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.
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.
Between 2009 and 2013 a project has been executed in the Utrecht region to strengthen the workplace innovation capacity of SMEs (My Company 2.0). The participating companies were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the workplace innovation capacity of the company at two moments: at the beginning (T0) and at the end of the project (T1). The workplace innovation capacity was measured with questions about the organization (responds on changing demands in the environment), labor (employee flexibility), strategy (innovation with other companies) and market (improvement or renewal of products/services). We divided the companies (n=103) into two groups, namely companies that implemented an intervention an companies that did not. We found that the companies that received an intervention during the project had a significantly higher score with regard to the workplace innovation capacity at T1 compared to T0. The companies in which no intervention took place had a small (not significant) decrease in workplace innovation capacity between the baseline- (T0) and the post- test (T1). We also compared the data with data from a national reference population. It appeared that the companies in our study scored higher in workplace innovation capacity at both measurements (T0 and T1) than the reference population
