Brandsit

Tag: Business

  • Why are fewer and fewer companies being established in Poland?

    Why are fewer and fewer companies being established in Poland?

    Start-up rates are often treated as a barometer of the health of the economy. However, the latest Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM) report ‘From Uncertainty To Opportunity’ sheds new light on this statistic. Covering 53 countries accounting for more than half of global GDP, the document suggests that the era of fascination with the sheer number of startups is coming to an end. Today, the key challenge is no longer how many companies are created, but how many of them can survive the ‘valley of death’ and adopt artificial intelligence.

    Polish anomaly: Maturity instead of youth

    The situation in Poland looks paradoxical compared to the world. While in countries such as Canada or Chile, one in four adults runs a young company, in Poland the rate is three times lower. As recently as 15 years ago, there were two novices for every one mature business owner. Today, these proportions have radically reversed: for every young company, there are four established businesses.

    However, this state of affairs is not just a warning signal. Experts from the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (PARP) point to a complex structural background. The Polish economy has advanced and a saturated labour market with rising wages has become a safe alternative to risky self-employment. At the same time, the entry threshold has increased dramatically. Today’s market requires not only an idea, but massive investment in innovation and technology, which naturally rewards players already embedded in the system.

    Two gaps: Survival and AI

    The GEM report diagnoses two critical phenomena that could determine the balance of power in the global economy over the next decade: the survival gap and the AI readiness gap.

    The first is due to systemic barriers. Although the world is being flooded by a wave of new initiatives, too few of them develop into stable organisations. It is not only the lack of funding that is to blame, but above all the deficiencies in business education. Companies often ‘choke’ in the early growth stage, unable to scale operations.

    The second gap – technological – is creating a two-speed economy. Interestingly, optimism about AI is not coming from Europe. The countries where one in two entrepreneurs recognise AI as the key to the future lie outside the Old Continent. In Europe, the rate is much lower, which may herald a loss of competitiveness to markets more aggressively adopting new tools. As GEM’s Aileen Ionescu-Somers notes, the ability to use AI is now the foundation of productivity, not a technological add-on.

    Value capital

    Despite technological challenges, Poland excels in the area of values. More than 90% of young entrepreneurs on the Vistula include social and environmental impact in their business decisions, which is above the global average. Women’s activity also remains stable, almost matching that of men in Poland, which is one of the strongest foundations of the local ecosystem.

  • Managing innovation in the shadow of doubt. The art of turning cool criticism into market success

    Managing innovation in the shadow of doubt. The art of turning cool criticism into market success

    Just recall the image of a typical board meeting or pitching session in front of an investment fund. A revolutionary idea for an innovative system architecture or a cutting-edge digital product lands on the table. After a moment of tense silence, the iconic cold statement is made, suggesting that the project is too risky and that the business model will most simply not scale. In a technology industry that has lived for years in a paradigm of continuous validation, agile methodologies and seeking immediate acceptance for every iteration of a product, a lack of enthusiasm from the environment is sometimes interpreted as the ultimate failure. Meanwhile, a clash with the wall of scepticism can prove to be the most life-giving moment in the innovation lifecycle. This phenomenon, while intuitively familiar to many business pioneers, has just found indisputable confirmation in rigorous scientific research.

    It is not uncommon for today’s technology ecosystems and startup environments to fall into the trap of so-called echo chambers. Being in an environment that uncritically applauds new initiatives builds a false sense of market security. Such dynamics can lull vigilance and make entire R&D departments lazy. Business psychology, however, points to a completely different, much more powerful driving mechanism. The rejection of an innovative concept, in which the creators have invested time and intellect, is sometimes perceived at a deep level almost as a personal attack. Contrary to appearances, a confrontation of this kind rarely leads to a final capitulation. Much more often it becomes an inflammatory spark, awakening a perverse need to prove the world wrong.

    “Being in an environment that uncritically applauds new initiatives builds a false sense of market security.”

    The intuitive belief in the power of being underestimated has been put on solid ground by the work of a team from North Carolina State University. Researcher Tim Michaelis and his colleagues set out to investigate a mechanism aptly named the ‘underdog effect’, or underdog syndrome. The analysis of this phenomenon was based on three independent, complementary research phases. In the first phase, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with a group of more than four hundred and twenty entrepreneurs. Nearly three hundred and twenty of them heard an explicit prediction of failure early in their business. The conclusions from these interviews proved exceptionally clear, demonstrating that those who were predicted business failure showed noticeably higher levels of commitment to their visions. The chilling scepticism acted like a defibrillator on their determination.

