Q.Do you think innovativeness evident from the examples of Toyota and Kiran Mazumdar Shaw can be linked to the nature of management principles?
Yes. Both examples work precisely because management principles are general, flexible guidelines rather than rigid, one-way-only rules — and it is exactly that flexibility
that leaves room for the kind of creative, innovative application Toyota and Kiran
Mazumdar Shaw both show.
The chapter's own "Nature of Principles of Management" section lists several qualities
that together make this connection explicit — principles are general guidelines, not
"readymade, straitjacket solutions"; they are flexible, meaning a manager has the
discretion to modify them as a situation demands; and their application is contingent,
depending on what is actually happening at that particular point in time. Innovation is not
an exception to these qualities — it is what they are for.
Toyota
The chapter opens with Toyota Motor Corporation's own guiding business principles — broad
commitments such as honouring "the language and spirit of law of every nation," providing
"clean and safe products," fostering "a corporate culture that enhances individual
creativity and teamwork," and pursuing "growth and harmony with the global community
through innovative management." Notice what these principles do NOT do: they don't specify
exactly which product to launch next, or exactly how to redesign a factory line. They set a
broad direction — and Toyota's own account of them says they will guide the company toward
a "global vision" that explicitly "envisages continuous innovations in future" alongside
environment-friendly technologies. That is a textbook illustration of a general guideline being applied with ongoing creativity rather than as a fixed checklist.
Kiran Mazumdar Shaw
The same section presents Dr Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, founder of Biocon, as a case where
success "was not a mere chance" but involved the application of management
principles directly or indirectly. She started Biocon in her own garage with just ten
thousand rupees, in collaboration with an Irish biochemicals company, in a country and a
field (biopharmaceuticals) with no established playbook to copy. Growing that into India's
largest fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company required adapting general management
principles — planning, organising resources, taking scientific decisions — to a completely
unfamiliar, high-risk, capital-scarce situation. That is the contingent and flexible
nature of principles in action: the same underlying ideas that guide a large manufacturer
like Toyota were applied, just as validly, by one entrepreneur building something new.
Neither example shows a manager inventing a brand-new "principle of innovation." Both
show ordinary management principles — direction-setting, resource use, disciplined
decision-making — applied with enough flexibility that genuine innovation could happen
within them. That distinction (principles enabling innovation vs. principles somehow
"containing" it) is the heart of what the question is asking.
Yes — the innovativeness in both examples is a direct expression of the nature of
management principles being general guidelines, flexible, and contingent on
the situation, rather than rigid, one-size-fits-all rules. That is exactly what let Toyota
keep reinterpreting its own guiding principles into an evolving, innovation-driven global
vision, and let Kiran Mazumdar Shaw apply ordinary management fundamentals creatively to
build an entirely new kind of enterprise in India.
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.