The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5794.htm

CCSM
26,2 Competitive Productivity (CP) at
macro–meso–micro levels
Chris Baumann
Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia and
118 SNU Business School, Seoul National University (SNU),
Seoul, The Republic of Korea
Received 16 August 2018
Revised 29 November 2018 Michael Cherry
31 January 2019
Accepted 5 February 2019 Faculty of Business and Economics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia and
Raffrey Consulting, Sydney, Australia, and
Wujin Chu
SNU Business School, Seoul National University (SNU), Seoul, The Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of competitiveness. The authors
introduce the concept of Competitive Productivity (CP), supplementing shortcomings of traditional
understandings of national, organisational and individual productivity which overlook the nature of
competitiveness, i.e. outperforming the competition, or at least bettering one’s own performance. The authors
offer definitions, components and construct measurements of CP at three levels: macro, meso and micro.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the need for
combining productivity and competitiveness into one new construct. There are theories that combine
these ideas – e.g., the resource-based theory of the firm – but the authors are presenting these concepts
differently, or in a novel way. The authors’ focus on CP makes necessary a new group of construct measures
which are different from that of the strategy literature: the authors measure an agent’s tendency “to be better
than the competition” along multiple dimensions. Based on the CP construct, the authors present three testable
models to uncover determinants of CP at three levels (macro, meso and micro). Finally, the work around
“emergent property” can be applied to examine CP itself as being a determinant for other higher-order outcomes
such as welfare, profits and life satisfaction. CP forms a platform to explore likely interplay (bottom-up and/or
top-down mechanisms) within the micro–meso–macro architecture.
Findings – Three CP models were developed and are briefly discussed in this paper: first, a National
Competitive Productivity (NCP) model to capture the components/drivers of national CP (macro level). Second,
a Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP) model to capture the components/drivers of firm CP within an
industry context (meso). And finally, an Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP) model capturing the
components/drivers of CP at the individual (micro) level.
Originality/value – The study provides a combined approach to capture productivity and
competitiveness within one innovative concept: CP. It can be used by government and policy makers
(NCP model), managers and organisations (FCP model), and individuals such as workers and students (ICP
model) to evaluate and enhance their performance. A better understanding of the components/drivers of CP
at the three levels and the suggested measurement of CP should provide a stronger theory of
competitiveness of nations, firms and individuals. Not least should a focus on the three levels (macro, meso
and micro) better prepare citizens, firms, workers and students to effectively function and work in the
marketplace and in society. The authors’ work should eventually contribute to more effective
benchmarking and continuous improvement in the competitiveness domain. Crucially, this conceptual
paper forms the foundation for future empirical testing of CP components in the context of the relative
values and moderated behaviour as captured by the ReVaMB model.
Keywords Competitiveness, Productivity, Benchmarking, Competitive Productivity (CP),
Emergent property, Macro–meso–micro architecture
Paper type Conceptual paper

Cross Cultural & Strategic

Management Introduction
Vol. 26 No. 2, 2019
pp. 118-144
As separate areas of study, productivity and competitiveness have each been
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
extensively researched, but what has been overlooked is how the two concepts might
DOI 10.1108/CCSM-08-2018-0118 work together. Mechanisms to improve productivity originate in the manufacture of
physical products, where streamlined processes have long been applied (Taylor, 2004). Competitive
As a separate domain, competitiveness has been largely explored in the context of Productivity
competitive advantage for firms (Porter, 1980) and global competitiveness at the
national level (Porter, 1990). While the literature[1] to date offers few combined
perspectives, we propose that they could be conceptualised together as Competitive
Productivity (CP). Another – and equally important – rationale for our work presented
here as the “CP paper” is in thinking about competitiveness at the national, organisational 119
and individual levels.
Historically, the development of concepts in relation to competitiveness has evolved from
the early understandings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo to the more recent work by
Michael Porter. The key terminology and concepts include, in chronological order:
(1) Absolute advantage: trade as positive-sum (Smith, 1776).
(2) Comparative advantage:
• differences in labour productivity (Ricardo, 1817); and
• differences in factor endowments, labour, capital (Heckscher and Ohlin, 1933).
(3) Competitive advantage: competitiveness through acts of innovation (Porter, 1980);
differentiation approach (product/service quality, brand positioning) or cost
leadership (pricing).
(4) The Five competitive forces (Porter’s, 1980 five forces): the five forces that shape
industry competition such as:
• threat of new entrants;
• bargaining power of buyers;
• threat of substitute products or services;
• bargaining power of suppliers; and
• competitive rivalry.
(5) Resource-based view of the firm: pecuniary instrument to allocate strategic firm
resources in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1986, 1991;
Barney et al., 2001).
(6) Determinants of national competitive advantage (Porter’s, 1990 Diamond Model):
global competitiveness and competitive advantage of nations based on:
• factor conditions: nation’s position in factors of production, e.g. skilled labour
and infrastructure, necessary to compete in a given industry;
• demand conditions: nature of home-market demand for the industry’s product
or service;
• related and supporting industries: presence or absence in the nation of supplier
industries and other related industries that are internationally competitive; and
• firm strategy, structure and rivalry: conditions in the nation governing how
companies are created, organised, and managed, as well as the nature of
domestic rivalry.
(7) Double Diamond Model: multinational activity and government (Rugman and
D’Cruz, 1991).
(8) The Nine-Factor Model: dynamic approach to international competitiveness (Cho, 1994).
CCSM (9) Hypercompetition: rapid, dynamic competition with unsustainable advantage
26,2 (D’Aveni, 1998); crucial are time management and speed to market for new products
and services; “the winner takes it all” (i.e. generate resources for R&D for future
product/service introductions).
(10) Generalised Double Diamond Model: incorporating multinational activities
(Moon et al., 1998).
120 (11) Competitive Productivity (CP): In essence both an attitude and behaviour directed at
beating the competition through pragmatism (Baumann and Pintado, 2013; this paper).
The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual perspective on the interrelation
between productivity and competitiveness, both of which have previously been defined
separately as follows:
• Productivity: “Productivity is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume measure of
output to a volume measure of input use. While there is no disagreement on this
general notion, a look at the productivity literature and its various applications
reveals very quickly that there is neither a unique purpose for, nor a single measure
of, productivity” (Schreyer, 2001, p. 12).
• Competitiveness: The World Economic Forum in Davos/Geneva, Switzerland, defines
competitiveness as “[…] the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the
level of productivity of a country” (Schwab and Sala-i-Martin, 2014, p. 4).
“Competition is a market condition, whereas competitiveness is about the ability to
create competitive advantage (Baumann et al., 2017), the ability to outperform
competitors by providing better value through a combination of price and product/
service quality. Competitiveness is a relative construct: Competitive advantage is only
meaningful when comparing competing brands [or other entities]” (Winzar et al.,
2018, p. 640; [emphasis added]).
While traditionally competitiveness has been conceptualised, measured and tested at the
macro level (the competitiveness of nations) and meso level (the competitiveness of a firm
within an industry), there is an increasing stream of literature exploring individual
competitiveness (the individual worker/student)[2]. Economists have long followed, in one
way or another, a micro–meso–macro architecture (Dopfer et al., 2004) with the elements
relating to one another through the evolutionary concept of a meso trajectory, or “economic
evolution” (Potts, 2000):
Economics involves a micro–macro division of analysis. Micro is individual choice, and macro is its
aggregate consequences. The sum of micro is macro, and the decomposition of macro is micro.
(Dopfer et al., 2004, p. 264)
A cursory review of the literature indicates that a trilogy architecture is applied beyond
economics, e.g. macro, meso and micro industry lifecycles (Saviotti and Pyka, 2008), social
structure (Edwards, 2003), healthcare policy (Kapiriri et al., 2007), education (Dysthe and
Engelsen, 2011) or organisational behaviour (House et al., 1995), to name the most prominent.
Naturally, these varying levels resulted in equally varied definitions and measurements,
and with again equally varied findings in terms of which components may explain
competitiveness. For example, Mudrack et al. (2012) looked at the ethical component of
individual competitiveness; many looked at trait competitiveness (e.g. Wang and
Netemeyer, 2002; Karatepe, 2006; Houston et al., 2002), others at self-efficacy
(e.g. Liem et al., 2008). Ryckman et al. (1996) have developed a “competitive attitude
scale” and others explored competitive personality attitudes (Collier et al., 2010). Kilduff et al.
(2010) investigated the “psychology of rivalry”, contrasting competing vis-à-vis cooperation,
as studied by Landkammer and Sassenberg (2016). Worrell et al. (2016) explored the role of
competition itself in “developing psychological strength and outstanding performance”. Competitive
Others have looked at competitiveness and the role of co-workers (Glaman et al., 2002), or Productivity
have assumed a cross-cultural perspective, such as Smither and Houston (1992) who studied
the competitiveness of American, Chinese and Japanese students. In addition, Wong (2012)
looked at the “myth of the competitiveness of Hong Kong university students”. In fact, Fülöp
(2004, p. 129) viewed competition itself as a “culturally constructed concept”, albeit
according to Darwin (1880), it is about “survival of the fittest”, implying an innate human 121
capability and desire to compete.
On culture, Baumann and his colleagues tested the association between culture,
competitiveness and performance (Baumann and Hamin, 2011), the power of education to drive
competitiveness and vice versa (Baumann and Winzar, 2016) and how discipline and education
investment drive competitiveness via educational performance (Krskova and Baumann, 2017;
Baumann et al., 2020). And in the domain of international business (IB), Kumar et al. (2013)
discussed the underlying reasons for the competitiveness of emerging market firms that
include their fast-paced internationalisation strategies, a focus on knowledge-intensive
processes and innovation, and continuous adaptation of institutions within their markets.
In sum, the literature has explored competitiveness quite extensively, but not yet with a
strong enough focus on combining competitiveness (relative focus on the competition) with
productivity (absolute, non-relative focus). The literature has, to date, also not provided a
comprehensive conceptualisation of such measures at the national, organisational/firm and
individual levels, i.e. at three unique levels of unit of analysis with likely interplay.