    The second stage of the research, involving a group of almost five hundred and eighty participants, provided a glimpse into the mechanics of motivation itself. The experiment proved that the mere recall of a moment when someone expressed doubt about the success of a project led to an immediate and measurable increase in willingness to work. This clearly shows that the memory of the criticism experienced is not just a temporary impulse, but is a long-term source of market determination. The final proof was provided by a longitudinal study in which the actions of more than four hundred company creators were monitored for three months at regular intervals. This approach made it possible to observe how the underdog effect evolves over time. The researchers’ conclusion leaves no illusions – this psychological mechanism directly translates into work intensity, exceptional focus on operational goals and a real, tangible grounding of the company in the market.

    The above findings resonate perfectly with the day-to-day reality of the IT industry, where great ambition and merciless technological verification constantly clash. The mechanism of wanting to be proven right can effectively eliminate the phenomenon of procrastination among software architects, engineers or product managers. The frustration caused by the lack of faith of the environment forces one to enter a state of deep concentration on the so-called delivery of results. Project teams, who have had to fight for survival and justify the raison d’être of their vision from the very start, naturally build resilience. This early fortitude becomes an invaluable asset in later phases of development, for example when dealing with critical incidents in production environments or in the face of unexpected industry turbulence.

    However, it should be made clear that the glorification of the underdog syndrome carries certain analytical risks. For there is an extremely fine line between bold visionaryism and harmful blindness to macroeconomic realities. Every organisation faces the challenge of avoiding the trap in which absolutely every dissenting voice begins to be treated solely as an unfounded attack, and ignoring comments becomes an end in itself. The ability to calibrate the business compass proves to be an absolutely strategic competence in this context. On the one hand, it is worth drawing strength from general doubt, which is an unparalleled stimulant for hard work. On the other hand, however, under no circumstances should one close one’s ears to constructive criticism regarding errors in the business logic architecture, shortcomings in the user experience or gaps in the financial forecasts. The conscious implementation of substantive comments, manifested, for example, in the form of an agile pivot, ultimately separates the successful strategists from the incorrigible fantasists. Professor Michaelis’s team, moreover, is itself pointing in this direction as a target for future research, planning the search for the ideal balance point between market wind in the sails and the invigorating resistance of matter.

    “Scepticism, properly balanced and devoid of personal envy, becomes high-octane fuel.”

    The conclusions of the analyses cited above shed a refreshing new light on innovation management and building mature technology teams. From the perspective of modern business entities, it is worth realising that the complete absence of opposition when designing debuting solutions is rarely a reason for optimism. In healthy organisational structures, the presence of individuals acting as devil’s advocates – questioning the status quo and testing the logic of new concepts – is a downright desirable phenomenon. Scepticism, properly balanced and devoid of personal envy, becomes high-octane fuel. Indeed, the lack of popular acclaim does not signal a retreat, but constitutes a free dose of the most condensed business energy, capable of producing new-generation market leaders.

  • Asymmetry in business – why SMEs prefer to avoid large companies

    Asymmetry in business – why SMEs prefer to avoid large companies

    The relationship between small and large companies in Poland is still burdened by an imbalance of power. A study by the National Debt Register shows that as many as 72 per cent of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises believe that large entities exploit their advantages. For many SMEs, extended payment terms are a key problem – indicated by 60 per cent of respondents. Significantly, 44 per cent of companies admit that, for fear of risk, it is better to avoid cooperation with corporations altogether.

    This approach comes at a cost. Avoiding relationships with the big players means missed opportunities for SMEs – both for stable orders and for scaling the business. However, the fears of small companies are not unfounded. Almost 4 in 10 respondents admit that negative experiences of working with large contractors have become a reality.

    However, the survey indicates that there are ways to minimise risks and create a more collaborative relationship. The most frequently mentioned are precise contracts and their legal analysis (37 per cent of indications), transparent communication and regular discussions about the quality of cooperation (30 per cent), as well as the use of advance payments or factoring to secure liquidity.

