Abstract

     While innovations and new technologies are often pivotal to the long-term prosperity of firms, such firm-level outcomes emerge from the actions and interactions of organizational members who develop innovations and use new technologies. The “microfoundations movement” seeks to understand how micro-level (e.g., individual) actions and interactions lead to macro-level (e.g., organizational) outcomes and mediate relations between macro-level variables. Although the movement has grown tremendously over the last decade, it has yet to deeply pervade the domain of strategic technology and innovation management. Due to its tremendous growth, it is quite fragmented and dispersed, which impedes the identification of the most promising opportunities for future research. To overcome this problematic situation, we conduct a systematic literature review of existing research on microfoundations in the strategic management of technology and innovation, synthesize it into an integrative framework, and chart promising paths for future research. Specifically, we apply a multi-coder, multi-step approach, identify 87 relevant articles published in 23 leading academic journals over the period from 2003 to 2022, and propose a research agenda comprising more than 20 promising avenues for future research based on the resulting insights. These findings have important implications for the academic literature and management practice.

Introduction

     It is widely accepted that individuals play a major role in producing innovations (e.g., Amabile, 1998, Dahlander et al., 2016, Felin and Hesterly, 2007, Simon, 1991). Nevertheless, the familiar image of “the lone inventor working tirelessly until one comes across the grand discovery, which is followed by shouts of Eureka and much excitement” (Friedman et al., 2008, p. 18; emphasis in original) is often misleading. Few inventors are actually “lone wolves”, but most are embedded in social structures that are key to the development of successful innovations (Dodgson and Gann, 2018, Grigoriou and Rothaermel, 2014). The great majority of successful innovations originate in firms and emerge through the interplay of numerous individuals (Schilling and Shankar, 2019, White and Bruton, 2010). At the same time, innovations are becoming more and more essential for the ongoing competitiveness and long-term prosperity of firms (Audretsch et al., 2014, Foss et al., 2011, Schilling and Shankar, 2019). The same holds true for new technologies, which often only deliver the value added desired by firms if they are well received and adequately put into operation by organizational members (Boothby et al., 2010, Hoppmann et al., 2020, Leonardi and Barley, 2010). Consequently, important interdependencies exist between individuals and organizations. While organizations influence the conditions in which individuals can be innovative and adopt new technologies, individuals affect the prosperity of their firm through their innovation-related actions and their use of new technologies (Felin and Foss, 2005, Grant, 1996, Schilling and Shankar, 2019).1

Conclusion

     The recent growth in microfoundational research demonstrates the enormous potential of the microfoundations paradigm to advance our understanding of important phenomena. Current calls for further microfoundational work indicate that the microfoundations movement will likely continue to grow in the future (Elsahn et al., 2020, Loon et al., 2020, Raffaelli et al., 2019). At the same time, its rapid growth has led to a fragmentation that – if it were to remain unaddressed – could impede the identification of the most promising opportunities for additional research. A synthesis of existing microfoundational research can address this problem and provide a solid foundation for subsequent efforts (Barney and Felin, 2013, Felin et al., 2015). Our integrative literature review delivered this synthesis for microfoundational research in the STIM domain. We analyzed 87 articles published in 23 peer-reviewed journals over the period from 2003 to 2022. Together, these articles can be considered representative of present microfoundational research in the STIM domain. Our analysis found that some relevant topics have already gained considerable attention, whereas others have been under-researched so far.

1- Opportunity-ambiguity dilemma in emerging market categories

2- The influence of socio-cognitive cues

3- Data and methodology

4- Results

5- Discussion and conclusion

References

Abstract

Industries with emerging market categories offer greater opportunities for firms to innovate. However, such opportunities are not a matter of “the more, the better.” An increasing number of emerging market categories poses a dilemma. While more emerging market categories arguably bring about increasing growth opportunities, they can also generate greater ambiguity for incumbent firms, which may hinder their innovation efforts. This study attempts to address this dilemma by proposing that the number of emerging market categories in an industry will have an inverted U-shaped relationship with incumbent firms’ innovation efforts. We further argue that this curvilinear relationship will be influenced by the socio-cognitive context of a firm’s focal industry, in the sense that the degree of collective identity incoherence at the industry level will intensify the proposed inverted U-shaped relationship, whereas the prevalence of trade associations in the industry will depress this relationship. We test our hypotheses by examining research and development (R&D) investments of a sample of U.S. high-technology manufacturing firms and find support for our main prediction and the hypothesized effect of collective identity incoherence. We also find a surprising but intriguing moderating effect of trade associations.

Conclusions

In this study we endeavor to resolve an important but relatively understudied dilemma posed by our collective understanding of industry dynamics and emergence. On the one hand, a dominant realization in the literature that has been borne out by a significant body of empirical work, is that emergence in industries spurs innovation and growth. On the other hand, emergence can pose significant socio-cognitive challenges for industry incumbents due to its inherent ambiguity. We have tackled this paradox in industries belonging to the high-tech U.S. manufacturing sector and have empirically assessed the effects of the multiplicity of emerging market categories in such industries on innovation-related strategic behaviors of incumbent firms. Our findings suggest a co-existence of both opportunity and ambiguity, and the relative prevalence of one over the other is largely driven by an increasing multiplicity of emerging market categories and the socio-cognitive context of an industry. We believe that the explicit emphasis on the effect of this multiplicity on the opportunity-ambiguity tension in emerging contexts contributes to our collective knowledge of the interplay between market emergence and innovation.

1- Introduction

2- Theoretical background

3- Theory and hypotheses

4- Methodology

5- Analyses and results

6- Discussion

7- Limitations and future research

8- Theoretical implications

9- Managerial implications

10- Conclusion

References

ABSTRACT

This study assesses the relationship between organizational innovation (OI) and technological innovation capabilities (TICs) and analyzes their effect on firm performance. Using a sample of 265 manufacturing firms from the Pearl River Delta in China, we examined whether TICs mediated the effects of OI on firm performance. We also examined how OI moderated the relationship between TICs and firm performance. Results from structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses showed that TICs partially mediated the relationship between OI and firm performance. Similarly, OI partially moderated the relationship between TICs and firm performance. Implications of our findings for research and practice are discussed.

Introduction

Organizational innovation (OI) is important because it leads to increased firm performance and brings new organizational methods and resources to firms’ business practices, workplaces, or innovation activities and thus influences both the nature and the outcomes of innovation (Camisón and Villar-López 2014; Damanpour and Evan 1984; Evangelista and Vezzani 2010; OECD/Eurostat 2005). Although there is general consensus about OI being the source of superior performance and although there are a number of papers that investigate the determinants of process, product, and OI (e.g., Ballot et al. 2015; Evangelista and Vezzani 2010; Camisón and VillarLópez 2014; Carboni and Russu 2018; Lee, Lee, and Garrett 2018), less is known about the possible relationships between OI and TICs that lead a firm to attain superior performance. Previous research in this area has tended to focus on process and product innovation merged from the TIC perspective; additionally, variables have been examined in isolation and sometimes have been included with no clear theoretical rationale. This approach has resulted in an extensive list of possible antecedents but few consistent findings; thus, we focus on an OI – TICs – and examine its effect on superior performance.

