Contribution and presentation at the International Conference on Population Geographies - Groningen, June 2013.
Purpose: Intellectual capital theory and practice predominantly focus on measuring and managing intangible assets. However, if we want to balance the intellectual capital books (Harvey and Lusch, 1999), we should recognize both intellectual assets and intellectual liabilities (Caddy, 2000). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to present a theoretical framework for measuring intellectual liabilities. Design: Identifying intangible liabilities is identifying the risk of decline and fall of organizations. One of the first extensive studies related to causes of decline and fall is Gibbon‟s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Gibbon, 2003 [original publication 1776]). It seems as if the main lessons that were drawn from this study are also applicable to today‟s business environment. Therefore, the framework that is developed in this article is not only based on intellectual capital literature, but also on Gibbon‟s study into the causes of decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Findings: The findings are combined in a framework for measuring intellectual liabilities. The main distinction within the proposed framework is the distinction between internal and external liabilities. Internal liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that arise from the sources of value creation within the organization. External liabilities refer to the causes of deterioration that come from outside and are beyond control of the organization. Originality: This article explores a relatively new topic (intellectual liabilities) from a perspective (historical sciences) that is hardly used in management science.
The external expectations of organizational accountability force organizational leaders to find solutions and answers in organizational (and information) governance to assuage the feelings of doubt and unease about the behaviour of the organization and its employees that continuously seem to be expressed in the organizational environment. Organizational leaders have to align the interests of their share– and stakeholders in finding a balance between performance and accountability, individual and collective ethical approaches, and business ethics based on compliance, based on integrity, or both. They have to integrate accountability in organizational governance based on a strategy that defines boundaries for rules and routines. They need to define authority structures and find ways to control the behaviour of their employees, without being very restrictive and coercive. They have to implement accountability structures in organizational interactions that are extremely complex, nonlinear, and dynamic, in which (mostly informal) relational networks of employees traverse formal structures. Formal processes, rules, and regulations, used for control and compliance, cannot handle such environments, continuously in ‘social flux’, unpredictable, unstable, and (largely) unmanageable. It is a challenging task that asks exceptional management skills from organizational leaders. The external expectations of accountability cannot be neglected, even if it is not always clear what is exactly meant with that concept. Why is this (very old) concept still of importance for modern organizations?In this book, organizational governance, information governance, and accountability are the core subjects, just like the relationship between them. A framework is presented of twelve manifestations of organizational accountability the every organization had to deal with. An approach is introduced for strategically govern organizational accountability with three components: behaviour, accountability, and external assessments. The core propositions in this book are that without paying strategic attention to the behaviour of employees and managers and to information governance and management, it will be extremely difficult for organizational leaders to find a balance between the two objectives of organizational governance: performance and accountability.