    Companies also advise verifying counterparties in business information offices (28 per cent) and diversifying the client portfolio to avoid overdependence on one large entity (27 per cent). This is a pragmatic approach: a large partner can be a source of stable revenue, but over-dependence on one contract increases vulnerability to crises.

    According to entrepreneurs, the balance could be improved by systemic solutions – e.g. industry contract standards or restrictions on the use of assignment bans. The latter safeguard, readily used by large companies, prevents SMEs from benefiting from factoring and thus limits their ability to maintain liquidity.

    The problem of asymmetry is not exclusive to Poland. According to European Commission analyses, extended payment terms are one of the main factors in SME bankruptcy in the EU. Therefore, work has been going on for years to introduce uniform payment rules that would strengthen the position of smaller companies.

    The paradox is that, although cooperation with large counterparties is feared, in the long term it is precisely this that can open the way for small companies to larger markets and innovative projects. The key question remains how many SME entrepreneurs will abandon this path because of concerns – and how many will thus close the door to growth.

  • A valuable employee is a critical employee. Why do managers ignore him?

    A valuable employee is a critical employee. Why do managers ignore him?

    Companies declare that they value employees who challenge the status quo. However, new research shows that managers, acting under the instinctive defence of their position, systematically prefer to promote noders. This trap of conformism, while psychologically understandable, poses a serious threat to the development of any IT organisation.

    Two independent studies, conducted with Bradley Kirkman, a professor at North Carolina State University, shed light on a paradox in supervisor-employee relationships. On the one hand, employees who are not afraid to voice concerns, point out potential problems in strategy or question decisions – described by the researchers as using a ‘critical voice’ (challenging voice) – have a key positive impact on company performance. They are more creative, innovative and more likely to take responsibility.

    On the other side are employees using a ‘supportive voice’, who actively support the existing order and praise management decisions. They are the ones, as the research shows, who are favoured by managers.

    Two continents, one conclusion

    To understand this mechanism, the researchers conducted two separate studies. The first involved 143 managers and 266 of their subordinates from different industries in China. For six weeks, the participants completed questionnaires to analyse each other’s attitudes and behaviour. The second study was an experiment in which 528 Americans took on the roles of leaders and were asked to evaluate and decide the career path of fictional employees characterised by either a critical or supportive attitude.

    The results in both cases were clear. Employees who constructively challenged decisions were judged to be less worthy of promotion. Managers consistently preferred those who offered their support.

    Risk psychology and IT culture

    The main reason for this phenomenon lies in the psychology of power. Kirkman’s research has shown that managers perceive the ‘critical voice’ as a personal threat to their position and authority. Challenging their decisions is subconsciously interpreted as an attack on their competence. The ‘supportive voice’, on the other hand, is perceived as evidence of loyalty and a signal that the employee shares his or her manager’s goals, which builds a sense of security in the manager.

    In the IT industry, where ‘fail fast’ culture, agile methodologies (Agile) and continuous iteration are fundamental, this approach is extremely disruptive. Development teams, where reporting problems (impediments) is penalised and challenging misguided architectural assumptions is frowned upon, lose the ability to self-correct. This leads directly to groupthink, a phenomenon in which seeking consensus and avoiding conflict kills innovation and leads to disastrous product decisions.

    The exception that proves the rule: how to be a valuable critic?

    Importantly, the research identified a key factor that neutralises the negative perception of criticism. Managers did not feel threatened if the employee, in addition to expressing constructive concerns, also showed high levels of engagement and helpful behaviour.

    In other words, if a developer who points out an error in the logic of an application is at the same time proactive, helps his teammates and supports the manager during busy periods, his critical comments are perceived as a valuable contribution and not as an undermining of authority. Such an employee demonstrates that his or her goal is the success of the project, not a personal gambit. His or her intentions are perceived as pro-social, which builds trust.

    There is an important lesson for managers in technology companies. The key is to consciously overcome the instinctive defensive reaction to criticism. Rather than seeing it as a threat, learn to assess it through the lens of the employee’s overall commitment and intent.

    An organisational culture that promotes psychological safety – that is, an environment in which problems and mistakes can be talked about without fear – does not arise on its own. It is an active process that requires leaders to be mature and understand that true value to the company comes not from unreflective applause, but from substantive, engaged discussion. Ultimately, organisations that learn to protect and reward their constructive critics will gain a strategic advantage in the marketplace. Those that choose the comfort of conformity will risk stagnation and failure.