The Best of Both Worlds: Success factors of Turkish-Dutch innovative entrepreneurs In recent years, a number of countries, among them the Netherlands, attach great importance to stimulating the economic development in the country, by promoting entrepreneurship in general and within the ethnic and cultural entrepreneurial groups in particular. Innovation is generally the result of an interactive process involving synergy between the diverse backgrounds and characteristics. Based on a qualitative research, this article provides an overview of insights in the critical success factors of Turkish-Dutch innovative entrepreneurs in the Netherlands. The success factors of ethnic entrepreneurs are approached in this study from three different dimensions: individual factors, social factors, and environmental factors. The individual factors are presented as personality traits and personal motivations. The social factors are discussed from the perspective of social networks, socio-cultural and socio-economic characteristics. As for environmental factors, they are divided into regional characteristics as well as the availability of resources and the presence of opportunities. Turkish-Dutch entrepreneurs, also called “ethnic entrepreneurs”, appear proficient in linking different innovation opportunities to their own strengths. They are operating better in both worlds, and are successfully navigating between the two cultures. This article also formulates several suggestions for the Dutch government, business world and educational institutions to stimulate innovation. SAMENVATTING Het beste van beide werelden: Succesfactoren van Turks-Nederlandse innovatieve ondernemers De laatste jaren hechten vele landen, onder andere Nederland, er groot belang aan om de economische ontwikkelingen op een hoger niveau te tillen door ondernemerschap in het algemeen, en binnen de etnische en culturele groepen in het bijzonder, te stimuleren. Innovatie is een gevolg van een interactief proces waarbij synergie ontstaat tussen de diverse achtergronden en kenmerken. Gebaseerd op een kwalitatief onderzoek worden in dit artikel, aan de hand van drie verschillende dimensies, te weten individuele, sociale en omgevingsfactoren, de succesfactoren van Turks-Nederlandse innovatieve ondernemers inzichtelijk gemaakt. De Turks-Nederlandse ondernemers, ook wel “etnische ondernemers” genoemd, blijken bedreven te zijn in het koppelen van innovatiekansen aan hun eigen sterke punten. Ze komen beter tot hun recht in beide werelden, en navigeren op succesvolle wijze tussen de twee culturen door. Dit artikel formuleert een aantal aanbevelingen voor de Nederlandse overheid, het bedrijfsleven en de klanten.
As labour is becoming more and more knowledge controlled, it also getting closer to the individual person. We sometimes seem to forget this. To an increasing extent it is becoming a part of oneself and therefore of the personal identity. The increasing humanization of labour asks for an HRM-policy and an organizational context in which the individual is able to identify with the organization, colleagues, customers/clients and product. Heterononimous or abstract organizations, organizations in which the employees and civilians have been reduced to numbers and in which there is no real consideration for the individual differences, have to make way for organizational structures in which the individual feels (self) responsible again. The future lies with personal, tribally inspired organizations in which managers will be leaders and where employees and managers can show social commitment. Images like that of: the egocentric boss who by making swift career moves avoids responsibility for employee/co-worker and customer/client; of colleagues taking the day off without consultation or who are putting their phone through to someone else without saying so beforehand, meeting rooms which are not being cleaned up after use and the image of a Xerox machine not being refilled up with paper by anyone, are all too frequently dismissed as not being part of productivity.
This relationship between external knowledge providers, e.g. consultants and academic institutions, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is a difficult one. SME entrepreneurs think external advice is expensive, not required and/or not useful. In this paper these arguments are explored against the specific characteristics of SMEs. The argument of price probably tells more about the consultants inability to quantify the returns on their advice than about the cost of their services. Support policies enable free consults for SMEs on numerous topics, but the use of these facilities is relatively low. The suggestion that SME entrepreneurs do not need external knowledge is contradicted by their own assessment of their qualities. Typically the entrepreneurs lack expertise in supporting business functions like HR, IT, Finance and Legal. In SMEs these blank spots are not compensated by specialist staff members because the of the scale of the organization. The argument that the advice of an external consultant is generally not useful raises the question whether the insights gained in several business sciences only apply to large companies. This seems unlikely. Given the characteristics of SMEs the difference is probably more the context in which the insights are applied than the content of the insights itself. From the analysis of the characteristics of SMEs the dominant influence of the person of the owner/director, together with the absence of specialist staff, appeared as two of the most significant differences between SMEs and large companies. Given the personal profiles of these owners/directors as studied by Blom (Blom, 2001), the external knowledge providers should realize the three ways in consulting. The first way is the way of thinking. For this way it was stated already that the content of business sciences is not likely to differ for SMEs. The second way, the way of working, represents for the way information is gathered and the entrepreneur and his staff is involved in the process of developing the advice. In this way the consultant should allow for interaction and should make it fun for the participants. In this aspect, the process approach of consulting shows promising. The third way, the way of communicating, represents the way the knowledge is transferred from the advisor to the entrepreneur. In this way it is crucial to acknowledge the different personal profiles of SME entrepreneurs and consultants and to adjust the communication accordingly. Taking the three ways into account, the conclusion could be that the transfer of knowledge should be more the sharing of experiences. The Chair of Management Consulting will adjust her activities to explore this insight further.