Organizational innovative climate plays a significant role in promoting individual innovative behavior which makes a great contribution to organizational effectiveness and long-term survival (Scott and Bruce 1994), especially in current rapidly changing business environment (Pieterse et al. 2010). There is a strong belief that the stimulation to innovate comes from the inspiring nature of the climate. Prior research has shown support for the organizational climate–innovative behavior link (Scott and Bruce 1994; Madrid et al. 2014; Wallace et al. 2016). However, empirical findings for the relationship of organizational climate and innovative behavior seem to be more complex (Hunter et al. 2007). One possible explanation could be the presence of moderators. Actually, how and under what conditions organizational climate influences innovative behavior needs further investigation. Prior studies have indicated that there are a variety of important antecedents to individuals’ innovation, such as individual differences (e.g., Montani et al. 2014; Madrid et al. 2014), individual social relationships (e.g., Wang et al. 2015), job characteristics (e.g., De Spiegelaere et al. 2014; Shin et al. 2017), group context (e.g., Hu¨lsheger et al. 2009; Shin et al. 2012), and organization culture and climate (e.g., Montani et al. 2014; Madrid et al. 2014). Further, a small number of studies on individuals’ innovation have identified a set of psychological predictors, including psychological traits (e.g., Michael et al. 2011) as well as psychological processes (e.g., Yuan and Woodman 2010). However, few of these studies have investigated the potential psychological mechanisms through which organizational climate impact individual innovative behavior. As Yuan and Woodman (2010) pointed out, ‘‘research evidence regarding the intermediate psychological processes that would explain how and why different individual and contextual antecedents affect innovative behavior remains inconclusive and underdeveloped’’. To a certain extent, the effect of critical psychological processes on individual innovative behavior has received less research attention, as well as their roles as potential moderators of the climate–innovation relationship. This study sheds light on the question of how and under what conditions organizational climate would lead to higher level of innovative behavior. Our understanding of the relationship between organizational climate and innovative behavior may benefit from the identification of intervening variables on which these relationships are contingent and that helps to predict and understand when these relationships would be stronger. In the present study, we focus on two individual psychological constructs of motivation as determinants of individual innovative behavior: psychological ownership for the organization (POO: self-consistency and/or self-enhancement motivation) and psychological empowerment (PE: intrinsic task motivation). We propose that they moderate the relationship of organizational innovative climate and individual innovative behavior.

Background Since the industrial revolution, pursuing globalization, digitalization, rapid technical changes in the markets, and free trade agreements, innovation has been pondered as a crucial element for coping with the challenges of uncertainty, strong competition, and acquiring competitive advantage so that survival and prosperity in the global market can be ensured (Vargas, 2015). Failing to innovate can raise the threat to sustainability; therefore, organizations, business firms, universities, and their leadership consider it overwhelmingly significant for nurturing a climate where innovation can be created among employees (Shanker et al., 2017) urging the dire need of new learning procedures for creativity and innovation in academic and research institutes (Sutanto, 2017). This study approaches the issue of how organizational innovation can be accelerated with the support of leadership structures and the organizational climate, specifically taking into account the top innovative universities of the world, which has not been found in previous empirical studies. Research questions. This paper attempts to explain how leadership and organizational culture in top innovative universities foster organizational innovation in order to diffuse knowledge and creativity for growth and economic prosperity, which is rarely found in other empirical studies across the world. Therefore, the main research questions of this study are as follows: RQ1. How organizational culture mediates between transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational innovation in top innovative universities? RQ2. Which leadership styles are highly related and interconnected with organizational culture mediating to foster innovation? RQ3. Can transformational leadership foster organizational innovation directly? Finally, this study, based on research, will determine some guidelines for other non-innovative universities to begin being innovative.

Literature review

Innovation is counted among the growth engines in the world that have accelerated growth with a double pace, as recorded during 1945-2001, in the high technology sector (Leary, 2002), and no doubt, innovation is pondered to be vital for competitiveness, prosperity, and economic growth. This is evident in the developed nations across the world, with the pace of change being swift enough that those technology-based firms that could not meet the innovation challenges were found creeping after reaping the benefits of their hegemony in the industry (Buekens, 2013). In the rapidly changing world, one will fall behind if he/she is not innovative. Universities and research institutions are pondered to be the factories of innovation where scientific knowledge and creativity result in scientific advancement that ultimately leads to market and commercial success (Chen and Kenney, 2007).