Competitiveness and productivity

While for productivity, the main focus is often at the meso (or firm/industry) level (Melitz,
2003), for competitiveness, increasingly there is a realisation that it occurs at three levels,
namely:
(1) macro level: global competitiveness, in essence the competitiveness of nations
(Porter, 1990);
(2) meso level: competitive advantage, or the competitiveness of the firm within an
industry context (Porter, 1980); and
(3) micro level: competitive attitude and ability, the competitiveness of individuals
(Pfeffer, 1994; Ryckman et al., 1996).
Table I provides an overview of how the two concepts have been defined in the literature at
these three distinct levels.
While the literature has offered definitions of key constructs, there are problem areas in
relation to productivity and competitiveness, principally around their:
(1) relevance;
(2) definition; and
(3) measurement.
We summarise these challenges in Table II.
In this paper, we put forward a combined perspective on productivity and competitiveness,
namely, with the introduction of a novel concept: CP. One could argue that all productivity
leads to increased competitiveness, and this has always been understood. However, there have
been few attempts to conceptually integrate productivity and competitiveness. We argue that
indeed an isolated focus on an input/output ratio to “capture” productivity may be detached
from the competition, the market situation. At the same time, a pure focus on competitiveness
alone may overlook a focus on productivity. In other words, a nation, firm or an individual
 26,2

122

Table I.
CCSM

constructs
productivity
Overview of key
competitiveness and
Construct Level Model/Definition Sources

Productivity Macro Productivity is commonly defined as a ratio of a volume measure of output to a volume measure of Gurria (2008), Schreyer (2001)
input use. While there is no disagreement on this general notion, a look at the productivity literature
and its various applications reveals very quickly that there is neither a unique purpose for, nor a
single measure of, productivity
Meso Productivity is defined as the ratio of output to input for a specific production situation Rogers (1998)
Productivity changes can be caused by either movements in the “best practice” production
technology, or a change in the level of efficiency
Micro Labour productivity is defined as output per unit of labour input Gurria (2008)
Competitiveness Macro We define competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of Schwab and Sala-i-Martin (2014), from
productivity of a country World Economic Forum (WEF)
The ability of a country to facilitate an environment in which enterprises can generate sustainable Bris (2014), from IMD
value Porter (1990)
National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s national
endowments, its labour pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insist
A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade
Meso I will assume that firm success is manifested in attaining a competitive position or series of Porter (1980)
competitive positions that lead to superior and sustainable financial performance. Competitive
position is measured, in this context, relative to the world’s best rivals
We argue that competitive advantage is a relational term. It is essentially a comparison drawn Ma (2000)
between a focal firm and its rival(s) of certain dimension(s) of concern in competition
At the firm level, competitiveness is defined as an “ability to produce goods and services more Iraldo et al. (2011)
efficiently and/or effectively than competitors”
Micro Competitiveness is the ability and willingness to outperform others – or at least better one’s own Baumann and Harvey (2018)
performance – at the individual micro level
Competitive Macro Competitive Productivity is in essence both an attitude and a behaviour directed at beating the Baumann and Pintado (2013)
Productivity competition. Just as productivity itself, it is a factor score of both macro and micro-level determinants
Meso For competitiveness predictors, we distil the competitiveness concept into two distinct dimensions, Baumann et al. (2017)
the first being the newly introduced Competitive Productivity paradigm evaluated through
customer judgement of firm performance in the key areas of competitiveness and the second being
the price point competitiveness represented by competitive products offered by service providers
Micro Competitive Productivity is in essence both an attitude and a behaviour directed at beating the Baumann and Pintado (2013)
competition. Just as productivity itself, it is a factor score of both macro and micro-level determinants
Issue Key arguments
Competitive
Productivity
Debate on Krugman (1994): rhetoric of “competitiveness” is a dangerous obsession, and international
relevance trade is not a “zero-sum” game. A nation is not a company. Focus should be on
“productivity”. Thurow (1994): domestic productivity is only possible once a nation
competes successfully in the global economy
Definition Many definitions have developed over the years, with little consensus. If the concept of
challenge competitiveness cannot be well defined, it should not be used to guide policy (Krugman, 1994) 123
Measurement The two dominant frameworks (WEF and IMD) use almost the same variables, but apply
hurdles different methodologies – resulting in significant discrepancies in country rankings. WEF
and IMD lack a rigorous theoretical explanation. It is not clear why some factors are
important, while others are not (Cho and Moon, 2000)
Disagreement on the determinants of competitiveness: macro-economic factors, function
of cheap labour, abundance of natural resources, government policy or distinct
management practices. (Cho and Moon, 2000)
Seeking to explain “competitiveness” at the national level, then, is to answer the wrong Table II.
question. What we must understand instead is the determinants of productivity and the Challenges in relation
rate of productivity growth. To find answers, we must focus not on the economy as a to productivity and
whole but on specific industries and industry segments (Cho and Moon, 2000) national-level
Note: See Appendix 1 for an overview of the WEF measurement competitiveness

could be very productive, but not necessarily competitive (i.e. productive in relation to the
competition). For productivity to be meaningful and effective, we argue, it must also embrace
and consider the competitiveness element. In a similar fashion to the terms “efficiency”
(i.e. how well we undertake an activity) and “effectiveness” (i.e. the usefulness of that activity),
neither is fully relevant without the other, which inspires us to introduce the combined version
of productivity and competitiveness: CP.

Competitive Productivity
CP introduces an innovative way of conceptualising productivity and competitiveness as a
combined – rather than previously separate – way of thinking and acting, or in short: an
attitude and behaviour directed at outperforming the competition. We conceptualise CP at
three levels: macro (nation), meso ( firm within an industry context) and micro (individual).
This calls for a different definition and measurement at each level (or three levels of unit of
analysis), and also the identification of unique components/drivers at each level. We will
discuss the following:
(1) A working definition and suggested measurement for CP, at each macro, meso and
micro level.
(2) CP models for each level with suggested components, or drivers:
• National Competitive Productivity (NCP) model to capture the components/
drivers of national CP (macro level);
• Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP) model to capture the components/drivers
of firm CP within an industry context (meso); and
• Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP) model capturing the components/
drivers of CP at the individual (micro) level.
(3) It should be noted that all three CP models contain potential moderating effects such
as situation, context, location and time, a notion put forward in the relative values
and moderated behaviour (ReVaMB) model (Baumann et al., 2018).
CCSM Based on the notion that in fact productivity and competitiveness are intertwined, Baumann
26,2 and Pintado (2013, p. 1) initially put forward the idea of CP, defined as “in essence both an
attitude and behaviour directed at beating the competition through pragmatism[3]”. We
draw upon that notion here with a more formal introduction of specific measurement of CP
and likely components based on the early understanding of CP centred on six components
(Baumann and Pintado, 2013):
124 (1) Benchmarking;
(2) culture;
(3) education/development;
(4) environment/infrastructure;
(5) performance; and
(6) values.
In relation to our development of CP, the starting point is an attitude which focusses on the
competition, which subsequently leads to behaviour that enables both efficiency and
effectiveness, with the target being more competitive than the competition, or at least
bettering one’s own previous performance. In other words, our concept of CP departs from
an isolated focus on productivity, and instead measures, manages and improves
productivity based on benchmarked competitors. Such a goal requires the inclusion of
internal (e.g. our own firm) and external (e.g. current and potential competitors)
perspectives to subsequently include behaviour which focusses on outperforming the
competition. While the original definition of CP was of a universal nature, we now split CP
into three levels (macro, meso and micro) to better allow for differences when looking at a
nation, a firm or an individual. We follow an important point made by Tung and Stahl
(2018) that in IB and cross-cultural management literature there is a “failure to adopt a
multi-level approach and insufficient attention to level of analysis”; indeed, they argued
that there is a “fragmented and over-simplistic treatment of culture in IB literature” which
has led to ecological (extrapolating national-level indices to individual level) or atomistic
(extrapolating individual-level indices to national level) fallacies. In order to avoid the
danger of such fallacies, we have split CP into the aforementioned three levels of analysis.
Table III provides the original CP definition (Baumann and Pintado, 2013), followed by the
new multi-level CP definitions.

