Why is organic growth better for innovativeness than other growth strategies? What's the difference?
Many other contributors have added and will add responses. However, I want to add the strategic implications. Unless an actor or entity has organic development, it will not sustain for a long term. Look around and see some rich countries that could import and buy anything at a time. Eventually, however, they are still there compared to new comers who have internal drive. The same goes with firms. The organic innovation is good for long-term, the other (whatever you call it) is good for short-term performance (money).
I don't know if I misunderstood your question or if I should disagree immediately. Your question contains a strong statement (organic growth is better for innovativeness than [all?] other growth strategies). Why should it be like that? Are there sources that support this claim with logical arguments? What about open innovation approaches? What about companies that take over innovative companies and thus integrate new, innovative ideas in order to become more innovative? Especially in dynamic industries such as IT, this is absolutely common. What do you mean by "better" and how do you define innovativeness exactly?
Dear Christian,
this was the response I got from one of RG members on my previous question regarding SME innovativeness. I was also wondering about the statement, and that's why I posted this question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation