Different Routes to Success
Last week I was writing about Switzerland in the resilience context. I had later a chat with a friend who pointed out that Switzerland and Sweden: "are and were run in a different way, both 10M or less people but super successful in their own right."
This observation highlights a crucial point: diversity is at the heart of resilient systems. In the realm of resilience, there is no single “right” answer. There can be multiple routes to success and different solutions to challenges, depending on the context.
Both Switzerland and Sweden are prime examples of nations that have thrived through innovation. Switzerland has ranked number one in the Global Innovation Index for fourteen consecutive years, while Sweden has held the second spot in the last two editions. Despite their similarities in size and global prominence, the two countries have taken distinctly different paths to success.
For some time now, I’ve been planning to write about the Global Innovation Index. I even created a folder on my computer titled “Do Now,” where I keep documents that require my attention. The Global Innovation Index Report has sat in this folder for quite some time—first the 2022 edition, then 2023. When the 2024 report was released, I knew it was time to dig in and explore this important topic.
I realized this might be the perfect opportunity to explore both topics: the Global Innovation Index and the comparison between Sweden and Switzerland. Having lived in Switzerland for nine years and worked for a Swedish company for fourteen, I’ve had firsthand experience with the unique characteristics that define these two nations.
Sweden vs. Switzerland: Two Paths to Innovation
Community and Decision-Making
One key similarity between Sweden and Switzerland is the importance they place on community involvement in decision-making. However, the way they approach this is quite different.
In Sweden, consensus-building is a continual process. Decisions are rarely final, and the environment is in constant flux as adjustments are made to meet new circumstances. This flexibility often translates into a reluctance to follow rigid regulations, as alignment between stakeholders is more important to the Swedish mindset than sticking to predefined rules.
Switzerland, by contrast, thrives on stability and precision. The Swiss system is built on clearly defined regulations and standards. Once agreed upon, these are followed closely, ensuring predictability and order. The Swiss way emphasizes structure and accountability, in stark contrast to Sweden's more fluid, adaptable approach.
Despite these differences, both nations highlight the importance of teamwork in successful endeavors. In today’s increasingly complex world, the power of the individual is waning, and methods that ensure collective involvement have become much more effective.
Approach to Work: Hard Work vs. Work-Life Balance
Sweden and Switzerland also differ in their approach to work. While the Swiss are known for their strong work ethic, Swedes prioritize quality of life. This is evident in key statistics: the average Swede works five hours less per week than the average Swiss. Sweden offers also extensive parental leave, which can be shared between partners—or even with a friend, if that arrangement is more beneficial to the parents.
Swedes also value creativity and high-value-added activities. Stockholm is a vibrant, dynamic city where creative industries thrive. From innovative restaurants to cutting-edge tech startups, Sweden has cultivated an environment that favors creativity over long hours. This approach has proven effective, especially in fields where innovation and creative thinking are key drivers of success.
Switzerland, on the other hand, excels in industries that demand precision and reliability. Its adherence to structure allows for consistency in performance, which is why Swiss companies are often leaders in fields such as pharmaceuticals, finance, and engineering. While the Swiss work longer hours, they do so within a highly organized and efficient framework.
Responsibility and Feedback: Individual vs. Collective
In Sweden, there’s a strong belief in joint responsibility, which can lead to certain advantages. When the group shares responsibility, individuals feel less pressure to avoid failure, making them more willing to take risks and pursue uncertain paths. This collective mindset fosters a sense of security that can lead to greater innovation and experimentation. I experienced this firsthand and it had very positive impact on my ability to enter unknown, innovative paths.
However, this emphasis on the group can also create challenges when it comes to individual accountability. Providing useful, constructive feedback in a Swedish environment can be tricky. The Swedish tendency to maintain positive vibes often results in vague praise, like “You’re the best,” which can make it difficult for individuals to know how to improve. Indirect clues are often needed to gather meaningful feedback.
In Switzerland, the focus on clear roles and responsibilities makes it easier to identify who is accountable for specific outcomes. Feedback tends to be more direct, and accountability is built into the system. This clarity helps ensure that both successes and failures are addressed transparently. It makes people however more afraid to take a different route, experiment and take risk.
Innovation in Switzerland and Sweden
Below you can find comparison of the results for two leading innovation economies in the world.
While Switzerland has a more balanced environment, ranking consistently across all categories, Sweden excels in certain areas, particularly in information and communication technology (ICT) use, where it ranks number one.
The largest disparity between the two countries is in their institutional frameworks, which consists of Institutional environment, Regulatory environment and Business environment. In each of those areas Switzerland ranks higher and Sweden has fairly low, sixteenth place. This can be attributed to the Swiss preference for stability and standardization, which allows for a predictable institutional landscape. In contrast, Sweden’s more flexible approach can sometimes result in lower institutional rankings, as stability is sacrificed in favor of adaptability.
Summary
Sweden and Switzerland offer two distinct paths to success, both leading to impressive innovations but shaped by their unique cultural and institutional values. Sweden's consensus-building approach and emphasis on quality of life foster a creative and risk-tolerant environment, while Switzerland’s structured, regulation-focused framework ensures stability and consistent performance.
Which model will prove more resilient in an AI-driven, fast-paced world? Only time will tell. What is clear, however, is that there is no single solution that fits every situation. Both countries exemplify the idea that resilience comes from diversity in approach, and success can be achieved in many ways.
If you like this post please join the growing community of forward-thinking readers and sign-up to my newsletter. My weekly posts explore how individuals and organizations adapt and evolve. Gain evidence-based insights to boost resilience across domains.
References and Notes
For more detailed data and analysis on global innovation performance, you can use data explorer: Global Innovation Index 2024 - Data Explorer
A very interesting topic and good perspective of view. Opening mind and giving hope:-)