CP level Definition

Original CP
Baumann and Pintado (2013) Competitive Productivity is in essence both an attitude and a behaviour
directed at outperforming the competition through pragmatism
Multi-level CP
NCP (macro level) National Competitive Productivity (NCP) is both an attitude and behaviour
directed at outperforming competing nations, and past performance
through pragmatism
FCP (meso level) Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP) is both an attitude and behaviour
directed at outperforming the competing firms, and past performance
Table III. through pragmatism
CP definitions at the ICP (micro level) (e.g. education, Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP) is both an attitude and behaviour
macro, meso and work situation, sport and music) directed at outperforming the competing individuals, and past performance
micro level through pragmatism
Components of Competitive Productivity Competitive
There would be a vast number of components (or predictors) that explain CP. For the Productivity
purposes of this paper, we offer the most prominent components/drivers which emerged
from our review of the literature. Given the novelty of the CP construct, the literature is not
strong on direct determinants of such – that is precisely what we are now proposing.
Instead, we sought inspiration from what the literature has established prior as important
drivers of related constructs such as, of course, productivity and competitiveness 125
separately, and other studies on performance more broadly.
Following our macro-, meso- and micro-level structure for this paper and the CP
construct, below we provide a cursory review of literature at each level, a working definition
and a testable model. Our work shall form the platform for future research to empirically
establish and extend our initial model development presented next.

National Competitive Productivity (NCP)

We have identified four potential main components/drivers of NCP with suggested
moderating factors, largely inspired by Porter’s work on national competitiveness. There
is sufficient literature to suggest that geographical location and political stability (e.g.
Porter, 1990), national culture (e.g. Tung, 2002; Baumann and Hamin, 2011) and a nation’s
institutions (e.g. education) and economic policy (e.g. Porter, 1990) are determinants of
NCP. In Figure 1, we provide our NCP model, and include specific references to the
literature to support our model. Similar dimensions were outlined by Schöchli (2017) in an
attempt to explain why, for example, a competitive country such as Switzerland enjoys
strong overall economic welfare. In the case of Switzerland, the determinants of NCP
would work as follows: a central location in the heart of Europe (ease of access and
transportation); a high level of political stability (with a stable currency, the Swiss franc); a
national culture that values education and work ethic, a focus on quality and precision
(“Swiss made”); national institutions with low/no corruption; a high level of efficiency; a
solid school system and strong research institutions (e.g. ETH in Zurich, or the Center for
Competitiveness at the University of Fribourg, associated with the Institute for Strategy
and Competitiveness, in turn, led by Michael Porter at Harvard Business School; and

Porter (1990)
Kitson et al. (2004) Geography

Snowdon and Stonehouse (2006)

Porter (1990) Political Stability
Porter et al. (2007) National
Competitive
Productivity
Tung (2002)
Baumann and Hamin (2011) Culture/Institutions
Castells (2011)

Flyvbjerg (2009)
Schwab and Sala-i-Martin (2014) Economic Policy
Porter (1990)
Sabadie and Johansen (2010) Moderator:
• Situation
Figure 1.
• Context
Inspired by Schöchli (2017), NCP model
• Location
• Time Baumann and Pintado (2013) (macro level)
CCSM finally, economic policy (support innovation, reasonable tax rates and support for young
26,2 entrepreneurs) generally drive NCP. Although similar to the original CP model, our new
version is designed to explain NCP more specifically, defined as follows:
• Macro CP – definition: NCP is both an attitude and behaviour directed at
outperforming competing nations, and past performance through pragmatism.

126
Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP)
Our next level to explain CP is at the firm level. We define FCP as follows:
• Meso CP – definition: FCP both an attitude and behaviour directed at outperforming
the competing firms, and past performance through pragmatism.
Firm performance is a well-researched field, with multiple perspectives having been
investigated. For our model development, we needed to narrow down factors that could
explain our construct of FCP, and we identified four factors: talent management, resource
management, corporate culture and brand management. Figure 2 presents our proposed
FCP model, and we include specific references to the literature that made us theorise an
association with FCP. The logic is as follows: a firm that manages talent (e.g. Berger and
Berger, 2010) well (selection, retention, training and promotion); a firm that manages
resources effectively (e.g. Grant, 1991) with a focus to create FCP, a firm that has a
corporate culture (e.g. Barney, 1986, 1991) that is customer focussed that allows growth
and personal development, and new ventures as well as innovative services and products;
a firm that manages effectively its often most valuable and precious asset, i.e. its brand,
through a focus on brand competitiveness (Winzar et al., 2018; also Keller, 1993), is the one
that will generate and maintain FCP in the context of the industry, competitive forces and
of an often innovation-driven competitive battle (with shorter and shorter product
lifecycles, higher and higher consumer expectations and intense pressure on cost and
price management).

Rafaeli et al. (2017)

Ashton and Morton (2005)
Berger and Berger (2010) Talent Management
Lewis and Heckman (2006)

De Massis et al. (2018)

Grant (1991) Resource
Peteraf (1993)
Management
Barney (1991)
Firm
Competitive
Kilduff et al. (2010) Productivity
Barney (1986, 1991) Corporate Culture
Fiol (1991)

Keller (1993)
Kotler and Pfoertsch (2006) Brand Management
Aaker (2009)

Moderator:
• Situation
Figure 2. • Context
FCP model (meso • Location
level)
• Time
Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP) Competitive
There is a plethora of research attempting to explain human performance, with a range Productivity
from sports (Ryska, 2002) to arts, from work ethic (Baumann, Hamin and Yang, 2016) to
academic performance. Seminal work includes Weiner’s (1985) work on attribution theory of
achievement motivation and emotion, work by Busato et al. (1998) on learning styles,
personality and achievement motivation, to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) work on intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and Ramlall’s (2004) work on motivation theories. 127
More recent work explored personality psychology and economics (Almlund et al., 2011),
learning style, personality traits and intelligence (Furnham, 2012) and achievement
motivation and performance (Bipp and van Dam, 2014).
A recent study, for example, found that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation drive
performance, and personality traits (such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion
and neuroticism) determine an individual’s competitiveness (Baumann and Harvey, 2018).
Hence, motivation and personality are herewith proposed as components/drivers of ICP.
In addition, genes (based on Darwin’s work; see also Mayr, 1982; Gause, 2003), education,
nurture (e.g. through parents) as well as life experience are proposed as ICP determinants.
Our third level to explain CP is at the individual level. We define ICP as follows:
• Micro CP – definition: ICP both an attitude and behaviour directed at outperforming
the competing individuals, and past performance through pragmatism, e.g.
education, work situation, sports and music.
Our working model of ICP is presented in Figure 3 and, as previously, we include key
references to the literature in support of our model development. The way our logic works is
that there could be inherited elements (or genes) which drive ICP, not least based on
Darwin’s (1880) work; but also personality (e.g. Ryska, 2002) and motivation (e.g. Fülöp,
2004)[4], education (e.g. Pellerin, 2005; schooling, tertiary), nurturing through parents
(e.g. Baumrind, 1991; parenting style, ranging from permissive to authoritarian) and also
overall life experience (e.g. Mudrack et al., 2012; “maturity”) that will drive ICP. In terms of
education and nurturing, there could also be a driving (or mediating, or moderating) effect of

Darwin (1880)
Mayr (1982) Genes
Gause (2003)

Collier et al. (2010)

Ryska (2002) Personality

Fülöp (2004)
Pfeffer (1994) Motivation
Individual
Competitive
Wang and Netemeyer (2002) Productivity
Ryckman et al. (1996) Education
Mudrack et al. (2012)
Pellerin (2005)

Mudrack et al. (2012)

Baumrind (1991) Nurture (Parents)
Moderator:
• Situation Figure 3.
Judge et al. (2007) • Context
Mudrack et al. (2012) Life Experience ICP model
• Location (micro level)
• Time
CCSM discipline, as Baumann and Krskova (2016) and Baumann et al. (2020) have found evidence
26,2 that exercising good discipline drives performance, and the same may hold true in the
formation of CP (excluded from the ICP model for this original conceptualisation).