این مطالعه تلاشی برای ازمودن تاثیرات فعالیت های منابع انسانی استراتژیک بر نواوری سازمانی و ظرفیت مدیریت دانش شرکت ها می باشد.داده ها از صنایع فعال در کشور ترکیه جمع اوری شد. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل رگرسیون تاکید می کنند که تنها فعالیت های خاص در منابع انسانی استراتژیک، قدرت پیش بینی نواوری سازمانی را دارند. علاوه براین، یک الگوی مشابه بین فعالیت های منابع انسانی استراتژیک و ظرفیت مدیریت دانش شرکت ها مشاهده شد. به طور کلی، یافته های ما اهمیت جبران خدمات، سیستم های اموزشی و ارزیابی عملکرد را به عنوان پیش بینی کننده های متغیرهای وابسته در نظر می گیرند. در پایان مقاله نتیجه گیری و پیشنهادات بیشتر و هم چنین محدودیت ها ارائه شده اشت.

مقدمه:
مجموعه های پویا و غیر پویای کسب وکارامروزی موجب می شود تا شرکت ها به سمت نواوری حرکت کنند. به ویژه، شرکت باید در انواع مختلفی از امور نواوری شرکت نمایند تا مزایای رقابتی خود را افزایش داده و موجب بقای خود در بلند مدت شوند. اکتشاف و بهره برداری انواع نواوری، توجه بسیاری از افراد را در زمینه ی ادبیات جلب کرد. پزوهش قبلی مشخص کرد که نواوری سازمانی به عملکرد شرکت، هدف گذاری استراتژیک شرکت، بهره وری و فرهنگ سازمانی مربوط می شود. علاوه بر مطالعات سطح سازمانی که اکتشاف و بهره برداری را مورد بررسی قرار دادند، مطالعات اخیر تاکید بر سطح تیمی و فردی نواوری را اغاز کرده اند. علی رغم مجموعه ای از این مطالعات و روش های هرمی ارزیابی نواوری، محققان به توافقی رسیده اند که نواور بودن تقریبا با نتایج بهره وری و عملکرد مطلوب برابر است.

مقاله سال 2016

هدف این تحقیق تحلیل ویژگی های سازمانی بر عملکرد پروژه نوآوری است. این تحقیق از تحلیل قیاسی کیفی فازی FSQCA استفاده می کند و از نمونه شرکت های بزرگ اسپانیایی در بررسی نوآوری جوامع بهره می جوید.(CSI). نتایج نشان داد که ترکیب نوآوری سازمانی، اندازه شرکت و همکاری با شرکت های ملی و بالاخص بین المللی می تواند به موفقیت پروژه های نوآوری در سازمان کمک کند. شواهد نشان دادند که متغیرهایی همانند سرمایه گذاری بر R@D برای هر کارمند و ارشدیت شرکت نمی تواند بر موفقیت این پروژه ها تاثیر گذارد. این یافته ها به تکمیل نتایج در زمینه عملکرد پروژه های نوآوری کمک کردند.

مقاله سال 2017

Firms innovate based on both internal and external sources (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006; von Hippel, 1988). More specifically, these external knowledge sources include competitors (Smets, Langerak, & Tatikonda, 2016); suppliers and subcontractors (Un & Asakawa, 2015); education and research institutions (Etzkowitz, 2012); governing authorities and industry associations (Watkins, Papaioannou, Mugwagwa, & Kale, 2015); end-users (Schweisfurth & Herstatt, 2016); and non-competitive industry peer networks (Zuckerman & Sgourev, 2006).

Citizenship behaviors are discretionary behaviors that are neither directly nor explicitly included in formal agreements but promote the functioning of an organization or interorganizational unit in the aggregate (Autry, Skinner, & Lamb, 2008; Organ, 1988). The current research distinguishes organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), interorganizational citizenship behavior (ICB), and customer citizenship behavior (CCB).

OCB that is enacted by employees leads to innovation and creativity (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, & Spoelma, 2014; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013). CCB contributes to innovation purposes through value co-creation activities (Nambisan & Baron, 2009; Langner & Seidel, 2015) and positively influences idea generation (Im, Montoya, & Workman, 2013; Langner & Seidel, 2015). Nambisan and Baron (2009) identify CCB as one of the motivations to engage in product design, testing, and product support activities. Another study reveals that customer involvement occurs throughout the entire innovation process (Schweisfurth & Herstatt, 2016).

