the advent of the Internet this is evident. Surely, this instinct is more acute, more “awake” in some people than in others. This more intensified state in some, I posit, could be ascribed to exposure to learning though education, training and development, whether informal (in family or communal context) or formal (schooling). In other words, entrepreneurial instinct is akin a seed that lies dormant in all humans, and is fertilised by upbringing, social interaction, primary-, secondary and tertiary schooling – what I call total societal exposure. In other words, exposure to the collection of relationships between individuals, that consists of distinctive cultural, economic, educational, political, religious, and technological properties. It is in this exposure that entrepreneurial conditioning takes place (or do not take place) – subliminal conditioning – conditioning that takes place below the threshold of conscious perception.

Yes, I hear voices that argue a case for certain attributes that are desirable for entrepreneurial success, attributes not prevalent in all people, and, yes, I’m in accord. However, looking at human ability in general, most people can run, albeit not all at the same speed; most people can hold their breath, albeit not all for the same length of time; most people can pick up things, albeit not all the same weight; most people can sing, albeit not all at the same tone. There are thus abilities inherent to all people, and I propose, entrepreneurship is one of them. Rather than to categorise people in two distinct different groups, i.e. those who can be entrepreneurial en those who cannot be entrepreneurial, I propose that, generally speaking, most people can be entrepreneurial

Yes, I am generalising, and that is exactly my thesis: All humans with a sound mind, ceteris paribus, have the innate potential to think and act entrepreneurially. The antithesis would juxtapose that not all people with a sound mind has the innate ability to be entrepreneurial, a proposition I submit that is not grounded in sufficient empirical evidence.

We are often led to believe that entrepreneurship is the domain of a select few. Of course, not everyone will become entrepreneurs, but that is not the issue; the issue is human potential; what people can become because of dormant instinct. We know that entrepreneurship is fundamentally a human, creative act, and involves: (1) a process, (2) the creation of value where there was none before, (3) putting resources together in a unique way, and (4) opportunity driven behaviour. I therefore propose that entrepreneurship is a blend of instinct and learned behaviour – It is inherently part of human nature and manifests in relation to the extent of the total social exposure. The extent of the exposure will thus determine the extent of the orientation.

The team form MBS presented their innovative and revolutionary water purification product primarily aimed at rural communities and Municipalities. The product offering, One-drop, is made from a non-hazardous, non-chemical solution produced through the formation of ions in the water, free of harmful chemicals and toxins. For millions of people living in the rural communities without running water who have to rely on non-piped raw water for their daily needs, One-Drop will be able to purify contaminated water that gives rise to water-borne diseases. The solution brings a portable purification system that does not require advanced physical distribution network. The One Drop product will be supplied through the community owned and operated distribution centres which will increase employment and activate social entrepreneurship in rural communities.

For the MBS team, the whole experience – starting with the executive summary round, and culminating in the global finals – was a perspective-shifting journey, a journey of growth, learning and discovery. We gained valuable exposure and feedback from some of the greatest minds in social innovation, and we made new friends from all over the world. A truly remarkable experience, and our sincere thanks go to the MBS executive who made our participation possible, our supporters in SA, our regional organizers, the Indian Business School in Hyderabad, India, and the global organizers, the Haas School of Business at UC Berkley.

We congratulate the 2011 winners: 1st place: NextDrop, University of California, Berkeley / Stanford University, USA; 2nd Place: Sanergy, MIT Sloan School of Management, USA; 3rd Place: TreePlanet, Handong University, Korea.

The Milpark Business School team from left to right: Rapula Modibane, Lesley Luthuli, Muhammed Patel, Lindani Ntombela, Cobus Oosthuizen (Faculty Advisor), Maggie Modipa.

The Global Social Venture Competition is the largest and oldest student-led business plan competition providing mentoring, exposure, and prizes for social ventures from around the world. The purpose of the competition is to catalyze the creation of social ventures, educate future leaders and build awareness of social enterprises. The competition thus supports the creation of real businesses that bring about positive social change in a sustainable manner… Well done to the MBS-team! We are proud of you!

In addition, South Africa as a nation must upgrade its ways of competing if successful economic development is to occur; our companies must shift from competing on comparative advantages (low-cost labour or natural resources) to competing on competitive advantages arising from unique products and processes, and move from tapping foreign distribution channels to building our own channels. From the literature on entrepreneurship, it becomes evident that it has the potential to improve and increase productivity and ultimately GDP.  It is therefore safe to suggest that an increase in entrepreneurial activity could potentially lead to an increase in productivity (and employment) that in turn could lead to an increase in real GDP.  An increase in real GDP induces increased sales flows to the different factors of production – managers, workers, landowners, shareholders, and other input suppliers – and national income increases correspondingly.