Directions for future research

We have discussed the concept of CP. Three definitions were offered to capture CP at the
128 macro, meso and micro level, ergo three levels of unit of analysis. Based on those definitions,
we have presented corresponding models with suggested components at each level. We are
aware that it will be difficult to quantify the models we have proposed because they are
complex. Notwithstanding, as theoretical models, we hope we make a not unimportant
contribution to the literature and future research direction. Our conceptual work now
necessitates empirical substantiation with five proposed focus areas:
(1) Empirical verification of CP construct measurements
A battery of statements to measure CP at the macro, meso and micro level is listed in our
Appendices 2–4. While specific statements have been grouped along the CP sub-dimensions
for NCP, FCP and ICP, they have yet to be empirically verified to establish construct validity
(e.g. expert verification) and reliability (e.g. statistical testing). For the latter, a confirmatory
factor analysis or principal component analysis could be used (assuming the factors suggested
in this paper are indeed CP components). Indeed, there are two views on the components we
are proposing for NCP, FCP and ICP: they could be tested as drivers, or antecedents, of NCP,
FCP and ICP, but crucially, and alternatively, as composites of NCP, FCP and ICP. In other
words, it has yet to be established to what degree the suggested components – and additional
future ones – are, or make up, NCP, FCP and ICP. It is, de facto, a “chicken or egg” question,
notwithstanding that the appendices offer embryotic CP construct measurements:
(2) Empirical testing of CP components in the context of the ReVaMB model
Advanced NCP, FCP and ICP models require empirical testing. The models presented in
Figures 1–3 emerged from a brief review of the literature. Regression analyses and possible
structural equation modelling (SEM) will reveal the relative importance of each component,
assuming they are indeed antecedents, on the CP construct.
Testing should factor in the ReVaMB model (Baumann et al., 2018), which proposes
“culture, at least in the short term, does indeed determine, or “drive”, attitudes and
behaviour, but this effect depends on circumstances, the environment; the broader context”
(p. 227). The ReVaMB model is based on three principals:
• Personal values and culture drive behaviour, at least in the very short term.
• Different components of values and culture become activated or take dominance in
different circumstances. That is, context moderates the relationship between culture
and behaviour.
• Absolute measures of values or culture are not meaningful – it is the relative value of
these constructs that affect decision making and behaviour.
In this paper, we have provided the three basic NCP, FCP and ICP models, but we invite
future research to consider/include the context (or circumstances, namely, situation, location
and time) as moderating factors as conceptualised by the ReVaMB model:
(3) CP in context
We have positioned CP as a dependent variable in our modelling approach. Future research
is advised to extend the model and include CP as a driver of subsequent outcomes such as
welfare (NCP model), profitability (FCP) and income/life satisfaction (ICP). A recent study
(Baumann et al., 2017) has empirically tested CP for its association with customer loyalty, for Competitive
example. In that research, CP was established as a driver of an outcome (in this case, Productivity
customer loyalty in a marketing context), and future research could explore the role of CP as
a determinant in more depth. CP should include the work on “cultural capital”
(Bourdieu, 1997) with a view on “cultural dividend” (Li et al., 2017), where it is not unlikely
that CP contributes, or is part of, cultural capital and cultural dividend. Could it be that there
are differences in how CP is created and managed across cultural and ethnic groups, in 129
(cross-) cultural contexts? Is CP the antecedent or outcome of cultural capital/dividend?
For instance, prominent research detailing the success of Chinese businesses, and the
traditions and philosophies that underlie such success (e.g. Redding, 1994, 1995; Bond, 1986;
Fang, 1999), draw the similar conclusion that it is the shared “psycho-social legacies” – the
fundamental beliefs and values pertaining to family, harmony and frugality – which fuel
success. In other words, a shared culture deeply entrenched in Confucian traditions (evident also
in neighbouring societies of Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and Hong Kong) could be seen as a
distinct “cultural capital”, both as a source of CP (instilling certain attitudes for success within
the individual) and as a competitive advantage in itself (a unique and collectively understood
“asset”). In the case of Chinese business success, the relevance of these cultural legacies
(Confucian paternalism and personalistic trust) can also be seen in its overseas population who
overcome scale limitations by tapping into such networks for growth (Redding, 1995).
Would there be a difference among the “Confucian Orbit” (Baumann, Hamin, Tung and
Hoadley, 2016) in East Asia and Western markets? Viengkham et al. (2018) have split
Confucianism into relational, pedagogical and transformative East Asian cultural aspects and
established variation among Mainland Chinese, Taiwan Chinese and Koreans, notwithstanding
that Confucianism generally drives performance at the micro level. At that individual level,
management, training and education “occur” in different ways, with the Confucian Orbit
following a generally stricter approach to discipline vis-à-vis the more permissive approach to
education in the “West”. Baumann and Krskova (2016) also linked strict discipline and the
wearing of (school) uniforms to higher levels of (academic) performance (see also Baumann et al.,
2020). Could it therefore be that discipline, even including school and corporate uniforms, also
plays a not trivial role in the formation of ICP?
(4) CP and chance events (Porter’s Diamond Model)
Porter (1990) acknowledged that “disruptive developments”[5] are beyond the control of
governments and firms – and we would like to add individuals (workers, students) – and
likely play a role in competitiveness, or in our case, CP. Examples of such developments
could include:
• “Act of God”[6] such as a natural disaster – flooding, storm and earthquake;
• positive side of human activity such as innovation, acts of kindness and assistance; and
• evil side of human activity such as war, terrorism[7].
Chance events, or a matter of luck or bad luck, are largely uncontrollable. No doubt they
impact our NCP, FCP and ICP models, but we have not (yet) integrated them. Chance events
are varied, and challenging to “capture”, i.e. measure, predict and “manage”. In an
examination of competitive advantage in the context of Hong Kong (Redding, 1994), the role
of chance is described as a stimulating factor for the nation’s competitive success, namely,
due to the combination of its British legal infrastructure and Japanese-inspired managerial
and technical skills, among other factors. The success of chance, in this sense, is “something
of a historical accident – a borrowed place on borrowed time” (Redding, 1994, p. 83), where
the “right” conditions were present from which industries could capitalise for growth:
(5) CP interplay among NCP, FCP and ICP
CCSM In this conceptual paper, we have introduced the three NCP, FCP and ICP models and related
26,2 proposed measurements at the three levels (macro, meso and micro). We base our architecture
on the trilogy economics architecture (Dopfer et al., 2004[8]; House et al., 1995) previously
introduced in this paper, and this shall serve as the theoretical foundation for future research
with respect to the three unique, yet interrelated, levels. Conceivably the biggest challenge for
future research will be an empirical establishment on their interplay. Intuitively and
130 theoretically, direct relationships would appear likely, e.g. the sum/mean of overall ICP should –
in one way or another – constitute totals found in FCP and NCP, or in other words: many
competitive productive individuals in one industry add up to competitive, productive firms
within an industry, and that in turn – in sum – should result in a competitive productive
nation. Naturally, it would be naïve to assume simple linearity in such associations, but an
understanding of the nature and mechanisms could make a not insignificant contribution to
theory, proactive performance measurement and management in interrelated context.
Research in ecological studies (Levin, 2006) often refers to Complexity Theory
(Anderson, 1999) and the complexity of emergent property. (Fromm, 2005; complex adaptive
systems wiki 2013) explained an emergent property as follows:[9]
An emergent property is a part of the system and at the same time it is not a part of the system, it
depends on a system because it appears in it and is yet independent from it to a certain degree.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “emergent entities (properties or
substances) “arise” out of more fundamental entities and yet are “novel” or “irreducible” with
respect to them”.
The behaviour of a group of individuals as a collective ends up being something different
than simply a “sum” or “addition” (see Holland, 1998). An interaction within the micro-
level phenomenon creates a (new) meso phenomenon, and that again, in turn, creates a
(new) macro phenomenon. Indeed, it has been argued “that much of the concern over
issues of scale in the modeling of complex human-environment systems – of which
integrated assessment models are a special case – tends to be preoccupied with bottom-up
aggregation and top-down disaggregation” (Easterling and Kok, 2002, p. 233). To what
degree the CP models (i.e. NCP, FCP and ICP) operate from bottom-up or top-down – or
something in between – will be a challenging question to be answered in further
conceptual and, indeed, empirical work.
Inter-ocular testing (“looking at the data”; following Baumann et al., 2018) as well as
rigorous statistical testing on the interplay of the three levels is necessary, with a suggested
approach to “observe” and “test” the interplay of level-to-level interaction, i.e. from micro to
meso to macro; from macro to meso to micro. Complexity on interact-level testing (e.g.
hierarchical regression) would be the issue of segmentation (e.g. for ICP, some individuals
are “achievers”, whereas some centre around the mean/median, and others do not regard
performance as important). To some individuals, perhaps also to firms and nations, a high
(or low) work ethic is simply an embedded value (or “tacit”) rather than an explicit one,
making measurement not any less challenging. Ponge (2005) reminded us that more realistic
approaches are required to better comprehend the complexity of (ecological) systems, and
exploring CP in the future is no exception.