مقاله سال 2017

Do powerful CEOs influence corporate strategies and organizational performance? If so, in what ways? Are powerful CEOs attracted to risky and novel corporate strategies? Alternatively, do they instead prefer more measured and conservative actions? These questions continue to attract both scholarly and practitioner attention. The popular business press is ripe with discussions on powerful CEOs and their daring corporate actions (Helft, 2014). Corporate governance researchers have examined this issue under the broader “executive effects” literature using the upper echelons research tradition (Crossland, Zyung, Hiller, & Hambrick, 2014). More specifically, scholarly discussion on this topic has empirically examined the link between CEO power and organizational performance (Adams, Almeida, & Ferreira, 2005; Lee, Park, & Park, 2015; Tang, Crossan, & Rowe, 2011). Recent studies have also identified a significant relationship between CEO power and the choice of various corporate strategies such as mergers and acquisitions (Brown & Sarma, 2007; Chikh & Filbien, 2011). So far, growing empirical evidence of the influence of CEO power on both the choice of corporate strategies and organizational performance exists (Tang et al., 2011).

Despite the mounting evidence on the effect of powerful CEOs on organizational decision-making and performance, their role in shaping the firm’s innovation agenda is less clear. While current scholarly work has shown a significant link between powerful CEOs and the choice of certain corporate strategies, neither the corporate governance nor the organizational innovation literatures specifically outline whether and how powerful CEOs influence organizational innovation activities. Exploring the role of CEO power on organizational innovation is important for several reasons: first, CEOs hold a prominent structural position in the upper echelons and play a critical role in shaping strategic decisions (Crossland et al., 2014). Second, while other top management team members and board of directors are also involved in strategic decision-making, CEOs are expected to maintain an active and aggressive role in strategy formulation. CEOs are often expected by key stakeholders to be the principal architects of the firm’s innovation agenda (Berger, Dutta, Raffel, & Samuels, 2016). The purpose of this study is to explore the link between CEO power and the choice of organizational innovation strategies. Specifically, the relationship between CEO power and two types of organizational innovation strategies (exploratory and exploitative innovation) is empirically investigated (Mueller, Rosenbusch, & Bausch, 2013). Drawing from core arguments of Behavioral Agency Theory (Wiseman & Gomez-Mejia, 1998; Pepper & Gore, 2015), the differential impacts of powerful CEOs on organizational innovation activity is developed and empirically tested to extend the theory’s key tenets to innovation research with an emphasis on risktaking tendencies that surround innovation strategies. The current research proposes that firms led by powerful CEOs are more likely to pursue exploratory as opposed to exploitative innovations. Furthermore, this study argues that the link between CEO power and organizational innovation strategies is significantly strengthened when the CEO was recruited from outsider of the firm.

This study makes a number of contributions to the on-going scholarly research on the role of strategic leadership and firm innovation. First, this study improves scholarly understanding of the role these key leaders play in shaping the firm’s innovation agenda. Surprisingly, relatively little is known on how powerful CEOs impact organizational innovation (Berger et al., 2016). Second, this study contributes to research on strategic leadership and executive succession by highlighting the important role of CEO outsider/insider status in shaping the choice of organizational innovation strategies. Specifically, drawing from insights from behavioral agency theory and strategic leadership literature, the current study explores how the risk-taking tendencies of outsider CEOs might influence the choice of organizational innovation strategies. In doing so, this research extends the current work in corporate governance (Karaevli, 2007) and human capital transfer (Hamori & Koyuncu, 2015) literatures by exploring the implications of executive succession on organizational innovation. Additionally, this work provides practical insights on how the executive succession and selection process might be considered in developing the firm’s innovation agenda. In the following section, the major findings on CEO power and organizational outcomes as well as executive determinants of organizational innovation are reviewed.