What needs to be accomplished is a national strategy for entrepreneurial development in South Africa to spearhead and coordinate entrepreneurial development in South Africa on a national level. The ultimate purpose is to induce economic growth and making South Africa a stronger competitor in the mainstream global economic arena. A vehicle to bring such a strategy to fruition could be a unified national centre consisting of stakeholders from government and private sector to lead and coordinate entrepreneurial development across the country. The four key performance areas should be to (1) improve the level of overall education and training; (2) promote entrepreneurship as a career path of choice; (3) improve access to finance; and (4) influence policy in terms of the regulatory environment.

Kurt Lewin conceived of change as modification of those forces keeping a system’s behaviour stable.  In relation to this discussion, it implies modifying those forces keeping South Africa’s entrepreneurial behaviour stable. Change efforts falls on a continuum ranging from incremental changes that would involve fine-tuning South Africa’s entrepreneurial position to quantum changes that would entail fundamentally altering how South Africa operates in terms of its entrepreneurial activity. What we need is an “entrepreneurial transformation,” which implies radical changes in how South Africans perceive, think, and behave in terms of entrepreneurship.  It must supersede “making things better” or fine-tuning the status quo.  It concerns fundamentally altering South Africa’s assumptions about its entrepreneurial functioning and how it relates to the global environment. Changing these assumptions entails significant shifts in our philosophies and values and in the numerous structures and arrangements that shape our current entrepreneurial behaviour. This change will inevitably require leadership… who will stand up to the challenge?

Obviously, the quality and quantity of evidence I require will vary from claim to claim. If you tell me that you have a car, I’ll probably accept the claim just on your word. You’re not likely to get anything out of making up stories about owning a car and I know that most people own a car.  If you tell me that you have a car that flies, on the other hand, I’m going to want to at least see the car fly before I believe you.

This attitude is not cynicism – skepticism is not the same as cynicism. Cynicism is more an emotion of jaded negativity, or a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people. Skepticism is a method for discerning truth from fiction, which merely starts from a neutral standpoint and aims to acquire certainty though scientific or logical observation. My position is thus one that seeks to establish the authenticity of scientific and historical claims through a logical and impartial evaluation of the available evidence. I believe this to be a reliable method to distinguish truth from fiction and to uniformly apply these principles to all ideas – new or old, established or controversial. If this makes me a skeptic, then I’m a skeptic…

The article resonated with me personally as I recognised the pattern alluded to in my my own cognition. Duggan suggests that we can expect more techniques based on the new science of intelligent memory to replace methods from the previous paradigm. He posits that companies that get there first will have a distinct advantage… Truly recommended reading – click here for the article.

The climate of an organisation can therefore have significant impact on performance and is hence an important consideration for organisational success.

Now for the “greenhouse effect”: The earths’ greenhouse effect is produced as greenhouse gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone allow incoming solar radiation to pass through the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent most of the outgoing infrared radiation from the surface from escaping into outer space. The process occurs naturally, and without it, the earth’s temperature would be much colder and less suitable for life. The “organisational greenhouse effect” parallel is the effect created as “organisational greenhouse factors” such as leadership and culture allow incoming “human radiation” (creativity, innovation, individual experiences., etc.) to pass through the “organisation’s atmosphere” (structure), and prevent this “radiation” from escaping. The process, in an organisational context, does however not occur naturally. It takes focused commitment and action from leadership to make it happen. Important, however, is that without it, the organisation’s climate would be less suitable for healthy “organisational life.”

The organisational ecosystem is therefore actually a very delicate system. As a seemingly insignificant occurrence in a natural ecosystem can have devastating effects in the long run, so can a seemingly insignificant occurrence in an organisational ecosystem have a lasting adverse effect on the organisation’s longevity and sustainability. Within the organisational ecosystem the importance of leadership is obviously central. If the organisational ecosystem is to be a place where individuals and teams can “bloom,” focused efforts on climate related issues such as autonomy, trust, cohesiveness, support, recognition, innovation and fairness should take centre stage because they are consciously perceived by organisational members. Sustained high-performing behaviour is strongly related to perception of these issues, and a major thrust behind corporate success is therefore to foster a climate for the revitalisation of innovation, creativity, and managerial development in companies – pursuing the “organisational greenhouse effect.”

Because organisational climate is also considered to be often subject to direct manipulation by people with power and influence, a key leadership function is thus to promote, establish and maintain an organisational climate conducive for human talent to flourish. This is essential for creating and managing a high-performance architecture – the network of relations within, and around an organisation, its employees, suppliers, customers and stakeholders.

What is the climate like in your neck of the woods?