Research agenda for Competitive Productivity (CP)

A research agenda to validate and further explore CP might start with an ontological
argument[10], i.e. a philosophical argument for the existence of CP in the first instance.
Ontological work could include a philosophical exploration on the previously alluded to
question whether the components of CP put forward in this paper are indeed what
constitutes, what “makes” CP, or whether these factors are indeed antecedents of CP. There
is a philosophical, theoretical, conceptual and empirical case to be made here.
 Assuming CP “exists”, then the research design to establish CP could be divided into the Competitive
following “classic split” in Social Science Research: Productivity
• Positivism (i.e. quantitative methods): for example, survey studies and secondary
data sources could provide the platform to empirically establish what “drives” CP,
including possible mediation and moderation effects in SEM. Secondary data might
also be used to probe the interplay of NCP, FCP and individual ICP. As always,
empirical data will help us to understand how these levels “correlate”, but in order to 131
establish true causality, an experimental research design is needed, notwithstanding
this being challenging.
• Interpretivism (i.e. humanistic qualitative methods): case studies could allow a deeper
understanding (or Verstehen, or grok) of the dynamics of CP at the suggested three
levels. Interviews with policy makers would enhance our understanding of NCP,
interviews with managers would help us to understand FCP, and structured
conversations with workers (“employees”) and students could assist in
comprehending ICP.
The parameters for the CP research agenda also have a contextual dimension, e.g. future
researchers ought to be cautious about the unit of analysis of investigation (where and what
to study), with clear identification of geographic, cultural and industry type categories and
possible “in between and within group” comparisons.
On the timeline, while CP overall is designed to understand current state of affairs as a
foundation for future outlook, prediction and input for strategy and management decisions,
the research agenda we have in mind for CP includes a historic perspective and analysis,
allowing to learn from the past for the future. Economic history (i.e. investigations into
economies and economic phenomena in the past) for NCP, business history for FCP and
labour history not least for ICP appear as promising avenues to explore CP with that historic
perspective. Seismic changes in world economic power (e.g. the “Asian Century” with an
Asian contribution to the world economic output superseding that of Western markets), to
bankruptcies in highly competitive industries such as the financial services or the airline
sector warrant investigation to explore the CP perspective historically. For example,
Eastern, Pan American World Airways, and TWA in the American market, Ansett
Australia, CP Air in Canada and Swissair in Europe were all formerly leading brands that
set quality standards in the industry, were involved with new aeroplane design such as the
Boeing 747, and a source of pride for crew and ground workers being employed by those
admired brands, but eventually lost focus on competitiveness and productivity, or in the
paradigm presented in this paper: they failed due to low/diminishing FCP. Could a focus on
FCP have prevented such former market leaders from bankruptcy?
The research agenda we call for CP is one of multiple methods, multiple studies, multiple
timeframes (historic, current and future), multiple-level analysis to model/test CP.
Importantly, multiple disciplines should contribute to the CP research agenda: our
interdisciplinary research agenda is a call to the fields of psychology, economics, business,
marketing, management, motivation and organisational (behaviour) studies, and not least
the aforementioned economic, business and labour history disciplines to contribute to the
development of CP. There are many angles to CP, and they should all be explored in these
unique disciplines, but also combined in a harmonious perspective, i.e. brought together.

Conclusion
Theories around productivity and competitiveness are well established, but as separate
areas of investigation; and the implications for theory and practice are undeniable, i.e.
productivity and competitiveness are crucial input factors for a nation’s welfare. In contrast,
it appears that less attention has been given to a possible interplay of productivity
CCSM and competitiveness. Consequently, this study addresses this gap in the literature and
26,2 explores a combination of productivity and competitiveness as CP. As such, we offer an
innovative perspective on productivity and competitiveness; arguably two of the most
central areas of investigation in business and management studies.
We have introduced the concept of CP. To allow for the differences at the three level of
analysis, CP has been split into NCP, FCP and ICP. We present three unique definitions,
132 coupled with likely components of NCP, FCP and ICP, and we propose specific metrics (or a
battery of statements). This will allow nations, firms and individuals to better benchmark
themselves in relation to the competition, and/or their past performance.
We believe that assessing the CP of a nation, firm and individual provides a good basis
for measurement, and subsequent management and improvement. Understanding CP at the
three suggested levels, and probing the components we have also suggested, may allow for
more effective benchmarking, and may allow for steps to be taken for continuous
improvement. Ergo, we believe that the three perspectives, taken together, move the debate
around productivity and competitiveness from mere analysis of independent measures to
the development of our combined CP measurement and subsequent management as input
for future strategies. A relative perspective of performance (in relation to other nations,
firms or individuals) suggested in this paper should allow for such a comparison, or
benchmarking with other nations, firms or individuals, in turn, allowing for corrective
actions to enhance performance.
While we aspire to show a way forward in the debate around the welfare of nations (and
firms, and individuals), we understand that our conception of CP is embryonic. Much more
work (and thinking, testing, extending and polishing) is required to bring CP to full bloom.
At the same time, the potential of CP is substantial in overcoming the shortcomings of many
nations/firms/individuals that focus solely on competitiveness or productivity without
connecting the dots: C & P ¼ CP.

Acknowledgements
This paper would not have reached fruition without the mentorship of Professor Rosalie L.
Tung at Simon Fraser University (SFU) whose research and work more broadly has
inspired the first author of this paper over two decades, and has not least inspired the
narrative of Competitive Productivity (CP). Iggy Pintado is acknowledged for his
contribution to the original 2013 CP article in the Journal of the Institute of Management
Services. Because CP has developed over a long stretch of time, there are many colleagues
that deserve to be acknowledged. The authors are grateful for the input provided by
Professor Andrew R. Timming (BA summa cum laude, MA PhD Cambridge) at the
University of Western Australia (UWA), and by Professor Ross Gordon at Queensland
University of Technology (QUT). At Macquarie University, the authors were privileged to
discuss CP with Professor Fei Guo, Associate Professor Hume Winzar and Dr Vida
Siahtiri. Inspiration was further provided by Professor Susan Ellis at Macquarie
University, where she is the Director of the Macquarie Graduate School of Management
(MGSM). Dr Hamin Hamin at Sydney City School of Business (TOP Education) also
shared his view on the emerging piece. Senior Professor Paul J. Gollan, Pro-Vice
Chancellor at the Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong (UOW), shared his
expertise in relation to CP during a work visit to Seoul, South Korea; Korea is an exemplar
location to discuss competitiveness, and so is Japan, where CP was discussed with
Professor Wirawan Dony Dahana, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, and
with Professor Takashi Kanamura, Graduate School of Advanced Integrated Studies in
Human Survivability (GSAIS), Kyoto University. Not least do the authors also thank two
PhD candidates at Macquarie University for their research assistance: Doris Viengkham
(PhD on Confucianism and competitiveness) and S.J. Yang (PhD on competitiveness
and performance). The paper was professionally edited by Glyn Mather who is Competitive
acknowledged for her attention to detail and her talent for elegant language. An earlier Productivity
version of this paper was presented at the AIB 2017 Annual Meeting in Dubai.

Notes
1. Please note that we provide a list of selected further reading at the end of the manuscript to allow
for a more in-depth engagement with the literature on the topic beyond what the scope of our
133
paper allowed us to discuss.
2. It should be noted that there is a body of literature, not least by psychologists, on individual
competitiveness, e.g. in sport, games and arts. Given the nature of our study in the fields of
business/management/economics that body of work has not been included in our literature review.
3. In an Indian context, for example, pragmatism is captured by the term ‘jugaad’: “Jugaad means
thinking in a frugal way and being flexible, which, in turn, requires the innovator or entrepreneur
to adapt quickly to often unforeseen situations and uncertain circumstances in an intelligent
way” (Source: http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=jugaad-innovation (accessed 31 January 2019)).
4. It should be noted that Fülöp (2004) positioned competitiveness as a predictor of motivation,
whereas we propose a reverse relationship in our model.
5. Disruptive developments would be in contrast to disruptive innovation (see Christensen et al., 2015).
6. A term used in common and contract law.
7. A cynic might argue that excessive bureaucracy and micromanagement, office politics,
“backstabbing” and bullying in organisations, while naturally not comparable to war and
terrorism, can also constitute an evil side of humans, or at least be dysfunctional, and thus certainly
hinder CP (Dysfunctional Theory). There could be interaction effects, or flow-on effects when, for
example, one or a few units are dysfunctional, then that affects the organisation at large, and
ultimately its service and product offerings, employee/customer satisfaction/loyalty, and not least
financial performance.
8. See Figure 1, the analytical structure of a meso trajectory, for a helpful illustration of the three
level architecture and proposed interplay within that architecture.
9. For a detailed explanation see The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/properties-emergent/. Also see a helpful discussion on ResearchGate: www.
researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_definition_of_emergent_properties
10. “Epistemology is the study of knowledge, whereas ontology is the study of existence. Ontology
raises questions about what exists, what kinds of things exist, and what it means for something
to exist. It’s one of the most abstract branches of philosophy. Ontology, however, does deal with
some pretty important questions. For example, the question ‘Does God exist?’ is an ontological
question, and one that many people have dedicated their lives to!” (Source: https://
philosophyterms.com/epistemology/ (accessed 28 November 2018)).

References
Aaker, D.A. (2009), Managing Brand Equity, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A.L., Heckman, J. and Kautz, T. (2011), “Personality psychology and
economics”, Working Paper No. 16822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Bonn, available
at: www.nber.org/papers/w16822
Anderson, P. (1999), “Perspective: complexity theory and organization science”, Organization Science,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 216-232.
Ashton, C. and Morton, L. (2005), “Managing talent for competitive advantage: taking a systematic
approach to talent management”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 28-31.
CCSM Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
26,2 Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2001), “The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after
1991”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 625-641.
Barney, J.B. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, pp. 656-665.
134 Baumann, C. and Hamin, H. (2011), “The role of culture, competitiveness and economic performance in
explaining academic performance: a global market analysis for international student
segmentation”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 181-201.
Baumann, C. and Harvey, M. (2018), “Competitiveness vis-à-vis motivation and personality as drivers
of academic performance: introducing the MCP model”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 185-202.
Baumann, C. and Krskova, H. (2016), “School discipline, school uniforms and academic performance”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1003-1029.
Baumann, C. and Pintado, I. (2013), “Competitive productivity”, Journal of the Institute of Management
Services, Vol. 57, Spring, pp. 9-11.
Baumann, C. and Winzar, H. (2016), “The role of secondary education in explaining competitiveness”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 13-30.
Baumann, C., Hamin, H. and Yang, S.J. (2016), “Work ethic formed by pedagogical approach: evolution
of institutional approach to education and competitiveness”, Asia Pacific Business Review,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 374-396.
Baumann, C., Winzar, H. and Fang, T. (2018), “East Asian wisdom and relativity: inter-ocular testing of
Schwartz values from WVS with extension of the ReVaMB model”, Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 210-230.
Baumann, C., Winzar, H. and Viengkham, D. (2020), Confucianism, Discipline and Competitiveness,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Baumann, C., Hamin, H., Tung, R.L. and Hoadley, S. (2016), “Competitiveness and workforce
performance: Asia vis-à-vis the ‘West’ ”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 2197-2217.
Baumann, C., Hoadley, S., Hamin, H. and Nugraha, A. (2017), “Competitiveness vis-à-vis service quality
as drivers of customer loyalty mediated by perceptions of regulation and stability in steady and
volatile markets”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 62-74.
Baumrind, D. (1991), “The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use”,
The Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-95.
Berger, L. and Berger, D. (2010), The Talent Management Handbook: Creating a Sustainable
Competitive Advantage by Selecting, Developing, and Promoting the Best People, McGraw-Hill
Professional, New York, NY.
Bipp, T. and van Dam, K. (2014), “Extending hierarchical achievement motivation models: the role of
motivational needs for achievement goals and academic performance”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 64, pp. 157-162.
Bond, M.H. (Ed.) (1986), The Psychology of the Chinese People, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Bourdieu, P. (1997), “The forms of capital”, in Brown, P., Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H. and Stuart Wells, A.
(Eds), Education: Culture, Economy, and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 46-58.
Bris, A. (2014), IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, Lausanne.
Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J. and Hamaker, C. (1998), “The relation between learning styles, the
Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 129-140.
Cho, D.S. (1994), “A dynamic approach to international competitiveness: the case of Korea”, Asia Pacific
Business Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 17-36.
Cho, D.S. and Moon, H.C. (2000), Evolution of Competitiveness Theory: From Adam Smith to Michael Competitive
Porter, World Scientific, Singapore. Productivity
Christensen, C.M., Raynor, M.E. and McDonald, R. (2015), “What is disruptive innovation”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 93 No. 12, pp. 44-53.
Collier, S.A., Ryckman, R.M., Thornton, B. and Gold, J.A. (2010), “Competitive personality attitudes and
forgiveness of others”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 6, pp. 535-543.
Darwin, C. (1880), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of 135
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, John Murray, London.
D’Aveni, R.A. (1998), “Waking up to the new era of hypercompetition”, Washington Quarterly, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 183-195.
Dopfer, K., Foster, J. and Potts, J. (2004), “Micro-meso-macro”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 263-279.
Dysthe, O. and Engelsen, K.S. (2011), “Portfolio practices in higher education in Norway in an
international perspective: macro‐, meso‐and micro‐level influences”, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Easterling, W.E. and Kok, K. (2002), “Emergent properties of scale in global environmental
modeling – are there any?”, Integrated Assessment, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3, pp. 233-246.
Edwards, P.N. (2003), “Infrastructure and modernity: force, time, and social organization in the history
of sociotechnical systems”, Modernity and Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 185-226.
Fang, T. (1999), Chinese Business Negotiating Style, Sage Publication, CA.
Fromm, J. (2005), “Types and forms of emergence”, Complex Adaptive Systems wiki 2013.
Fülöp, M. (2004), “Competition as a culturally constructed concept”, Institute for Psychology,
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, pp. 124-148.
Furnham, A. (2012), “Learning style, personality traits and intelligence as predictors of college
academic performance”, Individual Differences Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 117-128.
Gause, G.F. (2003), The Struggle for Existence, Courier Corporation, New York, NY.
Glaman, J.M., Jones, A.P. and Rozelle, R.M. (2002), “Competitiveness and the similarity of preferred co-
workers”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 142-158.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Gurria, A. (2008), “Lifting productivity: lessons from the OECD”, Address to Chamber of Commerce of
New Zealand, Wellington.
Heckscher, E. and Ohlin, B. (1933), Factor-Endowment and Factor Proportion Theory, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Holland, J.H. (1998), Emergence: From Chaos to Order, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
House, R., Rousseau, D.M. and Thomashunt, M. (1995), “The meso paradigm – a framework for the
integration of micro and macro organizational-behavior”, Research in Organizational Behavior:
An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol. 17 No. 17, pp. 71-114.
Houston, J.M., McIntire, S.A., Kinnie, J. and Terry, C. (2002), “A factorial analysis of scales measuring
competitiveness”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 284-298.
Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Melis, M. and Frey, M. (2011), “A literature review on the links between
environmental regulation and competitiveness”, Environmental Policy and Governance, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 210-222.
Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A. and Rich, B.L. (2007), “Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: The integral role of individual differences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92
No. 1, p. 107.
Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O.F. and Martin, D.K. (2007), “Priority setting at the micro-, meso-and macro-
levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda”, Health Policy, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 78-94.
CCSM Karatepe, O.M. (2006), “The effects of selected antecedents on the service recovery performance of
26,2 frontline employees”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 39-57.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Kilduff, G.J., Elfenbein, H.A. and Staw, B.M. (2010), “The psychology of rivalry: a relationally
dependent analysis of competition”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 943-969.
136 Kotler, P. and Pfoertsch, W. (2006), B2B Brand Management, Springer Science & Business
Media, Heidelberg.
Krskova, H. and Baumann, C. (2017), “School discipline, investment, competitiveness and mediating
educational performance”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 293-319.
Krugman, P. (1994), “Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 73, p. 28.
Kumar, V., Mudambi, R. and Gray, S. (2013), “Internationalization, innovation and institutions: the 3 I’s
underpinning the competitiveness of emerging market firms”, Journal of International
Management, Vol. 19, pp. 203-206.
Landkammer, F. and Sassenberg, K. (2016), “Competing while cooperating with the same others: the
consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition”, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, Vol. 145 No. 12, p. 1670.
Levin, K.A. (2006), “Study design VI – ecological studies”, Evidence-Based Dentistry, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 108.
Li, S., Park, S.H. and Selover, D.D. (2017), “The cultural dividend: a hidden source of economic growth
in emerging countries”, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 590-616.
Liem, A.D., Lau, S. and Nie, Y. (2008), “The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in
predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement
outcome”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 486-512.
Ma, H. (2000), “Competitive advantage and firm performance”, Competitiveness Review: An
International Business Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 15-32.
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Melitz, M.J. (2003), “The impact of trade on intra-industry reallocations and aggregate industry
productivity”, Econometrica, Vol. 71 No. 6, pp. 1695-1725.
Moon, H.C., Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (1998), “A generalized double diamond approach to the
global competitiveness of Korea and Singapore”, International Business Review, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 135-150.
Mudrack, P.E., Bloodgood, J.M. and Turnley, W.H. (2012), “Some ethical implications of individual
competitiveness”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 347-359.
Pellerin, L.A. (2005), “Applying Baumrind's parenting typology to high schools: toward a middle-range
theory of authoritative socialization”, Social Science Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 283-303.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Workforce,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ponge, J.F. (2005), “Emergent properties from organisms to ecosystems: towards a realistic approach”,
Biological Reviews, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 403-411.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1990), Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Potts, J. (2000), The New Evolutionary Microeconomics, Elgar, Cheltenham.
Rafaeli, A., Altman, D., Gremler, D.D., Huang, M.H., Grewal, D., Iyer, B., Parasuraman, A. and de
Ruyter, K. (2017), “The future of frontline research: invited commentaries”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 91-99.
Ramlall, S. (2004), “A review of employee motivation theories and their implication for employee Competitive
retention within organizations”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, Productivity
pp. 52-63.
Redding, S.G. (1994), “Competitive advantage in the context of Hong Kong”, Asia Pacific Business
Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Redding, G. (1995), “Overseas Chinese networks: understanding the enigma”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 61-69. 137
Ricardo, D. (1817), Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, J. Murray, London.
Rogers, M. (1998), The Definition and Measurement of Productivity, Melbourne Institute of Applied
Economic and Social Research, Melbourne.
Rugman, A.M. and D’Cruz, J.R. (1991), Improving Canada’s International Competitiveness: Fast
Forward, Diane Publishing, Darby, PA.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Ryckman, R.M., Hammer, M., Kaczor, L.M. and Gold, J.A. (1996), “Construction of a personal
development competitive attitude scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 66 No. 2,
pp. 374-385.
Ryska, T.A. (2002), “Perceived purposes of sport among recreational participants: the role of
competitive dispositions”, Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 91.
Sabadie, J.A. and Johansen, J. (2010), “How do national economic competitiveness indices view human
capital?”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 236-258.
Saviotti, P.P. and Pyka, A. (2008), “Micro and macro dynamics: industry life cycles, inter-sector
coordination and aggregate growth”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Schöchli, H. (2017), “Success story – Why Switzerland is so rich”, NZZ, Zurich, available at: www.nzz.
ch/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/erfolgsgeschichte-warum-die-schweiz-so-reich-ist-ld.154275?
mktcid=nled&mktcval=107_2017-3-29 (accessed 12 August 2017).
Schreyer, P. (2001), “The OECD productivity manual: a guide to the measurement of industry-level and
aggregate productivity”, International Productivity Monitor, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 37-51.
Schwab, K. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (2014), “The Global Competitiveness Report: 2013-2014”, World
Economic Forum, Geneva.
Smith, A. (1776), in Campbell, R.H. and Skinner, S.A. (Eds), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations, Volumes I and II, Liberty Fund, IN.
Smither, R.D. and Houston, J.M. (1992), “The nature of competitiveness: the development and validation
of the competitiveness index”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 407-418.
Taylor, F.W. (2004), Scientific Management, Routledge, London.
Thurow, L. (1994), “New game, new rules, new strategies”, RSA Journal, Vol. 142 No. 5454, pp. 50-56.
Tung, R.L. (2002), The Future of East Asian Management, Cengage Learning EMEA, London.
Tung, R.L. and Stahl, G.K. (2018), “The tortuous evolution of the role of culture in IB research: what we
know, what we don’t know, and where we are headed”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 1167-1189.
Viengkham, D., Baumann, C. and Winzar, H. (2018), “Confucianism: measurement and association with
workforce performance”, Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 337-374.
Wang, G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), “The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and
trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy, and performance”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 217-228.
Weiner, B. (1985), “An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 548-573.
CCSM Winzar, H., Baumann, C. and Chu, W. (2018), “Brand competitiveness: introducing the customer-based
26,2 brand value (CBBV ) – competitiveness chain”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 637-660.
Wong, W.K.B. (2012), “Myths of the competitiveness of Hong Kong university students: a mainstream
media perspective”, Chinese Education & Society, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 60-74.
Worrell, F.C., Knotek, S.E., Plucker, J.A., Portenga, S., Simonton, D.K., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Schultz, S.
138 R. and Subotnik, R.F. (2016), “Competition’s role in developing psychological strength and
outstanding performance”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 259-271.

Further reading
Becker, G.S. and Murphy, K.M. (1992), “The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge”, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 107 No. 4, pp. 1137-1160.
Berger, S. (2005), How We Compete: What Companies Around the World are Doing to Make it in
Today’s Global Economy, Crown Business, New York, NY.
Berger, S. (2013), Making in America: from Innovation to Market, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA and London.
Bönte, W., Lombardo, S. and Urbig, D. (2017), “Economics meets psychology: experimental and self-
reported measures of individual competitiveness”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 116, pp. 179-185.
Boschma, R. (2004), “Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective”, Regional Studies,
Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 1001-1014.
Buckley, P.J., Pass, C.L. and Prescott, K. (1988), “Measures of international competitiveness: a critical
survey”, Journal of marketing management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 175-200.
Castells, M. (2011), The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Chand, M. and Tung, R.L. (2011), “Global competitiveness, consumer choice and ‘country of origin’
effect: an exploratory East–West study”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 265-280.
Chikán, A. (2008), “National and firm competitiveness: a general research model”, Competitiveness
Review: An International Business Journal, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 20-28.
Clark, M., Eaton, M., Lind, W., Pye, E. and Bateman, L. (2011), “Key statistics: Australian small
business”, Australian Government -Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research,
available at: www.innovation.gov.au (accessed 16 September 2017).
Coelli, T.J., Rao, D.S.P., O’Donnell, C.J. and Battese, G.E. (2005), An Introduction to Efficiency and
Productivity Analysis, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY.
Datta, D.K., Guthrie, J.P. and Wright, P.M. (2005), “Human resource management and labor
productivity: does industry matter?”, Academy of management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 135-145.
De Massis, A., Audretsch, D., Uhlaner, L. and Kammerlander, N. (2018), “Innovation with limited
resources: management lessons from the German Mittelstand”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 125-146.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10-11, pp. 1105-1121.
Fiol, C.M. (1991), “Managing culture as a competitive resource: an identity-based view of sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 191-211.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009), “Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built – and what we
can do about it”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 344-367.
Foss, N.J. and Ishikawa, I. (2007), “Towards a dynamic resource-based view: insights from Austrian
capital and entrepreneurship theory”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 749-772.
Garelli, S. (2006), Top Class Competitors: How Nations, Firms and Individuals Succeed in the New World Competitive
of Competitiveness, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Productivity
Griliches, Z. (1997), “Education, human capital, and growth: a personal perspective”, Journal of Labor
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. S330-S344.
Hatch, N.W. and Dyer, J.H. (2004), “Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive
advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1155-1178.
Hay, C. (2012), “The ‘dangerous obsession’ with cost competitiveness…and the not so 139
dangerous obsession with competitiveness”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 463-479.
Healy, T. and Côté, S. (2001), The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital,
Education and Skills, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
Hickman, B.G. (1992), International Productivity and Competitiveness, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Huggins, R. and Izushi, H. (Eds) (2011), Competition, Competitive Advantage, and Clusters: The Ideas of
Michael Porter, Oxford University Press.
Huggins, R., Izushi, H., Prokop, D. and Thompson, P. (2014), The Global Competitiveness of Regions,
Vol. 75, Routledge, Abingdon and New York, NY.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 635-672.
Kennedy, K.J. and Lee, J.C.-K. (2008), The Changing Role of Schools in Asian Societies, Routledge,
London and New York, NY.
Ketels, C. (2013), “Recent research on competitiveness and clusters: what are the implications
for regional policy?”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 269-284.
King, R.B., McInerney, D.M. and Watkins, D.A. (2012), “Competitiveness is not that bad… at least in the
East: testing the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in the Asian setting”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 446-457.
Kitson, M., Martin, R. and Tyler, P. (2004), “Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key concept?”,
Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 991-999.
Krugman, P. (1996), “Making sense of the competitiveness debate”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 17-25.
Lewis, R.E. and Heckman, R.J. (2006), “Talent management: a critical review”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
Magee, J.C., Galinsky, A.D. and Gruenfeld, D.H. (2007), “Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving
first in competitive interactions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 200-212.
Man, T.W., Lau, T. and Chan, K.F. (2002), “The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: a
conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 123-142.
Minkov, M. (2011), Cultural Differences in a Globalizing World, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Minkov, M., Bond, M.H. and Blagoev, V. (2015), “Do different national samples yield similar dimensions
of national culture?”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-277.
Penrose, E. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Porter, M.E. (1979a), “How competitive forces shape strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 137-145.
CCSM Porter, M.E. (1979b), “The structure within industries and companies’ performance”, Review of
26,2 Economics and Statistics, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 214-227.
Porter, M.E. (2008a), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Simon &
Schuster, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (2008b), “The five competitive forces that shape strategy”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
140 Porter, M.E., Ketels, C. and Delgado, M. (2007), “The microeconomic foundations of prosperity: findings
from the business competitiveness index”, The Global Competitiveness Report 2008,
pp. 51-81.
Porter, M.E., Takeuchi, J. and Sakakibara, M. (2000), Can Japan Compete?, Macmillan, London.
Redding, G. (2013), The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism, Vol. 22, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Smith, A. (1937), The Wealth of Nations.
Snowdon, B. and Stonehouse, G. (2006), “Competitiveness in a globalised world: Michael Porter on the
microeconomic foundations of the competitiveness of nations, regions, and firms”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 163-175.
Steinhage, A., Cable, D. and Wardley, D. (2017), “The pros and cons of competition among employees”,
Harvard Business Review, pp. 2-5.
Syverson, C. (2011), “What determines productivity?”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 326-365.
Tayeb, M. (1995), “The competitive advantage of nations: the role of HRM and its socio-cultural
context”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 588-605.
Teece, D.J. (2009), Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and
Growth, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Tilak, J. (2002), Building Human Capital in East Asia: What Others Can Learn, The World Bank, Abingdon.
Tung, R.L. (2008), “Brain circulation, diaspora, and international competitiveness”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 298-304.
Van Lange, P.A.M., De Bruin, E., Otten, W. and Joireman, J.A. (1997), “Development of prosocial,
individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 733-746.
Vickers, E. and Zeng, X. (2017), Education and Society in Post-Mao China, Routledge, Abingdon.
Wright, S. (2014), Competitive Intelligence, Analysis and Strategy: Creating Organisational Agility, Routledge,
London and New York, NY.
Xu, J. (2017), The Good Child: Moral Development in a Chinese Preschool, Stanford University
Press, Stanford, CA.
Appendix 1. World Economic Forum (WEF) measurement of competitiveness Competitive
The WEF in Davos, Switzerland (Schwab and Sala-i-Martin, 2014, p. 4) defines competitiveness at the
national level as follows:
Productivity
[…] the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country.
In the preparation of their Global Competitiveness Index, they argued that competitiveness involves
both static and dynamic measures which are captured within their 12 pillars of competitiveness below
(Schwab and Sala-i-Martin, 2014). 141

Pillar Dimension Details

1 Institutions
2 Infrastructure
3 Macro-economic
environment
4 Health and primary
education
5 Higher education and
training
6 Goods market efficiency
7 Labour market efficiency
8 Financial market
development
9 Technological readiness
10 Market size
11 Business sophistication
12 Innovation
Legal and administrative frameworks
Critical for effective economy
Stability important for business and country overall
Healthy workforce vital for competitiveness
Crucial for economies wishing to move up value chain
By producing right mix of products and services
Workers allocated effectively
Financial resources allocated to most productive uses
Agility of technology adoption
Exploit economies of scale
Quality of country’s business networks and firms operations and
strategies
Emerging from technological and non-technological knowledge

These 12 pillars are well designed to capture competitive reality at the macro level, the competitiveness
of nations.
CCSM Appendix 2. Construct measurements of National Competitive Productivity (NCP)
26,2 model (macro level)
Below is a battery of statements to measure NCP, adapted from Baumann et al. (2017).

Benchmarking
• The policies of my nation are directed at beating the competing nations.
142
• My nation benchmarks its economic performance against global leaders in order to aspire to
the same or higher position.

Culture
• The work culture of my nation focusses on performance and competitiveness.
• My nation is oriented towards a positive service ethic.

Education/Development
• My nation develops their people through education and training.
• My nation’s people are knowledgeable and up to date with global developments.

Infrastructure
• My nation is all about creating their infrastructure.
• My nation is all about upgrading their infrastructure.

Performance
• The speed to market with new products and services of my nation is more competitive than
other nations.
• The level of innovation of my nation is higher than other nations.

Values
• The attitude of my nation is directed at beating the competition.
• My nation has a “can do” spirit.
• My nation has positive values that drive excellent products and service quality.
• My nation has positive values that minimise risks for its people.
Appendix 3. Construct measurements of Firm Competitive Productivity (FCP) model Competitive
(meso level) Productivity
Below is a battery of statements to measure FCP, adapted from Baumann et al. (2017).

Benchmarking
• The behaviour of my firm is directed at beating the competition.
143
• My firm benchmarks their performance against industry leaders in order to aspire to the same
or higher market position.

Culture
• The work culture of my firm focusses on performance and competitiveness.
• My firm is oriented towards positive customer service to retain customers for repeat business.

Education/Development
• My firm develops their employees through education and training.
• My firm’s employees are knowledgeable and up to date with market developments.

Infrastructure
• My firm is all about creating their infrastructure.
• My firm is all about upgrading their infrastructure.

Performance
• The speed to market with new products and services of my firm is more competitive than
other firms.
• The level of innovation of my firm is higher than other firms.

Values
• My firm offers a service experience that drives customer loyalty.
• The attitude of my firm is directed at beating the competition.
• My firm has a “can do” spirit.
• My firm has positive values that drive excellent products and service quality.
• My firm has positive values that minimise risks for customers.
CCSM Appendix 4. Construct measurements of Individual Competitive Productivity (ICP)
26,2 model (micro level)
Below is a battery of statements to measure ICP, adapted from Baumann et al. (2017).

Benchmarking
• My behaviour is directed at beating the competition.
144 • I benchmark my performance against (Department of Innovation) leaders in order to aspire to
the same or higher market position.

Culture
• My work culture focusses on performance and competitiveness.
• I am oriented towards positive customer service to retain customers for repeat business.

Education/Development
• I develop myself through education and training.
• I am knowledgeable and up to date with market developments.

Environment
• I am all about creating an ideal (work) environment.
• I am all about upgrading my (work) environment.

Performance
• I am faster than others.
• My level of innovation is higher than others.
• I earn more than others.
• I have stronger educational/academic performance than others.

Values
• I have an attitude directed at beating the competition.
• I have a “can do” spirit.
• I have positive values that drive excellence.
• I have positive values that minimise risks in life.

Corresponding author
Chris Baumann can be contacted at: chris.baumann@mq.edu.au

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com